You are on page 1of 38

Thursday,

December 21, 2006

Part III

Department of
Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration

49 CFR Parts 385, 386, et al.


Requirements for Intermodal Equipment
Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers
Operating Intermodal Equipment;
Proposed Rule
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76796 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATES: Comments must be received by FMCSA, Department of Transportation,


March 21, 2007. 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to DC 20590.
Administration Docket No. FMCSA–2005–23315, and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
may be filed in electronic form, mailed, Preamble Table of Contents
49 CFR Parts 385, 386, 390, 392, 393, or delivered to the following addresses: I. Background
396, and Appendix G to Subchapter B • The USDOT Docket Management Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
of Chapter III System (DMS) on the Web-based form at Previous Rulemaking Efforts to
[Docket No. FMCSA–2005–23315] the Web link: http://dmses.dot.gov/ Improve Chassis Maintenance
submit, and type only the last 5 digits SAFETEA–LU Requirements Codified
RIN 2126–AA86
of the docket number (23315) to access at 49 U.S.C. 31151
Requirements for Intermodal the docket. If you file an electronic II. Current Rulemaking To Improve
Equipment Providers and Motor comment, we recommend that your Intermodal Equipment Safety
name and other contact information be Rulemaking Proposal
Carriers and Drivers Operating Part 385—Safety Fitness Procedures
Intermodal Equipment included. Part 386—Rules of Practice
• Through the Federal eRulemaking Part 390—Federal Motor Carrier
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, Safety Regulations
Administration (FMCSA), DOT. using the Regulation Identification Part 392—Driving of Commercial
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking Number (RIN 2126–AA86) and Motor Vehicles
(NPRM); request for comments. following instructions on the Web-based Part 393—Parts and Accessories
form. Necessary for Safe Operation
SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes regulations • Facsimile (Fax): 1–202–493–2251. Part 396—Inspection, Repair, and
for entities offering intermodal chassis • Mail or Deliver to: Docket Maintenance
to motor carriers for transportation of Management Facility; U.S. Department Appendix G to Subchapter B—
intermodal containers in interstate of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, Minimum Periodic Inspection
commerce. As mandated by section SW., Room PL–401 (Nassif Building on Standards
4118 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, the Plaza Level), Washington, DC Proposed Enforcement Plans
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 20590–0001. Review of maintenance programs
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), this Instructions: If you want the agency to Imminent hazard determinations
Preemption of State Statutes or
rulemaking would require intermodal acknowledge your comments, please Regulations
equipment providers (IEPs) to register include a self-addressed, stamped Relationships among Intermodal
and file with FMCSA an Intermodal envelope or postcard, or simply print Parties and Allocation of Liability
Equipment Provider Identification the acknowledgement page that appears International Implications
Report (Form MCS–150C); display the after submitting your comments III. Analysis Of Safety Data
USDOT Number, or other unique electronically. Analysis of Roadside Inspection Data
identifier, on each intermodal container Public Participation: All public in 4 States
chassis offered for transportation in comments and related material Roadside Inspection Violation Data
interstate commerce; establish a concerning this proposed rule in Docket Analysis
systematic inspection, repair, and No. FMCSA–2005–23315, whether in All Intermodal Container Chassis
maintenance program to ensure the safe paper or electronic form, will be Violations
Intermodal Container Chassis
operating condition of each intermodal considered by the agency, and will be
Violations by State
container chassis; maintain available to the public on the DMS Web Vehicle Out-of-Service Violations by
documentation of the program; and site: http://dms.dot.gov. The agency will State
provide a means to effectively respond also consider all comments that National Inspection Data—Violations
to driver and motor carrier reports about regulations.gov forwards to it. for Calendar Year 2003
intermodal container chassis Comments may be read and/or copied at FMCSA’s Analysis of the Data
mechanical defects and deficiencies. the Docket Management facility, located IV. Estimated Number Of Equipment
The proposed regulations would for the at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL– Providers And Intermodal
first time make IEPs subject to the 401 on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Container Chassis
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Building, Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. Equipment Providers
Regulations (FMCSRs). The agency is to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, Intermodal Container Chassis
also proposing additional inspection except Federal Holidays. Population
V. Regulatory Analyses And Notices
requirements for motor carriers and Privacy Act: Anyone may view or Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
drivers operating intermodal equipment. download comments submitted in any Planning and Review and DOT
The intent of this rulemaking is to of DOT’s dockets by the name of the Regulatory Policies and Procedures
ensure that intermodal equipment used commenter or name of the person Estimated Compliance Costs for
to transport intermodal containers is signing the comment (if submitted on Intermodal Equipment Providers
safe and systematically maintained. behalf of an association, business, labor Establishing a Systematic Inspection,
Improved maintenance is expected to union, or other entity). More Repair, and Maintenance (IRM)
result in fewer out-of-service orders and information about DOT’s privacy policy Program
highway breakdowns involving may be found in DOT’s complete Recordkeeping
intermodal chassis and improved Privacy Act Statement published in the Total Compliance Costs of the
Proposed Regulations
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

efficiency of the Nation’s intermodal Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at


transportation system. To whatever 65 FR 19477, or on the DMS Web site: Safety and Economic Benefits of
extent inadequately maintained http://dms.dot.gov. Improving Container Chassis
intermodal chassis are responsible for, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Maintenance
Benefits Associated With Increased
or contribute to, crashes, this proposal Deborah M. Freund, (202) 366–4009, Operational Efficiency
would also help to ensure that Vehicle and Roadside Operations Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) Division (MC–PSV), Office of Bus and Intergovernmental Review
operations are safer. Truck Standards and Operations, Paperwork Reduction Act

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:45 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76797

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 mandates dealing with maintenance and concerning inspection, repair, and
(NEPA) equipment, and secondarily on section maintenance responsibilities for
Energy Effects 31136(a)(4). Entities that interchange intermodal container chassis. The
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 intermodal equipment to motor carriers ANPRM was in response to a petition
Civil Justice Reform
Protection of Children
would be required to establish a for rulemaking filed by the American
Taking of Private Property program to systematically inspect, Trucking Associations (ATA). ATA
Federalism repair, and maintain that equipment, if argued that rail carriers, ocean carriers,
Regulation Identification Number they do not already have such a program and other entities that offer container
List of Subjects in place. chassis for transportation in interstate
Section 4118 of SAFETEA–LU added commerce frequently fail to ensure the
I. Background new section 31151, entitled container chassis are in safe and proper
Legal Basis for the Rulemaking ‘‘Roadability,’’ to subchapter III of operating condition. ATA believed poor
chapter 311 of title 49, United States maintenance of this intermodal
This rulemaking is based on the Code. Section 31151(a)(1) requires the equipment was a serious safety problem
authority of the Motor Carrier Safety Act Secretary of Transportation to issue and requested FHWA to make the
of 1984 (1984 Act) and section 4118 of regulations to be codified in the Federal equipment providers responsible for the
SAFETEA–LU (Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. Motor Carrier Safety Regulations roadworthiness of the container chassis
1144, at 1729, August 10, 2005, codified (FMCSRs) ‘‘to ensure that intermodal tendered to motor carriers.
at 49 U.S.C. 31151). equipment used to transport intermodal ATA requested that the FMCSRs be
The 1984 Act provides authority to containers is safe and systematically amended to make intermodal equipment
regulate drivers, motor carriers, and maintained.’’ Section 31151(a)(3) providers subject to 49 CFR part 396,
vehicle equipment. It requires the specifies, in considerable detail, a concerning inspection, repair, and
Secretary of Transportation to minimum of 14 items that must be maintenance of commercial motor
‘‘prescribe regulations on commercial included in the regulations, each of vehicles. Under the ATA proposal,
motor vehicle safety. The regulations which is discussed later in the preamble equipment providers would have been
shall prescribe minimum safety and included in the proposed rules or prohibited from offering an intermodal
standards for commercial motor existing agency procedures. container chassis for transportation in
vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations Departmental employees designated by such condition that it would likely
shall ensure that: (1) Commercial motor the Secretary are authorized to inspect cause a crash or a breakdown of the
vehicles are maintained, equipped, intermodal equipment, and copy related vehicle. Motor carriers would have been
loaded, and operated safely; (2) the maintenance and repair records (section prohibited from certifying to equipment
responsibilities imposed on operators of 31151(b)). Any intermodal equipment providers that the intermodal container
commercial motor vehicles do not that fails to comply with applicable chassis or container meets applicable
impair their ability to operate the Federal safety regulations may be placed safety regulations, unless the equipment
vehicles safely; (3) the physical out of service by Departmental or other provider provided the motor carrier
condition of operators of commercial Federal, State, or governmental officials with adequate equipment, time, and the
motor vehicles is adequate to enable designated by the Secretary until the proper facilities to make a full
them to operate the vehicles safely; and necessary repairs have been made inspection of the container chassis and
(4) the operation of commercial motor (section 31151(c)). State, local, or tribal any necessary repairs to the equipment
vehicles does not have a deleterious requirements inconsistent with a prior to the tendering of the equipment
effect on the physical condition of the regulation adopted pursuant to section to the motor carrier for operation in
operators.’’ 49 U.S.C. 31136(a). 31151 are preempted (section 31151(d)). interstate commerce. ATA also
This NPRM would establish a Specifically, a State requirement for the requested that the regulations be
program to ensure that intermodal periodic inspection of intermodal amended so motor carriers would not be
equipment (primarily chassis) 1 chassis by intermodal equipment liable for civil or criminal penalties for
interchanged to motor carriers and used providers that was in effect on operating a container chassis, or
to transport intermodal containers is January 1, 2005, is preempted on the transporting a container that did not
safe and systematically maintained. An effective date of the final regulation meet the applicable safety requirements,
intermodal chassis meets the definition resulting from this rulemaking (section if the equipment was offered for
of a ‘‘commercial motor vehicle’’ under 31151(e)(1)), but preemption may be transportation in an unsafe or poor
49 U.S.C. 31132(1)(A) because it ‘‘has a waived upon application by the State if condition.
gross vehicle weight rating or gross the Secretary finds that the State On October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56478),
vehicle weight of at least 10,001 pounds requirement is as effective as the as follow-up to the ANPRM, the Office
* * *’’ The NPRM is based primarily on Federal requirement and does not of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)
section 31136(a)(1), especially the unduly burden interstate commerce announced a series of public meetings
(section 31151(e)(2)). for motor carriers, equipment providers,
1 The intermodal equipment described are
All of these provisions of SAFETEA– and other interested parties to discuss
intermodal container chassis specifically designed inspection, repair, and maintenance
to transport cargo containers. The loaded cargo
LU are discussed in the preamble and
containers are transported on ships and trains to embodied in the regulatory text of this practices for ensuring that container
various ports and rail facilities in the United States NPRM. chassis and trailers are in safe and
and then transferred to chassis trailers for proper operating condition at all times.
transportation by highway to their final destination. Previous Rulemaking Efforts To Improve
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Representatives from the FHWA, the


Similarly, empty containers may be loaded at Chassis Maintenance Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
shippers’ facilities in the United States, and then
transported on a chassis trailer to ports and rail On February 17, 1999 (64 FR 7849), the Maritime Administration (MARAD),
yards for subsequent portions of the movement to the Federal Highway Administration and OST participated in the listening
be handled by additional modes to other (FHWA), which then had responsibility sessions. These sessions were intended
destinations in the United States or abroad. Chassis
trailers carrying containerized cargo are used to
for commercial motor vehicle safety, to help DOT broaden its knowledge of
transport more than $450 billion in cargo entering published an Advance Notice of the safety implications of industry
and leaving the United States annually. Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) practices involving terminal operators

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76798 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

or other parties that tender intermodal performance data could be captured and ‘‘(F) a requirement that a facility at which
equipment to motor carriers. The attributed to the equipment provided. an intermodal equipment provider regularly
sessions were held in Seattle, WA; Des FMCSA would apply the same civil makes intermodal equipment available for
interchange have an operational process and
Plaines (Chicago), IL; and Jamaica (New penalty structure and enforcement
space readily available for a motor carrier to
York City), NY, during November 1999. actions used for motor carriers to have an equipment defect identified pursuant
On November 29, 2002 (67 FR 71127), intermodal equipment providers that to subparagraph (E) repaired or the
FMCSA published a notice announcing demonstrate patterns of non-compliance equipment replaced prior to departure;
the agency would study the feasibility of with the FMCSRs. ‘‘(G) a program for the evaluation and audit
using the Negotiated Rulemaking As part of this new activity, FMCSA of compliance by intermodal equipment
process to develop rulemaking options compiled and analyzed additional providers with applicable Federal motor
concerning the maintenance of intermodal chassis inspection data from carrier safety regulations;
38 States. The information derived from ‘‘(H) a civil penalty structure consistent
intermodal container chassis and
with section 521(b) of title 49, United States
trailers. The neutral convener hired by this analysis, particularly violations that Code, for intermodal equipment providers
FMCSA interviewed individuals and caused vehicles to be placed out of that fail to attain satisfactory compliance
organizations that represented interests service, provided evidence that with applicable Federal motor carrier safety
most likely to be substantially affected intermodal equipment failed to meet the regulations;
by a rulemaking concerning this subject, FMCSRs more often than non- ‘‘(I) a prohibition on intermodal equipment
and concluded that a negotiated intermodal equipment. providers from placing intermodal
rulemaking was unlikely to produce a equipment in service on the public highways
SAFETEA—LU Requirements Codified to the extent such providers or their
set of consensus recommendations to at 49 U.S.C. 31151 equipment are found to pose an imminent
FMCSA. Therefore, FMCSA decided not hazard;
to conduct a negotiated rulemaking on Section 4118 of SAFETEA—LU
‘‘(J) a process by which motor carriers and
this subject, and concluded that it amended 49 U.S.C., chapter 311, by agents of motor carriers shall be able to
would be best to withdraw the ANPRM adding new section 31151 (49 U.S.C. request the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
and to start afresh. 31151) titled ‘‘Roadability.’’ Section Administration to undertake an investigation
On December 31, 2003 (68 FR 75478), 31151 states: of an intermodal equipment provider
FMCSA published a notice withdrawing The Secretary of Transportation, after identified under subparagraph (A) that is
the ANPRM. While FMCSA could providing notice and opportunity for alleged to be not in compliance with the
comment, shall issue regulations establishing regulations under this section;
quantify the costs of regulatory options ‘‘(K) a process by which equipment
that could potentially result in a program to ensure that intermodal
equipment used to transport intermodal providers and agents of equipment providers
improved maintenance practices by shall be able to request the Administration to
containers is safe and systematically
equipment providers, there was maintained. undertake an investigation of a motor carrier
insufficient data to quantify the safety that is alleged to be not in compliance with
benefits of a rulemaking based on the Section 31151(a)(3) lists 14 elements the regulations issued under this section;
ATA petition. Available data showed to be included in the regulations as ‘‘(L) a process by which a driver or motor
that a significant number of container follows: carrier transporting intermodal equipment is
required to report to the intermodal
chassis dispatched from intermodal ‘‘(A) a requirement to identify intermodal
equipment provider or the provider’s
terminals were later found to have equipment providers responsible for the
designated agent any actual damage or defect
safety defects during roadside inspection and maintenance of intermodal
in the intermodal equipment of which the
inspections, but the relationship equipment that is interchanged or intended
driver or motor carrier is aware at the time
for interchange to motor carriers in
between these defects and crash intermodal transportation;
the intermodal equipment is returned to the
causation had not been substantiated. intermodal equipment provider or the
‘‘(B) a requirement to match intermodal
In January of 2004, the Secretary provider’s designated agent;
equipment readily to an intermodal
announced that DOT would launch a ‘‘(M) a requirement that any actual damage
equipment provider through a unique
or defect identified in the process established
safety inspection program for identifying number;
‘‘(C) a requirement that an intermodal under subparagraph (L) be repaired before
intermodal container chassis. The the equipment is made available for
inspection program would provide equipment provider identified under
subparagraph (A) systematically inspect, interchange to a motor carrier and that
added oversight to help ensure that repairs of equipment made pursuant to the
repair, and maintain, or cause to be
intermodal container chassis used by systematically inspected, repaired, and requirements of this subparagraph and
motor carriers to transport intermodal maintained, intermodal equipment described reports made pursuant to the subparagraph
cargo containers from seaports and rail in subparagraph (A) that is intended for (L) process be documented in the
yards are in safe and proper working interchange with a motor carrier; maintenance records for such equipment;
order. The Secretary said: ‘‘(D) a requirement to ensure that each and
intermodal equipment provider identified ‘‘(N) a procedure under which motor
‘‘Every day millions of dollars worth of carriers, drivers and intermodal equipment
under subparagraph (A) maintains a system
cargo are transferred from ships and rail to providers may seek correction of their motor
of maintenance and repair records for such
trailer beds and hauled away by trucks. It is carrier safety records through the deletion
equipment;
essential that we have a full and complete from those records of violations of safety
‘‘(E) requirements that—
safety program focused on the trailer beds regulations attributable to deficiencies in the
‘‘(i) a specific list of intermodal equipment
used to haul cargo containers.’’ intermodal chassis or trailer for which they
components or items be identified for the
The Secretary explained the new visual or audible inspection of which a driver should not have been held responsible.’’
is responsible before operating the equipment
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

inspection program would be modeled Section 31151(b) authorizes the


after FMCSA’s compliance review over the road; and Secretary or DOT employee designated
program already in place for the nation’s ‘‘(ii) the inspection under clause (i) be by the Secretary to inspect intermodal
conducted as part of the Federal requirement
interstate motor carriers. Intermodal in effect on the date of enactment of this Act
equipment, and copy related
equipment providers would be required that a driver be satisfied that the intermodal maintenance and repair records for such
to obtain a USDOT Number or other equipment components are in good working equipment, on demand and display of
unique identifier and display it on their order before the equipment is operated over proper credentials. Section 31151(c)
container chassis so that safety the road; extends the authority of Federal, State,

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76799

or government officials designated by FMCSA proposes to address the FMCSA would use its Safety Status
the Secretary to place out of service any SAFETEA–LU requirements by adding Measurement System (SafeStat) to
intermodal equipment that is to 49 CFR part 390, a new subpart C identify and prioritize which IEPs
determined under this section to fail to titled ‘‘Requirements and Information would be subject to a roadability review.
comply with applicable Federal safety for Intermodal Equipment Providers and SafeStat is an automated, data-driven
regulations; to prevent its use on a for Motor Carriers Operating Intermodal analysis system designed to incorporate
public highway until the repairs Equipment.’’ In addition, we would current on-road safety performance
necessary to bring such equipment into amend parts 385, 386, 390, 392, 393, information on all motor carriers, and
compliance have been completed; and and 396, as well as Appendix G to IEPs, with on-site reviews and
to require documentation of repairs in Subchapter B, to make the appropriate enforcement history information, when
the equipment maintenance records. sections applicable to IEPs. With these available, in order to measure relative
Section 31151(d) preempts statutes, proposed changes to the current safety fitness. SafeStat plays an
regulations, orders, or other FMCSRs, the agency will address the important role in determining the safety
SAFETEA–LU requirements codified at fitness in several FMCSA/State
requirements of a State, a political
49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3): programs including the Performance
subdivision of a State, or a tribal
• A roadability review based on and Registration Information Systems
government relating to CMV safety, if
elements of the Safety Fitness Management, National Compliance
the law, regulation, order, or other
Procedures to enable FMCSA to assess Review Prioritization, and the roadside
requirement exceeds or is inconsistent
the safety of equipment tendered by Inspection Selection System. FMCSA
with Federal rules adopted to
IEPs (part 385).Section 31151(a)(3)(G). would use the system to continuously
implement the roadability statute.
• Application of FMCSA Rules of quantify and monitor changes in the
Section 31151(e)(2) authorizes the
Practice for safety compliance safety status of IEPs. The agency’s initial
Secretary to make a nonpreemption
proceedings (part 386). Sections focus would be on the Vehicle Safety
determination if the State requirement Evaluation Area (SEA). For more
for the inspection and maintenance of 31151(a)(3)(H) and (I).
• Compliance with general safety information about SafeStat, visit
intermodal chassis by intermodal FMCSA’s ‘‘SafeStat Online’’ at URL:
equipment providers was in effect on or regulations, including filing of an
Intermodal Equipment Provider http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov.
before January 1, 2005, and is as In addition to IEPs that are identified
effective as the Federal requirement and Identification Report (FMCSA Form
in SafeStat, a roadability review may be
does not unduly burden interstate MCS–150C), and display of the
conducted on an IEP that falls into one
commerce. Subsequent amendments to intermodal equipment provider’s
of the following categories: (1) The
State requirements that were not USDOT number or other unique
provider is the subject of a complaint
preempted must be submitted to the identification number on intermodal
that FMCSA determines to be non-
agency for a preemption determination. equipment (part 390). Sections
frivolous; (2) the provider has
State provisions that would be 31151(a)(3)(A), (B), (C), (D), (J), (K), and
equipment involved in a pattern of
preempted may remain in effect only (N).
recordable crashes or hazardous
until the date on which implementing • Provisions for CMV drivers to materials incidents; (3) the provider
regulations under this section take inspect specific intermodal equipment requests FMCSA to conduct a review of
effect. Finally, section 31151(f) defines components and be satisfied that they its operations; (4) the provider
the terms ‘‘intermodal equipment,’’ are in good working order before the demonstrates a pattern of non-
‘‘intermodal equipment interchange equipment is operated over the road compliance; or (5) the agency
agreement,’’ ‘‘intermodal equipment (part 392). Sections 31151(a)(3)(E) and determines there is a need for a review.
provider,’’ and ‘‘interchange.’’ (F). FMCSA would conduct roadability
• Extension of the applicability of reviews under proposed §§ 385.501 and
II. Current Rulemaking To Improve regulations concerning parts and 385.503 using the current framework of
Intermodal Equipment Safety accessories necessary for safe operation the Compliance Analysis and
Rulemaking Proposal to intermodal equipment and IEPs (part Performance Review Information
393).Sections 31151(a)(3)(C). System (CAPRI). The CAPRI application
The proposed regulations would, for • Extension of the applicability of provides a standardized method for
the first time, make intermodal regulations concerning inspection, conducting reviews on motor carriers,
equipment providers (IEPs) subject to repair, and maintenance of CMVs to hazardous materials shippers, and cargo
the FMCSRs. The new requirements IEPs (part 396). Sections 31151(a)(3)(C), tank facilities. It is also used for safety
would ensure that intermodal container (D), (L), and (M). audits on new carriers and Mexico-
chassis and trailers tendered to motor The proposed changes to each part are domiciled carriers seeking to operate in
carriers by steamship lines, railroads, described below. the United States. The application
terminal operators, chassis pools, etc., includes extensive checking for data
comply with the applicable motor Part 385—Safety Fitness Procedures
integrity and electronic file transfer for
carrier safety regulations. The explicit FMCSA proposes to conduct expediting data flow, and is for use by
inclusion of equipment providers in the roadability reviews in order to evaluate both Federal and State enforcement
scope of FMCSRs would ensure that the safety and regulatory compliance officials.
intermodal equipment providers would status of IEPs. This activity would Under proposed § 385.503, if FMCSA
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

be subject to the same enforcement consist of an on-site examination of an finds violations of parts 390, 393, or
proceedings, orders, and civil penalties intermodal equipment provider’s 396, the agency would cite the IEP for
as those applied to motor carriers, inspection, repair, and maintenance those violations. The agency may also
property brokers, and freight forwarders. operation and records to determine its impose civil penalties according to the
The proposed rule would also impose compliance with applicable FMCSRs civil penalty structure contained in 49
additional requirements on motor (i.e., parts 390, 393, and 396). However, U.S.C. 521(b). FMCSA may prohibit an
carriers and drivers operating FMCSA would not issue safety ratings intermodal equipment provider from
intermodal equipment. to IEPs. tendering any intermodal equipment

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76800 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

from a particular location or multiple carrier. Leasing equipment to a motor (PRISM) project, a cooperative Federal/
locations if the provider’s FMCSRs carrier is not included in this term. State program that makes motor carrier
compliance is so deficient that its ‘‘Intermodal equipment’’ rather than safety a requirement for obtaining and
continued operation constitutes an intermodal container chassis would be keeping commercial motor vehicle
imminent hazard to highway safety. the term used in the regulation. Though registration and privileges. FMCSA
This is authorized by 49 U.S.C. intermodal container chassis are by far seeks comment on what other unique
521(b)(5)(A), which directs the agency the most common variety of intermodal identification numbers could serve the
to ‘‘order a vehicle * * * out-of-service, equipment, FMCSA decided to propose same purpose as the USDOT number.
or order an employer to cease all or part a broader term ‘‘intermodal equipment’’
to cover all the different kinds of Part 390, Subpart C—Requirements and
of the employer’s commercial motor
trailers, chassis, and associated devices Information for Intermodal Equipment
vehicle operations. In making any such
used to transport intermodal containers. Providers and for Motor Carriers
order, the [agency] shall impose no
‘‘Intermodal equipment interchange Operating Intermodal Equipment
restriction on any * * * employer
beyond that required to abate the agreement’’ would describe the written FMCSA proposes a new subpart C,
hazard.’’ agreement between an intermodal §§ 390.40–390.44, to address the
equipment provider and a motor carrier, specific requirements for intermodal
Part 386—Rules of Practice which establishes the responsibilities equipment providers in SAFETEA–LU.
FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR and liabilities of both parties. The Proposed § 390.40 lists all of the
part 386 concerning rules of practice for Uniform Intermodal Interchange and responsibilities of an intermodal
enforcement proceedings before its Facilities Access Agreement is equipment provider, including
Assistant Administrator. The purpose of commonly used for this purpose. identifying its operations to FMCSA;
the proposed changes is to apply part ‘‘Intermodal equipment provider’’ marking intermodal equipment;
386 to intermodal equipment providers would describe the party that inspecting, repairing, and maintaining
now subject to FMCSA jurisdiction. interchanges the intermodal equipment the equipment; keeping records of
Section 386.1 Scope of the rules of with the motor carrier, and that, under inspection, repair, and maintenance;
this part. FMCSA would amend existing these proposed rules, would be providing procedures and facilities for
§ 386.1 to include an explicit reference responsible for systematic inspection, inspection, repair, and maintenance;
to intermodal equipment providers. repair, and maintenance of the and refraining from placing equipment
They would be subject to the same intermodal equipment. in service if the equipment would pose
enforcement proceedings, orders, and Section 390.15 Assistance in an imminent hazard, as defined in
civil penalties as motor carriers, investigations and special studies. § 386.72(b)(1).
property brokers, and freight forwarders, FMCSA would amend § 390.15(a) to add Proposed paragraph (h) of § 390.40
with respect to the safety of their a reference to intermodal equipment requires that any repairs or
equipment tendered and their oversight providers, requiring them to provide replacements must be made in a timely
of inspection, repair, and maintenance records, information, and assistance in manner after a driver notifies the
of that equipment. an investigation of an accident, as provider of such damage, defects, or
Section 386.83 Sanction for failure defined in 49 CFR 390.5. Intermodal deficiencies. FMCSA proposes a limited
to pay civil penalties or abide by equipment providers would not be timeframe for repair or replacement
payment plan; operation in interstate required to maintain the accident actions because, in the intermodal
commerce prohibited. FMCSA proposes register required of motor carriers in sector, drivers’ income is usually based
to amend § 386.83 to extend the § 390.15(b), but any accident upon the number of trips a driver can
applicability of this section to information they do retain must be complete in a day. Drivers who report
intermodal equipment providers. made available to investigators upon defects or deficiencies to equipment
request. providers face potential delays in
Part 390—Federal Motor Carrier Safety Section 390.19 Motor carrier, HM leaving the ports or terminals while
Regulations shipper, and intermodal equipment waiting for a container chassis to be
Section 390.3 General applicability. provider identification reports. FMCSA repaired or replaced. Therefore, FMCSA
Section 390.3(h) would explicitly state would require intermodal equipment wishes to reduce the amount of time
that intermodal equipment providers are providers to file an Intermodal that drivers may have to wait after
subject to parts 385, safety fitness Equipment Provider Identification pointing out defects or deficiencies,
procedures; 386, rules of practice; 390 Report, Form MCS–150C and to update thereby encouraging the driver to make
(except § 390.15(b)); 393, parts and it every two years. such reports. Driver reports will bring
accessories necessary for safe operation; Section 390.21 Marking of self- potential equipment defects and
and 396, inspection, repair, and propelled CMVs, and intermodal deficiencies to the equipment provider’s
maintenance of commercial motor equipment. FMCSA would require attention so they can be remedied.
vehicles. intermodal equipment providers (i.e., Operating safe equipment is clearly in
Section 390.5 Definitions. FMCSA the entity tendering the equipment, the drivers’—and FMCSA’s—interest.
would add definitions of ‘‘interchange,’’ which may or may not be the owner) to Proposed § 390.42(a) and (b) prescribe
‘‘intermodal equipment,’’ ‘‘intermodal mark intermodal equipment with an procedures for intermodal equipment
equipment interchange agreement,’’ and identification number issued by providers and motor carriers to request
‘‘intermodal equipment provider’’ to FMCSA. This number could be a correction of publicly-accessible safety
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

§ 390.5 to provide a consistent USDOT number or another unique violation information for which the
vocabulary for dealing with intermodal identification number. The USDOT intermodal equipment provider or
equipment issues. These definitions are number is used to identify all motor motor carrier should not have been held
identical to the definitions for these carriers in FMCSA’s registration/ responsible. An intermodal equipment
terms included in 49 U.S.C. 31151(f). information systems. It is also used by provider or motor carrier would use
‘‘Interchange’’ would be the word used States as the key identifier in the FMCSA’s DataQs system for this
to describe the act of providing Performance and Registration purpose. The DataQs system is an
intermodal equipment to a motor Information Systems Management electronic means for filing concerns

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76801

about Federal and State data released to cover responsibilities for inspection, periodic inspection. FMCSA proposes to
the public by FMCSA. Through this repair, and maintenance of the CMV or revise these sections to make clear their
system, data concerns are automatically chassis, without specifying all of the application to intermodal equipment
forwarded to the appropriate office for parts and accessories necessary for safe providers.
resolution. The system also allows filers operation. Section 396.25, Qualifications of
to monitor the status of each filing. brake inspectors. In its ANPRM of
Proposed § 390.42(c) and (d) prescribe Part 396—Inspection, Repair, and
Maintenance February 3, 1989 (54 FR 5518),
procedures for requesting that FMCSA
Part 396 would be amended to require concerning Federal standards for the
investigate any motor carrier or
intermodal equipment providers to maintenance and inspection of CMV
intermodal equipment provider that
may be in noncompliance with FMCSA establish a systematic inspection, repair, brakes, FMCSA concluded that the
requirements. and maintenance program and to legislation requiring the rulemaking
Proposed § 390.44 prescribes the maintain records documenting the action applied only to employees of
responsibilities of drivers and motor program. Equipment providers would motor carriers [section 9110 of the
carriers, as opposed to intermodal also be required to comply with Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory
equipment providers, when operating FMCSA’s periodic and annual Reform Act of 1988, (Subtitle B of Title
intermodal equipment. The driver inspection regulations. Furthermore, IX of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988,
would be required to make a pre-trip intermodal equipment providers would Pub. L. 100–690, 102 Stat. 4181, at 4531)
inspection and would not be allowed to be required to establish a process by now codified at 49 U.S.C. 31137(b)].
operate the equipment on the highway which a motor carrier or driver could Section 9110(b) required regulations to
if the equipment is not in good working report the defects or deficiencies on ensure that CMV brakes are properly
order. The driver or the motor carrier container chassis that they discover or maintained and inspected by
would also be required to report any that are reported to them. Intermodal ‘‘appropriate employees.’’ Because this
damage or deficiencies in the equipment equipment providers would then be provision amended the Motor Carrier
at the time the equipment is returned to required to document whether they Safety Act of 1984 (the 1984 Act) and
the provider. This report would have to have repaired the defect or deficiency, was codified in section 31137,
include, at a minimum, the items listed or that repair was unnecessary, before ‘‘employee’’ had the meaning given to
in § 396.11(a)(2). the intermodal equipment was that term in 49 U.S.C. 31132(2), which
Proposed § 390.46 would address interchanged. specifically means ‘‘a mechanic.’’
preemption by the FMCSRs of State and Section 396.1 Scope. FMCSA However, the term ‘‘employer’’ in
local laws and regulations concerning proposes to revise § 396.1 to require section 31132(3) means, among other
inspection, repair, and maintenance. every intermodal equipment provider to things, a person who ‘‘owns or leases a
Generally, a law, regulation, order, or comply with, and be knowledgeable of, commercial motor vehicle * * * or
other requirement of a State, a political the applicable FMCSA regulations. assigns an employee to operate it.’’ The
subdivision of a State, or a tribal Section 396.3 Inspection, repair, and agency generally treated the 1984 Act
organization relating to the inspection, maintenance. FMCSA proposes to term ‘‘employer’’ as equivalent to
repair, and maintenance of intermodal amend § 396.3 to require intermodal ‘‘motor carrier.’’ But since independent
equipment is preempted if such law, equipment providers to be responsible repair and maintenance shops neither
regulation, order, or other requirement for the systematic inspection, repair, own nor lease CMVs, nor assign
exceeds or is inconsistent with a and maintenance of intermodal employees to operate them, the agency
requirement imposed by the FMCSRs. equipment, and to keep the associated concluded that mechanics (employees)
records. who did not work for a motor carrier
Part 392—Driving of Commercial Motor Section 396.11, Driver vehicle (employer) were not covered. ‘‘An
Vehicles inspection reports. FMCSA proposes to example of this would be independent
FMCSA proposes to amend § 392.7 to amend § 396.11 to add a new paragraph garage owners and their mechanics.’’ (54
cover intermodal equipment similar to (a)(2) specifying that the intermodal FR 5518).
the current requirements for other equipment provider must have a process
The example was correct, but the
CMVs. The proposal would require to receive reports of defects or
statutory term ‘‘employer’’ also
drivers preparing to transport deficiencies in the equipment. Proposed
describes intermodal equipment
intermodal equipment to make a visual paragraph (a)(2) lists the specific
providers who own CMVs, namely
or audible inspection of specific components of intermodal equipment
intermodal chassis. Such equipment
components of intermodal equipment, that must be included on the driver
providers and their mechanics are
and to satisfy the driver that the vehicle inspection report.
Section 396.12, Procedures governing therefore subject to the 1984 Act,
intermodal equipment was in good
the acceptance by intermodal including the brake inspector
working order before operating it over
equipment providers of reports required qualifications adopted pursuant to 49
the road.
under § 390.44(b) of this chapter from U.S.C. 31137(b), which are now codified
Part 393—Parts and Accessories motor carriers and drivers. FMCSA at § 396.25.
Necessary for Safe Operation would add a new § 396.12 to require Appendix G to Subchapter B—
FMCSA proposes to revise § 393.1 to intermodal equipment providers to Minimum Periodic Inspection
make equipment providers responsible establish a procedure to accept reports Standards
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

for offering in interstate commerce of defects or deficiencies from motor


intermodal equipment that is equipped carriers or drivers, repair the defects FMCSA proposes to amend Appendix
with all required parts and accessories. that are likely to affect safety, and G, item 6 (Safe Loading) to add devices
The proposed changes would ensure document the procedure. used to secure an intermodal container
each required component and system is Sections 396.17, Periodic Inspection, to a chassis. These devices include rails
in safe and proper working order. This 396.19, Inspector qualifications, 396.21, or support frames, tiedown bolsters,
requirement is separate and distinct Periodic inspection recordkeeping locking pins, clevises, clamps, and
from the provisions of part 396, which requirements, 396.23 Equivalent to hooks.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76802 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Proposed Enforcement Plans codified in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(5). If tribal government regulations. In


FMCSA, after an investigation, general, the Federal rules would
Review of Maintenance Programs
determines that violations of the preempt the statutes, regulations,
If this proposal is promulgated as a FMCSRs or the statutes under which orders, or other requirements of a State,
final rule, FMCSA would initiate they were established pose an a political subdivision of a State, or a
reviews of intermodal equipment ‘‘imminent hazard’’ to safety, the agency tribal organization relating to
providers’ maintenance programs is required to order the vehicle or commercial motor vehicle safety if the
similar to the reviews FMCSA currently employee operating that vehicle out of provisions of those rules exceed or are
conducts on motor carriers’ safety service, or order a motor carrier to cease inconsistent with an FMCSA
management controls. all or part of its commercial motor requirement. If a State requirement for
• The reviews would examine vehicle operations. the periodic inspection of intermodal
equipment providers’ compliance with Imminent hazard is defined in 49 chassis by intermodal equipment
FMCSA commercial motor vehicle U.S.C. 521(b)(5)(B) and 49 CFR providers was in effect on January 1,
safety regulations to which they are 386.72(b)(1) to mean ‘‘any condition of 2005, it would remain in effect only
subject, especially parts 390, 393, and vehicle, employee, or commercial motor until the effective date of a final rule.
396 and Appendix G. Intermodal vehicle operations which substantially However, a State may request a
equipment providers would be held increases the likelihood of serious nonpreemption determination for any
responsible for the inspection, repair, injury or death if not discontinued requirement for the periodic inspection
and maintenance of their intermodal immediately.’’ An imminent hazard may of intermodal chassis by IEPs that was
equipment, using standards similar to be a violation that is recurring and can in effect on January 1, 2005. FMCSA
those used by motor carriers for the be remedied by the carrier’s ceasing the would issue a determination if it is
inspection, repair, and maintenance of violation (e.g., an intermodal equipment decided that the State requirement is as
their trailers. provider is discovered operating effective as the Federal requirement and
• The reviews may be triggered when intermodal equipment that has been does not unduly burden interstate
roadside inspection reports, crash report declared out of service). It may also be commerce. In order to trigger this
data, or driver or carrier complaints argued that a motor carrier that review, the State must apply to the
indicate a pattern of non-compliance by continually and frequently violates agency for a determination before the
an equipment provider. multiple regulatory requirements poses effective date of the final rule. The
• FMCSA would develop a procedure an imminent hazard to the motoring agency would make a determination
to review IEPs’ compliance with the public. with respect to any such application
applicable FMCSRs, with a focus on the FMCSA proposes to issue an within 6 months after the date on which
safe operating condition of the Imminent Hazard Out-of-Service (OOS) it is received.
intermodal equipment, the involvement Order to any intermodal equipment If a State amends a regulation for
of that equipment in recordable provider whose intermodal chassis which it previously received a
highway crashes, and the intermodal substantially increase the likelihood of nonpreemption determination, it must
equipment provider’s safety serious injury or death if not taken out apply for a determination of
management controls. The agency of service immediately, consistent with nonpreemption for the amended
would develop review procedures, its treatment of motor carriers. Use of regulation. Any amendment to a State
enforcement procedures, and rules of the Imminent Hazard OOS Order is requirement not preempted under this
practice relevant to the responsibility of limited to violations of certain FMCSRs subsection because of a determination
equipment providers to tender (49 CFR parts 385, 386, 390–399, and by the FMCSA may not take effect
roadworthy equipment to motor some of part 383). Such an order is a unless: (1) It is submitted to the agency
carriers. However, if FMCSA were to serious matter and is usually a last before the effective date of the
subject an intermodal equipment resort when a serious safety problem amendment; and (2) the FMCSA
provider to an operations out-of-service exists that substantially increases the determines that the amendment would
order, the order would prevent that likelihood of serious injury or death and not cause the State requirement to be
provider from tendering equipment to is unlikely to be resolved through any less effective than the Federal
motor carriers. The order would not other means available. requirement and would not unduly
apply to other transportation-related FMCSA could issue Imminent Hazard burden interstate commerce.
activities of an intermodal equipment OOS Orders to an intermodal equipment Relationship Among Intermodal Parties
provider that is a steamship company or provider’s: (1) Specific vehicle; (2) and Allocation of Liability
rail carrier. Intermodal equipment terminal or facility; and/or (3) all
providers that fail to attain satisfactory equipment tendered by the provider. Section 31151(a)(1) requires that
compliance with applicable federal Where an Imminent Hazard OOS Order FMCSA issue regulations to ensure that
motor carrier safety regulations would is issued, the agency would only impose intermodal equipment used to transport
be subject to a civil penalty structure restrictions necessary to abate the intermodal containers is safe and
consistent with 49 U.S.C. 521(b). hazard. systematically maintained. However,
FMCSA’s goal is to ensure compliance FMCSA believes the statute suggests
Imminent Hazard Determinations with its regulations and thereby ensure that the agency should not attempt to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3)(I), the safety. Studies show that compliant allocate liability between parties
Secretary of Transportation is required companies have lower crash rates, better tendering and using intermodal
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

to prohibit intermodal equipment insurance rates, and pay less for crash equipment. Rather than finding fault
providers from placing intermodal related expenses (e.g., cargo damage, among intermodal parties or involving
equipment in service on the public legal fees, towing, medical expenses). the Government in individual disputes
highways to the extent such providers (such as who damaged a particular
or their equipment are found to pose an Preemption of State Statutes or container chassis), the rulemaking
‘‘imminent hazard.’’ Regulations would establish programmatic
The authority to declare that a motor Sections 31151(d) and (e) preempt responsibility for intermodal equipment
carrier poses an imminent hazard is certain State, political subdivision, and maintenance. The concept is that a

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76803

maintenance program would produce would be subject to these proposed comments on all aspects of this
safer equipment—safety being in the rules, including marking requirements problem.
interest of the traveling public and of and to existing equipment-related
III. Analysis of Safety Data
the government. FMCSRs. Enforcement would be taken
The definition of ‘‘intermodal against a motor carrier pulling an Analysis of Roadside Inspection Data in
equipment interchange agreement’’ in unmarked or defective chassis, even if 4 States
Section 31151(f)(2) is ‘‘the Uniform the chassis originated with an IEP
Intermodal Interchange and Facilities physically located outside the United FMCSA asked the John A. Volpe
Access Agreement or any other written States. National Transportation Systems Center
document executed by an intermodal (Volpe) to conduct a special study of
IEPs physically outside the United
equipment provider or its agent and a roadside inspection results for container
States, as defined in section 31132(10),
motor carrier or its agent, the primary chassis. Inspections can be of several
are not required by this proposed rule
purpose of which is to establish the types, ranging from full or walk-around
to: (1) File a Form MCS–150C; (2) have
responsibilities and liabilities of both inspections (Levels 1 and 2) to vehicle-
a systematic inspection, repair and
parties with respect to the interchange only inspections (Level 5). The type of
maintenance program; (3) create a repair
of the intermodal equipment.’’ unit inspected is indicated by a code
lane for defects discovered by the driver
[Emphasis added] and the types of violations found may
just before leaving the terminal; or (4)
Neither the section 31151 language be categorized as driver violations,
maintain a system for receiving reports
nor this proposal would relieve motor vehicle violations (such as defects in
of defects and deficiencies from drivers
carriers of liability for damage they may brakes, tires or lights), or hazardous
returning intermodal equipment.
inflict on intermodal container chassis. material violations. The Volpe analyses
FMCSA cannot conduct roadability
This proposed rulemaking would likely covered results from Level 1, 2, or 5
reviews of IEPs based in foreign
reduce the likelihood of crashes inspections, and for ‘‘Unit 2’’ in tractor-
countries or non—‘‘United States’’
attributed to the mechanical condition semitrailer combinations, the type of
territories (because they are not subject
and roadability of intermodal container vehicle being inspected had to be coded
to the rules), prohibit such IEPs from
chassis, but it would not involve the as a semitrailer (code 9). ‘‘Unit 2’’ refers
tendering defective equipment to motor
Department unnecessarily in the to the semitrailer in a power unit-
carriers (because that occurs beyond the
commercial relations or allocation of semitrailer combination. Out-of-service
jurisdiction of FMCSA), or issue them
liability between intermodal parties. (OOS) and violation rates were
civil penalties for failure to comply with
calculated using FMCSA’s Motor Carrier
International Implications these rules.
Management Information System
Because section 31151 was codified in On the other hand, any intermodal
(MCMIS) inspection data on ‘‘Unit 2’’
subchapter III of chapter 311 of title 49, equipment operated in interstate
vehicles. That is, the data came from
United States Code, the jurisdictional commerce in the United States must be
Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-
definitions in 49 U.S.C. 31132 apply. marked with a USDOT number or other
intermodal and intermodal semitrailers,
The term ‘‘United States’’ is defined in unique identifier. Otherwise, the motor
but not the tractors involved. All
§ 31132(10) as ‘‘the States of the United carrier pulling the chassis/container
violations were vehicle violations.
States and the District of Columbia.’’ combination would have violated these
proposed regulations. As motor carriers Results of the Volpe study are
Section 31151 does not address the summarized here; the complete report is
question of its own geographical reach, are unlikely to accept the risk of fines
for transporting unmarked chassis, available in the docket for this NPRM.
so it must be read as limited to the
United States, as defined in section foreign or non-—‘‘United States’’ IEPs The analysis of roadside inspection
31132(10). This means that intermodal that know their equipment will operate safety data included two phases. The
equipment providers (IEPs) tendering within the United States may find it first phase included a Four-State
equipment to motor carriers in Puerto necessary, for business reasons, to file a Analysis. The study team obtained
Rico, the Virgin Islands or any other Form MCS–150C and mark their intermodal inspection data from four
U.S. territory are not directly subject to equipment. FMCSA will accept States—California, Louisiana, South
the requirements of this rule. registration applications from such Carolina, and Texas—that have
Nonetheless, any jurisdiction that entities and issue them USDOT procedures for collecting and
adopts the relevant portions of the numbers or other unique identifiers. In maintaining intermodal roadside
FMCSRs as territorial law would have these cases, however, the assignment of inspection data at the State level and
the authority to enforce them. There is an identifying number does not amount that have adopted container chassis
also a strong presumption against extra- to an assertion of jurisdiction over the roadability legislation. The data
territorial application of a statute. foreign or non—United States IEP. obtained were for the calendar years
Nothing in the language or legislative Doing so, however would not subject 2000 through part of 2003.
history of section 31151 suggests that such IEPs to FMCSA jurisdiction The Four-State Analysis results
Congress intended to make it applicable beyond the borders of the United States, presented in Table 1 show, for each of
outside the territory of the United so the purpose of the identifying the four reporting States, the total
States. Therefore, IEPs tendering number could not be fully realized. number of Level 1, 2, and 5 roadside
equipment to motor carriers in Canada, The challenge for the agency is to inspections, and the OOS rates for non-
Mexico, or Central America would not maximize the benefits of section 31151 intermodal semitrailers and intermodal
be subject to the requirements of this and these proposed rules—when non— semitrailers (i.e., Unit 2). Vehicle OOS
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

rule, even if the motor carrier ‘‘United States’’ IEPs tender equipment violations represent the most serious
immediately transports the container/ that subsequently travels in the United types of FMCSR violations found on the
chassis combination across the border States—without exceeding the agency’s vehicle, or those violations FMCSA
into this country. Once in the U.S., statutory authority or the principles of believes are most likely to result in a
however, the intermodal equipment international law. FMCSA solicits crash.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76804 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—OUT-OF-SERVICE (OOS) RATES OF NON-INTERMODAL AND INTERMODAL SEMITRAILERS FOR THE FOUR-STATE
ANALYSIS (2000–2003)
Unit 2—Semitrailers

Non-intermodal (NI) Intermodal (I) Percent


State Difference in difference in
OOS rate
Number of OOS rate Number of OOS rate OOS rate
(I–NI)
inspections (percent) inspections (percent) (I–NI)/NI

CA1 ........................................................... 875,881 14.6 33,523 17.7 3.1 21.2


LA2 ........................................................... 27,216 8.8 76 26.3 17.5 198.9
SC1 ........................................................... 60,674 14.9 1,982 21.4 6.5 43.6
TX2 ........................................................... 150,260 16.1 2,032 24.8 8.7 54.0
1 Datafor 2000–2002 and part of 2003.
2 Datafor 2002 only.
Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors in-
volved. All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15–30).

The researchers noted that in each of with intermodal container chassis being inspections with vehicle violations.
the four States, the OOS rate for in worse mechanical condition than Note that the violation totals
intermodal semitrailers was higher than other types of semitrailers. Table 2 represented in Table 3 include all
the OOS rate for non-intermodal shows, for each of the four States, the violations (i.e., not just OOS but also
semitrailers. The percentage difference total number of Level 1, 2, and 5 non-OOS violations) found on the
between the non-intermodal and roadside inspections and the trailing unit.
intermodal semitrailer OOS rates in percentages of non-intermodal and
each State was more than 20 percent, intermodal semitrailer (i.e., Unit 2)

TABLE 2.—TOTAL VIOLATION RATES OF NON-INTERMODAL AND INTERMODAL SEMITRAILERS FOR THE FOUR-STATE
ANALYSIS (2000–2003)
Unit 2—Semitrailers

Non-intermodal (NI) Intermodal (I) Percent


State Difference in difference in
Total violation Total violation violation rate
Number of Number of violation rate
rate rate (I–NI)
inspections inspections (I–NI)/NI
(percent) (percent)

CA1 ........................................................... 875,881 32.8 33,523 32.8 0.0 0.0


LA 2 ........................................................... 27,216 28.2 76 43.4 15.2 53.9
SC1 ........................................................... 60,674 38.7 1,982 38.9 0.2 0.5
TX 2 .......................................................... 150,260 60.9 2,032 55.8 ¥5.1 ¥8.4
1 Datafor 2000–2002 and part of 2003.
2 Datafor 2002 only.
Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors in-
volved. All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15–30).

Table 2 shows that in California and The roadside inspection data from intermodal semitrailers. Table 4 shows
South Carolina, the percentages of non- Texas contain a code that identifies the that 55.7 percent of the non-carrier-
intermodal and intermodal semitrailers type of intermodal container chassis owned intermodal semitrailers had
with vehicle violations were the same or ownership: carrier owned or non- vehicle violations compared to 57.5
nearly the same. In Texas, the carrier-owned. The OOS and ‘‘all’’ percent of the carrier-owned intermodal
percentage of non-intermodal violation analyses were re-run to semitrailers.
semitrailers with vehicle violations was compare the results for these two
5.1 percentage points higher than the groups. Table 3 shows the OOS rates for While FMCSA has examined both
percentage of intermodal semitrailers carrier-owned and non-carrier-owned total violation rates and OOS rates, it is
with vehicle violations. In Louisiana, intermodal container chassis for the OOS rate FMCSA focuses on in this
the percentage of intermodal inspections performed in Texas. Table 3 proposed rule because that rate is based
semitrailers with vehicle violations was shows the total (or ‘‘all’’) vehicle on the most serious violations of the
15.2 percentage points higher than the violation rates for carrier-owned and FMCSRs. These violations are listed in
percentage of non-intermodal non-carrier-owned intermodal container the Commercial Vehicle Safety
semitrailers with vehicle violations. chassis for inspections performed in Alliance’s (CVSA) North American
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

However, FMCSA recognizes the Texas. Uniform Out-of-Service Criteria, a set of


limited number of Louisiana intermodal Table 3 shows that the non-carrier- enforcement tolerances used by Federal,
trailer inspections (only 76 inspections owned intermodal semitrailers (i.e., State, and Provincial agencies
compared to 1,982 inspections in South container semitrailers tendered by conducting commercial motor vehicle
Carolina, 2,032 inspections in Texas, equipment providers) had an OOS rate inspections in theUnited States, Canada,
and 33,523 inspections in California) on of 25.3 percent compared to an OOS rate and Mexico.
which to base this comparison. of 19.2 percent for the carrier-owned

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76805

TABLE 3.—OUT-OF-SERVICE (OOS) RATES OF CARRIER-OWNED AND NON-CARRIER-OWNED INTERMODAL SEMITRAILERS IN


TEXAS (2002)
Unit 2—Semitrailers

Non-carrier-owned (NCO) Carrier-owned (CO) intermodal Percent


State intermodal Difference in difference
OOS rates in OOS rates
Number of OOS rate Number of OOS rate (NCO–CO) (NCO–CO)/CO
inspections (percent) inspections (percent)

TX ............................................................. 1,865 25.3 167 19.2 6.1 31.8


Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors in-
volved. All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15–30).

TABLE 4.—TOTAL VIOLATION RATES OF CARRIER-OWNED AND NON-CARRIER-OWNED INTERMODAL SEMITRAILERS IN TEXAS
(2002)
Unit 2—Semitrailers

Non-carrier-owned (NCO) Carrier-owned (CO) intermodal


intermodal Percent
State Difference in difference in
violation rates
Vehicle Vehicle violation rates
Number of Number of (NCO–CO)
violation rate violation rate (NCO–CO)/CO
inspections inspections
(percent) (percent)

TX ............................................................. 1,865 55.7 167 57.5 ¥1.8 ¥3.1


Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors in-
volved. All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15–30).

The second phase of this analysis States conduct inspections of Table 5 shows the RoadCheck 2004
used data collected during roadside intermodal equipment, where possible inspection totals and out-of-service rates
inspections conducted during an and appropriate, as part of the focus of compared to the Four-State Analysis
intensive annual activity known as International RoadCheck 2004 inspections.
RoadCheck. FMCSA requested that (conducted beginning in June 2004).2

TABLE 5.—COMPARISON OF NON-INTERMODAL VS. INTERMODAL OUT-OF-SERVICE (OOS) RATES


Non-Intermodal Intermodal

Analysis OOS rate (percent) OOS rate (percent)


Number of Number of
inspections inspections
Tractors Semitrailers Tractors Semitrailers

RoadCheck Inspections ........................... 312,751 11.3 18.0 4,038 17.3 22.1


Four-State Inspections ............................. 1,114,029 13.7 14.7 37,615 16.4 18.3
Note: RoadCheck inspection data are cross-section data obtained from 38 States from June 1 through September 23, 2004, except for Cali-
fornia where data had been collected in June 1–23 only. Four-State inspection data were time-series data collected from 2000 through part of
2003 in four States—California, Texas, South Carolina, and Louisiana.

Table 5 shows that the OOS rates for that intermodal container chassis are ownership of intermodal container
intermodal equipment—both tractors more likely to be operated in an unsafe chassis at the time of the vehicle
and semitrailers—are consistently mechanical condition than non- inspection.3 Table 6 summarizes OOS
higher than the OOS rates for intermodal semi-trailers rates by container chassis ownership.
commercial motor vehicles hauling non- As part of RoadCheck 2004, FMCSA
intermodal semitrailers. This suggests also asked inspectors to identify the

TABLE 6.—INTERMODAL OUT-OF-SERVICE (OOS) RATE BY TYPE OF CHASSIS OWNERSHIP


Tractors Semitrailers/Chassis
Number of
Type of chassis owners Number Number
inspections OOS rate OOS rate
of OOS of OOS
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

(percent) (percent)
inspections inspections

Motor Carrier ........................................................................ 94 21 22.3 16 17.0


Leased ................................................................................. 191 45 23.6 54 28.3

2 Detailed analysis of the RoadCheck Inspection 3 Volpe Center, ‘‘Feasibility Study on Collecting

Data collected in MCMIS, included in the RIA, is Intermodal Chassis Crash and Inspection Data,’’
provided in Docket FMCSA–2005–23315. prepared for FMCSA, September 29, 2004.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76806 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 6.—INTERMODAL OUT-OF-SERVICE (OOS) RATE BY TYPE OF CHASSIS OWNERSHIP—Continued


Tractors Semitrailers/Chassis
Number of
Type of chassis owners Number Number
inspections OOS rate OOS rate
of OOS of OOS
(percent) (percent)
inspections inspections

Shipper ................................................................................. 167 41 24.6 33 19.8


Railroads .............................................................................. 68 21 30.9 20 29.4
Unknown .............................................................................. 150 17 11.3 47 31.3

Total .............................................................................. 670 145 21.6 170 25.4

While data in Table 6 are relatively container chassis are, as a group of were present when the driver picked up
limited, they do show that intermodal commercial vehicles, more likely to be the container chassis.
container chassis owned by motor in need of repairs than other types of Table 7 shows the most frequently
carriers have lower OOS rates than semitrailers, and that the defects and cited violations in the inspection
intermodal container chassis owned by deficiencies are more likely to be of the records of the four States’ data. The
all other non-motor carriers. type that are likely to cause a crash or most common violation was ‘‘Inoperable
While the total number of violations breakdown of the vehicle. Lamp (Other than Head/Tail),’’ which
cited per inspection for intermodal Roadside Inspection Violation Data accounted for 25.4 percent of all
container chassis may be comparable to Analysis violations. Combined with other lamp/
the total number of violations per light violations, they account for 34.0
inspection of non-intermodal All Intermodal Container Chassis percent of all violations. Tire-related
semitrailers, the data indicate the Violations violations account for 12.2 percent of all
defects or deficiencies observed on FMCSA examined the violations cited violations. Violations that can be readily
intermodal container chassis are likely during intermodal container chassis detected by the driver, including those
to be more severe than those noted on inspections to determine what specific that are lamp/light and tire-related,
non-intermodal semitrailers (or those problems were being found during the account for more than half of all the
violations resulting in vehicle OOS inspections and whether it is likely a violations cited for intermodal container
orders). Therefore, it appears intermodal driver could have detected them if they chassis.

TABLE 7.—DISTRIBUTION OF INTERMODAL SEMITRAILER VIOLATIONS (2000–2003)


Unit 2—Intermodal semitrailers

Violation Percent
Rank Count of total
Code Description

393.9 ............................................. Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail) 3 .................................................. 1 4,909 25.4
396.3(a)(1) ..................................... Inspection/Repair and Maintenance 2 ...................................................... 2 4,688 24.3
393.75(c) ....................................... Tire—Other tread depth less than 2⁄32 of inch 3 ...................................... 3 1,950 10.1
393.47 ........................................... Inadequate brake lining for safe stopping 2 ............................................. 4 1,315 6.8
393.11 ........................................... No/defective lighting devices/reflectors/projected 3 ................................. 5 885 4.6
393.100(e) ..................................... Improper securement of intermodal containers 3 ..................................... 6 593 3.1
396.3(a)(1)BA ................................ Brake—Out of adjustment 1 ..................................................................... 7 486 2.5
393.201(a) ..................................... Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose 3 ......................................................... 8 446 2.3
393.45(a)(4) ................................... Brake hose/tubing chafing and/or kinking 2 ............................................. 9 407 2.1
393.70 ........................................... Fifth wheel 3 ............................................................................................. 10 407 2.1
393.207(c) ..................................... Leaf spring assembly defective/missing 2 ................................................ 11 396 2.1
393.25(f) ........................................ Stop lamp violations 3 .............................................................................. 12 371 1.9
393.50 ........................................... Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum brakes 1 .......................................... 13 283 1.5
393.19 ........................................... No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required 3 ........................................... 14 245 1.3
393.75(a)(1) ................................... Tire—Ply or belt material exposed 3 ........................................................ 15 227 1.2
393.75(b) ....................................... Tire—Front tread depth less than 4⁄32 of inch 3 ....................................... 16 176 0.9
393.48(a) ....................................... Inoperative/defective brakes 1 .................................................................. 17 175 0.9
393.205(c) ..................................... Wheel fasteners loose and/or missing 3 .................................................. 18 159 0.8
393.9T ........................................... Inoperable tail lamp 3 ............................................................................... 19 152 0.8
396.17(c) ....................................... Operating a CMV without periodic inspection 3 ....................................... 20 120 0.6

Subtotal—Top 20 Violations .................................................................... ................ 18,390 95.3


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Other Violations ....................................................................................... ................ 905 4.7

Total—All Violations ................................................................................. ................ 19,295 100.0


1 Violation not readily detectable by driver.
2 Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
3 Violation generally detectable by driver.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76807

Violations involving defects or of inspections performed by that State. Texas, the second most frequently cited
deficiencies that drivers were unlikely However, significant differences were violations were brake-related issues.
to detect during a visual inspection evident in the types of violations cited The third most frequently cited
account for only 7 percent of all from State to State. As Table 8 shows, violations in Louisiana and South
violations on intermodal container the violation described as ‘‘Inspection/ Carolina were brake-related issues,
chassis in the four States. The remaining Repair and Maintenance’’ represented while for Texas it was ‘‘Improper
93 percent of violations are either items 31.0 percent of all violations cited in Securement of [an] Intermodal
the driver could have observed during a California. On the other hand, lamp
visual inspection of the container Container.’’ California’s violations were
problems were the predominant somewhat unique among the four States,
chassis, or are under further study by problems in all the other States,
FMCSA to determine the likelihood of as only three of their top ten violations
accounting for 47.5 percent of violations were items drivers could have detected
the driver being able to detect the defect in Texas, 45.7 percent in South
or deficiency. during a visual inspection of the
Carolina, and 57.8 percent in Louisiana. container chassis. It is possible that
Intermodal Container Chassis Violations The second most frequently cited violation code differences among the
by State violation in Louisiana and South States account for some of the
California dominates the results in the Carolina was the ‘‘Improper Securement variability in specific defects or
previous section because of the number of [an] Intermodal Container,’’ while for deficiencies listed.

TABLE 8.—INTERMODAL SEMITRAILER VIOLATIONS BY STATE (CA, LA, SC, AND TX) DURING 2000–2003
Unit 2—Intermodal semitrailer violations

Violation Percent of total violations in state

Code Description CA LA SC TX

393.9 ............................................ Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail) 3 ................................................ 30.3 19.7 24.2
396.3(a)(1) ................................... Inspection/Repair and Maintenance 2 .................................................... 31.0 ............ 3.6
393.75(c) ..................................... Tire—Other tread depth less than 2⁄32 of inch 3 .................................... 11.9 3.9 5.2 3.4
393.47 .......................................... Inadequate brake lining for safe stopping 2 ........................................... 8.7
393.11 .......................................... No/defective lighting devices/reflectors/projected 3 ............................... ............ 26.3 4.0 28.8
393.100(e) ................................... Improper securement of intermodal containers 3 .................................. ............ ............ 11.4 14.7
396.3(a)(1)BA .............................. Brake—Out of adjustment 1 ................................................................... 1.3 6.6 3.8 8.1
393.201(a) ................................... Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose 3 ....................................................... 3.0
393.45(a)(4) ................................. Brake hose/tubing chafing and/or kinking 2 ........................................... ............ 1.3 7.4 7.6
393.70 .......................................... Fifth wheel 1 ........................................................................................... 2.7
393.207(c) ................................... Leaf spring assembly defective/missing 2 .............................................. 2.6
393.25(f) ...................................... Stop lamp violations 3 ............................................................................ ............ 10.5 8.2 8.3
393.50 .......................................... Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum brakes 1 ....................................... 1.9
393.19 .......................................... No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required 3 ......................................... ............ ............ 4.0 6.5
393.75(a)(1) ................................. Tire—Ply or belt material exposed 3 ...................................................... 1.4
393.48(a) ..................................... Inoperative/defective brakes 1 ................................................................ ............ 1.3
393.205(c) ................................... Wheel fasteners loose and/or missing 3 ................................................ ............ 1.3
393.9T ......................................... Inoperable tail lamp 3 ............................................................................. ............ 1.3 5.3 2.3
396.17(c) ..................................... Operating a CMV without periodic inspection 3 ..................................... ............ 1.3 ............ 2.3
393.75(a) ..................................... Flat tire or fabric exposed 3 ................................................................... ............ 1.3
393.20 .......................................... No/improper mounting of clearance lamps 3 ......................................... ............ ............ ............ 1.6
393.102 ........................................ Improper securement system (tiedown assemblies) 3 ........................... ............ 21.1
393.207(a) ................................... Axle positioning parts defective/missing 2 ............................................. ............ 1.3
393.28 .......................................... Improper or no wiring protection as required 3 ...................................... ............ 2.6

Total—Top 10 Violations ....................................................................... 94.9 100.0 77.2 83.6

Other Violations ..................................................................................... 5.1 0.0 23.8 16.4

All Violations .......................................................................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


1 Violation not readily detectable by driver.
2 Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
3 Violation generally detectable by driver.

Vehicle Out-of-Service Violations by California, ‘‘Inoperable Lamp (Other one that could readily be detected by
State than Head/Tail),’’ a violation a driver the driver; namely, proper securement
could easily discover, accounted for of containers and loads. Specifically,
Table 9 shows the top ten OOS almost 49 percent of the OOS violations these violations accounted for 61.5
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

violations for intermodal semitrailers in in the State, and ‘‘Inspection/Repair and percent of Louisiana violations, 33.3
the four States. Similar to all violations Maintenance,’’ a violation that the percent of South Carolina violations,
in the previous section, the most driver would be less likely to discover, and 40.0 percent of Texas violations.
frequently cited OOS violations were accounted for almost 22 percent of the The second most frequently cited type
readily detectable by the driver, but the OOS violations. of violation in these three States was
patterns of individual violations In the other three States, the most also readily detectable by the driver:
differed among the four States. In frequently cited type of OOS violation is Lamp-related violations. In these three

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76808 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

States, lamp-related violations ten California violations. During a windshields, and not necessarily
accounted for 26.9 percent of Louisiana January 2004 field trip to the Los improperly secured containers and
violations, 46.5 percent of South Angeles area,4 FMCSA staff and Volpe loads. Further investigation is required
Carolina violations, and 38.9 percent of researchers determined California to determine why container securement
Texas violations. inspectors use the ‘‘Inspection/Repair is not identified as a separate issue in
Problems with securing containers and Maintenance’’ violation to cover California, as it is in the other States.
and loads are not evident among the top miscellaneous items, such as cracked

TABLE 9.—INTERMODAL SEMITRAILER OOS VIOLATIONS IN CA, LA, SC, AND TX DURING 2000–2003
Unit 2—Intermodal semitrailer OOS violations

Violation Percent of total violations in state

Code Description CA LA SC TX

393.9 .......................... Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail) 3 .......... 48.8 7.7 22.2
396.3(a)(1) ................. Inspection/Repair and Maintenance 2 .............. 21.8 .......................... 2.2 1.0
393.75(c) .................... Tire—Other tread depth less than 2⁄32 of 9.9 .......................... .......................... 1.1
inch 3.
393.47 ........................ Inadequate brake lining for safe stopping 2 ..... 6.1
393.11 ........................ No/defective lighting devices/reflectors/pro- .......................... 11.5
jected 3.
393.100(e) .................. Improper securement of intermodal con- .......................... .......................... 28.3 39.0
tainers 3.
396.3(a)(1)BA ............ Brake—Out of adjustment 1 ............................. 1.4 3.8 1.9 6.8
393.201(a) .................. Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose 3 ................. 1.8
393.70 ........................ Fifth wheel 1 ..................................................... 2.7
393.207(c) .................. Leaf spring assembly defective/missing 2 ....... 3.0
393.25(f) ..................... Stop lamp violations 3 ...................................... .......................... 7.7 12.4 16.5
393.50 ........................ Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum brakes 1 0.9
393.19 ........................ No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required 3 ... .......................... .......................... 7.9 20.8
393.75(a)(1) ............... Tire—Ply or belt material exposed 3 ................ 1.0
393.48(a) .................... Inoperative/defective brakes 3 ......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 1.9
393.9T ........................ Inoperable tail lamp 3 ....................................... .......................... .......................... 4.0 1.6
393.75(a) .................... Flat tire or fabric exposed 3 ............................. .......................... 3.8 1.9 1.0
393.100 ...................... No or improper load securement 3 .................. .......................... .......................... 5.0 1.0
393.75(a)(3) ............... Tire—Flat and/or audible air leak 3 .................. .......................... .......................... 2.4 3.1
393.102 ...................... Improper securement system (tiedown as- .......................... 61.5
semblies) 3.
393.207(b) .................. Adjustable axle locking pin missing/dis- .......................... .......................... .......................... 1.0
engaged 3.
393.207(a) .................. Axle positioning parts defective/missing 2 ....... .......................... 3.8

Total—Top 10 OOS Violations .................... 96.5 100.0 88.1 94.7

Other Violations ............................................... 3.5 0.0 11.9 5.3


All Violations .................................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1 Violation not readily detectable by driver.
2 Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
3 Violation generally detectable by driver.

Table 10 contains results from ‘‘Brakes out of adjustment,’’ which violations, while light-related violations
FMCSA’s analysis of inspection of accounts for 15.3 percent of all accounted for 31.4 percent of the total.
intermodal container chassis during violations. ‘‘Inoperable lamp’’ was Load securement violations accounted
RoadCheck 2004. RoadCheck 2004 second, accounting for 11.6 of all OOS for 18.6% of all violations, while tire-
inspection analysis found that the most violations. Brake-related violations related violations accounted for 7.5
frequently cited OOS violation was accounted for 35.3 percent of all OOS percent of all violations.

TABLE 10.—OOS VIOLATIONS IN INSPECTIONS OF INTERMODAL CHASSIS ROADCHECK 2004 ANALYSIS


Unit 2—Semitrailers

Violation Percent of
Rank Count total
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Code Description

396 3A1BA ............................ Brake—Out of adjustment 1 ..................................................... 1 41 15.3


393 9 ..................................... Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail) 3 ................................... 2 31 11.6
393 19 ................................... Failing to Equip Vehicle with Operative Turn Signal(s) 3 ......... 3 30 11.2
393 48(a) ............................... Failing to Equip Vehicle with Operative Brakes 1 .................... 4 25 9.3

4 Volpe Center and FMCSA representatives CA, guided by members of the California Highway
visited the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Patrol from January 21–22, 2004.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76809

TABLE 10.—OOS VIOLATIONS IN INSPECTIONS OF INTERMODAL CHASSIS ROADCHECK 2004 ANALYSIS—Continued


Unit 2—Semitrailers

Violation Percent of
Rank Count total
Code Description

393 100(e) ............................. Improper Securement of Intermodal Containers 3 ................... 5 25 9.3


393 126 ................................. No/improper intermodal container securement 3 ...................... 6 25 9.3
396 3A1B .............................. Brakes (General) 2 .................................................................... 7 21 7.8
393 25(f) ................................ Stop Lamp Violations 3 ............................................................. 8 20 7.5
396 3(a)(1) ............................ Failing to inspect vehicle for safe operation 2 .......................... 9 8 3.0
393 75(a)(3) .......................... Tire—Flat and/or audible air leak 3 .......................................... 10 5 1.9
393 47 ................................... Inadequate/Contaminated Brake Linings 2 ............................... 11 4 1.5
393 75(a) ............................... Operating with tires having fabric or cords exposed 3 ............. 12 4 1.5
393 75(a)(1) .......................... Tire—Ply or belt material exposed 3 ........................................ 13 4 1.5
393 75(f) ................................ Tire—Load Weight rating/under inflated 3 ................................ 14 4 1.5
393 75(a)(4) .......................... Tire—Cut Exposing ply and/or belt material 3 .......................... 15 3 1.1
393 9T ................................... Inoperable tail lamp 3 ............................................................... 16 3 1.1
396 3A1BL ............................ Brake-reserve system pressure loss 3 ..................................... 17 2 0.7
393 207(a) ............................. Operating Vehicle with Defective/Misaligned Axle or Axle 18 2 0.7
parts 1.
393 50 ................................... Inadequate Reservoir for Air/Vacuum Brakes 1 ....................... 19 2 0.7
393 207(b) ............................. Operating Vehicle with Adj. Axle Assy. With locking Pin De- 20 2 0.7
fects 3.

Subtotal—Top 20 Violations .................................................... ........................ 261 97.4

Total Vehicle Violations on Level 1, 2, 5 Inspections .............. ........................ 268 100.0


1 Violation not readily detectable by driver.
2 Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
3 Violation generally detectable by driver.

National Inspection Data—Violations for number of motor carriers is greater than motor carriers engaged in intermodal
Calendar Year 2003 685,000. However, FMCSA analysts operations combined with some other
believe the number of truly ‘‘active’’ type of operation(s) was 15 percent. The
In addition to examining roadside motor carriers is probably less than semitrailer OOS rate for all motor
inspection data from California, 500,000 (i.e., those currently moving carriers was 13 percent.
Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas, freight or passengers, operating under
FMCSA reviewed inspection results for The nationwide data from FMCSA’s
their own authority and with required
motor carriers that identified themselves MCMIS suggest the mechanical
filings on record with FMCSA).
on the Motor Carrier Identification Table 11 data show a small difference condition of intermodal container
Report (Form MCS–150) as engaged in (2 percent) between the OOS rate for chassis operated by the motor carriers
intermodal operations only, and those semitrailers being transported by motor typically selected for roadside
engaged in intermodal operations as one carriers in all types of operations and inspections is significantly worse than
of their primary operations. The data for semitrailers being transported by motor the semitrailers operated by motor
these categories of carriers was carriers involved in both intermodal and carriers in all types of operations.
compared with data for all motor non-intermodal operations. However, Although there are huge differences in
carriers. there is a significant difference between the population size of intermodal-only
There are 641 motor carriers that the semitrailer OOS rates for motor motor carriers versus all motor carriers,
indicate the only type of activity they carriers engaged exclusively in and the total number of vehicle
engage in is intermodal operations. intermodal operations versus those with inspections conducted on intermodal-
There are 12,032 motor carriers that combined operations and all motor only carriers versus all other motor
include the intermodal operations entry carriers. The semitrailer OOS rate for carriers, FMCSA cannot ignore the
as one of the types of transportation intermodal-only operations was 25 disparity in the condition of the
activity they engage in. The total percent. The semitrailer OOS rate for vehicles.

TABLE 11.— OUT-OF-SERVICE (OOS) RATES OF ALL AND INTERMODAL-ONLY CARRIERS; DATA FROM THE MOTOR
CARRIER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (MCMIS) CY–2003
No. of vehicle inspections with Percent OOS rate
Number of 1 or more OOS violations
vehicle
Commodity segment
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

inspections Unit 1 Unit 2


Unit 1 Unit 2
CY2003 (tractor) (semitrailer)
(tractor) (semitrailer)

Intermodal Only (n=641) .............................................................. 2,894 519 725 18 25


Intermodal + Other (n=12,032) .................................................... 145,377 15,963 22,428 11 15
All Motor Carriers (n=>500,000) .................................................. 1,476,245 135,000 186,073 9 13
Source: Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), MCMIS Staff, Run Date—April 29, 2004.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76810 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

FMCSA’s Analysis of the Data conducted for FMCSA using the FMCSA motor carriers that included intermodal
FMCSA believes the data suggest that Roadside Intervention Model, estimated cargo as one of the cargo types they may
the percentage of intermodal container that 55.6 percent of all the CMV crashes carry.
avoided as a result of roadside Given that, according to the IANA
chassis being operated in unsafe
interventions (i.e., roadside inspections database, about 5,500 motor carriers are
mechanical condition is likely to be
and traffic enforcement stops) in 2003 signatories of UIIA, this analysis
greater than the percentage of non-
were attributable to the vehicle assumes that about 46 percent of the
intermodal semitrailers in unsafe
violations found at the time of the 12,032 motor carriers in MCMIS, or
operating condition, based on the
inspection. More recent study has about 5,600 motor carriers, are engaged
inspection data obtained from CA, LA,
highlighted the role of the driver among in intermodal cargo container
SC, and TX as part of the Four-State
crash-related factors. It is clear, though, operations as a primary operation. Only
Analysis and the inspection data
that attention to equipment condition some of these carriers own or otherwise
analyzed as part of the RoadCheck 2004
yields safety benefits. In addition to our control (i.e., lease) intermodal container
safety data analysis. While the number
continued focus on the driver, FMCSA chassis or trailers. In response to
of violations cited per inspection for FMCSA’s survey questionnaire
believes that action should be taken to
intermodal container chassis may be regarding operational characteristics of
reduce, to the greatest extent
comparable to the number of violations intermodal tractor-trailers, three out of
practicable, potential future crashes
per inspection of non-intermodal nine motor carriers (or one-third),
caused by the mechanical condition of
semitrailers, the data indicate the suggested that they owned, leased, or
the intermodal container chassis. This
defects or deficiencies observed on otherwise controlled intermodal
rulemaking would also ensure that
intermodal container chassis are likely intermodal container chassis meet the container chassis for extended periods
to be more severe than those noted on same level of safety as other semitrailers of time (i.e., beyond one trip). Therefore,
non-intermodal semitrailers. Thus, it operated in interstate commerce. FMCSA assumes that one-third of the
appears intermodal container chassis 5,600 motor carriers engaged in
are, as a group of commercial vehicles, IV. Estimated Number of Equipment
intermodal cargo container operations,
more likely to be in need of repairs than Providers and Intermodal Container
or about 1,900 motor carriers, actually
other types of semitrailers. Chassis
own or lease/control intermodal
Container chassis, as a vehicle type, Equipment Providers container chassis.
should not be considered inherently It is difficult to obtain precise
unsafe. Data from Texas concerning Container chassis are specialized
truck trailers with twist locks. An estimates of the size and scope of
inspection results segregated by national intermodal container chassis
ownership suggest that container intermodal container chassis is a
reusable asset of its owner. The chassis operations. There is no census or
chassis controlled by motor carriers are database of intermodal container chassis
better maintained than container chassis can belong to virtually any participant
in the transportation or logistics chain: providers that is comparable to
offered by IEPs to motor carriers. FMCSA’s MCMIS Census File of motor
FMCSA’s primary safety concern is with (1) Carriers, including ocean shipping
lines, railroads, and trucking carriers, which provides not only the
the container chassis offered by IEPs, name and location of each motor carrier,
because the agency’s research indicates companies; (2) equipment leasing
companies; and (3) shippers. FMCSA but also its size, as measured by the
that these chassis do not appear to be number of power units. Therefore, the
covered by inspection, repair, and estimates that there are 108 non-motor-
carrier intermodal equipment providers, number of IEPs has been estimated
maintenance programs comparable to using a combination of MCMIS, IANA,
those of motor carriers that control their consisting of 93 steamship lines, 5
railroads, and 10 container chassis pool and ATA reports, as well as information
own intermodal equipment, or motor obtained from port authority and
carriers responsible for maintaining operators.5
According to the Intermodal railroad Web sites. However, FMCSA
other types of semitrailers. believes that the 1,900 motor carriers
While there is very limited Association of North America (IANA),
there are 5,500 motor carriers and 65 that own intermodal container chassis
information to determine the extent to are already subject to systematic
IEPs that are signatories to the Uniform
which the mechanical condition of maintenance requirements and would
Intermodal Interchange and Facilities
intermodal container chassis may not incur any additional cost burden
Access Agreement (UIIA), representing
contribute to crashes, the data suggest due to the proposed rule.
approximately 90 percent of the
that it is more likely than not that
intermodal movements.6 Furthermore, Intermodal Container Chassis
current maintenance practices of many
MCMIS contains information on the Population
IEPs do not ensure container chassis are
motor carriers that identify themselves
in safe and proper operating condition Information on the number of
on the Motor Carrier Identification
at all times on the highways. Further, intermodal container chassis owned by
Report (FMCSA Form MCS–150) as
the types of defects or deficiencies the various equipment owners/
engaging in intermodal operations only,
found on such container chassis during as well as those that include intermodal providers was as difficult to obtain as
roadside inspections are often so severe operations as one of their primary the number of intermodal container
the vehicle must be placed OOS. It must operations, and all other motor carriers. chassis providers. Based on articles in
be acknowledged, however, that a very As stated previously, the MCMIS the motor carrier trade press, FMCSA
high percentage of these violations database indicates there are 12,032 estimates that there are between 750,000
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

could have been detected by drivers, and 800,000 container chassis in


had they made—or had the opportunity 5 The number of equipment providers is service. According to the Institute of
to make—an adequate visual inspection estimated from information in the Containerization International Container Lessors (IICL)
before leaving the intermodal facility. International Yearbook 2004 for 99 port terminals Annual Chassis Fleet Survey,7 IICL
Regardless of the lack of crash data on in the United States. The number of steamship lines
is estimated from the direct call liner services at the members owned approximately 320,000
a national level, the information terminal level.
reviewed to date is cause for concern. 6 http://www.intermodal.org/Assn 7 http://www.iicl.org/PDF%20Docs/

The Volpe Center, in a 2004 analysis Initiatives.html. 16thFleetSurveyChassis.pdf.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76811

container chassis in 2004. According to container chassis in operation in the reported 281,100 intermodal container
the IICL, member companies own United States. chassis are owned by the motor carriers.
almost 40 percent of the world’s Through its surveys of intermodal Therefore, based on the reported average
container chassis, as well as own and equipment providers, FMCSA obtained fleet size of 22 intermodal container
lease a high percentage of the U.S. information on about 281,100 chassis per motor carrier, FMCSA
container chassis fleet.8 To be intermodal container chassis, or roughly believes that the estimated 1,900 motor
conservative, FMCSA estimates that 53 percent of the total number of carriers that own chassis have
there are approximately 850,000 intermodal container chassis owned by approximately 41,800 intermodal
intermodal container chassis currently members of the Ocean Carrier container chassis. FMCSA then
in operation in the United States. Equipment Management Association estimates that 80 percent of the rest of
(OCEMA), Association of American the intermodal container chassis (that is,
Based on the IICL data on intermodal Railroads (AAR), and American the 488,200 container chassis that are
container chassis, FMCSA assumes the Trucking Associations.9 Based on the not owned by either equipment lessors
estimated 10 container chassis pool information from the three industry or motor carriers), or approximately
operators control about 38 percent, or associations, about 80 percent of the 392,000 intermodal container chassis,
320,000 container chassis. Therefore, reported 281,100 intermodal container are owned by the steamship lines and
this NPRM assumes that steamship chassis are owned by the steamship approximately 96,200 are owned by the
lines, railroads, and motor carriers lines, 20 percent are owned by railroads, railroads. Table 12 shows the estimated
currently own about 530,000 intermodal and less than 0.02 percent of the number of container chassis by owner.

TABLE 12.—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF INTERMODAL CHASSIS BY OWNER


Estimated Estimated
number of
Description of entities number of
affected chassis
entities

Steamship Lines ...................................................................................................................................................... 93 392,000


Railroads .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 96,200
Common-pool Operators/Equipment Lessors ......................................................................................................... 10 320,000
Motor Carriers .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,900 41,800

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,008 850,000

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices crashes, this proposal would also help oversight of their equipment throughout
to ensure that CMV operations are safer, the year. Therefore, the explicit
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
thus reducing the deleterious effect on inclusion of the IEP in § 396.3 of the
Planning and Review and DOT
drivers addressed in section 31136(a)(4). FMCSRs would make them responsible
Regulatory Policies and Procedures)
Given the cost results contained in the for compliance with the requirements of
FMCSA has determined that this next section, Estimate of the applicable statutes and the
rulemaking action is a significant Compliance Costs for Intermodal corresponding regulations.
regulatory action under Executive Order Equipment Providers, FMCSA
The proposed amendments to the
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, anticipates this rule would not have a
FMCSRs would explicitly require IEPs
and significant under DOT regulatory significant economic impact on IEPs.
to ensure the equipment they tender to
policies and procedures because of Periodic (annual) inspection is
motor carriers and drivers complies
substantial public and Congressional required for every commercial motor
with the safety requirements in place for
interest concerning the maintenance vehicle in accordance with current
other types of trailers operated in
and roadability of intermodal container § 396.17.10 Periodic inspection is
chassis and the responsibilities of intended to complement and be interstate commerce. For those
intermodal equipment providers (IEPs). consistent with the more stringent equipment providers that have in place
However, it has been estimated that the § 393.3 (systematic) inspection, repair, systematic inspection, repair, and
economic impact of this proposed rule and maintenance (IRM) requirements maintenance programs, including
would not exceed the annual $100 proposed in the NPRM. Currently, most providing the opportunity for CMV
million threshold for economic intermodal container chassis undergo a drivers to assess the safe operating
significance. OMB has reviewed this periodic (annual) inspection. Although condition of intermodal container
proposed rule. Improved maintenance is existing rules requiring the periodic chassis before taking them on the
expected to result in fewer out-of- inspection do not apply directly to IEPs, highway and repairing or replacing
service (OOS) orders and highway as a business practice IEPs perform the equipment found to have deficiencies,
breakdowns involving intermodal inspection to ensure motor carriers will this proposed rulemaking would impose
chassis and improved efficiency of the accept the chassis. However, many IEPs minimal additional costs. Equipment
Nation’s intermodal transportation do not appear to have in place the providers that do not have such
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

system. To the extent inadequately systematic inspection, repair and systematic programs in place would
maintained intermodal chassis are maintenance programs (49 CFR 396.3) incur the costs of establishing and
responsible for, or contribute to, that provide continuous, on-going maintaining the programs.
8 http://www.iicl.org/members.htm. variety of questions regarding chassis ownership for a tractor semitrailer, full trailer combination, the
9 For the 3 industry associations, seven out of 18 and operations. tractor, semitrailer, and the full trailer (including
major ocean common carriers, three out of 5 10 The term ‘‘commerical motor vehicle’’ includes the converter dolly if so equipped) must each be
railroads, and 9 motor carriers responded to a each unit in a combination vehicle. For example, inspected.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:42 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76812 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

The proposed regulations also address Estimated Compliance Costs for provider to register with FMCSA (if it
a program for FMCSA to evaluate and Intermodal Equipment Providers has not already done so) and to obtain
audit the compliance of IEPs with those Potential costs considered as a result a USDOT number or other unique
sections of the FMCSRs applicable to of this proposed rule include the identification number by submitting an
them. If FMCSA finds evidence that an following: Intermodal Equipment Provider
IEP is not complying with the • Filing Intermodal Equipment Identification Report, Form MCS–150C,
regulations concerning intermodal Provider Identification Report (Form to FMCSA. Additionally, each entity
equipment safety, the proposed must file an update to its initial MCS–
MCS–150C);
regulations would allow FMCSA to take 150C filing at least every 24 months.
• Displaying a unique USDOT
appropriate action to bring about FMCSA estimates that 108 entities (93
number or other identification number
compliance with the regulation. steamship lines, 5 railroads, and 10
on each chassis;
common pool operator/equipment
The proposed rule would have some • Establishing a systematic inspection
lessors) will need to submit Forms
impact upon the responsibilities of program, and a repair and maintenance
MCS–150C.
drivers and motor carriers. Motor program to ensure the safe operating Form MCS–150C would be a single-
carriers would continue to bear condition of each chassis; page form that includes questions about
responsibility for the safe operation of • Maintaining documentation of the basic information, e.g., name, address,
equipment in their control on the inspection program; and telephone number, numbers and types
highways and for the systematic IRM of • Establishing a reporting system for of equipment, etc. FMCSA estimates it
all motor vehicles, including intermodal defective and deficient equipment. would take 20 minutes to complete
equipment, under their control for 30 When considering costs of the Form MCS–150C the first time that it is
days or more. Drivers would continue to proposed rule, it should be recognized filed.11
be responsible for assessing the safe that some of those costs are already According to national employment
operating condition of the CMVs they being incurred by the industry. As and wage data from the Occupational
will drive (§ 392.7 and § 396.13), and to mentioned previously, periodic Employment Statistics survey published
inspections of intermodal equipment by by the Department of Labor, Bureau of
note and report on defects or
those controlling that equipment Labor Statistics, a first line supervisor/
deficiencies that could affect the CMV’s
(§ 396.17(c)) are apparently being manager in a transportation and
safety of operation or result in a
performed at least once every 12 material moving occupation (those
mechanical breakdown (§ 396.11). IEPs
months, as required. Additionally, as FMCSA believes will be filling out Form
would need to acknowledge receiving
presented later in the discussion of MCS–150C) earned a median hourly
that information, and must either repair inspection, repair and maintenance
the equipment or provide a replacement wage of about $21.08. Total
costs, surveys of steamship lines and compensation for a supervisor/manager
chassis. However, IEPs and their agents railroads that are also IEPs indicate that
may also request FMCSA to undertake responsible for filing a Form MCS–150C
at least some of those equipment is estimated at $30.79, of which $21.08
an investigation of a motor carrier that providers are engaging in regular repair
is alleged to not be in compliance with is the wage and salary and $9.71 is the
and preventative maintenance, as well benefit.
regulations issued under the authority as in various inspection activities. This evaluation estimates that IEPs
of 49 U.S.C. 31151. Furthermore, information from motor would incur a one-time cost of
Excluding potential costs associated carriers indicates that some are approximately $10.27 per entity (1⁄3
with systematic IRM (§ 396.3) currently doing limited repair and hour times $30.79), or about $1,110
requirements, FMCSA estimates maintenance on the chassis that are ($10.27 × 108 = $1,109.16) for the
equipment providers’ costs to comply tendered by IEPs to them. Therefore, the industry to prepare and submit MCS–
with the proposed information costs of this rule are lower than they 150Cs to FMCSA. As mandated in
collection and recordkeeping would be if IEPs were not performing section 217 of the Motor Carrier Safety
requirements would be modest, because any inspections, repairs, or Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA), Pub.
the requirements would be limited in maintenance. L. 106–159, 113 Stat. 1748, at 1767
scope (filing the Identification Form Total first-year costs associated with (December 9, 1999), the MCS–150 need
MCS–150C, marking intermodal this proposed rule range from $28 to $41 not be updated more frequently than
equipment with the provider’s USDOT million, depending on equipment every two years. FMCSA estimates the
number or other identifying number providers’ current inspection, biennial update would take
unique to that provider, and complying maintenance, and repair programs for considerably less time than the original
with recordkeeping requirements their chassis. Total discounted costs submission, because most of the
associated with equipment inspection, over the 10-year analysis period range information is likely to be the same, and
repair, and maintenance). from $147 to $242 million, using a equipment providers would already
seven percent discount rate. have had the experience of completing
The economic benefits of this rule are
A copy of FMCSA’s preliminary the form at least once before. For
estimated to include (1) safety benefits
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) is purposes of this analysis, the biennial
from avoiding crashes involving
included in this rulemaking docket. update is estimated to take 10
intermodal equipment, and (2)
minutes.12 In addition to the one-time
efficiency benefits resulting from a Filing Intermodal Equipment Provider
filing cost, IEPs would also incur a
reduction in vehicle OOS orders on Identification Report (MCS–150C)
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

recurrent charge of $5.13 per entity


intermodal chassis, wait times for Currently, a motor carrier is required
truckers to receive chassis, and other to file a Motor Carrier Information 11 FMCSA, Motor Carrier Identification Report, 65
changes in chassis operations that Report (Form MCS–150) with FMCSA FR 70509, November 24, 2000.
improve productivity. before it begins to operate in interstate 12 The estimated time requirements for chassis

owners and providers to fill out an MCS–150C for


The sections below provide details on commerce and to file an update of the the first time and biennially are consistent with
the estimated costs and benefits of this report every 24 months. The proposed FMCSA’s estimate of the time it takes motor carriers
proposed rule. rule would require each equipment to fill out an MCS–150.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76813

biennially. Table 13 summarizes the filing the biennial update every two associated with this aspect of the
estimated first-year costs of initially years. Note that motor carriers already proposed rule.
filing a MCS–150C form with FMCSA, are required to file Form MCS–150, so
as well as subsequent costs incurred they would not incur any new costs

TABLE 13.—COSTS OF FILING THE INTERMODAL EQUIPMENT PROVIDER IDENTIFICATION REPORT (FORM MCS–150C)
Additional costs due to the
NPRM
Number of Existing
Provider entities costs Initial Total
(1st-year) recurring costs
costs (years 2–10)*

Steamship Lines ................................................................................................. 93 None ........... $955 $1,618


Railroads ............................................................................................................ 5 None ........... 52 88
Common-pool Operators .................................................................................... 10 None ........... 103 173
Motor Carriers .................................................................................................... 1,900 19,502 ......... 0 0

Total ............................................................................................................ 2,008 19,502 ......... 1,110 1,880


* Net present value over a 10-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.

Displaying a USDOT Number or Other unit, while marking for IEPs with more identification number is about $11 (after
Unique Identification Number on Each than 20 units in their fleet is estimated rounding). First-year costs would equal
Container Chassis at approximately $10 per vehicle. The $8.9 million to mark all container
The proposed rule would require all material cost decreases to approximately chassis operating in the United States.
IEPs who tender such equipment to $2.50 per vehicle for a fleet of more than Subsequently, every year thereafter, a
motor carriers to mark their container 1,000 units. The chassis marking costs portion of the chassis will be retired and
chassis with a unique USDOT number would impact only those equipment replaced by new chassis, each of which
that is assigned to those filing the MCS– providers of intermodal container will need to be marked. FMCSA
150C, or another number unique to that chassis who tender such equipment to estimates that the operational life of a
entity. FMCSA does not mandate a other parties. This NPRM assumes the chassis is 14 years on average.
particular method of vehicle material costs associated with marking Consequently, for the purposes of this
identification; thus, the costs associated of intermodal container chassis would analysis, it is assumed that 1⁄14th of the
with this proposal would vary average approximately $6.25 per chassis fleet is retired and replaced
depending on the method used to mark container chassis.13 annually. Total recurring costs (in years
the container chassis with the required FMCSA estimates that the average
two through 10 of the analysis period)
type of marking (i.e., USDOT number time to affix a USDOT number or other
equals $3.9 million, with total 10-year
versus an alternative identifier). FMCSA unique identification number would be
chassis marking costs estimated at $12.8
believes that the vast majority of IEPs about 12 minutes. According to national
million (after rounding). Table 14
would use either stencils or decals for employment and wage data from the
Occupational Employment Statistics illustrates the estimated number of
marking, because these are the cheapest
survey, the median hourly wage rate for container chassis and costs of marking.
methods. This assumption and the
a painter of transportation equipment is The cost estimates assume the
following assumptions on time and
material requirements for container $16.39. Incorporating a 31.5 percent identification number would be applied
chassis marking are consistent with benefits package yields a total hourly with a stencil and spray paint. If the
FMCSA’s Final Rulemaking analysis for compensation rate of $21.55. Assuming identification number were to be
Commercial Motor Vehicle Marking 12 minutes per marking, the labor cost applied using decals, recurring costs
published in the Federal Register on to mark each intermodal container may be somewhat higher to account for
June 2, 2000, at 65 FR 35287. FMCSA chassis is estimated to be roughly $4 per replacement of decals that loosen over
has estimated that material costs for container chassis after rounding. time. Note that motor carriers are
marking a container chassis with a Combining the above estimates for assumed to incur no costs associated
USDOT number or other unique material and labor, FMCSA estimates with the chassis marking requirements,
identification number decrease with that the total costs to mark one because it is believed that generally they
increasing fleet size; that is, marking for intermodal container chassis with a do not tender chassis to other parties for
smaller fleets is estimated at $20 per USDOT number or other unique drayage.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

13 The $6.25 estimate is the average of $2.50 and acknowledges that the estimated container chassis
$10.00. We assume that there would be a negligible marking cost of $6.25 per container chassis is
number of equipment providers owning fewer than conservative and probably over-estimates the costs
6 chassis. Therefore, the highest material cost, $20 of compliance.
per unit, was not used in this analysis. FMCSA

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76814 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 14.—ESTIMATED COST OF CHASSIS MARKING


Additional costs due to
the NPRM
Total
number of Existing Total for
Owner type Entities chassis costs recurring
controlled 14 Initial costs costs
(years 2–
10)*

Steamship Lines ........................................................................................ 93 392,000 None ........ $4,327,680 $1,882,232


Railroads .................................................................................................... 5 96,200 .................. 1,062,048 461,886
Common-pool Operators ........................................................................... 10 320,000 .................. 3,532,800 1,536,507
Motor Carriers ............................................................................................ 1,900 41,800 .................. 0 0

Total .................................................................................................... 2,008 850,000 $0 ............ 8,922,528 3,880,625


* Net present value over a 10-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.

Establishing a Systematic Inspection, inspections, or provide inspection full compliance is conservative because
Repair, and Maintenance (IRM) Program criteria. it helps ensure that FMCSA does not
Periodic inspections. Current Frequency of inspection. As regards underestimate the economic costs of
regulations (49 CFR 396.17) require estimating costs of making the this proposed rule.
motor carriers or their agents to conduct systematic inspection, maintenance, and Because the regulatory impact
periodic (annual) inspections of their repair requirements applicable to analysis (RIA) must quantify the number
equipment. With regard to intermodal intermodal equipment providers, of additional inspections to be
chassis, these inspections appear to be FMCSA first attempted to determine conducted each year as a result of this
conducted for the most part by IEPs. As whether the equipment providers had proposed rule, FMCSA estimates about
a result of research conducted prior to maintenance or repair programs that one a year is conducted by IEPs now,
this rulemaking (i.e., surveys, port could satisfy some or all of the proposed but four are needed for a reasonable
visits, roadside inspections), FMCSA § 396.3 requirements. Responses from systematic inspection, repair and
concluded that the IEPs did in fact the survey of steamship lines indicated maintenance program. We estimate that,
appear to be conducting the vast that the seven entities queried were on average, three additional inspections
majority of inspections that would fully complying with existing would be required for that portion of the
satisfy § 396.17 requirements regarding systematic inspection, maintenance, and non-motor carrier owned or controlled
periodic (annual) inspections of the repair regulations. However, anecdotal intermodal chassis currently in
chassis. As such, FMCSA believes there information obtained from port visits operation (even though the proposed
would be no new costs to equipment and participation in roadside rule sets no explicit requirements on the
providers or motor carriers for periodic inspections of intermodal chassis by number of inspections per chassis under
(annual) inspections of intermodal FMCSA analysts indicated otherwise. a systematic IRM program). FMCSA
chassis because of this proposed rule. Because SAFETEA–LU explicitly believes that a minimally-compliant IEP
Systematic inspections. In addition to requires intermodal equipment could fulfill the requirements of this
the periodic (annual) inspection providers to comply with the systematic proposal. For the purposes of estimating
regulations (396.17), § 396.3 requires inspection, repair, and maintenance costs for the RIA, this assumption
every motor carrier or their agent to requirements of § 396.3, the relevant would effectively amount to a quarterly
systematically inspect, repair, and question then becomes whether there inspection program for the chassis
maintain, or cause to be systematically are any new costs associated with this owned or controlled by IEPs.
inspected, repaired, and maintained, all aspect of the proposed rule. Motor Regarding the number of chassis being
motor vehicles subject to its control. carriers were already directly subject to maintained in a manner consistent with
The parts and accessories are required these requirements, and this proposed the regulations, FMCSA estimates
to be in safe and proper operating rule would simply ensure the transfer of between 25 and 50 percent of the
condition at all times. These parts and this responsibility to non-motor carrier existing intermodal chassis population
accessories include those specified in IEPs. are currently not being properly
Part 393 and any additional parts and As a result of its investigation, maintained.15 Two estimates are chosen
accessories that may affect the safety of FMCSA concluded that there was a here due to the uncertainty associated
operation, including but not limited to significant probability that full with current systematic maintenance
frame and frame assemblies, suspension compliance was not being achieved practices. FMCSA estimates that each
systems, axles and attaching parts, with the existing regulations. IEPs, as a chassis that is not currently maintained
wheels and rims, and steering systems. customary business practice, do not would receive three additional
However, the proposed rule now would provide systematic inspection, repair inspections each year on average as part
explicitly require IEPs to comply with and maintenance programs. of systematic IRM programs
the systematic inspection, repair, and implemented or modified as a result of
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Consequently, for the purpose of


maintenance requirements of § 396.3. estimating the economic costs of this this proposed rule. Conversely, it is
These requirements do not provide proposed rule, FMCSA assumes that estimated that the remainder, or 50 to 75
specific intervals for the routine non-motor carrier IEPs would in fact be percent of all chassis currently in use,
14 This term ‘‘controlled’’ is loosely defined here
required to undertake new costs because 15 This percent is based on the agency’s analyses

as those chassis owned or leased (long term) by the


of this rulemaking. Whether or not this of the AAR and OCEMA responses to its surveys,
entity and for which they have responsibility or accurately represents the current as well as from information gathered from our port
decision-making authority over maintenance. situation, our assumption of less than visits.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76815

are already provided at least four some systematic IRM programs might regulations (requiring no additional
complete inspections per year and need to be expanded in order to bring inspections per year), while the other 50
therefore, would not require any the programs into full compliance with percent are assumed to require three
additional inspections as a result of this the proposed requirements. For the most additional inspections per year (where
proposed rule. part, however, the primary change the fourth quarterly inspection
This analysis uses an average of 30 anticipated is that maintenance and represents the annual inspection, which
minutes to conduct an inspection of an repair will become more proactive and FMCSA believes is already being
intermodal chassis and that a less reactive. For instance, some IEPs performed); and (2) where 75 percent of
transportation inspector earning $30.79 currently perform preventative all chassis are assumed to be in
per hour in wages and benefits would maintenance when driver, inbound,
compliance with existing regulations
perform the inspections, supported by a outbound, or roadability inspections at
mechanic. This is based on data from (requiring no additional inspections per
terminals find problems (or during the
the AAR survey response. It is also annual inspection required by the year), while the other 25 percent would
consistent with the amount of time to FMCSRs). The proposed rule would require three additional inspections per
complete a Level V inspection. The make the preventative maintenance of year. As Table 15 indicates, according to
mechanic is assumed to devote 15 those providers more regular or time- FMCSA assumptions for this analysis,
minutes to the inspection, the inspector based. This would place necessary the proposed rule is expected to add
30 minutes. The median hourly wage for maintenance and repair activities between $13.5 million and $27.0
a mobile heavy equipment mechanic is upstream in the interchange process million per year to the cost of systematic
estimated from employment and wage reducing the ‘‘reactive’’ nature of that IRM programs for IEPs, depending on
data from Occupational Employment activity. the percentage of chassis which are
Statistics to be $17.69 as of May 2003. There will most likely be some shift already believed to be in compliance
Assuming benefits are equal to 31.5 of repair costs from motor carriers to with the existing systematic inspection,
percent of wages, the total loaded labor IEPs, but the magnitude of this shift is repair, and maintenance regulations.
cost of the mechanic would be $23.26 uncertain. However, FMCSA believes The estimated total present value of the
per hour. The total cost of each this shift represents a transfer payment cost of systematic IRM requirements for
additional inspection of an intermodal of existing costs, and therefore is not equipment providers over a 10-year
chassis would be $21.21. This cost expected to impact the overall costs or period is estimated to be between $95
estimate is consistent with the AAR benefits of the proposed rule. million and $190 million. Annual costs
members’ estimates of annual Total Systematic Maintenance
Program Costs. Table 15 shows the associated with this rulemaking
inspection costs of $20 if performed by
estimated costs of IRM programs for represent an increase of one to three
their own personnel and $18 if
outsourced to an on- or off-site terminal IEPs, based on assumptions about percent in the costs of systematic IRM
inspection operator. The cost of four existing compliance. Estimates are programs already undertaken by non-
inspections per year would be $84.84. presented for the cases where (1) 50 motor carrier IEPs, based on information
Additional Maintenance and Repair percent of all chassis are assumed to be obtained from equipment provider
Costs. FMCSA recognizes that the in compliance with existing systematic surveys regarding the average annual
maintenance and repair activities of inspection, repair, and maintenance maintenance costs incurred per chassis.

TABLE 15.—ESTIMATED COST OF SYSTEMATIC INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS FOR CHASSIS
Number of Existing inspection, repair, and Additional costs due to NPRM
maintenance costs
Assuming 50% Assuming 75%
Assuming 50% Assuming 75% of chassis of chassis
of chassis of chassis are in full are in full
are in full are in full compliance compliance
Intermodal provider compliance compliance and and
Providers Chassis and and 50% require 25% require
50% require 25% require three three
three three additional additional
additional additional inspections inspections
inspections inspections per year per year
per year per year

Steamship Lines .............................................. 93 392,000 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................


Railroads .......................................................... 5 96,200 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................
Common-pool Operators ................................. 10 320,000 $913,771,250 $927,292,625 $27,042,750 $13,521,375
Motor Carriers .................................................. 1,900 41,800 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Total .......................................................... 2,008 850,000 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Recordkeeping inspection report is approximately 3 wages and benefits would perform the
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

minutes. Therefore, this analysis inspections and document the findings,


As stated earlier, FMCSA believes that assumes that it would take each IEP the total cost to document and retain
the systematic IRM program called for each inspection report is estimated to be
approximately 3 minutes on average per
in the proposed rule will require four approximately $2 per intermodal
intermodal chassis per inspection to
inspections of intermodal chassis per chassis per inspection (or ($30.79/60) ×
year, on average. document and retain the inspection
reports. Assuming that a transportation 3 minutes).
FMCSA estimates that the time inspector earning $30.79 per hour in Annual Inspections. Under current
needed to document and file each regulations, motor carriers are required

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76816 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

to comply with the periodic regulatory change, consequently, will recordkeeping for non-motor carrier
recordkeeping requirements of § 396.21, not impose any additional regulatory IEPs.
and the proposed rule would not requirements on the other IEPs relating Assuming that the recordkeeping for
impose any additional recordkeeping to their annual inspections. each intermodal chassis inspection costs
requirements on them. Additionally, Systematic Inspections. It is assumed $2, and that these intermodal equipment
based on its research, FMCSA believes providers will need to perform three
that motor carriers are currently
that other IEPs (i.e., steamship lines, additional inspections per year per
performing full inspections of
railroads, and common pool operators) chassis, the recordkeeping requirements
are currently inspecting their chassis on intermodal chassis they control four of the proposed regulatory change are
an annual basis. As such, for the times per year. This is not assumed to expected to cost the non-motor carrier
purposes of this analysis, these other be the case for IEPs, however. Some IEPs an additional $6 per chassis per
IEPs are assumed to prepare a report portion of chassis owned or controlled year.
that is equivalent to the one required by by other (non-motor carrier) equipment Total Cost of Recordkeeping. Table 16
§ 396.21, given that FMCSA has providers (between 25 percent and 50 presents the total annual estimated cost
received no information through its percent in this analysis) are assumed to of recordkeeping currently and under
surveys, port visits, or roadside be inspected once annually. the proposed regulations, along with the
inspection activities, that would Consequently, the proposed regulatory increase in the cost of recordkeeping
indicate otherwise. The proposed change will require additional attributable to the new regulations.

TABLE 16.—ESTIMATED COST OF SYSTEMATIC INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE RECORDKEEPING


Estimated number of Change in
Annual cost annual costs
Existing under the attributable to
Description annual proposed the
Providers Chassis costs regulations proposed
regulations

Steamship Lines .............................................................................. 93 392,000 $784,000 $3,136,000 $2,352,000


Railroads .......................................................................................... 5 96,200 192,400 769,600 577,200
Common-pool Operators ................................................................. 10 320,000 640,000 2,560,000 1,920,000
Motor Carriers .................................................................................. 1,900 41,800 334,400 334,400 0

Total .......................................................................................... 2,008 850,000 1,950,800 6,800,000 4,849,200

The annual cost of recordkeeping origin terminal to the destination of the roadworthy chassis on the public
attributable to the proposed rule is container on the chassis, or at the roadways, so it would be in their best
$4,849,200. Over the 10-year analysis destination. Potentially, the discovery interest to report any problems with
period, the present value of the cost of could occur hundreds of miles distant defective or deficient chassis that are
recordkeeping would be $38,907,752. from the intermodal providers’ nearest encountered.
New Reporting System for Defective/ operational location. The average length
For purposes of this analysis, FMCSA
Deficient Equipment. The proposed rule of haul for chassis transported by the
assumes that no additional costs will be
would require that IEPs establish a nine trucking firms that responded to
FMCSA’s intermodal survey varied from incurred by drivers and motor carriers
system for motor carriers and drivers to
report to the IEPs any defects or 11–20 miles to 150–200 miles. in order to notify chassis providers of
deficiencies in tendered chassis that For purposes of this analysis, FMCSA problems with defective or deficient
would affect the safety of the operation assumes that no additional costs will be chassis. Problems with chassis already
of those chassis or result in its incurred in order for IEPs to receive occur, and drivers or motor carriers are
mechanical breakdown on the road. notification of problems. Because already contacting providers (whether
This proposed change would require: (1) problems with chassis already occur, in person or by phone) to inform them
The establishment of the system; (2) the FMCSA believes that such systems are of those problems. Additionally,
minimum information that the IEP must already well established to address FMCSA believes that the new
obtain from motor carriers and drivers; problems. Additionally, FMCSA application of the systematic IRM
(3) the corrective actions that must be received no information during its data requirement to equipment providers
taken when a chassis is identified as collection immediately prior to this will generally result in these problems
being defective or deficient in some rulemaking to indicate otherwise, and being noticed and corrected prior to the
way; and (4) the retention period for all the agency found such systems already transfer of the chassis.
documentation that is generated as a in place during its port visits. Driver Chassis Inspection Reports.
consequence of this system. This Consequently, no additional costs are According to proposed § 396.12, the
requirement would be added to the expected to result.
reports to be received by the IEP from
FMCSRs in a new § 396.12. All of these Motor Carriers and Drivers. For the
the motor carrier and the driver will
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

potential impacts are discussed. systems established by IEPs to be


need to include the following
Nature of Notification. The discovery effective, motor carriers and drivers
of a chassis problem by a driver could must report defective or deficient information:
occur at any of a variety of locations. It chassis. Proposed § 390.44 would • The name of the motor carrier
might occur during the driver’s require drivers to report to the IEP, or responsible for the operation of the
mandated inspection of the chassis at its agent, the condition of each vehicle chassis at the time the defect or
the start of a trip, during the movement operated. Also, motor carriers and deficiency was discovered by or
over the public roadways from the drivers are responsible for taking only reported to the driver;

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76817

• The USDOT identification number repair facilities for dealing with chassis information indicates that records of
or other unique identification number of that are not roadworthy. Additionally, inbound and outbound inspections are
the motor carrier; during its port visits, FMCSA staff kept between one and seven years, with
• The date and time the report was identified repair facilities at all the three to five years being typical.16
submitted; and terminals they toured. Consequently, FMCSA has no reason to expect that
• The defects or deficiencies reported § 396.12 would not require the repair records, which are arguably more
by the motor carrier or driver. establishment of new facilities, nor is critical to the operation of intermodal
As mentioned before, chassis there any reason to believe that the new chassis providers than records on
currently experience problems that are section will necessitate any expansion inbound and outbound inspections,
being reported to IEPs. With the of existing facilities. would be kept for less time.
possible exception of the USDOT Good business practice for chassis Additionally, FMCSA received no
identification number or other unique providers and their service departments information during its data collection
identification number, good business would include documenting repairs effort immediately prior to this
practice would seem to require that all made or documenting that repairs were rulemaking to indicate otherwise.
of the information mandated in reports not made. This information assists those Consequently, the retention of records,
under new § 396.12 is currently being monitoring the cost and work of repair as required by proposed § 396.12, would
collected. Additionally, FMCSA facilities. Information obtained from the not add to the costs of intermodal
received no information during its data equipment providers’ surveys confirmed chassis providers.17
collection immediately prior to this that IEPs are indeed following good
rulemaking to indicate otherwise. business practice. The proposed Overall Impact. The overall impact of
Therefore, no additional costs are § 396.12 would not increase the need for proposed § 396.12, Procedures for
expected to result from the required this documentation. It might, however, intermodal equipment providers to
driver chassis inspection reports. change the nature of the documentation accept reports required by § 390.44(b),
Corrective Actions. Proposed § 396.12 somewhat. For instance, if a chassis on the costs of intermodal chassis
would require each IEP to establish a were brought in for a defective wheel providers, is believed to be negligible.
system for motor carriers and their and no wheel problem could be found, All required actions regarding the
drivers to report damage, defects, and then current documentation might just collection and retention of records are
deficiencies. After a chassis returns to say ‘‘Checked wheels.’’ Under the currently being performed in one form
the possession of the IEP, § 396.12 proposed § 396.12, the documentation or another, according to FMCSA survey
would mandate that the provider must might say ‘‘Check wheels after receiving analysis and other research (port visits).
correct any reported defects or trouble report from motor carrier. Proposed § 396.12 is not expected to
deficiencies in the chassis that make the Complete check revealed no problem.’’ add materially to the current workload
chassis not roadworthy. Furthermore, FMCSA believes any change in of intermodal chassis providers, their
before a provider can place the chassis documentation would be minor and service organizations, or to motor
in service, the provider must document would not materially add to the costs of carriers and their drivers.
the actions taken to correct any reported the providers, however. Total Compliance Costs of the Proposed
defect or deficiency, or must document Retention of Records. Under proposed Regulations
that repairs were unnecessary. § 396.12, all documentation must be
Based on information obtained from kept for a period of three months from Table 17 summarizes the expected
equipment provider surveys FMCSA has the date of a trouble report. Available compliance costs attributable to the
concluded that IEPs currently have intermodal chassis provider industry proposed regulation.

TABLE 17.—ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE


Additional costs due to the NPRM
Existing costs
Requirement (annual) Initial cost Total for recurring costs Total cost
(year 1) (years 2–10)** (years 1–10)**

Filing MCS–150C .............. $19,502 ............................. $1,110 ............................... $1,880 ............................... $2,990.
Chassis Marking ................ $0 ...................................... $9,384,000 ........................ $4,081,352 ........................ $13,465,352.
Systematic Inspection, Re- $913,771,250 to $13,521,375 to $81,447,105 to $94,968,480 to
pair, and Maintenance $927,292,625. $27,042,750. $162,894,210. $189,936,960.
Costs.
Recordkeeping .................. $1,950,800 ........................ $4,849,200 ........................ $34,058,752 ...................... $38,907,952.
§ 396.12 ............................. * ......................................... $0 ...................................... $0 ...................................... $0.

Total Costs ................. $915,741,552 to $27,292,899 to $119,388,362 to $146,681,261 to


$929,262,927. $40,814,274. $200,835,467. $241,649,741.
* Included in the costs of other actions.
** Net present value over a 10-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

The total compliance costs, or the Consistent with OMB directives, this is FMCSA seeks comment on the cost
sum of the total initial and total the present value of the expected cost analysis.
recurring costs, are expected to be stream calculated over a 10-year period
between $147 million and $242 million. using a 7 percent discount rate.
16 Information on intermodal chassis operations 17 Alternatively, any costs associated with the assumed to be covered by the costs associated with
submitted by OCEMA to FMCSA in 2004 in retention of records for the proposed defective and recordkeeping.
response to questions posed by FMCSA. deficient equipment reporting system could be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76818 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Safety and Economic Benefits of roadworthy chassis. This effectively FMCSRs and to compel compliance, if
Improving Container Chassis decreases congestion costs at those necessary. Additionally, FMCSA
Maintenance facilities, which are typically analysts believe that a portion of the
located in urban areas. chassis currently in use will receive
The purpose of the proposed The following sections quantify the
regulation is to ensure that intermodal additional inspections each year,
potential benefits of the proposed rule because this proposed rule explicitly
chassis used to transport intermodal by estimating the number of crashes
containers are safe. The explicit requires non-motor carrier intermodal
avoided to justify the compliance costs equipment providers to comply with the
inclusion of IEPs in the scope of the directly or indirectly imposed by the
FMCSRs would ensure that IEPs could existing systematic inspection, repair,
rule. The sections also provide and maintenance regulations. A better-
be subject to the same enforcement qualitative discussion of benefits of the
proceedings, orders, and civil penalties inspected, maintained, and repaired
proposed rule where quantitative intermodal chassis fleet would be likely
as those applied to motor carriers today. estimates are not available.
The systematic inspection, to result in a decrease in crashes on the
Threshold Analysis for Safety Nation’s highways.
maintenance, and repair requirements Benefits. Section III of this document
would ensure safer and more reliable contains data analysis conducted by The estimated cost of a crash
container chassis on the nation’s FMCSA that shows that intermodal involving a fatal injury is $3.57 million
highways. The expected benefits of the trailers have significantly higher vehicle for a truck tractor with one trailer, and
proposed rule include the following: out-of-service (OOS) rates than non- the costs of non-injury or property-
• Increased safety of intermodal intermodal trailers. The results indicate damage-only crashes are estimated to be
chassis operation as a result of reducing that chassis owned by a motor carrier $12,077 each. The estimated average
crashes attributable to those chassis; appear to have lower OOS rates than the cost of a crash reported to police
• Increased operational efficiency of comparable equipment owned by non- involving a truck tractor with one trailer
intermodal chassis as a result of— motor carrier equipment providers. is $76,698.18 Using recent data on the
Æ Reducing the vehicle out-of-service These findings are still considered number of crashes involving truck
rate; preliminary because the sample size of tractors with single trailers, Table 18
Æ Reducing the average idle time chassis inspection data by ownership estimates the total crash costs for these
spent by truckers waiting for type was quite small. The proposed vehicles. The cost estimate shown in
chassis repairs on the road; rule’s explicit inclusion of IEPs would Table 18 includes the cost of fatal and
Æ Reducing the average time spent by better enable FMCSA to determine injury crashes, but does not include the
truckers at rail terminals or port whether and how equipment providers costs associated with property-damage-
facilities waiting to be given a are complying with provisions of the only crashes.

TABLE 18.—ESTIMATED COSTS OF CRASHES INVOLVING TRUCK TRACTORS WITH TRAILERS, 2002

Total estimated
Truck tractors Fatal crashes Injury crashes costs

1 trailer ................................................................................................................................ 2,937 42,000 $3,447 million.


Source: ‘‘Traffic Safety Facts 2002’’, available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF2002.pdf.

As stated, the rule is expected to reduced injuries, property damage, and responsibility. If the chassis’s problem
result in compliance costs of between other incident consequences would developed after the driver left the
$28 million and $41 million in the first reduce the number of lives that would terminal, then the contractual
year, and $147 million and $242 million need to be saved in order for the rule to responsibility in many cases lies with
over the entire 10-year analysis period. be cost-beneficial. We believe the the commercial driver and the motor
The proposed rule should result in proposed rule is likely to prevent carrier, not with the equipment
benefits that are greater than the cost of enough crashes to justify the costs. provider. If, however, the chassis
compliance, which would result in a problem was a pre-existing condition,
Benefits Associated With Increased
positive cost/benefit ratio. Focusing on then the chassis owner is responsible.
Operational Efficiency
saved lives alone, the proposed rule According to IANA, many equipment
would need to prevent between 8 and While operating efficiency is not providers have service contracts with
12 fatalities per year attributable to something FMCSA regulates, we note repair vendors. If a chassis problem
crashes involving intermodal chassis that in addition to the safety benefits, needs to be fixed in order for the driver
over the 10-year period. These 8 to 12 the proposed rule is likely to produce to resume operation, these vendors are
fatalities represent just 0.2% to 0.3% of benefits from improved operational often called to provide the repairs.
the 3,762 fatalities in combination truck efficiency. Currently, from our research, Additional uncertainty surrounds the
crashes in calendar year 2003. At the FMCSA concludes there is no standard question of authorization for this repair,
break-even point, compliance costs procedure for a truck driver or motor because the service contract is between
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

equal the benefits attributable to carrier to follow when confronted with the service vendor and the chassis
avoiding just a few of the fatal crashes an intermodal chassis placed OOS as a provider and the provider would have
that would have occurred in the absence result of a roadside inspection. One of to authorize a repair request. In some
of the proposed regulation. Of course, the uncertainties is the issue of cases, the truck driver’s motor carrier
18 Estimated in 2003 dollars calculated using the Bus Involved Crashes,’’ final report to FMCSA by http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/CarrierResearchResults/
gross domestic product (GDP) deflator, and Eduard Zaloshnja and Ted Miller, available at: CarrierResearchContent.asp.
estimates from ‘‘Revised Costs of Large Truck and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:42 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76819

would have to make arrangements with and deficiencies than non-intermodal container chassis condition on the road
the chassis provider’s service vendor to trailers. Clearly, a reduction in are crucially important to trucking firms
repair the chassis. equipment violations severe enough to that pick up and deliver freight at ports
The potential reduction of OOS rates cause a chassis to be placed OOS would and rail terminals. Drayage firms that
would increase the operational mean less disruption of supply chains. service ports, especially, operate in a
efficiency of intermodal transportation FMCSA attempted conservatively to highly competitive market, with many
as a whole. A chassis placed OOS must estimate the number of intermodal small motor carriers and owner-
not be operated until the repairs chassis vehicle OOS orders that would operators competing to provide services.
required by an OOS order have been be avoided as a result of this proposed The drivers are typically paid per load
made. According to information rule. We assumed that this proposal and operate on very slim profit margins.
provided to FMCSA by ATA members, would reduce the intermodal chassis Delays at port or rail facilities as well as
carriers spend, on average, 3 hours of a OOS rate to the national vehicle OOS on the road impose a cost on these firms
driver’s time and 1.5 hours of other rate for all trailers (discussed earlier in
employees’ time to correct each vehicle in lost revenues and profits. The
this NPRM in Table 11). Initial results
OOS order received on chassis tendered reduced efficiency of this critical link in
indicate that such changes could reap
by an equipment provider. The efficiency benefits of $40,000 to the transportation system also imposes
opportunity cost for a truck driver and $410,000 annually. Again, FMCSA costs on intermodal freight customers.
one employee’s time is calculated at considers these estimates to be Intermodal freight volume is expected
$116.35 per vehicle OOS order conservative, because it used a driver to continue to grow, and ports and rail
attributable to a problem chassis.19 Note wage rate, rather than an average terminals must improve
that this is considered a conservative revenue per tractor estimate, to competitiveness both locally and
estimate, because FMCSA used an determine the opportunity costs of globally. This will require the
average commercial driver wage rate to vehicle OOS orders. Complete details of utilization of existing infrastructure and
estimate the opportunity costs of a this analysis are contained in the full greater economic efficiency. The
vehicle OOS order, in lieu of a ‘‘revenue RIA in the docket. amount of cargo moving in maritime
per tractor’’ estimate, which would be At intermodal terminal facilities, the containers is forecasted to grow nearly
higher because it accounts for the effect of the proposed rule would be to three-fold by 2020, rising from 57
opportunity cost of the vehicle as well reduce the time needed for motor million twenty-foot containers in 2000
as the driver. carriers to pick up a roadworthy chassis. to 163 million in 2020. Systematic
Given that, on average, 18.5 percent of Motor carriers report that they currently
inspection, repair, and maintenance of
roadside inspections of intermodal spend between 30 minutes and 2 to 3
intermodal container chassis would
chassis result in vehicle OOS violations, hours to find a roadworthy chassis. That
means that motor carriers could save ensure safe operation of these container
cost savings, in terms of the opportunity
between $11.69 and $46.78 in driver’s chassis on the road, which in turn
cost of driver and motor carriers’ time,
would quickly add up, as there are costs alone, if this wait/search time would enhance the reliability and
approximately 850,000 intermodal could be completely eliminated. The economic efficiency of the intermodal
chassis in operation in the U.S. proposed rule, by mandating that freight traffic in the U.S.20
Roadside repair costs for intermodal chassis providers implement systematic Table 19, below, compares the current
chassis, other than those involved in inspection, maintenance, and repair Federal requirements with new
vehicle OOS orders, may also be programs, can be expected to reduce the requirements proposed in this NPRM
significantly reduced, given evidence number of defective chassis being and shows the benefits and costs
indicating that intermodal chassis offered in service, and thereby reduce associated with the proposals.
typically have more equipment defects the time needed by truck drivers to find
a roadworthy chassis. 20 Principles for a U.S. Public Freight Agenda in

19 Using National employment and wage data, the Delays at a port or rail intermodal a Global Economy, from Martin E. Robins and Anne
median hourly wage for a truck driver is estimated terminal and on the road due to poor Strauss–Wieder, Metropolitan Policy Program,
at $16.01 and supervisor/manager is estimated at container chassis condition affect only a Brookings Institution, January 2006, citiing
$21.08. With fringe benefits added to the wages, the Nariman Behravesh, ‘‘The US and Global Outlook:
hourly wage and salaries are estimated at $23.39
small segment of the motor carrier Storm Clouds on the Horizon?’’ Global Insight, Port
and $30.70 for truck driver and the manager/ industry. However, delays at intermodal of New York and New Jersey Port Economic
supervisor respectively. facilities and the related issue of poor Briefing, October 2004.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76820 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 19.—COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION


Comparison
Regulatory Discounted Benefits
provisions Current 10-year costs
NPRM
requirement

Part 386—Rules of Prac- Enables the Assistant Ad- Explicitly includes inter- No new costs associated Explicit inclusion of inter-
tice for Motor Carrier, ministrator to determine modal equipment pro- with this provision. modal equipment pro-
Broker, Freight For- whether a motor carrier, viders. viders would make them
warder, and Hazardous property broker, freight subject to the provisions
Materials Proceedings. forwarder, or its agents, or requirements of appli-
employees, or any other cable statutes and the
person subject to the ju- corresponding regula-
risdiction of FMCSA has tions; and, if violations
failed to comply with the are found, the Assistant
provisions or require- Administrator could
ments of applicable stat- issue an appropriate
utes and the cor- order to compel compli-
responding regulations. ance with the statute or
regulation, assess a civil
penalty, or both. This
will result in the fol-
lowing:
1. Increased safety of the
intermodal container
chassis operation and
reduced crashes involv-
ing intermodal container
chassis.
2. Increased operational
efficiency of the inter-
modal container chassis
operation.
a. Reduced number of ve-
hicle out-of-service or-
ders related to poor
intermodal container
chassis condition.
b. Reduced idle time spent
by the driver and the
truck while waiting for
required repairs on the
container chassis.
c. Reduced time spent by
truck drivers to find road
worthy container chassis
at the port or rail termi-
nals.
3. Revised rules that ex-
plicitly require equipment
providers to be respon-
sible for the safety and
security of their equip-
ment:
a. Eliminate externality
issues that are involved
when one party’s (own-
ers of intermodal con-
tainer chassis—steam-
ship lines and railroads)
actions impose uncom-
pensated costs (in terms
of lost productivity, un-
compensated repair
costs, and decrease in
overall profit margin) on
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

another party (motor


carriers). Eliminate po-
tential barriers to infor-
mation on scope and ju-
risdiction of FMCSRs.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76821

TABLE 19.—COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION—Continued


Comparison
Regulatory Discounted Benefits
provisions Current 10-year costs
NPRM
requirement

Part 390—General applica- Applies to all employers, Explicitly includes inter- 1. $2,990 to file MCS–
bility. employees, and com- modal equipment pro- 150C.
mercial motor vehicles, viders and intermodal 2. $13.5 million over 10
which transport property equipment. years for chassis mark-
or passengers in inter- ing costs.
state commerce. Motor
carriers must assist in
investigations and spe-
cial studies. Motor car-
riers must file Form
MCS–150. CMVs must
be marked as specified.
Part 393—Parts and Ac- Every employer and em- Equipment providers would No new cost associated
cessories Necessary for ployee shall comply and be held accountable for with this provision.
Safe Operation. be conversant with the offering in interstate
requirements and speci- commerce intermodal
fications of this part. No equipment that is not
employer shall operate a equipped with all re-
commercial motor vehi- quired parts and acces-
cle, or cause or permit it sories and would be re-
to be operated, unless it quired to ensure that
is equipped in accord- each of those compo-
ance with the require- nents are in safe and
ments and specifications operable condition.
of this part.
Part 396—Inspection, Re- Every motor carrier, its of- Intermodal equipment pro- 1. No new cost associated
pair, and Maintenance. ficers, drivers, agents, viders would be required with annual (periodic) in-
representatives and em- to: spection provision.
ployees shall comply 1. Comply and be conver- 2. Equipment providers
and be conversant with sant with the rules of may incur an additional
the rules of this part. this part. cost of $95–190 million
Every motor carrier shall 2. Establish a systematic over 10-year analysis
systematically inspect, inspection, repair, and period to achieve full
repair, and maintain, or maintenance program compliance with System-
cause to be systemati- and comply with inspec- atic inspection, repair,
cally inspected, repaired, tion and recordkeeping and maintenance re-
and maintained, all requirements estab- quirements, depending
motor vehicles subject to lished in part 396 for upon current degree of
its control and keep the motor carriers. compliance with part
necessary records. 3. Establish a system for 396.
motor carriers and driv- 3. There may be an addi-
ers to report defects and tional cost of $38.9 mil-
deficiencies in inter- lion over the 10-year
modal equipment, and to analysis period in new
keep records. recordkeeping costs.

FMCSA requests comment on the and solicit comments on our analysis. on FMCSA’s compliance review
costs and benefits estimated in this The IRFA and the attached regulatory program already in place for the
analysis. impact analysis (RIA) include our Nation’s interstate motor carriers.
discussion of the regulatory impacts, Chassis providers would be required to
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
and the reasons for our recommended obtain a USDOT number and display it
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 action. on their chassis so that safety
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to Need for the NPRM: On January 26, performance data could be captured.
review regulations to assess their impact 2004, the Secretary of Transportation FMCSA would apply the same penalty
on small entities unless the agency announced that the USDOT would structure and enforcement actions used
determines that a rule is not expected to launch a safety inspection program for for motor carriers to intermodal
have a significant impact on a intermodal container chassis. The equipment providers demonstrating
inspection program would provide patterns of non-compliance with the
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

substantial number of small entities.


While we believe the rulemaking will added oversight to help ensure that the new safety requirements.
not have a significant economic impact intermodal container chassis used by Subsequently, Section 4118 of
on a substantial number of small motor carriers to transport intermodal SAFETEA–LU was enacted and directs
entities, we have chosen not to certify cargo containers are in safe and proper the Department of Transportation to
the proposed rule at this point. Instead, working order. undertake a rulemaking relating to the
we decided to complete an Initial The announcement explained the new roadability of intermodal equipment.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) inspection program would be modeled FMCSA, working in coordination with

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76822 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

other USDOT agencies, initiated this affected by the NPRM are 93 steamship interstate motor carriers.24 Data from
new rulemaking to advance the lines, 5 railroads, 10 common pool FMCSA’s Licensing and Insurance (L&I)
Department’s safety goal without operators, and 1,900 motor carriers. All database indicates roughly 125,000
unnecessarily involving the Department 93 steamship lines are foreign entities, active for-hire motor carriers. For-hire
in the commercial relations or allocation and the provisions of the RFA do not operators are those that offer truck
of liability between intermodal parties. apply to foreign entities.21 According to transportation services to the public.
Description of Actions: In this NPRM, the Small Business Administration The major sectors of for-hire trucking
FMCSA is proposing to amend the (SBA), the definition of ‘‘small are household goods carriers, bulk
FMCSRs to require entities that offer business’’ has the same meaning as carriers, tank carriers, refrigerated
intermodal container chassis for under the Small Business Act. The
carriers, less-than-truckload (LTL)
transportation in interstate commerce to following table indicates the percentage
(i) file a Motor Carrier Identification carriers, truckload carriers, and other
of affected entities defined as ‘‘small
Report (FMCSA Form MCS–150), (ii) businesses.’’ 22 specialized carriers.25 Owner-operators,
display on each chassis a unique The railroads that own intermodal as the term implies, are independent
identification number (e.g., USDOT chassis are assumed to be 5 major owners of individual trucks or small
number) assigned or approved by railroads in the United States and would fleets.26 They generally function as for-
FMCSA, (iii) establish a systematic not be considered small business as hire carriers or provide contract or ad
inspection, repair and maintenance defined by the SBA. Additionally, it is hoc support to larger for-hire carriers or
program to ensure the safe operating FMCSA’s belief that most of the other commercial trucking operations.
condition of each chassis and maintain common-pool operators that own In addition to for-hire carriers and
documentation of the program and (iv) intermodal chassis would not be owner-operators, over 480,000 other
provide a means for effectively classified as small business by SBA size companies and governmental entities
responding to driver and motor carrier standards, given the average size of the operate private fleets of trucks, which
complaints about the condition of chassis pools they are estimated to be deliver and distribute products and
intermodal container chassis. operating.23 services for their parent organizations.27
Identification of potentially affected The for-hire trucking industry in the
small entities: Entities likely to be United States consists of over 113,000

TABLE 20.—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS FOR THE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED INDUSTRIES
SBA Size Standards Percent of
industry that
NAICS Description Revenue is small
Employee
(millions) business

Not Applicable ........ Steamship lines ................................................................................................... NA NA NA


482112 ................... Railroads ............................................................................................................. .................... 1,500 NA
532490* .................. Other Commercial/Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing ... $6.0 .................... 94
484110 ................... General Freight Trucking, Local ......................................................................... 21.5 .................... 75
484121 ................... General Freight Trucking, Long Distance, Truckload ......................................... .................... .................... 74
484122 ................... General Freight Trucking, Long Distance, Less Than Truckload ....................... 21.5 .................... 72
484220 ................... Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Local ................................ 21.5 .................... 73
484230 ................... Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Long Distance .................. 21.5 .................... 77
* NAICS codes assumed for common-pool operators/shippers as equipment lessors listed in IICL Web site, such as Interpool Inc., identified
them as SIC 7359 in the financial statements submitted with Securities and Exchange Commission.

The proposed rule would affect only costs for most of these entities, since NAICS codes and earned about $3.06
a small percentage of trucking firms, some of the burden for inspection, billion or average revenue of $153.2
since only approximately 1,900 trucking maintenance, and repair will indirectly million.28 To have a significant impact
companies own intermodal chassis. shift to non-motor carrier chassis on these entities, the estimated
These motor carriers belong to the five providers. compliance cost would have to exceed
‘‘484’’ NAICS codes identified in Table The RIA assumes that the 10 one percent of the annual revenue
20. For the most part, these entities equipment lessors (common pool stream or sales, or about $1.5 million
would incur minimal increased costs to operators) own an estimated 320,000 per firm per year for the 20 largest firms
comply with the provisions of this intermodal chassis or about 32,000 in NAICS 532490.29 Although there is
NPRM, since they are already subject to chassis per entity. Therefore, based on much uncertainty regarding the impact
the FMCSRs; indeed, the NPRM would this information, we assumed that these on common chassis pool operators
most likely reduce overall operational firms fall into the 20 largest firms in this (since the agency had difficulty

21 See www.sba.gov/advo/laws/title3_s2993.html. all firms that provide support service to road 27 American Trucking Trends 2003, American
22 Table 17 has been calculated using 1997 transportation. Common-pool operators are part of Trucking Associations, Inc., Alexandria, VA, 2003,
Economic Census Data (2002 data for all NAICS this over-all group. p. 6, reports a total of 585 thousand interstate motor
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

codes are not currently available) and combining it 24 2002 Economic Census, Transportation and
truck operators of all types. The source of the
with SBA’s size standards to estimate the number Warehousing, U.S. Bureau of the Census, information was identified as filings with the
of small business. The 1997 data for revenue have Washington, DC, 2004, available on the Internet at
Federal Motor Safety Administration (FMSCA) as of
been adjusted for 2003 revenue figures since SBA www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0248i09.pdf.
August 2002.
revenue size is given in 2003 dollars. The estimate 25 American Trucking Trends 2003, American
28 1997 Economic Census figures adjusted to 2003
was ‘‘at least’’ since there were firms that did not Trucking Associations, Inc., Alexandria, VA, 2003,
have revenues reported. p. 7. dollars.
23 A list of common-pool operators is available on 26 Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 29 Adjusting 1997 revenue reported by the 1997

the IICL Web site. The NAICS listed here represents Association Web site at www.ooida.com. Economic Census with GDP inflation adjustor.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76823

acquiring information on them), it is significant economic impact on a repair, and maintenance program to
believed that in some cases, the need to substantial number of small entities. ensure the safe operating condition of
implement systematic IRM programs by each item of intermodal equipment
Intergovernmental Review
common chassis pool operators may tendered to motor carriers and to
result in compliance costs exceeding The regulations implementing maintain documentation of the program
one percent of annual revenues. Because Executive Order 12372 regarding in accordance with 49 CFR part 396;
of this uncertainty, FMCSA has decided intergovernmental consultation on and (3) provide a means for an
against certifying no significant impact Federal programs and activities do not intermodal equipment provider to
on a substantial number of small apply to this program. effectively respond, using a variant of
entities, and has instead decided to the Driver-Vehicle Inspection Report
Paperwork Reduction Act
prepare an IRFA. Therefore, FMCSA currently approved by OMB, to driver
invites public comment on it. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act and motor carrier complaints about the
Reporting and recordkeeping of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), a condition of intermodal container
requirements: This NPRM includes a Federal agency must obtain approval chassis. It is anticipated that electronic
new requirement for reporting and from the Office of Management and recordkeeping would be allowed to
recordkeeping for steamship lines, Budget (OMB) for each collection of reduce, to the greatest extent
railroads and common pool operators information it conducts, sponsors, or practicable, the costs associated with
that own intermodal chassis. We requires through regulations. FMCSA complying with the recordkeeping
estimate that there are 108 such entities, has analyzed this proposal and requirements.
none of which is a small business that determined that it would require There are two currently approved
would be subject to the new revisions to existing information information collections that would be
recordkeeping requirement. collection requirements subject to affected by this NPRM: (1) Motor Carrier
approval by OMB. This includes the Identification Report (FMCSA form
Related Federal rules and regulations. requirement for entities that offer MCS–150), OMB Control No. 2126–
With respect to the safe transportation intermodal container chassis for 0013, approved at 74,896 burden hours
of intermodal chassis, there are no transportation in interstate commerce through July 31, 2007; and (2)
related rules or regulations issued by to: (1) File an Intermodal Equipment Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance,
other departments or agencies of the Provider Identification Report (FMCSA OMB Control No. 2126–0003, approved
Federal Government. Form MCS–150C, a variant on the at 59,093,245 burden hours through
Conclusion. Based on the assessment currently-approved Motor Carrier February 28, 2006. Table 21 shows the
in the regulatory evaluation, we Identification Report, Form MCS–150); FMCSA estimated number of intermodal
conclude that there will not be a (2) establish a systematic inspection, container chassis by owner.

TABLE 21.—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF INTERMODAL CHASSIS BY OWNER


Estimated Estimated
number of
Types of entities number of
affected chassis
entities

Steamship Lines ...................................................................................................................................................... 93 392,000


Railroads .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 96,200
Common-pool operators/Equipment Lessors .......................................................................................................... 10 320,000

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 108 808,200

The total annual burden hours for the above are 59,168,141. Table 22 depicts associated with the information
two current information collections the proposed and current burden hours collections.

TABLE 22.—PROPOSED AND CURRENT INFORMATION COLLECTION BURDENS


Burden hours Burden hours
OMB approval number currently Change
proposed
approved

2126–0013 ................................................................................................................................... 74,896 74,932 36


2126–0003 ................................................................................................................................... 59,093,245 59,214,495 121,230

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 59,168,141 59,289,427 121,266

The following is an explanation of maintenance program and maintain collection would be 121,230 burden
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

how each of the information collections records documenting the program. They hours [808,200 chassis controlled by
shown above would be impacted by this would also be required to establish a non-motor-carrier IEPs × 3 inspections/
proposal. process for a motor carrier or its driver year × 3 minutes recordkeeping per
OMB Control No. 2126–0003. to report defects or deficiencies they inspection × 1 hr/60 minutes].
Intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) discover or which are reported to them. OMB Control No. 2126–0013. The
would be required to establish a The estimated burden for the proposed proposed rule would require each
systematic inspection, repair, and revision to this existing information equipment provider to obtain a unique

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76824 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

DOT Number by submitting a Form collected; and (4) ways to minimize the seq.) and conducted an environmental
MCS–150C to FMCSA, and to update its information collection burden on assessment under the procedures in
initial report every 2 years. FMCSA respondents, including the use of FMCSA Order 5610.1, published March
estimates that this would result in an automated collection techniques or 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680). Under FMCSA
increase of 36 burden hours for 108 other forms of information technology. Order 5610.1, the environmental
affected IEPs [108 IEPs × 20 minutes / You may submit comments to OMB assessment focuses only on those
60 minutes]. on the information collection burden resource categories that are of interest to
The proposals contained in this addressed by this NPRM. OMB must the public and/or important to the
NPRM, affecting two currently approved receive your comments by January 22, decision: Public Health and Safety,
information collections, would result in 2007. Mail or hand deliver your Hazardous Materials Transportation,
a net increase of 121,266 burden hours comments to: Attention: Desk Officer for Socioeconomics, Solid Waste Disposal,
in the agency’s information collection the Department of Transportation, and other Special Areas of
budget. Dockets Library, Office of Information Consideration. A copy of the draft
FMCSA requests comments on and Regulatory Affairs, Office of environmental assessment has been
whether the collection of information is Management and Budget, Room 10102,
necessary for the agency to meet its goal placed in the docket.
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
of reducing truck crashes, including: (1) 20503. Table 23 presents a comparison of the
Whether the information is useful to potential environmental and
this goal; (2) the accuracy of the National Environmental Policy Act of socioeconomic consequences of the
estimated information collection 1969 (NEPA) Proposed-Action Alternative and No-
burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, FMCSA analyzed this rule for the Action Alternative from the draft
utility, and clarity of the information purpose of the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et environmental assessment.

TABLE 23.—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES


Category Proposed-action alternative No-action alternative 1

Public Health and Safety .................................... Moderate positive impact ................................. Moderate negative impact.
Hazardous Materials Transportation .................. Negligible to minor net positive impact ............ Negligible to minor net negative impact.
Socioeconomics ................................................. Moderate net positive impact ........................... Moderate net negative impact.
Solid Waste Disposal ......................................... Negligible to minor positive and negative im- Negligible to minor negative impact.
pact.

Additional ‘‘Special Areas of Consideration’’

Air Quality ........................................................... Negligible to minor positive impact .................. Negligible to minor negative impact.
Noise .................................................................. No impact ......................................................... No impact.
Endangered Species .......................................... Negligible to minor positive impact .................. Negligible to minor negative impact.
Resources protected by the NHPA .................... Negligible positive impact ................................ Negligible negative impact.
Wetlands ............................................................. Negligible to minor positive impact .................. Negligible to minor negative impact.
Section 4(f) resources ........................................ Negligible to minor positive impact .................. Negligible to minor negative impact.
1 The ‘‘No-Action’’ Alternative is evaluated from a dynamic perspective (i.e., considers both short- and long-run impacts). So, while the ‘‘No-Ac-
tion’’ Alternative results in no impacts in the short-run (since there is no change in existing regulations), in the long run, it is estimated to have
negative impacts, since the analysis assumes intermodal transportation continues to grow in future years.

Table 23 lists the impact categories for maintenance). Nevertheless, that may be FMCSA seeks comment on the draft
which there exists a potential for a offset by a positive impact on solid environmental assessment.
positive or negative indirect impact waste disposal (caused by decreasing
Energy Effects
from the Proposed-Action Alternative the amount of solid waste generated via
(this proposed rule). Without certain crashes). FMCSA has analyzed this action
key pieces of information (e.g., crash under Executive Order 13211, entitled
The beneficial impacts of the ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
data on a national level, exact number proposed rulemaking—most
and safety record of intermodal Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
importantly the positive impacts on Distribution, or Use.’’ The agency has
equipment providers, and detailed public health and safety in addition to
transportation routes over which determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
positive indirect impacts on aspects of energy action’’ under that order because
intermodal equipment is used), it is the physical and human environment—
impossible to accurately quantify most it does not appear to be economically
are in contrast to the No-Action significant (i.e., a cost of more than
of these impacts, though a qualitative Alternative, which has the potential to
rationale for these conclusions is offered $120.7 million in a single year) based
negatively impact most of the resources upon analyses performed at this stage of
in the draft environmental assessment. evaluated in the draft environmental the rulemaking process, and is not likely
Nevertheless, it is evident from Table assessment. Note that the No-Action to have a significant adverse effect on
23 that the only potentially negative Alternative is evaluated from a dynamic
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

the supply, distribution, or use of


environmental or socioeconomic impact perspective, which considers both short- energy.
of the Proposed-Action Alternative (this and long-run effects. While in the short
proposed rule) involves a potentially run the No-Action Alternative has no Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
minor to negligible negative indirect impact (since no regulations change), This proposed rule does not impose
impact on solid waste disposal (caused there are potential impacts in the long an unfunded mandate, as defined by the
by an increase in the amount of solid run, because growth in intermodal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
waste disposed via regular equipment transportation is assumed to continue. (2 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.), resulting in the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76825

expenditure by State, local, or tribal intermodal chassis by intermodal of intermodal equipment are so few and
governments, in the aggregate, or by the equipment providers that was in effect narrow in scope, the Agency has also
private sector, of $120.7 million or more on January 1, 2005’’ is preempted on the determined that this action would not
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. effective date of the final rule adopted impose substantial additional costs or
under this proceeding [section burdens on the States.
Civil Justice Reform 31151(e)(1)] unless, notwithstanding The Agency will consult with the
This rulemaking would meet section 31151(d), the Secretary of States on the Federalism implications of
applicable standards in sections 3(a) Transportation ‘‘determines that the this proposed regulation, as required by
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, State requirement is as effective as the E.O. 13132. Also, State and local
entitled ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ to Federal requirement and does not governments will have an additional
minimize litigation, eliminate unduly burden interstate commerce’’ opportunity to address this issue during
ambiguity, and reduce burden. [section 31151(e)(2)(A)]. A State must the comment period as indicated under
request a non-preemption determination ADDRESSES.
Protection of Children
before the effective date of the FMCSA
FMCSA has analyzed this section final rule [section 31151(e)(2)(B)], and Regulation Identification Number
under Executive Order 13045, entitled no subsequent amendment to a non- A regulation identification number
‘‘Protection of Children from preempted requirement may take effect (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
Environmental Health Risks and Safety unless it is first submitted to the section listed in the Unified Agenda of
Risks.’’ The agency does not believe this Secretary, who must find that the Federal Regulations. The Regulatory
rulemaking would be an economically amendment is no less effective than the Information Service Center publishes
significant rule, nor does it concern an FMCSA requirements and does not the Unified Agenda in April and
environmental risk to health or safety unduly burden interstate commerce October of each year. The RIN shown on
that may disproportionately affect [section 31151(e)(2)(C)]. the first page of this document can be
children. Section 31151 clearly has preemptive
used to cross-reference this section with
effect. Although most of the States
Taking of Private Property the Unified Agenda.
which adopted statutes regulating the
This rulemaking would not effect a maintenance of intermodal equipment List of Subjects
taking of private property or otherwise did not enforce them for several years,
have taking implications under 49 CFR Part 385
section 31151 will foreclose the
Executive Order 12630, entitled opportunity for States to enact future Administrative practice and
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference legislation on this subject which is procedure, Highway safety, Intermodal
with Constitutionally Protected Property inconsistent with the Agency’s equipment roadability, Motor carriers,
Rights.’’ regulations. We believe this constitutes Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
Federalism a ‘‘substantial direct effect[ ] on the recordkeeping requirements.
States.’’ However, section 31151 does
FMCSA has analyzed this rulemaking not have ‘‘substantial direct effects 49 CFR Part 386
action in accordance with the principles * * * on the relationship between the Administrative practice and
and criteria of Executive Order 13132, national government and the States or procedure, Brokers, Freight forwarders,
entitled ‘‘Federalism,’’ and determined on the distribution of power and Hazardous materials, Intermodal
that it has federalism implications responsibilities among the various equipment provider, Highway safety,
within the meaning of the Order. levels of government.’’ The intermodal Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety,
The Federalism Order applies to equipment affected by this rulemaking Penalties.
‘‘policies that have federalism operates in interstate commerce. The
implications,’’ which it defines as regulation of interstate commerce is 49 CFR Part 390
regulations and other actions ‘‘that have constitutionally and historically vested Highway safety, Intermodal
substantial direct effects on the States, in the Federal government, not the equipment providers, Motor carriers,
on the relationship between the national States. The assertion of Federal Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
government and the States, and on the authority in this area does not change recordkeeping requirements.
distribution of power and the traditional relationship between the
responsibilities among the various national government and the States, nor 49 CFR Part 392
levels of government.’’ Sec. 1(a). The does it affect the constitutional and Highway safety, Intermodal
key concept here is ‘‘substantial direct practical distribution of power and equipment providers, Motor carriers.
effects on the States.’’ responsibilities among the various
Section 31151(d) preempts ‘‘a law, levels of government. 49 CFR Part 393
regulation, order, or other requirement Section 3(b) of the Federalism Order
of a State, a political subdivision of a Highway safety, Intermodal
provides that ‘‘[n]ational action limiting
State, or a tribal organization relating to equipment providers, Motor carriers,
the policymaking discretion of the
commercial motor vehicle safety’’ if it States shall be taken only where there Motor vehicle safety.
‘‘exceeds or is inconsistent with a is constitutional and statutory authority 49 CFR Part 396
requirement imposed under or pursuant for the action and the national activity
to’’ 49 U.S.C. 31151. In other words, is appropriate in light of the presence of Highway safety, Intermodal
equipment providers, Motor carriers,
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

FMCSA’s final rule establishing a problem of national significance.’’ The


maintenance and related requirements constitutional authority and statutory Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
for intermodal equipment will preempt mandate for this rulemaking are clear recordkeeping requirements.
any State or local law or regulation on and explicit. For the reasons discussed in the
the same subject. FMCSA has determined that this preamble, FMCSA proposes to amend
Nonetheless, there are exceptions to action would have a substantial direct Subchapter B, Chapter III of Title 49 of
this principle. ‘‘[A] State requirement effect on States. However, because the Code of the Code of Federal
for the periodic inspection of existing State laws on the maintenance Regulations, as set forth below:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76826 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

PART 385—SAFETY FITNESS PART 386—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR owner or operator, including an
PROCEDURES MOTOR CARRIER, INTERMODAL intermodal equipment provider, fails to
EQUIPMENT PROVIDER, BROKER, make an installment payment on
1. Revise the authority citation for FREIGHT FORWARDER, AND schedule, the payment plan is void and
part 385 to read as follows: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS the entire debt is payable immediately.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), PROCEEDINGS A CMV owner or operator, including an
5105(e), 5109, 5113, 13901–13905, 31136,
intermodal equipment provider, that
4. The authority citation for part 386 fails to pay the full outstanding balance
31144, 31148, 31151, and 31502; Sec. 350 of continues to read as follows:
Pub. L. 107–87; and 49 CFR 1.73. of its civil penalty within 90 days after
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, chapters 5, 51, the date of the missed installment
2. Amend § 385.1 by adding 59, 131–141, 145–149, 311, 313, and 315; sec. payment, is prohibited from operating
paragraph (e) to read as follows: 206, Pub. L. 106–159, 113 Stat. 1763; and 49 in interstate commerce on the next (i.e.,
CFR 1.45 and 1.73. the 91st) day. The prohibition continues
§ 385.1 Purpose and scope. 5. Revise the heading of part 386 to until the FMCSA has received full
* * * * * read as set forth above. payment of the entire penalty.
(e) Subpart F of this Part establishes 6. Revise § 386.1 to read: (3) Appeals to Federal Court. If the
procedures to perform a roadability CMV owner or operator, including an
§ 386.1 Scope of the rules in this part. intermodal equipment provider, appeals
review of intermodal equipment (a) The rules in this part govern
providers to determine their compliance the final agency order to a Federal
proceedings before the Assistant Circuit Court of Appeals, the terms and
with the applicable Federal Motor Administrator, who also acts as the
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). payment due date of the final agency
Chief Safety Officer of the Federal Motor order are not stayed unless the Court so
3. Amend part 385 by adding a new Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), directs.
Subpart F—Intermodal Equipment under applicable provisions of the (b) Show-cause proceeding. (1) The
Providers (§§ 385.501–383.503) to read Federal Motor Carrier Safety FMCSA will notify a CMV owner or
as follows: Regulations (49 CFR parts 350–399), operator, including an intermodal
including the commercial regulations equipment provider, in writing if it has
Subpart F—Intermodal Equipment (49 CFR parts 360–379), and the not received payment within 45 days
Providers Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 after the date specified for payment by
CFR parts 171–180). the final agency order or the date of a
§ 385.501 Roadability review.
(b) The purpose of the proceedings is missed installment payment. The notice
(a) FMCSA will perform roadability to enable the Assistant Administrator: will include a warning that failure to
reviews of intermodal equipment (1) To determine whether a motor pay the entire penalty within 90 days
providers, as defined in § 390.5 of this carrier, intermodal equipment provider after payment was due, will result in the
chapter. A roadability review is a review (as defined in § 390.5 of this chapter), CMV owner or operator, including an
by the FMCSA of the intermodal property broker, freight forwarder, or its intermodal equipment provider, being
equipment provider’s compliance with agents, employees, or any other person prohibited from operating in interstate
the applicable FMCSRs. subject to the jurisdiction of FMCSA, commerce.
has failed to comply with the provisions (2) The notice will order the CMV
(b) FMCSA will evaluate the results of
or requirements of applicable statutes owner or operator, including an
the roadability review using the criteria
and the corresponding regulations; and intermodal equipment provider, to show
in Appendix A to this Part as they relate
(2) To issue an appropriate order to cause why it should not be prohibited
to compliance with Parts 390, 393, and
compel compliance with the statute or from operating in interstate commerce
396 of this chapter.
regulation, assess a civil penalty, or on the 91st day after the date specified
§ 385.503 Results of roadability review. both, if such violations are found. for payment. The prohibition may be
7. Revise § 386.83 to read as follows: avoided only by submitting to the Chief
(a) FMCSA will not assign a safety
rating to an intermodal equipment § 386.83 Sanction for failure to pay civil Safety Officer:
provider. However, the FMCSA may cite penalties or abide by payment plan; (i) Evidence that the respondent has
the intermodal equipment provider for operation in interstate commerce paid the entire amount due; or
prohibited. (ii) Evidence that the respondent has
violations of Parts 390, 393, and 396 of
this chapter and may impose civil (a)(1) General rule. A commercial filed for bankruptcy under chapter 11,
penalties. motor vehicle (CMV) owner or operator, title 11, United States Code.
including an intermodal equipment Respondents in bankruptcy must also
(b) FMCSA may prohibit the provider, that fails to pay a civil penalty submit the information required by
intermodal equipment provider from in full within 90 days after the date paragraph (d) of this section.
tendering specific items of equipment specified for payment by FMCSA’s final (3) The notice will be delivered by
determined to constitute an imminent agency order, is prohibited from certified mail or commercial express
hazard. operating in interstate commerce service. If a CMV owner’s or operator’s,
(c) FMCSA may prohibit an starting on the next (i.e., the 91st) day. including an intermodal equipment
intermodal equipment provider from The prohibition continues until FMCSA provider’s, principal place of business is
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

tendering any intermodal equipment has received full payment of the in a foreign country, the notice will be
from a particular location or multiple penalty. delivered to the CMV owner’s or
locations if the agency determines that (2) Civil penalties paid in operator’s designated agent.
the intermodal equipment provider’s installments. The FMCSA Service (c) A CMV owner or operator,
compliance with the FMCSRs is so Center may allow a CMV owner or including an intermodal equipment
deficient that the provider’s continued operator, including an intermodal provider, that continues to operate in
operation constitutes an imminent equipment provider, to pay a civil interstate commerce in violation of this
hazard to highway safety. penalty in installments. If the CMV section may be subject to additional

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76827

sanctions under paragraph IV (h) of motor carrier pursuant to an intermodal § 390.19 Motor carrier, HM shipper, and
appendix A to part 386. equipment interchange agreement for intermodal equipment provider
(d) This section does not apply to any the purpose of transporting the identification reports.
person who is unable to pay a civil equipment for loading or unloading by (a) Each motor carrier that conducts
penalty because the person is a debtor any person or repositioning the operations in interstate commerce must
in a case under 11 U.S.C. chapter 11. equipment for the benefit of the file a Motor Carrier Identification
CMV owners or operators, including equipment provider, but it does not Report, Form MCS–150. Each motor
intermodal equipment providers, in include the leasing of equipment to a carrier that operates in intrastate
bankruptcy proceedings under chapter motor carrier for primary use in the commerce, and that requires a
11 must provide the following motor carrier’s freight hauling hazardous materials safety permit under
information in their response to the operations. part 385, subpart E of this chapter, must
FMCSA: file a combined Motor Carrier
(1) The chapter of the Bankruptcy Intermodal equipment means trailing
Identification Report and HM Permit
Code under which the bankruptcy equipment that is used in the
Application, Form MCS–150B. Each
proceeding is filed (i.e., chapter 7 or 11); intermodal transportation of containers intermodal equipment provider that
(2) The bankruptcy case number; over public highways in interstate offers intermodal equipment for
(3) The court in which the bankruptcy commerce, including trailers and transportation in interstate commerce
proceeding was filed; and chassis. must file an Intermodal Equipment
(4) Any other information requested Intermodal equipment interchange Provider Identification Report, Form
by the agency to determine a debtor’s agreement means the Uniform MCS–150C. They must do so at the
bankruptcy status. Intermodal Interchange and Facilities following times:
Access Agreement or any other written * * * * *
PART 390—FEDERAL MOTOR document executed by an intermodal
CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; (b) The Motor Carrier Identification
equipment provider or its agent and a Report, Form MCS–150, the Combined
GENERAL motor carrier or its agent, the primary Motor Carrier Identification Report and
8. Revise the authority citation for purpose of which is to establish the HM Permit Application, Form MCS–
part 390 to read as follows: responsibilities and liabilities of both 150B, and the Intermodal Equipment
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 508, 13301, 13902,
parties with respect to the interchange Provider Identification Report, Form
31133, 31136, 31151, 31502, 31504, and sec. of the intermodal equipment. MCS–150C, with complete instructions,
204, Pub. L. 104–88, 109 Stat. 803, 941 (49 Intermodal equipment provider means are available from the FMCSA Web site
U.S.C. 701 note); sec. 114, Pub. L. 103–311, any person that interchanges intermodal at: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov (Keyword
108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 217, Pub. L. 106– equipment with a motor carrier ‘‘MCS–150’’ or ‘‘MCS–150B’’ or ‘‘MCS–
159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; and 49 CFR 1.73. 150C’’); from all FMCSA Service Centers
pursuant to a written interchange
9. Amend § 390.3 by adding a new agreement or has a contractual and Division offices nationwide; or by
paragraph (h) to read: responsibility for the maintenance of the calling 1–800–832–5660.
intermodal equipment. (c) The completed Motor Carrier
§ 390.3 General applicability. Identification Report, Form MCS–150,
* * * * * * * * * *
Combined Motor Carrier Identification
(h) Intermodal equipment providers. 11. Revise § 390.15(a) to read as Report and HM Permit Application,
The rules in the following provisions of follows: Form MCS–150B, or Intermodal
subchapter B of this chapter apply to Equipment Provider Identification
intermodal equipment providers: § 390.15 Assistance in investigations and
special studies. Report, Form MCS–150C must be filed
(1) Subpart F, Intermodal Equipment with FMCSA Office of Information
Providers, of Part 385, Safety Fitness (a) Each motor carrier and intermodal Management.
Procedures. equipment provider must do the * * * * *
(2) Part 386, Rules of Practice for following: (d) Only the legal name or single trade
Motor Carrier, Intermodal Equipment
(1) Make all records and information name may be used on the motor carrier’s
Provider, Broker, Freight Forwarder,
pertaining to an accident available to an or intermodal equipment provider’s
and Hazardous Materials Proceedings.
(3) Part 390, Federal Motor Carrier authorized representative or special identification report (Form MCS–150,
Safety Regulations; General, except agent of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety MCS–150B, or MCS–150C).
§ 390.15(b) concerning accident Administration, an authorized State or (e) A motor carrier or intermodal
registers. local enforcement agency equipment provider is subject to the
(4) Part 393, Parts and Accessories representative, or authorized third party penalties prescribed in 49 U.S.C.
Necessary for Safe Operation. representative within such time as the 521(b)(2)(B) for—
(5) Part 396, Inspection, Repair, and request or investigation may specify. (1) Failing to file a Motor Carrier
Maintenance. (2) Give an authorized representative Identification Report, Form MCS–150,
10. Amend § 390.5 by adding, in all reasonable assistance in the the Combined Motor Carrier
alphabetical order, definitions for investigation of any accident including Identification Report and HM Permit
‘‘Interchange,’’ ‘‘Intermodal providing a full, true, and correct Application, Form MCS–150B, or the
equipment,’’ ‘‘Intermodal equipment response to any question of the inquiry. Intermodal Equipment Provider
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

interchange agreement,’’ and Identification Report, Form MCS–150C.


* * * * * (2) Furnishing misleading information
‘‘Intermodal equipment provider’’ to
read: 12. Amend § 390.19 by revising the or making false statements on the Form
section heading, the introductory text of MCS–150, Form MCS–150B, or Form
§ 390.5 Definitions. paragraph (a), paragraph (b), the MCS–150C.
* * * * * introductory text of paragraph (c), and (f) Upon receipt and processing of the
Interchange means the act of paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to read as Motor Carrier Identification Report,
providing intermodal equipment to a follows: Form MCS–150, the Combined Motor

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76828 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Carrier Identification Report and HM Subpart C—Requirements and State data released to the public by
Permit Application, Form MCS–150B, Information for Intermodal Equipment FMCSA, including safety violations
or the Intermodal Equipment Provider Providers and for Motor Carriers attributable to deficiencies in
Identification Report, Form MCS–150C, Operating Intermodal Equipment intermodal chassis or trailers for which
FMCSA will issue the motor carrier or it should not have been held responsible
intermodal equipment provider an § 390.40 What responsibilities do because a motor carrier certified the
identification number (USDOT intermodal equipment providers have under equipment as passing the pre-trip
the FMCSRs?
Number), or advise an intermodal inspection.
equipment provider it may use an An intermodal equipment provider (b) A motor carrier or its agent may
identification number unique to that must— electronically file questions or concerns
entity. (a) Identify its operations to the at http://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov about
(1) The motor carrier must display the FMCSA by filing the form required by Federal and State data released to the
number on each self-propelled CMV, as § 390.19. public by FMCSA. These include safety
defined in § 390.5, along with additional (b) Mark its intermodal equipment violations attributable to deficiencies in
information required by § 390.21. with the USDOT Number or other intermodal chassis or trailers for which
identifying number unique to that entity it should not have been held responsible
(2) The intermodal equipment
as required by § 390.21. because they concerned defects or
provider must display its assigned
(c) Systematically inspect, repair, and deficiencies in parts or accessories that
number on each unit of interchanged
maintain, or cause to be systematically a driver could not readily detect during
intermodal equipment.
inspected, repaired, and maintained, in a pre-trip inspection performed in
* * * * * a manner consistent with § 396.3(a)(1), accordance with § 392.7(a) and (b) of
13. Amend § 390.21 by revising the as applicable, all intermodal equipment this chapter.
section heading and paragraphs (a), intended for interchange with a motor (c) An intermodal equipment
(b)(2), and (c)(1) to read as follows: carrier. provider, or its agent, may request
(d) Maintain a system of driver FMCSA to investigate a motor carrier
§ 390.21 Marking of self-propelled CMVs
and intermodal equipment. vehicle inspection reports submitted to believed to be in noncompliance with
the intermodal equipment provider as responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 31151
(a) General. Every self-propelled CMV required by § 396.11 of this chapter. or the implementing regulations in this
and each unit of intermodal equipment (e) Maintain a system of inspection, subchapter regarding interchange of
interchanged or offered for interchange repair, and maintenance records as intermodal equipment by contacting the
to a motor carrier by an intermodal required by § 396.12 of this chapter for appropriate FMCSA Field Office.
equipment provider subject to equipment intended for interchange (d) A motor carrier or its agent may
subchapter B of this chapter must be with a motor carrier. request FMCSA to investigate an
marked as specified in paragraphs (b), (f) Periodically inspect equipment intermodal equipment provider believed
(c), and (d) of this section. intended for interchange, as required to be in noncompliance with
(b) * * * under § 396.17 of this chapter. responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 31151
(2) The identification number issued (g) At facilities at which the or the implementing regulations in this
by FMCSA to the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider makes subchapter regarding interchange of
intermodal equipment provider, intermodal equipment available for intermodal equipment by contacting the
preceded by the letters ‘‘USDOT.’’ interchange, have procedures in place, appropriate FMCSA Field Office.
* * * * * and provide sufficient space, for drivers § 390.44 What are the responsibilities of
(c) * * * to perform a pre-trip inspection of drivers and motor carriers operating
(1) Appear on both sides of the self- tendered intermodal equipment. intermodal equipment?
propelled CMV or interchanged (h) At facilities at which the (a) Before operating intermodal
intermodal equipment; intermodal equipment provider makes equipment over the road, the driver
intermodal equipment available for accepting the equipment must inspect
* * * * *
interchange, develop and implement the equipment components listed in
14. Amend part 390 by adding a new procedures to repair any equipment
subpart C (§§ 390.40–390.46) to read as § 392.7(b) of this chapter and must be
damage, defects, or deficiencies satisfied that they are in good working
follows: identified as part of a pre-trip order.
Subpart C—Requirements and inspection, or replace the equipment, (b) A driver or motor carrier
Information for Intermodal Equipment prior to the driver’s departure. The transporting intermodal equipment
Providers and for Motor Carriers repairs or replacement must be made in must report to the intermodal
Operating Intermodal Equipment a timely manner after being notified by equipment provider, or its designated
a driver of such damage, defects, or agent, any known damage or
Sec. deficiencies. deficiencies in the intermodal
390.40 What responsibilities do intermodal (i) Refrain from placing intermodal equipment at the time the equipment is
equipment providers have under the equipment in service on the public
FMCSRs?
returned to the provider or the
highways if that equipment has been provider’s designated agent. The report
390.42 What are the procedures to correct found to pose an imminent hazard, as
the safety record of a motor carrier or an must include, at a minimum, the items
intermodal equipment provider?
defined in § 386.72(b)(1) of this chapter. in § 396.11(a)(2) of this chapter.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

390.44 What are the responsibilities of § 390.42 What are the procedures to
drivers and motor carriers operating § 390.46 Are State and local laws and
correct the safety record of a motor carrier regulations on the inspection, repair, and
intermodal equipment? or an intermodal equipment provider?
390.46 Are State and local laws and maintenance of intermodal equipment
regulations on the inspection, repair, and (a) An intermodal equipment provider preempted by the Federal Motor Carrier
maintenance of intermodal equipment or its agent may electronically file Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)?
preempted by the Federal Motor Carrier questions or concerns at http:// (a) Generally. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)? dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov about Federal and 31151(d), a law, regulation, order, or

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76829

other requirement of a State, a political PART 392—DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31151,
subdivision of a State, or a tribal MOTOR VEHICLES and 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73.
organization relating to the inspection, 20. Revise § 396.1 to read as follows:
repair, and maintenance of intermodal 15. Revise the authority citation for
equipment is preempted if such law, Part 392 to read as follows: § 396.1 Scope.
regulation, order, or other requirement Authority: 49 U.S.C. 13902, 31136, 31151, (a) Every motor carrier, its officers,
exceeds or is inconsistent with a 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73. drivers, agents, representatives, and
requirement imposed by the FMCSRs. 16. Amend § 392.7 by designating the employees directly concerned with the
(b) Pre-existing State requirements— existing text as paragraph (a) and adding inspection or maintenance of motor
(1) In general. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. vehicles must be knowledgeable of and
a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
31151(e)(1), unless otherwise provided comply with the rules of this part.
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, a § 392.7 Equipment, inspection, and use. (b) Every intermodal equipment
State requirement for the periodic * * * * * provider, its officers, agents,
inspection of intermodal chassis by (b) Drivers preparing to transport representatives, and employees directly
intermodal equipment providers that intermodal equipment must concerned with the inspection or
was in effect on January 1, 2005, shall additionally make a visual or audible maintenance of intermodal equipment
remain in effect only until the effective inspection of the following components interchanged to motor carriers must be
date of the FMCSA final rule entitled before operating that equipment, and knowledgeable of and comply with the
‘‘Requirements for Intermodal must be satisfied that they are in good rules of this part.
Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers working order before the equipment is 21. Amend § 396.3 by revising the
and Drivers Operating Intermodal operated over the road: introductory text of paragraphs (a) and
Equipment’’. Rails or support frames. (b) to read as follows:
(i) Nonpreemption determinations.—
Tie down bolsters. § 396.3 Inspection, repair, and
(A) In general. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
Locking pins, clevises, clamps, or maintenance.
31151(e)(2), and notwithstanding
hooks. (a) General. Every motor carrier and
paragraph (a) of this section, a State
Sliders or sliding frame lock. intermodal equipment provider must
requirement described in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section is not preempted by PART 393—PARTS AND systematically inspect, repair, and
the FMCSA final rule on ‘‘Requirements ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR maintain, or cause to be systematically
for Intermodal Equipment Providers and SAFE OPERATION inspected, repaired, and maintained, all
Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating motor vehicles and intermodal
Intermodal Equipment’’ if the 17. Revise the authority citation for equipment subject to its control.
Administrator determines that the State part 393 to read as follows: * * * * *
requirement is as effective as the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31136, 31151 and (b) Required records. Motor carriers,
FMCSA final rule and does not unduly 31502; sec. 1041(b), Pub. L. 102–240, 105 except for a private motor carrier of
burden interstate commerce. Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); and 49 CFR 1.73. passengers (nonbusiness), must
(ii) Application required. Paragraph maintain, or cause to be maintained,
(b)(2)(i) of this section applies to a State 18. Revise § 393.1 to read as follows:
records for each motor vehicle they
requirement only if the State applies to § 393.1 Scope of the rules of this part. control for 30 consecutive days.
the Administrator for a determination (a)(1) Every motor carrier and its Intermodal equipment providers must
under this subparagraph with respect to employees must be knowledgeable of maintain or cause to be maintained,
the requirement before the effective date and comply with the requirements and records for each unit of intermodal
of the final rule. The Administrator will specifications of this part. equipment they tender or intend to
make a determination with respect to (2) Every intermodal equipment tender to a motor carrier. These records
any such application within 6 months provider and its employees responsible must include:
after the date on which the
for the inspection, repair, and * * * * *
Administrator receives the application. 22. Amend § 396.11 by revising
maintenance of intermodal equipment
(iii) Amended State requirements.—If
interchanged to motor carriers must be paragraph (a) to read as follows:
a State amends a regulation for which it
previously received a nonpreemption knowledgeable of and comply with the
§ 396.11 Driver vehicle inspection
determination from the Administrator applicable requirements and
report(s).
under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, specifications of this part.
(b) No motor carrier may operate a (a) Report required.
it must apply for a determination of (1) Motor carriers. Every motor carrier
nonpreemption for the amended commercial motor vehicle, or cause or
permit such a vehicle to be operated, must require its drivers to report, and
regulation. Any amendment to a State every driver must prepare a report in
requirement not preempted under this unless it is equipped in accordance with
the requirements and specifications of writing at the completion of each day’s
subsection because of a determination work on each vehicle operated. The
by the Administrator may not take effect this part.
(c) No intermodal equipment provider report must cover at least the following
unless it is submitted to the Agency parts and accessories:
before the effective date of the may operate intermodal equipment, or
cause or permit such equipment to be —Service brakes including trailer brake
amendment, and the Administrator connections
operated, unless it is equipped in
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

determines that the amendment would —Parking (hand) brake


not cause the State requirement to be accordance with the requirements and
specifications of this part. —Steering mechanism
less effective than the FMCSA final rule —Lighting devices and reflectors
on ‘‘Requirements for Intermodal PART 396—INSPECTION, REPAIR, —Tires
Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers AND MAINTENANCE —Horn
and Drivers Operating Intermodal —Windshield wipers
Equipment’’ and would not unduly 19. Revise the authority citation for —Rear vision mirrors
burden interstate commerce. part 396 to read as follows: —Coupling devices

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76830 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

—Wheels and rims (2) Each intermodal equipment (iv) A certification that the vehicle has
—Emergency equipment provider or its agent must document passed an inspection in accordance with
(2) Intermodal equipment providers. whether the reported damage, defects, § 396.17.
Every intermodal equipment provider or deficiencies have been repaired, or (d) A motor carrier may perform the
must have a process to receive driver whether repair is unnecessary, before required annual inspection for vehicles
reports of defects or deficiencies in the the vehicle is operated again. under the carrier’s control that are not
intermodal equipment operated. The (d) Retention period for reports. Each subject to an inspection under
driver must report on, and the process intermodal equipment provider must § 396.23(b)(1). An intermodal
to receive reports must cover, the maintain all documentation required by equipment provider may perform the
following parts and accessories: this section for a period of three months required annual inspection for
—King pin upper coupling device from the date that a motor carrier or its intermodal equipment interchanged or
—Rails or support frames driver submits the report to the intended for interchange to motor
—Tie down bolsters intermodal equipment provider or its carriers that is not subject to an
—Locking pins, clevises, clamps, or agent. inspection under § 396.23(b)(1).
hooks 24. Revise §§ 396.17, 396.19, 396.21, (e) In lieu of the self inspection
—Sliders or sliding frame lock 396.23, and 396.25 to read as follows: provided for in paragraph (d) of this
—Wheels, rims, lugs, tires section, a motor carrier or intermodal
—Lighting devices, lamps, markers, and § 396.17 Periodic inspection. equipment provider responsible for the
conspicuity marking material (a) Every commercial motor vehicle inspection may choose to have a
—Air line connections, hoses, and must be inspected as required by this commercial garage, fleet leasing
couplers section. The inspection must include, at company, truck stop, or other similar
—Brakes a minimum, the parts and accessories commercial business perform the
* * * * * set forth in appendix G of this inspection as its agent, provided that
23. Add § 396.12 to read as follows as subchapter. The term commercial motor business operates and maintains
follows: vehicle includes each vehicle in a facilities appropriate for commercial
combination vehicle. For example, for a vehicle inspections and it employs
§ 396.12 Procedures for intermodal
equipment providers to accept reports tractor semitrailer, full trailer qualified inspectors, as required by
required by § 390.44(b) of this chapter. combination, the tractor, semitrailer, § 396.19.
(a) System for reports. Each and the full trailer (including the (f) Vehicles passing roadside or
intermodal equipment provider must converter dolly if so equipped) must periodic inspections performed under
establish a system for motor carriers and each be inspected. the auspices of any State government or
drivers to report to it any damage, (b) Except as provided in § 396.23 and equivalent jurisdiction or the FMCSA,
defects, or deficiencies discovered by, or this paragraph, motor carriers must meeting the minimum standards
reported to, the motor carrier or driver inspect or cause to be inspected all contained in appendix G of this
which would— motor vehicles subject to their control. subchapter, are considered to have met
(1) Affect the safety of operation of the Intermodal equipment providers must the requirements of an annual
intermodal equipment, or inspect or cause to be inspected inspection for a period of 12 months
(2) Result in its mechanical intermodal equipment that is commencing from the last day of the
breakdown while transported on public interchanged or intended for month in which the inspection was
roads. interchange to motor carries in performed. If a vehicle is subject to a
(b) Report content. The system intermodal transportation. mandatory State inspection program, as
required by paragraph (a) of this section (c) A motor carrier must not use a provided in § 396.23(b)(1), a roadside
must include documentation of all of commercial motor vehicle, and an inspection may only be considered
the following: intermodal equipment provider must equivalent if it complies with the
(1) Name of the motor carrier not tender equipment to a motor carrier requirements of that program.
responsible for the operation of the for interchange, unless each component (g) It is the responsibility of the motor
intermodal equipment at the time the identified in appendix G to this carrier or intermodal equipment
damage, defects, or deficiencies were subchapter has passed an inspection in provider to ensure that all parts and
discovered by, or reported to, the driver. accordance with the terms of this accessories on vehicles for which they
(2) Motor carrier’s USDOT Number or section at least once during the are responsible that do not meet the
other unique identifying number. preceding 12 months and minimum standards set forth in
(3) Date and time the report was documentation of such inspection is on appendix G to this subchapter are
submitted. the vehicle. The documentation may be: repaired promptly.
(4) All damage, defects, or (1) The inspection report prepared in (h) Failure to perform properly the
deficiencies reported to the equipment accordance with § 396.21(a), or annual inspection required by this
provider by the motor carrier or its section causes the motor carrier or
(2) Other forms of documentation,
driver. intermodal equipment provider to be
(c) Corrective action. (1) Prior to based on the inspection report (e.g.,
subject to the penalty provisions of 49
allowing or permitting a motor carrier to sticker or decal), that contain the
U.S.C. 521(b).
transport a piece of intermodal following information:
(i) The date of inspection; § 396.19 Inspector qualifications.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

equipment for which a motor carrier or


driver has submitted a report about (ii) Name and address of the motor (a) Motor carriers and intermodal
damage, defects or deficiencies, each carrier, intermodal equipment provider, equipment providers must ensure that
intermodal equipment provider or its or other entity where the inspection the individual(s) performing an annual
agent must repair reported damage, report is maintained; inspection under § 396.17(d) or (e) is
defects, or deficiencies that are likely to (iii) Information uniquely identifying (are) qualified as follows:
affect the safety of operation of the the vehicle inspected if not clearly (1) Understands the inspection
vehicle. marked on the motor vehicle; and criteria set forth in part 393 and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules 76831

appendix G of this subchapter and can (4) Identifies the vehicle inspected; (b)(1) If a commercial motor vehicle is
identify defective components; (5) Identifies the vehicle components subject to a mandatory State inspection
(2) Is knowledgeable of and has inspected and describes the results of program that is determined by the
mastered the methods, procedures, tools the inspection, including the Administrator to be as effective as
and equipment used when performing identification of those components not § 396.17, the motor carrier or intermodal
an inspection; and meeting the minimum standards set equipment provider must meet the
(3) Is capable of performing an forth in appendix G to this subchapter; requirement of § 396.17 through that
inspection by reason of experience, and State’s inspection program. Commercial
training, or both as follows: (6) Certifies the accuracy and motor vehicle inspections may be
(i) Successfully completed a State or completeness of the inspection as conducted by State personnel, at State
Federal-sponsored training program or complying with all the requirements of authorized commercial facilities, or by
has a certificate from a State or the motor carrier or intermodal
this section.
Canadian Province that qualifies the equipment provider itself under the
(b)(1) The original or a copy of the
person to perform commercial motor auspices of a State authorized self-
vehicle safety inspections, or inspection report must be retained by
the motor carrier, intermodal equipment inspection program.
(ii) Has a combination of training and/ (2) Should the FMCSA determine that
or experience totaling at least 1 year. provider, or other entity that is
responsible for the inspection for a a State inspection program, in whole or
Such training and/or experience may in part, is not as effective as § 396.17,
consist of: period of fourteen months from the date
of the inspection report. The original or the motor carrier or intermodal
(A) Participation in a commercial
a copy of the inspection report must be equipment provider must ensure that
motor vehicle manufacturer-sponsored
retained where the vehicle is either the periodic inspection required by
training program or similar commercial
housed or maintained. § 396.17 is performed on all commercial
training program designed to train
(2) The original or a copy of the motor vehicles under its control in a
students in commercial motor vehicle
inspection report must be available for manner specified in § 396.17.
operation and maintenance;
(B) Experience as a mechanic or inspection upon demand of an § 396.25 Qualifications of brake
inspector in a motor carrier or authorized Federal, State, or local inspectors.
intermodal equipment maintenance official. (a) Motor carriers and intermodal
program; (3) Exception. If the motor carrier equipment providers must ensure that
(C) Experience as a mechanic or operating the commercial motor all inspections, maintenance, repairs or
inspector in commercial motor vehicle vehicles did not perform the service to the brakes of its commercial
maintenance at a commercial garage, commercial motor vehicle’s last annual motor vehicles, are performed in
fleet leasing company, or similar inspection, or if an intermodal compliance with the requirements of
facility; or equipment provider did not itself this section.
(D) Experience as a commercial perform the annual inspection on (b) For purposes of this section, brake
vehicle inspector for a State, Provincial, equipment intended for interchange to a inspector means any employee of a
or Federal Government. motor carrier, the motor carrier or motor carrier or intermodal equipment
(b) Motor carriers and intermodal intermodal equipment provider is provider who is responsible for ensuring
equipment providers must retain responsible for obtaining the original or all brake inspections, maintenance,
evidence of an individual’s a copy of the last annual inspection service, or repairs to any commercial
qualifications under this section. They report upon demand of an authorized motor vehicle, subject to the motor
must retain this evidence for the period Federal, State, or local official. carrier’s or intermodal equipment
during which the individual is
performing annual motor vehicle § 396.23 Equivalent to periodic inspection.
provider’s control, meet the applicable
inspections for the motor carrier or Federal standards.
(a) A motor carrier or an intermodal (c) No motor carrier or intermodal
intermodal equipment provider, and for equipment provider may meet the equipment provider may require or
one year thereafter. However, motor requirements of § 396.17 through a State permit any employee who does not meet
carriers and intermodal equipment or other jurisdiction’s roadside the minimum brake inspector
providers do not have to maintain inspection program. The inspection
documentation of inspector qualifications of paragraph (d) of this
must have been performed during the section to be responsible for the
qualifications for those inspections preceding 12 months. If using the
performed either as part of a State inspection, maintenance, service, or
roadside inspection, the motor carrier or repairs of any brakes on its commercial
periodic inspection program or at the intermodal equipment provider must
roadside as part of a random roadside motor vehicles.
retain a copy of an annual inspection (d) The motor carrier or intermodal
inspection program. report showing that the inspection was equipment provider must ensure that
§ 396.21 Periodic inspection performed in accordance with the each brake inspector is qualified as
recordkeeping requirements. minimum periodic inspection standards follows:
(a) The qualified inspector performing set forth in appendix G to this (1) Understands the brake service or
the inspection must prepare a report subchapter. If the motor carrier inspection task to be accomplished and
that: operating the commercial vehicle is not can perform that task;
(1) Identifies the individual the party directly responsible for its (2) Is knowledgeable of and has
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

performing the inspection; maintenance, the motor carrier must mastered the methods, procedures, tools
(2) Identifies the motor carrier deliver the roadside inspection report to and equipment used when performing
operating the vehicle or intermodal the responsible party in a timely an assigned brake service or inspection
equipment provider intending to manner. When accepting such an task; and
interchange the vehicle to a motor inspection report, the motor carrier or (3) Is capable of performing the
carrier; intermodal equipment provider must assigned brake service or inspection by
(3) Identifies the date of the ensure that the report complies with the reason of experience, training or both as
inspection; requirements of § 396.21(a). follows:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3
76832 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(i) Has successfully completed an equipment provider maintenance brake knowledge and skills test for a
apprenticeship program sponsored by a program; or Commercial Driver’s License.
State, a Canadian Province, a Federal (C) Experience performing brake 25. Amend Appendix G to Subchapter
agency or a labor union, or a training maintenance or inspection similar to the B—Minimum Periodic Inspection
program approved by a State, assigned brake service or inspection task Standards, in Paragraph 6. Safe Loading,
Provincial, or Federal agency, or has a at a commercial garage, fleet leasing by adding new subparagraph 6.c to read
certificate from a State or Canadian as follows:
company, or similar facility.
Province that qualifies the person to
perform the assigned brake service or (e) No motor carrier or intermodal Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter
inspection task (including passage of equipment provider may employ any III—Minimum Periodic Inspection
Commercial Driver’s License air brake person as a brake inspector unless the Standards
tests in the case of a brake inspection); evidence of the inspector’s * * * * *
(ii) Has brake-related training or qualifications required under this 6. Safe loading.
experience or a combination thereof section is maintained by the motor * * * * *
totaling at least one year. Such training carrier or intermodal equipment c. Container securement devices on
or experience may consist of: provider at its principal place of intermodal equipment—All devices used to
business, or at the location at which the secure an intermodal container to a chassis,
(A) Participation in a training program
brake inspector is employed. The including rails or support frames, tiedown
sponsored by a brake or vehicle bolsters, locking pins, clevises, clamps, and
manufacturer or similar commercial evidence must be maintained for the hooks that are cracked, broken, loose, or
training program designed to train period during which the brake inspector missing.
students in brake maintenance or is employed in that capacity and for one * * * * *
inspection similar to the assigned brake year thereafter. However, motor carriers
Issued on: December 11, 2006.
service or inspection tasks; or and intermodal equipment providers do
John H. Hill,
(B) Experience performing brake not have to maintain evidence of
maintenance or inspection similar to the qualifications to inspect air brake Administrator.
assigned brake service or inspection task systems for such inspections performed [FR Doc. E6–21380 Filed 12–20–06; 8:45 am]
in a motor carrier or intermodal by persons who have passed the air BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM 21DEP3