You are on page 1of 9

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.

165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 50269

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Deborah M. Freund, Office of Bus and Safety Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–563)
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Truck Standards and Operations, (202) (Vehicle Safety Act). Part 567 of title 49,
Administration 366–4009, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, Part 567), requires manufacturers or
49 CFR Part 393 SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. registered importers of motor vehicles
Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 built for sale or use in the United States
[Docket No. FMCSA–01–10886] p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, to affix a label certifying the motor
except Federal holidays. vehicle meets the applicable FMVSSs in
RIN 2126—AA69 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: effect on the date of manufacture.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a), the
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Background Secretary of Transportation (Secretary)
Safe Operation; Certification of On March 19, 2002, FMCSA and has authority (delegated to FMCSA by
Compliance With Federal Motor NHTSA published four notices 49 CFR 1.73) to prescribe minimum
Vehicle Safety Standards; Withdrawal requesting public comments on safety standards for commercial motor
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations and policies directed at vehicles to ensure these vehicles are
Administration (FMCSA), DOT. enforcement of the statutory prohibition maintained, equipped, loaded, and
on the importation of commercial motor operated safely. FMCSA also has been
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
vehicles that do not comply with the delegated authority to prescribe
(NPRM); withdrawal.
applicable FMVSSs. The notices were requirements for the safety of operation
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier issued as follows: (1) FMCSA’s notice of and equipment of motor carriers
Safety Administration (FMCSA) proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing operating in interstate commerce. See 49
withdraws its March 19, 2002, notice of to require motor carriers to ensure their U.S.C. 31502(b). The agency’s regulatory
proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which vehicles display an FMVSS certification authority encompasses the safe
proposed requiring each commercial label (67 FR 12782); (2) NHTSA’s operation of CMVs in interstate and
motor vehicle (CMV) operating in proposed rule to issue a regulation foreign commerce, motor carriers
interstate commerce to display a label incorporating a 1975 interpretation of conducting these operations, and CMV
applied by the vehicle manufacturer or the term ‘‘import’’ (67 FR 12806); (3) drivers. FMCSA’s safety regulations, the
a registered importer to document the NHTSA’s draft policy statement Federal Motor Carrier Safety
vehicle’s compliance with all applicable providing that a vehicle manufacturer Regulations (FMCSRs), are codified in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards may, if it has sufficient basis for doing 49 CFR parts 325–399.
(FMVSSs) in effect as of the date of so, retroactively certify a motor vehicle FMCSA’s withdrawal of this NPRM is
complied with all applicable FMVSSs in consistent with NHTSA’s Notice of
manufacture. We issued the NPRM in
effect at the time of manufacture and Withdrawal of Proposed Policy
coordination with the National Highway
affix a label attesting this (67 FR 12790); Statement published elsewhere in
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
and (4) NHTSA’s proposed rule today’s Federal Register. NHTSA has
which published on the same day three
concerning recordkeeping requirements decided to withdraw a 1975
companion notices related to the
for manufacturers that retroactively interpretation in which the agency had
FMVSS certification requirement.
certify their vehicles (67 FR 12800). indicated that the Vehicle Safety Act is
Although the NPRM would have
In addition to the proposal concerning applicable to foreign-based motor
applied to all CMVs operated in the
FMVSS certification, FMCSA published carriers operating in the United States.
United States, its greatest impact would
on that same day (March 19, 2002) three Although FMCSA is withdrawing its
have been on motor carriers domiciled NPRM, we will uphold the operational
interim rules and a final rule related to
in Canada and Mexico. In withdrawing safety of commercial motor vehicles on
implementation of the North American
the NPRM, we conclude the proposed the nation’s highways—including that
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The
FMVSS certification label requirement interim final rules were ‘‘Application by of Mexico-domiciled CMVs operating
is not necessary to ensure the safe Certain Mexico-Domiciled Motor beyond the U.S.-Mexico border
operation of CMVs on our nation’s Carriers To Operate Beyond United commercial zones—through continued
highways. Vehicles operated by Canada- States Municipalities and Commercial vigorous enforcement of the FMCSRs,
domiciled motor carriers meet Canadian Zones on the United States-Mexico many of which cross-reference specific
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Border’’ (67 FR 12702), ‘‘Safety FMVSSs. Mexico-domiciled motor
(CMVSSs), which are consistent with Monitoring System and Compliance carriers are required under 49 CFR
the FMVSSs in all significant respects. Initiative for Mexico-Domiciled Motor 365.503(b)(2) and 368.3(b)(2) to certify
Furthermore, since the FMVSSs critical Carriers Operating in the United States’’ on the application form for operating
to the operational safety of CMVs are (67 FR12758), and ‘‘Certification of authority that all CMVs they intend to
cross-referenced in the Federal Motor Safety Auditors, Safety Investigators, operate in the United States were built
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), and Safety Inspectors’’ (67 FR 12776). in compliance with the FMVSSs in
FMCSA, in consultation with NHTSA, The final rule was ‘‘Revision of effect at the time of manufacture.
has determined it can most effectively Regulations and Application Form for Further, 49 CFR 365.507(c) requires
achieve the compliance of CMVs with Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers To Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to pass
the FMVSS through enforcement Operate in United States Municipalities an FMCSA pre-authority safety audit
measures and existing regulations and Commercial Zones on the United before they are granted provisional
ensuring compliance with the FMCSRs, States-Mexico Border’’ (67 FR 12652). authority to operate in the United States
making additional FMVSS certification- NHTSA and FMCSA have beyond the border commercial zones.
labeling regulation unnecessary. complementary responsibilities to This inspection will include checking
DATES: The notice of proposed ensure vehicle safety under their compliance with part 393 of the
rulemaking published on March 19, respective enabling legislation. NHTSA FMCSRs and the FMVSSs they cross-
2002, at 67 FR 12782, is withdrawn as establishes manufacturing standards— reference. These vehicles also will be
of August 26, 2005. the FMVSS—under authority of the subject to inspection by enforcement

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:35 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP1.SGM 26AUP1
50270 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules

personnel at U.S.-Mexico border ports of to the four other NAFTA-related rules number of concerns about the
entry and at roadside in the United FMCSA published that day. The practicality of implementing the
States to ensure their compliance with comments summarized below are proposed requirements. NTEA’s
applicable FMCSRs, including those discussed in the context of FMCSA’s concerns are discussed in detail under
that cross-reference the FMVSSs. For NPRM regarding the FMVSS Reciprocity with Canadian Standards
vehicles lacking a certification label, it certification label. and the two sections on Replacement
has been determined that enforcement Labels below.
General Comments ATA stated it supports truck safety
officials could, as necessary, refer to the
VIN (vehicle identification number) in Most of the commenters expressed achieved through ‘‘reasonable and cost-
various locations on the vehicle. The concern that the proposal would require effective measures,’’ applied
VIN will assist inspectors in identifying a complex and difficult-to-implement appropriately according to operations
the vehicle model year and country of process involving replacement of conducted and equipment used. ATA
manufacture to determine compliance compliance labels and re-creation of believes achieving safe operations does
with the FMVSS or CMVSS. manufacturers’ performance test not depend on the presence of a
As described in an FMCSA policy documentation for vehicles long in use. certification label. It asserted FMCSA
memorandum, ‘‘Enforcement of Mexico- Many commenters noted this would not has provided no data indicating vehicles
Domiciled Motor Carriers’ Self- address the fundamentals of what is without certification labels operate
Certification of Compliance with Motor necessary to ensure CMVs operate unsafely, adding it is unaware of the
Vehicle Safety Standards,’’ if FMCSA safely. They questioned the safety existence of such data. CVSA, CTA,
finds, during the pre-authority audit or benefits of requiring a certification label, Missouri CVED, and Manitoba made
subsequent inspections, that a Mexico- given that all CMVs operated in the similar comments.
domiciled carrier has falsely certified its United States are required both to Canada asserted ‘‘there is no credible
vehicles as FMVSS compliant, we may comply with the FMCSRs and to pass case that extending [the FMVSS labeling
use this information to deny, suspend, roadside inspections conducted by requirements] to Canadian commercial
or revoke the carrier’s operating safety officials according to standard vehicles would result in increased
authority or certification of registration Federal inspection procedures. safety.’’ Canada referred to studies
or issue appropriate penalties for the CVSA stated the consensus among its showing Canadian CMVs operating in
falsification. We are issuing this policy member jurisdictions was ‘‘that the United States to be as safe as, or
memorandum to FMCSA field offices implementation of the NPRM would not safer than, U.S.-based CMVs, and
and our State enforcement partners resolve any safety issues, but instead claimed it would be difficult, costly,
under the Motor Carrier Safety would create a significant economic and in some cases impossible to comply
Assistance Program (MCSAP). A copy of effect on cross-border trade, and with the proposed regulation. Canada
the memorandum is available in the domestic commercial transportation.’’ also anticipated the proposal would
docket. TMA supported the agency’s efforts to have a serious negative impact on cross-
ensure commercial motor vehicles border trade and tourism, as well as
Discussion of Comments to the NPRM manufactured in Canada and Mexico violate United States obligations under
The following organizations meet the same safety standards required both NAFTA and the Marrakesh
commented on the agency’s NPRM to of CMVs manufactured for the U.S. Agreement Establishing the World
require that motor carriers ensure their market. However, TMA believed both Trade Organization. Canada contended
vehicles display an FMVSS certification the FMCSA proposal and NHTSA’s the rule would provide less favorable
label: Advocates for Highway and Auto proposed policy statement on treatment to Canadian motor carriers
Safety (Advocates); the Amalgamated retroactive certification invited than to U.S. carriers, and would restrict
Transit Union (ATU); the American compliance problems and could impact trade more than is necessary to achieve
Insurance Association (AIA); the U.S. motor carriers adversely. CVMA safety objectives.
American Trucking Associations (ATA); supported TMA’s position, adding it CTA stated the safety of Canadian
the Embassy of Canada (Canada); the believes better opportunities exist for motor carriers operating in the United
Canadian Transportation Equipment improving CMV safety through vehicle States would not be diminished absent
Association (CTEA); the Canadian maintenance and enforcement of safety the provisions of the NPRM. CTA
Trucking Alliance (CTA); the Canadian regulations. It cited programs adopted estimates there are at least 250,000
Vehicle Manufacturers Association by the Province of Ontario as examples. CMVs regularly engaged in cross-border
(CVMA); the Commercial Vehicle Safety CTEA, a trade association traffic, but believes the number could be
Alliance (CVSA); the California representing vehicle and equipment much higher: ‘‘Since carriers do not
Highway Patrol (CHP); Greyhound manufacturers and the provider of a segregate their fleets into ‘domestic’ and
Lines, Inc. (Greyhound); the label service to Canadian and U.S. ‘international’ equipment, from a
International Brotherhood of Teamsters commercial motor vehicle practical standpoint, all equipment in
(IBT); Manitoba Transportation and manufacturers registered with Transport fleets with cross-border operations
Government Services (Manitoba); the Canada and NHTSA, was encouraged would fall under the proposed labeling
Missouri State Highway Patrol, that FMCSA addressed the issue of requirements.’’
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement certification compliance labels. CTEA Seven commenters favored the
Division (Missouri CVED); the National believes, however, the most effective proposal:
Truck Equipment Association (NTEA); way to improve CMV roadworthiness is Greyhound contended Mexico-
Public Citizen; the Transportation for operators to adhere to manufactured buses ‘‘did not comply
Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD); manufacturers’ maintenance schedules with the FMVSS when they were
and the Truck Manufacturers and practices, and for recommended manufactured and do not comply with
Association (TMA). inspection procedures to be used. the FMVSS and the Federal Motor
Many commenters submitted NTEA, a U.S. trade association Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR)
identical comments to the dockets for representing distributors of multistage- now,’’ and asserted it would be highly
the FMCSA and NHTSA proposals produced, work-related trucks, truck inappropriate for DOT to allow these
published on March 19, 2002, as well as bodies, and equipment, expressed a vehicles to operate in the United States.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:35 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP1.SGM 26AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 50271

ATU stated it concurs with Greyhound’s performance standards applicable to window requirements consistent with
comments. lights, brakes, and other wear items does the new FMVSS standard [No. 217,
Advocates, acknowledging NAFTA not ensure real-world safety in the published at 37 FR 9395 on May 10,
requires elimination of trade barriers absence of compliance with the 1972]). The most recent example is
and unnecessary burdens on commerce, operational and maintenance standards FMCSA’s final rule, ‘‘Parts and
stressed that the treaty ‘‘was not imposed by the FMCSRs, especially in Accessories Necessary for Safe
intended to require the evasion or the case of vehicles built many years Operation; General Amendments’’
suspension of established motor vehicle ago. Although the presence or absence (Docket Number FMCSA–1997–2364),
regulations and safety standards.’’ AIA of an FMVSS compliance label can which updates and expands FMCSR
supported Advocates’ position. certainly provide a useful tool in this cross-references to FMVSSs and
Citing the requirements of the Vehicle regard, inspection of the CMV’s includes applicable engineering
Safety Act and a 1975 interpretation compliance with the FMCSRs remains citations. As a result of the
letter issued by NHTSA, CHP supported the benchmark by which enforcement Congressional directive that the
the proposal for the certification and officials identify and remove from FMCSRs provide for performance no
labeling requirements. service vehicles likely to break down or less than the FMVSSs and the history of
Public Citizen stated the proposed cause a crash. The American public is consistency between the two bodies of
NHTSA and FMCSA regulations ‘‘close better protected by the FMCSRs than regulations, enforcement of the FMCSRs
an unofficial loophole’’ in the agencies’ solely through a label indicating a CMV assures compliance with the FMVSSs
regulations. IBT also supported the was originally built to certain cross-referenced therein—and, more
FMCSA proposal. manufacturing performance standards. important, provides for safety on the
FMCSA Response: Generally, U.S. Congress intended the FMVSSs and highways.
motor carriers operating CMVs (as FMCSRs as mutually supportive
defined in 49 CFR 390.5) in interstate systems of regulations—one Reciprocity With Canadian Standards
commerce have access only to vehicles manufacturing, the other operational. In TMA recommended either a U.S. or
that either were manufactured the Vehicle Safety Act, which mandated Canadian certification label be accepted
domestically for use in the United States creation of the manufacturing standards, for commercial motor vehicles
and have the required certification label Congress specified that the preexisting manufactured before the effective date
or were imported into the United States motor carrier safety regulations of the NHTSA policy statement on
in accordance with applicable NHTSA promulgated by the Interstate Commerce retroactive certification. The only major
regulations, including certification Commission should not differ in differences between the U.S. and
documentation requirements of 49 CFR substance or impose any lesser standard Canadian manufacturing standards are
Part 567. Furthermore, FMCSA’s safety of performance than the manufacturing the effective dates (also called
regulations incorporate and cross- standards. (See also Senate Commerce compliance dates) for the requirements
reference the FMVSSs critical to Committee Report No. 1301, June 23, for antilock brake systems (ABS) and
continued safe operation of CMVs. 1966.) After the establishment of DOT automatic brake adjusters. Since all
Finally, with only a few minor on April 1, 1967, the FMVSSs and vehicles operating in the United States
differences, the Canadian Motor Vehicle motor carrier safety regulations (now must comply with the FMCSRs, and the
Safety Standards (CMVSSs) mirror the FMCSRs) were in fact coordinated FMCSRs for automatic brake adjusters
FMCSRs. under a single agency, the Federal (§ 393.53) and ABS (§ 393.55) require
Although Mexico-domiciled vehicles Highway Administration, wherein they CMVs to comply with FMVSS No. 105
are less likely to display FMVSS or were redesignated in December 1968 (for hydraulic-braked vehicles) and
CMVSS certification labels, FMCSA under newly established chapter III of FMVSS No. 121 (for air-braked vehicles)
believes continued strong enforcement title 49 of the Code of Federal applicable at the time the vehicle was
of the FMCSRs in real-world operational Regulations (33 FR 19700, Dec. 25, manufactured, the different compliance
settings, coupled with existing 1968). dates for U.S. and Canadian standards
regulations and enhanced enforcement Since that time, care has been taken are moot. ATA, CTA, and NTEA also
measures, will ensure the safe operation in rulemaking proceedings amending stressed the strong similarities between
of Mexico-domiciled CMVs in interstate the FMVSSs or FMCSRs to effectuate the U.S. and Canadian standards.
commerce. Under the MCSAP, FMCSA the Congressional intent of consistent CVMA asserted the potential safety
and its State and local partners conduct and mutually supportive regulations. benefits of retroactive certification of
approximately 3 million roadside For example, FHWA and the National CMVs built to comply with Canadian
vehicle and driver inspections each year Highway Safety Bureau (NHSB) (which standards would be minimal and, under
on vehicles (domiciled in the United became part of NHTSA when that the proposal, retroactive certification
States, Canada, or Mexico) operating in agency was established in 1971) would also include modifications made
interstate commerce. Enforcement of the coordinated same-day publication of to vehicles after manufacture. It noted
FMCSRs, and by extension the FMVSSs complementary regulatory proposals on this would require not only
they cross-reference, is the bedrock of August 15, 1970—with NHSB proposing consideration of the records of original
these compliance assurance activities. an FMVSS on bus push-out windows to and secondary manufacturers but also
Therefore, after careful consideration, provide a complementary evaluation of repairs and modifications
FMCSA has concluded it is not manufacturing standard to an existing made by vehicle owners.
necessary to amend the FMCSRs to motor carrier safety regulation, while CVSA and CTA strongly encouraged
require commercial motor vehicles to the FHWA proposed to amend its DOT to consider developing a
display an FMVSS certification label in existing regulations concerning window reciprocity agreement with Canada
order to achieve effective compliance construction in order to be consistent because the CMVSSs are so similar to
with the FMVSSs. with the NHSB proposal. (The FHWA the FMVSSs. Manitoba noted that some
Simply requiring CMVs to bear and NHSB proposals were published at Canadian standards are ‘‘more stringent
FMVSS certification labels would not 35 FR 13024 and 13025, respectively, than the U.S. standards,’’ citing
ensure their operational safety. An and FHWA’s final rule [37 FR 11677, requirements for daytime running lights
FMVSS label certifying compliance with June 10, 1972] made the agency’s bus and underride protection.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:35 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP1.SGM 26AUP1
50272 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules

CTEA stated ‘‘* * * Canadian these vehicles’ compliance with the believed the proposed requirement for
manufacturers registered with Transport FMCSRs. the FMVSS certification label ‘‘should
Canada are entitled to affix a National In response to Manitoba’s comment ultimately ensure compliance with the
Safety Mark (NSM) to their production. regarding rear underride protection and FMVSS,’’ but recommended FMCSA
These same companies are registered daytime running lamps, FMCSA’s rules take additional action in the near term.
with NHTSA for the purpose of concerning rear impact guards were Specifically, FMCSA should
exporting to the U.S. and they have met revised on September 1, 1999, to require automatically deny provisional
the label requirements for the U.S.’’ motor carriers to ensure their trailers operating authority to motor carriers
TMA, CTEA, NTEA, and CTA expressed manufactured on or after January 26, discovered during onsite safety audits to
similar views. 1998, are equipped with rear impact be noncompliant with the FMCSRs.
CVSA, CTEA, and Manitoba believed guards meeting the requirements of ATA, while acknowledging Mexican
Canadian authorities might require U.S.- FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 (49 CFR federal safety standards are less similar
manufactured vehicles entering Canada 571.223 and 571.224). FMVSS No. 108 to the U.S. requirements than are the
to display a CMVSS certification label, (49 CFR 571.108) concerning lamps and Canadian standards and do not include
leading to disruptions in cross-border reflective devices was amended on a requirement for certification labels,
commerce. January 11, 1993, to ensure daytime nevertheless contended the Mexican
Canada cited a 30-year history of running lights installed voluntarily on standards help ensure new vehicles
‘‘close and effective collaboration’’ with newly manufactured vehicles meet incorporate needed safety features. It
the United States to develop and certain performance requirements. asserted vehicle manufacturers the
implement CMV manufacturing and Section 393.11 of the FMCSRs cross- world over are interested in building
operating standards. It provided references FMVSS No. 108 and requires equipment that will be safe ‘‘if driven
extensive analysis comparing the safety motor carriers to ensure their CMVs are correctly and maintained properly.’’
records of U.S. and Canadian motor maintained to comply with this ATA noted the requirements of the
carriers, citing results of FMCSA and requirement. FMCSRs adequately address the safe
Canada’s requirements for conspicuity operation of CMVs, whereas a label
DOT studies.
treatment of trailers and semitrailers describes the vehicle’s safety
FMCSA Response: FMCSA, in provide several options for the colors compliance only as of the date of
consultation with NHTSA, agrees U.S. and placement of retroreflective manufacture.
and Canadian CMV manufacturing material; one of these options meets the CVSA stated ‘‘Mexican safety
standards are comparable in all requirements of FMVSS No. 108. standards do not require certification
significant respects. As TMA noted, the FMCSA has advised Canadian labels and do not mirror those of the
differences in effective dates for the manufacturers, industry groups, and U.S. as closely as Canadian standards,
Canadian and U.S. requirements for motor carriers that 49 CFR 393.11 but their efforts to match U.S. standards,
ABS and automatic brake adjusters are requires all Canada-based trailers and in some cases surpass them (as with
moot, because the effective dates of the operated in the United States to comply more restrictive drug and alcohol
FMVSS requirements, as incorporated in with the FMVSS No. 108 requirements testing) ensures that important safety
part 393 of the FMCSRs, determine for conspicuity treatments on trailers standards are being met.’’ CVSA
whether a CMV is compliant with these manufactured on or after December 1, maintained there is no evidence to
standards. For example, a Canada- 1993. Section 393.11 cross-references suggest Mexico-based vehicles ‘‘provide
domiciled vehicle bearing a CMVSS FMVSS No. 108 and requires motor less than desirable safety performance.’’
label and manufactured on or after the carriers to ensure CMVs manufactured In addition, CVSA stated the
effective date of NHTSA’s ABS after March 7, 1989, meet all applicable certification label ‘‘does not provide
requirement (and before the effective requirements of FMVSS No. 108 in evidence that the vehicle is safe, and it
date of Canada’s ABS requirement) effect on the date of manufacture. In is impractical to place a vehicle Out of
would be in violation of the FMCSRs addition, § 393.13 provides flexibility Service just because it is lacking a
when operating in the United States for retrofitting conspicuity treatments certification label.’’
unless it were equipped with ABS. This for trailers and semitrailers FMCSA Response: Regardless whether
distinction would have held even if the manufactured before December 1, 1993, a CMV bears a certification label from a
vehicle met the certification labeling by allowing the use of other colors or manufacturer or a registered importer, it
requirement proposed in the NPRM. color combinations along the sides or must comply with all applicable
The same principle applies to U.S.- lower rear of semitrailers and trailers FMCSRs, including those that cross-
required conspicuity treatments, brake until June 1, 2009. reference FMVSS requirements in effect
adjusters, brake adjustment indicators, on the date of manufacture. As noted
and rear impact guards. The effective Safety of Vehicles Manufactured for the earlier in this document, the
dates for FMVSSs incorporated in the Mexican Market certification label does not, in and of
FMCSRs apply equally to CMVs Greyhound expressed concern about itself, fulfill motor carriers’ obligations
domiciled in the United States, Canada, the enforceability of the NPRM to comply with applicable FMCSRs—
and Mexico. provisions: ‘‘We state unequivocally whereas compliance with FMCSRs does
Moreover, an FMVSS or CMVSS that the vast majority of Mexican- provide effective confirmation of
certification label denotes only the manufactured buses did not comply compliance with the cross-referenced
vehicle’s compliance with the U.S. or with the FMVSS when they were FMVSSs.
Canadian manufacturing standards manufactured and do not comply with With regard to Greyhound’s
applicable to newly manufactured the FMVSS and the Federal Motor comments about denying provisional
vehicles. The certification label, while a Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) operating authority to Mexico-domiciled
useful guidepost, is not the most now. Many of these buses do not motor carriers whose CMVs are found
important basis for determining whether comply with the FMVSS/FMCSR during on-site audits to be
a vehicle is in current safe operating standards for fundamental safety items noncompliant with the FMCSRs,
condition. CMV operational safety such as brakes, fuel systems, windows, Mexico-domiciled carriers are required
compliance is best addressed in terms of and emergency exits.’’ Greyhound under 49 CFR 365.503(b)(2) and

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:35 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP1.SGM 26AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 50273

368.3(b)(2) to certify on the application United States after receiving provisional the FMVSSs and were so certified.
form for operating authority that all operating authority, the agency could KenMex, a subsidiary of Paccar, Inc.,
CMVs they intend to operate in the suspend or revoke that authority based manufactures Kenworth trucks for sale
United States were built in compliance on the carrier’s false certification. in Mexico. KenMex began applying
with the FMVSSs in effect at the time The major potential obstacle to FMVSS certification labels in 1993 to all
of manufacture. If the motor carrier were FMVSS conformance for truck tractors vehicles built for the Mexican market
unable to make the necessary manufactured for the Mexican market that met U.S. safety standards.
certification on its application, the appears to be the requirement for Approximately 95 percent of those
agency would deny its request to installation of ABS, applicable to vehicles were equipped with ABS.
operate in the United States. vehicles manufactured on or after March International Truck and Engine
Moreover, as noted in the Background 1, 1997. Because Mexico’s vehicle safety
Corporation trucks sold in Mexico
section of this document, 49 CFR regulations have not to date required
complied with the FMVSSs, except that
365.507(c) requires Mexico-domiciled ABS, many Mexico-based vehicles
motor carriers to pass an FMCSA pre- manufactured on or after March 1, 1997, ABS could be deleted at the customer’s
authority safety audit before they are did not include this feature and option. However, the majority of
granted provisional authority to operate therefore do not bear an FMVSS International’s tractors built and sold in
in the United States beyond the border certification label. However, Mexico from July 1999 until September
commercial zones. The pre-authority information provided by the Truck 2001 had ABS, as did some vehicles
safety audit evaluation criteria are in Manufacturers Association in a manufactured between 1996 and 1999.
Appendix A to Subpart E of 49 CFR Part September 16, 2002, letter to NHTSA Freightliner sold a limited number of
365. If a pre-authority safety audit Administrator Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D., vehicles to customers in Mexico before
discloses an applicant has falsely and former FMCSA Administrator 1997, and all vehicles in three model
certified its vehicles as FMVSS Joseph M. Clapp (available in the lines sold in Mexico were certified to
compliant, FMCSA may use this docket) offers a more complete picture. meet the FMVSSs. Volvo began selling
information to deny the application for According to TMA, U.S. U.S-manufactured trucks in Mexico in
provisional authority. In addition, as manufacturers have manufactured and 1998, virtually all of them FMVSS-
prescribed in the FMCSA policy sold nearly 60,000 Class 8 trucks and certified and bearing the requisite
memorandum discussed previously, if a tractors for the Mexican market since certification labels. We have
motor carrier is discovered to be 1993. Roughly 80 percent of those summarized this information in the
operating noncompliant vehicles in the vehicles were built in compliance with table below.

MANUFACTURERS’ HISTORY OF TRUCKS AND TRUCK TRACTORS MANUFACTURED AND/OR SOLD IN MEXICO
Manufactured in
Manufacturer Sold in Mexico Notes
Mexico

Ford .............................................. Yes: medium-duty .. No .....................


Freightliner LLC ............................ Sold limited number of vehicles in Mexico before 1997.
Century Class ........ Yes ................... All have full U.S. certification.
Columbia ................ Yes ................... All have full U.S. certification.
Argosy .................... Yes ................... All have full U.S. certification.
FLD ........................ Yes ................... 50% have full U.S. certification. 50% have label issues (tire labels,
labels in Spanish). Approximately 20% of FLD vehicles do not
have ABS.
Sterling ................... Yes ................... 10% have full U.S. certification. 90% have label issues, but have
ABS.
General Motors ............................. No .......................... Yes ................... Sells only incomplete vehicles in Mexican market.
International Truck & Engine ........ Yes ......................... Yes ................... 9200, 9400: ABS was a ‘‘delete’’ option 3/97–9/01.
11/96–11/99: 1996 9000s do not bear FMVSS labels, but vehicles
with ABS could be certified.
Escobedo plant: 7/99–9/01: ABS ‘‘delete’’ option for 9000s, but
majority had ABS. Starting 9/01, ABS no longer a ‘‘delete’’ op-
tion.
4000, 7000 series: tractors with ABS would have label.
Isuzu Motors ................................. No .......................... No .....................
Mack Trucks ................................. No .......................... No ..................... Was in market for 1 year, sold 13 tractors, 12 chassis. Of the 13
tractors, 2 labeled & 6 retrofittable.
PACCAR Inc. ................................ Yes—KenMex ........ Yes ................... At least 95% of the 40,000 T600, T800, T2000 and W900 vehicles
have ABS. 1993 onward: FMVSS-compliant vehicles bear la-
bels.
Volvo Trucks NA ........................... No .......................... Yes ................... 3776 VN tractors labeled, 45 not labeled (no ABS). 2 VHD tractors
labeled. 479 miscellaneous incomplete vehicles with chassis cab
labels.

Based on the information presented in 1997, Mexico-domiciled vehicles March 1, 1997, and not equipped with
the table, we believe most model year manufactured before that date are ABS would, in theory, need to be
1996 and later CMVs manufactured in required to comply with the FMVSSs retrofitted with ABS to achieve
Mexico may meet the FMVSSs. (Since applicable when they were built, but not compliance with the FMCSRs.
NHTSA’s ABS requirement applies only with the ABS requirement.) Mexico- From a practical standpoint, however,
to vehicles built on or after March 1, based vehicles manufactured on or after this is not a viable option. Information

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:35 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP1.SGM 26AUP1
50274 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules

presented in the preamble to the Federal CVSA also contended the proposals purchasing or leasing vehicles for use in
Highway Administration’s final rule on would expand what, in its view, has their respective countries unless the
ABS (63 FR 24454, May 4, 1998) been the historical use of certification vehicles were originally manufactured
explains the difficulty NHTSA labels ‘‘to provide buyer protection at for, or subsequently modified for, such
researchers experienced in retrofitting the point of sale—in an attempt to use. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112 and 30115
commercial motor vehicles with ABS regulate vehicles in interstate and 49 CFR parts 567 and 571, a U.S.
for the purpose of conducting a NHTSA commerce. motor carrier cannot purchase or use an
fleet study. In that study, a relatively FMCSA Response: Motor carriers are imported vehicle manufactured for use
high number of truck tractors—116 out responsible for ensuring vehicles in a foreign country unless (1) the
of 200, or 58 percent—experienced introduced into their fleets are original manufacturer certified, at the
installation/pre-production design- maintained to the safety standards of the time of manufacture, that the vehicle
related problems. Although the FMCSRs, including those cross- complied with the applicable FMVSSs,
researchers attributed this to the referencing the FMVSSs. However, or (2) a registered importer certified the
‘‘newness’’ of the systems in North FMCSA acknowledges the significant vehicle was modified to comply with
American applications, we believe the operational concerns raised by applicable U.S. safety standards.
percentage of malfunctions would be commenters. Prohibiting the operation The situation for Mexico-based CMVs
much greater if motor carriers were of CMVs that are compliant with the is somewhat different. The government
required to attempt retrofitting FMVSSs and the FMCSRs, yet lack a of Mexico has not, to date, established
innumerable configurations of air- certification label, would place an a set of vehicle manufacturing standards
braked vehicles. economic burden on motor carriers and comparable in scope to the FMVSSs or
The NHTSA fleet study was a ‘‘best- vehicle manufacturers without CMVSSs, nor does it have requirements
case scenario’’ for retrofitting ABS, in enhancing commercial motor vehicle for certification or compliance with
that the vehicle and brake safety. such standards. Hence, there is less
When it is necessary to determine assurance that vehicles imported into
manufacturers (as well as wheel and
whether the vehicle was certified by the Mexico, or manufactured for the
hub manufacturers) worked together to
manufacturer as complying with the domestic market in Mexico, meet safety
complete the ABS installations. Even FMVSSs, or was capable of certification, requirements comparable to those of the
with this collaborative effort of alternative identification methods are United States or Canada.
experienced engineers, numerous available. For example, Federal and Therefore, we must rely on a strong
problems related to the retrofitting State enforcement officials conducting verification program to confirm
process surfaced during the study. roadside inspections could rely on a certifications (on the application form
FMCSA believes the NHTSA research is VIN and registration in a U.S. or for FMCSA operating authority) by
strongly indicative of the types of Canadian jurisdiction as evidence of Mexico-domiciled carriers that they will
technical problems that could be FMVSS compliance. The requirements operate only FMVSS-compliant CMVs
expected if motor carriers were required for the VIN are described in 49 CFR Part in the United States beyond the border
to retrofit vehicles with ABS. As ABS 565. Section 565.4(e) requires the VIN of commercial zones. As noted in the
retrofitting is not practicable, vehicles each vehicle to appear clearly and Background section of this document,
manufactured on or after March 1, indelibly either upon a part of the under FMCSA’s enforcement policy
1997—the effective date of NHTSA’s vehicle (other than the glazing) that is memorandum these vehicles will be
ABS requirement (FMVSS number not designed to be removed except for subject to inspection by enforcement
121)—will satisfy U.S. safety repair, or upon a separate plate or label personnel during the pre-authority
requirements only if originally equipped permanently affixed to such a part. The safety audit and while operating in
with ABS. For a Mexico-domiciled CMV VIN must have 17 characters and be interstate commerce to ensure their
manufactured after March 1, 1997, formatted so basic information about the compliance with applicable FMCSRs,
FMCSA and State enforcement officials vehicle (such as country of manufacture, including those that cross-reference the
will rely closely on inspection of the model year, identity of the FMVSSs. If FMCSA finds a Mexico-
vehicle to determine its compliance manufacturer) can be quickly domiciled carrier has falsely certified its
with the ABS requirement at § 393.55. determined. Canada’s requirements vehicles as compliant, we may use this
Consumer Responsibility: Certification concerning the VIN are similar. information to deny, suspend, or revoke
Label In addition to being marked on each the carrier’s operating authority or
vehicle, the VIN commonly is used to certification of registration or issue
ATA asserted the statutory language identify a vehicle on registration appropriate penalties for the
of Section 108 of the Vehicle Safety Act documents. Most State laws require falsification.
‘‘precludes the need for the consumer to these documents to be carried in the
either apply or retain the certification vehicle at all times. These registration Replacement Labels: General
label.’’ ATA further contended Section documents provide a secondary method TMA, ATA, and CVSA believed,
114 of the Vehicle Safety Act is a for safety officials to verify a CMV’s contrary to FMCSA’s assertion, the
requirement placed upon vehicle model year and VIN and, by extension, proposal would affect U.S. carriers more
manufacturers and distributors, and the the FMVSSs applicable to the particular than their foreign counterparts.
label serves as a notification to the CMV. According to these and other
dealer (or to another distributor) that the Generally, CMVs may not be commenters, safety certification labels,
manufacturer(s) of the vehicle met the registered in the United States or particularly those on trailers and
FMVSSs as of a given date. ATA Canada unless the vehicle was converter dollies, often do not remain
provided photographs of additional manufactured for sale or use in either of affixed or legible for the life of the
labels affixed by some manufacturers, those countries. Both countries have vehicle.
reading ‘‘Warning: Data shown on laws and regulations concerning the ATA, CTA, NTEA, CTEA, and Canada
vehicle identification plate is correct on importation of vehicles for sale or use raised numerous questions concerning
date of manufacture. Alterations made that effectively preclude U.S.- and the implementation of a requirement to
may affect data shown.’’ Canada-based motor carriers from obtain replacement labels. Among their

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:35 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP1.SGM 26AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 50275

concerns: Replacement doors and cabs components. If a glider kit or a service out this could prevent Canadian motor
do not bear certification labels, 49 CFR cab were used to replace an original cab carriers from sending their CMVs into
§ 567.4(b) prohibits labels from being that had been damaged beyond repair, the United States.
transferred, and labels are designed to and the cab were fitted with at least two FMCSA Response: NHTSA has
be self-defacing if removal is attempted. of the three components (engine, evaluated the differences between the
ATA, CTA, and Canada noted it would transmission, drive axles) from another FMVSSs and CMVSSs applicable to
be impossible to obtain replacement vehicle, the resulting vehicle would not heavy trucks and buses, and includes
certification labels from bankrupt or be considered newly manufactured and this analysis in its Notice of withdrawal
defunct manufacturers. NTEA its VIN would be the same as that of the of its policy statement on retroactive
recommended allowing motor carriers vehicle used to provide at least two of certification of CMVs by vehicle
to replace certification labels, while the three components. manufacturers, published elsewhere in
TMA suggested a single, NAFTA-wide In response to Missouri CVED’s today’s Federal Register.
safety certification label acceptable to comment concerning homemade We recognize the concerns expressed
all three NAFTA nations. trailers, the FMVSSs apply to every by CVSA. However, Mexico has not
ATA estimated the loss of direct newly manufactured motor vehicle established a comprehensive set of
annual revenue just from trailers without exception. federal CMV manufacturing standards
prohibited from operating without With regard to State-assigned VINs, comparable to U.S. and Canadian
certification labels would exceed $200 such as the ‘‘DRX’’ plate mentioned by standards, or based upon a statutory or
million. Missouri CVED, the Vehicle Equipment regulatory scheme similar to those used
FMCSA Response: FMCSA Safety Commission (VESC) issued in the United States and Canada.
acknowledges the commenters’ Regulation VESC–18 in August 1979, Therefore, any meaningful transnational
concerns. The withdrawal of the NPRM ‘‘Standardized Replacement Vehicle comparison of manufacturing standards
renders this issue moot. Identification Number System.’’ (The would be limited to the FMVSS and
VESC no longer exists, but its materials CMVSS. NHTSA and Transport Canada,
Replacement Labels: Special and are currently available through the as the regulatory agencies responsible
Rebuilt Vehicles American Association of Motor Vehicle for implementing and enforcing their
ATA, CTA, NTEA, and CVSA Administrators of Arlington, Virginia.) respective nations’ vehicle
questioned how FMCSA would address Regulation VESC–18 serves as a model manufacturing safety laws, work
the labeling of CMVs manufactured in procedure for States to assure that all together to research the causes and
two or more stages, noting that 49 CFR vehicles subject to title and/or potential means of addressing deaths
Part 568 requires labeling for these registration are readily identifiable and injuries associated with motor
vehicles. ATA asserted consumer- through verification of a manufacturer’s vehicle crashes. As a result of the
performed repairs, such as replacing VIN or State-issued VIN. A copy of similar statutory schemes and the long-
original tires with low-profile tires, Regulation VESC–18 is in the docket. standing cooperative relationship
‘‘invalidate portions of the certification between the two regulatory agencies, the
label.’’ Roadside Inspections FMVSS and CMVSS are similar in
TMA, ATA, and NTEA contended the CVSA requested FMCSA to report on almost all substantive respects.
proposed rule could eliminate the use of the differences among U.S., Mexican, In response to ATA’s comment
glider kits and service cabs (repair parts and Canadian vehicle equipment concerning determination of FMVSS
sold by truck manufacturers to repair a manufacturing standards for the benefit compliance of a vehicle manufactured
relatively new vehicle that suffered of manufacturers, registered importers, in multiple stages, § 567.4 of NHTSA’s
extensive body damage but has a and roadside inspectors. regulations describes the manufacturer’s
salvageable engine, transmission, drive Advocates contended FMCSA would responsibility for compliance labeling of
axles, or other major components). They be unable to ensure motor carriers’ the vehicle. Section 567.5 addresses the
reasoned a glider kit manufacturer compliance with the FMCSRs, and with requirements for manufacturers of
cannot provide a certification label for those FMVSSs cross-referenced in the vehicles manufactured in two or more
a repaired vehicle based on the FMCSRs, in the absence of certification stages. These regulations were
construction of the original vehicle, labels or documentation. unaffected by NHTSA’s and FMCSA’s
since it has no knowledge of the extent ATA questioned how enforcement proposals.
or quality of the repair. officials at roadside could readily verify In response to ATA’s question on
Missouri CVED questioned how FMVSS compliance of a CMV procedures for inspecting trailers
FMCSA would treat the labeling of manufactured in multiple stages. ATA entering the United States by rail (such
homemade trailers or other equipment also inquired how trailers entering the as in trailer-on-flatcar service) or by ship
made by persons who are not United States by rail or ship would be (such as in intermodal containers), these
manufacturers or equipment fabricators, inspected, who would perform the trailers are subject to inspection by
noting the State of Missouri requires inspections, and how nonconforming FMCSA or its State partners when
these vehicles to have a VIN affixed by trailers would be handled. operated on the highways. Trailers
the manufacturer. If a vehicle does not Canada expressed concerns about operating in the United States must
have a VIN, the Missouri Department of potential enforcement activities by the meet applicable FMCSA regulations.
Revenue issues it a ‘‘DRX’’ plate and U.S. Customs Service (now part of the Trailer inspections are performed by
number. Department of Homeland Security, Federal and State enforcement officials
FMCSA Response: As stated under the Directorate of Border and using the North American Standard
previously, by virtue of withdrawing the Transportation Security) of vehicles-as- Inspection procedures required for all
NPRM, we are retracting the proposed imports at the border, arguing these roadside CMV and driver inspections.
requirement for certification labels. activities could paralyze cross-border Nonconforming trailers would be
In response to the concern regarding operations and trade. Additionally, handled in the same way as other
the use of glider kits and service cabs, Canada feared the potentially chilling vehicle safety violations.
this matter is addressed in 49 CFR effect of heavy fines assessed for Canada’s concerns about performance
571.7(e), Combining new and used vehicles not properly labeled, pointing of inspections at border crossing areas

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:35 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP1.SGM 26AUP1
50276 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules

are moot, in light of withdrawal of the FMCSA Response: Today’s As also described above in our
NPRM. Inspections at the U.S.-Canada withdrawal of the NPRM renders moot discussion of the safety of Mexico-
border will be conducted, as at present, the concept of a phase-in period. domiciled vehicles, 49 CFR 365.507(c)
under the North American Standard Mexico-based motor carriers with requires Mexico-domiciled motor
Inspection procedure. current authority to operate in the carriers to pass an FMCSA pre-authority
In response to Advocates’ comment, United States have long been required 1 safety audit before they are granted
all CMVs, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5 to comply with all applicable FMCSRs. provisional authority to operate in the
and operated in interstate commerce, Moreover, these vehicles are subject to, United States beyond the border
are subject to the FMCSRs. The coding and many have undergone, roadside commercial zones. The pre-authority
of the VIN, which must appear clearly inspections while operating in the audit will include inspection of
and indelibly on all vehicles, includes United States. The agency’s NAFTA- available vehicles that have not received
a character indicating the model year. related rules concerning applications for the necessary inspection decal. This
Table VI of 49 CFR Part 565 provides operating authority and safety inspection will include checking
monitoring require all Mexico- compliance with part 393 of the
those codes for the years 1980 through
domiciled vehicles operating beyond FMCSRs and the FMVSSs they cross-
2013 (49 U.S.C. 30112 does not apply to
the border commercial zones to display reference. For vehicles lacking a
vehicles over 25 years old). Given the
at all times a current and valid certification label, it has been
full VIN code, the enforcement official
inspection decal for a period of 18 determined that enforcement officials
can determine more precise
months after a carrier receives could, as necessary, refer to the VIN in
manufacturing data, including the
provisional operating authority and an various locations on the vehicle. The
specific configurations of components
VIN will assist inspectors in identifying
and accessories used on a particular additional 3 years after the carrier
the vehicle model year and country of
vehicle. receives permanent authority. See 49
manufacture to determine compliance
CFR 365.511 and 385.103. The
Phase-In Period with the FMVSS or CMVSS. If FMCSA
inspection decal demonstrates the
determines the carrier, after having
Greyhound strongly opposed the vehicle’s compliance with FMVSSs
certified all its vehicles as compliant,
proposed 2-year phased-in compliance cross-referenced in the FMCSRs,
plans to operate vehicles not complying
period for certain Mexico-domiciled including all of the FMVSSs to which
with those motor vehicle safety
carriers, contending bus manufacturers Public Citizen refers. Furthermore, the
standards in effect on the date of
in Mexico were advised some years ago FMCSRs require motor carriers to
manufacture, we may use this
that vehicles operating in the United maintain this safety equipment on their information to deny operating authority
States must comply with the FMVSSs. vehicles. to the carrier.
ATU and TTD supported Greyhound’s The roadside inspection procedure is Because Mexico-domiciled motor
position. Advocates and Public Citizen the same for all CMVs operated in the carriers seeking new operating authority
also expressed strong opposition to the United States, regardless of the motor are required to certify on the application
phased-in compliance period, believing carrier’s country of domicile. In form that they operate only vehicles
it conflicted with the requirements of addition, as described above under manufactured or retrofitted to be in
the Vehicle Safety Act. Public Citizen Safety of Vehicles Manufactured for the compliance with the FMVSSs, these
pointed to a list of FMVSSs with which Mexican Market (and in the FMCSA carriers should refrain from submitting
CMVs must comply, including antilock policy memorandum discussed there applications for operating authority
brakes, rear impact guards, and brake and in the Background section), if until they are able to ensure all vehicles
slack adjusters. Advocates contended FMCSA or State inspectors determine to be operated in the United States are
phased-in compliance ‘‘would create a that any Mexico-domiciled CMVs lack in compliance with the FMVSSs in
two-tiered safety regime for motor the proper certification, we may use this effect on or after their date of
carriers * * * [and] provides a strong information to suspend or revoke the manufacture. This requirement will be
incentive for foreign motor carriers to carrier’s operating authority or vigorously enforced, consistent with the
operate equipment for up to two years certificate of registration for making a agency’s policy memorandum discussed
without conforming to the FMVSS.’’ false certification or issue appropriate previously.
penalties for the falsification. FMCSA’s withdrawal of its NPRM
AIA asserted the proposal for a phase-
concerning certification labels does not
in period is not dictated or envisioned
1 Section 9102 of the Truck and Bus Safety and relieve motor carriers of the
under international law. CHP also
Regulatory Reform Act of 1988 (title IX, subtitle B responsibility to comply with all
opposed the phased-in compliance of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Public Law applicable FMCSRs, including those
period. 100–690, 102 Stat. 4181, 4528) required the
Secretary to exempt certain foreign motor carriers
that cross-reference the FMVSSs. The
IBT asserted the border must remain from part 393 of the FMCSRs, for a period of one FMCSRs apply equally to all motor
closed until the FMCSA and NHTSA year beginning on November 18, 1988. The Federal carriers operating CMVs in interstate
rulemakings are completed, and Highway Administration (FHWA), then the DOT commerce in the United States. Canada-
recommended the phase-in period for agency responsible for motor carrier safety,
addressed the requirements of the Act by
and Mexico-domiciled motor carriers
carriers already operating in the United publishing a final rule and request for comments on must comply with the same safety
States (U.S. and Canadian motor carriers March 24, 1989 (54 FR 12200). In a report to regulations as U.S. carriers.
as well as Mexican carriers currently Congress required under this legislation, FHWA
operating beyond the border zones) be recommended the part 393 exemption created by Out-of-Service Violations
the Act be allowed to lapse, with the exception of
reduced to 12 months. IBT also a requirement for front-wheel brakes, and that
TMA questioned whether FMCSA
recommended FMCSA clarify the rule Mexico-domiciled motor carriers operating in the would place a vehicle out of service
text to prohibit carriers currently border commercial zones be given until January 1, solely because it lacks an FMVSS
operating within the border commercial 1991, to comply with that standard. FHWA certification label, since FMCSA did not
published a final rule on May 17, 1994 (59 FR
zones from taking advantage of the 25572) requiring Mexico-domiciled CMVs operated
explicitly include such a statement in
phase-in period if they applied to in the United States to be equipped with brakes its NPRM. Manitoba likewise was
operate beyond the border zones. acting on all wheels. concerned CMVs could be impounded,

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:35 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP1.SGM 26AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 50277

seized, or placed out of service for the Mexico-based tour operator boarded references to FMVSSs, we require motor
absence of a certification label. passengers in the United States, carriers to ensure their CMVs are
Advocates expressed a different view, transported them to Mexico, and equipped with specific safety devices
contending without a certification label, returned them to the United States. and systems required by NHTSA on
‘‘there can be no presumption of Likewise, if a Mexico-based fixed-route newly manufactured vehicles, and to
affirmative compliance with the operation between points in Mexico and maintain their vehicles to ensure
certification requirement * * * [This is] the United States picked up passengers continued safe performance. The
evidence that the vehicle was not at any point in the United States, ADA roadside inspection program will ensure
properly certified and inspectors should rules would apply. this is the case to the greatest extent
place the vehicle out of service.’’ If a passenger has a concern about the practicable.
In supplementary comments, CVSA manner in which a provider of interstate In view of the foregoing, the NPRM
stated a label does not, by itself, provide highway passenger transportation concerning certification of compliance
evidence of the vehicle’s safety. CVSA complies with the ADA, he or she with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
considered it impractical to place a should contact the U.S. Department of Standards is withdrawn.
vehicle out of service solely because it Justice (Justice), Civil Rights Division, Issued on: August 19, 2005.
lacks a certification label. Disability Rights Section.2 FMCSA will
FMCSA Response: Since we are Annette M. Sandberg,
coordinate with Justice to ensure the
withdrawing the proposed certification Administrator.
concern is addressed. FTA’s jurisdiction
label requirement, this issue is now concerning ADA compliance extends [FR Doc. 05–16967 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am]
moot. However, we addressed this only to its public-agency grantees. BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
subject in the preamble to the NPRM (67 With regard to Public Citizen’s
FR 12782, at 12784, footnote 4), stating comment, CMVs operated by Mexico-
failure to have a certification label domiciled motor carriers are issued a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
would not result in a vehicle’s being USDOT number with a suffix indicating
placed out of service in the absence of National Highway Traffic Safety
whether they are authorized to operate Administration
vehicle defects meeting existing out-of- within or beyond the border commercial
service criteria. The preamble to the zones. By regulation, these unique
NHTSA proposed policy statement (67 49 CFR Parts 567, 576 and 591
USDOT numbers are prominently
FR 12790, at 12792) also addressed this displayed on both sides of the CMV. [Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22197]
issue.
FMCSA Decision RIN 2127–AI59, RIN 2127–AI60, RIN 2127–
Other Vehicle Laws and Regulations AI64
After review and analysis of the
Greyhound urged FMCSA to public comments discussed in the Retroactive Certification of
coordinate with the Federal Transit preceding section, and in consultation Commercial Motor Vehicles by Motor
Administration (FTA) and the Office of with NHTSA, FMCSA determined it can Vehicle Manufacturers
the Secretary of Transportation to effectively ensure motor carriers’
ensure fixed-route service operations compliance with applicable FMVSSs AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
comply with the requirements of the through continued vigorous Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). enforcement of the FMCSRs, coupled ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of
(According to 49 CFR Part 37, Subpart with measures detailed in our proposed rulemakings and policy
H, all buses acquired for fixed-route enforcement policy memorandum statement.
service must be equipped with a regarding Mexico-domiciled carriers
wheelchair lift. Until 100 percent of the SUMMARY: This document completes
and vehicles. These new enforcement
fleet is equipped, operators must NHTSA’s consideration of its
measures will begin immediately. We
provide wheelchair lift service on 48 responsibilities to help implement the
will compile data regarding Mexico-
hours’ notice.) obligations of the United States under
domiciled vehicles falsely certified as
Public Citizen recommended FMCSA the North American Free Trade
FMVSS compliant on the motor carrier’s
issue embossed or bolted-on CMV Agreement. The agency had proposed
application for operating authority and,
certification markings to aid Federal and regulations to permit retroactive
when appropriate, take necessary action
State enforcement officials in certification of foreign domiciled
as described in the policy
determining the legal status of each vehicles that, while built in compliance
memorandum.
vehicle, and that border-commercial- with U.S. standards applicable at the
This approach will help ensure the
zone-only trucks be ‘‘visually time of manufacture, had not been
safety of Mexico-domiciled CMVs in
distinguishable’’ from those allowed to labelled as such. At the same time, the
real-world, operational settings while
operate beyond the border zones. Federal Motor Carrier Safety
eliminating the potential drawbacks
FMCSA Response: In response to Administration had proposed to require
associated with requiring commercial
Greyhound’s comment, DOT has a long- all commercial motor vehicles operating
motor vehicles to display an FMVSS
standing interpretation that Canada- or in the U.S. to have labels certifying
certification label, as identified by many
Mexico-based motor carriers are subject compliance with the Federal motor
of the commenters to the NPRM.
to ADA requirements if they pick up vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).
We again emphasize all motor carriers
passengers in the United States. If a After reviewing the comments on the
operating in the United States must
Mexico-based charter or tour operator NHTSA and FMCSA proposals, the
comply with all applicable laws and
boarded passengers in Mexico, drove Department has decided on a more
regulations, including all of the FMCSRs
them to a point in the United States, and effective and less cumbersome approach
as well as those that cross-reference
then returned the passengers to Mexico to ensuring that commercial motor
particular FMVSSs. Through our cross-
without picking up anyone in the vehicles were built to the FMVSS (or the
United States, the ADA requirements 2 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail Code very similar Canadian motor vehicle
would not apply. However, the ADA NYAV, Washington, DC 20530. Information is also safety standards) and operate safely in
requirements would apply if the available at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/drssec.htm. the United States.

VerDate jul<14>2003 16:35 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26AUP1.SGM 26AUP1