NPRM, entitled "Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment"

Thursday,
December 21, 2006

Part III

Department of
Transportation
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

49 CFR Parts 385, 386, et al.
Requirements for Intermodal Equipment
Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers
Operating Intermodal Equipment;
Proposed Rule

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
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 385, 386, 390, 392, 393,
396, and Appendix G to Subchapter B
of Chapter III
[Docket No. FMCSA–2005–23315]
RIN 2126–AA86

Requirements for Intermodal
Equipment Providers and Motor
Carriers and Drivers Operating
Intermodal Equipment
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM); request for comments.

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

AGENCY:

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes regulations
for entities offering intermodal chassis
to motor carriers for transportation of
intermodal containers in interstate
commerce. As mandated by section
4118 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), this
rulemaking would require intermodal
equipment providers (IEPs) to register
and file with FMCSA an Intermodal
Equipment Provider Identification
Report (Form MCS–150C); display the
USDOT Number, or other unique
identifier, on each intermodal container
chassis offered for transportation in
interstate commerce; establish a
systematic inspection, repair, and
maintenance program to ensure the safe
operating condition of each intermodal
container chassis; maintain
documentation of the program; and
provide a means to effectively respond
to driver and motor carrier reports about
intermodal container chassis
mechanical defects and deficiencies.
The proposed regulations would for the
first time make IEPs subject to the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). The agency is
also proposing additional inspection
requirements for motor carriers and
drivers operating intermodal equipment.
The intent of this rulemaking is to
ensure that intermodal equipment used
to transport intermodal containers is
safe and systematically maintained.
Improved maintenance is expected to
result in fewer out-of-service orders and
highway breakdowns involving
intermodal chassis and improved
efficiency of the Nation’s intermodal
transportation system. To whatever
extent inadequately maintained
intermodal chassis are responsible for,
or contribute to, crashes, this proposal
would also help to ensure that
commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
operations are safer.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

19:45 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

Comments must be received by
March 21, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to
Docket No. FMCSA–2005–23315, and
may be filed in electronic form, mailed,
or delivered to the following addresses:
• The USDOT Docket Management
System (DMS) on the Web-based form at
the Web link: http://dmses.dot.gov/
submit, and type only the last 5 digits
of the docket number (23315) to access
the docket. If you file an electronic
comment, we recommend that your
name and other contact information be
included.
• Through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov,
using the Regulation Identification
Number (RIN 2126–AA86) and
following instructions on the Web-based
form.
• Facsimile (Fax): 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail or Deliver to: Docket
Management Facility; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Room PL–401 (Nassif Building on
the Plaza Level), Washington, DC
20590–0001.
Instructions: If you want the agency to
acknowledge your comments, please
include a self-addressed, stamped
envelope or postcard, or simply print
the acknowledgement page that appears
after submitting your comments
electronically.
Public Participation: All public
comments and related material
concerning this proposed rule in Docket
No. FMCSA–2005–23315, whether in
paper or electronic form, will be
considered by the agency, and will be
available to the public on the DMS Web
site: http://dms.dot.gov. The agency will
also consider all comments that
regulations.gov forwards to it.
Comments may be read and/or copied at
the Docket Management facility, located
at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL–
401 on the Plaza Level of the Nassif
Building, Washington, DC, from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone may view or
download comments submitted in any
of DOT’s dockets by the name of the
commenter or name of the person
signing the comment (if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, or other entity). More
information about DOT’s privacy policy
may be found in DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement published in the
Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at
65 FR 19477, or on the DMS Web site:
http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah M. Freund, (202) 366–4009,
Vehicle and Roadside Operations
Division (MC–PSV), Office of Bus and
Truck Standards and Operations,
DATES:

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

FMCSA, Department of Transportation,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Table of Contents

I. Background
Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
Previous Rulemaking Efforts to
Improve Chassis Maintenance
SAFETEA–LU Requirements Codified
at 49 U.S.C. 31151
II. Current Rulemaking To Improve
Intermodal Equipment Safety
Rulemaking Proposal
Part 385—Safety Fitness Procedures
Part 386—Rules of Practice
Part 390—Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations
Part 392—Driving of Commercial
Motor Vehicles
Part 393—Parts and Accessories
Necessary for Safe Operation
Part 396—Inspection, Repair, and
Maintenance
Appendix G to Subchapter B—
Minimum Periodic Inspection
Standards
Proposed Enforcement Plans
Review of maintenance programs
Imminent hazard determinations
Preemption of State Statutes or
Regulations
Relationships among Intermodal
Parties and Allocation of Liability
International Implications
III. Analysis Of Safety Data
Analysis of Roadside Inspection Data
in 4 States
Roadside Inspection Violation Data
Analysis
All Intermodal Container Chassis
Violations
Intermodal Container Chassis
Violations by State
Vehicle Out-of-Service Violations by
State
National Inspection Data—Violations
for Calendar Year 2003
FMCSA’s Analysis of the Data
IV. Estimated Number Of Equipment
Providers And Intermodal
Container Chassis
Equipment Providers
Intermodal Container Chassis
Population
V. Regulatory Analyses And Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Estimated Compliance Costs for
Intermodal Equipment Providers
Establishing a Systematic Inspection,
Repair, and Maintenance (IRM)
Program
Recordkeeping
Total Compliance Costs of the
Proposed Regulations
Safety and Economic Benefits of
Improving Container Chassis
Maintenance
Benefits Associated With Increased
Operational Efficiency
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
Intergovernmental Review
Paperwork Reduction Act

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)
Energy Effects
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Civil Justice Reform
Protection of Children
Taking of Private Property
Federalism
Regulation Identification Number
List of Subjects

I. Background

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
This rulemaking is based on the
authority of the Motor Carrier Safety Act
of 1984 (1984 Act) and section 4118 of
SAFETEA–LU (Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat.
1144, at 1729, August 10, 2005, codified
at 49 U.S.C. 31151).
The 1984 Act provides authority to
regulate drivers, motor carriers, and
vehicle equipment. It requires the
Secretary of Transportation to
‘‘prescribe regulations on commercial
motor vehicle safety. The regulations
shall prescribe minimum safety
standards for commercial motor
vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations
shall ensure that: (1) Commercial motor
vehicles are maintained, equipped,
loaded, and operated safely; (2) the
responsibilities imposed on operators of
commercial motor vehicles do not
impair their ability to operate the
vehicles safely; (3) the physical
condition of operators of commercial
motor vehicles is adequate to enable
them to operate the vehicles safely; and
(4) the operation of commercial motor
vehicles does not have a deleterious
effect on the physical condition of the
operators.’’ 49 U.S.C. 31136(a).
This NPRM would establish a
program to ensure that intermodal
equipment (primarily chassis) 1
interchanged to motor carriers and used
to transport intermodal containers is
safe and systematically maintained. An
intermodal chassis meets the definition
of a ‘‘commercial motor vehicle’’ under
49 U.S.C. 31132(1)(A) because it ‘‘has a
gross vehicle weight rating or gross
vehicle weight of at least 10,001 pounds
* * *’’ The NPRM is based primarily on
section 31136(a)(1), especially the
1 The intermodal equipment described are
intermodal container chassis specifically designed
to transport cargo containers. The loaded cargo
containers are transported on ships and trains to
various ports and rail facilities in the United States
and then transferred to chassis trailers for
transportation by highway to their final destination.
Similarly, empty containers may be loaded at
shippers’ facilities in the United States, and then
transported on a chassis trailer to ports and rail
yards for subsequent portions of the movement to
be handled by additional modes to other
destinations in the United States or abroad. Chassis
trailers carrying containerized cargo are used to
transport more than $450 billion in cargo entering
and leaving the United States annually.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

mandates dealing with maintenance and
equipment, and secondarily on section
31136(a)(4). Entities that interchange
intermodal equipment to motor carriers
would be required to establish a
program to systematically inspect,
repair, and maintain that equipment, if
they do not already have such a program
in place.
Section 4118 of SAFETEA–LU added
new section 31151, entitled
‘‘Roadability,’’ to subchapter III of
chapter 311 of title 49, United States
Code. Section 31151(a)(1) requires the
Secretary of Transportation to issue
regulations to be codified in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) ‘‘to ensure that intermodal
equipment used to transport intermodal
containers is safe and systematically
maintained.’’ Section 31151(a)(3)
specifies, in considerable detail, a
minimum of 14 items that must be
included in the regulations, each of
which is discussed later in the preamble
and included in the proposed rules or
existing agency procedures.
Departmental employees designated by
the Secretary are authorized to inspect
intermodal equipment, and copy related
maintenance and repair records (section
31151(b)). Any intermodal equipment
that fails to comply with applicable
Federal safety regulations may be placed
out of service by Departmental or other
Federal, State, or governmental officials
designated by the Secretary until the
necessary repairs have been made
(section 31151(c)). State, local, or tribal
requirements inconsistent with a
regulation adopted pursuant to section
31151 are preempted (section 31151(d)).
Specifically, a State requirement for the
periodic inspection of intermodal
chassis by intermodal equipment
providers that was in effect on
January 1, 2005, is preempted on the
effective date of the final regulation
resulting from this rulemaking (section
31151(e)(1)), but preemption may be
waived upon application by the State if
the Secretary finds that the State
requirement is as effective as the
Federal requirement and does not
unduly burden interstate commerce
(section 31151(e)(2)).
All of these provisions of SAFETEA–
LU are discussed in the preamble and
embodied in the regulatory text of this
NPRM.
Previous Rulemaking Efforts To Improve
Chassis Maintenance
On February 17, 1999 (64 FR 7849),
the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), which then had responsibility
for commercial motor vehicle safety,
published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

76797

concerning inspection, repair, and
maintenance responsibilities for
intermodal container chassis. The
ANPRM was in response to a petition
for rulemaking filed by the American
Trucking Associations (ATA). ATA
argued that rail carriers, ocean carriers,
and other entities that offer container
chassis for transportation in interstate
commerce frequently fail to ensure the
container chassis are in safe and proper
operating condition. ATA believed poor
maintenance of this intermodal
equipment was a serious safety problem
and requested FHWA to make the
equipment providers responsible for the
roadworthiness of the container chassis
tendered to motor carriers.
ATA requested that the FMCSRs be
amended to make intermodal equipment
providers subject to 49 CFR part 396,
concerning inspection, repair, and
maintenance of commercial motor
vehicles. Under the ATA proposal,
equipment providers would have been
prohibited from offering an intermodal
container chassis for transportation in
such condition that it would likely
cause a crash or a breakdown of the
vehicle. Motor carriers would have been
prohibited from certifying to equipment
providers that the intermodal container
chassis or container meets applicable
safety regulations, unless the equipment
provider provided the motor carrier
with adequate equipment, time, and the
proper facilities to make a full
inspection of the container chassis and
any necessary repairs to the equipment
prior to the tendering of the equipment
to the motor carrier for operation in
interstate commerce. ATA also
requested that the regulations be
amended so motor carriers would not be
liable for civil or criminal penalties for
operating a container chassis, or
transporting a container that did not
meet the applicable safety requirements,
if the equipment was offered for
transportation in an unsafe or poor
condition.
On October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56478),
as follow-up to the ANPRM, the Office
of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)
announced a series of public meetings
for motor carriers, equipment providers,
and other interested parties to discuss
inspection, repair, and maintenance
practices for ensuring that container
chassis and trailers are in safe and
proper operating condition at all times.
Representatives from the FHWA, the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
the Maritime Administration (MARAD),
and OST participated in the listening
sessions. These sessions were intended
to help DOT broaden its knowledge of
the safety implications of industry
practices involving terminal operators

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
equipment to motor carriers. The
sessions were held in Seattle, WA; Des
Plaines (Chicago), IL; and Jamaica (New
York City), NY, during November 1999.
On November 29, 2002 (67 FR 71127),
FMCSA published a notice announcing
the agency would study the feasibility of
using the Negotiated Rulemaking
process to develop rulemaking options
concerning the maintenance of
intermodal container chassis and
trailers. The neutral convener hired by
FMCSA interviewed individuals and
organizations that represented interests
most likely to be substantially affected
by a rulemaking concerning this subject,
and concluded that a negotiated
rulemaking was unlikely to produce a
set of consensus recommendations to
FMCSA. Therefore, FMCSA decided not
to conduct a negotiated rulemaking on
this subject, and concluded that it
would be best to withdraw the ANPRM
and to start afresh.
On December 31, 2003 (68 FR 75478),
FMCSA published a notice withdrawing
the ANPRM. While FMCSA could
quantify the costs of regulatory options
that could potentially result in
improved maintenance practices by
equipment providers, there was
insufficient data to quantify the safety
benefits of a rulemaking based on the
ATA petition. Available data showed
that a significant number of container
chassis dispatched from intermodal
terminals were later found to have
safety defects during roadside
inspections, but the relationship
between these defects and crash
causation had not been substantiated.
In January of 2004, the Secretary
announced that DOT would launch a
safety inspection program for
intermodal container chassis. The
inspection program would provide
added oversight to help ensure that
intermodal container chassis used by
motor carriers to transport intermodal
cargo containers from seaports and rail
yards are in safe and proper working
order. The Secretary said:

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

‘‘Every day millions of dollars worth of
cargo are transferred from ships and rail to
trailer beds and hauled away by trucks. It is
essential that we have a full and complete
safety program focused on the trailer beds
used to haul cargo containers.’’

The Secretary explained the new
inspection program would be modeled
after FMCSA’s compliance review
program already in place for the nation’s
interstate motor carriers. Intermodal
equipment providers would be required
to obtain a USDOT Number or other
unique identifier and display it on their
container chassis so that safety

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

performance data could be captured and
attributed to the equipment provided.
FMCSA would apply the same civil
penalty structure and enforcement
actions used for motor carriers to
intermodal equipment providers that
demonstrate patterns of non-compliance
with the FMCSRs.
As part of this new activity, FMCSA
compiled and analyzed additional
intermodal chassis inspection data from
38 States. The information derived from
this analysis, particularly violations that
caused vehicles to be placed out of
service, provided evidence that
intermodal equipment failed to meet the
FMCSRs more often than nonintermodal equipment.
SAFETEA—LU Requirements Codified
at 49 U.S.C. 31151
Section 4118 of SAFETEA—LU
amended 49 U.S.C., chapter 311, by
adding new section 31151 (49 U.S.C.
31151) titled ‘‘Roadability.’’ Section
31151 states:
The Secretary of Transportation, after
providing notice and opportunity for
comment, shall issue regulations establishing
a program to ensure that intermodal
equipment used to transport intermodal
containers is safe and systematically
maintained.

Section 31151(a)(3) lists 14 elements
to be included in the regulations as
follows:
‘‘(A) a requirement to identify intermodal
equipment providers responsible for the
inspection and maintenance of intermodal
equipment that is interchanged or intended
for interchange to motor carriers in
intermodal transportation;
‘‘(B) a requirement to match intermodal
equipment readily to an intermodal
equipment provider through a unique
identifying number;
‘‘(C) a requirement that an intermodal
equipment provider identified under
subparagraph (A) systematically inspect,
repair, and maintain, or cause to be
systematically inspected, repaired, and
maintained, intermodal equipment described
in subparagraph (A) that is intended for
interchange with a motor carrier;
‘‘(D) a requirement to ensure that each
intermodal equipment provider identified
under subparagraph (A) maintains a system
of maintenance and repair records for such
equipment;
‘‘(E) requirements that—
‘‘(i) a specific list of intermodal equipment
components or items be identified for the
visual or audible inspection of which a driver
is responsible before operating the equipment
over the road; and
‘‘(ii) the inspection under clause (i) be
conducted as part of the Federal requirement
in effect on the date of enactment of this Act
that a driver be satisfied that the intermodal
equipment components are in good working
order before the equipment is operated over
the road;

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

‘‘(F) a requirement that a facility at which
an intermodal equipment provider regularly
makes intermodal equipment available for
interchange have an operational process and
space readily available for a motor carrier to
have an equipment defect identified pursuant
to subparagraph (E) repaired or the
equipment replaced prior to departure;
‘‘(G) a program for the evaluation and audit
of compliance by intermodal equipment
providers with applicable Federal motor
carrier safety regulations;
‘‘(H) a civil penalty structure consistent
with section 521(b) of title 49, United States
Code, for intermodal equipment providers
that fail to attain satisfactory compliance
with applicable Federal motor carrier safety
regulations;
‘‘(I) a prohibition on intermodal equipment
providers from placing intermodal
equipment in service on the public highways
to the extent such providers or their
equipment are found to pose an imminent
hazard;
‘‘(J) a process by which motor carriers and
agents of motor carriers shall be able to
request the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration to undertake an investigation
of an intermodal equipment provider
identified under subparagraph (A) that is
alleged to be not in compliance with the
regulations under this section;
‘‘(K) a process by which equipment
providers and agents of equipment providers
shall be able to request the Administration to
undertake an investigation of a motor carrier
that is alleged to be not in compliance with
the regulations issued under this section;
‘‘(L) a process by which a driver or motor
carrier transporting intermodal equipment is
required to report to the intermodal
equipment provider or the provider’s
designated agent any actual damage or defect
in the intermodal equipment of which the
driver or motor carrier is aware at the time
the intermodal equipment is returned to the
intermodal equipment provider or the
provider’s designated agent;
‘‘(M) a requirement that any actual damage
or defect identified in the process established
under subparagraph (L) be repaired before
the equipment is made available for
interchange to a motor carrier and that
repairs of equipment made pursuant to the
requirements of this subparagraph and
reports made pursuant to the subparagraph
(L) process be documented in the
maintenance records for such equipment;
and
‘‘(N) a procedure under which motor
carriers, drivers and intermodal equipment
providers may seek correction of their motor
carrier safety records through the deletion
from those records of violations of safety
regulations attributable to deficiencies in the
intermodal chassis or trailer for which they
should not have been held responsible.’’

Section 31151(b) authorizes the
Secretary or DOT employee designated
by the Secretary to inspect intermodal
equipment, and copy related
maintenance and repair records for such
equipment, on demand and display of
proper credentials. Section 31151(c)
extends the authority of Federal, State,

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
or government officials designated by
the Secretary to place out of service any
intermodal equipment that is
determined under this section to fail to
comply with applicable Federal safety
regulations; to prevent its use on a
public highway until the repairs
necessary to bring such equipment into
compliance have been completed; and
to require documentation of repairs in
the equipment maintenance records.
Section 31151(d) preempts statutes,
regulations, orders, or other
requirements of a State, a political
subdivision of a State, or a tribal
government relating to CMV safety, if
the law, regulation, order, or other
requirement exceeds or is inconsistent
with Federal rules adopted to
implement the roadability statute.
Section 31151(e)(2) authorizes the
Secretary to make a nonpreemption
determination if the State requirement
for the inspection and maintenance of
intermodal chassis by intermodal
equipment providers was in effect on or
before January 1, 2005, and is as
effective as the Federal requirement and
does not unduly burden interstate
commerce. Subsequent amendments to
State requirements that were not
preempted must be submitted to the
agency for a preemption determination.
State provisions that would be
preempted may remain in effect only
until the date on which implementing
regulations under this section take
effect. Finally, section 31151(f) defines
the terms ‘‘intermodal equipment,’’
‘‘intermodal equipment interchange
agreement,’’ ‘‘intermodal equipment
provider,’’ and ‘‘interchange.’’
II. Current Rulemaking To Improve
Intermodal Equipment Safety

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Rulemaking Proposal
The proposed regulations would, for
the first time, make intermodal
equipment providers (IEPs) subject to
the FMCSRs. The new requirements
would ensure that intermodal container
chassis and trailers tendered to motor
carriers by steamship lines, railroads,
terminal operators, chassis pools, etc.,
comply with the applicable motor
carrier safety regulations. The explicit
inclusion of equipment providers in the
scope of FMCSRs would ensure that
intermodal equipment providers would
be subject to the same enforcement
proceedings, orders, and civil penalties
as those applied to motor carriers,
property brokers, and freight forwarders.
The proposed rule would also impose
additional requirements on motor
carriers and drivers operating
intermodal equipment.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

FMCSA proposes to address the
SAFETEA–LU requirements by adding
to 49 CFR part 390, a new subpart C
titled ‘‘Requirements and Information
for Intermodal Equipment Providers and
for Motor Carriers Operating Intermodal
Equipment.’’ In addition, we would
amend parts 385, 386, 390, 392, 393,
and 396, as well as Appendix G to
Subchapter B, to make the appropriate
sections applicable to IEPs. With these
proposed changes to the current
FMCSRs, the agency will address the
SAFETEA–LU requirements codified at
49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3):
• A roadability review based on
elements of the Safety Fitness
Procedures to enable FMCSA to assess
the safety of equipment tendered by
IEPs (part 385).Section 31151(a)(3)(G).
• Application of FMCSA Rules of
Practice for safety compliance
proceedings (part 386). Sections
31151(a)(3)(H) and (I).
• Compliance with general safety
regulations, including filing of an
Intermodal Equipment Provider
Identification Report (FMCSA Form
MCS–150C), and display of the
intermodal equipment provider’s
USDOT number or other unique
identification number on intermodal
equipment (part 390). Sections
31151(a)(3)(A), (B), (C), (D), (J), (K), and
(N).
• Provisions for CMV drivers to
inspect specific intermodal equipment
components and be satisfied that they
are in good working order before the
equipment is operated over the road
(part 392). Sections 31151(a)(3)(E) and
(F).
• Extension of the applicability of
regulations concerning parts and
accessories necessary for safe operation
to intermodal equipment and IEPs (part
393).Sections 31151(a)(3)(C).
• Extension of the applicability of
regulations concerning inspection,
repair, and maintenance of CMVs to
IEPs (part 396). Sections 31151(a)(3)(C),
(D), (L), and (M).
The proposed changes to each part are
described below.
Part 385—Safety Fitness Procedures
FMCSA proposes to conduct
roadability reviews in order to evaluate
the safety and regulatory compliance
status of IEPs. This activity would
consist of an on-site examination of an
intermodal equipment provider’s
inspection, repair, and maintenance
operation and records to determine its
compliance with applicable FMCSRs
(i.e., parts 390, 393, and 396). However,
FMCSA would not issue safety ratings
to IEPs.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

76799

FMCSA would use its Safety Status
Measurement System (SafeStat) to
identify and prioritize which IEPs
would be subject to a roadability review.
SafeStat is an automated, data-driven
analysis system designed to incorporate
current on-road safety performance
information on all motor carriers, and
IEPs, with on-site reviews and
enforcement history information, when
available, in order to measure relative
safety fitness. SafeStat plays an
important role in determining the safety
fitness in several FMCSA/State
programs including the Performance
and Registration Information Systems
Management, National Compliance
Review Prioritization, and the roadside
Inspection Selection System. FMCSA
would use the system to continuously
quantify and monitor changes in the
safety status of IEPs. The agency’s initial
focus would be on the Vehicle Safety
Evaluation Area (SEA). For more
information about SafeStat, visit
FMCSA’s ‘‘SafeStat Online’’ at URL:
http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov.
In addition to IEPs that are identified
in SafeStat, a roadability review may be
conducted on an IEP that falls into one
of the following categories: (1) The
provider is the subject of a complaint
that FMCSA determines to be nonfrivolous; (2) the provider has
equipment involved in a pattern of
recordable crashes or hazardous
materials incidents; (3) the provider
requests FMCSA to conduct a review of
its operations; (4) the provider
demonstrates a pattern of noncompliance; or (5) the agency
determines there is a need for a review.
FMCSA would conduct roadability
reviews under proposed §§ 385.501 and
385.503 using the current framework of
the Compliance Analysis and
Performance Review Information
System (CAPRI). The CAPRI application
provides a standardized method for
conducting reviews on motor carriers,
hazardous materials shippers, and cargo
tank facilities. It is also used for safety
audits on new carriers and Mexicodomiciled carriers seeking to operate in
the United States. The application
includes extensive checking for data
integrity and electronic file transfer for
expediting data flow, and is for use by
both Federal and State enforcement
officials.
Under proposed § 385.503, if FMCSA
finds violations of parts 390, 393, or
396, the agency would cite the IEP for
those violations. The agency may also
impose civil penalties according to the
civil penalty structure contained in 49
U.S.C. 521(b). FMCSA may prohibit an
intermodal equipment provider from
tendering any intermodal equipment

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
locations if the provider’s FMCSRs
compliance is so deficient that its
continued operation constitutes an
imminent hazard to highway safety.
This is authorized by 49 U.S.C.
521(b)(5)(A), which directs the agency
to ‘‘order a vehicle * * * out-of-service,
or order an employer to cease all or part
of the employer’s commercial motor
vehicle operations. In making any such
order, the [agency] shall impose no
restriction on any * * * employer
beyond that required to abate the
hazard.’’

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Part 386—Rules of Practice
FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 386 concerning rules of practice for
enforcement proceedings before its
Assistant Administrator. The purpose of
the proposed changes is to apply part
386 to intermodal equipment providers
now subject to FMCSA jurisdiction.
Section 386.1 Scope of the rules of
this part. FMCSA would amend existing
§ 386.1 to include an explicit reference
to intermodal equipment providers.
They would be subject to the same
enforcement proceedings, orders, and
civil penalties as motor carriers,
property brokers, and freight forwarders,
with respect to the safety of their
equipment tendered and their oversight
of inspection, repair, and maintenance
of that equipment.
Section 386.83 Sanction for failure
to pay civil penalties or abide by
payment plan; operation in interstate
commerce prohibited. FMCSA proposes
to amend § 386.83 to extend the
applicability of this section to
intermodal equipment providers.
Part 390—Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations
Section 390.3 General applicability.
Section 390.3(h) would explicitly state
that intermodal equipment providers are
subject to parts 385, safety fitness
procedures; 386, rules of practice; 390
(except § 390.15(b)); 393, parts and
accessories necessary for safe operation;
and 396, inspection, repair, and
maintenance of commercial motor
vehicles.
Section 390.5 Definitions. FMCSA
would add definitions of ‘‘interchange,’’
‘‘intermodal equipment,’’ ‘‘intermodal
equipment interchange agreement,’’ and
‘‘intermodal equipment provider’’ to
§ 390.5 to provide a consistent
vocabulary for dealing with intermodal
equipment issues. These definitions are
identical to the definitions for these
terms included in 49 U.S.C. 31151(f).
‘‘Interchange’’ would be the word used
to describe the act of providing
intermodal equipment to a motor

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

carrier. Leasing equipment to a motor
carrier is not included in this term.
‘‘Intermodal equipment’’ rather than
intermodal container chassis would be
the term used in the regulation. Though
intermodal container chassis are by far
the most common variety of intermodal
equipment, FMCSA decided to propose
a broader term ‘‘intermodal equipment’’
to cover all the different kinds of
trailers, chassis, and associated devices
used to transport intermodal containers.
‘‘Intermodal equipment interchange
agreement’’ would describe the written
agreement between an intermodal
equipment provider and a motor carrier,
which establishes the responsibilities
and liabilities of both parties. The
Uniform Intermodal Interchange and
Facilities Access Agreement is
commonly used for this purpose.
‘‘Intermodal equipment provider’’
would describe the party that
interchanges the intermodal equipment
with the motor carrier, and that, under
these proposed rules, would be
responsible for systematic inspection,
repair, and maintenance of the
intermodal equipment.
Section 390.15 Assistance in
investigations and special studies.
FMCSA would amend § 390.15(a) to add
a reference to intermodal equipment
providers, requiring them to provide
records, information, and assistance in
an investigation of an accident, as
defined in 49 CFR 390.5. Intermodal
equipment providers would not be
required to maintain the accident
register required of motor carriers in
§ 390.15(b), but any accident
information they do retain must be
made available to investigators upon
request.
Section 390.19 Motor carrier, HM
shipper, and intermodal equipment
provider identification reports. FMCSA
would require intermodal equipment
providers to file an Intermodal
Equipment Provider Identification
Report, Form MCS–150C and to update
it every two years.
Section 390.21 Marking of selfpropelled CMVs, and intermodal
equipment. FMCSA would require
intermodal equipment providers (i.e.,
the entity tendering the equipment,
which may or may not be the owner) to
mark intermodal equipment with an
identification number issued by
FMCSA. This number could be a
USDOT number or another unique
identification number. The USDOT
number is used to identify all motor
carriers in FMCSA’s registration/
information systems. It is also used by
States as the key identifier in the
Performance and Registration
Information Systems Management

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

(PRISM) project, a cooperative Federal/
State program that makes motor carrier
safety a requirement for obtaining and
keeping commercial motor vehicle
registration and privileges. FMCSA
seeks comment on what other unique
identification numbers could serve the
same purpose as the USDOT number.
Part 390, Subpart C—Requirements and
Information for Intermodal Equipment
Providers and for Motor Carriers
Operating Intermodal Equipment
FMCSA proposes a new subpart C,
§§ 390.40–390.44, to address the
specific requirements for intermodal
equipment providers in SAFETEA–LU.
Proposed § 390.40 lists all of the
responsibilities of an intermodal
equipment provider, including
identifying its operations to FMCSA;
marking intermodal equipment;
inspecting, repairing, and maintaining
the equipment; keeping records of
inspection, repair, and maintenance;
providing procedures and facilities for
inspection, repair, and maintenance;
and refraining from placing equipment
in service if the equipment would pose
an imminent hazard, as defined in
§ 386.72(b)(1).
Proposed paragraph (h) of § 390.40
requires that any repairs or
replacements must be made in a timely
manner after a driver notifies the
provider of such damage, defects, or
deficiencies. FMCSA proposes a limited
timeframe for repair or replacement
actions because, in the intermodal
sector, drivers’ income is usually based
upon the number of trips a driver can
complete in a day. Drivers who report
defects or deficiencies to equipment
providers face potential delays in
leaving the ports or terminals while
waiting for a container chassis to be
repaired or replaced. Therefore, FMCSA
wishes to reduce the amount of time
that drivers may have to wait after
pointing out defects or deficiencies,
thereby encouraging the driver to make
such reports. Driver reports will bring
potential equipment defects and
deficiencies to the equipment provider’s
attention so they can be remedied.
Operating safe equipment is clearly in
the drivers’—and FMCSA’s—interest.
Proposed § 390.42(a) and (b) prescribe
procedures for intermodal equipment
providers and motor carriers to request
correction of publicly-accessible safety
violation information for which the
intermodal equipment provider or
motor carrier should not have been held
responsible. An intermodal equipment
provider or motor carrier would use
FMCSA’s DataQs system for this
purpose. The DataQs system is an
electronic means for filing concerns

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
about Federal and State data released to
the public by FMCSA. Through this
system, data concerns are automatically
forwarded to the appropriate office for
resolution. The system also allows filers
to monitor the status of each filing.
Proposed § 390.42(c) and (d) prescribe
procedures for requesting that FMCSA
investigate any motor carrier or
intermodal equipment provider that
may be in noncompliance with FMCSA
requirements.
Proposed § 390.44 prescribes the
responsibilities of drivers and motor
carriers, as opposed to intermodal
equipment providers, when operating
intermodal equipment. The driver
would be required to make a pre-trip
inspection and would not be allowed to
operate the equipment on the highway
if the equipment is not in good working
order. The driver or the motor carrier
would also be required to report any
damage or deficiencies in the equipment
at the time the equipment is returned to
the provider. This report would have to
include, at a minimum, the items listed
in § 396.11(a)(2).
Proposed § 390.46 would address
preemption by the FMCSRs of State and
local laws and regulations concerning
inspection, repair, and maintenance.
Generally, a law, regulation, order, or
other requirement of a State, a political
subdivision of a State, or a tribal
organization relating to the inspection,
repair, and maintenance of intermodal
equipment is preempted if such law,
regulation, order, or other requirement
exceeds or is inconsistent with a
requirement imposed by the FMCSRs.

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Part 392—Driving of Commercial Motor
Vehicles
FMCSA proposes to amend § 392.7 to
cover intermodal equipment similar to
the current requirements for other
CMVs. The proposal would require
drivers preparing to transport
intermodal equipment to make a visual
or audible inspection of specific
components of intermodal equipment,
and to satisfy the driver that the
intermodal equipment was in good
working order before operating it over
the road.
Part 393—Parts and Accessories
Necessary for Safe Operation
FMCSA proposes to revise § 393.1 to
make equipment providers responsible
for offering in interstate commerce
intermodal equipment that is equipped
with all required parts and accessories.
The proposed changes would ensure
each required component and system is
in safe and proper working order. This
requirement is separate and distinct
from the provisions of part 396, which

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

cover responsibilities for inspection,
repair, and maintenance of the CMV or
chassis, without specifying all of the
parts and accessories necessary for safe
operation.
Part 396—Inspection, Repair, and
Maintenance
Part 396 would be amended to require
intermodal equipment providers to
establish a systematic inspection, repair,
and maintenance program and to
maintain records documenting the
program. Equipment providers would
also be required to comply with
FMCSA’s periodic and annual
inspection regulations. Furthermore,
intermodal equipment providers would
be required to establish a process by
which a motor carrier or driver could
report the defects or deficiencies on
container chassis that they discover or
that are reported to them. Intermodal
equipment providers would then be
required to document whether they
have repaired the defect or deficiency,
or that repair was unnecessary, before
the intermodal equipment was
interchanged.
Section 396.1 Scope. FMCSA
proposes to revise § 396.1 to require
every intermodal equipment provider to
comply with, and be knowledgeable of,
the applicable FMCSA regulations.
Section 396.3 Inspection, repair, and
maintenance. FMCSA proposes to
amend § 396.3 to require intermodal
equipment providers to be responsible
for the systematic inspection, repair,
and maintenance of intermodal
equipment, and to keep the associated
records.
Section 396.11, Driver vehicle
inspection reports. FMCSA proposes to
amend § 396.11 to add a new paragraph
(a)(2) specifying that the intermodal
equipment provider must have a process
to receive reports of defects or
deficiencies in the equipment. Proposed
paragraph (a)(2) lists the specific
components of intermodal equipment
that must be included on the driver
vehicle inspection report.
Section 396.12, Procedures governing
the acceptance by intermodal
equipment providers of reports required
under § 390.44(b) of this chapter from
motor carriers and drivers. FMCSA
would add a new § 396.12 to require
intermodal equipment providers to
establish a procedure to accept reports
of defects or deficiencies from motor
carriers or drivers, repair the defects
that are likely to affect safety, and
document the procedure.
Sections 396.17, Periodic Inspection,
396.19, Inspector qualifications, 396.21,
Periodic inspection recordkeeping
requirements, 396.23 Equivalent to

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

76801

periodic inspection. FMCSA proposes to
revise these sections to make clear their
application to intermodal equipment
providers.
Section 396.25, Qualifications of
brake inspectors. In its ANPRM of
February 3, 1989 (54 FR 5518),
concerning Federal standards for the
maintenance and inspection of CMV
brakes, FMCSA concluded that the
legislation requiring the rulemaking
action applied only to employees of
motor carriers [section 9110 of the
Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory
Reform Act of 1988, (Subtitle B of Title
IX of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988,
Pub. L. 100–690, 102 Stat. 4181, at 4531)
now codified at 49 U.S.C. 31137(b)].
Section 9110(b) required regulations to
ensure that CMV brakes are properly
maintained and inspected by
‘‘appropriate employees.’’ Because this
provision amended the Motor Carrier
Safety Act of 1984 (the 1984 Act) and
was codified in section 31137,
‘‘employee’’ had the meaning given to
that term in 49 U.S.C. 31132(2), which
specifically means ‘‘a mechanic.’’
However, the term ‘‘employer’’ in
section 31132(3) means, among other
things, a person who ‘‘owns or leases a
commercial motor vehicle * * * or
assigns an employee to operate it.’’ The
agency generally treated the 1984 Act
term ‘‘employer’’ as equivalent to
‘‘motor carrier.’’ But since independent
repair and maintenance shops neither
own nor lease CMVs, nor assign
employees to operate them, the agency
concluded that mechanics (employees)
who did not work for a motor carrier
(employer) were not covered. ‘‘An
example of this would be independent
garage owners and their mechanics.’’ (54
FR 5518).
The example was correct, but the
statutory term ‘‘employer’’ also
describes intermodal equipment
providers who own CMVs, namely
intermodal chassis. Such equipment
providers and their mechanics are
therefore subject to the 1984 Act,
including the brake inspector
qualifications adopted pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 31137(b), which are now codified
at § 396.25.
Appendix G to Subchapter B—
Minimum Periodic Inspection
Standards
FMCSA proposes to amend Appendix
G, item 6 (Safe Loading) to add devices
used to secure an intermodal container
to a chassis. These devices include rails
or support frames, tiedown bolsters,
locking pins, clevises, clamps, and
hooks.

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

76802

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Proposed Enforcement Plans

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Review of Maintenance Programs
If this proposal is promulgated as a
final rule, FMCSA would initiate
reviews of intermodal equipment
providers’ maintenance programs
similar to the reviews FMCSA currently
conducts on motor carriers’ safety
management controls.
• The reviews would examine
equipment providers’ compliance with
FMCSA commercial motor vehicle
safety regulations to which they are
subject, especially parts 390, 393, and
396 and Appendix G. Intermodal
equipment providers would be held
responsible for the inspection, repair,
and maintenance of their intermodal
equipment, using standards similar to
those used by motor carriers for the
inspection, repair, and maintenance of
their trailers.
• The reviews may be triggered when
roadside inspection reports, crash report
data, or driver or carrier complaints
indicate a pattern of non-compliance by
an equipment provider.
• FMCSA would develop a procedure
to review IEPs’ compliance with the
applicable FMCSRs, with a focus on the
safe operating condition of the
intermodal equipment, the involvement
of that equipment in recordable
highway crashes, and the intermodal
equipment provider’s safety
management controls. The agency
would develop review procedures,
enforcement procedures, and rules of
practice relevant to the responsibility of
equipment providers to tender
roadworthy equipment to motor
carriers. However, if FMCSA were to
subject an intermodal equipment
provider to an operations out-of-service
order, the order would prevent that
provider from tendering equipment to
motor carriers. The order would not
apply to other transportation-related
activities of an intermodal equipment
provider that is a steamship company or
rail carrier. Intermodal equipment
providers that fail to attain satisfactory
compliance with applicable federal
motor carrier safety regulations would
be subject to a civil penalty structure
consistent with 49 U.S.C. 521(b).
Imminent Hazard Determinations
Under 49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3)(I), the
Secretary of Transportation is required
to prohibit intermodal equipment
providers from placing intermodal
equipment in service on the public
highways to the extent such providers
or their equipment are found to pose an
‘‘imminent hazard.’’
The authority to declare that a motor
carrier poses an imminent hazard is

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

codified in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(5). If
FMCSA, after an investigation,
determines that violations of the
FMCSRs or the statutes under which
they were established pose an
‘‘imminent hazard’’ to safety, the agency
is required to order the vehicle or
employee operating that vehicle out of
service, or order a motor carrier to cease
all or part of its commercial motor
vehicle operations.
Imminent hazard is defined in 49
U.S.C. 521(b)(5)(B) and 49 CFR
386.72(b)(1) to mean ‘‘any condition of
vehicle, employee, or commercial motor
vehicle operations which substantially
increases the likelihood of serious
injury or death if not discontinued
immediately.’’ An imminent hazard may
be a violation that is recurring and can
be remedied by the carrier’s ceasing the
violation (e.g., an intermodal equipment
provider is discovered operating
intermodal equipment that has been
declared out of service). It may also be
argued that a motor carrier that
continually and frequently violates
multiple regulatory requirements poses
an imminent hazard to the motoring
public.
FMCSA proposes to issue an
Imminent Hazard Out-of-Service (OOS)
Order to any intermodal equipment
provider whose intermodal chassis
substantially increase the likelihood of
serious injury or death if not taken out
of service immediately, consistent with
its treatment of motor carriers. Use of
the Imminent Hazard OOS Order is
limited to violations of certain FMCSRs
(49 CFR parts 385, 386, 390–399, and
some of part 383). Such an order is a
serious matter and is usually a last
resort when a serious safety problem
exists that substantially increases the
likelihood of serious injury or death and
is unlikely to be resolved through any
other means available.
FMCSA could issue Imminent Hazard
OOS Orders to an intermodal equipment
provider’s: (1) Specific vehicle; (2)
terminal or facility; and/or (3) all
equipment tendered by the provider.
Where an Imminent Hazard OOS Order
is issued, the agency would only impose
restrictions necessary to abate the
hazard.
FMCSA’s goal is to ensure compliance
with its regulations and thereby ensure
safety. Studies show that compliant
companies have lower crash rates, better
insurance rates, and pay less for crash
related expenses (e.g., cargo damage,
legal fees, towing, medical expenses).
Preemption of State Statutes or
Regulations
Sections 31151(d) and (e) preempt
certain State, political subdivision, and

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

tribal government regulations. In
general, the Federal rules would
preempt the statutes, regulations,
orders, or other requirements of a State,
a political subdivision of a State, or a
tribal organization relating to
commercial motor vehicle safety if the
provisions of those rules exceed or are
inconsistent with an FMCSA
requirement. If a State requirement for
the periodic inspection of intermodal
chassis by intermodal equipment
providers was in effect on January 1,
2005, it would remain in effect only
until the effective date of a final rule.
However, a State may request a
nonpreemption determination for any
requirement for the periodic inspection
of intermodal chassis by IEPs that was
in effect on January 1, 2005. FMCSA
would issue a determination if it is
decided that the State requirement is as
effective as the Federal requirement and
does not unduly burden interstate
commerce. In order to trigger this
review, the State must apply to the
agency for a determination before the
effective date of the final rule. The
agency would make a determination
with respect to any such application
within 6 months after the date on which
it is received.
If a State amends a regulation for
which it previously received a
nonpreemption determination, it must
apply for a determination of
nonpreemption for the amended
regulation. Any amendment to a State
requirement not preempted under this
subsection because of a determination
by the FMCSA may not take effect
unless: (1) It is submitted to the agency
before the effective date of the
amendment; and (2) the FMCSA
determines that the amendment would
not cause the State requirement to be
less effective than the Federal
requirement and would not unduly
burden interstate commerce.
Relationship Among Intermodal Parties
and Allocation of Liability
Section 31151(a)(1) requires that
FMCSA issue regulations to ensure that
intermodal equipment used to transport
intermodal containers is safe and
systematically maintained. However,
FMCSA believes the statute suggests
that the agency should not attempt to
allocate liability between parties
tendering and using intermodal
equipment. Rather than finding fault
among intermodal parties or involving
the Government in individual disputes
(such as who damaged a particular
container chassis), the rulemaking
would establish programmatic
responsibility for intermodal equipment
maintenance. The concept is that a

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

maintenance program would produce
safer equipment—safety being in the
interest of the traveling public and of
the government.
The definition of ‘‘intermodal
equipment interchange agreement’’ in
Section 31151(f)(2) is ‘‘the Uniform
Intermodal Interchange and Facilities
Access Agreement or any other written
document executed by an intermodal
equipment provider or its agent and a
motor carrier or its agent, the primary
purpose of which is to establish the
responsibilities and liabilities of both
parties with respect to the interchange
of the intermodal equipment.’’
[Emphasis added]
Neither the section 31151 language
nor this proposal would relieve motor
carriers of liability for damage they may
inflict on intermodal container chassis.
This proposed rulemaking would likely
reduce the likelihood of crashes
attributed to the mechanical condition
and roadability of intermodal container
chassis, but it would not involve the
Department unnecessarily in the
commercial relations or allocation of
liability between intermodal parties.
International Implications
Because section 31151 was codified in
subchapter III of chapter 311 of title 49,
United States Code, the jurisdictional
definitions in 49 U.S.C. 31132 apply.
The term ‘‘United States’’ is defined in
§ 31132(10) as ‘‘the States of the United
States and the District of Columbia.’’
Section 31151 does not address the
question of its own geographical reach,
so it must be read as limited to the
United States, as defined in section
31132(10). This means that intermodal
equipment providers (IEPs) tendering
equipment to motor carriers in Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands or any other
U.S. territory are not directly subject to
the requirements of this rule.
Nonetheless, any jurisdiction that
adopts the relevant portions of the
FMCSRs as territorial law would have
the authority to enforce them. There is
also a strong presumption against extraterritorial application of a statute.
Nothing in the language or legislative
history of section 31151 suggests that
Congress intended to make it applicable
outside the territory of the United
States. Therefore, IEPs tendering
equipment to motor carriers in Canada,
Mexico, or Central America would not
be subject to the requirements of this
rule, even if the motor carrier
immediately transports the container/
chassis combination across the border
into this country. Once in the U.S.,
however, the intermodal equipment

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

would be subject to these proposed
rules, including marking requirements
and to existing equipment-related
FMCSRs. Enforcement would be taken
against a motor carrier pulling an
unmarked or defective chassis, even if
the chassis originated with an IEP
physically located outside the United
States.
IEPs physically outside the United
States, as defined in section 31132(10),
are not required by this proposed rule
to: (1) File a Form MCS–150C; (2) have
a systematic inspection, repair and
maintenance program; (3) create a repair
lane for defects discovered by the driver
just before leaving the terminal; or (4)
maintain a system for receiving reports
of defects and deficiencies from drivers
returning intermodal equipment.
FMCSA cannot conduct roadability
reviews of IEPs based in foreign
countries or non—‘‘United States’’
territories (because they are not subject
to the rules), prohibit such IEPs from
tendering defective equipment to motor
carriers (because that occurs beyond the
jurisdiction of FMCSA), or issue them
civil penalties for failure to comply with
these rules.
On the other hand, any intermodal
equipment operated in interstate
commerce in the United States must be
marked with a USDOT number or other
unique identifier. Otherwise, the motor
carrier pulling the chassis/container
combination would have violated these
proposed regulations. As motor carriers
are unlikely to accept the risk of fines
for transporting unmarked chassis,
foreign or non-—‘‘United States’’ IEPs
that know their equipment will operate
within the United States may find it
necessary, for business reasons, to file a
Form MCS–150C and mark their
equipment. FMCSA will accept
registration applications from such
entities and issue them USDOT
numbers or other unique identifiers. In
these cases, however, the assignment of
an identifying number does not amount
to an assertion of jurisdiction over the
foreign or non—United States IEP.
Doing so, however would not subject
such IEPs to FMCSA jurisdiction
beyond the borders of the United States,
so the purpose of the identifying
number could not be fully realized.
The challenge for the agency is to
maximize the benefits of section 31151
and these proposed rules—when non—
‘‘United States’’ IEPs tender equipment
that subsequently travels in the United
States—without exceeding the agency’s
statutory authority or the principles of
international law. FMCSA solicits

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

76803

comments on all aspects of this
problem.
III. Analysis of Safety Data
Analysis of Roadside Inspection Data in
4 States
FMCSA asked the John A. Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center
(Volpe) to conduct a special study of
roadside inspection results for container
chassis. Inspections can be of several
types, ranging from full or walk-around
inspections (Levels 1 and 2) to vehicleonly inspections (Level 5). The type of
unit inspected is indicated by a code
and the types of violations found may
be categorized as driver violations,
vehicle violations (such as defects in
brakes, tires or lights), or hazardous
material violations. The Volpe analyses
covered results from Level 1, 2, or 5
inspections, and for ‘‘Unit 2’’ in tractorsemitrailer combinations, the type of
vehicle being inspected had to be coded
as a semitrailer (code 9). ‘‘Unit 2’’ refers
to the semitrailer in a power unitsemitrailer combination. Out-of-service
(OOS) and violation rates were
calculated using FMCSA’s Motor Carrier
Management Information System
(MCMIS) inspection data on ‘‘Unit 2’’
vehicles. That is, the data came from
Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the nonintermodal and intermodal semitrailers,
but not the tractors involved. All
violations were vehicle violations.
Results of the Volpe study are
summarized here; the complete report is
available in the docket for this NPRM.
The analysis of roadside inspection
safety data included two phases. The
first phase included a Four-State
Analysis. The study team obtained
intermodal inspection data from four
States—California, Louisiana, South
Carolina, and Texas—that have
procedures for collecting and
maintaining intermodal roadside
inspection data at the State level and
that have adopted container chassis
roadability legislation. The data
obtained were for the calendar years
2000 through part of 2003.
The Four-State Analysis results
presented in Table 1 show, for each of
the four reporting States, the total
number of Level 1, 2, and 5 roadside
inspections, and the OOS rates for nonintermodal semitrailers and intermodal
semitrailers (i.e., Unit 2). Vehicle OOS
violations represent the most serious
types of FMCSR violations found on the
vehicle, or those violations FMCSA
believes are most likely to result in a
crash.

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)

State

Number of
inspections
CA1
LA2
SC1
TX2

...........................................................
...........................................................
...........................................................
...........................................................

Intermodal (I)

OOS rate
(percent)

875,881
27,216
60,674
150,260

Number of
inspections

14.6
8.8
14.9
16.1

OOS rate
(percent)

33,523
76
1,982
2,032

17.7
26.3
21.4
24.8

Difference in
OOS rate
(I–NI)
3.1
17.5
6.5
8.7

Percent
difference in
OOS rate
(I–NI)/NI
21.2
198.9
43.6
54.0

1 Data

for 2000–2002 and part of 2003.
for 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 involved. All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15–30).
2 Data

The researchers noted that in each of
the four States, the OOS rate for
intermodal semitrailers was higher than
the OOS rate for non-intermodal
semitrailers. The percentage difference
between the non-intermodal and
intermodal semitrailer OOS rates in
each State was more than 20 percent,

with intermodal container chassis being
in worse mechanical condition than
other types of semitrailers. Table 2
shows, for each of the four States, the
total number of Level 1, 2, and 5
roadside inspections and the
percentages of non-intermodal and
intermodal semitrailer (i.e., Unit 2)

inspections with vehicle violations.
Note that the violation totals
represented in Table 3 include all
violations (i.e., not just OOS but also
non-OOS violations) found on the
trailing unit.

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)

State
Number of
inspections
CA1
LA 2
SC1
TX 2

...........................................................
...........................................................
...........................................................
..........................................................

Total violation
rate
(percent)

875,881
27,216
60,674
150,260

Number of
inspections

32.8
28.2
38.7
60.9

Total violation
rate
(percent)

33,523
76
1,982
2,032

32.8
43.4
38.9
55.8

Difference in
violation rate
(I–NI)
0.0
15.2
0.2
¥5.1

Percent
difference in
violation rate
(I–NI)/NI
0.0
53.9
0.5
¥8.4

1 Data

for 2000–2002 and part of 2003.
for 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 involved. All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15–30).

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

2 Data

Table 2 shows that in California and
South Carolina, the percentages of nonintermodal and intermodal semitrailers
with vehicle violations were the same or
nearly the same. In Texas, the
percentage of non-intermodal
semitrailers with vehicle violations was
5.1 percentage points higher than the
percentage of intermodal semitrailers
with vehicle violations. In Louisiana,
the percentage of intermodal
semitrailers with vehicle violations was
15.2 percentage points higher than the
percentage of non-intermodal
semitrailers with vehicle violations.
However, FMCSA recognizes the
limited number of Louisiana intermodal
trailer inspections (only 76 inspections
compared to 1,982 inspections in South
Carolina, 2,032 inspections in Texas,
and 33,523 inspections in California) on
which to base this comparison.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

The roadside inspection data from
Texas contain a code that identifies the
type of intermodal container chassis
ownership: carrier owned or noncarrier-owned. The OOS and ‘‘all’’
violation analyses were re-run to
compare the results for these two
groups. Table 3 shows the OOS rates for
carrier-owned and non-carrier-owned
intermodal container chassis for
inspections performed in Texas. Table 3
shows the total (or ‘‘all’’) vehicle
violation rates for carrier-owned and
non-carrier-owned intermodal container
chassis for inspections performed in
Texas.
Table 3 shows that the non-carrierowned intermodal semitrailers (i.e.,
container semitrailers tendered by
equipment providers) had an OOS rate
of 25.3 percent compared to an OOS rate
of 19.2 percent for the carrier-owned

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

intermodal semitrailers. Table 4 shows
that 55.7 percent of the non-carrierowned intermodal semitrailers had
vehicle violations compared to 57.5
percent of the carrier-owned intermodal
semitrailers.
While FMCSA has examined both
total violation rates and OOS rates, it is
the OOS rate FMCSA focuses on in this
proposed rule because that rate is based
on the most serious violations of the
FMCSRs. These violations are listed in
the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance’s (CVSA) North American
Uniform Out-of-Service Criteria, a set of
enforcement tolerances used by Federal,
State, and Provincial agencies
conducting commercial motor vehicle
inspections in theUnited States, Canada,
and Mexico.

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)
intermodal

State

Number of
inspections
TX .............................................................

Carrier-owned (CO) intermodal

OOS rate
(percent)

1,865

Number of
inspections

25.3

OOS rate
(percent)

167

Difference in
OOS rates
(NCO–CO)

19.2

Percent
difference
in OOS rates
(NCO–CO)/CO

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 involved. 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)
intermodal

State

Number of
inspections
TX .............................................................

Carrier-owned (CO) intermodal

Vehicle
violation rate
(percent)

1,865

Number of
inspections

55.7

Vehicle
violation rate
(percent)

167

57.5

Difference in
violation rates
(NCO–CO)

Percent
difference in
violation rates
(NCO–CO)/CO

¥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 involved. All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15–30).

The second phase of this analysis
used data collected during roadside
inspections conducted during an
intensive annual activity known as
RoadCheck. FMCSA requested that

States conduct inspections of
intermodal equipment, where possible
and appropriate, as part of the focus of
International RoadCheck 2004
(conducted beginning in June 2004).2

Table 5 shows the RoadCheck 2004
inspection totals and out-of-service rates
compared to the Four-State Analysis
inspections.

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

Number of
inspections

RoadCheck Inspections ...........................
Four-State Inspections .............................

312,751
1,114,029

Intermodal

OOS rate (percent)
Tractors

Semitrailers

11.3
13.7

Number of
inspections

18.0
14.7

4,038
37,615

OOS rate (percent)
Tractors

Semitrailers

17.3
16.4

22.1
18.3

Note: RoadCheck inspection data are cross-section data obtained from 38 States from June 1 through September 23, 2004, except for California 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
intermodal equipment—both tractors
and semitrailers—are consistently
higher than the OOS rates for
commercial motor vehicles hauling nonintermodal semitrailers. This suggests

that intermodal container chassis are
more likely to be operated in an unsafe
mechanical condition than nonintermodal semi-trailers
As part of RoadCheck 2004, FMCSA
also asked inspectors to identify the

ownership of intermodal container
chassis at the time of the vehicle
inspection.3 Table 6 summarizes OOS
rates by container chassis ownership.

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

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Type of chassis owners

Motor Carrier ........................................................................
Leased .................................................................................
2 Detailed analysis of the RoadCheck Inspection
Data collected in MCMIS, included in the RIA, is
provided in Docket FMCSA–2005–23315.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

Number
of OOS
inspections

94
191

Semitrailers/Chassis

OOS rate
(percent)

21
45

22.3
23.6

3 Volpe Center, ‘‘Feasibility Study on Collecting
Intermodal Chassis Crash and Inspection Data,’’
prepared for FMCSA, September 29, 2004.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

Number
of OOS
inspections
16
54

OOS rate
(percent)
17.0
28.3

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
Number of
inspections

Type of chassis owners

Number
of OOS
inspections

Semitrailers/Chassis
Number
of OOS
inspections

OOS rate
(percent)

OOS rate
(percent)

Shipper .................................................................................
Railroads ..............................................................................
Unknown ..............................................................................

167
68
150

41
21
17

24.6
30.9
11.3

33
20
47

19.8
29.4
31.3

Total ..............................................................................

670

145

21.6

170

25.4

While data in Table 6 are relatively
limited, they do show that intermodal
container chassis owned by motor
carriers have lower OOS rates than
intermodal container chassis owned by
all other non-motor carriers.
While the total number of violations
cited per inspection for intermodal
container chassis may be comparable to
the total number of violations per
inspection of non-intermodal
semitrailers, the data indicate the
defects or deficiencies observed on
intermodal container chassis are likely
to be more severe than those noted on
non-intermodal semitrailers (or those
violations resulting in vehicle OOS
orders). Therefore, it appears intermodal

container chassis are, as a group of
commercial vehicles, more likely to be
in need of repairs than other types of
semitrailers, and that the defects and
deficiencies are more likely to be of the
type that are likely to cause a crash or
breakdown of the vehicle.
Roadside Inspection Violation Data
Analysis
All Intermodal Container Chassis
Violations
FMCSA examined the violations cited
during intermodal container chassis
inspections to determine what specific
problems were being found during the
inspections and whether it is likely a
driver could have detected them if they

were present when the driver picked up
the container chassis.
Table 7 shows the most frequently
cited violations in the inspection
records of the four States’ data. The
most common violation was ‘‘Inoperable
Lamp (Other than Head/Tail),’’ which
accounted for 25.4 percent of all
violations. Combined with other lamp/
light violations, they account for 34.0
percent of all violations. Tire-related
violations account for 12.2 percent of all
violations. Violations that can be readily
detected by the driver, including those
that are lamp/light and tire-related,
account for more than half of all the
violations cited for intermodal container
chassis.

TABLE 7.—DISTRIBUTION OF INTERMODAL SEMITRAILER VIOLATIONS (2000–2003)
Unit 2—Intermodal semitrailers
Violation

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Rank

Count

Percent
of total

Code

Description

393.9 .............................................
396.3(a)(1) .....................................
393.75(c) .......................................
393.47 ...........................................
393.11 ...........................................
393.100(e) .....................................
396.3(a)(1)BA ................................
393.201(a) .....................................
393.45(a)(4) ...................................
393.70 ...........................................
393.207(c) .....................................
393.25(f) ........................................
393.50 ...........................................
393.19 ...........................................
393.75(a)(1) ...................................
393.75(b) .......................................
393.48(a) .......................................
393.205(c) .....................................
393.9T ...........................................
396.17(c) .......................................

Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail) 3 ..................................................
Inspection/Repair and Maintenance 2 ......................................................
Tire—Other tread depth less than 2⁄32 of inch 3 ......................................
Inadequate brake lining for safe stopping 2 .............................................
No/defective lighting devices/reflectors/projected 3 .................................
Improper securement of intermodal containers 3 .....................................
Brake—Out of adjustment 1 .....................................................................
Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose 3 .........................................................
Brake hose/tubing chafing and/or kinking 2 .............................................
Fifth wheel 3 .............................................................................................
Leaf spring assembly defective/missing 2 ................................................
Stop lamp violations 3 ..............................................................................
Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum brakes 1 ..........................................
No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required 3 ...........................................
Tire—Ply or belt material exposed 3 ........................................................
Tire—Front tread depth less than 4⁄32 of inch 3 .......................................
Inoperative/defective brakes 1 ..................................................................
Wheel fasteners loose and/or missing 3 ..................................................
Inoperable tail lamp 3 ...............................................................................
Operating a CMV without periodic inspection 3 .......................................

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

4,909
4,688
1,950
1,315
885
593
486
446
407
407
396
371
283
245
227
176
175
159
152
120

25.4
24.3
10.1
6.8
4.6
3.1
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6

Subtotal—Top 20 Violations ....................................................................

................

18,390

95.3

Other Violations .......................................................................................

................

905

4.7

Total—All Violations .................................................................................

................

19,295

100.0

1 Violation
2 Violation
3 Violation

not readily detectable by driver.
sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
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

76807

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Violations involving defects or
deficiencies that drivers were unlikely
to detect during a visual inspection
account for only 7 percent of all
violations on intermodal container
chassis in the four States. The remaining
93 percent of violations are either items
the driver could have observed during a
visual inspection of the container
chassis, or are under further study by
FMCSA to determine the likelihood of
the driver being able to detect the defect
or deficiency.
Intermodal Container Chassis Violations
by State
California dominates the results in the
previous section because of the number

of inspections performed by that State.
However, significant differences were
evident in the types of violations cited
from State to State. As Table 8 shows,
the violation described as ‘‘Inspection/
Repair and Maintenance’’ represented
31.0 percent of all violations cited in
California. On the other hand, lamp
problems were the predominant
problems in all the other States,
accounting for 47.5 percent of violations
in Texas, 45.7 percent in South
Carolina, and 57.8 percent in Louisiana.
The second most frequently cited
violation in Louisiana and South
Carolina was the ‘‘Improper Securement
of [an] Intermodal Container,’’ while for

Texas, the second most frequently cited
violations were brake-related issues.
The third most frequently cited
violations in Louisiana and South
Carolina were brake-related issues,
while for Texas it was ‘‘Improper
Securement of [an] Intermodal
Container.’’ California’s violations were
somewhat unique among the four States,
as only three of their top ten violations
were items drivers could have detected
during a visual inspection of the
container chassis. It is possible that
violation code differences among the
States account for some of the
variability in specific defects or
deficiencies listed.

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

Description

CA

LA

393.9 ............................................
396.3(a)(1) ...................................
393.75(c) .....................................
393.47 ..........................................
393.11 ..........................................
393.100(e) ...................................
396.3(a)(1)BA ..............................
393.201(a) ...................................
393.45(a)(4) .................................
393.70 ..........................................
393.207(c) ...................................
393.25(f) ......................................
393.50 ..........................................
393.19 ..........................................
393.75(a)(1) .................................
393.48(a) .....................................
393.205(c) ...................................
393.9T .........................................
396.17(c) .....................................
393.75(a) .....................................
393.20 ..........................................
393.102 ........................................
393.207(a) ...................................
393.28 ..........................................

Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail) 3 ................................................
Inspection/Repair and Maintenance 2 ....................................................
Tire—Other tread depth less than 2⁄32 of inch 3 ....................................
Inadequate brake lining for safe stopping 2 ...........................................
No/defective lighting devices/reflectors/projected 3 ...............................
Improper securement of intermodal containers 3 ..................................
Brake—Out of adjustment 1 ...................................................................
Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose 3 .......................................................
Brake hose/tubing chafing and/or kinking 2 ...........................................
Fifth wheel 1 ...........................................................................................
Leaf spring assembly defective/missing 2 ..............................................
Stop lamp violations 3 ............................................................................
Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum brakes 1 .......................................
No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required 3 .........................................
Tire—Ply or belt material exposed 3 ......................................................
Inoperative/defective brakes 1 ................................................................
Wheel fasteners loose and/or missing 3 ................................................
Inoperable tail lamp 3 .............................................................................
Operating a CMV without periodic inspection 3 .....................................
Flat tire or fabric exposed 3 ...................................................................
No/improper mounting of clearance lamps 3 .........................................
Improper securement system (tiedown assemblies) 3 ...........................
Axle positioning parts defective/missing 2 .............................................
Improper or no wiring protection as required 3 ......................................

30.3
31.0
11.9
8.7
............
............
1.3
3.0
............
2.7
2.6
............
1.9
............
1.4
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............

19.7
............
3.9

24.2
3.6
5.2

3.4

26.3
............
6.6

4.0
11.4
3.8

28.8
14.7
8.1

1.3

7.4

7.6

10.5

8.2

8.3

............

4.0

6.5

5.3
............

2.3
2.3

............

1.6

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
2 Violation
3 Violation

1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
............
21.1
1.3
2.6

SC

TX

not readily detectable by driver.
sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
generally detectable by driver.

Vehicle Out-of-Service Violations by
State
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Percent of total violations in state

Table 9 shows the top ten OOS
violations for intermodal semitrailers in
the four States. Similar to all violations
in the previous section, the most
frequently cited OOS violations were
readily detectable by the driver, but the
patterns of individual violations
differed among the four States. In

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

California, ‘‘Inoperable Lamp (Other
than Head/Tail),’’ a violation a driver
could easily discover, accounted for
almost 49 percent of the OOS violations
in the State, and ‘‘Inspection/Repair and
Maintenance,’’ a violation that the
driver would be less likely to discover,
accounted for almost 22 percent of the
OOS violations.
In the other three States, the most
frequently cited type of OOS violation is

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

one that could readily be detected by
the driver; namely, proper securement
of containers and loads. Specifically,
these violations accounted for 61.5
percent of Louisiana violations, 33.3
percent of South Carolina violations,
and 40.0 percent of Texas violations.
The second most frequently cited type
of violation in these three States was
also readily detectable by the driver:
Lamp-related violations. In these three

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

76808

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

States, lamp-related violations
accounted for 26.9 percent of Louisiana
violations, 46.5 percent of South
Carolina violations, and 38.9 percent of
Texas violations.
Problems with securing containers
and loads are not evident among the top

ten California violations. During a
January 2004 field trip to the Los
Angeles area,4 FMCSA staff and Volpe
researchers determined California
inspectors use the ‘‘Inspection/Repair
and Maintenance’’ violation to cover
miscellaneous items, such as cracked

windshields, and not necessarily
improperly secured containers and
loads. Further investigation is required
to determine why container securement
is not identified as a separate issue in
California, as it is in the other States.

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 ..........................
396.3(a)(1) .................
393.75(c) ....................

Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail) 3 ..........
Inspection/Repair and Maintenance 2 ..............
Tire—Other tread depth less than 2⁄32 of
inch 3.
Inadequate brake lining for safe stopping 2 .....
No/defective lighting devices/reflectors/projected 3.
Improper securement of intermodal containers 3.
Brake—Out of adjustment 1 .............................
Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose 3 .................
Fifth wheel 1 .....................................................
Leaf spring assembly defective/missing 2 .......
Stop lamp violations 3 ......................................
Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum brakes 1
No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required 3 ...
Tire—Ply or belt material exposed 3 ................
Inoperative/defective brakes 3 .........................
Inoperable tail lamp 3 .......................................
Flat tire or fabric exposed 3 .............................
No or improper load securement 3 ..................
Tire—Flat and/or audible air leak 3 ..................
Improper securement system (tiedown assemblies) 3.
Adjustable axle locking pin missing/disengaged 3.
Axle positioning parts defective/missing 2 .......

48.8
21.8
9.9

7.7
..........................
..........................

22.2
2.2
..........................

1.0
1.1

6.1
..........................

11.5

..........................

..........................

28.3

39.0

1.4
1.8
2.7
3.0
..........................
0.9
..........................
1.0
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................

3.8

1.9

6.8

7.7

12.4

16.5

..........................

7.9

20.8

..........................
..........................
3.8
..........................
..........................
61.5

..........................
4.0
1.9
5.0
2.4

1.9
1.6
1.0
1.0
3.1

..........................

..........................

..........................

1.0

..........................

3.8

393.47 ........................
393.11 ........................
393.100(e) ..................
396.3(a)(1)BA ............
393.201(a) ..................
393.70 ........................
393.207(c) ..................
393.25(f) .....................
393.50 ........................
393.19 ........................
393.75(a)(1) ...............
393.48(a) ....................
393.9T ........................
393.75(a) ....................
393.100 ......................
393.75(a)(3) ...............
393.102 ......................
393.207(b) ..................
393.207(a) ..................

1 Violation
2 Violation
3 Violation

Total—Top 10 OOS Violations ....................

96.5

100.0

88.1

94.7

Other Violations ...............................................
All Violations ....................................................

3.5
100.0

0.0
100.0

11.9
100.0

5.3
100.0

not readily detectable by driver.
sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
generally detectable by driver.

Table 10 contains results from
FMCSA’s analysis of inspection of
intermodal container chassis during
RoadCheck 2004. RoadCheck 2004
inspection analysis found that the most
frequently cited OOS violation was

‘‘Brakes out of adjustment,’’ which
accounts for 15.3 percent of all
violations. ‘‘Inoperable lamp’’ was
second, accounting for 11.6 of all OOS
violations. Brake-related violations
accounted for 35.3 percent of all OOS

violations, while light-related violations
accounted for 31.4 percent of the total.
Load securement violations accounted
for 18.6% of all violations, while tirerelated violations accounted for 7.5
percent of all violations.

TABLE 10.—OOS VIOLATIONS IN INSPECTIONS OF INTERMODAL CHASSIS ROADCHECK 2004 ANALYSIS
Unit 2—Semitrailers
Violation
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Rank
Code
396
393
393
393

3A1BA ............................
9 .....................................
19 ...................................
48(a) ...............................

Brake—Out of adjustment 1 .....................................................
Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail) 3 ...................................
Failing to Equip Vehicle with Operative Turn Signal(s) 3 .........
Failing to Equip Vehicle with Operative Brakes 1 ....................

4 Volpe Center and FMCSA representatives
visited the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Percent of
total

Count

Description

Jkt 211001

1
2
3
4

CA, guided by members of the California Highway
Patrol from January 21–22, 2004.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

41
31
30
25

15.3
11.6
11.2
9.3

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
Rank
Code
393
393
396
393
396
393
393
393
393
393
393
393
396
393

Percent of
total

Count

Description

100(e) .............................
126 .................................
3A1B ..............................
25(f) ................................
3(a)(1) ............................
75(a)(3) ..........................
47 ...................................
75(a) ...............................
75(a)(1) ..........................
75(f) ................................
75(a)(4) ..........................
9T ...................................
3A1BL ............................
207(a) .............................

393 50 ...................................
393 207(b) .............................

Improper Securement of Intermodal Containers 3 ...................
No/improper intermodal container securement 3 ......................
Brakes (General) 2 ....................................................................
Stop Lamp Violations 3 .............................................................
Failing to inspect vehicle for safe operation 2 ..........................
Tire—Flat and/or audible air leak 3 ..........................................
Inadequate/Contaminated Brake Linings 2 ...............................
Operating with tires having fabric or cords exposed 3 .............
Tire—Ply or belt material exposed 3 ........................................
Tire—Load Weight rating/under inflated 3 ................................
Tire—Cut Exposing ply and/or belt material 3 ..........................
Inoperable tail lamp 3 ...............................................................
Brake-reserve system pressure loss 3 .....................................
Operating Vehicle with Defective/Misaligned Axle or Axle
parts 1.
Inadequate Reservoir for Air/Vacuum Brakes 1 .......................
Operating Vehicle with Adj. Axle Assy. With locking Pin Defects 3.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

25
25
21
20
8
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2

9.3
9.3
7.8
7.5
3.0
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.1
0.7
0.7

19
20

2
2

0.7
0.7

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.
sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
3 Violation generally detectable by driver.
2 Violation

National Inspection Data—Violations for
Calendar Year 2003
In addition to examining roadside
inspection data from California,
Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas,
FMCSA reviewed inspection results for
motor carriers that identified themselves
on the Motor Carrier Identification
Report (Form MCS–150) as engaged in
intermodal operations only, and those
engaged in intermodal operations as one
of their primary operations. The data for
these categories of carriers was
compared with data for all motor
carriers.
There are 641 motor carriers that
indicate the only type of activity they
engage in is intermodal operations.
There are 12,032 motor carriers that
include the intermodal operations entry
as one of the types of transportation
activity they engage in. The total

number of motor carriers is greater than
685,000. However, FMCSA analysts
believe the number of truly ‘‘active’’
motor carriers is probably less than
500,000 (i.e., those currently moving
freight or passengers, operating under
their own authority and with required
filings on record with FMCSA).
Table 11 data show a small difference
(2 percent) between the OOS rate for
semitrailers being transported by motor
carriers in all types of operations and
semitrailers being transported by motor
carriers involved in both intermodal and
non-intermodal operations. However,
there is a significant difference between
the semitrailer OOS rates for motor
carriers engaged exclusively in
intermodal operations versus those with
combined operations and all motor
carriers. The semitrailer OOS rate for
intermodal-only operations was 25
percent. The semitrailer OOS rate for

motor carriers engaged in intermodal
operations combined with some other
type of operation(s) was 15 percent. The
semitrailer OOS rate for all motor
carriers was 13 percent.
The nationwide data from FMCSA’s
MCMIS suggest the mechanical
condition of intermodal container
chassis operated by the motor carriers
typically selected for roadside
inspections is significantly worse than
the semitrailers operated by motor
carriers in all types of operations.
Although there are huge differences in
the population size of intermodal-only
motor carriers versus all motor carriers,
and the total number of vehicle
inspections conducted on intermodalonly carriers versus all other motor
carriers, FMCSA cannot ignore the
disparity in the condition of the
vehicles.

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

TABLE 11.— OUT-OF-SERVICE (OOS) RATES OF ALL AND INTERMODAL-ONLY CARRIERS; DATA FROM THE MOTOR
CARRIER MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (MCMIS) CY–2003
Number of
vehicle
inspections
CY2003

Commodity segment

Intermodal Only (n=641) ..............................................................
Intermodal + Other (n=12,032) ....................................................
All Motor Carriers (n=>500,000) ..................................................

No. of vehicle inspections with
1 or more OOS violations

2,894
145,377
1,476,245

Unit 1
(tractor)
519
15,963
135,000

Unit 2
(semitrailer)
725
22,428
186,073

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

Percent OOS rate
Unit 1
(tractor)
18
11
9

Unit 2
(semitrailer)
25
15
13

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

76810

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

FMCSA’s Analysis of the Data
FMCSA believes the data suggest that
the percentage of intermodal container
chassis being operated in unsafe
mechanical condition is likely to be
greater than the percentage of nonintermodal semitrailers in unsafe
operating condition, based on the
inspection data obtained from CA, LA,
SC, and TX as part of the Four-State
Analysis and the inspection data
analyzed as part of the RoadCheck 2004
safety data analysis. While the number
of violations cited per inspection for
intermodal container chassis may be
comparable to the number of violations
per inspection of non-intermodal
semitrailers, the data indicate the
defects or deficiencies observed on
intermodal container chassis are likely
to be more severe than those noted on
non-intermodal semitrailers. Thus, it
appears intermodal container chassis
are, as a group of commercial vehicles,
more likely to be in need of repairs than
other types of semitrailers.
Container chassis, as a vehicle type,
should not be considered inherently
unsafe. Data from Texas concerning
inspection results segregated by
ownership suggest that container
chassis controlled by motor carriers are
better maintained than container chassis
offered by IEPs to motor carriers.
FMCSA’s primary safety concern is with
the container chassis offered by IEPs,
because the agency’s research indicates
that these chassis do not appear to be
covered by inspection, repair, and
maintenance programs comparable to
those of motor carriers that control their
own intermodal equipment, or motor
carriers responsible for maintaining
other types of semitrailers.
While there is very limited
information to determine the extent to
which the mechanical condition of
intermodal container chassis may
contribute to crashes, the data suggest
that it is more likely than not that
current maintenance practices of many
IEPs do not ensure container chassis are
in safe and proper operating condition
at all times on the highways. Further,
the types of defects or deficiencies
found on such container chassis during
roadside inspections are often so severe
the vehicle must be placed OOS. It must
be acknowledged, however, that a very
high percentage of these violations
could have been detected by drivers,
had they made—or had the opportunity
to make—an adequate visual inspection
before leaving the intermodal facility.
Regardless of the lack of crash data on
a national level, the information
reviewed to date is cause for concern.
The Volpe Center, in a 2004 analysis

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

conducted for FMCSA using the FMCSA
Roadside Intervention Model, estimated
that 55.6 percent of all the CMV crashes
avoided as a result of roadside
interventions (i.e., roadside inspections
and traffic enforcement stops) in 2003
were attributable to the vehicle
violations found at the time of the
inspection. More recent study has
highlighted the role of the driver among
crash-related factors. It is clear, though,
that attention to equipment condition
yields safety benefits. In addition to our
continued focus on the driver, FMCSA
believes that action should be taken to
reduce, to the greatest extent
practicable, potential future crashes
caused by the mechanical condition of
the intermodal container chassis. This
rulemaking would also ensure that
intermodal container chassis meet the
same level of safety as other semitrailers
operated in interstate commerce.
IV. Estimated Number of Equipment
Providers and Intermodal Container
Chassis
Equipment Providers
Container chassis are specialized
truck trailers with twist locks. An
intermodal container chassis is a
reusable asset of its owner. The chassis
can belong to virtually any participant
in the transportation or logistics chain:
(1) Carriers, including ocean shipping
lines, railroads, and trucking
companies; (2) equipment leasing
companies; and (3) shippers. FMCSA
estimates that there are 108 non-motorcarrier intermodal equipment providers,
consisting of 93 steamship lines, 5
railroads, and 10 container chassis pool
operators.5
According to the Intermodal
Association of North America (IANA),
there are 5,500 motor carriers and 65
IEPs that are signatories to the Uniform
Intermodal Interchange and Facilities
Access Agreement (UIIA), representing
approximately 90 percent of the
intermodal movements.6 Furthermore,
MCMIS contains information on the
motor carriers that identify themselves
on the Motor Carrier Identification
Report (FMCSA Form MCS–150) as
engaging in intermodal operations only,
as well as those that include intermodal
operations as one of their primary
operations, and all other motor carriers.
As stated previously, the MCMIS
database indicates there are 12,032
5 The number of equipment providers is
estimated from information in the Containerization
International Yearbook 2004 for 99 port terminals
in the United States. The number of steamship lines
is estimated from the direct call liner services at the
terminal level.
6 http://www.intermodal.org/Assn
Initiatives.html.

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

motor carriers that included intermodal
cargo as one of the cargo types they may
carry.
Given that, according to the IANA
database, about 5,500 motor carriers are
signatories of UIIA, this analysis
assumes that about 46 percent of the
12,032 motor carriers in MCMIS, or
about 5,600 motor carriers, are engaged
in intermodal cargo container
operations as a primary operation. Only
some of these carriers own or otherwise
control (i.e., lease) intermodal container
chassis or trailers. In response to
FMCSA’s survey questionnaire
regarding operational characteristics of
intermodal tractor-trailers, three out of
nine motor carriers (or one-third),
suggested that they owned, leased, or
otherwise controlled intermodal
container chassis for extended periods
of time (i.e., beyond one trip). Therefore,
FMCSA assumes that one-third of the
5,600 motor carriers engaged in
intermodal cargo container operations,
or about 1,900 motor carriers, actually
own or lease/control intermodal
container chassis.
It is difficult to obtain precise
estimates of the size and scope of
national intermodal container chassis
operations. There is no census or
database of intermodal container chassis
providers that is comparable to
FMCSA’s MCMIS Census File of motor
carriers, which provides not only the
name and location of each motor carrier,
but also its size, as measured by the
number of power units. Therefore, the
number of IEPs has been estimated
using a combination of MCMIS, IANA,
and ATA reports, as well as information
obtained from port authority and
railroad Web sites. However, FMCSA
believes that the 1,900 motor carriers
that own intermodal container chassis
are already subject to systematic
maintenance requirements and would
not incur any additional cost burden
due to the proposed rule.
Intermodal Container Chassis
Population
Information on the number of
intermodal container chassis owned by
the various equipment owners/
providers was as difficult to obtain as
the number of intermodal container
chassis providers. Based on articles in
the motor carrier trade press, FMCSA
estimates that there are between 750,000
and 800,000 container chassis in
service. According to the Institute of
International Container Lessors (IICL)
Annual Chassis Fleet Survey,7 IICL
members owned approximately 320,000
7 http://www.iicl.org/PDF%20Docs/
16thFleetSurveyChassis.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
container chassis in 2004. According to
the IICL, member companies own
almost 40 percent of the world’s
container chassis, as well as own and
lease a high percentage of the U.S.
container chassis fleet.8 To be
conservative, FMCSA estimates that
there are approximately 850,000
intermodal container chassis currently
in operation in the United States.
Based on the IICL data on intermodal
container chassis, FMCSA assumes the
estimated 10 container chassis pool
operators control about 38 percent, or
320,000 container chassis. Therefore,
this NPRM assumes that steamship
lines, railroads, and motor carriers
currently own about 530,000 intermodal

container chassis in operation in the
United States.
Through its surveys of intermodal
equipment providers, FMCSA obtained
information on about 281,100
intermodal container chassis, or roughly
53 percent of the total number of
intermodal container chassis owned by
members of the Ocean Carrier
Equipment Management Association
(OCEMA), Association of American
Railroads (AAR), and American
Trucking Associations.9 Based on the
information from the three industry
associations, about 80 percent of the
reported 281,100 intermodal container
chassis are owned by the steamship
lines, 20 percent are owned by railroads,
and less than 0.02 percent of the

76811

reported 281,100 intermodal container
chassis are owned by the motor carriers.
Therefore, based on the reported average
fleet size of 22 intermodal container
chassis per motor carrier, FMCSA
believes that the estimated 1,900 motor
carriers that own chassis have
approximately 41,800 intermodal
container chassis. FMCSA then
estimates that 80 percent of the rest of
the intermodal container chassis (that is,
the 488,200 container chassis that are
not owned by either equipment lessors
or motor carriers), or approximately
392,000 intermodal container chassis,
are owned by the steamship lines and
approximately 96,200 are owned by the
railroads. Table 12 shows the estimated
number of container chassis by owner.

TABLE 12.—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF INTERMODAL CHASSIS BY OWNER
Estimated
number of
affected
entities

Description of entities

Steamship Lines ......................................................................................................................................................
Railroads ..................................................................................................................................................................
Common-pool Operators/Equipment Lessors .........................................................................................................
Motor Carriers ..........................................................................................................................................................

93
5
10
1,900

392,000
96,200
320,000
41,800

Total ..................................................................................................................................................................

2,008

850,000

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures)

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Estimated
number of
chassis

FMCSA has determined that this
rulemaking action is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and significant under DOT regulatory
policies and procedures because of
substantial public and Congressional
interest concerning the maintenance
and roadability of intermodal container
chassis and the responsibilities of
intermodal equipment providers (IEPs).
However, it has been estimated that the
economic impact of this proposed rule
would not exceed the annual $100
million threshold for economic
significance. OMB has reviewed this
proposed rule. Improved maintenance is
expected to result in fewer out-ofservice (OOS) orders and highway
breakdowns involving intermodal
chassis and improved efficiency of the
Nation’s intermodal transportation
system. To the extent inadequately
maintained intermodal chassis are
responsible for, or contribute to,
8 http://www.iicl.org/members.htm.
9 For

the 3 industry associations, seven out of 18
major ocean common carriers, three out of 5
railroads, and 9 motor carriers responded to a

VerDate Aug<31>2005

19:42 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

crashes, this proposal would also help
to ensure that CMV operations are safer,
thus reducing the deleterious effect on
drivers addressed in section 31136(a)(4).
Given the cost results contained in the
next section, Estimate of the
Compliance Costs for Intermodal
Equipment Providers, FMCSA
anticipates this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on IEPs.
Periodic (annual) inspection is
required for every commercial motor
vehicle in accordance with current
§ 396.17.10 Periodic inspection is
intended to complement and be
consistent with the more stringent
§ 393.3 (systematic) inspection, repair,
and maintenance (IRM) requirements
proposed in the NPRM. Currently, most
intermodal container chassis undergo a
periodic (annual) inspection. Although
existing rules requiring the periodic
inspection do not apply directly to IEPs,
as a business practice IEPs perform the
inspection to ensure motor carriers will
accept the chassis. However, many IEPs
do not appear to have in place the
systematic inspection, repair and
maintenance programs (49 CFR 396.3)
that provide continuous, on-going

oversight of their equipment throughout
the year. Therefore, the explicit
inclusion of the IEP in § 396.3 of the
FMCSRs would make them responsible
for compliance with the requirements of
applicable statutes and the
corresponding regulations.
The proposed amendments to the
FMCSRs would explicitly require IEPs
to ensure the equipment they tender to
motor carriers and drivers complies
with the safety requirements in place for
other types of trailers operated in
interstate commerce. For those
equipment providers that have in place
systematic inspection, repair, and
maintenance programs, including
providing the opportunity for CMV
drivers to assess the safe operating
condition of intermodal container
chassis before taking them on the
highway and repairing or replacing
equipment found to have deficiencies,
this proposed rulemaking would impose
minimal additional costs. Equipment
providers that do not have such
systematic programs in place would
incur the costs of establishing and
maintaining the programs.

variety of questions regarding chassis ownership
and operations.
10 The term ‘‘commerical motor vehicle’’ includes
each unit in a combination vehicle. For example,

for a tractor semitrailer, full trailer combination, the
tractor, semitrailer, and the full trailer (including
the converter dolly if so equipped) must each be
inspected.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

76812

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

The proposed regulations also address
a program for FMCSA to evaluate and
audit the compliance of IEPs with those
sections of the FMCSRs applicable to
them. If FMCSA finds evidence that an
IEP is not complying with the
regulations concerning intermodal
equipment safety, the proposed
regulations would allow FMCSA to take
appropriate action to bring about
compliance with the regulation.
The proposed rule would have some
impact upon the responsibilities of
drivers and motor carriers. Motor
carriers would continue to bear
responsibility for the safe operation of
equipment in their control on the
highways and for the systematic IRM of
all motor vehicles, including intermodal
equipment, under their control for 30
days or more. Drivers would continue to
be responsible for assessing the safe
operating condition of the CMVs they
will drive (§ 392.7 and § 396.13), and to
note and report on defects or
deficiencies that could affect the CMV’s
safety of operation or result in a
mechanical breakdown (§ 396.11). IEPs
would need to acknowledge receiving
that information, and must either repair
the equipment or provide a replacement
chassis. However, IEPs and their agents
may also request FMCSA to undertake
an investigation of a motor carrier that
is alleged to not be in compliance with
regulations issued under the authority
of 49 U.S.C. 31151.
Excluding potential costs associated
with systematic IRM (§ 396.3)
requirements, FMCSA estimates
equipment providers’ costs to comply
with the proposed information
collection and recordkeeping
requirements would be modest, because
the requirements would be limited in
scope (filing the Identification Form
MCS–150C, marking intermodal
equipment with the provider’s USDOT
number or other identifying number
unique to that provider, and complying
with recordkeeping requirements
associated with equipment inspection,
repair, and maintenance).
The economic benefits of this rule are
estimated to include (1) safety benefits
from avoiding crashes involving
intermodal equipment, and (2)
efficiency benefits resulting from a
reduction in vehicle OOS orders on
intermodal chassis, wait times for
truckers to receive chassis, and other
changes in chassis operations that
improve productivity.
The sections below provide details on
the estimated costs and benefits of this
proposed rule.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

Estimated Compliance Costs for
Intermodal Equipment Providers
Potential costs considered as a result
of this proposed rule include the
following:
• Filing Intermodal Equipment
Provider Identification Report (Form
MCS–150C);
• Displaying a unique USDOT
number or other identification number
on each chassis;
• Establishing a systematic inspection
program, and a repair and maintenance
program to ensure the safe operating
condition of each chassis;
• Maintaining documentation of the
inspection program; and
• Establishing a reporting system for
defective and deficient equipment.
When considering costs of the
proposed rule, it should be recognized
that some of those costs are already
being incurred by the industry. As
mentioned previously, periodic
inspections of intermodal equipment by
those controlling that equipment
(§ 396.17(c)) are apparently being
performed at least once every 12
months, as required. Additionally, as
presented later in the discussion of
inspection, repair and maintenance
costs, surveys of steamship lines and
railroads that are also IEPs indicate that
at least some of those equipment
providers are engaging in regular repair
and preventative maintenance, as well
as in various inspection activities.
Furthermore, information from motor
carriers indicates that some are
currently doing limited repair and
maintenance on the chassis that are
tendered by IEPs to them. Therefore, the
costs of this rule are lower than they
would be if IEPs were not performing
any inspections, repairs, or
maintenance.
Total first-year costs associated with
this proposed rule range from $28 to $41
million, depending on equipment
providers’ current inspection,
maintenance, and repair programs for
their chassis. Total discounted costs
over the 10-year analysis period range
from $147 to $242 million, using a
seven percent discount rate.
A copy of FMCSA’s preliminary
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) is
included in this rulemaking docket.
Filing Intermodal Equipment Provider
Identification Report (MCS–150C)
Currently, a motor carrier is required
to file a Motor Carrier Information
Report (Form MCS–150) with FMCSA
before it begins to operate in interstate
commerce and to file an update of the
report every 24 months. The proposed
rule would require each equipment

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

provider to register with FMCSA (if it
has not already done so) and to obtain
a USDOT number or other unique
identification number by submitting an
Intermodal Equipment Provider
Identification Report, Form MCS–150C,
to FMCSA. Additionally, each entity
must file an update to its initial MCS–
150C filing at least every 24 months.
FMCSA estimates that 108 entities (93
steamship lines, 5 railroads, and 10
common pool operator/equipment
lessors) will need to submit Forms
MCS–150C.
Form MCS–150C would be a singlepage form that includes questions about
basic information, e.g., name, address,
telephone number, numbers and types
of equipment, etc. FMCSA estimates it
would take 20 minutes to complete
Form MCS–150C the first time that it is
filed.11
According to national employment
and wage data from the Occupational
Employment Statistics survey published
by the Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, a first line supervisor/
manager in a transportation and
material moving occupation (those
FMCSA believes will be filling out Form
MCS–150C) earned a median hourly
wage of about $21.08. Total
compensation for a supervisor/manager
responsible for filing a Form MCS–150C
is estimated at $30.79, of which $21.08
is the wage and salary and $9.71 is the
benefit.
This evaluation estimates that IEPs
would incur a one-time cost of
approximately $10.27 per entity (1⁄3
hour times $30.79), or about $1,110
($10.27 × 108 = $1,109.16) for the
industry to prepare and submit MCS–
150Cs to FMCSA. As mandated in
section 217 of the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA), Pub.
L. 106–159, 113 Stat. 1748, at 1767
(December 9, 1999), the MCS–150 need
not be updated more frequently than
every two years. FMCSA estimates the
biennial update would take
considerably less time than the original
submission, because most of the
information is likely to be the same, and
equipment providers would already
have had the experience of completing
the form at least once before. For
purposes of this analysis, the biennial
update is estimated to take 10
minutes.12 In addition to the one-time
filing cost, IEPs would also incur a
recurrent charge of $5.13 per entity
11 FMCSA, Motor Carrier Identification Report, 65
FR 70509, November 24, 2000.
12 The estimated time requirements for chassis
owners and providers to fill out an MCS–150C for
the first time and biennially are consistent with
FMCSA’s estimate of the time it takes motor carriers
to fill out an MCS–150.

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

76813

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
biennially. Table 13 summarizes the
estimated first-year costs of initially
filing a MCS–150C form with FMCSA,
as well as subsequent costs incurred

filing the biennial update every two
years. Note that motor carriers already
are required to file Form MCS–150, so
they would not incur any new costs

associated with this aspect of the
proposed rule.

TABLE 13.—COSTS OF FILING THE INTERMODAL EQUIPMENT PROVIDER IDENTIFICATION REPORT (FORM MCS–150C)
Additional costs due to the
NPRM
Number of
entities

Provider

Existing
costs

Initial
(1st-year)
costs

Total
recurring costs
(years 2–10)*

Steamship Lines .................................................................................................
Railroads ............................................................................................................
Common-pool Operators ....................................................................................
Motor Carriers ....................................................................................................

93
5
10
1,900

None ...........
None ...........
None ...........
19,502 .........

$955
52
103
0

$1,618
88
173
0

Total ............................................................................................................

2,008

19,502 .........

1,110

1,880

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

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

Displaying a USDOT Number or Other
Unique Identification Number on Each
Container Chassis
The proposed rule would require all
IEPs who tender such equipment to
motor carriers to mark their container
chassis with a unique USDOT number
that is assigned to those filing the MCS–
150C, or another number unique to that
entity. FMCSA does not mandate a
particular method of vehicle
identification; thus, the costs associated
with this proposal would vary
depending on the method used to mark
the container chassis with the required
type of marking (i.e., USDOT number
versus an alternative identifier). FMCSA
believes that the vast majority of IEPs
would use either stencils or decals for
marking, because these are the cheapest
methods. This assumption and the
following assumptions on time and
material requirements for container
chassis marking are consistent with
FMCSA’s Final Rulemaking analysis for
Commercial Motor Vehicle Marking
published in the Federal Register on
June 2, 2000, at 65 FR 35287. FMCSA
has estimated that material costs for
marking a container chassis with a
USDOT number or other unique
identification number decrease with
increasing fleet size; that is, marking for
smaller fleets is estimated at $20 per

unit, while marking for IEPs with more
than 20 units in their fleet is estimated
at approximately $10 per vehicle. The
material cost decreases to approximately
$2.50 per vehicle for a fleet of more than
1,000 units. The chassis marking costs
would impact only those equipment
providers of intermodal container
chassis who tender such equipment to
other parties. This NPRM assumes the
material costs associated with marking
of intermodal container chassis would
average approximately $6.25 per
container chassis.13
FMCSA estimates that the average
time to affix a USDOT number or other
unique identification number would be
about 12 minutes. According to national
employment and wage data from the
Occupational Employment Statistics
survey, the median hourly wage rate for
a painter of transportation equipment is
$16.39. Incorporating a 31.5 percent
benefits package yields a total hourly
compensation rate of $21.55. Assuming
12 minutes per marking, the labor cost
to mark each intermodal container
chassis is estimated to be roughly $4 per
container chassis after rounding.
Combining the above estimates for
material and labor, FMCSA estimates
that the total costs to mark one
intermodal container chassis with a
USDOT number or other unique

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

acknowledges that the estimated container chassis
marking cost of $6.25 per container chassis is
conservative and probably over-estimates the costs
of compliance.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

identification number is about $11 (after
rounding). First-year costs would equal
$8.9 million to mark all container
chassis operating in the United States.
Subsequently, every year thereafter, a
portion of the chassis will be retired and
replaced by new chassis, each of which
will need to be marked. FMCSA
estimates that the operational life of a
chassis is 14 years on average.
Consequently, for the purposes of this
analysis, it is assumed that 1⁄14th of the
chassis fleet is retired and replaced
annually. Total recurring costs (in years
two through 10 of the analysis period)
equals $3.9 million, with total 10-year
chassis marking costs estimated at $12.8
million (after rounding). Table 14
illustrates the estimated number of
container chassis and costs of marking.
The cost estimates assume the
identification number would be applied
with a stencil and spray paint. If the
identification number were to be
applied using decals, recurring costs
may be somewhat higher to account for
replacement of decals that loosen over
time. Note that motor carriers are
assumed to incur no costs associated
with the chassis marking requirements,
because it is believed that generally they
do not tender chassis to other parties for
drayage.

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
Owner type

Entities

Total
number of
chassis
controlled 14

Existing
costs
Initial costs

Total for
recurring
costs
(years 2–
10)*

Steamship Lines ........................................................................................
Railroads ....................................................................................................
Common-pool Operators ...........................................................................
Motor Carriers ............................................................................................

93
5
10
1,900

392,000
96,200
320,000
41,800

None ........
..................
..................
..................

$4,327,680
1,062,048
3,532,800
0

$1,882,232
461,886
1,536,507
0

Total ....................................................................................................

2,008

850,000

$0 ............

8,922,528

3,880,625

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

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

Establishing a Systematic Inspection,
Repair, and Maintenance (IRM) Program
Periodic inspections. Current
regulations (49 CFR 396.17) require
motor carriers or their agents to conduct
periodic (annual) inspections of their
equipment. With regard to intermodal
chassis, these inspections appear to be
conducted for the most part by IEPs. As
a result of research conducted prior to
this rulemaking (i.e., surveys, port
visits, roadside inspections), FMCSA
concluded that the IEPs did in fact
appear to be conducting the vast
majority of inspections that would
satisfy § 396.17 requirements regarding
periodic (annual) inspections of the
chassis. As such, FMCSA believes there
would be no new costs to equipment
providers or motor carriers for periodic
(annual) inspections of intermodal
chassis because of this proposed rule.
Systematic inspections. In addition to
the periodic (annual) inspection
regulations (396.17), § 396.3 requires
every motor carrier or their agent to
systematically inspect, repair, and
maintain, or cause to be systematically
inspected, repaired, and maintained, all
motor vehicles subject to its control.
The parts and accessories are required
to be in safe and proper operating
condition at all times. These parts and
accessories include those specified in
Part 393 and any additional parts and
accessories that may affect the safety of
operation, including but not limited to
frame and frame assemblies, suspension
systems, axles and attaching parts,
wheels and rims, and steering systems.
However, the proposed rule now would
explicitly require IEPs to comply with
the systematic inspection, repair, and
maintenance requirements of § 396.3.
These requirements do not provide
specific intervals for the routine
14 This term ‘‘controlled’’ is loosely defined here
as those chassis owned or leased (long term) by the
entity and for which they have responsibility or
decision-making authority over maintenance.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

inspections, or provide inspection
criteria.
Frequency of inspection. As regards
estimating costs of making the
systematic inspection, maintenance, and
repair requirements applicable to
intermodal equipment providers,
FMCSA first attempted to determine
whether the equipment providers had
maintenance or repair programs that
could satisfy some or all of the proposed
§ 396.3 requirements. Responses from
the survey of steamship lines indicated
that the seven entities queried were
fully complying with existing
systematic inspection, maintenance, and
repair regulations. However, anecdotal
information obtained from port visits
and participation in roadside
inspections of intermodal chassis by
FMCSA analysts indicated otherwise.
Because SAFETEA–LU explicitly
requires intermodal equipment
providers to comply with the systematic
inspection, repair, and maintenance
requirements of § 396.3, the relevant
question then becomes whether there
are any new costs associated with this
aspect of the proposed rule. Motor
carriers were already directly subject to
these requirements, and this proposed
rule would simply ensure the transfer of
this responsibility to non-motor carrier
IEPs.
As a result of its investigation,
FMCSA concluded that there was a
significant probability that full
compliance was not being achieved
with the existing regulations. IEPs, as a
customary business practice, do not
provide systematic inspection, repair
and maintenance programs.
Consequently, for the purpose of
estimating the economic costs of this
proposed rule, FMCSA assumes that
non-motor carrier IEPs would in fact be
required to undertake new costs because
of this rulemaking. Whether or not this
accurately represents the current
situation, our assumption of less than

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

full compliance is conservative because
it helps ensure that FMCSA does not
underestimate the economic costs of
this proposed rule.
Because the regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) must quantify the number
of additional inspections to be
conducted each year as a result of this
proposed rule, FMCSA estimates about
one a year is conducted by IEPs now,
but four are needed for a reasonable
systematic inspection, repair and
maintenance program. We estimate that,
on average, three additional inspections
would be required for that portion of the
non-motor carrier owned or controlled
intermodal chassis currently in
operation (even though the proposed
rule sets no explicit requirements on the
number of inspections per chassis under
a systematic IRM program). FMCSA
believes that a minimally-compliant IEP
could fulfill the requirements of this
proposal. For the purposes of estimating
costs for the RIA, this assumption
would effectively amount to a quarterly
inspection program for the chassis
owned or controlled by IEPs.
Regarding the number of chassis being
maintained in a manner consistent with
the regulations, FMCSA estimates
between 25 and 50 percent of the
existing intermodal chassis population
are currently not being properly
maintained.15 Two estimates are chosen
here due to the uncertainty associated
with current systematic maintenance
practices. FMCSA estimates that each
chassis that is not currently maintained
would receive three additional
inspections each year on average as part
of systematic IRM programs
implemented or modified as a result of
this proposed rule. Conversely, it is
estimated that the remainder, or 50 to 75
percent of all chassis currently in use,
15 This percent is based on the agency’s analyses
of the AAR and OCEMA responses to its surveys,
as well as from information gathered from our port
visits.

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
are already provided at least four
complete inspections per year and
therefore, would not require any
additional inspections as a result of this
proposed rule.
This analysis uses an average of 30
minutes to conduct an inspection of an
intermodal chassis and that a
transportation inspector earning $30.79
per hour in wages and benefits would
perform the inspections, supported by a
mechanic. This is based on data from
the AAR survey response. It is also
consistent with the amount of time to
complete a Level V inspection. The
mechanic is assumed to devote 15
minutes to the inspection, the inspector
30 minutes. The median hourly wage for
a mobile heavy equipment mechanic is
estimated from employment and wage
data from Occupational Employment
Statistics to be $17.69 as of May 2003.
Assuming benefits are equal to 31.5
percent of wages, the total loaded labor
cost of the mechanic would be $23.26
per hour. The total cost of each
additional inspection of an intermodal
chassis would be $21.21. This cost
estimate is consistent with the AAR
members’ estimates of annual
inspection costs of $20 if performed by
their own personnel and $18 if
outsourced to an on- or off-site terminal
inspection operator. The cost of four
inspections per year would be $84.84.
Additional Maintenance and Repair
Costs. FMCSA recognizes that the
maintenance and repair activities of

some systematic IRM programs might
need to be expanded in order to bring
the programs into full compliance with
the proposed requirements. For the most
part, however, the primary change
anticipated is that maintenance and
repair will become more proactive and
less reactive. For instance, some IEPs
currently perform preventative
maintenance when driver, inbound,
outbound, or roadability inspections at
terminals find problems (or during the
annual inspection required by the
FMCSRs). The proposed rule would
make the preventative maintenance of
those providers more regular or timebased. This would place necessary
maintenance and repair activities
upstream in the interchange process
reducing the ‘‘reactive’’ nature of that
activity.
There will most likely be some shift
of repair costs from motor carriers to
IEPs, but the magnitude of this shift is
uncertain. However, FMCSA believes
this shift represents a transfer payment
of existing costs, and therefore is not
expected to impact the overall costs or
benefits of the proposed rule.
Total Systematic Maintenance
Program Costs. Table 15 shows the
estimated costs of IRM programs for
IEPs, based on assumptions about
existing compliance. Estimates are
presented for the cases where (1) 50
percent of all chassis are assumed to be
in compliance with existing systematic
inspection, repair, and maintenance

76815

regulations (requiring no additional
inspections per year), while the other 50
percent are assumed to require three
additional inspections per year (where
the fourth quarterly inspection
represents the annual inspection, which
FMCSA believes is already being
performed); and (2) where 75 percent of
all chassis are assumed to be in
compliance with existing regulations
(requiring no additional inspections per
year), while the other 25 percent would
require three additional inspections per
year. As Table 15 indicates, according to
FMCSA assumptions for this analysis,
the proposed rule is expected to add
between $13.5 million and $27.0
million per year to the cost of systematic
IRM programs for IEPs, depending on
the percentage of chassis which are
already believed to be in compliance
with the existing systematic inspection,
repair, and maintenance regulations.
The estimated total present value of the
cost of systematic IRM requirements for
equipment providers over a 10-year
period is estimated to be between $95
million and $190 million. Annual costs
associated with this rulemaking
represent an increase of one to three
percent in the costs of systematic IRM
programs already undertaken by nonmotor carrier IEPs, based on information
obtained from equipment provider
surveys regarding the average annual
maintenance costs incurred per chassis.

TABLE 15.—ESTIMATED COST OF SYSTEMATIC INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS FOR CHASSIS
Number of

Existing inspection, repair, and
maintenance costs

Intermodal provider

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Providers

Chassis

Additional costs due to NPRM

Assuming 50%
of chassis
are in full
compliance
and
50% require
three
additional
inspections
per year

Assuming 75%
of chassis
are in full
compliance
and
25% require
three
additional
inspections
per year

Assuming 50%
of chassis
are in full
compliance
and
50% require
three
additional
inspections
per year

Assuming 75%
of chassis
are in full
compliance
and
25% require
three
additional
inspections
per year

Steamship Lines ..............................................
Railroads ..........................................................
Common-pool Operators .................................
Motor Carriers ..................................................

93
5
10
1,900

392,000
96,200
320,000
41,800

........................
........................
$913,771,250
........................

........................
........................
$927,292,625
........................

........................
........................
$27,042,750
........................

........................
........................
$13,521,375
........................

Total ..........................................................

2,008

850,000

........................

........................

........................

........................

Recordkeeping
As stated earlier, FMCSA believes that
the systematic IRM program called for
in the proposed rule will require four
inspections of intermodal chassis per
year, on average.
FMCSA estimates that the time
needed to document and file each

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

inspection report is approximately 3
minutes. Therefore, this analysis
assumes that it would take each IEP
approximately 3 minutes on average per
intermodal chassis per inspection to
document and retain the inspection
reports. Assuming that a transportation
inspector earning $30.79 per hour in

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

wages and benefits would perform the
inspections and document the findings,
the total cost to document and retain
each inspection report is estimated to be
approximately $2 per intermodal
chassis per inspection (or ($30.79/60) ×
3 minutes).
Annual Inspections. Under current
regulations, motor carriers are required

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

76816

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

to comply with the periodic
recordkeeping requirements of § 396.21,
and the proposed rule would not
impose any additional recordkeeping
requirements on them. Additionally,
based on its research, FMCSA believes
that other IEPs (i.e., steamship lines,
railroads, and common pool operators)
are currently inspecting their chassis on
an annual basis. As such, for the
purposes of this analysis, these other
IEPs are assumed to prepare a report
that is equivalent to the one required by
§ 396.21, given that FMCSA has
received no information through its
surveys, port visits, or roadside
inspection activities, that would
indicate otherwise. The proposed

regulatory change, consequently, will
not impose any additional regulatory
requirements on the other IEPs relating
to their annual inspections.
Systematic Inspections. It is assumed
that motor carriers are currently
performing full inspections of
intermodal chassis they control four
times per year. This is not assumed to
be the case for IEPs, however. Some
portion of chassis owned or controlled
by other (non-motor carrier) equipment
providers (between 25 percent and 50
percent in this analysis) are assumed to
be inspected once annually.
Consequently, the proposed regulatory
change will require additional

recordkeeping for non-motor carrier
IEPs.
Assuming that the recordkeeping for
each intermodal chassis inspection costs
$2, and that these intermodal equipment
providers will need to perform three
additional inspections per year per
chassis, the recordkeeping requirements
of the proposed regulatory change are
expected to cost the non-motor carrier
IEPs an additional $6 per chassis per
year.
Total Cost of Recordkeeping. Table 16
presents the total annual estimated cost
of recordkeeping currently and under
the proposed regulations, along with the
increase in the cost of recordkeeping
attributable to the new regulations.

TABLE 16.—ESTIMATED COST OF SYSTEMATIC INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE RECORDKEEPING
Estimated number of
Description

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Providers

Chassis

Existing
annual
costs

Annual cost
under the
proposed
regulations

Change in
annual costs
attributable to
the
proposed
regulations

Steamship Lines ..............................................................................
Railroads ..........................................................................................
Common-pool Operators .................................................................
Motor Carriers ..................................................................................

93
5
10
1,900

392,000
96,200
320,000
41,800

$784,000
192,400
640,000
334,400

$3,136,000
769,600
2,560,000
334,400

$2,352,000
577,200
1,920,000
0

Total ..........................................................................................

2,008

850,000

1,950,800

6,800,000

4,849,200

The annual cost of recordkeeping
attributable to the proposed rule is
$4,849,200. Over the 10-year analysis
period, the present value of the cost of
recordkeeping would be $38,907,752.
New Reporting System for Defective/
Deficient Equipment. The proposed rule
would require that IEPs establish a
system for motor carriers and drivers to
report to the IEPs any defects or
deficiencies in tendered chassis that
would affect the safety of the operation
of those chassis or result in its
mechanical breakdown on the road.
This proposed change would require: (1)
The establishment of the system; (2) the
minimum information that the IEP must
obtain from motor carriers and drivers;
(3) the corrective actions that must be
taken when a chassis is identified as
being defective or deficient in some
way; and (4) the retention period for all
documentation that is generated as a
consequence of this system. This
requirement would be added to the
FMCSRs in a new § 396.12. All of these
potential impacts are discussed.
Nature of Notification. The discovery
of a chassis problem by a driver could
occur at any of a variety of locations. It
might occur during the driver’s
mandated inspection of the chassis at
the start of a trip, during the movement
over the public roadways from the

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

origin terminal to the destination of the
container on the chassis, or at the
destination. Potentially, the discovery
could occur hundreds of miles distant
from the intermodal providers’ nearest
operational location. The average length
of haul for chassis transported by the
nine trucking firms that responded to
FMCSA’s intermodal survey varied from
11–20 miles to 150–200 miles.
For purposes of this analysis, FMCSA
assumes that no additional costs will be
incurred in order for IEPs to receive
notification of problems. Because
problems with chassis already occur,
FMCSA believes that such systems are
already well established to address
problems. Additionally, FMCSA
received no information during its data
collection immediately prior to this
rulemaking to indicate otherwise, and
the agency found such systems already
in place during its port visits.
Consequently, no additional costs are
expected to result.
Motor Carriers and Drivers. For the
systems established by IEPs to be
effective, motor carriers and drivers
must report defective or deficient
chassis. Proposed § 390.44 would
require drivers to report to the IEP, or
its agent, the condition of each vehicle
operated. Also, motor carriers and
drivers are responsible for taking only

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

roadworthy chassis on the public
roadways, so it would be in their best
interest to report any problems with
defective or deficient chassis that are
encountered.
For purposes of this analysis, FMCSA
assumes that no additional costs will be
incurred by drivers and motor carriers
in order to notify chassis providers of
problems with defective or deficient
chassis. Problems with chassis already
occur, and drivers or motor carriers are
already contacting providers (whether
in person or by phone) to inform them
of those problems. Additionally,
FMCSA believes that the new
application of the systematic IRM
requirement to equipment providers
will generally result in these problems
being noticed and corrected prior to the
transfer of the chassis.
Driver Chassis Inspection Reports.
According to proposed § 396.12, the
reports to be received by the IEP from
the motor carrier and the driver will
need to include the following
information:
• The name of the motor carrier
responsible for the operation of the
chassis at the time the defect or
deficiency was discovered by or
reported to the driver;

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
• The USDOT identification number
or other unique identification number of
the motor carrier;
• The date and time the report was
submitted; and
• The defects or deficiencies reported
by the motor carrier or driver.
As mentioned before, chassis
currently experience problems that are
being reported to IEPs. With the
possible exception of the USDOT
identification number or other unique
identification number, good business
practice would seem to require that all
of the information mandated in reports
under new § 396.12 is currently being
collected. Additionally, FMCSA
received no information during its data
collection immediately prior to this
rulemaking to indicate otherwise.
Therefore, no additional costs are
expected to result from the required
driver chassis inspection reports.
Corrective Actions. Proposed § 396.12
would require each IEP to establish a
system for motor carriers and their
drivers to report damage, defects, and
deficiencies. After a chassis returns to
the possession of the IEP, § 396.12
would mandate that the provider must
correct any reported defects or
deficiencies in the chassis that make the
chassis not roadworthy. Furthermore,
before a provider can place the chassis
in service, the provider must document
the actions taken to correct any reported
defect or deficiency, or must document
that repairs were unnecessary.
Based on information obtained from
equipment provider surveys FMCSA has
concluded that IEPs currently have

repair facilities for dealing with chassis
that are not roadworthy. Additionally,
during its port visits, FMCSA staff
identified repair facilities at all the
terminals they toured. Consequently,
§ 396.12 would not require the
establishment of new facilities, nor is
there any reason to believe that the new
section will necessitate any expansion
of existing facilities.
Good business practice for chassis
providers and their service departments
would include documenting repairs
made or documenting that repairs were
not made. This information assists those
monitoring the cost and work of repair
facilities. Information obtained from the
equipment providers’ surveys confirmed
that IEPs are indeed following good
business practice. The proposed
§ 396.12 would not increase the need for
this documentation. It might, however,
change the nature of the documentation
somewhat. For instance, if a chassis
were brought in for a defective wheel
and no wheel problem could be found,
then current documentation might just
say ‘‘Checked wheels.’’ Under the
proposed § 396.12, the documentation
might say ‘‘Check wheels after receiving
trouble report from motor carrier.
Complete check revealed no problem.’’
FMCSA believes any change in
documentation would be minor and
would not materially add to the costs of
the providers, however.
Retention of Records. Under proposed
§ 396.12, all documentation must be
kept for a period of three months from
the date of a trouble report. Available
intermodal chassis provider industry

76817

information indicates that records of
inbound and outbound inspections are
kept between one and seven years, with
three to five years being typical.16
FMCSA has no reason to expect that
repair records, which are arguably more
critical to the operation of intermodal
chassis providers than records on
inbound and outbound inspections,
would be kept for less time.
Additionally, FMCSA received no
information during its data collection
effort immediately prior to this
rulemaking to indicate otherwise.
Consequently, the retention of records,
as required by proposed § 396.12, would
not add to the costs of intermodal
chassis providers.17
Overall Impact. The overall impact of
proposed § 396.12, Procedures for
intermodal equipment providers to
accept reports required by § 390.44(b),
on the costs of intermodal chassis
providers, is believed to be negligible.
All required actions regarding the
collection and retention of records are
currently being performed in one form
or another, according to FMCSA survey
analysis and other research (port visits).
Proposed § 396.12 is not expected to
add materially to the current workload
of intermodal chassis providers, their
service organizations, or to motor
carriers and their drivers.
Total Compliance Costs of the Proposed
Regulations
Table 17 summarizes the expected
compliance costs attributable to the
proposed regulation.

TABLE 17.—ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Additional costs due to the NPRM
Requirement

Existing costs
(annual)

Filing MCS–150C ..............
Chassis Marking ................
Systematic Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance
Costs.
Recordkeeping ..................
§ 396.12 .............................
Total Costs .................

Initial cost
(year 1)

Total for recurring costs
(years 2–10)**

Total cost
(years 1–10)**

$19,502 .............................
$0 ......................................
$913,771,250 to
$927,292,625.

$1,110 ...............................
$9,384,000 ........................
$13,521,375 to
$27,042,750.

$1,880 ...............................
$4,081,352 ........................
$81,447,105 to
$162,894,210.

$2,990.
$13,465,352.
$94,968,480 to
$189,936,960.

$1,950,800 ........................
* .........................................

$4,849,200 ........................
$0 ......................................

$34,058,752 ......................
$0 ......................................

$38,907,952.
$0.

$915,741,552 to
$929,262,927.

$27,292,899 to
$40,814,274.

$119,388,362 to
$200,835,467.

$146,681,261 to
$241,649,741.

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

* Included in the costs of other actions.
** Net present value over a 10-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.

The total compliance costs, or the
sum of the total initial and total
recurring costs, are expected to be
between $147 million and $242 million.

Consistent with OMB directives, this is
the present value of the expected cost
stream calculated over a 10-year period
using a 7 percent discount rate.

FMCSA seeks comment on the cost
analysis.

16 Information on intermodal chassis operations
submitted by OCEMA to FMCSA in 2004 in
response to questions posed by FMCSA.

17 Alternatively, any costs associated with the
retention of records for the proposed defective and
deficient equipment reporting system could be

assumed to be covered by the costs associated with
recordkeeping.

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
Improving Container Chassis
Maintenance
The purpose of the proposed
regulation is to ensure that intermodal
chassis used to transport intermodal
containers are safe. The explicit
inclusion of IEPs in the scope of the
FMCSRs would ensure that IEPs could
be subject to the same enforcement
proceedings, orders, and civil penalties
as those applied to motor carriers today.
The systematic inspection,
maintenance, and repair requirements
would ensure safer and more reliable
container chassis on the nation’s
highways. The expected benefits of the
proposed rule include the following:
• Increased safety of intermodal
chassis operation as a result of reducing
crashes attributable to those chassis;
• Increased operational efficiency of
intermodal chassis as a result of—
Æ Reducing the vehicle out-of-service
rate;
Æ Reducing the average idle time
spent by truckers waiting for
chassis repairs on the road;
Æ Reducing the average time spent by
truckers at rail terminals or port
facilities waiting to be given a

roadworthy chassis. This effectively
decreases congestion costs at those
facilities, which are typically
located in urban areas.
The following sections quantify the
potential benefits of the proposed rule
by estimating the number of crashes
avoided to justify the compliance costs
directly or indirectly imposed by the
rule. The sections also provide
qualitative discussion of benefits of the
proposed rule where quantitative
estimates are not available.
Threshold Analysis for Safety
Benefits. Section III of this document
contains data analysis conducted by
FMCSA that shows that intermodal
trailers have significantly higher vehicle
out-of-service (OOS) rates than nonintermodal trailers. The results indicate
that chassis owned by a motor carrier
appear to have lower OOS rates than the
comparable equipment owned by nonmotor carrier equipment providers.
These findings are still considered
preliminary because the sample size of
chassis inspection data by ownership
type was quite small. The proposed
rule’s explicit inclusion of IEPs would
better enable FMCSA to determine
whether and how equipment providers
are complying with provisions of the

FMCSRs and to compel compliance, if
necessary. Additionally, FMCSA
analysts believe that a portion of the
chassis currently in use will receive
additional inspections each year,
because this proposed rule explicitly
requires non-motor carrier intermodal
equipment providers to comply with the
existing systematic inspection, repair,
and maintenance regulations. A betterinspected, maintained, and repaired
intermodal chassis fleet would be likely
to result in a decrease in crashes on the
Nation’s highways.
The estimated cost of a crash
involving a fatal injury is $3.57 million
for a truck tractor with one trailer, and
the costs of non-injury or propertydamage-only crashes are estimated to be
$12,077 each. The estimated average
cost of a crash reported to police
involving a truck tractor with one trailer
is $76,698.18 Using recent data on the
number of crashes involving truck
tractors with single trailers, Table 18
estimates the total crash costs for these
vehicles. The cost estimate shown in
Table 18 includes the cost of fatal and
injury crashes, but does not include the
costs associated with property-damageonly crashes.

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

Truck tractors

Fatal crashes

1 trailer ................................................................................................................................

Injury crashes

2,937

42,000

Total estimated
costs
$3,447 million.

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

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

As stated, the rule is expected to
result in compliance costs of between
$28 million and $41 million in the first
year, and $147 million and $242 million
over the entire 10-year analysis period.
The proposed rule should result in
benefits that are greater than the cost of
compliance, which would result in a
positive cost/benefit ratio. Focusing on
saved lives alone, the proposed rule
would need to prevent between 8 and
12 fatalities per year attributable to
crashes involving intermodal chassis
over the 10-year period. These 8 to 12
fatalities represent just 0.2% to 0.3% of
the 3,762 fatalities in combination truck
crashes in calendar year 2003. At the
break-even point, compliance costs
equal the benefits attributable to
avoiding just a few of the fatal crashes
that would have occurred in the absence
of the proposed regulation. Of course,

reduced injuries, property damage, and
other incident consequences would
reduce the number of lives that would
need to be saved in order for the rule to
be cost-beneficial. We believe the
proposed rule is likely to prevent
enough crashes to justify the costs.

While operating efficiency is not
something FMCSA regulates, we note
that in addition to the safety benefits,
the proposed rule is likely to produce
benefits from improved operational
efficiency. Currently, from our research,
FMCSA concludes there is no standard
procedure for a truck driver or motor
carrier to follow when confronted with
an intermodal chassis placed OOS as a
result of a roadside inspection. One of
the uncertainties is the issue of

responsibility. If the chassis’s problem
developed after the driver left the
terminal, then the contractual
responsibility in many cases lies with
the commercial driver and the motor
carrier, not with the equipment
provider. If, however, the chassis
problem was a pre-existing condition,
then the chassis owner is responsible.
According to IANA, many equipment
providers have service contracts with
repair vendors. If a chassis problem
needs to be fixed in order for the driver
to resume operation, these vendors are
often called to provide the repairs.
Additional uncertainty surrounds the
question of authorization for this repair,
because the service contract is between
the service vendor and the chassis
provider and the provider would have
to authorize a repair request. In some
cases, the truck driver’s motor carrier

18 Estimated in 2003 dollars calculated using the
gross domestic product (GDP) deflator, and
estimates from ‘‘Revised Costs of Large Truck and

Bus Involved Crashes,’’ final report to FMCSA by
Eduard Zaloshnja and Ted Miller, available at:

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/CarrierResearchResults/
CarrierResearchContent.asp.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

19:42 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

Benefits Associated With Increased
Operational Efficiency

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
would have to make arrangements with
the chassis provider’s service vendor to
repair the chassis.
The potential reduction of OOS rates
would increase the operational
efficiency of intermodal transportation
as a whole. A chassis placed OOS must
not be operated until the repairs
required by an OOS order have been
made. According to information
provided to FMCSA by ATA members,
carriers spend, on average, 3 hours of a
driver’s time and 1.5 hours of other
employees’ time to correct each vehicle
OOS order received on chassis tendered
by an equipment provider. The
opportunity cost for a truck driver and
one employee’s time is calculated at
$116.35 per vehicle OOS order
attributable to a problem chassis.19 Note
that this is considered a conservative
estimate, because FMCSA used an
average commercial driver wage rate to
estimate the opportunity costs of a
vehicle OOS order, in lieu of a ‘‘revenue
per tractor’’ estimate, which would be
higher because it accounts for the
opportunity cost of the vehicle as well
as the driver.
Given that, on average, 18.5 percent of
roadside inspections of intermodal
chassis result in vehicle OOS violations,
cost savings, in terms of the opportunity
cost of driver and motor carriers’ time,
would quickly add up, as there are
approximately 850,000 intermodal
chassis in operation in the U.S.
Roadside repair costs for intermodal
chassis, other than those involved in
vehicle OOS orders, may also be
significantly reduced, given evidence
indicating that intermodal chassis
typically have more equipment defects
National employment and wage data, the
median hourly wage for a truck driver is estimated
at $16.01 and supervisor/manager is estimated at
$21.08. With fringe benefits added to the wages, the
hourly wage and salaries are estimated at $23.39
and $30.70 for truck driver and the manager/
supervisor respectively.

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

19 Using

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

and deficiencies than non-intermodal
trailers. Clearly, a reduction in
equipment violations severe enough to
cause a chassis to be placed OOS would
mean less disruption of supply chains.
FMCSA attempted conservatively to
estimate the number of intermodal
chassis vehicle OOS orders that would
be avoided as a result of this proposed
rule. We assumed that this proposal
would reduce the intermodal chassis
OOS rate to the national vehicle OOS
rate for all trailers (discussed earlier in
this NPRM in Table 11). Initial results
indicate that such changes could reap
efficiency benefits of $40,000 to
$410,000 annually. Again, FMCSA
considers these estimates to be
conservative, because it used a driver
wage rate, rather than an average
revenue per tractor estimate, to
determine the opportunity costs of
vehicle OOS orders. Complete details of
this analysis are contained in the full
RIA in the docket.
At intermodal terminal facilities, the
effect of the proposed rule would be to
reduce the time needed for motor
carriers to pick up a roadworthy chassis.
Motor carriers report that they currently
spend between 30 minutes and 2 to 3
hours to find a roadworthy chassis. That
means that motor carriers could save
between $11.69 and $46.78 in driver’s
costs alone, if this wait/search time
could be completely eliminated. The
proposed rule, by mandating that
chassis providers implement systematic
inspection, maintenance, and repair
programs, can be expected to reduce the
number of defective chassis being
offered in service, and thereby reduce
the time needed by truck drivers to find
a roadworthy chassis.
Delays at a port or rail intermodal
terminal and on the road due to poor
container chassis condition affect only a
small segment of the motor carrier
industry. However, delays at intermodal
facilities and the related issue of poor

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

76819

container chassis condition on the road
are crucially important to trucking firms
that pick up and deliver freight at ports
and rail terminals. Drayage firms that
service ports, especially, operate in a
highly competitive market, with many
small motor carriers and owneroperators competing to provide services.
The drivers are typically paid per load
and operate on very slim profit margins.
Delays at port or rail facilities as well as
on the road impose a cost on these firms
in lost revenues and profits. The
reduced efficiency of this critical link in
the transportation system also imposes
costs on intermodal freight customers.
Intermodal freight volume is expected
to continue to grow, and ports and rail
terminals must improve
competitiveness both locally and
globally. This will require the
utilization of existing infrastructure and
greater economic efficiency. The
amount of cargo moving in maritime
containers is forecasted to grow nearly
three-fold by 2020, rising from 57
million twenty-foot containers in 2000
to 163 million in 2020. Systematic
inspection, repair, and maintenance of
intermodal container chassis would
ensure safe operation of these container
chassis on the road, which in turn
would enhance the reliability and
economic efficiency of the intermodal
freight traffic in the U.S.20
Table 19, below, compares the current
Federal requirements with new
requirements proposed in this NPRM
and shows the benefits and costs
associated with the proposals.
20 Principles for a U.S. Public Freight Agenda in
a Global Economy, from Martin E. Robins and Anne
Strauss–Wieder, Metropolitan Policy Program,
Brookings Institution, January 2006, citiing
Nariman Behravesh, ‘‘The US and Global Outlook:
Storm Clouds on the Horizon?’’ Global Insight, Port
of New York and New Jersey Port Economic
Briefing, October 2004.

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
provisions

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Part 386—Rules of Practice for Motor Carrier,
Broker, Freight Forwarder, and Hazardous
Materials Proceedings.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

Current
requirement

NPRM

Enables the Assistant Administrator to determine
whether a motor carrier,
property broker, freight
forwarder, or its agents,
employees, or any other
person subject to the jurisdiction of FMCSA has
failed to comply with the
provisions or requirements of applicable statutes and the corresponding regulations.

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

PO 00000

Explicitly includes intermodal equipment providers.

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Discounted
10-year costs
No new costs associated
with this provision.

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

Benefits

Explicit inclusion of intermodal equipment providers would make them
subject to the provisions
or requirements of applicable statutes and the
corresponding regulations; and, if violations
are found, the Assistant
Administrator could
issue an appropriate
order to compel compliance with the statute or
regulation, assess a civil
penalty, or both. This
will result in the following:
1. Increased safety of the
intermodal container
chassis operation and
reduced crashes involving intermodal container
chassis.
2. Increased operational
efficiency of the intermodal container chassis
operation.
a. Reduced number of vehicle out-of-service orders 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 terminals.
3. Revised rules that explicitly require equipment
providers to be responsible for the safety and
security of their equipment:
a. Eliminate externality
issues that are involved
when one party’s (owners of intermodal container chassis—steamship lines and railroads)
actions impose uncompensated costs (in terms
of lost productivity, uncompensated repair
costs, and decrease in
overall profit margin) on
another party (motor
carriers). Eliminate potential barriers to information on scope and jurisdiction of FMCSRs.

76821

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 19.—COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION—Continued
Comparison
Regulatory
provisions
Part 390—General applicability.

Part 393—Parts and Accessories Necessary for
Safe Operation.

Part 396—Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance.

Current
requirement
Applies to all employers,
employees, and commercial motor vehicles,
which transport property
or passengers in interstate commerce. Motor
carriers must assist in
investigations and special studies. Motor carriers must file Form
MCS–150. CMVs must
be marked as specified.
Every employer and employee shall comply and
be conversant with the
requirements and specifications of this part. No
employer shall operate a
commercial motor vehicle, or cause or permit it
to be operated, unless it
is equipped in accordance with the requirements and specifications
of this part.
Every motor carrier, its officers, drivers, agents,
representatives and employees shall comply
and be conversant with
the rules of this part.
Every motor carrier shall
systematically inspect,
repair, and maintain, or
cause to be systematically inspected, repaired,
and maintained, all
motor vehicles subject to
its control and keep the
necessary records.

FMCSA requests comment on the
costs and benefits estimated in this
analysis.

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to
review regulations to assess their impact
on small entities unless the agency
determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
While we believe the rulemaking will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities, we have chosen not to certify
the proposed rule at this point. Instead,
we decided to complete an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

Discounted
10-year costs

NPRM
Explicitly includes intermodal equipment providers and intermodal
equipment.

1. $2,990 to file MCS–
150C.
2. $13.5 million over 10
years for chassis marking costs.

Equipment providers would
be held accountable for
offering in interstate
commerce intermodal
equipment that is not
equipped with all required parts and accessories and would be required to ensure that
each of those components are in safe and
operable condition.

No new cost associated
with this provision.

Intermodal equipment providers would be required
to:
1. Comply and be conversant with the rules of
this part.
2. Establish a systematic
inspection, repair, and
maintenance program
and comply with inspection and recordkeeping
requirements established in part 396 for
motor carriers.
3. Establish a system for
motor carriers and drivers to report defects and
deficiencies in intermodal equipment, and to
keep records.

1. No new cost associated
with annual (periodic) inspection provision.
2. Equipment providers
may incur an additional
cost of $95–190 million
over 10-year analysis
period to achieve full
compliance with Systematic inspection, repair,
and maintenance requirements, depending
upon current degree of
compliance with part
396.
3. There may be an additional cost of $38.9 million over the 10-year
analysis period in new
recordkeeping costs.

and solicit comments on our analysis.
The IRFA and the attached regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) include our
discussion of the regulatory impacts,
and the reasons for our recommended
action.
Need for the NPRM: On January 26,
2004, the Secretary of Transportation
announced that the USDOT would
launch a safety inspection program for
intermodal container chassis. The
inspection program would provide
added oversight to help ensure that the
intermodal container chassis used by
motor carriers to transport intermodal
cargo containers are in safe and proper
working order.
The announcement explained the new
inspection program would be modeled

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Benefits

on FMCSA’s compliance review
program already in place for the
Nation’s interstate motor carriers.
Chassis providers would be required to
obtain a USDOT number and display it
on their chassis so that safety
performance data could be captured.
FMCSA would apply the same penalty
structure and enforcement actions used
for motor carriers to intermodal
equipment providers demonstrating
patterns of non-compliance with the
new safety requirements.
Subsequently, Section 4118 of
SAFETEA–LU was enacted and directs
the Department of Transportation to
undertake a rulemaking relating to the
roadability of intermodal equipment.
FMCSA, working in coordination with

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

76822

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

other USDOT agencies, initiated this
new rulemaking to advance the
Department’s safety goal without
unnecessarily involving the Department
in the commercial relations or allocation
of liability between intermodal parties.
Description of Actions: In this NPRM,
FMCSA is proposing to amend the
FMCSRs to require entities that offer
intermodal container chassis for
transportation in interstate commerce to
(i) file a Motor Carrier Identification
Report (FMCSA Form MCS–150), (ii)
display on each chassis a unique
identification number (e.g., USDOT
number) assigned or approved by
FMCSA, (iii) establish a systematic
inspection, repair and maintenance
program to ensure the safe operating
condition of each chassis and maintain
documentation of the program and (iv)
provide a means for effectively
responding to driver and motor carrier
complaints about the condition of
intermodal container chassis.
Identification of potentially affected
small entities: Entities likely to be

affected by the NPRM are 93 steamship
lines, 5 railroads, 10 common pool
operators, and 1,900 motor carriers. All
93 steamship lines are foreign entities,
and the provisions of the RFA do not
apply to foreign entities.21 According to
the Small Business Administration
(SBA), the definition of ‘‘small
business’’ has the same meaning as
under the Small Business Act. The
following table indicates the percentage
of affected entities defined as ‘‘small
businesses.’’ 22
The railroads that own intermodal
chassis are assumed to be 5 major
railroads in the United States and would
not be considered small business as
defined by the SBA. Additionally, it is
FMCSA’s belief that most of the
common-pool operators that own
intermodal chassis would not be
classified as small business by SBA size
standards, given the average size of the
chassis pools they are estimated to be
operating.23
The for-hire trucking industry in the
United States consists of over 113,000

interstate motor carriers.24 Data from
FMCSA’s Licensing and Insurance (L&I)
database indicates roughly 125,000
active for-hire motor carriers. For-hire
operators are those that offer truck
transportation services to the public.
The major sectors of for-hire trucking
are household goods carriers, bulk
carriers, tank carriers, refrigerated
carriers, less-than-truckload (LTL)
carriers, truckload carriers, and other
specialized carriers.25 Owner-operators,
as the term implies, are independent
owners of individual trucks or small
fleets.26 They generally function as forhire carriers or provide contract or ad
hoc support to larger for-hire carriers or
other commercial trucking operations.
In addition to for-hire carriers and
owner-operators, over 480,000 other
companies and governmental entities
operate private fleets of trucks, which
deliver and distribute products and
services for their parent organizations.27

TABLE 20.—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARDS FOR THE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED INDUSTRIES
SBA Size Standards
NAICS

Description

Not Applicable ........
482112 ...................
532490* ..................
484110 ...................
484121 ...................
484122 ...................
484220 ...................
484230 ...................

Steamship lines ...................................................................................................
Railroads .............................................................................................................
Other Commercial/Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing ...
General Freight Trucking, Local .........................................................................
General Freight Trucking, Long Distance, Truckload .........................................
General Freight Trucking, Long Distance, Less Than Truckload .......................
Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Local ................................
Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Long Distance ..................

Revenue
(millions)

Employee

NA
....................
$6.0
21.5
....................
21.5
21.5
21.5

NA
1,500
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................

Percent of
industry that
is small
business
NA
NA
94
75
74
72
73
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
a small percentage of trucking firms,
since only approximately 1,900 trucking
companies own intermodal chassis.
These motor carriers belong to the five
‘‘484’’ NAICS codes identified in Table
20. For the most part, these entities
would incur minimal increased costs to
comply with the provisions of this
NPRM, since they are already subject to
the FMCSRs; indeed, the NPRM would
most likely reduce overall operational
21 See

www.sba.gov/advo/laws/title3_s2993.html.
17 has been calculated using 1997
Economic Census Data (2002 data for all NAICS
codes are not currently available) and combining it
with SBA’s size standards to estimate the number
of small business. The 1997 data for revenue have
been adjusted for 2003 revenue figures since SBA
revenue size is given in 2003 dollars. The estimate
was ‘‘at least’’ since there were firms that did not
have revenues reported.
23 A list of common-pool operators is available on
the IICL Web site. The NAICS listed here represents

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

22 Table

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

costs for most of these entities, since
some of the burden for inspection,
maintenance, and repair will indirectly
shift to non-motor carrier chassis
providers.
The RIA assumes that the 10
equipment lessors (common pool
operators) own an estimated 320,000
intermodal chassis or about 32,000
chassis per entity. Therefore, based on
this information, we assumed that these
firms fall into the 20 largest firms in this

NAICS codes and earned about $3.06
billion or average revenue of $153.2
million.28 To have a significant impact
on these entities, the estimated
compliance cost would have to exceed
one percent of the annual revenue
stream or sales, or about $1.5 million
per firm per year for the 20 largest firms
in NAICS 532490.29 Although there is
much uncertainty regarding the impact
on common chassis pool operators
(since the agency had difficulty

all firms that provide support service to road
transportation. Common-pool operators are part of
this over-all group.
24 2002 Economic Census, Transportation and
Warehousing, U.S. Bureau of the Census,
Washington, DC, 2004, available on the Internet at
www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0248i09.pdf.
25 American Trucking Trends 2003, American
Trucking Associations, Inc., Alexandria, VA, 2003,
p. 7.
26 Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association Web site at www.ooida.com.

27 American Trucking Trends 2003, American
Trucking Associations, Inc., Alexandria, VA, 2003,
p. 6, reports a total of 585 thousand interstate motor
truck operators of all types. The source of the
information was identified as filings with the
Federal Motor Safety Administration (FMSCA) as of
August 2002.
28 1997 Economic Census figures adjusted to 2003
dollars.
29 Adjusting 1997 revenue reported by the 1997
Economic Census with GDP inflation adjustor.

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

76823

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
acquiring information on them), it is
believed that in some cases, the need to
implement systematic IRM programs by
common chassis pool operators may
result in compliance costs exceeding
one percent of annual revenues. Because
of this uncertainty, FMCSA has decided
against certifying no significant impact
on a substantial number of small
entities, and has instead decided to
prepare an IRFA. Therefore, FMCSA
invites public comment on it.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements: This NPRM includes a
new requirement for reporting and
recordkeeping for steamship lines,
railroads and common pool operators
that own intermodal chassis. We
estimate that there are 108 such entities,
none of which is a small business that
would be subject to the new
recordkeeping requirement.
Related Federal rules and regulations.
With respect to the safe transportation
of intermodal chassis, there are no
related rules or regulations issued by
other departments or agencies of the
Federal Government.
Conclusion. Based on the assessment
in the regulatory evaluation, we
conclude that there will not be a

significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Intergovernmental Review
The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities do not
apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), a
Federal agency must obtain approval
from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for each collection of
information it conducts, sponsors, or
requires through regulations. FMCSA
has analyzed this proposal and
determined that it would require
revisions to existing information
collection requirements subject to
approval by OMB. This includes the
requirement for entities that offer
intermodal container chassis for
transportation in interstate commerce
to: (1) File an Intermodal Equipment
Provider Identification Report (FMCSA
Form MCS–150C, a variant on the
currently-approved Motor Carrier
Identification Report, Form MCS–150);
(2) establish a systematic inspection,

repair, and maintenance program to
ensure the safe operating condition of
each item of intermodal equipment
tendered to motor carriers and to
maintain documentation of the program
in accordance with 49 CFR part 396;
and (3) provide a means for an
intermodal equipment provider to
effectively respond, using a variant of
the Driver-Vehicle Inspection Report
currently approved by OMB, to driver
and motor carrier complaints about the
condition of intermodal container
chassis. It is anticipated that electronic
recordkeeping would be allowed to
reduce, to the greatest extent
practicable, the costs associated with
complying with the recordkeeping
requirements.
There are two currently approved
information collections that would be
affected by this NPRM: (1) Motor Carrier
Identification Report (FMCSA form
MCS–150), OMB Control No. 2126–
0013, approved at 74,896 burden hours
through July 31, 2007; and (2)
Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance,
OMB Control No. 2126–0003, approved
at 59,093,245 burden hours through
February 28, 2006. Table 21 shows the
FMCSA estimated number of intermodal
container chassis by owner.

TABLE 21.—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF INTERMODAL CHASSIS BY OWNER
Estimated
number of
affected
entities

Types of entities

Estimated
number of
chassis

Steamship Lines ......................................................................................................................................................
Railroads ..................................................................................................................................................................
Common-pool operators/Equipment Lessors ..........................................................................................................

93
5
10

392,000
96,200
320,000

Total ..................................................................................................................................................................

108

808,200

The total annual burden hours for the
two current information collections

above are 59,168,141. Table 22 depicts
the proposed and current burden hours

associated with the information
collections.

TABLE 22.—PROPOSED AND CURRENT INFORMATION COLLECTION BURDENS
Burden hours
currently
approved

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

OMB approval number

Burden hours
proposed

Change

2126–0013 ...................................................................................................................................
2126–0003 ...................................................................................................................................

74,896
59,093,245

74,932
59,214,495

36
121,230

Total ......................................................................................................................................

59,168,141

59,289,427

121,266

The following is an explanation of
how each of the information collections
shown above would be impacted by this
proposal.
OMB Control No. 2126–0003.
Intermodal equipment providers (IEPs)
would be required to establish a
systematic inspection, repair, and

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

maintenance program and maintain
records documenting the program. They
would also be required to establish a
process for a motor carrier or its driver
to report defects or deficiencies they
discover or which are reported to them.
The estimated burden for the proposed
revision to this existing information

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

collection would be 121,230 burden
hours [808,200 chassis controlled by
non-motor-carrier IEPs × 3 inspections/
year × 3 minutes recordkeeping per
inspection × 1 hr/60 minutes].
OMB Control No. 2126–0013. The
proposed rule would require each
equipment provider to obtain a unique

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
MCS–150C to FMCSA, and to update its
initial report every 2 years. FMCSA
estimates that this would result in an
increase of 36 burden hours for 108
affected IEPs [108 IEPs × 20 minutes /
60 minutes].
The proposals contained in this
NPRM, affecting two currently approved
information collections, would result in
a net increase of 121,266 burden hours
in the agency’s information collection
budget.
FMCSA requests comments on
whether the collection of information is
necessary for the agency to meet its goal
of reducing truck crashes, including: (1)
Whether the information is useful to
this goal; (2) the accuracy of the
estimated information collection
burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
information collection burden on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
You may submit comments to OMB
on the information collection burden
addressed by this NPRM. OMB must
receive your comments by January 22,
2007. Mail or hand deliver your
comments to: Attention: Desk Officer for
the Department of Transportation,
Dockets Library, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503.
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA)
FMCSA analyzed this rule for the
purpose of the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et

seq.) and conducted an environmental
assessment under the procedures in
FMCSA Order 5610.1, published March
1, 2004 (69 FR 9680). Under FMCSA
Order 5610.1, the environmental
assessment focuses only on those
resource categories that are of interest to
the public and/or important to the
decision: Public Health and Safety,
Hazardous Materials Transportation,
Socioeconomics, Solid Waste Disposal,
and other Special Areas of
Consideration. A copy of the draft
environmental assessment has been
placed in the docket.
Table 23 presents a comparison of the
potential environmental and
socioeconomic consequences of the
Proposed-Action Alternative and NoAction Alternative from the draft
environmental assessment.

TABLE 23.—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
Category

Proposed-action alternative

Public Health and Safety ....................................
Hazardous Materials Transportation ..................
Socioeconomics .................................................
Solid Waste Disposal .........................................

Moderate positive impact .................................
Negligible to minor net positive impact ............
Moderate net positive impact ...........................
Negligible to minor positive and negative impact.

No-action alternative 1
Moderate negative impact.
Negligible to minor net negative impact.
Moderate net negative impact.
Negligible to minor negative impact.

Additional ‘‘Special Areas of Consideration’’
Air Quality ...........................................................
Noise ..................................................................
Endangered Species ..........................................
Resources protected by the NHPA ....................
Wetlands .............................................................
Section 4(f) resources ........................................

Negligible to minor positive impact ..................
No impact .........................................................
Negligible to minor positive impact ..................
Negligible positive impact ................................
Negligible to minor positive impact ..................
Negligible to minor positive impact ..................

Negligible to minor negative
No impact.
Negligible to minor negative
Negligible negative impact.
Negligible to minor negative
Negligible to minor negative

impact.
impact.
impact.
impact.

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

1 The ‘‘No-Action’’ Alternative is evaluated from a dynamic perspective (i.e., considers both short- and long-run impacts). So, while the ‘‘No-Action’’ 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
which there exists a potential for a
positive or negative indirect impact
from the Proposed-Action Alternative
(this proposed rule). Without certain
key pieces of information (e.g., crash
data on a national level, exact number
and safety record of intermodal
equipment providers, and detailed
transportation routes over which
intermodal equipment is used), it is
impossible to accurately quantify most
of these impacts, though a qualitative
rationale for these conclusions is offered
in the draft environmental assessment.
Nevertheless, it is evident from Table
23 that the only potentially negative
environmental or socioeconomic impact
of the Proposed-Action Alternative (this
proposed rule) involves a potentially
minor to negligible negative indirect
impact on solid waste disposal (caused
by an increase in the amount of solid
waste disposed via regular equipment

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

maintenance). Nevertheless, that may be
offset by a positive impact on solid
waste disposal (caused by decreasing
the amount of solid waste generated via
crashes).
The beneficial impacts of the
proposed rulemaking—most
importantly the positive impacts on
public health and safety in addition to
positive indirect impacts on aspects of
the physical and human environment—
are in contrast to the No-Action
Alternative, which has the potential to
negatively impact most of the resources
evaluated in the draft environmental
assessment. Note that the No-Action
Alternative is evaluated from a dynamic
perspective, which considers both shortand long-run effects. While in the short
run the No-Action Alternative has no
impact (since no regulations change),
there are potential impacts in the long
run, because growth in intermodal
transportation is assumed to continue.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

FMCSA seeks comment on the draft
environmental assessment.
Energy Effects
FMCSA has analyzed this action
under Executive Order 13211, entitled
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.’’ The agency has
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it does not appear to be economically
significant (i.e., a cost of more than
$120.7 million in a single year) based
upon analyses performed at this stage of
the rulemaking process, and is not likely
to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not impose
an unfunded mandate, as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(2 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.), resulting in the

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $120.7 million or more
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
Civil Justice Reform
This rulemaking would meet
applicable standards in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988,
entitled ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
FMCSA has analyzed this section
under Executive Order 13045, entitled
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks.’’ The agency does not believe this
rulemaking would be an economically
significant rule, nor does it concern an
environmental risk to health or safety
that may disproportionately affect
children.

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Taking of Private Property
This rulemaking would not effect a
taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
Executive Order 12630, entitled
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.’’
Federalism
FMCSA has analyzed this rulemaking
action in accordance with the principles
and criteria of Executive Order 13132,
entitled ‘‘Federalism,’’ and determined
that it has federalism implications
within the meaning of the Order.
The Federalism Order applies to
‘‘policies that have federalism
implications,’’ which it defines as
regulations and other actions ‘‘that have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, and on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ Sec. 1(a). The
key concept here is ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States.’’
Section 31151(d) preempts ‘‘a law,
regulation, order, or other requirement
of a State, a political subdivision of a
State, or a tribal organization relating to
commercial motor vehicle safety’’ if it
‘‘exceeds or is inconsistent with a
requirement imposed under or pursuant
to’’ 49 U.S.C. 31151. In other words,
FMCSA’s final rule establishing
maintenance and related requirements
for intermodal equipment will preempt
any State or local law or regulation on
the same subject.
Nonetheless, there are exceptions to
this principle. ‘‘[A] State requirement
for the periodic inspection of

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

intermodal chassis by intermodal
equipment providers that was in effect
on January 1, 2005’’ is preempted on the
effective date of the final rule adopted
under this proceeding [section
31151(e)(1)] unless, notwithstanding
section 31151(d), the Secretary of
Transportation ‘‘determines that the
State requirement is as effective as the
Federal requirement and does not
unduly burden interstate commerce’’
[section 31151(e)(2)(A)]. A State must
request a non-preemption determination
before the effective date of the FMCSA
final rule [section 31151(e)(2)(B)], and
no subsequent amendment to a nonpreempted requirement may take effect
unless it is first submitted to the
Secretary, who must find that the
amendment is no less effective than the
FMCSA requirements and does not
unduly burden interstate commerce
[section 31151(e)(2)(C)].
Section 31151 clearly has preemptive
effect. Although most of the States
which adopted statutes regulating the
maintenance of intermodal equipment
did not enforce them for several years,
section 31151 will foreclose the
opportunity for States to enact future
legislation on this subject which is
inconsistent with the Agency’s
regulations. We believe this constitutes
a ‘‘substantial direct effect[ ] on the
States.’’ However, section 31151 does
not have ‘‘substantial direct effects
* * * on the relationship between the
national government and the States or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ The intermodal
equipment affected by this rulemaking
operates in interstate commerce. The
regulation of interstate commerce is
constitutionally and historically vested
in the Federal government, not the
States. The assertion of Federal
authority in this area does not change
the traditional relationship between the
national government and the States, nor
does it affect the constitutional and
practical distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
Section 3(b) of the Federalism Order
provides that ‘‘[n]ational action limiting
the policymaking discretion of the
States shall be taken only where there
is constitutional and statutory authority
for the action and the national activity
is appropriate in light of the presence of
a problem of national significance.’’ The
constitutional authority and statutory
mandate for this rulemaking are clear
and explicit.
FMCSA has determined that this
action would have a substantial direct
effect on States. However, because
existing State laws on the maintenance

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

76825

of intermodal equipment are so few and
narrow in scope, the Agency has also
determined that this action would not
impose substantial additional costs or
burdens on the States.
The Agency will consult with the
States on the Federalism implications of
this proposed regulation, as required by
E.O. 13132. Also, State and local
governments will have an additional
opportunity to address this issue during
the comment period as indicated under
ADDRESSES.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number
(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
section listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory
Information Service Center publishes
the Unified Agenda in April and
October of each year. The RIN shown on
the first page of this document can be
used to cross-reference this section with
the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 385
Administrative practice and
procedure, Highway safety, Intermodal
equipment roadability, Motor carriers,
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 386
Administrative practice and
procedure, Brokers, Freight forwarders,
Hazardous materials, Intermodal
equipment provider, Highway safety,
Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety,
Penalties.
49 CFR Part 390
Highway safety, Intermodal
equipment providers, Motor carriers,
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 392
Highway safety, Intermodal
equipment providers, Motor carriers.
49 CFR Part 393
Highway safety, Intermodal
equipment providers, Motor carriers,
Motor vehicle safety.
49 CFR Part 396
Highway safety, Intermodal
equipment providers, Motor carriers,
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, FMCSA proposes to amend
Subchapter B, Chapter III of Title 49 of
the Code of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below:

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

76826

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

PART 385—SAFETY FITNESS
PROCEDURES
1. Revise the authority citation for
part 385 to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b),
5105(e), 5109, 5113, 13901–13905, 31136,
31144, 31148, 31151, and 31502; Sec. 350 of
Pub. L. 107–87; and 49 CFR 1.73.

2. Amend § 385.1 by adding
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 385.1

Purpose and scope.

*

*
*
*
*
(e) Subpart F of this Part establishes
procedures to perform a roadability
review of intermodal equipment
providers to determine their compliance
with the applicable Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
3. Amend part 385 by adding a new
Subpart F—Intermodal Equipment
Providers (§§ 385.501–383.503) to read
as follows:
Subpart F—Intermodal Equipment
Providers
§ 385.501

Roadability review.

(a) FMCSA will perform roadability
reviews of intermodal equipment
providers, as defined in § 390.5 of this
chapter. A roadability review is a review
by the FMCSA of the intermodal
equipment provider’s compliance with
the applicable FMCSRs.
(b) FMCSA will evaluate the results of
the roadability review using the criteria
in Appendix A to this Part as they relate
to compliance with Parts 390, 393, and
396 of this chapter.

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

§ 385.503

Results of roadability review.

(a) FMCSA will not assign a safety
rating to an intermodal equipment
provider. However, the FMCSA may cite
the intermodal equipment provider for
violations of Parts 390, 393, and 396 of
this chapter and may impose civil
penalties.
(b) FMCSA may prohibit the
intermodal equipment provider from
tendering specific items of equipment
determined to constitute an imminent
hazard.
(c) FMCSA may prohibit an
intermodal equipment provider from
tendering any intermodal equipment
from a particular location or multiple
locations if the agency determines that
the intermodal equipment provider’s
compliance with the FMCSRs is so
deficient that the provider’s continued
operation constitutes an imminent
hazard to highway safety.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

PART 386—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR
MOTOR CARRIER, INTERMODAL
EQUIPMENT PROVIDER, BROKER,
FREIGHT FORWARDER, AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PROCEEDINGS
4. The authority citation for part 386
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, chapters 5, 51,
59, 131–141, 145–149, 311, 313, and 315; sec.
206, Pub. L. 106–159, 113 Stat. 1763; and 49
CFR 1.45 and 1.73.

5. Revise the heading of part 386 to
read as set forth above.
6. Revise § 386.1 to read:
§ 386.1

Scope of the rules in this part.

(a) The rules in this part govern
proceedings before the Assistant
Administrator, who also acts as the
Chief Safety Officer of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA),
under applicable provisions of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (49 CFR parts 350–399),
including the commercial regulations
(49 CFR parts 360–379), and the
Hazardous Materials Regulations (49
CFR parts 171–180).
(b) The purpose of the proceedings is
to enable the Assistant Administrator:
(1) To determine whether a motor
carrier, intermodal equipment provider
(as defined in § 390.5 of this chapter),
property broker, freight forwarder, or its
agents, employees, or any other person
subject to the jurisdiction of FMCSA,
has failed to comply with the provisions
or requirements of applicable statutes
and the corresponding regulations; and
(2) To issue an appropriate order to
compel compliance with the statute or
regulation, assess a civil penalty, or
both, if such violations are found.
7. Revise § 386.83 to read as follows:
§ 386.83 Sanction for failure to pay civil
penalties or abide by payment plan;
operation in interstate commerce
prohibited.

(a)(1) General rule. A commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) owner or operator,
including an intermodal equipment
provider, that fails to pay a civil penalty
in full within 90 days after the date
specified for payment by FMCSA’s final
agency order, is prohibited from
operating in interstate commerce
starting on the next (i.e., the 91st) day.
The prohibition continues until FMCSA
has received full payment of the
penalty.
(2) Civil penalties paid in
installments. The FMCSA Service
Center may allow a CMV owner or
operator, including an intermodal
equipment provider, to pay a civil
penalty in installments. If the CMV

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

owner or operator, including an
intermodal equipment provider, fails to
make an installment payment on
schedule, the payment plan is void and
the entire debt is payable immediately.
A CMV owner or operator, including an
intermodal equipment provider, that
fails to pay the full outstanding balance
of its civil penalty within 90 days after
the date of the missed installment
payment, is prohibited from operating
in interstate commerce on the next (i.e.,
the 91st) day. The prohibition continues
until the FMCSA has received full
payment of the entire penalty.
(3) Appeals to Federal Court. If the
CMV owner or operator, including an
intermodal equipment provider, appeals
the final agency order to a Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals, the terms and
payment due date of the final agency
order are not stayed unless the Court so
directs.
(b) Show-cause proceeding. (1) The
FMCSA will notify a CMV owner or
operator, including an intermodal
equipment provider, in writing if it has
not received payment within 45 days
after the date specified for payment by
the final agency order or the date of a
missed installment payment. The notice
will include a warning that failure to
pay the entire penalty within 90 days
after payment was due, will result in the
CMV owner or operator, including an
intermodal equipment provider, being
prohibited from operating in interstate
commerce.
(2) The notice will order the CMV
owner or operator, including an
intermodal equipment provider, to show
cause why it should not be prohibited
from operating in interstate commerce
on the 91st day after the date specified
for payment. The prohibition may be
avoided only by submitting to the Chief
Safety Officer:
(i) Evidence that the respondent has
paid the entire amount due; or
(ii) Evidence that the respondent has
filed for bankruptcy under chapter 11,
title 11, United States Code.
Respondents in bankruptcy must also
submit the information required by
paragraph (d) of this section.
(3) The notice will be delivered by
certified mail or commercial express
service. If a CMV owner’s or operator’s,
including an intermodal equipment
provider’s, principal place of business is
in a foreign country, the notice will be
delivered to the CMV owner’s or
operator’s designated agent.
(c) A CMV owner or operator,
including an intermodal equipment
provider, that continues to operate in
interstate commerce in violation of this
section may be subject to additional

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sanctions under paragraph IV (h) of
appendix A to part 386.
(d) This section does not apply to any
person who is unable to pay a civil
penalty because the person is a debtor
in a case under 11 U.S.C. chapter 11.
CMV owners or operators, including
intermodal equipment providers, in
bankruptcy proceedings under chapter
11 must provide the following
information in their response to the
FMCSA:
(1) The chapter of the Bankruptcy
Code under which the bankruptcy
proceeding is filed (i.e., chapter 7 or 11);
(2) The bankruptcy case number;
(3) The court in which the bankruptcy
proceeding was filed; and
(4) Any other information requested
by the agency to determine a debtor’s
bankruptcy status.
PART 390—FEDERAL MOTOR
CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS;
GENERAL
8. Revise the authority citation for
part 390 to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 508, 13301, 13902,
31133, 31136, 31151, 31502, 31504, and sec.
204, Pub. L. 104–88, 109 Stat. 803, 941 (49
U.S.C. 701 note); sec. 114, Pub. L. 103–311,
108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 217, Pub. L. 106–
159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; and 49 CFR 1.73.

9. Amend § 390.3 by adding a new
paragraph (h) to read:
§ 390.3

General applicability.

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

*

*
*
*
*
(h) Intermodal equipment providers.
The rules in the following provisions of
subchapter B of this chapter apply to
intermodal equipment providers:
(1) Subpart F, Intermodal Equipment
Providers, of Part 385, Safety Fitness
Procedures.
(2) Part 386, Rules of Practice for
Motor Carrier, Intermodal Equipment
Provider, Broker, Freight Forwarder,
and Hazardous Materials Proceedings.
(3) Part 390, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations; General, except
§ 390.15(b) concerning accident
registers.
(4) Part 393, Parts and Accessories
Necessary for Safe Operation.
(5) Part 396, Inspection, Repair, and
Maintenance.
10. Amend § 390.5 by adding, in
alphabetical order, definitions for
‘‘Interchange,’’ ‘‘Intermodal
equipment,’’ ‘‘Intermodal equipment
interchange agreement,’’ and
‘‘Intermodal equipment provider’’ to
read:
§ 390.5

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
Interchange means the act of
providing intermodal equipment to a

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

motor carrier pursuant to an intermodal
equipment interchange agreement for
the purpose of transporting the
equipment for loading or unloading by
any person or repositioning the
equipment for the benefit of the
equipment provider, but it does not
include the leasing of equipment to a
motor carrier for primary use in the
motor carrier’s freight hauling
operations.
Intermodal equipment means trailing
equipment that is used in the
intermodal transportation of containers
over public highways in interstate
commerce, including trailers and
chassis.
Intermodal equipment interchange
agreement means the Uniform
Intermodal Interchange and Facilities
Access Agreement or any other written
document executed by an intermodal
equipment provider or its agent and a
motor carrier or its agent, the primary
purpose of which is to establish the
responsibilities and liabilities of both
parties with respect to the interchange
of the intermodal equipment.
Intermodal equipment provider means
any person that interchanges intermodal
equipment with a motor carrier
pursuant to a written interchange
agreement or has a contractual
responsibility for the maintenance of the
intermodal equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
11. Revise § 390.15(a) to read as
follows:
§ 390.15 Assistance in investigations and
special studies.

(a) Each motor carrier and intermodal
equipment provider must do the
following:
(1) Make all records and information
pertaining to an accident available to an
authorized representative or special
agent of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, an authorized State or
local enforcement agency
representative, or authorized third party
representative within such time as the
request or investigation may specify.
(2) Give an authorized representative
all reasonable assistance in the
investigation of any accident including
providing a full, true, and correct
response to any question of the inquiry.
*
*
*
*
*
12. Amend § 390.19 by revising the
section heading, the introductory text of
paragraph (a), paragraph (b), the
introductory text of paragraph (c), and
paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to read as
follows:

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

76827

§ 390.19 Motor carrier, HM shipper, and
intermodal equipment provider
identification reports.

(a) Each motor carrier that conducts
operations in interstate commerce must
file a Motor Carrier Identification
Report, Form MCS–150. Each motor
carrier that operates in intrastate
commerce, and that requires a
hazardous materials safety permit under
part 385, subpart E of this chapter, must
file a combined Motor Carrier
Identification Report and HM Permit
Application, Form MCS–150B. Each
intermodal equipment provider that
offers intermodal equipment for
transportation in interstate commerce
must file an Intermodal Equipment
Provider Identification Report, Form
MCS–150C. They must do so at the
following times:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The Motor Carrier Identification
Report, Form MCS–150, the Combined
Motor Carrier Identification Report and
HM Permit Application, Form MCS–
150B, and the Intermodal Equipment
Provider Identification Report, Form
MCS–150C, with complete instructions,
are available from the FMCSA Web site
at: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov (Keyword
‘‘MCS–150’’ or ‘‘MCS–150B’’ or ‘‘MCS–
150C’’); from all FMCSA Service Centers
and Division offices nationwide; or by
calling 1–800–832–5660.
(c) The completed Motor Carrier
Identification Report, Form MCS–150,
Combined Motor Carrier Identification
Report and HM Permit Application,
Form MCS–150B, or Intermodal
Equipment Provider Identification
Report, Form MCS–150C must be filed
with FMCSA Office of Information
Management.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Only the legal name or single trade
name may be used on the motor carrier’s
or intermodal equipment provider’s
identification report (Form MCS–150,
MCS–150B, or MCS–150C).
(e) A motor carrier or intermodal
equipment provider is subject to the
penalties prescribed in 49 U.S.C.
521(b)(2)(B) for—
(1) Failing to file a Motor Carrier
Identification Report, Form MCS–150,
the Combined Motor Carrier
Identification Report and HM Permit
Application, Form MCS–150B, or the
Intermodal Equipment Provider
Identification Report, Form MCS–150C.
(2) Furnishing misleading information
or making false statements on the Form
MCS–150, Form MCS–150B, or Form
MCS–150C.
(f) Upon receipt and processing of the
Motor Carrier Identification Report,
Form MCS–150, the Combined Motor

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

76828

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Carrier Identification Report and HM
Permit Application, Form MCS–150B,
or the Intermodal Equipment Provider
Identification Report, Form MCS–150C,
FMCSA will issue the motor carrier or
intermodal equipment provider an
identification number (USDOT
Number), or advise an intermodal
equipment provider it may use an
identification number unique to that
entity.
(1) The motor carrier must display the
number on each self-propelled CMV, as
defined in § 390.5, along with additional
information required by § 390.21.
(2) The intermodal equipment
provider must display its assigned
number on each unit of interchanged
intermodal equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
13. Amend § 390.21 by revising the
section heading and paragraphs (a),
(b)(2), and (c)(1) to read as follows:
§ 390.21 Marking of self-propelled CMVs
and intermodal equipment.

(a) General. Every self-propelled CMV
and each unit of intermodal equipment
interchanged or offered for interchange
to a motor carrier by an intermodal
equipment provider subject to
subchapter B of this chapter must be
marked as specified in paragraphs (b),
(c), and (d) of this section.
(b) * * *
(2) The identification number issued
by FMCSA to the motor carrier or
intermodal equipment provider,
preceded by the letters ‘‘USDOT.’’
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Appear on both sides of the selfpropelled CMV or interchanged
intermodal equipment;
*
*
*
*
*
14. Amend part 390 by adding a new
subpart C (§§ 390.40–390.46) to read as
follows:

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Subpart C—Requirements and
Information for Intermodal Equipment
Providers and for Motor Carriers
Operating Intermodal Equipment
Sec.
390.40 What responsibilities do intermodal
equipment providers have under the
FMCSRs?
390.42 What are the procedures to correct
the safety record of a motor carrier or an
intermodal equipment provider?
390.44 What are the responsibilities of
drivers and motor carriers operating
intermodal equipment?
390.46 Are State and local laws and
regulations on the inspection, repair, and
maintenance of intermodal equipment
preempted by the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)?

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

Subpart C—Requirements and
Information for Intermodal Equipment
Providers and for Motor Carriers
Operating Intermodal Equipment
§ 390.40 What responsibilities do
intermodal equipment providers have under
the FMCSRs?

An intermodal equipment provider
must—
(a) Identify its operations to the
FMCSA by filing the form required by
§ 390.19.
(b) Mark its intermodal equipment
with the USDOT Number or other
identifying number unique to that entity
as required by § 390.21.
(c) Systematically inspect, repair, and
maintain, or cause to be systematically
inspected, repaired, and maintained, in
a manner consistent with § 396.3(a)(1),
as applicable, all intermodal equipment
intended for interchange with a motor
carrier.
(d) Maintain a system of driver
vehicle inspection reports submitted to
the intermodal equipment provider as
required by § 396.11 of this chapter.
(e) Maintain a system of inspection,
repair, and maintenance records as
required by § 396.12 of this chapter for
equipment intended for interchange
with a motor carrier.
(f) Periodically inspect equipment
intended for interchange, as required
under § 396.17 of this chapter.
(g) At facilities at which the
intermodal equipment provider makes
intermodal equipment available for
interchange, have procedures in place,
and provide sufficient space, for drivers
to perform a pre-trip inspection of
tendered intermodal equipment.
(h) At facilities at which the
intermodal equipment provider makes
intermodal equipment available for
interchange, develop and implement
procedures to repair any equipment
damage, defects, or deficiencies
identified as part of a pre-trip
inspection, or replace the equipment,
prior to the driver’s departure. The
repairs or replacement must be made in
a timely manner after being notified by
a driver of such damage, defects, or
deficiencies.
(i) Refrain from placing intermodal
equipment in service on the public
highways if that equipment has been
found to pose an imminent hazard, as
defined in § 386.72(b)(1) of this chapter.
§ 390.42 What are the procedures to
correct the safety record of a motor carrier
or an intermodal equipment provider?

(a) An intermodal equipment provider
or its agent may electronically file
questions or concerns at http://
dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov about Federal and

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

State data released to the public by
FMCSA, including safety violations
attributable to deficiencies in
intermodal chassis or trailers for which
it should not have been held responsible
because a motor carrier certified the
equipment as passing the pre-trip
inspection.
(b) A motor carrier or its agent may
electronically file questions or concerns
at http://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov about
Federal and State data released to the
public by FMCSA. These include safety
violations attributable to deficiencies in
intermodal chassis or trailers for which
it should not have been held responsible
because they concerned defects or
deficiencies in parts or accessories that
a driver could not readily detect during
a pre-trip inspection performed in
accordance with § 392.7(a) and (b) of
this chapter.
(c) An intermodal equipment
provider, or its agent, may request
FMCSA to investigate a motor carrier
believed to be in noncompliance with
responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 31151
or the implementing regulations in this
subchapter regarding interchange of
intermodal equipment by contacting the
appropriate FMCSA Field Office.
(d) A motor carrier or its agent may
request FMCSA to investigate an
intermodal equipment provider believed
to be in noncompliance with
responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 31151
or the implementing regulations in this
subchapter regarding interchange of
intermodal equipment by contacting the
appropriate FMCSA Field Office.
§ 390.44 What are the responsibilities of
drivers and motor carriers operating
intermodal equipment?

(a) Before operating intermodal
equipment over the road, the driver
accepting the equipment must inspect
the equipment components listed in
§ 392.7(b) of this chapter and must be
satisfied that they are in good working
order.
(b) A driver or motor carrier
transporting intermodal equipment
must report to the intermodal
equipment provider, or its designated
agent, any known damage or
deficiencies in the intermodal
equipment at the time the equipment is
returned to the provider or the
provider’s designated agent. The report
must include, at a minimum, the items
in § 396.11(a)(2) of this chapter.
§ 390.46 Are State and local laws and
regulations on the inspection, repair, and
maintenance of intermodal equipment
preempted by the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)?

(a) Generally. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
31151(d), a law, regulation, order, or

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
other requirement of a State, a political
subdivision of a State, or a tribal
organization relating to the inspection,
repair, and maintenance of intermodal
equipment is preempted if such law,
regulation, order, or other requirement
exceeds or is inconsistent with a
requirement imposed by the FMCSRs.
(b) Pre-existing State requirements—
(1) In general. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
31151(e)(1), unless otherwise provided
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, a
State requirement for the periodic
inspection of intermodal chassis by
intermodal equipment providers that
was in effect on January 1, 2005, shall
remain in effect only until the effective
date of the FMCSA final rule entitled
‘‘Requirements for Intermodal
Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers
and Drivers Operating Intermodal
Equipment’’.
(i) Nonpreemption determinations.—
(A) In general. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
31151(e)(2), and notwithstanding
paragraph (a) of this section, a State
requirement described in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section is not preempted by
the FMCSA final rule on ‘‘Requirements
for Intermodal Equipment Providers and
Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating
Intermodal Equipment’’ if the
Administrator determines that the State
requirement is as effective as the
FMCSA final rule and does not unduly
burden interstate commerce.
(ii) Application required. Paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of this section applies to a State
requirement only if the State applies to
the Administrator for a determination
under this subparagraph with respect to
the requirement before the effective date
of the final rule. The Administrator will
make a determination with respect to
any such application within 6 months
after the date on which the
Administrator receives the application.
(iii) Amended State requirements.—If
a State amends a regulation for which it
previously received a nonpreemption
determination from the Administrator
under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section,
it must apply for a determination of
nonpreemption for the amended
regulation. Any amendment to a State
requirement not preempted under this
subsection because of a determination
by the Administrator may not take effect
unless it is submitted to the Agency
before the effective date of the
amendment, and the Administrator
determines that the amendment would
not cause the State requirement to be
less effective than the FMCSA final rule
on ‘‘Requirements for Intermodal
Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers
and Drivers Operating Intermodal
Equipment’’ and would not unduly
burden interstate commerce.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

PART 392—DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL
MOTOR VEHICLES
15. Revise the authority citation for
Part 392 to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 13902, 31136, 31151,
31502; and 49 CFR 1.73.

16. Amend § 392.7 by designating the
existing text as paragraph (a) and adding
a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 392.7

Equipment, inspection, and use.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Drivers preparing to transport
intermodal equipment must
additionally make a visual or audible
inspection of the following components
before operating that equipment, and
must be satisfied that they are in good
working order before the equipment is
operated over the road:
Rails or support frames.
Tie down bolsters.
Locking pins, clevises, clamps, or
hooks.
Sliders or sliding frame lock.
PART 393—PARTS AND
ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR
SAFE OPERATION
17. Revise the authority citation for
part 393 to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31136, 31151 and
31502; sec. 1041(b), Pub. L. 102–240, 105
Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); and 49 CFR 1.73.

18. Revise § 393.1 to read as follows:
§ 393.1

Scope of the rules of this part.

(a)(1) Every motor carrier and its
employees must be knowledgeable of
and comply with the requirements and
specifications of this part.
(2) Every intermodal equipment
provider and its employees responsible
for the inspection, repair, and
maintenance of intermodal equipment
interchanged to motor carriers must be
knowledgeable of and comply with the
applicable requirements and
specifications of this part.
(b) No motor carrier may operate a
commercial motor vehicle, or cause or
permit such a vehicle to be operated,
unless it is equipped in accordance with
the requirements and specifications of
this part.
(c) No intermodal equipment provider
may operate intermodal equipment, or
cause or permit such equipment to be
operated, unless it is equipped in
accordance with the requirements and
specifications of this part.
PART 396—INSPECTION, REPAIR,
AND MAINTENANCE
19. Revise the authority citation for
part 396 to read as follows:

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

76829

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31151,
and 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73.

20. Revise § 396.1 to read as follows:
§ 396.1

Scope.

(a) Every motor carrier, its officers,
drivers, agents, representatives, and
employees directly concerned with the
inspection or maintenance of motor
vehicles must be knowledgeable of and
comply with the rules of this part.
(b) Every intermodal equipment
provider, its officers, agents,
representatives, and employees directly
concerned with the inspection or
maintenance of intermodal equipment
interchanged to motor carriers must be
knowledgeable of and comply with the
rules of this part.
21. Amend § 396.3 by revising the
introductory text of paragraphs (a) and
(b) to read as follows:
§ 396.3 Inspection, repair, and
maintenance.

(a) General. Every motor carrier and
intermodal equipment provider must
systematically inspect, repair, and
maintain, or cause to be systematically
inspected, repaired, and maintained, all
motor vehicles and intermodal
equipment subject to its control.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Required records. Motor carriers,
except for a private motor carrier of
passengers (nonbusiness), must
maintain, or cause to be maintained,
records for each motor vehicle they
control for 30 consecutive days.
Intermodal equipment providers must
maintain or cause to be maintained,
records for each unit of intermodal
equipment they tender or intend to
tender to a motor carrier. These records
must include:
*
*
*
*
*
22. Amend § 396.11 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 396.11 Driver vehicle inspection
report(s).

(a) Report required.
(1) Motor carriers. Every motor carrier
must require its drivers to report, and
every driver must prepare a report in
writing at the completion of each day’s
work on each vehicle operated. The
report must cover at least the following
parts and accessories:
—Service brakes including trailer brake
connections
—Parking (hand) brake
—Steering mechanism
—Lighting devices and reflectors
—Tires
—Horn
—Windshield wipers
—Rear vision mirrors
—Coupling devices

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

76830

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

—Wheels and rims
—Emergency equipment
(2) Intermodal equipment providers.
Every intermodal equipment provider
must have a process to receive driver
reports of defects or deficiencies in the
intermodal equipment operated. The
driver must report on, and the process
to receive reports must cover, the
following parts and accessories:
—King pin upper coupling device
—Rails or support frames
—Tie down bolsters
—Locking pins, clevises, clamps, or
hooks
—Sliders or sliding frame lock
—Wheels, rims, lugs, tires
—Lighting devices, lamps, markers, and
conspicuity marking material
—Air line connections, hoses, and
couplers
—Brakes
*
*
*
*
*
23. Add § 396.12 to read as follows as
follows:

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

§ 396.12 Procedures for intermodal
equipment providers to accept reports
required by § 390.44(b) of this chapter.

(a) System for reports. Each
intermodal equipment provider must
establish a system for motor carriers and
drivers to report to it any damage,
defects, or deficiencies discovered by, or
reported to, the motor carrier or driver
which would—
(1) Affect the safety of operation of the
intermodal equipment, or
(2) Result in its mechanical
breakdown while transported on public
roads.
(b) Report content. The system
required by paragraph (a) of this section
must include documentation of all of
the following:
(1) Name of the motor carrier
responsible for the operation of the
intermodal equipment at the time the
damage, defects, or deficiencies were
discovered by, or reported to, the driver.
(2) Motor carrier’s USDOT Number or
other unique identifying number.
(3) Date and time the report was
submitted.
(4) All damage, defects, or
deficiencies reported to the equipment
provider by the motor carrier or its
driver.
(c) Corrective action. (1) Prior to
allowing or permitting a motor carrier to
transport a piece of intermodal
equipment for which a motor carrier or
driver has submitted a report about
damage, defects or deficiencies, each
intermodal equipment provider or its
agent must repair reported damage,
defects, or deficiencies that are likely to
affect the safety of operation of the
vehicle.

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

(2) Each intermodal equipment
provider or its agent must document
whether the reported damage, defects,
or deficiencies have been repaired, or
whether repair is unnecessary, before
the vehicle is operated again.
(d) Retention period for reports. Each
intermodal equipment provider must
maintain all documentation required by
this section for a period of three months
from the date that a motor carrier or its
driver submits the report to the
intermodal equipment provider or its
agent.
24. Revise §§ 396.17, 396.19, 396.21,
396.23, and 396.25 to read as follows:
§ 396.17

Periodic inspection.

(a) Every commercial motor vehicle
must be inspected as required by this
section. The inspection must include, at
a minimum, the parts and accessories
set forth in appendix G of this
subchapter. The term commercial motor
vehicle includes each vehicle in a
combination vehicle. For example, for a
tractor semitrailer, full trailer
combination, the tractor, semitrailer,
and the full trailer (including the
converter dolly if so equipped) must
each be inspected.
(b) Except as provided in § 396.23 and
this paragraph, motor carriers must
inspect or cause to be inspected all
motor vehicles subject to their control.
Intermodal equipment providers must
inspect or cause to be inspected
intermodal equipment that is
interchanged or intended for
interchange to motor carries in
intermodal transportation.
(c) A motor carrier must not use a
commercial motor vehicle, and an
intermodal equipment provider must
not tender equipment to a motor carrier
for interchange, unless each component
identified in appendix G to this
subchapter has passed an inspection in
accordance with the terms of this
section at least once during the
preceding 12 months and
documentation of such inspection is on
the vehicle. The documentation may be:
(1) The inspection report prepared in
accordance with § 396.21(a), or
(2) Other forms of documentation,
based on the inspection report (e.g.,
sticker or decal), that contain the
following information:
(i) The date of inspection;
(ii) Name and address of the motor
carrier, intermodal equipment provider,
or other entity where the inspection
report is maintained;
(iii) Information uniquely identifying
the vehicle inspected if not clearly
marked on the motor vehicle; and

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

(iv) A certification that the vehicle has
passed an inspection in accordance with
§ 396.17.
(d) A motor carrier may perform the
required annual inspection for vehicles
under the carrier’s control that are not
subject to an inspection under
§ 396.23(b)(1). An intermodal
equipment provider may perform the
required annual inspection for
intermodal equipment interchanged or
intended for interchange to motor
carriers that is not subject to an
inspection under § 396.23(b)(1).
(e) In lieu of the self inspection
provided for in paragraph (d) of this
section, a motor carrier or intermodal
equipment provider responsible for the
inspection may choose to have a
commercial garage, fleet leasing
company, truck stop, or other similar
commercial business perform the
inspection as its agent, provided that
business operates and maintains
facilities appropriate for commercial
vehicle inspections and it employs
qualified inspectors, as required by
§ 396.19.
(f) Vehicles passing roadside or
periodic inspections performed under
the auspices of any State government or
equivalent jurisdiction or the FMCSA,
meeting the minimum standards
contained in appendix G of this
subchapter, are considered to have met
the requirements of an annual
inspection for a period of 12 months
commencing from the last day of the
month in which the inspection was
performed. If a vehicle is subject to a
mandatory State inspection program, as
provided in § 396.23(b)(1), a roadside
inspection may only be considered
equivalent if it complies with the
requirements of that program.
(g) It is the responsibility of the motor
carrier or intermodal equipment
provider to ensure that all parts and
accessories on vehicles for which they
are responsible that do not meet the
minimum standards set forth in
appendix G to this subchapter are
repaired promptly.
(h) Failure to perform properly the
annual inspection required by this
section causes the motor carrier or
intermodal equipment provider to be
subject to the penalty provisions of 49
U.S.C. 521(b).
§ 396.19

Inspector qualifications.

(a) Motor carriers and intermodal
equipment providers must ensure that
the individual(s) performing an annual
inspection under § 396.17(d) or (e) is
(are) qualified as follows:
(1) Understands the inspection
criteria set forth in part 393 and

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules
appendix G of this subchapter and can
identify defective components;
(2) Is knowledgeable of and has
mastered the methods, procedures, tools
and equipment used when performing
an inspection; and
(3) Is capable of performing an
inspection by reason of experience,
training, or both as follows:
(i) Successfully completed a State or
Federal-sponsored training program or
has a certificate from a State or
Canadian Province that qualifies the
person to perform commercial motor
vehicle safety inspections, or
(ii) Has a combination of training and/
or experience totaling at least 1 year.
Such training and/or experience may
consist of:
(A) Participation in a commercial
motor vehicle manufacturer-sponsored
training program or similar commercial
training program designed to train
students in commercial motor vehicle
operation and maintenance;
(B) Experience as a mechanic or
inspector in a motor carrier or
intermodal equipment maintenance
program;
(C) Experience as a mechanic or
inspector in commercial motor vehicle
maintenance at a commercial garage,
fleet leasing company, or similar
facility; or
(D) Experience as a commercial
vehicle inspector for a State, Provincial,
or Federal Government.
(b) Motor carriers and intermodal
equipment providers must retain
evidence of an individual’s
qualifications under this section. They
must retain this evidence for the period
during which the individual is
performing annual motor vehicle
inspections for the motor carrier or
intermodal equipment provider, and for
one year thereafter. However, motor
carriers and intermodal equipment
providers do not have to maintain
documentation of inspector
qualifications for those inspections
performed either as part of a State
periodic inspection program or at the
roadside as part of a random roadside
inspection program.

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

§ 396.21 Periodic inspection
recordkeeping requirements.

(a) The qualified inspector performing
the inspection must prepare a report
that:
(1) Identifies the individual
performing the inspection;
(2) Identifies the motor carrier
operating the vehicle or intermodal
equipment provider intending to
interchange the vehicle to a motor
carrier;
(3) Identifies the date of the
inspection;

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

(4) Identifies the vehicle inspected;
(5) Identifies the vehicle components
inspected and describes the results of
the inspection, including the
identification of those components not
meeting the minimum standards set
forth in appendix G to this subchapter;
and
(6) Certifies the accuracy and
completeness of the inspection as
complying with all the requirements of
this section.
(b)(1) The original or a copy of the
inspection report must be retained by
the motor carrier, intermodal equipment
provider, or other entity that is
responsible for the inspection for a
period of fourteen months from the date
of the inspection report. The original or
a copy of the inspection report must be
retained where the vehicle is either
housed or maintained.
(2) The original or a copy of the
inspection report must be available for
inspection upon demand of an
authorized Federal, State, or local
official.
(3) Exception. If the motor carrier
operating the commercial motor
vehicles did not perform the
commercial motor vehicle’s last annual
inspection, or if an intermodal
equipment provider did not itself
perform the annual inspection on
equipment intended for interchange to a
motor carrier, the motor carrier or
intermodal equipment provider is
responsible for obtaining the original or
a copy of the last annual inspection
report upon demand of an authorized
Federal, State, or local official.
§ 396.23

Equivalent to periodic inspection.

(a) A motor carrier or an intermodal
equipment provider may meet the
requirements of § 396.17 through a State
or other jurisdiction’s roadside
inspection program. The inspection
must have been performed during the
preceding 12 months. If using the
roadside inspection, the motor carrier or
intermodal equipment provider must
retain a copy of an annual inspection
report showing that the inspection was
performed in accordance with the
minimum periodic inspection standards
set forth in appendix G to this
subchapter. If the motor carrier
operating the commercial vehicle is not
the party directly responsible for its
maintenance, the motor carrier must
deliver the roadside inspection report to
the responsible party in a timely
manner. When accepting such an
inspection report, the motor carrier or
intermodal equipment provider must
ensure that the report complies with the
requirements of § 396.21(a).

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

76831

(b)(1) If a commercial motor vehicle is
subject to a mandatory State inspection
program that is determined by the
Administrator to be as effective as
§ 396.17, the motor carrier or intermodal
equipment provider must meet the
requirement of § 396.17 through that
State’s inspection program. Commercial
motor vehicle inspections may be
conducted by State personnel, at State
authorized commercial facilities, or by
the motor carrier or intermodal
equipment provider itself under the
auspices of a State authorized selfinspection program.
(2) Should the FMCSA determine that
a State inspection program, in whole or
in part, is not as effective as § 396.17,
the motor carrier or intermodal
equipment provider must ensure that
the periodic inspection required by
§ 396.17 is performed on all commercial
motor vehicles under its control in a
manner specified in § 396.17.
§ 396.25 Qualifications of brake
inspectors.

(a) Motor carriers and intermodal
equipment providers must ensure that
all inspections, maintenance, repairs or
service to the brakes of its commercial
motor vehicles, are performed in
compliance with the requirements of
this section.
(b) For purposes of this section, brake
inspector means any employee of a
motor carrier or intermodal equipment
provider who is responsible for ensuring
all brake inspections, maintenance,
service, or repairs to any commercial
motor vehicle, subject to the motor
carrier’s or intermodal equipment
provider’s control, meet the applicable
Federal standards.
(c) No motor carrier or intermodal
equipment provider may require or
permit any employee who does not meet
the minimum brake inspector
qualifications of paragraph (d) of this
section to be responsible for the
inspection, maintenance, service, or
repairs of any brakes on its commercial
motor vehicles.
(d) The motor carrier or intermodal
equipment provider must ensure that
each brake inspector is qualified as
follows:
(1) Understands the brake service or
inspection task to be accomplished and
can perform that task;
(2) Is knowledgeable of and has
mastered the methods, procedures, tools
and equipment used when performing
an assigned brake service or inspection
task; and
(3) Is capable of performing the
assigned brake service or inspection by
reason of experience, training or both as
follows:

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3

76832

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Proposed Rules

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS3

(i) Has successfully completed an
apprenticeship program sponsored by a
State, a Canadian Province, a Federal
agency or a labor union, or a training
program approved by a State,
Provincial, or Federal agency, or has a
certificate from a State or Canadian
Province that qualifies the person to
perform the assigned brake service or
inspection task (including passage of
Commercial Driver’s License air brake
tests in the case of a brake inspection);
(ii) Has brake-related training or
experience or a combination thereof
totaling at least one year. Such training
or experience may consist of:
(A) Participation in a training program
sponsored by a brake or vehicle
manufacturer or similar commercial
training program designed to train
students in brake maintenance or
inspection similar to the assigned brake
service or inspection tasks; or
(B) Experience performing brake
maintenance or inspection similar to the
assigned brake service or inspection task
in a motor carrier or intermodal

VerDate Aug<31>2005

15:26 Dec 20, 2006

Jkt 211001

equipment provider maintenance
program; or
(C) Experience performing brake
maintenance or inspection similar to the
assigned brake service or inspection task
at a commercial garage, fleet leasing
company, or similar facility.
(e) No motor carrier or intermodal
equipment provider may employ any
person as a brake inspector unless the
evidence of the inspector’s
qualifications required under this
section is maintained by the motor
carrier or intermodal equipment
provider at its principal place of
business, or at the location at which the
brake inspector is employed. The
evidence must be maintained for the
period during which the brake inspector
is employed in that capacity and for one
year thereafter. However, motor carriers
and intermodal equipment providers do
not have to maintain evidence of
qualifications to inspect air brake
systems for such inspections performed
by persons who have passed the air

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

brake knowledge and skills test for a
Commercial Driver’s License.
25. Amend Appendix G to Subchapter
B—Minimum Periodic Inspection
Standards, in Paragraph 6. Safe Loading,
by adding new subparagraph 6.c to read
as follows:
Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter
III—Minimum Periodic Inspection
Standards
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

6. Safe loading.

*

*

*

c. Container securement devices on
intermodal equipment—All devices used to
secure an intermodal container to a chassis,
including rails or support frames, tiedown
bolsters, locking pins, clevises, clamps, and
hooks that are cracked, broken, loose, or
missing.

*

*

*

*

*

Issued on: December 11, 2006.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–21380 Filed 12–20–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

E:\FR\FM\21DEP3.SGM

21DEP3