80_FR_81753 80 FR 81503 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Certification for Commercial Motor Vehicles Operated by United States-Domiciled Motor Carriers; Withdrawal

80 FR 81503 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Certification for Commercial Motor Vehicles Operated by United States-Domiciled Motor Carriers; Withdrawal

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 250 (December 30, 2015)

Page Range81503-81506
FR Document2015-32868

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) withdraws its June 17, 2015, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which would have required each commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operated by a United States-domiciled (U.S.-domiciled) motor carrier engaged in interstate commerce to display a label applied by the vehicle manufacturer or a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Registered Importer to document the vehicle's compliance with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) in effect as of the date of manufacture. FMCSA withdraws the NPRM because commenters raised substantive issues which have led the Agency to conclude that it would be inappropriate to move forward with a final rule based on the proposal. Because the FMVSSs critical to the operational safety of CMVs are cross-referenced in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), FMCSA has determined that it can most effectively ensure that motor carriers maintain the safety equipment and features provided by the FMVSSs through enforcement of the FMCSRs, making an additional FMVSS certification labeling regulation unnecessary.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81503-81506]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32868]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0428]
RIN 2126-AB67


Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards Certification for Commercial Motor Vehicles 
Operated by United States-Domiciled Motor Carriers; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
withdraws its June 17, 2015, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 
which would have required each commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operated 
by a

[[Page 81504]]

United States-domiciled (U.S.-domiciled) motor carrier engaged in 
interstate commerce to display a label applied by the vehicle 
manufacturer or a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Registered 
Importer to document the vehicle's compliance with all applicable 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) in effect as of the 
date of manufacture. FMCSA withdraws the NPRM because commenters raised 
substantive issues which have led the Agency to conclude that it would 
be inappropriate to move forward with a final rule based on the 
proposal. Because the FMVSSs critical to the operational safety of CMVs 
are cross-referenced in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 
(FMCSRs), FMCSA has determined that it can most effectively ensure that 
motor carriers maintain the safety equipment and features provided by 
the FMVSSs through enforcement of the FMCSRs, making an additional 
FMVSS certification labeling regulation unnecessary.

DATES: The NPRM ``Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Certification for Commercial 
Motor Vehicles Operated by United States-Domiciled Motor Carriers,'' 
published on June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34588), is withdrawn as of December 
30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this Notice 
of withdrawal, contact Mr. Michael Huntley, Chief, Vehicle and Roadside 
Operations Division, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, 
by telephone at (202) 366-9209 or via email at Michael.Huntley@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background/General Issues Raised During Comment Period

    On June 17, 2015, FMCSA published an NPRM to require motor carriers 
to display an FMVSS certification label (80 FR 34588).
    The FMCSRs require that motor carriers operating CMVs in the U.S., 
including Mexico- and Canada-domiciled carriers, ensure that the 
vehicles are equipped with the applicable safety equipment and features 
specified in 49 CFR part 393, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe 
Operations, which includes cross references to safety equipment and 
features that must be installed at the time of production. The National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires vehicle 
manufacturers to certify that the vehicles they produce for sale and 
use in the U.S. meet all applicable FMVSSs in effect at the time of 
manufacture. In addition, they must affix an FMVSS certification label 
to each vehicle in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR part 567.
    As proposed, the NPRM would have required U.S.-domiciled motor 
carriers engaged in interstate commerce to use only CMVs that display 
an FMVSS certification label affixed by the vehicle manufacturer 
indicating that the vehicle: (1) Satisfied all applicable FMVSSs in 
effect at the time of manufacture; or (2) has been modified to meet 
those standards and legally imported by a DOT-Registered- Importer. In 
the absence of such a label (e.g., because of vehicle damage or 
deliberate removal), the motor carrier would have been required to 
obtain, and a driver upon demand present, a letter issued by the 
vehicle manufacturer stating that the vehicle satisfied all applicable 
FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture.

Discussion of Comments to the NPRM

    FMCSA received 19 comments on the NPRM. The Commercial Vehicle 
Safety Alliance (CVSA), which represents State and Provincial agencies 
throughout North America responsible for motor carrier safety 
enforcement, supported the proposed rule, but stated ``While CVSA 
supports the NPRM, it should be noted that, in our opinion, the best 
way to prevent non-FMVSS-compliant vehicles from operating in the U.S. 
by U.S.-domiciled motor carriers is to identify them at the point of 
titling, vehicle registration, or importation. Roadside inspections 
should be the secondary means of verifying that CMVs were FMVSS 
compliant at the time of manufacture.'' One anonymous commenter also 
supported the proposed rule.
    Each of the remaining commenters opposed the proposal, including 
six trade associations representing the trucking industry, equipment 
manufacturers, and dealers (One trade association submitted two 
comments each covering a different issue). These associations are the 
American Trucking Associations (ATA), the National Automobile Dealers 
Association (NADA), the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA), the 
Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), the Owner-Operator Independent 
Drivers Association (OOIDA), and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers 
Association (EMA). Three motor carriers submitted comments: Double D 
Distribution (Mark Droubay), United Parcel Service (UPS) and YRC 
Freight (YRC). Nine individuals submitted comments, including 
Congressman Richard L. Hanna from New York.

Comments in Opposition to the NPRM

    Commenters opposed the proposed rule for the following reasons:
     The rule would provide no safety benefits.
     FMVSS markings, particularly on trailers, are subject to 
damage, over-painting, and loss over the life of the vehicle. No 
certification marking is permanent.
     Many of the manufacturers have gone out of business, been 
purchased, or are overseas; obtaining a replacement certification or 
letter may not be possible.
     The proposal does not recognize the issues raised by 
interlining and other operational patterns.
     The rule would impose significant costs on carriers, which 
FMCSA has failed to estimate.
     The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
recommendation on which the proposal was based resulted from a bus 
crash that was unrelated to the standards to which the coach was 
manufactured.

No Safety Benefits

    Several of the industry associations, the three motor carriers, and 
seven individuals who opposed the proposed rule in general stated that 
it would not enhance safety and that FMCSA had provided no safety 
rationale for the rule. OOIDA stated that most small carriers and 
owner/operators purchase used equipment. OOIDA also stated that it 
failed to see how maintaining proof of a CMV's compliance at the time 
of manufacture would improve safety years later. ATA and TCA stated 
that original certification has little if anything to do with the 
condition and safe operation of a CMV after it is purchased. ATA stated 
that FMCSA had provided no evidence of any crashes where lack of 
certification was responsible for the crash. UPS stated that the 
proposal appeared to be for the convenience of inspectors, not to 
improve safety.

Issues Related to Markings

    ATA and others stated that no external markings on a CMV are 
permanent. YRC stated that it was primarily concerned with markings on 
trailers, converter dollies, and container chassis, which are affixed 
to the outside of the vehicle and subject to wear and tear from road 
conditions and may be painted over or removed during refurbishment. ATA 
submitted

[[Page 81505]]

information from a survey of motor carriers. Of the responding motor 
carriers, 42 percent reported having missing or unreadable 
certification labels. No motor carrier surveyed indicated that the 
equipment did not have a label because it had not been designed to be 
compliant with the FMVSSs.

Issues Related to Replacement Certifications

    The industry associations stated that FMCSA had not understood the 
difficulty of obtaining a replacement certification. ATA, Congressman 
Richard L. Hanna and others stated that many of the vehicle 
manufacturers have gone out of business or have been sold. Those that 
are out of business could not produce a replacement; the new owners of 
the manufacturers that have been sold might not have the records or may 
be unwilling to be liable for vehicles produced by the original 
manufacturer. ATA provided a list of 21 manufacturers that are out of 
business or have been sold. It also noted that current manufacturers 
may be reluctant out of fear of liability to provide certificates for 
equipment that may not have been maintained or may have been altered. 
For intermodal chassis, many of which were manufactured overseas, ATA 
stated that it will not be possible to identify or find the 
manufacturer.
    EMA raised a related issue: Multiple companies are involved in the 
manufacture and certification of most Class 3 through 7 vehicles and 
about half of the Class 8 vehicles. Under the proposal, EMA stated that 
a carrier would have to contact the final-stage manufacturer for a 
replacement, but the identity of that manufacturer may not be obvious 
as it is frequently not the nameplate company. EMA stated that its 
members charge a fee for replacement certificates.
    YRC and UPS stated that the alternative of a letter, kept with the 
equipment, is problematic. YRC stated that trailers and converter 
dollies are routinely used by non-owners during interlining, intermodal 
agreements, and equipment leases. UPS stated that the requirement to 
keep the letter with the trailer would require a secure compartment, 
which trailers do not currently have. ATA stated that containers and 
trailers may be sealed and asked if FMCSA was expecting inspectors to 
break seals to review a letter that spoke to compliance years in the 
past. ATA also stated that the proposed rule would result in penalizing 
drivers and carriers for missing labels on equipment they did not own 
which was in safe operating condition. ATA stated that for intermodal 
chassis, a database exists that would provide a better source of the 
information for inspectors.

Cost Impacts

    The industry associations and motor carriers stated that FMCSA had 
failed to consider or estimate the significant costs associated with 
the proposed rule. They listed the following potential costs:
     The time required to survey equipment to determine whether 
certificate information still existed on equipment.
     The time required to identify the manufacturer and obtain 
a replacement certificate or letter.
     The time required for a driver/carrier picking up 
equipment owned by another carrier to check for the label, certificate, 
or letter.
     The operational disruption if CMVs had to be removed from 
service until replacements could be obtained or replaced altogether if 
the manufacturer no longer exists.
     The fees charged for replacement certificates.
    UPS estimated that of its 77,000 trailers, 10,000 no longer have 
the decals. It would need to identify the manufacturer, if it still 
exists, to request a replacement. YRC stated that the initial audit of 
its equipment would require hundreds of hours of time by drivers, 
mechanics, and others, followed by the process of obtaining a 
replacement label if possible. If the manufacturer no longer exists, 
the rule would require that the equipment be removed from service. One 
carrier (32 tractors with 70 trailers) estimated that it would cost 
$18,000 to add/replace labels currently missing and $4,000-$6,000 
annually to audit the equipment to ensure that tags are still there. 
ATA cited a comment from a member that it was charged $150 for a 
replacement decal for a trailer. ATA provided data from 20 carriers on 
the number of pieces of equipment missing decals--8,411 out of 47,000 
CMVs.
    ATA also cited another member, a propane distributor, which had 29 
trailers without certificates, most manufactured by companies that no 
longer exist. The proposal would require replacement of all of these 
trailers. NPGA stated that even when replacements could be obtained, 
taking the equipment out of service until the certificate or letter 
arrived would disrupt services and impose significant costs to lease 
replacements. NPGA and others noted that, even if the manufacturer is 
still in business, the carrier has no way to compel it to process a 
request quickly. EMA noted that completing a letter would take an hour 
or more of a manufacturer's expert's time. NADA's American Truck 
Dealers Division stated that any requirement that dealers not sell CMVs 
that lack certificates would be unacceptable and could cost dealers $3 
million annually (assuming 1 hour/week to examine vehicles and obtain 
replacements), it also noted that small dealerships spend considerably 
more per employee on compliance than larger firms do.
    OOIDA stated that FMCSA must do a cost-benefit analysis and then 
publish a supplemental notice.

Other Comments

    NPGA stated that it could support the requirement if it applied 
only to CMVs manufactured after the effective date of the rule. In the 
alternative, FMCSA should set the compliance period at 24 months to 
give carriers enough time to implement the provision without disrupting 
operations. UPS and YRC stated that they would support a prospective 
requirement provided the label was a permanent plate. UPS stated that 
it understood that the data connecting serial number and status at 
manufacture are available in State databases. Although these data may 
not be accessible at roadside inspection, they are available 
electronically. OOIDA stated that the burden should be on the seller of 
used vehicles, not the purchaser.
    Many of the industry commenters stated that the NTSB report did not 
provide a justification for the proposal.

FMCSA Decision To Withdraw the NPRM

    After review and analysis of the public comments discussed in the 
preceding section, FMCSA has decided to withdraw the June 2015 NPRM. We 
will continue to uphold the operational safety of CMVs on the Nation's 
highways through continued enforcement of the FMCSRs, many of which 
cross-reference specific FMVSSs.
    Generally, U.S.-domiciled motor carriers operating CMVs (as defined 
in 49 CFR 390.5) in interstate commerce have access only to vehicles 
that either were manufactured domestically for use in the United States 
with the required certification label or were properly imported into 
the United States in accordance with applicable NHTSA regulations, 
including certification documentation requirements of 49 CFR part 567. 
Furthermore, FMCSA's safety regulations incorporate and cross reference 
the FMVSSs critical to continued safe operation of CMVs.

[[Page 81506]]

    FMCSA believes continued strong enforcement of the FMCSRs in real-
world operational settings, coupled with existing regulations and 
enforcement measures, will ensure the safe operation of CMVs in 
interstate commerce. Under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, 
FMCSA and its State and local partners conduct more than 2.3 million 
roadside vehicle inspections each year of CMVs (domiciled in the United 
States, Canada, or Mexico) operating in interstate commerce. 
Enforcement of the FMCSRs, and by extension the FMVSSs they cross-
reference, is the bedrock of these compliance assurance activities.
    Simply requiring CMVs to bear FMVSS certification labels would not 
ensure their operational safety. An FMVSS label certifying compliance 
with performance standards applicable to lights, brakes, and other wear 
items does not ensure real-world safety in the absence of compliance 
with the operational and maintenance standards imposed by the FMCSRs, 
especially in the case of vehicles built many years ago. Although the 
presence or absence of an FMVSS compliance label can certainly provide 
a useful tool in this regard, inspection of the CMV's compliance with 
the FMCSRs remains the benchmark by which enforcement officials 
identify and remove from service vehicles likely to break down or cause 
a crash. The American public is better protected by the FMCSRs than 
solely through a label indicating a CMV was originally built to certain 
manufacturing performance standards.
    Therefore, after careful consideration, FMCSA has concluded it is 
not necessary to amend the FMCSRs to require CMVs to display an FMVSS 
certification label in order to achieve effective compliance with the 
FMVCRSs.
    In view of the foregoing, the NPRM concerning certification of 
compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is 
withdrawn.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on 
December 23, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-32868 Filed 12-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P



                                                                      Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                                81503

                                                    they argued that data indicating                        automated purging system. Commenters                    (3) the uncertainty that such an event
                                                    damages not directly linked to wetlines                 suggest this because they believe that                will ever occur again—no data supports
                                                    damage or release should not be                         owners will invest in the automated                   the PHMSA assumption that this is a 20-
                                                    included. For example, costs associated                 system out of concern that drivers will               year event.
                                                    with damage to the CTMV from a motor                    forget to operate the manual system and
                                                                                                                                                                  E. Findings
                                                    vehicle collision should not be included                because an automated system will
                                                    in the total for purposes of the analysis.              provide the added benefit of discovery                   Although a safety hazard exists, the
                                                       PHMSA agrees that only those costs                   of a faulty emergency valve and would                 regulatory assessment and further
                                                    associated with damages to the wetline                  continue to purge the lines during                    analysis indicate that prohibiting the
                                                    and release of material from the                        transportation if such a faulty valve                 transportation of flammable liquids in
                                                    wetlines should be counted.                             were present. Details of this pricing can             wetlines is unlikely to be cost
                                                    Unfortunately, under the current format                 be found in the regulatory assessment                 beneficial. Additionally, the GAO report
                                                    of incident report information it is                    and other documents submitted to the                  has pointed out a number of
                                                    difficult to parse out the costs of                     docket for this rulemaking. PHMSA’s                   uncertainties with the data collection
                                                    wetlines-related damages from the total                 post-GAO analysis took into                           and analysis that would have a direct
                                                    body of damages where damages occur                     consideration the cost of the automated               impact on PHMSA’s ability to fully
                                                    beyond those associated with wetlines,                  system.                                               characterize the degree of risk that
                                                    unless some assumptions are made. For                      Operational delays. Many                           wetlines containing flammable liquids
                                                    instance, in the case of an incident                    commenters argued that PHMSA has not                  pose to the safety of transportation.
                                                    involving a fire, PHMSA assumed the                     accounted for delay costs to the shipper              V. Conclusion
                                                    fire was started and was propagated by                  or carrier due to operation of a purging
                                                    the wetlines release.                                   system at the loading rack of a terminal                 PHMSA is withdrawing this
                                                       Upon consideration of the comments,                  facility. The delay would be caused by                rulemaking in accordance with the
                                                    PHMSA conducted further review of the                   the driver of the CTMV waiting                        FAST Act. PHMSA, however, will
                                                    172 incidents that were initially                       anywhere from three to six minutes for                continue to examine this issue,
                                                    determined to be wetlines incidents in                  the system to complete the purging                    particularly by monitoring flammable
                                                    our preliminary analyses. Prior to this                 process prior to moving the CTMV.                     liquid wetlines incidents, in
                                                    review, PHMSA became aware that                         Commenters based this on their                        consideration of any future actions.
                                                    some of the data in our original set of                 understanding that the regulations                    Likely future actions include non-
                                                    incidents was not accurate and likely                   would not allow the vehicle to move                   regulatory initiatives to improve the
                                                    led to the critical comments. This data                 until it is essentially empty—only a                  safety of transporting flammable liquid
                                                    had since been corrected and a revised                  residue remains in the piping.                        in unprotected external product piping
                                                    list of incidents was placed in the                     Completion of the purging process                     on CTMVs.
                                                    docket (8/12/2011; PHMSA–2009–                          would be an indicator that it is empty.                 Issued in Washington, DC, on December
                                                    0303–0048). PHMSA also reviewed                            Weight penalty. PHMSA estimated                    22, 2015, under authority delegated in 49
                                                    additional CTMV incidents that                          that a manual purging system is                       CFR Part 1.97.
                                                    occurred from January 1, 2009 to March                  expected to add about 48 pounds to a                  William S. Schoonover,
                                                    31, 2011 to capture more recent data.                   CTMV. To the extent that a shipper or                 Deputy Associate Administrator.
                                                    This review resulted in a final                         carrier operates at Federal or State gross            [FR Doc. 2015–32681 Filed 12–29–15; 8:45 am]
                                                    determination of 132 wetlines incidents.                weight limits, the shipper or carrier                 BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
                                                    A total of 59 incidents where removed                   would have to ship less product because
                                                    after a review of the original 172                      of this additional weight. Commenters
                                                    incidents, and 19 incidents were added                  disagreed with the estimate that only                 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
                                                    after a review of more recent data.                     25% of vehicle trips are at the
                                                                                                            maximum allowable weight and                          Federal Motor Carrier Safety
                                                    2. Benefit and Cost Estimation                                                                                Administration
                                                                                                            therefore affected by the additional
                                                      Manual Purging System. Most                           weight of a purging system. Informal
                                                    commenters took issue with PHMSA’s                      surveys of carriers by the American                   49 CFR Part 393
                                                    estimation of the costs of installing a                 Trucking Association and the National                 [Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0428]
                                                    manual purging system.9 In general,                     Tank Truck Carriers found that as much
                                                    they believe PHMSA underestimated                       as 80% of trips are at the maximum                    RIN 2126–AB67
                                                    the total cost presented through                        allowable weight. Again, PHMSA’s post-
                                                    incorrect assumptions and inclusion of                  GAO analysis accounted for this.                      Parts and Accessories Necessary for
                                                    cost factors that do not reflect real-world                Yonkers, NY Incident. Commenters                   Safe Operation: Federal Motor Vehicle
                                                    applications. Commenters indicated that                 believe the Yonkers, NY incident that                 Safety Standards Certification for
                                                    PHMSA underestimated the true costs                     led to NTSB Safety Recommendation                     Commercial Motor Vehicles Operated
                                                    of a manual purging system by, for                      (H–98–27) should not be included in the               by United States-Domiciled Motor
                                                    example, not incorporating a markup                     regulatory assessment for several                     Carriers; Withdrawal
                                                    cost. Commenters provide a range of                     reasons, including:                                   AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety
                                                    cost estimates from $4,000 to $10,000.                     (1) The belief that the fire in the                Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                    Some also think the regulatory                          incident was not caused by a wetlines                 ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.
                                                    assessment should have been developed                   release because the original NTSB
                                                    using a mix of costs of the manual                      accident report concluded that the fire               SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier
                                                    system and the more expensive                           was fed by fuel from the cargo tank                   Safety Administration (FMCSA)
                                                                                                            compartments, implying a breach of the                withdraws its June 17, 2015, notice of
                                                      9 PHMSA used a per-unit price of $2,300 based

                                                    on the advertised price of the one manufacturer of
                                                                                                            cargo tank;                                           proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which
                                                    purging systems currently designing and installing         (2) the incident predates the incident             would have required each commercial
                                                    such systems.                                           analysis period; and                                  motor vehicle (CMV) operated by a


                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:44 Dec 29, 2015   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00029   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM   30DEP1


                                                    81504             Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                    United States-domiciled (U.S.-                          manufacturers to certify that the                     and YRC Freight (YRC). Nine
                                                    domiciled) motor carrier engaged in                     vehicles they produce for sale and use                individuals submitted comments,
                                                    interstate commerce to display a label                  in the U.S. meet all applicable FMVSSs                including Congressman Richard L.
                                                    applied by the vehicle manufacturer or                  in effect at the time of manufacture. In              Hanna from New York.
                                                    a U.S. Department of Transportation                     addition, they must affix an FMVSS
                                                                                                                                                                  Comments in Opposition to the NPRM
                                                    (DOT) Registered Importer to document                   certification label to each vehicle in
                                                    the vehicle’s compliance with all                       accordance with the requirements of 49                   Commenters opposed the proposed
                                                    applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety                 CFR part 567.                                         rule for the following reasons:
                                                    Standards (FMVSSs) in effect as of the                     As proposed, the NPRM would have                      • The rule would provide no safety
                                                    date of manufacture. FMCSA withdraws                    required U.S.-domiciled motor carriers                benefits.
                                                    the NPRM because commenters raised                      engaged in interstate commerce to use                    • FMVSS markings, particularly on
                                                    substantive issues which have led the                   only CMVs that display an FMVSS                       trailers, are subject to damage, over-
                                                    Agency to conclude that it would be                     certification label affixed by the vehicle            painting, and loss over the life of the
                                                    inappropriate to move forward with a                    manufacturer indicating that the                      vehicle. No certification marking is
                                                    final rule based on the proposal.                       vehicle: (1) Satisfied all applicable                 permanent.
                                                    Because the FMVSSs critical to the                      FMVSSs in effect at the time of                          • Many of the manufacturers have
                                                    operational safety of CMVs are cross-                   manufacture; or (2) has been modified to              gone out of business, been purchased, or
                                                    referenced in the Federal Motor Carrier                 meet those standards and legally                      are overseas; obtaining a replacement
                                                    Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), FMCSA                      imported by a DOT-Registered-                         certification or letter may not be
                                                    has determined that it can most                         Importer. In the absence of such a label              possible.
                                                    effectively ensure that motor carriers                  (e.g., because of vehicle damage or                      • The proposal does not recognize the
                                                    maintain the safety equipment and                       deliberate removal), the motor carrier                issues raised by interlining and other
                                                    features provided by the FMVSSs                         would have been required to obtain, and               operational patterns.
                                                    through enforcement of the FMCSRs,                      a driver upon demand present, a letter                   • The rule would impose significant
                                                    making an additional FMVSS                              issued by the vehicle manufacturer                    costs on carriers, which FMCSA has
                                                    certification labeling regulation                       stating that the vehicle satisfied all                failed to estimate.
                                                    unnecessary.                                            applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date                  • The National Transportation Safety
                                                                                                            of manufacture.                                       Board (NTSB) recommendation on
                                                    DATES: The NPRM ‘‘Parts and                                                                                   which the proposal was based resulted
                                                    Accessories Necessary for Safe                          Discussion of Comments to the NPRM                    from a bus crash that was unrelated to
                                                    Operation: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety                    FMCSA received 19 comments on the                  the standards to which the coach was
                                                    Standards Certification for Commercial                  NPRM. The Commercial Vehicle Safety                   manufactured.
                                                    Motor Vehicles Operated by United                       Alliance (CVSA), which represents State
                                                    States-Domiciled Motor Carriers,’’                      and Provincial agencies throughout                    No Safety Benefits
                                                    published on June 17, 2015 (80 FR                       North America responsible for motor                      Several of the industry associations,
                                                    34588), is withdrawn as of December 30,                 carrier safety enforcement, supported                 the three motor carriers, and seven
                                                    2015.                                                   the proposed rule, but stated ‘‘While                 individuals who opposed the proposed
                                                    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If                     CVSA supports the NPRM, it should be                  rule in general stated that it would not
                                                    you have questions on this Notice of                    noted that, in our opinion, the best way              enhance safety and that FMCSA had
                                                    withdrawal, contact Mr. Michael                         to prevent non-FMVSS-compliant                        provided no safety rationale for the rule.
                                                    Huntley, Chief, Vehicle and Roadside                    vehicles from operating in the U.S. by                OOIDA stated that most small carriers
                                                    Operations Division, Office of Policy,                  U.S.-domiciled motor carriers is to                   and owner/operators purchase used
                                                    Federal Motor Carrier Safety                            identify them at the point of titling,                equipment. OOIDA also stated that it
                                                    Administration, 1200 New Jersey                         vehicle registration, or importation.                 failed to see how maintaining proof of
                                                    Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–                       Roadside inspections should be the                    a CMV’s compliance at the time of
                                                    0001, by telephone at (202) 366–9209 or                 secondary means of verifying that CMVs                manufacture would improve safety
                                                    via email at Michael.Huntley@dot.gov.                   were FMVSS compliant at the time of                   years later. ATA and TCA stated that
                                                    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                              manufacture.’’ One anonymous                          original certification has little if
                                                                                                            commenter also supported the proposed                 anything to do with the condition and
                                                    Background/General Issues Raised                        rule.                                                 safe operation of a CMV after it is
                                                    During Comment Period                                      Each of the remaining commenters                   purchased. ATA stated that FMCSA had
                                                      On June 17, 2015, FMCSA published                     opposed the proposal, including six                   provided no evidence of any crashes
                                                    an NPRM to require motor carriers to                    trade associations representing the                   where lack of certification was
                                                    display an FMVSS certification label (80                trucking industry, equipment                          responsible for the crash. UPS stated
                                                    FR 34588).                                              manufacturers, and dealers (One trade                 that the proposal appeared to be for the
                                                      The FMCSRs require that motor                         association submitted two comments                    convenience of inspectors, not to
                                                    carriers operating CMVs in the U.S.,                    each covering a different issue). These               improve safety.
                                                    including Mexico- and Canada-                           associations are the American Trucking
                                                    domiciled carriers, ensure that the                     Associations (ATA), the National                      Issues Related to Markings
                                                    vehicles are equipped with the                          Automobile Dealers Association                           ATA and others stated that no
                                                    applicable safety equipment and                         (NADA), the National Propane Gas                      external markings on a CMV are
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                    features specified in 49 CFR part 393,                  Association (NPGA), the Truckload                     permanent. YRC stated that it was
                                                    Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe                Carriers Association (TCA), the Owner-                primarily concerned with markings on
                                                    Operations, which includes cross                        Operator Independent Drivers                          trailers, converter dollies, and container
                                                    references to safety equipment and                      Association (OOIDA), and the Truck                    chassis, which are affixed to the outside
                                                    features that must be installed at the                  and Engine Manufacturers Association                  of the vehicle and subject to wear and
                                                    time of production. The National                        (EMA). Three motor carriers submitted                 tear from road conditions and may be
                                                    Highway Traffic Safety Administration                   comments: Double D Distribution (Mark                 painted over or removed during
                                                    (NHTSA) requires vehicle                                Droubay), United Parcel Service (UPS)                 refurbishment. ATA submitted


                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:44 Dec 29, 2015   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00030   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM   30DEP1


                                                                      Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules                                          81505

                                                    information from a survey of motor                      condition. ATA stated that for                        that completing a letter would take an
                                                    carriers. Of the responding motor                       intermodal chassis, a database exists                 hour or more of a manufacturer’s
                                                    carriers, 42 percent reported having                    that would provide a better source of the             expert’s time. NADA’s American Truck
                                                    missing or unreadable certification                     information for inspectors.                           Dealers Division stated that any
                                                    labels. No motor carrier surveyed                                                                             requirement that dealers not sell CMVs
                                                                                                            Cost Impacts
                                                    indicated that the equipment did not                                                                          that lack certificates would be
                                                    have a label because it had not been                       The industry associations and motor                unacceptable and could cost dealers $3
                                                    designed to be compliant with the                       carriers stated that FMCSA had failed to              million annually (assuming 1 hour/
                                                    FMVSSs.                                                 consider or estimate the significant costs            week to examine vehicles and obtain
                                                                                                            associated with the proposed rule. They               replacements), it also noted that small
                                                    Issues Related to Replacement                           listed the following potential costs:
                                                    Certifications                                                                                                dealerships spend considerably more
                                                                                                               • The time required to survey                      per employee on compliance than larger
                                                       The industry associations stated that                equipment to determine whether                        firms do.
                                                    FMCSA had not understood the                            certificate information still existed on                 OOIDA stated that FMCSA must do a
                                                    difficulty of obtaining a replacement                   equipment.                                            cost-benefit analysis and then publish a
                                                    certification. ATA, Congressman                            • The time required to identify the
                                                                                                                                                                  supplemental notice.
                                                    Richard L. Hanna and others stated that                 manufacturer and obtain a replacement
                                                    many of the vehicle manufacturers have                  certificate or letter.                                Other Comments
                                                    gone out of business or have been sold.                    • The time required for a driver/
                                                                                                                                                                    NPGA stated that it could support the
                                                    Those that are out of business could not                carrier picking up equipment owned by
                                                                                                                                                                  requirement if it applied only to CMVs
                                                    produce a replacement; the new owners                   another carrier to check for the label,
                                                                                                                                                                  manufactured after the effective date of
                                                    of the manufacturers that have been sold                certificate, or letter.
                                                                                                               • The operational disruption if CMVs               the rule. In the alternative, FMCSA
                                                    might not have the records or may be                                                                          should set the compliance period at 24
                                                    unwilling to be liable for vehicles                     had to be removed from service until
                                                                                                            replacements could be obtained or                     months to give carriers enough time to
                                                    produced by the original manufacturer.
                                                                                                            replaced altogether if the manufacturer               implement the provision without
                                                    ATA provided a list of 21 manufacturers
                                                                                                            no longer exists.                                     disrupting operations. UPS and YRC
                                                    that are out of business or have been
                                                                                                               • The fees charged for replacement                 stated that they would support a
                                                    sold. It also noted that current
                                                                                                            certificates.                                         prospective requirement provided the
                                                    manufacturers may be reluctant out of
                                                                                                               UPS estimated that of its 77,000                   label was a permanent plate. UPS stated
                                                    fear of liability to provide certificates for
                                                                                                            trailers, 10,000 no longer have the                   that it understood that the data
                                                    equipment that may not have been
                                                                                                            decals. It would need to identify the                 connecting serial number and status at
                                                    maintained or may have been altered.
                                                                                                            manufacturer, if it still exists, to request          manufacture are available in State
                                                    For intermodal chassis, many of which
                                                                                                            a replacement. YRC stated that the                    databases. Although these data may not
                                                    were manufactured overseas, ATA
                                                    stated that it will not be possible to                  initial audit of its equipment would                  be accessible at roadside inspection,
                                                    identify or find the manufacturer.                      require hundreds of hours of time by                  they are available electronically. OOIDA
                                                       EMA raised a related issue: Multiple                 drivers, mechanics, and others, followed              stated that the burden should be on the
                                                    companies are involved in the                           by the process of obtaining a                         seller of used vehicles, not the
                                                    manufacture and certification of most                   replacement label if possible. If the                 purchaser.
                                                    Class 3 through 7 vehicles and about                    manufacturer no longer exists, the rule                 Many of the industry commenters
                                                    half of the Class 8 vehicles. Under the                 would require that the equipment be                   stated that the NTSB report did not
                                                    proposal, EMA stated that a carrier                     removed from service. One carrier (32                 provide a justification for the proposal.
                                                    would have to contact the final-stage                   tractors with 70 trailers) estimated that             FMCSA Decision To Withdraw the
                                                    manufacturer for a replacement, but the                 it would cost $18,000 to add/replace                  NPRM
                                                    identity of that manufacturer may not be                labels currently missing and $4,000–
                                                    obvious as it is frequently not the                     $6,000 annually to audit the equipment                  After review and analysis of the
                                                    nameplate company. EMA stated that its                  to ensure that tags are still there. ATA              public comments discussed in the
                                                    members charge a fee for replacement                    cited a comment from a member that it                 preceding section, FMCSA has decided
                                                    certificates.                                           was charged $150 for a replacement                    to withdraw the June 2015 NPRM. We
                                                       YRC and UPS stated that the                          decal for a trailer. ATA provided data                will continue to uphold the operational
                                                    alternative of a letter, kept with the                  from 20 carriers on the number of pieces              safety of CMVs on the Nation’s
                                                    equipment, is problematic. YRC stated                   of equipment missing decals—8,411 out                 highways through continued
                                                    that trailers and converter dollies are                 of 47,000 CMVs.                                       enforcement of the FMCSRs, many of
                                                    routinely used by non-owners during                        ATA also cited another member, a                   which cross-reference specific FMVSSs.
                                                    interlining, intermodal agreements, and                 propane distributor, which had 29                       Generally, U.S.-domiciled motor
                                                    equipment leases. UPS stated that the                   trailers without certificates, most                   carriers operating CMVs (as defined in
                                                    requirement to keep the letter with the                 manufactured by companies that no                     49 CFR 390.5) in interstate commerce
                                                    trailer would require a secure                          longer exist. The proposal would                      have access only to vehicles that either
                                                    compartment, which trailers do not                      require replacement of all of these                   were manufactured domestically for use
                                                    currently have. ATA stated that                         trailers. NPGA stated that even when                  in the United States with the required
                                                    containers and trailers may be sealed                   replacements could be obtained, taking                certification label or were properly
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                    and asked if FMCSA was expecting                        the equipment out of service until the                imported into the United States in
                                                    inspectors to break seals to review a                   certificate or letter arrived would                   accordance with applicable NHTSA
                                                    letter that spoke to compliance years in                disrupt services and impose significant               regulations, including certification
                                                    the past. ATA also stated that the                      costs to lease replacements. NPGA and                 documentation requirements of 49 CFR
                                                    proposed rule would result in                           others noted that, even if the                        part 567. Furthermore, FMCSA’s safety
                                                    penalizing drivers and carriers for                     manufacturer is still in business, the                regulations incorporate and cross
                                                    missing labels on equipment they did                    carrier has no way to compel it to                    reference the FMVSSs critical to
                                                    not own which was in safe operating                     process a request quickly. EMA noted                  continued safe operation of CMVs.


                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:44 Dec 29, 2015   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00031   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM   30DEP1


                                                    81506             Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules

                                                      FMCSA believes continued strong                       FMVSS label certifying compliance with                was originally built to certain
                                                    enforcement of the FMCSRs in real-                      performance standards applicable to                   manufacturing performance standards.
                                                    world operational settings, coupled with                lights, brakes, and other wear items does                Therefore, after careful consideration,
                                                    existing regulations and enforcement                    not ensure real-world safety in the                   FMCSA has concluded it is not
                                                    measures, will ensure the safe operation                absence of compliance with the                        necessary to amend the FMCSRs to
                                                    of CMVs in interstate commerce. Under                   operational and maintenance standards                 require CMVs to display an FMVSS
                                                    the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance                     imposed by the FMCSRs, especially in                  certification label in order to achieve
                                                    Program, FMCSA and its State and local                  the case of vehicles built many years                 effective compliance with the
                                                    partners conduct more than 2.3 million                  ago. Although the presence or absence                 FMVCRSs.
                                                    roadside vehicle inspections each year                  of an FMVSS compliance label can                         In view of the foregoing, the NPRM
                                                    of CMVs (domiciled in the United                        certainly provide a useful tool in this               concerning certification of compliance
                                                    States, Canada, or Mexico) operating in                 regard, inspection of the CMV’s                       with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
                                                    interstate commerce. Enforcement of the                 compliance with the FMCSRs remains                    Standards is withdrawn.
                                                    FMCSRs, and by extension the FMVSSs                     the benchmark by which enforcement                      Issued under the authority of delegation in
                                                    they cross-reference, is the bedrock of                 officials identify and remove from                    49 CFR 1.87 on December 23, 2015.
                                                    these compliance assurance activities.                  service vehicles likely to break down or              T.F. Scott Darling, III,
                                                      Simply requiring CMVs to bear                         cause a crash. The American public is                 Acting Administrator.
                                                    FMVSS certification labels would not                    better protected by the FMCSRs than                   [FR Doc. 2015–32868 Filed 12–29–15; 8:45 am]
                                                    ensure their operational safety. An                     solely through a label indicating a CMV               BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS




                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   16:44 Dec 29, 2015   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00032   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 9990   E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM   30DEP1



Document Created: 2015-12-30 03:16:14
Document Modified: 2015-12-30 03:16:14
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionNotice of withdrawal.
DatesThe NPRM ``Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Certification for Commercial Motor Vehicles Operated by United States-Domiciled Motor Carriers,'' published on June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34588), is withdrawn as of December 30, 2015.
ContactIf you have questions on this Notice of withdrawal, contact Mr. Michael Huntley, Chief, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at (202) 366-9209 or via email at [email protected]
FR Citation80 FR 81503 
RIN Number2126-AB67

2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR