81 FR 24769 - State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier Vehicles
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 81 (April 27, 2016)
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 81 (April 27, 2016)
| Page Range | 24769-24772 | |
| FR Document | 2016-09846 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 24769-24772] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-09846] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 350 [Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0470] RIN 2126-AB84 State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier Vehicles AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it is considering a rulemaking that would require the States to establish a program for annual inspections of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) designed or used to transport passengers (or, passenger-carrying CMVs). FMCSA plans to assess the risks associated with improperly maintained or inspected passenger- carrying CMVs by reviewing the effectiveness of existing Federal inspection standards that are applicable to these types of vehicles, and considering the costs and benefits of having a mandatory inspection program. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before June 27, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA- 2014-0470 using any of the following methods:Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Fax: 202-493-2251. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Loretta Bitner, Chief, Passenger Carrier Division at 202-385-2428, or via email at [email protected], Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) is organized as follows: I. Public Participation and Request for Comments A. Submitting Comments B. Viewing Comments and Documents C. Privacy Act II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking III. Background IV. Questions I. Public Participation and Request for Comments A. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this ANPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0470), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission. To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0470, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may develop a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) based on your comments and other information and analysis. B. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0470, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. C. Privacy Act In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in [[Page 24770]] the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking Section 32710 of Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012, enacted as part of MAP-21, requires that the Secretary of Transportation complete a rulemaking proceeding to consider requiring States to establish a program for annual inspections of vehicles designed or used to transport passengers (Pub. L. 112-141). As part of this proceeding, FMCSA must assess: (1) The risks associated with improperly maintained or inspected CMVs designed or used to transport passengers; (2) the effectiveness of existing Federal inspection standards in mitigating the risks associated with improperly maintained vehicles and ensuring safe and proper operation; and (3) the costs and benefits of a mandatory inspection program. III. Background Section 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 required the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe standards for the inspection of CMVs. See 49 U.S.C. 31142. Under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), a CMV, including qualifying passenger vehicles,\1\ must be inspected at least once every 12 months. See 49 CFR 396.17. Subject to exceptions under Sec. 396.23, a motor carrier must either conduct the inspection using its own qualified personnel or use a qualified third party that maintains appropriate facilities and employs inspectors qualified under Sec. 396.19. In lieu of conducting a self- inspection or relying on a third-party inspector under Sec. 396.17, a motor carrier may satisfy the FMCSR annual inspection requirement through a State or other jurisdiction's inspection program in accordance with Sec. 396.23(a), provided that the inspection satisfies regulatory requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ A CMV is defined, in part, for purposes of this regulation as a ``motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers . . . when the vehicle--(1) [h]as a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating, or gross vehicle weight or gross combination weight, of 4,536 kg (10,001 pounds) or more, whichever is greater; or (2) [i]s designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation; or (3) [i]s designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, including the driver, and is not used to transport passengers for compensation . . .'' 49 CFR 390.5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, in those States that have a mandatory State inspection requirement that the FMCSA Administrator has determined to be as effective as inspections under Sec. 396.17, a motor carrier may rely on the State inspection process in order to satisfy the annual inspection requirement. 49 CFR 396.23(b)(1). A State inspection under this provision might be conducted by State personnel, at a State- authorized commercial facility, or by the motor carrier under the auspices of a State-authorized self-inspection program. Id. According to the latest list published by FMCSA, 22 States are among the governmental entities that have mandatory inspections programs recognized by the FMCSA Administrator. 73 FR 63040 (October 22, 2008).\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ At the time of publication, the list of State inspection programs determined comparable to, or as effective as, the FMCSA periodic inspection program included California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Other jurisdictions and agencies with approved programs are the District of Columbia, the Alabama LPG Board, the 10 Canadian Provinces, and the Yukon Territory. However FMCSA does not collect inspection data on passenger CMVs that are not subject to FMCSAs regulatory authority. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 2012, Congress enacted legislation requiring the Secretary of Transportation to complete a rulemaking proceeding to consider requiring States to establish an annual inspection program as discussed under the Legal Basis section, above. Subsequently, FMCSA conducted three public listening sessions that provided interested parties with the opportunity to share their views on the merits of requiring State inspections of passenger CMVs.\3\ Transcripts of these sessions are available in the public docket noted above. Stakeholders' presentations proved valuable in developing the questions posed in today's ANPRM. While the Agency received a broad range of comments, recurring themes included the costs of mandatory inspection programs, the value of a nation-wide uniform inspection standard, and the need for national training of inspectors to eliminate inconsistencies in how inspection standards are applied. Both industry and the enforcement community identified concerns about the cost of the inspection programs. Stakeholders' estimates of costs for program administration and individual inspections varied significantly. Industry stakeholders expressed concern about inconsistent inspections under existing programs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The listening sessions were conducted at the American Bus Association Marketplace in St. Louis, Missouri on January 13, 2015, a United Motor Coach Association meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana on January 18, 2015, and a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance workshop in Jacksonville, Florida on April 14, 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 32710 of MAP-21 did not address the Agency's authority to require mandatory State inspection programs. While Congress has granted the Secretary broad regulatory authority over the interstate operation of CMVs, under Federalism principles and the 10th Amendment, the Federal government may not compel the States to enact or administer a Federal regulatory program (New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 188 (1992)), or compel State officers to administer or enforce a Federal regulatory program (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997)). Thus, FMCSA assumes Congress intended that State participation would be required as a condition of receiving Federal funds. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206-207 (1987). However, Congress neither established a new financial assistance program for funding State inspection programs nor specified what existing financial assistance program FMCSA might employ to incentivize States to adopt inspection programs. Thus, in posing its final question below, the Agency is seeking its State partners' views on how to implement and incentivize a required State inspection program, should the Agency propose such a program. IV. Questions FMCSA is considering a rulemaking under which States would establish a program for annual inspections of CMVs designed or used to transport passengers. The Agency will use information gathered through this ANPRM to quantify the economic benefits and costs of this action if it issues an NPRM. The Agency encourages parties with knowledge of the industry to provide information about the impact that such a rule would have on current regulations, operating costs, business practices, safety, and any other areas that would be affected by a rule requiring States to establish inspection programs. FMCSA also requests responses to the following issues and questions. Again, whenever possible, commenters should provide data. FMCSA also encourages stakeholders to describe any applicable regulatory inspection process under which they operate. FMCSA recognizes that an individual commenter may choose to respond to all of the issues or only a subset, based on his or her interest or area of expertise. [[Page 24771]] Existing State Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Programs for Passenger- Carrying Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs) 1. Does your State or the States in which you register your passenger-carrying CMV conduct mandatory inspections of such vehicles? Please indicate the State(s) in which your passenger-carrying CMVs are registered. 2. What vehicle types are included in the mandatory passenger- carrying CMV inspection program (e.g., motorcoaches, school buses, mini-buses, 9-15 passenger vans, etc.) and which are not included? 3. If your State has a mandatory program, briefly describe your inspection procedures and indicate which vehicle components are inspected. 4. How many total inspections are performed by your State annually for each of the following types of vehicles? a. Motorcoaches b. School buses c. Mini-buses d. 9-15 passenger vans e. Other 5. What is the estimated time required to complete each vehicle inspection? 6. What procedures are used to record the vehicle inspection? 7. If a vehicle does not pass an inspection, who addresses the issues? If it is done by someone other than the inspecting entity, is there a second inspection after the issues are addressed? On average, how many follow up inspections does it take to pass a vehicle? 8. Are mandatory vehicle inspections performed by State employees, by third-party inspectors authorized by the State, or by passenger carrier employees through a State-authorized self-inspection program? 9. If vehicle inspections are conducted by a State-authorized third party or by passenger-carrier employees authorized by the State, are there differences in safety outcomes between those conducted by State employees and those conducted by third-party inspectors or through a passenger carrier's State-authorized self-inspection facilities? 10. Are there any specific benefits or concerns related to using third-party inspectors or by others? 11. If inspections are conducted by third-party inspectors or by passenger carrier-employed mechanics or technicians, what oversight is or should be required? 12. Should self-inspection or third-party inspections be options for compliance with a mandatory State inspection? 13. How does/would the cost of inspections differ between those conducted by State employees or by third-party inspectors? 14. What might be other preferable options? Measuring Effectiveness of Inspection Programs 15. Does your State have information on violations discovered during inspections that are attributable to maintenance issues that should have been found during a required vehicle inspection? 16. Has your State considered implementing a mandatory passenger- carrying CMV inspection program, but declined to do so? If so, what are your State's reasons for not implementing a program? 17. If your State imposes mandatory inspection of passenger- carrying CMVs, how is the effectiveness of that program measured? 18. What are the most common vehicle defects discovered during these mandatory vehicle inspections? What safety conclusions do you draw from the results of these inspections? 19. Has your State or organization collected data related to crashes, injuries, or fatalities attributable to improperly maintained or inspected passenger-carrying CMVs? If so, please provide summary information or links to detailed data associated with these areas. 20. Has the occurrence of passenger-carrying CMV-involved crashes, injuries, or fatalities before and after the implementation of a mandatory inspection requirement been evaluated? If so, please provide summary information or links to detailed data associated with these areas. 21. After a State inspection requirement was instituted, what changes were observed over time in the number of safety violations discovered during inspections, if any. 22. Do programs that inspect only a sample of vehicles have significantly different outcomes than those where all vehicles are inspected, please provide examples of how they differ? Inspection Facilities and Locations 23. Where does your State conduct mandatory passenger-carrying CMV inspections (e.g., State owned/leased facility, third party facility, carrier's place of business, or other type of facility)? 24. Where should mandatory passenger-carrying CMV inspections be performed? 25. If mandatory passenger-carrying CMV inspections are conducted at the carrier's place of business, what accommodations must be made to ensure appropriate access (e.g., pits, lifts, etc.) to conduct full inspections of motorcoaches and other large passenger vehicles? 26. How does facility location or accessibility for mandatory inspections impact inspections or compliance? 27. What delays may the State experience in completing mandatory inspections (e.g. lack of sufficient number of inspection facilities)? Costs 28. What is the cost per mandatory vehicle inspection to the carrier? 29. Do inspection fees differ based on the type of vehicle being inspected? 30. Do vehicle inspection fees differ based on location of the inspections? 31. How much does it cost the State to establish and run inspection programs on an annual basis? 32. If a vehicle does not pass an inspection, is there an additional cost for the second inspection? 33. If fees are collected by the State, does the State dedicate the revenue to the administration of the program? Uniformity of Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Programs 34. What qualifications should be applicable to individuals authorized to perform mandatory passenger-carrying CMV inspections? 35. Should minimum training elements be required for passenger- carrying CMV inspections? If so, how much training should be required and who should administer the training? 36. What should be the minimum vehicle components inspected under a mandatory bus inspection program? 37. How does the existence of different vehicle inspection requirements among the States affect carrier business practices? 38. How might business practices change under a uniform mandatory bus inspection program? Current Federal Standards 39. How effective are existing Federal standards for the inspection of passenger-carrying CMVs in (1) mitigating the risks associated with improperly maintained vehicles and (2) ensuring the safe and proper operating condition of the vehicles? 40. What is an effective and efficient way for the FMCSA to track inspected carriers to reduce burden on States and carriers? Federal Authority 41. How should FMCSA incentivize the States to establish mandatory [[Page 24772]] passenger-carrying CMV inspection programs? Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on April 20, 2016. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. 2016-09846 Filed 4-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules 24769
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. require the States to establish a program ANPRM (Docket No. FMCSA–2014–
3506(c)(4). for annual inspections of commercial 0470), indicate the specific section of
Provisions of the Regulatory motor vehicles (CMVs) designed or used this document to which each comment
Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to to transport passengers (or, passenger- applies, and provide a reason for each
this proceeding. Members of the public carrying CMVs). FMCSA plans to assess suggestion or recommendation. You
should note that from the time a Notice the risks associated with improperly may submit your comments and
of Proposed Rule Making is issued until maintained or inspected passenger- material online or by fax, mail, or hand
the matter is no longer subject to carrying CMVs by reviewing the delivery, but please use only one of
Commission consideration or court effectiveness of existing Federal these means. FMCSA recommends that
review, all ex parte contacts (other than inspection standards that are applicable you include your name and a mailing
ex parte presentations exempt under 47 to these types of vehicles, and address, an email address, or a phone
CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in considering the costs and benefits of number in the body of your document
Commission proceedings, such as this having a mandatory inspection program. so that FMCSA can contact you if there
one, which involve channel allotments. DATES: Comments on this notice must be are questions regarding your
See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing received on or before June 27, 2016. submission.
restricted proceedings. To submit your comment online, go to
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
For information regarding proper http://www.regulations.gov, put the
identified by Docket Number FMCSA–
filing procedures for comments, see 47 docket number, FMCSA–2014–0470, in
2014–0470 using any of the following
CFR 1.415 and 1.420. the keyword box, and click ‘‘Search.’’
methods:
When the new screen appears, click on
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ button and type
Television. www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
your comment into the text box on the
instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, following screen. Choose whether you
Thomas Horan, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 are submitting your comment as an
Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, individual or on behalf of a third party
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, and then submit.
Proposed Rules If you submit your comments by mail
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
For the reasons discussed in the • Hand Delivery or Courier: West or hand delivery, submit them in an
preamble, the Federal Communications Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 11 inches, suitable for copying and
part 73 as follows: Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 electronic filing. If you submit
p.m., Monday through Friday, except comments by mail and would like to
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST know that they reached the facility,
Federal holidays.
SERVICES please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
To avoid duplication, please use only postcard or envelope.
■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 We will consider all comments and
continues to read as follows: one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for material received during the comment
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, Comments’’ portion of the period and may develop a notice of
and 339. proposed rulemaking (NPRM) based on
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
§ 73.622 [Amended] instructions on submitting comments. your comments and other information
and analysis.
■ 2. Section 73.622(i), the Post- FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Transition Table of DTV Allotments Loretta Bitner, Chief, Passenger Carrier B. Viewing Comments and Documents
under Georiga is amended by adding Division at 202–385–2428, or via email To view comments, as well as any
channel 22 and removing channel 51 at at Loretta.Bitner@dot.gov, Federal Motor documents mentioned in this preamble
Cordele. Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 as being available in the docket, go to
[FR Doc. 2016–09830 Filed 4–26–16; 8:45 am] New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the
BILLING CODE P
DC 20590–0001. If you have questions docket number, FMCSA–2014–0470, in
on viewing or submitting material to the the keyword box, and click ‘‘Search.’’
docket, contact Docket Services, Next, click the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION telephone (202) 366–9826. button and choose the document to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This review. If you do not have access to the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety advanced notice of proposed Internet, you may view the docket
Administration rulemaking (ANPRM) is organized as online by visiting the Docket
follows: Management Facility in Room W12–140
49 CFR Parts 350 I. Public Participation and Request for on the ground floor of the DOT West
[Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0470] Comments Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
A. Submitting Comments Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
RIN 2126–AB84 B. Viewing Comments and Documents and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
C. Privacy Act except Federal holidays.
State Inspection Programs for II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Passenger-Carrier Vehicles III. Background C. Privacy Act
IV. Questions In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c),
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT. I. Public Participation and Request for DOT solicits comments from the public
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed Comments to better inform its rulemaking process.
rulemaking (ANPRM). DOT posts these comments, without
A. Submitting Comments edit, including any personal information
SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it is If you submit a comment, please the commenter provides, to
considering a rulemaking that would include the docket number for this www.regulations.gov, as described in
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:15 Apr 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM 27APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_24850/page/1.svg)
![24770 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– process in order to satisfy the annual concern about inconsistent inspections
14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at inspection requirement. 49 CFR under existing programs.
www.dot.gov/privacy. 396.23(b)(1). A State inspection under Section 32710 of MAP–21 did not
II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking this provision might be conducted by address the Agency’s authority to
State personnel, at a State-authorized require mandatory State inspection
Section 32710 of Motorcoach commercial facility, or by the motor
Enhanced Safety Act of 2012, enacted as programs. While Congress has granted
carrier under the auspices of a State- the Secretary broad regulatory authority
part of MAP–21, requires that the authorized self-inspection program. Id.
Secretary of Transportation complete a over the interstate operation of CMVs,
According to the latest list published by under Federalism principles and the
rulemaking proceeding to consider FMCSA, 22 States are among the
requiring States to establish a program 10th Amendment, the Federal
governmental entities that have
for annual inspections of vehicles government may not compel the States
mandatory inspections programs
designed or used to transport passengers to enact or administer a Federal
recognized by the FMCSA
(Pub. L. 112–141). As part of this regulatory program (New York v. United
Administrator. 73 FR 63040 (October 22,
proceeding, FMCSA must assess: (1) States, 505 U.S. 144, 188 (1992)), or
2008).2
The risks associated with improperly compel State officers to administer or
maintained or inspected CMVs designed In 2012, Congress enacted legislation enforce a Federal regulatory program
or used to transport passengers; (2) the requiring the Secretary of (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898,
effectiveness of existing Federal Transportation to complete a 935 (1997)). Thus, FMCSA assumes
inspection standards in mitigating the rulemaking proceeding to consider Congress intended that State
risks associated with improperly requiring States to establish an annual participation would be required as a
maintained vehicles and ensuring safe inspection program as discussed under condition of receiving Federal funds.
and proper operation; and (3) the costs the Legal Basis section, above. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S.
and benefits of a mandatory inspection Subsequently, FMCSA conducted three 203, 206–207 (1987). However, Congress
program. public listening sessions that provided neither established a new financial
interested parties with the opportunity
III. Background assistance program for funding State
to share their views on the merits of
Section 210 of the Motor Carrier inspection programs nor specified what
requiring State inspections of passenger
Safety Act of 1984 required the existing financial assistance program
CMVs.3 Transcripts of these sessions are
Secretary of Transportation to prescribe FMCSA might employ to incentivize
available in the public docket noted
standards for the inspection of CMVs. States to adopt inspection programs.
above. Stakeholders’ presentations
See 49 U.S.C. 31142. Under the Federal Thus, in posing its final question below,
proved valuable in developing the
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations questions posed in today’s ANPRM. the Agency is seeking its State partners’
(FMCSR), a CMV, including qualifying While the Agency received a broad views on how to implement and
passenger vehicles,1 must be inspected range of comments, recurring themes incentivize a required State inspection
at least once every 12 months. See 49 included the costs of mandatory program, should the Agency propose
CFR 396.17. Subject to exceptions under inspection programs, the value of a such a program.
§ 396.23, a motor carrier must either nation-wide uniform inspection IV. Questions
conduct the inspection using its own standard, and the need for national
qualified personnel or use a qualified training of inspectors to eliminate FMCSA is considering a rulemaking
third party that maintains appropriate inconsistencies in how inspection under which States would establish a
facilities and employs inspectors standards are applied. Both industry program for annual inspections of CMVs
qualified under § 396.19. In lieu of and the enforcement community designed or used to transport
conducting a self-inspection or relying identified concerns about the cost of the passengers. The Agency will use
on a third-party inspector under information gathered through this
inspection programs. Stakeholders’
§ 396.17, a motor carrier may satisfy the
estimates of costs for program ANPRM to quantify the economic
FMCSR annual inspection requirement
administration and individual benefits and costs of this action if it
through a State or other jurisdiction’s
inspections varied significantly. issues an NPRM. The Agency
inspection program in accordance with
Industry stakeholders expressed encourages parties with knowledge of
§ 396.23(a), provided that the inspection
satisfies regulatory requirements. the industry to provide information
However, in those States that have a
2 At the time of publication, the list of State
about the impact that such a rule would
inspection programs determined comparable to, or have on current regulations, operating
mandatory State inspection requirement as effective as, the FMCSA periodic inspection
that the FMCSA Administrator has program included California, Connecticut, Hawaii, costs, business practices, safety, and any
determined to be as effective as Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, other areas that would be affected by a
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New rule requiring States to establish
inspections under § 396.17, a motor Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
carrier may rely on the State inspection Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, inspection programs.
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Other FMCSA also requests responses to the
1 A CMV is defined, in part, for purposes of this jurisdictions and agencies with approved programs
are the District of Columbia, the Alabama LPG
following issues and questions. Again,
regulation as a ‘‘motor vehicle used on a highway
in interstate commerce to transport passengers . . . Board, the 10 Canadian Provinces, and the Yukon whenever possible, commenters should
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
when the vehicle—(1) [h]as a gross vehicle weight Territory. However FMCSA does not collect provide data. FMCSA also encourages
rating or gross combination weight rating, or gross inspection data on passenger CMVs that are not stakeholders to describe any applicable
vehicle weight or gross combination weight, of subject to FMCSAs regulatory authority.
4,536 kg (10,001 pounds) or more, whichever is 3 The listening sessions were conducted at the regulatory inspection process under
greater; or (2) [i]s designed or used to transport American Bus Association Marketplace in St. Louis, which they operate. FMCSA recognizes
more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for Missouri on January 13, 2015, a United Motor that an individual commenter may
compensation; or (3) [i]s designed or used to Coach Association meeting in New Orleans,
transport more than 15 passengers, including the Louisiana on January 18, 2015, and a Commercial
choose to respond to all of the issues or
driver, and is not used to transport passengers for Vehicle Safety Alliance workshop in Jacksonville, only a subset, based on his or her
compensation . . .’’ 49 CFR 390.5. Florida on April 14, 2015. interest or area of expertise.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:20 Apr 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM 27APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_24850/page/2.svg)
![24772 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules
passenger-carrying CMV inspection • Electronic submission: Submit all Territories (collectively referred to here
programs? electronic public comments via the as ‘‘members’’). The United States of
Issued under the authority of delegation in Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. America is a Member. American Samoa,
49 CFR 1.87 on April 20, 2016. 1. Go to www.regulations.gov/ Guam, and the Commonwealth of the
T.F. Scott Darling, III, #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016- Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) are
0031, Participating Territories.
Acting Administrator.
2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, As a Contracting Party to the
[FR Doc. 2016–09846 Filed 4–26–16; 8:45 am]
complete the required fields, and Convention and a Member of the
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P Commission, the United States
3. Enter or attach your comments.
—OR— implements conservation and
• Mail: Submit written comments to management measures and other
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Michael D. Tosatto, Regional decisions adopted by the Commission.
Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands The WCPFC Implementation Act (16
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Regional Office (PIRO), 1845 Wasp U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), authorizes the
Administration Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI Secretary of Commerce, in consultation
96818. with the Secretary of State and the
50 CFR Part 300 Instructions: Comments sent by any Secretary of the Department in which
other method, to any other address or the United States Coast Guard is
[Docket No. 160205084–6084–01] individual, or received after the end of operating (currently the Department of
the comment period, might not be Homeland Security), to promulgate such
RIN 0648–BF76 regulations as may be necessary to carry
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record out the obligations of the United States
International Fisheries; Western and under the Convention, including the
Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov decisions of the Commission. The
Migratory Species; Purse Seine WCPFC Implementation Act further
Observer Requirements, and Fishing without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name and address), provides that the Secretary of Commerce
Restrictions and Limits in Purse Seine shall ensure consistency, to the extent
and Longline Fisheries for 2016–2017 confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information practicable, of fishery management
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries submitted voluntarily by the sender will programs administered under the
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and be publicly accessible. NMFS will WCPFC Implementation Act and the
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Commerce. A’’ in the required fields if you wish to Conservation and Management Act
remain anonymous). (MSA; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as well
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
An initial regulatory flexibility as other specific laws (see 16 U.S.C.
comments.
analysis (IRFA) prepared under 6905(b)). The Secretary of Commerce
SUMMARY: NMFS seeks comments on authority of the Regulatory Flexibility has delegated the authority to
this proposed rule issued under Act is included in the Classification promulgate regulations under the
authority of the Western and Central section of the SUPPLEMENTARY WCPFC Implementation Act to NMFS.
Pacific Fisheries Convention INFORMATION section of this document.
A map showing the boundaries of the
Implementation Act (WCPFC Copies of the RIR and the area of application of the Convention
Implementation Act). The proposed rule programmatic environmental (Convention Area), which comprises the
would, first, require that U.S. purse assessment (PEA) prepared for National majority of the WCPO, can be found on
seine vessels carry observers on fishing Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the WCPFC Web site at: www.wcpfc.int/
trips in the western and central Pacific purposes are available at doc/convention-area-map.
Ocean (WCPO); second, establish www.regulations.gov or may be obtained Proposed Action
restrictions in 2016 and 2017 on the use from Michael D. Tosatto, Regional This proposed rule includes three
of fish aggregating devices (FADs) by Administrator, NMFS PIRO (see address elements, described in detail below, that
U.S. purse seine vessels in the WCPO; above). would be included in regulations at 50
and third, establish limits in 2016 and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom CFR part 300, subpart O. The three
2017 on the amount of bigeye tuna that Graham, NMFS PIRO, 808–725–5032. elements would implement specific
may be captured by U.S. longline
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: provisions of the Commission’s
vessels in the WCPO. This action is Conservation and Management Measure
necessary to satisfy the obligations of Background on the Convention (CMM) 2015–01, ‘‘Conservation and
the United States under the Convention The Convention focuses on the Management Measure for Bigeye,
on the Conservation and Management of conservation and management of Yellowfin, and Skipjack Tuna in the
Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the fisheries for highly migratory species Western and Central Pacific Ocean.’’
Western and Central Pacific Ocean (HMS). The objective of the Convention CMM 2015–01 was adopted by the
(Convention), to which it is a is to ensure, through effective Commission at its twelth regular annual
Contracting Party. management, the long-term session, in December 2015, went into
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule conservation and sustainable use of effect February 6, 2016, and is generally
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
must be submitted in writing by May 12, HMS in the WCPO. To accomplish this applicable for the 2016–2017 period.
2016. objective, the Convention established CMM 2015–01 is the latest in a series of
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments the Commission for the Conservation CMMs devoted to the conservation and
on the proposed rule and the regulatory and Management of Highly Migratory management of tropical tuna stocks,
impact review (RIR) prepared for the Fish Stocks in the Western and Central particularly stocks of bigeye tuna
proposed rule, identified by NOAA– Pacific Ocean (Commission or WCPFC), (Thunnus obesus), yellowfin tuna
NMFS–2016–0031, by either of the which includes Members, Cooperating (Thunnus albacares), and skipjack tuna
following methods: Non-members, and Participating (Katsuwonus pelamis). CMM 2015–01
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:15 Apr 26, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM 27APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_24850/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-07 13:55:29
Document Modified: 2018-02-07 13:55:29
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). | |
| Dates | Comments on this notice must be received on or before June 27, 2016. | |
| Contact | Ms. Loretta Bitner, Chief, Passenger Carrier Division at 202-385-2428, or via email at [email protected], Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 24769 | |
| RIN Number | 2126-AB84 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR