82 FR 14848 - Carrier Safety Fitness Determination
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 55 (March 23, 2017)
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 55 (March 23, 2017)
| Page Range | 14848-14850 | |
| FR Document | 2017-05777 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 55 (Thursday, March 23, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 14848-14850] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-05777] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 350, 365, 385, 386, 387, and 395 [Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0001] RIN 2126-AB11 Carrier Safety Fitness Determination AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of withdrawal. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: FMCSA withdraws its January 21, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed a revised methodology for issuance of a safety fitness determination (SFD) for motor carriers. The new methodology would have determined when a motor carrier is not fit to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in or affecting interstate commerce based on the carrier's on-road safety data; an investigation; or a combination of on-road safety data and investigation information. FMCSA had recently announced that, rather than move to a final rule, a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) would be the next step in the rulemaking process. However, after reviewing the record in this matter, FMCSA withdraws the NPRM and cancels the plans to develop a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Agency must receive the Correlation Study from the National Academies of Science, as required by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, assess whether and, if so, what corrective actions are advisable, and complete additional analysis before determining whether further rulemaking action is necessary to revise the safety fitness determination process. DATES: The NPRM ``Carrier Safety Fitness Determination,'' RIN 2126- AB11, published on January 21, 2016 (81 FR 3562), is withdrawn as of March 23, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara Baker, (202) 366-3397, [email protected]. FMCSA office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 21, 2016, FMCSA published an NPRM proposing revisions to the current methodology for issuance of a SFD for motor carriers as required by 49 U.S.C. 31144 (81 FR 3562). The essential elements of the proposed rule included determining safety fitness from not only a comprehensive compliance investigation, but also considering roadside inspections data. Adding roadside inspections to the proposal included a minimum number of inspections and violations to be used for the SFD, as well as providing failure standards, and elimination of the current three-tier rating system (i.e., satisfactory--conditional--unsatisfactory). Also, the NPRM proposed revising the SFD appeals process and establishing implementation and transition provisions for a final rule. The Agency received 153 initial comment period submissions and 17 reply comment period submissions in response to the NPRM. After considering the comments, FMCSA announced that, rather than move to a final rule, a SNPRM would be the next step in the rulemaking process.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See ``FMCSA Sets Schedule for Safety Fitness Determination-- Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,'' January 12, 2017, at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/fmcsa-sets-schedule-safety-fitness-determination-supplemental-notice-proposed-rulemaking. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NPRM Comments Generally Elimination of Three Tier Rating System and Scope of FMCSA Rating Obligation In the NPRM, FMCSA proposed to eliminate the current three ratings of satisfactory, conditional and unsatisfactory. Instead, the Agency proposed only one rating of ``unfit.'' Commenters including John Brannum, C.H. Robinson, Greyhound Lines, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), Road Safe America, Truck Safety Coalition and the American Association for Justice supported the termination of the three-tier rating system. These commenters supported the fact that this change would not allow conditional carriers to operate without improving their operations and would make it much clearer for the shipping community to determine which carriers may or may not operate. Specifically, C. H. Robinson noted it has long recommended a two-tiered structure that more clearly signals to shippers, and other industry stakeholders, which carriers should not be hired due to safety concerns. It said all stakeholders seek clear direction from FMCSA, and FMCSA desires stakeholders to properly use data collected by FMCSA. David Gee, an owner of a motor carrier and a broker, commented that the Agency should use the rulemaking to affirm that the shipper and broker community can rely upon the agency's ultimate safety fitness determination in making carrier selections free from state law negligence suits. Greyhound stated it agrees that the change will do away with the misperception that a ``satisfactory'' rating is a sign of operational approval. However, commenters including the National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA), Minnesota Trucking Association, School Bus, Inc., National School Transportation Association, and the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA), opposed the proposed change. ATA wrote that the proposal to remove the term ``safety rating'' may have negative, perhaps unanticipated, consequences. Specifically, ATA explained that there will be no means to distinguish fleets whose safety management controls have been verified during compliance reviews (i.e. those labeled [[Page 14849]] ``Satisfactory'') from fleets that have not been reviewed. Second, there will be no means to separate fleets with documented deficiencies (i.e. those labeled ``Conditional'') from all other fleets not labeled ``Unfit.'' In addition to the inequity this creates for fleets that have earned a ``Satisfactory'' rating, ATA believes it does a disservice to third parties and the general public who should be alerted to the fleets with documented problems. ATA also proposed that FMCSA should allow fleets that have been investigated to maintain their satisfactory ratings; this idea was echoed by NMFTA and the Intermodal Association of North America. Further, ATA suggested that FMCSA consider three labels: Assessed-- Unfit, Assessed--Not Unfit, and Not Assessed. ATA noted that a tiered naming convention such as this could help eliminate confusion and leave third parties better informed. Some commenters also asserted that FMCSA, contrary to the position expressed in the NPRM, had a statutory duty to determine the fitness of all motor carriers, not just those that are unfit. These commenters claimed that the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31144 require such actions. Failure Standards Advocates expressed concern that, as proposed, one of the assessment methods would only reach the worst 1 percent or 4 percent of carriers, depending on the various categories. Advocates believe that the failure standards were ``artificially selected'' based on the Agency's resources ``instead of making safety the highest priority.'' Advocates recommended that the SFD process should identify each and every motor carrier that is unsafe and needs to be determined ``Unfit.'' Contrarily, to support the Agency's proposal, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters offered that the Agency should only be expected to determine the safety fitness of as many carriers as possible, given existing resources. Advocates further commented that if the agency plans to use the absolute performance measure based on a snapshot of data to establish the thresholds, there must be a plan to continually update this data to encourage improvements in safety on par with increases in on-road safety, both within the industry and on-road in general. Knight Transportation agreed with the Agency's proposal that carrier fitness should not be based on relative peer performance. NMFTA added that the assignment of absolute failure standards for the individual categories would provide a carrier with a better method to track and assess its safety compliance based on the roadside inspections, and sooner identify an area which might require additional attention. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters noted that, under the proposed methodology, carriers will benefit from being judged solely on their own performance rather than other companies' safety performance. Intermodal Association of North America also believes that moving to an absolute measurement approach is an improved method over the existing, relative measurements of the Compliance, Safety, and Accountability program. The American Bus Association questioned how FMCSA can issue a regulatory proposal to change the long standing safety fitness determination process for motor carriers, without providing the failure standards in the NPRM. C.H. Robinson commended the decision to move away from a percentile ranking and establish firm, fixed safety data targets as represented by the ``absolute measure'' thresholds that began to be published in August 2014. C.H. Robinson found, however, that FMCSA has not educated stakeholders well about how absolute measures are formulated and specifically why absolute measures vary greatly across peer groups. C.H. Robinson suggests FMCSA fully explain absolute measures to shippers, brokers and other stakeholders, to reduce the risk that small business carriers will be adversely impacted. C.H. Robinson believes the potential adverse impact to small carriers regarding this confusion is significant. In addition, the Alliance for Safe, Efficient and Competitive Truck Transportation (ASCETT) noted that, with declining inspection rates, continued evidence of enforcement anomalies, electronic logging devices (ELDs) and speed limiters, a new NPRM and opportunity for notice and comment is needed. ASCETT further commented that the Agency will have to recalibrate the failure measures through rulemaking to justify new enforcement thresholds. However, ASCETT questioned if the recalibrations would be worth the expense. Criticism of Data Analysis Period (2011) Some commenters noted that applying the methodologies to more current data would change the population of carriers that would be identified as proposed unfit. Commenters noted that the number of inspections has decreased since 2011. Additionally, some commenters pointed out that by the end of 2017, ELDs will be mandatory. This change will alter the violations in the Hours of Service category. Also, these commenters stated that if speed limiters become mandated for heavy vehicles this would result in changes to violations. Comments on Costs Some commenters alleged that some costs associated with declaring additional carriers ``unfit'' were not considered in the economic analysis. According to these commenters, other costs to consider in addition to those currently in the economic analysis include: Impacts to non-driver staff; costs for improving performance to come into compliance (e.g., attorney, consultant, and employee training costs); costs for administrative appeals; damage to business reputation and creditworthiness; lost sales; opportunity costs of time away from the business; lost revenue to suppliers (such as fuel suppliers); lost capital utilization if vehicles are taken off the market unnecessarily; defaults on loans; repossession of equipment; and personal bankruptcy of owners. Impacts on Small Businesses Three commenters suggested that FMCSA should consider changes to the proposed rule for small entities, including retaining the ``corrective action plan'' provision in the current regulation. In addition, some commenters recommended that FMCSA allow for reduced reporting requirements and timetables for small carriers. Letter to the Secretary of Transportation Urging Withdrawal On February 15, 2017, a letter from 62 national and regional organizations of motor carriers urged Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao to withdraw the NPRM; a copy of the letter has been added to the docket. The organizations argued that the proposed rule utilizes SMS data and methodologies, which Congress directed the National Academies of Science to review in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94 (FAST Act) (Dec. 4, 2015). The National Academies of Science final report is expected in June 2017. The organizations representing motor property and passenger carriers believe it is ill- advised to develop a new SFD system until the report is received and any necessary reforms are made through corrective actions to the foundational data and methodologies that support [[Page 14850]] safety fitness determinations. While the petitioners support the goal of an easily understandable, rational SFD system, they believe the NPRM should be withdrawn at this time. FMCSA Decision To Withdraw the NPRM Based on the current record, including comments received in response to the NPRM and the February 2017 correspondence to Secretary Chao, FMCSA has decided to withdraw the January 2016 NPRM and, accordingly, cancels the plans to develop a SNPRM as announced by the Agency on January 12, 2017. If FMCSA determines changes to the safety fitness determination process are still necessary and advisable in the future, a new rulemaking would be initiated that will incorporate any appropriate recommendations from the National Academies of Science and the comments received through this rulemaking. The NPRM concerning motor carrier safety fitness determinations is withdrawn. Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: March 17, 2017. Daphne Y. Jefferson, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. 2017-05777 Filed 3-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
![14848 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 55 / Thursday, March 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 carrier’s on-road safety data; an final rule, a SNPRM would be the next
at 1.0 ppm. Practical analytical methods investigation; or a combination of on- step in the rulemaking process.1
for detecting and measuring levels of road safety data and investigation NPRM Comments Generally
clethodim have been developed and information. FMCSA had recently
validated in/on all appropriate announced that, rather than move to a Elimination of Three Tier Rating System
agricultural commodities and respective final rule, a Supplemental Notice of and Scope of FMCSA Rating Obligation
processing fractions. The Limit of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) would In the NPRM, FMCSA proposed to
Quantitation (LOQ) of clethodim in the be the next step in the rulemaking eliminate the current three ratings of
methods is 0.2 ppm, which will allow process. However, after reviewing the satisfactory, conditional and
monitoring of food with residues at the record in this matter, FMCSA unsatisfactory. Instead, the Agency
levels proposed for the tolerances. withdraws the NPRM and cancels the proposed only one rating of ‘‘unfit.’’
Contact: RD. plans to develop a Supplemental Notice Commenters including John Brannum,
Amended Tolerance Exemptions of Proposed Rulemaking. The Agency C.H. Robinson, Greyhound Lines,
must receive the Correlation Study from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
1. PP 6G8523. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2014– (Advocates), Road Safe America, Truck
0457). J.R. Simplot Company, 5369 W. the National Academies of Science, as
required by the Fixing America’s Safety Coalition and the American
Irving St., Boise, ID 83706, requests to Association for Justice supported the
amend an exemption from the Surface Transportation (FAST) Act,
assess whether and, if so, what termination of the three-tier rating
requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR system. These commenters supported
174.534 for residues of the plant- corrective actions are advisable, and
complete additional analysis before the fact that this change would not
incorporated protectant (PIP) VNT1 allow conditional carriers to operate
protein in or on potato. The petitioner determining whether further rulemaking
action is necessary to revise the safety without improving their operations and
believes no analytical method is needed would make it much clearer for the
for enforcement purposes because the fitness determination process.
shipping community to determine
VNT1 protein concentration is lower DATES: The NPRM ‘‘Carrier Safety which carriers may or may not operate.
than the detectable limit of 100 parts per Fitness Determination,’’ RIN 2126– Specifically, C. H. Robinson noted it has
billion (ppb) in tubers. As the AB11, published on January 21, 2016 long recommended a two-tiered
expression levels of the VNT1 protein (81 FR 3562), is withdrawn as of March structure that more clearly signals to
are below detection limits, it is shippers, and other industry
23, 2017.
impractical to demonstrate methods for stakeholders, which carriers should not
detecting and measuring the levels of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. be hired due to safety concerns. It said
the pesticide residues. Contact: BPPD. Barbara Baker, (202) 366–3397, all stakeholders seek clear direction
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a. barbara.baker@dot.gov. FMCSA office from FMCSA, and FMCSA desires
hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., stakeholders to properly use data
Dated: January 11, 2017.
Monday through Friday, except Federal collected by FMCSA. David Gee, an
Michael Goodis,
holidays. owner of a motor carrier and a broker,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs. On
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: commented that the Agency should use
January 21, 2016, FMCSA published an
[FR Doc. 2017–05704 Filed 3–22–17; 8:45 am]
the rulemaking to affirm that the
NPRM proposing revisions to the shipper and broker community can rely
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
current methodology for issuance of a upon the agency’s ultimate safety fitness
SFD for motor carriers as required by 49 determination in making carrier
selections free from state law negligence
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U.S.C. 31144 (81 FR 3562). suits. Greyhound stated it agrees that
The essential elements of the the change will do away with the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety proposed rule included determining misperception that a ‘‘satisfactory’’
Administration safety fitness from not only a rating is a sign of operational approval.
comprehensive compliance However, commenters including the
49 CFR Parts 350, 365, 385, 386, 387, investigation, but also considering National Motor Freight Traffic
and 395 roadside inspections data. Adding Association (NMFTA), Minnesota
[Docket No. FMCSA–2015–0001] roadside inspections to the proposal Trucking Association, School Bus, Inc.,
included a minimum number of National School Transportation
RIN 2126–AB11 inspections and violations to be used for Association, and the American Trucking
Carrier Safety Fitness Determination the SFD, as well as providing failure Associations, Inc. (ATA), opposed the
standards, and elimination of the proposed change. ATA wrote that the
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety current three-tier rating system (i.e., proposal to remove the term ‘‘safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT. satisfactory—conditional— rating’’ may have negative, perhaps
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal. unsatisfactory). Also, the NPRM unanticipated, consequences.
proposed revising the SFD appeals Specifically, ATA explained that there
SUMMARY: FMCSA withdraws its January process and establishing will be no means to distinguish fleets
21, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking implementation and transition whose safety management controls have
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
(NPRM), which proposed a revised provisions for a final rule. been verified during compliance
methodology for issuance of a safety reviews (i.e. those labeled
fitness determination (SFD) for motor The Agency received 153 initial
carriers. The new methodology would comment period submissions and 17 1 See ‘‘FMCSA Sets Schedule for Safety Fitness
have determined when a motor carrier reply comment period submissions in Determination—Supplemental Notice of Proposed
is not fit to operate commercial motor response to the NPRM. After Rulemaking,’’ January 12, 2017, at https://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/fmcsa-sets-schedule-
vehicles (CMVs) in or affecting considering the comments, FMCSA safety-fitness-determination-supplemental-notice-
interstate commerce based on the announced that, rather than move to a proposed-rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Mar 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_14903/page/1.svg)
![14850 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 55 / Thursday, March 23, 2017 / Proposed Rules
safety fitness determinations. While the to Pacific Coast Indian tribes that have treaty Indian tribe with treaty fishing
petitioners support the goal of an easily a treaty right to harvest groundfish. rights in the area covered by the FMP at
understandable, rational SFD system, DATES: Comments on this proposed rule the beginning of the biennial harvest
they believe the NPRM should be must be received no later than April 24, specifications and management
withdrawn at this time. 2017. measures process. The Secretary will
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments develop tribal allocations and
FMCSA Decision To Withdraw the
on this document, identified by NOAA– regulations in consultation with the
NPRM
NMFS–2017–0005, by either of the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible,
Based on the current record, following methods: with tribal consensus. The procedures
including comments received in • Electronic Submission: Submit all that NMFS employs in implementing
response to the NPRM and the February electronic public comments via the tribal treaty rights under the FMP were
2017 correspondence to Secretary Chao, Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to designed to provide a framework
FMCSA has decided to withdraw the www.regulations.gov/ process by which NMFS can
January 2016 NPRM and, accordingly, #!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017- accommodate tribal treaty rights by
cancels the plans to develop a SNPRM 0005, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, setting aside appropriate amounts of
as announced by the Agency on January complete the required fields, and enter fish in conjunction with the Pacific
12, 2017. If FMCSA determines changes or attach your comments. Fishery Management Council process
to the safety fitness determination • Mail: Barry A. Thom, Regional for determining harvest specifications
process are still necessary and advisable Administrator, West Coast Region, and management measures.
in the future, a new rulemaking would NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Since the FMP has been in place,
be initiated that will incorporate any Seattle, WA 98115–0070, Attn: Miako NMFS has been allocating a portion of
appropriate recommendations from the Ushio. the U.S. TAC (called Optimum Yield
National Academies of Science and the Instructions: Comments sent by any (OY) or Annual Catch Limit (ACL) prior
comments received through this other method, to any other address or to 2012) of Pacific whiting to the tribal
rulemaking. The NPRM concerning individual, or received after the end of fishery, following the process
motor carrier safety fitness the comment period, may not be established in 50 CFR 660.50(d). The
determinations is withdrawn. considered by NMFS. All comments tribal allocation is subtracted from the
Issued under the authority delegated in 49 received are part of the public record U.S. Pacific whiting TAC before
CFR 1.87 on: March 17, 2017. and will generally be posted for public allocation to the non-tribal sectors.
Daphne Y. Jefferson, viewing on www.regulations.gov There are four tribes that can
Deputy Administrator. without change. All personal identifying participate in the tribal Pacific whiting
[FR Doc. 2017–05777 Filed 3–22–17; 8:45 am] information (e.g., name, address, etc.), fishery: The Hoh Tribe, the Makah
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
confidential business information, or Tribe, the Quileute Tribe and the
otherwise sensitive information Quinault Indian Nation (collectively,
submitted voluntarily by the sender will the ‘‘Treaty Tribes’’). The Hoh Tribe has
be publicly accessible. NMFS will not expressed an interest in
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE accept anonymous comments (enter participating to date. The Quileute Tribe
National Oceanic and Atmospheric ‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish and Quinault Indian Nation have
Administration to remain anonymous). expressed interest in commencing
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: participation in the Pacific whiting
50 CFR Part 660 Miako Ushio, phone: 206–526–4644, fishery. However, to date, only the
and email: miako.ushio@noaa.gov. Makah Tribe has prosecuted a tribal
[Docket No. 161128999–7248–01] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: fishery for Pacific whiting, having
RIN 0648–BG47 Electronic Access harvested Pacific whiting since 1996
using midwater trawl gear. Tribal
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; This proposed rule is accessible via allocations have been based on
Fisheries Off West Coast States; the Internet at the Office of the Federal discussions with the Tribes regarding
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2017 Register Web site at https:// their intent for those fishing years. Table
Tribal Fishery for Pacific Whiting www.federalregister.gov. Background 1 below provides a history of U.S. TACs
information and documents are and annual tribal allocation in metric
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries available at the NMFS West Coast tons (mt).
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Region Web site at http://
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/ TABLE 1—U.S. TOTAL ALLOWABLE
Commerce. fisheries/management/whiting/pacific_ CATCH (TAC) AND ANNUAL TRIBAL
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for whiting.html and at the Pacific Fishery ALLOCATION IN METRIC TONS (mt)
comments. Management Council’s Web site at
http://www.pcouncil.org/. Tribal
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed U.S. TAC 1
Year allocation
rule for the 2017 Pacific whiting fishery Background (mt) (mt)
under the authority of the Pacific Coast The regulations at 50 CFR 660.50(d)
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan address the implementation of the treaty 2007 .................. 242,591 35,000
(FMP), the Magnuson Stevens Fishery rights that Pacific Coast treaty Indian 2008 .................. 269,545 35,000
2009 .................. 135,939 50,000
Conservation and Management Act tribes have to harvest groundfish in
2010 .................. 193,935 49,939
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the Pacific their usual and accustomed fishing 2011 .................. 290,903 66,908
Whiting Act of 2006, as amended. This areas in U.S. waters. Section 660.50(d) 2012 .................. 186,037 48,556
proposed rule would allocate 17.5 provides that an allocation or regulation 2013 .................. 269,745 63,205
percent of the U.S. Total Allowable specific to the tribes shall be initiated by 2014 .................. 316,206 55,336
Catch (TAC) of Pacific whiting for 2017 a written request from a Pacific Coast 2015 .................. 325,072 56,888
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:56 Mar 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP1.SGM 23MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_14903/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-03-23 02:45:58
Document Modified: 2017-03-23 02:45:58
| 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 | Notice of withdrawal. | |
| Dates | The NPRM ``Carrier Safety Fitness Determination,'' RIN 2126- AB11, published on January 21, 2016 (81 FR 3562), is withdrawn as of March 23, 2017. | |
| Contact | Ms. Barbara Baker, (202) 366-3397, [email protected] FMCSA office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 14848 | |
| RIN Number | 2126-AB11 | |
| CFR Citation | 49
CFR
350 49 CFR 365 49 CFR 385 49 CFR 386 49 CFR 387 49 CFR 395 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR