Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment, 76796-76832 [E6-21380]

Agencies

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 245 (Thursday, December 21, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76796-76832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21380]



[[Page 76795]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 385, 386, et al.



Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and 
Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 76796]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 385, 386, 390, 392, 393, 396, and Appendix G to 
Subchapter B of Chapter III

[Docket No. FMCSA-2005-23315]
RIN 2126-AA86


Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and Motor 
Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

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

DATES: Comments must be received by March 21, 2007.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, (202) 366-4009, 
Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division (MC-PSV), Office of Bus and 
Truck Standards and Operations, FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Table of Contents

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

[[Page 76797]]

    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
    Energy Effects
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    Civil Justice Reform
    Protection of Children
    Taking of Private Property
    Federalism
    Regulation Identification Number
    List of Subjects

I. Background

Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier 
Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act) and section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 
109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, at 1729, August 10, 2005, codified at 49 U.S.C. 
31151).
    The 1984 Act provides authority to regulate drivers, motor 
carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to ``prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle 
safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for 
commercial motor vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure 
that: (1) Commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, 
and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of 
commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the 
vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial 
motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles 
safely; and (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not 
have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators.'' 
49 U.S.C. 31136(a).
    This NPRM would establish a program to ensure that intermodal 
equipment (primarily chassis) \1\ interchanged to motor carriers and 
used to transport intermodal containers is safe and systematically 
maintained. An intermodal chassis meets the definition of a 
``commercial motor vehicle'' under 49 U.S.C. 31132(1)(A) because it 
``has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of at least 
10,001 pounds * * *'' The NPRM is based primarily on section 
31136(a)(1), especially the mandates dealing with maintenance and 
equipment, and secondarily on section 31136(a)(4). Entities that 
interchange intermodal equipment to motor carriers would be required to 
establish a program to systematically inspect, repair, and maintain 
that equipment, if they do not already have such a program in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The intermodal equipment described are intermodal container 
chassis specifically designed to transport cargo containers. The 
loaded cargo containers are transported on ships and trains to 
various ports and rail facilities in the United States and then 
transferred to chassis trailers for transportation by highway to 
their final destination. Similarly, empty containers may be loaded 
at shippers' facilities in the United States, and then transported 
on a chassis trailer to ports and rail yards for subsequent portions 
of the movement to be handled by additional modes to other 
destinations in the United States or abroad. Chassis trailers 
carrying containerized cargo are used to transport more than $450 
billion in cargo entering and leaving the United States annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU added new section 31151, entitled 
``Roadability,'' to subchapter III of chapter 311 of title 49, United 
States Code. Section 31151(a)(1) requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to issue regulations to be codified in the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) ``to ensure that intermodal 
equipment used to transport intermodal containers is safe and 
systematically maintained.'' Section 31151(a)(3) specifies, in 
considerable detail, a minimum of 14 items that must be included in the 
regulations, each of which is discussed later in the preamble and 
included in the proposed rules or existing agency procedures. 
Departmental employees designated by the Secretary are authorized to 
inspect intermodal equipment, and copy related maintenance and repair 
records (section 31151(b)). Any intermodal equipment that fails to 
comply with applicable Federal safety regulations may be placed out of 
service by Departmental or other Federal, State, or governmental 
officials designated by the Secretary until the necessary repairs have 
been made (section 31151(c)). State, local, or tribal requirements 
inconsistent with a regulation adopted pursuant to section 31151 are 
preempted (section 31151(d)). Specifically, a State requirement for the 
periodic inspection of intermodal chassis by intermodal equipment 
providers that was in effect on January 1, 2005, is preempted on the 
effective date of the final regulation resulting from this rulemaking 
(section 31151(e)(1)), but preemption may be waived upon application by 
the State if the Secretary finds that the State requirement is as 
effective as the Federal requirement and does not unduly burden 
interstate commerce (section 31151(e)(2)).
    All of these provisions of SAFETEA-LU are discussed in the preamble 
and embodied in the regulatory text of this NPRM.

Previous Rulemaking Efforts To Improve Chassis Maintenance

    On February 17, 1999 (64 FR 7849), the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA), which then had responsibility for commercial 
motor vehicle safety, published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning inspection, repair, and maintenance 
responsibilities for intermodal container chassis. The ANPRM was in 
response to a petition for rulemaking filed by the American Trucking 
Associations (ATA). ATA argued that rail carriers, ocean carriers, and 
other entities that offer container chassis for transportation in 
interstate commerce frequently fail to ensure the container chassis are 
in safe and proper operating condition. ATA believed poor maintenance 
of this intermodal equipment was a serious safety problem and requested 
FHWA to make the equipment providers responsible for the roadworthiness 
of the container chassis tendered to motor carriers.
    ATA requested that the FMCSRs be amended to make intermodal 
equipment providers subject to 49 CFR part 396, concerning inspection, 
repair, and maintenance of commercial motor vehicles. Under the ATA 
proposal, equipment providers would have been prohibited from offering 
an intermodal container chassis for transportation in such condition 
that it would likely cause a crash or a breakdown of the vehicle. Motor 
carriers would have been prohibited from certifying to equipment 
providers that the intermodal container chassis or container meets 
applicable safety regulations, unless the equipment provider provided 
the motor carrier with adequate equipment, time, and the proper 
facilities to make a full inspection of the container chassis and any 
necessary repairs to the equipment prior to the tendering of the 
equipment to the motor carrier for operation in interstate commerce. 
ATA also requested that the regulations be amended so motor carriers 
would not be liable for civil or criminal penalties for operating a 
container chassis, or transporting a container that did not meet the 
applicable safety requirements, if the equipment was offered for 
transportation in an unsafe or poor condition.
    On October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56478), as follow-up to the ANPRM, the 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) announced a series of 
public meetings for motor carriers, equipment providers, and other 
interested parties to discuss inspection, repair, and maintenance 
practices for ensuring that container chassis and trailers are in safe 
and proper operating condition at all times. Representatives from the 
FHWA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Maritime 
Administration (MARAD), and OST participated in the listening sessions. 
These sessions were intended to help DOT broaden its knowledge of the 
safety implications of industry practices involving terminal operators

[[Page 76798]]

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

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

    The Secretary explained the new inspection program would be modeled 
after FMCSA's compliance review program already in place for the 
nation's interstate motor carriers. Intermodal equipment providers 
would be required to obtain a USDOT Number or other unique identifier 
and display it on their container chassis so that safety performance 
data could be captured and attributed to the equipment provided. FMCSA 
would apply the same civil penalty structure and enforcement actions 
used for motor carriers to intermodal equipment providers that 
demonstrate patterns of non-compliance with the FMCSRs.
    As part of this new activity, FMCSA compiled and analyzed 
additional intermodal chassis inspection data from 38 States. The 
information derived from this analysis, particularly violations that 
caused vehicles to be placed out of service, provided evidence that 
intermodal equipment failed to meet the FMCSRs more often than non-
intermodal equipment.

SAFETEA--LU Requirements Codified at 49 U.S.C. 31151

    Section 4118 of SAFETEA--LU amended 49 U.S.C., chapter 311, by 
adding new section 31151 (49 U.S.C. 31151) titled ``Roadability.'' 
Section 31151 states:

    The Secretary of Transportation, after providing notice and 
opportunity for comment, shall issue regulations establishing a 
program to ensure that intermodal equipment used to transport 
intermodal containers is safe and systematically maintained.

    Section 31151(a)(3) lists 14 elements to be included in the 
regulations as follows:

    ``(A) a requirement to identify intermodal equipment providers 
responsible for the inspection and maintenance of intermodal 
equipment that is interchanged or intended for interchange to motor 
carriers in intermodal transportation;
    ``(B) a requirement to match intermodal equipment readily to an 
intermodal equipment provider through a unique identifying number;
    ``(C) a requirement that an intermodal equipment provider 
identified under subparagraph (A) systematically inspect, repair, 
and maintain, or cause to be systematically inspected, repaired, and 
maintained, intermodal equipment described in subparagraph (A) that 
is intended for interchange with a motor carrier;
    ``(D) a requirement to ensure that each intermodal equipment 
provider identified under subparagraph (A) maintains a system of 
maintenance and repair records for such equipment;
    ``(E) requirements that--
    ``(i) a specific list of intermodal equipment components or 
items be identified for the visual or audible inspection of which a 
driver is responsible before operating the equipment over the road; 
and
    ``(ii) the inspection under clause (i) be conducted as part of 
the Federal requirement in effect on the date of enactment of this 
Act that a driver be satisfied that the intermodal equipment 
components are in good working order before the equipment is 
operated over the road;
    ``(F) a requirement that a facility at which an intermodal 
equipment provider regularly makes intermodal equipment available 
for interchange have an operational process and space readily 
available for a motor carrier to have an equipment defect identified 
pursuant to subparagraph (E) repaired or the equipment replaced 
prior to departure;
    ``(G) a program for the evaluation and audit of compliance by 
intermodal equipment providers with applicable Federal motor carrier 
safety regulations;
    ``(H) a civil penalty structure consistent with section 521(b) 
of title 49, United States Code, for intermodal equipment providers 
that fail to attain satisfactory compliance with applicable Federal 
motor carrier safety regulations;
    ``(I) a prohibition on intermodal equipment providers from 
placing intermodal equipment in service on the public highways to 
the extent such providers or their equipment are found to pose an 
imminent hazard;
    ``(J) a process by which motor carriers and agents of motor 
carriers shall be able to request the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration to undertake an investigation of an intermodal 
equipment provider identified under subparagraph (A) that is alleged 
to be not in compliance with the regulations under this section;
    ``(K) a process by which equipment providers and agents of 
equipment providers shall be able to request the Administration to 
undertake an investigation of a motor carrier that is alleged to be 
not in compliance with the regulations issued under this section;
    ``(L) a process by which a driver or motor carrier transporting 
intermodal equipment is required to report to the intermodal 
equipment provider or the provider's designated agent any actual 
damage or defect in the intermodal equipment of which the driver or 
motor carrier is aware at the time the intermodal equipment is 
returned to the intermodal equipment provider or the provider's 
designated agent;
    ``(M) a requirement that any actual damage or defect identified 
in the process established under subparagraph (L) be repaired before 
the equipment is made available for interchange to a motor carrier 
and that repairs of equipment made pursuant to the requirements of 
this subparagraph and reports made pursuant to the subparagraph (L) 
process be documented in the maintenance records for such equipment; 
and
    ``(N) a procedure under which motor carriers, drivers and 
intermodal equipment providers may seek correction of their motor 
carrier safety records through the deletion from those records of 
violations of safety regulations attributable to deficiencies in the 
intermodal chassis or trailer for which they should not have been 
held responsible.''

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

[[Page 76799]]

or government officials designated by the Secretary to place out of 
service any intermodal equipment that is determined under this section 
to fail to comply with applicable Federal safety regulations; to 
prevent its use on a public highway until the repairs necessary to 
bring such equipment into compliance have been completed; and to 
require documentation of repairs in the equipment maintenance records.
    Section 31151(d) preempts statutes, regulations, orders, or other 
requirements of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a 
tribal government relating to CMV safety, if the law, regulation, 
order, or other requirement exceeds or is inconsistent with Federal 
rules adopted to implement the roadability statute. Section 31151(e)(2) 
authorizes the Secretary to make a nonpreemption determination if the 
State requirement for the inspection and maintenance of intermodal 
chassis by intermodal equipment providers was in effect on or before 
January 1, 2005, and is as effective as the Federal requirement and 
does not unduly burden interstate commerce. Subsequent amendments to 
State requirements that were not preempted must be submitted to the 
agency for a preemption determination. State provisions that would be 
preempted may remain in effect only until the date on which 
implementing regulations under this section take effect. Finally, 
section 31151(f) defines the terms ``intermodal equipment,'' 
``intermodal equipment interchange agreement,'' ``intermodal equipment 
provider,'' and ``interchange.''

II. Current Rulemaking To Improve Intermodal Equipment Safety

Rulemaking Proposal

    The proposed regulations would, for the first time, make intermodal 
equipment providers (IEPs) subject to the FMCSRs. The new requirements 
would ensure that intermodal container chassis and trailers tendered to 
motor carriers by steamship lines, railroads, terminal operators, 
chassis pools, etc., comply with the applicable motor carrier safety 
regulations. The explicit inclusion of equipment providers in the scope 
of FMCSRs would ensure that intermodal equipment providers would be 
subject to the same enforcement proceedings, orders, and civil 
penalties as those applied to motor carriers, property brokers, and 
freight forwarders. The proposed rule would also impose additional 
requirements on motor carriers and drivers operating intermodal 
equipment.
    FMCSA proposes to address the SAFETEA-LU requirements by adding to 
49 CFR part 390, a new subpart C titled ``Requirements and Information 
for Intermodal Equipment Providers and for Motor Carriers Operating 
Intermodal Equipment.'' In addition, we would amend parts 385, 386, 
390, 392, 393, and 396, as well as Appendix G to Subchapter B, to make 
the appropriate sections applicable to IEPs. With these proposed 
changes to the current FMCSRs, the agency will address the SAFETEA-LU 
requirements codified at 49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3):
     A roadability review based on elements of the Safety 
Fitness Procedures to enable FMCSA to assess the safety of equipment 
tendered by IEPs (part 385).Section 31151(a)(3)(G).
     Application of FMCSA Rules of Practice for safety 
compliance proceedings (part 386). Sections 31151(a)(3)(H) and (I).
     Compliance with general safety regulations, including 
filing of an Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report (FMCSA 
Form MCS-150C), and display of the intermodal equipment provider's 
USDOT number or other unique identification number on intermodal 
equipment (part 390). Sections 31151(a)(3)(A), (B), (C), (D), (J), (K), 
and (N).
     Provisions for CMV drivers to inspect specific intermodal 
equipment components and be satisfied that they are in good working 
order before the equipment is operated over the road (part 392). 
Sections 31151(a)(3)(E) and (F).
     Extension of the applicability of regulations concerning 
parts and accessories necessary for safe operation to intermodal 
equipment and IEPs (part 393).Sections 31151(a)(3)(C).
     Extension of the applicability of regulations concerning 
inspection, repair, and maintenance of CMVs to IEPs (part 396). 
Sections 31151(a)(3)(C), (D), (L), and (M).
    The proposed changes to each part are described below.
Part 385--Safety Fitness Procedures
    FMCSA proposes to conduct roadability reviews in order to evaluate 
the safety and regulatory compliance status of IEPs. This activity 
would consist of an on-site examination of an intermodal equipment 
provider's inspection, repair, and maintenance operation and records to 
determine its compliance with applicable FMCSRs (i.e., parts 390, 393, 
and 396). However, FMCSA would not issue safety ratings to IEPs.
    FMCSA would use its Safety Status Measurement System (SafeStat) to 
identify and prioritize which IEPs would be subject to a roadability 
review. SafeStat is an automated, data-driven analysis system designed 
to incorporate current on-road safety performance information on all 
motor carriers, and IEPs, with on-site reviews and enforcement history 
information, when available, in order to measure relative safety 
fitness. SafeStat plays an important role in determining the safety 
fitness in several FMCSA/State programs including the Performance and 
Registration Information Systems Management, National Compliance Review 
Prioritization, and the roadside Inspection Selection System. FMCSA 
would use the system to continuously quantify and monitor changes in 
the safety status of IEPs. The agency's initial focus would be on the 
Vehicle Safety Evaluation Area (SEA). For more information about 
SafeStat, visit FMCSA's ``SafeStat Online'' at URL: https://
ai.fmcsa.dot.gov.
    In addition to IEPs that are identified in SafeStat, a roadability 
review may be conducted on an IEP that falls into one of the following 
categories: (1) The provider is the subject of a complaint that FMCSA 
determines to be non-frivolous; (2) the provider has equipment involved 
in a pattern of recordable crashes or hazardous materials incidents; 
(3) the provider requests FMCSA to conduct a review of its operations; 
(4) the provider demonstrates a pattern of non-compliance; or (5) the 
agency determines there is a need for a review.
    FMCSA would conduct roadability reviews under proposed Sec. Sec.  
385.501 and 385.503 using the current framework of the Compliance 
Analysis and Performance Review Information System (CAPRI). The CAPRI 
application provides a standardized method for conducting reviews on 
motor carriers, hazardous materials shippers, and cargo tank 
facilities. It is also used for safety audits on new carriers and 
Mexico-domiciled carriers seeking to operate in the United States. The 
application includes extensive checking for data integrity and 
electronic file transfer for expediting data flow, and is for use by 
both Federal and State enforcement officials.
    Under proposed Sec.  385.503, if FMCSA finds violations of parts 
390, 393, or 396, the agency would cite the IEP for those violations. 
The agency may also impose civil penalties according to the civil 
penalty structure contained in 49 U.S.C. 521(b). FMCSA may prohibit an 
intermodal equipment provider from tendering any intermodal equipment

[[Page 76800]]

from a particular location or multiple locations if the provider's 
FMCSRs compliance is so deficient that its continued operation 
constitutes an imminent hazard to highway safety. This is authorized by 
49 U.S.C. 521(b)(5)(A), which directs the agency to ``order a vehicle * 
* * out-of-service, or order an employer to cease all or part of the 
employer's commercial motor vehicle operations. In making any such 
order, the [agency] shall impose no restriction on any * * * employer 
beyond that required to abate the hazard.''
Part 386--Rules of Practice
    FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 386 concerning rules of 
practice for enforcement proceedings before its Assistant 
Administrator. The purpose of the proposed changes is to apply part 386 
to intermodal equipment providers now subject to FMCSA jurisdiction.
    Section 386.1 Scope of the rules of this part. FMCSA would amend 
existing Sec.  386.1 to include an explicit reference to intermodal 
equipment providers. They would be subject to the same enforcement 
proceedings, orders, and civil penalties as motor carriers, property 
brokers, and freight forwarders, with respect to the safety of their 
equipment tendered and their oversight of inspection, repair, and 
maintenance of that equipment.
    Section 386.83 Sanction for failure to pay civil penalties or abide 
by payment plan; operation in interstate commerce prohibited. FMCSA 
proposes to amend Sec.  386.83 to extend the applicability of this 
section to intermodal equipment providers.
Part 390--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
    Section 390.3 General applicability. Section 390.3(h) would 
explicitly state that intermodal equipment providers are subject to 
parts 385, safety fitness procedures; 386, rules of practice; 390 
(except Sec.  390.15(b)); 393, parts and accessories necessary for safe 
operation; and 396, inspection, repair, and maintenance of commercial 
motor vehicles.
    Section 390.5 Definitions. FMCSA would add definitions of 
``interchange,'' ``intermodal equipment,'' ``intermodal equipment 
interchange agreement,'' and ``intermodal equipment provider'' to Sec.  
390.5 to provide a consistent vocabulary for dealing with intermodal 
equipment issues. These definitions are identical to the definitions 
for these terms included in 49 U.S.C. 31151(f). ``Interchange'' would 
be the word used to describe the act of providing intermodal equipment 
to a motor carrier. Leasing equipment to a motor carrier is not 
included in this term.
    ``Intermodal equipment'' rather than intermodal container chassis 
would be the term used in the regulation. Though intermodal container 
chassis are by far the most common variety of intermodal equipment, 
FMCSA decided to propose a broader term ``intermodal equipment'' to 
cover all the different kinds of trailers, chassis, and associated 
devices used to transport intermodal containers.
    ``Intermodal equipment interchange agreement'' would describe the 
written agreement between an intermodal equipment provider and a motor 
carrier, which establishes the responsibilities and liabilities of both 
parties. The Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access 
Agreement is commonly used for this purpose.
    ``Intermodal equipment provider'' would describe the party that 
interchanges the intermodal equipment with the motor carrier, and that, 
under these proposed rules, would be responsible for systematic 
inspection, repair, and maintenance of the intermodal equipment.
    Section 390.15 Assistance in investigations and special studies. 
FMCSA would amend Sec.  390.15(a) to add a reference to intermodal 
equipment providers, requiring them to provide records, information, 
and assistance in an investigation of an accident, as defined in 49 CFR 
390.5. Intermodal equipment providers would not be required to maintain 
the accident register required of motor carriers in Sec.  390.15(b), 
but any accident information they do retain must be made available to 
investigators upon request.
    Section 390.19 Motor carrier, HM shipper, and intermodal equipment 
provider identification reports. FMCSA would require intermodal 
equipment providers to file an Intermodal Equipment Provider 
Identification Report, Form MCS-150C and to update it every two years.
    Section 390.21 Marking of self-propelled CMVs, and intermodal 
equipment. FMCSA would require intermodal equipment providers (i.e., 
the entity tendering the equipment, which may or may not be the owner) 
to mark intermodal equipment with an identification number issued by 
FMCSA. This number could be a USDOT number or another unique 
identification number. The USDOT number is used to identify all motor 
carriers in FMCSA's registration/information systems. It is also used 
by States as the key identifier in the Performance and Registration 
Information Systems Management (PRISM) project, a cooperative Federal/
State program that makes motor carrier safety a requirement for 
obtaining and keeping commercial motor vehicle registration and 
privileges. FMCSA seeks comment on what other unique identification 
numbers could serve the same purpose as the USDOT number.
Part 390, Subpart C--Requirements and Information for Intermodal 
Equipment Providers and for Motor Carriers Operating Intermodal 
Equipment
    FMCSA proposes a new subpart C, Sec. Sec.  390.40-390.44, to 
address the specific requirements for intermodal equipment providers in 
SAFETEA-LU.
    Proposed Sec.  390.40 lists all of the responsibilities of an 
intermodal equipment provider, including identifying its operations to 
FMCSA; marking intermodal equipment; inspecting, repairing, and 
maintaining the equipment; keeping records of inspection, repair, and 
maintenance; providing procedures and facilities for inspection, 
repair, and maintenance; and refraining from placing equipment in 
service if the equipment would pose an imminent hazard, as defined in 
Sec.  386.72(b)(1).
    Proposed paragraph (h) of Sec.  390.40 requires that any repairs or 
replacements must be made in a timely manner after a driver notifies 
the provider of such damage, defects, or deficiencies. FMCSA proposes a 
limited timeframe for repair or replacement actions because, in the 
intermodal sector, drivers' income is usually based upon the number of 
trips a driver can complete in a day. Drivers who report defects or 
deficiencies to equipment providers face potential delays in leaving 
the ports or terminals while waiting for a container chassis to be 
repaired or replaced. Therefore, FMCSA wishes to reduce the amount of 
time that drivers may have to wait after pointing out defects or 
deficiencies, thereby encouraging the driver to make such reports. 
Driver reports will bring potential equipment defects and deficiencies 
to the equipment provider's attention so they can be remedied. 
Operating safe equipment is clearly in the drivers'--and FMCSA's--
interest.
    Proposed Sec.  390.42(a) and (b) prescribe procedures for 
intermodal equipment providers and motor carriers to request correction 
of publicly-accessible safety violation information for which the 
intermodal equipment provider or motor carrier should not have been 
held responsible. An intermodal equipment provider or motor carrier 
would use FMCSA's DataQs system for this purpose. The DataQs system is 
an electronic means for filing concerns

[[Page 76801]]

about Federal and State data released to the public by FMCSA. Through 
this system, data concerns are automatically forwarded to the 
appropriate office for resolution. The system also allows filers to 
monitor the status of each filing.
    Proposed Sec.  390.42(c) and (d) prescribe procedures for 
requesting that FMCSA investigate any motor carrier or intermodal 
equipment provider that may be in noncompliance with FMCSA 
requirements.
    Proposed Sec.  390.44 prescribes the responsibilities of drivers 
and motor carriers, as opposed to intermodal equipment providers, when 
operating intermodal equipment. The driver would be required to make a 
pre-trip inspection and would not be allowed to operate the equipment 
on the highway if the equipment is not in good working order. The 
driver or the motor carrier would also be required to report any damage 
or deficiencies in the equipment at the time the equipment is returned 
to the provider. This report would have to include, at a minimum, the 
items listed in Sec.  396.11(a)(2).
    Proposed Sec.  390.46 would address preemption by the FMCSRs of 
State and local laws and regulations concerning inspection, repair, and 
maintenance. Generally, a law, regulation, order, or other requirement 
of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a tribal 
organization relating to the inspection, repair, and maintenance of 
intermodal equipment is preempted if such law, regulation, order, or 
other requirement exceeds or is inconsistent with a requirement imposed 
by the FMCSRs.
Part 392--Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles
    FMCSA proposes to amend Sec.  392.7 to cover intermodal equipment 
similar to the current requirements for other CMVs. The proposal would 
require drivers preparing to transport intermodal equipment to make a 
visual or audible inspection of specific components of intermodal 
equipment, and to satisfy the driver that the intermodal equipment was 
in good working order before operating it over the road.
Part 393--Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation
    FMCSA proposes to revise Sec.  393.1 to make equipment providers 
responsible for offering in interstate commerce intermodal equipment 
that is equipped with all required parts and accessories. The proposed 
changes would ensure each required component and system is in safe and 
proper working order. This requirement is separate and distinct from 
the provisions of part 396, which cover responsibilities for 
inspection, repair, and maintenance of the CMV or chassis, without 
specifying all of the parts and accessories necessary for safe 
operation.
Part 396--Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance
    Part 396 would be amended to require intermodal equipment providers 
to establish a systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance program 
and to maintain records documenting the program. Equipment providers 
would also be required to comply with FMCSA's periodic and annual 
inspection regulations. Furthermore, intermodal equipment providers 
would be required to establish a process by which a motor carrier or 
driver could report the defects or deficiencies on container chassis 
that they discover or that are reported to them. Intermodal equipment 
providers would then be required to document whether they have repaired 
the defect or deficiency, or that repair was unnecessary, before the 
intermodal equipment was interchanged.
    Section 396.1 Scope. FMCSA proposes to revise Sec.  396.1 to 
require every intermodal equipment provider to comply with, and be 
knowledgeable of, the applicable FMCSA regulations.
    Section 396.3 Inspection, repair, and maintenance. FMCSA proposes 
to amend Sec.  396.3 to require intermodal equipment providers to be 
responsible for the systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance of 
intermodal equipment, and to keep the associated records.
    Section 396.11, Driver vehicle inspection reports. FMCSA proposes 
to amend Sec.  396.11 to add a new paragraph (a)(2) specifying that the 
intermodal equipment provider must have a process to receive reports of 
defects or deficiencies in the equipment. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) 
lists the specific components of intermodal equipment that must be 
included on the driver vehicle inspection report.
    Section 396.12, Procedures governing the acceptance by intermodal 
equipment providers of reports required under Sec.  390.44(b) of this 
chapter from motor carriers and drivers. FMCSA would add a new Sec.  
396.12 to require intermodal equipment providers to establish a 
procedure to accept reports of defects or deficiencies from motor 
carriers or drivers, repair the defects that are likely to affect 
safety, and document the procedure.
    Sections 396.17, Periodic Inspection, 396.19, Inspector 
qualifications, 396.21, Periodic inspection recordkeeping requirements, 
396.23 Equivalent to periodic inspection. FMCSA proposes to revise 
these sections to make clear their application to intermodal equipment 
providers.
    Section 396.25, Qualifications of brake inspectors. In its ANPRM of 
February 3, 1989 (54 FR 5518), concerning Federal standards for the 
maintenance and inspection of CMV brakes, FMCSA concluded that the 
legislation requiring the rulemaking action applied only to employees 
of motor carriers [section 9110 of the Truck and Bus Safety and 
Regulatory Reform Act of 1988, (Subtitle B of Title IX of the Anti-Drug 
Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181, at 4531) now 
codified at 49 U.S.C. 31137(b)]. Section 9110(b) required regulations 
to ensure that CMV brakes are properly maintained and inspected by 
``appropriate employees.'' Because this provision amended the Motor 
Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (the 1984 Act) and was codified in section 
31137, ``employee'' had the meaning given to that term in 49 U.S.C. 
31132(2), which specifically means ``a mechanic.'' However, the term 
``employer'' in section 31132(3) means, among other things, a person 
who ``owns or leases a commercial motor vehicle * * * or assigns an 
employee to operate it.'' The agency generally treated the 1984 Act 
term ``employer'' as equivalent to ``motor carrier.'' But since 
independent repair and maintenance shops neither own nor lease CMVs, 
nor assign employees to operate them, the agency concluded that 
mechanics (employees) who did not work for a motor carrier (employer) 
were not covered. ``An example of this would be independent garage 
owners and their mechanics.'' (54 FR 5518).
    The example was correct, but the statutory term ``employer'' also 
describes intermodal equipment providers who own CMVs, namely 
intermodal chassis. Such equipment providers and their mechanics are 
therefore subject to the 1984 Act, including the brake inspector 
qualifications adopted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31137(b), which are now 
codified at Sec.  396.25.
Appendix G to Subchapter B--Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards
    FMCSA proposes to amend Appendix G, item 6 (Safe Loading) to add 
devices used to secure an intermodal container to a chassis. These 
devices include rails or support frames, tiedown bolsters, locking 
pins, clevises, clamps, and hooks.

[[Page 76802]]

Proposed Enforcement Plans

Review of Maintenance Programs
    If this proposal is promulgated as a final rule, FMCSA would 
initiate reviews of intermodal equipment providers' maintenance 
programs similar to the reviews FMCSA currently conducts on motor 
carriers' safety management controls.
     The reviews would examine equipment providers' compliance 
with FMCSA commercial motor vehicle safety regulations to which they 
are subject, especially parts 390, 393, and 396 and Appendix G. 
Intermodal equipment providers would be held responsible for the 
inspection, repair, and maintenance of their intermodal equipment, 
using standards similar to those used by motor carriers for the 
inspection, repair, and maintenance of their trailers.
     The reviews may be triggered when roadside inspection 
reports, crash report data, or driver or carrier complaints indicate a 
pattern of non-compliance by an equipment provider.
     FMCSA would develop a procedure to review IEPs' compliance 
with the applicable FMCSRs, with a focus on the safe operating 
condition of the intermodal equipment, the involvement of that 
equipment in recordable highway crashes, and the intermodal equipment 
provider's safety management controls. The agency would develop review 
procedures, enforcement procedures, and rules of practice relevant to 
the responsibility of equipment providers to tender roadworthy 
equipment to motor carriers. However, if FMCSA were to subject an 
intermodal equipment provider to an operations out-of-service order, 
the order would prevent that provider from tendering equipment to motor 
carriers. The order would not apply to other transportation-related 
activities of an intermodal equipment provider that is a steamship 
company or rail carrier. Intermodal equipment providers that fail to 
attain satisfactory compliance with applicable federal motor carrier 
safety regulations would be subject to a civil penalty structure 
consistent with 49 U.S.C. 521(b).
Imminent Hazard Determinations
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3)(I), the Secretary of Transportation is 
required to prohibit intermodal equipment providers from placing 
intermodal equipment in service on the public highways to the extent 
such providers or their equipment are found to pose an ``imminent 
hazard.''
    The authority to declare that a motor carrier poses an imminent 
hazard is codified in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(5). If FMCSA, after an 
investigation, determines that violations of the FMCSRs or the statutes 
under which they were established pose an ``imminent hazard'' to 
safety, the agency is required to order the vehicle or employee 
operating that vehicle out of service, or order a motor carrier to 
cease all or part of its commercial motor vehicle operations.
    Imminent hazard is defined in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(5)(B) and 49 CFR 
386.72(b)(1) to mean ``any condition of vehicle, employee, or 
commercial motor vehicle operations which substantially increases the 
likelihood of serious injury or death if not discontinued 
immediately.'' An imminent hazard may be a violation that is recurring 
and can be remedied by the carrier's ceasing the violation (e.g., an 
intermodal equipment provider is discovered operating intermodal 
equipment that has been declared out of service). It may also be argued 
that a motor carrier that continually and frequently violates multiple 
regulatory requirements poses an imminent hazard to the motoring 
public.
    FMCSA proposes to issue an Imminent Hazard Out-of-Service (OOS) 
Order to any intermodal equipment provider whose intermodal chassis 
substantially increase the likelihood of serious injury or death if not 
taken out of service immediately, consistent with its treatment of 
motor carriers. Use of the Imminent Hazard OOS Order is limited to 
violations of certain FMCSRs (49 CFR parts 385, 386, 390-399, and some 
of part 383). Such an order is a serious matter and is usually a last 
resort when a serious safety problem exists that substantially 
increases the likelihood of serious injury or death and is unlikely to 
be resolved through any other means available.
    FMCSA could issue Imminent Hazard OOS Orders to an intermodal 
equipment provider's: (1) Specific vehicle; (2) terminal or facility; 
and/or (3) all equipment tendered by the provider. Where an Imminent 
Hazard OOS Order is issued, the agency would only impose restrictions 
necessary to abate the hazard.
    FMCSA's goal is to ensure compliance with its regulations and 
thereby ensure safety. Studies show that compliant companies have lower 
crash rates, better insurance rates, and pay less for crash related 
expenses (e.g., cargo damage, legal fees, towing, medical expenses).

Preemption of State Statutes or Regulations

    Sections 31151(d) and (e) preempt certain State, political 
subdivision, and tribal government regulations. In general, the Federal 
rules would preempt the statutes, regulations, orders, or other 
requirements of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a 
tribal organization relating to commercial motor vehicle safety if the 
provisions of those rules exceed or are inconsistent with an FMCSA 
requirement. If a State requirement for the periodic inspection of 
intermodal chassis by intermodal equipment providers was in effect on 
January 1, 2005, it would remain in effect only until the effective 
date of a final rule.
    However, a State may request a nonpreemption determination for any 
requirement for the periodic inspection of intermodal chassis by IEPs 
that was in effect on January 1, 2005. FMCSA would issue a 
determination if it is decided that the State requirement is as 
effective as the Federal requirement and does not unduly burden 
interstate commerce. In order to trigger this review, the State must 
apply to the agency for a determination before the effective date of 
the final rule. The agency would make a determination with respect to 
any such application within 6 months after the date on which it is 
received.
    If a State amends a regulation for which it previously received a 
nonpreemption determination, it must apply for a determination of 
nonpreemption for the amended regulation. Any amendment to a State 
requirement not preempted under this subsection because of a 
determination by the FMCSA may not take effect unless: (1) It is 
submitted to the agency before the effective date of the amendment; and 
(2) the FMCSA determines that the amendment would not cause the State 
requirement to be less effective than the Federal requirement and would 
not unduly burden interstate commerce.

Relationship Among Intermodal Parties and Allocation of Liability

    Section 31151(a)(1) requires that FMCSA issue regulations to ensure 
that intermodal equipment used to transport intermodal containers is 
safe and systematically maintained. However, FMCSA believes the statute 
suggests that the agency should not attempt to allocate liability 
between parties tendering and using intermodal equipment. Rather than 
finding fault among intermodal parties or involving the Government in 
individual disputes (such as who damaged a particular container 
chassis), the rulemaking would establish programmatic responsibility 
for intermodal equipment maintenance. The concept is that a

[[Page 76803]]

maintenance program would produce safer equipment--safety being in the 
interest of the traveling public and of the government.
    The definition of ``intermodal equipment interchange agreement'' in 
Section 31151(f)(2) is ``the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and 
Facilities Access Agreement or any other written document executed by 
an intermodal equipment provider or its agent and a motor carrier or 
its agent, the primary purpose of which is to establish the 
responsibilities and liabilities of both parties with respect to the 
interchange of the intermodal equipment.'' [Emphasis added]
    Neither the section 31151 language nor this proposal would relieve 
motor carriers of liability for damage they may inflict on intermodal 
container chassis. This proposed rulemaking would likely reduce the 
likelihood of crashes attributed to the mechanical condition and 
roadability of intermodal container chassis, but it would not involve 
the Department unnecessarily in the commercial relations or allocation 
of liability between intermodal parties.

International Implications

    Because section 31151 was codified in subchapter III of chapter 311 
of title 49, United States Code, the jurisdictional definitions in 49 
U.S.C. 31132 apply. The term ``United States'' is defined in Sec.  
31132(10) as ``the States of the United States and the District of 
Columbia.'' Section 31151 does not address the question of its own 
geographical reach, so it must be read as limited to the United States, 
as defined in section 31132(10). This means that intermodal equipment 
providers (IEPs) tendering equipment to motor carriers in Puerto Rico, 
the Virgin Islands or any other U.S. territory are not directly subject 
to the requirements of this rule. Nonetheless, any jurisdiction that 
adopts the relevant portions of the FMCSRs as territorial law would 
have the authority to enforce them. There is also a strong presumption 
against extra-territorial application of a statute. Nothing in the 
language or legislative history of section 31151 suggests that Congress 
intended to make it applicable outside the territory of the United 
States. Therefore, IEPs tendering equipment to motor carriers in 
Canada, Mexico, or Central America would not be subject to the 
requirements of this rule, even if the motor carrier immediately 
transports the container/chassis combination across the border into 
this country. Once in the U.S., however, the intermodal equipment would 
be subject to these proposed rules, including marking requirements and 
to existing equipment-related FMCSRs. Enforcement would be taken 
against a motor carrier pulling an unmarked or defective chassis, even 
if the chassis originated with an IEP physically located outside the 
United States.
    IEPs physically outside the United States, as defined in section 
31132(10), are not required by this proposed rule to: (1) File a Form 
MCS-150C; (2) have a systematic inspection, repair and maintenance 
program; (3) create a repair lane for defects discovered by the driver 
just before leaving the terminal; or (4) maintain a system for 
receiving reports of defects and deficiencies from drivers returning 
intermodal equipment. FMCSA cannot conduct roadability reviews of IEPs 
based in foreign countries or non--``United States'' territories 
(because they are not subject to the rules), prohibit such IEPs from 
tendering defective equipment to motor carriers (because that occurs 
beyond the jurisdiction of FMCSA), or issue them civil penalties for 
failure to comply with these rules.
    On the other hand, any intermodal equipment operated in interstate 
commerce in the United States must be marked with a USDOT number or 
other unique identifier. Otherwise, the motor carrier pulling the 
chassis/container combination would have violated these proposed 
regulations. As motor carriers are unlikely to accept the risk of fines 
for transporting unmarked chassis, foreign or non---``United States'' 
IEPs that know their equipment will operate within the United States 
may find it necessary, for business reasons, to file a Form MCS-150C 
and mark their equipment. FMCSA will accept registration applications 
from such entities and issue them USDOT numbers or other unique 
identifiers. In these cases, however, the assignment of an identifying 
number does not amount to an assertion of jurisdiction over the foreign 
or non--United States IEP. Doing so, however would not subject such 
IEPs to FMCSA jurisdiction beyond the borders of the United States, so 
the purpose of the identifying number could not be fully realized.
    The challenge for the agency is to maximize the benefits of section 
31151 and these proposed rules--when non--``United States'' IEPs tender 
equipment that subsequently travels in the United States--without 
exceeding the agency's statutory authority or the principles of 
international law. FMCSA solicits comments on all aspects of this 
problem.

III. Analysis of Safety Data

Analysis of Roadside Inspection Data in 4 States

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

[[Page 76804]]



               Table 1.--Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates of Non-intermodal and Intermodal Semitrailers for the Four-State Analysis (2000-2003)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Unit 2--Semitrailers
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Non-intermodal (NI)               Intermodal (I)                              Percent
                          State                          ----------------------------------------------------------------  Difference in   difference in
                                                             Number of       OOS rate        Number of       OOS rate      OOS rate  (I-   OOS rate  (I-
                                                            inspections      (percent)      inspections      (percent)          NI)           NI)/NI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA\1\...................................................         875,881            14.6          33,523            17.7             3.1            21.2
LA\2\...................................................          27,216             8.8              76            26.3            17.5           198.9
SC\1\...................................................          60,674            14.9           1,982            21.4             6.5            43.6
TX\2\...................................................         150,260            16.1           2,032            24.8             8.7           54.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data for 2000-2002 and part of 2003.
\2\ Data for 2002 only.
Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors involved.
  All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15-30).

    The researchers noted that in each of the four States, the OOS rate 
for intermodal semitrailers was higher than the OOS rate for non-
intermodal semitrailers. The percentage difference between the non-
intermodal and intermodal semitrailer OOS rates in each State was more 
than 20 percent, with intermodal container chassis being in worse 
mechanical condition than other types of semitrailers. Table 2 shows, 
for each of the four States, the total number of Level 1, 2, and 5 
roadside inspections and the percentages of non-intermodal and 
intermodal semitrailer (i.e., Unit 2) inspections with vehicle 
violations. Note that the violation totals represented in Table 3 
include all violations (i.e., not just OOS but also non-OOS violations) 
found on the trailing unit.

                  Table 2.--Total Violation Rates of Non-intermodal and Intermodal Semitrailers for the Four-State Analysis (2000-2003)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Unit 2--Semitrailers
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Non-intermodal (NI)               Intermodal (I)
                          State                          ----------------------------------------------------------------  Difference in      Percent
                                                                               Total                           Total      violation rate   difference in
                                                             Number of    violation rate     Number of    violation rate      (I-NI)      violation rate
                                                            inspections      (percent)      inspections      (percent)                       (I-NI)/NI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA\1\...................................................         875,881            32.8          33,523            32.8             0.0             0.0
LA \2\..................................................          27,216            28.2