Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Certification for Commercial Motor Vehicles Operated by United States-Domiciled Motor Carriers; Withdrawal, 81503-81506 [2015-32868]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules
they argued that data indicating
damages not directly linked to wetlines
damage or release should not be
included. For example, costs associated
with damage to the CTMV from a motor
vehicle collision should not be included
in the total for purposes of the analysis.
PHMSA agrees that only those costs
associated with damages to the wetline
and release of material from the
wetlines should be counted.
Unfortunately, under the current format
of incident report information it is
difficult to parse out the costs of
wetlines-related damages from the total
body of damages where damages occur
beyond those associated with wetlines,
unless some assumptions are made. For
instance, in the case of an incident
involving a fire, PHMSA assumed the
fire was started and was propagated by
the wetlines release.
Upon consideration of the comments,
PHMSA conducted further review of the
172 incidents that were initially
determined to be wetlines incidents in
our preliminary analyses. Prior to this
review, PHMSA became aware that
some of the data in our original set of
incidents was not accurate and likely
led to the critical comments. This data
had since been corrected and a revised
list of incidents was placed in the
docket (8/12/2011; PHMSA–2009–
0303–0048). PHMSA also reviewed
additional CTMV incidents that
occurred from January 1, 2009 to March
31, 2011 to capture more recent data.
This review resulted in a final
determination of 132 wetlines incidents.
A total of 59 incidents where removed
after a review of the original 172
incidents, and 19 incidents were added
after a review of more recent data.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Benefit and Cost Estimation
Manual Purging System. Most
commenters took issue with PHMSA’s
estimation of the costs of installing a
manual purging system.9 In general,
they believe PHMSA underestimated
the total cost presented through
incorrect assumptions and inclusion of
cost factors that do not reflect real-world
applications. Commenters indicated that
PHMSA underestimated the true costs
of a manual purging system by, for
example, not incorporating a markup
cost. Commenters provide a range of
cost estimates from $4,000 to $10,000.
Some also think the regulatory
assessment should have been developed
using a mix of costs of the manual
system and the more expensive
9 PHMSA used a per-unit price of $2,300 based
on the advertised price of the one manufacturer of
purging systems currently designing and installing
such systems.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
automated purging system. Commenters
suggest this because they believe that
owners will invest in the automated
system out of concern that drivers will
forget to operate the manual system and
because an automated system will
provide the added benefit of discovery
of a faulty emergency valve and would
continue to purge the lines during
transportation if such a faulty valve
were present. Details of this pricing can
be found in the regulatory assessment
and other documents submitted to the
docket for this rulemaking. PHMSA’s
post-GAO analysis took into
consideration the cost of the automated
system.
Operational delays. Many
commenters argued that PHMSA has not
accounted for delay costs to the shipper
or carrier due to operation of a purging
system at the loading rack of a terminal
facility. The delay would be caused by
the driver of the CTMV waiting
anywhere from three to six minutes for
the system to complete the purging
process prior to moving the CTMV.
Commenters based this on their
understanding that the regulations
would not allow the vehicle to move
until it is essentially empty—only a
residue remains in the piping.
Completion of the purging process
would be an indicator that it is empty.
Weight penalty. PHMSA estimated
that a manual purging system is
expected to add about 48 pounds to a
CTMV. To the extent that a shipper or
carrier operates at Federal or State gross
weight limits, the shipper or carrier
would have to ship less product because
of this additional weight. Commenters
disagreed with the estimate that only
25% of vehicle trips are at the
maximum allowable weight and
therefore affected by the additional
weight of a purging system. Informal
surveys of carriers by the American
Trucking Association and the National
Tank Truck Carriers found that as much
as 80% of trips are at the maximum
allowable weight. Again, PHMSA’s postGAO analysis accounted for this.
Yonkers, NY Incident. Commenters
believe the Yonkers, NY incident that
led to NTSB Safety Recommendation
(H–98–27) should not be included in the
regulatory assessment for several
reasons, including:
(1) The belief that the fire in the
incident was not caused by a wetlines
release because the original NTSB
accident report concluded that the fire
was fed by fuel from the cargo tank
compartments, implying a breach of the
cargo tank;
(2) the incident predates the incident
analysis period; and
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
81503
(3) the uncertainty that such an event
will ever occur again—no data supports
the PHMSA assumption that this is a 20year event.
E. Findings
Although a safety hazard exists, the
regulatory assessment and further
analysis indicate that prohibiting the
transportation of flammable liquids in
wetlines is unlikely to be cost
beneficial. Additionally, the GAO report
has pointed out a number of
uncertainties with the data collection
and analysis that would have a direct
impact on PHMSA’s ability to fully
characterize the degree of risk that
wetlines containing flammable liquids
pose to the safety of transportation.
V. Conclusion
PHMSA is withdrawing this
rulemaking in accordance with the
FAST Act. PHMSA, however, will
continue to examine this issue,
particularly by monitoring flammable
liquid wetlines incidents, in
consideration of any future actions.
Likely future actions include nonregulatory initiatives to improve the
safety of transporting flammable liquid
in unprotected external product piping
on CTMVs.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December
22, 2015, under authority delegated in 49
CFR Part 1.97.
William S. Schoonover,
Deputy Associate Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015–32681 Filed 12–29–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 393
[Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0428]
RIN 2126–AB67
Parts and Accessories Necessary for
Safe Operation: Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards Certification for
Commercial Motor Vehicles Operated
by United States-Domiciled Motor
Carriers; Withdrawal
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.
AGENCY:
The Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA)
withdraws its June 17, 2015, notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which
would have required each commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) operated by a
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
81504
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
United States-domiciled (U.S.domiciled) motor carrier engaged in
interstate commerce to display a label
applied by the vehicle manufacturer or
a U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) Registered Importer to document
the vehicle’s compliance with all
applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSSs) in effect as of the
date of manufacture. FMCSA withdraws
the NPRM because commenters raised
substantive issues which have led the
Agency to conclude that it would be
inappropriate to move forward with a
final rule based on the proposal.
Because the FMVSSs critical to the
operational safety of CMVs are crossreferenced in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), FMCSA
has determined that it can most
effectively ensure that motor carriers
maintain the safety equipment and
features provided by the FMVSSs
through enforcement of the FMCSRs,
making an additional FMVSS
certification labeling regulation
unnecessary.
DATES: The NPRM ‘‘Parts and
Accessories Necessary for Safe
Operation: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards Certification for Commercial
Motor Vehicles Operated by United
States-Domiciled Motor Carriers,’’
published on June 17, 2015 (80 FR
34588), is withdrawn as of December 30,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this Notice of
withdrawal, contact Mr. Michael
Huntley, Chief, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Policy,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001, by telephone at (202) 366–9209 or
via email at Michael.Huntley@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background/General Issues Raised
During Comment Period
On June 17, 2015, FMCSA published
an NPRM to require motor carriers to
display an FMVSS certification label (80
FR 34588).
The FMCSRs require that motor
carriers operating CMVs in the U.S.,
including Mexico- and Canadadomiciled carriers, ensure that the
vehicles are equipped with the
applicable safety equipment and
features specified in 49 CFR part 393,
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe
Operations, which includes cross
references to safety equipment and
features that must be installed at the
time of production. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) requires vehicle
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
manufacturers to certify that the
vehicles they produce for sale and use
in the U.S. meet all applicable FMVSSs
in effect at the time of manufacture. In
addition, they must affix an FMVSS
certification label to each vehicle in
accordance with the requirements of 49
CFR part 567.
As proposed, the NPRM would have
required U.S.-domiciled motor carriers
engaged in interstate commerce to use
only CMVs that display an FMVSS
certification label affixed by the vehicle
manufacturer indicating that the
vehicle: (1) Satisfied all applicable
FMVSSs in effect at the time of
manufacture; or (2) has been modified to
meet those standards and legally
imported by a DOT-RegisteredImporter. In the absence of such a label
(e.g., because of vehicle damage or
deliberate removal), the motor carrier
would have been required to obtain, and
a driver upon demand present, a letter
issued by the vehicle manufacturer
stating that the vehicle satisfied all
applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date
of manufacture.
Discussion of Comments to the NPRM
FMCSA received 19 comments on the
NPRM. The Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance (CVSA), which represents State
and Provincial agencies throughout
North America responsible for motor
carrier safety enforcement, supported
the proposed rule, but stated ‘‘While
CVSA supports the NPRM, it should be
noted that, in our opinion, the best way
to prevent non-FMVSS-compliant
vehicles from operating in the U.S. by
U.S.-domiciled motor carriers is to
identify them at the point of titling,
vehicle registration, or importation.
Roadside inspections should be the
secondary means of verifying that CMVs
were FMVSS compliant at the time of
manufacture.’’ One anonymous
commenter also supported the proposed
rule.
Each of the remaining commenters
opposed the proposal, including six
trade associations representing the
trucking industry, equipment
manufacturers, and dealers (One trade
association submitted two comments
each covering a different issue). These
associations are the American Trucking
Associations (ATA), the National
Automobile Dealers Association
(NADA), the National Propane Gas
Association (NPGA), the Truckload
Carriers Association (TCA), the OwnerOperator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA), and the Truck
and Engine Manufacturers Association
(EMA). Three motor carriers submitted
comments: Double D Distribution (Mark
Droubay), United Parcel Service (UPS)
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and YRC Freight (YRC). Nine
individuals submitted comments,
including Congressman Richard L.
Hanna from New York.
Comments in Opposition to the NPRM
Commenters opposed the proposed
rule for the following reasons:
• The rule would provide no safety
benefits.
• FMVSS markings, particularly on
trailers, are subject to damage, overpainting, and loss over the life of the
vehicle. No certification marking is
permanent.
• Many of the manufacturers have
gone out of business, been purchased, or
are overseas; obtaining a replacement
certification or letter may not be
possible.
• The proposal does not recognize the
issues raised by interlining and other
operational patterns.
• The rule would impose significant
costs on carriers, which FMCSA has
failed to estimate.
• The National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) recommendation on
which the proposal was based resulted
from a bus crash that was unrelated to
the standards to which the coach was
manufactured.
No Safety Benefits
Several of the industry associations,
the three motor carriers, and seven
individuals who opposed the proposed
rule in general stated that it would not
enhance safety and that FMCSA had
provided no safety rationale for the rule.
OOIDA stated that most small carriers
and owner/operators purchase used
equipment. OOIDA also stated that it
failed to see how maintaining proof of
a CMV’s compliance at the time of
manufacture would improve safety
years later. ATA and TCA stated that
original certification has little if
anything to do with the condition and
safe operation of a CMV after it is
purchased. ATA stated that FMCSA had
provided no evidence of any crashes
where lack of certification was
responsible for the crash. UPS stated
that the proposal appeared to be for the
convenience of inspectors, not to
improve safety.
Issues Related to Markings
ATA and others stated that no
external markings on a CMV are
permanent. YRC stated that it was
primarily concerned with markings on
trailers, converter dollies, and container
chassis, which are affixed to the outside
of the vehicle and subject to wear and
tear from road conditions and may be
painted over or removed during
refurbishment. ATA submitted
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules
condition. ATA stated that for
intermodal chassis, a database exists
that would provide a better source of the
information for inspectors.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
information from a survey of motor
carriers. Of the responding motor
carriers, 42 percent reported having
missing or unreadable certification
labels. No motor carrier surveyed
indicated that the equipment did not
have a label because it had not been
designed to be compliant with the
FMVSSs.
Issues Related to Replacement
Certifications
The industry associations stated that
FMCSA had not understood the
difficulty of obtaining a replacement
certification. ATA, Congressman
Richard L. Hanna and others stated that
many of the vehicle manufacturers have
gone out of business or have been sold.
Those that are out of business could not
produce a replacement; the new owners
of the manufacturers that have been sold
might not have the records or may be
unwilling to be liable for vehicles
produced by the original manufacturer.
ATA provided a list of 21 manufacturers
that are out of business or have been
sold. It also noted that current
manufacturers may be reluctant out of
fear of liability to provide certificates for
equipment that may not have been
maintained or may have been altered.
For intermodal chassis, many of which
were manufactured overseas, ATA
stated that it will not be possible to
identify or find the manufacturer.
EMA raised a related issue: Multiple
companies are involved in the
manufacture and certification of most
Class 3 through 7 vehicles and about
half of the Class 8 vehicles. Under the
proposal, EMA stated that a carrier
would have to contact the final-stage
manufacturer for a replacement, but the
identity of that manufacturer may not be
obvious as it is frequently not the
nameplate company. EMA stated that its
members charge a fee for replacement
certificates.
YRC and UPS stated that the
alternative of a letter, kept with the
equipment, is problematic. YRC stated
that trailers and converter dollies are
routinely used by non-owners during
interlining, intermodal agreements, and
equipment leases. UPS stated that the
requirement to keep the letter with the
trailer would require a secure
compartment, which trailers do not
currently have. ATA stated that
containers and trailers may be sealed
and asked if FMCSA was expecting
inspectors to break seals to review a
letter that spoke to compliance years in
the past. ATA also stated that the
proposed rule would result in
penalizing drivers and carriers for
missing labels on equipment they did
not own which was in safe operating
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
Cost Impacts
The industry associations and motor
carriers stated that FMCSA had failed to
consider or estimate the significant costs
associated with the proposed rule. They
listed the following potential costs:
• The time required to survey
equipment to determine whether
certificate information still existed on
equipment.
• The time required to identify the
manufacturer and obtain a replacement
certificate or letter.
• The time required for a driver/
carrier picking up equipment owned by
another carrier to check for the label,
certificate, or letter.
• The operational disruption if CMVs
had to be removed from service until
replacements could be obtained or
replaced altogether if the manufacturer
no longer exists.
• The fees charged for replacement
certificates.
UPS estimated that of its 77,000
trailers, 10,000 no longer have the
decals. It would need to identify the
manufacturer, if it still exists, to request
a replacement. YRC stated that the
initial audit of its equipment would
require hundreds of hours of time by
drivers, mechanics, and others, followed
by the process of obtaining a
replacement label if possible. If the
manufacturer no longer exists, the rule
would require that the equipment be
removed from service. One carrier (32
tractors with 70 trailers) estimated that
it would cost $18,000 to add/replace
labels currently missing and $4,000–
$6,000 annually to audit the equipment
to ensure that tags are still there. ATA
cited a comment from a member that it
was charged $150 for a replacement
decal for a trailer. ATA provided data
from 20 carriers on the number of pieces
of equipment missing decals—8,411 out
of 47,000 CMVs.
ATA also cited another member, a
propane distributor, which had 29
trailers without certificates, most
manufactured by companies that no
longer exist. The proposal would
require replacement of all of these
trailers. NPGA stated that even when
replacements could be obtained, taking
the equipment out of service until the
certificate or letter arrived would
disrupt services and impose significant
costs to lease replacements. NPGA and
others noted that, even if the
manufacturer is still in business, the
carrier has no way to compel it to
process a request quickly. EMA noted
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
81505
that completing a letter would take an
hour or more of a manufacturer’s
expert’s time. NADA’s American Truck
Dealers Division stated that any
requirement that dealers not sell CMVs
that lack certificates would be
unacceptable and could cost dealers $3
million annually (assuming 1 hour/
week to examine vehicles and obtain
replacements), it also noted that small
dealerships spend considerably more
per employee on compliance than larger
firms do.
OOIDA stated that FMCSA must do a
cost-benefit analysis and then publish a
supplemental notice.
Other Comments
NPGA stated that it could support the
requirement if it applied only to CMVs
manufactured after the effective date of
the rule. In the alternative, FMCSA
should set the compliance period at 24
months to give carriers enough time to
implement the provision without
disrupting operations. UPS and YRC
stated that they would support a
prospective requirement provided the
label was a permanent plate. UPS stated
that it understood that the data
connecting serial number and status at
manufacture are available in State
databases. Although these data may not
be accessible at roadside inspection,
they are available electronically. OOIDA
stated that the burden should be on the
seller of used vehicles, not the
purchaser.
Many of the industry commenters
stated that the NTSB report did not
provide a justification for the proposal.
FMCSA Decision To Withdraw the
NPRM
After review and analysis of the
public comments discussed in the
preceding section, FMCSA has decided
to withdraw the June 2015 NPRM. We
will continue to uphold the operational
safety of CMVs on the Nation’s
highways through continued
enforcement of the FMCSRs, many of
which cross-reference specific FMVSSs.
Generally, U.S.-domiciled motor
carriers operating CMVs (as defined in
49 CFR 390.5) in interstate commerce
have access only to vehicles that either
were manufactured domestically for use
in the United States with the required
certification label or were properly
imported into the United States in
accordance with applicable NHTSA
regulations, including certification
documentation requirements of 49 CFR
part 567. Furthermore, FMCSA’s safety
regulations incorporate and cross
reference the FMVSSs critical to
continued safe operation of CMVs.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
81506
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
FMCSA believes continued strong
enforcement of the FMCSRs in realworld operational settings, coupled with
existing regulations and enforcement
measures, will ensure the safe operation
of CMVs in interstate commerce. Under
the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program, FMCSA and its State and local
partners conduct more than 2.3 million
roadside vehicle inspections each year
of CMVs (domiciled in the United
States, Canada, or Mexico) operating in
interstate commerce. Enforcement of the
FMCSRs, and by extension the FMVSSs
they cross-reference, is the bedrock of
these compliance assurance activities.
Simply requiring CMVs to bear
FMVSS certification labels would not
ensure their operational safety. An
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Dec 29, 2015
Jkt 238001
FMVSS label certifying compliance with
performance standards applicable to
lights, brakes, and other wear items does
not ensure real-world safety in the
absence of compliance with the
operational and maintenance standards
imposed by the FMCSRs, especially in
the case of vehicles built many years
ago. Although the presence or absence
of an FMVSS compliance label can
certainly provide a useful tool in this
regard, inspection of the CMV’s
compliance with the FMCSRs remains
the benchmark by which enforcement
officials identify and remove from
service vehicles likely to break down or
cause a crash. The American public is
better protected by the FMCSRs than
solely through a label indicating a CMV
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
was originally built to certain
manufacturing performance standards.
Therefore, after careful consideration,
FMCSA has concluded it is not
necessary to amend the FMCSRs to
require CMVs to display an FMVSS
certification label in order to achieve
effective compliance with the
FMVCRSs.
In view of the foregoing, the NPRM
concerning certification of compliance
with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards is withdrawn.
Issued under the authority of delegation in
49 CFR 1.87 on December 23, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015–32868 Filed 12–29–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81503-81506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32868]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 393
[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0428]
RIN 2126-AB67
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards Certification for Commercial Motor Vehicles
Operated by United States-Domiciled Motor Carriers; Withdrawal
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
withdraws its June 17, 2015, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
which would have required each commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operated
by a
[[Page 81504]]
United States-domiciled (U.S.-domiciled) motor carrier engaged in
interstate commerce to display a label applied by the vehicle
manufacturer or a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Registered
Importer to document the vehicle's compliance with all applicable
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) in effect as of the
date of manufacture. FMCSA withdraws the NPRM because commenters raised
substantive issues which have led the Agency to conclude that it would
be inappropriate to move forward with a final rule based on the
proposal. Because the FMVSSs critical to the operational safety of CMVs
are cross-referenced in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs), FMCSA has determined that it can most effectively ensure that
motor carriers maintain the safety equipment and features provided by
the FMVSSs through enforcement of the FMCSRs, making an additional
FMVSS certification labeling regulation unnecessary.
DATES: The NPRM ``Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation:
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Certification for Commercial
Motor Vehicles Operated by United States-Domiciled Motor Carriers,''
published on June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34588), is withdrawn as of December
30, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this Notice
of withdrawal, contact Mr. Michael Huntley, Chief, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001,
by telephone at (202) 366-9209 or via email at Michael.Huntley@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background/General Issues Raised During Comment Period
On June 17, 2015, FMCSA published an NPRM to require motor carriers
to display an FMVSS certification label (80 FR 34588).
The FMCSRs require that motor carriers operating CMVs in the U.S.,
including Mexico- and Canada-domiciled carriers, ensure that the
vehicles are equipped with the applicable safety equipment and features
specified in 49 CFR part 393, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe
Operations, which includes cross references to safety equipment and
features that must be installed at the time of production. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires vehicle
manufacturers to certify that the vehicles they produce for sale and
use in the U.S. meet all applicable FMVSSs in effect at the time of
manufacture. In addition, they must affix an FMVSS certification label
to each vehicle in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR part 567.
As proposed, the NPRM would have required U.S.-domiciled motor
carriers engaged in interstate commerce to use only CMVs that display
an FMVSS certification label affixed by the vehicle manufacturer
indicating that the vehicle: (1) Satisfied all applicable FMVSSs in
effect at the time of manufacture; or (2) has been modified to meet
those standards and legally imported by a DOT-Registered- Importer. In
the absence of such a label (e.g., because of vehicle damage or
deliberate removal), the motor carrier would have been required to
obtain, and a driver upon demand present, a letter issued by the
vehicle manufacturer stating that the vehicle satisfied all applicable
FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture.
Discussion of Comments to the NPRM
FMCSA received 19 comments on the NPRM. The Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance (CVSA), which represents State and Provincial agencies
throughout North America responsible for motor carrier safety
enforcement, supported the proposed rule, but stated ``While CVSA
supports the NPRM, it should be noted that, in our opinion, the best
way to prevent non-FMVSS-compliant vehicles from operating in the U.S.
by U.S.-domiciled motor carriers is to identify them at the point of
titling, vehicle registration, or importation. Roadside inspections
should be the secondary means of verifying that CMVs were FMVSS
compliant at the time of manufacture.'' One anonymous commenter also
supported the proposed rule.
Each of the remaining commenters opposed the proposal, including
six trade associations representing the trucking industry, equipment
manufacturers, and dealers (One trade association submitted two
comments each covering a different issue). These associations are the
American Trucking Associations (ATA), the National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA), the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA), the
Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association (OOIDA), and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA). Three motor carriers submitted comments: Double D
Distribution (Mark Droubay), United Parcel Service (UPS) and YRC
Freight (YRC). Nine individuals submitted comments, including
Congressman Richard L. Hanna from New York.
Comments in Opposition to the NPRM
Commenters opposed the proposed rule for the following reasons:
The rule would provide no safety benefits.
FMVSS markings, particularly on trailers, are subject to
damage, over-painting, and loss over the life of the vehicle. No
certification marking is permanent.
Many of the manufacturers have gone out of business, been
purchased, or are overseas; obtaining a replacement certification or
letter may not be possible.
The proposal does not recognize the issues raised by
interlining and other operational patterns.
The rule would impose significant costs on carriers, which
FMCSA has failed to estimate.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
recommendation on which the proposal was based resulted from a bus
crash that was unrelated to the standards to which the coach was
manufactured.
No Safety Benefits
Several of the industry associations, the three motor carriers, and
seven individuals who opposed the proposed rule in general stated that
it would not enhance safety and that FMCSA had provided no safety
rationale for the rule. OOIDA stated that most small carriers and
owner/operators purchase used equipment. OOIDA also stated that it
failed to see how maintaining proof of a CMV's compliance at the time
of manufacture would improve safety years later. ATA and TCA stated
that original certification has little if anything to do with the
condition and safe operation of a CMV after it is purchased. ATA stated
that FMCSA had provided no evidence of any crashes where lack of
certification was responsible for the crash. UPS stated that the
proposal appeared to be for the convenience of inspectors, not to
improve safety.
Issues Related to Markings
ATA and others stated that no external markings on a CMV are
permanent. YRC stated that it was primarily concerned with markings on
trailers, converter dollies, and container chassis, which are affixed
to the outside of the vehicle and subject to wear and tear from road
conditions and may be painted over or removed during refurbishment. ATA
submitted
[[Page 81505]]
information from a survey of motor carriers. Of the responding motor
carriers, 42 percent reported having missing or unreadable
certification labels. No motor carrier surveyed indicated that the
equipment did not have a label because it had not been designed to be
compliant with the FMVSSs.
Issues Related to Replacement Certifications
The industry associations stated that FMCSA had not understood the
difficulty of obtaining a replacement certification. ATA, Congressman
Richard L. Hanna and others stated that many of the vehicle
manufacturers have gone out of business or have been sold. Those that
are out of business could not produce a replacement; the new owners of
the manufacturers that have been sold might not have the records or may
be unwilling to be liable for vehicles produced by the original
manufacturer. ATA provided a list of 21 manufacturers that are out of
business or have been sold. It also noted that current manufacturers
may be reluctant out of fear of liability to provide certificates for
equipment that may not have been maintained or may have been altered.
For intermodal chassis, many of which were manufactured overseas, ATA
stated that it will not be possible to identify or find the
manufacturer.
EMA raised a related issue: Multiple companies are involved in the
manufacture and certification of most Class 3 through 7 vehicles and
about half of the Class 8 vehicles. Under the proposal, EMA stated that
a carrier would have to contact the final-stage manufacturer for a
replacement, but the identity of that manufacturer may not be obvious
as it is frequently not the nameplate company. EMA stated that its
members charge a fee for replacement certificates.
YRC and UPS stated that the alternative of a letter, kept with the
equipment, is problematic. YRC stated that trailers and converter
dollies are routinely used by non-owners during interlining, intermodal
agreements, and equipment leases. UPS stated that the requirement to
keep the letter with the trailer would require a secure compartment,
which trailers do not currently have. ATA stated that containers and
trailers may be sealed and asked if FMCSA was expecting inspectors to
break seals to review a letter that spoke to compliance years in the
past. ATA also stated that the proposed rule would result in penalizing
drivers and carriers for missing labels on equipment they did not own
which was in safe operating condition. ATA stated that for intermodal
chassis, a database exists that would provide a better source of the
information for inspectors.
Cost Impacts
The industry associations and motor carriers stated that FMCSA had
failed to consider or estimate the significant costs associated with
the proposed rule. They listed the following potential costs:
The time required to survey equipment to determine whether
certificate information still existed on equipment.
The time required to identify the manufacturer and obtain
a replacement certificate or letter.
The time required for a driver/carrier picking up
equipment owned by another carrier to check for the label, certificate,
or letter.
The operational disruption if CMVs had to be removed from
service until replacements could be obtained or replaced altogether if
the manufacturer no longer exists.
The fees charged for replacement certificates.
UPS estimated that of its 77,000 trailers, 10,000 no longer have
the decals. It would need to identify the manufacturer, if it still
exists, to request a replacement. YRC stated that the initial audit of
its equipment would require hundreds of hours of time by drivers,
mechanics, and others, followed by the process of obtaining a
replacement label if possible. If the manufacturer no longer exists,
the rule would require that the equipment be removed from service. One
carrier (32 tractors with 70 trailers) estimated that it would cost
$18,000 to add/replace labels currently missing and $4,000-$6,000
annually to audit the equipment to ensure that tags are still there.
ATA cited a comment from a member that it was charged $150 for a
replacement decal for a trailer. ATA provided data from 20 carriers on
the number of pieces of equipment missing decals--8,411 out of 47,000
CMVs.
ATA also cited another member, a propane distributor, which had 29
trailers without certificates, most manufactured by companies that no
longer exist. The proposal would require replacement of all of these
trailers. NPGA stated that even when replacements could be obtained,
taking the equipment out of service until the certificate or letter
arrived would disrupt services and impose significant costs to lease
replacements. NPGA and others noted that, even if the manufacturer is
still in business, the carrier has no way to compel it to process a
request quickly. EMA noted that completing a letter would take an hour
or more of a manufacturer's expert's time. NADA's American Truck
Dealers Division stated that any requirement that dealers not sell CMVs
that lack certificates would be unacceptable and could cost dealers $3
million annually (assuming 1 hour/week to examine vehicles and obtain
replacements), it also noted that small dealerships spend considerably
more per employee on compliance than larger firms do.
OOIDA stated that FMCSA must do a cost-benefit analysis and then
publish a supplemental notice.
Other Comments
NPGA stated that it could support the requirement if it applied
only to CMVs manufactured after the effective date of the rule. In the
alternative, FMCSA should set the compliance period at 24 months to
give carriers enough time to implement the provision without disrupting
operations. UPS and YRC stated that they would support a prospective
requirement provided the label was a permanent plate. UPS stated that
it understood that the data connecting serial number and status at
manufacture are available in State databases. Although these data may
not be accessible at roadside inspection, they are available
electronically. OOIDA stated that the burden should be on the seller of
used vehicles, not the purchaser.
Many of the industry commenters stated that the NTSB report did not
provide a justification for the proposal.
FMCSA Decision To Withdraw the NPRM
After review and analysis of the public comments discussed in the
preceding section, FMCSA has decided to withdraw the June 2015 NPRM. We
will continue to uphold the operational safety of CMVs on the Nation's
highways through continued enforcement of the FMCSRs, many of which
cross-reference specific FMVSSs.
Generally, U.S.-domiciled motor carriers operating CMVs (as defined
in 49 CFR 390.5) in interstate commerce have access only to vehicles
that either were manufactured domestically for use in the United States
with the required certification label or were properly imported into
the United States in accordance with applicable NHTSA regulations,
including certification documentation requirements of 49 CFR part 567.
Furthermore, FMCSA's safety regulations incorporate and cross reference
the FMVSSs critical to continued safe operation of CMVs.
[[Page 81506]]
FMCSA believes continued strong enforcement of the FMCSRs in real-
world operational settings, coupled with existing regulations and
enforcement measures, will ensure the safe operation of CMVs in
interstate commerce. Under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program,
FMCSA and its State and local partners conduct more than 2.3 million
roadside vehicle inspections each year of CMVs (domiciled in the United
States, Canada, or Mexico) operating in interstate commerce.
Enforcement of the FMCSRs, and by extension the FMVSSs they cross-
reference, is the bedrock of these compliance assurance activities.
Simply requiring CMVs to bear FMVSS certification labels would not
ensure their operational safety. An FMVSS label certifying compliance
with performance standards applicable to lights, brakes, and other wear
items does not ensure real-world safety in the absence of compliance
with the operational and maintenance standards imposed by the FMCSRs,
especially in the case of vehicles built many years ago. Although the
presence or absence of an FMVSS compliance label can certainly provide
a useful tool in this regard, inspection of the CMV's compliance with
the FMCSRs remains the benchmark by which enforcement officials
identify and remove from service vehicles likely to break down or cause
a crash. The American public is better protected by the FMCSRs than
solely through a label indicating a CMV was originally built to certain
manufacturing performance standards.
Therefore, after careful consideration, FMCSA has concluded it is
not necessary to amend the FMCSRs to require CMVs to display an FMVSS
certification label in order to achieve effective compliance with the
FMVCRSs.
In view of the foregoing, the NPRM concerning certification of
compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is
withdrawn.
Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on
December 23, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-32868 Filed 12-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
