Lease and Interchange of Vehicles; Motor Carriers of Passengers, 59951-59952 [2016-20609]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules
your comment, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html
for instructions. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make.
For additional submission methods,
the full EPA public comment policy,
and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information on this action,
contact Dr. Tina Ndoh, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (D243–
04), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541–2750;
email address: ndoh.tina@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A number
of tribes working on comments for the
Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP)
Design Details proposed rule (81 FR
42940; June 30, 2016) have asked for
additional consultation to better
understand the issues related to the
interaction between state plans and
projects on tribal land that may qualify
for the CEIP. Because of the interest of
a number of tribes, the EPA believes it
is appropriate to extend the comment
period to allow for the requested tribal
consultations and to provide tribes time
to incorporate any information from
those consultations in their comments.
The EPA extended the initial comment
period at 81 FR 47325 (July 21, 2016).
The EPA is further extending the
comment period for the CEIP Design
Details proposal by 60 days, to
November 1, 2016.
Dated: August 25, 2016.
Stephen Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards.
[FR Doc. 2016–20898 Filed 8–30–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49 CFR Part 390
[Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0103]
RIN 2126–AB90
Lease and Interchange of Vehicles;
Motor Carriers of Passengers
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:16 Aug 30, 2016
Jkt 238001
ACTION:
Notice of intent.
FMCSA announces its intent
to issue a rulemaking concerning
revisions to its May 27, 2015, final rule
titled ‘‘Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles; Motor Carriers of Passengers.’’
The Agency received numerous
petitions for reconsideration of the final
rule and determined that amendments
should be considered in response to
some of the petitions. The aspects of the
2015 final rule to be reconsidered are
discussed later in this document. In
addition, FMCSA will hold a roundtable
discussion on the scope of the issues to
be addressed in the forthcoming
rulemaking. The meeting will be public
and will seek public input regarding the
assignment of responsibility for safety
violations to the correct party.
Individuals with diverse experience,
expertise, and perspectives are
encouraged to attend. If all comments
have been exhausted prior to the end of
the session, the session may conclude
early. The Agency intends to complete
any regulatory action(s) taken in
response to the petitions before January
1, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Loretta Bitner, (202) 385–2428,
loretta.bitner@dot.gov, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance. FMCSA
office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
On May 27, 2015, FMCSA published
a final rule concerning the lease and
interchange of passenger-carrying
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) (80
FR 30164). The purpose of the rule is to
identify the motor carrier operating a
passenger-carrying CMV that is
responsible for compliance with the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) and ensure that a
lessor surrenders control of the CMV for
the full term of the lease or temporary
exchange of CMV(s) and driver(s). The
Agency received 37 petitions for
reconsideration which have been filed
in the public docket referenced above.
Upon review of these requests, FMCSA
concluded that some have merit.
FMCSA, therefore, extended the
compliance date of the final rule from
January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2018 (82
FR 13998; March 16, 2016) to allow the
Agency time to complete its analysis
and amend the rule where necessary.
Petitioners made the following
substantive arguments, which the
Agency will address in subsequent
rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59951
General Objections
The petitioners generally argued that
FMCSA has taken a regulatory scheme
from the trucking industry and applied
it to the bus industry, which has a vastly
different operating structure and
liability regimen. Moreover, the
application of these truck regulations to
the bus industry offers no additional
protection to the public from illegal or
unsafe bus operators. Instead, the final
rule simply adds administrative costs
and reduces operational flexibility for
bus operators.
Petitioners further stated that the final
rule creates an economic and regulatory
burden on passenger carriers that
already operate safely and have a high
degree of compliance. Some of the
petitioners argue that those lease
requirements will not stop carriers that
choose to violate the regulations, yet
will burden those who already operate
safely and compliantly.
A petitioner stated that while it
supports efforts to identify and address
chameleon carriers or carriers that may
try to operate under the cloak of another
carrier, the final rule does not
accomplish this goal and in fact
provides a roadmap for irresponsible
carriers to operate legally under the
authority of another carrier.
One carrier stated that it had
identified several instances where the
final rule lacks sufficient clarity to
enable it to comply, and that these issue
areas have an effect on all of its
operations. The final rule also adds
administrative costs and reduces
operational flexibility for charter and
tour bus operations, which will, in the
end, reduce connectivity and
transportation options for the traveling
public.
Another carrier argued that the three
2008 crashes cited in the September 20,
2013 notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) involved a tire failure, driver
error, and an insurance issue (78 FR
57822), and that nothing in the final
rule would have prevented any of these
crashes. The commenter also named two
insurance companies that have
restrictions in their policies that
prohibit the use of non-owned
equipment and non-employed drivers,
which were major concerns of the
NPRM.
Many of the objections raised by
petitioners can be addressed by
providing additional explanation.
However, some of the issues discussed
below may require regulatory changes;
they fall into four major categories.
Four Changes Under Consideration
(1) Exclusion of ‘‘chartering’’ (i.e.,
subcontracting) from the leasing
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59952
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2016 / Proposed Rules
requirements. The 2015 rule merged the
concepts of leasing with ‘‘chartering’’
(subcontracting). Carriers routinely
subcontract work to other registered
carriers to handle demand surges,
emergencies, or events that require more
than the available capacity.
Subcontractors with their own operating
authority have traditionally assumed
responsibility for their own vehicles/
drivers. Under the 2015 rule, however,
a passenger carrier that subcontracted
work to another carrier would be
responsible for that second carrier’s
compliance with the regulations.
Petitioners claim that making a carrier
responsible for the subcontractor’s
vehicles, drivers, and liability would
make most short-term subcontracts
impossible.
(2) Amending the CMV requirements
for the location of temporary markings
for leased/interchanged vehicles. The
petitioners argued that the frequent
marking changes needed during leases
or interchanges would be impractical
and unnecessary because the
information required is recorded on the
driver’s records of duty status for
roadside inspectors and safety
investigators to review; carriers will
have to depend completely on their
drivers to properly change vehicle
markings dozens of times per day in
remote locations; and it is unlikely that
a member of the public is going to
understand the significance of the
markings in the event that he or she
focuses on the temporary ‘‘operated by’’
markings rather than the permanent
markings on the bus representing the
vehicle owner.
(3) Changing the requirement that
carriers notify customers within 24
hours when they subcontract service to
other carriers. Petitioners argued that a
24-hour deadline is impractical because
if an emergency maintenance issue
occurs, it may not be possible to notify
the customer in a timely manner,
particularly if the issue occurs on the
weekend, when the customer’s offices
are closed, and the start time is before
the customer’s Monday opening time.
(4) Expanding the 48-hour delay in
preparing a lease to include emergencies
when passengers are not actually on
board a bus. Sometimes events requiring
a replacement vehicle might occur when
there are no passengers on a vehicle,
such as when Amtrak or airline service
is suspended or disrupted and buses are
needed to transport stranded
passengers. A bus operator contracted to
provide the rescue service might need to
obtain additional drivers and vehicles
from other carriers to meet the demand.
There might be a last minute
maintenance or mechanical issue, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:16 Aug 30, 2016
Jkt 238001
driver illness, that arises late in the
evening or during the night (such as on
a multi-day charter or tour trip), or just
prior to picking up a group for a charter
or scheduled service run.
FMCSA Decision
FMCSA plans to issue a rulemaking
notice to address the four areas of
concern listed above. The Agency
believes that less burdensome regulatory
alternatives that would not adversely
impact safety could be adopted before
the January 1, 2018. The Agency denies
the petitions for reconsideration of all
other aspects of the final rule. These
petitions either would have impaired
the purpose of the final rule or did not
include practical alternatives.
The Agency will provide petitioners
with written notification of these
decisions at a later date.
Public Roundtable
FMCSA will hold a public roundtable
to discuss the four issue areas discussed
above. The public will have an
opportunity to speak about these issues
and provide the Agency with
information on how to address them.
All public comments will be placed in
the docket of this rulemaking. Details
concerning the schedule and location of
the roundtable, as well as procedural
information for participants, will follow
in a subsequent Federal Register notice.
Issued on: August 19, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016–20609 Filed 8–30–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058;
FXES11130900000C2–167–FF09E42000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To Delist the Coastal
California Gnatcatcher
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to
remove the coastal California
gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
californica) from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(List) under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended. After review of the
best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that delisting the
coastal California gnatcatcher is not
warranted at this time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on August 31,
2016.
ADDRESSES: This finding, as well as
supporting documentation we used in
preparing this finding, is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R8–ES–2014–0058. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding will also be available for
public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad
Fish and Wildlife Office, 2177 Salk
Avenue, Suite 250, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.
Mendel Stewart, Field Supervisor,
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2177
Salk Avenue, Suite 250, Carlsbad, CA
92008; by telephone at 760–431–9440;
or by facsimile at 760–431–5901. If you
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (ESA or Act; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we administer the
Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants, which
are set forth in title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations in part 17 (50 CFR
17.11 and 17.12). Under section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, for any petition
that we receive to revise either List by
adding, removing, or reclassifying a
species, we must make a finding within
12 months of the date of receipt if the
petition contains substantial scientific
or commercial information supporting
the requested action. In this finding, we
will determine that the petitioned action
is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or
(3) warranted, but the immediate
proposal of a regulation is precluded by
other pending proposals to determine
whether any species are endangered
species or threatened species and
expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from
the Lists. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that we treat a petition for
which the requested action is found to
be warranted but precluded as though
E:\FR\FM\31AUP1.SGM
31AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59951-59952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20609]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 390
[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0103]
RIN 2126-AB90
Lease and Interchange of Vehicles; Motor Carriers of Passengers
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its intent to issue a rulemaking concerning
revisions to its May 27, 2015, final rule titled ``Lease and
Interchange of Vehicles; Motor Carriers of Passengers.'' The Agency
received numerous petitions for reconsideration of the final rule and
determined that amendments should be considered in response to some of
the petitions. The aspects of the 2015 final rule to be reconsidered
are discussed later in this document. In addition, FMCSA will hold a
roundtable discussion on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the
forthcoming rulemaking. The meeting will be public and will seek public
input regarding the assignment of responsibility for safety violations
to the correct party. Individuals with diverse experience, expertise,
and perspectives are encouraged to attend. If all comments have been
exhausted prior to the end of the session, the session may conclude
early. The Agency intends to complete any regulatory action(s) taken in
response to the petitions before January 1, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Loretta Bitner, (202) 385-2428,
loretta.bitner@dot.gov, Office of Enforcement and Compliance. FMCSA
office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 27, 2015, FMCSA published a final rule concerning the lease
and interchange of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
(80 FR 30164). The purpose of the rule is to identify the motor carrier
operating a passenger-carrying CMV that is responsible for compliance
with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and ensure
that a lessor surrenders control of the CMV for the full term of the
lease or temporary exchange of CMV(s) and driver(s). The Agency
received 37 petitions for reconsideration which have been filed in the
public docket referenced above. Upon review of these requests, FMCSA
concluded that some have merit. FMCSA, therefore, extended the
compliance date of the final rule from January 1, 2017, to January 1,
2018 (82 FR 13998; March 16, 2016) to allow the Agency time to complete
its analysis and amend the rule where necessary.
Petitioners made the following substantive arguments, which the
Agency will address in subsequent rulemaking.
General Objections
The petitioners generally argued that FMCSA has taken a regulatory
scheme from the trucking industry and applied it to the bus industry,
which has a vastly different operating structure and liability regimen.
Moreover, the application of these truck regulations to the bus
industry offers no additional protection to the public from illegal or
unsafe bus operators. Instead, the final rule simply adds
administrative costs and reduces operational flexibility for bus
operators.
Petitioners further stated that the final rule creates an economic
and regulatory burden on passenger carriers that already operate safely
and have a high degree of compliance. Some of the petitioners argue
that those lease requirements will not stop carriers that choose to
violate the regulations, yet will burden those who already operate
safely and compliantly.
A petitioner stated that while it supports efforts to identify and
address chameleon carriers or carriers that may try to operate under
the cloak of another carrier, the final rule does not accomplish this
goal and in fact provides a roadmap for irresponsible carriers to
operate legally under the authority of another carrier.
One carrier stated that it had identified several instances where
the final rule lacks sufficient clarity to enable it to comply, and
that these issue areas have an effect on all of its operations. The
final rule also adds administrative costs and reduces operational
flexibility for charter and tour bus operations, which will, in the
end, reduce connectivity and transportation options for the traveling
public.
Another carrier argued that the three 2008 crashes cited in the
September 20, 2013 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) involved a tire
failure, driver error, and an insurance issue (78 FR 57822), and that
nothing in the final rule would have prevented any of these crashes.
The commenter also named two insurance companies that have restrictions
in their policies that prohibit the use of non-owned equipment and non-
employed drivers, which were major concerns of the NPRM.
Many of the objections raised by petitioners can be addressed by
providing additional explanation. However, some of the issues discussed
below may require regulatory changes; they fall into four major
categories.
Four Changes Under Consideration
(1) Exclusion of ``chartering'' (i.e., subcontracting) from the
leasing
[[Page 59952]]
requirements. The 2015 rule merged the concepts of leasing with
``chartering'' (subcontracting). Carriers routinely subcontract work to
other registered carriers to handle demand surges, emergencies, or
events that require more than the available capacity. Subcontractors
with their own operating authority have traditionally assumed
responsibility for their own vehicles/drivers. Under the 2015 rule,
however, a passenger carrier that subcontracted work to another carrier
would be responsible for that second carrier's compliance with the
regulations. Petitioners claim that making a carrier responsible for
the subcontractor's vehicles, drivers, and liability would make most
short-term subcontracts impossible.
(2) Amending the CMV requirements for the location of temporary
markings for leased/interchanged vehicles. The petitioners argued that
the frequent marking changes needed during leases or interchanges would
be impractical and unnecessary because the information required is
recorded on the driver's records of duty status for roadside inspectors
and safety investigators to review; carriers will have to depend
completely on their drivers to properly change vehicle markings dozens
of times per day in remote locations; and it is unlikely that a member
of the public is going to understand the significance of the markings
in the event that he or she focuses on the temporary ``operated by''
markings rather than the permanent markings on the bus representing the
vehicle owner.
(3) Changing the requirement that carriers notify customers within
24 hours when they subcontract service to other carriers. Petitioners
argued that a 24-hour deadline is impractical because if an emergency
maintenance issue occurs, it may not be possible to notify the customer
in a timely manner, particularly if the issue occurs on the weekend,
when the customer's offices are closed, and the start time is before
the customer's Monday opening time.
(4) Expanding the 48-hour delay in preparing a lease to include
emergencies when passengers are not actually on board a bus. Sometimes
events requiring a replacement vehicle might occur when there are no
passengers on a vehicle, such as when Amtrak or airline service is
suspended or disrupted and buses are needed to transport stranded
passengers. A bus operator contracted to provide the rescue service
might need to obtain additional drivers and vehicles from other
carriers to meet the demand. There might be a last minute maintenance
or mechanical issue, or driver illness, that arises late in the evening
or during the night (such as on a multi-day charter or tour trip), or
just prior to picking up a group for a charter or scheduled service
run.
FMCSA Decision
FMCSA plans to issue a rulemaking notice to address the four areas
of concern listed above. The Agency believes that less burdensome
regulatory alternatives that would not adversely impact safety could be
adopted before the January 1, 2018. The Agency denies the petitions for
reconsideration of all other aspects of the final rule. These petitions
either would have impaired the purpose of the final rule or did not
include practical alternatives.
The Agency will provide petitioners with written notification of
these decisions at a later date.
Public Roundtable
FMCSA will hold a public roundtable to discuss the four issue areas
discussed above. The public will have an opportunity to speak about
these issues and provide the Agency with information on how to address
them. All public comments will be placed in the docket of this
rulemaking. Details concerning the schedule and location of the
roundtable, as well as procedural information for participants, will
follow in a subsequent Federal Register notice.
Issued on: August 19, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-20609 Filed 8-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P