[Federal Register: December 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 245)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 76795-76832]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21de06-17]
[[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
[[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: http://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: http://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: http://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: http://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: http://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 76 43.4 15.2 53.9
SC\1\................................................... 60,674 38.7 1,982 38.9 0.2 0.5
TX \2\.................................................. 150,260 60.9 2,032 55.8 -5.1 -8.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
Table 2 shows that in California and South Carolina, the
percentages of non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers with vehicle
violations were the same or nearly the same. In Texas, the percentage
of non-intermodal semitrailers with vehicle violations was 5.1
percentage points higher than the percentage of intermodal semitrailers
with vehicle violations. In Louisiana, the percentage of intermodal
semitrailers with vehicle violations was 15.2 percentage points higher
than the percentage of non-intermodal semitrailers with vehicle
violations. However, FMCSA recognizes the limited number of Louisiana
intermodal trailer inspections (only 76 inspections compared to 1,982
inspections in South Carolina, 2,032 inspections in Texas, and 33,523
inspections in California) on which to base this comparison.
The roadside inspection data from Texas contain a code that
identifies the type of intermodal container chassis ownership: carrier
owned or non-carrier-owned. The OOS and ``all'' violation analyses were
re-run to compare the results for these two groups. Table 3 shows the
OOS rates for carrier-owned and non-carrier-owned intermodal container
chassis for inspections performed in Texas. Table 3 shows the total (or
``all'') vehicle violation rates for carrier-owned and non-carrier-
owned intermodal container chassis for inspections performed in Texas.
Table 3 shows that the non-carrier-owned intermodal semitrailers
(i.e., container semitrailers tendered by equipment providers) had an
OOS rate of 25.3 percent compared to an OOS rate of 19.2 percent for
the carrier-owned intermodal semitrailers. Table 4 shows that 55.7
percent of the non-carrier-owned intermodal semitrailers had vehicle
violations compared to 57.5 percent of the carrier-owned intermodal
semitrailers.
While FMCSA has examined both total violation rates and OOS rates,
it is the OOS rate FMCSA focuses on in this proposed rule because that
rate is based on the most serious violations of the FMCSRs. These
violations are listed in the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's
(CVSA) North American Uniform Out-of-Service Criteria, a set of
enforcement tolerances used by Federal, State, and Provincial agencies
conducting commercial motor vehicle inspections in theUnited States,
Canada, and Mexico.
[[Page 76805]]
Table 3.--Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates of Carrier-owned and Non-carrier-owned Intermodal Semitrailers in Texas (2002)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2--Semitrailers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-carrier-owned (NCO) Carrier-owned (CO) intermodal
State intermodal -------------------------------- Difference in Percent
-------------------------------- OOS rates (NCO- difference in
Number of OOS rate Number of OOS rate CO) OOS rates (NCO-
inspections (percent) inspections (percent) CO)/CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX...................................................... 1,865 25.3 167 19.2 6.1 31.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
Table 4.--Total Violation Rates of Carrier-owned and Non-carrier-owned Intermodal Semitrailers in Texas (2002)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2--Semitrailers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-carrier-owned (NCO) Carrier-owned (CO) intermodal
intermodal -------------------------------- Percent
State -------------------------------- Difference in difference in
Vehicle Number of Vehicle violation violation
Number of violation rate inspections violation rate rates (NCO-CO) rates (NCO-CO)/
inspections (percent) (percent) CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX...................................................... 1,865 55.7 167 57.5 -1.8 -3.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors involved. All
violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15-30).
The second phase of this analysis used data collected during
roadside inspections conducted during an intensive annual activity
known as RoadCheck. FMCSA requested that States conduct inspections of
intermodal equipment, where possible and appropriate, as part of the
focus of International RoadCheck 2004 (conducted beginning in June
2004).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Detailed analysis of the RoadCheck Inspection Data collected
in MCMIS, included in the RIA, is provided in Docket FMCSA-2005-
23315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 shows the RoadCheck 2004 inspection totals and out-of-
service rates compared to the Four-State Analysis inspections.
Table 5.--Comparison of Non-intermodal vs. Intermodal Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Intermodal Intermodal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis OOS rate (percent) OOS rate (percent)
Number of -------------------------------- Number of -------------------------------
inspections Tractors Semitrailers inspections Tractors Semitrailers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RoadCheck Inspections................................... 312,751 11.3 18.0 4,038 17.3 22.1
Four-State Inspections.................................. 1,114,029 13.7 14.7 37,615 16.4 18.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: RoadCheck inspection data are cross-section data obtained from 38 States from June 1 through September 23, 2004, except for California where data
had been collected in June 1-23 only. Four-State inspection data were time-series data collected from 2000 through part of 2003 in four States--
California, Texas, South Carolina, and Louisiana.
Table 5 shows that the OOS rates for intermodal equipment--both
tractors and semitrailers--are consistently higher than the OOS rates
for commercial motor vehicles hauling non-intermodal semitrailers. This
suggests that intermodal container chassis are more likely to be
operated in an unsafe mechanical condition than non-intermodal semi-
trailers
As part of RoadCheck 2004, FMCSA also asked inspectors to identify
the ownership of intermodal container chassis at the time of the
vehicle inspection.\3\ Table 6 summarizes OOS rates by container
chassis ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Volpe Center, ``Feasibility Study on Collecting Intermodal
Chassis Crash and Inspection Data,'' prepared for FMCSA, September
29, 2004.
Table 6.--Intermodal Out-of-Service (OOS) Rate by Type of Chassis Ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tractors Semitrailers/Chassis
Number of ---------------------------------------------------------------
Type of chassis owners inspections Number of OOS OOS rate Number of OOS OOS rate
inspections (percent) inspections (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Carrier................... 94 21 22.3 16 17.0
Leased.......................... 191 45 23.6 54 28.3
[[Page 76806]]
Shipper......................... 167 41 24.6 33 19.8
Railroads....................... 68 21 30.9 20 29.4
Unknown......................... 150 17 11.3 47 31.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 670 145 21.6 170 25.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While data in Table 6 are relatively limited, they do show that
intermodal container chassis owned by motor carriers have lower OOS
rates than intermodal container chassis owned by all other non-motor
carriers.
While the total number of violations cited per inspection for
intermodal container chassis may be comparable to the total number of
violations per inspection of non-intermodal semitrailers, the data
indicate the defects or deficiencies observed on intermodal container
chassis are likely to be more severe than those noted on non-intermodal
semitrailers (or those violations resulting in vehicle OOS orders).
Therefore, it appears intermodal container chassis are, as a group of
commercial vehicles, more likely to be in need of repairs than other
types of semitrailers, and that the defects and deficiencies are more
likely to be of the type that are likely to cause a crash or breakdown
of the vehicle.
Roadside Inspection Violation Data Analysis
All Intermodal Container Chassis Violations
FMCSA examined the violations cited during intermodal container
chassis inspections to determine what specific problems were being
found during the inspections and whether it is likely a driver could
have detected them if they were present when the driver picked up the
container chassis.
Table 7 shows the most frequently cited violations in the
inspection records of the four States' data. The most common violation
was ``Inoperable Lamp (Other than Head/Tail),'' which accounted for
25.4 percent of all violations. Combined with other lamp/light
violations, they account for 34.0 percent of all violations. Tire-
related violations account for 12.2 percent of all violations.
Violations that can be readily detected by the driver, including those
that are lamp/light and tire-related, account for more than half of all
the violations cited for intermodal container chassis.
Table 7.--Distribution of Intermodal Semitrailer Violations (2000-2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2--Intermodal semitrailers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rank Count Percent
Code Description of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
393.9................................... Inoperable lamp (other than head/ 1 4,909 25.4
tail) \3\.
396.3(a)(1)............................. Inspection/Repair and Maintenance \2\ 2 4,688 24.3
393.75(c)............................... Tire--Other tread depth less than \2/ 3 1,950 10.1
32\ of inch \3\.
393.47.................................. Inadequate brake lining for safe 4 1,315 6.8
stopping \2\.
393.11.................................. No/defective lighting devices/ 5 885 4.6
reflectors/projected \3\.
393.100(e).............................. Improper securement of intermodal 6 593 3.1
containers \3\.
396.3(a)(1)BA........................... Brake--Out of adjustment \1\......... 7 486 2.5
393.201(a).............................. Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose \3\.. 8 446 2.3
393.45(a)(4)............................ Brake hose/tubing chafing and/or 9 407 2.1
kinking \2\.
393.70.................................. Fifth wheel \3\...................... 10 407 2.1
393.207(c).............................. Leaf spring assembly defective/ 11 396 2.1
missing \2\.
393.25(f)............................... Stop lamp violations \3\............. 12 371 1.9
393.50.................................. Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum 13 283 1.5
brakes \1\.
393.19.................................. No/defective turn/hazard lamp as 14 245 1.3
required \3\.
393.75(a)(1)............................ Tire--Ply or belt material exposed 15 227 1.2
\3\.
393.75(b)............................... Tire--Front tread depth less than \4/ 16 176 0.9
32\ of inch \3\.
393.48(a)............................... Inoperative/defective brakes \1\..... 17 175 0.9
393.205(c).............................. Wheel fasteners loose and/or missing 18 159 0.8
\3\.
393.9T.................................. Inoperable tail lamp \3\............. 19 152 0.8
396.17(c)............................... Operating a CMV without periodic 20 120 0.6
inspection \3\.
--------------------------------
Subtotal--Top 20 Violations.......... ......... 18,390 95.3
--------------------------------
Other Violations..................... ......... 905 4.7
--------------------------------
Total--All Violations................ ......... 19,295 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Violation not readily detectable by driver.
\2\ Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
\3\ Violation generally detectable by driver.
[[Page 76807]]
Violations involving defects or deficiencies that drivers were
unlikely to detect during a visual inspection account for only 7
percent of all violations on intermodal container chassis in the four
States. The remaining 93 percent of violations are either items the
driver could have observed during a visual inspection of the container
chassis, or are under further study by FMCSA to determine the
likelihood of the driver being able to detect the defect or deficiency.
Intermodal Container Chassis Violations by State
California dominates the results in the previous section because of
the number of inspections performed by that State. However, significant
differences were evident in the types of violations cited from State to
State. As Table 8 shows, the violation described as ``Inspection/Repair
and Maintenance'' represented 31.0 percent of all violations cited in
California. On the other hand, lamp problems were the predominant
problems in all the other States, accounting for 47.5 percent of
violations in Texas, 45.7 percent in South Carolina, and 57.8 percent
in Louisiana.
The second most frequently cited violation in Louisiana and South
Carolina was the ``Improper Securement of [an] Intermodal Container,''
while for Texas, the second most frequently cited violations were
brake-related issues.
The third most frequently cited violations in Louisiana and South
Carolina were brake-related issues, while for Texas it was ``Improper
Securement of [an] Intermodal Container.'' California's violations were
somewhat unique among the four States, as only three of their top ten
violations were items drivers could have detected during a visual
inspection of the container chassis. It is possible that violation code
differences among the States account for some of the variability in
specific defects or deficiencies listed.
Table 8.--Intermodal Semitrailer Violations by State (CA, LA, SC, and TX) During 2000-2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2--Intermodal semitrailer violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violation Percent of total violations in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- state
-----------------------------------
Code Description CA LA SC TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
393.9.................................. Inoperable lamp (other than head/ 30.3 19.7 24.2
tail) \3\.
396.3(a)(1)............................ Inspection/Repair and Maintenance 31.0 ....... 3.6
\2\.
393.75(c).............................. Tire--Other tread depth less than 11.9 3.9 5.2 3.4
\2/32\ of inch \3\.
393.47................................. Inadequate brake lining for safe 8.7
stopping \2\.
393.11................................. No/defective lighting devices/ ....... 26.3 4.0 28.8
reflectors/projected \3\.
393.100(e)............................. Improper securement of intermodal ....... ....... 11.4 14.7
containers \3\.
396.3(a)(1)BA.......................... Brake--Out of adjustment \1\....... 1.3 6.6 3.8 8.1
393.201(a)............................. Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose \3\ 3.0
393.45(a)(4)........................... Brake hose/tubing chafing and/or ....... 1.3 7.4 7.6
kinking \2\.
393.70................................. Fifth wheel \1\.................... 2.7
393.207(c)............................. Leaf spring assembly defective/ 2.6
missing \2\.
393.25(f).............................. Stop lamp violations \3\........... ....... 10.5 8.2 8.3
393.50................................. Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum 1.9
brakes \1\.
393.19................................. No/defective turn/hazard lamp as ....... ....... 4.0 6.5
required \3\.
393.75(a)(1)........................... Tire--Ply or belt material exposed 1.4
\3\.
393.48(a).............................. Inoperative/defective brakes \1\... ....... 1.3
393.205(c)............................. Wheel fasteners loose and/or ....... 1.3
missing \3\.
393.9T................................. Inoperable tail lamp \3\........... ....... 1.3 5.3 2.3
396.17(c).............................. Operating a CMV without periodic ....... 1.3 ....... 2.3
inspection \3\.
393.75(a).............................. Flat tire or fabric exposed \3\.... ....... 1.3
393.20................................. No/improper mounting of clearance ....... ....... ....... 1.6
lamps \3\.
393.102................................ Improper securement system (tiedown ....... 21.1
assemblies) \3\.
393.207(a)............................. Axle positioning parts defective/ ....... 1.3
missing \2\.
393.28................................. Improper or no wiring protection as ....... 2.6
required \3\.
-----------------------------------
Total--Top 10 Violations........... 94.9 100.0 77.2 83.6
-----------------------------------
Other Violations................... 5.1 0.0 23.8 16.4
-----------------------------------
All Violations..................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Violation not readily detectable by driver.
\2\ Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
\3\ Violation generally detectable by driver.
Vehicle Out-of-Service Violations by State
Table 9 shows the top ten OOS violations for intermodal
semitrailers in the four States. Similar to all violations in the
previous section, the most frequently cited OOS violations were readily
detectable by the driver, but the patterns of individual violations
differed among the four States. In California, ``Inoperable Lamp (Other
than Head/Tail),'' a violation a driver could easily discover,
accounted for almost 49 percent of the OOS violations in the State, and
``Inspection/Repair and Maintenance,'' a violation that the driver
would be less likely to discover, accounted for almost 22 percent of
the OOS violations.
In the other three States, the most frequently cited type of OOS
violation is one that could readily be detected by the driver; namely,
proper securement of containers and loads. Specifically, these
violations accounted for 61.5 percent of Louisiana violations, 33.3
percent of South Carolina violations, and 40.0 percent of Texas
violations. The second most frequently cited type of violation in these
three States was also readily detectable by the driver: Lamp-related
violations. In these three
[[Page 76808]]
States, lamp-related violations accounted for 26.9 percent of Louisiana
violations, 46.5 percent of South Carolina violations, and 38.9 percent
of Texas violations.
Problems with securing containers and loads are not evident among
the top ten California violations. During a January 2004 field trip to
the Los Angeles area,\4\ FMCSA staff and Volpe researchers determined
California inspectors use the ``Inspection/Repair and Maintenance''
violation to cover miscellaneous items, such as cracked windshields,
and not necessarily improperly secured containers and loads. Further
investigation is required to determine why container securement is not
identified as a separate issue in California, as it is in the other
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Volpe Center and FMCSA representatives visited the Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach, CA, guided by members of the California
Highway Patrol from January 21-22, 2004.
Table 9.--Intermodal Semitrailer OOS Violations in CA, LA, SC, and TX During 2000-2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2--Intermodal semitrailer OOS violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violation Percent of total violations in state
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code Description CA LA SC TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
393.9........................................ Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail) 48.8 7.7 22.2
\3\.
396.3(a)(1).................................. Inspection/Repair and Maintenance \2\.... 21.8 .............. 2.2 1.0
393.75(c).................................... Tire--Other tread depth less than \2/32\ 9.9 .............. .............. 1.1
of inch \3\.
393.47....................................... Inadequate brake lining for safe stopping 6.1
\2\.
393.11....................................... No/defective lighting devices/reflectors/ .............. 11.5
projected \3\.
393.100(e)................................... Improper securement of intermodal .............. .............. 28.3 39.0
containers \3\.
396.3(a)(1)BA................................ Brake--Out of adjustment \1\............. 1.4 3.8 1.9 6.8
393.201(a)................................... Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose \3\...... 1.8
393.70....................................... Fifth wheel \1\.......................... 2.7
393.207(c)................................... Leaf spring assembly defective/missing 3.0
\2\.
393.25(f).................................... Stop lamp violations \3\................. .............. 7.7 12.4 16.5
393.50....................................... Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum 0.9
brakes \1\.
393.19....................................... No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required .............. .............. 7.9 20.8
\3\.
393.75(a)(1)................................. Tire--Ply or belt material exposed \3\... 1.0
393.48(a).................................... Inoperative/defective brakes \3\......... .............. .............. .............. 1.9
393.9T....................................... Inoperable tail lamp \3\................. .............. .............. 4.0 1.6
393.75(a).................................... Flat tire or fabric exposed \3\.......... .............. 3.8 1.9 1.0
393.100...................................... No or improper load securement \3\....... .............. .............. 5.0 1.0
393.75(a)(3)................................. Tire--Flat and/or audible air leak \3\... .............. .............. 2.4 3.1
393.102...................................... Improper securement system (tiedown .............. 61.5
assemblies) \3\.
393.207(b)................................... Adjustable axle locking pin missing/ .............. .............. .............. 1.0
disengaged \3\.
393.207(a)................................... Axle positioning parts defective/missing .............. 3.8
\2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total--Top 10 OOS Violations............ 96.5 100.0 88.1 94.7
---------------------------------------------------------------
Other Violations......................... 3.5 0.0 11.9 5.3
All Violations........................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Violation not readily detectable by driver.
\2\ Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
\3\ Violation generally detectable by driver.
Table 10 contains results from FMCSA's analysis of inspection of
intermodal container chassis during RoadCheck 2004. RoadCheck 2004
inspection analysis found that the most frequently cited OOS violation
was ``Brakes out of adjustment,'' which accounts for 15.3 percent of
all violations. ``Inoperable lamp'' was second, accounting for 11.6 of
all OOS violations. Brake-related violations accounted for 35.3 percent
of all OOS violations, while light-related violations accounted for
31.4 percent of the total. Load securement violations accounted for
18.6% of all violations, while tire-related violations accounted for
7.5 percent of all violations.
Table 10.--OOS Violations in Inspections of Intermodal Chassis RoadCheck 2004 Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2--Semitrailers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------- Rank Count Percent of
Code Description total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
396 3A1BA....................... Brake--Out of adjustment \1\. 1 41 15.3
393 9............................ Inoperable lamp (other than 2 31 11.6
head/tail) \3\.
393 19........................... Failing to Equip Vehicle with 3 30 11.2
Operative Turn Signal(s) \3\.
393 48(a)........................ Failing to Equip Vehicle with 4 25 9.3
Operative Brakes \1\.
[[Page 76809]]
393 100(e)....................... Improper Securement of 5 25 9.3
Intermodal Containers \3\.
393 126.......................... No/improper intermodal 6 25 9.3
container securement \3\.
396 3A1B......................... Brakes (General) \2\......... 7 21 7.8
393 25(f)........................ Stop Lamp Violations \3\..... 8 20 7.5
396 3(a)(1)...................... Failing to inspect vehicle 9 8 3.0
for safe operation \2\.
393 75(a)(3)..................... Tire--Flat and/or audible air 10 5 1.9
leak \3\.
393 47........................... Inadequate/Contaminated Brake 11 4 1.5
Linings \2\.
393 75(a)........................ Operating with tires having 12 4 1.5
fabric or cords exposed \3\.
393 75(a)(1)..................... Tire--Ply or belt material 13 4 1.5
exposed \3\.
393 75(f)........................ Tire--Load Weight rating/ 14 4 1.5
under inflated \3\.
393 75(a)(4)..................... Tire--Cut Exposing ply and/or 15 3 1.1
belt material \3\.
393 9T........................... Inoperable tail lamp \3\..... 16 3 1.1
396 3A1BL........................ Brake-reserve system pressure 17 2 0.7
loss \3\.
393 207(a)....................... Operating Vehicle with 18 2 0.7
Defective/Misaligned Axle or
Axle parts \1\.
393 50........................... Inadequate Reservoir for Air/ 19 2 0.7
Vacuum Brakes \1\.
393 207(b)....................... Operating Vehicle with Adj. 20 2 0.7
Axle Assy. With locking Pin
Defects \3\.
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal--Top 20 Violations.. .............. 261 97.4
-----------------------------------------------
Total Vehicle Violations on .............. 268 100.0
Level 1, 2, 5 Inspections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Violation not readily detectable by driver.
\2\ Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
\3\ Violation generally detectable by driver.
National Inspection Data--Violations for Calendar Year 2003
In addition to examining roadside inspection data from California,
Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas, FMCSA reviewed inspection results
for motor carriers that identified themselves on the Motor Carrier
Identification Report (Form MCS-150) as engaged in intermodal
operations only, and those engaged in intermodal operations as one of
their primary operations. The data for these categories of carriers was
compared with data for all motor carriers.
There are 641 motor carriers that indicate the only type of
activity they engage in is intermodal operations. There are 12,032
motor carriers that include the intermodal operations entry as one of
the types of transportation activity they engage in. The total number
of motor carriers is greater than 685,000. However, FMCSA analysts
believe the number of truly ``active'' motor carriers is probably less
than 500,000 (i.e., those currently moving freight or passengers,
operating under their own authority and with required filings on record
with FMCSA).
Table 11 data show a small difference (2 percent) between the OOS
rate for semitrailers being transported by motor carriers in all types
of operations and semitrailers being transported by motor carriers
involved in both intermodal and non-intermodal operations. However,
there is a significant difference between the semitrailer OOS rates for
motor carriers engaged exclusively in intermodal operations versus
those with combined operations and all motor carriers. The semitrailer
OOS rate for intermodal-only operations was 25 percent. The semitrailer
OOS rate for motor carriers engaged in intermodal operations combined
with some other type of operation(s) was 15 percent. The semitrailer
OOS rate for all motor carriers was 13 percent.
The nationwide data from FMCSA's MCMIS suggest the mechanical
condition of intermodal container chassis operated by the motor
carriers typically selected for roadside inspections is significantly
worse than the semitrailers operated by motor carriers in all types of
operations. Although there are huge differences in the population size
of intermodal-only motor carriers versus all motor carriers, and the
total number of vehicle inspections conducted on intermodal-only
carriers versus all other motor carriers, FMCSA cannot ignore the
disparity in the condition of the vehicles.
Table 11.-- Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates of All and Intermodal-Only Carriers; Data From the Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS) CY-2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of vehicle inspections Percent OOS rate
Number of with 1 or more OOS -----------------------------
vehicle violations
Commodity segment inspections ------------------------------ Unit 1 Unit 2
CY2003 Unit 1 Unit 2 (tractor) (semitrailer)
(tractor) (semitrailer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermodal Only (n=641)................ 2,894 519 725 18 25
Intermodal + Other (n=12,032).......... 145,377 15,963 22,428 11 15
All Motor Carriers (n=>500,000)........ 1,476,245 135,000 186,073 9 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), MCMIS Staff, Run Date--April 29, 2004.
[[Page 76810]]
FMCSA's Analysis of the Data
FMCSA believes the data suggest that the percentage of intermodal
container chassis being operated in unsafe mechanical condition is
likely to be greater than the percentage of non-intermodal semitrailers
in unsafe operating condition, based on the inspection data obtained
from CA, LA, SC, and TX as part of the Four-State Analysis and the
inspection data analyzed as part of the RoadCheck 2004 safety data
analysis. While the number of violations cited per inspection for
intermodal container chassis may be comparable to the number of
violations per inspection of non-intermodal semitrailers, the data
indicate the defects or deficiencies observed on intermodal container
chassis are likely to be more severe than those noted on non-intermodal
semitrailers. Thus, it appears intermodal container chassis are, as a
group of commercial vehicles, more likely to be in need of repairs than
other types of semitrailers.
Container chassis, as a vehicle type, should not be considered
inherently unsafe. Data from Texas concerning inspection results
segregated by ownership suggest that container chassis controlled by
motor carriers are better maintained than container chassis offered by
IEPs to motor carriers. FMCSA's primary safety concern is with the
container chassis offered by IEPs, because the agency's research
indicates that these chassis do not appear to be covered by inspection,
repair, and maintenance programs comparable to those of motor carriers
that control their own intermodal equipment, or motor carriers
responsible for maintaining other types of semitrailers.
While there is very limited information to determine the extent to
which the mechanical condition of intermodal container chassis may
contribute to crashes, the data suggest that it is more likely than not
that current maintenance practices of many IEPs do not ensure container
chassis are in safe and proper operating condition at all times on the
highways. Further, the types of defects or deficiencies found on such
container chassis during roadside inspections are often so severe the
vehicle must be placed OOS. It must be acknowledged, however, that a
very high percentage of these violations could have been detected by
drivers, had they made--or had the opportunity to make--an adequate
visual inspection before leaving the intermodal facility.
Regardless of the lack of crash data on a national level, the
information reviewed to date is cause for concern. The Volpe Center, in
a 2004 analysis conducted for FMCSA using the FMCSA Roadside
Intervention Model, estimated that 55.6 percent of all the CMV crashes
avoided as a result of roadside interventions (i.e., roadside
inspections and traffic enforcement stops) in 2003 were attributable to
the vehicle violations found at the time of the inspection. More recent
study has highlighted the role of the driver among crash-related
factors. It is clear, though, that attention to equipment condition
yields safety benefits. In addition to our continued focus on the
driver, FMCSA believes that action should be taken to reduce, to the
greatest extent practicable, potential future crashes caused by the
mechanical condition of the intermodal container chassis. This
rulemaking would also ensure that intermodal container chassis meet the
same level of safety as other semitrailers operated in interstate
commerce.
IV. Estimated Number of Equipment Providers and Intermodal Container
Chassis
Equipment Providers
Container chassis are specialized truck trailers with twist locks.
An intermodal container chassis is a reusable asset of its owner. The
chassis can belong to virtually any participant in the transportation
or logistics chain: (1) Carriers, including ocean shipping lines,
railroads, and trucking companies; (2) equipment leasing companies; and
(3) shippers. FMCSA estimates that there are 108 non-motor-carrier
intermodal equipment providers, consisting of 93 steamship lines, 5
railroads, and 10 container chassis pool operators.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The number of equipment providers is estimated from
information in the Containerization International Yearbook 2004 for
99 port terminals in the United States. The number of steamship
lines is estimated from the direct call liner services at the
terminal level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA),
there are 5,500 motor carriers and 65 IEPs that are signatories to the
Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement (UIIA),
representing approximately 90 percent of the intermodal movements.\6\
Furthermore, MCMIS contains information on the motor carriers that
identify themselves on the Motor Carrier Identification Report (FMCSA
Form MCS-150) as engaging in intermodal operations only, as well as
those that include intermodal operations as one of their primary
operations, and all other motor carriers. As stated previously, the
MCMIS database indicates there are 12,032 motor carriers that included
intermodal cargo as one of the cargo types they may carry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.intermodal.org/Assn Initiatives.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that, according to the IANA database, about 5,500 motor
carriers are signatories of UIIA, this analysis assumes that about 46
percent of the 12,032 motor carriers in MCMIS, or about 5,600 motor
carriers, are engaged in intermodal cargo container operations as a
primary operation. Only some of these carriers own or otherwise control
(i.e., lease) intermodal container chassis or trailers. In response to
FMCSA's survey questionnaire regarding operational characteristics of
intermodal tractor-trailers, three out of nine motor carriers (or one-
third), suggested that they owned, leased, or otherwise controlled
intermodal container chassis for extended periods of time (i.e., beyond
one trip). Therefore, FMCSA assumes that one-third of the 5,600 motor
carriers engaged in intermodal cargo container operations, or about
1,900 motor carriers, actually own or lease/control intermodal
container chassis.
It is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the size and scope
of national intermodal container chassis operations. There is no census
or database of intermodal container chassis providers that is
comparable to FMCSA's MCMIS Census File of motor carriers, which
provides not only the name and location of each motor carrier, but also
its size, as measured by the number of power units. Therefore, the
number of IEPs has been estimated using a combination of MCMIS, IANA,
and ATA reports, as well as information obtained from port authority
and railroad Web sites. However, FMCSA believes that the 1,900 motor
carriers that own intermodal container chassis are already subject to
systematic maintenance requirements and would not incur any additional
cost burden due to the proposed rule.
Intermodal Container Chassis Population
Information on the number of intermodal container chassis owned by
the various equipment owners/providers was as difficult to obtain as
the number of intermodal container chassis providers. Based on articles
in the motor carrier trade press, FMCSA estimates that there are
between 750,000 and 800,000 container chassis in service. According to
the Institute of International Container Lessors (IICL) Annual Chassis
Fleet Survey,\7 \ IICL members owned approximately 320,000
[[Page 76811]]
container chassis in 2004. According to the IICL, member companies own
almost 40 percent of the world's container chassis, as well as own and
lease a high percentage of the U.S. container chassis fleet.\8\ To be
conservative, FMCSA estimates that there are approximately 850,000
intermodal container chassis currently in operation in the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.iicl.org/PDF%20Docs/16thFleetSurveyChassis.pdf \8\ http://www.iicl.org/members.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the IICL data on intermodal container chassis, FMCSA
assumes the estimated 10 container chassis pool operators control about
38 percent, or 320,000 container chassis. Therefore, this NPRM assumes
that steamship lines, railroads, and motor carriers currently own about
530,000 intermodal container chassis in operation in the United States.
Through its surveys of intermodal equipment providers, FMCSA
obtained information on about 281,100 intermodal container chassis, or
roughly 53 percent of the total number of intermodal container chassis
owned by members of the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association
(OCEMA), Association of American Railroads (AAR), and American Trucking
Associations.\9\ Based on the information from the three industry
associations, about 80 percent of the reported 281,100 intermodal
container chassis are owned by the steamship lines, 20 percent are
owned by railroads, and less than 0.02 percent of the reported 281,100
intermodal container chassis are owned by the motor carriers.
Therefore, based on the reported average fleet size of 22 intermodal
container chassis per motor carrier, FMCSA believes that the estimated
1,900 motor carriers that own chassis have approximately 41,800
intermodal container chassis. FMCSA then estimates that 80 percent of
the rest of the intermodal container chassis (that is, the 488,200
container chassis that are not owned by either equipment lessors or
motor carriers), or approximately 392,000 intermodal container chassis,
are owned by the steamship lines and approximately 96,200 are owned by
the railroads. Table 12 shows the estimated number of container chassis
by owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For the 3 industry associations, seven out of 18 major ocean
common carriers, three out of 5 railroads, and 9 motor carriers
responded to a variety of questions regarding chassis ownership and
operations.
Table 12.--Estimated Number of Intermodal Chassis by Owner
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
number of Estimated
Description of entities affected number of
entities chassis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steamship Lines......................... 93 392,000
Railroads............................... 5 96,200
Common-pool Operators/Equipment Lessors. 10 320,000
Motor Carriers.......................... 1,900 41,800
-------------------------------
Total............................... 2,008 850,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures)
FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking action is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, and significant under DOT regulatory policies and procedures
because of substantial public and Congressional interest concerning the
maintenance and roadability of intermodal container chassis and the
responsibilities of intermodal equipment providers (IEPs). However, it
has been estimated that the economic impact of this proposed rule would
not exceed the annual $100 million threshold for economic significance.
OMB has reviewed this proposed rule. Improved maintenance is expected
to result in fewer out-of-service (OOS) orders and highway breakdowns
involving intermodal chassis and improved efficiency of the Nation's
intermodal transportation system. To the extent inadequately maintained
intermodal chassis are responsible for, or contribute to, crashes, this
proposal would also help to ensure that CMV operations are safer, thus
reducing the deleterious effect on drivers addressed in section
31136(a)(4). Given the cost results contained in the next section,
Estimate of the Compliance Costs for Intermodal Equipment Providers,
FMCSA anticipates this rule would not have a significant economic
impact on IEPs.
Periodic (annual) inspection is required for every commercial motor
vehicle in accordance with current Sec. 396.17.\10\ Periodic
inspection is intended to complement and be consistent with the more
stringent Sec. 393.3 (systematic) inspection, repair, and maintenance
(IRM) requirements proposed in the NPRM. Currently, most intermodal
container chassis undergo a periodic (annual) inspection. Although
existing rules requiring the periodic inspection do not apply directly
to IEPs, as a business practice IEPs perform the inspection to ensure
motor carriers will accept the chassis. However, many IEPs do not
appear to have in place the systematic inspection, repair and
maintenance programs (49 CFR 396.3) that provide continuous, on-going
oversight of their equipment throughout the year. Therefore, the
explicit inclusion of the IEP in Sec. 396.3 of the FMCSRs would make
them responsible for compliance with the requirements of applicable
statutes and the corresponding regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The term ``commerical motor vehicle'' includes each unit in
a combination vehicle. For example, for a tractor semitrailer, full
trailer combination, the tractor, semitrailer, and the full trailer
(including the converter dolly if so equipped) must each be
inspected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed amendments to the FMCSRs would explicitly require IEPs
to ensure the equipment they tender to motor carriers and drivers
complies with the safety requirements in place for other types of
trailers operated in interstate commerce. For those equipment providers
that have in place systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance
programs, including providing the opportunity for CMV drivers to assess
the safe operating condition of intermodal container chassis before
taking them on the highway and repairing or replacing equipment found
to have deficiencies, this proposed rulemaking would impose minimal
additional costs. Equipment providers that do not have such systematic
programs in place would incur the costs of establishing and maintaining
the programs.
[[Page 76812]]
The proposed regulations also address a program for FMCSA to
evaluate and audit the compliance of IEPs with those sections of the
FMCSRs applicable to them. If FMCSA finds evidence that an IEP is not
complying with the regulations concerning intermodal equipment safety,
the proposed regulations would allow FMCSA to take appropriate action
to bring about compliance with the regulation.
The proposed rule would have some impact upon the responsibilities
of drivers and motor carriers. Motor carriers would continue to bear
responsibility for the safe operation of equipment in their control on
the highways and for the systematic IRM of all motor vehicles,
including intermodal equipment, under their control for 30 days or
more. Drivers would continue to be responsible for assessing the safe
operating condition of the CMVs they will drive (Sec. 392.7 and Sec.
396.13), and to note and report on defects or deficiencies that could
affect the CMV's safety of operation or result in a mechanical
breakdown (Sec. 396.11). IEPs would need to acknowledge receiving that
information, and must either repair the equipment or provide a
replacement chassis. However, IEPs and their agents may also request
FMCSA to undertake an investigation of a motor carrier that is alleged
to not be in compliance with regulations issued under the authority of
49 U.S.C. 31151.
Excluding potential costs associated with systematic IRM (Sec.
396.3) requirements, FMCSA estimates equipment providers' costs to
comply with the proposed information collection and recordkeeping
requirements would be modest, because the requirements would be limited
in scope (filing the Identification Form MCS-150C, marking intermodal
equipment with the provider's USDOT number or other identifying number
unique to that provider, and complying with recordkeeping requirements
associated with equipment inspection, repair, and maintenance).
The economic benefits of this rule are estimated to include (1)
safety benefits from avoiding crashes involving intermodal equipment,
and (2) efficiency benefits resulting from a reduction in vehicle OOS
orders on intermodal chassis, wait times for truckers to receive
chassis, and other changes in chassis operations that improve
productivity.
The sections below provide details on the estimated costs and
benefits of this proposed rule.
Estimated Compliance Costs for Intermodal Equipment Providers
Potential costs considered as a result of this proposed rule
include the following:
Filing Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report
(Form MCS-150C);
Displaying a unique USDOT number or other identification
number on each chassis;
Establishing a systematic inspection program, and a repair
and maintenance program to ensure the safe operating condition of each
chassis;
Maintaining documentation of the inspection program; and
Establishing a reporting system for defective and
deficient equipment.
When considering costs of the proposed rule, it should be
recognized that some of those costs are already being incurred by the
industry. As mentioned previously, periodic inspections of intermodal
equipment by those controlling that equipment (Sec. 396.17(c)) are
apparently being performed at least once every 12 months, as required.
Additionally, as presented later in the discussion of inspection,
repair and maintenance costs, surveys of steamship lines and railroads
that are also IEPs indicate that at least some of those equipment
providers are engaging in regular repair and preventative maintenance,
as well as in various inspection activities. Furthermore, information
from motor carriers indicates that some ar