[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 are currently doing limited
repair and maintenance on the chassis that are tendered by IEPs to
them. Therefore, the costs of this rule are lower than they would be if
IEPs were not performing any inspections, repairs, or maintenance.
Total first-year costs associated with this proposed rule range
from $28 to $41 million, depending on equipment providers' current
inspection, maintenance, and repair programs for their chassis. Total
discounted costs over the 10-year analysis period range from $147 to
$242 million, using a seven percent discount rate.
A copy of FMCSA's preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) is
included in this rulemaking docket.
Filing Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report (MCS-150C)
Currently, a motor carrier is required to file a Motor Carrier
Information Report (Form MCS-150) with FMCSA before it begins to
operate in interstate commerce and to file an update of the report
every 24 months. The proposed rule would require each equipment
provider to register with FMCSA (if it has not already done so) and to
obtain a USDOT number or other unique identification number by
submitting an Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report, Form
MCS-150C, to FMCSA. Additionally, each entity must file an update to
its initial MCS-150C filing at least every 24 months. FMCSA estimates
that 108 entities (93 steamship lines, 5 railroads, and 10 common pool
operator/equipment lessors) will need to submit Forms MCS-150C.
Form MCS-150C would be a single-page form that includes questions
about basic information, e.g., name, address, telephone number, numbers
and types of equipment, etc. FMCSA estimates it would take 20 minutes
to complete Form MCS-150C the first time that it is filed.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ FMCSA, Motor Carrier Identification Report, 65 FR 70509,
November 24, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to national employment and wage data from the
Occupational Employment Statistics survey published by the Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, a first line supervisor/manager
in a transportation and material moving occupation (those FMCSA
believes will be filling out Form MCS-150C) earned a median hourly wage
of about $21.08. Total compensation for a supervisor/manager
responsible for filing a Form MCS-150C is estimated at $30.79, of which
$21.08 is the wage and salary and $9.71 is the benefit.
This evaluation estimates that IEPs would incur a one-time cost of
approximately $10.27 per entity (\1/3\ hour times $30.79), or about
$1,110 ($10.27 x 108 = $1,109.16) for the industry to prepare and
submit MCS-150Cs to FMCSA. As mandated in section 217 of the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA), Pub. L. 106-159, 113
Stat. 1748, at 1767 (December 9, 1999), the MCS-150 need not be updated
more frequently than every two years. FMCSA estimates the biennial
update would take considerably less time than the original submission,
because most of the information is likely to be the same, and equipment
providers would already have had the experience of completing the form
at least once before. For purposes of this analysis, the biennial
update is estimated to take 10 minutes.\12\ In addition to the one-time
filing cost, IEPs would also incur a recurrent charge of $5.13 per
entity
[[Page 76813]]
biennially. Table 13 summarizes the estimated first-year costs of
initially filing a MCS-150C form with FMCSA, as well as subsequent
costs incurred filing the biennial update every two years. Note that
motor carriers already are required to file Form MCS-150, so they would
not incur any new costs associated with this aspect of the proposed
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The estimated time requirements for chassis owners and
providers to fill out an MCS-150C for the first time and biennially
are consistent with FMCSA's estimate of the time it takes motor
carriers to fill out an MCS-150.
Table 13.--Costs of Filing the Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report (Form MCS-150C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional costs due to the
NPRM
-------------------------------
Provider Number of Existing costs Total
entities Initial (1st- recurring
year) costs costs (years
2-10)*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steamship Lines...................... 93 None..................... $955 $1,618
Railroads............................ 5 None..................... 52 88
Common-pool Operators................ 10 None..................... 103 173
Motor Carriers....................... 1,900 19,502................... 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................ 2,008 19,502................... 1,110 1,880
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Net present value over a 10-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.
Displaying a USDOT Number or Other Unique Identification Number on Each
Container Chassis
The proposed rule would require all IEPs who tender such equipment
to motor carriers to mark their container chassis with a unique USDOT
number that is assigned to those filing the MCS-150C, or another number
unique to that entity. FMCSA does not mandate a particular method of
vehicle identification; thus, the costs associated with this proposal
would vary depending on the method used to mark the container chassis
with the required type of marking (i.e., USDOT number versus an
alternative identifier). FMCSA believes that the vast majority of IEPs
would use either stencils or decals for marking, because these are the
cheapest methods. This assumption and the following assumptions on time
and material requirements for container chassis marking are consistent
with FMCSA's Final Rulemaking analysis for Commercial Motor Vehicle
Marking published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2000, at 65 FR
35287. FMCSA has estimated that material costs for marking a container
chassis with a USDOT number or other unique identification number
decrease with increasing fleet size; that is, marking for smaller
fleets is estimated at $20 per unit, while marking for IEPs with more
than 20 units in their fleet is estimated at approximately $10 per
vehicle. The material cost decreases to approximately $2.50 per vehicle
for a fleet of more than 1,000 units. The chassis marking costs would
impact only those equipment providers of intermodal container chassis
who tender such equipment to other parties. This NPRM assumes the
material costs associated with marking of intermodal container chassis
would average approximately $6.25 per container chassis.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The $6.25 estimate is the average of $2.50 and $10.00. We
assume that there would be a negligible number of equipment
providers owning fewer than 6 chassis. Therefore, the highest
material cost, $20 per unit, was not used in this analysis. FMCSA
acknowledges that the estimated container chassis marking cost of
$6.25 per container chassis is conservative and probably over-
estimates the costs of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA estimates that the average time to affix a USDOT number or
other unique identification number would be about 12 minutes. According
to national employment and wage data from the Occupational Employment
Statistics survey, the median hourly wage rate for a painter of
transportation equipment is $16.39. Incorporating a 31.5 percent
benefits package yields a total hourly compensation rate of $21.55.
Assuming 12 minutes per marking, the labor cost to mark each intermodal
container chassis is estimated to be roughly $4 per container chassis
after rounding.
Combining the above estimates for material and labor, FMCSA
estimates that the total costs to mark one intermodal container chassis
with a USDOT number or other unique identification number is about $11
(after rounding). First-year costs would equal $8.9 million to mark all
container chassis operating in the United States. Subsequently, every
year thereafter, a portion of the chassis will be retired and replaced
by new chassis, each of which will need to be marked. FMCSA estimates
that the operational life of a chassis is 14 years on average.
Consequently, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that \1/
14\th of the chassis fleet is retired and replaced annually. Total
recurring costs (in years two through 10 of the analysis period) equals
$3.9 million, with total 10-year chassis marking costs estimated at
$12.8 million (after rounding). Table 14 illustrates the estimated
number of container chassis and costs of marking. The cost estimates
assume the identification number would be applied with a stencil and
spray paint. If the identification number were to be applied using
decals, recurring costs may be somewhat higher to account for
replacement of decals that loosen over time. Note that motor carriers
are assumed to incur no costs associated with the chassis marking
requirements, because it is believed that generally they do not tender
chassis to other parties for drayage.
[[Page 76814]]
Table 14.--Estimated Cost of Chassis Marking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional costs due to
the NPRM
Total -------------------------
number of Total for
Owner type Entities chassis Existing costs recurring
controlled Initial costs
\14\ costs (years 2-
10)*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steamship Lines...................... 93 392,000 None................. $4,327,680 $1,882,232
Railroads............................ 5 96,200 ..................... 1,062,048 461,886
Common-pool Operators................ 10 320,000 ..................... 3,532,800 1,536,507
Motor Carriers....................... 1,900 41,800 ..................... 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................ 2,008 850,000 $0................... 8,922,528 3,880,625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Net present value over a 10-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.
Establishing a Systematic Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance (IRM)
Program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ This term ``controlled'' is loosely defined here as those
chassis owned or leased (long term) by the entity and for which they
have responsibility or decision-making authority over maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periodic inspections. Current regulations (49 CFR 396.17) require
motor carriers or their agents to conduct periodic (annual) inspections
of their equipment. With regard to intermodal chassis, these
inspections appear to be conducted for the most part by IEPs. As a
result of research conducted prior to this rulemaking (i.e., surveys,
port visits, roadside inspections), FMCSA concluded that the IEPs did
in fact appear to be conducting the vast majority of inspections that
would satisfy Sec. 396.17 requirements regarding periodic (annual)
inspections of the chassis. As such, FMCSA believes there would be no
new costs to equipment providers or motor carriers for periodic
(annual) inspections of intermodal chassis because of this proposed
rule.
Systematic inspections. In addition to the periodic (annual)
inspection regulations (396.17), Sec. 396.3 requires every motor
carrier or their agent to systematically inspect, repair, and maintain,
or cause to be systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained, all
motor vehicles subject to its control. The parts and accessories are
required to be in safe and proper operating condition at all times.
These parts and accessories include those specified in Part 393 and any
additional parts and accessories that may affect the safety of
operation, including but not limited to frame and frame assemblies,
suspension systems, axles and attaching parts, wheels and rims, and
steering systems. However, the proposed rule now would explicitly
require IEPs to comply with the systematic inspection, repair, and
maintenance requirements of Sec. 396.3. These requirements do not
provide specific intervals for the routine inspections, or provide
inspection criteria.
Frequency of inspection. As regards estimating costs of making the
systematic inspection, maintenance, and repair requirements applicable
to intermodal equipment providers, FMCSA first attempted to determine
whether the equipment providers had maintenance or repair programs that
could satisfy some or all of the proposed Sec. 396.3 requirements.
Responses from the survey of steamship lines indicated that the seven
entities queried were fully complying with existing systematic
inspection, maintenance, and repair regulations. However, anecdotal
information obtained from port visits and participation in roadside
inspections of intermodal chassis by FMCSA analysts indicated
otherwise. Because SAFETEA-LU explicitly requires intermodal equipment
providers to comply with the systematic inspection, repair, and
maintenance requirements of Sec. 396.3, the relevant question then
becomes whether there are any new costs associated with this aspect of
the proposed rule. Motor carriers were already directly subject to
these requirements, and this proposed rule would simply ensure the
transfer of this responsibility to non-motor carrier IEPs.
As a result of its investigation, FMCSA concluded that there was a
significant probability that full compliance was not being achieved
with the existing regulations. IEPs, as a customary business practice,
do not provide systematic inspection, repair and maintenance programs.
Consequently, for the purpose of estimating the economic costs of this
proposed rule, FMCSA assumes that non-motor carrier IEPs would in fact
be required to undertake new costs because of this rulemaking. Whether
or not this accurately represents the current situation, our assumption
of less than full compliance is conservative because it helps ensure
that FMCSA does not underestimate the economic costs of this proposed
rule.
Because the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must quantify the
number of additional inspections to be conducted each year as a result
of this proposed rule, FMCSA estimates about one a year is conducted by
IEPs now, but four are needed for a reasonable systematic inspection,
repair and maintenance program. We estimate that, on average, three
additional inspections would be required for that portion of the non-
motor carrier owned or controlled intermodal chassis currently in
operation (even though the proposed rule sets no explicit requirements
on the number of inspections per chassis under a systematic IRM
program). FMCSA believes that a minimally-compliant IEP could fulfill
the requirements of this proposal. For the purposes of estimating costs
for the RIA, this assumption would effectively amount to a quarterly
inspection program for the chassis owned or controlled by IEPs.
Regarding the number of chassis being maintained in a manner
consistent with the regulations, FMCSA estimates between 25 and 50
percent of the existing intermodal chassis population are currently not
being properly maintained.\15\ Two estimates are chosen here due to the
uncertainty associated with current systematic maintenance practices.
FMCSA estimates that each chassis that is not currently maintained
would receive three additional inspections each year on average as part
of systematic IRM programs implemented or modified as a result of this
proposed rule. Conversely, it is estimated that the remainder, or 50 to
75 percent of all chassis currently in use,
[[Page 76815]]
are already provided at least four complete inspections per year and
therefore, would not require any additional inspections as a result of
this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ This percent is based on the agency's analyses of the AAR
and OCEMA responses to its surveys, as well as from information
gathered from our port visits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This analysis uses an average of 30 minutes to conduct an
inspection of an intermodal chassis and that a transportation inspector
earning $30.79 per hour in wages and benefits would perform the
inspections, supported by a mechanic. This is based on data from the
AAR survey response. It is also consistent with the amount of time to
complete a Level V inspection. The mechanic is assumed to devote 15
minutes to the inspection, the inspector 30 minutes. The median hourly
wage for a mobile heavy equipment mechanic is estimated from employment
and wage data from Occupational Employment Statistics to be $17.69 as
of May 2003. Assuming benefits are equal to 31.5 percent of wages, the
total loaded labor cost of the mechanic would be $23.26 per hour. The
total cost of each additional inspection of an intermodal chassis would
be $21.21. This cost estimate is consistent with the AAR members'
estimates of annual inspection costs of $20 if performed by their own
personnel and $18 if outsourced to an on- or off-site terminal
inspection operator. The cost of four inspections per year would be
$84.84.
Additional Maintenance and Repair Costs. FMCSA recognizes that the
maintenance and repair activities of some systematic IRM programs might
need to be expanded in order to bring the programs into full compliance
with the proposed requirements. For the most part, however, the primary
change anticipated is that maintenance and repair will become more
proactive and less reactive. For instance, some IEPs currently perform
preventative maintenance when driver, inbound, outbound, or roadability
inspections at terminals find problems (or during the annual inspection
required by the FMCSRs). The proposed rule would make the preventative
maintenance of those providers more regular or time-based. This would
place necessary maintenance and repair activities upstream in the
interchange process reducing the ``reactive'' nature of that activity.
There will most likely be some shift of repair costs from motor
carriers to IEPs, but the magnitude of this shift is uncertain.
However, FMCSA believes this shift represents a transfer payment of
existing costs, and therefore is not expected to impact the overall
costs or benefits of the proposed rule.
Total Systematic Maintenance Program Costs. Table 15 shows the
estimated costs of IRM programs for IEPs, based on assumptions about
existing compliance. Estimates are presented for the cases where (1) 50
percent of all chassis are assumed to be in compliance with existing
systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance regulations (requiring
no additional inspections per year), while the other 50 percent are
assumed to require three additional inspections per year (where the
fourth quarterly inspection represents the annual inspection, which
FMCSA believes is already being performed); and (2) where 75 percent of
all chassis are assumed to be in compliance with existing regulations
(requiring no additional inspections per year), while the other 25
percent would require three additional inspections per year. As Table
15 indicates, according to FMCSA assumptions for this analysis, the
proposed rule is expected to add between $13.5 million and $27.0
million per year to the cost of systematic IRM programs for IEPs,
depending on the percentage of chassis which are already believed to be
in compliance with the existing systematic inspection, repair, and
maintenance regulations. The estimated total present value of the cost
of systematic IRM requirements for equipment providers over a 10-year
period is estimated to be between $95 million and $190 million. Annual
costs associated with this rulemaking represent an increase of one to
three percent in the costs of systematic IRM programs already
undertaken by non-motor carrier IEPs, based on information obtained
from equipment provider surveys regarding the average annual
maintenance costs incurred per chassis.
Table 15.--Estimated Cost of Systematic Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance Programs for Chassis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Existing inspection, repair, Additional costs due to NPRM
-------------------------- and maintenance costs -------------------------------
--------------------------------
Assuming 50% Assuming 75% Assuming 50% Assuming 75%
of chassis of chassis of chassis of chassis
are in full are in full are in full are in full
Intermodal provider compliance and compliance and compliance and compliance and
Providers Chassis 50% require 25% require 50% require 25% require
three three three three
additional additional additional additional
inspections inspections inspections inspections
per year per year per year per year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steamship Lines............................................... 93 392,000 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Railroads..................................................... 5 96,200 .............. .............. .............. ..............
Common-pool Operators......................................... 10 320,000 $913,771,250 $927,292,625 $27,042,750 $13,521,375
Motor Carriers................................................ 1,900 41,800 .............. .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 2,008 850,000 .............. .............. .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping
As stated earlier, FMCSA believes that the systematic IRM program
called for in the proposed rule will require four inspections of
intermodal chassis per year, on average.
FMCSA estimates that the time needed to document and file each
inspection report is approximately 3 minutes. Therefore, this analysis
assumes that it would take each IEP approximately 3 minutes on average
per intermodal chassis per inspection to document and retain the
inspection reports. Assuming that a transportation inspector earning
$30.79 per hour in wages and benefits would perform the inspections and
document the findings, the total cost to document and retain each
inspection report is estimated to be approximately $2 per intermodal
chassis per inspection (or ($30.79/60) x 3 minutes).
Annual Inspections. Under current regulations, motor carriers are
required
[[Page 76816]]
to comply with the periodic recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 396.21,
and the proposed rule would not impose any additional recordkeeping
requirements on them. Additionally, based on its research, FMCSA
believes that other IEPs (i.e., steamship lines, railroads, and common
pool operators) are currently inspecting their chassis on an annual
basis. As such, for the purposes of this analysis, these other IEPs are
assumed to prepare a report that is equivalent to the one required by
Sec. 396.21, given that FMCSA has received no information through its
surveys, port visits, or roadside inspection activities, that would
indicate otherwise. The proposed regulatory change, consequently, will
not impose any additional regulatory requirements on the other IEPs
relating to their annual inspections.
Systematic Inspections. It is assumed that motor carriers are
currently performing full inspections of intermodal chassis they
control four times per year. This is not assumed to be the case for
IEPs, however. Some portion of chassis owned or controlled by other
(non-motor carrier) equipment providers (between 25 percent and 50
percent in this analysis) are assumed to be inspected once annually.
Consequently, the proposed regulatory change will require additional
recordkeeping for non-motor carrier IEPs.
Assuming that the recordkeeping for each intermodal chassis
inspection costs $2, and that these intermodal equipment providers will
need to perform three additional inspections per year per chassis, the
recordkeeping requirements of the proposed regulatory change are
expected to cost the non-motor carrier IEPs an additional $6 per
chassis per year.
Total Cost of Recordkeeping. Table 16 presents the total annual
estimated cost of recordkeeping currently and under the proposed
regulations, along with the increase in the cost of recordkeeping
attributable to the new regulations.
Table 16.--Estimated Cost of Systematic Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance Recordkeeping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated number of Change in
-------------------------- Annual cost annual costs
Existing under the attributable
Description annual proposed to the
Providers Chassis costs regulations proposed
regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steamship Lines.......................... 93 392,000 $784,000 $3,136,000 $2,352,000
Railroads................................ 5 96,200 192,400 769,600 577,200
Common-pool Operators.................... 10 320,000 640,000 2,560,000 1,920,000
Motor Carriers........................... 1,900 41,800 334,400 334,400 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 2,008 850,000 1,950,800 6,800,000 4,849,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual cost of recordkeeping attributable to the proposed rule
is $4,849,200. Over the 10-year analysis period, the present value of
the cost of recordkeeping would be $38,907,752.
New Reporting System for Defective/Deficient Equipment. The
proposed rule would require that IEPs establish a system for motor
carriers and drivers to report to the IEPs any defects or deficiencies
in tendered chassis that would affect the safety of the operation of
those chassis or result in its mechanical breakdown on the road. This
proposed change would require: (1) The establishment of the system; (2)
the minimum information that the IEP must obtain from motor carriers
and drivers; (3) the corrective actions that must be taken when a
chassis is identified as being defective or deficient in some way; and
(4) the retention period for all documentation that is generated as a
consequence of this system. This requirement would be added to the
FMCSRs in a new Sec. 396.12. All of these potential impacts are
discussed.
Nature of Notification. The discovery of a chassis problem by a
driver could occur at any of a variety of locations. It might occur
during the driver's mandated inspection of the chassis at the start of
a trip, during the movement over the public roadways from the origin
terminal to the destination of the container on the chassis, or at the
destination. Potentially, the discovery could occur hundreds of miles
distant from the intermodal providers' nearest operational location.
The average length of haul for chassis transported by the nine trucking
firms that responded to FMCSA's intermodal survey varied from 11-20
miles to 150-200 miles.
For purposes of this analysis, FMCSA assumes that no additional
costs will be incurred in order for IEPs to receive notification of
problems. Because problems with chassis already occur, FMCSA believes
that such systems are already well established to address problems.
Additionally, FMCSA received no information during its data collection
immediately prior to this rulemaking to indicate otherwise, and the
agency found such systems already in place during its port visits.
Consequently, no additional costs are expected to result.
Motor Carriers and Drivers. For the systems established by IEPs to
be effective, motor carriers and drivers must report defective or
deficient chassis. Proposed Sec. 390.44 would require drivers to
report to the IEP, or its agent, the condition of each vehicle
operated. Also, motor carriers and drivers are responsible for taking
only roadworthy chassis on the public roadways, so it would be in their
best interest to report any problems with defective or deficient
chassis that are encountered.
For purposes of this analysis, FMCSA assumes that no additional
costs will be incurred by drivers and motor carriers in order to notify
chassis providers of problems with defective or deficient chassis.
Problems with chassis already occur, and drivers or motor carriers are
already contacting providers (whether in person or by phone) to inform
them of those problems. Additionally, FMCSA believes that the new
application of the systematic IRM requirement to equipment providers
will generally result in these problems being noticed and corrected
prior to the transfer of the chassis.
Driver Chassis Inspection Reports. According to proposed Sec.
396.12, the reports to be received by the IEP from the motor carrier
and the driver will need to include the following information:
The name of the motor carrier responsible for the
operation of the chassis at the time the defect or deficiency was
discovered by or reported to the driver;
[[Page 76817]]
The USDOT identification number or other unique
identification number of the motor carrier;
The date and time the report was submitted; and
The defects or deficiencies reported by the motor carrier
or driver.
As mentioned before, chassis currently experience problems that are
being reported to IEPs. With the possible exception of the USDOT
identification number or other unique identification number, good
business practice would seem to require that all of the information
mandated in reports under new Sec. 396.12 is currently being
collected. Additionally, FMCSA received no information during its data
collection immediately prior to this rulemaking to indicate otherwise.
Therefore, no additional costs are expected to result from the required
driver chassis inspection reports.
Corrective Actions. Proposed Sec. 396.12 would require each IEP to
establish a system for motor carriers and their drivers to report
damage, defects, and deficiencies. After a chassis returns to the
possession of the IEP, Sec. 396.12 would mandate that the provider
must correct any reported defects or deficiencies in the chassis that
make the chassis not roadworthy. Furthermore, before a provider can
place the chassis in service, the provider must document the actions
taken to correct any reported defect or deficiency, or must document
that repairs were unnecessary.
Based on information obtained from equipment provider surveys FMCSA
has concluded that IEPs currently have repair facilities for dealing
with chassis that are not roadworthy. Additionally, during its port
visits, FMCSA staff identified repair facilities at all the terminals
they toured. Consequently, Sec. 396.12 would not require the
establishment of new facilities, nor is there any reason to believe
that the new section will necessitate any expansion of existing
facilities.
Good business practice for chassis providers and their service
departments would include documenting repairs made or documenting that
repairs were not made. This information assists those monitoring the
cost and work of repair facilities. Information obtained from the
equipment providers' surveys confirmed that IEPs are indeed following
good business practice. The proposed Sec. 396.12 would not increase
the need for this documentation. It might, however, change the nature
of the documentation somewhat. For instance, if a chassis were brought
in for a defective wheel and no wheel problem could be found, then
current documentation might just say ``Checked wheels.'' Under the
proposed Sec. 396.12, the documentation might say ``Check wheels after
receiving trouble report from motor carrier. Complete check revealed no
problem.'' FMCSA believes any change in documentation would be minor
and would not materially add to the costs of the providers, however.
Retention of Records. Under proposed Sec. 396.12, all
documentation must be kept for a period of three months from the date
of a trouble report. Available intermodal chassis provider industry
information indicates that records of inbound and outbound inspections
are kept between one and seven years, with three to five years being
typical.\16\ FMCSA has no reason to expect that repair records, which
are arguably more critical to the operation of intermodal chassis
providers than records on inbound and outbound inspections, would be
kept for less time. Additionally, FMCSA received no information during
its data collection effort immediately prior to this rulemaking to
indicate otherwise. Consequently, the retention of records, as required
by proposed Sec. 396.12, would not add to the costs of intermodal
chassis providers.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Information on intermodal chassis operations submitted by
OCEMA to FMCSA in 2004 in response to questions posed by FMCSA.
\17\ Alternatively, any costs associated with the retention of
records for the proposed defective and deficient equipment reporting
system could be assumed to be covered by the costs associated with
recordkeeping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Impact. The overall impact of proposed Sec. 396.12,
Procedures for intermodal equipment providers to accept reports
required by Sec. 390.44(b), on the costs of intermodal chassis
providers, is believed to be negligible. All required actions regarding
the collection and retention of records are currently being performed
in one form or another, according to FMCSA survey analysis and other
research (port visits). Proposed Sec. 396.12 is not expected to add
materially to the current workload of intermodal chassis providers,
their service organizations, or to motor carriers and their drivers.
Total Compliance Costs of the Proposed Regulations
Table 17 summarizes the expected compliance costs attributable to
the proposed regulation.
Table 17.--Estimated Costs of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional costs due to the NPRM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Existing costs Total for
(annual) Initial cost recurring costs Total cost (years
(year 1) (years 2-10)** 1-10)**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing MCS-150C................. $19,502........... $1,110............ $1,880............ $2,990.
Chassis Marking................. $0................ $9,384,000........ $4,081,352........ $13,465,352.
Systematic Inspection, Repair, $913,771,250 to $13,521,375 to $81,447,105 to $94,968,480 to
and Maintenance Costs. $927,292,625. $27,042,750. $162,894,210. $189,936,960.
Recordkeeping................... $1,950,800........ $4,849,200........ $34,058,752....... $38,907,952.
Sec. 396.12................... *................. $0................ $0................ $0.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs................. $915,741,552 to $27,292,899 to $119,388,362 to $146,681,261 to
$929,262,927. $40,814,274. $200,835,467. $241,649,741.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Included in the costs of other actions.
** Net present value over a 10-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.
The total compliance costs, or the sum of the total initial and
total recurring costs, are expected to be between $147 million and $242
million. Consistent with OMB directives, this is the present value of
the expected cost stream calculated over a 10-year period using a 7
percent discount rate.
FMCSA seeks comment on the cost analysis.
[[Page 76818]]
Safety and Economic Benefits of Improving Container Chassis Maintenance
The purpose of the proposed regulation is to ensure that intermodal
chassis used to transport intermodal containers are safe. The explicit
inclusion of IEPs in the scope of the FMCSRs would ensure that IEPs
could be subject to the same enforcement proceedings, orders, and civil
penalties as those applied to motor carriers today. The systematic
inspection, maintenance, and repair requirements would ensure safer and
more reliable container chassis on the nation's highways. The expected
benefits of the proposed rule include the following:
Increased safety of intermodal chassis operation as a
result of reducing crashes attributable to those chassis;
Increased operational efficiency of intermodal chassis as
a result of--
[cir] Reducing the vehicle out-of-service rate;
[cir] Reducing the average idle time spent by truckers waiting for
chassis repairs on the road;
[cir] Reducing the average time spent by truckers at rail terminals
or port facilities waiting to be given a roadworthy chassis. This
effectively decreases congestion costs at those facilities, which are
typically located in urban areas.
The following sections quantify the potential benefits of the
proposed rule by estimating the number of crashes avoided to justify
the compliance costs directly or indirectly imposed by the rule. The
sections also provide qualitative discussion of benefits of the
proposed rule where quantitative estimates are not available.
Threshold Analysis for Safety Benefits. Section III of this
document contains data analysis conducted by FMCSA that shows that
intermodal trailers have significantly higher vehicle out-of-service
(OOS) rates than non-intermodal trailers. The results indicate that
chassis owned by a motor carrier appear to have lower OOS rates than
the comparable equipment owned by non-motor carrier equipment
providers. These findings are still considered preliminary because the
sample size of chassis inspection data by ownership type was quite
small. The proposed rule's explicit inclusion of IEPs would better
enable FMCSA to determine whether and how equipment providers are
complying with provisions of the FMCSRs and to compel compliance, if
necessary. Additionally, FMCSA analysts believe that a portion of the
chassis currently in use will receive additional inspections each year,
because this proposed rule explicitly requires non-motor carrier
intermodal equipment providers to comply with the existing systematic
inspection, repair, and maintenance regulations. A better-inspected,
maintained, and repaired intermodal chassis fleet would be likely to
result in a decrease in crashes on the Nation's highways.
The estimated cost of a crash involving a fatal injury is $3.57
million for a truck tractor with one trailer, and the costs of non-
injury or property-damage-only crashes are estimated to be $12,077
each. The estimated average cost of a crash reported to police
involving a truck tractor with one trailer is $76,698.\18\ Using recent
data on the number of crashes involving truck tractors with single
trailers, Table 18 estimates the total crash costs for these vehicles.
The cost estimate shown in Table 18 includes the cost of fatal and
injury crashes, but does not include the costs associated with
property-damage-only crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Estimated in 2003 dollars calculated using the gross
domestic product (GDP) deflator, and estimates from ``Revised Costs
of Large Truck and Bus Involved Crashes,'' final report to FMCSA by
Eduard Zaloshnja and Ted Miller, available at: http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/
[fxsp0]CarrierResearchResults/
[fxsp0]CarrierResearchContent.asp.
Table 18.--Estimated Costs of Crashes Involving Truck Tractors With Trailers, 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck tractors Fatal crashes Injury crashes Total estimated costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 trailer................................ 2,937 42,000 $3,447 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ``Traffic Safety Facts 2002'', available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF2002.pdf.
As stated, the rule is expected to result in compliance costs of
between $28 million and $41 million in the first year, and $147 million
and $242 million over the entire 10-year analysis period. The proposed
rule should result in benefits that are greater than the cost of
compliance, which would result in a positive cost/benefit ratio.
Focusing on saved lives alone, the proposed rule would need to prevent
between 8 and 12 fatalities per year attributable to crashes involving
intermodal chassis over the 10-year period. These 8 to 12 fatalities
represent just 0.2% to 0.3% of the 3,762 fatalities in combination
truck crashes in calendar year 2003. At the break-even point,
compliance costs equal the benefits attributable to avoiding just a few
of the fatal crashes that would have occurred in the absence of the
proposed regulation. Of course, reduced injuries, property damage, and
other incident consequences would reduce the number of lives that would
need to be saved in order for the rule to be cost-beneficial. We
believe the proposed rule is likely to prevent enough crashes to
justify the costs.
Benefits Associated With Increased Operational Efficiency
While operating efficiency is not something FMCSA regulates, we
note that in addition to the safety benefits, the proposed rule is
likely to produce benefits from improved operational efficiency.
Currently, from our research, FMCSA concludes there is no standard
procedure for a truck driver or motor carrier to follow when confronted
with an intermodal chassis placed OOS as a result of a roadside
inspection. One of the uncertainties is the issue of responsibility. If
the chassis's problem developed after the driver left the terminal,
then the contractual responsibility in many cases lies with the
commercial driver and the motor carrier, not with the equipment
provider. If, however, the chassis problem was a pre-existing
condition, then the chassis owner is responsible. According to IANA,
many equipment providers have service contracts with repair vendors. If
a chassis problem needs to be fixed in order for the driver to resume
operation, these vendors are often called to provide the repairs.
Additional uncertainty surrounds the question of authorization for this
repair, because the service contract is between the service vendor and
the chassis provider and the provider would have to authorize a repair
request. In some cases, the truck driver's motor carrier
[[Page 76819]]
would have to make arrangements with the chassis provider's service
vendor to repair the chassis.
The potential reduction of OOS rates would increase the operational
efficiency of intermodal transportation as a whole. A chassis placed
OOS must not be operated until the repairs required by an OOS order
have been made. According to information provided to FMCSA by ATA
members, carriers spend, on average, 3 hours of a driver's time and 1.5
hours of other employees' time to correct each vehicle OOS order
received on chassis tendered by an equipment provider. The opportunity
cost for a truck driver and one employee's time is calculated at
$116.35 per vehicle OOS order attributable to a problem chassis.\19\
Note that this is considered a conservative estimate, because FMCSA
used an average commercial driver wage rate to estimate the opportunity
costs of a vehicle OOS order, in lieu of a ``revenue per tractor''
estimate, which would be higher because it accounts for the opportunity
cost of the vehicle as well as the driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Using National employment and wage data, the median hourly
wage for a truck driver is estimated at $16.01 and supervisor/
manager is estimated at $21.08. With fringe benefits added to the
wages, the hourly wage and salaries are estimated at $23.39 and
$30.70 for truck driver and the manager/supervisor respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that, on average, 18.5 percent of roadside inspections of
intermodal chassis result in vehicle OOS violations, cost savings, in
terms of the opportunity cost of driver and motor carriers' time, would
quickly add up, as there are approximately 850,000 intermodal chassis
in operation in the U.S. Roadside repair costs for intermodal chassis,
other than those involved in vehicle OOS orders, may also be
significantly reduced, given evidence indicating that intermodal
chassis typically have more equipment defects and deficiencies than
non-intermodal trailers. Clearly, a reduction in equipment violations
severe enough to cause a chassis to be placed OOS would mean less
disruption of supply chains. FMCSA attempted conservatively to estimate
the number of intermodal chassis vehicle OOS orders that would be
avoided as a result of this proposed rule. We assumed that this
proposal would reduce the intermodal chassis OOS rate to the national
vehicle OOS rate for all trailers (discussed earlier in this NPRM in
Table 11). Initial results indicate that such changes could reap
efficiency benefits of $40,000 to $410,000 annually. Again, FMCSA
considers these estimates to be conservative, because it used a driver
wage rate, rather than an average revenue per tractor estimate, to
determine the opportunity costs of vehicle OOS orders. Complete details
of this analysis are contained in the full RIA in the docket.
At intermodal terminal facilities, the effect of the proposed rule
would be to reduce the time needed for motor carriers to pick up a
roadworthy chassis. Motor carriers report that they currently spend
between 30 minutes and 2 to 3 hours to find a roadworthy chassis. That
means that motor carriers could save between $11.69 and $46.78 in
driver's costs alone, if this wait/search time could be completely
eliminated. The proposed rule, by mandating that chassis providers
implement systematic inspection, maintenance, and repair programs, can
be expected to reduce the number of defective chassis being offered in
service, and thereby reduce the time needed by truck drivers to find a
roadworthy chassis.
Delays at a port or rail intermodal terminal and on the road due to
poor container chassis condition affect only a small segment of the
motor carrier industry. However, delays at intermodal facilities and
the related issue of poor container chassis condition on the road are
crucially important to trucking firms that pick up and deliver freight
at ports and rail terminals. Drayage firms that service ports,
especially, operate in a highly competitive market, with many small
motor carriers and owner-operators competing to provide services. The
drivers are typically paid per load and operate on very slim profit
margins. Delays at port or rail facilities as well as on the road
impose a cost on these firms in lost revenues and profits. The reduced
efficiency of this critical link in the transportation system also
imposes costs on intermodal freight customers.
Intermodal freight volume is expected to continue to grow, and
ports and rail terminals must improve competitiveness both locally and
globally. This will require the utilization of existing infrastructure
and greater economic efficiency. The amount of cargo moving in maritime
containers is forecasted to grow nearly three-fold by 2020, rising from
57 million twenty-foot containers in 2000 to 163 million in 2020.
Systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance of intermodal container
chassis would ensure safe operation of these container chassis on the
road, which in turn would enhance the reliability and economic
efficiency of the intermodal freight traffic in the U.S.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Principles for a U.S. Public Freight Agenda in a Global
Economy, from Martin E. Robins and Anne Strauss-Wieder, Metropolitan
Policy Program, Brookings Institution, January 2006, citiing Nariman
Behravesh, ``The US and Global Outlook: Storm Clouds on the
Horizon?'' Global Insight, Port of New York and New Jersey Port
Economic Briefing, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 19, below, compares the current Federal requirements with new
requirements proposed in this NPRM and shows the benefits and costs
associated with the proposals.
[[Page 76820]]
Table 19.--Comparison of Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison
---------------------------------------- Discounted 10-year
Regulatory provisions Current costs Benefits
requirement NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 386--Rules of Practice for Enables the Explicitly No new costs Explicit inclusion
Motor Carrier, Broker, Freight Assistant includes associated with of intermodal
Forwarder, and Hazardous Administrator to intermodal this provision. equipment
Materials Proceedings. determine whether equipment providers would
a motor carrier, providers. make them subject
property broker, to the provisions
freight or requirements
forwarder, or its of applicable
agents, statutes and the
employees, or any corresponding
other person regulations; and,
subject to the if violations are
jurisdiction of found, the
FMCSA has failed Assistant
to comply with Administrator
the provisions or could issue an
requirements of appropriate order
applicable to compel
statutes and the compliance with
corresponding the statute or
regulations. regulation,
assess a civil
penalty, or both.
This will result
in the following:
1. Increased
safety of the
intermodal
container chassis
operation and
reduced crashes
involving
intermodal
container
chassis.
2. Increased
operational
efficiency of the
intermodal
container chassis
operation.
a. Reduced number
of vehicle out-of-
service orders
related to poor
intermodal
container chassis
condition.
b. Reduced idle
time spent by the
driver and the
truck while
waiting for
required repairs
on the container
chassis.
c. Reduced time
spent by truck
drivers to find
road worthy
container chassis
at the port or
rail terminals.
3. Revised rules
that explicitly
require equipment
providers to be
responsible for
the safety and
security of their
equipment:
a. Eliminate
externality
issues that are
involved when one
party's (owners
of intermodal
container
chassis--steamshi
p lines and
railroads)
actions impose
uncompensated
costs (in terms
of lost
productivity,
uncompensated
repair costs, and
decrease in
overall profit
margin) on
another party
(motor carriers).
Eliminate
potential
barriers to
information on
scope and
jurisdiction of
FMCSRs.
[[Page 76821]]
Part 390--General applicability. Applies to all Explicitly 1. $2,990 to file
employers, includes MCS-150C.
employees, and intermodal 2. $13.5 million
commercial motor equipment over 10 years for
vehicles, which providers and chassis marking
transport intermodal costs.
property or equipment.
passengers in
interstate
commerce. Motor
carriers must
assist in
investigations
and special
studies. Motor
carriers must
file Form MCS-
150. CMVs must be
marked as
specified.
Part 393--Parts and Accessories Every employer and Equipment No new cost
Necessary for Safe Operation. employee shall providers would associated with
comply and be be held this provision.
conversant with accountable for
the requirements offering in
and interstate
specifications of commerce
this part. No intermodal
employer shall equipment that is
operate a not equipped with
commercial motor all required
vehicle, or cause parts and
or permit it to accessories and
be operated, would be required
unless it is to ensure that
equipped in each of those
accordance with components are in
the requirements safe and operable
and condition.
specifications of
this part.
Part 396--Inspection, Repair, Every motor Intermodal 1. No new cost
and Maintenance. carrier, its equipment associated with
officers, providers would annual (periodic)
drivers, agents, be required to: inspection
representatives 1. Comply and be provision.
and employees conversant with 2. Equipment
shall comply and the rules of this providers may
be conversant part. incur an
with the rules of 2. Establish a additional cost
this part. Every systematic of $95-190
motor carrier inspection, million over 10-
shall repair, and year analysis
systematically maintenance period to achieve
inspect, repair, program and full compliance
and maintain, or comply with with Systematic
cause to be inspection and inspection,
systematically recordkeeping repair, and
inspected, requirements maintenance
repaired, and established in requirements,
maintained, all part 396 for depending upon
motor vehicles motor carriers. current degree of
subject to its 3. Establish a compliance with
control and keep system for motor part 396.
the necessary carriers and 3. There may be an
records. drivers to report additional cost
defects and of $38.9 million
deficiencies in over the 10-year
intermodal analysis period
equipment, and to in new
keep records. recordkeeping
costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA requests comment on the costs and benefits estimated in this
analysis.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. While we
believe the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, we have chosen not to certify the
proposed rule at this point. Instead, we decided to complete an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and solicit comments on our
analysis. The IRFA and the attached regulatory impact analysis (RIA)
include our discussion of the regulatory impacts, and the reasons for
our recommended action.
Need for the NPRM: On January 26, 2004, the Secretary of
Transportation announced that the USDOT would launch a safety
inspection program for intermodal container chassis. The inspection
program would provide added oversight to help ensure that the
intermodal container chassis used by motor carriers to transport
intermodal cargo containers are in safe and proper working order.
The announcement explained the new inspection program would be
modeled on FMCSA's compliance review program already in place for the
Nation's interstate motor carriers. Chassis providers would be required
to obtain a USDOT number and display it on their chassis so that safety
performance data could be captured. FMCSA would apply the same penalty
structure and enforcement actions used for motor carriers to intermodal
equipment providers demonstrating patterns of non-compliance with the
new safety requirements.
Subsequently, Section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU was enacted and directs
the Department of Transportation to undertake a rulemaking relating to
the roadability of intermodal equipment. FMCSA, working in coordination
with
[[Page 76822]]
other USDOT agencies, initiated this new rulemaking to advance the
Department's safety goal without unnecessarily involving the Department
in the commercial relations or allocation of liability between
intermodal parties.
Description of Actions: In this NPRM, FMCSA is proposing to amend
the FMCSRs to require entities that offer intermodal container chassis
for transportation in interstate commerce to (i) file a Motor Carrier
Identification Report (FMCSA Form MCS-150), (ii) display on each
chassis a unique identification number (e.g., USDOT number) assigned or
approved by FMCSA, (iii) establish a systematic inspection, repair and
maintenance program to ensure the safe operating condition of each
chassis and maintain documentation of the program and (iv) provide a
means for effectively responding to driver and motor carrier complaints
about the condition of intermodal container chassis.
Identification of potentially affected small entities: Entities
likely to be affected by the NPRM are 93 steamship lines, 5 railroads,
10 common pool operators, and 1,900 motor carriers. All 93 steamship
lines are foreign entities, and the provisions of the RFA do not apply
to foreign entities.\21\ According to the Small Business Administration
(SBA), the definition of ``small business'' has the same meaning as
under the Small Business Act. The following table indicates the
percentage of affected entities defined as ``small businesses.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/title3_s2993.html.
\22\ Table 17 has been calculated using 1997 Economic Census
Data (2002 data for all NAICS codes are not currently available) and
combining it with SBA's size standards to estimate the number of
small business. The 1997 data for revenue have been adjusted for
2003 revenue figures since SBA revenue size is given in 2003
dollars. The estimate was ``at least'' since there were firms that
did not have revenues reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The railroads that own intermodal chassis are assumed to be 5 major
railroads in the United States and would not be considered small
business as defined by the SBA. Additionally, it is FMCSA's belief that
most of the common-pool operators that own intermodal chassis would not
be classified as small business by SBA size standards, given the
average size of the chassis pools they are estimated to be
operating.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ A list of common-pool operators is available on the IICL
Web site. The NAICS listed here represents all firms that provide
support service to road transportation. Common-pool operators are
part of this over-all group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The for-hire trucking industry in the United States consists of
over 113,000 interstate motor carriers.\24\ Data from FMCSA's Licensing
and Insurance (L&I) database indicates roughly 125,000 active for-hire
motor carriers. For-hire operators are those that offer truck
transportation services to the public. The major sectors of for-hire
trucking are household goods carriers, bulk carriers, tank carriers,
refrigerated carriers, less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers, truckload
carriers, and other specialized carriers.\25\ Owner-operators, as the
term implies, are independent owners of individual trucks or small
fleets.\26\ They generally function as for-hire carriers or provide
contract or ad hoc support to larger for-hire carriers or other
commercial trucking operations. In addition to for-hire carriers and
owner-operators, over 480,000 other companies and governmental entities
operate private fleets of trucks, which deliver and distribute products
and services for their parent organizations.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 2002 Economic Census, Transportation and Warehousing, U.S.
Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 2004, available on the
Internet at http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0248i09.pdf.
\25\ American Trucking Trends 2003, American Trucking
Associations, Inc., Alexandria, VA, 2003, p. 7.
\26\ Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Web site at
http://www.ooida.com.
\27\ American Trucking Trends 2003, American Trucking
Associations, Inc., Alexandria, VA, 2003, p. 6, reports a total of
585 thousand interstate motor truck operators of all types. The
source of the information was identified as filings with the Federal
Motor Safety Administration (FMSCA) as of August 2002.
Table 20.--Small Business Size Standards for the Potentially Affected Industries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBA Size Standards Percent of
-------------------------- industry
NAICS Description that is
Revenue Employee small
(millions) business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Applicable........................ Steamship lines.................. NA NA NA
482112................................ Railroads........................ ........... 1,500 NA
532490*............................... Other Commercial/Industrial $6.0 ........... 94
Machinery and Equipment Rental
and Leasing.
484110................................ General Freight Trucking, Local.. 21.5 ........... 75
484121................................ General Freight Trucking, Long ........... ........... 74
Distance, Truckload.
484122................................ General Freight Trucking, Long 21.5 ........... 72
Distance, Less Than Truckload.
484220................................ Specialized Freight (except Used 21.5 ........... 73
Goods) Trucking, Local.
484230................................ Specialized Freight (except Used 21.5 ........... 77
Goods) Trucking, Long Distance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NAICS codes assumed for common-pool operators/shippers as equipment lessors listed in IICL Web site, such as
Interpool Inc., identified them as SIC 7359 in the financial statements submitted with Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The proposed rule would affect only a small percentage of trucking
firms, since only approximately 1,900 trucking companies own intermodal
chassis. These motor carriers belong to the five ``484'' NAICS codes
identified in Table 20. For the most part, these entities would incur
minimal increased costs to comply with the provisions of this NPRM,
since they are already subject to the FMCSRs; indeed, the NPRM would
most likely reduce overall operational costs for most of these
entities, since some of the burden for inspection, maintenance, and
repair will indirectly shift to non-motor carrier chassis providers.
The RIA assumes that the 10 equipment lessors (common pool
operators) own an estimated 320,000 intermodal chassis or about 32,000
chassis per entity. Therefore, based on this information, we assumed
that these firms fall into the 20 largest firms in this NAICS codes and
earned about $3.06 billion or average revenue of $153.2 million.\28\ To
have a significant impact on these entities, the estimated compliance
cost would have to exceed one percent of the annual revenue stream or
sales, or about $1.5 million per firm per year for the 20 largest firms
in NAICS 532490.\29\ Although there is much uncertainty regarding the
impact on common chassis pool operators (since the agency had
difficulty
[[Page 76823]]
acquiring information on them), it is believed that in some cases, the
need to implement systematic IRM programs by common chassis pool
operators may result in compliance costs exceeding one percent of
annual revenues. Because of this uncertainty, FMCSA has decided against
certifying no significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and has instead decided to prepare an IRFA. Therefore, FMCSA
invites public comment on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 1997 Economic Census figures adjusted to 2003 dollars.
\29\ Adjusting 1997 revenue reported by the 1997 Economic Census
with GDP inflation adjustor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements: This NPRM includes a new
requirement for reporting and recordkeeping for steamship lines,
railroads and common pool operators that own intermodal chassis. We
estimate that there are 108 such entities, none of which is a small
business that would be subject to the new recordkeeping requirement.
Related Federal rules and regulations. With respect to the safe
transportation of intermodal chassis, there are no related rules or
regulations issued by other departments or agencies of the Federal
Government.
Conclusion. Based on the assessment in the regulatory evaluation,
we conclude that there will not be a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Intergovernmental Review
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520), a Federal agency must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information it
conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. FMCSA has analyzed
this proposal and determined that it would require revisions to
existing information collection requirements subject to approval by
OMB. This includes the requirement for entities that offer intermodal
container chassis for transportation in interstate commerce to: (1)
File an Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report (FMCSA Form
MCS-150C, a variant on the currently-approved Motor Carrier
Identification Report, Form MCS-150); (2) establish a systematic
inspection, repair, and maintenance program to ensure the safe
operating condition of each item of intermodal equipment tendered to
motor carriers and to maintain documentation of the program in
accordance with 49 CFR part 396; and (3) provide a means for an
intermodal equipment provider to effectively respond, using a variant
of the Driver-Vehicle Inspection Report currently approved by OMB, to
driver and motor carrier complaints about the condition of intermodal
container chassis. It is anticipated that electronic recordkeeping
would be allowed to reduce, to the greatest extent practicable, the
costs associated with complying with the recordkeeping requirements.
There are two currently approved information collections that would
be affected by this NPRM: (1) Motor Carrier Identification Report
(FMCSA form MCS-150), OMB Control No. 2126-0013, approved at 74,896
burden hours through July 31, 2007; and (2) Inspection, Repair, and
Maintenance, OMB Control No. 2126-0003, approved at 59,093,245 burden
hours through February 28, 2006. Table 21 shows the FMCSA estimated
number of intermodal container chassis by owner.
Table 21.--Estimated Number of Intermodal Chassis by Owner
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
number of Estimated
Types of entities affected number of
entities chassis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steamship Lines......................... 93 392,000
Railroads............................... 5 96,200
Common-pool operators/Equipment Lessors. 10 320,000
-------------------------------
Total............................... 108 808,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total annual burden hours for the two current information
collections above are 59,168,141. Table 22 depicts the proposed and
current burden hours associated with the information collections.
Table 22.--Proposed and Current Information Collection Burdens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden hours
OMB approval number currently Burden hours Change
approved proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2126-0013....................................................... 74,896 74,932 36
2126-0003....................................................... 59,093,245 59,214,495 121,230
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 59,168,141 59,289,427 121,266
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is an explanation of how each of the information
collections shown above would be impacted by this proposal.
OMB Control No. 2126-0003. Intermodal equipment providers (IEPs)
would be required to establish a systematic inspection, repair, and
maintenance program and maintain records documenting the program. They
would also be required to establish a process for a motor carrier or
its driver to report defects or deficiencies they discover or which are
reported to them. The estimated burden for the proposed revision to
this existing information collection would be 121,230 burden hours
[808,200 chassis controlled by non-motor-carrier IEPs x 3 inspections/
year x 3 minutes recordkeeping per inspection x 1 hr/60 minutes].
OMB Control No. 2126-0013. The proposed rule would require each
equipment provider to obtain a unique
[[Page 76824]]
DOT Number by submitting a Form MCS-150C to FMCSA, and to update its
initial report every 2 years. FMCSA estimates that this would result in
an increase of 36 burden hours for 108 affected IEPs [108 IEPs x 20
minutes / 60 minutes].
The proposals contained in this NPRM, affecting two currently
approved information collections, would result in a net increase of
121,266 burden hours in the agency's information collection budget.
FMCSA requests comments on whether the collection of information is
necessary for the agency to meet its goal of reducing truck crashes,
including: (1) Whether the information is useful to this goal; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated information collection burden; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
You may submit comments to OMB on the information collection burden
addressed by this NPRM. OMB must receive your comments by January 22,
2007. Mail or hand deliver your comments to: Attention: Desk Officer
for the Department of Transportation, Dockets Library, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
FMCSA analyzed this rule for the purpose of the NEPA (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and conducted an environmental assessment under the
procedures in FMCSA Order 5610.1, published March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680).
Under FMCSA Order 5610.1, the environmental assessment focuses only on
those resource categories that are of interest to the public and/or
important to the decision: Public Health and Safety, Hazardous
Materials Transportation, Socioeconomics, Solid Waste Disposal, and
other Special Areas of Consideration. A copy of the draft environmental
assessment has been placed in the docket.
Table 23 presents a comparison of the potential environmental and
socioeconomic consequences of the Proposed-Action Alternative and No-
Action Alternative from the draft environmental assessment.
Table 23.--Environmental Consequences of Alternatives
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed-action No-action
Category alternative alternative \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Health and Safety.... Moderate positive Moderate negative
impact. impact.
Hazardous Materials Negligible to minor Negligible to minor
Transportation. net positive impact. net negative
impact.
Socioeconomics.............. Moderate net Moderate net
positive impact. negative impact.
Solid Waste Disposal........ Negligible to minor Negligible to minor
positive and negative impact.
negative impact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional ``Special Areas of Consideration''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality................. Negligible to minor Negligible to minor
positive impact. negative impact.
Noise....................... No impact........... No impact.
Endangered Species.......... Negligible to minor Negligible to minor
positive impact. negative impact.
Resources protected by the Negligible positive Negligible negative
NHPA. impact. impact.
Wetlands.................... Negligible to minor Negligible to minor
positive impact. negative impact.
Section 4(f) resources...... Negligible to minor Negligible to minor
positive impact. negative impact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ``No-Action'' Alternative is evaluated from a dynamic
perspective (i.e., considers both short- and long-run impacts). So,
while the ``No-Action'' Alternative results in no impacts in the short-
run (since there is no change in existing regulations), in the long
run, it is estimated to have negative impacts, since the analysis
assumes intermodal transportation continues to grow in future years.
Table 23 lists the impact categories for which there exists a
potential for a positive or negative indirect impact from the Proposed-
Action Alternative (this proposed rule). Without certain key pieces of
information (e.g., crash data on a national level, exact number and
safety record of intermodal equipment providers, and detailed
transportation routes over which intermodal equipment is used), it is
impossible to accurately quantify most of these impacts, though a
qualitative rationale for these conclusions is offered in the draft
environmental assessment.
Nevertheless, it is evident from Table 23 that the only potentially
negative environmental or socioeconomic impact of the Proposed-Action
Alternative (this proposed rule) involves a potentially minor to
negligible negative indirect impact on solid waste disposal (caused by
an increase in the amount of solid waste disposed via regular equipment
maintenance). Nevertheless, that may be offset by a positive impact on
solid waste disposal (caused by decreasing the amount of solid waste
generated via crashes).
The beneficial impacts of the proposed rulemaking--most importantly
the positive impacts on public health and safety in addition to
positive indirect impacts on aspects of the physical and human
environment--are in contrast to the No-Action Alternative, which has
the potential to negatively impact most of the resources evaluated in
the draft environmental assessment. Note that the No-Action Alternative
is evaluated from a dynamic perspective, which considers both short-
and long-run effects. While in the short run the No-Action Alternative
has no impact (since no regulations change), there are potential
impacts in the long run, because growth in intermodal transportation is
assumed to continue.
FMCSA seeks comment on the draft environmental assessment.
Energy Effects
FMCSA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211,
entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.'' The agency has determined that
it is not a ``significant energy action'' under that order because it
does not appear to be economically significant (i.e., a cost of more
than $120.7 million in a single year) based upon analyses performed at
this stage of the rulemaking process, and is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not impose an unfunded mandate, as defined
by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.),
resulting in the
[[Page 76825]]
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $120.7 million or more (adjusted for
inflation) in any one year.
Civil Justice Reform
This rulemaking would meet applicable standards in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, entitled ``Civil Justice
Reform,'' to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Protection of Children
FMCSA has analyzed this section under Executive Order 13045,
entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks.'' The agency does not believe this rulemaking would be an
economically significant rule, nor does it concern an environmental
risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
Taking of Private Property
This rulemaking would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
entitled ``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.''
Federalism
FMCSA has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the
principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, entitled
``Federalism,'' and determined that it has federalism implications
within the meaning of the Order.
The Federalism Order applies to ``policies that have federalism
implications,'' which it defines as regulations and other actions
``that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, and on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Sec. 1(a). The key concept here is ``substantial direct
effects on the States.''
Section 31151(d) preempts ``a law, regulation, order, or other
requirement of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a tribal
organization relating to commercial motor vehicle safety'' if it
``exceeds or is inconsistent with a requirement imposed under or
pursuant to'' 49 U.S.C. 31151. In other words, FMCSA's final rule
establishing maintenance and related requirements for intermodal
equipment will preempt any State or local law or regulation on the same
subject.
Nonetheless, there are exceptions to this principle. ``[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 rule adopted under this
proceeding [section 31151(e)(1)] unless, notwithstanding section
31151(d), the Secretary of Transportation ``determines that the State
requirement is as effective as the Federal requirement and does not
unduly burden interstate commerce'' [section 31151(e)(2)(A)]. A State
must request a non-preemption determination before the effective date
of the FMCSA final rule [section 31151(e)(2)(B)], and no subsequent
amendment to a non-preempted requirement may take effect unless it is
first submitted to the Secretary, who must find that the amendment is
no less effective than the FMCSA requirements and does not unduly
burden interstate commerce [section 31151(e)(2)(C)].
Section 31151 clearly has preemptive effect. Although most of the
States which adopted statutes regulating the maintenance of intermodal
equipment did not enforce them for several years, section 31151 will
foreclose the opportunity for States to enact future legislation on
this subject which is inconsistent with the Agency's regulations. We
believe this constitutes a ``substantial direct effect[ ] on the
States.'' However, section 31151 does not have ``substantial direct
effects * * * on the relationship between the national government and
the States or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government.'' The intermodal equipment affected
by this rulemaking operates in interstate commerce. The regulation of
interstate commerce is constitutionally and historically vested in the
Federal government, not the States. The assertion of Federal authority
in this area does not change the traditional relationship between the
national government and the States, nor does it affect the
constitutional and practical distribution of power and responsibilities
among the various levels of government.
Section 3(b) of the Federalism Order provides that ``[n]ational
action limiting the policymaking discretion of the States shall be
taken only where there is constitutional and statutory authority for
the action and the national activity is appropriate in light of the
presence of a problem of national significance.'' The constitutional
authority and statutory mandate for this rulemaking are clear and
explicit.
FMCSA has determined that this action would have a substantial
direct effect on States. However, because existing State laws on the
maintenance of intermodal equipment are so few and narrow in scope, the
Agency has also determined that this action would not impose
substantial additional costs or burdens on the States.
The Agency will consult with the States on the Federalism
implications of this proposed regulation, as required by E.O. 13132.
Also, State and local governments will have an additional opportunity
to address this issue during the comment period as indicated under
ADDRESSES.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory section listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN shown on the first page of
this document can be used to cross-reference this section with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 385
Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Intermodal
equipment roadability, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 386
Administrative practice and procedure, Brokers, Freight forwarders,
Hazardous materials, Intermodal equipment provider, Highway safety,
Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Penalties.
49 CFR Part 390
Highway safety, Intermodal equipment providers, Motor carriers,
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 392
Highway safety, Intermodal equipment providers, Motor carriers.
49 CFR Part 393
Highway safety, Intermodal equipment providers, Motor carriers,
Motor vehicle safety.
49 CFR Part 396
Highway safety, Intermodal equipment providers, Motor carriers,
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FMCSA proposes to amend
Subchapter B, Chapter III of Title 49 of the Code of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
[[Page 76826]]
PART 385--SAFETY FITNESS PROCEDURES
1. Revise the authority citation for part 385 to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), 5105(e), 5109, 5113,
13901-13905, 31136, 31144, 31148, 31151, and 31502; Sec. 350 of Pub.
L. 107-87; and 49 CFR 1.73.
2. Amend Sec. 385.1 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 385.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
(e) Subpart F of this Part establishes procedures to perform a
roadability review of intermodal equipment providers to determine their
compliance with the applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs).
3. Amend part 385 by adding a new Subpart F--Intermodal Equipment
Providers (Sec. Sec. 385.501-383.503) to read as follows:
Subpart F--Intermodal Equipment Providers
Sec. 385.501 Roadability review.
(a) FMCSA will perform roadability reviews of intermodal equipment
providers, as defined in Sec. 390.5 of this chapter. A roadability
review is a review by the FMCSA of the intermodal equipment provider's
compliance with the applicable FMCSRs.
(b) FMCSA will evaluate the results of the roadability review using
the criteria in Appendix A to this Part as they relate to compliance
with Parts 390, 393, and 396 of this chapter.
Sec. 385.503 Results of roadability review.
(a) FMCSA will not assign a safety rating to an intermodal
equipment provider. However, the FMCSA may cite the intermodal
equipment provider for violations of Parts 390, 393, and 396 of this
chapter and may impose civil penalties.
(b) FMCSA may prohibit the intermodal equipment provider from
tendering specific items of equipment determined to constitute an
imminent hazard.
(c) FMCSA may prohibit an intermodal equipment provider from
tendering any intermodal equipment from a particular location or
multiple locations if the agency determines that the intermodal
equipment provider's compliance with the FMCSRs is so deficient that
the provider's continued operation constitutes an imminent hazard to
highway safety.
PART 386--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR MOTOR CARRIER, INTERMODAL EQUIPMENT
PROVIDER, BROKER, FREIGHT FORWARDER, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PROCEEDINGS
4. The authority citation for part 386 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, chapters 5, 51, 59, 131-141, 145-149,
311, 313, and 315; sec. 206, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1763; and 49
CFR 1.45 and 1.73.
5. Revise the heading of part 386 to read as set forth above.
6. Revise Sec. 386.1 to read:
Sec. 386.1 Scope of the rules in this part.
(a) The rules in this part govern proceedings before the Assistant
Administrator, who also acts as the Chief Safety Officer of the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), under applicable
provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR
parts 350-399), including the commercial regulations (49 CFR parts 360-
379), and the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171-180).
(b) The purpose of the proceedings is to enable the Assistant
Administrator:
(1) To determine whether a motor carrier, intermodal equipment
provider (as defined in Sec. 390.5 of this chapter), property broker,
freight forwarder, or its agents, employees, or any other person
subject to the jurisdiction of FMCSA, has failed to comply with the
provisions or requirements of applicable statutes and the corresponding
regulations; and
(2) To issue an appropriate order to compel compliance with the
statute or regulation, assess a civil penalty, or both, if such
violations are found.
7. Revise Sec. 386.83 to read as follows:
Sec. 386.83 Sanction for failure to pay civil penalties or abide by
payment plan; operation in interstate commerce prohibited.
(a)(1) General rule. A commercial motor vehicle (CMV) owner or
operator, including an intermodal equipment provider, that fails to pay
a civil penalty in full within 90 days after the date specified for
payment by FMCSA's final agency order, is prohibited from operating in
interstate commerce starting on the next (i.e., the 91st) day. The
prohibition continues until FMCSA has received full payment of the
penalty.
(2) Civil penalties paid in installments. The FMCSA Service Center
may allow a CMV owner or operator, including an intermodal equipment
provider, to pay a civil penalty in installments. If the CMV owner or
operator, including an intermodal equipment provider, fails to make an
installment payment on schedule, the payment plan is void and the
entire debt is payable immediately. A CMV owner or operator, including
an intermodal equipment provider, that fails to pay the full
outstanding balance of its civil penalty within 90 days after the date
of the missed installment payment, is prohibited from operating in
interstate commerce on the next (i.e., the 91st) day. The prohibition
continues until the FMCSA has received full payment of the entire
penalty.
(3) Appeals to Federal Court. If the CMV owner or operator,
including an intermodal equipment provider, appeals the final agency
order to a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the terms and payment due
date of the final agency order are not stayed unless the Court so
directs.
(b) Show-cause proceeding. (1) The FMCSA will notify a CMV owner or
operator, including an intermodal equipment provider, in writing if it
has not received payment within 45 days after the date specified for
payment by the final agency order or the date of a missed installment
payment. The notice will include a warning that failure to pay the
entire penalty within 90 days after payment was due, will result in the
CMV owner or operator, including an intermodal equipment provider,
being prohibited from operating in interstate commerce.
(2) The notice will order the CMV owner or operator, including an
intermodal equipment provider, to show cause why it should not be
prohibited from operating in interstate commerce on the 91st day after
the date specified for payment. The prohibition may be avoided only by
submitting to the Chief Safety Officer:
(i) Evidence that the respondent has paid the entire amount due; or
(ii) Evidence that the respondent has filed for bankruptcy under
chapter 11, title 11, United States Code. Respondents in bankruptcy
must also submit the information required by paragraph (d) of this
section.
(3) The notice will be delivered by certified mail or commercial
express service. If a CMV owner's or operator's, including an
intermodal equipment provider's, principal place of business is in a
foreign country, the notice will be delivered to the CMV owner's or
operator's designated agent.
(c) A CMV owner or operator, including an intermodal equipment
provider, that continues to operate in interstate commerce in violation
of this section may be subject to additional
[[Page 76827]]
sanctions under paragraph IV (h) of appendix A to part 386.
(d) This section does not apply to any person who is unable to pay
a civil penalty because the person is a debtor in a case under 11
U.S.C. chapter 11. CMV owners or operators, including intermodal
equipment providers, in bankruptcy proceedings under chapter 11 must
provide the following information in their response to the FMCSA:
(1) The chapter of the Bankruptcy Code under which the bankruptcy
proceeding is filed (i.e., chapter 7 or 11);
(2) The bankruptcy case number;
(3) The court in which the bankruptcy proceeding was filed; and
(4) Any other information requested by the agency to determine a
debtor's bankruptcy status.
PART 390--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; GENERAL
8. Revise the authority citation for part 390 to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 508, 13301, 13902, 31133, 31136, 31151,
31502, 31504, and sec. 204, Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 941 (49
U.S.C. 701 note); sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677;
sec. 217, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; and 49 CFR 1.73.
9. Amend Sec. 390.3 by adding a new paragraph (h) to read:
Sec. 390.3 General applicability.
* * * * *
(h) Intermodal equipment providers. The rules in the following
provisions of subchapter B of this chapter apply to intermodal
equipment providers:
(1) Subpart F, Intermodal Equipment Providers, of Part 385, Safety
Fitness Procedures.
(2) Part 386, Rules of Practice for Motor Carrier, Intermodal
Equipment Provider, Broker, Freight Forwarder, and Hazardous Materials
Proceedings.
(3) Part 390, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; General,
except Sec. 390.15(b) concerning accident registers.
(4) Part 393, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation.
(5) Part 396, Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance.
10. Amend Sec. 390.5 by adding, in alphabetical order, definitions
for ``Interchange,'' ``Intermodal equipment,'' ``Intermodal equipment
interchange agreement,'' and ``Intermodal equipment provider'' to read:
Sec. 390.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Interchange means the act of providing intermodal equipment to a
motor carrier pursuant to an intermodal equipment interchange agreement
for the purpose of transporting the equipment for loading or unloading
by any person or repositioning the equipment for the benefit of the
equipment provider, but it does not include the leasing of equipment to
a motor carrier for primary use in the motor carrier's freight hauling
operations.
Intermodal equipment means trailing equipment that is used in the
intermodal transportation of containers over public highways in
interstate commerce, including trailers and chassis.
Intermodal equipment interchange agreement means 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.
Intermodal equipment provider means any person that interchanges
intermodal equipment with a motor carrier pursuant to a written
interchange agreement or has a contractual responsibility for the
maintenance of the intermodal equipment.
* * * * *
11. Revise Sec. 390.15(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 390.15 Assistance in investigations and special studies.
(a) Each motor carrier and intermodal equipment provider must do
the following:
(1) Make all records and information pertaining to an accident
available to an authorized representative or special agent of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, an authorized State or
local enforcement agency representative, or authorized third party
representative within such time as the request or investigation may
specify.
(2) Give an authorized representative all reasonable assistance in
the investigation of any accident including providing a full, true, and
correct response to any question of the inquiry.
* * * * *
12. Amend Sec. 390.19 by revising the section heading, the
introductory text of paragraph (a), paragraph (b), the introductory
text of paragraph (c), and paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 390.19 Motor carrier, HM shipper, and intermodal equipment
provider identification reports.
(a) Each motor carrier that conducts operations in interstate
commerce must file a Motor Carrier Identification Report, Form MCS-150.
Each motor carrier that operates in intrastate commerce, and that
requires a hazardous materials safety permit under part 385, subpart E
of this chapter, must file a combined Motor Carrier Identification
Report and HM Permit Application, Form MCS-150B. Each intermodal
equipment provider that offers intermodal equipment for transportation
in interstate commerce must file an Intermodal Equipment Provider
Identification Report, Form MCS-150C. They must do so at the following
times:
* * * * *
(b) The Motor Carrier Identification Report, Form MCS-150, the
Combined Motor Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit Application,
Form MCS-150B, and the Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification
Report, Form MCS-150C, with complete instructions, are available from
the FMCSA Web site at: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov (Keyword ``MCS-150'' or
``MCS-150B'' or ``MCS-150C''); from all FMCSA Service Centers and
Division offices nationwide; or by calling 1-800-832-5660.
(c) The completed Motor Carrier Identification Report, Form MCS-
150, Combined Motor Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit
Application, Form MCS-150B, or Intermodal Equipment Provider
Identification Report, Form MCS-150C must be filed with FMCSA Office of
Information Management.
* * * * *
(d) Only the legal name or single trade name may be used on the
motor carrier's or intermodal equipment provider's identification
report (Form MCS-150, MCS-150B, or MCS-150C).
(e) A motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider is subject to
the penalties prescribed in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(B) for--
(1) Failing to file a Motor Carrier Identification Report, Form
MCS-150, the Combined Motor Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit
Application, Form MCS-150B, or the Intermodal Equipment Provider
Identification Report, Form MCS-150C.
(2) Furnishing misleading information or making false statements on
the Form MCS-150, Form MCS-150B, or Form MCS-150C.
(f) Upon receipt and processing of the Motor Carrier Identification
Report, Form MCS-150, the Combined Motor
[[Page 76828]]
Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit Application, Form MCS-150B,
or the Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report, Form MCS-
150C, FMCSA will issue the motor carrier or intermodal equipment
provider an identification number (USDOT Number), or advise an
intermodal equipment provider it may use an identification number
unique to that entity.
(1) The motor carrier must display the number on each self-
propelled CMV, as defined in Sec. 390.5, along with additional
information required by Sec. 390.21.
(2) The intermodal equipment provider must display its assigned
number on each unit of interchanged intermodal equipment.
* * * * *
13. Amend Sec. 390.21 by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a), (b)(2), and (c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 390.21 Marking of self-propelled CMVs and intermodal equipment.
(a) General. Every self-propelled CMV and each unit of intermodal
equipment interchanged or offered for interchange to a motor carrier by
an intermodal equipment provider subject to subchapter B of this
chapter must be marked as specified in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of
this section.
(b) * * *
(2) The identification number issued by FMCSA to the motor carrier
or intermodal equipment provider, preceded by the letters ``USDOT.''
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Appear on both sides of the self-propelled CMV or interchanged
intermodal equipment;
* * * * *
14. Amend part 390 by adding a new subpart C (Sec. Sec. 390.40-
390.46) to read as follows:
Subpart C--Requirements and Information for Intermodal Equipment
Providers and for Motor Carriers Operating Intermodal Equipment
Sec.
390.40 What responsibilities do intermodal equipment providers have
under the FMCSRs?
390.42 What are the procedures to correct the safety record of a
motor carrier or an intermodal equipment provider?
390.44 What are the responsibilities of drivers and motor carriers
operating intermodal equipment?
390.46 Are State and local laws and regulations on the inspection,
repair, and maintenance of intermodal equipment preempted by the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)?
Subpart C--Requirements and Information for Intermodal Equipment
Providers and for Motor Carriers Operating Intermodal Equipment
Sec. 390.40 What responsibilities do intermodal equipment providers
have under the FMCSRs?
An intermodal equipment provider must--
(a) Identify its operations to the FMCSA by filing the form
required by Sec. 390.19.
(b) Mark its intermodal equipment with the USDOT Number or other
identifying number unique to that entity as required by Sec. 390.21.
(c) Systematically inspect, repair, and maintain, or cause to be
systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained, in a manner
consistent with Sec. 396.3(a)(1), as applicable, all intermodal
equipment intended for interchange with a motor carrier.
(d) Maintain a system of driver vehicle inspection reports
submitted to the intermodal equipment provider as required by Sec.
396.11 of this chapter.
(e) Maintain a system of inspection, repair, and maintenance
records as required by Sec. 396.12 of this chapter for equipment
intended for interchange with a motor carrier.
(f) Periodically inspect equipment intended for interchange, as
required under Sec. 396.17 of this chapter.
(g) At facilities at which the intermodal equipment provider makes
intermodal equipment available for interchange, have procedures in
place, and provide sufficient space, for drivers to perform a pre-trip
inspection of tendered intermodal equipment.
(h) At facilities at which the intermodal equipment provider makes
intermodal equipment available for interchange, develop and implement
procedures to repair any equipment damage, defects, or deficiencies
identified as part of a pre-trip inspection, or replace the equipment,
prior to the driver's departure. The repairs or replacement must be
made in a timely manner after being notified by a driver of such
damage, defects, or deficiencies.
(i) Refrain from placing intermodal equipment in service on the
public highways if that equipment has been found to pose an imminent
hazard, as defined in Sec. 386.72(b)(1) of this chapter.
Sec. 390.42 What are the procedures to correct the safety record of a
motor carrier or an intermodal equipment provider?
(a) An intermodal equipment provider or its agent may
electronically file questions or concerns at http://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov
about Federal and State data released to the
public by FMCSA, including safety violations attributable to
deficiencies in intermodal chassis or trailers for which it should not
have been held responsible because a motor carrier certified the
equipment as passing the pre-trip inspection.
(b) A motor carrier or its agent may electronically file questions
or concerns at http://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov about Federal and State data
released to the public by FMCSA. These include safety violations
attributable to deficiencies in intermodal chassis or trailers for
which it should not have been held responsible because they concerned
defects or deficiencies in parts or accessories that a driver could not
readily detect during a pre-trip inspection performed in accordance
with Sec. 392.7(a) and (b) of this chapter.
(c) An intermodal equipment provider, or its agent, may request
FMCSA to investigate a motor carrier believed to be in noncompliance
with responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 31151 or the implementing
regulations in this subchapter regarding interchange of intermodal
equipment by contacting the appropriate FMCSA Field Office.
(d) A motor carrier or its agent may request FMCSA to investigate
an intermodal equipment provider believed to be in noncompliance with
responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 31151 or the implementing regulations
in this subchapter regarding interchange of intermodal equipment by
contacting the appropriate FMCSA Field Office.
Sec. 390.44 What are the responsibilities of drivers and motor
carriers operating intermodal equipment?
(a) Before operating intermodal equipment over the road, the driver
accepting the equipment must inspect the equipment components listed in
Sec. 392.7(b) of this chapter and must be satisfied that they are in
good working order.
(b) A driver or motor carrier transporting intermodal equipment
must report to the intermodal equipment provider, or its designated
agent, any known damage or deficiencies in the intermodal equipment at
the time the equipment is returned to the provider or the provider's
designated agent. The report must include, at a minimum, the items in
Sec. 396.11(a)(2) of this chapter.
Sec. 390.46 Are State and local laws and regulations on the
inspection, repair, and maintenance of intermodal equipment preempted
by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)?
(a) Generally. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31151(d), a law, regulation,
order, or
[[Page 76829]]
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.
(b) Pre-existing State requirements--(1) In general. Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 31151(e)(1), unless otherwise provided in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, a State requirement for the periodic inspection of
intermodal chassis by intermodal equipment providers that was in effect
on January 1, 2005, shall remain in effect only until the effective
date of the FMCSA final rule entitled ``Requirements for Intermodal
Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal
Equipment''.
(i) Nonpreemption determinations.--(A) In general. Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 31151(e)(2), and notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section,
a State requirement described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is
not preempted by the FMCSA final rule on ``Requirements for Intermodal
Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal
Equipment'' if the Administrator determines that the State requirement
is as effective as the FMCSA final rule and does not unduly burden
interstate commerce.
(ii) Application required. Paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section
applies to a State requirement only if the State applies to the
Administrator for a determination under this subparagraph with respect
to the requirement before the effective date of the final rule. The
Administrator will make a determination with respect to any such
application within 6 months after the date on which the Administrator
receives the application.
(iii) Amended State requirements.--If a State amends a regulation
for which it previously received a nonpreemption determination from the
Administrator under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, 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 Administrator may not take effect
unless it is submitted to the Agency before the effective date of the
amendment, and the Administrator determines that the amendment would
not cause the State requirement to be less effective than the FMCSA
final rule on ``Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and
Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment'' and would
not unduly burden interstate commerce.
PART 392--DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES
15. Revise the authority citation for Part 392 to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 13902, 31136, 31151, 31502; and 49 CFR
1.73.
16. Amend Sec. 392.7 by designating the existing text as paragraph
(a) and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 392.7 Equipment, inspection, and use.
* * * * *
(b) Drivers preparing to transport intermodal equipment must
additionally make a visual or audible inspection of the following
components before operating that equipment, and must be satisfied that
they are in good working order before the equipment is operated over
the road:
Rails or support frames.
Tie down bolsters.
Locking pins, clevises, clamps, or hooks.
Sliders or sliding frame lock.
PART 393--PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION
17. Revise the authority citation for part 393 to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31136, 31151 and 31502; sec. 1041(b),
Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); and 49 CFR 1.73.
18. Revise Sec. 393.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 393.1 Scope of the rules of this part.
(a)(1) Every motor carrier and its employees must be knowledgeable
of and comply with the requirements and specifications of this part.
(2) Every intermodal equipment provider and its employees
responsible for the inspection, repair, and maintenance of intermodal
equipment interchanged to motor carriers must be knowledgeable of and
comply with the applicable requirements and specifications of this
part.
(b) No motor carrier may operate a commercial motor vehicle, or
cause or permit such a vehicle to be operated, unless it is equipped in
accordance with the requirements and specifications of this part.
(c) No intermodal equipment provider may operate intermodal
equipment, or cause or permit such equipment to be operated, unless it
is equipped in accordance with the requirements and specifications of
this part.
PART 396--INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE
19. Revise the authority citation for part 396 to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31151, and 31502; and 49 CFR
1.73.
20. Revise Sec. 396.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 396.1 Scope.
(a) Every motor carrier, its officers, drivers, agents,
representatives, and employees directly concerned with the inspection
or maintenance of motor vehicles must be knowledgeable of and comply
with the rules of this part.
(b) Every intermodal equipment provider, its officers, agents,
representatives, and employees directly concerned with the inspection
or maintenance of intermodal equipment interchanged to motor carriers
must be knowledgeable of and comply with the rules of this part.
21. Amend Sec. 396.3 by revising the introductory text of
paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 396.3 Inspection, repair, and maintenance.
(a) General. Every motor carrier and intermodal equipment provider
must systematically inspect, repair, and maintain, or cause to be
systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained, all motor vehicles
and intermodal equipment subject to its control.
* * * * *
(b) Required records. Motor carriers, except for a private motor
carrier of passengers (nonbusiness), must maintain, or cause to be
maintained, records for each motor vehicle they control for 30
consecutive days. Intermodal equipment providers must maintain or cause
to be maintained, records for each unit of intermodal equipment they
tender or intend to tender to a motor carrier. These records must
include:
* * * * *
22. Amend Sec. 396.11 by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 396.11 Driver vehicle inspection report(s).
(a) Report required.
(1) Motor carriers. Every motor carrier must require its drivers to
report, and every driver must prepare a report in writing at the
completion of each day's work on each vehicle operated. The report must
cover at least the following parts and accessories:
--Service brakes including trailer brake connections
--Parking (hand) brake
--Steering mechanism
--Lighting devices and reflectors
--Tires
--Horn
--Windshield wipers
--Rear vision mirrors
--Coupling devices
[[Page 76830]]
--Wheels and rims
--Emergency equipment
(2) Intermodal equipment providers. Every intermodal equipment
provider must have a process to receive driver reports of defects or
deficiencies in the intermodal equipment operated. The driver must
report on, and the process to receive reports must cover, the following
parts and accessories:
--King pin upper coupling device
--Rails or support frames
--Tie down bolsters
--Locking pins, clevises, clamps, or hooks
--Sliders or sliding frame lock
--Wheels, rims, lugs, tires
--Lighting devices, lamps, markers, and conspicuity marking material
--Air line connections, hoses, and couplers
--Brakes
* * * * *
23. Add Sec. 396.12 to read as follows as follows:
Sec. 396.12 Procedures for intermodal equipment providers to accept
reports required by Sec. 390.44(b) of this chapter.
(a) System for reports. Each intermodal equipment provider must
establish a system for motor carriers and drivers to report to it any
damage, defects, or deficiencies discovered by, or reported to, the
motor carrier or driver which would--
(1) Affect the safety of operation of the intermodal equipment, or
(2) Result in its mechanical breakdown while transported on public
roads.
(b) Report content. The system required by paragraph (a) of this
section must include documentation of all of the following:
(1) Name of the motor carrier responsible for the operation of the
intermodal equipment at the time the damage, defects, or deficiencies
were discovered by, or reported to, the driver.
(2) Motor carrier's USDOT Number or other unique identifying
number.
(3) Date and time the report was submitted.
(4) All damage, defects, or deficiencies reported to the equipment
provider by the motor carrier or its driver.
(c) Corrective action. (1) Prior to allowing or permitting a motor
carrier to transport a piece of intermodal equipment for which a motor
carrier or driver has submitted a report about damage, defects or
deficiencies, each intermodal equipment provider or its agent must
repair reported damage, defects, or deficiencies that are likely to
affect the safety of operation of the vehicle.
(2) Each intermodal equipment provider or its agent must document
whether the reported damage, defects, or deficiencies have been
repaired, or whether repair is unnecessary, before the vehicle is
operated again.
(d) Retention period for reports. Each intermodal equipment
provider must maintain all documentation required by this section for a
period of three months from the date that a motor carrier or its driver
submits the report to the intermodal equipment provider or its agent.
24. Revise Sec. Sec. 396.17, 396.19, 396.21, 396.23, and 396.25 to
read as follows:
Sec. 396.17 Periodic inspection.
(a) Every commercial motor vehicle must be inspected as required by
this section. The inspection must include, at a minimum, the parts and
accessories set forth in appendix G of this subchapter. The term
commercial motor vehicle includes each vehicle 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.
(b) Except as provided in Sec. 396.23 and this paragraph, motor
carriers must inspect or cause to be inspected all motor vehicles
subject to their control. Intermodal equipment providers must inspect
or cause to be inspected intermodal equipment that is interchanged or
intended for interchange to motor carries in intermodal transportation.
(c) A motor carrier must not use a commercial motor vehicle, and an
intermodal equipment provider must not tender equipment to a motor
carrier for interchange, unless each component identified in appendix G
to this subchapter has passed an inspection in accordance with the
terms of this section at least once during the preceding 12 months and
documentation of such inspection is on the vehicle. The documentation
may be:
(1) The inspection report prepared in accordance with Sec.
396.21(a), or
(2) Other forms of documentation, based on the inspection report
(e.g., sticker or decal), that contain the following information:
(i) The date of inspection;
(ii) Name and address of the motor carrier, intermodal equipment
provider, or other entity where the inspection report is maintained;
(iii) Information uniquely identifying the vehicle inspected if not
clearly marked on the motor vehicle; and
(iv) A certification that the vehicle has passed an inspection in
accordance with Sec. 396.17.
(d) A motor carrier may perform the required annual inspection for
vehicles under the carrier's control that are not subject to an
inspection under Sec. 396.23(b)(1). An intermodal equipment provider
may perform the required annual inspection for intermodal equipment
interchanged or intended for interchange to motor carriers that is not
subject to an inspection under Sec. 396.23(b)(1).
(e) In lieu of the self inspection provided for in paragraph (d) of
this section, a motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider
responsible for the inspection may choose to have a commercial garage,
fleet leasing company, truck stop, or other similar commercial business
perform the inspection as its agent, provided that business operates
and maintains facilities appropriate for commercial vehicle inspections
and it employs qualified inspectors, as required by Sec. 396.19.
(f) Vehicles passing roadside or periodic inspections performed
under the auspices of any State government or equivalent jurisdiction
or the FMCSA, meeting the minimum standards contained in appendix G of
this subchapter, are considered to have met the requirements of an
annual inspection for a period of 12 months commencing from the last
day of the month in which the inspection was performed. If a vehicle is
subject to a mandatory State inspection program, as provided in Sec.
396.23(b)(1), a roadside inspection may only be considered equivalent
if it complies with the requirements of that program.
(g) It is the responsibility of the motor carrier or intermodal
equipment provider to ensure that all parts and accessories on vehicles
for which they are responsible that do not meet the minimum standards
set forth in appendix G to this subchapter are repaired promptly.
(h) Failure to perform properly the annual inspection required by
this section causes the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider
to be subject to the penalty provisions of 49 U.S.C. 521(b).
Sec. 396.19 Inspector qualifications.
(a) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers must ensure
that the individual(s) performing an annual inspection under Sec.
396.17(d) or (e) is (are) qualified as follows:
(1) Understands the inspection criteria set forth in part 393 and
[[Page 76831]]
appendix G of this subchapter and can identify defective components;
(2) Is knowledgeable of and has mastered the methods, procedures,
tools and equipment used when performing an inspection; and
(3) Is capable of performing an inspection by reason of experience,
training, or both as follows:
(i) Successfully completed a State or Federal-sponsored training
program or has a certificate from a State or Canadian Province that
qualifies the person to perform commercial motor vehicle safety
inspections, or
(ii) Has a combination of training and/or experience totaling at
least 1 year. Such training and/or experience may consist of:
(A) Participation in a commercial motor vehicle manufacturer-
sponsored training program or similar commercial training program
designed to train students in commercial motor vehicle operation and
maintenance;
(B) Experience as a mechanic or inspector in a motor carrier or
intermodal equipment maintenance program;
(C) Experience as a mechanic or inspector in commercial motor
vehicle maintenance at a commercial garage, fleet leasing company, or
similar facility; or
(D) Experience as a commercial vehicle inspector for a State,
Provincial, or Federal Government.
(b) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers must retain
evidence of an individual's qualifications under this section. They
must retain this evidence for the period during which the individual is
performing annual motor vehicle inspections for the motor carrier or
intermodal equipment provider, and for one year thereafter. However,
motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers do not have to
maintain documentation of inspector qualifications for those
inspections performed either as part of a State periodic inspection
program or at the roadside as part of a random roadside inspection
program.
Sec. 396.21 Periodic inspection recordkeeping requirements.
(a) The qualified inspector performing the inspection must prepare
a report that:
(1) Identifies the individual performing the inspection;
(2) Identifies the motor carrier operating the vehicle or
intermodal equipment provider intending to interchange the vehicle to a
motor carrier;
(3) Identifies the date of the inspection;
(4) Identifies the vehicle inspected;
(5) Identifies the vehicle components inspected and describes the
results of the inspection, including the identification of those
components not meeting the minimum standards set forth in appendix G to
this subchapter; and
(6) Certifies the accuracy and completeness of the inspection as
complying with all the requirements of this section.
(b)(1) The original or a copy of the inspection report must be
retained by the motor carrier, intermodal equipment provider, or other
entity that is responsible for the inspection for a period of fourteen
months from the date of the inspection report. The original or a copy
of the inspection report must be retained where the vehicle is either
housed or maintained.
(2) The original or a copy of the inspection report must be
available for inspection upon demand of an authorized Federal, State,
or local official.
(3) Exception. If the motor carrier operating the commercial motor
vehicles did not perform the commercial motor vehicle's last annual
inspection, or if an intermodal equipment provider did not itself
perform the annual inspection on equipment intended for interchange to
a motor carrier, the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider is
responsible for obtaining the original or a copy of the last annual
inspection report upon demand of an authorized Federal, State, or local
official.
Sec. 396.23 Equivalent to periodic inspection.
(a) A motor carrier or an intermodal equipment provider may meet
the requirements of Sec. 396.17 through a State or other
jurisdiction's roadside inspection program. The inspection must have
been performed during the preceding 12 months. If using the roadside
inspection, the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider must
retain a copy of an annual inspection report showing that the
inspection was performed in accordance with the minimum periodic
inspection standards set forth in appendix G to this subchapter. If the
motor carrier operating the commercial vehicle is not the party
directly responsible for its maintenance, the motor carrier must
deliver the roadside inspection report to the responsible party in a
timely manner. When accepting such an inspection report, the motor
carrier or intermodal equipment provider must ensure that the report
complies with the requirements of Sec. 396.21(a).
(b)(1) If a commercial motor vehicle is subject to a mandatory
State inspection program that is determined by the Administrator to be
as effective as Sec. 396.17, the motor carrier or intermodal equipment
provider must meet the requirement of Sec. 396.17 through that State's
inspection program. Commercial motor vehicle inspections may be
conducted by State personnel, at State authorized commercial
facilities, or by the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider
itself under the auspices of a State authorized self-inspection
program.
(2) Should the FMCSA determine that a State inspection program, in
whole or in part, is not as effective as Sec. 396.17, the motor
carrier or intermodal equipment provider must ensure that the periodic
inspection required by Sec. 396.17 is performed on all commercial
motor vehicles under its control in a manner specified in Sec. 396.17.
Sec. 396.25 Qualifications of brake inspectors.
(a) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers must ensure
that all inspections, maintenance, repairs or service to the brakes of
its commercial motor vehicles, are performed in compliance with the
requirements of this section.
(b) For purposes of this section, brake inspector means any
employee of a motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider who is
responsible for ensuring all brake inspections, maintenance, service,
or repairs to any commercial motor vehicle, subject to the motor
carrier's or intermodal equipment provider's control, meet the
applicable Federal standards.
(c) No motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider may require
or permit any employee who does not meet the minimum brake inspector
qualifications of paragraph (d) of this section to be responsible for
the inspection, maintenance, service, or repairs of any brakes on its
commercial motor vehicles.
(d) The motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider must ensure
that each brake inspector is qualified as follows:
(1) Understands the brake service or inspection task to be
accomplished and can perform that task;
(2) Is knowledgeable of and has mastered the methods, procedures,
tools and equipment used when performing an assigned brake service or
inspection task; and
(3) Is capable of performing the assigned brake service or
inspection by reason of experience, training or both as follows:
[[Page 76832]]
(i) Has successfully completed an apprenticeship program sponsored
by a State, a Canadian Province, a Federal agency or a labor union, or
a training program approved by a State, Provincial, or Federal agency,
or has a certificate from a State or Canadian Province that qualifies
the person to perform the assigned brake service or inspection task
(including passage of Commercial Driver's License air brake tests in
the case of a brake inspection);
(ii) Has brake-related training or experience or a combination
thereof totaling at least one year. Such training or experience may
consist of:
(A) Participation in a training program sponsored by a brake or
vehicle manufacturer or similar commercial training program designed to
train students in brake maintenance or inspection similar to the
assigned brake service or inspection tasks; or
(B) Experience performing brake maintenance or inspection similar
to the assigned brake service or inspection task in a motor carrier or
intermodal equipment provider maintenance program; or
(C) Experience performing brake maintenance or inspection similar
to the assigned brake service or inspection task at a commercial
garage, fleet leasing company, or similar facility.
(e) No motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider may employ
any person as a brake inspector unless the evidence of the inspector's
qualifications required under this section is maintained by the motor
carrier or intermodal equipment provider at its principal place of
business, or at the location at which the brake inspector is employed.
The evidence must be maintained for the period during which the brake
inspector is employed in that capacity and for one year thereafter.
However, motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers do not have
to maintain evidence of qualifications to inspect air brake systems for
such inspections performed by persons who have passed the air brake
knowledge and skills test for a Commercial Driver's License.
25. Amend Appendix G to Subchapter B--Minimum Periodic Inspection
Standards, in Paragraph 6. Safe Loading, by adding new subparagraph 6.c
to read as follows:
Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III--Minimum Periodic Inspection
Standards
* * * * *
6. Safe loading.
* * * * *
c. Container securement devices on intermodal equipment--All
devices used to secure an intermodal container to a chassis,
including rails or support frames, tiedown bolsters, locking pins,
clevises, clamps, and hooks that are cracked, broken, loose, or
missing.
* * * * *
Issued on: December 11, 2006.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-21380 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P