Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; Driver-Vehicle Inspection Report |
|---|
|
Anthony R. Foxx
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
August 7, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48125-48133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18981]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 392 and 396
[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0336]
RIN 2126-AB46
Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; Driver-Vehicle Inspection
Report
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to rescind the requirement that commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) drivers operating in interstate commerce, except
drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs, submit, and
[[Page 48126]]
motor carriers retain, driver-vehicle inspection reports when the
driver has neither found nor been made aware of any vehicle defects or
deficiencies. This proposed rule would remove a significant information
collection burden without adversely impacting safety. This proposed
rule responds in part to the President's January 2011 Regulatory Review
and Reform initiative. Finally, this proposed rule harmonizes the pre-
and post-trip inspection lists.
DATES: You must submit comments on or before October 7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number FMCSA-
2012-0336 using any one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' heading under
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mrs. Deborah Freund, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, telephone: 202-366-5541;
deborah.freund@dot.gov. If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Participation and Request for Comments
FMCSA encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting comments and related materials.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (FMCSA-2012-0336), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding
your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu, select
``Rules,'' insert ``FMCSA-2012-0336'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Submit a Comment''
in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
click on the ``Read Comments'' box in the upper right hand side of the
screen. Then, in the ``Keyword'' box, insert ``FMCSA-2012-0336'' and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions''
column. Finally, in the ``Title'' column, click on the document you
would like to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act
All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided. Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.
Executive Summary
Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions
FMCSA proposes to rescind the requirement that commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) drivers operating in interstate commerce, except drivers
of passenger-carrying CMVs, submit, and motor carriers retain, driver-
vehicle inspection reports (DVIR) when the driver has neither found nor
been made aware of any vehicle defects or deficiencies (no-defect
DVIR). This proposed rule would remove a significant information
collection burden without adversely impacting safety. This proposed
rule responds, in part, to the President's January 2012 Regulatory
Review and Reform initiative. Finally, this proposed rule harmonizes
the pre- and post-trip inspection lists.
Benefits and Costs
This rule would affect all motor carriers currently subject to 49
CFR 396.11, both private and for-hire, with the exception of operators
of passenger-carrying CMVs. Current safety regulations require drivers
employed by motor carriers to report any vehicle defects in need of
repair noted during the course of a driving day on the DVIR. This
report must be submitted to the employing motor carrier so that repairs
can be made. Regulations now require drivers to file the no-defect DVIR
at the end of each tour of duty, even if there are no vehicle defects
to report. The proposed rule would eliminate the need to file a no-
defect DVIR, except for operations involving passenger-carrying CMVs.
The no-defect DVIR imposes a substantial time and paperwork burden
on the industry, with no discernible social benefit. The Agency
estimates that non-passenger-carrying CMV drivers spend approximately
47.2 million hours each year completing no-defect DVIRs, time which
could be dedicated to other purposes. FMCSA estimates that the
monetized value of this time is currently $1.7 billion per year, which
is the estimated social benefit that would result from the adoption of
the proposed rule.
[[Page 48127]]
Table 1--Summary of the Monetized Social Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Years, 7 percent 10 Years, 3 percent
Annual discount rate discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Benefits.................. $1.7 Billion............ $12.8 Billion.......... $14.9 Billion
Social Costs........................ $0...................... $0..................... $0
Net Benefits........................ $1.7 Billion............ $12.8 Billion.......... $14.9 Billion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
Presidential Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, ``Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review'' (issued January 18, 2011, and published January
21 at 76 FR 3821), prompted DOT to publish a notice in the Federal
Register (76 FR 8940, February 16, 2011). This notice requested
comments on a plan for reviewing existing rules, as well as
identification of existing rules that DOT should review because they
may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.
DOT placed all retrospective regulatory review comments, including a
transcript of a March 14, 2011, public meeting, in docket DOT-OST-2011-
0025. DOT received comments from 102 members of the public, with many
providing multiple suggestions. FMCSA received one comment from the
American Trucking Associations, Inc. concerning what it considered
duplicative driver vehicle inspection requirements in 49 CFR Parts 392
and 396. Although FMCSA agrees that there is some duplication, the
Agency does not believe that it results in unnecessary actions or an
information collection burden. However, FMCSA did discover a related
information collection burden that it considers unnecessary and
proposes to remove in this NPRM.
It has always been the responsibility of a commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) driver to report vehicle defects. In 1939, the Interstate
Commerce Commission (ICC) issued regulations requiring every driver to
submit a written report on the condition of the vehicle at the end of
his day's work or tour of duty. At a minimum, the report had to include
information about any vehicle defect or deficiency the driver
discovered that would likely affect the safety of operation of that
vehicle (4 FR 2294 at 2305, June 7, 1939). The ICC recommended, but did
not require, that motor carriers use a `Driver's Trip Report,' and it
provided an example report format in its 1939 notice. The example
report included the driver's name, vehicle number, date, a list of 20
items for inspection, and a space for the driver and mechanic to note
defects. This report is now called a DVIR, but the current rule does
not include an example of the report form. The requirement to prepare a
no-defect DVIR has been in the safety regulations since 1952 (17 FR
4422, 4452, May 15, 1952). In a separate report (54 M.C.C. 337, at 356,
April 14, 1952) the ICC explained that it was revising its rule to
improve motor carriers' inspection and maintenance procedures and
recordkeeping. The ICC noted that the most substantial recordkeeping
change proposed and adopted was for the driver to complete the vehicle
condition report or trip ticket at the end of the day's work or tour of
duty whether or not any defect or deficiency in the equipment is
discovered, ``. . . in order to provide a continuous record of vehicle
condition and to insure that the reports, particularly those involving
defects, will be made out currently and maintained on a current
basis.''
On December 17, 2008, FMCSA published a final rule to implement
section 4118 of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) [Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat.
1144, 1729, Aug. 10, 2005], dealing with the safety of chassis used to
transport intermodal containers (73 FR 76794). Among other things,
section 4118 called for the Secretary to mandate ``a process by which a
driver or motor carrier transporting intermodal equipment [IME] is
required to report to the intermodal equipment provider [IEP] or the
providers' 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'' (49 U.S.C.
31151(a)(3)(L)). FMCSA's 2008 rule included a new code section--49 CFR
390.42--which prescribed the responsibilities of drivers and motor
carriers when operating IME. Section 390.42(b) required the driver or
motor carrier to report any damage to or deficiencies in certain IME
parts and accessories at the time the equipment is returned to the IEP.
Importantly, FMCSA did not propose any changes to Sec. 396.11(b),
``Report content,'' which requires--both for IME and non-IME--that ``If
no defect or deficiency is discovered by or reported to the driver, the
report shall so indicate.''
On March 31, 2010, the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management
Association (OCEMA) and Institute of International Container Lessors
(IICL) jointly filed a petition for rulemaking to rescind the part of
Sec. 390.42(b) that required drivers to file no-defect DVIRs on IME
they return to IEPs. OCEMA and IICL requested that FMCSA delete the
sentence ``if no damage, defects, or deficiencies are discovered by the
driver, the report shall so indicate.''
The petitioners presented four arguments supporting their request:
1. Section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU requires DVIRs only for known damage
or defects. Congress could have added a requirement to file no-defect
DVIRs but did not do so.
2. There is significant risk that a large volume of no-defect DVIRs
could overwhelm the small proportion (4 percent) of DVIRs that contain
damage or defects.
3. Data transmission, processing, and storage requirements for no-
defect DVIRs could add significant unnecessary costs to intermodal
operations without providing offsetting benefits.
4. Submission of no-defect DVIRs contributes to driver productivity
losses in the form of congestion and delay at intermodal facilities.
On June 12, 2012 (77 FR 34846), the Agency published a final rule
eliminating the requirement for drivers operating IME to submit--and
IEPs to retain--DVIRs when the driver has neither found nor been made
aware of any defects in the IME.
The Agency now proposes to extend this relief from the paperwork
requirement to all interstate motor carriers subject to Part 396 of the
FMCSRs, except operators of passenger-carrying CMVs.
Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
This proposed rule is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier
Act of 1935 (1935 Act) [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)] and the Motor Carrier
Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act) [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)], both of which are
broadly discretionary.
The 1935 Act provides that the Secretary of Transportation
(Secretary) may prescribe requirements for
qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees
of, and safety of
[[Page 48128]]
operation and equipment of, a motor carrier (Sec. 31502(b)(1)), and
qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees
of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed
to promote safety of operation (Sec. 31502(b)(2)).
This rulemaking is based on the Secretary's authority under both
Sec. 31502(b)(1) and (2).
The 1984 Act authorizes the Secretary to regulate drivers, motor
carriers, and vehicle equipment. Section 31136(a) requires the
Secretary to publish regulations on commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
safety. Specifically, the Act sets forth minimum safety standards to
ensure that: (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated
safely (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)); (2) the responsibilities imposed on
operators of CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles
safely (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2)); (3) the physical condition of CMV
operators is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely (49
U.S.C. 31136(a)(3)); and (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a
deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators (49
U.S.C. 31136(a)(4)). Section 32911 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) [Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 818,
July 6, 2012] recently enacted a fifth requirement, i.e., to ensure
that ``(5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by
a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to
operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation
promulgated under this section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this
title'' (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)). The 1984 Act also grants the Secretary
broad power in carrying out motor carrier safety statutes and
regulations to ``prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements''
and to ``perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate'' (49
U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and (10)).
This rule implements, in part, the Administrator's authority under
Sec. 31136(a)(1) to ensure that CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded,
and operated safely. The NPRM is also based on the broad recordkeeping
and implementation authority of Sec. 31133(a)(8) and (10). This
proposed rule addresses only CMV equipment and reporting requirements.
The provisions of the 1984 Act dealing with the physical condition of
drivers therefore do not apply (Sec. 31136(a)(3)-(4)). Finally, as to
ensuring that operators of CMVs are not coerced by motor carriers,
shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries to `operate a CMV
in violation of a regulation, the rule would eliminate only the
requirement for drivers (except drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs) to
prepare reports when there are no defects or deficiencies; it would
keep in place the rule requiring reports when there are defects or
deficiencies, as well as the requirement for motor carriers to take
appropriate action on receipt of the report when problems with the
vehicle are noted. Therefore, the removal of the requirement to prepare
and retain no-defect DVIRs would not compromise drivers' ability to
report vehicle problems to the carrier, or relieve carriers of the
responsibility to take action. Furthermore, elimination of the no-
defect DVIRs would not compromise drivers' protection under existing
whistleblower statutes concerning employers taking adverse action
against drivers for refusing to violate the FMCSRs. The rule thus
provides protection against coercion of drivers by motor carriers.
Finally, because the rule would remove a regulatory burden criticized
by both drivers and motor carriers (and irrelevant to shippers,
receivers, and transportation intermediaries), there is virtually no
possibility that a CMV operator would be coerced to violate the rule
itself. It is true, of course, that a motor carrier could insist that a
driver continue filing no-defect DVIRs even in the absence of a
regulatory requirement, but that would be a condition of employment,
not coercion to violate a safety regulation.
Agency Proposal
The Agency is proposing to rescind, except for operators of certain
passenger-carrying CMVs, the requirement in 49 CFR 396.11(b) requiring
CMV drivers to submit, and motor carriers to retain, DVIRs when the
driver has neither found nor been made aware of any vehicle defects or
deficiencies.
Drivers and motor carriers have long been required to share the
safety responsibility for operating CMVs and for assessing the
condition of CMVs and documenting deficiencies and repairs. Section
392.7(a) states that ``No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven
unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories
are in good working order . . .'' Section 393.1(b)(1) provides that
``[e]very motor carrier and its employee must be knowledgeable of and
comply with the requirements and specifications of this part,'' and
Sec. 393.1(c) states that ``No motor carrier may operate a commercial
motor vehicle, or cause or permit such vehicle to be operated, unless
it is equipped in accordance with the requirements and specifications
of this part.'' Section 396.3(a)(1) requires that ``[p]arts and
accessories shall be in safe and proper operating condition at all
times.'' Section 396.11(a) states that every motor carrier must
``require its drivers to report, and every driver shall prepare a
report in writing at the completion of each day's work on each vehicle
operated,'' and that report shall cover a specific list of parts and
accessories. Section 396.11(c) states that ``Prior to requiring or
permitting a driver to operate a vehicle, every motor carrier or its
agent shall repair any defect or deficiency listed on the driver
vehicle inspection report which would be likely to affect the safety of
operation of a vehicle.''
FMCSA emphasizes that the Agency is not foregoing the fundamental
requirements of Part 393, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe
Operation. Nor is it proposing to change any other element of the
inspection, repair, and maintenance requirements of Part 396. Drivers
will still be required to perform pre-trip evaluations of equipment
condition, and complete DVIRs if any defects or deficiencies are
discovered or reported during the day's operations. Motor carriers will
still be required to have systematic inspection, repair, and
maintenance programs (including preventative maintenance) and maintain
records to prove measures are being taken to reduce to the extent
practicable, the risk of mechanical problems happening while the
vehicle is in operation. In addition, motor carriers will still be
required to review driver vehicle inspections that list defects or
deficiencies and take appropriate action before the vehicle is
dispatched again. The Agency will retain the requirement for carriers
to complete periodic or annual inspections, and maintain documentation
for the individuals who perform periodic inspections and individuals
responsible for performing brake-related inspection, repair, and
maintenance tasks. Furthermore, these CMVs will continue to be subject
to roadside inspections. In short, the existing regulations place
shared responsibility on drivers and motor carriers to ensure that CMVs
used in interstate commerce are in safe and proper operating condition.
This proposed rule does not change a driver's obligation to report on
the condition of the CMVs and to report to the motor carrier any
defects or deficiencies that could affect the safety of its operation.
The Agency's preferred alternative would continue to require
drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs to prepare no-
[[Page 48129]]
defect DVIRs.\1\ There are several reasons for this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pursuant to 49 CFR 390.3(f)(6), this proposed rule would not
apply to `[t]he operation of commercial motor vehicles designed or
used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the
driver), not for direct compensation, provided the vehicle does not
otherwise meet the definition of a commercial motor vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, one of the fundamental differences between passenger and
freight operations is that motorcoach drivers often need to interact
with their passengers, particularly at the beginning and end of their
work day, but often during the trip as well. These interactions are a
critical part of a motorcoach driver's responsibilities and may result
in the driver overlooking or failing to recall certain mechanical
conditions unless the report is required every work day. The daily
preparation of the DVIR would reinforce the importance of reporting
vehicle maintenance issues irrespective of the routine interactions
with passengers at the beginning and end of the work day. Also, because
motorcoach drivers must be alert to the varying needs of their
passengers, they may not be able to focus as closely as truck drivers
on changes in their vehicle's operating condition encountered during a
trip. These concerns underscore the importance of continuing to include
the process of documenting vehicle condition as a consistent part of
the passenger-carrying driver's daily routine.
Second, motorcoach crashes are low-probability high-consequence
events with fatal and injury crashes occurring relatively infrequently
compared to truck crashes, yet the potential for significant numbers of
injuries and fatalities being greater than that of truck crashes Based
upon analysis of MCMIS data for the period 2007-2011, the average
number of fatalities per fatal truck-related crash was 1.13--but for
cross-country/intercity buses the average number of fatalities was
1.57, nearly 40 percent higher. While FMCSA does not have data
concerning motorcoach crashes attributable to the mechanical condition
of the vehicle, the Agency believes it is appropriate to consider this
factor in the decision-making process and request public comment on
this issue.
Third, because they are carrying the most valuable cargo, motor
carriers of passengers must exercise heightened diligence over their
operations, including CMV maintenance. As noted in the Motorcoach
Safety Action Plan,\2\ the National Transportation Safety Board has
found that defects or deficiencies in vehicle condition were a root
cause of several of the motorcoach crashes it investigated which
accounted for 20 percent of the fatalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The U.S. Department of Transportation's Motorcoach Safety
Action Plan of 2012 is available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/safety-security/Motorcoach-Safety-Action-Plan-2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this time, and for these reasons stated above, FMCSA does not
propose extending relief from the requirement for drivers of passenger-
carrying vehicles to complete and submit ``no defect'' DVIRs. The
Agency requests public comments on this issue, with an emphasis on
information and data concerning the mechanical condition of
motorcoaches and other passenger-carrying vehicles subject to FMCSA's
jurisdiction. Specifically, what percentage of DVIRs currently prepared
by drivers of passenger-carrying vehicles include reports of vehicle
defects and deficiencies? Is the volume of DVIRs that include reports
of mechanical problems by drivers of passenger-carrying vehicles so
small that the processing of no-defect DVIRs could potentially result
in the passenger carriers overlooking the reports which require action?
For operators of passenger-carrying vehicles, what percentage of
the time do drivers find that interactions with passengers at the end
of the work day make it difficult to accurately recall defects or
deficiencies that were observed or reported during the day, and
document those mechanical problems on a DVIR? If FMCSA were to
eliminate the requirement for preparing a DVIR every day, would
interaction with the passengers at the end of the work day, combined
with the as-needed preparation of DVIRs, increase the likelihood of
drivers overlooking or forgetting to prepare a DVIR on those occasions
when something was wrong with the vehicle?
In summary, FMCSA is proposing to eliminate the requirement for
drivers of property-carrying vehicles to submit, and motor carriers to
retain, no-defect DVIRs. The Agency believes that removing the
requirement for drivers of property-carrying CMVs to complete a no-
defect DVIR will not diminish CMV safety, and as discussed in greater
detail in the Regulatory Analysis section of this NPRM, the proposed
amendment will significantly reduce the paperwork burden to drivers and
motor carriers. As noted in the Legal Basis section, this proposed rule
would not preclude motor carriers from continuing to require their
drivers to prepare no-defect DVIRs as a condition of employment.
FMCSA attempted to determine, through an analysis of historical
inspection and other safety data, whether eliminating the no-defect
DVIR would affect the condition and proper maintenance of vehicle
components. However, due to data reporting limitations, it is
impossible to distinguish between form-and-manner violations and
serious safety violations, e.g., between failing to sign a no-defect
DVIR and failing to report a known defect. However, given the
responsibility for vehicle inspection, repair, and maintenance
currently shared by drivers and motor carriers (which will continue
despite the adoption of the proposed elimination of no-defect DVIRs),
the Agency is confident that there will be no reduction in the overall
level of equipment safety as a result of this proposed change.
Additionally, to increase safety and harmonize regulatory text,
FMCSA has added two items to the pre-trip inspection list in Sec.
392.7. These items are required to be included on a DVIR and should be
checked during the pre-trip inspection.
FMCSA seeks comments from all interested parties on certain aspects
of the DVIR process.
1. DVIR Handling
1.1. Please explain in detail your procedures for filing and
maintaining DVIRs from the time they are completed through the end of
their retention periods. Are defect DVIRs kept separate from no-defect
DVIRs, sent to maintenance staff, and then acted on? Do you have
special procedures in place for the no-defect DVIRs? If so, please
describe them.
1.2. Do you have examples of specific incidents in which handling a
large volume of no-defect DVIRs has interfered with the handling of
defect DVIRs? If so, please describe how these additional documents
affected the repairing of defects.
1.3. Some DVIRs are completed electronically. Are the electronic
DVIRs automatically or manually separated into defect and no-defect
categories? Do you have an estimate of the percentage of forms filled
out on paper and electronically? If so, please provide detailed
information on the data and methodology used for that estimate.
2. Please provide information on the percentage of no-defect DVIRs.
Also, please provide a discussion of the methodology for developing
this information.
3. Should the FMCSA preserve an inspection list in Sec. 392.7 to
assist drivers in conducting pre-trip inspections? Or would drivers be
sufficiently knowledgeable and experienced at conducting pre-trip
inspections that they would not have to
[[Page 48130]]
rely on a regulation to prescribe the essential vehicle components and
systems that should be checked before each trip? To what extent do
carriers and drivers rely on the list in Sec. 392.7?
4. To what extent do carries and drivers rely upon the list in
Sec. 396.11?
Section Analysis
In Sec. 392.7, FMCSA proposes adding ``wheels and rims'' and
``emergency equipment'' to the pre-trip list in paragraph (a) in order
to harmonize it with the post-trip list in Sec. 396.11(a)(1).
Additionally, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 396 by deleting the
sentence in Sec. 396.11(b)(2) that reads ``If no defect or deficiency
is discovered by or reported to the driver, the report shall so
indicate.'' In its place, FMCSA would insert ``The driver of a
passenger-carrying CMV must prepare a report even if no defect or
deficiency is discovered by or reported to the driver; the drivers of
all other commercial motor vehicles are not required to prepare a
report if no defect or deficiency is discovered by or reported to the
driver.'' FMCSA would also make minor editorial and formatting changes
to the remainder of the text of Sec. 396.11(b)(2).
Rulemaking Analyses
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) as Supplemented
by E.O. 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (issued
September 30, 1993, published October 4 at 58 FR 51735), as
supplemented by E.O. 13563 (discussed above in the ``Background''
section), and DOT policies and procedures, FMCSA must determine whether
a regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review. E.O. 12866 defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one
likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal government or communities.
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another Agency.
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof.
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the E.O.
FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would have an annual
effect of $100 million or more. The value of the time saved by
eliminating the paperwork burden associated with the filing of no-
defect DVIRs is approximately $1.7 billion per year. The explanation of
how these savings were derived is presented below. The proposed rule is
not expected to have any negative safety impacts. If anything, the rule
may actually improve safety by ensuring that the relatively few DVIRs
that report defects are not lost among the vast majority of those that
do not, thereby making it easier for motor carriers to identify
vehicles in need of repair. In addition, a no-defect report could be
taken as evidence by a new driver of a vehicle that a pre-trip
inspection is unnecessary because the previous driver did not note any
defects. Hence, no defect reports could provide a false sense of
security, tempting drivers to skip the mandatory pre-trip inspection.
The Agency conducted an analysis per the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to estimate the reduction in hourly
burden that the elimination of DVIRs for non-passenger-carrying
operators of CMVs. FMCSA determined that 46.7 million hours of
paperwork burden would be eliminated by this proposed rule. The full
details of the PRA analysis are included in the ``Paperwork Reduction
Act'' section below. Using a labor cost of $36 per hour, (using a base
wage of $18.24,\3\ fringe benefits of 55 percent \4\, and overhead of
27 percent \5\) the Agency valued this time savings at $1.7 billion per
year (46.7 million hours saved x $36 per hour). If passenger-carrying
CMV drivers were allowed to stop producing no defect DVIRs, an
additional 980,000 burden hours would be saved, which can be valued at
$35 million per year (980,000 hours saved x $36 per hour). (These
annualized figures are the same for both 7 and 3 percent discount
rates.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The median hourly wage for heavy truck drivers. See http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533032.htm. Accessed March 7, 2013.
\4\ The ratio of total fringe benefits to wages and salaries for
transportation and warehousing workers. See http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06072012.pdf. Table 10, Employer costs
per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of
total compensation: Private industry workers, by industry group,
March 2012. Transportation and Warehousing. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2013.
\5\ Industry data gathered for the Truck Costing Model developed
by the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute Berwick showed an
average cost of $0.107 per mile of CMV operation for management and
overhead, and $0.39 per mile for labor, indicating an overhead rate
of 27 percent ($0.107 / $0.39). See Farooq. ``Truck Costing Model
for Transportation Managers''. Upper Great Plains Transportation
Institute, North Dakota State University (2003) accessed on June 18,
2012 at http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24200/24223/24223.pdf. See
Appendix A, pp. 42-47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency's proposed addition of ``wheels and rims'' and
``emergency equipment'' to the items required to be inspected under
Sec. 392.7 would make the lists in this section and Sec. 396.11
consistent. The addition of these two items to Sec. 392.7 is expected
to impose a de minimis additional burden on drivers performing pre-trip
evaluations of equipment, as drivers will be able to readily observe
whether these newly added items are in good working order during their
review of the items currently in the Sec. 392.7 list (service brakes,
including trailer brake connections, parking (hand) brake, steering
mechanism, lighting devices and reflectors, tires, horn, windshield
wiper or wipers, rear-vision mirror or mirrors, and coupling devices).
For example, a driver making a visual examination of tires can hardly
avoid examining the wheels and rims at the same time, and, defects on
these components are usually fairly obvious. Similarly, while getting
into the cab to check the steering mechanism and horn, he or she can
easily glance at the dial gauge on the fire extinguisher to determine
that it is still fully charged. Other emergency equipment, including
warning triangles, flares, or fuses are usually stored in an easy-to-
reach location (often under or behind the driver's seat) and are
readily checked. These items were added to the inspection list for
consistency, and we expect the cost and benefits of these additions to
be de minimis.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of a regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises
small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than
50,000.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), see
National Archives at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/regulaotry-flexibility/601.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all
regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies try to
minimize any adverse effects on these entities. Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
[[Page 48131]]
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat.
857), the proposed rule is expected to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities in the form of cost
savings through the elimination 46 million paperwork burden hours.
These firms would receive regulatory relief of approximately $3,000 per
entity, which is a positive benefit and does not impose a cost on the
regulated entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
FMCSA invites comment from members of the public who believe there
will be a significant impact either on small businesses or on
governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000. An
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) must include six
elements.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
(1) A Description of the Reason Why Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
FMCSA proposes to rescind the requirement that commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) drivers operating in interstate commerce, except drivers
of passenger-carrying CMVs, submit, and motor carriers retain, driver-
vehicle inspection reports (DVIR) when the driver has neither found nor
been made aware of any vehicle defects or deficiencies (no-defect
DVIR). This proposed rule would remove a significant information
collection burden without adversely impacting safety. This proposed
rule responds, in part, to the President's January 2011 Regulatory
Review and Reform initiative. Finally, this proposed rule would
harmonize the pre- and post-trip inspection lists.
(2) A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis Why
Action by the Agency Is Being Considered
The objective of the NPRM is to grant regulatory relief to motor
carriers and drivers of all sizes of vehicles currently subject to 49
CFR 396.11, both private and for-hire, with the exception of operators
of passenger-carrying CMVs. This proposed rule is based on the
authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) [49 U.S.C.
31502(b)] and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act) [49
U.S.C. 31136(a)], both of which are broadly discretionary. The rule
implements, to some extent, the Administrator's authority under Sec.
31136(a)(1) to ensure that CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and
operated safely. The NPRM is also based on the broad recordkeeping and
implementation authority of Sec. 31133(a)(8) and (10). As a result,
the removal of the obligation to prepare and retain no-defect DVIRs
would not compromise drivers' ability to report vehicle problems to the
carrier, or relieve carriers of the responsibility to take action.
(3) A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of
Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
Generally, motor carriers are currently not required to report
their annual revenue to the Agency, but all carriers are required to
provide the Agency with the number of power units (PUs) they operate
when they apply for operating authority and to update this figure
biennially. Because FMCSA does not have direct revenues figures, PUs
serve as a proxy to determine the carrier size that would qualify as a
small business given the Small Business Administration (SBA) prescribed
revenue threshold. In order to produce this estimate, it is necessary
to determine the average annual revenue generated by a single PU.
With regards to truck power units (PUs), the Agency determined in
the 2003 Hours of Service Rulemaking RIA \7\ that a PU produces about
$172,000 in revenue annually (adjusted for inflation).\8\ This equates
to 148 PUs ($25,000,000/$172,000). Thus FMCSA considers motor carriers
with 148 PUs or fewer to be a small business for SBA purposes. The
results show that 99.1 percent of all carriers with recent activity
have 148 PUs or fewer.\9\ This amounts to 516,294 \10\ interstate
freight and passenger carriers that are considered small, with annual
receipts of less than $25.5 million. The SBA defines a ``small entity''
in the truck transportation subsector (North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) 484) as an entity with annual revenue of
less than $25.5 million (13 CFR 121.201).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Regulatory Analysis for: Hours of Service of Drivers; Driver
Rest and Sleep Operations, Final Rule--Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. 68 FR 2245--Published April 23, 2003.
\8\ See the 2000 TTS blue Book of Trucking Companies; number
adjusted to 2008 dollars for inflation.
\9\ Motor Carrier Management Information system (MCMIS) as of
September 2012.
\10\ CMV Fact sheet March 2013. Available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/facts-research/CMV-Facts.pdf.
\11\ U.S. Small Business Administration Table of small Business
Size Standards matched to North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes, effective January 1, 2012. See NAICS subsector
484, Truck Transportation available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of
the Classes of Small Entities That Would be Subject to Requirements and
the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report
or Record
This rule would reduce costs on small entities by eliminating a
substantial paperwork filing burden. The reduction in this burden is
estimated to save the industry 46.7 million hours of driver time with
associated monetized savings of $1.7 billion, as explained in the
Paperwork Reduction Act section. These benefits would accrue primarily
to small carriers that make up the majority of firms and employ the
majority of drivers in the industry. The skills for drivers to complete
DVIRs are basic reading and writing proficiency skills.
(5) Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of all Relevant Federal
Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
any Federal rules. This rule responds in part to the President's
January 2012 Regulatory Review and Reform initiative.
(6) A Description of any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rules
Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which
Minimize any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small
Entities
The Agency has concluded that there are no significant alternatives
to the proposed rule that would achieve either the value of $1.7
billion in time savings or objectives of this proposal, from the
eliminating the paperwork burden. Because small businesses are such a
considerable part of the demographic the Agency regulates, providing
alternatives to small businesses for non-compliance options is neither
feasible nor consistent with public safety.
Assistance for Small Entities
Pursuant to section 213 of SBREFA, FMCSA wants to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
[[Page 48132]]
please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Mike Huntley, listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-
734-3247).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $143.1 million (which is the
value of $100 million in 2010 after adjusting for inflation) or more in
any 1 year. Although this proposed rule would not result in such
expenditure, FMCSA discusses the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act
FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under its environmental procedures Order 5610.1, published
February 24, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this proposed action does not have
any effect on the quality of the environment. Therefore, this NPRM is
categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA
Order 5610.1, paragraph 6(aa) of Appendix 2. The Categorical Exclusion
under paragraph 6(aa) relates to regulations requiring motor carriers,
drivers, and others to ``inspect, repair, and provide maintenance for
every CMV used on a public road'', which is the focus of this
rulemaking. A Categorical Exclusion determination is available for
inspection or copying in the regulations.gov Web site listed under
ADDRESSES.
In addition to the NEPA requirements to examine impacts on air
quality, the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
also requires FMCSA to analyze the potential impact of its actions on
air quality and to ensure that FMCSA actions conform to State and local
air quality implementation plans. No additional contributions to air
emissions are expected from this rule and FMCSA expects the rule to not
be subject to the Environmental Protection Agency's General Conformity
Rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).
FMCSA seeks comment on these determinations.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
FMCSA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. This proposed rule would
result in a reduction of burden hours for the ``Inspection, Repair, and
Maintenance'' information collection request (ICR), OMB control number
2126-0003. This ICR comprises six individual information collections,
each corresponding to a different area of the inspection, repair, and
maintenance requirements. This proposed rule affects only the DVIR
section of this ICR.
Based on data from its Motor Carrier Management Information System
(MCMIS) and Licensing and Insurance System (L&I), FMSCA estimates that
there are approximately 4,117,000 CMVs being operated that are subject
to these requirements, which includes 1,845,000 tractors and 101,000
passenger-carrying CMVs, but excludes the 152,000 CMVs of single-
vehicle owner operators. Consistent with past analyses of this ICR, the
Agency assumes that these CMVs are used on average 65 percent of the
days of a year, and that 25 percent of tractor-trailer drivers operate
two vehicle combinations per day, which effectively increases the
number of CMVs or CMV combinations requiring a DVIR by 461,250 (25
percent x 1,845,000 tractors) to a total of 4,578,250 (4,117,000 CMVs +
461,250 additional tractor-trailer combinations). Applying the 65
percent utilization rate yields an annual estimate of 1,086,189,813
DVIRs (4,578,250 CMVs or CMV combinations x 65 percent x 365 days per
year).
FMCSA has parsed the DVIR process into two steps. The first step,
filling out a DVIR is estimated to take 2 minutes, 30 seconds. The
second step, reviewing and signing a DVIR is estimated to take 20
seconds when defects are reported and 5 seconds when no defects are
reported. When there are no defects to note, there is nothing to review
on the DVIR, and the form requires only a signature. The Agency
estimates that 5 percent of DVIRs note defects, and that 95 percent of
DVIRs note no defects.
If this proposed rule were to go into effect, 93 percent of the
burden associated with DVIRs would be eliminated. The remaining burden
would be associated with DVIRs that note defects, and no-defect DVIRs
for passenger-carrying CMVs. The annual burden remaining from these two
activities would be 2,564,615 hours and 980,123 hours respectively. The
table below illustrates how these results were calculated.
Table 2--Detail of DVIR PRA Calculations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total DVIRs
(CMVs x
Number of CMVs Utilization utilization
Activity or CMV rate (of 365 Percent of rate x percent Burden per DVIR Total annual
combinations calendar days) CMVs affected of CMVs hourly burden
affected x
365)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defect DVIRs, All......................... 4,578,250 65 5 54,309,491 170 seconds................. 2,564,615
No Defect DVIRS, passenger-carrying CMVs.. 101,000 65 95 22,764,138 155 seconds................. 980,123
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............................ 3,544,738
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After this proposed rule becomes effective, defect DVIRs will
create 2,564,615 hours of annual burden (4,578,250 CMVs x 65%
utilization x 365 days x 5% of CMVs x 170 seconds / 3,600 seconds per
hour). The annual hourly burden of no defect DVIRs for non-passenger
carrying CMVs is estimated to be 980,123 hours (101,000
[[Page 48133]]
CMVs x 65% utilization x 365 days x 95% of CMVs x 155 seconds / 3,600
seconds per hour). The total remaining hourly burden of DVIRs will be
3,544,738 hours. This new total represents a reduction of 46,669,294
hours compared to the 50,214,032 hours of annual burden estimated in
the currently approved ICR. The monetary value of this annual burden
reduction, calculated using an hourly labor cost of $36, is $1.7
billion ((46,669,294 hours x $36 per hour) / 1 billion).
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (April 23, 1997, 62 FR 19885), requires
that agencies issuing economically significant rules, which also
concern an environmental health or safety risk that an Agency has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, must include
an evaluation of the environmental health and safety effects of the
regulation on children. Section 5 of Executive Order 13045 directs an
Agency to submit for a covered regulatory action an evaluation of its
environmental health or safety effects on children. The FMCSA has
preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is not a covered
regulatory action as defined under Executive Order 13045. This
determination is based on the fact that this proposal would not
constitute an environmental health risk or safety risk that would
disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on States or localities. FMCSA has analyzed
this proposed rule under that Order and has determined that it does not
have implications for federalism.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this program.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
The FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.'' This proposal is not a
significant energy action within the meaning of section 4(b) of the
Executive Order. This proposal is a procedural action, is not
economically significant, and would not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Privacy Impact Analysis
FMCSA conducted a privacy impact assessment of this rule as
required by section 522(a)(5) of the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations
Act, Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004) [set out as a
note to 5 U.S.C. 552a]. The assessment considers any impacts of the
rule on the privacy of information in an identifiable form and related
matters. FMCSA has determined this rule would have no privacy impacts.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 392
Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.
49 CFR Part 396
Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, FMCSA proposes to amend
title 49 CFR, Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, to read as
follows:
PART 392--DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHCILES
0
1. The authority citation for part 392 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 13902, 31136, 31151, 31502; and 49
CFR 1.87.
0
2. Revise Sec. 392.7(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.
(a) No commercial motor vehicle shall be driven unless the driver
is satisfied that the following parts and accessories are in good
working order, nor shall any driver fail to use or make use of such
parts and accessories when and as needed:
Service brakes, including trailer brake connections.
Parking (hand) brake.
Steering mechanism.
Lighting devices and reflectors.
Tires.
Horn.
Windshield wiper or wipers.
Rear-vision mirror or mirrors.
Coupling devices.
Wheels and rims.
Emergency equipment.
* * * * *
PART 396--INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE
0
3. The authority citation for part 396 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31151, and 31502; and 49 CFR
1.87.
0
4. Revise Sec. 396.11(b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 396.11 Driver vehicle inspection report(s).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Report content. (i) The report must identify the vehicle and
list any defect or deficiency discovered by or reported to the driver
which would affect the safety of operation of the vehicle or result in
its mechanical breakdown. If a driver operates more than one vehicle
during the day, a report must be prepared for each vehicle operated.
The driver of a passenger-carrying CMV subject to this regulation must
prepare a report even if no defect or deficiency is discovered by or
reported to the driver; the drivers of all other commercial motor
vehicles are not required to prepare a report if no defect or
deficiency is discovered by or reported to the driver.
(ii) The driver must sign the report. On two-driver operations,
only one driver needs to sign the driver vehicle inspection report,
provided both drivers agree as to the defects or deficiencies
identified.
* * * * *
Dated: August 1, 2013.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18981 Filed 8-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P