State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier Vehicles |
|---|
|
T.F. Scott Darling, III
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
27 April 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24769-24772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09846]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 350
[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0470]
RIN 2126-AB84
State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier Vehicles
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it is considering a rulemaking that would
require the States to establish a program for annual inspections of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) designed or used to transport
passengers (or, passenger-carrying CMVs). FMCSA plans to assess the
risks associated with improperly maintained or inspected passenger-
carrying CMVs by reviewing the effectiveness of existing Federal
inspection standards that are applicable to these types of vehicles,
and considering the costs and benefits of having a mandatory inspection
program.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before June 27,
2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2014-0470 using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Loretta Bitner, Chief, Passenger
Carrier Division at 202-385-2428, or via email at
Loretta.Bitner@dot.gov, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This advanced notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) is organized as follows:
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
III. Background
IV. Questions
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
ANPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0470), 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 that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0470, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
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.
We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may develop a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
based on your comments and other information and analysis.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0470, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document 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.
C. Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in
[[Page 24770]]
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at www.dot.gov/privacy.
II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
Section 32710 of Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012, enacted as
part of MAP-21, requires that the Secretary of Transportation complete
a rulemaking proceeding to consider requiring States to establish a
program for annual inspections of vehicles designed or used to
transport passengers (Pub. L. 112-141). As part of this proceeding,
FMCSA must assess: (1) The risks associated with improperly maintained
or inspected CMVs designed or used to transport passengers; (2) the
effectiveness of existing Federal inspection standards in mitigating
the risks associated with improperly maintained vehicles and ensuring
safe and proper operation; and (3) the costs and benefits of a
mandatory inspection program.
III. Background
Section 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 required the
Secretary of Transportation to prescribe standards for the inspection
of CMVs. See 49 U.S.C. 31142. Under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSR), a CMV, including qualifying passenger vehicles,\1\
must be inspected at least once every 12 months. See 49 CFR 396.17.
Subject to exceptions under Sec. 396.23, a motor carrier must either
conduct the inspection using its own qualified personnel or use a
qualified third party that maintains appropriate facilities and employs
inspectors qualified under Sec. 396.19. In lieu of conducting a self-
inspection or relying on a third-party inspector under Sec. 396.17, a
motor carrier may satisfy the FMCSR annual inspection requirement
through a State or other jurisdiction's inspection program in
accordance with Sec. 396.23(a), provided that the inspection satisfies
regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A CMV is defined, in part, for purposes of this regulation
as a ``motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to
transport passengers . . . when the vehicle--(1) [h]as a gross
vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating, or gross
vehicle weight or gross combination weight, of 4,536 kg (10,001
pounds) or more, whichever is greater; or (2) [i]s designed or used
to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for
compensation; or (3) [i]s designed or used to transport more than 15
passengers, including the driver, and is not used to transport
passengers for compensation . . .'' 49 CFR 390.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in those States that have a mandatory State inspection
requirement that the FMCSA Administrator has determined to be as
effective as inspections under Sec. 396.17, a motor carrier may rely
on the State inspection process in order to satisfy the annual
inspection requirement. 49 CFR 396.23(b)(1). A State inspection under
this provision might be conducted by State personnel, at a State-
authorized commercial facility, or by the motor carrier under the
auspices of a State-authorized self-inspection program. Id. According
to the latest list published by FMCSA, 22 States are among the
governmental entities that have mandatory inspections programs
recognized by the FMCSA Administrator. 73 FR 63040 (October 22,
2008).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ At the time of publication, the list of State inspection
programs determined comparable to, or as effective as, the FMCSA
periodic inspection program included California, Connecticut,
Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin. Other jurisdictions and agencies with
approved programs are the District of Columbia, the Alabama LPG
Board, the 10 Canadian Provinces, and the Yukon Territory. However
FMCSA does not collect inspection data on passenger CMVs that are
not subject to FMCSAs regulatory authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, Congress enacted legislation requiring the Secretary of
Transportation to complete a rulemaking proceeding to consider
requiring States to establish an annual inspection program as discussed
under the Legal Basis section, above. Subsequently, FMCSA conducted
three public listening sessions that provided interested parties with
the opportunity to share their views on the merits of requiring State
inspections of passenger CMVs.\3\ Transcripts of these sessions are
available in the public docket noted above. Stakeholders' presentations
proved valuable in developing the questions posed in today's ANPRM.
While the Agency received a broad range of comments, recurring themes
included the costs of mandatory inspection programs, the value of a
nation-wide uniform inspection standard, and the need for national
training of inspectors to eliminate inconsistencies in how inspection
standards are applied. Both industry and the enforcement community
identified concerns about the cost of the inspection programs.
Stakeholders' estimates of costs for program administration and
individual inspections varied significantly. Industry stakeholders
expressed concern about inconsistent inspections under existing
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The listening sessions were conducted at the American Bus
Association Marketplace in St. Louis, Missouri on January 13, 2015,
a United Motor Coach Association meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana
on January 18, 2015, and a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
workshop in Jacksonville, Florida on April 14, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 32710 of MAP-21 did not address the Agency's authority to
require mandatory State inspection programs. While Congress has granted
the Secretary broad regulatory authority over the interstate operation
of CMVs, under Federalism principles and the 10th Amendment, the
Federal government may not compel the States to enact or administer a
Federal regulatory program (New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144,
188 (1992)), or compel State officers to administer or enforce a
Federal regulatory program (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935
(1997)). Thus, FMCSA assumes Congress intended that State participation
would be required as a condition of receiving Federal funds. See, e.g.,
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206-207 (1987). However, Congress
neither established a new financial assistance program for funding
State inspection programs nor specified what existing financial
assistance program FMCSA might employ to incentivize States to adopt
inspection programs. Thus, in posing its final question below, the
Agency is seeking its State partners' views on how to implement and
incentivize a required State inspection program, should the Agency
propose such a program.
IV. Questions
FMCSA is considering a rulemaking under which States would
establish a program for annual inspections of CMVs designed or used to
transport passengers. The Agency will use information gathered through
this ANPRM to quantify the economic benefits and costs of this action
if it issues an NPRM. The Agency encourages parties with knowledge of
the industry to provide information about the impact that such a rule
would have on current regulations, operating costs, business practices,
safety, and any other areas that would be affected by a rule requiring
States to establish inspection programs.
FMCSA also requests responses to the following issues and
questions. Again, whenever possible, commenters should provide data.
FMCSA also encourages stakeholders to describe any applicable
regulatory inspection process under which they operate. FMCSA
recognizes that an individual commenter may choose to respond to all of
the issues or only a subset, based on his or her interest or area of
expertise.
[[Page 24771]]
Existing State Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Programs for Passenger-
Carrying Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs)
1. Does your State or the States in which you register your
passenger-carrying CMV conduct mandatory inspections of such vehicles?
Please indicate the State(s) in which your passenger-carrying CMVs are
registered.
2. What vehicle types are included in the mandatory passenger-
carrying CMV inspection program (e.g., motorcoaches, school buses,
mini-buses, 9-15 passenger vans, etc.) and which are not included?
3. If your State has a mandatory program, briefly describe your
inspection procedures and indicate which vehicle components are
inspected.
4. How many total inspections are performed by your State annually
for each of the following types of vehicles?
a. Motorcoaches
b. School buses
c. Mini-buses
d. 9-15 passenger vans
e. Other
5. What is the estimated time required to complete each vehicle
inspection?
6. What procedures are used to record the vehicle inspection?
7. If a vehicle does not pass an inspection, who addresses the
issues? If it is done by someone other than the inspecting entity, is
there a second inspection after the issues are addressed? On average,
how many follow up inspections does it take to pass a vehicle?
8. Are mandatory vehicle inspections performed by State employees,
by third-party inspectors authorized by the State, or by passenger
carrier employees through a State-authorized self-inspection program?
9. If vehicle inspections are conducted by a State-authorized third
party or by passenger-carrier employees authorized by the State, are
there differences in safety outcomes between those conducted by State
employees and those conducted by third-party inspectors or through a
passenger carrier's State-authorized self-inspection facilities?
10. Are there any specific benefits or concerns related to using
third-party inspectors or by others?
11. If inspections are conducted by third-party inspectors or by
passenger carrier-employed mechanics or technicians, what oversight is
or should be required?
12. Should self-inspection or third-party inspections be options
for compliance with a mandatory State inspection?
13. How does/would the cost of inspections differ between those
conducted by State employees or by third-party inspectors?
14. What might be other preferable options?
Measuring Effectiveness of Inspection Programs
15. Does your State have information on violations discovered
during inspections that are attributable to maintenance issues that
should have been found during a required vehicle inspection?
16. Has your State considered implementing a mandatory passenger-
carrying CMV inspection program, but declined to do so? If so, what are
your State's reasons for not implementing a program?
17. If your State imposes mandatory inspection of passenger-
carrying CMVs, how is the effectiveness of that program measured?
18. What are the most common vehicle defects discovered during
these mandatory vehicle inspections? What safety conclusions do you
draw from the results of these inspections?
19. Has your State or organization collected data related to
crashes, injuries, or fatalities attributable to improperly maintained
or inspected passenger-carrying CMVs? If so, please provide summary
information or links to detailed data associated with these areas.
20. Has the occurrence of passenger-carrying CMV-involved crashes,
injuries, or fatalities before and after the implementation of a
mandatory inspection requirement been evaluated? If so, please provide
summary information or links to detailed data associated with these
areas.
21. After a State inspection requirement was instituted, what
changes were observed over time in the number of safety violations
discovered during inspections, if any.
22. Do programs that inspect only a sample of vehicles have
significantly different outcomes than those where all vehicles are
inspected, please provide examples of how they differ?
Inspection Facilities and Locations
23. Where does your State conduct mandatory passenger-carrying CMV
inspections (e.g., State owned/leased facility, third party facility,
carrier's place of business, or other type of facility)?
24. Where should mandatory passenger-carrying CMV inspections be
performed?
25. If mandatory passenger-carrying CMV inspections are conducted
at the carrier's place of business, what accommodations must be made to
ensure appropriate access (e.g., pits, lifts, etc.) to conduct full
inspections of motorcoaches and other large passenger vehicles?
26. How does facility location or accessibility for mandatory
inspections impact inspections or compliance?
27. What delays may the State experience in completing mandatory
inspections (e.g. lack of sufficient number of inspection facilities)?
Costs
28. What is the cost per mandatory vehicle inspection to the
carrier?
29. Do inspection fees differ based on the type of vehicle being
inspected?
30. Do vehicle inspection fees differ based on location of the
inspections?
31. How much does it cost the State to establish and run inspection
programs on an annual basis?
32. If a vehicle does not pass an inspection, is there an
additional cost for the second inspection?
33. If fees are collected by the State, does the State dedicate the
revenue to the administration of the program?
Uniformity of Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Programs
34. What qualifications should be applicable to individuals
authorized to perform mandatory passenger-carrying CMV inspections?
35. Should minimum training elements be required for passenger-
carrying CMV inspections? If so, how much training should be required
and who should administer the training?
36. What should be the minimum vehicle components inspected under a
mandatory bus inspection program?
37. How does the existence of different vehicle inspection
requirements among the States affect carrier business practices?
38. How might business practices change under a uniform mandatory
bus inspection program?
Current Federal Standards
39. How effective are existing Federal standards for the inspection
of passenger-carrying CMVs in (1) mitigating the risks associated with
improperly maintained vehicles and (2) ensuring the safe and proper
operating condition of the vehicles?
40. What is an effective and efficient way for the FMCSA to track
inspected carriers to reduce burden on States and carriers?
Federal Authority
41. How should FMCSA incentivize the States to establish mandatory
[[Page 24772]]
passenger-carrying CMV inspection programs?
Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on April
20, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-09846 Filed 4-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P