State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier Vehicles; Withdrawal |
|---|
|
Daphne Y. Jefferson
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1 May 2017
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20311-20312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08724]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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;
Withdrawal
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA withdraws its April 27, 2016, advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the establishment of requirements for
States to implement annual inspection programs for commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) designed or used to transport passengers (passenger-
carrying CMVs). FMCSA sought information from all interested parties
that would enable the Agency to assess the risks associated with
improperly maintained or inspected passenger-carrying CMVs. The ANPRM
also sought public comments concerning the effectiveness of the current
FMCSA annual inspection standards, and data on the potential costs and
benefits of a Federal requirement for each State to implement a
mandatory inspection program. FMCSA inquired about how the Agency might
incentivize States to adopt such programs. After reviewing all the
public comments, and in consideration of the comments provided by
individuals attending the three public listening sessions held in 2015,
FMCSA has determined there is not enough data and information available
to support moving forward with a rulemaking action.
DATES: The ANPRM ``State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier
Vehicles,'' published on April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24769), is withdrawn as
of May 1, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Loretta Bitner, Chief, Commercial
Passenger Carrier Safety Division at 202-385-2428, or via email at
Loretta.Bitner@dot.gov, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
[[Page 20312]]
DC 20590-0001. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material
to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background/Topics Addressed During the Comment Period
In accordance with Sec. 32710 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 815),
FMCSA published an ANPRM in the Federal Register on April 27, 2016 (81
FR 24769). The Agency sought information from industry and other
stakeholders on the maintenance and inspection of passenger-carrying
CMVs that would help FMCSA decide whether to propose a rule that
mandates States to impose an annual inspection process.
FMCSA requested information from commercial passenger carriers and
other stakeholders in order to consider proposing a rule that would
require the States to establish annual inspection programs for
passenger-carrying CMVs. The requested information was necessary to
assist FMCSA in quantifying the economic benefits and costs of
potentially moving forward with establishing an inspection program and
in assessing risks associated with improperly maintained or inspected
passenger-carrying CMVs. The ANPRM also was intended to provide
information on the effectiveness of existing Federal inspection
requirements in mitigating risks and ensuring safe and proper
operations.\1\ In the effort to gather relevant data, FMCSA posed a
series of questions addressing the following matters:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Subsequent to publication of the ANPRM, FMCSA issued a rule
that eliminated the option of relying on roadside inspections as
satisfying the periodic inspection requirement. See 81 FR 47722
(July 22, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing State Mandatory Vehicle Inspection Programs for
Passenger-Carrying CMVs.
Measuring Effectiveness of Inspection Programs.
Inspection Facilities and Locations.
Costs.
Uniformity of Mandatory Vehicle Inspections Programs.
Current Federal Standards.
Federal Authority.
Discussion of Comments
The Agency received 22 public comments, with 10 commenters
expressing general opposition to the mandatory State inspection
requirement discussed in the ANPRM. Seven commenters supported the
establishment of such a requirement; four commenters neither supported
nor opposed a possible requirement, and one commenter's issue was out-
of-scope. Many commenters indicated that the existing standards for
annual inspections prescribed in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) or their own programs were sufficient. Commenters
also indicated that current standards are effective at mitigating risk
when properly enforced. Several commenters made their support
contingent on factors such as uniformity in inspection standards,
standardization of inspector training, a self-inspection option, and
required reciprocity, whereby States would be required to recognize
inspections conducted outside their States.
Several commenters, including State agencies in Michigan,
Pennsylvania, and Texas, addressed questions aimed at measuring the
effectiveness of inspection programs. However, none of these commenters
was able to determine whether the establishment of an inspection
program reduced the number of safety violations detected. Michigan's
Department of Motor Vehicles indicated it improved its inspection
process by educating carriers on the required State inspection criteria
in 2013; it has since observed a 10% increase in vehicles passing their
initial safety inspection.
Few commenters addressed how FMCSA might incentivize the States to
establish mandatory inspection programs. The South Carolina Transport
Police noted that a mandate would be a strain on its resources. The
Michigan Department of Transportation noted that a program should be
subsidized with Federal funding. A representative from Pennsylvania
suggested providing additional Federal highway funding to those States
with well-defined programs.
FMCSA Decision
FMCSA withdraws the April 2016 ANPRM because the Agency is not
aware of data or information that supports the development of a notice
of proposed rulemaking to require the States to establish mandatory
annual inspection programs for passenger-carrying vehicles.
The Agency held a series public listening sessions \2\ concerning
this subject prior to publication of the ANPRM. Those sessions provided
interested parties with the opportunity to share their views on the
merits of requiring State inspections of passenger CMVs. Transcripts of
the sessions are available in the public docket noted above.
Stakeholders' remarks and comments proved valuable in developing the
questions posed in the ANPRM, but the information they provided was not
sufficient to support moving beyond the ANPRM. The Agency received a
broad range of comments identifying issues FMCSA would need to consider
in a rulemaking, such as 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 expressed concerns about the cost of an inspection program.
Stakeholders' estimates of costs for program administration and
individual inspections varied significantly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency does not foresee the availability of Federal funding to
incentivize the States to adopt such programs under its existing grant
programs.
Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on:
April 25, 2017.
Daphne Y. Jefferson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-08724 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P