[Federal Register: March 19, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 53)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12781-12787]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19mr02-36]
[[Page 12781]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VI
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Part 393
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Certification of
Compliance With Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs);
Proposed Rule
[[Page 12782]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 393
[Docket No. FMCSA-01-10886]
RIN 2126-AA69
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Certification
of Compliance With Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs)
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FMCSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) so that motor carriers ensure that each commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) they operate in interstate commerce displays a
label certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) in effect on the date of
manufacture. This rulemaking ensures that all motor carriers operating
CMVs in the United States use only vehicles that were certified by the
manufacturer as meeting all applicable Federal safety performance
requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Office of Bus
and Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-4009, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
You can mail or deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You can also submit comments
electronically at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://dms.dot.gov.
Please include the docket number
that appears in the heading of this document. You can examine and copy
this document and all comments received at the same Internet address or
at the Dockets Management Facility from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you want to know that we
received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped
postcard or include a copy of the acknowledgement page that appears
after you submit comments electronically.
Background
Part 567 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR
part 567) requires that manufacturers of motor vehicles built for sale
or use in the United States must affix a label certifying that the
motor vehicle meets the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSSs) in effect on the date of manufacture.\1\ Part 567
provides detailed requirements concerning the location at which the
label must be placed and the minimum information that must appear on
the label. These requirements are applicable to manufacturers of motor
vehicles produced for use in the United States and the label must be
affixed prior to the first sale of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These standards are codified in 49 CFR part 571. Most, but
not all, of the FMVSSs are cross-referenced in existing requirements
of part 393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Vehicle Safety
Act'') (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.) expressly prohibits vehicles from
being imported into the United States unless the vehicles--
(a) Comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of
manufacture, and
(b) Bear a label certifying compliance with the FMVSSs and applied
to the vehicle either by a manufacturer at the time of manufacture or
by a registered importer after the vehicle has been brought into
compliance.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ An individual or business registered with NHTSA as a
registered importer may import non-complying motor vehicles into the
United States if NHTSA has determined that the vehicles are capable
of being readily altered to comply with all applicable standards in
effect at the time the vehicle is imported. The registered importer
must provide the Federal Government with a bond at least equal to
the dutiable value of the vehicle before it can be imported and must
bring the vehicle into full compliance before the vehicle may be
sold and the bond released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This statutory requirement is currently codified at 49 U.S.C. 30112.
The regulations implementing the statute, including 49 CFR parts 567
and 571, are issued and enforced by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA).
Effect of the Vehicle Safety Act on U.S.-Based Motor Carrier
Operations
Generally, U.S.-based motor carriers operating CMVs (as defined in
49 CFR 390.5) in interstate commerce only have access to vehicles that
were either originally manufactured domestically for use in the United
States and have the required certification label, or vehicles that were
imported into the United States in accordance with the applicable NHTSA
importation regulations, including requirements for certification
documentation. Vehicles imported into the United States must have the
required certification label certifying compliance with the applicable
FMVSSs. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, almost all vehicles
operated by U.S.-based motor carriers have certification labels that
meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 567.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The FMVSSs and the certification label requirement are not
applicable to vehicles or items of equipment manufactured for, and
sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in
conformance with contract specifications (49 CFR 571.7). Therefore,
when a motor carrier purchases surplus equipment from the Armed
Forces for subsequent use in interstate commerce, the vehicle may
not have a certification label. However, because the FMCSRs cross-
reference most of the FMVSSs, the motor carrier would be required to
ensure that the vehicle was retrofitted to meet the referenced
standards as well as all applicable motor carrier regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect of the Vehicle Safety Act on Canada and Mexico-Based Motor
Carriers
Commercial motor vehicles operated in the United States by Canada
and Mexico-based motor carriers must also comply with the FMVSSs and
bear a certification label. NHTSA issued an interpretation letter in
1975 stating that the statutory prohibition against importing vehicles
that do not meet the FMVSSs and bear a certification label (49 U.S.C.
30112) is applicable to foreign-based CMVs used in the United States.
Therefore, the commercial use of CMVs to transport passengers or cargo
into the United States constitutes importation of the vehicle into the
United States.
This means that Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers are
responsible for taking the necessary actions to comply with the Vehicle
Safety Act before operating CMVs in the United States. The Department
of Transportation advised Mexico and Canada-based motor carriers about
this requirement in its November 1995 Motor Carrier Operating
Requirements Handbook, which was printed in three languages and
distributed to all participants at a North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) conference held in San Antonio, TX on November 14-16,
1995.
In a companion notice of proposed rulemaking published in today's
Federal Register, NHTSA proposes to codify its interpretation of the
definition of import for the purpose of enforcing the requirements of
49 U.S.C. 30112 with respect to operators of CMVs transporting cargo
and passengers.
[[Page 12783]]
Safety Concerns About Vehicles Operated by Foreign Motor Carriers
With the implementation of the motor carrier-related provisions of
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), much more attention
has been focused on the safety of commercial motor vehicles operated by
Canada and Mexico-based carriers. Representatives of the U.S. motor
carrier industry have expressed concerns to the Department of
Transportation that vehicles operated by foreign motor carriers were
not manufactured to meet all the applicable U.S. safety requirements;
specifically, all the FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture of
the vehicles.
Canada-Based Commercial Motor Vehicles
The vehicles operated by Canada-based motor carriers are
manufactured to comply with the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(CMVSSs) that are, to a large extent, comparable to the U.S. safety
requirements. In many instances, provisions of the CMVSSs are identical
to requirements in the FMVSSs. Manufacturers of vehicles sold for use
in Canada must certify compliance with the CMVSSs and the vehicles must
bear a Canadian certification label.
Generally, commercial motor vehicles operated by Canada-based motor
carriers in the United States would not have a certification label that
meets the requirements of 49 CFR part 567. Although these vehicles do
not have certification labels that meet U.S. requirements, the vehicles
meet most, if not all, U.S. safety requirements because of the
similarities between the two sets of safety standards.
Despite the similarity between U.S. and Canadian vehicle
manufacturing standards, the operation of commercial motor vehicles
into the United States by Canada-based carriers does constitute an
import. Thus, a Canadian carrier that uses vehicles that do not bear a
certification of compliance with the FMVSSs would be required to obtain
a certification label for each vehicle under this proposed rule.
Mexico-Based Commercial Motor Vehicles
The vehicles operated by Mexico-based motor carriers are
manufactured to comply with safety requirements established by the
Mexican government. Currently, Mexico does not have a series of motor
vehicle safety standards similar to those of the United States and
Canada. Therefore, commercial motor vehicles operated by Mexico-based
motor carriers in the United States typically would not have a
certification label that meets the requirements of 49 CFR part 567
unless the manufacturer built the vehicle to meet the FMVSSs and
voluntarily affixed a label certifying compliance with the U.S.
requirements. It is unclear how many vehicles produced for use in
Mexico meet all applicable U.S. safety requirements.
Since the operation of commercial motor vehicles into the United
States by Mexico-based carriers constitutes importation, a Mexican
carrier using vehicles that do not bear a certification of compliance
with the FMVSSs would be required to obtain a certification label for
each vehicle under this proposed rule.
U.S. Consultations With Canada and Mexico About the Vehicle Safety
Act
NHTSA and FMCSA personnel met with representatives of the Mexican
and Canadian governments and Mexican manufacturers and trucking
industry associations in Mexico City on June 20, 2001. NHTSA and FMCSA
staff were told by Mexican vehicle manufacturers that most Mexican
commercial vehicles built since 1994 were built to meet the FMVSSs.
Currently, there are approximately 400,000 trucks and buses that
operate on the Federal roads in Mexico. About 130,000 of those vehicles
were built since 1994 and may comply with the FMVSSs. Most of these
130,000 trucks and buses, however, do not have a FMVSS certification
label because it is not required for vehicles manufactured for sale and
use in Mexico.
NHTSA, FMCSA, the United States Customs Service (USCS), and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a follow-up seminar in
Mexico on August 2-3, 2001, to advise representatives of Mexican
vehicle manufacturers and the motor carrier industry about U.S.
requirements. During the seminar, the Mexican vehicle manufacturers,
most of which are affiliated with U.S. and European vehicle
manufacturers that build vehicles for the U.S. market, indicated that,
if permitted to do so, they would consider applying a certification
label retroactively depending on the results of their review of vehicle
test data, and their ability to make a determination that a particular
vehicle or group of vehicles met all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the
date of manufacture.
Although FMCSA's safety regulations require that all motor carriers
operating in the United States meet the same safety requirements,
without exception, the FMCSRs do not currently include a requirement
that vehicles have a label certifying compliance with the FMVSSs. The
FMCSRs include numerous cross-references to specific FMVSSs that have
the effect of requiring all motor carriers to ensure that their
vehicles are equipped with most of the safety features/equipment
required by the FMVSSs. However, FMCSA's rules do not currently require
that motor carriers' CMVs carry a label to verify that the vehicle
manufacturer followed the FMVSS self-certification process.
The absence of an FMCSA rule to require motor carriers to comply
with 49 U.S.C. 30112 means that motor carriers could use uncertified
commercial vehicles that may not meet all of the applicable FMVSSs, and
not be subject to effective enforcement action by the Department of
Transportation. The Department believes this is an unacceptable
situation and that FMCSA should exercise its statutory authority over
motor carrier operational safety to require motor carriers to comply
with 49 U.S.C. 30112.
FMCSA's Regulatory Authority
NHTSA and the FMCSA have complementary responsibilities to ensure
vehicle safety under their respective enabling legislation. NHTSA's
responsibility generally covers the design and safety compliance
testing of motor vehicles, and the motor vehicle manufacturers and
others responsible for those activities. FMCSA's responsibility
concerns the safe operation of CMVs in interstate and foreign commerce,
the motor carriers conducting the operations, and the CMV drivers.
Generally, enforcement of the FMVSSs by FMCSA and its State
partners would be accomplished through roadside inspections. Under
current roadside inspection enforcement procedures, if violations or
deficiencies of the FMCSRs are serious enough to meet the current out-
of-service criteria, the vehicle is placed out of service. The roadside
inspection procedure is the same for all CMVs operated in the United
States, regardless of the motor carrier's country of domicile.
If FMCSA adopts the proposed rule requiring that motor carriers
ensure that their vehicles display a valid certification label, the
agency and its State partners would then be able to enforce the section
30112 prohibition against the use or importation of non-compliant CMVs
by citing motor carriers that fail to display the required
certification label on their CMVs operated in the United States.
Enforcement action would be taken in a manner consistent with the
FMCSA's existing policies and programs as they relate to assuring
compliance with other
[[Page 12784]]
vehicle-oriented regulations under 49 CFR part 393.\4\ As it does with
other FMCSR violations, the agency will compile data regarding
uncertified vehicles and determine whether there are patterns of non-
compliance by specific foreign motor carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In other words, failure to display a certification label
could result in a citation and fine during a roadside inspection, or
a civil penalty as a result of a compliance review. Under the
current out-of-service criteria, it would not constitute grounds to
place a vehicle out of service in the absence of vehicle defects
meeting those criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of Proposal
The FMCSA is proposing to amend the FMCSRs to require that motor
carriers ensure that their CMVs have a certification label that meets
the requirements of 49 CFR part 567, applied by the vehicle
manufacturer or by a registered importer. As explained above, U.S.
motor carriers typically would only have access to vehicles that meet
the applicable FMVSSs and have a certification label that meets the
requirements of 49 CFR part 567. Therefore, it is not expected that
they would have to change the way they operate to comply with the
requirements being proposed today. However, the rule would place upon
them the responsibility for maintaining the label affixed by the
manufacturer or registered importer.
In a companion document published in today's Federal Register,
NHTSA is announcing its policy concerning the retroactive application
of a certification label to vehicles that complied with the FMVSSs when
they were built, or that subsequently had been modified to comply with
the FMVSSs. This policy provides guidance to manufacturers that would
make the determination whether the vehicles manufactured for use by
Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers were originally built to meet
the applicable FMVSSs, or whether the vehicles have been modified
appropriately to meet U.S. standards.
Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers would have to contact the
manufacturers of their vehicles to determine whether the vehicle meets
U.S. safety standards for those cases in which the vehicle does not
have a certification label. If the vehicle manufacturer has sufficient
vehicle performance test data and is willing to provide a certification
label, then the motor carrier would use that label to satisfy the
requirements of the proposed rules.
If the vehicle manufacturer were unable or unwilling to provide
certification labels, motor carriers would have the option of
contacting a registered importer in the United States. The registered
importer would then determine, in accordance with NHTSA's rules,
whether the vehicle is eligible for importation into the United States,
and what modifications, if any, are necessary before the vehicle could
be certified as meeting the FMVSSs.
Proposed Effective Date and Compliance Date
The FMCSA is proposing that U.S. motor carriers comply with the
certification label rule beginning on the effective date of the final
rule. The agency is also proposing that foreign motor carriers that
begin operations in the United States on or after that date, or expand
their operations to go beyond the southern border zones, ensure that
all CMVs used in the new or expanded operations have the necessary
certification label prior to entering the United States. Among the
foreign motor carriers included would be all Mexico-based motor
carriers operating beyond the border zones for the first time. All
other Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers operating in the United
States prior to the effective date of the final rule would be allowed
24 months to bring their vehicles into compliance with the
requirements, provided those vehicles were operated in the United
States before the effective date.\5\ This 24-month phase-in period
would not apply to vehicles introduced into service in the United
States on or after the effective date of the final rule. Those vehicles
would have to display the necessary certification label if they enter
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In addition to carriers operating in the border commercial
zones, this includes a relatively small number of Mexico-based
carriers that currently operate CMVs beyond the border commercial
zones, such as: (1) Carriers who received ICC operating authority
before the 1982 moratorium on granting authority beyond the border
zones; (2) Mexico-based carriers owned by U.S. citizens or
companies; (3) carriers transporting shipments between Mexico and
Canada through the United States; and (4) Mexico-based bus companies
that received authority to operate vehicles beyond the border zones
following the modification of the moratorium to allow cross-border
charter or tour bus service in January 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FMCSA stresses that all motor carriers operating in the United
States must comply with all applicable FMCSRs, including those that
cross-reference FMVSSs. Through our cross-references to FMVSSs, we
require motor carriers to ensure that their CMVs are equipped with
specific safety devices and systems that NHTSA requires on newly
manufactured vehicles, and that they are maintained to ensure their
continued performance. The roadside inspection program, particularly
the Level 1 inspection, will ensure that this is the case, to the
greatest extent practicable. For purposes of roadside enforcement, the
FMVSS label would be prima facie evidence of compliance with the
proposed rule. Its presence, combined with having passed a thorough
inspection by trained safety enforcement officials, would ensure that
CMVs comply with U.S. motor carrier safety regulations. The 24-month
timetable would not relieve these motor carriers from their
responsibility for complying with the FMCSRs, including the FMVSSs
cross-referenced therein.
This 24-month timetable would be compatible with FMCSA's NAFTA-
related rulemakings published in today's Federal Register. Current
Mexico-based holders of Certificates of Registration will be required
to file new registration applications within 18 months in order to
continue to operate in the border zones. These motor carriers will
operate under provisional authority and be subjected to a new safety
oversight program for an 18-month period after the new registration
application is granted. If FMCSA determines a motor carrier has
adequate safety-management controls, its provisional authority will
become permanent at the end of the 18-month period. See the FMCSA's
final rule concerning authority to operate in the border zones, and the
agency's Interim Final Rule concerning the safety oversight program for
Mexico-domiciled carriers, published in today's Federal Register.
The proposed implementation strategy would allow motor carriers
currently operating CMVs in the United States that do not currently
carry FMVSS certification labels sufficient time to rearrange or
supplement their existing fleets to meet the requirement that all
vehicles on the U.S. roadways have a FMVSS certification label. During
this grace period, foreign-based CMVs would still be subject to all
other FMCSA requirements, including those based on the FMVSSs cross-
referenced in the FMCSRs. FMCSA requests public comments on the
implementation strategy in general, and the 24-month grace period for
Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers that are currently operating in
the United States.
Rulemaking Analyses And Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FMCSA has determined that this proposed regulatory action is
significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the DOT because of
[[Page 12785]]
the level of public interest in rulemakings related to the motor
carrier-related provisions of NAFTA.
This proposed rule would require that all CMVs bear a label
certifying that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs in effect on
the date of manufacture. Based on the information presented here, FMCSA
anticipates that this rulemaking will have minimal economic impact on
the interstate motor carrier industry. It is extremely unlikely that
any U.S.-based motor carriers would be operating CMVs that do not
already carry the FMVSS certification label. Most foreign-based motor
carriers are probably aware of the requirement that the vehicles they
operate in the United States must comply with the applicable safety
regulations. Under FMCSA's NAFTA-related rulemakings mentioned above,
all Mexico-based motor carriers operating CMVs in the United States
would need to certify on the form OP-1 (MX) or OP-2 that the CMVs they
operate comply with the FMVSSs. This proposed rule would simply add the
requirement that the FMVSS certification label attesting to the
compliance of each vehicle be affixed to the vehicle. Since many of the
CMVs manufactured in the past several years comply with the most
complex elements of the FMVSSs, the FMCSA believes that relatively
little effort may be required to bring the vehicles into full
compliance, and that motor carriers will be interested in doing so. The
monetary penalties associated with non-compliance with the requirements
of this rule are likely to be significantly more than the potential
cost of complying.\6\ Thus, the FMCSA believes that the entities
involved would take steps to achieve compliance with the lower cost
alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Non-recordkeeping violations of part 393 are subject to
civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Vehicle Safety Act requires that vehicles be certified to meet
all applicable FMVSSs. However, because of the lack of enforcement of
this certification requirement against motor carriers, it is likely
that some motor carriers have been importing uncertified vehicles into
the United States. Some of these carriers may now be compelled to
either reduce the number of vehicles operated or else lease or purchase
certified equipment. Others may find that, although their vehicles
comply with the FMVSSs, they do not carry a certification label
attesting to that fact. The costs of retrofitting such vehicles with
certification labels would presumably be relatively small. This
uncertainty complicates the task of separately determining the impact
of this rule. The agency is interested in any information that will
help to determine the economic impact of this proposed rule on motor
carrier transportation and any additional impacts on industry
customers.
Based upon its analyses, the FMCSA believes that the vast majority
of motor carriers affected by this proposal would be able to comply
with its terms. This proposed rule would only affect the operations of
the small number of motor carriers that might elect not to bring their
CMVs into compliance with the FMVSSs and ensure that they are labeled
accordingly.
This rulemaking imposes no requirements that would generate new
costs for motor carriers. Those entities would see no change to their
operations, provided they ensure that their vehicles comply with the
FMVSSs and have the appropriate certification label attached. Based
upon the small number of motor carriers projected to be affected, and
the minimal cost of attaching a certification label once the vehicle
has been certified by the manufacturer or registered importer to meet
the FMVSSs requirements, the agency believes that the overall adverse
economic effects of this rulemaking would be minimal. This rulemaking,
if adopted, would simply require that a CMV be labeled, providing
readily-identifiable documentation of a CMV's compliance with the
FMVSSs, a cornerstone of vehicle safety.
This rulemaking would not result in inconsistency or interference
with another agency's actions or plans. The FMCSA believes that the
rights and obligations of recipients of Federal grants will not be
materially affected by this regulatory action.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612) the FMCSA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rulemaking on
small entities. As indicated above, U.S.-based motor carriers would not
be subject to any new requirements under this proposal. Generally, they
would only have access to vehicles that comply with the FMVSSs and bear
a certification label.
The motor carriers that would be economically impacted by this
rulemaking would be Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers that do not
elect to operate CMVs that comply with the FMVSSs and thus would not
carry a certification label, and those carriers whose CMVs comply but
have not ensured that their CMVs are labeled to document their
compliance.
Foreign-based motor carriers can avoid the consequences of this
proposed rule simply by operating FMVSS-compliant CMVs that carry the
certification label required under 49 CFR 567. In companion documents
in today's Federal Register, NHTSA has published: (1) A notice
announcing its policy concerning retroactive certification of vehicles;
(2) a notice of proposed rulemaking establishing record retention
requirements in connection with such certifications; and (3) a notice
of proposed rulemaking codifying its interpretation of the term
``import'' as used in the Vehicle Safety Act. FMCSA's rulemaking is
intended to ensure that motor carriers comply with the Act, as
interpreted by the Department of Transportation. Motor carriers would
work with vehicle manufacturers to comply with the proposed retroactive
certification policy. Alternatively, a motor carrier could have its
vehicles certified by a registered importer under existing NHTSA
requirements.
Therefore, the FMCSA hereby certifies that this regulatory action
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
domestic small entities. The FMCSA invites public comment on this
determination.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule would not impose a Federal mandate resulting in
the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year (2 U.S.C 1531 et seq.).
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed action 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 that 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
[[Page 12786]]
environmental health or safety effects on children.
The agency has determined that this rule is not a ``covered
regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order 13045. First, this
rule is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866
because the FMCSA has determined that the changes in this rulemaking
would not have an impact of $100 million or more in any one year.
Second, the agency has no reason to believe that the rule would result
in an environmental health risk or safety risk that would
disproportionately affect children. Mexico-domiciled motor carriers who
intend to operate commercial motor vehicles anywhere in the United
States must comply with current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
regulations and other United States environmental laws under this rule
and others being published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
Further, the agency has conducted a programmatic environmental
assessment (PEA) as discussed later in this preamble. While the PEA did
not specifically address environmental impacts on children, it did
address whether the rule would have environmental impacts in general.
Based on the PEA, the agency has determined that the proposed rule
would have no significant environmental impacts.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This proposed rule would implement a regulation applicable to CMVs
used in interstate commerce that would complement NHTSA's regulation,
applicable to all vehicles used on U.S. highways, which requires that
the vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of
manufacture, and that they bear a certification label to document their
compliance.
Motor carriers can avoid all of the implications of this mandate by
operating CMVs that are in compliance with the FMVSSs and that bear a
label documenting that fact. FMCSA believes that a large number of CMVs
manufactured in Canada and Mexico already comply with the FMVSSs.
However, many of these vehicles do not have certification labels that
meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 567. No new action is required on
the part of those motor carriers that currently operate or plan to
operate on U.S. highways FMVSS-compliant vehicles that currently bear
the certification label.
Motor carriers planning to operate FMVSS-compliant CMVs on U.S.
highways, but whose vehicles do not currently bear the certification
label, will be required to obtain certification labels in order to
comply with the requirements of the NHTSA and the proposed rule. Again,
once the CMVs bear the label to document their compliance, no further
action is required in order to comply with this proposed FMCSA rule.
However, if a motor carrier is operating or plans to operate on U.S.
highways CMVs that do not comply with the FMVSSs, the motor carrier
must take action to ensure that its vehicles are brought into
compliance and are labeled to document that compliance. The action
required would depend on the specific parts of the FMVSSs that the CMV
does not comply with. For example, a CMV might comply with all of the
FMVSSs with the exception of the portion of 49 CFR 571.119, New
Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The cost and
complexity of bringing the CMV into compliance would be relatively low.
On the other hand, if a CMV were not in compliance with 49 CFR 571.121,
Air Brake Systems, because it was manufactured after the effective date
of that regulation but was not equipped with antilock brakes, it may
not be possible to bring it into compliance. The FMCSA stresses that
the cost of bringing a CMV into compliance, or the cost to the user of
not being able to operate a non-FMVSS-compliant CMV on U.S. highways,
is a cost that would need to be borne in order to comply with existing
Federal law. Once the vehicle is brought into compliance, and so
labeled, the FMCSA requires no additional action on the motor carrier's
part.
The FMCSA therefore certifies that this rule has no takings
implications under the Fifth Amendment or Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999. The
FMCSA has determined this proposed rule does not have a substantial
direct effect on, or sufficient federalism implications for, the
States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States.
These proposed changes to the FMCSRs would not directly preempt any
State law or regulation. They would not impose additional costs or
burdens on the States. Although the States are required to adopt part
393 as a condition for receiving Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program grants, the additional training and orientation that would be
required for roadside enforcement officials would be minimal, and it
would be covered under the existing grant program. Also, this action
would not have a significant effect on the States' ability to execute
traditional State governmental functions.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor Carrier
Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action would not involve an information collection
that is subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is a new
administration within the Department of Transportation (DOT). The FMCSA
is currently developing an agency order that will comply with all
statutory and regulatory policies under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We expect the draft FMCSA
Order to appear in the Federal Register for public comment in the near
future. The framework of the FMCSA Order is consistent with and
reflects the procedures for considering environmental impacts under DOT
Order 5610.1C. FMCSA has analyzed this proposal under the NEPA and DOT
Order 5610.1C, and has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI). The FONSI and the environmental assessment are in the docket
to this proposal.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393
Highway and roads, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle equipment, Motor
vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FMCSA proposes to amend
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, subchapter B, Chapter III, part
393 as follows:
PART 393--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 1041(b) of Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914;
49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73.
2. Add Sec. 393.8 to read as follows:
[[Page 12787]]
Sec. 393.8 Vehicle Manufacturer's Certification Label
(a) On or after [the effective date of the final rule], each
commercial motor vehicle must have a label:
(1) Affixed by the vehicle manufacturer certifying that the vehicle
was built to meet all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSSs) (codified in 49 CFR part 571) in effect on the date of
manufacture; or
(2) Affixed by a registered importer, as defined in 49 CFR part
592, certifying that the vehicle has been modified in order to conform
with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture.
(b) The certification labels required by this section must comply
with the requirements of 49 CFR part 567.
(c) Exception for Vehicles Operated by Canada and Mexico-based
Motor Carriers Conducting Operations in the United States Before
[effective date of the final rule]. Commercial motor vehicles added to
a Canada or Mexico-based motor carrier's fleet on or after [effective
date of the final rule], or introduced into service in the United
States on or after that date, must comply with paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section. Commercial motor vehicles that are part of these
carriers' existing fleets of vehicles operated in the United States
before [effective date of the final rule] may be operated without a
certification label that meets the requirements of 49 CFR part 567,
until [date 24 months after the effective date of the final rule]. Such
vehicles must still comply with all other requirements of part 393.
Issued on: March 7, 2002.
Joseph M. Clapp,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-5893 Filed 3-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
|
|
|
