# 71 FR 76796: Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-21380

## Section

- **Citation:** 71 FR 76796
- **Heading:** Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 71 / 71 FR 76796

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 385, 386, 390, 392, 393, 396, and Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III [Docket No. FMCSA-2005-23315] RIN 2126-AA86 Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment AGENCY:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

SUMMARY:
FMCSA proposes regulations for entities offering intermodal chassis to motor carriers for transportation of intermodal containers in interstate commerce. As mandated by section 4118 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), this rulemaking would require intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) to register and file with FMCSA an Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report (Form MCS-150C); display the USDOT Number, or other unique identifier, on each intermodal container chassis offered for transportation in interstate commerce; establish a systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance program to ensure the safe operating condition of each intermodal container chassis; maintain documentation of the program; and provide a means to effectively respond to driver and motor carrier reports about intermodal container chassis mechanical defects and deficiencies. The proposed regulations would for the first time make IEPs subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The agency is also proposing additional inspection requirements for motor carriers and drivers operating intermodal equipment. The intent of this rulemaking is to ensure that intermodal equipment used to transport intermodal containers is safe and systematically maintained. Improved maintenance is expected to result in fewer out-of-service orders and highway breakdowns involving intermodal chassis and improved efficiency of the Nation's intermodal transportation system
carriers and drivers operating intermodal equipment. The intent of this rulemaking is to ensure that intermodal equipment used to transport intermodal containers is safe and systematically maintained. Improved maintenance is expected to result in fewer out-of-service orders and highway breakdowns involving intermodal chassis and improved efficiency of the Nation's intermodal transportation system. To whatever extent inadequately maintained intermodal chassis are responsible for, or contribute to, crashes, this proposal would also help to ensure that commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operations are safer.

DATES:
Comments must be received by March 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
Comments should refer to Docket No. FMCSA-2005-23315, and may be filed in electronic form, mailed, or delivered to the following addresses:
• The USDOT Docket Management System (DMS) on the Web-based form at the Web link: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit , and type only the last 5 digits of the docket number (23315) to access the docket. If you file an electronic comment, we recommend that your name and other contact information be included.
• Through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov , using the Regulation Identification Number (RIN 2126-AA86) and following instructions on the Web-based form.
• Facsimile (Fax): 1-202-493-2251.
• Mail or Deliver to: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401 (Nassif Building on the Plaza Level), Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Instructions: If you want the agency to acknowledge your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard, or simply print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting your comments electronically.
Public Participation: All public comments and related material concerning this proposed rule in Docket No. FMCSA-2005-23315, whether in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the agency, and will be available to the public on the DMS Web site: http://dms.dot.gov
ed envelope or postcard, or simply print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting your comments electronically.
Public Participation: All public comments and related material concerning this proposed rule in Docket No. FMCSA-2005-23315, whether in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the agency, and will be available to the public on the DMS Web site: http://dms.dot.gov . The agency will also consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. Comments may be read and/or copied at the Docket Management facility, located at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL-401 on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building, Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone may view or download comments submitted in any of DOT's dockets by the name of the commenter or name of the person signing the comment (if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other entity). More information about DOT's privacy policy may be found in DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 19477, or on the DMS Web site: http://dms.dot.gov .
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Deborah M. Freund, (202) 366-4009, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division (MC-PSV), Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Table of Contents
I. Background Legal Basis for the Rulemaking Previous Rulemaking Efforts to Improve Chassis Maintenance SAFETEA-LU Requirements Codified at 49 U.S.C. 31151 II
and Roadside Operations Division (MC-PSV), Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Table of Contents
I. Background Legal Basis for the Rulemaking Previous Rulemaking Efforts to Improve Chassis Maintenance SAFETEA-LU Requirements Codified at 49 U.S.C. 31151 II. Current Rulemaking To Improve Intermodal Equipment Safety Rulemaking Proposal Part 385—Safety Fitness Procedures Part 386—Rules of Practice Part 390—Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations Part 392—Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles Part 393—Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation Part 396—Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance Appendix G to Subchapter B—Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards Proposed Enforcement Plans Review of maintenance programs Imminent hazard determinations Preemption of State Statutes or Regulations Relationships among Intermodal Parties and Allocation of Liability International Implications III. Analysis Of Safety Data Analysis of Roadside Inspection Data in 4 States Roadside Inspection Violation Data Analysis All Intermodal Container Chassis Violations Intermodal Container Chassis Violations by State Vehicle Out-of-Service Violations by State National Inspection Data—Violations for Calendar Year 2003 FMCSA's Analysis of the Data IV. Estimated Number Of Equipment Providers And Intermodal Container Chassis Equipment Providers Intermodal Container Chassis Population V
de Inspection Violation Data Analysis All Intermodal Container Chassis Violations Intermodal Container Chassis Violations by State Vehicle Out-of-Service Violations by State National Inspection Data—Violations for Calendar Year 2003 FMCSA's Analysis of the Data IV. Estimated Number Of Equipment Providers And Intermodal Container Chassis Equipment Providers Intermodal Container Chassis Population V. Regulatory Analyses And Notices Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures Estimated Compliance Costs for Intermodal Equipment Providers Establishing a Systematic Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance (IRM) Program Recordkeeping Total Compliance Costs of the Proposed Regulations Safety and Economic Benefits of Improving Container Chassis Maintenance Benefits Associated With Increased Operational Efficiency Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis Intergovernmental Review Paperwork Reduction Act National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) Energy Effects Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Civil Justice Reform Protection of Children Taking of Private Property Federalism Regulation Identification Number List of Subjects I. Background
Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act) and section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, at 1729, August 10, 2005, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31151).
The 1984 Act provides authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary of Transportation to “prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for commercial motor vehicles
ction 4118 of SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, at 1729, August 10, 2005, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31151).
The 1984 Act provides authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary of Transportation to “prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for commercial motor vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that: (1) Commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely; and (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators.” 49 U.S.C. 31136(a).
This NPRM would establish a program to ensure that intermodal equipment (primarily chassis) 1 interchanged to motor carriers and used to transport intermodal containers is safe and systematically maintained. An intermodal chassis meets the definition of a “commercial motor vehicle” under 49 U.S.C. 31132(1)(A) because it “has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of at least 10,001 pounds * * *” The NPRM is based primarily on section 31136(a)(1), especially the mandates dealing with maintenance and equipment, and secondarily on section 31136(a)(4). Entities that interchange intermodal equipment to motor carriers would be required to establish a program to systematically inspect, repair, and maintain that equipment, if they do not already have such a program in place.
1 The intermodal equipment described are intermodal container chassis specifically designed to transport cargo containers
nd equipment, and secondarily on section 31136(a)(4). Entities that interchange intermodal equipment to motor carriers would be required to establish a program to systematically inspect, repair, and maintain that equipment, if they do not already have such a program in place.
1 The intermodal equipment described are intermodal container chassis specifically designed to transport cargo containers. The loaded cargo containers are transported on ships and trains to various ports and rail facilities in the United States and then transferred to chassis trailers for transportation by highway to their final destination. Similarly, empty containers may be loaded at shippers' facilities in the United States, and then transported on a chassis trailer to ports and rail yards for subsequent portions of the movement to be handled by additional modes to other destinations in the United States or abroad. Chassis trailers carrying containerized cargo are used to transport more than $450 billion in cargo entering and leaving the United States annually.
Section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU added new section 31151, entitled “Roadability,” to subchapter III of chapter 311 of title 49, United States Code. Section 31151(a)(1) requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to be codified in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) “to ensure that intermodal equipment used to transport intermodal containers is safe and systematically maintained.” Section 31151(a)(3) specifies, in considerable detail, a minimum of 14 items that must be included in the regulations, each of which is discussed later in the preamble and included in the proposed rules or existing agency procedures. Departmental employees designated by the Secretary are authorized to inspect intermodal equipment, and copy related maintenance and repair records (section 31151(b))
Section 31151(a)(3) specifies, in considerable detail, a minimum of 14 items that must be included in the regulations, each of which is discussed later in the preamble and included in the proposed rules or existing agency procedures. Departmental employees designated by the Secretary are authorized to inspect intermodal equipment, and copy related maintenance and repair records (section 31151(b)). Any intermodal equipment that fails to comply with applicable Federal safety regulations may be placed out of service by Departmental or other Federal, State, or governmental officials designated by the Secretary until the necessary repairs have been made (section 31151(c)). State, local, or tribal requirements inconsistent with a regulation adopted pursuant to section 31151 are preempted (section 31151(d)). Specifically, a State requirement for the periodic inspection of intermodal chassis by intermodal equipment providers that was in effect on January 1, 2005, is preempted on the effective date of the final regulation resulting from this rulemaking (section 31151(e)(1)), but preemption may be waived upon application by the State if the Secretary finds that the State requirement is as effective as the Federal requirement and does not unduly burden interstate commerce (section 31151(e)(2)).
All of these provisions of SAFETEA-LU are discussed in the preamble and embodied in the regulatory text of this NPRM.
Previous Rulemaking Efforts To Improve Chassis Maintenance
On February 17, 1999 (64 FR 7849), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which then had responsibility for commercial motor vehicle safety, published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning inspection, repair, and maintenance responsibilities for intermodal container chassis. The ANPRM was in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by the American Trucking Associations (ATA)
ruary 17, 1999 (64 FR 7849), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which then had responsibility for commercial motor vehicle safety, published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning inspection, repair, and maintenance responsibilities for intermodal container chassis. The ANPRM was in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by the American Trucking Associations (ATA). ATA argued that rail carriers, ocean carriers, and other entities that offer container chassis for transportation in interstate commerce frequently fail to ensure the container chassis are in safe and proper operating condition. ATA believed poor maintenance of this intermodal equipment was a serious safety problem and requested FHWA to make the equipment providers responsible for the roadworthiness of the container chassis tendered to motor carriers.
ATA requested that the FMCSRs be amended to make intermodal equipment providers subject to 49 CFR part 396, concerning inspection, repair, and maintenance of commercial motor vehicles. Under the ATA proposal, equipment providers would have been prohibited from offering an intermodal container chassis for transportation in such condition that it would likely cause a crash or a breakdown of the vehicle. Motor carriers would have been prohibited from certifying to equipment providers that the intermodal container chassis or container meets applicable safety regulations, unless the equipment provider provided the motor carrier with adequate equipment, time, and the proper facilities to make a full inspection of the container chassis and any necessary repairs to the equipment prior to the tendering of the equipment to the motor carrier for operation in interstate commerce
viders that the intermodal container chassis or container meets applicable safety regulations, unless the equipment provider provided the motor carrier with adequate equipment, time, and the proper facilities to make a full inspection of the container chassis and any necessary repairs to the equipment prior to the tendering of the equipment to the motor carrier for operation in interstate commerce. ATA also requested that the regulations be amended so motor carriers would not be liable for civil or criminal penalties for operating a container chassis, or transporting a container that did not meet the applicable safety requirements, if the equipment was offered for transportation in an unsafe or poor condition.
On October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56478), as follow-up to the ANPRM, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) announced a series of public meetings for motor carriers, equipment providers, and other interested parties to discuss inspection, repair, and maintenance practices for ensuring that container chassis and trailers are in safe and proper operating condition at all times. Representatives from the FHWA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Maritime Administration (MARAD), and OST participated in the listening sessions. These sessions were intended to help DOT broaden its knowledge of the safety implications of industry practices involving terminal operators
On November 29, 2002 (67 FR 71127), FMCSA published a notice announcing the agency would study the feasibility of using the Negotiated Rulemaking process to develop rulemaking options concerning the maintenance of intermodal container chassis and trailers. The neutral convener hired by FMCSA interviewed individuals and organizations that represented interests most likely to be substantially affected by a rulemaking concerning this subject, and concluded that a negotiated rulemaking was unlikely to produce a set of consensus recommendations to FMCSA
to develop rulemaking options concerning the maintenance of intermodal container chassis and trailers. The neutral convener hired by FMCSA interviewed individuals and organizations that represented interests most likely to be substantially affected by a rulemaking concerning this subject, and concluded that a negotiated rulemaking was unlikely to produce a set of consensus recommendations to FMCSA. Therefore, FMCSA decided not to conduct a negotiated rulemaking on this subject, and concluded that it would be best to withdraw the ANPRM and to start afresh.
On December 31, 2003 (68 FR 75478), FMCSA published a notice withdrawing the ANPRM. While FMCSA could quantify the costs of regulatory options that could potentially result in improved maintenance practices by equipment providers, there was insufficient data to quantify the safety benefits of a rulemaking based on the ATA petition. Available data showed that a significant number of container chassis dispatched from intermodal terminals were later found to have safety defects during roadside inspections, but the relationship between these defects and crash causation had not been substantiated.
In January of 2004, the Secretary announced that DOT would launch a safety inspection program for intermodal container chassis. The inspection program would provide added oversight to help ensure that intermodal container chassis used by motor carriers to transport intermodal cargo containers from seaports and rail yards are in safe and proper working order. The Secretary said:
“Every day millions of dollars worth of cargo are transferred from ships and rail to trailer beds and hauled away by trucks. It is essential that we have a full and complete safety program focused on the trailer beds used to haul cargo containers.”
The Secretary explained the new inspection program would be modeled after FMCSA's compliance review program already in place for the nation's interstate motor carriers
s of dollars worth of cargo are transferred from ships and rail to trailer beds and hauled away by trucks. It is essential that we have a full and complete safety program focused on the trailer beds used to haul cargo containers.”
The Secretary explained the new inspection program would be modeled after FMCSA's compliance review program already in place for the nation's interstate motor carriers. Intermodal equipment providers would be required to obtain a USDOT Number or other unique identifier and display it on their container chassis so that safety performance data could be captured and attributed to the equipment provided. FMCSA would apply the same civil penalty structure and enforcement actions used for motor carriers to intermodal equipment providers that demonstrate patterns of non-compliance with the FMCSRs.
As part of this new activity, FMCSA compiled and analyzed additional intermodal chassis inspection data from 38 States. The information derived from this analysis, particularly violations that caused vehicles to be placed out of service, provided evidence that intermodal equipment failed to meet the FMCSRs more often than non-intermodal equipment.
SAFETEA—LU Requirements Codified at 49 U.S.C. 31151
Section 4118 of SAFETEA—LU amended 49 U.S.C., chapter 311, by adding new section 31151 (49 U.S.C. 31151) titled “Roadability.” Section 31151 states:
The Secretary of Transportation, after providing notice and opportunity for comment, shall issue regulations establishing a program to ensure that intermodal equipment used to transport intermodal containers is safe and systematically maintained
1
Section 4118 of SAFETEA—LU amended 49 U.S.C., chapter 311, by adding new section 31151 (49 U.S.C. 31151) titled “Roadability.” Section 31151 states:
The Secretary of Transportation, after providing notice and opportunity for comment, shall issue regulations establishing a program to ensure that intermodal equipment used to transport intermodal containers is safe and systematically maintained.
Section 31151(a)(3) lists 14 elements to be included in the regulations as follows:
“(A) a requirement to identify intermodal equipment providers responsible for the inspection and maintenance of intermodal equipment that is interchanged or intended for interchange to motor carriers in intermodal transportation;
“(B) a requirement to match intermodal equipment readily to an intermodal equipment provider through a unique identifying number;
“(C) a requirement that an intermodal equipment provider identified under subparagraph (A) systematically inspect, repair, and maintain, or cause to be systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained, intermodal equipment described in subparagraph (A) that is intended for interchange with a motor carrier;
“(D) a requirement to ensure that each intermodal equipment provider identified under subparagraph (A) maintains a system of maintenance and repair records for such equipment;
“(E) requirements that—
“(i) a specific list of intermodal equipment components or items be identified for the visual or audible inspection of which a driver is responsible before operating the equipment over the road; and
“(ii) the inspection under clause (i) be conducted as part of the Federal requirement in effect on the date of enactment of this Act that a driver be satisfied that the intermodal equipment components are in good working order before the equipment is operated over the road;
“(F) a requirement that a facility at which an intermodal equipment provider regularly makes intermodal equipment available for interchange have an operational process and space readily available for
uirement in effect on the date of enactment of this Act that a driver be satisfied that the intermodal equipment components are in good working order before the equipment is operated over the road;
“(F) a requirement that a facility at which an intermodal equipment provider regularly makes intermodal equipment available for interchange have an operational process and space readily available for a motor carrier to have an equipment defect identified pursuant to subparagraph (E) repaired or the equipment replaced prior to departure;
“(G) a program for the evaluation and audit of compliance by intermodal equipment providers with applicable Federal motor carrier safety regulations;
“(H) a civil penalty structure consistent with section 521(b) of title 49, United States Code, for intermodal equipment providers that fail to attain satisfactory compliance with applicable Federal motor carrier safety regulations;
“(I) a prohibition on intermodal equipment providers from placing intermodal equipment in service on the public highways to the extent such providers or their equipment are found to pose an imminent hazard;
“(J) a process by which motor carriers and agents of motor carriers shall be able to request the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to undertake an investigation of an intermodal equipment provider identified under subparagraph (A) that is alleged to be not in compliance with the regulations under this section;
“(K) a process by which equipment providers and agents of equipment providers shall be able to request the Administration to undertake an investigation of a motor carrier that is alleged to be not in compliance with the regulations issued under this section;
“(L) a process by which a driver or motor carrier transporting intermodal equipment is required to report to the intermodal equipment provider or the provider's designated agent any actual damage or defect in the intermodal equipment of which the driver or motor carrier is aware at the time the intermodal equipment is returne
o be not in compliance with the regulations issued under this section;
“(L) a process by which a driver or motor carrier transporting intermodal equipment is required to report to the intermodal equipment provider or the provider's designated agent any actual damage or defect in the intermodal equipment of which the driver or motor carrier is aware at the time the intermodal equipment is returned to the intermodal equipment provider or the provider's designated agent;
“(M) a requirement that any actual damage or defect identified in the process established under subparagraph (L) be repaired before the equipment is made available for interchange to a motor carrier and that repairs of equipment made pursuant to the requirements of this subparagraph and reports made pursuant to the subparagraph (L) process be documented in the maintenance records for such equipment; and
“(N) a procedure under which motor carriers, drivers and intermodal equipment providers may seek correction of their motor carrier safety records through the deletion from those records of violations of safety regulations attributable to deficiencies in the intermodal chassis or trailer for which they should not have been held responsible.”
Section 31151(b) authorizes the Secretary or DOT employee designated by the Secretary to inspect intermodal equipment, and copy related maintenance and repair records for such equipment, on demand and display of proper credentials. Section 31151(c) extends the authority of Federal, State,
Section 31151(d) preempts statutes, regulations, orders, or other requirements of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a tribal government relating to CMV safety, if the law, regulation, order, or other requirement exceeds or is inconsistent with Federal rules adopted to implement the roadability statute
of proper credentials. Section 31151(c) extends the authority of Federal, State,
Section 31151(d) preempts statutes, regulations, orders, or other requirements of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a tribal government relating to CMV safety, if the law, regulation, order, or other requirement exceeds or is inconsistent with Federal rules adopted to implement the roadability statute. Section 31151(e)(2) authorizes the Secretary to make a nonpreemption determination if the State requirement for the inspection and maintenance of intermodal chassis by intermodal equipment providers was in effect on or before January 1, 2005, and is as effective as the Federal requirement and does not unduly burden interstate commerce. Subsequent amendments to State requirements that were not preempted must be submitted to the agency for a preemption determination. State provisions that would be preempted may remain in effect only until the date on which implementing regulations under this section take effect. Finally, section 31151(f) defines the terms “intermodal equipment,” “intermodal equipment interchange agreement,” “intermodal equipment provider,” and “interchange.”
II. Current Rulemaking To Improve Intermodal Equipment Safety
Rulemaking Proposal
The proposed regulations would, for the first time, make intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) subject to the FMCSRs. The new requirements would ensure that intermodal container chassis and trailers tendered to motor carriers by steamship lines, railroads, terminal operators, chassis pools, etc., comply with the applicable motor carrier safety regulations. The explicit inclusion of equipment providers in the scope of FMCSRs would ensure that intermodal equipment providers would be subject to the same enforcement proceedings, orders, and civil penalties as those applied to motor carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders. The proposed rule would also impose additional requirements on motor carriers and drivers operating intermodal equipment
. The explicit inclusion of equipment providers in the scope of FMCSRs would ensure that intermodal equipment providers would be subject to the same enforcement proceedings, orders, and civil penalties as those applied to motor carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders. The proposed rule would also impose additional requirements on motor carriers and drivers operating intermodal equipment.
FMCSA proposes to address the SAFETEA-LU requirements by adding to 49 CFR part 390, a new subpart C titled “Requirements and Information for Intermodal Equipment Providers and for Motor Carriers Operating Intermodal Equipment.” In addition, we would amend parts 385, 386, 390, 392, 393, and 396, as well as Appendix G to Subchapter B, to make the appropriate sections applicable to IEPs. With these proposed changes to the current FMCSRs, the agency will address the SAFETEA-LU requirements codified at 49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3):
• A roadability review based on elements of the Safety Fitness Procedures to enable FMCSA to assess the safety of equipment tendered by IEPs (part 385).Section 31151(a)(3)(G).
• Application of FMCSA Rules of Practice for safety compliance proceedings (part 386). Sections 31151(a)(3)(H) and (I).
• Compliance with general safety regulations, including filing of an Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report (FMCSA Form MCS-150C), and display of the intermodal equipment provider's USDOT number or other unique identification number on intermodal equipment (part 390). Sections 31151(a)(3)(A), (B), (C), (D), (J), (K), and (N).
• Provisions for CMV drivers to inspect specific intermodal equipment components and be satisfied that they are in good working order before the equipment is operated over the road (part 392). Sections 31151(a)(3)(E) and (F).
• Extension of the applicability of regulations concerning parts and accessories necessary for safe operation to intermodal equipment and IEPs (part 393).Sections 31151(a)(3)(C)
visions for CMV drivers to inspect specific intermodal equipment components and be satisfied that they are in good working order before the equipment is operated over the road (part 392). Sections 31151(a)(3)(E) and (F).
• Extension of the applicability of regulations concerning parts and accessories necessary for safe operation to intermodal equipment and IEPs (part 393).Sections 31151(a)(3)(C).
• Extension of the applicability of regulations concerning inspection, repair, and maintenance of CMVs to IEPs (part 396). Sections 31151(a)(3)(C), (D), (L), and (M).
The proposed changes to each part are described below.
Part 385—Safety Fitness Procedures
FMCSA proposes to conduct roadability reviews in order to evaluate the safety and regulatory compliance status of IEPs. This activity would consist of an on-site examination of an intermodal equipment provider's inspection, repair, and maintenance operation and records to determine its compliance with applicable FMCSRs (i.e., parts 390, 393, and 396). However, FMCSA would not issue safety ratings to IEPs.
FMCSA would use its Safety Status Measurement System (SafeStat) to identify and prioritize which IEPs would be subject to a roadability review. SafeStat is an automated, data-driven analysis system designed to incorporate current on-road safety performance information on all motor carriers, and IEPs, with on-site reviews and enforcement history information, when available, in order to measure relative safety fitness. SafeStat plays an important role in determining the safety fitness in several FMCSA/State programs including the Performance and Registration Information Systems Management, National Compliance Review Prioritization, and the roadside Inspection Selection System. FMCSA would use the system to continuously quantify and monitor changes in the safety status of IEPs. The agency's initial focus would be on the Vehicle Safety Evaluation Area (SEA). For more information about SafeStat, visit FMCSA's “SafeStat Online” at URL: http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov
rmation Systems Management, National Compliance Review Prioritization, and the roadside Inspection Selection System. FMCSA would use the system to continuously quantify and monitor changes in the safety status of IEPs. The agency's initial focus would be on the Vehicle Safety Evaluation Area (SEA). For more information about SafeStat, visit FMCSA's “SafeStat Online” at URL: http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov.
In addition to IEPs that are identified in SafeStat, a roadability review may be conducted on an IEP that falls into one of the following categories: (1) The provider is the subject of a complaint that FMCSA determines to be non-frivolous; (2) the provider has equipment involved in a pattern of recordable crashes or hazardous materials incidents; (3) the provider requests FMCSA to conduct a review of its operations; (4) the provider demonstrates a pattern of non-compliance; or (5) the agency determines there is a need for a review.
FMCSA would conduct roadability reviews under proposed §§ 385.501 and 385.503 using the current framework of the Compliance Analysis and Performance Review Information System (CAPRI). The CAPRI application provides a standardized method for conducting reviews on motor carriers, hazardous materials shippers, and cargo tank facilities. It is also used for safety audits on new carriers and Mexico-domiciled carriers seeking to operate in the United States. The application includes extensive checking for data integrity and electronic file transfer for expediting data flow, and is for use by both Federal and State enforcement officials.
Under proposed § 385.503, if FMCSA finds violations of parts 390, 393, or 396, the agency would cite the IEP for those violations. The agency may also impose civil penalties according to the civil penalty structure contained in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)
ensive checking for data integrity and electronic file transfer for expediting data flow, and is for use by both Federal and State enforcement officials.
Under proposed § 385.503, if FMCSA finds violations of parts 390, 393, or 396, the agency would cite the IEP for those violations. The agency may also impose civil penalties according to the civil penalty structure contained in 49 U.S.C. 521(b). FMCSA may prohibit an intermodal equipment provider from tendering any intermodal equipment
Part 386—Rules of Practice
FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 386 concerning rules of practice for enforcement proceedings before its Assistant Administrator. The purpose of the proposed changes is to apply part 386 to intermodal equipment providers now subject to FMCSA jurisdiction.
Section 386.1 Scope of the rules of this part. FMCSA would amend existing § 386.1 to include an explicit reference to intermodal equipment providers. They would be subject to the same enforcement proceedings, orders, and civil penalties as motor carriers, property brokers, and freight forwarders, with respect to the safety of their equipment tendered and their oversight of inspection, repair, and maintenance of that equipment.
Section 386.83 Sanction for failure to pay civil penalties or abide by payment plan; operation in interstate commerce prohibited. FMCSA proposes to amend § 386.83 to extend the applicability of this section to intermodal equipment providers.
Part 390—Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
Section 390.3 General applicability. Section 390.3(h) would explicitly state that intermodal equipment providers are subject to parts 385, safety fitness procedures; 386, rules of practice; 390 (except § 390.15(b)); 393, parts and accessories necessary for safe operation; and 396, inspection, repair, and maintenance of commercial motor vehicles.
Section 390.5 Definitions
ier Safety Regulations
Section 390.3 General applicability. Section 390.3(h) would explicitly state that intermodal equipment providers are subject to parts 385, safety fitness procedures; 386, rules of practice; 390 (except § 390.15(b)); 393, parts and accessories necessary for safe operation; and 396, inspection, repair, and maintenance of commercial motor vehicles.
Section 390.5 Definitions. FMCSA would add definitions of “interchange,” “intermodal equipment,” “intermodal equipment interchange agreement,” and “intermodal equipment provider” to § 390.5 to provide a consistent vocabulary for dealing with intermodal equipment issues. These definitions are identical to the definitions for these terms included in 49 U.S.C. 31151(f). “Interchange” would be the word used to describe the act of providing intermodal equipment to a motor carrier. Leasing equipment to a motor carrier is not included in this term.
“Intermodal equipment” rather than intermodal container chassis would be the term used in the regulation. Though intermodal container chassis are by far the most common variety of intermodal equipment, FMCSA decided to propose a broader term “intermodal equipment” to cover all the different kinds of trailers, chassis, and associated devices used to transport intermodal containers.
“Intermodal equipment interchange agreement” would describe the written agreement between an intermodal equipment provider and a motor carrier, which establishes the responsibilities and liabilities of both parties. The Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement is commonly used for this purpose.
“Intermodal equipment provider” would describe the party that interchanges the intermodal equipment with the motor carrier, and that, under these proposed rules, would be responsible for systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance of the intermodal equipment.
Section 390.15 Assistance in investigations and special studies
ge and Facilities Access Agreement is commonly used for this purpose.
“Intermodal equipment provider” would describe the party that interchanges the intermodal equipment with the motor carrier, and that, under these proposed rules, would be responsible for systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance of the intermodal equipment.
Section 390.15 Assistance in investigations and special studies. FMCSA would amend § 390.15(a) to add a reference to intermodal equipment providers, requiring them to provide records, information, and assistance in an investigation of an accident, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5. Intermodal equipment providers would not be required to maintain the accident register required of motor carriers in § 390.15(b), but any accident information they do retain must be made available to investigators upon request.
Section 390.19 Motor carrier, HM shipper, and intermodal equipment provider identification reports. FMCSA would require intermodal equipment providers to file an Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report, Form MCS-150C and to update it every two years.
Section 390.21 Marking of self-propelled CMVs, and intermodal equipment. FMCSA would require intermodal equipment providers ( i.e. , the entity tendering the equipment, which may or may not be the owner) to mark intermodal equipment with an identification number issued by FMCSA. This number could be a USDOT number or another unique identification number. The USDOT number is used to identify all motor carriers in FMCSA's registration/information systems. It is also used by States as the key identifier in the Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM) project, a cooperative Federal/State program that makes motor carrier safety a requirement for obtaining and keeping commercial motor vehicle registration and privileges. FMCSA seeks comment on what other unique identification numbers could serve the same purpose as the USDOT number
also used by States as the key identifier in the Performance and Registration Information Systems Management (PRISM) project, a cooperative Federal/State program that makes motor carrier safety a requirement for obtaining and keeping commercial motor vehicle registration and privileges. FMCSA seeks comment on what other unique identification numbers could serve the same purpose as the USDOT number.
Part 390, Subpart C—Requirements and Information for Intermodal Equipment Providers and for Motor Carriers Operating Intermodal Equipment
FMCSA proposes a new subpart C, §§ 390.40-390.44, to address the specific requirements for intermodal equipment providers in SAFETEA-LU.
Proposed § 390.40 lists all of the responsibilities of an intermodal equipment provider, including identifying its operations to FMCSA; marking intermodal equipment; inspecting, repairing, and maintaining the equipment; keeping records of inspection, repair, and maintenance; providing procedures and facilities for inspection, repair, and maintenance; and refraining from placing equipment in service if the equipment would pose an imminent hazard, as defined in § 386.72(b)(1).
Proposed paragraph (h) of § 390.40 requires that any repairs or replacements must be made in a timely manner after a driver notifies the provider of such damage, defects, or deficiencies. FMCSA proposes a limited timeframe for repair or replacement actions because, in the intermodal sector, drivers' income is usually based upon the number of trips a driver can complete in a day. Drivers who report defects or deficiencies to equipment providers face potential delays in leaving the ports or terminals while waiting for a container chassis to be repaired or replaced. Therefore, FMCSA wishes to reduce the amount of time that drivers may have to wait after pointing out defects or deficiencies, thereby encouraging the driver to make such reports
s a driver can complete in a day. Drivers who report defects or deficiencies to equipment providers face potential delays in leaving the ports or terminals while waiting for a container chassis to be repaired or replaced. Therefore, FMCSA wishes to reduce the amount of time that drivers may have to wait after pointing out defects or deficiencies, thereby encouraging the driver to make such reports. Driver reports will bring potential equipment defects and deficiencies to the equipment provider's attention so they can be remedied. Operating safe equipment is clearly in the drivers'—and FMCSA's—interest.
Proposed § 390.42(a) and (b) prescribe procedures for intermodal equipment providers and motor carriers to request correction of publicly-accessible safety violation information for which the intermodal equipment provider or motor carrier should not have been held responsible. An intermodal equipment provider or motor carrier would use FMCSA's DataQs system for this purpose. The DataQs system is an electronic means for filing concerns
Proposed § 390.42(c) and (d) prescribe procedures for requesting that FMCSA investigate any motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider that may be in noncompliance with FMCSA requirements.
Proposed § 390.44 prescribes the responsibilities of drivers and motor carriers, as opposed to intermodal equipment providers, when operating intermodal equipment. The driver would be required to make a pre-trip inspection and would not be allowed to operate the equipment on the highway if the equipment is not in good working order. The driver or the motor carrier would also be required to report any damage or deficiencies in the equipment at the time the equipment is returned to the provider. This report would have to include, at a minimum, the items listed in § 396.11(a)(2).
Proposed § 390.46 would address preemption by the FMCSRs of State and local laws and regulations concerning inspection, repair, and maintenance
rder. The driver or the motor carrier would also be required to report any damage or deficiencies in the equipment at the time the equipment is returned to the provider. This report would have to include, at a minimum, the items listed in § 396.11(a)(2).
Proposed § 390.46 would address preemption by the FMCSRs of State and local laws and regulations concerning inspection, repair, and maintenance. Generally, a law, regulation, order, or other requirement of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a tribal organization relating to the inspection, repair, and maintenance of intermodal equipment is preempted if such law, regulation, order, or other requirement exceeds or is inconsistent with a requirement imposed by the FMCSRs.
Part 392—Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles
FMCSA proposes to amend § 392.7 to cover intermodal equipment similar to the current requirements for other CMVs. The proposal would require drivers preparing to transport intermodal equipment to make a visual or audible inspection of specific components of intermodal equipment, and to satisfy the driver that the intermodal equipment was in good working order before operating it over the road.
Part 393—Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation
FMCSA proposes to revise § 393.1 to make equipment providers responsible for offering in interstate commerce intermodal equipment that is equipped with all required parts and accessories. The proposed changes would ensure each required component and system is in safe and proper working order. This requirement is separate and distinct from the provisions of part 396, which cover responsibilities for inspection, repair, and maintenance of the CMV or chassis, without specifying all of the parts and accessories necessary for safe operation.
Part 396—Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance
Part 396 would be amended to require intermodal equipment providers to establish a systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance program and to maintain records documenting the program
ver responsibilities for inspection, repair, and maintenance of the CMV or chassis, without specifying all of the parts and accessories necessary for safe operation.
Part 396—Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance
Part 396 would be amended to require intermodal equipment providers to establish a systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance program and to maintain records documenting the program. Equipment providers would also be required to comply with FMCSA's periodic and annual inspection regulations. Furthermore, intermodal equipment providers would be required to establish a process by which a motor carrier or driver could report the defects or deficiencies on container chassis that they discover or that are reported to them. Intermodal equipment providers would then be required to document whether they have repaired the defect or deficiency, or that repair was unnecessary, before the intermodal equipment was interchanged.
Section 396.1 Scope. FMCSA proposes to revise § 396.1 to require every intermodal equipment provider to comply with, and be knowledgeable of, the applicable FMCSA regulations.
Section 396.3 Inspection, repair, and maintenance. FMCSA proposes to amend § 396.3 to require intermodal equipment providers to be responsible for the systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance of intermodal equipment, and to keep the associated records.
Section 396.11, Driver vehicle inspection reports. FMCSA proposes to amend § 396.11 to add a new paragraph (a)(2) specifying that the intermodal equipment provider must have a process to receive reports of defects or deficiencies in the equipment. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) lists the specific components of intermodal equipment that must be included on the driver vehicle inspection report.
Section 396.12, Procedures governing the acceptance by intermodal equipment providers of reports required under § 390.44(b) of this chapter from motor carriers and drivers
must have a process to receive reports of defects or deficiencies in the equipment. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) lists the specific components of intermodal equipment that must be included on the driver vehicle inspection report.
Section 396.12, Procedures governing the acceptance by intermodal equipment providers of reports required under § 390.44(b) of this chapter from motor carriers and drivers. FMCSA would add a new § 396.12 to require intermodal equipment providers to establish a procedure to accept reports of defects or deficiencies from motor carriers or drivers, repair the defects that are likely to affect safety, and document the procedure.
Sections 396.17, Periodic Inspection, 396.19, Inspector qualifications, 396.21, Periodic inspection recordkeeping requirements, 396.23 Equivalent to periodic inspection. FMCSA proposes to revise these sections to make clear their application to intermodal equipment providers.
Section 396.25, Qualifications of brake inspectors. In its ANPRM of February 3, 1989 (54 FR 5518), concerning Federal standards for the maintenance and inspection of CMV brakes, FMCSA concluded that the legislation requiring the rulemaking action applied only to employees of motor carriers [section 9110 of the Truck and Bus Safety and Regulatory Reform Act of 1988, (Subtitle B of Title IX of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181, at 4531) now codified at 49 U.S.C. 31137(b)]. Section 9110(b) required regulations to ensure that CMV brakes are properly maintained and inspected by “appropriate employees.” Because this provision amended the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (the 1984 Act) and was codified in section 31137, “employee” had the meaning given to that term in 49 U.S.C
use Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181, at 4531) now codified at 49 U.S.C. 31137(b)]. Section 9110(b) required regulations to ensure that CMV brakes are properly maintained and inspected by “appropriate employees.” Because this provision amended the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (the 1984 Act) and was codified in section 31137, “employee” had the meaning given to that term in 49 U.S.C. 31132(2), which specifically means “a mechanic.” However, the term “employer” in section 31132(3) means, among other things, a person who “owns or leases a commercial motor vehicle * * * or assigns an employee to operate it.” The agency generally treated the 1984 Act term “employer” as equivalent to “motor carrier.” But since independent repair and maintenance shops neither own nor lease CMVs, nor assign employees to operate them, the agency concluded that mechanics (employees) who did not work for a motor carrier (employer) were not covered. “An example of this would be independent garage owners and their mechanics.” (54 FR 5518).
The example was correct, but the statutory term “employer” also describes intermodal equipment providers who own CMVs, namely intermodal chassis. Such equipment providers and their mechanics are therefore subject to the 1984 Act, including the brake inspector qualifications adopted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31137(b), which are now codified at § 396.25.
Appendix G to Subchapter B—Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards
FMCSA proposes to amend Appendix G, item 6 (Safe Loading) to add devices used to secure an intermodal container to a chassis. These devices include rails or support frames, tiedown bolsters, locking pins, clevises, clamps, and hooks.
Proposed Enforcement Plans
Review of Maintenance Programs
If this proposal is promulgated as a final rule, FMCSA would initiate reviews of intermodal equipment providers' maintenance programs similar to the reviews FMCSA currently conducts on motor carriers' safety management controls
These devices include rails or support frames, tiedown bolsters, locking pins, clevises, clamps, and hooks.
Proposed Enforcement Plans
Review of Maintenance Programs
If this proposal is promulgated as a final rule, FMCSA would initiate reviews of intermodal equipment providers' maintenance programs similar to the reviews FMCSA currently conducts on motor carriers' safety management controls.
• The reviews would examine equipment providers' compliance with FMCSA commercial motor vehicle safety regulations to which they are subject, especially parts 390, 393, and 396 and Appendix G. Intermodal equipment providers would be held responsible for the inspection, repair, and maintenance of their intermodal equipment, using standards similar to those used by motor carriers for the inspection, repair, and maintenance of their trailers.
• The reviews may be triggered when roadside inspection reports, crash report data, or driver or carrier complaints indicate a pattern of non-compliance by an equipment provider.
• FMCSA would develop a procedure to review IEPs' compliance with the applicable FMCSRs, with a focus on the safe operating condition of the intermodal equipment, the involvement of that equipment in recordable highway crashes, and the intermodal equipment provider's safety management controls. The agency would develop review procedures, enforcement procedures, and rules of practice relevant to the responsibility of equipment providers to tender roadworthy equipment to motor carriers. However, if FMCSA were to subject an intermodal equipment provider to an operations out-of-service order, the order would prevent that provider from tendering equipment to motor carriers. The order would not apply to other transportation-related activities of an intermodal equipment provider that is a steamship company or rail carrier
ent providers to tender roadworthy equipment to motor carriers. However, if FMCSA were to subject an intermodal equipment provider to an operations out-of-service order, the order would prevent that provider from tendering equipment to motor carriers. The order would not apply to other transportation-related activities of an intermodal equipment provider that is a steamship company or rail carrier. Intermodal equipment providers that fail to attain satisfactory compliance with applicable federal motor carrier safety regulations would be subject to a civil penalty structure consistent with 49 U.S.C. 521(b).
Imminent Hazard Determinations
Under 49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3)(I), the Secretary of Transportation is required to prohibit intermodal equipment providers from placing intermodal equipment in service on the public highways to the extent such providers or their equipment are found to pose an “imminent hazard.”
The authority to declare that a motor carrier poses an imminent hazard is codified in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(5). If FMCSA, after an investigation, determines that violations of the FMCSRs or the statutes under which they were established pose an “imminent hazard” to safety, the agency is required to order the vehicle or employee operating that vehicle out of service, or order a motor carrier to cease all or part of its commercial motor vehicle operations.
Imminent hazard is defined in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(5)(B) and 49 CFR 386.72(b)(1) to mean “any condition of vehicle, employee, or commercial motor vehicle operations which substantially increases the likelihood of serious injury or death if not discontinued immediately.” An imminent hazard may be a violation that is recurring and can be remedied by the carrier's ceasing the violation (e.g., an intermodal equipment provider is discovered operating intermodal equipment that has been declared out of service)
hicle, employee, or commercial motor vehicle operations which substantially increases the likelihood of serious injury or death if not discontinued immediately.” An imminent hazard may be a violation that is recurring and can be remedied by the carrier's ceasing the violation (e.g., an intermodal equipment provider is discovered operating intermodal equipment that has been declared out of service). It may also be argued that a motor carrier that continually and frequently violates multiple regulatory requirements poses an imminent hazard to the motoring public.
FMCSA proposes to issue an Imminent Hazard Out-of-Service (OOS) Order to any intermodal equipment provider whose intermodal chassis substantially increase the likelihood of serious injury or death if not taken out of service immediately, consistent with its treatment of motor carriers. Use of the Imminent Hazard OOS Order is limited to violations of certain FMCSRs (49 CFR parts 385, 386, 390-399, and some of part 383). Such an order is a serious matter and is usually a last resort when a serious safety problem exists that substantially increases the likelihood of serious injury or death and is unlikely to be resolved through any other means available.
FMCSA could issue Imminent Hazard OOS Orders to an intermodal equipment provider's: (1) Specific vehicle; (2) terminal or facility; and/or (3) all equipment tendered by the provider. Where an Imminent Hazard OOS Order is issued, the agency would only impose restrictions necessary to abate the hazard.
FMCSA's goal is to ensure compliance with its regulations and thereby ensure safety. Studies show that compliant companies have lower crash rates, better insurance rates, and pay less for crash related expenses (e.g., cargo damage, legal fees, towing, medical expenses).
Preemption of State Statutes or Regulations
Sections 31151(d) and (e) preempt certain State, political subdivision, and tribal government regulations
e compliance with its regulations and thereby ensure safety. Studies show that compliant companies have lower crash rates, better insurance rates, and pay less for crash related expenses (e.g., cargo damage, legal fees, towing, medical expenses).
Preemption of State Statutes or Regulations
Sections 31151(d) and (e) preempt certain State, political subdivision, and tribal government regulations. In general, the Federal rules would preempt the statutes, regulations, orders, or other requirements of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a tribal organization relating to commercial motor vehicle safety if the provisions of those rules exceed or are inconsistent with an FMCSA requirement. If a State requirement for the periodic inspection of intermodal chassis by intermodal equipment providers was in effect on January 1, 2005, it would remain in effect only until the effective date of a final rule.
However, a State may request a nonpreemption determination for any requirement for the periodic inspection of intermodal chassis by IEPs that was in effect on January 1, 2005. FMCSA would issue a determination if it is decided that the State requirement is as effective as the Federal requirement and does not unduly burden interstate commerce. In order to trigger this review, the State must apply to the agency for a determination before the effective date of the final rule. The agency would make a determination with respect to any such application within 6 months after the date on which it is received.
If a State amends a regulation for which it previously received a nonpreemption determination, it must apply for a determination of nonpreemption for the amended regulation
tate must apply to the agency for a determination before the effective date of the final rule. The agency would make a determination with respect to any such application within 6 months after the date on which it is received.
If a State amends a regulation for which it previously received a nonpreemption determination, it must apply for a determination of nonpreemption for the amended regulation. Any amendment to a State requirement not preempted under this subsection because of a determination by the FMCSA may not take effect unless: (1) It is submitted to the agency before the effective date of the amendment; and (2) the FMCSA determines that the amendment would not cause the State requirement to be less effective than the Federal requirement and would not unduly burden interstate commerce.
Relationship Among Intermodal Parties and Allocation of Liability
Section 31151(a)(1) requires that FMCSA issue regulations to ensure that intermodal equipment used to transport intermodal containers is safe and systematically maintained. However, FMCSA believes the statute suggests that the agency should not attempt to allocate liability between parties tendering and using intermodal equipment. Rather than finding fault among intermodal parties or involving the Government in individual disputes (such as who damaged a particular container chassis), the rulemaking would establish programmatic responsibility for intermodal equipment maintenance
CSA believes the statute suggests that the agency should not attempt to allocate liability between parties tendering and using intermodal equipment. Rather than finding fault among intermodal parties or involving the Government in individual disputes (such as who damaged a particular container chassis), the rulemaking would establish programmatic responsibility for intermodal equipment maintenance. The concept is that a
The definition of “intermodal equipment interchange agreement” in Section 31151(f)(2) is “the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement or any other written document executed by an intermodal equipment provider or its agent and a motor carrier or its agent, the primary purpose of which is to establish the responsibilities and liabilities of both parties with respect to the interchange of the intermodal equipment.” [Emphasis added]
Neither the section 31151 language nor this proposal would relieve motor carriers of liability for damage they may inflict on intermodal container chassis. This proposed rulemaking would likely reduce the likelihood of crashes attributed to the mechanical condition and roadability of intermodal container chassis, but it would not involve the Department unnecessarily in the commercial relations or allocation of liability between intermodal parties.
International Implications
Because section 31151 was codified in subchapter III of chapter 311 of title 49, United States Code, the jurisdictional definitions in 49 U.S.C. 31132 apply. The term “United States” is defined in § 31132(10) as “the States of the United States and the District of Columbia.” Section 31151 does not address the question of its own geographical reach, so it must be read as limited to the United States, as defined in section 31132(10). This means that intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) tendering equipment to motor carriers in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands or any other U.S. territory are not directly subject to the requirements of this rule
the District of Columbia.” Section 31151 does not address the question of its own geographical reach, so it must be read as limited to the United States, as defined in section 31132(10). This means that intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) tendering equipment to motor carriers in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands or any other U.S. territory are not directly subject to the requirements of this rule. Nonetheless, any jurisdiction that adopts the relevant portions of the FMCSRs as territorial law would have the authority to enforce them. There is also a strong presumption against extra-territorial application of a statute. Nothing in the language or legislative history of section 31151 suggests that Congress intended to make it applicable outside the territory of the United States. Therefore, IEPs tendering equipment to motor carriers in Canada, Mexico, or Central America would not be subject to the requirements of this rule, even if the motor carrier immediately transports the container/chassis combination across the border into this country. Once in the U.S., however, the intermodal equipment would be subject to these proposed rules, including marking requirements and to existing equipment-related FMCSRs. Enforcement would be taken against a motor carrier pulling an unmarked or defective chassis, even if the chassis originated with an IEP physically located outside the United States.
IEPs physically outside the United States, as defined in section 31132(10), are not required by this proposed rule to: (1) File a Form MCS-150C; (2) have a systematic inspection, repair and maintenance program; (3) create a repair lane for defects discovered by the driver just before leaving the terminal; or (4) maintain a system for receiving reports of defects and deficiencies from drivers returning intermodal equipment
he United States, as defined in section 31132(10), are not required by this proposed rule to: (1) File a Form MCS-150C; (2) have a systematic inspection, repair and maintenance program; (3) create a repair lane for defects discovered by the driver just before leaving the terminal; or (4) maintain a system for receiving reports of defects and deficiencies from drivers returning intermodal equipment. FMCSA cannot conduct roadability reviews of IEPs based in foreign countries or non—“United States” territories (because they are not subject to the rules), prohibit such IEPs from tendering defective equipment to motor carriers (because that occurs beyond the jurisdiction of FMCSA), or issue them civil penalties for failure to comply with these rules.
On the other hand, any intermodal equipment operated in interstate commerce in the United States must be marked with a USDOT number or other unique identifier. Otherwise, the motor carrier pulling the chassis/container combination would have violated these proposed regulations. As motor carriers are unlikely to accept the risk of fines for transporting unmarked chassis, foreign or non-—“United States” IEPs that know their equipment will operate within the United States may find it necessary, for business reasons, to file a Form MCS-150C and mark their equipment. FMCSA will accept registration applications from such entities and issue them USDOT numbers or other unique identifiers. In these cases, however, the assignment of an identifying number does not amount to an assertion of jurisdiction over the foreign or non—United States IEP. Doing so, however would not subject such IEPs to FMCSA jurisdiction beyond the borders of the United States, so the purpose of the identifying number could not be fully realized
entities and issue them USDOT numbers or other unique identifiers. In these cases, however, the assignment of an identifying number does not amount to an assertion of jurisdiction over the foreign or non—United States IEP. Doing so, however would not subject such IEPs to FMCSA jurisdiction beyond the borders of the United States, so the purpose of the identifying number could not be fully realized.
The challenge for the agency is to maximize the benefits of section 31151 and these proposed rules—when non—“United States” IEPs tender equipment that subsequently travels in the United States—without exceeding the agency's statutory authority or the principles of international law. FMCSA solicits comments on all aspects of this problem.
III. Analysis of Safety Data
Analysis of Roadside Inspection Data in 4 States
FMCSA asked the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) to conduct a special study of roadside inspection results for container chassis. Inspections can be of several types, ranging from full or walk-around inspections (Levels 1 and 2) to vehicle-only inspections (Level 5). The type of unit inspected is indicated by a code and the types of violations found may be categorized as driver violations, vehicle violations (such as defects in brakes, tires or lights), or hazardous material violations. The Volpe analyses covered results from Level 1, 2, or 5 inspections, and for “Unit 2” in tractor-semitrailer combinations, the type of vehicle being inspected had to be coded as a semitrailer (code 9). “Unit 2” refers to the semitrailer in a power unit-semitrailer combination. Out-of-service (OOS) and violation rates were calculated using FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) inspection data on “Unit 2” vehicles. That is, the data came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors involved. All violations were vehicle violations
to the semitrailer in a power unit-semitrailer combination. Out-of-service (OOS) and violation rates were calculated using FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) inspection data on “Unit 2” vehicles. That is, the data came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors involved. All violations were vehicle violations.
Results of the Volpe study are summarized here; the complete report is available in the docket for this NPRM.
The analysis of roadside inspection safety data included two phases. The first phase included a Four-State Analysis. The study team obtained intermodal inspection data from four States—California, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas—that have procedures for collecting and maintaining intermodal roadside inspection data at the State level and that have adopted container chassis roadability legislation. The data obtained were for the calendar years 2000 through part of 2003.
The Four-State Analysis results presented in Table 1 show, for each of the four reporting States, the total number of Level 1, 2, and 5 roadside inspections, and the OOS rates for non-intermodal semitrailers and intermodal semitrailers ( i.e. , Unit 2). Vehicle OOS violations represent the most serious types of FMCSR violations found on the vehicle, or those violations FMCSA believes are most likely to result in a crash.
Table 1.—Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates of Non-intermodal and Intermodal Semitrailers for the Four-State Analysis (2000-2003) State Unit 2—Semitrailers Non-intermodal (NI) Number of inspections OOS rate (percent) Intermodal (I) Number of inspections OOS rate (percent) Difference in OOS rate (I-NI) Percent difference in OOS rate (I-NI)/NI CA 1 875,881 14.6 33,523 17.7 3.1 21.2 LA 2 27,216 8.8 76 26.3 17.5 198.9 SC 1 60,674 14.9 1,982 21.4 6.5 43.6 TX 2 150,260 16.1 2,032 24.8 8.7 54.0 1 Data for 2000-2002 and part of 2003. 2 Data for 2002 only
ers Non-intermodal (NI) Number of inspections OOS rate (percent) Intermodal (I) Number of inspections OOS rate (percent) Difference in OOS rate (I-NI) Percent difference in OOS rate (I-NI)/NI CA 1 875,881 14.6 33,523 17.7 3.1 21.2 LA 2 27,216 8.8 76 26.3 17.5 198.9 SC 1 60,674 14.9 1,982 21.4 6.5 43.6 TX 2 150,260 16.1 2,032 24.8 8.7 54.0 1 Data for 2000-2002 and part of 2003. 2 Data for 2002 only. Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors involved. All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15-30). The researchers noted that in each of the four States, the OOS rate for intermodal semitrailers was higher than the OOS rate for non-intermodal semitrailers. The percentage difference between the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailer OOS rates in each State was more than 20 percent, with intermodal container chassis being in worse mechanical condition than other types of semitrailers. Table 2 shows, for each of the four States, the total number of Level 1, 2, and 5 roadside inspections and the percentages of non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailer (i.e., Unit 2) inspections with vehicle violations. Note that the violation totals represented in Table 3 include all violations (i.e., not just OOS but also non-OOS violations) found on the trailing unit.
Table 2.—Total Violation Rates of Non-intermodal and Intermodal Semitrailers for the Four-State Analysis (2000-2003) State Unit 2—Semitrailers Non-intermodal (NI) Number of inspections Total violation rate (percent) Intermodal (I) Number of inspections Total violation rate (percent) Difference in violation rate (I-NI) Percent difference in violation rate (I-NI)/NI CA 1 875,881 32.8 33,523 32.8 0.0 0.0 LA 2 27,216 28.2 76 43.4 15.2 53.9 SC 1 60,674 38.7 1,982 38.9 0.2 0.5 TX 2 150,260 60.9 2,032 55.8 −5.1 −8.4 1 Data for 2000-2002 and part of 2003. 2 Data for 2002 only
nspections Total violation rate (percent) Intermodal (I) Number of inspections Total violation rate (percent) Difference in violation rate (I-NI) Percent difference in violation rate (I-NI)/NI CA 1 875,881 32.8 33,523 32.8 0.0 0.0 LA 2 27,216 28.2 76 43.4 15.2 53.9 SC 1 60,674 38.7 1,982 38.9 0.2 0.5 TX 2 150,260 60.9 2,032 55.8 −5.1 −8.4 1 Data for 2000-2002 and part of 2003. 2 Data for 2002 only. Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors involved. All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15-30). Table 2 shows that in California and South Carolina, the percentages of non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers with vehicle violations were the same or nearly the same. In Texas, the percentage of non-intermodal semitrailers with vehicle violations was 5.1 percentage points higher than the percentage of intermodal semitrailers with vehicle violations. In Louisiana, the percentage of intermodal semitrailers with vehicle violations was 15.2 percentage points higher than the percentage of non-intermodal semitrailers with vehicle violations. However, FMCSA recognizes the limited number of Louisiana intermodal trailer inspections (only 76 inspections compared to 1,982 inspections in South Carolina, 2,032 inspections in Texas, and 33,523 inspections in California) on which to base this comparison.
The roadside inspection data from Texas contain a code that identifies the type of intermodal container chassis ownership: carrier owned or non-carrier-owned. The OOS and “all” violation analyses were re-run to compare the results for these two groups. Table 3 shows the OOS rates for carrier-owned and non-carrier-owned intermodal container chassis for inspections performed in Texas. Table 3 shows the total (or “all”) vehicle violation rates for carrier-owned and non-carrier-owned intermodal container chassis for inspections performed in Texas
ier-owned. The OOS and “all” violation analyses were re-run to compare the results for these two groups. Table 3 shows the OOS rates for carrier-owned and non-carrier-owned intermodal container chassis for inspections performed in Texas. Table 3 shows the total (or “all”) vehicle violation rates for carrier-owned and non-carrier-owned intermodal container chassis for inspections performed in Texas.
Table 3 shows that the non-carrier-owned intermodal semitrailers (i.e., container semitrailers tendered by equipment providers) had an OOS rate of 25.3 percent compared to an OOS rate of 19.2 percent for the carrier-owned intermodal semitrailers. Table 4 shows that 55.7 percent of the non-carrier-owned intermodal semitrailers had vehicle violations compared to 57.5 percent of the carrier-owned intermodal semitrailers.
While FMCSA has examined both total violation rates and OOS rates, it is the OOS rate FMCSA focuses on in this proposed rule because that rate is based on the most serious violations of the FMCSRs. These violations are listed in the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's (CVSA) North American Uniform Out-of-Service Criteria, a set of enforcement tolerances used by Federal, State, and Provincial agencies conducting commercial motor vehicle inspections in theUnited States, Canada, and Mexico.
Table 3.—Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates of Carrier-owned and Non-carrier-owned Intermodal Semitrailers in Texas (2002) State Unit 2—Semitrailers Non-carrier-owned (NCO) intermodal Number of inspections OOS rate (percent) Carrier-owned (CO) intermodal Number of inspections OOS rate (percent) Difference in OOS rates (NCO-CO) Percent difference in OOS rates (NCO-CO)/CO TX 1,865 25.3 167 19.2 6.1 31.8 Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors involved. All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15-30)
) Carrier-owned (CO) intermodal Number of inspections OOS rate (percent) Difference in OOS rates (NCO-CO) Percent difference in OOS rates (NCO-CO)/CO TX 1,865 25.3 167 19.2 6.1 31.8 Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors involved. All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15-30). Table 4.—Total Violation Rates of Carrier-owned and Non-carrier-owned Intermodal Semitrailers in Texas (2002) State Unit 2—Semitrailers Non-carrier-owned (NCO) intermodal Number of inspections Vehicle violation rate (percent) Carrier-owned (CO) intermodal Number of inspections Vehicle violation rate (percent) Difference in violation rates (NCO-CO) Percent difference in violation rates (NCO-CO)/CO TX 1,865 55.7 167 57.5 −1.8 −3.1 Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors involved. All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15-30). The second phase of this analysis used data collected during roadside inspections conducted during an intensive annual activity known as RoadCheck. FMCSA requested that States conduct inspections of intermodal equipment, where possible and appropriate, as part of the focus of International RoadCheck 2004 (conducted beginning in June 2004). 2
2 Detailed analysis of the RoadCheck Inspection Data collected in MCMIS, included in the RIA, is provided in Docket FMCSA-2005-23315.
Table 5 shows the RoadCheck 2004 inspection totals and out-of-service rates compared to the Four-State Analysis inspections.
Table 5.—Comparison of Non-intermodal vs
te, as part of the focus of International RoadCheck 2004 (conducted beginning in June 2004). 2
2 Detailed analysis of the RoadCheck Inspection Data collected in MCMIS, included in the RIA, is provided in Docket FMCSA-2005-23315.
Table 5 shows the RoadCheck 2004 inspection totals and out-of-service rates compared to the Four-State Analysis inspections.
Table 5.—Comparison of Non-intermodal vs. Intermodal Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates Analysis Non-Intermodal Number of inspections OOS rate (percent) Tractors Semitrailers Intermodal Number of inspections OOS rate (percent) Tractors Semitrailers RoadCheck Inspections 312,751 11.3 18.0 4,038 17.3 22.1 Four-State Inspections 1,114,029 13.7 14.7 37,615 16.4 18.3 Note: RoadCheck inspection data are cross-section data obtained from 38 States from June 1 through September 23, 2004, except for California where data had been collected in June 1-23 only. Four-State inspection data were time-series data collected from 2000 through part of 2003 in four States—California, Texas, South Carolina, and Louisiana. Table 5 shows that the OOS rates for intermodal equipment—both tractors and semitrailers—are consistently higher than the OOS rates for commercial motor vehicles hauling non-intermodal semitrailers. This suggests that intermodal container chassis are more likely to be operated in an unsafe mechanical condition than non-intermodal semi-trailers
As part of RoadCheck 2004, FMCSA also asked inspectors to identify the ownership of intermodal container chassis at the time of the vehicle inspection. 3 Table 6 summarizes OOS rates by container chassis ownership.
3 Volpe Center, “Feasibility Study on Collecting Intermodal Chassis Crash and Inspection Data,” prepared for FMCSA, September 29, 2004
al condition than non-intermodal semi-trailers
As part of RoadCheck 2004, FMCSA also asked inspectors to identify the ownership of intermodal container chassis at the time of the vehicle inspection. 3 Table 6 summarizes OOS rates by container chassis ownership.
3 Volpe Center, “Feasibility Study on Collecting Intermodal Chassis Crash and Inspection Data,” prepared for FMCSA, September 29, 2004.
Table 6.—Intermodal Out-of-Service (OOS) Rate by Type of Chassis Ownership Type of chassis owners Number of inspections Tractors Number of OOS inspections OOS rate (percent) Semitrailers/Chassis Number of OOS inspections OOS rate (percent) Motor Carrier 94 21 22.3 16 17.0 Leased 191 45 23.6 54 28.3 Shipper 167 41 24.6 33 19.8 Railroads 68 21 30.9 20 29.4 Unknown 150 17 11.3 47 31.3 Total 670 145 21.6 170 25.4 While data in Table 6 are relatively limited, they do show that intermodal container chassis owned by motor carriers have lower OOS rates than intermodal container chassis owned by all other non-motor carriers.
While the total number of violations cited per inspection for intermodal container chassis may be comparable to the total number of violations per inspection of non-intermodal semitrailers, the data indicate the defects or deficiencies observed on intermodal container chassis are likely to be more severe than those noted on non-intermodal semitrailers (or those violations resulting in vehicle OOS orders). Therefore, it appears intermodal container chassis are, as a group of commercial vehicles, more likely to be in need of repairs than other types of semitrailers, and that the defects and deficiencies are more likely to be of the type that are likely to cause a crash or breakdown of the vehicle
re than those noted on non-intermodal semitrailers (or those violations resulting in vehicle OOS orders). Therefore, it appears intermodal container chassis are, as a group of commercial vehicles, more likely to be in need of repairs than other types of semitrailers, and that the defects and deficiencies are more likely to be of the type that are likely to cause a crash or breakdown of the vehicle.
Roadside Inspection Violation Data Analysis
All Intermodal Container Chassis Violations
FMCSA examined the violations cited during intermodal container chassis inspections to determine what specific problems were being found during the inspections and whether it is likely a driver could have detected them if they were present when the driver picked up the container chassis.
Table 7 shows the most frequently cited violations in the inspection records of the four States' data. The most common violation was “Inoperable Lamp (Other than Head/Tail),” which accounted for 25.4 percent of all violations. Combined with other lamp/light violations, they account for 34.0 percent of all violations. Tire-related violations account for 12.2 percent of all violations. Violations that can be readily detected by the driver, including those that are lamp/light and tire-related, account for more than half of all the violations cited for intermodal container chassis.
Table 7.—Distribution of Intermodal Semitrailer Violations (2000-2003) Unit 2—Intermodal semitrailers Violation Code Description Rank Count Percent of total 393.9 Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail) 3 1 4,909 25.4 396.3(a)(1) Inspection/Repair and Maintenance 2 2 4,688 24.3 393.75(c) Tire—Other tread depth less than 2/32 of inch 3 3 1,950 10.1 393.47 Inadequate brake lining for safe stopping 2 4 1,315 6.8 393.11 No/defective lighting devices/reflectors/projected 3 5 885 4.6 393.100(e) Improper securement of intermodal containers 3 6 593 3.1 396.3(a)(1)BA Brake—Out of adjustment 1 7 486 2.5 393.201(a) Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose 3 8 446 2.3 393.45(a)(4) Brake
4.3 393.75(c) Tire—Other tread depth less than 2/32 of inch 3 3 1,950 10.1 393.47 Inadequate brake lining for safe stopping 2 4 1,315 6.8 393.11 No/defective lighting devices/reflectors/projected 3 5 885 4.6 393.100(e) Improper securement of intermodal containers 3 6 593 3.1 396.3(a)(1)BA Brake—Out of adjustment 1 7 486 2.5 393.201(a) Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose 3 8 446 2.3 393.45(a)(4) Brake hose/tubing chafing and/or kinking 2 9 407 2.1 393.70 Fifth wheel 3 10 407 2.1 393.207(c) Leaf spring assembly defective/missing 2 11 396 2.1 393.25(f) Stop lamp violations 3 12 371 1.9 393.50 Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum brakes 1 13 283 1.5 393.19 No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required 3 14 245 1.3 393.75(a)(1) Tire—Ply or belt material exposed 3 15 227 1.2 393.75(b) Tire—Front tread depth less than 4/32 of inch 3 16 176 0.9 393.48(a) Inoperative/defective brakes 1 17 175 0.9 393.205(c) Wheel fasteners loose and/or missing 3 18 159 0.8 393.9T Inoperable tail lamp 3 19 152 0.8 396.17(c) Operating a CMV without periodic inspection 3 20 120 0.6 Subtotal—Top 20 Violations 18,390 95.3 Other Violations 905 4.7 Total—All Violations 19,295 100.0 1 Violation not readily detectable by driver. 2 Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study. 3 Violation generally detectable by driver. Violations involving defects or deficiencies that drivers were unlikely to detect during a visual inspection account for only 7 percent of all violations on intermodal container chassis in the four States. The remaining 93 percent of violations are either items the driver could have observed during a visual inspection of the container chassis, or are under further study by FMCSA to determine the likelihood of the driver being able to detect the defect or deficiency.
Intermodal Container Chassis Violations by State
California dominates the results in the previous section because of the number of inspections performed by that State
ons are either items the driver could have observed during a visual inspection of the container chassis, or are under further study by FMCSA to determine the likelihood of the driver being able to detect the defect or deficiency.
Intermodal Container Chassis Violations by State
California dominates the results in the previous section because of the number of inspections performed by that State. However, significant differences were evident in the types of violations cited from State to State. As Table 8 shows, the violation described as “Inspection/Repair and Maintenance” represented 31.0 percent of all violations cited in California. On the other hand, lamp problems were the predominant problems in all the other States, accounting for 47.5 percent of violations in Texas, 45.7 percent in South Carolina, and 57.8 percent in Louisiana.
The second most frequently cited violation in Louisiana and South Carolina was the “Improper Securement of [an] Intermodal Container,” while for Texas, the second most frequently cited violations were brake-related issues.
The third most frequently cited violations in Louisiana and South Carolina were brake-related issues, while for Texas it was “Improper Securement of [an] Intermodal Container.” California's violations were somewhat unique among the four States, as only three of their top ten violations were items drivers could have detected during a visual inspection of the container chassis. It is possible that violation code differences among the States account for some of the variability in specific defects or deficiencies listed
was “Improper Securement of [an] Intermodal Container.” California's violations were somewhat unique among the four States, as only three of their top ten violations were items drivers could have detected during a visual inspection of the container chassis. It is possible that violation code differences among the States account for some of the variability in specific defects or deficiencies listed.
Table 8.—Intermodal Semitrailer Violations by State (CA, LA, SC, and TX) During 2000-2003 Unit 2—Intermodal semitrailer violations Violation Code Description Percent of total violations in state CA LA SC TX 393.9 Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail) 3 30.3 19.7 24.2 396.3(a)(1) Inspection/Repair and Maintenance 2 31.0 3.6 393.75(c) Tire—Other tread depth less than 2/32 of inch 3 11.9 3.9 5.2 3.4 393.47 Inadequate brake lining for safe stopping 2 8.7 393.11 No/defective lighting devices/reflectors/projected 3 26.3 4.0 28.8 393.100(e) Improper securement of intermodal containers 3 11.4 14.7 396.3(a)(1)BA Brake—Out of adjustment 1 1.3 6.6 3.8 8.1 393.201(a) Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose 3 3.0 393.45(a)(4) Brake hose/tubing chafing and/or kinking 2 1.3 7.4 7.6 393.70 Fifth wheel 1 2.7 393.207(c) Leaf spring assembly defective/missing 2 2.6 393.25(f) Stop lamp violations 3 10.5 8.2 8.3 393.50 Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum brakes 1 1.9 393.19 No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required 3 4.0 6.5 393.75(a)(1) Tire—Ply or belt material exposed 3 1.4 393.48(a) Inoperative/defective brakes 1 1.3 393.205(c) Wheel fasteners loose and/or missing 3 1.3 393.9T Inoperable tail lamp 3 1.3 5.3 2.3 396.17(c) Operating a CMV without periodic inspection 3 1.3 2.3 393.75(a) Flat tire or fabric exposed 3 1.3 393.20 No/improper mounting of clearance lamps 3 1.6 393.102 Improper securement system (tiedown assemblies) 3 21.1 393.207(a) Axle positioning parts defective/missing 2 1.3 393.28 Improper or no wiring protection as required 3 2.6 Total—Top 10 Violations 94.9 100.0 77.2 83.6 Other Violations 5.1 0.0 23.8 16.4 All Violations 10
iodic inspection 3 1.3 2.3 393.75(a) Flat tire or fabric exposed 3 1.3 393.20 No/improper mounting of clearance lamps 3 1.6 393.102 Improper securement system (tiedown assemblies) 3 21.1 393.207(a) Axle positioning parts defective/missing 2 1.3 393.28 Improper or no wiring protection as required 3 2.6 Total—Top 10 Violations 94.9 100.0 77.2 83.6 Other Violations 5.1 0.0 23.8 16.4 All Violations 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Violation not readily detectable by driver. 2 Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study. 3 Violation generally detectable by driver. Vehicle Out-of-Service Violations by State
Table 9 shows the top ten OOS violations for intermodal semitrailers in the four States. Similar to all violations in the previous section, the most frequently cited OOS violations were readily detectable by the driver, but the patterns of individual violations differed among the four States. In California, “Inoperable Lamp (Other than Head/Tail),” a violation a driver could easily discover, accounted for almost 49 percent of the OOS violations in the State, and “Inspection/Repair and Maintenance,” a violation that the driver would be less likely to discover, accounted for almost 22 percent of the OOS violations.
In the other three States, the most frequently cited type of OOS violation is one that could readily be detected by the driver; namely, proper securement of containers and loads. Specifically, these violations accounted for 61.5 percent of Louisiana violations, 33.3 percent of South Carolina violations, and 40.0 percent of Texas violations. The second most frequently cited type of violation in these three States was also readily detectable by the driver: Lamp-related violations. In these three
Problems with securing containers and loads are not evident among the top ten California violations
iolations accounted for 61.5 percent of Louisiana violations, 33.3 percent of South Carolina violations, and 40.0 percent of Texas violations. The second most frequently cited type of violation in these three States was also readily detectable by the driver: Lamp-related violations. In these three
Problems with securing containers and loads are not evident among the top ten California violations. During a January 2004 field trip to the Los Angeles area, 4 FMCSA staff and Volpe researchers determined California inspectors use the “Inspection/Repair and Maintenance” violation to cover miscellaneous items, such as cracked windshields, and not necessarily improperly secured containers and loads. Further investigation is required to determine why container securement is not identified as a separate issue in California, as it is in the other States.
4 Volpe Center and FMCSA representatives visited the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, CA, guided by members of the California Highway Patrol from January 21-22, 2004.
Table 9.—Intermodal Semitrailer OOS Violations in CA, LA, SC, and TX During 2000-2003 Unit 2—Intermodal semitrailer OOS violations Violation Code Description Percent of total violations in state CA LA SC TX 393.9 Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail) 3 48.8 7.7 22.2 396.3(a)(1) Inspection/Repair and Maintenance 2 21.8 2.2 1.0 393.75(c) Tire—Other tread depth less than 2/32 of inch 3 9.9 1.1 393.47 Inadequate brake lining for safe stopping 2 6.1 393.11 No/defective lighting devices/reflectors/projected 3 11.5 393.100(e) Improper securement of intermodal containers 3 28.3 39.0 396.3(a)(1)BA Brake—Out of adjustment 1 1.4 3.8 1.9 6.8 393.201(a) Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose 3 1.8 393.70 Fifth wheel 1 2.7 393.207(c) Leaf spring assembly defective/missing 2 3.0 393.25(f) Stop lamp violations 3 7.7 12.4 16.5 393.50 Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum brakes 1 0.9 393.19 No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required 3 7.9 20.8 393.75(a)(1) Tire—Ply or belt material exposed 3 1.0 393.48(a) Inoperative/defectiv
tment 1 1.4 3.8 1.9 6.8 393.201(a) Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose 3 1.8 393.70 Fifth wheel 1 2.7 393.207(c) Leaf spring assembly defective/missing 2 3.0 393.25(f) Stop lamp violations 3 7.7 12.4 16.5 393.50 Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum brakes 1 0.9 393.19 No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required 3 7.9 20.8 393.75(a)(1) Tire—Ply or belt material exposed 3 1.0 393.48(a) Inoperative/defective brakes 3 1.9 393.9T Inoperable tail lamp 3 4.0 1.6 393.75(a) Flat tire or fabric exposed 3 3.8 1.9 1.0 393.100 No or improper load securement 3 5.0 1.0 393.75(a)(3) Tire—Flat and/or audible air leak 3 2.4 3.1 393.102 Improper securement system (tiedown assemblies) 3 61.5 393.207(b) Adjustable axle locking pin missing/disengaged 3 1.0 393.207(a) Axle positioning parts defective/missing 2 3.8 Total—Top 10 OOS Violations 96.5 100.0 88.1 94.7 Other Violations 3.5 0.0 11.9 5.3 All Violations 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 Violation not readily detectable by driver. 2 Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study. 3 Violation generally detectable by driver. Table 10 contains results from FMCSA's analysis of inspection of intermodal container chassis during RoadCheck 2004. RoadCheck 2004 inspection analysis found that the most frequently cited OOS violation was “Brakes out of adjustment,” which accounts for 15.3 percent of all violations. “Inoperable lamp” was second, accounting for 11.6 of all OOS violations. Brake-related violations accounted for 35.3 percent of all OOS violations, while light-related violations accounted for 31.4 percent of the total. Load securement violations accounted for 18.6% of all violations, while tire-related violations accounted for 7.5 percent of all violations
unts for 15.3 percent of all violations. “Inoperable lamp” was second, accounting for 11.6 of all OOS violations. Brake-related violations accounted for 35.3 percent of all OOS violations, while light-related violations accounted for 31.4 percent of the total. Load securement violations accounted for 18.6% of all violations, while tire-related violations accounted for 7.5 percent of all violations.
Table 10.—OOS Violations in Inspections of Intermodal Chassis RoadCheck 2004 Analysis Unit 2—Semitrailers Violation Code Description Rank Count Percent of total 396 3A1BA Brake—Out of adjustment 1 1 41 15.3 393 9 Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail) 3 2 31 11.6 393 19 Failing to Equip Vehicle with Operative Turn Signal(s) 3 3 30 11.2 393 48(a) Failing to Equip Vehicle with Operative Brakes 1 4 25 9.3 393 100(e) Improper Securement of Intermodal Containers 3 5 25 9.3 393 126 No/improper intermodal container securement 3 6 25 9.3 396 3A1B Brakes (General) 2 7 21 7.8 393 25(f) Stop Lamp Violations 3 8 20 7.5 396 3(a)(1) Failing to inspect vehicle for safe operation 2 9 8 3.0 393 75(a)(3) Tire—Flat and/or audible air leak 3 10 5 1.9 393 47 Inadequate/Contaminated Brake Linings 2 11 4 1.5 393 75(a) Operating with tires having fabric or cords exposed 3 12 4 1.5 393 75(a)(1) Tire—Ply or belt material exposed 3 13 4 1.5 393 75(f) Tire—Load Weight rating/under inflated 3 14 4 1.5 393 75(a)(4) Tire—Cut Exposing ply and/or belt material 3 15 3 1.1 393 9T Inoperable tail lamp 3 16 3 1.1 396 3A1BL Brake-reserve system pressure loss 3 17 2 0.7 393 207(a) Operating Vehicle with Defective/Misaligned Axle or Axle parts 1 18 2 0.7 393 50 Inadequate Reservoir for Air/Vacuum Brakes 1 19 2 0.7 393 207(b) Operating Vehicle with Adj. Axle Assy. With locking Pin Defects 3 20 2 0.7 Subtotal—Top 20 Violations 261 97.4 Total Vehicle Violations on Level 1, 2, 5 Inspections 268 100.0 1 Violation not readily detectable by driver. 2 Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study. 3 Violation generally detectable by driver
393 50 Inadequate Reservoir for Air/Vacuum Brakes 1 19 2 0.7 393 207(b) Operating Vehicle with Adj. Axle Assy. With locking Pin Defects 3 20 2 0.7 Subtotal—Top 20 Violations 261 97.4 Total Vehicle Violations on Level 1, 2, 5 Inspections 268 100.0 1 Violation not readily detectable by driver. 2 Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study. 3 Violation generally detectable by driver. National Inspection Data—Violations for Calendar Year 2003
In addition to examining roadside inspection data from California, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas, FMCSA reviewed inspection results for motor carriers that identified themselves on the Motor Carrier Identification Report (Form MCS-150) as engaged in intermodal operations only, and those engaged in intermodal operations as one of their primary operations. The data for these categories of carriers was compared with data for all motor carriers.
There are 641 motor carriers that indicate the only type of activity they engage in is intermodal operations. There are 12,032 motor carriers that include the intermodal operations entry as one of the types of transportation activity they engage in. The total number of motor carriers is greater than 685,000. However, FMCSA analysts believe the number of truly “active” motor carriers is probably less than 500,000 ( i.e. , those currently moving freight or passengers, operating under their own authority and with required filings on record with FMCSA).
Table 11 data show a small difference (2 percent) between the OOS rate for semitrailers being transported by motor carriers in all types of operations and semitrailers being transported by motor carriers involved in both intermodal and non-intermodal operations. However, there is a significant difference between the semitrailer OOS rates for motor carriers engaged exclusively in intermodal operations versus those with combined operations and all motor carriers. The semitrailer OOS rate for intermodal-only operations was 25 percent
of operations and semitrailers being transported by motor carriers involved in both intermodal and non-intermodal operations. However, there is a significant difference between the semitrailer OOS rates for motor carriers engaged exclusively in intermodal operations versus those with combined operations and all motor carriers. The semitrailer OOS rate for intermodal-only operations was 25 percent. The semitrailer OOS rate for motor carriers engaged in intermodal operations combined with some other type of operation(s) was 15 percent. The semitrailer OOS rate for all motor carriers was 13 percent.
The nationwide data from FMCSA's MCMIS suggest the mechanical condition of intermodal container chassis operated by the motor carriers typically selected for roadside inspections is significantly worse than the semitrailers operated by motor carriers in all types of operations. Although there are huge differences in the population size of intermodal-only motor carriers versus all motor carriers, and the total number of vehicle inspections conducted on intermodal-only carriers versus all other motor carriers, FMCSA cannot ignore the disparity in the condition of the vehicles.
Table 11.— Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates of All and Intermodal-Only Carriers; Data From the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) CY-2003 Commodity segment Number of vehicle inspections CY2003 No. of vehicle inspections with 1 or more OOS violations Unit 1 (tractor) Unit 2 (semitrailer) Percent OOS rate Unit 1 (tractor) Unit 2 (semitrailer) Intermodal Only (n=641) 2,894 519 725 18 25 Intermodal + Other (n=12,032) 145,377 15,963 22,428 11 15 All Motor Carriers (n=>500,000) 1,476,245 135,000 186,073 9 13 Source: Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), MCMIS Staff, Run Date—April 29, 2004
le inspections with 1 or more OOS violations Unit 1 (tractor) Unit 2 (semitrailer) Percent OOS rate Unit 1 (tractor) Unit 2 (semitrailer) Intermodal Only (n=641) 2,894 519 725 18 25 Intermodal + Other (n=12,032) 145,377 15,963 22,428 11 15 All Motor Carriers (n=>500,000) 1,476,245 135,000 186,073 9 13 Source: Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), MCMIS Staff, Run Date—April 29, 2004. FMCSA's Analysis of the Data
FMCSA believes the data suggest that the percentage of intermodal container chassis being operated in unsafe mechanical condition is likely to be greater than the percentage of non-intermodal semitrailers in unsafe operating condition, based on the inspection data obtained from CA, LA, SC, and TX as part of the Four-State Analysis and the inspection data analyzed as part of the RoadCheck 2004 safety data analysis. While the number of violations cited per inspection for intermodal container chassis may be comparable to the number of violations per inspection of non-intermodal semitrailers, the data indicate the defects or deficiencies observed on intermodal container chassis are likely to be more severe than those noted on non-intermodal semitrailers. Thus, it appears intermodal container chassis are, as a group of commercial vehicles, more likely to be in need of repairs than other types of semitrailers.
Container chassis, as a vehicle type, should not be considered inherently unsafe. Data from Texas concerning inspection results segregated by ownership suggest that container chassis controlled by motor carriers are better maintained than container chassis offered by IEPs to motor carriers. FMCSA's primary safety concern is with the container chassis offered by IEPs, because the agency's research indicates that these chassis do not appear to be covered by inspection, repair, and maintenance programs comparable to those of motor carriers that control their own intermodal equipment, or motor carriers responsible for maintaining other types of semitrailers
red by IEPs to motor carriers. FMCSA's primary safety concern is with the container chassis offered by IEPs, because the agency's research indicates that these chassis do not appear to be covered by inspection, repair, and maintenance programs comparable to those of motor carriers that control their own intermodal equipment, or motor carriers responsible for maintaining other types of semitrailers.
While there is very limited information to determine the extent to which the mechanical condition of intermodal container chassis may contribute to crashes, the data suggest that it is more likely than not that current maintenance practices of many IEPs do not ensure container chassis are in safe and proper operating condition at all times on the highways. Further, the types of defects or deficiencies found on such container chassis during roadside inspections are often so severe the vehicle must be placed OOS. It must be acknowledged, however, that a very high percentage of these violations could have been detected by drivers, had they made—or had the opportunity to make—an adequate visual inspection before leaving the intermodal facility.
Regardless of the lack of crash data on a national level, the information reviewed to date is cause for concern. The Volpe Center, in a 2004 analysis conducted for FMCSA using the FMCSA Roadside Intervention Model, estimated that 55.6 percent of all the CMV crashes avoided as a result of roadside interventions (i.e., roadside inspections and traffic enforcement stops) in 2003 were attributable to the vehicle violations found at the time of the inspection. More recent study has highlighted the role of the driver among crash-related factors. It is clear, though, that attention to equipment condition yields safety benefits. In addition to our continued focus on the driver, FMCSA believes that action should be taken to reduce, to the greatest extent practicable, potential future crashes caused by the mechanical condition of the intermodal container chassis
recent study has highlighted the role of the driver among crash-related factors. It is clear, though, that attention to equipment condition yields safety benefits. In addition to our continued focus on the driver, FMCSA believes that action should be taken to reduce, to the greatest extent practicable, potential future crashes caused by the mechanical condition of the intermodal container chassis. This rulemaking would also ensure that intermodal container chassis meet the same level of safety as other semitrailers operated in interstate commerce.
IV. Estimated Number of Equipment Providers and Intermodal Container Chassis
Equipment Providers
Container chassis are specialized truck trailers with twist locks. An intermodal container chassis is a reusable asset of its owner. The chassis can belong to virtually any participant in the transportation or logistics chain: (1) Carriers, including ocean shipping lines, railroads, and trucking companies; (2) equipment leasing companies; and (3) shippers. FMCSA estimates that there are 108 non-motor-carrier intermodal equipment providers, consisting of 93 steamship lines, 5 railroads, and 10 container chassis pool operators. 5
5 The number of equipment providers is estimated from information in the Containerization International Yearbook 2004 for 99 port terminals in the United States. The number of steamship lines is estimated from the direct call liner services at the terminal level.
According to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA), there are 5,500 motor carriers and 65 IEPs that are signatories to the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement (UIIA), representing approximately 90 percent of the intermodal movements. 6 Furthermore, MCMIS contains information on the motor carriers that identify themselves on the Motor Carrier Identification Report (FMCSA Form MCS-150) as engaging in intermodal operations only, as well as those that include intermodal operations as one of their primary operations, and all other motor carriers
ss Agreement (UIIA), representing approximately 90 percent of the intermodal movements. 6 Furthermore, MCMIS contains information on the motor carriers that identify themselves on the Motor Carrier Identification Report (FMCSA Form MCS-150) as engaging in intermodal operations only, as well as those that include intermodal operations as one of their primary operations, and all other motor carriers. As stated previously, the MCMIS database indicates there are 12,032 motor carriers that included intermodal cargo as one of the cargo types they may carry.
6 http://www.intermodal.org/Assn Initiatives.html.
Given that, according to the IANA database, about 5,500 motor carriers are signatories of UIIA, this analysis assumes that about 46 percent of the 12,032 motor carriers in MCMIS, or about 5,600 motor carriers, are engaged in intermodal cargo container operations as a primary operation. Only some of these carriers own or otherwise control (i.e., lease) intermodal container chassis or trailers. In response to FMCSA's survey questionnaire regarding operational characteristics of intermodal tractor-trailers, three out of nine motor carriers (or one-third), suggested that they owned, leased, or otherwise controlled intermodal container chassis for extended periods of time (i.e., beyond one trip). Therefore, FMCSA assumes that one-third of the 5,600 motor carriers engaged in intermodal cargo container operations, or about 1,900 motor carriers, actually own or lease/control intermodal container chassis.
It is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the size and scope of national intermodal container chassis operations. There is no census or database of intermodal container chassis providers that is comparable to FMCSA's MCMIS Census File of motor carriers, which provides not only the name and location of each motor carrier, but also its size, as measured by the number of power units
r chassis.
It is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the size and scope of national intermodal container chassis operations. There is no census or database of intermodal container chassis providers that is comparable to FMCSA's MCMIS Census File of motor carriers, which provides not only the name and location of each motor carrier, but also its size, as measured by the number of power units. Therefore, the number of IEPs has been estimated using a combination of MCMIS, IANA, and ATA reports, as well as information obtained from port authority and railroad Web sites. However, FMCSA believes that the 1,900 motor carriers that own intermodal container chassis are already subject to systematic maintenance requirements and would not incur any additional cost burden due to the proposed rule.
Intermodal Container Chassis Population
Information on the number of intermodal container chassis owned by the various equipment owners/providers was as difficult to obtain as the number of intermodal container chassis providers. Based on articles in the motor carrier trade press, FMCSA estimates that there are between 750,000 and 800,000 container chassis in service. According to the Institute of International Container Lessors (IICL) Annual Chassis Fleet Survey, 7 IICL members owned approximately 320,000 8 To be conservative, FMCSA estimates that there are approximately 850,000 intermodal container chassis currently in operation in the United States.
7 http://www.iicl.org/PDF%20Docs/16thFleetSurveyChassis.pdf.
8 http://www.iicl.org/members.htm.
Based on the IICL data on intermodal container chassis, FMCSA assumes the estimated 10 container chassis pool operators control about 38 percent, or 320,000 container chassis. Therefore, this NPRM assumes that steamship lines, railroads, and motor carriers currently own about 530,000 intermodal container chassis in operation in the United States
yChassis.pdf.
8 http://www.iicl.org/members.htm.
Based on the IICL data on intermodal container chassis, FMCSA assumes the estimated 10 container chassis pool operators control about 38 percent, or 320,000 container chassis. Therefore, this NPRM assumes that steamship lines, railroads, and motor carriers currently own about 530,000 intermodal container chassis in operation in the United States.
Through its surveys of intermodal equipment providers, FMCSA obtained information on about 281,100 intermodal container chassis, or roughly 53 percent of the total number of intermodal container chassis owned by members of the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA), Association of American Railroads (AAR), and American Trucking Associations. 9 Based on the information from the three industry associations, about 80 percent of the reported 281,100 intermodal container chassis are owned by the steamship lines, 20 percent are owned by railroads, and less than 0.02 percent of the reported 281,100 intermodal container chassis are owned by the motor carriers. Therefore, based on the reported average fleet size of 22 intermodal container chassis per motor carrier, FMCSA believes that the estimated 1,900 motor carriers that own chassis have approximately 41,800 intermodal container chassis. FMCSA then estimates that 80 percent of the rest of the intermodal container chassis (that is, the 488,200 container chassis that are not owned by either equipment lessors or motor carriers), or approximately 392,000 intermodal container chassis, are owned by the steamship lines and approximately 96,200 are owned by the railroads. Table 12 shows the estimated number of container chassis by owner.
9 For the 3 industry associations, seven out of 18 major ocean common carriers, three out of 5 railroads, and 9 motor carriers responded to a variety of questions regarding chassis ownership and operations
y 392,000 intermodal container chassis, are owned by the steamship lines and approximately 96,200 are owned by the railroads. Table 12 shows the estimated number of container chassis by owner.
9 For the 3 industry associations, seven out of 18 major ocean common carriers, three out of 5 railroads, and 9 motor carriers responded to a variety of questions regarding chassis ownership and operations.
Table 12.—Estimated Number of Intermodal Chassis by Owner Description of entities Estimated number of affected entities Estimated number of chassis Steamship Lines 93 392,000 Railroads 5 96,200 Common-pool Operators/Equipment Lessors 10 320,000 Motor Carriers 1,900 41,800 Total 2,008 850,000 V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures)
FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking action is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and significant under DOT regulatory policies and procedures because of substantial public and Congressional interest concerning the maintenance and roadability of intermodal container chassis and the responsibilities of intermodal equipment providers (IEPs). However, it has been estimated that the economic impact of this proposed rule would not exceed the annual $100 million threshold for economic significance. OMB has reviewed this proposed rule. Improved maintenance is expected to result in fewer out-of-service (OOS) orders and highway breakdowns involving intermodal chassis and improved efficiency of the Nation's intermodal transportation system. To the extent inadequately maintained intermodal chassis are responsible for, or contribute to, crashes, this proposal would also help to ensure that CMV operations are safer, thus reducing the deleterious effect on drivers addressed in section 31136(a)(4)
vice (OOS) orders and highway breakdowns involving intermodal chassis and improved efficiency of the Nation's intermodal transportation system. To the extent inadequately maintained intermodal chassis are responsible for, or contribute to, crashes, this proposal would also help to ensure that CMV operations are safer, thus reducing the deleterious effect on drivers addressed in section 31136(a)(4). Given the cost results contained in the next section, Estimate of the Compliance Costs for Intermodal Equipment Providers, FMCSA anticipates this rule would not have a significant economic impact on IEPs.
Periodic (annual) inspection is required for every commercial motor vehicle in accordance with current § 396.17. 10 Periodic inspection is intended to complement and be consistent with the more stringent § 393.3 (systematic) inspection, repair, and maintenance (IRM) requirements proposed in the NPRM. Currently, most intermodal container chassis undergo a periodic (annual) inspection. Although existing rules requiring the periodic inspection do not apply directly to IEPs, as a business practice IEPs perform the inspection to ensure motor carriers will accept the chassis. However, many IEPs do not appear to have in place the systematic inspection, repair and maintenance programs (49 CFR 396.3) that provide continuous, on-going oversight of their equipment throughout the year. Therefore, the explicit inclusion of the IEP in § 396.3 of the FMCSRs would make them responsible for compliance with the requirements of applicable statutes and the corresponding regulations.
10
The term “commerical motor vehicle” includes each unit in a combination vehicle. For example, for a tractor semitrailer, full trailer combination, the tractor, semitrailer, and the full trailer (including the converter dolly if so equipped) must each be inspected
FMCSRs would make them responsible for compliance with the requirements of applicable statutes and the corresponding regulations.
10
The term “commerical motor vehicle” includes each unit in a combination vehicle. For example, for a tractor semitrailer, full trailer combination, the tractor, semitrailer, and the full trailer (including the converter dolly if so equipped) must each be inspected. The proposed amendments to the FMCSRs would explicitly require IEPs to ensure the equipment they tender to motor carriers and drivers complies with the safety requirements in place for other types of trailers operated in interstate commerce. For those equipment providers that have in place systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance programs, including providing the opportunity for CMV drivers to assess the safe operating condition of intermodal container chassis before taking them on the highway and repairing or replacing equipment found to have deficiencies, this proposed rulemaking would impose minimal additional costs. Equipment providers that do not have such systematic programs in place would incur the costs of establishing and maintaining the programs.
The proposed regulations also address a program for FMCSA to evaluate and audit the compliance of IEPs with those sections of the FMCSRs applicable to them. If FMCSA finds evidence that an IEP is not complying with the regulations concerning intermodal equipment safety, the proposed regulations would allow FMCSA to take appropriate action to bring about compliance with the regulation.
The proposed rule would have some impact upon the responsibilities of drivers and motor carriers. Motor carriers would continue to bear responsibility for the safe operation of equipment in their control on the highways and for the systematic IRM of all motor vehicles, including intermodal equipment, under their control for 30 days or more
te action to bring about compliance with the regulation.
The proposed rule would have some impact upon the responsibilities of drivers and motor carriers. Motor carriers would continue to bear responsibility for the safe operation of equipment in their control on the highways and for the systematic IRM of all motor vehicles, including intermodal equipment, under their control for 30 days or more. Drivers would continue to be responsible for assessing the safe operating condition of the CMVs they will drive (§ 392.7 and § 396.13), and to note and report on defects or deficiencies that could affect the CMV's safety of operation or result in a mechanical breakdown (§ 396.11). IEPs would need to acknowledge receiving that information, and must either repair the equipment or provide a replacement chassis. However, IEPs and their agents may also request FMCSA to undertake an investigation of a motor carrier that is alleged to not be in compliance with regulations issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31151.
Excluding potential costs associated with systematic IRM (§ 396.3) requirements, FMCSA estimates equipment providers' costs to comply with the proposed information collect

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [71 FR 46 Time for Filing Employment Tax Returns and Modifications to the Deposit Rules](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-24563.md)
- [71 FR 48 Changes To Practice for Continuing Applications, Requests for Continued Examination Practice, and Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-24528.md)
- [71 FR 287 Request for Burden Reduction Recommendations; Rules Relating to Prompt Corrective Action and the Disclosure and Reporting of CRA-Related Agreements; Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 Review](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-12.md)
- [71 FR 293 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E5-8240.md)
- [71 FR 299 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 777-200, and 777-300 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E5-8244.md)
- [71 FR 315 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Northern Mexican Gartersnake as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-1.md)
- [71 FR 1397 Proposed Establishment of Area Navigation Instrument Flight Rules Terminal Transition Route (RITTR) T-210; Jacksonville, FL](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-68.md)
- [71 FR 1398 Proposed Establishment of VOR Federal Airway V-623; NJ and NY](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-69.md)
- [71 FR 1718 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-136.md)
- [71 FR 3025 Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-583.md)
- [71 FR 3027 Safety Zone; Vermilion River, Vermilion, OH. VYC Fleet Parade.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-584.md)
- [71 FR 3254 Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Guam Longline Fishing Prohibited Area](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-650.md)
- [71 FR 3446 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-701.md)
- [71 FR 3448 Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Foreign Acquisition Procedures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-706.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-21380. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.