The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2025-0919; Project Identifier AD-2024-00648-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Luis Cortez-Muniz, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3958; email: Luis.A.Cortez-Muniz@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2013-08-08, Amendment 39-17425 (78 FR 23465, April 19, 2013) (AD 2013-08-08), for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600 series airplanes. AD 2013-08-08 was prompted by reports of early fatigue cracks at chem-mill areas on the crown skin panels. AD 2013-08-08 requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin at certain locations at chem-mill steps, and repair if necessary. AD 2013-08-08 also provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The FAA issued AD 2013-08-08 to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the skin panel at the specified chem-mill step locations, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane.

Since the FAA issued AD 2013-08-08, the FAA received reports of suspected fuselage fatigue cracks found adjacent to non-chem-mill skin bays on Model 737-700 airplanes with between 40,000 and 43,000 total flight cycles—earlier than the inspection thresholds specified by AD 2013-08-08. Boeing has reported that the inspection compliance times and repetitive intervals in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1309, dated October 20, 2011, are not adequate. The new fleet data indicates that crack growth is faster, and there are more cracks distributed along the chem-mill steps between the tear straps; as a result, the cracks can initiate from multiple sites along the chem-mill step and link up, causing a faster crack propagation than initially observed in the test data that prompted Boeing Service Bulletin 737-52-1309, dated October 20, 2011. As a result of these findings, the FAA has determined that earlier inspection thresholds for the chem-mill areas, as well as post modification inspections (for airplanes on which the terminating action is accomplished), are now necessary to address the unsafe condition. The FAA is considering similar rulemaking for Model 737-700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1309, Revision 1, dated May 22, 2024. This material specifies procedures for inspecting for cracking in the fuselage skin at certain locations at the chem-mill steps by doing repetitive external detailed inspections and either (1) external medium frequency eddy current (MFEC), magneto optic imager (MOI), or C-scan inspections or (2) external ultrasonic phased array (UTPA) inspections, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include crack repair. This material also specifies an optional modification that eliminates the need for repetitive inspections, provided post modification inspections are also performed for airplanes with the optional modification installed.

This proposed AD would also require Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1309, dated October 20, 2011, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of May 24, 2013 (78 FR 23465, April 19, 2013).

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2013-08-08, this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2013-08-08. Those requirements are referenced in the material identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.

This proposed AD would reduce the initial compliance times and repetitive intervals for the inspections. This proposed AD would also mandate the optional post-modification inspections (if the operator chooses to perform the optional modification). This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this material at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0919.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 6 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

This document and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov. The website is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: www.federalregister.gov.

FHWA is proposing to rescind the rule issued on July 19, 1974, Geodetic Markers, via 39 FR 26413, amending 23 CFR part 630 subpart D. The rule proposed for rescission “prescribes procedures for conducting geodetic control surveys when participation with Federal-aid highway funds in the cost thereof is proposed and to encourage inter-agency cooperation in setting station markers, surveying to measure their position, and preserving the control so established.” 23 CFR 630.401. We propose to rescind 23 CFR part 630, subpart D in its entirety and seek comment on all aspects of that proposal.

In general, 23 CFR part 630, subpart D has three aspects. First, it states that geodetic surveys along Federal-aid highway routes may be programmed as standalone Federal-aid projects. 23 CFR 630.402(a). Next, it requires that geodetic survey work performed as a Federal-aid highway project conform with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) specifications (23 CFR 630.402(b)) and be coordinated between FHWA, the State Department of Transportation (State DOT), and NOAA (23 CFR 630.403). Finally, § 630.404 sets general standards for geodetic control surveys. The Secretary of Transportation is pursuing a new policy to reduce regulatory burdens wherever possible. Under that policy, unless a regulatory standard is required by statute, the Secretary proposes eliminating that requirement. This subpart is being proposed for rescission because it is not required by statute.

First, FHWA does not believe it necessary to state in regulation that geodetic surveys may be programmed as standalone Federal-aid projects, given that the eligibility to conduct such surveys is provided in statute under the definition of construction 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(4); that definition states that the “construction” of projects can include projects that consist of “mapping (including the establishment of temporary and permanent geodetic control in accordance with specifications of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)”. The FHWA does not believe it necessary to have a regulation that merely repeats statutory eligibility. To the extent that clarity is necessary, FHWA is not proposing to change the current policy that geodetic control surveys can be conducted without needing to be directly related to the construction of a specific highway project. Such projects would still be able to be funded under applicable Federal-aid funding programs. 1

Next, FHWA does not believe that it is necessary to state in § 630.402(b) that all geodetic survey work will conform to NOAA specifications and that NOAA will be responsible for the inspection and verification of the work to ascertain that the specifications for the work have been met. This is not a statutory requirement for FHWA, and FHWA does not believe it necessary to state the involvement of NOAA within FHWA's regulations. Similarly, FHWA does not believe that the coordination provisions in § 630.403 are necessary to include as regulations. Again, coordination between FHWA, the State DOT, and NOAA is not strictly required under FHWA's statutory authority. Further, FHWA would expect State DOTs to coordinate with FHWA and, as needed, NOAA.

Finally, § 630.404 provides general standards for geodetic survey projects that are not required to be provided under FHWA's statutory authority. The FHWA is accordingly proposing to remove these provisions. With their removal, § 630.401, which provides the purpose for the subpart, would be superfluous, and FHWA is similarly proposing to remove that section.

This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule under those orders.

This rule would remove requirements that are outside of FHWA's statutory authority and which reflect standards administered by NOAA. While FHWA believes there are deregulatory benefits to this rule, FHWA does not currently have data on any such monetary benefits or costs. The FHWA seeks comments on any impact that could result from removing the provisions identified in this NPRM.

These changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

This proposed rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. This rule would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impacts of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FHWA has concluded and hereby certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This proposed rescission would only rescind regulations that apply to a small set of projects.

This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) for State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule is deregulatory and so would not impose any additional information collection requirements.

FHWA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the NEPA and has determined that it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(2), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Categorically excluded actions meet the criteria for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. This proposed rule would rescind a regulation providing procedure and technical standards for completing projects and does not require any new Federal actions or procedures. FHWA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this proposed rule, and no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. FHWA has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

This document and all comments received may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval assistance and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of Federal Register 's website at www.federalregister.gov and the U.S. Government Publishing Office's website at www.GovInfo.gov.

FHWA is proposing to rescind a specific provision of the rule issued on December 8, 1983, via 48 FR 54972, Advance Construction of Federal-Aid Projects, as amended on March 30, 1990, via 55 FR 11902. This provision is part of FHWA regulations, codified at 23 CFR part 630, subpart G, that prescribe procedures for advancing the construction of Federal-aid highway projects without obligating Federal funds apportioned or allocated to the State, known as Advance Construction (AC). 23 CFR 630.701. Advance construction is authorized under 23 U.S.C. 115; under the statute, FHWA may authorize a State to proceed with a project authorized under title 23, U.S.C. without the use of Federal funds while preserving eligibility for future Federal-aid funds. After an AC project is authorized, the State may convert the project to regular Federal-aid funding provided Federal funds are made available for the project. For the reasons explained below, FHWA is proposing to rescind a specific provision of those regulations, 23 CFR 630.705(b), as FHWA believes that this provision is unnecessary.

On December 8, 1983, FHWA issued a regulation revising FHWA's regulations concerning AC projects that existed at the time. Among the changes made, FHWA revised 23 CFR 630.703 to state: “Project designations [for advance construction projects] shall be the same as for regular Federal-aid projects except that until the project is converted to a regular Federal-aid project, the prefix letters `AC' for advance construction shall be used as the first letters of each project designation.” See 48 FR 54974. In issuing this provision, the preamble only stated that “[p]rovisions for submitting programs and making project designations for advance construction projects now comprise § 630.703.” On June 9, 1989, FHWA revised its AC regulations, moving the contents of what was previously 23 CFR 630.703 to 23 CFR 630.705, while only noting that regular AC procedures would then be contained in 23 CFR 630.705. See 55 FR 11902. Through this 1989 rule, FHWA modified 23 CFR 630.705(b) to read: “Project numbers shall be identified by the letters `AC' preceding the regular project number prefix.” See 55 FR 11903. This provision, 23 CFR 630.705(b) has not been changed since.

The Secretary of Transportation is pursuing a new policy to reduce regulatory burdens wherever possible. Under that policy, unless a regulatory standard is required by statute, the Secretary proposes eliminating that requirement. The requirements in 23 CFR 630.705(b) are not required by 23 U.S.C. 115. In addition, FHWA's current process of determining which projects are advance construction projects, versus Federal-aid projects where Federal-aid funds have already been obligated, does not require the use of the prefix “AC.” Accordingly, FHWA is proposing to eliminate this regulatory provision.

This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule under those orders.

This proposed rule would rescind regulations that are not in alignment with current FHWA process. For that reason, FHWA does not believe there are any costs to this rulemaking, as opposed to the deregulatory benefit of removing unnecessary provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations.

These changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. This rulemaking would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impacts of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FHWA has concluded and hereby certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This rule would only remove a provision that is not in accordance with current FHWA processes.

This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule is deregulatory and so would not impose any additional information collection requirements.

FHWA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the NEPA and has determined that it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(2), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Categorically excluded actions meet the criteria for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. This rule would rescind regulations not in accordance with current FHWA processes. FHWA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this proposed rule, and no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. FHWA has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR part 630 as set forth below:

This document and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov . The website is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: www.federalregister.gov .

FHWA is proposing to rescind the rule issued on October 10, 1974, Bridges on Federal Dams, via 39 FR 36473, amending 23 CFR part 630, subpart H. The rule proposed for rescission prescribes procedures for the construction and financing, by an agency of the Federal Government, of public highway bridges over dams constructed and owned by or for the United States. 23 CFR 630.801. The FHWA proposes to rescind 23 CFR part 630, subpart H in full and seek comment on all aspects of that proposal.

Under 23 U.S.C. 320(a), State Departments of Transportation (DOT), jointly with the Secretary of Transportation, may determine and certify to a Federal agency which has jurisdiction over and custody of a dam constructed or to be constructed and owned by or for the United States that a public highway bridge upon and across such dam is economically desirable and needed as a link in the State or Federal-aid highway systems. The Federal agency may then use funds available to it to design and construct the dam in such manner that will serve as a suitable and adequate foundation for a public highway bridge and to design and construct a public highway bridge upon and across the dam. 23 U.S.C. 320(a). In addition, construction of any bridge upon and across any dam pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 320 may not start until the State in which the bridge is to be located, or the appropriate subdivision of such State, enters into an agreement with the Federal agency and the Secretary of Transportation to construct the approach roads necessary to connect such bridge with existing public highways. 23 U.S.C. 320(b). While a portion of the bridge may be financed wholly with Federal funds, any approach roads “shall be financed by the State or its appropriate subdivision with or without the aid of Federal funds.” 23 U.S.C. 320(d). Finally, 23 U.S.C. 320(f) makes clear that 23 U.S.C. 320 does not affect any bridge, approach structure, or highway constructed or to be constructed by a Federal agency to satisfy a legal obligation incurred independently of 23 U.S.C. 320.

On October 10, 1974, FHWA amended 23 CFR part 630 by adding a new subpart H. 39 FR 36473. This rule required that a proposed bridge over a dam constructed and owned by or for the United States, together with the approach roads to connect the bridge with existing public highways, must be eligible for inclusion in the Federal-aid highway system. 23 CFR 630.802. The regulation also required that a State's application to qualify a project under the new subpart to include a certification that the bridge is economically desirable and needed as a link in the Federal-aid highway system, a statement showing the source and availability of funds to be used in construction of the roadway approaches, and a statement of any obligation on the part of the agency constructing the dam to provide such bridge or approach roads to satisfy a legal liability incurred independently of the subpart. 23 CFR 630.803. This subpart has not been amended since its issuance in 1974.

The Secretary of Transportation is pursuing a new policy to reduce regulatory burdens wherever possible. Under that policy, unless a regulatory standard is required by statute, the Secretary proposes eliminating that requirement. As such, to the extent that 23 CFR part 630, subpart H is not required by 23 U.S.C. 320 or other applicable statute, FHWA is proposing to rescind the regulation. As FHWA does not believe that 23 U.S.C. 320 contains ambiguity that necessitates regulations, to the extent that 23 CFR part 630, subpart H has provisions not required by statute, FHWA believes those provisions merely duplicate statutory language and are unnecessary. For instance, 23 CFR 630.803(a) merely reiterates language in 23 U.S.C. 320(a) and 23 CFR 630.803(c) reiterates language in 23 U.S.C. 320(f).

Further, as a practical matter, no additional funding for the construction of bridges on Federal dams has been authorized since the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-599). In Fiscal Year 1994, Congress rescinded the balance of funds that were made available for bridges on Federal dams pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 320, leaving no funds currently available for the work contemplated by 23 CFR part 630, subpart H. See Public Law 103-211, Title III, Chapter 10. Were Congress to provide additional funds, FHWA believes the requirements in 23 U.S.C. 320 are sufficiently clear. As such, FHWA is proposing to rescind the regulations in 23 CFR part 630, subpart H regarding procedures for the construction and financing of public highway bridges over dams constructed and owned by or for the United States. The FHWA seeks comment on any reasons to rescind or not to rescind these regulations.

This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule under those orders.

This rule would remove requirements for projects that are not currently funded. While FHWA believes there are deregulatory benefits to this rule, FHWA believes any monetary benefits or costs to this rule would be minimal. The FHWA seeks comments on any impacts that could result from removing the provisions identified in this NPRM.

These changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

This proposed rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. This rule would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impacts of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FHWA has concluded and hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This proposed rescission would only remove requirements regarding procedures for the construction and financing of public highway bridges over dams constructed and owned by or for the United States that are not otherwise required by statute.

This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) for State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule is deregulatory and so would not impose any additional information collection requirements.

FHWA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the NEPA and has determined that it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(2), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Categorically excluded actions meet the criteria for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. This rule would rescind regulations regarding procedures for the construction and financing of public highway bridges over dams constructed and owned by or for the United States. FHWA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this proposed rule, and no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. FHWA has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, FHWA proposes to revise title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 630, as set forth below

This document and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov. The website is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: www.federalregister.gov.

FHWA is proposing to rescind portions of the rule issued on October 2, 1987, Required Contract Provisions for Federal-Aid Construction Contracts (Other than Appalachian Contracts), via 52 FR 36920, as amended on February 13, 2004, by 69 FR 7118, amending 23 CFR part 633 subpart A. The rule proposed for rescission prescribes the method of inclusion of construction contract provisions that are required by existing statute and regulations. 23 CFR 633.101. Under these regulations, FHWA requires that Form FHWA-1273, “Required Contract Provisions, Federal-aid Construction Contracts” be physically incorporated in each Federal-aid highway construction contract, other than Appalachian construction contracts (23 CFR 633.102(b)) and any lower tier subcontracts that may be made (23 CFR 633.102(e)). We propose to rescind 23 CFR part 633, subpart A entirely and seek comment on all aspects of that proposal.

Currently, to ensure that contract provisions required by statute or regulation are including in construction contracts, FHWA requires that those construction contracts physically incorporate Form FHWA-1273. 23 CFR 633.102(b), (e), and (f). Form FHWA-1273 itself does not impose additional requirements; it only states requirements imposed by other statutes or regulations. See 23 CFR 633.103. For example, under 29 CFR 5.5(a), Federal agencies must insert in any contract in excess of $2,000 for certain work specific clauses. Section IV of FHWA-Form 1273 includes this language and states when it is applicable. Neither 23 CFR part 633, subpart A nor FHWA Form-1273 contains the requirement for this language to be included; instead, they only reference the requirement. The requirement still would be required to be included where applicable with or without 23 CFR part 633, subpart A. Form FHWA-1273 merely aggregates several required provisions, and 23 CFR part 633, subpart A then requires that Form FHWA-1273 be physically incorporated into construction contracts.

The FHWA finds the requirement to include Form FHWA-1273 unnecessary and is proposing to therefore remove 23 CFR part 633, subpart A. Again, to the extent that provisions under other statutes or regulations that are currently listed in Form FHWA-1273 are required to be included in a construction contract, those provisions still must be included in the contract. Further, FHWA is not proposing to eliminate Form FHWA-1273 and envisions continuing to make updates as necessary due to changes in applicable statutes or regulations. To the extent that recipients, subrecipients, and contractors elect to use Form FHWA-1273 to satisfy their obligations, FHWA intends allowing them to continue to do so. The FHWA is merely eliminating the requirement that those entities must use Form FHWA-1273 to fulfill these obligations. Those entities may choose other ways, besides incorporating Form FHWA-1273, if they find such alternatives preferrable.

In short, FHWA views prescribing the use of Form FHWA-1273 as unnecessary and overly restrictive. While provisions contained in Form FHWA-1273 continue to apply, FHWA finds no reason to mandate the use of Form FHWA-1273 to ensure their inclusion. As such, FHWA is proposing to rescind the regulations in 23 CFR part 633, subpart A. The FHWA seeks comment on any reasons to rescind or not rescind these regulations.

This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule under those orders.

This rule would remove the requirement that Form FHWA-1273, which itself contains contract provisions required by statute and regulation, be physically incorporated into construction contracts. It does not remove the requirement for contract provisions within Form FHWA-1273 that are required by statute and regulation to still be incorporated into construction contracts. As such, while FHWA is removing the requirement to use a single mechanism to ensure compliance, it is not removing the underlying requirements. For that reason, FHWA believes that any monetary benefits or costs to this rule would be minimal. The FHWA seeks comments on any impacts that could result from removing the provisions identified in this NPRM.

These changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

This proposed rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. This rule would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impacts of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FHWA has concluded and hereby certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This proposed rescission would only rescind the requirement to incorporate Form FHWA-1273 in construction contracts. It does not add or remove any requirements referenced in Form FHWA-1273 that may continue to be applicable.

This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) for State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule is deregulatory and so would not impose any additional information collection requirements.

FHWA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the NEPA and has determined that it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(2), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Categorically excluded actions meet the criteria for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. This NPRM proposes to remove the requirement for to physically incorporate FHWA Form-1273 in construction contracts. It does not affect the requirements that are referenced in FHWA Form-1273 that may otherwise be applicable. FHWA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this proposed rule, and no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. FHWA has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

This document and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov . The website is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: www.federalregister.gov .

FHWA is proposing to rescind the rule issued on September 30, 1974, Federal-Aid Contracts (Appalachian Contracts), via 39 FR 35146, as amended on October 21, 1975, by 40 FR 49084 and on March 1, 1976, by 41 FR 8769, amending 23 CFR part 633 subpart B. The rule proposed for rescission provides policies and procedures for administering projects and funds for the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) and Appalachian local access roads. 23 CFR 633.201. The FHWA proposes to rescind the entire subpart B of part 633 and seek comment on all aspects of that proposal.

This subpart concerns projects for the ADHS and Appalachian local access roads. Under 40 U.S.C. 14501, the Secretary of Transportation may assist in the construction of the ADHS and local access roads serving the Appalachian region, and Congress has appropriated funds for this purpose. While such Appalachian projects have been, are being, and likely will continue to be constructed, FHWA does not find it necessary to maintain the current regulations to administer such construction. This subpart is being proposed for rescission because it is substantially outdated and duplicative of other statutory and regulatory sections. The FHWA discusses the reasons for removing each section separately below.

As detailed more below, FHWA is proposing to remove the substantive provisions within 23 CFR part 633, subpart B. With those provisions removed, FHWA finds it unnecessary to keep §§ 633.201 and 633.202.

Section 633.203, title 23, Code of Federal Regulations states that the provisions of title 23, U.S.C. that are applicable to the construction and maintenance of Federal-aid primary and secondary highways and which the Secretary of Transportation determines are not consistent with the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (Act) (Pub. L. 89-4) shall apply to the development highway system and the local access roads. This merely restates 40 U.S.C. 14501(g)(2) and is therefore unnecessary. Further, § 633.203 states that title 23 of the CFR and directives implementing applicable provisions of title 23, U.S.C., where not inconsistent with the Act, apply to the development highway system and the local access roads. Given that certain provisions of title 23, U.S.C. apply under 40 U.S.C. 14501(g)(2), FHWA believes it apparent that regulations implementing those provisions would also apply. The FHWA therefore finds this restatement unnecessary and proposes to remove § 633.203.

Section 633.204(a) states that Federal assistance shall not exceed 70 percent of the costs of a project. This provision is outdated; under 40 U.S.C. 14501(e), the Federal share shall not exceed 80 percent of the cost of a project. 1 The FHWA further does not believe it necessary to include a regulatory provision that would merely repeat 40 U.S.C. 14501(e). Similarly, § 633.204(b) states that the FHWA Division Administrator's authorization to proceed with proposed work shall establish obligation of Federal funds for a particular project. Again, FHWA finds this unnecessary to include. Per 40 U.S.C. 14501(g)(1), 23 U.S.C. 106(a) applies to the development system and the local access roads. Per 23 U.S.C. 106(a)(3), the execution of the project agreement is deemed a contractual obligation of the Federal Government. It is typical FHWA policy for authorization to proceed either through or after the execution of the project agreement. See 23 CFR 630.106(a)(2). Thus, FHWA believes that § 633.204(b) merely restates statute and FHWA practice and FHWA is proposing to remove this provision.

Section 633.205(a) concerns projects that may be prefinanced and references the requirements in section 201(h) of the Act. Section 201(h) of the Act is codified at 40 U.S.C. 14501(f), which is more detailed than § 633.205(a). 2 The FHWA therefore proposes to remove § 633.205(a). Section 633.205(b) states that certain actions for projects using interim State financing must include the statement “There is no commitment or obligation on the part of the United States to provide funds for this highway improvement. However, this project is eligible for Federal reimbursement when sufficient funds are available from the amounts allocated by the Appalachian Regional Commission.” While 40 U.S.C. 14501(f)(2) states that 40 U.S.C. 14501(f)(1) does not commit or obligate the Federal Government to provide amounts for segments of development highways constructed under this subsection, it does not require that any statement be specifically included. The FHWA believes such a statement is unnecessary and that current FHWA processes can determine which projects are being constructed with interim State financing and is proposing to remove § 633.205(b).

Section 633.206(a) requires project agreements for projects under the Appalachian program to contain specific language. Under § 633.206(a)(1), the State Department of Transportation (State DOT) is required to state that it agrees to comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies and procedures. FHWA finds such a statement unnecessary; the State DOT must comply with applicable laws, regulations, and policies and procedures because they are applicable. Under § 633.206(a)(2), the project agreement must include specific language that projects constructed on a section of an Appalachian development route not already on the Federal-Aid Primary System must be added to the system prior to, or upon completion of, construction accomplished with Appalachian funds. This merely reiterates 40 U.S.C. 14501(c), and FHWA finds it unnecessary to specifically include a statement in a project agreement repeating applicable law. Similarly, § 633.206(b) requires prefinanced projects to include provisions in their project agreements repeating the requirements of 40 U.S.C. 14501(f). Again, FHWA finds this addition unnecessary and is therefore proposing to remove § 633.206.

Section 633.207(a) states that construction and materials “shall be in accordance with the State highway department standard construction specifications approved for use on Federal-aid primary projects and special provisions and supplemental specifications amendatory thereto approved for use on the specific projects.” The FHWA considers this provision as unnecessary, given that it reiterates the construction standard requirements in 23 CFR part 625 and the materials standards in 23 CFR part 635, subpart D.

Section 633.207(b) states that 23 U.S.C. 324, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-2000d-4), and implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 21 apply to contracts listed in Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 633. As described below, FHWA proposes to remove Appendix A and therefore similarly proposes to remove § 633.207(b). Similarly, §§ 633.207(c) and (d) only state that Appendix B and C, respectively, must be included in certain contracts. As described below, FHWA is proposing to remove those appendices and thus proposes to remove §§ 633.207(c) and (d). Finally, § 633.207(e) states that the State may give special preference to the use of mineral resource materials native to the Appalachian region. FHWA proposes to remove this provision, as 40 U.S.C. 14501(d)(1) broadly states that States may give special preference to the use of materials and products indigenous to the Appalachian region. As § 633.207(e) is both narrower and repetitive of the statute, FHWA proposes to remove it.

Section 633.208 states that maintenance of projects constructed under the Act shall be the responsibility of the State, and that the State can arrange for maintenance by agreement with a local governmental unit. This merely repeats the requirement in 40 U.S.C. 14501(g)(2) that States are required to maintain projects as provided in title 23, U.S.C. Specifically, 23 U.S.C. 116(b) states that it is the duty of States to maintain, or cause to be maintained, projects they construct using FHWA financial assistance. As § 633.208 is merely repeating otherwise applicable statutes, FHWA proposes to remove it.

Section 633.209 states that State DOTs must include the notices set forth in Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 633 in all future bidding proposals for Appalachian Development System and Appalachian local access roads construction contracts. As detailed below, FHWA is proposing to remove Appendix D and therefore is proposing to remove § 633.209.

Under § 633.210, all contracts exceeding $2,500 must contain suitable provisions for termination by the State, including the manner in which the termination will be affected, and the basis for settlement, and must describe conditions under which the contract may be terminated for default and because of circumstances beyond the control of the contractor. This provision is substantially similar to 23 CFR 635.125(a), although § 635.125(a) applies to contracts exceeding $10,000. The FHWA sees little reason for Appalachian contracts to be treated differently. Further, as noted above in the discussion of § 633.203, applicable provisions of 23 CFR would continue to apply under this proposal. FHWA therefore proposes to remove § 633.210.

Section 633.211 currently states that implementing requirements with respect to the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are included in Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 633. As described below, FHWA proposes to remove all of Appendix B and therefore proposes to remove § 633.211 as well, as it just references specific requirements currently found in Appendix B.

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 633 states that 23 U.S.C. 324, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 21 are applicable to certain contracts awarded by State DOTs, contractors, and first tier subcontractors. Those include construction, planning, research, highway safety, engineering, property management, and fee contracts and other commitments with persons for services incidental to the acquisition of right-of-way. The FHWA does not believe this appendix is necessary, as it only states the applicability of 23 U.S.C. 324, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and DOT's implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 21. The FHWA believes that the extent of these requirements are clear and does not find that there is a reason to specifically lay out their applicability for the Appalachian system versus other Federal-aid projects. Accordingly, FHWA proposes to remove Appendix A.

Appendices B, C, and D to Subpart B of Part 633 are outdated and FHWA does not believe they are necessary to maintain. These appendices list provisions that are required to be included in contracts. To the extent that these provisions are not specifically required by statute or other regulations, FHWA considers it unnecessary and unduly burdensome to specifically detail the language of contract provisions. To the extent that these provisions are required by other statutes and regulations, FHWA does not find it necessary to repeat the mandates of those statutes and regulations in these appendices. Accordingly, FHWA proposes to remove Appendices B, C, and D.

This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rulemaking under those orders.

This proposed rescission would remove regulations that FHWA believes are outdated, duplicative, and unnecessary. The FHWA believes there may be some cost savings from this rescission, such as cost savings from not having to include unnecessary contract provisions. The FHWA, however, does not have data on the extent of those savings. The FHWA seeks comments on any impacts that could result from removing the provisions identified in this NPRM.

These changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

This proposed rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. This rulemaking would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impacts of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rulemaking on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FHWA has concluded and hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This proposed rescission would only remove requirements that FHWA believes are outdated and unnecessary.

This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) for State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule is deregulatory and so would not impose any additional information collection requirements.

FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the NEPA and has determined that it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(2), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Categorically excluded actions meet the criteria for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. This NPRM proposes to rescind an outdated regulation and does not require any new Federal actions or procedures. FHWA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this proposed rule, and no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. FHWA has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this proposed rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule can be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 315, FHWA proposes to remove subpart B of part 633

An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of Federal Register's website at www.federalregister.gov and the U.S. Government Publishing Office's website at www.GovInfo.gov.

In 1958, Congress codified title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Public Law 85-767. The Forest Highway Program was codified at 23 U.S.C. 204, along with separate categories for forest development roads and trails (23 U.S.C. 205), park roads and trails (23 U.S.C. 206), parkways (23 U.S.C. 207), Indian reservation roads (23 U.S.C. 208), and public lands highways (23 U.S.C. 209). Under the system at the time, each program received separate appropriations, which the Secretary of Transportation allocated under a previous version of 23 U.S.C. 202. Per the version of 23 U.S.C. 204 that existed at the time, the Secretary of Transportation was authorized to use funds available for forest highways to pay for the cost of construction and maintenance thereof. On May 1961, the Bureau of Public Roads, the predecessor to FHWA, issued regulations for administering the Forest Highway Program under 23 CFR part 15. See 26 FR 4608. These regulations prescribed rules regarding the forest highway system, the forest highway program, and surveys, construction, and maintenance of forest highways. In 1974, this part was later redesignated 23 CFR part 660, subpart A. See 39 FR 10429 (Mar. 20, 1974).

On January 6, 1983, Congress enacted the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (1982 STAA) (Pub. L. 97-424). Section 126(b) of the 1982 STAA revised 23 U.S.C. 204, combining the previously separately codified programs for “forest highways, public lands highways, park roads, parkways, and Indian reservation roads” into a single Federal lands highway program under 23 U.S.C. 204. Under the structure of the 1982 STAA, however, Congress continued to appropriate funds for the programs separately, including for the Forest Highway Program.

On December 18, 1991, Congress enacted the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Section 1032 of ISTEA combined the Forest Highway Program with the public lands highway program; thus, instead of receiving a separate appropriation for forest highways and public lands highways, FHWA would receive a single appropriation for public lands highways, which could then be used on forest highways. In response to these changes, FHWA revised the Forest Highway Program regulations at 23 CFR part 600, subpart A, in 1994, which are the most recent revisions to this subpart. 59 FR 30296 (June 13, 1994).

Congress subsequently modified the Federal lands highway program as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141) (July 6, 2012). MAP-21 replaced the single Federal lands highway program under 23 U.S.C. 204 with the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) (23 U.S.C. 202), Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) (23 U.S.C. 203) and Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) (23 U.S.C. 204). Under this new model, instead of being appropriated funds under the public lands highway category of the Federal lands highway program, Congress has appropriated funding for TTP, FLTP, and FLAP, which can then be used for certain projects on, accessing, or adjacent to tribal and federal public lands in accordance with each program's requirements.

As such, the regulations in 23 CFR part 660, subpart A, are outdated. For instance, § 660.101 refers to forest highways “funded under the public lands highway category of the coordinated Federal Lands Highway Program,” which, as noted above, no longer occurs. Similarly, § 660.107 refers to allocations of public lands highway funds for forest highways, which again is a process that no longer occurs under statute. Other regulations, including §§ 660.105 and 660.109 do not reflect the current project delivery process under TTP, FLTP, and FLAP. Finally, FHWA does not believe that regulations concerning general project delivery, such as §§ 660.112, 660.113, 660.115, and 660.117, are necessary specifically for forest highways. TTP, FLTP, and FLAP cover a broader range of projects than just forest highways, and FHWA has not found similar regulations necessary in those cases. Accordingly, FHWA proposes to eliminate 23 CFR part 660, subpart A.

This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule under those orders.

This rulemaking would requirements for projects that are not currently funded. While FHWA believes there are deregulatory benefits to this rule, FHWA believes any monetary benefits or costs to this rule would be minimal. The FHWA seeks comments on any impacts that could result from removing the provisions identified in this NPRM.

These changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

This proposed rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. This rulemaking would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impacts of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FHWA has concluded and hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This proposed rescission would only remove outdated requirements regarding the Forest Highway Program, which is no longer a separate program under statute.

This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule is deregulatory and so would not impose any additional information collection requirements.

FHWA has analyzed this rulemaking pursuant to the NEPA and has determined that it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(2), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Categorically excluded actions meet the criteria for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. This rule would rescind regulations regarding the Forest Highway Program, which is no longer a separate program under statute. FHWA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this proposed rule, and no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. FHWA has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR part 660 as set forth below:

This document, the 2024 NPRM, and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov. The website is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: www.federalregister.gov.

On February 21, 2024, at 89 FR 13000, FHWA issued an NPRM proposing to update the HSIP regulations at 23 CFR part 924 to address provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) and to reflect then-current priorities and state-of-practice.

Consistent with President Trump's commitment to ending unlawful, unnecessary, and onerous regulations, FHWA is reviewing its existing regulations and ongoing regulatory activities for alignment with law and Administration priorities. FHWA is withdrawing this NPRM because further rulemaking action with respect to the NPRM does not align with agency needs, priorities, and objectives. FHWA appreciates the comments received and will continue to consider the best means of addressing some or all of the issues covered by the NPRM and the scope of any agency actions FHWA concludes may be necessary to address these issues.

In addition, all agencies participate in the semi-annual Unified Agenda, which provides a summary description of the rulemaking actions that each agency is considering or reviewing. Agencies' agendas are posted on the public website of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and portions are published in the Federal Register in the spring and fall of each year. The Unified Agenda is often used as a tool to solicit interest and participation from stakeholders. Withdrawal of this NPRM will allow FHWA to better align its entries on the Department's Unified Agenda with the agency's needs, priorities, and objectives.

Accordingly, for these independently sufficient reasons, FHWA is withdrawing the NPRM associated with RIN 2125-AG07 and terminating this rulemaking. By terminating this rulemaking, FHWA is indicating that it no longer considers this NPRM to be pending. Should the FHWA decide at a future date to initiate the same or similar rulemaking, FHWA will initiate a new rulemaking under a new RIN, consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.

This document and all comments received may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval assistance and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of Federal Register 's website at www.federalregister.gov and the U.S. Government Publishing Office's website at www.GovInfo.gov .

Through this proposed rule, FHWA proposes to rescind the rule issued on February 27, 2004, Federal Lands Highway Program; Management Systems Pertaining to the National Park Service and the Park Roads and Parkways Program, via 69 FR 9470, amending 23 CFR part 970. This rule provided for the development and implementation of safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for transportation facilities under National Park Service (NPS) jurisdiction and funded under the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) as required by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178) (June 9, 1998). For the reasons explained below, FHWA has determined that this part is unnecessary and will rescind it in full.

Section 1115(d)(1) of TEA-21 amended the version of 23 U.S.C. 204 that existed at the time to add a paragraph (a)(6) stating: “The Secretary and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land management agency shall, to the extent appropriate, develop by rule safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads funded under the Federal lands highway program.” The roads funded under the FLHP included Park Roads and Parkways (PRP). Through 23 CFR part 970, FHWA addressed the management systems for the NPS and the PRP program. See 69 FR at 9470.

On July 6, 2012, Congress enacted the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141). Section 1119(a) of MAP-21 removed the FLHP under 23 U.S.C. 204, replacing that program with the Tribal Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. 202), the Federal Lands Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. 203), and the Federal Lands Access Program (23 U.S.C. 204). In doing so, Congress repealed the previous version of 23 U.S.C. 204(a)(6) and replaced it with a similar provision at 23 U.S.C. 201(c)(5), which has remained unchanged. Under that provision, FHWA “and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land management agency shall, to the extent appropriate, implement safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for facilities funded under the tribal transportation program and the Federal lands transportation program in support of asset management.”

The FHWA first notes that the current regulations have become outdated due to subsequent statutory changes, and FHWA has issued more up-to-date guidance. 1 For instance, the definition of the Parks roads and parkways program in § 970.104 refers to the “program that is authorized in 23 U.S.C. 204 with funds allocated to the NPS by [FHWA] for each fiscal year as provided in 23 U.S.C. 202(c) and 204.” This refers to the requirements that existed prior to the enactment of MAP-21, where Congress appropriated funds specifically for park roads and parkways as part of the FLHP under 23 U.S.C. 204, which FHWA then allocated pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 202(c).

In considering the changes to be made to 23 CFR part 970, FHWA is guided by the Secretary of Transportation's new policy to reduce regulatory burdens wherever possible. Under that policy, unless a regulatory standard is required by statute, the Secretary proposes eliminating that requirement. In accordance with that policy, FHWA finds it significant that Congress, in enacting MAP-21, retained the same general requirements for asset management in 23 U.S.C. 201(c)(5) but replaced the phrase “develop by rule” with the word “implement.” To the extent that FHWA and Federal land management agencies agree that safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems are appropriate for certain facilities, FHWA believes such systems can be implemented without the need for regulations. The FHWA seeks comment on any reasons to rescind or not to rescind these regulations.

This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule under those orders.

This proposed rule would rescind outdated regulations regarding asset management. It could result in some cost savings for the NPS, but FHWA does not have the data to estimate the reduction in costs that would result from this NPRM. The Agency requests comment on any impacts that could result from removing the provisions identified in this NPRM.

These changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

This proposed rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. This rulemaking would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impacts of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rulemaking on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FHWA has concluded and hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This proposed rule would only remove regulations governing management systems that guide the NPS in developing transportation plans and making resource allocation decisions.

This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) for State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule is deregulatory and so would not impose any additional information collection requirements.

FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the NEPA and has determined that it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(2), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Categorically excluded actions meet the criteria for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. This proposed rule would remove requirements regarding safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems that are currently outdated. FHWA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this proposed rule, and no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. FHWA has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this proposed rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 315, FHWA proposes to remove part 970.

This document and all comments received may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval assistance and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of Federal Register 's website at www.federalregister.gov and the U.S. Government Publishing Office's website at www.GovInfo.gov.

Through this proposed rule, FHWA proposes to rescind the rule issued on February 27, 2004, Federal Lands Highway Program; Management Systems Pertaining to the Forest Service and the Forest Highway Program, via 69 FR 9476, amending 23 CFR part 971. This rule provided for the development and implementation of safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for transportation facilities providing access to and within the National Forests and Grasslands and funded under the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) as required by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178) (June 9, 1998). For the reasons explained below, FHWA has determined that this part is unnecessary and will rescind it in full.

Section 1115(d)(1) of TEA-21 amended the version of 23 U.S.C. 204 that existed at the time to add a paragraph (a)(6) stating: “The Secretary and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land management agency shall, to the extent appropriate, develop by rule safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads funded under the Federal lands highway program.” The roads funded under the FLHP included Forest Highways. Through 23 CFR part 971, FHWA addressed the management systems for the Forest Service and the Forest Highway Program. See 69 FR at 9476-77.

On July 6, 2012, Congress enacted the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141). Section 1119(a) of MAP-21 removed the FLHP under 23 U.S.C. 204, replacing that program with the Tribal Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. 202), the Federal Lands Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. 203), and the Federal Lands Access Program (23 U.S.C. 204). In doing so, Congress repealed the previous version of 23 U.S.C. 204(a)(6) and replaced it with a similar provision at 23 U.S.C. 201(c)(5), which has remained unchanged. Under that provision, FHWA “and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land management agency shall, to the extent appropriate, implement safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for facilities funded under the tribal transportation program and the Federal lands transportation program in support of asset management.”

The FHWA first notes that the current regulations have become outdated due to subsequent statutory changes, and FHWA has issued more up-to-date guidance. 1 For instance, the definition of the Forest Highway Program in § 971.104 refers to the “public lands highway funds allocated each fiscal year, as is provided in 23 U.S.C. 202, for projects that provide access to and within the National Forest system, as described in 23 U.S.C. 202(b) and 23 U.S.C. 204.” This refers to the requirements that existed prior to the enactment of MAP-21, where Congress appropriated funds specifically for forest roads as part of the FLHP under 23 U.S.C. 204, which FHWA then allocated pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 202.

In considering the changes to be made to 23 CFR part 971, FHWA is guided by the Secretary of Transportation's new policy to reduce regulatory burdens wherever possible. Under that policy, unless a regulatory standard is required by statute, the Secretary proposes eliminating that requirement. In accordance with that policy, FHWA finds it significant that Congress, in enacting MAP-21, retained the same general requirements for asset management in 23 U.S.C. 201(c)(5) but replaced the phrase “develop by rule” with the word “implement.” To the extent that FHWA and Federal land management agencies agree that safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems are appropriate for certain facilities, FHWA believes such systems can be implemented without the need for regulations. The FHWA seeks comment on any reasons to rescind or not to rescind these regulations.

This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule under those orders.

This proposed rule would rescind outdated regulations regarding asset management. It could result in some cost savings for the Forest Service, but FHWA does not have the data to estimate the reduction in costs that would result from this NPRM. The Agency requests comment on any impacts that could result from removing the provisions identified in this NPRM.

These changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

This proposed rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. This rule would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impacts of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FHWA has concluded and hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This proposed rule would only remove regulations governing management systems that guide the Forest Service in developing transportation plans and making resource allocation decisions.

This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) for State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule is deregulatory and so would not impose any additional information collection requirements.

FHWA has analyzed this rule pursuant to the NEPA and has determined that it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(2), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Categorically excluded actions meet the criteria for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. This rule would remove requirements regarding safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems that are currently outdated. FHWA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this proposed rule, and no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. FHWA has assessed the impact of this final rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

This document and all comments received may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval assistance and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of Federal Register 's website at www.federalregister.gov and the U.S. Government Publishing Office's website at www.GovInfo.gov.

Through this proposed rule, FHWA proposes to rescind the rule issued on February 27, 2004, Federal Lands Highway Program; Management Systems Pertaining to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge Roads Program, via 69 FR 9483, amending 23 CFR part 972. The rule provided for the development and implementation of safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for transportation facilities serving the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) funded under the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) as required by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178) (June 9, 1998). For the reasons explained below, FHWA has determined that this part is unnecessary and will rescind it in full.

Section 1115(d)(1) of TEA-21 amended the version of 23 U.S.C. 204 that existed at the time to add a paragraph (a)(6) stating: “The Secretary and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land management agency shall, to the extent appropriate, develop by rule safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for roads funded under the Federal lands highway program.” The roads funded under the FLHP included Refuge Roads. Through 23 CFR part 972, FHWA addressed the management systems for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Refuge Roads programs. See 69 FR 9484.

On July 6, 2012, Congress enacted the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141). Section 1119(a) of MAP-21 removed the FLHP under 23 U.S.C. 204, replacing that program with the Tribal Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. 202), the Federal Lands Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. 203), and the Federal Lands Access Program (23 U.S.C. 204). In doing so, Congress repealed the previous version of 23 U.S.C. 204(a)(6) and replaced it with a similar provision at 23 U.S.C. 201(c)(5), which has remained unchanged. Under that provision, FHWA “and the Secretary of each appropriate Federal land management agency shall, to the extent appropriate, implement safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems for facilities funded under the tribal transportation program and the Federal lands transportation program in support of asset management.”

The FHWA first notes that the current regulations have become outdated due to subsequent statutory changes, and FHWA has issued more up-to-date guidance. 1 For instance, the definition of the Refuge Roads Program in § 972.104 refers to the “funds allocated each fiscal year, as described in 23 U.S.C. 202(e) and 23 U.S.C. 204(k).” This refers to the requirements that existed prior to the enactment of MAP-21, where Congress appropriated funds specifically for Refuge Roads as part of the FLHP under 23 U.S.C. 204, which FHWA then allocated pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 202.

In considering the changes to be made to 23 CFR part 972, FHWA is guided by the Secretary of Transportation's new policy to reduce regulatory burdens wherever possible. Under that policy, unless a regulatory standard is required by statute, the Secretary proposes eliminating that requirement. In accordance with that policy, FHWA finds it significant that Congress, in enacting MAP-21, retained the same general requirements for asset management in 23 U.S.C. 201(c)(5) but replaced the phrase “develop by rule” with the word “implement.” To the extent that FHWA and Federal land management agencies agree that safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems are appropriate for certain facilities, FHWA believes such systems can be implemented without the need for regulations. The FHWA seeks comment on any reasons to rescind or not to rescind these regulations.

This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this proposed rule under those orders.

This proposed rule would rescind outdated regulations regarding asset management. It could result in some cost savings for the FWS, but FHWA does not have the data to estimate the reduction in costs that would result from this NPRM. The Agency requests comment on any impacts that could result from removing the provisions identified in this NPRM.

These changes would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

This proposed rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. This rulemaking would not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impacts of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FHWA has concluded and hereby certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This proposed rule would only remove regulations governing management systems that guide the Forest Service in developing transportation plans and making resource allocation decisions.

This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) for State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132. The FHWA has determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this action does not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule is deregulatory and so would not impose any additional information collection requirements.

FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the NEPA and has determined that it is categorically excluded under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(2), which applies to the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. Categorically excluded actions meet the criteria for categorical exclusions under 23 CFR 771.117(a) and normally do not require any further NEPA approvals by FHWA. This rulemaking would remove requirements regarding safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems that are currently outdated. FHWA does not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts from this proposed rule, and no unusual circumstances are present under 23 CFR 771.117(b).

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. FHWA has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rulemaking would not have Tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.

A RIN is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule can be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 315, FHWA proposes to remove part 972.

This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3226, released May 16, 2025. The full text of the Petition can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

Subject: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules for Federal Earth Stations Communicating with Non-Federal Fixed Satellite Service Space Stations, ET Docket No. 13-115, Third Report and Order, FCC 24-132, published at 90 FR 11480 on March 7, 2025.

Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0112), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0112/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0112/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

The ICC Termination Act (ICCTA) restructured the regulatory authority previously held by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and greatly restricted its scope over water carriers. It enacted a broad delegation of jurisdiction to the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) and the Surface Transportation Board (STB) over domestic water transportation ( i.e., transportation for compensation by water between two States) (49 U.S.C. 13521). Regulation of transportation to and from foreign countries is delegated to the Federal Maritime Commission (see generally 46 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part A; see also KKK Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. 89, 118-119 (2010) (dissenting opinion)).

Other provisions enacted as part of the ICCTA greatly limited the regulatory authority over water carriers, and specifically delegated it almost entirely to the STB, the Agency created to succeed the ICC. Rates and practices by water carriers engaged in the “noncontiguous domestic trade” are required to be reasonable (49 U.S.C. 13701). Noncontiguous domestic trade is defined as “involving traffic originating in or destined to Alaska, Hawaii, or a territory or possession of the United States,” (49 U.S.C. 13102(26)). The STB has authority to require tariffs to be filed for such transportation in the noncontiguous domestic trade (except for transportation of bulk cargo, forest products, recycled metal scrap, waste paper, and paper waste) and to consider complaints and to provide remedies for unreasonable rates and practices (49 U.S.C. 13702). Water carriers subject to the general jurisdiction have a common carrier obligation, but there is no specific delegation to either the Secretary or the STB for enforcing compliance. In addition, water carriers may enter into contracts for transportation and, in agreement with shippers, contractually waive any regulatory provisions except those governing registration, insurance, or safety fitness (49 U.S.C. 14101).

The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, Dec. 9, 1999) established FMCSA as a new operating administration within DOT (effective Jan. 1, 2000) to carry out the motor carrier safety and other regulatory responsibilities of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on behalf of the Secretary. This Act made no changes in the water carrier regulatory provisions enacted by ICCTA, however, resulting in the carrying forward of certain obsolete references to water carriers into FMCSA's commercial regulations.

The term “water carrier” or “water carriers” appears in the FMCSRs in several sections: 49 CFR 365.107T, 370.1, Appendix A to part 372, 379.1, 386.2, Appendix B to part 386 (paragraph (g)(17)), 387.401, and Appendix A to part 390. 1 The term was carried over from FMCSA's predecessor Agencies, the ICC and FHWA.

FMCSA's commercial regulations ( e.g., operating authority rules) apply to certain for-hire motor carriers. Although there are for-hire water carriers, FMCSA's regulatory oversight is limited to motor carriers. Because FMCSA has no authority to regulate the activities of water carriers, the references applying FMCSA's commercial regulations to water carriers are obsolete and should be removed. However, FMCSA has determined that the use of the term in Appendix A to part 372, which relates to commercial zones, is more complex and requires additional study to determine whether it should be removed or retained, so FMCSA is not proposing to change it through this rulemaking. Although the term “water carrier” also appears in §§ 386.2 and 387.401, those references are not obsolete as they are being used to exclude water carriers from the definition of the term freight forwarder. Accordingly, this rulemaking proposes that §§ 365.107T, 370.1, 379.1, Appendix B to part 386, and Appendix A to part 390 be amended to remove all references to water carriers.

In this NPRM, FMCSA proposes to remove the words “water carrier” or “water carriers” from §§ 365.107T, 370.1, 379.1, Appendix B to part 386, and Appendix A to part 390. The terms are remnants carried over from FMCSA's predecessor Agencies and are obsolete, as FMCSA does not have regulatory jurisdiction over water carriers.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries in which they operate, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.

This section would be amended by removing the term “water carriers” from paragraph (f), to reflect that water carriers do not submit applications for temporary operating authority to FMCSA. On January 17, 2017, FMCSA suspended certain regulations relating to the electronic Unified Registration System and delayed their effective date indefinitely (82 FR 5292). The suspended regulations were replaced by temporary provisions that contain the requirements in place on January 13, 2017. Section 365.107 was one of the sections suspended and § 365.107T, which is currently in effect, was one of the replacement sections added (82 FR 5299).

This section would be amended by removing the term “water carrier” to reflect that the regulations in part 370 (Principles and Practices for the Investigation and Voluntary Disposition of Loss and Damage Claims and Processing Salvage) are not applicable to water carriers.

This section would be amended by removing paragraph (a)(2) (which uses the term “water carriers”) and redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(2). This change is necessary to reflect that the regulations in part 379 (Preservation of Records) are not applicable to water carriers.

This appendix would be amended by removing the words “water carrier” from paragraph (g)(17) to reflect that FMCSA does not have authority to assess civil penalties against water carriers.

This appendix would be amended by removing the words “water carrier” from the paragraph under III. Specific Example Scenarios, called “Hotel Related Passenger Transportation.” This change would reflect that, although water carriers are included in the statutory definition of carrier at 49 U.S.C. 13102(3), FMCSA's authority over the entities listed in that statute is limited to motor carriers and freight forwarders.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

The proposed rule would remove language from predecessor Agencies that is not relevant and could be confusing. The term “water carriers” appears in multiple areas of the FMCSRs and could give the false appearance that these entities are subject to these regulations. Removing the term would not alter the applicability of the requirements but would streamline the language in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). FMCSA does not expect that any regulated entities would change their behavior as a result of this rulemaking, and therefore the proposed rule would not result in any impacts to regulated entities other than removing unnecessary language from the CFR. It could result in some cost savings by reducing the amount of time to become familiar with the regulations. FMCSA assumes any realized cost savings would be de minimis. FMCSA does not have data to estimate the reduction in costs that would result from this NPRM. FMCSA requests comment on any impacts that could result from removing the provisions identified in this NPRM.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  2

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 3

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero because it would result in a more streamlined and easy-to-read CFR, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  4 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 5 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 6 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would remove unnecessary and potentially confusing regulatory text that is no longer impacting regulated entities and would not impose costs or benefits. It could result in some cost savings by reducing the amount of time necessary to become familiar with the regulations. FMCSA considers any realized cost savings to be de minimis. Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this rulemaking would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rulemaking has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 7 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 8 requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this proposed rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraphs (6)(e), (6)(q), (6)(u), and (6)(bb), which cover regulations pertaining to applications for operating authority and certificates of registration, records preservation, rules of practice for administrative proceedings, and vehicle operation safety standards, respectively. The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR parts 365, 370, 379, 386, and 390 to read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0118), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0118/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0118/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0111), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0111/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0111/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

Congress enacted the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act (CMVSA) of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-570, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170, 49 U.S.C. chapter 313) to improve highway safety by ensuring that drivers of large trucks and buses are qualified to operate those vehicles and to remove unsafe and unqualified drivers from the highways. To achieve these goals, the CMVSA established the CDL program and required States to ensure that drivers convicted of certain serious traffic violations are prohibited from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Although State participation in the CDL program is voluntary, CMVSA created incentives by conditioning certain Federal highway and grant funding on States maintaining a certified CDL program (CMVSA secs. 12010, 12011, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31313, 31314).

One of the CMVSA's CDL program requirements was that States report CDL holders' out-of-State traffic convictions to their licensing States within 10 days of the conviction (CMVSA sec. 12009(a)(9) codified at 49 U.S.C. 31311). The CMVSA also established a requirement for CDL holders to report these same out-of-State traffic convictions to their licensing States within 30 days of the conviction (CMVSA sec. 12003(a)(1), codified at 49 U.S.C. 31303(a)). Congress authorized the Secretary to issue regulations to implement these provisions (CMVSA sec. 12018(a), codified at 49 U.S.C. 31317). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), FMCSA's predecessor, subsequently issued regulations, including 49 CFR 383.31(a), which implemented the requirement that CDL holders report out-of-State traffic convictions to their licensing States (52 FR 20574, June 1, 1987). FHWA did not issue regulations implementing the States' reporting requirement at that time.

On July 5, 1994, Congress recodified title 49 of the U.S.C. (Pub. L. 103-272, 108 Stat. 745 (the 1994 Recodification Act)). Among other things, the 1994 Recodification Act clarifies who had the obligation to report CDL holders' out-of-State violations: the State or the driver. The 1994 Recodification Act added language making it explicit that States must report an out-of-State CDL holder's traffic conviction to the licensing State within 10 days of the conviction (108 Stat. 1024, 49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(9)). However, Congress did not repeal the requirement that individual CDL holders report the same information within 30 days of conviction. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748) amended numerous provisions of title 49 of the U.S.C. related to the licensing and sanctioning of CMV drivers required to hold a CDL and directed the Secretary to amend regulations to correct specific weaknesses in the CDL program. One such provision directed the Secretary to develop a uniform system for the State-to-State electronic transmission of out-of-State CDL holders' traffic conviction information. FMCSA subsequently issued regulations implementing MCSIA and other statutory requirements, including CMVSA section 12009(a)(9). Those regulations included § 384.209, which requires States to report out-of-State CDL holders' traffic convictions to their licensing States as a minimum requirement of maintaining a certified CDL program (67 FR 49742, July 31, 2002).

The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87(e)(1) to carry out the CMVSA functions vested in the Secretary.

In 2011, as part of a previous regulatory review initiative, a commenter identified as appropriate for review the requirements of §§ 383.31(a) and 384.209, which provided for both individual CDL holders and States with certified CDL programs to report the same information about CDL holders' out-of-State convictions. FMCSA agreed with this suggestion. Although States were not required to participate in FMCSA's CDL certification program at the time, all 50 States and the District of Columbia maintained certified programs, due in part to the financial incentives described in the Legal Authorities section above. Additionally, States can be de-certified and lose their authority to issue CDLs. In practice, this meant that compliance with both §§ 383.31(a) and 384.209 would result in a reporting redundancy.

On August 2, 2012, FMCSA published an NPRM in the Federal Register (77 FR 46010), proposing to eliminate this redundant reporting practice by providing that, if a State in which the conviction occurs has a certified CDL program in substantial compliance with FMCSA's regulations, then an individual CDL holder convicted in that State would be considered to be in compliance with his/her out-of-State traffic conviction reporting obligations because the State where the conviction occurred would report the violation to the CDL holder's State of licensure. FMCSA finalized this rulemaking on April 26, 2013 (78 FR 24684). That final rule added current paragraph (d) to § 383.31 and added new § 384.409 to specify the means of notification to commercial leaner's permit and CDL holders when FMCSA determines that a State is not in substantial compliance, or when FMCSA issues a decertification order prohibiting a State from issuing CDLs.

The final rule went into effect on May 28, 2013. More recently, the Exclusive Electronic Exchange (EEE) federal mandate became effective, requiring that SDLAs implement a system for the exclusive, electronic exchange of driver history record information through the Commercial Driver's License Information System. This includes posting information about convictions, withdrawals, and disqualifications related to commercial drivers. The purpose of this federal mandate is to align FMCSA's regulations with existing statutory requirements set forth in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). States were required to achieve substantial compliance with this requirement by August 22, 2024.

FMCSA is proposing to remove the redundant requirement that a CDL holder notify their State of domicile when they are convicted of certain motor vehicle violations. States have been fulfilling this task exclusively using electronic reporting requirements since 2024. FMCSA has determined that it is not necessary to continue to have a regulatory back-up mechanism in place.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.

This NPRM proposes changes to § 383.31, Notification of convictions for driver violations. It would delete current paragraph (a), which requires CDL holders who are convicted of certain motor vehicle violations to notify the SDLA in their State of domicile of the violation. As discussed above, this notification now happens at the State/SDLA level, therefore it is redundant to require the CDL holder to also make the notification. Current paragraph (b) would be redesignated as paragraph (a), but the last sentence would be deleted. Paragraph (c) would be redesignated as paragraph (b) and would be revised to refer only to employer notifications. Current paragraph (d) would be deleted, as it would no longer be necessary.

This NPRM also proposes a minor change to § 384.409, to remove a sentence referencing § 383.31(a).

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

FMCSA is proposing to remove the redundant requirement that a CDL holder notify their State of domicile when they are convicted of certain motor vehicle violations. States have been fulfilling this task exclusively using electronic reporting requirements since 2024. FMCSA has determined that it is not necessary to continue to have a regulatory back-up mechanism in place.

This proposed rule would not result in additional costs on regulated entities, but would result in cost savings for CDL holders, who would no longer be required to notify their SDLA of certain convictions. CDL holders currently submit this information to their State of domicile, and not to FMCSA. As such, FMCSA does not capture the information needed to quantify the reduction in reporting burden. FMCSA requests data or any other information that could assist the Agency in quantifying these costs savings.

This proposed rule would not impact safety because the reporting requirement is redundant, and the notification will continue to occur at the State/SDLA level.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  1

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 2

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero as drivers would no longer be required to report violations to their State of domicile, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule. FMCSA is unable to quantify the cost savings that would result from this rulemaking.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  3 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 4 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would impact drivers. Drivers are not considered small entities because they do not meet the definition of a small entity in section 601 of the RFA. Specifically, drivers are considered neither a small business under section 601(3) of the RFA, nor are they considered a small organization under section 601(4) of the RFA. Therefore, this rulemaking would not impact a substantial number of small entities.

FMCSA has concluded and hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This proposed rulemaking would only remove unnecessary, duplicative regulatory requirements from individual CDL holders, who do not qualify as small businesses. Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). FMCSA has an approved information collection, OMB Control No. 2126-0011 “Commercial Driver Licensing and Testing Standards,” which already accounts for the State transmission of violation data to a CDL holder's State of domicile, and does not include costs for driver notifications to their SDLAs of licensure. Information on this collection can be found at www.reginfo.gov.

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 6 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII).

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 7 requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this proposed rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraphs (6)(t)(1) and (2), which cover regulations pertaining to ensuring that States comply with the CMVSA of 1986. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at regulations.gov , under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR parts 383 and 384 to read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0121), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0121/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0121/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

The 1935 Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 543) (the 1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554 Title II, 98 Stat. 2832 (Oct. 30, 1984)) (the 1984 Act), as amended, provide that “[t]he Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a private motor carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation” (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)).

Section 114 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (the HazMat Act), (Pub. L. 93-633, Title I (Jan. 3, 1975), codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 51) directed the Secretary of Transportation to amend 49 CFR 391.23 to specify minimum safety information to be investigated from previous employers when performing employment record investigations on driver candidates and newly hired drivers. Section 114 specified that a motor carrier must investigate a driver's 3-year accident record, and drug and alcohol history, from employers the driver worked for within the previous three years.

Under § 390.15, carriers are required to keep records of all reportable accidents, as defined in § 390.5T, 1 in an accident register for 3 years. The term accident includes “an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operating on a highway in interstate or intrastate commerce which results in bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident.”

FMCSA published guidance in 2022 clarifying what is considered medical treatment (87 FR 10895, Feb. 25, 2022). Under section 5203 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1535 (Dec. 4, 2015)), FMCSA reviews its guidance at least every 5 years to incorporates guidance, as appropriate.

This rulemaking proposes to revise the definition of accident in § 390.5T to incorporate the 2022 guidance. This revision will provide clarity and regulatory certainty to regulated entities on what constitutes a reportable accident, and what does not, under part 390 to ensure operators of CMVs are qualified drivers as required under 49 U.S.C. 31502(b) and section 114 of the HazMat Act.

FMCSA issued revised guidance on February 25, 2022, regarding the definition of accident in § 390.5T. Under § 390.5T accident is defined as an occurrence involving a CMV operating on a highway in interstate or intrastate commerce which results in: (1) A fatality, (2) bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident, or (3) one or more motor vehicles being towed from the scene. The previous guidance considered an x-ray examination and other imaging, such as computed tomography (CT), as medical treatment.

FMCSA revised the guidance to clarify that a person who does not receive treatment for diagnosed injuries or other medical intervention directly related to the accident, has not received medical treatment as that term is used in §§ 390.5 or 390.5T. An x-ray or CT is not considered medical treatment. If the person were given prescription medicine or the prescription itself, that would be considered medical treatment for a diagnosed injury. FMCSA proposes to revise the definition of accident to eliminate the need for the current legally non-binding guidance, thereby providing increased certainty and clarity for regulated entities.

Accident is defined in § 390.5T as “an occurrence involving a CMV operating on a highway in interstate or intrastate commerce which results in: (1) A fatality, (2) bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident, or (3) one or more motor vehicles being towed from the scene.” The current definition does not provide an explanation of what constitutes “medical treatment.” FMCSA revised its guidance in 2022 to clarify that medical treatment did not include diagnostic procedures, such as x-ray or CT.

This rulemaking proposes to revise §§ 390.5 and 390.5T to incorporate the 2022 guidance into the definition of accident. A new paragraph (3) would be added to the definition to clarify that medical treatment does not include x-rays or other imaging, such as CT, and a person who does not receive treatment for diagnosed injuries or other medical intervention directly related to the accident, has not received “medical treatment.” These changes are consistent with the 2022 guidance and will provide clarity and regulatory certainty to regulated entities regarding what constitutes an accident that must be recorded and kept under part 390.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.

FMCSA proposes to add a new paragraph (3) to the definition of accident that explains what does not constitute medical treatment.

FMCSA proposes to add a new paragraph (3) to the definition of accident that explains what does not constitute medical treatment.

This rulemaking proposes to amend a regulation that has associated guidance. Such guidance statements do not have the force and effect of law, are strictly advisory, and are not meant to bind the public in any way. Conformity with guidance statements is voluntary. Guidance is intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or FMCSA policies. A guidance statement does not alter the substance of a regulation.

On February 25, 2022, FMCSA issued guidance revising Question 27 for §§ 390.5 and 390.5T to address the meaning of the term “medical treatment” as it used in the definition of accident. 2 FMCSA intends to rescind this guidance as no longer necessary upon publication of a final rule eliminating the provision to which the guidance relates.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

FMCSA proposes to amend the FMCSRs to revise the use of the term “medical treatment” for the purpose of accident reporting. FMCSA revised its guidance in 2022 to clarify that medical treatment did not include diagnostic procedures. This rulemaking proposes to revise §§ 390.5 and 390.5T to incorporate the 2022 guidance into the definition of accident. The guidance does not have the force or effect of law and is voluntary only. FMCSA anticipates that some carriers involved in accidents are already following the guidance, but that some may not be aware of the guidance or may choose not to follow it. In the event that this NPRM would adjust motor carrier reporting burdens, it would amount to a reduction in reporting as those incidents that involve diagnostic procedures would no longer be reported as accidents. The Agency seeks input on the extent to which codifying the existing guidance would result in a decrease in burden in carriers' reporting.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  3

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 4

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero as some carriers would realize a reduction in accident reporting, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule. The Agency seeks comment regarding the extent to which the codification of the existing guidance would result in a decrease in burden to carriers relative to the baseline.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  5 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 6 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 7 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FMCSA anticipates that this proposed rule would not impact any regulated entities because they are already following the proposed provisions.

Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 8 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 9 requires Federal agencies to conduct a Privacy Impact Analysis (PIA) for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this proposed rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This rulemaking does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, Mar. 1, 2004), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraphs (6)(q) and (6)(z), which cover regulations pertaining to records preservation and minimum qualifications for CMV drivers, respectively. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 390 to read as follows:

The revision and addition read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0113), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0113/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0113/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/ individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a) and 31502(b)—delegated to the Agency by 49 CFR 1.87(f) and (i), respectively—to establish minimum qualifications, including physical qualifications, for individuals operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. Section 31136(a)(3) requires specifically that the Agency's safety regulations ensure that the physical condition of CMV drivers is adequate to enable them to operate their vehicles safely and that certified medical examiners (MEs) trained in physical and medical examination standards perform the physical examinations required of such drivers.

In addition to the statutory requirements specific to the physical qualifications of CMV drivers, section 31136(a) requires the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to issue regulations on CMV safety, including regulations to ensure that CMVs “are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely” (section 31136(a)(1)). The remaining statutory factors and requirements in section 31136(a), to the extent they are relevant, are also satisfied here. The proposed rule would not impose any “responsibilities . . . on operators of [CMVs that would] impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely” (section 31136(a)(2)), or “have a deleterious effect on the physical condition” of CMV drivers (section 31136(a)(4)). FMCSA also does not anticipate that drivers would be coerced to operate a vehicle because of this rulemaking (section 31136(a)(5)).

Finally, prior to prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must consider their “costs and benefits” (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). Those factors are discussed in the Regulatory Analyses section of this NPRM.

FMCSA's mission is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. As discussed above, FMCSA is authorized by statute to establish minimum physical qualification standards for drivers of CMVs operating in interstate commerce. Physical qualification requirements date back to 1937, as implemented by the ICC's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. (2 FR 113, Jan. 22, 1937). Regulations setting forth the physical qualification standards are currently found in 49 CFR part 391, with the vision requirements at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which administered the physical qualification standards for CMV drivers prior to the transfer of this function to FMCSA, revised the vision standard in 1970 (35 FR 6458, 6463, Apr. 22, 1970). Although MEs who are knowledgeable about the on-the-job functions performed by a commercial driver make the determination about a driver's qualifications and whether the driver has a condition that would interfere with the operation of a CMV for most of the 13 physical qualification standards, FHWA's vision standard was absolute and provided no discretion to the ME. Thus, any individual who did not meet the vision standard in its entirety could not be physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce.

In July 1992, FHWA announced its decision to issue waivers of the vision requirements and published the final criteria for the vision waiver study program (57 FR 31458, July 16, 1992). Under the vision waiver study program, FHWA issued waivers to drivers following an individual determination of each driver's capability to operate a CMV safely. On August 2, 1994, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that FHWA's determination that the vision waiver study program would not adversely affect the safe operation of CMVs lacked empirical support in the record ( Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety v. FHWA, 28 F.3d 1288, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, the court found that FHWA failed to meet the exacting statutory requirements to grant a waiver. Consequently, the court concluded that FHWA's adoption of the waiver program was contrary to law and vacated and remanded the decision to FHWA.

On November 17, 1994, FHWA published notice of its final determination to continue the vision waiver study program through March 31, 1996, and announced a change in the research plan (59 FR 59386). On March 26, 1996, FHWA issued a rule to allow those drivers participating in the vision waiver study program and holding valid waivers from the vision standard to continue to operate in interstate commerce after March 31, 1996 (61 FR 13338). FHWA amended 49 CFR part 391 by adding a new provision at § 391.64 to grant grandfather rights to these drivers, subject to certain conditions.

Following the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401, June 9, 1998), which made amendments to the statutes governing exemptions, FHWA established a current Federal vision exemption program on December 8, 1998 (63 FR 67600). FHWA, and later FMCSA, monitored the safety performance of drivers in the vision waiver study and the current exemption programs continuously. Based on the experience with the vision waiver study and exemption programs, FMCSA determined that the safety performance of individuals in these programs is at least as good as that of the general population of CMV drivers. Therefore, in 2022, FMCSA amended its regulations to permit an individual who does not satisfy, with the worse eye, either the existing distant visual acuity standard with corrective lenses or the field of vision standard, or both, to be physically qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce if the individual satisfies the new alternative vision standard found at § 391.44, along with FMCSA's other physical qualification standards and other requirements. (87 FR 3390, Jan. 21, 2022). The 2022 rule eliminated the need for both the vision exemption program that then existed and the grandfather provision in § 391.64 for drivers operating under the previously administered vision waiver study program.

The grandfathering provision remained in effect until March 22, 2023. After that date, all drivers were required meet the new alternative vision standard and all Medical Examiner Certificates, Form MCSA-5876, issued under § 391.64 were voided. As the grandfathering provision no is longer applicable to any drivers, FMCSA has determined it should now be removed.

FMCSA proposes to remove 49 CFR 391.64(b), which set out the requirements for participants in the vision waiver study program to remain grandfathered into that program until March 22, 2023. This change will not affect any current CMV drivers because, under the 2022 final rule, all drivers have been required to satisfy the alternative vision standard set out at 49 CFR 391.44 since March 22, 2023.

While the 2022 final rule amended 49 CFR 391.64(b) to include the date the provisions of that paragraph would no longer be in effect, it did not contain any instructions for the removal of those provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Thus, this proposed rulemaking would remove the obsolete language from FMCSA's regulations.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.

Section 391.64 Grandfathering for certain drivers who participated in a vision waiver study program.

FMCSA would remove 49 CFR 391.64 (b). As paragraph (a) is currently reserved, the title of the section would be amended to indicate that the entire section is now reserved.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

This proposed rule would remove obsolete language that is no longer relevant. FMCSA does not expect that any regulated entities would change their behavior as a result of this proposed rule, and therefore the proposed rule would not result in any impacts to regulated entities other than removing unnecessary language from the CFR. It could result in some cost savings by reducing the amount of time to become familiar with the regulations. FMCSA assumes any realized cost savings to be de minimis. FMCSA does not have data to estimate the reduction in costs that would result from this NPRM. FMCSA requests comment on any impacts that could result from removing the provisions identified in this NPRM.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  1

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, Mar. 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 2

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero as it is removing unnecessary language from and streamlining the CFR, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  3 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 4 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would remove obsolete regulatory text that is no longer impacting regulated entities and would not impose costs or benefits. Therefore, it would not impact a substantial number of small entities. It could result in some cost savings by reducing the amount of time necessary to become familiar with the regulations. FMCSA considers any realized cost savings to be de minimis. Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 6 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 7 requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this proposed rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraphs (6)(b), which covers regulations that are procedural or technical in nature, and (6)(z)(1), which covers the minimum qualifications for persons who drive CMVs. The Agency also believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at regulations.gov , under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 391 to read as follows:

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2021 - 0050), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2021-0050/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2021-0050/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices . The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

This NPRM is based on the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act), 49 Stat. 543, as amended, and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act), Title II of Public Law 98-554, 98 Stat. 2832 (Oct. 30, 1984), as amended. The 1935 Act, as amended, provides that the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) may prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation” (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)(1), (2)). This NPRM is directly related to safe motor carrier operations.

The NPRM is also based on the authority of the 1984 Act, as amended, which is codified at 49 U.S.C. 31136(a) and provides broad concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to “prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety,” including “minimum safety standards for commercial motor vehicles.” Section 31136(a) requires that: “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 . . .; (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under this section . . .” (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)-(5)). This NPRM is based on section 31136(a)(1) because it proposes amendments related to the safe operation of CMVs at railroad grade crossings, but does not implicate the driver-centered requirements of section 31136(a)(2) through (4), as it removes a driver responsibility (to stop at railroad grade crossings in certain circumstances), does not touch on operators' physical condition, and makes a change that would not impact the physical condition of the operator. Because the proposed rule would provide another exception to the general requirement for buses and commercial motor vehicles transporting specified types of hazardous materials (HM) to stop at every grade crossing, the Agency believes the rule would be welcomed by the motor carrier industry, ensuring that drivers would not face a risk of coercion under section 31136(a)(5) to violate it. Before prescribing regulations under these authorities, FMCSA must consider their costs and benefits (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). These factors are addressed below.

FMCSA was established within DOT on January 1, 2000, pursuant to the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (49 U.S.C. 113). The primary mission of FMCSA is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving CMVs, e.g., large trucks and buses. The improvement of CMV safety at railroad grade crossings is part of that mission.

FMCSA has several regulations in 49 CFR part 392 related to how CMVs interact with railroad grade crossings that are intended to lower the potential for CMV and train collisions, including § 392.10, which generally requires buses transporting passengers and CMVs transporting specified HM to stop at railroad grade crossings.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) defines the term Highway-rail grade crossing in 49 CFR 234.5 as “a location where a public highway, road, street, or private roadway, including associated sidewalks and pathways, crosses one or more railroad tracks at grade.” FMCSA did not define that term or the similar term “railroad grade crossing” when it established the requirements in § 392.10. It should be noted that, because of the way highway is defined in § 390.5T (which applies to all of subchapter B, unless specifically defined elsewhere), FMCSA's regulations on railroad grade crossings do not apply to private roadways unless they are “open to public travel.”

There are approximately 243,000 railroad grade crossings in the United States. 1 FRA estimates that roughly 51 percent of public crossings, where the vast majority of traffic occurs, are equipped with “active” warning devices (such as automatic gates, bells, or flashing light signals to alert drivers of an approaching train), while 43 percent are equipped with “passive” warning signs and markings. 2

FMCSA has several regulations in 49 CFR part 392 related to how CMVs interact with railroad grade crossings, including § 392.10, which generally requires buses carrying passengers and CMVs carrying specified HM to stop at railroad grade crossings. Specifically, § 392.10(a) requires drivers of buses carrying passengers and CMVs transporting certain types of HM to stop between 50 and 15 feet of a grade crossing, to look and listen for approaching trains, and, when safe, to cross the tracks without shifting gears.

Exceptions for the stopping requirement are found at § 392.10(b). The exceptions are situations in which vehicles required to stop under § 392.10(a) need not stop. These exceptions include: (1) a streetcar crossing or a railroad switching spur; (2) a grade crossing when directed to proceed by a police officer or flagman; (3) a “grade crossing controlled by a functioning highway traffic signal transmitting a green indication, which, under local law, permits the commercial motor vehicle to proceed across the railroad tracks without slowing or stopping”; (4) an abandoned grade crossing marked as such; or (5) an industrial or spur line grade crossing marked with an “Exempt” sign. It should be noted that the exception under § 392.10(b)(3) is limited to traffic signals “transmitting a green indication,” a requirement that corresponds to very few railroad grade crossings currently installed in this country. Railroad grade crossings equipped with active warning devices generally use a flashing red light to indicate a train is approaching. Motorists are required by local traffic laws to stop when the flashing red light is activated. However, when the flashing red light is not activated, local traffic laws allow motorist to proceed through the crossing without stopping.

FMCSA proposes to add an exception to § 392.10(b) for railroad grade crossings equipped with an active warning device. The exception would allow CMVs subject to § 392.10(a) to proceed if the device is not activated. A crossing is in an activated state when, for example, the lights on the warning device are flashing or the crossing gates (if equipped) are in the down position to warn the driver that one or more trains are arriving. FMCSA believes it would be appropriate to permit a CMV to proceed through an active warning device equipped railroad grade crossing without stopping where the warning device is not in activated state, because local law allows vehicles to proceed across the railroad tracks without slowing or stopping. An active warning device exception would therefore be similar to existing exceptions for a police officer or flagman directing traffic to proceed or for a highway traffic signal transmitting a green signal which, under local law, permits vehicles to proceed without slowing or stopping as described in § 392.10(b), paragraphs (2) and (3).

The NPRM would mainly affect drivers of buses carrying passengers and CMVs transporting certain types of HM currently required to stop at crossings unless there is an exception allowing it to proceed. This would add an additional exception and therefore reduce the number of required stops for these CMVs. The number of stops avoided is impossible to estimate. There are no data on the number of times buses and CMVs transporting specified types of HM encounter grade crossings. In any case, that number would fluctuate with economic demand for bus service and hazardous materials transportation. The Agency requests comment on sources of information and data that could be used to quantify the benefits of this rulemaking.

The Agency also requests comment on whether § 392.11 Railroad grade crossings; slowing down required could be eliminated to further streamline the regulations without impacting safety.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries in which they operate, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.

FMCSA proposes to add paragraph (b)(6), which would allow drivers of certain CMVs to proceed across a railroad grade crossing equipped with an active warning device that is not in an activated state, which, under local law, permits all vehicles including CMVs to proceed across the railroad tracks without slowing or stopping.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

Stopping at railroad grade crossings, as required by § 392.10(a) for buses carrying passengers and CMVs transporting certain types of HM, generally prevents crashes between those vehicles and trains. However, the requirement for buses and CMVs transporting certain kinds of HM to stop at railroad grade crossings, especially on high-speed divided highways, is a potential crash risk because stopping is not expected by drivers of other motor vehicles, making buses and CMVs transporting certain kinds of HM vulnerable to rear-end crashes while slowing or stopping.

With this NPRM, FMCSA is pursuing a more streamlined and risk-informed regulatory approach that is performance-based and focuses on desired, measurable outcomes, rather than the current prescriptive regulation of § 392.10. The amendments to § 392.10 would allow the CMVs listed in that section to proceed through an active-warning device-equipped crossing without slowing or stopping where the warning device is not in activated state, which, under local law, permits all vehicles including CMVs to proceed across the railroad tracks without slowing or stopping.

This proposed rule would primarily affect drivers of buses carrying passengers and CMVs transporting certain types of HM, who are currently required by § 392.10 to stop at virtually all grade crossings. Removal of the mandatory stop requirement for such buses and CMVs transporting certain types of HM could result in cost savings if these drivers are able to avoid unnecessary stops and thus improve efficiency of operation. FMCSA is unable to estimate any cost savings that could result from this rulemaking as there are no data on the number of times buses and CMVs transporting certain types of HM encounter grade crossings.

With this proposed rulemaking, FMCSA is pursuing a more streamlined and risk-informed regulatory approach that is performance-based and focuses on desired, measurable outcomes, rather than the current prescriptive regulatory requirements. Further, it acknowledges increased adoption and technological advances made in active traffic control devices at railroad grade crossings since the promulgation of the prescriptive stopping requirement in 1938. This proposed rule would not result in any new costs but could result in cost savings for those drivers that would no longer be required to stop at railroad grade crossings by allowing for a continuous flow of traffic at railroad grade crossings.

Further, the proposed changes could also potentially mitigate rear-end crash risk for buses and CMVs transporting certain types of HM by allowing for a predictable and flow of traffic at railroad grade crossings.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  3

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 4

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero as drivers of buses and CMVs transporting certain types of HM would be allowed to operate their vehicles more efficiently, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  5 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 6 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 7 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would impact drivers. Drivers are not considered small entities because they do not meet the definition of a small entity in Section 601 of the RFA. Specifically, drivers are considered neither a small business under Section 601(3) of the RFA, nor are they considered a small organization under Section 601(4) of the RFA. Therefore, this proposed rule would not impact a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule could result in cost savings to drivers, but FMCSA does not anticipate the cost savings to be significant. Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this rulemaking would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rulemaking has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 8 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 9 requires Federal agencies to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rulemaking. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraphs (6)(bb) and (dd), which cover regulations pertaining to vehicle operation safety standards and regulations concerning rules of the road, traffic services, and marking of intelligent transportation systems, respectively. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule can be found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda entry for this rulemaking at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202410&RIN=2126-AC39 .

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to revise 49 CFR part 392 to read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0111), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ FMCSA-2025-0111/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0111/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

FMCSA's authority to promulgate regulations governing Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation (49 CFR part 393) and many of the regulations on Driving Commercial Motor Vehicles (49 CFR part 392) rests on the requirement in 49 U.S.C. 31136(a) that the Department of Transportation “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.” The provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2) through (5) are not applicable to part 393 and most are not directly applicable to part 392.

To ensure that commercial motor vehicles are “equipped” and “operated safely,” as required by 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1), FMCSA requires that vehicles stopped at roadside for reasons other than normal traffic stops be made visible to on-coming traffic through the placement of specified warning devices at designated locations. “Liquid-burning flares” as specified in 49 CFR 392.22(b)(2)(i)-(ii) are the subject of this rulemaking. The technical requirements for these flares are specified in 49 CFR 393.95(j); their number are specified in 49 CFR 393.95(f)(2); their placement is specified in 49 CFR 392.22(b)(2)(i) and (ii); and certain limitations on their use are outlined in 49 CFR 393.95(g).

Because these flares are no longer used and for the reasons discussed below, FMCSA has determined that the provisions dealing with “liquid-burning flares” are not needed to ensure that commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are “equipped” or “operated safely.”

Sections 392.22 and 393.95 require specific warning devices on CMVs. Section 393.95(f) requires CMVs to be equipped with bidirectional emergency reflective triangles, or either fusees or liquid-burning flares. Other warning devices may be used in addition to, but not in lieu of, the required warning devices. When there is a stopped CMV on the traveled portion or the shoulder of a highway for any cause other than necessary traffic stops, these warning devices must be placed as required by § 392.22.

The reference to liquid-burning flares dates back to the original FMCSRs issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety in 1936. Therefore, these devices may have been commonly used approximately 90 years ago but the introduction of bi-directional warning triangles and fusees have become the preferred approach for signaling motorists of the presence of a disabled commercial motor vehicle.

Liquid-burning flares are an outdated warning device that FMCSA believes are no longer used on CMVs. Accordingly, FMCSA is proposing to remove liquid-burning flares from the list of acceptable warning devices in §§ 392.22 and 393.95. This proposed revision would remove this outdated warning device from the FMCSRs and conform regulatory requirements with the current real-world practice of using either bidirectional emergency reflective triangles or fusees.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.

FMCSA proposes to remove references to liquid-burning flares in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii).

FMCSA proposes to remove references to liquid-burning flares in paragraphs (f)(2), (g), and (j). UL No. 912, Highway Emergency Signals, Fourth Edition, July 30, 1979, is referenced in the amendatory text of this document but has already been approved for paragraph (j). No changes are proposed to the material incorporated by reference.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

This proposed rule would remove obsolete language that is no longer relevant. FMCSA does not expect that any regulated entities would change their behavior as a result of this rule, and therefore the proposed rule would not result in any impacts to regulated entities other than removing unnecessary language from the CFR. It could result in some cost savings by reducing the amount of time to become familiar with the FMCSRs. FMCSA assumes any realized cost savings to be de minimis. FMCSA does not have data to estimate the reduction in costs that would result from this NPRM. FMCSA requests comment on any impacts that could result from removing the provisions identified in this NPRM.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  1

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 2

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  3 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 4 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

This proposed rule would remove obsolete regulatory text that is no longer impacting regulated entities and would not impose costs or benefits. It could result in some cost savings by reducing the amount of time necessary to become familiar with the FMCSRs. FMCSA considers any realized cost savings to be de minimis. Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 6 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 7 requires Federal agencies to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraph (6)(bb), which covers regulations pertaining to vehicle operation safety standards, equipment approval, and/or equipment carriage requirements. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to revise 49 CFR chapter III, parts 392 and 393 to read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0117), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0117/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0117/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

The provision now codified at 49 CFR 393.67(c)(12) was adopted over 50 years ago on the basis of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1935. As a result of subsequent recodifications of title 49, United States Code (U.S.C), that authority is now found at 49 U.S.C. 31502(b), which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe requirements for, among other things, the “safety of operation and equipment” of a motor carrier and the “standards of equipment” of a motor private carrier (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)(1) and (2)).

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a), DOT is required to “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 . . .; (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under this section [which is the basis for much of the FMCSRs], or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this title.”

This NPRM is based on the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1) to ensure that commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are equipped and operated safely. It does not implicate the driver-centered requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2) through (4). Because this NPRM would remove a requirement otherwise applicable to motor carriers, there is no obvious risk of coercion related to this proposed rule to which a driver might be subjected.

While 49 U.S.C. 31502(b) and 31136(a)(1) authorize FMCSA to promulgate the rules in 49 CFR part 393 (Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation), they also allow the agency to remove regulations that are no longer needed for the safe operation of CMVs. For the reasons explained below, FMCSA believes 49 CFR 393.67(c)(12)(i) is obsolete and should be rescinded.

Requirements that CMVs be equipped with various parts and accessories are established in 49 CFR part 393, “Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation.” Particularly, § 393.67 sets out requirements for liquid fuel tanks on CMVs. Section 393.67(c) contains the requirements for the construction of liquid fuel tanks.

On April 5, 2023, CVSA submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting a revision to § 393.67 to remove the requirement in paragraph (c)(12)(i) that a liquid fuel tank manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, be designed and constructed so that it cannot be filled, in a normal filling operation, with a quantity of fuel that exceeds 95 percent of the tank's liquid capacity. FMCSA grants the petition and addresses the revision requested through this rulemaking.

CVSA's petition requesting FMCSA remove paragraph (i) from § 393.67(c)(12) stated that the current language is outdated and no longer applicable to the current state of the industry.

CVSA stated that liquid fuel tanks are now manufactured with a vented cap, which allow 100 percent fill, based on the positioning of the filler neck and vented cap, with no resulting issues. Additionally, CVSA stated that removing paragraph (c)(12)(i) would harmonize the FMCSRs with Canadian regulations, which would be beneficial to motor carriers who operate across international borders. Finally, CVSA stated that this change would eliminate the need for motor carriers who are operating vehicles that allow 100 percent fill to request an exemption from the Agency to operate in the United States.

FMCSA agrees with CVSA's position that the current language in § 393.67(c)(12)(i) is outdated and no longer applicable. This revision retains the overfill restriction in § 393.67(c)(12)(ii) that tanks must be designed and constructed so that, when the tank is filled, normal expansion of the fuel will not cause fuel spillage. The Agency is therefore proposing to remove the requirements in § 393.67(c)(12)(i).

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.

FMCSA proposes to remove paragraph (c)(12)(i) and incorporate the language from (c)(12)(ii) into (c)(12).

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

The proposed rule would remove the requirement that liquid fuel tanks manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, are designed and constructed so that they cannot be filled, in a normal filling operation, with a quantity of fuel that exceeds 95 percent of the tank's liquid capacity. FMCSA has determined that this requirement is unnecessary for safety, as modern liquid fuel tanks are equipped with vented caps that safely accommodate a 100 percent fill. This proposed rule would also lead to a decrease in the number of exemption requests from motor carriers currently using tanks that exceed the 95 percent fill limit, resulting in cost savings by removing the need to submit these exemption requests. Furthermore, this proposed change would align the FMCSRs with existing Canadian regulations, thereby simplifying operations for affected motor carriers operating across borders. FMCSA requests comment on the number of entities that submit exemption requests for liquid fuel tanks exceeding the current 95 percent limit.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  1

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 2

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  3 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 4 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rulemaking would remove an outdated and unnecessary requirement for liquid fuel tanks manufactured on or after January 1, 1973. FMCSA expects that the number of exemption requests would decrease resulting in de minimis cost savings. The Agency requests data or any other information that could assist in quantifying these costs savings. Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 6 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 7 requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rulemaking. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraph (6)(bb), which covers regulations pertaining to vehicle operation safety standards, equipment approval, and/or equipment carriage requirements. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at regulations.gov , under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 393 to read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0108), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0108/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0108/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 543) (the 1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, (Title II of Pub. L. 98-554, 98 Stat. 2832) (the 1984 Act).

The 1935 Act, as amended, provides that “[t]he Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a private motor carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation” (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)).

This NPRM would rescind obsolete regulatory requirements concerning the retrofitting of conspicuity material on trailers manufactured before December 1993. The Agency would rescind a rule for which the adoption and enforcement of is authorized by the 1935 Act.

The 1984 Act provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to “prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety.” The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for CMVs. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that: (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of CMVs is adequate to enable them to operate vehicles safely; (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) drivers are not coerced by motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries to operate a vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (which is the basis for much of the FMCSRs) or 49 U.S.C. chapters 51 or 313 (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)).

This proposed rule would eliminate an obsolete regulation concerning parts and accessories necessary for the safe operation of CMVs. It is based on section 31136(a)(1) because it deals retroreflective material on trailers manufactured before December 1, 1993. The NPRM does not implicate the driver-centered requirements of sections 31136(a)(2) through (4). As the amendment proposed by this proposed rule pertains only to trailers which are unlikely to be in operation on the Nation's highways, FMCSA believes there will be stakeholder support for this initiative and that it is unlikely CMV drivers would be exposed to greater risk of being coerced to operate trailers that lack conspicuity treatments.

Before prescribing any such regulations, FMCSA must consider the “costs and benefits” of any proposal (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). As discussed in greater detail in the “Regulatory Analyses” section, FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action.

On January 19, 1994, FHWA published in the Federal Register (59 FR 2811) an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments on issues related to the application of conspicuity treatments to trailers manufactured prior to the effective date of the NHTSA's final rule on trailer conspicuity.

On August 6, 1996, FHWA published a subsequent notice (61 FR 40781) announcing that the Agency had completed its review of the comments received in response to the ANPRM and that it would issue an NPRM.

On June 19, 1998, FHWA published an NPRM (63 FR 33611) to require motor carriers to install retroreflective tape or reflex reflectors within 2 years of the effective date of the final rule. Although FHWA drafted the NPRM prior to the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which included a provision concerning retrofitting of trailers with conspicuity material, the agency reviewed section 4025 of TEA-21 prior to publishing the NPRM. FHWA considered the NPRM to be consistent with the statutory criteria. The final rule adopted on March 31, 1999, fulfilled the requirements of TEA-21.

As stated above, the passage of more than 30 years since the implementation of NHTSA's requirements applicable to manufacturers have made the retrofitting requirements of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 393.13 obsolete.

FMCSA would amend the FMCSRs to rescind the rules requiring the retrofitting of certain semitrailers and trailers with retroreflective sheeting. The semitrailers and trailers subject to the retrofitting requirements were all manufactured more than 30 years ago. Trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, are required to be maintained to meet the NHTSA standards applicable at the time of manufacture. Accordingly, FMCSA's cross reference to NHTSA's requirements ensure that motor carriers will continue to be held accountable for compliance, regardless of how many years the vehicles are used in interstate commerce. However, the Agency believes the vehicles manufactured before December 1993 are long past their useful service life as are the corresponding retrofitting requirements the Agency now seeks to rescind.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

FMCSA would amend 49 CFR part 393 to rescind § 393.13 concerning retroreflective sheeting on trailers and semi-trailers manufacture before December 1, 1993. Motor carriers operating trailers manufactured on and after December 1, 1993, would continue to be required to maintain the retroreflective sheeting on those vehicles. However, the obsolete regulatory text concerning trailers and semitrailers manufactured before December 1993 would be eliminated given that it is unlikely these vehicles are still in operation.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

Section 393.13 currently requires trailers and semitrailers manufactured before December 1, 1993, be equipped with retroreflective sheeting that meet NHTSA's requirements for trailers built on or after that date. This proposed rule would eliminate the requirement for retrofitting now that the majority, if not all, of these trailers are no longer in operation. FMCSA does not expect that any regulated entities would change their behavior as a result of this rulemaking, and therefore the proposed rule would not result in any impacts to regulated entities other than removing unnecessary language from the CFR. It could result in some cost savings by reducing the amount of time to become familiar with the FMCSRs. FMCSA assumes any realized cost savings to be de minimis. FMCSA considers this to be deregulatory in nature as it would result in a more streamlined CFR. FMCSA does not have data to estimate the reduction in costs that would result from this NPRM. FMCSA requests comment on any impacts that could result from removing the provisions identified in this NPRM.

The Agency does not expect this proposed rule to result in benefits beyond the baseline established in the FMCSRs.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  1

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 2

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero because it would result in a more streamlined and easy to read CFR, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an ANPRM or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  3 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 4 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on the affected entities. This proposed rule would rescind obsolete regulatory requirements concerning retroreflective sheeting on trailers manufactured before December 1, 1993. Because most, if not all, of these trailers and semitrailers are no longer in operation, FMCSA does not expect the proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FMCSA has concluded and hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included.

Consequently, I certify that the proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FMCSA invites comment from members of the public who believe there will be a significant impact either on small businesses or on governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. This proposed rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of UMRA) for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector of the adjusted inflationary amount or more in any 1 year. Thus, the rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rulemaking has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 6 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII).

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 7 requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this proposed rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraph (6)(bb), which covers regulations pertaining to vehicle operation safety standards, equipment approval, and/or equipment carriage requirements. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at regulations.gov , under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 393 to read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0122), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0122/document , click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov . At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0122/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a), DOT is required to “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 . . .; (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under this section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this title.”

This NPRM is based on the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1) to ensure that commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are equipped and operated safely. It does not implicate the driver-centered requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2) through (4). Because this NPRM would create an exception to a requirement for vehicle lighting that would otherwise apply to motor carriers, there is no obvious risk of coercion related to this proposed rule to which a driver might be subjected.

Additionally, the Administrator of FMCSA is delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87 to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by 49 U.S.C. chapters 311, 313, and 315 as they relate to CMV operators, programs, and safety.

For the reasons explained below, FMCSA believes that allowing an additional exception to the requirement for rear license plate lamps in Footnote 11 to Table 1 of 49 CFR 393.11 would not adversely affect CMV safety.

Requirements for CMVs to be equipped with various parts and accessories are established in 49 CFR part 393, “Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation”. Specifically, § 393.11 contains requirements for lamps and reflective device. Table 1 to § 393.11 specifies the requirements for lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment by the type of commercial motor vehicle. Currently, Table 1 to § 393.11 specifies that CMVs, except those with projecting loads, must have a rear license plate lamp that is white and illuminates the plate from the top or the sides. Footnote 11 to Table 1 states that these rear license plate lamps must be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated. Footnote 11 also contains an exception from the rear license plate lamp requirement for vehicles that do not display a rear license plate.

FMCSA proposes to add another exception to footnote 11 for license plate lamps on the rear of truck tractors while towing a trailer. In the July 22, 2016, final rule that added the exception for vehicles that do not display a rear license plate (81 FR 47722), the Agency, in response to comments requesting an explanation of the safety benefits of rear license plate lamps, pointed out that license plate lamps are not intended to enhance safety in a manner similar to the other required lamps and conspicuity treatments, and eliminating the requirement for a rear license plate lamp when no license plate is required would not reduce safety to the motoring public.

Similar to vehicles without rear license plates, truck tractors towing a trailer do not have a visible license plate on the truck tractor itself. The truck tractor license plate would be blocked from view by the trailer, which would have a visible rear license plate when required by law. Table 1 to § 393.11 requires semitrailers and full trailers to have rear license plate lamps. Requiring both the truck tractor and the trailer it is towing to both have operating rear license plate lamps, when only the trailer's license plate is visible, is redundant and unnecessary. Therefore, FMCSA proposes to add an exception to footnote 11 for license plate lamps on the rear of truck tractors while towing a trailer to remove this unnecessary regulatory requirement.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.

FMCSA proposes to revise footnote 11 to Table 1 by adding truck tractors towing a trailer to the exception from the requirement for a rear license plate lamp to be illuminated.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

This proposed rulemaking would add an exception to for license plate lamps on the rear of truck tractors while towing a trailer. Consequently, truck tractor owners would realize cost savings by no longer needing to retrofit their rear license plates with lamps when towing a trailer. FMCSA does not have information to estimate the cost savings for the owners of trucks who would no longer install license plate lamps on the rear of their truck tractors while towing a vehicle. FMCSA believes the cost savings and the number of affected entities would be minimal as some of these truck tractors would likely operate without a trailer in some instances, meaning that the owners would opt to have the lamps installed. FMCSA requests comment and data on the cost to install rear license plate lamps and the number of affected entities.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  1

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by the OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 2

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  3 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 4 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rulemaking would add an exception for license plate lamps on the rear of truck tractors while towing a trailer. This would result in minimal cost savings for owners of trucks who would have otherwise retrofitted their truck tractors with rear license plate lamp when towing a trailer. As some truck tractors would be operated with and without a trailer in certain instances, FMCSA believes the number of affected entities would be minimal as the owners of these trucks would likely continue to maintain and install rear license plate lamps. FMCSA requests comment and data to develop estimates of cost savings for affected truck tractor owners.

Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A proposed rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 6 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 7 requires Federal agencies to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this proposed rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This rulemaking does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraph (6) (bb), which covers regulations pertaining to vehicle operation safety standards, equipment approval, and/or equipment carriage requirements. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at regulations.gov , under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 393 to read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0120), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0120/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0120/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

The provisions of 49 CFR 393.65 were adopted over 50 years ago on the basis of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935. As a result of subsequent recodifications of title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.), that authority is now found at 49 U.S.C. 31502(b), which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) to prescribe requirements for, among other things, the “safety of operation and equipment” of a motor carrier and the “standards of equipment” of a motor private carrier (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)(1) and (2)).

The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 required the Secretary to “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 . . .; (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under this section [which is the basis for much of the FMCSRs], or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this title.”

This NPRM is based on the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1) to ensure that commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are equipped and operated safely. It does not implicate the driver-centered requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2) through (4). Because this NPRM would remove a restriction that would otherwise apply to certain motor carriers, there is no obvious risk of coercion related to this rulemaking to which a driver might be subjected.

While 49 U.S.C. 31502(b) and 31136(a)(1) authorize FMCSA to promulgate the rules in 49 CFR part 393, they also allow the Agency to remove or modify regulations that are not needed for the safe operation of CMVs. For the reasons explained below, FMCSA believes that allowing an exception to § 393.65(d)—prohibiting fuel from being supplied by gravity or syphon feed directly to the carburetor or injector—would not adversely affect CMV safety under the circumstances specified in this NPRM.

Requirements that CMVs to be equipped with various parts and accessories are established in 49 CFR part 393.Specifically, § 393.65 contains requirements for fuels systems on CMVs and paragraph (d) prohibits supplying fuel by gravity or syphon feed directly to the carburetor or injector.

On December 21, 2018, TTMA submitted a petition for rulemaking (TTMA petition) requesting a revision to § 393.65(d) to allow an exception for auxiliary fuel tanks. FMCSA granted the TTMA petition on March 17, 2023, and the revision requested in that petition is addressed by this rulemaking.

The TTMA petition requested that FMCSA add an exception to § 393.65 for fuel tanks on auxiliary equipment. TTMA mentioned in their petition that carriers were modifying their trailers in some cases to accommodate a gasoline-powered auxiliary pump for use other than powering the CMVs. These pumps are often employed for specific purposes at a remote site. Gasoline-powered auxiliary pumps come with an integrated fuel tank which often feeds fuel to the pump motor either by gravity or by syphon method. To comply with the prohibition on gravity or syphon feeds in § 393.65(d) carriers will often modify the trailer by installing a fuel tank with a fuel pump along with associated top mountings and fuel lines separately to operate the auxiliary pump. TTMA expressed concern regarding the structural integrity of the fuel tank attachments and the prohibitive costs associated with making such modifications for the sole purpose of compliance with § 393.65(d).

TTMA asserted that after-market installation of fuel tanks is detrimental to safety. TTMA also observed that siphon or gravity feeds could create a hazard by supplying a continuous flow of fuel to an engine in a vehicle that had caught fire, which would be mitigated if there was a limit on the size of siphon or gravity feed fuel tanks. For those reasons, TTMA petitioned the Agency to include language to limit the size of the fuel tank and to allow for installation of gasoline-powered auxiliary pumps with either syphon or gravity method. TTMA believes, that limiting the size of the fuel tank providing fuel by gravity or syphon feed to less than 5 gallons would improve safety while limiting any fire hazards.

FMCSA agrees with TTMA's conclusions and believes that the requested exception will provide regulatory relief while addressing safety concerns associated with the existing process of aftermarket installations. Accordingly, FMCSA is proposing to add an exception to the prohibition on gravity and syphon feeds in § 393.65(d) for auxiliary pumps with a fuel tank capacity of less than 5 gallons mounted on the trailer chassis frame or trailer bed for purposes other than operation of the motor vehicle that are operational only when the motor vehicle is not in motion.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.

FMCSA proposes to add new paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) which would provide for an exception from the prohibition in paragraph (d).

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

This proposed rule would add an exception to the prohibition on gravity and syphon feeds for auxiliary pumps with a fuel tank capacity of less than 5 gallons mounted on the trailer chassis frame or trailer bed when the motor vehicle is not in motion. This proposed change would have no impact on safety. The prohibition against gravity or siphon feeds is primarily intended to prevent the continuous fueling of any fires that may occur. As the exception only applies when the vehicle is not in motion and only for fuel tanks with a capacity of 5 gallons or less, mounted on the trailer chassis frame or trailer, the risk of fire is mitigated. The proposed rule would have the benefit of producing cost savings for the owners of eligible auxiliary pumps by eliminating the need for costly and burdensome upgrades to comply with the current requirement.

FMCSA requests comment on the cost of replacing existing auxiliary pumps with those that would be eligible for the exception.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  1

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 2

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  3 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 4 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an Agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would add an exception to the prohibition on gravity and syphon feeds for auxiliary pumps with a fuel tank capacity of less than 5 gallons mounted on the trailer chassis frame or trailer bed when the motor vehicle is not in motion. By extending this regulatory relief, owners of eligible auxiliary pumps with a fuel pump capacity of less than 5 gallons would experience cost savings. Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 6 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 7 requires Federal agencies to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraph (6)(bb), which covers regulations pertaining to vehicle operation safety standards, equipment approval, and/or equipment carriage requirements. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 393 to read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0119), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0119/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0119/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a), DOT is required to “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 . . .; (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under this section [which is the basis for much of the FMCSRs], or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this title.”

This NPRM is based on the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1) to ensure that CMVs are equipped and operated safely. It does not implicate the driver-centered requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2) through (4). Because this NPRM would create an exception to a requirement for brakes, there is no obvious risk of coercion related to this proposed rule to which a driver might be subjected.

Commercial motor vehicles are defined in 49 CFR 390.5 to include “any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property when the vehicle—(1) Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating, or gross vehicle weight or gross combination weight, if 4,536 kg (10,001 pounds) or more, whichever is greater.” The portable conveyors addressed by this NPRM and their towing vehicles have gross combination weights of 10,001 pounds or more, and are thus CMVs.

For the reasons explained below, FMCSA believes that exempting portable conveyors from the requirement in § 393.42(a) to have brakes acting on all wheels (under the conditions proposed) would not adversely affect the operational safety of combinations including such conveyors.

Requirements that CMVs be equipped with various parts and accessories are established in 49 CFR part 393, “Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation.” Specifically, § 393.42 requires that each CMV be equipped with brakes acting on all wheels. This section currently includes six exceptions, based mainly on either the age of the vehicle (for example, three-axle vehicles manufactured prior to 1980 do not require brakes on the steering axle) or the weight of the vehicle (for example, a trailer with a gross weight of 3,000 lbs. or less does not require brakes). Other exceptions are for driveaway towaway vehicles and specialized trailers transporting extremely heavy equipment ( e.g., industrial furnaces, reactors, etc.) at speeds not exceeding 20 miles per hour (mph).

On January 18, 2019, MAA submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting a revision to § 393.42 to add portable conveyors to the list of vehicles that are not required to have brakes on all wheels. FMCSA granted the MAA petition on September 9, 2024, and the revision requested in that petition is addressed in this rulemaking.

The MAA petition requested that FMCSA add an exception for portable conveyors to the requirements in § 393.42(b). MAA stated that, prior to 2010, portable conveyors were not manufactured with brakes because the drum brakes used at the time would trap sand, rocks, and other materials found in aggregate pits, which would render the brakes useless. That material would also tend to dislodge during transport, creating a road hazard. Manufacturers now install disc braking systems on portable conveyors, but conveyors manufactured before 2010 cannot be retrofitted with these newer brakes. MAA stated that the aggregate industry has maintained a good safety record while transporting the brakeless portable conveyors in the past.

FMCSA is proposing to add the requested exception to § 393.42. The Agency examined inspection violations data related to § 393.42 and focused on violations related to missing brakes on the trailer axle for the years 2020 to first quarter of 2024. The data showed that total percentage of all violations related to § 393.42 amounted to less than 0.06 percent of all CMV violations. More specifically, violations related to missing brakes on a trailer axle were less than 0.001 percent of all violations. There is no crash data to indicate if portable aggregate conveyors have been a primary cause of crashes.

The towing vehicle and portable conveyer would still need to meet the stopping performance required by § 393.52(d). The combination would be required to stop within 40 feet or less from an initial speed of 20 mph. The FMCSRs do not specify minimum stopping distances from higher speeds. However, because of the length of the conveyors, motor carriers will often have to request overlength permits from the States in which they operate, and in many of those cases the permits contain restrictions on maximum speed. Further, most towing vehicles are equipped with either disc brakes or a combination of disc and drum brakes on wheels, which have improved the stopping distances by 30 percent since 2013, after the adoption of FMVSS No. 121 (see 74 FR 37122 and 78 FR 9623; July 27, 2009).

FMCSA proposes imposing two additional conditions to the exception to ensure these conveyors continue to be transported safely. First, FMCSA proposes requiring that the sum of the axle weights of the towed vehicle not exceed 40 percent of the sum of the axle weights of the towing vehicle to ensure that stability is maintained during transport. Second, FMCSA proposes that the maximum speed be limited to 45 mph on two lane roads and 55 mph on freeways. Because the towing vehicle plus the portable conveyor must still meet the brake performance standards in § 393.52, which is stopping from 20 mph within 40 feet, and the fact that these portable conveyors will seldom be transported on the highway due to their primary use offroad, FMCSA believes that these conveyors can be transported safely without brakes.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.

FMCSA proposes to add new paragraphs (b)(7)(i) through (iii) which would provide an exception for portable conveyors manufactured prior to 2010.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

The proposed rule would add an exception to the requirement for brakes on all wheels for portable conveyors manufactured prior to 2010. The towing vehicle and the portable conveyor would still need to meet the stopping performance required by § 393.52(d). Furthermore, most towing vehicles are now equipped with disc brakes or a combination of disc and drum brakes on wheels, which have improved stopping distances by 30 percent since 2013 after the adoption of FMVSS No. 121 (see 74 FR 37122 and 78 FR 9623). That advancement in braking technology further diminished the necessity for brakes on pre-2010 portable conveyors. Consequently, FMCSA determines that this proposed rule would have no impact on safety. The proposed rule is anticipated to generate cost savings for owners of pre-2010 portable conveyors by enhancing their economic viability and potentially extending their useful lifespan.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  1

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 2

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  3 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 4 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rulemaking will add an exception to the requirement for brakes on all wheels for portable conveyors manufactured prior to 2010. By extending this regulatory relief, owners of pre-2010 portable conveyors may experience some cost savings. FMCSA considers any realized cost savings to be de minimis. The Agency requests data or any other information that could assist in quantifying these costs savings. Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 6 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 7 requires Federal agencies to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rulemaking. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraph (6)(bb), which covers regulations pertaining to vehicle operation safety standards, equipment approval, and/or equipment carriage requirements. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at regulations.gov , under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 393 to read as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0107), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0107/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0107/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 543) (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Title II of Pub. L. 98-554, 98 Stat. 2832) (1984 Act), as amended.

The 1935 Act, as amended, provides that “[t]he Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a private motor carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation” (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)).

This NPRM would amend the current requirements for rear impact guards in the FMCSRs by rescinding the requirement that the impact guard be permanently marked or labeled with a certification from the impact guard manufacturer as required by the applicable FMVSS. The Agency would amend a rule for which the adoption and enforcement of is authorized by the 1935 Act.

The 1984 Act provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to “prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety.” The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for CMVs. At a minimum, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31136(a), the regulations shall ensure that: (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of CMVs is adequate to enable them to operate vehicles safely; (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) drivers are not coerced by motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries to operate a vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (which is the basis for much of the FMCSRs) or 49 U.S.C. chapters 51 or 313 (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)).

This proposed rule concerns parts and accessories necessary for the safe operation of CMVs. It is based on section 31136(a)(1) because it deals with maintenance of rear impact guards. The NPRM does not implicate the driver-centered requirements of sections 31136(a)(2)-(4). As the amendment proposed by this rulemaking pertains only to the certification label or marking, FMCSA believes there will be stakeholder support for this initiative and that it is unlikely CMV drivers would be exposed to greater risk of being coerced to operate trailers with missing or non-compliant rear impact guards, which would run afoul of 31136(a)(5).

Before prescribing any such regulations, FMCSA must consider the “costs and benefits” of any proposal (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). As discussed in greater detail in the “Regulatory Analyses” section, FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action.

Section 393.86 of the FMCSRs, “Rear impact guards and rear end protection,” requires rear impact guards to be installed on most CMVs to reduce the incidence of passenger compartment intrusion during underride crashes in which a passenger vehicle strikes the rear of the CMV. Regulations requiring rear impact guards have been in the FMCSRs since 1952. The FMCSRs require that all CMVs be systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained to ensure that all required parts and accessories—including rear impact guards—are in safe and proper operating condition at all times (§ 396.3(a)(1)). Operation of a CMV with a missing or noncompliant rear impact guard would be a violation of the FMCSRs, precluding the issuance of a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) inspection decal if the vehicle were to be inspected. In addition, a vehicle with a missing or noncompliant rear impact guard would fail the periodic or annual inspection required by 49 CFR 396.17.

NHTSA's rear impact guard standard applicable to the manufacturers of the devices include labeling requirements. Under FMVSS No. 223, “Rear impact guards,” manufacturers are allowed to affix the rear impact guard certification label on either the forward- or rearward-facing surface of the horizontal member of the guard, provided the label does not interfere with the retroreflective sheeting required by the FMVSS.

On September 1, 1999, FHWA published a final rule (64 FR 47703) amending the FMCSRs to require trailers and semitrailers manufactured on or after January 26, 1998, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more, be equipped with rear impact guards that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 223. The rear impact guards must be installed to ensure that the trailer or semitrailer meets the rear end protection requirements of FMVSS No. 224. The rule was intended to ensure that the rear impact protection requirements of the FMCSRs are consistent with the FMVSSs.

The 1999 final rule included a provision concerning the labeling or marking of the rear impact guard (64 FR 47708). The labeling requirements were subsequently updated after NHTSA published a final rule on November 19, 2004, relating to rear impact guards. NHTSA amended the labeling requirement in FMVSS No. 223 to permit the rear impact guard certification label to be mounted on either the forward- or rearward-facing surface of the horizontal member of the guard (69 FR 67660).

The certification label or marking provides motor carriers purchasing new trailers or new impact guards to replace damaged devices with a means to determine whether the equipment is certified as meeting the applicable FMVSS. However, the labeling or marking requirement has proven problematic for motor carriers when the label or marking becomes illegible or wears off during the service life of the trailer or guard. As discussed above in the Background section, operation of a CMV with a missing or noncompliant rear impact guard would be a violation of the FMCSRs, precluding the issuance of a CVSA inspection decal if the vehicle were to be inspected, and a vehicle with a missing or noncompliant rear impact guard would fail the periodic or annual inspection required by § 396.17.

On December 10, 2024, FMCSA issued a guidance document  1 noting NHTSA had determined that labels that wear, fade, or are removed during repair do not indicate a current compliance issue with the requirements in FMVSS No. 223 (88 FR 5844-5845, Jan. 30, 2023). This proposal would eliminate an unintended regulatory burden on motor carriers without compromising safety, as the NPRM would not affect the applicable FMVSS; rather, it would rescind the FMCSR provision in § 393.86(a)(6) requiring that the impact guard be permanently marked or labeled with the certification required by the FMVSS.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries in which they operate, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 393.86 to rescind the labeling or marking requirement. While brand new trailers would continue to display manufacturer certification labels, and a significant percentage of trailers in operation would have certification labels, motor carriers operating trailers in environments that make it difficult, if not impossible, to preserve the certification label would no longer be at risk of being penalized during inspections for missing or illegible certification labels affixed by the manufacturer.

This rulemaking proposes to amend a regulation that has an associated guidance statements or interpretations. Such guidance statements do not have the force and effect of law, are strictly advisory, and are not meant to bind the public in any way. Conformity with guidance statements is voluntary. Guidance is intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or FMCSA policies. A guidance statement does not alter the substance of a regulation.

On December 10, 2024, FMCSA issued a guidance FAQ to address the issue of illegible, incomplete, or missing rear impact guard certification labels under 49 CFR 393.86(a)(6). 2 FMCSA intends to rescind this guidance as no longer necessary upon publication of a final rule eliminating the provision to which the guidance relates.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

Section 393.86(a) currently requires most trailers and semitrailers manufactured on or after January 26, 1998, to be equipped with rear impact guards that meet NHTSA's requirements. This proposed rule would eliminate only the FMCSR requirement that the impact guard have a certification label or marking in perpetuity, while retaining NHTSA's requirement applicable at the time of manufacture and sale.

This rulemaking would eliminate the problem of motor carriers receiving citations for missing or illegible certification labels during inspections by Federal and State personnel. Because the Agency does not have data on the frequency with which such citations are accompanied by a State-issued fine, it is not possible to estimate the cost savings for motor carriers.

The Agency does not expect this proposed rule to result in benefits beyond the baseline established in the FMCSRs. As required by § 396.17, motor carriers currently complete annual inspections of all items identified in Appendix G. FMCSA assumes that motor carriers review rear impact guards in their annual inspection programs to remain in compliance with the current requirements in § 396.3(a)(1), which states that rear impact guards must be installed and in safe and proper operating conditions at all times. Additionally, CMVs are subject to inspections conducted in accordance with the CVSA's North American Standard Inspection Program that may occur throughout the year, which include the examination of rear impact guards.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  3

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 4

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule. This rulemaking would result in cost savings for motor carriers that would no longer be issued citations for missing or illegible certification labels during Federal and State inspections. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  5 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 6 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 7 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. The Small Business Administration develops the size standards used to classify entities as small, and establishes separate standards for each industry, as defined by the North American Industry Classification System. The motor carriers that would be affected by this proposed rule fall into many different industry codes with differing size standards. Because this proposed rule would impact all motor carriers, including those considered to be small entities, FMCSA anticipates that this proposed rule would impact a substantial number of small entities.

However, FMCSA has determined that this rule would not have a significant impact on the affected entities. This proposed rule would rescind the requirement that the manufacturer certification label be displayed on the rear impact guard. The manufacturer certification label provides a motor carrier purchasing new trailers or new impact guards to replace damaged devices with a means to determine whether the equipment is certified as meeting the NHTSA requirements. However, the labeling requirement has proven problematic for motor carriers when the label becomes illegible or wears off during the service life of the trailer. Today's proposal would eliminate an unintended regulatory burden on motor carriers without compromising safety. The Agency expects the impacts of this proposed rule would be de minimis, and therefore, does not expect the proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Consequently, I certify that the proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FMCSA invites comment from members of the public who believe there will be a significant impact either on small businesses or on governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. This proposed rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of UMRA) for State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector of the adjusted inflationary amount or more in any 1 year. Thus, the rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, the Agency does discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rulemaking has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 8 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII).

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 9 requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this proposed rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraph (6)(bb), which covers regulations pertaining to vehicle operation safety standards, equipment approval, and/or equipment carriage requirements. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at regulations.gov , under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 393 to read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0109), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0109/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0109/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

FMCSA's authority to promulgate regulations governing Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation (49 CFR part 393) rests on the requirement in 49 U.S.C. 31136(a). That provision requires the Secretary to “prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety.” At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that: (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of CMVs is adequate to enable them to operate vehicles safely; (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) drivers are not coerced by motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries to operate a vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (which is the basis for much of the FMCSRs) or 49 U.S.C. chapters 51 or 313 (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)).

The NPRM does not implicate the driver-centered requirements of sections 31136(a)(2) through (4). As the amendment proposed by this rulemaking pertains only to the carrying of spare parts that are no longer needed, FMCSA believes it is unlikely CMV drivers would be exposed to greater risk of coercion.

To ensure that commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are safely “equipped” and “operated,” as required by 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1), FMCSA requires that certain emergency equipment be present on all power units (49 CFR 393.95). Included in the list of required equipment are spare fuses “needed to operate any required parts and accessories” (49 CFR 393.95(b)).

For the reasons discussed below, FMCSA has determined that the requirement to carry spare fuses is not needed to ensure that CMVs are “equipped” or “operated” safely.

Requirements that CMVs be equipped with various parts and accessories are established in 49 CFR part 393, “Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation,”. Particularly, § 393.95 requires trucks, truck tractors, and buses be equipped with certain emergency equipment. Section 393.95(b) requires these CMVs be equipped with at least one spare fuse for each type and size of fuse needed for any required parts and accessories. The requirements for spare fuses were established by the Interstate Commerce Commission's (ICC) Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, circa 1941.

FMCSA is proposing to remove the requirement for spare fuses in § 393.95(b). While spare fuses have historically been required on CMVs, the regulatory requirement to keep them on trucks, truck tractors, and buses under § 393.95(b) has become outdated. Modern CMVs do not have the same issues with fuses failing as they did when this requirement was originally introduced. Fuses in CMVs do not typically fail during normal operation. As such, requiring the CMV be equipped with a spare fuse for every part and accessory is burdensome and unnecessary. Additionally, there are a wide variety of fuses and the process of diagnosing an electrical failure and identifying the specific fuse that needs to be replaced to restore the functions has become increasingly complex. This means that a CMV operator would usually have to take the CMV in for a repair and be unable to address the problem at roadside, negating the need to have spare fuses on the CMV. Accordingly, FMCSA is proposing to remove this unnecessary requirement from the FMCSRs.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.

FMCSA proposes to remove paragraph (b) concerning the requirement for spare fuses.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

The proposed rule eliminates the requirement for spare fuses in all trucks, truck tractors, and buses. As fuses in CMVs do not typically fail during normal operation, this change is not expected to impact safety and would result in minimal cost savings per truck, truck tractor, and bus. FMCSA requests data or any other information that could assist the Agency in quantifying these costs savings.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  1

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 2

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  3 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 4 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FMCSA has concluded and hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This proposed rulemaking would remove the requirement for unnecessary spare fuses from all trucks, truck tractors, and buses resulting in a minimal economic impact.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rulemaking has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 6 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 7 requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rulemaking. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraph (6)(bb), which covers regulations pertaining to vehicle operation safety standards, equipment approval, and/or equipment carriage requirements. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 393 to read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0123), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0123/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0123/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a), DOT is required to “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 conditions of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely . . .; (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under this section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this title.”

This NPRM is based on the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1) to ensure that CMVs are equipped and operated safely. It does not implicate the driver-centered requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(2) through (4). Because this NPRM would not impose any requirement on motor carriers, there is no obvious risk of coercion related to this rulemaking to which a driver might be subjected.

The Administrator of FMCSA is delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87 to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by 49 U.S.C. chapters 311, 313, and 315 as they relate to CMV operators, programs, and safety.

For the reasons explained below, FMCSA believes that this proposed clarification of 49 CFR 393.75(g) and (h) would not adversely affect the operational safety of CMVs.

Requirements that CMVs be equipped with various parts and accessories are established in 49 CFR part 393. Specifically, § 393.75 contains requirements for tires on CMVs and paragraphs (g) and (h) of that section prohibit operating motor vehicles and manufactured homes with weights in excess of the maximum tire load marked on the sidewall of a tire.

FMCSA proposes to clarify the requirements in § 393.75(g) and (h) by explicitly stating that those paragraphs do not require manufacturers to add markings to the sidewalls of tires. The requirements for manufacturers to add markings to the sidewalls of tires fall within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) regulatory authority. Tires subject to § 393.75 generally must be manufactured in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119). NHTSA requires those tires to be marked with a maximum load rating on the sidewall (§ 571.119 S6.5). The markings required by FMVSS No. 119 are then referenced in § 393.75(g) and (h). If those markings are absent for any reason, § 393.75(g) and (h) then refer back to FMVSS No. 119 for a list of publications which contain the necessary tire load limit information.

This clearly shows that NHTSA, not FMCSA, is the agency which imposes requirements on tire manufacturers to add maximum load rating markings to the sidewalls of tires. However, FMCSA is aware of instances where members of the regulated public have mistakenly believed that § 393.75(g) and (h) require sidewall markings, and that markings missing from the sidewall would be a violation of those requirements. Sections 393.75(g) and (h) require that motor vehicles and manufactured homes are not operated with a weight in excess of the load limits on the sidewalls of the tires, or, for manufactured homes built before January 1, 2002, with a weight more than 18 percent over the load limits. The markings on the sidewalls of the tires provide the information to determine when a vehicle is in violation of those requirements, but the markings themselves are not required by the FMCSRs. Therefore, FMCSA is adding a new paragraph (j) to § 393.75 to clarify that FMCSA does not require tire markings and to avoid any further confusion about the scope and requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h).

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 393 to read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0114), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0114/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0114/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

Section 32301(b) of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Enhancement Act, enacted as part of MAP-21 (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 786-788, July 6, 2012), mandated that the Secretary adopt regulations requiring that CMVs involved in interstate commerce, operated by drivers who are required to keep Record of Duty Status, be equipped with ELDs. The statute, which may be found at 49 U.S.C. 31137, sets out provisions that the regulations must address, including device performance and design standards and certification requirements. In adopting regulations, the Agency must consider how the need for supporting documents might be reduced, to the extent data is captured on an ELD, without diminishing hours of service (HOS) enforcement.

The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, October 30, 1984) (the 1984 Act), as amended, provides authority to the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to prescribe minimum safety standards for CMVs to ensure that—(1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) responsibilities imposed on CMV drivers do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) drivers' physical condition is adequate to operate the vehicles safely; (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on drivers' physical condition; and (5) CMV drivers are not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a CMV in violation of regulations promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 31136 or under chapter 51 or chapter 313 of 49 U.S.C. (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)). The 1984 Act also grants the Secretary broad power in carrying out motor carrier safety statutes and regulations to “prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements” and to “perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate” (49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and (10)).

In 49 CFR 1.87(f), the Secretary delegated to the FMCSA Administrator the authority to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by subchapters I, III, and IV of chapter 311, title 49, U.S.C.

On December 16, 2015, FMCSA published the final rule “Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting Documents” in the Federal Register (80 FR 78292), which set the foundation for current ELD requirements, including technical specifications, ELD use, supporting HOS documents, and both procedural and technical provisions aimed at ensuring that ELDs are not used to harass CMV operators. The rule added § 395.22(h)(1), which specifies that CMVs must have a copy of the ELD user's manual in-vehicle for those CMVs operating with an ELD. The requirement was intended to ensure that the driver, motor carrier, and enforcement personnel understood how the ELD operated.

As part of the December 16, 2015 final rule FMCSA also established a registration process for ELD providers and a self-certification process for the ELD products (See Sections 5.1 and 5.2., of part 395 (Technical Specifications)). The process requires an ELD provider to provide FMCSA business information and the capabilities of the ELD they wish to certify. FMCSA then reviews the information and lists the provider on the FMCSA self-certified list of ELDs if no issues are found with the information provided. The list is then available on the FMCSA website for motor carriers to locate self-certified devices for their operations.

One requirement for self-certification is submission of the ELD owner's manual to FMCSA, which ensures FMCSA personnel have access to the information necessary to operate the ELD. Drivers are already required under § 395.24(d) to be able to operate the device upon request of an enforcement officer. FMCSA has thus determined this requirement to be redundant, as the Agency already has access to the manual through the certification process, other law enforcement officers can access the manuals via online resources, and drivers are required to know how to operate their ELD. Accordingly, this rulemaking proposes to remove the requirement for drivers to have the user's manual in-vehicle.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

FMCSA proposes to rescind the requirement for motor carriers to maintain an in-vehicle copy of the ELD user's manual as found in 49 CFR 395.22(h)(1). This will reduce burden on motor carriers as the drivers, motor carriers, and FMCSA already have access to the manual and are required to be aware of how to operate the device.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

FMCSA proposes to rescind the in-vehicle ELD operator's manual requirement for CMVs. FMCSA anticipates that this would result in cost savings for all motor carriers that are currently required to use ELDs and maintain a copy of the manual in the vehicle. FMCSA does not have the information to estimate cost savings from the recission of this requirement but anticipates that the impact of removing ELD manuals would be de minimis. FMCSA requests data or any other information that could assist the Agency in quantifying these costs savings. This proposal would not impact safety. The regulations would still require that the motor carrier ensure that drivers possess an instruction sheet describing the data transfer mechanisms supported by the ELD and step-by-step instructions for producing and transferring drivers' HOS records to an authorized safety official.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  1

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 2

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero as it would remove the requirement to keep a copy of the ELD manual in the vehicle and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  3 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 4 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would impact all entities that are required to use an ELD and keep a manual in the vehicle. As such, FMCSA anticipates that it would impact a substantial number of small entities. However, the impact of having the option of removing the ELD manual from the vehicle is de minimis and would not result in a significant impact on the impacted entities. Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this rulemaking would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The regulations included in this NPRM are covered by an existing, approved collection, OMB Control No. 2126-0001, Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers Regulations. That information collection details the reporting and recordkeeping costs for drivers using ELDs, however it does not contain a specific, separate cost for keeping a copy of the manual in the vehicle of the CMV. Most likely, this is because it was estimated that the cost would be de minimus, as FMCSA's electronic documents and signatures regulation (found at § 390.32) would allow for the driver to maintain an electronic copy of the manual. In such case, relieving the driver from the requirement entirely would be a de minimus reduction.

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 6 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 7 requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rulemaking. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This rulemaking does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraphs (6)(q) and (6)(bb), which cover regulations pertaining to records preservation and vehicle operation safety standards, respectively. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at regulations.gov , under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 395 to read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0115), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0115/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0115/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, October 30, 1984), as amended, (the 1984 Act) provides broad authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. Section 211 of the 1984 Act grants the Secretary broad power, in carrying out motor carrier safety statutes and regulations, to “prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements” and to “perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate” (49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and (10)). The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87(f) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapters I and III, relating to commercial motor vehicle (CMV) programs and safety regulation.

Two Federal statutes govern the Agency's implementation of electronic document and signature requirements. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) (Pub. L. 105-277, Title XVII (Secs. 1701-1710), 112 Stat. 2681-749, 44 U.S.C. 3504 note) was enacted on October 21, 1998, to improve customer service and governmental efficiency through the use of information technology. The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN) (Pub. L. 106-229, 114 Stat. 464, 15 U.S.C. 7001-7031) was signed into law on June 30, 2000. E-SIGN was designed to promote the use of electronic contract formation, signatures, and recordkeeping in private commerce by establishing legal equivalence between traditional paper-based methods and electronic methods. The GPEA defines an electronic signature as a method of signing an electronic communication that: (a) Identifies and authenticates a particular person as the source of the electronic communication; and (b) indicates such person's approval of the information contained in the electronic communication (section 1710(1)). It also requires Federal agencies to provide individuals and entities the options of: (a) Submitting information to or transacting with the Agency electronically; and (b) using electronic records retention when practicable. The GPEA states that electronic records and their related electronic signatures shall not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability merely because they are in electronic form (section 1707). It also encourages agencies to use electronic signature alternatives (section 1704).

For any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, E-SIGN supersedes all pre-existing requirements that paper records be kept so long as: (a) Such records are generated in commercial, consumer, and business transactions between private parties; and (b) those parties consent to using electronic methods. Specifically, the statute establishes the legal equivalence for contracts, signatures, and other legally-required documents, whether in traditional paper or electronic form (15 U.S.C. 7001(a)(1)).

FMCSA has, in recent years, sought to reduce the burdens associated with DVIRs. In 2014, FMCSA revised 49 CFR 396.11 to remove the requirement for DVIRs in non-passenger carrying CMVs, where the driver found no deficiencies (79 FR 75437, Dec. 18, 2014). In 2020, FMCSA extended this allowance to passenger-carrying CMVs (85 FR 50787, Aug. 18, 2020).

Additionally, on April 16, 2018 (83 FR 16210), FMCSA introduced amendments permitting the use of electronic records and signatures. This aligned, in part, with the GPEA and E-SIGN, as it only applies to those documents that FMCSA's regulations obligate entities or individuals to retain. The amendment also updated references to outdated recordkeeping and reporting methods throughout chapter III of subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR parts 300 through 399) to make them technologically neutral.

On May 5, 2025, NTTC submitted a public comment to the docket for “Ensuring Lawful Regulation; Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (DOT-OST-2025-0026).” In the public comment, NTTC stated that “Federal regulations found in 49 CFR 396.11 and 396.13 require drivers to complete Daily Vehicle Inspection Reports (DVIRs), which have become outdated and unnecessarily burdensome in modern operations.” NTTC went on to note that there are electronic monitoring systems that provide the safety assurances that the DVIR is designed to provide. They state that “the DVIR process is widely viewed by both drivers and carriers as a compliance-driven `paper drill' rather than a meaningful safety measure” and that “[m]odernizing § 396.11 to reflect current technology and operational realities would reduce administrative burden without compromising safety.”

FMCSA proposes to add language into §§ 396.11 and 396.13 to explicitly allow for the electronic creation, maintenance, and signature of the DVIRs required by those sections. This language will make it clear that DVIRs need not be on paper and will allow drivers and their employers to incorporate any existing electronic communication means already in use (such as texting or email), thus reducing the burden of creating and maintaining the DVIRs.

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

This section-by-section analysis describes the proposed changes in numerical order.

Section 396.11 is amended to add two identical sub-paragraphs in the existing paragraphs. The new language specifically allows for electronic creation and maintenance of DVIRs, and cross references the existing standards for electronic records in 49 CFR 390.32.

A similar change is being made in § 396.13, to make clear that a driver is permitted to electronically sign a previously created DVIR.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

This proposed rule would add clarifying language to ensure that drivers and carriers are aware that the DVIR can be created, maintained, and signed electronically. The DVIR may already be completed electronically, however this NPRM proposes explicit language to make this clear. This rulemaking would not increase costs, but it could result in cost savings for those motor carriers that now switch their DVIR process to a more streamlined electronic process.

FMCSA does not anticipate that this rulemaking would impact safety. The clarification provided in this rule would not alter any requirements for the DVIR.

FMCSA requests comment on the number of entities that would change their DVIR creation and maintenance as a result of this rule, and any cost savings associated with such a change.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  1

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 2

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero as some motor carriers and drivers might now make use of cost-saving methods for creating, maintaining, and signing DVIRs, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule. FMCSA is unable to quantify the cost savings of this proposal.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  3 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 4 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule could impact motor carriers and drivers that currently use a paper for their DVIR process and chose to switch to electronic, cost-saving methods following the implementation of a final rule. FMCSA anticipates that the majority of motor carriers who wish to use an electronic process are already doing so, and therefore, this rule would not impact a substantial number of small entities.

FMCSA does not have information to estimate the cost savings associated with switching to an electronic process for DVIR creation, maintenance, and signature. FMCSA requests comment and data to develop estimates of cost savings per entity.

Given that this rulemaking is not expected to impact a substantial number of small entities, the Agency is comfortable certifying as such. Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this rule would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The burdens associated with DVIRs are already covered in an approved Information Collection, OMB Control No. 2126-0003, Inspection, Repair and Maintenance. Those burdens already account for the option of creating and storing DVIRs electronically. No adjustment is needed at this time.

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 6 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 7 requires Federal agencies to conduct a Privacy Impact Analysis (PIA) for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rulemaking. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraphs (6)(f)(1), (6)(q), and (6)(aa), which cover regulations pertaining to driver/vehicle inspections, implementing record preservation procedures, and requiring motor carriers, their officers, drivers, agents, representatives, and employees directly in control of CMVs to inspect, repair, and provide maintenance for every CMV used on a public road, respectively. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule may be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 396 to read as follows:

FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2025-0116), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0116/document, click on this NPRM, click “Comment,” and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@dot.gov. At this time, you need not send a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic CBI submissions to FMCSA headquarters. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2025-0116/document and choose the document to review. To view comments, click this NPRM, then click “Browse Comments.” If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices. The comments are posted without edits and are searchable by the name of the submitter.

The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, October 30, 1984), as amended, (the 1984 Act) provides broad authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. Section 211 of the 1984 Act grants the Secretary broad power, in carrying out motor carrier safety statutes and regulations, to “prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements” and to “perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate” (49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and (10)). The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87(f) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of Transportation by 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapters I and III, relating to commercial motor vehicle (CMV) programs and safety regulation.

Current regulations in § 396.9 require that motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers who are issued a Driver Vehicle Examination Report (also known as inspection reports) sign the inspection report and return it to the issuing State agency within 15 days certifying that all violations noted in the inspection report have been corrected. FMCSA is aware that not all States review the returned inspection reports and may not require return of the inspection report. This means that in some cases, motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers are completing paperwork and, essentially, sending it into a void. This represents an unreasonable burden.

On April 2, 2024, CVSA petitioned FMCSA to revise the rule and only require the return of the form if the issuing State agency requests the document. CVSA noted: “While the regulations require the motor carrier sign and return the inspection report, there is no corresponding requirement that the issuing agency do anything with the returned form. As such, the majority of jurisdictions simply file the forms away or dispose of them, without taking any additional action that would benefit or improve safety. In some instances, the motor carrier is faxing or mailing a physical copy of the form to the issuing agency, which must then scan the form for digital record keeping or file the form with physical files. Further, the state jurisdictions have access to Query Central to view past inspections, should they need to for enforcement purposes, making this requirement antiquated and redundant. Removing this requirement would eliminate an unnecessary administrative burden on both the motor carriers and the state agencies who receive them, with no reduction in safety, as, is noted above, most jurisdictions do not use the forms for any purpose once they are returned.”

FMCSA agreed with CVSA's request and granted the petition on September 3, 2024.

FMCSA is proposing that motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers only submit a signed inspection report to the State agency that issued the inspection report if that agency requests it. In other words, for those States who do not independently require the submission of a signed inspection report, the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider would only need to ensure that all violations have been corrected within 15 days and retain a copy of the report in their records, as currently required in § 396.9(d)(3).

Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences between nations.

Section 396.9(d)(3)(ii) would be revised to require a signed inspection report be returned to the issuing State agency only if that agency requests it. The requirement that the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider retain a copy at their principal place of business would remain unchanged.

FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.

This rulemaking would revise the regulations to require a completed roadside inspection form be returned to the issuing State agency only if that agency requests it. This would likely result in cost savings for those entities that would no longer be required to return the form to the issuing agency. FMCSA does not have data on the number of issuing agencies that would not request to receive this form, or the number of inspection reports that result in violations and are thus currently returned to the issuing agency within 15 days following the date of the inspection. Absent this information, FMCSA is unable to quantity the cost savings associated with this rulemaking. The Agency requests comment on any impacts that could result from the revisions proposed in this NPRM.

FMCSA does not anticipate that this rulemaking would impact safety. Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers would still be required to undergo inspections and correct all violations found.

E.O. 14192 (90 FR 9065, Jan. 31, 2025), Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.”  1

Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192 issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025) defines two different types of E.O. 14192 actions: an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. 2

An E.O. 14192 deregulatory action is defined as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This proposed rulemaking is expected to have total costs less than zero as some entities would no longer return the completed inspection report to the issuing Agency, and therefore would be considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action upon issuance of a final rule. As discussed above, FMCSA is unable to quantify the cost savings that would result from this rulemaking.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or proceed with a negotiated rulemaking, if a proposed safety rule “under this part”  3 is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule. 4 As this proposed rule is not likely to result in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking would impact motor carriers that receive inspection reports containing violations or defects from issuing agencies that do not request to receive a completed roadside inspection form following the correction of the violations or defects. FMCSA does not know how many small entities would be impacted by this rulemaking and cannot determine if that number would be substantial.

The cost to return the form to the issuing agency is not overly burdensome or costly and would not represent 1 percent of revenue for a motor carrier. Therefore, FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking would not have a significant impact. Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-ombudsman ) and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $206 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2024 levels) or more in any 1 year. Because this rulemaking would not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required.

This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The burdens associated with motor carriers and intermodal equipment provider disposition of inspection reports are already covered in an approved Information Collection (IC), OMB Control No. 2126-0003, Inspection, Repair and Maintenance. That IC includes a specific accounting for this activity, IC-6, with an associated cost of 161,528 burden hours. This IC was last approved by OMB on March 31, 2024, and the approval expires on March 31, 2027. FMCSA will update the burden associated with this collection activity as part of its next triennial IC renewal request. The public will have the opportunity to comment on that request.

A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 6 requires the Agency to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This NPRM would not require the collection of personally identifiable information.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, 7 requires Federal agencies to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rulemaking. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

In addition, the Agency will complete a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA will be submitted to FMCSA's Privacy Officer for review and preliminary adjudication and to DOT's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

This rulemaking does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). The Agency believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This action would likely fall under a published categorical exclusion and thus be excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680), Appendix 2. Specifically, paragraphs (6)(f)(1), (6)(q), and (6)(aa), which cover regulations pertaining to driver/vehicle inspections, implementing record preservation procedures, and requiring motor carriers, their officers, drivers, agents, representatives, and employees directly in control of CMVs to inspect, repair, and provide maintenance for every CMV used on a public road, respectively. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed Agency action.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found at regulations.gov, under the docket number.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 396 to read as follows:

NHTSA is proposing to remove references to dates for certain requirements in FMVSS No. 210. Since the requirements specify that they are applicable for vehicles manufactured after dates that have long passed (September 1, 1987 and October 21, 2011), the dates in the regulatory text are no longer needed. We seek comment on all aspects of this proposal. This action does not affect the applicability of 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits certain entities from making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in vehicle pursuant to an FMVSS applicable on the date of manufacture.

This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this proposed rule under those orders. This NPRM, if finalized as proposed, is also expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by the United States to address similar issues, and that in some cases the differences between them might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. It further recognizes that in meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation and can reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

In addition, section 24211 of the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act, Global Harmonization, provides that DOT “shall cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with foreign governments, nongovernmental stakeholder groups, the motor vehicle industry, and consumer groups with respect to global harmonization of vehicle regulations as a means for improving motor vehicle safety.”  1

Because the proposed changes are deleting obsolete regulatory text, they do not implicate any issues regarding international regulatory cooperation.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rulemaking on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA has concluded and hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This proposed rule will only remove regulatory text that is no longer necessary.

This proposed rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. NHTSA has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rulemaking would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule is deregulatory and so would not impose any additional information collection requirements.

NHTSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, 2002 to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law address the same aspect of performance.

The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules—even if not expressly preempted.

This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer—notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.

To this end, the agency has examined the nature ( e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this proposed rule and does not foresee any potential State requirements that might conflict with it. NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by this proposed rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the standards proposed in this NPRM. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.

NHTSA believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed agency action.

With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Public Law 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as SAE (formerly, the Society of Automotive Engineers). The NTTAA directs this agency to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

Because the proposed changes are deleting obsolete regulatory text, they do not implicate any issues regarding consensus standards.

Executive Order 12866 and E.O. 13563 require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?

• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?

• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?

• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?

• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?

• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this proposal.

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely optional. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule can be found at regulations.gov , Docket NHTSA-2025-0037, in the SUMMARY section of this proposed rule.

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number indicated in this document in your comments.

Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.

Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines .

If you wish the Docket to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, the Docket will return the postcard by mail.

You should submit a redacted “public version” of your comment (including redacted versions of any additional documents or attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under ADDRESSES . This “public version” of your comment should contain only the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do this.

You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential treatment are governed by 49 CFR 512. Your request must set forth the information specified in part 512. This includes the materials for which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail below); supporting information, pursuant to § 512.8; and a certificate, pursuant to § 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A.

You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one unredacted “confidential version” of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to § 512.6, the words “ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” or “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS” (as applicable) must appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: “[ ].”

You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one redacted “public version” of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to § 512.5(a)(2), the redacted “public version” should include redactions of any information for which you are seeking confidential treatment ( i.e., the only information that should be unredacted is information for which you are not seeking confidential treatment).

NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting confidential business information to the agency under part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be sent to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at Daniel.Rabinovitz@dot.gov . You may either submit your request via email or request a secure file transfer link. If you are submitting the request via email, please also email a courtesy copy of the request to John Piazza at john.piazza@dot.gov .

We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

You may read the comments received by the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES . The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

For the reasons set forth above, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 571 as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

NHTSA is proposing to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 204, Steering Control Rearward Displacement. This safety standard specifies requirements that limit the rearward displacement of the steering column in a frontal crash. We propose to exclude vehicles from having to comply with FMVSS No. 204 if they are certified to the frontal barrier crash protection requirements of FMVSS No. 208. We seek comment on all aspects of this proposal.

FMVSS No. 204 specifies requirements that limit the rearward motion of the steering column in a frontal crash. The standard currently applies to passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses (except for walk-in vans or vehicles without steering controls). Vehicles are subjected to a 30 mile per hour frontal barrier crash test. The upper end of the steering column and shaft cannot be displaced more than 5 inches (127 mm) horizontally as a result of the crash test.

FMVSS No. 204 is one of the original safety standards that went into effect on January 1, 1968 (23 FR 2408). Motion of the steering column, and specifically motion of a collapsable steering column (or energy absorbing steering column), were analyzed with FMVSS No. 204 being used in conjunction with FMVSS No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system. These two standards were developed to minimize head, neck and chest injuries to the vehicle driver as a result of an impact.

In the time since the promulgation of FMVSS No. 204, significant advances have been made to the crashworthiness of motor vehicles. These include the development and use of air bags and advanced restraint systems. These standards also predate the use of Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs, or crash test dummies) within the FMVSS to assess vehicle performance. After FMVSS No. 203 was updated on November 29, 1979 (44 FR 68475), it no longer applied to vehicles that complied with the frontal barrier crash requirements of FMVSS Standard No. 208. This exclusion was warranted because the requirements of FMVSS No. 203 could prevent the potential future development of air bag systems. However, FMVSS No. 204 has not been similarly edited since its promulgation.

On November 15, 1995, NHTSA published an NPRM proposing to exclude from compliance with FMSSS No. 204 passenger cars and other light vehicles certified to the frontal barrier crash test requirements of FMVSS No. 208 by means of an air bag. The basis for the 1995 NPRM was the belief that auto manufacturers would take into account the need for a stable platform for their air bag when designing a restraint system. A designer of an air bag equipped vehicle must know the relative location of the air bag and the protected occupant when setting up the design. Performance of the air bag could be adversely affected should the air bag move up, down, rearwards or forwards during a crash event. Given that the air bag is located at the end of the steering column, it was expected that the performance of the air bag would ensure sufficient consideration of the location of the end of the steering column. NHTSA also stated the belief that manufacturers take care to ensure that air bags are not too close to vehicle occupants due to the potential for injury caused by an air bag deploying too close to a person.

In response to the 1995 NPRM, six total comments were received. Four commenters, the insurance institute for highway safety (IIHS), the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), Volkswagen and Mitsubishi supported the proposal. Two commenters, the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and Mr. Lee F. Graser (a crash reconstructionist) both opposed the proposal. Mr. Graser opposed to update to FMVSS No. 204 on the basis of the success of FMVSS No. 204 in aiding occupant safety. The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety expressed concern that smaller occupants sit closer to the air bag, and motion of the air bag towards these occupants could create a greater risk of injury. The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety also argued that there was no supporting data for excluding vehicles from FMVSS No. 204 or the basis for concluding that manufacturers will continue prevent steering column displacement.

IIHS provided comments that they supported the change to FMVSS No. 204. However, they also provided additional information with regards to small overlap collisions, noting that excessive motion of the steering wheel had been seen in small overlap collisions. IIHS noted that this may lead to an increased injury risk or unusual occupant kinematics. IIHS noted that steering column intrusion does occur in some crash types, and they urged NHTSA to promote research to determine the types of testing which best reveal the issue of steering column movement in vehicle collisions.

On July 20, 1998, NHTSA terminated the rulemaking that would exclude certain vehicles from compliance with FMVSS No. 204 (63 FR 38799). At the time of the termination of rulemaking, NHTSA noted that FMVSS No. 208 had allowed for manufacturers to utilize sled testing for testing of depowered air bags, in place of an unbelted frontal crash test. The capability of the steering column is not tested in a sled test. Accordingly, without testing under FMVSS No. 204, there would be no method for determining the effect of any motion of the steering column. For these reasons, NHTSA ended the rulemaking and did not proceed with finalizing the change to FMVSS No. 204. NHTSA stated that, if circumstances change in the future, it would consider appropriate action.

On July 28, 2004, Honda petitioned NHTSA to update FMVSS No. 204 to allow FMVSS No. 208 to take its place. Honda noted that the advanced air bag requirements in FMVSS No. 208 would be applied to all light vehicles beginning September 1, 2006, and that sled testing would not be allowed. NHTSA denied this petition on March 20, 2006, citing two reasons. First, the test speeds for unbelted testing under FMVSS No. 208 was lower than the test speeds in FMVSS No. 204. Second, the petition did not provide data to support that FMVSS No. 208 could be used to assess extensive contact of movement of the steering controls in a frontal barrier test.

NHTSA has received additional comments in response to various notices with requests for re-evaluation of FMVSS No. 204 since denying the Honda petition. 1 Further, additional data has been developed and updates to FMVSS No. 208 have been made since NHTSA denied Honda's 2004 petition. A study was conducted by George Mason University using finite element modelling to examine the motion of the steering column during a frontal barrier crash test. 2 This simulation study examined situations wherein the steering column motion was close to failing to meet FMVSS No. 204's performance requirement and found such failing closely correlated with failing to meet FMVSS No. 208's performance requirements due to chest deflections. 3 The study concluded that based on this observation, a vehicle with steering column displacement not in compliance with FMVSS No. 204, would therefore also not comply with FMVSS No. 208.

The reasons NHTSA gave in 1998 for terminating that rulemaking appear to no longer be valid due to updates to the tests conducted in FMVSS No. 208 and the results of additional vehicle safety research. Commenters to the 1995 NPRM noted concerns with occupants sitting too close to the air bag. However, FMVSS No. 208 currently specifies unbelted frontal barrier testing with both the Hybrid III 50th percentile male and Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummies. The tests with the 5th percentile female dummy in the driver's seating position are conducted with the seat in full forward position, creating a test scenario with a smaller occupant sitting close to an air bag. With regards to comments regarding steering column motion in a small overlap crash scenario, FMVSS No. 208 includes an offset deformable barrier crash tests with the Hybrid III 5th percentile female crash test dummy in the driver's seat in full forward position as part of FMVSS No. 208. In the denial of Honda's rulemaking petition, NHTSA noted that the speed of the unbelted testing was lower than FMVSS No. 204. Currently the speed utilized for the FMVSS No. 208 unbelted testing is up to 25 mph; however unbelted testing with the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy can be conducted at any angle up to 30 degrees from perpendicular. Additionally, the crash tests with belted driver and outboard front passengers are conducted at 35 mph, which is at a higher speed and 26.5 percent higher crash energy than the current 30 mph crash test in FMVSS No. 204. The combination of the angled tests with unbelted dummies and the higher speed tests with belted dummies may represent a more severe collision scenario with respect to steering column deformation. Moreover, the finite element modeling study suggests that a vehicle with steering column displacement not in compliance with FMVSS No. 204 would also not comply with FMVSS No. 208.

NHTSA believes that the reasoning in the 1995 NPRM still holds true—that one of the most fundamental engineering considerations manufacturers take into account in designing an air bag equipped vehicle is to provide a secure platform for the airbag. This belief, combined with the finite element modeling study demonstrating that noncompliance with FMVSS No. 204 would likely also result in noncompliance with FMVSS No. 208 and the strengthening of the FMVSS No. 208 testing, leads NHTSA to a tentative conclusion that compliance with FMVSS No. 204 is no longer necessary for vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 208 frontal barrier crash testing. In other words, NHTSA tentatively believes that the testing in FMVSS No. 208 is sufficient to ensure limited steering column motion and aid in occupant protection.

This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Orders 14215 and 13563. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this proposed rule under those orders. This NPRM, if finalized as proposed, is also expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609 provides that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may differ from those taken by the United States to address similar issues, and that in some cases the differences between them might not be necessary and might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally. It further recognizes that in meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation and can reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

In addition, section 24211 of the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act, Global Harmonization, provides that DOT “shall cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with foreign governments, nongovernmental stakeholder groups, the motor vehicle industry, and consumer groups with respect to global harmonization of vehicle regulations as a means for improving motor vehicle safety.”  4

While NHTSA is aware that some foreign regulations specify requirements similar to those it is proposing for removal, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that because the proposed change removes a superfluous requirement it does not create any incompatibilities with any foreign regulations.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rulemaking on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA has concluded and hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. This proposed rule will only remove directives that are no longer needed.

This proposed rule does not contain Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local and Tribal governments, or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, the rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. NHTSA has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rulemaking would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule is deregulatory and so would not impose any additional information collection requirements.

NHTSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, 2002 to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law address the same aspect of performance.

The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules—even if not expressly preempted.

This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer—notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).

Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.

To this end, the agency has examined the nature ( e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this proposed rule and does not foresee any potential State requirements that might conflict with it. NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by this proposed rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the standards proposed in this NPRM. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.

NHTSA believes this proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. The public is invited to comment on the impact of the proposed agency action.

With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as SAE (formerly, the Society of Automotive Engineers). The NTTAA directs this agency to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

There are no consensus standards available with regards to the motion of the steering column in a barrier test.

Executive Order 12866 and E.O. 13563 require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?

• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?

• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?

• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?

• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?

• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this proposal.

The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice, DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, accessible through www.dot.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely optional. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this proposed rule can be found at regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-2025-0032, in the SUMMARY section of this proposed rule.

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number indicated in this document in your comments.

Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.

Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.

If you wish the Docket to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, the Docket will return the postcard by mail.

You should submit a redacted “public version” of your comment (including redacted versions of any additional documents or attachments) to the docket using any of the methods identified under ADDRESSES . This “public version” of your comment should contain only the portions for which no claim of confidential treatment is made and from which those portions for which confidential treatment is claimed has been redacted. See below for further instructions on how to do this.

You also need to submit a request for confidential treatment directly to the Office of Chief Counsel. Requests for confidential treatment are governed by 49 CFR part 512. Your request must set forth the information specified in part 512. This includes the materials for which confidentiality is being requested (as explained in more detail below); supporting information, pursuant to § 512.8; and a certificate, pursuant to § 512.4(b) and part 512, appendix A.

You are required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one unredacted “confidential version” of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to § 512.6, the words “ENTIRE PAGE CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” or “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN BRACKETS” (as applicable) must appear at the top of each page containing information claimed to be confidential. In the latter situation, where not all information on the page is claimed to be confidential, identify each item of information for which confidentiality is requested within brackets: “[ ].”

You are also required to submit to the Office of Chief Counsel one redacted “public version” of the information for which you are seeking confidential treatment. Pursuant to § 512.5(a)(2), the redacted “public version” should include redactions of any information for which you are seeking confidential treatment ( i.e., the only information that should be unredacted is information for which you are not seeking confidential treatment).

NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting confidential business information to the agency under part 512. Please do not send a hardcopy of a request for confidential treatment to NHTSA's headquarters. The request should be sent to Dan Rabinovitz in the Office of the Chief Counsel at Daniel.Rabinovitz@dot.gov. You may either submit your request via email or request a secure file transfer link. If you are submitting the request via email, please also email a courtesy copy of the request to John Piazza at john.piazza@dot.gov.

We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

You may read the comments received by the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES . The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

For the reasons set forth above, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 571 as follows: