[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22394]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 12, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Highway Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Chapter III
Zero Base Review of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations;
Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
49 CFR Chapter III
[FHWA Docket MC-92-33]
Zero Base Review of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs); Critical Regulatory Issues Being Researched
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of critical regulatory issues; reopening of public
docket; request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is providing a listing of critical regulatory issues
to be researched under the second phase of its zero base regulatory
review. These regulatory issues, framed as questions, resulted from a
series of public hearings held throughout the country during late 1992
and early 1993. The hearings were held to obtain information, views,
opinions, and recommendations on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) from representatives of the motor carrier
industry, the insurance industry, enforcement personnel, universities,
and other interested parties. The FHWA will be conducting a
comprehensive literature search to identify completed or existing
research studies that will provide insight on these critical issues.
The FHWA is seeking information from individuals and organizations who
may have conducted research that addresses the issues provided in this
notice, who know about research that has been conducted, or who can
identify others who have completed or are in the process of completing
research.
DATES: Information on the identification of relevant research studies
will be collected until further notification in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Please submit the name of the research organization(s), the
title and date of the relevant study or studies, the name of the
principal researcher(s), etc., to FHWA Docket MC-92-33, Room 4232, HCC-
10, Office of the Chief Counsel, FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. All information received will be available for
examination at the above address from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring
notification of receipt of information must include a self-addressed,
stamped postcard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David J. Osiecki, Office of Motor
Carrier Standards, (202) 366-4340, or Mr. Charles E. Medalen, Office of
Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1354, Federal Highway Administration,
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The concept of the zero base review is to
take a completely fresh look at the safety regulations governing the
interstate motor carrier industry. The objective of this project is to
improve the regulations so they: (1) Have a more dramatic positive
effect on safety and the reduction of accidents, (2) are more easily
understood by the industry, (3) have a greater performance orientation,
and (4) are easier to interpret and enforce.
The first phase of this project was initiated in 1992 when FHWA
opened a public docket and notified all interested parties through the
Federal Register on August 18, 1992 (57 FR 37392) that it would be
holding a series of public hearings to obtain comments and
recommendations for improvement of the FMCSRs. Pursuant to the August,
1992, notice, and two subsequent notices in the Federal Register (57 FR
53089 and 57 FR 60784), 11 public hearings and 14 focus-group sessions
were held throughout the country. In addition, the public docket which
opened on August 18, 1992, was subsequently closed effective April 1,
1993, pursuant to 57 FR 60784. This initial phase of the zero base
project was completed in September 1993, with the development of a
final report, completed in three volumes, summarizing the
recommendations received at the public hearings, the focus-group
sessions, and through letters to the public docket. Many of the
critical issues provided later in this notice are a direct result of
information and recommendations received during Phase I. The final
report, Zerobase Review of the FMCSRs, for Phase I is available to the
industry and the general public through the National Technical
Information Service in Springfield, Virginia (1-800-553-6847 or local
703-487-4650), for a nominal fee. The access and report numbers are as
follows for each volume: Volume I, Executive Summary PB94-100294,
Report No. FHWA-MC-94-002; Volume II, Data Analysis PB94-100302, Report
No. FHWA-MC-94-003; Volume III, Data Summary PB94-100310, Report No.
FHWA-MC-94-004.
The second phase of this project is currently underway and involves
a literature search for existing research studies that may shed light
on the critical regulatory issues provided later in this notice. The
FHWA will also develop a new format and structure for the rulebook of
the future during this phase. The second phase is scheduled for
completion in calendar year 1996.
The third phase of zero base, which will begin in calender year
1996, will involve the actual writing of the new regulations. As the
new regulations for the rulebook of the future are finalized, the FHWA
will initiate the fourth and final phase of the project, which will
involve drafting and disseminating non-regulatory, user-friendly guides
for specific industries or segments of the regulated population.
The FHWA is seeking information from the public on these critical
regulatory issues to supplement its planned literature search effort to
locate research data. Following are the critical regulatory issues on
which the FHWA is seeking information:
Applicability, Administrative, and Other Requirements
1. Applicability
a. In the definition of a commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
established by the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, should FHWA ask
Congress to substitute for the term ``gross vehicle weight rating,''
which now defines the agency's jurisdiction, the term ``gross vehicle
weight rating or gross vehicle weight''? [see Sec. 390.5]
b. At what GVW or gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) should the
commercial driver's license (CDL) regulations, alcohol and drug testing
regulations, and the FMCSRs apply? [see Secs. 382.103, 383.3, 383.5,
390.3 and 390.5]
2. Exemptions and Waivers
a. Should there be exemptions?
b. What are the minimum documented grounds to justify exemptions or
waivers for unique operating circumstances (e.g., logging, farming,
utilities, etc.) or localized circumstances (e.g., emergencies, etc.)?
[see Sec. 390.3]
3. Reading Level and English Requirement
a. At what comprehension level are the current FMCSRs written?
b. At what comprehension level should the new regulations be
written for better customer understanding?
c. Is there justification to require drivers to be able to read and
speak the English language? [see Sec. 391.11(b)(2)]
4. Aid and Abet
a. Should FHWA ask Congress for jurisdiction over non-hazardous
materials (HM) shippers?
b. Should FHWA ask Congress for jurisdiction over entities such as
non-HM shippers, insurance companies, health care professionals, etc.
who may aid and abet violations of the FMCSRs? [see Sec. 390.13]
5. Financial Responsibility
a. Are the current levels of financial responsibility sufficient?
[see Secs. 387.9 and 387.33]
b. Should additional types of motor carriage (i.e., private motor
carriers of passengers) be required to meet the minimum levels?
6. Part 397
Could part 397 be included in part 177? What would be the result of
such a change?
7. Part 398
Could it be deleted? What arguments could be made to maintain the
requirements? What would be the result of deleting the part? [see part
398]
8. Part 399
Could it be deleted? What arguments could be made to maintain the
requirements? What would be the result of deleting the part? [see part
399]
Driver Requirements
1. Driver Fatigue
a. What are the effects of loading and unloading on driver fatigue?
b. What is the validity and predictive power of pre-drive fitness-
for-duty devices?
c. What is the state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice for
fatigue testing/monitoring devices?
d. What should be the preferred method to track driver fatigue that
may ease the paperwork burden on industry, but also facilitate
enforcement? [see Secs. 395.8 and 395.15]
2. Drug & Alcohol Testing
Should Medical Review Officers be certified? If so, Federal, State,
or local certification process? What should be the minimum standards?
[see Secs. 391.85 and 391.87]
3. Medical Requirements
a. Should health care professionals performing medical exams be
certified to do so? If so, Federal, State, or local certification
process? [see Sec. 391.43]
b. Could Medical Review Boards be established to resolve conflicts
of medical evaluations? If so, at what level, Federal, State? [see
Sec. 391.47]
c. Is there a need for a minimum driving age for interstate
drivers? By industry, i.e., farmers, off-road, seasonal, etc.?
d. In light of age discrimination laws, should there be, as a
matter of public policy, a maximum age requirement for CMV drivers?
[see Sec. 391.11(b)]
e. Is it possible to establish objective minimum requirements which
must be met for medical waivers (which can be used by non-medical
personnel to make a determination)?
4. CDL
a. Should there be periodic skills and knowledge retesting of
drivers for CDL purposes? [see Sec. 383.71]
b. What are the merits of using simulation in CDL skills testing?
[see Sec. 383.133]
c. Could the CDL be merged with the medical certification process
in part 391, including the issuance of medical waivers? If so, what
needs to be done to do it?
d. How often should medical examinations be required? [Annually,
every 2 years, etc.]
5. Training
a. What level of training is necessary for a driver to be a safe
driver in three specific areas: geographic, weather, and cargo
(including the transportation of hazardous materials)?
b. Is the CDL HM endorsement requirement necessary in light of the
Research and Special Programs Administration's HM training requirement?
[see 49 CFR 172.700]
6. Documentation
What driver documentation should be maintained in the vehicle to
provide adequate safety oversight by enforcement personnel?
Vehicle Requirements
1. Vehicle Performance
a. What defective mechanical items are most frequently cited during
accidents? Do the cited violations have a direct correlation to
accidents? What are the best means to identify them? [see appendix G to
the FMCSRs]
b. Should the out-of-service criteria be placed in regulation?
2. Mechanic Training
a. Is training for CMV mechanics/inspectors currently adequate?
b. What level of training is appropriate? Is it appropriate to have
required levels of mechanic training?
c. Should there be a requirement to be certificated as a CMV
mechanic? If so, could it be done through a knowledge and skills
demonstration?
3. Inspection Documentation
a. What are the benefits of using on-board computers?
b. Should FHWA require on-board computers to record safety and
performance data?
c. What data should be required?
d. What is the most appropriate method of ensuring the vehicle is
safe both prior to use and just after use? [see Secs. 392.7 and 396.11]
4. Equipment Standards
What is the feasibility of a safety self-diagnostic system for
CMVs? Is prevention cost-beneficial?
5. Documentation
What vehicle safety documentation should be maintained on the
vehicle to provide adequate safety oversight by enforcement personnel?
Motor Carrier Requirements
1. Safety Fitness
a. What is safety fitness? Should there be various levels?
b. Is there a minimal acceptable level of safety fitness? [see
Secs. 385.3, 385.5, and 385.7]
c. Do size and weight violations have a correlation to accidents?
Should size and weight violations be considered in the safety fitness
determination?
d. Should CDL violations, and other traffic violations, be
considered in the safety fitness determination?
2. Driver and Vehicle Information
Because there are privacy implications to information gathering on
drivers, is there a network potential for carrier exchange of driver
information? Could motor carriers access State motor vehicle databases
to check driver information?
3. Documentation
a. What documentation must be maintained by a carrier that
indicates satisfactory safety performance?
b. What minimum documentation must a carrier maintain to ensure
that a driver and a vehicle is safe?
(23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48)
Issued on: September 1, 1994.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-22394 Filed 9-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P