[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 21, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15092-15110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-6819]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 350 and 355
[Docket No. FMCSA-98-4878 (formerly FHWA Docket No. FHWA-98-4878)]
RIN 2126-AA40 (formerly RIN 2125-AE46)
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FMCSA is revising the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program (MCSAP) to comply with the congressionally-mandated provisions
of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This
action broadens the scope of the MCSAP beyond enforcement activities
and programs by requiring participating States to assume greater
responsibility for improving motor carrier safety. These rules will now
require States to develop performance-based plans reflecting national
priorities and performance goals, revise the MCSAP funding distribution
formula, and create a new incentive funding program. These rules
provide States greater flexibility in designing programs to address
national and State goals for reducing the number and severity of
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) accidents. This action also includes
conforming amendments to the regulations on compatibility of State laws
and regulations affecting interstate motor carrier operations.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is April 20, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. F. Daniel Hartman, National Safety
Programs Division, MSP-10, (202) 366-9579, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; or Mr.
Charles E. Medalen, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-20, (202) 366-
1354, Federal Highway Administration, 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:
Electronic Access
Internet users may access all comments submitted to the Docket
Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, in response to previous rulemaking notices concerning
the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice by using the
universal resource locator (URL): http://dms.dot.gov. It is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions
on-line for more information and help.
You may download an electronic copy of this document using a modem
and suitable communications software from the U.S. Government Printing
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet
users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at URL:
http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and from the U.S. Government Printing
Office's databases at URL: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Creation of New Agency
In October 1999, the Secretary of Transportation rescinded the
authority previously delegated to the Federal Highway Administrator to
perform the motor carrier functions and operations, and to carry out
the duties and powers related to motor carrier safety, that are
statutorily vested in the Secretary. That authority was redelegated to
the Director of the Office of Motor Carrier Safety (OMCS), a new office
within the Department (see 64 FR 56270, October 19, 1999, and 64 FR
58356, October 29, 1999). The OMCS had previously been the FHWA's
Office of Motor Carriers (OMC).
The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA)
established the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) as
a new operating administration within the Department of Transportation,
effective January 1, 2000 (Public Law 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, December
9, 1999). The Secretary therefore rescinded the motor carrier authority
delegated to the Director of the OMCS and redelegated it to the
Administrator of the FMCSA (65 FR 220, January 4, 2000).
The staff previously assigned to the FHWA's OMC, and then to the
OMCS, are now assigned to the FMCSA. The motor carrier functions of the
FHWA's Resource Centers and Division (i.e., State) Offices have been
transferred without change to the FMCSA Service Centers and FMCSA
Division Offices, respectively. For the time being, all phone numbers
and addresses are unchanged. Similarly, rulemaking activities begun
under the auspices of the FHWA and continued under the OMCS will be
completed by the FMCSA.
Background
The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) is a Federal
grant-in-aid program. The MCSAP was first authorized in the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA)(Public Law 97-424, 96
Stat. 2079, 2154), reauthorized in the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207, 3207-186), and again in
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
(49 U.S.C. 31101-31104, as amended). The original authorization
contained certain eligibility requirements for financial assistance,
including agreement to adopt and enforce safety regulations compatible
with the FMCSRs and Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs). The
regulatory compatibility requirement remains today and ensures
[[Page 15093]]
a permanent and consistent enforcement and safety presence throughout
the nation.
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Title II of Public Law 98-
554, 98 Stat. 2832, 2838) created the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety
Regulatory Review Panel (Safety Panel) to analyze State CMV safety
requirements and develop recommendations on how to achieve
compatibility with the Federal regulations. The Safety Panel
recommended, in part, that the FHWA establish procedures for the
continual review and analysis of the compatibility of State safety laws
and regulations with Federal requirements through the MCSAP. Consistent
with these recommendations, the FHWA incorporated an annual review
process as a MCSAP eligibility criterion. Section 208 of the 1984 Act
also authorized the Secretary to preempt those State laws and
regulations affecting interstate CMV safety found to be inconsistent
with Federal laws and regulations. Such a finding would have the effect
of rendering inconsistent State laws and regulations unenforceable.
Summary of TEA-21
The TEA-21 (Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107) was signed into law
on June 9, 1998. Section 4003 of the TEA-21 authorized the MCSAP at the
following funding levels for FY 1998 through FY 2003: $79 million for
FY 1998, $90 million for FY 1999, $95 million for FY 2000, $100 million
for FY 2001, $105 million for FY 2002, and $110 million for FY 2003.
Section 4002 of the TEA-21 adds a new section 31100 to title 49 of
the U.S. Code which revises the purpose of the grant program. The goals
and directives outlined in this section closely parallel the concepts
and principles of a performance-based program. The changes foster
greater coordination and cooperation between State and Federal
jurisdictions in improving CMV safety. The changes also give States
more flexibility to address their particular safety issues through the
MCSAP. Section 4002 of the TEA-21 also sets forth four current program
goals:
(1) Investing in activities achieving maximum accident reductions.
(2) Assessing and improving statewide program performance by
setting program outcome goals, improving information and analysis
systems, and monitoring program effectiveness.
(3) Ensuring adequate training of enforcement personnel.
(4) Advancing promising technologies and safe operating procedures.
Section 4003 of the TEA-21 has expanded the definition of
``commercial motor vehicle'' to include vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight (GVW) or gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of at least 10,001
pounds. This amendment simplifies enforcement efforts in cases where a
vehicle with a GVW of more than 10,001 pounds does not have a
corresponding manufacturer's GVWR plate or is being operated in excess
of the manufacturer's GVWR. The hazardous materials portion of the
definition of ``commercial motor vehicle'' in 49 U.S.C. 31101 is also
revised to make it consistent with the ``commercial motor vehicle''
definition in 49 U.S.C. 31132.
A key provision of TEA-21 is the section 4003 requirement that
MCSAP participating States implement performance-based CMV safety
programs by FY 2000. This provision shifts the emphasis of State
programs from measuring activity levels or input (e.g., the number of
vehicles inspected) to focusing program effort on outcomes (e.g.,
reductions in CMV accidents, fatalities, and injuries). States have
reacted very positively to this change and all participating MCSAP
jurisdictions have implemented performance-based programs.
Section 4003 also revised the grant eligibility criteria and the
State plan format to require references to ``improving'' CMV safety and
``hazardous materials'' enforcement. This section emphasizes that the
principal goal of the MCSAP is not simply to enforce regulations but to
encourage States to assume the responsibility for finding ways to
actively improve CMV safety. It also reinforces the concept that it is
equally important to adopt and enforce both the FMCSRs and the HMRs.
Additional requirements include (1) establishing programs ensuring
proper and timely correction of safety violations noted during roadside
inspections, and (2) ensuring that roadside inspections are conducted
at locations that will adequately protect the safety of both drivers
and enforcement personnel. These provisions codify and reinforce
longstanding best practices of State CMV safety programs.
The legislation expands the existing requirement that State
agencies coordinate the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans (CVSP),
originally called the State Enforcement Plan (SEP), with the State
Highway Safety Plans under 23 U.S.C. 402. The TEA-21 mandates States
participating in MCSAP to coordinate the CVSP and data collection and
information systems with the State agency administering highway safety
programs under title 23, U.S. Code. The January 1, 1994, deadline for
SAFETYNET participation, as required by 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(M), has been
deleted since all States have met the requirement. Each jurisdiction
receiving MCSAP funding is required to participate in SAFETYNET and
other information systems. There is also a new requirement for States
to exchange information in a timely manner. These requirements
encourage States and agencies within a State to share best practices
and develop broader-based safety programs.
Section 4003(f) of TEA-21 removes the current funding set-asides
for research and development, traffic enforcement, hazardous materials
training, public awareness, and demonstration of technologies and
methodologies. These set-asides were created to encourage uniform State
implementation of significant national programs but limited States'
flexibility in allocating their MCSAP resources. The set-asides have
been replaced by new allocation criteria allowing the administrative
flexibility needed for States to design programs targeting their unique
safety problems as well as meeting national priorities. The new funding
allocation allows up to 5 percent of MCSAP funds to be designated for
States, local governments, and other persons using and training
qualified personnel for high priority activities and programs that
improve CMV safety and compliance with safety regulations. Up to 5
percent of MCSAP funds will also be available to States, local
governments, and other persons using and training qualified personnel
to carry out border CMV safety programs, enforcement activities, and
other projects. The Secretary may also reimburse State agencies, local
governments, or other persons up to 100 percent for public education
activities relating to border or high priority activities, programs,
and projects.
The overall MCSAP funding consists of four parts:
1. Basic Program Funds emphasizing uniform roadside driver and CMV
safety inspections, data collection and reporting, traffic enforcement,
drug and alcohol enforcement, educational activities, compliance
reviews, and current complementary activities.
2. Incentive Funds encourage States to improve CMV accident
performance and to meet other safety performance criteria.
3. High Priority and Border Activity Funds for States to improve
CMV safety and compliance with safety regulations and to carry border
CMV safety
[[Page 15094]]
programs, enforcement, and other projects.
4. Administrative set-aside of 1.25 percent to cover program
administration and State personnel training costs.
General Discussion of the NPRM
The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the regulations
governing the MCSAP and to request comments was published in the
Federal Register on March 9, 1999 (64 FR 11414). In the preamble to the
NPRM, proposed changes to the regulations were thoroughly explained.
Discussion of Responses to the NPRM
The comment period of the NPRM closed on May 10, 1999. Forty-three
comments were received. Of these, thirty-three were from MCSAP
agencies, six were from various safety associations, one was from a
trucking company, one from a Federal agency, one from the Upper Great
Plains Transportation Institute, and one from an individual.
Specific Concerns
Definitions
Four commenters believed that ``large truck'' should be defined.
The FMCSA agrees and, for the purpose of distributing Incentive
Funds for reducing the number and rate of large truck-involved fatal
accidents, is using the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
definition of a ``large truck.''
The State of Louisiana supported the revised definition of a CMV.
The term ``performance factor'' has been deleted, since the
proposal to adjust the States' basic program funding level by applying
a factor based upon a State's reduction in its CMV accident rate has
been removed.
While the calculation of ``accident rate'' and ``10-year average
accident rate'' were described in detail in the NPRM, those terms were
not included in the definitions section. Those definitions have been
added. For the purpose of determining States' eligibility under
Sec. 350.327(b)(2) Incentive Funds, the definition of ``10-year average
accident rate'' has been added to Sec. 350.105. For example, for the FY
2000 distribution:
1. The FMCSA would calculate a State's 10-year average accident
rate period from 1987 through 1996. The average 10-year accident rate
would be calculated by dividing the number representing the State's
aggregated number of large truck-involved fatal crashes as reported in
the FARS from 1987 through 1996 by the number representing the State's
aggregate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as reported by the FHWA for the
same 10-year period.
2. The FMCSA would then calculate the State's 1997 accident rate by
dividing the number of large truck-involved fatal crashes as reported
in the FARS by the number representing the State's vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and compare that to the average 10-year accident rate.
3. If a comparison reveals the State's accident rate has increased,
the State would not be eligible to receive accident-rate incentive
shares for the current funding year since there was no reduction.
4. If a comparison reveals that the accident rate has decreased,
the State would be eligible to receive accident-rate incentive shares
for the current funding year.
5. If a comparison reveals the State's 1997 accident rate is within
the lowest 10 percent of accident rates and the 1997 rate is the same
as the State's 10-year average accident rate, the State would be
eligible to receive accident rate incentive shares for the current
funding year.
6. The calculations in steps 1 through 5 would be repeated in FY
2001 through 2003, adjusting the 10-year period and average and using
the most recent calendar year for which data are available for
comparison to the 10-year average.
Finally, the term ``crash'' has been replaced by the term
``accident'' throughout the preamble and the rule to more accurately
reflect the nature of our CMV safety program.
Basic Program Funds Allocation Formula
While most of the respondents support the performance-based
concept, the greatest source of disagreement on the Basic Program Funds
allocation formula concerned the new performance factor. Twenty-three
different comments suggested that the performance factor be dropped
from the formula or that some measure other than accidents be used to
determine performance. States believe that the Basic Program Funds
should be left intact in order to provide funding continuity from year
to year. Most States with a low fatality count were concerned that a
single fatal accident could significantly affect the amount of funds
received. It was noted that using the fatal accident rate both to
penalize a State's receipt of Basic Program Funds and also to fail to
reward a State with Incentive Funds appears to be double jeopardy.
States believed that reducing a State's Basic Program Funds based on
fatal accidents, which can be caused by factors not directly
controllable by the State's safety programs (e.g., weather), is unfair.
The FMCSA agrees that applying a performance factor to the basic
program fund allocation could have a negative effect on MCSAP programs
within a State and, therefore, will remove the performance factor
(proposed Sec. 350.325) from the Basic Program Funds formula process.
The States of Idaho, Vermont, Wyoming, and Montana, and the
American Trucking Associations (ATA), questioned the use of population
as a formula factor, stating that population is not a direct measure of
commercial vehicle activity.
Because the major goal of the MCSAP is to reduce the number and
severity of CMV accidents and population provides an indirect measure
of accident exposure, the FMCSA has determined that population is a
relevant formula factor and will be retained in the basic formula.
California and New York, two States with large urban populations,
recommended the use of lane miles rather than highway road miles.
The FMCSA analyzed the use of lane miles as a potential formula
factor and found that it correlated highly with highway road miles.
Because of this high correlation and because highway road miles were
already an accepted factor, the FMCSA decided that there was no need to
change from highway road miles to lane miles.
The States of Idaho and Wyoming recommended the use of CMV miles
traveled (CVMT) rather than total VMT in the formula, stating that non-
commercial vehicle travel has little to do with CMV safety activities.
The FMCSA considered the use of CVMT as a factor. The CVMT
(calculated as the VMT of combination and heavy single-unit trucks) is
highly correlated to total VMT but has the disadvantage of requiring
additional calculations. In addition, one State does not report VMT
data for CMVs. Finally, a majority of fatal accidents involving CMVs
also involve other vehicles. As a result, the FMCSA decided to use
total VMT as a direct indicator of accident exposure.
Oregon and Montana suggested that highway road miles within
federally controlled lands (e.g., those areas controlled by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM)) and any road open to CMVs be included in the
mileage factor.
The source of the mileage used in the MCSAP formula is the totals
column of Table HM-10 of the FHWA's
[[Page 15095]]
publication, ``Highway Statistics.'' \1\ This table includes both rural
and urban highway road miles as submitted by the States to the FHWA.
The FMCSA acknowledges that the exclusion of the BLM road miles from
the FHWA's statistics beginning with 1998 could adversely affect CMV
safety in States with a significant number of BLM road miles. Since
States perform safety tasks on these roads, the FMCSA has decided to
use the 1997 FHWA Road Miles calculation through FY 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Highway Statistics'' is published annually by the Federal
Highway Administration. It is available for inspection and copying
as prescribed at 49 CFR part 7 and may be purchased from the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Government
of Guam requested reconsideration of reducing grants to the
Territories. The NPRM noted that grants were proposed to be reduced
from prior funding levels because Territories had lower population
levels, road miles, and VMT and did not report special fuel
consumption. These commenters explained that their special geographic
situation and taxation system were different from the 50 States, which
caused their reporting system to be different. They also asserted that
a reduction in funding level would adversely affect their programs.
The FMCSA acknowledges the difference in reporting requirements but
significant differences remain between the Territories and the 50
States in terms of population and road miles. With the increased funds
authorized by the TEA-21, the FMCSA will add more funding to the
Territories (Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and the
Virgin Islands) and hold them closer to their FY 1999 funding level.
This amount is fixed at $350,000 and will not change through FY 2003.
The State of Idaho, which has a large percentage of Federal land,
suggested using Federal acreage as a formula factor because the
building of new roads is restricted within Federal lands, which
penalizes the State's ability to increase its total highway mileage.
The FMCSA considered acreage and rejected it because the existence
of large land areas, without extensive road miles, simply does not
relate to accident potential.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
recommended that the number of CMV accidents be used as a formula
factor, where the number of accidents is directly proportional to the
amount of money received (i.e., States that have more accidents would
receive more funding).
The FMCSA considered the possibility of using CMV accidents as a
factor in the formula for distribution of Basic Program Funds.
Incorporation of CMV accidents was rejected because (1) there is not
currently a valid source of complete CMV accident data, (2) the four
formula factors, as described, apportion funds to those States with the
greatest accident exposure, and (3) using accidents as a factor does
not place emphasis on accident reduction (a performance goal).
North Carolina suggested that a State's economy should be
reconsidered as a formula factor because a booming economy would
directly correlate to the number of CMVs traveling in a State.
The FMCSA determined that the use of special fuels (e.g., diesel)
was a better measure of CMV activity in a State.
Louisiana suggested using traffic density as a factor.
The FMCSA examined traffic density in detail because it appeared to
be a reasonable measure of accident potential. For States that are
consistently urban (high traffic density; e.g., Washington, D.C.) or
consistently rural (low traffic density; e.g., North Dakota), a measure
of traffic density makes sense. For States with a combination of very
urban areas and great expanses of rural areas (e.g., Texas), however,
the logic of an overall traffic density factor for the entire State
fails. Therefore, traffic density will not be incorporated as a factor
in the formula.
The State of Illinois asserted that if a performance factor had to
be applied to the Basic Program Funds allocation, then strong
consideration should be given to adding a comparison of each State to
the National accident rate.
Since the performance factor has been deleted, this recommendation
is no longer a consideration.
Distribution of Basic Program Funds and Incentive Funds
Ten respondents disagreed with dividing the MCSAP funds into the
Basic Program Funds and Incentive Funds by percentages which changed
each year (i.e., a 90-10 split in the year 2000; 85-15 split in the
year 2001; 80-20 split in the year 2002; and 75-25 split in the year
2003, etc.). While the National Association of Governors' Highway
Safety Representatives and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA) recommended that the Basic Program Funds not be decreased in
order to provide more funding for Incentive Funds, State agencies in
New York, Minnesota, and Illinois recommended different percentages for
the splits. States commented that the final MCSAP Basic Program Funds
distribution should be continued at the States' current levels of
funding to encourage enrichment or enhancement of those efforts in
areas of greatest safety potential.
After careful consideration of these comments, the FMCSA has
adjusted the percentages for dividing the MCSAP funds. The revised
percentages are shown in the table below. The MCSAP Basic Program Funds
distribution has been increased to provide funding in FY 2000 above the
FY 1999 funding amount of $80,000,000, thereby providing a modest
growth in the Basic Program Funds through FY 2003. Therefore, the
Incentive Funds have been recalculated to begin at 5 percent of the
total MCSAP funds available in FY 2001, with an increase of 3 percent
per year, with the final percent in FY 2003 at 11 percent.
The MCSIA has provided additional funding for the motor carrier
safety grant program. Section 103(b)(1) of the MCSIA increased the
amount available in fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003 for motor carrier
safety grants by $65 million per fiscal year. This amount was reduced
by a total of $10 million per fiscal year for FY's 2001 through 2003 to
fund the Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Study (section
224(f), $5 million) and data collection and analysis activities
(section 225(f), $5 million) of the MCSIA. Accordingly, the table
entitled ``MCSAP Funds Distribution Based on TEA-21 and MCSIA
Authorization Levels'' has been revised to reflect a net increase of
$55,000,000 per fiscal year in FY's 2001 through 2003 for motor carrier
safety grants.
MCSAP Funds Distribution Based on TEA-21 and MCSIA Authorization Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 2001 2002 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total MCSAP Funds............................... $95,000,000 $100,000,000 $105,000,000 $110,000,000
[[Page 15096]]
55,000,000 55,000,000 55,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
155,000,000 160,000,000 165,000,000
Administrative Takedown*........................ 1,187,500 1,937,500 2,000,000 2,062,500
High Priority Activities........................ 4,750,000 7,750,000 8,000,000 8,250,000
Border Activities............................... 4,750,000 7,750,000 8,000,000 8,250,000
Basic Program Funds............................. 84,312,500 130,684,375 130,640,000 130,329,375
(95%) (92%) (89%)
Incentive Funds................................. 0** 6,878,125 11,360,000 16,108,125
(5%) (8%) (11%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Minimum of 75 percent is dedicated for training State Personnel.
** No Incentive Funds were distributed in fiscal year 2000.
The table entitled ``MCSAP Funds Distribution'' has been removed
from proposed Sec. 350.313(d) due to the uncertainty that the annual
congressional MCSAP appropriation will be identical to the current
authorized funding level.
Incentive Funds Allocation
Eight States and two organizations asserted that the philosophy of
rewarding States for cutting down on their accident problem was
illogical. They stated that the funds should go to those States with
the biggest accident problems in order to deal with those problems.
The objective of the MCSAP is not to distribute funds to the
States, the objective is to reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities.
Simply providing more funds to States with increased accidents,
injuries and fatalities provides no incentive to improve safety.
However, the four-factor formula for allocating Basic Program Funds,
while not based on the number of accidents, does provide the greatest
amount of funds to those States with the greatest potential for
accident problems.
Ten States and one safety advocacy group disagreed with the use of
population in the determination of the accident rate and suggested
using all VMT rather than population in the calculation. One comment
indicated that population is a fair basis for allocating basic funding
because population is an indirect measure of accident potential.
However, for determining the accident rate, use of VMT was recommended
because VMT links fatalities to the actual rate of exposure.
The FMCSA agrees with this set of comments. The definition of
fatal-accident rate has been changed to the total number of large
truck-involved fatal crashes as reported in FARS for each State divided
by the total VMT for each State for all vehicles.
Seven States and the ATA recommended using the number of CMV
accidents rather than the number of fatal accidents in determining the
accident rate. Various reasons were given. First, the costs of
crippling injuries and property damage are significant, even if a
fatality is not involved. Second, the difference between a fatal
accident and a serious injury accident is often a difference of luck or
the physical condition of the victim. Third, a small State may have
relatively few fatal CMV accidents and any fluctuation would have
profound impacts upon the accident rate. Using the total number of CMV
accidents would have less impact from year to year.
The FMCSA basically agrees with all of these arguments. However,
the reason for not using all CMV accidents at this point is the lack of
a mature, reliable data base. The Motor Carrier Management Information
System (MCMIS) accident module will eventually be an excellent source
for CMV accident data. At this time, however, not all States are
reporting accurate and consistent data to MCMIS. As MCMIS accident
reporting by the States improves, the agency may consider using CMV
accidents as the safety performance measure for MCSAP funding.
The States of Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and South
Dakota, the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety
Representatives, and the ATA disagreed with the proposal to compare the
ten-year average accident rate with the current one-year accident rate.
The ATA suggested comparing a three-year average with the ten-year
average to prevent unwarranted penalties because of random annual
fluctuations in the number of accidents in States with relatively few
fatal accidents.
The purpose of comparing the ten-year average to the current year's
fatal accident rate is to give an incentive to reduce accidents. The
purpose of comparing one year's accidents and accident rate to the
average of the preceding 10 years is to determine the effectiveness of
that year's accident reduction strategies. For this reason, the FMCSA
will retain the proposed method of calculation.
Massachusetts commented that the definition of accident rates
appears to change between the description of Basic and Incentive Funds.
The word ``fatal'' is added to the description of accident rates in
Secs. 350.317 and 350.327.
The Association of Waste Hazardous Materials Transporters
questioned the fairness of allocating MCSAP Incentive Funds based on
all CMV-involved fatal accidents and asserted that the accident rates
should be derived using the number of accidents attributable to the CMV
(based on law-enforcement citations).
The FMCSA does not agree with this recommendation because the
issuing of citations as a result of an accident (as recorded in the
FARS) does not always provide a complete determination of ``fault.''
Fourteen commenters recommended that the FMCSA not use accident
rates for allocation of Incentive Funds. Three reasons were given:
1. An improved accident rate is not always the result of State
efforts, and accidents may increase even after a State has put forth
its best effort to reduce accidents.
2. States with low numbers of accidents will be penalized by very
small changes in the number of accidents, even when the changes may not
be statistically significant.
3. States will be penalized for improvements in accident reporting.
To lessen the impact of the accident statistics in the Incentive
Funds allocation process, one commenter suggested allotting equal
shares to each factor. Another comment was to use positive rather than
negative incentive measures (e.g., assign incentive points
[[Page 15097]]
for proactive program development plans).
Incentive Funds do not ``penalize'' the States. These are
additional funds beyond the Basic Program Funds allocation and serve to
reward States which have seen a reduction in the number of fatal
accidents or the fatal accident rate and an improvement in other areas.
If a State's performance continues to improve, the State will continue
to receive Incentive Funds. Proactive program development should result
in a reduction in accidents. Reducing accidents is a positive measure.
The State of New York noted that the approach to incentive funding
fails to recognize States that have developed successful CMV safety
programs. New York commented that ``it is designed to make it
relatively easy for states with poorer programs to get significant
incentive funding for modest gains even though they are at the bottom
of any reasonable comparative national ranking.''
The FMCSA recognizes that States with the best (or lowest) fatal
accident rates may have difficulty reducing those rates further, while
States with higher accident rates have more room for improvement. To
encourage those States with the lowest fatal accident rates who were
unable to reduce--but were able to maintain--those outstanding fatal
accident rates, three incentive shares will be awarded.
Although comments generally supported the concept of incentive
funding, comments from nine States and the CVSA indicated concern that
establishing an incentive award for timely upload of CMV accidents may
actually have the effect of reducing the completeness and accuracy of
the data. These States also maintain that they have no control over the
speed with which certain accident data is reported to them, thereby
resulting in late reporting to the FMCSA.
We are sympathetic to the States' accident reporting challenges,
particularly their dependence on law enforcement agencies outside the
lead MCSAP agency jurisdiction, but the collection of complete,
accurate and timely accident data is vital to reducing fatalities and
accidents. We cannot compromise our safety goals due to a fear that
States will not report accident information in order to prevent their
timeliness record from suffering. A sufficiently populated accident
database provides the CMV accident information necessary to profile
high-risk carriers and drivers and establish national policies and
regulations that promote safety. More importantly, however, a complete
and timely accident database enables the States to evaluate current
safety and enforcement programs, to formulate effective future
programs, and to allocate resources based upon sound data--elements of
an effective performance-based program. As such, the FMCSA will retain
timely accident data upload as an incentive element, and will continue
to work with the States in seeking ways to improve State-wide accident
reporting mechanisms.
In addition, the weighting of the incentive categories has been
adjusted to emphasize the importance of fatality reduction compared to
other program element improvements.
The States of California, Illinois, Michigan, and New York
commented that the proposed method of calculating and distributing
incentive award funds failed to reflect the relative size of States'
Basic Program Funds. The FMCSA agrees and has modified the formula to
weight shares based upon a State's percentage of participation in the
Basic Program Funds distribution formula.
The total of all States' shares will be divided into the dollar
amount of Incentive Funds available, thereby establishing the value of
one share. Each State's incentive allocation will then be determined by
multiplying the State's percentage of participation in the formula
allocation of Basic Program Funds, by the number of shares it has that
year, by the dollar value of one share.
Use of FARS Data for the Incentive Funds
Six States commented about using FARS data rather than the office's
own SAFETYNET accident data for all accidents to determine incentive
shares.
Currently, the FMCSA SAFETYNET Accident Module is not sufficiently
populated to be used to distribute funds. The agency is working
aggressively with States to record all required CMV accidents in
SAFETYNET. As accident data collection improves, the agency can use it
as the basis for calculating incentive funding. The FARS is a
nationally recognized source of fatal accident data and the most
consistent and reliable data source available at this time.
Partial Funding (50 Percent) Basic Program Funds
The States of Florida, Maine, and South Dakota commented that there
was no provision in the NPRM for continued partial (50 percent) funding
of the MCSAP Basic Program Funds for those States with existing
incompatible intrastate regulations outside the Tolerance Guidelines
and the FMCSRs. The State of Michigan commented that no State would be
eligible for any funding for incompatibility based on Sec. 350.203, and
that the FMCSA should amend that section.
Eliminating partial funding from the NPRM for States that currently
have incompatible intrastate regulations was an administrative
oversight and has been corrected in the final rule under Sec. 350.335.
Florida, Maine and South Dakota will continue to receive 50 percent
funding of their Basic Program Funds formula allocation until the
incompatibilities are removed, and provided no further
incompatibilities have been created. However, any State that becomes
incompatible, other than the existing three incompatible States, will
not be eligible for funding.
The State of Maine (Department of Public Safety) commented on
Sec. 350.341(d) of the Tolerance Guidelines prohibiting exemptions to
the FMCSRs based upon the distance a motor carrier or driver operates
from the work reporting location. Maine has three regulatory variances
which exempt from all of Parts 391 and 395, and portions of 396,
intrastate carriers, except those transporting Hazardous Materials,
whose drivers operate within a 100 air-mile radius of their terminal.
Maine stated: ``[I]t is the position of the State of Maine that our
exemption does not impact highway safety and that the penalty imposed
restricts the ability of the State of Maine to maximize our ability to
impact highway safety by limiting activities under the MCSAP Program.''
Maine believes that the FMCSA would circumvent the intent of
Congress through administrative rulemaking if Sec. 350.341(d) is
adopted. The substance of Sec. 350.341(d) has been part of the
Tolerance Guidelines since September 8, 1992. Until the study required
by section 4032 of TEA-21 is complete, and a final decision is made,
the States of Maine, Florida, and South Dakota will continue to receive
50 percent of their MCSAP Basic Program Funds.
Conditions To Qualify for Basic Program Funds
California commented that the FMCSA did not specifically identify
those parts of the FMCSRs that the States are required to adopt or be
compatible with in order to qualify for and receive MCSAP funds.
The FMCSA did not intend to extend the scope of required compliance
beyond Parts 390 through 397. That is the clear meaning of
Sec. 350.201. However, Sec. 350.201(a) has been
[[Page 15098]]
rewritten to clarify which parts of the FMCSRs and HMRs must be adopted
by the States to qualify for MCSAP funding. This paragraph incorporates
exceptions previously found in the ``Conditions for basic grant
approval'' and the ``Tolerance Guidelines.''
Maintenance of Effort
Section 103(c) of the MCSIA amends the maintenance of effort
required in the ISTEA by changing the base period to fiscal years 1997,
1998, and 1999 for measuring the level of effort. The effect of this
change is to greatly increase the level of commercial motor vehicle
safety activities that the State must maintain to participate in MCSAP.
The intent of the maintenance of effort provision is to ensure that
Federal funds supplement State funds and do not replace them. Further,
it ensures that States commit to continuing their past efforts in
commercial motor vehicle safety activities.
Enforcement of Registration and Financial Responsibility Requirements
Section 207 of the MCSIA amended 49 U.S.C. 31102(B)(1)(R) to read
as follows (new material italicized): ``(R) ensures that the State will
cooperate in the enforcement of registration requirements under section
13902 and financial responsibility requirements under sections 13906,
31138, and 31139, and regulations issued thereunder.'' The references
to Sec. 13902 (``Registration of motor carriers'') and 13906
(``Security of motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders'')
merely clarified the meaning of the previous text by identifying the
statutory provisions that deal with registration and financial
responsibility requirements. Since Sec. 207 did not substantively
change subparagraph (R), the FMCSA finds good cause, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, to incorporate
these changes into Sec. 350.201(t) without prior notice and opportunity
for comment.
Local Jurisdictions
The State of California, the OOIDA, the National Association of
Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, and the CVSA were strongly
opposed to local jurisdictions participating in High Priority MCSAP
funding.
The FMCSA believes that under very limited circumstances, it may be
desirable to fund local agencies' CMV safety program activities. In
those cases, the local agency receiving a grant would be held to
essentially the same qualification, certification, and administrative
requirements as any other MCSAP jurisdiction, and in any event be
required to coordinate all activities through the lead MCSAP agency in
that State.
Compatibility
Parts of 49 CFR pertaining to the FMCSRs and HMRs which were
inadvertently omitted from the NPRM but are in the current part 350,
appendix C, have been added to Sec. 350.337. The response to the
question found at Sec. 350.337 in the NPRM was not sufficiently clear
about the extent to which State laws governing interstate commerce may
differ from Federal law and still be compatible. The response has been
rewritten to agree with the regulatory adoption requirements and
exceptions stated in Sec. 350.201. The FMCSA has added the phrase ``and
provide an orderly transition to full regulatory adoption at a later
date'' in Sec. 350.341(g). This phrase is in the current Tolerance
Guidelines in part 350 and was inadvertently left out of the NPRM.
There was no intention of changing the standard for grandfather
clauses.
The Wisconsin Motor Carriers Association and the Wisconsin DOT both
commented about the addition of the words ``engaged exclusively in
intrastate commerce'' with regard to the Tolerance Guidelines in
Sec. 350.339. Their comments suggested that this phrase could be
interpreted to require any motor carrier that uses the same drivers and
vehicles in both interstate and intrastate commerce to be subject only
to the U. S. DOT jurisdiction and the FMCSRs rather than allowing those
carriers, drivers and CMVs to be subject to State rules when operating
on an intrastate basis.
The FMCSA agrees with these comments and has removed the word
``exclusively'' from Secs. 350.339, 350.341, and 350.343.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission commented and
urged the FMCSA to revise the State waiver standard in Sec. 350.341(h)
to be no more restrictive than the newly adopted waiver standards under
section 4007 of TEA-21.
The FHWA's interim final rule implementing section 4007, ``Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; Waivers, Exemptions, and Pilot
Programs; Rules and Procedures,'' [63 FR 67600, December 8, 1998]
applies to interstate commerce. As indicated earlier in this notice,
the Secretary has rescinded the authority previously delegated to the
FHWA to carry out motor carrier functions and operations. Therefore,
the regulations issued by the FHWA are now regulations of the FMCSA.
The Tolerance Guidelines in the current part 350 set forth the
limited deviations from the FMCSRs allowed for laws and regulations
that apply only to motor carriers, CMV drivers and CMVs engaged in
intrastate commerce that are not subject to Federal jurisdiction.
Section 350.341(h)(1) describes variances in place prior to the
implementation of the requirements of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1982. Presumably, the States who had variances
grandfathered under Sec. 350.341(h)(1) ensured that they were based
upon appropriate performance standards and had no adverse effect upon
safety. Since the driver qualification standard in Sec. 350.341(h)(2)
is consistent with the requirements of 49 CFR part 381--Waivers,
Exemptions, and Pilot Programs, no change has been made to the
Tolerance Guidelines in Sec. 350.341(h)(2).
California commented that participating States should be given
latitude to enact regulations and statutes that are compatible with
Federal regulations but not identical. The State suggested that the
FMCSA should retain the terminology ``having the same effect as'' in
lieu of the word ``identical.''
It was an administrative oversight to leave out the phrase ``having
the same effect as.'' We have added it to the language in Sec. 350.105
only for the FMCSRs. The word ``identical'' will also remain.
California commented that under Sec. 350.345, a State should be
able to apply for additional variances from the Tolerance Guidelines
and have those variances apply to interstate commerce.
California's request would undermine the congressional intent and
purpose of the MCSAP to ensure uniformity of regulations and
enforcement among the States. Since the inception of the program, the
agency has required each State to enforce uniform motor carrier safety
and hazardous materials regulations for both interstate and intrastate
motor carriers and drivers. Safety standards in one State must be
compatible with the requirements in another State in order to foster a
uniform national safety environment. The purpose of variances is to set
forth the limits within which a State can deviate from the FMCSRs and
still be considered compatible for funding purposes under 49 CFR 350.
But these variances are applicable only to those State rules and
regulations where the U.S. Department of Transportation does not have
jurisdiction, namely intrastate commerce. Variances are not available
[[Page 15099]]
for State rules and regulations governing interstate commerce.
Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP)
Nine comments dealt with the CVSP.
Nevada was opposed to including a safe inspection location
requirement in the State Certification. Nevada indicated most States
have inspection sites that are adequate or barely adequate for CMV
inspections and some are not safe under all weather conditions and
certain times of the day.
The OOIDA and the ATA supported the requirement.
Since section 4003(c)(8) of TEA-21 requires that States ensure
roadside inspections will be conducted at a location that is adequate
to protect the safety of drivers and enforcement personnel as a
condition for Basic Program Funds, that requirement must be part of the
State Certification. The language has been revised to require that the
MCSAP agency have departmental policies stipulating that roadside
inspections are conducted at locations adequate to protect the safety
of drivers and enforcement personnel.
The FMCSA is adding three items to the State Certification to be
consistent with the conditions a State must meet to qualify for Basic
Program Funds: (1) The State will participate in SAFETYNET and ensure
information is exchanged with other States in a timely manner; (2) The
State will ensure that requirements relating to the licensing of CMV
drivers is enforced, including checking the status of commercial
driver's licenses (CDL); and (3) The State will ensure that CMV size
and weight enforcement activities funded with MCSAP funds will not
diminish the effectiveness of other CMV safety enforcement programs.
Nevada and Wisconsin commented that the States need clarification
regarding the requirement that the CVSP, data collection, and
information systems be coordinated with State highway safety programs
under 23 U.S.C. 402.
This requirement is neither another layer of approval for the CVSP
nor a means to validate the States' SAFETYNET data with section 402
data. The requirement to coordinate a State's CVSP (formerly SEP) with
the State highway safety plan under 23 U.S.C. 402 has always been a
component of the State Certification. Section 4003(c)(2) of TEA-21
merely expands the requirement to also include the coordination of data
collection and information systems with State highway safety programs
under title 23, U.S. Code. Certification item 12 has been revised to
reflect that mandate. The intent of this congressional direction is to
ensure close coordination of State highway safety programs. State
highway safety programs aimed at passenger cars and drivers and those
aimed at CMVs and CMV drivers should complement each other to the
fullest possible extent. Both the section 402 State and community grant
program and MCSAP are data-driven and performance-based programs
designed to reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities. The Congress
intends for these programs to share data, information, and program
plans to reduce fatalities. The States must certify that information
exchange or coordination of safety plans was accomplished.
The OOIDA, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS), and the
States of Iowa and Maryland commented about the timely and proper
correction of all CMV safety violations. The OOIDA commented that there
are no standards which define the ``timely and proper'' correction of
CMV violations. Iowa commented that the term ``all'' should be
eliminated. The AHAS expressed its concern for eliminating ``the prior
regulatory requirement that states enact and enforce an out-of-service
(OOS) verification program in favor of a `certification acceptance'
that the States have a process in place for timely and proper
correction of all CMV safety violations noted during inspections.''
Maryland is concerned that the State has no control over interstate
carriers not domiciled in their State.
Section 4003(c)(4) of TEA-21 eliminates the current statutory
requirement that the States establish an out-of-service verification
program and mandates that the States ``will establish a program to
ensure the proper and timely correction of commercial motor vehicle
safety violations noted during an inspection* * * .'' This mandate does
not preclude the States from continuing their out-of-service
verification programs. This is not a new requirement for the States.
Section 350.9(p) currently requires the correction of all violations
cited on roadside inspection reports. States are also required to have
a tracking system in place to ensure that motor carriers certify the
corrections of safety violations and that inspection reports are
returned to the issuing agency (Sec. 350.13(b)(4)(v)).
Standards to define ``timely and proper'' corrections of CMV
violations are found in 49 CFR 396.9(d)(2) which states: ``Motor
carriers shall examine the report. Violations or defects noted thereon
shall be corrected.'' Additionally, 49 CFR 396.11(c) states that,
``prior to requiring or permitting a driver to operate a vehicle, every
motor carrier or its agent shall repair any defect or deficiency listed
on the driver vehicle inspection report which would likely affect the
safety of operation of the vehicle.'' Section 396.9 also requires that
a motor carrier shall certify that all repairs have been made and
return the signed inspection form to the issuing agency within 15 days
following the inspection. Furthermore, the North American Uniform Out-
of-Service Criteria states that ``violations other than out-of-service
conditions detected during the inspection process will not preclude the
completion of the current trip or dispatch. However, such violations
must be corrected or repaired prior to redispatch.''
The Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute provided comments
to the docket on suggested revisions for Sec. 350.213, ``What must a
CVSP include.'' The FMCSA agrees that the CVSP guidelines should be
consistent with the Performance-Based MCSAP training. The following
paragraphs have been amended: ``(a) A statement of the State agency
goal or mission'' is amended to read ``(a) A General overview section
that must include the following two items: (1) A statement of the State
agency goal or mission.'' Paragraph ``(b)'' is now ``(2)'' under
Paragraph ``(a)'' and the phrase ``comprehensive evaluation'' is
changed to ``program summary.'' The sentence, ``Evaluation data should
measure program progress in one-year increments'' has been deleted and
replaced with, ``Data periods used must be consistent from year to
year.'' In the next sentence of this paragraph the phrase ``chosen by
the State'' is replaced with ``for which the State's data is current.''
The word ``evaluation'' that appears in the next sentence has been
changed to ``summary.'' Paragraph (b) has been expanded to include
descriptions of the State's activities related to removing impaired CMV
drivers from the highways and interdicting controlled substances
transported by CMVs (as required by Sec. 350.201(q)) and enforcing
registration and financial responsibility requirements (as required by
Sec. 350.201(t)). In paragraph (f), now paragraph (e), the second
sentence has been replaced with ``Strategies may include education,
enforcement, legislation, or technology/infrastructure.'' In paragraph
(g), now paragraph (f), the second sentence has been completely
deleted. To be consistent with the Performance-Based MCSAP training, a
new paragraph (i) has been added. The Performance-Based MCSAP training
specifies that each
[[Page 15100]]
State specific objective must be evaluated. The new paragraph (i)
describes the information the States will discuss in this section of
its CVSP. To be consistent with the Performance-Based MCSAP training,
paragraphs (n) through (r) have been added to this section. Paragraphs
(c) through (m) have been redesignated as paragraphs (b) through (g)
and (j) through (m), respectively.
Size and Weight Enforcement
Michigan and Oregon asked for a clarification regarding cost
eligibility of size and weight enforcement at fixed sites.
The MCSAP rule on this point has not changed since 1992. To be
eligible for reimbursement, (Sec. 350.29(c)(5)) size and weight
enforcement must be conducted at locations other than fixed weight
facilities, at specific geographic locations where the weight of the
vehicle can significantly affect the safe operation of the vehicle, or
at seaports where intermodal shipping containers enter and exit the
United States. These size and weight enforcement activities must be
carried out in conjunction with an appropriate North American Standard
Inspection and inspection report.
Consolidation of Appendices
This rulemaking incorporates appendices A, B, and C into the
regulatory text. The following table shows where each section of the
amended regulations appear in the new format:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old regulation New regulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
350.1--Purpose......................... 350.103.
350.3--Definitions..................... 350.105.
350.5--Policy.......................... 350.101.
350.7--Objective....................... 350.101.
350.9--Conditions for basic grant 350.107, 350.201.
approval.
350.11--Adopting and enforcing
compatible laws and regulations
(generally):
350.11(a).......................... 350.201(a).
350.11(b).......................... 350.331(c).
350.11(c).......................... Removed.
350.11(d).......................... 350.105 (compatible/
compatibility).
350.11(e).......................... 350.203.
350.11(f).......................... 350.331(d).
350.11(g).......................... 350.345.
350.11(h).......................... 350.335(d).
350.11(i).......................... 350.335(e).
350.13--State Enforcement Plan (SEP) 350.213.
for a basic grant.
350.15--Certification of compliance by 350.209.
State.
350.17--Maintenance of effort.......... 350.301.
350.19--Grant application submission... 350.205.
350.21--Distribution of funds:
350.21(a).......................... 350.303.
350.21(b).......................... 350.305.
350.21(c).......................... 350.323(a).
350.21(d).......................... 350.323(b).
350.21(e)-(f)...................... 350.313, 350.315, 350.317,
350.319, 350.321, 350.323,
350.327, 350.329.
350.31(g).......................... 350.307.
350.23--Acceptance of State Plan....... 350.205, 350.207.
350.25--Effect of failure to submit a 350.205, 350.207.
satisfactory State Plan.
350.27--Procedure for withdrawal of 350.215.
approval.
350.29--Eligible costs................. 350.309, 350.311, 350.315.
350 App A--Guidelines To Be Used in 350.213 the SEP has been
Preparing State Enforcement Plan. renamed the Commercial Vehicle
Safety plan (CFSP).
350 App B--Form of State Certification. 350.211.
350 App C--Tolerance Guidelines for
Adopting Compatible State Rules and
Regulations:
paragraph 1........................ Removed.
paragraph (2)(a)................... 350.337.
paragraph (2)(b)................... 350.337.
paragraph (3)(a)................... Removed.
paragraph (3)(b)................... 350.341(a).
paragraph (3)(c)................... 350.341(b).
paragraph (3)(d)................... 350.341(c).
paragraph (3)(d)(1)-(d)(11)........ 350.343.
paragraph (3)(e)................... 350.341(d).
paragraph (3)(f)................... 350.341(e).
paragraph (3)(g)................... 350.341(f).
paragraph (3)(h)................... 350.341(g).
paragraph (3)(i)................... 350.341(h).
paragraph (3)(j)................... Removed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15101]]
Conforming Amendments
This action amends various sections of 49 CFR part 355 to conform
with changes to the MCSAP and 49 CFR part 350. Under Sec. 355.5, the
terms ``compatible/compatibility'' and ``State'' are revised to be
consistent with part 350. The acronym ``FMCSRs'' has been added to the
definition for ``Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations'' and
replaces ``FMCSR'' throughout this part. Section 355.21(c) now reflects
the requirement that State laws and regulations be identical to the
Hazardous Materials Regulations. The term ``Commercial Vehicle Safety
Plan (CVSP)'' replaces ``Safety Enforcement Plan (SEP).'' Cross-
references to part 350 have been updated.
The FMCSA has eliminated the last two sentences under the paragraph
titled ``Definitions'' in Appendix A to Part 355--Guidelines for the
Regulatory Review. States must continue to ensure that definitions of
terms used in their laws and regulations are consistent with FMCSR
definitions. We have simply removed the example term ``commercial motor
vehicle.'' An interim final rule ``Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations; Definition of Commercial Motor Vehicle; Interim Final
Rule'' published on September 3, 1999, at 64 FR 48510 revised the CMV
definition under Sec. 390.5 to cover ``vehicles designed or used to
transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for
compensation.'' But the action exempts the operation of these small
passenger-carrying vehicles from all of the FMCSRs for 6 months to
allow time for the completion of a separate rulemaking action also
published on September 3, 1999, at 64 FR 48518. Revising appendix A to
reflect the new CMV definition is premature and potentially confusing
to the States.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or
significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and
procedures. The revisions to the FMCSRs will not cause an annual impact
on the economy of over $100 million, and they will not adversely affect
a sector of the economy in a material way. The changes will not create
an inconsistency or otherwise interfere with another agency's actions,
nor do they raise novel legal or policy issues. These changes merely
implement a recently enacted legislative mandate which directed the
FMCSA to amend its regulations pertaining to the MCSAP. This final rule
broadens the scope of the MCSAP beyond enforcement activities and
programs by requiring participating States to assume greater
responsibility for improving motor carrier safety. It revises the MCSAP
funding distribution formula, creates a new incentive funding program,
and requires States to develop performance-based CMV safety plans.
Thus, in light of this analysis, especially the finding that the
economic impact of this action is likely to be minimal, the FMCSA has
determined that a full regulatory evaluation is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the FMCSA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small
entities. It is anticipated that this rulemaking will have little or a
non-significant impact upon small entities. The changes merely
implement TEA-21 provisions pertaining to the MCSAP affecting only
States and local jurisdictions. This rule provides a process for making
high priority activity and border activity funds available to local
jurisdictions as well as MCSAP agencies. The basic conditions for local
agencies to qualify for these funds are consistent with the conditions
local agencies must now follow to receive funds through the MCSAP
agency. Local agencies will not be required to participate unless they
find it is in their best interest. The number of local agencies that
would receive direct funding will be minimal since the FMCSA will
provide grants directly to local agencies only where it is not possible
to work through the lead MCSAP agency. Therefore, the FMCSA hereby
certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (2
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not
concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in acordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999, and
it has been determined this action does not have a substantial direct
effect or sufficient federalism implications on States that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the States. The changes in this rule
implement TEA-21 provisions. The MCSAP is a grant-in-aid type program
whereby Federal financial assistance is provided to States. The basic
nature of the program and the level of total funding for the program
are not affected by these changes. Nothing in this document directly
preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rulemaking does
not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a Federalism assessment.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this program. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.217, Motor Carrier Safety.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. In its March 9, 1999,
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program (MCSAP), the agency stated that this action might
increase the number of respondents in the MCSAP information collection
(OMB Control No. 2126-0010). The
[[Page 15102]]
agency has subsequently determined that the number of respondents would
not change as a result of this rulemaking, and therefore, is not
requesting any revisions to the currently approved collection which
will expire on March 31, 2001. The NPRM specifically solicited comments
regarding the information collections imposed by this action. The
comments that were received are being addressed as a program element of
the MCSAP and will not result in any changes to this information
collection.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and it has
determined that this action will not have any effect on the quality of
the environment.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (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 April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 350
Grant programs--transportation, Highway safety, Motor carriers.
49 CFR Part 355
Administrative practice and procedure, Federal-State relations,
Grant programs, Hazardous materials transportation.
Issued on: March 14, 2000
Julie Cirillo,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FMCSA amends title 49, Code
of Federal Regulations, chapter III, as follows:
1. Part 350 is revised to read as follows:
PART 350--COMMERCIAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Subpart A--General
Sec.
350.101 What is the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
(MCSAP)?
350.103 What is the purpose of this part?
350.105 What definitions are used in this part?
350.107 What jurisdictions are eligible for MCSAP funding?
350.109 What are the national program elements?
350.111 What constitutes ``traffic enforcement'' for the purpose
of the MCSAP?
Subpart B--Requirements for Participation
350.201 What conditions must a State meet to qualify for Basic
Program Funds?
350.203 [Reserved]
350.205 How and when does a State apply for MCSAP funding?
350.207 What response does a State receive to its CVSP submission?
350.209 How does a State demonstrate that it satisfies the
conditions for Basic Program funding?
350.211 What is the format of the certification required by
Sec. 350.209?
350.213 What must a State CVSP include?
350.215 What are the consequences for a State that fails to
perform according to an approved CVSP or otherwise fails to meet the
conditions of this part?
Subpart C--Funding
350.301 What level of effort must a State maintain to qualify for
MCSAP funding?
350.303 What are the State and Federal shares of expenses incurred
under an approved CVSP?
350.305 Are U.S. Territories subject to the matching funds
requirement?
350.307 How long are MCSAP funds available to a State?
350.309 What activities are eligible for reimbursement under the
MCSAP?
350.311 What specific items are eligible for reimbursement under
the MCSAP?
350.313 How are MCSAP funds allocated?
350.315 How may Basic Program Funds be used?
350.317 What are Incentive Funds and how may they be used?
350.319 What are permissible uses of High Priority Activity Funds?
350.321 What are permissible uses of Border Activity Funds?
350.323 What criteria are used in the Basic Program Funds
allocation?
350.325 [Reserved]
350.327 How may States qualify for Incentive Funds?
350.329 How may a State or a local agency qualify for High
Priority or Border Activity Funds?
350.331 How does a State ensure its laws and regulations are
compatible with the FMCSRs and HMRs?
350.333 What are the guidelines for the compatibility review?
350.335 What are the consequences if my State has laws or
regulations incompatible with the Federal regulations?
350.337 How may State laws and regulations governing motor
carriers, CMV drivers, and CMVs in interstate commerce differ from
the FMCSRs and still be considered compatible?
350.339 What are tolerance guidelines?
350.341 What specific variances from the FMCSRs are allowed for
State laws and regulations governing motor carriers, CMV drivers and
CMVs engaged in intrastate commerce and not subject to Federal
jurisdiction?
350.343 How may a State obtain a new exemption for State laws and
regulations for a specific industry involved in intrastate commerce?
350.345 How does a State apply for additional variances from the
FMCSRs?
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31100-31104, 31108, 31136, 31140-31141,
31161, 31310-31311, 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 350.101 What is the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
(MCSAP)?
The MCSAP is a Federal grant program that provides financial
assistance to States to reduce the number and severity of accidents and
hazardous materials incidents involving commercial motor vehicles
(CMV). The goal of the MCSAP is to reduce CMV-involved accidents,
fatalities, and injuries through consistent, uniform, and effective CMV
safety programs. Investing grant monies in appropriate safety programs
will increase the likelihood that safety defects, driver deficiencies,
and unsafe motor carrier practices will be detected and corrected
before they become contributing factors to accidents. The MCSAP also
sets forth the conditions for participation by States and local
jurisdictions and promotes the adoption and uniform enforcement of
safety rules, regulations, and standards compatible with the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and Federal Hazardous
Material Regulations (HMRs) for both interstate and intrastate motor
carriers and drivers.
Sec. 350.103 What is the purpose of this part?
The purpose of this part is to ensure the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA), States, and other political
jurisdictions work in partnership to establish programs to improve
motor carrier, CMV, and driver safety to support a safe and efficient
transportation system.
Sec. 350.105 What definitions are used in this part?
10-year average accident rate means for each State, the aggregate
number of large truck-involved fatal crashes (as reported in the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)) for a 10-year period divided
by the aggregate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (as defined by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)) for the same 10-year period.
Accident rate means for each State, the total number of fatal
crashes involving large trucks (as measured by the FARS for each State)
divided by the total VMT as defined by the FHWA for each State for all
vehicles.
[[Page 15103]]
Agency means Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Administrative Takedown Funds means funds deducted by the FMCSA
each fiscal year from the amount made available for the MCSAP for
expenses incurred in the administration of the MCSAP, including
expenses to train State and local government employees.
Administrator means Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator.
Basic Program Funds means the total MCSAP funds less the High
Priority Activity, Border Activity, Administrative Takedown, and
Incentive Funds.
Border Activity Funds means funds provided to States, local
governments, and other persons carrying out programs, activities, and
projects relating to CMV safety and regulatory enforcement supporting
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) at the U.S. border. Up
to 5 percent of total MCSAP funds are available for these activities.
Commercial motor vehicle (CMV) means a motor vehicle that has any
of the following characteristics:
(1) A gross vehicle weight (GVW), gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR), gross combination weight (GCW), or gross combination weight
rating (GCWR) of 4,537 kilograms (10,001 pounds) or more.
(2) Regardless of weight, is designed or used to transport 16 or
more passengers, including driver.
(3) Regardless of weight, is used in the transportation of
hazardous materials and is required to be placarded pursuant to 49 CFR
part 172, subpart F.
Commercial vehicle safety plan (CVSP) means the document outlining
the State's CMV safety objectives, strategies, activities and
performance measures.
Compatible or Compatibility means State laws and regulations
applicable to interstate commerce and to intrastate movement of
hazardous materials are identical to the FMCSRs and the HMRs or have
the same effect as the FMCSRs. State laws applicable to intrastate
commerce are either identical to, or have the same effect as, the
FMCSRs or fall within the established limited variances under
Sec. 350.341.
High Priority Activity Funds means funds provided to States, local
governments, and other persons carrying out activities and projects
that directly support the MCSAP, are national in scope in that the
successful activity or project could potentially be applied in other
States on a national scale, and improve CMV safety and compliance with
CMV safety regulations. Up to 5 percent of total MCSAP funds are
available for these activities.
Incentive Funds means funds awarded to States achieving reductions
in CMV involved fatal accidents, CMV fatal accident rate, or meeting
specified CMV safety program performance criteria.
Large truck means a truck over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight
rating including single unit trucks and truck tractors (FARS
definition).
Motor carrier means a for-hire motor carrier or private motor
carrier. The term includes a motor carrier's agents, officers, or
representatives responsible for hiring, supervising, training,
assigning, or dispatching a driver or concerned with the installation,
inspection, and maintenance of motor vehicle equipment or accessories
or both.
North American Standard Inspection means the methodology used by
State CMV safety inspectors to conduct safety inspections of CMVs. This
consists of various levels of inspection of the vehicle or driver or
both. The inspection criteria are developed by the FMCSA in conjunction
with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), an association of
States, Canadian Provinces, and Mexico whose members agree to adopt
these standards for inspecting CMVs in their jurisdiction.
Sec. 350.107 What jurisdictions are eligible for MCSAP funding?
All of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American
Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are eligible to receive MCSAP
grants directly from the FMCSA. For purposes of this subpart, all
references to ``State'' or ``States'' include these jurisdictions.
Sec. 350.109 What are the national program elements?
The national program elements include the following five
activities:
(a) Driver/vehicle inspections.
(b) Traffic enforcement.
(c) Compliance reviews.
(d) Public education and awareness.
(e) Data collection.
Sec. 350.111 What constitutes ``traffic enforcement'' for the purpose
of the MCSAP?
Traffic enforcement means enforcement activities of State or local
officials, including stopping CMVs operating on highways, streets, or
roads for violations of State or local motor vehicle or traffic laws
(e.g., speeding, following too closely, reckless driving, improper lane
change). To be eligible for funding through the grant, traffic
enforcement must include an appropriate North American Standard
Inspection of the CMV or driver or both prior to releasing the driver
or CMV for resumption of operations.
Subpart B--Requirements for Participation
Sec. 350.201 What conditions must a State meet to qualify for Basic
Program Funds?
Each State must meet the following twenty-two conditions:
(a) Assume responsibility for improving motor carrier safety and
adopting and enforcing State safety laws and regulations that are
compatible with the FMCSRs (49 CFR parts 390-397) and the HMRs (49 CFR
parts 107 (subparts F and G only), 171-173, 177, 178 and 180), except
as may be determined by the Administrator to be inapplicable to a State
enforcement program.
(b) Implement a performance-based program by the beginning of
Fiscal Year 2000 and submit a CVSP which will serve as the basis for
monitoring and evaluating the State's performance.
(c) Designate, in its State Certification, the lead State agency
responsible for implementing the CVSP.
(d) Ensure that only agencies having the legal authority,
resources, and qualified personnel necessary to enforce the FMCSRs and
HMRs or compatible State laws or regulations are assigned to perform
functions in accordance with the approved CVSP.
(e) Allocate adequate funds for the administration of the CVSP
including the enforcement of the FMCSRs, HMRs, or compatible State laws
or regulations.
(f) Maintain the aggregate expenditure of funds by the State and
its political subdivisions, exclusive of Federal funds, for motor
carrier and highway hazardous materials safety enforcement, eligible
for funding under this part, at a level at least equal to the average
expenditure for Federal or State fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999.
(g) Provide legal authority for a right of entry and inspection
adequate to carry out the CVSP.
(h) Prepare and submit to the FMCSA, upon request, all reports
required in connection with the CVSP or other conditions of the grant.
(i) Adopt and use the reporting standards and forms required by the
FMCSA to record work activities performed under the CVSP.
(j) Require registrants of CMVs to declare, at the time of
registration, their knowledge of applicable FMCSRs, HMRs, or compatible
State laws or regulations.
(k) Grant maximum reciprocity for inspections conducted under the
North
[[Page 15104]]
American Standard Inspection through the use of a nationally accepted
system that allows ready identification of previously inspected CMVs.
(l) Conduct CMV size and weight enforcement activities funded under
this program only to the extent those activities do not diminish the
effectiveness of other CMV safety enforcement programs.
(m) Coordinate the CVSP, data collection and information systems,
with State highway safety programs under title United States Code
(U.S.C.).
(n) Ensure participation in SAFETYNET and other information systems
by all appropriate jurisdictions receiving funding under this section.
(o) Ensure information is exchanged with other States in a timely
manner.
(p) Emphasize and improve enforcement of State and local traffic
laws and regulations related to CMV safety.
(q) Promote activities in support of the national program elements
listed in Sec. 350.109, including the following three activities:
(1) Activities aimed at removing impaired CMV drivers from the
highways through adequate enforcement of restrictions on the use of
alcohol and controlled substances and by ensuring ready roadside access
to alcohol detection and measuring equipment.
(2) Activities aimed at providing an appropriate level of training
to MCSAP personnel to recognize drivers impaired by alcohol or
controlled substances.
(3) Interdiction activities affecting the transportation of
controlled substances by CMV drivers and training on appropriate
strategies for carrying out those interdiction activities.
(r) Enforce requirements relating to the licensing of CMV drivers,
including checking the status of commercial drivers' licenses (CDL).
(s) Require the proper and timely correction of all CMV safety
violations noted during inspections carried out with MCSAP funds.
(t) Enforce registration requirements under 49 U.S.C. section 13902
and 49 CFR part 356 and financial responsibility requirements under 49
U.S.C. sections 13906, 31138 and 31139 and 49 CFR part 387.
(u) Adopt and maintain consistent, effective, and reasonable
sanctions for violations of CMV, driver, and hazardous materials
regulations.
(v) Ensure that MCSAP agencies have policies that stipulate
roadside inspections will be conducted at locations that are adequate
to protect the safety of drivers and enforcement personnel.
Sec. 350.203 [RESERVED]
Sec. 350.205 How and when does a State apply for MCSAP funding?
(a) The lead agency, designated by the Governor, must submit the
State's CVSP to the Motor Carrier State Director, FMCSA, on or before
August 1 of each year.
(b) This deadline may, for good cause, be extended by the State
Director for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days.
(c) For a State to receive funding, the CVSP must be complete and
include all required documents.
Sec. 350.207 What response does a State receive to its CVSP
submission?
(a) The FMCSA will notify the State, in writing, within 30 days of
receipt of the CVSP whether:
(1) The plan is approved.
(2) Approval of the plan is withheld because the CVSP does not meet
the requirements of this part, or is not adequate to ensure effective
enforcement of the FMCSRs and HMRs or compatible State laws and
regulations.
(b) If approval is withheld, the State will have 30 days from the
date of the notice to modify and resubmit the plan.
(c) Disapproval of a resubmitted plan is final.
(d) Any State aggrieved by an adverse decision under this section
may seek judicial review under 5 U.S.C. chapter 7.
Sec. 350.209 How does a State demonstrate that it satisfies the
conditions for Basic Program funding?
(a) The Governor, the State's Attorney General, or other State
official specifically designated by the Governor, must execute a State
Certification as described in Sec. 350.211.
(b) The State must submit the State Certification along with its
CVSP, and supplement it with a copy of any State law, regulation, or
form pertaining to CMV safety adopted since the State's last
certification that bears on the items contained in Sec. 350.201 of this
subpart.
Sec. 350.211 What is the format of the certification required by
Sec. 350.209?
The State's certification must be consistent with the following
content:
I (name), (title), on behalf of the State (or Commonwealth) of
(State), as requested by the Administrator as a condition of
approval of a grant under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31102, as
amended, do hereby certify as follows:
1. The State has adopted commercial motor carrier and highway
hazardous materials safety rules and regulations that are compatible
with the FMCSRs and the HMRs.
2. The State has designated (name of State CMV safety agency) as
the lead agency to administer the CVSP for the grant sought and
(names of agencies) to perform defined functions under the plan.
These agencies have the legal authority, resources, and qualified
personnel necessary to enforce the State's commercial motor carrier,
driver, and highway hazardous materials safety laws or regulations.
3. The State will obligate the funds or resources necessary to
provide a matching share to the Federal assistance provided in the
grant to administer the plan submitted and to enforce the State's
commercial motor carrier safety, driver, and hazardous materials
laws or regulations in a manner consistent with the approved plan.
4. The laws of the State provide the State's enforcement
officials right of entry and inspection sufficient to carry out the
purposes of the CVSP, as approved, and provide that the State will
grant maximum reciprocity for inspections conducted pursuant to the
North American Standard Inspection procedure, through the use of a
nationally accepted system allowing ready identification of
previously inspected CMVs.
5. The State requires that all reports relating to the program
be submitted to the appropriate State agency or agencies, and the
State will make these reports available, in a timely manner, to the
FMCSA on request.
6. The State has uniform reporting requirements and uses FMCSA
designated forms for record keeping, inspection, and other
enforcement activities.
7. The State has in effect a requirement that registrants of
CMVs declare their knowledge of the applicable Federal or State CMV
safety laws or regulations.
8. The State will maintain the level of its expenditures,
exclusive of Federal assistance, at least at the level of the
average of the aggregate expenditures of the State and its political
subdivisions during State or Federal fiscal years 1997, 1998, and
1999. These expenditures must cover at least the following four
program areas, if applicable:
(a) Motor carrier safety programs in accordance with 49 CFR
350.301.
(b) Size and weight enforcement programs.
(c) Traffic safety.
(d) Drug interdiction enforcement programs.
9. The State will ensure that CMV size and weight enforcement
activities funded with MCSAP funds will not diminish the
effectiveness of other CMV safety enforcement programs.
10. The State will ensure that violation fines imposed and
collected by the State are consistent, effective, and equitable.
11. The State will ensure it has a program for timely and
appropriate correction of all violations discovered during
inspections conducted using MCSAP funds.
12. The State will ensure that the CVSP, data collection, and
information systems are coordinated with the State highway safety
program under title 23, U.S. Code. The name of the Governor's
highway safety representative (or other authorized State official
through whom coordination was accomplished) is ____________. (Name)
13. The State participates in SAFETYNET and ensures information
is exchanged with other States in a timely manner.
[[Page 15105]]
14. The State has undertaken efforts to emphasize and improve
enforcement of State and local traffic laws as they pertain to CMV
safety.
15. Ensure that MCSAP agencies have departmental policies
stipulating that roadside inspections will be conducted at locations
that are adequate to protect the safety of drivers and enforcement
personnel.
16. The State will ensure that requirements relating to the
licensing of CMV drivers are enforced, including checking the status
of CDLs.
Date-------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature--------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 350.213 What must a State CVSP include?
The State's CVSP must reflect a performance-based program, and
contain the following eighteen items:
(a) A general overview section that must include the following two
items:
(1) A statement of the State agency goal or mission.
(2) A program summary of the effectiveness of the prior years'
activities in reducing CMV accidents, injuries and fatalities, and
improving driver and motor carrier safety performance. Data periods
used must be consistent from year to year. This may be calendar year or
fiscal year or any 12-month period of time for which the State's data
is current. The summary must show trends supported by safety and
program performance data collected over several years. It must identify
safety or performance problems in the State and those problems must be
addressed in the new or modified CVSP.
(b) A brief narrative describing how the State program addresses
the national program elements listed in Sec. 350.109. The plan must
address these elements even if there are no planned activities in a
program area. The rationale for the resource allocation decision must
be explained. The narrative section must include a description of how
the State supports the three activities identified in Sec. 350.201(q):
(1) Activities aimed at removing impaired CMV drivers from the
highways through adequate enforcement of restrictions on the use of
alcohol and controlled substances and by ensuring ready roadside access
to alcohol detection and measuring equipment.
(2) Activities aimed at providing an appropriate level of training
to MCSAP personnel to recognize drivers impaired by alcohol or
controlled substances.
(3) Interdiction activities affecting the transportation of
controlled substances by CMV drivers and training on appropriate
strategies for carrying out those interdiction activities.
(4) Activities to enforce registration requirements under 49 U.S.C.
13902 and 49 CFR part 365 and financial responsibility requirements
under 49 U.S.C. 13906, 31138 and 31139 and 49 CFR part 387.
(c) A definitive problem statement for each objective, supported by
data or other information. The CVSP must identify the source of the
data, and who is responsible for its collection, maintenance, and
analysis.
(d) Performance objectives, stated in quantifiable terms, to be
achieved through the State plan. Objectives must include a measurable
reduction in highway accidents or hazardous materials incidents
involving CMVs. The objective may also include documented improvements
in other program areas (e.g., legislative or regulatory authority,
enforcement results, or resource allocations).
(e) Strategies to be employed to achieve performance objectives.
Strategies may include education, enforcement, legislation, use of
technology and improvements to safety infrastructure.
(f) Specific activities intended to achieve the stated strategies
and objectives. Planned activities must be eligible under this program
as defined in Secs. 350.309 and 350.311.
(g) Specific quantifiable performance measures, as appropriate.
These performance measures will be used to assist the State in
monitoring the progress of its program and preparing an annual
evaluation.
(h) A description of the State's method for ongoing monitoring of
the progress of its plan. This should include who will conduct the
monitoring, the frequency with which it will be carried out, and how
and to whom reports will be made.
(i) An objective evaluation that discusses the progress towards
individual objectives listed under the ``Performance Objectives''
section of the previous year's CVSP and identifies any safety or
performance problems discovered. States will identify those problems as
new objectives or make modifications to the existing objectives in the
next CVSP.
(j) A budget which supports the CVSP, describing the expenditures
for allocable costs such as personnel and related costs, equipment
purchases, printing, information systems costs, and other eligible
costs consistent with Secs. 350.311 and 350.309.
(k) A budget summary form including planned expenditures for that
fiscal year and projected number of activities in each national program
element, except data collection.
(l) The results of the annual review to determine the compatibility
of State laws and regulations with the FMCSRs and HMRs.
(m) A copy of any new law or regulation affecting CMV safety
enforcement that was enacted by the State since the last CVSP was
submitted.
(n) Executed State Certification as outlined in Sec. 350.211.
(o) Executed MCSAP-1 form.
(p) List of MCSAP contacts.
(q) Annual Certification of Compatibility, Sec. 350.331.
(r) State Training Plan.
Sec. 350.215 What are the consequences for a State that fails to
perform according to an approved CVSP or otherwise fails to meet the
conditions of this part?
(a) If a State is not performing according to an approved plan or
not adequately meeting conditions set forth in Sec. 350.201, the
Administrator may issue a written notice of proposed determination of
nonconformity to the Governor of the State or the official designated
in the plan. The notice will set forth the reasons for the proposed
determination.
(b) The State will have 30 days from the date of the notice to
reply. The reply must address the deficiencies or incompatibility cited
in the notice and provide documentation as necessary.
(c) After considering the State's reply, the Administrator will
make a final decision.
(d) In the event the State fails timely to reply to a notice of
proposed determination of nonconformity, the notice becomes the
Administrator's final determination of nonconformity.
(e) Any adverse decision will result in immediate cessation of
Federal funding under this part.
(f) Any State aggrieved by an adverse decision under this section
may seek judicial review under 5 U.S.C. chapter 7.
Subpart C--Funding
Sec. 350.301 What level of effort must a State maintain to qualify for
MCSAP funding?
(a) The State must maintain the average aggregate expenditure
(monies spent during the base period of Federal or State fiscal years
1997, 1998, and 1999) of State funds for motor carrier and highway
hazardous materials safety enforcement purposes, in the year in which
the grant is sought.
(b) Determination of a State's level of effort must not include the
following three things:
(1) Federal funds received for support of motor carrier and
hazardous materials safety enforcement.
(2) State matching funds.
(3) State funds used for federally sponsored demonstration or pilot
CMV safety programs.
[[Page 15106]]
(c) The State must include costs associated with activities
performed during the base period by State or local agencies currently
receiving or projected to receive funds under this part. It must
include only those activities which meet the current requirements for
funding eligibility under the grant program.
Sec. 350.303 What are the State and Federal shares of expenses
incurred under an approved CVSP?
(a) The FMCSA will reimburse up to 80 percent of the eligible costs
incurred in the administration of an approved CVSP.
(b) In-kind contributions are acceptable in meeting the State's
matching share if they represent eligible costs as established by 49
CFR part 18 or agency policy.
Sec. 350.305 Are U.S. Territories subject to the matching funds
requirement?
The Administrator waives the requirement for matching funds for the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
Sec. 350.307 How long are MCSAP funds available to a State?
The funds obligated to a State will remain available for the rest
of the fiscal year in which they were obligated and the next full
fiscal year. The State must account for any prior year's unexpended
funds in the annual CVSP. Funds must be expended in the order in which
they are obligated.
Sec. 350.309 What activities are eligible for reimbursement under the
MCSAP?
The primary activities eligible for reimbursement are:
(a) The five national program elements listed in Sec. 350.109 of
this part.
(b) Sanitary food transportation inspections performed under 49
U.S.C. 5708.
(c) The following three activities, when accompanied by an
appropriate North American Standard Inspection and inspection report:
(1) Enforcement of size and weight regulations conducted at
locations other than fixed weight facilities, at specific geographical
locations where the weight of the vehicle can significantly affect the
safe operation of the vehicle, or at seaports where intermodal shipping
containers enter and exit the United States.
(2) Detection of the unlawful presence of controlled substances in
a CMV or on the driver or any occupant of a CMV.
(3) Enforcement of State traffic laws and regulations designed to
promote the safe operation of CMVs.
Sec. 350.311 What specific items are eligible for reimbursement under
the MCSAP?
All reimbursable items must be necessary, reasonable, allocable to
the approved CVSP, and allowable under this part and 49 CFR part 18.
The eligibility of specific items is subject to review by the FMCSA.
The following six types of expenses are eligible for reimbursement:
(a) Personnel expenses, including recruitment and screening,
training, salaries and fringe benefits, and supervision.
(b) Equipment and travel expenses, including per diem, directly
related to the enforcement of safety regulations, including vehicles,
uniforms, communications equipment, special inspection equipment,
vehicle maintenance, fuel, and oil.
(c) Indirect expenses for facilities, except fixed scales, used to
conduct inspections or house enforcement personnel, support staff, and
equipment to the extent they are measurable and recurring (e.g., rent
and overhead).
(d) Expenses related to data acquisition, storage, and analysis
that are specifically identifiable as program-related to develop a data
base to coordinate resources and improve efficiency.
(e) Clerical and administrative expenses, to the extent necessary
and directly attributable to the MCSAP.
(f) Expenses related to the improvement of real property (e.g.,
installation of lights for the inspection of vehicles at night).
Acquisition of real property, land, or buildings are not eligible
costs.
Sec. 350.313 How are MCSAP funds allocated?
(a) After deducting administrative expenses authorized in 49 U.S.C.
31104(e), the MCSAP funds are allocated as follows:
(1) Up to 5 percent of the MCSAP funds appropriated for each fiscal
year may be distributed for High Priority Activities and Projects at
the discretion of the Administrator.
(2) Up to 5 percent of the MCSAP funds appropriated for each fiscal
year may be distributed for Border CMV Safety and Enforcement Programs
at the discretion of the Administrator.
(3) The remaining funds will be allocated among qualifying States
in two ways:
(i) As Basic Program Funds in accordance with Sec. 350.323 of this
part,
(ii) As Incentive Funds in accordance with Sec. 350.327 of this
part.
(b) The funding provided in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
section may be awarded through contract, cooperative agreement, or
grant. The FMCSA will notify States if it intends to solicit State
grant proposals for any portion of this funding.
(c) The funding provided under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
section may be made available to State MCSAP lead agencies, local
governments, and other persons that use and train qualified officers
and employees in coordination with State motor vehicle safety agencies.
Sec. 350.315 How may Basic Program Funds be used?
Basic Program Funds may be used for any eligible activity or item
consistent with Secs. 350.309 and 350.311.
Sec. 350.317 What are Incentive Funds and how may they be used?
Incentive Funds are monies, in addition to Basic Program Funds,
provided to States that achieve reduction in CMV-involved fatal
accidents, CMV fatal accident rate, or that meet specified CMV safety
performance criteria. Incentive Funds may be used for any eligible
activity or item consistent with Secs. 350.309 and 350.311.
Sec. 350.319 What are permissible uses of High Priority Activity
Funds?
(a) The FMCSA may generally use these funds to support, enrich, or
evaluate State CMV safety programs and to accomplish the five
objectives listed below:
(1) Implement, promote, and maintain national programs to improve
CMV safety.
(2) Increase compliance with CMV safety regulations.
(3) Increase public awareness about CMV safety.
(4) Provide education on CMV safety and related issues.
(5) Demonstrate new safety related technologies.
(b) These funds will be allocated, at the discretion of the FMCSA,
to States, local governments, and other organizations that use and
train qualified officers and employees in coordination with State
safety agencies.
(c) The FMCSA will notify the States when such funds are available.
(d) The Administrator may designate up to 5 percent of the annual
MCSAP funding for these projects and activities.
Sec. 350.321 What are permissible uses of Border Activity Funds?
(a) The FMCSA may generally use such funds to develop and implement
a national program addressing CMV safety and enforcement activities
along the United States' borders.
(b) These funds will be allocated, at the discretion of the FMCSA,
to States,
[[Page 15107]]
local governments, and other organizations that use and train qualified
officials and employees in coordination with State safety agencies. The
FMCSA will notify the States when such funds are available. The
Administrator may designate up to 5 percent of the annual MCSAP funding
for these projects and activities.
Sec. 350.323 What criteria are used in the Basic Program Funds
allocation?
(a) The funds are distributed proportionally to the States using
the following four, equally weighted (25 percent), factors.
(1) 1997 Road miles (all highways) as defined by the FHWA.
(2) All vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as defined by the FHWA.
(3) Population--annual census estimates as issued by the U.S.
Census Bureau.
(4) Special fuel consumption (net after reciprocity adjustment) as
defined by the FHWA.
(b) Distribution of Basic Program Funds is subject to a maximum and
minimum allocation as illustrated in the Table to this section, as
follows:
Table to Sec. 350.323(b)--Basic Program Fund Allocation Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recipient Maximum allocation Minimum allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
States and Puerto Rico...... 4.944% of the Basic $350,000 or 0.44% of
Program Funds. Basic Program
Funds, whichever is
greater.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Territories............ $350,000 (fixed amount)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 350.325 [Reserved]
Sec. 350.327 How may States qualify for Incentive Funds?
(a) A State may qualify for Incentive Funds if it can demonstrate
that its CMV safety program has shown improvement in any or all of the
following five categories:
(1) Reduction of large truck-involved fatal accidents.
(2) Reduction of large truck-involved fatal accident rate or
maintenance of a large truck-involved fatal accident rate that is among
the lowest 10 percent of such rates of MCSAP recipients.
(3) Upload of CMV accident reports in accordance with current FMCSA
policy guidelines.
(4) Verification of CDLs during all roadside inspections.
(5) Upload of CMV inspection data in accordance with current FMCSA
policy guidelines.
(b) Incentive Funds will be distributed based upon the five
following safety and program performance factors:
(1) Five shares will be awarded to States that reduce the number of
large truck-involved fatal accidents for the most recent calendar year
for which data are available when compared to the 10-year average
number of large truck-involved fatal accidents ending with the
preceding year. The 10-year average will be computed from the number of
large truck-involved fatal crashes, as reported by the FARS,
administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA).
(2) Four shares will be awarded to States that reduce the fatal-
accident rate for the most recent calendar year for which data are
available when compared to each State's average fatal accident rate for
the preceding 10-year period. States with the lowest 10 percent of
accident rates in the most recent calendar year for which data are
available will be awarded three shares if the rate for the State is the
same as its average accident rate for the preceding 10-year period.
(3) Two shares will be awarded to States that upload CMV accident
data within FMCSA policy guidelines.
(4) Two shares will be awarded to States that certify their MCSAP
inspection agencies have departmental policies that stipulate CDLs are
verified, as part of the inspection process, through Commercial
Driver's License Information System (CDLIS), National Law Enforcement
Tracking System (NLETS), or the State licensing authority.
(5) Two shares will be awarded to States that upload CMV inspection
reports within current FMCSA policy guidelines.
(c) The total of all States' shares awarded will be divided into
the dollar amount of Incentive Funds available, thereby establishing
the value of one share. Each State's incentive allocation will then be
determined by multiplying the State's percentage participation in the
formula allocation of Basic Program Funds, by the number of shares it
received that year, multiplied by the dollar value of one share.
(d) States may use Incentive Funds for any eligible CMV safety
purpose.
(e) Incentive Funds are subject to the same State matching
requirements as Basic Program Funds.
(f) A State must annually certify compliance with the applicable
incentive criteria to receive Incentive Funds. A State must submit the
required certification as part of its CVSP or as a separate document.
Sec. 350.329 How may a State or a local agency qualify for High
Priority or Border Activity Funds?
(a) States must meet the requirements of Sec. 350.201, as
applicable.
(b) Local agencies must meet the following nine conditions:
(1) Prepare a proposal in accordance with Sec. 350.213, as
applicable.
(2) Coordinate the proposal with the State lead MCSAP agency to
ensure the proposal is consistent with State and national CMV safety
program priorities.
(3) Certify that your local jurisdiction has the legal authority,
resources, and trained and qualified personnel necessary to perform the
functions specified in the proposal.
(4) Designate a person who will be responsible for implementation,
reporting, and administering the approved proposal and will be the
primary contact for the project.
(5) Agree to fund up to 20 percent of the proposed request.
(6) Agree to prepare and submit all reports required in connection
with the proposal or other conditions of the grant.
(7) Agree to use the forms and reporting criteria required by the
State lead MCSAP agency and/or the FMCSA to record work activities to
be performed under the proposal.
(8) Certify that the local agency will impose sanctions for
violations of CMV and driver laws and regulations that are consistent
with those of the State.
(9) Certify participation in national data bases appropriate to the
project.
Sec. 350.331 How does a State ensure its laws and regulations are
compatible with the FMCSRs and HMRs?
(a) A State must review any new law or regulation affecting CMV
safety as soon as possible, but in any event immediately after
enactment or
[[Page 15108]]
issuance, for compatibility with the FMCSRs and HMRs.
(b) If the review determines that the new law or regulation is
incompatible with the FMCSRs and/or HMRs, the State must immediately
notify the Motor Carrier State Director.
(c) A State must conduct an annual review of its laws and
regulations for compatibility and report the results of that review in
the annual CVSP in accordance with Sec. 350.213(l) along with a
certification of compliance, no later than August 1 of each year. The
report must include the following two items:
(1) A copy of the State law, regulation, or policy relating to CMV
safety that was adopted since the State's last report.
(2) A certification, executed by the State's Governor, Attorney
General, or other State official specifically designated by the
Governor, stating that the annual review was performed and that State
CMV safety laws remain compatible with the FMCSRs and HMRs. If State
CMV laws are no longer compatible, the certifying official shall
explain.
(d) As soon as practical after the effective date of any newly
enacted regulation or amendment to the FMCSRs or HMRs, but no later
than three years after that date, the State must amend its laws or
regulations to make them compatible with the FMCSRs and/or HMRs, as
amended.
Sec. 350.333 What are the guidelines for the compatibility review?
(a) The State law or regulation must apply to all segments of the
motor carrier industry (i.e., for-hire and private motor carriers of
property and passengers).
(b) Laws and regulations reviewed for the CDL compliance report are
excluded from the compatibility review.
(c) Definitions of words or terms must be consistent with those in
the FMCSRs and HMRs.
(d) A State must identify any law or regulation that is not the
same as the corresponding Federal regulation and evaluate it in
accordance with the table to this section as follows:
Table to Sec. 350.333--Guidelines for the State Law and Regulation Compatibility Review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law or regulation has same effect Applies to interstate Less stringent or more
as corresponding Federal regulation or intrastate commerce stringent Action authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Yes............................ ...................... ...................... Compatible--Interstate and
intrastate commerce
enforcement authorized.
(2) No............................. Intrastate............ ...................... Refer to Sec. 350.341
(3) No............................. Interstate............ Less stringent........ Enforcement prohibited.
(4) No............................. Interstate............ More stringent........ Enforcement authorized if
the State can demonstrate
the law or regulation has
a safety benefit or does
not create an undue burden
upon interstate commerce
(See 49 CFR Part 355).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 350.335 What are the consequences if my State has laws or
regulations incompatible with the Federal regulations?
(a) A State that currently has compatible CMV safety laws and
regulations pertaining to interstate commerce (i.e., rules identical to
the FMCSRs and HMRs) and intrastate commerce (i.e., rules identical to
or within the tolerance guidelines for the FMCSRs and identical to the
HMRs) but enacts a law or regulation which results in an incompatible
rule will not be eligible for Basic Program Funds nor Incentive Funds.
(b) A State that fails to adopt any new regulation or amendment to
the FMCSRs or HMRs within three years of its effective date will be
deemed to have incompatible regulations and will not be eligible for
Basic Program nor Incentive Funds.
(c) Those States with incompatible laws or regulations pertaining
to intrastate commerce and receiving 50 percent of their basic formula
allocation on April 20, 2000 will continue at that level of funding
until those incompatibilities are removed, provided no further
incompatibilities are created.
(d) Upon a finding by the FMCSA, based upon its own initiative or
upon a petition of any person, including any State, that your State
law, regulation or enforcement practice pertaining to CMV safety, in
either interstate or intrastate commerce, is incompatible with the
FMCSRs or HMRs, the FMCSA may initiate a proceeding under Sec. 350.215
for withdrawal of eligibility for all Basic Program and Incentive
Funds.
(e) Any decision regarding the compatibility of your State law or
regulation with the HMRs that requires an interpretation will be
referred to the Research and Special Programs Administration of the DOT
for such interpretation before proceeding under Sec. 350.215.
Sec. 350.337 How may State laws and regulations governing motor
carriers, CMV drivers, and CMVs in interstate commerce differ from the
FMCSRs and still be considered compatible?
States are not required to adopt 49 CFR parts 398 and 399, subparts
A through E and H of part 107, and Secs. 171.15 and 171.16, as
applicable to either interstate or intrastate commerce.
Sec. 350.339 What are tolerance guidelines?
Tolerance guidelines set forth the limited deviations from the
FMCSRs allowed in your State's laws and regulations. These variances
apply only to motor carriers, CMV drivers and CMVs engaged in
intrastate commerce and not subject to Federal jurisdiction.
Sec. 350.341 What specific variances from the FMCSRs are allowed for
State laws and regulations governing motor carriers, CMV drivers, and
CMVs engaged in intrastate commerce and not subject to Federal
jurisdiction?
(a) A State may exempt a CMV from all or part of its laws or
regulations applicable to intrastate commerce, provided that neither
the GVW, GVWR, GCW, nor GCWR of the vehicle equals or exceeds 11,801 kg
(26,001 lbs.). However, a State may not exempt a CMV from such laws or
regulations if the vehicle:
(1) Transports hazardous materials requiring a placard.
(2) Is designed or used to transport 16 or more people, including
the driver.
(b) State laws and regulations applicable to intrastate commerce
may not grant exemptions based upon the type of transportation being
performed (e.g., for-hire, private, etc.).
(c) A State may retain those exemptions from its motor carrier
safety laws and regulations that were in effect before April, 1988, are
still in effect, and apply to specific industries operating in
intrastate commerce.
(d) State laws and regulations applicable to intrastate commerce
must not include exemptions based upon the distance a motor carrier or
driver operates from the work reporting
[[Page 15109]]
location. This prohibition does not apply to those exemptions already
contained in the FMCSRs nor to the extension of the mileage radius
exemption contained in 49 CFR 395.1(e) from 100 to 150 miles.
(e) Hours of service--State hours-of-service limitations applied to
intrastate transportation may vary to the extent of allowing the
following:
(1) A 12-hour driving limit, provided driving a CMV after having
been on duty more than 16 hours is prohibited.
(2) Driving prohibitions for drivers who have been on duty 70 hours
in 7 consecutive days or 80 hours in 8 consecutive days.
(f) Age of CMV driver--All CMV drivers must be at least 18 years of
age.
(g) Grandfather clauses--States may provide grandfather clauses in
their rules and regulations if such exemptions are uniform or in
substantial harmony with the FMCSRs and provide an orderly transition
to full regulatory adoption at a later date.
(h) Driver qualifications:
(1) Intrastate drivers who do not meet the physical qualification
standards in 49 CFR 391.41 may continue to be qualified to operate a
CMV in intrastate commerce if the following three conditions are met:
(i) The driver was qualified under existing State law or regulation
at the time the State adopted physical qualification standards
compatible with the Federal standards in 49 CFR 391.41.
(ii) The otherwise non-qualifying medical or physical condition has
not substantially worsened.
(iii) No other non-qualifying medical or physical condition has
developed.
(2) The State may adopt or continue programs granting variances to
intrastate drivers with medical or physical conditions that would
otherwise be non-qualifying under the State's equivalent of 49 CFR
391.41 if the variances are based upon sound medical judgment combined
with appropriate performance standards ensuring no adverse affect on
safety.
Sec. 350.343 How may a State obtain a new exemption for State laws and
regulations for a specific industry involved in intrastate commerce?
The FMCSA strongly discourages exemptions for specific industries,
but will consider such requests if the State submits documentation
containing information supporting evaluation of the following 10
factors:
(a) Type and scope of the industry exemption requested, including
percentage of industry affected, number of vehicles, mileage traveled,
number of companies involved.
(b) Type and scope of the requirement to which the exemption would
apply.
(c) Safety performance of that specific industry (e.g., accident
frequency, rates and comparative figures).
(d) Inspection information (e.g., number of violations per
inspection, driver and vehicle out-of-service information).
(e) Other CMV safety regulations enforced by other State agencies
not participating in the MCSAP.
(f) Commodity transported (e.g., livestock, grain).
(g) Similar variations granted and the circumstances under which
they were granted.
(h) Justification for the exemption.
(i) Identifiable effects on safety.
(j) State's economic environment and its ability to compete in
foreign and domestic markets.
Sec. 350.345 How does a State apply for additional variances from the
FMCSRs?
Any State may apply to the Administrator for a variance from the
FMCSRs for intrastate commerce. The variance will be granted only if
the State satisfactorily demonstrates that the State law, regulation or
enforcement practice:
(a) Achieves substantially the same purpose as the similar Federal
regulation.
(b) Does not apply to interstate commerce.
(c) Is not likely to have an adverse impact on safety.
PART 355--[AMENDED]
2. Revise the authority citation for 49 CFR part 355 to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504 and 31101 et seq.; 49 CFR 1.73.
3. Amend Sec. 355.5 by revising the definitions of ``compatible or
compatibility,'' ``Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations,'' and
``State''; by adding a definition of ``Federal Hazardous Materials
Regulations''; and by placing the definitions in alphabetical order, to
read as follows:
Sec. 355.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Compatible or Compatibility means that State laws and regulations
applicable to interstate commerce and to intrastate movement of
hazardous materials are identical to the FMCSRs and the HMRs or have
the same effect as the FMCSRs; and that State laws applicable to
intrastate commerce are either identical to, or have the same effect
as, the FMCSRs or fall within the established limited variances under
Secs. 350.341, 350.343, and 350.345 of this subchapter.
Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations (FMHRs) means those safety
regulations which are contained in parts 107, 171-173, 177, 178 and
180, except part 107 and Secs. 171.15 and 171.16.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) means those
safety regulations which are contained in parts 390, 391, 392, 393,
395, 396, and 397 of this subchapter.
State means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands.
4. Revise Sec. 355.21(c) to read as follows:
Sec. 355.21 Regulatory review.
* * * * *
(c) State review. (1) The State shall determine which of its laws
and regulations pertaining to commercial motor vehicle safety are the
same as the Federal Motor Carrier Safety or Federal Hazardous Materials
Regulations. With respect to any State law or regulation which is not
the same as the FMCSRs (FHMRs must be identical), the State shall
identify such law or regulation and determine whether:
(i) It has the same effect as a corresponding section of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations;
(ii) It applies to interstate commerce;
(iii) It is more stringent than the FMCSRs in that it is more
restrictive or places a greater burden on any entity subject to its
provisions.
(2) If the inconsistent State law or regulation applies to
interstate commerce and is more stringent than the FMCSRs, the State
shall determine:
(i) The safety benefits associated with such State law or
regulation; and
(ii) The effect of the enforcement of such State law or regulation
on interstate commerce.
(3) If the inconsistent State law or regulation does not apply to
interstate commerce or is less stringent than the FMCSRs, the
guidelines for participation in the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program in Secs. 350.341, 350.343, and 350.345 of this subchapter shall
apply.
5. Revise Sec. 355.23 to read as follows:
Sec. 355.23 Submission of results.
Each State shall submit the results of its regulatory review
annually with its certification of compliance under Sec. 350.209 of
this subchapter. It shall submit the results of the regulatory review
with the certification no later than August 1 of each year with the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (CVSP). The State shall include copies
of pertinent laws and regulations.
[[Page 15110]]
6. Amend appendix A to part 355 by revising the paragraph entitled
``Definitions'' and by revising the heading to the paragraph ``Hours of
Service'' and placing them in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 355--Guidelines for the Regulatory Review
* * * * *
Definitions
Definitions of terms must be consistent with those in the
FMCSRs.
* * * * *
Hours of Service of Drivers
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-6819 Filed 3-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P