[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12782-12787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5893]



[[Page 12781]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part VI





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



49 CFR Part 393



Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Certification of 
Compliance With Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs); 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 19, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 12782]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[Docket No. FMCSA-01-10886]
RIN 2126-AA69


Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Certification 
of Compliance With Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FMCSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations (FMCSRs) so that motor carriers ensure that each commercial 
motor vehicle (CMV) they operate in interstate commerce displays a 
label certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal 
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) in effect on the date of 
manufacture. This rulemaking ensures that all motor carriers operating 
CMVs in the United States use only vehicles that were certified by the 
manufacturer as meeting all applicable Federal safety performance 
requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Office of Bus 
and Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-4009, Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

Electronic Access

    You can mail or deliver comments to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You can also submit comments 
electronically at http://dms.dot.gov. Please include the docket number 
that appears in the heading of this document. You can examine and copy 
this document and all comments received at the same Internet address or 
at the Dockets Management Facility from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you want to know that we 
received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard or include a copy of the acknowledgement page that appears 
after you submit comments electronically.

Background

    Part 567 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 
part 567) requires that manufacturers of motor vehicles built for sale 
or use in the United States must affix a label certifying that the 
motor vehicle meets the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (FMVSSs) in effect on the date of manufacture.\1\ Part 567 
provides detailed requirements concerning the location at which the 
label must be placed and the minimum information that must appear on 
the label. These requirements are applicable to manufacturers of motor 
vehicles produced for use in the United States and the label must be 
affixed prior to the first sale of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These standards are codified in 49 CFR part 571. Most, but 
not all, of the FMVSSs are cross-referenced in existing requirements 
of part 393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (``Vehicle Safety 
Act'') (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.) expressly prohibits vehicles from 
being imported into the United States unless the vehicles--
    (a) Comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of 
manufacture, and
    (b) Bear a label certifying compliance with the FMVSSs and applied 
to the vehicle either by a manufacturer at the time of manufacture or 
by a registered importer after the vehicle has been brought into 
compliance.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An individual or business registered with NHTSA as a 
registered importer may import non-complying motor vehicles into the 
United States if NHTSA has determined that the vehicles are capable 
of being readily altered to comply with all applicable standards in 
effect at the time the vehicle is imported. The registered importer 
must provide the Federal Government with a bond at least equal to 
the dutiable value of the vehicle before it can be imported and must 
bring the vehicle into full compliance before the vehicle may be 
sold and the bond released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statutory requirement is currently codified at 49 U.S.C. 30112. 
The regulations implementing the statute, including 49 CFR parts 567 
and 571, are issued and enforced by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA).

Effect of the Vehicle Safety Act on U.S.-Based Motor Carrier 
Operations

    Generally, U.S.-based motor carriers operating CMVs (as defined in 
49 CFR 390.5) in interstate commerce only have access to vehicles that 
were either originally manufactured domestically for use in the United 
States and have the required certification label, or vehicles that were 
imported into the United States in accordance with the applicable NHTSA 
importation regulations, including requirements for certification 
documentation. Vehicles imported into the United States must have the 
required certification label certifying compliance with the applicable 
FMVSSs. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, almost all vehicles 
operated by U.S.-based motor carriers have certification labels that 
meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 567.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The FMVSSs and the certification label requirement are not 
applicable to vehicles or items of equipment manufactured for, and 
sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in 
conformance with contract specifications (49 CFR 571.7). Therefore, 
when a motor carrier purchases surplus equipment from the Armed 
Forces for subsequent use in interstate commerce, the vehicle may 
not have a certification label. However, because the FMCSRs cross-
reference most of the FMVSSs, the motor carrier would be required to 
ensure that the vehicle was retrofitted to meet the referenced 
standards as well as all applicable motor carrier regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of the Vehicle Safety Act on Canada and Mexico-Based Motor 
Carriers

    Commercial motor vehicles operated in the United States by Canada 
and Mexico-based motor carriers must also comply with the FMVSSs and 
bear a certification label. NHTSA issued an interpretation letter in 
1975 stating that the statutory prohibition against importing vehicles 
that do not meet the FMVSSs and bear a certification label (49 U.S.C. 
30112) is applicable to foreign-based CMVs used in the United States. 
Therefore, the commercial use of CMVs to transport passengers or cargo 
into the United States constitutes importation of the vehicle into the 
United States.
    This means that Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers are 
responsible for taking the necessary actions to comply with the Vehicle 
Safety Act before operating CMVs in the United States. The Department 
of Transportation advised Mexico and Canada-based motor carriers about 
this requirement in its November 1995 Motor Carrier Operating 
Requirements Handbook, which was printed in three languages and 
distributed to all participants at a North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) conference held in San Antonio, TX on November 14-16, 
1995.
    In a companion notice of proposed rulemaking published in today's 
Federal Register, NHTSA proposes to codify its interpretation of the 
definition of import for the purpose of enforcing the requirements of 
49 U.S.C. 30112 with respect to operators of CMVs transporting cargo 
and passengers.

[[Page 12783]]

Safety Concerns About Vehicles Operated by Foreign Motor Carriers

    With the implementation of the motor carrier-related provisions of 
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), much more attention 
has been focused on the safety of commercial motor vehicles operated by 
Canada and Mexico-based carriers. Representatives of the U.S. motor 
carrier industry have expressed concerns to the Department of 
Transportation that vehicles operated by foreign motor carriers were 
not manufactured to meet all the applicable U.S. safety requirements; 
specifically, all the FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture of 
the vehicles.

Canada-Based Commercial Motor Vehicles

    The vehicles operated by Canada-based motor carriers are 
manufactured to comply with the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
(CMVSSs) that are, to a large extent, comparable to the U.S. safety 
requirements. In many instances, provisions of the CMVSSs are identical 
to requirements in the FMVSSs. Manufacturers of vehicles sold for use 
in Canada must certify compliance with the CMVSSs and the vehicles must 
bear a Canadian certification label.
    Generally, commercial motor vehicles operated by Canada-based motor 
carriers in the United States would not have a certification label that 
meets the requirements of 49 CFR part 567. Although these vehicles do 
not have certification labels that meet U.S. requirements, the vehicles 
meet most, if not all, U.S. safety requirements because of the 
similarities between the two sets of safety standards.
    Despite the similarity between U.S. and Canadian vehicle 
manufacturing standards, the operation of commercial motor vehicles 
into the United States by Canada-based carriers does constitute an 
import. Thus, a Canadian carrier that uses vehicles that do not bear a 
certification of compliance with the FMVSSs would be required to obtain 
a certification label for each vehicle under this proposed rule.

Mexico-Based Commercial Motor Vehicles

    The vehicles operated by Mexico-based motor carriers are 
manufactured to comply with safety requirements established by the 
Mexican government. Currently, Mexico does not have a series of motor 
vehicle safety standards similar to those of the United States and 
Canada. Therefore, commercial motor vehicles operated by Mexico-based 
motor carriers in the United States typically would not have a 
certification label that meets the requirements of 49 CFR part 567 
unless the manufacturer built the vehicle to meet the FMVSSs and 
voluntarily affixed a label certifying compliance with the U.S. 
requirements. It is unclear how many vehicles produced for use in 
Mexico meet all applicable U.S. safety requirements.
    Since the operation of commercial motor vehicles into the United 
States by Mexico-based carriers constitutes importation, a Mexican 
carrier using vehicles that do not bear a certification of compliance 
with the FMVSSs would be required to obtain a certification label for 
each vehicle under this proposed rule.

U.S. Consultations With Canada and Mexico About the Vehicle Safety 
Act

    NHTSA and FMCSA personnel met with representatives of the Mexican 
and Canadian governments and Mexican manufacturers and trucking 
industry associations in Mexico City on June 20, 2001. NHTSA and FMCSA 
staff were told by Mexican vehicle manufacturers that most Mexican 
commercial vehicles built since 1994 were built to meet the FMVSSs. 
Currently, there are approximately 400,000 trucks and buses that 
operate on the Federal roads in Mexico. About 130,000 of those vehicles 
were built since 1994 and may comply with the FMVSSs. Most of these 
130,000 trucks and buses, however, do not have a FMVSS certification 
label because it is not required for vehicles manufactured for sale and 
use in Mexico.
    NHTSA, FMCSA, the United States Customs Service (USCS), and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a follow-up seminar in 
Mexico on August 2-3, 2001, to advise representatives of Mexican 
vehicle manufacturers and the motor carrier industry about U.S. 
requirements. During the seminar, the Mexican vehicle manufacturers, 
most of which are affiliated with U.S. and European vehicle 
manufacturers that build vehicles for the U.S. market, indicated that, 
if permitted to do so, they would consider applying a certification 
label retroactively depending on the results of their review of vehicle 
test data, and their ability to make a determination that a particular 
vehicle or group of vehicles met all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the 
date of manufacture.
    Although FMCSA's safety regulations require that all motor carriers 
operating in the United States meet the same safety requirements, 
without exception, the FMCSRs do not currently include a requirement 
that vehicles have a label certifying compliance with the FMVSSs. The 
FMCSRs include numerous cross-references to specific FMVSSs that have 
the effect of requiring all motor carriers to ensure that their 
vehicles are equipped with most of the safety features/equipment 
required by the FMVSSs. However, FMCSA's rules do not currently require 
that motor carriers' CMVs carry a label to verify that the vehicle 
manufacturer followed the FMVSS self-certification process.
    The absence of an FMCSA rule to require motor carriers to comply 
with 49 U.S.C. 30112 means that motor carriers could use uncertified 
commercial vehicles that may not meet all of the applicable FMVSSs, and 
not be subject to effective enforcement action by the Department of 
Transportation. The Department believes this is an unacceptable 
situation and that FMCSA should exercise its statutory authority over 
motor carrier operational safety to require motor carriers to comply 
with 49 U.S.C. 30112.

FMCSA's Regulatory Authority

    NHTSA and the FMCSA have complementary responsibilities to ensure 
vehicle safety under their respective enabling legislation. NHTSA's 
responsibility generally covers the design and safety compliance 
testing of motor vehicles, and the motor vehicle manufacturers and 
others responsible for those activities. FMCSA's responsibility 
concerns the safe operation of CMVs in interstate and foreign commerce, 
the motor carriers conducting the operations, and the CMV drivers.
    Generally, enforcement of the FMVSSs by FMCSA and its State 
partners would be accomplished through roadside inspections. Under 
current roadside inspection enforcement procedures, if violations or 
deficiencies of the FMCSRs are serious enough to meet the current out-
of-service criteria, the vehicle is placed out of service. The roadside 
inspection procedure is the same for all CMVs operated in the United 
States, regardless of the motor carrier's country of domicile.
    If FMCSA adopts the proposed rule requiring that motor carriers 
ensure that their vehicles display a valid certification label, the 
agency and its State partners would then be able to enforce the section 
30112 prohibition against the use or importation of non-compliant CMVs 
by citing motor carriers that fail to display the required 
certification label on their CMVs operated in the United States. 
Enforcement action would be taken in a manner consistent with the 
FMCSA's existing policies and programs as they relate to assuring 
compliance with other

[[Page 12784]]

vehicle-oriented regulations under 49 CFR part 393.\4\ As it does with 
other FMCSR violations, the agency will compile data regarding 
uncertified vehicles and determine whether there are patterns of non-
compliance by specific foreign motor carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In other words, failure to display a certification label 
could result in a citation and fine during a roadside inspection, or 
a civil penalty as a result of a compliance review. Under the 
current out-of-service criteria, it would not constitute grounds to 
place a vehicle out of service in the absence of vehicle defects 
meeting those criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of Proposal

    The FMCSA is proposing to amend the FMCSRs to require that motor 
carriers ensure that their CMVs have a certification label that meets 
the requirements of 49 CFR part 567, applied by the vehicle 
manufacturer or by a registered importer. As explained above, U.S. 
motor carriers typically would only have access to vehicles that meet 
the applicable FMVSSs and have a certification label that meets the 
requirements of 49 CFR part 567. Therefore, it is not expected that 
they would have to change the way they operate to comply with the 
requirements being proposed today. However, the rule would place upon 
them the responsibility for maintaining the label affixed by the 
manufacturer or registered importer.
    In a companion document published in today's Federal Register, 
NHTSA is announcing its policy concerning the retroactive application 
of a certification label to vehicles that complied with the FMVSSs when 
they were built, or that subsequently had been modified to comply with 
the FMVSSs. This policy provides guidance to manufacturers that would 
make the determination whether the vehicles manufactured for use by 
Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers were originally built to meet 
the applicable FMVSSs, or whether the vehicles have been modified 
appropriately to meet U.S. standards.
    Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers would have to contact the 
manufacturers of their vehicles to determine whether the vehicle meets 
U.S. safety standards for those cases in which the vehicle does not 
have a certification label. If the vehicle manufacturer has sufficient 
vehicle performance test data and is willing to provide a certification 
label, then the motor carrier would use that label to satisfy the 
requirements of the proposed rules.
    If the vehicle manufacturer were unable or unwilling to provide 
certification labels, motor carriers would have the option of 
contacting a registered importer in the United States. The registered 
importer would then determine, in accordance with NHTSA's rules, 
whether the vehicle is eligible for importation into the United States, 
and what modifications, if any, are necessary before the vehicle could 
be certified as meeting the FMVSSs.

Proposed Effective Date and Compliance Date

    The FMCSA is proposing that U.S. motor carriers comply with the 
certification label rule beginning on the effective date of the final 
rule. The agency is also proposing that foreign motor carriers that 
begin operations in the United States on or after that date, or expand 
their operations to go beyond the southern border zones, ensure that 
all CMVs used in the new or expanded operations have the necessary 
certification label prior to entering the United States. Among the 
foreign motor carriers included would be all Mexico-based motor 
carriers operating beyond the border zones for the first time. All 
other Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers operating in the United 
States prior to the effective date of the final rule would be allowed 
24 months to bring their vehicles into compliance with the 
requirements, provided those vehicles were operated in the United 
States before the effective date.\5\ This 24-month phase-in period 
would not apply to vehicles introduced into service in the United 
States on or after the effective date of the final rule. Those vehicles 
would have to display the necessary certification label if they enter 
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In addition to carriers operating in the border commercial 
zones, this includes a relatively small number of Mexico-based 
carriers that currently operate CMVs beyond the border commercial 
zones, such as: (1) Carriers who received ICC operating authority 
before the 1982 moratorium on granting authority beyond the border 
zones; (2) Mexico-based carriers owned by U.S. citizens or 
companies; (3) carriers transporting shipments between Mexico and 
Canada through the United States; and (4) Mexico-based bus companies 
that received authority to operate vehicles beyond the border zones 
following the modification of the moratorium to allow cross-border 
charter or tour bus service in January 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FMCSA stresses that all motor carriers operating in the United 
States must comply with all applicable FMCSRs, including those that 
cross-reference FMVSSs. Through our cross-references to FMVSSs, we 
require motor carriers to ensure that their CMVs are equipped with 
specific safety devices and systems that NHTSA requires on newly 
manufactured vehicles, and that they are maintained to ensure their 
continued performance. The roadside inspection program, particularly 
the Level 1 inspection, will ensure that this is the case, to the 
greatest extent practicable. For purposes of roadside enforcement, the 
FMVSS label would be prima facie evidence of compliance with the 
proposed rule. Its presence, combined with having passed a thorough 
inspection by trained safety enforcement officials, would ensure that 
CMVs comply with U.S. motor carrier safety regulations. The 24-month 
timetable would not relieve these motor carriers from their 
responsibility for complying with the FMCSRs, including the FMVSSs 
cross-referenced therein.
    This 24-month timetable would be compatible with FMCSA's NAFTA-
related rulemakings published in today's Federal Register. Current 
Mexico-based holders of Certificates of Registration will be required 
to file new registration applications within 18 months in order to 
continue to operate in the border zones. These motor carriers will 
operate under provisional authority and be subjected to a new safety 
oversight program for an 18-month period after the new registration 
application is granted. If FMCSA determines a motor carrier has 
adequate safety-management controls, its provisional authority will 
become permanent at the end of the 18-month period. See the FMCSA's 
final rule concerning authority to operate in the border zones, and the 
agency's Interim Final Rule concerning the safety oversight program for 
Mexico-domiciled carriers, published in today's Federal Register.
    The proposed implementation strategy would allow motor carriers 
currently operating CMVs in the United States that do not currently 
carry FMVSS certification labels sufficient time to rearrange or 
supplement their existing fleets to meet the requirement that all 
vehicles on the U.S. roadways have a FMVSS certification label. During 
this grace period, foreign-based CMVs would still be subject to all 
other FMCSA requirements, including those based on the FMVSSs cross-
referenced in the FMCSRs. FMCSA requests public comments on the 
implementation strategy in general, and the 24-month grace period for 
Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers that are currently operating in 
the United States.

Rulemaking Analyses And Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FMCSA has determined that this proposed regulatory action is 
significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and under the 
regulatory policies and procedures of the DOT because of

[[Page 12785]]

the level of public interest in rulemakings related to the motor 
carrier-related provisions of NAFTA.
    This proposed rule would require that all CMVs bear a label 
certifying that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs in effect on 
the date of manufacture. Based on the information presented here, FMCSA 
anticipates that this rulemaking will have minimal economic impact on 
the interstate motor carrier industry. It is extremely unlikely that 
any U.S.-based motor carriers would be operating CMVs that do not 
already carry the FMVSS certification label. Most foreign-based motor 
carriers are probably aware of the requirement that the vehicles they 
operate in the United States must comply with the applicable safety 
regulations. Under FMCSA's NAFTA-related rulemakings mentioned above, 
all Mexico-based motor carriers operating CMVs in the United States 
would need to certify on the form OP-1 (MX) or OP-2 that the CMVs they 
operate comply with the FMVSSs. This proposed rule would simply add the 
requirement that the FMVSS certification label attesting to the 
compliance of each vehicle be affixed to the vehicle. Since many of the 
CMVs manufactured in the past several years comply with the most 
complex elements of the FMVSSs, the FMCSA believes that relatively 
little effort may be required to bring the vehicles into full 
compliance, and that motor carriers will be interested in doing so. The 
monetary penalties associated with non-compliance with the requirements 
of this rule are likely to be significantly more than the potential 
cost of complying.\6\ Thus, the FMCSA believes that the entities 
involved would take steps to achieve compliance with the lower cost 
alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Non-recordkeeping violations of part 393 are subject to 
civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Vehicle Safety Act requires that vehicles be certified to meet 
all applicable FMVSSs. However, because of the lack of enforcement of 
this certification requirement against motor carriers, it is likely 
that some motor carriers have been importing uncertified vehicles into 
the United States. Some of these carriers may now be compelled to 
either reduce the number of vehicles operated or else lease or purchase 
certified equipment. Others may find that, although their vehicles 
comply with the FMVSSs, they do not carry a certification label 
attesting to that fact. The costs of retrofitting such vehicles with 
certification labels would presumably be relatively small. This 
uncertainty complicates the task of separately determining the impact 
of this rule. The agency is interested in any information that will 
help to determine the economic impact of this proposed rule on motor 
carrier transportation and any additional impacts on industry 
customers.
    Based upon its analyses, the FMCSA believes that the vast majority 
of motor carriers affected by this proposal would be able to comply 
with its terms. This proposed rule would only affect the operations of 
the small number of motor carriers that might elect not to bring their 
CMVs into compliance with the FMVSSs and ensure that they are labeled 
accordingly.
    This rulemaking imposes no requirements that would generate new 
costs for motor carriers. Those entities would see no change to their 
operations, provided they ensure that their vehicles comply with the 
FMVSSs and have the appropriate certification label attached. Based 
upon the small number of motor carriers projected to be affected, and 
the minimal cost of attaching a certification label once the vehicle 
has been certified by the manufacturer or registered importer to meet 
the FMVSSs requirements, the agency believes that the overall adverse 
economic effects of this rulemaking would be minimal. This rulemaking, 
if adopted, would simply require that a CMV be labeled, providing 
readily-identifiable documentation of a CMV's compliance with the 
FMVSSs, a cornerstone of vehicle safety.
    This rulemaking would not result in inconsistency or interference 
with another agency's actions or plans. The FMCSA believes that the 
rights and obligations of recipients of Federal grants will not be 
materially affected by this regulatory action.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612) the FMCSA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rulemaking on 
small entities. As indicated above, U.S.-based motor carriers would not 
be subject to any new requirements under this proposal. Generally, they 
would only have access to vehicles that comply with the FMVSSs and bear 
a certification label.
    The motor carriers that would be economically impacted by this 
rulemaking would be Canada and Mexico-based motor carriers that do not 
elect to operate CMVs that comply with the FMVSSs and thus would not 
carry a certification label, and those carriers whose CMVs comply but 
have not ensured that their CMVs are labeled to document their 
compliance.
    Foreign-based motor carriers can avoid the consequences of this 
proposed rule simply by operating FMVSS-compliant CMVs that carry the 
certification label required under 49 CFR 567. In companion documents 
in today's Federal Register, NHTSA has published: (1) A notice 
announcing its policy concerning retroactive certification of vehicles; 
(2) a notice of proposed rulemaking establishing record retention 
requirements in connection with such certifications; and (3) a notice 
of proposed rulemaking codifying its interpretation of the term 
``import'' as used in the Vehicle Safety Act. FMCSA's rulemaking is 
intended to ensure that motor carriers comply with the Act, as 
interpreted by the Department of Transportation. Motor carriers would 
work with vehicle manufacturers to comply with the proposed retroactive 
certification policy. Alternatively, a motor carrier could have its 
vehicles certified by a registered importer under existing NHTSA 
requirements.
    Therefore, the FMCSA hereby certifies that this regulatory action 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
domestic small entities. The FMCSA invites public comment on this 
determination.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not impose a Federal mandate resulting in 
the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 
year (2 U.S.C 1531 et seq.).

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (April 23, 1997, 62 FR 19885), requires 
that agencies issuing ``economically significant'' rules that also 
concern an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has 
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children must include 
an evaluation of the environmental health and safety effects of the 
regulation on children. Section 5 of Executive Order 13045 directs an 
agency to submit for a ``covered regulatory action'' an evaluation of 
its

[[Page 12786]]

environmental health or safety effects on children.
    The agency has determined that this rule is not a ``covered 
regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order 13045. First, this 
rule is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866 
because the FMCSA has determined that the changes in this rulemaking 
would not have an impact of $100 million or more in any one year. 
Second, the agency has no reason to believe that the rule would result 
in an environmental health risk or safety risk that would 
disproportionately affect children. Mexico-domiciled motor carriers who 
intend to operate commercial motor vehicles anywhere in the United 
States must comply with current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
regulations and other United States environmental laws under this rule 
and others being published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. 
Further, the agency has conducted a programmatic environmental 
assessment (PEA) as discussed later in this preamble. While the PEA did 
not specifically address environmental impacts on children, it did 
address whether the rule would have environmental impacts in general. 
Based on the PEA, the agency has determined that the proposed rule 
would have no significant environmental impacts.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This proposed rule would implement a regulation applicable to CMVs 
used in interstate commerce that would complement NHTSA's regulation, 
applicable to all vehicles used on U.S. highways, which requires that 
the vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of 
manufacture, and that they bear a certification label to document their 
compliance.
    Motor carriers can avoid all of the implications of this mandate by 
operating CMVs that are in compliance with the FMVSSs and that bear a 
label documenting that fact. FMCSA believes that a large number of CMVs 
manufactured in Canada and Mexico already comply with the FMVSSs. 
However, many of these vehicles do not have certification labels that 
meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 567. No new action is required on 
the part of those motor carriers that currently operate or plan to 
operate on U.S. highways FMVSS-compliant vehicles that currently bear 
the certification label.
    Motor carriers planning to operate FMVSS-compliant CMVs on U.S. 
highways, but whose vehicles do not currently bear the certification 
label, will be required to obtain certification labels in order to 
comply with the requirements of the NHTSA and the proposed rule. Again, 
once the CMVs bear the label to document their compliance, no further 
action is required in order to comply with this proposed FMCSA rule. 
However, if a motor carrier is operating or plans to operate on U.S. 
highways CMVs that do not comply with the FMVSSs, the motor carrier 
must take action to ensure that its vehicles are brought into 
compliance and are labeled to document that compliance. The action 
required would depend on the specific parts of the FMVSSs that the CMV 
does not comply with. For example, a CMV might comply with all of the 
FMVSSs with the exception of the portion of 49 CFR 571.119, New 
Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The cost and 
complexity of bringing the CMV into compliance would be relatively low. 
On the other hand, if a CMV were not in compliance with 49 CFR 571.121, 
Air Brake Systems, because it was manufactured after the effective date 
of that regulation but was not equipped with antilock brakes, it may 
not be possible to bring it into compliance. The FMCSA stresses that 
the cost of bringing a CMV into compliance, or the cost to the user of 
not being able to operate a non-FMVSS-compliant CMV on U.S. highways, 
is a cost that would need to be borne in order to comply with existing 
Federal law. Once the vehicle is brought into compliance, and so 
labeled, the FMCSA requires no additional action on the motor carrier's 
part.
    The FMCSA therefore certifies that this rule has no takings 
implications under the Fifth Amendment or Executive Order 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999. The 
FMCSA has determined this proposed rule does not have a substantial 
direct effect on, or sufficient federalism implications for, the 
States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States.
    These proposed changes to the FMCSRs would not directly preempt any 
State law or regulation. They would not impose additional costs or 
burdens on the States. Although the States are required to adopt part 
393 as a condition for receiving Motor Carrier Safety Assistance 
Program grants, the additional training and orientation that would be 
required for roadside enforcement officials would be minimal, and it 
would be covered under the existing grant program. Also, this action 
would not have a significant effect on the States' ability to execute 
traditional State governmental functions.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor Carrier 
Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding 
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do 
not apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action would not involve an information collection 
that is subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is a new 
administration within the Department of Transportation (DOT). The FMCSA 
is currently developing an agency order that will comply with all 
statutory and regulatory policies under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We expect the draft FMCSA 
Order to appear in the Federal Register for public comment in the near 
future. The framework of the FMCSA Order is consistent with and 
reflects the procedures for considering environmental impacts under DOT 
Order 5610.1C. FMCSA has analyzed this proposal under the NEPA and DOT 
Order 5610.1C, and has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI). The FONSI and the environmental assessment are in the docket 
to this proposal.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

    Highway and roads, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle equipment, Motor 
vehicle safety.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the FMCSA proposes to amend 
title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, subchapter B, Chapter III, part 
393 as follows:

PART 393--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 1041(b) of Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914; 
49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73.

    2. Add Sec. 393.8 to read as follows:

[[Page 12787]]

Sec. 393.8  Vehicle Manufacturer's Certification Label

    (a) On or after [the effective date of the final rule], each 
commercial motor vehicle must have a label:
    (1) Affixed by the vehicle manufacturer certifying that the vehicle 
was built to meet all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
(FMVSSs) (codified in 49 CFR part 571) in effect on the date of 
manufacture; or
    (2) Affixed by a registered importer, as defined in 49 CFR part 
592, certifying that the vehicle has been modified in order to conform 
with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture.
    (b) The certification labels required by this section must comply 
with the requirements of 49 CFR part 567.
    (c) Exception for Vehicles Operated by Canada and Mexico-based 
Motor Carriers Conducting Operations in the United States Before 
[effective date of the final rule]. Commercial motor vehicles added to 
a Canada or Mexico-based motor carrier's fleet on or after [effective 
date of the final rule], or introduced into service in the United 
States on or after that date, must comply with paragraphs (a) and (b) 
of this section. Commercial motor vehicles that are part of these 
carriers' existing fleets of vehicles operated in the United States 
before [effective date of the final rule] may be operated without a 
certification label that meets the requirements of 49 CFR part 567, 
until [date 24 months after the effective date of the final rule]. Such 
vehicles must still comply with all other requirements of part 393.

    Issued on: March 7, 2002.
Joseph M. Clapp,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-5893 Filed 3-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P