[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 245 (Thursday, December 21, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76796-76832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21380]



[[Page 76795]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Parts 385, 386, et al.



Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and 
Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 76796]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 385, 386, 390, 392, 393, 396, and Appendix G to 
Subchapter B of Chapter III

[Docket No. FMCSA-2005-23315]
RIN 2126-AA86


Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and Motor 
Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, (202) 366-4009, 
Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division (MC-PSV), Office of Bus and 
Truck Standards and Operations, FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Table of Contents

I. Background
    Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
    Previous Rulemaking Efforts to Improve Chassis Maintenance
    SAFETEA-LU Requirements Codified at 49 U.S.C. 31151
II. Current Rulemaking To Improve Intermodal Equipment Safety
    Rulemaking Proposal
 Part 385--Safety Fitness Procedures
 Part 386--Rules of Practice
 Part 390--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
 Part 392--Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles
 Part 393--Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation
 Part 396--Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance
 Appendix G to Subchapter B--Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards
    Proposed Enforcement Plans
 Review of maintenance programs
 Imminent hazard determinations
    Preemption of State Statutes or Regulations
    Relationships among Intermodal Parties and Allocation of Liability
    International Implications
III. Analysis Of Safety Data
    Analysis of Roadside Inspection Data in 4 States
    Roadside Inspection Violation Data Analysis
 All Intermodal Container Chassis Violations
 Intermodal Container Chassis Violations by State
 Vehicle Out-of-Service Violations by State
 National Inspection Data--Violations for Calendar Year 2003
    FMCSA's Analysis of the Data
IV. Estimated Number Of Equipment Providers And Intermodal Container 
Chassis
    Equipment Providers
    Intermodal Container Chassis Population
V. Regulatory Analyses And Notices
    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    Estimated Compliance Costs for Intermodal Equipment Providers
    Establishing a Systematic Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance (IRM) 
Program
    Recordkeeping
    Total Compliance Costs of the Proposed Regulations
    Safety and Economic Benefits of Improving Container Chassis 
Maintenance
    Benefits Associated With Increased Operational Efficiency
    Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
    Intergovernmental Review
    Paperwork Reduction Act

[[Page 76797]]

    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
    Energy Effects
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    Civil Justice Reform
    Protection of Children
    Taking of Private Property
    Federalism
    Regulation Identification Number
    List of Subjects

I. Background

Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier 
Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act) and section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU (Pub. L. 
109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, at 1729, August 10, 2005, codified at 49 U.S.C. 
31151).
    The 1984 Act provides authority to regulate drivers, motor 
carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to ``prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle 
safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for 
commercial motor vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure 
that: (1) Commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, 
and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of 
commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the 
vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial 
motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles 
safely; and (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not 
have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators.'' 
49 U.S.C. 31136(a).
    This NPRM would establish a program to ensure that intermodal 
equipment (primarily chassis) \1\ interchanged to motor carriers and 
used to transport intermodal containers is safe and systematically 
maintained. An intermodal chassis meets the definition of a 
``commercial motor vehicle'' under 49 U.S.C. 31132(1)(A) because it 
``has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of at least 
10,001 pounds * * *'' The NPRM is based primarily on section 
31136(a)(1), especially the mandates dealing with maintenance and 
equipment, and secondarily on section 31136(a)(4). Entities that 
interchange intermodal equipment to motor carriers would be required to 
establish a program to systematically inspect, repair, and maintain 
that equipment, if they do not already have such a program in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The intermodal equipment described are intermodal container 
chassis specifically designed to transport cargo containers. The 
loaded cargo containers are transported on ships and trains to 
various ports and rail facilities in the United States and then 
transferred to chassis trailers for transportation by highway to 
their final destination. Similarly, empty containers may be loaded 
at shippers' facilities in the United States, and then transported 
on a chassis trailer to ports and rail yards for subsequent portions 
of the movement to be handled by additional modes to other 
destinations in the United States or abroad. Chassis trailers 
carrying containerized cargo are used to transport more than $450 
billion in cargo entering and leaving the United States annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU added new section 31151, entitled 
``Roadability,'' to subchapter III of chapter 311 of title 49, United 
States Code. Section 31151(a)(1) requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to issue regulations to be codified in the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) ``to ensure that intermodal 
equipment used to transport intermodal containers is safe and 
systematically maintained.'' Section 31151(a)(3) specifies, in 
considerable detail, a minimum of 14 items that must be included in the 
regulations, each of which is discussed later in the preamble and 
included in the proposed rules or existing agency procedures. 
Departmental employees designated by the Secretary are authorized to 
inspect intermodal equipment, and copy related maintenance and repair 
records (section 31151(b)). Any intermodal equipment that fails to 
comply with applicable Federal safety regulations may be placed out of 
service by Departmental or other Federal, State, or governmental 
officials designated by the Secretary until the necessary repairs have 
been made (section 31151(c)). State, local, or tribal requirements 
inconsistent with a regulation adopted pursuant to section 31151 are 
preempted (section 31151(d)). Specifically, a State requirement for the 
periodic inspection of intermodal chassis by intermodal equipment 
providers that was in effect on January 1, 2005, is preempted on the 
effective date of the final regulation resulting from this rulemaking 
(section 31151(e)(1)), but preemption may be waived upon application by 
the State if the Secretary finds that the State requirement is as 
effective as the Federal requirement and does not unduly burden 
interstate commerce (section 31151(e)(2)).
    All of these provisions of SAFETEA-LU are discussed in the preamble 
and embodied in the regulatory text of this NPRM.

Previous Rulemaking Efforts To Improve Chassis Maintenance

    On February 17, 1999 (64 FR 7849), the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA), which then had responsibility for commercial 
motor vehicle safety, published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning inspection, repair, and maintenance 
responsibilities for intermodal container chassis. The ANPRM was in 
response to a petition for rulemaking filed by the American Trucking 
Associations (ATA). ATA argued that rail carriers, ocean carriers, and 
other entities that offer container chassis for transportation in 
interstate commerce frequently fail to ensure the container chassis are 
in safe and proper operating condition. ATA believed poor maintenance 
of this intermodal equipment was a serious safety problem and requested 
FHWA to make the equipment providers responsible for the roadworthiness 
of the container chassis tendered to motor carriers.
    ATA requested that the FMCSRs be amended to make intermodal 
equipment providers subject to 49 CFR part 396, concerning inspection, 
repair, and maintenance of commercial motor vehicles. Under the ATA 
proposal, equipment providers would have been prohibited from offering 
an intermodal container chassis for transportation in such condition 
that it would likely cause a crash or a breakdown of the vehicle. Motor 
carriers would have been prohibited from certifying to equipment 
providers that the intermodal container chassis or container meets 
applicable safety regulations, unless the equipment provider provided 
the motor carrier with adequate equipment, time, and the proper 
facilities to make a full inspection of the container chassis and any 
necessary repairs to the equipment prior to the tendering of the 
equipment to the motor carrier for operation in interstate commerce. 
ATA also requested that the regulations be amended so motor carriers 
would not be liable for civil or criminal penalties for operating a 
container chassis, or transporting a container that did not meet the 
applicable safety requirements, if the equipment was offered for 
transportation in an unsafe or poor condition.
    On October 20, 1999 (64 FR 56478), as follow-up to the ANPRM, the 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) announced a series of 
public meetings for motor carriers, equipment providers, and other 
interested parties to discuss inspection, repair, and maintenance 
practices for ensuring that container chassis and trailers are in safe 
and proper operating condition at all times. Representatives from the 
FHWA, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Maritime 
Administration (MARAD), and OST participated in the listening sessions. 
These sessions were intended to help DOT broaden its knowledge of the 
safety implications of industry practices involving terminal operators

[[Page 76798]]

or other parties that tender intermodal equipment to motor carriers. 
The sessions were held in Seattle, WA; Des Plaines (Chicago), IL; and 
Jamaica (New York City), NY, during November 1999.
    On November 29, 2002 (67 FR 71127), FMCSA published a notice 
announcing the agency would study the feasibility of using the 
Negotiated Rulemaking process to develop rulemaking options concerning 
the maintenance of intermodal container chassis and trailers. The 
neutral convener hired by FMCSA interviewed individuals and 
organizations that represented interests most likely to be 
substantially affected by a rulemaking concerning this subject, and 
concluded that a negotiated rulemaking was unlikely to produce a set of 
consensus recommendations to FMCSA. Therefore, FMCSA decided not to 
conduct a negotiated rulemaking on this subject, and concluded that it 
would be best to withdraw the ANPRM and to start afresh.
    On December 31, 2003 (68 FR 75478), FMCSA published a notice 
withdrawing the ANPRM. While FMCSA could quantify the costs of 
regulatory options that could potentially result in improved 
maintenance practices by equipment providers, there was insufficient 
data to quantify the safety benefits of a rulemaking based on the ATA 
petition. Available data showed that a significant number of container 
chassis dispatched from intermodal terminals were later found to have 
safety defects during roadside inspections, but the relationship 
between these defects and crash causation had not been substantiated.
    In January of 2004, the Secretary announced that DOT would launch a 
safety inspection program for intermodal container chassis. The 
inspection program would provide added oversight to help ensure that 
intermodal container chassis used by motor carriers to transport 
intermodal cargo containers from seaports and rail yards are in safe 
and proper working order. The Secretary said:

    ``Every day millions of dollars worth of cargo are transferred 
from ships and rail to trailer beds and hauled away by trucks. It is 
essential that we have a full and complete safety program focused on 
the trailer beds used to haul cargo containers.''

    The Secretary explained the new inspection program would be modeled 
after FMCSA's compliance review program already in place for the 
nation's interstate motor carriers. Intermodal equipment providers 
would be required to obtain a USDOT Number or other unique identifier 
and display it on their container chassis so that safety performance 
data could be captured and attributed to the equipment provided. FMCSA 
would apply the same civil penalty structure and enforcement actions 
used for motor carriers to intermodal equipment providers that 
demonstrate patterns of non-compliance with the FMCSRs.
    As part of this new activity, FMCSA compiled and analyzed 
additional intermodal chassis inspection data from 38 States. The 
information derived from this analysis, particularly violations that 
caused vehicles to be placed out of service, provided evidence that 
intermodal equipment failed to meet the FMCSRs more often than non-
intermodal equipment.

SAFETEA--LU Requirements Codified at 49 U.S.C. 31151

    Section 4118 of SAFETEA--LU amended 49 U.S.C., chapter 311, by 
adding new section 31151 (49 U.S.C. 31151) titled ``Roadability.'' 
Section 31151 states:

    The Secretary of Transportation, after providing notice and 
opportunity for comment, shall issue regulations establishing a 
program to ensure that intermodal equipment used to transport 
intermodal containers is safe and systematically maintained.

    Section 31151(a)(3) lists 14 elements to be included in the 
regulations as follows:

    ``(A) a requirement to identify intermodal equipment providers 
responsible for the inspection and maintenance of intermodal 
equipment that is interchanged or intended for interchange to motor 
carriers in intermodal transportation;
    ``(B) a requirement to match intermodal equipment readily to an 
intermodal equipment provider through a unique identifying number;
    ``(C) a requirement that an intermodal equipment provider 
identified under subparagraph (A) systematically inspect, repair, 
and maintain, or cause to be systematically inspected, repaired, and 
maintained, intermodal equipment described in subparagraph (A) that 
is intended for interchange with a motor carrier;
    ``(D) a requirement to ensure that each intermodal equipment 
provider identified under subparagraph (A) maintains a system of 
maintenance and repair records for such equipment;
    ``(E) requirements that--
    ``(i) a specific list of intermodal equipment components or 
items be identified for the visual or audible inspection of which a 
driver is responsible before operating the equipment over the road; 
and
    ``(ii) the inspection under clause (i) be conducted as part of 
the Federal requirement in effect on the date of enactment of this 
Act that a driver be satisfied that the intermodal equipment 
components are in good working order before the equipment is 
operated over the road;
    ``(F) a requirement that a facility at which an intermodal 
equipment provider regularly makes intermodal equipment available 
for interchange have an operational process and space readily 
available for a motor carrier to have an equipment defect identified 
pursuant to subparagraph (E) repaired or the equipment replaced 
prior to departure;
    ``(G) a program for the evaluation and audit of compliance by 
intermodal equipment providers with applicable Federal motor carrier 
safety regulations;
    ``(H) a civil penalty structure consistent with section 521(b) 
of title 49, United States Code, for intermodal equipment providers 
that fail to attain satisfactory compliance with applicable Federal 
motor carrier safety regulations;
    ``(I) a prohibition on intermodal equipment providers from 
placing intermodal equipment in service on the public highways to 
the extent such providers or their equipment are found to pose an 
imminent hazard;
    ``(J) a process by which motor carriers and agents of motor 
carriers shall be able to request the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration to undertake an investigation of an intermodal 
equipment provider identified under subparagraph (A) that is alleged 
to be not in compliance with the regulations under this section;
    ``(K) a process by which equipment providers and agents of 
equipment providers shall be able to request the Administration to 
undertake an investigation of a motor carrier that is alleged to be 
not in compliance with the regulations issued under this section;
    ``(L) a process by which a driver or motor carrier transporting 
intermodal equipment is required to report to the intermodal 
equipment provider or the provider's designated agent any actual 
damage or defect in the intermodal equipment of which the driver or 
motor carrier is aware at the time the intermodal equipment is 
returned to the intermodal equipment provider or the provider's 
designated agent;
    ``(M) a requirement that any actual damage or defect identified 
in the process established under subparagraph (L) be repaired before 
the equipment is made available for interchange to a motor carrier 
and that repairs of equipment made pursuant to the requirements of 
this subparagraph and reports made pursuant to the subparagraph (L) 
process be documented in the maintenance records for such equipment; 
and
    ``(N) a procedure under which motor carriers, drivers and 
intermodal equipment providers may seek correction of their motor 
carrier safety records through the deletion from those records of 
violations of safety regulations attributable to deficiencies in the 
intermodal chassis or trailer for which they should not have been 
held responsible.''

    Section 31151(b) authorizes the Secretary or DOT employee 
designated by the Secretary to inspect intermodal equipment, and copy 
related maintenance and repair records for such equipment, on demand 
and display of proper credentials. Section 31151(c) extends the 
authority of Federal, State,

[[Page 76799]]

or government officials designated by the Secretary to place out of 
service any intermodal equipment that is determined under this section 
to fail to comply with applicable Federal safety regulations; to 
prevent its use on a public highway until the repairs necessary to 
bring such equipment into compliance have been completed; and to 
require documentation of repairs in the equipment maintenance records.
    Section 31151(d) preempts statutes, regulations, orders, or other 
requirements of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a 
tribal government relating to CMV safety, if the law, regulation, 
order, or other requirement exceeds or is inconsistent with Federal 
rules adopted to implement the roadability statute. Section 31151(e)(2) 
authorizes the Secretary to make a nonpreemption determination if the 
State requirement for the inspection and maintenance of intermodal 
chassis by intermodal equipment providers was in effect on or before 
January 1, 2005, and is as effective as the Federal requirement and 
does not unduly burden interstate commerce. Subsequent amendments to 
State requirements that were not preempted must be submitted to the 
agency for a preemption determination. State provisions that would be 
preempted may remain in effect only until the date on which 
implementing regulations under this section take effect. Finally, 
section 31151(f) defines the terms ``intermodal equipment,'' 
``intermodal equipment interchange agreement,'' ``intermodal equipment 
provider,'' and ``interchange.''

II. Current Rulemaking To Improve Intermodal Equipment Safety

Rulemaking Proposal

    The proposed regulations would, for the first time, make intermodal 
equipment providers (IEPs) subject to the FMCSRs. The new requirements 
would ensure that intermodal container chassis and trailers tendered to 
motor carriers by steamship lines, railroads, terminal operators, 
chassis pools, etc., comply with the applicable motor carrier safety 
regulations. The explicit inclusion of equipment providers in the scope 
of FMCSRs would ensure that intermodal equipment providers would be 
subject to the same enforcement proceedings, orders, and civil 
penalties as those applied to motor carriers, property brokers, and 
freight forwarders. The proposed rule would also impose additional 
requirements on motor carriers and drivers operating intermodal 
equipment.
    FMCSA proposes to address the SAFETEA-LU requirements by adding to 
49 CFR part 390, a new subpart C titled ``Requirements and Information 
for Intermodal Equipment Providers and for Motor Carriers Operating 
Intermodal Equipment.'' In addition, we would amend parts 385, 386, 
390, 392, 393, and 396, as well as Appendix G to Subchapter B, to make 
the appropriate sections applicable to IEPs. With these proposed 
changes to the current FMCSRs, the agency will address the SAFETEA-LU 
requirements codified at 49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3):
     A roadability review based on elements of the Safety 
Fitness Procedures to enable FMCSA to assess the safety of equipment 
tendered by IEPs (part 385).Section 31151(a)(3)(G).
     Application of FMCSA Rules of Practice for safety 
compliance proceedings (part 386). Sections 31151(a)(3)(H) and (I).
     Compliance with general safety regulations, including 
filing of an Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report (FMCSA 
Form MCS-150C), and display of the intermodal equipment provider's 
USDOT number or other unique identification number on intermodal 
equipment (part 390). Sections 31151(a)(3)(A), (B), (C), (D), (J), (K), 
and (N).
     Provisions for CMV drivers to inspect specific intermodal 
equipment components and be satisfied that they are in good working 
order before the equipment is operated over the road (part 392). 
Sections 31151(a)(3)(E) and (F).
     Extension of the applicability of regulations concerning 
parts and accessories necessary for safe operation to intermodal 
equipment and IEPs (part 393).Sections 31151(a)(3)(C).
     Extension of the applicability of regulations concerning 
inspection, repair, and maintenance of CMVs to IEPs (part 396). 
Sections 31151(a)(3)(C), (D), (L), and (M).
    The proposed changes to each part are described below.
Part 385--Safety Fitness Procedures
    FMCSA proposes to conduct roadability reviews in order to evaluate 
the safety and regulatory compliance status of IEPs. This activity 
would consist of an on-site examination of an intermodal equipment 
provider's inspection, repair, and maintenance operation and records to 
determine its compliance with applicable FMCSRs (i.e., parts 390, 393, 
and 396). However, FMCSA would not issue safety ratings to IEPs.
    FMCSA would use its Safety Status Measurement System (SafeStat) to 
identify and prioritize which IEPs would be subject to a roadability 
review. SafeStat is an automated, data-driven analysis system designed 
to incorporate current on-road safety performance information on all 
motor carriers, and IEPs, with on-site reviews and enforcement history 
information, when available, in order to measure relative safety 
fitness. SafeStat plays an important role in determining the safety 
fitness in several FMCSA/State programs including the Performance and 
Registration Information Systems Management, National Compliance Review 
Prioritization, and the roadside Inspection Selection System. FMCSA 
would use the system to continuously quantify and monitor changes in 
the safety status of IEPs. The agency's initial focus would be on the 
Vehicle Safety Evaluation Area (SEA). For more information about 
SafeStat, visit FMCSA's ``SafeStat Online'' at URL: http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov.
    In addition to IEPs that are identified in SafeStat, a roadability 
review may be conducted on an IEP that falls into one of the following 
categories: (1) The provider is the subject of a complaint that FMCSA 
determines to be non-frivolous; (2) the provider has equipment involved 
in a pattern of recordable crashes or hazardous materials incidents; 
(3) the provider requests FMCSA to conduct a review of its operations; 
(4) the provider demonstrates a pattern of non-compliance; or (5) the 
agency determines there is a need for a review.
    FMCSA would conduct roadability reviews under proposed Sec. Sec.  
385.501 and 385.503 using the current framework of the Compliance 
Analysis and Performance Review Information System (CAPRI). The CAPRI 
application provides a standardized method for conducting reviews on 
motor carriers, hazardous materials shippers, and cargo tank 
facilities. It is also used for safety audits on new carriers and 
Mexico-domiciled carriers seeking to operate in the United States. The 
application includes extensive checking for data integrity and 
electronic file transfer for expediting data flow, and is for use by 
both Federal and State enforcement officials.
    Under proposed Sec.  385.503, if FMCSA finds violations of parts 
390, 393, or 396, the agency would cite the IEP for those violations. 
The agency may also impose civil penalties according to the civil 
penalty structure contained in 49 U.S.C. 521(b). FMCSA may prohibit an 
intermodal equipment provider from tendering any intermodal equipment

[[Page 76800]]

from a particular location or multiple locations if the provider's 
FMCSRs compliance is so deficient that its continued operation 
constitutes an imminent hazard to highway safety. This is authorized by 
49 U.S.C. 521(b)(5)(A), which directs the agency to ``order a vehicle * 
* * out-of-service, or order an employer to cease all or part of the 
employer's commercial motor vehicle operations. In making any such 
order, the [agency] shall impose no restriction on any * * * employer 
beyond that required to abate the hazard.''
Part 386--Rules of Practice
    FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 386 concerning rules of 
practice for enforcement proceedings before its Assistant 
Administrator. The purpose of the proposed changes is to apply part 386 
to intermodal equipment providers now subject to FMCSA jurisdiction.
    Section 386.1 Scope of the rules of this part. FMCSA would amend 
existing Sec.  386.1 to include an explicit reference to intermodal 
equipment providers. They would be subject to the same enforcement 
proceedings, orders, and civil penalties as motor carriers, property 
brokers, and freight forwarders, with respect to the safety of their 
equipment tendered and their oversight of inspection, repair, and 
maintenance of that equipment.
    Section 386.83 Sanction for failure to pay civil penalties or abide 
by payment plan; operation in interstate commerce prohibited. FMCSA 
proposes to amend Sec.  386.83 to extend the applicability of this 
section to intermodal equipment providers.
Part 390--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
    Section 390.3 General applicability. Section 390.3(h) would 
explicitly state that intermodal equipment providers are subject to 
parts 385, safety fitness procedures; 386, rules of practice; 390 
(except Sec.  390.15(b)); 393, parts and accessories necessary for safe 
operation; and 396, inspection, repair, and maintenance of commercial 
motor vehicles.
    Section 390.5 Definitions. FMCSA would add definitions of 
``interchange,'' ``intermodal equipment,'' ``intermodal equipment 
interchange agreement,'' and ``intermodal equipment provider'' to Sec.  
390.5 to provide a consistent vocabulary for dealing with intermodal 
equipment issues. These definitions are identical to the definitions 
for these terms included in 49 U.S.C. 31151(f). ``Interchange'' would 
be the word used to describe the act of providing intermodal equipment 
to a motor carrier. Leasing equipment to a motor carrier is not 
included in this term.
    ``Intermodal equipment'' rather than intermodal container chassis 
would be the term used in the regulation. Though intermodal container 
chassis are by far the most common variety of intermodal equipment, 
FMCSA decided to propose a broader term ``intermodal equipment'' to 
cover all the different kinds of trailers, chassis, and associated 
devices used to transport intermodal containers.
    ``Intermodal equipment interchange agreement'' would describe the 
written agreement between an intermodal equipment provider and a motor 
carrier, which establishes the responsibilities and liabilities of both 
parties. The Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access 
Agreement is commonly used for this purpose.
    ``Intermodal equipment provider'' would describe the party that 
interchanges the intermodal equipment with the motor carrier, and that, 
under these proposed rules, would be responsible for systematic 
inspection, repair, and maintenance of the intermodal equipment.
    Section 390.15 Assistance in investigations and special studies. 
FMCSA would amend Sec.  390.15(a) to add a reference to intermodal 
equipment providers, requiring them to provide records, information, 
and assistance in an investigation of an accident, as defined in 49 CFR 
390.5. Intermodal equipment providers would not be required to maintain 
the accident register required of motor carriers in Sec.  390.15(b), 
but any accident information they do retain must be made available to 
investigators upon request.
    Section 390.19 Motor carrier, HM shipper, and intermodal equipment 
provider identification reports. FMCSA would require intermodal 
equipment providers to file an Intermodal Equipment Provider 
Identification Report, Form MCS-150C and to update it every two years.
    Section 390.21 Marking of self-propelled CMVs, and intermodal 
equipment. FMCSA would require intermodal equipment providers (i.e., 
the entity tendering the equipment, which may or may not be the owner) 
to mark intermodal equipment with an identification number issued by 
FMCSA. This number could be a USDOT number or another unique 
identification number. The USDOT number is used to identify all motor 
carriers in FMCSA's registration/information systems. It is also used 
by States as the key identifier in the Performance and Registration 
Information Systems Management (PRISM) project, a cooperative Federal/
State program that makes motor carrier safety a requirement for 
obtaining and keeping commercial motor vehicle registration and 
privileges. FMCSA seeks comment on what other unique identification 
numbers could serve the same purpose as the USDOT number.
Part 390, Subpart C--Requirements and Information for Intermodal 
Equipment Providers and for Motor Carriers Operating Intermodal 
Equipment
    FMCSA proposes a new subpart C, Sec. Sec.  390.40-390.44, to 
address the specific requirements for intermodal equipment providers in 
SAFETEA-LU.
    Proposed Sec.  390.40 lists all of the responsibilities of an 
intermodal equipment provider, including identifying its operations to 
FMCSA; marking intermodal equipment; inspecting, repairing, and 
maintaining the equipment; keeping records of inspection, repair, and 
maintenance; providing procedures and facilities for inspection, 
repair, and maintenance; and refraining from placing equipment in 
service if the equipment would pose an imminent hazard, as defined in 
Sec.  386.72(b)(1).
    Proposed paragraph (h) of Sec.  390.40 requires that any repairs or 
replacements must be made in a timely manner after a driver notifies 
the provider of such damage, defects, or deficiencies. FMCSA proposes a 
limited timeframe for repair or replacement actions because, in the 
intermodal sector, drivers' income is usually based upon the number of 
trips a driver can complete in a day. Drivers who report defects or 
deficiencies to equipment providers face potential delays in leaving 
the ports or terminals while waiting for a container chassis to be 
repaired or replaced. Therefore, FMCSA wishes to reduce the amount of 
time that drivers may have to wait after pointing out defects or 
deficiencies, thereby encouraging the driver to make such reports. 
Driver reports will bring potential equipment defects and deficiencies 
to the equipment provider's attention so they can be remedied. 
Operating safe equipment is clearly in the drivers'--and FMCSA's--
interest.
    Proposed Sec.  390.42(a) and (b) prescribe procedures for 
intermodal equipment providers and motor carriers to request correction 
of publicly-accessible safety violation information for which the 
intermodal equipment provider or motor carrier should not have been 
held responsible. An intermodal equipment provider or motor carrier 
would use FMCSA's DataQs system for this purpose. The DataQs system is 
an electronic means for filing concerns

[[Page 76801]]

about Federal and State data released to the public by FMCSA. Through 
this system, data concerns are automatically forwarded to the 
appropriate office for resolution. The system also allows filers to 
monitor the status of each filing.
    Proposed Sec.  390.42(c) and (d) prescribe procedures for 
requesting that FMCSA investigate any motor carrier or intermodal 
equipment provider that may be in noncompliance with FMCSA 
requirements.
    Proposed Sec.  390.44 prescribes the responsibilities of drivers 
and motor carriers, as opposed to intermodal equipment providers, when 
operating intermodal equipment. The driver would be required to make a 
pre-trip inspection and would not be allowed to operate the equipment 
on the highway if the equipment is not in good working order. The 
driver or the motor carrier would also be required to report any damage 
or deficiencies in the equipment at the time the equipment is returned 
to the provider. This report would have to include, at a minimum, the 
items listed in Sec.  396.11(a)(2).
    Proposed Sec.  390.46 would address preemption by the FMCSRs of 
State and local laws and regulations concerning inspection, repair, and 
maintenance. Generally, a law, regulation, order, or other requirement 
of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a tribal 
organization relating to the inspection, repair, and maintenance of 
intermodal equipment is preempted if such law, regulation, order, or 
other requirement exceeds or is inconsistent with a requirement imposed 
by the FMCSRs.
Part 392--Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles
    FMCSA proposes to amend Sec.  392.7 to cover intermodal equipment 
similar to the current requirements for other CMVs. The proposal would 
require drivers preparing to transport intermodal equipment to make a 
visual or audible inspection of specific components of intermodal 
equipment, and to satisfy the driver that the intermodal equipment was 
in good working order before operating it over the road.
Part 393--Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation
    FMCSA proposes to revise Sec.  393.1 to make equipment providers 
responsible for offering in interstate commerce intermodal equipment 
that is equipped with all required parts and accessories. The proposed 
changes would ensure each required component and system is in safe and 
proper working order. This requirement is separate and distinct from 
the provisions of part 396, which cover responsibilities for 
inspection, repair, and maintenance of the CMV or chassis, without 
specifying all of the parts and accessories necessary for safe 
operation.
Part 396--Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance
    Part 396 would be amended to require intermodal equipment providers 
to establish a systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance program 
and to maintain records documenting the program. Equipment providers 
would also be required to comply with FMCSA's periodic and annual 
inspection regulations. Furthermore, intermodal equipment providers 
would be required to establish a process by which a motor carrier or 
driver could report the defects or deficiencies on container chassis 
that they discover or that are reported to them. Intermodal equipment 
providers would then be required to document whether they have repaired 
the defect or deficiency, or that repair was unnecessary, before the 
intermodal equipment was interchanged.
    Section 396.1 Scope. FMCSA proposes to revise Sec.  396.1 to 
require every intermodal equipment provider to comply with, and be 
knowledgeable of, the applicable FMCSA regulations.
    Section 396.3 Inspection, repair, and maintenance. FMCSA proposes 
to amend Sec.  396.3 to require intermodal equipment providers to be 
responsible for the systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance of 
intermodal equipment, and to keep the associated records.
    Section 396.11, Driver vehicle inspection reports. FMCSA proposes 
to amend Sec.  396.11 to add a new paragraph (a)(2) specifying that the 
intermodal equipment provider must have a process to receive reports of 
defects or deficiencies in the equipment. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) 
lists the specific components of intermodal equipment that must be 
included on the driver vehicle inspection report.
    Section 396.12, Procedures governing the acceptance by intermodal 
equipment providers of reports required under Sec.  390.44(b) of this 
chapter from motor carriers and drivers. FMCSA would add a new Sec.  
396.12 to require intermodal equipment providers to establish a 
procedure to accept reports of defects or deficiencies from motor 
carriers or drivers, repair the defects that are likely to affect 
safety, and document the procedure.
    Sections 396.17, Periodic Inspection, 396.19, Inspector 
qualifications, 396.21, Periodic inspection recordkeeping requirements, 
396.23 Equivalent to periodic inspection. FMCSA proposes to revise 
these sections to make clear their application to intermodal equipment 
providers.
    Section 396.25, Qualifications of brake inspectors. In its ANPRM of 
February 3, 1989 (54 FR 5518), concerning Federal standards for the 
maintenance and inspection of CMV brakes, FMCSA concluded that the 
legislation requiring the rulemaking action applied only to employees 
of motor carriers [section 9110 of the Truck and Bus Safety and 
Regulatory Reform Act of 1988, (Subtitle B of Title IX of the Anti-Drug 
Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181, at 4531) now 
codified at 49 U.S.C. 31137(b)]. Section 9110(b) required regulations 
to ensure that CMV brakes are properly maintained and inspected by 
``appropriate employees.'' Because this provision amended the Motor 
Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (the 1984 Act) and was codified in section 
31137, ``employee'' had the meaning given to that term in 49 U.S.C. 
31132(2), which specifically means ``a mechanic.'' However, the term 
``employer'' in section 31132(3) means, among other things, a person 
who ``owns or leases a commercial motor vehicle * * * or assigns an 
employee to operate it.'' The agency generally treated the 1984 Act 
term ``employer'' as equivalent to ``motor carrier.'' But since 
independent repair and maintenance shops neither own nor lease CMVs, 
nor assign employees to operate them, the agency concluded that 
mechanics (employees) who did not work for a motor carrier (employer) 
were not covered. ``An example of this would be independent garage 
owners and their mechanics.'' (54 FR 5518).
    The example was correct, but the statutory term ``employer'' also 
describes intermodal equipment providers who own CMVs, namely 
intermodal chassis. Such equipment providers and their mechanics are 
therefore subject to the 1984 Act, including the brake inspector 
qualifications adopted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31137(b), which are now 
codified at Sec.  396.25.
Appendix G to Subchapter B--Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards
    FMCSA proposes to amend Appendix G, item 6 (Safe Loading) to add 
devices used to secure an intermodal container to a chassis. These 
devices include rails or support frames, tiedown bolsters, locking 
pins, clevises, clamps, and hooks.

[[Page 76802]]

Proposed Enforcement Plans

Review of Maintenance Programs
    If this proposal is promulgated as a final rule, FMCSA would 
initiate reviews of intermodal equipment providers' maintenance 
programs similar to the reviews FMCSA currently conducts on motor 
carriers' safety management controls.
     The reviews would examine equipment providers' compliance 
with FMCSA commercial motor vehicle safety regulations to which they 
are subject, especially parts 390, 393, and 396 and Appendix G. 
Intermodal equipment providers would be held responsible for the 
inspection, repair, and maintenance of their intermodal equipment, 
using standards similar to those used by motor carriers for the 
inspection, repair, and maintenance of their trailers.
     The reviews may be triggered when roadside inspection 
reports, crash report data, or driver or carrier complaints indicate a 
pattern of non-compliance by an equipment provider.
     FMCSA would develop a procedure to review IEPs' compliance 
with the applicable FMCSRs, with a focus on the safe operating 
condition of the intermodal equipment, the involvement of that 
equipment in recordable highway crashes, and the intermodal equipment 
provider's safety management controls. The agency would develop review 
procedures, enforcement procedures, and rules of practice relevant to 
the responsibility of equipment providers to tender roadworthy 
equipment to motor carriers. However, if FMCSA were to subject an 
intermodal equipment provider to an operations out-of-service order, 
the order would prevent that provider from tendering equipment to motor 
carriers. The order would not apply to other transportation-related 
activities of an intermodal equipment provider that is a steamship 
company or rail carrier. Intermodal equipment providers that fail to 
attain satisfactory compliance with applicable federal motor carrier 
safety regulations would be subject to a civil penalty structure 
consistent with 49 U.S.C. 521(b).
Imminent Hazard Determinations
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3)(I), the Secretary of Transportation is 
required to prohibit intermodal equipment providers from placing 
intermodal equipment in service on the public highways to the extent 
such providers or their equipment are found to pose an ``imminent 
hazard.''
    The authority to declare that a motor carrier poses an imminent 
hazard is codified in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(5). If FMCSA, after an 
investigation, determines that violations of the FMCSRs or the statutes 
under which they were established pose an ``imminent hazard'' to 
safety, the agency is required to order the vehicle or employee 
operating that vehicle out of service, or order a motor carrier to 
cease all or part of its commercial motor vehicle operations.
    Imminent hazard is defined in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(5)(B) and 49 CFR 
386.72(b)(1) to mean ``any condition of vehicle, employee, or 
commercial motor vehicle operations which substantially increases the 
likelihood of serious injury or death if not discontinued 
immediately.'' An imminent hazard may be a violation that is recurring 
and can be remedied by the carrier's ceasing the violation (e.g., an 
intermodal equipment provider is discovered operating intermodal 
equipment that has been declared out of service). It may also be argued 
that a motor carrier that continually and frequently violates multiple 
regulatory requirements poses an imminent hazard to the motoring 
public.
    FMCSA proposes to issue an Imminent Hazard Out-of-Service (OOS) 
Order to any intermodal equipment provider whose intermodal chassis 
substantially increase the likelihood of serious injury or death if not 
taken out of service immediately, consistent with its treatment of 
motor carriers. Use of the Imminent Hazard OOS Order is limited to 
violations of certain FMCSRs (49 CFR parts 385, 386, 390-399, and some 
of part 383). Such an order is a serious matter and is usually a last 
resort when a serious safety problem exists that substantially 
increases the likelihood of serious injury or death and is unlikely to 
be resolved through any other means available.
    FMCSA could issue Imminent Hazard OOS Orders to an intermodal 
equipment provider's: (1) Specific vehicle; (2) terminal or facility; 
and/or (3) all equipment tendered by the provider. Where an Imminent 
Hazard OOS Order is issued, the agency would only impose restrictions 
necessary to abate the hazard.
    FMCSA's goal is to ensure compliance with its regulations and 
thereby ensure safety. Studies show that compliant companies have lower 
crash rates, better insurance rates, and pay less for crash related 
expenses (e.g., cargo damage, legal fees, towing, medical expenses).

Preemption of State Statutes or Regulations

    Sections 31151(d) and (e) preempt certain State, political 
subdivision, and tribal government regulations. In general, the Federal 
rules would preempt the statutes, regulations, orders, or other 
requirements of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a 
tribal organization relating to commercial motor vehicle safety if the 
provisions of those rules exceed or are inconsistent with an FMCSA 
requirement. If a State requirement for the periodic inspection of 
intermodal chassis by intermodal equipment providers was in effect on 
January 1, 2005, it would remain in effect only until the effective 
date of a final rule.
    However, a State may request a nonpreemption determination for any 
requirement for the periodic inspection of intermodal chassis by IEPs 
that was in effect on January 1, 2005. FMCSA would issue a 
determination if it is decided that the State requirement is as 
effective as the Federal requirement and does not unduly burden 
interstate commerce. In order to trigger this review, the State must 
apply to the agency for a determination before the effective date of 
the final rule. The agency would make a determination with respect to 
any such application within 6 months after the date on which it is 
received.
    If a State amends a regulation for which it previously received a 
nonpreemption determination, it must apply for a determination of 
nonpreemption for the amended regulation. Any amendment to a State 
requirement not preempted under this subsection because of a 
determination by the FMCSA may not take effect unless: (1) It is 
submitted to the agency before the effective date of the amendment; and 
(2) the FMCSA determines that the amendment would not cause the State 
requirement to be less effective than the Federal requirement and would 
not unduly burden interstate commerce.

Relationship Among Intermodal Parties and Allocation of Liability

    Section 31151(a)(1) requires that FMCSA issue regulations to ensure 
that intermodal equipment used to transport intermodal containers is 
safe and systematically maintained. However, FMCSA believes the statute 
suggests that the agency should not attempt to allocate liability 
between parties tendering and using intermodal equipment. Rather than 
finding fault among intermodal parties or involving the Government in 
individual disputes (such as who damaged a particular container 
chassis), the rulemaking would establish programmatic responsibility 
for intermodal equipment maintenance. The concept is that a

[[Page 76803]]

maintenance program would produce safer equipment--safety being in the 
interest of the traveling public and of the government.
    The definition of ``intermodal equipment interchange agreement'' in 
Section 31151(f)(2) is ``the Uniform Intermodal Interchange and 
Facilities Access Agreement or any other written document executed by 
an intermodal equipment provider or its agent and a motor carrier or 
its agent, the primary purpose of which is to establish the 
responsibilities and liabilities of both parties with respect to the 
interchange of the intermodal equipment.'' [Emphasis added]
    Neither the section 31151 language nor this proposal would relieve 
motor carriers of liability for damage they may inflict on intermodal 
container chassis. This proposed rulemaking would likely reduce the 
likelihood of crashes attributed to the mechanical condition and 
roadability of intermodal container chassis, but it would not involve 
the Department unnecessarily in the commercial relations or allocation 
of liability between intermodal parties.

International Implications

    Because section 31151 was codified in subchapter III of chapter 311 
of title 49, United States Code, the jurisdictional definitions in 49 
U.S.C. 31132 apply. The term ``United States'' is defined in Sec.  
31132(10) as ``the States of the United States and the District of 
Columbia.'' Section 31151 does not address the question of its own 
geographical reach, so it must be read as limited to the United States, 
as defined in section 31132(10). This means that intermodal equipment 
providers (IEPs) tendering equipment to motor carriers in Puerto Rico, 
the Virgin Islands or any other U.S. territory are not directly subject 
to the requirements of this rule. Nonetheless, any jurisdiction that 
adopts the relevant portions of the FMCSRs as territorial law would 
have the authority to enforce them. There is also a strong presumption 
against extra-territorial application of a statute. Nothing in the 
language or legislative history of section 31151 suggests that Congress 
intended to make it applicable outside the territory of the United 
States. Therefore, IEPs tendering equipment to motor carriers in 
Canada, Mexico, or Central America would not be subject to the 
requirements of this rule, even if the motor carrier immediately 
transports the container/chassis combination across the border into 
this country. Once in the U.S., however, the intermodal equipment would 
be subject to these proposed rules, including marking requirements and 
to existing equipment-related FMCSRs. Enforcement would be taken 
against a motor carrier pulling an unmarked or defective chassis, even 
if the chassis originated with an IEP physically located outside the 
United States.
    IEPs physically outside the United States, as defined in section 
31132(10), are not required by this proposed rule to: (1) File a Form 
MCS-150C; (2) have a systematic inspection, repair and maintenance 
program; (3) create a repair lane for defects discovered by the driver 
just before leaving the terminal; or (4) maintain a system for 
receiving reports of defects and deficiencies from drivers returning 
intermodal equipment. FMCSA cannot conduct roadability reviews of IEPs 
based in foreign countries or non--``United States'' territories 
(because they are not subject to the rules), prohibit such IEPs from 
tendering defective equipment to motor carriers (because that occurs 
beyond the jurisdiction of FMCSA), or issue them civil penalties for 
failure to comply with these rules.
    On the other hand, any intermodal equipment operated in interstate 
commerce in the United States must be marked with a USDOT number or 
other unique identifier. Otherwise, the motor carrier pulling the 
chassis/container combination would have violated these proposed 
regulations. As motor carriers are unlikely to accept the risk of fines 
for transporting unmarked chassis, foreign or non---``United States'' 
IEPs that know their equipment will operate within the United States 
may find it necessary, for business reasons, to file a Form MCS-150C 
and mark their equipment. FMCSA will accept registration applications 
from such entities and issue them USDOT numbers or other unique 
identifiers. In these cases, however, the assignment of an identifying 
number does not amount to an assertion of jurisdiction over the foreign 
or non--United States IEP. Doing so, however would not subject such 
IEPs to FMCSA jurisdiction beyond the borders of the United States, so 
the purpose of the identifying number could not be fully realized.
    The challenge for the agency is to maximize the benefits of section 
31151 and these proposed rules--when non--``United States'' IEPs tender 
equipment that subsequently travels in the United States--without 
exceeding the agency's statutory authority or the principles of 
international law. FMCSA solicits comments on all aspects of this 
problem.

III. Analysis of Safety Data

Analysis of Roadside Inspection Data in 4 States

    FMCSA asked the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems 
Center (Volpe) to conduct a special study of roadside inspection 
results for container chassis. Inspections can be of several types, 
ranging from full or walk-around inspections (Levels 1 and 2) to 
vehicle-only inspections (Level 5). The type of unit inspected is 
indicated by a code and the types of violations found may be 
categorized as driver violations, vehicle violations (such as defects 
in brakes, tires or lights), or hazardous material violations. The 
Volpe analyses covered results from Level 1, 2, or 5 inspections, and 
for ``Unit 2'' in tractor-semitrailer combinations, the type of vehicle 
being inspected had to be coded as a semitrailer (code 9). ``Unit 2'' 
refers to the semitrailer in a power unit-semitrailer combination. Out-
of-service (OOS) and violation rates were calculated using FMCSA's 
Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) inspection data on 
``Unit 2'' vehicles. That is, the data came from Level 1, 2, and 5 
inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not 
the tractors involved. All violations were vehicle violations.
    Results of the Volpe study are summarized here; the complete report 
is available in the docket for this NPRM.
    The analysis of roadside inspection safety data included two 
phases. The first phase included a Four-State Analysis. The study team 
obtained intermodal inspection data from four States--California, 
Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas--that have procedures for 
collecting and maintaining intermodal roadside inspection data at the 
State level and that have adopted container chassis roadability 
legislation. The data obtained were for the calendar years 2000 through 
part of 2003.
    The Four-State Analysis results presented in Table 1 show, for each 
of the four reporting States, the total number of Level 1, 2, and 5 
roadside inspections, and the OOS rates for non-intermodal semitrailers 
and intermodal semitrailers (i.e., Unit 2). Vehicle OOS violations 
represent the most serious types of FMCSR violations found on the 
vehicle, or those violations FMCSA believes are most likely to result 
in a crash.

[[Page 76804]]



               Table 1.--Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates of Non-intermodal and Intermodal Semitrailers for the Four-State Analysis (2000-2003)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Unit 2--Semitrailers
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Non-intermodal (NI)               Intermodal (I)                              Percent
                          State                          ----------------------------------------------------------------  Difference in   difference in
                                                             Number of       OOS rate        Number of       OOS rate      OOS rate  (I-   OOS rate  (I-
                                                            inspections      (percent)      inspections      (percent)          NI)           NI)/NI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA\1\...................................................         875,881            14.6          33,523            17.7             3.1            21.2
LA\2\...................................................          27,216             8.8              76            26.3            17.5           198.9
SC\1\...................................................          60,674            14.9           1,982            21.4             6.5            43.6
TX\2\...................................................         150,260            16.1           2,032            24.8             8.7           54.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data for 2000-2002 and part of 2003.
\2\ Data for 2002 only.
Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors involved.
  All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15-30).

    The researchers noted that in each of the four States, the OOS rate 
for intermodal semitrailers was higher than the OOS rate for non-
intermodal semitrailers. The percentage difference between the non-
intermodal and intermodal semitrailer OOS rates in each State was more 
than 20 percent, with intermodal container chassis being in worse 
mechanical condition than other types of semitrailers. Table 2 shows, 
for each of the four States, the total number of Level 1, 2, and 5 
roadside inspections and the percentages of non-intermodal and 
intermodal semitrailer (i.e., Unit 2) inspections with vehicle 
violations. Note that the violation totals represented in Table 3 
include all violations (i.e., not just OOS but also non-OOS violations) 
found on the trailing unit.

                  Table 2.--Total Violation Rates of Non-intermodal and Intermodal Semitrailers for the Four-State Analysis (2000-2003)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Unit 2--Semitrailers
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Non-intermodal (NI)               Intermodal (I)
                          State                          ----------------------------------------------------------------  Difference in      Percent
                                                                               Total                           Total      violation rate   difference in
                                                             Number of    violation rate     Number of    violation rate      (I-NI)      violation rate
                                                            inspections      (percent)      inspections      (percent)                       (I-NI)/NI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA\1\...................................................         875,881            32.8          33,523            32.8             0.0             0.0
LA \2\..................................................          27,216            28.2              76            43.4            15.2            53.9
SC\1\...................................................          60,674            38.7           1,982            38.9             0.2             0.5
TX \2\..................................................         150,260            60.9           2,032            55.8            -5.1            -8.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data for 2000-2002 and part of 2003.
\2\ Data for 2002 only.
Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors involved.
  All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15-30).

    Table 2 shows that in California and South Carolina, the 
percentages of non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers with vehicle 
violations were the same or nearly the same. In Texas, the percentage 
of non-intermodal semitrailers with vehicle violations was 5.1 
percentage points higher than the percentage of intermodal semitrailers 
with vehicle violations. In Louisiana, the percentage of intermodal 
semitrailers with vehicle violations was 15.2 percentage points higher 
than the percentage of non-intermodal semitrailers with vehicle 
violations. However, FMCSA recognizes the limited number of Louisiana 
intermodal trailer inspections (only 76 inspections compared to 1,982 
inspections in South Carolina, 2,032 inspections in Texas, and 33,523 
inspections in California) on which to base this comparison.
    The roadside inspection data from Texas contain a code that 
identifies the type of intermodal container chassis ownership: carrier 
owned or non-carrier-owned. The OOS and ``all'' violation analyses were 
re-run to compare the results for these two groups. Table 3 shows the 
OOS rates for carrier-owned and non-carrier-owned intermodal container 
chassis for inspections performed in Texas. Table 3 shows the total (or 
``all'') vehicle violation rates for carrier-owned and non-carrier-
owned intermodal container chassis for inspections performed in Texas.
    Table 3 shows that the non-carrier-owned intermodal semitrailers 
(i.e., container semitrailers tendered by equipment providers) had an 
OOS rate of 25.3 percent compared to an OOS rate of 19.2 percent for 
the carrier-owned intermodal semitrailers. Table 4 shows that 55.7 
percent of the non-carrier-owned intermodal semitrailers had vehicle 
violations compared to 57.5 percent of the carrier-owned intermodal 
semitrailers.
    While FMCSA has examined both total violation rates and OOS rates, 
it is the OOS rate FMCSA focuses on in this proposed rule because that 
rate is based on the most serious violations of the FMCSRs. These 
violations are listed in the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's 
(CVSA) North American Uniform Out-of-Service Criteria, a set of 
enforcement tolerances used by Federal, State, and Provincial agencies 
conducting commercial motor vehicle inspections in theUnited States, 
Canada, and Mexico.

[[Page 76805]]



                   Table 3.--Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates of Carrier-owned and Non-carrier-owned Intermodal Semitrailers in Texas (2002)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Unit 2--Semitrailers
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Non-carrier-owned (NCO)      Carrier-owned (CO) intermodal
                          State                                     intermodal           --------------------------------  Difference in      Percent
                                                         --------------------------------                                 OOS rates (NCO-  difference in
                                                             Number of       OOS rate        Number of       OOS rate           CO)       OOS rates (NCO-
                                                            inspections      (percent)      inspections      (percent)                        CO)/CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX......................................................           1,865            25.3             167            19.2             6.1           31.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of the non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors involved.
  All violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15-30).


                     Table 4.--Total Violation Rates of Carrier-owned and Non-carrier-owned Intermodal Semitrailers in Texas (2002)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Unit 2--Semitrailers
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Non-carrier-owned (NCO)      Carrier-owned (CO) intermodal
                                                                    intermodal           --------------------------------                     Percent
                          State                          --------------------------------                                  Difference in   difference in
                                                                              Vehicle        Number of        Vehicle        violation       violation
                                                             Number of    violation rate    inspections   violation rate  rates (NCO-CO)  rates (NCO-CO)/
                                                            inspections      (percent)                       (percent)                          CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX......................................................           1,865            55.7             167            57.5            -1.8            -3.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The data in this table came from Level 1, 2, and 5 inspections of non-intermodal and intermodal semitrailers, but not the tractors involved. All
  violations were vehicle violations (violation categories 15-30).

    The second phase of this analysis used data collected during 
roadside inspections conducted during an intensive annual activity 
known as RoadCheck. FMCSA requested that States conduct inspections of 
intermodal equipment, where possible and appropriate, as part of the 
focus of International RoadCheck 2004 (conducted beginning in June 
2004).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Detailed analysis of the RoadCheck Inspection Data collected 
in MCMIS, included in the RIA, is provided in Docket FMCSA-2005-
23315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 shows the RoadCheck 2004 inspection totals and out-of-
service rates compared to the Four-State Analysis inspections.

                                    Table 5.--Comparison of Non-intermodal vs. Intermodal Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Non-Intermodal                                    Intermodal
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Analysis                                                OOS rate (percent)                              OOS rate (percent)
                                                             Number of   --------------------------------    Number of   -------------------------------
                                                            inspections      Tractors      Semitrailers     inspections      Tractors      Semitrailers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RoadCheck Inspections...................................         312,751            11.3            18.0           4,038            17.3            22.1
Four-State Inspections..................................       1,114,029            13.7            14.7          37,615            16.4           18.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: RoadCheck inspection data are cross-section data obtained from 38 States from June 1 through September 23, 2004, except for California where data
  had been collected in June 1-23 only. Four-State inspection data were time-series data collected from 2000 through part of 2003 in four States--
  California, Texas, South Carolina, and Louisiana.

    Table 5 shows that the OOS rates for intermodal equipment--both 
tractors and semitrailers--are consistently higher than the OOS rates 
for commercial motor vehicles hauling non-intermodal semitrailers. This 
suggests that intermodal container chassis are more likely to be 
operated in an unsafe mechanical condition than non-intermodal semi-
trailers
    As part of RoadCheck 2004, FMCSA also asked inspectors to identify 
the ownership of intermodal container chassis at the time of the 
vehicle inspection.\3\ Table 6 summarizes OOS rates by container 
chassis ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Volpe Center, ``Feasibility Study on Collecting Intermodal 
Chassis Crash and Inspection Data,'' prepared for FMCSA, September 
29, 2004.

                   Table 6.--Intermodal Out-of-Service (OOS) Rate by Type of Chassis Ownership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Tractors                  Semitrailers/Chassis
                                     Number of   ---------------------------------------------------------------
     Type of chassis owners         inspections   Number  of OOS     OOS rate     Number  of OOS     OOS rate
                                                    inspections      (percent)      inspections      (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor Carrier...................              94              21            22.3              16            17.0
Leased..........................             191              45            23.6              54            28.3

[[Page 76806]]

 
Shipper.........................             167              41            24.6              33            19.8
Railroads.......................              68              21            30.9              20            29.4
Unknown.........................             150              17            11.3              47            31.3
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................             670             145            21.6             170            25.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While data in Table 6 are relatively limited, they do show that 
intermodal container chassis owned by motor carriers have lower OOS 
rates than intermodal container chassis owned by all other non-motor 
carriers.
    While the total number of violations cited per inspection for 
intermodal container chassis may be comparable to the total number of 
violations per inspection of non-intermodal semitrailers, the data 
indicate the defects or deficiencies observed on intermodal container 
chassis are likely to be more severe than those noted on non-intermodal 
semitrailers (or those violations resulting in vehicle OOS orders). 
Therefore, it appears intermodal container chassis are, as a group of 
commercial vehicles, more likely to be in need of repairs than other 
types of semitrailers, and that the defects and deficiencies are more 
likely to be of the type that are likely to cause a crash or breakdown 
of the vehicle.

Roadside Inspection Violation Data Analysis

All Intermodal Container Chassis Violations
    FMCSA examined the violations cited during intermodal container 
chassis inspections to determine what specific problems were being 
found during the inspections and whether it is likely a driver could 
have detected them if they were present when the driver picked up the 
container chassis.
    Table 7 shows the most frequently cited violations in the 
inspection records of the four States' data. The most common violation 
was ``Inoperable Lamp (Other than Head/Tail),'' which accounted for 
25.4 percent of all violations. Combined with other lamp/light 
violations, they account for 34.0 percent of all violations. Tire-
related violations account for 12.2 percent of all violations. 
Violations that can be readily detected by the driver, including those 
that are lamp/light and tire-related, account for more than half of all 
the violations cited for intermodal container chassis.

                     Table 7.--Distribution of Intermodal Semitrailer Violations (2000-2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Unit 2--Intermodal semitrailers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------    Rank      Count     Percent
                  Code                                 Description                                      of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
393.9...................................  Inoperable lamp (other than head/              1      4,909       25.4
                                           tail) \3\.
396.3(a)(1).............................  Inspection/Repair and Maintenance \2\          2      4,688       24.3
393.75(c)...............................  Tire--Other tread depth less than \2/          3      1,950       10.1
                                           32\ of inch \3\.
393.47..................................  Inadequate brake lining for safe               4      1,315        6.8
                                           stopping \2\.
393.11..................................  No/defective lighting devices/                 5        885        4.6
                                           reflectors/projected \3\.
393.100(e)..............................  Improper securement of intermodal              6        593        3.1
                                           containers \3\.
396.3(a)(1)BA...........................  Brake--Out of adjustment \1\.........          7        486        2.5
393.201(a)..............................  Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose \3\..          8        446        2.3
393.45(a)(4)............................  Brake hose/tubing chafing and/or               9        407        2.1
                                           kinking \2\.
393.70..................................  Fifth wheel \3\......................         10        407        2.1
393.207(c)..............................  Leaf spring assembly defective/               11        396        2.1
                                           missing \2\.
393.25(f)...............................  Stop lamp violations \3\.............         12        371        1.9
393.50..................................  Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum           13        283        1.5
                                           brakes \1\.
393.19..................................  No/defective turn/hazard lamp as              14        245        1.3
                                           required \3\.
393.75(a)(1)............................  Tire--Ply or belt material exposed            15        227        1.2
                                           \3\.
393.75(b)...............................  Tire--Front tread depth less than \4/         16        176        0.9
                                           32\ of inch \3\.
393.48(a)...............................  Inoperative/defective brakes \1\.....         17        175        0.9
393.205(c)..............................  Wheel fasteners loose and/or missing          18        159        0.8
                                           \3\.
393.9T..................................  Inoperable tail lamp \3\.............         19        152        0.8
396.17(c)...............................  Operating a CMV without periodic              20        120        0.6
                                           inspection \3\.
                                                                                --------------------------------
                                          Subtotal--Top 20 Violations..........  .........     18,390       95.3
                                                                                --------------------------------
                                          Other Violations.....................  .........        905        4.7
                                                                                --------------------------------
                                          Total--All Violations................  .........     19,295     100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Violation not readily detectable by driver.
\2\ Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
\3\ Violation generally detectable by driver.


[[Page 76807]]

    Violations involving defects or deficiencies that drivers were 
unlikely to detect during a visual inspection account for only 7 
percent of all violations on intermodal container chassis in the four 
States. The remaining 93 percent of violations are either items the 
driver could have observed during a visual inspection of the container 
chassis, or are under further study by FMCSA to determine the 
likelihood of the driver being able to detect the defect or deficiency.
Intermodal Container Chassis Violations by State
    California dominates the results in the previous section because of 
the number of inspections performed by that State. However, significant 
differences were evident in the types of violations cited from State to 
State. As Table 8 shows, the violation described as ``Inspection/Repair 
and Maintenance'' represented 31.0 percent of all violations cited in 
California. On the other hand, lamp problems were the predominant 
problems in all the other States, accounting for 47.5 percent of 
violations in Texas, 45.7 percent in South Carolina, and 57.8 percent 
in Louisiana.
    The second most frequently cited violation in Louisiana and South 
Carolina was the ``Improper Securement of [an] Intermodal Container,'' 
while for Texas, the second most frequently cited violations were 
brake-related issues.
    The third most frequently cited violations in Louisiana and South 
Carolina were brake-related issues, while for Texas it was ``Improper 
Securement of [an] Intermodal Container.'' California's violations were 
somewhat unique among the four States, as only three of their top ten 
violations were items drivers could have detected during a visual 
inspection of the container chassis. It is possible that violation code 
differences among the States account for some of the variability in 
specific defects or deficiencies listed.

           Table 8.--Intermodal Semitrailer Violations by State (CA, LA, SC, and TX) During 2000-2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Unit 2--Intermodal semitrailer violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Violation                                     Percent of total violations in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------                state
                                                                             -----------------------------------
                  Code                               Description                 CA       LA       SC       TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
393.9..................................  Inoperable lamp (other than head/       30.3     19.7     24.2
                                          tail) \3\.
396.3(a)(1)............................  Inspection/Repair and Maintenance       31.0  .......      3.6
                                          \2\.
393.75(c)..............................  Tire--Other tread depth less than       11.9      3.9      5.2      3.4
                                          \2/32\ of inch \3\.
393.47.................................  Inadequate brake lining for safe         8.7
                                          stopping \2\.
393.11.................................  No/defective lighting devices/       .......     26.3      4.0     28.8
                                          reflectors/projected \3\.
393.100(e).............................  Improper securement of intermodal    .......  .......     11.4     14.7
                                          containers \3\.
396.3(a)(1)BA..........................  Brake--Out of adjustment \1\.......      1.3      6.6      3.8      8.1
393.201(a).............................  Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose \3\      3.0
393.45(a)(4)...........................  Brake hose/tubing chafing and/or     .......      1.3      7.4      7.6
                                          kinking \2\.
393.70.................................  Fifth wheel \1\....................      2.7
393.207(c).............................  Leaf spring assembly defective/          2.6
                                          missing \2\.
393.25(f)..............................  Stop lamp violations \3\...........  .......     10.5      8.2      8.3
393.50.................................  Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum      1.9
                                          brakes \1\.
393.19.................................  No/defective turn/hazard lamp as     .......  .......      4.0      6.5
                                          required \3\.
393.75(a)(1)...........................  Tire--Ply or belt material exposed       1.4
                                          \3\.
393.48(a)..............................  Inoperative/defective brakes \1\...  .......      1.3
393.205(c).............................  Wheel fasteners loose and/or         .......      1.3
                                          missing \3\.
393.9T.................................  Inoperable tail lamp \3\...........  .......      1.3      5.3      2.3
396.17(c)..............................  Operating a CMV without periodic     .......      1.3  .......      2.3
                                          inspection \3\.
393.75(a)..............................  Flat tire or fabric exposed \3\....  .......      1.3
393.20.................................  No/improper mounting of clearance    .......  .......  .......      1.6
                                          lamps \3\.
393.102................................  Improper securement system (tiedown  .......     21.1
                                          assemblies) \3\.
393.207(a).............................  Axle positioning parts defective/    .......      1.3
                                          missing \2\.
393.28.................................  Improper or no wiring protection as  .......      2.6
                                          required \3\.
                                                                             -----------------------------------
                                         Total--Top 10 Violations...........     94.9    100.0     77.2     83.6
                                                                             -----------------------------------
                                         Other Violations...................      5.1      0.0     23.8     16.4
                                                                             -----------------------------------
                                         All Violations.....................    100.0    100.0    100.0   100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Violation not readily detectable by driver.
\2\ Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
\3\ Violation generally detectable by driver.

Vehicle Out-of-Service Violations by State
    Table 9 shows the top ten OOS violations for intermodal 
semitrailers in the four States. Similar to all violations in the 
previous section, the most frequently cited OOS violations were readily 
detectable by the driver, but the patterns of individual violations 
differed among the four States. In California, ``Inoperable Lamp (Other 
than Head/Tail),'' a violation a driver could easily discover, 
accounted for almost 49 percent of the OOS violations in the State, and 
``Inspection/Repair and Maintenance,'' a violation that the driver 
would be less likely to discover, accounted for almost 22 percent of 
the OOS violations.
    In the other three States, the most frequently cited type of OOS 
violation is one that could readily be detected by the driver; namely, 
proper securement of containers and loads. Specifically, these 
violations accounted for 61.5 percent of Louisiana violations, 33.3 
percent of South Carolina violations, and 40.0 percent of Texas 
violations. The second most frequently cited type of violation in these 
three States was also readily detectable by the driver: Lamp-related 
violations. In these three

[[Page 76808]]

States, lamp-related violations accounted for 26.9 percent of Louisiana 
violations, 46.5 percent of South Carolina violations, and 38.9 percent 
of Texas violations.
    Problems with securing containers and loads are not evident among 
the top ten California violations. During a January 2004 field trip to 
the Los Angeles area,\4\ FMCSA staff and Volpe researchers determined 
California inspectors use the ``Inspection/Repair and Maintenance'' 
violation to cover miscellaneous items, such as cracked windshields, 
and not necessarily improperly secured containers and loads. Further 
investigation is required to determine why container securement is not 
identified as a separate issue in California, as it is in the other 
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Volpe Center and FMCSA representatives visited the Ports of 
Los Angeles and Long Beach, CA, guided by members of the California 
Highway Patrol from January 21-22, 2004.

                                 Table 9.--Intermodal Semitrailer OOS Violations in CA, LA, SC, and TX During 2000-2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Unit 2--Intermodal semitrailer OOS violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Violation                                                      Percent of total violations in state
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Code                                     Description                       CA              LA              SC              TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
393.9........................................  Inoperable lamp (other than head/tail)          48.8             7.7            22.2
                                                \3\.
396.3(a)(1)..................................  Inspection/Repair and Maintenance \2\....       21.8       ..............        2.2             1.0
393.75(c)....................................  Tire--Other tread depth less than \2/32\         9.9       ..............  ..............        1.1
                                                of inch \3\.
393.47.......................................  Inadequate brake lining for safe stopping        6.1
                                                \2\.
393.11.......................................  No/defective lighting devices/reflectors/  ..............       11.5
                                                projected \3\.
393.100(e)...................................  Improper securement of intermodal          ..............  ..............       28.3            39.0
                                                containers \3\.
396.3(a)(1)BA................................  Brake--Out of adjustment \1\.............        1.4             3.8             1.9             6.8
393.201(a)...................................  Frame cracked/broken/bent/loose \3\......        1.8
393.70.......................................  Fifth wheel \1\..........................        2.7
393.207(c)...................................  Leaf spring assembly defective/missing           3.0
                                                \2\.
393.25(f)....................................  Stop lamp violations \3\.................  ..............        7.7            12.4            16.5
393.50.......................................  Inadequate reservoir for air/vacuum              0.9
                                                brakes \1\.
393.19.......................................  No/defective turn/hazard lamp as required  ..............  ..............        7.9            20.8
                                                \3\.
393.75(a)(1).................................  Tire--Ply or belt material exposed \3\...        1.0
393.48(a)....................................  Inoperative/defective brakes \3\.........  ..............  ..............  ..............        1.9
393.9T.......................................  Inoperable tail lamp \3\.................  ..............  ..............        4.0             1.6
393.75(a)....................................  Flat tire or fabric exposed \3\..........  ..............        3.8             1.9             1.0
393.100......................................  No or improper load securement \3\.......  ..............  ..............        5.0             1.0
393.75(a)(3).................................  Tire--Flat and/or audible air leak \3\...  ..............  ..............        2.4             3.1
393.102......................................  Improper securement system (tiedown        ..............       61.5
                                                assemblies) \3\.
393.207(b)...................................  Adjustable axle locking pin missing/       ..............  ..............  ..............        1.0
                                                disengaged \3\.
393.207(a)...................................  Axle positioning parts defective/missing   ..............        3.8
                                                \2\.
                                                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Total--Top 10 OOS Violations............       96.5           100.0            88.1            94.7
                                                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Other Violations.........................        3.5             0.0            11.9             5.3
                                               All Violations...........................      100.0           100.0           100.0           100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Violation not readily detectable by driver.
\2\ Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
\3\ Violation generally detectable by driver.

    Table 10 contains results from FMCSA's analysis of inspection of 
intermodal container chassis during RoadCheck 2004. RoadCheck 2004 
inspection analysis found that the most frequently cited OOS violation 
was ``Brakes out of adjustment,'' which accounts for 15.3 percent of 
all violations. ``Inoperable lamp'' was second, accounting for 11.6 of 
all OOS violations. Brake-related violations accounted for 35.3 percent 
of all OOS violations, while light-related violations accounted for 
31.4 percent of the total. Load securement violations accounted for 
18.6% of all violations, while tire-related violations accounted for 
7.5 percent of all violations.

             Table 10.--OOS Violations in Inspections of Intermodal Chassis RoadCheck 2004 Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Unit 2--Semitrailers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------      Rank            Count        Percent of
               Code                         Description                                                total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 396 3A1BA.......................  Brake--Out of adjustment \1\.               1              41            15.3
393 9............................  Inoperable lamp (other than                 2              31            11.6
                                    head/tail) \3\.
393 19...........................  Failing to Equip Vehicle with               3              30            11.2
                                    Operative Turn Signal(s) \3\.
393 48(a)........................  Failing to Equip Vehicle with               4              25             9.3
                                    Operative Brakes \1\.

[[Page 76809]]

 
393 100(e).......................  Improper Securement of                      5              25             9.3
                                    Intermodal Containers \3\.
393 126..........................  No/improper intermodal                      6              25             9.3
                                    container securement \3\.
396 3A1B.........................  Brakes (General) \2\.........               7              21             7.8
393 25(f)........................  Stop Lamp Violations \3\.....               8              20             7.5
396 3(a)(1)......................  Failing to inspect vehicle                  9               8             3.0
                                    for safe operation \2\.
393 75(a)(3).....................  Tire--Flat and/or audible air              10               5             1.9
                                    leak \3\.
393 47...........................  Inadequate/Contaminated Brake              11               4             1.5
                                    Linings \2\.
393 75(a)........................  Operating with tires having                12               4             1.5
                                    fabric or cords exposed \3\.
393 75(a)(1).....................  Tire--Ply or belt material                 13               4             1.5
                                    exposed \3\.
393 75(f)........................  Tire--Load Weight rating/                  14               4             1.5
                                    under inflated \3\.
393 75(a)(4).....................  Tire--Cut Exposing ply and/or              15               3             1.1
                                    belt material \3\.
393 9T...........................  Inoperable tail lamp \3\.....              16               3             1.1
396 3A1BL........................  Brake-reserve system pressure              17               2             0.7
                                    loss \3\.
393 207(a).......................  Operating Vehicle with                     18               2             0.7
                                    Defective/Misaligned Axle or
                                    Axle parts \1\.
393 50...........................  Inadequate Reservoir for Air/              19               2             0.7
                                    Vacuum Brakes \1\.
393 207(b).......................  Operating Vehicle with Adj.                20               2             0.7
                                    Axle Assy. With locking Pin
                                    Defects \3\.
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                   Subtotal--Top 20 Violations..  ..............             261            97.4
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                   Total Vehicle Violations on    ..............             268           100.0
                                    Level 1, 2, 5 Inspections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Violation not readily detectable by driver.
\2\ Violation sometimes detectable by driver or needs more study.
\3\ Violation generally detectable by driver.

National Inspection Data--Violations for Calendar Year 2003
    In addition to examining roadside inspection data from California, 
Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas, FMCSA reviewed inspection results 
for motor carriers that identified themselves on the Motor Carrier 
Identification Report (Form MCS-150) as engaged in intermodal 
operations only, and those engaged in intermodal operations as one of 
their primary operations. The data for these categories of carriers was 
compared with data for all motor carriers.
    There are 641 motor carriers that indicate the only type of 
activity they engage in is intermodal operations. There are 12,032 
motor carriers that include the intermodal operations entry as one of 
the types of transportation activity they engage in. The total number 
of motor carriers is greater than 685,000. However, FMCSA analysts 
believe the number of truly ``active'' motor carriers is probably less 
than 500,000 (i.e., those currently moving freight or passengers, 
operating under their own authority and with required filings on record 
with FMCSA).
    Table 11 data show a small difference (2 percent) between the OOS 
rate for semitrailers being transported by motor carriers in all types 
of operations and semitrailers being transported by motor carriers 
involved in both intermodal and non-intermodal operations. However, 
there is a significant difference between the semitrailer OOS rates for 
motor carriers engaged exclusively in intermodal operations versus 
those with combined operations and all motor carriers. The semitrailer 
OOS rate for intermodal-only operations was 25 percent. The semitrailer 
OOS rate for motor carriers engaged in intermodal operations combined 
with some other type of operation(s) was 15 percent. The semitrailer 
OOS rate for all motor carriers was 13 percent.
    The nationwide data from FMCSA's MCMIS suggest the mechanical 
condition of intermodal container chassis operated by the motor 
carriers typically selected for roadside inspections is significantly 
worse than the semitrailers operated by motor carriers in all types of 
operations. Although there are huge differences in the population size 
of intermodal-only motor carriers versus all motor carriers, and the 
total number of vehicle inspections conducted on intermodal-only 
carriers versus all other motor carriers, FMCSA cannot ignore the 
disparity in the condition of the vehicles.

     Table 11.-- Out-of-Service (OOS) Rates of All and Intermodal-Only Carriers; Data From the Motor Carrier
                                  Management Information System (MCMIS) CY-2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       No. of vehicle inspections         Percent OOS rate
                                          Number of        with 1 or more OOS      -----------------------------
                                           vehicle             violations
           Commodity segment             inspections ------------------------------    Unit 1         Unit 2
                                            CY2003       Unit 1         Unit 2       (tractor)    (semitrailer)
                                                       (tractor)    (semitrailer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermodal Only (n=641)................        2,894          519              725           18               25
Intermodal + Other (n=12,032)..........      145,377       15,963           22,428           11               15
All Motor Carriers (n=>500,000)........    1,476,245      135,000          186,073            9               13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), MCMIS Staff, Run Date--April 29, 2004.


[[Page 76810]]

FMCSA's Analysis of the Data

    FMCSA believes the data suggest that the percentage of intermodal 
container chassis being operated in unsafe mechanical condition is 
likely to be greater than the percentage of non-intermodal semitrailers 
in unsafe operating condition, based on the inspection data obtained 
from CA, LA, SC, and TX as part of the Four-State Analysis and the 
inspection data analyzed as part of the RoadCheck 2004 safety data 
analysis. While the number of violations cited per inspection for 
intermodal container chassis may be comparable to the number of 
violations per inspection of non-intermodal semitrailers, the data 
indicate the defects or deficiencies observed on intermodal container 
chassis are likely to be more severe than those noted on non-intermodal 
semitrailers. Thus, it appears intermodal container chassis are, as a 
group of commercial vehicles, more likely to be in need of repairs than 
other types of semitrailers.
    Container chassis, as a vehicle type, should not be considered 
inherently unsafe. Data from Texas concerning inspection results 
segregated by ownership suggest that container chassis controlled by 
motor carriers are better maintained than container chassis offered by 
IEPs to motor carriers. FMCSA's primary safety concern is with the 
container chassis offered by IEPs, because the agency's research 
indicates that these chassis do not appear to be covered by inspection, 
repair, and maintenance programs comparable to those of motor carriers 
that control their own intermodal equipment, or motor carriers 
responsible for maintaining other types of semitrailers.
    While there is very limited information to determine the extent to 
which the mechanical condition of intermodal container chassis may 
contribute to crashes, the data suggest that it is more likely than not 
that current maintenance practices of many IEPs do not ensure container 
chassis are in safe and proper operating condition at all times on the 
highways. Further, the types of defects or deficiencies found on such 
container chassis during roadside inspections are often so severe the 
vehicle must be placed OOS. It must be acknowledged, however, that a 
very high percentage of these violations could have been detected by 
drivers, had they made--or had the opportunity to make--an adequate 
visual inspection before leaving the intermodal facility.
    Regardless of the lack of crash data on a national level, the 
information reviewed to date is cause for concern. The Volpe Center, in 
a 2004 analysis conducted for FMCSA using the FMCSA Roadside 
Intervention Model, estimated that 55.6 percent of all the CMV crashes 
avoided as a result of roadside interventions (i.e., roadside 
inspections and traffic enforcement stops) in 2003 were attributable to 
the vehicle violations found at the time of the inspection. More recent 
study has highlighted the role of the driver among crash-related 
factors. It is clear, though, that attention to equipment condition 
yields safety benefits. In addition to our continued focus on the 
driver, FMCSA believes that action should be taken to reduce, to the 
greatest extent practicable, potential future crashes caused by the 
mechanical condition of the intermodal container chassis. This 
rulemaking would also ensure that intermodal container chassis meet the 
same level of safety as other semitrailers operated in interstate 
commerce.

IV. Estimated Number of Equipment Providers and Intermodal Container 
Chassis

Equipment Providers

    Container chassis are specialized truck trailers with twist locks. 
An intermodal container chassis is a reusable asset of its owner. The 
chassis can belong to virtually any participant in the transportation 
or logistics chain: (1) Carriers, including ocean shipping lines, 
railroads, and trucking companies; (2) equipment leasing companies; and 
(3) shippers. FMCSA estimates that there are 108 non-motor-carrier 
intermodal equipment providers, consisting of 93 steamship lines, 5 
railroads, and 10 container chassis pool operators.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The number of equipment providers is estimated from 
information in the Containerization International Yearbook 2004 for 
99 port terminals in the United States. The number of steamship 
lines is estimated from the direct call liner services at the 
terminal level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA), 
there are 5,500 motor carriers and 65 IEPs that are signatories to the 
Uniform Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement (UIIA), 
representing approximately 90 percent of the intermodal movements.\6\ 
Furthermore, MCMIS contains information on the motor carriers that 
identify themselves on the Motor Carrier Identification Report (FMCSA 
Form MCS-150) as engaging in intermodal operations only, as well as 
those that include intermodal operations as one of their primary 
operations, and all other motor carriers. As stated previously, the 
MCMIS database indicates there are 12,032 motor carriers that included 
intermodal cargo as one of the cargo types they may carry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ http://www.intermodal.org/Assn Initiatives.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that, according to the IANA database, about 5,500 motor 
carriers are signatories of UIIA, this analysis assumes that about 46 
percent of the 12,032 motor carriers in MCMIS, or about 5,600 motor 
carriers, are engaged in intermodal cargo container operations as a 
primary operation. Only some of these carriers own or otherwise control 
(i.e., lease) intermodal container chassis or trailers. In response to 
FMCSA's survey questionnaire regarding operational characteristics of 
intermodal tractor-trailers, three out of nine motor carriers (or one-
third), suggested that they owned, leased, or otherwise controlled 
intermodal container chassis for extended periods of time (i.e., beyond 
one trip). Therefore, FMCSA assumes that one-third of the 5,600 motor 
carriers engaged in intermodal cargo container operations, or about 
1,900 motor carriers, actually own or lease/control intermodal 
container chassis.
    It is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the size and scope 
of national intermodal container chassis operations. There is no census 
or database of intermodal container chassis providers that is 
comparable to FMCSA's MCMIS Census File of motor carriers, which 
provides not only the name and location of each motor carrier, but also 
its size, as measured by the number of power units. Therefore, the 
number of IEPs has been estimated using a combination of MCMIS, IANA, 
and ATA reports, as well as information obtained from port authority 
and railroad Web sites. However, FMCSA believes that the 1,900 motor 
carriers that own intermodal container chassis are already subject to 
systematic maintenance requirements and would not incur any additional 
cost burden due to the proposed rule.

Intermodal Container Chassis Population

    Information on the number of intermodal container chassis owned by 
the various equipment owners/providers was as difficult to obtain as 
the number of intermodal container chassis providers. Based on articles 
in the motor carrier trade press, FMCSA estimates that there are 
between 750,000 and 800,000 container chassis in service. According to 
the Institute of International Container Lessors (IICL) Annual Chassis 
Fleet Survey,\7 \ IICL members owned approximately 320,000

[[Page 76811]]

container chassis in 2004. According to the IICL, member companies own 
almost 40 percent of the world's container chassis, as well as own and 
lease a high percentage of the U.S. container chassis fleet.\8\ To be 
conservative, FMCSA estimates that there are approximately 850,000 
intermodal container chassis currently in operation in the United 
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ http://www.iicl.org/PDF%20Docs/16thFleetSurveyChassis.pdf.
    \8\ http://www.iicl.org/members.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the IICL data on intermodal container chassis, FMCSA 
assumes the estimated 10 container chassis pool operators control about 
38 percent, or 320,000 container chassis. Therefore, this NPRM assumes 
that steamship lines, railroads, and motor carriers currently own about 
530,000 intermodal container chassis in operation in the United States.
    Through its surveys of intermodal equipment providers, FMCSA 
obtained information on about 281,100 intermodal container chassis, or 
roughly 53 percent of the total number of intermodal container chassis 
owned by members of the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association 
(OCEMA), Association of American Railroads (AAR), and American Trucking 
Associations.\9\ Based on the information from the three industry 
associations, about 80 percent of the reported 281,100 intermodal 
container chassis are owned by the steamship lines, 20 percent are 
owned by railroads, and less than 0.02 percent of the reported 281,100 
intermodal container chassis are owned by the motor carriers. 
Therefore, based on the reported average fleet size of 22 intermodal 
container chassis per motor carrier, FMCSA believes that the estimated 
1,900 motor carriers that own chassis have approximately 41,800 
intermodal container chassis. FMCSA then estimates that 80 percent of 
the rest of the intermodal container chassis (that is, the 488,200 
container chassis that are not owned by either equipment lessors or 
motor carriers), or approximately 392,000 intermodal container chassis, 
are owned by the steamship lines and approximately 96,200 are owned by 
the railroads. Table 12 shows the estimated number of container chassis 
by owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For the 3 industry associations, seven out of 18 major ocean 
common carriers, three out of 5 railroads, and 9 motor carriers 
responded to a variety of questions regarding chassis ownership and 
operations.

       Table 12.--Estimated Number of Intermodal Chassis by Owner
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Estimated
                                             number of       Estimated
         Description of entities             affected        number of
                                             entities         chassis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steamship Lines.........................              93         392,000
Railroads...............................               5          96,200
Common-pool Operators/Equipment Lessors.              10         320,000
Motor Carriers..........................           1,900          41,800
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................           2,008         850,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

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

    FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking action is a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 
Review, and significant under DOT regulatory policies and procedures 
because of substantial public and Congressional interest concerning the 
maintenance and roadability of intermodal container chassis and the 
responsibilities of intermodal equipment providers (IEPs). However, it 
has been estimated that the economic impact of this proposed rule would 
not exceed the annual $100 million threshold for economic significance. 
OMB has reviewed this proposed rule. Improved maintenance is expected 
to result in fewer out-of-service (OOS) orders and highway breakdowns 
involving intermodal chassis and improved efficiency of the Nation's 
intermodal transportation system. To the extent inadequately maintained 
intermodal chassis are responsible for, or contribute to, crashes, this 
proposal would also help to ensure that CMV operations are safer, thus 
reducing the deleterious effect on drivers addressed in section 
31136(a)(4). Given the cost results contained in the next section, 
Estimate of the Compliance Costs for Intermodal Equipment Providers, 
FMCSA anticipates this rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on IEPs.
    Periodic (annual) inspection is required for every commercial motor 
vehicle in accordance with current Sec.  396.17.\10\ Periodic 
inspection is intended to complement and be consistent with the more 
stringent Sec.  393.3 (systematic) inspection, repair, and maintenance 
(IRM) requirements proposed in the NPRM. Currently, most intermodal 
container chassis undergo a periodic (annual) inspection. Although 
existing rules requiring the periodic inspection do not apply directly 
to IEPs, as a business practice IEPs perform the inspection to ensure 
motor carriers will accept the chassis. However, many IEPs do not 
appear to have in place the systematic inspection, repair and 
maintenance programs (49 CFR 396.3) that provide continuous, on-going 
oversight of their equipment throughout the year. Therefore, the 
explicit inclusion of the IEP in Sec.  396.3 of the FMCSRs would make 
them responsible for compliance with the requirements of applicable 
statutes and the corresponding regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``commerical motor vehicle'' includes each unit in 
a combination vehicle. For example, for a tractor semitrailer, full 
trailer combination, the tractor, semitrailer, and the full trailer 
(including the converter dolly if so equipped) must each be 
inspected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments to the FMCSRs would explicitly require IEPs 
to ensure the equipment they tender to motor carriers and drivers 
complies with the safety requirements in place for other types of 
trailers operated in interstate commerce. For those equipment providers 
that have in place systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance 
programs, including providing the opportunity for CMV drivers to assess 
the safe operating condition of intermodal container chassis before 
taking them on the highway and repairing or replacing equipment found 
to have deficiencies, this proposed rulemaking would impose minimal 
additional costs. Equipment providers that do not have such systematic 
programs in place would incur the costs of establishing and maintaining 
the programs.

[[Page 76812]]

    The proposed regulations also address a program for FMCSA to 
evaluate and audit the compliance of IEPs with those sections of the 
FMCSRs applicable to them. If FMCSA finds evidence that an IEP is not 
complying with the regulations concerning intermodal equipment safety, 
the proposed regulations would allow FMCSA to take appropriate action 
to bring about compliance with the regulation.
    The proposed rule would have some impact upon the responsibilities 
of drivers and motor carriers. Motor carriers would continue to bear 
responsibility for the safe operation of equipment in their control on 
the highways and for the systematic IRM of all motor vehicles, 
including intermodal equipment, under their control for 30 days or 
more. Drivers would continue to be responsible for assessing the safe 
operating condition of the CMVs they will drive (Sec.  392.7 and Sec.  
396.13), and to note and report on defects or deficiencies that could 
affect the CMV's safety of operation or result in a mechanical 
breakdown (Sec.  396.11). IEPs would need to acknowledge receiving that 
information, and must either repair the equipment or provide a 
replacement chassis. However, IEPs and their agents may also request 
FMCSA to undertake an investigation of a motor carrier that is alleged 
to not be in compliance with regulations issued under the authority of 
49 U.S.C. 31151.
    Excluding potential costs associated with systematic IRM (Sec.  
396.3) requirements, FMCSA estimates equipment providers' costs to 
comply with the proposed information collection and recordkeeping 
requirements would be modest, because the requirements would be limited 
in scope (filing the Identification Form MCS-150C, marking intermodal 
equipment with the provider's USDOT number or other identifying number 
unique to that provider, and complying with recordkeeping requirements 
associated with equipment inspection, repair, and maintenance).
    The economic benefits of this rule are estimated to include (1) 
safety benefits from avoiding crashes involving intermodal equipment, 
and (2) efficiency benefits resulting from a reduction in vehicle OOS 
orders on intermodal chassis, wait times for truckers to receive 
chassis, and other changes in chassis operations that improve 
productivity.
    The sections below provide details on the estimated costs and 
benefits of this proposed rule.

Estimated Compliance Costs for Intermodal Equipment Providers

    Potential costs considered as a result of this proposed rule 
include the following:
     Filing Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report 
(Form MCS-150C);
     Displaying a unique USDOT number or other identification 
number on each chassis;
     Establishing a systematic inspection program, and a repair 
and maintenance program to ensure the safe operating condition of each 
chassis;
     Maintaining documentation of the inspection program; and
     Establishing a reporting system for defective and 
deficient equipment.
    When considering costs of the proposed rule, it should be 
recognized that some of those costs are already being incurred by the 
industry. As mentioned previously, periodic inspections of intermodal 
equipment by those controlling that equipment (Sec.  396.17(c)) are 
apparently being performed at least once every 12 months, as required. 
Additionally, as presented later in the discussion of inspection, 
repair and maintenance costs, surveys of steamship lines and railroads 
that are also IEPs indicate that at least some of those equipment 
providers are engaging in regular repair and preventative maintenance, 
as well as in various inspection activities. Furthermore, information 
from motor carriers indicates that some are currently doing limited 
repair and maintenance on the chassis that are tendered by IEPs to 
them. Therefore, the costs of this rule are lower than they would be if 
IEPs were not performing any inspections, repairs, or maintenance.
    Total first-year costs associated with this proposed rule range 
from $28 to $41 million, depending on equipment providers' current 
inspection, maintenance, and repair programs for their chassis. Total 
discounted costs over the 10-year analysis period range from $147 to 
$242 million, using a seven percent discount rate.
    A copy of FMCSA's preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) is 
included in this rulemaking docket.
Filing Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report (MCS-150C)
    Currently, a motor carrier is required to file a Motor Carrier 
Information Report (Form MCS-150) with FMCSA before it begins to 
operate in interstate commerce and to file an update of the report 
every 24 months. The proposed rule would require each equipment 
provider to register with FMCSA (if it has not already done so) and to 
obtain a USDOT number or other unique identification number by 
submitting an Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report, Form 
MCS-150C, to FMCSA. Additionally, each entity must file an update to 
its initial MCS-150C filing at least every 24 months. FMCSA estimates 
that 108 entities (93 steamship lines, 5 railroads, and 10 common pool 
operator/equipment lessors) will need to submit Forms MCS-150C.
    Form MCS-150C would be a single-page form that includes questions 
about basic information, e.g., name, address, telephone number, numbers 
and types of equipment, etc. FMCSA estimates it would take 20 minutes 
to complete Form MCS-150C the first time that it is filed.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FMCSA, Motor Carrier Identification Report, 65 FR 70509, 
November 24, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to national employment and wage data from the 
Occupational Employment Statistics survey published by the Department 
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, a first line supervisor/manager 
in a transportation and material moving occupation (those FMCSA 
believes will be filling out Form MCS-150C) earned a median hourly wage 
of about $21.08. Total compensation for a supervisor/manager 
responsible for filing a Form MCS-150C is estimated at $30.79, of which 
$21.08 is the wage and salary and $9.71 is the benefit.
    This evaluation estimates that IEPs would incur a one-time cost of 
approximately $10.27 per entity (\1/3\ hour times $30.79), or about 
$1,110 ($10.27 x 108 = $1,109.16) for the industry to prepare and 
submit MCS-150Cs to FMCSA. As mandated in section 217 of the Motor 
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA), Pub. L. 106-159, 113 
Stat. 1748, at 1767 (December 9, 1999), the MCS-150 need not be updated 
more frequently than every two years. FMCSA estimates the biennial 
update would take considerably less time than the original submission, 
because most of the information is likely to be the same, and equipment 
providers would already have had the experience of completing the form 
at least once before. For purposes of this analysis, the biennial 
update is estimated to take 10 minutes.\12\ In addition to the one-time 
filing cost, IEPs would also incur a recurrent charge of $5.13 per 
entity

[[Page 76813]]

biennially. Table 13 summarizes the estimated first-year costs of 
initially filing a MCS-150C form with FMCSA, as well as subsequent 
costs incurred filing the biennial update every two years. Note that 
motor carriers already are required to file Form MCS-150, so they would 
not incur any new costs associated with this aspect of the proposed 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The estimated time requirements for chassis owners and 
providers to fill out an MCS-150C for the first time and biennially 
are consistent with FMCSA's estimate of the time it takes motor 
carriers to fill out an MCS-150.

       Table 13.--Costs of Filing the Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report (Form MCS-150C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Additional costs due to the
                                                                                               NPRM
                                                                                 -------------------------------
               Provider                   Number of          Existing costs                            Total
                                          entities                                Initial  (1st-     recurring
                                                                                   year)  costs    costs  (years
                                                                                                      2-10)*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steamship Lines......................              93  None.....................            $955          $1,618
Railroads............................               5  None.....................              52              88
Common-pool Operators................              10  None.....................             103             173
Motor Carriers.......................           1,900  19,502...................               0               0
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................           2,008  19,502...................           1,110           1,880
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Net present value over a 10-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.

Displaying a USDOT Number or Other Unique Identification Number on Each 
Container Chassis
    The proposed rule would require all IEPs who tender such equipment 
to motor carriers to mark their container chassis with a unique USDOT 
number that is assigned to those filing the MCS-150C, or another number 
unique to that entity. FMCSA does not mandate a particular method of 
vehicle identification; thus, the costs associated with this proposal 
would vary depending on the method used to mark the container chassis 
with the required type of marking (i.e., USDOT number versus an 
alternative identifier). FMCSA believes that the vast majority of IEPs 
would use either stencils or decals for marking, because these are the 
cheapest methods. This assumption and the following assumptions on time 
and material requirements for container chassis marking are consistent 
with FMCSA's Final Rulemaking analysis for Commercial Motor Vehicle 
Marking published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2000, at 65 FR 
35287. FMCSA has estimated that material costs for marking a container 
chassis with a USDOT number or other unique identification number 
decrease with increasing fleet size; that is, marking for smaller 
fleets is estimated at $20 per unit, while marking for IEPs with more 
than 20 units in their fleet is estimated at approximately $10 per 
vehicle. The material cost decreases to approximately $2.50 per vehicle 
for a fleet of more than 1,000 units. The chassis marking costs would 
impact only those equipment providers of intermodal container chassis 
who tender such equipment to other parties. This NPRM assumes the 
material costs associated with marking of intermodal container chassis 
would average approximately $6.25 per container chassis.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The $6.25 estimate is the average of $2.50 and $10.00. We 
assume that there would be a negligible number of equipment 
providers owning fewer than 6 chassis. Therefore, the highest 
material cost, $20 per unit, was not used in this analysis. FMCSA 
acknowledges that the estimated container chassis marking cost of 
$6.25 per container chassis is conservative and probably over-
estimates the costs of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA estimates that the average time to affix a USDOT number or 
other unique identification number would be about 12 minutes. According 
to national employment and wage data from the Occupational Employment 
Statistics survey, the median hourly wage rate for a painter of 
transportation equipment is $16.39. Incorporating a 31.5 percent 
benefits package yields a total hourly compensation rate of $21.55. 
Assuming 12 minutes per marking, the labor cost to mark each intermodal 
container chassis is estimated to be roughly $4 per container chassis 
after rounding.
    Combining the above estimates for material and labor, FMCSA 
estimates that the total costs to mark one intermodal container chassis 
with a USDOT number or other unique identification number is about $11 
(after rounding). First-year costs would equal $8.9 million to mark all 
container chassis operating in the United States. Subsequently, every 
year thereafter, a portion of the chassis will be retired and replaced 
by new chassis, each of which will need to be marked. FMCSA estimates 
that the operational life of a chassis is 14 years on average. 
Consequently, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that \1/
14\th of the chassis fleet is retired and replaced annually. Total 
recurring costs (in years two through 10 of the analysis period) equals 
$3.9 million, with total 10-year chassis marking costs estimated at 
$12.8 million (after rounding). Table 14 illustrates the estimated 
number of container chassis and costs of marking. The cost estimates 
assume the identification number would be applied with a stencil and 
spray paint. If the identification number were to be applied using 
decals, recurring costs may be somewhat higher to account for 
replacement of decals that loosen over time. Note that motor carriers 
are assumed to incur no costs associated with the chassis marking 
requirements, because it is believed that generally they do not tender 
chassis to other parties for drayage.

[[Page 76814]]



                                  Table 14.--Estimated Cost of Chassis Marking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Additional costs due to
                                                                                                the NPRM
                                                       Total                           -------------------------
                                                     number of                                        Total for
              Owner type                 Entities     chassis        Existing costs                   recurring
                                                     controlled                           Initial       costs
                                                        \14\                               costs      (years 2-
                                                                                                         10)*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steamship Lines......................           93      392,000  None.................   $4,327,680   $1,882,232
Railroads............................            5       96,200  .....................    1,062,048      461,886
Common-pool Operators................           10      320,000  .....................    3,532,800    1,536,507
Motor Carriers.......................        1,900       41,800  .....................            0            0
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................        2,008      850,000  $0...................    8,922,528   3,880,625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Net present value over a 10-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.

Establishing a Systematic Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance (IRM) 
Program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This term ``controlled'' is loosely defined here as those 
chassis owned or leased (long term) by the entity and for which they 
have responsibility or decision-making authority over maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Periodic inspections. Current regulations (49 CFR 396.17) require 
motor carriers or their agents to conduct periodic (annual) inspections 
of their equipment. With regard to intermodal chassis, these 
inspections appear to be conducted for the most part by IEPs. As a 
result of research conducted prior to this rulemaking (i.e., surveys, 
port visits, roadside inspections), FMCSA concluded that the IEPs did 
in fact appear to be conducting the vast majority of inspections that 
would satisfy Sec.  396.17 requirements regarding periodic (annual) 
inspections of the chassis. As such, FMCSA believes there would be no 
new costs to equipment providers or motor carriers for periodic 
(annual) inspections of intermodal chassis because of this proposed 
rule.
    Systematic inspections. In addition to the periodic (annual) 
inspection regulations (396.17), Sec.  396.3 requires every motor 
carrier or their agent to systematically inspect, repair, and maintain, 
or cause to be systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained, all 
motor vehicles subject to its control. The parts and accessories are 
required to be in safe and proper operating condition at all times. 
These parts and accessories include those specified in Part 393 and any 
additional parts and accessories that may affect the safety of 
operation, including but not limited to frame and frame assemblies, 
suspension systems, axles and attaching parts, wheels and rims, and 
steering systems. However, the proposed rule now would explicitly 
require IEPs to comply with the systematic inspection, repair, and 
maintenance requirements of Sec.  396.3. These requirements do not 
provide specific intervals for the routine inspections, or provide 
inspection criteria.
    Frequency of inspection. As regards estimating costs of making the 
systematic inspection, maintenance, and repair requirements applicable 
to intermodal equipment providers, FMCSA first attempted to determine 
whether the equipment providers had maintenance or repair programs that 
could satisfy some or all of the proposed Sec.  396.3 requirements. 
Responses from the survey of steamship lines indicated that the seven 
entities queried were fully complying with existing systematic 
inspection, maintenance, and repair regulations. However, anecdotal 
information obtained from port visits and participation in roadside 
inspections of intermodal chassis by FMCSA analysts indicated 
otherwise. Because SAFETEA-LU explicitly requires intermodal equipment 
providers to comply with the systematic inspection, repair, and 
maintenance requirements of Sec.  396.3, the relevant question then 
becomes whether there are any new costs associated with this aspect of 
the proposed rule. Motor carriers were already directly subject to 
these requirements, and this proposed rule would simply ensure the 
transfer of this responsibility to non-motor carrier IEPs.
    As a result of its investigation, FMCSA concluded that there was a 
significant probability that full compliance was not being achieved 
with the existing regulations. IEPs, as a customary business practice, 
do not provide systematic inspection, repair and maintenance programs. 
Consequently, for the purpose of estimating the economic costs of this 
proposed rule, FMCSA assumes that non-motor carrier IEPs would in fact 
be required to undertake new costs because of this rulemaking. Whether 
or not this accurately represents the current situation, our assumption 
of less than full compliance is conservative because it helps ensure 
that FMCSA does not underestimate the economic costs of this proposed 
rule.
    Because the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must quantify the 
number of additional inspections to be conducted each year as a result 
of this proposed rule, FMCSA estimates about one a year is conducted by 
IEPs now, but four are needed for a reasonable systematic inspection, 
repair and maintenance program. We estimate that, on average, three 
additional inspections would be required for that portion of the non-
motor carrier owned or controlled intermodal chassis currently in 
operation (even though the proposed rule sets no explicit requirements 
on the number of inspections per chassis under a systematic IRM 
program). FMCSA believes that a minimally-compliant IEP could fulfill 
the requirements of this proposal. For the purposes of estimating costs 
for the RIA, this assumption would effectively amount to a quarterly 
inspection program for the chassis owned or controlled by IEPs.
    Regarding the number of chassis being maintained in a manner 
consistent with the regulations, FMCSA estimates between 25 and 50 
percent of the existing intermodal chassis population are currently not 
being properly maintained.\15\ Two estimates are chosen here due to the 
uncertainty associated with current systematic maintenance practices. 
FMCSA estimates that each chassis that is not currently maintained 
would receive three additional inspections each year on average as part 
of systematic IRM programs implemented or modified as a result of this 
proposed rule. Conversely, it is estimated that the remainder, or 50 to 
75 percent of all chassis currently in use,

[[Page 76815]]

are already provided at least four complete inspections per year and 
therefore, would not require any additional inspections as a result of 
this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This percent is based on the agency's analyses of the AAR 
and OCEMA responses to its surveys, as well as from information 
gathered from our port visits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This analysis uses an average of 30 minutes to conduct an 
inspection of an intermodal chassis and that a transportation inspector 
earning $30.79 per hour in wages and benefits would perform the 
inspections, supported by a mechanic. This is based on data from the 
AAR survey response. It is also consistent with the amount of time to 
complete a Level V inspection. The mechanic is assumed to devote 15 
minutes to the inspection, the inspector 30 minutes. The median hourly 
wage for a mobile heavy equipment mechanic is estimated from employment 
and wage data from Occupational Employment Statistics to be $17.69 as 
of May 2003. Assuming benefits are equal to 31.5 percent of wages, the 
total loaded labor cost of the mechanic would be $23.26 per hour. The 
total cost of each additional inspection of an intermodal chassis would 
be $21.21. This cost estimate is consistent with the AAR members' 
estimates of annual inspection costs of $20 if performed by their own 
personnel and $18 if outsourced to an on- or off-site terminal 
inspection operator. The cost of four inspections per year would be 
$84.84.
    Additional Maintenance and Repair Costs. FMCSA recognizes that the 
maintenance and repair activities of some systematic IRM programs might 
need to be expanded in order to bring the programs into full compliance 
with the proposed requirements. For the most part, however, the primary 
change anticipated is that maintenance and repair will become more 
proactive and less reactive. For instance, some IEPs currently perform 
preventative maintenance when driver, inbound, outbound, or roadability 
inspections at terminals find problems (or during the annual inspection 
required by the FMCSRs). The proposed rule would make the preventative 
maintenance of those providers more regular or time-based. This would 
place necessary maintenance and repair activities upstream in the 
interchange process reducing the ``reactive'' nature of that activity.
    There will most likely be some shift of repair costs from motor 
carriers to IEPs, but the magnitude of this shift is uncertain. 
However, FMCSA believes this shift represents a transfer payment of 
existing costs, and therefore is not expected to impact the overall 
costs or benefits of the proposed rule.
    Total Systematic Maintenance Program Costs. Table 15 shows the 
estimated costs of IRM programs for IEPs, based on assumptions about 
existing compliance. Estimates are presented for the cases where (1) 50 
percent of all chassis are assumed to be in compliance with existing 
systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance regulations (requiring 
no additional inspections per year), while the other 50 percent are 
assumed to require three additional inspections per year (where the 
fourth quarterly inspection represents the annual inspection, which 
FMCSA believes is already being performed); and (2) where 75 percent of 
all chassis are assumed to be in compliance with existing regulations 
(requiring no additional inspections per year), while the other 25 
percent would require three additional inspections per year. As Table 
15 indicates, according to FMCSA assumptions for this analysis, the 
proposed rule is expected to add between $13.5 million and $27.0 
million per year to the cost of systematic IRM programs for IEPs, 
depending on the percentage of chassis which are already believed to be 
in compliance with the existing systematic inspection, repair, and 
maintenance regulations. The estimated total present value of the cost 
of systematic IRM requirements for equipment providers over a 10-year 
period is estimated to be between $95 million and $190 million. Annual 
costs associated with this rulemaking represent an increase of one to 
three percent in the costs of systematic IRM programs already 
undertaken by non-motor carrier IEPs, based on information obtained 
from equipment provider surveys regarding the average annual 
maintenance costs incurred per chassis.

                            Table 15.--Estimated Cost of Systematic Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance Programs for Chassis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Number of          Existing inspection, repair,    Additional costs due to NPRM
                                                               --------------------------      and maintenance costs     -------------------------------
                                                                                         --------------------------------
                                                                                           Assuming 50%    Assuming 75%    Assuming 50%    Assuming 75%
                                                                                            of chassis      of chassis      of chassis      of chassis
                                                                                            are in full     are in full     are in full     are in full
                      Intermodal provider                                                 compliance and  compliance and  compliance and  compliance and
                                                                 Providers     Chassis      50% require     25% require     50% require     25% require
                                                                                               three           three           three           three
                                                                                            additional      additional      additional      additional
                                                                                            inspections     inspections     inspections     inspections
                                                                                             per year        per year        per year        per year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steamship Lines...............................................           93      392,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Railroads.....................................................            5       96,200  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Common-pool Operators.........................................           10      320,000    $913,771,250    $927,292,625     $27,042,750     $13,521,375
Motor Carriers................................................        1,900       41,800  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................        2,008      850,000  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recordkeeping

    As stated earlier, FMCSA believes that the systematic IRM program 
called for in the proposed rule will require four inspections of 
intermodal chassis per year, on average.
    FMCSA estimates that the time needed to document and file each 
inspection report is approximately 3 minutes. Therefore, this analysis 
assumes that it would take each IEP approximately 3 minutes on average 
per intermodal chassis per inspection to document and retain the 
inspection reports. Assuming that a transportation inspector earning 
$30.79 per hour in wages and benefits would perform the inspections and 
document the findings, the total cost to document and retain each 
inspection report is estimated to be approximately $2 per intermodal 
chassis per inspection (or ($30.79/60) x 3 minutes).
    Annual Inspections. Under current regulations, motor carriers are 
required

[[Page 76816]]

to comply with the periodic recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  396.21, 
and the proposed rule would not impose any additional recordkeeping 
requirements on them. Additionally, based on its research, FMCSA 
believes that other IEPs (i.e., steamship lines, railroads, and common 
pool operators) are currently inspecting their chassis on an annual 
basis. As such, for the purposes of this analysis, these other IEPs are 
assumed to prepare a report that is equivalent to the one required by 
Sec.  396.21, given that FMCSA has received no information through its 
surveys, port visits, or roadside inspection activities, that would 
indicate otherwise. The proposed regulatory change, consequently, will 
not impose any additional regulatory requirements on the other IEPs 
relating to their annual inspections.
    Systematic Inspections. It is assumed that motor carriers are 
currently performing full inspections of intermodal chassis they 
control four times per year. This is not assumed to be the case for 
IEPs, however. Some portion of chassis owned or controlled by other 
(non-motor carrier) equipment providers (between 25 percent and 50 
percent in this analysis) are assumed to be inspected once annually. 
Consequently, the proposed regulatory change will require additional 
recordkeeping for non-motor carrier IEPs.
    Assuming that the recordkeeping for each intermodal chassis 
inspection costs $2, and that these intermodal equipment providers will 
need to perform three additional inspections per year per chassis, the 
recordkeeping requirements of the proposed regulatory change are 
expected to cost the non-motor carrier IEPs an additional $6 per 
chassis per year.
    Total Cost of Recordkeeping. Table 16 presents the total annual 
estimated cost of recordkeeping currently and under the proposed 
regulations, along with the increase in the cost of recordkeeping 
attributable to the new regulations.

            Table 16.--Estimated Cost of Systematic Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance Recordkeeping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Estimated number of                                    Change in
                                          --------------------------                Annual cost    annual costs
                                                                       Existing      under the     attributable
               Description                                              annual       proposed         to the
                                            Providers     Chassis       costs       regulations      proposed
                                                                                                    regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steamship Lines..........................           93      392,000     $784,000      $3,136,000      $2,352,000
Railroads................................            5       96,200      192,400         769,600         577,200
Common-pool Operators....................           10      320,000      640,000       2,560,000       1,920,000
Motor Carriers...........................        1,900       41,800      334,400         334,400               0
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total................................        2,008      850,000    1,950,800       6,800,000       4,849,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The annual cost of recordkeeping attributable to the proposed rule 
is $4,849,200. Over the 10-year analysis period, the present value of 
the cost of recordkeeping would be $38,907,752.
    New Reporting System for Defective/Deficient Equipment. The 
proposed rule would require that IEPs establish a system for motor 
carriers and drivers to report to the IEPs any defects or deficiencies 
in tendered chassis that would affect the safety of the operation of 
those chassis or result in its mechanical breakdown on the road. This 
proposed change would require: (1) The establishment of the system; (2) 
the minimum information that the IEP must obtain from motor carriers 
and drivers; (3) the corrective actions that must be taken when a 
chassis is identified as being defective or deficient in some way; and 
(4) the retention period for all documentation that is generated as a 
consequence of this system. This requirement would be added to the 
FMCSRs in a new Sec.  396.12. All of these potential impacts are 
discussed.
    Nature of Notification. The discovery of a chassis problem by a 
driver could occur at any of a variety of locations. It might occur 
during the driver's mandated inspection of the chassis at the start of 
a trip, during the movement over the public roadways from the origin 
terminal to the destination of the container on the chassis, or at the 
destination. Potentially, the discovery could occur hundreds of miles 
distant from the intermodal providers' nearest operational location. 
The average length of haul for chassis transported by the nine trucking 
firms that responded to FMCSA's intermodal survey varied from 11-20 
miles to 150-200 miles.
    For purposes of this analysis, FMCSA assumes that no additional 
costs will be incurred in order for IEPs to receive notification of 
problems. Because problems with chassis already occur, FMCSA believes 
that such systems are already well established to address problems. 
Additionally, FMCSA received no information during its data collection 
immediately prior to this rulemaking to indicate otherwise, and the 
agency found such systems already in place during its port visits. 
Consequently, no additional costs are expected to result.
    Motor Carriers and Drivers. For the systems established by IEPs to 
be effective, motor carriers and drivers must report defective or 
deficient chassis. Proposed Sec.  390.44 would require drivers to 
report to the IEP, or its agent, the condition of each vehicle 
operated. Also, motor carriers and drivers are responsible for taking 
only roadworthy chassis on the public roadways, so it would be in their 
best interest to report any problems with defective or deficient 
chassis that are encountered.
    For purposes of this analysis, FMCSA assumes that no additional 
costs will be incurred by drivers and motor carriers in order to notify 
chassis providers of problems with defective or deficient chassis. 
Problems with chassis already occur, and drivers or motor carriers are 
already contacting providers (whether in person or by phone) to inform 
them of those problems. Additionally, FMCSA believes that the new 
application of the systematic IRM requirement to equipment providers 
will generally result in these problems being noticed and corrected 
prior to the transfer of the chassis.
    Driver Chassis Inspection Reports. According to proposed Sec.  
396.12, the reports to be received by the IEP from the motor carrier 
and the driver will need to include the following information:
     The name of the motor carrier responsible for the 
operation of the chassis at the time the defect or deficiency was 
discovered by or reported to the driver;

[[Page 76817]]

     The USDOT identification number or other unique 
identification number of the motor carrier;
     The date and time the report was submitted; and
     The defects or deficiencies reported by the motor carrier 
or driver.
    As mentioned before, chassis currently experience problems that are 
being reported to IEPs. With the possible exception of the USDOT 
identification number or other unique identification number, good 
business practice would seem to require that all of the information 
mandated in reports under new Sec.  396.12 is currently being 
collected. Additionally, FMCSA received no information during its data 
collection immediately prior to this rulemaking to indicate otherwise. 
Therefore, no additional costs are expected to result from the required 
driver chassis inspection reports.
    Corrective Actions. Proposed Sec.  396.12 would require each IEP to 
establish a system for motor carriers and their drivers to report 
damage, defects, and deficiencies. After a chassis returns to the 
possession of the IEP, Sec.  396.12 would mandate that the provider 
must correct any reported defects or deficiencies in the chassis that 
make the chassis not roadworthy. Furthermore, before a provider can 
place the chassis in service, the provider must document the actions 
taken to correct any reported defect or deficiency, or must document 
that repairs were unnecessary.
    Based on information obtained from equipment provider surveys FMCSA 
has concluded that IEPs currently have repair facilities for dealing 
with chassis that are not roadworthy. Additionally, during its port 
visits, FMCSA staff identified repair facilities at all the terminals 
they toured. Consequently, Sec.  396.12 would not require the 
establishment of new facilities, nor is there any reason to believe 
that the new section will necessitate any expansion of existing 
facilities.
    Good business practice for chassis providers and their service 
departments would include documenting repairs made or documenting that 
repairs were not made. This information assists those monitoring the 
cost and work of repair facilities. Information obtained from the 
equipment providers' surveys confirmed that IEPs are indeed following 
good business practice. The proposed Sec.  396.12 would not increase 
the need for this documentation. It might, however, change the nature 
of the documentation somewhat. For instance, if a chassis were brought 
in for a defective wheel and no wheel problem could be found, then 
current documentation might just say ``Checked wheels.'' Under the 
proposed Sec.  396.12, the documentation might say ``Check wheels after 
receiving trouble report from motor carrier. Complete check revealed no 
problem.'' FMCSA believes any change in documentation would be minor 
and would not materially add to the costs of the providers, however.
    Retention of Records. Under proposed Sec.  396.12, all 
documentation must be kept for a period of three months from the date 
of a trouble report. Available intermodal chassis provider industry 
information indicates that records of inbound and outbound inspections 
are kept between one and seven years, with three to five years being 
typical.\16\ FMCSA has no reason to expect that repair records, which 
are arguably more critical to the operation of intermodal chassis 
providers than records on inbound and outbound inspections, would be 
kept for less time. Additionally, FMCSA received no information during 
its data collection effort immediately prior to this rulemaking to 
indicate otherwise. Consequently, the retention of records, as required 
by proposed Sec.  396.12, would not add to the costs of intermodal 
chassis providers.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Information on intermodal chassis operations submitted by 
OCEMA to FMCSA in 2004 in response to questions posed by FMCSA.
    \17\ Alternatively, any costs associated with the retention of 
records for the proposed defective and deficient equipment reporting 
system could be assumed to be covered by the costs associated with 
recordkeeping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall Impact. The overall impact of proposed Sec.  396.12, 
Procedures for intermodal equipment providers to accept reports 
required by Sec.  390.44(b), on the costs of intermodal chassis 
providers, is believed to be negligible. All required actions regarding 
the collection and retention of records are currently being performed 
in one form or another, according to FMCSA survey analysis and other 
research (port visits). Proposed Sec.  396.12 is not expected to add 
materially to the current workload of intermodal chassis providers, 
their service organizations, or to motor carriers and their drivers.

Total Compliance Costs of the Proposed Regulations

    Table 17 summarizes the expected compliance costs attributable to 
the proposed regulation.

                                 Table 17.--Estimated Costs of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Additional costs due to the NPRM
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
           Requirement              Existing costs                             Total for
                                       (annual)          Initial cost       recurring costs   Total cost  (years
                                                           (year 1)         (years 2-10)**          1-10)**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing MCS-150C.................  $19,502...........  $1,110............  $1,880............  $2,990.
Chassis Marking.................  $0................  $9,384,000........  $4,081,352........  $13,465,352.
Systematic Inspection, Repair,    $913,771,250 to     $13,521,375 to      $81,447,105 to      $94,968,480 to
 and Maintenance Costs.            $927,292,625.       $27,042,750.        $162,894,210.       $189,936,960.
Recordkeeping...................  $1,950,800........  $4,849,200........  $34,058,752.......  $38,907,952.
Sec.   396.12...................  *.................  $0................  $0................  $0.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Costs.................  $915,741,552 to     $27,292,899 to      $119,388,362 to     $146,681,261 to
                                   $929,262,927.       $40,814,274.        $200,835,467.       $241,649,741.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Included in the costs of other actions.
** Net present value over a 10-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.

    The total compliance costs, or the sum of the total initial and 
total recurring costs, are expected to be between $147 million and $242 
million. Consistent with OMB directives, this is the present value of 
the expected cost stream calculated over a 10-year period using a 7 
percent discount rate.
    FMCSA seeks comment on the cost analysis.

[[Page 76818]]

Safety and Economic Benefits of Improving Container Chassis Maintenance

    The purpose of the proposed regulation is to ensure that intermodal 
chassis used to transport intermodal containers are safe. The explicit 
inclusion of IEPs in the scope of the FMCSRs would ensure that IEPs 
could be subject to the same enforcement proceedings, orders, and civil 
penalties as those applied to motor carriers today. The systematic 
inspection, maintenance, and repair requirements would ensure safer and 
more reliable container chassis on the nation's highways. The expected 
benefits of the proposed rule include the following:
     Increased safety of intermodal chassis operation as a 
result of reducing crashes attributable to those chassis;
     Increased operational efficiency of intermodal chassis as 
a result of--
    [cir] Reducing the vehicle out-of-service rate;
    [cir] Reducing the average idle time spent by truckers waiting for 
chassis repairs on the road;
    [cir] Reducing the average time spent by truckers at rail terminals 
or port facilities waiting to be given a roadworthy chassis. This 
effectively decreases congestion costs at those facilities, which are 
typically located in urban areas.
    The following sections quantify the potential benefits of the 
proposed rule by estimating the number of crashes avoided to justify 
the compliance costs directly or indirectly imposed by the rule. The 
sections also provide qualitative discussion of benefits of the 
proposed rule where quantitative estimates are not available.
    Threshold Analysis for Safety Benefits. Section III of this 
document contains data analysis conducted by FMCSA that shows that 
intermodal trailers have significantly higher vehicle out-of-service 
(OOS) rates than non-intermodal trailers. The results indicate that 
chassis owned by a motor carrier appear to have lower OOS rates than 
the comparable equipment owned by non-motor carrier equipment 
providers. These findings are still considered preliminary because the 
sample size of chassis inspection data by ownership type was quite 
small. The proposed rule's explicit inclusion of IEPs would better 
enable FMCSA to determine whether and how equipment providers are 
complying with provisions of the FMCSRs and to compel compliance, if 
necessary. Additionally, FMCSA analysts believe that a portion of the 
chassis currently in use will receive additional inspections each year, 
because this proposed rule explicitly requires non-motor carrier 
intermodal equipment providers to comply with the existing systematic 
inspection, repair, and maintenance regulations. A better-inspected, 
maintained, and repaired intermodal chassis fleet would be likely to 
result in a decrease in crashes on the Nation's highways.
    The estimated cost of a crash involving a fatal injury is $3.57 
million for a truck tractor with one trailer, and the costs of non-
injury or property-damage-only crashes are estimated to be $12,077 
each. The estimated average cost of a crash reported to police 
involving a truck tractor with one trailer is $76,698.\18\ Using recent 
data on the number of crashes involving truck tractors with single 
trailers, Table 18 estimates the total crash costs for these vehicles. 
The cost estimate shown in Table 18 includes the cost of fatal and 
injury crashes, but does not include the costs associated with 
property-damage-only crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Estimated in 2003 dollars calculated using the gross 
domestic product (GDP) deflator, and estimates from ``Revised Costs 
of Large Truck and Bus Involved Crashes,'' final report to FMCSA by 
Eduard Zaloshnja and Ted Miller, available at: http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/CarrierResearchResults/CarrierResearchContent.asp.

               Table 18.--Estimated Costs of Crashes Involving Truck Tractors With Trailers, 2002
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Truck tractors                Fatal crashes  Injury crashes          Total estimated costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 trailer................................           2,937          42,000  $3,447 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: ``Traffic Safety Facts 2002'', available at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF2002.pdf.

    As stated, the rule is expected to result in compliance costs of 
between $28 million and $41 million in the first year, and $147 million 
and $242 million over the entire 10-year analysis period. The proposed 
rule should result in benefits that are greater than the cost of 
compliance, which would result in a positive cost/benefit ratio. 
Focusing on saved lives alone, the proposed rule would need to prevent 
between 8 and 12 fatalities per year attributable to crashes involving 
intermodal chassis over the 10-year period. These 8 to 12 fatalities 
represent just 0.2% to 0.3% of the 3,762 fatalities in combination 
truck crashes in calendar year 2003. At the break-even point, 
compliance costs equal the benefits attributable to avoiding just a few 
of the fatal crashes that would have occurred in the absence of the 
proposed regulation. Of course, reduced injuries, property damage, and 
other incident consequences would reduce the number of lives that would 
need to be saved in order for the rule to be cost-beneficial. We 
believe the proposed rule is likely to prevent enough crashes to 
justify the costs.

Benefits Associated With Increased Operational Efficiency

    While operating efficiency is not something FMCSA regulates, we 
note that in addition to the safety benefits, the proposed rule is 
likely to produce benefits from improved operational efficiency. 
Currently, from our research, FMCSA concludes there is no standard 
procedure for a truck driver or motor carrier to follow when confronted 
with an intermodal chassis placed OOS as a result of a roadside 
inspection. One of the uncertainties is the issue of responsibility. If 
the chassis's problem developed after the driver left the terminal, 
then the contractual responsibility in many cases lies with the 
commercial driver and the motor carrier, not with the equipment 
provider. If, however, the chassis problem was a pre-existing 
condition, then the chassis owner is responsible. According to IANA, 
many equipment providers have service contracts with repair vendors. If 
a chassis problem needs to be fixed in order for the driver to resume 
operation, these vendors are often called to provide the repairs. 
Additional uncertainty surrounds the question of authorization for this 
repair, because the service contract is between the service vendor and 
the chassis provider and the provider would have to authorize a repair 
request. In some cases, the truck driver's motor carrier

[[Page 76819]]

would have to make arrangements with the chassis provider's service 
vendor to repair the chassis.
    The potential reduction of OOS rates would increase the operational 
efficiency of intermodal transportation as a whole. A chassis placed 
OOS must not be operated until the repairs required by an OOS order 
have been made. According to information provided to FMCSA by ATA 
members, carriers spend, on average, 3 hours of a driver's time and 1.5 
hours of other employees' time to correct each vehicle OOS order 
received on chassis tendered by an equipment provider. The opportunity 
cost for a truck driver and one employee's time is calculated at 
$116.35 per vehicle OOS order attributable to a problem chassis.\19\ 
Note that this is considered a conservative estimate, because FMCSA 
used an average commercial driver wage rate to estimate the opportunity 
costs of a vehicle OOS order, in lieu of a ``revenue per tractor'' 
estimate, which would be higher because it accounts for the opportunity 
cost of the vehicle as well as the driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Using National employment and wage data, the median hourly 
wage for a truck driver is estimated at $16.01 and supervisor/
manager is estimated at $21.08. With fringe benefits added to the 
wages, the hourly wage and salaries are estimated at $23.39 and 
$30.70 for truck driver and the manager/supervisor respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that, on average, 18.5 percent of roadside inspections of 
intermodal chassis result in vehicle OOS violations, cost savings, in 
terms of the opportunity cost of driver and motor carriers' time, would 
quickly add up, as there are approximately 850,000 intermodal chassis 
in operation in the U.S. Roadside repair costs for intermodal chassis, 
other than those involved in vehicle OOS orders, may also be 
significantly reduced, given evidence indicating that intermodal 
chassis typically have more equipment defects and deficiencies than 
non-intermodal trailers. Clearly, a reduction in equipment violations 
severe enough to cause a chassis to be placed OOS would mean less 
disruption of supply chains. FMCSA attempted conservatively to estimate 
the number of intermodal chassis vehicle OOS orders that would be 
avoided as a result of this proposed rule. We assumed that this 
proposal would reduce the intermodal chassis OOS rate to the national 
vehicle OOS rate for all trailers (discussed earlier in this NPRM in 
Table 11). Initial results indicate that such changes could reap 
efficiency benefits of $40,000 to $410,000 annually. Again, FMCSA 
considers these estimates to be conservative, because it used a driver 
wage rate, rather than an average revenue per tractor estimate, to 
determine the opportunity costs of vehicle OOS orders. Complete details 
of this analysis are contained in the full RIA in the docket.
    At intermodal terminal facilities, the effect of the proposed rule 
would be to reduce the time needed for motor carriers to pick up a 
roadworthy chassis. Motor carriers report that they currently spend 
between 30 minutes and 2 to 3 hours to find a roadworthy chassis. That 
means that motor carriers could save between $11.69 and $46.78 in 
driver's costs alone, if this wait/search time could be completely 
eliminated. The proposed rule, by mandating that chassis providers 
implement systematic inspection, maintenance, and repair programs, can 
be expected to reduce the number of defective chassis being offered in 
service, and thereby reduce the time needed by truck drivers to find a 
roadworthy chassis.
    Delays at a port or rail intermodal terminal and on the road due to 
poor container chassis condition affect only a small segment of the 
motor carrier industry. However, delays at intermodal facilities and 
the related issue of poor container chassis condition on the road are 
crucially important to trucking firms that pick up and deliver freight 
at ports and rail terminals. Drayage firms that service ports, 
especially, operate in a highly competitive market, with many small 
motor carriers and owner-operators competing to provide services. The 
drivers are typically paid per load and operate on very slim profit 
margins. Delays at port or rail facilities as well as on the road 
impose a cost on these firms in lost revenues and profits. The reduced 
efficiency of this critical link in the transportation system also 
imposes costs on intermodal freight customers.
    Intermodal freight volume is expected to continue to grow, and 
ports and rail terminals must improve competitiveness both locally and 
globally. This will require the utilization of existing infrastructure 
and greater economic efficiency. The amount of cargo moving in maritime 
containers is forecasted to grow nearly three-fold by 2020, rising from 
57 million twenty-foot containers in 2000 to 163 million in 2020. 
Systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance of intermodal container 
chassis would ensure safe operation of these container chassis on the 
road, which in turn would enhance the reliability and economic 
efficiency of the intermodal freight traffic in the U.S.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Principles for a U.S. Public Freight Agenda in a Global 
Economy, from Martin E. Robins and Anne Strauss-Wieder, Metropolitan 
Policy Program, Brookings Institution, January 2006, citiing Nariman 
Behravesh, ``The US and Global Outlook: Storm Clouds on the 
Horizon?'' Global Insight, Port of New York and New Jersey Port 
Economic Briefing, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 19, below, compares the current Federal requirements with new 
requirements proposed in this NPRM and shows the benefits and costs 
associated with the proposals.

[[Page 76820]]



                     Table 19.--Comparison of Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Comparison
                                 ---------------------------------------- Discounted 10-year
      Regulatory provisions             Current                                  costs             Benefits
                                      requirement            NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 386--Rules of Practice for   Enables the         Explicitly          No new costs        Explicit inclusion
 Motor Carrier, Broker, Freight    Assistant           includes            associated with     of intermodal
 Forwarder, and Hazardous          Administrator to    intermodal          this provision.     equipment
 Materials Proceedings.            determine whether   equipment                               providers would
                                   a motor carrier,    providers.                              make them subject
                                   property broker,                                            to the provisions
                                   freight                                                     or requirements
                                   forwarder, or its                                           of applicable
                                   agents,                                                     statutes and the
                                   employees, or any                                           corresponding
                                   other person                                                regulations; and,
                                   subject to the                                              if violations are
                                   jurisdiction of                                             found, the
                                   FMCSA has failed                                            Assistant
                                   to comply with                                              Administrator
                                   the provisions or                                           could issue an
                                   requirements of                                             appropriate order
                                   applicable                                                  to compel
                                   statutes and the                                            compliance with
                                   corresponding                                               the statute or
                                   regulations.                                                regulation,
                                                                                               assess a civil
                                                                                               penalty, or both.
                                                                                               This will result
                                                                                               in the following:
                                                                                              1. Increased
                                                                                               safety of the
                                                                                               intermodal
                                                                                               container chassis
                                                                                               operation and
                                                                                               reduced crashes
                                                                                               involving
                                                                                               intermodal
                                                                                               container
                                                                                               chassis.
                                                                                              2. Increased
                                                                                               operational
                                                                                               efficiency of the
                                                                                               intermodal
                                                                                               container chassis
                                                                                               operation.
                                                                                              a. Reduced number
                                                                                               of vehicle out-of-
                                                                                               service orders
                                                                                               related to poor
                                                                                               intermodal
                                                                                               container chassis
                                                                                               condition.
                                                                                              b. Reduced idle
                                                                                               time spent by the
                                                                                               driver and the
                                                                                               truck while
                                                                                               waiting for
                                                                                               required repairs
                                                                                               on the container
                                                                                               chassis.
                                                                                              c. Reduced time
                                                                                               spent by truck
                                                                                               drivers to find
                                                                                               road worthy
                                                                                               container chassis
                                                                                               at the port or
                                                                                               rail terminals.
                                                                                              3. Revised rules
                                                                                               that explicitly
                                                                                               require equipment
                                                                                               providers to be
                                                                                               responsible for
                                                                                               the safety and
                                                                                               security of their
                                                                                               equipment:
                                                                                              a. Eliminate
                                                                                               externality
                                                                                               issues that are
                                                                                               involved when one
                                                                                               party's (owners
                                                                                               of intermodal
                                                                                               container
                                                                                               chassis--steamshi
                                                                                               p lines and
                                                                                               railroads)
                                                                                               actions impose
                                                                                               uncompensated
                                                                                               costs (in terms
                                                                                               of lost
                                                                                               productivity,
                                                                                               uncompensated
                                                                                               repair costs, and
                                                                                               decrease in
                                                                                               overall profit
                                                                                               margin) on
                                                                                               another party
                                                                                               (motor carriers).
                                                                                               Eliminate
                                                                                               potential
                                                                                               barriers to
                                                                                               information on
                                                                                               scope and
                                                                                               jurisdiction of
                                                                                               FMCSRs.

[[Page 76821]]

 
Part 390--General applicability.  Applies to all      Explicitly          1. $2,990 to file
                                   employers,          includes            MCS-150C.
                                   employees, and      intermodal         2. $13.5 million
                                   commercial motor    equipment           over 10 years for
                                   vehicles, which     providers and       chassis marking
                                   transport           intermodal          costs.
                                   property or         equipment.
                                   passengers in
                                   interstate
                                   commerce. Motor
                                   carriers must
                                   assist in
                                   investigations
                                   and special
                                   studies. Motor
                                   carriers must
                                   file Form MCS-
                                   150. CMVs must be
                                   marked as
                                   specified.
Part 393--Parts and Accessories   Every employer and  Equipment           No new cost
 Necessary for Safe Operation.     employee shall      providers would     associated with
                                   comply and be       be held             this provision.
                                   conversant with     accountable for
                                   the requirements    offering in
                                   and                 interstate
                                   specifications of   commerce
                                   this part. No       intermodal
                                   employer shall      equipment that is
                                   operate a           not equipped with
                                   commercial motor    all required
                                   vehicle, or cause   parts and
                                   or permit it to     accessories and
                                   be operated,        would be required
                                   unless it is        to ensure that
                                   equipped in         each of those
                                   accordance with     components are in
                                   the requirements    safe and operable
                                   and                 condition.
                                   specifications of
                                   this part.
Part 396--Inspection, Repair,     Every motor         Intermodal          1. No new cost
 and Maintenance.                  carrier, its        equipment           associated with
                                   officers,           providers would     annual (periodic)
                                   drivers, agents,    be required to:     inspection
                                   representatives    1. Comply and be     provision.
                                   and employees       conversant with    2. Equipment
                                   shall comply and    the rules of this   providers may
                                   be conversant       part.               incur an
                                   with the rules of  2. Establish a       additional cost
                                   this part. Every    systematic          of $95-190
                                   motor carrier       inspection,         million over 10-
                                   shall               repair, and         year analysis
                                   systematically      maintenance         period to achieve
                                   inspect, repair,    program and         full compliance
                                   and maintain, or    comply with         with Systematic
                                   cause to be         inspection and      inspection,
                                   systematically      recordkeeping       repair, and
                                   inspected,          requirements        maintenance
                                   repaired, and       established in      requirements,
                                   maintained, all     part 396 for        depending upon
                                   motor vehicles      motor carriers.     current degree of
                                   subject to its     3. Establish a       compliance with
                                   control and keep    system for motor    part 396.
                                   the necessary       carriers and       3. There may be an
                                   records.            drivers to report   additional cost
                                                       defects and         of $38.9 million
                                                       deficiencies in     over the 10-year
                                                       intermodal          analysis period
                                                       equipment, and to   in new
                                                       keep records.       recordkeeping
                                                                           costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA requests comment on the costs and benefits estimated in this 
analysis.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an 
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities 
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. While we 
believe the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, we have chosen not to certify the 
proposed rule at this point. Instead, we decided to complete an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and solicit comments on our 
analysis. The IRFA and the attached regulatory impact analysis (RIA) 
include our discussion of the regulatory impacts, and the reasons for 
our recommended action.
    Need for the NPRM: On January 26, 2004, the Secretary of 
Transportation announced that the USDOT would launch a safety 
inspection program for intermodal container chassis. The inspection 
program would provide added oversight to help ensure that the 
intermodal container chassis used by motor carriers to transport 
intermodal cargo containers are in safe and proper working order.
    The announcement explained the new inspection program would be 
modeled on FMCSA's compliance review program already in place for the 
Nation's interstate motor carriers. Chassis providers would be required 
to obtain a USDOT number and display it on their chassis so that safety 
performance data could be captured. FMCSA would apply the same penalty 
structure and enforcement actions used for motor carriers to intermodal 
equipment providers demonstrating patterns of non-compliance with the 
new safety requirements.
    Subsequently, Section 4118 of SAFETEA-LU was enacted and directs 
the Department of Transportation to undertake a rulemaking relating to 
the roadability of intermodal equipment. FMCSA, working in coordination 
with

[[Page 76822]]

other USDOT agencies, initiated this new rulemaking to advance the 
Department's safety goal without unnecessarily involving the Department 
in the commercial relations or allocation of liability between 
intermodal parties.
    Description of Actions: In this NPRM, FMCSA is proposing to amend 
the FMCSRs to require entities that offer intermodal container chassis 
for transportation in interstate commerce to (i) file a Motor Carrier 
Identification Report (FMCSA Form MCS-150), (ii) display on each 
chassis a unique identification number (e.g., USDOT number) assigned or 
approved by FMCSA, (iii) establish a systematic inspection, repair and 
maintenance program to ensure the safe operating condition of each 
chassis and maintain documentation of the program and (iv) provide a 
means for effectively responding to driver and motor carrier complaints 
about the condition of intermodal container chassis.
    Identification of potentially affected small entities: Entities 
likely to be affected by the NPRM are 93 steamship lines, 5 railroads, 
10 common pool operators, and 1,900 motor carriers. All 93 steamship 
lines are foreign entities, and the provisions of the RFA do not apply 
to foreign entities.\21\ According to the Small Business Administration 
(SBA), the definition of ``small business'' has the same meaning as 
under the Small Business Act. The following table indicates the 
percentage of affected entities defined as ``small businesses.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See www.sba.gov/advo/laws/title3_s2993.html.
    \22\ Table 17 has been calculated using 1997 Economic Census 
Data (2002 data for all NAICS codes are not currently available) and 
combining it with SBA's size standards to estimate the number of 
small business. The 1997 data for revenue have been adjusted for 
2003 revenue figures since SBA revenue size is given in 2003 
dollars. The estimate was ``at least'' since there were firms that 
did not have revenues reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The railroads that own intermodal chassis are assumed to be 5 major 
railroads in the United States and would not be considered small 
business as defined by the SBA. Additionally, it is FMCSA's belief that 
most of the common-pool operators that own intermodal chassis would not 
be classified as small business by SBA size standards, given the 
average size of the chassis pools they are estimated to be 
operating.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ A list of common-pool operators is available on the IICL 
Web site. The NAICS listed here represents all firms that provide 
support service to road transportation. Common-pool operators are 
part of this over-all group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The for-hire trucking industry in the United States consists of 
over 113,000 interstate motor carriers.\24\ Data from FMCSA's Licensing 
and Insurance (L&I) database indicates roughly 125,000 active for-hire 
motor carriers. For-hire operators are those that offer truck 
transportation services to the public. The major sectors of for-hire 
trucking are household goods carriers, bulk carriers, tank carriers, 
refrigerated carriers, less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers, truckload 
carriers, and other specialized carriers.\25\ Owner-operators, as the 
term implies, are independent owners of individual trucks or small 
fleets.\26\ They generally function as for-hire carriers or provide 
contract or ad hoc support to larger for-hire carriers or other 
commercial trucking operations. In addition to for-hire carriers and 
owner-operators, over 480,000 other companies and governmental entities 
operate private fleets of trucks, which deliver and distribute products 
and services for their parent organizations.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 2002 Economic Census, Transportation and Warehousing, U.S. 
Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 2004, available on the 
Internet at www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0248i09.pdf.
    \25\ American Trucking Trends 2003, American Trucking 
Associations, Inc., Alexandria, VA, 2003, p. 7.
    \26\ Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Web site at 
www.ooida.com.
    \27\ American Trucking Trends 2003, American Trucking 
Associations, Inc., Alexandria, VA, 2003, p. 6, reports a total of 
585 thousand interstate motor truck operators of all types. The 
source of the information was identified as filings with the Federal 
Motor Safety Administration (FMSCA) as of August 2002.

                Table 20.--Small Business Size Standards for the Potentially Affected Industries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              SBA Size Standards      Percent of
                                                                          --------------------------   industry
                 NAICS                             Description                                         that is
                                                                             Revenue      Employee      small
                                                                            (millions)                 business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Applicable........................  Steamship lines..................           NA           NA           NA
482112................................  Railroads........................  ...........        1,500           NA
532490*...............................  Other Commercial/Industrial               $6.0  ...........           94
                                         Machinery and Equipment Rental
                                         and Leasing.
484110................................  General Freight Trucking, Local..         21.5  ...........           75
484121................................  General Freight Trucking, Long     ...........  ...........           74
                                         Distance, Truckload.
484122................................  General Freight Trucking, Long            21.5  ...........           72
                                         Distance, Less Than Truckload.
484220................................  Specialized Freight (except Used          21.5  ...........           73
                                         Goods) Trucking, Local.
484230................................  Specialized Freight (except Used          21.5  ...........           77
                                         Goods) Trucking, Long Distance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NAICS codes assumed for common-pool operators/shippers as equipment lessors listed in IICL Web site, such as
  Interpool Inc., identified them as SIC 7359 in the financial statements submitted with Securities and Exchange
  Commission.

    The proposed rule would affect only a small percentage of trucking 
firms, since only approximately 1,900 trucking companies own intermodal 
chassis. These motor carriers belong to the five ``484'' NAICS codes 
identified in Table 20. For the most part, these entities would incur 
minimal increased costs to comply with the provisions of this NPRM, 
since they are already subject to the FMCSRs; indeed, the NPRM would 
most likely reduce overall operational costs for most of these 
entities, since some of the burden for inspection, maintenance, and 
repair will indirectly shift to non-motor carrier chassis providers.
    The RIA assumes that the 10 equipment lessors (common pool 
operators) own an estimated 320,000 intermodal chassis or about 32,000 
chassis per entity. Therefore, based on this information, we assumed 
that these firms fall into the 20 largest firms in this NAICS codes and 
earned about $3.06 billion or average revenue of $153.2 million.\28\ To 
have a significant impact on these entities, the estimated compliance 
cost would have to exceed one percent of the annual revenue stream or 
sales, or about $1.5 million per firm per year for the 20 largest firms 
in NAICS 532490.\29\ Although there is much uncertainty regarding the 
impact on common chassis pool operators (since the agency had 
difficulty

[[Page 76823]]

acquiring information on them), it is believed that in some cases, the 
need to implement systematic IRM programs by common chassis pool 
operators may result in compliance costs exceeding one percent of 
annual revenues. Because of this uncertainty, FMCSA has decided against 
certifying no significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, and has instead decided to prepare an IRFA. Therefore, FMCSA 
invites public comment on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 1997 Economic Census figures adjusted to 2003 dollars.
    \29\ Adjusting 1997 revenue reported by the 1997 Economic Census 
with GDP inflation adjustor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements: This NPRM includes a new 
requirement for reporting and recordkeeping for steamship lines, 
railroads and common pool operators that own intermodal chassis. We 
estimate that there are 108 such entities, none of which is a small 
business that would be subject to the new recordkeeping requirement.
    Related Federal rules and regulations. With respect to the safe 
transportation of intermodal chassis, there are no related rules or 
regulations issued by other departments or agencies of the Federal 
Government.
    Conclusion. Based on the assessment in the regulatory evaluation, 
we conclude that there will not be a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Intergovernmental Review

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding 
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do 
not apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520), a Federal agency must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information it 
conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. FMCSA has analyzed 
this proposal and determined that it would require revisions to 
existing information collection requirements subject to approval by 
OMB. This includes the requirement for entities that offer intermodal 
container chassis for transportation in interstate commerce to: (1) 
File an Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report (FMCSA Form 
MCS-150C, a variant on the currently-approved Motor Carrier 
Identification Report, Form MCS-150); (2) establish a systematic 
inspection, repair, and maintenance program to ensure the safe 
operating condition of each item of intermodal equipment tendered to 
motor carriers and to maintain documentation of the program in 
accordance with 49 CFR part 396; and (3) provide a means for an 
intermodal equipment provider to effectively respond, using a variant 
of the Driver-Vehicle Inspection Report currently approved by OMB, to 
driver and motor carrier complaints about the condition of intermodal 
container chassis. It is anticipated that electronic recordkeeping 
would be allowed to reduce, to the greatest extent practicable, the 
costs associated with complying with the recordkeeping requirements.
    There are two currently approved information collections that would 
be affected by this NPRM: (1) Motor Carrier Identification Report 
(FMCSA form MCS-150), OMB Control No. 2126-0013, approved at 74,896 
burden hours through July 31, 2007; and (2) Inspection, Repair, and 
Maintenance, OMB Control No. 2126-0003, approved at 59,093,245 burden 
hours through February 28, 2006. Table 21 shows the FMCSA estimated 
number of intermodal container chassis by owner.

       Table 21.--Estimated Number of Intermodal Chassis by Owner
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Estimated
                                             number of       Estimated
            Types of entities                affected        number of
                                             entities         chassis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steamship Lines.........................              93         392,000
Railroads...............................               5          96,200
Common-pool operators/Equipment Lessors.              10         320,000
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................             108         808,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total annual burden hours for the two current information 
collections above are 59,168,141. Table 22 depicts the proposed and 
current burden hours associated with the information collections.

                         Table 22.--Proposed and Current Information Collection Burdens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Burden hours
                       OMB approval number                           currently     Burden hours       Change
                                                                     approved        proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2126-0013.......................................................          74,896          74,932              36
2126-0003.......................................................      59,093,245      59,214,495         121,230
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................      59,168,141      59,289,427         121,266
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following is an explanation of how each of the information 
collections shown above would be impacted by this proposal.
    OMB Control No. 2126-0003. Intermodal equipment providers (IEPs) 
would be required to establish a systematic inspection, repair, and 
maintenance program and maintain records documenting the program. They 
would also be required to establish a process for a motor carrier or 
its driver to report defects or deficiencies they discover or which are 
reported to them. The estimated burden for the proposed revision to 
this existing information collection would be 121,230 burden hours 
[808,200 chassis controlled by non-motor-carrier IEPs x 3 inspections/
year x 3 minutes recordkeeping per inspection x 1 hr/60 minutes].
    OMB Control No. 2126-0013. The proposed rule would require each 
equipment provider to obtain a unique

[[Page 76824]]

DOT Number by submitting a Form MCS-150C to FMCSA, and to update its 
initial report every 2 years. FMCSA estimates that this would result in 
an increase of 36 burden hours for 108 affected IEPs [108 IEPs x 20 
minutes / 60 minutes].
    The proposals contained in this NPRM, affecting two currently 
approved information collections, would result in a net increase of 
121,266 burden hours in the agency's information collection budget.
    FMCSA requests comments on whether the collection of information is 
necessary for the agency to meet its goal of reducing truck crashes, 
including: (1) Whether the information is useful to this goal; (2) the 
accuracy of the estimated information collection burden; (3) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; 
and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology.
    You may submit comments to OMB on the information collection burden 
addressed by this NPRM. OMB must receive your comments by January 22, 
2007. Mail or hand deliver your comments to: Attention: Desk Officer 
for the Department of Transportation, Dockets Library, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

    FMCSA analyzed this rule for the purpose of the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.) and conducted an environmental assessment under the 
procedures in FMCSA Order 5610.1, published March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680). 
Under FMCSA Order 5610.1, the environmental assessment focuses only on 
those resource categories that are of interest to the public and/or 
important to the decision: Public Health and Safety, Hazardous 
Materials Transportation, Socioeconomics, Solid Waste Disposal, and 
other Special Areas of Consideration. A copy of the draft environmental 
assessment has been placed in the docket.
    Table 23 presents a comparison of the potential environmental and 
socioeconomic consequences of the Proposed-Action Alternative and No-
Action Alternative from the draft environmental assessment.

          Table 23.--Environmental Consequences of Alternatives
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Proposed-action          No-action
          Category                 alternative         alternative \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Health and Safety....  Moderate positive     Moderate negative
                               impact.               impact.
Hazardous Materials           Negligible to minor   Negligible to minor
 Transportation.               net positive impact.  net negative
                                                     impact.
Socioeconomics..............  Moderate net          Moderate net
                               positive impact.      negative impact.
Solid Waste Disposal........  Negligible to minor   Negligible to minor
                               positive and          negative impact.
                               negative impact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Additional ``Special Areas of Consideration''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Quality.................  Negligible to minor   Negligible to minor
                               positive impact.      negative impact.
Noise.......................  No impact...........  No impact.
Endangered Species..........  Negligible to minor   Negligible to minor
                               positive impact.      negative impact.
Resources protected by the    Negligible positive   Negligible negative
 NHPA.                         impact.               impact.
Wetlands....................  Negligible to minor   Negligible to minor
                               positive impact.      negative impact.
Section 4(f) resources......  Negligible to minor   Negligible to minor
                               positive impact.      negative impact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ``No-Action'' Alternative is evaluated from a dynamic
  perspective (i.e., considers both short- and long-run impacts). So,
  while the ``No-Action'' Alternative results in no impacts in the short-
  run (since there is no change in existing regulations), in the long
  run, it is estimated to have negative impacts, since the analysis
  assumes intermodal transportation continues to grow in future years.

    Table 23 lists the impact categories for which there exists a 
potential for a positive or negative indirect impact from the Proposed-
Action Alternative (this proposed rule). Without certain key pieces of 
information (e.g., crash data on a national level, exact number and 
safety record of intermodal equipment providers, and detailed 
transportation routes over which intermodal equipment is used), it is 
impossible to accurately quantify most of these impacts, though a 
qualitative rationale for these conclusions is offered in the draft 
environmental assessment.
    Nevertheless, it is evident from Table 23 that the only potentially 
negative environmental or socioeconomic impact of the Proposed-Action 
Alternative (this proposed rule) involves a potentially minor to 
negligible negative indirect impact on solid waste disposal (caused by 
an increase in the amount of solid waste disposed via regular equipment 
maintenance). Nevertheless, that may be offset by a positive impact on 
solid waste disposal (caused by decreasing the amount of solid waste 
generated via crashes).
    The beneficial impacts of the proposed rulemaking--most importantly 
the positive impacts on public health and safety in addition to 
positive indirect impacts on aspects of the physical and human 
environment--are in contrast to the No-Action Alternative, which has 
the potential to negatively impact most of the resources evaluated in 
the draft environmental assessment. Note that the No-Action Alternative 
is evaluated from a dynamic perspective, which considers both short- 
and long-run effects. While in the short run the No-Action Alternative 
has no impact (since no regulations change), there are potential 
impacts in the long run, because growth in intermodal transportation is 
assumed to continue.
    FMCSA seeks comment on the draft environmental assessment.

Energy Effects

    FMCSA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, 
entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.'' The agency has determined that 
it is not a ``significant energy action'' under that order because it 
does not appear to be economically significant (i.e., a cost of more 
than $120.7 million in a single year) based upon analyses performed at 
this stage of the rulemaking process, and is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule does not impose an unfunded mandate, as defined 
by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.), 
resulting in the

[[Page 76825]]

expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $120.7 million or more (adjusted for 
inflation) in any one year.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rulemaking would meet applicable standards in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, entitled ``Civil Justice 
Reform,'' to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 
burden.

Protection of Children

    FMCSA has analyzed this section under Executive Order 13045, 
entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks.'' The agency does not believe this rulemaking would be an 
economically significant rule, nor does it concern an environmental 
risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

Taking of Private Property

    This rulemaking would not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, 
entitled ``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally 
Protected Property Rights.''

Federalism

    FMCSA has analyzed this rulemaking action in accordance with the 
principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, entitled 
``Federalism,'' and determined that it has federalism implications 
within the meaning of the Order.
    The Federalism Order applies to ``policies that have federalism 
implications,'' which it defines as regulations and other actions 
``that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, and on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Sec. 1(a). The key concept here is ``substantial direct 
effects on the States.''
    Section 31151(d) preempts ``a law, regulation, order, or other 
requirement of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a tribal 
organization relating to commercial motor vehicle safety'' if it 
``exceeds or is inconsistent with a requirement imposed under or 
pursuant to'' 49 U.S.C. 31151. In other words, FMCSA's final rule 
establishing maintenance and related requirements for intermodal 
equipment will preempt any State or local law or regulation on the same 
subject.
    Nonetheless, there are exceptions to this principle. ``[A] State 
requirement for the periodic inspection of intermodal chassis by 
intermodal equipment providers that was in effect on January 1, 2005'' 
is preempted on the effective date of the final rule adopted under this 
proceeding [section 31151(e)(1)] unless, notwithstanding section 
31151(d), the Secretary of Transportation ``determines that the State 
requirement is as effective as the Federal requirement and does not 
unduly burden interstate commerce'' [section 31151(e)(2)(A)]. A State 
must request a non-preemption determination before the effective date 
of the FMCSA final rule [section 31151(e)(2)(B)], and no subsequent 
amendment to a non-preempted requirement may take effect unless it is 
first submitted to the Secretary, who must find that the amendment is 
no less effective than the FMCSA requirements and does not unduly 
burden interstate commerce [section 31151(e)(2)(C)].
    Section 31151 clearly has preemptive effect. Although most of the 
States which adopted statutes regulating the maintenance of intermodal 
equipment did not enforce them for several years, section 31151 will 
foreclose the opportunity for States to enact future legislation on 
this subject which is inconsistent with the Agency's regulations. We 
believe this constitutes a ``substantial direct effect[ ] on the 
States.'' However, section 31151 does not have ``substantial direct 
effects * * * on the relationship between the national government and 
the States or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government.'' The intermodal equipment affected 
by this rulemaking operates in interstate commerce. The regulation of 
interstate commerce is constitutionally and historically vested in the 
Federal government, not the States. The assertion of Federal authority 
in this area does not change the traditional relationship between the 
national government and the States, nor does it affect the 
constitutional and practical distribution of power and responsibilities 
among the various levels of government.
    Section 3(b) of the Federalism Order provides that ``[n]ational 
action limiting the policymaking discretion of the States shall be 
taken only where there is constitutional and statutory authority for 
the action and the national activity is appropriate in light of the 
presence of a problem of national significance.'' The constitutional 
authority and statutory mandate for this rulemaking are clear and 
explicit.
    FMCSA has determined that this action would have a substantial 
direct effect on States. However, because existing State laws on the 
maintenance of intermodal equipment are so few and narrow in scope, the 
Agency has also determined that this action would not impose 
substantial additional costs or burdens on the States.
    The Agency will consult with the States on the Federalism 
implications of this proposed regulation, as required by E.O. 13132. 
Also, State and local governments will have an additional opportunity 
to address this issue during the comment period as indicated under 
ADDRESSES.

Regulation Identification Number

    A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each 
regulatory section 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 shown on the first page of 
this document can be used to cross-reference this section with the 
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 385

    Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Intermodal 
equipment roadability, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 386

    Administrative practice and procedure, Brokers, Freight forwarders, 
Hazardous materials, Intermodal equipment provider, Highway safety, 
Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Penalties.

49 CFR Part 390

    Highway safety, Intermodal equipment providers, Motor carriers, 
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 392

    Highway safety, Intermodal equipment providers, Motor carriers.

49 CFR Part 393

    Highway safety, Intermodal equipment providers, Motor carriers, 
Motor vehicle safety.

49 CFR Part 396

    Highway safety, Intermodal equipment providers, Motor carriers, 
Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FMCSA proposes to amend 
Subchapter B, Chapter III of Title 49 of the Code of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

[[Page 76826]]

PART 385--SAFETY FITNESS PROCEDURES

    1. Revise the authority citation for part 385 to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), 5105(e), 5109, 5113, 
13901-13905, 31136, 31144, 31148, 31151, and 31502; Sec. 350 of Pub. 
L. 107-87; and 49 CFR 1.73.

    2. Amend Sec.  385.1 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  385.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (e) Subpart F of this Part establishes procedures to perform a 
roadability review of intermodal equipment providers to determine their 
compliance with the applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 
(FMCSRs).
    3. Amend part 385 by adding a new Subpart F--Intermodal Equipment 
Providers (Sec. Sec.  385.501-383.503) to read as follows:

Subpart F--Intermodal Equipment Providers


Sec.  385.501  Roadability review.

    (a) FMCSA will perform roadability reviews of intermodal equipment 
providers, as defined in Sec.  390.5 of this chapter. A roadability 
review is a review by the FMCSA of the intermodal equipment provider's 
compliance with the applicable FMCSRs.
    (b) FMCSA will evaluate the results of the roadability review using 
the criteria in Appendix A to this Part as they relate to compliance 
with Parts 390, 393, and 396 of this chapter.


Sec.  385.503  Results of roadability review.

    (a) FMCSA will not assign a safety rating to an intermodal 
equipment provider. However, the FMCSA may cite the intermodal 
equipment provider for violations of Parts 390, 393, and 396 of this 
chapter and may impose civil penalties.
    (b) FMCSA may prohibit the intermodal equipment provider from 
tendering specific items of equipment determined to constitute an 
imminent hazard.
    (c) FMCSA may prohibit an intermodal equipment provider from 
tendering any intermodal equipment from a particular location or 
multiple locations if the agency determines that the intermodal 
equipment provider's compliance with the FMCSRs is so deficient that 
the provider's continued operation constitutes an imminent hazard to 
highway safety.

PART 386--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR MOTOR CARRIER, INTERMODAL EQUIPMENT 
PROVIDER, BROKER, FREIGHT FORWARDER, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 
PROCEEDINGS

    4. The authority citation for part 386 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, chapters 5, 51, 59, 131-141, 145-149, 
311, 313, and 315; sec. 206, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1763; and 49 
CFR 1.45 and 1.73.

    5. Revise the heading of part 386 to read as set forth above.
    6. Revise Sec.  386.1 to read:


Sec.  386.1  Scope of the rules in this part.

    (a) The rules in this part govern proceedings before the Assistant 
Administrator, who also acts as the Chief Safety Officer of the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), under applicable 
provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR 
parts 350-399), including the commercial regulations (49 CFR parts 360-
379), and the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171-180).
    (b) The purpose of the proceedings is to enable the Assistant 
Administrator:
    (1) To determine whether a motor carrier, intermodal equipment 
provider (as defined in Sec.  390.5 of this chapter), property broker, 
freight forwarder, or its agents, employees, or any other person 
subject to the jurisdiction of FMCSA, has failed to comply with the 
provisions or requirements of applicable statutes and the corresponding 
regulations; and
    (2) To issue an appropriate order to compel compliance with the 
statute or regulation, assess a civil penalty, or both, if such 
violations are found.
    7. Revise Sec.  386.83 to read as follows:


Sec.  386.83  Sanction for failure to pay civil penalties or abide by 
payment plan; operation in interstate commerce prohibited.

    (a)(1) General rule. A commercial motor vehicle (CMV) owner or 
operator, including an intermodal equipment provider, that fails to pay 
a civil penalty in full within 90 days after the date specified for 
payment by FMCSA's final agency order, is prohibited from operating in 
interstate commerce starting on the next (i.e., the 91st) day. The 
prohibition continues until FMCSA has received full payment of the 
penalty.
    (2) Civil penalties paid in installments. The FMCSA Service Center 
may allow a CMV owner or operator, including an intermodal equipment 
provider, to pay a civil penalty in installments. If the CMV owner or 
operator, including an intermodal equipment provider, fails to make an 
installment payment on schedule, the payment plan is void and the 
entire debt is payable immediately. A CMV owner or operator, including 
an intermodal equipment provider, that fails to pay the full 
outstanding balance of its civil penalty within 90 days after the date 
of the missed installment payment, is prohibited from operating in 
interstate commerce on the next (i.e., the 91st) day. The prohibition 
continues until the FMCSA has received full payment of the entire 
penalty.
    (3) Appeals to Federal Court. If the CMV owner or operator, 
including an intermodal equipment provider, appeals the final agency 
order to a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the terms and payment due 
date of the final agency order are not stayed unless the Court so 
directs.
    (b) Show-cause proceeding. (1) The FMCSA will notify a CMV owner or 
operator, including an intermodal equipment provider, in writing if it 
has not received payment within 45 days after the date specified for 
payment by the final agency order or the date of a missed installment 
payment. The notice will include a warning that failure to pay the 
entire penalty within 90 days after payment was due, will result in the 
CMV owner or operator, including an intermodal equipment provider, 
being prohibited from operating in interstate commerce.
    (2) The notice will order the CMV owner or operator, including an 
intermodal equipment provider, to show cause why it should not be 
prohibited from operating in interstate commerce on the 91st day after 
the date specified for payment. The prohibition may be avoided only by 
submitting to the Chief Safety Officer:
    (i) Evidence that the respondent has paid the entire amount due; or
    (ii) Evidence that the respondent has filed for bankruptcy under 
chapter 11, title 11, United States Code. Respondents in bankruptcy 
must also submit the information required by paragraph (d) of this 
section.
    (3) The notice will be delivered by certified mail or commercial 
express service. If a CMV owner's or operator's, including an 
intermodal equipment provider's, principal place of business is in a 
foreign country, the notice will be delivered to the CMV owner's or 
operator's designated agent.
    (c) A CMV owner or operator, including an intermodal equipment 
provider, that continues to operate in interstate commerce in violation 
of this section may be subject to additional

[[Page 76827]]

sanctions under paragraph IV (h) of appendix A to part 386.
    (d) This section does not apply to any person who is unable to pay 
a civil penalty because the person is a debtor in a case under 11 
U.S.C. chapter 11. CMV owners or operators, including intermodal 
equipment providers, in bankruptcy proceedings under chapter 11 must 
provide the following information in their response to the FMCSA:
    (1) The chapter of the Bankruptcy Code under which the bankruptcy 
proceeding is filed (i.e., chapter 7 or 11);
    (2) The bankruptcy case number;
    (3) The court in which the bankruptcy proceeding was filed; and
    (4) Any other information requested by the agency to determine a 
debtor's bankruptcy status.

PART 390--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; GENERAL

    8. Revise the authority citation for part 390 to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 508, 13301, 13902, 31133, 31136, 31151, 
31502, 31504, and sec. 204, Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 941 (49 
U.S.C. 701 note); sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; 
sec. 217, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; and 49 CFR 1.73.

    9. Amend Sec.  390.3 by adding a new paragraph (h) to read:


Sec.  390.3  General applicability.

* * * * *
    (h) Intermodal equipment providers. The rules in the following 
provisions of subchapter B of this chapter apply to intermodal 
equipment providers:
    (1) Subpart F, Intermodal Equipment Providers, of Part 385, Safety 
Fitness Procedures.
    (2) Part 386, Rules of Practice for Motor Carrier, Intermodal 
Equipment Provider, Broker, Freight Forwarder, and Hazardous Materials 
Proceedings.
    (3) Part 390, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; General, 
except Sec.  390.15(b) concerning accident registers.
    (4) Part 393, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation.
    (5) Part 396, Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance.
    10. Amend Sec.  390.5 by adding, in alphabetical order, definitions 
for ``Interchange,'' ``Intermodal equipment,'' ``Intermodal equipment 
interchange agreement,'' and ``Intermodal equipment provider'' to read:


Sec.  390.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Interchange means the act of providing intermodal equipment to a 
motor carrier pursuant to an intermodal equipment interchange agreement 
for the purpose of transporting the equipment for loading or unloading 
by any person or repositioning the equipment for the benefit of the 
equipment provider, but it does not include the leasing of equipment to 
a motor carrier for primary use in the motor carrier's freight hauling 
operations.
    Intermodal equipment means trailing equipment that is used in the 
intermodal transportation of containers over public highways in 
interstate commerce, including trailers and chassis.
    Intermodal equipment interchange agreement means the Uniform 
Intermodal Interchange and Facilities Access Agreement or any other 
written document executed by an intermodal equipment provider or its 
agent and a motor carrier or its agent, the primary purpose of which is 
to establish the responsibilities and liabilities of both parties with 
respect to the interchange of the intermodal equipment.
    Intermodal equipment provider means any person that interchanges 
intermodal equipment with a motor carrier pursuant to a written 
interchange agreement or has a contractual responsibility for the 
maintenance of the intermodal equipment.
* * * * *
    11. Revise Sec.  390.15(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  390.15  Assistance in investigations and special studies.

    (a) Each motor carrier and intermodal equipment provider must do 
the following:
    (1) Make all records and information pertaining to an accident 
available to an authorized representative or special agent of the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, an authorized State or 
local enforcement agency representative, or authorized third party 
representative within such time as the request or investigation may 
specify.
    (2) Give an authorized representative all reasonable assistance in 
the investigation of any accident including providing a full, true, and 
correct response to any question of the inquiry.
* * * * *
    12. Amend Sec.  390.19 by revising the section heading, the 
introductory text of paragraph (a), paragraph (b), the introductory 
text of paragraph (c), and paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  390.19  Motor carrier, HM shipper, and intermodal equipment 
provider identification reports.

    (a) Each motor carrier that conducts operations in interstate 
commerce must file a Motor Carrier Identification Report, Form MCS-150. 
Each motor carrier that operates in intrastate commerce, and that 
requires a hazardous materials safety permit under part 385, subpart E 
of this chapter, must file a combined Motor Carrier Identification 
Report and HM Permit Application, Form MCS-150B. Each intermodal 
equipment provider that offers intermodal equipment for transportation 
in interstate commerce must file an Intermodal Equipment Provider 
Identification Report, Form MCS-150C. They must do so at the following 
times:
* * * * *
    (b) The Motor Carrier Identification Report, Form MCS-150, the 
Combined Motor Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit Application, 
Form MCS-150B, and the Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification 
Report, Form MCS-150C, with complete instructions, are available from 
the FMCSA Web site at: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov (Keyword ``MCS-150'' or 
``MCS-150B'' or ``MCS-150C''); from all FMCSA Service Centers and 
Division offices nationwide; or by calling 1-800-832-5660.
    (c) The completed Motor Carrier Identification Report, Form MCS-
150, Combined Motor Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit 
Application, Form MCS-150B, or Intermodal Equipment Provider 
Identification Report, Form MCS-150C must be filed with FMCSA Office of 
Information Management.
* * * * *
    (d) Only the legal name or single trade name may be used on the 
motor carrier's or intermodal equipment provider's identification 
report (Form MCS-150, MCS-150B, or MCS-150C).
    (e) A motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider is subject to 
the penalties prescribed in 49 U.S.C. 521(b)(2)(B) for--
    (1) Failing to file a Motor Carrier Identification Report, Form 
MCS-150, the Combined Motor Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit 
Application, Form MCS-150B, or the Intermodal Equipment Provider 
Identification Report, Form MCS-150C.
    (2) Furnishing misleading information or making false statements on 
the Form MCS-150, Form MCS-150B, or Form MCS-150C.
    (f) Upon receipt and processing of the Motor Carrier Identification 
Report, Form MCS-150, the Combined Motor

[[Page 76828]]

Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit Application, Form MCS-150B, 
or the Intermodal Equipment Provider Identification Report, Form MCS-
150C, FMCSA will issue the motor carrier or intermodal equipment 
provider an identification number (USDOT Number), or advise an 
intermodal equipment provider it may use an identification number 
unique to that entity.
    (1) The motor carrier must display the number on each self-
propelled CMV, as defined in Sec.  390.5, along with additional 
information required by Sec.  390.21.
    (2) The intermodal equipment provider must display its assigned 
number on each unit of interchanged intermodal equipment.
* * * * *
    13. Amend Sec.  390.21 by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a), (b)(2), and (c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  390.21  Marking of self-propelled CMVs and intermodal equipment.

    (a) General. Every self-propelled CMV and each unit of intermodal 
equipment interchanged or offered for interchange to a motor carrier by 
an intermodal equipment provider subject to subchapter B of this 
chapter must be marked as specified in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of 
this section.
    (b) * * *
    (2) The identification number issued by FMCSA to the motor carrier 
or intermodal equipment provider, preceded by the letters ``USDOT.''
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Appear on both sides of the self-propelled CMV or interchanged 
intermodal equipment;
* * * * *
    14. Amend part 390 by adding a new subpart C (Sec. Sec.  390.40-
390.46) to read as follows:

Subpart C--Requirements and Information for Intermodal Equipment 
Providers and for Motor Carriers Operating Intermodal Equipment

Sec.
390.40 What responsibilities do intermodal equipment providers have 
under the FMCSRs?
390.42 What are the procedures to correct the safety record of a 
motor carrier or an intermodal equipment provider?
390.44 What are the responsibilities of drivers and motor carriers 
operating intermodal equipment?
390.46 Are State and local laws and regulations on the inspection, 
repair, and maintenance of intermodal equipment preempted by the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)?

Subpart C--Requirements and Information for Intermodal Equipment 
Providers and for Motor Carriers Operating Intermodal Equipment


Sec.  390.40  What responsibilities do intermodal equipment providers 
have under the FMCSRs?

    An intermodal equipment provider must--
    (a) Identify its operations to the FMCSA by filing the form 
required by Sec.  390.19.
    (b) Mark its intermodal equipment with the USDOT Number or other 
identifying number unique to that entity as required by Sec.  390.21.
    (c) Systematically inspect, repair, and maintain, or cause to be 
systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained, in a manner 
consistent with Sec.  396.3(a)(1), as applicable, all intermodal 
equipment intended for interchange with a motor carrier.
    (d) Maintain a system of driver vehicle inspection reports 
submitted to the intermodal equipment provider as required by Sec.  
396.11 of this chapter.
    (e) Maintain a system of inspection, repair, and maintenance 
records as required by Sec.  396.12 of this chapter for equipment 
intended for interchange with a motor carrier.
    (f) Periodically inspect equipment intended for interchange, as 
required under Sec.  396.17 of this chapter.
    (g) At facilities at which the intermodal equipment provider makes 
intermodal equipment available for interchange, have procedures in 
place, and provide sufficient space, for drivers to perform a pre-trip 
inspection of tendered intermodal equipment.
    (h) At facilities at which the intermodal equipment provider makes 
intermodal equipment available for interchange, develop and implement 
procedures to repair any equipment damage, defects, or deficiencies 
identified as part of a pre-trip inspection, or replace the equipment, 
prior to the driver's departure. The repairs or replacement must be 
made in a timely manner after being notified by a driver of such 
damage, defects, or deficiencies.
    (i) Refrain from placing intermodal equipment in service on the 
public highways if that equipment has been found to pose an imminent 
hazard, as defined in Sec.  386.72(b)(1) of this chapter.


Sec.  390.42  What are the procedures to correct the safety record of a 
motor carrier or an intermodal equipment provider?

    (a) An intermodal equipment provider or its agent may 
electronically file questions or concerns at http://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov about Federal and State data released to the 
public by FMCSA, including safety violations attributable to 
deficiencies in intermodal chassis or trailers for which it should not 
have been held responsible because a motor carrier certified the 
equipment as passing the pre-trip inspection.
    (b) A motor carrier or its agent may electronically file questions 
or concerns at http://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov about Federal and State data 
released to the public by FMCSA. These include safety violations 
attributable to deficiencies in intermodal chassis or trailers for 
which it should not have been held responsible because they concerned 
defects or deficiencies in parts or accessories that a driver could not 
readily detect during a pre-trip inspection performed in accordance 
with Sec.  392.7(a) and (b) of this chapter.
    (c) An intermodal equipment provider, or its agent, may request 
FMCSA to investigate a motor carrier believed to be in noncompliance 
with responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 31151 or the implementing 
regulations in this subchapter regarding interchange of intermodal 
equipment by contacting the appropriate FMCSA Field Office.
    (d) A motor carrier or its agent may request FMCSA to investigate 
an intermodal equipment provider believed to be in noncompliance with 
responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 31151 or the implementing regulations 
in this subchapter regarding interchange of intermodal equipment by 
contacting the appropriate FMCSA Field Office.


Sec.  390.44  What are the responsibilities of drivers and motor 
carriers operating intermodal equipment?

    (a) Before operating intermodal equipment over the road, the driver 
accepting the equipment must inspect the equipment components listed in 
Sec.  392.7(b) of this chapter and must be satisfied that they are in 
good working order.
    (b) A driver or motor carrier transporting intermodal equipment 
must report to the intermodal equipment provider, or its designated 
agent, any known damage or deficiencies in the intermodal equipment at 
the time the equipment is returned to the provider or the provider's 
designated agent. The report must include, at a minimum, the items in 
Sec.  396.11(a)(2) of this chapter.


Sec.  390.46  Are State and local laws and regulations on the 
inspection, repair, and maintenance of intermodal equipment preempted 
by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)?

    (a) Generally. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31151(d), a law, regulation, 
order, or

[[Page 76829]]

other requirement of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a 
tribal organization relating to the inspection, repair, and maintenance 
of intermodal equipment is preempted if such law, regulation, order, or 
other requirement exceeds or is inconsistent with a requirement imposed 
by the FMCSRs.
    (b) Pre-existing State requirements--(1) In general. Pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 31151(e)(1), unless otherwise provided in paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section, a State requirement for the periodic inspection of 
intermodal chassis by intermodal equipment providers that was in effect 
on January 1, 2005, shall remain in effect only until the effective 
date of the FMCSA final rule entitled ``Requirements for Intermodal 
Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal 
Equipment''.
    (i) Nonpreemption determinations.--(A) In general. Pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 31151(e)(2), and notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, 
a State requirement described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is 
not preempted by the FMCSA final rule on ``Requirements for Intermodal 
Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal 
Equipment'' if the Administrator determines that the State requirement 
is as effective as the FMCSA final rule and does not unduly burden 
interstate commerce.
    (ii) Application required. Paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section 
applies to a State requirement only if the State applies to the 
Administrator for a determination under this subparagraph with respect 
to the requirement before the effective date of the final rule. The 
Administrator will make a determination with respect to any such 
application within 6 months after the date on which the Administrator 
receives the application.
    (iii) Amended State requirements.--If a State amends a regulation 
for which it previously received a nonpreemption determination from the 
Administrator under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, it must apply 
for a determination of nonpreemption for the amended regulation. Any 
amendment to a State requirement not preempted under this subsection 
because of a determination by the Administrator may not take effect 
unless it is submitted to the Agency before the effective date of the 
amendment, and the Administrator determines that the amendment would 
not cause the State requirement to be less effective than the FMCSA 
final rule on ``Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and 
Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment'' and would 
not unduly burden interstate commerce.

PART 392--DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES

    15. Revise the authority citation for Part 392 to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 13902, 31136, 31151, 31502; and 49 CFR 
1.73.

    16. Amend Sec.  392.7 by designating the existing text as paragraph 
(a) and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  392.7  Equipment, inspection, and use.

* * * * *
    (b) Drivers preparing to transport intermodal equipment must 
additionally make a visual or audible inspection of the following 
components before operating that equipment, and must be satisfied that 
they are in good working order before the equipment is operated over 
the road:
    Rails or support frames.
    Tie down bolsters.
    Locking pins, clevises, clamps, or hooks.
    Sliders or sliding frame lock.

PART 393--PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION

    17. Revise the authority citation for part 393 to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31136, 31151 and 31502; sec. 1041(b), 
Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); and 49 CFR 1.73.

    18. Revise Sec.  393.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  393.1  Scope of the rules of this part.

    (a)(1) Every motor carrier and its employees must be knowledgeable 
of and comply with the requirements and specifications of this part.
    (2) Every intermodal equipment provider and its employees 
responsible for the inspection, repair, and maintenance of intermodal 
equipment interchanged to motor carriers must be knowledgeable of and 
comply with the applicable requirements and specifications of this 
part.
    (b) No motor carrier may operate a commercial motor vehicle, or 
cause or permit such a vehicle to be operated, unless it is equipped in 
accordance with the requirements and specifications of this part.
    (c) No intermodal equipment provider may operate intermodal 
equipment, or cause or permit such equipment to be operated, unless it 
is equipped in accordance with the requirements and specifications of 
this part.

PART 396--INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE

    19. Revise the authority citation for part 396 to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31151, and 31502; and 49 CFR 
1.73.

    20. Revise Sec.  396.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  396.1  Scope.

    (a) Every motor carrier, its officers, drivers, agents, 
representatives, and employees directly concerned with the inspection 
or maintenance of motor vehicles must be knowledgeable of and comply 
with the rules of this part.
    (b) Every intermodal equipment provider, its officers, agents, 
representatives, and employees directly concerned with the inspection 
or maintenance of intermodal equipment interchanged to motor carriers 
must be knowledgeable of and comply with the rules of this part.
    21. Amend Sec.  396.3 by revising the introductory text of 
paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  396.3  Inspection, repair, and maintenance.

    (a) General. Every motor carrier and intermodal equipment provider 
must systematically inspect, repair, and maintain, or cause to be 
systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained, all motor vehicles 
and intermodal equipment subject to its control.
* * * * *
    (b) Required records. Motor carriers, except for a private motor 
carrier of passengers (nonbusiness), must maintain, or cause to be 
maintained, records for each motor vehicle they control for 30 
consecutive days. Intermodal equipment providers must maintain or cause 
to be maintained, records for each unit of intermodal equipment they 
tender or intend to tender to a motor carrier. These records must 
include:
* * * * *
    22. Amend Sec.  396.11 by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  396.11  Driver vehicle inspection report(s).

    (a) Report required.
    (1) Motor carriers. Every motor carrier must require its drivers to 
report, and every driver must prepare a report in writing at the 
completion of each day's work on each vehicle operated. The report must 
cover at least the following parts and accessories:

--Service brakes including trailer brake connections
--Parking (hand) brake
--Steering mechanism
--Lighting devices and reflectors
--Tires
--Horn
--Windshield wipers
--Rear vision mirrors
--Coupling devices

[[Page 76830]]

--Wheels and rims
--Emergency equipment

    (2) Intermodal equipment providers. Every intermodal equipment 
provider must have a process to receive driver reports of defects or 
deficiencies in the intermodal equipment operated. The driver must 
report on, and the process to receive reports must cover, the following 
parts and accessories:

--King pin upper coupling device
--Rails or support frames
--Tie down bolsters
--Locking pins, clevises, clamps, or hooks
--Sliders or sliding frame lock
--Wheels, rims, lugs, tires
--Lighting devices, lamps, markers, and conspicuity marking material
--Air line connections, hoses, and couplers
--Brakes
* * * * *
    23. Add Sec.  396.12 to read as follows as follows:


Sec.  396.12  Procedures for intermodal equipment providers to accept 
reports required by Sec.  390.44(b) of this chapter.

    (a) System for reports. Each intermodal equipment provider must 
establish a system for motor carriers and drivers to report to it any 
damage, defects, or deficiencies discovered by, or reported to, the 
motor carrier or driver which would--
    (1) Affect the safety of operation of the intermodal equipment, or
    (2) Result in its mechanical breakdown while transported on public 
roads.
    (b) Report content. The system required by paragraph (a) of this 
section must include documentation of all of the following:
    (1) Name of the motor carrier responsible for the operation of the 
intermodal equipment at the time the damage, defects, or deficiencies 
were discovered by, or reported to, the driver.
    (2) Motor carrier's USDOT Number or other unique identifying 
number.
    (3) Date and time the report was submitted.
    (4) All damage, defects, or deficiencies reported to the equipment 
provider by the motor carrier or its driver.
    (c) Corrective action. (1) Prior to allowing or permitting a motor 
carrier to transport a piece of intermodal equipment for which a motor 
carrier or driver has submitted a report about damage, defects or 
deficiencies, each intermodal equipment provider or its agent must 
repair reported damage, defects, or deficiencies that are likely to 
affect the safety of operation of the vehicle.
    (2) Each intermodal equipment provider or its agent must document 
whether the reported damage, defects, or deficiencies have been 
repaired, or whether repair is unnecessary, before the vehicle is 
operated again.
    (d) Retention period for reports. Each intermodal equipment 
provider must maintain all documentation required by this section for a 
period of three months from the date that a motor carrier or its driver 
submits the report to the intermodal equipment provider or its agent.
    24. Revise Sec. Sec.  396.17, 396.19, 396.21, 396.23, and 396.25 to 
read as follows:


Sec.  396.17  Periodic inspection.

    (a) Every commercial motor vehicle must be inspected as required by 
this section. The inspection must include, at a minimum, the parts and 
accessories set forth in appendix G of this subchapter. The term 
commercial motor vehicle includes each vehicle in a combination 
vehicle. For example, for a tractor semitrailer, full trailer 
combination, the tractor, semitrailer, and the full trailer (including 
the converter dolly if so equipped) must each be inspected.
    (b) Except as provided in Sec.  396.23 and this paragraph, motor 
carriers must inspect or cause to be inspected all motor vehicles 
subject to their control. Intermodal equipment providers must inspect 
or cause to be inspected intermodal equipment that is interchanged or 
intended for interchange to motor carries in intermodal transportation.
    (c) A motor carrier must not use a commercial motor vehicle, and an 
intermodal equipment provider must not tender equipment to a motor 
carrier for interchange, unless each component identified in appendix G 
to this subchapter has passed an inspection in accordance with the 
terms of this section at least once during the preceding 12 months and 
documentation of such inspection is on the vehicle. The documentation 
may be:
    (1) The inspection report prepared in accordance with Sec.  
396.21(a), or
    (2) Other forms of documentation, based on the inspection report 
(e.g., sticker or decal), that contain the following information:
    (i) The date of inspection;
    (ii) Name and address of the motor carrier, intermodal equipment 
provider, or other entity where the inspection report is maintained;
    (iii) Information uniquely identifying the vehicle inspected if not 
clearly marked on the motor vehicle; and
    (iv) A certification that the vehicle has passed an inspection in 
accordance with Sec.  396.17.
    (d) A motor carrier may perform the required annual inspection for 
vehicles under the carrier's control that are not subject to an 
inspection under Sec.  396.23(b)(1). An intermodal equipment provider 
may perform the required annual inspection for intermodal equipment 
interchanged or intended for interchange to motor carriers that is not 
subject to an inspection under Sec.  396.23(b)(1).
    (e) In lieu of the self inspection provided for in paragraph (d) of 
this section, a motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider 
responsible for the inspection may choose to have a commercial garage, 
fleet leasing company, truck stop, or other similar commercial business 
perform the inspection as its agent, provided that business operates 
and maintains facilities appropriate for commercial vehicle inspections 
and it employs qualified inspectors, as required by Sec.  396.19.
    (f) Vehicles passing roadside or periodic inspections performed 
under the auspices of any State government or equivalent jurisdiction 
or the FMCSA, meeting the minimum standards contained in appendix G of 
this subchapter, are considered to have met the requirements of an 
annual inspection for a period of 12 months commencing from the last 
day of the month in which the inspection was performed. If a vehicle is 
subject to a mandatory State inspection program, as provided in Sec.  
396.23(b)(1), a roadside inspection may only be considered equivalent 
if it complies with the requirements of that program.
    (g) It is the responsibility of the motor carrier or intermodal 
equipment provider to ensure that all parts and accessories on vehicles 
for which they are responsible that do not meet the minimum standards 
set forth in appendix G to this subchapter are repaired promptly.
    (h) Failure to perform properly the annual inspection required by 
this section causes the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider 
to be subject to the penalty provisions of 49 U.S.C. 521(b).


Sec.  396.19  Inspector qualifications.

    (a) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers must ensure 
that the individual(s) performing an annual inspection under Sec.  
396.17(d) or (e) is (are) qualified as follows:
    (1) Understands the inspection criteria set forth in part 393 and

[[Page 76831]]

appendix G of this subchapter and can identify defective components;
    (2) Is knowledgeable of and has mastered the methods, procedures, 
tools and equipment used when performing an inspection; and
    (3) Is capable of performing an inspection by reason of experience, 
training, or both as follows:
    (i) Successfully completed a State or Federal-sponsored training 
program or has a certificate from a State or Canadian Province that 
qualifies the person to perform commercial motor vehicle safety 
inspections, or
    (ii) Has a combination of training and/or experience totaling at 
least 1 year. Such training and/or experience may consist of:
    (A) Participation in a commercial motor vehicle manufacturer-
sponsored training program or similar commercial training program 
designed to train students in commercial motor vehicle operation and 
maintenance;
    (B) Experience as a mechanic or inspector in a motor carrier or 
intermodal equipment maintenance program;
    (C) Experience as a mechanic or inspector in commercial motor 
vehicle maintenance at a commercial garage, fleet leasing company, or 
similar facility; or
    (D) Experience as a commercial vehicle inspector for a State, 
Provincial, or Federal Government.
    (b) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers must retain 
evidence of an individual's qualifications under this section. They 
must retain this evidence for the period during which the individual is 
performing annual motor vehicle inspections for the motor carrier or 
intermodal equipment provider, and for one year thereafter. However, 
motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers do not have to 
maintain documentation of inspector qualifications for those 
inspections performed either as part of a State periodic inspection 
program or at the roadside as part of a random roadside inspection 
program.


Sec.  396.21  Periodic inspection recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) The qualified inspector performing the inspection must prepare 
a report that:
    (1) Identifies the individual performing the inspection;
    (2) Identifies the motor carrier operating the vehicle or 
intermodal equipment provider intending to interchange the vehicle to a 
motor carrier;
    (3) Identifies the date of the inspection;
    (4) Identifies the vehicle inspected;
    (5) Identifies the vehicle components inspected and describes the 
results of the inspection, including the identification of those 
components not meeting the minimum standards set forth in appendix G to 
this subchapter; and
    (6) Certifies the accuracy and completeness of the inspection as 
complying with all the requirements of this section.
    (b)(1) The original or a copy of the inspection report must be 
retained by the motor carrier, intermodal equipment provider, or other 
entity that is responsible for the inspection for a period of fourteen 
months from the date of the inspection report. The original or a copy 
of the inspection report must be retained where the vehicle is either 
housed or maintained.
    (2) The original or a copy of the inspection report must be 
available for inspection upon demand of an authorized Federal, State, 
or local official.
    (3) Exception. If the motor carrier operating the commercial motor 
vehicles did not perform the commercial motor vehicle's last annual 
inspection, or if an intermodal equipment provider did not itself 
perform the annual inspection on equipment intended for interchange to 
a motor carrier, the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider is 
responsible for obtaining the original or a copy of the last annual 
inspection report upon demand of an authorized Federal, State, or local 
official.


Sec.  396.23  Equivalent to periodic inspection.

    (a) A motor carrier or an intermodal equipment provider may meet 
the requirements of Sec.  396.17 through a State or other 
jurisdiction's roadside inspection program. The inspection must have 
been performed during the preceding 12 months. If using the roadside 
inspection, the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider must 
retain a copy of an annual inspection report showing that the 
inspection was performed in accordance with the minimum periodic 
inspection standards set forth in appendix G to this subchapter. If the 
motor carrier operating the commercial vehicle is not the party 
directly responsible for its maintenance, the motor carrier must 
deliver the roadside inspection report to the responsible party in a 
timely manner. When accepting such an inspection report, the motor 
carrier or intermodal equipment provider must ensure that the report 
complies with the requirements of Sec.  396.21(a).
    (b)(1) If a commercial motor vehicle is subject to a mandatory 
State inspection program that is determined by the Administrator to be 
as effective as Sec.  396.17, the motor carrier or intermodal equipment 
provider must meet the requirement of Sec.  396.17 through that State's 
inspection program. Commercial motor vehicle inspections may be 
conducted by State personnel, at State authorized commercial 
facilities, or by the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider 
itself under the auspices of a State authorized self-inspection 
program.
    (2) Should the FMCSA determine that a State inspection program, in 
whole or in part, is not as effective as Sec.  396.17, the motor 
carrier or intermodal equipment provider must ensure that the periodic 
inspection required by Sec.  396.17 is performed on all commercial 
motor vehicles under its control in a manner specified in Sec.  396.17.


Sec.  396.25  Qualifications of brake inspectors.

    (a) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers must ensure 
that all inspections, maintenance, repairs or service to the brakes of 
its commercial motor vehicles, are performed in compliance with the 
requirements of this section.
    (b) For purposes of this section, brake inspector means any 
employee of a motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider who is 
responsible for ensuring all brake inspections, maintenance, service, 
or repairs to any commercial motor vehicle, subject to the motor 
carrier's or intermodal equipment provider's control, meet the 
applicable Federal standards.
    (c) No motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider may require 
or permit any employee who does not meet the minimum brake inspector 
qualifications of paragraph (d) of this section to be responsible for 
the inspection, maintenance, service, or repairs of any brakes on its 
commercial motor vehicles.
    (d) The motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider must ensure 
that each brake inspector is qualified as follows:
    (1) Understands the brake service or inspection task to be 
accomplished and can perform that task;
    (2) Is knowledgeable of and has mastered the methods, procedures, 
tools and equipment used when performing an assigned brake service or 
inspection task; and
    (3) Is capable of performing the assigned brake service or 
inspection by reason of experience, training or both as follows:

[[Page 76832]]

    (i) Has successfully completed an apprenticeship program sponsored 
by a State, a Canadian Province, a Federal agency or a labor union, or 
a training program approved by a State, Provincial, or Federal agency, 
or has a certificate from a State or Canadian Province that qualifies 
the person to perform the assigned brake service or inspection task 
(including passage of Commercial Driver's License air brake tests in 
the case of a brake inspection);
    (ii) Has brake-related training or experience or a combination 
thereof totaling at least one year. Such training or experience may 
consist of:
    (A) Participation in a training program sponsored by a brake or 
vehicle manufacturer or similar commercial training program designed to 
train students in brake maintenance or inspection similar to the 
assigned brake service or inspection tasks; or
    (B) Experience performing brake maintenance or inspection similar 
to the assigned brake service or inspection task in a motor carrier or 
intermodal equipment provider maintenance program; or
    (C) Experience performing brake maintenance or inspection similar 
to the assigned brake service or inspection task at a commercial 
garage, fleet leasing company, or similar facility.
    (e) No motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider may employ 
any person as a brake inspector unless the evidence of the inspector's 
qualifications required under this section is maintained by the motor 
carrier or intermodal equipment provider at its principal place of 
business, or at the location at which the brake inspector is employed. 
The evidence must be maintained for the period during which the brake 
inspector is employed in that capacity and for one year thereafter. 
However, motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers do not have 
to maintain evidence of qualifications to inspect air brake systems for 
such inspections performed by persons who have passed the air brake 
knowledge and skills test for a Commercial Driver's License.
    25. Amend Appendix G to Subchapter B--Minimum Periodic Inspection 
Standards, in Paragraph 6. Safe Loading, by adding new subparagraph 6.c 
to read as follows:

Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III--Minimum Periodic Inspection 
Standards

* * * * *
    6. Safe loading.
* * * * *
    c. Container securement devices on intermodal equipment--All 
devices used to secure an intermodal container to a chassis, 
including rails or support frames, tiedown bolsters, locking pins, 
clevises, clamps, and hooks that are cracked, broken, loose, or 
missing.
* * * * *

    Issued on: December 11, 2006.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-21380 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P