[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59951-59952]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20609]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 390

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0103]
RIN 2126-AB90

Lease and Interchange of Vehicles; Motor Carriers of Passengers

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

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its intent to issue a rulemaking concerning
revisions to its May 27, 2015, final rule titled ``Lease and
Interchange of Vehicles; Motor Carriers of Passengers.'' The Agency
received numerous petitions for reconsideration of the final rule and
determined that amendments should be considered in response to some of
the petitions. The aspects of the 2015 final rule to be reconsidered
are discussed later in this document. In addition, FMCSA will hold a
roundtable discussion on the scope of the issues to be addressed in the
forthcoming rulemaking. The meeting will be public and will seek public
input regarding the assignment of responsibility for safety violations
to the correct party. Individuals with diverse experience, expertise,
and perspectives are encouraged to attend. If all comments have been
exhausted prior to the end of the session, the session may conclude
early. The Agency intends to complete any regulatory action(s) taken in
response to the petitions before January 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Loretta Bitner,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office of Enforcement and Compliance. FMCSA
office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 27, 2015, FMCSA published a final rule concerning the lease
and interchange of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
(80 FR 30164). The purpose of the rule is to identify the motor carrier
operating a passenger-carrying CMV that is responsible for compliance
with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and ensure
that a lessor surrenders control of the CMV for the full term of the
lease or temporary exchange of CMV(s) and driver(s). The Agency
received 37 petitions for reconsideration which have been filed in the
public docket referenced above. Upon review of these requests, FMCSA
concluded that some have merit. FMCSA, therefore, extended the
compliance date of the final rule from January 1, 2017, to January 1,
2018 (82 FR 13998; March 16, 2016) to allow the Agency time to complete
its analysis and amend the rule where necessary.
    Petitioners made the following substantive arguments, which the
Agency will address in subsequent rulemaking.

General Objections

    The petitioners generally argued that FMCSA has taken a regulatory
scheme from the trucking industry and applied it to the bus industry,
which has a vastly different operating structure and liability regimen.
Moreover, the application of these truck regulations to the bus
industry offers no additional protection to the public from illegal or
unsafe bus operators. Instead, the final rule simply adds
administrative costs and reduces operational flexibility for bus
operators.
    Petitioners further stated that the final rule creates an economic
and regulatory burden on passenger carriers that already operate safely
and have a high degree of compliance. Some of the petitioners argue
that those lease requirements will not stop carriers that choose to
violate the regulations, yet will burden those who already operate
safely and compliantly.
    A petitioner stated that while it supports efforts to identify and
address chameleon carriers or carriers that may try to operate under
the cloak of another carrier, the final rule does not accomplish this
goal and in fact provides a roadmap for irresponsible carriers to
operate legally under the authority of another carrier.
    One carrier stated that it had identified several instances where
the final rule lacks sufficient clarity to enable it to comply, and
that these issue areas have an effect on all of its operations. The
final rule also adds administrative costs and reduces operational
flexibility for charter and tour bus operations, which will, in the
end, reduce connectivity and transportation options for the traveling
public.
    Another carrier argued that the three 2008 crashes cited in the
September 20, 2013 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) involved a tire
failure, driver error, and an insurance issue (78 FR 57822), and that
nothing in the final rule would have prevented any of these crashes.
The commenter also named two insurance companies that have restrictions
in their policies that prohibit the use of non-owned equipment and non-
employed drivers, which were major concerns of the NPRM.
    Many of the objections raised by petitioners can be addressed by
providing additional explanation. However, some of the issues discussed
below may require regulatory changes; they fall into four major
categories.

Four Changes Under Consideration

    (1) Exclusion of ``chartering'' (i.e., subcontracting) from the
leasing

requirements. The 2015 rule merged the concepts of leasing with
``chartering'' (subcontracting). Carriers routinely subcontract work to
other registered carriers to handle demand surges, emergencies, or
events that require more than the available capacity. Subcontractors
with their own operating authority have traditionally assumed
responsibility for their own vehicles/drivers. Under the 2015 rule,
however, a passenger carrier that subcontracted work to another carrier
would be responsible for that second carrier's compliance with the
regulations. Petitioners claim that making a carrier responsible for
the subcontractor's vehicles, drivers, and liability would make most
short-term subcontracts impossible.
    (2) Amending the CMV requirements for the location of temporary
markings for leased/interchanged vehicles. The petitioners argued that
the frequent marking changes needed during leases or interchanges would
be impractical and unnecessary because the information required is
recorded on the driver's records of duty status for roadside inspectors
and safety investigators to review; carriers will have to depend
completely on their drivers to properly change vehicle markings dozens
of times per day in remote locations; and it is unlikely that a member
of the public is going to understand the significance of the markings
in the event that he or she focuses on the temporary ``operated by''
markings rather than the permanent markings on the bus representing the
vehicle owner.
    (3) Changing the requirement that carriers notify customers within
24 hours when they subcontract service to other carriers. Petitioners
argued that a 24-hour deadline is impractical because if an emergency
maintenance issue occurs, it may not be possible to notify the customer
in a timely manner, particularly if the issue occurs on the weekend,
when the customer's offices are closed, and the start time is before
the customer's Monday opening time.
    (4) Expanding the 48-hour delay in preparing a lease to include
emergencies when passengers are not actually on board a bus. Sometimes
events requiring a replacement vehicle might occur when there are no
passengers on a vehicle, such as when Amtrak or airline service is
suspended or disrupted and buses are needed to transport stranded
passengers. A bus operator contracted to provide the rescue service
might need to obtain additional drivers and vehicles from other
carriers to meet the demand. There might be a last minute maintenance
or mechanical issue, or driver illness, that arises late in the evening
or during the night (such as on a multi-day charter or tour trip), or
just prior to picking up a group for a charter or scheduled service
run.
FMCSA Decision
    FMCSA plans to issue a rulemaking notice to address the four areas
of concern listed above. The Agency believes that less burdensome
regulatory alternatives that would not adversely impact safety could be
adopted before the January 1, 2018. The Agency denies the petitions for
reconsideration of all other aspects of the final rule. These petitions
either would have impaired the purpose of the final rule or did not
include practical alternatives.
    The Agency will provide petitioners with written notification of
these decisions at a later date.
Public Roundtable
    FMCSA will hold a public roundtable to discuss the four issue areas
discussed above. The public will have an opportunity to speak about
these issues and provide the Agency with information on how to address
them. All public comments will be placed in the docket of this
rulemaking. Details concerning the schedule and location of the
roundtable, as well as procedural information for participants, will
follow in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

    Issued on: August 19, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-20609 Filed 8-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P