[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81503-81506]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32868]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0428]
RIN 2126-AB67

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards Certification for Commercial Motor Vehicles
Operated by United States-Domiciled Motor Carriers; Withdrawal

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

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
withdraws its June 17, 2015, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
which would have required each commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operated
by a

United States-domiciled (U.S.-domiciled) motor carrier engaged in
interstate commerce to display a label applied by the vehicle
manufacturer or a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Registered
Importer to document the vehicle's compliance with all applicable
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) in effect as of the
date of manufacture. FMCSA withdraws the NPRM because commenters raised
substantive issues which have led the Agency to conclude that it would
be inappropriate to move forward with a final rule based on the
proposal. Because the FMVSSs critical to the operational safety of CMVs
are cross-referenced in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs), FMCSA has determined that it can most effectively ensure that
motor carriers maintain the safety equipment and features provided by
the FMVSSs through enforcement of the FMCSRs, making an additional
FMVSS certification labeling regulation unnecessary.

DATES: The NPRM ``Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation:
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Certification for Commercial
Motor Vehicles Operated by United States-Domiciled Motor Carriers,''
published on June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34588), is withdrawn as of December
30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this Notice
of withdrawal, contact Mr. Michael Huntley, Chief, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001,
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background/General Issues Raised During Comment Period

    On June 17, 2015, FMCSA published an NPRM to require motor carriers
to display an FMVSS certification label (80 FR 34588).
    The FMCSRs require that motor carriers operating CMVs in the U.S.,
including Mexico- and Canada-domiciled carriers, ensure that the
vehicles are equipped with the applicable safety equipment and features
specified in 49 CFR part 393, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe
Operations, which includes cross references to safety equipment and
features that must be installed at the time of production. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires vehicle
manufacturers to certify that the vehicles they produce for sale and
use in the U.S. meet all applicable FMVSSs in effect at the time of
manufacture. In addition, they must affix an FMVSS certification label
to each vehicle in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR part 567.
    As proposed, the NPRM would have required U.S.-domiciled motor
carriers engaged in interstate commerce to use only CMVs that display
an FMVSS certification label affixed by the vehicle manufacturer
indicating that the vehicle: (1) Satisfied all applicable FMVSSs in
effect at the time of manufacture; or (2) has been modified to meet
those standards and legally imported by a DOT-Registered- Importer. In
the absence of such a label (e.g., because of vehicle damage or
deliberate removal), the motor carrier would have been required to
obtain, and a driver upon demand present, a letter issued by the
vehicle manufacturer stating that the vehicle satisfied all applicable
FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture.

Discussion of Comments to the NPRM

    FMCSA received 19 comments on the NPRM. The Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance (CVSA), which represents State and Provincial agencies
throughout North America responsible for motor carrier safety
enforcement, supported the proposed rule, but stated ``While CVSA
supports the NPRM, it should be noted that, in our opinion, the best
way to prevent non-FMVSS-compliant vehicles from operating in the U.S.
by U.S.-domiciled motor carriers is to identify them at the point of
titling, vehicle registration, or importation. Roadside inspections
should be the secondary means of verifying that CMVs were FMVSS
compliant at the time of manufacture.'' One anonymous commenter also
supported the proposed rule.
    Each of the remaining commenters opposed the proposal, including
six trade associations representing the trucking industry, equipment
manufacturers, and dealers (One trade association submitted two
comments each covering a different issue). These associations are the
American Trucking Associations (ATA), the National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA), the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA), the
Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association (OOIDA), and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA). Three motor carriers submitted comments: Double D
Distribution (Mark Droubay), United Parcel Service (UPS) and YRC
Freight (YRC). Nine individuals submitted comments, including
Congressman Richard L. Hanna from New York.

Comments in Opposition to the NPRM

    Commenters opposed the proposed rule for the following reasons:
     The rule would provide no safety benefits.
     FMVSS markings, particularly on trailers, are subject to
damage, over-painting, and loss over the life of the vehicle. No
certification marking is permanent.
     Many of the manufacturers have gone out of business, been
purchased, or are overseas; obtaining a replacement certification or
letter may not be possible.
     The proposal does not recognize the issues raised by
interlining and other operational patterns.
     The rule would impose significant costs on carriers, which
FMCSA has failed to estimate.
     The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
recommendation on which the proposal was based resulted from a bus
crash that was unrelated to the standards to which the coach was
manufactured.

No Safety Benefits

    Several of the industry associations, the three motor carriers, and
seven individuals who opposed the proposed rule in general stated that
it would not enhance safety and that FMCSA had provided no safety
rationale for the rule. OOIDA stated that most small carriers and
owner/operators purchase used equipment. OOIDA also stated that it
failed to see how maintaining proof of a CMV's compliance at the time
of manufacture would improve safety years later. ATA and TCA stated
that original certification has little if anything to do with the
condition and safe operation of a CMV after it is purchased. ATA stated
that FMCSA had provided no evidence of any crashes where lack of
certification was responsible for the crash. UPS stated that the
proposal appeared to be for the convenience of inspectors, not to
improve safety.

Issues Related to Markings

    ATA and others stated that no external markings on a CMV are
permanent. YRC stated that it was primarily concerned with markings on
trailers, converter dollies, and container chassis, which are affixed
to the outside of the vehicle and subject to wear and tear from road
conditions and may be painted over or removed during refurbishment. ATA
submitted

information from a survey of motor carriers. Of the responding motor
carriers, 42 percent reported having missing or unreadable
certification labels. No motor carrier surveyed indicated that the
equipment did not have a label because it had not been designed to be
compliant with the FMVSSs.

Issues Related to Replacement Certifications

    The industry associations stated that FMCSA had not understood the
difficulty of obtaining a replacement certification. ATA, Congressman
Richard L. Hanna and others stated that many of the vehicle
manufacturers have gone out of business or have been sold. Those that
are out of business could not produce a replacement; the new owners of
the manufacturers that have been sold might not have the records or may
be unwilling to be liable for vehicles produced by the original
manufacturer. ATA provided a list of 21 manufacturers that are out of
business or have been sold. It also noted that current manufacturers
may be reluctant out of fear of liability to provide certificates for
equipment that may not have been maintained or may have been altered.
For intermodal chassis, many of which were manufactured overseas, ATA
stated that it will not be possible to identify or find the
manufacturer.
    EMA raised a related issue: Multiple companies are involved in the
manufacture and certification of most Class 3 through 7 vehicles and
about half of the Class 8 vehicles. Under the proposal, EMA stated that
a carrier would have to contact the final-stage manufacturer for a
replacement, but the identity of that manufacturer may not be obvious
as it is frequently not the nameplate company. EMA stated that its
members charge a fee for replacement certificates.
    YRC and UPS stated that the alternative of a letter, kept with the
equipment, is problematic. YRC stated that trailers and converter
dollies are routinely used by non-owners during interlining, intermodal
agreements, and equipment leases. UPS stated that the requirement to
keep the letter with the trailer would require a secure compartment,
which trailers do not currently have. ATA stated that containers and
trailers may be sealed and asked if FMCSA was expecting inspectors to
break seals to review a letter that spoke to compliance years in the
past. ATA also stated that the proposed rule would result in penalizing
drivers and carriers for missing labels on equipment they did not own
which was in safe operating condition. ATA stated that for intermodal
chassis, a database exists that would provide a better source of the
information for inspectors.

Cost Impacts

    The industry associations and motor carriers stated that FMCSA had
failed to consider or estimate the significant costs associated with
the proposed rule. They listed the following potential costs:
     The time required to survey equipment to determine whether
certificate information still existed on equipment.
     The time required to identify the manufacturer and obtain
a replacement certificate or letter.
     The time required for a driver/carrier picking up
equipment owned by another carrier to check for the label, certificate,
or letter.
     The operational disruption if CMVs had to be removed from
service until replacements could be obtained or replaced altogether if
the manufacturer no longer exists.
     The fees charged for replacement certificates.
    UPS estimated that of its 77,000 trailers, 10,000 no longer have
the decals. It would need to identify the manufacturer, if it still
exists, to request a replacement. YRC stated that the initial audit of
its equipment would require hundreds of hours of time by drivers,
mechanics, and others, followed by the process of obtaining a
replacement label if possible. If the manufacturer no longer exists,
the rule would require that the equipment be removed from service. One
carrier (32 tractors with 70 trailers) estimated that it would cost
$18,000 to add/replace labels currently missing and $4,000-$6,000
annually to audit the equipment to ensure that tags are still there.
ATA cited a comment from a member that it was charged $150 for a
replacement decal for a trailer. ATA provided data from 20 carriers on
the number of pieces of equipment missing decals--8,411 out of 47,000
CMVs.
    ATA also cited another member, a propane distributor, which had 29
trailers without certificates, most manufactured by companies that no
longer exist. The proposal would require replacement of all of these
trailers. NPGA stated that even when replacements could be obtained,
taking the equipment out of service until the certificate or letter
arrived would disrupt services and impose significant costs to lease
replacements. NPGA and others noted that, even if the manufacturer is
still in business, the carrier has no way to compel it to process a
request quickly. EMA noted that completing a letter would take an hour
or more of a manufacturer's expert's time. NADA's American Truck
Dealers Division stated that any requirement that dealers not sell CMVs
that lack certificates would be unacceptable and could cost dealers $3
million annually (assuming 1 hour/week to examine vehicles and obtain
replacements), it also noted that small dealerships spend considerably
more per employee on compliance than larger firms do.
    OOIDA stated that FMCSA must do a cost-benefit analysis and then
publish a supplemental notice.

Other Comments

    NPGA stated that it could support the requirement if it applied
only to CMVs manufactured after the effective date of the rule. In the
alternative, FMCSA should set the compliance period at 24 months to
give carriers enough time to implement the provision without disrupting
operations. UPS and YRC stated that they would support a prospective
requirement provided the label was a permanent plate. UPS stated that
it understood that the data connecting serial number and status at
manufacture are available in State databases. Although these data may
not be accessible at roadside inspection, they are available
electronically. OOIDA stated that the burden should be on the seller of
used vehicles, not the purchaser.
    Many of the industry commenters stated that the NTSB report did not
provide a justification for the proposal.

FMCSA Decision To Withdraw the NPRM

    After review and analysis of the public comments discussed in the
preceding section, FMCSA has decided to withdraw the June 2015 NPRM. We
will continue to uphold the operational safety of CMVs on the Nation's
highways through continued enforcement of the FMCSRs, many of which
cross-reference specific FMVSSs.
    Generally, U.S.-domiciled motor carriers operating CMVs (as defined
in 49 CFR 390.5) in interstate commerce have access only to vehicles
that either were manufactured domestically for use in the United States
with the required certification label or were properly imported into
the United States in accordance with applicable NHTSA regulations,
including certification documentation requirements of 49 CFR part 567.
Furthermore, FMCSA's safety regulations incorporate and cross reference
the FMVSSs critical to continued safe operation of CMVs.

    FMCSA believes continued strong enforcement of the FMCSRs in real-
world operational settings, coupled with existing regulations and
enforcement measures, will ensure the safe operation of CMVs in
interstate commerce. Under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program,
FMCSA and its State and local partners conduct more than 2.3 million
roadside vehicle inspections each year of CMVs (domiciled in the United
States, Canada, or Mexico) operating in interstate commerce.
Enforcement of the FMCSRs, and by extension the FMVSSs they cross-
reference, is the bedrock of these compliance assurance activities.
    Simply requiring CMVs to bear FMVSS certification labels would not
ensure their operational safety. An FMVSS label certifying compliance
with performance standards applicable to lights, brakes, and other wear
items does not ensure real-world safety in the absence of compliance
with the operational and maintenance standards imposed by the FMCSRs,
especially in the case of vehicles built many years ago. Although the
presence or absence of an FMVSS compliance label can certainly provide
a useful tool in this regard, inspection of the CMV's compliance with
the FMCSRs remains the benchmark by which enforcement officials
identify and remove from service vehicles likely to break down or cause
a crash. The American public is better protected by the FMCSRs than
solely through a label indicating a CMV was originally built to certain
manufacturing performance standards.
    Therefore, after careful consideration, FMCSA has concluded it is
not necessary to amend the FMCSRs to require CMVs to display an FMVSS
certification label in order to achieve effective compliance with the
FMVCRSs.
    In view of the foregoing, the NPRM concerning certification of
compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is
withdrawn.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on
December 23, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-32868 Filed 12-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: September 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 46191]
[DOCID:fr08se09-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

August 28, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG09-90-000.
    Applicants: BP Wind Energy North America Inc.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of BP Wind Energy North
America Inc. as an Exempt Wholesale Generator.
    Filed Date: 08/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090828-5039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 18, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER99-1435-020.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corporations submits its compliance filing as
required by Order 697.
    Filed Date: 08/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090828-0060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1367-001.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Co submits a substitute to the 6/
29/09 Facilities Agreement with ITC Midwest, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090827-0052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1423-002.
    Applicants: Verde Energy USA, Inc.
    Description: Verde Energy USA, Inc submits Substitute Original
Sheet 1.
    Filed Date: 08/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090828-0133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 04, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1617-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits an amended and restated version of the Interconnection
Agreement.
    Filed Date: 08/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090828-0139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 17, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES09-49-000.
    Applicants: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Application for Authorization to Issue Debt Under
Section 204(a) of the Federal Power Act and for Exemption from the
Commission's Competitive Bidding Requirements under Section 34.2 of Old
Dominion Electric Cooperative.
    Filed Date: 08/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090827-5079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 17, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21491 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2530-2531]
[DOCID:fr15ja10-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

January 7, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC10-33-000.
    Applicants: CPV Keenan II Renewable Energy Company.
    Description: CPV Renewable Energy Co., LLC et al. submits joint
application for authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power
Act, etc.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100105-4002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: EC10-34-000.
    Applicants: Northbrook New York, LLC, Fort Chicago Holdings U.S.
Inc.
    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities and request for expedited and privileged
treatment of Exhibit 1 re Northbrook New York, LLC et al.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100106-0220.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 26, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER03-762-014.
    Applicants: Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc.
    Description: Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. Notice of
Change in Status.

    Filed Date: 01/06/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100106-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 27, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-268-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits amendments to
Schedule 12 Appendix of their Open Access Transmission Tariff to
incorporate cost responsibility assignments, etc.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20100104-0060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 1, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-406-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits for filing executed
interconnection service agreements among PJM Interconnection, LLC et
al.
    Filed Date: 12/10/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091211-0054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 14, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-417-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits Notices of
Cancellation of Interconnection Service Agreements submitted in
Attachments C, F, and Q with Virginia Electric and Power Co.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091229-0127.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 19, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-476-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits a revised
rate sheet reflecting the cancellation of the Interconnection
Facilities Agreement with PPM Energy, Inc, FERC Electric Tariff, Second
Revised Volume 6, Service Agreement 36.
    Filed Date: 12/23/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091224-0086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 13, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES10-16-001.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Amended Section 204 Application of Westar Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 01/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100107-5014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 28, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA10-3-000.
    Applicants: Crystal Lake Wind II, LLC.
    Description: Crystal Lake Wind II, LLC Petition for Waiver of
Commission Rules.
    Filed Date: 01/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100105-5086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 26, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-634 Filed 1-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P