[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 235 (Friday, December 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85723-85725]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0100; Notice 1]

Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Ford Motor Company (Ford) has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2018-2020 Ford F-150 motor vehicles do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Ford filed a
noncompliance report dated September 8, 2022, and subsequently
petitioned NHTSA (the ``Agency'') on September 30, 2022, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of Ford's
petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before January 8, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Ford determined that certain MY 2018-2020 Ford F-150
motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS
No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, And Associated Equipment (49 CFR
571.108).
    Ford filed a noncompliance report dated September 8, 2022, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. Ford petitioned NHTSA on September 30, 2022, for an exemption
from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301
on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates
to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Ford's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent

any agency decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the
merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 1,439,524 MY 2018-2020 Ford F-
150 motor vehicles, manufactured between January 10, 2017, and October
22, 2020, were reported by the manufacturer.
    III. Noncompliance: Ford explains that the subject vehicles are
equipped with amber side marker lamps that do not comply with the
photometry reqiurements of S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically,
they failed to meet the minimum photometric requirement of 0.62 candela
at test point 10.0D and 32.0L. Specifically, the amber side marker
lamps had a luminous intensity that was lower than the 0.62 candela
minimum requirement.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>, S<IP_ADDRESS>, and Table X
of FMVSS No. 108 includes the requirements relevant to this petition.
Each side marker lamp must be designed to conform to the photometry
requirements of Table X, when tested according to the procedure of
S14.2.1 for the lamp color as specified by this section; and for each
motor vehicle less than 30 feet in overall length, the minimum
photometric intensity requirements for a side marker lamp may be met
for all inboard test points at a distance of 15 feet from the vehicle
and on a vertical plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis
of the vehicle and located midway between the front and rear side
marker lamps.
    V. Background Information: On June 17, 2022, Ford received a letter
from NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance stating that Calcoast-
ITL, a test lab contracted by NHTSA to conduct FMVSS No. 108 testing on
service lamps, found that 3 of 4 front left hand (LH) MY 2018 Ford F-
150 head lamps did not meet the FMVSS No. 108 minimum photometry
requirement for amber side markers at one test point out of nine.
Calcoast-ITL found that all four of the front right hand (RH) MY 2018
Ford F-150 head lamps met the regulatory requirements in FMVSS No. 108.
Ford reports that after reviewing the supplier's lamp assembly
certification data and production audit testing records, it was
determined that the candela values consistently exceeded the minimum
requirement. After further review, Ford discovered that the supplier
produced lamps on a semi-automated ``main line'' and a non-automated
``secondary'' line. According to Ford's review, the semi-automated main
line appeared to be compliant. However, Ford found that the non-
automated secondary line was ``susceptible to process variation.''
Furthermore, lamps from the main line were subjected to an end-of-line
screening process that included regulatory compliance verification.
This screening check was not included in the secondary line.
Approximately 96 percent of the lamps were produced on the main line.
Ford says that after October 7, 2020, all service parts were produced
on the secondary line, as production of the main line ceased when
vehicle production ended.
    Ford says that further testing of the service parts produced on the
secondary line indicated that 72 of 252 LH parts and 47 of 219 RH parts
had test point values below the minimum requirement of 0.62 candela
when using a rated bulb. Ford claims that all nonconforming data
pertains to the parts that were produced on the supplier's secondary
line. Ford estimates that approximately 25 percent of the lamps from
the secondary line fell below the 0.62 candela minimum requirement,
which corresponds to less than one percent of the total vehicle
population, approximately 14,935 vehicles.
    Ford says that the subject noncompliance may be due to process
variation causing tolerance stack-up issues on the lamp supplier's
secondary line, resulting in the side marker bulbs being produced with
an inner bezel distortion and/or an out-of-position bezel. Ford
explains that, given the lack of screening procedures on the secondary
line, these defects were not found during manufacturing.
    VI. Summary of Ford's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``VI. Summary of Ford's Petition,'' are the
views and arguments provided by Ford. They have not been evaluated by
the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. Ford describes
the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Ford says that when a side marker lamp is tested for compliance
with FMVSS No. 108 requirements, only the side marker lamp in the
combination headlamp is illuminated and measured. However, Ford
explains that the side marker lamp does not automatically illuminate
alone during normal vehicle operation. The parking lamp and the side
marker lamp are both illuminated with the same amber color when the
headlamps are activated. Further, the parking lamp is positioned such
that it illuminates the same visual field as the side marker lamp.
    To evaluate the effect of the addition of the parking lamp on the
illumination of the side marker lamps, Ford measured the illumination
of the subject lamps with only the side marker lamp illuminated and
then with both lamps illuminated as they would be during regular
vehicle operation. Ford determined that the side marker lamp
illumination measured at greater values at several FMVSS No. 108 test
points that complied with regulatory specifications. Ford says that,
according to this data, the parking lamp increased the candela value at
each test point by an average of 0.110 to 0.932.
    In this evaluation, Ford considered only the lowest measured values
for the increased parking lamp illumination at the various test points.
The parking lamp's illumination produced an additional 0.125 candela at
the test point 10D-32L. When the parking lamp was added to the side
marker lamp, all measured values exceeded the 0.62 candela minimum
requirement.
    Ford conducted a statistical analysis to assess the potential
values in a larger vehicle population in order to further evaluate the
effects of increased illumination from the parking lamp. For this
analysis, Ford used the candela values for 282 LH service lamps with
only the side marker illuminated then applied the additional parking
lamp illumination values previously described. Ford found that ``the
vast majority of vehicles would measure above the 0.62 candela
regulatory standard.'' The lowest value Ford anticipates in a vehicle
would be 0.55 candela (0.44 + 0.110) which represents the lowest
candela value at test point LH 10D-32L, plus the minimum amount of
additional illumination that could be measured with the parking lamp
illuminated. Ford notes that this value, 0.55 candela, is lower than
the required minimum of 0.62 candela by less than 25 percent.
    Ford argues that there are two reports that are relevant to this
petition. Ford says that these reports indicate that up to a 25 percent
difference in a lamp's photometric output is imperceptible to the human
eye. The first report, Driver Perception of Just Noticeable Differences
of Automotive Signal Lamps,\1\ was published in September 1994. The
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI)
conducted an additional study in February 1997 extending the 1994 study
to low beam automotive headlamps.\2\ Ford says that the studies found
that the majority of drivers were

unable to differentiate the light output between different sources when
the difference in illumination was less than 25 percent. Ford contends
that the 1994 study indicated that the findings were appropriate for
consideration of inconsequentiality petitions involving a noncompliance
with the photometry requirements of FMVSS No. 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Driver Perception of Just Noticeable Differences of
Automotive Signal Lamps, was published by Huey, Deker, and Lyons in
September 1994 (DOT HS 808 209, September 1994).
    \2\ (UMTRI-97-4, February 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford notes that it is not aware of any reports related to the
subject noncompliance. Ford recognizes that a lack of reports is not
dispositive but believes that it is illustrative of the field
performance.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See North America Subaru, Inc., Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 48764, August 10,
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford says that NHTSA has granted prior petitions concerning similar
noncompliances. Ford believes that NHTSA's rationale for those
decisions support the granting of its current petition.
    Ford says that NHTSA granted a petition submitted by Nissan North
America, Inc. (Nissan)\4\ that involved vehicles with side marker lamps
in combination head lamps that did not meet the photometric intensity
requirements as required by paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 108. Ford
explains that Nissan's petition presented two main arguments: (1) NHTSA
should consider the parking lamp photometry along with the side marker
lamp because both lamps are always illuminated, and (2) the condition
that caused the noncompliance could not be seen by the human eye. In
this case, Ford says that NHTSA agreed with Nissan's second argument
but rejected the first. Ford says that NHTSA disagreed with Nissan's
first argument because Nissan's parking lamp illumination was white and
the side marker lamp was amber which would cause a passing motorist to
have difficulty determining what part of the vehicle is approaching.
Ford contends that this reasoning does not apply to the subject
noncompliance because both Ford's parking lamp and side marker lamp are
amber. Thus, according to Ford, a passing motorist would not encounter
the same difficulty in determining which part of the vehicle is
approaching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Nissan North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 85 FR 39678 (July 1,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford says it also reviewed petitions involving a noncompliance with
the side reflex reflector and not the side marker lamp. While the
petitions do not concern the side marker lamp, Ford believes that
NHTSA's rationale in those decisions can be informative. Ford explains
that the side reflex reflectors reflect other light and do not
illuminate. Ford says that NHTSA has consistently found that a 25
percent change in luminosity is imperceptible to the human eye.
Specifically, Ford refers to NHTSA's decision on a petition submitted
by Subaru of America (Subaru) \5\ that involved failures of luminous
intensity on the side reflex reflector and a Hella petition. In that
case, Ford explains that the noncompliant lamps were all less than 20
percent of the minimum values. NHTSA granted Subaru's petition and
applied the reasoning that the human eye cannot detect a 25 percent
change in luminosity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Subaru of America, Grant of Petition for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 56 FR 59971, (November 26, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford also cites NHTSA's decision on a petition from Toyota Motor
North America (Toyota) \6\ in which vehicles were equipped with rear
reflex reflectors that did not meet the minimum requirements specified
in FMVSS No. 108. Ford says Toyota believed that noncompliance was
inconsequential because a change of luminous intensity of 18 percent is
imperceptible to the human eye. NHTSA concurred, relying on its own
assessment and past precedent stated in the 1991 Hella and Subaru
grants of inconsequentiality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 85 FR 39679 (July 1,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, Ford says that NHTSA's rationale in denying a petition
submitted by FCA US LLC (FCA) \7\ supports its belief that the subject
noncompliance should be deemed inconsequential. Ford explains that
FCA's petition concerned side reflex reflectors that did not meet the
minimum photometry requirements at the observation angle of 0.2
degrees. In that petition, FCA's reflex reflectors were 68.6 percent
below the required value. Ford says that the subject side marker lamps
``maintained much closer margins to the standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FCA US, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 57649 (September 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Ford refers to a Subaru petition that NHTSA denied in 2022
that involved side reflex reflectors that did not comply with FMVSS No.
108 photometry requirements.\8\ In that case, Ford says NHTSA stated
that its thinking on the deviation threshold of 25 percent evolved, and
that it no longer believes that threshold applies to side reflex
reflectors because the photometry criteria for side reflex reflectors
are measured in mcd/lux, whereas other lamps are measured in candela.
Ford contends that this new thinking should not apply to the subject
noncompliance because side marker lamps produce their own illumination
and are therefore measured in candela.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Ford did not provide the Federal Register citation but it
appears that this refers to North America Subaru, Inc., Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 87 FR 48764
(August 10, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ford concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Ford no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicles
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Ford
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023-26960 Filed 12-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50429-50430]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Modifications to
Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 2, 2021.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of the special
         Application number                 Applicant        Regulation(s) affected        permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10511-M............................  Schlumberger            173.304a..............  To modify the special
                                      Technology Corp.                                permit to authorize an
                                                                                additional packaging
                                                                                configuration. (modes 1,
                                                                                2, 3, 4, 5)
10776-M............................  Bevin Bros              173.302a(a)(1),         To modify the special
                                      Manufacturing Company.  173.304a(a)(1).         permit to authorize
                                                                                additional hazardous
                                                                                materials. (modes 1, 2, 3,
                                                                                4, 5)
13112-M............................  Cobham Mission Systems  173.302a(a)(1)........  To modify the special
                                      Orchard Park Inc.                               permit to update the
                                                                                drawing revision number of
                                                                                the packaging. (modes 1,
                                                                                2, 3, 4, 5)
20351-M............................  Roeder Cartage          180.407(c),             To modify the special
                                      Company, Incorporated.  180.407(e),             permit to authorize an
                                                              180.407(f).             additional cargo tank.
                                                                                (mode 1)
20646-M............................  Omni Tanker Pty. Ltd..  107.503(b),             To modify the special
                                                              107.503(c),             permit to authorize
                                                              172.102(c)(3),          additional hazardous
                                                              172.102(c)(7)(ii),      materials and rail
                                                              178.274(b),             freight. (modes 1, 2)
                                                              178.274(c),
                                                              178.274(d).
21199-M............................  Solvay Fluorides, LLC.  173.227(c)............  To modify the special
                                                                                permit to remove the
                                                                                requirement to line the
                                                                                freight container with
                                                                                plywood. (mode 1)
21213-M............................  Space Exploration       172.300, 172.400,       To modify the special
                                      Technologies Corp.      173.302(a).             permit to increase the
                                                                                number of cylinders and
                                                                                add additional routes.
                                                                                (mode 1)
21240-M............................  Volkswagen Group of     172.101(j)............  To modify the special
                                      America Chattanooga                             permit to authorize an
                                      Operations, LLC.                                additional lithium ion
                                                                                battery. (mode 4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-19462 Filed 9-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68699]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27217]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket FAA No. FAA-2013-0530; Airspace Docket No. 13-AWP-9]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Battle Mountain, NV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal
Register of September 23, 2013, that establishes Class E airspace at
the Battle Mountain VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range Tactical Air
Navigational Aid (VORTAC) navigation aid, Battle Mountain, NV. A
favorable comment from the National Business Aviation Association
(NBAA) was received in the public Docket but was not referenced in the
Final Rule.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register establishing
Class E airspace at the Battle Mountain VORTAC navigation aid, Battle
Mountain, NV (78 FR 58159, September 23, 2013). The FAA received a
comment in support of the rule from the NBAA for inclusion in FAA
Docket No. FAA-2013-0530 prior to the closing of the comment period.
However, the preamble incorrectly references that there were no
comments to the proposal. This action corrects that statement.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the
description under the History heading, as published in the Federal
Register on September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58159), Airspace Docket No. 13-
AWP-9, FR Doc. 2013-58159, is corrected as follows: On page 58160,
column 1, line 2, remove ``No comments were received.'', and add in
their place ``One comment was received from the National Business
Aviation Association (NBAA) supporting the establishment of Class E en
route airspace.''.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on: November 6, 2013.
Clark Desing,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-27217 Filed 11-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4898-4899]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01868]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-523-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Mobile
Bay South III Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Mobile Bay South III Expansion Project, proposed by Transcontinental
Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in the above-referenced docket.
Transco requests authorization to modify two existing compressor
stations in Choctaw and Mobile Counties, Alabama, in order to provide
225,000 dekatherms per day to serve expanding markets in southern
Alabama and Florida.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Mobile Bay South III Expansion
Project in accordance with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the
proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    The proposed Mobile Bay South III Expansion Project includes the
following facilities at Transco's existing Compressor Station 85 in
Choctaw County, Alabama:
     one new 20,500-horsepower (hp) natural gas-fired Solar
Titan 130 turbine compressor;
     2,050 feet of 30-inch-diameter interconnect pipeline
between the existing Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP Scott Mountain
Meter Station and the new compressor unit;
     a new compressor building to house the new compressor
unit; and
     appurtenant facilities.

In addition, the project includes uprating an existing 15,000-hp Solar
Mars 100 natural gas-fired compressor unit to 16,000 hp at Transco's
Compressor Station 83 in Mobile County, Alabama.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to
this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on
the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited
number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public
inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
8371.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or

lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more
useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity
to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project,
it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or
before February 24, 2014.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments with the Commission. In all instances please reference
the project docket number (CP13-523-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting
brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the
right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission
grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns
intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a
clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can
adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not
give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to
have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP13-
523). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Dated: January 24, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01868 Filed 1-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40151-40152]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17951]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-46-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Fairburn Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Fairburn Expansion Project, proposed by Southern Natural Gas Company,
LLC (Southern) in the above-referenced docket. Southern requests
authorization to acquire, upgrade, construct, and operate certain
natural gas pipeline and compression facilities in Clayton, Cobb,
Fayetteville, Fulton, and Monroe Counties, Georgia. The project would
provide approximately 343 million cubic feet per day of new firm
transportation capacity to delivery points in Southern's Zone 2 and
Zone 3 systems.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Fairburn Expansion Project in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed
project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a
major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency participated as a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or
special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the
proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.
    The proposed Fairburn Expansion Project includes the following
facilities in Georgia:
     One new 4.9-mile-long 30-inch-diameter Fairburn Lateral
pipeline, extending from the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company
interconnect in Fayette County to a new proposed 18,000-horsepower
electric Fairburn Compressor Station with pig \1\ receiver in Fulton
County;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pig is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into and
pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline, conducting
internal inspections, or other purposes.

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

     one 1.6-mile-long 30-inch-diameter South Main 2nd Loop \2\
Line Extension pipeline along with pig receiver from mileposts 373.6 to
375.2 on Southern's existing South Main Line System in Monroe County;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A pipeline loop is a segment of pipe constructed parallel to
an existing pipeline to increase capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     acquisition of the 19.7-mile-long 30-inch-diameter
McDonough Lateral pipeline that extends from Southern's existing SNG-
to-McDonough Meter Station in Fulton County to the proposed Plant
McDonough Meter Station in Cobb County;
     a new Plant McDonough Meter Station in Cobb County; a SNG-
to-McDonough Meter Station modification in Fulton County; and a new UPS
Meter Station in Fulton County, all located on the McDonough Lateral;
     one new Transco-to-SNG Meter Station with pig launcher in
Fayette County; and
     modification of the Jonesboro Meter Station in Clayton
County.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to Federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. In addition,
the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site
(www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of
the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your
comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important
that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before September
18, 2017.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (CP17-46-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on eRegister. You must select the type of filing you are making. If you
are filing a comment on a particular project, please select Comment on
a Filing; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\3\ Only intervenors have the
right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission
grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns
intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a
clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can
adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not
give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to
have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on General Search, and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP17-
46). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: August 18, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17951 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50787-50793]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15667]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 396

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0075]
RIN 2126-AC29

Passenger Carrier No-Defect Driver Vehicle Inspection Reports

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA rescinds the requirement that drivers of passenger-
carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) operating in interstate
commerce submit, and motor carriers retain, driver-vehicle inspection
reports (DVIRs) when the driver has neither found nor been made aware
of any vehicle defects or deficiencies (no-defect DVIRs). This final
rule removes an information collection burden without adversely
impacting safety.

DATES: Effective September 17, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jos[eacute] Cestero, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001,
(202) 366-5541<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
I. Rulemaking Documents

A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    For access to docket FMCSA-2019-0075 to read background documents
and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FMCSA-2019-0075 at any time, or to Docket Operations
at U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Executive Summary

    This rule affects all passenger carriers currently subject to 49
CFR 396.11, Driver vehicle inspection reports (DVIR). As a result of
the Agency's ongoing effort to evaluate existing regulations for
necessity and effectiveness, FMCSA rescinds the requirement that
drivers of passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
operating in interstate commerce submit, and motor carriers retain,
DVIRs when the driver has neither found nor been made aware of any
vehicle defects or deficiencies (no-defect DVIRs). This final rule
removes an information collection burden without impacting safety
adversely.

Benefits and Costs

    Current regulations require drivers employed by passenger
carriers--except drivers for private (nonbusiness) passenger carriers,
driveaway-towaway operations, or those operating only one CMV--to
report on the DVIR any vehicle defects noted or discovered during a
driving day that would affect the safe operation of the CMV or result
in a mechanical breakdown. Drivers must submit this report to the
employing passenger carrier so that repairs can be made. Prior to this
final rule, Sec.  396.11(a)(2) required drivers of passenger-carrying
CMVs to file the DVIR even if there were no vehicle defects to report.
Motor carriers were required to maintain the original DVIR, the
certification of repairs, and the certification of the driver's review
for 3 months from the date the written report was prepared. This final
rule eliminates the need for a driver to file, and a motor carrier to
maintain, a no-defect DVIR.
    The Agency estimates that passenger-carrying CMV drivers spend
approximately 2.4 million hours each year completing no-defect DVIRs,
and that the final rule will result in potential cost savings of $74
million per year. There is no discernible safety benefit to this no
defect DVIR burden. The Agency estimates that this rulemaking will
result in reduced government-imposed costs, and therefore is a
deregulatory action under Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (issued January 30, 2017,
and published February 3, 2017, at 82 FR 9339).

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This final rule is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act
of 1935 (1935 Act) (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)) and the Motor Carrier Safety
Act of 1984 (1984 Act) (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)), both of which are broadly
discretionary.
    The 1935 Act provides that the Secretary of Transportation
(Secretary) may prescribe requirements for the following:
     Qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees
of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier (section
31502(b)(l)) and
     Qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees
of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed
to promote safety of operation (section 31502(b)(2)).
    This rulemaking is based on the Secretary's authority under section
31502(b)(1) and (2).
    The 1984 Act authorizes the Secretary to regulate drivers, motor
carriers, and vehicle equipment. Section 31136(a)

requires the Secretary to publish regulations on CMV safety.
Specifically, the Act sets forth minimum safety standards to ensure
that: (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely
(section 31136(a)(l)); (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of
CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely
(section 31136(a)(2)); (3) the physical condition of CMV operators is
adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely (section
31136(a)(3)); (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious
effect on the physical condition of the operators (section
31136(a)(4)); and (5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not
coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation
intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a
regulation promulgated under this section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313
of this title (section 31136(a)(5)). The 1984 Act grants the Secretary
broad power in carrying out motor carrier safety statutes and
regulations to ``prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements''
and to ``perform other acts the Secretary considers appropriate''
(section 31133(a)(8) and (10)).
    This rule implements, in part, the Administrator's authority under
section 31136(a)(l) to ensure that CMVs are maintained, equipped,
loaded, and operated safely. The final rule is also based on the broad
recordkeeping and implementation authority of section 31133(a)(8) and
(10). This final rule addresses only CMV equipment and reporting
requirements. It does not address the question whether drivers'
responsibilities affect their ability to operate CMVs safely (section
31136(a)(2)). The provisions of the 1984 Act dealing with the physical
condition of drivers (section 31136(a)(3) and (4)) do not apply.
    Finally, to ensure that operators of CMVs are not coerced by motor
carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries to
operate a CMV in violation of a regulation, the rule eliminates only
the requirement that drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs prepare no-
defect DVIRs; it retains the rule requiring reports when there are
defects or deficiencies, as well as the requirement for motor carriers
to take appropriate action on receipt of the report. Because the rule
removes a regulatory burden criticized by both drivers and motor
carriers (and irrelevant to passenger brokers or tour groups), there is
virtually no possibility that the driver of a passenger-carrying CMV
would be coerced to violate the rule itself. A passenger carrier may
require a driver to continue filing no-defect DVIRs, even in the
absence of a regulatory requirement, as a condition of employment to
perform duties not required by part 396, which would therefore not
constitute coercion to violate a safety regulation.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments

A. Proposed Rulemaking

    On November 12, 2019, FMCSA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Passenger Carrier No-
Defect Driver Vehicle Inspection Reports'' (84 FR 60990). The NPRM
proposed to rescind the requirement that drivers of passenger-carrying
CMVs operating in interstate commerce submit, and motor carriers
retain, DVIRs when the driver has neither found nor been made aware of
any vehicle defects or deficiencies. The proposal, adopted by this
final rule, would remove an information collection burden without
adversely impacting safety.

B. Comments and Responses

    FMCSA solicited comments to the NPRM for a 60-day period, ending on
January 13, 2020. The Agency received a total of 12 comments from:
United Motorcoach Association (UMA), Western Trails Charter & Tours
(Western Trails), Freedom Excursions by Scully (Freedom Excursions),
Coach USA, American Bus Association (ABA), and seven individuals. No
public meeting was requested or held.
Comments Supporting the Proposal
    Eight commenters favored the proposal. Most pointed to the
potential savings in time and paperwork.
    UMA supported the proposed rule, stating that ``Elimination of this
burdensome regulation will readily reduce regulatory cost with no
discernable reduction of safety in the passenger carrier industry.''
UMA added that, while some passenger carriers will continue to require
drivers to prepare and submit no-defect DVIRs, elimination of the
regulatory requirement to do so will improve the effectiveness of
investigations and safety audits because enforcement personnel will not
have to review no-defect DVIRs.
    Western Trails and four individuals stated that the rule would
eliminate an unnecessary paperwork burden that has little safety
benefit.\1\ Freedom Excursions noted that requiring a DVIR only when
defects or deficiencies are noted will allow the company to focus on
safety sensitive issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ One of the individual commenters also raised concerns that
are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ABA stated that ``In general, we support the elimination of
unnecessary administrative burdens for motorcoach and other passenger
carriers, which DVIRs appear to present,'' and noted that ``the
retention of unnecessary and non-actionable documentation is a burden
ripe for evaluation under the U.S. Department's new final rule
codifying reforms to the Department's rulemaking procedures.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In its comments to the docket, ABA also noted that it
``shares some of the safety concerns raised by other commenters,''
and requested that FMCSA reopen the comment period for an additional
30 days. FMCSA declined to reopen the comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Opposed to the Proposal
    Coach USA did not support the proposed rule, stating that it will
continue to require its drivers to prepare and submit no-defect DVIRs
and will continue to retain those DVIRs, regardless of FMCSA's
decision. Coach USA stated if a driver is not required to complete and
submit a DVIR, it has no way of confirming that the driver completed
the required vehicle inspections. Coach USA noted that eliminating the
requirement to prepare no-defect DVIRs ``would leave a significant gap
in Coach USA's vehicle maintenance process through which vehicle
condition information (even a lack of defects/deficiencies) is directly
communicated by drivers to dispatch/maintenance operations.''
    Additionally, Coach USA contends that drivers may become complacent
with respect to performing the required inspections if the requirement
to prepare a no-defect DVIR is eliminated, and that ``the DVIR serves a
vital recordkeeping purpose to document drivers' completion of all
required inspections.'' Coach USA expressed concerns that other
passenger carriers may not retain no-defect DVIRs, and that a resulting
increase in bus crashes could negatively affect the public's perception
of the bus industry.
    One individual commenter indicated that the failure to generate no-
defect DVIRs in the passenger-carrier industry, where a CMV is often
operated by several drivers in a single day, would make it difficult to
identify the driver who failed to file a DVIR when a defect is
discovered at the end of the day. Because of this difference in
operations, the commenter suggested eliminating no-defect DVIRs only
where one driver operates the same vehicle for consecutive days.
    Two individual commenters cited concerns that eliminating no-defect

DVIRs may lead to a greater potential for civil liability if there is
no documentation that vehicles were inspected properly and safe to
operate.
    FMCSA Response. The fundamental requirement of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) is for motor carriers to ensure
that their CMVs are in safe and proper operating condition at all
times. Drivers and motor carriers have long been required to share the
safety responsibility both for operating CMVs and for assessing their
condition and documenting deficiencies and subsequent repairs. Section
392.7(a) states that ``[n]o commercial motor vehicle shall be driven
unless the driver is satisfied that the following parts and accessories
are in good working order.'' Section 393.1(b)(1) provides that
``[e]very motor carrier and its employees must be knowledgeable of and
comply with the requirements and specifications of this part,'' and
Sec.  393.1(c) states that no motor carrier may operate a commercial
motor vehicle, or cause or permit such vehicle to be operated, unless
it is equipped in accordance with the requirements and specifications
of the part. Section 396.3(a)(1) requires that ``[p]arts and
accessories shall be in safe and proper operating condition at all
times.'' Section 396.11(a) states that every motor carrier must
``require its drivers to report, and every driver shall prepare a
report in writing at the completion of each day's work on each vehicle
operated,'' covering a specific list of parts and accessories. Section
396.11(c) states that prior to requiring or permitting a driver to
operate a vehicle, every motor carrier or its agent shall repair any
defect or deficiency listed on the driver vehicle inspection report
which would be likely to affect the safety of operation of a vehicle.
    FMCSA emphasizes that the Agency is not foregoing the fundamental
requirements of part 393, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe
Operation, nor is it changing any other element of the inspection,
repair, and maintenance requirements of part 396. Drivers are still
required to perform pre-trip evaluations of equipment condition and
complete DVIRs if any defects or deficiencies are discovered or
reported during the day's operations. Motor carriers are still required
to have systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance (including
preventative maintenance) programs and to maintain records to prove
measures are being taken to reduce, to the extent practicable the risk
of mechanical problems occurring while the vehicle is in operation. In
addition, motor carriers are still required to review DVIRs that list
defects or deficiencies and to take appropriate action before the
vehicle is dispatched again. The Agency retains the requirement that
carriers complete periodic or annual inspections and maintain
documentation for the individuals who perform periodic inspections and
brake-related inspection, repair, and maintenance tasks. Furthermore,
these CMVs remain subject to inspections.
    Importantly, FMCSA did not propose to prohibit passenger carriers
from requiring their drivers to prepare DVIRs, even when the driver has
no vehicle defects to report. All motor carriers, including passenger
carriers, are free to continue to require no-defect DVIRs.
    Coach USA's concern about a possible reduction in safety, resulting
from the failure of drivers to conduct required inspections and thus
failing to detect unsafe conditions, is like concerns noted in
opposition to the 2014 rule \3\ that eliminated the requirement for no-
defect DVIRs for property-carrying vehicles. As noted in the NPRM for
this rule, FMCSA reviewed available data spanning several years on
vehicle out-of-service rates for both trucks and passenger-carrying
vehicles, including data before and after implementation of the 2014
final rule. FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS)
data show that the vehicle out-of-service rate for trucks is
consistently about 21 percent annually--both before and after
implementation of the 2014 final rule. While the Agency received
several public comments to the NPRM for that rule (78 FR 48125, Aug. 7,
2013), expressing concern that eliminating the requirement for no-
defect DVIRs would result in (1) a reduced level of safety and
maintenance and (2) a higher percentage of vehicle violations and out-
of-service orders, the data show that the vehicle out-of-service rate
for trucks has remained nearly constant before and after implementation
of the 2014 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 79 FR 75437, Dec. 18, 2014. To view the rule, its associated
documentation, and the comments received go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2012-0336.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MCMIS data also show that the vehicle out-of-service rate for
passenger-carrying vehicles is approximately 6.6 percent annually--
consistently less than one-third of the corresponding vehicle out-of-
service rate for trucks. From this data, it is clear that motor
carriers of passengers--because of the nature of their operations and
the sensitive cargo they transport--have established and implemented
comprehensive inspection, repair and maintenance programs that help
ensure that their vehicles are in safe and proper operating condition
at a rate that far exceeds that of other CMVs. As noted above,
implementation of the 2014 rule eliminating no-defect DVIRs for trucks
has not resulted in a reduced level of maintenance and safety or a
higher percentage of vehicle and out-of-service violations. Given that
passenger-carrying vehicles have a significantly lower vehicle out-of-
service rate generally, the Agency does not believe that extending to
them the same relief from the preparation and retention of no-defect
DVIRs will result in any degradation in safety.
    FMCSA recognizes that passenger-carrying CMVs are often operated by
several drivers in a single day, but Sec.  396.11(a) requires every
driver to (1) perform a post-trip inspection of each vehicle operated
during the day and (2) prepare a DVIR, if defects or deficiencies are
discovered by or reported to the driver. The Agency does not believe
that amendments are necessary to address operating scenarios in which a
CMV is operated by multiple drivers in a single day.
    With respect to the concerns about civil liability, FMCSA
emphasizes that it is not eliminating the fundamental requirements of
part 393, Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation, nor is it
changing any other element of the inspection, repair, and maintenance
requirements of part 396. The rule does not change the requirement for
CMV drivers to conduct pre- and post-trip vehicle inspections, nor does
it change the requirement for CMV drivers to report defects or
deficiencies that were found by or reported to them.
Review of Last DVIR (49 CFR 396.13(b))
    UMA commented that Sec.  396.13(b) requires that, before driving a
motor vehicle, a driver must ``review the last driver vehicle
inspection report.''
    FMCSA notes that this requirement was established at a time when a
DVIR was required at the completion of every day, regardless of whether
defects or deficiencies were discovered by or reported to the driver.
However, with the adoption of this final rule, a DVIR from the previous
trip will now be available for review by a driver prior to operation of
a vehicle only if (1) defects or deficiencies were discovered by or
reported to the previous driver or (2) a motor carrier voluntarily opts
to require its drivers to prepare no-defect DVIRs. Given that a large
percentage of vehicles may not have a DVIR from the previous trip for a
driver to review prior to operation, FMCSA is amending Sec.  396.13(b)
to clarify that before driving

a motor vehicle, a driver shall review the DVIR if required by Sec.
396.11(a)(2)(i).

V. International Impacts

    The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to the FMCSRs, apply only within the
United States (and, in some cases, United States territories). Motor
carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the
countries in which they operate, unless an international agreement
states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the
regulatory differences among nations.

VI. Section-By-Section Analysis

    This final rule amends the last sentence in 49 CFR 396.11(a)(2)
that currently provides that the driver of a passenger-carrying CMV
subject to this regulation must prepare a report even if no defect or
deficiency is discovered by or reported to the driver; the drivers of
all other commercial motor vehicles are not required to prepare a
report if no defect or deficiency is discovered by or reported to the
driver. FMCSA revises the sentence to provide that drivers are not
required to prepare a report if no defect or deficiency is discovered
by or reported to the driver. This final rule also amends 49 CFR
396.13(b) to require drivers, before driving a motor vehicle, to
``[r]eview the driver vehicle inspection report if required by Sec.
396.11(a)(2)(i).''

VII. Regulatory Analyses

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    Under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
this final rule does not require an assessment of potential costs and
benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the Office
of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under these Orders. In
addition, this rule is not significant within the meaning of DOT
regulations (49 CFR 5.13(a)).
Baseline for the Analysis
    Under Sec.  396.11, interstate passenger carriers (except private
(nonbusiness) carriers, driveaway-towaway operations, or those
operating only one CMV) must require their drivers to prepare a DVIR at
the completion of work each day for each vehicle operated that covers
at a minimum:

 Service brakes including trailer brake connections
 Parking brake
 Steering mechanism
 Lighting devices and reflectors
 Tires
 Horn
 Windshield wipers
 Rear vision mirrors
 Coupling devices
 Wheels and rims
 Emergency equipment.

    The report must list any defect or deficiency discovered by or
reported to the driver which would affect the safety of operation or
result in mechanical breakdown. The driver of a passenger-carrying
vehicle must prepare and submit the report even if no defect or
deficiency is identified and the carrier must retain the report for 3
months from the date the written report was prepared.
    Passenger carriers have used various means of compliance with this
requirement including paper DVIRs and associated processes for tracking
and filing (e.g., separating DVIRs that identify defects from those
that do not; maintaining separate files of each) and electronic systems
for completing a DVIR and retaining the record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ J.J. Keller provides a sample paper report available at
https://www.jjkellertraining.com/Samples/28146JJKMotor_Coach_Vehicle_InspectionsDEMO/story_content/external_files/DVIR.pdf. A wide variety of vendors supply electronic
DVIR systems, such as https://www.teletracnavman.com/our-solutions/compliance/dvir, https://www.verizonconnect.com/resources/article/electronic-inspection-form-dvir/, and https://fleetrevolution.com/fleetrevolution-bus-dvir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA does not have information on the ratio of electronic versus
paper-based DVIR processes used by passenger carriers. Regardless of
the means of compliance, the burden associated with the requirement to
complete no-defect DVIRs is estimated at 155 seconds per report in the
most recent approved supporting statement for Information Collection
Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number
2126-0003.
    The supporting statement to the ICR estimated that there are
247,496 passenger-carrying CMVs in operation and subject to the DVIR
requirements. As such, the no-defect DVIR rule imposes a substantial
time and paperwork burden on passenger carriers with no discernible
safety benefit.
Costs
    In 2014, the Agency estimated cost savings associated with
eliminating the requirement for no-defect DVIRs for property-carrying
CMVs. As that rule is analogous to this final rule, the analysis
follows the same approach. The Agency's 2018 approved supporting
statement for ICR 2126-0003 states that there are 247,496 passenger-
carrying CMVs for which DVIRs must be prepared, submitted, and
reviewed.
    Consistent with the methodology of the supporting statement and the
2014 analysis, the Agency assumes that each of these vehicles is used
65 percent of the days of the year, and that 95 percent of DVIRs are
no-defect DVIRs for which it estimated a burden of 155 seconds.
Therefore, the Agency estimated a paperwork burden of 2,401,747 hours
[247,496 vehicles x (0.65 x 365) x 0.95 x 155 = 8,646,288,229 seconds
or 2,401,747 hours]. Using a labor rate of $31 per hour,\5\ the Agency
estimates a potential cost savings of $74 million per year, assuming
all carriers choose to realize these cost savings and eliminate no-
defect DVIRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This wage is specific to bus drivers. Note that this rate
differs from that used in the approved supporting statement which
reflected the wage for a business operations specialist in the truck
transportation industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, this final rule will result in potential cost savings of
$74 million per year (Table 1).

               Table 1--Calculation of Annual Cost Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Variable                               Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of CMVs..........................................         247,496
Frequency of daily usage................................             65%
Frequency of no-defect DVIRs............................             95%
Time to complete a no-defect DVIR (seconds).............             155
Total time saved (hours)................................       2,401,747
Wage rate (per hour) \1\................................             $31
  Total savings.........................................     $73,665,012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The mean hourly wage national estimate for occupational code 53-
  3021, Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity is $21.47. Source: Bureau of
  Labor Statistics (BLS). 2019. May 2018 National Industry-Specific
  Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes533021.htm. The wage rate is scaled up using the following
  formula: 21.47 / 0.7. This reflects an estimate of the total labor
  costs; wages and salaries accounted for 70.0% of total employee cost
  for private industry workers in December 2018 (BLS, 2019; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03192019.pdf).

    In the 2019 NPRM, the Agency acknowledged that some carriers might
continue to require their drivers to submit no-defect DVIRs, thereby
lowering the estimated cost savings. The Agency received feedback from
one commenter, Coach USA, indicating it would continue to require no-
defect DVIRs. FMCSA has opted to present the impact on cost savings of
Coach USA's decision for illustrative purposes only. The Agency
considered adjusting the total estimate of cost savings from this

rule to account for this comment. However, the change in impact would
be de minimis, as illustrated below, and FMCSA believes this would add
a level of complexity to the analysis that implies a greater degree of
precision than which is possible. While it is possible that other
carriers may also continue to require no-defect DVIRs, the Agency did
not receive feedback in response to the NPRM to inform any changes to
that assumption in this analysis.
    Coach USA indicated that it operates 2,800 motorcoaches. Using the
same formula described above with an updated population of 244,696
vehicles (247,496 - 2,800 = 244,696), we estimate the paperwork burden
at 2,374,575 hours.\6\ Using the labor rate above of $31, the total
cost savings in this example would be $72,831,617 (a difference of
$833,395), or $73 million, rounded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 244,696 vehicles x (0.65 x 365) x 0.95 x 155 = 8,548,470,054
seconds or 2,374,575 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits
    The final rule benefits relate to the change in crash risk, if any,
that would result from allowing a defect-based DVIR approach. The
Agency has no information to suggest that preparation, submission, and
review of no-defect DVIRs produce a greater level of safety than that
of a defect-based approach. Further, no degradation in safety
attributable to the 2014 elimination of the no-defect DVIR requirement
for trucks has been observed. Both the baseline approach and the
defect-based approach ensure that vehicles are inspected so that
defects are noted and addressed. Therefore, the Agency estimates that
this final rule will maintain the same level of safety.
B. E.O. 13771 Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
    E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,
was issued on January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017). E.O. 13771
requires that, for every one new regulation issued by an Agency, at
least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the
cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through
a budgeting process. Final implementation guidance addressing the
requirements of E.O. 13771 was issued by OMB on April 5, 2017. The OMB
guidance defines what constitutes an E.O. 13771 regulatory action and
an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action, provides procedures for how agencies
should account for the costs and cost savings of such actions, and
outlines various other details regarding implementation of E.O. 13771.
An E.O. 13771 deregulatory action is defined as ``an action that has
been finalized and has total costs less than zero.'' This final rule
has a total cost less than zero, and therefore is an E.O. 13771
deregulatory action.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and
Budget. Memorandum M-17-21. Guidance implementing Executive Order
13771. April 5, 2017. Q4 on page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The present value of the cost savings of this rule, measured on an
infinite time horizon at a 7 percent discount rate, expressed in 2016
dollars, and discounted to 2020 (the year the rule goes into effect and
cost savings would first be realized), is $1 billion. On an annualized
basis, these cost savings are $71 million. For E.O. 13771 accounting,
the April 5, 2017, OMB guidance requires that agencies also calculate
the costs and cost savings discounted to year 2016.\8\ In accordance
with this requirement, the present value of the cost savings of this
rule, measured on an infinite time horizon at a 7 percent discount
rate, expressed in 2016 dollars, and discounted to 2016, is $771
million. On an annualized basis, these cost savings are $54 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and
Budget. Memorandum M-17-21. Guidance Implementing Executive Order
13771. April 5, 2017. Q25 on page 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.),
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule
as not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``major rule'' means any rule that the Administrator of
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of
Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to result
in (a) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b)
a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal agencies, State agencies, local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or (c) significant adverse effects
on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or
on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets (5 U.S.C.
804(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small Entities)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of a regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises
small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields
and governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000.
    Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all
regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies try to
minimize any adverse effects on these entities. Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat.
857), the Agency estimates this final rule will have a positive
economic impact on small entities in the form of cost savings through
the elimination of 2.4 million paperwork burden hours, or 155 seconds
per report.
    In the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to the
proposed rule, FMCSA invited comment from members of the public who
believed the proposed action would create a significant impact either
on small businesses or on governmental jurisdictions with a population
of less than 50,000. No comments were submitted by these entities to
indicate that this reduction of 155 seconds is significant.
    As stated in the IRFA of the proposed rule, the Agency does not
have data on company affiliations, NAICS (North American Industry
Classification System) codes, revenues, or employees with which to
determine how many of these carriers are small entities, or to directly
estimate the rule's impact on them. Therefore, FMCSA examined the
impact to small entities using a conservative per-vehicle approach
illustrated below.
    FMCSA estimates that the average savings per vehicle will be $298
per year. The total savings of burden hours for this rule is 2,401,747,
which applies to 247,496 vehicles. With an average annual time savings
of 9.7 hours per vehicle (2,401,747 hours / 247,496 vehicles), we
estimate the average annual cost savings to be $298 per vehicle (9.7
hours x wage rate of $31).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming drivers work 8 hours per day for 65 percent of the days in
a year,\11\ their compensation (at $31 per hour) would be approximately
$58,000 per year. Therefore, a single vehicle would need to generate a
minimum of $58,000 per year in revenue in order to break even with
driver wages and benefits. This is a conservatively low

estimate of annual revenue generated per vehicle, as it is insufficient
to cover the carrier's overhead, vehicle purchase or financing costs,
maintenance and repair costs, and fuel expenses, and it provides no
profit margin to the carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Consistent with the methodology of the supporting statement
and the 2014 analysis, the Agency assumes that each of these
vehicles is used 65 percent of the days of the year. Eight hours per
day is a conservative assumption as drivers may drive more than 8
hours per day, but the Agency chose this lesser value to demonstrate
that the impact of the cost savings is not significant even for
small entities that do not maximize available driver hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the low-range estimate of $58,000/year, if the average
savings per vehicle is $298 per year, this final rule will produce
savings of no more than 0.5 percent ($298 / $58,000) of the average
annual revenue needed to support one employee.
    The RFA does not define a threshold for determining whether a
specific regulation results in a significant impact. However, the SBA
(Small Business Administration), in guidance to government agencies,
provides some objective measures of significance that the agencies can
consider using.\12\ One measure that could be used to illustrate a
significant impact is labor costs, specifically, if the cost of the
regulation exceeds 1 percent of the average annual revenues of small
entities in the sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ SBA, Office of Advocacy. ``A Guide for Government Agencies.
How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.'' 2017. Available
at: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf (accessed on May 7, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the average annual per-vehicle impact of $298, a small entity
would need to have average annual revenues of less than $29,800 per
vehicle to experience an impact greater than 1 percent of average
annual revenue, which is an average annual revenue that is smaller than
would be required for a firm to support one employee. The savings of
$298 per vehicle relative to minimum necessary revenues of $58,000 per
vehicle represent 0.5 percent, and as such, are below a 1 percent
threshold of significance. Consequently, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

E. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the SBREFA, FMCSA wants to
assist small entities in understanding this final rule so they can
better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the
rulemaking initiative. If the final rule will affect your small
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance; please
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $165 million (which is the
value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to
2018 levels) or more in any one year. Though this final rule would not
result in such an expenditure, the Agency does discuss its effects
elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
FMCSA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. This rule reduces the burden
hours for the ``Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance'' ICR, OMB control
number 2126-0003. This ICR comprises ten individual information
collections, each corresponding to a different area of the inspection,
repair, and maintenance requirements. This rule affects only the ICR
section dealing with burden hours associated with no-defect DVIRs for
passenger-carrying vehicles.
    In 2018, based on data from its MCMIS and Licensing and Insurance
Systems, FMSCA concluded that there were 247,496 passenger-carrying
CMVs. Consistent with past analyses of this ICR, the Agency assumed
that these CMVs are used on average 65 percent of the year.
    FMCSA has divided the DVIR process into two steps. The Agency
estimated that the first step, filling out a DVIR, to takes 2 minutes,
30 seconds. The Agency estimated that the second step, reviewing and
signing a DVIR, to takes 20 seconds, when defects are reported, and 5
seconds when no defects are reported. When there are no defects to
note, there is nothing to review on the DVIR, and the form requires
only a signature. The Agency estimates that 5 percent of DVIRs note
defects and 95 percent of DVIRs note no defects.
    This rule eliminates the burden hours associated with no-defect
DVIRs for passenger-carrying CMVs, resulting in an annual reduction of
2,401,747 burden hours (247,496 CMVs x 65% utilization x 365 days x 95%
of CMVs x 155 seconds / 3,600 seconds per hour). The monetary value of
this annual burden reduction, calculated using an hourly labor cost of
$31, is $73,665,012 million (2,401,747 hours x $31, per hour).

H. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for federalism under Section 1(a) of E.O.
13132 if it has ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' FMCSA determined that this rule would not have
substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the
policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts
any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Impact Statement.

I. Privacy

    The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,\13\ requires the Agency
to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will
affect the privacy of individuals. This rule would not require the
collection of personally identifiable information (PII). The supporting
PIA, available for review in the docket, gives a full and complete
explanation of FMCSA practices for protecting PII in general and
specifically in relation to this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, note following 5
U.S.C. 552a (Dec. 4, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies
and any non-Federal agency which receives records contained in a system
of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.
    The E-Government Act of 2002,\14\ requires Federal agencies to
conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that
collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable
form. No new or substantially changed technology will collect,
maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule.

Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Public Law 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec.
17, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Agency submitted a Privacy Threshold Assessment
to evaluate the risks and effects the rulemaking might have on
collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information.
The DOT Privacy Office has determined that this rulemaking does not
create a privacy risk.

J. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the Agency provides Congress,
through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) are standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This final rule does
not use technical standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not consider the use
of voluntary consensus standards.

L. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

    FMCSA analyzed this final rule consistent with the NEPA (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and determined this action is categorically excluded from
further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680
(Mar. 1, 2004)), Appendix 2, paragraph (6)(aa). The Categorical
Exclusion (CE) in paragraph (6)(aa) relates to regulations requiring
motor carriers, drivers, and others to ``inspect, repair, and provide
maintenance for every CMV used on a public road,'' which is the focus
of this rule. The requirements in this rule are covered by this CE,
there are no extraordinary circumstances present, and the action does
not have the potential to significantly affect the quality of the
environment.

M. E.O. 13783 (Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. FMCSA has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it
does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.E.O.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 396

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
    Accordingly, FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 396 as follows:

PART 396-INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE

0
1. The authority citation for part 396 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31151, 31502; sec.
32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 5524, Pub. L. 114-
94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Revise Sec.  396.l l(a)(2)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  396.11   Driver vehicle inspection report(s).

    (a) * * *
    (2) Report content. (i) The report must identify the vehicle and
list any defect or deficiency discovered by or reported to the driver
which would affect the safety of operation of the vehicle or result in
its mechanical breakdown. If a driver operates more than one vehicle
during the day, a report must be prepared for each vehicle operated.
Drivers are not required to prepare a report if no defect or deficiency
is discovered by or reported to the driver.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Sec.  396.13(b) and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  396.13  Driver inspection.

* * * * *
    (b) Review the last driver vehicle inspection report if required by
Sec.  396.11(a)(2)(i); and
    (c) Sign the report to acknowledge that the driver has reviewed it
and that there is a certification that the required repairs have been
performed. The signature requirement does not apply to listed defects
on a towed unit which is no longer part of the vehicle combination.

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
James A. Mullen,
Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2020-15667 Filed 8-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P