[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47722-47732]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17364]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 393 and 396 and Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter
III

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0176]
RIN 2126-AB81

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Inspection,
Repair, and Maintenance; General Amendments

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA amends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) in response to several petitions for rulemaking from the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) and the American Trucking
Associations (ATA), and two safety recommendations from the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Specifically, the Agency adds a
definition of ``major tread groove'' and an illustration to indicate
the location of tread wear indicators or wear bars on a tire signifying
a major tread groove; revises the rear license plate lamp requirement
to eliminate the requirement for an operable rear license plate lamp on
vehicles when there is no rear license plate present; amends the
regulations regarding tires to prohibit the operation of a vehicle with
speed-restricted tires at speeds that exceed the rated limit of the
tire; provides specific requirements regarding when violations or
defects noted on an inspection report must be corrected; amends two
appendixes to the FMCSRs to include provisions for the inspection of
antilock braking systems (ABS) and automatic brake adjusters, speed-
restricted tires, and motorcoach passenger seat mounting anchorages;
amends the periodic inspection rules to eliminate the option for a
motor carrier to satisfy the annual inspection requirement through a
violation-free roadside inspection; and amends the inspector
qualification requirements as a result of the amendments to the
periodic inspection rules. In addition, the Agency eliminates
introductory regulatory text from an appendix to the FMCSRs because the
discussion of the differences between the North American Standard
Inspection out-of-service criteria and FMCSA's periodic inspection
criteria is unnecessary.

DATES: The rule is effective July 22, 2016.
    Petitions for Reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted
to the FMCSA Administrator no later than August 22, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the
docket, contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Rulemaking Documents

A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    For access to docket FMCSA-2015-0176 to read background documents
and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or
to Docket Services 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 accepts 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.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Executive Summary

    FMCSA is responsible for regulations to ensure that all commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) are systematically inspected, repaired, and
maintained and that all parts and accessories necessary for the safe
operation of CMVs are in safe and proper operating condition at all
times. In response to several petitions for rulemaking from CVSA and
ATA and two safety recommendations from the NTSB, FMCSA amends various
provisions in parts 393 and 396 of the FMCSRs. The amendments generally
do not involve the establishment of new or more stringent requirements,
but instead clarify existing requirements to increase consistency of
enforcement activities, and therefore the economic impact of these
changes is negligible.
    Specifically, the Agency (1) adds a definition of ``major tread
groove'' in Sec.  393.5 and an illustration in Sec.  393.75 to

indicate the location of tread wear indicators or wear bars on a tire
signifying a major tread groove; (2) revises the rear license plate
lamp requirement to eliminate the requirement in Table 1 of Sec.
393.11 for vehicles to have an operable rear license plate lamp when
there is no rear license plate present; (3) amends the regulations
regarding tires to prohibit the operation of a vehicle with speed-
restricted tires at speeds that exceed the rated limit of the tire; (4)
clarifies Sec.  396.9 regarding when violations or defects noted on a
roadside inspection report need to be corrected; (5) amends Appendix G
to the FMCSRs, ``Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards,'' to include
provisions for the inspection of ABS and automatic brake adjusters,
speed-restricted tires, and motorcoach passenger seat mounting
anchorages; (6) amends Sec.  396.17(f) and removes Sec.  396.23(a) to
eliminate the option for a motor carrier to meet the periodic
inspection requirements through roadside inspections; and (7) amends
Sec.  396.19(b) regarding inspector qualifications as a result of the
amendments to Sec.  396.17(f) described above. In addition, the Agency
eliminates as unnecessary a portion of Appendix G to the FMCSRs that
describes the differences between the out-of-service criteria and
FMCSA's annual inspection requirement. Elsewhere in today's issue of
the Federal Register, FMCSA amends certain regulatory guidance to
ensure consistency between the FMCSRs, as amended by this final rule,
and the published guidance.

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act
of 1935 [1935 Act] and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 [1984 Act].
    The 1935 Act, as amended, provides that ``[t]he Secretary of
Transportation may prescribe requirements for--(1) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours
of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a private
motor carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation'' (49 U.S.C.
31502(b)).
    This final rule amends the FMCSRs in response to several petitions
for rulemaking. The adoption and enforcement of such rules is
specifically authorized by the 1935 Act. This rulemaking rests squarely
on that authority.
    The 1984 Act provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers,
motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to
``prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety.'' The
regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for CMVs. At a
minimum, the regulations shall ensure that: (1) CMVs are maintained,
equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed
on operators of CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the
vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of CMVs is
adequate to enable them to operate vehicles safely; (4) the operation
of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of
the operators; and (5) drivers are not coerced by motor carriers,
shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries to operate a
vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 31136
or 49 U.S.C. chapters 51 or 313 (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)).
    This final rule concerns (1) parts and accessories necessary for
the safe operation of CMVs, and (2) the inspection, repair, and
maintenance of CMVs. It is based primarily on section 31136(a)(1) and
(2), and secondarily on section 31136(a)(4). This rulemaking ensures
that CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely by
requiring certain vehicle components, systems, and equipment to meet
minimum standards such that the mechanical condition of the vehicle is
not likely to cause a crash or breakdown. Section 31136(a)(3) is not
applicable because this rulemaking does not deal with driver
qualification standards. Because the amendments are primarily technical
changes that clarify existing requirements and improve enforcement
consistency, FMCSA believes they will be welcomed by motor carriers and
drivers alike and that coercion to violate them will not be an issue.
    Before prescribing any such regulations, FMCSA must consider the
``costs and benefits'' of any proposal (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and
31502(d)). As discussed in greater detail in the ``Regulatory
Analyses'' section, FMCSA determined that this final rule is not a
significant regulatory action. The economic impact is negligible
because the amendments generally do not involve the adoption of new or
more stringent requirements, but rather the clarification of existing
requirements. As such, the costs of the final rule do not approach the
$100 million annual threshold for economic significance.

IV. Background

    On October 7, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) in the Federal Register titled Parts and Accessories Necessary
for Safe Operation; Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; General
Amendments (80 FR 60592). FMCSA received 16 comments on the NPRM.

V. Summary of the NPRM

    FMCSA proposed to amend Sec.  393.5 to define ``major tread
groove'' as ``The space between two adjacent tread ribs or lugs on a
tire that contains a tread wear indicator or wear bar. (In most cases,
the locations of tread wear indicators are designated on the upper
sidewall/shoulder of the tire on original tread tires.)'' In addition,
FMCSA proposed adding an illustration to Sec.  393.75 to indicate the
location of tread wear indicators or wear bars signifying a major tread
groove. FMCSA agreed that uniformity and consistency in enforcement and
maintenance is critical. By including a definition of ``major tread
groove'' in Sec.  393.5--a term that is currently included in the
regulatory text of Sec.  393.75(b) and (c), but not specifically
defined--and a corresponding illustration in Sec.  393.75, the Agency
expects increased consistency in the application and citation of Sec.
393.75 during roadside inspections.
    FMCSA proposed to amend Footnote 11 to Table 1 of Sec.  393.11 to
indicate that ``No rear license plate lamp is required on truck
tractors registered in States that do not require tractors to display a
rear license plate.'' As noted in both the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 108 and the FMCSRs, the only function of the rear license
plate lamp is to illuminate the rear license plate. FMCSA agreed with
ATA that if a truck tractor is not required to display a rear license
plate, then there is no corresponding safety need for a functioning
rear license plate light.
    FMCSA proposed to amend Appendix G to include a review of ABS and
automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators to maintain
consistency between part 393 and Appendix G. FMCSA agreed that the
failure of a motor carrier to properly maintain an important safety
technology such as ABS should result in the vehicle failing the
periodic inspection. Although CVSA did not mention automatic brake
adjusters and brake adjustment indicators in its petition to amend
Appendix G, FMCSA proposed changes in Appendix G relating to these
brake components to ensure that vehicles may not pass the periodic
inspection without this important safety equipment.

    To clarify the intent of Sec.  396.9(d)(2), FMCSA proposed to amend
that section by including a specific cross reference to Sec.
396.11(a)(3). Section 396.11(a)(3) makes it clear that all defects and
deficiencies discovered by or reported to a driver--including those
identified during a roadside inspection conducted under the authority
of Sec.  396.9--must be corrected (or a certification must be provided
stating that repair is unnecessary) before a vehicle is operated each
day. However, the Agency agreed that the language of Sec.  396.9(d)(2)
is not as explicit as it could be, and could lead to uncertainty and/or
inconsistency in both the enforcement community and the motor carrier
industry regarding when violations and defects noted on roadside
inspection reports need to be corrected.
    FMCSA proposed to amend Sec.  396.17(f) to remove the words
``roadside or'' from the current regulatory text. The proposed
amendment would eliminate any uncertainties and make clear that a
roadside inspection is not equivalent to the periodic/annual inspection
required under Sec.  396.17. FMCSA does not believe it is appropriate
to continue to allow carriers relief from this responsibility by using
a roadside inspection conducted by enforcement officials to meet the
periodic inspection requirement. Motor carriers will now be responsible
for ensuring the completion of a periodic inspection irrespective of
whether a roadside inspection is performed, and amending the
regulations will require them to do so at least once every 12 months,
irrespective of whether a roadside inspection is performed during that
period.
    In light of the proposed amendments to Sec.  396.17(f), and to
further decrease the possibility of confusion regarding differing
requirements of the roadside inspection program and the periodic/annual
inspection program, FMCSA proposed to delete the section at the end of
Appendix G titled ``Comparison of Appendix G, and the new North
American Uniform Driver-Vehicle Inspection Procedure (North American
Commercial Vehicle Critical Safety Inspection Items and Out-Of-Service
Criteria). . .''
    Consistent with the proposed amendments to Sec.  396.17, FMCSA also
proposed to amend Sec.  396.19(b) by deleting language regarding a
``random roadside inspection program.''
    FMCSA proposed to add language to section 10 of Appendix G that
would prohibit the use of speed-restricted tires on CMVs subject to the
FMCSRs unless the use of such tires is specifically designated by the
motor carrier. FMCSA agreed that speed-restricted tires should not be
used on CMVs operating on highways in excess of 55 mph for extended
periods of time.
    FMCSA proposed to add a new section to Appendix G that would
require an examination of motorcoach seats during the conduct of a
periodic inspection in accordance with Sec.  396.17 to ensure that they
are securely attached to the vehicle structure. However, given the wide
range of seat anchorage designs, coupled with the lack of testing
requirements specifically for seat anchorage strength in the FMVSSs, it
is not practicable for FMCSA to develop a detailed methodology for the
inspection of motorcoach passenger seat mounting anchorages.

VI. Comment Response

    In response to the NPRM, the Agency received 16 comments from two
motor carriers (Capitol Bus Lines and Southern Company), eight
organizations (the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates),
the American Bus Association (ABA), ATA, CVSA, the National Automobile
Dealers Association (NADA), the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA)), the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), and
the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI), and six
individuals (Steve Bixler, Jim Bramm, Richard Crawford, Richard Pingel,
Robert Spoon, and Miles Verhoef).

Discussion of Issues

Section 393.5, Definition of ``Major Tread Groove.''
    Comments: RMA supported adding a definition for ``major tread
groove,'' but recommended that ``major tread groove'' be defined as
``the full depth space between two adjacent tread ribs or lugs on a
tire that repeats along the circumference and/or at an angle across the
tread area and contains a tread wear indicator. (In most cases, the
locations of tread wear indicators are designated on the upper sidewall
or shoulder of the tire on original tread tires.)'' In addition, RMA
noted that new tire tread designs feature tread grooves that are
``hidden'' on a new tire, but that appear and deepen and/or widen as
the tire tread wears. RMA states that in most cases, the locations of
tread wear indicators are designated on the tire's upper sidewall/
shoulder, but that those markings are voluntary and not required by the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes that the definition proposed in the
NPRM is sufficiently clear. The language provided by RMA added
complexity without clarifying the language proposed by FMCSA. While the
preamble to the NPRM stated that an illustration would be added to
Sec.  393.75 to indicate the location of tread wear indicators or wear
bars on a tire signifying a major tread groove, and FMCSA included a
proposed illustration in the preamble, the illustration inadvertently
was not included in the proposed regulatory changes. FMCSA did not
receive any comments regarding the illustration, and adds it to Sec.
393.75 as discussed in the NPRM. We anticipate that inclusion of the
illustration will further enhance clarity of the regulatory language.
Table 1 to Sec.  393.11, License Plate Lights
    Comments: Jim Bramm, CVSA, and NADA recommended that the exception
for vehicles not required to have a rear license plate light be
extended to apply to all types of CMVs, and not be limited to truck
tractors as proposed in the NPRM. Mr. Bramm stated ``Our company's
corporate office is located in Wisconsin and the majority of our
commercial motor vehicles are registered in this state. When
registering a vehicle for an apportioned plate you have the ability in
this state to not only register truck tractors but other types of
commercial vehicles such as dump trucks and pickup trucks. Wisconsin
law states only 1 plate will be issued for apportioned registered
vehicles and that plate is to be affixed to the front. Therefore I
believe the wording should remain as petitioned by the ATA so that the
regulation would apply to any commercial vehicle not just truck
tractors.''
    OOIDA stated ``. . . state inspectors do not have the authority to
write up violations of rules that their state has not adopted.
Therefore, inspectors from states that do not require rear license
plates (or illumination) do not have the authority to find violations
for failing to illuminate a license plate. Nor may such enforcement
officials use their observation of lack of a license plate (or
illumination) as probable cause to stop a truck for inspection. They
only have the authority to use probable cause that there is a violation
of their own state law.'' In addition, OOIDA noted that FMCSA ``should
consider what role the requirement for a license plate light plays in
highway safety. The requirements for conspicuity systems clearly
address night time visibility in a manner which far exceeds a license
plate light. The role of a license plate light in vehicle safety should
be explained and justified by FMCSA or dropped from the requirements.''

    FMCSA Response: FMVSS No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment'' (incorporated by reference in section 393.11 of
the FMCSRs), specifies comprehensive requirements to enhance the
conspicuity of all motor vehicles, including CMVs, on the public roads
so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both
in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility.
While NHTSA has required license plate lamps on all vehicles since
1968, license plate lamps are not intended to enhance safety in a
manner similar to the other required lamps and conspicuity treatments,
and eliminating the requirement for a rear license plate lamp when no
license plate is required will not reduce safety to the motoring
public.
    FMCSA agrees with the commenters that any regulatory changes to the
requirements for license plate lamps should apply to all CMVs, and not
just truck tractors as proposed in the NPRM. However, if adopted, the
proposed regulatory changes would have required roadside enforcement
officials in each State to know the license plate display requirements
of every other State. FMCSA believes that enforcement of the license
plate lamp requirement can be simplified--without compromising safety--
by requiring an operable rear license plate lamp only when there is a
license plate present at the time of inspection. FMCSA believes that
this approach will simplify enforcement and avoid enforcement confusion
and inconsistency that would likely result from the State-by-State
approach outlined in the NPRM. FMCSA does not expect drivers and/or
motor carriers to remove license plates to avoid citations in the event
that a rear license plate lamp is missing or inoperative, and if they
do, they will be subject to the more severe penalties associated with
not displaying a license plate when required by law.
    In response to OOIDA's concerns about the authority of an inspector
to enforce regulations adopted by another State that the inspector's
state has not similarly adopted, FMCSA notes that under the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), each State is required to
adopt regulations that are compatible with the FMCSRs within 3 years as
a condition of receiving Federal grant funding. As such, each State
will be required to adopt a regulation consistent with today's final
rule requiring an operable rear license plate lamp only when there is a
rear license plate present, eliminating the possibility of inconsistent
State regulations.
Appendix G to the FMCSRs--ABS
    Comments: CVSA supports the proposed language adding ABS to
Appendix G but recommended a number of additions, corrections, and
clarifications. First, CVSA states that the effective date for ABS
regarding hydraulic-braked vehicles should be September 1, 1999, and
not March 1, 1999, as stated in the NPRM. CVSA notes that while NHTSA
originally proposed a March 1, 1999, compliance date, NHTSA later
granted a petition extending the deadline to September 1, 1999. Second,
CVSA recommends the addition of a second footnote to clarify that
certain power units have two ABS malfunction indicators--one for the
power unit and one for the towed unit(s)--and that both need to be
fully functional. Third, CVSA notes that ABS powered by a backup power
source (i.e., the backup power from the brake lamp circuit) is not
compliant with FMVSS No. 121. As such, CVSA recommends that
subparagraph (2) of the proposed Appendix G requirements for ABS be
amended to specifically state ``ABS malfunction indicator that does not
illuminate when power is first applied to the ABS controller (ECU)
during initial power up.'' Fourth, CVSA recommends adding two
subparagraphs under the proposed ABS requirements in Appendix G to
address FMVSS No. 121 requirements that (1) a power unit manufactured
with ABS supply continuous power to the trailer, and (2) the stoplight
switch power the trailer ABS system if the continuous power from the
towing vehicle is interrupted.
    CVSA agrees with FMCSA's proposal to add requirements for automatic
brake adjusters to Appendix G, but noted that FMCSA failed to include
proposed regulatory text for automatic brake adjusters in the NPRM. In
its comments, CVSA (1) provided suggested language for inclusion in
Appendix G, and (2) recommended use of the term ``self-adjusting brake
adjusters'' as opposed to ``automatic brake adjusters.''
    CVSA and Southern Company opposed the need to include requirements
for brake adjustment indicators in Appendix G. CVSA states ``. . . the
requirement is not necessary or practical. If all brakes are in proper
adjustment during the inspection, the indicators (pushrod markings)
will not be visible and checking for their presence would require
disassembly of or a major adjustment/readjustment of the brakes, which
is not advisable. To our knowledge, the likelihood of finding a vehicle
without pushrod markings is extremely low.'' Southern Company states
that ``Over the last 20 years the industry has adopted automatic slack
adjusters, alleviating the concerns which lead to the brake adjustment
indicators,'' and ``This technology [brake adjustment indicators] has
proven to be ineffective. After a very short time frame, the tape or
plastic wears off and is no longer visible,'' and ``Manufacturers no
longer install the brake adjustment indicator.''
    FMCSA Response: CVSA is correct in noting that NHTSA had extended
the compliance date for ABS on hydraulic-braked vehicles from March 1,
1999, to September 1, 1999, but that action was limited to an extension
of the malfunction indicator lamp requirement in S5.3.3(b) of FMVSS No.
105 (64 FR 9446, February 26, 1999)--and not for the general
requirement to equip hydraulic-braked vehicles with ABS. As such, all
hydraulic-braked vehicles were still expected to be equipped with ABS
effective March 1, 1999. As subparagraphs (1)--(3) under the ABS
section in Appendix G refer specifically to the malfunction indicator,
FMCSA amends footnote (1) to that section to reflect the September 1,
1999, compliance date for hydraulic-braked vehicles. In addition, FMCSA
clarifies that footnote (1) applies only to subparagraphs (1)--(3) of
the ABS section, and not to subparagraph (4) which addresses ``other
missing or inoperative ABS components.'' Further, FMCSA agrees with
CVSA's other largely editorial recommended changes to the ABS section
in Appendix G and adopts those changes as suggested.
    Automatic brake adjusters automatically maintain proper brake
adjustment, thus eliminating the need for frequent inspection and
manual adjustment of the brakes. CVSA correctly notes that while FMCSA
discussed the intent to include requirements for automatic brake
adjusters in Appendix G in the preamble to the NPRM, the Agency did not
provide corresponding proposed regulatory text in the NPRM. The
omission of proposed regulatory text in the NPRM was inadvertent. The
language recommended by CVSA in its comments is accurate and complete,
and properly complements the requirements for automatic brake adjusters
in FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121 that need to be included in Appendix G. FMCSA
amends Appendix G to include requirements for automatic brake adjusters
as suggested. With respect to CVSA's recommendation to use the term
``self-adjusting brake adjusters'' as opposed to ``automatic brake
adjusters,'' FMCSA retains the terminology ``automatic brake
adjusters'' to maintain consistency with existing regulatory

language in both the FMVSSs and the FMCSRs.
    FMCSA discussed its intent to add requirements in Appendix G for
brake adjustment indicators in the preamble to the NPRM, but did not
provide corresponding proposed regulatory text. Brake adjustment
indicators can improve brake adjustment by increasing the convenience
of checking brake adjusters and their proper functioning. A brake
adjustment indicator can reduce the time needed to assess brake
adjustment status by providing a visible indication of pushrod stroke
as opposed to physically measuring the push rod length before and
during brake application.
    While brake adjustment indicators can simplify brake inspection,
CVSA is correct in noting that if brakes are in proper adjustment
during an inspection, the indicators will not be visible. In this case,
an inspector would have to either disassemble the brake (unhook the
clevis from the slack adjuster and pull out the pushrod), or back the
brakes off until they are out of adjustment to confirm that the
indicators are present. Further, although both the FMVSSs and the
FMCSRs require brake adjustment indicators, FMCSA understands that
virtually all evaluations of brake adjustment--both during roadside
inspections and periodic inspections--are made by physically measuring
pushrod length before and during brake application, and that very few
inspections rely solely on brake adjustment indicators. Based on the
above, FMCSA has not included any specific requirements for brake
adjustment indicators in Appendix G.
Section 396.9, Inspection of Motor Vehicles and Intermodal Equipment in
Operation
    Comments: FMCSA did not receive any comments onSec.  396.9(d)(2)
and amends as proposed.
    FMCSA also requested comments regarding whether the current 15-day
requirement in Sec.  396.9(d)(3) for motor carriers to certify that all
violations have been corrected by completing and returning the roadside
inspection form to the issuing agency remains appropriate, or whether a
different time period should be considered. CVSA, OOIDA, and Advocates
stated that the 15-day requirement is appropriate. ABA and Capitol Bus
Lines noted that, in limited circumstances, the 15-day requirement may
not be sufficient when replacement parts are not readily available to
conduct repairs, either because the parts need to be ordered from a
different country or because the replacement parts are no longer
available for older buses.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes that, in most cases, repairs can be
made and certification of those repairs can be sent within the current
15-day time period specified in the FMCSRs. In instances where a motor
carrier can demonstrate that extenuating circumstances (such as those
described in the ABA and Capitol Bus Lines comments) preclude repairs
from being completed and certified within the 15-day time period
specified, FMCSA will address those circumstances on a case-by-case
basis. However, FMCSA does not believe that the 15-day requirement in
Sec.  396.9(d)(3) for motor carriers to certify that all violations
have been corrected by completing and returning the roadside inspection
form to the issuing agency needs to be amended at this time.
Section 396.17, Periodic Inspection
    CVSA agreed with the proposed changes, but also recommended
additional changes to Sec.  396.17 to make it clear that inspections
conducted by FMCSA inspectors, investigators, and safety auditors are
not equivalent to required periodic inspections. Capitol Bus Lines and
ABA commented that, while several States permit motor carriers to self-
certify the conduct and completion of the annual inspections required
under Sec.  396.17, other States that have implemented mandatory annual
inspection programs refuse to accept the ``self-certified'' annual
inspections conducted by the motor carrier as ``legitimate annual
inspections.'' ATA commented that ``The basis for . . . this rule
change appears to be . . . a change in agency philosophy rather than .
. . data or factual evidence. ATA has great difficulty supporting a
national policy change of this magnitude without factual evidence
showing an enhanced safety benefit from this change.''
    Four members of OOIDA--Steve Bixler, Richard Pingel, Robert Spoon,
and Miles Verhoef--submitted nearly identical comments stating that (1)
they ``have never seen a copy of how roadside truck inspections are
supposed to be conducted;'' (2) they ``have never seen a copy of CVSA's
out of service criteria;'' (3) ``If FMCSA were to publish roadside
inspection and out-of-service criteria standards and procedures, it
would help me know what parts of my equipment FMCSA and CVSA think I
should focus on in between my periodic inspections;'' and (4) ``It is
my right under the Constitution to be told the scope of any government
search of me or my truck.''
    OOIDA stated that, ``Where the Notice begins to discuss roadside
inspection standards and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's out-
of-service criteria however, the Notice is woefully deficient in
informing the public what exactly these standards are. It appears that
CVSA has proposed, and FMCSA consented, to proposals that remove all
references to roadside inspections and the content of the out-of-
service criteria in the rules. Without making those standards public,
FMCSA has not given the public an adequate opportunity to comment on
its proposal. If there is any imperative upon FMCSA to deal with
roadside inspections and the out-of-service criteria differently than
it does now, that imperative is to give the regulated public notice of
their contents and scope.'' OOIDA also asked numerous, more specific
questions relating to the general concerns noted above.
    FMCSA Response: Today, the overwhelming majority of the
approximately 3.5 million roadside inspections of CMVs performed
annually in the United States are conducted by State personnel using
funding provided under the MCSAP.
    The scope of a roadside inspection conducted under the North
American Standard (NAS) Inspection is quite comprehensive, and covers
both (1) critical vehicle inspection items (brake systems; cargo
securement; coupling devices; driveline/driveshaft; exhaust systems;
frames; fuel systems; lighting devices; steering mechanisms;
suspensions; tires; van and open-top trailer bodies; wheels, rims and
hubs; windshield wipers; and emergency exits, electrical cables and
systems in engine and battery compartments; and seating on passenger-
carrying vehicles), and (2) other parts and accessories required under
part 393.
    However, while a roadside inspection conducted under the NAS
Inspection is far-reaching, there are certain limitations to roadside
procedures that prevent inspectors from properly examining all of the
items in Appendix G. These include, but are not necessarily limited to,
the following:
     Brake linings and pads and brake drums or rotors:
Inspectors cannot remove wheels or dust shields; only visible
components can be examined at roadside.
     Hydraulic brakes: Inspectors cannot disassemble
components; only visible components can be examined at roadside.
     Fifth wheels, pintle hooks: Combination vehicles are not
typically decoupled to view upper and lower fifth wheel assemblies and
other coupler

assemblies; only visible components can be examined at roadside.
     Tires: Low boy, car hauler, and other low profile or tight
clearance vehicles, and dual tire sets have limited access to the
entire tire circumference without wheel removal; only visible
components can be examined at roadside.
     Wheels and rims: Dual wheel sets may have limited access
to inside wheel visibility; only visible components can be examined at
roadside.
    Because not every element of Appendix G is reviewed/inspected
during a roadside inspection conducted under the NAS Inspection, most
roadside inspections do not meet the periodic (annual) inspection
requirements under Sec.  396.17. For this reason, FMCSA does not
believe it is appropriate to continue to allow motor carriers to use
roadside inspections conducted by enforcement officials to satisfy the
annual inspection requirements in Sec.  396.17(f). Motor carriers or
their agents will now be required to complete a periodic inspection of
every CMV under its control in accordance with Appendix G at least once
every 12 months, irrespective of whether a roadside inspection is
performed, unless the vehicle is subject to a mandatory State
inspection program in accordance with Sec.  396.23(b)(1) which has been
determined to be as effective as the requirements of Sec.  396.17.
    Section 396.23, Equivalent to periodic inspection, currently
outlines two options that are deemed to be equivalent to the periodic
inspections required under Sec.  396.17--a roadside inspection program
of a State or other jurisdiction, or a mandatory State inspection
program which has been determined to be as effective as the Federal
requirements. FMCSA did not propose any amendments to Sec.  396.23 in
the NPRM. However, and given the amendments to Sec.  396.17(f)
discussed above, it is also necessary to remove Sec.  396.23(a) to
ensure that the FMCSRs are consistent regarding the determination that
a roadside inspection will no longer be considered as meeting the
periodic inspection requirements of Sec.  396.17.
    In response to the specific comments to the October 2015 NPRM:
    FMCSA agrees that inspections conducted by FMCSA inspectors,
investigators, and safety auditors are not equivalent to required
periodic inspections, and corresponding changes have been made to Sec.
396.17, as suggested by CVSA.
    In response to the comments from Capitol Bus Lines and ABA, FMCSA
notes that if a motor carrier is located in a State that permits motor
carriers to self-certify the conduct and completion of the annual
inspections required under Sec.  396.17, section 210 of the Motor
Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. 31142) establishes the principle
that State inspections meeting federally approved criteria must be
recognized by every other State. If, as Capitol Bus Lines and ABA
contend, States that have implemented mandatory annual inspection
programs refuse to accept the ``self-certified'' annual inspections
conducted by motor carriers in other States as legitimate annual
inspections, aggrieved motor carriers are encouraged to contact the
FMCSA Division Administrator in their State for assistance. FMCSA notes
that States may require additional inspections as a condition of
issuing some type of permit or license, but additional inspections
cannot be required otherwise.
    While ATA argued that FMCSA failed to provide ``factual evidence''
to show an ``enhanced safety benefit'' of the proposed change, FMCSA
has clearly shown that current roadside inspections conducted under the
NAS Inspection do not examine every component listed in Appendix G. As
such, roadside inspections conducted using the NAS Inspection
procedures cannot be considered as meeting the annual inspection
requirements of Sec.  396.17. While FMCSA does not track the number of
motor carriers that use a violation-free roadside inspection to meet
the periodic inspection requirement or the number of roadside
inspections so used, the Agency has reason to believe these numbers are
small. Roadside inspections are not ``scheduled'' inspections, and a
motor carrier therefore cannot plan to defer its periodic inspections
until roadside inspections are conducted. OOIDA also commented that it
``is not aware of any truck owners who have used a roadside inspection
to comply with the periodic inspection requirement.'' Given that the
estimated number of roadside inspections used to meet the periodic
inspection requirement is very small, today's rule will not
significantly affect carriers who relied on such inspections in the
past, nor will the number of motor carrier inspection personnel and
facilities now needed to perform Appendix G periodic inspections be
significantly increased. Eliminating the possibility that roadside
inspections can be used as equivalent to periodic inspections in the
future will only enhance safety.
    In response to the comments from OOIDA members Bixler, Pingel,
Spoon, and Verhoef, FMCSA reiterates that all parts and accessories
specified in part 393, as well as any additional parts and accessories
as allowed by Sec.  393.3, are required to be in safe and proper
operating condition at all times. As such, any and all components of a
CMV are subject to examination during a roadside inspection, regardless
of whether those components are included in any inspection procedure or
the CVSA Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC). Importantly, the amendments
made in today's rule do not have anything to do with the OOSC, which
are simply a set of enforcement tolerances used by inspectors in
determining whether violations discovered during an inspection pose
such serious safety risks that they must be corrected immediately
before the vehicle is allowed to continue. OOIDA's tangential argument
that the scope of a search--its characterization of roadside
inspections--``must be widely published in advance so that the
regulated parties have notice of it'' and that the CVSA OOSC do not
meet that standard, is misguided. The Federal courts have long
recognized that ``[t]he CVSA's OOSC are not themselves federal rules
subject to our review . . . Rather, the OOSC merely interpret the
standards set forth in existing federal and state laws and regulations.
. . . [T]he federal regulations are the binding legal norms and the
operation of a commercial vehicle that falls below the regulatory
criteria is unlawful.'' National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Federal
Highway Administration, 170 F.3d 203, 207-208 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
(emphasis in original). The FMCSRs adopted through notice and comment
rulemaking provide motor carriers and drivers the constitutionally
required notice of their legal obligations.
    Similar to the discussion above, the questions posed by OOIDA
regarding roadside inspections, specific inspection procedures, and the
CVSA OOSC are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The amendments made
by this rule eliminate the possibility that a roadside inspection can
be considered equivalent to an annual inspection, for the simple reason
that not every element required to be examined during an annual
inspection as identified in Appendix G to the FMCSRs is examined during
a roadside inspection conducted under the NAS Inspection.
Section 396.19, Inspector Qualifications
    Comments: FMCSA did not receive any comments on Sec.  396.19(b) and
amends as proposed.

Speed-Restricted Tires
    Comments: In its comments, Southern Company states:

    The utility industry uses speed rated tires on their CMVs for
on/off road work. Tires with a lug tread pattern design are
typically speed rated and used extensively in the following
industries; Utility, Municipalities, Refuse, Logging, Livestock,
Farming, Construction, and by Carriers which routinely encounter
snow.
    Based on review of the proposed changes to Appendix G to
Subchapter B of Chapter III--Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards,
Section 10. Tires, the intent of the FMCSA was to eliminate speed
rated tires for motorcoach CMVs.
    SOCO recommends that the FMCSA clarify their proposed language
on the modification of the current regulations to prohibit the use
of speed rated tires specifically on motorcoach CMVs only.

    ABA supported FMCSA's intent to address speed-restricted tires in
Appendix G, but stated that ``absent a requirement for labeling maximum
speeds on all tires, it will be difficult for the law enforcement
community to easily determine whether tires on a vehicle in use, are
appropriate.'' ABA recommended that FMCSA provide additional guidance
regarding (1) the intended meaning of ``extended periods of time,'' (2)
how a carrier would designate the appropriate use of speed-restricted
tires, and (3) when/where such designation would need to be produced
for the purposes of compliance.
    RMA supported the proposed amendments to Appendix G. In addition,
RMA noted that amendments to (1) FMVSS No. 119 to require all tires to
be labeled with a maximum speed rating, and (2) FMVSS No. 120 to
include such information on a required label, would ``greatly improve
the ability of consumers, fleets, tire service personnel, [and] State
and Federal inspection personnel to correctly identify appropriate
tires for a given vehicle and vehicle operation.''
    FMCSA Response: Vehicles should be equipped with tires that have
the proper speed rating for the vehicle's intended use, because
operating a vehicle at speeds that exceed the specified tire speed
rating could lead to heat build-up in a tire and cause premature or
sudden tire failure. This potential safety issue could have significant
consequences, especially in passenger carrier operations, and FMCSA
believes that regulatory measures are necessary to ensure--to the
extent practicable--that speed-restricted tires are properly installed
in accordance with a vehicle's intended use.
    Although the October 2003 crash in Tallulah, LA, involved a
motorcoach, the NTSB Safety Recommendation was not specific only to
motorcoach tires, but advised the Agency to ``address a tire's speed
rating to ensure that it is appropriate for a vehicle's intended use.''
As noted above, tires labeled with a specific speed restriction/limit
should not be operated at speeds that exceed that specified limit, as
doing so could lead to heat build-up and cause premature or sudden tire
failure. As such, FMCSA believes that any regulatory requirements
regarding speed-restricted tires should apply to all CMVs, and not to
just motorcoaches as suggested by Southern Company.
    The NPRM proposed to amend Appendix G to prohibit the use of speed-
restricted tires on CMVs unless the use of such tires is specifically
designated by the motor carrier. FMCSA believes that amending only the
periodic (annual) inspection requirements in Appendix G--without a
corresponding amendment to Sec.  393.75, ``Tires''--will not fully
address the potential safety problem of using speed-restricted tires on
vehicles that operate at speeds that exceed the rated limit of the tire
as specified by the tire manufacturer. By including requirements
relating to the appropriate use of speed-restricted tires in both Sec.
393.75 and Appendix G, potential safety issues associated with the
improper use of speed-restricted tires can be identified at any time
and not just during periodic inspections conducted once a year.
However, and because FMVSS No. 119 currently requires only tires that
are speed-restricted to 55 mph or less to be labeled on the sidewall of
the tire, it is not practicable to apply requirements to all tires (to
include those that are rated for above 55 mph) as inspectors would have
no way of easily determining the design maximum speed capability of the
tire for the specified maximum load rating and corresponding inflation
pressure.
    Based on the above, FMCSA adopts new language in Sec.  393.75 to
prohibit the use of speed-restricted tires labeled for 55 mph or less
in accordance with S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 on vehicles that operate at
speeds that exceed the rated limit of the tire. In addition, FMCSA
amends Appendix G as proposed in the NPRM to prohibit the use of speed-
restricted tires unless specifically designated by the motor carrier.
This will require every CMV to be examined for the possible improper
use of speed-restricted tires at least once a year.
    Given that not all tires are currently required to be marked with a
maximum speed rating, FMCSA understands ABA's concerns regarding how a
motor carrier will adequately ``designate the appropriate use of speed-
restricted tires'' as proposed in the NPRM. NHTSA estimates that speed-
restricted tires comprise less than 2 percent of the heavy truck tires,
and, as Southern Company notes, these are typically used on utility,
refuse, logging, livestock, farming, construction, and similar vehicles
that are more often operated in heavy mixed-use service (on/off road
operations in lower speed applications). Inspectors conducting roadside
inspections will rarely encounter speed-restricted tires, and can
generally expect that regional and long haul trucks and motorcoaches
should not be equipped with speed-restricted tires. By including a
requirement in Appendix G that prohibits the use of speed-restricted
tires on vehicles ``unless designated by the motor carrier,'' motor
carrier or other personnel conducting periodic inspections of the
limited number of vehicles with speed-restricted tires will be prompted
to confirm with the motor carrier that the use of such tires is
appropriate for the specific vehicle. FMCSA retains the amendment to
Appendix G as proposed in the NPRM.
Motorcoach Seat Anchorage Strength
    Comments: Capitol Bus Lines agrees that seat anchor points should
be inspected, and believes that ``most reputable motorcoach operators
check [the anchor points] as part of their `best practices.''' However,
Capitol Bus Lines also noted that ``to add this item to Appendix G with
no guidance as to the inspection criteria puts an undue burden on
carrier maintenance personnel as to the inspection standard. The lack
of guidance can also result in different interpretations as to what is
acceptable between operator and enforcement personnel. It would seem
appropriate that for this item to be included in Appendix G, some
minimum guidance must be provided for clarity and for the benefit of
both operator and enforcement personnel.'' ABA commented that ``. . .
an alternative . . . may be to make a more complimentary change to
Appendix G in line with the requirements of Sec.  393.93, and develop a
proposal to look for the presence of, and evidence of well maintained,
seat belt assemblies at all driver and passenger seating positions, as
appropriate.''
    FMCSA Response: As noted in the NPRM, the wide range of seat
anchorage designs, coupled with the lack of testing requirements
specifically for seat anchorage strength in the FMVSSs, makes it
impracticable for FMCSA to develop a detailed methodology for the
inspection of motorcoach passenger seat

mounting anchorages. FMCSA adopts the amendment as proposed in the
NPRM.

VII. Today's Final Rule

    Today's final rule codifies changes to parts 393 and 396 by adding
a definition of ``major tread groove'' and an illustration to show the
location of tread wear indicators or wear bars on a tire signifying a
major tread groove; revising the rear license plate lamp requirement to
eliminate the requirement for an operable rear license plate lamp on
vehicles when there is no rear license plate present; prohibiting the
operation of a vehicle with speed-restricted tires at speeds that
exceed the rated limit of the tire; providing specific requirements
regarding when violations or defects noted on an inspection report must
be corrected; amending Appendix G to the FMCSRs, ``Minimum Periodic
Inspection Standards,'' to include provisions for the inspection of
antilock braking systems (ABS) and automatic brake adjusters, speed-
restricted tires, and motorcoach passenger seat mounting anchorages;
amending the periodic inspection rules to eliminate the option for a
motor carrier to satisfy the periodic inspection requirement through
use of a violation-free roadside inspection; and amending the inspector
qualification requirements as a result of the amendments to the
periodic inspection rules. In addition, the Agency eliminates
introductory regulatory text from Appendix G to the FMCSRs.

VIII. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Part 393--Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation

Section 393.5 (Definitions)
    FMCSA modifies this section by adding a definition of ``major tread
groove.''
Section 393.11 (Lamps and Reflective Devices)
    FMCSA modifies Footnote 11 to Table 1 of Sec.  393.11 dealing with
rear license plates lights.
Section 393.75 (Tires)
    FMCSA adds a new paragraph (f) dealing with speed-restricted tires
and tread wear indicators and an illustration of a tread wear
indicator.

B. Part 396--Inspection, Repair and Maintenance

Section 396.9 (Inspection of Motor Vehicles and Intermodal Equipment in
Operation)
    FMCSA amends paragraph (d)(2) dealing with correction of violations
of defects.
Section 396.17 (Periodic Inspection)
    FMCSA amends paragraph (f) to bar roadside inspections from serving
as annual inspections.
Section 396.19 (Inspector Qualifications)
    FMCSA amends paragraph (b) to make it consistent with amended Sec.
396.17.
Section 396.23 (Equivalent to Periodic Inspection)
    FMCSA removes Sec.  396.23(a) to make it consistent with Sec.
396.17, and renumbers the remainder of the section accordingly.
Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III (Minimum Periodic Inspection
Standards)
    FMCSA amends Appendix G by adding sections 1.l and 1.m, revising
section 10.c, adding section 14, and eliminating introductory
regulatory text, as explained in detail above.
Amendments to Existing Regulatory Guidance
    Elsewhere in today's issue of the Federal Register, FMCSA amends
certain regulatory guidance to ensure consistency between the FMCSRs,
as amended by this final rule, and the published guidance.

IX. Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and is
also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and
procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February
26, 1979) and does not require an assessment of potential costs and
benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed this final rule under that Order.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their regulatory
actions on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' encompasses
small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.\1\
Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all
regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to
lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), see
National Archives at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/regulatory-flexibility/601.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Title
II, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996), this final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because the amendments generally do not
involve the adoption of new or more stringent requirements, but,
instead, the clarification of existing requirements. Therefore, there
is no disproportionate burden to small entities.
    Consequently, I certify that the action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. 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 that they can
better evaluate its effects on themselves. If the final rule would
affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Mike Huntley,
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the rule.
    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 ensuring the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement
fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising
these rights.

D. 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,
taken together, or by the private sector, of $155 million (which is the
value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to
2014 levels) or more in any 1 year. This final rule would not result in
such an expenditure.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule calls for no new collection of information and is
therefore not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520).

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of
Executive Order 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 has determined that this final
rule does not have substantial direct effects on or costs to States,
nor does it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in
this document preempts any State law or regulation.

G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies
issuing ``economically significant'' rules, if the regulation also
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an
evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects
on children. The Agency determined this final rule is not economically
significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is
required. In any event, this regulatory action could not present an
environmental or safety risk that would disproportionately affect
children.

I. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA has reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will
not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking
implications.

J. Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447,
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to
conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will
affect the privacy of individuals.
    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, Public Law 107-347, Sec.  208, 116
Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct
a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects,
maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form.
    This rule does not require a PIA because it does not require the
collection of personally identifiable information (PII).

K. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

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

L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it 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.

M. Executive Order 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.

N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (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, we did not consider the use of
voluntary consensus standards.

O. Environment (National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act,
Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA analyzed this final rule for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (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, March 1, 2004),
Appendix 2, paragraphs 6(z)(aa) and 6(z)(bb). The Categorical Exclusion
(CE) in paragraph 6(z)(aa) covers regulations requiring motor carriers,
their officers, drivers, agents, representatives, and employees
directly in control of CMVs to inspect, repair, and provide maintenance
for every CMV used on a public road. The CE in paragraph 6(z)(bb)
covers regulations concerning vehicle operation safety standards (e.g.,
regulations requiring: certain motor carriers to use approved equipment
which is required to be installed such as an ignition cut-off switch,
or carried on board, such as a fire extinguisher, and/or stricter blood

alcohol concentration (BAC) standards for drivers, etc.), equipment
approval, and/or equipment carriage requirements (e.g., fire
extinguishers and flares). The CE determination is available for
inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov Web site listed under
ADDRESSES.
    FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended
(CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity
requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of
criteria pollutants.
    Under E.O. 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), each Federal
agency must identify and address, as appropriate, ``disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations'' in the United States, its possessions, and territories.
FMCSA has determined that this rule will have no environmental justice
effects, nor would its promulgation have any collective environmental
impact.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 393

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.

49 CFR Part 396

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated above, FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III,
subchapter B, as follows:

PART 393--PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 1041(b) of
Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Amend Sec.  393.5 to add a definition for ``Major tread groove'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  393.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Major tread groove is the space between two adjacent tread ribs or
lugs on a tire that contains a tread wear indicator or wear bar. (In
most cases, the locations of tread wear indicators are designated on
the upper sidewall/shoulder of the tire on original tread tires.)
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  393.11, revise Footnote 11 of Table 1 to read as follows:

Sec.  393.11  Lamps and reflective devices.

* * * * *
Table 1 of Sec.  393.11--Required Lamps and Reflectors on Commercial
Motor Vehicles
* * * * *
    Footnote--11 To be illuminated when headlamps are illuminated. No
rear license plate lamp is required on vehicles that do display a rear
license plate.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  393.75:
0
a. Redesignate paragraphs (f) through (h) as paragraphs (g) through (i)
and in redesignated paragraph (g) remove ``paragraph (g)'' and add in
its place ``paragraph (h)'';
0
b. Add a new paragraph (f) and add Figure 23--``Location of Tread Wear
Indicators or Wear Bars Signifying a Major Tread Groove'' immediately
following new paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  393.75  Tires.

* * * * *
    (f) No motor vehicle may be operated with speed-restricted tires
labeled with a maximum speed of 55 mph or less in accordance with
S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 at speeds that exceed the rated limit of the
tire.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JY16.007

* * * * *

PART 396--INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE

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

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

0
6. Revise Sec.  396.9(d)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  396.9  Inspection of motor vehicles and intermodal equipment in
operation.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers shall examine
the report. Violations or defects noted

thereon shall be corrected in accordance with Sec.  396.11(a)(3).
Repairs of items of intermodal equipment placed out-of-service are also
to be documented in the maintenance records for such equipment.
* * * * *
0
7. Revise Sec.  396.17(f) to read as follows:

Sec.  396.17  Periodic inspection.

* * * * *
    (f) Vehicles passing periodic inspections performed under the
auspices of any State government or equivalent jurisdiction, meeting
the minimum standards contained in appendix G of this subchapter, will
be considered to have met the requirements of an annual inspection for
a period of 12 months commencing from the last day of the month in
which the inspection was performed.
* * * * *
0
8. Revise Sec.  396.19(b) to read as follows:

Sec.  396.19  Inspector qualifications.

* * * * *
    (b) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers must retain
evidence of that individual's qualifications under this section. They
must retain this evidence for the period during which that individual
is performing annual motor vehicle inspections for the motor carrier or
intermodal equipment provider, and for one year thereafter. However,
motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers do not have to
maintain documentation of inspector qualifications for those
inspections performed as part of a State periodic inspection program.

Sec.  396.23  [Amended]

0
9. In Sec.  396.23, remove paragraph (a) and redesignate paragraph (b)
as paragraph (a) and reserve a new paragraph (b).
0
10. Amend Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III by:
0
a. Adding Section 1.l and footnotes 1 and 2;
0
b. Adding Section 1.m;
0
b. Adding Section 10.c;
0
c. Adding Section 14; and
0
d. Removing ``Comparison of Appendix G, and the New North American
Uniform Driver Vehicle Inspection Procedure (North American Commercial
Vehicle Critical Safety Inspection Items and Out-Of-Service
Criteria),'' including the introductory text and paragraphs 1.-13.
    The additions read as follows:

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

* * * * *
1. Brake System
* * * * *
    l. Antilock Brake System \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Power units manufactured after March 1, 2001, have two ABS
malfunction indicators, one for the power unit and one for the units
that they tow. Both malfunction indicators are required to be fully
functional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Missing ABS malfunction indicator components (i.e., bulb,
wiring, etc.).
    (2) ABS malfunction indicator that does not illuminate when
power is first applied to the ABS controller (ECU) during initial
power up.
    (3) ABS malfunction indicator that stays illuminated while power
is continuously applied to the ABS controller (ECU).
    (4) ABS malfunction indicator lamp on a trailer or dolly does
not cycle when electrical power is applied:
    (a) Only to the vehicle's constant ABS power circuit, or
    (b) Only to the vehicle.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This section is applicable to tractors with air brakes built
on or after March 1, 1997, and all other vehicles with air brakes
built on or after March 1, 1998. This section is also applicable to
vehicles over 10,000 lbs. GVWR with hydraulic brakes built on or
after March 1, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) With its brakes released and its ignition switch in the
normal run position, power unit does not provide continuous
electrical power to the ABS on any vehicle it is equipped to tow.
    (6) Other missing or inoperative ABS components.
    m. Automatic Brake Adjusters
    (1) Failure to maintain a brake within the brake stroke limit
specified by the vehicle manufacturer.
    (2) Any automatic brake adjuster that has been replaced with a
manual adjuster.
    (3) Damaged, loose, or missing components.
    (4) Any brake that is found to be out of adjustment on initial
inspection must be evaluated to determine why the automatic brake
adjuster is not functioning properly and the problem must be
corrected in order for the vehicle to pass the inspection. It is not
acceptable to manually adjust automatic brake adjusters without
first correcting the underlying problem. For example, there may be
other components within the braking system that are distressed or
out of specification (i.e., broken welds, loose mounting hardware,
cracked brake drums, worn bushings, etc.) that would require
immediate attention.
* * * * *
    10. Tires
* * * * *
    c. Installation of speed-restricted tires unless specifically
designated by motor carrier.
* * * * *
    14. Motorcoach Seats
    a. Any passenger seat that is not securely fastened to the
vehicle structure.
    b. [Reserved]

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87. July
14, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-17364 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51153-51156]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20750]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0715; FRL-9932-73-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California;
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; Employer
Based Trip Reduction Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a regulation submitted for incorporation into the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or District)
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
regulation, Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction), establishes
requirements for employers in the San Joaquin Valley to implement
programs encouraging employees to use ridesharing and alternative
transportation methods to reduce air pollution. The effect of this
action would be to make the requirements of Rule 9410 federally
enforceable as part of the California SIP.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 23,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0715, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: Jeffrey Buss at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San
Francisco, California 94105.
    4. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning Section
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne,
San Francisco, California 94105. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0715. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through
www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected from disclosure. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105. While all documents in the docket are
listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly
available for viewing only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available at either
location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the docket materials in person, please

schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we'',
``us'', and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The State Submittal
III. Evaluation of the State Submittal
IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The San Joaquin Valley (SJV) \1\ is currently designated as
nonattainment for several of the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) promulgated by EPA under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for ozone and
fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Specifically, the SJV area
is designated and classified as extreme nonattainment for the 1-hour,
1997 8-hour, and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS; designated and classified as
serious nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; and
designated and classified as moderate nonattainment for the 2006 and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SJV area encompasses over 23,000 square miles and
includes all or part of eight counties in California's central
valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare,
Kings, and Kern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires that all nonattainment areas
implement, as expeditiously as practicable, reasonably available
control measures (RACM) including such reductions in emissions from
existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption,
at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT).
Additionally, Section 189(a)(1)(C) of the Act requires that moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment areas implement RACM (including RACT)
and section 189(b)(1)(B) requires that serious PM2.5
nonattainment areas implement best available control measures (BACM),
including best available control technology (BACT). The SJV area is
subject to all of these control requirements as a result of its
designations and classifications for the ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS. For an ozone nonattainment area classified as severe or above,
section 182(d)(1)(B) also provides that a state may, in its discretion,
submit a SIP revision requiring employers to implement programs to
reduce work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled by employees.
    Despite numerous air pollution control measures and programs that
the SJVUAPCD has implemented over the years to reduce air pollution,
the SJV continues to experience some of the worst air quality in the
nation. See, e.g., 80 FR 1482 (January 12, 2015) (discussing recent
PM2.5 air quality trends in SJV). As a result, the District
has increasingly relied upon nontraditional emission reduction
strategies to reduce air pollution in the SJV. See, e.g., 79 FR 28650
(May 19, 2014) (proposed action on SJV Rule 9610 concerning incentive
programs) and 80 FR 19020 (April 9, 2015) (final action on SJV Rule
9610). EPA supports state efforts to implement nontraditional and
innovative strategies for reducing air pollutant emissions, including
commuter programs to reduce the frequency that employees drive alone to
work. See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Transportation and Climate Division, Office
of Transportation and Air Quality, ``Commuter Programs: Quantifying and
Using Their Emission Benefits in SIPs and Conformity'' (February 2014).

II. The State Submittal

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by CARB.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title            Adopted         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD............................            9410   Employer Based Trip            12/17/09         05/17/10
                                                        Reduction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 17, 2010, the submittal for Rule 9410 was deemed by
operation of law under CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. There are no
previous versions of Rule 9410 in the SIP.
    The Rule 9410 SIP submittal includes Rule 9410 (as adopted December
17, 2009), the District's ``Final Staff Report: Rule 9410 (Employer
Based Trip Reduction)'' dated December 17, 2009 (Final Staff Report),
public process documentation, and technical support materials. CARB and
the District submitted this rule to satisfy a SIP-approved regulatory
commitment in the PM2.5 plan for the SJV. See 76 FR 69896 at
69926 (November 9, 2011) (PM2.5 control measure commitments,
codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(392)(A)(2)).
    The California Health and Safety Code specifically authorizes the
District to adopt rules and regulations to reduce vehicle trips and
requirements for certain businesses employing at least 100 people to
establish rideshare programs. See Final Staff Report at 9 (citing
California H&SC sections 40601(d) and 40612). Consistent with these
authorities, Rule 9410 requires certain employers with at least 100
``eligible employees'' \2\ at a work site to establish programs to
reduce employee commute-related vehicle travel, referred to in the rule
as ``employer trip reduction implementation plans'' or ``ETRIPs.'' \3\
According to the District, approximately 36% of employees in the SJV
are employed at worksites with 100 or more employees. See Final Staff
Report at B-6. Employers subject to the rule must, among other things,
register with the SJVUAPCD, submit an ETRIP for each worksite to the
District, and submit annual compliance reports to the District. See
Rule 9410, sections 6.1, 6.3, and 6.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Eligible employees'' do not include emergency health and
safety employees, farm workers, field construction workers, on-call
employees, part-time employees, seasonal employees, and volunteers,
among others. See Rule 9410, sections 3.19 and 3.31.
    \3\ Rule 9410 defines ETRIP as a ``group of measures implemented
by an employer, designed to provide transportation information,
assistance, and/or incentives to employees'' and intended to
``reduce mobile source emissions by reducing the number of vehicle
miles traveled to the worksite.'' Rule 9410, section 3.28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Evaluation of the State Submittal

A. SIP Procedural Requirements

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing
prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet
this requirement, every SIP submittal should include

evidence that adequate public notice was given and an opportunity to
request a public hearing was provided consistent with EPA's
implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.
    Both the District and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior
to adoption and submittal of this SIP revision. The District conducted
public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held public
hearings prior to the adoption of Rule 9410 on December 17, 2009. See
SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 09-12-19 (December 17, 2009).
CARB provided the required public notice and opportunity for public
comment prior to its public hearing on the plan. See CARB Executive
Order S-10-001 (May 17, 2010).
    The SIP submittal includes proof of publication for notices of the
District and CARB public hearings, as evidence that all hearings were
properly noticed. We therefore find that the submittal meets the
procedural requirements of CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l).

B. Enforceability Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires that each SIP ``include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or
techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable
permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet
the applicable requirements of [the Act].'' EPA generally considers a
requirement to be enforceable if it contains a clear statement as to
applicability; specifies the standard that must be met; states
compliance timeframes sufficient to meet the standard; specifies
sufficient methods to determine compliance, including appropriate
monitoring, record keeping and reporting provisions; and recognizes
relevant enforcement consequences. See ``Review of State Implementation
Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,''
September 23, 1987 (``1987 Potter Memo'') and ``Guidance on
Enforceability Requirements for Limiting Potential to Emit through SIP
and Section 112 Rules and General Permits,'' January 25, 1995 (``1995
PTE Policy'') at 5, 6.
    Rule 9410 adequately addresses these recommendations for
enforceability. First, section 2.1 of the rule clearly states that the
requirements of the rule ``apply to each employer in the [SJV] Air
Basin with at least 100 Eligible Employees at a worksite for at least
16 consecutive weeks during the employer's previous fiscal year'' that
is located: (1) Within an incorporated city with a population of at
least 10,000; (2) within an incorporated city with a population of less
than 10,000, and more than 50 percent of their employees work at least
2,040 hours per year; or (3) within the unincorporated area of a
county, and more than 50 percent of their employees work at least 2,040
hours per year (section 2.1).
    Second, sections 5.0 and 6.0 of the rule specify the requirements
that must be met by employers subject to the rule--e.g., the
requirements to implement an ETRIP for each worksite with 100 or more
``eligible employees'' (section 5.1); to include in each ETRIP measures
from several dozen listed strategies by specified implementation
deadlines (section 5.2); to submit to the District no later than July
1, 2010 or within 180 days after becoming subject to the rule a
complete ``employer registration form'' containing specific types of
information about the employer's business (section 6.1); and to verify
and report commuter activity to the District on an annual basis
(sections 6.4 and 6.5).
    Third, sections 6.0 and 8.0 of the rule specify appropriate
compliance timeframes, including deadlines for employer registration
(section 6.1), submittal of the ETRIPs and related updates (section
6.3), and submittal of annual reports regarding commuter activity
(section 6.5).
    Finally, section 6.0 of the rule specifies sufficient methods to
determine compliance, including requirements for employers to annually
collect information on the modes of transportation used for each
eligible employee's commutes to and from work for each day of the
``commute verification period'' \4\ (section 6.4.1); requirements for
employers to ``keep records of steps taken to implement measures . . .
included in the ETRIP on file for at least five years'' and to make
such records available to the District and EPA upon request (section
6.3.5); and requirements for employers to submit annual reports to the
District containing detailed information about the results of their
commute verifications, implemented ETRIP measures, and any updates to
an ETRIP (section 6.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 3.11 of the rule generally defines ``commute
verification period'' as ``[a] period of at least one week, selected
by the employer to represent a typical work week,'' or in certain
cases a two-week pay period, that does not contain a federal, state,
or local holiday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of these requirements are enforceable against covered employers
under state law (see Final Staff Report at A-13, citing California H&SC
sections 42402-42403) and, upon approval into the California SIP, would
also be enforceable under sections 113 and 304 of the CAA.

C. Section 110(l) of the Act

    Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits EPA from approving any SIP
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and RFP or any other applicable CAA requirement.
The requirements and procedures in Rule 9410 are designed to reduce
mobile source emissions in the SJV by requiring certain businesses to
implement programs that encourage employees to reduce their vehicle
trips and miles traveled to and from worksites. Rule 9410 does not
revise any requirement in the applicable SIP. We propose to determine
that our approval of Rule 9410 would comply with CAA section 110(l)
because the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the on-going
process for ensuring that requirements for attainment of the NAAQS and
other CAA provisions are met.

D. Estimated Emission Reductions

    SJVUAPCD estimates that the ETRIP program reduced NOX,
VOC and PM2.5 emissions by 0.6, 0.6 and 0.05 tons per day
(tpd), respectively, in 2014 and will further reduce emissions of these
pollutants by 0.3, 0.4 and 0.06 tpd, respectively, in 2023. See Final
Staff Report at Appendix B, Table B-4. We find these emission reduction
estimates technically sound and generally consistent with the planning
assumptions in the District's 2008 PM2.5 Plan. See generally
id. at Appendix B and 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, tables B-
1, B-2, and B-4.
    We note that Rule 9610 requires each employer subject to the rule
to submit, beginning March 31, 2015, an annual compliance report
identifying the measures the employer implemented and the results of
the annual commute verification surveys distributed to employees. See
Rule 9410, section 6.5. We recommend that the District periodically
reassess the effectiveness of the ETRIP program and update its
estimates of the associated emissions reductions based on these
submitted reports and using the most recent EPA-approved version of the
EMFAC model.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EMFAC is the motor vehicle emissions factor model that EPA
has approved for use in California SIPs (78 FR 14533, March 6,
2013).

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

IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to fully
approve the submitted rule as a revision to the California SIP. We will
accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the SJVUAPCD rule described in Table 1 of this notice. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the
appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: August 6, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-20750 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P