27700 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Marine Radio Operator Permit, First

Class Radiotelegraph Operator’s

Certificate, Second Class Radiotelegraph

Operator’s Certificate, Third Class

Radiotelegraph Operator’s Certificate,

GMDSS Radio Operator’s License, or

GMDSS Radio Maintainer’s License,

who has an application for another

commercial radio operator license

which has not yet been acted upon

pending at the FCC and who holds a

PPC(s) indicating that he or she passed

the necessary examination(s) within the

previous 365 days, is authorized to

exercise the rights and privileges of the

license for which the application is

filed. This authority is valid for a period

of 90 days from the date the application

is received. The FCC, in its discretion,

may cancel this temporary conditional

operating authority without a hearing.

* * * * *

4. In § 13.19, paragraphs (b)(3) and (c)

are revised to read as follows:

§ 13.19 Operator’s responsibility.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) The class, serial number and

expiration date of the license when the

FCC has issued the operator a license,

or the PPC serial number(s) and date(s)

of issue when the operator is awaiting

FCC action on an application.

(c) When the operator is on duty and

in charge of transmitting systems, or

performing service, maintenance or

inspection functions, the license or

permit document, or a photocopy

thereof, or a copy of the application and

PPC(s) received by the FCC, must be

posted or in the operator’s personal

possession, and available for inspection

upon request by a FCC representative.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–12791 Filed 5–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 390

[FHWA Docket No. MC–93–17]

RIN 2125–AD14

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations; General; Intermodal

Transportation

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; petitions for

reconsideration of effective date; request

for comments.

SUMMARY: The FHWA published a

document on May 16, 1995 at 60 FR

26001 which administratively extended

until September 27, 1995, the effective

date of its final rule implementing the

requirements of the Intermodal Safe

Container Transportation Act of 1992.

The final rule was published on

December 29, 1994, and its original

effective date was June 27, 1995. The

only purpose of this three-month

extension was to provide the FHWA

sufficient time to request, receive, and

analyze comments, and to publish a

final determination, on whether a

further extension is warranted. This

document requests comments on the

major issues raised by petitioners who

have requested an extension of the

effective date of, and certain exemptions

from, the final rule.

DATES: Replies to this request for

comments must be received on or before

June 26, 1995. As indicated in the May

16, 1995 document, the effective date of

the final rule published on December

29, 1994 at 59 FR 67544 has been

extended to September 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed

comments to FHWA Docket No. MC–

93–17, Room 4232, HCC–10, Office of

the Chief Counsel, Federal Highway

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. All

comments received will be available for

examination at the above address from

8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Those desiring notification of receipt of

comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Peter C. Chandler, Office of Motor

Carrier Research and Standards, HCS–

10, (202) 366–5763; or Mr. Charles E.

Medalen, Office of the Chief Counsel,

HCC–20, (202) 366–1354, Federal

Highway Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15

p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 29, 1994, the FHWA

published a final rule which

implemented the requirements of the

Intermodal Safe Container

Transportation Act of 1992 (the Act)

[Pub.L. 102–548, 106 Stat. 3646, partly

codified at 49 U.S.C. 5901–5907

(formerly 49 U.S.C. 501 and 508)]. The

final rule requires any person who

presents a container or trailer with a

gross cargo weight of more than 4,536

kilograms or 10,000 pounds to an initial

carrier for intermodal transportation to

provide a certification to such carrier.

Motor carriers are prohibited from

accepting a loaded container or trailer

prior to receiving a tangible

certification. Motor carriers, rail

carriers, water carriers, ocean common

carriers, and intermediaries that receive

a certification in the course of

intermodal transportation must forward

the certification to a subsequent carrier

transporting the loaded container or

trailer. The objective of the final rule

was to reduce the number of overweight

motor vehicles transporting intermodal

containers or trailers by improving

communication between shippers and

motor carriers.

Issues Raised by Industry Groups

The FHWA has received letters from

several companies and industry groups

petitioning the FHWA to extend the

effective date of the final rule. Among

those requesting an extension are APL

Land Transport Services, Inc. (APL); the

European Shippers’ Councils; ‘‘K’’ Line

America, Inc. (KLA); the Intermodal

Safe Container Coalition (Coalition); the

National Industrial Transportation

League; the Steamship Association of

Southern California; and, Warren &

Associates, a law firm representing two

freight conferences. The APL, KLA, and

the Coalition were the parties who

provided the most information in

support of an extension. Copies of these

letters are available for review in the

docket.

For ease of presentation, the FHWA

has grouped the issues raised by the

petitioners into four major categories:

(1) Electronic data interchange (EDI); (2)

the widespread need for education and

training, especially for foreign shippers;

(3) the cargo weight threshold used in

determining the applicability of the

final rule; and, (4) the results of the data

collection needs study mandated by the

Act. The FHWA believes that some of

the petitioners’ assertions warrant

public discussion.

Electronic Data Interchange

The KLA wrote that ‘‘the complexities

of establishing a uniform method for

electronic transmission of data between

very divergent industries, each with

their own unique data requirements,

makes compliance by all parties in the

intermodal network by the June date

difficult to impossible.’’ The KLA

explained further that the certification

data should ideally be passed as part of

an already existing data transmission

which would necessitate the various

parties sending and receiving the

certification information to agree on the

data format and the meaning of each

field. The development of these

specifications, the KLA continued,

requires time to allow the users of the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27701

formats to develop the workable file

layouts, to agree on the meaning of each

field, and to insure that the formats

selected would not create

incompatibilities within the computers

used to send and receive these

messages. The KLA also added that

individual companies must modify their

in-house programs to utilize the data

after these formats are established.

The APL asserted that the changes

needed to assure that the necessary EDI

takes place will require an extensive

effort. The APL wrote that full

implementation through EDI would not

be possible by June 27, 1995, for its own

operations, and it surmises the same

would be true for most of the industry.

The Coalition asserted that the

forwarding of paper certifications,

which would be necessary if the final

rule became effective on June 27, 1995,

would be tremendously cumbersome

and burdensome because the intermodal

transportation industry increasingly

communicates through EDI. The

Coalition explained further that there is

no existing system for the forwarding of

paper certifications to a subsequent

carrier and that such a system would

most certainly break down. The

Coalition wrote that the development of

necessary EDI standards will take at

least until November 1995, and that

even more time will be needed for

programming, testing, training, and

coordination. Although the Coalition

requested an extension of the effective

date until May 1, 1996, it asserted that

compliance through the use of EDI by

such date is a most ambitious goal.

Warren & Associates stated that the June

27, 1995, effective date does not take

into consideration the advance time

required to integrate and standardize

compliance through the use of EDI

among the different industry

participants.

FHWA Response: The intermodal

transportation industry relies heavily on

EDI. The FHWA recognizes that the

development of EDI standards could not

have begun in any substantial way prior

to publication of the final rule on

December 29, 1994, when all parties

were made aware of the specific

regulatory requirements. The

development of standards, computer

programming, and training are

necessary for the intermodal

transportation industry to accomplish

the forwarding of certifications between

carriers through the use of EDI. The

FHWA also recognizes that making the

final rule effective before the intermodal

transportation industry has sufficient

time to complete the necessary tasks for

compliance to be achieved through the

use of EDI would require the forwarding

of paper certifications. This may cause

large disruptions in domestic and

international trade and commerce. The

FHWA requests comments on the length

of time that would be needed for the

intermodal transportation industry to

complete the tasks necessary for

compliance with the final rule through

the use of EDI.

Education and Training

The KLA wrote that an extension of

the effective date of the final rule is also

justified because of the need to educate

numerous parties on its requirements.

The KLA asserted that education of

affected parties in the United States by

June 27, 1995, would be a daunting task

and that advising overseas shippers

would be ‘‘impossible.’’ The European

Shippers’ Councils wrote that European

exporters have not yet received

information on what the Act requires of

them or instructions on how a

certification should be issued. The

European Shippers’ Councils asserted

that it would be impossible for all

European shippers to comply with the

final rule by June 27, 1995. The

Coalition wrote that making shippers

aware of their obligations will require a

massive educational effort, one that is

far from completed.

FHWA Response: The FHWA

recognizes that it has a responsibility to

inform participants in the intermodal

transportation industry of their

responsibilities under the final rule. The

FHWA has developed an educational

pamphlet which, unfortunately, is not

yet available for distribution. In

addition to English, the pamphlet will

be available in German, French,

Spanish, Japanese, and Mandarin

Chinese. Pamphlets will be provided to

various associations for domestic and

international distribution upon its

availability. In addition, the Department

of State will assist the FHWA with the

international distribution of the

pamphlets. The FHWA will also request

assistance from various embassies with

international distribution of the

pamphlets. The FHWA requests

comments on what additional

educational materials would be helpful

and how the pamphlets and other

materials should be distributed.

Cargo Weight Threshold

The Coalition recommended that the

jurisdictional weight threshold of the

Act and the final rule (more than 4,536

kilograms [10,000 pounds] gross cargo

weight) should be raised. The Coalition

stated that ‘‘even though there is no

possibility under the law of physics that

either international or domestic

shipments weighing between 10,000

and 40,000 pounds could cause gross

vehicle weight violations as defined in

the Act, the Act and Regulations

nonetheless require each shipment to be

weighed and subject to the advance

notification and certification

requirements.’’ In a letter, however, the

Steamship Operators Intermodal

Committee (SOIC) asserted that the

Coalition’s statement is erroneous. The

SOIC wrote that its tests show that a 20

foot container which is loaded with

40,000 pounds of cargo exceeds the

maximum gross weight allowed by the

bridge gross weight formula when it is

mounted on a 23 foot chassis.

FHWA Response: The Act specifically

establishes a gross cargo weight

applicability threshold of more than

4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) for

loaded containers and trailers.

Accordingly, the regulations issued by

the FHWA are applicable to containers

or trailers in intermodal transportation

with an actual gross cargo weight

(inclusive of packing material and

pallets) of more than 4,536 kilograms

(10,000 pounds). Although the gross

cargo weight threshold of more than

4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds)

mandated by Congress extends the

scope of the Act beyond the range of

cargo weight typically associated with

overweight conditions, the FHWA

cannot modify the gross cargo weight

threshold of the final rule without a

congressional amendment to the Act.

Data Collection Needs Study

The National Industrial

Transportation League requested that

the study mandated by the Act be

accelerated and that the effective date of

the final rule be extended pending the

findings of the study.

FHWA Response: The Act requires the

Secretary of Transportation to conduct a

study to assess existing data and data

collection needs with respect to the

movement in intermodal transportation

of loaded containers and trailers in the

violation of the Act and highway weight

laws. The Act requires that the final

report from the study provide legislative

and other recommendations for

improving the collection of such data.

The Congress did not intend the study

to be a prerequisite to the promulgation

and enforcement of regulations which

implement the requirements of the Act,

but rather a separate activity designed to

provide insight into the data needs that

would assist Congress in making future

related legislative decisions. Completion

of the study is not by itself sufficient

grounds to warrant an extension, and

the schedule for the study cannot be

significantly accelerated.
27702 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Opposition to a Lengthy Extension of

the Effective Date of the Final Rule

In addition to letters requesting an

extension of the effective date of the

final rule, the FHWA received two

letters in opposition. The American

Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA),

opposed a lengthy extension of the

effective date, but indicated that it could

support an extension until January 1,

1996, to permit the FHWA to proceed

with a rulemaking on the various

petitions that have been filed, including

its own. The ATA recognized that the

EDI concerns of those requesting an

extension may have some validity. In

addition, Mr. M. P. McLean wrote that

these regulations are necessary and long

overdue and recommended they be

implemented without delay.

Petition for Exemptions by the

American Trucking Associations, Inc.

On April 7, 1995, the ATA filed a

petition to exempt three types of motor

carrier operations from the final rule:

1. A motor carrier which loads a

container or trailer and provides all

highway portions of the intermodal

transportation.

2. A motor carrier which loads a

container or trailer, provides the initial

highway portion of the intermodal

transportation, and assumes

responsibility for the violations of

highway weight laws of other motor

carriers that transport the loaded

container or trailer.

3. A motor carrier which is presented

a loaded trailer for domestic

transportation with a bill of lading that

includes the weight and a reasonable

description of the cargo, as well as the

shipper’s signature, and which

subsequently decides on its own

initiative to ship the loaded trailer by

rail for a portion of the domestic

transportation.

For the first type of operation, the

ATA asserts that the certification serves

no purpose because the motor carrier

controls the loading of the container or

trailer and, therefore, always knows the

weight and identity of the cargo. In the

second type, the ATA argues that the

certification serves no purpose because

the initial motor carrier knows the

weight and identity of the cargo and has

assumed responsibility for any

overweight citations issued to other

motor carriers. In the third type, the

ATA contends that a certification

should not be required because the use

of intermodal transportation would be

discouraged if a shipper that had to

prepare a certification for every trailer

on the possibility that its motor carrier

might have the trailer transported by rail

and because the motor carrier in this

situation has been provided all of the

pertinent information that would

otherwise be included in a certification.

The ATA asserts that all of these

requested exemptions will eliminate

unnecessary paperwork burden and

have no adverse impact on highway

safety. The ATA’s petition is available

for review in the docket.

Request for Comments

The FHWA is not requesting

comments on the content of the final

rule, but only on the ATA’s petition for

three exemptions and whether an

extension of the effective date of the

final rule beyond September 27, 1995, is

necessary to allow affected parties to

become familiar with their

responsibilities and take necessary

actions for compliance. The FHWA

requests comments regarding the

appropriateness of the following

effective dates requested by the

petitioners:

1. January 1, 1996, as mentioned by

the ATA in its statements regarding the

various filed petitions.

2. May 1, 1996, as requested by the

Coalition and Warren & Associates

based on their arguments related to: EDI;

education; and paperwork burdens and

costs associated with compliance to the

final rule.

3. June 1, 1996, as requested by the

KLA based on their arguments related to

EDI and education.

4. Any other date.

The FHWA requests commenters to

provide information and data which

support their position. Commenters who

support a specific effective date are

requested to provide a timetable of

activities necessary for compliance.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above will be
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27703

considered and will be available for

examination in the docket room at the

above address. The FHWA will not

consider any request for an extension of

the comment period of this publication.

Comments received after the comment

closing date will be filed in the docket

and will be considered to the extent

practicable. In addition to late

comments, the FHWA will also

continue to file in the docket relevant

information that becomes available after

the comment closing date, and

interested persons should continue to

examine the docket for new material.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has previously

determined that the final rule

implementing the Intermodal Safe

Container Transportation Act of 1992 is

a significant regulatory action within

the meaning of Executive Order 12866

and significant under Department of

Transportation regulatory policies and

procedures because it affects intermodal

transportation and attracts substantial

public interest. As such, the final rule

was reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget and the Office

of the Secretary of Transportation before

being published. This present action is

intended only to allow comments on an

appropriate effective date for the

December 29, 1994, final rule. Based on

the information received in response to

this action, the FHWA will make a final

determination on an appropriate

effective date. It is anticipated that the

economic impact of this action will be

minimal; therefore, a full regulatory

evaluation is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the

FHWA has evaluated the effects of this

action on small entities. Based upon this

evaluation, as well as for the reasons set

forth in the previous paragraph, the

FHWA hereby certifies that this action

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism

Assessment)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has been determined that

this action does not have sufficient

Federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism assessment.

Nothing in this action directly preempts

any State law or regulation.

Executive Order 12372

(Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Program Number 20.217,

Motor Carrier Safety. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental

consultation on Federal programs and

activities apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements contained in the December

29, 1994, final rule have been approved

by the Office of Management and

Budget in accordance with the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and

assigned the control number of 2125–

0557 which expires on June 30, 1997.

This action does not affect the

recordkeeping requirements previously

established.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this

rulemaking for the purpose of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has

determined that this action would not

have any effect on the quality of the

environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory

action listed in the Unified Agenda of

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory

Information Service Center publishes

the Unified Agenda in April and

October of each year. The RIN contained

in the heading of this document can be

used to cross reference this action with

the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 390

Highway safety, Highways and roads,

Intermodal transportation, Motor

carriers, Recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5901–5907, 31132,

31136, 31502 and 31504; 49 CFR 1.48.

Issued on: May 19, 1995.

Rodney E. Slater,

Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–12814 Filed 5–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P