Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 75437 

Contractor’s knowledge and belief that all 

actual or potential organizational COIs have 

been reported to the Contracting Officer, or 

that to the best of the Contractor’s knowledge 

and belief, no actual or potential 

organizational COIs exist. In addition, the 

Contractor must certify that its personnel 

who perform work under this work 

assignment or relating to this work 

assignment have been informed of their 

obligation to report personal and 

organizational COIs to the Contractor. The 

COI certification shall also include a 

statement that the Contractor recognizes its 

continuing obligation to identify and report 

any actual or potential COI arising during 

performance of this work assignment or other 

work related to this site. 

Alternate II. As prescribed in 1511.011–74, 

modify the existing clause by adding the 

following paragraph (f) to the basic clause: 

(f) Within 20 days of receipt of the work 

assignment or similar tasking document, the 

Contractor shall provide a conflict of interest 

(COI) certification. Where work assignments 

or similar tasking documents are issued 

under this contract for work on or directly 

related to a site, the Contractor is only 

required to provide a COI certification for the 

first work assignment issued for that site. For 

all subsequent work on that site under this 

contract, the Contractor has a continuing 

obligation to search and report any actual or 

potential COIs, but no additional COI 

certifications are required. 

Before submitting the COI certification, the 

Contractor shall initially search through all of 

its available records to identify any actual or 

potential COIs. During the first three years of 

this contract, the Contractor shall search 

through all records created since the 

beginning of the contract plus the records of 

the Contractor prior to the award of the 

contract until a minimum of three years of 

records are accumulated. Once three years of 

records have accumulated, prior to certifying, 

the Contractor shall search its records 

accumulated, at a minimum, over the past 

three years immediately prior to the receipt 

of the work assignment or similar tasking 

document. In the COI certification, the 

Contractor must certify to the best of the 

Contractor’s knowledge and belief, that all 

actual or potential organizational COIs have 

been reported to the Contracting Officer, or 

that to the best of the Contractor’s knowledge 

and belief, no actual or potential 

organizational COIs exist. In addition, the 

Contractor must certify that its personnel 

who perform work under this work 

assignment or relating to this work 

assignment have been informed of their 

obligation to report personal and 

organizational COIs to the Contractor. The 

COI certification shall also include a 

statement that the Contractor recognizes its 

continuing obligation to identify and report 

any actual or potential COI arising during 

performance of this work assignment or other 

work related to this site. 

Alternate III. As prescribed in 1511.011– 

74, modify the existing clause by adding the 

following paragraph (f) to the basic clause: 

(f) Within 20 days of receipt of the work 

assignment or similar tasking document, the 

Contractor shall provide a conflict of interest 

(COI) certification. 

Before submitting the COI certification, the 

Contractor shall search its records 

accumulated, at a minimum, over the past 

three years immediately prior to the receipt 

of the work assignment or similar tasking 

document. In the COI certification, the 

Contractor must certify to the best of the 

Contractor’s knowledge and belief that all 

actual or potential organizational COIs have 

been reported to the Contracting Officer, or 

that to the best of the Contractor’s knowledge 

and belief, no actual or potential 

organizational COIs exist. In addition, the 

Contractor must certify that its personnel 

who perform work under this work 

assignment or relating to this work 

assignment have been informed of their 

obligation to report personal and 

organizational COIs to the Contractor. The 

COI certification shall also include a 

statement that the Contractor recognizes its 

continuing obligation to identify and report 

any actual or potential COI arising during 

performance of this work assignment. 

Alternate IV. As prescribed in 1511.011– 

74, modify the existing clause by adding the 

following paragraph (f) to the basic clause: 

(f) Within 20 days of receipt of the work 

assignment or similar tasking document, the 

Contractor shall provide a conflict of interest 

(COI) certification. 

Before submitting the COI certification, the 

Contractor shall initially search through all of 

its available records to identify any actual or 

potential COIs. During the first three years of 

this contract, the Contractor shall search 

through all records created since the 

beginning of the contract plus records of the 

Contractor prior to the award of the contract 

until a minimum of three years of records 

have accumulated. Once three years of 

records have accumulated, prior to certifying, 

the Contractor shall search its records, at a 

minimum, over the past three years 

immediately prior to the receipt of the work 

assignment or similar tasking document. In 

the COI certification, the Contractor must 

certify to the best of the Contractor’s 

knowledge and belief that all actual or 

potential organizational COIs have been 

reported to the Contracting Officer, or that to 

the best of the Contractor’s knowledge and 

belief, no actual or potential organizational 

COIs exist. In addition, the Contractor must 

certify that its personnel who perform work 

under this work assignment or relating to this 

work assignment have been informed of their 

obligation to report personal and 

organizational COIs to the Contractor. The 

COI certification shall also include a 

statement that the Contractor recognizes its 

continuing obligation to identify and report 

any actual or potential COI arising during 

performance of this work assignment. 

(End of clause) 

[FR Doc. 2014–29311 Filed 12–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 392 and 396 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0336] 

RIN 2126–AB46 

Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; 

Driver-Vehicle Inspection Report 

(DVIR) 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA rescinds the 

requirement that commercial motor 

vehicle (CMV) drivers operating in 

interstate commerce, except drivers of 

passenger-carrying CMVs, submit, and 

motor carriers retain, DVIRs when the 

driver has neither found nor been made 

aware of any vehicle defects or 

deficiencies. This rule also harmonizes 

the pre- and post-trip inspection lists. It 

responds in part to the President’s 

January 2011 Regulatory Review and 

Reform initiative, removing a significant 

information collection burden without 

adversely impacting safety. The Agency 

also makes a technical change to 

§ 396.11 to eliminate redundant 

language. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 18, 2014. 

Petitions for Reconsideration of this 

final rule must be submitted to FMCSA 

Administrator no later than January 20, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Mr. Mike Huntley, Vehicle and 

Roadside Operations Division, Office of 

Bus and Truck Standards and 

Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, telephone: 202–366– 

4325. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary of the Benefits and 

Costs 

This rule affects all motor carriers 

currently subject to 49 CFR 396.11, both 

private and for-hire, with the exception 

of operators of passenger-carrying 

CMVs. Current safety regulations 

require drivers employed by motor 

carriers to prepare a written report at the 

completion of each day’s work, on each 

vehicle operated, that lists any defect or 

deficiency discovered by or reported to 

the driver which would affect the safety 

of operation of the vehicle or result in 

its mechanical breakdown. This report 

must be submitted to the employing 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
75438 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

motor carrier so that repairs can be 

made. Regulations now require drivers 

to file the DVIR at the end of each tour 

of duty, even if there are no vehicle 

defects to report. The rule eliminates the 

need to file a no-defect DVIR, except for 

operations involving passenger-carrying 

CMVs. 

The no-defect DVIR imposes a 

substantial time and paperwork burden 

on the trucking industry, with no 

discernible safety benefit. The Agency 

estimates that non-passenger-carrying 

CMV drivers spend approximately 46.7 

million hours each year completing nodefect DVIRs, time which could be 

dedicated to other purposes. FMCSA 

estimates that the monetized value of 

this time is currently $1.7 billion per 

year, which is the estimated benefit that 

would result from the adoption of the 

rule. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, COSTS AND NET BENEFITS OF THE RULE

Annual 

10 Years, 

7 percent 

discount rate 

10 Years, 

3 percent 

discount rate 

Monetized Benefits .................................................................................................... 1 $1 .7 1 $12 .8 1 $14 .9 

Costs .......................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Net Benefits ........................................................................................................ 1 1 .7 1 12 .8 1 14 .9 

1Billion. 

Background 

Presidential Executive Order (E.O.) 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review’’ (issued January 18, 

2011, and published January 21 at 76 FR 

3821), prompted DOT to publish a 

notice in the Federal Register (76 FR 

8940, February 16, 2011). This notice 

requested comments on a plan for 

reviewing existing rules, as well as 

identification of existing rules that DOT 

should review because they may be 

outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 

excessively burdensome. DOT placed all 

retrospective regulatory review 

comments, including a transcript of a 

March 14, 2011, public meeting, in 

docket DOT–OST–2011–0025. DOT 

received comments from 102 members 

of the public, with many providing 

multiple suggestions. FMCSA received 

one comment from the American 

Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) 

concerning what it considered 

duplicative driver vehicle inspection 

requirements in 49 CFR parts 392 and 

396. Although FMCSA agrees that there 

is some duplication, the Agency did not 

believe that it resulted in unnecessary 

actions or an information collection 

burden. However, FMCSA did discover 

a related information collection burden 

that it considers unnecessary and 

removes in this final rule. 

It has always been the responsibility 

of a CMV driver to report vehicle 

defects. In 1939, the Interstate 

Commerce Commission (ICC) issued 

regulations requiring every driver to 

submit a written report on the condition 

of the vehicle at the end of each day’s 

work or tour of duty. At a minimum, the 

report had to include information about 

any vehicle defect or deficiency the 

driver discovered that would likely 

affect the safety of operation of that 

vehicle (4 FR 2294 at 2305, June 7, 

1939). The ICC recommended, but did 

not require, that motor carriers use a 

‘Driver’s Trip Report,’ and it provided a 

sample report format in its 1939 notice. 

The sample report format included the 

driver’s name, vehicle number, date, a 

list of 20 items for inspection, and a 

space for the driver and mechanic to 

note defects. This report is now called 

a DVIR, but the current rule does not 

include a sample report form. The 

requirements to prepare, submit, and 

retain a no-defect DVIR have been in the 

safety regulations since 1952 (17 FR 

4422, 4452, May 15, 1952). In a separate 

report (54 M.C.C. 337, at 356, April 14, 

1952) the ICC explained that it was 

revising its rule to improve motor 

carriers’ inspection and maintenance 

procedures and recordkeeping. The ICC 

noted that the most substantial 

recordkeeping change proposed and 

adopted was for the driver to complete 

the vehicle condition report or trip 

ticket at the end of the day’s work or 

tour of duty whether or not any defect 

or deficiency in the equipment is 

discovered, ‘‘. . . in order to provide a 

continuous record of vehicle condition 

and to insure that the reports, 

particularly those involving defects, will 

be made out currently and maintained 

on a current basis.’’ 

On December 17, 2008, FMCSA 

published a final rule to implement 

§ 4118 of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) 

[Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1729, 

Aug. 10, 2005], dealing with the safety 

of chassis used to transport intermodal 

containers (73 FR 76794). Among other 

things, § 4118 called for the Secretary to 

mandate ‘‘a process by which a driver 

or motor carrier transporting intermodal 

equipment [IME] is required to report to 

the intermodal equipment provider 

[IEP] or the provider’s designated agent 

any actual damage or defect in the 

intermodal equipment of which the 

driver or motor carrier is aware at the 

time the intermodal equipment is 

returned to the intermodal equipment 

provider or the provider’s designated 

agent’’ (49 U.S.C. 31151(a)(3)(L)). 

FMCSA’s 2008 rule included a new 

code section—49 CFR 390.42—which 

prescribed the responsibilities of drivers 

and motor carriers when operating IME. 

Section 390.42(b) required the driver or 

motor carrier to report any damage to or 

deficiencies in certain IME parts and 

accessories at the time the equipment is 

returned to the IEP. 

Importantly, FMCSA did not propose 

any changes to § 396.11(a), ‘‘Report 

content,’’ which requires—both for IME 

and non-IME—that ‘‘If no defect or 

deficiency is discovered by or reported 

to the driver, the report shall so 

indicate.’’ 

On March 31, 2010, the Ocean Carrier 

Equipment Management Association 

(OCEMA) and Institute of International 

Container Lessors (IICL) jointly filed a 

petition for rulemaking to rescind the 

part of § 390.42(b) that required drivers 

to file no-defect DVIRs on IME they 

return to IEPs. OCEMA and IICL 

requested that FMCSA delete the 

sentence ‘‘if no damage, defects, or 

deficiencies are discovered by the 

driver, the report shall so indicate.’’ 

The petitioners presented four 

arguments supporting their request: 

1. Section 4118 of SAFETEA–LU 

requires DVIRs only for known damage 

or defects. Congress could have added a 

requirement to file no-defect DVIRs but 

did not do so. 

2. There is significant risk that a large 

volume of no-defect DVIRs could 

overwhelm the small proportion (4 

percent) of DVIRs that report damage or 

defects. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 75439 

3. Data transmission, processing, and 

storage requirements for no-defect 

DVIRs could add significant 

unnecessary costs to intermodal 

operations without providing offsetting 

benefits. 

4. Submission of no-defect DVIRs 

contributes to driver productivity losses 

in the form of congestion and delay at 

intermodal facilities. 

On June 12, 2012 (77 FR 34846), the 

Agency published a final rule 

eliminating the requirement for drivers 

operating IME to submit—and IEPs to 

retain—DVIRs when the driver has 

neither found nor been made aware of 

any defects in the IME. The Agency now 

extends this relief from the paperwork 

requirement to all interstate motor 

carriers subject to Part 396 of the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations (FMCSRs), except operators 

of passenger-carrying CMVs. 

FMCSA emphasizes that the Agency 

is not foregoing the fundamental 

requirements of Part 393, Parts and 

Accessories Necessary for Safe 

Operation. Nor is it making any changes 

to any other element of the inspection, 

repair, and maintenance requirements of 

Part 396. Drivers will still be required to 

perform pre-trip evaluations of 

equipment condition, and complete 

DVIRs if any defects or deficiencies are 

discovered or reported during the day’s 

operations. Motor carriers will still be 

required to have systematic inspection, 

repair, and maintenance programs 

(including preventative maintenance) 

and maintain records to prove measures 

are being taken to reduce to the extent 

practicable, the risk of mechanical 

problems happening while the vehicle 

is in operation. In addition, motor 

carriers will still be required to review 

driver vehicle inspections that list 

defects or deficiencies and take 

appropriate action before the vehicle is 

dispatched again. The Agency will 

retain the requirement for carriers to 

complete periodic or annual 

inspections, and maintain 

documentation for the individuals who 

perform periodic inspections and 

individuals responsible for performing 

brake-related inspection, repair, and 

maintenance tasks. Furthermore, these 

CMVs will continue to be subject to 

roadside inspections. In short, the 

existing regulations place shared 

responsibility on drivers and motor 

carriers to ensure that CMVs used in 

interstate commerce are in safe and 

proper operating condition. This final 

rule does not change a driver’s 

obligation to report on the condition of 

the CMVs and to report to the motor 

carrier any defects or deficiencies that 

could affect the safety of its operation. 

Legal Basis for the Rulemaking 

This rule is based on the authority of 

the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) 

[49 U.S.C. 31502(b)] and the Motor 

Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act) [49 

U.S.C. 31136(a)], both of which are 

broadly discretionary. 

The 1935 Act provides that the 

Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) 

may prescribe requirements for: 

• Qualifications and maximum hours 

of service of employees of, and safety of 

operation and equipment of, a motor 

carrier (section 31502(b)(1)), and 

• qualifications and maximum hours 

of service of employees of, and 

standards of equipment of, a motor 

private carrier, when needed to promote 

safety of operation (section 31502(b)(2)). 

This rulemaking is based on the 

Secretary’s authority under both section 

31502(b)(1) and (2). 

The 1984 Act authorizes the Secretary 

to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and 

vehicle equipment. Section 31136(a) 

requires the Secretary to publish 

regulations on CMV safety. Specifically, 

the Act requires the Secretary to 

prescribe minimum safety standards to 

ensure that: (1) CMVs are maintained, 

equipped, loaded, and operated safely 

(49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1)); (2) the 

responsibilities imposed on operators of 

CMVs do not impair their ability to 

operate the vehicles safely (49 U.S.C. 

31136(a)(2)); (3) the physical condition 

of CMV operators is adequate to enable 

them to operate the vehicles safely (49 

U.S.C. 31136(a)(3)); and (4) the 

operation of CMVs does not have a 

deleterious effect on the physical 

condition of the operators (49 U.S.C. 

31136(a)(4)). Section 32911 of the 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act (MAP–21) [Pub. L. 112– 

141, 126 Stat. 405, 818, July 6, 2012] 

added a fifth requirement, i.e., to ensure 

that ‘‘(5) an operator of a commercial 

motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor 

carrier, shipper, receiver, or 

transportation intermediary to operate a 

commercial motor vehicle in violation 

of a regulation promulgated under this 

section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of 

this title’’ (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)). The 

1984 Act also grants the Secretary broad 

power in carrying out motor carrier 

safety statutes and regulations to 

‘‘prescribe recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements’’ and to ‘‘perform other 

acts the Secretary considers 

appropriate’’ (49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and 

(10)). 

This rule implements, in part, the 

Administrator’s authority under section 

31136(a)(1) to ensure that CMVs are 

maintained, equipped, loaded, and 

operated safely. The final rule is also 

based on the broad recordkeeping and 

implementation authority of section 

31133(a)(8) and (10). This rule addresses 

only CMV equipment and reporting 

requirements. The provisions of the 

1984 Act dealing with the physical 

condition of drivers therefore do not 

apply (section 31136(a)(3)–(4)). Finally, 

as to ensuring that operators of CMVs 

are not coerced by motor carriers, 

shippers, receivers, or transportation 

intermediaries to operate a CMV in 

violation of a regulation, the rule 

eliminates only the requirement for 

drivers (except drivers of passengercarrying CMVs) to prepare reports when 

there are no defects or deficiencies; it 

preserves the rule requiring reports 

when there are defects or deficiencies, 

as well as the requirement for motor 

carriers to take appropriate action on 

receipt of the report when problems 

with the vehicle are noted. The removal 

of the requirement to prepare and retain 

no-defect DVIRs therefore will not 

compromise drivers’ ability to report 

vehicle problems to the carrier, or 

relieve carriers of the responsibility to 

take action. Furthermore, elimination of 

the no-defect DVIRs will not 

compromise drivers’ protection under 

existing whistleblower statutes 

concerning employers taking adverse 

action against drivers for refusing to 

violate the FMCSRs. The rule thus 

provides protection against coercion of 

drivers by motor carriers. Finally, 

because the rule removes a regulatory 

burden criticized by both drivers and 

motor carriers (and irrelevant to 

shippers, receivers, and transportation 

intermediaries), there is virtually no 

possibility that a CMV operator will be 

coerced to violate the rule itself. It is 

true, of course, that a motor carrier 

could insist that a driver continue filing 

no-defect DVIRs even in the absence of 

a regulatory requirement, but that would 

be a condition of employment, not 

coercion to violate a safety regulation. 

Discussion of Comments 

On August 7, 2013, FMCSA published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) (78 FR 48125). The Agency 

proposed to rescind the requirement 

that CMV drivers, operating in interstate 

commerce, except drivers of passengercarrying CMVs, submit, and motor 

carriers retain, driver-vehicle inspection 

reports when the driver neither found 

nor been made aware any vehicle 

defects or deficiencies. 

FMCSA received 41 comments from 

the following: 

• Two governmental agencies: 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) and Canadian Council of Motor 

Transport Administrators (CCMTA). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
75440 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

• Six motor carriers: Atlas PyroVision 

Productions, Con-way Freight, Payne 

and Dolan, Pyro Spectaculars, RES 

Specialty Pyrotechnics, and Wald and 

Company. 

• Nine industry associations: 

American Moving and Storage 

Association (AMSA), American 

Pyrotechnics Association (APA), 

American Truck Dealers Division of the 

National Automobile Dealers 

Association (ATD), American Trucking 

Associations (ATA), California Trucking 

Association (CTA), National Motor 

Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA), 

New England Fuel Institute (NEFI), 

Petroleum Marketers Association of 

America (PMAA), and National 

Strategic Shippers Transportation 

Council (NASSTRAC). 

• Two advocacy organizations: 

American Association for Justice (AAJ) 

and Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety (Advocates). 

• Two providers of fleet management 

software: Zonar Systems (Zonar) and J. 

Hart of Fleettrakker LLC. 

• 20 individuals. 

Several commenters, including 

Advocates, ATA, and the NTSB, 

commented on matters outside the 

scope of this rulemaking (including 

hours-of-service regulations, transmittal 

of driver medical certification 

information, and brake system and tire 

inspection procedures). 

Con-way Freight pointed out an 

erroneous reference to § 396.11(b)(2), 

rather than § 396.11(a)(2). FMCSA 

published a correction notice in the 

Federal Register on September 6, 2013 

(78 FR 54861) to address this error. 

Comments Supporting the Proposal 

Thirty-one commenters favored 

FMCSA’s proposal. Most pointed to the 

potential savings in time and 

paperwork. 

APA stated the current DVIR rule ‘‘is 

an excellent example of an ineffective 

and excessively burdensome paperwork 

requirement.’’ Four motor carriers stated 

they supported APA’s position on the 

proposed rule. 

Collette Gott, who identified herself 

as a trucking company safety director, 

said the proposed rule would encourage 

motor carriers to shift their focus from 

mere recordkeeping to CMV safety and 

maintenance activities and would 

improve communications between 

drivers and maintenance shop staff, as 

well as lead to better recordkeeping. 

Because she recognized that a 

requirement to complete a record of an 

inspection does not guarantee that the 

inspection gets done, she also 

maintained that motor carriers will 

continue to develop and implement 

oversight procedures. 

Zonar, a provider of fleet management 

systems, supported the proposed 

rulemaking. 

Con-way Freight stated that it 

supported the proposal in its entirety. 

NMFTA stated its support for the 

proposed rule. NASSTRAC and CTA 

both supported the proposed rule and 

asked FMCSA to continue to eliminate 

or lessen regulations which have costs 

that outweigh benefits. ATD also 

supported the proposed rule, stating 

that a DVIR is one element of an 

inspection, repair, and maintenance 

program, and it only makes sense for the 

driver to prepare and retain formal 

inspection reports if the driver discovers 

safety-related defects or deficiencies. 

PMAA and NEFI both favored the 

proposed rule. PMAA wrote ‘‘We 

applaud the FMCSA for recognizing that 

keeping non-defect DVIR reports on file 

does nothing to ensure the safe 

maintenance of CMVs in interstate 

commerce. PMAA believes keeping both 

non-defect DVIRs and defect DVIRs can 

lead to filing errors that unnecessarily 

delay repairs on CMVs to the detriment 

of both operational safety and small 

motor carriers who are perpetually 

overburdened by unnecessary 

paperwork.’’ Both PMAA and NEFI also 

provided detailed responses to the 

questions FMCSA asked in the NPRM 

concerning procedures for handling 

DVIRs. 

An individual commenter noted that, 

in the fuel-hauling business, the large 

number of rules imposed by Federal, 

State, and local governments, as well as 

by fuel transfer facilities (‘‘loading 

racks’’) is confusing to both drivers and 

motor carriers and leads to errors and 

reduced safety. In his view, reducing the 

burden on drivers will be helpful. 

ATA supported the proposal, arguing 

that the current requirement produces a 

regulatory burden without a safety 

benefit. However, ATA raised questions 

concerning FMCSA’s computation of 

the information collection burden. 

FMCSA addresses those questions 

below under the heading ‘‘Information 

Collection Burden Estimates.’’ 

Stephen Carter, a professional driver 

and private pilot, supported the 

proposed rule because it would improve 

his and his carrier’s efficiency by 

eliminating a time- and resourceintensive requirement. He added that it 

is very much in his and his carrier’s 

interest for him to report equipment 

defects and for the carrier to remedy 

them before his CMV is operated. 

Although he stated that the vast 

majority of DVIRs submitted currently 

indicate no defects, he strongly 

disagreed with the notion, as expressed 

by some of the opposing comments that 

drivers would neglect to inspect their 

CMVs or perform inadequate 

inspections with the aim of not 

submitting a DVIR. Mr. Carter added 

that, as a private pilot, he is bound by 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

regulations—and those regulations 

require a report only if the pilot finds 

a safety-related defect in a pre-flight or 

post-flight inspection. 

Twelve other individuals also 

expressed their support for the proposal. 

Several of them noted potential savings 

in time, resources, and paper. 

Three commenters—ATD, NTSB, and 

Zonar—addressed the proposed 

harmonization of the part 392 preinspection and part 396 DVIR lists. All 

of them supported it. 

Comments Opposed to the Proposal: 

Preference for Retaining Full Reporting 

Versus Proposed Reporting-ByException 

AAJ believes that eliminating nodefect DVIRs will dramatically increase 

truck accidents, injuries, and fatalities. 

AAJ states that ‘‘Most truck drivers use 

the daily report as a checklist, much like 

airline pilots. Thus, eliminating DVIRs 

will be interpreted by many drivers as 

eliminating the necessity for a pre-trip 

inspection.’’ AAJ contended that even 

drivers who understand that an 

inspection is still necessary ‘‘would not 

have the report and its list of parts and 

accessories to use as a checklist.’’ 

An individual, Clay Eppard, 

characterized the DVIR as a vital line of 

communication between drivers and 

mechanics/motor carriers to promote 

vehicle safety. He noted that drivers 

often include ‘‘non-safety-related’’ 

defects in their DVIRs, and that some of 

those defects could affect vehicle safety 

if they are not addressed in a timely 

fashion. 

AMSA opposed the proposal because 

it and its members consider the 

submittal of no-defect DVIRs to be a 

critical component of preemptive 

maintenance, and thus an important 

facet to the general operation of a safe 

and compliant motor carrier. AMSA and 

its member companies believe that if 

FMCSA rescinds the requirement for nodefect DVIRs, drivers could become 

complacent and this could adversely 

affect safety and operational practices. 

AMSA stated that many of its members 

will continue to require that drivers 

submit all DVIRs to their respective 

carriers, regardless of FMCSA’s 

decision. 

Similarly, Advocates contended that 

eliminating the requirement would lead 

to less attention being paid to vehicle 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 75441 

safety and maintenance, and a higher 

percentage of vehicle violations and outof-service (OOS) orders. Advocates 

asserted that the process of completing 

the DVIR is a driver’s responsibility— 

and it makes the driver consider the 

operation of the CMV during the 

previous trip, including any problems 

that did not actually disable it. 

Advocates stated, ‘‘It is inappropriate to 

allow motor carriers and vehicle 

maintenance staffs to assume that the 

failure to complete a report means that 

no vehicle maintenance or safety issues 

were encountered.’’ 

The NTSB believes that daily safety 

inspection is an important component 

of effective vehicle maintenance, noting 

that many motor carriers employ 

inspection checklists. The Board stated 

that the checklists serve as ‘‘job aids’’ 

for drivers, provide documentation that 

the driver has completed the daily 

inspection, and serve as a means of 

communication between drivers and 

maintenance workers about vehicle 

safety issues. The NTSB pointed out 

that similar inspection reports are 

required in other transportation modes 

and in the military, and noted that the 

use of safety checklists has been shown 

to improve safety outcomes in many 

non-transportation settings. The NTSB 

went on to say that, ‘‘Although the 

requirement to submit a no-defect DVIR 

is not a guarantee that drivers will 

conduct thorough vehicle inspections, 

the requirement creates a system of 

accountability that encourages drivers to 

do so. Without requiring some type of 

documentation, such as the signature on 

the DVIR, drivers may be less likely to 

conduct inspections, and less likely to 

detect and document vehicle problems.’’ 

The NTSB added that FMCSA requires 

other types of records to be maintained 

(hours-of-service records, drug tests, 

driving records) regardless of whether 

they indicate compliance or noncompliance. The NTSB also maintained 

that records preserved by the operator 

serve as an indicator to regulators that 

a carrier is following good safety 

practices. 

FMCSA response. The Agency did not 

propose to change the requirement 

concerning filing of DVIRs when the 

driver notes a defect or is made aware 

of one. FMCSA also did not propose to 

prohibit motor carriers from continuing 

to require their drivers to prepare 

DVIRs, even when the driver has no 

vehicle defects to report. The 

fundamental requirement of the 

FMCSRs is for motor carriers to ensure 

that their CMVs are in safe and proper 

operating condition at all times. As the 

NPRM noted, the Agency attempted to 

determine, through an analysis of 

historical inspection and other safety 

data, whether eliminating the no-defect 

DVIR would affect the condition and 

proper maintenance of vehicle 

components (79 FR 48129). Due to data 

limitations, mainly the inability to 

distinguish between form-and-manner 

violations and serious safety violations, 

this analysis could not be performed. If 

anything, the rule may actually improve 

safety by ensuring that the relatively few 

DVIRs that report defects are not lost 

among the vast majority of those that do 

not, thereby making it easier for motor 

carriers to identify vehicles in need of 

repair. Nonetheless, the safety and 

potential operational implications of 

drivers not performing a post-trip 

inspection and not reporting CMV 

equipment defects—and motor carriers 

not remedying those defects—are as 

important as when the regulation was 

promulgated in 1952. 

FMCSA does not agree with the 

contention by several commenters that 

revising the DVIR requirement as 

proposed would inevitably lead to 

drivers paying less attention to vehicle 

maintenance and safety. The new rule 

would not change the requirement for 

CMV drivers to conduct pre- and posttrip vehicle inspections. Nor does it 

change the requirement for CMV drivers 

to report defects or deficiencies that 

were found by or reported to them. No 

commenters provided data or 

information to support their predictions 

of reduced safety. 

The Agency also disagrees with 

Advocates’ contention that drivers 

would not report situations that arose in 

a previous trip, or Mr. Eppard’s 

comment that drivers would not report 

‘‘non-safety related’’ defects. The rule 

does not place a time limit on the 

driver’s ability to report CMV defects. If 

a driver operates a particular CMV on 

multiple days, and recalls a potential 

problem that was not reported the last 

time he or she drove the CMV, the 

driver should report the problem to the 

motor carrier. The rule also does not 

limit what a driver may report as a 

safety-related defect. 

FMCSA agrees with commenters that 

completion of a DVIR is an important 

tool in a motor carrier’s systematic 

inspection, repair, and maintenance 

program—but disagrees that it is 

necessary for truck drivers to submit a 

DVIR when there are no defects to 

report. The ICC’s original 1939 

recommendation for use of a ‘‘Driver 

Trip Report’’ and its 1952 ‘‘vehicle 

condition report by driver’’ reflected a 

preference for a ‘‘continuous record’’ of 

vehicle condition. This type of record 

would include both the presence and 

absence of defects. Over the years, 

however, the notion of a ‘‘continuous 

record’’ has given way among many 

regulatory agencies to ‘‘reporting by 

exception’’—it is more important and 

efficient to report anomalies, unusual 

situations, and real defects or 

deficiencies that might require 

maintenance staff to act on them. 

One example of this reporting-byexception model is the FAA’s 

requirement for reporting of anomalies 

and defects for aircraft. FMCSA 

reviewed regulations under 14 CFR part 

121 applicable to domestic, flag, and 

supplemental operations (§§ 121.315, 

121.563, 121.701, 121.703) and 14 CFR 

part 135 commuter and on-demand 

operations (§§ 135.65, 135.415, 135.417) 

concerning aircraft maintenance logs, 

reporting of mechanical irregularities, 

service difficulty reports, and 

mechanical difficulty summary reports. 

There is no requirement to file any kind 

of ‘‘normal operation’’ report. The 

United States Coast Guard (USCG) 

regulations concerning tests before 

getting underway (33 CFR 164.25) 

describe requirements for testing of 

certain components (primary and 

secondary steering gear). That same 

agency’s regulations for maintenance, 

failure, and reporting (33 CFR 164.82) 

address the requirement for marine 

radar to be maintained operative, and to 

file reports in the event of an equipment 

failure. Neither set of requirements calls 

for logging detailed results of tests that 

are performed where no deficiencies are 

found. 

FMCSA disagrees with the AAJ’s and 

other commenters’ assertion that ‘‘most 

drivers’’ would reasonably interpret the 

proposed rule as deleting not only the 

requirement for a no-defect DVIR, but 

the need for a pre-trip and post-trip 

inspection. The same checklist of what 

could be covered during a driver vehicle 

inspection would be retained in the 

FMCSRs. Drivers of all CMVs subject to 

this rule will continue to be required to 

file a DVIR if the driver discovers or is 

made aware of a safety defect or 

deficiency. FMCSA also did not propose 

to do away with the pre-trip inspection 

list in § 392.7(a) or the list of parts and 

accessories in § 396.11(a). The NPRM 

merely proposed to make the pre-trip 

inspection list in § 392.7(a) consistent 

with that of § 396.11(a). 

Role of DVIR in Inspection, Repair, and 

Maintenance Programs 

Comment. Advocates and several 

other commenters noted that drivers 

should positively state whether a 

malfunction was discovered. The NTSB 

commented that ‘‘the records preserved 

by a motor carrier serve as an indicator 

to regulators that a carrier is following 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
75442 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

good safety practices.’’ Although 

Advocates supported FMCSA’s proposal 

to continue to require drivers of 

passenger-carrying CMVs to complete a 

DVIR even when the driver reports no 

defects or deficiencies, they pointed out 

that drivers of freight-transporting 

CMVs also may have interactions with 

many people during their work day. The 

NTSB and two individuals, Mr. Eppard 

and Frank Gaede, shared this viewpoint. 

FMCSA response. The rule retains the 

requirement for CMV drivers to report 

defects or deficiencies they become 

aware of—and this holds for all the 

vehicles that a driver may operate in 

any given day. 

FMCSA acknowledges that all drivers 

experience interruptions during their 

work day that could impact their ability 

to timely document problems with the 

vehicle. 

The Agency is retaining no-defect 

DVIRs for passenger-carrying CMVs, as 

proposed in the NPRM. First, a 

passenger-carrier crash is a lowprobability but high-consequence event, 

in terms of potential deaths and injuries. 

Second, motorcoach drivers often need 

to interact with their passengers, 

particularly at the beginning and end of 

their work day, but often during the trip 

as well. Third, because they are carrying 

the most valuable cargo, motor carriers 

of passengers must exercise heightened 

diligence over their operations, 

including CMV maintenance. For all of 

these reasons, FMCSA decided against 

applying this rule to bus drivers and 

companies at this time. 

Regarding the comment that DVIRs 

are only one element of an inspection, 

repair, and maintenance program, 

FMCSA agrees. The Agency is not 

foregoing the fundamental requirements 

of part 393, Parts and Accessories 

Necessary for Safe Operation. Nor is it 

proposing to change any other element 

of the inspection, repair, and 

maintenance requirements of part 396. 

Drivers will still be required to perform 

pre-trip evaluations of equipment 

condition, and to complete DVIRs if any 

defects or deficiencies are discovered or 

reported during the day’s operations. 

Responding to the NTSB, FMCSA 

notes that the content and quality of 

CMV maintenance records often provide 

a more useful picture of a motor 

carrier’s vehicle safety practices than 

the sheer quantity of its records. 

Furthermore, unlike the NTSB, FMCSA 

by statute must consider benefits and 

costs to the individuals and entities 

subject to its regulations. The DVIR is 

the largest element of the information 

collection (IC) for part 396 (Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Control 

No. 2126–0003); the no-defect DVIR for 

property-carrying CMVs makes up more 

than 46 million of the 58 million burden 

hours associated with that collection. 

Opposition to Proposal: DVIR as 

‘‘Certification’’ 

Comment. Advocates described a 

DVIR, when used in slip-seat 

operations, as ‘‘certification from the 

prior driver . . . that the truck is either 

ready to go or indicates what is needed 

to get the CMV ready for operation.’’ 

FMCSA response. A document that 

reports defects or deficiencies—and 

how the motor carrier has resolved 

them—is critical for the next driver. A 

document that reports no defects or 

deficiencies is not. Furthermore, the 

description of a DVIR as a 

‘‘certification’’ of the state of a CMV is 

not consistent with the text of the 

regulation. Under this rule, the absence 

of a DVIR will serve the same function 

as the previous no-defect DVIR, i.e., the 

driver is not aware of any safety defect. 

This does not mean that the next driver 

should not perform a pre-trip 

inspection—and it certainly does not 

indicate that the driver may skip a posttrip inspection that would form the 

basis for a driver-vehicle inspection 

report required under § 396.11(a). 

Results of Truck and Bus Inspections 

Comment. Advocates cited the 20 

percent vehicle OOS rate for truck and 

bus inspections as a key reason for its 

opposition to the proposed rule. AAJ 

cited a 27.8 percent vehicle OOS rate for 

CMVs during traffic stops and a 20.18 

percent OOS rate during roadside 

inspections. Both commenters stated or 

implied that elimination of no-defect 

DVIRs would adversely affect those 

figures. Advocates also argued that the 

differences cited by FMCSA in the 

number of fatalities per fatal motorcoach 

crash (1.57) ‘‘is not significantly 

different’’ from the number of fatalities 

per fatal truck crash (1.13), and thus not 

sufficient to justify different rules for 

trucks and buses. 

FMCSA response. The Agency does 

not believe (1) that any particular 

vehicle OOS rate is a reason to retain 

the requirement for no-defect DVIRs, or 

(2) that the elimination of no-defect 

DVIRs for property-carrying CMVs will 

adversely affect the vehicle OOS rate. 

Furthermore, the Agency believes that 

the difference between 1.57 fatalities per 

bus crash and 1.13 fatalities per truck 

crash is meaningful. And, as noted 

above, the Agency is taking an 

appropriately cautious step by retaining 

the requirement for a no-defect DVIR for 

passenger-carrying CMVs. FMCSA 

reiterates the three points made in the 

NPRM. First, a passenger-carrier crash is 

a low-probability but high-consequence 

event, in terms of potential deaths and 

injuries. Second, motorcoach drivers 

often need to interact with their 

passengers, particularly at the beginning 

and end of their work day, but often 

during the trip as well. Third, because 

they are carrying the most valuable 

cargo, motor carriers of passengers must 

exercise heightened diligence over their 

operations, including CMV 

maintenance. For all of these reasons, 

FMCSA decided against applying this 

rule to bus drivers and companies at 

this time 

Safety Statistics 

Comment. Advocates cited statistics 

from FMCSA’s Compliance, Safety, 

Accountability (CSA) program as a basis 

for recommending that the current DVIR 

regulation be retained. Advocates stated 

that the August 2013 Safety 

Measurement System analyses showed 

that nearly 30 percent of motor carriers 

with a Vehicle Maintenance score had 

scores exceeding an 80 percentile 

threshold, thus indicating that FMCSA 

would prioritize these carriers for a 

safety intervention. 

FMCSA Response. FMCSA reviewed 

the SMS data that Advocates referenced. 

The Agency agrees that approximately 

30 percent of motor carriers with a 

Vehicle Maintenance score had scores 

exceeding an 80 percentile threshold, 

which would likely result in the Agency 

prioritizing them for an enforcement 

intervention. However, the Agency is 

not aware of, and Advocates did not 

present, any data or information 

concerning the relationship between the 

preparation and retention of no-defect 

DVIRs and carriers’ safety performance, 

as captured in SMS. 

Generally, all of the carriers with 

scores exceeding the 80 percentile 

threshold are currently subject to the 

requirement to prepare and retain nodefect DVIRs. These carriers have 

clearly demonstrated lapses in their 

safety management controls related to 

vehicle maintenance and have a pattern 

of dispatching vehicles that have 

mechanical problems. These problems 

may or may not have been known to the 

driver who prepared the DVIR the day 

prior to the roadside inspection during 

which the violations were noted. 

FMCSA has no means of determining 

the percentage of these instances 

involving previous-day DVIRs where the 

mechanical problems were noted but 

not acted upon by the carrier. Likewise, 

the Agency has no means of 

determining the percentage where 

mechanical problems were present but 

not reported. Therefore, the 

maintenance scores in SMS do not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 75443 

provide useful information for 

determining what actions these carriers 

would take in the absence of the nodefect DVIR requirement. And, this 

information does not mean that carriers 

with SMS scores below the enforcement 

intervention threshold would lessen 

their vehicle maintenance efforts upon 

rescission of the requirement to prepare 

and maintain no-defect DVIRs. 

FMCSA believes it is important to 

note that nothing in this rulemaking 

relieves drivers of the responsibility to 

prepare DVIRs for any vehicle for which 

a defect or deficiency has been observed 

by or reported to the driver. Motor 

carriers remain responsible for 

reviewing those DVIRs and taking 

appropriate action to either fix the 

problem or document that no repairs 

were made because the carrier 

determined that the problem did not 

relate to the safe operation of the 

vehicle. The Agency will continue to 

use SMS to identify carriers with poor 

maintenance programs. 

Information Collection Burden 

Estimates 

Comments. NMFTA stated that it 

concurs with FMCSA’s analyses, 

including the Agency’s conservative 

estimate of the reductions in time and 

cost burdens from eliminating no-defect 

DVIRs. However, several commenters 

questioned FMCSA’s estimates of 

reductions in the costs associated with 

completing and filing DVIRs. Advocates 

asserted that FMCSA has neither 

performed a study on the potential 

outcomes, nor considered costs to 

society, from the proposed rule—and 

Advocates believes the change would 

lead to unintended and negative 

consequences from some CMV drivers 

who ‘‘may choose to forego completing 

a defect DVIR.’’ Advocates also believes 

that the estimated time savings for a 

driver to complete, and for a motor 

carrier to review and file, a DVIR is so 

small ‘‘there is little or no practical 

utility for the individual driver or the 

industry as a whole’’ resulting from the 

proposed requirement. 

FMCSA response. The Agency did not 

propose to prohibit motor carriers from 

continuing to require their drivers to 

prepare DVIRs even when the driver has 

no vehicle defects to report. We have 

complied with the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) requirements and routinely 

published 60- and 30-day notices 

concerning the estimates used for this 

information collection burden. If 

interested parties have accepted these 

estimates during the multiple noticeand-comment proceedings concerning 

the renewal of the OMB approval for 

part 396, it is only appropriate that the 

Agency use those same estimates for the 

rulemaking. Through this notice-andcomment rulemaking, we are 

eliminating a costly portion of an 

information collection requirement 

without adversely impacting safety. As 

for the allegedly de minimis effect of the 

rule, the PRA calls for the Agency to 

estimate not only the time and resource 

requirements associated with filing of a 

given item of information, but also the 

aggregate annual total of such filings. In 

the case of the DVIR, FMCSA estimates 

that the form is completed an average of 

250 days per year for each of the more 

than 4.58 million CMVs in operation. 

So, although the requirements imposed 

on an individual on a daily basis may 

be low, the aggregate total is very large. 

Comment. An individual commenter, 

Robert Irwin, believes FMCSA should 

no longer require no-defect DVIRs for 

passenger CMVs, given that it takes the 

same amount of time to prepare a DVIR 

for a bus as for a truck. 

FMCSA response. The Agency 

believes that significant reporting 

changes in the passenger-carrying CMV 

segment should not be made at this 

time, for the reasons given above. 

Comment. Zonar questioned FMCSA’s 

time and cost estimates, noting that the 

inspections themselves would still be 

required and asserting that the drivers’ 

‘‘paperwork’’ time is minimal. John 

Hart, representing Fleettrakker LLC, a 

provider of fleet management software, 

asked FMCSA to reconsider its proposal 

in light of the availability of electronic 

DVIR applications that would provide 

comprehensive records of daily CMV 

inspections while eliminating 

cumbersome paper records. Mr. Hart 

said the daily inspection was based on 

a faulty assumption. 

FMCSA response. The PRA estimates 

focus on recordkeeping and recordretention, not on the performance of the 

inspection, which is considered part of 

a normal business practice. The Agency 

estimates include the actions of 

preparing, submitting, reviewing, and 

filing records—and, even if the records 

were handled electronically, there 

would still be an information-collection 

burden associated with them. 

Processes: Paper Versus Electronic 

DVIRs 

Comment. Mr. Hart of Fleettrakker 

LLC argued there is an inconsistency 

between FMCSA’s support of integrated 

electronic wireless technologies and its 

policy to allow the use of electronic 

signatures for DVIRs, and that this calls 

into question the accuracy of FMCSA’s 

analyses of paper-based DVIR reports. 

He also claimed that the use of paper 

DVIRs is not an effective tool to improve 

CMV safety, and that FMCSA should 

require the use of electronic 

applications to perform this function. 

Zonar asked FMCSA to strengthen its 

policy concerning use of electronic 

documents and systems, such as the 

DVIR application included in its own 

products. Gregory Hooyman of Payne 

and Dolan noted that vehicle monitoring 

systems can communicate with the 

safety and maintenance departments 

from the road to advise them of 

problems so they can be ready to repair 

the vehicle when it returns, rather than 

having to wait until the trip is over and 

the driver submits a paper DVIR. 

FMCSA response. FMCSA does not 

prohibit motor carriers from using 

information technology in their CMV 

maintenance activities. FMCSA also 

will allow motor carriers to continue to 

require drivers to submit no-defect 

DVIRs if they believe that doing so is 

appropriate for their operations. 

However, the NPRM did not propose to 

require motor carriers to use electronic 

DVIRs in place of paper DVIRs. 

FMCSA recognizes that CMV 

operations and maintenance 

marketplaces are served by a large and 

constantly increasing number of system 

providers. FMCSA’s policy since the 

early 1990s has been to encourage motor 

carriers to use electronic methods for a 

wide range of information collection 

and recordkeeping purposes. In fact, one 

of the first requests from motor carriers 

to be allowed to utilize electronic 

document handling concerned DVIRs. 

FMCSA’s January 2011 Regulatory 

Guidance Concerning Electronic 

Signatures and Documents (76 FR 411, 

January 4, 2011) continues and extends 

the Agency’s support of paperless 

recordkeeping systems. 

Comment. The NTSB noted that many 

motor carriers use DVIR checklists that 

are integrated with driver record of duty 

status (logbook) forms, or use electronic 

DVIRs. The NTSB believes that, unless 

drivers elect not to complete 

inspections, the amount of additional 

time spent to complete a no-defect DVIR 

is negligible. 

FMCSA response. FMCSA has long 

allowed motor carriers the option of 

using the back of the record of duty 

status (daily log) as the DVIR, provided 

the motor carrier complies with the 

record retention requirements in § 395.8 

and § 395.11 (see Regulatory Guidance 

for § 396.11, Question 15, 62 FR 16370, 

at 16428). Motor carriers may still use 

these forms and checklists. FMCSA has 

encouraged the use of electronic 

recordkeeping for DVIRs since the early 

1990s. However, it still takes time for a 

driver to complete and submit a DVIR, 

and for a motor carrier to review it and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
75444 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1The term ‘‘electronic on-board recorder’’ is 

understood in this context to include multiple 

functions, not limited to recording driver hours-of 

service. 

to file it, whether it is prepared 

electronically or on paper. FMCSA 

anticipates that the proportion of DVIRs 

completed electronically will steadily 

increase. 

Comment. The NTSB does not believe 

that maintenance personnel would 

overlook DVIRs indicating defects. In 

describing how a motor carrier might 

use DVIRs, the NTSB indicated that nodefect DVIRs are typically not given to 

maintenance personnel, but are 

delivered to a separate location. DVIRs 

noting defects are typically used to 

initiate work orders. 

FMCSA response. FMCSA disagrees 

with the NTSB’s description of the 

process for handling DVIRs. Drivers 

required to use paper forms generally 

submit all of their documents in a trip 

envelope, and someone sorts them out 

and forwards them to the appropriate 

staff or offices. All vehicle-related 

documents, except for fuel purchases, 

would generally be forwarded to the 

maintenance department. Only at that 

point would the DVIRs that note vehicle 

defects or deficiencies be sorted and 

assigned for action. 

Comment. AAJ stated that it is 

sympathetic to the need to reduce 

paperwork and costs and suggested that, 

rather than eliminate no-defect DVIRs 

altogether, FMCSA could reduce costs 

to motor carriers if the daily inspection 

report were to be included in a weekly 

format. According to AAJ, this would 

continue to ensure that daily 

inspections were performed and reduce 

the volume of paper records needing to 

be maintained. 

FMCSA response. There are several 

potential drawbacks to this suggestion. 

In a June 1998 final rule, the Agency 

revised the part 396 requirements [63 

FR 33254, June 18, 1998, at 33279] to 

acknowledge the growing use of 

centralized maintenance recordkeeping 

systems and to eliminate the 

requirement that the previous day’s 

DVIR be physically carried in the CMV. 

Because drivers often do not operate the 

same CMV every day, a multiday form 

would probably need to be tracked to 

follow a given CMV. Thus, the AAJ’s 

suggestion appears to recommend 

returning to the pre-1998 rule. It is also 

unclear what would happen to the 

weekly report if a driver discovered a 

mechanical problem on the third day of 

the week, for example, and submitted 

the defect report (on the weekly form) 

to the maintenance shop. 

Comment. ATA believes that FMCSA 

has overstated the potential benefits 

associated with eliminating the nodefect DVIR. ATA estimates that about 

40 percent of the 600,000–800,000 

electronic on-board recorders 1 in use 

include an electronic-DVIR function. 

ATA also believes that FMCSA has 

over-estimated the amount of time 

needed to complete the paperwork for a 

no-defect DVIR: As ATA views it, 47.2 

million hours, divided by 500,000 fleets, 

equals approximately 95 hours per fleet 

per year. ATA also believes that many 

motor carriers will continue to maintain 

no-defect DVIRs in order to provide 

continuity to their maintenance 

programs and because of concerns over 

litigation. ATA surveyed the motor 

carrier members of its Technology & 

Maintenance Council and received 

responses from 59 carriers. Although 

nearly three-fourths (70.2 percent) of 

them supported rescinding the 

regulatory requirement, there was nearly 

an even division among the carriers that 

said they would continue to retain nodefect DVIRs, those that would no 

longer retain them, and those that were 

uncertain. Among the 13 carriers 

providing individual comments to the 

survey, opinions were divided. 

Although most expressed support for 

the proposal, others expressed concerns 

similar to those of Advocates, that 

drivers might not complete DVIRs to 

report defects [even though this will 

still be required]. Of the 37 carriers 

responding to a question concerning 

costs of submitting and retaining nodefect DVIRs, 16 stated that they were 

unable to provide estimates or that the 

costs were minimal, although one 

carrier estimated a cost of $25,000 per 

truck per year. 

FMCSA response. Rather than 

estimating information-collection 

burdens on a per-fleet basis, as ATA 

did, FMCSA calculated its time estimate 

on a per-vehicle basis (approximately 11 

hours). Because there is enormous 

variation in fleet sizes, and because 

approximately 152,000 single-CMV 

fleets are not required to prepare or 

retain DVIRs, FMCSA believes that it is 

more appropriate to estimate 

information collection burdens on a pervehicle basis, and to express them as 

industry-wide totals rather than perfleet totals. In addition, it appears that 

ATA might not have accounted for the 

motor carriers that operate only a single 

CMV and are not required to prepare 

DVIRs, so might have under-estimated 

the reduction in information-collection 

burden. 

Concerning the proportion of DVIRs 

prepared electronically, FMCSA 

received no comments on its estimated 

information collection burden for 

inspection, repair, and maintenance 

recordkeeping requirements the last 

several times this collection has come 

up for renewal. FMCSA’s current 

estimate that 5 percent of DVIRs are 

completed electronically (5% × 

4,578,250 CMVs), is somewhat less than 

the ATA’s estimate (40% of between 

600,000 and 800,000 CMVs so equipped 

= 240,000 to 280,000 CMVs using 

electronic DVIRs). 

Applicability to Intrastate Operations 

Comment. Gregory Hooyman, who 

supported the proposal, also asked 

FMCSA to make it applicable to 

intrastate drivers in order to avoid 

potential confusion. 

FMCSA response. In order to be 

eligible for Motor Carrier Safety 

Assistance Program (MCSAP) grants, 

States must adopt and enforce motor 

carrier safety laws and regulations for 

intrastate as well as interstate operations 

that are compatible with the FMCSRs, 

including parts 392 and 396 (49 CFR 

350.201(a)). MCSAP recipients have up 

to 3 years to adopt the requirements of 

this final rule. 

Comment Concerning U.S.-Canada 

Reciprocity 

Comment. The CCMTA noted that, in 

accordance with the Canada-U.S. Trip 

Inspection Reciprocity Agreement, 

‘‘CCMTA jurisdictions will accept the 

pre- and post-trip inspection reports 

prepared by U.S. base-plated motor 

carriers in accordance with 49 CFR part 

396 as fully compliant with the 

requirements of NSC [National Safety 

Code] Standard 13 on Trip Inspection 

dated September 2008 provided such 

motor carriers carry, and produce upon 

demand, a post-trip inspection report 

that is no more than 24-hours old. If a 

driver does not have access to the 

vehicle’s previous post-trip inspection 

report, the driver will prepare and 

produce the report required by 49 CFR 

396.11 for the purpose of the Canadian 

operations.’’ CCMTA stated that the 

proposed change to the FMCSRs would 

require amending the Reciprocity 

Agreement, to state that U.S. domiciled 

drivers will continue to be required to 

produce a DVIR at roadside when 

operating in Canada even when no 

defect has been detected. CCMTA 

provided a copy of a May 14, 2009, 

letter on this matter. 

FMCSA response. Motor carriers 

operating in Canada will need to 

comply with Canadian national, 

Provincial and Territorial requirements 

that require the previous post-trip DVIR. 

Drivers will need to prepare and to carry 

a copy of their previous day’s post-trip 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 75445 

2The median hourly wage for heavy truck 

drivers. See http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/ 

oes533032.htm. Accessed April 18, 2014. 

3The ratio of total fringe benefits to wages and 

salaries for transportation and warehousing 

workers. See http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

archives/ecec_03122014.pdf. Table 10, Employer 

costs per hour worked for employee compensation 

and costs as a percent of total compensation: Private 

industry workers, by industry group, March 12, 

2014. Transportation and Warehousing. http:// 

www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf. Accessed 

April 18, 2014. 

4 Industry data gathered for the Truck Costing 

Model developed by the Upper Great Plains 

Transportation Institute Berwick showed an average 

cost of $0.107 per mile of CMV operation for 

management and overhead, and $0.39 per mile for 

labor, indicating an overhead rate of 27 percent 

($0.107 ÷ $0.39). See Farooq. ‘‘Truck Costing Model 

for Transportation Managers’’. Upper Great Plains 

Transportation Institute, North Dakota State 

University (2003) accessed on April 18, 2014 at 

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24200/24223/ 

24223.pdf. See Appendix A, pp. 42–47. Overhead 

is applied to the base wage and fringe benefits. 

5Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

see National Archives at http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/laws/regulaotry-flexibility/601.html. 

DVIR, regardless of whether there are 

defects to report. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

This final rule adopts the NPRM as 

proposed with minor revisions for 

clarity. 

In § 392.7, FMCSA adds ‘‘wheels and 

rims’’ and ‘‘emergency equipment’’ to 

the pre-trip list in paragraph (a) in order 

to harmonize it with the post-trip list in 

§ 396.11(a)(1). Additionally, FMCSA 

amends 49 CFR part 396 by deleting the 

sentence in § 396.11(a)(2) that reads ‘‘If 

no defect or deficiency is discovered by 

or reported to the driver, the report shall 

so indicate.’’ In its place, FMCSA inserts 

‘‘The driver of a passenger-carrying 

CMV must prepare and submit a report 

even if no defect or deficiency is 

discovered by or reported to the driver; 

the drivers of all other commercial 

motor vehicles are not required to 

prepare or submit a report if no defect 

or deficiency is discovered by or 

reported to the driver.’’ FMCSA also 

makes minor editorial and formatting 

changes to the remainder of the text of 

§ 396.11(a)(2). 

The Agency makes a technical change 

to § 396.11 to eliminate redundant 

language. In the final rule of June 12, 

2012 (77 FR 34852), the text of 

§ 396.11(c) was moved to § 396.11(a)(3) 

and the text of § 396.11(d) was moved 

to § 396.11(a)(5). However, the 

amendatory text to delete paragraphs (c) 

and (d) was not included in that final 

rule. The Agency corrects that omission 

here. 

Rulemaking Analyses 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) as Supplemented 

by E.O. 13563 and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

Under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (issued 

September 30, 1993, published October 

4 at 58 FR 51735), as supplemented by 

E.O. 13563 (discussed above in the 

‘‘Background’’ section), and DOT 

policies and procedures, FMCSA must 

determine whether a regulatory action is 

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to 

OMB review. E.O. 12866 defines 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one 

likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal government or 

communities. 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another Agency. 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof. 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the E.O. 

FMCSA has determined that this rule 

does have an annual effect of $100 

million or more. The value of the time 

saved by eliminating the paperwork 

burden associated with the filing of nodefect DVIRs is approximately $1.7 

billion per year. The explanation of how 

these savings were estimated is 

presented below. The rule is not 

expected to have any negative safety 

impacts. 

The Agency conducted an analysis 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) to estimate the reduction in 

hourly burden from elimination of 

DVIRs for non-passenger-carrying 

operators of CMVs. FMCSA determined 

that 46.7 million hours of paperwork 

burden would be eliminated by this 

rule. The full details of the PRA analysis 

are included in the ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Act’’ section below. Using a 

labor cost of $37 per hour (with a base 

wage of $18.61,2 fringe benefits of 57 

percent,3 and overhead of 27 percent; 4

$18.61 × 1.57 × 1.27 = $37), the Agency 

valued this time savings at $1.7 billion 

per year (46.7 million hours saved × $37 

per hour). 

The Agency added ‘‘wheels and rims’’ 

and ‘‘emergency equipment’’ to the 

items required to be inspected under 

§ 392.7 to make the lists in this section 

and § 396.11 consistent. The addition of 

these two items to § 392.7 is expected to 

impose a de minimis additional burden 

on drivers performing pre-trip 

evaluations of equipment, as drivers 

will be able readily to observe whether 

these newly added items are in good 

working order during their review of the 

items currently in the § 392.7 list 

(service brakes, including trailer brake 

connections, parking (hand) brake, 

steering mechanism, lighting devices 

and reflectors, tires, horn, windshield 

wiper or wipers, rear-vision mirror or 

mirrors, and coupling devices). For 

example, a driver making a visual 

examination of tires can hardly avoid 

examining the wheels and rims at the 

same time, and defects on these 

components are usually fairly obvious. 

Similarly, while getting into the cab to 

check the steering mechanism and horn, 

he or she can easily glance at the dial 

gauge on the fire extinguisher to 

determine that it is still fully charged. 

Other emergency equipment, including 

warning triangles, flares, or fuses are 

usually stored in an easy-to-reach 

location (often under or behind the 

driver’s seat) and are readily checked. 

These items were added to the 

inspection list for consistency, and the 

Agency expects the cost and benefits of 

these additions to be de minimis. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal 

agencies to consider the effects of a 

regulatory action on small business and 

other small entities and to minimize any 

significant economic impact. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses and not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with a 

population of less than 50,000.5

Accordingly, DOT policy requires an 

analysis of the impact of all regulations 

on small entities, and mandates that 

agencies try to minimize any adverse 

effects on these entities. Under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104–121, 110 Stat. 

857), the rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities in the form of 

cost savings through the elimination of 

46.7 million paperwork burden hours. 

These firms would receive regulatory 

relief of approximately $3,000 per 

entity, which is a positive benefit and 

does not impose a cost on the regulated 

entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
75446 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

6More information about NAICS is available at: 

http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/., Accessed 

Feb. 4, 2014. 

7U.S. Small Business Administration Table of 

small Business Size Standards matched to North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

codes, effective January 1, 2012. See http:// 

www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/ 

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

8U.S. Census Bureau, ‘‘2007 Economic Census.’’ 

Accessed December 18, 2013 at: http://

www.census.gov/econ/census07/. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) 

(1) A Description of the Reason Why 

Action by the Agency Is Being 

Considered 

FMCSA rescinds the requirement that 

commercial motor vehicle (CMV) 

drivers operating in interstate 

commerce, except drivers of passengercarrying CMVs, submit, and motor 

carriers retain, driver-vehicle inspection 

reports (DVIR) when the driver has 

neither found nor been made aware of 

any vehicle defects or deficiencies (nodefect DVIR). This rule removes a 

significant information collection 

burden without adversely impacting 

safety. This rule responds, in part, to the 

President’s January 2011 Regulatory 

Review and Reform initiative. Finally, 

this rule harmonizes the pre- and posttrip inspection lists. 

(2) A Succinct Statement of the 

Objectives of, and Legal Basis Why 

Action by the Agency Is Being 

Considered 

This final rule grants regulatory relief 

to motor carriers and drivers of all sizes 

of vehicles currently subject to 49 CFR 

396.11, both private and for-hire, with 

the exception of operators of passengercarrying CMVs. This rule is based on the 

authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 

1935 (1935 Act) [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)] 

and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 

(1984 Act) [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)], both of 

which are broadly discretionary. The 

rule implements, to some extent, the 

Administrator’s authority under section 

31136(a)(1) to ensure that CMVs are 

maintained, equipped, loaded, and 

operated safely. The NPRM is also based 

on the broad recordkeeping and 

implementation authority of section 

31133(a)(8) and (10). The removal of the 

obligation to prepare and retain nodefect DVIRs does not compromise 

drivers’ ability to report vehicle 

problems to the carrier, or relieve 

carriers of the responsibility to take 

corrective action. 

(3) A Description of and, Where 

Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of 

Small Entities To Which the Rule 

Applies 

The motor carriers regulated by 

FMCSA operate in many different 

industries, and no single ‘‘small 

business’’ size threshold used by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) is 

applicable to all motor carriers. Most 

for-hire property carriers operate under 

North American Industrial 

Classification System 6 (NAICS) code 

484, truck transportation (see, http:// 

www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag484.htm), 

although some for-hire carriers 

categorize themselves as ‘‘express 

delivery services’’ (NAICS 492110), 

‘‘local delivery’’ (NAICS 492210), or 

operate primarily in other modes of 

freight transportation. The SBA size 

standard for ‘‘small’’ truck 

transportation and local delivery 

services is currently $25.5 million or 

less in revenue per year, and 1,500 or 

fewer employees for express delivery 

services. For other firms in other modes 

that may also be registered as for-hire 

motor carriers, the ‘‘small’’ size standard 

is 500 or 1,500 employees.7

This rulemaking would also affect 

private motor carriers. These carriers 

use CMVs they own or lease to ship 

their own goods (such as a motor carrier 

that is operated by a retail department 

store chain to distribute goods from its 

warehouses to its store locations) or in 

other regulated transportation activities 

related to their primary business 

activities (for example, dump trucks 

used by construction companies). 

FMCSA does not have NAICS codes for 

private motor carriers and therefore 

cannot determine the appropriate size 

standard to use for each case. The 

‘‘small’’ size standards vary widely, 

from $0.75 million for many types of 

farms, to $33.5 million for building 

construction firms. 

For for-hire motor carriers, FMCSA 

examined data from the 2007 Economic 

Census 8 to determine the percentage of 

firms that have revenue at or below 

SBA’s thresholds. Although boundaries 

for the revenue categories used in the 

Economic Census do not exactly 

coincide with the SBA thresholds, 

FMCSA was able to make reasonable 

estimates using these data. According to 

the Economic Census, about 99 percent 

of trucking firms had annual revenue 

less than $25 million; the Agency 

concluded that the percentage would be 

approximately the same using the SBA 

threshold of $25.5 million as the 

boundary. 

For private carriers, the Agency 

assumed that private carriers with fewer 

CMVs than the top 1 percent (ranked by 

total CMVs) of for-hire carriers would 

also be small. That is, any company 

maintaining a CMV fleet the size of that 

of a large for-hire carrier would be 

considered large within its own 

industry. The Agency found that the top 

1 percent of for-hire carriers had at least 

194 CMVs. Using this threshold, 

FMCSA identified 201,725 small private 

property carriers (99.4 percent of this 

group) with fewer than 194 CMVs. This 

could overestimate the number of small, 

private carriers. However, the Agency is 

confident that no small private carrier 

would be excluded. 

The table below shows the complete 

estimates of the number of small 

carriers. All told, FMCSA estimates that 

99.1 percent of regulated motor carriers 

are small businesses according to SBA 

size standards. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 75447 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATES OF NUMBERS OF SMALL ENTITIES

For-hire 

general 

freight 

For-hire 

specialized 

freight 

Private 

property Total 

Carriers ............................................................................................................ 176,000 139,000 203,000 518,000 

Percentage of Small Carriers .......................................................................... 98.9% 98.9% 99.4% 99.1% 

Number of Small Carriers * .............................................................................. 174,064 137,471 201,725 513,260 

* Number of carriers does not exactly equal percentages due to rounding. 

(4) A Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the Rule, 

Including an Estimate of the Classes of 

Small Entities That Would Be Subject 

To Requirements and the Type of 

Professional Skills Necessary for 

Preparation of the Report or Record 

This rule reduces costs on small 

entities by eliminating a substantial 

paperwork filing burden. The reduction 

in this burden is estimated to save the 

industry 46.7 million hours of driver 

time with associated monetized savings 

of $1.7 billion, as explained in the 

Paperwork Reduction Act section. These 

benefits will accrue primarily to small 

carriers that make up the majority of 

firms and employ the majority of drivers 

in the industry. The skills for drivers to 

complete DVIRs are basic reading and 

writing proficiency skills. 

(5) Identification, to the Extent 

Practicable, of All Relevant Federal 

Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or 

Conflict With the Rule 

This rule does not duplicate, overlap, 

or conflict with any other Federal rules. 

(6) A Description af Any Significant 

Alternatives to the Rules Which 

Accomplish the Stated Objectives of 

Applicable Statutes and Which 

Minimize Any Significant Economic 

Impact of the Rule on Small Entities 

The Agency has concluded that there 

are no significant alternatives to the rule 

that would achieve either the value of 

$1.7 billion in time savings or other 

objectives of this final rule, except 

eliminating the paperwork burden. 

Because small businesses are such a 

considerable part of the demographic 

the Agency regulates, providing 

alternatives to small businesses for noncompliance options is neither feasible 

nor consistent with public safety. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Pursuant to section 213 of SBREFA, 

FMCSA wants to assist small entities in 

understanding this rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them. If the 

rule affects your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please consult Mike 

Huntley listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

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 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). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$151 million (which was the value of 

$100 million in 2013 after adjusting for 

inflation) or more in any 1 year. 

Although this rule does not result in 

such expenditure, FMCSA discusses the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

Clean Air Act 

FMCSA analyzed this final rule for 

the purpose of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

determined under its environmental 

procedures Order 5610.1, published 

February 24, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that 

this action does not have any effect on 

the quality of the environment. 

Therefore, this final rule is categorically 

excluded from further analysis and 

documentation in an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1, 

paragraph 6(aa) of Appendix 2. The 

Categorical Exclusion under paragraph 

6(aa) relates to regulations requiring 

motor carriers, drivers, and others to 

‘‘inspect, repair, and provide 

maintenance for every CMV used on a 

public road’’, which is the focus of this 

rulemaking. A Categorical Exclusion 

determination is available for inspection 

or copying in the regulations.gov Web 

site listed under ADDRESSES. 

In addition to the NEPA requirements 

to examine impacts on air quality, the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 

U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) also requires 

FMCSA to analyze the potential impact 

of its actions on air quality and to 

ensure that FMCSA actions conform to 

State and local air quality 

implementation plans. No additional 

contributions to air emissions are 

expected from this rule and FMCSA 

expects the rule to not be subject to the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

General Conformity Rule (40 CFR parts 

51 and 93). 

Executive Order 12898 Environmental 

Justice 

FMCSA evaluated the environmental 

effects of this proposed rule in 

accordance with Executive Order 12898 

and determined that there are no 

environmental justice issues associated 

with its provisions nor any collective 

environmental impact resulting from its 

promulgation. Environmental justice 

issues would be raised if there were 

‘‘disproportionate’’ and ‘‘high and 

adverse impact’’ on minority or lowincome populations. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires FMCSA to 

consider the impact of paperwork and 

other information collection burdens 

imposed on the public. This rule 

reduces the burden hours for the 

‘‘Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance’’ 

information collection request (ICR), 

OMB control number 2126–0003. This 

ICR comprises six individual 

information collections, each 

corresponding to a different area of the 

inspection, repair, and maintenance 

requirements. This rule affects only the 

DVIR section of this ICR. 

Based on data from its Motor Carrier 

Management Information System 

(MCMIS) and Licensing and Insurance 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
75448 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

System (L&I), FMCSA estimates that 

there are approximately 4,117,000 

CMVs being operated that are subject to 

these requirements, which includes 

1,845,000 tractors and 101,000 

passenger-carrying CMVs, but excludes 

the 152,000 CMVs of single-vehicle 

owner operators. Consistent with past 

analyses of this ICR, the Agency 

assumes that these CMVs are used on 

average 65 percent of the days of a year, 

and that 25 percent of tractor-trailer 

drivers operate two vehicle 

combinations per day, which effectively 

increases the number of CMVs or CMV 

combinations requiring a DVIR by 

461,250 (25 percent × 1,845,000 tractors) 

to a total of 4,578,250 (4,117,000 CMVs 

+ 461,250 additional tractor-trailer 

combinations). Applying the 65 percent 

utilization rate yields an annual 

estimate of 1,086,189,813 DVIRs 

(4,578,250 CMVs or CMV combinations 

× 65 percent × 365 days per year). 

FMCSA has parsed the DVIR process 

into two steps. The first step, filling out 

a DVIR is estimated to take 2 minutes, 

30 seconds. The second step, reviewing 

and signing a DVIR is estimated to take 

20 seconds when defects are reported 

and 5 seconds when no defects are 

reported. When there are no defects to 

note, there is nothing to review on the 

DVIR, and the form requires only a 

signature. The Agency estimates that 5 

percent of DVIRs note defects, and that 

95 percent of DVIRs note no defects. 

When this rule goes into effect, 93 

percent of the burden associated with 

DVIRs will be eliminated. The 

remaining burden would be associated 

with DVIRs that note defects and nodefect DVIRs for passenger-carrying 

CMVs. The annual burden remaining 

from these two activities is 2,564,615 

hours and 980,123 hours respectively. 

The table below illustrates how these 

results were calculated. 

TABLE 4—DETAIL OF DVIR PRA CALCULATIONS

Activity 

Number of 

CMVs or CMV 

combinations 

Utilization rate 

(of 365 

calendar days) 

(percent) 

Percent of 

CMVs affected 

Total DVIRs 

(CMVs × 

utilization rate × 

percent of CMVs 

affected × 365) 

Burden per 

DVIR 

(seconds) 

Total 

Annual 

hourly 

burden 

Defect DVIRs, All ..................... 4,578,250 65 5 54,309,491 170 2,564,615 

No Defect DVIRS, passengercarrying CMVs ...................... 101,000 65 95 22,764,138 155 980,123 

Total .................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ........................ 3,544,738 

Defect DVIRs create 2,564,615 hours 

of annual burden (4,578,250 CMVs × 

65% utilization × 365 days × 5% of 

CMVs × 170 seconds ÷ 3,600 seconds 

per hour). The annual hourly burden of 

no defect DVIRs for passenger carrying 

CMVs is estimated to be 980,123 hours 

(101,000 CMVs × 65% utilization × 365 

days × 95% of CMVs × 155 seconds ÷ 

3,600 seconds per hour). The total 

remaining hourly burden of DVIRs is 

3,544,738 hours. This new total 

represents a reduction of 46,669,294 

hours compared to the 50,214,032 hours 

of annual burden estimated in the 

currently approved ICR. The monetary 

value of this annual burden reduction, 

calculated using an hourly labor cost of 

$37, is $1.7 billion (46,669,294 hours × 

$37 per hour). 

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

This rule does not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This 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. 

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children) 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (April 23, 1997, 

62 FR 19885), requires that agencies 

issuing economically significant rules, 

which also concern an environmental 

health or safety risk that an Agency has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, must 

include an evaluation of the 

environmental health and safety effects 

of the regulation on children. Section 5 

of Executive Order 13045 directs an 

Agency to submit for a covered 

regulatory action an evaluation of its 

environmental health or safety effects 

on children. FMCSA has determined 

that this rule is not a covered regulatory 

action as defined under Executive Order 

13045. This determination is based on 

the fact that this proposal would not 

constitute an environmental health risk 

or safety risk that would 

disproportionately affect children. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

A rule has implications for 

Federalism under Executive Order 

13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial 

direct effect on State or local 

governments and would either preempt 

State law or impose a substantial direct 

cost of compliance on States or 

localities. FMCSA analyzed this rule 

under that Order and has determined 

that it does not have implications for 

federalism. 

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. 

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

FMCSA analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use.’’ This final rule is 

not a significant energy action within 

the meaning of section 4(b) of the 

Executive Order. This final rule is a 

procedural action, is not economically 

significant, and does not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

Privacy Impact Analysis 

FMCSA conducted a privacy impact 

assessment of this rule as required by 

section 522(a)(5) of the FY 2005 

Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public 

Law 108–447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 

2004) [set out as a note to 5 U.S.C. 

552a]. The assessment considers any 

impacts of the rule on the privacy of 

information in an identifiable form and 

related matters. FMCSA has determined 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 75449 

this rule would have no privacy 

impacts. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 392 

Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway 

safety, Motor carriers. 

49 CFR Part 396 

Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor 

vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, FMCSA amends title 49 CFR, 

Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, 

to read as follows: 

PART 392—DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL 

MOTOR VEHICLES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 392 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 13902, 31136, 

31151, 31502; Section 112 of Pub. L. 103– 

311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676 (1994), as amended 

by sec. 32509 of Pub. L. 112–141, 126 Stat. 

405–805 (2012); and 49 CFR 1.87. 

■ 2. Revise § 392.7(a) to read as follows: 

§ 392.7 Equipment, inspection and use. 

(a) No commercial motor vehicle shall 

be driven unless the driver is satisfied 

that the following parts and accessories 

are in good working order, nor shall any 

driver fail to use or make use of such 

parts and accessories when and as 

needed: 

Service brakes, including trailer brake 

connections. 

Parking (hand) brake. 

Steering mechanism. 

Lighting devices and reflectors. 

Tires. 

Horn. 

Windshield wiper or wipers. 

Rear-vision mirror or mirrors. 

Coupling devices. 

Wheels and rims. 

Emergency equipment. 

* * * * * 

PART 396—INSPECTION, REPAIR, 

AND MAINTENANCE 

■ 3. 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. 

■ 4. Amend § 396.11 as follows: 

■ a. Remove paragraphs (c) and (d); and 

■ b. Revise paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 396.11 Driver vehicle inspection 

report(s). 

* * * * * 

(2) Report content. (i) The report must 

identify the vehicle and list any defect 

or deficiency discovered by or reported 

to the driver which would affect the 

safety of operation of the vehicle or 

result in its mechanical breakdown. If a 

driver operates more than one vehicle 

during the day, a report must be 

prepared for each vehicle operated. The 

driver of a passenger-carrying CMV 

subject to this regulation must prepare 

and submit a report even if no defect or 

deficiency is discovered by or reported 

to the driver; the drivers of all other 

commercial motor vehicles are not 

required to prepare or submit a report if 

no defect or deficiency is discovered by 

or reported to the driver. 

(ii) The driver must sign the report. 

On two-driver operations, only one 

driver needs to sign the driver vehicle 

inspection report, provided both drivers 

agree as to the defects or deficiencies 

identified. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 9, 2014. 

Anthony R. Foxx, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29331 Filed 12–17–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 130123065–4999–02] 

RIN 0648–BC95 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; West 

Coast Salmon Fisheries; Amendment 

18 to the Salmon Fishery Management 

Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule 

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (MSA) to implement 

Amendment 18 to the Pacific Coast 

Salmon Fishery Management Plan for 

Commercial and Recreational Salmon 

Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, 

Oregon, and California (FMP). 

Amendment 18 revises the description 

and identification of essential fish 

habitat (EFH) for Pacific salmon 

managed under the FMP, designates 

habitat areas of particular concern 

(HAPCs), updates information on 

fishing activities, and updates the list of 

non-fishing related activities that may 

adversely affect EFH and potential 

conservation and enhancement 

measures to minimize those effects. 

NMFS approved Amendment 18 on 

September 12, 2014. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is accessible 

on the Web site of NMFS’ West Coast 

Region (http://

www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov). The 

current FMP, through Amendment 18, is 

available on the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s Web site 

(http://www.pcouncil.org/). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peggy Mundy at 206–526–4323. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) developed Amendment 18 in 

compliance with the MSA’s requirement 

to periodically review EFH provisions, 

and to revise or amend those provisions, 

as warranted, based on available 

information (50 CFR 600.815(a)(10)). 

The Council took final action on 

Amendment 18 in September 2013 and 

transmitted the amendment to NMFS on 

June 10, 2014. Alternatives considered 

in the development of Amendment 18 

were analyzed in a draft Environmental 

Assessment (EA). NMFS published a 

notice of availability of Amendment 18 

in the Federal Register (79 FR 34272, 

June 16, 2014) to notify the public of the 

availability of the amendment and draft 

EA, and invite comments. NMFS 

published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register (79 FR 56547, 

September 22, 2014) to notify the public 

and invite comments. NMFS received 

no comments in response to either the 

notice of availability or the proposed 

rule. 

Amendment 18 revises the 

description and identification of EFH 

for Pacific salmon managed under the 

FMP, designates HAPCs, updates the 

current information on fishing activities, 

and updates the list of non-fishing 

related activities that may adversely 

affect EFH and potential conservation 

and enhancement measures to minimize 

those effects. The details of Amendment 

18 were described in the proposed rule 

(79 FR 56547, September 22, 2014) and 

are not repeated here. This final rule 

identifies changes to the regulations 

under 50 CFR 660 subpart H to 

implement Amendment 18 and 

describes changes made from the 

proposed rule. 

Response to Comments 

NMFS received no comments on the 

proposed rule. The Department of the 

Interior submitted a letter stating that 

they had no comments. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES