Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2009/12/29/E9-30654/requirements-for-intermodal-equipment-providers-and-for-motor-carriers-and-drivers-operating
Timestamp: 2016-05-30 03:08:19
Document Index: 692972000

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 396', 'art 381', '§ 390', '§ 390', '§ 390', '§ 390', '§ 390', '§ 390', '§ 390', '§ 390', '§ 390', '§ 390', '§ 386', '§ 386', '§ 396', '§ 392', '§ 396', '§ 392', '§ 396', '§ 392', '§ 396', '§ 396', '§ 392', '§ 396', '§ 396', '§ 392', '§ 396', '§ 396', '§ 396', '§ 396', '§ 396', '§ 390', '§ 392', '§ 390', 'art 396', '§ 386', '§ 386', 'art 390', '§ 390', '§ 390', '§ 390', '§ 390', 'arts 350', '§ 392', '§ 392', '§ 396', '§ 396', '§ 396', '§ 396']

Federal Register | Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and for Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment
Action: Final rule; technical amendments, response to petitions for reconsideration, and; partial extension of deadline.
-68709 (7 pages)
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/E9-30654 Related Topics
Technical Amendments for Intermodal Equipment Providers 1 action from December 29th, 2009 December 29th, 2009
Section 392.7Equipment, Inspection, and Use; § 396.11 Driver Vehicle Inspection Report(s)
Marking of Intermodal Equipment Back to Top
In its comments to the NPRM, dated March 21, 2007, OCEMA stated that “the Intermodal Association of North America already maintains a substantial database of intermodal truckers and equipment providers. As an association already providing various facilitation services to intermodal stakeholders, this may be an appropriate task for IANA to undertake. Additionally, OCEMA is in the process of developing a software system for its CCM
chassis pool program that could be modified to include a chassis identification module. The CCM system is expected to be implemented by the beginning of 2008.”
On January 2, 2008, IANA et al. requested that FMCSA consider initiating a pilot program to evaluate an alternative approach to meet the IME marking requirements of 49 CFR 390.21. IANA suggested that use of its proposed Global Intermodal Equipment Registry (GIER), a centralized, Web-based IME database, would enable IEPs and motor carrier safety enforcement personnel to identify the responsible IEP without a need to physically mark each item of IME, as proposed in the NPRM. IANA stated that the GIER would identify each intermodal chassis by its existing unique alphanumeric identifier (ID), which consists of four letters followed by six numbers. It would also include the USDOT number of the IEP responsible for the intermodal equipment on a given day and at any given time, so this information could be accurately recorded on roadside inspection records. The database would be accessible to Federal, State, and local enforcement authorities, as well as, industry participants, on a real time basis. The Agency denied IANA's initial request because there were no rules in effect that could preclude them from testing the GIER concept. Therefore, a pilot program, as provided under 49 CFR part 381, was not necessary. In addition, many commenters to the NPRM expressed concerns with the proposed marking requirements, citing the large population of IME (over 850,000 units in service) and the IME turnover in some IEP's operations (for example, a Virginia port experiences turnover amounting to several hundred chassis each month).
FMCSA determined that it would be reasonable and appropriate to offer additional regulatory alternatives that would meet the statutory requirements to (1) identify IEPs responsible for inspection and maintenance, and (2) to match IME to an IEP through a unique identifying number. For this reason, the final rule of December 17, 2008 (73 FR 76794) offered four options for the IEP to identify its IME: (1) A label or other method of marking; (2) identification of the IME on the interchange agreement, if that document includes additional information to identify the specific item of IME; (3) marking the IME with a USDOT number in the same manner required under § 390.21, except the marking would only be required on the curb side of the equipment; or (4) identification of the IEP on trailer documentation carried in a weatherproof compartment attached to the item of IME. In order to provide IEPs sufficient time to inventory their equipment and implement procedures to identify their IME, the final rule allows IEPs two years from the publication date of the final rule (that is, until December 17, 2010) to comply with this requirement.
Agency's Assessment and Decision Back to Top
For the reasons set forth below, FMCSA amends § 390.21 to include a fifth option for marking/identifying IME. The Agency has determined that the use of publicly-accessible identification systems which, under the conditions prescribed below, utilize existing, unique alpha-numeric control numbers associated with items of IME to match IME to the responsible IEP at any given time (1) meet the marking/identification requirements outlined in the statute and (2) will be at least as effective as the current requirements of § 390.21 of the FMCSRs.
Operating Condition of Intermodal Equipment Back to Top
In its 2006 NPRM, FMCSA proposed language for a new § 390.40 concerning IEPs' responsibilities under the FMCSRs. Proposed § 390.40(h) (71 FR at 76828) reads as follows:
“At facilities at which the intermodal equipment provider makes intermodal equipment available for interchange, develop and implement procedures to repair any equipment damage, defects, or deficiencies identified as part of a pre-trip inspection, or replace the equipment, prior to the driver's departure. The repairs or replacement must be made in a timely manner after being notified by a driver of such damage, defects, or deficiencies”.
Many of the commenters to the rulemaking indicated that the phrase “timely manner” was vague, impractical, and possibly unenforceable.
As discussed in the 2008 final rule (73 FR at 76800), FMCSA considered several potential revisions to this regulatory text. The first was to replace the word “timely” with a fixed period of time. FMCSA rejected that option because it could result in an overemphasis on the time element of the IME interchange process compared to the quality and completeness of repairs. A second alternative considered was to remove the word “timely.” However, the Agency believed this could be viewed as allowing a continuation of the status quo—some IEPs would continue their practice of tendering equipment in need of repairs and requiring drivers to decide between operating faulty equipment, with the attendant risk of fines or roadside breakdowns, and the certainty of delay if they requested repairs or a different chassis.
In the final rule, FMCSA removed the term “timely” from the regulatory text, but also added a new provision to § 390.40(d), Ensure that intermodal equipment intended for interchange with motor carriers is in safe and proper operating condition.
On January 16, 2009, OCEMA filed a petition for reconsideration of the final rule. A copy of the petition is in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice. OCEMA asserts that § 390.40(d) of the new regulation adds a non-statutory duty for IEPs to “ensure” the operating condition of IME prior to interchange.
OCEMA suggests that FMCSA delete § 390.40(d) and revise § 390.1 to read as follows, with its proposed text revisions underlined:
FMCSA believes OCEMA's proposed amendment is appropriate. However, there is a simpler solution. FMCSA has decided to revise § 390.40(d) to read: “Provide intermodal equipment intended for interchange that is in safe and proper operating condition.” This revision responds to the petitioner's request by removing the problematic word “ensure” while continuing to stress the requirement to provide IME in safe and proper operating condition.
Section 390.5, Definition of “Intermodal Equipment Provider” Back to Top
OCEMA's understanding is correct. The statutory definition of “intermodal equipment provider” is clear: “* * * any person that interchanges intermodal equipment with a motor carrier * * *or has a contractual responsibility for the maintenance of the intermodal equipment.” [emphasis added] (49 U.S.C. 31151(f)(3)).
FMCSA has posted new Frequently Asked Questions to the IEP area of its web site to clarify this point. The web address is: www.fmcsa.dot.gov/iep
Sanction for Failure To Pay Civil Penalties or Abide by Payment Plan Back to Top
FMCSA agrees with OCEMA's reading of § 386.83(a)(1). The scope of the prohibition against an IEP is limited to the tendering of IME. These technical amendments revise the text of § 386.83(a)(1) to clarify this.
Section 392.7Equipment, Inspection, and Use; § 396.11 Driver Vehicle Inspection Report(s) Back to Top
FMCSA made limited revisions to § 392.7 and § 396.11 in the final rule. This was done to provide new regulatory language consistent with the legislative direction and also to maintain the integrity of the existing regulatory text. The new text at § 392.7(b) applies to the pre-trip inspections of IME, and the new text of § 396.11 to post-trip inspections.
FMCSA believes OCEMA's request is reasonable, and that it could aid both drivers and IMEs in performing and reporting the results of pre-trip and post-trip inspections. The Agency revises the text of § 392.7(b) to make it more consistent with § 396.11 and also revises the order of the items in § 396.11 so they conform to that of § 392.7(b).
The Agency also revises the text of § 396.11(a) to clarify its application to commercial motor vehicles other than intermodal equipment.
Finally, FMCSA clarifies its intent and corrects an error in the text of § 396.12(d) concerning the driver's pre-trip assessment. The last paragraph of the discussion of § 392.7 in the preamble of the final rule (73 FR 76804) reads as follows:
Partial Extension of Compliance Date Back to Top
1. § 396.9(d)—Requirements for drivers to deliver Driver Vehicle Examination Reports (DVERs) to IEP, corrective actions, and recordkeeping requirements.
2. § 396.11(a)(2) and § 396.12(a)—Every intermodal equipment provider must have a process to receive driver reports of defects or deficiencies in the intermodal equipment operated.
3. § 396.12(c)—Corrective action
4. § 396.12(d)—Retention period for Driver Vehicle Inspection Reports (DVIRs).
FMCSA also agrees with OCEMA's assertion that, even with a delayed compliance date for the requested sections of the FMCSRs, IEPs' operations will continue to be subject to all the inspection, repair, and maintenance requirements essential to ensuring safety and compliance with the December 17, 2008 final rule. By the December 17, 2009 implementation date, IEPs will have identified themselves to the FMCSA and obtained USDOT numbers. They will also have in place a process to repair or replace defective equipment prior to its departure from terminal, in response to notification by drivers after their pre-trip inspection. IEPs will have in place systematic inspection, maintenance and repair programs, periodic inspection procedures, and their associated recordkeeping systems.
The amendments made by this final rule accomplish three purposes. They provide an additional option for IEPs to identify their IME for FMCSA and State enforcement personnel. The Agency believes that this method will allow IEPs to meet the marking/identification requirements in a manner that will be comparable to or as effective as the current requirements of § 390.21 of the FMCSRs.
The amendments also make minor changes to improve clarity and consistency and correct an inadvertent error. Although the amended list of items in the pre-trip inspection checklist at § 392.7(b) is more substantial, it simply reflects the requirements of the current post-trip inspection checklist and therefore does not impose requirements unfamiliar to drivers.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), FMCSA has evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities. The rule provides an additional option for IEPs to mark their IME in accordance with the requirements of § 390.21. This change reflects current operational practices of physically marking IME and thus places no new requirements on the regulated industry. The rule also makes several changes to improve clarity and consistency and to correct an inadvertent error. Although the change to make two inspection checklists is more substantial, it reflects current operational practices and thus places no new requirements on the regulated industry. It also provides a partial extension of the compliance date for specific elements of Part 396 as they apply to the operations of IEPs. The partial extension will promote a smoother and more effective transition towards IEPs' compliance with the December 2008 rule. For these reasons, FMCSA therefore certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
2.Amend § 386.83 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: § 386.83 Sanction for failure to pay civil penalties or abide by payment plan; operation in interstate commerce prohibited.
3.The authority citation for part 390 continues to read as follows: Authority:
4.Amend § 390.21 by adding paragraph (g)(4)(v) to read as follows: § 390.21 Marking of self-propelled CMVs and intermodal equipment.
5.Revise § 390.40(d) to read as follows: § 390.40 What responsibilities do intermodal equipment providers have under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 350-399)?
7.Revise § 392.7(b) to read as follows: § 392.7 Equipment, inspection and use.
8.The authority citation continues to read as follows: Authority:
9.Revise § 396.11(a)(1) introductory text and (a)(2) to read as follows: § 396.11 Driver vehicle inspection report(s).
10.Revise § 396.12(d) to read as follows: § 396.12 Procedures for intermodal equipment providers to accept reports required by 390.42(b) of this chapter.
1. CCM LLC was formed in 2005 to develop and own chassis pools. It is an affiliate of the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association, Inc.