Attachment B - 83 FR 47764

Attachment B (83 FR 47764).pdf

Lease and Interchange of Vehicles

Attachment B - 83 FR 47764

OMB: 2126-0056

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 2126-0056 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

47764

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Comments’’ portion of the
section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Loretta Bitner, (202) 366–2400,
loretta.bitner@dot.gov, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance. FMCSA
office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
is organized as follows:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 390
[Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0103]
RIN 2126–AC07

Lease and Interchange of Vehicles;
Motor Carriers of Passengers
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM); request for comments.
AGENCY:

FMCSA proposes to amend its
May 27, 2015, Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles; Motor Carriers of Passengers
final rule in response to petitions for
rulemaking and extend the January 1,
2019, compliance date to January 1,
2021. Today’s proposal would narrow
the applicability of the rule, by
excluding from the definition of lease
and the associated regulatory
requirements, certain contracts and
other agreements between motor carriers
of passengers that have active passenger
carrier operating authority registrations
with FMCSA. For passenger carriers that
would remain subject to the leasing and
interchange requirements, FMCSA
proposes to return the bus marking
requirement to its July 1, 2015, state
with slight modifications to add
references to leased vehicles; revise the
delayed writing of a lease during certain
emergencies; and remove the 24-hour
lease notification requirement. This
proposal would be a deregulatory action
as defined by Executive Order 13771,
‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs.’’
DATES: Comments must be received by
November 19, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Docket Number FMCSA–
2012–0103 using any of the following
methods:
• Website: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on the Federal electronic docket site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Services, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, DOT Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
D. Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
E. Comments on the Collection of
Information
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations
III. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Proposed Rule
B. Summary of the Major Provisions
C. Costs and Benefits
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
V. Rulemaking History and Purpose
VI. Petitions for Reconsideration and
Subsequent Events
A. History of Petitions
B. Discussion of Comments and Responses
to the June 16, 2017 Proposal in
Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration
VII. General Discussion of the Proposed Rule
A. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
B. Examples of Proposed Rule
Implementation
C. Alternatives
VIII. International Impacts
IX. Section-by-Section Description of the
Proposed Rule
A. Section 390.5 (Suspended) and 390.5T
Definitions
B. Section 390.21 (Suspended) and
390.21T Marking of Self-Propelled CMVs
and Intermodal Equipment
C. Part 390, Subpart F Lease and
Interchange of Passenger-Carrying
Commercial Motor Vehicles
D. Part 390, Subpart G Lease and
Interchange of Passenger-Carrying
Commercial Motor Vehicles
E. Section 390.401 Applicability
F. Section 390.403 Lease and Interchange
Requirements
X. Regulatory Analyses
A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review), and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Assistance for Small Entities
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)
J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

K. Privacy
L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use)
N. E.O. 13783 (Promoting Energy
Independence and Economic Growth)
O. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
P. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (Technical Standards)
Q. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O. 12898
Environmental Justice)

I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
FMCSA encourages you to participate
in this rulemaking by submitting
comments, reply comments, and related
materials. All comments received will
be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you provide.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
NPRM (Docket No. FMCSA–2012–
0103), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
recommendation. You may submit your
comments and material online or by fax,
mail, or hand delivery, but please use
only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your
name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body
of your document so that the Agency
can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, put the
docket number, FMCSA–2012–0103, in
the keyword box, and click ‘‘Search.’’
When the new screen appears, click on
the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ button and type
your comment into the text box on the
following screen. Choose whether you
are submitting your comment as an
individual or on behalf of a third party
and then submit.
If you submit your comments by mail
or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope.
FMCSA will consider all comments
and material received during the
comment period and may change this
proposed rule based on your comments.
FMCSA may issue a final rule at any
time after the close of the comment
period.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as any
documents mentioned in this preamble

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
as being available in the docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the
docket number, FMCSA–2012–0103, in
the keyword box, and click ‘‘Search.’’
Next, click the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’
button and choose the document to
review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12–140
on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
C. Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c),
DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its rulemaking process.
DOT posts these comments, without
edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

D. Waiver of Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1), as
amended by section 5202 of the Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act, Public Law 114–94, for any
regulatory proposal likely to lead to the
publication of a major rule,. FMCSA is
required to publish an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), unless
the Agency finds good cause pursuant to
sec. 31136(g)(3) that an ANPRM is
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest. For purposes of
compliance with the FAST Act, the
Agency has adopted the Congressional
Review Act’s definition of ‘‘major rule’’
(5 U.S.C. 804(2)), namely a rule that has
an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. This final rule is not a
major rule by that standard and 49
U.S.C. 31136(g)(1) therefore does not
apply. Even if it were a major rule,
however, FMCSA would find an
ANPRM to be unnecessary.
On August 31, 2016, FMCSA
published a notice of intent (2016 NOI)
announcing that four potential changes
to the final rule were under
consideration and its plan to issue a
rulemaking notice to reconsider those
four areas of concern (81 FR 59951). The
four changes are discussed in more
detail later in this proposal.
FMCSA held a public roundtable on
October 31, 2016 to discuss the four
issues outlined in the 2016 NOI. The
stakeholders represented spoke about
those issues and provided information
on how to address them. All public

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

comments were placed in the docket of
this rulemaking.
On June 16, 2017, FMCSA published
a proposal (2017 proposal) in the
Federal Register (82 FR 27768). The
2017 proposal provided information
about FMCSA’s planned revisions to the
2015 final rule and requested public
comment on the proposed revisions.
The 2017 proposal and comments
received are discussed in more detail
below.
The Agency’s intent to issue this
NPRM has been announced repeatedly,
with opportunities for stakeholder
comment available at each stage.
Therefore, FMCSA believes a further
opportunity to provide comments before
issuance of this NPRM would be
unnecessary.
E. Comments on the Collection of
Information
If you have comments on the
collection of information discussed in
this NPRM, you must also send those
comments to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs at Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). To
ensure that your comments are received
on time, the preferred methods of
submission are by email to oira_
submissions@omb.eop.gov (include
docket number ‘‘FMCSA–2012–0103’’
and ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for
FMCSA, DOT’’ in the subject line of the
email) or fax at 202 395 6566. An
alternative, though slower, method is by
U.S. Mail to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW, Washington, DC 20503,
ATTN: Desk Officer, FMCSA, DOT.
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations
1935 Act ...
1984 Act ...
ABA ..........
BLS ..........
CMV .........
DOT ..........
E.O ...........
FMCSA .....
FMCSRs ...
FR ............
L&I ............
MAP–21 ...
MCMIS .....
NOI ...........
NPRM .......
NTSB ........
OMB .........
PRA ..........
RFA ..........
SBA ..........
SOC .........
STB ..........
UMA .........

PO 00000

Motor Carrier Act of 1935.
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984.
American Bus Association.
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Commercial Motor Vehicle.
United States Department of Transportation.
Executive Order.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 CFR parts 350 through
399.
Federal Register.
Licensing and Insurance.
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act.
Motor Carrier Management Information
System.
Notice of Intent.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
National Transportation Safety Board.
Office of Management and Budget.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Small Business Administration.
Standard Occupational Classification.
Surface Transportation Board.
United Motorcoach Association.

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

VIN ...........

47765

Vehicle Identification Number.

III. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Proposed Rule
Based on a review of the petitions for
reconsideration and stakeholder input,
FMCSA proposes to revise its
regulations governing the lease and
interchange of passenger-carrying
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs).
This proposed rule would exclude
motor carriers that operate CMVs and
have active operating authority
registration with FMCSA to transport
passengers—hereafter called
‘‘authorized carriers’’ or ‘‘carriers with
operating authority’’ for the sake of
simplicity—from the lease and
interchange requirements. For leases
between authorized carriers, because
FMCSA believes their identity can be
determined by other means, the
assignment of responsibility for
regulatory compliance would require no
additional regulatory obligations.
FMCSA also proposes to extend the
compliance date for the 2015 final rule
to January 1, 2021, to give the Agency
sufficient time to complete this
rulemaking.
B. Summary of the Major Provisions
The proposed rule would (1) revise
the definition of lease to exclude
authorized carriers that grant the use of
their vehicles to each other; (2) retain
the provisions adopted in 2015 to
identify the party responsible for
compliance with the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs)
when at least one of the passenger
carriers involved in the lease or
interchange of CMVs is not an
authorized carrier; (3) ensure that a
lessor subject to the proposed rule, i.e.,
the entity providing the vehicle,
surrenders control of the CMV for the
full term of the lease or temporary
exchange of CMVs; (4) remove the May
27, 2015 final rule’s marking
requirements and return the marking
rule in 49 CFR 390.21(e), with slight
modifications; (5) revise the provision
allowing a delay in the completion of a
lease during certain emergencies; and
(6) remove the requirement that motor
carriers that are hired to provide charter
transportation and lease a CMV from
another carrier notify the tour operator
or group of passengers about the lease
and the lessor. FMCSA requests
comments to identify other methods to
achieve the safety objectives of this
rulemaking.
C. Costs and Benefits
The Agency estimates that annually
8,215 motor carriers of passengers and

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

47766

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

537,134 passenger-carrying CMV trips
would experience regulatory relief
under the proposed rule. The Agency
estimates that approximately 75 percent
of these passenger carriers and CMV
trips would experience full regulatory
relief and would no longer be subject to
the lease and interchange requirements
of the 2015 final rule. The remaining 25

on an undiscounted basis, $66.5 million
discounted at 3 percent, and $57.5
million discounted at 7 percent over the
10-year analysis period. Expressed on
an annualized basis, this equates to a
10-year cost savings of $7.8 million at a
3 percent discount rate and $8.2 million
at a 7 percent discount rate.

percent of these passenger carriers and
CMV trips would experience partial
regulatory relief and remain subject to
reduced lease and interchange
requirements, compared to those of the
2015 final rule.
As presented in Table 1, the Agency
estimates that the proposed rule would
result in a cost savings of $75.1 million

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE
[In thousands of 2016$]
Passenger carriers
experiencing
regulatory relief
under the proposed
rule

Passenger-carrying
CMV trips
experiencing
regulatory relief
under the proposed
rule

7,906
7,973
8,041
8,109
8,178
8,247
8,317
8,387
8,459
8,530

516,952
521,337
525,758
530,217
534,714
539,249
543,822
548,434
553,085
557,776

($25,298)
(4,042)
(4,077)
(4,111)
(4,146)
(4,182)
(4,217)
(4,252)
(4,289)
(4,326)

($1,168)
(1,178)
(1,188)
(1,198)
(1,208)
(1,219)
(1,229)
(1,239)
(1,250)
(1,261)

($26,467)
(5,221)
(5,265)
(5,310)
(5,355)
(5,401)
(5,446)
(5,493)
(5,539)
(5,586)

($25,697)
(4,921)
(4,819)
(4,718)
(4,619)
(4,523)
(4,428)
(4,336)
(4,245)
(4,157)

($24,736)
(4,560)
(4,298)
(4,051)
(3,818)
(3,599)
(3,392)
(3,197)
(3,013)
(2,840)

Total .......................................................
Annualized .....................................................

................................
................................

(62,946)
......................

(12,139)
......................

(75,084)
(7,508)

(66,463)
(7,792)

(57,504)
(8,187)

Year

2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028

Undiscounted
Lease and
interchange
costs (b)

Discounted

Charter party
notification
costs

Total
costs (a)

Discounted
at 3%

Discounted
at 7%

Notes:
(a) Total cost values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding. (The totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded components.)
(b) Values shown in parentheses are negative values (i.e., less than zero) and represent a decrease in cost or a cost savings.

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

The regulatory evaluation for the 2015
final rule addressed the potential safety
benefits of lease and interchange
requirements for motor carriers of
passengers.1 There were insufficient
data and empirical evidence to
demonstrate a measurable quantitative
relationship between lease and
interchange requirements for passengercarrying CMVs and improved safety
outcomes such as reduced frequency
and/or severity of crashes or reduced
frequency of violations. Therefore,
FMCSA performed a threshold analysis,
also referred to as a break-even analysis,
estimating the reduction in crashes that
would need to occur as a consequence
of the 2015 final rule in order for the
benefits of the rule to exactly offset the
estimated costs of the rule.
In considering the potential impact to
safety benefits from today’s proposed
rule, the Agency notes that there
remains insufficient data and empirical
evidence to clearly demonstrate a
measurable quantitative relationship
1 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA). ‘‘Final Rule, Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles; Motor Carriers of Passengers. Regulatory
Evaluation.’’ (Lease and Interchange of Vehicles,
Motor Carriers of Passengers, 2015 Final Rule
Regulatory Evaluation). May 2015. Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer
?documentId=FMCSA-2012-0103-0022&attach
mentNumber=1&contentType=pdf (accessed March
9, 2018).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

between lease and interchange
requirements for passenger-carrying
CMVs and improved safety outcomes.
Lease and interchange requirements for
motor carriers of passengers improve the
ability of the Agency and our State
partners to attribute the inspection,
compliance, enforcement, and safety
data to the correct motor carrier and
driver, allowing FMCSA and our State
partners to more accurately identify
unsafe carriers and initiate appropriate
interventions. FMCSA believes that the
lease and interchange requirements of
the proposed rule are a less costly and
burdensome regulatory approach than
the requirements of the 2015 final rule,
yet still enable safety officials and the
general public to sufficiently identify
the passenger carrier responsible for
safety. Therefore, the Agency does not
anticipate any change to safety benefits
as a result of the proposed rule.
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
This rule is based on the authority of
the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act)
and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
(1984 Act), as amended.
The 1935 Act authorizes DOT to
‘‘prescribe requirements for—(1)
qualifications and maximum hours of
service of employees of, and safety of
operation and equipment of, a motor
carrier; and (2) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

of, and standards of equipment of, a
motor private carrier, when needed to
promote safety of operation’’ (49 U.S.C.
31502(b)).2
The 1984 Act confers on DOT
authority to regulate drivers, motor
carriers, and vehicle equipment. ‘‘At a
minimum, the regulations shall ensure
that—(1) commercial motor vehicles are
maintained, equipped, loaded, and
operated safely; (2) the responsibilities
imposed on operators of commercial
motor vehicles do not impair their
ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3)
the physical condition of operators of
commercial motor vehicles is adequate
to enable them to operate the vehicles
safely . . .; and (4) the operation of
commercial motor vehicles does not
have a deleterious effect on the physical
condition of the operators’’ (49 U.S.C.
31136(a)). 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] enacted 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
2 See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE2015-title49/pdf/USCODE-2015-title49-subtitleVIpartB-chap315.pdf.

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of
this title’’ [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)].3
The 1984 Act also includes more
general authority to ‘‘(8) prescribe
recordkeeping . . . requirements; . . .
and (10) perform other acts the
Secretary considers appropriate’’ (49
U.S.C. 31133(a)).4
This rule imposes legal and
recordkeeping requirements consistent
with the 1935 and 1984 Acts on certain
for-hire and private passenger carriers
that operate CMVs, to enable safety
officials and the general public to
identify the passenger carrier
responsible for safety. Currently,
passenger-carrying CMVs and drivers
are frequently rented, loaned, leased,
interchanged, assigned, and reassigned
with few records and little formality,
thus obscuring the operational safety
responsibility of many industry
participants. Because this rule has only
indirect and minimal application to
drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs—at
most, their employers might require
them to pick up a lease document and
place it on the vehicle, though that task
could also be assigned to other
employees—FMCSA believes that
coercion of drivers to violate the rule
will not occur.
Before prescribing any regulations,
FMCSA must also consider their ‘‘costs
and benefits’’ (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A)
and 31502(d)). Those factors are also
discussed in this proposed rule.
V. Rulemaking History and Purpose
On September 20, 2013, FMCSA
published an NPRM that discussed the
National Transportation Safety Board’s
(NTSB) recommendation that FMCSA
regulate the leasing of passenger carriers
in much the same way as it regulates the
leasing of for-hire property carriers (78
FR 57822). This NTSB recommendation
resulted from several investigations of
bus crashes that occurred in 2008 (78 FR
57822, 57824–57826). Starting in 2011,
FMCSA investigated bus companies
operating unsafely along the I–95
corridor. That investigation uncovered
additional problems and serious safety
violations with other carriers. As
Agency investigators tried to understand
the relationships and links between bus
companies operating in complex
networks, they encountered significant
difficulties in identifying the motor
carriers responsible for regulatory
compliance on numerous trips. Vehicles
and drivers were found to be frequently
3 See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE2015-title49/pdf/USCODE-2015-title49-subtitleVIpartB-chap311-subchapIII-sec31136.pdf.
4 See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE2015-title49/pdf/USCODE-2015-title49-subtitleVIpartB-chap311-subchapIII-sec31133.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

rented, loaned, leased, interchanged,
assigned, and reassigned with few
records and little formality, which
obscured the operational safety
responsibility of many industry
participants. Multiple affiliated entities
shared drivers and vehicles within their
network intentionally to avoid
identification of the motor carrier
responsible for safety management, and
to conceal excessive and illegal driver
work hours that resulted in fatiguerelated crashes in some cases.
Investigators were eventually able to
document multiple patterns of serious
safety violations by three networks of
businesses that deliberately structured
their operations to evade Federal
regulatory oversight. Each time FMCSA
had shut them down in the past, the
three networks re-created or
reincarnated themselves. These
companies, which together transported
almost 2,000 passengers daily, showed
flagrant disregard for public safety by
using drivers without valid commercial
driver’s licenses or medical
qualification certificates, failing to
conduct required drug testing of drivers,
allowing or requiring drivers to exceed
the maximum number of driving hours,
and operating buses that were
mechanically unsafe and in disrepair.
FMCSA shut down these three networks
of bus operators after a time-consuming,
complex and detailed review of their
operations.
In response to an NPRM intended to
better ensure the correct identity of the
motor carrier responsible for the
operation of a passenger-carrying
vehicle, 12 parties submitted comments.
On May 27, 2015, FMCSA published a
final rule (2015 final rule) concerning
the lease and interchange of passengercarrying CMVs (80 FR 30164). Although
several of the proposed regulations were
revised in response to comments
received in response to the NPRM, the
motorcoach industry took exception to
some of the requirements of the final
rule. The Agency published several
documents to respond to the industry
objections. These documents are
discussed in detail in the following
section.
VI. Petitions for Reconsideration and
Subsequent Events
A. History of Petitions
The American Bus Association (ABA)
and United Motorcoach Association
(UMA) filed a joint request for an
extension of the June 26, 2015, deadline
for the submission of petitions for
reconsideration of the final rule. On July
1, 2015, FMCSA extended the deadline
to August 25, 2015 (80 FR 37553).

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

47767

The Agency ultimately received 37
petitions for reconsideration which have
been filed in the public docket
referenced above. In addition, 11
informal comments were received.
Upon review of these requests, FMCSA
concluded that some have merit.
FMCSA, therefore, extended the
compliance date of the final rule from
January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2018, to
allow the Agency time to complete its
analysis and amend the rule where
necessary (82 FR 13998, Mar. 16, 2016).
The petitioners argued and explained
in more detail that FMCSA had taken a
regulatory scheme from the trucking
industry and applied it to the bus
industry, which has a vastly different
operating structure and liability regime.
Moreover, the application of these truck
regulations to the bus industry offered
no additional protection to the public
from illegal or unsafe bus operators.
Petitioners further stated that the final
rule created an economic and regulatory
burden for passenger carriers that
already operate safely and have a high
degree of compliance. By imposing lease
requirements, some of the petitioners
argued, the rule did not affect carriers
that choose to violate the regulations,
but instead burdened those who already
operate safely and are in compliance.
Another petitioner stated that, while it
supported efforts to identify and address
chameleon carriers or carriers that may
try to operate under the cloak of another
carrier, the final rule did not accomplish
this goal and, in fact, provided a
roadmap for irresponsible carriers to
operate legally under the authority of
another carrier.
One carrier stated that it had
identified several instances where the
final rule lacked sufficient clarity to
enable it to comply, and that these issue
areas affected all of its operations. The
final rule also added administrative
costs and reduced operational flexibility
for charter and tour bus operations,
which would, in the end, reduce
connectivity and transportation options
for the traveling public. Another carrier
named two insurance companies that
have restrictions in their policies that
prohibit the use of non-owned
equipment and non-employed drivers,
which were major concerns of the
NPRM and final rule.
On August 31, 2016, FMCSA
published the 2016 NOI announcing
that the following four potential changes
to the final rule were under
consideration:
(1) Exclusion of ‘‘chartering’’ from the
definition of lease in 49 CFR 390.5. The
2015 rule merged the concepts of
leasing with ‘‘chartering’’
(subcontracting or reassigning

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

47768

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

contracts). Authorized carriers routinely
subcontract or reassign contracts to
other authorized carriers to handle
demand surges, emergencies, or events
that require more than the available
capacity. Subcontractors or assignees
with their own operating authority have
traditionally assumed responsibility for
their own vehicles and drivers. Under
the 2015 rule, however, a passenger
carrier that subcontracted or reassigned
work to another carrier would be
responsible for that second carrier’s
compliance with the regulations.
Petitioners claimed that making a carrier
responsible for the subcontractor’s or
assignees’ vehicles, drivers, and liability
would make most short-term
subcontracts impossible.
(2) Amending the CMV requirements
for the location of temporary markings
for leased/interchanged vehicles (49
CFR 390.21(f), 390.303(f)). The
petitioners argued that the frequent
marking changes needed during leases
or interchanges would be impractical
and unnecessary because the
information required is recorded on the
driver’s records of duty status for safety
inspectors and safety investigators to
review; carriers would have to depend
completely on drivers to properly
change vehicle markings dozens of
times per day in remote locations; and
it would be unlikely that a member of
the public would understand the
significance of the markings in the event
that he or she focused on the temporary
‘‘operated by’’ markings rather than the
permanent markings on the bus
representing the vehicle owner or longterm lessee.
(3) Changing the requirement that
carriers notify customers within 24
hours when they subcontract service to
other carriers (49 CFR 390.305).
Petitioners argued that a 24-hour
deadline is impractical because if an
emergency maintenance issue occurs, it
may not be possible to notify the
customer in a timely manner,
particularly if the issue occurs on the
weekend, when the customer’s offices
are closed, and the trip is scheduled to
start before the customer’s Monday
opening time.
(4) Expanding the 48-hour delay in
preparing a lease to include emergencies
when passengers are not actually on
board a bus (49 CFR 390.303(a)(2)).
Sometimes events requiring a
replacement vehicle might occur when
there are no passengers on a vehicle,
such as when Amtrak or airline service
is suspended or disrupted and buses are
needed to transport stranded
passengers. A bus operator contracted to
provide the emergency service might
need to obtain additional drivers and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

vehicles from other carriers to meet the
demand. There might be a last-minute
maintenance or mechanical issue, or
driver illness, that arises late in the
evening or during the night (such as on
a multi-day charter or tour trip), or just
prior to picking up a group for a charter
or scheduled service run.
In the 2016 NOI, FMCSA announced
its plan to issue a rulemaking notice to
reconsider the four areas of concern
listed above. The Agency expressed its
belief that it might be possible to adopt
less burdensome regulatory alternatives
that would not adversely impact safety.
FMCSA also explicitly denied other
requested revisions because they would
either have impaired the purpose of the
final rule or did not represent practical
alternatives.
Public Roundtable
FMCSA held a public roundtable on
October 31, 2016 to discuss the four
issues outlined in the 2016 NOI. The
stakeholders represented spoke about
those issues and provided the Agency
with information on how to address
them. All public comments were placed
in the docket of this rulemaking.
Second Extension of Compliance Date
and the Proposal in Response to
Petitions for Reconsideration
On June 16, 2017, FMCSA published
a final rule (2017 final rule) and a 2017
proposal in the Federal Register (82 FR
27766, and 27768). The 2017 final rule
extended the compliance date of the
2015 final rule from January 1, 2018, to
January 1, 2019. The 2017 proposal
provided information about FMCSA’s
planned revisions to the 2015 final rule
and requested public comment on the
proposed revisions.
B. Discussion of Comments and
Responses to the June 16, 2017 Proposal
in Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration
FMCSA received 24 comments in
response to the 2017 proposal regarding
the petitions for reconsideration. Two
submissions requested an extension of
time to comment, one from Coach USA
and another from Adirondack
Trailways, Pine Hill Trailways and New
York Trailways.
The following commenters (hereafter
the ‘‘industry commenters’’), submitted
responses to the June 2017 proposal that
were largely the same, both in wording
and in format. The industry commenters
include: AC Coach Operations, Inc. dba
Anderson Coach and Travel,
Adirondack Trailways, Pine Hill
Trailways and New York Trailways
(Responding together), ABA, Beeline
Charters and Tours, Burlington

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Trailways, California Bus Association,
Capitol Bus Lines Inc., Connecticut Bus
Association, FTI Coach Lines, Georgia
Motorcoach Operators Association,
Indian Trails, Inc., Minnesota Charter
Bus Operator’s Association, Onondaga
Coach Corp., Pennsylvania Bus
Association, Shuttle Express, Inc., and
Trans-Bridge Lines.
FMCSA also received unique
comments from Academy Bus LLC and
Greyhound Lines, Inc.; Delainey Banks,
an individual; Coach USA, a non-carrier
entity that controls numerous motor
carriers of passengers; Reston
Limousine; National Interstate
Insurance; and the UMA.
Request for an NPRM
Neither the 2016 NOI nor the 2017
proposal contained specific regulatory
text. The 2016 NOI announced
FMCSA’s intent to revise the 2015 final
rule in response to petitions. As
indicated above, the 2016 NOI described
four major changes that were under
consideration for regulatory changes.
In the 2017 proposal, the Agency
identified its intention to revise the
regulations to address ‘‘chartering’’ and
the 48 hour delay in preparing a lease.
Comments: Industry commenters,
including Academy Bus LLC.,
Greyhound Lines, Inc., UMA, Coach
USA, and DATTCO, Inc. asked FMCSA
to publish a formal NPRM that included
proposed regulatory text. Coach USA,
among others, noted that the 2017
proposal limited its discussion to only
two of the four issues addressed in the
2016 NOI; however, they believed that
all four issues should be addressed in
rulemaking.
FMCSA Response: After publication
of the 2016 NOI, FMCSA decided to
publish an NPRM to continue the
process of revising subpart F of 49 CFR
part 390. FMCSA proposes to maintain
and expand the emergency 48-hour
delay in preparing a lease. FMCSA
proposes to remove the 2015 final rule’s
CMV marking requirements when a
passenger-carrying CMV is leased or
interchanged. Furthermore, FMCSA
proposes changes that would reduce the
number of required leases because
authorized carriers would not be subject
to this proposed rule when using
vehicles or acquiring transportation
services from other authorized carriers.
Lease and Interchange
The 2015 final rule merged the
concepts of leasing and chartering (or
subcontracting). Carriers routinely
subcontract work to other registered
carriers to handle demand surges,
emergencies, or events that require more
than their available capacity.

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Subcontractors with their own operating
authority have traditionally assumed
responsibility for their own vehicles or
drivers. Under the 2015 rule, however,
a passenger carrier that subcontracted
work to another carrier would be
responsible for that second carrier’s
compliance with the regulations. In the
2015 final rule, FMCSA used the
following definition for ‘‘Lease’’ in
§ 390.5: ‘‘Lease, as used in § 390.21(f)
and subpart F of this part, means a
contract or arrangement in which a
motor carrier grants the use of a
passenger-carrying commercial motor
vehicle to another motor carrier, with or
without a driver, for a specified period
for the transportation of passengers, in
exchange for compensation. The term
lease includes an interchange, as
defined in this section, or other
agreement granting the use of a
passenger-carrying commercial motor
vehicle for a specified period, with or
without a driver, whether or not
compensation for such use is specified
or required.’’ The 2016 NOI indicated
that the Agency would address, through
rulemaking, this concern relating to the
2015 final rule’s merger of the leasing
and chartering concepts. In the 2017
proposal, FMCSA said that it intended
to revise subpart F of 49 CFR part 390
to exclude ‘‘chartering’’ from the leasing
requirements of that rule.
Comments: UMA, Greyhound,
Academy Bus LLC, and others stated
that the 2015 final rule is overly
burdensome to motor carriers.
According to Coach USA Inc. and
other commenters, the rule broadens the
term ‘‘lease’’ to capture charter and
similar operations, thus placing
unnecessary burdens on compliant
motor coach operators, while doing
little to target the safety concern
associated with non-compliant carriers.
Commenters believed FMCSA should
exclude from the definition of ‘‘Lease’’
in § 390.5 all passenger-carrying motor
carriers that have FMCSA operating
authority. Specifically, they asked the
Agency to modify the definition of
‘‘Lease’’ by clarifying that it does not
include a ‘‘contract, subcontract,
sublease, rental or charter arrangement
between two or more passenger-carrying
motor carriers where all parties have
operating authority.’’
The Minnesota Charter Bus Operator’s
Association stated that the rule would
prohibit the necessary collaboration
among multiple operators to meet the
needs of large events that occur in
Minnesota. This commenter added that
the nature of the business requires
operators to assist one another in the
event of a mechanical breakdown, so
they have to act quickly to service and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

protect the traveling public without the
burden of the lease and marking
requirement. Capitol Bus Lines, Inc.
reported that, as a result of its need to
comply with the 2015 final rule
requirements, it lost the ability to
provide shuttle service for a large
fireworks display, which cost the
company business. UMA believed the
rule needlessly harms passenger groups
and carriers in need of immediate
assistance. Greyhound wrote the rule
would severely curtail, if not eliminate,
its leasing of buses to meet peak period
demand.
Industry commenters believed that
the rule may exacerbate the problem of
non-compliant carriers by creating safe
havens and encouraging a switch from
chartering to passenger broker
operations that the Agency has no
authority to regulate. UMA commented
that the rule does not identify
chameleon carriers, but instead provides
a roadmap for carriers that may have
compliance or operating authority
issues. UMA thought the rule might
compel special event organizers and
community leaders to spend needless
time engaging multiple carriers or to
turn to brokers.
While many commenters, including
National Interstate Insurance, supported
the exclusion of ‘‘chartering’’ from the
leasing requirements of the rule, as
stated in the 2017 proposal, some
commenters, including Greyhound
Lines, Inc., UMA, and Reston
Limousine, wanted the Agency to clarify
this term. In their joint request for an
extension of time Adirondack
Trailways, Pine Hill Trailways, and
New York Trailways noted that the
proposal equates ‘‘chartering’’ to
‘‘subcontracting’’ in one section, but
then excludes the term ‘‘chartering’’
from the entire rule. Reston Limousine
suggested defining ‘‘lease’’ to exclude
contracts, subcontracts, or charter
arrangements between two or more
passenger-carrying motor carriers with
valid individual USDOT operating
authority.
Coach USA commented that the
administrative and paperwork burden
associated with the full range of other
regulatory obligations related to
chartering/subcontracting arrangements
would be prohibitive. Further, Coach
USA did not believe that it would be
possible for a primary contractor to
obtain insurance for vehicles operated
by subcontractor, as the final rule seems
to require. Coach USA noted that it is
not practicable for the primary carrier to
ensure that the subcontracting carrier is
in full compliance with many FMCSA
regulations, particularly given that

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

47769

arrangements with secondary carriers
must often be made at the last minute.
Industry commenters added that the
Agency should clarify that the current
definition of the term ‘‘interchange’’ in
§ 390.5, as used in § 390.21(f) and
subpart F of part 390, does not include
the act of providing a passenger-carrying
CMV by one motor carrier of passengers
to another. The industry commenters
suggested edits to the definition of
‘‘interchange’’ that they believed would
resolve the issue.
FMCSA Response: Under this NPRM,
authorized carriers would not be subject
to leasing requirements when they use
vehicles or acquire transportation
services from other authorized carriers.
FMCSA believes this proposed
regulatory change, as explained
elsewhere in this NPRM, would resolve
the objections and concerns of most
commenters, without impacting safety.
Assignment of Responsibility
The 2015 final rule governing the
lease and interchange of passengercarrying CMVs holds the lessee carrier
directly responsible for violations of the
FMCSRs.
Comments: UMA consistently argued
that FMCSA should not compel two or
more carriers, all possessing the
requisite Federal operating authority, to
enter a lease they would not otherwise
enter when engaging each other’s
services. UMA believed that forcing
passenger-carriers into a lease would
compel the assignment of inspection
violations and crashes to the lessee. The
commenter wrote that inspections and
crashes should be attributed to the
chartered, contracted, or subcontracted
carrier that possesses the sole, direct
responsibility for compliance and
control of vehicle maintenance and
driver qualifications and behavior. UMA
wrote that the burden of the 2015 rule
falls disproportionately on small-fleet
passenger carriers and disadvantages
them by creating untenable regulatory
liability.
FMCSA Response: Because Federal
operating authority and the practices of
the insurance industry both assign
responsibility to the operating motor
carrier, FMCSA agrees that there is no
need to reassign responsibility through
this rulemaking. As mentioned above,
authorized carriers would not be subject
to this proposed rule when they use
vehicles or acquire transportation
services from other authorized carriers.
FMCSA believes that this proposed
regulatory change would resolve the
objections and concerns of most
commenters, without impacting safety.

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

47770

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

Marking Requirements
The 2015 final rule added a new
§ 390.21(f) to cover the marking of
leased and interchanged passengercarrying CMVs, as defined in § 390.5 (80
FR 30178). Carriers operating such
CMVs must meet certain standards for
marking in § 390.21. They must also
display a placard, sign, or other
permanent or removable device on the
right (curb) side of the passengercarrying CMV on or near the front
passenger door. The device must show
the name and USDOT number of the
carrier operating the vehicle, preceded
by the words ‘‘operated by,’’ e.g.,
‘‘Operated by ABC Motorcoach, Inc.,
USDOT 12345678.’’
Comments: Industry commenters
generally argued that the 2015 final rule
imposes burdensome marking
requirements that are impractical, and
that there are less burdensome ways to
address the Agency’s concerns. In their
joint request for extension of time,
Adirondack Trailways, Pine Hill
Trailways, and New York Trailways
commented that ‘‘temporary markings’’
is a matter of particular importance to
them. They argued that the current final
rules for temporary markings are
unreasonable. They wrote that
compliance would be impractical or
unsafe, and arguably impossible, due to
the design and construction of modern
motor coaches.
In its comments, Coach USA
recommended that the Agency eliminate
the requirement to change vehicle
markings when vehicles are exchanged
between commonly owned carriers.
Coach USA wrote that changing
markings on vehicles exchanged
between commonly-owned Coach USA
companies would be highly burdensome
given the large number of such
exchanges. Coach USA commented that
magnetic marking placards and paper
signs are not a practical option. Placing
a sign on the inside of the bus could
obstruct the driver’s view and/or would
not meet the legibility requirements due
to window glare or window tinting.
Coach USA also argued that requiring
vehicles interchanged between
commonly-owned companies to be
marked in accordance with § 390.21 is
likely to cause more confusion among
passengers than it resolves. It reported
that most of the vehicle exchanges
between Coach USA carriers occur
between companies that have
‘‘Megabus.com’’ written across their
vehicles in huge letters. From the
public’s perspective, these
motorcoaches are operated by Megabus.
Coach USA did not believe that
individuals would understand the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

temporary markings required by
§ 390.21 and thought they would result
in confusion.
Greyhound Lines Inc. urged FMCSA
to exempt from the temporary marking
or placarding requirements the
operation of vehicles that are being
leased or interchanged between carriers
that have FMCSA operating authority.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA proposes
to remove the 2015 final rule’s CMV
marking requirements when a
passenger-carrying CMV subject to the
proposed rule is leased or interchanged.
The Agency believes this proposed
regulatory change would resolve the
objections and concerns of the
commenters. Under this NPRM, a motor
carrier operating a passenger-carrying
CMV under a lease having a term of not
more than 30 calendar days could mark
the CMV with either (1) the name and
USDOT identification number of the
lessee, or (2) the name and USDOT
identification number of the lessor if, in
the latter case, a fully complete lease is
carried on the leased CMV during the
full term of the lease. These proposals
would remove the cost of additional
marking of the vehicles while
maintaining all of the information
necessary for enforcement officials to
identify the carrier for regulatory
compliance. FMCSA proposes to add
paragraph (e)(2)(v) to allow a passengercarrying CMV operating under the 48hour emergency exception pursuant to
§ 390.403(a)(2) to be excepted from
paragraphs (e)(2)(iii) and (iv) regarding
a lease document with required
information being carried on the
vehicle, provided the lessor and lessee
comply with the requirements of the
provision in § 390.403(a)(2).
Twenty-Four Hour Notice of Lease
If a motor carrier was originally hired
to provide charter transportation of
passengers and subsequently
subcontracted this work to another
motor carrier of passengers, the 2015
final rule required the original motor
carrier to notify the tour operator or
group of passengers within 24 hours
after hiring the subcontractor and
advising that the transportation would
be provided by the subcontractor. The
2016 NOI said that FMCSA was
reconsidering that requirement based on
petitioners’ arguments that the 24-hour
deadline is impractical in an emergency.
Comments: Industry commenters
asked that the 24-hour requirement for
notification be clarified in a proposed
rule. They also believed that excluding
passenger carriers that have operating
authority from the definition of ‘‘lease’’
in § 390.5 would mean the requirements

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

of § 390.305 Notification, would not
apply.
Academy Bus LLC noted that the 24hour notice to customers was not
addressed in the 2017 proposal and said
the issue was still of concern. Academy
Bus LLC added that the industry is
required to be flexible and respond to
the public demand on very short notice.
Coach USA believed that excluding
chartering and subcontracting
arrangements would also eliminate the
requirement to notify customers of
subcontracting arrangements. Coach
USA, however, supported a notification
requirement for carriers that had been
prohibited from operating by FMCSA or
a State and intended to lease,
interchange or otherwise convey use of
a vehicle to another carrier. In fact,
Coach USA argued that these carriers
must provide written notice to FMCSA
before taking such an action.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA proposes
to remove the lease notification
requirement, and believes its removal at
this time may alleviate unnecessary
regulatory burdens that, based on
available evidence, do not significantly
aid travel groups in arranging trips or
avoiding particular carriers. If this
conclusion is inaccurate, please provide
data or information in regard to this
matter.
Expanding the 48-Hour Delay in
Preparing a Lease
When passengers are on a CMV and
an emergency occurs that requires a
replacement vehicle from another motor
carrier, § 390.303(a)(2) allows the two
carriers to postpone writing a lease or
other written agreement for up to 48
hours. The Agency believed the 48-hour
window would provide ample time for
the parties to document the transaction.
One of the issues listed in the 2016
NOI was that FMCSA would reconsider
expanding applicability of the 48-hour
delay provision for preparing a lease to
include emergencies when passengers
are not actually on board a bus (81 FR
59952, Aug. 31, 2016). FMCSA provided
examples of events that might require a
motor carrier to obtain a replacement
vehicle immediately:
• Buses might be needed to transport
stranded passengers in the event that
Amtrak or airline service was
suspended or disrupted. A bus operator
contracted to provide emergency service
might need to obtain additional drivers
and vehicles without delay;
• Last minute maintenance or
mechanical issues, or driver illness,
might arise late in the evening or during
the night (such as on a multi-day charter
or tour trip), or just prior to picking up

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
a group for a charter or scheduled
service run.
In the 2017 proposal, FMCSA
explained that it intended to broaden
the emergency 48-hour delay provision
for preparing a lease authorized by 49
CFR 390.303(a)(2) and remove the
requirement that passengers actually be
on board a bus when the exception
occurs.
Comments: In response to the 2017
proposal, industry commenters
indicated that the expansion of the 48hour exemption could be addressed by
changing the definitions in § 390.5.
First, it was recommended that
operations conducted under revenue
pooling arrangements or common
ownership and control be excluded
from the definition of ‘‘interchange’’ in
§ 390.5. Second, FMCSA was asked to
exclude passenger motor carriers from
the definition of ‘‘lease’’ in § 390.5 when
all parties have operating authority.
Academy Bus LLC was concerned about
lease preparation issues, noting that
‘‘Our industry, by its nature, is required
to be flexible and respond to the public
demand on very short notice.’’
An individual believed that the 48hour time period for preparing leases
might be a good idea for the trucking
industry, but that is not the case for
passenger carriers. This commenter
stated that at peak times ‘‘every worker
is stretched thin and there is a need to
bring in more operators to provide the
same services,’’ otherwise customers
may be left stranded. In these instances,
it is ‘‘an emergency to both the busing
companies and the customers to bring in
another operator to provide the
necessary backup to complete the job in
an efficient manner. To combat this
situation, companies need to work
together before, during and after leasing
passenger vehicles.’’ This commenter
also recommended that accountability
be placed directly on the subcontractor
and its driver.
Coach USA wrote that the exception
in 49 CFR 390.303(a)(2) would likely
apply only in rare instances if FMCSA
exempted chartering and subcontracting
arrangements from the regulations.
Coach USA supported extending the 48hour delay to cases of emergencies
where passengers are not yet on the bus.
Because operators will likely not have
time to mark vehicles in the event of an
emergency that requires replacement of
a vehicle on very short notice, Coach
USA proposed eliminating the final
sentence of § 390.303(a)(2), ‘‘The lessee
must also mark the vehicle in
accordance with § 390.21(f) before
operating it.’’
FMCSA Response: FMCSA adopts the
petitioners’ recommendation to expand

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

the regulatory exception that permits
the delayed writing of a lease during
certain emergencies (e.g., a crash, the
vehicle is disabled) including when no
passengers are on the vehicle. Therefore,
FMCSA proposes to move the exception
in 49 CFR 390.303(a)(2) to 49 CFR
390.403(a)(2). If a motor carrier obtains
a replacement vehicle from, or
subcontracts for service with, another
motor carrier, the motor carriers may
delay writing of a lease during these
emergency situations. However, a
summary document signed and dated by
the lessee’s driver or available company
official must state: ‘‘[Carrier A, USDOT
number, telephone number] has leased
this vehicle to [Carrier B, USDOT
number, telephone number] pursuant to
49 CFR 390.403(a)(2)’’ and the summary
document must be carried on the
replacement vehicle for the duration of
the lease. Enforcement officials will be
able to use this summary document to
determine the identity of the carrier
responsible for regulatory compliance.
Summary Document Requirements in
§ 390.301(b)(2) and (3)
In § 390.301(b)(2), the 2015 rule
allows passenger-carrying CMVs to be
exchanged or interchanged without
leases or receipts among commonly
owned and controlled motor carriers,
provided the driver carries and
produces, upon demand of a Federal,
State, or local law enforcement official,
a summary document listing certain
information [see 80 FR at 30179].
Section 390.301(b)(3) provides that
passenger-carrying CMVs may be
exchanged or interchanged without
leases or receipts among motor carriers
that are party to a revenue pooling
agreement approved by the Surface
Transportation Board (STB) provided
that the driver carries and, upon
demand of a Federal, State, or local law
enforcement official, displays other
information, including a summary
document [see 80 FR at 30179].
Neither the 2016 NOI nor the 2017
proposal addressed the summary
document requirements.
Comments: The industry commenters
suggested removing the requirements in
§ 390.301(b)(2) and (3) and instead
including language about an abbreviated
summary document in the definition of
‘‘interchange’’ in § 390.5. If the
interchange occurred among commonly
owned/controlled motor carriers, the
summary document would identify the
carriers in that ‘‘family,’’ including
USDOT numbers and business
addresses. If the interchange occurred
pursuant to a revenue pooling
agreement approved by the STB, the
summary document would identify the

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

47771

parties to the agreement, including the
USDOT numbers and business
addresses. These summary documents
would be produced upon the demand of
a law enforcement official.
In its request for an extension of time,
Coach USA argued that the information
required in § 390.301(b)(2)(i) is trip
specific, and would require the
company to create a new summary
document for each of more than 10,000
trips annually. Such a document would
impose an unnecessary regulatory
burden. Coach USA requested that the
summary document required by this
provision include only a ‘‘listing of all
members of the corporate family along
with their USDOT numbers, business
addresses and contact telephone
numbers.’’ The company also asked the
Agency to clarify that any summary
document may be maintained in
electronic format and stored on an
electronic logging device.
In its response to the Agency’s 2017,
proposal, Coach USA, like other
industry commenters, reiterated its
previous comments.
FMCSA Response: Since this
proposed rule would not apply to
transactions between or among
authorized carriers under the proposed
exception in § 390.401(b)(1) Contracts
and agreements between motor carriers
of passengers with active passenger
carrier operating authority registrations,
FMCSA believes that regulatory
exceptions for commonly owned and
controlled carriers, and carriers
participating in STB-approved revenue
pooling agreements, are no longer
necessary. The industry commenters
suggested making the rule inapplicable
to commonly owned and controlled
carriers and carriers participating in
STB-approved revenue pooling
agreements, and the Agency agrees with
these comments. Therefore, FMCSA
proposes to rescind the exceptions in 49
CFR 390.303(b)(2) and (b)(3). All
passenger carriers that are commonly
owned and controlled or participate in
STB-approved revenue pooling
agreements operate in interstate
commerce and have operating authority.
An authorized carrier that obtains a
vehicle from another commonly owned
and controlled authorized carrier or
another participant in an STB-approved
pooling agreement, would not be subject
to this proposed rule.
VII. General Discussion of the Proposed
Rule
A. The Proposed Rule
FMCSA proposes removing and
reserving subpart F of part 390, moving
it to subpart G with the same title,

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

47772

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

‘‘Lease and Interchange of PassengerCarrying Commercial Motor Vehicles,’’
and making some further regulatory
changes discussed later in this
document. FMCSA is planning to use
subpart F in a future NPRM to be
published under RIN 2126–AB56,
Unified Registration System
Enhancements and Updates.

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Definitions
The Agency proposes to revise the
definition of lease in § 390.5 to include
only contracts and agreements in which
a motor carrier grants the use of a
passenger-carrying CMV to another
motor carrier when at least one of the
motor carriers is not an authorized
carrier.5 Authorized carriers routinely
assist one another by providing
transportation services during demand
surges, emergencies, or events that
require more than their available
capacity. These common agreements,
some of which amount to
subcontracting, would not meet the
regulatory definition of a lease in this
proposed rule. Authorized carriers that
are hired by another authorized carrier
have traditionally assumed
responsibility for their own regulatory
compliance and liability. This practice
has long been acceptable to the
insurance industry. Furthermore,
authorized carriers are readily
identifiable to enforcement personnel,
making a separate lease agreement
assigning regulatory responsibility
unnecessary.
The definition of lease would become
narrower by including only contracts
and agreements to grant the use of a
passenger-carrying CMV between motor
carriers when one (or more) such carrier
does not have operating authority. The
term lease would also be revised with
added language to include
circumstances when no compensation is
specified. The terms lessee and lessor
would both be revised slightly to specify
that the granting of passenger-carrying
CMV usage is through a lease.
Marking of Self-Propelled CMVs and
Intermodal Equipment
Section 390.21 (suspended) and
390.21T would be returned nearly to the
form before the March 27, 2015, final
rule. FMCSA would remove the special
marking regulations for leased and
interchanged passenger-carrying CMVs
in paragraph (f). Section 390.21
(suspended) and 390.21T would be
revised to treat leased passengercarrying CMVs like all other rented
5 This

rulemaking does not propose a change to
the definition of lease in the context of propertycarrying vehicles in 49 CFR 376.2.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

CMVs. For a lease of 30 calendar days
or less, the lessee can opt to mark the
vehicle with either the lessee’s
information or the lessor’s information.
However, the latter would require a
fully executed copy of the lease be
carried on the vehicle.
If the motor carrier is operating a
passenger-carrying CMV under a lease
or rental agreement for more than 30
calendar days, such CMV must be
marked with the lessee’s identification
information. In a lease situation, the
operating motor carrier is the lessee.
These revised regulations would
address petitioners’ concerns that there
is no easy way to display a temporary
marking on certain passenger-carrying
motor vehicles for short term leases.
FMCSA specifically requests comments
from State Agencies that participate in
the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program about the effectiveness of these
proposed marking regulations for leased
passenger-carrying CMVs and any
potential inspection or enforcement
problems.
General Applicability and Exceptions
The general applicability section
would be revised slightly to reflect the
removal of exceptions in paragraph (b).
Section 390.401(b) would be modified
in several ways. First, a new exception
would appear in paragraph (b)(1) to
exclude from the rule contracts and
agreements between passenger carriers
with active operating authority when
one such carrier acquires transportation
services from another such carrier.
Second, the current exception for
financial leases in paragraph
§ 390.301(b)(1) would be moved to
paragraph § 390.401(b)(2) as an
exception with a revision. The provision
that the financial organization,
manufacturer, or dealer must not be a
motor carrier to utilize the exception
from the rule is proposed for removal
because such entities are motor carriers
when they move their vehicle inventory
between business locations before
purchases. Third, the limited exception
in paragraph (b)(2) for passengercarrying CMVs exchanged or
interchanged between or among
commonly owned and controlled motor
carriers would be removed. Fourth, the
limited exception in paragraph (b)(3) for
passenger-carrying CMVs exchanged or
interchanged between or among motor
carriers that are a party to a revenue
pooling agreement approved by the STB
in accordance with 49 U.S.C 14302
would also be removed.
Lease and Interchange Requirements
Lease and interchange requirements
would be revised by removing

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

§ 390.303(a)(1)(iii), which covers written
agreements governing the renting,
borrowing, loaning, or similar transfer of
a passenger-carrying CMV from another
party. The rule would be revised and
moved to § 390.403(a)(1) to include such
transactions as either a lease or
interchange, which makes paragraph
(a)(1)(iii) unnecessary. FMCSA is
proposing to expand the emergencyrelated exception in § 390.303(a)(2)
(after transferring it to § 390.403(a)(2))
that allows the postponement of the
completion of a lease for up to 48 hours
for situations, such as a crash or vehicle
breakdown, when a replacement vehicle
must be immediately obtained from
another motor carrier. Industry
commenters requested this expansion of
the limited exception and FMCSA
agrees with them. FMCSA proposes to
allow the exception even when
passengers are not on the bus.
Section 390.403(b) specifies the
contents of lease and interchange
documents. This paragraph requires the
lease, interchange agreement, or other
agreement to contain: (1) The name of
the vehicle manufacturer, the year of
manufacture, and the last 6 digits of the
Vehicle Identification Number; (2) the
legal names, contact information, and
signatures 6 of both parties; (3) the time
and date when the lease begins and
ends; and (4) a statement that the lessee
has exclusive possession and control of
the leased vehicle and is responsible for
regulatory compliance.
Current § 390.303(b)(4)(i)–(iii) is a
slightly revised version of 49 CFR
376.12(c)(1), (2) and (4). Paragraph
(b)(4)(i) is essential because it sets forth
the basic reason for a lease, from
FMCSA’s point of view, to assign full
responsibility for regulatory compliance
to the lessee. FMCSA proposes to make
this paragraph more concise. Current
paragraph (b)(4)(ii) would be moved to
§ 390.403(b)(4)(ii) and would retain only
the last sentence of that provision.
Paragraph (b)(4)(iii) is a useful
disclaimer, should the issue of status of
the lessor (contractor or employee) arise
in a tax context, but FMCSA does not
believe it is essential. Therefore,
FMCSA proposes to shorten paragraphs
(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii) and remove
paragraph (b)(4)(iii).
FMCSA proposes to remove the
requirement in § 390.303(b)(5) that the
lease contain a statement that the lessee
is responsible for compliance with the
6 FMCSA allows the use of electronic signatures
in accordance with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act (Pub. L. 105–277, Title XVII, Secs.
1701–1710, 44 U.S.C. 3504 note, 112 Stat. 2681–
749). See 76 FR 411, Jan. 4, 2011 and the Electronic
Signature final rule’s §§ 390.5, 390.5T, and 390.32,
April 16, 2018 (83 FR 16226–7).

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
insurance requirements of 49 CFR part
387.
Section 390.303(c) and (d) would be
merged and made more concise. Revised
§ 390.403(c) would state that a copy of
the lease must be carried in the
passenger-carrying CMV during the
period of the lease or interchange
agreement. Both the lessee and lessor
would retain the lease or interchange
agreement for 1 year afterwards.
Section 390.303(e) would be removed.
FMCSA has decided it does not need
receipts when vehicles are surrendered
to the lessee and returned to the lessor.
If FMCSA or another government
enforcement agency sought to assign a
safety incident to the lessee or the lessor
based on a lease or other agreement that
had already been terminated, the former
parties to the lease would have to
decide how to document that premature
termination.
FMCSA proposes to remove the
requirements in § 390.303(f) for
additional temporary markings of leased
and interchanged passenger-carrying
CMVs, and to return to the text of the
marking rule in § 390.21(e) 7 that was
effective on July 1, 2015, with slight
modifications. The modifications would
add references to leased CMVs in
paragraph (e) to provide a similar option
to rented CMVs.
FMCSA believes that this eliminates
one of petitioners’ major objections to
the 2015 final rule. The proposed rule
would require a leased passengercarrying CMV be marked with the
lessee’s identification information if the
lease is longer than 30 days. Leased
passenger-carrying CMVs would be
required to be marked with either the
lessor’s or lessee’s identification
information if the lease is 30 days or
less.
Finally, the proposed rule removes
the requirement in § 390.305 to notify
the passenger group or their
representative within 24 hours after the
primary contractor reassigns the
transportation to a subcontractor.

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

B. Examples of Proposed Rule
Implementation
The following examples illustrate the
proposed application of this
rulemaking:
Complete Contract Transfer Example
Authorized carrier A is contracted to
transport a tour or travel group on a trip,
but finds itself without the capacity to
accommodate the group. Carrier A
completely transfers the contract to
7 See e-CFR text in effect on July 1, 2015 at
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=
b9ddca68b462ed0f3d5758839de97752&pitd=20150
701&node=pt49.5.390&rgn=div5#se49.5.390_121.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

authorized carrier B that has the
necessary capacity. Carrier A may or
may not pay a fee to carrier B for taking
over the contract. A complete transfer
would require carrier A to cancel its
contract with the customer and carrier
B to create a new contract with the
customer. The proposed rule would not
apply to these transactions because
these transactions do not qualify as a
‘‘lease’’ (or interchange), as defined in
§ 390.5, of a passenger-carrying CMV.
Complete Subcontracting Among
Authorized Carriers
Authorized carrier A lacks the
capacity to execute a contracted trip and
hires authorized carrier B to make the
trip while maintaining its contract with
the customer. This arrangement is
documented by a charter contract
between carriers A and B. Carrier A
pays carrier B for the trip. This
arrangement is not a lease, first because
carrier B is not granting the use of a
passenger-carrying CMV to carrier A,
and second because both carriers are
authorized carriers. Instead, carrier B is
making the trip in its own name, on its
own authority, with its own vehicles
and is therefore responsible for
compliance with the FMCSRs. The
proposed rule therefore would not apply
to this arrangement.
Partial Subcontracting Among
Authorized Carriers
Assuming the same facts as described
above, except that authorized carrier A
provides some of the transportation
service while contracting with
authorized carrier B for the remainder,
this arrangement is not a lease, first
because carrier B is not granting the use
of a passenger-carrying CMV to carrier
A, and second because both carriers are
authorized carriers. Carrier A pays
carrier B for the transportation service
as part of a charter contract. Carrier B
is not surrendering control of a
passenger-carrying CMV to carrier A for
its own use. Both carriers are authorized
carriers providing transportation in their
own name, on their own authority, with
their own vehicles, and each is
independently responsible for
compliance with the FMCSRs.
Subcontracting Among Regular Route
Authorized Carriers
Authorized carrier A, which provides
regular route passenger transportation
services according to a fixed schedule,
finds itself without the capacity to
execute a route. Carrier A hires
authorized carrier B to continue this
service. This arrangement is
documented by a charter contract
between carriers A and B. Carrier A

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

47773

pays carrier B for the transportation
service. This arrangement is not a lease,
first because carrier B is not granting the
use of a passenger-carrying CMV to
carrier A, and second because both
carriers are authorized carriers. This
arrangement is also not an interchange
because carriers A and B are not
conducting a through movement. The
proposed rule would not apply to this
arrangement. Carrier B will conduct the
transportation in its own name, on its
own authority, with its own vehicle(s),
and is therefore responsible for
compliance with the FMCSRs.
Other Business Arrangements Between
Passenger Carriers
Example 1
Carrier A is exempt under 49 U.S.C.
13506 from the requirement for
operating authority—for example,
because of the hotel exemption in
section 13506(a)(3) 8—but finds itself
without the capacity to accommodate a
group that it originally intended to
transport. When this occurs, carrier A
hires authorized carrier B to provide
charter passenger transportation of the
group in whole or in part. This
arrangement is documented by a charter
contract between carriers A and B.
Carrier A pays carrier B for the
transportation service, but is not a lessee
of carrier B’s vehicle. Therefore, this
arrangement is not a lease. Carrier B
does not claim the exemption in section
13506(a)(3) but conducts the
transportation in its own name, on its
own authority, with its own vehicle(s)
and is therefore responsible for
compliance with the FMCSRs. The
proposed rule would not apply to this
arrangement.
Example 2
Private motor carrier of passengers A
finds itself without the capacity to
transport the members of its
organization. Carrier A therefore hires
authorized carrier B to provide charter
passenger transportation of the group in
whole or in part. This arrangement is
documented by a charter contract
between carriers A and B. Carrier A
pays carrier B for the transportation
service. Carrier A is not a lessee and the
arrangement is not a lease or
interchange because carrier B conducts
the transportation in its own name, on
its own authority, with its own
vehicle(s) and is therefore responsible
for compliance with the FMCSRs. The
8 Section 13506 lists the miscellaneous motor
carrier transportation exemptions. Under section
13506(a)(3), neither the Secretary nor the Board has
jurisdiction over a motor vehicle owned or operated
by or for hotel patrons between the hotel and the
local station of a carrier.

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

47774

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

proposed rule would not apply to this
arrangement.
Example 3
Carrier A is an exempt for-hire motor
carrier of passengers (under 49 U.S.C.
13506) that finds itself without the
capacity to accommodate a group it
originally intended to transport. Carrier
A uses a passenger-carrying CMV
owned by authorized carrier B. This
transaction is a lease under the
proposed rule and would be subject to
its requirements because carrier A is not
authorized to operate for-hire in
interstate commerce. In this case, carrier
B is a lessor that is surrendering control
of a passenger-carrying CMVs to carrier
A for the use of that carrier. Carrier A
will conduct the transportation in its
own name under its own safety
registration (i.e., USDOT number) with
the CMV leased from carrier B, with or
without drivers provided by carrier B,
and is therefore responsible for
compliance with the FMCSRs.

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Example 4
Private motor carrier of passengers A
finds itself without the capacity to
accommodate a group it originally
intended to transport. Carrier A uses a
passenger-carrying CMV owned by
authorized carrier B. This transaction is
a lease under the proposed rule and
would be subject to its requirements
because carrier A is not authorized to
operate for-hire in interstate commerce.
In this case, carrier B is a lessor that is
surrendering control of a passengercarrying CMVs to carrier A for the use
of that carrier. Carrier A will conduct
the transportation in its own name
under its own safety registration (i.e.,
USDOT number) with the CMV leased
from carrier B, with or without drivers
provided by carrier B, and is therefore
responsible for compliance with the
applicable FMCSRs.
Example 5
Authorized carrier A lacks the
capacity to execute a contracted trip and
uses a passenger-carrying CMV owned
by private motor carrier of passengers,
carrier B. This transaction is a lease
under the proposed rule and would be
subject to its requirements because
private carrier B is not authorized to
operate for-hire in interstate commerce
and cannot be hired to provide
transportation. In this case, carrier B is
a lessor that is surrendering control of
its passenger-carrying CMV to carrier A.
Carrier A will conduct the
transportation in its own name, under
its own authority, with the CMV leased
from the private motor carrier of
passengers, with or without drivers

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

provided by carrier B, and is therefore
responsible for compliance with the
FMCSRs.
Example 6
Private motor carrier of passengers A
finds itself without the capacity to
transport the members of its
organization and uses a passengercarrying CMV owned by private motor
carrier of passengers B. This transaction
is a lease under the proposed rule and
would be subject to the requirements of
this rule because neither carrier has the
authority to conduct for-hire operations
in interstate commerce. In this case,
carrier B is a lessor that is surrendering
control of its passenger-carrying CMV to
carrier A for the use of that carrier.
Carrier A will conduct the
transportation in its own name, under
its own safety registration (i.e., USDOT
number), with the CMV leased from
carrier B, with or without drivers
provided by carrier B, and is therefore
responsible for compliance with the
applicable FMCSRs.
Example 7
For-hire passenger carrier A had its
operating authority revoked for lack of
adequate insurance coverage. Carrier A
wishes to generate revenue from its
otherwise idle CMVs. It therefore
negotiates an arrangement with
authorized carrier B to surrender control
of its passenger-carrying CMVs to carrier
B for a fee. This arrangement is a lease
under the proposed rule and would be
subject to its requirements because
carrier A is not authorized to operate
for-hire in interstate commerce. In this
case, carrier A is simply a lessor. Carrier
B would conduct the transportation in
its own name, on its own authority,
with the CMVs leased from carrier A,
with or without drivers provided by
carrier A, and is therefore responsible
for compliance with the FMCSRs.
C. Alternatives
FMCSA requests comments to
identify other methods to achieve the
safety objectives of this rulemaking.
VIII. International Impacts
The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to
the FMCSRs, apply only within the
United States (and, in some cases,
United States territories). Motor carriers
and drivers are subject to the laws and
regulations of the countries in which
they operate, unless an international
agreement states otherwise. Drivers and
carriers should be aware of the
regulatory differences among nations.

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

IX. Section-by-Section Description of
the Proposed Rule
A. Section 390.5 (Suspended) and
390.5T Definitions
Section 390.5 (suspended) and 390.5T
would be amended to revise the
definitions of lease, lessee, and lessor
and all of these terms would apply
specifically to motor carriers of
passengers.
B. Section 390.21 (Suspended) and
390.21T Marking of Self-Propelled
CMVs and Intermodal Equipment
Section 390.21 (suspended) and
390.21T would be returned nearly to the
form before the March 27, 2015, final
rule. In the paragraph (e) header,
FMCSA replaces ‘‘Rented propertycarrying commercial motor vehicles’’
with the header phrase ‘‘Rented CMVs
and leased passenger-carrying CMVs.’’
Throughout paragraph (e), the Agency
adds the phrase ‘‘or lease’’ after the term
‘‘rental agreement.’’ When referring to a
‘‘renting motor carrier,’’ the Agency
adds the phrase ‘‘or lessee’’ immediately
after it. In paragraph (e)(2)(iv), in
addition to the cross reference to the
property-carrying leasing regulations in
49 CFR part 376, FMCSA adds a cross
reference to the passenger-carrying
leasing regulations in subpart G of part
390 so that the revised sentence reads
‘‘See the property-carrying leasing
regulations at 49 CFR part 376 and the
passenger-carrying leasing regulations at
subpart G of this part for information
that should be included in all leasing
documents.’’ FMCSA proposes to add
paragraph (e)(2)(v) to allow the
passenger-carrying CMV operating
under the 48-hour emergency exception
pursuant to § 390.403(a)(2) to be
excepted from paragraphs (iii) and (iv)
regarding a lease document with
required information being carried on
the vehicle, provided the lessor and
lessee comply with the requirements of
the provision in § 390.403(a)(2).
In paragraph (f), FMCSA would
remove the special marking regulations
for leased and interchanged passengercarrying CMVs. This proposal would
redesignate paragraphs (g) and (h) as
paragraphs (f) and (g), respectively, as
they were on July 1, 2015.9
C. Part 390, Subpart F Lease and
Interchange of Passenger-Carrying
Commercial Motor Vehicles
Subpart F, including §§ 390.301,
390.303, and 390.305, would be
removed and reserved.
9 See https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=
b9ddca68b462ed0f3d5758839de97752&pitd=20150
701&node=pt49.5.390&rgn=div5#se49.5.390_121.

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

47775

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
X. Regulatory Analyses

D. Part 390, Subpart G Lease and
Interchange of Passenger-Carrying
Commercial Motor Vehicles
Subpart G, consisting of §§ 390.401
and 390.403, would be added.
E. Section 390.401

Applicability

Paragraph (a) would add the general
applicability for passenger-carrying
CMV leases and interchanges as the
terms ‘‘lease’’ and ‘‘interchange’’ would
be defined in this proposal’s §§ 390.5
(suspended) and 390.5T.
Paragraph (b) would provide the two
proposed exceptions to the general rule.
Paragraph (c) would provide that if the
use of a passenger-carrying commercial
motor vehicle is conferred between
motor carriers subject to this proposal
and either carrier fails to meet all
applicable requirements of subpart G,
both motor carriers shall be subject to a
civil penalty.
F. Section 390.403 Lease and
Interchange Requirements
In paragraph (a)(1), this proposal
would set out the two instances in
which a lease or other agreement is
required (and the lease or agreement
must then meet the conditions of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section). In
paragraph (a)(2), this proposal would
allow the delayed writing of a lease after
an emergency, such as a disabled
vehicle, that disrupts or delays a trip,
and would not limit the exception to
times when passengers are on the bus.
Paragraph (b) would specify the four
minimum required items of any lease,
sublease, or interchange document
required under this proposal: (1) Vehicle
identification information; (2) Parties;
(3) Specific duration; and (4) Exclusive
possession and responsibilities.
Paragraph (c) would provide when a
copy of the lease must be on the
passenger-carrying CMV and how long
both the lessor and lessee must retain
copies of the lease, sublease, or
agreement.

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review), and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
FMCSA performed an analysis of the
impacts of the proposed rule and
determined it is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of
E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011), Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review.
Accordingly, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it
under that Order. It is also not
significant within the meaning of DOT
regulatory policies and procedures
(DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980;
44 FR 11034 (February 26, 1979)).
As described earlier, the proposed
rule would reduce the scope of the lease
and interchange requirements for motor
carriers of passengers. Furthermore,
those passenger carriers and passengercarrying CMV trips for which the
proposed rule would remain applicable
would be subject to lease and
interchange requirements that are
reduced in comparison to those of the
2015 final rule. At the same time,
FMCSA believes that the lease and
interchange requirements of the
proposed rule would still enable safety
officials and the general public to
sufficiently identify the passenger
carrier responsible for safety. As a
consequence, FMCSA estimates that the
proposed rule would result in a cost
savings, but would not result in any
change to safety benefits.
The Agency estimates that the
proposed rule would result in a cost
savings of $75.1 million on an
undiscounted basis, $66.5 million
discounted at 3 percent, and $57.5
million discounted at 7 percent over the
10-year analysis period. Expressed on
an annualized basis, this equates to a
10-year cost savings of $7.8 million at a
3 percent discount rate and $8.2 million
at a 7 percent discount rate, again

representing a decrease in cost or a cost
savings.
Key Inputs to the Analysis
The proposed rule revises regulations
established in the 2015 final rule,
therefore the 2015 final rule serves as
the baseline against which the effects of
the proposed rule are evaluated. Many
of the key inputs to this analysis of the
proposed rule are based on the same
data sources and methods as those
developed and used in the evaluation of
the 2015 final rule, with various updates
made as needed to reflect more recently
available data and information.
Therefore, a copy of the regulatory
evaluation for the 2015 final rule is
available in the docket for the proposed
rule, and, where applicable, the Agency
cites that document in the analysis
below.10 A 10-year analysis period of
2019 to 2028 is utilized for this analysis
of the proposed rule, and all monetary
values are expressed in 2016 dollars.
Number of Passenger Carriers
Experiencing Regulatory Relief Under
the Proposed Rule
The Agency estimates that an annual
average of 8,215 motor carriers of
passengers would experience regulatory
relief under the proposed rule, as
discussed below. This represents the
average over the 10-year analysis period
of the individual annual estimates of the
total number of passenger carriers
experiencing regulatory relief under the
proposed rule, which are presented in
Table 2. As also shown in Table 2, the
Agency estimates that approximately 75
percent of this total number of
passenger carriers would experience full
regulatory relief and would no longer be
subject to the lease and interchange
requirements for passenger-carrying
CMVs as a consequence of the proposed
rule. The remaining 25 percent of these
passenger carriers would experience
partial regulatory relief and remain
subject to reduced lease and interchange
requirements compared to those of the
2015 final rule.

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PASSENGER CARRIERS EXPERIENCING REGULATORY RELIEF
UNDER THE PROPOSED RULE
Passenger
carriers
experiencing
full regulatory
relief under the
proposed rule

Year

2019 ...........................................................................................................................
2020 ...........................................................................................................................

Passenger
carriers
experiencing
partial regulatory
relief under the
proposed rule

5,929
5,980

1,977
1,993

10 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles, Motor Carriers of Passengers, 2015 Final
Rule Regulatory Evaluation.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

Total passenger
carriers
experiencing
regulatory
relief under the
proposed rule
7,906
7,973

47776

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PASSENGER CARRIERS EXPERIENCING REGULATORY RELIEF—Continued
UNDER THE PROPOSED RULE
Passenger
carriers
experiencing
full regulatory
relief under the
proposed rule

Year

2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028

Passenger
carriers
experiencing
partial regulatory
relief under the
proposed rule

Total passenger
carriers
experiencing
regulatory
relief under the
proposed rule

...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................

6,031
6,082
6,134
6,185
6,238
6,290
6,344
6,397

2,010
2,027
2,044
2,062
2,079
2,097
2,115
2,133

8,041
8,109
8,178
8,247
8,317
8,387
8,459
8,530

Annual average ..................................................................................................

6,161

2,054

8,215

To derive the estimates presented in
Table 2 of the number of passenger
carriers experiencing regulatory relief
under the proposed rule, FMCSA first
estimated the number of passenger
carriers that, in the absence of the
proposed rule, would be affected by the
lease and interchange requirements of
the 2015 final rule. This estimate is
based on the same data sources and
methods as those developed and used in
the evaluation of the 2015 final rule 11
but updated to reflect more recently

available data and information. Data
from the FMCSA Motor Carrier
Management Information System
(MCMIS) and the FMCSA Licensing and
Insurance (L&I) system were used to
develop a new baseline value for the
reported number of all active interstate
passenger carriers operating in the U.S.
as of the end of calendar year 2017,
namely 13,386 carriers.12 13
Of this total population, the Agency
estimates that, in the absence of the
proposed rule, 7,774 of these passenger

carriers would be subject to the May
2015 final rule. This estimate is based
on the same methods as those
developed and used in the evaluation of
the 2015 final rule, and assumes that
under that rule 100 percent of
authorized for-hire carriers, 100 percent
of exempt for-hire carriers, and 10
percent of private passenger carriers
would be subject to the lease and
interchange requirements for passengercarrying CMVs.14

TABLE 3—REPORTED NUMBER OF ACTIVE INTERSTATE PASSENGER CARRIERS OPERATING IN THE U.S. (AS OF DECEMBER
29, 2017), AND ESTIMATED NUMBER THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE MAY 2015 FINAL RULE IN THE ABSENCE OF
THE PROPOSED RULE
Total number
of carriers

Type of passenger carrier operation

Authorized For-Hire (a) ........................................................................................................................
Exempt For-Hire (9+) (b) ......................................................................................................................
Exempt For-Hire (16+) (c) ....................................................................................................................
Private (business) (d) ...........................................................................................................................
Private (non-business) (e) ....................................................................................................................

6,629
340
181
2,599
3,637

Total (f) ..........................................................................................................................................

13,386

Number (and percent)
estimated to be subject
to the May 2015 final rule
in the absence of the
proposed rule
6,629 (100% of total).
340 (100% of total).
181 (100% of total).
260 (10% of total).
364 (10% of total).
7,774.

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Notes:
(a) A commercial entity whose primary business activity is the transportation of passengers by motor vehicle for compensation.
(b) A for-hire entity that is exempt under 49 U.S.C. 13506, and operates at least one passenger vehicle designed or used to accommodate 9
or more passengers including the driver.
(c) A for-hire entity that is exempt under 49 U.S.C. 13506, and operates at least one passenger vehicle designed or used to accommodate 16
or more passengers including the driver.
(d) A private entity engaged in the interstate transportation of passengers which is provided in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise and
is not available to the public at large.
(e) A private entity involved in the interstate transportation of passengers that does not otherwise meet the definition of a ‘‘private (business)’’
motor carrier of passengers as noted above.

11 Further details regarding the specific data
sources and methods can be found in DOT FMCSA,
‘‘Lease and Interchange of Vehicles, Motor Carriers
of Passengers, 2015 Final Rule Regulatory
Evaluation.’’ Pages 9–12.
12 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA). Motor Carrier Management Information
System (MCMIS), and Licensing and Insurance

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

(L&I) system. Snapshots as of December 29, 2017
(DART request ID #38883).
13 The total number of 13,386 passenger carriers
as of the end of 2017 actually represents 11,705
unique carriers, because some carriers provide
passenger service in more than one of the operation
classifications shown. Consistent with the approach
used in the regulatory evaluation for the May 2015
final rule, the larger number was used here so as

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

to not risk underestimating the number of affected
passenger carriers and the corresponding cost of the
lease and interchange requirements of the May 2015
final rule.
14 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles, Motor Carriers of Passengers, 2015 Final
Rule Regulatory Evaluation.’’ Pages 9–12.

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

47777

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

(f) The total number of 13,386 passenger carriers shown actually represents 11,705 unique carriers, because some carriers provide passenger
service in more than one of the operation classifications shown. Consistent with the approach used in the regulatory evaluation for the May 2015
final rule, the larger number was used here so as to not risk underestimating the number of affected passenger carriers and the corresponding
cost of the lease and interchange requirements of the May 2015 final rule.

The 2017 value of 7,774 passenger
carriers that would be subject to the
2015 final rule was then used as the
basis to develop future projections over
the 2019 to 2028 analysis period. These
projections were developed by
increasing the baseline 2017 value of
7,774 passenger carriers consistent with
the occupation-specific employment
growth projections for Standard
Occupational Classification (SOC) Code
53–3021 (Bus drivers, transit and
intercity) obtained from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment
Projections Program which, from 2016
to 2026, is forecast to grow by 0.85
percent annually.15 This results in a
projection of the number of passenger
carriers that, in the absence of the
proposed rule, would be subject to the
2015 rule each year over the 2019 to
2028 analysis period. In the absence of
the proposed rule, all of these passenger
carriers would be subject to the 2015
rule. As discussed earlier, under the
proposed rule a large portion of these
passenger carriers would no longer be
subject to lease and interchange
requirements, and the remaining
carriers would be subject to reduced
requirements. In Table 2, the column on
the far right shows the projected number
of passenger carriers that would
experience regulatory relief under the
proposed rule over the 10-year analysis
period of 2019 to 2028, which equals an
annual average of 8,215 passenger
carriers.
Table 2 also shows the subset of those
8,215 passenger carriers that under the
proposed rule would experience full
regulatory relief and would no longer be
subject to lease and interchange
requirements. Over the 10-year analysis
period, the Agency estimates that an
annual average of 6,161 passenger
carriers, or approximately 75 percent of
the total number of carriers that would
experience regulatory relief, would
experience full regulatory relief. This
value was estimated by assuming that
approximately 10 percent of authorized
for-hire carriers would be subject to the
lease and interchange requirements
under the proposed rule, rather than 100
percent as assumed previously under
the 2015 final rule and as shown in
Table 3.
15 U.S. DOLBLS. ‘‘Occupational Employment
Projections. Table 1.2: Employment by detailed
occupation, 2016 and projected 2026.’’ Available at:
https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_data_occupational_
data.htm (accessed December 29, 2017).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

For exempt for-hire carriers and
private passenger carriers, the analysis
assumes that 100 percent and 10
percent, respectively, of these carriers
would continue to be subject to the
lease and interchange requirements
under the proposed rule, the same
percentages as under the 2015 final rule
and also as shown in Table 3.
Combined, these changes result in an
estimated overall reduction of
approximately 75 percent in the number
of passenger carriers subject to lease and
interchange requirements under the
proposed rule.16 This reduction is
consistent with the comments and
petitions for reconsideration that the
Agency received, a number of which
suggested that the scope of the 2015
final rule likely encompassed a
relatively large proportion of passengercarrying CMV trips in which both the
lessor and the lessee were authorized
carriers. Petitioners generally argued
that such carriers should not be subject
to lease and interchange requirements.
Finally, Table 2 also presents an
estimate of the remaining subset of the
annual average of 8,215 passenger
carriers that would experience partial
regulatory relief and remain subject to
reduced lease and interchange
requirements compared to those of the
2015 rule. Over the 10-year analysis
period, the Agency estimates that an
annual average of 2,054 passenger
carriers, or approximately 25 percent of
the total, would experience partial
16 As shown in Table 3, in 2017 an estimated
7,774 passenger carriers would be subject to the
lease and interchange requirements of passengercarrying CMVs under the May 2015 final rule.
Under the proposed rule, as noted, the analysis
assumed that only 10 percent of authorized for-hire
carriers would be subject to the lease and
interchange requirements of passenger-carrying
CMVs, or 10 percent of 6,629, which equals 663
authorized for-hire passenger carriers. The analysis
also assumed that 100 percent of exempt for-hire
carriers and 10 percent of private passenger carriers
would continue to be subject to the lease and
interchange requirements for passenger-carrying
CMVs under the proposed rule, which equals 100
percent of 340 and 181 exempt for-hire carriers
(totaling 521 exempt for-hire carriers), and 10
percent of 2,599 and 3,637 private carriers (totaling
624 private carriers). Therefore, the Agency
estimates that 1,808 passenger carriers would be
subject to the lease and interchange requirements of
passenger-carrying CMVs in 2017 under the
proposed rule, or 23.3 percent of those subject to
the requirements under the 2015 final rule, which
is rounded to 25 percent for purposes of developing
the future projections of affected passenger carriers
presented in Table 2. This is a 75 percent reduction
in the number of passenger carriers affected by the
lease and interchange requirements of passengercarrying CMVs as a consequence of the proposed
rule.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

regulatory relief. As noted earlier,
however, these carriers would be subject
to reduced requirements compared to
those of the 2015 final rule.
FMCSA requests comments and
submission of quantitative or qualitative
data addressing the potential number of
passenger carriers that would
experience regulatory relief under the
proposed rule.
Number of CMV Trips Experiencing
Regulatory Relief Under the Proposed
Rule
The Agency estimates that an annual
average of 537,134 passenger-carrying
CMV trips would experience regulatory
relief under the proposed rule over the
10-year analysis period, as presented in
Table 4 and discussed below. This
estimate is based on the same methods
as those developed and used in the
evaluation of the 2015 final rule.17 The
estimated number of passenger carriers
that would experience regulatory relief
under the proposed rule (see Table 2)
serves as the primary basis for the
estimate of the number of trips that
would experience regulatory relief
under the proposed rule. For each of the
carriers in Table 2, we assumed an
estimated average of 64 trips per year
are operated with leased or
interchanged vehicles. This is consistent
with the assumptions used in the
regulatory evaluation for the 2015 final
rule.18 The estimated number of trips
that would experience regulatory relief
under the proposed rule (see Table 4)
also incorporates a modest upward
adjustment to reflect an annual average
of 11,400 trips operated by Greyhound,
one of the largest U.S. interstate
passenger carriers. This adjustment is
consistent with the methods used in the
evaluation of the 2015 final rule,19 and
is based on data that was provided to
FMCSA by Greyhound regarding trips
with leased and interchanged vehicles
in 2012.20
17 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles, Motor Carriers of Passengers, 2015 Final
Rule Regulatory Evaluation.’’ Page 21, Table 6.
18 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles, Motor Carriers of Passengers, 2015 Final
Rule Regulatory Evaluation.’’ Page 21, Table 6.
19 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles, Motor Carriers of Passengers, 2015 Final
Rule Regulatory Evaluation.’’ Pages 12 to 13.
20 ‘‘Lease and Interchange of Vehicles; Motor
Carriers of Passengers. NPRM.’’ September 20, 2013.
Comments of Greyhound Lines, Inc.. Docket ID
number FMCSA–2012–0103–0010. Page 2.
November 12, 2013. Available at: https://

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

Continued

20SEP3

47778

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

The Agency estimates that
approximately 75 percent of these
passenger-carrying CMV trips would
experience full regulatory relief and
would no longer be subject to the lease
and interchange requirements of the

2015 final rule. The remaining 25
percent of these trips would experience
partial regulatory relief and remain
subject to reduced lease and interchange
requirements compared to those of the
2015 final rule.

FMCSA requests comments and
submission of quantitative or qualitative
data addressing the potential number of
passenger-carrying CMV trips that
would experience regulatory relief
under the proposed rule.

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PASSENGER-CARRYING CMV TRIPS EXPERIENCING REGULATORY RELIEF
UNDER THE PROPOSED RULE
Passengercarrying CMV trips
experiencing full
regulatory relief
under the
proposed rule

Passengercarrying CMV trips
experiencing
partial regulatory
relief under the
proposed rule

387,714
391,003
394,318
397,663
401,036
404,437
407,866
411,325
414,814
418,332

129,238
130,334
131,440
132,554
133,678
134,812
135,956
137,109
138,271
139,444

516,952
521,337
525,758
530,217
534,714
539,249
543,822
548,434
553,085
557,776

Annual average ..................................................................................................

402,851

134,284

537,134

Year

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028

Total CMV trips
experiencing
regulatory relief
under the
proposed rule

Other Key Inputs to the Analysis
The opportunity cost of the time
employees of passenger carriers spend
complying with the lease and
interchange requirements represents
approximately 95 percent of the total
cost of the 2015 final rule. The cost
savings from the proposed rule are
likewise heavily influenced by aggregate
changes in the opportunity cost of
employee time.
The Agency evaluates changes in
employee opportunity cost by using
their labor costs. Labor costs comprise
wages, fringe benefits, and overhead.
Fringe benefits include paid leave,
bonuses and overtime pay, health and
other types of insurance, retirement
plans, and legally required benefits
(Social Security, Medicare,
unemployment insurance, and workers’
compensation insurance). Overhead
includes any expenses to a firm
associated with labor that are not part of
employees’ compensation, and typically
includes many types of fixed costs of
managing a body of employees, such as
management and human resource staff
salaries or payroll services. The
economic costs of labor to a firm, in this

case a passenger carrier, include all
forms of compensation and labor related
expenses. For this regulatory evaluation,
the costs of labor to the firm are
calculated to include base wages and
fringe benefits, plus overhead.
For the regulatory evaluation of both
the 2015 final rule and this proposed
rule, the median hourly base wage rate
for the BLS SOC code 53–1031, ‘‘FirstLine Supervisors of Transportation and
Material-Moving Machine and Vehicle
Operators,’’ is used as the basis for
calculating the relevant cost of labor.
For 2016, BLS reports an hourly base
wage rate of $27.54 for this
occupation.21
BLS does not publish data on fringe
benefits for specific occupations, but it
does do so for broad industry groups in
its Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation (ECEC) publication. A
fringe benefit rate of 57 percent (i.e.,
equal to 57 percent of the base wage
rate) is used. This is based on
information from the June 2016 BLS
ECEC data, which for the
‘‘Transportation and warehousing’’
segment of private industry reports a
benefits cost of $14.09 per hour worked,

which represents 57 percent of wages
and salaries in that industry segment of
$24.73 per hour.22
Finally, for estimating overhead rates,
the Agency used industry data gathered
for the Truck Costing Model developed
by the Upper Great Plains
Transportation Institute, North Dakota
State University.23 Research conducted
for this model found 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 (27% =
$0.107 ÷ $0.39 (rounded to the nearest
whole percent)).
Combined, the overall relevant cost of
labor, including base wage rate, fringe
benefits, and overhead, for passenger
carriers that would experience
regulatory relief under the proposed
rule is $54.91 per hour.

www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?document
Id=FMCSA-2012-0103-0010&attachmentNumber=1
&contentType=pdf (accessed March 12, 2018).
Greyhound reported 10,263 passenger-carrying
CMV trips performed in 2012 by vehicles leased
and interchanged. This 2012 value was then
adjusted to reflect observed industry growth from
2012 to 2016 as represented by growth in
employment for SOC Code 53–3021 (Bus drivers,
transit and intercity), and then further adjusted to

reflect employment growth projection for SOC Code
53–3021 (Bus drivers, transit and intercity).
21 U.S. DOLBLS. ‘‘Occupational Employment
Statistics (OES). National.’’ May 2016. March 31,
2017. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/
special.requests/oesm16nat.zip (accessed January
18, 2018).
22 U.S. DOLBLS . ‘‘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 2015.’’ Available
at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_
09082016.pdf (accessed March 5, 2017).
23 Berwick, Farooq. Truck Costing Model for
Transportation Managers. North Dakota State
University. Upper Great Plains Transportation
Institute. August 2003. Appendix A, pp. 42–47.
Available at: http://www.mountain-plains.org/pubs/
pdf/MPC03-152.pdf (accessed July 20, 2015).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Costs
The proposed rule would not result in
any increase in costs. It revises the 2015
final rule, which serves as the baseline
against which the effects of the
proposed rule are evaluated. Absent the
proposed rule, the Agency estimates

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

that the baseline costs of the 2015 final
rule over the 10-year analysis period of
2019 to 2028 would be $10.4 million on
an annualized basis at a 7 percent
discount rate.24 As noted earlier, the
Agency estimates that the proposed rule
would result in a cost savings of $8.2
million at a 7 percent discount rate
relative to the 2015 baseline,
representing a 79 percent overall
reduction in cost.
The estimated reduction of
approximately 75 percent in the number
of passenger carriers and CMV trips
under the proposed rule is responsible
for most of the annualized cost savings.
The remaining cost savings are the
result of reduced requirements for those
approximately 25 percent of passenger
carriers and CMV trips that would
remain subject to the lease and
interchange rules.
Under both the 2015 rule and the
proposed rule, costs are organized into
six major categories. Five are related to
the requirements under § 390.303 of the
2015 rule, and include: One-time costs
of lease negotiation; lease
documentation costs; lease copying
costs; lease receipt costs; and vehicle
marking costs. The sixth cost category is
related to the charter party notification
requirement under § 390.305 of the 2015
rule.
One-time costs of lease negotiation
under the proposed rule are calculated
based on the number of CMV trips that
would experience regulatory relief
under the proposed rule for this cost
category, the time expended by
employees in negotiating the lease and
developing the lease document, and the
total labor cost of these employees. The
number of trips that would experience
regulatory relief under the proposed
rule for this cost category are the trips
that would no longer be subject to the
lease and interchange requirements. As
presented earlier in Table 4, the Agency
estimates that an annual average of
402,851 passenger-carrying CMV trips
would no longer be subject to the lease
and interchange requirements.
Consistent with the approach used in
the 2015 regulatory evaluation, for each
of these trips it is assumed that 30
minutes of employee time is saved, for
both the lessor and the lessee, for a total
time savings of one hour for each such
24 This annualized cost estimate of $10.4 million
differs somewhat from the value of $8.0 million that
was presented in the regulatory evaluation for the
2015 final rule primarily due to various real and
nominal updates made to reflect more recently
available data and information, as well as the
different time frames covered by the 10-year
analysis period for each respective analysis
(previously 2017 to 2026, and now 2019 to 2028).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

47779

trip.25 This savings is valued at the total
labor cost of $54.91 per hour, described
earlier. The resulting savings in onetime costs of lease negotiation under the
proposed rule would be $21.3 million
on an undiscounted basis over the 10year analysis period, and $2.8 million
on an annualized basis at a 7 percent
discount rate. As noted earlier, FMCSA
proposes to remove the requirement in
§ 390.303(b)(5) that the lease contain a
statement that the lessee is responsible
for compliance with the insurance
requirements of 49 CFR part 387.
Although in theory this proposed
change may result in a modest
incremental reduction in the amount of
time passenger carrier employees
expend in negotiating the lease and
developing the lease document for
carriers still subject to the leasing and
interchange requirements, there is no
empirical basis upon which to estimate
such a possible impact. Therefore the
Agency has chosen not to make any
such incremental reduction in its
analysis. Also, not quantifying such a
potential impact is a conservative
approach that helps to avoid
overestimating the cost savings of the
proposed rule.
Lease documentation costs under the
proposed rule are calculated based on
the number of CMV trips that would
experience regulatory relief under the
proposed rule for this cost category, the
time spent by carrier employees
verifying the information and signing
the lease, and the total labor cost of
these employees. The number of trips
that would experience regulatory relief
under the proposed rule for this cost
category are the same as above, an
annual average of 402,851 trips that
would no longer be subject to the lease
and interchange requirements.
Consistent with the 2015 regulatory
evaluation, for each trip that would
experience regulatory relief under the
proposed rule for this cost category this
analysis assumes that both the lessor
and the lessee save 5 minutes of
employee time, for a total savings of 10
minutes for each such trip.26 This is
valued at the total labor cost of $54.91
per hour. The resulting savings in lease
documentation costs under the
proposed rule would be $36.9 million
on an undiscounted basis over the 10year analysis period, and $3.7 million
on an annualized basis at a 7 percent
discount rate.

Lease copying cost savings under the
proposed rule are calculated based on
the number of CMV trips that would
experience regulatory relief under the
proposed rule for this cost category, and
an estimated cost per copy. The number
of trips that would experience
regulatory relief under the proposed
rule for this cost category are the same
as above, an annual average of 402,851
such trips. As in the 2015 regulatory
evaluation, it assumed that for each trip
one copy of the lease is made for the
lessor and another for the lessee, each
at a cost of $0.15, for a total cost of $0.30
per trip.27 The resulting in lease copying
cost savings under the proposed rule
would be $1.2 million on an
undiscounted basis over the 10-year
analysis period, and $0.12 million on an
annualized basis at a 7 percent discount
rate.
The remaining three cost categories
(lease receipts, vehicle marking, and
charter party notification) would be
eliminated for all passenger carriers and
passenger-carrying trips, including
those that would still be subject to lease
and interchange requirements under the
proposed rule.
Lease receipt cost savings under the
2015 rule are calculated based on the
number of CMV trips that would
experience regulatory relief under the
proposed rule for this cost category,
with two receipts assumed per trip (one
for obtaining, the other for surrendering
the vehicle), and both the lessor and
lessee requiring copies of each, for a
total of four receipts per trip. Because
the proposed rule would remove the
receipt provision in its entirety, the cost
savings would apply to all trips listed in
Table 4, an annual average of 537,134
trips. Consistent with the 2015
regulatory evaluation, each receipt is
assumed to cost $0.15, with four
receipts required for a total of $0.60 per
trip.28 The resulting cost savings in
lease receipt under the proposed rule
would be $3.2 million on an
undiscounted basis over the 10-year
analysis period, and $0.321 million on
an annualized basis at a 7 percent
discount rate.
Vehicle marking cost savings under
the 2015 rule are calculated based on
the number of CMV trips that would
experience regulatory relief under the
proposed rule for this cost category, and
marking costs per vehicle that include
two sheets of letter size paper per trip
at $0.014 per sheet, plus $0.04 for

25 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles, Motor Carriers of Passengers, 2015 Final
Rule Regulatory Evaluation.’’ Pages 16 to 17.
26 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles, Motor Carriers of Passengers, 2015 Final
Rule Regulatory Evaluation.’’ Page 17.

27 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles, Motor Carriers of Passengers, 2015 Final
Rule Regulatory Evaluation.’’ Page 17.
28 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles, Motor Carriers of Passengers, 2015 Final
Rule Regulatory Evaluation.’’ Page 17 to 18.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

47780

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

adhesive tape. Because the proposed
rule would remove the marking
provision in its entirety, the cost savings
would apply to all trips listed in Table
4, an annual average of 537,134 trips.
The resulting cost savings in vehicle
marking under the proposed rule would
be $0.355 million on an undiscounted
basis over the 10-year analysis period,
and $0.035 million on an annualized
basis at a 7 percent discount rate.
Charter party notification cost savings
under the 2015 rule are calculated based
on the number of CMV trips that would
experience regulatory relief under the
proposed rule for this cost category, and

an estimated expenditure by passenger
carrier employees of 5 minutes per
notification.29 Because the proposed
rule would remove the notification
provision in its entirety, the resulting
cost savings would apply to all trips in
which notification would otherwise
have been necessary, which are
assumed to be 50 percent of the total
annual average of 537,134 passengercarrying CMV trips listed in Table 4.30
The resulting savings in charter party
notification costs under the proposed
rule would be $12.1 million on an
undiscounted basis over the 10-year

analysis period, and $1.2 million on an
annualized basis at a 7 percent discount
rate.
In summary, and as presented in
Table 5, the Agency estimates that the
proposed rule would result in a cost
savings of $75.1 million on an
undiscounted basis, $66.5 million
discounted at 3 percent, and $57.5
million discounted at 7 percent over the
10-year analysis period. Expressed on
an annualized basis, this equates to a
10-year cost savings of $7.8 million at a
3 percent discount rate and $8.2 million
at a 7 percent discount rate.

TABLE 5—TOTAL COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE
[In thousands of 2016$]
Undiscounted

Discounted

Lease and interchange costs
Year
Lease
negotiation
costs (b)
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028

Lease
documentation,
copying, and
lease receipt
costs

Charter party
notification
costs

Vehicle
marking
costs

Total cost (a)

Discounted
at 3%

Discounted
at 7%

($21,290)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

($3,974)
(4,008)
(4,042)
(4,076)
(4,111)
(4,146)
(4,181)
(4,216)
(4,252)
(4,289)

($34)
(34)
(35)
(35)
(35)
(36)
(36)
(36)
(37)
(37)

($1,168)
(1,178)
(1,188)
(1,198)
(1,208)
(1,219)
(1,229)
(1,239)
(1,250)
(1,261)

($26,467)
(5,221)
(5,265)
(5,310)
(5,355)
(5,401)
(5,446)
(5,493)
(5,539)
(5,586)

($25,697)
(4,921)
(4,819)
(4,718)
(4,619)
(4,523)
(4,428)
(4,336)
(4,245)
(4,157)

($24,736)
(4,560)
(4,298)
(4,051)
(3,818)
(3,599)
(3,392)
(3,197)
(3,013)
(2,840)

Total ....................
Annualized .................

(21,290)
........................

(41,301)
..........................

(355)
........................

(12,139)
........................

(75,084)
(7,508)

(66,463)
(7,792)

(57,504)
(8,187)

Notes:
(a) Total cost values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding. (The totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of
unrounded components.)
(b) Values shown in parentheses are negative values (i.e., less than zero) and represent a decrease in cost or a cost savings.

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Benefits
The regulatory evaluation for the 2015
final rule attempted to estimate the
potential safety benefits of lease and
interchange requirements,31 but there
were insufficient data and empirical
evidence to demonstrate a measurable
quantitative relationship between lease
and interchange requirements and
improved safety outcomes, such as
reduced frequency and/or severity of
crashes or reduced frequency of
violations. Therefore, FMCSA followed
the guidance of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) in its
Circular A–4 and performed a threshold
29 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles, Motor Carriers of Passengers, 2015 Final
Rule Regulatory Evaluation.’’ Page 24 to 26.
30 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles, Motor Carriers of Passengers, 2015 Final
Rule Regulatory Evaluation.’’ Page 24 to 26.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

analysis.32 Also referred to as a breakeven analysis, a threshold analysis
attempts to determine the amount of
safety benefits (e.g., reduced crashes and
corresponding reductions in fatalities,
injuries, and property damage) that
would need to occur as a consequence
of a rule in order for the rule to yield
zero net benefits (i.e., for the benefits of
the rule to equal, or exactly to offset, the
estimated costs of the rule).
The problem of insufficient data and
empirical evidence noted in 2015 is still
present today. Unlike regulations
dealing with vehicle equipment or
driver behaviors that can be clearly
linked to reduced crashes and improved

safety, both the 2015 final rule and this
proposed rule affect safety less directly
and immediately. Lease and interchange
requirements for motor carriers of
passengers improve the ability of the
Agency to attribute the inspection,
compliance, enforcement, and safety
data collected by the Agency and its
State partners to the correct motor
carrier and driver, allowing FMCSA to
more accurately identify unsafe carriers
and initiate appropriate interventions.
FMCSA believes that this proposed rule
would be a less costly and burdensome
regulatory approach than the 2015 final
rule, yet would still enable safety
officials and the general public to

31 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles, Motor Carriers of Passengers, 2015 Final
Rule Regulatory Evaluation.’’
32 OMB. ‘‘Circular A–4. Regulatory Analysis.’’
September 17, 2003. Available at: https://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/
omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (accessed March 9, 2018).

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sufficiently identify the passenger
carrier responsible for safety. Therefore,
the Agency does not anticipate any
change to safety benefits as a result of
the proposed rule.
FMCSA requests comments and
submission of quantitative or qualitative
data addressing the potential impacts to
safety benefits from the proposed rule.
B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs)
This rulemaking is expected to be an
E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.33
Details on the estimated cost savings of
this rulemaking can be found in the
rule’s economic analysis. The present
value of the cost savings of this
rulemaking, measured on an infinite
time horizon at a 7 percent discount
rate, is $83.6 million. Expressed on an
annualized basis, the cost savings are
$5.9 million. These values are expressed
in 2016 dollars.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104–121, 110 Stat.
857), requires Federal agencies to
consider the impact of their regulatory
proposals on small entities, analyze
effective alternatives that minimize
small entity impacts, and make their
analyses available for public comment.
The term ‘‘small entities’’ means small
businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations under 50,000.34
Accordingly, DOT policy requires an
analysis of the impact of all regulations

on small entities, and mandates that
agencies strive to lessen any adverse
effects on these entities. Section 605 of
the RFA allows an Agency to certify a
rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if
the rulemaking is not expected to have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would not result in
any increase in costs or any increase in
burden. The proposed rule would
reduce the applicability of the lease and
interchange requirements for motor
carriers of passengers, resulting in a
substantial reduction in the number of
entities that would be subject to these
requirements and a commensurate
reduction in costs and burden
experienced by these entities.
Furthermore, for those motor carriers of
passengers that would continue to be
subject to the lease and interchange
requirements under the proposed rule,
the requirements would be reduced in
comparison to the existing
requirements. This would also result in
a reduction in costs and burden
experienced by these entities.
The regulated entities that would
experience regulatory relief under the
proposed rule include all of the
passenger carriers that are subject to the
existing lease and interchange
requirements. Approximately 75 percent
of this total number of passenger
carriers would experience full
regulatory relief, and would no longer
be subject to lease and interchange
requirements for passenger-carrying
CMVs. The remaining 25 percent of
these passenger carriers would
experience partial regulatory relief and
remain subject to reduced lease and
interchange requirements compared to
those of the 2015 final rule.

47781

As presented earlier in Table 3 of the
Regulatory Analyses section, as of 2017
there were an estimated 7,774 passenger
carriers subject to the existing lease and
interchange requirements, representing
approximately 58 percent of all active
interstate passenger carriers. As
presented in Table 2, this population of
passenger carriers is projected to
increase slightly due to general baseline
industry growth to 7,906 passenger
carriers in 2019, the first year that the
proposed rule is anticipated to be in
effect. Therefore, it is estimated that
7,906 passenger carriers would
experience regulatory relief under the
proposed rule. The number of these
7,906 passenger carriers that are small
entities is not directly known by
FMCSA, and is therefore estimated
below.
The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) defines the size
standards used to classify entities as
small. SBA establishes separate
standards for each industry, as defined
by the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).35 It is
estimated that the passenger carriers
that would experience regulatory relief
under the proposed rule would be in
industries within Subsector 485 (Transit
and Ground Passenger Transportation).
All eleven 6-digit NAICS industries
within Subsector 485 have an SBA size
standard based on annual revenue of
$15.0 million. Three of the eleven 6digit NAICS industries within Subsector
485 are likely to encompass most of the
passenger carriers that would
experience regulatory relief under the
proposed rule, and details regarding the
SBA size standards for those three
industries are presented in Table 6.

TABLE 6—SBA SIZE STANDARDS FOR SELECTED INDUSTRIES (a)
SBA size
standard
(annual
revenue in
millions
of dollars)

NAICS code

NAICS industry description

485113 ..............................................
485210 ..............................................
485510 ..............................................

Bus and Other Motor Vehicle Transit Systems .........................................
Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation ..................................................
Charter Bus Industry ..................................................................................

$15.0
15.0
15.0

SBA size
standard
(number of
employees)
(none).
(none).
(none).

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Notes:
(a) U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). ‘‘Table of Small Business Size Standards.’’ October 1, 2017. Available at: https://www.sba.gov/
sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table_2017.xlsx (accessed March 20, 2018).

Data regarding the annual revenue
earned by the estimated 7,906 passenger

carriers that would experience
regulatory relief under the proposed

rule is not collected by FMCSA and is
not otherwise available from other

33 Executive Office of the President. Executive
Order 13771 of January 30, 2017. Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. 82 FR
9339–9341. Feb. 3, 2017.

34 Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96–354,
94 Stat. 1164 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

35 OMB. ‘‘North American Industry Classification
System.’’ 2017. Available at: https://
www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2017NAICS/2017_
NAICS_Manual.pdf (accessed March 20, 2018).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

47782

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

sources. Therefore, the SBA size
standard of $15.0 million in annual
revenue cannot be directly applied in
order to determine how many of the
7,906 passenger carriers that would
experience regulatory relief under the
proposed rule are small entities. FMCSA
does, however, collect information
regarding the number of passengercarrying vehicles operated by these
carriers. As of the end of 2017, of the
active interstate passenger carriers
operating in the U.S. as presented
earlier in Table 3, approximately 81
percent operated six or fewer passenger
vehicles, and approximately 93 percent
operated 19 or fewer passenger
vehicles.36 We estimate that in the
passenger carrier industry, the average
revenue earned per motorcoach is
approximately $200,000.37 38 39 This
would mean that the SBA size standard
of $15.0 million in annual revenue
would equate to a carrier size of 75
passenger vehicles. Therefore, carriers
operating 75 passenger vehicles or fewer
would be classified as small, consistent
with the SBA size standard of $15.0
million. As of the end of 2017, of the
active interstate passenger carriers
operating in the U.S. as presented
earlier in Table 3, approximately 98
percent operated 75 or fewer passenger
vehicles. The Agency does not believe
36 U.S. DOT, FMCSA. Motor Carrier Management
Information System (MCMIS), and Licensing and
Insurance (L&I) system. Snapshots as of December
29, 2017 (DART request ID #38883).
37 The information available regarding revenue
for the passenger carrier industry is limited. The
American Bus Associated reported that for 2004,
revenue per motorcoach was approximately
$160,000. Inflated from 2004 dollars to 2016 dollars
using either CPI–U or the Implicit Price Deflator for
GDP, this value becomes approximately $200,000
per vehicle.
38 American Bus Association (ABA). ‘‘Motorcoach
Census 2005.’’ September 2006. Page 19, Table
3–5 (Carrier Revenue per Motorcoach, Averages,
2004). Available at: https://www.iru.org/apps/cmsfilesystem-action?file=events_2007_busandcoach/
Motorcoach%20Census%202005%2009-2120061.pdf (accessed March 8, 2018).
39 Greyhound, one of the largest interstate
passenger carriers operating in the U.S., reported
total revenue for 2017 of $894 million, with 78
percent of that total, or $697 million, being
passenger revenue. With a fleet size reported to
consist of 1,600 buses for the same year, this equals
an average passenger revenue per motorcoach of
$435,000. We believe that substantially higher
levels of per vehicle revenue such as this are not
representative of the smaller passenger carriers that
make up most of the industry, and therefore the
lesser estimate of $200,000 revenue per motorcoach
described above was used here so as not to risk
underestimating the number of small entities in the
passenger carrier industry when used to compare
against the SBA size standard of $15.0 million in
annual revenue. Greyhound data is from
‘‘FirstGroup plc, Annual Report and Accounts,
2017’’, pages 18–19, available at http://www.first
groupplc.com/∼/media/Files/F/Firstgroup-Plc/
indexed-pdfs/2017%20ARA/2017%20FirstGroup
%20plc%20Annual%20Report%20and%20
Accounts.pdf (accessed March 19, 2018).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

that the proposed rule would
disproportionately apply to either larger
or smaller passenger carriers, and we
therefore estimate that a similar 98
percent of the 7,906 passenger carriers
that would experience regulatory relief
under the proposed rule, or
approximately 7,750 passenger carriers,
would be small entities. Therefore,
FMCSA has determined that this
proposed rule will have an impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Although FMCSA has determined that
this proposed rule would have an
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, the Agency has determined that
the impact on the small entities that
would experience regulatory relief
under the proposed rule would not be
significant. The proposed rule would
not result in any increase in costs or any
increase in burden for passenger carriers
that are small entities. The effect of the
proposed rule would be a reduction in
costs and burden, and would be entirely
beneficial to the passenger carriers that
are small entities. As discussed in the
Regulatory Analyses section, the Agency
estimates that the proposed rule would
result in a total cost savings of $75.1
million on an undiscounted basis over
the 10-year analysis period used for the
regulatory evaluation, or $7.5 million on
an annualized basis. As presented in
Table 2, an annual average of
approximately 8,215 passenger carriers
would experience regulatory relief
under the proposed rule over the same
10-year analysis period, 98 percent of
which are estimated to be small entities.
The annual cost savings per small
carrier would therefore be at most $914
on average (potentially even somewhat
less, given that approximately 2 percent
of passenger carriers that would
experience regulatory relief under the
proposed rule are not small entities and
therefore may represent a
disproportionately larger share of the
overall absolute cost savings because of
the larger scale of their operations). For
even the smallest of the small entities,
those operating only one passenger
vehicle, this $914 in annual savings
represents only about one half of one
percent of the estimated total annual
revenues of $200,000 for a carrier with
just one vehicle. Therefore, although
FMCSA has determined that this
proposed rule would have an impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
the Agency has also determined that the
impact on these small entities would
not be significant, and furthermore will
be entirely beneficial.
Accordingly, pursuant to section
605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that the
proposed rule would not have a

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
FMCSA requests comments on this
certification and on the analysis
presented in support of it.
D. Assistance for Small Entities
In accordance with section 213(a) of
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
FMCSA wants to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects and
participate in the rulemaking initiative.
If the proposed rule would affect your
small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction, and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please consult
the FMCSA point of contact, Ms. Loretta
Bitner, listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
proposed rule.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce or otherwise determine
compliance with Federal regulations to
the Small Business Administration’s
Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of FMCSA, call 1–888–REG–
FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The DOT has a
policy regarding the rights of small
entities to regulatory enforcement
fairness and an explicit policy against
retaliation for exercising these rights.40
E. 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 requires agencies to
prepare a comprehensive written
statement for any proposed or final rule
that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$156 million (which is the value
equivalent of $100 million in 1995,
adjusted for inflation to 2015 levels) or
more in any one year. Because this
proposed rule would not result in such
an expenditure, a written statement is
not required. However, the Agency does
discuss the costs and benefits of this
40 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ‘‘The
Rights of Small Entities To Enforcement Fairness
and Policy Against Retaliation.’’ Available at:
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/
docs/SBREFAnotice2.pdf (accessed January 17,
2018).

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

proposed rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule would amend two
OMB-approved information collections
titled ‘‘Commercial Motor Vehicle
Marking Requirements,’’ OMB No.
2126–0054, and ‘‘Lease and Interchange
of Vehicles,’’ OMB No. 2126–0056,
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). As defined
in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of
information’’ includes reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting,
labeling, and other, similar actions. The
title and description of the information
collections, a description of those who
must collect the information, and an
estimate of the total annual burden
follow. The estimate covers the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing sources of data, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the
collection.
The Agency’s CMV marking
regulations require freight-carrying
commercial motor carriers, passengercarrying commercial motor carriers, and
intermodal equipment providers to
display the USDOT number and the
legal name or a single trade name of the
carrier or intermodal equipment
provider on their vehicles. The USDOT
number is used to identify all motor
carriers in FMCSA’s registration and
information systems. It is also used by
States as the key identifier in the
Performance and Registration
Information Systems Management
(PRISM) system, a cooperative Federal/
State program that makes motor carrier
safety a requirement for obtaining and
maintaining CMV registration and
privileges. Vehicle marking
requirements are intended to ensure that
FMCSA, the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB), and State safety
officials are able to identify motor
carriers and correctly assign
responsibility for regulatory violations
during inspections, investigations,
compliance reviews, and crash studies.
These marking requirements also
provide the public with beneficial
information that could assist in
identifying carriers for the purposes of
commerce, complaints, or emergency
notification.
The proposed rule would eliminate
the existing requirement under 49 CFR
390.303(f) for the temporary marking of
leased commercial passenger vehicles.
The proposed rule would therefore
amend the OMB-approved information
collection titled ‘‘Commercial Motor
Vehicle Marking Requirements,’’ OMB
No. 2126–0054. In the currently

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

approved information collection, the
temporary marking of leased
commercial passenger vehicles was
assumed to have de minimis time
burden, and therefore no separate time
burden was estimated for that element
of the passenger-carrying commercial
motor carrier marking requirements.
Because of this, in the proposed revision
to this information collection, there is
no change in time burden due to
program change, and the estimated
changes in time burden from the
currently approved information
collection are due to adjustments related
to factors such as revised estimates of
the population of passenger-carrying
motor carriers and industry growth rate.
There is a small reduction in the annual
cost burden, however, related to the
elimination of the cost of materials
(paper and adhesive tape) estimated to
be used for the temporary vehicle
markings that are proposed to be
eliminated.
Title: Commercial Motor Vehicle
Marking Requirements.
OMB control number: 2126–0054.
Summary of the collection of
information: Under the information
collection, freight-carrying commercial
motor carriers, passenger-carrying
commercial motor carriers, and
intermodal equipment providers mark
their vehicles to display the USDOT
number and the legal name or a single
trade name of the carrier or intermodal
equipment provider. This vehicle
marking occurs when a new vehicle is
purchased, when a used vehicle is
purchased and requires re-marking, and
when a vehicle is retained by the owner
but the existing label reaches the end of
its useful life.
Need for information: Vehicle
marking requirements are needed to
ensure that FMCSA, the NTSB, and
State safety officials are able to identify
motor carriers and correctly assign
responsibility for regulatory violations
during inspections, investigations,
compliance reviews, and crash studies.
These marking requirements also
provide the public with beneficial
information that could assist in
identifying carriers for the purposes of
commerce, complaints, or emergency
notification.
Proposed use of information: The
USDOT number is used to identify all
motor carriers in FMCSA’s registration
and information systems, is used as the
key identifier in the PRISM system, and
is used by the public with beneficial
information that could also assist in
identifying carriers for the purposes of
commerce, complaints, or emergency
notification.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

47783

Description of the respondents:
Freight-carrying commercial motor
carriers, passenger-carrying commercial
motor carriers, and intermodal
equipment providers.
Number of respondents:
IC–1 (freight carriers) number of
respondents: 204,390
IC–2 (passenger carriers) number of
respondents: 5,007
IC–3 (intermodal equipment providers)
number of respondents: 11
Total number of respondents: 209,408
Frequency of response:
IC–1 (freight carriers) frequency of
response: 7.9 responses per year, per
respondent
IC–2 (passenger carriers) frequency of
response: 20.4 responses per year, per
respondent
IC–3 (intermodal equipment providers)
frequency of response: 1,910
responses per year, per respondent
Overall average frequency of response:
8.3 response per year, per respondent
Burden of response:
IC–1 (freight carriers) burden of
response: 0.43 hours
IC–2 (passenger carriers) burden of
response: 0.43 hours
IC–3 (intermodal equipment providers)
burden of response: 0.43 hours
Overall average burden of response: 0.43
hours
Estimate of Total Annual Burden:
IC–1 (freight carriers) burden: 699,902
hours
IC–2 (passenger carriers) burden: 44,300
hours
IC–3 (intermodal equipment providers)
burden: 9,108 hours
Total annual burden: 753,310 hours
The Agency’s lease and interchange of
vehicles regulations ensure that truck
and bus carriers are identified (and in
some cases protected) when they agree
to lease their equipment and drivers to
other carriers. These regulations also
ensure that the government and
members of the public can determine
who is responsible for a CMV. Prior to
these regulations, some equipment was
leased without written agreements,
leading to disputes and confusion over
which party to the lease was responsible
for charges and actions and, at times,
who was legally responsible for the
vehicle. These recordkeeping
requirements enable the general public
and investigators to identify the
passenger carrier responsible for safety,
and ensure that FMCSA, our State
partners, and the NTSB are better able
to identify the responsible motor carrier
and therefore correctly assign regulatory
violations to the appropriate carrier
during inspections, investigations,
compliance reviews, and crash studies.

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

47784

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

The proposed rule would reduce the
scope of the lease and interchange
requirements for motor carriers of
passengers. Furthermore, those
passenger carriers and passengercarrying CMV trips for which the
proposed rule would remain applicable
would be subject to lease and
interchange requirements that are
reduced from the current requirements.
The applicability of the existing lease
and interchange requirements for motor
carriers of passengers under 49 CFR
390.301 would be revised, resulting in
a substantial reduction of approximately
75% in the number of passenger carriers
and passenger-carrying CMV trips that
would be subject to the lease and
interchange requirement for motor
carriers of passengers. For those motor
carriers of passengers that would remain
subject to the lease and interchange
requirements under the proposed rule,
the existing requirements under 49 CFR
390.303(e) for lease receipt copies
would be eliminated, and the existing
requirements under 49 CFR 390.305 for
charter party notification would also be
eliminated.
The proposed rule would therefore
amend the OMB-approved information
collection titled ‘‘Lease and Interchange
of Vehicles,’’ OMB No. 2126–0056. In
the proposed revision to this
information collection, there is
substantial reduction in time burden
due to program change from the
currently approved information
collection as a result of the proposed
rule.
Title: Lease and Interchange of
Vehicles
OMB control number: 2126–0056.
Summary of the collection of
information: Under the information
collection, freight-carrying commercial
motor carriers and passenger-carrying
commercial motor carriers negotiate
leases, prepare and sign lease
documents, and produce copies of lease
documents.
Need for information: The Agency’s
lease and interchange of vehicles
regulations ensure that truck and bus
carriers are identified (and in some
cases protected) when they agree to
lease their equipment and drivers to
other carriers. These regulations also
ensure that the government and
members of the public can determine
who is responsible for a CMV. These
recordkeeping requirements enable the
general public and investigators to
identify the passenger carrier
responsible for safety.
Proposed use of information: The
government generally collects little
information with this ICR. The leases
and other agreements are developed and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

held by the lessor (e.g., those granting
use of equipment) and lessee (e.g., party
acquiring equipment). They are used to
assign duties and responsibilities. The
information may also be used by law
enforcement to determine legal
responsibility in the event that a leased
vehicle is in violation of the regulations
or is involved in a crash.
Description of the respondents:
Freight-carrying commercial motor
carriers, and passenger-carrying
commercial motor carriers.
Number of respondents:
IC–1 (property-carrying CMVs) number
of respondents: 35,902
IC–2 (passenger-carrying CMVs) number
of respondents: 3,987
Total number of respondents: 39,889
Frequency of response:
IC–1 (property-carrying CMVs)
frequency of response: 19.9 responses
per year, per respondent
IC–2 (passenger-carrying CMVs)
frequency of response: 152.4
responses per year, per respondent
Overall average frequency of response:
33.2 response per year, per
respondent
Burden of response:
IC–1 (property-carrying CMVs) burden
of response: 0.11 hours
IC–2 (passenger-carrying CMVs) burden
of response: 0.11 hours
Overall average burden of response: 0.11
hours
Estimate of total annual burden:
IC–1 (property-carrying CMVs) burden:
77,554 hours
IC–2 (passenger-carrying CMVs) burden:
64,802 hours
Total annual burden: 142,356 hours
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), FMCSA will submit a copy of
this proposed rule to OMB for its review
of the collection of information.
FMCSA asks for public comment on
the proposed collection of information
to help us determine how useful the
information is; whether it can help the
Agency perform our functions better;
whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of
the burden of collection is; how valid
our methods for determining burden
are; how FMCSA can improve the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information; and how FMCSA can
minimize the burden of collection.
G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
A rule has implications for
Federalism under Section 1(a) of E.O.
13132 if it has ‘‘substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’ FMCSA
determined that this proposal would not
have substantial direct costs on or for
States, nor would it limit the
policymaking discretion of States.
Nothing in this document preempts any
State law or regulation. Therefore, this
rule does not have sufficient Federalism
implications to warrant the preparation
of a Federalism Impact Statement.
H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), requires agencies
issuing ‘‘economically significant’’
rules, if the regulation also concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
an agency has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, to
include an evaluation of the regulation’s
environmental health and safety effects
on children. The Agency determined
this proposed rule is not economically
significant. Therefore, no analysis of the
impacts on children is required. In any
event, the Agency does not anticipate
that this regulatory action could in any
respect present an environmental or
safety risk that could disproportionately
affect children.
J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private
Property)
FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule
in accordance with E.O. 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights, and has determined it would not
effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications.
K. Privacy
Section 522 of title I of division H of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L.
108–447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C.
552a note), requires the Agency to
conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment
(PIA) of a regulation that will affect the
privacy of individuals. This proposed
rule does not require the collection of
any personally identifiable information.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a)
applies only to Federal agencies and any
non-Federal agency that receives
records contained in a system of records
from a Federal agency for use in a
matching program. FMCSA has

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
determined that this rule would not
result in a new or revised Privacy Act
System of Records for FMCSA.
The E–Government Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–347, sec. 208, 116 Stat.
2899, 2921 (December 17, 2002),
requires Federal agencies to conduct a
PIA for new or substantially changed
technology that collects, maintains, or
disseminates information in an
identifiable form. No new or
substantially changed technology would
collect, maintain, or disseminate
information as a result of this rule.
Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted
a privacy impact assessment.
L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental
Review)
The regulations implementing E.O.
12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and
activities do not apply to this program.
M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use)
FMCSA has analyzed this proposed
rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The Agency has
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Therefore, it does not require a
Statement of Energy Effects under E.O.
13211.

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

N. E.O. 13783 (Promoting Energy
Independence and Economic Growth)
Executive Order 13783 directs
executive departments and agencies to
review existing regulations that
potentially burden the development or
use of domestically produced energy
resources, and to appropriately suspend,
revise, or rescind those that unduly
burden the development of domestic
energy resources.41 In accordance with
E.O. 13783, the DOT prepared and
submitted a report to the Director of
OMB providing specific
recommendations that, to the extent
permitted by law, could alleviate or
eliminate aspects of agency action that
burden domestic energy production.
The DOT has not identified this
proposed rule as potentially alleviating
unnecessary burdens on domestic
energy production under E.O. 13783.
41 Exec. Order No. 13783, 82 FR 16093 (March 31,
2017).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

regulations.gov website listed under

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

ADDRESSES.

This rule does not have tribal
implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, because it
does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
P. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through OMB, with
an explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods;
sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) are
standards developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
Q. Environment (NEPA and CAA)
FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the
purpose of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and determined this action is
categorically excluded from further
analysis and documentation in an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under
FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680,
March 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraphs
(6)(y)(2) and (6)(y)(7). The Categorical
Exclusion (CE) in paragraph (6)(y)(2)
covers regulations implementing motor
carrier identification and registration
reports. The Categorical Exclusion (CE)
in paragraph (6)(y)(7) covers regulations
implementing prohibitions on motor
carriers, agents, officers, representatives,
and employees from making fraudulent
or intentionally false statements on any
application, certificate, report, or record
required by FMCSA. The proposed
requirements in this rule are covered by
these CEs, and the proposed action does
not have the potential to significantly
affect the quality of the environment.
The CE determination is available for
inspection or copying in the

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

47785

FMCSA also analyzed this rule under
section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.),
and implementing regulations
promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency. Approval of this
action is exempt from the CAA’s general
conformity requirement since it does
not affect direct or indirect emissions of
criteria pollutants.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 390
Highway safety, Intermodal
transportation, Motor carriers, Motor
vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing,
FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
chapter III, subchapter B, part 390 to
read as follows:
PART 390—FEDERAL MOTOR
CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS;
GENERAL
1. The authority citation for part 390
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31132,
31133, 31134, 31136, 31137, 31144, 31149,
31151, 31502; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103–311, 108
Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 212 and 217, Pub. L.
106–159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 229,
Pub. L. 106–159 (as added and transferred by
sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130–4132,
Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743;
sec. 4136, Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144,
1745; secs. 32101(d) and 32934, Pub. L. 112–
141, 126 Stat. 405, 778, 830; sec. 2, Pub. L.
113–125, 128 Stat. 1388; secs. 5403, 5518,
and 5524, Pub. L. 114–94, 129 Stat. 1312,
1548, 1558, 1560; sec. 2, Pub. L. 115–105,
131 Stat. 2263; and 49 CFR 1.81, 1.81a, 1.87.

2. Amend § 390.5 as follows:
a. Lift the suspension of the section;
b. Revise the definition of ‘‘Lease,’’
‘‘Lessee,’’ and ‘‘Lessor’’ in alphabetical
order’’;
■ c. Suspend § 390.5 indefinitely.
The revised text reads as follows:
■
■
■

§ 390.5

Definitions.

*
*
*
*
Lease, as used in subpart G of this
part, means a contract or agreement in
which a motor carrier of passengers
grants the use of a passenger-carrying
commercial motor vehicle to another
motor carrier, with or without a driver,
for a specified period for the
transportation of passengers, whether or
not compensation for such use is
specified or required, when one of the
motor carriers of passengers is not
authorized to operate in interstate
commerce pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13901–
13902. The term lease includes an
interchange, as defined in this section,
or other agreement granting the use of

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

47786

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

a passenger-carrying commercial motor
vehicle for a specified period, with or
without a driver, whether or not
compensation for such use is specified
or required. For a definition of lease in
the context of property-carrying
vehicles, see § 376.2 of this subchapter.
Lessee, as used in subpart G of this
part, means the motor carrier obtaining
the use of a passenger-carrying
commercial motor vehicle through a
lease as defined in this section, with or
without the driver, from another motor
carrier. The term lessee includes a
motor carrier obtaining the use of a
passenger-carrying commercial motor
vehicle from another motor carrier
under an interchange or other
agreement, with or without a driver,
whether or not compensation for such
use is specified. For a definition of
lessee in the context of propertycarrying vehicles, see § 376.2 of this
subchapter.
Lessor, as used in subpart G of this
part, means the motor carrier granting
the use of a passenger-carrying
commercial motor vehicle through a
lease as defined in this section, with or
without a driver, to another motor
carrier. The term lessor includes a motor
carrier granting the use of a passengercarrying commercial motor vehicle to
another motor carrier under an
interchange or other agreement, with or
without a driver, whether or not
compensation for such use is specified.
For a definition of lessor in the context
of property-carrying vehicles, see
§ 376.2 of this subchapter.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 390.5T by revising the
definitions of ‘‘Lease,’’ ‘‘Lessee,’’ and
‘‘Lessor’’ in alphabetical order to read as
follows:

the context of property-carrying
vehicles, see § 376.2 of this subchapter.
Lessee, as used in subpart G of this
part, means the motor carrier obtaining
the use of a passenger-carrying
commercial motor vehicle through a
lease as defined in this section, with or
without the driver, from another motor
carrier. The term lessee includes a
motor carrier obtaining the use of a
passenger-carrying commercial motor
vehicle from another motor carrier
under an interchange or other
agreement, with or without a driver,
whether or not compensation for such
use is specified. For a definition of
lessee in the context of propertycarrying vehicles, see § 376.2 of this
subchapter.
Lessor, as used in subpart G of this
part, means the motor carrier granting
the use of a passenger-carrying
commercial motor vehicle through a
lease as defined in this section, with or
without a driver, to another motor
carrier. The term lessor includes a motor
carrier granting the use of a passengercarrying commercial motor vehicle to
another motor carrier under an
interchange or other agreement, with or
without a driver, whether or not
compensation for such use is specified.
For a definition of lessor in the context
of property-carrying vehicles, see
§ 376.2 of this subchapter.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 390.21 as follows:
■ a. Lift the suspension of the section;
■ b. Revise paragraph (e);
■ c. Remove paragraph (f);
■ d. Redesignate paragraphs (g) and (h)
as paragraphs (f) and (g), respectively;
■ e. Suspend § 390.21 indefinitely.
The revised text reads as follows:

§ 390.5T

§ 390.21 Marking of self-propelled CMVs
and intermodal equipment.

Definitions.

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

*
*
*
*
(e) Rented CMVs and leased
passenger-carrying CMVs. A motor
carrier operating a self-propelled CMV
under a rental agreement or a passengercarrying CMV under a lease, when the
rental agreement or lease has a term not
in excess of 30 calendar days, meets the
requirements of this section if:
(1) The CMV is marked in accordance
with the provisions of paragraphs (b)
through (d) of this section; or
(2) Except as provided in paragraph
(e)(2)(v), the CMV is marked as set forth
in paragraph (e)(2)(i) through (iv) of this
section:
(i) The legal name or a single trade
name of the lessor is displayed in
accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d)
of this section.
(ii) The lessor’s identification number
preceded by the letters ‘‘USDOT’’ is

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

displayed in accordance with
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section;
and
(iii) The rental agreement or lease as
applicable entered into by the lessor and
the renting motor carrier or lessee
conspicuously contains the following
information:
(A) The name and complete physical
address of the principal place of
business of the renting motor carrier or
lessee;
(B) The identification number issued
to the renting motor carrier or lessee by
FMCSA, preceded by the letters
‘‘USDOT,’’ if the motor carrier has been
issued such a number. In lieu of the
identification number required in this
paragraph, the following information
may be shown in a rental agreement:
(1) Whether the motor carrier is
engaged in ‘‘interstate’’ or ‘‘intrastate’’
commerce; and
(2) Whether the renting motor carrier
is transporting hazardous materials in
the rented CMV;
(C) The sentence: ‘‘This lessor
cooperates with all Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officials
nationwide to provide the identity of
customers who operate this rental
CMV’’; and
(iv) The rental agreement or lease as
applicable entered into by the lessor and
the renting motor carrier or lessee is
carried on the rental CMV or leased
passenger-carrying CMV during the full
term of the rental agreement or lease.
See the property-carrying leasing
regulations at 49 CFR part 376 and the
passenger-carrying leasing regulations at
subpart G of this part for information
that should be included in all leasing
documents.
(v) Exception. The passenger-carrying
CMV operating under the 48-hour
emergency exception pursuant to
§ 390.403(a)(2) of this part does not need
to comply with paragraphs (iii) and (iv)
of this section, provided the lessor and
lessee comply with the requirements of
§ 390.403(a)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Amend § 390.21T by
■ a. Revising paragraph (e);
■ b. Removing paragraph (f);
■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (g) and
(h) as paragraphs (f) and (g),
respectively.
The revision to read as follows:
§ 390.21T Marking of self-propelled CMVs
and intermodal equipment.

*
*
*
*
(e) Rented CMVs and leased
passenger-carrying CMVs. A motor
carrier operating a self-propelled CMV
under a rental agreement or a passengercarrying CMV under a lease, when the

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules
rental agreement or lease has a term not
in excess of 30 calendar days, meets the
requirements of this section if:
(1) The CMV is marked in accordance
with the provisions of paragraphs (b)
through (d) of this section; or
(2) Except as provided in paragraph
(e)(2)(v), the CMV is marked as set forth
in paragraph (e)(2)(i) through (iv) of this
section:
(i) The legal name or a single trade
name of the lessor is displayed in
accordance with paragraphs (c) and (d)
of this section.
(ii) The lessor’s identification number
preceded by the letters ‘‘USDOT’’ is
displayed in accordance with
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section;
and
(iii) The rental agreement or lease as
applicable entered into by the lessor and
the renting motor carrier or lessee
conspicuously contains the following
information:
(A) The name and complete physical
address of the principal place of
business of the renting motor carrier or
lessee;
(B) The identification number issued
to the renting motor carrier or lessee by
FMCSA, preceded by the letters
‘‘USDOT,’’ if the motor carrier has been
issued such a number. In lieu of the
identification number required in this
paragraph, the following information
may be shown in a rental agreement:
(1) Whether the motor carrier is
engaged in ‘‘interstate’’ or ‘‘intrastate’’
commerce; and
(2) Whether the renting motor carrier
or lessee is transporting hazardous
materials in the rented or leased CMV;
(C) The sentence: ‘‘This lessor
cooperates with all Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officials
nationwide to provide the identity of
customers who operate this rental or
leased CMV’’; and
(iv) The rental agreement or lease as
applicable entered into by the lessor and
the renting motor carrier or lessee is
carried on the rental CMV or leased
passenger-carrying CMV during the full
term of the rental agreement or lease.
See the property-carrying leasing
regulations at 49 CFR part 376 and the
passenger-carrying leasing regulations at
subpart G of this part for information
that should be included in all leasing
documents.
(v) Exception. The passenger-carrying
CMV operating under the 48-hour
emergency exception pursuant to
§ 390.403(a)(2) of this part does not need
to comply with paragraphs (iii) and (iv)
of this section, provided the lessor and
lessee comply with the requirements of
§ 390.403(a)(2).
*
*
*
*
*

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

47787

Subpart F—[Removed and Reserved]

§ 390.403 Lease and interchange
requirements.

6. Remove and reserve subpart F of
part 390., consisting of §§ 390.301
through 390.305, to read as follows:
■ 7. Add subpart G, consisting of
§§ 390.401 and 390.403, to read as
follows:

Except as provided in § 390.401(b) of
this section, a motor carrier may
transport passengers in a leased or
interchanged commercial motor vehicle
only under the following conditions:
(a) In general—(1) Lease or agreement
required. There shall be in effect either:
(i) A lease granting the use of the
passenger-carrying commercial motor
vehicle and meeting the conditions of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
The provisions of the lease shall be
adhered to and performed by the lessee;
or
(ii) An agreement meeting the
conditions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section and governing the
interchange of passenger-carrying
commercial motor vehicles between
motor carriers of passengers conducting
service on a route or series of routes.
The provisions of the interchange
agreement shall be adhered to and
performed by the lessee.
(2) Exception. When an event occurs
(e.g., a crash, the vehicle is disabled)
that requires a motor carrier of
passengers immediately to obtain a
replacement vehicle from another motor
carrier of passengers, the two carriers
may postpone the writing of the lease or
written agreement for the replacement
vehicle for up to 48 hours after the time
the lessee takes exclusive possession
and control of the replacement vehicle.
However, during that 48-hour (or
shorter) period, the driver of the vehicle
must carry, and upon demand of an
enforcement official produce, a
document signed and dated by the
lessee’s driver or available company
official stating: ‘‘[Carrier A, USDOT
number, telephone number] has leased
this vehicle to [Carrier B, USDOT
number, telephone number] pursuant to
49 CFR 390.403(a)(2).’’
(b) Contents of the lease. The lease or
interchange agreement required by
paragraph (a) of this section shall
contain:
(1) Vehicle identification information.
The name of the vehicle manufacturer,
the year of manufacture, and at least the
last 6 digits of the Vehicle Identification
Number (VIN) of each passengercarrying commercial motor vehicle
transferred between motor carriers
pursuant to the lease or interchange
agreement.
(2) Parties. The legal name, USDOT
number, and telephone number of the
motor carrier providing passenger
transportation in a commercial motor
vehicle (lessee) and the legal name,
USDOT number, and telephone number
of the motor carrier providing the
equipment (lessor), and signatures of

■

Subpart G—Lease and Interchange of
Passenger-Carrying Commercial Motor
Vehicles
Sec.
390.401 Applicability.
390.403 Lease and interchange
requirements.

Subpart G—Lease and Interchange of
Passenger-Carrying Commercial Motor
Vehicles
§ 390.401

Applicability.

(a) General. Except as provided in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section,
this subpart applies to the following
actions, irrespective of duration, or the
presence or absence of compensation,
by motor carriers operating commercial
motor vehicles to transport passengers:
(1) The lease of passenger-carrying
commercial motor vehicles; and
(2) The interchange of passengercarrying commercial motor vehicles
between motor carriers.
(b) Exceptions—(1) Contracts and
agreements between motor carriers of
passengers with active passenger carrier
operating authority registrations. This
subpart does not apply to contracts and
agreements between motor carriers of
passengers that have active passenger
carrier operating authority registrations
with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration when one such motor
carrier acquires transportation service(s)
from another such motor carrier(s).
(2) Financial leases. This subpart does
not apply to a contract (however
designated, e.g., lease, closed-end lease,
hire purchase, lease purchase, purchase
agreement, installment plan, etc.)
between a motor carrier and a financial
organization or a manufacturer or dealer
of passenger-carrying commercial motor
vehicles allowing the motor carrier to
use the passenger-carrying commercial
motor vehicle.
(c) Penalties. If the use of a passengercarrying commercial motor vehicle is
conferred on one motor carrier subject
to this subpart by another such motor
carrier without a lease or interchange
agreement, or pursuant to a lease or
interchange agreement that fails to meet
all applicable requirements of subpart
G, both motor carriers shall be subject
to a civil penalty.

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

47788

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS3

both parties or their authorized
representatives.
(3) Specific duration. The time and
date when, and the location where, the
lease or interchange agreement begins
and ends.
(4) Exclusive possession and
responsibilities. (i) A clear statement
that the motor carrier obtaining the
passenger-carrying commercial motor
vehicle (the lessee) has exclusive
possession, control, and use of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:54 Sep 19, 2018

Jkt 244001

passenger-carrying commercial motor
vehicle for the duration of the
agreement, and assumes complete
responsibility for operation of the
vehicle and compliance with all
applicable Federal regulations for the
duration of the agreement.
(ii) In the event of a sublease between
motor carriers, all of the requirements of
this section shall apply to a sublease.
(c) Copies of the lease. A copy shall
be on the passenger-carrying

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

commercial motor vehicle during the
period of the lease or interchange
agreement, and both the lessee and
lessor shall retain a copy of the lease or
interchange agreement for 1 year after
the expiration date.
Issued under the authority delegated in 49
CFR 1.87 on: September 11, 2018.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018–20162 Filed 9–19–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

E:\FR\FM\20SEP3.SGM

20SEP3

File Type	application/pdf
File Modified	2019-06-26
File Created	2019-06-10