overview of recent developments in motor carrier regulations a peek into the future

OVERVIEW OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN MOTOR CARRIER REGULATIONS

A PEEK INTO THE FUTURE

TRANSPORTATION & LOGISTICS COUNCIL 2013 Annual Conference

April 22, 2013San Diego, California

History of Electronic On-Board Recorders

• 1985: FHWA issues waivers allowing electronic recordkeeping of duty status

• 1986: FHWA begins rulemaking to allow electronic recordkeeping of hours of service

• 1988: FHWA adopts final rule allowing use of Automatic On-Board Recording Devices (AOBRDs)49 C.F.R. § 395.16

History of Electronic On-Board Recorders

• 2003: FMCSA adopts final rule, but does not impose mandatory EOBR use68 Fed. Reg. 22456 (Apr. 28, 2003)

• 2004: U.S. Court of Appeals vacates 2003 Final Rule; requires FMCSA to collect and analyze data on costs and benefits of EOBR mandatePublic Citizen v. FMCSA, 374 F.3d 1290 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

Recent Rulemaking Proceedings

• 2007: FMCSA issues first Notice of Proposed Rule-Making to address EOBR issue72 Fed. Reg. 2339 (Jan. 18, 2007)

• 2010: FMCSA issues first Final Rule (EOBR-1)75 Fed. Reg. 17208 (Apr. 5, 2010)

• EOBR-1 targets carriers with poor Hours of Service records


• EOBR-1 VacatedOOIDA v. FMCSA, 656 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2011)

• FMCSA failed to address driver harassment, other issues49 U.S.C. § 31137(a)

• FMCSA withdraws EOBR-1 final rule


• 2011: FMCSA issues second Notice of Proposed Rule-Making regarding EOBRs (EOBR-2)76 Fed. Reg. 5537 (Feb. 1, 2011)

• EOBR-2 requires EOBR us by all carriers required to keep paper logs, including passenger carriers, but excluding 100-mile drivers

EOBR Requirements

• EOBRs must be configured to track information in paper logs – duty status, date/time, position

• EOBR data cannot be altered

• EOBR data must keep 7 days of data, plus current day

• EOBRs must provide instructions for law enforcement access

EOBR Requirements

• Driver must maintain paper logs in case of malfunction

• Driver must still maintain supporting documents

• FMCSA may ease supporting document requirements for driving duty status, but continue requirement for On Duty-Not Driving and Sleeper Berth duty status

EOBR Requirements• NPRM is not especially specific as to configuration of

EOBR

• However, §§395.15-.18, and Appendix A provide specifics for voluntary EOBRs– Must allow officials to immediately check driver status, and

must provide detailed instructions to law enforcement– Must display key information (395.16(n))– Support systems at MC’s principal place of business of

driver home terminal must provide summary of activity– EOBRs must conform to standards of ANSI, NBS, IEEE;

USB-IF (395.18(a))

EOBR Requirements• EOBR must provide (395.15):

– Duty status following lines 1-4 of paper log– Location of duty status change– ID of all drivers for team operations and ID of who is driving– Information on how to recover data– Manufacturer certification that EOBR design has been

tested to meet FMCSR requirements– Tamper-proof, as is practical– Visual and audio warning of malfunction– Information must replicate capability of paper logs

EOBR Requirements• 395.16 (l):

– Location must be noted to nearest city, village or town for each change of duty

– No greater than 60 minute intervals– Look out for GPS glitches -- names of towns can be vague– Satellites are prescribed

• Driver name duty status, date and time, distance traveled, ID of MC and CMV– Just what you’d expect– After stationary for 5 minutes –- default to on-duty not driving

EOBR Requirements• Driver must affirmatively review information before

submitting record– Drivers must be adequately trained in use and operation– MC must maintain back-up copy of electronic HOS in a

different location than original– If FMCSA determines MC has permitted violations or

tampered with device, authority to use EOBR can be revoked and paper logs will be required

– If CMV is used for personal conveyance, that must be noted before trip starts

EOBR Requirements• Authority to use EOBR is granted under 395.16(a)

– Driver is able to make annotations on hard copy of EOBR printout (legible)

– Current day and 7 prior days must be produced– If EOBR fails (more than 5 minutes), driver must note it

within 2 days and be able to reconstruct 8 days– Go to paper logs after failure

• Driver must submit and certify HOS within 3 days of completion

• Driver input can only occur at rest

In Favor• Large Carriers• ATA• NPTC• TCA• Alliance for Driver

Safety & Security

Reaction to EOBR Regulations

Opposed• Small Carriers• Owner-Operators• OOIDA

• Concerns about cost, upkeep, burden on smaller carriers and owner-operators

• Concerns about Mexican trucks

• U.S. will pay for and own Mexican EOBRs; will be reimbursed when rulemaking goes into effect

Reaction to EOBR Regulations

• 2012 Highway Appropriations Bill– FMCSA must develop a rule requiring EOBR use within one

year– Amendment to bill prohibits federal funding for EOBR

mandate

• Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act (Senate Bill 695)– Requires integration of EOBR into ECM

Recent Developments in EOBR Regulation

• Litigation and evidentiary considerations:– Spoliation– Not complying with records policies– Why not add more data?

• Pandora’s box?

• May help “logs not current” violations

Practical Considerations

Practical Considerations

• There is currently no EOBR rulemaking in place

• Possible supplemental NPRM in 7/13

• Agency has announced it ill not meet 9/13 deadline in Maps 21 for EOBRs

National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners

• Effective 5/13/12• 390.101-115• New specialized licensure• Must complete training program (9390.105)• Must pass exam (390.107)• Recurrent training (390.111(a)(5))• All trainers and programs must be certified by a

recognized acreditting organization and coordinate with FMCSA

Hours of ServiceLink to Rulemaking

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/index.htm

Oral argument in DC Circuit was 3/15/13(Effective Date of Rulemaking is 7/1/13)

FMCSR HAS SAID THERE WILL BE NO DELAY OF IMPLEMENTATION

Caution Urged in the Use of SafeStat Data

WARNING: Because of State data variations, FMCSA cautions those who seek to use the SafeStat data analysis system in ways not intended by FMCSA. Please be aware that use of SafeStat for purposes other than identifying and prioritizing carriers for FMCSA and state safety improvement and enforcement programs may produce unintended results and not be suitable for certain uses.

SafeStatU.S. Inspector General Opinion

“Consequently, while SafeStat is sufficient for internal use, its continued public dissemination and external use require prompt corrective action.”

SafeStat and Safer in Court

Evidence Admissible in Favor of Plaintiffs• At least two courts permitted evidence re:

negligent hiring claims• Jones v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.• Schramm v. Foster

• Evidence admissible in favor of Motor Carrier• Fike v. Peace• Smith v. Spring Hill

CSA 2010

• Created in response to criticism of SafeStat and SAFER

• Three ratings– Continue to operate– Marginal– Unfit

CSA 2010/CSA

• Focus on evaluating and targeting “behaviors” which affect safety

• Through use of web based technology and data reports from states, FMSCA can more effectively evaluate safety and at risk motor carriers and drivers

CSA 2010/CSA

• Seven BASICS (Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories)– Unsafe driving (1-5 mph speeding violations

removed)– HOS compliance (fka Fatigued Driving HOS)– Driver fitness– Drugs/alcohol– Vehicle maintenance (now includes all non-HazMat

cargo issues)– HazMat– Crashes (not available to the public)

CSA 2010/CSA

• Admissibility• CSA disclaimer – Data not meant for

litigation• Unreliability of data• Use SAFER/SafeStat cases for

arguments against admissibility

The key changes that FMCSA will make to the SMS public website by March 25, 2011 are as follows: • Replace any ALERT symbol currently displayed in orange on the SMS

website with the following symbol of the exclamation mark inside a gold triangle .

• Revise the disclaimer language on the SMS website to read: 1."The data in the Safety Measurement System (SMS) is performance

data used by the Agency and enforcement community. A symbol, based on that data, indicates that FMCSA may prioritize a motor carrier for further monitoring. The symbol is not intended to imply any federal safety rating of the carrier pursuant to 49 USC 31144. Readers should not draw conclusions about a carrier's overall safety condition simply based on the data displayed in this system. Unless a motor carrier in the SMS has received an UNSATISFACTORY safety rating pursuant to 49 CFR Part 385, or has otherwise been ordered to discontinue operations by the FMCSA, it is authorized to operate on the nation's roadways. Motor carrier safety ratings are available at http://safer.fmcsa.dot.gov and motor carrier licensing and insurance status are available at http://li-public.fmcsa.dot.gov."

Mexican Trucking Program

• 1993-NAFTA was approved, however President Clinton declined to implement full open border policy with Mexico


• Announced February 23, 2007; permitted by FMCSR Part 381

• Allowed limited number of Mexican-based trucks to travel throughout the United States

• Mexican motor carriers held to identical standards as U.S. Carriers

• DOT inspectors in Mexico– Truckload – no LTL– U.S. Insurers


• 2004 –Supreme Court of U.S. holds that Mexican/U.S. cross-border provisions of NAFTA can move forward

• Heavy opposition from Congress, Teamsters, Interest Groups


• Early 2009 Obama Administration and Congress cease funding program

• Mexico retaliated with tariffs• Deal reached – program reinstated, tariffs removed• Interest Groups and hostile legislators are still

opposed – Teamsters and OOIDA have sued again• EOBRs paid for by U.S.• As of 11/18/11 26 Mexican motor carriers have

applied


• On Friday, 4/19/13 the D.C. Circuit rejected Teamster/OOIDA challenges to the program

• Mexican truck program complies with all applicable law and can proceed

• Teamsters v. DOT – Case No. 11-1444• OOIDA v. DOT – Case No. 11-1251

Hand-Held Mobile Telephones Banned: 1/3/12

FMCSR §390.5: Definition of use of hand-held mobile telephone: • Using at least one hand to hold a mobile telephone to

conduct a voice communication;• Dialing or answering a mobile telephone by pressing

more than a single button; or• Reaching for a mobile telephone in a manner that

requires a driver to maneuver so that he or she is no longer in a seated driving position, restrained by a seat belt that is installed in according with 49 CFR 393.93 and adjusted in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer’s instructions.

Hand-Held Mobile Telephones

• Ban includes texting on mobile devices• Note: the “single button” rule will be difficult to

comply with

FMCSR §392.82: Statement of Prohibited and Allowed Conduct

• No driver shall use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a CMV

• No motor carrier shall allow or require its drivers to use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a CMV

• Driving means operating a CMV on a highway, including while temporarily stationery … does not include when driver has moved to side of, or off, a highway, or halted in a location where the vehicle can safely remain stationery

• Emergency exception: Permissible when necessary to communicate with law enforcement or other emergency services.

Hand-Held Mobile Telephones: Penalties

• Commercial drivers will face fines up to $2,750 for using phones, and revocation or suspension of their commercial driver’s license for second and subsequent offenses

• Employers who allow drivers to use phones while driving face up to $11,000 in fines

Hand-Held Mobile Telephones

• CSA Motor Carrier Score Implications:• Five texting and cell phone use violations will now contribute

to highest (10 points) weighted severity to carrier’s numerical rankings in the Unsafe Driving Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Score (BASIC)

• Violations include two each relating to operating a commercial motor vehicle while texting and operating a CMV while using a hand-held mobile telephone. The fifth violation applies to motor carrier safety procedures assigning a 10-point severity weighting to carriers’ “allowing or requiring driver to sue a hand-held mobile telephone while operating a CMV.”

Hand-Held Mobile TelephonesLink to Rulemaking

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-02/html/2011-30749.htm

The Future

• CSA• “Fault”• Or preventability (385.3)• Accident “could have been averted but

for an act or failure to act by M/C or Driver

• Open ended – not tort fault

The Future

• Broker regulation?• Bond raised to $75k – 10/13• Shipper regulation?• FMCSA 5-year plan 2012-2016• Shippers and Brokers:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/STRATEGIC-PLAN/FMCSA_StrategicPlan_2012-2016.pdf

The Future: FMCSA Strategic Plan

“FMCSA will achieve its goal to maintain high safety standards to remain in industry by identify gaps in resources and authorities that prevent FMCSA from reaching certain elements of the CMV transportation life-cycle (e.g. entities touching highway movement of freight: shippers, receivers, brokers, freight forwarders) that may have a detrimental effect on safety through their actions.”

The Future: FMCSA Strategic Plan

“Further, the Agency will create a comprehensive prioritization system based upon safety and risk analysis to drive FMCSA intervention efforts. This will include a single, unified, prioritization list based upon easily updateable algorithms that cover each segment of our regulated industry, e.g., passenger, HAZMAT property, and HHG carriers, as well as shippers, including intermodal freight, brokers, drivers, and cargo tank manufacturers or repair facilities. This system will also necessitate improving the tools regulated entities need to proactively track, measure, and improve their own safety performance.”

Thank You!Joe Pappalardo

[email protected]

overview of recent developments in motor carrier regulations a peek into the future

Documents