Annual Roadcheck Campaign Finds Higher Out-of-Service Rates than 2019

March 6, 2021 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

2020’s Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s International Roadcheck event, which was originally set to take place in May, was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and took place in early September. Now, reports from the three-day event have been released and show a 20.9% rate of overall out-of-service vehicles throughout the continent of North America–an increase from 2019’s rate of 17.9%.

International Roadcheck is an enforcement and inspection initiative taking place over the course of 72 hours and is conducted by CVSA-certified inspectors. These inspectors examine motor vehicles and drivers’ compliance regarding safety and health protocols throughout the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

In 2020, over 50,000 inspections took place, and include the examination of vehicles such as large trucks, non-hazmat cargo tanks, cargo tanks transporting hazardous materials, and passenger vehicles.

Out of the 50,151 inspections done, 26,451 were Level I inspections, 11,224 were Level II, 11,364 were Level III, and 1,112 were Level V.

When releasing the results of the event, CVSA said that the International Roadcheck “highlights the daily work of the more than 13,000 commercial motor vehicle inspectors throughout North America and acknowledges the safety compliance of motor carriers and professional drivers through the issuance of the CVSA decal on eligible vehicles.”

These decals are given to vehicles that are not found to have any critical vehicle inspection item violations following a Level I or Level V inspection. For 2020, 9,303 power units, 3,662 trailers, and 123 passenger vehicles were issued a decal.

During the course of the 45,046 Level I, II, and III inspections that occurred throughout the United States, 7,256 vehicles and 2,365 total drivers were removed from American roadways.

Issues regarding brake systems made up the largest number of out-of-service violations throughout the U.S., a number which comprised over a quarter of all out-of-service vehicle violations. For drivers in particular, hours of service regulation violations were the most common, as these violations made up 32.5% of overall out-of-service driver violations.

Across the continent, the five most common vehicle-related out-of-service violations found upon inspection had to do with tires, lights, cargo securement, brake adjustment, and overall brake systems. The top five for drivers were, of course, hours-of-service violations, as well as wrong class license, suspended license, false logs, and “other” violations–mistakes like cell phone use and moving violations.

“Although the coronavirus pandemic understandably shifted priorities and personnel during the spring, the commercial motor vehicle law enforcement community has reasserted its focus on the roadside inspection program and enforcement duties,” said CVSA President, Sgt. John Samis, at the time the postponement was announced. “Jurisdictions are nearly back to their pre-pandemic capacity with a strengthened concentration on identifying and removing unfit vehicles and drivers from our roadways using federal safety standards and the out-of-service criteria.”

This is the first year in 32 years that the International Roadcheck event did not occur on schedule. The decision to postpone was “thoroughly and thoughtfully discussed,” according to Samis. “The experience is unprecedented in our modern society, and we all need to do all that we can to help stop the spread of this global pandemic.”

While adhering to strict safety precautions, inspections worked to collect and verify drivers’ documents, identify motor carriers, check records-of-duty statuses, examine driver’s licenses, and carefully check periodic inspection reports.

Inspectors also checked Medical Examiner’s Certificates, daily vehicle inspection reports, and Skill Performance Evaluation Certificates when necessary.

Illness, fatigue, drug or alcohol possession or impairment, and proper seat belt usage were also checked for.

“As we urgently respond to this time-sensitive crisis, we must remain diligent and committed to ensuring that the commercial motor vehicles and drivers providing essential goods and services to our communities are following motor carrier safety regulations,” Samis explained. “Safety doesn’t take a break. It is always our top priority.”

More than 1.7 million roadside inspections have been conducted throughout International Roadcheck events since the beginning of the campaign in 1988. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, Transport Canada, Mexico’s National guard, and the Mexico Ministry of Communications and Transportation all participate each year in CVSA’s Roadcheck.

The next International Roadcheck campaign will take place between May 4th and 6th of 2021, pandemic permitting.

Final Rule Relaxes CDL Skills Training and Testing Restrictions

March 5, 2021 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The final rule aiming to relax commercial driver license skills testing requirements has been implemented by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

This final rule will officially permit states to allow third-party test examiners to test CDL applicants on their skills once the examiner has already provided skills training to the applicant.

This final rule has been long-awaited throughout the COVID-19 pandemic as more truckers than ever have been needed on the nation’s frontlines. The U.S. Department of Transportation announced the final rule on December 17th, citing the need for flexibility being due to truckers transporting the first loads of coronavirus vaccines.

“Under [Transportation] Secretary [Elaine] Chao’s leadership, the Trump administration has continued to examine ways to provide commonsense regulatory reform and help individuals seeking to enter the commercial driver industry,” said Wiley Deck, FMCSA Deputy Administrator. “This new rule will provide states more flexibility during the ongoing public health emergency to test CDL applicants and allow more drivers to safely enter the industry.”

An earlier federal restriction did now allow an instructor of commercial driver license skills authorized by a particular state to also administer a CDL skills test to the same applicant. Now, the final rule releases that restriction, permitting states to decide for themselves whether or not they will allow a third-party trainer to also administer skills testing for one person.

The argument behind the final relaxation of the restriction is that drivers entering the industry will be able to find gainful employment much sooner than they would have otherwise–something the industry deems vital right now.

“During the COVID-19 public health emergency, truckers have been American heroes,” said Secretary Chao, “and the department is committed to helping our economy by reducing unnecessary barriers for those interested in obtaining jobs in the trucking industry.”

FMCSA, in the announcement of the final rule, ensured that the validity and integrity of CDL skills training and testing will not be compromised by this boosted flexibility.

“The agency believes that allowing states to permit this practice may alleviate CDL skill testing delays, and reduce inconvenience and cost for third-party testers and CDL applicants without negatively impacting safety,” said FMCSA’s document explaining the final rule.

If a state decides not to allow third-party test examiners to provide CDL testing, they are not required to do so under the new rule. As of now, FMCSA says 10 states do not authorize any third-party testing methods.

The final rule document will explain the public comments in opposition to the proposal, which detail worries regarding fraud and conflict of interest. The document follows the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this rule, which was originally announced in June of 2019. The final rule took place immediately following FMCSA’s publication in the Federal Register.

Further commentary in support of the new rule showed confidence in safety and explained the current methods in place that work to determine fraud within CDL skills testing. Examples of what was noted include the regulation indicating that states must do one of the following at least once every other year: use a third-party to administer a skills test for state employees; or, on a sample of drivers being tested by a third-party group, compare testing results by having the third-party examiner co-score an applicant on a CDL skills test with state employees also scoring the same applicant.

Driver testing and licensing has faced many obstacles during the coronavirus pandemic, with many licensing offices having to adhere to safety guidelines and require testing by appointment only. These particular delays are believed to have worsened the current truck driver shortage–which has become exaggerated as more deliveries are being made than ever during a time when so many people are shopping online.

This shortage also, of course, brings further challenges to the shipments needed to keep grocery stores stocked with food and household goods and hospitals stocked with personal protective equipment, medical equipment, medication, and, now, COVID-19 vaccines.

Additionally, FMCSA claims this is only part of a series of steps “focused on reducing regulatory barriers for CDL applicants,” noting that “In March 2019, the agency authored a final rule streamlining the process and reducing costs to upgrade from a Class B to a Class A CDL–a deregulatory action that will save eligible driver trainees and motor carriers $18 million annually.”

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Plans and Updates Required in Final FRA Rule

March 4, 2021 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

A final rule mandating states update or develop highway-rail grade crossing action plans has been issued by the Federal Railroad Administration.

The FRA recently released data showing that 94% of fatalities related to rail transit take place at railroad crossings and/or are results of trespassing. A highway-rail grade crossing is the point where railroad tracks intersect with a roadway on the same grade or level. There are more than 250,000 of these crossings across the country, and more than 400 related deaths occur each year in these areas due to trespassing.

The Federal Register released its final ruling in mid-December requesting highway-rail grade crossing action steps to be planned out by 40 different states and the District of Columbia. The remaining 10 states, which already have plans in place, must also update these plans while indicating exactly what they have done thus far to take action on them.

These outlined plans are required to identify all crossings that have seen safety issues and incidents, and specific strategies must be indicated for improving the overall safety of these crossings. According to the Federal Register announcement, these strategies could include grade separations or closures, and each state must identify one official manager to ensure that the indicated action plan comes to fruition.

“The actions states must take to develop action plans and, more specifically, to develop specific strategies for improving grade crossing safety can, if done properly, significantly improve safety and complement other efforts by states to improve transportations safety generally,” said the document.

The FRA was urged to implement regulations requiring highway-rail grade crossing action plans by 2015’s Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, from which this most recent rule is derived. The provision in FRA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking detailing said action plans was initially published near the end of 2019.

Prior to those regulations, 2008’s Rail Safety Improvement Act pushed a number of states to make such safety plans, which led to 10 particular states with the largest number of highway-rail grade crossing incidents between 2006 and 2008 to be identified by the Secretary of Transportation at that time. Those states were then required to create specific action plans aiming to lead toward major safety improvements. The states required to make such plans after analysis of agency data regarding crossing collisions were Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas.

Because the necessary safety action plans proved to be costly, many members of the public urged the FRA to allocate funding to these specified states–especially as Delaware’s Department of Transportation explained that its needed costs were going to make or break the state’s ability to make important–and potentially life-saving–safety upgrades.

“DelDOT noted that the state of Delaware currently experiences an extremely low number of train-related crashes and asserted that developing an action plan would draw resources away from other ongoing efforts to make a positive safety impact on the state and its communities,” said the Federal Register document. “Accordingly, DelDOT recommended that FRA establish guidelines that, if met, would exempt a state from the requirement to develop an action plan.”

Currently, states are able to utilize the Federal Highway Administration’s Railway-Highway Crossings Program funding to develop needed action plans, although the final rule’s mandate has yet to provide any provision allocating specific federal funds for said plans.

Once plans are formed, the FRA must, as stated in the FAST Act, review and, upon approval, publish the state’s plan publicly on an official website. If a submitted plan is determined to be inadequate, the agency must notify the state of deficiencies and allow the state 60 days to correct or add what may be missing.

If the two-month deadline is missed, the FRA must then publish online that the state in question has not completed a proper action plan. As states continue to work on their action plans and updates, DRA representatives and inspectors are available to help those with questions. DRA will also provide highway-rail grade crossing incident data to states when requested.

This final ruling is officially in place as of January 13th, and states are required to submit their plans or updates to the FRA by at least 14 months after the publication date of the final rule.

Trucking Industry Requests Liability Protections Due to Increased Responsibilities During COVID Crisis

March 3, 2021 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Motor carriers working on the front lines during the COVID-19 pandemic are requesting guaranteed liability protection from Congress, as federal lawmakers work to bring further emergency funding to the trucking industry through new legislation.

A particular group of House members and senators have been working to help stakeholders throughout coronavirus relief efforts and are currently pushing forward a $45 billion relief bill for transportation operations during this time.

According to the measure, which would bring $746 billion in relief funds overall, emergency aid would be given to public transit, bus system, airports, airlines, and Amtrak operations. This aid would also help supply chain operators working within distribution efforts for COVID-19 vaccines as well as certain small businesses.

An additional bill aiming to give $160 billion in state and municipality relief efforts has been moved forward by a bipartisan group of lawmakers. This separate bill would help bring liability protections for COVID-19 relief responders and affiliated stakeholders, and these protections would help with injury claims dating back to December 2019.

In a letter to congressional leaders, American Trucking Associations requested specific liability-protection measures. The letter was addressed to leaders in the congressional minority, as well as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

“Motor carriers and commercial drivers are crucial to ensuring that American communities have the essential goods they need–food, medicine, personal protective equipment, and other critical items–to weather the ongoing public health crisis,” said ATA President Chris Spear in the letter. “Carriers and drivers are in large part the reason why our nation’s grocery stores remain stocked, our gas stations are refueled, and our hospitals and medical professionals stay supplied. As vaccines arrive to protect Americans from this pandemic, they will arrive on a truck.”

“Without these reasonable protections, we fear an onslaught of costly litigation spurred more by an opportunistic trial bar than by those seeking appropriate remedies in response to the actions of a few bad actors,” the letter continued. “ATA’s motor carriers remain committed to what’s been asked of us while asking for little in return, but our industry faces an uncertain future if frivolous lawsuits continue to be filed unabated.”

The letter ended by calling for the House and Senate to “find common ground” in regards to an additional COVID-19 relief bill, reiterating that liability protections are key to making sure motor carriers can continue handling supply chain needs during the current economic crisis.

“Congress should provide that motor carriers are not held liable if, despite reasonable efforts and absent willful/gross misconduct, they are alleged to have exposed customers or employees to the coronavirus in the course of serving the nation’s supply needs during the crisis,” said Spear. “The trucking industry is proud to play an outsized role in COVID-19 response and recovery efforts, and we ask that you consider the essential liability protections in any future legislation.”

The Association of Equipment Manufacturers pushed for the $748 billion relief legislation as transportation stakeholders urged Congress to help avoid transportation service disruptions by approving additional pandemic relief packages.

“Failure to pass this legislative package will mean that small- and medium-sized equipment manufacturers will continue to struggle to keep the lights on and workers on the job, result in continued financial hardship for millions of Americans, and create unnecessary delays in combating the COVID-19 pandemic,” lamented Kip Eideberg, Senior Vice President of the Association of Equipment Manufacturers.

Co-sponsors of the proposal include Senators Susan Collins, Mark Warner, Bill Cassidy, Joe Manchin, and Mitt Romney, who states, “We were able to reach agreement on a two-part relief package that includes emergency relief for small businesses, unemployment insurance, funding for vaccines and health care providers, as well as state and local assistance and a national liability shield for COVID-[19]-related lawsuits.”

A new round of coronavirus relief legislation has yet to be determined by congressional leaders.

Senators have proposed offering $300.8 million to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s safety operations and programs account, and Senate appropriators suggested $391.1 million for FMCSA safety grants. In addition, this summer also saw House funding leaders’ transportation measure passed.

COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Efforts See First Holdups

March 2, 2021 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The United States has experienced its first obstacles in delivering COVID-19 vaccines–the recent distribution effort to deliver nearly 4,000 vaccinations to two states saw a concerning holdup. Additionally, Pfizer Inc. had to announce that it would be distributing a million fewer doses than were intended to ship that particular week.

In mid-December, Alabama and California had four Pfizer-BioNTech SE vaccine delivery trays removed from delivery. These doses were returned back to Pfizer, as they had arrived at a colder temperature than was necessary, explained Operation Warp Speed’s chief operations officer, Gustave Perna.

Pfizer indicated that its vaccines must be stored at exactly 70 degrees below zero Celsius, or 94 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. These four trays were much colder than this required temperature, Perna explained, which ended up becoming quite a loss. Each of these trays would have held enough doses to vaccinate 975 people.

“We were taking no chances,” said Perna, noting that there is still research being done by federal health agencies alongside Pfizer to understand whether or not a dose can still be safely and effectively used after reaching lower-than-intended temperatures.

In addition to this unexpected loss of vaccines, Pfizer was only able to allocate around 2 million doses throughout the United States, down from the nearly 3 million that were allocated the week prior during the initial shipments of the vaccinations.

These are not the first distribution or production difficulties seen by Pfizer in regards to COVID-19 vaccine doses, explained Department of Health and Human Services secretary, Alex Azar.

“As you know, they ended up coming [up] short by half of what they thought they’d be able to produce and what they’d announced they’d be able to produce,” during 2020, he said. “They’re, right now, producing at their maximum capacity to deliver on the 100 million that is in the first tranche of the contract with us, and we’re providing manufacturing support.”

Recently, Ron DeSantis, Governor of Florida, noted that his state hadn’t yet received the hundreds of thousands of vaccines that had been promised because of a “production issue with Pfizer.”

However, in response to DeSantis’ statement, a Pfizer company spokeswoman said that Pfizer “has not had any production issues with our COVID-19 vaccine, and no shipments containing the vaccine are on hold or delayed. We are continuing to dispatch our orders to the locations specified by the U.S. government.”

Interestingly, Pfizer refused any development or research money from Operation Warp Speed when developing the vaccine, although other vaccine developers did. Therefore, U.S. government officials have not had nearly as much oversight or knowledge in regards to Pfizer’s vaccine production as they may have preferred.

“The relationship that Pfizer wanted with Operation Warp Speed was the guaranteed purchase of a vaccine if approved by the FDA,” said Azar. “To date, we have had less visibility into their manufacturing processes, their manufacturing capacities, their locations, supplies, raw material issues, supply chain management, than we do with [other companies],” such as AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna Inc.

However, Azar assures that the Department of Health and Human Services has made it a priority to boost its insight and involvement with Pfizer’s efforts, as well as with the obstacles Pfizer may encounter during both the production and distribution processes.

“Part of our ongoing discussions is to remediate that and get better visibility into what they’re doing [and] what challenges they’re facing, because they’ve made significant commitments to us and others in their manufacturing,” Azar explained.

Pfizer was the first vaccine manufacturer to gain emergency approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, allowing for immunizations to begin taking place in early December.

Operation Warp Speed gained 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccination in December–each dose consists of two separate shots for each patient. Operation Warp Speed has also noted that it planned to acquire enough vaccines to provide to 20 million Americans in December and many more in January from the doses it contracted between both Pfizer and Moderna Inc.

For more information regarding Operation Warp Speed and the availability of COVID-19 vaccinations, click here.

Someone hit my car – Now what?

March 2, 2021 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

It is my firm belief that motor vehicle collisions are avoidable. They are almost always the result of someone’s carelessness or misstep somewhere along the way. Whether a crash resulted from a vehicle not being properly maintained, or a sleepy or fatigued driver, car crashes can be avoided. However, what if you do everything right and still your vehicle is hit by another car in a situation that was entirely not your fault?

You can imagine a driver going the speed limit or even slower, or with the flow of traffic, and then that driver stops after a light ahead of them turns yellow then red, or other cars slow down or stop because of traffic backing up. This is an extremely common scenario. It is so common, in fact, that most people don’t even give it any thought. It’s just part of the world we live in. No one thinks about it unless someone traveling through this transportation system we are all accustomed to doesn’t pay attention, or looks at their phone when they should be looking at the road, other cars, or hazards up ahead, and hits someone or another car. This of course, disrupts everything. It disrupts movement on the roads, people’s schedules, and worst of all, it can cause someone to be seriously injured or killed. In Illinois alone, over 1000 people died in traffic crashes in 2019. Each one of those people lost, should be alive and with us today, yet sadly, they were lost in preventable tragedies. When this occurs, the victim or their family is left to pick up the pieces.

I’m writing this series of blog posts about the aftermath of motor vehicle crashes to let people know what they might expect to encounter if they were unfortunate to have been involved in a collision that was no fault of their own, and so that people can better understand how things work with car insurance, traffic tickets that are issued when a crash occurs, medical bills, and the legal system, or the system of justice where people seek to make themselves whole. Although when faced with a permanent injury or the death of a loved one, that isn’t actually possible because we simply can’t change the past, but we try our hardest to make things right.

Some people may be surprised to learn that in Illinois, the person who was injured by another driver who was actually at fault for a crash will be responsible for securing their own medical treatment. In other words, although the person responsible for the damages caused in a crash should ultimately compensate the person who they injured for reasonable medical treatment related to those injuries, this doesn’t happen right away, or while the injured party is getting care. Compensation from the responsible party in this case would happen when the case is finally resolved by settlement or a verdict, if the case were to be decided in court by a trial.

Additionally, even though a crash was not your fault, you may benefit from opening a claim with your own insurance company relating to medical payments or possible coverage if the other driver who caused the collision had no insurance or not enough insurance. In reality, there are numerous aspects of the aftermath of a motor vehicle crash that many hard-working people, who have had little to no experience with the legal system might be surprised to learn about, or just wouldn’t have known how best to navigate.

To be sure, all the answers to the question of what to do if you’re the victim of a crash can’t possibly be contained in an online article, or even a whole series of them. There is no substitute in these cases for a consultation with an experienced professional. I highly recommend seeking advice from an experienced attorney with a good reputation who practices in the area of personal injury as soon as is reasonably possible after a crash. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that the information contained here and the posts that will follow will give people more of an insight into how the system works in Illinois. Please stay tuned and be safe.