federal motor carrier safety administration

Lawsuit Against Amazon Points to New Challenges for Trucking Industry

February 11, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

A recent lawsuit filed against Amazon and AAA Freight is shedding light on what many throughout the industry have had growing concerns about; prioritizing shipping speed and cost savings for driver safety. In January of 2020, Timothy Weakley, a truck driver based out of Tennessee, claimed in a lawsuit against Amazon and AAA Freight, a trucking company who contracted with Amazon, that both companies were forcing the driver to work shifts that far exceeded the time allotted to drivers by federal law. Ultimately, these extended shifts resulted in Weakley falling asleep at the wheel. Additionally, Weakley claimed that both companies were working to falsify his driver logs in an effort to hide the drive time violations.

While the lawsuit is still in its infancy, and there appears to be many unanswered questions at this point, there is already one key takeaway from Weakley’s lawsuit that will likely have many asking questions about Amazon’s oversight and adherence to federal law. For instance, Weakley’s suit stated that Amazon was well aware of his drive time violations because of its “sophisticated freight tracking application” which was said to have tracked Weakley’s movement in the truck to the “millisecond 24/7.” If proven true, this could certainly result in a greater chance for Amazon being held liable for allowing Weakley to drive what he alleges was “20-30 hours or more with only an hour or two of rest.”

Without having an inside look into what the contract between both Amazon and AAA Freight looked like, we will have to wait and see how this lawsuit is handled in the future; however, one point remains clear; there is no doubt that as shipping speeds continue to enhance and volume rises, the trucking industry is being forced to adhere to increasingly high standards. Amazon is a billion-dollar company with a founder who just so happens to be the richest person in the world. The idea that a company with such power and influence could be asking its contractors to violate the federal law to meet its shipping standards, is not so far-fetched. On the other hand, even if some in the industry believe that Amazon has done nothing wrong and this lawsuit falls squarely on the shoulders of the contractor who actually employed Mr. Weakley, it’s not hard to imagine that a contractor wouldn’t be willing to push their employees to the limit to adhere to what we can only imagine is a lucrative shipping contract with Amazon. At a time when the trucking industry has once again been deemed to be struggling, would a trucking company really be willing to do something that could result in a deterioration of its relationship with one of the most powerful companies in the world?

Aside from focusing on whether Amazon could actually be held liable in this lawsuit, we must also remember that if the allegations that Mr. Weakley brought forth are proven true, this presents a major setback to any argument that federal drive time regulations are too strict and should become more flexible. Based on the proposed hours of service changes, truck drivers would be given more flexibility in dividing the required time they must spend in the sleeper berth of their trucks. We have written countless times about the effects of such a change, and this lawsuit only goes to show that such a change would likely result in further incidents where trucking companies are pushing their drivers to the limit.

More importantly, lawsuits such as this one must become a warning sign for drivers on the road. The reality is that while Amazon may be great for offering the best shipping speeds and price that money can buy, they have a well-documented history of failing to provide adequate safety standards for their employees, including truck drivers. If the allegations that Mr. Weakley brought forth are true, this means that the truck driver next to you could possibly have been driving for more than 20 hours on the road. Imagine working for more than 20 hours in one day. Now imagine your work involving being responsible for a truck that weighs over 40,000 pounds and having to drive it safely. That is serious cause for concern. So, while many may see this lawsuit and may immediately jump to the conclusion that the independent contractor, AAA Freight, is clearly responsible for the employee’s truck crash, just try and think a bit more about what it means to have one of the most powerful companies in the world writing a check for your business.

Industry Drug Test Rates to Rise by 50 Percent in 2020

January 27, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The day after Christmas, federal regulators made a huge announcement for the trucking industry: they plan to increase the minimum yearly random drug testing rate to 50% of a carrier’s drivers–up from the previous rate of 25%.

The short-notice mandated increase was made public by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration on December 26th, and was implemented only a few days later on January 1st, 2020.

The FMCSA currently estimates around 3.2 million commercial license holders are working in interstate commerce and another 1 million in intrastate commerce. With a new rate of random drug testing, about 2.1 million random tests will take place throughout 2020.

The FMCSA estimates the additional tests will cost the industry an additional $50 million to $70 million per year.

There is already a fair amount of pushback regarding the data which led to the increase.

“This data was collected in early 2019, and to my knowledge there has been no indication from FMCSA about the increase in positive tests that led to the minimum random testing rate change,” said president of Scopelitis Transportation Consulting, Dave Osiecki. “Not only is it a financial hit that no one was expecting, it’s disappointing to know that more drivers are testing positive for using drugs.”

The agency’s 2001 rule, “Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing,” determined the process used by the FMCSA to decide whether or not the minimum annual percentage rate for any random testing could be increased or decreased. In the final rule, the decision to change the percentage rate was to be mandated by the trucking industry’s overall positive random controlled substance test rate, the data of which is presented to the agency by motor carrier employers themselves.

According to Osiecki, there will be a decrease in industry productivity due to the higher number of drivers being summoned to testing sites when they could be on the road.

J.J. Keller’s Tom Bray said all carriers, large and small, will feel the effects of an increase in testing costs.

“It’s the same thing you’re doing, you just have to do more of it,” he said. “The key thing there is that it went back up to 50%, which is where it was for many, many, many years previous to the calendar year 2016 change.”

Bray believes meeting the 50% rate will bring major difficulties for many carriers, as many fleets experience high turnover rates and random testing can bring even more issues in those cases.

A 2018 survey of nearly 5,000 randomly selected motor carriers estimated that the test rate of random controlled substances was around 1%, making it slightly higher than that of years past.

“When the minimum annual percentage rate for random controlled substances is 25%, and the data received under the reporting requirements for any calendar year indicate that the reported positive rate is equal to or greater than 1%, the FMCSA administrator will increase the minimum annual percentage rate for random controlled substances to 50% for all driver positions,” said the agency.

The reason Bray believes test rates are increasing is that the Department of Transportation has added four synthetic opioids to drug screening–including hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxymorphone, and oxycodone.

“This is a major issue in the country in general,” Bray said. “Our group of drivers represents the country. If the country’s having trouble with opioids, so are drivers.”

Manager of safety and occupational health policy for American Trucking Associations, Abigail Potter, said although the increase is expected, most companies have already completed their annual budget planning for 2020, and the short notice by the FMCSA will cost the industry millions of dollars.

Additionally, Potter believes federal acceptance of a different method of drug screening would have been a solution.

“We need hair testing,” she said. “One of the disappointments here is that we could’ve prevented this situation.”

The proposed guidelines given by the Department of Health and Human Services, which would allow carriers to utilize hair testing for drug screening, have had little attention by the Office of Management and Budget since summer of 2019.

In regards to random alcohol testing, as of now, the FMCSA has confirmed the minimum annual rate will stay at 10% in 2020.

FMCSA Plans to Delay Implementation of Entry-Level Driver Training Rule

December 17, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The Entry-Level Driver Training rule, which was originally set to be implemented on February 7th, 2020, will now be delayed another two years.

The ELDT will eventually mandate that commercial driver applicants finish a particular section of training (required in 49 CFR part 380) before obtaining a Class A or B commercial driver’s license, an upgrade to a class B or Class A CDL, or adding a hazardous materials (H), passenger (P), or school bus (S) endorsement.

This rule comes in response to the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,” or MAP-21, a federal transportation reauthorization bill which plans to aid the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in reducing crashes and injuries that involve large trucks and buses.

These changes are meant to further standardize driver training, as well as ensure school districts are complying with federal laws to keep students, staff, and other drivers safer on the road.

In a recent announcement of extension at the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services conference, FMCSA Administrator Larry Minor explained that the new intended deadline to comply with MAP-21 regulations is now February 7th, 2022.

The official notice is “in the pipeline,” according to an anonymous DOT official. “The whole thing is going to be delayed. It’s mostly due to the failure of the states aligning their systems with the federal system.”

The formal announcement of the delay is expected by mid-December.

The delay is “disappointing,” says vice president of training program development for Instruction Technologies Inc., Laura McMillan. “Our reaction is that, my goodness, the industry has been waiting for standards and a professional-level curriculum for over 20 years. If this industry wants to raise the professional image of truck driving, it begins with how we educate new drivers and prepare them for the field.”

However, Don Lefeve, Commercial Vehicle Training Association President, remains optimistic.

“We do believe, based on conversations, that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety has a grasp of the problem, and we’re hopeful that they can implement it before the two-year delay period,” he said. “But we’re very disappointed that this is not going to be rolled out on time…There are still a lot of substandard programs that will remain in existence (until then).”

As of now, the ELDT has general training guidelines in place, but doesn’t quite specify how exactly to train drivers or even the number of training hours required. The overall intention is to standardize these topics at a national level in order to increase road safety.

The original implementation outline explained that ELDT would create a baseline for training requirements for new Class A and Class B CDL license holders, but changes would not apply to existing drivers. Any driver who was not changing their license or adding an endorsement, and who had completed training before February 7th, 2020, would be grandfathered into the rule and would not need to meet MAP-21 training baselines. After February 7th, new trainees would have needed to comply with the ELDT requirements.

Instructional Technologies Inc.’s McMillan, who has been working on an ELDT curriculum subcommittee, says the current system problems are not limited to the state’s individual regulations.

“The reality is that the training provider registry is not even available,” she explained. “It’s interesting that federal regulators would characterize that this is a state problem and that the states can’t comply when the federal system is not up and available. There seems to be a lack of ownership for this entire issue.”

McMillan also says schools and carriers were supposed to be able to self-certify by October 1st, but that registry, which was set to be the first aspect of completion for the required curriculum, is still not up and running.

Director of safety policy for American Trucking Associations, Dan Horvath, said he is not particularly surprised by any of this.

“We felt that to not delay the whole thing, to at least go forward with the requirements for training the driver [was something that] needed to go through,” he said. “We felt [that] that’s the whole point of the ELDT rule to begin with. We understand that the verification process on the back end would be a nuisance, but not enough to delay the whole rule. However, having said that, we did see that the majority of the comments on the delay were [saying] to delay the whole thing.”

Out of the 1,200 comments made on the rule over the summer, the majority of those who weighed in–comprised of people from state trucking associations, state police, state departments of motor vehicles, and school officials–wanted a delay of full compliance until 2022.

For example, the Minnesota Trucking Association said the rule should be postponed until all systems “from top to bottom” can fully comply with implementation.

“The MTA believes that partial implementation increases the odds for errors and unintentional non-compliance,” said the association. “Motor carriers are concerned that despite their best efforts to comply, state and federal information technology systems will miss information and place the carrier at risk.”

FMCSA Altering Motor Carrier Scoring

August 8, 2019 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) recently announced a plan to remove some types of truck crashes from how it tracks and scores trucking companies’ safety records. The FMCSA’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) site, which compiles safety data on the nation’s motor carriers, had been criticized in the past for including collisions that may not have been the fault of the truck driver or trucking company. The agency has been testing the revised system since 2017, but now plans on making the changes more permanent.

FMCSA’s Safety Measurement System

“The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) core mission is to prevent crashes, injuries, and fatalities related to large trucks and buses on our Nation’s roads.” Working toward this goal, the SMS is designed to help motor carriers incorporate federal safety rules into their operations. Adherence to these regulations is assessed by reviewing on-road performance and compliance, then analyzing the data into seven categories: Unsafe Driving, Crash Indicator, Hours- of-Service Compliance, Vehicle Maintenance, Controlled Substances/Alcohol, Hazardous Materials Compliance (HM), and Driver Fitness. These categories are referred to as Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories, and are commonly referred to as a BASIC score. The BASIC score for every motor carrier in the United States is used to create a percentile-based safety ranking.

The Crash Indicator category had included all crashes involving a motor carrier’s trucks, regardless of fault. While this made the scoring system easier from a data-collection standpoint, it drew the ire of the trucking industry because it arguably penalized a truck or bus driver for a crash that was caused by someone else.

Certain types of truck crashes eligible for review

The “new” program will allow carriers, including owner-operator truck drivers, to contest certain crashes. If the crash is determined not to be the fault of the carrier or driver, the resulting points would be removed from the Crash Indicator score, thereby improving (or, more accurately, not reducing) the percentile ranking.

With the program, the following types of crashes are eligible for review:

When the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) was struck by a motorist driving under the influence (or related offense)
When the CMV was struck by a motorist driving the wrong direction
When the CMV was struck in the rear
When the CMV was struck while legally stopped or parked, including when the vehicle was unattended
When the CMV struck an individual committing or attempting to commit suicide by stepping or driving in front of the CMV
When the CMV sustained disabling damage after striking an animal in the roadway
When the crash was the result of an infrastructure failure, falling trees, rocks, or other debris
When the CMV was struck by cargo or equipment from another vehicle

Beginning in October, the FMCSA will begin accepting review requests for the following additional types of truck and bus crashes:

When a truck is hit by a vehicle that did not stop or slow in traffic.
When a truck is hit by a vehicle that failed to stop at a red light, stop sign or yield sign.
When a truck is hit by a vehicle that was making a U-turn or illegal turn
When a truck is hit by a vehicle driven by a driver who experienced a medical issue that caused the crash.
When a truck is hit by a driver who admits to falling asleep or being distracted (by a phone, passengers, etc.)
When a crash involves a driver under the influence.
When a crash involves a driver operating in the wrong direction, even if the truck was hit by another vehicle other than the one driving in the wrong direction.

Potential impact

As with many revisions to regulations and review processes, the potential impact will likely not be fully seen for some time. From a common sense standpoint, it seems fair that carriers shouldn’t be penalized for a crash that is neither their nor their driver’s fault. While that is true, there are questions that need to be addressed:

Who reviews the requests?
What kind of investigation is involved in the review?
Will there be transparency?
Will the review process be adequately funded and staffed? Or will a backlog of requests lead to nothing happening?

If the plan works as intended, it should result it more accurate safety rankings for carriers. This would, in theory, lead to safer motor carriers have better scores, and less safe motor carriers having worse scores. Obvious as this may seem, it is critically important for people who care about highway safety. A more credible scoring system would allow companies to select safer carriers to transport their cargo. A more reliable safety ranking would let shippers avoid carriers that cut corners and ignore rules and regulations intended to protect the general public.

Speaking from experience handling numerous truck crash cases, the truck is not always at fault. Or, I should say, one of the trucks isn’t always at fault. In many of our trucking cases, we represent a truck driver who was hit by another truck. Being on the road so frequently, it stands to reason truckers are more exposed to getting hit by other trucks. In a very real sense, safe trucking benefits truckers. Adhering to hours-of-service limits, hiring qualified drivers, and implementing drug awareness programs are all examples of actions carriers should be rewarded for. Safe truckers and truck companies that follow the rules should be advocating for any system that ranks them higher than those that do not.

Correctly identifying who is safe and who is not is a step in the right direction for everyone.

Why Do Federal Rules Apply to Truck Drivers – Chicago Truck and Auto Crash Lawyers Explain

July 10, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Commercial truck drivers are held to a higher standard than other drivers on the highway. They travel in larger vehicles that take longer to stop and take up a much larger area of the road than a passenger car does. Additionally, semi-trucks are not only regulated by the state rules of the road wherever they happen to be at any given time, but also federal law because they cross state lines on a regular basis. That is why, when people are injured in crashes involving large trucks and semis, it is important to contact an experienced attorney who is familiar with federal truck regulations.

Holding Commercial Drivers Accountable for Failing to Follow the Rules

Proper space management allows professional truck drivers to keep a safe distance from other travelers or hazards they may find on the road and it is vital for avoiding collisions. Truck drivers should be aware of their surroundings. This means not only paying attention to what is in front of them, but also to what is behind them and on either side of their vehicle. Semi-trucks take up far more space than most other vehicles. By keeping plenty of space between themselves and other cars and objects on the road, truck drivers can give themselves enough space to maneuver out of the way when something unexpected happens.

Professional Truck Drivers Should Expect the Unexpected

Vehicles on the highway are moving at a high rate of speed. A commercial driver cannot rely on other motorists to always be predictable. Traffic jams can spring up, virtually out of nowhere, and drivers need to be ready to slow down, stop, or move out of the way. This unpredictability requires drivers to be diligent and hyper aware. Also, since trucks are so much bigger than other vehicles, they need more time to stop. Drivers who leave themselves more space on the road have more time to act in case there is a sudden change in traffic patterns. A semi-truck should not follow closely behind other vehicles.

A Second for Every 10 Feet

There is a formula that most truck drivers are taught in order to measure safe distances on the highway. Most people have heard of the “2 second rule” when it comes to calculating safe distances between cars on the road. For Professional drivers, the rule of seconds starts at 4, not 2.

Figuring out how much space a commercial driver needs in order to stop safely to avoid a collision requires some pretty straight forward arithmetic. Generally, a driver needs at least 10 feet of space in front of his or her truck for every 10 feet of the length of their vehicles when traveling under 40 miles per hour (MPH). For speeds about that, drivers need to add another second. Calculating this is not hard because professional drivers should know how long their vehicles are.

A common length for a single tractor-trailer is 60 feet. When driving under 40 MPH, a trucker would need 6 seconds of space ahead of his or her cab in order to keep a safe distance. Once that truck goes over 40 MPH, the time doubles and 12 seconds is needed to have enough room to maneuver safely.

Professional drivers are not the only ones who can use the “seconds rules” to figure out where they should be on the road relative to other vehicles. A person in a passenger car can utilize his or her rear-view mirror to gauge how far a truck is traveling behind them.

The more vigilance used by all commuters will go a long way in getting people to their planned destinations safely.

What happens when federal regulators give commercial drivers the benefit of the doubt?

April 14, 2016 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

Allowing drivers to self-report their own medical history is a flawed concept and part of a broken system

CBS News has completed an investigation into self-reporting loopholes that are allowing drivers with medical conditions to circumvent systems designed to keep them off congested highways. The question CBS is seemingly posing: Is the system working in the best interests of safety?

The news network tracked the story of Ruthie Allen, a passenger on a Greyhound bus traveling on the Ohio interstate. The bus veered off the highway, rolled and crashed. Allen sustained a gruesome leg injury. After the crash, police discovered that the driver had been told by a medical examiner to get a sleep apnea exam. He failed to do so. He also failed to disclose the information on federal documents that helped him land the job. Sleep apnea is one of the many conditions that would have disqualified him from operating the bus.

Now in the aftermath, Allen is left with a chronic injury and a long road to recovery.

A commercial driver’s eligibility is determined by filling out a questionnaire, which is the basis for a physical performed by a Department of Transportation-certified medical professional. The examiner can range from a chiropractor to an entomologist to a sleep apnea specialist. As of now, the questionnaire relies on drivers to disclose a comprehensive account of their medical history.

But it’s what many specialists aren’t finding that led CBS to do some digging. The network ultimately uncovered that many drivers fail to disclose dangerous medical conditions that would, according to federal guidelines, prevent them from operating a commercial vehicle. Should it come as a surprise that drivers are unwilling to share details that would end up costing them a job?

Self-reporting – or failing to self-report – is a problem that regulators have continuously struggled to overcome. But it’s only getting harder as employers look to fill jobs and fill them quickly, a fact that some believe is influencing both the industry and federal oversight committees to look the other way. According to CBS, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration granted 2,390 medical exemptions in 2013-2014 for things like diabetes, seizures, and vision and hearing loss—all of which would normally prevent drivers from operating a large vehicle.

Our friend and attorney, Steve Gursten of Michigan Auto Law, was featured as part of the CBS investigation and had this to say:

“For the trucking companies, they want to look the other way, even when they know a lot of these truckers really should not be behind the wheel because they’re too dangerous for everybody else on the road. But they need to put drivers behind the wheel so they can get paid.”

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which maintains that it continues to overhaul a broken system to combat systemic shortcomings, bears some responsibility for the problem, too, and for people like Allen who suffer the consequences. At a time when the industry faces a record shortage of drivers, horror stories like Allen’s is giving the public renewed reason to question whether the industry is doing all it can to make safety a priority,

“You’re allowing this person, who could possibly kill people, drive a weapon on the highway,” Allen told CBS. “And it’s just not right.”