“Agency Information Collection Activities; Approval of a New Information Collection Request: Driver and Carrier Surveys Related to Electronic Onboard Recorders (EOBRs), and Potential Harassment Deriving From EOBR Use.”
May 28, 013. Notice and Request for Comments.
“ … The purpose of this new ICR is to broadly examine, by the collection of survey data, the issue of driver harassment and determine the extent to which Electronic Onboard Recorders (EOBRs) used to document drivers’ hours of service (HOS) could be used by motor carriers or enforcement personnel to harass drivers or monitor driver productivity. The survey will collect information on the extent to which respondents believe that the use of EOBRs may result in coercion of drivers by motor carriers, shippers, receivers, and transportation intermediaries. The proposed surveys for drivers and carriers collect information related to issues of EOBR harassment of drivers by carriers. FMCSA plans to publish a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on EOBRs. Prior to the issuance of a final rule, FMCSA will consider the survey results.
“Rescision of Quarterly Financial Reporting Requirements.”
May 24, 2013. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Under the press release heading “FMCSA Proposes to Eliminate Outdated Reporting Requirement” the agency notes that the financial data reporting program of which this is a part dates back to 1938.
Put another way, this requirement was a vestige of the economic regulation of motor carriers that prevailed before the Motor Carrier Act of 1980.
“Self Reporting of Out-of-State Convictions.”
April 26, 2013. Final Rule.
“Pilot Program on NAFTA Trucking Provisions”
April 24, 2013. Notice; Request for Public Comment.
“This action is required by the “U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007” and all subsequent appropriations.”
International Board of Teamsters, et al. v. U.S. Department of Transportation, No.s 11-1444, 11-1251 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, April 19, 2013). Free copy from the court available here.
Teamsters union and Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association each held to have “standing” to bring this petition. But all legal grounds on which they challenged the pilot program were rejected in the appeals court’s opinion.
The gist: This court may not strike down the pilot as inconsistent with existing federal statutes because between the NAFTA Treaty as ratified and related congressional enactments thereafter there is no disconnect between existing federal trucking safety standards and the pilot program as set up by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Those objecting to what Congress enacted in regard to NAFTA and the U.S. domestic trucking industry can delay implementation through litigation like this, but it is difficult to stop through administrative or court channels what Congress has approved in legislation signed by the president.
Carolina Casualty Insurance Co. v. Canal Insurance Co., Case No. 2:11-cv-736 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, April 18, 2013). Free copy from the court available here.
Application of MCS-90 to cases between two or more insurance companies is unsettled in the law.
Until law is resolved on the application of MCS-90 to cases between two or more insurance companies, counsel for insurance carriers (1) should assume for planning purposes that MCS-90 will not apply to such circumstances, and (2) should always – in the context of an accident case presenting this situation – explore the possibility of making a good faith claim for recovery in such circumstances unless and until the law is settled to say otherwise.