Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (G4S)

Larry W. Minor
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
27 February 2018

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8571-8572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03944]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0120]


Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; G4S 
Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (G4S)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for 
exemption.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the application of G4S 
Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (G4S), for an exemption from the 
requirement that its drivers use electronic logging devices (ELDs) to 
record their hours of service (HOS). G4S requested the exemption for 
all its drivers of customer/government-owned vehicles used 
intermittently to perform passenger transportation. FMCSA analyzed the 
exemption application and public comments, and determined that the 
record does not establish that the applicant would not achieve a level 
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be 
achieved absent such exemption. FMCSA therefore issued a letter of 
denial to the applicant on January 5, 2018.

DATES: Application for exemption was denied January 5, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this 
notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier 
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety 
Standards; Telephone: 614-942-6477. Email: MCPSD@dot.gov. If you have 
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact 
Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant 
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the 
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the 
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the 
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted. 
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the 
request.
    FMCSA reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and 
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level 
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be 
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305(a)). The decision of 
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 
381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if granted, 
the specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and 
the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is granted. 
The notice also must specify the effective period of the exemption (up 
to 5 years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The 
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    G4S is an international security solutions group, with operations 
in more than 100 countries and more than 54,000 employees in North 
America. One component of G45's operations is detainee and prisoner 
transport. Government agencies across the country, including the U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and State/county police 
departments, contract with G4S to safely and securely transport 
prisoners, offenders, and illegal aliens. To perform these 
transportation services, G4S is registered with the FMCSA as a for-hire 
motor carrier. While the company maintains a relatively small fleet of 
vehicles, a significant portion of its transportation services are 
performed by G4S employees operating customer/government-owned 
equipment (e.g., buses and 15-passenger-vans).
    The company had started the process of installing compliant ELDs in 
its own vehicle fleet. G4S, however, believed an exemption was for 
instances when its drivers operate customer/government-owned equipment 
to perform passenger transportation services. In these instances, it is 
the customer, not G4S, that owns and maintains the vehicles. For its 
part, G4S provides qualified drivers to operate the vehicles and is 
explicitly precluded, often by contract, from making any modifications 
to or installing any equipment in the vehicles.
    G4S claimed that, from a safety perspective, its operations are 
indistinguishable from driveaway-

[[Page 8572]]

towaway operations, which are excluded from the ELD mandate. In these 
instances, neither the carriers nor the drivers own the vehicles being 
driven, nor are they authorized to make any modifications to those 
vehicles. Similarly, in both cases, the vehicles at issue may only be 
operated by the carrier's drivers for a single trip.
    The application for exemption is in the docket for this notice.

IV. Public Comments

    On April 21, 2017, FMCSA published notice of the G4S application 
and requested public comment (82 FR 18820). The Agency received three 
comments, and all opposed the granting of the G4S exemption request. 
Groups filing in opposition were the Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety (Advocates), the Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Association 
(OOIDA), and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA). Issues 
raised by these commenters in opposition to the exemption request are 
as follows.
    (1) The G4S application does not meet the statutory and regulatory 
requirements for the exemption. It fails to consider practical 
alternatives, justify the need for exemption, provide an analysis of 
the safety impacts the requested exemption may cause, and provide 
information on the specific countermeasures to be undertaken to ensure 
that the exemption will achieve an equivalent or greater level of 
safety than would be achieved absent the exemption.
    (2) G4S cites technical concerns regarding interoperability of ELDs 
and the use of different vehicles as reasons why their drivers should 
be exempted from the ELD mandate. While these points are legitimate, 
they are not limited to this carrier. Carriers of all sizes may 
encounter these same interoperability problems as drivers operate 
multiple ELD platforms with varying methods of data transfer.
    (3) Confusion and inconsistencies, such as patchwork adoption of 
the ELD requirement because of exemptions, create more work for the 
enforcement community and industry alike. These inconsistencies also 
have a direct impact on data quality, an especially important 
consideration for the accurate tracking of HOS compliance.
    All comments are available for review in the docket for this 
notice.

V. FMCSA Decision

    When FMCSA published the final rule mandating ELDs, it relied upon 
research indicating that the rule improves commercial motor vehicle 
(CMV) safety by improving compliance with the hours-of-service rules. 
The rule also reduces the overall paperwork burden for both motor 
carriers and drivers.
    In its application, G4S provides no analysis of the safety 
performance of drivers who would operate using paper records of duty 
status under the exemption. G4S compares its request to the ELD 
regulatory exception for driveaway-towaway vehicles, but provides no 
analysis of how the risk of fatigue and crashes when operating an empty 
vehicle in a driveaway-towaway operation would be equivalent to the 
risk posed by operating a passenger-carrying vehicle.
    The G4S application does not consider practical alternatives or 
provide an analysis of the safety impacts the requested exemption may 
cause. It also does not provide countermeasures to be undertaken to 
ensure that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety 
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the 
current regulation.
    For these reasons, FMCSA denied the request for exemption by letter 
dated January 5, 2018.

    Issued on: February 20, 2018.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-03944 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P