Hours of Service: Denial of Application for Exemption; Arbert Ibraimi Publication: Federal Register Agency: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Byline: Vincent G. White Date: 16 September 2024 Subject: American Government , Safety, Trucking Topics: Arbert Ibraimi, GTLM Transport

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 179 (Monday, September 16, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75631-75632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20931]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0244]


Hours of Service: Denial of Application for Exemption; Arbert 
Ibraimi

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the application of Mr. 
Arbert Ibraimi on behalf of GTLM Transport Inc. (GTLM), requesting an 
exemption from the requirement to use an electronic logging device 
(ELD) for maintaining driver records of duty status (RODS). FMCSA 
evaluated the application and public comments and determined that GTLM 
did not sufficiently demonstrate how its commercial motor vehicle (CMV) 
operations would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent 
to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved in the absence of 
the exemption.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Bernadette Walker, FMCSA Driver, 
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle 
Safety Standards; 202-385-2415; bernadette.walker@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket 
number ``FMCSA-2023-0244'' in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' 
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer--Older),'' choose the first 
notice listed, click ``Browse Comments.''
    To view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in 
thein the docket, go to www.regulations.gov, insert docket number 
``FMCSA-2023-0244'' in the keyword box, click ``Search,'' and choose 
the document to review.
    If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket 
by visiting Docket Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West 
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To 
be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or 
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Docket Operations.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant 
exemptions from 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 the applicant's safety analysis. The Agency must provide an 
opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency 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 Agency must 
publish its decision in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If 
granted, the notice will identify the regulatory provision from which 
the applicant will be exempt, the effective period, and all terms and 
conditions of the exemption (49 CFR 381.315(c)(1)). If the exemption is 
denied, the notice will explain the reason for the denial (49 CFR 
381.315(c)(2)). The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

Current Regulation(s) Requirements

    With limited exceptions, the HOS regulation at 49 CFR 
395.8(a)(1)(i) requires motor carriers operating CMVs to install and 
require each of its drivers to use an ELD to record the driver's duty 
status.

Applicant's Request

    GTLM requested a one-year exemption from the ELD requirement in 49 
CFR 395.8(a)(1)(i). The applicant stated that it is a new business, 
operating a single CMV as an owner-operator, and has limited funds to 
support the purchase of an ELD. The applicant stated that it would use 
the funds saved from not purchasing and installing an ELD, to monitor 
the safety of operations and to incorporate safety management controls 
into its operation.

Applicant's Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    GTLM stated that an equivalent or greater level of safety will be 
achieved under the exemption because, since the carrier is owner-
operated, ``the operational safety impact will be virtually identical 
and manageable.'' GTLM also stated that funds that would be used to 
purchase and install an ELD could be invested in a safety management 
control system from which the company would benefit more in its initial 
stages (e.g., training on current safety topics.)

IV. Public Comments

    On March 1, 2024, FMCSA published a notice of GTLM's application 
and requested public comments (89 FR 15258). The agency received a 
total of 122 comments: 62 in support, 32 in opposition, and 28 taking 
no position either for or against granting the exemption. Of the 62 
comments in support of granting the exemption, five were from trucking 
companies. Commenters who supported granting the exemption expressed 
general opposition to ELDs. They stated that ELDs are too expensive, 
and they create a stressful environment for drivers who feel pressured 
to arrive at their destinations before running out of hours. Some 
commenters also stated that ELDs have made CMV operations less safe 
because they cause drivers to rush. Jimmy Haynes stated, ``After 35 
years of driving the elds are making drivers take unnecessary risks to 
maximize time. Instead of being able to take naps or breaks when needed 
the elds make you push through to

[[Page 75632]]

situations you wouldn't normally.'' RJ's Trucking & Logistics LLC 
stated, ``I believe he should be exempt and the requirement should be 
discontinued. ELD does nothing but give brokers more power. Some use 
this as a way to fine you a load. If its [sic] about safety then why do 
some still let you get a load. There is nothing wrong with paper 
logs.''
    Of the 24 comments filed opposing the exemption, six were from 
trucking companies. The commenters who opposed granting the exemption 
emphasized placing safety first. Joint comments filed by the Truck 
Safety Coalition, Citizens for Reliable and Safety Highways, and 
Parents Against Tired Truckers stated that safety ``must be the top 
priority, not the last to be addressed with whatever funds remain 
available. Safety has a cost, and it must be paid by all industry 
stakeholders if meaningful progress will be made in reducing truck 
crash deaths and injuries.'' John Bowlby stated, ``This exemption 
should not be granted. ELDs make it harder for drivers to cheat. A new 
business tight on cash flow would be tempted to cheat to make more 
money.'' Some commenters also cited the relatively low cost of ELDs. An 
anonymous commenter stated, ``I pay $300 a year for ELD. If you can't 
afford that, how are you going to pay for safety related items. 1 tire 
costs more than that.''

V. FMCSA Safety Analysis and Decision

    FMCSA evaluated GTLM's application and the public comments and 
denies the exemption request. GTLM failed to establish that it would 
likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the 
level achieved without the exemption. ELDs help drivers more accurately 
track driving time to ensure compliance with HOS regulations, which are 
designed to help drivers maintain alertness while operating CMVs. 
Additionally, ELDs decrease the likelihood that the RODS could be 
altered after the date the records were generated, without leaving an 
electronic trail. For these reasons, and as discussed in the amended 
rulemaking proceedings that established the ELD requirements [80 FR 
78292], the Agency believes the level of safety provided by the use of 
ELDs is likely greater than that provided by the use of paper logs as 
an alternative. GTLM did not propose safety countermeasures to 
compensate for the lower level of safety that paper logs entail. 
Economic difficulties, such as those that GTLM described, do not 
justify the granting of an exemption.
    For the reasons stated, GTLM's exemption application is denied.

Vincent G. White,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-20931 Filed 9-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P