The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) website posts all decisions concerning enforcement actions relating to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCSRs”). To locate decisions of U.S. administrative law judge decisions relating to FMCSRs, one should go to the FMCSA’s website and access http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/adjudication decisions. During the month of April 2015 alone, the FMCSA posted twenty-eight (28) different administrative adjudications.
Each posting appears on the FMCSA website with a Case Name, an Order Title, a Docket #, and the Date Signed. After clicking on the case name, a new page appears with the same title and contains a PDF attachment. By clicking on view attachment, a PDF of the actual decision appears. For example, “In the Matter of L&T Transporters – Interim Order,” contains a PDF with the following Interim Order:
________________________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
In the Matter of:
Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0071
L& T Transporters, (Eastern Service Center)
USDOT# 2061817
Respondent
INTERIM ORDER
I. Background
On December 15, 2014, the New York Division Administrator for the Eastern Service Center, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA or Agency), served a Notice of Claim (NOC) against L&T Transporters (Respondent). The NOC, which stated that it was based on an October 9, 2014 compliance investigation, alleged that Respondent committed one count of violating 49 CFR 396.7(a) — operating a motor vehicle in such a condition as to likely cause an accident or breakdown. The NOC proposed a civil penalty of $2,000.
By letter dated January 5, 2015, Respondent replied to the NOC. In its Reply, Respondent did not deny the violation, indicated that it had corrected the violation, disputed the civil penalty by stating that it was “unfair” and “unjust,” and requested “an administrative adjudication. On February 25, 2015, the Regional Field Administrator for FMCSA’s Eastern Service Center (Claimant) served his consent to what he interpreted as a request for binding arbitration or, in the alternative, moved for a finding of default. The claimant also requested additional time to respond if I found that neither at default nor binding arbitration is appropriate.
II. Discussion
Under 49 CFR 386.14(b), a respondent must reply to a notice of claim by electing one of three options: (1) paying the full amount of the proposed penalty; (2) contesting the claim by requesting administrative adjudication pursuant to 49 CFR 386.14(d)(l)(iii); or (3) requesting binding arbitration. In this case, Respondent admitted the violation by failing to deny it but requested administrative adjudication regarding the civil penalty. Respondent, therefore, did not default.
Although Respondent requested administrative adjudication, it is not clear whether it intended to contest the amount of the civil penalty through that process in accordance with 49 CFR 386. 14(d)(l )(iii) or whether it prefers to seek a reduced civil penalty through the Agency’s binding arbitration program under 49 CFR 386.14(b)(3). Because Respondent submitted documentary evidence with its Reply, it is possible that it desires administrative adjudication on the issue of the civil penalty under 49 CFR 386. 14(d)( l)(iii)(A) through submission of written evidence without a hearing, or either formal or informal hearing.
On the other hand, because Respondent admitted the violation, Claimant interpreted the Reply as a request for binding arbitration on the amount of the civil penalty and the length of time in which to pay it and therefore consented to the binding arbitration process. I cannot, however, assign a matter to binding arbitration unless the Respondent requests it. Thus, I am providing Respondent with an opportunity to clarify its intention.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondent serve a reply to this Interim Order within 15 days of the service date of this Order and state whether it seeks either (a) binding arbitration on the length of time to pay and the amount of the civil penalty; (b) administrative adjudication through the submission of written evidence without a hearing; (c) administrative adjudication through an informal hearing before a hearing officer; or (d) administrative adjudication through a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. If Respondent does not serve a response to this Interim Order, I will consider its Reply to be a request for administrative adjudication on the amount of the civil penalty through the submission of written evidence without a hearing. The claimant would have 60 days following the fifteenth day from the service date of this Interim Order in which to submit evidence concerning his proposed civil penalty.
________________________________________________________________________
Written by:
Mikal C. Watts
Watts Guerra LLP
4 Dominion Drive, Bldg 3, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257
Phone (210) 447-0500
Email mcwatts@guerrallp.com
*This information is provided to supply relevant information concerning a truck wreck lawsuit, and should not be received as legal advice. Legal advice is only given to persons or entities with whom Watts Guerra LLP has established an attorney-client relationship. If you have another lawyer in a trucking lawsuit, you should consult with your own attorney, and rely upon his or her advice, rather than the information contained herein.
© Watts Guerra LLP 2015
