> ![](media/image1.png){width="0.6798611111111111in"
> height="0.6798611111111111in"}**ADVOCATES**
>
> FOR HIGHWAY
>
> AND AUTO SAFETY
>
> 750 First Street, NE, Suite 901
>
> Washington, DC 20002

August 30, 2007

# Centennial Communications Application for Exemption from the

**Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, Notice with Request**

**for Comments, 72 FR 41813, July 31, 2007**

Docket No. FMCSA-2007-28827

U.S. DOT Dockets, [http://dms.dot.gov](http://dms.dot.gov/)

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Centennial Communications (Centennial) has applied to the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for an exemption from the entire
corpus of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) on the basis
of its claim that only a small percentage of its truck fleet
occasionally exceeds 10,001 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and,
therefore, the company would prefer to reconfigure its truck fleet so
that all vehicles in operation will be below 10,000 pounds GVW instead
of effecting compliance with the FMCSR. 72 FR 41613, 41614. Advocates
strongly opposes a grant of exemption on several grounds.

FMCSA has misunderstood the heart of Centennial's exemption request in
the Supplementary Information section of the instant notice. The agency
states that Centennial regards it as "more economical to revamp its
entire fleet of trucks and trailers so that when hauling generators, the
combined weight of the truck/trailer/generator is below 10,001 pounds
GVWR \[gross vehicle weight rating\]." 72 FR 41814. In fact, Centennial
does not claim that its request for an exemption from the FMCSR relies
on the combination described in the foregoing sentence falling below
10,000 GVWR, but rather that "it would be safer and more economical for
Centennial to revamp its whole fleet of trucks and trailers so that when
hauling generators the combined weight of the truck/trailer is less than
10,001 pounds." Letter of Steve Ziska, n.d. (stamped August 2, 2007, as
Docket entry FMCSA-2007-28827-3), to the FMCSA Administrator (Exemption
Application). Centennial does not argue that its combinations will fall
below 10,000 pounds gross combination weight rating (GCWR), but that the
combinations will not exceed 10,001 pounds gross combination vehicle
weight (GCVW) in actual operations. Exemption Application at 1.

However, this misunderstanding inadvertently indicates the fundamental
issue at stake in this proceeding, *viz.*, whether the alleged
"revamping" of Centennial's entire fleet of trucks pulling full trailers
with generators will, in fact, result in combinations not exceeding
10,000 pounds GCW while the two components of the combination, taken
together, in fact have a GCWR that exceeds 10,000 pounds. Centennial
nowhere in its application asserts that altering the trucks and trailers
of its fleet will result in combinations verified by
manufacturer-assigned GVWRs to the trucks and to the trailers that
result in GCWRs less than 10,001 pounds. The company only states that
the fleet will *operate* the described truck-full trailer combinations
at weights below 10,001 pounds GVW.[^1]

The contrary condition may also obtain in Centennial's operations.
Centennial may revamp its fleet so that all combinations of trucks plus
full trailers do not exceed 10,001 pounds GCWR, as attested by
manufacturer labels, but Centennial actually exceeds 10,001 pounds GCW
in conducting operations and thereby automatically becomes subject to
the FMCSR. In fact, this is a plausible result given Centennial's
statement in its Exemption Application that the truck GVWR plus the
trailer laden with a generator "is more than 10,001 pounds but less than
13,400 pounds." Exemption Application at 1. This statement appears to
concede that the actual GCW of the combination laden with a generator
rises to as much as 13,399 pounds. It is difficult to understand how
Centennial could secure both trucks and trailers whose GCWR is less than
10,001 pounds and also actually transport generators on full trailers
such that the GCW of the truck plus full trailer falls from "less than
13,400 pounds" to less than 10,001 pounds GCW. Centennial is implying
that it can pare 3,400 pounds from an operating truck-full trailer
combination so that it is less than 10,001 pounds GCW. Since Centennial
supplies no details whatever on how it would accomplish "revamping" its
fleet to secure this result, the implication of its argument raises
considerable doubt.

Advocates strongly opposes this exemption request. First, Advocates
regards this application request as a pretext for avoiding the oversight
and compliance requirements of the FMCSR. The operating weights of the
combinations used by Centennial, exceeding 10,000 pounds GCW, are a
common condition of motor carrier fleets using smaller motor vehicles
and towed trailers. Hundreds of these companies comply with the
requirements of the FMCSR. Granting the requested exemption can result
in an avalanche of similar special interest requests that are based on
the same or similar rationalizations to escape federal interstate motor
carrier oversight while undermining a cardinal principle governing
whether a motor carrier is subject to the FMCSR, that is, whether some
or all of its fleet consist of trucks or trailers that, together, either
exceed 10,001 pounds GCWR or, if they do not, the fleet in actual
operations has combinations that exceed 10,001 GVW. Granting such
requests will result in an irrational enforcement environment that
cannot possibly keep pace with such a crazy quilt of special interest
exemptions.

Second, although Centennial argues that compliance with the FMCSR is
burdensome, the company's submitted Engineering Vehicle Policy of May
2006, submitted as an attachment to its exemption application, *op.
cit.*, contains prescriptive features that are closely aligned with some
of the requirements of the FMCSR. The Engineering Vehicle Policy, as
described, does not support Centennial's statement that compliance with
the FMCSR is burdensome, but, to the contrary, demonstrates that the
company would only need to take relatively undemanding actions to comply
with the FMCSR. This observation leads to the conclusion that Centennial
wants to avoid being scrutinized for FMCSR compliance simply because of
the additional documentation required by the FMCSR and because of the
multiple enforcement responses that can be applied to the company for
violations of the FMCSR. With regard to the latter, in avoiding
compliance with the FMCSR, Centennial also evades FMCSA and state
enforcement actions for interstate motor carriers, including roadside
inspections that can result in out of service orders, Compliance Reviews
resulting in Conditional or Unsatisfactory safety fitness ratings, or
driver disqualifications for failure to rise to the physical fitness
standards required of commercial drivers by the FMCSR, to mention only a
few examples.

Third, Centennial's application for a wholesale exemption from the FMCSR
provides no scheme for measuring and subsequently demonstrating to FMCSA
that its complete avoidance of the requirement for complying with the
FMCSR is equivalent to or superior to FMCSR compliance. Simply
furnishing a written safety management protocol to the agency does not
suffice for an equivalence demonstration. Moreover, although it is true
that Centennial's safety management protocol has several points of
contact with the requirements of the FMCSR, other, major aspects of the
FMCSR are missing, including the disqualification criteria used by FMCSA
for certain, repeated driver violations; the once-a-year minimum
requirement for vehicle inspection; and the required "lookback" by an
employer of any applicant driver seeking to operate Centennial's
vehicles that evaluates the driver's conviction record and seeks
information about the driver from previous employers, to name only a
few. Centennial's safety management system, although admirable at many
points as described -- if it is actually implemented and enforced[^2] --
is a voluntary system with virtually no federal or state enforcement
actions that would be triggered for failure by Centennial to abide by
one or more of its provisions.

Centennial simply wants to render its operations immune to compliance
and enforcement under the FMCSR without any evidence that the
purportedly "revamped" trucks and trailers will actually have GCWR of
10,000 pounds or less and that the combinations when laden will actually
have GCW of 10,000 pounds or less.

Advocates regards Centennial's exemption request as an effort at *ex
post facto* rationalization, as well as a frivolous application without
merit, and it should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

# ORIGINAL SIGNED

Gerald A. Donaldson, Ph.D.

Senior Research Director

[^1]: Centennial asserts that its trucks -- Ford F150 and F250 models --
    have GVWRs less than 10,001 pounds. Exemption Application at 1. The
    subsequent narrative of the Exemption Application states that
    "\[w\]hen a Centennial truck hauls a generator, the combined weight
    (Truck GVWR plus trailer/generator) of the truck/trailer/generator
    is more that 10,001 pounds but less than 13,400 pounds." *Id.* This
    assertion only states that the combination, as laden with a
    generator, exceeds 10,001 pounds GVW. There is no information
    supplied on what constitutes the GVWR of the trailer regarded
    separately, nor is there any statement of the GCWR of the truck plus
    the full trailer as verified by manufacturer plates. Centennial also
    makes no offer, if its exemption application is granted, to supply
    subsequent verification to FMCSA that its entire fleet actually
    consists of trucks and full trailers, as manufactured, that do not
    exceed 10,001 pounds GCWR

[^2]: FMCSA apparently has no independent verification that the safety
    management elements of Centennial are actually applied and enforced.