Source: http://fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/rulemakings/notices/HOS_Oilfield_Exception.aspx
Timestamp: 2013-12-10 12:48:08
Document Index: 31151421

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 381', '§ 1', '§ 195', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 195', '§ 195', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', '§ 395', 'art 381', 'art 391', '§ 381']

Print DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0183]
Hours of Service of Drivers of
Regulatory Guidance for Oilfield
ACTION: Notice of regulatory guidance;
SUMMARY: FMCSA responds to the public comments to its June 5, 2012, notice of regulatory guidance concerning the hours-of-service requirements for oilfield operations, and the Agency announces its decision to retain the 2012 guidance. On June 5, 2012, FMCSA updated its April 4, 1997, regulatory guidance to explain the applicability of the ‘‘Oilfield operations’’ exceptions in 49 CFR 395.1(d) to the ‘‘Hours of Service [HOS] of Drivers’’ regulations, and requested comments on the additional language. FMCSA also held three ‘‘listening sessions’’ in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Texas to accept public comments for the docket. Following a review of all comments, the Agency has determined that no further elaboration on the regulatory guidance is needed, at this time, and the Agency will continue to monitor the use of the two HOS oilfield exceptions in 49 CFR 395.1(d). The Agency also calls attention to 49 CFR part 381, which provides procedures for persons to apply for individual or class exemptions from certain regulations provided the exemption would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be achieved absent the exemption. Therefore, motor carriers that believe the current oilfield operations exceptions do not provide sufficient relief for their operations should consider submitting an application for an exemption to the Agency describing an alternative that would ensure the requisite level of safety.
DATES: This regulatory guidance was
effective June 5, 2012, as announced in
the Federal Register on June 5, 2012 (77
FR 33098).
www.regulations.gov at any time or to
the ground floor, room W12–140,
USDOT Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier
Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.
DC 20590, phone (202) 366–4325, email
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Legal Basis
provides that ‘‘The Secretary of
requirements for (1) qualifications and
operation’’ [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)].
(MCSA) confers on the Secretary the
requires the Secretary to prescribe safety
standards for commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs). At a minimum, the
regulations must ensure that (1) CMVs
are maintained, equipped, loaded, and
condition of operators of CMVs is
adequate to enable them to operate the
vehicles safely and the periodic
physical examinations required of such
operators are performed by medical
examiners who have received training
in physical and medical examination
standards and, after the national registry
maintained by FMCSA under section
31149(d) is established, are listed on
such registry; and (4) the operation of
CMVs does not have a deleterious effect
operator [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)]. The Act
also grants the Secretary broad power to
‘‘prescribe recordkeeping and reporting
requirements’’ and to ‘‘perform other
appropriate’’ [49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and
The Administrator of FMCSA has
been delegated the authority to carry out
the functions vested in the Secretary by
the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 [49 CFR
1.87(i)] and the MCSA [§ 1.87(f)].
(ICC), which originally had jurisdiction
over CMV highway safety, first heard
requests for an oilfield exemption when
the earliest HOS rules were issued in
1939. The Commission declined to grant
the request, which was based on
economic hardships, stating that ‘‘. . .
important as these considerations are,
they do not overcome our primary duty
to prescribe maximum hours which will
be reasonably safe’’ (Ex Parte No. MC–
2, 11 M.C.C. 206, January 27, 1939).
In 1962, the ICC revisited the HOS
rules. The Commission considered
testimony from oilfield equipment
suppliers and operators that provided
specialized oilfield equipment requiring
special training. The ICC approved a 24-
hour restart provision for operators of
this equipment. This provision allowed
drivers to restart the 70-hours of on-duty
time (in 8 consecutive days) during
which driving was allowed. The record
also indicates that this restart provision
was intended to apply to operators
employed exclusively in the
transportation of equipment for use in
servicing the well operations. In other
words, the restart was to be available to
two groups of drivers—operators of
special training and drivers exclusively
transporting oilfield equipment. [Ex
Parte No. MC–40 (Sub-No.1), 89 M.C.C.
28–30, March 29, 1962]. This restart
provision was codified on April 13,
1962 (27 FR 3553) as § 195.3(d), and
later recodified as § 395.1(d)(1). Neither
the original nor the recodified
regulatory language mentioned specially
designed vehicles or specially trained
drivers, although the ICC’s March 29
report discussed both.
Approximately 5 months after
granting the 24-hour restart, the ICC
granted without comment the ‘‘waiting
time’’ exception now codified
at§ 395.1(d)(2), using the ‘‘specially
constructed’’ and ‘‘specially trained’’
phrases (27 FR 8119; August 15, 1962).
Although the ICC provided no
discussion of the reasons for the
‘‘waiting time’’ exception, the Federal
Register notice included a long list of
petitions from industry groups and
equipment manufacturers that were
filed after the March 29 decision. The
petitions themselves, filed more than 50
years ago, are no longer available, and
the ICC was terminated in December
1995 [Pub. L. 104–88, 109 Stat. 803,
Dec. 29, 1995].
The oilfield ‘‘waiting time’’ exception
(referring to specially constructed
vehicles and specially trained drivers)
was codified in 49 CFR 195.2 as part of
the definition of ‘‘on duty time.’’
[§ 195.2(a)(9)]. The 24-hour restart
exception, referring to the broader group
servicing the oilfield sites, was codified
in 49 CFR 195.3, which governed
‘‘Maximum driving and on-duty time’’
[§ 195.3(d)].
In a 1992 technical amendment
published in the Federal Register as
part of a broader final rule, the 24-hour
restart and waiting-time provisions were
transferred to become today’s
§ 395.1(d)(1) and (2) [57 FR 33638; July
30, 1992].
On April 4, 1997 (62 FR 16420), the
(FHWA)—the Agency responsible for
motor carrier safety until the
establishment of FMCSA—published
‘‘Regulatory Guidance for the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations’’
which provided interpretive guidance
material for the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. The FHWA
consolidated previously issued
interpretations and regulatory guidance
materials and developed concise
interpretive guidance in question and
answer form for each part of the
FMCSRs. The 1997 notice included
concerning oilfield operations.
A significant increase in oil and gas
drilling operations in many States has
resulted in a major increase in CMV
traffic to move oilfield equipment, and
transport large quantities of supplies,
especially water and sand, to the sites.
The operators of many of these vehicles
and law enforcement officials have
raised questions about the applicability
of § 395.1(d).
Section 395.1(d) provides two
separate exceptions to the HOS rules,
with the two exceptions applying to
different operators. Section 395.1(d)(1)
states that for drivers of CMVs used
exclusively in the transportation of
oilfield equipment, including the
stringing and picking up of pipe used in
pipelines, and servicing of the field
operations of the natural gas and oil
industry, any period of 8 consecutive
days may end with the beginning of any
off-duty period of 24 or more
consecutive hours. This is commonly
referred to as a ‘‘24-hour restart’’ of the
70 hours in 8 days total on-duty time
limit in § 395.3(b).
Section 395.1(d)(2) states, in part, that
in the case of specially trained drivers
of CMVs that are specially constructed
to service oil wells, ‘‘on-duty time shall
not include waiting time at a natural gas
or oil well site.’’ Under the definition of
‘‘On duty time’’ in § 395.2, drivers who
are standing by at an oil well site until
their services are needed would
normally be considered on-duty,
thereby reducing the hours that they
would have available to drive a CMV
within the HOS-rule limits. This
exception is often referred to as the
‘‘oilfield waiting time’’ provision.
On June 5, 2012, FMCSA updated its
regulatory guidance on these oilfield
provisions in the Federal Register (77
FR 33098). Updates were made to
Questions 6 and 8 to 49 CFR 395.1,
which had been published on April 4,
1997. Although the updated guidance
was effective upon publication, FMCSA
announced that it would accept
comments to the public docket until
August 6, 2012, to ‘‘. . . determine
whether any further clarification of
these regulatory provisions is
necessary’’ (77 FR 33099).
The Agency later extended the public
comment period until October 5, 2012,
to include comments made at public
‘‘listening sessions’’ to be held in
August and September (Denver, CO,
August 17; Coraopolis, PA, August 21;
Dallas, TX, September 27) (77 FR 46640,
August 6, 2012). Approximately 15
people spoke at each of the listening
sessions. Transcripts of these sessions
have been filed in docket FMCSA–
2012–0183 at www.regulations.gov.
Written comments to the docket were
filed by 81 individuals or associations.
In some instances, the same comments
were presented at one or more of the
listening sessions. Of the 81 comments,
seven were filed by the American
Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) and
State-level motor carrier associations.
Nine comments were filed by other
major trade associations such as the
(NAM), International Association of
Drilling Contractors (IADC), and similar
organizations. About 29 comments were
identifiable with individual motor
carriers, well site operators, and
equipment suppliers. One comment was
filed by the Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety (Advocates), a public safety
advocacy organization. In addition,
letters co-signed by 14 U.S. senators and
63 congressmen were submitted to the
docket, expressing concerns similar to
those of other parties in written and
verbal comments. The remaining
comments were filed by drivers or could
not otherwise be classified.
Many of the commenting associations
claimed that the revisions to Questions
6 and 8 to 49 CFR 395.1 were a major
departure from long-standing Agency
interpretations, and that their content
was contrary to 49 CFR 395.1(d). At
least, they argued, the revised regulatory
guidance should have been subjected to
the full ‘‘notice and comment’’
provisions of the APA.
As explained in the Agency’s 2012
Federal Register notice, FMCSA
amended Questions 6 and 8 because of
reports it had received that § 395.1(d)
was being inconsistently enforced in
States with substantial oil and gas
drilling operations. A significant
increase in such operations in many
States has generated major increases in
CMV traffic to move drilling equipment
and related supplies, such as water and
sand, to the well sites.
Prior to the recent surge, oil and gas
production was conducted at isolated
locations without the heavy traffic in
vehicles hauling sand and water that is
required by hydraulic fracturing (or
‘‘fracking’’) operations. Traditional
production methods appear to have
created no particular need for
enforcement activity and thus generated
little or no controversy. As drilling
operations began in States having little
prior experience with oil and gas
exploration and the volume of traffic to
and from fracking sites increased, State
and local officials received more and
more reports of safety problems.
Enforcement efforts intensified, leading
to inquiries about the status of sand and
water delivery trucks under § 395.1(d).
Contrary to the assertion
Contrary to the assertion of some
commenters, there has been no ‘‘long
standing’’ interpretation that operators
of water and sand delivery trucks are
eligible for the ‘‘waiting time’’
provision. The ICC’s 1962 decisions did
not address the issue at all. However,
the party that submitted the inquiry
now listed as Question 10 in the
Agency’s guidance, which deals
explicitly with the transportation of
sand and water and was published in
1997, clearly assumed that such
operations are part of the ‘‘servicing of
the field operations of the natural gas
and oil industry,’’ and inquired whether
the 24-hour restart provision in
§ 395.1(d)(1) would apply under certain
FMCSA agreed with the submitter
that drivers used exclusively to
transport sand and water to service field
operations were eligible for the restart
exception, and replied accordingly [62
FR 16370, 16420, April 4, 1997]. The
statement in Question 6—also adopted
in 1997—that ‘‘[w]ater servicing
companies, whose operations are
exclusive to servicing the natural gas
and oil industry, are also covered by the
provisions of § 395.1(d),’’ must be read
in conjunction with the more explicit
discussion of such companies in
Question 10, where their eligibility for
the 24-hour restart is affirmed (i.e.,
§ 395.1(d)(1)).
Nothing in these Questions and
Answers suggests that drivers of trucks
delivering sand and water are eligible
for the waiting time exception (i.e.,
§ 395.1(d)(2)), nor has FMCSA ever
issued guidance to that effect. Because
interpretations of § 395.1(d) did not
specifically address the applicability of
the waiting time provision to operators
of vehicles such as sand and water
delivery trucks, the States appear to
have evolved inconsistent enforcement
practices. In other cases a lack of
enforcement of the § 395.1(d) provisions
may have given carriers and drivers the
misimpression that their assumptions
about applicability were accurate.
The regulatory guidance issued in
2012 is the first specifically clarifying
that trucks delivering supplies
(including sand and water) and
equipment to the well sites are not
eligible for the ‘‘waiting time’’ provision
of § 395.1(d)(2). The guidance is
consistent with the regulation itself and
prior guidance, and does not represent
a change in the enforcement policies of
many (though not all) States. Thus, the
guidance was not a reversal of any longstanding
interpretation or policy. Only
in those States that allowed the sand
and water trucks to utilize the ‘‘waiting
time’’ exception, without any basis in
regulatory language or FMCSA
guidance, would carriers and drivers
have perceived this national
clarification as a change.
Comments to the docket and at the
listening sessions made it clear that
prior discussions of the § 395.1(d)
provisions had not been precise enough
to clarify which of the two separate subsection
exceptions (‘‘24-hour restart’’
and ‘‘waiting time’’) were being
addressed. For example, inquiries about
mechanical modifications of sand and
water delivery trucks centered around
whether the modifications helped to
prove that the vehicle was used
‘‘exclusively’’ in oilfield operations and
therefore eligible for the ‘‘24-hour
restart’’ provision of § 395.1(d)(1). It
may not have been clear to all
commenters that these discussions were
not about eligibility for the ‘‘waiting
time’’ exception, which is different than
that for the ‘‘24 hour restart.’’
Changes Needed in the Regulation
Many commenters asked FMCSA to
‘‘rescind’’ the 2012 guidance and
undertake a full rulemaking to revise
§ 395.1(d). They offered a variety of
suggestions as to the provisions of a
revised regulatory section.
Rescission of the 2012 guidance—
even if justified, which is not the case,
as the above discussion demonstrates—
would result in inconsistent compliance
and enforcement. It would be unclear,
pending the completion of a notice-andcomment
procedure, whether or not
operators of sand and water delivery
trucks would be eligible for the
§ 395.1(d)(2) ‘‘waiting time’’ provision,
potentially leading to a return to
FMCSA does not believe that a
rulemaking process is necessary. A fair
reading of the Agency’s prior guidance
in this area demonstrates that the 2012
revision simply clarified a point that
had been implicit in FMCSA’s
Questions and Answers for more than
Cost and Economic Impact Issues
Numerous commenters stated that
compliance with the 2012 regulatory
guidance would result in significant
cost increases for them to hire
additional drivers who would be needed
to cover the hours currently worked by
drivers incorrectly using the ‘‘waiting
time’’ exception to exceed the 14-hour
‘‘driving window’’ established by
§ 395.3.
It is possible that some motor carriers
that have not been fully complying with
the § 395.1(d) provisions may need to
employ additional drivers if existing
schedules have generated overly-long
periods of wakefulness for some drivers.
In comments to the docket and at the
listening sessions, some drivers and
carriers acknowledged that deliveries of
sand and water may be delayed at the
well sites, resulting in a duty day well
beyond 14 hours.
Section 395.3(a)(2) is specifically
intended to prevent driving a CMV after
the 14th hour after the driver came on
duty, whatever his or her intervening
activities. The HOS rules issued in the
last decade included substantial
evidence supporting the need to limit
excessive hours of driving and work,
which can lead to fatigued driving. The
rationale for the 14-hour driving
window applies with particular force to
drivers using the ‘‘waiting time’’
exception in § 395.1(d)(2). There is no
indication that the ‘‘waiting time’’
exception in § 395.1(d)(2) was ever
intended to allow driving after long
periods of time had elapsed since the
start of the duty day. The history of the
oilfield regulatory language, as
explained in the Background section of
this notice, makes it clear that
§ 395.1(d)(2) was intended for use by
persons who are primarily specialized
equipment operators but who
occasionally drive a CMV, as opposed to
individuals whose primary job is to
drive delivery vehicles, even if those
vehicles might have simple
modifications to help them make
deliveries in rough oilfield terrain.
If some motor carriers had to hire
additional drivers to operate within the
§ 395.1(d) provisions, that would merely
place them on par (‘‘level the playing
field’’) with motor carriers that have
been in compliance all along.
Road and Well-Site Safety Issues
Several commenters claimed that a
lack of safety evidence exists to justify
what they deemed to be a major
Because the 2012 notice changed
neither the regulation nor the substance
of the Agency’s regulatory guidance, no
statistical evaluation of the clarified
guidance was needed, as would be
required in a notice-and-comment
rulemaking. Allowing drivers of trucks
making routine deliveries of sand and
water to oilfields to utilize the ‘‘waiting
time’’ exception would enable them to
resume driving immediately after
waiting for many hours and then
unloading, which has never been the
case with operators of specialized
equipment who drive only occasionally,
despite the ‘‘waiting’’ time exception.
Any such reading of § 395.1(d) is neither
consistent with the history of the
oilfield exceptions nor justified by
modern research on fatigue.
FMCSA believes the 2012 amendment
of the regulatory guidance has resolved
most of the confusion regarding
applicability of § 395.1(d) to oilfield
operations. As with any regulation,
unique situations may arise that require
further regulatory guidance of an
informal or formal nature, and FMCSA
will consider those scenarios on a caseby-
The Agency will continue to monitor
use and impacts of this HOS exception
within the substantial constraints of
existing data collection systems of
Consideration of Regulatory
Alternatives: 49 CFR Part 381
FMCSA acknowledges the concerns of
the commenters and participants in the
three listening sessions. While the
guidance is consistent with the
underlying regulations, the Agency
believes there are options available to
the oil and natural gas industries that
could be used to address their needs for
hours-of-service flexibility.
FMCSA calls attention to the
provisions of 49 CFR Part 391, ‘‘Subpart
C—Procedures for Applying for
Exemptions.’’ Sections 381.300-.381.331
explain a procedure through which any
affected persons or classes of persons
may apply for an exemption from the
HOS rules, among others, if the
applicant can justify that operation
under the proposed exemption would
‘‘. . . achieve a level of safety that is
complying with the regulations . . .’’
[§ 381.310 (b)(5)]. Exemptions may be
granted for a maximum 2-year period
and may be renewed. Therefore, motor
carriers that believe the current oilfield
operations exceptions do not provide
sufficient relief for their operations
should consider submitting an
application for an exemption to the
Agency describing an alternative that
would ensure the requisite level of
The Agency emphasizes the
exemption process is an effective
process for addressing issues concerning
specific motor carriers and in some
instances, segments of the industry. The
process includes an opportunity for
notice-and-comment to ensure
transparency and public participation as
the Agency considers an exemption
application from an individual carrier,
group of carriers, or an association
submitting the request on behalf of the
The Agency invites interested parties
to visit www.regulations.gov for
previously published Federal Register
notices concerning exemptions to see
examples of how the Agency notifies the
public about the exemption
applications, complete copies of the
exemption applications, the types of
to the notices, and the Agency’s
response to the public comments and
Issued on: August 5, 2013.Anne S. Ferro,
[FR Doc. 2013–19402 Filed 8–9–13; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P