49 C.F.R. § 385.15

Administrative review

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A motor carrier may request FMCSA to conduct an administrative review if it believes FMCSA has committed an error in assigning its proposed or final safety rating in accordance with § 385.11.

(b) The motor carrier's request must explain the error it believes the FMCSA committed in issuing the safety rating. The motor carrier must include a list of all factual and procedural issues in dispute, and any information or documents that support its argument.

(c) The motor carrier must submit its request in writing to the Assistant Administrator, ATTN: Adjudications Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(1) If a motor carrier has received a notice of a proposed “unsatisfactory” safety rating, it should submit its request within 15 days from the date of the notice. This time frame will allow the FMCSA to issue a written decision before the prohibitions outlined in § 385.13 (a)(1) and (2) take effect. Failure to petition within this 15-day period may prevent the FMCSA from issuing a final decision before such prohibitions take effect.

(2) A motor carrier must make a request for an administrative review within 90 days of the date of the proposed safety rating issued under § 385.11 (c) or a final safety rating issued under § 385.11 (b), or within 90 days after denial of a request for a change in rating under § 385.17(i).

(d) The FMCSA may ask the motor carrier to submit additional data and attend a conference to discuss the safety rating. If the motor carrier does not provide the information requested, or does not attend the conference, the FMCSA may dismiss its request for review.

(e) The FMCSA will notify the motor carrier in writing of its decision following the administrative review. The FMCSA will complete its review:

(1) Within 30 days after receiving a request from a hazardous materials or passenger motor carrier that has received a proposed or final “unsatisfactory” safety rating.

(2) Within 45 days after receiving a request from any other motor carrier that has received a proposed or final “unsatisfactory” safety rating.

(f) The decision constitutes final agency action.

(g) Any motor carrier may request a rating change under the provisions of § 385.17.

[65 FR 50935, Aug. 22, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 55701, Oct. 1, 2007; 75 FR 17241, Apr. 5, 2010; 77 FR 28450, 28454, May 14, 2012; 86 FR 57070, Oct. 14, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2021 · leading case: Multistar Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 707 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Multistar Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 707 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 385.15 , a carrier may seek administrative review of a proposed or final safety rating within 90 days of its issuance.”

Silverado Stages, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Saf. Admin., 809 F.3d 1268 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “A carrier may petition the FMCSA to review its safety rating pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 385.15 . The agency will adjust the carrier’s rating if it finds that it made “an error in assigning [the carrier’s] proposed or final safety rating.”

Mst Express & Truckers United for Saf. v. Dep't of Transp. & Fed. High. Admin., 108 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “*405 The FHWA argues that the order under review is a final order under § 521 because the safety rating regulations, including 49 C.F.R. § 385.15 , were promulgated under the authority of 49 U.”

A.D. Transp. Express, Inc. v. United States of Am. Fed. Motor Carrier Saf. Admin., 290 F.3d 761 (6th Cir. 2002). “49 C.F.R. § 385.15 . A March, 1999, compliance review at A.”

Transam Trucking, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Saf. Admin., 808 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2015). “If FMCSA denies a motor carrier’s request for a rating change, the carrier can seek administrative review of that denial under 49 C.F.R. § 385.15 . 49 C.F.R. § 385.17 (j).”

The Florilli Corp. v. Frederico Pena, Sec'y of Transp. United States Dep't of Transp. Fed. High. Admin., 118 F.3d 1212 (8th Cir. 1997). “” 1 On September 19, 1994, Florilli filed a Petition for Review of its safety rating pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 385.15 , which the FHWA denied.”

Pornomo v. United States, 62 F. Supp. 3d 455 (E.D. Va. 2014). “Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 385.15 , a carrier may seek administrative review of a proposed or final safety rating within 90 days of its issuance.”

William Spencer & Spencer Bros. LLC v. P Michael Doran, et al., 2021 DNH 023 (D.N.H. 2021). · cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 385.15 . 9 William was transporting hazardous materials when Trooper Doran stopped his vehicle on April 29, 2016.”

William Spencer & Spencer Bros. LLC v. Michael Doran, et al., 2020 DNH 147 (D.N.H. 2020). “11 (governing notification of safety fitness determination); 49 C.F.R. § 385.15 (outlining procedure for administrative review of proposed safety rating).”

Spencer v. NH State Police (D.N.H. 2021). · cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 385.15 . William was transporting hazardous materials when Trooper Doran stopped his vehicle on April 29, 2016.”

Spencer v. NH State Police (D.N.H. 2020). “11 (governing notification of safety fitness determination); 49 C.F.R. § 385.15 (outlining procedure for administrative review of proposed safety rating).”

Florilli Corp. v. Frederico Pena (8th Cir. 1997). “”1 On September 19, 1994, Florilli filed a Petition for Review of its safety rating pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 385.15 , which the FHWA denied.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.