C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER III—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS › PART 386—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR FMCSA PROCEEDINGS › Subpart B—Commencement of Proceedings, Pleadings

49 C.F.R. § 386.12

Complaints

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

(a) Complaint of substantial violation. (1) Any person alleging that a substantial violation of any regulation issued under the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 is occurring or has occurred must file a written complaint with FMCSA stating the substance of the alleged substantial violation no later than 90 days after the event. The written complaint, including the information below, must be filed with the National Consumer Complaint Database at http://nccdb.fmcsa.dot.gov or any FMCSA Division Administrator. The Agency will refer the complaint to the Division Administrator who the Agency believes is best able to handle the complaint. Information on filing a written complaint may be obtained by calling 1-888-DOT-SAFT (1-888-368-7238). A substantial violation is one which could reasonably lead to, or has resulted in, serious personal injury or death. Each complaint must be signed by the complainant and must contain:

(i) The name, address, and telephone number of the person who files it;

(ii) The name and address of the alleged violator and, with respect to each alleged violator, the specific provisions of the regulations that the complainant believes were violated; and

(iii) A concise but complete statement of the facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation, including the date of each alleged violation.

(2) Upon the filing of a complaint of a substantial violation under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Division Administrator shall determine whether the complaint is non-frivolous and meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If the Division Administrator determines the complaint is non-frivolous and meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(1), the Division Administrator shall investigate the complaint. The complainant shall be timely notified of findings resulting from the investigation. The Division Administrator shall not be required to conduct separate investigations of duplicative complaints. If the Division Administrator determines the complaint is frivolous or does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1), the Division Administrator shall dismiss the complaint and notify the complainant in writing of the reasons for the dismissal.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, the Division Administrator shall not disclose the identity of complainants unless it is determined that such disclosure is necessary to prosecute a violation. If disclosure becomes necessary, the Division Administrator shall take every practical means within the Division Administrator's authority to ensure that the complainant is not subject to coercion, harassment, intimidation, disciplinary action, discrimination, or financial loss as a result of such disclosure.

(b) Complaint of harassment. (1) A driver alleging a violation of § 390.36(b)(1) of this subchapter (harassment) must file a written complaint with FMCSA stating the substance of the alleged harassment by a motor carrier no later than 90 days after the event. The written complaint, including the information described below, must be filed with the National Consumer Complaint Database at http://nccdb.fmcsa.dot.gov or the FMCSA Division Administrator for the State where the driver is employed. The Agency may refer a complaint to another Division Administrator who the Agency believes is best able to handle the complaint. Information on filing a written complaint may be obtained by calling 1-888-DOT-SAFT (1-888-368-7238). Each complaint must be signed by the driver and must contain:

(i) The driver's name, address, and telephone number;

(ii) The name and address of the motor carrier allegedly harassing the driver; and

(iii) A concise but complete statement of the facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation of harassment, including:

(A) How the ELD or other technology used in combination with and not separable from the ELD was used to contribute to harassment;

(B) The date of the alleged action; and

(C) How the motor carrier's action violated either § 392.3 or part 395.

Each complaint may include any supporting evidence that will assist the Division Administrator in determining the merits of the complaint.

(2) Upon the filing of a complaint of a violation under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the appropriate Division Administrator shall determine whether the complaint is non-frivolous and meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(i) If the Division Administrator determines the complaint is non-frivolous and meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Division Administrator shall investigate the complaint. The complaining driver shall be timely notified of findings resulting from the investigation. The Division Administrator shall not be required to conduct separate investigations of duplicative complaints.

(ii) If the Division Administrator determines the complaint is frivolous or does not meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Division Administrator shall dismiss the complaint and notify the complainant in writing of the reasons for the dismissal.

(3) Because prosecution of harassment in violation of § 390.36(b)(1) of this subchapter will require disclosure of the driver's identity, the Agency shall take every practical means within its authority to ensure that the driver is not subject to coercion, harassment, intimidation, disciplinary action, discrimination, or financial loss as a result of the disclosure. This will include notification that 49 U.S.C. 31105 includes broad employee protections and that retaliation for filing a harassment complaint may subject the motor carrier to enforcement action by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

(c) Complaint of coercion. (1) A driver alleging a violation of § 390.6(a)(1) or (2) of this subchapter must file a written complaint with FMCSA stating the substance of the alleged coercion no later than 90 days after the event. The written complaint, including the information described below, must be filed with the National Consumer Complaint Database at http://nccdb.fmcsa.dot.gov or the FMCSA Division Administrator for the State where the driver is employed. The Agency may refer a complaint to another Division Administrator who the Agency believes is best able to handle the complaint. Information on filing a written complaint may be obtained by calling 1-888-DOT-SAFT (1-888-368-7238). Each complaint must be signed by the driver and must contain:

(i) The driver's name, address, and telephone number;

(ii) The name and address of the person allegedly coercing the driver;

(iii) The provisions of the regulations that the driver alleges he or she was coerced to violate; and

(iv) A concise but complete statement of the facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation of coercion, including the date of each alleged violation.

(2) Action on complaint of coercion. Upon the filing of a complaint of coercion under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the appropriate Division Administrator shall determine whether the complaint is non-frivolous and meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(1).

(i) If the Division Administrator determines that the complaint is non-frivolous and meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the Division Administrator shall investigate the complaint. The complaining driver shall be timely notified of findings resulting from such investigation. The Division Administrator shall not be required to conduct separate investigations of duplicative complaints.

(ii) If the Division Administrator determines the complaint is frivolous or does not meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the Division Administrator shall dismiss the complaint and notify the driver in writing of the reasons for the dismissal.

(3) Protection of complainants. Because prosecution of coercion in violation of § 390.6 of this subchapter will require disclosure of the driver's identity, the Agency shall take every practical means within its authority to ensure that the driver is not subject to coercion, harassment, intimidation, disciplinary action, discrimination, or financial loss as a result of the disclosure. This will include notification that 49 U.S.C. 31105 includes broad employee protections and that retaliation for filing a coercion complaint may subject the alleged coercer to enforcement action by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

[80 FR 78381, Dec. 16, 2015, as amended at 88 FR 80182, Nov. 17, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon, 106 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon, 106 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2003). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 386.12 ; see also Rector v. LabOne, Inc.”
Dighello v. Thurston Foods, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D. Conn. 2018). “49 C.F.R. § 386.12 . Investigation into whether federal regulations are violated is a unique government function that private persons do not perform.”
Carol Jean Vosch, of the Last Will of Charles Lowry, Deceased & David Gaibis & Others Similarly Situated v. Werner Cont'l, Inc., 734 F.2d 149 (3rd Cir. 1984). “12 (1983), it would appear that they could have filed a complaint with the Associate Administrator of the FHA, who is required to issue a notice of investigation, unless he determines that the complaint is meritless. Since the issue is not properly before us on this appeal,…”
Rector v. LabOne, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 987 (E.D. Ark. 2002). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 386.12 , 386.11, 386.1. The Assistant Administrator has the authority to investigate any alleged violation of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 C.”
Dean McMaster v. Dte Energy Co. (Mich. 2022). “5, and prohibits shippers from coercing a driver to haul an unsafe load in violation of the regulations, 49 CFR 386.12(c); 49 CFR 390.6. But the MCSA, which regulates “all employers, employees, and commercial motor vehicles that transport property or passengers in interstate…”
Dean McMaster v. Dte Energy Co. (Mich. 2022). “5, and prohibits shippers from coercing a driver to haul an unsafe load in violation of the regulations, 49 CFR 386.12(c); 49 CFR 390.6. But the MCSA, which regulates “all employers, employees, and commercial motor vehicles that transport property or passengers in interstate…”
Dean McMaster v. Dte Energy Co. (Mich. 2022). “5, and prohibits shippers from coercing a driver to haul an unsafe load in violation of the regulations, 49 CFR 386.12(c); 49 CFR 390.6. But the MCSA, which regulates “all employers, employees, and commercial motor vehicles that transport property or passengers in interstate…”
Houston Area Saf. Council, Inc. & Psychemedics Corp. v. Guillermo M. Mendez (Tex. 2023). “at 714 (quoting 49 C.F.R. § 386.12 ). These remedies, we concluded, sufficiently enable employees to “protect themselves from harm,” without merely relying on the employer to comply with its internal procedures.”
Poston v. Velox Transp. Solutions, LLC (D. Mont. 2023). “Almo responds that negligence claims are either not preempted or fall under an exception within the Act and that they have ' Plaintiffs are not alleging violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act, which would fall directly within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department…”
Akins v. Valley Proteins, Inc. (N.D. Tex. 2022). “Therefore, Plaintiff's negligence, gross-negligence, wrongful termination,’ and defamation-of-character claims fail.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 386.12(c) — 3 cases
Dean McMaster v. Dte Energy Co. (Mich. 2022). “5, and prohibits shippers from coercing a driver to haul an unsafe load in violation of the regulations, 49 CFR 386.12(c); 49 CFR 390.6. But the MCSA, which regulates “all employers, employees, and commercial motor vehicles that transport property or passengers in interstate…”
Dean McMaster v. Dte Energy Co. (Mich. 2022). “5, and prohibits shippers from coercing a driver to haul an unsafe load in violation of the regulations, 49 CFR 386.12(c); 49 CFR 390.6. But the MCSA, which regulates “all employers, employees, and commercial motor vehicles that transport property or passengers in interstate…”
Dean McMaster v. Dte Energy Co. (Mich. 2022). “5, and prohibits shippers from coercing a driver to haul an unsafe load in violation of the regulations, 49 CFR 386.12(c); 49 CFR 390.6. But the MCSA, which regulates “all employers, employees, and commercial motor vehicles that transport property or passengers in interstate…”
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.