Valve Protection

We had an officer stop a CMV transporting cylinders (UN pressure receptacles) that did not have valve protection in accordance with 173.301b(c)(2), as required by 173.301(h). These cylinders were not exempted by 173.301(h) from the cylinder valve protection requirements. When the officer tried to record a violation for 173.301(h), he discovered that there was no 173.301(h) violation to select in our state-developed driver/vehicle inspection system (Texas’ equivalent to FMCSA’s ASPEN). This caused him to contact us in Austin and ask if said violation could be added. Our IT personnel checked SAFETYNET to make sure said violation could be uploaded without any problems and discovered that there is not a violation of 173.301(h) in SAFETYNET. (We have previously run into a similar scenario with the guidance issued by Mike Huntley and Luke Loy, and further incorporated by CVSA into their Operational Policy 15, endorsing the issuing of violations under either 396.3(a)(1) or 393.3 for external windshield visors that obstruct a driver’s view. However, FMCSA has declined to add a violation for these external windshield visors under either 396.3(a)(1) or 393.3 in SAFETYNET.)

Our IT personnel contacted their counterparts from FMCSA’s Southern Service Center and IT Development Division and were told that violations of 173 cites have historically been resisted for use roadside and were advised to use the generic cite for 177.840. The problem that we have, in regards to this advice, is that cylinder valve protection requirements are not addressed in 177.840. They are found in 173.301b(c)(2) and are required by 173.301(h). Our state’s laws and department’s policies prevent us from issuing violations that do not address the actual violation/requirement, as that will essentially lead to a DataQ, which will have to be overturned, negating our efforts and leaving us back at ‘square one’, not to mention violate the driver’s and motor carrier’s civil rights afforded to them by the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We have discussed using the generic site of 171.2(f) for HM violations not specifically listed in SAFETYNET, however violations under that cite carry an SMS score of 8 and also may cause our officers to rely upon using that violation too heavily or too quickly if they don’t immediately find the violation/cite that is present and that they are truly needing to select.

My chain of command has asked me to reach out to CVSA in an effort to find a solution/resolution to our issues, which are concisely listed below: 1. How can we facilitate the addition of all of the violations that inspectors discover roadside into SAFETYNET? 2. In the meantime or in the event that all of the violations that inspectors discover roadside into SAFETYNET does not occur, how does CVSA want roadside inspectors to handle violations that they discover, that are not found in SAFETYNET, that is in a manner that does not cause them to violate any laws and/or department policies? a. Would CVSA want roadside inspectors to utilize 171.2(f) for HM violations not specifically listed or covered in SAFETYNET? b. What generic cites would CVSA want roadside inspectors to utilize for other violations (driver, equipment (external windshield visors), etc…) not specifically listed or covered in SAFETYNET? c. If CVSA wants roadside inspectors to utilize generic cites, so they can record a violation that is present during an inspection that isn’t listed or covered in SAFETYNET, so they don’t violate any laws and/or department policies, who should they direct any petitions for redress of grievances or complaints from drivers and/or motor carriers to in regards to, what some could foresee as, the improper or unfair usage of the SMS Methodology by the government? Any assistance that you can provide in regards to this issue will be much appreciated.