Chris Christie and Bridge-Gate
Posted on January 10, 2014
Filed Under IN THE NEWS, POLITICS | 1 Comment
I said I would keep the blog current by mixing in some non-DOT compliance posts, so here is one of those. Here are my thoughts on the Chris Christie Bridge-gate.
This is the summary, for those of you who don’t follow current events. Chris Christie is the governor of New Jersey. He is going to run for President in 2016, although it is uncertain on which ticket he will run. He is a Republican, but he is believes in amnesty, gun confiscation, global warming, and Big Government. He could very well run for President as a Democrat, or an Independent.
Christie was re-elected governor last year in a landslide. Christie sought out numerous endorsements from Democrats, as he wanted to burnish his credentials as a politician beloved by both Democrats and Republicans, thereby increasing his chances of becoming President.
Fort Lee, New Jersey, is a small town in northern New Jersey, which includes the western edge of the George Washington Bridge. The GWB is one of the largest bridges in the world, and leads into New York City. It is very heavily traveled. Most Fort Lee citizens depend on the GWB to get to work or school in New York City.
Christie sough the endorsement of Fort Lee’s Mayor for governor, one Mark Sokolich. The Mayor declined. He is a Democrat, after all. In September, after the Mayor turned down the Governor, Christie’s aides closed numerous traffic lanes leading onto the bridge. Emails have surfaced showing this was done as retribution for the Mayor’s refusal to endorse Christie. The result was huge traffic jams, lasting 3 and 4 hours. For those of you who have never been to the East Coast, if conditions are right, hours-long traffic jams are the norm, and they will make you want to kick the dog whenever you finally escape them.
The Governor, of course, laughed this all off, and denied it was retribution. Emails have now surfaced proving it was exactly that. Christie has now fired the aides involved in this matter, and claimed no knowledge of these matters, whatsoever, and he is so very sorry.
This matter is disgusting. However, not surprising. This is our government in 21st century America. Government by thuggery. Christie insists he is not a bully. Ha, ok Governor, whatever you say. No, you sir, are a thug. However, you are in good company. President Obama and his minions are thugs. Hillary Clinton is a thug. A thug is a government official who peddles favors and goodies to those who help them, and intimidates and punishes those who don’t.
There is nothing new about “government by thuggery”. Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, even sainted Franklin Delano Roosevelt were all well versed in the art, although historians back then called it “hardball politics”. It’s just a feeling I have, but I think we passed from political hardball to outright thuggery sometime ago.
It’s nothing now for a government official to close traffic lanes just to screw with the constituents represented by a political opponent. Ha-ha-ha, isn’t that funny? Those poor dumb bastards all now have to sit in traffic for 2 more hours a day. Ha-ha-ha, I made them do that. Serves them right, maybe their Mayor will learn a lesson, don’t mess with Chris Christie.
Of course, you have the King of Thuggery, President Obama. He who orders his personal Gestapo, the IRS, to audit and intimidate any group exercising their Constitutional rights to oppose him politically. Or, who thinks nothing of manipulating the citizens to score cheap political points. The Republicans won’t pass a budget? I’ll show them. Put barriers around all the national monuments. Yes, all of them, even those which are outside and unguarded. The government’s closed! I’ll make sure it hurts. Sorry your vacation plans just changed, but now you know how much you need the government. Thuggery.
These thugs always deny any knowledge of their thug actions. No, I never told them to do that! No, I didn’t know about that! No, never, never. Bullshit. These thugs put their minions in place, and they make darned sure they know what is expected of them: reward our friends, punish our enemies, trample on the citizens if it helps us.
Hopefully, this will end Christie’s Presidential ambitions, but it probably won’t. Well, if Americans are stupid enough to elect him President, we will get the thug government we deserve. It will just be a continuation of the Obama thug government, so we should be used to it. To rip off the Who, “meet the new Thug. Same as the old Thug.”
MCS-150
Posted on November 4, 2013
Filed Under GENERAL | 2 Comments
One of the several hundreds of regulations found in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations is 49 CFR 390.19, which requires a motor carrier to update its registration information with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) once every two years. If you have a USDOT number, you are a motor carrier, and subject to this requirement.
To determine when you must file your update, you must refer to your DOT number. The last digit of your number is the month in which you must file. The second to last number of the DOT number identifies if you must file in an odd numbered, or even numbered year. For example, if your DOT number is 921934, you must file your update by the end of April, 2015. Or, if your DOT number is 1632927, you must file your update by the end of July, 2014.
The registration may be filed by filling out the MCS-150 form, and mailing it to their office in Washington, DC. It may also be filled out electronically at their website, www.fmcsa.dot.gov. If you are filing the form electronically, you will need a PIN number in order to file the registration update. If you do not have a PIN number, they will mail one to you in 4-7 business days. You cannot get a PIN number from them any faster than that. If you lose your PIN number, it will take another 4-7 business days to get a new one, so don’t lose it.
The form itself asks for basic identifying information about a motor carrier such as name, address, and phone number. It also asks for the type of freight the carrier transports, as well as the number of trucks and drivers it has. FMCSA uses this information to keep tabs on the motor carrier, and to find the carrier if it needs to audit them. It also uses the truck and driver information to help score the carrier within its CSA system, which prioritizes motor carriers for audits. In the future, the information on the MCS-150 form identifying the number of trucks will also be used to ensure you have paid the correct amount of UCR fees.
This registration update regulation has been a requirement for many years, however, it was largely unenforced until recently. Now, as with many regulations, the FMCSA is taking a much harsher stance, and will occasionally mail penalties to motor carriers who have not updated their registration records.
FMCSA gets a list of carriers from its computers who have not updated their registration information on time. If FMCSA has evidence the carrier is still operating, and is not out of business, they may mail them a penalty for failing to update the registration. Typically, these penalties have been a few hundred dollars, but with the new MAP-21 law which was passed by Congress this summer, these penalties will probably now be at least $1,000.
To be fined for not filing the MCS-150 form is still uncommon, however, it is done. The penalties are issued in a fairly random and arbitrary fashion. Someone in one of the FMCSA local offices makes a decision to pump their enforcement statistics, at which point, claim letters for failing to update the MCS-150 forms are mailed to all the offending motor carriers.
Occasionally the FMCSA will mail you a reminder notifying you need to update your MCS-150 form, but usually it does not. If you do not update your registration information, FMCSA holds you responsible, either way. Also, if you update your registration information at some point prior to the month and year prescribed by your DOT number, you still must file it again when the rules demand. For example, a motor carrier’s number is 1632927. They update their registration information in December, 2013, because they bought 10 new trucks. They still need to file the MCS-150 form again in July, 2014.
Make sure your information is up-to-date with FMCSA. It could save you some money.
I am Back
Posted on November 4, 2013
Filed Under GENERAL | Leave a Comment
Well, it’s been 4 months since I have posted anything on this blog, once again violating my promise to keep this blog current. Admittedly, for the past few months I have Gone Galt. “Going Galt” refers to Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged”, where the main character, John Galt, protests a dystopian society by going on strike. If you want to get an idea of what’s going on today in this country, read “Atlas Shrugged”.
At any rate, I was never really on strike, I just wasn’t working as hard as I did in the past. I will try to make it up to you, and put some things up in the next few months. One of the problems I have is the things I really want to write about really have very little to do with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and the application thereof.
I think what I am going to do is try to make a one-to-one deal. One post about things you want to know, like logbooks, medicals, DOT numbers, etc., and then one post about things I want to write about. So I may tell you all about driver vehicle inspection reports in one post, and then have a follow-up post on the evils of the Federal Reserve. Or why my cat is pissing me off today. Or why I don’t want to live in a world where Andy Reid is undefeated. Just skip the stuff not pertaining to compliance and trucks if you want.
As for people who have asked me questions via the website; I apologize for not answering your questions in a more timely fashion. Nevertheless, my free answers will often be contingent on how busy I am, or simply on whether or not I want to answer your question. Sometimes I just do not feel like doing it. Those questions which are accompanied by offers of payment are always answered in a timely fashion, and always are answered ahead of those which are done for free.
Truck Deaths Going Up, Car Deaths Going Down
Posted on July 1, 2013
Filed Under GENERAL, IN THE NEWS, POLITICS | 1 Comment
On this most festive hours of service day, I think it is important to examine the performance of the Ferro / LaHood / Obama FMCSA. I have been involved in commercial motor vehicle safety for 23 years. The present day FMCSA regime is the most aggressive, hyper-regulatory version of FMCSA I have ever seen.
All of their actions, whether it be cellphone bans, CSA 2010, more restrictive hours of service limitations, or liberally putting motor carriers out of business, are supposed to be reducing truck accidents, fatalities, and injuries on the road. The Ferro / LaHood / Obama FMCSA have now been at it for going on 5 years. Have they been effective at reducing truck accidents?
I found this document on FMCSA’s website. It identifies how many fatal truck and bus crashes there are, as well as how many people were killed in these truck and bus crashes. In 2009, there were 3,619 deaths. In 2010, there were 3,957 deaths. In 2011, there were 4,018 deaths.
So, according to the raw numbers, truck deaths are increasing. Is that meaningful? After all, the economy is purportedly improving, so that would mean there are more vehicles on the road. More vehicles means more of a chance they run into each other, so naturally, highway deaths should increase. The real question is, on a per mile basis, are there more or less truck crash deaths?
In the same chart, FMCSA calculates this statistic. It uses the total number of miles driven by all vehicles, and compares it to the total number of truck crash fatalities to create a statistic. In 2009, 0.122 people were killed in truck accidents per 100 million miles driven by all vehicles. In 2010, 0.133 people were killed. In 2011, 0.136 people were killed. So, from 2009, not only are more people being killed in truck crashes, they are also being killed more frequently.
Maybe that’s just a statistical quirk. Maybe it doesn’t mean anything. However, when you look at the same statistic for all vehicles, the fatality rate per 100 million miles traveled is going down. In 2009, it was 1.15, in 2010 it was 1.11, and in 2011, it was 1.10.
So, car accident fatalities are going down, but truck accident fatalities are going up. Really, close examination of FMCSA chart leads to no other conclusion. Whether you count fatal crashes, the number of fatalities, or the number of fatalities per miles driven, it all leads to the same conclusion. Truck crashes are going up, while car crashes are going down.
What could be causing this? I have no statistical evidence, simply my educated guesses. My best guess is that qualified truck drivers are leaving the industry. Truck driver is a tough job, which has only gotten tougher. Drivers are being held to ever-higher levels of responsibility, with little or no corresponding increase in compensation.
We know drivers are leaving the industry; all the anecdotal evidence points to that. All of the government initiatives are designed to rid the industry of unsafe drivers. However, what is probably happening is for each unsafe driver who leaves, two more safe drivers leave. Many drivers who have poor MVRs, or compliance records are safety risks. I believe an equal number are really perfectly safe drivers, who simply are not that good with paperwork, or following instructions. Both categories are being forced out. Plus, there are many drivers with perfect compliance and safety records who are leaving because they can no longer make a decent living, or because they are simply sick of the harassment.
The freight still needs to be moved, so who fills these empty driver seats? New drivers. Inexperienced drivers. Drivers who are not as safe as their predecessors. The result is an increase in truck crashes, fatalities and injuries. In other words, all the government hyper-regulatory activities are actually producing an opposite result of what they are supposed to do.
That’s my theory. I am not a statistician so who knows, maybe my explanation is totally wrong. Maybe the fact that truck fatalities are going up while car crash fatalities are going down over the past two years is meaningless. After all, just because Babe Ruth struck out his last time up, doesn’t make him a bad hitter. Nevertheless, my gut tells me these truck crash facts are statistically relevant. After all, if FMCSA’s hyper-regulatory approach was effective, truck crashes should be plunging, far in advance of car crashes. They are not. I know FMCSA has offered no explanation. What do you think?
New Hours of Service Rules
Posted on July 1, 2013
Filed Under HOURS OF SERVICE, IN THE NEWS, POLITICS | 1 Comment
As I type this, FMCSA’s new hours of service rules are in effect. They went into effect at midnight on July 1, 2013. So what are the new rules? First, you may not drive if 8 hours of duty time has passed since a driver’s last off-duty or sleeper break of at least 30 minutes. Said another way, a driver must take an off-duty or sleeper break at least 30 minutes once every 8 hours of duty time. This break must be shown on the logs.
For example, a driver begins his day at 5am. By 1pm, 8 hours into his work shift, he must have taken at least a 30 minute off-duty or sleeper break. In other words, he cannot drive straight through to wherever he is going, stopping only to fuel the truck. He must stop within the first 8 hours of his shift for 30 minutes.
This 30 minute break must be off-duty or sleeper time. It cannot be on-duty time. For example, if a driver stops to fuel the truck, and it takes him 30 minutes to fuel the truck, he cannot count this as his 30 minute off-duty break. He would have to take an additional 30 minutes off-duty inside the truckstop eating lunch, playing video games, or doing other non-work activities to count as his off-duty break. He is allowed to be in the truck while taking this off-duty break. The new rules specifies this.
If you have any drivers who are using the 100 air mile exemption, they too are subject to this 30 minute off-duty break rule. In other words, a driver who does not fill out a log, but instead uses a time sheet showing the time started, time finished, and the total number of hours that day, because he only drives within a 100 air mile radius of his office, must also take a 30 minute break within the first 8 hours of duty. While he is not required to show this on his time sheet, he must still take the break.
This 30 minute break, like all off-duty and sleeper breaks of less than 8 hours, does not extend the 14 hour duty window. In essence, a driver now only has 13.5 hours to work and drive, whereas previously he had 14.
The other major change in these rules pertains to the 70 hour rule. Generally speaking, a driver cannot drive after being on-duty for 70 hours in any consecutive 8 day period. A driver used to be able to reset his 70 hour clock to zero with any 34 hour off-duty period. The new rules alter that. In order to get the reset, the 34 hour off-duty period must encompass two periods of 1am to 5am. If it does not, the off-duty period does not reset the running 70 hour clock back to zero. Furthermore, the new rules state that a reset may now only be used every 168 hours, which means once a week.
If you have a driver who ends his week early Saturday morning at 2am, he would have to wait until Monday morning at 5am to start driving again with a fresh clock, whereas under the old rules, he could have done so at noon on Sunday.
Finally, FMCSA has also expanded its power to levy giant penalties by defining a new category of hours of service violation. An “egregious” violation is one which a driver drives more than 3 hours in violation of the 11 or 14 hour rules. Should this occur, FMCSA may levy the maximum penalty for that one violation, which is $11,000 to the motor carrier, and $2,750.
It is unclear exactly what that means, as there are unanswered questions regarding their new “egregious” violations. For example, if a driver takes a 9 hour off-duty break, instead of 10, his entire next day would be in violation, as he did not get a full 10 hour break. Does that make it “egregious”, and subject to the maximum penalty? FMCSA has not answered this.
Normally, when the FMCSA comes out with a major hours of service rulemaking, as it has periodically over the past 10-12 years, it allows a few months of soft enforcement while the industry and the police learn the new rules. I would not count on that this time. FMCSA has made no comments to that effect. It has been waiting to enforce these rules for 18 months, so I doubt it will wait any longer. There is nothing soft about this present FMCSA administration. I expect these rules will be enforced strictly on July 1, 2013.
For more information, go here to FMCSA’s website, where they have everything pertaining to the new rules, including the actual regulatory text, the final rule, and logbook examples.
The NSA, Email and FMCSA
Posted on June 9, 2013
Filed Under HORROR STORIES, IN THE NEWS, POLITICS | Leave a Comment
Well, I need to get something up on the blog to let everyone know I am still in business. I have literally written 3 or 4 posts regarding current news and events, but discarded all of them. The news is moving so fast these days, that something new comes out almost every day, that dwarfs the day before.
Plus, I have had to tone down my posts, as I don’t want to get listed on any government enemies list. I am still trying to make a living, and there is probably very little money in “freedom fighter”. Nevertheless, here is my opinion of this NSA story which has broken in the past few days. I have no first hand knowledge of anything the government is doing. This is merely my opinion. Hopefully, I don’t end up in a gulag.
The latest revelation, is that the government has been storing all your emails, texts, and phone calls. Forever. I suppose that may shock some of you, or like me, simply confirm what I have suspected all along. What’s even more fascinating, is the man who leaked this information has gone public. Edward Snowden, 29, was an NSA contractor who worked at NSA’s facility in Hawaii. He admits he leaked the information about NSA’s “PRISM” program, which is apparently their acronym for gathering all available electronic communications from Verizon, AT & T, Google, Yahoo, Sprint, Facebook, etc. I suspect he has gone public to afford him some type of protection to prevent him from quietly “disappearing” in the middle of the night.
Snowden’s leak has forced the government to admit that it is, in fact, gathering data from all Americans, but it insists that 1) it only uses this information against foreigners who it suspects of potential terrorist acts, 2) judges approve the review of the information, and 3) it is not saving the contents of your phone calls. Only who you called, and who called you.
Of course, the government has lied repeatedly and continually to the press, the public, and members of Congress regarding the very existence of this type of program for years, so it is reasonable to assume they are lying now. This includes the President, who assures us no one is listening to our phone calls. If there is any justice, that statement will go down in history next to Nixon’s, “I am not a crook”.
Of course they are listening to your phone calls. All of them. You don’t have to be a tech-freak to know there is technology which transcribes spoken word to digital format, like a Word file or an email. You see examples of this in closed captioning on TV, and commercially available voice mails, which text you a transcription of the voice mails people leave. The NSA has huge facilities to store gazillions of bytes of data. More than enough to keep my email, your phone calls, and everyone else’s texts too.
Their computers comb through the data looking for key words which alert them a terrorist plot may be unfolding. If they get tipped off that some individual has uttered any of these key phrases, they then pull his box of data, which is every phone call he has ever made, probably dating back to around 2007, every email, every text. Then based on whatever they learn from that, they decide what action to take next.
This program has probably allowed them to thwart a number of potential Islamic terrorist plots. But at what price? Obviously, we are no longer living in a Constitutional republic when the government is free to search our lives at will. At whatever point in time when you become annoying, inconvenient, or a threat to them, they simply open your box of data. “Hey, let’s go trolling through John Doe’s box, let’s see what we can get on him!” Have you ever cheated on your wife? They know about it. Forgot to declare some income? They know about it. Cheated on your logs? They know about it. Like to use your cellphone in the truck without your bluetooth? They know about it. Play in a home poker game where money changes hands? They know about it. This information will then be used to control you via blackmail, or prosecution.
I highly suspect there is no judicial oversight of this program. After all, what judge is going to stand up to this type of intelligence operation, considering they have the goods on everything that judge has ever done or said? Any judge who opposes them will be blackmailed, or worse. Besides, there is no shortage of statist judges who will happily sign off on whatever power the State wants to take for itself. Any judicial oversight is merely a rubber stamp.
So what does this have to do with trucking, the FMCSA, and the safety regulations? Not much. I just find it more interesting writing about this sort of thing, plus I think it’s critical people know what their government is doing.
If your next question is, will FMCSA pull open my box of phone calls, emails, and texts and use that against me in my next audit? Not right now. Presently, this information is probably limited to the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, possibly the IRS, and private parties wealthy enough to purchase the information. FMCSA is not at that level. Actually, the NSA has files on FMCSA personnel too. They have files on everyone. It is simply a question of who controls that information.
As the surveillance society becomes more powerful and prevalent, I suppose it may be possible this information will become available to FMCSA agents, as well as all government agents. Certainly it will become available to IRS agents, if it’s not already. Govern your actions accordingly. Big Brother most certainly is listening.
True New Entrant Horror Story
Posted on April 29, 2013
Filed Under GENERAL, HORROR STORIES | Leave a Comment
The following is a true story. The names have been changed to protect the guilty. Yes, I know Drganet said “protect the innocent”, but I like the way I say it better. The story has a set-up, a twist, and a moral. Learn from this story.
The Set-Up. ABC Trucking is a new entrant. This means they have within the past 18 months gotten a DOT number and started into business. ABC has invested thousands of dollars purchasing 7 trucks which it is operating coast to coast. Recently, ABC received a letter from FMCSA in Washington, dated March 6. It said, “Action Required: Demand for Written Response. Planned Revocation Date of April 5, 2013″.
This letter informed ABC they had violated section 385.308(a)(7), one of FMCSA’s thousands of regulations. 385.308(a)(7) says that if a New Entrant motor carrier has a 50 percent or more Out of Service rate based on at least 3 inspections, occuring within a 90 day period, FMCSA may conduct an audit on the New Entrant, or require them to submit corrective action to their office. This letter demanded corrective action be sent to their office by April 5, 2013. If no corrective action was sent, ABC would have their authority revoked.
ABC, like most small carriers, is very busy, mostly just trying to find good-paying freight to keep the lights on. This letter from FMCSA was put aside, with all the other threatening letters businesses get on a regular basis from all forms of government such as the IRS, the State government, the Parking Authority, the local school board, etc. Eventually, about a week before April 5, 2013, ABC did respond to the letter. However, their reponse was brief and did not thoroughly document all the things ABC was doing to comply with the rules, as demanded by the March 6 demand letter. “Well, that should keep them happy,” ABC thought as they dashed off their response letter, “and if they want more information, they will probably call us”.
On April 8, 2013, ABC got another threatening letter from Washington in slightly bigger font, which said, “ORDER TO REVOKE NEW ENTRANT REGISTRATION”. The letter said that ABC’s authority had been revoked, and that ABC could not apply for new authority for at least 30 days. About this same time, ABC was informed by one of their brokers that they could not load them. “What??”, ABC said. “We have authority! We have followed all the rules!” “I’m sorry,” the broker said. “DOT’s website says you have no authority, and we cannot load you.”
ABC, frantically called the number on the letters, which was the FMCSA regional office. Once they got someone to answer the phone, they explained their plight. The FMCSA official told them there was nothing they could do. The corrective action they had submitted was not good enough. They were told they had to stop operating immediately, despite the fact that they had trucks scattered throughout the U.S. They were told their DOT number was no longer valid, and they could not get another one for at least 30 days. “30 days!”, ABC cried. “We will lose all our customers, and won’t be able to make payments on the trucks! We will be out of business! Our 12 drivers and office employees will lose their jobs!” The FMCSA official was unsympathetic. In fact, the official was rude. “Not my problem”, ABC was told. “What about an appeal, can we appeal this?” ABC asked. No, the official told them, there is no appeal.
ABC hung up, very discouraged, and mystified by what exactly had just happened. Their CSA scores were not that bad. They were trying to comply with the rules and stay out of trouble. They had only one accident, and that was not their fault. They had responded to the FMCSA demand letter, and explained how they had fixed the violations. Yet the government was telling them it would not permit them to operate any more. About this time, it went from bad to worse, as one their drivers called them and told them the State of Kentucky had just impounded his truck at a scalehouse because ABC did not have authority.
The Twist. ABC began to frantically make phone calls to other FMCSA officials, their Congressman, their Senators, anyone. Most calls went to voicemail. The calls to FMCSA personnel were not helpful. ABC submitted another package of paperwork to the FMCSA regional office, this time containing very detailed corrective action, to no avail. Sorry, too late, nothing we can do, they were told. Finally, after a week, ABC found me, and I reviewed their case. I noted, almost immediately, that FMCSA’s revocation order was in error.
ABC had had 2 inspections where their trucks were placed Out of Service for vehicle defects, which caused them to meet the definition of 385.308(a)(7). One of these inspections was conducted after ABC’s accident, where a car had crashed into their truck, causing major damage. The state trooper did the inspection, and wrote up all sorts of violations against ABC, despite the fact that all these violations were caused by the crash. There is a box on the inspection form where the trooper is supposed to indicate the violation was caused by the crash, but the trooper did not do this. ABC’s truck should have never been placed Out of Service. However, because it was improperly placed Out of Service, it caused the March 6 demand letter to be sent, and ultimately, led to their authority being revoked.
ABC, armed with this new information, went back to the FMCSA regional office, and managed to speak to an attorney in that office. It submitted its new information, and within a day or two, its authority had magically been restored.
The Moral. Well, there are several morals to this story. First, pay attention to any correspondence from the FMCSA, aka the DOT. They are not playing around. They will have no problem whatsoever putting you out of business. In fact, it seems, they want to put you out of business. If you get a letter demanding a response, you had better respond exactly as they demand immediately. Your response will almost certainly sit on a desk for weeks once FMCSA receives it. If you do not respond immediately, by the time it is finally reviewed, it may already be too late.
Second, if you get wrapped up in one of these disaster jackpots, get help immediately. Call a lawyer. Better yet, call me. I am the A-Team. Many times, FMCSA makes mistakes. Not all the time, but more often than you think. There is no level of review on these cases. You might think that before the government robs a business of its right to operate it would carefully review the matter at multiple levels. Not so! Basically, whether your business lives or dies is controlled by one bureaucrat, without review. In the case of ABC, a simple error was made, in this case by a poorly trained State Trooper, and it traveled unnoticed through the system causing untold damage to ABC’s business.
Third, you may not be getting accurate information from FMCSA. Again, competent assistance is a must. You cannot rely on FMCSA personnel to help you. Some of these personnel are good people, and some may even feel sorry for you. However, they have been directed by their masters in Washington to aggressively enforce the regulations to a T, and if that means tossing dozens of businesses onto the scrap heap, so be it. Also, they are handling many other cases, just like yours, so they may not have time to review your case, or otherwise help you. Furthermore, many FMCSA personnel are unfamiliar with their own regulations. In ABC’s case, the regional office apparatchik told them there is no appeal process, which is not true. 385.327 provides a motor carrier the appeal process.
Fourth, you must respond to FMCSA immediately. Yes, I know I said that already, but it bears repeating. I can help you, but we are much more likely to be successful if you call me when you initially get whatever demand letter you have gotten from FMCSA. Nearly every demand letter from FMCSA has some kind of deadline attached to it. If I had a nickel for every potential customer who called me wanting help, only for me to find out the time to respond had expired… well I wouldn’t have enough to retire, but I would have a big pile of nickels.
Learn from this story.
New Secretary of DOT Has Been Named
Posted on April 29, 2013
Filed Under IN THE NEWS, POLITICS | Leave a Comment
Finally, a replacement for the odious Ray LaHood has been named. It is Charlote Mayor Anthony Foxx. I have never heard of Anthony Foxx. He will probably be better than LaHood, simply because the Internet tells me he is only 41 years old, so he probably hasn’t become a complete and total statist yet, like LaHood. As far as the day to day activites at DOT and the FMCSA, I expect these to continue exactly as they have been under LaHood. FMCSA will continue forward with their stupid hours of service rule, which will be law on July 1.
In reality, nothing will probably change at all. Nevertheless, it is an excuse to post some content on the blog…..
Personal Conveyance
Posted on April 5, 2013
Filed Under ASK ERIC, HOURS OF SERVICE | 2 Comments
I received a question from “Wayne”, regarding personal conveyance. Here is the question:
“I did my post-trip safety inspection and went to off duty personal conveyance at our gathering terminal on the US side of the border. On my way home DOT pulled me over said I cant do that. He took my log book drew a line in drivin 4 1/2 hrs then a line down in that town. He gave me a over 11 and over 14, both OOS. I had driven 2.75 hrs and 160 miles and was 1 hr from home unladen and was not over my 11. Does he have the authority to falsify my logbook in order to incriminate me?”
ANSWER: Personal conveyance is found in Question 26 of the interpretations to 49 CFR 395.8, which states:
Question 26: If a driver is permitted to use a Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) for personal reasons, how must the driving time be recorded?
Guidance: “When a driver is relieved from work and all responsibility for performing work, time spent traveling from a driver’s home to his/her terminal (normal work reporting location), or from a driver’s terminal to his/her home, may be considered off-duty time. Similarly, time spent traveling short distances from a driver’s en route lodgings (such as en route terminals or motels) to restaurants in the vicinity of such lodgings may be considered off-duty time. The type of conveyance used from the terminal to the driver’s home, from the driver’s home to the terminal, or to restaurants in the vicinity of en route lodgings would not alter the situation unless the vehicle is laden. A driver may not operate a laden CMV as a personal conveyance. The driver who uses a motor carrier’s Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) for transportation home, and is subsequently called by the employing carrier and is then dispatched from home, would be on-duty from the time the driver leaves home.
A driver placed out of service for exceeding the requirements of the hours of service regulations may not drive a Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) to any location to obtain rest.”
So, let’s assume Wayne was bobtailing back to Canada. According to Question 26, the police officer is wrong. Wayne is off-duty, despite the fact he is driving down the road in a tractor. There is no commerce, as Wayne is going home. It seems as if it is a little different, when he leaves home, according to Question 26. The interpretation specifically says Wayne would be on-duty from when he leaves home, if the employing motor carrier calls Wayne at home, and directs him to drive to the terminal to pickup his load. So, I would say, Wayne going home, he is definitely off-duty. Wayne coming back to work, it all depends on when and how he’s dispatched whether his 4 hour trip back to the terminal is on-duty or off-duty.
Massive $58.5 Million Judgment In Truck Accident Lawsuit
Posted on April 5, 2013
Filed Under HORROR STORIES, IN THE NEWS | Leave a Comment
This comes to us from New Mexico. On March 21, 2013, a jury in Santa Fe, NM awarded $58.5 million in damages to the family of a crash victim who was killed in March, 2010. The accident occurred when a tractor trailer made a left turn in front of the victim’s pickup truck who was traveling towards the tractor-trailer in the opposite direction. The pickup truck then crashed into the tractor-trailer, killing the driver, one Kevin Udy.
According to the story, the plaintiff’s attorney presented evidence that the driver of the truck was not properly trained to operate the tanker truck. Also, he showed the company’s drivers had numerous speeding tickets, and alleged the truck driver was fatigued at the time of the accident.
It is difficult to completely ascertain the facts from this story. It appears that the truck driver was probably within his legal hours of service at the time of the accident. It is hard to say if the driver was properly licensed. It seems like he must have been, otherwise the article would explicitly say that, but $58.5 million? There seems like there must be more to this than just a simple fatality crash.
I looked up Standard E&S, LLC, USDOT# 1966149 on DOT’s CSA website. They have a very high “Driver Fitness” score of 93.3, with numerous citations for drivers not having the license necessary for the type of equipment being driven. One factor that may have pissed off the jury is that all of these violations which generated the high 93.3 CSA score happened after the March, 2010 accident. In other words, apparently this big wreck didn’t make anyone at Standard E&S say, “hey, maybe we’d better figure out why our drivers keep getting tickets from the cops….”
Whatever the specific details of this case may be, the fact remains, the trucking company, and nearly everyone associated with the truck have been socked with an absolutely giant monetary penalty. Take heed!
← Previous Page — Next Page →
