Home Trucker Issues
 

Trucker Issues
How the heck did FMCSA wind up redoing HOS again? PDF Print E-mail

 

 

Ever wonder why the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration seems to keep retooling the hours-of-service regulations?

Well, sit back and kick up your feet. Because it’s a long story and starts back in 1995…

Dec. 29, 1995 – Section 408 of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, directed the Department of Transportation to issue regulations addressing fatigue-related issues (that’s code for hours of service) affecting commercial vehicle safety. The DOT was given a deadline of March 1, 1999, to issue the new HOS regs.

Nov. 27, 2002 – Public Citizen, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Parents Against Tired Truckers and Teamsters for a Democratic Union filed suit compelling the U.S. DOT to issue the rules, which includes new hours-of-service regulations, ordered by Congress. 

April 24, 2003 – The Bush administration announced final rules to allow truckers to drive longer hours but take more time off between shifts under the first hours-of-service changes since 1939.

Dec. 1, 2003 – Public Citizen, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways and Parents Against Tired Truckers, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that “far from improving safety, the final rule abandons virtually every principle FMCSA had proclaimed necessary.”

July 16, 2004 – A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit called the new HOS rules “arbitrary and capricious” and threw the regs out.

Sept. 30, 2004 – Congress got in on the act and passed a provision in the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004 that gave FMCSA until Sept. 30, 2005, to reformulate the HOS rules. That allowed FMCSA to keep the April 2003 HOS regs in place during the rulemaking process.

Aug. 19, 2005 – FMCSA unveiled its second attempt to retool HOS since 1939. The 2005 version kept the 34-hour restart, 14 hours of on-duty time and 11 hours of driving from the 2003 rule. However, it revised the spilt sleeper berth provision periods to eight and two hours.

Aug. 29, 2005 – OOIDA filed a petition for reconsideration with the agency. The petition included requests for two “common sense changes.” One request was for the two-hour portion of the split sleeper berth provision to stop the 14-hour on-duty clock. The other request was to allow teams to split the sleeper berth time in something other than the eight- and two-hour periods.

Oct. 1, 2005 – The newly revised hours of service went into effect, despite lingering petitions for reconsideration filed with FMCSA.

Dec. 1, 2005 – In a letter dated Dec. 5, 2005, FMCSA denied OOIDA’s petition for reconsideration.

Jan. 23, 2006 – OOIDA filed a petition for review with the DC Circuit asking the court to review the agency’s changes to the sleeper berth provision, claiming the agency “did not do adequate research to justify the decisions they did make.”

Feb. 27, 2006 – The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Truckload Carrier’s Association and the Ohio and California Trucking Associations supported OOIDA’s court challenge and filed “motions to intervene” in the petition for review.

Feb. 27, 2006 – A second lawsuit challenging the current regulations was filed by Public Citizen. That case – although challenging the rule very differently – was eventually combined with OOIDA’s suit by the court.

July 24, 2007 – The court tossed the provision that increased driving time to 11 hours from 10 hours and the 34-hour restart provision – on procedural, not safety, grounds. In that same decision, the court denied a petition by OOIDA asking the court to consider the impact of changes to the sleeper-berth provision, thereby removing OOIDA as a plaintiff in the pending litigation.

Sept. 28, 2007 – The DC Circuit denied appeals in the HOS decision and gave the agency until the end of the year to take action on revising the regulations, again.

Dec. 11, 2007 – FMCSA once again retained the current hours-of-service regulation, allowing drivers to use the 34-hour restart and drive the 11th hour, while defending both provisions with additional research.

Jan. 23, 2008 – The DC circuit denied a petition filed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Public Citizen, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Truck Safety Coalition that asked the court to vacate the interim final rule.

Nov. 19, 2008 – FMCSA published “new” final rule in Federal Register, which made no changes to the regulation the industry had operated under since October 2005.

Jan. 19, 2009 – The current hours-of-service regulations officially went into effect.

March 9, 2009 – The third chapter in the HOS saga kicked off when four groups filed a lawsuit asking that the current version of the regulation be tossed. Filing suit were International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Public Citizen, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Truck Safety Coalition.

Oct. 26, 2009 – FMCSA and Public Citizen were granted a joint motion by the court to delay legal action in order to allow FMCSA to craft new HOS regs.

Dec. 23, 2010 – FMCSA rolled out its proposed hours-of-service regulations. For a complete breakdown on the current proposal, check out the February issue of Land Line.

Jan. 27, 2011 – Public Citizen and FMCSA asked the court for “an order continuing to hold proceedings in abeyance pending the issuance of a final rule.” The court agreed ordering the parties to update the court every 60 days beginning March 29 and to file another joint motion 30 days after the final rule is published.

Information contained in this timeline was compiled by Land Line Magazine Senior Editor Jami Jones from OOIDA resources and Land Line Magazine articles.

 
Truck-related traffic fatalities drop 20% PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 22 September 2010 22:20

WASHINGTON  –  The number of truck-involved traffic fatalities declined 20 percent in 2009, dropping from 4,245 in 2008 to 3,380 in 2009, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced Sept. 9.

 

The reduction is the lowest level in recorded Department of Transportation history and also shows a 33 percent decrease in fatalities since........

>>READ MORE<<

 
Times, They Are A Changing - or Repeating - a Good Thing PDF Print E-mail
Written by Tribal   
Tuesday, 02 March 2010 18:40

While sitting in my relaxing chair, at home & looking outside at the crappy weather mother nature has dealt all of us, I came across an article that says exactly what I have been saying for some time. Not that I have any more insight nor farsightedness than anyone else. It will Never be as it was in the old days, but it's going to get better, all the NAYSAYERS over the last few years get ready.

Through all the MAJOR BS that we deal with in day to day operations, it's coming to a head and Fast.  The voices of those of us who have survived this remaining recession and have managed to JUST SAY NO to Cheap Freight, relief is in sight. The article can be found here. Times, They are a Changing from Trucking Info.com. Let's ALL hope it pans out.

Ω

 
At the Loading Dock! Detention pay? PDF Print E-mail
Written by David J   
Wednesday, 29 July 2009 17:00

Detention time is when a truck is detained at a shipper's or customer's loading dock beyond a reasonable period of time. Generally in the industry, 2 hours are needed for loading or unloading a truck. Unfortunately many Shippers and Receivers generally do not care how long a driver has to sit without pay even though the time at the dock goes against the drivers hours of service (HOS). The shippers/receivers who  pay detention are generally pretty efficient at getting a truck going. It is those companies who refuse to pay detention time who take their sweet time loading or unloading a truck. Some companies will hold up a truck for the entire day before loading or unloading, sometimes longer. And remember that a driver is legally required to log this time as "On Duty Not Driving". Work without PAY. And it counts against his 70 week.

Other freight industries get and receive detention or demurrage pay. For instance the railroads after dropping a railcar at your site give you 2 days to work the load after that you pay demurrage for each day. Remember that a railcar does not have a driver waiting for it.

Ship Companies also charge demurrage after a negotiated time for loading or unloading. Their demurrage costs can be in the millions of dollars.

So what happened to detention pay in trucking? Congress refuses to talk about it because like in the case of Fuel Surcharges, they say it is tantamount to "Regulation". This is such hipocrisy on their part when they have REGULATED everything else in the trucking industry. If you think about it, the "Trucking Industry" is the most regulated "de-regulated" industry in America.

In my opinion, our elected officials do not want to upset the big industries that are contributing to their election campaigns by forcing them to pay what is fair to the Owner-Operators and Truck Drivers. If detention pay were mandatory the worst offending shippers/receivers would have to get their act together and run an efficient loading/unloading operation. More often than not the shippers and/or receivers schedule all incoming trucks to arrive at the same time, then it's first come first serve at the dock. To top it off at the receiving end a driver must pay for a lumper to unload his truck. The unloading can be done by the driver, but then he is left standing by his load for hours waiting for the receiver to count it and sign his bills. This is how many receiving companies handle it if you don't pay for them to unload their own freight. From my experience however this rule applies; "The more you are charged for a lumper, the longer it takes". Doesn't make sense but if you ask a trucker, he will agree.

 
Is Roseville, CA targetting Truckers? PDF Print E-mail
Written by David J   
Wednesday, 06 May 2009 17:00

ll-header1

While Roseville, CA, may have been named by Money Magazine as one of the top 100 best small cities to live in America in 2008, most truckers would disagree.

That’s because Roseville city officials have decided to change how police officers write traffic tickets in an effort to keep all of the fine revenue themselves. Their logic? Why share their profits with Placer County and the state if they “do all the work”?

The police department even conducted a three-month pilot program this past summer using truck drivers as their test subjects for violations such as restricted routes, load and license issues in order to gauge whether their new revenue enhancement strategy would be profitable.

The overwhelming response to their initial experiment was positive. And now Roseville has the cash in hand as proof.

Roseville – award-winning small city that it is – can’t pass along any more tax increases, it seems, to its own residents. So, instead, they are looking to prey on nonvoters and nonresidents, such as long-haul truckers.

Roseville Police Capt. Stan Lumsden even threw a little flattery truckers’ way in a Sacramento Bee article. He stated that drivers tend to pay their fines sooner and are less likely to contest the municipal code tickets than state code citations, which is another “benefit” to using the city code instead.

I’m sure that Capt. Lumsden’s shout-out to truckers will not give them a warm and fuzzy feeling, knowing they hit the “Roseville Favorite Violators” list because they are good payers.

Lumsden even bragged that those ticketed shouldn’t complain because of what a good deal it is. The municipal tickets will be offered at bargain prices because they will be cheaper than state-issued tickets. That’s because Roseville doesn’t have to divvy up the profits with county and state. Instead of having a $146 ticket and the city getting a measly $31 of it, Roseville can offer a discounted fine of $100. It’s cheaper for the perp and Roseville gets to keep it all.

However, Lumsden did want to make it clear that

the police department’s main objective is, of course, safety – not generating revenue. LL

 

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 
«StartPrev12NextEnd»

Page 1 of 2
JoomlaWatch 1.2.12 - Joomla Monitor and Live Stats by Matej Koval
Copyright © 2012 warontruckers.com. All Rights Reserved.
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.