City of Hermosa Beach – Excess Permit fees $110 and you have to pick up in person.  Requesting LA County to issue on their behalf.

The City is charging $110, which is in excess of the $16 mandated per the California Vehicle Code (CVC) 35795 (b)(1) for a transportation permit.

CVC 35795 (b) (1) “Local authorities may charge a fee for the issuance of permits pursuant to this article. However, the fee established by a local authority pursuant to this section shall be established by ordinance or resolution adopted after notice and hearing. The fee shall be calculated to produce a total estimated revenue that is not more than the estimated total cost incurred by the local authority in administering its authority under this article and shall not exceed the fee developed by the Department of Transportation .”

Caltrans has not increased their permit fee of $16 to our knowledge and until they do, a locality   cannot charge more than $16.  We continue to stress to local agencies, the CVC is meant to be followed by local agencies, they’re not exempt as most of them assume.  This is not a toll to travel through their city. A transportation permit authorizes the streets that have been requested to travel on to pick up or make our delivery.

The City doesn’t have the correct permit application of form to even be issuing transportation per CVC 35781 that requires Caltrans Permit form.

CVC 35781.  The Department of Transportation shall develop a standard application form and a standard permit form for the application for, and the issuance of, a permit.  The standard permit form may be used as the standard application form.  The application for a permit shall specifically describe the vehicle and load to be operated or moved and the particular highways over which permit to operate is requested, and whether the permit is requested for a single trip or for continuous operation.  Local authorities shall use the standard application form and the standard permit form developed by the Department of Transportation.

After speaking with the Public Works Director, they will be contacting LA County requesting that they issue their Transportation Permits on their behalf.

City of Los Angeles – Street Services is becoming very aggressive with their enforcement tactics.

• Member received 90 day unofficial suspension of their on-line permit privileges.

We were recently contacted by a member who was being treated unfairly for an unknown policy   and unreasonable for something that isn’t a specific policy.  It was almost 90 days after the incident and continued to wait for the City to allow their company’s permit privileges back.

I was unaware of any policy that addressed any permit violations or misuse of permits, which in this instance couldn’t be considered in either category.  So if there is no policy or any written rules, then how can an agency enforce a policy that doesn’t exist?

We contacted the Chief of Street Services and explained the situation as we understood it to be.  He was unaware of it and would look into it right away.  We asked under what authority Street Services has to enforce the actions that they are taking against our member.  We were told that there was a new ordinance that was supposed to address this action and in reality it was an ordinance that addresses illegal dumping, not applying for a permit. We then requested an “Administrative Hearing”, which should have taken place immediately or at the latest with 30 days.  Even then the suspension shouldn’t have started until after the Administrative Hearing. In this case, if the company is already being penalized then there didn’t seem to be any sense of urgency on the City’s part.

The issue was all over a license number discrepancy on the permit submitted which didn’t match their Caltrans permit, but 2 out of the 3 number did.  The VIN and Equipment numbers both did match the Caltrans permit.  Their Annual Permit application was denied and from that point on they could not get anyone to answer or even return their phone call to find out how to rectify the immediate problem.  This was a renewal of their annual permit; it wasn’t the first time a City of LA Annual was issued to this machine.

Within days, an Administrative Hearing was scheduled for our member appeared to this informal hearing that lasted all of 20 minutes to discuss the situation that caused for this unnecessary disciplinary action.  Street Services met with our member

Another member was recently subject to a sting operation arraigned by Street Services with the sole intention of catching a member without the permit that was going too denied later that day.  Street Services arranged with LAPD to be on site in the morning to catch our member without a permit.  They were assisted by CHP to weigh the load as they arrived on the jobsite in the Central Business District (CBD) in downtown LA the following morning.

The Load arrived as was predicted by Street Services, but in this situation, our member had no intention in operating illegal, and they had their original Annual Permit that was valid.  An LAPD Citation was issued for 64,000 lbs. overweight for a load that was within the weights described on the valid permit.  Where the confusion lies is that they were informed that the permit wasn’t valid in the CBD and that our member would have had to obtain a separate permit travel in the CBD.  This is not correct, the City doesn’t require a separate permit for travel in the CBD, and this will all be worked out very soon.  This situation was no more than an over-zealous Street Service Inspector.  We have since met with.

• There have been 5 changes to the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Ordinance, where are we now?

Chronological Summary for the most recent revisions to the Overload Ordinances that we proposed in 2003, then 2006 and again in 2009 including 2010.

The requested revisions to the Overload Ordinance are a win-win situation for the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Bureau of Street Services (BSS), the City’s Department of Transportation (LADOT), and the transportation community.  These revisions were worked on for many months and have the concurrence of the Board of Public Works, BSS, and DOT.  Additionally, the transportation community worked with BSS and DOT on these revisions because it would make the City more “business friendly”.

These revisions to the Overload Ordinance are:

1) Changes the existing Ordinance by modifying the method by which annual permits for overloads are issued from a system which issues all of these permits in February of each year to one in which permits are issued throughout the year with expirations based upon the date of issuance; (requested in 2003, 2006 and 2008)

2) Revises the existing Ordinance by eliminating the requirement which prohibits movement during rainy or foggy weather; (requested in 2003, 2006 and 2008)

3) Changes the existing Ordinance by eliminating the prohibition barring the movement of overloads on weekends; (requested in 2003, 2006 and 2008) and

4) Revises the existing Ordinance by eliminating the prohibition barring movement of overloads during rush hour that are 10 feet in width or less.  (requested in 2003, 2006 and 2008)

5) An annual overload permits for overweight intermodal containers in the Port of Los Angeles Heavy Container Corridor only. (requested in 2008)

Originally, these revisions were in Council File (CF) 03-1449 and then to CF 05-1565.  This CF’s were inadvertently “received and filed” by the City Clerk due to miscommunication from the Council’s Transportation Committee.

Because these revisions significantly improve business processes for BSS and the transportation community, the Department of Public Works consolidated the revisions contained in CF 03-1449 and CF 05-1565 into CF 08-3278 and re-introduced them to Council.

In 2009, the Trade, Commerce, and Tourism Committee requested that the City Attorney revise the Ordinance to reflect the above listed changes.  (The revisions are listed in a Board of Public Works Board Report dated November 5, 2008 and a report from BSS dated July 9, 2009.) It should be noted that on October 26, 2009, the Public Works Committee waived consideration of this matter.

Keith Pristker who served as the secondary City Attorney to the Department of Public Works was requested by Council to draft the Ordinance with these changes.  When Mr. Pristker finished the draft Ordinance, he sent it to the Department of Public Works for review.  Jim Gibson, Executive Officer, Board of Public Works, let Mr. Pristker know that he had not included all the agreed upon revisions.  (Mr. Pristker had only included 3 of the four revisions.)  Mr. Pristker stated that he would revise the Ordinance to show all 4 revisions.  Subsequently, Mr. Pristker retired as part of the Early Retirement Incentive Program.

In July 2010, Ted Jordan who is the City Attorney that now represents the Department of Public Works and Suzanne Scheideker-Cook (representing the Board and BSS) met with representatives of the Chief Legislative Analyst’s (CLA’s) Office at their request to go through the Ordinance.  This request was due to the fact that this Ordinance (CF 08-3278) was going to be heard by the Public Works Committee.  At this meeting, it was realized that Mr. Pristker had not made the requested corrections to the Ordinance.  Due to this, the CLA felt that it would be best if the item was held over by the Public Works Committee until the Ordinance could be corrected by the City Attorney’s Office.

At the Public Works Committee meeting, the Ordinance was not held over but referred back to the Trade, Commerce, and Tourism Committee.  Ms. Scheideker-Cook and Gary Harris (BSS) spoke after the meeting because Public Works Committee was not supposed to take this action.  Further research indicates that the President of Council (Eric Garcetti’s office) sent the Ordinance back to the Trade, Commerce, and Tourism Committee for consideration.

Over the years on a number of occasions, both the Trade, Commerce, and Tourism Committee and Public Works Committee have either heard or waived consideration of this Ordinance.

The course of action that now needs to be taken is to request the Mayor’s Office requests the Trade, Commerce, and Tourism Committee to waive consideration of this matter and that Ordinance (CF 08-3278) is forwarded to full Council ASAP with the recommendation the Ordinance be adopted. 

The base fine $1382.14 including 280 % or $38,699.92 in penalty assessments that could have the potential to put small company out of business in today’s economy.  This was no more than an over sight on the dispatchers because when they moved the piece of heavy equipment into the project they purchased a round trip permit.  He had thought he purchased two trips, one for the move in and the other for the move out.  The Truck and Trailer combination had an overall length of 85’ which needed to be permitted.

It just wasn’t clear enough on the permit because their permit form/application were not uniform with Caltrans.  This can be very important when you’re trying to review the route or find specific details that are significant in the safety of the load during travel.  Again, it was understood when they purchased the permit, that if they purchased a round-trip, this would save valuable time when they returned in a few days to move the piece of equipment out of Santa Monica.  They did receive the call to move the equipment out and took the non-conformant permit application with them to the project location in Santa Monica to move the equipment back out.

The Transportation Industry was a major supporter in requiring consistency in having uniform permit applications and forms that mirrored Caltrans.  It had been demonstrated that Safety would increase with a uniform permit such as Caltrans.  It had become a serious problem with localities issuing their own permits on unfamiliar forms with information not easily located.  It was becoming more and more a safety problem for drivers both intrastate and interstate.  The answer was legislation.

AB 1849 was signed into law and effective on January 1, 1990 and operative on July 1, 1990.  Therefore, we continue to questions that of the many localities 10 years later, have continued to ignore the LAW by not comply with the CVC.  If this was a company and they ignored this requirement, they would be citied immediately and would include penalties.  It would question the validity of their permit application and form and if it doesn’t comply with the CVC, is it legal document or are these locality issuing transportation permits that are not valid on any other form than what is described in the CVC.

It surely didn’t help that the City had not complied with California Vehicle Code (CVC) 35781

• Cranes, Concrete Pumps, Drill Rigs etc. – Motor Carrier Permit Required?

We received a call from a member who was detained at the CHP Inspection Facility in Banning and the driver was ultimately cited for not having a CA number displayed, CVC 34507.5 (b) (1).  “The proper display of of a valid CA or US DOT number required on both sides of the vehicle”.

CVC 34507.5.   (b) (1) The carrier identification number assigned to the motor carrier under whose operating authority or motor carrier permit the vehicle or combination of vehicles is being operated shall be displayed on both sides of each vehicle, or on both sides of at least one motor vehicle in each combination of the following vehicles:

(1) Each vehicle set forth in Section 34500. (See below)

CVC 34500 (k) A commercial motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds or a commercial motor vehicle of any gross vehicle weight rating towing a vehicle described in subdivision (e) with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, except combinations including camp trailers, trailer coaches, or utility trailers.  For purposes of this subdivision, the term “commercial motor vehicle” has the meaning defined in subdivision (b) of Section 15210.

This came as a surprise to our member as it will to others in the Crane and/or Concrete Pumping Industry.  It has always been understood that there is an exception not requiring a CA number.  This was all orchestrated by CHP’s Enforcement Services Division that issued the exemption to the Industry from enrollment in the Biennial Inspection of Terminals (BIT), or the California Identification (CA) number requirements.  This exception was issued on August 10, 1990 and is stated below.

“The Department has determined that the unique application of certain specialized vehicles places them outside definition of “motor truck”.  These vehicles, therefore, are not subject to enrollment in the Biennial Inspection of Terminals (BIT) Program the California Identification (CA) number requirements.  Vehicles used incidentally on the highway such as self-propelled or truck mounted crane mounted cranes, drilling rigs, boom trucks (used in movie production), farm vehicles as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 36101, and those motor vehicles which are not designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of property, other than that property required to operate the unit, are examples of vehicle not considered to be “motor trucks.

Vehicles of this type can generally be identified by their vehicle plates as they will be registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles with passenger car plates rather than commercial plates and are not assessed weight fees”.

There are two types of cranes: a commercial crane and an auto crane.

A Commercial Crane is vehicle to which a crane-type device has been attached, that may serve more than one function and can carry a load on its structure.

An Auto Crane is a vehicle manufactured as a crane where the removal of the crane does not leave a cargo carrying vehicle.

1.       Auto Cranes are issued auto plates.

2.       An Auto Crane is exempt from the weight fee (even if another vehicle is towed).

Once we researched the issue, we contacted CHP Headquarters Commercial Division and asked why they received the citation for not having CA’s, when we’re all aware this Industry has been registered with automobile plates.

In 2005, Information Bulletin, 9-6-10

This bulletin clarifies MCP permit requirements for the operation of certain “specialized vehicles.” The Department of Motor Vehicles and the California Highway Patrol agree specialized vehicles which are not designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property, when operated singly, do not meet the definition of “motortruck” contained in California Vehicle Code (VC) Section 410.  Therefore, the operation of certain specialized vehicles does not require the operator to obtain an MCP permit.

Specialized vehicles include truck-mounted cranes, drilling or boring rigs, boom trucks, cement pumping trucks, or any other vehicles of this type which are not designed or used to transport property other than tools and equipment necessary for the operation of the specialized
equipment. However, transportation of any other property in or upon these vehicles immediately subjects the operator to the requirements of the MCP permit.

This exception does not apply to the transportation of any specialized equipment or machinery as a load upon a motor truck unless that
equipment has been permanently attached to the vehicle.

Although the aforementioned vehicles are not considered “motor trucks” for MCP permit requirements, specialized vehicles described in Section 34500(k) are commercial motor vehicles. When used in intrastate operations, vehicles described in Section 34500(k) VC are subject to MCP
permit requirements.

So now, 10 years later and this exception had been changed for vehicles over 26,001 lbs.  These vehicles are subject to enrollment in the Biennial Inspection of Terminals (BIT).   When used in intrastate operations, vehicles described in Section 34500(k) VC are subject to MCP permit requirement greater than 26,000 lbs. explain it for you (esp. last paragraph):  Although the aforementioned vehicle not considered “motor trucks” for MCP permit requirements, specialized vehicles described in Section 34500(k) are commercial motor vehicles.

There may be room for interpretation, but according to CHP and will continue to to enforce it accordingly.    VC 34500 (k) are subject to MCP permit requirements.

ARB & DMV - Smog Certificates required on Commercial Diesel Vehicles as of 1-01-2010 and Smoke Tests as of October, 1999.

As of January 1, 2010, California Commercial Vehicle Owners received a surprise in their DMV renewal notices.  This new rule applies to all diesel-powered manufactured vehicles in 1998 or after with a (GVWR) rating of no more than 14,000 lbs., and specially constructed vehicles 1976 and newer requires smog certification.

*      Smog Checks for Commercial vehicles 14,000 lbs. or less. January 1, 2010 vs Smoke Test

'http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/psip2010/psip20p10.htm

State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking

Introduction

Existing law establishes a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program (Smog Check), administered by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR), that provides for the inspection of all motor vehicles, except those specifically exempted from the program, upon registration, biennially upon renewal of registration, upon transfer of ownership, and in certain other circumstances.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1488, Mendoza was signed into law on October 14, 2007 enhancing the existing Smog Check Program. The bill requires that beginning January 1, 2010, diesel passenger cars and trucks, manufactured after the 1997 model year with Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 14,000 pounds or less be included in the California Smog Check Program. The new law has resulted in a duplication of test requirements with another pre-existing vehicle inspection program, the Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (PSIP)

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program

The PSIP was signed into law in 1990 (Senate Bill 2330) to control excessive smoke emissions from and tampering in commercial fleets of heavy-duty trucks and busses. It was implemented in July, 1998. The PSIP requires that owners of California based fleets of two or more diesel vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of greater than 6,000 pounds conduct annual smoke opacity inspections of their vehicles, repair those with excessive smoke emissions, and retain applicable records for a minimum of two years. Staff estimates that 379,242 vehicles in about 12,600 fleets are subject to PSIP in 2010.

Diesel Smog Check

Assembly Bill 1488 requires that diesel passenger cars and trucks, manufactured after the 1997 model year with GVWR of 14,000 pounds or less to be included in the California Smog Check Program beginning January 1, 2010. The Smog Check Program is registration based and requires most California vehicles to undergo Emissions checks on a biennial basis. Diesel Smog Check inspections consist of a visual inspection of the emission control devices, an interrogation of the vehicle’s onboard diagnostic (OBD) system, and a visual assessment of the vehicle’s smoke level. The BAR estimates the cost of a diesel Smog Check to be $47.25. ARB estimates that about 510,700 diesel vehicles are subject to the diesel Smog Check Program, the vast majority of which are privately owned and not subject to the PSIP.

Concurrent Impacts of the PSIP and Diesel Smog Check Programs

With the 2010 implementation of biennial Smog Checks for lighter diesel vehicles, about 76,740 diesel vehicles will be subject to both Smog Checks and PSIP opacity inspections. Every other year, owners of these vehicles will have to perform both tests in the same year. The tests are largely duplicative because they both evaluate smoke emissions of the vehicle.

The staff believes there is little or no air quality benefit from performing both tests in one year. There is a cost to the vehicle owner however; a PSIP inspection averages $55 per test, and a Smog Check averages $47 per test.

Reaffirming Our Purpose:

If you have any problems with a local agency (city/county) and you find yourself asking ‘why we have to do things this way’ and the agency tells you, ‘this is the way we have always done it’, let me know. We are here to make California transportation operations as smooth, efficient, and safe as possible.

Respectfully submitted,