|
March 2007
Newly Proposed Legislation:
SB 229 (Margett), SCCA Sponsor –
“Unusually Large or Heavy Loads” as it
Relates
to Local Insurance Requirements
The California Vehicle Code 35782 (b) states that you’re not required to submit insurance information to local governments to obtain permits unless the load is an “Unusually Large or Heavy Load”.
CVC 35782 (b) The Department of Transportation or a local authority may not require the posting of a bond as a condition of the issuance of a permit, except that a requirement of extra insurance or other financial security may be imposed as a condition for a permit for unusually large or heavy loads that pose a substantial risk to public facilities.
History: For years there was never a clear definition of “Unusually Large or Heavy Load” until the SCCA sponsored bill, SB 372 (Margett) was passed into law January 1, 2007. SB 372 addressed the issue raised by localities charging excess permit fees. It was unclear to some localities when they could charge additional fees for transportation permits because there was no definition for Unusually Large or Heavy Load as shown below.
35795 (b) Permit fees:
Special services necessitated by unusually large or heavy loads requiring engineering investigations, escorts, tree trimming, or other services shall be billed separately for each permit.
This definition as it relates to Caltrans Variance Loads has resolved additional permit fees charges and will also assist in the relief of unnecessary insurance requirements.
Industry doesn’t have a problem with proof of insurance; the problem that they are experiencing is the additional requirements. Any motor carrier must have a minimum of $750,000 in liability to operate in California. A motor carrier must have CA # and/or a Motor Carrier Permit issued by DMV and to keep a current status, you must have current insurance. That being said, local agencies should not be requiring proof of insurance if you are operating any legal truck traveling through a locality. The rule does state that if you are unusually large of heavy load a locality may impose extra insurance or other financial security may be imposed as a condition for a permit.
Localities are making it very difficult to obtain permits. The requirements extend from one extreme to another such as wanting to be named additionally insured on a separate form which must come direct from the Insurance Company not the broker, required on their form, taking up to two weeks for the city attorney to approve, workers’ compensation, general liability, $1,000,000 plus in coverage and more.
Senator Bob Margett is back trying to help our industry with SB 229. This bill should help address the unnecessary insurance requirements that continue to burden our industry. This bill will add additional language to CVC section 35782; see italic language below in new subsection (d):
(b) The Department of Transportation or a local authority may not require the posting of a bond as a condition of the issuance of a permit, except that a requirement of extra insurance or other financial security may be imposed as a condition for a permit for unusually large or heavy loads that pose a substantial risk to public facilities.
(c) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the Department of Transportation or a local authority may not require proof of financial responsibility in an amount greater than that required for compliance with Section 16500.5 as a condition of the permit, and shall accept evidence of financial responsibility that complies with Section 16020.
(d) For the purposes of determining whether, under subdivision (b), extra insurance or other financial security is required by an unusually large or heavy load, a local authority shall be governed by the criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 1411.3 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations.
Section 1411.3, Title 21 of the
California Code of Regulations.
This Permit Fees section located in this title of the CC&R’s clarifies what an “Unusually Large or Heavy Load” means in state law.
The current CCR’s is being updated to reflect the recent load dimensions that have been policy for years. Caltrans is currently reviewing these standards but this is probably the dimensions they will settle on.
A locality may not require additional insurance until the load exceeds the following limits.
(1) Loads in excess of 15 feet wide.
(2) Loads in excess of 135 feet in overall length.
(3) Loads that are of a weight that require:
(A) More than a 13-axle, single-vehicle width hauling combination (excess of 350,000 lbs), or
(B) A 13-axle, single-vehicle width hauling combination with a load deck where the inner axles in the groups bordering the load deck are 40 feet or more apart, or
(C) Two or more side-by-side vehicles with a combined width of 15 feet or more supporting the load.
City of Los Angeles, Building & Safety Board -
Haul Route Requirements
We were contacted by a member doing work in the City of Los Angeles. The contractor was notified that until the 75 trucks that were importing material onto the project were able to tarp their loads, the importing of dirt would be shutdown per the Haul Permit requirements.
There were two requirements that had to be followed per the condition of the haul permit under items #4 and #5.
#4 Loads shall be secured by trimming and shall be covered to prevent spillage and dust.
#5 Trucks are to be watered at the export site to prevent blowing dirt and are to be cleaned of loose earth at the export site to prevent spilling.
We contacted L.A.’s Building & Safety Board to explain that per the California Vehicle Code Section 23114(e) (4), aggregate materials being transported were exempt as long as the load remained six inches below the sides.
- CVC 23114 (a) A vehicle may not be driven or moved on any highway unless the vehicle is so constructed, covered, or loaded as to prevent any of its contents or load other than clear water or feathers from live birds from dropping, sifting, leaking, blowing, spilling, or otherwise escaping from the vehicle.
- CVC 23114 (d) For purposes of this section, “aggregate material” means rock fragments, pebbles, sand, dirt, gravel, cobbles, crushed base, asphalt, and other similar materials.
- CVC 23114 (e)(4) Vehicles transporting loads of aggregate materials are not required to cover their loads if the load, where it contacts the sides, front, and back of the cargo container area, remains six inches from the upper edge of the container area, and if the load does not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the cargo container area.
We were informed that per the Haul Route Permit Conditions, we would have to bring our request in front of the Building & Safety Board on February 27th if we wanted a change in the permit conditions.
We explained that General Condition #4 “Loads shall be secured by trimming and shall be covered” actually referred to foliage, not dirt. General Condition #5 refers to dirt, “Trucks are to be watered” and we explained that the loads have been watered and there hasn’t been any problems. We explained that the import project has been shutdown for 2 days already and we needed resolution to the problem immediately.
Most bottom dump trailers are not equipped with tarps due to CVC 23114(e)(4) exemptions and with the application of being a productive operation.
We were notified on February 26 that our argument was reasonable and the trucks were allowed to continue to operate without having to be tarped provided they were loaded correctly.
Building & Safety also agreed that they would work with industry and change the language in the Haul Permit Conditions so as to be clearer.
We have since submitted the following changes:
# 4 Loads of refuse shall be trimmed to a sufficient length to fit completely within the vehicle, adequately secured by trimming and shall be covered to prevent spillage and dust as required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
# 5 Trucks transporting aggregate material, as defined in California Vehicle Code 23114(e)(4) are to be watered if necessary at the export site to prevent blowing dirt and are to be cleaned of loose earth at the export site to prevent spilling spillage and dust as required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
City of Los Angeles Building and Safety has taken our request into consideration. This will smooth the way for the next contractor that has an import export project. The city has adopted the following language, which solves another problem for the industry.
Loads shall be secured by trimming or watering or may be covered to prevent the spilling or blowing of the material. If the load, where it contacts the sides, front and back of the truck cargo container area, remains six inches from the upper edge of the container area and if the load does not extend, at its peak, above any part of the upper edge of the cargo container area, the load is not required to be covered, pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 23114 (e) (4).
Caltrans - Permit Compliance Program
reinstated and violation letters going out.
On January 29, industry heard that the Caltrans Compliance Program was back in effect since it was put on hold June 16, 2005 and that letters to violators are going out.
The Compliance Program had been established to ensure the safety of the traveling public and protect against injury to the road, foundations, surfaces, or structures by enforcing full compliance with all terms and special conditions of the Department-issued Transportation Permit. This is accomplished by informing and educating permittees that violate permit terms and/or conditions, and if necessary, suspend permit privileges.
Permittees are assigned points or immediate suspensions for each reported permit violation. Mandatory suspensions are imposed when a permittee exceeds an allowable number of points for the latest twelve-month period. The number of allowable points and length of suspension depend on the permittee’s category. Immediate suspensions are imposed when an excessive permit violation is reported.
Point values differ between violation types and level of severity. Several types of violations exist. They are: bridge hit violations, overheight violations, overwidth violations, overlength violations, and violations of special conditions or instructions. In addition, there are three levels of severity: excessive, major, and minor.
On January 29th, we reported to the CTPAC Steering Committee that changes have been made to Chapter VII, which had not been discussed with industry. The Permit Manual Committee never discussed any changes in Chapter VII and we never received any revision from Caltrans for review and/or comment.
The original version stated: “The Transportation Permit Compliance Program is broken down into two categories: Truck Cranes and Fixed Load Vehicles and Heavy Haul Equipment. The Truck Cranes and Fixed Load Vehicle compliance will be administered by Headquarters Office of Permits. The Heavy Haul Equipment will be administered by the Base District.”
We reviewed Chapter VII posted on the website and discovered that the rules for Truck Cranes and Fixed-Load Vehicles have been changed to excluded this segment in the 3/2005 version. Someone took it upon himself or herself to eliminate the Truck Cranes and Fixed-Load Vehicles category without notice or industry input.
We have recommended that the two categories be reinstated immediately and then placed on the CTPAC agenda for full discussion before any implementation or enforcement action.
City of Colton – Annual Permits,
Hours of Travel, Permit Fees
We have been working with the City for several years from one Public Works Director to the next and continual staff changes, but have finally completed this project. The city approved the following changes: - Annual Permits:
- Height was 14’ 10”, requested 16’ 0”
- . Width was 14’ 6”, requested 15’ 0”
- Length was 110’, requested 125’ 0”
- Weight was 150,000 lbs, requested 250,000 lbs
- Hours of Travel was No nights or Weekends, requested nights and weekends
- Permit Fees were $120 for the company, requested $90
- Routes were 5 specific routes any deviation from the route required a separate permit. Requested all truck routes and routes necessary for ingress and egress
- Pilot Car with height stick required for all loads 15’ or higher. We requested that this be eliminated. The city adopted Industry Pilot Car requirements and eliminate Pilot Car for height.
City of Fontana -
Annuals issued to a company–
approved/refunds due
The City of Fontana currently requires each vehicle to obtain an Annual Permit, which requires a vehicle license number on the face of the permit. Annual Permits are $90 for one year, which can be very expensive if you happen to have more than one vehicle. We encourage localities to issue annuals to the company, not to each vehicle, but we have those localities that are looking for all sources of revenue. We use the example that if a company that had 5 trucks and in San Bernardino County had to obtain in every city, it would cost $11,250 a year in just San Bernardino County. We are fortunate that that isn’t the case.
After meeting with the City Engineer, through a lengthy discussion, it was agreed to start issuing Annual Permits to the company. The city had issued Annuals to a company in the past and some, where along the line it was changed. The city also agreed that they would reimburse those companies that had been overcharged. What is the impact, one company had obtained $4,700 worth of Annual Permits.
City of Aliso Viejo - Haul Permits Fees
We were contacted by a member; the city was charging him for haul permits for legal trucks. We contacted the city immediately to explain that there must be a misunderstanding, because you can’t charge a legal load permits fees per the Revenue Taxation Code 7233.
- Revenue Taxation Code 7233.
No city, county, or city and county, shall assess, levy, or collect an excise or license tax of any kind, character, or description whatever upon the transportation business conducted on or after the effective date of this chapter, by any for-hire motor carrier of property.
The city agreed that they would not charge legal trucks permit fees and will cease this practice immediately.
We also discussed another issue, which restricted travel to all over-sized loads traveling in the city. Currently there is no nights and weekends travel, through discussion, it was agreed that if industry needed to move at night or on the weekend, it would be considered on a case by case basis.
City of Huntington Beach - Permit Fees
We were contacted by a member who was being overcharged by the city. The city is currently charging $96 and CVC 35795 (b)
CVC 35795 (b) Permit fees
• “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 pursuant to subdivision.”
The City Attorney agreed that they are overcharging and will cease immediately.
Industry had another issue to address. The city is requiring that each vehicle obtain an Annual Permit for each of their vehicles. Our member happens to be renewing 15 annual permits at a cost of $1350 for just the City of Huntington Beach. We continue to remind localities that permits are not considered a toll to use their roads, but rather a permit to direct us where they prefer us to travel. If our member had to obtain Annual Permits for each of the vehicles in Orange County it would cost them $45,900. How do you pass on this cost?
City of San Diego – Annual Permits
We are requesting that city review their annual permit requirements.
1. Length 90’- requesting 110’
2. No nights and weekends – request 24/7
3. Permit issued to each vehicle – request to the company
4. Continuous movement permits (6 months) $90 – requesting continuous/annuals be good for one year at $9
Our message to the member industry:
“If you have any problems with a local agency and you find yourself asking ‘why we are having 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 and safe as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory D. Dineen
Industry Transportation Consultant
cc: John Hakel, AGC D. Cash Benton, SCCA
Richard Paine, ECA Sam Meyer, MCOG
Richard Lambros, BIA Lee Brown, CDTOA
Aimee Shook, DCA Jeff Hunter, CTTA
Michael Vlaming, COA Michael Lewis, CIAQC
Doug Ball, SC&RA |
