June 2007

Executive Summary

We work in the most regulated industry in the most regulated state in the union. This report looks at the following changes in the ever-shifting regulatory scene:

• CHP cancels variance loads with zero tolerance policy on internal dimensions
  
• City of L. A. finds new fee opportunity
  
• Culver City handing out $22,000 fines for DMV sticker violations; $25,000 for permit failures
  
• Indio backsliding on agreement to hold the line on new regulations - overnight changes
  
• City of Richmond over-charging industry on permits fees, agreed to issue Annuals
  
• Load securement in California now a Federal case

Caltrans –
Minimum & Maximum/Tolerance as it relates to Variance Loads

We have been contacted by several members regarding their Variance Loads being canceled by CHP prior to movement. CHP escorts all Caltrans Variance loads which generally travel between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., so to find out that because an internal dimension is off by even a couple of inches and doesn’t match the permit and CHP refuses to make the move can be very costly. It could be just a matter of the load being positioned on the trailer configuration either forward or backwards by a couple of inches or even using a different tractor that has a different wheelbase.

You would think that a rational decision or reasonable decision could be made, but no, the load is canceled until the permit is changed or the load is repositioned. Variance loads require a 30-day advance notice to have the permit issued and then a 10-day advance notice by CHP, so time is of the essence.

We have met with CHP and they are going to enforce exactly what is on the permit. Through meetings with Caltrans, they have will consider showing a tolerance on the permit to eliminate this continued problem. There are tolerance or min/max allowed on routine loads, but haven’t been allowed on Variance Loads.

We are requesting a 6” tolerance for internal dimensions and minimum wheelbase on the tractor dimension; this would allow you to switch tractors. We feel that this will help this issue considerably.

City of Los Angeles –
Inspection Loads Fees/overcharges

We were recently contacted by a member that had received a 1-day transportation permit fees charge of $602.82. This was an Inspection Load that requires an LA City Inspector to follow the load through the city to make sure nothing is damaged, not to inspect the load, just follow it and observe.

This appears to be over-kill when you already have 4 CHP Officers a load that is only traveling 1.6 miles of L.A. City jurisdiction. We have requested in the past that inspections be waved on short routes through the city, but haven’t convinced the Street Services to eliminate this unnecessary expense.

This particular load has grown into a costly permit fee issue. The Load was delayed when CHP had an equipment issue with the hauler and shut down the load at 9 p.m., with no way to contact a City Inspector, who requires a cancellation by 4:00 p.m. the day of the move. The hauler had to obtain another permit, for which they were again charged the $602.82. CHP showed up again and this time didn’t like the way a locality wrote their permit and shut down the load again. I understand that the city this time was only going to charged $300, for a total of $1,505.64, not including the CHP charges.

We contacted the city to inquire why the high cost of the permit and were told that this was a 6-hour move (1.6 miles), we questioned why a 4-hour minimum charge of $289 twice. The city agreed that there should be a refund due. We also questioned why there is a 4 hour minimum; the ordinance doesn’t address a minimum, but rather a deposit for each “4 hour, or fraction thereof”. This was the purpose to guarantee payment, but this and most customers have an account. We will continue to work with the city on this issue. Here’s what the ordinance says:

Section 62.146 - Overload - Inspection
a) Every applicant for a permit to move any overload required by law to be accompanied by an inspector shall deposit in advance an amount to be determined by the Board to be adequate to cover the cost of inspection. Such deposit shall be determined by applying the charge established by the Board for each 4 hours, or fraction thereof, to the time deemed by the Board necessary for the performance of such service. In lieu of making individual deposits for each application, the applicant may make and maintain with the Board a general deposit in the sum of $500.00, which shall be used to guarantee payment of permit fees and inspection fees to be billed on a monthly charge account basis.
b) At the completion of the moving of such overload, the Board should deduct from such individual deposit (or if a general deposit is maintained, the Board shall bill) the established charge for each 4 hours or fraction thereof of time required for such inspection, and shall refund to the depositor any difference between the amount deposited and the amount so deducted.

In the interest of promoting better customer service, we are requesting that Street Services have an after hours contact number available for Industry to call in case there is any reason for a cancellation or delay. In the past, Inspector Betty Moon used to give us her home number. We will keep you updated.

Culver City –
Registration Fees & Site Permit

Culver City Commercial Enforcement takes their job seriously and if you plan on traveling through or doing work in the city, make sure you dot all your “i’s” and cross all your ‘t’s.” These guys aren’t kidding.

The following are the two issues, but can happen anywhere.

(1) DMV Weight Registration Fees: We recently have had several members receive citations for registration violations, the latest approximate fine of $22,000.

We have sent our “Don’t be caught off guard when declaring your Gross Vehicle Weight / Sticker Shock” article out over the past couple years, but there are still those that have let their guard down or relied on others to make sure that their vehicles are registered correctly. Your registration sticker is supposed to be placed on both sides of your cab. If it’s not there, it makes the job of commercial enforcement as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. The officer just sits back and inspects your rig by either driving by or you driving by them. It is very apparent if you’re not registered correctly. Please go to our website www.h-e-r-o.org and click on articles and then download the “Don’t be caught off guard when declaring your Gross Vehicle Weight Sticker Shock” article.

(2) Construction Site Permit: We had a member that received a site permit from the contractor doing work in the City of Culver City and who informed our member, a crane company; there was no need for a transportation permit, as they already had one.
There were several legal issues with the permit: it was on an actual Caltrans form, Culver City’s name was shown no where on the permit, no extra legal dimensions or weight authorized and didn’t list the crane on the “attached equipment list” that was permitted to use the permit.

This was an unfortunate situation and the contractor may have some responsibility in the situation according to CVC 35784 (c) independent contractor causing the violation through written direction, which in this case lead the crane owner to believe that he had a permit that covered his actions.

CVC 35784(c) If a violation under subdivision (a) consists of an extralegal load not being on the route described in the special permit, and the violation is directly caused by the action of an employee under the supervision of, or by the action of any independent contractor working for, a permittee subject to this section, the employee or independent contractor causing the violation is guilty of a misdemeanor. This subdivision applies only to independent contractor who have been provided written direction on the route to travel and has not been directed to take a different route by a peace officer.

We spoke with the officer who issued the citation. He agrees that the crane company was not “intentionally trying to get away with anything,” but says he still has to file an action against them. We spoke with the Public Works department and they also say there wasn’t any intent to break the law, but rather some confusion. We are going to work with the city to clarify who and what can be hauled on a site permit to make sure our industry doesn’t fall victim to another senseless mistake.

We work in one of the most highly regulated parts of the United States. If you’re going to work, weigh on the side of caution. The crane company now understands that, after receiving a $25,000 citation. They since have obtained a $16 permit, which allows the judge the discretion to reduce the fine under the CVC section 42030 (d). We are hoping that the court will take all the facts into consideration and lower or dismiss the fine in the interest of justice.

CVC 42030 (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the court may exercise discretion with respect to the imposition of the fine under this section if any applicable local permit was obtained prior to the court hearing and, at the time of issuance of the notice to appear, the motor carrier was transporting construction equipment or materials and a valid extra-legal load permit from the Department of Transportation.

City of Indio –
How things can change overnight for the worse

As I reported last month, we met with the Public Works Staff, Police Chief and a Commercial Officer to discuss the changes. We explained that we had working on truck routes (for over two years) and the city officials agreed that there were no reason to make any changes to their permit requirements. These were the proposed changes that were not implemented:

• Annual Permits – The new changes would require all Annual Permit holders to notify the city prior to each move pending approval. Public Works is open Monday thru Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.. It was agreed, if there were any emergency closures, the City will notify Annual permit holders, rather than requiring them to notify the City on every move
  
  
• Peak Hour Travel Restriction – It was agreed that a peak hour curfew wasn’t necessary. They want to implement a Peak Hour curfew from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to
  6:00 p.m. citywide.

We just received a copy of the new Transportation Permit Conditions and they are not what had been agreed to, but rather the total opposite.

We have spoken with the City Traffic Engineer that happened to be on vacation on the east coast. He was as shocked as we are. He promised that if there was going to be any changes that he personally was going to contact us. He assured me that when he returns next week, he will get to the bottom of this problem.

This is a perfect example as to why you have to continue to monitor issues or they can change overnight.

City of Richmond –
Permits fees and Annual Permits

We have been contacted by members regarding the following issues:

1. Permit Fees – The city has been requested to lower its $30 single trip permit fee to $16 per the California Vehicle Code (CVC) 35795 (b):
   
   (b) 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.($16)
   
   
2. Annual Permit – We have a member that has a facility in the City of Richmond that has to obtain a single trip permit each time they have to leave their yard and return. This has been an enormous burden and we hope to help resolve these issues very soon.
   
   The city currently doesn’t issue Annual Permits, but we believe once Contra Costa County would consider issuing annuals, we believe that the city would re-consider its position. The county recently agreed to issue Annual Permits.

We spoke with city staff, who expressed the importance of Over-dimensional Transportation Permit Seminar on June 13th, 2006, that we gave. They took back from the meeting valuable information and have made changes in implementation of permits and after discussing the need for Annual Permits, have agreed to issue them. We are currently working with staff on the overall requirements and the allowable dimensions.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA) -
Load Securement as it relates Equipment Transport –
New Federal Rule Enforcement

Federal Load Securement Enforcement has begun for equipment transportation. Safety of course is everyone’s first concern and responsibility, but when rules change, Industry just wants to know the rules and/or have a clear interpretation. Recently we have received numerous calls from members not knowing exactly what is acceptable. Some of those members have received warnings and others citations.

CHP is adopting the current federal cargo securement standards that are required by California Vehicle Code (CVC) 34500.3. CHP believes that this proposed rulemaking will enhance the competitiveness of California by eliminating state-only regulations. CHP also believes that this will enhance public safety and promote uniformity of regulations for all motor carriers.

As of January 1, 2007, AB 3011 (statutes, 2007) repealed all statutory authorities to adopt cargo securement regulations, thus rendering current regulations unenforceable. Title 13 Load Securement no longer exists with the passing of the new legislation. However, CHP is currently enforcing the federal cargo securement standard.

CHP’s failure to comply with the federal regulations could result in federal preemption of California’s Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. If, preempted, the state could not enforce any of these regulations as they apply to transportation and could jeopardize federal highway funding for California.

The New Federal rules that the State has adopted and begun to enforce are currently the following:

This is the most current version of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49CFR 393.106 (d) What are the general requirements for securing articles of cargo?

(d) Aggregate working load limit (WLL) for tiedowns. The aggregate working load limit of tiedowns used to secure an article or group of articles against movement must be at least one-half times the weight of the article or group of articles. The aggregate working load limit is the sum of:
(1) One-half the working load limit of each tiedown that goes from an anchor point on the vehicle to an anchor point on an article of cargo.
(2) One-half the working load limit of each tiedown that is attached to an anchor point on the vehicle, passes through, over, or around the article of cargo and is then attached to an anchor point on the same side of the vehicle.
(3) The working load limit for each tiedown that goes from an anchor point on the vehicle, through, over, or around the article of cargo and then attaches to another anchor point on the other side of the vehicle.

49CFR 393.130
(a) Applicability - The Rules in this section apply to the transportation of heavy vehicles, equipment and machinery which operate on wheels or tracks, such as front end loaders, bulldozers, tractors, and power shovels and which individually weigh 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) or more. Vehicles, equipment and machinery which is lighter than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) may also be secured in accordance with the provisions of this section, with 393.128, or in accordance with the provisions of 393.100 through 393.114.
(b) Preparation of equipment being transported.
(1) Accessory equipment, such as hydraulic shovels, must be completely lowered and secured to the vehicle.
(2) Articulated vehicles shall be restrained in a manner that prevents articulation while in transit.
(c) Securement
(1) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, heavy equipment or machinery with crawler tracks or wheels must be restrained against movement in the lateral, forward, rearward, and vertical direction using a minimum of four tiedowns.
(2) Each of the tiedowns must be affixed as close as practicable to the front and rear of the vehicle, or mounting points on the vehicle that have been specifically designed for that purpose.

Based on the overall weight of the machine for example the machine weighs 80,000 lbs., you are going to be required to have a minimum of 40,000 lbs of tiedowns. When chaining across and/or through the load from one side of the trailer to the other side, you will be credited 100 % of the chain rating and when anchoring from the machine to the side of the trailer you are credited with 50% of the chain rating.

You also need to take into consideration that if the chain is not marked or the rating is worn off so that enforcement personnel could not read the rating, Parts 393.108(b) and (d) relate to this topic. Basically, if a tiedown is not marked, then enforcement personnel will use the chart listed under Part 393.108.

49CFR 393.108
(b) The working load limits of tiedowns may be determined by using the either the tiedown manufacturer’s markings or by using the tables in this section. The working load limits listed in the tables are to be used when the tiedown material is not marked the manufacturer with the working load limit. Tiedown materials that are marked by the manufacturer with working load limits that differ from the tables, shall be considered to have a working load limit equal to the value for which they are marked.

(c) Welded steel chain, which is not marked or labeled to enable identification of its grade or working load limit, shall be considered to have a working load limit equal to that for grade 30 proof coil chain.

Chains:

Chain Mark Examples:
Example 1 ......................Grade 70 – 7, 70 or 700
Example 2...................... Grade 30 – 3, 30 or 300

Number of chains needed on a 980C Cat Loader for ex:
Approximate machine weight – 60,000 lbs. divided by ½ (.5) equals 30,000 lbs of chain required.
(a) Using 3/8 chain (6,600 lbs rating) and binders (binders must be equal or greater rating)
Chaining forward, rearward, and vertical direction using a minimum of four tiedowns @ 6,600 lbs divide by 50% equals 3,300 each times 4 equals 13,200 lbs.
(b) Chains over the hydraulic bucket and secured from one side of the trailer to the other side of trailer equals
6,600 lbs.
(c) Chain through or over the center articulating area of the loader secured from one side of the trailer to the other side equals 6,600 lbs. Use 2 chains, one forward and one rearward equals 13,200 lbs.

The total Working Load Limit (WLL) of the 7 - 3/8” chains and binder would amount to 33,000 lbs in WLL and would meet the current CFR49 393.106 Cargo Securement requirements.

This information does not represent the industry’s position on this matter—it is the best interpretation that we currently have and as we receive any updated information, we will keep you informed

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