September 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:

• Caltrans – CTPAC Meeting in Sacramento
  
• Sacramento County – meeting with Director of Transportation
  
• City of Culver City – review Annual and Site Permit requirements
  
• City of Palm Springs – calls regarding Industry member
  
• City of Rohnert Park – minimum 72 Hours notice
  
• City of San Carlos – permit fees reduced from $132 to $16
  
• City of Richmond – reviewing Permit Fees and Annual Permits
  
• City of Palmdale – reviewing current Truck Routes
  
• Red Dyed Fuel – Board of Equalization and IRS
  

Caltrans – CTPAC Meeting – Industry Participation needed

The Caltrans Transportation Permits Advisory Council (CTPAC) met in Sacramento, August 20th to discuss several issues that affect the way we move equipment under over-dimensional transportation permits throughout California. The CTPAC included Caltrans Truck Services Staff lead by Chief James Anderson, California Highway Patrol, Lt. Jim Epperson, and Officer Russ Lumley of the CHP Commercial Enforcement in Sacramento and industry representatives. Caltrans and CHP participate in these meeting in an advisory capacity.

Prior to all CTPAC meetings, we had workgroup meetings to discuss progress on existing proposals, discussion on future proposals or changes and issues that maybe affecting the day-to-day operations. There are several workgroups which focus on key industry issues such as: Annuals, Fixed loads, Cranes, Permit Manual, Variance, Permit Fees, Pilot Cars, Manufactured Housing and Compliance. Within these workgroups are representatives of the industry working on your behalf. We want others in our industry to become more involved and lend their expertise in any of these areas.
At the August 20th meeting, we discussed the following:

Annual Workgroup Issues:

1. 1. 7, 8 and 9-axle Annuals have been approved by Caltrans, but will not allow implementation until industry has assisted in the design and development of a program to monitor the movement of each load. Caltrans has had the ability to monitor 7, 8 and 9-axle Annuals for years and hasn’t, as it does the approximate 160,000 single trip permits issued. We asked if this information is so important, then why it hasn’t been done. We have yet to hear any reasonable answer. These loads are a small percentage of the loads being moved because a load over 12’ wide and 14’ high is still required to obtain a single trip permit. We are on an unnecessary paper chase by this additional requirement which will include additional staffing. We continue to hear the same answer over and over; they want to make sure that industry doesn’t start using 7, 8 and 9-axle trailers to transport legal loads. Their concern is that with an Annual Permit, these loads will increase, but industry insists that the cost to operate a 5-axle vs. 9-axle will be the controlling factor. If there was a way to develop a system, who is going to pay for it and maintain the data? It isn’t going to just be data from 7, 8 and 9-axle; Caltrans is going to want to monitor all loads traveling under an Annual Permit. This will affect 43 different types of Annual Permits (20,000) issued in California. What is Caltrans actually trying to accomplish and how is this going to facilitate efficient goods movements? There is going to be a tracking nightmare. Caltrans issues 190,000 permits annually and approximately 20,000 are Annuals Permits.
   
   
2. Null and Void Permits – Further discussion with Caltrans as to when a permit is considered Null and Void or nonexistent vs. violation of the permit.
   
   
3. Laden Multi-Vehicle Combination Annuals.
   
   
4. Dynamic Testing and Mixed Suspension proposal – no word yet.
   
   
5. Minimum and Maximum dimensions – There will soon be a memorandum going out explaining the policy that should stop the permit denials.
   
   
6. Permits for under, over Caltrans structures and at grade crossings. This may be a larger issue than it seems. Do you obtain a Caltrans Permit when you travel under, over or at grade crossings? This is considered Caltrans right-a-way.

Fixed Load Workgroup Discussion

1. Fixed Load Inspections - Eliminate the need of an inspection for a legal weight fixed load. – pending response from Caltrans
   
2. Specialty Annual for RT Cranes
   
3. Vehicle Inspectors – Availability, verbal approvals, denials, appeals process and inspectors retiring are big issues.

TPMS – The new Transportation Permit Management System (permit program) has been pushed back to tentative roll out, but will not roll out until after the busy season (2008).

The next CTPAC meeting is tentatively scheduled in San Bernardino on January 8, 2008. We encourage all members who heavy-haul to participate. Hopefully, if not, you are reading this article each month.

Sacramento County – Director of Transportation,
Tom Zlotkowski

We recently met with Tom Zlotkowski, the Director of Transportation; Reza Moghissi, Chief; Rizaldy Mananquil, Principal Civil Engineer and Gary Kodani, Senior Civil Engineer were requested to discuss the following issues:

• Repetitive Annual Permits – It had been agreed previously to adopt a repetitive annual. This annual would allow those transporters that needed a larger dimensional envelope allowed by the changes made to the current Annual. A transporter would need to submit a route survey certifying that the routes he was requesting would allow him to travel safely and that he would be responsible for any incidents that may occur. Industry is responsible already when it comes down to it. This helps the local companies that had the larger envelope Annual prior to the recent changes. This Repetitive Annual Permit would allow loads 16’6” high, 16’ wide, length variable up to a 9-axle combination, Caltrans Purple weight or Green weight depending on the route.
  
  
• Safety – It was discussed in length and agreed that Pilot Cars will continue to be required and the Route Survey will be required. The Industry has been permitted with these same dimensions in the past, but the County re-evaluated their program and that is how we came up with this permit. What became a problem was that the current County Ordinance didn’t allow for such a permit. The County has agreed to draft a request to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
  
  
• Permit Fees – We discussed the cost of permit fees and allowing Annuals to be copied as they have been in the past. It was agreed that the County is not looking to generate revenue from Transportation Permits, but rather cover their cost. There was no reason that it couldn’t be duplicated, but the cost of the original may change. This is going to be reviewed and any changes will require an ordinance modification.
  
  
• Holiday Moratorium – It was agreed that the County would review the current Holiday Moratorium “No Construction or Oversized Transportation during the 4-Day Thanksgiving Weekend and December 8 through January 1”. This means no oversized transportation permits issued for a 28 day period.
  
  
• It was agreed there should be restrictions in the downtown area, but not to include the entire County. We explained that there are safe guards already in place that address this exact issue, which are curfew hours. The current restricted or commuter curfew hours are 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. in the mornings and 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. in the afternoon. The draft Holiday Moratorium should be completed for review by October. The Moratorium was put on hold last year after Industry expressed to the County the financial impact this would have to the Construction Transportation Industry. This moratorium was intended for construction in the street, not transportation.
  
  
• Restricted & Curfew Hours – There was some concern expressed about the morning curfew hours 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. The county representatives were actually pushing for the morning curfew to be increased by 1 hour, to 9 a.m. We also discussed that there could be areas that curfews should apply, but not in the entire County. Caltrans curfew requirements restrict all loads exceeding 10’ wide; SAC County included all permit loads. This will require further discussion.

The Director, Tom Zlotkowski expressed that the meeting was very beneficial to both the County and industry and suggested we continue to meet on a quarterly basis. Mr. Zlotkowski is very proactive toward Efficient Goods Movement and keeping the cost of transportation to a minimum.

City of Culver City – Site and Annual Permits

We met with staff to discuss the continuing problems:

• Site Permits are being issued to a company, which allows their vehicles and sub-contractors to use the same permit on a specific route. The problem is that the Site Permit appears not to be good for extra legal loads. There is no weight, width or height being written on the permit. This Site Permit as written is for legal loads only! You don’t need a permit for a legal load, which is what we are working with the City to understand.
  
  
• Annual Permits were discussed, but with much resistance. Staff feels that with the city grown out, they don’t expect much construction and don’t feel there is a need. They want to make sure that they know where the loads are traveling, even though it was going to be a small number of trips.
  
  
• Cost of the Permit was $32, which they felt that Industry should pay to go both directions. They are going to review their permit fee structure.
  
  
• Pilot Car requirements, they will consider Industry’s recommendations.
  

We will continue to monitor the problems industry is having when traveling through or around Culver City.

City of Richmond – Permit fees and Annual Permits

We recently met with the City of Richmond to discuss the need for flexibility to travel throughout the city. The city agreed that this would help with their staffing issues and allow staff to be doing other important work. The city is still reviewing permit fee structure and will hopefully resolve the over-charging situation. As far as annual permits, the city has concerns regarding certain routes that unless there is a delivery or pick up being made there are “NO Trucks”. This has been a political issue with local residents. We requested that those routes be excluded from the annual permit and if necessary operators could either call in or obtain a single trip permit if necessary to make deliveries or pick ups in those restricted areas. Staff will be meeting with the Traffic Engineers and if necessary would like to meet again in the next month. The City is short staffed and this isn’t quite on the top of the priority list, but staff has been very helpful. This will be both a cost savings in time and manpower for both the City staff and Industry which they agree. They also have a great desire in obtaining an internet permit program for future use.

City of Palmdale – More Through Local Truck Routes Needed

We recently submitted 18 additional routes to be added to the current Truck Route System. These 18 additional modifications would complete the maze of routes needed to allow for efficient goods movement with not jeopardizing the safety concerns of traveling through any residential areas. This would put trucks closer to their pick up and delivery locations. By allowing trucks to take additional routes, this relieves the congestion on other routes.

We are working on this issue due to of a rash of citations being issued, the cost is $120 plus and also considered a moving violation and thus hit’s the driver’s CDL. We requested that a moratorium on truck route citations until we have completed the Truck Route study. We have also been requested to participate on the Technology Review Committee (TRC) to work with staff on additional routing.

City of Palm Springs – Keeping Industry on the straight and narrow

We recently received a call from the City of Palm Springs regarding an industry member who was traveling through the city without a permit. A city employee followed the vehicle because he was in an area he didn’t belong, right downtown in the early morning. The driver had stopped and the city employee approached and asked where his permit was the driver responded, “I don’t have one” and didn’t know he needed one. The driver gave the city employee their company business card with his dispatcher’s name on it and he called. He spoke with the dispatcher and was told that he didn’t need a permit; he was only required to have a State Permit, wrong answer.

He then gave me a call to inform me that we have those in the industry that are not aware of what they should have, which is contradictory to what we have worked hard on for the past several years and that maybe we should be holding classes for those companies that have new dispatchers or refresher courses for the others on the rules. I have included an e-mail sent from the City of Palm Springs to the industry member out of courtesy and they also included several vehicle sections for their review.

“HERO (Heavy Equipment Rental Organization) is an organization that fights for the rights and relations of heavy equipment organizations like yours. Greg has fought to get the municipalities to follow the vehicle code sections and programs I’ve emailed to you today. The City of Palm Springs believes 100% in what Greg is doing and works on making our system and procedures as friendly as possible.”

We are thinking that maybe this would be a good idea and would like to hear from industry as to what you think.

City of San Carlos – Permit Fees

We reported last month of the increased Permit Fees from $16 to $132 for the first loaded trailer plus $50 for each additional trailer requested. We contacted the city staff and requested that their permit fees be lowered to be in compliance with the Vehicle Code. The City has agreed and permit fees are now $16.

City of Rohnert Park – 72 hour permit delay

The City currently requires a minimum of seventy-two (72) hours prior to the time proposed for the move. Hours of Travel are restricted to 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. We discussed this issue with city staff and were told that this requirement is an ordinance that was adopted in July of 2004. It was adopted due to the lack of staff and currently could take up to 5 days. The city does issue Annual Permits, which helps eliminate a portion of the burden. The City did agree that they would consider a meeting to discuss the issue further.

Red Dyed Fuel – Board of Equalization (BOE) & IRS

• We recently received a call from a member with questions regarding Red Dyed Fuel and according to the BOE.
  
  Does a vehicle with a Special Equipment (SE) plate from DMV authorized to use Red Dyed Fuel and still travel on the highway?
  
  That is a no and a yes answer.
  
  A vehicle issued a SE Plate has been issued this plate by DMV because the vehicle is used off road more than 50% of the time. Unless the owner has gone to the Board of Equalization and requested a Diesel Highway (DH) Permit, which is a no cost permit, he is not authorized to travel on a public roadway. The DH Permit requires you to submit an accounting of the number of miles your vehicle has traveled on the highway and then you’re required to pay the 18 cent per gallon fuel tax. So yes, you are able to travel on a public roadway as long as you have a SE Plate and a DH Permit.
  
  
• What if an Inspector from the Board of Equalization shows up on a project and starts inspecting diesel vehicles including personal vehicles and finds Red Fuel in an employees or sub contractors vehicle.
  
  Who will be responsible?
  
  The Person involved and/or registered owner of the vehicle or equipment will be cited. What are the fines? The fines can very depending on the seriousness of the situation. If you have a company that entirely ignored the law and has been using Red Dyed Fuel (off road fuel) in all vehicles, they will come out and do an extensive audit. They would be considered a gross violation and would be responsible for all back payments of 18 cents per gallon not reported plus interest and penalties. If this was an isolated incident, you would be fined $10 per gallon up to $1,000 per vehicle for the first offense. The second offense would be doubled and the third would be tripled. There are other exemptions, but this one would be something that would affect our industry directly. If you have any additional questions, contact the Board of Equalization.
  
  
• In our next report, we will discuss the federal regulations concerning the use of this fuel and the penalties you face for skirting these regulations.

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