What's new

Central Transport | Strait truck drivers forced to get class A

sadsack679 said:
New D.O.T. reg's effective July '13/maybe '14-can't remember- will require tanker because of the totes over 119 gallons/1001 #'s total. Does NOT have to be hazmat. I should check on the total weight. Most of the other boards have been bitching about it off and on for awhile now. You have yours but a lot of the other drivers don't, yet
Click to expand...
one more reason why I tell anyone who wants to get into this industry( trucking not just ltl) today to get their head examined first.
 
sadsack679 said:
New D.O.T. reg's effective July '13/maybe '14-can't remember- will require tanker because of the totes over 119 gallons/1001 #'s total. Does NOT have to be hazmat. I should check on the total weight. Most of the other boards have been bitching about it off and on for awhile now. You have yours but a lot of the other drivers don't, yet
Click to expand...

I will look for it too. Last I knew tanker was over 1,000 gallons or so, and I have never hauled a tank that big here anyway (one tractor mounted fertilizer tank was 750, boy did that rate take their profit away) Totes can be an issue on handling, even 2 or 3 in a whole truckload, but not nearly what an actual tanker is (anyone haul milk or water in a one compartment unit can attest, but even gas 4 comps wiggle too)
 
N.W.--was told to go to FMCSA.gov then surf to totes/tanker requirements. Still looking. Believe the totes were to be over 119 gallons with total of more than 1000 lbs. Seems like it was on Big "E"s board. Could have been Saia's.
 
FMCSA Vehicle Tank Endorsement Requirement Threatens to Create Driver Shortage for Paint and Coatings Industry

heading is a clickable link

In a May 2011 final rulemaking focused on the requirements for a commercial driver’s license (CDL), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) changed the regulatory definition of a tank vehicle to reflect legitimate concerns from enforcement officials concerning ambiguities about which vehicles should be regulated as tank trucks.

FMCSA changed its definition of a tank vehicle in response to a February 2008 petition from an organization representing the interests of commercial motor vehicle law enforcement personnel. The goal of the 2008 petition was to clarify that tank vehicles were those that transported tanks with an aggregate tank capacity of 1,000 gallons — as opposed to the previous definition of a rated tank capacity. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) submitted its petition to clarify the differences between cargo tanks, which are attached in transport, and portable tanks, which are not attached in transport. The petition explicitly noted that individual portable tanks under 1,000 gallons, even if part of an aggregate shipment including more than 1,000 total gallons of capacity, should not trigger the need for a tank endorsement on a commercial driver’s license.

The final rule contained a new definition that is overly broad by including all shipments of bulk tank or tanks that have a total aggregate capacity of 1,000 gallons or more. This new definition includes many vehicles that are patently not tank trucks, such as trucks moving small portable tanks or “totes” and intermediate bulk containers (IBCs, which usually carry 275, 330, or 500 gallons) designed to carry liquids or gasses.

This new definition is extremely problematic for the paint and coatings industry because our industry transports a significant amount of totes and IBCs. Prior to July 2011, drivers hauling these containers were only required to have a valid CDL with a hazmat endorsement. Now that the new definition of “tank vehicle” has been adopted, these same drivers are required to have the tank vehicle endorsement along with the hazmat endorsement.

ACA has received several reports from member companies that drivers are being found in violation of this new requirement, which is causing delays and difficulties in moving totes and IBCs. In an effort to determine the extent of enforcement activity across the country, ACA met with law enforcement leadership, and along with a coalition of industry partners, has requested that “soft enforcement” be implemented by law enforcement personnel until the FMCSA has had an opportunity to reconsider this definition.

ACA is also working towards convincing FMCSA to change the new definition of tank vehicle in order to exclude totes and IBCs. A petition for rulemaking is being drafted and ACA and the industry coalition is seeking a meeting with FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro to discuss it.

Interpretation for 383.93: - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Interpretation for 383.93:

Question 6: Does an unattached tote or portable tank with a cargo capacity of 1,000 gallons or more meet the definition of ‘‘portable tank’’ requiring a tank vehicle endorsement on the driver’s CDL?

Guidance: Yes.

*Question 11: Must a driver have a tank vehicle endorsement to deliver an empty storage container tank, not designed for transportation, with a rated capacity of 1,000 gallons or more that is temporarily attached to a flatbed trailer?

Guidance: No. Part of the definition of a “tank vehicle” in §383.5 is “any commercial motor vehicle that is designed to transport any liquid or gaseous materials with in a tank that is either permanently or temporarily attached to the vehicle or the chassis.” A flatbed is not “designed to transport any liquid or gaseous materials” simply because it carries an empty storage tank-readily distinguishable from a transportation tank-secured as cargo in compliance with Part 393, Subpart I.
 
it is coming, just on hiatus for the moment so all you guys don't get busted for something no one told you about. Since we are waiting on USDOT (slower than frozen syrup in winter) who knows when they issue a final rule
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top