Friday, September 12, 2008
Who is responsible for placarding?
The question of who is responsible for supplying and applying placards – the shipper or the driver – is one that always comes up in the hazmat world. Let’s look at the requirements.
The HMR
The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) have specific requirements for placarding. 49 CFR 172 Subpart F - Placarding has sections focusing on topics such as:
General specifications for placards;
General placarding requirements;
Prohibited and permissive placarding;
Identification number display on placards;
Placarding for subsidiary hazards; and
Visibility and display of placards.
There is also a section that details requirements for providing and affixing the placards prior to transporting a material requiring placarding. According to 49 CFR 172.506 Providing and affixing placards: Highway:
Each person shipping/offering a driver/carrier a hazardous material for transportation by highway shall provide to the driver/carrier the required placards for the material being offered prior to, or at the same time, the material is offered for transportation unless the driver/carrier's motor vehicle is already placarded for the material as required.
No driver/carrier may transport a hazardous material in a motor vehicle unless the placards required for the hazardous material are affixed as required.
So, who is responsible?
Reading that section, it appears that the shipper/offeror is responsible for supplying the placards and the driver/carrier is responsible for putting them on. Piece of cake, right? Not in the real world.
Sometimes shippers don’t provide placards. Sometimes shippers want them on the motor vehicle right away. And, sometimes drivers don’t have placards for the material they are transporting. It can be a real sore spot in a shipper/carrier relationship. What does DOT say about it?
Clarification/interpretation
The following is an edited excerpt from a letter of interpretation regarding 49 CFR 172.506, asking if a shipper/offeror is required to verify that a carrier’s vehicle is properly placarded prior to leaving the facility:
The HMR does not specify when placards must be applied or removed from a motor vehicle. However, 49 CFR 172.506 specifically states that no driver/motor carrier may transport a hazardous material in a motor vehicle unless the placards required are affixed.Therefore, if a shipper/offeror provides the required placards it becomes the driver’s/motor carrier’s responsibility to affix the placards. If other hazmat is already on the vehicle, then it is the driver’s/motor carrier’s responsibility to affix the proper placards required.
When do the placards have to be offered and/or applied? According to another interpretation:
At any time prior to the vehicle entering onto a road accessible by the public, the shipper/offeror has the opportunity to offer the required placards and the driver/carrier has the opportunity to apply them. The HMR does not require that a trailer being loaded at a facility be placarded as soon as the threshold for placarding is reached.
However, unloading a vehicle is a bit different:
Under OSHA requirements, a trailer that is received containing a quantity of hazmat requiring placards must continue to display the placards as long as there is a placarded quantity in it.
The question of who is responsible for supplying and applying placards – the shipper or the driver – is one that always comes up in the hazmat world. Let’s look at the requirements.
The HMR
The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) have specific requirements for placarding. 49 CFR 172 Subpart F - Placarding has sections focusing on topics such as:
General specifications for placards;
General placarding requirements;
Prohibited and permissive placarding;
Identification number display on placards;
Placarding for subsidiary hazards; and
Visibility and display of placards.
There is also a section that details requirements for providing and affixing the placards prior to transporting a material requiring placarding. According to 49 CFR 172.506 Providing and affixing placards: Highway:
Each person shipping/offering a driver/carrier a hazardous material for transportation by highway shall provide to the driver/carrier the required placards for the material being offered prior to, or at the same time, the material is offered for transportation unless the driver/carrier's motor vehicle is already placarded for the material as required.
No driver/carrier may transport a hazardous material in a motor vehicle unless the placards required for the hazardous material are affixed as required.
So, who is responsible?
Reading that section, it appears that the shipper/offeror is responsible for supplying the placards and the driver/carrier is responsible for putting them on. Piece of cake, right? Not in the real world.
Sometimes shippers don’t provide placards. Sometimes shippers want them on the motor vehicle right away. And, sometimes drivers don’t have placards for the material they are transporting. It can be a real sore spot in a shipper/carrier relationship. What does DOT say about it?
Clarification/interpretation
The following is an edited excerpt from a letter of interpretation regarding 49 CFR 172.506, asking if a shipper/offeror is required to verify that a carrier’s vehicle is properly placarded prior to leaving the facility:
The HMR does not specify when placards must be applied or removed from a motor vehicle. However, 49 CFR 172.506 specifically states that no driver/motor carrier may transport a hazardous material in a motor vehicle unless the placards required are affixed.Therefore, if a shipper/offeror provides the required placards it becomes the driver’s/motor carrier’s responsibility to affix the placards. If other hazmat is already on the vehicle, then it is the driver’s/motor carrier’s responsibility to affix the proper placards required.
When do the placards have to be offered and/or applied? According to another interpretation:
At any time prior to the vehicle entering onto a road accessible by the public, the shipper/offeror has the opportunity to offer the required placards and the driver/carrier has the opportunity to apply them. The HMR does not require that a trailer being loaded at a facility be placarded as soon as the threshold for placarding is reached.
However, unloading a vehicle is a bit different:
Under OSHA requirements, a trailer that is received containing a quantity of hazmat requiring placards must continue to display the placards as long as there is a placarded quantity in it.
Company president, managers to pay $1.3 million for employing illegal aliens
A Texas baking materials company, specifically the company's president and three former and current managers, was recently charged for employing illegal aliens. The charges against the company arose from a criminal investigation initiated by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in January 2008 after learning about allegations in a federal employment discrimination lawsuit, then pending in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas.
Part of ICE's investigation into the company included interviews with civil plaintiffs, many of whom were illegal aliens, and thorough review and analysis of civil suit pleadings, I-9 Employer Review and Verification Forms, and Social Security Administration (SSA) No-Match letters. I-9 forms require an employer to establish an employee's identity and verify their employment eligibility at the time they are hired.
The criminal information alleges that in April 2008, more than 40 percent of the company's workforce were illegal aliens, the majority of I-9s were deficient or completed years after an illegal alien began working for the company, and that the company failed to take corrective measure to ensure the company hired workers authorized to work in the United States after receiving SSA No-Match letters.
Per the terms of the plea agreement, if accepted by the court, the company has agreed to pay the United States $1.3 million in lieu of having their interest in the property forfeited.
A Texas baking materials company, specifically the company's president and three former and current managers, was recently charged for employing illegal aliens. The charges against the company arose from a criminal investigation initiated by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in January 2008 after learning about allegations in a federal employment discrimination lawsuit, then pending in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas.
Part of ICE's investigation into the company included interviews with civil plaintiffs, many of whom were illegal aliens, and thorough review and analysis of civil suit pleadings, I-9 Employer Review and Verification Forms, and Social Security Administration (SSA) No-Match letters. I-9 forms require an employer to establish an employee's identity and verify their employment eligibility at the time they are hired.
The criminal information alleges that in April 2008, more than 40 percent of the company's workforce were illegal aliens, the majority of I-9s were deficient or completed years after an illegal alien began working for the company, and that the company failed to take corrective measure to ensure the company hired workers authorized to work in the United States after receiving SSA No-Match letters.
Per the terms of the plea agreement, if accepted by the court, the company has agreed to pay the United States $1.3 million in lieu of having their interest in the property forfeited.
DOL sets Drug-Free Work Week 2008 for October
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced that this year's national Drug-Free Work Week will take place October 20 through 26. The purpose of Drug-Free Work Week is to educate employers, employees, and the general public about the importance of being drug-free as an essential component of a safe and healthful workplace. According to studies conducted by researchers at the University at Buffalo's Research Institute on Addictions, an estimated 14.1 percent (17.7 million) of working adults in the United States used illicit drugs in the previous year, with an estimated 3.1 percent (3.9 million) actually doing so before reporting to work or during working hours.
Throughout Drug-Free Work Week, the department, alliance members and others will conduct activities to help employers, supervisors, and workers understand how to implement effective drug-free workplace programs that focus on detection and deterrence, while also offering assistance and support for workers who may have substance abuse problems. Employers and employees in all industries can learn more about how to participate in Drug-Free Work Week by visiting the department's Drug-Free Work Week website at: www.dol.gov/drugfreeworkweek
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced that this year's national Drug-Free Work Week will take place October 20 through 26. The purpose of Drug-Free Work Week is to educate employers, employees, and the general public about the importance of being drug-free as an essential component of a safe and healthful workplace. According to studies conducted by researchers at the University at Buffalo's Research Institute on Addictions, an estimated 14.1 percent (17.7 million) of working adults in the United States used illicit drugs in the previous year, with an estimated 3.1 percent (3.9 million) actually doing so before reporting to work or during working hours.
Throughout Drug-Free Work Week, the department, alliance members and others will conduct activities to help employers, supervisors, and workers understand how to implement effective drug-free workplace programs that focus on detection and deterrence, while also offering assistance and support for workers who may have substance abuse problems. Employers and employees in all industries can learn more about how to participate in Drug-Free Work Week by visiting the department's Drug-Free Work Week website at: www.dol.gov/drugfreeworkweek
Is federal CDL tracking ahead?By Justin Carretta, online news editorSep 11, 2008 12:40 PM
A new study by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) suggests that a nationwide Commercial Drivers License (CDL) system is both economically feasible and necessary as drivers can currently easily hide changes in CDL status or suspensions. However, FMCSA said it has yet to conclude whether the system should be federally run or operated through third parties and added that it would be several years before it could be fully implemented.
“Truck and bus drivers with past convictions are statistically more likely to be involved in future crashes, and employers are not always notified about these convictions,” said Chris Flanigan, office of analysis, research and technology for FMCSA. “We found that at a minimum 50% do not notify employers of convictions, and the number could possibly be as high as 80%.”
According to Flanigan, carriers can easily miss violations even if they’re following every rule in the book. While drivers must report CDL changes within 30 days and convictions within a day, they do not always do so. Carriers are only required to check CDL status annually, so hypothetically a driver can get away with a conviction for up to 364 days.
There is no nationwide employee notification program, and only 11 states—New York, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Nebraska, Arkansas, Oregon and California—have state ENS (Employer Notification System) programs in place. Another option for fleets is third-party systems, which are not available in all states.
The FMCSA study involved two phases—a cost benefit and feasibility analysis, which was completed in September 2004; and state pilot tests, which were conducted in Colorado and Minnesota between December 2006 and June 2008.
In the pilot program, participating carriers received a secure email that informed them a driver enrolled in the program has a change in CDL status and provides them with a link to a secure site. When the carrier views the link, the records disappear. The carrier can say no to the request, but will get notices every two days for a week, with the records deleted after that point.
A total of 1099 drivers enrolled in the pilot program, resulting in 229 notifications—425 drivers with 155 notifications in Colorado and 674 drivers with 74 notifications in Minnesota.
FMCSA said it will do a full evaluation of the results, interviewing participating carriers about their experience with the program, as well as asking what staff hours are required to track CDLs with or without the system and what their response was to the notifications. A final report is due in early spring of 2009.
FMCSA concluded that a successful national system should include integration with state systems; a secure, web-based platform, and have minimum impact on existing systems. However, it has not yet made a decision on whether the program should be federally administered or left to third parties.
A federally administered program would be similar to the pilot system, connecting to a centrally located hub. However, FMCSA said only ten states are currently compatible with the system and federal money and additional modifications would be required to connect the remainder.
“This is probably a very liberal guess, but the phase-in-process would take at least five years to get all the states involved,” Flanigan noted.
The benefit of using third parties would be that the entities already exist, and it would take less time to fully implement than a federal program. However, a number of states do not offer access to its CDL information to third parties, and a third party system would provide no revenue to states.
“Third party providers exist to provide this service to carriers and other fleets,” Flanigan said. “However, these services are not nationwide—they just cover specific regions and states.”
A new study by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) suggests that a nationwide Commercial Drivers License (CDL) system is both economically feasible and necessary as drivers can currently easily hide changes in CDL status or suspensions. However, FMCSA said it has yet to conclude whether the system should be federally run or operated through third parties and added that it would be several years before it could be fully implemented.
“Truck and bus drivers with past convictions are statistically more likely to be involved in future crashes, and employers are not always notified about these convictions,” said Chris Flanigan, office of analysis, research and technology for FMCSA. “We found that at a minimum 50% do not notify employers of convictions, and the number could possibly be as high as 80%.”
According to Flanigan, carriers can easily miss violations even if they’re following every rule in the book. While drivers must report CDL changes within 30 days and convictions within a day, they do not always do so. Carriers are only required to check CDL status annually, so hypothetically a driver can get away with a conviction for up to 364 days.
There is no nationwide employee notification program, and only 11 states—New York, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Nebraska, Arkansas, Oregon and California—have state ENS (Employer Notification System) programs in place. Another option for fleets is third-party systems, which are not available in all states.
The FMCSA study involved two phases—a cost benefit and feasibility analysis, which was completed in September 2004; and state pilot tests, which were conducted in Colorado and Minnesota between December 2006 and June 2008.
In the pilot program, participating carriers received a secure email that informed them a driver enrolled in the program has a change in CDL status and provides them with a link to a secure site. When the carrier views the link, the records disappear. The carrier can say no to the request, but will get notices every two days for a week, with the records deleted after that point.
A total of 1099 drivers enrolled in the pilot program, resulting in 229 notifications—425 drivers with 155 notifications in Colorado and 674 drivers with 74 notifications in Minnesota.
FMCSA said it will do a full evaluation of the results, interviewing participating carriers about their experience with the program, as well as asking what staff hours are required to track CDLs with or without the system and what their response was to the notifications. A final report is due in early spring of 2009.
FMCSA concluded that a successful national system should include integration with state systems; a secure, web-based platform, and have minimum impact on existing systems. However, it has not yet made a decision on whether the program should be federally administered or left to third parties.
A federally administered program would be similar to the pilot system, connecting to a centrally located hub. However, FMCSA said only ten states are currently compatible with the system and federal money and additional modifications would be required to connect the remainder.
“This is probably a very liberal guess, but the phase-in-process would take at least five years to get all the states involved,” Flanigan noted.
The benefit of using third parties would be that the entities already exist, and it would take less time to fully implement than a federal program. However, a number of states do not offer access to its CDL information to third parties, and a third party system would provide no revenue to states.
“Third party providers exist to provide this service to carriers and other fleets,” Flanigan said. “However, these services are not nationwide—they just cover specific regions and states.”
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
You want me to get this...in there???
If you thought driving an 18-wheeler is easy, WATCH THIS!! Even the most experienced of drivers would have difficulty making this move....this guy's got mad skills!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8baIT9EUHBM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8baIT9EUHBM&feature=related
BORDER POLITICS
By Brian Straight, managing editorSep 10, 2008 2:30 PM
Opponents of the controversial cross border trucking demonstration project received a big boost on Tuesday when the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill (H.R. 6630) to kill the program, 395-18. Cross border trucking plan (H.R. 6630)
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Peter A.DeFazio (D-Ore), would stop the demonstration project that allows Mexican trucks to operate outside the 25-mi. limit at the border, and prevent the U.S. Dept. of Transportation from enacting the program without Congressional approval. Cross border trucking plan (H.R. 6630)
“The world is watching how we choose to honor our international commitments,” said Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration administrator John H. Hill in a written statement. “At a time of surging exports and growing demand by U.S. truck drivers for new opportunities, it is simply irresponsible for Congress to deny American drivers the opportunity to compete in Mexico and American shippers a more efficient and timely way of getting their goods south.” Cross border trucking plan (H.R. 6630)
The program, originally started in 2007, was set to expire on Sept. 6 of this year before the DOT extended it for two more years, citing several factors, including the unwillingness of carriers to invest in a one-year program. Cross border trucking plan (H.R. 6630)
“We intend this extension to reassure trucking companies that they will have sufficient time to realize a return on their investment, and we anticipate additional participation with this extra time,” Hill had said at the time.
The program, born out of a 2001 NAFTA decision, has been controversial since its inception. Congress passed a bill in December 2007 saying it would not provide funds to establish a program. The administration, though, interpreted that to apply to future programs. The program has many detractors, including the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the Teamsters and many environmental groups, including the Sierra Club.
“This administration has been hell-bent on opening up our border, but has failed to show they can adequately inspect Mexican carriers while also maintaining a robust U.S. safety inspection program,” said DeFazio.
When Congress cut off the funding, the Bush administration claimed the bill was ambiguous, according to the Teamsters, who have a legal challenge pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. With the new Congressional actions, there is no doubt, the Teamsters said in a statement.
“This bill makes it very clear that Congress wants the border closed,” Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa said. “This time, the Bush administration can’t pretend it doesn’t understand what Congress means.”
Before Tuesday’s vote, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent members of Congress letters urging them to vote against the bill. “The United States promised under NAFTA to open its border to Mexican trucks—with full reciprocity for U.S. carriers—and it is vitally important that the U.S. maintain its commitment,” it said.
Under NAFTA, trade with Mexico has increased from $81 billion in 1993 to $332 billion in 2006, according to the Commerce Dept.
Opponents of the controversial cross border trucking demonstration project received a big boost on Tuesday when the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill (H.R. 6630) to kill the program, 395-18. Cross border trucking plan (H.R. 6630)
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Peter A.DeFazio (D-Ore), would stop the demonstration project that allows Mexican trucks to operate outside the 25-mi. limit at the border, and prevent the U.S. Dept. of Transportation from enacting the program without Congressional approval. Cross border trucking plan (H.R. 6630)
“The world is watching how we choose to honor our international commitments,” said Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration administrator John H. Hill in a written statement. “At a time of surging exports and growing demand by U.S. truck drivers for new opportunities, it is simply irresponsible for Congress to deny American drivers the opportunity to compete in Mexico and American shippers a more efficient and timely way of getting their goods south.” Cross border trucking plan (H.R. 6630)
The program, originally started in 2007, was set to expire on Sept. 6 of this year before the DOT extended it for two more years, citing several factors, including the unwillingness of carriers to invest in a one-year program. Cross border trucking plan (H.R. 6630)
“We intend this extension to reassure trucking companies that they will have sufficient time to realize a return on their investment, and we anticipate additional participation with this extra time,” Hill had said at the time.
The program, born out of a 2001 NAFTA decision, has been controversial since its inception. Congress passed a bill in December 2007 saying it would not provide funds to establish a program. The administration, though, interpreted that to apply to future programs. The program has many detractors, including the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the Teamsters and many environmental groups, including the Sierra Club.
“This administration has been hell-bent on opening up our border, but has failed to show they can adequately inspect Mexican carriers while also maintaining a robust U.S. safety inspection program,” said DeFazio.
When Congress cut off the funding, the Bush administration claimed the bill was ambiguous, according to the Teamsters, who have a legal challenge pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. With the new Congressional actions, there is no doubt, the Teamsters said in a statement.
“This bill makes it very clear that Congress wants the border closed,” Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa said. “This time, the Bush administration can’t pretend it doesn’t understand what Congress means.”
Before Tuesday’s vote, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent members of Congress letters urging them to vote against the bill. “The United States promised under NAFTA to open its border to Mexican trucks—with full reciprocity for U.S. carriers—and it is vitally important that the U.S. maintain its commitment,” it said.
Under NAFTA, trade with Mexico has increased from $81 billion in 1993 to $332 billion in 2006, according to the Commerce Dept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
