ELD''s in cargo/sprinter vans

[Tennesseahawk]

Ok, you must be younger than I thought. Perry Mason always said "is it not true". Oddly enough Ironsides never did?

No, I remember Perry Mason. I as born in 1957. That "Is it not true?" question always seemed like a gotcha question for someone on the witness stand. It never turned out well for anyone on the witness stand who were asked that type of a question. I already know that if I'm ever questioned like that, I'll make them rephrase it.

So was I wrong to just haul 400# of Table 1 #4 Dangerous When Wet?

If the vehicle was placarded, and you have a CDL with the HAZMAT endorsement, you were not wrong.

"Is it not" is the same as isn't. "Isn't it true?" would be in the same category as "aren't you ready?", which would be the same as "are you ready?"

What it all boils down to is your preference of "Is you is, or is you ain't."

 

[jelliott]

If the regulations are "properly followed" than rates for hazmat in vans should go up quite a bit as most carriers do not equip the vans with the technology required and vans running for multi carriers will almost for sure not have the capability. Now it is a question of how many do it properly vs taking the loads, throwing the placards in the back and just running past the scales.

 

[piper1]

.....Now it is a question of how many do it properly vs taking the loads, throwing the placards in the back and just running past the scales.

Or if in the process of the load washing through a few entities before it gets to the actual carrier,....someone conveniently "forgets" it's hazmat and hopes the end driver just loads and goes...believe someone mentioned something like that a few days ago that they "weren't aware" it was a hazmat load in thier van.

 

[BigStickJr]

If the regulations are "properly followed" than rates for hazmat in vans should go up quite a bit as most carriers do not equip the vans with the technology required and vans running for multi carriers will almost for sure not have the capability. Now it is a question of how many do it properly vs taking the loads, throwing the placards in the back and just running past the scales.

John, does Load One have a plan in place for vans, hazmat, and logging ?
If you load a hazmat load on November 8th , aren't you required to have accurate logs for November 1st through 7th ?
The common thought process is no. How do we know the driver loading that load didn't drive 30 of the previous 40 hours?

John Mueller, if a paying customer asked the same question, do you have an answer ?
I'll throw $10 into a fund to get the right answer.
My thought is without ELD a van should stay away from hazmat.

But I also think vans should only be used for dating. Not hauling freight.

 

[jelliott]

I will have to ask Safety exactly how we handle that tomorrow and follow up with you on it.


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[terryandrene]

I'm of the opinion that because the van is below 10,001 GVWR, the driver would be considered off duty for the previous seven days before accepting a HAZMAT load. On the other hand, a driver of a commercial motor vehicle (including a HAZMAT laden van that is now considered a commercial vehicle) must consider any compensated employment, whether in a vehicle or otherwise, as on duty when determining hours of service. For example, a driver who is moon-lighting as a pizza cook for eight hours immediately prior to his commercial driving shift, may only be on duty for an additional 6 hours prior to a 10 hour break.

 

[BigStickJr]

Terry, wouldn't HOS exempt work in the van the previous seven days, be similar to the pizza delivery work, if there was compensation for driving the van ?
Hmmm....

 

[terryandrene]

BSJ, When I drove in a van, I started paper logging the moment I was dispatched on a HAZMAT load. I dated a log sheet for seven days prior (regardless if I worked or not) and showed off duty the entire time. I believed that I was doing the correct procedure and I never had a kickback from a Safety Department. Now, about the pizza cook, here is the FMCSA regulation that applies:
§395.2 Definitions.

On-duty time means all time from the time a driver begins to work or is required to be in readiness to work until the time the driver is relieved from work and all responsibility for performing work. On-duty time shall include:

(9) Performing any compensated work for a person who is not a motor carrier.

I believe the operative comment in para. (9) is "not a motor carrier." Therefore the pizza cook must account for his 8 hour shift as on-duty and this time should be reflected in the driver's available on-duty and driving time when he gets into a CMV. The cargo van driver was hauling non-hazardous prior to the HAZMAT run but this work was for a motor carrier therefore para. (9) does not apply. Although, the spirit of the regulation applies and I believe a motor carrier and the driver should comply with this concerning available hours for HAZMAT dispatch.

 

[JohnMueller]

The van driver becomes an operator of a Commercial Motor Vehicle at the time of commencement of the hazmat load requiring placards. The regulations state that the driver must maintain a record or log of hours worked for the previous 7 days. That record could be a time card or log and should contain a record of all hours worked for compensation in those previous 7 days. Pizza cook, mowing lawns, tending bar, driving a cargo van with regular freight for a motor carrier- all are forms of compensated work in the spirit of the law.

It is ALWAYS better to safe than sorry. You could call several knowledgeable people, including staff at FMCSA and get multiple different answers to this question. What matters is that you have your self and your carrier protected from any and all possible liability. In this business the garbage always seems to fall through the cracks.

Thanks!

 

[Treadmill]

I’ll make it easy. I don’t do Hazmat loads anymore. Plain and simple. No logging required.

 

[piper1]

^^This^^
How much more do you really end up with if your carrier relies on bid board freight anyway? If the extra $ for hazmat are spelled out in my contract fine otherwise doubtful you'd see more than a few pennies. (In a van, totally diff for trucks).

 

[Moot]

I have posted the following HOURS OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE on EO previously. I first used this certificate with Con-Way Central Express. It originally came from the parent corporation of both CCX and CF (Consolidated Freightways). Its main purpose was to cover new drivers, city drivers doing linehaul, drivers returning from a week or more of time off and causal drivers alternating between city and linehaul. Later I used it with Con-Way Now where I hauled hazmat or when I was switching between a cargo van and straight truck. Legally it has survived the test of time. At least 30 years or better. When I used one, I turned it in with my logs and apparently it passed audits.

I can only recall one time of showing it to a scale official and that was in Iowa. I was in a straight truck having come off a van load. The woman running the scale had never seen this and was impressed. For what its worth, she was also impressed when I mentioned that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

My point is, if I have a point; the FMCSA rules are nebulous at best and open to interpretation. The people tasked with enforcing these rules are mostly clueless. My advice if stopped and questioned about hours of service regarding the switch between a van and a Commercial Motor Vehicle; smile, be polite, calmly state your case and ask them to verify it with their "Big Book". Chances are good you will be sent on your way with a Fix-It ticket for the burned out license plate lamp, even though it is high noon on a sunny day and the light was working an hour earlier.
.

 

[BigStickJr]

Anything before 395.2 was issued is likely to be irrelevant.

 

[piper1]

....The woman running the scale had never seen this and was impressed. For what its worth, she was also impressed when I mentioned that the Earth revolved around the Sun.....

Face it Moot....you are impressive.

 

[Moot]

Anything before 395.2 was issued is likely to be irrelevant.

Why?

 

[BigStickJr]

Anything before 395.2 was issued is likely to be irrelevant.

Why?

Because 395.2 changed the logging requirements.

And to be frank, I didn't read your document.
Either because it wouldn't show clearly on my iPhone or it was too far into happy hour for my eyes to focus.

 

[Moot]

Because 395.2 changed the logging requirements.

Hours Of Service regulations have been around since the 1930's when the ICC implemented them. These regs have changed several times over the years but they still remain Hours Of Service whether recorded on paper or by an ELD.

And to be frank, I didn't read your document. Either because it wouldn't show clearly on my iPhone or it was too far into happy hour for my eyes to focus.

You really don't need to read it. Its just a piece of paper certifying the number of hours a driver was on duty the preceding 7 days. It also includes name, SS number, CDL number etc.

What you should read is this entire thread, including the title, to understand how an Hours Of Service Certificate could be used by a cargo van driver, instead of an ELD, when hauling hazmat.

 

[BigStickJr]

I read the title.
And the thread.
I'm just more in line with John Mueller's thinking.
Some van people may think likewise but they want to follow your thought process because it works better in the van world.
I image by the end of 2018 we'll read a courts idea of which idea is correct.
I doubt that I'll ever drive a van commercially, but it'll be interesting.
If a hazmat laden van ever strikes my vehicle or that of a loved one, he better hope my legal team can't recreate a previous 7 days that wouldn't look good on a log book.
I may not win, but I'd love the fight.
I would probably go easy on the van guys that are great contributors to this site.
Both of them.

 

[BigStickJr]

What you should read is this entire thread, including the title, to understand how an Hours Of Service Certificate could be used by a cargo van driver, instead of an ELD, when hauling hazmat.[/QUOTE]

I've probably used the same form, or similar, when starting at any new carrier.

Did you really say the Certificate could be used in the future instead of an ELD ?

BTW, you get style points for not saying "a ELD."

 

[BigStickJr]

Moot, I'll save you some time.
Don't bother re-reading the entire thread or the title.
Read John Mueller's first two sentences.
Carefully.

If you want to play truck driver, at times you'll have to act like a truck driver.