Ol' Blue at odds with FMCSA expert!

[belpre122]

The personal conveyance exception does not apply for drivers sitting in their trucks eating, and it does not apply to a laden CMV. Ever.

Fair enough. Makes perfect sense to me.

I have to wonder how the personal conveyance exception would apply to a driver sitting in their truck while drinking alcoholic beverages?

Never mind.........that would probably be outside of the scope, or the spirit of the regulation anyways. 8)

According to Golfhobo, drinking in a CMV is not a problem.

I just hope that the same new drivers that golfhobo babbled on about regarding my posting style, didn't take heed of his misinformed bellowing about alcohol use and CMV operation/responsibility. These newbies either:

1. Were turned off regarding my anti-OTR blasts. Or
2. Were possible victims of Golfhobo's dangerous misguidance. I don't even want to consider the consequences. Not even.

I dunno. Who really is the bad guy here?

[Rev.Vassago]

I dunno. Who really is the bad guy here?

I am, of course.

[belpre122]

I was delivering at Kokomo, Indiana this morning at about 2AM. A "crew" rolled up and asked me for directions. I obliged. They said thanks, and then OFFERED ME A BEER. I politely refused.

I was, however, highly offended by this.

But, then I thought about it. According to the spirit of Golfhobo's preachings. If I were to go up to Line 1, drink the beer and then return to Lines 3 or 4, I should be just fine. If I were worried about my BAC, I could have just sat there for an hour or so until I had an acceptable BAC. Nothing like some Line 5 time golfhobo! Or, if I were to "chug" the beer, could I just flag it and not bother with Line 5 at all?

I'm so glad that we have gotten away from frivolous topics on CAD and can now get down to what the "new drivers" come here to learn. Thanks golfhobo, you're a lifesaver!

[got mud?]

myth_buster custody has no relation to where a person is geographically in this instance. it applies more to responsibility. Custody is defined as. A keeping or guarding; care, watch, inspection, for keeping, preservation, or security. the drivers company has relieved him of all this by giving him a ROD card. For that time period his company has relieved him of ALL responsibility.

so how do you use a CMV for personal conveyance? that's right, permission from the company. sorry sir but your argument is not valid. with what you are saying a driver would have to log his personal conveyance as on duty simply because he is in the CMV and not in the sleeper, but you stated that he didn't have to if he was using it for personal conveyance. surly sir if the law allows a driver to actually drive the CMV off duty for personal conveyance then he should be able to use it as a picnic table.

The definition of on-duty time has to do with each component of the definition. The times a driver may record off-duty time in a CMV is very narrow. If the driver is sitting in a laden vehicle then they are on-duty. The fact a vehicle is not loaded doesn’t necessarily indicate the vehicle is not under dispatch:

§390.3 General Applicability

Question 6: How does one distinguish between intra- and interstate commerce for the purposes of applicability of the FMCSRs?

Guidance: Interstate commerce is determined by the essential character of the movement, manifested by the shipper's fixed and persistent intent at the time of shipment, and is ascertained from all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transportation. When the intent of the transportation being performed is interstate in nature, even when the route is within the boundaries of a single State, the driver and CMV are subject to the FMCSRs.

Question 13: A motor carrier dispatches an empty CMV from State A into adjoining State B in order to transport cargo or passengers between two points in State B, and then to return empty to State A. Does the transportation of cargo or passengers within State B constitute interstate commerce?

Guidance: Yes. The courts and the ICC developed a test that clarifies the legal status of intrastate portions of interstate trips. The character of the intrastate leg depends on the shipper's fixed and persistent intent when the transportation began. The fixed and persistent intent in this case was to move property--the vehicle itself--across State lines and between two points in State B where it was used to haul cargo or passengers. The transportation within State B, therefore, constitutes interstate commerce. In some cases the motor carrier may be the shipper.

A driver may use a CMV as a personal conveyance to go to the movies, dinner, laundry, etc. Carriers have been prosecuted for false logs when drivers logged off-duty for a return trip to the terminal.

A driver who departs a terminal empty in route to the first pick-up is in commerce, same would apply to a driver who unloaded and is destined for a new load. The carrier may provide the driver with written permission to go off-duty for lunch; however, the driver would have to meet the requirements, i.e. exit the vehicle to enjoy the off-duty status.

The rules regarding empty trucks moving to acquire freight and constituting the continuation of interstate commerce dates back to at least 1958:

"Merchandising by motortruck, whether actual or pretended, over long distances is increasing to such an extent that it is becoming a major factor in the transportation of freight between distant points. Manufacturers and mercantile establishments, which deliver in their own trucks articles which they manufacture or sell, are increasingly purchasing merchandise at or near their point of delivery and transporting such articles to their own terminal for sale to others. Such transportation is performed for the purpose of receiving compensation for the otherwise empty return of their trucks. Sometimes the [377 U.S. 311, 318] purchase and sale is a bona fide merchandising venture. In other cases, arrangements are made with the consignee of such merchandise for the `buy-and-sell' arrangement in order that the consignee may receive transportation at a reduced cost." Compare H. R. Rep. No. 1922, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 18 (1958).

http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/...?citeid=427278

The fact the movement of the vehicle is intended to benefit the motor carrier constitutes commerce.

The fact is discussed in other court cases:

On April 20, 2000, Singh completed an interstate hauling operation for BIR with his Tractor. Four days later, on April 24, 2000, he hired a third party to drive the Tractor and its empty trailer from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to a Kenworth truck dealership in Chester, Pennsylvania, in order to attempt a sale or trade-in for a new tractor. Although BIR was made aware of the plan to go to the dealership, it is undisputed BIR did not dispatch the Tractor. In the event a hauling load from BIR became available in the Chester area, however, Singh directed his driver to make the trip with an empty trailer attached.

En route to the dealership, Singh's truck collided with a vehicle owned and driven by Espenshade. As a result of the accident, Espenshade filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, against all potential tortfeasors. Underwriters expressly refused either to defend the defendants or to indemnify Canal in the state action on the ground that the use of the Tractor on the day of the accident did not fall under the provisions of its non-trucking liability policy. Canal, on the other hand, defended and indemnified Singh, his driver, and BIR in the lawsuit. Ultimately, Canal settled the Espenshade suit, agreeing to pay $58,500 compensation in exchange for full liability releases for all three defendants. It is undisputed that Canal incurred an additional $27,459 in litigation expenses to resolve the matter, resulting in a total indemnification and defense cost of $85,959.

Canal filed a declaratory action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking indemnification from Underwriters for the monies Canal spent defending and insuring the defendants in the Espenshade lawsuit. Canal Ins. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 333 F.Supp.2d 352 (E.D.Pa.2004). Subsequent to discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Id. at 352. The District Court determined that Singh's act of hiring an employee to drive his Tractor to a dealership in order to trade the vehicle or otherwise attempt a sale was an activity promoting the "business purposes of the [i]nsured" under the terms of Underwriters' business use exclusion. Id. at 355-56. As a result, the Court concluded that coverage was properly denied by Underwriters. Id. at 357. Judgment was entered granting Underwriters' motion for summary judgment and denying Canal's cross-motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed. [FN1]

http://cabfinancial.com/Cases%202006...v%20Lloyds.htm

Case law on several fronts broadly define commerce, thereby severely narrowing the occasions when a driver “is relieved of all responsibility.” If the driver tried to exit the vehicle, slipped and fell there would be a workman’s comp claim. The issue of a driver logging off-duty is a topic of many court cases and most court cases narrow the driver’s off-duty time while in and around CMVs. The FMCSR is based on law, the guidance used to enforce the federal regulations is documented in Supreme Court decisions, not a driver's or motor carrier's interpretation. Attorneys have prepared 100 page briefs regarding the use of the word "if" when used in a regulation.

As mentioned earlier, the lunch break counts toward the 14 hour rule, the only item left to be determined is whether the time counts toward the 60/70 hour rule.

It is the investigator's responsibility to prove the case, s=using case law and interpretations allows an investigator to show precendence of their findings and how the regulation was previous interpreted by the courts.

Be safe.

none of these cases prove that you cannot eat your lunch in your truck and log it off duty. they actually have nothing to do with the argument.

[Rev.Vassago]

none of these cases prove that you cannot eat your lunch in your truck and log it off duty. they actually have nothing to do with the argument.

What part of the regulation are you not understanding? On Duty time is any time in a CMV except time spent in a sleeper or time spent driving an unladen vehicle for personal conveyance. It's right there in the reg:

On duty time shall include:

(4) All time, other than driving time, in or upon any commercial motor vehicle except time spent resting in a sleeper berth;

[got mud?]

none of these cases prove that you cannot eat your lunch in your truck and log it off duty. they actually have nothing to do with the argument.

What part of the regulation are you not understanding? On Duty time is any time in a CMV except time spent in a sleeper or time spent driving an unladen vehicle for personal conveyance. It's right there in the reg:

On duty time shall include:

(4) All time, other than driving time, in or upon any commercial motor vehicle except time spent resting in a sleeper berth;

what part of the regulation are you not understanding?


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:

the driver is released from all his duties. he is free to do what he pleases. he can lay on the ground under the truck stand next to the door and pick his nose, walk to the store. play hopscotch or sit in his seat and eat his lunch. either way he is off duty

[Rev.Vassago]

what part of the regulation are you not understanding?


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:

the driver is released from all his duties. he is free to do what he pleases. he can lay on the ground under the truck stand next to the door and pick his nose, walk to the store. play hopscotch or sit in his seat and eat his lunch. either way he is off duty

No, he cannot. It doesn't matter if a motor carrier says a driver is relieved of work. If that driver is in the cab of the CMV, it is ON DUTY time. You want to ignore 90% of the regulation, and focus on one line that is irrelevant to the issue.

Let me reiterate exactly what Mike M stated. I'll use big letters, since you seem to like them:

A MOTOR CARRIER CANNOT SUPERSEDE THE FMCSA REGULATIONS.

[got mud?]

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:

(1) All time at a plant, terminal, facility, or other property of a motor carrier or shipper, or on any public property, waiting to be dispatched, unless the driver has been relieved from duty by the motor carrier;

(2) All time inspecting, servicing, or conditioning any commercial motor vehicle at any time;

(3) All driving time as defined in the term driving time;

(4) All time, other than driving time, in or upon any commercial motor vehicle except time spent resting in a sleeper berth;

(5) All time loading or unloading a commercial motor vehicle, supervising, or assisting in the loading or unloading, attending a commercial motor vehicle being loaded or unloaded, remaining in readiness to operate the commercial motor vehicle, or in giving or receiving receipts for shipments loaded or unloaded;

(6) All time repairing, obtaining assistance, or remaining in attendance upon a disabled commercial motor vehicle;

(7) All time spent providing a breath sample or urine specimen, including travel time to and from the collection site, in order to comply with the random, reasonable suspicion, post-accident, or follow-up testing required by part 382 of this subchapter when directed by a motor carrier.

(8 ) Performing any other work in the capacity, employ, or service of a motor carrier; and

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

Thanks for posting the reg that shows that it has to be recorded as On Duty.

the way you guys are reading this then anytime you sit in the front seat and not in the sleeper you would have to go back to on duty status.

That is correct. As the red highlighted section above states, all time in a CMV, other than time in a sleeper berth, is ON DUTY. The only exception to this rule is for personal conveyance.

so every driver you have ever seen in a truck stop smoking a cig or enjoying a cup of coffee not in the sleeper would be in violation of their ten hour break.

There is no such thing as "in violation of their ten hour break", but yes, they are logging such time incorrectly. The reality of the matter is that DOT doesn't usually go around truckstops citing drivers for sitting in their seats, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a violation.

actually the exception is the until the driver is relieved of responsibility. the personal conveyance exception allows the driver to drive while he is off duty.

[got mud?]

what part of the regulation are you not understanding?


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:

the driver is released from all his duties. he is free to do what he pleases. he can lay on the ground under the truck stand next to the door and pick his nose, walk to the store. play hopscotch or sit in his seat and eat his lunch. either way he is off duty

No, he cannot. It doesn't matter if a motor carrier says a driver is relieved of work. If that driver is in the cab of the CMV, it is ON DUTY time. You want to ignore 90% of the regulation, and focus on one line that is irrelevant to the issue.

Let me reiterate exactly what Mike M stated. I'll use big letters, since you seem to like them:

A MOTOR CARRIER CANNOT SUPERSEDE THE FMCSA REGULATIONS.

the motor carrier is not superseding the FMCSA its the regs that give the carrier the ability to relieve the driver of his responsibility. I'm sorry that you and your friend Mike M can't understand that.

once you are not working or required to work you are off duty. that exception trumps all other exceptions. its very simple, my six year old daughter can understand that. why can't you?

[Rev.Vassago]

once you are not working or required to work you are off duty. that exception trumps all other exceptions. its very simple, my six year old daughter can understand that. why can't you?

Because both you and your six year old daughter are wrong.

[got mud?]

once you are not working or required to work you are off duty. that exception trumps all other exceptions. its very simple, my six year old daughter can understand that. why can't you?

Because both you and your six year old daughter are wrong.

then prove it. show a case law that proves it. show an example of a real world situation in which a driver has been found in violation of the HOS because he logged eating lunch or sitting in the front seat of his truck as off duty time. you said in an earlier post that dot does not go into truck stops and write violations because people sat in the front seat and didn't log it as on duty and ended up going over their hours. the reason they don't is because they know it wouldn't stand up. basically the way you are reading the law, everytime I sit in drivers seat I would have to a change of statues. if I get up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom and exit through the drivers door and then sit and smoke a cig i would have to go on duty? do you even realize how asinine that is? use a little common sense. laws and regulations are not black and white. only a complete idiot would think that was the intention when the regulation was written.

[Rev.Vassago]

then prove it. show a case law that proves it. show an example of a real world situation in which a driver has been found in violation of the HOS because he logged eating lunch or sitting in the front seat of his truck as off duty time.

Ask a FMCSA rep to do that. Someone like Mike M.

you said in an earlier post that dot does not go into truck stops and write violations because people sat in the front seat and didn't log it as on duty and ended up going over their hours. the reason they don't is because they know it wouldn't stand up.

No, they just have better things to do with their time.

basically the way you are reading the law, everytime I sit in drivers seat I would have to a change of statues. if I get up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom and exit through the drivers door and then sit and smoke a cig i would have to go on duty?

If it takes more than 15 minutes to do so, then yes.

do you even realize how asinine that is? use a little common sense. laws and regulations are not black and white. only a complete idiot would think that was the intention when the regulation was written.

The regulation is very clear. You just don't want it to be. You clearly want to subscribe to the golfhobo "spirit" regs. But log it however you want. I don't really care if you are logging it wrong.

[got mud?]

then prove it. show a case law that proves it. show an example of a real world situation in which a driver has been found in violation of the HOS because he logged eating lunch or sitting in the front seat of his truck as off duty time.

Ask a FMCSA rep to do that. Someone like Mike M.

you said in an earlier post that dot does not go into truck stops and write violations because people sat in the front seat and didn't log it as on duty and ended up going over their hours. the reason they don't is because they know it wouldn't stand up.

No, they just have better things to do with their time.

basically the way you are reading the law, everytime I sit in drivers seat I would have to a change of statues. if I get up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom and exit through the drivers door and then sit and smoke a cig i would have to go on duty?

If it takes more than 15 minutes to do so, then yes.

do you even realize how asinine that is? use a little common sense. laws and regulations are not black and white. only a complete idiot would think that was the intention when the regulation was written.

The regulation is very clear. You just don't want it to be. You clearly want to subscribe to the golfhobo "spirit" regs. But log it however you want. I don't really care if you are logging it wrong.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, he is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, he is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not adhering to the literal wording.

"Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language. Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also a tactic used against an oppressive government.

Following the spirit of the law but not the letter is generally viewed more favorably than following the letter but not the spirit. In a court of law, judges usually review the intent of the players involved.

Gaming the system, also called "rules lawyering", is related to following the letter but not the spirit of the law. It is used negatively to describe the act of manipulating the rules to achieve a personal advantage. It may also mean acting in an antisocial, irritating manner while technically staying within the bounds of the rules."

[headborg]

I think you guys take all this too seriously; after all- Sam will finish his lunch and THEN after he's gone on down the road-- falsify his comic book anyway.

It's all only relevant IF, CHP drives up WHILE Sam is setting there in the driver's seat eating that Tuna Fish Sandwich and the log book is either already drawn to the WRONG line or not current to last change of duty (i.e. left it hanging).

You know, there was a time BEFORE sleeper berths were common- Drivers routinely crawled up INSIDE the trailer to sleep. They had HOS then too-- and no-body told them they were UPON the CMV so they couldn't log- off duty.

Now technically:

I don't believe you can set at the controls- in the cab, door closed, engine running and be OFF-DUTY. Because you're in readiness to Operate the motor vehicle by simply releasing the brakes.

See that's why the rules are not suppose to be taken as "gospel"; the "guidance" is only "guidance" it helps enforcement to interpret the LAW.
It will get you a ticket-- but then you get your day in court ( bring Hobo ).
You can point out some of the absurd contradictions in the HOS.
Like the fact you can drive a UNLADEN CMV( when not UNDER DISPATCH) as a personal conveyance and log "off-duty" the whole time your DRIVING IT-- yet you can't set in the DRIVER's Seat and eat a sandwich!

I know--you're going to sight the ROD card that every company is required to furnish to their drivers-- that states they can take coffee breaks, lunch, etc and BE "relieved" of responsibility for the vehicle.
The reason that law is in place is to protect the driver in case- they go INSIDE the diner for that roast beef sandwich and a) the truck/cargo is STOLEN, B) CATCHES FIRE C) BLOWS UP D) ROLLS OFF DOWN A HILL.

And you might notice-- the haz-mat rules trump the ROD card too.

So add that into your scenario -- you're setting on the shoulder of the Blizzard road(road closed)- with a load of haz-mat(less than 5 feet from the traveled part of the road) setting in your CAB eating that tuna sandwich for lunch-- are you off duty or on-duty?

:eek::eek:

[Scottt]

I asked a local DOT Officer a similar question and got a answer I didn't expect.

If I back into a dock and it is going to take 3-4 hours to unload. I go to the sleeper and take a nap, pop in a movie, etc

He said to log it as in the sleeper berth and only log on duty the time it takes to get the paperwork signed (15 minutes)

He said logging sleeper berth will go against my 14 hours but not against my 70 hours.

395.2 doesn't read that way to me.

????????

[Rev.Vassago]

I asked a local DOT Officer a similar question and got a answer I didn't expect.

If I back into a dock and it is going to take 3-4 hours to unload. I go to the sleeper and take a nap, pop in a movie, etc

He said to log it as in the sleeper berth and only log on duty the time it takes to get the paperwork signed (15 minutes)

He said logging sleeper berth will go against my 14 hours but not against my 70 hours.

395.2 doesn't read that way to me.

????????

He is correct. The 14 hour clock is the clock that starts when you first go on duty after any 10 hour break, which determines at which point you can no longer drive. The 70 hour clock is the accumulation of your total on duty hours in the past 8 days. Logging sleeper berth will go against your 14 hour clock (unless it is 8 hours or more), but since sleeper berth is not on duty time, it will not go against the 70 hour clock. Any time spent in a sleeper berth is logged as "sleeper berth".

[belpre122]

I thought that he was correct also Rev. I was hanging back to see if anyone else responded to be sure.

Of course...........it didn't really matter what was said. I rely solely upon Golfhobo for all regulatory guidance.

:eek:

[RebelDarlin]

I thought that he was correct also Rev. I was hanging back to see if anyone else responded to be sure.

Of course...........it didn't really matter what was said. I rely solely upon Golfhobo for all regulatory guidance.

:eek:

Oh Bel, still trying to take the "Master Baiter" title from Big D? :rolleyes:

[golfhobo]

headborg said:

I think you guys take all this too seriously; after all- Sam will finish his lunch and THEN after he's gone on down the road-- falsify his comic book anyway.

Well, I for one, take this seriously because I do NOT want to have to worry about going to prison because I falsified my logbook in case of a fatal accident.

It's all only relevant IF, CHP drives up WHILE Sam is setting there in the driver's seat eating that Tuna Fish Sandwich and the log book is either already drawn to the WRONG line or not current to last change of duty (i.e. left it hanging).

I disagree. In today's world, someone ELSE could have a video of Sam eating his lunch, and it could contradict his logbook entry in case of a trial. Besides, there is no reg that says Sam can't leave his logbook on line 3, (since he is still behind the controls) and, of course, I don't believe line 1 would BE the WRONG line.

You know, there was a time BEFORE sleeper berths were common- Drivers routinely crawled up INSIDE the trailer to sleep. They had HOS then too-- and no-body told them they were UPON the CMV so they couldn't log- off duty.

And that would be because they were ROD or on a mandatory break, and therefore subpara (4) does not apply.

Now technically:

I don't believe you can set at the controls- in the cab, door closed, engine running and be OFF-DUTY. Because you're in readiness to Operate the motor vehicle by simply releasing the brakes.

Technically, even if you are in the restaurant, if you still have hours left to drive, and the intention to do so under dispatch, you are STILL in "readiness" to perform work just as soon as you are through being ROD. The only thing separating you from the brake release controls is a door.

See that's why the rules are not suppose to be taken as "gospel"; the "guidance" is only "guidance" it helps enforcement to interpret the LAW.
It will get you a ticket-- but then you get your day in court ( bring Hobo ).

Good choice, but who says it will get you a ticket? I believe the "guidance" is there also to help the driver avoid such a "ticket."

You can point out some of the absurd contradictions in the HOS.
Like the fact you can drive a UNLADEN CMV( when not UNDER DISPATCH) as a personal conveyance and log "off-duty" the whole time your DRIVING IT-- yet you can't set in the DRIVER's Seat and eat a sandwich!

Is it more likely, or easier for one to believe, that there IS such a glaring contradiction in the regs... or that the regs are cohesive and comprehensive in that they have "covered" this situation by declaring (in the topic sentence) that subpara (4) only applies to the time BETWEEN periods when you are ROD or on a mandatory break??

The "exception" for personal conveyance is to subpara (3) ... or more specifically to the earlier definition of Driving Time in that reg... so that a driver found driving the unladen CMV cannot be charged with exceeding his 11 hours of driving time or violating his "off-duty" status. [and I might add that it also allows an exception to the "no carry" reg concerning UNOPENED but not manifested alcohol.]

I know--you're going to cite the ROD card that every company is required to furnish to their drivers-- that states they can take coffee breaks, lunch, etc and BE "relieved" of responsibility for the vehicle.

Actually, companies are not REQUIRED to provide this card OR this option. However, the FMCSA has dictated that without such prior instruction from the employer, the driver may NOT log such stops as off-duty.

The reason that law is in place is to protect the driver in case- they go INSIDE the diner for that roast beef sandwich and a) the truck/cargo is STOLEN, B) CATCHES FIRE C) BLOWS UP D) ROLLS OFF DOWN A HILL.

Although that "protection" may be part of it, I believe the REAL purpose is to encourage drivers to take periodic rest-stops to reduce the fatigue of actually OPERATING the CMV, by allowing them to do so and NOT have it count against their 11 hour drive clock OR their 60/70 hour rules. The fact that it still counts against their 14 hour clock is a compromise with those who objected to the old rules that allowed such breaks to extend their driving window, allowing them to be driving past what many consider to be a safe limit.

And you might notice-- the haz-mat rules trump the ROD card too.

To a certain extent, yes. But NOT if the material is not explosive and the vehicle is NOT on a public highway.

So add that into your scenario -- you're setting on the shoulder of the Blizzard road(road closed)- with a load of haz-mat(less than 5 feet from the traveled part of the road) setting in your CAB eating that tuna sandwich for lunch-- are you off duty or on-duty?

Well.... I said nothing about the road being impassible or closed, and my scenario of Sam assumed he was OFF the traveled part of the road (like in a rest area, on a ramp, or outside the shoulder.) You have introduced conditions that would require multiple answers. However, if the HM is explosive, he would HAVE to log it as on-duty not driving. If not explosive, I contend he can log it as off-duty (and I believe that Trooper Brokaw agrees with me.)

[continued in next post.....]

[golfhobo]

Going back to Sam's question. He CLEARLY stated that he was eating his lunch IN the day cab. If Sgt. Brokaw thought that the "on-duty" reg implied that he HAD to be considered on-duty, he would have cited THAT reg, and said so. What he cited was the reg concerning what conditions must be met for Sam to legally log it as off-duty (which implies that it can be done.)

Question 2: What conditions must be met for a CMV driver to record meal and other routine stops made during a tour of duty as off-duty time?

Guidance: 1. The driver must have been relieved of all duty and responsibility for the care and custody of the vehicle, its accessories, and any cargo or passengers it may be carrying.

2. (not relevant)

3. (not relevant)

4. During the stop, and for the duration of the stop, the driver must be at liberty to pursue activities of his/her own choosing and to leave the premises where the vehicle is situated.

Nothing in (1) or (4) would indicate that the driver MUST dismount from the vehicle and, in fact, (4) would indicate that the driver MIGHT choose NOT to leave the vehicle or premises.

Therefore, if Sam has met these requirements, Sgt. Brokaw and I contend that he MAY log his lunch in the daycab... ON THE CMV.... as off-duty. And if so.... then barring a glaring inconsistency in the regs.... subpara (4) does not trump this situation, because it is dependant on the fact that a driver has NOT been ROD (as stated in the topic sentence of that "definition.")