Accident during a restart

[VitoCorleone99]

Background: A few months ago, I was on the throne at a lovely Pilot truck stop when I came out to discover that my truck had been hit. I called my company's safety department and gave them the information (or lack thereof) concerning the situation. The lady instructed me to make sure that I had noted the accident on my log book. Okay, no worries there.

This evening, I was enjoying a relaxing round of golf on the Black course at Bethpage. I was just about to sink a par putt when my truck rocked sideways. Hit again. Son of a...

The other fella drove off but I made a quick call to the fuzz and then actually ran him down on foot a few minutes later. Good thing there's another truck stop across the street. (He thought he had hit the curb, apparently.) Now I have a police report with the date and time of the incident. Ipso facto, my employer will have a record of the date and time of the incident once I send in the paperwork.

If I'm in the midst of a restart and I am supposed to log accidents, what becomes of my uninterrupted 34 hours? Screwed or no?

[golfhobo]

The Rev will probably disagree, but I say NO. Filing a police report, calling your company to report an accident, or DEALING with some scmuck who hit your rig does NOT fit the definition of "repeatedly" answering communications from your company that the regs say WOULD inhibit rest... NOR does it amount to "operating a CMV."

Moreover.... that reg basically appliies to "repeated" interruptions (for WORK) on your 10 hour break. It says NOTHING about a 34 hour restart.

The PURPOSE of the 34 hour restart is to give you the opportunity to get TWO full 10 hour periods of sleep/rest... AND another (14 hour) "day off."

Did your escapade(s) INHIBIT that "spirit" of the reg? I doubt it.

There is NOTHING in the regs that says that a short period of time dealing with law enforcement AUTOMATICALLY puts you "on duty not driving." It is NOT A SAFETY SENSITIVE FUNCTION.

I suspect your company safety director is just covering their bases. You could "flag it" under the Rev's "magical 15 minute" provision that covers you everytime you pass through the passenger compartment of your cab!

Now, if you had to drive the truck to a service company for repairs, it might be a different story. But, unless your company WANTS you to go back to operating under the 70 rule, any such repairs should NOT be performed until AFTER your 34 hr restart.... when you once again go back on duty.

[Myth_Buster]

Lost 34 hour reset:

§395.2 Definitions.

As used in this part, the following words and terms are construed to mean:

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:

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

§395.3 Maximum driving time for property-carrying vehicles.

(c)(1) Any period of 7 consecutive days may end with the beginning of any off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive hours; or

(c)(2) Any period of 8 consecutive days may end with the beginning of any off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive hours.

Be safe.

[Rev.Vassago]

The Rev will probably disagree,

Do me a favor, and don't answer questions for me. Thanks.

[golfhobo]

Do me a favor, and don't answer questions for me. Thanks.

Saying that YOU might disagree with ME is NOT "answering a question for you." You have a RECORD of disagreeing with almost anything I say.

I answered the question for ME. YOU are always free to agree with me whenever you like.... and SAYING that you MIGHT disagree with me is NOT against the TOS.

Have a nice day.

[golfhobo]

Lost 34 hour reset:

Quote:
§395.2 Definitions.

As used in this part, the following words and terms are construed to mean:

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:

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

Be safe.

You (and another) are like a broken record!

So... the guidance that CLEARLY states that answering a qualcom is NOT considered "work" unless it is REPEATEDLY and interrupts your rest means nothing?

Is it, or is it NOT, considered "doing work in the employ of a carrier? The FMCSR's clearly state that a NON REPEATING interruption that does NOT inhibit your ability to get the required rest, does NOT invalidate even a 10 hour break.... let alone a 34 hour restart.

Get a clue!

[Myth_Buster]

You (and another) are like a broken record!

So... the guidance that CLEARLY states that answering a qualcom is NOT considered "work" unless it is REPEATEDLY and interrupts your rest means nothing?

No GH, the interp indicates momentary interuptions of a driver's break will not cause the reset to be interpruted; however, if the interuption is a pattern it will interupt the break. When the driver is hit, calls the police, files an inital report, waits for said driver that hit him to be returned, and obtains a copy of the report there is a pattern of interuptions that affect the break.

§395.2 Definitions.

Question 5: Do telephone calls to or from the motor carrier that momentarily interrupt a driver’s rest period constitute a change of the driver’s duty status?

Guidance: Telephone calls of this type do not prevent the driver from obtaining adequate rest. Therefore, the FHWA does not consider these brief telephone calls to be a break in the driver’s off duty status.

*Question 30: If a driver is required repeatedly to respond to satellite or similar communications received during his or her sleeper berth period, does this activity affect a driver’s duty status?

Guidance: Yes. The driver cannot be required to do any work for the motor carrier during sleeper berth time. A driver who is required to access a communications system for the purpose of read-ing messages from the carrier, responding to certain messages (either verbally or by typing a message), or otherwise acknowledging them, is performing work. For the purpose of this guidance, “repeatedly” means a pattern or series of interruptions that prevent a driver from obtaining restorative sleep during the sleeper berth period.

*Question 31: If a driver is required repeatedly to respond to satellite or similar communications received during a 10-hour (8-hour for passenger transportation) off-duty period, does this activity affect a driver’s duty status?

Guidance: Yes. The driver cannot be required to do any work for the motor carrier during the 10-hour or the 8-hour off-duty period. A driver who is required to access a communications system for the purpose of reading messages from the carrier, responding to certain messages (either verbally or by typing a message), or otherwise acknowledging them, is performing work. For the purpose of this guidance, “repeatedly” means a pattern or series of interruptions that prevent a driver from obtaining restorative sleep during the off-duty period.

Is it, or is it NOT, considered "doing work in the employ of a carrier? The FMCSR's clearly state that a NON REPEATING interruption that does NOT inhibit your ability to get the required rest, does NOT invalidate even a 10 hour break.... let alone a 34 hour restart.

Get a clue!

Wrong again, obviously you missed the defintion of On-Duty Time provided the first time:

§395.2 Definitions.

As used in this part, the following words and terms are construed to mean:

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:

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

Since accident reports are required by the FMCSR it is a service for the motor carrier:

§390.15 Assistance in investigations and special studies.

(a) A motor carrier must make all records and information pertaining to an accident available to an authorized representative or special agent of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, an authorized State or local enforcement agency representative or authorized third party representative, upon request or as part of any investigation within such time as the request or investigation may specify. A motor carrier shall give an authorized representative all reasonable assistance in the investigation of any accident including providing a full, true and correct response to any question of the inquiry.

(b) For accidents that occur after April 29, 2003, motor carriers must maintain an accident register for three years after the date of each accident. For accidents that occurred on or prior to April 29, 2003, motor carriers must maintain an accident register for a period of one year after the date of each accident. Information placed in the accident register must contain at least the following:

(b)(1) A list of accidents as defined at §390.5 of this chapter containing for each accident:

(b)(1)(i) Date of accident.

(b)(1)(ii) City or town, or most near, where the accident occurred and the State where the accident occurred.

(b)(1)(iii) Driver Name.

(b)(1)(iv) Number of injuries.

(b)(1)(v) Number of fatalities.

(b)(1)(vi) Whether hazardous materials, other than fuel spilled from the fuel tanks of motor vehicle involved in the accident, were released.

(b)(2) Copies of all accident reports required by State or other governmental entities or insurers.

It is on-duty time whether you agree or not.

In regard to the 34 hour reset, it is desinged to give a driver a chance to unwind and relax free of all responsibility to lower stress levels. The 34 hour reset allows the driver a chance to relax and rest to relieve the fatigue associated with working.

SUMMARY: The FMCSA revises its hours-of-service (HOS) regulations to
require motor carriers of property to provide drivers with better
opportunities to obtain sleep, and thereby reduce the incidence of
crashes attributed in whole or in part to drivers operating commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) while drowsy, tired, or fatigued. This action is
necessary because the FMCSA estimates that between 196 and 585
fatalities occur each year on the Nation's roads because of drowsy,
tired, or fatigued CMV drivers transporting property. The FMCSA
estimates that this final rule when adhered to fully will save between
24 and 75 lives each year as a result of giving truck drivers an
increased incremental amount of time to obtain rest and sleep.

DATES: The effective date is June 27, 2003, except for Sec. 395.0
which is effective from June 27, 2003, through June 30, 2004.

The FMCSA has adopted the third alternative for this final rule.
The rule represents a substantial improvement in addressing driver
fatigue over the current regulation. Among other things, it increases
required time off duty from 8 to 10 consecutive hours; prohibits
driving after the end of the 14th hour after the driver began work;
allows an increase in driving time from 10 to 11 hours; and allows
drivers to restart the 60- or 70-hour clock after taking 34 hours off
duty. Together, these provisions (and others discussed in detail below)
are expected to reduce the effect of cumulative fatigue and prevent
many of the accidents and fatalities to which fatigue is a contributing
factor. Because the agency's statutory priority is safety, we have
adopted a rule that is marginally more expensive than the ATA option
but which will reduce fatigue-related accidents and fatalities more
substantially than that option. The FMCSA believes that the rule
represents the best combination of safety improvements and cost
containment that can realistically be achieved.

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi...ction=retrieve

I feel well versed in the spirit of the regulations.

Be safe.

[cdswans]

The regs are pretty clear on this. I may not have the actual paragraph and verse right, they're not here in front of me but they're easy enough to find.

I'm paraphrasing but here it goes . .

IM4692.1 . . "If, upon the completion of any 34 hour period or nearly a 34 hour period for the purposes of attempting a restart, any Driver subject to these rules who receives a preplan of 1500 or more miles, including minimal layover and said plan includes several opportunities for extra pay, the Driver shall be deemed to have completed the restart and is eligible to accept said plan and to make log entries convenient to said plan regardless of how many hours actually qualify as off duty for the purposes of a restart or irrespective of how the hours were actually spent."

IM4692.2 . . "In the event of any attempt to actually perform a legal 34 hour restart and the restart is interrupted in any way, shape, manner or form and any Driver subject to these rules receives a preplan of less than 350 miles, is asked to "help" with a hot local load or is asked to otherwise "help out" in any way and said help would cause a sleep deprived Driver to operate a CMV in a dangerous and/or personally unprofitable manner, said Driver is required to imply that any events that could logically or marginally be construed as interfering with a restart are being logged legally, to invoke the spirit of the restart rule, to refuse said offer(s), threaten contact with the company Safety Officer and maintain the requisite degree of readiness to achieve the objectives stated in part .1, above."

[golfhobo]

[mike3fan]

IMO yes it must be recorded as on duty. Does it suck? yep.

[golfhobo]

IMO yes it must be recorded as on duty. Does it suck? yep.

So... let's say you are parked in a T/S for a 34hr restart, and are 2 hours short of completion. Some overzealous DOT officer rousts you out of your sleeper because someone said you were on the CB offering to sell drugs. You talk to the officer, he comes BACK later for more info and checks your logs. Is THIS "performing work" for your employer?

You gonna SIT there another day and a half because of it?

I repeat my concern that there is almost NO MENTION of "interaction with DOT officers" in the regs. Please SHOW me a reg that CLEARLY states that "any" interaction with DOT or other authorities is considered ON DUTY and would bust your reset.

Do they have the "authority" to interact with/ question you at any time? SURE they do. DO "ANY" regs (other than OOS regs) even MENTION them as part of your daily life? I don't THINK so.

The 34 hour restart is designed to give you TWO full nights of REST.... AND the equivalent of a 14 hour window (day's work) OFF. The whole purpose fo the HOS regs is to insure you have a CHANCE to get rested. That's REALLY all they care about.

The FMCSA cannot consider EVERY possibility wherein you might be "encountered" by an LEO while OFF DUTY. But (as far as I know) they have NO REGULATION that addresses even the REMOTE possibility that it could happen during a restart. They address what the CARRIER can or cannot do, to avoid the circumstance of a CARRIER forcing you to work when the regs say you are OFF DUTY.

But someone... PLEASE.... show me ONE reg that specifically addresses how interaction with an LEO affects your off duty time.

IF they don't HAVE such a reg.... I submit, they don't consider interaction with an LEO (unless you are ON DUTY) as being something they CAN... or CARE... to "regulate."

If you read the "final ruling" on the latest (and previous) HOS, you will see that several companies contested certain provisions due to an IMPACT on their ability to maximize profits through interstate commerce. In EVERY case, the FMCSA, in its response, addressed those concerns and found ONLY that the ability for a carrier to make money should NOT outweigh their concern for public safety.... related to the EXTRA hour of driving, OR their requirements for mandatory rest periods.

My point is that the FMCSA is "sensitive" to the need for carriers to make money... AND for the drivers to do the same. They have stated over and over that their rulings give the OPPORTUNITY for a driver to get the required rest, and they REGULATE the actions of the carriers that would affect this. They never ONCE mention an "interruption" by an LEO for questioning while the driver is OFF DUTY. One must wonder WHY?

The FMCSA does not have the power or authority to "regulate" what the Department of Public Safety, or the DOT, or any OTHER LEO agency might deem necessary in THEIR goal. But, likewise.... they make NO MENTION in the "regs" about how such interaction would affect your HOS.

EVEN the much touted ON DUTY reg makes NO MENTION of on duty time being inclusive of interactions between a Driver and an LEO.... unless, of course, you buy into this idea of it being "performing WORK in the employ of." I DON'T!

Consider the possibility that a company like Werner, who might have designs on a particular freight lane and wants to sabatoge the competition. A few well placed dollars and hunting trips could encourage a LOCAL LEO agency to "investigate/question" all competing drivers J-U-S-T before they complete their 34 hour restart. BINGO! Werner has the trucks available to haul the limited freight out of that area!

You see my point? The driver has met EVERY aspect of the regulations.... having had TWO consecutive nights sleep AND a day off, but he has to start his 34 hour restart all over again because of an "interaction" with an LEO?? I don't THINK so!

Regardless of what the REV says, there IS a "spirit" to the regs. It was clearly delineated in the Ms. Annenberg speech (available on the FMCSA website.) A 34 hour restart gives a driver the "opportunity" to have two full nights of restorative sleep AND a day off (remaining on a Circadian Rhythm.)

The "guidance" that MythBuster quoted (and I will address later) ONLY addresses activities that would inhibit the CONSECUTIVE hours of rest in the sleeper berth, or on a 10 hour break... because the time is so limited, and the RISK to the public is so high if the driver doesn't GET some rest.

There is absolutely NO mention of "interruptions" during a 34 hour restart. IMHO.... because the "opportunity" still exists for a driver to GET two nights of sleep AND some "time off" REGARDLESS of any "incidental" interruptions.

I would NO SOONER "bust" my 34 hour restart because some driver took my hood off than I would "bust" my 10 hour break because I had to pass through the CAB of my truck (as the REV suggests I MUST) on my way to take a dump!

[Rev.Vassago]

Regardless of what the REV says,

REV has not commented on the subject of this thread (nor will he be commenting on it), so please leave him out of it. Thanks.

[Myth_Buster]

The other fella drove off but I made a quick call to the fuzz and then actually ran him down on foot a few minutes later. Good thing there's another truck stop across the street. (He thought he had hit the curb, apparently.) Now I have a police report with the date and time of the incident. Ipso facto, my employer will have a record of the date and time of the incident once I send in the paperwork.

Guess all of this happened in less than 15 minutes huh?

So... let's say you are parked in a T/S for a 34hr restart, and are 2 hours short of completion. Some overzealous DOT officer rousts you out of your sleeper because someone said you were on the CB offering to sell drugs. You talk to the officer, he comes BACK later for more info and checks your logs. Is THIS "performing work" for your employer?

Depends, was there an inspection report associated with the visit? Yes = On-duty.

You gonna SIT there another day and a half because of it?

I don't know did you gain any hours from the 24 hours off-duty the day before?

No? Then you'll have to wait until midnight to gain the hours back.

I repeat my concern that there is almost NO MENTION of "interaction with DOT officers" in the regs. Please SHOW me a reg that CLEARLY states that "any" interaction with DOT or other authorities is considered ON DUTY and would bust your reset.

Gee GH, don't you understand what "any service for the motor carrier" means?

§395.2 Definitions.

As used in this part, the following words and terms are construed to mean:

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:

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

Provinding information relevant to the accident is in the capacity or service of the carrier.

The FMCSA cannot consider EVERY possibility wherein you might be "encountered" by an LEO while OFF DUTY. But (as far as I know) they have NO REGULATION that addresses even the REMOTE possibility that it could happen during a restart. They address what the CARRIER can or cannot do, to avoid the circumstance of a CARRIER forcing you to work when the regs say you are OFF DUTY.

If you encouter a LEO while off-duty in relation to the truck or trailer, you're on-duty not driving. I'll reverse the table, please provide an exception from the regulations where a drievr is excluded from the HOS while on a 34 hour reset. Please provide one interpretation that even remotely indicates a driver is relieved of duty while on the 34 hour reset.

If you read the "final ruling" on the latest (and previous) HOS, you will see that several companies contested certain provisions due to an IMPACT on their ability to maximize profits through interstate commerce. In EVERY case, the FMCSA, in its response, addressed those concerns and found ONLY that the ability for a carrier to make money [b]should NOT outweigh their concern for public safety[/u].... related to the EXTRA hour of driving, OR their requirements for mandatory rest periods.

My point is that the FMCSA is "sensitive" to the need for carriers to make money... AND for the drivers to do the same. They have stated over and over that their rulings give the OPPORTUNITY for a driver to get the required rest, and they REGULATE the actions of the carriers that would affect this. They never ONCE mention an "interruption" by an LEO for questioning while the driver is OFF DUTY. One must wonder WHY?

Really, in your earlier statement you indicated the FMCSA did not consider making money primary to public safety.

The interpretations clearly state the HOS do not address pay:

§395.2 Definitions.

Question 1: A company told all of its drivers that it would no longer pay for driving from the last stop to home and that this time should not be shown on the time cards. Is it a violation of the FMCSRs to operate a CMV from the last stop to home and not show that time on the time cards?

Guidance: The FMCSRs do not address questions of pay. All the time spent operating a CMV for, or at the direction of, a motor carrier must be recorded as driving time.

If the FMCSA is so concerned about the driver's pay why do the regulations indicate driving from the last stop to home when not being paid must be recorded as driving if at the direction of the motor carrier?

Further if a driver is not relieved of all responsibility the driver cannot log the time as off-duty:

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. The duration of the driver’s relief from duty must be a finite period of time which is of sufficient duration to ensure that the accumulated fatigue resulting from operating a CMV will be significantly reduced.

3. If the driver has been relieved from duty, as noted in (1) above, the duration of the relief from duty must have been made known to the driver prior to the driver’s departure in written instructions from the employer. There are no record retention requirements for these instructions on board a vehicle or at a motor carrier’s principal place of business.

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.

The FMCSA does not have the power or authority to "regulate" what the Department of Public Safety, or the DOT, or any OTHER LEO agency might deem necessary in THEIR goal. But, likewise.... they make NO MENTION in the "regs" about how such interaction would affect your HOS.

You're correct the FMCSA doesn't regulate other state of federal agencies; however, the FMCSA does regulate how your employer must require drivers to record the time spent with other state or federal agencies. Any time a driver spends performing actions related to their employer is on-duty not driving.

Question 11: Must non transportation-related work for a motor carrier be recorded as on-duty time?

Guidance: Yes. All work for a motor carrier, whether compensated or not, must be recorded as on-duty time. The term “work” as used in the definition of “on-duty time” in §395.2 of the FMCSRs is not limited to driving or other non transportation-related employment.

EVEN the much touted ON DUTY reg makes NO MENTION of on duty time being inclusive of interactions between a Driver and an LEO.... unless, of course, you buy into this idea of it being "performing WORK in the employ of." I DON'T!

So GH obtaining an accident report that is required by Part 390.15 is not in the service of the employer?

I guess fueling the truck or refer, having the truck serviced, filling out your log book, mailing in the paper work so you and your employer maybe paid is not on-duty either is it?

You see my point? The driver has met EVERY aspect of the regulations.... having had TWO consecutive nights sleep AND a day off, but he has to start his 34 hour restart all over again because of an "interaction" with an LEO?? I don't THINK so!

The driver lost the 34 hour reset because there was an accident that required a report. The LEO was strictly the tool used to obtain the record.

The "guidance" that MythBuster quoted (and I will address later) ONLY addresses activities that would inhibit the CONSECUTIVE hours of rest in the sleeper berth, or on a 10 hour break... because the time is so limited, and the RISK to the public is so high if the driver doesn't GET some rest.

The interpreation addresses any time spent answering satellite messages while off-duty. The interpreation offers an out for momentary interuptions of off-duty time.

There is absolutely NO mention of "interruptions" during a 34 hour restart. IMHO.... because the "opportunity" still exists for a driver to GET two nights of sleep AND some "time off" REGARDLESS of any "incidental" interruptions.

Hmmm, I wonder if it's because the interuptions of off-duty time is addressed in the 10 hour break would apply to the 34 reset. The 10 hour break resets the 11/14 hour rule. The 34 hour break resets the 60/70 hour break. It is impeartive the 34 hour break be uniterupted to ensure the driver has the opportunity to relax and decompress the stress associated with working long hours.

Part 395.2 is clear:

§395.2 Definitions.

As used in this part, the following words and terms are construed to mean:

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.

Once any of the activities listed occurs the driver is on-duty or driving the 34 consecutive hour cycle is broke nulling the 34 hour reset. The only exception are lose listed that cause a momentary break in the reset period.

I would NO SOONER "bust" my 34 hour restart because some driver took my hood off

Then you would be cited for a deliberate false log as the violation may have hid a 60 or 70 hour vioaltion.

than I would "bust" my 10 hour break because I had to pass through the CAB of my truck (as the REV suggests I MUST) on my way to take a dump!

As you transverse from the sleeper berth to off-duty to take a dump you are required to flag the activity with a city and state:

§395.1 Scope of rules in this part.

Question 26: May a driver record sleeper berth time as off-duty time on line one of the record of duty status?

Guidance: No. The driver’s record of duty status must accurately reflect the driver’s activities.

The transition from the sleeper berth to the cab to off-duty would qualify for a momentary interuption of a 10 or 34 hour reset; therefore, the transition would not interupt the 10/34 hour reset.

Drivers must be concious of video recordings, accident reports, roadisde inspections, fuel purchases, toll receipts, or any other function with a document associated with the activity. If there is a piece of paper that is in conflict with the log the driver has problems.

Be safe.

[kreeper01]

Myth Buster, Talking to Golfhobo and some of these "so-called" vets of the United States Inter and Intrastate system fails to realize these things you mentioned. Golfhobo and a few others have "I don't give a damn" attitude and falls along the lines of "not holding another drivers hand while they take a dump". In short, Myth Buster, you are talking to a brick wall when dealing with the likes of Golfhobo.

Guess all of this happened in less than 15 minutes huh?



Depends, was there an inspection report associated with the visit? Yes = On-duty.



I don't know did you gain any hours from the 24 hours off-duty the day before?

No? Then you'll have to wait until midnight to gain the hours back.



Gee GH, don't you understand what "any service for the motor carrier" means?



Provinding information relevant to the accident is in the capacity or service of the carrier.



If you encouter a LEO while off-duty in relation to the truck or trailer, you're on-duty not driving. I'll reverse the table, please provide an exception from the regulations where a drievr is excluded from the HOS while on a 34 hour reset. Please provide one interpretation that even remotely indicates a driver is relieved of duty while on the 34 hour reset.



Really, in your earlier statement you indicated the FMCSA did not consider making money primary to public safety.

The interpretations clearly state the HOS do not address pay:



If the FMCSA is so concerned about the driver's pay why do the regulations indicate driving from the last stop to home when not being paid must be recorded as driving if at the direction of the motor carrier?

Further if a driver is not relieved of all responsibility the driver cannot log the time as off-duty:





You're correct the FMCSA doesn't regulate other state of federal agencies; however, the FMCSA does regulate how your employer must require drivers to record the time spent with other state or federal agencies. Any time a driver spends performing actions related to their employer is on-duty not driving.





So GH obtaining an accident report that is required by Part 390.15 is not in the service of the employer?

I guess fueling the truck or refer, having the truck serviced, filling out your log book, mailing in the paper work so you and your employer maybe paid is not on-duty either is it?



The driver lost the 34 hour reset because there was an accident that required a report. The LEO was strictly the tool used to obtain the record.



The interpreation addresses any time spent answering satellite messages while off-duty. The interpreation offers an out for momentary interuptions of off-duty time.



Hmmm, I wonder if it's because the interuptions of off-duty time is addressed in the 10 hour break would apply to the 34 reset. The 10 hour break resets the 11/14 hour rule. The 34 hour break resets the 60/70 hour break. It is impeartive the 34 hour break be uniterupted to ensure the driver has the opportunity to relax and decompress the stress associated with working long hours.

Part 395.2 is clear:



Once any of the activities listed occurs the driver is on-duty or driving the 34 consecutive hour cycle is broke nulling the 34 hour reset. The only exception are lose listed that cause a momentary break in the reset period.



Then you would be cited for a deliberate false log as the violation may have hid a 60 or 70 hour vioaltion.



As you transverse from the sleeper berth to off-duty to take a dump you are required to flag the activity with a city and state:



The transition from the sleeper berth to the cab to off-duty would qualify for a momentary interuption of a 10 or 34 hour reset; therefore, the transition would not interupt the 10/34 hour reset.

Drivers must be concious of video recordings, accident reports, roadisde inspections, fuel purchases, toll receipts, or any other function with a document associated with the activity. If there is a piece of paper that is in conflict with the log the driver has problems.

Be safe.

[golfhobo]

Myth Buster, Talking to Golfhobo and some of these "so-called" vets of the United States Inter and Intrastate system fails to realize these things you mentioned. Golfhobo and a few others have "I don't give a damn" attitude and falls along the lines of "not holding another drivers hand while they take a dump". In short, Myth Buster, you are talking to a brick wall when dealing with the likes of Golfhobo.

Well, THIS is interesting coming from a FAILED driver who recently said "goodbye and good riddance to my CDL."

Let me put my "translation" hat on to see if I can undestand your broken English and poor grammar.

Are you saying that it IS my "responsibility" to hold your hand while you take a dump? Trucking is NOT FOR WUSSES!

Your "friend" MythBuster recently posted a reg concerning the CARRIERS responsibility to provide info about an accident to the DOT or "someone." He presented THAT as evidence that a driver must "accept" an accident report from an LEO while OFF DUTY. Talk about butting your head against a brick wall!

I'm no BBR, Kreeper! I don't run illegal unless I HAVE to! And THEN only within what "I" consider to be the spirit of the regs. "I" don't run sleepy. "i" don't have a problem getting my rest under the current HOS.

But, "I" will not let some stupid Swifty who takes my hood off in the 32nd hour of my restart cost me another day and a half of lost pay! I TRULY don't believe that the FMCSA wants me to.

The fact that they didn't "address" that particular scenario in the regs, does NOT mean that it is "cut and dried." And the fact that M/B continues to quote IRRELEVANT regulations, does NOT convince me otherwise.

I can understand, and appreciate, that you consider arguing with me to be batting your head against a brick wall. I am passionate about my beliefs and interpretations of the regs. I'm quite sure that M/B has figured that out.

But, I am just a LITTLE less than impressed about YOU making such a statement. What with your class "C" license and all!

So... how comfy IS that ARMCHAIR??

[golfhobo]

Mythbuster said:

The transition from the sleeper berth to the cab to off-duty would qualify for a momentary interuption of a 10 or 34 hour reset; therefore, the transition would not interupt the 10/34 hour reset.

But, earlier he said:

As you transverse from the sleeper berth to off-duty to take a dump you are required to flag the activity with a city and state:

According to the REGS.... you would only have to "flag" a city and state" if it was a change of duty status. And if that "dump" indicated a change to line ONE, then you cannot be logging line TWO for 8 hours! What? Do they expect us to **** in our trucks during an 8 hour S/B break? OR... to extend it to 10 full hours because we had to take a dump?

Your "arguments" are ridiculous. Your reg quotations are often irrelevant. Your "experience" is LIMITED and your attitude is arrogant! But, HEY! That makes you one of us!

But, you wouldn't stand a chance against me in a court of LAW! Giving a statement to an LEO, and later receiving the written report, is NO more a "repeated" interruption of a 34 hour restart than a few qualcom messages are!

By their OWN definiton, it must meet the threshold of "repeatedly" dong work for the carrier that INHIBITS the driver's ability to get the required REST. On a 34 hour restart... it WOULDN'T!

But, like I SAID.... I wouldn't try to move the truck to have the damage fixed while ON my restart!

You see.... subpara (8) is not only subject to the Topic sentence of that reg, but AT LEAST is "modified" by the guidance in questions 30 and 31 (I'm guessing at the numbers) that state that MOMENTARY interruptions, though they qualify as "doing work" .... don't BUST a rset or restart as long as they don't inhibit the SPIRIT of the reg that requires that a driver has an OPPORTUNITY to get the required REST.

[Myth_Buster]

GH you may continue to do as you please; however, one day your actions will afffect your employer's ability to stay in business:

We were fined for not having done the required amount of drug and alcohol testing
within the selection period, but we did meet the requirements at the end of the year. We
were also fined for failing to maintain proper logs and driving over the 11 and 14 hour
regulations. Since then, we have schooled our drivers and are not driving while out of
hours. Falsifying logs was the other major fine we received. We have talked to each
driver individually and at the safety meetings to not falsify any logs. Our company has
also implemented a Safety Management Plan (SMP), which I have also included.

1. One (1) violation of 49 CFR § 382.303(a)- Failing to conduct post accident alcohol testing for
each surviving driver.
2. One (1) violation of 49 CFR § 382.3Q3(b)- Failing to conduct post accident controlled
substances testing for each surviving driver.
3. Two (2) violations of 49 CFR § 382.305(i)(3)- Failing to ensure that drivers are tested within
the selection period.
4. Seventeen (17) violations of 49 CFR § 395.8(e)- False reports of records of duty status.

382.303(a) NR 1 $1,690.00 $1,690.00
382.303(b) NR 1 $1,690.00 $1,690.00
382.305(i)(3) NR 2 $1,780.00 $3,560.00
395.8(e) R 17 $800.00 $13,600.00

CHARGED:
On or about 5/29/2007, E L & W LLC used driver, Todd A. Shelton, to drive a
commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce from Van Wert, OH, to Cedar Falls, IA. The driver
made a false report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of
duty status is false because driver Shelton's duty status record for this day shows the driver arriving in
Davenport, IA, at 0230 eastern time, when, in fact, an Illinois PrePass Plus entry has him exiting the
Park Ridge, IL, toll plaza at 0210 eastern time zone. Park Ridge, IL, is east of Davenport, I A, by 2
hours and 58 minutes or 173 miles.

Regulations.gov

Cases are built on evidence and all too often the evidence is overwhelming.

The DOT sends Notices of Claim, not a ticket:

The Notice of Claim charged Respondent with three violations of 49 C.F.R. § 392.301(a),
using a driver before the motor carrier has received a negative pre-employment controlled
substance test result; and seven (7) violations of 49 C.F.R. § 395.8(e), false reports of
records of duty status. The Notice of Claim proposed a civil penalty of $9,330 for the
charged violations. A copy of the Notice of Claim is attached hereto and identified as
Attachment A.

"would like to contest the violations stating that we were unknowingly
violating Federal Motor Carrier regulations on all counts as we are a newly formed
corporation that grew very rapidly in a very short time with untrained personnel".

II. BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION
Respondent is a for-hire carrier transporting general freight in interstate
commerce by means of commercial motor vehicle, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of Transportation, and the FMCSA Administrator, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §
13501. Jurisdiction over Respondent is established by the nature of the interstate
movement and by the use of a commercial motor vehicle to effect such movement.

Because Respondent's statements in its response to the Notice of Claim did
not comply with the regulatory requirements for a reply, its response was not a reply, and
no reply was received. See Blue Mack, supra. Once a respondent has admitted, or failed
to deny, a violation or violations for which it is charged and failed to contest the
calculation of the proposed penalty, it should either pay the full amount of the civil
penalty, or seek binding arbitration on the amount of the civil penalty and/or length of
time in which to pay the penalty. Because Respondent chose none of the above, a finding
of default is appropriate. See In the Matter of Archie Palmer, Docket No. FMCSA-2007-
26787 (Final Order, May 11, 2007).

' In the Blue Mack decision, the Assistant Administrator cites to several previous
decisions: In the Matter of Spring Lake Farm Transportation, Inc., Docket No. FHWA-
1997-2469, (Order, September 13, 1999), at 3; /« the Matter ofJ.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.,
Docket No. FHWA-1998-3578, (Decision on Review, August 18, 1999), at 3; In the
Matter of Carolina Carbajal dba Border Transportation, Inc., Docket No. FHWA-1997-
2566, (Order On Reconsideration, May 28, 1999), at 2-3; In the Matter of Carolina
Carbajal dba Border Transportation, Inc., Docket No. FHWA-1997-2566, (Order,
January 19, 1999), at 2-3; In the Matter of Spirit Express ofWNY, Inc., Docket No.
FHWA-1997-2380, (Final Order, June 2, 1998), at 4- 5; In the Matter ofLAR-NO
Trucking, Inc., Docket No. FHWA-1997-2511, (Final Order, November 3, 1997), at 2-3;
In the Matter of Arctic Express, Inc., Docket No. FHWA-1997-2519, (Order Modifying
"Order Appointing Administrative Law Judge," January 20, 1998), at 5.

As a result of this review, violations were discovered. This letter constitutes a Notice of Claim by the
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
against ADLR Transportation Inc for the amount of $9,330.

Unless settled or otherwise resolved in a manner set forth below, the FMCSA can recover these
penalties, with interest and costs, in a civil action brought in a United States District Court. Additional
collection efforts may include, but are not limited to: Internal Revenue Service offsets against tax
refunds, and the referral to and the use of collection agencies to collect penalties. Also, under 49 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) §§ 386.83 and 386.84, once a final order has been issued, the
FMCSA may prohibit ADLR Transportation Inc from operating in interstate commerce until
the civil penalty is paid in full and, if applicable, your FMCSA registration will be suspended.

382.301(a) NR 3 $1,430.00 $4,290.00
395.8(e) R 7 $720.00 $5,040.00

CHARGE #1:
On or about 08/27/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a
commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce from Fontana, CA to Tolleson, AZ. The driver
made a false report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of
duty status is false because log book shows driver was off duty all day in Fontana, CA and driver's
trip sheet shows that driver performed a trip from Nestle to Smiths Food m Tolleson, AZ. A second
log that was completed by the driver shows the driver drove from Fontana, C A to Ehrenberg, AZ on
that date.

CHARGE #2:
On or about 08/28/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a
commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce from Ontario, CA to Goodyear, AZ. The driver
made a false report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of
duty status is false because driver's log book shows that driver was off duty all day and in fact, driver's
trip sheet shows that driver performed 2 trips on that day.

CHARGE#3:
On or about 08/29/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a
commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce from Fontana, CA to Tucson, AZ. The driver made
a false report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of duty
status is false because it shows that driver started driving at 11:15AM from Fontana, CA and arrived
in Phoenix, AZ at 4:45PM, however, straight bill of ladiiig ishows that driver was picking up a load
from Nestle Waters in Ontario, CA between 14:55 and 19:00. And driver's trip sheet shows that driver
got paid waiting time for pick up #3180137 that was headed from Nestle in Ontario, CA to Sams Club
in Tucson, AZ.

CHARGE #4:
On or about 9/4/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a commercial
motor vehicle in interstate commerce from Pomona, CA to Denver, CO. The driver made a false
report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of duty status is
false because it shows that driver went off duty at 4:15PM in Fontana, CA after complating a trip .
from Las Vegas, NV, however, driver's trip sheet shows that driver performed a delivery of Spa from
Pomona, CA to Denver, CO.

CHARGE #5:
On or about 9/5/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a commercial
motor vehicle in mterstate commerce fix)m Pomona, CA to Denver, CO. The driver made a false
report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of duty status is
false because it shows that driver was off duty all day in Fontana, CA and in fact driver performed a
trip from Pomona, CA to Denver, CO.

CHARGE #6:
On or about 9/6/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a commercial
motor vehicle in mterstate commerce from Denver, CO to Albuquerque, NM. The driver made a false
report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of duty status is
false because it shows that driver was off duty the entire day however, driver's trip sheet shows that
driver performed a trip from Denver, CO to Albuquerque, NM.

CHARGE #7:
On or about 9/13/2007, ADLR Transportation Inc used driver, Gustavo Garcia, to drive a commercial
motor vehicle in interstate commerce from Cabazon, CA to Aurora, CO. The driver made a false
report of duty activities on the record of duty status for that date. The driver's record of duty status is
false because it shows driver was off duty the entire day however, driver's trip sheet shows that driver
performed a trip from Cabazon, CA to Aurora, CO.

Regulations.gov

So you abide by what you consider to be the spirit of the rule and log as you wish; however, when things go south and you're in violation things may not be the way you thought they were.

I offer facts based on how the rules are written, the spirit of the rules are not relevant. If there is not an interpretation to back up your thoughts you will probably fail in oppsing the violation.

The interpretations and rules present facts based on the scenarios presented. It appears your limited knowledge cannot make the correlation between the subject at hand and the facts offered.

Please note the first plea to have penalties reduced due to the carrier being broke.... So much for the FMCSA watching out for the carrier's ability to make a profit.

Be safe.

[cdswans]

Here, MB, you seem to have lost a few of these . .

You are correct on all counts. You freaks can write tickets based on any interpertation of any reg that happens to suit you on any given day. Write away. Good or bad, you can choose to interrupt the career of just about any Driver you wish and probably ruin a few along the way. If that's what blows your skirt up, you just keep on writing.

But you know and I know, your word is not the last one. Your interpertation of the spirit of anything is perfectly irrelevant beyond whether you choose to write the ticket in the first place. Do you honestly think a judge is going to impose or uphold a fine on someone for not logging a trip to the head?

That's the problem with you police state finks. What ever happened to the driver in New Mexico you stepped up to destroy? Is he hanging by his thumbs in a DOT dungeon somewhere?

[Windwalker]

Here, MB, you seem to have lost a few of these . .

You are correct on all counts. You freaks can write tickets based on any interpertation of any reg that happens to suit you on any given day. Write away. Good or bad, you can choose to interrupt the career of just about any Driver you wish and probably ruin a few along the way. If that's what blows your skirt up, you just keep on writing.

But you know and I know, your word is not the last one. Your interpertation of the spirit of anything is perfectly irrelevant beyond whether you choose to write the ticket in the first place. Do you honestly think a judge is going to impose or uphold a fine on someone for not logging a trip to the head?

That's the problem with you police state finks. What ever happened to the driver in New Mexico you stepped up to destroy? Is he hanging by his thumbs in a DOT dungeon somewhere?

I would hate to have to pay the attorney's fee for any lawyer that is capable of baffling them with "bullchit".

[Myth_Buster]

Here, MB, you seem to have lost a few of these . .

You are correct on all counts. You freaks can write tickets based on any interpertation of any reg that happens to suit you on any given day. Write away. Good or bad, you can choose to interrupt the career of just about any Driver you wish and probably ruin a few along the way. If that's what blows your skirt up, you just keep on writing.

I don't write tickets. Haven't written a ticket since I left the Port of Entry in Cortez, CO in 1999. When a CARRIER is discovered to have false logs, 11, 14, no logs, no supporting dcouments, or 60/70 hour rule violations the CARRIER receives a Notice of Claim (NOC). The NOC includes the statment of charges and a list of all relevant supporting documentation relevant to the case. The CARRIER ot its attorney may challenge the charges following the administrative rules.

An administrative law judge will review any challenges using the evidence presented.

But you know and I know, your word is not the last one.

No but I have yet to loose a case once it was submitted.

Your interpertation of the spirit of anything is perfectly irrelevant beyond whether you choose to write the ticket in the first place.[/quote]

Again, I haven't written a ticket since 1999. Cases against CARRIERS have evidence to support the case. When the driver falsifies their logs it is the CARRIER that pays the penalty.

Do you honestly think a judge is going to impose or uphold a fine on someone for not logging a trip to the head?

I believe that if a driver was logging sleeper berth and a video tape indicated the driver was not sleeping then it would raise culpability in the event of a fatal crash.

That's the problem with you police state finks.

Haven't been employed by a state since 1999. Obviously you have me confused with someone else.

What ever happened to the driver in New Mexico you stepped up to destroy? Is he hanging by his thumbs in a DOT dungeon somewhere?

If the driver hadn't killed someone he wouldn't have any problems, would he?

I guess if it was your uncle or brother or dad you'ld have no problems with the issue of them being run over by a truck in a parking lot.....

Drivers that make poor choices and cause death or destruction need attention to ensure they don't replicate the mistake.

Drivers that falsify theor logs and cost their employer money are usually terminated for good causes.


Be safe.