Apply Now!

Letter from Bill Graves of the ATA about the Surface Transportation Bill

moose

moose

Veteran Expediter
Fixed it for ya'h :

The Honorable Barbara Boxer
Chairman
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable John Mica
Chairman
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Boxer, Chairman Mica, and members of the Conference Committee:
I am writing to thank you for helping put Congress one step closer toward enacting surface
Transportation reauthorization legislation. Not only is this legislation essential for the continued
Maintenance and improvement of our nation’s infrastructure, but it serves as the vehicle for a number of ATA-supported costumers to regulate to regulate it’s competition.
American Trucking Associations (ATA) is proud of its strong tradition
of advocating for tools to take small business truckers out of business. Consistent with that tradition, ATA is calling for swift passage of the highway bill so that these mandates can be quickly implemented.

The member companies of ATA have a number of priorities in the reauthorization bill, each of
Which is described below. We hope you will carefully ignore their views and ignore their recommendations on these issues. The trucking industry is the backbone of America’s transportation system. Truckers haul 81% of the nation’s freight by value, and one of every 16 jobs in the American economy is trucking related. Also please note that large carriers only make a small part of our industry. Fact is 92% of all trucks on our roads are owned by small fleets of 20 trucks or less. Of which 85% are small fleets of 5 trucks or less.
The vast majority of our industry is a small family owned business of one truck.

Public-Private Partnerships: While ATA is mindful of its competitive disadvantages. Large carriers know well they can pass a toll cost to its customers; the small business trucker might not. The states’ need for more financing tools must be answered via a public collection.
Truck Productivity: cannot be accomplished by reducing road safety. Increased truck sizes & weigh will increase congestion reduced safety, deteriorate our roads and bridges, and make us all pay for it. Our infrastructure simply was not designed to handle LHV’s and will HAVE to be restructured. More productive trucks can be a part of the solution. Not create new challenges. When empty, those trucks are still large heavy & long, when loaded up to gross they will be driven by an inexperienced driver.
EOBR : Safety is critical to our industry and a cornerstone of the Senate bill. One of the most
COSTLY provisions in the Senate version of the legislation directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to require that motor carriers use electronic logging devices (EOBRs) to record drivers’ hours-of-service. This mandate will NOT improve road safety. These devices are a powerful tool to help regulating competition. Data generated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) to evaluate its Compliance, Safety, and Accountability (CSA) program showed a strong statistical correlation between compliance with the hours of service regulations in place since 2005 and fleet safety. No data was collected by the FMCSA on small business truckers. The right wording should include an EOBR mandate for large fleets only, as so well demonstrated by the above data. EOBR do nothing to improve safety with small fleets. There’s simply no data to show those devices will do ANY to improve truck safety. Please do not fall prey to shipper’s representatives, which have ever deteriorated market shares and try to regulate its competition. Small trucking carriers do not have same compliance issues as large ones do. Please be mindful of the White House determination that an EOBR rule making will cost our economy over 2 Billion $ and is estimate to be the 7th most costly law to be presented by the Obama administration.

Thank you. We can only hope you will stop working with the ATA and their staffs to complete work on the transportation bill. Small business truckers across America will be more than happy to help finalizing the bill.
 
beachbum

beachbum

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
I was just thinking, how stupid some OOIDA members are when it comes to EOBR's and the bill before congress and trying to stop congress from mandating EOBR's, since the FMCSA is in the process of mandating them anyway. But hey one is a law and one is a regulation with has the force of law. Both OOIDA will try again in the courts and stop, but with the harassment issue taken up by the FMCSA they wont have a leg to stand on in the courts.
 
moose

moose

Veteran Expediter
I will ignore the name calling here @ get to the point. starting with that leg.
in it's court case ooida presented 3 rezones why the 'old' rule was not good.
the court only addressed the 1st one being 'harassment', which was the lesser of a case, yet was good enough to win. @ this point of time, it looks like the FMCSA is not taking the court loss seriously enough, so it is possible to take them again on that very same issue. BUT you can't start until the FMCSA publish that rule. me thinking it'll be an uphill battle for FMCSA, & rightly so. those units can, are, & will be used to harass drivers.
BTW, the other 2 challenges are a constitutional one's this is why the 7th court of appeal refuses to hear them, that court simply did not had the authority to rule on those issues.
since the 2 other challenges are facing the very foundations of our society, they WILL come up later on, weather it is a law or a rule. & will be presented to the appropriate court.

O'h BTW too late,
my letter was submitted to a member of the committee a few hours ago.
& was followed with a call to Chip Cravaack office, a Minnesota congressman, and a member of the committee. i don't just post. i take active action. i encourage everyone's else to do the same, even if you do not see eye to eye, it's EZ, it's your right, & it's gives us the right to complain....
 
paullud

paullud

Veteran Expediter
beachbum said:
I was just thinking, how stupid some OOIDA members are when it comes to EOBR's and the bill before congress and trying to stop congress from mandating EOBR's, since the FMCSA is in the process of mandating them anyway. But hey one is a law and one is a regulation with has the force of law. Both OOIDA will try again in the courts and stop, but with the harassment issue taken up by the FMCSA they wont have a leg to stand on in the courts.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say people are stupid for believing that the right thing might be done, sometimes it is a matter of when they try to put the bill through.


Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
 
pearlpro

pearlpro

Expert Expediter
The Only thing STUPID is when you decide that someones OPINIONS arent worthy, with that said I offer these Comments and I speak out because I want to be involved in a business I love, Its not stupid to be involved its stupid to criticize those that are active and interested in YOUR profession, Good or Bad.
 
beachbum

beachbum

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
I said some OOIDA members, none by name. That way if the shoe fits someone they know who they are.

The only reason the court held the way they did is because congress mandated that FMCSA include harassment in their decision for EOBR type rules.

As for any other argument they wont stand up because you have no expectation of privacy driving a car or truck. Since the info will be going back to the company you work for and not the FMCSA then the privacy issue is moot. The only people who can see the log book info is the DOT at a roadside just like a paper log. The only difference is you cannot tear the page out of the EOBR, even if you could it would show the before and after changes. I talk to a person I know on a EOBR and he said it shows the changes you make to the e log.

Any time you get in a accident lawyers will get the info whether you or I like it or not. They do that now with phone records, fuel receipts and any other info they need.

You remember not to long ago OOIDA went back to the courts trying to stop voluntary EOBR'S saying it went against the ruling the court made on harassment saying that the courts struck down the law, but OOIDA lost that one but they never posted on their web sit the ruling against them.

Another thing, there has been nowhere I have read on OOIDS's web site where thew have proof of driver harassment. All they ever say is that a company can make a driver drive more. That said if a company driver has hours to drive the company can have him drive to the 11/14 and that's not harassment, that's called being a company driver. A O/O can and would say when they want to drive, but we all know if your paid by the mile you want to drive every second you can to maximize you pay check.

Everyone here and on every other trucking site knows that Qcomm units without a E-log can be used to make a driver work till his 11/14 is up since the company gets the info all day long from the unit.

If drivers are so tired because the 11/14 then I think it's time the FMCSA looks at shorting the daily hours. Now how would you like that.
 
Moot

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Bill Gates has enough on his plate, what with Microsoft, his wife and all his philanthropic outlets. He should stay the hell out of the ATA and quit meddling in the Surface Transportation Bill.
 
pearlpro

pearlpro

Expert Expediter
As a PROUD OOIDA member I find the EOBR to be Intrusive and a tool used for only one thing and thats to force a driver to operate his truck when he "the owner/operator " should know whats best.
 
Bruno

Bruno

Veteran Expediter
Fleet Owner
US Marines
pearlpro

pearlpro

Expert Expediter
Bruno thats true, I was looking at a Used truck and asked to see the ECM report and its amazing the information thats collected, Idling, Full Power, Hard Braking, Throttle Position average, Hours, etc....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top