US DOT Numbers

[Nickrosis]

The following states have adopted the Federal USDOT marking requirement for Intrastate motor carriers domiciled in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, or Wisconsin.

The Intrastate motor carriers within these States are allowed to register on-line with the FMCSA. If your state is not listed above, you do not need to complete this process. For more information go to "no process required page."

If you're in one of those states, like me, you better get a US DOT number from http://www.usdotnumberregistration.com. There's no charge, but it's the law now. In Wisconsin, it's craziness. Trucks pulled over all over the place for random inspections. Anyways, if you don't have the number clearly lettered on a truck over 10,001 pounds (GVWR or in combination), you'll get a warning until April. Then it's ticket time.

 

[glens]

Well that's ass-chapping in several ways.  Who's footing the bill for individual states enforcing federal mandates?  Don't answer, that will generate more displeasure...

And I'm getting family pressure to move back to Wisconsin.  No thank you very much.

Glen

wait:  I just went to the site and it only then struck me that it's for motor carriers.  How are you a motor carrier, Nick?  Is this more example of officers enforcing more than they're authorized to do and or doing it incorrectly?

 

[glens]

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rulesregs/fmcsr/regs/390.5.htm:
<blockquote><b><i>Commercial motor vehicle</i></b> means any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property when the vehicle --

(1) Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating, or gross vehicle weight or gross combination weight, of 4,536 kg (10,001 pounds) or more, whichever is greater; or

(2) Is designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation; or

(3) Is designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, including the driver, and is not used to transport passengers for compensation; or

(4) Is used in transporting material found by the Secretary of Transportation to be hazardous under 49 U.S.C. 5103 and transported in a quantity requiring placarding under regulations prescribed by the Secretary under 49 CFR, subtitle B, chapter I, subchapter C.</blockquote>
<blockquote><b><i>Motor carrier</i></b> means a for-hire motor carrier or a private motor carrier.&nbsp; The term includes a motor carrier's agents, officers and representatives as well as employees responsible for hiring, supervising, training, assigning, or dispatching of drivers and employees concerned with the installation, inspection, and maintenance of motor vehicle equipment and/or accessories.&nbsp; For purposes of subchapter B, this definition includes the terms <i>employer</i>, and <i>exempt motor carrier</i>.</blockquote>(gotta love it when they use the term to define the term they're defining -- I think that's "illegal")
<blockquote><b><i>For-hire motor carrier</i></b> means a person engaged in the transportation of goods or passengers for compensation. </blockquote>
<blockquote><b><i>Private motor carrier</i></b> means a person who provides transportation of property or passengers, by commercial motor vehicle, and is not a for-hire motor carrier.</blockquote>
<blockquote><b><i>Exempt motor carrier</i></b> means a person engaged in transportation exempt from economic regulation by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) under 49 U.S.C. 13506.&nbsp; "Exempt motor carriers" are subject to the safety regulations set forth in this subchapter.</blockquote>
<blockquote><b><i>Employer</i></b> means any person engaged in a business affecting interstate commerce who owns or leases a commercial motor vehicle in connection with that business, or assigns employees to operate it, but such terms does not include the United States, any State, any political subdivision of a State, or an agency established under a compact between States approved by the Congress of the United States.</blockquote>
<blockquote><b><i>Interstate commerce</i></b> means trade, traffic, or transportation in the United States --

(b)(1) Between a place in a State and a place outside of such State (including a place outside of the United States);

(b)(2) Between two places in a State through another State or a place outside of the United States; or

(b)(3) Between two places in a State as part of trade, traffic, or transportation originating or terminating outside the State or the United States. </blockquote>

It sounds like the only thing they could get you on is the weight, but for the fact that you're not hauling material (freight)!

Sure, they'll probably write tons of tickets and sheeple will pay the fines, even thought they don't pertain.

 

[Stumper]

Thank you Glen! We are such trusting folk. Some bureaucrat says "YOU must..." and we grumble and comply.Very few have the guts to say"You are in my face. Back off and explain WHY? !"

 

[glens]

I had a tough time with that post.&nbsp; Maybe my midnight snack should not include a visit to the computer room...

My whole point, really, ties in with a statement I made on another thread last night (the one about self employment, I think) where we assume words in legal matters mean what they mean when we use them on the street.&nbsp; It's of the utmost importance to find the "Definitions" section of the regulations we're studying (regulations implement the law -- we have the laws documented in the United States Code but they don't have any teeth there; we need to see how they're implemented within the Code of Federal Regulations).&nbsp; Also, none of that matters if what we're doing doesn't fall under the "Scope" of the regulations, so look there first.

In this particular endeavor, follow my link above and near the top of the page you'll see<blockquote><u>Regulatory Guidance</u> | <u>Regulations</u> | Regulations</blockquote>click on the <u>Regulations</u> link, then scroll down and click on the link for <u>390</u> ("our" part under consideration) in the "Part" column.

In the resultant page, peruse the <blockquote><u>§390.1</u> - Purpose.
<u>§390.3</u> - General applicability.
<u>§390.5</u> - Definitions.</blockquote>links.

Note the first line in the applicability (scope) link.<blockquote>"(a) The rules in subchapter B of this chapter are applicable to all employers, employees, and commercial motor vehicles, which transport property or passengers in interstate commerce."</blockquote>Look for any of those terms in the "Definitions" section to see exactly what they're referring to; don't make assumptions!&nbsp; If what you're doing doesn't fit that sentence with their defined terms, you don't even need to look at any more of those regulations; there's nothing in them that applies to you.

Interestingly, my question to Nick in the "vehicle checklist" thread (I think) about what determines the requirement for a CDL is answered in §390.3(b) and with a link to the applicable (§383) Definitions page, where a central term is defined differently than as above ("our" section, §390)(remember, never <i>assume</i> you know what a term means in a legal document!):<blockquote><b><i>Commercial motor vehicle</i></b> (CMV) means a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used in commerce to transport passengers or property if the motor vehicle --

(a) Has a gross combination weight rating of 11,794 kilograms or more (26,001 pounds or more) inclusive of a towed unit(s) with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds); or

(b) Has a gross vehicle weight rating of 11,794 or more kilograms (26,001 pounds or more); or

(c) Is designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including the driver; or

(d) Is of any size and is used in the transportation of <i>hazardous materials</i> as defined in this section.</blockquote>Note the weights and passenger numbers differ, not to mention commerce in general is the scope as opposed to interstate commerce (though the Feds have no jurisdiction outside of DC or federal lands/parks/possessions apart from their oversight of "interstate commerce" [which is why if I want to interact with a computer across town on another network via the Internet, it's routed up to Chicago and back, making the communication "interstate"]).

Oh well, this ain't a political forum...

Glen

 

[Nickrosis]

Whatever...but if we don't get one, we'll get a ticket.

To quote what we were given:

Does Your Truck Need a USDOT Number?
What is a USDOT Number?
Large commercial trucks have been using USDOT numbers for many years. You'll usually find them on both doors of the cab. It is a six digit number usually preceded by the letters "USDOT".

Do I need a USDOT Number?
If you own or operate a business and use a vehicle(s) in that business you will need a USDOT number whether you are a private or for hire carrier and whether you travel in state (intra) or out of state (inter) and the vehicle you use in commerce meets at least one of the following qualifications:
*The manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is 10,001 pounds or greater.
*The manufacturer's GVWR combined with the GVWR of any attached trailer is 10,001 pounds or greater.
*The actual loaded weight of the vehicle at any time is 10,001 pounds or greater.
*The actual loaded weight of the vehicle combined with any loaded attached trailer is 10,001 pounds or greater.
If you meet any of the above four qualifications you will need to obtain a USDOT number.

There you have it. We are private and are still covered by the requirement in our state.

From their perspective, we are hauling an awful lot - thousands of yards of chips, mulch, soil, stone, etc... From our perspective, though, we only put on 70,000 miles last year. Most dump trucks top that by a lot.

 

[glens]

I'd dearly love to know how a State can mandate a Federal regulation to pertain to things different from what its scope is!&nbsp; It's one thing if the state comes up with its own regulations (either originally or by modifying the Fed's) and assigns DOT numbers to vehicles, but this is entirely out of line.&nbsp; In more ways than one.

Those little factoid Q&As are usually wrong anyway, being printed by someone without clue.&nbsp; This reminds me of a couple of incidents.

I'd gone to the courthouse to register to vote, but was a day late.&nbsp; I said let me take a form with me and I'll fill it out for next time.&nbsp; "No can do".&nbsp; Okay, let me fill one out as long as I'm here.&nbsp; "Nope, can't do that either."&nbsp; Why not?&nbsp; "It's the law."&nbsp; Could I have a reference to the code?&nbsp; "Here, you can look at a copy right here" (reaches under counter and fetches a copy of the section of the code, puts it on the counter and walks away).&nbsp; Me reading it finds they "must" accept my registration and hang on to it for the next time.&nbsp; I point it out to the officer when she returns, make sure she understands the clear language, then walk out (no way I'm giving them my name now; they might go out of their way to make life difficult for me).

Even better.&nbsp; I get an envelope from the Social Security Administration.&nbsp; Seems someone reported some income but transposed a couple of the digits in my number or something, and they want confirmation of my number.&nbsp; Before I got that far determining what it was about, a few copies of a little manila document with red ink fell out.&nbsp; They were IRS forms which said that I could be fined (was it?) $50 for each time I was asked for my number and didn't disclose it, up to something like $1000 (I wanna say 10 k).&nbsp; Uh-oh, that sounds scary.&nbsp; But after looking over the SSA form, on the back in light blue ink was a paragraph that said (to the effect) "The Privacy Act of 1974 requires us to inform you that disclosure of your number is not mandatory."&nbsp; Definitely a conflict of advice, there.&nbsp; What a bunch of morons; at least they're not on welfare directly (though they'd be less of a burden that way).

I plan to look up the Wisconsin code later, to see just what they're trying to do.&nbsp; If you get a ticket wrongfully, it ain't worth the paper it's printed on.&nbsp; If enough people successfully fight it, they'll get the picture.

Glen

 

[Nickrosis]

I appreciate your concern, but I've gone into detail on this one for a while. It is part of the the Wisconsin Transportation Code. I've talked to the Wisconsin DOT, the State Troopers, and a compliance officer for the state. :alien:

 

[glens]

How about some code section numbers?&nbsp; I wanna see how a State is mandating the Fed assign registry numbers for things the Fed itself says are out of its scope.

Thanks,
Glen

 

[Newfie]

You the fleet manager now?

 

[Nickrosis]

Naw, just getting more responsibilities. Still no title.

My dad and I joke about all our volunteering. I get paid for about 40 of my 70 hours a week. He gets paid for every other 90 hour work week.

 

[glens]

In the statutes:
<blockquote><a href="http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0194.pdf" target="_blank">194</a>.09&nbsp; Marking carrier vehicles.&nbsp; Each motor vehicle oper-
ated by a common motor carrier of property or of passengers, a
contract motor carrier or a private motor carrier shall be plainly
marked in such manner as the department may prescribe, so as to
identify such motor vehicle as being operated pursuant to this
chapter.</blockquote>
In the regulations which implement the statutes:
<a href="http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/trans/trans302.pdf" target="_blank">Chapter 302</a>&nbsp; (nothing about USDOT -- not current?)
and <a href="http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/trans/trans302_app_i.pdf" target="_blank">302 Appendix I</a>&nbsp; (didn't compare it critically, but it looks like the stuff from the Fed site quoted earlier in the thread).

Visit http://dot.wisconsin.gov/ and find your way to <a href="http://dot.wisconsin.gov/modes/trucks.htm" target="_blank">Truck transportation in Wisconsin - WisDOT</a> which has a link to <a href="http://dot.wisconsin.gov/business/carriers/index.htm" target="_blank">Motor carriers &amp; trucking</a>.&nbsp; It's all about hauling FREIGHT!

Nick, I'm not telling you what to do, but if everyone takes the path of least effort and "just goes along with" all this out-of-bounds pecking-away-at-rights it just emboldens our public "servants" to tighten the noose ever further.

Glen

 

[tophopper]

Its been 2 years now since MN required a usdot number for intrastate com. vehicles. No fee to get the number, just apply and receive in the mail some time time later.
However, we are not required to display the number on the vehicle, but it must be readily available if requested by an officer. it must be display only on interstate vehicles.
So whats the big deal apply for the number, it isn't any more BS than we already have to deal being com. veh. operators.

 

[glens]

You think that getting that number bears no cost to you (and all of us)?&nbsp; And it, for the most part, is meaningless for you?&nbsp; Sounds like a huge waste of money/resources, and it's definitely another chink in our privacy made even worse by the fact that nothing's done with it.&nbsp; People are generally too sheep-like.

Do MN code/regulations actually include non-freight or non-passenger carrying vehicles as "commercial vehicles" or are they over-applying the "law" too?

Oh, well.&nbsp; I'll quit now.&nbsp; Thanks for the heads-up, Nick.

Glen

 

[Nickrosis]

I got the number online last week. Took about 15 minutes to fill out the form and the number pops up as soon as you're done.

You need a credit card number (won't charge you) and your EIN or your SSN. Also need to know how many vehicles you have that would meet the requirements and how many miles they drove in a year in the past. I didn't like doing it, but neither do I like doing a lot of things I have to do.

 

[Frans]

I'm with you Glen, hang tough. Should I need to back up my attitude legally I'll ask you for reference points.
Thanks
Frans

 

[tophopper]

Glen, what I said was there was no fee to get the number. I never stated it doesn't cost anyone anything. And I never said it was meaningless to me or anyone. I agree with you, it is a huge waste of time and resources, and Id rather not have to deal with it at all. But you know what also is huge waste of time and resources? Fighting it. why bother? Do you really think it'll make a difference? You say people are too sheep like, i assume you exclude yourself from this statement and resist everything right till the bitter end. Im no advocate for restricted rights under the peering eyes of big brother, but im not gonna waste my time or effort to fight it just because I dont want to conform.
MN is over applying the law regarding com. vehicles and as I said before its BS, but I can hold my breath until my face turns blue, and what good would that do? none.

 

[glens]

TH, I wasn't attacking you personally.&nbsp; If some of what I said hit home, however, I guess you were included in the aggregate.

These kinds of battles are the easy ones for us and in my opinion we should not cower or it merely sets more precedent.

You know where to find me, Frans.

Glen