New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine has signed what may be the first law of its kind in the country, according to the Associated Press. The law, which requires drivers to clear snow and ice off of their vehicles in the winter, goes into effect in one year, in time for the winter of 2010-2011.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. is not happy with the law, as I imagine most trucking entities will not be.

“It amounts to feel-good legislation that is going to lead to the injury of drivers,” Joe Rajkovacz, OOIDA regulatory affairs specialist, told Land Line Magazine.

Drivers would face a fine of $25 to $75 for an infraction of “dangerous accumulations” of snow or ice on their cars or trucks. Enforcement is being delayed, according to the governor’s office, to give truckers time to install snow-removal equipment.

OOIDA says the law is nearly impossible to comply with, and puts drivers’ safety at risk. If snow accumulates during driving, the vehicle would be exempt.

If the state insists on truckers complying with this new law, let’s hope there is financial help coming for carriers to fund the safety equipment purchases necessary so drivers are not put at risk. A better option would be delaying the implemention further until technology makes safely removing snow from trailer roofs not only physically possible, but financially possible.

The last thing trucking needs right now, particularly the smaller carriers who are struggling for survival these days, is another law requiring financial investment, further straining the finances of so many carriers.

Massachusetts lawmakers have proposed two new regulations that affect the trucking industry, although neither comes as much surprise.

The first, a proposal by Rep. Paul Kujawski, will limit idling within state borders to no more than five minutes in any given 60-minute timeframe. There are exceptions to this, such as when idling is required to heat or cool a sleeper berth or required to power “work-related mechanical or electrical operations.” Even this provision, though, will disappear should Massachusetts enact a financial assistance program for idle reduction technologies. Under that scenario, fleets would have five years to eliminate all idling.

The second is a weight exemption for auxiliary power units (APUs). This would affect any vehicle equipped with an APU, but the weight exemption would be capped at 400 lbs.

So while the proposed laws take Massachusetts toward becoming a no-idling state, there are plenty of provisions that most fleets need not worry at this point. A copy of the idling law is available here.

I read a fascinating article this morning in the Wall Street Journal regarding Ford’s Transit Connect and how the company is circumventing the ridiculous “Chicken Tax” that has been in place since the 1960s.

If the government wants to help small business owners – the same people Ford is targeting with the imported Transit Connect - it needs to repeal the Chicken Tax.

According to the Journal article, to work around the tax, which puts a 25% tariff on delivery vans imported from Europe, Ford ships the vehicles to the U.S. with seats and windows in place. The vans, called “wagons,” are then not subjected to the 25% tariff. Instead, Ford pays a 2.5% tariff.

After workers remove the seats and windows and make the necessary modifications to the vehicles, they are shipped to dealers as the Transit Connect delivery van, the article says. The tariff savings, apparently to Ford, makes it cost-effective to waste the materials and labor to do this.

One worker at a Baltimore plant that converts the “wagons” into “vans” was quoted by the Journal and probably summed it up best: “I never thought about why we take out the seats, but if that’s what the customer wants, that’s what we’ll give them,” Mayso Lawrence said.

Only Ford knows how much this adds to the cost of the vans, but make no mistake, there is a cost. It may not be as high as it would be if there was a 25% tariff in place, but the American consumer still pays.

The Chicken Tax was retaliation from President Johnson in 1963 after Europe began putting high tariffs on U.S. chicken shipped to Europe. But this is no longer a comical matter. It’s costing small businesses in the U.S. real money. But, if that’s what the government wants, that’s what the government gets.

The Teamsters, trucking trade magazines, bloggers (including myself) and now the Huffington Post. All are weighing in on the issue of Mexican trucks operating within the U.S. border.

Ever since the U.S. launched the cross-border demonstration project, and then unceremoniously killed it earlier this year, the issue of Mexican trucks has been a hot-button issue. A U.S. Dept. of Transportation Inspector General report released publically this week sheds more light on the subject.

A couple areas of the report caught my attention, including one aspect that I believe tells the “real” story, if you read between the lines, as to why there are so many opponents of the program.

The first item of note is the lack of consistency in rules. In a 2007 report, the Inspector General noted that California was moving to adopt a 2002 Interim Final Rule that would require states to place Mexican vehicles out of service for violations of specific Federal motor carrier regulations. As of this report, that still has not happened.

“According to FMCSA, California still has not adopted the rule, but continues to use an equivalent rule. Instead of putting a violator out of service, California can either fine the violator $1,000 or order the violator to return the vehicle to the country of origin. In addition to assessing a fine against violators, California may also impound the vehicle and its cargo until the fine and impoundment charges are paid. FMCSA stated that it considers California’s requirement that the vehicle be impounded to be compatible with its rule.”

Based on this interpretation by FMCSA, it only adds fuel to the fire for opponents, particularly the Teamsters, who claim that unsafe Mexican trucks would be on U.S. roads, putting lives at jeopardy. Of course it would. If trucks that should otherwise be put out of service for violations are allowed to continue to operate on U.S. roads; that puts lives at risk. It also calls into question the program. How can anyone objectively determine whether allowing Mexican trucks beyond the commercial border zones is appropriate if we can’t even get our own rules consistent? Imagine how Mexican carriers feel? Which rules do they follow? And in what states do they have to follow them? No wonder there is so much confusion.

The report also details out-of-service rates for U.S.-based and Mexican-based carriers inspected by U.S. inspectors. And do you know what it finds? There is no major difference in the rates. There is, though, a major difference in the average number of inspections per carrier. U.S. domiciled carriers faced an average of eight inspections each in all years from 2006 to 2008 with out-of-service rates of 22.3% in 2006, 21.7% in 2007 and 21.8% in 2008. Mexican-based companies faced 46 inspections per carrier in 2006 with a 20.9% out-of-service rate. In 2007, the numbers were 48 and 21.6% and 51 and 21.2% in 2008.

Also of note was the percentage of drivers placed out of service due to license violations. U.S. based drivers were put out at the rate of 7.3%, 7.2% and 6.9% from 2006 to 2008, respectively. Their Mexican counterparts? How about 1.2%, 1% and 1.2%. That’s mighty interesting. Again, though, it’s difficult to draw conclusions on the license violators because some states report the data in a timely manner, some do months later and some don’t bother to report the violators at all. It’s up to individual states to determine their own reporting practices.

“During our audit, we reviewed 11 truck inspection crossings and 5 bus inspection crossings and found that FMCSA continues to have the capacity to conduct meaningful truck and driver inspections at the southern border,” the report said. Since the report notes that FMCSA has enough auditors in place to conduct hours of service checks and “meaningful inspections” at 25 commercial border crossings, we can only conclude that “unsafe” Mexican trucks would not be driving on U.S. highways. Taking that a step further, if the arguments of the Teamsters and others are based on safety, as they say, then these numbers would dispel that myth. Instead, maybe opponents of the program should say what their real agenda is – that they’re afraid Mexican drivers, who work for less pay than their U.S. counterparts, would take jobs south of the border. That’s what this whole argument is really about.

You can read the full report here.

Late last week, I received a press release from the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) telling me that “most Americans agree with professional truckers about Mexican trucks.” OOIDA picked up on a Rasmussen Report that said 66% of American adults surveyed do not want Mexican trucks to carry loads on American Highways.

OK, fine. I don’t doubt that it is true. However, the survey, conducted Aug. 10-11, asked 1,000 adults the following question: “Mexico wants President Obama’s help to end the ban on Mexican trucks operating in the United States. Should Congress let trucks from Mexico cross the border and carry their loads on American highways?”

For the record, 19% said yes, 66% no and 15% were not sure with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points. I wonder if the question had been framed differently, how different the results would have been. Perhaps put this way, “most Americans” would feel differently: “If Mexican trucks abide by all U.S. safety regulations when traveling on U.S. highways, should they be allowed to travel inside the U.S.?” Or, how about this question: “If allowing Mexican trucks to haul goods into the U.S. would reduce consumer prices, would you want the U.S. government to allow those trucks into this country?”

My point is simple: the answers you receive all depend on how the question is framed. I’m fairly certain that through a series of questions, I can prove that the sky is green. True? Of course not, but based simply on the questions asked, I could lead you to that conclusion if you take no other information into account.

According to Rasmussen, the poll has a “95% level of confidence.” I’m no polling expert and I’m not sure what that actually means, but I don’t see how 1,000 adults is a statistically representative sample of the 217.8 million adults (age 18 and over) in the U.S. according to the Census Bureau.

But, in the end, I guess 660 people is the “majority of Americans.”

According to an Associated Press report by Hope Yen, a study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that as many as 1,073 commercial trucking companies are operating in the U.S. under different names after investigators shut them down due to violations.

“These companies pose a safety threat to the motoring public,” wrote Greg Kutz, GAO’s managing director for special investigations. “We believe that these carriers reincarnated into new companies to evade fines and avoid performing the necessary corrective actions.”

It’s bad enough that companies would do this, putting at risk lives. But, according to the article, the GAO said the FMCSA doesn’t have the computer capabilities to track these companies effectively and it is not clear who has jurisdiction to enforce the laws – FMCSA or states.

While acknowledging it is difficult to track down offenders – if it wasn’t, then companies would not continue operating – the lack of proper resources or clarification of law is inexcusable. These are simple fixes that should be done.

Rep. James Oberstar, D-MN, and chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is pushing the reauthorization of the highway bill. While the administration is pushing an 18-month “patch” until time is available put together what it calls a proper approach to transportation.

Either way, Oberstar has proposed new rules that would provide FMCSA the power to revoke company licenses and direct the organization to improve its computer systems. That proposal is in the Committee’s reauthorization bill proposal. If the administration eventually chooses the patch and delays the reauthorization bill, then Congress must act on the separate proposals to fix this obvious problem and put FMCSA on the right track.

The Texas State Legislature passed several new bills in its most recent session that will affect the trucking industry in the state. The two most prominent are in regards to idling and cell phone use.

No longer will drivers be allowed to use wireless devices within a school zone while operating their vehicles unless it is a hands-free device or the vehicle is stopped. If the goal, and I assume it is, is to improve safety around schools where children walk and play - oftentimes not paying attention to their surroundings – then I’m fine with that.

There is, of course the debate about whether hands-free devices are any safer than using an actual phone, but the alternative may be banning phone use altogether. And from someone who drives about 120 miles a day to and from work, that may not be such a bad idea at all. But I digress.

The other law with a big impact is the idling regulation. No longer can trucks sit idle while drivers rest in their sleeper berths. That’s good for the environment, but not so much for fleets pocketbooks. As we know, it can get warm in Texas in the summer. It is good for the APU industry, though, as any fleet traveling into Texas will want to have some sort of auxiliary cooling and heating system.

The new laws go into effect September 1.

An initial plan to restart a version of the cross-border trucking program has moved through the first step and is now heading to Capitol Hill for review according to the Washington Times.

It’s about time. Right after Congress and President Obama officially stopped funding the pilot program - essentially killing it – the administration has said it would put together a new program for Congressional review. That was in March.

Since that time, Mexico has slapped more than $2 billion in tariffs on U.S. goods heading into that country. Whatever you thought about the program, the fact is U.S. businesses are being hurt by the tariffs. A solution needs to happen and happen soon.

According to the Times article, the California apricot industry has fallen off 60% since a 45% tariff went into effect and Mary Kay Cosmetics is paying $450,000 a month in tariff-related charges.

There were no details as to what a new program would look like, but the American Trucking Assns., the Teamsters and others had their say recently with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Here’s hoping that a new program is in place soon.

The next chapter in the FedEx Express and UPS battle has gone to the U.S. Senate. The Senate is set to take up its version of the FAA Reauthorization bill – a version which does not include the controversial language to reclassify FedEx Express employees under the National Labor Relations Act.

The House version, H.R. 915, does include that language and has created quite a stir from both FedEx Express and UPS. The two package-delivery giants are battling over the insertion of the paragraph. FedEx Express’ argument is that it is an airline and is rightly classified under the Railway Labor Act. UPS and its supporters have countered with the argument that when FedEx Express packages are delivered to the door, that job is being performed by a driver executing the same duties as a UPS driver, who is classified under the National Labor Relations Act.

The real argument is over unions. Under the Railway Labor Act, a union must recruit the entire organization of a company at once as opposed to the Labor Relations Act which allows unionization on a facility-by-facility basis.

FedEx immediately attacked the language in the House version of the bill. A web site, brownbailout.com, was set up to disseminate “the truth” as seen through the eyes of FedEx. FedEx has claimed that the language is nothing more than a government handout to UPS that will make FedEx Express non-competitive due to rising costs.

UPS has responded as well. According to Business First of Louisville, a Washington, D.C., public relations firm representing UPS is helping the company’s employees write letters to Congress. UPS is compensating the employees for time spent writing the letters, which are based on a template supplied by the company, Malcolm Berkley, the public relations manager, told Business First.

So where do we stand today? While the Senate version doesn’t include the language, when the two bills are merged, you can bet this will become a hotly contested issue. Whether it ends up in the final bill sent to the president remains to be seen, but it probably should, in my opinion.

T. Boone Pickens is at it again. The entrepreneur, who is a proponent of wind power and alternative fuels, has thrown his support behind the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions (NAT GAS) Act, introduced into the U.S. Senate by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

The bill is designed to promote natural gas through the extension of tax credits for vehicle purchases, including trucks, and infrastructure improvements by 10 years. The bill provides credits for 80% of the price difference between a natural-gas only vehicle and a non-natural gas equivalent and 50% credit for a vehicle that can run on natural gas or gasoline.

According to Bloomberg News, the credits could amount to as much as $12,500 for passenger cars and light trucks, and $64,000 for trucks.

Pickens told Bloomberg Television he thinks the bill will pass right after Congress’ August recess.

“We saw last summer how the wild fluctuations in oil prices helped to wreck our economy,” said Menendez. “By making it easier and cheaper to own a vehicle that runs on natural gas, we can help families save money on energy, create new manufacturing jobs and clean our air.”

While natural gas is not the end-all solution for trucking, one obstacle that exists – for the industry as well as for the automotive industry – is the price. There is little infrastructure in place in the U.S. to support natural gas vehicles and as a result, sales are low and that means higher purchase prices.

Most major truck OEMs now offer natural gas tractors, and natural gas fueling stations have begun to open near the California ports, where the fuel is most commonly used. That’s a positive.

Another positive, according to reports, is that the legislation would provide tax credits up to 100% of the cost, or $100,000, to build refueling stations. Now that’s an incentive. And the more refueling stations available, the more companies that will take advantage of natural gas and drive the purchase price down.

That’s good for everyone.