Public Act 169 of 2009

if a police officer, a peace officer, or an authorized agent of the Michigan Department of Transportation or a county road commission believes that the weight of a vehicle and load is unlawful, the officer or agent may require the driver to stop and submit to a weighing of the vehicle by portable or stationary scales approved and sealed by the Department of Agriculture as a legal weighing device. The scales are required to be approved and sealed as a legal weighing device by a qualified person using testing equipment certified or approved by the Department of Agriculture as a legal weighing device.

Under PA 169, a bond will be required in the amount of the fines and costs, rather than double that amount (as under previous law).
Public 169 of 2009: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(goznxl55p4plbj3xide54ajv))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2009-SB-0433

Public Act 146 of 2009
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billenrolled/House/htm/2009-HNB-4999.htm

This Act amendsMichigan Vehicle Code sec. 257.722:

(6) The seasonal reductions described under subsection (8) to the loading maximums and gross vehicle weight requirements of subsection (12) do not apply to public utility vehicles under the following circumstances:

(a) For emergency public utility work on restricted roads, as follows:

(i) If required by the county road commission, the public utility or its subcontractor shall notify the county road commission, as soon as practical, of the location of the emergency public utility work and provide a statement that the vehicles that were used to perform the emergency utility work may have exceeded the loading maximums and gross vehicle weight requirements of subsection (12) as reduced under subsection (8). The notification may be made via facsimile or electronically.

(ii) The public utility vehicle travels to and from the site of the emergency public utility work while on a restricted road at a speed not greater than 35 miles per hour.

(b) For non emergency public utility work on restricted roads, as follows:

(i) If the county road commission requires, the public utility or its subcontractor shall apply to the county road commission annually for a seasonal truck permit for roads under its authority before seasonal weight restrictions are effective. The county road commission shall issue a seasonal truck permit for each public utility vehicle or vehicle configuration the public utility or subcontractor anticipates will be utilized for nonemergency public utility work. The county road commission may charge a fee for a seasonal truck permit that does not exceed the administrative costs incurred for the permit.

For complete information read the legislation: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billenrolled/House/htm/2009-HNB-4999.htm

DOT OFFICE OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICY AND COMPLIANCE NOTICE
Recently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidelines for Federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of “medical marijuana.” http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/medical-marijuana.pdf. 
We have had several inquiries about whether the DOJ advice to Federal prosecutors regarding pursuing criminal cases will have an impact upon the Department of Transportation’s longstanding regulation about the use of marijuana by safety-sensitive transportation employees – pilots, school bus drivers, truck drivers, train engineers, subway operators, aircraft maintenance personnel, transit fire-armed security personnel, ship captains, and pipeline emergency response personnel, among others.   

We want to make it perfectly clear that the DOJ guidelines will have no bearing on the Department of Transportation’s regulated drug testing program.  We will not change our regulated drug testing program based upon these guidelines to federal prosecutors.

The Department of Transportation’s Drug and Alcohol Testing Regulation – 49 CFR Part 40, at 40.151(e) – does not authorize “medical marijuana” under a state law to be a valid medical explanation for a transportation employee’s positive drug test result.

That section states:
§ 40.151 What are MROs prohibited from doing as part of the verification process?
 As an MRO, you are prohibited from doing the following as part of the verification process:
(e) You must not verify a test negative based on information that a physician recommended that the employee use a drug listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. (e.g., under a state law that purports to authorize such recommendations, such as the “medical marijuana” laws that some states have adopted.)

Therefore, Medical Review Officers will not verify a drug test as negative based upon information that a physician recommended that the employee use “medical marijuana.”  Please note that marijuana remains a drug listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.  It remains unacceptable for any safety-sensitive employee subject to drug testing under the Department of Transportation’s drug testing regulations to use marijuana.

We want to assure the traveling public that our transportation system is the safest it can possibly be.

Jim L. Swart
Director
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Office of Drug and Alcohol
Policy and Compliance Department of Transportation
October 22, 2009

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009

National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0151]
RIN 2127–AK44

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Air Brake Systems: This document makes permanent an existing requirement that trailers with antilock brake systems (ABS) be equipped with an external malfunction indicator lamp. The indicator lamp requirement, which is included in the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that governs air- braked vehicles, was originally scheduled to sunset on March 1, 2009, but had previously been extended to September 1, 2009.

Effective August 31, 2009, Direct Observation collections are mandatory for all DOT Return-to-Duty and Follow-Up drug testing. As with other DOT Direct Observation collections conducted since August 25, 1998, DOT Return-to-Duty and Follow-up drug testing will now require that a same gender observer check for prosthetic and other devices that could be used to cheat a drug test.  This is in addition to the observer’s subsequently watching the employee urinate into the collection container.

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 /

The FMCSA announces a revision of the regulatory guidance concerning the applicability of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to mobile cranes operated in interstate commerce.

The regulatory guidance is presented in a question-and-answer format. The guidance is generally applicable to drivers, commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), and motor carrier operations subject to the FMCSRs. All prior interpretations and regulatory guidance concerning the applicability of the FMCSRs to operations of mobile cranes in interstate commerce issued in the Federal Register, as well as memoranda and letters, may no longer be relied upon as authoritative if they are inconsistent with the guidance published today.. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-20618.htm

Question 9 (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?chunkKey=0901633480023260)
Are mobile cranes operating in interstate commerce considered CMVs, and are they subject to the FMCSRs?

Guidance: The definition of CMV encompasses mobile cranes. Unlike the off-road motorized construction equipment discussed in Guidance Questions 7 and 8, mobile cranes are readily capable of traveling at highway speeds, over extended distances, and in the mixed traffic of public highways. Although the functions a crane performs are distinct from the transportation provided by a truck, the ready mobility of the
crane depends on its permanent integration with a truck chassis. The truck chassis is equipped with wheels, tires, brakes, a suspension system, and other components. The mobile crane itself, like an empty CMV (see Guidance Question 6), is considered property.

Effective July 1, 2009:
New laws in Ontario and Quebec require that all trucks 1995 and newer grossing at least 26,000 pounds have a computerized speed limiter activated at or below the maximum of 105 kilometers per hour, or 65 mph.  The law affects trucks from the rest of Canada and from the U.S. that travel in Ontario or Quebec.

Ontario and Quebec will begin handing out fines to truckers who do not have a speed limiter activated on their vehicles.  The minimum fine according to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation is $250 for a truck found not to have a working speed limiter or if the “anti-tampering” provision has been violated. Maximum fines can reach $20,000.

Implementation took effect on January 1, 2009 with a six-month grace period to educate truckers and the public. For complete information: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/trucks/trucklimits.shtml

PA 37 of 2009 [prev. HB4224]

257.719: Public Act 37 amends the Michigan Vehicle Code to permit a truck tractor to tow a log slasher and a saw unit if the length of the units did not exceed certain limits.

The Michigan Vehicle Code contains length limits for specified vehicles and combinations of vehicles operating on a designated highway of the State.

Public Act 37 amends the Michigan Vehicle Code to permit the operation of a truck tractor with a log slasher unit and a log saw unit with no overall length limit if the length of each unit did not exceed 281/2 feet, or if the overall length of the slasher unit and the saw unit, as measured from the front of the first towed unit to the rear of the second towed unit while the units were coupled together, did not exceed 58 feet. The coupling devices of the truck tractor and units would have to meet the requirements of the Motor Carrier Safety Act.

The Michigan Vehicle Code prohibits a truck tractor from pulling a combination of two semi-trailers, unless each semi-trailer uses a fifth wheel connecting assembly. The bill would make an exception to this for the combination described above.