Subject: A lot of people said it couldn’t be done, but his should help racers /Bill Posey
It began when Roby Helm called and said troopers were stopping his racers and ticketing them because they did not have commercial drivers licenses - claiming decals on the race cars and rigs made them commercial vehicles. What would be next? Stopping open wheel trailers because the cars they carried had decals on them?
It was never realistic or my intent to exempt legitimate commercial vehicles such as 18-wheel semis. However, we did want to reduce the threat to “week end warriors”, the back bone of our sport.
Governor Crist helped give them such comfort when he signed SB 2296 last week. Special thanks also goes to State Representative Pat Patterson (R-Deland) who faithfully shepherded the bill through the House.
Complete details and history of the legislation are pasted below.
Yours truly - for less government, less government regulation & less taxes,
Bill Posey
State Senator
Dist 24
Bill Posey.com
S2296 GENERAL BILL by Posey; (CO-INTRODUCERS) Bullard
Commercial Motor Vehicles [EPCC]; Exempts certain vehicles that
occasionally transport personal property to and from closed-course
motorsport facilities from the definition of “commercial motor vehicle”
for the purposes of statutory provisions relating to state uniform
traffic control and statutory provisions governing motor vehicle
licenses and driver’s licenses, etc. EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/01/2008.
- - - - - - - -
CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
1
2
An act relating to commercial motor vehicles; amending s.
3
316.003, F.S.; exempting certain vehicles that
4
occasionally transport personal property to and from
5
closed-course motorsport facilities from the definition of
6
“commercial motor vehicle” for purposes of statutory
7
provisions relating to state uniform traffic control;
8
amending ss. 320.01 and 322.01, F.S.; exempting certain
9
vehicles that occasionally transport personal property to
10
and from closed-course motorsport facilities from the
11
definition of “commercial motor vehicle” for purposes of
12
statutory provisions governing motor vehicle licenses and
13
driver’s licenses; providing an effective date.
14
15
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
16
17
Section 1. Subsection (66) of section 316.003, Florida
18
Statutes, is amended to read:
19
316.003 Definitions.--The following words and phrases, when
20
used in this chapter, shall have the meanings respectively
21
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context
22
otherwise requires:
23
(66) COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE.--Any self-propelled or towed
24
vehicle used on the public highways in commerce to transport
25
passengers or cargo, if such vehicle:
26
(a) Has a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or
27
more;
28
(b) Is designed to transport more than 15 passengers,
29
including the driver; or
30
(c) Is used in the transportation of materials found to be
31
hazardous for the purposes of the Hazardous Materials
32
Transportation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. ss. 1801 et seq.).
33
34
A vehicle that occasionally transports personal property to and
35
from a closed-course motorsport facility, as defined in s.
36
549.09(1)(a), is not a commercial motor vehicle if it is not used
37
for profit and corporate sponsorship is not involved. As used in
38
this subsection, the term “corporate sponsorship” means a
39
payment, donation, gratuity, in-kind service, or other benefit
40
provided to or derived by a person in relation to the underlying
41
activity, other than the display of product or corporate names,
42
logos, or other graphic information on the property being
43
transported.
44
Section 2. Subsection (26) of section 320.01, Florida
45
Statutes, is amended to read:
46
320.01 Definitions, general.--As used in the Florida
47
Statutes, except as otherwise provided, the term:
48
(26) "Commercial motor vehicle" means any vehicle which is
49
not owned or operated by a governmental entity, which uses
50
special fuel or motor fuel on the public highways, and which has
51
a gross vehicle weight of 26,001 pounds or more, or has three or
52
more axles regardless of weight, or is used in combination when
53
the weight of such combination exceeds 26,001 pounds gross
54
vehicle weight. A vehicle that occasionally transports personal
55
property to and from a closed-course motorsport facility, as
56
defined in s. 549.09(1)(a), is not a commercial motor vehicle if
57
the use is not for profit and corporate sponsorship is not
58
involved. As used in this subsection, the term "corporate
59
sponsorship" means a payment, donation, gratuity, in-kind
60
service, or other benefit provided to or derived by a person in
61
relation to the underlying activity, other than the display of
62
product or corporate names, logos, or other graphic information
63
on the property being transported.
64
Section 3. Subsection (8) of section 322.01, Florida
65
Statutes, is amended to read:
66
322.01 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:
67
(8) "Commercial motor vehicle" means any motor vehicle or
68
motor vehicle combination used on the streets or highways, which:
69
(a) Has a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 pounds or
70
more;
71
(b) Is designed to transport more than 15 persons,
72
including the driver; or
73
(c) Is transporting hazardous materials and is required to
74
be placarded in accordance with Title 49 C.F.R. part 172, subpart
75
F.
76
77
A vehicle that occasionally transports personal property to and
78
from a closed-course motorsport facility, as defined in s.
79
549.09(1)(a), is not a commercial motor vehicle if the use is not
80
for profit and corporate sponsorship is not involved. As used in
81
this subsection, the term “corporate sponsorship” means a
82
payment, donation, gratuity, in-kind service, or other benefit
83
provided to or derived by a person in relation to the underlying
84
activity, other than the display of product or corporate names,
85
logos, or other graphic information on the property being
86
transported.
87
Section 4. This act shall take effect July 1, 2008.
Subj:
Transportation of Racing Vehicles
Date:
9/27/2007 6:47:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:
Rockledger
To:
GAVIN.PATRICK.S24@flsenate.gov
CC:
Thibault@dot.state.fl.us, David.Dees@dot.state.fl.us, Eichen.Kurt@flsenate.gov, MEYER.REYNOLD@flsenate.gov, Baker.Carey@flsenate.gov
Patrick,
Thank you very much for remembering our first duty is to be grateful for the opportunity to serve the public - not rule them; not ignore their problems or be indifferent to them, but to try to find solutions that will make their lives better. Often, that involves dealing with a monolithic structure that many of our citizens rightly or wrongly view as a bunch of lazy bureaucrats. Our job is to help prove such critics wrong.
When I went online and looked for Interpretations for Part 390: General, it was very apparent that “Question 21” and the accompanying “Guidance” left enough room to, pardon the expression, drive a big truck through. To drive an owner driven noncommercial motorhome in pursuit of one’s hobby through the hole would appear to be a piece of cake.
Unless I misinterpreted the script, it appears that the state has significant latitude in such cases and my request of you was to find out how to do that -NOT blow the issue off by simply telling me we could lose federal funding because of a dump truck safety ruling in North Dakota back… I don’t know when, because the letter does not have a date. It appears only to be stamped with a received date of March 22, 2007 by somebody - somewhere. The date itself is not really that relevant, however, whether it was written in 1926, 1966, or 2006. The issue addressed by the letter relates to entirely different circumstances - especially considering the above referenced text in Part 390.
We need to have our particular issue addressed and need to have our expert staff’s recommendations for the best three approaches to helping out our constituents. The recommendations don’t have to be guaranteed to work, but at least we need a few best effort scenarios to pursue the matter further. We could certainly hire a consultant or attorney specializing in such law to help us figure out a solution, but I don’t think it is something our expert staff could not accomplish.
Would you please retouch all the bases and favor me with some suggestions as soon as possible.
Thank you very much,
Bill Posey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Message
From: EICHIN.KURT
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:09 PM
To: GAVIN.PATRICK.S24
Subject: Transportation of Racing Vehicles
Pat,
As Reynold mentioned, FDOT’s response is being forwarded along with a
letter sent by the feds to North Dakota’s equivalent of the Motor
Carrier Compliance Office. The letter states the prohibition of a state
adopting motor carrier requirements less stringent than the federal
requirements and the penalty for doing so. You’ll see the estimated
penalty for Florida approaches $8 million in MCSAP funds. What’s less
apparent is an additional penalty described to us by Mr. Thibault which
could potentially reduce all federal funding by 10%, totaling about $170
million dollars.
I’ll call you later to discuss this.
Kurt Eichin
The Florida Senate Committee on Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Message-----
From: MEYER.REYNOLD
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:53 AM
To: EICHIN.KURT
Subject: FW: Fw: Sen. Posey’s issue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Thibault, Kevin [mailto:Kevin.Thibault@dot.state.fl.us]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:03 AM
To: MEYER.REYNOLD
Subject: FW: Fw: Sen. Posey’s issue
As I mentioned…see below about our amount. It is $7.7 million that we
would lose, although we are seeking clarification today. Alabama is
mentioned below as having a problem with this exact issue, and so is
Nebraska. Georgia patrol mentioned to our Colonel that they have been
starting to have this issue also. I will keep you in the loop on how
our conversations proceed with the Federal government.
Kevin J. Thibault, P.E.
Assistant Secretary for Engineering & Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Message-----
From: David.Dees@dot.state.fl.us [mailto:David.Dees@dot.state.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:20 PM
To: Thibault, Kevin
Subject: Re: Fw: Sen. Posey’s issue
Kevin,
Hope this addresses your question.
N.D. letter attached as example if we were to exempt them from any
safety issues such as (See attached file: US DOT Incompatibility
Letter.tif)
CDL
Medical Certificate
US DOT Registration
our current base MCSAP dollars total 7,766,742
we can be subject to the same sanctions based on our review…
Alabama and Nebraska are having like problems with the race car haulers
Even if we exempt them from these requirements they will still be
illegal in other states AND they will still be subject to federal
enforcement EVEN IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA assuming that they are
operating interstate…
Colonel David A. Dees, Director
Florida Department of Transportation
Motor Carrier Compliance Office
Subj:
Race Rig Update
Date:
9/13/2007 10:22:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From:
GAVIN.PATRICK.S24@flsenate.gov
To:
Rockledger@aol.com, POSEY.BILL.S24@flsenate.gov
CC:
MACIVER.JOHN.S24@flsenate.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Senator,
Just spoke with Kevin Thibault and he stated that if we were to make an exemption from the Federal Law for race rigs that the State would be penalized 10% of our Federal Transportation dollars equaling roughly 160 million yearly.
He also said that he has heard from the Florida Trucking Assoc. and they will fight any exemption to the Federal Law.
Pat Gavin
Chief Legislative Assistant
Senator Bill Posey
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj:
FW: Transportation of Racing Vehicles
Date:
9/27/2007 3:30:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:
GAVIN.PATRICK.S24@flsenate.gov
To:
POSEY.BILL.S24@flsenate.gov, Rockledger@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
-----Original Message-----
From: EICHIN.KURT
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:09 PM
To: GAVIN.PATRICK.S24
Subject: Transportation of Racing Vehicles
Pat,
As Reynold mentioned, FDOT’s response is being forwarded along with a
letter sent by the feds to North Dakota’s equivalent of the Motor
Carrier Compliance Office. The letter states the prohibition of a state
adopting motor carrier requirements less stringent than the federal
requirements and the penalty for doing so. You’ll see the estimated
penalty for Florida approaches $8 million in MCSAP funds. What’s less
apparent is an additional penalty described to us by Mr. Thibault which
could potentially reduce all federal funding by 10%, totaling about $170
million dollars.
I’ll call you later to discuss this.
Kurt Eichin
The Florida Senate Committee on Transportation
-------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: MEYER.REYNOLD
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:53 AM
To: EICHIN.KURT
Subject: FW: Fw: Sen. Posey’s issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----Original Message-----
From: Thibault, Kevin [mailto:Kevin.Thibault@dot.state.fl.us]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:03 AM
To: MEYER.REYNOLD
Subject: FW: Fw: Sen. Posey’s issue
As I mentioned…see below about our amount. It is $7.7 million that we
would lose, although we are seeking clarification today. Alabama is
mentioned below as having a problem with this exact issue, and so is
Nebraska. Georgia patrol mentioned to our Colonel that they have been
starting to have this issue also. I will keep you in the loop on how
our conversations proceed with the Federal government.
Kevin J. Thibault, P.E.
Assistant Secretary for Engineering & Operations
Florida Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: David.Dees@dot.state.fl.us [mailto:David.Dees@dot.state.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:20 PM
To: Thibault, Kevin
Subject: Re: Fw: Sen. Posey’s issue
Kevin,
Hope this addresses your question.
N.D. letter attached as example if we were to exempt them from any
safety issues such as (See attached file: US DOT Incompatibility
Letter.tif)
CDL
Medical Certificate
US DOT Registration
Hours of Service
ect…
our current base MCSAP dollars total 7,766,742
we can be subject to the same sanctions based on our review…
Alabama and Nebraska are having like problems with the race car haulers
Even if we exempt them from these requirements they will still be
illegal in other states AND they will still be subject to federal
enforcement EVEN IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA assuming that they are
operating interstate…
Colonel David A. Dees, Director
Florida Department of Transportation
Motor Carrier Compliance Office
Racing Rig Summary
Situation : For the past several months, racecar rigs have been stopped on Florida highways and cited for numerous infractions including, but not limited too; Over Dimensional Violations, No/Improper carrier ID on vehicle, failure to stop at weigh stations, failure to provide DOT medical forms, driving without a CDL license.
There are essentially two issues here with the first being the determination of ?use of commerce?
Vehicles registered in Florida as recreational vehicles must meet the definition as provided in FSS.320.01(1)(b) (A recreational vehicle-type unit primarily designed as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, or travel use, which either has its own motive power or is mounted on or drawn by another vehicle).
Does the exemption in FSS390.3(f)(3) for the ?occasional transportation of enterprise? apply to persons who occasionally use CMV?s to transport cars, boats, horses, etc., to races, tournaments, shows or similar events, even if prize money is offered at these events?
The exemption would apply to this kind of transportation, provided: (1) The underlying activities are not undertaken for profit, i.e., (a) prize money is declared as ordinary income for tax purposes, and (b) the cost of the underlying activities is not deducted as a business expense for tax purposes: and, where relevant (2) corporate sponsorship is not involved. This exemption does not apply to an individual that is sponsored and would therefore be considered using in commerce. (emphasis added)
The second issue is one of weight limits.
Out of state vehicles with an actual gross vehicle weight in excess of 26,000lbs. (single or in combination) or with three or more axles on the power unit while involved in commerce must comply with the requirements of the International Registration Plan.
The vehicles cited for improper registrations that were registered as recreational vehicles had an actual gross vehicle weight ranging from 43,100 lbs. to 73,340 lbs. with an average of 57,565 lbs. The cost of a recreational vehicle tag in Florida is approximately $35.00, while the costs of a heavy truck tag meeting the average weight of 57,565 lbs., as above, in the declared weight bracket of 55,000 lbs. to 61,999 lbs. is $678.00. These vehicles while improperly registered are operating at a cost on average $643.00 per year less than other commercial vehicles. Additionally, these vehicles are not meeting the Federal Fuel Tax reporting requirements for vehicles with a declared weight greater than 54,999 lbs. and fuel tax permits required on vehicles in interstate commerce weighing more than 26,000lbs. These requirements are being met by other vehicles meeting these thresholds. Additionally there is also the need for greater insurance coverage on these vehicles.
Possible Fix: For ?commerce? issue would be to strike the sponsorship clause and provide an exemption for all race rigs. As far as the issue of ?weight limits? for RV designations we would need to determine what Federal Transportation dollars we would lose if we were to provide an exemption to these race rigs.
Or possibly narrowly tailor an exemption under the provisions of 390’s Question 21