Safety at Stake in Debate About Ohio Trucking Regulations

April 07, 2011 (Press-News.org) Government regulation is meant to protect safety and reduce risks to people who might otherwise be injured. The Declaration of Independence promised "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but when that pursuit is unchecked, people too often get hurt by others' dangerous conduct. In our system, government is supposed to level the playing field.

That is why, for much of the twentieth century, regulation by states and the federal government grew -- and the result was a safer America. It was democracy in action, as elected legislatures agreed upon safety standards and created administrative agencies to enforce them.

At the federal level, for example, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is responsible for enforcing safety standards for trucks that cross state lines. One of the primary goals of these standards is to prevent truck accidents.

In recent years, however, many people have questioned just how effective government regulations are. The concerns are partly about cost. It takes money to pay regulators to enforce safety standards. There is also a broader, more intangible concern about the loss of freedom when power is granted to government employees to carry out detailed laws.

Ohio Regulation of Private Motor Carriers

In Ohio, the debate about how much regulation is appropriate is currently playing out on the issue of trucking regulations, specifically safety standards for "private motor carriers." These are businesses such as landscape companies or utilities that use trucks and tractor/trailers to haul their own property, not the property of others, and do so within the state of Ohio only.

If the carriers travel outside of Ohio, that is interstate commerce and the safety standards of the Federal Highway Motor Carrier Safety Administration apply. The Ohio debate concerns intrastate commerce within Ohio. "Intrastate" simply means "within the state."

At issue is the extent of the authority of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to regulate these private motor carriers. Three years ago, in March 2008, PUCO amended its motor carrier safety rules to expand its safety jurisdiction and include more trucks.

The expansion was defined by weight. Prior to the 2008 amendment, PUCO had regulated private intrastate motor carriers that weighed more than 26,000 pounds. The 2008 amendment extended that regulation to carriers weighing between 10,001 and 26,000 pounds.

The effect of the new rule was to impose additional requirements on carriers. These requirements included documentation, certification and physicals for drivers, as well as additional vehicle inspections.

Trucking industry associations asked PUCO for relief from the new rule. In response, PUCO agreed to modify the enforcement of the rule. Specifically, PUCO issued an order directing that safety violations against private carriers in the expanded weight class would not be subject to civil forfeiture or fines until January 1, 2011, with a few limited exceptions. PUCO later pushed the date back one more year, to January 1, 2012.

This postponement, however, is not sufficient for many business interests. Private carriers are concerned that having to comply with additional rules will increase costs.

Ohio House Bill No. 82

When the 2011 Ohio Legislature convened, the debate about trucking regulations moved from the Public Utilities Commission to the House of Representatives. State Rep. Cheryl Grossman, R-Gove City, and Rep. Terry Boose, R-Norwalk, are sponsoring a bill to exempt motor carriers that meet certain qualifications. House Bill 82 would exempt from PUCO's jurisdiction private motor carriers that:

- Operate in intrastate commerce
- Weigh less than 26,0001 pounds
- Are not designed to transport more than 16 people
- Do not transport hazardous materials

Essentially, the bill would restore the status quo, before the Public Utilities Commission acted three years ago to regulate private carriers weighing between 10,000 and 26,000 pounds.

The Rationale for Regulation

The problem with House Bill 82 is that it fails to realize the important safety benefits that all Ohioans receive from improved trucking regulation. M. Beth Trombold, the director of PUCO's public affairs office, put it this way: "I think everybody wants to see drivers behind the wheel, especially for a business, that are medically capable of driving, can speak English, and are driving a vehicle with maintenance and safety records."

In other words, even if the new rule results in some additional costs, those costs are outweighed by the need to have reasonable safety protections. Truck accidents are truly terrible, because of the size of the vehicles involved. The fact that the truck weighed 25,999, rather than 26,001, means nothing to someone who suffers catastrophic injures in a collision with a truck. Or someone who loses a family member to a wrongful death.

PUCO's proposed private carrier rule is not a job-killer, just because it requires drivers to pass certain safety checks. To the contrary, in preventing truck accidents, it may be a life-preserver.

Article provided by Gervelis Law Firm
Visit us at www.gervelislaw.com