ATA Seeks Narrowing of Tank Truck Definition

American Trucking Associations has petitioned the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to narrow its definition of tank trucks to eliminate the need for many truck drivers to receive costly and unnecessary training and tank vehicle endorsements.

The agency’s current definition includes motor vehicles that transport liquids and gases in cylinders and intermediate bulk containers with capacities of less than 1,000 gallons.

Last year, the agency’s final rule addressing commercial driver license standards broadened the definition of a tank truck to include vehicles transporting liquids and gases in cylinders and intermediate bulk containers with an “aggregate capacity of 1,000 gallons or more that is either permanently or temporarily attached to the vehicle or chassis.’”

As a result, some states already are requiring that many truck drivers who haul liquids and gases in cylinders and containers meeting the current definition receive tank truck training and obtain CDL tank endorsements, ATA said in its petition.

“Basically, FMCSA has ex-panded the definition such that it could conceivably cover just about every truck in the country,” Boyd Stephenson, ATA’s manager of safety and security policy told Transport Topics.

The unique and challenging handling characteristics of a true tank truck are the primary reason that drivers need special training, Stephenson said.

Tank trucks have a higher center of gravity, and drivers also are required to deal with the “slosh” factor of a loaded or partially loaded tank truck, he said.

But Stephenson said that trucks hauling liquids or gases in containers don’t have to deal with those special tank truck handling issues and therefore don’t need the training.

“If you’re carrying a 1,000-gallon or more container, then that’s a tank,” Stephenson said. “But if you’re carrying 1,000 gallons in 250-gallon intermediate bulk containers, are you going to be dealing with the high center of gravity issue? Probably not. Are you going to be dealing with the slosh issue? Probably not.”

ATA’s Feb. 22 petition asked the agency to adopt a new definition of a tank truck that would include only a truck carrying containers with a rated capacity of 1,000 gallons or more and trucks with permanently mounted bulk containers that have an aggregate capacity of more than 1,000 gallons.

Under ATA’s suggested definition, any combination of portable containers with a rated capacity of less than 1,000 gallons would not constitute tank vehicles.

“Although this regulation affects a large number of private fleets, it is the less-than-truckload carriers — often those with the largest fleets — that are especially hard-hit by this change because these motor carriers do not know in advance what types of containers will be moving on shipments between their terminals,” ATA’s petition said.

ATA also said that obtaining the endorsement is burdensome, requiring additional training, time off work and substantial costs and fees.

The CDL tank truck definition issue was raised first in 2008 when the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance filed a petition with FMCSA asking that the agency clarify just what constitutes a tank truck.

In its petition, CVSA said the definition then in use was “problematic for inspectors and industry” and that it was causing “regulatory inconsistencies among several jurisdictions.”

It still is, said Stephen Keppler, CVSA’s executive director.

In fact, ATA said that drivers in at least two states already are being issued citations based on the current definition, despite the fact that the CDL standards rule gives states three years to begin enforcement.

“Part of the problem is that the jury is still out on what’s in and what’s out,” Keppler told TT.

He said that FMCSA asked CVSA, which represents commercial vehicle enforcement agencies, to withdraw its 2008 petition.

“We chose not to because they didn’t fully address what we had proposed,” Keppler said. “They ended up denying the petition.”

CVSA is in the process of preparing its own petition that it will soon file with FMCSA, he said.

“In our view, FMCSA hasn’t addressed the issues adequately,” he said. “We’re kind of assessing where we want to go at this point.”