Five Rest Areas Will Get 183 New Spaces
Christian Metzger
MIDDLETOWN, Conn. — The Connecticut Department of Transportation announced a $31 million investment in expanding truck parking at rest stops across Connecticut.
Rest areas in Middletown, Southington, Madison, Southbury and Vernon will get 183 new parking spaces, officials said.
Construction began in October at the Middletown Rest Area, located off I-91 near Exit 20. The $3.8 million project, which will add 11 truck parking spaces to the lot, is projected to be completed in September 2025.
The Middletown Rest Area was the first expansion site, as the state owns all the land necessary to begin the project. The other rest areas will see even more significant expansions, with upward of 40 additional parking spaces planned for Southington, and as many as 60 planned for Vernon. Currently, there are 420 truck parking spaces statewide. When the project is completed by the end of the decade, the state will have about 600, officials said.
The new parking areas will have improved drainage and lighting.
Trucking industry officials have pushed for the expansions, citing a shortage of parking spaces across the state. The shortage has led truckers to park alongside the shoulder of the highway, on off-ramps, or in residential areas, causing a potential hazard for truckers and other drivers, officials said.
“On average, drivers lose about an hour’s worth of their driving, an hour of service, trying to find parking,” said Motor Transport Association of Connecticut President John Blair. “They stop early. So obviously, that affects supply chain issues.”
“The truck parking shortage has plagued the trucking industry for decades, and the consequences of insufficient capacity are as wide-ranging as they are severe,” he said in a news release. “The scarcity of truck parking spaces across the country decreases safety for all highway users, exacerbates the industry’s longstanding workforce challenges, diminishes trucking productivity, and results in unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. The effort here in Connecticut will undoubtedly make our roads safer.”
According to officials, truckers are required to drive for nine hours and take 10 hours to rest. Because of that, officials said, it is important to make areas secure and comfortable for drivers.
“We’ve seen the trends of truck traffic continue to grow in Connecticut since 2020 to now we have a lot more truck traffic than we did before the pandemic,” said CTDOT Commissioner Garrett Eucalitto. “I think our economy has shifted. People want things now; they order, and they want it delivered tomorrow. So there’s a lot of that on demand, and the industry has shifted, so we just see trucks all the time, and we’ve built out.”
The project is also a key investment for the state. Connecticut’s freight transportation system supports more than 451,000 jobs and produces $50.5 billion annually in gross regional product, officials said.
Author’s note; In the private sector we are providing 400+ spaces for an $8M investment, with secuity and numerous amenities. Contact me to learn more about how you can participate.
KBG Injury Law
In the modern, digital era, we have all manner of devices, gadgets, and apps that follow our every move, but an electronic logging device, or ELD, is a tracker that is specific to the interstate trucking (and commercial bus) industry. ELDs replaced manual paper logs and low-tech electronic onboard recorders (EOBRs), which simply logged the miles driven by a vehicle.
Though mandated in 2015, the law gave truckers a few years’ grace to become fully compliant. Four years later, on December 17, 2019, ELDs became mandatory in the United States with few exceptions. (Incidentally, Canada followed suit and rolled out regulations in June of 2022.)
What is the purpose of an electronic logging device?
Not only do today’s ELDs act as GPSs for the four-million-plus tractor trailers constantly crisscrossing the United States every year. The hardware also monitors things like if the truck is in motion, how fast it’s going, if the engine is running (and for how long it has been), and even the truck’s rate of fuel consumption. This data is transferred to fleet managers and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Owner-operators and fleet managers use the data in many ways, like increasing fuel efficiency, keeping trucks on the best route to their given destination, and helping drivers stick to schedules.
But arguably the most important job of an ELD is tracking a driver’s hours of service (HOS). The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s hours-of-service regulations vary between property-carrying drivers (11-14 hours maximum) and passenger-carrying drivers (10-15 hours maximum). Beyond driving, hours of service include activities related to trucking, such as waiting for the dispatcher to give you the green light to get on the road or getting your vehicle serviced or repaired.
How an ELD vendor is bending the HOS rulesRecently an ELD vendor was caught gaming a loophole in the logging system to log extra drive time under a “ghost co-driver” account. Per FreightWaves:
A driver using ELD Rider software recorded a ghost co-driver being added to his device within 15-20 minutes after the driver contacted the company to request more hours.
At the time the U.S. driver contacted the ELD Rider representative in Serbia, the driver, who didn’t want to be named for fear of retaliation, had no drive time left on his clock and only 12 hours remaining on his 70-hour cycle before he was required by FMCSA to take a 34-hour reset.
[A] video, which was reviewed by FreightWaves, shows an alert being sent to the engine control module (ECM) connected to the driver’s truck. The alert notified the driver that a representative was logging him off and taking over to edit his logs.
He later received a call from ELD Rider confirming that the representative had edited the log to add a co-driver, often referred to as a ghost driver. The video then pans to the driver logging back into his device, showing that he now had almost 10 hours of drive time left in his day and around 68 hours remaining on his cycle before he must take 34 consecutive hours off duty before driving again.
Basically, the vendor and the trucking company coordinated to fake a second driver and bypass the HOS rules. In a separate incident, it was the trucking company that was accused of falsifying data in order to force workers to drive up to 20 hours a day, every day of the week.
According to FreightWaves, these are no isolated incidents: “a whistleblower told FreightWaves that representatives of ELD Rider have been manipulating drivers’ HOS logs to ‘cheat the system’ since 2019.”
Such violations of HOS regulations are a serious offense and can result in fines anywhere from $1,000 to $16,000—and even up to $75,000 if the rig is carrying hazardous materials.
Why are HOS rules so important?
The simple answer to why HOS rules exist is safety – for the public and for truckers alike. Commercial truck and bus drivers need to take sufficient rest and sleep breaks to maximize their performance and minimize the risk of accidents, injuries, or deaths. According to the 2020 Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts report from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), there were 4,842 fatal crashes involving large trucks, which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines as “a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds.” Another 45,900 wrecks caused all manner of injuries that needed immediate medical attention, and 86,618 crashes resulted in “towaways,” events in which disabled vehicles had to be cleared by emergency responders.
Given the size and weight of large trucks—about 35,000 pounds for a cab pulling an empty trailer and up to 80,000 pounds when the trailer is fully loaded—they’re by nature more dangerous than smaller, lighter vehicles.
Factor in that 2% of these large-truck crashes were hauling hazardous materials (gas, oil, flammable liquids, corrosives, radioactive materials, etc.), and you’ve accounted for yet another level of danger.
Why is ghost driving such a big issue?
First you should know there are perfectly innocent, legal reasons for “ghost” drivers. For example, if a company is giving a road test to a new driver, it may use a ghost driver to ensure that this testing session does not affect the collective HOS hours. There are also trucking company workers who are not required to log hours, like certain mechanics.
But adding a ghost driver to violate HOS regulations is not one of those reasons. All it does is ensure that drivers are overworked and likely exhausted behind the wheel. Driving without enough sleep each day is actually like being behind the wheel with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.10. According to the Cleveland Clinic, a BAC level of 0.10% means that a person is likely to experience:
- Slowed thinking
- Reduced reaction time
- Slurred speech
- Lack of muscle coordination
- Lowered alertness
- Impaired judgment and reasoning
- A decreased ability to detect danger
And yet, thinking clearly, reacting quickly, and making good decisions are imperative to the safe operation of any motor vehicle much less a fully loaded, 36-ton big rig.
Thankfully, FMCSA is cracking down on ELD hardware companies whose products are not compliant, and companies are self-enforcing as well.
Scopelitis
Since the mandated implementation of Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) in December 2019, the trucking industry has largely – sometimes begrudgingly – accepted them and their role in managing Hours of Service (HOS) regulations. However, despite their intended use in preventing driver fatigue, a disturbing trend is emerging: the rise of “ghost” ELDs. These are falsified or tampered-with devices that undermine the very purpose of ELDs, posing significant safety and regulatory challenges.
What Are “Ghost” ELDs?
A “ghost” ELD refers to an electronic logging device that either falsifies data or is intentionally manipulated to create false logs. ELDs are required to accurately record driving time, rest periods, engine data, and driver activity. But with ghost ELDs, the data is either tampered with to show compliance when the driver is in violation, or the device itself is not connected to the engine as required. This creates the illusion of legal operation while allowing drivers or companies to bypass regulations.
Why Are They a Problem?
- Undermining Safety Regulations: The primary reason for the ELD mandate is to ensure drivers don’t work excessive hours, which could lead to fatigue, a factor in many accidents. When ghost ELDs are used, drivers can exceed their allowed hours without detection, putting themselves and others at risk. Fatigued driving significantly increases the likelihood of crashes, injuries, and fatalities. In this sense, ghost ELDs defeat the purpose of HOS regulations meant to protect public safety.
- Unfair Competition: Companies that comply with ELD regulations have to carefully manage driver hours and face the operational costs of keeping drivers within legal limits. However, those using ghost ELDs gain an unfair advantage by allowing drivers to work longer and cover more miles, which translates to lower costs and faster deliveries. This creates a distorted playing field where honest companies face a disadvantage while unscrupulous operators exploit the system.
- Legal and Financial Risks: Tampering with or falsifying ELD data is illegal and can lead to severe consequences for both drivers and carriers. Fines for violating ELD regulations can be steep, and companies caught using ghost ELDs risk even higher penalties. Moreover, in the event of an accident, falsified logs could expose companies and drivers to lawsuits, insurance complications, and potential criminal charges. Ghost ELDs can result in substantial financial losses due to fines, legal fees, and reputational damage.
- Eroding Trust in the System: The effectiveness of the ELD mandate relies on the assumption that the technology is accurately capturing driver activity and enforcing compliance. Widespread use of ghost ELDs threatens to erode trust in the system, not only among regulators but also within the industry itself. If ghost ELDs become more common, the integrity of the entire regulatory framework could be called into question, potentially leading to stricter enforcement measures and scrutiny.
Addressing the Issue
FMCSA appears to be poised to attempt to tackle the problem of ghost ELDs. Presently, the Agency relies on “self-certification” – basically the honor system for providers and carriers. (Canada, by contrast, requires ELD providers to be certified by an independent third party, offering a layer of security in their specifications.) In September 2022, however, FMCSA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments on a handful of ELD issues, including the question of whether a certification process should be established.
According to the Spring 2024 Unified Agenda, the next step in the regulation-making process – a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) – is scheduled to be released in June 2025.
Industry awareness and training can also help curb the use of ghost ELDs. Drivers and companies need to understand the serious risks associated with non-compliance and be educated on how to properly and legally use ELDs.
As technology continues to evolve, it is crucial for the industry to prioritize compliance and integrity, ensuring that ELDs serve their intended purpose of improving safety and transparency in the trucking industry.
Tyson Fisher
A federal appellate court has found that although Texas oil tanker drivers never leave the Lone Star state, they are still involved in interstate commerce and therefore exempt from overtime pay.
Earlier this year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s decision denying oil transporter Ace Gathering’s motion to dismiss a class-action wage lawsuit filed by tanker drivers. The case centers on interpretations of “interstate commerce” within the federal overtime pay exemption for motor carriers.
Most of the facts of the case are straightforward and undisputed. Tanker drivers for Ace Gathering load up crude oil from an oil field in Texas and transport that oil to a pipeline also located in Texas. For the truck drivers, their entire operations take place solely in Texas, making their journeys intrastate only.
Despite these intrastate-only trips, Ace Gathering did not offer drivers overtime pay, citing the Fair Labor Standards Act motor carrier exemption. That exemption applies when the driver is:
- Employed by a carrier subject to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s jurisdiction
- Engaged in activities directly affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles in the transportation on public highways of property in interstate or foreign commerce
Neither party disputes the first requirement, and both parties agree on the “safety-affecting activities” portion of the second requirement. The disagreement is on whether the drivers engage in interstate commerce, exempting them from overtime pay.
According to the Department of Labor, truck drivers are exempt from overtime pay when they are involved in interstate commerce or “connect with an intrastate terminal (rail, air, water or land) to continue an interstate journey of goods that have not come to rest at a final destination.”
Ace Gathering argued that the oil being transported continues beyond Texas state lines after a trucker delivers it to the pipeline.
Once a trucker drops off oil at a Texas pipeline, that oil goes to either an out-of-state refinery or to export markets for shipment outside the U.S. Although the trucking portion of the oil cargo is intrastate, it is only one leg of a longer journey outside of Texas. Therefore, tanker drivers are engaged in interstate commerce and exempt from overtime pay.
However, Judge Lee Rosenthal of the of the Southern District of Texas federal court found that Ace Gathering had no vested interest in oil once it crossed state lines via pipeline. The company’s customers – oilfield and pipeline operators – were all based in Texas. What happens to the oil after it leaves the trucks, Rosenthal argued, is of no interest to Ace Gathering.
But on appeal, the Fifth Circuit rejected that argument. Simply put, court precedent has established that a trucker is engaged in interstate commerce when transporting goods “ultimately bound for destinations beyond Texas, even though the route of the particular carrier is wholly within one state.”
“So while the crude haulers’ transportation of the crude oil is indeed entirely intrastate, their transportation is but one segment of the crude oil’s larger interstate journey and, by all indications, part of the crude oil’s ‘practical continuity of movement’ out of the state,” the appellate panel ruled. “Thus, under controlling precedent, we tread no new ground in holding that purely intrastate transportation rises to the level of interstate commerce when the product is ultimately bound for out-of-state destinations, just as the crude oil was here.”
Confusion surrounding overtime pay exemption
In a concurring statement, Judge Andrew Oldham highlighted the confusing nature of the overtime pay exemption.
Oldham focused on a 1971 Department of Labor interpretive rule exempting certain employees from overtime pay. That rule refers to language in the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 that defines interstate commerce as “between any place in a state and any place in another state or between places in the same state through another state.” Oldham states that based on the text, the 1971 rule would exempt only drivers “who actually crossed state or national borders in the course of their commercial activities.”
However, statutory changes in 1978 and 1995 more broadly defined interstate commerce to include intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Despite those changes, the Department of Labor has not updated its 1971 interpretive law, according to Oldham.
With conflicting information, the courts have been forced to devise “multiple, unmanageable standards for making overtime decisions,” Oldham pointed out. That includes an eight-factor balancing test to determine if a driver has a reasonable expectation of interstate transportation.
Without more clarity from Congress or the Department of Labor, courts instead rely on confusing precedent in overtime pay exemption cases involving certain intrastate trucking operations.
“It is unclear how the 1971 rule comports with the text of the relevant statutes,” Oldham stated. “And it is unclear how our precedents comport with the 1971 rule, which says nothing about factors like the good’s ultimate destination or the shipper’s state of mind. Incoherent as they might be, the precedents bind us.”
Congress can clear confusion regarding overtime pay exemptions
One way to end any confusion regarding overtime pay for truckers is to eliminate the exemption altogether.
That is exactly what the bipartisan GOT Truckers Act will do if passed by Congress and signed into law. Introduced by Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., and Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., the bill simply removes the overtime pay exemption from the Federal Labor Standards Act. Consequently, all employee truck drivers will receive overtime regardless of whether they drive interstate or intrastate, ending any confusion around the definition of interstate commerce.
Although the bill would apply only to company drivers, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association contends that forcing shippers and receivers to value a trucker’s time would create change throughout the industry.
“America’s truckers keep our nation’s economy moving, and without the hard work of these men and women, our supply chain would grind to a halt,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer said. “Unbelievably, trucking is one of the only professions in America that is denied guaranteed overtime pay. We are way past due as a nation in valuing the sacrifices that truckers make every single day. This starts with simply paying truckers for all of the time they work.”
Truck drivers can go to FightingForTruckers.com to encourage their lawmakers to co-sponsor the GOT Truckers Act.
NOTE: This Supreme Court Decision is important. 49CFR part 385, FMCSA has laid out the ADMINISTRATIVE process in which a motor carrier can use when receiving a notice of a proposed “unsatisfactory” safety rating or the findings of a Compliance Review. This Supreme Court decision states that the motor carrier has a right to a jury trial. For those motor carriers who have been involved in the “administrate” process have found our that FMCSA many times will say, “My way or the highway”. This Decision changes the rights of the motor carrier to request a jury trial.
On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. In its holding, the Court found that when the Securities Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial and thus the SEC must bring the action in federal court.
The implications of this decision, including its effect on SEC (and other agency) use of administrative tribunals, are considerable.
By way of background, in 2011 the SEC initiated an investigation into George Jarkesy and his firm, Patriot28, LLC. In 2013, the SEC brought an in-house action alleging violations of the antifraud provisions contained in the federal securities laws. After an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge found Jarkesy liable for securities fraud and ordered him to pay $300,000 in civil monetary penalties, among other sanctions. Jarkesy then sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed and remanded, finding that the SEC’s decision to adjudicate the matter in-house (rather than in federal court) violated Jarkesy’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling as to Jarkesy’s Seventh Amendment right. Specifically, the court noted that the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of a right to a jury trial applies to “[s]uits at common law,” which includes statutory claims that are “legal in nature.” The Court went on to say that the type of remedy the SEC sought against Jarkesy, i.e., civil monetary penalties, is the “prototypical common law remedy,” making clear that the SEC’s action was legal in nature (as opposed to an action in equity, to which no constitutional jury right is attached). This, according to the Court, follows from the fact that the civil penalties sought by the SEC were designed to “punish and deter” the wrongdoer rather than to enforce some sort of public right or, as the Court put it, to “restore the status quo.”
The Court added that the “public rights” exception to the Seventh Amendment, which allows Congress to assign certain matters that might otherwise be considered “legal in nature” for decision to an agency without a jury (such as matters relating to revenue collection, certain customs and immigration laws, or relations with Native American tribes), did not apply to Jarkesy’s case because the SEC’s suit intended to target “the same basic conduct as common law fraud,” which amounts to a “matter[] of private rather than public right.”
Thus, the Court concluded that the SEC’s suit against Jarkesy implicated the Seventh Amendment and that Jarkesy was entitled to a trial by jury on the SEC’s claims.
The Court’s ruling may have significant implications. As an initial matter, the decision amounted to a partial rejection of the SEC’s administrative forum. Further, while the SEC has limited the number of enforcement actions it brings in the administrative process in recent years, given the substantial costs associated with federal court litigation, Jarkesy may force the SEC to be more selective in its future enforcement efforts.
More broadly, the Jarkesy decision calls into question whether any federal regulatory agency—not just the SEC—can bring in-house proceedings to enforce civil penalties. This is particularly noteworthy, because although some agencies (such as the SEC) may choose whether to pursue civil penalties in federal court or via an in-house administrative proceeding, other agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, are only statutorily authorized to pursue enforcement through in-house proceedings.
Thus, some have voiced concern that because of Jarkesy, the powers of certain enforcement agencies may be substantially curtailed. Indeed, as Justice Sotomayor noted in her dissent, “the Constitutionality of hundreds of statutes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress.”
Consequently, Jarkesy may be only the beginning.
SJ Munoz
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration enacted a Hurricane Helene regional emergency declaration for eight states on Friday, Oct. 4.
Additionally, state emergency declarations previously issued in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia have all been extended.
“This declaration is in response to Hurricane Helene and its effects on people and property, including immediate threats to life and public safety from heavy rains, strong winds, storm surge, high surf and flooding,” the FMCSA regional emergency said.
Federal relief from 49 CFR Parts 390 through 399 granted by FMCSA’s declaration applies to commercial vehicle operators providing direct assistance supporting emergency relief efforts involving transportation and other relief services incident to the immediate restoration of essential supplies or services.
The origin of the trip does not matter so long as the direct assistance doesn’t include transportation related to long-term rehabilitation of damaged physical infrastructure after the initial threat to life and property has passed.
Direct assistance terminates when a driver or commercial motor vehicle is used in interstate commerce to transport cargo or provide services that are not in support of Helene emergency relief efforts related to the emergency, the FMCSA order said.
A driver may return empty to the motor carrier’s terminal or the driver’s normal work reporting location without complying with 49 CFR Parts 390-399.
FMCSA said it will continually review the status of the declaration and modify, extend or terminate as conditions warrant.
The Department of Transportation has activated its routing-assistance hotline for Hurricane Helene responders. This hotline at 833-99-ROADS (833-997-6237) supports the movement of federal, state, local, tribal and territorial response personnel, equipment and goods by providing recommended safe routes using a variety of data sources.
Learn more about assistance or find links to local resources in affected states on the FEMA website.
