Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo Auction Link (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Discussion Forum

DOT Numbers

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
Dennis

01-21-2003 08:54:44




Report to Moderator

Just curious how the rest of you feel about the new Federal Law on DOT numbers required before registration for any vehicle over 10,000 GVW, excluding RV's, Farm, and Personal Use?




[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
Wayne

01-21-2003 19:05:32




Report to Moderator
 Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Dennis, 01-21-2003 08:54:44  
Like everything else, it's all a money game, and another way to make things hard on the average working man. If your running an aportioned tag over 26,001lbs, don't forget about the fuel tax stickers, keeping up with all the milage in, and gas purchased in each state so they can aportion the money in the correct governmental way... just more paperwork for all of us... Best thing to do is come up with a new door sticker for an altered vehicle and put whatever GVW on it you want. Nothing matters to the weight man except for that, and according to the DMV safety officer I talked to that's all their actually trained to look for. Look in the trader papers, etc. axel weights can add up in excess of the GVW, etc., because it's just a number given based on the frame strength or manufacturers design, nothing else. The answer I got to my question about it was if the GVW sticker looks legal, and is something more than a note from your mother, that's all you need, they aren't trained to look any further. If you want to see what I mean, try calling a normal weigh station and asking them, 99% of the time nobody there will have an answer for you....at least that's true at the NC stations I called. I did alot of research on this in NC last year. All in all, what I found was DMV knows very little and doesn't have to because most of the actual laws/rules are purposefully vague to give them enough leway interpret as they see fit in any situation. You just have to know the loopholes to outsmart them... The big thing that tickes me off is this... If all states are like NC, a "normal" tag is only legal to 4,000#, but how many pickups/SUVs are there out there that weigh over that empty and are illegally running a 4,000# tag instead of paying the extra every year for a commercial tag to actually be legal. Maybe the DMV man needs to start pulling them and weighing them too instead of worring so much about the trucks. Our living is made with these trucks, no matter what type it is, and having to put up with all the idiots in the little cars who think just because it's a big truck it has big brakes you won't run over them when they cut you off or drive like the idiots they are whenever they see you. Problem is no matter what if an accident happens, it's gonna be your fault, BECDAUSE YOU DRIVE A BIG TRUCK....
Ok, I'm through venting and getting off my stump now.....

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Steve Young

01-24-2003 05:11:35




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Wayne, 01-21-2003 19:05:32  

How true you are. To fix this will take throwing all lawyers,judges,senators and reps.in prison for making laws against the people. And start inforceing the constitution of this United States of America.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dennis Benson

01-21-2003 18:23:30




Report to Moderator
 Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Dennis, 01-21-2003 08:54:44  
Just a dumb question. My truck is just 9,000 GVW, but I was wondering about a larger truck later. I found the form to get a DOT number, but I couldn't find a fee that I assume they will want. I emailed DOT, but they didn't know how to answer the email. How much is the fee?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
JK NY

01-21-2003 18:40:54




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Dennis Benson, 01-21-2003 18:23:30  

There is no fee , just an application to fill out . These #'s are just replacing the old ICC #'s As I understand it, mostly because the ICC was abolished 20 or so years ago . Hope this helps.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dennis Benson

01-21-2003 18:44:52




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to JK NY, 01-21-2003 18:40:54  
That sounds good, thanks.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Big D

01-21-2003 15:53:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Dennis, 01-21-2003 08:54:44  
Dennis:
We run several 350,450 and 550 ford 1-ton trucks
with 32' and 40' gooseneck trailors thruout the USA and up until last year we were legal.
We recivied a letter from DOT that we were in violation of the 10,000 lb limit.
In the same letter we were told that by 2004 any rolling stock over six wheels would be made to carry a DOT number.
After checking with the offices we use most often we were told that this would be correct.
They also told us about the money that they were loosing due to the fuel being used in all the hot shot rigs, Travel trailors being towed and farmers using fuel in their trucks insted of gas would soon be coming to a halt.
We would all be subject to crossing the scales.
Now people I for one do not agree with this but control is on the other side of that fence.
We have large trucks too. and that being said we run ICC # For back haul and DOT # on all our trucks including IFTA stickers for fuel tax paid each quarter and Apportion tag bought yearly at a cost of 800.00 or better per truck.
Sorry guy's could go on all night but just my 2 cents worth. Thanks for letting me vent. Big D

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
mark ct

01-21-2003 12:23:35




Report to Moderator
 Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Dennis, 01-21-2003 08:54:44  
third party image

i dont think this is anything new, when i registered my ford 600 (24000 gvw) last year they told me that if i was using it for a bussiness and i would be traveling out of the state that i would need dot numbers but if i wasnt doing that then i had to have not for hire posted on it. if you look at the picture you can see it on the bottom of the door in white letters. i am planning to sell this truck soon tho and get a gooseneck trailer for my one ton truck instead. it is just too expensive to insure and register for the amount that i use it

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
willie

01-21-2003 11:44:05




Report to Moderator
 Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Dennis, 01-21-2003 08:54:44  
The way I interpret the law. Really nothing new. Used to be every commercial carrier had to have an ICC number. The Interstate Commerce Commission was abolished a few years ago, & its duties assigned to U.S. Department of Transportation. This is just continuing the system that was in place since around 1936, under the DOT instead of ICC. Farm trucks & RV's exempted. My 3 cents(inflation) worth.
Willie-retired commercial(bus&truck)driver

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
WHICH LAW?????

01-21-2003 09:20:10




Report to Moderator
 Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Dennis, 01-21-2003 08:54:44  
Can you provide a link and/or a direct quote of the section of the law that says this???
If this is true it is very bad news.
It is sad how much freedom the trucking industry has allowed DOT to take away from them. For every other branch of society there must be probable cause for a search. Yet truckers seem not to have this protection, submitting to weigh stations, spot inspections, and high dollar tickets nobody should have to endure. Whatever happenned to innocent until proven guilty? When you are in a truck you seem to be an instant suspect and perpetrator of such dangerous to society practices like blown bulbs ten feet up in the air that obviously must cost you $100 per bulb. Those DOT garages built at weight stations make me sick!Go to any state auction and look at their surplus trucks. If they pass DOT I'll eat them!
Off my soapbox now... Truck

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
JK-NY

01-21-2003 18:32:57




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to WHICH LAW?????, 01-21-2003 09:20:10  
The law about DOT # is CFR 49(c0de of fedeal regulation) Section 390.21 . This law has been on the books for awhile but the deadline for having the DOT # on your truck was last year. This is for interstate commerce. Many states are requiring in-state companies to get a USDOT# as well. I heard that in NY they may require it eventually. The DOT # doesnt have anything to do with fighting terrorismas far as I know, it hasbeen around for years.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Nolan

01-21-2003 16:44:55




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to WHICH LAW?????, 01-21-2003 09:20:10  
'scuse me? You think everyone else has to have probable cause to be searched? And that no one else has given up freedoms?

Sobriety check points. No probable cause, you must prove you aren't drunk.

Gun purchases. Unless I can prove I'm legit, I cannot buy a gun. If the cops are to lazy to do their job (background check), I can't buy a gun, period. Even sweeter, that goes into the database for the next purchase, a record that I was prohibited from purchasing a gun.

Alcohol & tobacco purchases. Unless I can prove I'm an adult, it's assumed I'm a juvenile attempting to engage in an illegal purchase.

Wanna talk about the near total destruction of the Constitution by this despicable "homeland security" garbage? It's even worse then the "war on drugs".

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Truck

01-22-2003 07:38:19




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Nolan, 01-21-2003 16:44:55  
Nolan, I agree with ya fully on the other losses of freedom.None of them are ok. Sobriety check points are being contested and I think in some cases tossed out as a valid police exercise. Same with general roadblocks to check inspection stickers, etc...They remind me too much of being in wartime Europe.
Gun checks: It always bothered me that guns my Gramp had legally I can no longer own. I'm with ya there too. There needs to be some control there but when should we say enough?
Alchohol....Well, at least if you are denied the purchase you are not hauled off to the local magistrate, given a $500 fine for stuff that the State vehicles seem to have with no problem, or detained for 24 hours against your will in some God-forsaken weigh station in the middle of nowhere.
My biggest beef with weigh stations and the DOT mentality is that you cannot know when you pull into a station whether you will be able to leave with no fines, large fines, impoundment, or imprisonment. It is not like showing ID for booze, as with no ID you simply get no booze. It is more like some sort of evil lottery dreamed up by a psychotic lawman to get as much fine money from truck drivers as possible. Log books are a joke, don't even get me started on those.
Wish the framers of the constitution had thought to put in a specific "freedom to travel and transport" clause.If we have to have safe highways there are scales that can weigh as we travel down the road, and there are inspection programs thatwith only a simple windshield sticker to verify can prevent so called "killer trucks".There is absolutely no need to have a state run truck inspection program with million dollar heated garages so we can check every truck that travels down the interstate.Why should my truck, which passed NYS inspection with flying colors, need to be checked out again three times on a trip to California? If one clearance light bulb blows on the trip why is it OK for the DOT man to fine me $100 even if I change the bulb in his sight? Yet it is perfectly OK for granpappy to buy a huge motor home, tack weld a tow bar to it and trailer a car all over the country in a rig that is so overloaded it blows tires every time it gets on a warm Phoenix highway? Is that equality for all?

Nope, it's all about money.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dennis

01-21-2003 09:54:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to WHICH LAW?????, 01-21-2003 09:20:10  
I didn't mean to get you too "fired up", but was interested in others opinions.

The Statute for MN is 168.185 effective 8/1/02, but very little meaning till the renewal notice in the mail and the coming 2/28/03 deadline for new tags.

Not good with links but will try in the next post, though I can tell you it was something tacked on to an "Omnibus" bill and is very hard to track.

When I finally did reach someone in a state office, after a week of hearing busy signals, computer messages and punching countless menue numbers, I was told it was to curb terrorism and a mandate from Federal Law.

I am still doing research, though, that much did curb a little of my stress.(Compared to another useless law with no reasoning?)

Most of us are willing to do quite a bit on the "Terrorism" thing, but it will soon get entirely out of hand.

I was also told, that though this year it will not apply to some, and there is no fee or requirement to post, that in the near future there will be no way around it.

It will be people not unlike those on this board that things like this will affect most, and in my eyes will do little to actually have any effect on the stated cause.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dennis

01-21-2003 10:20:12




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Dennis, 01-21-2003 09:54:18  
From>Link
**************************************************
168.185>Link USDOT numbers.

(a) An owner of a truck or truck-tractor having a gross vehicle weight of more than 10,000 pounds, as defined in section 169.01, subdivision 46, other than a farm truck, shall report to the registrar at the time of registration its USDOT carrier number. A person subject to this paragraph who does not have a USDOT number shall apply for the number at the time of registration by completing a form MCS-150 Motor Carrier Identification Report, issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or comparable document as determined by the registrar.

(b) Assigned USDOT numbers need not be displayed on the outside of the vehicle, but must be made available upon request of an authorized agent of the registrar, peace officer, other employees of the state patrol authorized in chapter 299D, or employees of the Minnesota department of transportation. The vehicle owner shall notify the registrar if there is a change to the owner's USDOT number.

(c) If an owner fails to report or apply for a USDOT number, the registrar shall suspend the owner's registration.

(d) Until October 1, 2003, paragraphs (a) to (c) do not apply to an agricultural fertilizer or agricultural chemical retailer while exclusively engaged in delivering fertilizer or agricultural chemicals to a farmer for on-farm use.

HIST: 2002 c 364 s 9 **************************************************
I see nothing here about exemption for "personal use", though it is so stated on the from that came with the registration renewal.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Old Iron

01-21-2003 15:08:32




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Dennis, 01-21-2003 10:20:12  
(d) Until October 1, 2003, paragraphs (a) to (c) do not apply to an agricultural fertilizer or agricultural chemical retailer while exclusively engaged in delivering fertilizer or agricultural chemicals to a farmer for on-farm use.

WHAT SENSE IS THIS!!!! If they were really worried about terrorism don't you think this would be the first things to get the DOT numbers? If I remember right wasn't it a fertilizer-diesel mix that took down the fed building in Oklahoma? What about light duty rental trucks that fall under the 10,000 GVW? Get a few of them together in a group and how big of a bang do you think they would cause?

DOT numbers to fight terrorism? I believe that as much as George JR. saying he has no interest in attacking Iraq.

My 2 bits worth,

Old Iron

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Phil Munson

01-22-2003 07:56:42




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Old Iron, 01-21-2003 15:08:32  
HE is the president; even if he is mentally impaired and was elected by five old coots in funny black robes. Lets have a little more respect for Dubya; yes, even if he doesn't deserve it.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Old Iron

01-22-2003 09:48:46




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Phil Munson, 01-22-2003 07:56:42  
Phil,

When I was in Army basic training back in 1983 I was told by one old drill SGT. "You don't have to respect the person but you must respect the rank." I find alot of truth in that statement.

I have 17 years in the Regular Army and the Army Reserves. I served in the Gulf the 1st time around and was called up again in 1998-1999 and was sent to Bosnia. Right now I'm looking at a return trip to the big cat box.

Will I go if I'm called to go back? YES! I raised my right hand and gave my word to go where ever I am called to go. Will I be happy about it? HECK NO! If I was to be sent to Afganistan I would have no problems with that but to be sent back to the Gulf so Dubya can fix his daddy's mess THAT I have a problem with.

Before we go and kick the 4 point contacts of another country shouldn't we take care of our promises to Afghanistan first? How is it going to look to the rest of the world if we continue to do only half the job and then bug out because it doesn't suit our needs anymore.

My 6 bits worth,

Old Iron

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Scott Green

01-22-2003 14:04:07




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Old Iron, 01-22-2003 09:48:46  
Heck , Polititions and people in the court houses raise there right hand all the time. Yet it doesn't mean a thing. They out right lie anyways. What a joke! Even OJ says he didn't do it.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Scott Green

01-21-2003 17:01:30




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Old Iron, 01-21-2003 15:08:32  
I'm with you , old iron. They(All the federal/state goverment , and any other do-gooder program) all will jump on the terrorism bandwagon. Bottom line is: they want more money. Money and Greed. The question is: When is it going to stop! Everywhere you look , companies are down sizing/moving over seas. People are loosing there jobs , homes , autos , etc.. Yet all this goverment can think about is raising taxes. You would think they would be cutting expences. I'll bet you never see them cut the expences/wages which effect each one of them personally. Look at the tax money Bush is spending on this war on oil( He calls it the war on terrorism). Take that same money and invest it back into the USA for the people. Let up a little on the businesses. Don't make it so hard for businesses to exist. Give Businesses incentive to stay in the USA. Here's another thought: Reverse the whole income tax situation. No income taxes pulled out of paychecks! This would give more money to the consumer to spend , resulting in more sales taxes collected by each state. Now , each state will send a percentage of the sales tax to the federal goverment. Of course , the states would probably then raise sales tax out of site. Goverment knows how to makes things work for everyone. They just don't want to do things that way.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Burrhead

01-21-2003 20:10:58




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Scott Green, 01-21-2003 17:01:30  
It is kinda odd that King George can spend zillions of tax $$ on an oil war for Unocal-Halliburton, but he cannot spend one cent of tax money for new jobs for the 89,000 newly unemployed people every month under his regime so far.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Phil Munson

01-22-2003 07:54:08




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Burrhead, 01-21-2003 20:10:58  
Damn Straight



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
bill hillbrant

01-25-2003 19:10:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Phil Munson, 01-22-2003 07:54:08  
check and see who are the major stockholders in the oil co,s in iraq-then you,ll have the answer on why HE wants to invade-my 2$ worth



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
bill hillbrant

01-25-2003 16:13:56




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DOT Numbers in reply to Phil Munson, 01-22-2003 07:54:08  
check and see who are the major stockholders in the oil co,s in iraq-then you,ll have the answer on why HE wants to invade-my 2$ worth



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy