The Truckload Carriers Association has assigned a committee to look at the issue of a mandatory fuel surcharge, such as the one in House Bill 4441 supported by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.
The Motor Carrier Fuel Cost Equity Act of 2000 (H.R. 4441), as the bill is known, would require truckload carriers to assess a fuel surcharge and pass it on to the person who paid for the fuel. The surcharge kicks in when a week’s average price exceeds the 52-week average by more than 5 cents. The bill is effective until Sept. 30, 2003.
According to the TCA newsletter, association members were sent a copy of the bill this month and asked for their comments and observations. As of the newsletter's press time, TCA had received 33 responses, most expressing opposition to the House-passed version of the bill.
Among the objections were the use of the Military Traffic Management Command's Defense Table of Official Distances for distance computations; the use of a 5-mph figure for consumption purposes; the disclosure of freight rates to contractors; and the use of a 52-week rolling average of the fuel price norm.
The Motor Carrier Fuel Cost Equity Act of 2000 (H.R. 4441), as the bill is known, would require truckload carriers to assess a fuel surcharge and pass it on to the person who paid for the fuel. The surcharge kicks in when a week’s average price exceeds the 52-week average by more than 5 cents. The bill is effective until Sept. 30, 2003.
According to the TCA newsletter, association members were sent a copy of the bill this month and asked for their comments and observations. As of the newsletter's press time, TCA had received 33 responses, most expressing opposition to the House-passed version of the bill.
Among the objections were the use of the Military Traffic Management Command's Defense Table of Official Distances for distance computations; the use of a 5-mph figure for consumption purposes; the disclosure of freight rates to contractors; and the use of a 52-week rolling average of the fuel price norm.
media brand
0 Comments
See all comments