P K Wells Associates,LLC
December 22, 2020
Annual Queries
Have you met the requirement?
Per § 382.701, employers of CDL drivers must conduct a query of the Clearinghouse at least once per year for each CDL driver they employ.
What satisfies this annual requirement?
An employer has met this requirement if they have completed a query for each currently-employed driver by January 5, 2021.
Does an annual query have to be a limited query?
No. A limited query satisfies the annual query requirement, as does a pre-employment query or other full query.
How is the annual query deadline tracked?
On a rolling 12-month basis. If an employer conducted a query on a driver on June 1, 2020, the employer is not required to conduct another query on that driver until June 2, 2021.
Why is January 5, 2021 considered the deadline for meeting the annual query requirement?
On January 6, 2021, the Clearinghouse will have been operational for one year, therefore employers who have not conducted a query on a CDL driver or drivers employed prior to January 6, 2020 will not have met the annual requirement.
For drivers hired after January 6, 2020, the required pre-employment query satisfies the annual requirement, and the employer is not required to query that driver again until 12 months after that pre-employment query.
December 14, 2020
FMCSA looking to drop duplicate regulation of requirement for drivers to report traffic violations to carriers
As part of its effort to remove costly, redundant and burdensome regulations, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is considering eliminating the requirement that interstate truck drivers annually prepare and submit a list of their traffic violation convictions to their employers.
The agency says the requirement is “largely duplicative” of another provision that requires carriers to make an annual inquiry of each driver’s motor vehicle record (MVR) from every state in which the driver holds or has held a CDL or permit in the past year.
For drivers licensed by a foreign authority rather than by a state, that provision would be amended to require carriers to make an annual inquiry to each driver’s licensing authority where a driver holds or has held a CDL or permit. This change would require carriers to request the MVR equivalent from Canadian and Mexican driver’s licensing authorities.
FMCSA says removing this requirement for drivers to provide a list of their traffic violation convictions would reduce the paperwork burden on drivers and carriers without adversely affecting safety.
The American Trucking Associations previously voiced support for the removal of this requirement for drivers in 2017 when the DOT asked the public to identify rules that were good candidates for repeal, replacement, suspension or modification.
Trucks Likely to be Part of Nevada Climate Change Initiative
December 7, 2020 • by Jack Roberts
C02 emissions will be a major target of a new Nevada initiative to combat climate change.
A California-like Clean Truck Program could be adopted by neighboring Nevada as a result of a sweeping new Nevada Climate Initiative.
The governor's State of Nevada Climate Initiative released its State Climate Strategy, an integrated, economy-wide roadmap for the Silver State to accelerate climate action needed to achieve state climate goals and benefit from the clean energy and technology revolution, the organization said.
According to the Nevada Climate Initiative, more than 75% of climate survey respondents in Nevada indicated they are "very concerned" about climate change, with drought, wildfire, air quality, and extreme heat among the topics of greatest concern.
This strategy is designed as a framework for state policymakers to evaluate 17 climate policies and programs and how they work with the timelines and benchmarks necessary for Nevada to achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction goals established by the state legislature in 2019. In November 2019, Gov. Steve Sisolak signed an executive order directing the executive branch to work on advancing state climate goals. The strategy looks at policies based on their greenhouse gas emissions-reduction potential, climate justice, economic implications, and implementation feasibility.
California Trucking Regulations to Come?
The Nevada strategy emphasizes the need to transition away from fossil fuels in the transportation sector, the leading source of the state's emissions.
In order to meet these goals, the strategy includes five specific policies directly aimed at the transportation sector in the state"
Adopting low- and zero-emissions vehicle standards
A clean truck program
Low-carbon fuel standards
A “cash for clunkers” program
Ending a loophole that allows car owners to evade emission checks.
Looking specifically at trucking, the Initiative suggests adopting California’s Clean Truck Program introduced in June. Under the auspices of this plan, OEMs will have to to increase the percentage of their sales to clean vehicles through 2035, and fleet owners with 50 or more trucks are required to report their existing fleet operations.
Paul Enos, who heads the Nevada Trucking Association, told the Nevada Independent newspaper that what California does can have a big effect in Nevada. Enos noted that many Nevada truck fleets already have vehicles that meet California standards, so regulatory changes in Nevada could have a more minimal effect.
He also noted that while many large fleets are already moving toward reducing their emissions as large corporate end-users look to meet their sustainability goals, any new rules would fall disproportionally on smaller trucking companies. And unlike in California, he said Nevada might not have the ability to offer incentives to smaller players in the industry. He said state regulators should weigh that with any rules they create. "California can afford to get a lot of things wrong that we can’t afford to do in Nevada,” Enos told the paper. “I worry about the small guys. I worry about the owner-operators.”
New Era for Climate Action
Gov. Sisolak, in a press release, called it "a new era for climate action in Nevada... For the first time in Nevada’s history, we are doubling down to address climate change head-on. The Nevada State Climate Strategy serves as the critical framework necessary to elevate climate action and foster a healthy, vibrant, climate-resilient future for all Nevadans.”
The strategy was developed using the best available science, combined with input from thousands of Nevadans through a series of listening sessions on a range of climate topics, as well as a statewide climate survey, discussions with local government leaders, and more. The strategy will be adapted and updated as the impacts of climate change evolve and new climate-friendly technologies become available.
Not everyone is convinced the Nevada initiative goes far enough, however. The Environmental Defense Fund, a national environmental advocacy group, issued a statement applauding Nevada’s Climate Initiative as an important first step in the battle against climate change, but said more needed to be done.
“Importantly, the report presents a strong pathway forward for policy action, recognizing the need for an enforceable cap on pollution — which can be achieved with a flexible, market-based approach that incentivizes businesses to curb pollution,” said Katelyn Roedner Sutter, manager for U.S. Climate at EDF. “This approach is a critical piece in a suite of policies necessary for meeting the state’s climate goals, and it should be designed to lift up the communities most burdened by climate impacts and air pollution. Now, the state will need to double-down on developing a market-based approach and complementary policies that can actually curb pollution at the pace and scale required.”
Why won't diabetic drivers listen to their doctors?
Larry Kahaner
Mon, 2017-10-16 09:15
Truck drivers suffer from diabetes at a rate almost 50% higher than the rest of Americans because they have more risk factors, physicians note.
A truck driver's life is a recipe for diabetes, and the statistics prove it. In the U.S., about 9.4% of the population has diabetes according to the Centers for Disease Control. For truckers, that number is 14%.
Why do truckers suffer from diabetes at a rate almost 50% higher than the rest of Americans? They have more risk factors, physicians say. Drivers smoke more – about half of truck drivers smoke compared to 19% of other adults – they rarely exercise and their diet is high in calories and fat. Also, almost 70% of truck drivers are obese, which is more than twice the nation average. "See Obesity and other risk factors: the national survey of U.S. long-haul truck driver health and injury."
Physicians like Dr. Albert Osbahr who treat truck drivers among other patients, say they’re taken aback when drivers are surprised when they're disqualified. "They have numbers that are high and wonder why we might give them short cards or might actually, in some cases, disqualify them when their numbers are 450 or 500. They'll look at me in disbelief and say: 'Why would you do that?' I say, 'This is not stable. This is not safe.'"
The American Diabetes Association recommends aiming for a blood sugar level between 70 to 130 mg/dl (milligrams per deciliter) before meals and less than 180 mg/dl one to two hours after a meal. Fasting before a blood test gives the most accurate reading.
"If we don't find ways to improve this we'll have more guys with eye problems, heart problems, kidney problems, stroke-like symptoms or sensation problems because of diabetes," noted Osbahr, who is the medical director of occupational health services at Spartanburg (SC) Regional Healthcare System and a Board of Trustees Member of the American Medical Association.
"Weight loss is very crucial to diabetes control,” he added. “I've seen dramatic control of diabetes Type 2 when people lose weight. The two key issues in terms of weight – as long as there's not something else in the way like another disease such as thyroid or a medication that is causing extra weight – are exercise and diet."
About 90 to 95% of people with diabetes have Type 2, a condition in which your body doesn't use insulin properly, a malady also known as 'insulin resistance.' Insulin is a hormone made by the pancreas that allows your body to produce sugar from carbohydrates in food. This sugar (glucose) gives you energy which is why one of the first signs of diabetes is fatigue. Type 1 diabetes is rarer and usually presents itself in children as the pancreas may be dysfunctional from birth and not produce any insulin. People with Type 1 diabetes must take insulin every day, usually by injection. Contrary to what some people believe, Type 2 diabetes cannot become Type 1 diabetes. They are different diseases.
Because of how well medications work on Type 1 diabetes, The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has proposed that drivers who use insulin may no longer need a medical waiver to drive but instead can get certified annually by their health care provider that their diabetes is well controlled by insulin.
Osbahr repeats what he says to every trucker with diabetes. "When I see guys in the office and they raise the issue [of how to lose weight] I say, 'Add a little extra to your regular activities. Any little bit of extra exercise, walking, even doing some flexibility calisthenics for 15 minutes while you're getting ready to sleep or getting up in the morning can help. Probably the biggest thing is parking farther away from the truck stop [building], making that walk in and out and do that [extra walking] with any other kind of activity."
The other thing I say is 'you guys have to inspect your trucks. Why don't you make multiple trips around your truck in your inspection, but make it like a walk? You don't need a gym or a running track. You can add some jumping jacks if you can. You can do some knee-ups if you can. You can do some running in place if you want to, but everybody is probably able to at least walk and that does not require any additional equipment.'"
As for diet, Osbahr concedes that truckers have fewer healthy options on the road than most workers. "The foods that are offered on the road are not very good; they're also high caloric. You have to work to find the right ones. And I tell a lot of the guys, 'How many fat vegetarians have you seen?' Most of the guys will laugh and say, 'You're right; there are not too many of them.' I tell them, 'Yeah I've seen a few, but not that often.' There is something [healthier] about eating vegetables and fewer starches, breads and meats, even though I love them. There's something to be said for eating more vegetarian foods. You probably would lose more weight, but we don't always see those options on the road…. In general, the lifestyle of a trucker does not lend itself well to losing weight. There's no question about that."
Dr. Adrian Vella, who studies Type 2 diabetes at the Mayo Clinic and sees patients about 40% of his time, said that if he had to choose one thing for truckers to do that would prevent or handle diabetes it would be diet. "To me, the most important thing is the amount of calories you eat compared to the amount of energy expended during the day. The second most important thing is what those calories consist of. In general, it would be a good idea to avoid high-fat, calorie-dense foods."
"Nine times out of 10 they're [patients] are doing bad things,” he added. “They are not compliant or following recommendations, and I understand that this is difficult for truck drivers. The other issue is what physicians face when they're trying to choose medications for their patients. They want to avoid hypoglycemia at all costs for obvious reasons."
Some diabetes medicines cause hypoglycemia or low blood sugar which is deadly for drivers as it can cause blurry vision, poor coordination, tiredness and confusion.
Both Vella and Osbahr say that most doctors would prefer not to prescribe medicines for diabetes if it can be controlled in other ways, but often they have no choice as many patients are non-compliant when it comes to diet and exercise.
Osbahr knows that treating diabetes, especially in truckers, is an uphill battle. "The biggest problem I find is a lot of guys not taking care of themselves… It is hard for us as humans to stay disciplined in a way to take care of ourselves and truckers are no different than the rest of us non-truckers. Motivation seems to come only when bad things happen to our health. Plus, most of the truckers are men and we, as men, do not keep up on our health like we should."
Unfortunately, he sees truck drivers and diabetes as indicative of our nation's future. "We're not talking about just truckers who are a window into what our culture is doing. Our culture has gotten heavier and truckers are at the extreme."
FMCSA now requires seat belts for truck passengers
Matt Cole - Commercial Carrier Journal
June 6, 2016
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will soon require passengers in property carrying commercial vehicles to wear seat belts while in operation on public roads.
The agency will publish a Final Rule in the Federal Register on Tuesday, June 7, which will “hold motor carriers and drivers responsible” for making sure passengers in their trucks wear seat belts, the agency says. The rule will take effect Aug. 8.
FMCSA said the benefits of the rule are “any fatalities or injuries avoided or reduced in severity as a result of seat belt use.”
The rule doesn’t require the use of sleeper berth restraints, however. FMCSA said it “has no information on the effectiveness of current sleeper berth restraints in reconciling crash protection with fatigue prevention,” and because standard seat belts aren’t used for that purpose, the agency says it will keep the rule as-is.
Of the 17 commenters who chimed in on the rule, 12 supported it, according to FMCSA’s Final Rule. Of those who did not support the rule, four didn’t believe a rulemaking was necessary, or didn’t support drivers or carriers being held responsible, FMCSA said. The agency responded saying many states already hold drivers responsible for their passengers, and this rule is an extension of that. The agency added that ensuring passengers are wearing seat belts is a “minor additional requirement” for drivers.
According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 37 truck passengers not using seat belts were killed in crashes in 2014, a third of which were ejected from the cab.
OSHA issues final electronic record keeping rule for injuries
May. 11, 2016
Gloria Gonzalez - Business insurance
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its controversial final rule on Wednesday to expand electronic recordkeeping requirements for workplace injuries and illnesses and make such records publicly available. The new rule, effective Jan. 1, 2017, requires certain employers to electronically submit injury and illness data that they are already required to record on their onsite OSHA Injury and Illness forms. Establishments with 250 or more employees in industries covered by the recordkeeping regulation — as well as those with 20 to 249 employees in high risk industries such as agriculture, forestry, construction and manufacturing — must submit information on their 2016 injuries and illnesses by July 1, 2017, and their 2017 information by July 1, 2018. Beginning in 2019, the information must be submitted by March 2. OSHA said analysis of the information will enable the agency to use its enforcement and compliance assistance resources more efficiently and will make some of the data publicly available on the OSHA website. Currently, little or no information about injuries and illnesses at individual employers is made public or available to OSHA, according to the agency. But the agency likened its plans to publicly post injury and illness data to requirements for restaurants to display information about evaluations on their sanitary conditions. “Since high injury rates are a sign of poor management, no employer wants to be seen publicly as operating a dangerous workplace,” David Michaels, assistant secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, said in a statement. “Our new reporting requirements will ‘nudge’ employers to prevent worker injuries and illnesses to demonstrate to investors, job seekers, customers and the public that they operate safe and well managed facilities. Access to injury data will also help OSHA better target our compliance assistance and enforcement resources at establishments where workers are at greatest risk, and enable ‘big data’ researchers to apply their skills to making workplaces safer. “Industries balk at rule. However, stakeholders have consistently pushed back against the rule. The Coalition for Workplace Safety issued a statement shortly after the release of the final rule on Wednesday calling it an “ill-advised and poorly written regulation (that) will only result in more regulatory burden with no guarantees to improve workplace safety”. Without authority to do so, OSHA intends to post 5/11/2016 OSHA issues final electronic recordkeeping rule for injuries.
“The (coalition) is especially concerned about the damage that could come from the disclosure of sensitive and proprietary information — which companies go to great lengths to protect. Just as troubling will be the mischaracterization that will result when incidents, such as bee stings, slips and falls, and even heart attacks that do not reflect an employer’s safety culture are posted.” The Virginia based coalition is made up of a number of associations, including the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “This rule reverses OSHA’s longstanding approach that permitted employers to record injuries without fear of disclosure and therefore use the OSHA recordkeeping process as an internal management tool,” they continued. “Publicizing this data makes the mere recording of any injury an act of disclosure with associated negative impacts”. In keeping with OSHA’s focus on preventing retaliation against employees who report injuries and illnesses, the final rule specifically bars employers from retaliating against employees and mandates that their procedures for reporting work related injuries and illnesses must be reasonable and must not deter or discourage reporting. These provisions become effective Aug. 10, 2016.
Proposed paid sick leave rule to be published today
February 25, 2016
By Susan Schoenfeld, JD, Senior Legal Editor
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has announced a proposed rule to implement Executive Order 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors. Executive Order 13706 was signed by President Barack Obama on September 7, 2015, and requires parties that enter into covered contracts with the federal government to provide covered employees with up to 7 days of paid sick leave annually, including paid leave allowing for family care. According to the DOL, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will be published on February 25, 2016, in the Federal Register.
What does the proposed rule do?
The proposed rule describes the categories of contracts and employees covered by the Executive Order; the rules and restrictions regarding the accrual and use of paid sick leave; the obligations of contracting agencies, the Department of Labor, and covered federal contractors under the Order; and the remedies and enforcement procedures to implement the Order’s requirements.
Under the proposal, employees would accrue not less than 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked or in connection with a covered contract, to be calculated at the end of each workweek. The proposal also creates an option for contractors to provide an employee with at least 56 hours of paid sick leave at the beginning of each accrual year rather than allowing the employee to accrue the leave based on hours worked. All covered contractors would be required to inform employees in writing of the amount of paid sick leave they have accrued no less than monthly and at other times.
Which contractors will be affected?
Executive Order 13706 applies to new contracts and replacements for expiring contracts with the federal government that result from solicitations issued on or after January 1, 2017 or that are awarded outside the solicitation process on or after January 1, 2017. Coverage of contracts and employees under the proposal is nearly identical to coverage under the regulations implementing the Minimum Wage Executive Order, except that this proposal also covers employees who qualify for an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime provisions.
Under the proposal, Executive Order 13706 applies to four major categories of contractual agreements:
1. Procurement contracts for construction covered by the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA);
2. Service contracts covered by the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act (SCA);
3. Concessions contracts, including any concessions contracts excluded from the SCA by the Department’s regulations at 29 CFR 4.133(b); and
4. Contracts in connection with federal property or lands and related to offering services for Federal employees, their dependents, or the general public.
Maximum accrual, carryover, reinstatement, and payment for unused Leave
The NPRM provides that contractors may limit the amount of paid sick leave employees may accrue to 56 hours each year and must permit employees to carry over accrued, unused paid sick leave from one year to the next. The department also proposes to allow contractors to limit the amount of paid sick leave employees have accrued to 56 hours at any point in time.
Under the proposal, contractors will be required to reinstate employees’ accrued, unused paid sick leave if the employees are rehired by the same contractor or a successor contractor within 12 months after a job separation. Contractors will not be required to pay employees for accrued, unused paid sick leave at the time of a job separation (“cash-out”).
Use of paid sick leave
The Executive Order explains that an employee may use paid sick leave for an absence resulting from:
(i) Physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition of the employee;
(ii) Obtaining diagnosis, care, or preventive care from a health care provider by the employee;
(iii) Caring for the employee’s child, parent, spouse, domestic partner, or any other individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship who has any of the conditions or need for diagnosis, care, or preventive care described in (i) or (ii); or
(iv) Domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, if the time absent from work is for the purposes described in (i) or (ii) or to obtain additional counseling, seek relocation, seek assistance from a victim services organization, take related legal action, or assist an individual related to the employee as described in (iii) in engaging in any of these activities.
The department proposes definitions of these terms. In addition, under the NPRM, contractors must account for the use of paid sick leave in increments of no greater than 1 hour and must provide employees using paid sick leave with the same pay and benefits they would have received if they hadn’t used the leave.
Upon publication of the proposed rule, interested parties will be invited to submit written comments on the proposed rule at www.regulations.gov.
Congress Has Multiple Options for Fixing HOS Glitch
February 22, 2016
By Eric Miller and Eugene Mulero Transport Topics Staff Reporters
Multiple pieces of congressional legislation are being considered as the best vehicle to fix a technical "glitch" in a fiscal 2016 funding law related to the hours-of-service rule for truckers.
Transportation leaders on Capitol Hill are likely to begin addressing the legislative fix as early as March, said Dave Osiecki, chief of national advocacy for American Trucking Associations. Lawmakers are considering whichever bill has the best chance of advancing to the president's desk for his signature. They return to Capitol Hill this week from a weeklong recess.
"ATA is focused on fixing the current problem," Osiecki said. "We're heartened by the fact that key members of Congress on both sides of the aisle seem willing to work toward a common sense, acceptable solution."
Officials at the U.S. Department of Transportation confirmed the agency is aware of the situation and would cooperate with lawmakers and the industry to address the matter.
“While Congress works on this issue, the department stands ready to provide assistance as requested,” DOT told Transport Topics on Feb. 16 in an e-mailed statement.
At issue is technical language that was omitted in the fiscal 2016 funding law, signed by President Obama in December. As a result, the law appears to indicate that DOT is required to eliminate the existing HOS rule — not just a 34-hour restart provision in the rule — if a congressionally mandated study of the restart provision fails to show safety and other benefits.
The funding law, or omnibus, had been intended to address only the 34-hour restart provision, which calls for consecutive 1 a.m.-to-5 a.m. rest periods and that they be limited to once a week. Those regulations have been suspended since enactment of a fiscal 2015 funding bill that was signed in December 2014. They were first implemented in July 2013.
According to ATA, the DOT’s interpretation of the law could result in reverting to weekly work limits of 60 hours in seven days and 70 hours in eight days.
“The impact of the omission is that if the congressionally directed study shows that there were not safety and other benefits to the restart restrictions, then the entire restart — the ability to take a 34-hour rest and reset your weekly clock — could go away,” Osiecki said.
Trucking industry officials have long said the old restart reduced highway safety by forcing more trucks onto highways during peak traffic times and also hurt overall driver productivity.
The omnibus’ report says: “Section 133 suspends a portion of the hours-of-service regulation unless the Secretary and the Inspector General find that the final report meets all statutory requirements and establishes improved outcomes.”
ATA said the omnibus did not include the provision “specifically stipulating that the industry would continue to operate under the old restart rules if the study does not conclude that the restrictions offer significant benefits.”
According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the congressionally mandated commercial motor-vehicle driver restart study, which completed its five-month data collection phase in September, was designed to measure and compare the fatigue and safety performance levels of truck drivers in a “naturalistic environment” while using two different versions of the HOS restart provisions.
Those comparisons included the restart provisions in effect between July 1, 2013, and Dec. 15, 2014, and the restart provisions in effect as of June 30, 2013.
The analysis was completed, and a report was submitted to DOT in December but has yet to be made public.
Truckload Carriers Association President John Lyboldt told TT his group is “on the same page” as ATA on the issue.
“At this point, we don’t know what the solution is going to be,” Lyboldt said. “We’ve got to find some solution that is going to allow for the language that was not in the original legislation to help drivers get the proper rest.”
“From our perspective, it was never the intention of lawmakers to do away with the 34-hour restart,” said Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association. “So whatever the scuttlebutt is, we hope they remedy it on a timely basis.”
“From our perspective, we have to figure it was a totally inadvertent error,” Spencer added.
Henry Jasny, general counsel for the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, told TT: “Our feelings are that [DOT] should issue its report and move on. I think that the error in the statute creates a conundrum that the agency can’t necessarily address. The agency needs to say it’s impossible to do the comparison that Congress required and it’s free of its responsibility and can start enforcing the 34-hour, two-nights, once-a-week provision.”
Anti-coercion rule now in effect, protects drivers from brokers, carriers threatening ‘economic harm’
James Jaillet - Commercial Carrier Journal
February 12, 2016
A new federal rule that implements large fines for carriers, shippers and brokers caught pressuring drivers to operate beyond federal safety regulations, such as when they’re out of hours, is now in effect, as is a new system for truckers to file complaints for alleged coercion instances with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
The rule is intended to protect truckers from “threats of economic harm,” the rule states, such as loss of business, pay, miles, loads and the like, if drivers don’t comply with entities trying to push them to operate when they legally can’t.
The rule, which took effect Jan. 29, sets hefty fines for entities caught coercing drivers — $16,000 a pop, a price the agency likely hopes is a coercion prevention measure in and of itself, beyond the federal rules actually prohibiting coercion.
FMCSA also plans to work in conjunction with the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration on coercion claims, it says, as FMCSA is only in the position to fine carriers (or other entities) for coercion instances and cannot provide remedy, such as ordering back wages or punitive damages, to drivers who are found to have been coerced.
Drivers filing coercion complaints must make them in writing to FMCSA’s National Consumer Complaint Database within 90 days of the occurrence of the coercion instance.
The agency will then decide if the claim is “nonfrivolous” or otherwise. If it deems a claim legitimate, it will turn the case over to a division administrator to pursue an investigation.
They agency, in response to carrier-submitted concerns that drivers may file frivolous complaints, said a similar OSHA anti-retaliatory program reveals such “groundless accusations” to be “a relatively minor problem.” Moreover, for a coercion complaint to be legitimate, drivers must “state explicitly that he or she cannot deliver the load without violating the applicable regulations.” From there, the coercing entity must “explicitly threaten” some form of economic harm, FMCSA says.
Exemptions and Dependents: TopTen Tax Facts
January 28, 2016
Most people can claim an exemption on their tax return. It can lower your taxable income. In most cases, that reduces the amount of tax you owe for the year. Here are the top 10 tax facts about exemptions to help you file your tax return.
1. E-file Your Tax Return. Easy does it! Use IRS E-file to file a complete and accurate tax return. The software will help you determine the number of exemptions that you can claim. E-file options include free Volunteer Assistance, IRS Free File, commercial software and professional assistance.
2. Exemptions Cut Income. There are two types of exemptions. The first type is a personal exemption. The second type is an exemption for a dependent. You can usually deduct $4,000 for each exemption you claim on your 2015 tax return.
3. Personal Exemptions. You can usually claim an exemption for yourself. If you’re married and file a joint return, you can claim one for your spouse, too. If you file a separate return, you can claim an exemption for your spouse only if your spouse:
Had no gross income,
Is not filing a tax return, and
Was not the dependent of another taxpayer.
4. Exemptions for Dependents. You can usually claim an exemption for each of your dependents. A dependent is either your child or a relative who meets a set of tests. You can’t claim your spouse as a dependent. You must list the Social Security number of each dependent you claim on your tax return. For more on these rules, see IRS Publication 501, Exemptions, Standard Deduction, and Filing Information. Get Publication 501 on IRS.gov. Just click on the Forms & Pubs tab on the home page.
5. Report Health Care Coverage. The health care law requires you to report certain health insurance information for you and your family. The individual shared responsibility provision requires you and each member of your family to either:
Have qualifying health insurance, called minimum essential coverage, or
Have an exemption from this coverage requirement, or
Make a shared responsibility payment when you file your 2015 tax return.
Visit IRS.gov/ACA for more on these rules.
6. Some People Don’t Qualify. You normally may not claim married persons as dependents if they file a joint return with their spouse. There are some exceptions to this rule.
7. Dependents May Have to File. A person who you can claim as your dependent may have to file their own tax return. This depends on certain factors, like total income, whether they are married and if they owe certain taxes.
8. No Exemption on Dependent’s Return. If you can claim a person as a dependent, that person can’t claim a personal exemption on his or her own tax return. This is true even if you don’t actually claim that person on your tax return. This rule applies because you can claim that person as your dependent.
9. Exemption Phase-Out. The $4,000 per exemption is subject to income limits. This rule may reduce or eliminate the amount you can claim based on the amount of your income. See Publication 501 for details.
10. Try the IRS Online Tool. Use the Interactive Tax Assistant tool on IRS.gov to see if a person qualifies as your dependent.
Each and every taxpayer has a set of fundamental rights they should be aware of when dealing with the IRS. These are your Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Explore your rights and our obligations to protect them on IRS.gov.
FMCSA holding webinars this week, next month to discuss ELD mandate
January 25, 2016
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will host two webinars on its December-published electronic logging device rule in the coming weeks.
The first webinar will be held Wednesday, Jan. 27 from 2-3:30 p.m. Eastern. It will provide an overview of the new ELD rule and how it will be implemented. It will also delve into specifics of the rule such as harassment, record retention and supporting documentation.
The second webinar will be held Thursday, Feb. 11 from 2-3:30 p.m. Eastern, and it will focus on the first phase of implementation, which starts Feb. 16, 2016 and ends Dec. 18, 2017. During this “Transition and Awareness” phase, carriers and drivers will be able to use registered ELDs. This webinar will offer guidance to carriers on how the rule will be enforced during this phase at roadside and during investigations.
Space is limited, and registration is on a first-come, first-served basis. Recordings of the webinars will be available for those who cannot attend.
The rule was published Dec. 16, 2015, and carriers and drivers will have two years from that date to comply with the rule.- See more at: http://www.ccjdigital.com/fmcsa-holding-webinars-this-week-next-month-to-discuss-eld-mandate/
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act or "FAST Act"
December 17 2015
On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, or "FAST Act" - the first Federal law in over ten years to provide long-term funding certainty for surface transportation. The FAST Act authorizes $305 billion over fiscal years 2016 through 2020 for the Department's highway, highway and motor vehicle safety, public transportation, motor carrier safety, hazardous materials safety, rail, and research, technology and statistics programs. With its enactment, States and local governments may now move forward with critical transportation projects, like new highways and transit lines, with the confidence that they will have a Federal partner over the long term.
This web site will be your one-stop shop for information about the portions of the Act related to the Federal Highway Administration. We will add information on a regular basis as implementation progresses, and we invite you to visit the site often.
For additional information regarding the FAST Act, including provisions that impact other agencies within the Department of Transportation, please visit the Department's FAST Act website.
Let the e-log countdown begin: Rule takes effect Dec. 16, 2017
James Jaillet - CCJ Magazine
December 11, 2015
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has scheduled the final version of its rule to mandate electronic logging devices for truck operators to be published Wednesday, Dec. 16. Carriers and drivers will have two years from that publication date to comply — Dec. 16, 2017.
The agency announced the rule early Thursday morning, and it was filed Friday morning in its pre-publication form in the public inspection site of the Federal Register, denoting a publication date of Dec. 16.
The rule will require U.S. truck drivers to use electronic logging devices to track and log their records of duty status. FMCSA released a 500-page document this week detailing the new rule’s stipulations, the changes it made from the the proposed version and responses to industry groups and individuals who submitted public comments during the proposed rule’s comment period held last year.
The mandate, in addition to requiring use of the devices, spells out the minimum hardware requirements for compliant devices, supporting documentation still needed to be kept by drivers and carriers and strategies to prevent carriers from using the devices to interrupt drivers’ off-duty periods and other measures deemed “driver harassment.”
Stay tuned in the coming days for more details on the rule and and what it means for carriers and the industry.
11/25/2015
FMCSA Announces Plan to Create a Voluntary Driver Legal Drug Use Form
Federal trucking regulators have asked for public comment on a plan to create a voluntary driver medication form designed to help medical examiners determine if prescription drugs being taken by a driver could interfere with the driver’s ability to operate a commercial vehicle. In a Nov. 25 Federal Register announcement, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration said the new CMV Driver Medication Form grew out of concerns that some drivers could be using legal drugs that might render them a safety risk. The idea of creating the form stems from a review by doctors who advised the agency in October 2014. Although the FMCSA’s Medical Review Board said such prescribed drugs as OxyContin and Percodan should prevent a driver from being behind the wheel, they declined to recommend changes to the agency’s drug regulations because current rules allow drivers legal use of the drugs. “Because there is moderate evidence to support the contention that the licit use of opioids increases the risk of motor vehicle crashes and impacts indirect measures of driver performance negatively, included was the recommendation that FMCSA develop a standardized medication questionnaire to assist the certified medical examiner when reviewing prescription medications that have been disclosed during the history and physical examination for CMV driver certification,” FMCSA said. The agency said the form should include a listing of all medications and dosages prescribed, what medical conditions are being treated with the medications, and a statement by the driver’s physician that the driver is fit to drive when using the medications.
By Eric Miller Staff Reporter Transport Topics
Highway bill presents tough challenges for FMCSA
Aaron Huff - Commercial Carrier Journal
November 20, 2015
Bill Quade, associate administrator for enforcement and program delivery, FMCSA, spoke at the CCJ Fall Symposium, Nov. 18.
Bill Quade is in charge of implementing new programs and regulations for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. From his vantage point, the highway bill now moving through Congress will test the agency’s limited resources.
Quade, the associate administrator for enforcement and program delivery at FMCSA, gave a presentation and answered questions from attendees at the CCJ Fall Symposium in Scottsdale, Ariz., on Nov. 18.
He began by noting the progress made towards the agency’s safety goals. In 2013, 4,000 people died in commercial motor vehicle crashes. A decade ago, fatalities numbered more than 5,000.
“I firmly believe in the goal and the mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to save lives and reduce injuries and crashes in commercial motor vehicles,” he stated. “I firmly believe that steps we are taking are steps towards that progress.”
Turning to the highway bill, Quade questioned why Compliance, Safety, Accountability scores will be removed from public view until regulators rework the program. If CSA scores are not public, carriers will have to field a lot of information requests from shippers and insurance brokers. The FMCSA had 72 million hits on its websites last year, he said, and predicted that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office may be overwhelmed.
At any rate, the agency will continue to use CSA scores to identify carriers for interventions as it makes new proposals and changes to the program. One change underway now is the “utilization factor” and segmenting of the Hazmat BASIC. The agency is going to give carriers a preview of what these changes will do to their CSA scores “in a couple of weeks,” he said.
The highway bill also requires FMCSA to implement a new program to assign crash preventability. The idea is to exclude crashes deemed as non-preventable from carriers’ CSA scores, such as when a vehicle rear-ends a commercial vehicle.
Quade believes the agency will have a “difficult time” implementing this because of limited resources. FMCSA will have to review approximately 120,000 commercial vehicle crashes per year, and “we are not going to do in-depth accident reconstructions because that is economically prohibitive.”
He warned of unintended consequences for the government assigning crash preventability. The conclusions “may get used out of context,” he said, like possibly being used as evidence in civil lawsuits brought against carriers.
The House of Representatives’ version of the highway bill flat lines FMCSA’s budget for the next six years. In real terms this represents an 11 percent decrease in funding, he said.
“Some of you may think that’s a good thing, and that’s okay, but it does make it difficult to do new programs,” he said. Despite limited resources, he estimates that FMCSA will be able to have a crash preventability program running in six months after the bill passes.
Beyond Compliance is a program included in the Senate version of the highway bill, and is required to be implemented before CSA scores go public again. The intent is for carriers to be given credit for doing things above compliance such as installing collision avoidance technologies.
The program is a good idea, Quade said, but “we are not best people to run it” due to limited resources to verify that fleets are actually doing what they claim.
“We have 400 investigators for 500,000 trucking companies. We do not have enough people to get to the worst companies, much less divert people to companies that are doing extra things,” he said.
Another difficult-to-implement program in the highway bill is CDL training for drivers under the age of 21. “I have mixed feelings about this. I am more comfortable doing a pilot before implementing nationally,” he said. “The stats say that inexperienced drivers are much, much less safe.”
Quade then gave an update on upcoming rules from the FMCSA:
E-log and driver coercion rules have cleared the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. Quade predicted they will be published as final rules between Thanksgiving and Christmas Day. Soon after, the agency plans to hold webinars to “make sure everybody understands what is and what is not required, and when,” he said.
The Safety Fitness Determination proposed rule will be reviewed by OMB “soon,” he said, and published before Christmas. The proposal uses on-road performance data to rate companies. The rule will allow the agency to keep ratings current on more carriers. Currently, safety ratings are given to carriers after on-site compliance reviews. FMCSA is able to visit 15,000 carriers a year, but there are about 500,000 registered carriers, he said. Once published, FMCSA plans to do a webinar to explain the differences between the current Safety Measurement System and the new rule.
A proposed rule for entry level driver training will be available in the “next month or two” for comments, he said.
A CDL Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse Final Rule will be published in early 2016. The rule would create a database of drivers who have failed or refused to take a drug or alcohol test. Carriers would then be required to query the database when making hires and upload drug testing information. Quade said the database will “take some time” to implement once the rule is published.
A rule to mandate the use of speed limiters on heavy trucks is currently being reviewed by the OMB.
A proposed rule, perhaps available next year, will streamline the transition of military members to CDL holders in civilian life. “We’re going to get to point where when you come out of the military you will get a regular CDL,” he said.
Driver coercion rule clears OMB, set for publication; rules on e-logs, speed limiters expected soon
James Jaillet - Commercial Carrier Journal
November 16, 2015
A rule that would impose stiff penalties on carriers, shippers, brokers and others who attempt to pressure drivers to operate beyond federal safety rules has been cleared by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and sent back to the DOT for publication in the Federal Register.
A proposed version of the rule was published in May 2014, calling for an $11,000 fine for each occurrence of so-called driver coercion, which the rule defined as threatening drivers with “loss of work or other economic opportunities for refusing to operate a CMV” in violation of hours rules or other regulations. The driver coercion rule is related to the DOT’s electronic logging device mandate, also set to be published this year.
The DOT, in its monthly regulatory update, projects the driver coercion rule to be published next Monday, Nov. 23.
The rule is the first to be cleared for publication in what could be a flurry of end-of-year regulatory activity for the trucking industry.
The DOT projects four other major rules to be published by year’s end, including Final Rules to mandate the use of electronic logging devices and speed limiters, along with a rule to set standards for entry-level driver training and the Federal Motor Carrier’s Safety Administration’s Safety Fitness Determination rule, an effective extension of the agency’s CSA program.
The ELD rule is expected to be cleared Nov. 20 by the OMB and be published Nov. 30. The rule will require, two years after its publication, for all drivers currently required to keep paper logs to use ELDs. The rule will also set minimum standards for the ELD hardware and software and outline penalties for using the devices to harass truck operators.
The rule, however, has already missed its expected publication date twice this year — Sept. 30 and Oct. 30.
The rule to mandate the use of speed limiters on heavy trucks is expected to clear the OMB Nov. 25 and be published Dec. 3. This is the proposed version of the rule, so the DOT must take comment on the rule and then go back through the rulemaking process another time before publishing a final version of the rule.
The entry-level driver training rule, also in its proposed form, is scheduled to clear the OMB Dec. 18 and be published Dec. 28.
The Safety Fitness rule is expected to be published Nov. 24, but it’s projected OMB clearance date, Nov. 13, has already passed, and the rule is still with the OMB.
House clears highway bill that would remove CSA scores, change driver drug testing, set up graduated CDL
James Jaillet Commercial Carriers Journal
November 5, 2015
The U.S. House of Representatives passed by a 363-64 vote Thursday, Nov. 4, a multi-year highway bill that would strip the DOT’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability program of its publicly available carrier rankings and require regulators to rework the program.
The bill also would allow carriers to satisfy driver drug testing rules by testing hair samples instead of urine and set up a program that gives states the ability to enter into compacts to let under-21 CDL holders cross state lines.
The legislation also establishes so-called “interim hiring standards” for those hiring carriers (such as brokers), a measure critics say could damage owner-operators’ and other small carriers’ ability to secure customers. The provision could be changed later in the legislative process, however. Click here to read more on the hiring standards provision.
The House’s bill is similar to the Senate’s July-passed DRIVE Act and would institute similar trucking regulatory reforms. The bills are not the same, however, with key differences coming in the form of funding mechanisms and total scope and breadth. So the two chambers will have to meet via joint committee to reconcile the differences and bring new legislation up for a vote later for a long-term bill to reach the White House and then become law.
Lawmakers have until Nov. 20 to pass either a long-term bill or a short-term bill, as that’s when the most recent 22-day highway funding extension expires.
The House’s bill is a six-year funding bill worth $325 billion. The legislation would require Congressional action in three years, however, to re-up the bill’s revenue mechanism. The Senate’s version, meanwhile, is a six-year $275 billion package that also would require more Congressional action in three years to “unlock” revenue for the act’s second half.
Other trucking reforms in House bill include measures to require FMCSA to begin collecting truck operator detention data, further study motor carrier liability insurance minimums and an amendment that clarifies Congressional intent of a 1994 freight-focused act that prevents states from enacting laws that interfere with national freight movement.
Be Hands-on With Handbooks
Walk over to whichever file you keep your handbook, look for the date it was last updated, and if it is anything earlier than 2014, it’s time for a deep review.
Jon Hyman
October 23, 2015
As we approach the end of the calendar year, I start to think about all of the things I’ve accomplished, or, more to the point, have not yet accomplished. It allows me take stock of where I am, both professionally and personally, and set goals for the upcoming year.
The same holds true for businesses. One area often in need of improvement for many organizations is the employee handbook. Walk over to whichever file you keep your handbook, look for the date it was last updated, and if it is anything earlier than 2014, it’s time for a deep review.
A handbook should be a set of guidelines for the company to follow. It should not be intended to account for every situation that could arise, nor should it be written in stone. Companies should write handbooks to leave enough flexibility to change policies when the situation dictates. Here are some thoughts about reviewing and updating your company’s handbook.
1. Illegal overtime policies: For example, “All overtime must be authorized by a manager or supervisor and the company will only pay authorized overtime.” Such a policy is illegal if it is applied as written. All overtime, whether its authorized or not, should be paid. A better rule to control unauthorized overtime is to prohibit unauthorized overtime and discipline those who violate the rule.
2. Vague Family and Medical Leave Act language: The FMLA is rife with traps for employers who do not specify certain eligibility requirements. Otherwise, a company leaves itself open to be sued by otherwise ineligible employees. A handbook should also be clear on the interplay between FMLA leave and other paid-leave policies and to make sure that employees cannot double-dip by first exhausting paid leave before turning to unpaid FMLA leave.
3. Missing harassment policy: An anti-harassment policy is necessary to take advantage of the certain affirmative defenses to harassment claims. It is one of the most important policies a handbook should contain, and no handbook is complete without having such a policy. Also, don’t forget strong anti-retaliation assurances.
4. Bans on salary and other work-related discussions: The National Labor Relations Act makes it unlawful for any employer, whether union or nonunion, to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees exercising their right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. One such protected activity is discussing terms and conditions of employment, such as wages. A policy that could be construed to prohibit discussions of wages or other terms and conditions of employment would violate the NLRA. A safer rule would limit confidentiality to information about corporate information and customers, and would not interfere with disclosure of information about employees’ terms and conditions of employment.
5. Unnecessary probationary periods: Probationary periods are typical in union contracts, but have no place in a nonunion setting. Such a policy is counterintuitive to the at-will nature of the employment, and could set an unreasonable expectation of continued employment after the 90 days expire. A better policy would simply reaffirm that employees are at-will and can be terminated at any time for any reason, and that all new employees’ performance will be evaluated after 90 days.
6. Missing no-solicitation policies: These policies are necessary to try to limit union solicitations in the workplace, but cannot be specifically directed at union activities. Instead, companies can draw any reasonable line, so long as the line drawn is not specifically tied to union solicitations. Moreover, the rule should include the use of bulletin boards and corporate computer systems (email, intranets, etc.). Be warned, however, that the NLRB just mandated that if corporate email systems are open to employees, they must be open to those employees using those systems to communicate about labor unions during nonworking time.
7. Lack of an at-will disclaimer and signed receipt:In litigation, a handbook is only as good as being able to prove that an employee received it on a certain date. The best proof is a signed, dated receipt in all employees’ personnel files, with enough information in the receipt itself to link it to the handbook. Also, handbooks should clearly state that employees are at-will, that the handbook is not a contract and that employees should not rely on any statements in the handbook.
An employee-handbook review is the low-hanging fruit of the HR world. Dust it off, give it a read or two, take a stab at revisions, and pass it off to your employment lawyer for his or her blessing.
DOT sets sights on mandating crash avoidance systems with auto-braking functionality
James Jaillet - Commercial Carrier Journal
October 15, 2015
A Department of Transportation agency this week said it has begun work to determine whether it will pursue a federal rule to require new trucks to be equipped with crash avoidance systems that automatically brake without driver input.
The DOT’s announcement came in response to a petition filed in February by several pro-regulatory agencies like the Truck Safety Coalition, the Center for Auto Safety, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and Road Safe America.
The DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency responsible for such a mandate, did not say when it would make a decision to create a rule or not.
It did say, however, it has been studying and will continue to study the systems and its decision will be “made after study of the requested action and the various alternatives in the course of the rulemaking proceeding.”
Systems like those from Bendix and Meritor WABCO have been spec options on all major heavy-duty truck makers for several years. The systems employ things like sensors, radar and camera to scan the road ahead and can automatically brake to prevent rear-end crashes when they detect the threat of one.
NHTSA, using terminology from the safety advocates’ petitions, calls them forward collision avoidance and mitigation (FCAM) system.
The agency this year published a Final Rule to require all new trucks weighing 26,000 pounds or more to be equipped with stability control systems. That rule took effect Aug. 17.
Crash avoidance systems that automatically brake are already required in Europe, NHTSA says, which should aid the agency in its testing, it says.
House unveils highway bill that calls for removal of CSA scores, younger truckers and more
James Jaillet - Commercial Carriers Journal
October 16, 2015
The U.S. House’s Transportation Committee released Oct. 15 a six-year, $325 billion long-term highway funding bill that would if law remove carrier rankings in the Compliance, Safety, Accountability program from public view and set up a pilot program for under-21 CDL holders, among other trucking industry reforms.
The House bill is similar to the Senate’s July-cleared DRIVE Act highway bill and includes many of the same trucking industry regulatory reforms. But it currently has a different name, the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015, and a slightly higher price tag — about $50 billion more than the Senate’s $275 billion bill.
The legislation is being billed as a bi-partisan effort that could land the U.S. its longest highway bill in over a decade. Funding for the bill, however, still must be determined by the House’s Ways and Means Committee.
The House’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is expected to vote on the bill next Thursday, according to a statement issued by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), the committee’s chair.
The highway funding matter is once again pressing, with Congress having until just Oct. 29 to pass a long-term bill or settle for another short-term patch. If they take the latter route, that will be the third short-term patch cleared this calendar year and the 35th in the last decade.
If the House can pass its STAA bill, the House and Senate would still need to resolve any differences in their respective bills and pass the new versions before the bill can be sent to the White House for the president’s signature.
Highlighting trucking industry reforms in the bill are its CSA-related provisions. It would require FMCSA to remove from public view all crash records, violation history and analysis and percentile rankings in CSA’s Safety Measurement System BASICs. It also requires the DOT’s Inspector General to study CSA and produce a “corrective action plan” for FMCSA to pursue prior to reimplementing the program.
For CSA and its ranking system to become live again, FMCSA would have to “fully implement” or satisfactorily address the issues raised” in the Inspector General report.
Other regulatory reforms include:
Under-21 interstate truckers: The bill would require the DOT to produce a study on potentially allowing CDL holders between 19 and a half years old and 21 to operate interstate.
Following the report, the bill dictates that FMCSA set up a pilot program based on the report’s recommendations on hours-of-service for these younger truck operators, mandatory training standards and potential safety technologies that could be employed.Driver drug testing: The bill would allow carriers or drug testing consortia to use hair samples instead of urine samples to satisfy driver drug testing requirements
Successful emergency plans require vigilance, realistic expectations
Oct. 09, 2015
Gavin Souter - Business Insurance
Emergency response plans can limit losses and even reduce the prospect of a catastrophe in the first place, but to succeed they need to be carefully thought through and realistic, a panel of experts said. And without clearly identified responsibilities and regular testing and updating, the plans may fail in the event of an emergency, they said at the Federation of European Risk Management Associations' 2015 Risk Management Forum being held in Venice, Italy, this week.A large selfinsured retention can be the basis of an effective emergency response plan, said Udo Kappes, head of property insurance and captive management at Airbus Insurance Risk Management.As a company with a large selfinsured retention would face a significant loss in the event of a catastrophe, managers at all levels have a financial incentive to reduce the chances of suffering a significant loss, which encourages managers take part in risk mitigation and loss control efforts, he said.Airbus has numerous properties and conducts about 160 site visits a year as part of its loss control efforts, Mr. Kappes said.“When you revisit all the sites over the years you identify not only how to protect risks, but you identify key processes,” and that forms the basis of a business continuity management plan, he said.Having an emergency response plan in place is also critical in controlling the level of losses in the event of a crisis, said HansPeter Wollner, head of business development for Belfor Deutschland GmbH.For example, if chemicals are released after a fire or explosion, the damage can continue wellafter the initial crisis as equipment in the location suffers corrosion if decontamination efforts don't begin quickly, he said.When constructing an emergency response plan, it's important that worstcase scenarios are considered, but the possible crises considered also need to be realistic, said Rob Harford, group director, head of risk services at Salamanca Group Holdings (UK) Ltd. in London, a financial services and risk consulting company.“Flights of fancy are not helpful. The plan must be credible, or you can lose team buyin very quickly,” he said.The plan should also be clear and easy to read and understand quickly after an event, and it should be distributed to contractors of other companies working on a site so that the response if coordinated, Mr. Harford said.And once the plan is in place, regular exercises need to take place to test the plan. In addition to 10/9/2015 Successful emergency plans require vigilance, realistic expectations | Business Insurance
FMCSA making minor amendments to language in federal inspection regs
Matt Cole - Commercial Carrier Journal
October 8, 2015
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is proposing to amend regulations in two parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
The proposed amendments are for various provisions in the “Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation,” and the “Inspection, Repair and Maintenance” parts of the FMCSRs. The amendments come after the agency received several petitions for rulemaking from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and the American Trucking Associations, along with two safety recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board.
The amendments “generally do not involve the establishment of new or more stringent requirements, but instead clarify existing requirements to increase consistency of enforcement activities,” according to the notice of proposed rulemaking.
The proposed amendments that are more likely to affect drivers and carriers include:
Deleting the requirement for trucks to have a rear license plate light when state law doesn’t require the vehicle to have one. ATA requests that FMCSA amend this provision to clarify that a rear license plate lamp is required, except where state law doesn’t require it.
Clarifying a regulation regarding when violations or defects noted on a roadside inspection report need to be corrected. CVSA asked FMCSA to specifically require problems noted in roadside inspections “be corrected prior to redispatching the driver and/or vehicle.”
In the “Periodic Inspection” section of the FMCSRs, CVSA recommended removing language relating to roadside inspections because it believes roadside and periodic/annual inspections should be separate and not considered equal. With this amendment, roadside inspections will no longer meet the requirements of an annual inspection.
Prohibiting the use of speed-restricted tires on tractors regulated by FMCSRs unless the use of the tires is “specifically designated by the motor carrier.”
Other proposed amendments mainly just clarify the regulations for enforcement officials for use during inspections. These include:
Adding a definition of “major tread groove” to clarify what constitutes the major tread groove. CVSA said in a petition to FMCSA that not having a clear definition “leads to confusion for both enforcement and industry. There are several grooves in a tire and not all of them are necessarily major tread grooves.”
Updating the Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards to include provisions to inspect anti-lock brake systems, automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators. These provisions were added to the FMCSRs when ABS were mandated in 1995, but they were not included in the section used as the periodic inspection guide, the Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards.
In accordance with the amendment to the “Periodic Inspection” section, FMCSA also wants to remove language regarding a “random roadside inspection program” in the FMCSRs for “Inspector Qualifications.”
Deleting an “unnecessary portion” of the Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards that “describes the differences between the out-of-service criteria and FMCSA’s annual inspection.”
FMCSA said it believes the “potential economic impact of these changes is negligible.”
FMCSA is seeking public comment on the proposed amendments to regulations. To comment, search Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0176 at www.regulations.gov, or click here. The comment period is open through Dec. 7.- See more at: http://www.ccjdigital.com/fmcsa-making-minor-amendments-to-language-in-federal-inspection-regs/#sthash.KTuGKuAR.dpuf
Latest on hours of service: DOT enters next phase of 34-hour restart study, short-term gov’t funding won’t affect ‘restart rollback’ James Jaillet - Commercial Carrier Journal
October 2, 2015
News items related to hours-of-service rules that came across the wire today:
FMCSA ends data collection phase, begins analysis in 34-hour restart study
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced Oct. 1 it has concluded the data collection phase of the Congressionally required study on 2013’s 34-hour restart rules. It has now begun the data analysis phase and says it hopes to produce a report by year’s end. The report must be sent to the DOT’s Office of Inspector General for review prior to its submission to Congress.
Congress last December suspended the 2013-implemented changes governing truck operators’ use of a weekly 34-hour HOS restart pending FMCSA’s study. The suspended rules include the requirement that a driver’s restart include two 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. periods and the once-per-week limit of the restart’s use. Those rules will stay suspended until the agency submits its report to Congress, which comes after the OIG has reviewed the study.
FMCSA collected data for five months on two groups of drivers: One abiding by pre-2013 rules and one following the 2013 requirements. The agency studied 220 drivers, it says, capturing more than 3,000 driver duty cycles.
The agency studied the drivers’ fatigue levels with alertness tests and by capturing critical event data such as crashes and near-crashes.
The Truckload Carriers Association’s head of policy David Heller said earlier this week he expects FMCSA to publish the results of its study by December.
The 2014-passed law that required the study and suspended the rules did not spell out clearly how the restart rules would be re-implemented, and the decision could be left up to Congress and/or FMCSA based on the results of the agency’s study.
Will Congress’ short-term budget fix affect the HOS suspension?
Likely not, says Heller, who says the short-term government funding bill cleared this week by Congress did not include policy riders nor did it affect DOT funding.
Both the House and Senate versions of DOT-funding bills for the 2016 fiscal year clarify the hours suspension and state that FMCSA’s study must show that 2013’s rules enhance highway safety and reduce driver fatigue for the rules to go back into effect.
Whether a bill with that language can make it to the president’s desk for a signature amidst Congressional squabbles over budgeting and the debt ceiling remains to be seen.
More on parking: Drivers against pay-for-parking, reservations systems, ATRI finds
Todd Dills
September 25, 2015
The American Transportation Research Institute this week released results of its Commercial Driver Perspectives on Truck Parking survey, the first in a series of technical memoranda focused on critical truck parking issues. Among the issues highlighted include the extent of drivers’ parking problems nationwide and particular areas of needed focus around the nation, issues also highlighted by the recent Jason’s Law Truck Parking Survey conducted by the Department of Transportation and partners.
Among the findings include perceptions among drivers on the extent of the need for new parking development in both public (rest areas and the like) and private (truck stops) arenas, as well as an awareness of the difficulties faced by any entity, public or private, that would attempt to invest in parking. “Adding the needed capacity” identified by the recent major federal study, notes the report, “is expensive and rarely politically acceptable, so alternative methods of managing parking resources are being explored. One alternative solution that has seen limited usage is ‘reservation-for-fee’ systems, a somewhat controversial approach that charges carriers or drivers for a guaranteed parking space in advance.”
The first Tech Memo on parking put a close focus on driver opinions of reservation systems, finding that those with pay-to-park options may face an uphill acceptance battle if such systems proliferate.
Respondents’ reported willingness to pay for a parking space, by price:
Source for above: ATRI’s Commercial Driver Perspectives on Truck Parking survey, Tech Memo No. 1
Though some major truck stop chains have moved in a limited fashion in the direction of offering a select number of spaces for paid reservations (TA Petro’s Reserve-It system, for instance), close to half of all ATRI survey respondents, as shown in the above graphed survey results, reported no willingness to pay for parking.
Company drivers were least likely to show any willingness to pay at all, with leased owner-operators most likely. Owner-operators with their own authority, meanwhile, were split down the middle on willingness to pay, and when ATRI asked about such willingness in major metropolitan areas, where parking problems are well-known, all three groups of respondents showed higher percentages indicating some willingness to pay. ATRI’s further analysis of this and other survey data suggested that reservation parking systems near large metropolitan areas ultimately would have the highest utility.
Another finding of interest includes survey respondents’ rating of where parking problems are at their worst — private truck stops or public facilities:
Source for above: ATRI’s Commercial Driver Perspectives on Truck Parking survey, Tech Memo No. 1
Respondents were also asked how many times out of every ten stops they stopped at a public rest area versus a private truck stop. On average, considering only those options, drivers surveyed used truck stops for parking “27.2 percent more often than public rest areas (56 percent versus 44 percent),” the ATRI report notes.
More than 1,400 surveys were collected by ATRI. While driver responses “will provide important inputs,” the report reads, “it is expected that more detailed driver and carrier response information will be generated through additional data collection mechanisms” as research efforts continue.
The survey is part of the organization’s “Managing Critical Truck Parking” initiative, whose advent follows ATRI’s Research Advisory Committee identifying parking as a top priority topic for research in 2015. Further efforts will look to synthesize ATRI survey data with the FHWA’s Jason’s Law report and study, assess parking supply and demand, and analyze “the impact of non-commercial vehicle use of truck parking spaces.”
EPA rep: Next round of emissions regs won’t cause performance problems seen with Phase I
Commercial Carriers Journal - Lucas Deal
September 24, 2015
It’s been a little more than three months since the EPA and National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) introduced its joint proposed Phase II GHG and fuel economy regulations.
Since then, the trucking industry has been aggressively hunting for more information about the proposed rule.
On that note, Tuesday was a step forward.
During a technical session Tuesday at the Technology and Maintenance Council (TMC) Fall Meeting in Orlando, EPA Representative Matt Spears spoke in detail on how Phase II was written and how the EPA plans to introduce its new regulations in the industry, beginning in 2018.
Similar to Phase I, Spears says the regulations featured in Phase II’s proposal are performance-based standards, meaning OEMs can use any combination of technologies they see fit to meet the requirements. Spears lists engine, transmission, drivetrain, aerodynamic devices, low-rolling resistance tires, automatic tire inflation systems and waste heat recovery as just some of the technology that could help an OEM achieve each benchmark.
Phase II’s proposed standards also have been designed with gradual increases in fuel economy and GHG reductions, which Spears says the EPA and NHTSA believe should provide the industry ample time to develop and produce new technology that will meet the standards as they increase over time.
But Phase II is different than its predecessor in other areas.
Spears says Phase II is the first time the federal government has proposed regulations that lower emissions for engines and tractors. Previous regulations focused only on the power supply. Phase II also has regulations for trailers, another industry first.
Speaking to audience of fleets Tuesday, Spears was adamant that Phase II should avoid the performance and expense issues that have plagued Phase I.
Industry stakeholders, including those representing truck makers, fleets and owner-operators, along with some environmental activists, spoke Thursday at a hearing on the next phase of ...
In fact, he says, the EPA believes there could be substantial long-term savings for fleets who commit to Phase II as soon as the technology (2018 for trailers, 2020 for tractors and 2021 for engines) becomes available.
“Gradual implementation installed early will gain fuel savings early enough to pay for next incremental price increase,” he says. “There are favorable payback periods.”
The EPA has estimated a total price increase of $11,700 for new trucks and $1,200 by trailers in 2027 over current prices, with payback periods for some technology becoming visible in year two of new vehicle ownership.
“Customers financing vehicles will see immediate payback where fuel savings exceed monthly payment,” Spears says.
And FYI, the EPA’s commitment to lowering emissions in the heavy-duty industry will remain a priority even after Phase II takes effect. Though heavy-duty trucking produces only 20 percent of total vehicle emissions nationwide it is the single largest growing sector.
Spears says Phase II will reduce GHG by one billion metric tons over the lifetime of the program and save more than $170 billion in fuel costs.
Phase II “will make U.S. trucks the most technologically advanced and fuel efficient trucks in the world,” he says.
Released by ATRI:
Truckers Like Reserved Parking — But Not Paying for It
September 21, 2015
By David Cullen
Truck drivers are most interested in being able to reserve a parking space near major metropolitan areas. But nearly half of those recently surveyed are unwilling to pay to reserve any space.
That’s per the results of the Commercial Driver Perspectives on Truck Parking study just released by the American Transportation Research Institute.
ATRI collected information from more than 1,400 truck drivers on the use of private vs. public rest stops, preferred locations for reserved parking and the “value” of reserved truck parking. Just over three-fourths (76.8 percent) of the respondents were from for-hire motor carriers and the remaining 23.2 percent were from private fleets.
The nonprofit research institute said the study “provides insight on a variety of driver issues, including the role that ‘reservation-for-fee’ [parking] systems may play, related space valuation and who should ultimately be responsible for truck parking fees.”
ATRI described the key findings as:
Reservation parking systems near large metropolitan areas would be the most desired
Nearly half of the 1,400 plus drivers surveyed would refuse to pay for parking reservations
Employee drivers prefer the motor carrier to pay
A “disconnect” exists between drivers' interest in parking reservation systems and their willingness to pay for them
ATRI advised that respondents who do not use overnight truck parking were not excluded from all the survey analyses, pointing out that differences between drivers who use overnight truck parking frequently and those who use it less so could influence the results of this analysis.
The researchers intend to continue the data analysis and expand cross-factoring of different question responses. ATRI also noted that this survey did not include hybrid options, such as a subscription service, or refunded reservation deposits, which may have “a more positive reception” than offering reservation-for-fee systems.
“The survey results demonstrate that the reservation system concept, independent of pricing and payment responsibility, appears to have utility, particularly in areas where parking capacity is in highest demand,” stated ATRI.
The institute also said that “Carrier-paid reservation fees would aid the acceptance of a reservation-for-fee system by the crucial stakeholders– commercial vehicle drivers – and certain driver populations are inherently more accepting of reservation-for-fee systems than others.”
ATRI added that a “flexible” reservation-for-fee system would further drive acceptance. “Flexibility in reservation systems would account for delays caused by traffic, weather, and time spent at shippers/receivers that may prevent commercial drivers from reaching a reserved parking spot in time.”
"Understanding the expectations of trucking companies and professional drivers is of critical importance to truck stop operators," said Lisa Mullings, President & CEO of NATSO, the association representing truck stops. "ATRI's analysis will provide important guidance to truck stops as they work to meet their customers' operational and safety needs."
A copy of Commercial Driver Perspectives on Truck Parking is available on the ATRI website.
Bulk Transporter:
Presidential candidates Kasich, Sanders, Trump rank highest in infrastructure concern
Sep 16, 2015
CG/LA Infrastructure, recognizing the strategic importance of long-term infrastructure investment for the United States, has ranked both Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates in terms of their ability and likelihood to catalyze new infrastructure investment in the US marketplace. In this ranking, completed prior to the upcoming second Republican presidential debate, Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders and Republican candidate John Kasich tied for the top position.
These monthly rankings are a part of CG/LA’s Blueprint 2025 initiative, an 18-month, 100-nameplate campaign by US chief executive officers to craft an infrastructure plan for the next presidential administration. Blueprint 2025 aims to raise infrastructure to a priority level on par with national security while generating long-term bipartisan support through at least the next three election cycles.
“This is not a narrow issue,” says Norman F Anderson, president and chief executive officer of CG/LA Infrastructure. “Infrastructure, like education, is a foundational issue, underlying our ability to be productive, to be prosperous, and to creatively imagine--and create--our country’s future.”
For each candidate, key issues measured include:
• Legacy Performance--have they successfully built infrastructure in the past?;
• Plan of Action--do they have an achievable infrastructure plan?;
• Team Performance--can they catalyze great performance across a disparate executive team that would have to manage a successful infrastructure build?
“Every successful presidential candidate for the last two generations has promised to build our infrastructure, helping us to regain our global competitiveness--none has been able to do it,” says Anderson. “Our monthly rating system provides a structure for the evaluation of candidates, Republicans and Democrats, rating their ability to get this done.”
US Senator Bernie Sanders and Ohio Governor John Kasich tied for the top position scoring 18 points, with Donald Trump following closely behind with 17 points. The next closest candidate was Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, receiving 11 points.
Sanders earned high marks for being the most vocal candidate on the issue, having proposed a major infrastructure investment initiative in the Senate and emphasizing the importance of infrastructure on the campaign trail. Kasich led in legacy performance, having applied his public and private sector experience to pass a strong transportation budget in Ohio. Trump received recognition for his past experience as a builder and focus on infrastructure on the campaign trail.
The candidates are invited to attend CG/LA’s upcoming 7th North American Infrastructure Leadership Forum, a selective gathering of more than 500 C-level executives representing technology firms, engineers, construction principals and investors who represent the private and public sectors, and project sponsors from throughout North America. Please visit http://www.cg-la.com/forums/nalf7 or email info@cg-la.comfor more information.
Quality of U.S. roads, not highway fund solvency, should be measure of highway bill need (also — another short-term patch looms)James Jaillet
September 15, 2015 - From Commercial Carrier Journal
Tick, tick — again.
The latest highway funding stopgap measure has just six weeks until its expiration, Oct. 29. Coming off its annual August break, Congress appeared poised to tackle a long-term bill, with the Senate passing a six-year bill before clocking out early last month.
But with federal budget work, a looming fight over the debt ceiling, controversy over the president’s Iran nuclear agreement and other matters facing lawmakers, we may again be facing the frustrating reality of business as usual in Washington: Another short-term patch that props up roads spending for only a few months.
Also, reports widely circulated last week about the better-than-expected outlook for the country’s Highway Trust Fund may have thrown cold water on Congressional plans to expedite a long-term highway bill in the fall session, again pointing toward Congress settling for a short-term measure.
Related
Senate clears two highway bills: Another short term patch and highway bill with provision to remove CSA scores
The Senate mid-Thursday overwhelmingly passed a six-year highway bill that would remove carrier percentile scores in the Compliance, Safety, Accountability program from public view, among ...
That appears to be what Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), head of the House’s transportation committee, intends to do: Politico reported Friday that Shuster told reporters last week after a committee meeting the anticipated work on a long-term bill will likely be delayed. The House, he said, will likely produce another short-term patch in the coming weeks.
The DOT’s HTF ticker, which was last updated Aug. 20, says the Highway Trust Fund now has enough cash to last about another year — a measure based solely on spending on existing projects. If Congress doesn’t act before Oct. 29, the DOT won’t be able to authorize any new projects for federal highway programs or keep its reimbursement obligations to states performing federal road work.
Though the Trust Fund ticker says one thing, the state of roads in this country says another. And that should be the real benchmark for the need for a robust, long-term highway bill, not the jingle of the coins in the Highway Trust Fund when rattled.
Related
Infrastructure Week blues: 20 days until highway funding expiration — Foxx warns state DOTs; ATA pushing short-term patch
Wrapping a bow around this impending showdown between a Congress that won’t act and a nation begging for Congressional action is Infrastructure Week, the timing ...
Senator Jim Inhofe, per reporting from CCJ sister publication Equipment World, also worries the DOT’s “good news” about the ticker would further delay House action on a long-term highway funding package, saying the U.S. would miss another construction season by doing so and delay much needed highway repairs and new projects another year.
The Senate, whether you agree with the chamber’s pay-fors or not, did muster enough support for a six-year bill, with the first three having guaranteed funding mechanisms in place. The bill also included a bevy of trucking related regulatory changes, highlighted by the removal of CSA scores from public view.
While many in the trucking industry may consider that a major victory, securing highway funding would be an even bigger victory for the industry, in spite of what’s been read into the Trust Fund’s ticker.
Follow Us
Copyright
© 2013 | P K Wells Associates,LLC
Address
Easton, MD