|
May
11, 2004
Note:
To print this newsletter in its entirety, simply press the print button
on your web browser.
CLICK
HERE to send us your comments about this newsletter.
Headline
News
Do
You Have Questions About the LCV Training Final Rule?
TCA has been getting
a number of inquiries regarding the recently released longer combination
vehicle (LCV) training final rule. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) issued this March 30 rule that established standards
for minimum training requirements for LCV operators, and requirements
for the instructors who train these operators. The agency defined an
LCV as any combination of a truck-tractor and two or more trailers or
semi-trailers, which operate on the National System of Interstate and
Defense Highways with a gross vehicle weight greater than 80,000 pounds.
The LCV training
requirements specify that motor carriers must not allow drivers to operate
a double or a triple truck until they have received the specific training,
which would apply even if the driver has a state-issued CDL with a double/triple
trailer endorsement.
The training curriculum
consists of these areas:
1) Orientation;
2) Basic Operation;
3) Safe Operating Practices;
4) Advanced Operations; and
5) Non-Driving Activities, such as route and trip planning and cargo
and weight considerations.
The curriculum overview
is detailed as an Appendix to Part 380 – entitled, “LCV
Driver Training Programs, Required Knowledge and Skills.” In addition,
§380.401 of the Federal regulations specifies that a student who
successfully completes LCV driver training shall be issued a Driver-Training
Certificate that must be included in the individual’s DQ file.
A “grandfathering”
provision in the rule allows motor carriers to waive the driver-training
requirements if a driver certifies that during the last two years he/she
had a valid Class A CDL with a double or triple endorsement; no convictions
or suspensions in a CMV for CDL–disqualifying offenses; no CMV
at-fault accidents; and evidence of regular and continuing employment
and operation of an LCV group. One minor change specified that the driver
is not required to have operated an LCV continuously during the previous
two years, nor must they have operated LCVs exclusively. The driver
is required only to have operated LCVs periodically within the prior
two years.
In addition, FMCSA
revised the requirements for a qualified LCV driver-instructor as the
definition now includes a distinction between:
1) classroom instructors; and
2) skills instructors.
Motor carriers may
use an individual who does not possess a CDL, a double/triples endorsement
or recent CMV driving experience to instruct or test LCV drivers in
knowledge and skills that do not require the actual operation of an
LCV or one of its components. However, only a skills instructor may
train or test driver-candidates in those skills requiring the operation
of an LCV or one of its components.
The compliance date
for meeting the training requirements is currently June 1, 2004 and
June 5, 2005 for the grandfathering provisions. Despite some “rumors”
that the compliance date for training of June 1, 2004, might be delayed
until the grandfathering date of June 1, 2005, the FMCSA has stated
that their legal department would not allow the training date to be
changed in the form of a technical amendment since there were no comments
in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to this issue.
As far as training
materials for compliance, TCA is currently researching just what is
out there in the market either already developed or in development.
In the early 90’s, the then Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
awarded a contract to the Professional Truck Driver Institute (PTDI)
to develop voluntary criteria for training drivers in the safe operation
of twin trailer combination vehicles. The resulting “Twin Trailer
Driver Curriculum” outlines how drivers should be trained in the
safe operation of these vehicles. The “Twin Trailer Driver Curriculum”
(several hundred pages long and in a couple of volumes) is available
through the public docket and can be accessed at the following website:
http://dms.dot.gov.
To access once in this website do a “simple search” and
type in [Docket No.] 97-2176. While this voluminous curriculum could
probably suffice as the training materials, it has never been put in
that form or been “condensed” in any way, as the LCV training
final rule was not issued by the agency for over 10 years from the time
it was originally proposed. As you will recall in February 2003, the
DOT had agreed to issue a series of five truck safety rules to settle
a lawsuit brought by a number of safety advocates, and the LCV rule
was one of the five.
TCA and PTDI will
continue to work with our partners to see what can be further developed
from the Twin Trailer Driver Curriculum. If you have any questions or
comments please contact Rich Clemente at (703) 838-8847 or email rclemente@truckload.org.
Top
TCA
Expresses Position on Safety Performance History of New Drivers to FMCSA
In a May 10 letter
sent to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Administrator
Annette Sandberg, TCA expressed support for the American Trucking Associations
(ATA) filed petition on the Safety Performance History of New Drivers
Final Rule issued on March 30, 2004.
The lone issue in
the ATA's April 28 petition to the Administrator involves Section 391.23(g)(1)
of the final rule that mandates a 30-day response time for the prior
motor carrier to respond to the previous employer with the requested
information on a prospective employee. ATA feels this 30-day period
is far too long, and petitioned the agency to reduce this time frame
to 5 days. As you may recall, in TCA's filed comments to the FMCSA Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on this issue back on September
2, 2003, the first comment we had in our Summary of Positions was as
follows: “The time frame allowed for past employers to provide
information should be reduced to five days.” Therefore, we forwarded
the letter in support of ATA on this issue.
We will update you
on this issue as it develops, click
here to view the letter TCA sent in support of ATA’s petition
or contact Rich Clemente at TCA (703) 838-8847 or email: rclemente@truckload.org.
Top
OSHA
Requests Your Input
The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a notice and request
for industry comments in the May 6, Federal Register on its
nationwide Site-Specific Targeting (SST) inspection program. Comments
on this notice must be filed with OSHA by July 6, 2004.
In 1999, OSHA implemented
its first nationwide SST for comprehensive programmed inspections in
non-construction worksites. These SST inspections are based on the self-reported
injury and illness information submitted by employers in OSHA’s
data initiative. From the data submitted, OSHA compiled two inspection
targeting lists, a primary and a secondary list. Based on the latest
figures, under the SST-03 plan if an establishment’s lost workday
injury and illness (LWDII) rate is 14.0 or more, or its days away from
work injuries and illness (DAFWII) rate is 9.0 or more, it will be put
on the primary inspection list. If an establishment’s LWDII rate
is 8.0 or greater (but less than 14.0), or its DAFWII case rate is 4.0
or greater (but less than 9.0), it will be on the secondary inspection
list. OSHA also notes that due to changes in their record keeping rules
effective 1/1/02, the LWDII rate is being replaced with Days Away from
work, Restricted or job transfer (DART). Of the approximately 35,000
OSHA inspections per year, about 3,000 are SST inspections.
In the May 6 Register
notice, OSHA poses a number of questions regarding the current SST program,
and asks for industry suggestions on the current program as well. A
copy of the notice is available by clicking
here for an HTML and here
for a PDF.
Top
Highway
Bill Causes Tension on Capital Hill
Last week, both
the House and the Senate approved another two-month extension of the
current highway reauthorization program. Without this action, funding
for the Department of Transportation and many other surface transportation
programs would have been halted, as the current program was set to expire
on April 30. This latest action by Congress marks the third time that
the current highway program has been extended, from an original deadline
of September 30, 2003.
This latest action
came as disputes arose between Senate Republicans and Democrats over
the refusal by the Republican leadership to permit the Democrats’
participation in pre-conference discussions over the bill’s funding
levels. The primary obstacle to moving a multi-year measure has centered
over differences between the White House and Congress over how much
money should be allocated over the six-year length of the bill. The
White House wants to “cap” spending $256 billion. While
the House has already approved a $283.2 billion measure and the Senate
has passed a $318.9 billion package, the White House has threatened
to veto any bill that exceeds the $256 billion limit.
In addition, Majority
Leader William Frist (R-TN) may file a cloture motion that would limit
debate on a motion to proceed to the House passed Transportation Reauthorization
Bill (H.R. 3550). The motion to proceed to conference committee has
been blocked by Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), who believes the
Republicans have not sufficiently included the Democrats during the
legislation negotiations. A roll call vote on this motion would force
the Democrats to choose between passing a bill that is vital to their
states or loyalty to their leadership.
We will keep you
posted on all developments with the Highway Bill as they occur. If you
wish to obtain a copy of the latest summary chart of the major provisions
of both the House and Senate versions of the bills click
here.
Top
|