|
May
25, 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
Conduct Better Demonstrations!
Does
your school use demonstration as a teaching technique? If not you should
– demonstration is an especially useful teaching method, however
it is on that should be learned and practiced by teachers to provide
the most value to students. Click here to brush up on how to conduct
demonstrations.
How
to Conduct Demonstrations
What is
the technique?
Demonstration is
a process where one person (you, as the instructor, or a trainee) does
and explains something in the presence of others to illustrate a point
and/or to show everyone how to perform an activity. The method is especially
useful because: (1) Learners can see what happens; (2) Action holds
learners’ attention; (3) Activity illustrates and depicts performance
standards and procedures; (4) It reduces the potential time for later
trial and error learning; and (5) Demonstration illustrates abstract
points.
How do you use demonstration as a training technique?
While demonstration
can be time consuming to plan and use and can imply simplification of
the information under consideration, it provides for immediate application
and discussion of information. Demonstration also provides for a real
sense of accomplishment as trainees learn by doing as they practice
and report the demonstration. The rules for using demonstrations are
simple, yet critical:
1. Plan and rehearse
the demonstration in advance and in its entirety to make sure that
it works and that you have all the necessary materials.
2. Set the stage for the demonstration by introducing key concepts
and explaining desired learner outcomes. And, always state the purpose
or objective of the demonstration. Answer the question of why this
is important to the life and work of the trainee.
3. Make certain the learner can see and hear the activity.
4. Demonstrate the process and explain it at the same time. First,
do the process at full speed, and then slow down and perform the process
correctly at a slower speed. Demonstrate your own craftsmanship, being
thorough and never doing a “sloppy” job before your trainees.
5. Ask questions, provide feedback, and register important points
throughout the demonstration. Invite learners to ask questions.
6. Recap the major steps and points at the end as a summary. Also,
consider repeating parts of the process, showing correct and incorrect
ways to do things.
7. Require learners to replicate, or “try out”, the activity
following the demonstration, explaining to you (and each other) what
they are doing as they perform the activity. Look for signs of confusion,
and clarify the process. Coach trainees to correct behavior.
8. Explain and highlight safety issues; recap most important points.
9. Prepare and use a procedures task sheet so that the trainees can
follow the rules and refer to the sheet at later times.
Remember:
Plan. Work students through the steps. Review. Have students practice.
Excerpt from “Student Course Book: Train-the-Trainer”
published by Thomson Delmar Learning
Top
Entry
Level Regulation Will Affect Carriers in July
In case you did
not see TCA’s blast e-mail on Friday, May 21, 2004 TCA would like
to remind you that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
issued the long-awaited Final Rule on the mandatory training requirements
for entry-level operators of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) who are
required to hold or obtain a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL)
in the May 21, 2004 Federal Register. In the Final Rule, the
FMCSA is not requiring entry-level drivers to receive training in areas
that are already covered in the CDL test. Instead, the required training
covers the following four areas as proposed in the August 15, 2003 NPRM:
1) driver qualification
requirements,
2) hours of service of drivers;
3) driver wellness; and
4) whistle blower protection.
The agency estimates
that these four areas would require an additional combined 10 hours
of training, but is not mandating a specified number of required training
hours in the ruling. The FMCSA also points out that the rule allows
the employer “considerable latitude” in determining what
entity can provide the required training. Examples include the employer,
a training school, or a class conducted by a consortium or association
of employers. Other points of interest include:
o In §380.502(b),
the definition of an entry-level driver has been changed in the final
rule as follows: “... a driver with less than one
year of experience operating a CMV with a CDL in interstate commerce;”
o The proposed
“grandfathering” provision from the entry-level training
requirements has been eliminated. This proposed provision would have
“waived” certain drivers from the proposed entry-level
training requirements if they had one year’s experience operating
a CMV with a valid CDL with a “good driving record;”
o Evidence that
a driver had received the entry-level training must be kept in the
driver qualification file per §380.513. One minor change from
the proposal is that the training certificate now must contain the
name, address, and phone number of the training provider; and
o The effective
date of this Final Rule is July 20, 2004. However, §380.500 provides
a “grace period” for training for certain individuals
as follows: “Each employer must ensure that each entry-level
driver who first began operating a CMV between July 20, 2003, and
October 18, 2004, has received the required training no later than
October 18, 2004.
It should also be
noted that with this ruling, the FMCSA has eliminated one more of the
remaining regulatory initiatives that were part of the DOT lawsuit,
in which they were mandated to issue five proposals in final rule form
by specified deadlines. To date, the only remaining “DOT lawsuit
rule” is on hazardous materials safety permits, which must be
issued in Final Rule form before June 30, 2004. A copy of the May 21
Register Final Rule can be found by clicking
here. For further questions or information contact Rich Clemente
at (703) 838-8847 or email rclemente@truckload.org.
Top
Is
the US - Mexican Border Secure for Trucks?
The U.S. Office
of the Inspector General (OIG) announced on May 13 that it is conducting
a follow-up audit, which will begin immediately, of safety inspectors
and facilities at the United States-Mexico border. For the last several
years, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has attempted
to open the border to Mexican and U.S. truck traffic. However, this
effort -- a controversial provision of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) -- has resulted in lawsuits, delay tactics and even
Congressionally mandated reviews.
Congress requires
the OIG to periodically review the agency’s border operations
to make sure the FMCSA has hired and trained inspectors, provided inspection
facilities, and developed safety procedures for Mexican carriers. Last
year’s report, issued on May 16, 2003 stated that the agency had
done most of what is necessary to meet these requirements, but this
latest audit will investigate whether the FMCSA has continued to do
so.
The primary objective
of this latest audit will be to verify whether the FMCSA continues to
have the staff, facilities, equipment and procedures in place to comply
with the Section 350 provisions. Specifically, the OIG will address
the following:
• Determine
whether the states have adequate authority and procedures in place
to take action against a Mexican-domiciled CMV operating without authority
or beyond the scope of its authority. In two prior reports, the OIG
pointed out a serious gap in the ability of state enforcement personnel
to take action when they encounter a vehicle operating without authority.
However, OIG reported that the FMCSA is committed to closing this
gap. Their 2002 report noted that only two states had enacted legislation
authorizing enforcement personnel to take action in this instance
and in August 2002 the FMCSA issued an interim rule requiring state
inspectors to place out-of-service CMVs operating without authority
or beyond the scope of their authority. A 2003 survey, however, reported
that 31 states had adopted the new operating authority rule;
• Identify
any impediments preventing FMCSA personnel from conducting safety
audits and compliance reviews in Mexico as required by Section 350.
In addition, the
U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule in June of this year on a lower
court’s decision that delayed Mexican trucks operating beyond
the current 20-mile commercial zone until a $1.8 million environmental
review is completed.
For further information
on the OIG’s latest report, contact Joe Come at (202) 366-0377.
Top
Unanswered Questions Surround FDA Rule, Comment Period Extended
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) announced in the May 18, Federal Register,
the reopening of the industry comment period on the prior notice interim
final rule (IFR) that originally appeared in the October 10, 2003 Register.
The comment period was extended until July 13, 2004. The prior notice
IFR requires the submission to FDA of prior notice of food, including
animal feed that is imported or offered for import into the U.S. In
addition, in response to a request from the Government of Canada, FDA
is extending the comment period for the “Joint FDA-CBP Plan for
Increasing Integration and Assessing the Coordination of Prior Notice
Timeframes” to July 13, 2004 as well. The request for comment
on prior notice seeks input on integrating FDA and Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) requirements, including access to CBP programs that
facilitate movement into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico.
In the confusion
surrounding this rule many trucking companies initially registered with
the FDA under the provisions of the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. However
under the current FDA regulations, trucks, trucking companies and truck
terminals do not have to register. The FDA is currently working to determine
how and who will be responsible for removing those trucking companies
that registered from the registration system. TCA will keep you abreast
of this process.
In addition, the two final
rules on the remaining sections of the Bioterrorism Act -- Administrative
Detention (Section 303) and Establishment and Maintenance of Records
(Section 306) -- which were originally slated for release by the end
of March, have yet to be issued in Final Rule form. The Administrative
Detention proposal would require a detention order to be approved by
the FDA District Director of the district where the detained article
of food is located or a more senior official. A copy of the detention
order would be given to the owner, operator, and/or agent in charge
of the facility where the article of food is located, and to the owner
of the food if different than those listed above. If FDA issues a detention
order for an article of food located in a vehicle or other carrier used
to transport the detained article of food, FDA would also have to provide
a copy of the detention order to the shipper of record. The proposal
would also require a detained article of food to be held in a secure
location, as determined by FDA.
The Recordkeeping proposal
is designed to help FDA track foods implicated in future emergencies,
such as terrorism-related contamination. Manufacturers, processors,
packers, distributors, receivers, holders and importers of food would
be required to keep records identifying the immediate source from which
they received the food, as well as, the immediate subsequent recipient,
to whom they sent it. This requirement would apply to almost all foreign
and domestic food sources and almost all recipients of food destined
for consumption in the U.S.
A copy of the May
18 FDA Register notice can be found by clicking
here for an HTML and here
for a PDF. For questions or comments please contact Rich Clemente
at (703) 838-8847 or by email: rclemente@truckload.org.
Top
Highway Bill Moves Forward
Late last week, the Senate
appointed a list of 21 conferees on the Highway Bill (H.R. 3550 and
S. 1072). The House on the other hand, will not appoint conferees until
after the Memorial Day recess, most likely around the second week of
June. The third and most recent extension of the TEA-21 Highway Bill
is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2004.
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. The primary obstacle to date in 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 at the
$256 billion limit.
TCA will keep you
posted on developments with the Highway Bill as they occur. For a copy
of the latest summary chart of the major provisions of both the House
and Senate versions of the bills click
here.
Top
|