Posts Tagged ‘Government Accountability Office’

President Signs Highway Bill Part 3: A National Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse

Friday, July 13th, 2012

As part of the recently passed highway bill, Congress is mandating that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration establish a federal drug and alcohol clearinghouse that would contain a database of positive test results as well as refusals.

According to the bill, “Motor carriers will be required to query the clearinghouse when screening new driver applicants and annually thereafter. Third party service agents will be permitted to conduct these inquiries on behalf of motor carriers.” 1

The agency has 2 years to establish a clearinghouse, however, the FMCSA is said to have already been working on a proposal and is expected to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking this year.

The creation of a federal alcohol and drug clearinghouse has been a topic of discussion for years now.  Concerns over whether truckers are legit when undergoing drug and alcohol testing prior to employment rose in 2008 when the Government Accountability Office conducted an investigation, discovering that drivers were able to dilute and adjust their urine samples so that they would test negative for drugs and alcohol, due to testing sites not following proper protocol.

Safety concerns grew even more by a loophole that permits drivers to disclose certain information on their resumes regarding past occurrences, including prior testing.  In an effort to close this loophole and put safer drivers on the road, Senators Mark Pryor and John Boozman proposed The Safe Roads Act of 2011 last year.

That act vowed to do the following:

-Require employers to submit all data on tests in which they conducted or their refusal to take the test into the database. 2

-Employers must make sure that a test was conducted within the last three years and whether or not a driver was willing to partake or not. 2

-Employers must check their drivers in the database annually. 2

-Employers will be notified of any “positive test results that show up during the week after an employer’s inquiry.” 2

-Drivers must give their consent before their information is given out to an employer. 2

-Drivers will be notified of any activity regarding their records. 2

-Drivers need to maintain current/accurate records. 2

-Drivers need to undergo proper procedures if tested positive in order to return-to-duty. 2

The American Trucking Associations (ATA) has been encouraging a drug and alcohol clearinghouse for several years in an effort to prevent drivers from switching from one job to the next in an effort to dodge drug and alcohol testing. 3

In his recent letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood dated July 2, American Trucking Associations President (ATA) and CEO Bill Graves stated, “ATA is pleased that both DOT and FMCSA are committed to improving truck and highway safety through stepped-up enforcement and through focused drug and alcohol inspections.  However, I continue to be very disappointed with the lack of tangible progress by DOT and FMCSA on a national drug and alcohol test results clearinghouse.” 3

As Graves notes, the agency recently took action in a sweep that occurred April 30th through May 11th which removed 287 drivers from the road and resulted in an additional 128 companies facing action. 5

Graves continued to state, “In March 2009, shortly after your arrival at DOT, FMCSA initiated a rulemaking project to establish a national clearinghouse which ATA had advocated, at this point, for 10 years.  Subsequently, in 2010, FMCSA submitted another report to Congress concerning the need for a national clearinghouse, and included a timeline for completion of agency rulemaking.  However, FMCSA failed to meet that timeline and, at this point, has not even issued a proposed rulemaking.  Unhappy with FMCSA’s progress in developing a national clearinghouse, Congress just included language in the surface transportation reauthorization conference mandating the development of such a clearinghouse.” 4

The ATA, however, showed their gratitude towards President Obama and Congress after the signing of the highway bill last Friday. “It has been 30 months since we have had a true, long-term highway funding bill,” Graves said, “so today’s bill signing is a good thing for trucking and for our national economy.” 6

What are your views regarding the mandatory creation of a federal alcohol and drug clearing house by Congress?  List your comments below.

Read ATA CEO Bill Graves’ letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood regarding the clearinghouse at http://www.truckline.com/AdvIssues/Litigation/Documents/DOC070212.pdf

Don’t forget to stay tuned for an upcoming article on the effects of the mandatory usage of electronic onboard recorders on all trucks.

1http://www.wvtrucking.com/2012062865/Latest-News/house-senate-conferees-reach-highway-bill-agreement-65.html

2http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=73488

3http://www.overdriveonline.com/ata-seeks-action-on-national-drugalcohol-test-clearinghouse/

4http://www.truckline.com/AdvIssues/Litigation/Documents/DOC070212.pdf

5http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=77316

6http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/06/4614404/ata-congratulates-congress-administration.html

Amendment to Block EOBR Mandate Added as President Set to Sign Highway Bill this Friday

Thursday, July 5th, 2012

highway bill(This is the first of four articles regarding passage of the highway bill.  Stay tuned for upcoming articles of an in depth look of the bill’s affects on truckers and shippers)

After almost three years, the highway bill finally made its way through the House and Senate last Friday, headed to the President for final approval, who will sign it in a ceremony on Friday, July 6th.

In a 373-52 House and 74-19 Senate vote, the two-year bill will generate nearly $100 billion ($52.2 billion in 2013 and $52.95 billion in 2014) towards federal highway programs.

For truckers, the bill would do the following:

* FMCSA is required to “conduct a field study on the effectiveness of the 34-hour restart provision in its hours-of-service rule.” 2

With an effective date of 2013, the FMCSA’s hours-of-service revision of the 34-hour restart provision would include two consecutive breaks between the hours of 1 a.m. and 5 a.m., a ruling that drivers are arguing would decrease their work week from 82 to 70 hours.

Groups including the American Trucking Associations (ATA) have been arguing for months against the restart provision believing that “by mandating drivers include two periods between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. as part of a ‘restart’ period, FMCSA is assuring that every day as America is commuting to work, thousands of truck drivers will be joining them, creating additional and unnecessary congestion and putting motorists and those professional drivers at greater risk.” 3

* The creation of a federal alcohol and drug clearing house

The creation of a national clearinghouse for truck driver drug and alcohol test results is not something new for the trucking industry.  Last year, The Safe Roads Act of 2011 proposed a similar method that would do the following:

Employers

-Need to submit all data on tests in which they conducted or a driver’s failure to cooperate into the database (“clearinghouse”) 4

-Need to make sure that a test was conducted within the last three years and whether or not a driver was willing to partake or not 4

-If a driver is hired, employers will need to check that driver in the database every year 4

-Will be notified of any “positive test results that show up during the week after an employer’s inquiry” 4

Drivers

-Must give their consent before their information is given out to an employer 4

-Will be notified of any activity regarding their records (releasement, additional records, or changes) 4

-Need to maintain current/accurate records 4

-Need to follow proper procedures if tested positive in order to return-to-duty 4

* “Reauthorize DOT hazardous materials safety programs” 5

* Mandatory usage of electronic onboard recorders on all trucks

Groups such as the American Trucking Associations support the mandatory use of EOBRs, while others such as the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association oppose the devices.

Although the bill contains an EOBR mandate, an amendment set to block its passage was recently added to the legislation. 6 The amendment states that “none of the funds made available by this act may be used to promulgate or implement any regulations that would mandate global positioning system (GPS) tracking, electronic on-board recording devices or event recorders in passenger or commercial motor vehicles,” although Congress would still be able to fund it with the appropriations bill. 1

In order to get a better look at the facts behind EOBRs, we are giving you 11 common EOBR myths provided by Xata.  Click here to view.

In your opinion, should EOBRs become mandatory in the highway bill or should it be blocked?

1http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/6/29/HouseamendmentstripsfundingforEOBRmandate.aspx

2http://www.ttnews.com/articles/basetemplate.aspx?storyid=29646&t=Congress-Passes-Highway-Bill

3http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2011/12/22/ATAObamaadministrationsfinalHOSruleputssafetyinthebackseat.aspx

4http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=73488

5http://ohsonline.com/articles/2012/06/29/long-awaited-highway-bill-passed.aspx?admgarea=news

6http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=77386

MCSAC and ATA Take Opposite Sides Over Detention Dispute

Thursday, May 19th, 2011

detentionCurrent initiatives, such as HR 756 and extending the FMCSA’s authority, are being proposed in an effort to reduce the number of hours drivers are detained at docks to pick up or deliver a shipment.  Although transportation companies are urging for action to take place over detention issues, not all trucking groups are in favor of stricter regulations.

After a Government Accountability Office survey depicting 65% of drivers experiencing detention problems within the past month, Peter DeFazio proposed a bill entitled HR 756, which would determine a set number of hours a shipper is allowed to detain a driver before being charged.

As the bill awaits a decision, more and more groups began to show their support over the proposal, the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) and Owner Operator Independent Driver’s Association (OOIDA) being among them.

The MCSAC has taken the detention dispute even further, urging for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to take action in seeking legal authority over entities that contribute to FMCSA safety violations, which they believe is the case here since detention time can interfere and violate a driver’s hours of service.

Currently, the FMCSA “has authority over drivers and carriers” but the MCSAC is suggesting that they expand their control to cover “shippers, receivers, and brokers who ‘unduly detain’ drivers” (http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=73637).

OOIDA also seconds HR 756 explaining that detention costs the industry $3 billion annually and is becoming the biggest efficiency problem in trucking.

While the American Trucking Associations (ATA) understands the issue with detention and how valuable time is to drivers, they disagree with the MCSAC on how to go about the problem.

According to an article in truckinginfo.com, the ATA believes that carriers and shippers need to settle the detention dispute on their own without involving federal authorities, recently voting against regulating detention time.

The ATA explains that “federal intervention into this area would have significant impacts on the contractual agreements between carriers and shippers” effecting shipping rates, and although “no carrier wants to see our drivers’ time wasted… this is not an issue that can be handled with a ‘one-size, fits all’ regulation and as a result is best addressed in contractual agreements between carriers and shippers” (http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=73788).

The problem with detention is widespread with drivers spending up to 40 hours a week on docks, sometimes for days, and 80% of them unable to maintain the maximum hours of service, OOIDA explains.
Road Scholar Transport

Don’t have your shipment delayed.  Road Scholar Transport provides 24-hour expedited service to make sure that your freight is delivered quickly when you need it.

Go to www.roadscholar.com today to guarantee the fast delivery of your products.

Are in support of HR 756 or do you believe that the ATA is right in saying that it is an issue that should be between the shipper and carrier?

Click here

FMCSA Encouraged to Demand Control Over Shippers/Receivers Who Detain Drivers

Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011

Owner-Operator Independent Driver's AssociationIt has been called the “biggest productivity or efficiency problem in trucking” by the Owner-Operator Independent Driver’s Association (OOIDA), costing the trucking industry $3 billion a year.  That problem is detention and it has become a growing concern for truckers and carriers.

According to truckinginfo.com, the Government Accountability Office publicized the problem after conducting a survey which found that out of 300 drivers, 65 percent of them had experienced detention problems within the last month.  Because of these results, Peter DeFazio proposed a bill, called HR 756, which would determine a set number of detention hours a shipper is allowed before compensation must be paid.  The bill is still facing judgment.

But now, the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) is speaking up, urging the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to take action.

Currently, the FMCSA “has authority over drivers and carriers” but the MCSAC is suggesting that they expand their control to cover “shippers, receivers, and brokers who ‘unduly detain’ drivers” (http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=73637).

As OOIDA explains, 30-40 hours a week are spent by drivers on loading docks, with those drivers being detained sometimes for days, truckinginfo.com notes.  This detention not only threatens the next shipment on the driver’s truck being late, but also takes away from a driver’s allowed hours of service (HOS), which cannot be thought of lightly due the proposal sought to reduce a driver’s HOS.  80 percent of those surveyed by the Government Accountability Office acknowledged that they are having a hard time keeping the maximum hours they are allowed.

But that’s not all, MCSAC also suggested that “the FMCSA set up a complaint line for drivers being unduly detained, seek action against detaining parties that place drivers in violation of HOS rules, and develop a ‘Truck Driver’s Bill of Rights,’” which would “include detention compensation for drivers among roadside amenities like access to showers and food,” truckinginfo.com explains.

Are you worried about your freight being detained do to a prior shipper/receiver?  You don’t have to be.  With Road Scholar Transport you have the option of expedited shipping along with our on time delivery guarantee to ensure that your LTL and TL freight will be delivered when you expect it.  Visit www.roadscholar.com today to learn more and to get a rate.

Have you ever been the victim of detention?  What do you think should be done about it and why has this grown to become such a problem?

Stop Bullying Awareness Trailer

Click the image to learn more about our awareness campaign!

Proposal Would Prevent Drivers from Using Drug/Alcohol Loophole

Monday, April 11th, 2011

drug testConcerns over whether truckers are legit when undergoing drug and alcohol testing prior to employment rose in 2008 when the Government Accountability Office conducted an investigation, discovering that drivers were able to dilute and adjust their urine samples so that they would test negative for drugs and alcohol, due to testing sites not following proper protocol.

Safety concerns grew even more by a current loophole that permits drivers to disclose certain information on their resumes regarding past occurrences, including prior testing.

So what could be done to close this loophole and put safer drivers on the road?  Senators Mark Pryor and John Boozman may have the answer.

The Senators introduced The Safe Roads Act of 2011 last week, which would “establish a national clearinghouse for truck driver drug and alcohol test results,” truckinginfo.com notes.

What exactly does this mean for employers and drivers?  According to the site, the act would indicate the following (information provided by http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=73488):

Employers

-Need to submit all data on tests in which they conducted or a driver’s failure to cooperate into the database (“clearinghouse”)

-Need to make sure that a test was conducted within the last three years and whether or not a driver was willing to partake or not

-If a driver is hired, employers will need to check that driver in the database every year

-Will be notified of any “positive test results that show up during the week after an employer’s inquiry”

Drivers

-Must give their consent before their information is given out to an employer

-Will be notified of any activity regarding their records (releasement, additional records, or changes)

-Need to maintain current/accurate records

-Need to follow proper procedures if tested positive in order to return-to-duty

The Safe Roads Act of 2011 is not the first of its kind.  According to the site, another proposal, to be released by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, is set for November with information to be announced.

Road Scholar Transport conducts drug and alcohol tests on all new hires as well as performs annual routine tests and tests in the case of an accident in which a vehicle is towed or results in an injury.  Visit www.roadscholar.com today to learn more about Road Scholar Transport.

What do you think of Senators Pryor and Boozman’s proposal?

Road Scholar

FMCSA Wants Drastic Increase in Funding While Purchasing Devices for Mexican Cross-Border Trucks

Monday, March 14th, 2011

According to truckersnews.com, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has recently submitted a fundsrequest to the Government Accountability Office, who then passed it on to Congress, for an increase in its 2012 funds.

Over the years, the FMCSA has required higher funding amounts for its CSA program, going from $2.3 million in 2007 to $6.6 million the following year, to $11.8 million in 2009, $9.5 million in 2010, and finally $14.3 million this year.  Although in 2010 the FMCSA acquired a lower amount of funding than the previous year, the average increase in funding averages around $4.7 million each year (http://www.truckersnews.com/fmcsa-asks-for-more-csa-funds/).

So how much would you expect the FMCSA’s funding request to be for the year 2012?  $19 million?  20 million?  Try $78 million!  That’s a $59 million dollar increase.

The next question you may ask is what the agency plans on doing with that much money.  According to Truckers News, the FMCSA wants to use its funds for “696 positions, 98 of which are new jobs to fully implement CSA,” and afterwards, “increase its interventions and enforcement,” which includes regulating drivers and making their safety data public.

There is current debate on what the FMCSA is using its funds towards, the recent issue involving the Obama Administration’s decision to allow an unlimited number of Mexican trucks/carriers cross-border, with the deal that they can pass inspection.

Road Scholar Transport

Road Scholar Transport- A safe carrier

In order to promote safety, something that Road Scholar Transport is an advocate of, the FMCSA is requiring the installation of EOBRs (electronic on-board recorders) and GPS systems on all Mexican trucks.  EOBRs provide a means of gathering information on driver behavior that can range from hours of service (replacing current paper logs) to driving style; for example speeding, heavy breaking; as well as accident re-construction.

The problem that has the Alliance for Driver Safety and Security group, composed of the nation’s largest motor carriers, angry over is that the FMCSA is the one paying to have these EOBRs and GPS systems installed, calling their action, “the height of stupidity” (http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2011/3/10/CarrierallianceDeFazioblastFMCSAdecisiontopayforEOBRsforcross-bordertrucks.aspx).

The FMCSA, however, justifies their decision, believing that funding the devices would give them ownership over any data collected, thetrucker.com notes.

As opinions continue to fly over the Mexican Cross-Border Act, Road Scholar wants to hear your viewpoint on the FMCSA’s recent funding request.  Do you agree with the FMCSA’s decision to pay for the installation of EOBRs and other devices on Mexican trucks?