While most of the nation has ground to a halt under the unrelenting COVID-19 crisis, the trucking industry endures. Certainly, not every trucking company out there has been able to weather the storm. Indeed, many have gone out of business \u2013 and more well. Yet, there is a resilience in the industry. Truck drivers are front-line workers ensuring the food and medical supplies people need to survive are delivered. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As such, there have still been plenty of regulatory changes,\nindustry updates and more occurring by the day. Whether you are talking about\nhow crashes are counted against a company or latest updates in the\nclearinghouse rules, there is a lot to cover. Let\u2019s look at the various moves\nhappening in the trucking industry, many of which go unreported as bigger coronavirus-related\nnews dominates the airwaves. First up, a change to the FMCSA\u2019s DataQs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unfairly Counted Crashes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Trucking companies have been complaining for many years\nabout being unfairly penalized by the federal government when crashes occur in\nwhich they are not at fault. It appears the FMCSA has finally replied to that\nconcern with the Crash Preventability Determination Program, which is an\nextension of a pilot program the FMCSA had undertaken. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This pilot program was designed to take a second look at\ncrash causation when big rigs were involved. Indeed, it has been 15 years since\na study of this kind had been undertaken. The study looked at collision\ncategories, such as tow-away, injury or fatal. With reams of new data available\nfor researchers to comb through, the FMCSA wanted to take a fresh look. The\nprogram was designed to examine the feasibility, cost, and benefits of how\ncertain crash types are determined and displayed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Over 5,600 crashes were evaluated since 2017. In all, the\nagency wanted to determine how many were not a fault of the truck driver. A\nfull 94% of cases were no fault cases. That is an astonishing amount of crashes\nthat were determined not preventable by the truck driver or motor carrier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, to the delight of many in the industry, they are making\nthis pilot program permanent. They are also expanding the types of crashes that\nwill be included in the program. Under the specifics of the program, if motor\ncarriers have an eligible crash that happened on or after August 1, 2019, they\ncan submit an RDR, or a Request for Data Review. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A Request for Data Review can be submitted, along with the\npolice report, videos, photos, and other supporting documents through the\nFMCSA\u2019s DataQs website. Many trucking industry advocates and trucking companies\nthemselves are celebrating this decision as a positive step. <\/p>\n\n\n\n How Does It Work?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The program is very specific in how it operates. First, it\nwill completely remove crashes determined preventable from a motor carrier\u2019s\nsafety management system prioritization algorithm. In layman\u2019s terms, this\nmeans the tucking company\u2019s Crash Indicator BASIC score will no longer be\ncalculated using non-preventable crashes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, all crashes will still be listed on the FMCSA website, but they will include a notation indicating if the crash was reviewed and what the outcome of that review was. On pre-employment screening records, crashes that were deemed non-preventable will be noted as such. Trucking companies can also request a review of all accidents that occurred on or after August 1, 2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The FMCSA also plans to revamp the 30-day public notice process,\nspecifically the time period before a review is finalized. The public can still\nsubmit comments, but the review determinations will not be held up by the FMCSA\nbefore finalization. Most importantly, police accident reports will be required\nfor all review requests. <\/p>\n\n\n\n With a renewed focus on safety, the FMCSA\u2019s use of this\nprogram moving forward may provide much more data on its wider implications.\nEither way, this is a rare example of a time when trucking companies,\ninterests, and the federal government are all aligned on an issue. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse Updates<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The FMCSA has issued a proposed rule to clarify the rule a\nstate driving agency must play in the Drug\nand Alcohol Clearinghouse system<\/a>. Just as a refresher, the system went into\neffect this past January. In short, it is an electronic database that tracks a\ncommercial truck driver\u2019s license. When one tests positive for prohibited drug\nor alcohol use, or if a trucker refuses to take a test, it is noted in the\nsystem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n If a truck driver completes their required return-to-duty\nprocess, this information will also be notated in the system. The system was\ncreated to prevent truck drivers from simply being dishonest when trying to get\na job. Motor carriers can easily find out whether a potential hire has violated\na drug or alcohol rule. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So, what\u2019s the problem? The issue lies in state licensing\nagencies, which have not yet fully integrated their systems with the clearinghouse.\nStates are simply behind in removing licenses from those truck drivers who are\nineligible to drive based on the information contained in the clearinghouse. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To make matters even more complicated, the FMCSA states late\nlast year that they were delaying the clearinghouse compliance date for states.\nStates now have until January 6, 2023 to comply with the rule. This means it is\nup to the state to determine whether they should check the clearinghouse before\nproviding a license to a potential truck driver. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The main problem has been states\u2019 inability to get the IT\ninfrastructure in place to communicate with the new federal system. While there\nare contracting organizations available to complete this work, it comes with\nassociated cost and time constraints. <\/p>\n\n\n\n How the Information is Used<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n So, how are states using the clearinghouse information? For\nnow, the FMCSA is proposing more detailed rules on when and how a state should\nping the system as part of a CDL renewal process. A notice was published to the\nFederal Register<\/a> on\nApril 28 that would prohibit a state driver licensing agency from issuing,\nrenewing, upgrading or transferring a CDL for someone who is prohibited and\nwithin the clearinghouse. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, the FMCSA has stated that it seeks additional\ncomment on more ways that state agencies can use the information contained in\nthe clearinghouse to further compliance aims within their own states. More than\nanything, they seek to ensure truck drivers who should not be behind the wheel\nare not behind the wheel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The FMCSA proposal would also revise how reports of actual\nknowledge violations are received and maintained within the clearinghouse. In\neffect, the CMV driving prohibition is intended to be self-enforcing. The FMCSA\nis relying on truck drivers and trucking companies to comply with the rule on\ntheir own. This is important because the FMCSA never used to have access to\ndrug and alcohol program violations. Now, they do, and they can provide that\ninformation to law enforcement in real-time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is still a gap regarding state licensing agencies. This new rule would mandate how a licensing agency accesses and keeps information related to CDL-holders. The FMCSA rule would clarify this process and propose a series of \u2018push\u2019 notifications so that a state agency can quickly and easily access violations stored within the clearinghouse. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trucking companies can also expect a change regarding the retention of certain DUI-related information reported to the clearinghouse. This would be governed under the \u2018actual knowledge\u2019 reporting requirement outlined in the guidance. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"