FMCSA Will Not Issue Driver Health Rules Untill Next Year, Administrator Ferro Says
BALTIMORE – New regulations from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that are focused specifically on trucker health standards will have to wait until next year, Administrator Anne Ferro said.
The timing of rules concerning sleep apnea programs and medical examiners is being pushed back to 2011 because the agency is finishing work first on its new hours-of-service proposal and the CSA safety ratings program.
The HOS rules are due before November ends, and the agency is moving toward disclosure of carrier safety data for public review as early as Nov. 30, Ferro said. That disclosure is the latest step in rolling out the CSA program that is slated to be fully in force in 2011.
“Those [medical examiner rules] will be issued early next year after the agency completes work on the hours-of-service rule,” Ferro said at the International Conference on Commercial Driver Health and Wellness here.
FMCSA and the Transportation Research Board sponsored the two-day event.
Ferro said the agency is taking an active role in other respects on the issue of sleep apnea, a condition that affects an estimated 14% of truck drivers.
Specifically, the agency is doing controlled studies of drivers’ sleep patterns to gauge the effect of split sleep for team drivers, she said.
The rules related to medical examinations also will address vision, respiratory disease and diabetes standards, as well as sleep apnea, the administrator said.
“Down the road, there will be radical changes in the medical requirements to be sure that we are minimizing the risk,” she said, without giving any details on the agency’s plans.
Earlier this year, Mary Gunnels, who heads the FMCSA’s medical programs office, said at another sleep conference that the agency intended to issue the examiner rules this year (5-17, p. 3).
As she disclosed the currently planned schedule, Ferro underlined the agency’s commitment to addressing issues relating to driver health.
She called the conference last week “a discussion that had to happen” and described the fact that truck drivers die 16 years earlier than the average American as a “startling, frightening an untenable situation.”
A key issue to address as the new medical rules are written is validating the accuracy of required biennial physical examinations that are done by physicians approved by the Transportation Department, Ferro said.
“There is a lot of fraud in that particular tool,” she said. “there needs to be a lot of monitoring of the validity.”
She said the agency is developing programs to close a loophole that is tied to submitting the reports on paper by requiring certified medical examiners to submit reports electronically.
While noting that most drivers and examiners submit proper reports, Ferro said, “There is an element of fraud that enables folks who are on the road to continue driving.”
Transport Topics, November 15 2010
Two House Bills Introduced That Would Increase Federal Diesel Tax
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced HR 6313, legislation supported by American Trucking Associations (ATA) that if enacted would eliminate the 12 percent federal excise tax (FET) on the purchase of new trucking equipment. To offset the loss of revenue to the Highway Trust Fund, HR 6313 would also increase the federal diesel tax by 7.3 cents, the amount projected to raise an equivalent amount of revenue. Currently, the 12 percent FET is applicable to safety technologies including rollover prevention systems, as well as forward collision and lane departure warning systems. Similarly the FET also applies to new equipment designed to increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions such as trailer aerodynamics and lighter-weight tractors and trailers. Therefore, ATA supports the bill as elimination of the FET would reduce the cost of new trucks, tractors and trailers and make the purchase of cleaner, safer, and more efficient vehicles more affordable.
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA) introduced HR 6291, the Freight FOCUS Act of 2010, to create a new fund for supporting critical freight transportation projects. Under the proposal project grants would be awarded via a competitive process managed by the U.S. Department of Transportation. While such a freight fund is intended to include monies from all transportation modes, as the bill is currently written the fund would be financed solely through a 12 cent increase in the diesel tax on trucks and $3 billion annual contribution from the General Fund. The legislation ensures that the dollars contributed by each mode is invested in projects which benefit those modes proportionate to their contribution. In addition, the ill reserves 50 percent of General Fund money for projects that benefit modes contributing to the fund. ATA has endorsed this legislation and worked closely with Rep Richardson’s office to draft the bill.
Trucking Minnesota, November 2010
Heavy-duty Engine Oils: What Lies Ahead?
Way back in my formative years, I drove a truck to put myself through college. Actually, there were two trucks, one a 1947 International and the other a brand new 1960 GMC. Both were gasoline-fueled dump trucks and both were a bear to handle. The ’47 International didn’t have synchromesh gears so it required double-clutching. The GMC had a very wide V-block engine, making steering very tough. I didn’t maintain them, but my best guess is that they were being lubricated with the local service station’s MS rated forecourt engine oil. (As a precaution, I kept my commercial drivers license for years, just in case my new profession in the oil business didn’t work out.)
Let’s fast-forward to today and review the current status of heavy-duty engine oils. Among the highlights:
- The current engine oil category, API CJ-4, was introduced in 2006 and is very successful.
- The viscosity grade of choice on U.S. roads is SAE 15W-40.
- The U.S. uses ultra-low sulfur diesel, 15 ppm maximum.
- Engines now have sophisticated emissions control systems.
- Truck designs now incorporate advanced aerodynamics for better fuel economy.
- Transmissions and axles operate on long-life lubricants which offer fuel economy benefits.
Bottom of the line is that heavy-duty engine oil is working well, emissions are under control, and fuel economy benefits are being captured. What more could there be to affect this market?
Let’s start with the ASTM Committee D-2 meeting just concluded in June in Kansas City. At the Heavy Duty Engine Oil Classification Panel meeting. Greg Shank of Volvo/Mack Powertrain, who chairs the Engine Manufacturers Association’s lubricants committee, gave a one slide summary of how engine builders view engine oil. Among the items he raised were the possibility of a performance change in 2015 and the specter of a fuel economy mandate for heavy-duty engines by 2016-17. he also listed some additional issues and requirements that might be felt, including an oxidation test, TAN depletion, shear stability, aeration test, turbocharger deposits, and fuel economy testing.
At the same meeting, Mark Cooper of Chevron Oronite reported on the status of current heavy-duty engine tests. Cooper had polled ASTM’s surveillance panels as to the number of parts that are available and how long the supply is expected to last. Currently, there are sufficient parts to last only until 2015. At that time, a new heavy-duty engine oil category could be required because some of today’s engine tests will be obsolete.
In addition, Cooper noted, the HEUI air entrainment test is questionable due to test discrimination issues, and the roller follower wear test (RFWR) is among those running out of parts. Many consider the RFWT to be redundant with the Cummins ISB and ISM wear tests, and removing a seemingly redundant test from a category would seem to be a no-brainer. But protocols must be followed and a demonstration made that removing the tests will not impact the integrity of the CJ-4 category, before the RFWT can be dropped.
Fuel economy is another subject for consideration. Shank touched on it, but it is a lot more than just a fleeting thought. A new congressionally mandated report from the National Research Council published March 31, 2010 (www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845) analyzed the various factors involved in improving fuel economy of medium and heavy-duty trucks. New federal regulations addressing truck fuel economy take effect next July, with the first limits on fuel economy to be established in 2014 and then grow tougher over time. There is general agreement that improvements in such things as aerodynamics, tire technology and auxiliary power units, as well as revisions in drivetrain lubricant viscometrics, will enable the trucking industry to meet fuel economy mandates until 2017. At that time though, we will reach what is being described as “technology forcing” limits. These will require changes beyond current capabilities, meaning a new heavy-duty engine oil category is probable.
In North America, we measure passenger car fuel economy as miles per gallon. The logic is clear: How far can you go on one gallon of fuel? Europe reverses the question, and measures fuel economy as liters per 100 kilometers. The logic here: How much fuel will you need to go a specific distance? Both of these approaches are based on moving a light-duty vehicle.
For trucks in commercial operation, the question is more complex. Is it appropriate to measure simply the miles per gallon, or is there a better metric such as a load-specific fuel consumption (i.e., gallons per ton-mile). Think of it this way: For a modern, well-designed and well-maintained Class 8 tractor-trailer combination, standard fuel economy is about 8 mpg. However, this combination is hauling 80,000 pounds (40 tons) so its load-specific fuel economy is 0.003 gal/ton-mile. It’s hard to get your mind around that, isn’t it?
In an SAE paper last year entitled “The Lubricant Contribution to Improved Fuel Economy in Heavy Duty Diesel Engines,” (SAE 2009-01-2856), Chevron Oronite researchers Wim van Dam, Peter Kleijwegt, Marnix Torreman and Gary Parsons discussed a standardized laboratory engine test for measuring heavy-duty fuel economy. This dynamometer-based test was developed by Volvo and uses a D12D Volvo engine under 13 varying torque and speed regimes.
Some of the resulsts obtained by van Dam and his colleagues in their Rotterdam laboratory were quite interesting. For instance, they measured the effects of viscosity grade, comparing SAE 15W-40, 10W-40, 5W-40 and 15W-30 grades. Table 1 outlines the results as measured in both on-highway and so-called “hilly” conditions.
Clearly fuel economy, in this test at least, is significantly affected by High Temperature/High Shear (HTHS) viscosity. That shouldn’t be much of a surprise to anyone since HTHS is what occurs in an engine under operating conditions.
In addition, friction modifiers can play a role. The researchers also blended a series of oils to the same viscometrics (SAE 5W-30) and used four different friction modifiers to study their effects, including a control batch with no FM at all. The results are shown in Table 2.
The conclusions are pretty self-evident. Lowering viscosity improves fuel economy, and friction modifiers have a positive effect on fuel economy as well.
When you talk to heavy-duty OEMs however, they will assure you that it’s very unlikely that they would specify an SAE 5W-30 for their engines. They do like SAE 10W-30 – but only if the HTHS viscosity remains at about 3.5 cPs. Certainly, friction modifying additives are OK as long as they don’t compromise other properties such as soot control, deposit control or antiwear.
Another way to improve fuel economy is to move more cargo. The U.S. Department of Transportation has a pilot program under way in Vermont and Maine studying the effects of increased load limits (97,000 vs. 80,000 pounds) as a means of improving fuel use. The thought here is that it takes only an incremental amount of fuel to move the additional 17,000 pounds of cargo, and thus 20 percent more product tonnage could be transported for a rather small amount of fuel.
There are pros and cons to this one. The United States is one of the few countries that limit cargos to 80,000 pounds. Other countries seem to do very well with greater loads. In theory, it would mean that up to 20 percent fewer trucks would be needed on the roads. On the other hand, the additional weight does cause damage to roadbeds, and it would require a lot of work on highways to make this viable. Some have even suggested that a new interstate system be built which would be for trucks only.
Another concern is the fact that heavier loads require greater braking power to stop. There are new brake standards in the pipeline now that will improve the braking capabilities of current trucks. That can’t come a moment too soon for me, as the roads were I live (Arizona) have a large number of trucks which seem to be going as fast as I am, and often no more than 50 feet behind me! I shudder to think what would happen if I had to make an emergency stop.
In recent years, the trend has been to use slightly smaller engines (12 to 13 liters, versus 15 or 16L) and lower RPM (1200-1400) to improve fuel economy. If regulators move to raise cargo weight limits, it may be necessary to move back to larger engines and higher RPM. There’s always give and take in every action.
And how will engine oils be affected? Oil marketers are undoubtedly reluctant to have another heavy-duty category change. Every time that happens, costs go up, uncertainty increases and everyone gets nervous. Additive suppliers, who are the ones impacted most by the costs of a category change, will work with OEMs and the various technical groups to make things happen on time – and this is the big factor.
It takes a great deal of time to develop new tests, calibrate them, set limits and get them in place to run the test programs needed to introduce a new category. Common sense and prior history say that the preliminary work has already begun, at least behind the scenes.
Five years is not a long time to get this whole process completed, and so it seems likely to me that we are about to start on Proposed Category 11 (PC-11). Or as they say every year at Indy, “Gentlemen, start your engines!”
One Good Turn Deserves Another
Higher weight limits would be rare courtesy for trucking
Everyone connected to the trucking industry knows it has an image problem. And this image problem isn’t new. Except a brief period in the mid-1970s when the public at large associated trucking with Pontiac Trans Ams, illicit runs of Coors beer out of Texarkana and anti-establishment Rubber Duck convoys rolling across the American West, trucking always has been on the outs with mainstream America.
This prejudice is undeserved, of course. We all know that if every truck in the U.S. sat idle tomorrow, the entire country would come to a screeching halt. And although trucks are big and scary-looking to somebody sitting in a Prius, the fact is trucks today are safer than they’ve ever been. But years of abuse have taken their toll on the trucking industry’s image. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that we’re cowed, but I do think that our industry has, over time, accepted a role of passivity. The industry has endured a multitude of regulations and cost hikes with good grace and uncompromising dedication.
In many cases, fleets have acted without government intervention to upgrade their tractors with cutting-edge safety equipment, including lane departure warning devices, traffic interval radar, proactive braking systems and rollover avoidance technology. And let’s not forget the wide range of environmental initiatives truck fleets have absorbed in the past decade: everything from exhaust gas recirculation engines with degraded fuel economy to anti-idling laws, complex California Air Resources Board regulations, SmartWay certification and selective catalytic reduction technology that, while impressive, drove the cost of a new tractor up considerably.
No one likes you, no one appreciates you, and no one stands up for you. So when government agencies like CARB, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration – and on down to any small town council that bans exhaust brakes – piles on more regulations or costs, you take it with a grain of salt and get back doing your jobs, supplying the goods and services that keep this country moving forward.
It’s time the trucking industry receive something in return. Last month, legislation was introduced to allow states to increase the limit on truck weights to 97,000 pounds on interstate highways within their jurisdictions; tractor-trailers would have to be equipped with at least six axles. Similar bills to allow vehicles above 80,000 pounds subject to state approval have been introduced in past sessions of Congress without success.
Not everyone in trucking wants higher truck weight limits, of course. Many – perhaps most – evan truckload carriers oppose the 97,000-pound proposal because they fear that shippers will force their carriers to replace the current trailers or retrofit a third trailer axle without any additional compensation. And unless the federal government allows longer trailers the benefits even to the shippers will be limited because so many operations will cube out well before they hit 97,000 in a tractor-trailer.
These fears and concerns are legitimate, but it’s likely that in the coming years almost everyone in trucking will want as much trailer productivity as they can get because drivers increasingly will become scarce and tractors increasingly expensive. If this becomes the reality, carriers won’t have to worry much about compensation; tight capacity in the long run will ensure they receive a return on the investment. Already, many trucking operations are trying to shave weight in order to squeeze in more payload
Commercial Carrier Journal, September 2010
A Sleeping Monster?
Sleep apnea can create legal risks for trucking companies
Sleep apnea is a public health problem and a truck safety problem that could soon morph into a legal problem for the trucking industry. Three in 10 truck drivers suffer from mild to severe sleep apnea, says Anne Ferro, chief of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
“Drivers with severe sleep apnea are at greater risk of being involved in a crash,” Ferro said in remarks at a conference on the disorder earlier this year. Apnea promotes fatigue, and fatigue is estimated to be an associated factor in 13 percent of all truck crashes and 28 percent of single vehicle crashes, she said.
Sleep apnea, a disorder in which breathing problems disrupt sleep, is one of a host of ills that beset truck drivers as a consequence of the challenges of the job and the life style. Citing data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Ferro said the average life expectancy for a truck driver is 61-16 years younger than the average American.
“That is simply unacceptable.”
At the conference, hosted by the American Sleep Apnea Association and sponsored by FMCSA and the American Trucking Associations, attorney Clay Porter of the Atlanta firm Dennis, Corry, Porter & Smith said the sleep apnea problem is fertile soil for plaintiff’s attorneys involved in truck accident lawsuits.
He has not seen it happen yet, but Porter predicted that sleep apnea is going to become a complicating factor for trucking companies involved in fatigue-related accident litigation.
“It’s now possible to demonstrate that a carrier can be aware that a certain percentage of his driver population is likely to suffer from this condition, which will create fatigue,” he said. “This opens the door for a plaintiff’s attorney to say there is a lack of management at this company on fatigue issues.”
Porter said this circumstance arises from a transition in truck litigation over the past five years toward a much more dangerous environment for companies, as plaintiff’s attorneys share information about carriers, driver health and fatigue.
“Plaintiff’s attorneys can show driver health reports that indicate the driver had symptoms of sleep apnea before an accident that a carrier should have caught. (They) are not really interested in a verdict against the carrier for its conduct in an accident. What they want to show is that this is an act of corporate recklessness.”
Regulations needed
Porter’s warning underscored a theme that emerged from the conference: Sleep apnea is a problem that requires regulatory attention and action by individual trucking companies, as well as raising the industry’s consciousness about driver health and wellness.
Don Osterberg, senior vice president of safety at Schneider National and an industry leader in sleep apnea treatment, delivered this message to FMCSA: “We need some regulatory guidance. I have to make decisions about levels of treatment, and I’m not really qualified to make that decision. We could certainly use your help.”
FMCSA’s current rules were written more than a decade ago, before sleep science became a mainstream discipline, and do not explicitly require testing and treatment for sleep apnea.
The issue is covered through a requirement that a driver not have a respiratory dysfunction that impairs his performance. This gives DOT medical examiners the authority and responsibility to require screening for sleep apnea if a driver exhibits symptoms of has the physical characteristics that indicate the possibility of the disorder – excessive weight or a large neck, for example.
The agency is working on a final rule that will establish new standards for DOT medical examiners that are intended, in part, to heighten examiners’ awareness of sleep apnea.
But despite close study by health experts who advise the agency, there is no consensus yet among the regulators on whether there should be specific sleep apnea standards in the rules.
The agency is looking at recommendations from its Medical Review Board regarding more than a dozen different driver health concerns, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, seizure disorders, renal disease and musculoskeletal disease along with sleep disorders.
The board does not think a diagnosis of sleep apnea should necessarily bar a driver from certification, but that certification should be conditioned on the severity of the apnea and its impact on a driver’s sleepiness, or on whether the driver is getting the treatment he needs.
The board has recommended that all drivers be screened for obstructive sleep apnea. It has posted a long and detailed list of specific criteria for denying medical certification, including having been involved in a crash associated with falling asleep at the wheel and failing to comply with prescribed sleep apnea treatment.
Of particular interest are the board’s recommendations regarding overweight drivers. Doctors say obesity can be an indicator of sleep apnea, although it is not necessarily decisive – other factors such as age and blood pressure are also important. Studies show that a person’s body mass index, a ratio of weight to height that measure obesity, can signal the possibility of sleep apnea, and the board recommended that a BMI of 33 or greater be grounds for rejecting a driver’s application pending the outcome of a sleep study.
FMCSA is considering these recommendations, but a specific sleep apnea rule would require more scientific data than is now available.
This is a point that is stressed by the owner-operator segment of the industry, in particular, which is alarmed by the possibility of drivers being sidelined as a consequence of what they see as unproven judgments about fatigue.
“We want to be sure that if someone is going to be denied employment, that it’s for a scientifically valid reason,” said Ray Warshaw, speaking on behalf of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association at the conference. “At this point there is not enough research to justify taking away a person’s livelihood.”
Trucking takes action
Trucking companies are starting to take the issue into hand themselves. This is mainly out of concern for the health of their drivers and their safety performance, but also in anticipation of a toughening legal environment.
Schneider probably is the industry’s trend-setter in the area of fatigue management. Osterberg outlined a program the company has built piece by piece over a number of years.
Early on the company did a study of 339 drivers who had been treated for sleep apnea. They looked at performance 12 months before and 12 months after treatment, and found a 30 percent reduction in crash rates and a 48 percent reduction in the median cost of crashes. An unexpected benefit: Driver retention after treatment was 60 percent better than the fleet average.
The kicker was that the program reduced health care costs by $539 per driver per month. “A staggering number,” Osterberg said.
Fleet strategies
Schneider uses a third party, Precision Pulmonary Diagnostics, to screen all driver applicants, do a sleep study on those who test positive, provide treatment if necessary, and follow up for as long as 90 days.
It’s not cheap. The initial screening is only around $200, but the overall cost can run up to $3,500 if a driver needs to be treated and monitored. Osterberg considers it money well spent, in a practical and ethical sense.
“I can say without fear of contradiction that after sleep apnea treatment you will see a favorable return on investment, a favorable reduction in health care costs and favorable safety performance,” he said.
There were a number of trucking companies at the conference looking for more information on this issue. Among them was J.B. Hunt, which is developing its own sleep apnea treatment program.
Debra Plumlee, special projects manager, explained that Hunt has partnered with apnea service providers SleepSafe Drive r and FusionSleep to put together a company-wide voluntary program.
The company began by testing members of its management team with the same device its drivers would use, Plumlee said. This is being followed by a study of 100 drivers who are found to have sleep apnea. As of early April, the company had tested 74 drivers, of whom 56 were found to have the disorder.
When the study and treatment are done, the company plans to publish a paper on the data it has gathered, develop support groups for drivers, and start the full voluntary program.
Another carrier preparing to implement a program is British Columbia-based Coastal Pacific Xpress. Kevin Johnson of CPX explained that the sleep apnea effort is one element of total driver health program that includes help with quitting tobacco, weight control and diet, exercise, and installing blood pressure monitors in terminals.
“The idea is to make it as easy as possible for drivers to be aware of and address their health issues,” he said.
For sleep apnea, he will use a Web-based screening service provided by a third party. If the screening comes back positive, the driver can take a self-administered overnight test that will be interpreted by a doctor who can prescribe a machine that provides continuous positive airway pressure while the driver is sleeping (known as a CPAP device). Monitoring of the treatment will be handled by wireless reporting from the CPAP machine to a website.
“from sleep apnea and driver health, it’s a very short step to a complete fatigue management program,” Johnson said. “If you’ve got a guy with diabetes and high blood pressure driving your truck, he feels like crap all the time and he’s not going to be as safe a driver as if we can get (him) treated right.”
Where to start
How does a driver or a trucking company get up to speed on this issue? Start by understanding that this is not an easy subject. “It is broad, complex, challenging and intimidating,” Osterberg warned. “It can be overwhelming.”
There are numerous third-party sleep apnea service providers eager to do business with carriers.
Despite the complexity of the issue, and despite the absence of regulatory guidance, Osterberg is urging carriers to take action on their own.
“For those who are waiting to be told what to do, I would encourage you not to wait,” he said. “If people only act, I believe we collectively will move toward a place where we recognize that fatigue is a considerable issue. It contributes not just to fatigue-related crashes.”
“We can hold ourselves to a very high standard, not to run from the litigation boogeyman but to understand that the real objective is to improve the welfare and safety not only of our own drivers but the motoring public as well.”
Employee or Independent Contractor: How the IRS decides
Determining a worker’s status as an employee or independent contractor is anything but clear-cut. The determination seldom relies on a single factor, and the factors could change with the agency making the determination.
The IRS uses a 20-point means test (IRS Revenue Ruling 87-41), which can be broken down to three main categories. It considers how much control the company exercises over the contractor; whether or not the business has the right to direct and control the financial aspects of the worker’s job; and whether or not the relationship is similar enough to that of a typical employee to deem the contractor an employee. No single factor has precedence over the others, IRS says. Rather, it depends on where the “preponderance of evidence” lies.
Below is a very brief synopsis of the three categories.
Behavioral control
The key issues for behavioral control are instruction and training, as well as the degree to which these are applied. If the company provides detailed instruction on how a job should be done, when and where it should be done, or if the company provides an evaluation of the work itself rather than the end result, this indicates the worker should be deemed an employee. On the other hand, if the company simply states the objective, and leaves it to the worker to determine how, when, and where the work is accomplished, the company is deemed to be exercising a lesser degree of control over the worker. That worker would likely be deemed a contractor.
Training comes into play here as well. If the business provides the worker with training on how to do the job, this indicates that the business wants the job done in a particular way. This is strong evidence tat the worker is an employee. Periodic or ongoing training about procedures and methods is even stronger evidence of an employer-employee relationship.
The key factor to consider is whether the business retains the right to control, regardless of whether the business actually exercises that right.
Financial control
Financial control refers to whether or not the business has the right to direct and control the financial aspects of the worker’s job. If a contractor has a significant investment in the equipment he or she uses, this favors a determination of independent status, but not necessarily. A “significant investments” is not defines by dollar amounts.
Next are expenses. Employers typically reimburse employees for job expenses (perhaps tolls, permits, training costs, ect.). Businesses usually do not reimburse these expenses for independent contractors.
Next on the list is whether the worker is generally free to seek out other business opportunities. Can the worker haul someone else’s freight? If not, they might look a lot like employees.
Finally, the method of payment is considered. Is the worker paid by the job or by the hour? Hourly, weekly, or similar basis for payment generally is evidence of an employer-employee relationship. Flat fees are generally evidence of independent status. Paying workers during downtime is generally further evidence the worker is an employee.
The relationship
How is the relationship between the company and the worker defined, and more importantly, what defines the relationship? In many cases, owner-operators work under contract or a lease agreement governed by terms set out in the so-called Truth-in-Leasing regulations (49CFR, part 376). IRS notes that it is under no obligation to acknowledge the terms of suck contracts.
IRS looks at whether or not the company provides employee-type benefits such as personal insurance, paid vacation sick days, etc. Businesses generally do not grant these benefits to independent contractors.
Workers hired with the expectation that the relationship will continue indefinitely, rather than for a specific project or period, are generally deemed to be in employer-employee relationships. Contracts with end dates are more indicative of an arm’s-length relationship.
And finally, a critical point: If a worker provides a service that is a key aspect of a company’s regular business activity, it could be assumed the company will exercise a greater degree of control over the worker. A high degree of management oversight suggests an employee-type relationship.
Take a hard look at your operation to see where you fit. A more complete description of the parameters can be found on the IRS website: www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html
Heavy Duty Trucking, September 2010
CSA 2010 carrier safety standings now available
The federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration released individual carrier safety assessments on its Data Preview website (https://csa2010.fmcsa.dot.gov/DataPreview). This update allows carriers to see where they stand in each Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category (BASIC) based on roadside data and investigation findings. Each motor carrier’s BASIC assessments are visible only to them and to enforcement staff until December, at which time assessments will be made available to the public. Also, enforcement agencies will use these assessments to prioritize the agency’s enforcement and compliance assistance workload. FMCSA recommends that motor carriers verify and update their census data and take the necessary steps to correct unsafe driver and/or company safety practices.
Commercial Carrier Journal, September 2010
FMCSA Amends SMS Agency Wants To Better Identify High-Risk Carriers
Addressing concerns raised by the American Trucking Associations and other industry groups earlier this summer about the design of Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced updates to the Safety management System (SMS) methodology intended to better identify carriers deemed “high risk” or otherwise having safety compliance problems. Most notably, the measure of exposure will be changed from Power Units only to a combination of Power Units and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the Unsafe Driving and Crash Indicator BASICs (Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories). In addition, these two BASICs will change from using Power Units as a safety event grouping (formerly referred to as peer grouping) to using the number of crashes for the Crash Indicator and the number of inspections with a violation for the Unsafe Driving BASIC. “ATA believes the use of mileage data rather than merely fleet size to measure exposure data is definitely a step in the right direction,” says Rob Abbott, vice president of safety policy for the American Trucking Associations. “Also, establishing peer groups based on the number of violations rather than the fleet size acknowledges the variability of the state inspection and enforcement programs, because different carriers operate in different environments. It’s clear that some states have more robust roadside inspection programs, and this change properly acknowledges that fact.” Other updates to the SMS:
- The easure of exposure will change from Power Units to the number of relevant inspections in the Controlled Substances/Alcohol BASIC;
- Severity weights for some roadside inspection violations will be updated; and
- FMCSA will employ a more strategic approach to addressing motor carriers with a history of size and weight violations rather than counting these violations in the Cargo-Related BASIC
Commercial Carrier Journal, September 2010
NHTSA Seeks Stricter Rules For Truck Tire Performance
Labeling Tires With Load Specs to Be Required
For the first time in 37 years, federal regulators are proposing tougher standards for truck tire performance, including new speed tests.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that it intends to create more stringent tire inflation and load tests and add a requirement to label tires with their load specifications.
Until the new regulations become final, tire safety will be regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle safety Standard No. 119, which was written in 1973. At that time, the maximum allowable national truck weight was 73,280 pounds and the national speed limit was 55 mph.
“This notice of proposed rulemaking has a beneficial effect on safety, in that it would ensure greater tire durability as tires are held to more stringent standards than currently required,” NHTSA said in a Sept. 29 Federal Register notice.
Comments are due before Nov. 29 at the agency, which will study them before issuing a final rule. There is no specified time period for agencies to study federal rules.
The upgraded tests are focused on five categories of tires – F, G, H, J and L – that are used on vehicles with gross weight of more than 10,000 pounds. The letters stand for their load range, which is the maximum weight the tires can support at a specified inflation level. Heavy trucks primarily use G and H load-range tires.
The speed, performance under load and inflation pressure tests performed by NHTSA would be toughened.
Tires in all five load ranges would be tested at 50 mph. In the current tests, some tires are tested at speeds between 30 mph and 40 mph.
The proposed new test would measure tire performance at a higher percentage of the maximum weight they are designed to carry. The new test would be done in stages at 85%, 90% and 100% of the maximum load. The current test is done in stages at 66%, 84% and 101% of the maximum load.
The test of tire performance based on inflation is being toughened by reducing the pressure to 80% of the recommended pressure from 100% in the current test. The 80% inflation level is a tougher standard because the tire has to meet increased performance requirements even when it’s not fully inflated.
The new high-speed test for truck tires would be done at 85% of maximum load and 90% of maximum inflation pressure at speeds up to 81 miles per hour.
Industry reaction to the new rules proposal was supportive but cautious.
“Our members are sill reviewing the proposal,” said Dan Zielinski, a spokesman for the Rubber Manufacturers Association, which represents tire makers such as Bridgestone, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Michelin North America. “Broadly speaking, our members support test standards that are cost-effective, deliver measurable safety benefits and reflect real-world conditions under which tires operate.”
“Though the proposed upgrades to commercial truck tire standards are not final, we are confident that our products will continue to deliver a high level of performance in real-world conditions and comply with whatever rules may be adopted,” said Ed Markey, a spokesman for Goodyear, Akron, Ohio.
“This is pretty much what we expected,” said Paul Fiore, director of government and business relations for the Tire Industry Association, a trade group that represents retail stores. “There is common sense – going into this with more speed rating and load testing – but we are withholding final judgment until our technical staff reads the details.”
The requirement to toughen truck tire standards dates to 2000, when it was mandated by the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act. That law was sparked by the deaths of about 300 people in rollover accidents, primarily involving sport utility vehicles whose tires had manufacturing flaws.
NHTSA decided when it was writing tire rules first to do the regulations for vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds, which were issued in 2003, before tackling truck tire standards. Since then, the agency has consulted with trade groups and tested performance of sample tires before issuing its proposal.
“We believe that most tire manufacturers will be able to meet [standards] without substantial difficulty,” NHTSA said in the proposed rule, estimating the cost of compliance at $13.3 million.
NHTSA has not yet decided whether M load range tires will have to meet the new standards. Construction, logging and other vehicles often use those tires in both on-road and off-road service.
The N load range tires won’t have to meet the new standards because they typically are used in low-speed, off-highway service, NHTSA said.
Transport Topics, October 11, 2010
‘Registrant-Only’ DOT number eliminated
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced its plans to eliminate the “registrant-only” U.S. Department of Transportation number as part of the Performance and Registration Information System Management (PRISM) program. FMCSA originally developed the “registrant-only” DOT number to identify registered owners of commercial motor vehicles that are not motor carriers, but lease their CMVs DOT number did not authorize a non-motor carrier to operate in interstate commerce, and no safety events were to be assigned to it.
However, FMCSA said through a Federal Register notice that in numerous cases, law enforcement personnel were presented a registrant-only numbered during inspection s and crash investigations; as a result, data that should have been assigned to the record of the motor carrier operating the CMV were assigned erroneously to the registrant-only DOT number. FMCSA says it will maintain all existing numbers of non-motor carrier registrants as dormant registrant-only DOT numbers. The effective date of the change was Sept 1.
Commercial Carrier Journal, September 2010
FMCSA Eliminates Cargo Insurance Requirement
By a final rule published in the Federal Register of June 22, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will, as of March 21, 2011, no longer require regulated common carriers to have cargo insurance. Given that the required minimum has for many years been only $5,000 per vehicle and $10,000 per occurrence, the change may not make much difference practically. The rule may be seen here:http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-14866.htm
Trucking Minnesota, August 2010
DOT Adding Test For “Ecstasy” As Part Of Strickter Drug Rules
The U.S. Department of Transportation said it is adding new tests for transportation workers to detect the designer drug “ecstasy”, while also lowering the positive threshold amounts of amphetamines and cocaine and adding a new marker to identify heroin use.
The agency’s final rule, effective October 1, is expected to identify an additional 8,000 transportation workers annually as illegal drug users, DOT said.
In 2009, there were slightly more than 14,000 confirmed positive test results for amphetamines/methamphetamines and nearly 13,000 for cocaine, DOT said.
While the department noted the vast majority of truck drivers do not engage in illegal drug use, a DOT spokeswoman said the rule is an added deterrent “because truckers will know that they may be more likely to be detected, even if smaller amounts of some drugs are found in their specimens.”
Dave Osiecki, senior vice president of policy and regulatory affairs for American Trucking Associations, said the federation supports the new rule. “They will help to identify some substance abusers who may be avoiding detection under the existing procedures,” he said.
However, Osiecki said DOT could further help the industry to identify substance abusers by establishing a national clearinghouse for positive test results and by authorizing the use of alternative specimens such as hair.
The Wyoming Trucker, Third Quarter – 2010
Miles Traveled Will Be In Crash-Risk Calculation
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), responding to trucking industry concerns, will change the way in calculates a fleet’s crash risk under CSA 2010, said Administrator Ann Ferro. The change – using vehicle miles traveled in addition to the number of trucks a fleet owns to calculate the risk factor – addresses a major trucking industry concern about the new safety monitoring system. FMCSA will build “a blended rate of VMT and power units” as part of its risk formula. The reasons for the change were recommendations from the agency’s state enforcement partners, as well as concerns expressed by industry executives. CSA is the new safety program currently being phased in by the agency.
The Wyoming Trucker, Third Quarter – 2010
