• New ground rules

    In mid-July, FMCSA took a giant step forward in issuing a Driver Safety History rule by publishing a Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM). The proposal expands the nature and extent of the background checks required for driver applicants. It also allows applicants to review or dispute safety information provided by former employers. Consequently, the rule would have major implications
    Sept. 1, 2003
    4 min read

    In mid-July, FMCSA took a giant step forward in issuing a “Driver Safety History” rule by publishing a Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM). The proposal expands the nature and extent of the background checks required for driver applicants. It also allows applicants to review or dispute safety information provided by former employers. Consequently, the rule would have major implications for previous and prospective driver employers.

    This rulemaking has been a long time coming. Its origin dates back to the 1994 Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act, which required FMCSA's predecessor agency to implement a rule requiring carriers to investigate the three-year accident and drug/alcohol history of driver candidates. The NPRM that resulted provoked a lot of dissent since it failed to provide protection for carriers from liability lawsuits resulting from such background investigations.

    However, provisions included in the TEA-21 pre-empted any state, local jurisdiction or person from bringing any legal action against employers rightfully fulfilling their requirement to investigate, provide or use safety history information about driver applicants — as long as the information is used only for the hiring decision.

    According to FMCSA, the SNPRM fixes many gaps in the current “new-hire background check” process. First and foremost, it proposes a limitation on liability for prospective and previous employers in providing and evaluating the safety performance history of drivers.

    Second, the proposal gives carriers the tools they need to do a better job of assessing the potential safety risks of driver applicants. For example, candidates' previous employers must honor prospective employers' requests for the following information about their safety history:

    • Involvement in recordable accidents;

    • Three-year drug/alcohol history and/or any illegal use of drugs or alcohol;

    • Information regarding failure to complete a drug/alcohol rehabilitation program.

    In order to comply with “Fair Credit Reporting” and other “Driver Privacy Protection” provisions, however, prospective employers would be required to advise driver applicants that they can review, request correction, or refute what a previous employer provided in the employment history.

    The proposal would give prospective employers the right to access and evaluate an applicant's three-year accident and drug and alcohol history, and use it in the hiring decision. But they would not be able to use it during annual reviews. Prospective employers would have to implement broad privacy safeguards, as well as notify applicants that they have the right to review the information obtained from former employers.

    For former employers, more record-keeping is in store. While current accident registers must be kept for one year, the proposed rule extends this to three. They would also have to respond to information requests within 30 days, and to “driver right of review” requests within just two business days.

    Based on my conversations with ATA, however, the industry would support a much quicker response time. And in the interest of fairness, the response time mandated to honor a request for information should match the amount of time carriers have to respond to driver right-of-review requests.

    Given the current regulatory atmosphere, it's likely this SNPRM could become a Final Rule by next spring. So now's the time to take a look at your employment and record-keeping processes:

    • Are you ready to conduct — and keep records of — a more extensive background check for each of your driver applicants?

    • Can you provide security controls for your accident, drug and alcohol records?

    • Are you adequately staffed to respond to and correct errors arising from the predicted onslaught of driver right of review requests?

    If any of your answers are “no,” get ready to make some changes.

    Jim York is the manager of Zurich North America's Risk Engineering Team, based in Schaumburg, IL.

    About the Author

    Jim York

    Voice your opinion!

    To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of FleetOwner, create an account today!

    Sign up for our free eNewsletters

    Latest from News

    Patton Logistics Group
    Patton Logistics Group includes Watsontown Trucking (No. 248 on the FleetOwner 500: For-Hire list), Patton Warehousing, and Patton Logistics.
    FleetOwner 500 for-hire carrier adds dozens of trucks, hundreds of trailers, maintenance facilities, and much more warehousing real estate and potential for its Patton Logistics...
    ID 186175420 © Noipornpan | Dreamstime.com
    medical examination
    A new rule implemented by FMCSA will require that driver medical exam results be submitted electronically and within a calendar day of the examination.
    Josh Fisher | FleetOwner
    On-highway diesel pump prices sat at $3.775 per gallon, up from June 16’s $3.571 average. While it didn’t see the same price hike, average U.S. gasoline prices also increased by more than 7 cents this week, according to EIA, which tracked the fuel at $3.213.
    Middle East conflict helps fuel pump price surges nationwide. Gas is up to $3.213 per gallon; diesel is $3.775, but analyst doesn’t expect ‘apocalyptic spikes’ to continue.