CRs are effective for those that experience audits. The number of carriers being audited is not sufficient :
- Only 2% of carriers are audited. Need more effective process to audit carriers
Oversight should look at safety performance not regulatory performance
- It is questionable whether there is a correlation between regulatory performance and actual safety results.
CRs are resource intensive
- Re-evaluate amount of resources that it takes to do CR
- Look at alternatives, especially for those who have good safety programs: remote review (on-line via web, websites, local and state communication)
Streamline CR for complaints
- Tell carriers about the nature of complaints or type of complaint so they can take corrective action. But they do not need to know the identity of complainer

Safestat

Address Safestat data weighting and scoring for the CR selection process
Safestat process (JOOS, Accident SEA, Management System Score) is broken and not sufficient for oversight
- If carrier is cited Out of Service: 4 times in 30 months, score is doubled in Safestat. This happens regardless of # of trucks (no normalization based on size of organization)
- CR looks at # of accidents from x and x, whatever is greater goes into Safestat.
- Even if have good outcome through a hearing, still get 'punished' in the Safestat process
Safestat does not identify the correct carriers for CR
Safestat formula penalizes growing carriers
Selection process is not equitable
- Need to find ways to better identify bad carriers
- Seems like carriers who are doing things right are being targeted. Harder to find those who are not safe.

Accident Data

Problems with the definition of DOT reportable accidents
- Current definition is whether the accident involved a towing or transport for the injured. The feeling is that injury accidents are often pre-emptive not re-active
Definition is arbitrary (FOTM not available) / inadequate / not uniform
Preventable accidents should be measured and part of a goal. Need to measure what trucks can control.
Bring accident preventability decision-making power back to the FMCSA Field investigators performing CRs, this time with preventability training.
- Background: Field investigators no longer have ability to determine preventability of accidents, and whether an accident should count or not. This authority was taken away 7 years ago because of FMCSA field investigator mistakes (OMC).
- According to the Federal Highway Administration the definition is now that all accidents are preventable.
Private property accidents are not uniformly accounted across the country

New Entrants

New U.S. Entrant audit differs from Mexican Entrant audit
- Mexican carriers
  - Must go safety audit, provisional authority, then FMCSA does CR after 18 months. Only then are they given permanent authority.
- US carriers
  - Must go through an initial audit within a 'reasonable timeframe' after its DOT # request, and that's it - there is no follow-up. Plus, US carriers can operate before the audit.
New entrant audits should have better follow-up after the initial audit
- A lot more education should be given to new Motor Carriers
- Some thought the initial audit should be more informal and educational; others thought the audit within the initial 18 months was informative
Process breaks down in follow-up
- Need better responsiveness from DOT during follow-up
- DOT is responsive when organization states that they need a training program immediately.
- Once DOT leaves facility, compliance ends.
- No one to go to. When calling DOT, there is no person to talk to; can only leave messages.

Drivers

Truckers should be held accountable for what they can control, not just carriers
Driver is able to move from carrier to carrier (no way for carrier to track past performance)
Qualifying drivers takes too much time and there is a shortage of drivers
- Suggestion: National Database for employee reference checks (Drug and Alcohol; pool program)
- Need better, faster, and more accessible ways to do background checks, etc. Companies could hire quicker and be more in compliance.
- Carriers who are winning are those whose drivers can get on the road quickly.
  - Those who are certifying drivers, doing background checks, etc. are losing drivers to other companies

Communication

ANI website needs to have accurate data
- Example: Someone did a search for a company and it was not there
Current distribution of communication is insufficient
- Need to communicate via phone, fax, etc.
- Communication cannot be just through the Internet since not all organizations have access.
Information is too hard to get
- Example: ATA suggested that the field ops manual should be publicly available. Currently obtaining the fields ops training manual requires an FOIA form.
Need resources to help carriers comply when new regulations are made

Other Thoughts

What is going well: Goals stated clearly; continuous improvement; agency is committed; industry is committed
- Agency does good job of working with states and their enforcement activities
- Core value and concern for safety is shared
Need to focus on getting current process to work well so we can add on
- Currently there are so many carriers and resources are limited. The addition of potentially reviewing Mexican carriers, adds an additional burden when the process can't even monitor domestic carriers. Impossible task.

CASE FOR CHANGE

Reasons for change

Need to change to improve safety and credibility
- Need to make data, CR selection process, and Safestat more credible to drivers, states and industry
To improve communications that will mitigate accidents
- E.g. Accident prevention strategies (communicate to company/drivers)
- E.g. Accident hotspots (so that drivers are more careful in these areas)
To make organizational system more cost-effective
- Focus collectively on high impact safety areas
- Efficiency and leverage
To drive fairness and bring uniformity
- Drive out arbitrary discrepancies between states (# of compliances reviews, etc.)
- Even-handed regulation
To improve accident reduction
- Industry analysis and root cause analyses
- Can play different role (i.e. Hotspot occurrences)
Need follow-up to groups
- Did something similar previously and need to know that it is being acted on; where is this going?

Why change is needed

The more things change, the more they stay the same
- Tremendous amount of opinion but not adopted
- Suggestion: 2 groups: 1 to analyze ways to bring in new ideas for change and 1 to review existing policies (e.g. CDLIS)
- Need to change in order to take advantage of innovation
Change is necessary otherwise will tread water for next few years. There have been changes in the past that haven't worked. Need to make sure that the change is effective.
- E.g. Cdlis -- Is data timely?
- Need to be able to adjust for errors

How to change

Test technologies as part of change to use an evaluation tool for seeing whether we are heading in right direction.
Information database for tracking drivers who test positive in drug test.
- Some DMVs track but not consistently across states
- To minimize occurrences of drivers jumping to new company without disclosing drug record
3rd Party Partnerships:
- Involve 3rd parties.
  - Government can't do on its own
  - If don't sit down and talk together to get to a process as a community, won't get to compliance
  - Partnerships between DOT and State associations during audits. Join forces and share information
    - Would also leverages #'s
    - Differences in what each looks at
    - Would result in less intrusion and time taken for audits
- Certification process for providing 3rd party administrator services for trucking associations
  - MRO (medical review officer) for drug tests needs to have training on what is required for DOT regulations

Timeline for change

Change is good and needs to occur more quickly rather than all being implemented 6-8 years from now. Perhaps FMCSA can change in bits and pieces.
Timeline for change needs to be cognizant of technologies passing by.
- For example, drug and alcohol testing took 2 years; now there are newer methods.
- If don't change now then technologies will pass us by.

Appendix B2:
Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session
San Diego, California / September 21, 2004
Future State Breakout Groups

Attributes

Scope (of program is well defined)
Profiling - Legality is questionable. But there is some validity to profiling.
Risk
- From a business value standpoint
  - Don't look to government to judge risk
  - Look to insurance b/c it is economic
- However, government should look at risk in particular situations (e.g. Yuca)
Need to make sure fair
- Example: Technology - Do all organizations/parties have access to the technology like web access? If no, and start to implement CR program that uses web access, could prevent getting a fair cross-section based on a focus of those who have easy access to technology.

Discussions surrounding the Whos

Carriers

Carriers that are not complying establish new entities to get around non-compliance (i.e. change name, legal status, etc.)
- Also various other loopholes, document falsification

Drivers

Key in accident prevention
Need to monitor medical status, in areas such as fatigue
Right now not part of equation.
Little consequence to impact change on individual behavior
Almost operates with impunity
Needs to be a part of monitored groups

Government Regulating Agencies

Need to have measures of quality for CRs - how are they being performed? (FMCSA and key officials)

Insurance Companies

MCS90 - should be ensuring that carriers have this. Right now, carrier gets penalized.

Medical Profession

Certification for those who do DOT physicals
Program that looks out for shortcomings of clinical physicians b/c they don't know what needs to be looked at during these physicals
- Doctor shopping occurs
Good Example, FAA certification for pilot physicals
Availability of list of certified physicians

Owner Operators

Community is growing.
Have more direct responsibility b/c play role of carrier and driver.
Employment laws - how to categorize individual or company?
If resources at the government level aren't available, need to push responsibility on operators
Different regulatory agencies are defining them in different ways amongst the agency
- Government agencies need to communicate amongst themselves and streamline communication to industry

Shippers

Shipment documents that are incorrect and/or inaccurate should be responsibility of shipper. Currently carriers are cited for any errors.

Leveling the Playing Field

Industry

Medical and License sharing information across state and international borders
Intercity vs. Intra city should have different standards
- Exposure in intercity is larger (can probably get from insurance)
- Miles driven should also take this into account

Certification

Certifications b/c some people know what they are supposed to be doing; others don't. Suggestions:
- Mandatory certifications - professionalizing.
- Requiring each company to have a safety official who knows the regulations, etc.

Data

More performance standards instead of prescriptive standards
- Your preventable accident rate must not exceed x, reportable collisions must not exceed y, drivers drug screening must be of z standard
- Instead of: i.e. brakes - must be able to stop within a certain distance
There are performance data points in place that can be used.
- Need to figure out how to use this information
- Look at those organizations who are the statistical outliers.
- For example, earlier analysis of # of accidents showed that time of day was an factor
All crashes are bad. There seems to be an implication that there are good crashes and bad crashes.
- What will operational characteristics accomplish?
  - How organizations make mgmt decisions?
- Need performance standards
  - Will help better target who is reviewed

Database

Need to look at trends over time
- Yearly perhaps
- Some other federal agencies have yearly reports submitted to them for this purpose
Web-based system to allow audits at regional offices instead of on-site
- If carrier has good performance rating, look at materials, and renew rating if everything looks OK
  - CHP has similar process
If information such as qualification file is tracked in a centralized area, then
- Information will be real-time.
- Data storage requirements are less for the carrier.
- Data does not presently exist at fed level
Centralized info on driver history would be helpful for carriers
- Would help carriers have all the info it needs to make hire/no hire decisions
- Would help carriers be able to re-focus staff in other areas
Data accuracy is important especially in a real-time environment b/c impacts real-time decision making
Because employers are required to report employment, should start to see employment histories improving.
- Current in CA (3 years employment; 2 years drug and alcohol test results)

Compliance

If embrace quality model, should need fewer inspectors
- i.e. hotspots: here are where accidents are occurring; check specific areas; information is more timely to look at root causes
There is a direct impact of DOT presence and visibility on carriers looking for assistance/information on what they need to be doing in order to be in compliance.
Pull notice program
- A CA program that would be useful
- Whenever activity happens on a license, notices sent

Enforcement

As the number of entities to monitor increases, who is going to enforce?
- There are currently provisions, but no enforcement.
Mechanical defects
- Not as high leverage of a measure
- Every driver is supposed to do a pre-trip inspection
  - Need enforcement of this
All goes back to the company hiring manager on making the right decisions about fit for the open position
- Regulations can only go so far

Public Dissemination of Information

Accuracy is important
- Agencies then state that it is the responsibility of regulated to prove info presented is inaccurate before information will be changed
- Inaccuracy causes great harm
- 25% of accident information;
- 15% of out-of-service data issues report difficult/impossible to fix
CR results are still posted even if contesting CR results. There are 2 forms of adjudication, one of which contests whether the CR was conducted incorrectly
What are standards across other regulatory agencies for posting performance results? How important of a factor is this for comparison purposes?

Appendix B3:
Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session
Atlanta, Georgia / September 28, 2004
Plenary Session

CURRENT STATE

General Scope

Not enough dollars or people involved in the process
2% a year is not enough. Visit all carriers
Complaint driven system is prone to abuse
Lack of partnering outside FMCSA
- Insurance companies do the same type of audit--FMCSA should conduct CR, educate and give information back to the insurance company.
Roadside inspections and out of service and not so effective
Some carriers do see importance and thoroughness of good safety program
Lack of accountability with shipper compliance

Compliance Reviews and Inspections

CRs good:
- Good tool, welcome by carriers, educational
- Good for violations, road side inspections
Thorough CR but one size fits all is not enough--needs to be more focused
- Willingness to comply should be focus
- An all or nothing selection process. Flags are raised when the data is analyzed to find trends and repeat offenders
- Focus on where there are a lot of trucks (urban vs. rural)
Streamline process to get rating. Takes too long to get CR
Extend to electronic screening like Prepass
Applies to interstate carriers only
More bus carriers need to be inspected. Church buses and charter buses should be treated the equally. Currently they are not checked. We are asking for more inspections. Even the playing field with compliance.
- Motor carriers have to beg for CR
To cut FMCSA work load accept DOD ratings. CRs are equal to or more important than DOT ratings. If have DOD, maybe exception from DOT rating, save man power
- Wastes resources to have state and federal CRs
Have different types of reviews: CRs for establishing safety ratings and other safety reviews ex) new entrants can have their system looked out without fear of penalty
Inspection Time
- Inconsistency, especially personality differences
- Need uniformity and standardization across states
- Auditors at least be on time and focus on task
- What information should carriers have ready for the inspector when they come. Respect their time, coordination must take place.

Education

Educate smaller carriers about CR process
With the "come and see us" policy, save time and energy by talking to groups of carriers at once.
Letters are not instructional enough. 9 out of 10 carriers don't know what they are supposed to be doing
Enforcement officers in position of educating drivers on hours-of-service. Should be carriers responsibility not officers

Enforcement

Review officer duties
Lack of enforcement
Enforcement fines not as helpful, smaller companies can pay without getting a violation statement

New Entrants

Too easy to enter the industry
Aid effectiveness by paying attention to new entrants and establish a safety rating
New carriers are willing to undergo CRs and unable to get one
Respectful of the amount of new entrants and not being able to cover more than 2% of the industry due to money constraints by congress and number of bodies
New entrants receive a letter with no follow up
No rule on new entrants in GA. Historical experience there is a link with the publication date, instead by the total for the day but not by state

Carrier Inconsistencies

Danger zone carrier with 25-50 vehicles. For smaller carriers the cost of a safety director is a competitive disadvantage
Not enough focus on relationship between financial strength and weakness of carriers

Organize Data

Improve Safestat
Small carriers are over represented in statistics
Hard to correct mistakes in online system
System could have great value if rating comparisons were done to inform organizations of their placement within the industry
Data stratification: specify driver types and where they drive. Software can help organize information, make records more uniform and easily searchable
Problem that ratings can last several years even if the carrier is in compliance now
Standardize auditing of law books (highest paid, lack of data)
Safestat score does not have a correlation. Need more local law enforcement input
Legislation to require Safestat in intrastate carriers
Safestat not available to public or safety officers

CASE FOR CHANGE

Comments on Point 1: 'To keep up with increasing volume'

Federal government has already invested in technology (ITS and homeland security) Adapt their information and use those additional dollars to help this process
Make barriers for starting a new truck company. Require safety classes that will slow incoming entrants, create better quality carriers and indicate who is violating rules
4X year synthesize different review processes that all do the same thing. (DOD, CVSA (on the road) and FMCSA. We haul 2,000 school kids in Georgia, all of the county school board risk people come to inspect as well as FMCSA, too many
Put controls on shippers, may need outside help
To meet increasing challenges, (legal demands, training drivers and providing oversight) companies need data quickly themselves, can't wait on FMCSA. Need to move faster. Unify efforts of 50 states. Records could be more successful if consolidated and streamlined

Comments on Point 2: 'To meet increasing program demands'

Require fee for new entrants. Justify the cost by earmarking dollars to improve safety, compliance, or education programs. If focused and targeted on safety then the industry is paying for its own safety compliance
Fines are sent from one place and money sent to another. Money needs to be dedicated to where it is collected, not shifted to another area.
Give companies incentive and tools to help them be safe. Use technology to help report things and give incentives not just punishments.
Like Tax credits!
Terrorism creates huge pressure on everyone
Congress and politics create pressure, not much can be done

Comments on Point 3: 'To expand scope of influence'

Questions about 2%
- Does 2% measure the vehicle population or motor carriers? If FMCSA measures motor carriers does that include inter/intrastate?
- What's the % of category A and B carriers that were covered by CR? If Safestat is an effective system and all bad ones in A and B are checked than 2% is not relevant and it does not matter that 98% were not covered
If scope of influence increases, cross state things will as well.
Embrace Intra state carriers during the review process
Interstate carriers are consistently charged as they cross states, federally mandated
Reach the driver. Look at drivers, enforcement and especially education. FMCSA education programs instead of truck association programs. It's more voluntary for drivers to be involved and develop a relationship with FMCSA
Differences between Alabama public service and Georgia safety inspections. Problem with driver log violations. Need uniform penalties. In AL if a driver gets a major log violation there is no notification. But in GA he gets a ticket with no points. FMCSA needs to establish uniform points for drivers log violations. This would create fear in the drivers for falsifying their logs.
A driver's personal car counts against his CDL. The state affects insurance. Not fair

Comments on Point 4: 'To expand focus of safety assessments'

Expansion should not be used for additional regulation, FMCSA should tweak existing regulations not add more.
Better define current regulations. Currently, a company must have "appropriate safety controls in place" that leads to interpretation. Systems need to be defined. New carriers need a roadmap and guidelines to follow.
Smaller companies rely on drivers to pass along enforcement violations to the company owner. An at-risk driver may have 4 tickets, but the owner has no idea. Must be way to give information about performance to the responsible parties in a timely manner
Should be looking at drivers versus carriers, though maybe that expands focus too much, overreaching
Public outcry to allow safety data to go across company lines. Now companies hold the information close and hidden. Maybe the public wants to see more.
Capture data on driver turnover. Divide number of seats and drug tests; use the data to see where everyone stacks up.
My company is in charge of 1600 small motor carriers, we deal with entry and re-entry. We'd love to be a partner and get involved.
We license insurance agents, so why not new entrants? Need to require that new entrants pass qualification test and need authority to enter industry

Comments on Point 5: 'To leverage dependency on partners'

States already differentiate and look at intra and interstate carriers. FMCSA should take advantage of that and depend on the states to scrutinize
Federally funded roads are a sub connection between investment for the best possible roads and the responsibility of users
Leverage needed to be open to additional partners. Ex) GA DVS does a new entrance test and educates using enforcement officers. Instead use non-enforcement partner to do test.

Appendix B4:
Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session
Atlanta, Georgia / September 28, 2004
Future State Breakout Groups

Attributes

A model program would be in touch with the needs of the industry it is serving. The FMCSA can gain knowledge and be educated about who it is that they have a coercive power over
Affordable:
- Add a component of "affordable," ask: what are the resources to fund this? Is it affordable for the industry and the government?
Equitable:
- I'm not sure what fair and unbiased means. What is basic, does it really need to be equitable?
  - Does equitable mean that it needs to be enforced across the board or be the same with numbers?
  - Bus people drive churches and senior centers that are not regulated at all (drug testing)--equitable means everyone needs to do it. How do dollars fit in?
Performance based:
- FMCSA should focus on performance. If a company is operating safely, they should concentrate on performance (road side inspections, etc). Safestat is a good start, needs to be corrected
  - I disagree, the current model is reactive not pro-active. Performance is after the crash.
  - Performance is in real time, if I have a good safety process in place then I am performing up to the standard.
How do dollars fit in?
- Congress hasn't OK'ed Budgets yet
Human Resources?
- Places not filled
- Money available?
- Talent available?
There's an attribute mission: openness, communications; these should be focused on changing driving habits
- Shouldn't depend upon just using a hammer approach
Increasing the barriers to entrance into the business requires different policy and regulatory attributes from Congress

Who

Carrier Officials
Carriers
- New entrants
Commercial driving schools/3rd party examiner
Customer service/operations schedulers
Dispatchers
Drivers - ultimately the first line of defense
Intrastate
- Leasing companies
Operators - they are ultimately responsible
Owners of trailers
Shippers/mfg. company/customers
Unions
Vehicle owners
Police yourself -
- Hold everyone in chain accountable
- DOT should first go to the ownership list
- Then day to day management
- Then to driver
- Trickle down message
- Start at the state level

Discussions surrounding the Whos

Carrier Officials

Easier to avoid compliance
Pack up and reincorporate
No accountability

Carriers

Policies and procedures on enforcement/disciplinary action
What:
- Financial Health
- Maintenance records to include details such as truck cleanliness
What about the addresses of motor carriers so there is a correct census?

New Entrants

Educate New Entrants and then manage non-compliance
Can't efficiently get to all the new entrants, FMCSA will never get to everyone. So it's better to orient them before they start. Have a certification process for operators
It's inefficient to do CRs and reviews one by one. There aren't enough people to inspect all 900 new entrants, doing them in groups would be better. Groups generate more questions and answers in a setting where you can do more than one at a time.
- In the future new entrants should be worked together in groups, 50, 20 at a time to increase efficiency and reach more companies

Commercial Driving Schools/3rd party examiners

Ensure proper instruction curriculum
At federal level, monitor fraud

Drivers

#1 is Driver
Drivers should be assessed to make things fair, equitable and safe. If you are a commercial motor vehicle in the business you should be monitored.
Judicial system - by reducing violations, impact effectiveness of system
Law enforcement - through education and outreach. Record violation as seen.
Monitor driver behavior
There is some linkage between MVR records and driving/drivers
Revamp drug and alcohol so that it "captures" all drivers
- Human Resources vs. Safety tensions
  - Issues of invasion of privacy, for example
- Drug testing procedures need work
What to look at:
- Crash Data
  - Time period
  - Quantity
  - Fault
    - Severity (fatality, injury...)
      - Only reportable when meet certain criteria)
- OoS violations/history (road-side inspections)
- Tickets
- Data not available on all drivers*
- Positive things to track
  - Safe miles
  - Lack of Violations
- Size/weight violations (not only driver but shipper and carrier as well)

Shippers/mfg. company/customers

Ensure that not encouraging unsafe practices
Not currently regulated. How to bring them under the FMCSA umbrella
Collect shipper and manufacturer data on reportable crashes
- Can the shipper be reliably ID'ed
Bills of lading (time stamp vs. delivery expectation)
- Ties the shipper in.
FMCSA can monitor shippers and motor equipment operators. For those that are going out of service more frequently -which carriers do they hire? Do carriers end up being placed out of service? Get an unsatisfactory rating? What responsibility do these parties have?
Shippers place unreasonable demands on carriers. The carrier took responsibility when they agreed to take the freight, but shippers are getting lost in the shuffle. If you've got carriers with out of service problems try looking at who the shippers are. If a specific shipper hires 4 core carries and all of them have problems then perhaps the shipper company should be looked at for placing demands on people hauling products. Shippers always get a free ride! They should be treated fairly and equitably.
- Same thing with bus companies. A tour group wants a bus to drive somewhere and then tour all day. According to the hours-of-service regulations we need to hire 2 drivers for that, but then the tour group doesn't want to pay. So they will go down the list of companies until they find a bus company who doesn't care about the rules. There are tour bus companies that will write up the least possible cost. FMCSA needs to make the chartering company more responsible when they are knowingly going against the rules

Unions

Keeping unsafe drivers on the road
Also do request support from law enforcement when driver is pressured by carrier

Leveling the Playing Field

Non-Profits

Not a level playing field. Non-profits have to be regulated too. Driver of passengers is under the same controls as other types of drivers (drug and alcohol, safety testing, drivers ed) but not required to do alcohol and drug testing currently
Compliance costs money. You pass that cost along to your customers. There is some resistance to absorbing the cost particularly for non-profit organizations (church, senior center)
- Is a passenger's life worth less because she is traveling with a church group?

Long-haul vs short-haul vs. local

Different in frequency and # of inspections
- Ties into data
Short-haul and local have less contact with safety officials

Intrastate Carriers

Federal regulation of intrastate carriers
Same info needs to be collected and accessible as Interstate. Need to synchronize, uniformity between state/Fed

Operational Characteristics

Of the 600,000 some may not be carriers and those involved with trucking (have DOT #s) but those not involved with carriers do not receive CRs. The FMCSA can consider core businesses and include companies whose core business is related to trucking.
- Are you suggesting they should treat Walmart differently?
- No, with Walmart they are transporting, but their core business is selling things, not regulation and roadside inspections
FMCSA makes a mistake with cookie cutter CR/inspections. Hauling freights versus passengers, unique entities need to be treated differently
Need to expand the definition of moving type loads like hazmat and tankers, and others
Hazmat
Passenger carrier charters
- Need to be sensitive to passenger inconvenience
- Charter (how to ID?)
- Over-the-road vs. regular route

Data (Timeliness, Correctness, etc.)

What data is available on officials/carriers/shippers?
- Would need to build data criteria b/c little is available
Information needs to be current
- Available and in a form that is useful
- How about online? Immediate?
Information needs to be uniform
- Need to track information in order to manage
Information needs to be simple
Information needs to be accurate
Accuracy of data inputted into system like DOT #
Ability to correct data
What is online-real time? We should get information regularly but we should not be subjected to regular, constant, continuous watching by the government
- Does it mean devices in all my trucks?
Helpful if data compares you to a national average. Be helpful to compare data number to other similar carriers
If data is available at your fingertips, are carriers prepared to keep that information updated? No big deal
- Do I have the ability to go in and correct the data? With current program, it's impossible to change an error in data
- Data Quality is the key
- Need way to update information on website
- If I challenge information on data, I should have 30 days to fix it (with data removed from site) so that you are not penalized during the time it takes to prove and correct the data
To get more current data use insurance companies records, integrate with insurance since trucks have to be insured (according to law) why not register a truck when getting insurance. Data is skewed for smaller carriers and they can't fix information/update info fast enough
"Least - best" if we have received several clean records- give us a way to show the updated records. The ability to effect the full picture of the situation- allow you to put in updated good news
Problem is the static nature of the data. Conditional rating in October 2004 may not have been updated since October 2000. The data is a snap shot and must be a dynamic rating, prepass system where your score changes each day, (reasonable, feasible)
Operators need to update their information too. Neither party is updating the system (need to know carrier added 10 trucks)

Accident Data

Some accidents are not the fault of an operator, data needs to indicate avoidable accident, if unavoidable is it fair to say that the carrier is unsafe?
- No, it's not fair, if it's an unavoidable accident- you shouldn't have to pay the price, you can't help what other people do to you
Needs to be an understanding that some violations are more serious than others

Big Brother

This raises the issues of "Big Brother".
- It is up to the company to manage and then if the company stays "clean" the government doesn't need to be in my business
The Big Brother aspect of this is a question. We are already in a Big Brother state.

Self-Disclosure

Publish a tool or a format so that carriers could post their own CR
Safesyst.org gives highlights of roadside compliance and crash data
- Behooves us as managers to use the system properly and be more proactive
Are they asking us to take more responsibility?

CRs (When/Ratings)

2% CR's are not going to get us to the right place on safety unless they are specifically done by the 80/20 rule.
If safety is so important, then CRs need to be more frequent and not allowed to stand for 6 years.
If you don't have a CR in the last number of years, it is good still to get a Safe Stat score.
A CR every ten years is not often enough
What about an expiration date on the score?
Real-time adjustment of rating. Continuously updated based on new data (inspections, violations and other)
- Quarterly or every 6 mos.
When in response to complaint, CR should be more focused
- Have 2 types of CRs
DOD inspections, state, insurance and other inspections

Enforcement

How can they search to find out information for enforcement purposes? Find out the DOT Number? Other?
How about hyperlinks?
Need sophisticated search engines like the one in Texas
Identification - they need to find models to find carriers to target
Enforcement sends the message
How many are de-activated when they want to start a company?

Rewards

When evaluating a company, instead of just penalizing, recognize the companies that are doing a good job and give them a reward. (advantage of prepass- great way to award proactive, safe carriers)
Enforcement officer does review and gives a carrier $5,000 in fines. Instead give the option to spend $3,000 on safety and $1,000 on fines (to invest in the safety program), definable, measurable safety
Focus should be reward based. There is a competitive disadvantage to those being compliant. No advantage to being in compliance. ISO 9,000 voluntary program in 2000, perhaps need a safety situation where if my company does a review every few years in order to be certified, that gives an advantage and incentive to go through the process.
Change in the future from just crunching numbers to identifying and managing risk as a prerequisite for getting a license. Give carriers an opportunity to correct things not just by penalizing them. Things can change over time, what are the markers to see change? We need different levels of review. Identify and manage risk instead of holding to a requiring a certain number of inspections.

Education

How about a way for a carrier to invite in FMCSA and its expertise not as a punishment. Combine Education AND Enforcement.
- Instead of carrying intimidation, carry techniques to encourage better behavior
- Could assess auditors by amount of corrective measures they suggest as well as enforcement measures
Continue to support uniformity in training
Need to train drivers
Need to orient drivers
FMCSA should have a hot line for drivers
- You might get a lot of disgruntled comments
Start on state level
- Formal training when companies seek to be set up
- DOT 101

Public Outreach

Education on state regs and federal
- Can always do more
Info at time of registration and at sale and at rental
Bilingual, ESL
User-friendly FMCSA reg's
- Not in legalese
More education of high-schoolers

Additional Ideas

Structure and Uniformity

State and federal should be more consistent.
- Eg Hours-of-service Help Line
- FAQ's
- How to handle interpretations
Uniformity isn't guaranteed until you have solid audit routines and performance measures.
Health matters
- Defined the same across the country
- Medical providers need to "be on the same page"
- Supporting team also need to be consistent: insurance people, policy people

FMCSA

Communication

Need to personalize and connect to people with responsibility and information in companies
- A huge amount of mail arrives at our company from the gov't and we can't figure out who is supposed to get it.
- You need to update your information on line. There is a Second address line for this purpose

Authority

An effective way FMCSA can monitor carriers and control behavior is by issuing and the threat of losing authority.
- works for those that require authority, not all are required to have authority
- FMCSA needs to monitor the authority concept as opposed to monitoring the function of transportation. With a MC number meaning you can haul anywhere versus a DOT # of an interstate motor carrier, when it comes to a safety who cares? The authority should have been done away with because if you want to be a carrier then you must comply with safety. Authority is irrelevant if the purpose of FMCSA is safe operations and reduced injury, death and crashes. We need to determine the function of safety and is it meeting the goal?

Scope of Compliance

Do we need to do more than CR's. Shouldn't we also do education or best practices. Why stop with just CR's. Compliance is used as a minimum.
We need to know and share what works in order to reduce accidents and fatalities.

Regulations are not on driving tests. Maybe they should be.

Types of accidents in reference to loads, for example.
What are the patterns, for example.
Load types - tankers, flat beds, etc.
What if I know the statistics about the way trucks hauling concrete has accidents and understood what is considered dangerous, I would be a safer driver.

Size and Weight

MCSAP funds for weight/size (may not be an issue anymore)
Virtual weigh-station
- Camera and scales. No enforcement person there. In pilot in FL.
- Harder to avoid inspection
State penalties and federal penalties. Permitted loads.
- Even the playing fields

National Registry of Drivers

Electronic registry of drivers
- E-notification of inspection notices and violations
- Education about when/how/what is available
- Value-added system to speed notification
Use a national database that gives drivers the ability to track their hours-of-service data and insert themselves into the process. The database could electronically track information about drivers and inform how safety actions should be taken
A national database could track hours-of-service, federal CDL (mandated by the federal government ) and let them maintain the driver qualification file to look the driver up and see if he is eligible
What are we going to do with all this data? Who should look at this data--State agencies, shippers?
Carriers would not likely be managing the database, but FMCSA would seem big brother if in charge of data. So, have a 3rd party who is not associated with FMCSA or shippers. Huge confidentiality agreements needed.

Regulations in Plain English

More straightforward language in regulations
FMCSA has implemented some other rules, they can do some grandfathering and try to make it fair for all different types and sizes of carriers and drivers

Appendix B5:
Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session
Mesquite, Texas / October 5, 2004
Plenary Session

CURRENT STATE

General Scope

What's Working:
- FMCSA's set of standards which sets focus and direction for carriers works. Continue talking to leaders of organizations to get them focused around compliance and safety
- Having physical presence at the motor carrier's place of business is good.
What's Not Working:
- Missing carriers in large metropolitan areas. How often are city buses reviewed?
- Time restraints: lack of adequate time and officers to complete CRS
- Punitive - ineffective
- Ratings are skewed, good inspections are not always documented and there's a false distance between those in and out of compliance
- Follow up and enforcement lacking, should receive FMCSA approval before opening business

Compliance Reviews

Not Working:
- company accident data is not cross referenced with hours-of-service violations or the citations used for the CR process
- Complaint process bad. Once a complaint is received and before setting up the CR, there should be an intermediate step between the carrier and FMCSA.
- The same companies are audited over and over
Players Involved:
- Many different organizations and agencies with access to companies and conducting reviews
- Concerned as to whether staffing of FMCSA is too top heavy, since there are not enough auditors
- Intra state carriers need to be included in CRs
What the CRs Do:
- CRs only look at current regulations, not at safety as a whole-ongoing process
- CRs do not consider safety culture of a carrier, it's a big factor in carrier operation
- more focus on documentation of driver training
- CRs are perceived by motor carriers as ineffective and punitive especially if the jest is to reduce fatalities. The majority of CR time is spent reviewing hours-of-service, rather than being proactive and preventive
- Ratings make no discrimination between outstanding and marginal compliance
How the CRs Should Work:
- Performance as measured by NCA values should override individual complaints against a company thereby triggering a compliance review
- Oversight process is labor incentive, CR should address a smaller random sampling of documents
- Designate certain auditors to audit larger companies and others for smaller carriers
- Look at driver leasing companies
- Target the limited resources problem: carriers with good outcomes should have incentive by avoiding a CR if they continue good outcomes
- Certain factors (i.e. IE maintenance, OOS) should trigger streamlined audits
- If the out of service score is high in safestat then specifically review THAT area, do not go through the entire CR process.
  - Focus audit on the factor that is the safety concern
- Broaden safety ratings and avoid re-auditing carriers with a satisfactory rating
- Non-substantial and frivolous complaints should not warrant a CR
- Send carrier a questionnaire post CR to ask about the officer's professionalism and CR procedure at their office
When:
- Why should a company with 95 be able to operate for 5 years without another review?
- Everyone should be reviewed every 5 years

Safestat and Database

Improvements:

Safestat numbers are spotty and inconsistent, good inspections are often not documented
Safestat is good but there are serious issues with formula and incomplete data
- Room for improvement with missing information and errors
FMCSA should consider using required electronic driver files. An electronic database would reduce the amount of time inspectors go through paper files

Factors in Safestat:
- The process is not eliminating bad carriers or bad drivers. Bad drivers can move around through different companies since we do not have sufficient information. The information captured for a database should have a profile that says John Doe has been put out on several occasions.
- Consider looking only at preventive crashes. 70% of big trucks, only 30% were contributing factors, so eliminate "not at fault" data from record
- Enter inspection/crash reports into a shared system with states and major cities
Ratings:
- Crash rating based on preventable accidents rather than overall accidents
- Broaden ratings, consider DOD ratings and comprehensiveness of the top rating
- Satisfactory is all too encompassing, add more

Enforcement and Penalties

Sanctions are too light when compared to EPA and OSHA fines
States need to take a more active role in disqualifying driver with a serious record
45/60 day shut down is effective
Not eliminating bad carriers

Operating

Tie drug and alcohol testing to CDL licensing so if a driver refuses to test or does not pass, he cannot operate a vehicle
Some companies have chosen to decrease break time in order to not go over 14 hour rule (due to traffic or breakdowns) Install a voluntary break per hours driven.
Some companies tell drivers to log "relieved from duty" when a driver is waiting for a load to fill. Explain this clause better

Inconsistency

The oversight process is perceived as ineffective primarily because the lack of consistency around officer training. Officers vary in strictness and leniency.
Concerned about small carriers. A larger carrier is more predominant in an area so they have more inspections and attract more attention. Smaller carriers are not as easy to see, they may drive less miles and have less equipment. They are floating to the bottom and not sparking the interest of FMCSA
In the Texas standard accident report there is a box that says "possible injury." It must be checked-even if no one was transported to the hospital. This creates inaccurate data.
States have different authority to license people. There should be a federal licensing requirement for interstate drivers as a way to track drivers that jump around. Employers should do checks each time a new driver is hired

CASE FOR CHANGE

Comments on Point 1: 'To keep up with increasing volume'

Involve other resources. It's unrealistic to do a CR every year on all motor carriers. Use independent contractors to assist with inspections and draw on other means than direct contact to conduct CR
Use 80-20 rule--80% of the problem is caused by 20% of the people. Eliminate problems from front end and reduce time.
Relieve burden by asking information from motor carriers to indicate if they are in compliance. Like an IQ test, ask about number of drivers. If a company has 100 drivers and only 10 are being randomly tested for drugs then that's a problem.
Be user-friendly with automated phone resources and faxing in renewal forms. Make things easier for us and for you.
Adapt and modify the DOD contract that requires companies to pass a prescreening survey to see if they need to do a safety assessment. If can't pass that means a carrier is not compliant from the get-go.
Better use resources, reduce time and create specific selection criteria for CRs

Comments on Point 2: 'To meet increasing program demands'

New entrants should demonstrate fitness for duty before operation begins. Takes almost nothing to get operator authority, include a mandatory training class
Follow up and get bad people out of the industry. The federal maritime commission and other transportation committees have information on officers and directors. They require a certain amount of experience before being qualification.
Remove non-active carriers from the system. An outdated database inaccurately increases the carrier population.
Are there current programs that are consuming resources? Look at program value and whether or not programs provide return for safety dollars. Extra funding could be allocated towards better safety programs.
CRs need to be more educational for the carrier instead of a check-up on compliance
Use data to determine which carriers to audit (25% new entrants, 25% on A, B list, 25% complaints, etc)

Comments on Point 3: 'To expand scope of influence'

Reconfigure mcsap money, do not waste on road side inspection
Help with education. Require leaders to go to regional safety education seminars sponsored by DOT and trade partners (educate on hiring, inspection procedures and accident measures)
Get industry on board and ease burden by getting industry to do what FMCSA wants to accomplish
FMCSA partnership with FTA (city bus transit). They currently have no enforcement arm, so city bus operations never get reviewed and it shows.
We would rather have feds maintain mcsap dollars and CRS because then all would meet same requirements and benefits and be consistent among states. Different enforcement agencies read possible injuries and accident reports differently.
Local law enforcement should share state information, standardize reporting forms
Automation of data sent to DOT prior to a CR
Questionnaire, phone calls, mail outs to contact carriers
train and change the system to prevent the "out of site, out of mind" approach to small carriers

Comments on Point 4: 'To expand focus of safety assessments'

Create national standardized program that the driver goes through every 2 years to update his skills and reduce crashes
- Driver schools only teach enough for drivers to pass the CDL test. Depends on company to fully train drivers.
- Airplane and train operators go through standardized, remedial training. Truck industry does not.
- Minimum 12-week schooling for new drivers. (8 weeks of time backing, 4 weeks of learning the rules
Expand investigation to driver level and not just company level.
Companies do not get credit for corrective actions like firing drivers. May not know they have a problem until something occurs
conduct a carrier closing interview

Comments on Point 5: 'To leverage dependency on partners'

Communicate and share information between US customs and federal agencies. Speeds up boarder safety inspections by knowing the US DOT #
- US customs should share information with commercial vehicles
- need to know what hazmat materials are crossing the border
Standardized manner for states to notify carrier that a driver received a violation. tell the carrier their drivers were stopped
Why have adversarial relationship with OSHA--VPP programs? We ought to want to invite FMCSA in to do things with us instead of dreading the required visit.
Expand relationships and incentives to partner with agency.
Require insurance. Currently, neither Sdot or USDOT catches uninsured carriers - They borrow ICCS and DOTS from others, invent phony IDs and insurance cards.
Include no-zone training, sharing the road with trucks and buses for noncommercial drivers as basic defensive driving technique in driver's Ed. Work together, educate about highway hazards.

Appendix B6:
Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session
Mesquite, Texas / October 5, 2004
Future State Breakout Groups

Attributes

Performance based: identify and target those with poor performance, create incentives for those that are demonstrating the ability to manage the outcomes themselves to an exceptional level
Clarity for regulated industry. FMCSA should provide resources so that carriers can do self-assessments
Clarity of partnership: create a program where FMCSA works with carriers
Ease of use for the carrier: CR process, records for review, check list for carriers. There is so much information, make is simpler.
Accurate and timely data
Speed up, enhance information and data to and from FMCSA (accident reports)
Regulated carriers are business operations. Anyone who owns a truck must know what is going on. Trade associations are currently sending out information, this information does not reach everyone
Guidance and regulations are written in plain English (keep it simple)
Has consistent description of everything across the board
Set goals that are attainable and complimentary to those of other agencies
Work closer with states and with federal agencies (to share information and achieve efficiency
All stakeholders (public and private) work together to achieve common goals
Stronger partnerships with insurance community (to help achieve overall reduction in cost of risk)
Should include clarity and measurability.
Eliminate subjectivity as much as possible; reduce interpretation
Proportionality
Size of Operations
Number of complaints/size
Area of Operations
Fairness - Interstate and Intrastate should be handled evenly. Feds now have authority?

List of Whos

Brokers
Carriers
- New Entrants
Consortia
DOT officers and inspectors
Drivers
Driver Schools
Leasing Companies
Medical Practitioners
Owners
Safety Personnel
Shippers
States
Vehicle Observing Companies

Discussions surrounding the Who's

Drivers, owners and safety personnel should be grouped together as far as priority

Carriers

Carriers hold liability
Motor carriers should be the main emphasis, targeted towards the poor performers and those with a conditional rating
How: Mandate carriers access to the driver/data database to regulate drivers
We are asking for too much regulation, its up to the carrier to get the job done and get the information. FMCSA can help us get access to information.
Shifting policing function to carrier is touchy in this economic environment.
New Entrants
- New entrants - evaluate them to see if they are up to standards before entering.
- Check to see if the carrier is an old carrier under a new name
  - licensing application process would need to be changed
- Currently no follow up and background screening of new entrants
- Improve new entrant program with stronger control, safety audits, testing, safety fitness programs
- Look at acute and critical violations - if poor processes put them out of service until in compliance
  - Some new carriers put out of service for 30 days when they do not receive their warning letter
- New entrants should alert FMCSA of cell phone numbers, not just land line so that they can be tracked when on the road
- To contact all new entrants entering per year, use contracted auditors instead of enforcement officers.
  - Third party contractors for other FMCSA activities, especially those without an enforcement action associated.

Consortia

Oversight of consortia - following regulations, time of testing, DPA, etc.
Consortia-are they following the regulations for providing documentation, random testing, accurate reports
- Small motor carriers rely on consortium to keep them in compliance. Difficult to help people comply if the consortium does not know the rules.

Drivers

Drivers need stronger say on when shipment can be delivered
Assessment:
- When carriers come out of service--it doesn't impact the driver.
- Drivers need to be assessed (Out of service, drug testing, citations, and warnings).
- Rate drivers more heavily, since there are more of them
- Driver behavior and the effectiveness of driver training should be assessed
- Drivers - crashes, roadside inspection history (pass rate and why they didn't pass), tickets, MVR
  - Every state varies; need consistency with tracking violations
  - Cities too. City, states, counties and feds need to be on the same page
Accountability:
- More accountability to the driver to follow regulations such as hours-of-service
  - Create more visibility and penalties for not complying.
- If information successful and driver held accountable then when he tries to jump ship then he won't be able to get a new job
- Shortage problem but if held accountable will do better job
  - FMCSA should not be worried about shortage, but holding them responsible will improve safety. As long as driver with bad record is allowed to switch companies, then safety will not be improved. Must be accountable in some way.
- Given shortage of drivers, only so much pressure can be put on the drivers before they walk.
- Problem of people hopping across carriers
  - If carriers knew about people hopping they could do something
How
- License Renewal - requiring training before licenses can be renewed
- Alternative method:Measure them on their own private time - how do they do driving in their personal cars with their regular license. Then any citation received on their personal time goes to CDL
  - The insurance companies watch this so what's the problem!
Education
- How many caused by young drivers? Education of young drivers really important.
- What about questions on drivers Ed tests.
- They mention farm vehicles on the test but not commercial vehicles
- Provide more comprehensive driver training on an on-going basis

Driving Training Schools

Trainers - some monitoring or minimum reviews, standards, have guidelines and certifications
- What about over-regulating? A rule was just passed on training.
  - Didn't go far enough. Doesn't address defensive driving.
Quality training
- Should it be regulated?
- It should be consistent; the question is how to do that
  - Truck driving schools? Professional accreditation

Medical Practitioners

Certification of physicians and medical practices, need consistency
- Many doctors are not kept up to date with the new changes and guidelines

Owners

Owners have the money so they should be regulated
Owner's history of prosecutions, unsatisfactory ratings
- Don't change their name, penalty assessment if they do change their name
Owner of company should be prevented from setting up new company
- Carriers shouldn't operate under multiple entities
  - A lot is involved; some have no insurance
Carriers need to declare who management is
- They have to do that in some states

Safety Personnel

Safety personnel-core performance of their organization, education - certification and recertification

Shippers

How many shippers are asking drivers to violate hours-of-service? Look at shippers to see if there are a certain few that are putting the pressure on the carrier industry
- drivers log has shipping information, a specific shippers name may be linked to forcing out of service hours
- Need to police that somehow, enforcement.
- Large shippers are the ones involved. They need regulation and a specified penalty. Small shippers do not have as much leverage
- Example from Hazmat industry. Waste - from cradle to grave - everyone in the chain is responsible for the disposal. Give shippers responsibility in addition to the carrier. Penalty is liability. Make shippers accountable for hiring carriers.
- Responsibility of shipper to choose good carrier, not just the guy with the cheapest rate.
Shippers - controlling beginning of process, the source
Setting expectations with shippers (Note: there is no accountability with shippers on what they ask carriers to do. Maybe shippers can be involved in this process)
Widen Scope: Shippers and Receivers should be held responsible for demands put on driver
Proper identification of shipped goods

States

States need to notify carriers about suspended drivers
- Have heard it is an issue of no funds
- Maybe there are technologies to do this. How much does email cost?
Hold states accountable on crashes and roadside data
FMCSA should encourage states to do more criminal prosecution when carriers do not comply with CRs
Funding is a big issue. FMCSA needs to find funding for states to maintain compliance.

Vehicle Observing Companies

The vehicle observing companies...companies get those reports and do not follow up on them. That should be considered, too. They might be doing it - having the sticker on their truck but it is for show. It's not something they monitor.

Leveling the Playing Field

Need to accommodate operational characteristics

Define Risk: Hazmat and people carriers are not more risky. Should not be what is carried, it should be their process, no matter what their load is.
- Risk issue triggers CR
- Political environment affects this, however
- 70% of accidents caused by four wheelers.
Bus industry operates differently from the trucking industry - hours-of-service
Compare companies of same ratio and classification by industry segments (there would most likely be 10 segments)
The size and weight measure should be normalized based on the location of the citation
Urban drivers and over the road - can we find a way to compare and equate the circumstances (surface transportation classification code, perhaps)
- Decide consistent class of vehicles: motor coach, school bus, cutaways, etc.
- Reality check - hazmat are going into a new checking program.

Data

Safety performance and operational characteristics should be the priority of what is look at for assessments
Stronger emphasis on history record of the company (trending is a key factor for insurance carriers)

Measures

The number of man hours used and worked should be measured instead of just using miles
Establish a benchmark for total collisions per miles driven (Could use OSHA data as baseline)

Data Collection

Carriers input information on safety programs into a computer system so that the FMCSA does not need to do as many on-site reviews
- Some carriers so new that they do not know what to put in the system. Need education and information. Make a website, a manual.

Data consolidation and availability

Merge existing information: CDLIS, crash data, roadside inspections to asses the good guys and bad guys.
- Some of this information is collected but not shared. Motor carriers do not have
- Intra and interstate
- Need central database for drug testing. Regulatory relief because it will be a one stop shop and less need for doing checks.
We need a national registry for CDL, for drug use and testing
- Some states link current health with CDL
- Arizona you can get a CDL good for 25 years!
National database versus a national pointer system (CDLIS) to contain safety performance - records, drug and alcohol testing, roadside inspections...pool results into one source.
FMCSA look at merging databases into one.
FMCSA has some of this information, it just needs to be reviewed and consolidated (trace old carrier information) and match DOT numbers
Establish a system to capture and use accurate data
- Complete 150 form every year to capture updated information
- Capture updated information from insurance companies as well
Publish all 6 CR scores (so that interested parties can have a better understanding of the performance rating)
Data should be available but needs to be explained.
The data on safety is used for business decisions and for marketing. We tell people our Safe Stat stuff.
Public safety versus private safety of a national database. Government not releasing all information.
- Need:
  - Central repository for positive drug and alcohol results
  - Results of roadside inspection and accident history by driver (already contained in safestat)
  - Employer violation notification program (similar to California PULL notice program)

Data Quality

The information needs to be up to date and proper.
Provide better avenue to contest inconsistencies in data

What Data to Collect

Focus more on using data that comes from a dependable source such as DOT, insurance coverage information, roadside citations, and inspection data.
Crash indicators
- This is the best measure of safety
- It should be established based on a rate that is determined by the driving environment or operations circumstances
Accident data compared against citations issued and hours worked
We need to know whether crashes are related to drugs, etc. things they are targeting.
- Causality issues
- There are very few crashes that relate to drugs.
- Hours-of-service and fatigue are two different issues. Separate them.
- Few accidents are because of mechanical malfunctions.
  - Why watch and inspect this so closely when the cause is the driver?
- Enforcement community is emphasizing the wrong thing.
- Causality - you follow the rules but there is always an element of human error
- Preventability does not equal causality
Measure preventable accident rates
- Issues isn't the standard
- Issue is that the goal counts instead of whether you had any control in the accident.

Ratings

If a carrier has an unsatisfactory rating and then improves, that progress should be reflected in the ratings
The history of a rating should be visible
Unsatisfactory rating is proposed for 60 days, to give carriers a time to fix problems
Ratings should be more graded, for example one to five and that would allow a degree of discrimination. This would allow FMCSA to allocate resources better.
Establish a Grid System which could allow clarity around both accident records and roadside ratings

Compliance Reviews

Use data to discriminate the problem children and then monitor them
What one CR statistic in last two years - how many are on the A list and the B list?
Conduct smaller scaled audits (aimed at specific departments of a company) and make the scoring from that audit a condition for renewing certification.

Indicators for Administering a Compliance Review

Preventable crashes
Vehicle inspections
Crashes are the outcome. Everything else should be driven from that outcome. Focus on the regulations that are most likely to produce the outcomes.
Financial state- when companies are in trouble the first programs cut are usually safety and maintenance.
the age of the fleet, especially if not updated frequently.
Driver stability / driver turnover. Stable workforce with strong management is basic. Deterioration in one of the other leads to problems
- Subjective measure of strong management- using objective characteristics
- What is a good turnover rate?
- 60%
Look at the key elements of a carrier's safety program
History of the motor carrier, the drivers, how many companies the owner has closed and re-opened

Frequency and timing of safety assessments

Before you are granted authorization authority (note: this assessment should be a requirement before the authorization authority is granted)
At least once or twice a year
When a company has been given a "bad" collision record based on internal audit/review of recent history
When a company gets an "unsatisfactory" rating or a "conditional" rating within 180 day timeframe
If you don't complete a 150 form your operations authority should be pulled or you should loose your insurance. FMCSA would be responsible for pulling the operations authority.
When there is a reason
Ten years vs. yesterday is a big difference. It's irrelevant when it gets to be ten years old
Major wreck
- Commercial vehicle's fault?
- Now just fatality numbers
- Make it preventable fatality
Perform CR with a rating in the first 18 months.
Lesser type of analysis - to catch low lying fruit

Roadside Inspections:

How about roadside inspection that put you out of service. Given to drivers, not carriers

Regulation

Ideal world like to see stricter out of service regulations, drivers getting civil penalties. Obstacle- states and local rights
Carriers want less regulation
Apply the "keep it simple" rule to all rules and regulations
Regulations need to be simple and consistent across all states.

Enforcement

Certain violations become just a cost of doing business - some should literally make carriers go out of business.
Strengthen penalty for out of service violation
Sometimes a truck company is taken out of service but the driver is not given a ticket
What if a driver is out of service but has to move the truck out of the inspection area?
Management response to violations isn't given any credit
What violations affect the CDL?

Education

Train officers at borders to prevent invalid violations from being issued.
Education and certification for all the entities discussed (physicians, consortiums, new entrants, etc)
FMCSA should provide computer interactive training on their website
- Feds have the ability to do the research and develop good education courses.
Be careful. What is the goal? To get safer drivers on the road or to certify training?
Could use review and input on safety training - it would help to know what works and is good
Redirect dollars to education and enforcement

Additional Ideas

Technology

Technology is helping on speeding - but governed trucks still can be jiggered with.
- Not so - very hard to get to those without codes

Other good programs

For frequency- FAA has a good program, look at that
DOD doesn't just look at minimal compliance; they also look at safety programs to equal a complete profile
- Provides incentive
- Introduce elements of profit incentive

Partnerships

Partnership must include an exchange of information with federal government so that we can make proper decisions with proper information (CDLIS)

Driver Disqualification

What matters is On the Road Performance!
State is the only entity that can disqualify driver
States need to disqualify drivers
- If they were doing their job we wouldn't be working this issue
What about giving carriers some support in disqualifying drivers?
- Protect them from litigation, for example.

Proactive Approaches

Allow regulated community to be pro-active. Easy to put authority based on safety rating. Licensing requirements should mandate an additional test (perhaps over the internet) every 2 years to make sure driver re-qualify.
- So that the motor carrier is not always burdened with the training and updated changes.

Motor carriers cannot address everything.

Appendix B7:
Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session
Chicago, Illinois / October 12, 2004
Plenary Session

CURRENT STATE

FMCSA's role

We want a partnership program rather than an adversarial relationship. As carriers we wish to work with the governing bodies and get the bad guys off the road. There are more positive outcomes with running a quality company with an emphasis on safety.
Lack of contact with the FMCSA. More visibility and ease of contact.
- Too many recorded messages and not enough real people available to answer questions by phone.
Fear of FMCSA oversight

Safestat

Safestat cannot tell the whole picture of a carrier since it's just a snap shot.
Are good inspections recorded into safestat?
Safestat should be organized by mileage instead of number of units.
Safestat looks at carriers with bad marks, the system is reactive not proactive.
Safety ratings are affected by unimportant factors. If a motor carrier is rear-ended the driver is not at fault, yet that crash incident is recorded on safestat.

Compliance Reviews

CRs are effective for changing short term behavior, on a case by case basis.
Who is Audited:
- CRs are limited, reactionary and time consuming
- Why doesn't the FMCSA check back or follow up?
- The 2% does not include mom and pops carriers
- Inspectors re-inspect when a company has a satisfactory rating.
- FMCSA currently goes where they can get the biggest bang for their buck by choosing to audit the bigger companies with thousands of trucks rather than the small 4 truck companies. That's where the 2% comes from. The larger carriers are usually compliant since they are always inspected.
  - concentrate more on smaller carriers that do not have strong safety programs
  - smaller companies get lost easily as they do not tend to join associations or go to meetings
  - use email to distribute information to carriers
Who Conducts the Audit:
- Look at using outside firms (insurance, private, certified to do special process) to conduct parts of a CR. Carriers would have no problem with non-FMCSA inspectors auditing them as long as the reps are qualified in making the safety assessments
How the Audit Works:
- Oversight is data driven, but CR is not risk based so this is inefficient. CRs go through all 6 factors of a review instead of focusing on the reason the carrier has been tagged.
  - Concentrate on out of service carriers and target their reason for being out of service
  - More targeted and efficient
- CR filtering methodology is arbitrary, x was triggered the visit but a whole review is done
- focus selection on the "need" area

Partnerships

Partnership between industry and enforcement as well as outreach to the public.

Drivers

Lack of driver control since the system fails to track drivers. Bad guys can go from one company to the next since violations stay with a company and do not follow the driver.
Negative inspection results should follow a driver (attached to their CDL). Is his bad record indicative of the entire fleet? This would keep carriers from hiring drivers with bad records.
Driver Medical examiners need to be certified. Driver's health assessment should be available, as not all drivers will tell a company.
- Possible central database of driver information
Limit CDL renewal to 2-3 years
Quality of the driving force specified with clear MVR's, number and type

CSA 2010 Listening Sessions Final Report - March 2005 Appendix B - Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session

Table of Contents

Appendix B1: Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session San Diego, California / September 21, 2004 Plenary Session

CURRENT STATE

Compliance Reviews

Safestat

Accident Data

New Entrants

Drivers

Communication

Other Thoughts

CASE FOR CHANGE

Reasons for change

Why change is needed

How to change

Timeline for change

Appendix B2: Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session San Diego, California / September 21, 2004 Future State Breakout Groups

Attributes

Discussions surrounding the Whos

Carriers

Drivers

Government Regulating Agencies

Insurance Companies

Medical Profession

Owner Operators

Shippers

Leveling the Playing Field

Industry

Certification

Data

Database

Compliance

Enforcement

Public Dissemination of Information

Appendix B3: Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session Atlanta, Georgia / September 28, 2004 Plenary Session

CURRENT STATE

General Scope

Compliance Reviews and Inspections

Education

Enforcement

New Entrants

Carrier Inconsistencies

Organize Data

CASE FOR CHANGE

Comments on Point 1: 'To keep up with increasing volume'

Comments on Point 2: 'To meet increasing program demands'

Comments on Point 3: 'To expand scope of influence'

Comments on Point 4: 'To expand focus of safety assessments'

Comments on Point 5: 'To leverage dependency on partners'

Appendix B4: Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session Atlanta, Georgia / September 28, 2004 Future State Breakout Groups

Attributes

Who

Discussions surrounding the Whos

Carrier Officials

Carriers

New Entrants

Commercial Driving Schools/3rd party examiners

Drivers

Shippers/mfg. company/customers

Unions

Leveling the Playing Field

Non-Profits

Long-haul vs short-haul vs. local

Intrastate Carriers

Operational Characteristics

Data (Timeliness, Correctness, etc.)

Accident Data

Big Brother

Self-Disclosure

CRs (When/Ratings)

Enforcement

Rewards

Education

Public Outreach

Additional Ideas

Structure and Uniformity

FMCSA

Scope of Compliance

Regulations are not on driving tests. Maybe they should be.

Size and Weight

CSA 2010 Listening Sessions Final Report - March 2005
Appendix B - Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session

Appendix B1:
Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session
San Diego, California / September 21, 2004 Plenary Session

Appendix B2:
Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session
San Diego, California / September 21, 2004
Future State Breakout Groups

Appendix B3:
Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session
Atlanta, Georgia / September 28, 2004
Plenary Session

Appendix B4:
Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session
Atlanta, Georgia / September 28, 2004
Future State Breakout Groups

Appendix B5:
Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session
Mesquite, Texas / October 5, 2004
Plenary Session

Appendix B6:
Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session
Mesquite, Texas / October 5, 2004
Future State Breakout Groups

Appendix B7:
Stakeholder Comments by Listening Session
Chicago, Illinois / October 12, 2004
Plenary Session