DOT Expediters holding FMCSA (DOT) to own standards

JohnMueller

Moderator
Staff member
Motor Carrier Executive
Safety & Compliance
Carrier Management
Great article in many of the digital trucking industry journals (CCJ, Overdrive) today about the efforts of TEANA (The Expedite Association of North America) and other small trucking associations forcing FMCSA and DOT to play by the rules. In the article you can read the full letter written by Hank Seaton who represents the small trucking associations, including TEANA. Everyone is working hard to keep the government in line.

Trucking groups: New carrier scoring rule violates FAST Act highway law provisions

On January 12 our Expedite community was very well represented at the FMCSA listening session (FMCSA Public Listening Session) by Irwin Shires of Panther. Irwin addressed the FMCSA panel with very intelligent concepts of the proposed Beyond Compliance rulemaking. Irwin was very instrumental in having CSA scores hidden from public view.

These issues certainly affect the Expedite community.

Kudos to both Hank Seaton and Irwin Shires.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Irwin was very instrumental in having CSA scores hidden from public view.

Why? as in reason why they should not be made public?....
 

JohnMueller

Moderator
Staff member
Motor Carrier Executive
Safety & Compliance
Carrier Management
CSA is a very flawed system which was rolled out without proper diligence and testing. FMCSA was placing the scores out in public view, and at the same time placing a disclaimer on their website instructing viewers to not use the information because it was not totally accurate. Insurance companies, customers and Plaintiff's attorneys were using the information against the carriers.

CSA scores are a produced only from the violations discovered on a carrier's drivers and their equipment in roadside inspections. Within the Expedite industry those drivers and equipment are pretty much owner operators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc and drifter

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Is it? What about when someone fights a ticket in court and wins but still can't get it removed from csa? Dot can still fully punish carriers regardless if the public sees a score.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Great article in many of the digital trucking industry journals (CCJ, Overdrive) today about the efforts of TEANA (The Expedite Association of North America) and other small trucking associations forcing FMCSA and DOT to play by the rules. In the article you can read the full letter written by Hank Seaton who represents the small trucking associations, including TEANA. Everyone is working hard to keep the government in line.

Nice to see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OntarioVanMan

BigStickJr

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
CSA scores are a produced only from the violations discovered on a carrier's drivers and their equipment in roadside inspections. Within the Expedite industry those drivers and equipment are pretty much owner operators.

John, Why shouldn't a carrier be as responsible as an O/O for defects written up ?
This refers to an imaginary company , not PTL.
Why is he written up ?
Are your standards too low ?
Does he have revenue to support good equipment ?
Can he afford to go OOS midweek to obtain repairs ?
Why doesn't this company have a program that encourages, no, requires , compliant equipment ?
A carrier's job is to see that they use contractors that operate professionally, not contractors that operate cheaper than average.
 

JohnMueller

Moderator
Staff member
Motor Carrier Executive
Safety & Compliance
Carrier Management
Joe Expediter - an imaginary owner operator of a CDL straight truck - signs on with Fictitious Expediting. The lease agreement between the contracted owner operator and the carrier company requires both parties to operate legally and for the owner operator to maintain his equipment to DOT standards. The same lease explains how the carrier is responsible for the safety performance of the contracted owner operator because of DOT regulations.

For years carrier safety is measured under the SMS (Safety Measurement System) - Safer Sys - where only OOS (Out of Service) violations discovered through roadside inspections are counted against the carrier's OOS percentages. The system also displays crash data as reported to the DOT, along with the Safety Rating assigned to the carrier. Safety Ratings were only assigned following a full compliance review (DOT Audit). Full Compliance Reviews in the carrier's office entail scrutiny of the Carriers records - such as Driver Qualification files (having all DOT required forms and documents in each), Alcohol and Controlled Substance testing (verification of total compliance by the carrier), Hours of Service (auditing logs for compliance), maintaining required DOT Accident Log and a myriad of other requirements. Old school thinking is that DOT is attempting to verify that the carrier is "living within the spirit of the law" through the carriers records and the driver's roadside inspections.

CSA rolls out and the government is basically now attempting to use the data discovered only in roadside inspections to issue or alter carriers safety ratings. Any and all violations (not just OOS violations) discovered in roadside inspections count against the carrier and the driver under the CSA methodology. Under CSA, should a carrier have "alerts" in two or more of the seven (7) "Basics", the carrier is placed on the list to be scheduled for a "focused" compliance review. This focused review will scrutinize only those areas (Basics) for which the alerts exist - let's say "Un-safe Driving" and "Hours of Service" - not all areas of the regulations or compliance. DOT (FMCSA) can change (lower) the carrier's safety rating after such a "focused" audit. My experience indicates that now, DOT (FMCSA) is arriving at the carrier's door for such focused audits with full intentions of issuing "Conditional" or "Unsatisfactory" ratings in their review report. Once a Conditional or Unsatisfactory rating is issued, only a "Full" compliance review can change the Unsatisfactory rating to Conditional, or the Conditional rating to Satisfactory. Many times the carrier is forced to carry the burden of the lower rating for very long periods of time because they are unable to get the required full compliance review scheduled and conducted by FMCSA. During the period of the carrier's lowered rating, customers refuse to use the carrier and the carrier pays increased insurance costs - if they are able to secure insurance at all. It is no longer a matter of the spirit of the law and honest attempts by carriers and drivers to comply, but simply a money grab.

It was very important for the trucking industry to get the CSA Basics scores hidden from public view. In addition to loss of customers and increased insurance costs, attorneys are using the CSA scores to obtain even larger settlements for their injured clients after CMV crashes. Everyone is attempting to use flawed data against the carriers and their drivers. There are numerous areas of the CSA system that are based on seriously flawed formulas and methodologies. Listening to Irwin Shires explain some of these is time well spent.

The actions of the drivers (and owner operators and/or their drivers) directly affect the carrier's safety ratings. This is simply a fact.

Most reputable carrier have high standards and seek to go beyond compliance. Beyond compliance means not settling for the DOT minimums, but to far exceed what is required. We want to operate safely. We want to have NO accidents, NO injuries and surely NO loss of life.

Does he have revenue to support good equipment ? Can he afford to go OOS midweek to obtain repairs?
Why doesn't this company have a program that encourages, no, requires, compliant equipment? Again, the carrier's lease agreement (program) stipulates that the contracted owner operator maintain his equipment to DOT standards. Proof can be established by clean roadside inspections, current Annual Vehicle Inspections and submission of required maintenance reports and inspections (monthly, quarterly) to the carrier. Revenue to support equipment, and can he afford to go OOS mid-week is not always determined by the carrier - it is determined by the contracted owner-operator's ability to manage his business and his personal expenses. Thank goodness our business is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year!

Xiggi - "Data Q's" is the "appeal" that is available to both drivers and carriers from DOT (FMCSA) to have violations removed or changed to accurately reflect the final status of any violation or charge to a driver or carrier. It takes the government a while to issue "determinations" or "rulings" on the appeals and absolute proof and documentation is required for any consideration. GUILTY! - now prove yourself innocent. :)

OntarioVanMan - You - no dog in the fight? if FMCSA keeps on the current path they'll start to regulate cargo vans and vehicles under 10,000 GVW. Put on those plaid battle shorts! :)

I appreciate your comments and hope that I help others better understand what is really happening in the regulatory world of our trucking industry today. Please always feel free to ask questions and I will try to explain. If I do not know - I will find you honest answers.

Thanks for everything you drivers do. We can't do what we do without you.

Be safe!
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The problem with CSA scoring system is that it disproportionately affects smaller carriers in a negative manner. Carriers with 1000 trucks and the violations are a very small percentage of possible infractions for the carrier, but a carrier with 200 trucks, or 20, or 1, and the percentage skyrockets. A carrier needs at least 10 roadside inspections (in a calendar year) before there's even enough data for a score. Less than that, and no score, is a red flag to shippers and brokers. The carrier needs at least 20 inspections before the percentage data even begins to become validly reflective of the carrier as a whole.

As the number of trucks in a carrier's fleet decreases, the chances of being above the Unsafe Driving BASIC intervention threshold increases dramatically. Carriers with 1000 trucks or more have a very low percentage (less than 3 percent) of being at the threshold, but because the violations are percentage based, rather than number based, as the number of trucks in a fleet go towards 1, the percentage of carriers above the threshold approaches better than 95%. That's according to the GAO's own independent analysis of the FMCSA's data. But the FMCSA is saying they're right and the GAO is wrong. Except the GAO is never wrong. They don't have a dog in this hunt. The FMCSA sure does, tho, it's their baby and they want to protect it, and won't admit they're wrong.

The FMCSA touts that because of the roadside inspections, violations have dropped 14 percent, and they use that to prove the system works and reduces crashes (despite crashes and fatalities being up since the implementation of CSA2010), which is the entire reason for the whole program. The problem is, not a single one of the Top 10 reasons for crashes is included as part of the roadside inspection.

Ever since the FMCSA was created in Jan 2000 they have instituted regulations that primarily benefit larger carrier and make it harder to smaller carriers. The larger carriers like this, which is why you see the ATA almost always on board with whatever the FMCSA wants to do (in part because they are giving the FMCSA the ideas in which to form new regulation).

Throw into the mix that, at the FMCSA's urging (because of less oversight in general) that smaller carriers should be targeted more often. The result is that carriers with less than 500 trucks get inspected 4 times more often that carriers with more than 500 trucks. A carrier with more than 500 trucks will average 52,000 miles between inspections per truck, while those between 15-500 trucks average about 32,000 miles per vehicle inspection, and those with under 15 trucks only get about 20,000 miles per inspection. The FMCSA defended that, the GAO said the FMCSA is misguided and incorrect, and the FMCSA said, "Oh, yeah? Well I'll show you!" And they released Version 3.0 of the Safety Measurement System Methodology for Massaging Numbers for Fun and Relaxation that just said the same thing in different ways. The GAO yawned.

The SMS data is but one glaring example of that. The GAO found there is no correlation whatsoever between CSA scores and the percent of crashes per power unit. The FMCSA disagrees, of course, but then again they have a history of getting busted for falsifying and manipulating data to their own ends, of sticking with failed programs, and of selectively outsourcing their research studies to companies and individuals who will get the FMCSA the results they are after.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc

JohnMueller

Moderator
Staff member
Motor Carrier Executive
Safety & Compliance
Carrier Management
Thoughts and questions:
  • Do Turtles have "Peer Groupings" for use in CSA scoring?
  • Can the words "Turtle" and "Cookie" at times be interchanged for one another? - The answer is YES as in "That is one smart Turtle" :)
  • Are "Turtles" like drivers and safety directors? Yes - they ALL dislike sneaky stuff by the government.
  • Kind of like the "Hippies" of the '60's and early 70's.Hippie Turtle.png
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Very good information. Hopefully some changes can be made. I think most of these programs are constantly put out and changed 100 times. Guaranteed employment for government workers. No different than the split speed disaster. Million upon millions spent on research and studies to determine they are unsafe. What do they propose? More studies so we can find where split speeds are now safe. It is laughable. And the circle begins again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jelliott and Turtle

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
On January 12 our Expedite community was very well represented at the FMCSA listening session by Irwin Shires of Panther. Irwin addressed the FMCSA panel with very intelligent concepts of the proposed Beyond Compliance rulemaking.
Why do the words Panther and intelligent concepts in back to back related sentences raise a red flag with me?
 

jelliott

Veteran Expediter
Motor Carrier Executive
US Army
Great job John and TEANA for the continued fight. I agree I don't think most of the carriers in our industry want accidents but I think most would agree not all operate at the same level of safety. The "concept" of CSA is good.....but....... And now the but..... Grading safety on a curve is in my opinion flawed. As well peer groups are also. I think it too easily distorts the data.

I think most every insurance company is going to require the carrier to disclose the numbers on rating a renewal or a policy. But I think until the science behind the numbers is correct and directly correlates to accidents and safety they should be hidden. They have been used by attorneys more than for any other purpose. This was never the intent and it simply isn't fair to any carrier or driver in a court of law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnMueller

JohnMueller

Moderator
Staff member
Motor Carrier Executive
Safety & Compliance
Carrier Management
Great job John and TEANA for the continued fight. I agree I don't think most of the carriers in our industry want accidents but I think most would agree not all operate at the same level of safety. The "concept" of CSA is good.....but....... And now the but..... Grading safety on a curve is in my opinion flawed. As well peer groups are also. I think it too easily distorts the data.

I think most every insurance company is going to require the carrier to disclose the numbers on rating a renewal or a policy. But I think until the science behind the numbers is correct and directly correlates to accidents and safety they should be hidden. They have been used by attorneys more than for any other purpose. This was never the intent and it simply isn't fair to any carrier or driver in a court of law.

Having knowledge of CSA scores could give new meaning to "Vicarious" liability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle and davekc

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Soooo, they've moved from a Bell curve to a subjective pass-fail. Awesome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc
Top