Posts Tagged ‘Safety Measurement System’

« Older Entries

Companies Sell CSA Scores

Friday, February 22nd, 2013

CSA 2010’s Safety Measurement System (SMS) rating, which scores a carrier and driver’s safety performance in seven BASIC categories, placing those with a score of 65% or higher on an “alert” status, has been a topic of concern in the trucking industry as many carriers are losing business due to a crash weighting system accused of rendering inaccurate scores.  In fact, small fleets have reported losses of “more than 25% of revenue in the first year alone,” due to shippers vetting out carriers and awarding shipments based on CSA scores. 1

Shippers are slowly turning away from the carrier who can provide the lowest rate and instead are using a carrier’s safety scores to help make a decision, understanding the risks of vicarious liability, which states that shippers are now liable in cases where “the plaintiff can show (1) the carrier caused injury to the plaintiff’s property or person through negligence, recklessness or intentional misconduct and (2) the shipper did not exercise reasonable care or perform proper due diligence when it screened, vetted, and selected the carrier to move the shipper’s freight.” 2 To learn more about vicarious liability visit Responsibility No Longer Rests Solely on Carriers-Shippers at Risk of Vicarious Liability.

While some carriers are concerned about losing business due to their CSA scores, others are embracing the care that shippers are taking and using it as a selling tool for their company.

A recent article posted by James Menzies on Truck News Blogs calls CSA a competitive weapon” as carriers are utilizing their CSA score in the following ways:

*Presenting their score to their customers while comparing it to their competitors. 3

*Describing the consequences of not properly vetting out carriers and encouraging the shipper to utilize the scoring system, emphasizing a shift from cheapest rate to safety which can save money in the long run.

Unfortunately, CSA scores are often becoming a deciding factor after several carriers share a similar “cheap” rate. 3

Should pricing come AFTER CSA scores when choosing a carrier?  In your experience, do you find this to be the case, especially among brokers?

Learn how to vet out carriers by clicking the video below.

1http://transportation.qualcomm.com/poor-csa-status-could-reduce-your-revenue-25

2www.qualifiedcarriers.com/why-risk-management.aspx

3http://discover.bigroad.com/blog/bid/266884/CSA-Scores-a-Competitive-Weapon-for-small-fleets

Tags: , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Accidents in the Trucking Industry

Friday, February 15th, 2013

Every 60 seconds a motor vehicle accident occurs.  With nearly 5.25 million accidents occurring each year, accounting for over 43,000 fatalities and 2.9 million injuries in the U.S., motor vehicle accidents serve as one of the leading causes of death in the world. 1

Who’s at Fault

Last Tuesday the American Trucking Associations (ATA) referred to a recent study conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), acknowledging that out of 8,309 car/truck accidents studied, 81% of the time cars were at fault versus 27% in which truckers were to blame (equaling 108% due to the difference accounting for both cars and trucks at fault). 2

Whereas cars were at fault in “89 percent of head-on crashes; 88 percent of opposite-direction sideswipes; 80 percent of rear-end crashes, 72 percent of same-direction side-swipes and cited for two or more unsafe acts in an AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Study,” trucks “were the encroaching vehicle in 98 percent of backing accidents, although this represented less than 1 percent of the sample set, and only 11% of truck drivers were cited for two or more unsafe acts.” 2

As ATA President Bill Graves notes, “It is tragic that carriers and drivers across this country are saddled with guilt and blame for many crashes they could do nothing to prevent.” 2

Crash Weighting

Shortly after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) put into effect changes to the CSA’s Safety Measurement System last December, the ATA released a white paper explaining that “the CSA system lacks sufficient data on the majority of the industry to render meaningful scores for most motor carriers.” 3

According to the ATA, the FMCSA “has sufficient violation data to assess 40% of active carriers in at least one category but only enough to assign a percentile rank or score in at least one category to 12% of active carriers.” 3

The FMCSA is currently revising the crash weighting system explaining that they are continuing to “work with many partners, including the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC), on a Crash Weighting Research Plan that outlines the research goals and approach to support an equitable mechanism for crash weighting,” expected to be completed this summer. 2 These goals include the following:

*“To determine whether Police Accident Reports (PARs) from across the nation provide sufficient, consistent and reliable information to support crash weighting determinations.” 2

*“To assess whether a carrier’s role in a crash is a stronger predictor of future crash risk than crash involvement alone, and, if so, how crash weighting should be implemented in the Safety Management System (SMS).” 2

*“To evaluate how the agency could use additional data in the determination process to allow for public input.” 2

Despite all of this, nearly 500,000 truck accidents occur in the U.S. annually, which is why proper safety measures need to be taken.

Accident Reduction Technology

While technology continues to exceed its boundaries, carriers are looking for new ways to keep their drivers, your freight, and everyone on the road, safe.  Below is some of the anti-crash technology that Road Scholar Transport utilizes on our fleet.

ACB Systems

In July of 2009, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a ruling requiring an improved stopping distance for heavy trucks, reducing the distance of trucks traveling at 60 mph from 355 feet to 250 feet, allowing a minority of very heavy tractors a stopping distance of 310 feet.

The ruling, however, sparked the response of eight petitions based on four main issues.  One of them, having to do with the stopping distance requirements, was challenged by the TMA, HDBMC, and Bendix, who believed that “speeds lower than 60 mph have not been validated through actual vehicle test data” and that “the brake timing may be too fast for some vehicle configurations.”

Therefore, the NHTSA was asked to remove the new requirements until tests could be conducted and results obtained.  The NHTSA accepted and “required compliance with the improved stopping distance requirements for tractors with four or more axles and a GVWR of 59,600 pounds or less by August 1, 2013.”

bendix

Road Scholar Transport has ACB systems (Active Cruise with Braking) installed on our trucks that allows us to maintain a set distance of 8/10ths of a mile marker behind a forward vehicle.

When cruise control is off, the ACB will deliver a beeping alert, which gets faster and louder when closing in on a vehicle, as well as a visual warning on the dashboard showing how far the vehicle is from our truck.

When cruise control is on, the ACB will automatically reduce the throttle, use the engine retarder, or apply the brakes (delivering 1/3 the vehicle’s power but the driver can apply the rest if needed) in order to maintain a set distance from the vehicle ahead.

Imagine a truck or vehicle stalled in the middle of the road on a dark night with no lights on or a school bus that you could hardly see because of the thick morning fog.  Or maybe a vehicle decides to slam their brakes in front of you to avoid hitting an animal crossing the road.  Now imagine going 65 mph when one of the above circumstances occurs.  Road Scholar’s applied ACB system allows our trucks to maintain the distance necessary to prevent accidents, and thus, delays and damages to your freight.

Roll Stability


Last May, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would require electronic stability control (ESC) systems on heavy-duty trucks (GVW greater than 26,000 lbs) with a manufacturing year of 2016 (when the requirement would go into affect) and onward.

According to the NHTSA, stability control systems “would help prevent 40-56 percent of untripped rollovers and 14 percent of loss-of-control crashes.” 4

This system (also utilized by Road Scholar) is especially good for icy or wet weather conditions where wheels lose their grip, or taking a curve too quickly, which can result in a rollover.  Drivers may not sense a rollover could be starting, which is where the ESP’s row and yaw stability sensors come into play.  The row sensors work to prevent rollovers while yaw sensors prevent slide, spin, or jackknife situations.

The ESP automatically distinguishes the problem and quickly corrects it by reducing the engine throttle and applying the brakes.

Bendix explains the many sensors that supplement the wheel speed sensors which include:

-The steering angle sensor, which detects steering input, the first indicator of a maneuver.

-Brake pressure sensors, which monitor the amount of an operator’s braking.

-Lateral acceleration sensor, which detects the side force that could make the vehicle rollover.

-Yaw rate sensor, which helps determine if the vehicle is responding properly to driver steering input.

For a better understanding of how ESC systems work, check out the video below.

bendix esp

Do you believe that accident-reduction in the trucking industry lies more with agencies establishing stricter rules/regulations, carriers installing safety technology to their fleet, brokers/shippers properly vetting out safe carriers, or all of the above?  List your comments below.

1http://www.usacoverage.com/auto-insurance/how-many-driving-accidents-occur-each-year.html

2http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2013/2/12/FMCSAagencyworkingonequitablemechanismforcrashweighting.aspx

3http://www.supplychaindigital.com/global_logistics/ata-speak-out-about-csa-data-limitations

4http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=23928

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

2013 Brings Increased Problems for Carriers

Friday, January 18th, 2013

Trucking companies will face a greater challenge this year as volumes, rates, and capacity issues are forecasted to grow, increasing difficulties among carriers.  As Transport Capital Partners (TCP)’s Richard Mikes notes, “Volume and rate outlook does not bode well for cash flows and profits in 2013 for an industry under costs and availability pressure for drivers.” 1

Freight Volumes

The TCP’s Fourth Quarter 2012 Business Expectations Survey, which evaluated trucking executives, forecasted for the first time since 2009’s 1st quarter that freight volumes will remain flat. 1

Last month, the DAT North American Freight Index noted that although freight volumes declined 18.4% from November to December, December volumes were up 5% compared to the same time last year and were at their highest December mark since 1996. 2

Capacity

Carriers are refusing to add capacity unless they are “tied to specific dedicated fleet contracts, as supply and demand is now roughly in balance despite weak U.S. economic growth,” stated Stifel Nicolaus senior transportation analyst John Larkin. 1

perfect storm for capacity shortage

Click to enlarge

Capacity shortage is the result of several factors (see The Perfect Storm for Capacity Shortage on the right) including new, stricter regulations in the trucking industry such as “speed limiters, revised drug testing procedures, and the medical certification process.” 1

One of the regulations causing great debate is changes to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s CSA, including the revision of the hours-of-service provision which becomes effective July 1st.  This revision is expected to reduce a driver’s work week from 82 to 70 hours (a 17% decrease).

Earlier this week, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Transportation announced an audit of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s CSA, in particular concerns over its Safety Measurement System, stating, “Specifically, our audit will assess whether FMCSA has (1) established adequate controls to ensure the quality of the data used to evaluate carrier performance and risk, and (2) effectively implemented CSA enforcement interventions.” 3

Meanwhile, stricter regulations such as CSA are adding to the driver shortage, not only by reducing the number of unsafe drivers on the road, but the cost of training the younger generation and inexperienced drivers is acting as a barrier as well.

In order to attract drivers to their fleet, carriers are competing with wages, bonuses, and other incentives, but in order to increase driver pay, rates need to rise as well, another challenge carriers are facing.

Rates

Despite capacity shortages, nearly 46% of carriers expect rate trendrates to remain the same while 44% expect to see only a moderate increase (this percentage favorable among large carriers). 1 Only 21% of the carriers participating in TCP’s survey increased their rates within the last few months which is said to be “the lowest percentage since February 2010.” 1

Dedicated rates, according to Stifel Nicolaus, are expected to remain flat or increase by only 2% while contract rates may actually decrease 1% or increase by 2%.1

For more information regarding the Safety Measurement System and the new Hours of Service rule changes, contact us via the form below or by visiting www.roadscholar.com.

Do you feel that the trucking industry will face greater challenges in 2013?  What is your outlook for volume, rates, and capacity?

1http://fleetowner.com/fleet-management/challenges-continue-grow-carriers

2http://www.supplychaindigital.com/global_logistics/dat-freight-index-reports-record-december-volume

3http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2013/1/15/OIGinitiatesauditofCSA.aspx

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Changes Go into Effect as ATRI Releases New Survey on CSA Implications

Friday, December 7th, 2012

Last Monday, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) put into effect changes to the CSA’s Safety Measurement System (SMS 3.0).  These changes include changing the Cargo-Related BASIC to the HM Compliance BASIC and the Fatigued Driving BASIC to HOS Compliance BASIC, as well as including violations from the Cargo-Related BASIC category (such as cargo/load securement violations) in the Vehicle Maintenance category.  View changes here.

Last Tuesday, the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) published their recent survey “Compliance, Safety, Accountability: Evaluating a New Safety Measurement System and Its Implications,” which pulled input from over 7,000 individuals including drivers, carriers, and law enforcement officials.

Although in last year’s survey, ATRI explained that with stricter regulations, CSA is predicted to remove 10-20% of drivers from the industry, the recent findings demonstrate this number to actually be much lower.  According to the survey, “close to 90 percent of carriers have fired from 0 percent to just 5 percent of their workforce.” 1

Despite an increasing driver shortage, and thus, capacity restraints, employers have increased their standards in the hiring process.  “Employers report less leeway when evaluating driver applicants’ driving records compared to current employees,” the report said. “This makes sense since employers have more extensive knowledge of current drivers than of applicants, including insights into personality traits, behavioral patterns and home lives; therefore, employment decisions can often factor in information beyond a driver’s MCMIS or MVR data (not to mention, employers may be privy to explanations behind safety infractions or FMCSR violations).” 1 With that in mind, nearly two-thirds of those drivers currently employed are still concerned about losing their job due to stricter regulations. 2

83% of carriers are finding it difficult to find qualified drivers, this number increasing from 72% reported last year, according to ATRI’s survey.  This number is plausible given ATRI’s results regarding driver knowledge towards CSA.

According to the report:

  • “Large percentages of drivers still report receiving little to no training on CSA.” 2
  • “96.0% of drivers did not know that FMCSA enforcement staff are the only group of people who can access official driver scores.” 2
  • “92.4% of drivers could not correctly identify which 5 carrier BASIC scores are publicly available.” 2
  • “50.1% of drivers were unaware that past violations and crashes are weighted by both time and severity.” 2
  • “Nearly one quarter (23.2%) of driver respondents have no knowledge that DataQs exists, and only 7.8 percent have used it to contest negative information believed to be in error.” 2

In addition to driver knowledge, the survey analyzed carrier usage of CSA, finding that a whopping 96% of carriers have accessed CSA at some point.  According to results:

28.3% access their CSA scores daily

55.4% monthly

11.7% occasionally

3.3% have not yet accessed their CSA scores

1.2% have no interest

Would you ship with those companies not interested in their safety scores?  Do you think they are concerned about hiring safe, qualified drivers?

You can get your copy of ATRI’s “Compliance, Safety, Accountability: Evaluating a New Safety Measurement System and Its Implications” report at www.atri-online.org.

Do you find that employers are being tougher when hiring drivers due to CSA or more lenient due to driver shortage?

apply

1http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/12/4/NewATRIsurveyCSAdidnthurtdriveravailabilityasmuchasthought.aspx

2ATRI’s “Compliance, Safety, Accountability: Evaluating a New Safety Measurement System and Its Implications” report

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Freight Quotes, LTL Freight Quotes, LTL freight, Northeast Regional Freight Quotes, Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

CSA Changes Expected to Take Effect Next Week

Friday, November 30th, 2012

CSALast August, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced changes to the CSA’s Safety Measurement System (SMS 3.0) that would take effect this December.

With no effective date announced as of yet, the changes, which are considered to be among the most drastic, are expected to go into effect as early as next week.

Vigillo, a data collection company offering CSA management products, has hosted three webinars earlier this week, preparing individuals on the CSA’s upcoming changes. According to Vigillo, “The changes stemmed from the concerns of flatdeck and open deck carriers that felt they faced increased scrutiny when compared to van operators, solely due to the visibility of the freight they haul. There was a huge bias against flatbed and open deck carriers under the old methodology. They were subjected to more maintenance inspections as opposed to dry van and tanker trucks. Industry stakeholders went to the FMSCA and lobbied for this change.” 1

Changes include the following:

-“Changing the Cargo-Related BASIC to the HM Compliance BASIC to better identify HM-related safety and compliance problems” 2

This change places greater emphasis on compliance rather than safety. This includes documentation and placarding. As Vigillo’s Drew Anderson states, “Be careful what you ask for, it just may happen. Indeed what we see is the bias shown against flatbed and open deck carriers is eliminated. As the Cargo BASIC fades into the sunset, all open deck and flatbed carriers with a Cargo BASIC alert, that alert goes away because the BASIC goes away.” 1

Vigillo’s Sloan Morris acknowledges that “Because of the thinning of the former Cargo BASIC, the new HazMat BASIC now becomes the thinnest of BASICs in terms of violations, and as such, the most sensitive to violations.” 1

This category will remain private (accessible only to carriers/law enforcement) for the next year until inconsistency concerns are addressed. 3

-“Changing the name of the Fatigued Driving (Hours-of-Service (HOS)) BASIC to the HOS Compliance BASIC” 2

In doing so, violations will be reported more accurately.

-Paper and electronic logs used to record a driver’s hours-of-service will be weighed equally. 3

-“Strengthening the Vehicle Maintenance Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category (BASIC) by incorporating cargo/load securement violations from today’s Cargo-Related BASIC” 2

This will both present those carriers that have a greater risk of future crashes as well as removes bias. 2 Over 100 violations previously located in the Cargo-Related BASIC category will now be incorporated into the Vehicle Maintenance category.

-SMS will include pre-trip inspection violations on intermodal equipment. 4

-“Aligning violations that are included in the SMS with Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inspection levels by eliminating vehicle violations derived from driver-only inspections and driver violations from vehicle-only inspections.” 2

-“Removing 1 to 5 mph speeding violations to ensure citations are consistent with current speedometer regulations.” 3

Once these changes go into affect, carriers can see changes in their CSA scores due to violations being weighted differently.

What do you think of the upcoming CSA changes? How will they affect your company?

1http://www.trucknews.com/news/substantial-changes-to-csa-coming-as-early-as-next-week/1001889087/
2http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/About/SMS_Changes.aspx
3http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=77837
4http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/8/24/CSAcargohazmatchangesfinalizedFatiguedDrivingrenamed.aspx

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

FMCSA Announces CSA Changes Effective December

Wednesday, August 29th, 2012

FMCSAAfter much debate, a four-month preview period, and comment submission process, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced on its site Friday the changes that will go into effect for the CSA’s Safety Measurement System this December.

Comment Period

Over 14,000 carriers and 1,700 law enforcement officials participated in the SMS preview, which was open to carriers on March 27th.   With an approaching deadline to comment on the changes originally scheduled for late June, the FMCSA extended its deadline to July 30th.

The FMCSA has been under pressure by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) to change the way crash accountability is recorded.  Last year, carriers complained about high CSA crash scores reflecting accidents in which their trucks were not at fault. In return, the FMCSA developed both a short-term and long-term goal for easing carrier complaints.  Under these goals, trucking companies would be able to appeal who’s accountable for an accident, with a long-term plan aiming to determine accountability before the accident is even registered and factored into the scoring process.

In short-term, crashes would continue to be documented into the CSA database, however, carriers would then be given the option of using a system developed by the FMCSA allowing them to challenge the accountability of an accident by submitting a police report through the CSA data correction system.  Although all accidents will still be recorded in the CSA system, those carriers at fault will be scored heavier then those held non-accountable for an accident.

But as the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s Steve Keppler explains, this method poses problems when the “reviewer makes a determination on accountability that is different than the officer,” who was actually on the scene, or when their determination differs from the insurance company’s investigation.

Last month, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association announced that it had filed a suit against the FMCSA stating that the agency has been releasing inaccurate driver records to employers that ultimately lead to negative consequences for drivers.  The group had presented three case examples in which drivers had their violations dismissed in court, however, these violations still remained in the system even after they submitted appeals through the agency’s DataQ, violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act and affecting future business opportunities.

The Changes

As of December 2012, the following changes will take place:

-“Changing the Cargo-Related BASIC to the HM Compliance BASIC to better identify HM-related safety and compliance problems” 1

In response to concerns over inconsistency in the hazmat category, the FMCSA has decided to make this category private only to carriers and law enforcement until these concerns are addressed. 2

-“Changing the name of the Fatigued Driving (Hours-of-Service (HOS)) BASIC to the HOS Compliance BASIC” 1

In doing so, violations will be reported more accurately.

-Paper and electronic logs used to record a driver’s hours-of-service will be weighed equally. 2

-“Strengthening the Vehicle Maintenance Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category (BASIC) by incorporating cargo/load securement violations from today’s Cargo-Related BASIC” 1

Doing so provides two important benefits:  “It identifies motor carriers with a higher future crash risk for FMCSA interventions” and “removes the bias in the current Cargo-Related BASIC which has resulted in identifying a disproportionate large number of carriers that haul open trailers (e.g. flatbeds) for interventions.” 1


-SMS will include pre-trip inspection violations on intermodal equipment. 3

-“Aligning violations that are included in the SMS with Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inspection levels by eliminating vehicle violations derived from driver-only inspections and driver violations from vehicle-only inspections.” 1
Roadside inspection violations will be reported, however, only specific inspection violations will be included in the SMS. 1

-“Removing 1 to 5 mph speeding violations to ensure citations are consistent with current speedometer regulations.” 2

In addition, “the severity weight for speeding violations that do not designate the mph range above the speed limit” will be lowered. 3
Responses

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, who had filed a suit against the FMCSA in July, responded to the changes stating, “We’ve known it’s been a work in progress, and today’s announcement shows that the agency is listening to what truckers have been saying and taking those things into consideration, however, impatience from truckers should not be unexpected when a program has real-life consequences on professionals that know of no other way to do business but safely,” and further emphasized that although it is “a step in the right direction,” it is still not far enough. 4

What do you think of the FMCSA’s changes to the SMS system?  Are they sufficient or do you agree with OOIDA that it is “still not far enough?”

1http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/About/SMS_Changes.aspx

2http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=77837

3http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/8/24/CSAcargohazmatchangesfinalizedFatiguedDrivingrenamed.aspx

4http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=24072

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

SMS Preview Comment Period Extended as ATA Continues to Seek Changes in Crash Accountability

Friday, June 8th, 2012

As of March 27th, carriers were granted the ability to grab a sneak preview of changes to the Safety Measurement System (SMS).  These improvements included:

1.  “Moving cargo/load securement violations from the Cargo-Related BASIC to the Vehicle Maintenance BASIC” in order to “identify carriers with a higher crash risk” and to “effectively address the bias associated with carriers that haul open trailers while still holding all carriers accountable for all cargo securement violations.” 1

2.  “Renaming the Cargo-Related BASIC the HM (Hazmat Materials) BASIC,” which would separate HM violations from load securement violations which are currently categorized together and applying severity weightings to each. 1

3.  “Better aligning SMS with Intermodal Equipment Provider (IEP) regulations.” 1

4.  “Eliminating the vehicle violations derived from driver-only inspections and driver violations from vehicle-only inspections.” 1

5.  “Improving the identification of passenger carriers.” 1

6.  Changing the SMS website’s terminology of ‘Insufficient Data’ (to < than 5 inspections) and ‘Inconclusive’ (to no violations within 1 year), as well as separating injury crashes from fatal crashes and tow-away crashes. 1

With an approaching deadline to comment on the changes originally scheduled for late June, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has extended its deadline to July 30th, afterwards making any necessary changes before placing it into effect.

By previewing the refined system, carriers will have the ability to diagnose any issues, “request corrections to any inaccurate data,” as well provide any refinements that should be made. 2 Those wishing to do can access the preview by:  1.  Logging onto the CSA website (click here).  To do so, you need to have your U.S. DOT# and US DOT# PIN on hand.  2.  You can also access the preview by logging into the FMCSA Portal (click here).  Once logged in, click on “CSA Outreach.”

The FMCSA has been busy responding to CSA concerns.  Just last March, FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro released a letter regarding 2011’s compliance reviews on high-risk carriers. 3 According to Ferro, last year there were 9,868 carriers under mandatory status (those “carriers deemed high risk for two consecutive months”). 3 This demonstrates the need to properly vet your carriers.

The FMCSA has also been under pressure by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) to change the way crash accountability is recorded.

Last year, carriers complained about high CSA crash scores reflecting accidents in which their trucks were not at fault. In return, the FMCSA developed both a short-term and long-term goal for easing carrier complaints.

Under these goals, trucking companies would be able to appeal who’s accountable for an accident, with a long-term plan aiming to determine accountability before the accident is even registered and factored into the scoring process.

In short-term, crashes would continue to be documented into the CSA database, however, carriers would then be given the option of using a system developed by the FMCSA allowing them to challenge the accountability of an accident by submitting a police report through the CSA data correction system.  Although all accidents will still be recorded in the CSA system, those carriers at fault will be scored heavier then those held non-accountable for an accident.

But as the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s Steve Keppler explains, this method poses problems when the “reviewer makes a determination on accountability that is different than the officer,” who was actually on the scene, or when their determination differs from the insurance company’s investigation.

Last March, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration decided to go back on the proposal that would assess who was at fault in crashes in conjunction with the carrier’s CSA rating, due to concerns with “using just the Police Accident Report and a carrier’s statement to determine crash accountability,” instead of taking into account other input such as witnesses.4

Last Monday, the ATA challenged the FMCSA to “release a study it has done on the feasibility of using police reports to gauge crash accountability,” the same study the agency refused to release in 2010 stating that the findings were preliminary. 5

Other safety groups are also raising questions regarding “the uniformity and consistency of the Police Accident Reports that provide the basic accountability data, and the lack of public input into the determination of accountability.” 5

Have you previewed the FMCSA’s SMS changes yet?  If so, what are your comments regarding the revised system?

Not familiar with the SMS System?  Below are the seven BASIC categories a carrier and driver’s safety performance is scored in:  (*Information provided by Carrier411)

1. Unsafe Driving

Operation of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) by drivers in a dangerous or careless manner.

Score ranges from 0-100 or Insufficient Data
Deficient Score Threshold
Passenger HazMat Other
50 60 65
Carriers you use will likely be classified as Other

Example Violations: Speeding, reckless driving, improper lane change, and inattention.

2. Fatigued Driving (Hours-of-Service)

Operation of CMVs by drivers who are ill, fatigued, or in non-compliance with the Hours-of-Service (HOS) regulations. This BASIC includes violations of regulations pertaining to logbooks as they relate to HOS requirements and the management of CMV driver fatigue.

Score ranges from 0-100 or Insufficient Data
Deficient Score Threshold
Passenger HazMat Other
50 60 65
Carriers you use will likely be classified as Other

Example Violations: HOS, logbook, and operating a CMV while ill or fatigued.
3. Driver Fitness

Operation of CMVs by drivers who are unfit to operate a CMV due to lack of training, experience, or medical qualifications.

Score ranges from 0-100 or Insufficient Data
Deficient Score Threshold
Passenger HazMat Other
65 75 80
Carriers you use will likely be classified as Other

Example Violations: Failure to have a valid and appropriate commercial driver’s license and being medically unqualified to operate a CMV.

4. Controlled Substances/Alcohol

Operation of CMVs by drivers who are impaired due to alcohol, illegal drugs, and misuse of prescription or over-the-counter medications.

Score ranges from 0-100 or Insufficient Data
Deficient Score Threshold
Passenger HazMat Other
65 75 80
Carriers you use will likely be classified as Other

Example Violations: Use or possession of controlled substances/alcohol.

5. Vehicle Maintenance

Failure to properly maintain a CMV.

Score ranges from 0-100 or Insufficient Data
Deficient Score Threshold
Passenger HazMat Other
65 75 80
Carriers you use will likely be classified as Other

Example Violations: Brakes, lights, mechanical defects, and failure to make required repairs.

6. Cargo-Related  (Data Not Publicly Available)

Cargo-Related data will not be displayed in Carrier411, although it is part of CSA 2010. Failure to properly prevent shifting loads, spilled or dropped cargo, overloading, and unsafe handling of hazardous materials on a CMV.

FMCSA will show Cargo-Related BASIC violations only. Cargo-Related BASIC score and intervention status will not be on public display.

7. Crash Indicator  (Data Not Publicly Available)
Crash Indicator data will not be displayed in Carrier411, although it is part of CSA 2010. Histories or patterns of high crash involvement, including frequency and severity. It is based on information from state-reported crashes.

1https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/03/27/2012-7360/improvements-to-the-compliance-safety-accountability-csa-motor-carrier-safety-measurement-system-sms#p-7

2http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2012/6/6/FMCSAurgescarrierstopreviewtheirCSAdata.aspx

3http://www.truckersnews.com/fmcsa-reports-gives-congress-report-on-high-risk-carriers/

4http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=76326

5http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=77145

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Pharmaceutical Industry Seeks Stricter Regulation of Dry Pharma Products as Medical Device Recalls Surge this Year

Wednesday, May 16th, 2012

Thermal blankets/packaging, polyurethane containers, temperature-controlled trailers…all measures taken by shippers to help ensure the proper transport conditions of temperature-controlled shipments.

But, as industry experts explain, “Today, temperature controlled transportation of products using cold chain facility is only ensured for the distribution of vaccines and some pharmaceutical or biological products through thermal and refrigerated packaging methods to protect the products from loosing their effectiveness.” 1 But what about dry pharma products?

Did you know that polypropylene syringes can easily break in high temperatures?  And when exposed to conditions under 50°F, latex gloves can become stiff, and likewise, under excessive heat, cause rapid rubber degradation?

In fact, according to the US Food and Drug Administration, close to 82 million units of medical device recalls occurred in the first quarter of 2012, “representing a 508 percent increase over the previous quarter and recording a five-quarter high.” 2 These recalls include needles and gloves (as mentioned above) as well as catheters and alcohol prep pads, with many being repeat offenders. 2

Now the industry is fighting back, asking the government “to take initiative to push for better implementation of regulations of the non cold-chain based supply chain management of pharma products,” stating that “even the dry pharma based cargo should be transported only under strict temperature controlled environments to ensure sustainability of the pharma products from volatile conditions.” 1

As Mike Rozembajgier, vice president of recalls at Stericycle ExpertRECALL, explains, “Companies should be doing everything possible to minimize the safety concerns that would result in recalls.” 2

According to experts, many companies are putting their products at risk by not following current regulations and suggest “stronger use of track and trace systems.” 1

Not only is the company impacted through the loss of the discarded shipment, but inspection costs, brand equity, their reputation with the customer, and consumer health alerts.  By utilizing technology such as the track and track capability, remote locking devices, and electronic door monitoring, such as those installed on Road Scholar’s fleet, a shipper can minimize their risk of due diligence.

Due diligence is “the care a reasonable person should take before entering into an agreement or a transaction with another party.”3 When something goes wrong, the shipper can then face vicarious liability.

As QualifiedCarriers.com informs, “a carrier’s liability insurance will exclude indemnity for independent claims against the shipper,” for example, negligent hiring, so you, the shipper, can be sued as well for your carrier’s actions.

In further detail, shippers are now liable in cases where “the plaintiff can show (1) the carrier caused injury to the plaintiff’s property or person through negligence, recklessness or intentional misconduct and (2) the shipper did not exercise reasonable care or perform proper due diligence when it screened, vetted, and selected the carrier to move the shipper’s freight.”4

In order to help reduce your risk of vicarious liability, we are providing you with the below video demonstrating seven easy steps for vetting out carriers through the CSA 2010’s Safety Measurement System (SMS).  By taking 90 seconds of your time and learning how you can vet out carriers, you can save thousands, even millions, worth the stolen, damaged, or recalled products during transport.

csa

1http://pharmabiz.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid=68972&sid=1

2http://www.marketwatch.com/story/medical-device-recalls-soar-during-first-quarter-expertrecall-index-shows-2012-05-14

3http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/duediligence.asp#ixzz1ihFuF6KN

4www.qualifiedcarriers.com/why-risk-management.aspx

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Services, Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Preview of FMCSA Safety Measurement System Improvements Now Available

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

As of Tuesday, March 27th, running through late June, carriers can grab a sneak preview of changes to the Safety Measurement System (SMS).

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has been working on improvements to the SMS after concerns arising from its December 2010 implementation.

According to a FMCSA release, the changes would provide better accuracy, statistics, and identification used to reduce crashes.

The agency lists six main improvements to the SMS:

1.  “Moving cargo/load securement violations from the Cargo-Related BASIC to the Vehicle Maintenance BASIC” in order to “identify carriers with a higher crash risk” and to “effectively address the bias associated with carriers that haul open trailers while still

holding all carriers accountable for all cargo securement violations.” 1

2.  “Renaming the Cargo-Related BASIC the HM (Hazmat Materials) BASIC,” which would separate HM violations from load securement violations which are currently categorized together and applying severity weightings to each. 1

3.  “Better aligning SMS with Intermodal Equipment Provider (IEP) regulations.” 1

4.  “Eliminating the vehicle violations derived from driver-only inspections and driver violations from vehicle-only inspections.” 1

5.  “Improving the identification of passenger carriers.” 1

6.  Changing the SMS website’s terminology of ‘Insufficient Data’ (to < than 5 inspections) and ‘Inconclusive’ (to no violations within 1 year), as well as separating injury crashes from fatal crashes and tow-away crashes. 1

Carriers can preview the changes by going to http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/ and entering their PIN number or by logging onto https://portal.fmcsa.dot.gov/login.  Comments can be received through http://www.regulations.gov until May 29th under Docket ID Number FMCSA-2012-0074.

According to the FMCSA’s release, the improvements will be made public in July 2012 and allow for a public comment period.

The SMS is a useful tool for vetting out safe and qualified carriers for transporting your freight, scoring a carrier and driver’s safety performance in seven BASIC categories, placing those considered a risk on “alert” status.  This method helps reduce accidents, theft, and the risk of vicarious liability.

That’s why Road Scholar Transport is demonstrating a simple and fast way to check your carrier’s safety record in the video below.

sms

List your comments towards the FMCSA’s SMS improvements below.

1 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/03/27/2012-7360/improvements-to-the-compliance-safety-accountability-csa-motor-carrier-safety-measurement-system-sms#p-7

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in LTL freight, Services, Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

Responsibility No Longer Rests Solely on Carriers…Shippers at Risk of Vicarious Liability

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

Could you ask your boss for 23 million dollars?  In 2004, C.H. Robinson, a third party logistics provider, contracted Dragonfly Express to transport a shipment for one of their customers.  The driver, however, was negligent, falsifying logbook entries and driving at an unsafe speed, resulting in an accident that caused two fatalities and a serious injury. 1 Despite C.H. Robinson arguing that they were “not responsible for the actions of an independent contractor or its driver,” the court found the driver, Dragonfly Express, and C.H. Robinson responsible in sharing a verdict of over $23 million. 1

But was the third party provider really at fault?  According to a doctrine known as vicarious liability, the answer is yes.  On top of that, you, the shipper, could also be at fault.

According to vicarious liability, “Where a shipper acts as principal, and a carrier or broker acts as agent of the shipper, liability for the conduct of the carrier or broker may be imputed to the shipper,” since the shipper had “the right to control the conduct” of the “ carrier or broker. 2

Up until 2004, the carrier, and only the carrier, was held responsible for “any and all property damage or bodily injury it caused” while freight was in its possession. 2 In 2004, however, this changed in a court case known as Schramm v. Foster.

This case is representative of many instances today.  A shipper hired a 3pl to transport their freight.  The carrier that was hired to do so by the 3pl had gotten into an accident, seriously injuring two people.  Instead of strictly the carrier being held accountable for the accident, the 3pl was found liable as well since, according to the ruling, the 3pl was responsible for vetting out a driver via the FMCSA’s Safestat database.


This case was the beginning of many changes in regards to who is found liable in an accident. And if you think that you, the shipper, are safe because your carrier has liability insurance, you’re wrong.  Known as vicarious liability, the shipper, who acted as a principal in hiring the carrier, becomes liable for that carrier (or broker)’s conduct which they had a “right to control.” 2

As QualifiedCarriers.com informs, “a carrier’s liability insurance will exclude indemnity for independent claims against the shipper,” for example, negligent hiring, so you, the shipper, can be sued as well for your carrier’s actions.

In further detail, shippers are now liable in cases where “the plaintiff can show (1) the carrier caused injury to the plaintiff’s property or person through negligence, recklessness or intentional misconduct and (2) the shipper did not exercise reasonable care or perform proper due diligence when it screened, vetted, and selected the carrier to move the shipper’s freight.”  2

So how can you prevent vicarious liability?  By utilizing the CSA 2010’s Safety Measurement System (SMS).

Here’s how it works.  SMS scores a carrier and driver’s safety performance in seven BASIC categories, ranking 0-100 with 100 being the worst.  Those trucking companies generally scoring a number of 65 or above are considered a risk and placed on “alert” status, yielding a yellow caution triangle next to the deficient category alerting of a score that surpasses what is considered to be safe.  Insufficient scores are based on whether the carrier is a passenger, Hazmat Certified, or Other-which includes most trucking carriers.  Scoring reflects a carrier’s BASIC scores compared to other carriers in their group.  The scoring/categories are as follows:

-Unsafe Driving: ≥50 (passenger), ≥60 (HazMat), or ≥65 (Other).

-Fatigued Driving (Hours of Service): ≥50 (passenger), ≥60 (HazMat), or ≥65 (Other)

-Driver Fitness: ≥65 (passenger), ≥75 (HazMat), or ≥80 (Other)

-Controlled Substances/Alcohol: ≥65 (passenger), ≥75 (HazMat), or ≥80 (Other)

-Vehicle Maintenance: ≥65 (passenger), ≥75 (HazMat), or ≥80 (Other)

-Cargo-Related: Not available to public

-Crash-Indicator: Not available to public

Knowing a carrier’s safety scores before trusting them with your freight can greatly reduce the risk of an accident or damage.  Take for example last Friday when Lancaster, PA based D.A. Landis Trucking admitted to falsifying driver logs along with “selling condemned milk” which contained “excessive antibiotics and was ordered to be destroyed” to a NJ cheese company, charges which the owner now faces a maximum 5-year jail sentence for as well as a hefty fine. 3

Looking at D.A. Landis Trucking’s CSA rating, a shipper can quickly notice a score of 79% in the vehicle maintenance category, including several out of services for inoperative/defective brakes, steering system components worn/welded/missing, brake tubing and hose adequacy, unsafe operations forbidden, and many more.  Compare that with Road Scholar’s vehicle maintenance score of 27.6%.  Which truck would you rather have your products aboard?

Road Scholar Transport understands the importance of choosing a safe carrier to protect your freight.  That’s why we are giving you 7 Easy Steps on how to check/vet out carriers:

-1.  Go to the FMCSA website-www.fmcsa.dot.gov

step1

click to enlarge

-2.  Click on Safety & Security

step2

click to enlarge


-3.  Click on Company Safety Record

step3

click to enlarge

-4.  Click on Safety Fitness Electronic Records System

step4

click to enlarge

-5.  Click on Company Snapshot

step5

click to enlarge

-6.  Enter Carrier’s DOT, MC number, or Name

step7

click to enlarge

-7.  Click on SMS Results…Remember, a score of 65 or above is of alert status

step8

click to enlarge

And while you are there, check out Road Scholar Transport’s carrier safety record.  Just type in Road Scholar’s name, MC#-516228 or DOT #-1338719.

Are you currently utilizing the CSA 2010’s Safety Measurement System?  Has a carrier’s scores determined whether or not you utilized them?  Why or why not?

1 http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2011/Aug/329060.html

2 www.qualifiedcarriers.com/why-risk-management.aspx

3 http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Lancasters-D-A-Landis-trucking-company-pleads/i4715ZARxEm0-t4px5zbQw.cspx

click for quote

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Services, Trucking Industry News | Comments Off

« Older Entries