FMCSA making major changes to CSA program

Thursday, August 30th, 2012 at 3:38 pm

Richard Wilson

By: Richard Wilson

Regulatory Compliance Manager
Tran Services Trans Products

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will be incorporating major changes to the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program, effective December, 2012.

Among the changes planned for full launch in December are:

The Vehicle Maintenance BASIC will include cargo and load securement violations
The methodology will be updated to align with current intermodal regulations
The Cargo Securement BASIC will become a HM (HazMat) Compliance BASIC
Clarify the definition of HazMat carriers to ensure any carrier hauling a placardable amount of HazMat will be subject to the HM Compliance BASIC’s intervention thresholds
Update the definition of passenger carrier to better identify those operations
Align relevant inspections with Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inspections levels (for example, driver only inspections will not be included under the Vehicle Maintenance BASIC)
Modify the SMS display to include more specific terminology in place of “inconclusive” and “insufficient” with information reflecting the number of inspections and unranked compliance

There are four additional changes, all of which address some of the concerns raised by OOIDA:

Currently, federal regulations allow for a 5 mph speedometer variance, however CSA included speeding 1-5 mph as a violation weighted and scored by the program. This violation will be removed from CSA. Also, the severity weight for unspecified speeding will be lowered to a “1″ rating.
The methodology currently treats similar logbook violations and electronic on-board recorder violations differently. In December, those violations will be scored consistently.
The Fatigued Driving BASIC will be renamed “HOS Compliance BASIC” (hours of service) to reflect that the category measures everything from on-duty violations to paperwork violations.

Paperwork violations, commonly called form and manner violations, account for 35% of all violations under the soon-to-be HOS Compliance BASIC. OOIDA has been very vocal with their opposition to the inclusion of form and manner violations in the enforcement program.

FMCSA officials did not remove any of the form and manner violations from the methodology that I had addressed.

* The following is the speech Richard Wilson presented at the recent MCSAC meeting this past Monday, August 27th, 2012:

“Nothing is currently on the SMS site that shows positive or non-violation inspections; If shippers look at the SMS, all they see is negative inspections with violations. I think that the DATA should only be allowed to be seen by DOT, State, and MCSAP certified officers and the companies. It shows a prejudice to and against small carriers in being competitive in shipping.”

“Corrective action plans need to be addressed expeditiously and fairly. If an intervention is instituted, and only small or marginal violations are found, the carrier should only have to offer a corrective action plan based on found violations during the specific intervention, not require the carrier to provide all documents for a complete Compliance Review. You have to supply more documents causing delays when requesting an upgrade in rating.”

“Relating to accident reporting, and data provided, accident information is not public information, then why can anyone go on the Carrier overview site, click on “Accidents” and see all accidents with no discerning value of fault? You say you cannot determine fault, but you can cite a carrier if they do not post accident tests for a recordable accident if they are charged, if they are not charged, then why should it be on the data information? A non-fault accident looks as bad a a fault accident, and carriers weight as causing an intervention.”

“And last, removal of erroneous data and accountability of road side officers and DOT inspectors. If you prove a carrier had false data reported and prove through a court, or with evidence that it should be removed, then remove it from the SMS. Do not rely on the offending or inspecting officer to automatically, with hard evidence, expect them to remove it. Hold officers accountable for false reporting with disciplinary actions the same as drivers, set up a uniform standard of violations, not some states do this and some do. Also, accept the courts decision in ruling guilty or not guilty”.

“A Maryland officer said a local judge had no right to turn over an inspection because he had no experience, well why should that same judge be able to find the company or driver guilty and issue a civil penalty? If he is experienced enough to find some one guilty, then he should be capable to find some one not guilty!”

Be Sociable, Share!