Trucking industry concerned about new safety rules

A proposed federal rule change intended to cull unsafe truck drivers from trucking companies has mixed support from the trucking industry and the two publicly held trucking companies based in the Fort Smith area.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) — a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation — began in April to phase in the Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010) with the goal of “reducing large truck and bus crashes, injuries and fatalities on our nation’s highways.” The effort, which began in May 2005, will use a new safety measurement system to monitor the more than 500,000 active commercial motor carriers — trucking companies, bus companies, etc. — and the about 7 million commercial drivers in the U.S.

Anne Ferro, administrator for FMCSA, said in June 23 testimony before Congress that the new system would “raise the bar” for companies and drivers wanting to enter the trucking sector by measuring seven safety categories. The existing system uses four broad measures.

Ferro noted in her testimony: “In contrast, the new SMS looks at all safety violations discovered at roadside, weights each one based on its crash risk, and measures safety performance in seven unsafe behavioral areas, called BASICs – Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement Categories.  These are:  (1) Unsafe Driving, (2) Fatigued Driving (Hours-of-Service), (3) Driver Fitness, (4) Controlled Substances/Alcohol, (5) Vehicle Maintenance, (6) Cargo-Related, and (7) Crash Indicator.  By looking at all of the safety violations and grouping them into more categories related to unsafe behavior, SMS provides a much more comprehensive, robust and granular view of the specific violations incurred by motor carriers and individual drivers. … The end result is that under CSA 2010, both motor carriers and drivers will have to be more alert to their roadside safety performance.”

The American Trucking Associations supports the overall goals of CSA 2010.

Transportation Corporation of America Executive Vice President and CEO Keith Klein said CSA 2010 is based on safety performance rather than compliance with paperwork requirements; it focuses limited enforcement resources on specific areas of deficiency, rather than on comprehensive on-site audits; and because it will eventually provide real-time, updated, safety performance measurements. Klein spoke on behalf of the ATA at the June 23 hearing.

However, Klein and the trucking industry are concerned that flawed methodology and data will result in rulings that may not address real safety issues.

“A system that is based on inconsistent data and a flawed scoring methodology will not achieve its objectives. Instead, it will create inequities for some safe carriers and inappropriately allow some unsafe carriers to avoid scrutiny and consequences,” Klein said.

The ATA is recommending the completion of a CSA 2010 study by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute before moving further with CSA 2010 rules.

Van Buren-based USA Truck issued this statement about CSA 2010: “USA Truck supports the FMCSA’s attempt to develop a performance-based safety program designed to remove unsafe drivers and carriers from the nations roadways.  However, we do share the concerns expressed by the ATA that, as currently written, the metrics utilized by the FMCSA in determining carrier and driver safety scores are not well-developed and will inevitably lead to inequitable and inconsistent results. Over-the-road transportation is a critical cog in the nation’s economic engine, and it is absolutely essential that the FMCSA create a regulatory framework that allows safe and compliant carriers to continue to deliver the nation’s freight.”

Fort Smith-based ABF Freight System says CSA 2010 “will not adversely affect” the company, but does share industry concerns about the potential for flawed data collection and reporting.

Russ Aikman, ABF director of marketing and public relations, said in a statement: “ABF’s initial concerns fall in line with many of those in the industry. One is that of accident causation and accountability. ABF shares concerns about our drivers having an accident on their record that they didn’t cause. The second concern is that of issuing violations based upon warnings instead of actual citations for a moving violation.  As a matter of protocol, some states must issue a warning ticket anytime they pull a driver over even if their reason was not associated with a moving violation. Such warning tickets could blur the accuracy in this category.”

Continuing, Aikman noted: “It is ABF’s opinion that as long as our drivers continue their award winning practices of safe driving, we continue to conduct good pre-trip inspections on our equipment, and our maintenance program continues to be the best in the business, ABF should see no adverse affects from the implementation of CSA 2010.”