For The Defense, December 2011 - DRI Today

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Trucking Law share some of her knowledge and insight regarding the CSA program for this article. CSA—Brief Overview The CSA program has three components. The first component is the Safety Measurement System (SMS). The CSA program feeds data from other motor carrier- related databases into this database, the SMS, and applies a new methodology to that data to quantify safety and compliance for each motor carrier. The second component is the “safety fitness determination,” the actual safety rating assigned to each motor carrier based on the collected data as analyzed by the SMS methodology. The third component is intervention, which represents the type of enforcement that the FMCSA will impose on each carrier depending on its overall safety rating. The overwhelming majority of the data that the CSA program will use in the SMS comes from two major databases: the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) and the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS). The MC- MIS stores information received from form MCS-150, motor carrier identification data; SAFETYNET, state inspection and accident reports; and federal inspection and accident reports, among others. The CDLIS contains CSA Operational Model 72 ■ For The Defense ■ December 2011 “driver records,” which states must create under 49 C.F.R. §384.225, providing information regarding violations and convictions committed by a driver, as well as the driver’s medical certification, among other information. The CSA program will constantly retrieve data from these databases and feed it into the SMS. The federal government, individual motor carriers themselves, and the public will have access to this data. At its core, the CSA program will not change anything operationally for carriers. Carriers will still be subject to inspections. The major change is that the CSA program will collect and measure the retrieved data differently than the SafeStat program and eventually use it to assign a constantly updated “rating” to each carrier. According to Dr. Gillette, the CSA program will benefit motor carriers because they can use the methodology to acquire better data to identify potential safety concerns much more quickly than they could under SafeStat, and they can use that data not only to improve internal safety programs but also to make better hiring, training, and retention decisions. The CSA Operational Model and SMS Methodology—How Motor Carrier Data Is Evaluated The CSA operational model diagram below shows how the CSA program will identify and address motor carrier safety issues. CSA, Fed. Motor Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep’t Transp., The New Operational Model, http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/csa_how.aspx. The process begins with collecting safety data and feeding it into the SMS, sorting it into seven behavioral analysis and safety improvement categories. The methodology evaluates the sorted data in each behavioral analysis and safety improvement category (BASIC), and each motor carrier receives a percentile score between 0 and 100 and is placed in a corresponding peer group or “safety event group” for each BASIC. The methodology doesn’t rate individual drivers, but it collects data on them for use by law enforcement personnel. Depending on a carrier’s overall percentile score within the peer group, referred to in CSA parlance as the safety event group, the FMCSA may subject the carrier to an intervention, which can range from a warning letter to a suspension of authority to operate. As mentioned, the SMS methodology measures the on-road safety performance of each motor carrier in seven behavioral categories, the BASICs. Each BASIC consists of a group of actions or inactions by a motor carrier assembled from roadside inspection data and assigned numerical measures. Weighting schemes apply to the data that take many factors into account, such as the severity of a violation and how recently a violation occurred. The SMS methodology also applies a “utilization factor,” which accounts for the fact that certain carriers will have far more vehicles or use those vehicles more often than other carriers, which increases crash risk and inspection exposure, which, in turn, can increase the number of violations that inspections uncover. Violations associated with a higher risk of causing crashes receive higher scores because they receive greater weights, and the more recently the violations occurred, the more heavily the methodology weights them. For example, assume that a motor carrier’s most recent roadside inspection discovered a driver driving with a suspended license. This violation has a severity weight of 10. The carrier will have 30 points attached to its “driver fitness” BASIC score for six months after the violation. Thus, the more recently a violation occurs, or the
more severe the violation, the higher the sum of a carrier’s violations for this BASIC, at least temporarily. Additionally, a motor carrier’s overall total sum of time- and severity- weighted violations in the “driver fitness” BASIC will be divided by the total time weight of relevant inspections, meaning all inspections conducted by a Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) agency and reported to the MCMIS, with or without violations, and any other inspection resulting in “driver fitness” violations. Therefore, a carrier inspected more often than others that has more violations will have those violations count against it less in the “driver fitness” BASIC compared with a carrier with fewer vehicles on the road and subject to fewer inspections. Once the score for each motor carrier is calculated in a BASIC, if the SMS has sufficient data, discussed more below, the carrier is placed into a safety event group with motor carriers supposedly operating at similar levels in that behavioral category. Then an individual motor carrier’s BASIC score is compared with the other motor carriers in that safety event group, which will constantly change, and if that score is above a certain percentile of its peers, the FMCSA will subject that carrier to an intervention. The type of intervention for each carrier will vary depending on the violation severity and history, but it ranges from a warning letter to a full compliance review. The Seven BASICs The first BASIC is “unsafe driving,” which is intended to measure or to quantify the on-road operation of commercial motor vehicles in dangerous or careless manners. The violations grouped into this BASIC include speeding, reckless driving, and unsafe lane changing. FMCSR parts 392 & 397. The violations are weighted based on the crash risk associated with each, from 1 to 10 with 10 assigned to the most severe. Additionally, the calculations apply a weighting scheme to the points in time of violations: 0–6 months × 3; 6–12 months × 2; and 12–24 months × 1. For more detailed information about the complicated equations used to measure the BASICs, see Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin, U.S. Dep’t Transp., Safety Measurement System (SMS) Methodology, Version 2.1 (Dec. 2010) (explaining the SMS methodology and each calculation), http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/resources. aspx (select “SMS Methodology” in left navigation bar, then scroll to download the publication). Table 1 explains the utilization factor computation for straight trucks. The CSA program methodology tries to compare like- vehicles with like- vehicles in some ways, breaking them into two categories for some data scoring, straight trucks and combination tractor- trailers. Table 1. Unsafe Driving BASIC: Straight Segment Utilization Rate (VMT/Avg. PU) Utilization Factor 200,000 1 No recent VMT data 1 The sum of the violations weighted for time and severity in this BASIC is divided by the average number of power units (PUs) that a carrier has on the road, then multiplied by a utilization factor that increases up to a value of three between 20,000 and 200,000 miles traveled by that carrier for carriers that operate straight trucks, and up to a value of 1.6 between 80,000 and 160,000 miles for carriers that operate combination tractor- trailers. Table 1 only illustrates the utilization factor computation for straight trucks. The second BASIC is the “fatigued driving (hours- of- service)” BASIC. Data about drivers who are found ill or fatigued and have hours- of- service violations are grouped into this BASIC. FMCSR parts 392 & 395. Violation- severity weighting in this category is based on crash risk and ranges from 1 to 10, with an out- of- serviceviolation adding 2. Also, violations are time weighted according to this scheme: 0–6 months × 3; 6–12 months × 2; and 12–24 months × 1. See Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin, U.S. Dep’t Transp., Safety Measurement System (SMS) Methodology, supra (explaining the SMS methodology and each calculation). To calculate the “fatigued driving” BASIC, the sum of time- and severity- weighted violations is divided by the total time weight of relevant inspections, which is composed of all inspections conducted by a Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) agency and reported to the MCMIS, regardless of finding violations, and any other inspection resulting in fatigued driving violations. According to Dr. Gillette, the name of this BASIC, “fatigued driving,” is misleading since the conduct grouped into this category mainly is hours- of- service violations, not “fatigued driving.” There is only one violation that the methodology groups into this BASIC that has anything to do with fatigued driving and that is “driving while ill or fatigued.” The remaining behaviors sorted into this BASIC are log-book violations. An example given by Dr. Gillette is that if a carrier has a fatigued driving BASIC score of 80 percent, all the public might see when reviewing that information online, explained later, is that the company has 29 fatigued driving violations, but in actuality, the carrier’s drivers could have forgotten to fill out log books correctly in 28 of the violations, and the company could have violated the allowable hours of service for the last, none of which have anything to do with fatigue. Four other BASICS are “driver fitness,” the category for violations relating to failure to have a valid commercial driver’s license or medical certification, FMCSR parts 383 & 391; “controlled substances/ alcohol,” the category for violations for on-road operation of a commercial motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs, FMCSR parts 382 & 392; “vehicle maintenance,” the category for violations for operation of a commercial vehicle without properly maintained brakes or lights, violations for other mechanical issues, and violations for failure to make required repairs, FMCSR parts 382 & 392; and “cargo- related measure,” the category for violations for improperly securing a load, retaining cargo, and handling hazardous material, FMCSR parts 392, 393, & 397 and hazardous material violations. The severity weighting that violations receive again is based on crash risk and range from 1 to 10, with an out- of- service violation adding a weight of +2. Violations also are time weighted using the same formula as the “fatigued driving” BASIC time- weighting For The Defense ■ December 2011 ■ 73
Page 2 and 3:
Complex Claims Require Expert Knowl
Page 4 and 5:
DRI—The Voice of the Defense Bar
Page 6 and 7:
DRI Services 55 West Monroe Street
Page 8 and 9:
DRI ToDay— The NexT 50 yeaRs 2011
Page 10 and 11:
Embracing Our Common Humanity— Pr
Page 12 and 13:
Scalia and Garner: Making Your Case
Page 14 and 15:
Transportation Security— Its Evol
Page 16 and 17:
The Awards This year during the DRI
Page 18 and 19:
plan committed to achievement, sens
Page 20 and 21:
National Conclave of State and Loca
Page 22 and 23:
Over Criminalization of Business Co
Page 24 and 25: 22 ■ For The Defense ■ December
Page 26 and 27: pRoFessIonAl lIAbIlITy Sidestepping
Page 28 and 29: PROducT LIabILITy Past Is Prologue
Page 30 and 31: Product LiabiLity specific faciliti
Page 32 and 33: Product LiabiLity the two types of
Page 34 and 35: Product LiabiLity sive, albeit inco
Page 36 and 37: Professional liability The Times Th
Page 38 and 39: Professional liability ity of those
Page 40 and 41: Professional liability policies exc
Page 42 and 43: dRug and MedIcaL devIce FDA Regulat
Page 44 and 45: Drug anD MeDical Device a health ca
Page 46 and 47: Drug anD MeDical Device the manufac
Page 48 and 49: Drug anD MeDical Device “mere bee
Page 50 and 51: TRuckIng Law From the Chair By Kurt
Page 52 and 53: Trucking Law Rapid Response Teams B
Page 54 and 55: Trucking Law important way to docum
Page 56 and 57: Trucking Law there is no way to kno
Page 58 and 59: Trucking Law sonally witnesses an a
Page 60 and 61: Trucking Law A driver’s refusal t
Page 62 and 63: Trucking Law the likely attitudes o
Page 64 and 65: Trucking Law aging juror responsive
Page 66 and 67: Trucking Law Cross-border trucking
Page 68 and 69: Trucking Law Wake-Up Call for Carri
Page 70 and 71: Trucking Law den of proof standard
Page 72 and 73: Trucking Law The court concluded th
Page 76 and 77: Trucking Law formula and are also n
Page 78 and 79: Trucking Law Intervention and “No
Page 80 and 81: Writers’ Corner Social Proof Why
Page 82 and 83: ThInk gLObaLLy 10 Tips Obtaining Ev
Page 84 and 85: Attorneys defending motor carriers
Page 86 and 87: FMSCa evaluation, from page 77 Smit
Page 88 and 89: may decide that failing to take thi
Page 91 and 92: Pennsylvania Bonnie S. Stein, Morri
show all

For The Defense, December 2011 - DRI Today

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?