Question 1:

How effective is FMCSA's current compliance review process? What is working now? Not working?

Effectiveness

• The process generally works.
• Not terribly effective. Even with close to 700,000 carriers, probably less than 1% can get a Compliance Review. The agency is able to address problems that are obvious like a big accident or an incident that causes damage, but at that point it's too late.
• The compliance playing field is not level. The DOT concentrates its efforts on high profile carriers. People are concerned that the other carrier companies do not receive the same type of compliance efforts.
• Fairly effective.
• I'm not sure its working all that well. My sense is that the FMCSA targets companies that they can reach not those that ought to be reviewed.
• The Military Command Process is a rigorous inspection. If a company has already gone through the MC process, then the FMCSA need not waste its time.
• CR process is a good tool. Our concern is that it is not applied in an effective way.
• Some companies are reviewed over and over again and given the satisfactory rating each time, when on the other hand many companies have never been inspected. We don't want the FMCSA to waste its resources and our time by reviewing people who are already safe.
• Many of our carriers also get reviewed by the Department of Defense. Perhaps the DOT and DOD can share their audit information and if there are significant data differences they should help each other to eliminate those and better use their resources.
• The CR process is somewhat effective. The review itself is decent but the problem is that it doesn't target the right people. Resources are not applied to review the people that have not been rated or the problem children.
• CRs are insufficient. Industry of household goods transportation has regulations (information to consumers, proper conduct with shippers, weighing the vehicle) that the freight industry doesn't have to follow.
• Not too many of our guys are being visited for CRs. The DOT is not as interested in taxi and parcel delivery service. But big truck carriers with accidents and employee complaints peaks their interest.
• Additionally, the inspections are not ineffective but more need to be done and it's critical that everyone participates.
• I don't know how FMCSA can effectively manage the process if there is a lack of funding from all the players.
• Safestat is working for CRs for inter and intrastate carriers. We have a compliance review division within our law enforcement division that completes both CRs. We use Safestat scoring, interstate carrier CRs are assigned to us from FMCSA, we get the Intrastate listing from WOPEE and we use both these indicators to track carriers for CRs. Before we had access to these methods we were using complaints, accident reports and out of service rates to find trouble carriers. So Safestat has been great for CR access, especially for intrastate.

Working

• In the moving of chemicals, the use of drugs and alcohol is not a big issue because there is better communication between the driver and the dispatcher in the chemical industry than there may be in the trucking industry at large. Fellow truck drivers realize that if there is someone using drugs and alcohol and there is a serious disaster linked to it--then many people will be affected.
• The regulatory procedures do cut down on the number of incidents, but this contribution needs to be scientifically determined.

Not Working

• The safety and security buzz post 9/11 concerns me because we are developing an over-reliance on technology. I have a hard time believing that the black box software system is going to be "the answer." The real problem is losing the human interaction.
• The compliance aspect is one area that we could focus on. There are complaints filed against them [FMCSA] because there are a lot of drivers. Those complaints sometimes trigger a full audit when it is not always needed. There is inconsistency on this across the FMCSA offices. The inconsistency is in how this is handled office to office. Some offices take a streamlined approach while others look at a full blown compliance review approach to complaints.
• There is an inconsistency in the way crashes are treated in one aspect of program versus another. For example, when a carrier is pinged for review; they look at all safety aspects of the carrier. When they do a review, they can focus either on the single accident that triggered the review or on the carrier's accident history which will cover multiple incidents. The inconsistency is that they only focus on the single accident for safety reviews while a more comprehensive approach is taken in the other types of reviews.
• Safety is not VALIDATED. Since the 1930s the DOT has required services hours but recently they were abolished. The FMCSA needs to understand and identify benchmarks for daily hours on a cumulative basis. There is just not enough science or causality behind the regulations.
• Key problems go unlooked, unnoticed or un-acted upon
• The smaller companies that are harder to find (i.e. don't have a garage or a fixed address) are being overlooked.
• The FMCSA needs to have consistent data go in so that the data can be used to evaluate which companies ought to be reviewed.
• The CR process is still behind the power curve, the industry is underserved. The FMCSA is not getting around to enough companies. More updates are needed to satisfy the public and carriers.
• The FMCSA cannot spend a lot of time sending out warm fuzzies--it's a business and we might not hear from them unless something goes wrong.
• We are unable to use Safestat completely because states are not consistent; we need to get everyone on the same page.
• Accidents and roadsides need to be included in the whole process in order to have a complete program, as it is NOT now. The biggest problem is not including intrastate accidents and violations.
• Enforcement directed at carriers is one of the biggest challenges for the FMCSA.

Maintenance

• National Safety Board uncovered a problem with maintenance and inadequacy of brakes on tractor carriers. Over half of the trucks tested had some sort of serious brake deficiency.
• The FMCSA needs to work on the truck brake problem because of a) the growing number of fleets and b) the fact that no one has been methodically or consistently checking brakes.
• Problem with the movement of containers. Some dollies sit in yards in NY, NJ and CA.
• Resources are lacking.
• The question becomes who has responsibility to do maintenance on container dollies in terrible condition. Many trucking companies responsible for transporting the containers do not have responsibility over the dolly breaks.

Data / Database

• The agency has a long way to go to build and maintain their databases
• Dealing with the data of crashes
• The data system is a complete mess.
• There is no mechanism for removing extinct companies (mergers, etc), so hundreds of companies are inaccurately reported as active.
• The population needs to be controlled and Safestat needs to be configured to reflect reality.
• The cross-check between a satisfactory rating and having insurance is helpful. However, the system is out of date. All interstate motor operators should have insurance. Insurance companies can do a lot more work than the FMCSA. So with a safer, more accurate database, if you see a carrier with canceled insurance or with a satisfactory safety rating but no insurance certificate, this is a red flag
• There is a serious need to keep information current and uniform. States use different data for covering accident reports since there is no standard report for local officers.

Log

• Multiple logs in the cabs of trucks
• One log for inspectors and another log to track the driver's pay.

Question 2:

What alternative methods should FMCSA consider for determining carrier safety fitness and for addressing unsafe behaviors?

• The FMCSA should work closely with the employers, the carriers instead of coming in with a big stick thereby encouraging companies to hide things. I
• Enforcement should be framed as "let's look into this issue because we want to help you fix a problem."
• Many federal agencies engage in surprise visits to look for problems. Some of that is good because it keeps people on their toes and ensures rules are being followed.
• A new method would be to improve the technology and ability of persons doing CRs to access info in a more rapid manner than at present.
• Technology should not be a substitute for personal contact between an inspector and the people running the business and overseeing safety since this is a valuable part of the CR process. Instead, technology can be used to a) speed up the reporting process, b) help assess the number of items in the CR and c) identify critical areas instead of just completing log book entries. The entire system needs to be streamlined and available so inspectors can stop hunting through paperwork.
• A more viable alternative for completing the CRs is to use Federal and/or State employees with proper training and oversight as 3 rd party inspectors. There's a concern that if an inspector is hired to complete a CR and paid by a carrier company, then the inspector is not going to look as critically at the safety issues.
• CRs and other kinds of driver and vehicle enforcement are effective when linked to a carrier.
• When conducting a CR, the inspector should also check for other violations (i.e. tickets for being out of service, vehicle out of service, crashes).
• Great progress but more inspections are needed.
• We figured out that visible enforcement got the most bang for its buck. Visibility is not just about the number of inspections conducted, it's about doing some in the middle of the night and on road ways other than highways so that carriers know they are subject to inspection at any time they are driving.
• DOT looks at raw numbers too harshly and fails to evaluate the operating environment that a carrier faces on a daily basis. Example: hauling gasoline in rural areas presents different safety challenges than a downtown/urban environment or a highly congested shopping center.
• When judging the performance of an industry these areas need to be looked at with more honesty and objectivity. A smaller truck delivering to a mall retail outlet must be treated differently than a 65ft unit wheeling around downtown to deliver to a Giant or Safeway.
• Conceptually, using performance data in figuring out carrier safety and fitness has always made sense.
• The performance assessment via SAFENET - provided that the data is good, has made more sense.
• The question is - does compliance equal safety? In some areas it does and in other areas it doesn't but all factors are included in the safety rating. There has been a want and a need to tie compliance regulations to a safety outcome. This has been very hard to do.
• There is some ongoing work in progress that can help determine which regulations are needed or not needed to get the desired outcomes. The agency has no choice but to move forward with regulations due to Congress' push, however, the regulations need to be thoughtful.
• The FMCSA needs to ensure uniform potential for completing Compliance Reviews. This way large trucking companies are not the only ones receiving frequent evaluations and auditing allowing the smaller companies to go free.
• If the FMCSA can justify that violating hours-of-service, drug tests and driver qualifications leads to higher accident rates then the alternative methods are viable.
• If a member has been using a transportation company with a flawless record and suddenly an issue comes up, this should be a clear sign of concern and cause for investigation.
• Alternative methods: a) getting rid of repeat offenders, b) the agency being direct and open in its efforts to go after offenders and c) the process needs to be timely and factual.
• Since some states still insist on roadside inspections, buses are subject to unloading 40 passengers at a dangerous weight station with trucks coming through. When accidents occur it is more frequently due to driver error not equipment failure.
• A vehicle test is clearly definable and easy to do because brake and steering problems go by the book. So the emphasis of a CR should be placed less on the vehicle or proper filing methods and more on driver fitness.
• If Safestat is going to be used the FMCSA needs to make sure the data is current by using a common accident report form that law enforcement officials are required to complete.
• If a rating shows that a carrier doesn't have insurance, a letter is sent allowing 45 days to rectify the problem. However, due to a lack of follow up at the local enforcement level, the process is inconsistent. The letter that is sent should also go to the local law enforcement.
• Follow up is needed to make sure that a) a carrier is in compliance within the prescribed period and b) if a company is found out of compliance that they are not operating their vehicles and remain in temporarily suspended status until the problem is solved.
• Obviously performance is the ultimate factor. If someone is showing problems they should be targeted regardless of their rating.
• New entrants also have to be a super high priority. Newer carriers have more accidents.
• Each one of us can tell stories about the amount of unlicensed carriers we've seen on the road. It's hard for the FMCSA to find these people or connect them back to a specific garage. But that's what needs to be done.
• It's an impossible task to do alone so the FMCSA needs to engage states. The agency can set priorities for states that are worth their time and effort.
• In 1990 there was a proposed amendment to the transportation act that mandated a uniform program (originally done in seven states). The ATA supported the initiative since it suggested using uniform standards for the state register. Unfortunately the change did not happen, much to the dismay of many of us involved in the process. The uniform program did not create new standards. The state would only issue a permit if a company met the federal requirements. The uniformity was not between the states but that this was a way to ensure compliance.
• There aren't a lot of state roadside inspections because there isn't enough money from the feds to go around. So, many people who should be stopped are not.
• More people should be audited. It costs money but if we are talking about an ideal world then we need to rethink safety. Is it the absence of accidents or is it a comprehensive safety plan or committing to no vehicles out of service?
• Maybe the FMCSA should start fining drivers for speeding violations, etc.
• The process should be designed so that carriers consistently and systematically feed data into the system. Then inspectors would already have some data information before arriving on location to begin the CR.
• There should be sufficient technology out there to allow carriers to click on answers and use sophisticated survey tools.
• We have found that complaints have gone to the bottom of the list. FMCSA needs to bring complaints back by bringing them up to the same threshold as the Safestat scoring list.

Question 3:

What should be the focus of FMCSA's safety analysis process? Motor carriers? Drivers? Owners? Other people or entities associated with safety?

Carrier

• The trouble is determining who is responsible for the operation of the vehicle (the owner, the leaser) because the name written on the door may not be related to the operation at all.
• FMCSA should start with the evaluation of a motor carrier safety program.
• The carrier should have a solid safety record coming from good training and well maintained carriers.
• We must focus on commercial drivers and the carriers that employ them.
• The Agency needs to choose between making an impact on the crashes they can prevent and making an impact on all crashes in general.
• The focus should definitely be the drivers and the carriers.
• Focus = carriers.
• The carrier companies should be the focus, more specifically how they conform to the FMCSA regulations such as hours-of-service and truck safety. The carrier company is most important because they are responsible for drivers. The bottom line is that if you enforce the rules after the CR the bad guys cannot get away with undercutting. The shipper can ask for something illegal but if no companies take it, then he'll go away.
• There are good reasons to continue focusing on motor carriers. They make their livelihood from their business so there is incentive to follow the law and not have the business shut down.
• The FMCSA should not focus on owners but on the motor carrier. The motor carrier provides and says what goes from this point to that point. With accidents a lot has to do with the qualifications of the driver 1) does the driver have proper tools and training? 2) Is his eye site alright? Airline pilots have physicals every year. 3) There is a lot of training and retesting that could be done to be proactive. Companies can use technology, hold safety classes and require driving tests. The FMCSA can mandate an agenda.
• In terms of the safety analysis process it should be a combination of the motor carrier and the driver.
• Depending on how the owner operator is set up to lease, he can be picked up within another carrier. The insurance company approach looks at provided coverage for a motor carrier, so specifically a) the operation, b) the safety history, b) financial condition, d) safety regulations in place for the drivers experience and e) motor vehicle records. Based on that, the insurance underwriter does a safety analysis to determine the appropriate rate and coverage for the carrier.

Driver

• The vehicle and the individual directly responsible for the operation of the vehicle should be the primary focus.
• They can do heavy enforcement on drivers and vehicles.
• The drivers are where you will make the most impact.
• We need to make sure the drivers that are granted a license are qualified to get the license and that the states are sharing all the negative information about the drivers to make sure that the bad drivers are taken off the road.
• More attention to drivers. Equipment certainly has to meet safety standards and requirements, but the focus should begin with the driver.

Owner

• The FMCSA can cut a corner by dealing directly with owners.
• Dealing with owner operators is an important aspect since their interest in money drives them.
• Different challenges require specific focus to both the owners and drivers. 1) The corporate side sets policy, expectations, and hires people so we need to continue looking at their point of view. 2) Drivers go through a Commercial Drivers License process. Recently Senator McCain introduced legislation to create national uniform standards for drivers (to make sure that anyone behind the wheel is who they say they are).

Shippers

• So then the shipper should take some responsibility. In my industry we don't have rush orders since there is so much loading. We already have a driver shortage if you hold things against drivers then they will go to another carrier
• It has been discussed for years but basically FMCSA needs to make the shippers responsible for the program. Currently RSPA has the authority to regulate and hold hazmat shippers accountable for the safety. But when it comes to general freight there are no regulations regarding shippers. Typically a shipper wants to get a delivery from a to b, so they don't care how it gets there. Regulating shippers would make a better safety program.
• Perhaps shippers and receivers should be part of this equation especially since they put unreal expectations on the motor carriers, which cause them to speed or violate hours-of-service. Be prepared because it's outside the motor carrier box.

Question 4:

Should FMCSA present safety evaluations to the public? How?

• The information should be open and available to the public to the extent that they are able to understand. Those who are directly involved in serving the industry should be specifically notified so they can react to what needs to be done.
• People engaged in the business are the ones that can do something about curing the problems.
• Members of the insurance and trucking industry have many concerns about this. If a manufacturer hires a motor carrier to transport his goods the liability rests on him so a mechanism to access the safety evaluations would be helpful.
• There is a need for public information but the data needs to be carefully explained.
• If the FMCSA tells the public that an operator is bad--the agency better have some good guidelines for what that means.
• Do you mean the results of a CR? Then I would say yes, I don't know why not.
• Interpretation is a problem but nothing can be gained by not presenting the evaluations. What would be an example of the wrong conclusion? A carrier may not have had enough information collected in order to present a base rating?
• The bottom line is that regardless of context this is the way the agency is rating carriers. The more detail, description, and context provided by the FMCSA the better the agency can protect its self from those interpretation issues. The information for hazmat carriers can be presented separately to emphasize their different issues.
• I have no objection with Safestat or something like it, but the program must recognize specific context. You can take raw data and make it look like anything you want--it's like putting lipstick on a fig. The context must be taken into account (operating environment of the carrier--urban, congested settings, does the carrier handle hazardous material).
• Another problem with the current Safestat is that there is a huge imbalance among state reporting and errors in the data (some States list every fender bender and others only list big accidents).
• The FMCSA should make the information available using a web based system so that user companies can easily check the status and safety performance of carriers.
• We have a hotlink to the Safestat database on our website for anyone planning to reserve a charter; hoping that the information is timely and accurate.
• We don't mind that at all, it's the best way to do it. A lot of the public don't take the CRs seriously enough, they buy on price alone.
• I encourage the FMCSA to make the information available to the public, but it should be accurate and reliable. There is a lack of confidence in that right now and people badmouth states about data transmission.
• There needs to be a better way for carriers to a) get further information b) be notified and c) much more easily challenge, fix and update their records.
• Yes. I have the right to know
• Yes, however, it is my experience with Safestat scoring that the general public and shippers, insurance companies and law enforcement do not fully understand the current Safestat scoring algorithm and ISS.
• No. The safety evaluation area is confusing to individuals who are not familiar with the FCMSA format. And therefore sometimes leads them to inaccurate conclusions about motor carrier status. The information should be released only to motor carriers and enforcement officers until we can educate the general public.

Question 5:

What should be the key attributes of a program to assess motor carrier safety?

• The FMCSA needs to make sure they are addressing issues that have the biggest impact on safety, not trivial things.
• The agency should determine the 3-5 biggest causes of serious motor carrier accidents and assess whether those issues are being addressed.
• The FMCSA has been doing the same thing for the last 30-40 years, they can't quit now, but change is needed. They can work in standard setting and assess whether the time spent conducting CRs actually finds quality results.
• Visibility and randomness.
• Hours-of-service rules
• I have to argue with the attributes mentioned in the federal register. Flexible? Equitable? I'm not sure how useful these phrases will be.
• A uniform compliance mechanism so that carriers feel they have an equal possibility of enforcement
• Fairness should be performance based so that the worst guys get the most attention.
• A set of regulations that are scientifically proven to reduce accidents and/or fatalities
• R&D and communicating R&D analysis results
• Accident/incident experience
• Violation of roadside inspection. However there needs to be a punishment scale for varying degrees of infractions.
• Target the harder to find companies.
• The basics are the most important: data, fairness and context for the evaluation program.
• Good data collections and analysis
• A database that clearly and uniquely identifies active carriers
• Conformance with regulations
• Collect accurate data
• Make judgments about the data by including insurance information
• Can the FMCSA add a medical component and make sure medical technicians are qualified (certified) and understand their impact on applying a satisfactory rating to driver fitness.
• The key attributes should be performance based and make sure the FMCSA gets new entrants.
• There needs to be an education process with the CR. Educate the public and educate the carriers.
• Accidents should apply to the safety program but not like a meat cleaver. The public wants to know the accident rate but it's currently not sensitive enough to address animal hits. There is a difference between "I killed 12 people" and "I knocked down a tree."
• An effective safety program where each company has a designated safety person. Smaller companies may not be sophisticated enough to afford the program. But each company needs a basic safety program with ongoing, internal compliance so that the carrier actually does what it says it will.
• Reactive is wrong, proactive is right. The government should not decide if action should be taken. When information is under your nose you don't see what is happening.
• Reporting accidents needs to happen in a prescribed way. 1) was the company negligent in maintenance - yes / no 2) was the accident on a particular state or roadway - yes/no 3) was the driver at fault - yes / no
• Refocus on out of service rates for vehicle drivers and hazmat violations.
• Demote emphasis on accidents.

Question 6:

How should safety be measured? This measurement may be used to focus FMCSA resources and to assess safety under 49 U.S.C. 31144, Safety fitness of owners and operators.

• Smaller companies try to cut corners to save trucks and find tricks to keep their trucks running. These are the companies lacking safety methods, the FMCSA should create up to date information on carriers and focus on these violators.
• When law enforcement officers come in contact with vehicle operators they must fill out a form to retest an operation. Troopers are not trained to do inspections and if a vehicle is caught in the middle of the night it can be difficult to get an inspector right away. It would be helpful to have a form that identifies violations and requires the vehicle to be inspected the next day before traveling to the new location.
• Safety should be measured on a rolling history so that bad things can be dropped off after a while.
• Effectively reducing the number of crashes, fatalities, injuries, and property damage is the true measure of whether it is effective.

A. Which data elements (crashes, inspection results, violations, financial condition) are the best indicators of safe (or unsafe) operations? Are there other important safety indicators we currently overlook?

• The FMCSA needs to keep in mind the number of drivers and miles traveled each year. The data should be in terms of ratio not just raw data. Once again data needs to be explained, in this case, by showing proportionality.
• Traffic and regulation violations, mandatory compliance and inspections are more legitimate ways to evaluate a carrier.
• The agency should be able to do analysis to answer some of these questions: which data elements should be used? What are the best measures with the right data and research?
• The FMCSA should calculate a loss to premium ratio, an insurance industry term and a very tell tale number. The FMCSA should make a similar number. The number could help factor in the different risks associated with different carrier industries, such as traveling with hazardous materials.
• Crashes and driver measurements are the keys here. If we are focusing on the commercial side we have to look at crash rates, driver experience and driver measurements.
• Financial condition linked to safety.
• Best indicators include a) incidents and accident reports
• Conformance to rules and.
• Out of service violations--but factoring in the severity of the violation.
• It all comes down to performance, accidents, and fatalities; when the rubber hits the road. Paperwork is an indictor but it boils down to what happens on the road. (Out of service rates and more).
• A sophisticated carrier can track hard braking (near misses) with an electronic module that can differentiate between a hard brake in a parking spot and a hard brake at 70mph. Those data parameters are available to carriers for safety programs and to weed out bad drivers.
• How a company treats its employees is also important. If a company has a lot of sprained ankle claims because drivers cant get out of their trucks--then maybe the carrier is not doing a good job at work place safety. How drivers are treated translates to how they treat others on the road
• Each element (crashes, inspection results, violations financial condition) is important but they need context to be effective.
• Violations are indicative of future accident likelihood- that's proven. There is a critical problem with violations for interstate drivers.
• Financial condition is crucial with motor carriers since it's a capital intensive industry with a low profit margin and large dollar amounts are at risk everyday.
• FMCSA needs to take a serious look at adding carriers' mileage into the algorism. A factor should consider accidents per x amount of miles. (Perhaps not per million miles, but come up with a mile number that works to create a level playing field.)

B. How should FMCSA consider historical data when measuring safety?

• The FMCSA can collect data by different means and look at single vehicle crashes to determine the cause (i.e. driver error, equipment- brakes and steering). Then the agency can focus on those things that directly impact safety.
• All information measured by the FMCSA measures should relate back to improving safety on highways.
• Many drivers work for a few different truck companies. They use the same equipment--but with a different name on the door. This makes it hard to develop an effective safety history and rely on historical data.
• Historical data can be misleading. If a company messed up five years ago but has new management who is serious about safety, then it's not good to hit them up again.
• Historical data could be used only for benchmarking. There will always be subjectivity but the data could help set standards.
• Historical data often compares apples and oranges. Problems: a) State police are not timely with reporting and b) state to state reporting procedures are different.
• The FMCSA should look at the safety histories of insurance companies since they track carriers for a while and show patterns.
• Absolutely historical data should be part of it, but in context.

C. How should FMCSA consider unique characteristics of the operations (hazardous materials, passengers, others) when measuring safety?

• Recently Homeland Security is doing away with placards on railcars, since it's an open invitation for a terrorist to hone in on the car that says "dangerous, chlorine." We are sensitive to that but there needs to be some way to find out what is in the car especially if it's involved in derailment. In this age of high technology there ought to be a way to label the chemical without an obvious sign, perhaps through a number code system.
• People dealing with unique characteristics (hazmat, explosives, and passengers) need to be held to higher standards, greater accountability and weighed separately. A point system would be a good way to assign violations worth a specific amount of points and use a cut off mark.
• We should focus on the areas that have the higher rate of crashes and not carriers with sensitive cargo like hazmat.
• Freight carriers, passenger carriers, and hazardous material carriers are different and should be treated as such. It's appropriate to hold a higher bar and for the agency to look at the different factors and risks that involve hazardous materials.
• Hazmat should have increased insurance and additional safety requirements.
• The last component is the quality of management and the business. Check and see what kind of authority they give their drivers to handle a repair that's needed while driving. Top down management has to be committed to safety and show it all the time.

Uniformity in Data

• One problem is the lack of uniformity among various states when trying to gather data on what is working and not working. The questions are asked differently in different states which corrupts the data. There ought to be federally determined standard questions because the validity of the data is just as important as getting the data.

Question 7:

What compliance and enforcement tools are most effective? Currently FMCSA's interventions include issuing warning letters, issuing civil penalties, and placing motor carriers out-of-service.

• Civil penalties and fines are definitely effective. Carriers clearly hate them, since it's yet another expense they want to avoid which is certainly an incentive.
• Law enforcement is effective, whether it's inspection or more law enforcement officers.
• Dealing with the commercial enterprise, the economics of a business is effective. If it costs a company to be bad, then they won't be bad
• Financial penalties and escalating penalties. I tend to be tough on people.
• Civil Penalties are probably fairly effective.
• The compliance review itself. It gets the attention of the trucking companies. It's similar to IRS conducting a audit. People start complying better as a result of a compliance review.
• The agency needs to target companies that are violating the hours-of-service rule knowingly only in an effort to make more money.
• Out of service penalties are difficult, extreme and the severity of the violation is critical to determine penalties. The process and response time needs to be defined, according to the severity of the incident.
• It may be beneficial to mandate electronic logs but that may also be adding another layer to current enforcement. Unfortunately stronger enforcement is tied to resources.
• The number one effective tool is placing carriers out of service; it costs them more than a fine.
• In the explosives industry pulling a license is the only tool to use. There is no ability to fine.
• Money talks. Fines were increased over the past few years. A real financial incentive to do something correctly is more effective then a warning letter.
• Effective enforcement is shooting a bullet through the tires to stop a driver. That's effective--he is out of service, he's not going anywhere.
• Civil penalties are effective because it gets the carriers attention immediately. Follow up CRS are be effective too.

A. What types of interventions are most effective?

• With warning letters, if you've warned a carrier who continues to violate the law, then action must be taken.
• Perhaps States, as opposed to the Federal government, are better equipped to escalate the violations from a civil issue to a more critical issue.
• But it's the companies that don't comply unless you MAKE them that need to be taken off the road.
• The agency needs to look at the civil state in taking away vehicles and to expand the horizon creatively with some of these issues.
• The out-of-service issue (as it relates to vehicles) is not that effective.
• Are we looking at too many trucks and not enough drivers?
• Some companies operate in the margins and consider safety management to be discretionary. These carriers are more likely to be involved in bad accidents. I welcome FMCSA bringing criminal prosecutions against those types of carriers and managers
• We do not need more rules; we need stronger enforcement of the rules that already exist.
• Other effective interventions are civil penalties, out of service violations, and warning letters, depending on the severity of the infraction. But make sure that with the warning letters comes some information to help and educate the carriers.
• Roadside interventions for passengers are dangerous, we support destination inspections.
• We need more safety ratings! A company is either great, OK or dead. There needs to be an in between.
• The rule structure cannot be made with a bias towards one group of carriers. But if the industry is going to have the black boxes, then have them for everyone.
• Safety classes on the surface are difficult to mandate unless it's a record keeping class. At the same time it's very appropriate when well used.
• Civil penalties, when properly enforced, are very very effective. That means money out from the bottom line

B. How should FMCSA use history and characteristics of the motor carrier's operations in determining which intervention is appropriate?

• History is valuable to a point, but history keeps changing.
• Relying heavily on historical data may mean that you are overlooking other aspects that need to be addressed.
• Statistics aren't everything, particularly those that are ancient history.
• It is critical that the FMCSA base reviews on hard statistically information.
• Yes, the history should be used but not sure how.
• The 3 strikes program generally is a good idea.
• Accident history should be linked with the insurance file to create a more complete history of a company's safety package. FMCSA can use the information as an indictor of the companies that ought to be looked at more closely.
• More history and statistics should be escalated to higher degree fines.

Other comments?

• National priorities are great, but the agency must also recognize that individual states need to deal with problems right now, not just the national focus.
• Is there a way that the federal government could leverage their standards at the state level to get beyond CR for only 2% of the industry?
• Hazmat should be a focus since there is legitimate history of being more risky than carrying bathtubs. Terrorists will find the weaklings. If safety is the concern and there is an accident and certain materials cause damages, then different standards are appropriate. You need the best drivers, have a country that works. Then everyone should be held to the same
• Driver fatigue is a major issue, in terms of electronic reporters and within hours-of-service as an umbrella.
• Another issue is cars in the vicinity of large trucks. It's not the FMCSA's place to regulate cars. But its part of safety issue.

Communications

• Word of advice: communicate clearly with those engaged in the business. Two-way, face to face communication is valuable for the truck operators and the FMCSA.
• Outreach programs - there has to be some element of national program outreach.
• I think the sessions are a good exercise, but I'm curious about this process being used to say "look we gave you the opportunity for input and this is all we got from you, we didn't get comments on any new ways to do things." And I am also concerned about the timing. It's very quick.
• That's fine to get things going, but you have to let the people who are providing input have some time to make it a thoughtful process and put the ideas through serious consideration.

Suggestions for Solutions

• Log problem could be addressed through the GPS system or Qualcom to stop the feeling of "if I can get away with this--what else can I get away with."
• The FMCSA actions should be aimed at prevention.
• The need for tracking systems is more paramount today than it was before 9/11. Perhaps the FMCSA could develop a way to disable trucks remotely. This would protect a truck from being started if it were hijacked or stop a truck carrying hazardous material with a bad purpose. Onstar is a system for automobiles but it's expensive.
• The FMCSA needs to not only monitor companies and drivers but to research and conduct analysis that backs up these questions.
• FMCSA may fill some gaps by tying the information together with other safety measures like crashes.
• The FMCSA needs to a) uniquely identify the current operating carriers in the U.S. and b) validate the Safestat methodology - including regulating the timeliness of accidents and violation reports.
• We'd like cooperation and partnerships with other agencies (the police department, the attorney general, etc.). Then the FMCSA can engage if there is a problem
• We feel it is vital to an overall safety program to include intrastate accidents through roadside inspections.
• There are 3 - 5 things that need to be looked at in the methodology/model. Things that should change:
• How accidents are looked at in system
• How to determine the accident rate in the system (currently, we use the number of trucks to come up with accident SEA - Safety Evaluation Area
• More rigorously use the mileage that the trucking company has each year as the denominator instead of using the number of trucks
• We need to figure out how to get the data to the Agency more regularly - now the Agency is getting it [compliance data] every 2 years. Filings for fuel packs reporting is one important element and the agency's use of this information is the other important piece. The MCS 150 form is required every 2 years, but perhaps that's not often enough. Connecting the dots is the challenge here.