CSA 2010 An FMCSA Safety Initiative

Introduction to Drivers

4.DSMS Methodology Glossary of Acronyms

The following sections describe the algorithms used in the DSMS methodology and the computational logic used to calculate the driver measures and percentiles for each BASIC and the Crash Indicator for individual CMV drivers. BASICs that are evaluated similarly are described together.

• Unsafe Driving BASIC and Controlled Substances and Alcohol BASIC
• Fatigued Driving BASIC and Driver Fitness BASIC
• Vehicle Maintenance BASIC and Improper Loading/Cargo Securement
• BASIC Crash Indicator

 4.1 Unsafe Driving BASIC and Controlled Substances and Alcohol BASIC Assessment

This section describes the measurement of the Unsafe Driving BASIC and the Controlled Substances and Alcohol BASIC. The definition of each BASIC is as follows:

• Unsafe Driving BASIC – Operation of CMVs in a dangerous or careless manner. Example violations: speeding, reckless driving, improper lane change, and inattention.
• Controlled Substances and Alcohol BASIC – Operation of CMVs by drivers who are impaired due to alcohol, illegal drugs, and misuse of prescription or over-the-counter medications. Example violations: use or possession of controlled substances or alcohol.

The DSMS assesses both the Unsafe Driving BASIC and Controlled Substances and Alcohol BASIC by using relevant violations recorded during roadside inspections to calculate a measure in each BASIC for individual drivers. These measures are used to generate percentile ranks that reflect drivers’ safety postures relative to their peers.

4.1.1 Calculation of BASIC Measure

The BASIC measures for the Unsafe Driving and Controlled Substances and Alcohol BASICs are calculated as the sum of severity and time weighted applicable violations as follows:

BASIC Measure= Total of time and severity weighted violation applications

Where: Applicable Violation is defined as any violation recorded in any level roadside inspection that matches the FMCSR and HMR cites listed for Unsafe Driving (Table 1 in Appendix A) and Controlled Substances and Alcohol (Table 2 in Appendix A) during the past 36 months, and for which the CMV driver can be held responsible (‘Driver Responsible’ column in Table 1 and 2). In cases of multiple counts of the same violation, the DSMS only uses each violation cite once per inspection.

A Severity Weight from 1 (less severe) to 10 (most severe) is assigned to each applicable violation. See the Unsafe Driving Table (Table 1 in Appendix A) and the Controlled Substance and Alcohol Table (Table 2 in Appendix A) for the corresponding severity weights of each violation cite. The severity weighting of each violation cite accounts for the level of crash risk relative to the other violation cites used in the BASIC measurement. The sum of all violation severity weights from any one inspection is capped at a maximum of 30.

A Time Weight of 1, 2 or 3 is assigned to each applicable violation based on how long ago a violation on the inspection was recorded. Violations recorded in the past 12 months receive a time weight of 3. Violations recorded between 12 and 24 months ago receive a time weight of 2. All violations recorded earlier (older than 24 months but within the past 36 months) receive a time weight of 1.

This time weighting places more emphasis on recent violations relative to older violations.

Time and Severity Weighted Violation is a violation’s severity weight multiplied by its time weight.

4.1.2 Calculation of BASIC Percentile Rank

Based on the BASIC measures, the DSMS applies data sufficiency standards to assign a percentile rank to drivers that can then potentially be subjected to a CSA 2010 intervention. The calculation is as follows:

• A. Determine the total number of inspections with at least one BASIC violation. Remove drivers with no BASIC violations.
• B. Rank all the drivers’ BASIC measures in ascending order. Transform the ranked values into percentiles from 0 (representing the lowest BASIC measure) to 100 (representing the highest BASIC measure). Then, assign the percentile values for that BASIC to each driver. 

4.2 Fatigued Driving BASIC and Driver Fitness BASIC Assessment

This section describes the measurement of the Fatigued Driving BASIC and the Driver Fitness BASIC. The definition of each BASIC is as follows:

Fatigued Driving BASIC – Operation of CMVs by drivers ill, fatigued, or in non-compliance with the hours-of-service (HOS) regulations. This BASIC includes violations of regulations surrounding the complete and accurate recording of logbooks as they relate to HOS requirements and the management of CMV driver fatigue. Instances related to the Fatigued Driving

• BASIC are distinguished from incidents where unconsciousness or an inability to react is brought about by the use of alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substances. Example violations include: HOS, logbook, and operating a CMV while ill or fatigued.
• Driver Fitness BASIC – Operation of CMVs by drivers who are unfit to operate a CMV due to lack of training, experience, or medical qualifications. Example violations: failure to have a valid and appropriate commercial driver’s license and being medically unqualified to operate a CMV.

The DSMS assesses both the Fatigued Driving BASIC and Driver Fitness BASIC using relevant violations recorded during roadside inspections to calculate a measure in each BASIC for individual drivers. These measures are used to generate percentile ranks that reflect drivers’ safety postures relative to their peers.

4.2.1 Calculation of BASIC Measure

The equation used for calculating the BASIC measure for Fatigued Driving and Driver Fitness is as follows:

Basic Measure= Total of time and severity weighted applicable violations
                           Number of time weighted relevant inspections Average

Where: Applicable Violation is defined as any violation recorded in any level roadside inspection that matches the FMCSR and HMR cites listed for Fatigued Driving (Table 3 in Appendix A) and Driver Fitness (Table 4 in Appendix A) during the past 36 months, and for which the CMV driver can be held responsible (‘Driver Responsible’ column in Table 3 and 4). In cases of multiple counts of the same violation, the DSMS only uses each violation cite once per inspection.

A Relevant Inspection is any Driver Inspection (Level 1, 2, 3 or 6) or any other inspection resulting in applicable BASIC violation.

A Severity Weight is assigned to each applicable violation, with a value dependent on two parts: (i) the level of crash risk relative to the other violation cites used in the BASIC measurement, and (ii) whether or not the violation resulted in an OOS condition. The level of crash risk is assigned to each applicable violation ranging from 1 (less severe) to 10 (most severe); see the Fatigued Driving Table (Table 3 in Appendix A) and the Driver Fitness Table (Table 4 in Appendix A) for the corresponding severity weights of each violation cite. An OOS weight of 2 is then added to the level of crash risk for OOS violations. In cases of multiple counts of the same violation, if any of the counts of the violation are OOS the OOS weight of 2 applies. The sum of all violation severity weights from any one inspection is capped at a maximum of 30.

A Time Weight of 1, 2 or 3 is assigned to each applicable violation and each relevant inspection based on its age. Violations recorded in the past 12 months receive a time weight of 3. Violations recorded between 12 and 24 months ago receive a time weight of 2. All violations recorded earlier (older than 24 months but within the past 36 months) receive a time weight of 1. Using the exact same time weight scheme, time weights are assigned to each relevant inspection, including relevant “clean” inspections, which had no applicable violations. This time weighting places more emphasis on results of recent inspections relative to older inspections.

Time and Severity Weighted Violation is a violation’s severity weight multiplied by its time weight.

4.2.2 Calculation of BASIC Percentile Rank

Based on the BASIC measures, the DSMS applies data sufficiency standards to assign a percentile rank to drivers that can then potentially be subjected to a CSA 2010 intervention. The calculation is as follows:

• A. Determine the total number of relevant inspections and number of inspections with at least one BASIC violation. Remove drivers with (1) less than three relevant inspections or (2) no inspections resulting in at least one BASIC violation. For the remaining drivers, place each driver into one of three groups based on the number of relevant inspections:

Table 4-1. Peer Group Categories for Fatigued Driving and Driver Fitness BASICs

• B.Within each group, rank all the drivers’ BASIC measures in ascending order. Transform the ranked values into percentiles from 0 (representing the lowest BASIC measure) to 100 (representing the highest BASIC measure).

4.3 Vehicle Maintenance BASIC and Improper Loading/Cargo Securement BASIC Assessment

This section describes the measurement of the Vehicle Maintenance BASIC and the Improper Loading/Cargo Securement BASIC. The definition of each BASIC is as follows:

• Vehicle Maintenance BASIC – Operating a CMV while failing to conduct proper and adequate maintenance. Example violations: brakes, lights, and other mechanical defects, and failure to make required repairs that would be found in a pre-trip inspection.
• Improper Loading/Cargo Securement BASIC – Operating a CMV while failing to adequately prevent shifting loads, spilled or dropped cargo, and unsafe handling of hazardous materials. Example violations: improper load securement, cargo retention, and hazardous material handling.

The DSMS assesses both the Vehicle Maintenance BASIC and the Improper Loading/Cargo Securement BASIC using relevant violations recorded during roadside inspections to calculate a measure in each BASIC for individual drivers. These measures are used to generate percentile ranks that reflect drivers’ safety postures relative to their peers.

4.3.1 Calculation of BASIC Measure

The equation used for calculating the BASIC measure for Vehicle Maintenance as well as Improper Loading/Cargo Securement is as follows:

Basic Measure= Total of time and severity weighted applicable violations
                           Number of time weighted relevant inspections Average

Where: Applicable Violation is as any violation recorded in any level roadside inspection that matches the FMCSR and HMR cites listed for Vehicle Maintenance (Table 5, Appendix A) and Improper Loading/Cargo Securement (Table 6 in Appendix A) during the past 36 months, and for which the CMV driver can be held responsible (‘Driver Responsible’ column in Table 5 and 6). In cases of multiple counts of the same violation, the DSMS only uses each violation cite once per inspection.

A Relevant Inspection is any Vehicle Inspection (Level 1, 2 or 6) or any other inspection resulting in applicable BASIC violation.

A Severity Weight is assigned to each applicable violation with a value dependent on two parts: (i) the level of crash risk relative to the other violation cites used in the BASIC measurement, and (ii) whether or not the violation resulted in an OOS condition. The level of crash risk is assigned to each applicable violation ranging from 1 (less severe) to 10 (most severe); see the Vehicle Maintenance Table (Table 5 in Appendix A) and the Improper Loading/Cargo Securement (Table 6 in Appendix A) for the corresponding severity weights of each violation cite. An OOS weight of 2 is then added to the level of crash risk for OOS violations. In cases of multiple counts of the same violation, if any of the counts of the violation are OOS the OOS weight of 2 applies. The sum of all violation severity weights from any one inspection is capped at a maximum of 30.

A Time Weight of 1, 2 or 3 is assigned to each applicable violation and each relevant inspection based on its age. Violations recorded in the past 12 months receive a time weight of 3. Violations recorded between 12 and 24 months ago receive a time weight of 2. All violations recorded earlier (older than 24 months but within the past 36 months) receive a time weight of 1. Using the exact same time weight scheme, time weights are assigned to each relevant inspection, including relevant “clean” inspections, which had no applicable violations. This time weighting places more emphasis on results of recent inspections relative to older inspections.

Time and Severity Weighted Violation is a violation’s severity weight multiplied by its time weight.

4.3.2 Calculation of BASIC Percentile Rank

Based on the BASIC measures, the DSMS applies data sufficiency standards to assign a percentile rank to drivers that can then potentially be subjected to a CSA 2010 intervention. The calculation is as follows:

• A. Determine the total number of relevant vehicle inspections and the number of inspections with at least one BASIC violation. Remove drivers with (1) less than three relevant inspections or (2) no inspections resulting in at least one BASIC violation. For the remaining drivers, place each driver into one of three groups based on the number of relevant inspections:

Table 4-2. Peer Group Categories for Vehicle Maintenance and Improper Loading/Cargo Securement BASICs

• B. Within each group, rank all the drivers’ BASIC measures in ascending order. Transform the ranked values into percentiles from 0 (representing the lowest BASIC measure) to 100 (representing the highest BASIC measure).

4.4 Crash Indicator Assessment

This section describes the measurement of the Crash Indicator. The definition of the Crash Indicator is as follows:

• Crash Indicator—Histories or patterns of high crash involvement, including frequency and severity, based on information from state-reported crash reports.

Although the BASICs are used to measure an entity’s behaviors, the crash history utilized by the Crash Indicator is not specifically a behavior; rather, it is the consequence of behavior and may indicate a problem with the entity that warrants intervention.

The DSMS assesses the Crash Indicator using relevant state-reported crash data to calculate a measure of the indicator for individual drivers. This measure is used to generate percentile ranks that reflect drivers’ crash postures relative to their peers.

4.4.1 Calculation of Crash Indicator Measure

The equation used for calculating the Crash Indicator measure is as follows:

Crash Indicator Measure= Total of time and severity weighted applicable crashes

Where: Applicable Crash is based on crash reports provided by the states for each crash that meets the reportable crash standard during the past 36 months. A reportable crash involves a vehicle being towed from the scene, or an injury or fatality.

Crash Severity Weight places more weight on crashes with more severe consequences. For example, a crash involving an injury or fatality is weighted more heavily than a crash where only a tow-away occurred. A hazmat release also increases the weighting of a crash, as shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Crash Severity Weights for Crash Indicator

A Time Weight of 1, 2 or 3 is assigned to each applicable crash based on the time elapsed since it occurred. Crashes that occurred in the past 12 months receive a time weight of 3. Crashes that occurred between 12 and 24 months ago receive a time weight of 2. All crashes that happened later (older than 24 months but within the past 36 months) receive a time weight of 1. This time weighting places more emphasis on recent crashes relative to older crashes.

Time and Severity Weighted Crash is a crash’s severity weight multiplied by its time weight.

4.4.2 Calculation of Crash Indicator Percentile Rank

Based on the Crash Indicator measures, the DSMS applies data sufficiency standards and assigns a percentile rank to drivers who then can potentially receive a CSA 2010 intervention. The calculation is as follows:

• A. Identify drivers with at least one applicable crash.
• B. Rank all the drivers’ Crash Indicator measures in ascending order. Transform the ranked values into percentiles from 0 (representing the lowest indicator measure) to 100 (representing the highest indicator measure). Then, assign the percentile values to each driver.

Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010, or CSA 2010, is a major Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) initiative to improve the effectiveness of FMCSA’s compliance and enforcement programs. Its ultimate goal is to achieve a greater reduction in large truck and bus crashes, injuries, and fatalities, while making efficient use of the resources of FMCSA and its state partners. 

2. Why is CSA 2010 being implemented?

CSA 2010 is being implemented to better use FMCSA resources to identify drivers and motor carriers that pose safety problems and to intervene to address those problems as soon as they become apparent. FMCSA believes that CSA 2010 will help the Agency assess the safety performance of a greater segment of the industry and intervene with more carriers to change unsafe behavior early. 

3. What is the Operational Model?

The operational model is the new way FMCSA and its state partners will carry out the compliance and enforcement programs. In contrast to the Agency’s previous operational model, CSA 2010 is characterized by (1) a more comprehensive measurement system, (2) a safety fitness determination methodology that is based on performance data and not necessarily tied to an on-site compliance review, and (3) a broader array of progressive interventions. The illustration below demonstrates how the major components of CSA 2010 will work together. 

4. What are the BASICs and how are they used in CSA 2010?

The Behavioral Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories, or BASICs, are seven categories of data available through the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). These represent behavior categories that can lead to crashes: unsafe driving, fatigued driving, driver fitness, controlled substances and alcohol, vehicle maintenance, improper loading/cargo securement, and crash history. These data are weighted differently based on crash causation, but are all part of the CSA 2010 Operational Model’s Safety Measurement System (SMS), and are collected from on-road safety performance activities including roadside inspections, traffic enforcement, the intervention process, and crashes. 

5. Will CSA 2010 take into account both carrier and driver safety performance?

Yes, both driver and carrier safety performance will be monitored. FMCSA has designed two Safety Measurement Systems – one for carriers, the Carrier Safety Measurement System (CSMS) and one for drivers, the Driver Safety Measurement System (DSMS). 

6. What’s the difference between SafeStat and the new Safety Measurement System?

There are six important differences between the new Safety Measurement System (SMS) and the Agency’s current measurement system, SafeStat: 

1) SMS is organized by seven specific behaviors (BASICs) while SafeStat is organized into four general Safety Evaluation Areas (SEAs).

2) SMS identifies safety problems in the same structure in which CSA 2010 addresses those problems, while SafeStat prioritizes carriers for a compliance review.

3) SMS uses all safety-based inspection violations while SafeStat uses only out-of-service violations and selected moving violations
.
4) SMS uses risk-based violation weightings while SafeStat does not.

5) SMS impacts the safety fitness determination of an entity while SafeStat has no impact on an entity’s safety fitness rating.

6) SMS assesses individual drivers and carriers, while SafeStat assesses only carriers.

7. When does a carrier intervention take place?

Carrier interventions are designed to be progressive, increasing in severity and interaction with motor carriers and their drivers. The goal is to use the interventions to reach a larger segment of the motor carrier industry. The intervention process is triggered by: 

(1) one or more deficient BASICs,

(2) a high crash indicator, or

(3) a complaint or fatal crash. Intervention selection is influenced by (1) safety performance, (2) hazardous material or passenger carrier status, and (3) intervention history.

8. What are the carrier interventions?

Carrier interventions (listed in increasing severity) are as follows:(1) warning letter,

(2) targeted roadside inspection,

(3) off-site investigation,

(4) on-site investigation-focused,

(5) cooperative safety plan,

(6) notice of violation,

(7) on-site investigation-comprehensive,

(8) notice of claim/settlement agreement, and

(9) unfit– suspension.

9. What is different between a Compliance Review and CSA 2010 Interventions?

There are five important differences between CSA 2010 interventions and FMCSA’s current compliance review (CR):1) CRs are generally deployed at a carrier’s place of business as a one-size-fits-all tool to address what may not be a comprehensive safety problem, while interventions under CSA 2010 may not be at a carrier’s place of business and can be focused on a specific deficiency.

2) The outcome of a CR can be the citing of acute and critical violations, while the outcome of an intervention determines the root cause of the safety problem and provides guidance on corrective actions.

3) A CR determines a carrier’s safety rating, while CSA 2010 interventions will ultimately combine violations with on-road safety performance for safety fitness determination.

4) The focus on a CR is compliance while interventions are focused on compliance, improving behaviors that are linked to crashes, and identifying causal factors.

5) CRs are time consuming and result in reaching fewer carriers, while interventions efficiently address safety problems and help reach more carriers, earlier in the process.

10. How is COMPASS related to CSA 2010?

Information technology (IT) is a major component of CSA 2010, and COMPASS is FMCSA’s major IT modernization initiative. With respect to CSA 2010, COMPASS will track and update the safety performance data from regulated entities as they are received, link relevant data to the correct entity, validate the data, and provide the mechanisms for correcting data. COMPASS will also support the intervention process as FMCSA and its state partners gather safety performance data on motor carriers and drivers.

(CSA) 2010 is a major Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) initiative to improve the effectiveness of the Agency’s compliance and enforcement programs. Its goal is to achieve a greater reduction in large truck and bus crashes, injuries, and fatalities, while maximizing the resources of FMCSA and its State partners.

There are four major elements to CSA 2010 – 1-measurement, 2-intervention, 3-safety evaluation, and information technology – 4-COMPASS.

1)- The measurement system would group the safety performance data of motor carriers and drivers into seven categories, called BASICs – Behavioral Analysis Safety Improvement Categories. The seven BASICs are:

• (1) Unsafe Driving,
• (2) Fatigued Driving,
• (3) Driver Fitness,
• (4) Controlled Substances/Alcohol,
• (5) Vehicle Maintenance,
• (6) Improper Loading/Cargo, and
• (7) Crash Indicator.

The data would be scored and weighted based on its relationship to crash causation. Based on a carrier’s score within each BASIC, the measurement system would trigger when the Agency should begin to intervene with a motor carrier, and when its performance has reached the proposed “unfit” threshold.

2)- Intervention – Once the measurement system signals the need to intervene, CSA 2010 would draw upon a broad array of progressive interventions that are designed to advise the motor carrier or driver that their safety performance has come to the government’s attention. These steps are meant to improve unsafe behavior early.

These include:

• Warning Letter
• Targeted Roadside Inspection
• Off-Site Investigation
• On-Site Investigation – Focused Cooperative Safety Plan Notice of Violation Increasing Severity On-Site Investigation -
• Comprehensive Notice of Claim/Settlement Agreement

3)- Safety Evaluation – Safety fitness determination would be based on performance data processed through the measurement system, and would not necessarily be tied to the current FMCSA compliance review. Depending on the motor carrier’s BASIC scores, the safety fitness determination could be “continue to operate,” “marginal” (with ongoing intervention), or proposed “unfit.” Each motor carrier or driver for which there is sufficient data would receive a safety fitness determination that would be updated every 30 days.

4)- COMPASS – CSA 2010 is closely aligned with COMPASS, an FMCSA-wide initiative that is leveraging new technology to transform the way that FMCSA does business. By optimizing FMCSA business processes and improving the Agency’s IT functionality, COMPASS will help FMCSA and State enforcement personnel make better decisions, identify high-risk carriers and drivers more effectively, and apply a wider range of interventions to correct high-risk behavior early.

It is anticipated that full implementation of CSA 2010 by FMCSA will begin on or around June, 2010.

1. • Roadside inspection violations for failure to have a valid commercial driver’s license
2. • Crash reports citing a lack of experience or medical reason as a cause or contributing factor
3. • Compliance review violations for failure to maintain proper driver qualification files or use of unqualified drivers

1. • Driver traffic violations and convictions for speeding, reckless driving, improper lane change, inattention, and other unsafe driving behavior

1. • Hours-of-service violations
2. • Crash reports with driver fatigue cited as a contributing factor

1. • Roadside inspection violations involving controlled substances or alcohol
2. • Crash reports citing driver impairment or intoxication as a cause
3. • Positive controlled substances or alcohol test results on drivers

1. • Law enforcement crash reports
2. • Crashes reported by the carrier that are discovered during on-site investigations

1. • Roadside inspection violation for brakes, lights, and other mechanical defects
2. • Crash reports citing a mechanical failure as a contributing factor
3. • Compliance review violations associated with pre-trip inspections, maintenance records, and repair records

1. • Roadside inspection violations pertaining to load securement, cargo retention, and hazardous material handling
2. • Crash reports citing shifting loads or spilled/dropped cargo as a cause or contributing factor

Jobs by SimplyHired

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leaders are urging Congress and the White House to keep stimulus funds flowing for transportation past May 2010. That’s when funds and jobs flowing from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are expected to wind down.

T&I Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-MN, and Highways and Transit Subcommittee Chairman Peter DeFazio, D-OR, were joined at a press conference Wednesday, Dec. 2, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and construction trades to make the push for a new jobs bill.

“We need to sustain and extend this investment,” Oberstar said, adding that only 16 days remain in the 2009 Congressional year. “We need to do this now. We need to get this passed.”

At the T&I Committee’s request, AASHTO generated a list of 9,500 projects worth $69.5 billion they say are ready to go within 120 days. More than $47 billion could be put to work immediately on 7,500 highway projects, and $22 billion would go to transit, rail, ports, intermodal and aviation projects.

Executive Director John Horsley presented AASHTO’s report to the T&I Committee and to Chairman Barbara Boxer of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Oberstar commended state officials for getting their recovery act funds and jobs under contract to benefit transportation. By May, the stimulus money and jobs will wind down, he added.

Oberstar said his preference in the grand scheme of transportation is to get a six-year transportation authorization bill passed, funded and implemented as soon as possible.

He seized the opportunity to pressure the Senate for wanting to delay an authorization bill for months.
 
“It’s apparent that the other body can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. They can only do health care,” said Oberstar.

When asked whether he would support a six-month extension of current programs as the Senate has recently urged, Oberstar said the House, Senate and White House must get together on a plan.

“I don’t know if it will be six months. My preference is less,” he said.

Oberstar and DeFazio sent a letter Wednesday to President Obama urging him to support a new jobs bill.

If a South Carolina state lawmaker gets his way, all vehicles on interstates in the state would get the go-ahead to zip along at higher speeds.
Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, has prefiled a bill for consideration during the 2010 regular session that would boost the speed limit along interstates and freeways from 70 mph to 80 mph.
If approved, South Carolina would have a speed limit at least 10 mph higher than anywhere else in the Southeast.
However, it is likely to be difficult to find many in favor of such a jump in speeds. Count owner-operator and OOIDA Life Member Bill Boyd of Mount Pleasant, SC, among those in opposition.
“I totally disagree with upping the speed limit in this part of the country. It doesn’t make any sense at all. A speed limit of 70 mph on the open interstate is plenty,” Boyd told Land Line.
Rutherford insists the change won’t cause problems because drivers are already driving around 80 mph, he told The State newspaper. He says the change would allow law enforcement to focus on other matters, such as aggressive and drunken driving.
Boyd said he believes Rutherford is overstating the frequency of people driving around 80 mph.
“That’s not true. There’s a few that will. But for the most part people are going to drive somewhere between 60 and 70. Unfortunately, I’ve seen some people who want to run 55 and 60 in a 70 mph speed zone and that’s also unsafe. But I think our speed limits in the state right now are pretty much where they should be,” Boyd said.
Two other bills to get prefiled would prohibit text messaging and limit cell phone use while driving to hands free devices.
The texting bill – H4189 – cell phone bill – H4190 – and speed limit bill – H4185 – have been referred to the House Education and Public Works Committee where they can be considered during the session, which convenes Jan. 12.

A private business in North Carolina that reviewed drug testing done on
truckers and airline pilots has been ordered shut down for at least five years.
The ban was made public in the Federal Register Tuesday, Nov. 17.
The New York Times reported that Michael Bennett, owner of Workplace
Compliance Inc., was reviewing test results himself even though he’s not a
doctor, as required by the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Bennett then allegedly submitted the reviews to the DOT under the signature
of a doctor.
“Mr. Bennett and his corporation violated the privacy expectations of
individuals, and placed transportation safety at great risk,” wrote Patrice M.
Kelly, the deputy director of the department’s office of Drug and Alcohol Policy
and Compliance, in a July 31 decision banning his company.

Restrictions that the city of Boston has placed on hazmat haulers are illegal
according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Several years ago, the city informed hazmat haulers that unless they were
actually delivering inside the city limits, they were outlawed during the
daytime. So, hazmat trucks that were driving through the city to get to another
destination could travel through Boston only at night.

The FMCSA has informed the city that that’s illegal because all it does is shift the risk of a spill or explosion to other cities in the area that the trucks use to bypass Boston.City officials say they’ll take a few days to consider their options.

One bill nearing passage is intended to lessen the potential blow on the
pocketbooks of truck owners or drivers for truck weight violations.

Michigan law mandates vehicles loaded and driven or moved on highways when
overweight the owner or driver pay a fine based on the weight of the excess load
and its distribution. If the person doesn’t immediately pay the fine or post
bond in an amount double the fine, the vehicle must be impounded.

Awaiting consideration on the House floor, the bill would eliminate the
requirement to double bond amounts. Instead, bonds posted for overweight
vehicles would be for the amount of the fines.

Bill supporters say there is no reason for the bond to be double the amount
of the actual fine. They say it places an unreasonable burden on drivers or
owners while they contest violations because they never will owe more than the
amount of the fine.

Sponsored by Sen. Alan Sanborn, R-Richmond, the bill – SB433 – also
establishes standards for truck weighing scales.

If approved on the House floor, the bill would move to Gov. Jennifer
Granholm’s desk. The Senate already approved it by unanimous consent.

Another bill, which is halfway through the statehouse, would require moving
drivable wrecked vehicles off the road.

House lawmakers voted 102-1 to advance to the Senate a measure that calls for
mandating that drivers – or licensed passengers – remove their vehicles from
traffic lanes as long as the vehicles are still drivable and no serious injuries
were suffered. Failure to move vehicles would result in $105 fines.

Advocates for the requirement – HB5140 – say that studies have shown that
more than 20 percent of wrecks are secondary wrecks that occur because of
drivers reacting to an existing accident scene or because of a backup situation.

Truckers have only 18 more days to comment on a proposed regulation that
would prohibit them from using seven secondary roads in the Finger Lakes region
in upstate New York.

This proposed rule, which was posted on the New York State’s
Register by the New York State Department of Transportation, comes at a
time when small-business truckers are struggling to eke out a living as freight
rates continue to plummet and equipment and fuel costs continue to rise.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is encouraging its New
York state members, their families, and out-of-state truckers who do business in
the state to comment on the truck route restriction plan. Members are also
encouraged to contact their lawmakers to let them know how this restriction
could affect their trucking operations.

Comments can be submitted via href="mailto:truckregcomment@dot.state.ny.us">e-mail or mailed to:
Yomika
Bennett
Director of State and Local Relations
New York State Department of
Transportation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12232

Mike Joyce, director of legislative affairs in OOIDA’s Washington, DC,
office, said truckers who oppose this ban need to make their voices heard.

Joyce said the NYSDOT should consider alternative options rather than banning
trucks from certain key routes in upstate New York.

The proposed regulation was aimed mainly at restricting the large number of
garbage trucks who use these secondary roads instead of the New York Thruway,
but this restriction would apply to all heavy trucks that use these routes.

“We are certain there are other options out there that would better serve our
members than forcing drivers to use the New York Thruway,” Joyce said. “This
couldn’t come at a worse time for small-business owners who are trying to make a
go of it during these tough times.”

Joyce said the Association favors a solution that offers some types of
incentives for garbage haulers to run the Thruway instead of these secondary
routes, such as a reduction in toll costs or a reduction in the ton-mile taxes
truckers must pay.

Several weeks ago, OOIDA Senior Member Terry Button of Rushville, NY, had a
representative from the NYSDOT attend a meeting at his farm, which has been in
his family for more than 135 years.

He said the meeting was a “valuable one” and helped dispel some of the
misconceptions about the trucking industry and the financial implications this
would have on small businesses like his, which depends on secondary roads for
his hay-hauling operation.

“I truly believe we have to use a commonsense approach when looking to
implement something like this,” Button told Land Line recently.
“Truckers need to start a dialogue with their lawmakers to explain what effects
this could have on their businesses. I have paid for the roads that I use and
need to maintain the vitality of my business – a business that continues to be
regulated and overtaxed year in and year out.”

Here are the seven routes that will be affected by the ban:

• Route 41 in Cortland and Onondaga counties;


• Route 41A in Cortland, Cayuga and Onondaga counties;


• Route 90 in Cortland and Cayuga counties;


• Route 38 in Cayuga County;


• Route 79 in Broome, Tioga, and Tompkins counties;


• Route 89 in Tompkins and Seneca counties; and


• Route 96 in Tompkins and Seneca counties.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration is reporting that the price for
diesel fuel is projected to rise 46 cents from the previous year’s average of
$2.48 to around $2.94 per gallon for 2010.

This average for 2010 is up 16 cents from last month’s projected price of
$2.78, according to the EIA’s latest Short-Term Energy Outlook.

Diesel will average around $2.79 in the fourth quarter of this year, which is
up 19 cents from its projected average price a month ago.

The EIA has also raised its projected price for crude oil by $7 per barrel to
an average of $77 for this month. Crude oil is expected to reach $81 per barrel
by December 2010, according to the EIA’s report.

Higher heating oil costs are expected for the winter months from October to
March based on increased crude oil prices. They are expected to rise
approximately $76 from the previous year’s average of $1,864 to $1,940 in 2010.

Michigan roadways soon should be a bit safer for travelers, thanks to the
state recalling 55 troopers who had been laid off this summer to save money.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has signed into law the state police budget that
includes funding for bringing back the troopers. Previously, to help balance the
state budget, 100 troopers were laid off by the governor.

Col. Peter Munoz, state police director, said in a released statement that
just over half of the troopers let go in late June would be back on the job by
Nov. 16.

Granholm’s decision to cut the trooper positions over the summer was
unpopular. Critics pointed to her support for the purchase of a
multimillion-dollar state police headquarters in Lansing. They say she was
leveraging their support for the trooper hires to get their approval for the
headquarters.

Rep. Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, was upset about the situation, which he
described as “using these troopers to try to sell a new state police
headquarters or yet another tax increase.”

“It’s nice to hear these troopers will be back on the roads to keep the
public safe,” Bolger said in a statement.

The rehirings will bring to 1,000 the number of troopers assigned to state
police posts.

To view other legislative activities of interest for Michigan in 2009, click
target=_blank>here.

OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer and OOIDA Life Member Miles
Verhoef were panelists in a trucking forum held at Willie’s Place Theater at
Carl’s Corner, TX.

Topics from the forum aired on “Dan Rather Reports” at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m.
Eastern on HDNET.

“The format was wide open, and there were a number of issues discussed that
are important to truckers,” Spencer said.

Research scientist and author Michael Belzer; Werner Enterprises Chief
Operating Officer Derek Leathers; and long-time trucker and driver trainer Tim
Dean joined Rather, Spencer and Verhoef on the panel.

“It was a great opportunity to discuss some of the economic issues in
trucking,” Spencer said.

“Dan Rather Reports” conducted the forum as a follow-up to Episode 433, which
aired three weeks ago, titled “Queen of the Road.” During that episode, trucker
and OOIDA Member Desiree Wood along with other interviewees discussed driver
training and the challenges and hardships of life on the road.

The 30-minute segment shed light on the number of drivers being herded
through schools and into the cabs of commercial vehicles without adequate
experience.

The episode from the forum was Episode 436, titled “Truck talk.”

Archived episodes are available for purchase on iTunes.  

Toll rates on one of North America’s busiest border bridges are scheduled to
nearly double for trucks in January 2010. The Michigan Department of
Transportation has scheduled three public hearings to accept comments on toll
rates on the Blue Water Bridge which connects Port Huron, MI, to Sarnia,
Ontario.

Current tolls for trucks crossing into the U.S. are $1.75 USD per axle. The
proposed increase will drive truck tolls to $3.25 per axle starting Jan. 5,
2010. For passenger vehicles, a $1.50 toll would double to $3. The bridge offers
a commuter discount for frequent users.

Officials are hoping the increases will raise an additional $8 to $10 million
per year to improve the bridge, the plaza and the approaches.

According to bridge officials, 6,000 trucks may cross the bridge on a busy
day. An average day sees between 14,000 and 20,000 vehicles.

The hearings are scheduled for

• 1 to 3 p.m., Dec. 1, at the MDOT Lansing Transportation Service Center, 3101
  Technology Blvd., Lansing, MI;


• 10 a.m. to noon, Dec. 2, at the Travel Information Centre, 1455 Venetian
  Blvd., Point Edward, Ont.; and


• 3 to 5 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m., Dec. 2, at the Port Huron Municipal Building,
  100 McMorran Blvd., Port Huron, MI.

Written statements, faxes, and e-mails may be submitted before Dec. 16
to:

Robert H. Parsons,
Public Involvement And Hearings Officer
Bureau of
Transportation Planning, MDOT
P.O. Box 30050
Lansing, MI 48909
E-mail:
parsonsb@michigan.gov
Fax:
517-373-9255.

Visit href="http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9620-225792--,00.html"
target=_blank>michigan.gov/bluewaterbridge for more information

Election Day this past week wasn’t filled with the national issues that drew
as much attention as it did a year ago, but a number of communities throughout
the country did make decisions on whether to fund transportation-related
initiatives.  

Included here are the results of some local ballot efforts.

A proposition on the ballot in the city of Bremerton, WA,
failed to win approval from voters. Nearly 70 percent of people who cast ballots
said “no” to a proposal to increase the price of vehicle tags by $30 for the
next three years.

The fee would have raised about $900,000 annually for repaving roads and
sidewalks. Supporters said the amount could have been enough to give the city
what it needs for matching funds for federal grants.

Another local ballot initiative in Washington state to aid transportation
work had a different outcome. By a 4-to-1 margin, voters in Asotin
County decided to continue the current sales tax to help fund the
Asotin County Public Transportation Benefit Area. The tax, which amounts to 20
cents to every $100, was set to expire soon and needed voter approval to renew
it for another five years.

The use of the revenue is limited to funding the operation, maintenance and
capital needs of the public transportation system. Supporters said the money is
used as a match for federal funds.

Voters in Ohio’s Jerusalem Township
approved a tax levy for general construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, and
repair of streets and bridges. By a vote of 58 percent to 42 percent, voters
opted to renew the tax at a rate up to two mills of each $1 of valuation for
five years. Every $1 of valuation amounts to 20 cents for each $100 of
valuation.

Two other communities in the Buckeye State cast ballots on whether to get rid
of speed enforcement cameras. A city charter amendment narrowly won approval in
the city of Heath. With 51 percent of the vote, the central
Ohio town decided to bar further use of 10 cameras installed earlier this year
to ticket speeders and red-light runners.

In southern Ohio, 72 percent of voters in the city of
Chillicothe approved a similar issue against the cameras.

Voters in College Station, TX, also decided to have red
light cameras taken down in their community. By a margin of 52 percent to 48
percent, voters chose to abolish use of the nine cameras posted at seven
intersections in town since 2008.

The cameras have generated a reported $1.3 million that is used to pay for
operating expenses. The rest of the money is split with the state.

Jobs by SimplyHired

On Tuesday, Nov. 3, by an 81-19 percent margin, voters in the Lone Star State decided to prohibit state government from taking private property and handing it over to a private developer to increase the local tax base.

Proposition 11 on the ballot will be added to the Texas Constitution and will limit government authority to take private property through eminent domain. It prohibits the transfer of such property to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development, such as a toll road.

However, governments still could seize property for public roads.

A 2005 Texas law prohibits taking of private property for purposes of economic development or the benefit of a private party. But supporters of the proposition said adding it to the state Constitution strengthens the ban. One change will be requiring public “ownership, use and enjoyment” of property.

In addition, supporters said the proposition limits expansion of eminent domain. A two-thirds vote of the Texas Legislature would be required to authorize eminent domain to an entity.

Opponents said this change is unnecessary because Texas law already prohibits taking private property by eminent domain for economic development.

Others said the question left loopholes for seizing property for economic development. With the amendment’s approval, they believe it will be much more difficult for needed reforms to happen.

The privately owned Sitton Motor Lines has about 250 employees, including leased owner-operators.

Company president Richard Sitton isn’t commenting on why the over-the-road operation is closing, but he does say, “It’s going to be an orderly liquidation.”