CSA is a ‘whim,’ ‘abandonment of duty’ by regulator, transport law expert says

By Kevin Jones on

CSA'S DATA TRAIL

The article below is part of an ongoing, in-depth series on the U.S. Department of Transportation's Compliance, Safety, Accountability program that analyzes federal inspection, investigation and crash data and offers original reporting. Overdrive and CCJ editors have built a site dedicated to hosting the stories, interactive maps and downloadable data at CCJdigital.com/csa.

(EDITOR’s NOTE: This is Part 1 of a series on CSA, based on several presentations, discussion and follow-up from the recent American Trucking Associations Management Conference and Exhibition. In Part 2, FMCSA explains changes to the carrier safety information website. In Part 3, representatives of ATA and FMCSA  debate the program’s effectiveness. In Part 4, a data analyst and an FMCSA official debate the state-by-state differences in enforcement.)

Almost three years since its launch, Compliance, Safety, Accountability remains a source of confusion and contention for the American trucking industry. Indeed, the federal government’s latest regulatory scheme was a popular topic of discussion at the latest gathering of carrier executives, the American Trucking Associations Management Conference and Exhibition.Alert

At an annual presentation during the conference, the American Transportation Research Institute revealed its list of the most critical issues in trucking and CSA is back to #2, just behind hours-of-service.

That level of interest was obvious in a subsequent presentation on the top legal issues facing the industry.

As outlined by Rob Moseley  – a Greenville, S.C.-based attorney and head of the Transportation Industry Group at Smith Moore Leatherwood  – the CSA discussion took up a substantial share of the standing-room-only session.

And Moseley likely didn’t disappoint those in the audience looking for a highly critical take on CSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s recent oversight efforts.

“FMCSA is proposing to do some things by regulation, but lately they’ve done a lot of things without regulation – what I would call backdoor regulation – either by guidance or just by throwing it on their website,” Moseley said, rolling out his talking points.

As a recent example, he cited the agency’s move toward guidance on sleep apnea, which would have cost the trucking industry billions of dollars. A push by the trucking “fortunately” persuaded Congress to intervene and require that FMCSA implement a formal rulemaking, including thorough study, analysis and industry input, he added.

More significantly, the ever-changing CSA program likewise is managed more by agency fiat than by function – or fairness.

“This is an abandonment of FMCSA’s duty to regulate safety,” Moseley said. “CSA is just the whim of FMCSA. They can change it tomorrow. They don ‘t have to ask us to change it. They don’t have to ask for a rulemaking. They just do what they want to do.”

Emphasizing that the presentation was not a class on CSA, Moseley did want to introduce some “context”: CSA is not a safety rating, although “your customers will say that it is.”

He detailed a number of areas in which, he said, CSA doesn’t work.

Enforcement inconsistencies between the states. He noted the disproportionate number of speeding tickets written in Indiana and a “careless driving” citation used in South Carolina as a very minor infraction but is coded under CSA as “reckless driving,” a serious violation.

Reporting inconsistencies. While the situation has improved, Moseley said “some states are still not doing a very good job of getting the data into the system.”

DataQ issues. “They aren’t real fond of DataQ changes on the enforcement side,” Moseley said, explaining the challenge process typically involves enforcement personnel reviewing and approving their own work.

Due process problems. Even if a carrier has successfully challenged a citation in court, it still can be difficult to remove from the carrier’s public CSA record.

Mystery math and relative rankings. CSA is based on a complex algorithm and peer ranking, which seeks to remove the poorest performing carriers, based on the math – but the result is that once the lowest scoring carriers are shut down or have improved their scores, a new set of carriers find themselves at the bottom, Moseley explained.

“Safety has increased, because people at the bottom have gotten better,” he said. “But now the people in the middle have dropped. We need something more absolute than just this.”

Likewise, the peer groupings can make it difficult on a carrier whose operational profile doesn’t match-up well with others in the group.

Compliance, not safety. “What they’re measuring is compliance versus safety,” he said. “We’re not looking at a safety culture as much as a compliance culture.”

Violations of form-and-manner on driver logs and flickering trailer lights, for example, are things carriers must work to reduce under CSA, “but they really don’t change accident frequency,” Moseley said.

Is the bar too high? About half of the carriers who have enough inspection data to have scores in CSA also have “alerts” – they are over the threshold in one of the targeted compliance areas.  “So 50 percent of the carriers in this country are unsafe – that’s essentially what this standard is saying,” Moseley said.

He also cited problems with crash accountability and the weights given to the various violations as having a significant impact on a carrier’s CSA public profile.

Use of ‘alerts.’ Moseley took particular exception with the agency’s disclaimer language regarding the “yellow-triangle” symbol: While the agency, on the one hand, spells out that CSA scores don’t imply a safety rating, on the other they encourage public use of the scores as de facto safety assessment.

Indeed, there’s an app for that, thanks to FMCSA. The agency has created a public tool for accessing the CSA scores of passenger carriers, designed to “provide the general public an efficient way to view and access the safety performance of commercial motor carriers.”

Moseley suggested a trucking version wouldn’t be very far behind. (The SaferBus app does not access motor carrier CSA data.)

CSA is a new ratings system, with none the regulatory rulemaking protections. Moseley also cited an FMCSA release aimed at shippers, brokers and insurers, which encouraged them to look beyond the safety rating in determining which carriers to do business with. Indeed, the release specifically advises that a Satisfactory rating does not mean “that the public should ignore other reasonably available information about the motor carrier’s operations.”

That release is no longer online, but it is cited in detail in the pending ASECTT suit to remove CSA scores from public view.

“What they’re saying is, ‘the thing that we, by regulation, are required to look at, ignore – but you pay attention to this thing we just made up,” Moseley said.

And many customers have followed along.

“Companies that have been Satisfactory for 30 years are finding themselves in this downward spiral,” Moseley said, referring to calls he receives. “When your scores go negative, you get more inspections and you get more negative scores. And it just keeps going.”

He also noted that a serious violation will mean an alert symbol stays on for a full year, regardless of how good a carrier’s score is otherwise in that category.

CSA is harmful to business. “It’s meant the end of some small trucking companies,” Mosley added. “A couple of alerts, and pretty soon you’re out of business.

“I would love to say no one is paying attention to the CSA scores, but that’s just not the case. FMCSA has punted enforcement over to the customer and said, ‘you figure out who’s good.’”

So some shippers are writing contracts that limit carriers to one or scores above the threshold. Moseley encouraged carriers not to enter into those agreements, and instead to explain to customers the objections he was presenting.

CSA opens the door to lawsuits. Moseley also noted the American Association for Justice, an organization of plaintiff’s attorneys, has published a document called “Truck Safety Alert: The Rising Danger from Trucks, and How to Stop It,” which is “the roadmap for how to sue a trucking company.”

“They’re watching CSA as much as anybody,” he said, before explaining the comprehensive strategy plaintiffs’ lawyers use in pursuing a claim and recent cases of note. “They want to bring up all the garbage they can throw it against the wall.”

The audit fundamentals are flawed. Moseley also took issue with FMCSA’s “safety management cycle,” billed by the agency as “the signature tool” in its investigative process.

He characterized the program as the regulator’s misguided and uninformed attempt to decide “how to run a safe trucking company.”

The SMC is not a reg, nor is it even guidance, Moseley added: “It’s just posted on the website.”

He emphasized that all carriers should become familiar with the process, because it forms the basis for how an investigator will evaluate a carrier targeted for review.

Moseley points out that following some of the recommended procedures would put carriers in violation or other federal guidelines, such as non-discrimination or independent contractor rules.

“There’s some wrong stuff on there,” he said. “It’s just wrong, but it’s what FMCSA has blessed for trucking companies.”

And while “there are some good things,” trucking companies need to be prepared to defend themselves from misguided audits.

“Be ready to explain why you’re not adopting the bad ideas,” he concluded.

(Up next, agency officials defend Compliance, Safety, Accountability from additional criticisms of data disparity.)

Kevin Jones

Kevin Jones is Senior Editor, Trucking Media, and writes from his home in Little Rock, Ark. His Fleet Street blog features whatever strikes his fancy and has at least a little connection to trucks, or drivers, or highways. Or David Allan Coe. (Google "the perfect country and western song" if you're not nearly as old as Kevin is.) You can also keep up with Kevin by following his Twitter feed (@KevinJonesCCJ) or just drop him a line: kevin.jones@randallreilly.com.

7 comments
Jordon
Jordon

I'm having a hard time understand why improper lane changes and following too closely violations both get you 5 points in the unsafe driving category, but a seat belt violation gets you 7.

jfitz58
jfitz58

As a safety manager for a carrier I do not consider CSA as the definitive safety rating for our company, I take CSA as a tool to measure us with other carriers in our pool. We are lucky in that fact that our customers are not concerned with CSA data. We do entertainment, so different breed. As a safety manager I like to know where I stand every month and if there is an area I need to put attention to it lets me know. I think that is what everyone is missing here, it's a tool to try to make you better at what you do and hopefully have safer drivers representing your company and safer for the motoring public.

As far as its own accountability, why are we all surprised many federal programs today have issues, Social Security, medicare, obamacare and the tax program to name a few. The one part of CSA that truly needs work is the accident data, fault determination is critical if you are going to use it in this program. Not using it at all would be better, most of us in my position understand that constant violations in any category is a direct relation to future crashes. Moreover the fact that if CSA can encourage other carriers to start taking steps to be more compliant and safer, which it has, is a good thing.

safetygirl
safetygirl

I agree with Jim.  We know the current CSA structure is having a negative effect on trucking and scores are not reflecting safety. We have taken the whole serve and protect scenario and turned it into revenue and punishment.  I would be interested to see some research on what the CSA implementation has done to moral among state transportation officers and local law enforcement.  It seems it would be as discouraging to an intelligent law enforcement officer to be turned in to revenue agent as the CSA has been to drivers.  

peaveypro
peaveypro

Some of the things CSA does is a good starting point, but let it evolve, and learn and then fix it, Safety is every companys job, if you have unsafe drivers they weed themselves out in a few inspections. When I first started driving we had a company safety officer, he did inspections of trucks and trailers everyday, he did random drug tests and verified guys Medical cards....its not hard to create a safe environment in this industry, and we dont need Sleep Apnea, Cameras in our face, Crazy HOS and EOBRS and DOT ONLY Clinics and lots of other unnecessary regulations to be that safe. Poll Trucking companies and Owner Operators about safety, what concerns them and theyll tell you Driving schools that churn out unskilled, barely able to read english steering wheel holders. POINTS awarded for the sake of Points, some things should be allowed as a warning, wear and tear happens, POINTS cost everyone money in Insurance fees, Brokers fees, etc,,,Safety is ingrained in a good driver, It cant be legislated in....

Jim Jordan
Jim Jordan

As long as there is a relationship between violations and jurisdictional revenue, there will be enforcement inconsistencies.  These inconsistencies, treated as data, are multiplied by analysis schemes like CSA.

Jim Jordan
Jim Jordan

 @jfitz58 Your logic is sound, albeit in an academic way.  True, if a carrier is scoring badly in a particular basic, it is an indicator that some corrective action is needed.  But my guess is the carrier or owner operator didn't need CSA to tell him that.  The problem is that compliance has a direct bearing on our ability to earn a living, and unlike Obamacare or Social Security, glitches and inconsistent data in something like CSA can have a disproportionate impact.  Noone is saying that safety regs should go away, just tread carefully when propagating them.

Melissa
Melissa

You statement saying that "some of the things CSA does is a good starting point, but let it evolve, and learn and THEN fix it" reminds me too much of a statement concerning Obamacare "we have to pass it to see whats in it".  I believe all regulations should be studied and fixed PRIOR to implementation.



Must Clicks

Events

From Our Partners