csa

DOT Inspector General audit points out more shortcomings in CSA

By Kevin Jones on

A DOT audit has determined that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration must be more careful about its collection, management and analysis of data, or the federal trucking regulator “will be hindered in its ability to effectively implement CSA nationwide and address the key concerns of industry stakeholders.”Alert

In a report issued Friday, the DOT’s Office of the Inspector General gave the agency some credit for strengthened quality controls for state-reported data, but “more action is needed in key areas.”

Among those key areas, the OIG determined that FMCSA has not fully implemented planned improvements to its processes for reviewing data correction requests and has taken “limited action” to address inaccurate and incomplete data reported by carriers – despite similar recommendations dating back to 2006.

Additionally, so far only 10 states have fully implemented Compliance, Safety, Accountability enforcement interventions, and FMCSA provided auditors no date when it expects to complete implementation in all states. The agency did say it expects a nation-wide release of software critical to state intervention efforts by May 2015.

The reported noted that the OIG “coordinated” with the Government Accountability Office – whose own CSA report was released in February – “to avoid duplicating work.” In the earlier analysis, GAO determined that the FMCSA system to score and compare motor carrier safety records is flawed and particularly unfair to small carriers.

Related

GAO report criticizes CSA scoring, calls for changes

The DOT system used to score and compare motor carrier safety records is flawed and particularly unfair to small carriers, an independent government watchdog agency has concluded. While trucking interests have refrained from shouting “we ...

Throughout last year, CSA’s Data Trail series by CCJ pointed out similar flaws in the data, scoring and relationship to crash risk.

“The Inspector General’s report confirms what industry stakeholders, independent researchers and other government watchdogs have found: There continue to be significant flaws in the data FMCSA is using to evaluate and score carriers under CSA,” American Trucking Associations Executive Vice President Dave Osiecki says. “ATA continues to support the oversight mission and safety goals of CSA, but FMCSA must acknowledge the program’s many problems – and commit to addressing them.”

The CSA program compares carrier safety performance, based on roadside inspection data and driver traffic violations, with the resulting carrier score calculations indicating the need for various levels of agency “intervention,” ranging from letters of notification to on-site audits.

The report also said “FMCSA lacked documentation demonstrating that it followed information technology system best practices and Federal guidance” while developing and testing the Carrier Safety Measurement System, the heart of the data-driven package.

And even though FMCSA documented how carrier percentile rankings are calculated, its documentation of other important processes – such as validation and testing – is incomplete, the IG report says. For example, FMCSA lacks documentation to show that it conducted testing for four of the changes made to the system since its nationwide implementation in 2010.

In its response, FMCSA concurred with all six of report’s recommendations and provided “appropriate planned actions and timeframes.”

ATA expressed disappointment in the IG’s report for taking FMCSA’s self-assessment of its State Safety Data Quality system, which scores states’ ability to upload timely and accurate data, at face value.

Related

FMCSA stands behind CSA scoring in study that counters recent GAO report

Coming on the heels of a government-issued report saying CSA's scoring method is faulty and unfair, FMCSA has released a study concluding the opposite: The system does work to identify carriers who pose the greatest ...

“ATA is disappointed that the IG didn’t take a critical look at the source of literally all CSA data, state enforcement agencies. While the SSDQ indicates states are performing better than they have in the past, the IG failed to examine under what circumstances a state might obtain a ‘good rating,” Osiecki. “This is a critical link in CSA data quality that deserves greater attention.”

The OIG recommendations include the need for FMCSA to issue updated DataQs guidance, to implement the process for deactivating USDOT numbers when carriers do not submit required census data, and to develop a comprehensive plan to fully implement CSA enforcement interventions in the remaining 41 states, along with other document management requirements.

A complete copy of the OIG report is available here.

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.

3 comments
safetygirl
safetygirl

Okay, sombody explain if I'm wrong, but it sounds like..

If the states have not all fully implemented enforcement or are administering the CSA differently it skews the picture created by our scores for the public and law enforcement.  We are compared to kids who live by a different set of rules and we come out looking worse if our state is doing "great" enforcement.   Am I missing something? 

 It seems that scores should be hidden from public view and scores should not be used to target companies for closer inspection if the scores are skewed and company comparisons are inacurate. 

jfitz58
jfitz58

Have you ever had a model to build and from the outside of the box it looks great then to find out when opened that some pieces were missing, that is CSA. Wonderful program, I like it but I want more and better from it. We are a small carrier so we get affected by these small numbers that work for us and against us. I believer the first area is the crash indicator, we are lucky we do not have accidents, but I have talked to other carriers about our size and the crash score is terrible but most of the accidents were not their fault. Law enforcement will not take that step of placing blame, how should it be determined who is at fault? Also carriers who settle for accidents that they don't really need to because they do not want to go to court or have it go through their insurance has to cease. Should the FMCSA use that as an indicator, it will not show true accuracy. Even if the CMV driver gets a citation, also does not truly determine who is a fault. Probably should have an independent review board to make crash fault responsibility.

David McQueen
David McQueen

The CSA debacle is simply another example of why micro-management from a central government doesn't work effectively.  The health insurance/health care fiasco (still continuing) is a prime example, too.  Yet, our "leaders" continue to try to implement management from a hegemonic central government that controls the private sector only for the sake of control, not for practical reasons.  Our fearless (because no one will call him out on it) chief executive will continue to use a sledgehammer to fit a round peg into a square hole because (in his opinion) he's smarter than everyone else (evidence to the contrary notwithstanding). 

Must Clicks