CSA 2010 Listening Sessions Final Report - March 2005 - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

APPENDIX A CONDENSED LISTENING SESSION DATA BY TOPIC
This appendix organizes the Listening Session comments into topical groups and includes all substantive points made by participants. The goal was to preserve comments in their original form. However, edits were made to eliminate redundancy and merge common points. The comments are organized into the following topics:

APPENDIX A1: SAFETY COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT
APPENDIX A2: SAFETY POLICIES AND BUSINESS PROCESSES
APPENDIX A3: SAFETY INFORMATION
APPENDIX A4: SAFETY OPPORTUNITIES AND STRATEGIES

APPENDIX B. RAW DATA BY LISTENING SESSION LOCATION
This appendix provides the raw data from the Listening Sessions.

APPENDIX B1: SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA (SEPTEMBER 21) PLENARY
APPENDIX B2: SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA (SEPTEMBER 21) BREAKOUTS
APPENDIX B3: ATLANTA, GEORGIA (SEPTEMBER 28) PLENARY
APPENDIX B4: ATLANTA, GEORGIA (SEPTEMBER 28) BREAKOUTS
APPENDIX B5: MESQUITE, TEXAS (OCTOBER 5) PLENARY
APPENDIX B6: MESQUITE, TEXAS (OCTOBER 5) BREAKOUTS
APPENDIX B7: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (OCTOBER 12) PLENARY
APPENDIX B8: CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (OCTOBER 12) BREAKOUTS
APPENDIX B9: FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA (OCTOBER 19) PLENARY
APPENDIX B10: FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA (OCTOBER 19) BREAKOUTS
APPENDIX B11: SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS (OCTOBER 26) PLENARY
APPENDIX B12: SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS (OCTOBER 26) BREAKOUTS

APPENDIX C. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
This appendix provides a list of the participants who attended the Listening Sessions by last name.

APPENDIX D. INTERVIEW DATA
This appendix is a compilation of responses to specific interview questions presented in the pre-session interviews that were performed in preparation for the Listening Sessions.

APPENDIX E. LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS INTERVIEWED
This appendix provides a list of the organizations, in alphabetical order, that Touchstone Consulting interviewed in preparation for the Listening Sessions.

APPENDIX F. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
This appendix is a compendium of comments that were provided by stakeholders who could not attend a Listening Session.

APPENDIX G. PRESENTATION
This appendix provides a copy of the PowerPoint presentation shared at the Springfield, Massachusetts Listening Session.

APPENDIX H. FMCSA FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
This appendix provides a copy of the Federal Register Notice announcing the event.

APPENDIX I. LIST OF ACRONYMS
This appendix provides definitions for a list of acronyms encountered in this report.

APPENDIX J. LISTENING SESSION METHODOLOGY
This appendix discusses the processes that were employed to create an environment that would invite stakeholders to share open and honest thoughts about motor carrier safety programs.

Executive Overview

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation has set a goal of reducing the large-truck related crash fatality rate by 41 percent by the end of 2008. This goal represents a rate of no more than 1.65 fatalities per 100 million truck miles traveled. FMCSA views this goal as a step towards a future with an even higher level of safety.

To continue the safety record to date and accelerate progress for reaching the 2008 goal, FMCSA has embarked on an initiative entitled "Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010." This effort aims to evaluate the effectiveness of FMCSA's current safety compliance and enforcement programs, and identify better methods of achieving a crash-free environment. The intent of CSA 2010 is to establish an operational model that could be used by FMCSA to confirm a carrier has a safe operation. Conversely, the model would identify unsafe motor carrier operations for focused compliance and enforcement activities.

FMCSA understands active and timely participation by its stakeholder community is a key component to the success of the CSA 2010 initiative. Therefore, FMCSA requested the assistance of contract support to help design and conduct a forum to gather stakeholder input.

Six Listening Sessions were conducted across the country, allowing participants to attend conveniently within their geographical area. The Listening Sessions were attended by a diverse collection of industry stakeholders, ranging from company representatives to drivers, national enforcement agencies to local enforcement agencies, and associations to various third parties. Attendance was heaviest by trucking companies, third party service provider groups (including insurance companies), trucking-related associations, and law enforcement entities. However, there was limited attendance by unions, drivers, and safety advocacy organizations.

The stakeholder community expressed many different opinions regarding the direct and indirect impact of the various entities, activities, and environmental factors that contribute to safety, emphasizing the complexity of the safety issue facing FMCSA. The sessions highlighted the fact that safety indicators, and hence data, are difficult to identify and measure. Participants also commented on the effectiveness of current processes and generated creative ideas on future policies and processes for FMCSA to consider in improving safety. Using incentives rather than penalties to encourage safe behavior, for example, was promoted in almost every session. Consistency and adaptability were named as critical attributes of any safety model. There was a demand for comprehensive, consistent, relevant, and accurate data easily accessible to all. In addition, participants expressed a willingness to self-disclose and do what it takes to get and keep such data current.

Finally, attendees expressed appreciation for the opportunity to engage in the discussions. The community was vocal about the need for more frequent and sustained communications with FMCSA, and requested to be updated on the progress of CSA 2010 and on the influence their comments have on the initiative.

Report Organization

This report highlights the statements expressed by attendees in the Listening Sessions and classifies them into the following themes: 1) Safety Community and Environment, 2) Safety Policies and Business Processes, and 3) Safety Information.

Several appendices provide supporting detail for this report, including a summary of the comments from the Listening Sessions (Appendix A); a topical grouping of the raw data for the Listening Sessions summarized by location (Appendix B); a list of Listening Session attendees (Appendix C); results of pre-session individual interviews summarized by question (Appendix D); a list of organizations interviewed (Appendix E); additional written and verbal comments from those who could not participate or chose to answer the Federal Register questions in writing (Appendix F); the presentation used to run FMCSA Listening Sessions (Appendix G); a listing of the Federal Register Questions (Appendix H); a listing of the acronyms encountered in this document (Appendix I); and a discussion about the processes used to create the Listening Sessions (Appendix J).

Themes

1. Safety Community and Environment

As the participants discussed the safety agenda, they clarified the community holding roles in motor carrier safety is not limited to motor carriers but includes other entities. However, they shared varying perspectives on the influence each of these different entities has on safety.

The driver was named by many participants as "the front line" and, therefore, the entity with ultimate decision power about truck and bus safety, and the entity who should be held more accountable for safety. However, other attendees suggested safety is a result of efforts by all entities, not just the drivers. In spite of this difference of opinion in the Sessions, participants were united in recognizing a strong and competent pool of qualified drivers is critical to increased safety. Across all the Listening Sessions, people recommended better and more consistent methods for screening, hiring, and certification as ways to build a resource pool of qualified drivers.

The carrier, on the other hand, was named by participants as the most visible entity involved in the safety agenda. Participants also commented motor carriers are not adequately regulated for the purposes of improving safety. There was frequent mention of regulatory discrepancies. Examples offered were the difference in treatment between intrastate carriers and interstate carriers, passenger carriers and freight carriers, hazmat carriers and non-hazmat carriers, and large carriers and small carriers. The stakeholders emphasized the need for uniform and consistent regulations for all motor carriers. This was particularly noted because, as participants pointed out, the public does not understand the different operational characteristics of the industry and simply insists the big vehicles on the road need to operate safely.

Attendees also offered comments about industry growth, in general, as an influential factor to safety. In an environment of growth, participants recognized raising the safety bar for new carriers would help foster a safer environment. Suggestions on how to do this included imposing more stringent entrance requirements, expecting more education, and screening new entrants more strictly. One problem regarding new carriers, which elicited many complaints, is companies attempting to re-open under a new USDOT number to avoid scrutiny of their prior business operations.

Comments on scrutinizing entrance requirements and processes led to further discussion of the economic and business forces behind unsafe driving practices. A viewpoint commonly shared was the economics of hauling goods creates pressure for carriers to dispatch trucks under demanding operational conditions and for drivers to drive under unsafe conditions. Participants identified shippers and other customers as critical points of influence behind these pressures and as the ones shifting the terms for increased productivity onto carriers and drivers. However, "rogue" carriers and operators were also named as shirking safety for the sake of profit.

As attendees continued to recognize business entities impacting the surrounding environment, they also turned their eye on third parties. There was much discussion about the influence of third party resources and the need to certify those resources responsible for attesting to the "well-being" of drivers and carriers. Attendees shared stories about the inconsistent performance of medical professionals, examiners, commercial driving schools, certifiers, and insurers. People concurred with the idea of certifying third party service providers and indicated such an effort would improve safety by assuring fair and consistent motor carrier and driver appraisals and education. Many suggested certifying third parties could, in the long-term, create the opportunity for FMCSA to leverage third parties better and to use them as an extension of FMCSA's workforce, thereby alleviating its own resource burden.

Participants acknowledged FMCSA cannot accomplish all its work alone and expressed a desire to find ways to be a partner with FMCSA in tackling the safety agenda. There were many lines of reasoning articulated about how a partnership approach could create "win-win" situations by increasing the two-way exchange of information, reducing redundancy, and improving efficiency and effectiveness. For example, participants talked about third party organizations having a wealth of up-to-date carrier information at their disposal. Such information could be useful to FMCSA and could alleviate the reporting requirements placed on carriers. In another example, attendees explained insurers, whose bottom line is dependent on the safety of the motor carriers they insure, often perform audits similar to FMCSA, creating opportunities to gain efficiencies. Others commented on commercial training schools developing user-friendly educational materials better than FMCSA's materials in helping carriers understand what they need to do to comply with safety regulations.

However, the discussion on partnership was not limited to third parties. Members of the motor carrier community also expressed a wish to partner with FMCSA; however, they further expressed concern about the oversight relationship in a partnership. The Listening Session attendees made it clear they currently see FMCSA as first and foremost an enforcement agency, not as a partner. As they shared stories about the antics of "rogue" drivers and carriers who take alternate routes to avoid inspection stations and maintain multiple log books, they recognized the value of FMCSA's role as an enforcer. However, simultaneously, attendees still wanted to see FMCSA as a partner working with others to build a shared safety culture. To do that, participants said good communications from and with FMCSA would boost credibility, trust, and ultimately, safety. They defined good communications not just by frequency and accessibility, but also by message clarity. Participants expressed a desire for messages to contain language and statistics that build the layman's understanding of the complex commercial motor vehicle safety data and issues. They expressed great interest in the sections of the Listening Sessions devoted to sharing information and used them as examples of the time investment required of FMCSA to build good communications.

In addition to partnership specifically with FMCSA, participants further emphasized partnership across various government entities would particularly help promote overall consistency. People expressed concern about the lack of uniformity from state-to-state and locale-to-locale in how law enforcement officers record accident and violation information. They also shared frustration regarding the lack of consistency among states and locales in their understanding of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. People explained how licensing requirements vary from state-to-state, while others described instances where states have cooperated and blended practices. They also suggested FMCSA review existing state and federal programs to gather ideas on best practices.

Listening Session attendees extended their conversation on the safety community beyond the business entities to further name the motoring public who, with increased awareness and education about motor carrier safety, could better share the road with commercial motor vehicles. Several ideas were proposed regarding the driver education programs offered to our nation's young people. A handful of comments strongly urged teaching about commercial motor vehicles. It was pointed out that, in some states, the driver education curriculum pays more attention to the operation of agricultural equipment than to driving safely on roads shared by trucks and buses.

On the whole, the attendees recognized safety is predominantly impacted by the multiple entities involved and the partnership and/or enforcement role played by FMCSA. Nevertheless, some comments were made regarding the impact of road infrastructure and commercial vehicle equipment on safety. Participants acknowledged roads are at capacity and congestion creates a more hazardous environment for motor carriers. Many people suggested the industry should better understand the causality of road conditions on safety, especially in high accident corridors. Some described advances in safety technology that could be useful in preventing crashes, such as drowsy driver detectors, and asserted it would be useful for truck manufacturers to have an incentive, such as a rating similar to a five-star passenger car safety rating, to include these features in standard truck equipment.

Overall, stakeholders recognized and acknowledged, as FMCSA moves forward with the CSA 2010 initiative, multiple entities will be important in making it a success, and FMCSA's role and effectiveness will be boosted by understanding and managing itself in that context.

2. Safety Policies and Business Processes

Listening Session participants were also interested in commenting on the policies and processes that shape the safety culture and environment. They shared the view compliance does not necessarily equal safety and stressed their belief safety management requires a broader approach than simply complying with regulations. They expressed appreciation that compliance and regulations help to breed safety, but emphasized FMCSA and the industry need to look beyond these approaches to root causes and safety practices if it hopes to achieve greater safety results.

For example, attendees generally agreed a Compliance Review (CR) is a good way to ensure compliance with rules and an effective approach to teaching the importance of safety programs. However, they acknowledged a CR can only address a limited number of issues, and, therefore, the results of a CR are not the best measure of safety programs or behaviors. The groups offered and debated a wide range of ideas on what tools would be most effective in improving safety behavior. The suggestions included examining the scope of current regulations, establishing incentives to make enforcement function more effectively, and increasing the levels of stakeholder education.

The groups debated about the necessary level of regulation within the industry to produce a full safety picture. Several participants suggested it was necessary for FMCSA to have regulatory oversight of a more comprehensive set of carriers including unregulated, intrastate, and international. Others suggested entities such as shippers, with influence on motor carriers, need to be part of the regulated community. There was also much discussion about the balance or competition between the issues of value and privacy in implementing standard, federalized driver's licenses. However, other participants maintained the industry needs to self-regulate because too much oversight already exists and further regulation would create additional time and resource burdens to appease the legal process.

Many suggested a "carrot" approach to safety, which encourages better behavior through incentives and rewards, enlightened enforcement, and tiered ratings, would create a safety culture more effectively than a "stick" approach. However, there was general consensus that "bad behavior" or non-compliance must also be met with strictly enforced penalties. Participants expressed the need for penalties to be designed as progressive and impressionable, and to be enforced fairly and swiftly with follow-up and subsequent consequences.

Embedded in many attendee comments about the effectiveness of regulations was a significant trust in the value of education in improving safety behavior. Suggestions for more education were pervasive in conversations surrounding all entities, including new entrants, high school students, the States, law enforcement, industry, and the motoring public at large.

One particular arena of regulation discussed at length was the use of roadside inspections. Generally, participants talked about how the consistency of roadside inspections must be improved. They questioned the effectiveness of roadside inspections due to differences in state requirements and inspector experience. In addition, there exists a perception there is no reward and often no documentation for "good" inspection results, further exacerbating the avoidance of inspection stations.

The bulk of the regulatory comments, however, were devoted to Compliance Reviews (CR) for auditing and reviewing safety performance. There appeared to be agreement on the importance of safety reviews. However, there was much dissonance about the effectiveness of the current review process. Some commented FMCSA needs to clearly explain what it is looking for during a CR. Others commented the CR is too predictable. A clear majority of participants felt the CR should be more educational in providing carriers with tips such as how to be safer and still be economically viable. At the same time, there was a minority who talked about how the CR is a valuable check of what to do to comply and does not need to include guidance on how to achieve safety.

Nevertheless, participants were in agreement the CR is too often reactive and punitive. They expressed a desire to see FMCSA support a motor carrier in fixing inadequacies before the CR is administered and penalties are imposed. Attendees also expressed concern about the intensive amount of time and resources required to complete the CR process, and whether the process is focused on the appropriate information. Many suggested too much focus is placed on documentation and too little on causality. They suggested there should be more analysis of such matters as the connections between accident data to hours-of-service violations or citations, and the like.

Participants also stated concerns regarding the inflexibility of the current CR instrument and process when applied uniformly to different sized motor carriers and for different purposes. Many recommended FMCSA offer different types of Compliance Reviews, such as a streamlined CR performed specifically in response to complaints. In addition, there appeared to be a perception in the industry that certain carriers are treated unfairly. For example, "rogue" carriers fall "under the radar," and are not reviewed and rated, while on the other hand, there are carriers targeted for review even after receiving frequent audits resulting in satisfactory ratings. Participants commented the timing of CRs appeared inconsistent and suggested both specific schedules and specific triggers be implemented for conducting CRs.

The Listening Sessions surfaced much interest and thought regarding overall safety processes and policies, with particular emphasis on the CR as the backbone of the regulatory process and, therefore, the focus of most of the suggestions for improvement.

3. Safety Information

Listening Session attendees were well grounded in the understanding that data and information are key to building the proper policies, procedures, and, therefore, to influencing improved safety. Their comments about data, measures, and analysis were wide ranging.

Participants communicated the desire to be measured on how they are performing, rather than how they are "running the store." They preferred the use of "outcome-based" measures over "input-based" or prescribed measures. They generally agreed upon crash rates as a concrete measure of safety, but disagreed on the validity of the measure.

Furthermore, attendees voiced a variety of opinions on how a motor carrier's crash experience should be collected and reported. Arguments were made for basing crash rates on mileage versus the number of vehicles, while others recommended using the number of actual crashes. There was support for both including or excluding preventable crashes. Some suggested including only recordable incidents. Some participants wanted a crash rate based on a scale using driving environment or operational circumstances. Others argued against taking any circumstances into the equation due to the subjectivity of the review of the data.

The subject of measuring safety was further complicated by the wide variety of participant opinion on which factors reduce crashes. Participants identified a range of such factors: driver history, carrier history, shipper history, operational characteristics, equipment, the environment, and industry pressures. The discussions included comments about information needed in order to fully understand the context, levers, and forces that affect safety but is not currently collected or analyzed. Attendees recommended collecting more data about motor carriers' management profiles and using the size of a carrier as a measure during data analysis. They also offered suggestions for analyzing data to gather trends and determine causality. Nevertheless, near unanimous consensus was expressed for standardizing and consolidating data, and for ensuring the timeliness and accuracy of data.

Participants exhibited particular interest in the information used in SafeStat and mentioned, again and again, the system has room to improve. They expressed concern about the completeness, accuracy, and legitimacy of the data going into the system. Many participants specified they find the SafeStat algorithm ambiguous and some questioned whether the algorithm is truly pointing investigators to the right motor carriers. Despite these points, they recognized the complexity of motor carrier safety data issues and acknowledged the depth of analysis required to develop a sound operational model to identify both safe and unsafe operations.

Of particular note, many attendees believe FMCSA should expect companies and drivers to file data and trust them to do it correctly, so long as easily accessible processes are in place to file information. Several participants likened this idea to filing taxes with and being audited by the Internal Revenue Service.

Participants repeated, across the Sessions, the opinion that centralized information repositories would provide administrative relief. They expressed a strong interest in seeing information about the community centralized at a national level to alleviate both their need and the government's need for information. The types of information participants suggested could be housed in these centralized systems included information such as crash reports, driver records, and safety assessment results. However, the enthusiasm for centralizing data was also tempered by a concern about proper protections for privacy.

Participants also widely agreed a ratings calculation is a good idea, and the current ratings are too simplistic and often dated. Stakeholders suggested FMCSA should use a broader range of ratings to create more accurate measures of a carrier's safety status. It was also agreed, by many, ratings left to languish lose meaning and, therefore, should be adjusted as performance changes.

Given the weight ratings can carry with potential customers, participants expressed concern about the impact of making a carrier's safety rating or safety-related information available to the public. They strongly believe ratings are a useful business tool, but only if generated from timely and accurate data and only if the public is provided more perspective surrounding the information. Therefore, beyond agreeing on the fundamental uses of ratings, participants voiced multiple positions regarding what data should be used to calculate a rating, how the data could be collected, how the ratings should be calculated, when the ratings should be issued, and how broad and defined the scale should be.

Setting up proper measurements, gathering data, consolidating data, analyzing the data, and extracting the fair ratings calculations are multiple and complex steps in a safety process. Participants in the Listening Sessions were supportive of further work to improve processes to achieve fairness, consistency, and, ultimately, a safer driving environment.

Closing

The Listening Sessions proved a useful forum for two-way communications between FMCSA and the members of the public who attended. FMCSA was able to share a description of its current situation, its goals for the future and the challenges in reaching them. In response, participants volunteered thoughtful ideas. The net result was a collection of many creative suggestions framed with a better context of understanding FMCSA's environment.

The value of the diversity of attendees was underscored by the multiple examples of best practices they referenced. These included looking to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for its process of medical certifications, Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) for its Compliance Review selection process, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for its self-disclosure/certification requirements, and Department of Defense (DOD) for its pre-screening of contractors. Many other creative thoughts, both small and large, were expressed for helping reach the 2008 safety goal. For example, participants suggested better use of technology, increased fines, and adjustments to programs and policies. The complete listing of ideas is available in the Appendix.

Overall, the participants asked for signs from FMCSA of action and change, and many were quick to say the Listening Sessions themselves were significant signals that FMCSA was reaching out and doing so in a successful venue and format. FMCSA, for its part, appreciated the commitment to safety demonstrated by the number of people who traveled, in some cases significant distances, in order to attend the Sessions and contribute their thoughts. The comments and ideas gathered in the Listening Sessions will provide FMCSA with extensive material as it moves forward with the challenges of CSA 2010.

For additional background information, read the Overview of the CSA 2010 Initiative.