1. You cannot cause or create a violation to fix another. So you can’t remove a front turn signal bulb ( not OOS) to fix a rear turn signal bulb ( OOS).
2. You do not have to be a certified mechanic to fix anything except making brake adjustments. And then, you can get trained by a mechanic to do that part.
3. You do not have to show or prove that you fixed something unless the officer is going to wait and watch. If the officer leaves and you have fixed the violation…just go.
4. If the violation is not an OOS , than it doesn’t have to be fixed immediately. You could get it fixed but you don’t have to.
5. Combination brake OOS. Based on the 20% rule, if you have a truck and a trailer brake out of adjustment / not working etc. You cant fix just ONE brake ( which takes you below the 20% thresh hold) and than drive off with one illegal brake. Any condition/ violation that causes or contributes to an OOS violation much be fixed before you leave.
6. Daytime or lack of rain is not a repair. If you have non-working lights or wipers , the rising of the sun or the skies drying up doesn’t change a thing. OOS means OOS until the violations are fixed.
7. OOS means you are shut down where you are placed OOS. You can ask the officer if he/she can actually put you OOS down the road a couple of miles at a shopping center etc. Think ahead of the repair truck that comes out and how safe is it to try to perform a fix along the road. You aren’t OOS until the officer marks and declares you to be OOS. I have allowed trucks to move to a better location for this exact reason.
8. If possible always take several digital pics of the violation in case you disagree and want to file a DataQ challenge or go to court over a citation.
9. Thanking for the officer for finding something you didn’t ( or did) know about can go a LONG way to getting through an inspection. I didn’t always write a citation for an OOS , especially if it was a really easy fix ( loose pigtail).
Q: What are the two crash preventability notices published in July 2016?
One notice provides the Agency’s responses to comments received in response to our January 23, 2015, notice releasing the results of our crash preventability research. That notice explains that FMCSA conducted additional analysis, in response to comments, on how the Agency uses crash information.
The second Federal Register notice proposes developing and implementing a demonstration program to determine the efficacy of conducting preventability determinations on certain types of crashes that generally are less complex. This notice provides FMCSA’s proposal for a demonstration program and seeks additional comments.
Q: What crash information is currently available on the Safety Measurement System (SMS)?
The public SMS website provides information on the recordable crashes of motor carriers. The Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles have always been available only to motor carriers who log in to view their own data, as well as to Agency and law enforcement users.
Q: Why has FMCSA taken so long to take action on this issue?
Research on this issue conducted by FMCSA, as well as independent organizations, has demonstrated that crash involvement is a strong indicator of future crash risk, regardless of role in the crash. FMCSA’s recently completed SMS Effectiveness Test shows that motor carriers with high percentiles in the Crash Indicator BASIC have crash rates that are 85 percent higher than the national average.
The Agency took time to carefully study the issue carefully and gather public input before determining a path forward. Earlier this year the Agency published its report and asked for comments. The proposals in these notices are based on the comments received in response.
Q: The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act does not require this program. Why is FMCSA doing this now?
The FAST Act only requires the Agency’s Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) to review the treatment of preventability in the SMS once the National Academies of Science complete their study. However, in response to the Federal Register notice published on January 23, 2015, describing the Crash Weighting Study, the Agency continues to receive feedback from stakeholders expressing concerns about this issue. Proposing this program is a first step toward addressing those comments. By gathering data at this time, FMCSA will be able to provide the MCSAC with more data when considering a broader crash preventability program. By testing these limited crash scenarios, the Agency will be able to determine how often they are deemed “Not Preventable” and will be able to get experience operating a program to develop cost and resource estimates for any larger program.
Q: What is the Agency proposing?
On an effective date to be named in a future Federal Register notice, the Agency proposes to begin a demonstration program under which it would accept requests for data review (RDRs) through FMCSA’s DataQs system. The Agency would accept an RDR as part of this program when documentation proved that the crash was not preventable by the motor carrier or commercial driver.
A crash would be considered “not preventable” if the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) was struck by a motorist who was convicted of one of the four following offenses or a related offense:
- Driving under the influence;
- Driving the wrong direction;
- Striking the CMV in the rear; or
- Striking the CMV while it was legally stopped.
The demonstration program would also test the impacts of determining a crash to be “not preventable” when it was the result of a suicide, an animal strike, or an infrastructure failure.
Q: How long would the demonstration program run?
FMCSA proposes that the minimum time period for this crash preventability test would be 24 months.
Q: What would need to be submitted through the DataQs system?
The Agency proposes that evidence of a conviction must be submitted with the RDR to document that the crash was not preventable by the motor carrier or driver. In addition to documentation of the conviction, these RDRs would include all available law enforcement reports, insurance reports from all parties involved in the crash, and any other relevant information. For events that did not that did not result in a conviction (e.g., animal strikes and suicides), police reports and insurance information would be submitted.
Q: Why isn’t the Agency’s list of crash scenarios the same as those listed in the American Trucking Associations (ATA) proposal?
Because some of the crash scenarios submitted by ATA were too broadly defined and/or may not result in convictions, the Agency is not using the suggested standard of “was found responsible by law enforcement for the crash.” Previous research by the Agency showed that Police Accident Reports do not generally provide a clear determination as to the preventability of a crash. Relying on a conviction related to one of the crash scenarios described ensures all parties involved receive adequate due process.
Q: Who will be reviewing the Requests for Data Review during the demonstration program?
FMCSA is considering a process in DataQs that would direct these types of requests to a group of reviewers under the Agency’s direct supervision. This would be FMCSA staff and a third party under contract to FMCSA. During the test period, these RDRs would not be directed to the States.
Q: What are the potential outcomes from a crash preventability review?
The Agency proposes that the RDR would result in one of the following three decisions and actions:
- Not Preventable – In these cases, the crash is removed from SMS.
- Preventable – In these cases, the crash is not removed from SMS for purposes of calculating the Crash Indicator BASIC percentile. FMCSA is considering options for weighting these crashes and is looking at the impacts if the current severity weighting is used (based on crash severity) or if a higher weighting is used since a preventability decision has been made. When crashes are determined to be “Preventable,” the crash is still listed on the Agency’s websites with a note that reads, “FMCSA reviewed this crash and determined that it was preventable.”
- Undecided – In these cases, the documentation submitted did not allow for a conclusive decision by reviewers. When crash reviews are undecided, the crash is not removed from SMS and the severity weighting is unchanged. The crash will still be listed on the Agency’s websites with a note that reads, “FMCSA reviewed this crash and could not make a preventability determination based on the evidence provided.”
Q: What if the motor carrier, driver, or vehicle involved had an out of service violation at the time of the crash?
In keeping with the Agency’s current preventability guidance, if a post-crash inspection determines that the motor carrier, vehicle, or driver was in violation of an out-of-service regulation at the time of the crash, the crash will be determined to have been “Preventable.”
Q: Would the Agency still complete preventability reviews during investigations?
Under this demonstration program, the Agency would continue to make crash preventability determinations before issuing adverse safety ratings based on crashes, and the appropriate changes to the websites, as described above, would be made. Finally, this process would also apply to any crashes challenged under 49 CFR 385.15 that were determined to be “not preventable.”
Q: Would there be an appeals process?
The public, including motor carriers and drivers, would be allowed to appeal the RDR decision to FMCSA using the DataQs system and processes currently in place.
Q: What happens if a carrier submits a fraudulent request?
Any intentionally false or misleading statement, representation, or document that is provided in support of an RDR may result in prosecution for a violation of Federal law punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both (18 USC 1001).
Q: How does this demonstration program impact the Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
The SFD proposal would only use crashes that been reviewed for preventability in any proposed unfit rating, consistent with current practices and, therefore, it is not impacted by this program which only will affect crashes displayed on the Agency’s SMS website.
FAST Act: Overview
- Enacted on December 4, 2015 (PL 114-94)
- Five year bill that sets FMCSA authorization funding levels through FY 2020.
- MCSAP grant programs will be restructured beginning in FY 2017 along with an increase in MCSAP funding.
- Operating expense authorization levels slightly increased through FY 2020.
- Significant number of Agency mandates:
- Studies: 5
- Working Groups: 6
- Rulemaking: 20
- FMCSA Reports to Congress: 15
FAST Act: Rulemakings
- 5106(b) MCSAP Allocation
- 5301 Windshield Technology
- 5401(a) Opportunities for Veterans Interim Final Rule
- 5401(c) Opportunities for Veterans
- 5402 (a) Drug Free Commercial Drivers
- 5403 Medical Certification of Veterans
- 5107(c) Maintenance of Effort Calculation
- 5501(b) Delays in Goods Movement
- 5107(a) Maintenance of Effort Calculation
- 7208 Hazardous Materials Endorsement
- 5206(b)(1) Applications
- 5524 Welding Truck Exemptions
- 5519 Operators of High Rail Vehicles
- 5521 Ready Mix Concrete Vehicles
- 5518 Covered Farm Vehicles
- 5522 Transportation of Construction Materials and Equipment
- 5507 Electronic Logging Device Requirements
- 5205 Inspector Standards
- 5101(a) Grants to States
- 5206(a) Applications
FAST Act: Compliance, Safety, Accountability
The FAST Act requires the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science (NAS) to conduct a thorough study of the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program, specifically the Safety Measurement System (SMS).
Study Requirements
NAS will conduct an independent correlation study of SMS. The FAST Act has outlined several elements that NAS must analyze and/or consider, including:
- The accuracy with which the Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASIC) identify high risk carriers; and predict or are correlated with future crash risk, crash severity, or other safety indicators for motor carriers, including the high risk carriers;
- The methodology used to calculate BASIC percentiles and identify carriers for enforcement, including the weights assigned to particular violations and the tie between crash risk and specific regulatory violations, with respect to accurately identifying and predicting future crash risk for motor carriers;
- The relative value of inspection information and roadside enforcement data;
- Any data collection gaps or data sufficiency problems that may exist and the impact of those gaps and problems on the efficacy of the CSA program;
- The accuracy of safety data, including the use of crash data from crashes in which a motor carrier was free from fault;
- Whether BASIC percentiles for motor carriers of passengers should be calculated separately from motor carriers of freight;
- The difference in the rates at which safety violations are reported to FMCSA for inclusion in the SMS by various enforcement authorities, including States, territories, and Federal inspectors;
- How members of the public use the SMS and what effect making the SMS information public has had on reducing crashes and eliminating unsafe motor carriers from the industry;
- Whether the SMS provides comparable precision and confidence, through SMS alerts and percentiles, for the relative crash risk of individual large and small motor carriers;
- Whether alternatives to the SMS would identify high risk carriers more accurately; and
- The recommendations and findings of the Comptroller General of the United States and the Inspector General of the Department and independent review team reports, issued before the date of enactment of the FAST Act.
For further information about the SMS Correlation Study, see the National Academies of Sciences webpage: http://www.trb.org/PolicyStudies/ReviewFederalMotorCarrierSafety.aspx [external link] .
Within 18 months of the enactment of the FAST Act, FMCSA will submit the results of this study to both Congress and the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Office of Inspector General. The results will also be published on a publicly-accessible Department of Transportation website.
Post-Study Requirements: If the study report identifies a deficiency or opportunity for improvement, FMCSA will submit a corrective action plan to Congress that will be reviewed by the Inspector General of the Department.
Public Availability of SMS Alerts and Percentiles: As required by Section 5223 of the FAST Act, FMCSA has removed alerts and relative percentiles for property carriers from the public display of the SMS. FMCSA is prohibited from publishing this information until the SMS Correlation Study is complete, and all reporting requirements and certification requirements under the FAST Act are satisfied.
Outcomes: A report to Congress containing study findings; study findings should also be published on a publicly accessible Web site.
Milestones: February 2016: Contract awarded
June 2017: Report to Congress; report published on publicly accessible Web site
Funding: FY 2016: $971,519
Current Status: Project is on schedule. For more details, visit: http://www.trb.org/PolicyStudies/ReviewFederalMotorCarrierSafety.aspx [external link].
Project Manager: For more information, contact Albert Alvarez of the FMCSA Research Division at (202) 385-2387 or albert.alvarez@dot.gov
Contractor:National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
FAST Act: Working Groups
The FAST Act calls for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to establish several working groups to assist the Agency’s implementation efforts. Working groups required by the FAST Act include:
- MCSAP Allocation Formula (FAST Section 5106(a)(1))
- Purpose: To analyze requirements and factors necessary for the establishment of a new allocation formula for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and issue a recommendation to the Secretary regarding a new allocation formula for the MCSAP.
- Membership: Representatives from FMCSA, State commercial motor vehicle safety agencies, an organization representing State agencies responsible for inspection of commercial motor vehicles; and such other persons as the Secretary considers necessary.
- Preventable Crashes (FAST Section 5225)
- Purpose: The establishment of this working group is tied to the FAST Act Safety Measurement System (SMS) Correlation Study. No later than 1 year after the Inspector General certifies that the conditions of FAST Act Section 5223(a) are met, the Secretary shall task the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) with reviewing the treatment of preventable crashes under SMS. The working group will make recommendations to the Secretary on a process to allow motor carriers and drivers to request that the Administrator make a determination with respect to the preventability of a crash if such a process has not yet been established, and issue a report to Congress on how the Secretary intends to address the treatment of preventable crashes.
- Membership: The MCSAC is comprised of 20 members appointed by the Administrator for two-year terms and includes representatives of the motor carrier safety advocacy, safety enforcement, industry, and labor communities.
- Post-Accident Report (FAST Section 5306(a))
- Purpose: Review the data elements of post-accident reports, for tow-away accidents involving commercial motor vehicles that are reported to the Federal Government; and to report to the Secretary its findings, including best practices for State post-accident reports.
- Membership: Not less than 51 percent of the working group shall be composed of individuals representing the States or State law enforcement officials. The remaining members of the working group shall represent industry, labor, safety advocates, and other interested parties.
- Military Commercial Driver Pilot Program (FAST Section 5404)
- Purpose: To review the data collected by the Agency in its military commercial driver pilot program and provide recommendations to the Secretary on the feasibility, benefits, and safety impacts of allowing a covered driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce.
- Membership: Representatives of the Agency, armed forces, industry, drivers, safety advocacy organizations, and State licensing and enforcement officials.
- Household Goods Consumer Protection Working Group (FAST Section 5503)
- Purpose: To develop recommendations on how to best convey to consumers relevant information with respect to Federal laws concerning the interstate transportation of household goods by motor carrier.
- Membership: Representatives of the Agency, individuals with expertise in consumer affairs, educators with expertise in how people learn most effectively, and representatives of the household goods moving industry.
FAST Act: Authorization Levels
| |
FY16 |
FY17 |
FY18 |
FY19 |
FY20 |
| MCSAP |
*$218,000,000 |
$292,600,000 |
$298,900,000 |
$304,300,000 |
$308,700,000 |
| High Priority Activities Program |
** $15,000,000 |
$42,200,000 |
$43,100,000 |
$44,000,000 |
$44,900,000 |
| CMV Operators |
***$1,000,000 |
$1,000,000 |
$1,000,000 |
$1,000,000 |
$1,000,000 |
| CDLPI |
$30,000,000 |
$31,200,000 |
$31,800,000 |
$32,500,000 |
$33,200,000 |
| CVISN |
$25,000,000 |
Collapses into High Priority Activities FY17-20 |
| BEG |
$32,000,000 |
Collapses into MCSAP FY17-20 |
| New Entrant |
**$32,000,000 |
Collapses into MCSAP FY17-20 |
| PRISM |
$5,000,000 |
Collapses into MCSAP FY17-20 |
| SADIP |
$3,000,000 |
Collapses into MCSAP FY17-20 |
FAST Act: Reports
1. What DOT Inspector Screens Show when Drivers Near a Weigh-station
As you near a weigh -station, DOT inspectors are pulling drivers’ basic information up on their screens. There are three things inspectors look for first: ISS (Inspection Selection System) score, vehicle out-of-service score, and driver out-of-service score.
These scores are color coded based on the score level. If a score is near or worse than the national average, the score will be highlighted red. If the score is just below the national average, the score will be highlighted yellow. If the score is in a healthy position, the score will be highlighted green. Inspectors are looking to see if there is a lot of red or yellow across their screen. If there are 3 red scores, you will be pulled in for an inspection.
On occasion, if the rating system does not have enough data on a carrier to give basic scores (because they are a good carrier and they always get waived through scales) we have seen the system spike the company ISS score just to generate some inspection data. Once they get 3-5 inspections, the ISS returns to normal.
2. Some Reasons Why a Driver May be Inspected at a Weigh-station
· If a driver’s ISS or Out-of-service ratings are near or worse than the national average.
- Driver Out-of-Service national average = 5.5%
- Vehicle Out-of-Service national average = 20.7%
- ISS Score
- 1-49 = Passing
- 50-74 = Optional
- 75-100 = Inspect
· If you have a headlight out, it may bring attention to you.
Inspectors may assume the driver did not do a good pre-trip inspection because it is unlikely the headlight goes out between two stations. Inspectors may assume there are other maintenance violations or a lack of a maintenance program, and will look at tires, lug-nuts, lights, etc. in more detail.
· If your truck is dirty, it may bring attention to you.
If the truck is not taken care of properly, inspectors may assume that the driver might not fix bigger problems, such as brakes, suspension, or other more serious issues. Inspectors will look more closely at these areas for violations.
· Sometimes, inspections are just completely random.
Inspectors are known to bring drivers in randomly for inspection. They may set-up a certain ration, such as 1:4 trucks driving by will be pulled in for a limited time.
3. What the different Levels of Inspection mean:
Drivers have a lot of differing opinions on what each level of inspection actually mean. Below is a summary of each type of truck safety inspections conducted throughout North America.
- LEVEL I — A complete inspection that includes a check of the driver´s license, medical examiner´s certificate (and waiver, if any), alcohol and drugs, hours of service, seat belt, vehicle inspection report, brake system, coupling devices, exhaust system, frame, fuel system, turn signals, brake and tail lamps, headlamps, lamps on loads, load securement, steering, suspension, tires, van and open-top trailer bodies, wheels and rims, windshield wipers, emergency exits on buses and hazardous materials requirements, as applicable.
- LEVEL II — A “walk-around” inspection that includes a check of each of the items in a Level I inspection but not items that require the inspector to physically get under the truck.
- LEVEL III — An inspection of just the driver-related items in a Level I inspection.
- LEVEL IV — A special inspection, typically a one-time examination of a particular item for a safety study or to verify or refute a suspected trend.
- LEVEL V — An inspection of just the truck-related items in a Level I inspection.
- LEVEL VI — An inspection of a shipment of highway-route-controlled quantities of radiological material. A Level VI inspection includes an enhanced check of each of the items in a Level I inspection.
4. How to treat your DOT Inspectors
DOT Inspectors understand that coming in for an inspection are keeping drivers from driving and can be a nuisance. Inspectors talk to many different types of drivers every day. Like a referee in sports, treating the inspectors with respect is the best way to prevent any detailed inspection and will help you get on the road more quickly. A common request by inspectors is if they asks driver questions, provide the answer and everything will move more smoothly.
In situations when a driver is giving lots of attitude toward the inspector, some inspectors may respond more harshly in their inspection, they are human after all. Some inspectors, not all, may have a chip on their shoulder or have a “heavy badge”, which is understandably irritating in the drivers’ perspective.
However, if you treat an inspector respectfully, inspectors are more likely to explain what they are looking at and why you may have received a violation. Also, if you respectfully complain about being pulled in several times in the last day or two, most inspectors will explain what they see on their screens and why this inspection is currently happening – giving you the chance to understand what needs to be fixed to prevent inspections in the future. Additionally, if you show them the most recent inspection forms, they may just let you pass.
5. DOT Inspectors Perspective on ELDs
With the mandatory adoption of ELDs coming down the road, it is interesting to look at some DOT inspectors’ perspectives when drivers with an ELD come in for an inspection.
If a truck currently has an ELD or other e-log type of devise, drivers may find inspectors not wanting to waste their time looking over your driving logs. ELDs help driver logs stay compliant and inspectors usually do not find errors on the logs. Some inspectors even worry about those devices that give the home terminal access where they can abuse the data and change the logs to hide violations.
However, with the ELD rule currently on the books, drivers may find that they are asked to bring up their ELD logs in order to help inspectors get use to the new process. In these situations, inspectors tend to look for manipulations, such as using a ghost-driver (logging a second driver as on-duty when only one driver in the truck) or for a 5th “personal conveyance” line.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA’s) Office of Analysis, Research, and Technology is pleased to announce an upcoming webinar for the presentation of data* on trucks and buses involved in crashes in 2014 and trends in the data over the past 10 years. The webinar will be presented by Ms. Jenny Guarino, FMCSA Statistician. This webinar will cover the types of trucks and buses involved in crashes and the characteristics and types of crashes and drivers involved.
Two webinars will be hosted:
- Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 2:00-3:00 p.m. EST.
- Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 2:00-3:00 p.m. EST.
Audience: Motor Carrier Industry, FMCSA Employees, Highway Safety Community, and the Public.
To register, click on the link below and answer all of the questions on the form. If any of the questions on the form do not apply to you, simply type N/A. Once you have completed the form, click the “Submit” button at the very bottom of the page. You may need to scroll down to get to that location.
https://connectdot.connectsolutions.com/admin/show-event-catalog?folder-id=1138368613
For any general questions on this webinar, contact Leslie Jones at leslie.jones.ctr@dot.gov or 202-385-2378.
FMCSA is committed to providing equal access to this webinar for all participants. Closed captioning is available. If you need any alternative formats or services because of a disability, please contact the FMCSA Host via email at FMCSA_Host@dot.gov with your request by close of business no later than three days prior to each event. Please note: the FMCSA_Host address has an underscore ( _ ) between the words “FMCSA” and “Host”: FMCSA_Host@dot.gov.
ALSO, JUST RELEASED: For a copy of FMCSA’s Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts, 2014 annual analysis report, visit: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/data-and-statistics/large-truck-and-bus-crash-facts-2014.
(*Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Highway Administration)
