1 / 47

Presentation Agenda

Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010 A New Way To Measure and Address Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety. Presentation Agenda. CSA 2010: Defined Test and Implementation (5/1/2009) Summary. | 2. Commercial Motor Vehicle Fatalities.

tahir
Télécharger la présentation

Presentation Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010A New Way To Measure and Address Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety

  2. Presentation Agenda CSA 2010: Defined Test and Implementation (5/1/2009) Summary | 2

  3. Commercial Motor Vehicle Fatalities Rate of Commercial Motor Vehicle Fatalities is Leveling Off

  4. A Need For A More Agile, Efficient Program • Current Operational Model Limitations • Limited intervention tool-box for safety investigators (SIs) • Safety fitness determination tied to compliance review • Focus largely on carriers • Limited number of federal/state investigators compared to large number of carriers • U.S. Department of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulates ~725,000 interstate and foreign-based truck and bus companies • U.S. DOT/FMCSA Compliance Review is labor intensive – Only able to reach < 2% (~12,000) of total carrier population annually

  5. Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 CSA 2010 is a pro-active initiative to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of FMCSA’s enforcement and compliance program. • Uses ALL roadside inspection results and crash reports to identify safety deficiencies • Employs a wider array of interventions tailored to problems instead of solely the time-intensive Compliance Review process • Enables more carriers to be contacted earlier • Requires sustained accountability of carriers AND increases accountability of drivers

  6. Op-Model: Three Core Components • New Safety Measurement System (SMS)Improved ability to identify demonstrated safety problems • Proposed change for evaluation: new approach to the Safety Fitness Determination (SFD)SFD tied to current safety performance; not limited to acute/critical violations from a Compliance Review • New intervention processEmploys an array of interventions instead of the single option, labor-intensive compliance review

  7. Entities Two measurement systems for CSA 2010: Carrier Safety Measurement System (CSMS) Driver Safety Measurement System (DSMS) 7 7 Webinar #2

  8. New Safety Measurement System CSA 2010 introduces a new safety measurement system (SMS) that… • Uses crash records and ALL roadside inspection safety-based violations to determine carrier/driver safety • Weights time and severity of violations based on relationship to crash risk • Triggers the intervention process (eventually will feed the proposed Safety Fitness Determination) • Calculates safety performance based on 7 Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs) • SMS BASICs focus on behaviors linked to crash risk

  9. BASIC Data Safety Event Data Sorted by BASIC SAFETY EVENTS BASIC DATA BASIC MEASURES PERCENTILE • Unsafe Driving (Parts 392 & 397) • Fatigued Driving/HOS (Parts 392 & 395) • Driver Fitness (Parts 383 & 391) • Controlled Substances /Alcohol (Part 392) • Vehicle Maintenance (Parts 393 & 396) • Cargo Related/HM (Parts 392, 393, 397 & HM) • Crash Indicator 9 9 Webinar #2

  10. Methodology Overview Obtain on-road safety event data (e.g., inspections, crashes) and attribute to entity to create a safety event history Place each entity’s violations/crashes into a BASIC Convert BASIC data to quantifiable measure/rate (future Safety Fitness Determination proposed to be based on absolute performance) Based on each entity’s BASIC measure, develop rank and percentile for each entity’s BASIC performance Safety Events By Entity BASIC Data BASIC Measures Percentile 10 10 Webinar #2

  11. BASIC Measures Convert BASIC Data into Quantifiable Measure Considerations Time Weighting / Time Frame - More recent events more relevant Severity Weightings - Increase weighting of violations that have been shown to create a greater risk of crash involvement Normalizing - Based on exposure: use of number of inspections and power units Single Inspection Cap – limit violation weight of single poor inspection Violation Cap – Cited section number only counts once per inspection SAFETY EVENTS BASIC DATA BASIC MEASURES PERCENTILE 11 11 Webinar #2

  12. Based on each BASIC measure, develop percentile indicating entity's BASIC performance Provides a relative assessment of performance Allows for prioritizing intervention resources by behavior Considerations: Peer Grouping - compare measures of entities with similar levels of exposure Data Sufficiency standards – define events/exposure necessary to generate a robust measure Intervention standards – define “critical mass” of poor performance necessary for inclusion of entity in intervention process Current Inspection and Crash Data – assignment of percentile dependent on age and result of most recent inspection (12 months) Percentile SAFETY EVENTS BASIC DATA BASIC MEASURES PERCENTILE 12 12 Webinar #2

  13. Peer Grouping Create percentile based on measure for carrier with similar exposure (same peer group) 13 13 Webinar #2

  14. Data Sufficiency Minimum number of inspections with applicable violations required for percentile to be assigned Assists in identification of patterns of carrier behavior- note safety problems across multiple inspections 14 14 Webinar #2

  15. CSMS BASIC Thresholds Carriers’ BASIC percentile results are used to trigger carriers for interventions 15 15 Webinar #2 CSA 2010 OM Test Phase 2 Training

  16. How does a carrier move below the intervention thresholds? “Good” Inspections “Get Well” Rules Violation time weight diminishes Unsafe Driving and Drug and Alcohol BASICs No percentile assigned if no inspections with a violation in these BASICs in the last year Crash Indicator No percentile assigned if no crashes in last year Fatigued Driving, Driver Fitness, Vehicle Maintenance and Cargo Securement BASICs No percentile assigned if: No inspections with a violation in that BASIC within the past year; and Most recent relevant inspection does not have a violation of that BASIC 16 16 Webinar #2

  17. SafeStat vs SMS

  18. Driver Safety Measurement System (DSMS) DSMS quantifies commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver performance in terms of BASICs, using available roadside performance data During the Operational Model Test: • SIs examine drivers who have been cited for severe driver violations, in conjunction with carrier interventions • May result in driver Notice of Violation or Notice of Claim based on driver violation history across current and previous employers Beyond the Operational Model Test: • DSMS will be used to identify the “worst of the worst” drivers so that interventions may be done directly with drivers, independent of carrier interventions

  19. Commonly Asked Question About Driver Data When Will Carriers Have Access to Driver Data for Employment Decisions? • FMSCA’s Driver Information Resource (DIR) attributes roadside inspection and crash data to individual CMV drivers • “Driver Profiles” from DIR that contain inspection and crash histories for individual drivers will be made available through FMCSA’s Commercial Driver Pre-employment Screening Program (PSP) later in 2009; drivers would authorize release of profiles • FMCSA is negotiating with 3rd party vendors to provide access to PSP data for carriers and drivers

  20. Example of SafeStat vs SMS The following slides provide examples of key differences between SafeStat and the new SMS

  21. Carrier Measurement: SafeStat Results

  22. Carrier Measurement: SMS Results

  23. Violation Details Provided in SMS

  24. Further Drilldown in SMS

  25. Driver Measurement: By Basic

  26. Driver History: Unsafe Driver Measure and Violations

  27. Carrier Access to Data Availability of the Carrier SMS data? • Currently, only test state carriers have access to Carrier SMS data, by using the Comprehensive Safety Information (CSI) system • The Carrier SMS data will be accessible beyond the test states when CSA 2010 begins full implementation in summer 2010 • Use your current DOT # and PIN for access

  28. Safety Fitness Determination: Current Limitations The current safety rating/SFD process has limitations • Only issued with on-site Compliance Review (resource intensive) • Only a snapshot of carrier compliance taken at the time of most recent Compliance Review • Safety ratings (Sat, Conditional or Unsat) are often outdated and may not reflect current safety posture • Heavily based on violations deemed “critical” or “acute” • Unsatisfactory/Unfit SFD rating requires multiple areas of deficiency

  29. Proposed Change to the SFD Process Proposed change would: Incorporate on-road safety performance via new SMS on a monthly basis Continue to include major safety violations found as part of CSA 2010 investigations Produce a Safety Fitness Determination of Unfit or Marginal or Continue Operation Draft rulemaking is currently in review within FMCSA; NPRM scheduled to be published late 2009.

  30. Benefits of the Proposed CSA 2010 SFD • Maximizes the use of data collected during roadside inspections • Approx. 3 million inspections performed annually • Creates carrier accountability for sustained unsafe operations and performance • Assesses more carriers based on current safety performance CSA 2010 issues safety ratings within the existing regulatory framework. This will continue until the SFD rule goes into effect

  31. New Interventions Process The New Interventions Process addresses the… • WHAT Discovering violations anddefining the problem (similar to current model), but also expanding to include the why and how • WHY Identifying the cause or where the processes broke down • HOWDetermining how to fix it/prevent it through use of Safety Management Cycle and Safety Improvement Resources

  32. Safety Management Cycle

  33. New Intervention Tools New intervention tools reach more carriers and influence safety compliance earlier • Warning Letters • Investigations • Offsite Investigations • Onsite Investigations - Focused • Onsite Investigations - Comprehensive • Follow-on corrective actions • Cooperative Safety Plan (CSP) • Notice of Violation (NOV) • Notice of Claim (NOC) • Operations Out-of-Service Order (OOS)

  34. Current vs CSA 2010 Intervention Process

  35. CSA 2010 Test Operational Model Field Test Design: • Completed January 2008 Operational Model Field Test: • Began February 2008 • Planned completion June 2010 • Designed to test validity, efficiency and effectiveness of new model • Evaluation to be conducted by independent 3rd party • Test states currently include: Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey • Kansas and Maryland

  36. Preliminary Results So far, CSA 2010 is: • Reaching its goal of contacting more carriers • One objective of CSA 2010 was to conduct more investigations per Safety Investigator, per month • This goal is being met or exceeded by test state SIs • Resulting in strong enforcement; similar to current model • Employing the full array of investigations to achieve efficiency and effectiveness • Investigations in test states have been done in the following proportions • Onsite Investigations – Comprehensive (~25%) • Onsite Investigations – Focused (~45%) • Offsite Investigations (~30%)

  37. Preliminary Results Warning letters are having a positive impact: • About 3,000 sent • 45% of recipients logged in to view safety scores • Feedback from test states indicate that carriers appreciate the early alert

  38. Preliminary Results-MT 5/1-7/31 Carriers Logging Into CSI Number of Carriers Logged Into CSI- 116 % of Total- 0.62% Number of Carriers who Received WL Logged Into CSI- 88 % of Carriers with WL- 55.35% | 38

  39. Preliminary Results-MT 5/1-7/31 Carriers Logging Into CSI Number of Carriers Sent a WL in May- 124 Number of Carriers no longer deficient- 32 % of Carriers no longer deficient- 25.81% Number of Carriers who Received WL Logged Into CSI- 70 Number of Carriers no longer deficient- 19 % of Carriers no longer deficient- 27.14% | 39

  40. Preliminary Results-MT 5/1-7/31 Carriers Logging Into CSI Number of Carriers Sent a WL in June- 22 Number of Carriers no longer deficient- 5 % of Carriers no longer deficient- 22.73% Number of Carriers who Received WL Logged Into CSI- 9 Number of Carriers no longer deficient- 1 % of Carriers no longer deficient- 11.11% | 40

  41. Preliminary Results-MT 5/1-7/31 Carriers Logging Into CSI Number of Carriers Sent a WL in July- 13 Number of Carriers no longer deficient- 1 % of Carriers no longer deficient- 7.69% Number of Carriers who Received WL Logged Into CSI- 8 Number of Carriers no longer deficient- 1 % of Carriers no longer deficient- 12.5% | 41

  42. Preliminary Results-MT 5/1-7/31 Activity since 5/1/09 Total Montana Carriers - 18837 Number of Carriers with one deficient BASIC- 274 Number of Warning Letters sent- 159 Number of Interventions Completed- 63 Cooperative Safety Plans- 8 Notice of Violations- 4 Notice of Claims- Carrier- 5 Driver-3 | 42

  43. Preliminary Results-MT 5/1-7/31 DATA Q Number of Data Q entries since May 1st- 61 # changed- 37 ( 60.7%) # denied- 17 (27.8 %) # pending- 7 (11.5%)

  44. Preliminary Results-MT 5/1-7/31 DATA Q Top 3 challenges Request for a copy of inspection Wrong carrier Change/delete violation Improper Challenges Driver fired, please remove Crash not our fault, please remove

  45. National Implementation Elements and Timeline Summer 2010 • Replace SafeStat with SMS • Inspect carriers with deficient BASICs on the roadside July through December 2010 • Roll out interventions • Send warning letters nationwide

  46. In Summary… CSA 2010 introduces improvements in three main areas • New Safety Measurement System • More comprehensive • Better able to pinpoint safety problems • Better identifies high crash-risk behavior • Proposed change in evaluation: Safety Fitness Determination • Assess safety performance of larger segment of industry • Based on roadside performance and intervention results • New interventions process and tools • More efficient/effective enforcement and compliance process • Wider range of interventions to influence compliance earlier • Match intervention with level of safety performance

  47. For more information, see csa2010.fmcsa.dot.govTo view your SMS results, seeai.fmcsa.dot.gov/csi (requires DOT# and pin#) | 47

More Related