Thursday, December 23, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
CSA
HEADLINE: Most carriers unranked as CSA launches
Byline: Avery Vise
Fewer than 14 percent of active motor carriers are ranked in any of the five safety categories within the new Safety Measurement System (SMS) that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration made public for the first time on Sunday, Dec. 12, according to an analysis by Commercial Carrier Journal. The SMS, which replaced SafeStat, is a key component of what FMCSA now formally calls Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) — not Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010. The agency published SMS data and metrics after a federal appeals court turned down an emergency request for a stay.
CCJ’s analysis of data published at FMCSA’s Analysis & Information website shows that only 92,184 of the 758,682 active motor carriers in the agency’s database are ranked in any of the five publicly available Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs) — Unsafe Driving, Fatigued Driving, Driver Fitness, Controlled Substances and Vehicle Maintenance. The Cargo-Related and Crash Indicator BASICs are, for now, withheld from the public due to agency concerns that the data could be misleading.
Of the 92,184 carriers that are ranked in at least one BASIC, 52,967 carriers have at least one alert, meaning they exceeded the threshold for intervention. The greatest number of alerts, 29,207, are in the Fatigued Driving BASIC, followed by the Vehicle Maintenance BASIC at 21,791. The Controlled Substances BASIC had the fewest alerts at 3,605.
The majority of carriers are unranked because FMCSA set minimum thresholds of inspections to be considered within BASIC safety event groups. Those floors vary, but generally carriers must have three to five inspections in the past 24 months to be ranked in a BASIC. FMCSA plans to use those rankings to target intervention under its new graduated process, which starts with warning letters and escalates potentially to full-blown compliance reviews.
Byline: Avery Vise
Fewer than 14 percent of active motor carriers are ranked in any of the five safety categories within the new Safety Measurement System (SMS) that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration made public for the first time on Sunday, Dec. 12, according to an analysis by Commercial Carrier Journal. The SMS, which replaced SafeStat, is a key component of what FMCSA now formally calls Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) — not Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010. The agency published SMS data and metrics after a federal appeals court turned down an emergency request for a stay.
CCJ’s analysis of data published at FMCSA’s Analysis & Information website shows that only 92,184 of the 758,682 active motor carriers in the agency’s database are ranked in any of the five publicly available Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs) — Unsafe Driving, Fatigued Driving, Driver Fitness, Controlled Substances and Vehicle Maintenance. The Cargo-Related and Crash Indicator BASICs are, for now, withheld from the public due to agency concerns that the data could be misleading.
Of the 92,184 carriers that are ranked in at least one BASIC, 52,967 carriers have at least one alert, meaning they exceeded the threshold for intervention. The greatest number of alerts, 29,207, are in the Fatigued Driving BASIC, followed by the Vehicle Maintenance BASIC at 21,791. The Controlled Substances BASIC had the fewest alerts at 3,605.
The majority of carriers are unranked because FMCSA set minimum thresholds of inspections to be considered within BASIC safety event groups. Those floors vary, but generally carriers must have three to five inspections in the past 24 months to be ranked in a BASIC. FMCSA plans to use those rankings to target intervention under its new graduated process, which starts with warning letters and escalates potentially to full-blown compliance reviews.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
New HOS result
Trucking
Key Points
• With the federal government set to announce, in a matter of days, a downward revision to hours of service (HOS) for truck drivers, we offer a few thoughts on ramifications, carrier responses and other elements. This Note does not exhaust all scenarios nor explore every element of HOS. Rather, it is a framework for investors on some of the key issues. In general, HOS changes have a much more dramatic impact upon TL carriers, although LTL carriers tend to benefit from tightening TL supply.
• Just because the government is likely to announce proposed changes does not mean they will occur by the July 2011 deadline. After the proposed regulation is published in the Federal Register, comments will be issued by the public and it could take weeks or months to sort through them, some of which might be incorporated into a tweaking of the final regulation. Even if the regulation becomes final next summer, there will be a transition period to allow for technological adoption, employee training and other adaptations. In short, HOS is likely to impact trucking supply and demand more in 2012 and beyond as opposed to 2011.
• What might happen? Current regulations limit truck drivers to 14 on-duty hours each 24-hour period, including a maximum of 11 hours behind the wheel. In addition, drivers are limited to 70 hours of drive-time in an 8-day period. At that point a driver must wait 34 hours before re-starting service. There is no clocking on and off duty during non-drive times (meals, breaks, loading, unloading, etc.) like what existed prior to 2004. While not finalized yet, the new regulations could entail something like this: 10 hours of drive-time in a 24-hour period; either a 44-hour or 48-hour restart period; and some sort of mandated break period. The latter could take many forms such as a one hour mandated break (or even two 30-minute breaks) while on-duty, although it is not clear whether the break would be on top of the 10-hour active duty or subtract from it. In other words, if it subtracts from the 10-hour drive time, then drivers would really only have 9 functional hours to drive. Finally, it is conceivable that the drive time could be cut below 10 hours.
• Such changes will likely hurt asset utilization and will require changes to minimize the impact. Possible remedies include, but are not limited to: a) raising speed limits by 3 to 5 MPH (many fleets restrict speeds to somewhere between 62 and 65 MPH); b) utilizing slip-seating, that is having more than one driver use the tractor during a set period; c) an expansion of driver relays; d) an increase in drop and hook operations, which theoretically allows a driver to drop off a load and pick-up another load more quickly. Not all fleets are comfortable with these potential solutions and some, like higher MPH, have negative fuel burn and safety ramifications. For many slip-seating is often used in under 5% of their OTR and regional trucks (dray service and short-haul dedicated are often higher percentages). Numerous fleets have told us that increasing slip-seating to 20% to 25% of OTR and regional trucks would be an ideal goal with fewer HOS, but that is easier said than done given today’s driver recruiting challenges. In addition, increasing detention fees and shortening equipment holding times (by reducing loading and unloading times) would be pursued by carriers and shippers. Also, some fleets would likely increase the trailer-to-tractor ratio, especially in the refrigerated and flatbed sectors. To be sure, some van carriers would do that, too, but so many van carriers shrunk their fleets this cycle faster than their trailers that there is still room to bring that ratio down before thinking about increasing it. Lastly, many loads don’t use the entire 11 hours to get delivered. Vulnerability exists on freight that consistently takes 9.5 to 10.5 hours to deliver. See page 2 for potential ramifications for earnings, consolidation and two charts with the latest inventory ratios.
Key Points
• With the federal government set to announce, in a matter of days, a downward revision to hours of service (HOS) for truck drivers, we offer a few thoughts on ramifications, carrier responses and other elements. This Note does not exhaust all scenarios nor explore every element of HOS. Rather, it is a framework for investors on some of the key issues. In general, HOS changes have a much more dramatic impact upon TL carriers, although LTL carriers tend to benefit from tightening TL supply.
• Just because the government is likely to announce proposed changes does not mean they will occur by the July 2011 deadline. After the proposed regulation is published in the Federal Register, comments will be issued by the public and it could take weeks or months to sort through them, some of which might be incorporated into a tweaking of the final regulation. Even if the regulation becomes final next summer, there will be a transition period to allow for technological adoption, employee training and other adaptations. In short, HOS is likely to impact trucking supply and demand more in 2012 and beyond as opposed to 2011.
• What might happen? Current regulations limit truck drivers to 14 on-duty hours each 24-hour period, including a maximum of 11 hours behind the wheel. In addition, drivers are limited to 70 hours of drive-time in an 8-day period. At that point a driver must wait 34 hours before re-starting service. There is no clocking on and off duty during non-drive times (meals, breaks, loading, unloading, etc.) like what existed prior to 2004. While not finalized yet, the new regulations could entail something like this: 10 hours of drive-time in a 24-hour period; either a 44-hour or 48-hour restart period; and some sort of mandated break period. The latter could take many forms such as a one hour mandated break (or even two 30-minute breaks) while on-duty, although it is not clear whether the break would be on top of the 10-hour active duty or subtract from it. In other words, if it subtracts from the 10-hour drive time, then drivers would really only have 9 functional hours to drive. Finally, it is conceivable that the drive time could be cut below 10 hours.
• Such changes will likely hurt asset utilization and will require changes to minimize the impact. Possible remedies include, but are not limited to: a) raising speed limits by 3 to 5 MPH (many fleets restrict speeds to somewhere between 62 and 65 MPH); b) utilizing slip-seating, that is having more than one driver use the tractor during a set period; c) an expansion of driver relays; d) an increase in drop and hook operations, which theoretically allows a driver to drop off a load and pick-up another load more quickly. Not all fleets are comfortable with these potential solutions and some, like higher MPH, have negative fuel burn and safety ramifications. For many slip-seating is often used in under 5% of their OTR and regional trucks (dray service and short-haul dedicated are often higher percentages). Numerous fleets have told us that increasing slip-seating to 20% to 25% of OTR and regional trucks would be an ideal goal with fewer HOS, but that is easier said than done given today’s driver recruiting challenges. In addition, increasing detention fees and shortening equipment holding times (by reducing loading and unloading times) would be pursued by carriers and shippers. Also, some fleets would likely increase the trailer-to-tractor ratio, especially in the refrigerated and flatbed sectors. To be sure, some van carriers would do that, too, but so many van carriers shrunk their fleets this cycle faster than their trailers that there is still room to bring that ratio down before thinking about increasing it. Lastly, many loads don’t use the entire 11 hours to get delivered. Vulnerability exists on freight that consistently takes 9.5 to 10.5 hours to deliver. See page 2 for potential ramifications for earnings, consolidation and two charts with the latest inventory ratios.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Government is getting very aggressive in HOS violations......
FMCSA Orders Trucker to Install 700 EOBRs
Meat-hauling JBS Carriers cited for multiple hours-of-service violations
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ordered JBS Carriers, Greeley, Colo., to install the EOBRs after finding "serious" hours-of-service violations.
JBS Carriers has until March to install the equipment or pay the fines.
It is the first and largest federal action of its kind announced since a final rule that allows the FMCSA to require carriers to install EOBRs took effect in June.
The Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association is challenging that regulation in court. The FMCSA is expected to respond to OOIDA's lawsuit this week.
In a settlement agreement reached with JBS Carriers last month, the agency cited the company for 102 counts of falsifying drivers' hours-of-service records.
It also cited the company for three counts of allowing drivers with a suspended, revoked or canceled commercial driver's license to operate a motor vehicle.
JBS must also train drivers on the use of EOBRs and develop a safety management system that incorporates EOBR data into hours-of-service oversight.
JBS Carriers is the U.S. trucking unit of multinational food company JBS, the largest beef supplier in the world, formerly known as Swift & Co. in the U.S.
Federal hours-of-service rules limit the amount of time drivers can spend behind the wheel to 11 hours a day. The rules are currently being revised by FMCSA.
-- Contact William B. Cassidy at wcassidy@joc.com.
HOS Cuts
Industry Fears HOS Losses When New Rule Is Issued
By Sean McNally, Senior Reporter
This story appears in the Oct. 25 print edition of Transport Topics.
PHOENIX — Trucking officials said they are preparing for what they believe will be a loss of productivity and flexibility when the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration issues the revised hours-of-service rule.
“We’re not all that optimistic that this proposal will be something that we will like. We think it could shrink drive time, and we think it will perhaps have other unproductive changes,” Dave Osiecki, senior vice president for policy and regulatory affairs with American Trucking Associations, said here during the group’s 2010 Management Conference & Exhibition.
FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro, speaking here, said only that the agency was “on schedule” to deliver the new rule later this month, and she was “looking forward to a very robust discussion beginning in early November.”
The rule currently is being reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
ATA Chairman Barbara Windsor, president of Hahn Transportation Inc., said she expects the industry to lose the current restart clause, which allows drivers to reset their weekly clocks following a 34-hour break.
“I think [the time required before a restart] is going to be extended and we’re going to lose an hour of driving,” she said. “For [Hahn Transportation], as a regional carrier, the 34-hour restart has been wonderful because our guys can come home and have a five [days] on, two [days] off schedule and have a regular life.”
”
“We think we know what it is going to be, and it bothers the hell out of me,” said Charles “Shorty” Whittington, president of Grammer Industries and the outgoing chairman of ATA’s executive committee.
Whittington predicted the restart clause would be extended to between 44 and 48 hours. In addition, he thinks there will be a mandatory rest break included, but it is not clear yet whether that would count as on-duty or off-duty time.
James Burg, president of James Burg Trucking Co., said that an improving economy is making these potentially disruptive HOS changes easier to handle.
“It could have been devastating a year ago in the economic environment, but it seems like we have the capacity on our side,” Burg said. “While it is going to be difficult, if we have any new restrictions, it is going to be much more manageable.”
Still, ATA Chief Counsel Robert Digges did not rule out a legal challenge after the rule is released.
“I think we will be in a very good position [to litigate] if there are draconian changes made to the hours-of-service rules,” he said during the meeting, because it will be “very hard” for FMCSA to justify the changes in light of trucking’s improving safety record.
He added that courts are “often a little suspicious” when an agency that had been defending a regulation reverses course.
Last October, FMCSA dropped its defense of the HOS rule and said it would review it as part of a court settlement with a number of advocacy and labor groups. That settlement called for the agency to issue a final rule this October.
FMCSA has also been ordered to issue a rule specifying what paperwork fleets must retain in order to verify their driver logs, one the agency has said will include a renewed, and probably expanded, electronic onboard recorder requirement.
Ferro said such a proposal will be sent to the White House soon, and, “OMB will get that back to us by the end of the year.”
Windsor said she has been “quite surprised about how many [ATA] members have already switched over to electronic logging.”
Her own company will be making the switch during the next six months because, she said, “It is such a better way of doing business.”
Windsor also suggested that if enough carriers voluntarily adopt EOBRs, that could help strengthen trucking’s case in any HOS legal challenges.
Still, ATA Chief Counsel Robert Digges did not rule out a legal challenge after the rule is released.
“I think we will be in a very good position [to litigate] if there are draconian changes made to the hours-of-service rules,” he said during the meeting, because it will be “very hard” for FMCSA to justify the changes in light of trucking’s improving safety record.
He added that courts are “often a little suspicious” when an agency that had been defending a regulation reverses course.
Last October, FMCSA dropped its defense of the HOS rule and said it would review it as part of a court settlement with a number of advocacy and labor groups. That settlement called for the agency to issue a final rule this October.
FMCSA has also been ordered to issue a rule specifying what paperwork fleets must retain in order to verify their driver logs, one the agency has said will include a renewed, and probably expanded, electronic onboard recorder requirement.
Ferro said such a proposal will be sent to the White House soon, and, “OMB will get that back to us by the end of the year.”
Windsor said she has been “quite surprised about how many [ATA] members have already switched over to electronic logging.”
Her own company will be making the switch during the next six months because, she said, “It is such a better way of doing business.”
Windsor also suggested that if enough carriers voluntarily adopt EOBRs, that could help strengthen trucking’s case in any HOS legal challenges.
| 1 2 |
|
Friday, October 29, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Capacity
from Thom Albrecht of BBT Capital Markets (TTopics 4 Oct 10, Pg 49):
"Number of Class 8 tractors in operation in the US has dropped 12% or 270,000 units since 2006 and the number of tractors eight years old or newer has dropped by 16%. Average age of fleets is the oldest I've ever seen."
"Number of Class 8 tractors in operation in the US has dropped 12% or 270,000 units since 2006 and the number of tractors eight years old or newer has dropped by 16%. Average age of fleets is the oldest I've ever seen."
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
CSA Article
Ranking the Risks of CSA Poor Scores: Reasons Why Carriers Must Check DataCome this December, is the dawn of a new era in truck safety enforcement. Unfortunately, only a few carriers have taken an aggressive interest in the significance of the new system to them. According to agency Administrator Anne Ferro in comments at the annual meeting of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, only 13,000 of the 500,00 active carriers went online at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to check where they will stand in the new system. That's only 2.6 percent of the active carriers. Ferro urged the truck and bus safety enforcement members of CVSA to spread the word out to the drivers they meet on the road. Drivers and carriers need to know that it is up to them to correct their performance, Ferro said. To enforcement officials, why so few carriers have logged on is puzzling to them. The program has been hard to miss for the past year or so. "Game changer" for truck industry, is how the carriers that have been trying the system have described it. It's really hard to miss this for it has been extensively talked about at industry meetings and in industry media, and has been the subject of fierce, public dialogue between the industry and FMCSA – not to forget to mention the hearing on Capitol Hill. Officials came into conclusion the some percentage of the active carriers are not in the information loop or are extremely concentrated on their daily affairs to take notice of a deadline that, thus far, has been a few months away. California Highway Patrol's Capt. Steve Dowling, who becomes president of CVSA at this week's meeting, revealed he is perturbed but not totally startled. It has been the practice of many trucking companies to delay action as long as they can. He's seeing more interest from California trucking companies now that the December deadline is fast approaching. Ferro explained that even though CSA 2010 will start in December, the implementation will take place constantly over the next year as the states get their enforcement people warmed up in the new system. She also added that the CSA 2010 label will immediately be changed to plainly CSA, for Compliance, Safety and Accountability. FMCSA will be very busy on the month of December. The following will happen on this month: the CSA data that is now made available to carriers will be opened to the public; FMCSA will start mailing warning letters to carriers whose data does not measure up; and the agency will start discovering which unsuitable carriers will get field interventions. Ferro said that within the first half of the year the agency will publish a proposal for how it will decide safety fitness under CSA. This is a vital element of the new system that in effect will separate the Compliance Review from a carrier's safety rating and attach it instead with monthly performance data from the new Safety Management System. Bryan Price, senior transportation specialist at FMCSA, said a number of misapprehensions about CSA persist in the driver community. The agency is not producing a public driver scorecard, rating or ranking, he said. Furthermore, CSA will not result to mass CDL suspensions, and the agency has no plans to prohibit the ability to drive based on physical characteristics such as weight, body mass index or neck size. On the other hand, here are very valid reasons why should carriers pay attention to their standing in the new system. Forget the risk of intervention by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for a little awhile. The FMCSA is just a speck compared to some other risks. David Mitchell, the Director of Risk Control/Safety Management at National Trucking Practice—Little Rock, Arkansas, have ranked the most serious risks of poor CSA scores using an enterprise risk management approach. Here are the risks of having poor CSA scores according to their ranks: Risk # 1) Adverse reaction by a shipper. When a shipper learns that carrier's scores are poor, they may transfer their business to another trucking company. The loss of revenue can be disastrous to your fleet. The largest risk is to any trucking company that has more than 5% of revenue from one shipper. Mitchell asks, "Who can survive with less revenue?" Risk # 2) Adverse reactions from insurance underwriters. Underwriters have followed safety compliance scores for years, and they are certain to utilize CSA scores when deciding coverage and pricing. Poor scores are almost certain to lessen subjective discounts for your fleet; premiums will increase. Mitchell, again asks, "Does anyone want to pay more premiums?" Risk # 3) Claims settlement values that rise because your fleet has poor CSA scores. This may only affect only the larger, debated claims where you are not ready to accept that your driver made an operating mistake. But these are the claims that may be worth millions$$. Again, Mitchell throws another question for you to ponder upon, "Aren’t claims expensive enough already?" Risk # 4) Poor driver recruiting results as drivers gravitate to fleets with better CSA scores. Many drivers may not give a hoot; some will be very choosy and will join your competitors. Mitchell inquires, "How many drivers might be chased away?" Risk # 5) Finally—–intervention by the FMCSA. This agency has a history of soft and discreet enforcement. They will assess your written plan and give you time to make improvements. Mitchell's final question is, "Haven’t you successfully managed enforcement risks in the past?" Mitchell advises the trucking companies to evaluate and rank the risks at their fleet; to educate their management team about the risks; and for them to create their own improvement plans. He also added that effective solutions create career security for the carrier. |
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Shortages of trucks and truck drivers stall product deliveries
By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY
Shorrtages of trucks and drivers are delaying some deliveries of products and raw materials across the USA and raising freight costs.
The crunch is defying a tepid recovery and near-10% jobless rate that should supply a vast pool of unemployed construction and manufacturing workers. Shortages are likely to worsen when the economy heats up and new rules kick in later this year that will make it tougher to hire drivers with poor safety records and could limit the number of hours drivers can work, experts say.
"What's going to happen in six, 12, 18 months?" says Jon Langenfeld of research firm R.W. Baird.
Since June, PPG Industries (PPG), a top glass and coatings maker, occasionally hasn't been able to find trucks to transport glass from its factories to window fabricators, delaying deliveries a day or two. "If nothing arrives ... it can shut a plant down," says PPG supply chain manager Jeffrey Smith.
After plunging in the recession, contract rates are up about 4% in 2010, and spot rates are up as much as 40%, Langenfeld says. About 70% of shippers surveyed reported tight capacity for full truckload service this quarter, up from 27% the first quarter, according to research firm Wolfe Trahan.
Operators slashed their fleets and workforces in the downturn as demand fell 24%, says Bob Costello, chief economist for the American Trucking Associations. Thousands of small firms closed, while survivors trimmed fleets an average 14%.
Demand is up 10% this year, Costello says, as manufacturing and retail sales have rebounded moderately. But many firms are struggling to beef up fleets and staff. New truck prices have risen $25,000 since 2002 because of stricter emission standards, and many smaller carriers can't get loans because of tight credit requirements, Langenfeld says.
Meanwhile, thousands of older drivers retired when they were laid off or saw their workloads cut. Yet it's tough to attract younger workers to a lifestyle that typically means being away from home for weeks at a time for salaries that start at about $38,000, Costello says. Many of the unemployed prefer to collect jobless benefits, he says.
Combined Transport of Central Point, Ore., has been trying to add 50 drivers to its staff of 370 for months. "We have trucks and trailers sitting around doing nothing," says President Mike Card. He says he turns away two or three jobs a day.
Con-way Truckload (CNW) of Joplin, Mo., which sought 70 drivers this summer, vied with rivals offering $10,000 bonuses, says President Herb Schmidt. Schmidt and Card recently began screening drivers based on the anticipated safety standards. The criteria could shrink the driver pool 5% to 12%, says Rosalyn Wilson of consulting firm Delcan. She projects a 400,000-driver shortage by 2012
Shorrtages of trucks and drivers are delaying some deliveries of products and raw materials across the USA and raising freight costs.
The crunch is defying a tepid recovery and near-10% jobless rate that should supply a vast pool of unemployed construction and manufacturing workers. Shortages are likely to worsen when the economy heats up and new rules kick in later this year that will make it tougher to hire drivers with poor safety records and could limit the number of hours drivers can work, experts say.
"What's going to happen in six, 12, 18 months?" says Jon Langenfeld of research firm R.W. Baird.
Since June, PPG Industries (PPG), a top glass and coatings maker, occasionally hasn't been able to find trucks to transport glass from its factories to window fabricators, delaying deliveries a day or two. "If nothing arrives ... it can shut a plant down," says PPG supply chain manager Jeffrey Smith.
After plunging in the recession, contract rates are up about 4% in 2010, and spot rates are up as much as 40%, Langenfeld says. About 70% of shippers surveyed reported tight capacity for full truckload service this quarter, up from 27% the first quarter, according to research firm Wolfe Trahan.
Operators slashed their fleets and workforces in the downturn as demand fell 24%, says Bob Costello, chief economist for the American Trucking Associations. Thousands of small firms closed, while survivors trimmed fleets an average 14%.
Demand is up 10% this year, Costello says, as manufacturing and retail sales have rebounded moderately. But many firms are struggling to beef up fleets and staff. New truck prices have risen $25,000 since 2002 because of stricter emission standards, and many smaller carriers can't get loans because of tight credit requirements, Langenfeld says.
Meanwhile, thousands of older drivers retired when they were laid off or saw their workloads cut. Yet it's tough to attract younger workers to a lifestyle that typically means being away from home for weeks at a time for salaries that start at about $38,000, Costello says. Many of the unemployed prefer to collect jobless benefits, he says.
Combined Transport of Central Point, Ore., has been trying to add 50 drivers to its staff of 370 for months. "We have trucks and trailers sitting around doing nothing," says President Mike Card. He says he turns away two or three jobs a day.
Con-way Truckload (CNW) of Joplin, Mo., which sought 70 drivers this summer, vied with rivals offering $10,000 bonuses, says President Herb Schmidt. Schmidt and Card recently began screening drivers based on the anticipated safety standards. The criteria could shrink the driver pool 5% to 12%, says Rosalyn Wilson of consulting firm Delcan. She projects a 400,000-driver shortage by 2012
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Pickens Plan
From the desk of T. Boone Pickens
Army:
We’ve got their attention and things are starting to move.
President Obama made the announcement this morning that he is in favor of drilling for oil off the shores of parts of the Atlantic Coast from Virginia on south, the Gulf coast of Florida, and Alaska. Why? Because the Administration agrees with us that we have to do what we’ve been saying all along: Anything American to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I want you to be among the first to see the official statement we put out today so you can be up-to-speed:
“President Obama’s plan to promote more offshore drilling for oil and natural gas is an important step in achieving true energy reform. We should be taking full advantage of every available American resource to help decrease our crippling dependency on foreign oil -- a dependency that is slowing our economic recovery and jeopardizing our homeland security.
“Even if the estimates of the reserves are correct, we are 10 years away from being able to use them. It’s imperative that we promote other immediately available domestic alternatives to solve the national security crisis created by foreign oil dependency.
“Transportation has to lead the way -- it accounts for two-thirds of our oil imports. No energy strategy can be effective unless it promotes the use of domestic natural gas as a transportation fuel alternative to foreign oil/diesel, and the focus has to be on America’s eight million heavy duty vehicles. The NAT GAS Act , a bipartisan bill proposed on both sides of Congress, would advance the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel.”
If you agree with me, please forward this to your friends and family. Let’s keep pushing forward.
-Boone
Pickens Plan
P.O. Box 12123
Dallas, TX, 75225, UNITED STATES
Army:
We’ve got their attention and things are starting to move.
President Obama made the announcement this morning that he is in favor of drilling for oil off the shores of parts of the Atlantic Coast from Virginia on south, the Gulf coast of Florida, and Alaska. Why? Because the Administration agrees with us that we have to do what we’ve been saying all along: Anything American to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I want you to be among the first to see the official statement we put out today so you can be up-to-speed:
“President Obama’s plan to promote more offshore drilling for oil and natural gas is an important step in achieving true energy reform. We should be taking full advantage of every available American resource to help decrease our crippling dependency on foreign oil -- a dependency that is slowing our economic recovery and jeopardizing our homeland security.
“Even if the estimates of the reserves are correct, we are 10 years away from being able to use them. It’s imperative that we promote other immediately available domestic alternatives to solve the national security crisis created by foreign oil dependency.
“Transportation has to lead the way -- it accounts for two-thirds of our oil imports. No energy strategy can be effective unless it promotes the use of domestic natural gas as a transportation fuel alternative to foreign oil/diesel, and the focus has to be on America’s eight million heavy duty vehicles. The NAT GAS Act , a bipartisan bill proposed on both sides of Congress, would advance the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel.”
If you agree with me, please forward this to your friends and family. Let’s keep pushing forward.
-Boone
Pickens Plan
P.O. Box 12123
Dallas, TX, 75225, UNITED STATES
Friday, April 16, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Carrier Safety Measurement System
Safety Measurement System
Within the Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA 2010) Operational Model, the Safet Measurement System (SMS) quantifies the on-road safety performance of carriers and drivers to identify candidates for interventions, to determine the specific safety problems exhibited by a carrier or driver, and to monitor whether safety problems are improving or worsening. SMS replaces SafeStat in the new operational model.
The carrier SMS uses a motor carrier’s data from roadside inspections, including all safety-based violations, State-reported crashes, and the Federal motor carrier census to quantify performance in the following Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs).
CSA 2010 BASICs:
Unsafe Driving — Operation of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) by drivers in a dangerous or careless manner. Example Violations: Speeding, reckless driving, improper lane change, and inattention. (FMCSR Parts 392 and 397)
Fatigued Driving (Hours-of-Service) — Operation of CMVs by drivers who are ill, fatigued, or in non-compliance with the Hours-of-Service (HOS) regulations. This BASIC includes violations of regulations pertaining to logbooks as they relate to HOS requirements and the management of CMV driver fatigue. Example Violations: HOS, logbook, and operating a CMV while ill or fatigued. (FMCSR Parts 392 and 395)
Driver Fitness — Operation of CMVs by drivers who are unfit to operate a CMV due to lack of training, experience, or medical qualifications. Example Violations: Failure to have a valid and appropriate commercial driver’s license and being medically unqualified to operate a CMV. (FMCSR Parts 383 and 391)
Controlled Substances/Alcohol — Operation of CMVs by drivers who are impaired due to alcohol, illegal drugs, and misuse of prescription or over-the-counter medications. Example Violations: Use or possession of controlled substances/alcohol. (FMCSR Parts 382 and 392)
Vehicle Maintenance — Failure to properly maintain a CMV. Example Violations: Brakes, lights, and other mechanical defects, and failure to make required repairs. (FMCSR Parts 393 and 396)
Cargo-Related — Failure to properly prevent shifting loads, spilled or dropped cargo, overloading, and unsafe handling of hazardous materials on a CMV. Example Violations: Improper load securement, cargo retention, size and weight, and hazardous material handling. (FMCSR Parts 392, 393, 397 and HM Violations)
Crash Indicator— Histories or patterns of high crash involvement, including frequency and severity. It is based on information from State-reported crashes.
A carrier’s measurement for each BASIC depends on:
The number of adverse safety events (violations related to that BASIC or crashes)
The severity of violations or crashes
When the adverse safety events occurred (more recent events are weighted more heavily).
After a measurement is determined, the carrier is then placed in a peer group (e.g., other carriers with similar numbers of inspections). Percentiles from 0 to 100 are then determined by comparing the BASIC measurements of the carrier to the measurements of other carriers in the peer group. 100 indicates the worst performance.
Within the Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA 2010) Operational Model, the Safet Measurement System (SMS) quantifies the on-road safety performance of carriers and drivers to identify candidates for interventions, to determine the specific safety problems exhibited by a carrier or driver, and to monitor whether safety problems are improving or worsening. SMS replaces SafeStat in the new operational model.
The carrier SMS uses a motor carrier’s data from roadside inspections, including all safety-based violations, State-reported crashes, and the Federal motor carrier census to quantify performance in the following Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs).
CSA 2010 BASICs:
Unsafe Driving — Operation of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) by drivers in a dangerous or careless manner. Example Violations: Speeding, reckless driving, improper lane change, and inattention. (FMCSR Parts 392 and 397)
Fatigued Driving (Hours-of-Service) — Operation of CMVs by drivers who are ill, fatigued, or in non-compliance with the Hours-of-Service (HOS) regulations. This BASIC includes violations of regulations pertaining to logbooks as they relate to HOS requirements and the management of CMV driver fatigue. Example Violations: HOS, logbook, and operating a CMV while ill or fatigued. (FMCSR Parts 392 and 395)
Driver Fitness — Operation of CMVs by drivers who are unfit to operate a CMV due to lack of training, experience, or medical qualifications. Example Violations: Failure to have a valid and appropriate commercial driver’s license and being medically unqualified to operate a CMV. (FMCSR Parts 383 and 391)
Controlled Substances/Alcohol — Operation of CMVs by drivers who are impaired due to alcohol, illegal drugs, and misuse of prescription or over-the-counter medications. Example Violations: Use or possession of controlled substances/alcohol. (FMCSR Parts 382 and 392)
Vehicle Maintenance — Failure to properly maintain a CMV. Example Violations: Brakes, lights, and other mechanical defects, and failure to make required repairs. (FMCSR Parts 393 and 396)
Cargo-Related — Failure to properly prevent shifting loads, spilled or dropped cargo, overloading, and unsafe handling of hazardous materials on a CMV. Example Violations: Improper load securement, cargo retention, size and weight, and hazardous material handling. (FMCSR Parts 392, 393, 397 and HM Violations)
Crash Indicator— Histories or patterns of high crash involvement, including frequency and severity. It is based on information from State-reported crashes.
A carrier’s measurement for each BASIC depends on:
The number of adverse safety events (violations related to that BASIC or crashes)
The severity of violations or crashes
When the adverse safety events occurred (more recent events are weighted more heavily).
After a measurement is determined, the carrier is then placed in a peer group (e.g., other carriers with similar numbers of inspections). Percentiles from 0 to 100 are then determined by comparing the BASIC measurements of the carrier to the measurements of other carriers in the peer group. 100 indicates the worst performance.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Letter to the Editor, Transport Topics 2/22/10
CSA 2010
As implementation day for CSA 2010 — the Comprehensive Safety Analysis program — gets closer, there is bound to be a flurry of concerns emerging. One of the major concerns should be with enforcement: How exactly is this going to be conducted?
Is the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration going to go on a national hiring blitz for auditors? What are the expectations of FMCSA’s ability to conduct all the targeted areas of safety/compliance audits as they present themselves?
As it now stands, there simply are not enough enforcement personnel available to conduct current audits, let alone what will be necessary once CSA 2010 is in place. There will be too many audits to perform and not enough auditors to perform them.
Because the audit criteria will change to target only — even just one deficient area of concern — there automatically will be more audits to perform.
We all know how flawed the SafeStat system has been in gathering accurate information from the states — and especially so with regard to accidents. Yet FMCSA still uses this flawed information, in part, upon which to base a safety/compliance audit, even though the information was removed from SafeStat years ago because it was not accurate.
This same information source will be what generates an audit going forward. The carrier involved should not have to be the one to clear up inaccurate information for FMCSA, especially after they show up at your door.
How easy is it to get bad data removed with FMCSA’s DataQ system for filing concerns about federal and state data made public by agency, and what is the success rate in doing so?
To begin with, we should demand accurate state reporting. We are held accountable for compliance assurance, so why aren’t the states?
As for not holding the driver accountable for his or her inaccuracies and/or violations with the onset of 2010, that is not acceptable. The drivers are the propelling force behind an audit. Without holding them accountable while doing their job, the company is still at their mercy.
Companies simply cannot continue to attempt compliance assurance after the fact; the time to address violations and accountability is at the time the violations are observed.
Lawrence Hartung
Director of Safety
deBoer Transportation Inc.
Blenker, Wis.
As implementation day for CSA 2010 — the Comprehensive Safety Analysis program — gets closer, there is bound to be a flurry of concerns emerging. One of the major concerns should be with enforcement: How exactly is this going to be conducted?
Is the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration going to go on a national hiring blitz for auditors? What are the expectations of FMCSA’s ability to conduct all the targeted areas of safety/compliance audits as they present themselves?
As it now stands, there simply are not enough enforcement personnel available to conduct current audits, let alone what will be necessary once CSA 2010 is in place. There will be too many audits to perform and not enough auditors to perform them.
Because the audit criteria will change to target only — even just one deficient area of concern — there automatically will be more audits to perform.
We all know how flawed the SafeStat system has been in gathering accurate information from the states — and especially so with regard to accidents. Yet FMCSA still uses this flawed information, in part, upon which to base a safety/compliance audit, even though the information was removed from SafeStat years ago because it was not accurate.
This same information source will be what generates an audit going forward. The carrier involved should not have to be the one to clear up inaccurate information for FMCSA, especially after they show up at your door.
How easy is it to get bad data removed with FMCSA’s DataQ system for filing concerns about federal and state data made public by agency, and what is the success rate in doing so?
To begin with, we should demand accurate state reporting. We are held accountable for compliance assurance, so why aren’t the states?
As for not holding the driver accountable for his or her inaccuracies and/or violations with the onset of 2010, that is not acceptable. The drivers are the propelling force behind an audit. Without holding them accountable while doing their job, the company is still at their mercy.
Companies simply cannot continue to attempt compliance assurance after the fact; the time to address violations and accountability is at the time the violations are observed.
Lawrence Hartung
Director of Safety
deBoer Transportation Inc.
Blenker, Wis.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Trucking Companies Focus on Educating Drivers to Meet CSA Requirements | Transport Topics Online | Trucking, Freight Transportation and Logistics News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)