# Presentation: 372610

## Comprehensive Safety AnalysisCSA 2010 

- August 12, 2008

## What and why CSA 2010?
A new operational model
Potential benefits
Operational model test
Timeline
Impact on motor carriers and drivers
We want your input

- What and why CSA 2010?
- A new operational model
- Potential benefits
- Operational model test
- Timeline
- Impact on motor carriers and drivers
- We want your input

## High priority FMCSA safety initiative –

To increase efficiency & effectiveness – compliance/enforcement

Ultimate Goal:  Achieve greater reduction in large truck and bus fatalities

- High priority FMCSA safety initiative –
- To increase efficiency & effectiveness – compliance/enforcement
- _Ultimate Goal:_  Achieve greater reduction in large truck and bus fatalities

## Why CSA 2010?

**Notes:**
A graph showing number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by year.  The years shown are 1975 through 2005.  The graph shows a gradual reduction in the fatality rate from 1980 to 2005.  The graph also points to motor carrier programs that came into place during a particular year.  These are:  the roadside inspection program in 1984; CR/Safety Rating in 1986; and PRISM SafeStat On-Line in 1999.

## Why CSA 2010?

- Current Operational Model Limitations
- Safety fitness determination tied to compliance review.
- Very labor intensive.
- _Result_:  We assess only small fraction of industry.
- Focus is on carriers.

## Four major elements ---
Measurement
Interventions
Safety Fitness Determination
IT/COMPASS

- Four major elements ---
- Measurement
- Interventions
- Safety Fitness Determination
- IT/COMPASS

## SafeStat vs. Safety Measurement System (SMS)

| Today’s Model SafeStat | CSA 2010’s SMS |
| --- | --- |
| Organized in 4 broad categories --- Safety Evaluation Areas | Organized by Behavior Analysis Safety Improvement Categories (7 BASICs) |
| Identifies carriers for a compliance review (CR) | Identifies safety performance problems to determine intervention level and safety fitness |
| Uses only out-of-service (OOS) and moving violations from inspections | Emphasizes on-road safety performance, using all safety-based inspection violations |
| No impact on safety rating | Used to propose adverse safety fitness determination based on carriers’ own data |
| No risk based violation weightings | Risk based violation weightings |
| Assesses carriers only | Two distinct safety measurement systems – carriers and drivers |

**Notes:**
A table comparing today’s SafeStat model with CSA 2010’s new safety measurement system.

## Interventions

| Today’s Model  | CSA 2010 Interventions |
| --- | --- |
| Limited to compliance review (CR); complete review needed to rate carrier
 | Broad array of progressive interventions |
| CR is resource intensive
 | More interventions less resource intensive
 |
| CR assesses broad compliance through rigid set of acute/critical regulations
 | Interventions target unsafe behavior
 |
| Generally, audit approach | Investigative approach; root cause and educational element |

**Notes:**
A table comparing FMCSA current model for CRs with CSA 2010’s Interventions.

## Today’s Model
SFD tied to compliance review
Satisfactory, Conditional, or Unsatisfactory
SFD effective until next CR
SFD based on acute/critical violations

- _Today’s Model_
- SFD tied to compliance review
- Satisfactory, Conditional, or Unsatisfactory
- SFD effective until next CR
- SFD based on acute/critical violations

- _CSA 2010 _
- SFD tied to performance data; not necessarily CR
- Continue Operation, Marginal, or Unfit
- SFD assigned to all carriers with sufficient data; updated regularly
- SFD based on violations of all safety regulations

**CSA 2010 Operational Model**

**Notes:**
A flow chart showing the interrelationship among the major components of the CSA 2010 operational model.  Under the proposed model, motor carrier compliance activities and reports feed into safety data.  Safety data, in turn, is used to measure a carrier’s safety performance.  Based on the resulting safety evaluation, a carrier could be selected for an intervention.  In addition, a carrier could be assigned a rating of   1) continue to operate; 2) marginal; or 3) unfit.

## CSA 2010 Potential Benefits

- Maximize effectiveness of resources
- Correct unsafe behavior early
- Assess larger segment of industry
- _Achieve Goal_:  Greater reduction in large truck and bus related fatalities

## Purpose ---

Validate new operational model

Validate intervention process

Determine efficiency and safety effectiveness 

- Purpose ---
- Validate new operational model
- Validate intervention process
- Determine efficiency and safety effectiveness

## 30 months – Jan-2008 to Jun - 2010
Phase I – Startup Feb-08
Phase II – Fully Operational Oct-08
UMTRI evaluation
4 States: CO, GA, MO, and NJ
26 safety investigators state and federal
Carriers domiciled in 4 states randomly split into two groups: ~ 34,000 each
Test group and control group
No regulatory relief in test group – enforcement too

- 30 months – Jan-2008 to Jun - 2010
- Phase I – Startup Feb-08
- Phase II – Fully Operational Oct-08
- UMTRI evaluation
- 4 States: CO, GA, MO, and NJ
- 26 safety investigators state and federal
- Carriers domiciled in 4 states randomly split into two groups: ~ 34,000 each
- Test group and control group
- No regulatory relief in test group – enforcement too

## Surprised they have received FMCSA attention
Appreciation that problem is brought to their attention before it’s “too late”
Interest in knowing how they are being evaluated and appreciation for the data available
Taking immediate action to rectify problem
Appreciation for off-sites (carriers that have had a CR)
Those with no prior contact with FMCSA are cautious
1,758 warning letters sent out through June
757 (43 percent) logged into CSI to examine their data

- Surprised they have received FMCSA attention
- Appreciation that problem is brought to their attention before it’s “too late”
- Interest in knowing how they are being evaluated and appreciation for the data available
- Taking immediate action to rectify problem
- Appreciation for off-sites (carriers that have had a CR)
- Those with no prior contact with FMCSA are cautious
- 1,758 warning letters sent out through June
- 757 (43 percent) logged into CSI to examine their data

## Status & Target Dates

- Team deployed May 2005
- Completed developmental work by December 2007
- Currently in test & validation phase
- Deploy carriers by 2010.  Drivers in reauthorization.

- 2006

- 2005

- 2008

- 2007

- 2010

- 2009

- Concept

- Development

- Test & Validate

- Deploy

- Add States

- DOT Reauthorization

- CSA Team Initiated

- SFD Final Regulation

- *

- Today

**Notes:**
A timeline that shows the key target dates for CSA 2010.

## All safety violations at roadside considered
Safety fitness updated every 30 days
All carriers with sufficient data
Broader array of less time-consuming interventions
Poor safety performance = greater likelihood of being contacted
Increased emphasis on CMV drivers
Crash accountability will be determined

- All safety violations at roadside considered
- Safety fitness updated every 30 days
- All carriers with sufficient data
- Broader array of less time-consuming interventions
- Poor safety performance = greater likelihood of being contacted
- Increased emphasis on CMV drivers
- Crash accountability will be determined

## Public Listening Session
October 16, 2008
Washington, DC
Watch for further information
For more information – or to submit questions or comments, please visit our Web site:

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/csa2010

- Public Listening Session
- October 16, 2008
- Washington, DC
- Watch for further information
- For more information – or to submit questions or comments, please visit our Web site:
_**www.fmcsa.dot.gov/csa2010**_