27 months in: CSA prompts motor carrier changes

Since DOT replaced its old motor carrier safety fitness high risk identification system—SAFESTAT—with the new Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) measurement project, more and more motor carriers are paying attention to its effects. For many months preceding and following CSA’s official December 2010, roll-out, many truck and bus companies did not pay much attention to it. Some simply felt the program would not be ready for nationwide use or that political maneuvering would delay its implementation. As we know, that did not happen.

But now, while many of the CSA components are not yet finalized, poor safety-performing carriers are feeling the pinch as shippers, customers, insurers, charter bus customers, etc., consider the CSA measures in their decisions to conduct business with certain carriers. Whether they like it or not, these carriers are taking steps to improve their scores and have been forced to see the economic market forces that compel them to make safety a higher company priority.

As one of the early architects of CSA when I served as Chief Safety Officer at DOT, providing this public information to consumers was intended to act as an economic imperative for carriers to comply with their regulatory responsibilities since, for many high risk operators, the fear of government enforcement action did not deter them from continuing to be non-compliant. After 27 months of operation, CSA appears now to be that incentive.

Modernizing management methods

More than ever, companies are turning to safety advisors, technologies and other proven measures to deal with issues that cast an unflattering light on a carrier’s operation. Companies which have earned poor scores by not exerting enough oversight over drivers and fleet maintenance have realized that relying solely on spreadsheets, tickler systems and notes scribbled on pieces of paper do not provide enough structure to allow for timely and active action to manage results.

One carrier I recently reviewed demonstrated they well understood their safety duties but were simply overwhelmed by too much paper, disorganized files and reliance on lower level managers to stay vigilant. Poor scores in the Driver Fitness measure, for example, often reveal an incompetent system for staying ahead of expiring CDL’s and medical certificates—two of the main violations cited within this factor. Scoring poorly on this measure also suggests the carrier may lack an effective overall operating system capable of managing what are very basic oversight requirements. If a company cannot get this “right” what might it reveal about more complex, difficult compliance duties.

Companies using old fashioned methods to track these requirements are finding themselves struggling to improve their scores before customers threaten loss of business or regulators act. Carriers oversubscribed to paper tracking can take heart.

There are a number of inexpensive, automated compliance tools in the marketplace able to harness the era of smartphones and other handheld technologies that are simple for drivers to use and provide managers with vital operating data to ensure compliance requirements are met. This includes hours of duty tracking, pre- and post- trip inspections, driver credentialing, etc. Compared with the potential loss of customers and civil penalties imposed by enforcement officials, not to mention the operating efficiencies that these automated compliance tools offer, carriers would be well advised to explore if these systems will help them perform better.