CVSA Guardian 1st Quarter 2011

Volume 17, Issue 3

Third Quarter 2010

Guardian

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

Table of Contents Insight President’s Message ......................................................................................................1 Letter to the Editor/OP-ED ..............................................................................................2 The Legislative Rundown ................................................................................................4 Knowledge Matters ........................................................................................................6

Federal News

Guardian Published by: Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 6303 Ivy Lane, Suite 310 Greenbelt, MD 20770-6319 Phone: (301) 830-6143 Fax: (301) 830-6144 www.cvsa.org

Ask the Administrator ......................................................................................................8 FMCSA Opens New National Training Center Facility ......................................................10 TSA Developing Report on Nation’s Most Critical Highway Structures ..............................11

Dedicated to government and industry working together to promote commercial vehicle safety on North American highways.

2009 Data Shows Historic Drop in Truck Crashes ............................................................12 FMCSA Sets Compliance Date for Intermodal Equipment Providers ................................13 The Hazardous Materials Safety Permit: Raising the Bar to Entry and the Need for Stepped-Up Enforcement ..............................................................14 CCMTA’s Standing Committee on Compliance and Regulatory Affairs Outlines Priorities for 2011 ......................................................................................16 SCT Reinforces Training and Productivity of Federal Motor Carrier Inspectors ..................17

CVSA News CVSA Provides Leadership on Differences Between an Inspection and a Screen for an Inspection..................................................................................18 In-Service Inspector Training Materials Being Developed ................................................19 Operation Safe Driver Data Sounds Alarm on Speeders ..................................................20

Cover Story/Feature COHMED Provides Informative Training to Enforcement on Hazardous Materials Transportation ..........................................................................22 Reportable Quantities and Marine Pollutants, a Closer Look ..........................................24

Inspector’s Corner

..................................................................................................26

Committee News ABS – The Simple Basics for Inspectors ..........................................................................28

HEADQUARTERS STAFF Stephen A. Keppler Executive Director Collin B. Mooney, CAE Deputy Executive Director Larry D. Stern Director, Level VI Inspection Program Richard D. Henderson Director, Government Affairs William P. Schaefer Director, Vehicle Programs Randy J. West Director, Driver Programs Laura M. Zabriskie Director, Communications and Marketing Iris R. Leonard Manager, Program Services J. Craig Defibaugh Controller

Regional News Ohio’s New Entrant Program is an Example of How to Overcome Problems

For comments, suggestions or information, please email us at communications@cvsa.org.

and Get the Job Done ............................................................................................30 Nova Scotia Vehicle Compliance Outreach Recognizes Best Practices ..............................31 Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling Impacts Commercial Vehicle Safety in Pennsylvania ..............32 Technology-Enabled Commercial Vehicle Enforcement in Washington Improves Safety and Efficiency..................................................................................34

Regional Rap ............................................................................................................35 Industry Spotlight A&R Transport Inc. Providing Safety First ........................................................................38

About the cover: Georgia Motor Carrier Compliance officers inspect a HazMat Cargo Tank during Field Training

Winning the War Against Distracted Driving: One Company’s Battle Strategy Revealed ................................................................39

Executive Director’s Message ............................................................................40 RAD Inspection News ............................................................................................41

Guardian is a publication of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Guardian I

N

S

I

G

H

T

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

From Asia to North America

By Capt. Steve Dowling, CVSA President

I recently had the opportunity to travel to Asia and work with an organization that runs orphanages for street children.

During my trip I turned off my blackberry, forgot about my "in" basket and was not worried about CMV's or any other responsibility; I just focused on giving a group of kids my time and attention. As often is the case when you serve others, you receive much more in return. In my case, these children, that had little or nothing in this world, provided a sharp reminder to keep life focused on what is important.

While I was there, I also had the privilege to observe the leader of the organization that oversees the children's homes -he was a true visionary that was purposeful in staying focused upon the organization's mission. One story stood out to me that occurred several years ago when the orphanage took in a child they later discovered had a learning disability. As a result, the leader made the tough decision to return this child to their family, even though the family's poverty would at best only provide one meal a day. The leader explained how the organization was not equipped to handle children with disabilities, and that was not their mission.

Although he hoped someday they could expand their resources to include this focus, the organization needed to stay within their established purpose and abilities.

So why do I share all this? Although under markedly different circumstances, I find the core principles utilized in a children’s home in Asia apply to CVSA as well. The pressure to do more with fewer resources is constant, however, we must be realistic of our operational abilities and function consistent with our core mission and vision. The Alliance’s Executive Committee and staff are try-

Capt. Steve Dowling

…we must be realistic of our operational abilities and function consistent with our core mission and vision.

ing to consistently reflect this vision focus as demonstrated by some of the recent changes that CVSA has undergone this past year. The most recent example is the reorganization of staff responsibilities and hiring of two new positions, Director of Vehicle Programs and Director of Driver Programs. This intentional shift of focus is designed to deliberately align our resources with the Alliance's core mission and is the result of our Executive Director adjusting assets to fulfill organizational values.

These steps are the first of an effort to

put resources and processes in place that will guide us in the future.

I also share it out of some concerns I have that CVSA decals are not being issued and honored as they are designed and intended. If it is true, even by a few individuals, we must work vigorously to restore the integrity of the CVSA decal. CVSA was created to be mutually beneficial to enforcement and industry. If decals are not recognized as successful completion of a uniformed inspection process, then a core tenant of the Alliance is compromised.

At the same time, we need to remember that diversity is a strength of our organization. Having contrasting views and honest debate is a healthy byproduct of the Alliance, as long as we do not sacrifice uniformity in the process. As we move forward with important initiatives such as Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA), load securement, hours of service, data reciprocity, and others, we must stay intentional in our efforts.

At the upcoming workshop in Chicago, each of you will have the opportunity to participate in the evaluation process to ensure we are mission focused.

Specifically, the Committee Chairs have been asked to create prioritized deliverables that show direct linkage to the purpose of their respective committee and the mission of the Alliance. Likewise, the Program Chairs are reviewing their program objectives and updating goals.

This type of intentional dialogue has proven valuable to the Executive Committee this past year as we have made adjustments to operations based upon member feedback. A recent example of this has been moving to a condensed Spring Workshop and Annual Conference schedule. These changes have created some logistical challenges

1

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE (continued)

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

but are fiscally wise decisions.

Another example is the transition of the Intelligent Transportation Committee from a standing committee to a forum. This change allows emerging technologies and best practices to be showcased in a format that is more conducive with its original purpose.

To stay fiscally accountable, the Alliance moved our main headquarters to Greenbelt, Maryland, and our Government Affairs office to Capitol Hill. This change provided significant cost savings and improved efficiency. Moving our Government Affairs office to Capitol Hill allows our staff greater proximity to legislators and policy makers, as well as some key partners who share our same building space including the Governors Highway Safety Association, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors Association, to name a few.

I say all of this as a reminder of how important it is to keep our priorities straight. Sometimes that means we will do less; sometimes it will mean change; and sometimes it will require adjusting priorities to focus on our current abilities for a given point and time. Regardless, we must be strategically focused on improving safety through partnerships, trust and on-going communication.

Thanks for partnering with and through CVSA on our journey to improve highway safety. I look forward to seeing what we can do in the year ahead!

Is your “ready-line” ready to pass upcoming CSA inspections? Those in our industry have mentioned that 40 percent of the vehicles in the “ready-line” would not pass an inspection based on the Maintenance and Repair Regulations 393 and 396.

Over the last 25 years, we have travelled across the U.S. and Canada, racked up millions of miles on the road, talked to thousands of customers, industry executives, and owners. Our anecdotal data suggests (and many of you already know this already) that the 40 percent number mentioned above might be a low number.

At a recent customer visit, a vehicle on the “ready-line” would have racked up major violation points due to ABS issues, air leaks, and a bent brake rod.

Now, imagine that the cargo was loaded and the driver ready for a cross-country run, only to have the trip postponed at the last minute due to the vehicle not being ready. Is it fair to say this business would have lost tens of thousands of dollars in revenue due to an unhappy client, plus the added unplanned expenses of an impromptu inspection and last minute “fixes.” Now, image the impact to the firm's service-level commitments, reputation, and brand.

So the question is: Is your “readyline,” ready? Starting in December, owners, operators, and executives may see a brand and financial impact because of Maintenance & Repair (M&R) and Out-of-Service (OSS) issues. What we see as one of the most overlooked issues in the industry, and one that has the most CSA impact, is the attention given to ABS, brakes and braking systems.

2

“A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore.” - Yogi Berra

How important are brakes and braking systems your operations? According to CVSA statistics, 60 percent of Out of Service brake defects would have, and should have, been discovered with a good pre-trip inspection using modern diagnostic tools and training What we have found is that the life cycle of brakes starts before the vehicle leaves the manufacturing plant. Proper inspection of brakes, linkages, hoses, airlines, and compliance with 121 braketiming standards set by CMVSS/FMVSS is critical to ensure the proper functioning of braking systems from the onset – more on this in a future article.

Once vehicles are in operation, proper brake inspection requires a commitment to develop and follow the proper processes for the inspection and maintenance of braking systems. Modern braking systems in today's trailers require sophisticated diagnostic tools, trained technicians, consistent shop processes, and effective tracking and scheduling of inspection and maintenance activities.

Properly designed test and inspections solutions simplify the establishment of consistent inspection and maintenance processes, and can help technicians of varying skill levels similar high-quality test and inspection results.

The smart answer: improve your “ready-line” with modern tools, ongoing training, and consistent practice.

1. Develop a consistent and comprehensive inspection process for Brakes, Air, Electrical, and ABS. 2. Provide properly regulated Emergency

CVSA’s Guardian welcomes your letters and comments. To submit a letter, send an email to communications@cvsa.org or write to CVSA, c/o Guardian, 6303 Ivy Lane, Suite 310, Greenbelt, MD 20770-6319.

Guardian I

N

S

I

G

H

T

OP-ED

CSA Will Further Expand Recent Safety Gains

and Service air with at least 10 psi difference between the two.

3. Check Air System and Air Brakes for leaks - both internal and external.

4. Check Brake System by: a. Releasing Spring brakes and, b. Applying regulated Service Air to brakes and visually observe proper function (When measuring slacks, maintain consistent air pressure for each actuation) 5. Perform comprehensive ABS analysis: a. Apply brake circuit to verify secondary power and ABS Lamp b. Apply power to Auxiliary circuit to verify correct operation and power to ABS’s ECU i. At a minimum, confirm ABS Lamp flash on and off within three seconds ii. You should hear “chatter” from air solenoids c. Read ABS components for any Active or Stored Faults, and collect Mileage and manufacture information.

The goal is to deliver “road-ready” vehicles to the “ready-line.” Fleets that implement a comprehensive and consistent inspection process, utilize modern diagnostic equipment, conduct DOTstyle inspections, and have management policies that enforce this practice are rewarded with smooth running ready lines, and vehicles that are ready for a CSA inspection.

Let’s all continue to improve road safety through training, modern diagnostic equipment, and commitment.

Bob Blair, CEO, LITE-CHECK

The transition of evaluating and improving motor carrier compliance has begun in the United States and includes more than a name change from the Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 to Compliance Safety Accountability (CSA). FMCSA Administrator Ferro and her team have granted bus and truck companies a generous amount of time to review their safety performance through the expanded prism of safety data. Now, however, shippers, insurance, brokers, media and the public can see how carriers used their extended time to improve safety performance before the data was publicly accessible in December 2010. Sadly, only days before the CSA scores were made public, only 20,000 of the country’s more than 500,000 active motor carriers had even bothered to login in to the FMCSA database and look at their safety data. Such complacency among a regulated group is indefensible.

Motor carrier safety in this country has advanced significantly in recent years. CSA will further expand these recent safety gains by focusing more attention on carriers which are reluctant to change their business model to include safety into their profit and loss statements. Safe carriers are intentional about their priorities. Safety must be integrated in every facet of a truck or bus company’s operation – not simply designated as a department which records and publishes reports regarding its crashes and processes damage claims. During economically stressful periods, a carrier committed to safety will agonize over any cuts in safety oversight.

Highway crashes and the corresponding safety compliance systems are costly; in terms of human tragedy, economic and work place productivity loss, but also for government oversight. During the CSA pilot project, the cost of performing interventions was much less than the labor intensive compliance review, in fact, nearly half as expensive. As Congress eventually considers passage of the highway reauthorization bill and reviews the viability of funding FMCSA’s budget, congressional authorizing and appropriations committees will be looking for cost-savings. It is likely that federal spending will be reduced in the next Congress and CSA promises to expand the federal and state compliance activities with fewer taxpayer dollars.

As noted earlier, the underwhelming and poor response by motor carriers to access new safety data should encourage FMCSA and states to accelerate training of field staff for early interventions of carriers with poor safety performance. Many proactive businesses have invested substantially in CSA by training drivers, changing policies, hiring safety staff and working with states to correct safety data. These entities should see their investment as worthwhile. Poor performing carriers need to experience increased regulatory oversight and realize they missed an opportunity.

Lastly, the safety monitoring piece of CSA, though now implemented, will be expanded into the crucial safety fitness determination rulemaking with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in early 2011. This will anchor the vision of CSA by allowing thousands of previously unrated motor carriers to have a safety rating. Publication of this vitally important NPRM will generate healthy, contentious but helpful debate about motor carrier safety.

However, right now, motor carriers need to realize they are going to experience interventions if they persist in a non-compliant or indifferent safety posture. This sensitivity to intervention will occur as the dedicated enforcement staff of FMCSA, state and local agencies aggressively set the tone for CSA. John Hill, Former FMCSA Administrator, President,The Hill Group

3

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

The Legislative Rundown

By Richard D. Henderson, CVSA, Director, Government Affairs

Richard Henderson

Federal Agencies Funded Through March 4, 2011; SAFETEA-LU Also Extended to March 4, 2011; Funding for Remainder of FY 2011 Remains Uncertain In the final hours of the 111th Congress in late December, Congress passed a Continuing Resolution (CR) that funded all federal agencies, including the Department of Transportation and FMCSA, through March 4, 2011 at 2010 funding levels. Earlier efforts to pass a regular appropriations bill funding the government for the remainder of the 2011 FY did not succeed.

While the short-term CR avoided an immediate shutdown of the government, the fact that it is just a temporary measure, along with the fact that SAFETEA-LU was only extended to March 4 as well*, creates a level of funding uncertainty for states as they try to administer an annual program such as MCSAP and other state safety programs. This is the 6th extension of SAFETEA-LU resulting thus far in 6 incremental funding allocations for the states with at least one more incremental allocation due by March 4. By March 4, well into the 2011 FY, the states will have received only 42.5% of funds approved at 2010 levels.

This CR did not renew the Maine/ Vermont truck weight pilot program. It is not known at this time whether this issue will be considered as a part of legislation that will supersede the current March 4 CR. Recent House Rules Change Creates Further Uncertainty for FY 2011 Funding As one of the first orders of business, the newly assembled House of Representa-

4

tives has adopted a new rule that in effect repeals the so-called Highway Trust Fund “firewall” that was adopted by the House in 1998. The “firewall” prohibits Congress from funding highway, transit, and highway safety programs at levels below those written into law by any Transportation authorization bill.

Supporters of the new rule say it is intended to prevent the government from being forced to spend more on surface transportation programs than the Highway Trust Fund collects. This has actually happened in the last few years.

On the other hand state transportation departments point out that they can no longer be assured that they will receive authorized federal funding levels when yearly appropriations bills are enacted.

The number of CR’s passed in the last few years has already created uncertainty even under the “firewall” protection.

The rule change could further impact funding levels for FY 2011 for FMCSA and MCSAP programs along with other state safety grant programs that are funded out of the Highway Trust Fund. The new House Leadership has said that their goal is to fund all government agencies and departments at 2008 funding levels. It is important to keep in mind that the series of CR’s thus far in this Fiscal Year have been providing funding at 2010 levels that are the highest authorized levels under SAFETEA-LU. Should the new Congress follow through on their 2008 spending level goal, it could mean that funding available for safety programs from March 4 to September 30 of this year would be less than the 2010 rate of funding states are now receiving in order that by September 30, the total amount of funds

received by the states for FY 2011 would be consistent with 2008 funding levels, not the current 2010 levels. For example, the current level for MCSAP which is the highest authorized limit under SAFETEA-LU is $209 million. The 2008 authorized limit is $202 million.

FMCSA operational programs would suffer at least a cut of $6 million. While relatively small cuts, they come at a time when both states and FMCSA need additional resources to implement such programs as CSA. In its FY 2011 budget request to Congress, FMCSA had requested an additional $20 million to help with the implementation of CSA. It should be stressed that the new Congress has not yet drafted specific legislation that would supersede the current CR. Also, it is not known if highway safety programs would be exempt from the funding cuts necessitated by going back to the 2008 program levels.

Prospects for a Long-term Transportation Reauthorization Bill As reported in earlier Legislative Updates, incoming House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman, John Mica, has given every indication he intends to write a new Reauthorization bill in his Committee early this spring with a goal of reporting such a bill to the House floor by summer. Chairman Mica’s record of service on the Committee he now chairs leaves no doubt about his strong commitment to the nation’s surface transportation infrastructure and highway and motor carrier safety. Also, he argued against the House rules change noted above.

With an increase in the federal fuel tax apparently off the table, Mr. Mica’s bill would probably not be able to fund pro-

Guardian I

grams much above SAFETEA-LU levels. However, since he says he would emphasize core highway and safety programs and not various other “enhancement” programs, the list of which has grown immensely in recent Reauthorization bills, some additional funding might be freed up. In addition, special earmarks and projects would be sharply reduced.

Also, he mentions leveraging federal dollars with public/private partnerships.

Even though a gas tax increase is still of off the table, it should be pointed out that President Obama’s Commission for debt reduction did recommend an increase in the gas tax starting in 2013 in order to prevent any further general fund bailouts of the Highway Trust Fund.

This recommendation is but one small part of a package that would bring about more general tax reform and spending reductions. Congress may, or may not, seriously consider the many recommendations in the Commission’s report, but there is always a possibility.

Also, no one can predict how a new Transportation bill, however modest, will be viewed by the 20 new Members of Mr. Mica’s Committee as well as the new House Leadership.

By any measure, a Transportation bill is still a major piece of legislation—a “big bill”—and most of the 90 plus newly elected Members of Congress pledged in their campaigns last fall to scale down existing government programs and not to enact any new “big” bills. However, as they learn that a Transportation bill will be largely paid for out of the Highway Trust Fund, and that it will promote economic growth as well as public safety, it could turn out that if the new Members were to support any new legislation, a Transportation bill might be the one.

It is also necessary to look at the Senate side in this discussion. The Senate Leadership and Committee Chairmen will not change in the new Congress.

Environment and Public Works Chairman, Senator Boxer (D-CA) has committed to reporting a new bill out of

her Committee. Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) and Surface Transportation Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ), have committed to writing a new highway and motor carrier safety title of a Reauthorization bill.

All things considered, there is at least a chance for a new bill in 2011. We won’t really know until probably next month.

Stand Alone Safety Bill In the event a Reauthorization bill does not pass both the House and Senate by next summer, the conventional thinking is that such a bill would not be taken up again until 2013, since 2012 is a Presidential election year, an unlikely time for passage of a major transportation bill. Should that be the case, there is a possibility that Congress would take up a stand-alone safety bill covering motor carrier and highway safety. This would be a rare occurrence, although the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 is one such example. That bill created FMCSA and almost doubled MCSAP funding.

Appropriations Route Short of either a full scale Reauthorization bill, or a separate safety bill, there may be efforts to press the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to consider some of the more pressing safety issues that are ordinarily under the jurisdiction of the authorizing Committees. A recent example has been the Maine/Vermont truck weight pilot program. Also, in recent years, all issues pertaining to NAFTA have been dealt with in Appropriations bills.

N

S

I

G

H

T

Major Safety Issues Whether a full Reauthorization bill, a separate safety bill, or an appropriations bill, some of the key safety issues for consideration are as follows: Size and Weight — Even though the Maine/Vermont pilot truck weight pilot was not renewed in the series of CR’s passed by Congress in lieu of a full appropriations bill, the pilot has been a catalyst for hopefully a more comprehensive review of this country’s overall size and weight policy. It provides CVSA with an opportunity to press for a comprehensive pilot program that will yield much needed safety data which is fundamental to any size and weight analysis and any change in current size and weight national standards.

In addition, CVSA will press for a resolution of the size and weight enforcement funding issue. State enforcement agencies need funds to carry out their size and weight enforcement responsibilities. Size and weight enforcement that is not tied to an inspection is not an eligible MCSAP expense, nor is labor an eligible expense under the Federal–Aid Program.

Bus Safety — In the closing days of the last Congress, a bus safety bill had been “hotlined” for a vote on the Senate floor.

Procedural issues in the Senate prevented a vote, but the pressure to pass a bus safety bill remains strong.

Electronic-On-Board-Recorders— Senators Pryor (D-AK) and Alexander (R-TN) introduced a bill in the last Congress mandating the use of EOBR’s.

CVSA has organized an ad-hoc Committee to (continued on page 40)

* Our apology for reporting in the December 21st Legislative Update that

SAFETEA-LU had been extended to September 30, 2011 in the March 4 CR. The actual language of the CR was not on-line at the time of the Update and we relied on the best sources available. It wasn’t until the week after Christmas that we learned of the new revised extension date.

5

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

KNOWLEDGE MATTERS

Looking Back: CVSA Was An Idea That Came at Exactly the Right Time

By Paul R. Henry, Oregon Department of Transportation (Ret.), CVSA President 1982-1983

Revisiting our early history evokes two very important questions: How does an organization garner the kinds of support that provided for the unparalleled, rapid expansion of states, providences, territories and countries as did the Alliance?

We have all heard the expression, “timing is everything.” The Alliance was an idea or a concept at exactly the right time.

The early development of the Alliance took full advantage of at least

Trucks and truck drivers were treated much the same as automobile drivers (offenses were predominantly licensing and traffic citations.)

In 1980, Congress passed the “Truck Regulatory Reform Act.” Essentially, the act deregulated the interstate trucking industry and at the same time it effectively barred the states from continuing much of their intrastate regulation over motor carriers. I believe the passage

…one of the great benefits of the Alliance was the gradual disappearance of the “us versus them” mentality between the enforcement/regulatory community and the trucking community. six historic developments affecting the future of our countries’ trucking industry.

Historically, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was the regulatory authority for interstate motor carriers.

The ICC was responsible for both the economic vitality (operating authority and rates/tariffs) and the safety of operations. Without question the main thrust of the commission was operating authority and rates. Safety was a distant and secondary enterprise. During this period most of the states had established their own regulatory programs, typically patterned after the ICC. Most often the Public Utility Commissions and Utility and Transportation Commissions administered to the state regulatory programs. Only a small number of states maintained any kind of emphasis on motor carrier safety. (Fewer than five, as memory serves). Typically, truck safety was attended to by the various State Police and Highway Patrol agencies.

6

of this Act marked the end of 45 years of federal/state economic regulatory authority over the trucking industry.

Gone were such entrance tests as “Public Convenience and Necessity” and “Fit, Willing and Able.” Wide open were the doors to become a trucker. For the first time untested and unknown people and companies were at liberty to purchase a truck and begin providing cartage services to the general public.

As a result of deregulation, the ICC was effectively dismantled and the primary responsibility for motor carrier safety transferred to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The new truck safety enterprise under the DOT was first called the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. Whether you are pro or con motor carrier regulation, one of the greatest impacts of the truck deregulatory act was the disappearance of many old line, well established and safe motor carriers. The reasons for the demise of these

carriers are many. Nonetheless, one of the immediate products of the Act was thousands of new carriers in the market place. Many of these new carriers were unqualified and/or unsafe. The national campaign for highway safety had started!

In last month’s article, Retired Chief Ed Kynaston said that I had called him in late 1978 to discuss how to better manage our on-highway inspection programs, stop redundant inspections, establish a reciprocity program, and bring about uniformity. At the inception of the Alliance we discovered that not only was there a variety of inspection formats in use, there was also a variety of out-of-service criteria in use between the states and the federal government.

Imagine a truck leaving Los Angeles northbound to Seattle with the possibility of being inspected three times in California, twice in Oregon, and once in Washington. Also, if the Federal Bureau was inspecting that day it could involve one or two federal inspections. All this with three or more inspection criteria and out-of-service criteria’s being used.

Incidentally, prior to 1980 some jurisdictions considered the out-of-service criteria to be quasi confidential. In short, no one was in charge!

In 1982 Congress again acted, this time in large part because of the threat to highway safety created by our nation’s deregulatory initiatives. The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) was passed and for the first time monies flowed from the federal government to the states for the specific purpose of enhancing safety on our nation’s highways. Imagine if you will, prior to MCSAP, Alliance members traveled to meetings funded only by their individual jurisdictional budgets. The

Guardian I

arrival of MCSAP spurred the growth of the Alliance and enhanced member participation by authorizing the use of MCSAP funds for travel and work performed. Dick Landis, an old Alliance member, found himself responsible for the development of the MCSAP when he was appointed to head up the affairs of the Office of Motor Carriers. Dick helped the Alliance in many ways he has yet to receive credit for. In summary, deregulation is responsible in large part for the success of the Alliance and the establishment of MCSAP. Why would individual trucking companies, associations, manufactures, systems providers and component manufactures want to participate in an organization comprised of regulators and law enforcement personnel?

There are any number of enforcement associations and industry associations, but I know of only one enforcement/industry alliance that has spearheaded change, demanded implementation of new and effective standards and prevailed over the long haul: CVSA. The effects of deregulation, historic labor contracts and unbridled competition was challenging the bottom line of many old-line carriers. Thus, much of the trucking industry was on the ropes in the early 80’s. Good carriers cannot compete then or now on a load-for-load basis with unlawful (scofflaws) and unsafe operators. There existed a great need for a North American uniform inspection program.

Dissimilar inspection and out-of-service standards were a handicap to the effective movement of goods. In addition, the trucking industry had a history of having to submit to random, sometimes haphazard inspections. These inspections were often conducted under the policies of individual jurisdictions and at times multiple agencies within a single jurisdiction. CVSA offered a uniform system that industry could understand and was able to comply with. This is where the Alliance’s commitment to the establishment of “inspection uniformity and reciprocity” paid big dividends.

Recently, while thinking about the Alliance and its industry commitment I

contacted John Sallak a past industry Alliance member and past Vice-President of safety for the Oregon Trucking Association. In part, John offered three prominent reasons why he was and continues to be an advocate for the Alliance.

First, many industry members became involved so that they could go back to their companies and associations and better inform and share this new knowledge with their employees and members. Receiving information at Alliance meetings was getting information “from the source,” rather than using and distributing second and third hand information. Industry personnel who participated in Alliance meetings were much better prepared to train drivers, mechanics, and safety officials and take corrective action based on inspection data and established Alliance standards.

Second, as associate members, these people were invited to take part in the decisions made at the committee level.

From our perspective as regulators and enforcement personnel, we were getting

N

S

I

G

H

T

exactly the same from our industry advisory members (we were getting information directly “from the source.”)

Finally, the Alliance membership list provides an excellent benefit for its members. Industry members can contact authorities in each of the jurisdictions when they have inspection, audit or accident questions. What a great benefit for a carrier who is domiciled in Alabama and has a truck inspection question in Alberta to be able to check the membership list and call directly to a responsible official in Alberta.

I think we will all agree that one of the great benefits of the Alliance was the gradual disappearance of the “us versus them” mentality between the enforcement/regulatory community and the trucking community. The Alliance caused a move from adversarial relationships to one of a partnership between agencies and companies, with a common goal: Improved highway safety. Yes, knowledge does matter! It makes our highways safer to travel on!

CVSA Academic Scholarship

Since its inception in 1982, CVSA has been a safety advocate of commercial vehicles. CVSA represents the individuals who dedicate their work to promoting an environment free of commercial vehicle accidents and incidents.

As North America's leading commercial vehicle safety organization, the CVSA Academic Scholarship is the centerpiece of the Alliance's educational outreach initiative. The Scholarship provides two $1000 grants to graduating high school seniors whose parent or legal guardian is a good standing member of CVSA. This grant program is competitive in its selection criteria, uniquely tailored to recognize outstanding high school seniors. Scholarship recipients are selected by weighing academic performance and extracurricular activities.

Application Deadline: April 30, 2011 For more information, please visit: www.cvsa.org/about/cvsa_academicscholarships.aspx

7

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

Ask the FMCSA Administrator

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator (FMCSA) Anne S. Ferro answers your questions. In this issue, the Administrator addresses how the phased roll out of CSA — Compliance, Safety, Accountability Program is progressing; the timeline for warning letters and what state and local law enforcement can expect in 2011.

Question: How has the roll out of CSA affected the states so far and what’s coming next?

Answer: In December, FMCSA launched our centerpiece – Compliance, Safety, Accountability enforcement program (CSA) for commercial trucks and buses.

From April through August of last year, motor carriers received the opportunity to preview their safety data. In August, carriers had access to view their own companies’ actual safety measurement system, which uses seven safety improvement categories called BASICs. Under FMCSA’s old measurement system, carrier performance was assessed in only four broad categories. As of December, the public also

gained access to carrier safety data on-line with views of five of the seven BASICs under the SMS. In December, the new carrier safety measurement system formally replaced the old one. FMCSA now uses all roadside violation data weighted by crash risk, together with state-reported crash data and investigation results, to give our investigators, inspectors and state and local law enforcement partners a more robust tool to use in identifying high risk carriers for further review and intervention.

Early feedback on CSA and the SMS from state and local partners as well as the motor carrier industry has been positive. Many safety stakeholders are calling it “an excellent program.” Law enforcement in the pilot-test states also give CSA high marks. One example is from Maj. Mark Savage of the Colorado State Patrol who has said, “Because FMCSA developed CSA from the ground level up with close collaboration between federal and state enforcement personnel, the perspective of CSA is

Administrator Ferro visits the Otay Mesa, California, FMCSA field office on October 28, 2010.

8

unique and effective.”

He went on to tell me that CSA has increased the integrity of the entire Colorado safety program because of the increased emphasis not just on investigations but also on the data that’s collected at the roadside which focuses more attention and resources on the most important goal of the program – reducing crashes.

Overall, we have anecdotal evidence of carriers who examined and changed their business practices as a result of the CSA intervention. If you believe like I do, that “what gets measured gets done,” early indications give us every reason to believe that CSA will mark a big step forward in our ability to carry out our critical safety-first mission.

Question: What is the timeline for warning letters and what can states expect?

Answer: Warning letters are an important part of the CSA intervention process. These letters notify carriers of their safety performance issues so that carriers can take corrective action, sort of like a first-level intervention. FMCSA will issue warning letters only in the nine pilot-test states in January. Carriers located in the remaining 41 states can expect to receive warning letters over the first quarter of this year. We expect to send about 27,000 warning letters during this timeframe. After the initial round, FMCSA anticipates sending about 3,100 each month nation-wide.

As a result, FMCSA division offices as well as state and local law enforcement can expect more inquiries from carriers. During the pilot-test, these states reported high call volume soon

F

after the first batch of letters went out.

Nation-wide, the 41 states new to CSA should expect a higher inquiry load.

Experience has shown that these calls will soon drop.

States can expect more DataQs requests as a result of warning letters.

While DataQs have steadily risen over the past several years, the pace picked up two-fold in volume during last year’s data preview period. If you haven’t already, prepare for the influx of calls and DataQs. Overall, warning letters should serve as a wake up call to carriers; urging their quick action to improve critical safety performance. We will reach more carriers, with the stated purpose of holding them accountable for catching safety problems before crashes occur, thus saving precious lives.

Question: Beyond issuing warning letters, what is planned for CSA for the rest of 2011?

Answer: The two remaining major CSA components will roll out in 2011. First, a new array of progressive interventions will replace the one-size-fits-all compliance review, enabling FMCSA to address more carriers with safety problems earlier while still thoroughly investigating those with the highest crash risk. The new interventions will roll out state-by-state beginning in August and continuing through November, as federal and state partners receive valuable training on the new approach.

A rulemaking on safety fitness determination, the third CSA component, is also scheduled to be released in 2011.

This proposed rulemaking will decouple the carriers’ safety rating from the on-site compliance review, thereby increasing

Guardian

E

the number of carriers we rate annually by ten-fold.

Question: What can state partner staff be doing now to improve understanding of CSA? Answer: State partners should work closely with their FMCSA Division offices to keep abreast of CSA activities.

State safety investigators can expect to receive training in the coming year on the new interventions as they roll out stateby-state. Since September, FMCSA has been conducting bi-weekly field telecons open to all federal staff and state partners.

During these calls, CSA information is shared and questions can be freely asked and answered. You can also encourage staff to visit the CSA outreach website noted below, where they can obtain information on new policies and training.

Questions can be submitted and input is welcomed. Subscribing to the CSA email service is a recommended method to keep current on CSA activities.

Lastly, FMCSA will require all roadside inspectors to participate in prerecorded online training on CSA. This

D

E

R

A

L

N

E

W

S

training will offer what is needed to understand how the violation data they collect during inspections are used to create the carrier SMS; an overview of the CSA BASICs and how they are derived; a reminder about the importance of roadside data uniformity and an awareness of the new Inspection Selection System. As we prepare to unveil the full array of interventions, FMCSA stands firm in our commitment to provide all necessary training opportunities so that CSA is well understood by all state and local law enforcement personnel.

Thank you for your partnership and continued dedication to commercial vehicle safety. When questions arise on CSA, please visit the http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov web site or contact the Division Administrator in your state. You play a vital role in holding carriers Accountable for Compliance and Safety: C – S – A…any way you spell it; it means lives are saved thanks to your heroic work.

Have a question for FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro? Send it to askFMCSA@dot.gov.

9

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

FMCSA Opens New National Training Center Facility

By Joe DeLorenzo, FMCSA, Director, National Training Center

On December 9, 2010, a ribbon-cutting ceremony was held to formally open a new facility for the National Training Center (NTC) located at 1310 North Courthouse Road, Suite 600, in Arlington, VA. Participating in the ceremony were FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro and CVSA Executive Director Stephen Keppler along with other dignitaries.

In my welcoming remarks, I noted that the NTC staff has worked for years toward the goal of building a world-class training facility such as this. At the same time, I pointed out that a majority of our state and local partners, who also rely on our training services, likely may never set foot in this location. So while we celebrated the opening of our new home, we remain firmly committed to expanding our organizational capabilities to serve our broad, and diverse, universe of students.

Administrator Anne Ferro next underscored the critical nature of NTC in achieving FMCSA’s mission. She said the new NTC facility “will play a vital role in helping to protect the lives of all travelers on our highways and roads by ensuring

NTC News Briefs New Testing Program Plan in Development A new Testing Program Plan is being developed by NTC for the entirety of its catalog of training courses. This undertaking will help ensure delivery of courses that are of the highest quality. It will include metrics to ascertain results and quality performance. It will also support our progress in attaining CALEA Accreditation.

The new Testing Program Plan consists of nine steps: 1. Conduct a job analysis 2. Determine the test guidelines 3. Create/edit test items 4. Create the test form 5. Ensure test security 6. Evaluate the test 7. Establish alternative forms and a cut-off score 8. Deliver the test 9. Describe how to use and maintain test data

10

that our federal staff and our state and local partners are well prepared and expertly trained to enforce the nation’s commercial vehicle safety rules and regulations.” Administrator Ferro also remarked that the spirit of the new facility embodies her personal philosophy that “to learn is to live,” and that NTC represents an opportunity for FMCSA and its state and local partners to come together and to grow through learning. As a finale to the ceremony, and in recognition of FMCSA’s strong partnership with CVSA, the ribbon was jointly cut by Administrator Anne Ferro and CVSA Executive Director Steve Keppler.

On behalf of NTC, I would like to thank Administrator Ferro, Steve Keppler, and everyone else who helped make this long awaited day finally arrive.

Pictured above (Left to right): Joseph P. DeLorenzo, NTC Director; Anne S. Ferro, FMCSA Administrator; Stephen A. Keppler, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Executive Director, and; Margie McQueen, FMCSA Academy Manager, participate in a ceremonial ribbon-cutting.

CSA Training News In support of Phase 1 of the national rollout of the Compliance – Safety – Accountability (CSA) program, National Training Center recently completed classroom and webinar training for federal field managers, safety investigators, and enforcement personnel. The purpose of this training was to familiarize participants with the new tools available to them through the CSA Safety Measurement System (SMS) as well as the other IT systems that support the enhanced enforcement and compliance processes To support state enforcement personnel, NTC hosted two training webinars in early November on the integration of CSA into the Roadside Inspection Program. FMCSA and state partners can access these training presentations through the CSA Mentoring Program page at http://csa2010.fmcsa.dot.gov/Mento ring.

Additional webinars are planned for the coming months that will provide ongoing support of the implementation of the CSA program.

Training Resources Revamped NTC is the process of upgrading the materials used for the NAS Level I Inspection Review. These multimedia resources are being converted from DVDs to a more dynamic digital format.

When completed, instructors will no longer need to rely on possessing a DVD when presenting course materials.

Rather, the content will reside in a protected Flash format that can be accessed and distributed electronically. This will ensure that the information is the most updated edition available. It will also allow NTC instructors and staff to more easily manage and modify materials.

Most excitingly for students, the new digital format permits the incorporation of new interactive elements. This will allow the material to be easily modified for selfpaced training packages to complement the traditional instructor-led training. The updated modules will have the same look and feel as the new e-learning template for the New Entrant course. Lastly, the video content of the materials will be available separately, so that it can be reused for other training needs.

F

Guardian

E

D

E

R

A

L

N

E

W

S

TSA Developing Report on Nation’s Most Critical Highway Structures

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has commissioned the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to conduct comprehensive structural and operational vulnerability assessments on selected highway structures. Using data from this program and TSA’s experience in the highway infrastructure community, TSA will be able to develop a comparable analysis report(s) of the Nation’s most critical highway structures in order to appropriately direct limited resources to the Nation’s multitude of infrastructure. 26 assessments have been completed to date.

The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53-AUG. 3, 2007), 121 STAT. 374, Section 1002 (“9/11 Act”), Risk Assessments and Report, indicates risk assessments on critical infrastructure and key resources of the United States must be conducted. According to the 9/11 Act, a report shall also be prepared on the comprehensive assessments conducted of the critical infrastructure and key resources of the United States, evaluating threat, vulnerability, and consequence.

The assessments will utilize USACE’s risk-based methodology to facilitate prioritization of terrorist threat mitigation strategies on individual structures. This methodology is unique in that it is specifically designed to focus on a single structure and the risk associated with each of its many individual structural components.

TSA will lead the coordination of the assessments and will direct the efforts of participating federal agencies in support of this initiative.

The USACE’s Protective Design Center (PDC) provides Security Threat and Vulnerability Assessments. PDC security engineers execute comprehen-

sive on-site physical security surveys to determine threats and vulnerabilities for critical facilities and individual assets.

The information gathered during these surveys is used to develop a set of protective measures designed to mitigate specific aggressor threats. These protective designs use a proven security engineering approach which incorporates elements of construction, equipment, procedures, and manpower. Assessment teams will prepare a cost-efficient, structure-specific report detailing potential protective design strategies, including implementation plans, and estimated costs of mitigation strategies, to include existing structure estimated replacement cost, as appropriate per structure.

Owners of the structures will receive copies of the reports.

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Federal-aid Highway program mission is to provide federal financial resources and technical assistance to state and local governments for constructing, preserving and improving the

National Highway System. The FHWA contributes institutional knowledge, and general support to TSA assessment processes. The FHWA is familiar with component level analysis and utilizes this methodology in its bridge and tunnel workshops.

Protective Security Advisors (PSAs) are DHS’s on-site critical infrastructure and vulnerability assessment specialists assigned to local communities throughout the United States. PSAs serve as DHS infrastructure protection liaisons between federal agencies; state, local, territorial, and tribal governments; and the private sector. First responder’s participation in these assessments is vital because the threats covered include vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIED), handemplaced improvised explosive devices (HEIED), non-explosive cutting devices, fire, and vehicle impact. PSAs can also provide vital support to TSA by assisting security partners with security clearance processes.

11

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

2009 Data Shows Historic Drop in Truck Crashes

By Ralph Craft, FMCSA Analysis Division

Fatalities in large truck crashes dropped sharply in 2009 following a big decline in 2008. The two-year, 30 percent fatality reduction from 4,822 in 2007 to 3,380 in 2009 is the largest since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) started collected data in 1975.

By contrast, in the decade from 1997 to 2007 fatalities in large truck crashes went down by 11 percent. Injuries in large truck crashes dropped by 27 percent to 74,000 from 2007 to 2009, and the number of trucks involved in property-damage-only crashes declined by 28 percent to 239,000, according to NHTSA’s General Estimates System.

The declines in large truck crash numbers were much larger than those recorded for passenger vehicle crashes.

From 2007 to 2009 fatalities in passenger vehicle crashes dropped by 18 percent, injuries by 11 percent, and propertydamage-only crashes by seven percent.

Ten states had two-year fatality drops of 37 percent or more: Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, and Wyoming.

Large truck crashes are the result of many factors. The economy, safety programs by government entities, CVSA

and the motor carrier industry, technology advances in crash avoidance, outreach programs and safety groups undoubtedly all played a part in the decline. The remainder of this article will focus on two major factors: the recession and government safety efforts.

While large truck crashes dropped by historically large numbers, the U.S. was in the midst of our sharpest economic contraction since the depression of the 1930s. The recession had a strong downward impact on truck traffic.

• The American Trucking Associations for-hire Truck Tonnage Index dropped in both 2008 and 2009. The eight percent decline in 2009 was the largest drop since 1982.

• NAFTA truck traffic with Canada and Mexico dropped in both 2008 and 2009.

• Intermodal freight hauled by Class 1 railroads dropped by 18 percent from 2007 to 2009.

FMCSA and its State and Local Partners While truck traffic dropped, FMCSA and its state partners increased truck safety efforts. From 2007 to 2009 compliances reviews increased six percent and inspections five percent. Level III

It is clear that working together – federal, state and local governments – in an array of safety programs, have played a major role reducing large truck crashes.

12

inspections (drivers only) climbed by 17 percent. Penalty actions rose as noticeof-claim letters went up by 17 percent and fines imposed increased by 18 percent. Evidence of getting unsafe motor carriers off the road is reflected by the 30 percent rise in unsatisfactory/unfit outof-service orders and a 39 percent jump in 90-day no pay out-of-service orders.

FARS does not provide an assessment of crash fault. However, we can glean from the data some evidence of positive changes responsible for the drop in large truck crashes.

• FMCSA-sponsored surveys indicate that seat belt use by truckers rose from 65 percent in 2007 to 74 percent in 2009, as the number of unbelted truck drivers killed in fatal crashes dropped by 42 percent.

• In two-vehicle crashes, the number of large trucks crossing the center line and hitting passenger vehicles declined by 32 percent from 2007 to 2009, and the number of large trucks that hit passenger vehicles from behind was down 41 percent.

• The Large Truck Crash Causation Study found that in one-third of the crashes the critical event for the truck was driving over the lane line or off the road. Coding of failure of large trucks to keep in the proper lane during fatal crashes dropped 42 percent from 2007 to 2009.

It is clear that working together – federal, state and local governments – in an array of safety programs, have played a major role reducing large truck crashes.

With the economy rebounding and truck traffic increasing, our task ahead is to continue making progress by sustaining the downward trend in large truck crashes.

F

Guardian

E

D

E

R

A

L

N

E

W

S

FMCSA Sets Compliance Date for Intermodal Equipment Providers December 17, 2010, was the second compliance date of the Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers (IEPs) and for Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment Final Rule. By this date, IEPs must have complied with all requirements of the rule, including the marking of their vehicles.

There is one exception to this rule, however. As a result of a petition filed by the intermodal industry, IEPs have been granted an extension until June 30, 2011, to accept driver vehicle inspection reports (DVIRs) with known defects only. Until then, motor carriers and drivers are not required to submit DVIRs with no defects to an IEP. Marking of Intermodal Equipment IEPs and motor carriers are required to mark all intermodal equipment they offer for interchange with a USDOT number, as required by section 390.21 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). IEPs and motor carriers that do not offer their intermodal equipment for interchange are not required to mark it. IEPs and motor carriers may “mark” their intermodal equipment using one of the five options: • Option 1: Permanently mark each unit with their legal name or single trade name and USDOT number (Section 390.21(g)(4)(i) of the FMCSRs).

• Option 2: Mark each unit with their legal name or single trade name and USDOT number, using a label (Section 390.21(g)(4)(ii) of the FMCSRs).

• Option 3: Include identification information for the IEP and the intermodal equipment on the interchange receipt that is generally on board the power unit (Section 390.21(g)(4)(iii) of the FMCSRs).

• Option 4: Include identification information for the IEP and the intermodal equipment on the trailer documentation that is kept in the weatherproof compartment on the equipment (Section 390.21(g)(4)(iv) of the FMCSRs).

• Option 5: Include identification information for the IEP and the intermodal equipment in a database that is available via real-time internet and telephonic access (Section 390.21(g)(4)(v) of the FMCSRs).

If an IEP chooses Option 1 as its preferred method of marking its equipment, Federal and State enforcement personnel will be able to identify the IEPs equipment by the marking on the curb side of the vehicle. The marking will be in letters that contrast sharply in color with the background on which the letters are placed and will be readily legible, in daylight, from a distance of 50 feet.

If Option 2 is chosen, IEPs may affix a label to its chassis using a label. The label must be placed on the curb side of the equipment and must be visible and legible during daylight.

Option 3 allows IEPs to include its identifying information on the interchange receipt (see Illustration 1).

Option 4 gives IEPs yet another alternative to the physical marking of its equipment. An IEP may “mark” its equipment by including its identifying information in the weatherproof compartment on the equipment (see Illustration 2). The preferred method of marking, Option 5, allows IEPs to “mark” its equipment in a database.

The Global Intermodal Equipment Registry (GIER) is an industry-sponsored virtual technology that supports

Illustration 1

the database marking option that was offered in the FMCSRs. Using the existing unique alphanumeric control numbers on the chassis, GIER correlates the equipment number to the USDOT number.

To access GIER, Federal and State enforcement personnel can go to http://gierregistry.com. Once there, click on the orange “Equipment Inquiry” box.

Federal and State enforcement personnel are not required to register for this website.

After doing so, the following screen will appear. From here, enforcement personnel will be able to determine which IEP is responsible for the chassis at the time of inspection. Searches may be done by the equipment number or license plate.

GIER has more than 600,000 pieces of intermodal equipment registered in its database. It will prove most beneficial when identifying which IEP is responsible for a piece of equipment.

FMCSA plans to deliver training on this system, along with the updates to Aspen and status of the rule, in February 2011. Check out the schedule and other updates at www.fmcsa.dot.gov/iep.

CHASSIS COMPANY USDOT 2233111

Illustration 2

13

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

The Hazardous Materials Safety Permit: Raising the Bar to Entry and the Need for Stepped-Up Enforcement

By Paul Bomgardner, FMCSA, Chief, Hazardous Materials Division The federal Hazardous Materials Safety Permit (HMSP) regulations are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) Part 385 Subpart E. They have been in effect since January 1, 2005.

Originally, the HMSP was passed by the U.S. Congress as part of of the Hazardous Materials Transportation and Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA 1990).

Later, HMSP requirements were codified in the Hazardous Materials Transportation Law at 49 U.S.C. § 5109, and eventually promulgated into regulation at 49 CFR Part 385.

As specified and listed in § 385.403, the HMSP is applicable to motor carriers engaged in the transportation of: • Highway route-controlled quantities of Radioactive Materials (Class 7); • More than 55 pounds of Division 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 Explosives; • An amount of Division 1.5 Explosives requiring placarding; • More than one litre / package of a Hazard Zone A Poison Inhalation Hazard materials; • A bulk package containing Hazard

14

Zone B Poison Inhalation Hazard materials; • A package having a capacity equal to or greater than 3,500 gallons of Hazard Zones C or D Poison Inhalation Hazard materials; or • A package having a capacity equal to or greater than 3,500 gallons of compressed or refrigerated methane or liquefied natural gas, or other liquefied gas with a methane content of at least 85 percent (NOTE: This does NOT include Propane or other LPG).

FMCSA is charged with managing the HMSP program. A key responsibility is preventing carriers for entry that do not meet the minimum thresholds required.

As of November 30, 2010, there were 1,417 active permits, 176 pending applicants, and 403 denied applicants, for a total of 2,031.

While these numbers are continually in a state of flux for a number of factors, it is unclear whether the population is larger than what is registered. The reason for the lack of clarity is due to the

paucity of roadside inspection data connected to the HMSP. During fiscal year 2010 (October 2009 through September 2010), there were a total of 209,896 HazMat inspections conducted at the roadside. These inspections resulted in 59,577 violations of HazMat regulations, with 12,486 of these Out-ofService (OOS) violations. However, there was not one violation of any of the sections related to the HMSP (§§385.401 through 385.423) recorded for either the regular HazMat or Level VI roadside inspections. This can be attributable to only one of two reasons: 1) No roadside violations of the HMSP rules were discovered; or 2) There were no checks made for the permit or other documentation required in § 385.415 during the course of the 209,896 HazMat inspections.

This is not meant to be an indictment, but rather a mere statement of fact.

While § 390.3(e) compels motor carriers to be knowledgeable of and to comply with the requirements of Subchapter B, Parts 350 – 399, there is no requirement for a state to adopt Hazardous Materials Safety Permits as a condition of its participation in the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) (See § 350.201). As of this time, there are only two references to Part 385 in Part 350, neither of which refers to the HMSP. FMCSA recognizes that a few states have adopted the HMSP rules in Part 385; what is unclear is why no HMSP violations are being written. One reason might be that the HMSP is similar to the Hazardous Materials Registration required by 49 CFR Part 107 for certain motor carriers. Nevertheless, comparing the two side-by-side, a vast difference is obvious.

While the purpose of the HM Registration Fee is to raise funds for

F

training HazMat responders, there is no such connection to the HMSP. In fact, motor carriers pay nothing for the HMSP, but rather are held to a certain set of standards in order to be able to transport the materials as described earlier.

For this coming registration cycle – January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012 – to qualify for a HMSP, a motor carrier must: 1. Be in compliance with any remedial directive issued under Part 385 Subpart J; 2. Have a Satisfactory Safety Rating issued as a result of a Compliance Review; 3. Have a satisfactory Security Program that includes: a. a security plan that meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 172 Subpart I; b. a communications plan that meets the requirements of § 385.415; and, c. successful completion of security training by all of its HazMat employees according to § 172.704(a)(4) and (a)(5).

4. Have a crash rate that is within the lower 70 percent of the National Average as computed in the FMCSA Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS)(0.114); and, 5. Have OOS rates for Driver, Vehicle and Hazardous Materials within the lower 70 percent of the National Average as indicated in MCMIS (7.14% – Driver; 33.33%– Vehicle; 3.45% – HazMat).

The bar to entry is understandably stringent. Many companies, for a variety of reasons, cannot meet the requirements.

Guardian

E

This becomes problematic for those carriers whose existence depends on their ability to transport HMSP loads. This is most keenly observed each year prior to the 4th of July for a certain segment involved in the transportation of fireworks. Many fireworks are classified as Division 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 Explosives, requiring the motor carrier to possess a HMSP. A number of these motor carriers are seasonal, with limited exposure to roadside inspections and limited knowledge of the HazMat regulations. When inspected, a number of these inspections result in OOS violations (e.g., missing or improper shipping papers or missing or insufficient placarding), which can often be corrected rapidly at roadside, but which have lasting longerterm impacts on the carrier’s ability to retain or obtain an HMSP.

D

E

R

A

L

N

E

W

S

There are companies in this segment that have 100 percent OOS rates based on two or three roadside inspections. There are only two ways to reduce those rates: The first is to wait for the “bad” inspections to drop off (Note: While the permit is issued for a two-year period, OOS violations have an impact for only the 12 months prior to renewal.). The second is to get “clean” inspections with no OOS violations during the course of the year in order to bring down the OOS percentages.

The first option usually is not palatable to the motor carrier, especially when the impacting inspections were conducted during the second year. The other alternative – obtain clean inspections and reduce its Vehicle and HazMat OOS rates – is difficult for a carrier to do. Most times the only HazMat transported by the carrier is the material that requires the HMSP in the first place. So, should a motor carrier be unable to renew its HMSP due to OOS rates be subject to a roadside inspection while transporting HMSP materials, the carrier is in noncompliance with the regulations and subject to appropriate corrective or punitive actions.

All of this is a moot point unless the HMSP requirements are enforced in earnest. States that have not adopted Part 385 are urged to consider doing so.

Only through strong roadside inspection enforcement of the HMSP requirements can there be a more effective program to assure the safe and efficient transportation of hazardous materials subject to the requirements of the HMSP program.

For more information on the HMSP, please contact the FMCSA’s Hazardous Materials Division, or go to the FMCSA website at: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ documents/hazmat/hm-brochure.pdf

15

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

CCMTA’s Standing Committee on Compliance and Regulatory Affairs Outlines Priorities for 2011 CCMTA’s Standing Committee on Compliance and Regulatory Affairs (CRA) recently outlined four priorities which included: Cargo Securement; Electronic On-Board Recorders; Safety Rating Reciprocity with the U.S.; and, Human Factors research project.

Cargo Securement In September 2010, the Council of Ministers approved amendments to the National Safety Code (NSC) Standard 10 designed to implement the original 2004 standard’s default working load limit sunset provision and address a number of editorial and technical changes identified in the standard.

Other amendments consist primarily of changes requested by industry to simplify and clarify requirements that apply to specific situations and are geared mainly to the construction industry, forest products sector, crushed car recycling and utility companies. They were developed by CCMTA through consultations with all provinces and territories and ongoing discussions with stakeholders through regular public forums hosted by CCMTA and CVSA, with support from FMCSA. Full compliance with the provisions related to the rating and marking of tiedowns will be required and enforced in all jurisdictions effective January 1, 2011. Specifically, it states

16

that on or before January 1, 2011, no person shall use a tiedown to secure cargo to a vehicle unless it is marked by the manufacturer with respect to its working load limit.

Electronic On-Board Recorders CCMTA is developing a standard EOBR use that will leverage the U.S. work and will provide Canada the opportunity to move forward with its own standard while ensuring compatibility with the U.S. Canada/U.S. Safety Rating Reciprocity Progress towards implementation of the 2008 Joint Memorandum of Understanding to accept safety ratings has slowed while FMCSA focuses its efforts on the implementation of its CSA initiative designed to identify poorly performing carriers. Despite the slowdown, CCMTA and FMCSA reconfirmed their mutual commitment to safety rating reciprocity in August 2010. FMCSA has indicated that it will be ready for full reciprocity once CSA has been implemented and appropriate rulemaking introduced. In the meantime, work on reciprocal data exchange and data quality will continue in the coming year through the Canada/U.S. Carrier Data Exchange working group.

Human Factors in Motor Carrier Safety Research Project The Human Factors project is a threeyear study focused on developing riskbased, data-driven strategy for interventions addressing human factors for light and heavy vehicle drivers involved in commercial vehicle crashes. A comprehensive report on the findings is expected in late January/early February.

Other News The Committee reported that they are encouraged by the recent developments in the U.S. in the area of FMPs, including a public forum in August by the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee of FMCSA to explore implementation and deployment issues. Recommendations were expected to go to FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro in December.

Update and revamping of the North American Standard Inspection (NASI) curriculum continues, with EQAT’s 2010 annual meeting which took place November 21-25, 2011 in Saskatoon. An instructor session was held in Moncton in May, and a NASI course was provided for Nunavut in Winnipeg August 29September 12. A certification of motorcoach instructors will take place in Moncton in March, and Ontario and Quebec are also planning inspector courses later in the year.

F

Guardian

E

D

E

R

A

L

N

E

W

S

SCT Reinforces Training, Productivity of Federal Motor Carrier Inspectors

The Annual Congress of Federal Motor Carrier Inspectors 2010, took place in Cocoyoc, Morelos, November 29th to December 3rd, 2010, organized by the Mexican Federal Motor Carrier Administration (DGAF) from the Ministry of Communications and Transportation (SCT). Its main goal is to promote through the work of inspections, verifications and monitoring of Federal Motor carriers, road safety, competitiveness & sustainability in Mexican Highways.

With this Congress, the agency strengthened the skills of over 400 field officers from the 32 state offices and 68 regional centers, and, in turn, updated the criteria under which these personnel of the SCT Centers apply the regulations throughout the country.

Field officers from all SCT Centers attended the courses taught by SCT experts regarding topics such as: the federal motor carrier rules and codes; license issuance and verification; inspection of physical and mechanical conditions, weight and dimensions, hazardous material vehicle inspection, and low greenhouse gas emissions. Inspections to

motor carriers and training centers were also discussed.

In addition, there were conferences lectured by representatives of agencies related to the SCT: the Federal Police, the Mexican Association of Insurance Institutions, and the Insured Risk Coordination Office.

By updating the criteria for implementation of standards and best practices of inspection, verification and monitoring, the SCT works to abate the irregular issues

SCT looks forward to increasing efficiency and competitiveness of the transport sector and encouraging motor carriers to operate friendly with the environment.

found among the federal motor carriers. As a result, a reduction of accidents on federal highways is expected as well as slowing down road deterioration caused by vehicles exceeding the authorized weight and dimensions. Moreover, the SCT looks forward to increasing efficiency and competitiveness of the transport sector and encouraging motor carriers to operate friendly with the environment.

Finally, another objective of this Annual Congress was to urge integration and information sharing of best practices among the staff of the SCT Centers. An environment of collaboration will facilitate improvement of the services these SCT Centers provide to the society.

On the Congress’ inauguration, the Under Minister of Transportation, Mr. Humberto Treviño Landois, stressed the importance of a culture of “facts and data,” since only through constant measurement, and continuous modernization of the agency, the SCT is able to determine which are the practices that yield the best results; promote a reliable information system; and thus, remain as cutting edge Ministry.

17

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

CVSA Provides Leadership to Stakeholders on Differences Between an Inspection and a Screen for an Inspection

By Maj. Mark Savage, Colorado State Patrol In 2009, the American Trucking Association developed and presented a series of webinars on CSA 2010. These presentations were well received, as they provided a large amount of accurate information about the upcoming implementation of CSA 2010. After attending these presentations, it became evident to CVSA members industry and enforcement alike that there was a lack of clarity on the definition of a pre-inspection screen. At the same time, it was apparent that there was no written guidance on a national level from CVSA in relation to the definition of a pre-inspection screen.

The concern results from how CSA’s SMS measures roadside data and the associated need to “counter-balance” previously under-performing data with positive data. More specifically, trucking companies were concerned that if they had received inspection reports with violations on the roadside they wanted to have a fair opportunity to have violation-free inspections to improve their individual value in SMS. Carriers indicated that if they are detained and their driver or vehicle and some associated documents are examined, they ought to get an inspection report to document that action.

At the same time, enforcement indicated that they needed to have a pre-inspection screening process that provides them with accurate information to appropriately select the most unsafe driver or vehicle. At its basic level, enforcement’s job is to remove unsafe trucks and drivers from the road. In order to do this, enforcement must have a process to identify those trucks and drivers.

With the goal of reconciling these two potentially different objectives, CVSA hosted an open discussion session in the Spring of 2010 at the San Antonio meeting. The goals of the discussion were to: • Facilitate an open discussion issue on how both enforcement and associate members perceive a pre-inspection screen as opposed to an inspection, and • To identify members of a smaller and focused working group that will provide clarity and resolution regarding these differences by the development of a joint outreach plan or statement that communicates to stakeholders CVSA’s intent on this critical issue.

The discussion revolved around several key points, including: • Can/should we define a pre-inspection screen? ~ Should the definition be limiting in nature?

• Can/should we draw a line at a specific point(s) at which a pre-inspection screen becomes an inspection?

18

• Should we mandate that an inspection report be generated when a defined inspection starts?

• Once clarity is obtained, what form should it be in?

Training bulletin, operational policy, grant requirement, or rule?

• Should CVSA recommend using data from an alternative source (third party) be included in data measurement processes/systems?

As a result of this discussion, a workgroup was formed. This group met twice during the summer of 2010 and presented its recommendations to the Program Initiatives committee for review. The recommendation was to propose written guidance in the form of CVSA Operational Policy defining and clarifying an inspection screen. The following was the policy as proposed by the work-group:

CVSA Pre-Inspection Screen Policy Depending on a jurisdiction’s authority or operational policies, screens for an inspection may include operational practices described in the above policy.

For the purpose of determining when an inspection report shall be generated, member jurisdictions, inspectors, drivers and stakeholders must understand the importance of distinguishing between the “screening process” related to observed conditions that trigger inspections and the performance of the inspection itself.

Inspections are defined in CVSA’s Operational Policy 5.

A screen for a CVSA inspection is a brief stop by a law enforcement official to collect basic or identifying information from a driver or vehicle in order to determine if an inspection is warranted.

This may include a cursory review of the vehicle or driver’s required documents or regulatory paperwork. Depending on a jurisdiction’s authority or operational policies, a pre-inspection screen may include the observation of violations that would prompt a CVSA inspection by the officer.

As a general rule, a pre-inspection screen for a CVSA inspection shall not take more than 2-3 minutes, after which time the driver should be released and no documentation recorded in the form of a level inspection. Once the screen has been completed, an inspector should either release the vehicle or complete and document a CVSA inspection, including generating a copy to be given to the driver.

Guardian C

V

S

A

N

E

W

S

CVSA Raises Money for California Association of Highway Patrolmen’s Widows and Orphans Fund

This language was proposed to the Program Initiatives Committee at the CVSA Fall meeting in Anaheim, CA. After extensive discussion, the committee felt that the policy should be more specific in order to reduce potential confusion on the roadside. The committee also understood the far reaching impacts of this policy and recommended that the language be reviewed by a cross-section of the other committees. This would ensure that the final product was of the highest quality possible by identifying all potential impacts.

To accomplish this, CVSA leadership tasked this revision to the recently created Ad-Hoc committee on CSA. At press time, this proposed policy change is being revised by the AdHoc members, who consist of several members of CVSA industry and enforcement alike. The Ad-Hoc has asked the region presidents to forward the proposed changes to their regions in the hope that all members have a say in the development of the final product.

For further information on this important issue contact your region president or Alan Martin, chair of the CVSA CSA AdHoc committee.

CVSA President Capt. Steve Dowling presenting a check to Rob Nelson, President of CAHP. CVSA raised $4,600 during its 2010 annual conference in Anaheim.

In-Service Inspector Training Materials Being Developed CVSA works to closely monitor, evaluate, and identify potentially unsafe transportation processes and procedures as well as to help facilitate and implement best practices for enhancing safety on our highways. Commercial motor vehicle safety continues to be a challenge and we need the involvement of all affected parties to help us better understand these issues and put into place practical solutions. The voting members of the Alliance have approved ten changes to the April 1, 2011 edition of the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC). These changes were voted in as a result of the 2010 ballot and subsequently ratified.

Based on the changes to the April 1, 2011 OOSC, Texas Department of Public Safety is developing In-Service Inspector Training materials for roadside inspectors. These materials are expected to be released by the end of January 2011.

19

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

Operation Safe Driver Data Sounds Alarm on Speeders Passenger Car Drivers Issued Warnings, Citations Six Times More Than CMV Drivers

Law enforcement officers who pulled over nearly 53,000 commercial and passenger vehicle drivers during CVSA’s Operation Safe Driver campaign found that passenger car drivers are speeding at alarming rates around commercial vehicles. Recently released data shows the top three reasons warnings and citations were issued to both commercial and non-commercial vehicle drivers include speeding, failing to use a safety belt, and failure to obey traffic control devices.

“CVSA’s Operation Safe Driver is targeting each and every driver, whether they drive a passenger car or a CMV, and alerting offenders that their poor driving behaviors result in lives lost,” said Stephen A. Keppler, CVSA’s executive director. “We will continue to emphasize this point, through both education and enforcement tactics, until we eliminate those driver behaviors that are specifically linked to causing crashes.”

Of the warnings issued to CMV drivers, 20.3 percent were for speeding (versus 61.2 percent for passenger car drivers); 4.2 percent were for failure to obey traffic control devices (compared to 5.8 percent for passenger car drivers); and, 2.6 percent were issued for failing to use a seat belt while operating their vehicle (compared to 2.8 percent for passenger car counterparts). Of the citations issued to CMV drivers, 13.7 percent were for speeding (versus 51.6 percent for passenger car drivers); 4.6 percent were for failure to obey traffic control devices (compared to 1.5 percent for passenger car drivers); and, 10 percent were issued for failing to use a seat belt while operating their vehicle (compared to 8.0 percent for passenger car counterparts). CMV drivers were issued signifi-

20

CMV Traffic Enforcement Warnings

Citations

Failure to obey traffic control device

295

4.2%

400

4.6%

Following too closely

237

3.4%

109

1.2%

Improper lane changes

0.5%

159

2.3%

41

Improper passing

42

0.6%

27

0.3%

Reckless driving

18

0.3%

13

0.1%

1,434

20.3%

1,195

13.7%

Driving too fast for conditions

17

0.2%

20

0.2%

Inattentive and/or careless driving

57

0.8%

22

0.3%

Improper turn

Speeding Violation of the basic speed law/

28

0.4%

4

0.0%

Operating a CMV while ill or fatigued

5

0.1%

4

0.0%

Possession/use/under influence of drugs

1

0.0%

7

0.1%

Possession/use/under influence of alcohol

1

0.0%

21

0.2%

Failing to stop at railroad grade (RR) crossing - bus

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Failing to stop at RR crossing - chlorine

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Failing to stop at RR crossing - placard

3

0.0%

2

0.0%

Failing to stop at RR crossing - HM Cargo Failing to use seat belt while operating CMV Using/equipping CMV with a radar detector

2

0.0%

1

0.0%

185

2.6%

870

10.0%

11

0.2%

26

0.3%

951

13.5%

2,292

26.3%

State/local laws

3,616

51.2%

3,670

42.1%

Total

7,062

Size & weight

8,724

Non CMV Traffic Enforcement Warnings

Citations

Failure to obey traffic control device

413

5.8%

116

1.5%

Following too closely

199

2.8%

107

1.4%

Improper lane changes

270

3.8%

79

1.0%

49

0.7%

31

0.4%

Improper passing Reckless driving

7

0.1%

37

0.5%

4,363

61.2%

3,970

51.6%

Driving too fast for conditions

93

1.3%

49

0.6%

Inattentive and/or careless driving

46

0.6%

37

0.5%

Improper turn

44

0.6%

21

0.3%

1

0.0%

69

0.9% 1.1%

Speeding Violation of the basic speed law/

Possession/use/under influence of drugs Possession/use/under influence of alcohol

26

0.4%

82

199

2.8%

613

8.0%

State/local laws

1,416

19.9%

2,489

32.3%

Total

7,126

Failing to use seat belt

7,700

Guardian C

V

S

A

N

E

W

S

New CVSA Associate and Local Enforcement Members

cantly more warnings and citations in 2010 for failing to buckle up (1,055) versus in 2009 (672).

The data, collected during the fourth annual Operation Safe Driver campaign, October 17-23, 2010, revealed that 5,004 law enforcement personnel at 1,971 locations across the United States and Canada participated in the campaign. Operation Safe Driver was launched in 2007 by CVSA, in partnership with FMCSA, to address the problem of improving the behavior of all drivers operating in an unsafe manner — either by, in, or around commercial vehicles — and to initiate educational and enforcement strategies to address those exhibiting high-risk behaviors.

“Everyone who gets behind the wheel of a car or truck must commit — unfailingly — to do two things: always obey the traffic laws, and never allow yourself to become distracted,” said FMCSA Administrator Anne S. Ferro.

“Once you get into the driver’s seat, safety is literally in your hands.”

On the enforcement front, details on the results include: • 39,784 CMV Roadside Inspections (5.3 percent resulted in the driver being placed out-of-service; 27.4 percent of the Level I Inspections resulted in the vehicle(s) being placed out of service. In 2009, there were 30,294 inspections conducted and a driver OOS rate of 5.3 percent, vehicle Level I OOS rate of 26.1 percent; • For Drivers: 0.44 violations per roadside inspection (0.44 in 2009); 0.08 OOS violations per roadside inspection (same in 2009); 0.04 citations per roadside inspection (0.04 in 2009);

• For Vehicles: 1.04 violations per roadside inspection (1.12 in 2009); 0.23 OOS violations per roadside inspection (0.19 in 2009); 0.08 citations per roadside inspection (0.05 in 2009); • 21,555 CMV Driver Traffic Enforcement Contacts: 7,062 warnings were issued (0.33 per contact); 8,724 citations were issued (0.40 per contact); In 2009, there were 20,198 contacts, which resulted in 6,887 warnings (0.34 per contact) and 8,067 citations (0.40 per contact); • 12,926 Non-CMV Driver Traffic Enforcement Contacts: 7,126 warnings were issued (0.55 per contact); 7,700 citations were issued (0.60 per contact); In 2009, there were 10,917 contacts, which resulted in 3,818 warnings (0.35 per contact) and 10,365 citations (0.95 per contact); • 31,737 CMV Driver License checks (27,903 in 2009) and 9,878 NonCMV Driver License checks (8,577 in 2009); and, • 64 targeted Compliance Reviews on truck and motorcoach operations were conducted on carriers employing the “worst of the worst” commercial drivers of which 53 received a safety rating as a result of the review. Of those fifty-three, 13 carriers (or 20 percent) received a Conditional Safety Rating. (compared to the national average of carriers rated Conditional in 2010 was 23.1 percent); and, eight carriers (or 13 percent) received an Unsatisfactory Safety Rating. (compared to the national average of carriers rated unsatisfactory in 2010 was 2.5 percent).

Ace Trucking Repair, Inc. Asociacion Nacional de Transporte Privado Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co. Clean Harbors Env. Services, Inc. Galfab, Inc. Halsey King and Associates, Inc. HazMat Resources, Inc. KEYTROLLER, LLC L J Transportation LITE-CHECK, LLC Mansfield Police Department Mississippi Trucking Association Mr Safety Check Systems, Inc. SGS North America, Inc. Specialty Rental Tennessee Trucking Association and Foundation UAP Heavy Vehicle Parts Division Weatherford International, Inc.

21

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

COHMED Provides Informative Training to Enforcement on Hazardous Materials Transportation

By T/Sgt. Thomas Fuller, New York State Police, Program Administrator, Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Unit, Hazmat/Radiological/Technological Program The Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development (COHMED) program, while under the umbrella of CVSA, is not “just another” CVSA conference. COHMED actually differs substantially from most CVSA programs in the sense that most attendees are HazMat coordinators, instructors and roadside inspectors and the conference itself is directed at industry which, similar to its role in CVSA, plays a major part in COHMED as well. Without our industry partners, COHMED could not exist.

At each conference, training sessions are given in topic specific areas that most agencies could not afford to give to their members. Topics for this year’s conference include: • US/Canadian Safety marksDifferences and Similarities • Motor Coaches and HazMat • Class 7 (RAM) Packaging • Batteries – All Kinds • Transportation of Non-Bulk Combustibles • Intermediate Bulk Containers • Local Emergency Assistance Program • Anhydrous Nurse Tanks • Introduction to the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions

22

• Hazardous Materials Transportation Chemistry for Dummies The presentations are given to the attendees to bring back to their states and provide this information to the inspectors.

Industry donates their time and equipment to make these classes the best in the country and each year they succeed in their endeavors. There are two main benefits for industry to attend COHMED. The first is the ability to provide accurate and informative training to enforcement personnel. As members of the enforcement community know, we are only as good as the education we receive. If we can get the best training directly from the industry source, we can eliminate any ambiguity.

The second is the networking that occurs at the conference. Companies cannot put a price tag on the contacts made at this conference.

The following is a brief overview of the changes that occurred to COHMED during 2010: • Term limits on the current executive leadership were formally established during this last year, as well as a new position of “Past Chair.” Each position of the executive leadership will

be held for a two-year period commencing with the position of National Vice-Chair. After the twoyear period the National Vice-Chair will ascend to the position of National Chair. The National Chair will become the Past Chair, which was created to assist and advise the current National Chair.

• This year, COHMED/CVSA lost an integral part of its organization. Paul Bomgardner, who during his eightyear tenure with CVSA handled all the finances and behind the scenes details that made each and every COHMED conference a reality, is now serving FMCSA as the Team Leader in FMCSA’s Hazardous Material Division. Paul’s vast experience in hazardous materials spans more than 30 years. In addition to CVSA and its members, his service includes 12 years with the Maryland State Police, the last four as a Corporal in charge of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), and 13 years as the Director of Hazardous Materials Policy with the American Trucking Associations. This background made him a perfect fit for COHMED, because it provides him the perspec-

Guardian

C

tive to clearly understand both the industry and enforcement sides of HM transportation.

In addition to his daily duties as Team Leader, Paul has taken on the role and responsibility of the Acting Division Chief in the Hazardous Material Division and has demonstrated his eagerness and devotion to HazMat transportation. On January 2, 2011, Paul officially became FMCSA’s new Chief of the Hazardous Materials Division.

Hopefully, as the new Division Chief we will continue to see Paul at COHMED representing FMCSA and its dedication to the program.

However, it will be strange to see Paul on the opposite side of the table this year. Please join us in congratulating him on his new position, as well as his years of service to COHMED. • During the summer CVSA Executive committee meeting, COHMED was officially recognized as a “Program” under CVSA. This classification is necessary to bring about fiscal responsibility. Programs will now have to operate within a budget in order to continue its operation. Also being an official program within CVSA, COHMED will now have a regular meeting that will

occur during the CVSA Conferences and Workshops. Some concerns were voiced about this change at the executive committee meeting in Anaheim, CA, and President Dowling, Vice President Palmer and Executive Director Stephen Keppler have graciously offered their time to meet with interested parties at the Tampa conference to listen to their concerns.

• This year’s COHMED conference, held in Tampa, January 31 to February 4, represents the biennial changing of the executive leadership. The current National Chair Rex Railsback (KS) will take the position of the newly formed Past Chair and Bill Reese (ID) will assume the position of National Chair. Rex is currently a Technical Trooper with the Kansas Highway Patrol, and is currently assigned to MCSAP Troop I in Olathe, KS. Rex is a prominent figure in our world of HazMat due to his dedication by, among other things, being an Associate Staff Instructor, and EQAT member for FMCSA’s National Training Center as well as his years of attendance at COHMED. Rex was elected to the position of Region III Vice-Chair during the 2004 conference held in San Diego and served

O

V

E

R

S

T

O

R

Y

under Paul Cliff of Michigan. In 2007, Rex assumed the position of Region III Chair in Salt Lake City, and in 2009 (Mesa) he was elected to the position of National Chair. In addition to all the previously mentioned changes this year that occurred during his tenure was a historic agreement signed between PHMSA, CVSA, and COHMED leadership, which will foster greater co-operation among the parties.

At the conference, current National Vice-Chair William “Bill” Reese will receive the gavel from Rex and assume the position of National Chair. Bill has been a long time attendee at COHMED and is currently a Captain with the Idaho State Police in charge of Commercial Vehicle Safety. Bill’s resume in hazardous materials is impressive and will continue the fine leadership legacy of COHMED. In conclusion, we hope you can avail your agencies the opportunity to attend the COHMED conference and/or support during the coming year.

23

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

Reportable Quantities and Marine Pollutants, a Closer Look

By Capt. Bruce Bugg, Region 4 Commander, Georgia MCCD, and CVSA HM Committee Chair

In every roadside inspection course on hazardous materials, we discuss both Reportable Quantities and Marine Pollutants, their impact on shipping documents, package markings, and the applicability of the regulations for roadside inspection purposes.

While we use essentially the same steps for determining their presence and compliance with the regulations, each category presents unique challenges. (Note: I’ll deal here only with “chemical” hazardous substances. Radionuclides are a topic all their own.) And yes, there will be math.

Let’s first discuss the history of these two requirements. The concept of “RQ” or Reportable Quantities of Hazardous Substances comes from laws and regulations outside the U.S. DOT. 49 CFR Includes notes on this in the introduction to Appendix A to the §172.101 Table, as follows: “1. This appendix lists materials and their corresponding reportable quantities (RQ's) that are listed or designated as ‘hazardous substances’ under section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601(14) (CERCLA; 42 U.S.C. 9601 et. seq. ). This listing fulfills the requirement of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9656(a), that all ‘hazardous substances,’ as defined in 42 U.S.C. 9601(14), be listed and regulated as hazardous materials under 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127.”

In short, Congress either lists materials as hazardous substances in statute, or requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to designate certain materials as hazardous substances. Once that happens, the U.S. DOT is required to regulate these EPA designated hazardous substances as hazardous materials for transportation. This was the reason for the old “ORM-E” hazard class many years ago, and is one reason today why we have a “Class 9.” A hazardous substance may not meet any of the definitions in Classes 1 through 8, but we still must regulate it as a hazardous material. In order to keep the list current, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) typically will adopt a final rule shortly after EPA publishes any change to the RQ list.

Marine Pollutants also come to us from a source outside the U.S. DOT: Marpol 73/78 is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978. The definition, lists, and tests for marine pollutants are managed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). In 1991, a railroad train carrying several

24

tank car loads of the soil fumigant, metam sodium, derailed and began spilling the product into the Sacramento River. Metam sodium did not meet the definition of any U.S. DOT hazard class and was not listed by the EPA as a hazardous substance.

Therefore, there were no hazardous materials shipping papers, placarding, or package marking accompanying or identifying the material. In response to demands by Congress, U.S. DOT adopted the Marine Pollutant requirements soon after this incident. PHMSA typically updates the MARPOL list every two years as part of the HM-215 docket series, adopting changes based on the U.N. Recommendations, IMDG Code, and other international regulatory changes.

In each case, we must remember several important things about determining the presence of a hazardous substance or marine pollutant. For hazardous substances, the materials are listed by name in 49 CFR §172.101 Appendix A, list of hazardous substance table, and each material has an associated Reportable Quantity, 1, 10, 100, 1000 or 5000 lbs. For roadside inspections, the Reportable Quantity is the amount of the Hazardous Substance present in each package. Another issue is that the Reportable Quantities listed in Appendix A are net weight, not gross weight; so to determine whether §172.203(c) and§172.324 (for non-bulk packagings) apply, you must know three things: (1) that the substance appears in the Hazardous Substance list in Appendix A; (2) the capacity of the package(s) you are inspecting; and, (3) the concentration of the substance if the material is a mixture or solution. You might also need the empty, or tare, weight of the packaging.

The most common mistake with Reportable Quantity violations comes from forgetting that for 49 CFR, “RQ” is per package. For example, Acetone has a RQ of 5,000 lbs. per package.

Pure acetone weighs approximately 6.54 lbs. per gallon, so 765 gallons or more of pure acetone meets the Reportable Quantity in one package. Then, if given a gross weight of all packages, you need to also know how many packages in the shipment. A shipping paper might read, “90 drums, UN1090, Acetone, 3, II, 30,000 lbs.” At first glance, the 30,000 lbs. exceeds the 5,000 lb.

RQ by a wide margin; however, when divided among the 90 drums, the gross weight of the packages is 333 lbs. each. A quick rule of thumb is that for non-bulk packagings, RQ’s of 5,000 lbs. and 1,000 lbs. are almost impossible to achieve For “smaller” bulk packagings such as IBC’s and smaller DOT 56 or 57 portable tanks, the 5,000 lb. RQ is also highly improbable. So by looking at package size, you might eliminate RQ with no real math usage.

Guardian

C

O

V

E

R

S

T

O

R

The next step will involve some investigation. Some shipping documents may give you a percentage of a chemical, even if not required. The driver may have been supplied with a chemical analysis of the material, and have that information in a separate document. The shipper may supply a material safety data sheet (MSDS) to the driver. If not, if you have Internet access, a web search in the format <brand name> MSDS, with the brand or trade name of the product may yield a Material Safety Data Sheet for that product.

At this point, we must carefully review the definition of “hazardous substance” in §171.8 (see below).

To meet RQ, a mixture or solution must both exceed the quantity by weight or mass in one package and exceed the percentage for the RQ in the table in §171.8.

A common cleaning and disinfection ingredient is sodium hypochlorite. You probably have some of this material at home, in the form of bleach or mildew remover. Sodium hypochlorite has a reportable quantity of 100 lbs. per package. Household bleach is typically 5 percent hypochlorite, 95 percent water. So a typical 55 gallon drum weighing 350 lbs. would have only 17.5 lbs. of sodium hypochlorite, well below the RQ, and is not a hazardous substance, even though it exceeds 0.2 percent. The key word is “and” after the second paragraph in §171.8.

One “good” thing about the Reportable Quantity is that the materials are strictly “list-based.” In other words, if the material name does not appear in the RQ Table, the material is not a hazardous substance.

Y

For example, “Bromine” does not appear in Appendix A, so it should not appear as a Reportable Quantity.

For bulk packages, there are no marking requirements for reportable quantities, only a shipping paper requirement. For non-bulk packages, §172.324 applies, and the package marking requirements are similar to the shipping paper requirements – “RQ” and the name of the hazardous substance, if not already on the package marking (as part of the shipping name, or to satisfy the requirement is §172.301(b)).

Marine Pollutants, while checked in a similar manner, have several important differences. In many cases, we only need to check Marine Pollutants in bulk packagings. See 49 CFR §171.4(c): “Exceptions. Except when all or part of the transportation is by vessel, the requirements of this subchapter specific to marine pollutants do not apply to non-bulk packagings transported by motor vehicle, rail car or aircraft.” If the shipment has a vessel leg, then the requirements apply to both bulk and non-bulk packagings.

Also, some marine pollutants are identified as “severe marine pollutants (SMP).” This is noted in Appendix B to the §172.101 Table by the letters “PP” in Column 1 of the Marine Pollutant Table. A material is considered a marine pollutant when the chemical equals or exceeds a 10 percent concentration (by weight), or, for SMP’s, equals or exceeds a 1 percent concentration (by weight). A Material Safety Data Sheet may be necessary to make this call.

For example, one of our officers recently inspected a vehicle transporting aviation gasoline. To achieve the octane rating necessary for piston-driven aircraft, aviation gasoline does contain some concentration of s a material, an me er, tetraethyl lead. “Gasoline, leaded” appears in the pt ha bc oses of this su nce for the purp ta bs su s (continued on page 26) ou rd Haza s, that— res and solution subchapter; including its mixtu §172.101 of this ortable quane appendix A to th in d te lis Is or exceeds the rep (1) e, which equals ag ck pa e on and (empha; in y, this subchapter (2) Is in a quantit A to §172.101 of ix nd pe ap e th tity (RQ) listed in sis added) — §172.101. xture or solution e appendix A to (3) When in a mi paragraph 7 of th to s rm nfo equals co , ich es wh tion by weight (i) For radionuclid , is in a concentra es lid uc terial, ion ma rad e th to the RQ of (ii) For other than n corresponding tio tra en nc co e th or exceeds following table: as shown in the

RQ pounds (kilograms) 5000 (2270) 1000 (454) 100 (45.4) 10 (4.54) 1 (0.454)

Weight Concentration by Parts per Percentage Million 100,000 10 20,000 2 0.2 0.02

2,000 200

0.002

20

fraction crude oil or any troleum, including pe e lud inc t a hazno The term does or designated as specifically listed ise rw he ot d the t an no s subchapter, thereof which is to §172.101 of thi A ix nd pe gas, ap al in s, liquefied natur ardous substance s, natural gas liquid ga al tur na syn e ch lud al gas and su term does not inc mixtures of natur (or l fue for le ab us or synthetic gas ” s). ga tic the

Summary of Hazardo us Substance and Marine Pollutant Requ irements Hazardous Substance s (“RQ”) • List-based • Check on both bul k and non-bulk packag e • May need to find per centage/concentration to verify • RQ is per package • Shipping paper req uirement – §172.203(c) • Non-bulk marking requirement – §172.324 • Bulk marking – No ne Marine Pollutant (“MAR POL”) • List-based and criteria -based • Not required for non -bulk packages by hig hway • Allowed on non-bu lk, both package and veh icle • 10% or greater con centration for most • 1% or greater con centration for Severe MP (“PP”) • Shipping paper req uirement - §172.203(l) • Package marking req uirement - §172.322 • Exceptions - §171.4 and §172.322(d)

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

INSPECTOR’S CORNER

Knowing and Applying CVSA’s Out-of-Service Criteria Imperative to Role of Inspector

By Richard Robinson, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Transportation Enforcement Officer, NAIC 2010 Grand Champion Richard Robinson

It has been seven years now since I became a CVSA-certified inspector with the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. I must admit, before I was hired I had no idea about the amount of knowledge required or what the roles and responsibilities of being a Transportation Enforcement Officer entailed. I thought it just involved sitting in a scale house and watching a truck roll over a scale pad. Working in different parts of Ontario (from within two hours of the Manitoba border to within thirty minutes of Niagara Falls)

has helped me come to realize some of the roles and responsibilities, as well as satisfaction, of this occupation.

First of all, inspectors must be current on all of the applicable legislation as well as the North American Standard Out-ofService Criteria (OOSC). It is not only important to know the material, but imperative to be able to apply it correctly. Most of us have stopped vehicles that you know shouldn’t be going down the highway, however, learning CVSA’s OOS criteria helps us understand the severity of some of the defects that are

not as obvious as others.

One of the “obvious” defects I recently encountered was brought to my attention by a local tow truck operator. A driver was getting ready to leave a local warehouse and go back to his terminal in Toronto (approximately an hour away) after his load was refused. The receiver had refused the load due to the condition the trailer was in. The driver had hit a tree with the side of his trailer back in New Hampshire (Figure 1). Ignoring the damage, the driver continued to the load destination point in the Niagara

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

(continued from page 25) Marine Pollutant Table. No “PP” is in column 1 for this gasoline variety, so 10 percent or higher tetraethyl lead would be necessary to reach the marine pollutant designation. A review of the MSDS for this “AvGas,” as it is known, revealed a lead concentration of approximately 0.1 percent, well below even a Severe Marine Pollutant.

Non-bulk packages, and vehicles containing them, may also be marked for marine pollutant, especially in international commerce. This is typical on intermodal containers, and is allowable.

Some “bad” news about Marine

Pollutants: Unlike hazardous substances, which are strictly list-based, marine pollutant is both list-based and criteriabased. This possibility is addressed in Note 4 before the §172.101 Appendix B marine pollutant table: “4. If a material is not listed in this appendix and meets the criteria for a marine pollutant as provided in Chapter 2.9 of the IMDG Code, (incorporated by reference; see §171.7 of this subchapter), the material may be transported (emphasis added) as a marine pollutant in accordance with the applicable requirements of this subchapter.”

The bad news here is that a shipper who performs “due diligence” testing for

aquatic toxicity can correctly designate a material as a marine pollutant, even if the material does not appear by name in the Appendix B table. The shipper can then offer shipping documents that include the “MARINE POLLUTANT” designation in §172.203(l), and offer markings for Marine Pollutants described in §172.322.

By the way, the marine pollutant mark has changed, effective January 14, 2010.

The revised marking is a diamond, instead of a triangle, the words “Marine Pollutant” are no longer present, and the symbol has changed (see illustration at right).

Marine Pollutant marking is required

26

Guardian Region. Upon conducting a full Level I inspection of the vehicles, the trailer was obviously in no condition to continue.

Along with some brake and steering OOS defects, the right side of the vanbody semi-trailer was pressed in several inches causing the roof to buckle. With the integrity of the trailer severely compromised, the lower rail on the same side was noticeably sagging and starting to crack (Figure 2). The right trailer door was tied closed because it could no longer latch properly. To top it off, the load consisted of over 43,000 lbs. of paper rolls, much of which was over the damaged section. While I was inside the trailer taking pictures, I could hear the trailer starting to creak.

On the side of the road CVSA inspectors have the responsibility to abide by the OOS criteria developed by CVSA. Our actions can and will heavily impact on the business of a carrier.

This is particularly true in the motor-

coach industry. Being a certified motorcoach inspector, I have first had dealings with drivers as well as carriers. Being just minutes from one of the prime tourist destinations in North America (Niagara Falls), I occasionally help out our “Bus Team” inspecting visiting and local motorcoaches. Although these types of vehicles are carrying the most precious cargo of all, people, the design of these vehicles restricts the driver’s ability to do a thorough inspection. Bus Team members have inspected countless motorcoaches in varying conditions.

One coach had two brake rotors that were cracked in several spots (Figure 3).

Another was found to have brake shoes falling out of the drum on the steer axle and the air bag mounting support rusted through on both sides (Figures 4 and 5).

If it wasn’t for these dedicated officers the 40 plus passengers could have been getting an unplanned tour of the emergency room at the local hospital.

Figure 4

Figure 5

only on bulk packaging by highway, but with a big exception: If the material requires placarding, and placards are displayed, the Marine Pollutant mark is not required. See §172.322(d): “The MARINE POLLUTANT mark is not required— (3) Except for transportation by vessel, on a bulk packaging, freight container or transport vehicle that bears a label or placard specified in subparts E or F of this part.”

In conclusion, as with many aspects of the regulations, the Hazardous Substance and marine Pollutant requirements may be complex and subtle.

Proper application of the regulations

takes time, investigation, andMarking effort.

“Old” Marine Pollutant

As inspectors we are responsible to the industry in delivering and applying the legislation and OOS criteria in a fair and appropriate manner. We are also responsible to the rest of the motoring public to remove the unsafe vehicles and fatigued and unqualified drivers from the highway.

CVSA programs such as “Brake Safety Week” and seminars on topics such as hours of service and load security put on by individual jurisdictions give inspectors the opportunity to reach out to the trucking industry on more of a personal, friendly basis. Participation in these dealings go far to create an atmosphere where we can educate the industry and help drivers understand their responsibilities and clarify any confusion they may have so they can do their job better.

I find this occupation to be an extremely rewarding one and I must say I would be lying if I didn’t enjoy finding the odd “truck of the day” with different things wrong. However, take a step away from the road once in a while and get involved in other projects. Set up a cargo securement or a trip inspection seminar with your local trucking association or provide feedback to CVSA on what has been working on the road and any improvements that could be made. The main goal is to make the job all you can and enjoy it.

Marine Pollutant Marking Required 01/14/2010 NOTE: Border color is optional.

27

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

ABS – The Simple Basics for Inspectors

By Capt. John E. Harrison, Georgia Department of Public Safety, Member Vehicle Committee

In talking with roadside inspectors and examining inspection reports from my state and others its seems fairly obvious that many roadside CMV inspectors are not checking the basic operation of Automatic Braking Systems (ABS) in the course of conducting North American Standard Level I or II inspections. I believe this can be attributed at least in part to the lack of a basic understanding of how ABS systems operate. In this article I’ll try to explain the basics, reveal some common violations found, and suggest some common write-ups. I’ll concentrate on air-braked vehicles, but hydraulic-braked vehicles share many common components and terminology.

Many mechanics and owners of CMVs also seem to be at a disadvantage in some cases because they have a limited understanding of ABS and often lack the equipment necessary to diagnose system problems. For example, a common ABS defect is an instrument panel or external mounted ABS test/malfunction lamp that remains lit. A test/malfunction lamp that remains on indicates a defect in the system, but the easy answer for a minority of drivers, owners, and mechanics is to place a piece of black tape over the instrument panel lamp or unplug the external lamp. I’ve had drivers tell me that they got tired of the amber lamp being constantly illuminated in their rearview mirror at night, so they just unplugged the lamp. I’ve also been told by a few drivers that when they pointed out the problem to their respective mechanic, the mechanic did not have any way to diagnose what’s making the malfunction lamp stay on. In one case a company owner told me he did not think ABS was an essential component and that he did not have the time to send

28

a his truck or trailer to a dealer to have the system properly repaired. Alternatively, larger fleets with adequately trained and equipped technicians can quickly diagnose and repair these systems. Moreover, carriers of any size with effective safety programs often utilize maintenance contractors that are properly equipped to handle ABS problems.

First let’s talk about applicability dates for basic ABS systems and components. Vehicles manufactured on or after these dates must be equipped with ABS systems: • Air-braked tractors: Manufactured on or after March 1, 1997; • Air-braked trailers: Manufactured on or after March 1, 1998; • Other air-braked CMVs (trucks and buses): Manufactured on or after March 1, 1998; • Hydraulic braked CMVs (all): Manufactured on or after March 1, 1999; and, • Additionally, air-braked trailers Manufactured after March 1, 1998 must have an externally mounted test/malfunction lamp (originally there was a sunset date of March 1, 2009 for this component, but the sunset date has been repealed and the requirement that trailers be so equipped has been extended indefinitely).

Basic ABS Components Each ABS-equipped vehicle is equipped with a control module, wheel rotation sensors, and test/malfunction indicator(s).

Newer tractors (mfg. on or after March 1, 2001) will have two ABS test/malfunction lamps in the instrument panel; one is for the tractor’s ABS and the other is for trailer(s) ABS. These newer tractors receive a signal from the trailer’s

ABS for testing and malfunction purposes. This instrument panel trailer ABS lamp is supposed to duplicate the test/malfunction feature of the externally mounted ABS lamp on the trailer(s).

Motor vehicle safety standards require the steering axle and at least one of the rear axles of tractors, dolly converters, and trailers to be equipped with ABS. In other words, not all axles will be equipped with ABS rotation sensors.

Some truck and trailer manufacturers will routinely equip all axles with rotation sensors, while others will equip only one of the drive axles and/or one of the trailer axles.

The control module on the trailer is usually located adjacent to or integrated into the air-brake relay valve near the air reservoir. The tractor control module may be located at several locations depending upon the manufacturer.

Basic Inspection Procedures • Test the ABS by utilizing the test/ malfunction lamps in the instrument panel and externally mounted (on trailers). Use all of the following methods to until a satisfactory test is achieved or you confirm a defect. If an ABS lamp fails to operate properly, then a defective ABS write-up should be made.

• Method 1 (power unit) – While observing the tractor’s instrument panel have the driver turn the ignition key to the on position (do not start engine); the tractor’s ABS lamp should illuminate for a short period and then go out. This indicates a successful test. If the tractor was manufactured on or after March 1, 2001 there will be two ABS test lamps, one for the tractor and one for the trailer.

C

•

•

•

•

If the trailer ABS lamp comes on momentarily and then goes out then a successful test is indicated.

Method 1 (trailer) – Have the driver turn the tractor’s ignition key to the on position while you observe the trailer’s externally mounted ABS test lamp. If the lamp comes on momentarily and then goes out a successful test is indicated.

Method 2 (trailer) – If method 1 above does not work, then have the driver turn the key to the on position and then apply the service (foot) brake and hold. If the external ABS lamp comes on momentarily and then goes out then a successful test is indicated. If the ABS lamp remains lit or does not come on at all while the service brake is applied, then a defective trailer ABS is indicated.

Method 3 (certain cargo tank trailers) – If both of the methods above fail to yield a successful test, then have the driver: (1) turn the tractor ignition to the on position, (2) have the driver then unplug the trailer’s electrical pigtail, and (3) have the driver reconnect the pigtail while you observe the external ABS lamp. If the lamp comes on momentarily and then goes out, a successful test is evident. If the lamp fails to operate, then the trailer’s ABS is defective.

Detailed ABS inspection procedures and bulletins are available at www.cvsa.org.

Common Violations/Problems • ABS test/malfunction lamp(s) remains lit or does not come on at all; this indicates a defective ABS system.

• Externally mounted test/malfunction lamp disconnected or missing.

O

M

Guardian M

• Wheel rotation sensor(s) wire cut, torn, or disconnected; indicates a defective ABS system. This is often obvious because the wires running along the axle toward the hub are dangling or cut.

• Control cable or sensor wires to the control module are disconnected; this condition is most prevalent on trailers. If a trailer is experiencing an ABS defect some mechanics will just unplug the control cable that runs from the tractor and the front of the trailer at the control module. By doing this: (1) the external test/malfunction lamp will not operate,

I

T

T

E

E

N

E

W

S

and (2) the circuit that feeds back to the tractor to operate the instrument panel trailer ABS lamp is disabled. Essentially, the tractor is tricked into thinking it is towing a non-ABS equipped trailer and the instrument panel ABS lamp for the trailer will come on and go out as if everything is fine.

An inspection of the ABS system should be a part of every Level I inspection and optionally a part of a Level II inspection. Moreover, carriers should make ABS inspections a part of routine maintenance.

PrePass was the inaugural sponsor of CVSA's International Safety Team because of our belief that commercial vehicle safety ultimately rests with the state and provincial enforcement personnel charged with inspecting operators every day. The International Safety Team award is one important tool to recognize and honor the all-too-often unsung heros of our highways.

We invite you to join with us in expanding this important program in 2011 by becoming a co-sponsor.

To learn more visit www.cvsa.org.

29

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

Ohio’s New Entrant Program Is An Example of How to Overcome Problems to Get the Job Done

V IV

By Alan Martin, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Deputy Director, Transportation

I

III II

REGION I Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, US Virgin Islands, and Vermont.

REGION II Alabama, American Samoa, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

REGION III Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

REGION IV Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Mexico, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

REGION V Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Yukon.

30

Ohio has always sought to be innovative in its approach to motor carrier safety.

Whether this has been as an early adopter of the MCSAP program or via the implementation of technology to assist in the achievement of programmatic goals, Ohio has continually worked hard to find new and better ways to get the job done.

The new entrant program is an example of how the state has sought to overcome problems and get the job done in the most efficient and effective manner possible.

Shortly after the new entrant program was implemented the state discovered a number of serious problems that were interfering with meeting the demand placed on inspectors charged with conducting new entrant reviews. First, many carriers were being included in the program improperly causing staff an excessive amount of time in contacting each company and sometimes conducting the bulk of a review only to determine that they never should have been in the program to begin with. Second, investigators often had to spend days playing phone tag with carriers attempting to contact them and set up an appointment. Finally, the travel time to and from carrier facilities often meant that only a single review could be accomplished in a day even though theoretically two could be done due to the short time frame necessary to conduct them.

With these three problems in mind the staff at the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) came up with a simple, yet effective solution. Rather than putting the burden on field inspectors to track down carriers, schedule appointments and then drive out and meet carriers, a new system was developed where the focus is on bringing the carriers to the staff.

Under Ohio’s New Entrant review program, carriers are first contacted by the state via a form letter. This letter instructs the car-

riers to contact the PUCO to schedule their new entrant safety audit. Carriers call in to the PUCOs main office where an office worker reviews the requirements of the program with them and conducts a pre-audit over the phone. This ensures that the carrier has a basic understanding of what is required of them and is a double check to weed out anyone who should not be in the program. At the conclusion of the pre-audit, staff proceeds to set up a day, date, time and location for an audit. Based upon where the carrier is located versus the assignment territories of field staff they pair the carrier up with a staff person. Each staff person has a fixed facility that they report into and those facilities now serve as central points to which carriers are sent for the reviews. Using fixed locations makes scheduling easier and ensures that more carriers can be reviewed during a single day since they come to the staff rather than the other way around.

Once a review has been scheduled a form letter is sent to the carrier reminding them what they are required to bring to the audit as well as the day, date and time that the audit will be conducted. Reviews are also added to each staff person’s online calendar and are tracked using a custom built Field Information Reporting System (FIRS) that allows each field person to see the details of their assignments as well as other information relevant to their jobs.

The results of these steps in Ohio have been overwhelmingly positive. The state has had less than a half percent of the carriers assigned to it not receive their review prior to the deadline for completion. Nearly a thousand carriers per year come through the new entrant program in Ohio and since the program was first implemented less than 50 have exceeded the statutorily required time, most of which were due to other problems outside the control of the state.

R

E

Guardian

G

I

O

N

A

L

N

E

W

S

Nova Scotia Vehicle Compliance Outreach Recognizes Best Practices

By Dan Leopold, Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal, Manager, Vehicle Compliance

The Mission of Nova Scotia Vehicle Compliance is ‘Safety and Compliance, through Education, Inspection, and Enforcement.’ Our goals are to increase the safety of road users and to protect the highway infrastructure of Nova Scotia; to enforce specific legislation with respect to commercial vehicle traffic; and, to interact with industry providing information and guidance on best practices.

Officers are expected to conduct 120 Level I CVSA inspections per year, as well as maintain their daily contact levels to meet our mission and goals. A tall order on certain days, however I continue to be amazed at how professionally and enthusiastically my officers approach their job.

Outreach of course is a major part of daily activities. I am a firm believer that we must build relationships within industry, especially since we enforce the laws and regulations that pertain to them.

Outreach is our opportunity to level the playing field and answers questions that are on the mind of those we see every day.

By attending meetings within community or company facilities it also provides an opportunity for a more candid (and comfortable) conversation.

We are regularly called to attend agricultural meetings, hours of service presentations, local safety events, our Regional

Commercial Driving Championships and a myriad of other forums. We enjoy each of these, however, our officers already have full schedules and we are often looking for volunteers. Although all of our officers are always willing to help out, some certainly go the extra mile and beyond.

Officer Dennis Gemmell is one such person. Dennis regularly attends agricultural meetings (where he often meets many of his “regular clients”). He is no stranger to winter snow plow operator meetings or stopping to say a few words to the guys on the jobsite. He regularly participates in Joint Initiatives with the RCMP (most recently helping out with our new bill to Increase Safety for First Responders and Others). Dennis has also organized a joint initiative between our Division, the RCMP, our MVI Inspectors and our auditors. This initiative received rave reviews and great press, and saw defects being identified and addressed in commercial vehicles as well as passenger vehicles.

In the fall I was approached to have one of my officers perform a Level I CVSA inspection in front of an audience at the APTA/MMTA Transportation Safety Conference in October (Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association/Maine Motor Transport Administration). Of course I agreed and was very pleased to

send Officer Gemmell. This was another great opportunity to work with Industry and I was confident Dennis would represent us well. Some of the comments and feedback I have received included: “There were a number of people who commented to me how well he knew his stuff. I personally wanted to thank your department, the Province of Nova Scotia and Dennis for doing such a great job” —Carl Fiander, General Manager, Profile Solutions.

“For many, it was the first time they have seen what is involved in an actual inspection... the better we understand the better job we can do at compliance” —David Miller, Manager, Safety and Training, Armour Transportation Systems.

Officer Gemmell will be recognized for his outreach efforts during our annual December meeting. However, Dennis is only one of so many officers that allow us to keep our roads safe and meet our mission of safety and compliance, through education, inspection, and enforcement.

31

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling Impacts Commercial Vehicle Safety in Pennsylvania

By Lt. Raymond J. Cook, Pennsylvania State Police, Commander, Commercial Vehicle Safety Division

For years, most geologists working in the Appalachian basin (Alabama to Maine) knew about the large deposits of natural gas that were trapped between horizontal layers of Marcellus Shale in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York. Until 2003, however, very few of these experts were excited about the Marcellus Shale region since traditional vertical drilling techniques rarely yielded profitable quantities of natural gas. In 2003, however, new drilling technology involving hydraulic fracturing was unveiled in Washington County, PA and has turned the Marcellus Shale region into a major contributor to the natural gas supply of the United States. A Marcellus Shale well is first drilled vertically then turned horizontal in the shale zone. High pressure water, mixed with a proprietary mix of chemicals and sand, is blasted at the shale to cause fracturing, known in the industry as hydrofrac.The fracturing releases the gas for recovery into the drilling pipe.

The fracturing water is pumped back out, stored, or treated. In early 2008, The Pennsylvania State University completed a study in which they estimated that the Marcellus region might contain more than 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas enough to supply the entire United States for two years with an approximate value of one trillion dollars.

In 2005, Pennsylvania issued just four permits for companies to drill into the Marcellus Shale, but in 2010, it issued more

32

Pennsylvania State Police and its safety partners remain committed to their goal of preventing trucks crashes, fatalities, and injuries through the development of consistent, uniform, and effective commercial motor vehicle safety programs. than 2,500. While the expansion of natural gas development in Pennsylvania affords certain economic advantages to the state, it has also posed a serious commercial motor vehicle safety challenge to Pennsylvania law enforcement. Large gas drilling operations routinely involve moving a large amount of equipment, vehicles, and supplies into remote areas. In fact, industry estimates indicate that the operation of just one gas well (start to finish) results in as many as 1,350 commercial motor vehicle trips into and out of the drilling site. Many of these vehicles weigh at or above the state legal limit of 80,000 lbs.

Pennsylvaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rural roads and bridges have begun to crumble under the weight and volume of these trucks, and the condition of its local rural infrastructure poses an immediate safety concern as heavy

trucks, and particularly those with unsecured loads, are more prone to rollover and crash when driven on a crumbling road surface. Moreover, the condition of these roads makes it extremely difficult for emergency services vehicles such as ambulances, fire and police vehicles to respond to emergencies in a timely manner.

In response to these emerging commercial vehicle safety issues, the Pennsylvania State Police partnered with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to conduct proactive roadside inspections in those areas most impacted by the truck traffic supporting gas drilling operations. Many of these enforcement campaigns have also been coordinated and conducted jointly with our safety partners in the New York State Police. In 2010, Pennsylvania State Police motor carrier enforcement personnel conducted in excess of 3,400 roadside inspections of commercial motor vehicles operated in conjunction with Marcellus Shale drilling operations, resulting in more than 7,900 driver/vehicle violations and a 41 percent out-of-service vehicle rate.

Increased enforcement, however, is just one means by which the Pennsylvania State Police and its safety partners hope to ensure industry compliance with the motor carrier safety regulations.

Through outreach and educational efforts, they hope to solicit voluntary

R

E

Guardian

G

I

O

N

A

L

N

E

W

S

compliance by all those operating in support of this growing industry.

In October, the State Police and the Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Coalition hosted the first Marcellus Shale Transportation Safety Day in State College, PA. The intent of this effort was to better educate carriers and drivers supporting the natural gas industry of Pennsylvaniaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regulations to improve their safe operating practices. More than 225 industry representatives registered for the one-day event and attended breakout sessions hosted by the State Police, PA Public Utility Commission, PA Department of Transportation, PA Department of Environmental Protection, and FMCSA In addition to educating the industry, the State Police have been working to educate all law enforcement in the state.

With more than 1,200 municipal police agencies in Pennsylvania, the intent is to raise the awareness of those law enforcers working in the Marcellus Shale region. To date, more than 250 local police officers have been educated about applicable laws and regulations that govern the safe movement of these vehicles on state and local roadways.

Despite the transportation safety challenges presented by this growing industry, the Pennsylvania State Police and its safety partners remain committed to their goal of preventing trucks crashes, fatalities, and injuries through the development of consistent, uniform, and effective commercial motor vehicle safety programs. They remain confident that the time proven strategy of enforcement, combined with education, will enable them to ensure the safety of all those who travel the roads and highways of their Commonwealth.

33

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

Technology-Enabled Commercial Vehicle Enforcement in Washington Improves Safety and Efficiency

Over the years, the state of Washington has been very proactive in the design, development, and deployment of technologies to enable more targeted inspections of commercial vehicles to keep traffic moving and minimize disruptions in travel and commerce. These technologies also play an important role in improving safety on the state’s roadways.

Throughout August of 2009, members of the Washington State Patrol (WSP) Commercial Vehicle Division and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Expanded Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) Project teamed up to carry out a statewide feasibility study for creating an unattended and fully automated infrared inspection system as an integrated component of the CVISN system.

The project is now wrapping up the proof of concept for yet another technology. This is an Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) system which has leveled the playing field for automated sorting of commercial vehicles both with and without transponders on the primary roadways. The sorting, through computerized message signs tells a passing truck if they are to report to the weigh station or may keep going. The WSDOT

ALPR system gives Washington the opportunity to provide more targeted inspections by checking all commercial vehicles automatically against a commercial vehicle database as they approach the weigh station. The system then provides WSP Officers with all available vehicle information. Using the system to make more intelligent decisions about which vehicles warrant a more targeted inspection, Washington is able to more quickly assess the commercial vehicle traffic flowing through checkpoints to minimize delays for vehicles with good safety and maintenance histories. The ALPR system uses the SpikeHDTM integrated ALPR system from PIPS Technology coupled with software developed inhouse it is fully integrating into the existing WSDOT CVISN system.

The SpikeHD incorporates a duallens camera with integrated ALPR processor and infrared illumination all in one sealed housing. The color lens of the camera captures an overview image of the vehicle, and the infrared lens of the camera captures an image of the license plate for interpretation by the integral processor. The infrared illumination, safe and relatively invisible to the human eye, illuminates the license plate for the infrared lens in all lighting and weather

conditions. The infrared image of the license plate is then passed along to the on-board processor for optical character recognition (OCR) whereby the image is translated to text based on a highly refined OCR engine designed for the state. This information is then used by the CVISN system to pull historical information on the vehicle and make a decision if a vehicle should be brought into the station or is good to pass. This information is also used by officers to make decisions in near-real-time as vehicles approach the weigh station.

Another technology of interest was thermal imaging for automated brake, tire and bearing inspections. The group’s August research of the thermal imaging technology determined that an off the shelf Flir‚ A325 thermography camera and associated ThermoVision‚ ExaminerIR‰ software would provide the needed functionality for the project. For the study the camera was set up along the incoming ramp at various heights and angles at weigh stations around the State. A laptop computer provided the monitor and captured video from the camera as vehicles passed. Vehicles were examined live and video was saved for later study.

It was quickly discovered that the human eye and mind cannot effectively

Photos: (left and center) With the infrared camera looking up from below the road surface. The glowing brake on the right is visibly working while the dark brake on the left is not. This is a typical example of what was observable in the study. Automation will take this further and remove the need for an officer to observe. (right) An interesting view looking up from under the vehicle. In this view the brakes were clearly visible with single tires being where dual tires typically would be.

34

R

E

Guardian

G

I

O

N

A

L

N

E

W

S

REGIONAL RAP

process the images fast enough with vehicles moving at speeds estimated over five miles an hour. However, the use of computer automation allows for automation of this process, and at much higher speeds. For the study trucks coming into the scale are monitored with the camera and when something looks to be defective such as a possible inoperative brake a WSP Officer stops the vehicle and checks its condition. This provides the opportunity to learn what a defective piece of equipment looks like when viewed in infrared, thus enabling officers to make observations of a more preventative nature – identifying potentially unsafe circumstances and alerting the driver/owner of the vehicle for correction. During the study a number of vehicles were placed out of service based upon what was identified although, this was not the purpose so statistics were not logged.

The initial study focused on viewing from the side directly on the wheel area and then across under the vehicle at the inside of the brake at different angles.

These arrangements in many cases gave good visual inspection for the human eye.

A further study was carried out to see what the camera would capture if embedded in the roadway looking up. This study utilized a weigh station inspection pit with the camera located in the pit to simulate the camera in the roadway.

Trucks were instructed to pass over the pit as if on the road. As the first truck reached the camera everyone watching realized this was by far the best approach.

Before the first hour had passed 4 trucks were placed out of service for one or more non-functional brakes.

Some of the benefits identified with embedding the camera in the roadway were that one camera with a wide angle

GEORGIA DPS RECEIVES RECOGNITION BY IACP The Georgia Department of Public Safety, Motor Carrier Compliance Division, won third place in the 2009 - 2010 International Association of Chiefs of Police “Special Law Enforcement” category in the National Law Enforcement Challenge.

Georgia’s application highlighted Departmental Policy and Guidelines, the extensive training for Motor Carrier Officers, recognition the Division has received from FMCSA and other agencies, Public Information and Educational outreach to both the carrier community and the Public, Enforcement activity, such as Targeting Aggressive Cars and Trucks (G-TACT), and CVSA-sponsored events such as Roadcheck and Brake Safety week, and the overall program effectiveness on leading to reductions in Commercial Vehicle crashes and related fatalities and injuries. Capt. Johnny Jones, MCCD Region 8 Commander, accepted the award on behalf of the Division.

COLORADO STATE PATROL NOTES RETIREMENT OF CAPT. RICH MONROE Capt. Rich Munroe a 24-year veteran of the Colorado State Patrol and recent transfer into the Colorado State Patrol’s Motor Carrier Safety Section retired on November 1, 2010. Although Monroe was only in the Motor Carrier Safety Section a few months he enjoyed his time and was clearly dedicated to commercial vehicle safety. At the present time a replacement has not been appointed and Sgt. Rocco Domenico is serving as the interim acting officer in charge.

lens was all that was needed whereas a side scan required two cameras to get both sides. The visibility looking up from the road provides a wide open and clear view of all the brakes regardless of the vehicle style or what may be hanging down. Washington has elected to go in this direction due to the much better and consistent viewing along with cost savings of one versus two cameras and associated enclosures, wiring, and labor costs.

An enclosure to handle the environmental conditions is currently being developed for this method. Software is being developed for the automation and to tie it into the other components of the WSDOT CVISN system. This new

system will scan all incoming vehicles and notify the WSDOT CVISN user only when a defect is identified. Thereby freeing up the Officer to do their other tasks and giving them a powerful new tool. The Officer will be able to quickly see which area they need to look at before the truck reaches them.

With these automated tools the WSP Officers will help keep additional safe vehicles moving along and identify more troubled vehicles that would have slipped by without a close hands on inspection.

Once in full operation this technology will save lives in WA State by helping to take more malfunctioning commercial vehicles off the road.

35

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

REGIONAL RAP

NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY PATROL RECOGNIZES THREE OFFICERS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO HIGHWAY SAFETY On Wednesday, 8 December 2010, Capt. William T. Belch and Lt. Douglas R. Shackelford of the North Carolina State Highway Patrol and Dr. Ronald G. Hughes of NC State University were recognized for their efforts to provide safe and efficient transportation on the highways of North Carolina. The three were awarded the Patrol’s Meritorious Service Award by Col. Michael M. Gilchrist, Commander, of the NC State Highway Patrol and the Gold Circle Award by Secretary Reuben Young of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety.

During the 2010 summer travel season, the North Carolina State Highway Patrol conducted a series of three large scale operations called Operation Road W.A.T.C.H. The Operation Road W.A.T.C.H. concept which stands for Wolfpacks (enforcement teams), Alcohol detection, Traffic enforcement, CDL violations and Homeland security was developed in 2006, by Lt. Shackelford, while then assigned as the Motor Carrier Enforcement Troop Lieutenant, at Troop C Headquarters, Raleigh, NC. Dr. Hughes played an important role in the identification of high crash corridors, the provision of detailed GIS mapping and data analysis products, as well as participating in the Commercial Motor Vehicle Awareness training that accompanied the operations, by enlisting local law enforcement agencies to assist in each of these operations.

Capt. Belch spear headed the plan by putting it into action and overseeing the operational planning, logistical coordination and implementation. Capt. Belch’s dedication to highway safety and leadership brought the plan together.

The unequaled drive, professional excellence and steadfast dedication of the 230 State Highway Patrol personnel and local law enforcement officers deployed during the operations to the cause of highway safety led to a very successful campaign. Their efforts allowed the series of Road W.A.T.C.H. Operations, over the 6 days, to culminate in 1,182 North American Standard (NAS) inspections being conducted and of those inspections, 468 driver violations discovered, placing 50 drivers out of service. There were also 1,253 vehicle equipment violations detected and of those 136 vehicles were placed out of service. In conjunction with the inspections being conducted, size and weight activities were also conducted. These activities detected 123 weight violations, resulting in 938,204 pounds of overweight penalties being assessed. In addition to Commercial Motor Vehicle inspections being conducted, traffic enforcement teams were deployed in high crash corridors with Patrol personnel, local Police and Sheriff Department personnel using LIDARS and high visibility patrols to account for 616 traffic violations cited and 336 warnings being issued in Iredell, Mecklenburg and Johnston Counties.

Also, during the course of the year the NC State Highway Patrol conducted a series of small scale Operation Road W.A.T.C.H.’s in conjunction with its Rural Road Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks (TACT) campaigns in Craven, Brunswick, Randolph, McDowell and Union Counties.

TRUCK DRIVERS ARE SURPRISED WITH HOLIDAY TREATS Truck drivers pulling into an old toll plaza on Interstate 264 in Virginia Beach braced themselves for an inspection. As they exited the roadway, they saw motor carrier police units were stationed and waiting for their arrival. But with further examination, they also spotted Santa Claus. As the police units approached their vehicles, the truck drivers were surprised to be handed treats and appreciation as well as information for safe holiday travels.

On December 20, Drive Safe Hampton Roads, a local traffic safety non-profit, along with the Virginia Beach Police Motor Carrier Safety Unit and other local motor carrier units held its 17th Annual Commercial Vehicle Driver Appreciation Day. Truck drivers were handed breakfast such as donuts and Chik-fil-A biscuits and coffee or orange juice and reminded to buckle up and drive safely during their holiday travels. Chik-fil-A and Golden Corral graciously donated the breakfast items. Over 20 volunteers arrived on the brisk Monday morning to thank the truck drivers for their hard work during the holiday season.

36

R

E

Guardian

G

I

O

N

A

L

N

E

W

S

AAMVA PRESENTS 2010 CMV HIGHWAY SAFETY AWARD TO WASHINGTON STATE PATROL

The work of the Washington State Patrol (WSP), Commercial Vehicle Division (CVD) has contributed to a reduced number of fatalities and injuries resulting from crashes involving commercial motor vehicles. WSP’s hard work and dedication to saving lives has yielded results and won it the 2010 Commercial Motor Vehicle Highway Safety Award. The 2010 Award was presented at the AAMVA International Conference held in St. John, New Brunswick, Canada in late August.

The WSP takes a proactive approach to reduce fatalities and crashes involving commercial vehicles. 629 WSP troopers are certified to conduct Level III driver inspections. There are 242 North American Standard Level I Certified CMV Inspectors. WSP Commercial Vehicle Division is continually recognized as a national leader in CMV and school bus safety due to its outstanding efforts in education and enforcement.

WSP has reached out to the community to provide presentations and public information. In 2009, the WSP Commercial Vehicle Division conducted over 491 presentations to local CMV industry, state agencies, private sector, educational facilities, community groups and job fairs.

Through these presentations, over 52,300 citizens were reached addressing safety around CMVs. The WSP outreach and education efforts also include the compliance review program. Through this program, WSP took a proactive approach in reaching out to educate carriers on how to become compliant with federal and state CMV regulations.

WSP has also been proactive in combating aggressive driving activities specifically around CMVs. The TACT (Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks)

program has been successful in Washington combating aggressive driving behavior. The program’s mission is to reduce CMV related crashes, injuries and fatalities through educating both passenger vehicle and truck drivers on how to share the road safely.

As a result, in 2009, 10 assigned WSP CVD TACT officers located around the state of Washington: • Contacted over 12,479 violators; • Arrested 12 drivers for DUIs, 3,324 aggressive drivers, 11 reckless drivers and 62 negligent drivers; • Made 33 drug arrests; • Contacted over 7,121 speed violators and issued 600 seat belt violations; and, • Completed 1,765 CVSA inspections.

Other programs WSP CVD has placed special emphasis on are the Operation Safe Driver program, Annual CVSA Roadcheck program and Operation Air Brake / Brake Safety Week. Each of these opportunities is used, not only to enforce, but to educate the motor carrier community on safe operational practices.

As a result of these efforts, the number of fatalities and injuries resulting from crashes involving commercial motor vehicles has gone down. In 2009 Washington had an 8% reduction in CMV-caused collisions from 705 to 651. Additionally, there was a 50% reduction in CMV involved fatalities from 2008 to 2009.

Capt. Darrin T. Grondel accepted the award on behalf of Washington State Patrol, Commercial Vehicle Division.

“It is an honor and a privilege to receive this award on behalf of the Washington State Patrol… This award truly reflects the hard work, dedication and commitment of our Commercial

Vehicle Division officers and stakeholders improving safety and the quality of life in Washington State. Our vision is to make Washington roadways the safest in the nation and this award demonstrates we are on the right course. We have implemented various strategies and programs aimed at safety, which ultimately saves lives,” said Grondel.

The CMV Highway Safety Award program is a distinguished service award for commercial vehicle safety created to recognize individuals, agencies or jurisdictions that have made significant contributions to improving highway safety involving commercial motor vehicles and their drivers.

Nomination forms for the 2011 CMV Highway Safety Award are now available. Consider nominating a state, agency or individual who has made significant contributions to improving highway safety. Nominees may include CDL testers, law enforcement officers, public safety or law enforcement agencies, or motor vehicle administration personnel that have utilized creative programs, policies or systems proven to improve safety and/or reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities. Nominations for the award can be made on behalf of individuals, agencies or a jurisdiction.

The CMV Highway Safety Award program is a collaborative effort between FMCSA, the American Association of Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and the International Registration Plan, Inc. (IRP, Inc.). IRP, Inc. administered the award on behalf of FMCSA and AAMVA. For additional information on the award and nomination details visit the IRP, Inc. website at www.irponline.org or contact Tim Adams at (502) 8450398 or by email at tadams@irpinc.org.

37

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

INDUSTRY SPOTLIGHT

A&R Transport Inc. Providing ‘Safety First’

Employees at A&R Transport Inc. understand that performing their job safely, bringing safety first, proves to be a winning combination. Without safety first, A&R Transport Inc. wouldn’t be an industry leader it has become today.

“At A&R, we are always searching for new ways of doing business that’s safe, and that continuously exceeds our employees’ and customers’ expectations,” said A&R Transport’s VP of Safety and Risk Management, Kenneth Pate.

A&R Transport has many types of services that reflect their commitment to safety. A couple of the more recent movements to bring safety to the forefront are A&R’s EOBR/ELOG program as well as their restructured new hire training program.

EOBR / E-LOG Program The company most recently introduced an EOBR (Electronic on Board Recorder) program, commonly known as E-LOG, to its growing fleet of trucks. The E-LOG program has proven to be a winner, providing dispatchers, terminal managers, and drivers with the capabilities of knowing a driver’s hours of service (HOS) at any point. This allows for a closer driver/dispatcher relationship. A&R Transport has also set up with Qualcomm to alert a member of management via email when a driver on ELOG has a hard braking event, at the time of the hard brake. Qualcomm’s reporting structure also allows an immediate viewing of any HOS violations. Immediate viewing of a driver’s HOS, immediate notification of hard brakes, and immediate capabilities to view HOS violations allow A&R Transport to intervene sooner.

38

New Hire Training, Safety From The Start Upon hire at A&R Transport, a driver receives hands on training with a terminal driver trainer. The terminal driver trainers are trained annually by our corporate team, and are leaders within their respective terminal fleet. This initial time (usually spanning a two-week period) allows the new hire to get accustomed to some of A&R’s safety policies and work procedures. After the initial training period is completed, the trainee attends a week-long corporate training session at A&R’s corporate headquarters in Illinois. During this training week, the driver gets hands on with the corporate trainer, to answer any further questions/issues the trainee may have. As well, the trainee attends a new hire class room session. This sessions’ primary focus is on safety, and is given by a member of the safety management team. This is an excellent time to get one on one with a trainee before releasing him/her into the system. The week-long corporate training session, in class and hands on, is where A&R Transport really instills and solidifies their ‘Safety First’ vision with the trainee.

The EOBR/ELOG and the New Hire Training programs in place at A&R are just two means of many where A&R Transport creates a culture, a culture that reflects ‘Safety First.’

How We Did It • Quarterly safety meetings at each terminal • Provide computerized safety training • Issue monthly newsletters • Employee bonus program, promoting ‘Safety First’ • Corporate new hire training • EOBR/E-LOG Program • Open door policy/management and employee working relationships • Safety break quiz sessions

A&R Transport Safety Facts • 7.8 percent Vehicle DOT out-of-service, National Average (2007-08) is 22.27 percent.

• 4.3 percent Driver DOT out-of-

With an ever growing fleet of 700 plus tractors on the road, A&R Transport takes pride on ‘Safety First,’ always reflecting and learning from the past, working for a safer tomorrow.

•

•

•

•

•

service, National Average (2007-08) is 6.60 percent.

2 percent HazMat DOT out-ofservice, National Average (2007-08) is 5.02 percent.

A&R has seen a 35 percent decrease in injuries and illnesses from 2007-2009.

The number of drivers placed outof-service has steadily decreased by 21 percent from 2007-2009.

Their number of moving violations have also decreased by 39 percent from 2007-2009.

2004: NTTC Outstanding Performance Trophy.

1. 2004 frequency of 0.169 DOT reportable accidents per million miles, and 2. 2004 lost time injury rate of 0.79.

A

S

S

O

C

I

A

T

E

Guardian

M

E

M

B

E

R

N

E

W

S

Winning the War Against Distracted Driving: One Company’s Battle Strategy Revealed

By Don Osterberg, Schneider National, Inc., Senior Vice President of Safety & Security

As the one of the country’s largest trucking, intermodal and logistics providers, Schneider National has almost 10,000 trucks crisscrossing North America’s roads every day. To ensure the drivers of those trucks – and the freight they are hauling – arrive safely, we make every effort to thwart the enemies who stand in the way of safe deliveries. That includes volatile weather systems and sophisticated rings of cargo thieves. But a threat just as serious and just as real actually comes in the form of a device that fits in the palm of your hand: the cell phone.

The issue of distracted driving may have risen to national prominence this year with the banning of texting while driving in many states, but the trucking industry has been proactively battling it for years. Schneider is proud to say we are winning the war on distracted driving through some common sense efforts that every carrier can and should employ.

Our efforts can be divided into two separate tracks: policy and affirmation.

Because company policies against distracted driving are a significant deterrent to driver distraction and have been proven to improve safety performance, Schneider added a policy prohibiting use of cell phones and all other mobile communications devices while driving in 2003. Use of a Bluetooth, headset, ear buds or other hands free devices also distract attention

from driving and are also off-limits. For Schneider drivers, defensive driving is Job #1. Any violation of this policy is grounds for immediate termination.

We believe enforcement of this policy is everyone’s obligation. To that end, driver managers will NEVER call a driver on their cell phone if the truck is moving, and driver cell phone numbers are not accessible to customer service representatives. Even driver recruiters play a role; if they receive a call from a prospective driver on their cell phone, they ask them to find a safe place to park and call back when they’ve done so. This sets the expectation early on that Schneider does not tolerate distracted driving.

The policy provides a “have-to” message, but the affirmation is designed to trigger a “want-to” mentality that is even more important. Every Schneider associate is asked to sign a card that reads: “Because I am a disciplined, safety-conscious professional, I lead-by-example and maintain constant situational awareness while driving.” We selected these words to trigger a self-image that will positively influence behavior.

Why is this an important piece of our battle strategy? People act in accordance with the person we know ourselves to be at the subconscious level. Affirmations are a way to reprogram our self-image, which can regulate our behavior in a positive

manner. This belief-based model of safety leadership is simple: Our beliefs shape our attitudes, which influence our habits, which result in the behavior. To address an individual’s behavior, it is best to address it at the root--the belief level. When Schneider associates believe that distracted driving is irresponsible and dangerous, they don’t do it. We have seen this work time and time again and know we are successfully reprograming our associates regarding appropriate cell phone when they are both on and off the job.

Company-provided technology also plays a part in regulating distracted driving among our associates. Back in 2005, Schneider blanked visibility to in-cab communications technology when the vehicle was in motion. We took things to the next level in 2010 when we equipped every Schneider truck with a unit that offers text-to-voice navigation instructions from an in-cab audio speaker system, including visual in-cab turn-by-turn directions as part of a mirror/gauge scan pattern.

Of course, all these tactics are only possible because Schneider has had a steadfast commitment to placing “safety first and always” since we first opened our doors in 1935. The culture of safety that permeates our organization is crucial to the success of any anti-distracted driving strategy that is enacted. Our associates know these policies and programs aren’t just a “flavor of the month.”

Rather, they are part of the fabric that comprises our enterprise, which enables them to adopt the behaviors and adhere to our requirements much more easily.

As a result, Schneider’s incidence rate of accidents caused by distracted driving is among the lowest in the industry – proof that the war against distracted driving is winnable, indeed.

39

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

Government Regulators, Enforcement, Industry Collaboration Critical to Ensuring Safety of HazMat Transportation

By Stephen A. Keppler, CVSA, Executive Director The transportation of hazardous materials continues to be one of the most highly-regulated forms of transportation in North America and throughout the world – and for good reason. In order to do it is safely, it is critical that government regulators, enforcement and industry routinely collaborate on the implementation of regulations, policy, best practices, education and training.

The Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development (COHMED) Program is a shining example of this collaboration. CVSA is proud to be an important partner in helping to organize and host this important annual gathering. While COHMED delivers excellent value in terms of shared information, a key byproduct of the event is the relationships that are developed and nurtured not just at the event, but throughout the year. CVSA Members and Associate Members who participate in COHMED are among the brightest in government and industry and are looked to as “go to” experts in their field.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (continued from page 5) review the bill and is also participating in a task force of manufacturers and trucking industry representatives to also review the bill and provide feedback to Senators Pryor and Alexander. The use of EOBR’s has taken on added importance in light of FMCSA’s new hoursof-service proposal.

Safety Technology Bill — The “Truck

40

Stephen A. Keppler

We also are very fortunate to have excellent participation and support by the federal governments in the United States, Canada and Mexico. This year, we are pleased to have the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration providing financial assistance to help with COHMED. It is with assistance such as this that we are able to continue to bring top notch programs and activities in support of CVSA’s

Safety Technology Tax Incentive Act” which CVSA has been actively supporting has a good chance of being considered if a Reauthorization takes shape. The trucking industry supports the bill.

Exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations A top priority of CVSA has been to sunset existing industry safety exemptions and to establish regulatory procedures for granting them as prescribed in

Mission to save lives. I encourage CVSA’s entire membership to take advantage of this great knowledge resource. COHMED, along with the Level VI Program with DOE and the Hazardous Materials Committee continue to be assets in CVSA helping to provide best-in-breed ideas to the safe movement of hazardous materials. If HazMat is your bag, and in your area of responsibility, these activities are a “must do” in your participation with CVSA. The knowledge you will gain from participation will be of great value to you and the organization you work for.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the Members and Associate Members who are part of our HazMat activities for their efforts, your commitment is much appreciated by all of us.

Due to the highly-technical nature of HazMat, I know many of you go above the call of duty to be available to others who are in need of support and on behalf of the entire membership I thank you.

Section 31315, Title 49, U.S. Code.

Topping the list are the various hours-ofservice exemptions provided to the agricultural and utility industries. CVSA’s discussion of this issue with the Senate Commerce Committee staff has already resulted in a Committee request to GAO to review this issue and catalogue all of the exemptions both in statute and in regulations that have been enacted since the 1950’s. Such a review should show the magnitude of the problem and the need to find ways to resolve it.

R

Level VI Classes Scheduled for 2011

A

D

I

N

S

P

Guardian

E

C

T

I

O

N

N

E

W

S

Ensuring Safe Transportation of Radioactive Material

Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. DOE, CVSA has scheduled the Level VI classes for 2011 to certify inspectors to conduct Level VI inspections on all transuranic waste and Highway Route Controlled Quantities (HRCQ) of radioactive materials. CVSA provides Level VI training to inspectors who meet the prerequisite of being Level I and HazMat certified. The following are the classes scheduled for 2011: ■ New Baintree, MA–March 21-24 ■ Salinas, KS–July 11-14 ■ Las Vegas, NV–August 22-25 ■ Sacramento, CA–October 17-20

Any state interested in hosting a class or needs inspectors trained is asked to contact Larry D. Stern, Director Level VI Program, at larrys@cvsa.org or 301-830-6147.

RAD Inspection News is made possible under a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy.

From January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009, the North American Standard Level VI Inspection Program on Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) shipments had an increased level of safety over the previous reporting period. Of these inspections, 95.38 percent had no violations.

The CVSA Level VI Inspection Program continues to find fewer violations and even fewer out-of-service violations. The Level I and Level VI combined out-of-service rate for vehicles is 0.88 percent and 0.00 percent for drivers. Most notable for the WIPP shipments is that less than one percent of inspections, for both vehicle and driver, find Level I out-of-service violations (that is, the more serious violations). The vehicle and driver combined percentage is less than one percent for both Level VI outof-service violations. This continued improvement is attributed to the importance the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the carriers place on keeping the dedicated equipment highly maintained and using dedicated high-quality drivers.

Also, under the Level VI Inspection Program are the Highway Route Controlled Quantities (HRCQ) shipments of Radioactive Material (non-WIPP). These shipments had an increased level of safety over the previous reporting period. Of these inspections, 88.99 percent had no violations.

The continued ultimate goal of the North American Level VI Inspection Program for shipments of Transuranic Waste and Highway Route Controlled Quantities (HRCQ) of Radioactive Materials is the safe, uneventful shipments of radioactive material from point of origin to destination. The states, carriers and DOE are proud of the continued excellent safety program that keeps driver and vehicle out-of service rates very low. Low out-of-service rates held lead to a low number of incidents. The 95.38 percent and 88.99 percent of inspection during this period with no violations shows the determination by the states, carriers, DOE, and HRCQ shippers to continue to improve this program.

The CVSA’s Level VI Program 2010 Inspection Report for Inspections in CY 2008 and CY 2009 can be obtained on the CVSA’s website: www.cvsa.org click on programs and then click on the Level VI radiation emblem and then go to WIPP updates/reports.

41

First Quarter 2011

www.cvsa.org

CVSA Conducting Additional Peer Reviews on Level VI Inspection Programs

WIPP Receives Second EPA Recertification

CVSA will be conducting two additional Peer Reviews on the Level VI Program during 2011. This review will be a comprehensive review of two states’ Level VI Inspection Program. A team leader and a fourmember peer review group who are members of the CVSA Level VI Program Committee, National Level VI Instructors, Western Governors Association, Southern State Energy Board, The Council of State Governments Midwestern and Northeast Offices, WIPP Carriers and DOE will conduct the reviews.

CVSA has completed the comprehensive peer reviews on the Level VI Program in New Mexico, Michigan, Illinois, Washington, Colorado, Tennessee and South Carolina. The CVSA Level VI Inspection Program Peer Review: State Differences, Lessons Learned, Best Practices, and Recommendations Report published January 2007 is on CVSA’s website www.cvsa.org click on Programs - then click on the Level VI radiation emblem and go to WIPP Updates/Reports.

If there is any state interested in participating in these reviews please contact Larry D. Stern, Director Level VI Program, at larrys@cvsa.org or 301-830-6147.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) crossed a key milestone today when it was recertified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This decision means that the EPS, after a thorough review, concluded that the underground repository continues to display its ability to safety contain transuranic (TRU) waste for the duration of WIPP’s 10,000year regulatory period.

“The EPA’s thorough review concluded that WIPP continues to meet all regulatory performance requirements,” said DOE Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Dr. Ines Triay. “The EPS’s recertification supports my long-held belief that WIPP personifies our commitment to the American taxpayer toward cleaning up the nation’s defense-generated waste in a safe, efficient and compliant manner.”

EPA recertification verifies the sites’ continued compliance with federal disposal regulations and is based on various independent technical analyses, public comments and a thorough review of facility information submitted by DOE. On June, 29, 2010, the EPA declared WIPP’s Compliance Recertification Application to be complete.

EPA initially certified WIPP in 1998. The recertification process with the EPA takes place every five years, as required by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act. This is the second time WIPP has been recertified since opening in 1999. In 2004, WIPP submitted its application for the previous recertification, which it received in 2006. For WIPP to receive recertification, the EPA verifies that the changes made at the facility during the preceding five-year period will not impact the ability of WIPP to contain TRU waste. The recertification process is not a reconsideration of the decision to open WIPP. “The EPA’s decision shows that the plan for managing WIPP, which was put together after decades of research and study, remains the best way to safely isolate TRU waste for thousands of years and beyond,” said Interim Acting Carlsbad Field Office Manager Ed Ziemianski.

CVSA Addresses Blue Ribbon Commission CVSA’s Level VI Program Director Larry Stern, speaking on behalf of the Alliance, outlined specific steps and timelines needed to plan for the executive a large-scale fuel transportation campaign in front of a Blue Ribbon Commission on American’s Nuclear Future on Transportation & Storage Subcommittee Meeting at the Wyndham Hotel in Chicago November 2, 2010.

President Obama directed that the Commission be established to conduct a comprehensive review of the policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The Commission provides advice and makes recommendations on issues including alternative for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.

The commission was established in accordance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C.App. 2, and as directed by the President’s Memorandum for the Secretary of Energy dated January 29, 2010: Blue Ribbon Commission of on American’s Nuclear Future. This charter establishes the Commission under the authority of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

42

R

A

D

I

N

S

P

Guardian

E

C

T

I

O

N

N

E

W

S

U.S. DOE’s Environmental Management Site Cleanup Program

This is the third of several articles regarding the DOE’s Site cleanup program.

Idaho Operations—Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP) The mission of AMWTP is to safely, compliantly and efficiently retrieve, characterize, process, package and ship 65,000 cubic meters of historically managed stored transuranic nuclear waste for shipment to permanent disposal sites outside of Idaho and to support the receipt and treatment of transuranic waste from other DOE sites for shipment to the DOE’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, NM. AMWTP has shipped more than 36,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste out of Idaho since May 2005, more than any other site in the DOE complex.

More than 4,000 shipments have been made safely and without incident from AMWTP to WIPP, accounting for nearly half of the contact-handled transuranic waste permanently disposed in WIPP. It’s a 1,250 mile trip from Idaho facility to WIPP. Of the 65,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste stored at DOE’s Idaho site, an estimated 20 percent has been historically managed stored as transuranic waste, but subsequently reclassified as mixed lowlevel waste. Using funding provided to DOE through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), as of April 1, 2010 Bechtel BWXT Idaho (BBWI) has

been able to safely and compliantly ship an additional 2,200 cubic meters of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste out of Idaho, to commercial and federal permanent disposal site.

The Idaho Cleanup Project contract began in March of 2005. CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC is ahead of schedule and continues to get additional work completed (ARRA funds, etc.)

• 4,200 cubic meters of Mixed Low Level Waste (MLLW) has been shipped from Idaho for disposal, primarily at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and EnergySolutions in Utah.

• 500 cubic meters of Low Level Waste (LLW) has successfully shipped offsite.

• 2,800 meters of Hazardous Waste, Universal Waste, and Recycle has shipped from the INL for disposal or reuse.

• Without any transportation events, the project has successfully maintained a compliant waste management program and continues to meet company contact milestones.

• Using ARRA funds, CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC is shipping waste containing Uranium-233 to the Nevada Test Site in a Type B cask, model 10-160B, owned by the DOE. • The Idaho Cleanup Project leads the complex for shipping RH-TRU waste from Idaho to DOE’s Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, NM for disposal. Through the campaign, 204 shipments have been completed, without incident.

Savannah River Site Savannah River Site (SRS) is a key DOE industrial complex dedicated to the National Nuclear Security Administration program. SRS supports the DOE national security and non-proliferation programs. Additionally, SRS supports the EM program, which addresses the reduction of risks through safe stabilization, treatment, and disposition of legacy nuclear materials, spent nuclear fuel, and waste.

SRS encompasses multiple cleanup projects which will benefit under ARRA. These include the Deactivation and Decommissioning (D&D) M&D Areas Recovery Act Project, the D&D P&R Recovery Act Project, the D&D Soil and Groundwater Activities Site-wide Recovery Act Project and the Transuranic & Solid Waste Recovery Act Project.

Ongoing activities include MLLW to commercial treatment and disposal at EnergySolutions or NTS; identifying the disposition path for LLW (15,000 drums of depleted uranium oxide (DUO)); 805 drums of DUO to Oak Ridge in June 2010; CH and RH TRU waste to WIPP; and, LLW (Heavy Water) to commercial vendor for solidification and disposal at NTS.

Visit CVSA’s Level VI Website for Latest Reports and Program Information for the most up-to-date information on CVSA’s Level VI Inspection Program, latest reports, training schedule, public outreach schedules, and other information. Also, you can ask questions concerning the Level VI Inspection Program on the Level VI Online Forum (blog). Visit www.cvsa.org, click on Programs, and click on the Level VI radiation symbol, and you are in the Level VI website.

43

CVSA Executive Committee, Committee & Program Chairs PRESIDENT

VICE PRESIDENT

SECRETARY/TREASURER

Capt. Steve Dowling California Highway Patrol

Maj. David Palmer Texas Department of Public Safety

Lt. Thomas Kelly Maine State Police

REGION PRESIDENTS

REGION VICE PRESIDENTS (Non-Voting)

PAST PRESIDENTS

Region I Sgt. David Medeiros Rhode Island State Police

Region I Sgt. Raymond Weiss New York State Police

Region II Capt. Bruce Bugg Georgia Department of Public Safety

Region II Capt. Craig Medcalf Oklahoma Highway Patrol

Francis (Buzzy) France, Maryland State Police Darren E. Christle, Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation Capt. John E. Harrison, Georgia Department of Public Safety

Region III Maj. Mark Savage Colorado State Patrol

Region III Alan Martin Public Utilities Commission of Ohio

Region IV Lt. Bruce Pollei Utah Highway Patrol

Region IV Capt. Chris Mayrant New Mexico Department of Public Safety

Region V Steve Callahan Alberta Transportation, Commercial Vehicle Enforcement

Region V Reg Wightman Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation

LOCAL PRESIDENT

LOCAL VICE PRESIDENT

ASSOCIATE NON-VOTING MEMBER

Tom Jacques Pittsburgh Bureau of Police

Robert Mills Fort Worth Police Department

Larry Bizzell, Chair Associate Advisory Committee, FedEx Express

COMMITTEE CHAIRS

Associate Advisory Committee Driver-Traffic Enforcement Committee Hazardous Materials Committee Information Systems Committee Passenger Carrier Committee Program Initiatives Committee Size and Weight Committee Training Committee Vehicle Committee

44

GOVERNMENT NON-VOTING MEMBERS

William (Bill) Quade, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) William (Bill) Arrington, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Peter Hurst, Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), CRA Chair Mauricio Hinojosa, Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT) Adolfo Spinola, Secretarìa de Seguridad Publica, Policìa Federal Preventiva

PROGRAM CHAIRS

Larry Bizzell FedEx Express Capt. Dan Meyer Kansas Highway Patrol Capt. Bruce Bugg Georgia Department of Public Safety Capt. William ( Jake) Elovirta Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles Vacant Sgt. William (Don) Rhodes South Carolina State Transport Police Capt. Jay Thompson Arkansas Highway Police Capt. Craig Medcalf Oklahoma Highway Patrol Kerri Wirachowsky Ontario Ministry of Transportation

Level VI Inspection

Carlisle Smith Public Utilites Commission of Ohio COHMED Tpr. Rex Railsback Kansas Highway Patrol International Safety Team Capt. Bill Dofflemyer Maryland State Police Saved by the Belt Sgt. David Medeiros Rhode Island State Police Operation Safe Driver Lt. Col. Jack Hegarty Arizona Department of Public Safety Operation Airbrake John Meed Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure Roadcheck John Meed Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure North American Inspectors M/Tpr. R.C. Powell Championship (NAIC) Virginia State Police

Paul Tamburelli Checkmark Vehicle Safety Services Inc.

2010 CVSA SPONSORS DIAMOND

BENEFACTOR

PLATINUM A & R Transport, Inc. DEKRA America, Inc. Great West Casualty Company J.J. Keller & Associates, Inc. May Trucking Company Mercer Transportation Company

Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) R+L Carriers Shell Oil Products, US Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association Tyson Foods, Inc.

GOLD ABF Freight System, Inc. Arizona Trucking Association Austin Powder Company Continental Corporation Covenant Transport, Inc. Daecher Consulting Group, Inc. Groendyke Transport, Inc. Help, Inc. Intermodal Association of North America International Road Dynamics, Inc. (IRD)

Landstar Ohio Trucking Association Schlumberger Technology Corporation STEMCO SYSCO Corporation TML Information Services, Inc. Transport Service Co. United Motorcoach Association Vehicle Inspection Systems, Inc.

SILVER Academy Express, LLC AMBEST, Inc. Bestway Express, Inc. Boyle Transportation Brown Line, LLC Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Compliance Safety Systems DATTCO, Inc. DiSilva Companies

G & D Trucking, Inc. / Hoffman Transportation, LLC Greyhound Lines, Inc. Greyhound Canada Transportation Corporation Grocery Haulers, Inc. James Burg Trucking Company Lynden, Inc.

Motor Transport Association of Connecticut, Inc. New Jersey Motor Truck Association Registrar of Imported Vehicles RegScan, Inc. Rubber Manufacturers Association The Besl Transfer Co. Travel and Transport Universal Truckload Services, Inc. YRC Worldwide, Inc.

BRONZE Dibble Trucking, Inc.

Mid-West Truckers Association

Presorted Standard US POSTAGE

PAID 6303 Ivy Lane, Suite 310 Greenbelt, MD 20770-6319

CALENDAR OF EVENTS 2011 COHMED CONFERENCE January 31 – February 4, 2011 Tampa, FL BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING February 1, 2011 Tampa, FL WINTER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING February 2, 2011 Tampa, FL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING April 10, 2011 Chicago, IL 6TH ANNUAL FMCSA MCSAP LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE April 11, 2011 Chicago, IL NORTH AMERICAN CARGO SECUREMENT HARMONIZATION PUBLIC FORUM April 11, 2011 Chicago, IL 2011 CVSA WORKSHOP April 12 – 14, 2011 Chicago, IL ROADCHECK 2011 June 7 – 9, 2011 SUMMER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING August 8, 2011 Orlando, FL NAIC 2011 August 8 – 13, 2011 Orlando, FL 2011 CVSA ANNUAL CONFERENCE September 26 – 29, 2011 Austin, TX

BALTIMORE, MD PERMIT # 3361