Lawmakers Blast FMCSA Over CSA Program Details

This story appears in the Sept. 17 print edition of Transport Topics.

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers joined trucking and transportation officials in criticizing the Compliance, Safety, Accountability program, saying it targets safe carriers for unfair scrutiny.

Criticism for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s program ranged from CSA’s failure to differentiate crashes that are not a carrier’s fault to questioning if there actually is a link between higher scores and crash risk.

“It’s been just a little over two years since — prior to [CSA’s] implementation — we held a hearing in this subcommittee regarding this new system, and at that time we expressed a number of concerns that still endure,” Rep. Peter DeFazio of

Oregon, the top Democrat on the Transportation Committee’s subcommittee on highways and transit, said at a Sept. 13 hearing on Capitol Hill.

Scott Mugno, vice president of safety for FedEx Ground, shared similar sentiments in his testimony on behalf of American Trucking Associations.

“ATA is frustrated by FMCSA’s unwillingness to acknowledge the program’s weaknesses and correct them,” he told the subcommittee. “FMCSA’s own analysis confirms that scores in certain CSA measurement categories, including the driver fitness category, do not reliably identify those carriers that are more likely to have future crashes.”

DeFazio said he is especially troubled by the agency’s current policy of giving similar scores for carriers’ involvement in crashes, regardless of fault. Lawmakers expressed concern about the policy before the December 2010 launch of CSA, and DeFazio said he was not pleased with FMCSA’s inaction.

Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.), the subcommittee’s chairman, said he was unhappy that some states do not report all vehicle inspections and that the CSA system only has ratings for 40% of carriers.

“Questions have also been raised over the relationship of some violations and whether they are indicators of future crash risk,” Duncan said. “Scores generated in certain [Behavioral Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories] may not have a correlation to future crash risk and may inadvertently focus FMCSA’s enforcement measures on the wrong carriers.”

Reps. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), Don Young (R-Alaska) and Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) were among other subcommittee members who chastised FMCSA at the hearing, while also encouraging Administrator Anne Ferro to consider changes.

FedEx’s Mugno said that while his company is one of the safest in the industry, the carrier is above FMCSA’s threshold in the driver fitness category, opening the company up to further investigation. That calls into question how accurate the driver fitness category is at identifying unsafe carriers, he said.

“Many ATA member carriers with excellent safety records and low crash rates, like FedEx Ground, find themselves singled out due to high CSA scores that erroneously reflect unsafe performance,” he said.

Ferro defended the program, saying it has improved driver safety.

“Preliminary crash estimates for 2011 show a 4% reduction in fatalities in truck and bus crashes over 2010,” Ferro said.

Violations resulting from roadside inspections fell 8% during that time for driver-related violations and 10% for vehicular ones, she said.

“These are the most dramatic improvements in violation patterns in a decade,” Ferro said.

Bruce Johnson, director of carrier services at freight broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., complained that CSA is providing little help in determining which carriers to hire.

“While the BASIC data is used as a compass to guide enforcement actions by FMCSA, a safety rating is widely seen as a safety seal of approval for those who hire trucks,” he said.

Johnson, speaking on behalf of the Transportation Intermediaries Association, asked that FMCSA use CSA data to rate carriers and tell the public which carriers are unsafe.

“Every day that goes by without a fair and accurate safety fitness determination, the transportation industry will continue to be negatively impacted,” Johnson said. “We encourage FMCSA to be clear and consistent with shippers and brokers on which carriers and which information should be used to select motor carriers to haul freight,” he said.

The agency is working toward such a system and will likely propose it early next year, Ferro told the panel.

The forthcoming safety rating, called a carrier safety fitness determination, will be based upon whether a carrier’s scores in CSA exceed certain thresholds, Ferro said. Unlike the current thresholds for law enforcement intervention, they will not be based on percentile ratings.

Ruby McBride, vice president of corporate systems for Colonial Freight Systems Inc., Knoxville, Tenn., said that her company’s experiences show the pitfalls of CSA.

Despite a good overall safety record, paperwork errors on logbooks have results in FMCSA sending an inspector to the business. After nine days of research, the agency made no change to Colonial’s safety status, McBride said.

“Based upon Colonial’s experience, I am convinced that the CSA program does not accurately measure carrier safety performance, and . . . the progressive intervention goals are not being realized,” she said.