Volume 17, Issue 3 Third Quarter 2010

Guardian

About the cover:

Table of Contents

Insight President’s Message ......................................................................................................1

Letter to the Editor/OP-ED ..............................................................................................2

The Legislative Rundown ................................................................................................4

Knowledge Matters ........................................................................................................6

Federal NewsAsk the Administrator ......................................................................................................8

FMCSA Opens New National Training Center Facility ......................................................10

TSA Developing Report on Nation’s Most Critical Highway Structures ..............................11

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 NewsCVSA 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/FeatureCOHMED Provides Informative Training to Enforcement on

Hazardous Materials Transportation ..........................................................................22

Reportable Quantities and Marine Pollutants, a Closer Look ..........................................24

Inspector’s Corner ..................................................................................................26

Committee NewsABS – The Simple Basics for Inspectors ..........................................................................28

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

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

Winning the War Against Distracted Driving:

One Company’s Battle Strategy Revealed ................................................................39

Executive Director’s Message ............................................................................40

RAD Inspection News ............................................................................................41

GuardianPublished by:Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

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

Phone: (301) 830-6143Fax: (301) 830-6144www.cvsa.org

Dedicated to government and industry workingtogether to promote commercial vehicle safetyon North American highways.

HEADQUARTERS STAFF

Stephen A. KepplerExecutive Director

Collin B. Mooney, CAEDeputy Executive Director

Larry D. SternDirector, Level VI Inspection Program

Richard D. HendersonDirector, Government Affairs

William P. SchaeferDirector, Vehicle Programs

Randy J. WestDirector, Driver Programs

Laura M. ZabriskieDirector, Communications and Marketing

Iris R. LeonardManager, Program Services

J. Craig DefibaughController

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

Guardian is a publication of the Commercial VehicleSafety Alliance and the Federal Motor Carrier SafetyAdministration.

Georgia MotorCarrier Complianceofficers inspect aHazMat Cargo Tank during Field Training

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

Guardian

I recently had the opportunity to travelto Asia and work with an organizationthat runs orphanages for street children.During my trip I turned off my black-berry, forgot about my "in" basket andwas not worried about CMV's or anyother responsibility; I just focused ongiving a group of kids my time andattention. As often is the case when youserve others, you receive much more inreturn. In my case, these children, thathad little or nothing in this world, pro-vided a sharp reminder to keep lifefocused on what is important.

While I was there, I also had the privi-lege to observe the leader of the organiza-tion that oversees the children's homes --he was a true visionary that was purposefulin staying focused upon the organization'smission. One story stood out to me thatoccurred several years ago when theorphanage took in a child they later discov-ered had a learning disability. As a result,the leader made the tough decision toreturn this child to their family, eventhough the family's poverty would at bestonly provide one meal a day. The leaderexplained how the organization was notequipped to handle children with disabili-ties, and that was not their mission.Although he hoped someday they couldexpand their resources to include this focus,the organization needed to stay within theirestablished purpose and abilities.

So why do I share all this? Althoughunder markedly different circumstances,I find the core principles utilized in achildren’s home in Asia apply to CVSAas well. The pressure to do more withfewer resources is constant, however, wemust be realistic of our operational abili-ties and function consistent with our coremission and vision. The Alliance’sExecutive Committee and staff are try-

ing to consistently reflect this visionfocus as demonstrated by some of therecent changes that CVSA has under-gone this past year. The most recentexample is the reorganization of staffresponsibilities and hiring of two newpositions, Director of Vehicle Programsand Director of Driver Programs. Thisintentional shift of focus is designed todeliberately align our resources with theAlliance's core mission and is the resultof our Executive Director adjustingassets to fulfill organizational values.These steps are the first of an effort to

put resources and processes in place thatwill guide us in the future.

I also share it out of some concerns Ihave that CVSA decals are not being issuedand honored as they are designed andintended. If it is true, even by a few indi-viduals, we must work vigorously to restorethe integrity of the CVSA decal. CVSAwas created to be mutually beneficial toenforcement and industry. If decals are notrecognized as successful completion of auniformed inspection process, then a coretenant of the Alliance is compromised.

At the same time, we need to rememberthat diversity is a strength of our organiza-tion. Having contrasting views and honestdebate is a healthy byproduct of theAlliance, as long as we do not sacrifice uni-formity in the process. As we move for-ward with important initiatives such asCompliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA),load securement, hours of service, data rec-iprocity, and others, we must stay intention-al in our efforts.

At the upcoming workshop inChicago, each of you will have the oppor-tunity to participate in the evaluationprocess to ensure we are mission focused.Specifically, the Committee Chairs havebeen asked to create prioritized deliver-ables that show direct linkage to the pur-pose of their respective committee andthe mission of the Alliance. Likewise,the Program Chairs are reviewing theirprogram objectives and updating goals.

This type of intentional dialogue hasproven valuable to the ExecutiveCommittee this past year as we havemade adjustments to operations basedupon member feedback. A recent exam-ple of this has been moving to a con-densed Spring Workshop and AnnualConference schedule. These changeshave created some logistical challenges

1

I N S I G H T

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

From Asia to North AmericaBy Capt. Steve Dowling, CVSA President

Capt. Steve Dowling

…we must be realistic

of our operational abilities

and function consistent

with our core mission

and vision.

2

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

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

Is your “ready-line” ready to pass upcom-ing CSA inspections? Those in our indus-try have mentioned that 40 percent of thevehicles in the “ready-line” would not passan inspection based on the Maintenanceand Repair Regulations 393 and 396.

Over the last 25 years, we have trav-elled across the U.S. and Canada, rackedup millions of miles on the road, talked tothousands of customers, industry execu-tives, and owners. Our anecdotal datasuggests (and many of you already knowthis already) that the 40 percent numbermentioned above might be a low number.

At a recent customer visit, a vehicleon the “ready-line” would have racked upmajor violation points due to ABSissues, air leaks, and a bent brake rod.Now, imagine that the cargo was loadedand the driver ready for a cross-countryrun, only to have the trip postponed atthe last minute due to the vehicle notbeing ready. Is it fair to say this businesswould have lost tens of thousands of dol-lars in revenue due to an unhappy client,plus the added unplanned expenses of animpromptu inspection and last minute“fixes.” Now, image the impact to thefirm's service-level commitments, repu-tation, and brand.

So the question is: Is your “ready-line,” ready? Starting in December, own-ers, operators, and executives may see abrand and financial impact because ofMaintenance & Repair (M&R) andOut-of-Service (OSS) issues. What wesee as one of the most overlooked issuesin the industry, and one that has themost CSA impact, is the attention givento ABS, brakes and braking systems.

How important are brakes and brak-ing systems your operations? Accordingto CVSA statistics, 60 percent of Out ofService brake defects would have, andshould have, been discovered with a goodpre-trip inspection using modern diag-nostic tools and training

What we have found is that the lifecycle of brakes starts before the vehicleleaves the manufacturing plant. Properinspection of brakes, linkages, hoses, air-lines, and compliance with 121 brake-timing standards set by CMVSS/FMVSSis critical to ensure the proper functioningof braking systems from the onset – moreon this in a future article.

Once vehicles are in operation, prop-er brake inspection requires a commit-ment to develop and follow the properprocesses for the inspection and mainte-nance of braking systems. Modern brak-ing systems in today's trailers requiresophisticated diagnostic tools, trainedtechnicians, consistent shop processes,and effective tracking and scheduling ofinspection and maintenance activities.Properly designed test and inspectionssolutions simplify the establishment ofconsistent inspection and maintenanceprocesses, and can help technicians ofvarying skill levels similar high-qualitytest and inspection results.

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

1. Develop a consistent and compre-hensive inspection process forBrakes, Air, Electrical, and ABS.

2. Provide properly regulated Emergency

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE(continued)

but are fiscally wise decisions.Another example is the transitionof the Intelligent TransportationCommittee from a standing com-mittee to a forum. This changeallows emerging technologies andbest practices to be showcased in aformat that is more conducive withits original purpose.

To stay fiscally accountable, theAlliance moved our main head-quarters to Greenbelt, Maryland,and our Government Affairs officeto Capitol Hill. This change pro-vided significant cost savings andimproved efficiency. Moving ourGovernment Affairs office toCapitol Hill allows our staff greaterproximity to legislators and policymakers, as well as some key partnerswho share our same building spaceincluding the Governors HighwaySafety Association, AmericanAssociation of State Highway andTransportation Officials, NationalConference of State Legislatures,and the National GovernorsAssociation, to name a few.

I say all of this as a reminder ofhow important it is to keep our prior-ities straight. Sometimes that meanswe will do less; sometimes it willmean change; and sometimes it willrequire adjusting priorities to focus onour current abilities for a given pointand time. Regardless, we must bestrategically focused on improvingsafety through partnerships, trust andon-going communication.

Thanks for partnering with andthrough CVSA on our journey toimprove highway safety. I look for-ward to seeing what we can do inthe year ahead!

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

Guardian

and Service air with at least 10 psi dif-ference between the two.

3. Check Air System and Air Brakesfor leaks - both internal and exter-nal.

4. Check Brake System by:a. Releasing Spring brakes and,b. Applying regulated Service Air

to brakes and visually observeproper function (When measur-ing slacks, maintain consistent airpressure for each actuation)

5. Perform comprehensive ABS analy-sis:a. Apply brake circuit to verify sec-

ondary power and ABS Lampb. Apply power to Auxiliary circuit

to verify correct operation andpower to ABS’s ECUi. At a minimum, confirm ABS

Lamp flash on and off withinthree seconds

ii. You should hear “chatter”from air solenoids

c. Read ABS components for anyActive or Stored Faults, and col-lect Mileage and manufactureinformation.

The goal is to deliver “road-ready”vehicles to the “ready-line.” Fleets thatimplement a comprehensive and consis-tent inspection process, utilize moderndiagnostic equipment, conduct DOT-style inspections, and have managementpolicies that enforce this practice arerewarded with smooth running readylines, and vehicles that are ready for aCSA inspection.

Let’s all continue to improve roadsafety through training, modern diag-nostic equipment, and commitment.

Bob Blair, CEO, LITE-CHECK

3

I N S I G H T

OP-ED

CSA Will Further Expand Recent Safety Gains

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 acces-

sible 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 both-

ered to login in to the FMCSA database and look at their safety data. Such compla-

cency 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 designat-

ed 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 gov-

ernment 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 expen-

sive. As Congress eventually considers passage of the highway reauthorization bill and

reviews the viability of funding FMCSA’s budget, congressional authorizing and appro-

priations 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, hir-

ing 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 pro-

posed 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 sen-

sitivity 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

4

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

The Legislative RundownBy Richard D. Henderson, CVSA, Director, Government Affairs

Federal Agencies Funded ThroughMarch 4, 2011; SAFETEA-LU AlsoExtended to March 4, 2011;Funding for Remainder of FY 2011Remains UncertainIn the final hours of the 111th Congressin late December, Congress passed aContinuing Resolution (CR) that fund-ed all federal agencies, including theDepartment of Transportation andFMCSA, through March 4, 2011 at2010 funding levels. Earlier efforts topass a regular appropriations bill fundingthe government for the remainder of the2011 FY did not succeed.

While the short-term CR avoided animmediate shutdown of the govern-ment, the fact that it is just a temporarymeasure, along with the fact thatSAFETEA-LU was only extended toMarch 4 as well*, creates a level of fund-ing uncertainty for states as they try toadminister an annual program such asMCSAP and other state safety pro-grams. This is the 6th extension ofSAFETEA-LU resulting thus far in 6incremental funding allocations for thestates with at least one more incremen-tal allocation due by March 4. ByMarch 4, well into the 2011 FY, thestates will have received only 42.5% offunds approved at 2010 levels.

This CR did not renew the Maine/Vermont truck weight pilot program. Itis not known at this time whether thisissue will be considered as a part of legis-lation that will supersede the currentMarch 4 CR.

Recent House Rules ChangeCreates Further Uncertainty for FY2011 FundingAs one of the first orders of business, thenewly assembled House of Representa-

tives has adopted a new rule that in effectrepeals the so-called Highway TrustFund “firewall” that was adopted by theHouse in 1998. The “firewall” prohibitsCongress from funding highway, transit,and highway safety programs at levelsbelow those written into law by anyTransportation authorization bill.

Supporters of the new rule say it isintended to prevent the governmentfrom being forced to spend more on sur-face transportation programs than theHighway Trust Fund collects. This hasactually happened in the last few years.On the other hand state transportationdepartments point out that they can nolonger be assured that they will receiveauthorized federal funding levels whenyearly appropriations bills are enacted.The number of CR’s passed in the lastfew years has already created uncertaintyeven under the “firewall” protection.

The rule change could furtherimpact funding levels for FY 2011 forFMCSA and MCSAP programs alongwith other state safety grant programsthat are funded out of the HighwayTrust Fund. The new House Leadershiphas said that their goal is to fund allgovernment agencies and departmentsat 2008 funding levels. It is importantto keep in mind that the series of CR’sthus far in this Fiscal Year have beenproviding funding at 2010 levels thatare the highest authorized levels underSAFETEA-LU.

Should the new Congress followthrough on their 2008 spending levelgoal, it could mean that funding availablefor safety programs from March 4 toSeptember 30 of this year would be lessthan the 2010 rate of funding states arenow receiving in order that bySeptember 30, the total amount of funds

received by the states for FY 2011 wouldbe consistent with 2008 funding levels,not the current 2010 levels. For example,the current level for MCSAP which isthe highest authorized limit underSAFETEA-LU is $209 million. The2008 authorized limit is $202 million.FMCSA operational programs wouldsuffer at least a cut of $6 million. Whilerelatively small cuts, they come at a timewhen both states and FMCSA needadditional resources to implement suchprograms as CSA. In its FY 2011 budg-et request to Congress, FMCSA hadrequested an additional $20 million tohelp with the implementation of CSA.It should be stressed that the newCongress has not yet drafted specific leg-islation that would supersede the currentCR. Also, it is not known if highwaysafety programs would be exempt fromthe funding cuts necessitated by goingback to the 2008 program levels.

Prospects for a Long-termTransportation Reauthorization BillAs reported in earlier LegislativeUpdates, incoming House Transportationand Infrastructure Chairman, JohnMica, has given every indication heintends to write a new Reauthorizationbill in his Committee early this springwith a goal of reporting such a bill to theHouse floor by summer. ChairmanMica’s record of service on theCommittee he now chairs leaves nodoubt about his strong commitment tothe nation’s surface transportation infra-structure and highway and motor carriersafety. Also, he argued against the Houserules change noted above.

With an increase in the federal fuel taxapparently off the table, Mr. Mica’s billwould probably not be able to fund pro-

Richard Henderson

Guardian

grams much above SAFETEA-LU lev-els. However, since he says he wouldemphasize core highway and safety pro-grams and not various other “enhance-ment” programs, the list of which hasgrown immensely in recent Reauthoriza-tion bills, some additional funding mightbe freed up. In addition, special earmarksand projects would be sharply reduced.Also, he mentions leveraging federal dol-lars with public/private partnerships.

Even though a gas tax increase is stillof off the table, it should be pointed outthat President Obama’s Commission fordebt reduction did recommend anincrease in the gas tax starting in 2013 inorder to prevent any further general fundbailouts of the Highway Trust Fund.This recommendation is but one smallpart of a package that would bring aboutmore general tax reform and spendingreductions. Congress may, or may not,seriously consider the many recommen-dations in the Commission’s report, butthere is always a possibility.

Also, no one can predict how a newTransportation bill, however modest, willbe viewed by the 20 new Members ofMr. Mica’s Committee as well as the newHouse Leadership.

By any measure, a Transportation billis still a major piece of legislation—a “bigbill”—and most of the 90 plus newlyelected Members of Congress pledged intheir campaigns last fall to scale downexisting government programs and notto enact any new “big” bills. However,as they learn that a Transportation billwill be largely paid for out of theHighway Trust Fund, and that it willpromote economic growth as well aspublic safety, it could turn out that if thenew Members were to support any newlegislation, a Transportation bill mightbe the one.

It is also necessary to look at the Senateside in this discussion. The SenateLeadership and Committee Chairmen willnot change in the new Congress.Environment and Public WorksChairman, Senator Boxer (D-CA) hascommitted to reporting a new bill out of

her Committee. Commerce CommitteeChairman, Senator Rockefeller (D-WV)and Surface Transportation SubcommitteeChairman, Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ),have committed to writing a new highwayand motor carrier safety title of aReauthorization bill.

All things considered, there is at leasta chance for a new bill in 2011. Wewon’t really know until probably nextmonth.

Stand Alone Safety BillIn the event a Reauthorization bill doesnot pass both the House and Senate bynext summer, the conventional thinkingis that such a bill would not be taken upagain until 2013, since 2012 is aPresidential election year, an unlikelytime for passage of a major transporta-tion bill. Should that be the case, thereis a possibility that Congress would takeup a stand-alone safety bill coveringmotor carrier and highway safety. Thiswould be a rare occurrence, although theMotor Carrier Safety Improvement Actof 1999 is one such example. That billcreated FMCSA and almost doubledMCSAP funding.

Appropriations RouteShort of either a full scaleReauthorization bill, or a separate safetybill, there may be efforts to press theHouse and Senate AppropriationsCommittees to consider some of themore pressing safety issues that are ordi-narily under the jurisdiction of theauthorizing Committees. A recentexample has been the Maine/Vermonttruck weight pilot program. Also, inrecent years, all issues pertaining toNAFTA have been dealt with inAppropriations bills.

Major Safety IssuesWhether a full Reauthorization bill, aseparate safety bill, or an appropriationsbill, some of the key safety issues for con-sideration are as follows:

Size and Weight — Even though theMaine/Vermont pilot truck weightpilot was not renewed in the series ofCR’s passed by Congress in lieu of afull appropriations bill, the pilot hasbeen a catalyst for hopefully a morecomprehensive review of this country’soverall size and weight policy. It pro-vides CVSA with an opportunity topress for a comprehensive pilot pro-gram that will yield much needed safe-ty data which is fundamental to anysize and weight analysis and anychange in current size and weightnational standards.

In addition, CVSA will press for aresolution of the size and weightenforcement funding issue. Stateenforcement agencies need funds tocarry out their size and weight enforce-ment responsibilities. Size and weightenforcement that is not tied to an inspec-tion is not an eligible MCSAP expense,nor is labor an eligible expense under theFederal–Aid Program.

Bus Safety — In the closing days of thelast Congress, a bus safety bill had been“hotlined” for a vote on the Senate floor.Procedural issues in the Senate prevent-ed a vote, but the pressure to pass a bussafety bill remains strong.

Electronic-On-Board-Recorders—Senators Pryor (D-AK) and Alexander(R-TN) introduced a bill in the lastCongress mandating the use of EOBR’s.CVSA has organized an ad-hocCommittee to (continued on page 40)

5

I N S I G H T

* Our apology for reporting in the December 21st Legislative Update thatSAFETEA-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 werelied on the best sources available. It wasn’t until the week after Christmas that welearned of the new revised extension date.

KNOWLEDGE MATTERS

Looking Back: CVSA Was An Idea That Came at Exactly the Right TimeBy Paul R. Henry, Oregon Department of Transportation (Ret.), CVSA President 1982-1983

Revisiting our early history evokes twovery important questions: How does anorganization garner the kinds of supportthat provided for the unparalleled, rapidexpansion of states, providences, territo-ries and countries as did the Alliance?We have all heard the expression, “timingis everything.” The Alliance was an ideaor a concept at exactly the right time.

The early development of theAlliance took full advantage of at least

six historic developments affecting thefuture of our countries’ trucking industry.Historically, the Interstate CommerceCommission (ICC) was the regulatoryauthority for interstate motor carriers.The ICC was responsible for both theeconomic vitality (operating authorityand rates/tariffs) and the safety of opera-tions. Without question the main thrustof the commission was operating author-ity and rates. Safety was a distant andsecondary enterprise. During this periodmost of the states had established theirown regulatory programs, typically pat-terned after the ICC. Most often thePublic Utility Commissions and Utilityand Transportation Commissionsadministered to the state regulatory pro-grams. Only a small number of statesmaintained any kind of emphasis onmotor carrier safety. (Fewer than five, asmemory serves). Typically, truck safetywas attended to by the various StatePolice and Highway Patrol agencies.

Trucks and truck drivers were treatedmuch the same as automobile drivers(offenses were predominantly licensingand traffic citations.)

In 1980, Congress passed the “TruckRegulatory Reform Act.” Essentially,the act deregulated the interstate truck-ing industry and at the same time iteffectively barred the states from contin-uing much of their intrastate regulationover motor carriers. I believe the passage

of this Act marked the end of 45 years offederal/state economic regulatoryauthority over the trucking industry.Gone were such entrance tests as “PublicConvenience and Necessity” and “Fit,Willing and Able.” Wide open were thedoors to become a trucker. For the firsttime untested and unknown people andcompanies were at liberty to purchase atruck and begin providing cartage servic-es to the general public.

As a result of deregulation, the ICCwas effectively dismantled and the pri-mary responsibility for motor carriersafety transferred to the U.S. Departmentof Transportation (DOT). The newtruck safety enterprise under the DOTwas first called the Bureau of MotorCarrier Safety. Whether you are pro orcon motor carrier regulation, one of thegreatest impacts of the truck deregulato-ry act was the disappearance of many oldline, well established and safe motor car-riers. The reasons for the demise of these

carriers are many. Nonetheless, one ofthe immediate products of the Act wasthousands of new carriers in the marketplace. Many of these new carriers wereunqualified and/or unsafe. The nationalcampaign for highway safety had started!

In last month’s article, Retired ChiefEd Kynaston said that I had called himin late 1978 to discuss how to bettermanage our on-highway inspection pro-grams, stop redundant inspections,establish a reciprocity program, andbring about uniformity. At the inceptionof the Alliance we discovered that notonly was there a variety of inspection for-mats in use, there was also a variety ofout-of-service criteria in use between thestates and the federal government.Imagine a truck leaving Los Angelesnorthbound to Seattle with the possibil-ity of being inspected three times inCalifornia, twice in Oregon, and once inWashington. Also, if the Federal Bureauwas inspecting that day it could involveone or two federal inspections. All thiswith three or more inspection criteriaand out-of-service criteria’s being used.Incidentally, prior to 1980 some jurisdic-tions considered the out-of-service crite-ria to be quasi confidential. In short, noone was in charge!

In 1982 Congress again acted, thistime in large part because of the threat tohighway safety created by our nation’sderegulatory initiatives. The MotorCarrier Safety Assistance Program(MCSAP) was passed and for the firsttime monies flowed from the federalgovernment to the states for the specificpurpose of enhancing safety on ournation’s highways. Imagine if you will,prior to MCSAP, Alliance memberstraveled to meetings funded only by theirindividual jurisdictional budgets. The

6

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

…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.

arrival of MCSAP spurred the growth ofthe Alliance and enhanced member par-ticipation by authorizing the use ofMCSAP funds for travel and work per-formed. Dick Landis, an old Alliancemember, found himself responsible forthe development of the MCSAP whenhe was appointed to head up the affairsof the Office of Motor Carriers. Dickhelped the Alliance in many ways he hasyet to receive credit for. In summary,deregulation is responsible in large partfor the success of the Alliance and theestablishment of MCSAP.

Why would individual trucking com-panies, associations, manufactures, sys-tems providers and component manufac-tures want to participate in an organiza-tion comprised of regulators and lawenforcement personnel?

There are any number of enforcementassociations and industry associations, but Iknow of only one enforcement/industryalliance that has spearheaded change,demanded implementation of new andeffective standards and prevailed over thelong haul: CVSA. The effects of deregula-tion, historic labor contracts and unbridledcompetition was challenging the bottomline of many old-line carriers. Thus, muchof the trucking industry was on the ropes inthe early 80’s. Good carriers cannot com-pete then or now on a load-for-load basiswith unlawful (scofflaws) and unsafe opera-tors. There existed a great need for a NorthAmerican uniform inspection program.Dissimilar inspection and out-of-servicestandards were a handicap to the effectivemovement of goods. In addition, the truck-ing industry had a history of having to sub-mit to random, sometimes haphazardinspections. These inspections were oftenconducted under the policies of individualjurisdictions and at times multiple agencieswithin a single jurisdiction. CVSA offereda uniform system that industry could under-stand and was able to comply with. This iswhere the Alliance’s commitment to theestablishment of “inspection uniformity andreciprocity” paid big dividends.

Recently, while thinking about theAlliance and its industry commitment I

contacted John Sallak a past industryAlliance member and past Vice-Presidentof safety for the Oregon TruckingAssociation. In part, John offered threeprominent reasons why he was and con-tinues to be an advocate for the Alliance.

First, many industry membersbecame involved so that they could goback to their companies and associationsand better inform and share this newknowledge with their employees andmembers. Receiving information atAlliance meetings was getting informa-tion “from the source,” rather than usingand distributing second and third handinformation. Industry personnel whoparticipated in Alliance meetings weremuch better prepared to train drivers,mechanics, and safety officials and takecorrective action based on inspectiondata and established Alliance standards.

Second, as associate members, thesepeople were invited to take part in thedecisions made at the committee level.From our perspective as regulators andenforcement personnel, we were getting

exactly the same from our industry advi-sory members (we were getting informa-tion directly “from the source.”)

Finally, the Alliance membership listprovides an excellent benefit for itsmembers. Industry members can con-tact authorities in each of the jurisdic-tions when they have inspection, audit oraccident questions. What a great benefitfor a carrier who is domiciled inAlabama and has a truck inspectionquestion in Alberta to be able to checkthe membership list and call directly to aresponsible official in Alberta.

I think we will all agree that one ofthe great benefits of the Alliance was thegradual disappearance of the “us versusthem” mentality between the enforce-ment/regulatory community and thetrucking community. The Alliancecaused a move from adversarial relation-ships to one of a partnership betweenagencies and companies, with a commongoal: Improved highway safety. Yes,knowledge does matter! It makes ourhighways safer to travel on!

Guardian

7

I N S I G H T

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

As North America's leading commercial vehicle safety organization, the CVSAAcademic Scholarship is the centerpiece of the Alliance's educational outreachinitiative. The Scholarship provides two $1000 grants to graduating high schoolseniors whose parent or legal guardian is a good standing member of CVSA.

This grant program is competitive in its selection criteria, uniquely tailored torecognize outstanding high school seniors. Scholarship recipients are selectedby weighing academic performance and extracurricular activities.

Application Deadline: April 30, 2011For more information, please visit:

www.cvsa.org/about/cvsa_academicscholarships.aspx

CVSA Academic Scholarship

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administra-tor (FMCSA) Anne S. Ferro answers yourquestions. In this issue, the Administratoraddresses how the phased roll out of CSA— Compliance, Safety, AccountabilityProgram is progressing; the timeline forwarning letters and what state and locallaw enforcement can expect in 2011.

Question: How has the roll out ofCSA affected the states so far andwhat’s coming next?

Answer: In December, FMCSA launchedour centerpiece – Compliance, Safety,Accountability enforcement program(CSA) for commercial trucks and buses.From April through August of last year,motor carriers received the opportunity topreview their safety data. In August, car-riers had access to view their own compa-nies’ actual safety measurement system,which uses seven safety improvement cat-egories called BASICs. Under FMCSA’sold measurement system, carrier perform-ance was assessed in only four broad cate-gories. As of December, the public also

gained access to carrier safety data on-linewith views of five of the seven BASICsunder the SMS.

In December, the new carrier safetymeasurement system formally replacedthe old one. FMCSA now uses allroadside violation data weighted bycrash risk, together with state-reportedcrash data and investigation results, togive our investigators, inspectors andstate and local law enforcement part-ners a more robust tool to use in iden-tifying high risk carriers for furtherreview and intervention.

Early feedback on CSA and the SMSfrom state and local partners as well asthe motor carrier industry has been pos-itive. Many safety stakeholders are call-ing it “an excellent program.” Lawenforcement in the pilot-test states alsogive CSA high marks. One example isfrom Maj. Mark Savage of the ColoradoState Patrol who has said, “BecauseFMCSA developed CSA from theground level up with close collaborationbetween federal and state enforcementpersonnel, the perspective of CSA is

unique and effective.”He went on to tell me that CSA has

increased the integrity of the entireColorado safety program because of theincreased emphasis not just on investiga-tions but also on the data that’s collectedat the roadside which focuses moreattention and resources on the mostimportant goal of the program – reduc-ing crashes.

Overall, we have anecdotal evidenceof carriers who examined and changedtheir business practices as a result of theCSA intervention. If you believe like Ido, that “what gets measured gets done,”early indications give us every reason tobelieve that CSA will mark a big stepforward in our ability to carry out ourcritical safety-first mission.

Question: What is the timeline forwarning letters and what can statesexpect?

Answer: Warning letters are an impor-tant part of the CSA interventionprocess. These letters notify carriers oftheir safety performance issues so thatcarriers can take corrective action, sort oflike a first-level intervention. FMCSAwill issue warning letters only in the ninepilot-test states in January. Carrierslocated in the remaining 41 states canexpect to receive warning letters over thefirst quarter of this year. We expect tosend about 27,000 warning letters duringthis timeframe. After the initial round,FMCSA anticipates sending about3,100 each month nation-wide.

As a result, FMCSA division officesas well as state and local law enforce-ment can expect more inquiries fromcarriers. During the pilot-test, thesestates reported high call volume soon

Ask the FMCSA Administrator

8

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

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

GuardianF E D E R A L N E W S

9

after the first batch of letters went out.Nation-wide, the 41 states new to CSAshould expect a higher inquiry load.Experience has shown that these callswill soon drop.

States can expect more DataQsrequests as a result of warning letters.While DataQs have steadily risen overthe past several years, the pace picked uptwo-fold in volume during last year’s datapreview period. If you haven’t already,prepare for the influx of calls and DataQs.

Overall, warning letters should serveas a wake up call to carriers; urging theirquick action to improve critical safetyperformance. We will reach more carri-ers, with the stated purpose of holdingthem accountable for catching safetyproblems before crashes occur, thus sav-ing precious lives.

Question: Beyond issuing warningletters, what is planned for CSA forthe rest of 2011?

Answer: The two remaining major CSAcomponents will roll out in 2011. First,a new array of progressive interventionswill replace the one-size-fits-all compli-ance review, enabling FMCSA toaddress more carriers with safety prob-lems earlier while still thoroughly inves-tigating those with the highest crashrisk. The new interventions will roll outstate-by-state beginning in August andcontinuing through November, as feder-al and state partners receive valuabletraining on the new approach.

A rulemaking on safety fitness deter-mination, the third CSA component, isalso scheduled to be released in 2011.This proposed rulemaking will decouplethe carriers’ safety rating from the on-sitecompliance review, thereby increasing

the number of carriers we rate annuallyby ten-fold.

Question: What can state partnerstaff be doing now to improveunderstanding of CSA?

Answer: State partners should workclosely with their FMCSA Divisionoffices to keep abreast of CSA activities.State safety investigators can expect toreceive training in the coming year on thenew interventions as they roll out state-by-state. Since September, FMCSA hasbeen conducting bi-weekly field teleconsopen to all federal staff and state partners.During these calls, CSA information isshared and questions can be freely askedand answered. You can also encouragestaff to visit the CSA outreach websitenoted below, where they can obtain infor-mation on new policies and training.Questions can be submitted and input iswelcomed. Subscribing to the CSAemail service is a recommended methodto keep current on CSA activities.

Lastly, FMCSA will require all road-side inspectors to participate in prere-corded online training on CSA. This

training will offer what is needed tounderstand how the violation data theycollect during inspections are used to cre-ate the carrier SMS; an overview of theCSA BASICs and how they are derived;a reminder about the importance of road-side data uniformity and an awareness ofthe new Inspection Selection System. Aswe prepare to unveil the full array ofinterventions, FMCSA stands firm inour commitment to provide all necessarytraining opportunities so that CSA iswell understood by all state and local lawenforcement personnel.

Thank you for your partnership and contin-ued dedication to commercial vehicle safe-ty. When questions arise on CSA, pleasevisit the http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov web siteor contact the Division Administrator inyour state. You play a vital role in holdingcarriers Accountable for Compliance andSafety: C – S – A…any way you spell it;it means lives are saved thanks to your hero-ic work.

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

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

FMCSA Opens New National Training Center FacilityBy Joe DeLorenzo, FMCSA, Director, National Training Center

On December 9, 2010, a ribbon-cutting ceremony was held to for-mally 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 AdministratorAnne Ferro and CVSA Executive Director Stephen Keppler alongwith other dignitaries.

In my welcoming remarks, I noted that the NTC staff hasworked for years toward the goal of building a world-class train-ing facility such as this. At the same time, I pointed out that amajority of our state and local partners, who also rely on ourtraining services, likely may never set foot in this location. Sowhile we celebrated the opening of our new home, we remainfirmly committed to expanding our organizational capabilitiesto serve our broad, and diverse, universe of students.

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

that our federal staff and our state and local partners are wellprepared and expertly trained to enforce the nation’s commer-cial vehicle safety rules and regulations.” Administrator Ferroalso remarked that the spirit of the new facility embodies herpersonal philosophy that “to learn is to live,” and that NTCrepresents an opportunity for FMCSA and its state and localpartners to come together and to grow through learning. As afinale to the ceremony, and in recognition of FMCSA’s strongpartnership with CVSA, the ribbon was jointly cut byAdministrator Anne Ferro and CVSA Executive DirectorSteve Keppler.

On behalf of NTC, I would like to thank AdministratorFerro, Steve Keppler, and everyone else who helped make thislong awaited day finally arrive.

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

NTC News BriefsNew Testing Program Plan in DevelopmentA new Testing Program Plan is beingdeveloped by NTC for the entirety of itscatalog of training courses. This under-taking will help ensure delivery of cours-es that are of the highest quality. It willinclude metrics to ascertain results andquality performance. It will also supportour progress in attaining CALEAAccreditation.

The new Testing Program Plan con-sists of nine steps:1. Conduct a job analysis2. Determine the test guidelines3. Create/edit test items4. Create the test form5. Ensure test security6. Evaluate the test7. Establish alternative forms

and a cut-off score8. Deliver the test 9. Describe how to use

and maintain test data

CSA Training NewsIn support of Phase 1 of the national roll-out of the Compliance – Safety –Accountability (CSA) program, NationalTraining Center recently completed class-room and webinar training for federalfield managers, safety investigators, andenforcement personnel. The purpose ofthis training was to familiarize participantswith the new tools available to themthrough the CSA Safety MeasurementSystem (SMS) as well as the other IT sys-tems that support the enhanced enforce-ment and compliance processes

To support state enforcement per-sonnel, NTC hosted two trainingwebinars in early November on theintegration of CSA into the RoadsideInspection Program. FMCSA andstate partners can access these train-ing presentations through the CSA Mentoring Program page athttp://csa2010.fmcsa.dot.gov/Mentoring.

Additional webinars are planned forthe coming months that will provideongoing support of the implementationof the CSA program.

Training Resources RevampedNTC is the process of upgrading thematerials used for the NAS Level IInspection Review. These multimediaresources are being converted fromDVDs to a more dynamic digital format.When completed, instructors will nolonger need to rely on possessing a DVDwhen presenting course materials.Rather, the content will reside in a pro-tected Flash format that can be accessedand distributed electronically. This willensure that the information is the mostupdated edition available. It will alsoallow NTC instructors and staff to moreeasily manage and modify materials.

Most excitingly for students, the newdigital format permits the incorporation ofnew interactive elements. This will allowthe material to be easily modified for self-paced training packages to complementthe traditional instructor-led training. Theupdated modules will have the same lookand feel as the new e-learning templatefor the New Entrant course. Lastly, thevideo content of the materials will beavailable separately, so that it can bereused for other training needs.

10

GuardianF E D E R A L N E W S

11

The Transportation Security Administra-tion (TSA) has commissioned the UnitedStates Army Corps of Engineers(USACE) to conduct comprehensivestructural and operational vulnerabilityassessments on selected highway struc-tures. Using data from this program andTSA’s experience in the highway infra-structure community, TSA will be able todevelop a comparable analysis report(s) ofthe Nation’s most critical highway struc-tures in order to appropriately direct lim-ited resources to the Nation’s multitude ofinfrastructure. 26 assessments have beencompleted to date.

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

The assessments will utilize USACE’srisk-based methodology to facilitate prior-itization of terrorist threat mitigationstrategies on individual structures. Thismethodology is unique in that it is specif-ically designed to focus on a single struc-ture and the risk associated with each of itsmany individual structural components.

TSA will lead the coordination of theassessments and will direct the efforts ofparticipating federal agencies in supportof this initiative.

The USACE’s Protective DesignCenter (PDC) provides Security Threatand Vulnerability Assessments. PDCsecurity engineers execute comprehen-

sive on-site physical security surveys todetermine threats and vulnerabilities forcritical facilities and individual assets.The information gathered during thesesurveys is used to develop a set of pro-tective measures designed to mitigatespecific aggressor threats. These protec-tive designs use a proven security engi-neering approach which incorporateselements of construction, equipment,procedures, and manpower. Assessmentteams will prepare a cost-efficient, struc-ture-specific report detailing potentialprotective design strategies, includingimplementation plans, and estimatedcosts of mitigation strategies, to includeexisting structure estimated replacementcost, as appropriate per structure.Owners of the structures will receivecopies of the reports.

The Federal Highway Administration’s(FHWA’s) Federal-aid Highway pro-gram mission is to provide federal finan-cial resources and technical assistance tostate and local governments for con-structing, preserving and improving the

National Highway System. The FHWAcontributes institutional knowledge, andgeneral support to TSA assessmentprocesses. The FHWA is familiar withcomponent level analysis and utilizesthis methodology in its bridge and tun-nel workshops.

Protective Security Advisors (PSAs)are DHS’s on-site critical infrastructureand vulnerability assessment specialistsassigned to local communities through-out the United States. PSAs serve asDHS infrastructure protection liaisonsbetween federal agencies; state, local,territorial, and tribal governments; andthe private sector. First responder’sparticipation in these assessments isvital because the threats coveredinclude vehicle-borne improvisedexplosive devices (VBIED), hand-emplaced improvised explosive devices(HEIED), non-explosive cuttingdevices, fire, and vehicle impact. PSAscan also provide vital support to TSAby assisting security partners with secu-rity clearance processes.

TSA Developing Report on Nation’s MostCritical Highway Structures

12

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

2009 Data Shows Historic Drop in Truck CrashesBy Ralph Craft, FMCSA Analysis Division

Fatalities in large truck crashes droppedsharply in 2009 following a big decline in2008. The two-year, 30 percent fatalityreduction from 4,822 in 2007 to 3,380 in2009 is the largest since the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration’sFatality Analysis Reporting System(FARS) started collected data in 1975.By contrast, in the decade from 1997 to2007 fatalities in large truck crashes wentdown by 11 percent. Injuries in largetruck crashes dropped by 27 percent to74,000 from 2007 to 2009, and the num-ber of trucks involved in property-dam-age-only crashes declined by 28 percentto 239,000, according to NHTSA’sGeneral Estimates System.

The declines in large truck crashnumbers were much larger than thoserecorded for passenger vehicle crashes.From 2007 to 2009 fatalities in passengervehicle crashes dropped by 18 percent,injuries by 11 percent, and property-damage-only crashes by seven percent.

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

Large truck crashes are the result ofmany factors. The economy, safety pro-grams by government entities, CVSA

and the motor carrier industry, technolo-gy advances in crash avoidance, outreachprograms and safety groups undoubtedlyall played a part in the decline. Theremainder of this article will focus ontwo major factors: the recession and gov-ernment safety efforts.

While large truck crashes dropped byhistorically large numbers, the U.S. wasin the midst of our sharpest economiccontraction since the depression of the1930s. The recession had a strong down-ward impact on truck traffic.• The American Trucking Associations

for-hire Truck Tonnage Indexdropped in both 2008 and 2009. Theeight percent decline in 2009 was thelargest drop since 1982.

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

• Intermodal freight hauled by Class 1railroads dropped by 18 percent from2007 to 2009.

FMCSA and its State and Local PartnersWhile truck traffic dropped, FMCSAand its state partners increased trucksafety efforts. From 2007 to 2009 com-pliances reviews increased six percentand inspections five percent. Level III

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

FARS does not provide an assessmentof crash fault. However, we can gleanfrom the data some evidence of positivechanges responsible for the drop in largetruck crashes.• FMCSA-sponsored surveys indicate

that seat belt use by truckers rosefrom 65 percent in 2007 to 74 per-cent in 2009, as the number ofunbelted truck drivers killed in fatalcrashes dropped by 42 percent.

• In two-vehicle crashes, the number oflarge trucks crossing the center lineand hitting passenger vehiclesdeclined by 32 percent from 2007 to2009, and the number of large trucksthat hit passenger vehicles frombehind was down 41 percent.

• The Large Truck Crash CausationStudy found that in one-third of thecrashes the critical event for the truckwas driving over the lane line or offthe road. Coding of failure of largetrucks to keep in the proper lane dur-ing fatal crashes dropped 42 percentfrom 2007 to 2009.

It is clear that working together – fed-eral, state and local governments – in anarray of safety programs, have played amajor role reducing large truck crashes.With the economy rebounding and trucktraffic increasing, our task ahead is to con-tinue making progress by sustaining thedownward trend in large truck crashes.

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.

GuardianF E D E R A L N E W S

13

FMCSA Sets Compliance Date for Intermodal Equipment Providers

December 17, 2010, was the secondcompliance date of the Requirements forIntermodal Equipment Providers (IEPs)and for Motor Carriers and DriversOperating Intermodal Equipment FinalRule. By this date, IEPs must have com-plied 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 bythe intermodal industry, IEPs have beengranted an extension until June 30, 2011,to accept driver vehicle inspectionreports (DVIRs) with known defectsonly. Until then, motor carriers anddrivers are not required to submit DVIRswith no defects to an IEP.

Marking of Intermodal EquipmentIEPs and motor carriers are required tomark all intermodal equipment they offerfor interchange with a USDOT number,as required by section 390.21 of theFederal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations(FMCSRs). IEPs and motor carriers thatdo not offer their intermodal equipmentfor interchange are not required to markit. IEPs and motor carriers may “mark”their intermodal equipment using one ofthe five options:• Option 1: Permanently mark each unit

with their legal name or single tradename and USDOT number (Section390.21(g)(4)(i) of the FMCSRs).

• Option 2: Mark each unit with theirlegal name or single trade name andUSDOT number, using a label (Section390.21(g)(4)(ii) of the FMCSRs).

• Option 3: Include identificationinformation for the IEP and theintermodal equipment on the inter-change receipt that is generally onboard the power unit (Section390.21(g)(4)(iii) of the FMCSRs).

• Option 4: Include identificationinformation for the IEP and theintermodal equipment on the trailerdocumentation that is kept in theweatherproof compartment on theequipment (Section 390.21(g)(4)(iv)of the FMCSRs).

• Option 5: Include identification in-formation for the IEP and the inter-modal equipment in a database that is available via real-time internet and telephonic access (Section390.21(g)(4)(v) of the FMCSRs).

If an IEP chooses Option 1 as its pre-ferred method of marking its equipment,Federal and State enforcement personnelwill be able to identify the IEPs equip-ment by the marking on the curb side ofthe vehicle. The marking will be in let-ters that contrast sharply in color withthe background on which the letters areplaced and will be readily legible, in day-light, from a distance of 50 feet.

If Option 2 is chosen, IEPs may affixa label to its chassis using a label. Thelabel must be placed on the curb side ofthe equipment and must be visible andlegible during daylight.

Option 3 allows IEPs to include itsidentifying information on the inter-change receipt (see Illustration 1).

Option 4 gives IEPs yet another alter-native to the physical marking of its equip-ment. An IEP may “mark” its equipmentby including its identifying information inthe weatherproof compartment on theequipment (see Illustration 2). The pre-ferred method of marking,

Option 5, allows IEPs to “mark” itsequipment in a database.

The Global Intermodal EquipmentRegistry (GIER) is an industry-spon-sored virtual technology that supports

the database marking option that wasoffered in the FMCSRs.

Using the existing unique alpha-numeric control numbers on the chassis,GIER correlates the equipment numberto the USDOT number.

To access GIER, Federal and Stateenforcement personnel can go tohttp://gierregistry.com. Once there, clickon the orange “Equipment Inquiry” box.Federal and State enforcement personnelare not required to register for this website.

After doing so, the following screenwill appear. From here, enforcement per-sonnel will be able to determine whichIEP is responsible for the chassis at thetime of inspection. Searches may be doneby the equipment number or license plate.

GIER has more than 600,000 piecesof intermodal equipment registered in itsdatabase. It will prove most beneficialwhen identifying which IEP is responsi-ble for a piece of equipment.

FMCSA plans to deliver training onthis system, along with the updates toAspen and status of the rule, in February2011. Check out the schedule and otherupdates at www.fmcsa.dot.gov/iep.

Illustration 1

CHASSISCOMPANY

USDOT2233111

Illustration 2

The federal Hazardous Materials SafetyPermit (HMSP) regulations are found inTitle 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations(49 CFR) Part 385 Subpart E. They havebeen in effect since January 1, 2005.Originally, the HMSP was passed by theU.S. Congress as part of of the HazardousMaterials Transportation and UniformSafety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA 1990).Later, HMSP requirements were codifiedin the Hazardous Materials TransportationLaw at 49 U.S.C. § 5109, and eventuallypromulgated into regulation at 49 CFRPart 385.

As specified and listed in § 385.403,the HMSP is applicable to motor carri-ers 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 InhalationHazard materials;

• A bulk package containing Hazard

Zone B Poison Inhalation Hazardmaterials;

• A package having a capacity equal toor greater than 3,500 gallons ofHazard Zones C or D PoisonInhalation Hazard materials; or

• A package having a capacity equal toor greater than 3,500 gallons of com-pressed or refrigerated methane or liq-uefied natural gas, or other liquefiedgas with a methane content of at least85 percent (NOTE: This does NOTinclude Propane or other LPG).

FMCSA is charged with managingthe HMSP program. A key responsibilityis preventing carriers for entry that do notmeet the minimum thresholds required.

As of November 30, 2010, there were1,417 active permits, 176 pending appli-cants, and 403 denied applicants, for atotal of 2,031.

While these numbers are continuallyin a state of flux for a number of factors,it is unclear whether the population islarger than what is registered. The rea-son for the lack of clarity is due to the

paucity of roadside inspection data con-nected to the HMSP.

During fiscal year 2010 (October 2009through September 2010), there were atotal of 209,896 HazMat inspections con-ducted at the roadside. These inspectionsresulted in 59,577 violations of HazMatregulations, with 12,486 of these Out-of-Service (OOS) violations. However,there was not one violation of any of thesections related to the HMSP (§§385.401through 385.423) recorded for either theregular HazMat or Level VI roadsideinspections. This can be attributable toonly one of two reasons: 1) No roadsideviolations of the HMSP rules were dis-covered; or 2) There were no checks madefor the permit or other documentationrequired in § 385.415 during the course ofthe 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 carriersto be knowledgeable of and to complywith the requirements of Subchapter B,Parts 350 – 399, there is no requirementfor a state to adopt Hazardous MaterialsSafety Permits as a condition of its par-ticipation in the Motor Carrier SafetyAssistance Program (MCSAP) (See §350.201). As of this time, there are onlytwo references to Part 385 in Part 350,neither of which refers to the HMSP.

FMCSA recognizes that a few stateshave adopted the HMSP rules in Part 385;what is unclear is why no HMSP viola-tions are being written. One reason mightbe that the HMSP is similar to theHazardous Materials Registration requiredby 49 CFR Part 107 for certain motor car-riers. Nevertheless, comparing the twoside-by-side, a vast difference is obvious.

While the purpose of the HMRegistration Fee is to raise funds for

The Hazardous Materials Safety Permit:Raising the Bar to Entry and the Need forStepped-Up EnforcementBy Paul Bomgardner, FMCSA, Chief, Hazardous Materials Division

14

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

training HazMat responders, there is nosuch connection to the HMSP. In fact,motor carriers pay nothing for theHMSP, but rather are held to a certain setof standards in order to be able to trans-port the materials as described earlier.

For this coming registration cycle –January 1, 2011 through December 31,2012 – to qualify for a HMSP, a motorcarrier must:1. Be in compliance with any remedial

directive issued under Part 385Subpart J;

2. Have a Satisfactory Safety Ratingissued as a result of a ComplianceReview;

3. Have a satisfactory Security Programthat includes:a. a security plan that meets the

requirements of 49 CFR Part172 Subpart I;

b. a communications plan thatmeets the requirements of §385.415; and,

c. successful completion of securitytraining by all of its HazMatemployees according to §172.704(a)(4) and (a)(5).

4. Have a crash rate that is within thelower 70 percent of the NationalAverage as computed in theFMCSA Motor CarrierManagement Information System(MCMIS)(0.114); and,

5. Have OOS rates for Driver, Vehicleand Hazardous Materials within thelower 70 percent of the NationalAverage as indicated in MCMIS(7.14% – Driver; 33.33%– Vehicle;3.45% – HazMat).

The bar to entry is understandablystringent. Many companies, for a varietyof reasons, cannot meet the requirements.

This becomes problematic for those carri-ers whose existence depends on their abil-ity to transport HMSP loads.This is mostkeenly observed each year prior to the 4thof July for a certain segment involved inthe transportation of fireworks. Manyfireworks are classified as Division 1.1, 1.2or 1.3 Explosives, requiring the motorcarrier to possess a HMSP. A number ofthese motor carriers are seasonal, withlimited exposure to roadside inspectionsand limited knowledge of the HazMatregulations. When inspected, a number ofthese inspections result in OOS violations(e.g., missing or improper shipping papersor missing or insufficient placarding),which can often be corrected rapidly atroadside, but which have lasting longer-term impacts on the carrier’s ability toretain or obtain an HMSP.

There are companies in this segmentthat have 100 percent OOS rates based ontwo or three roadside inspections. Thereare only two ways to reduce those rates:The first is to wait for the “bad” inspectionsto drop off (Note: While the permit isissued for a two-year period, OOS viola-tions have an impact for only the 12months prior to renewal.).The second is toget “clean” inspections with no OOS viola-tions during the course of the year in orderto bring down the OOS percentages.

The first option usually is not palat-able to the motor carrier, especiallywhen the impacting inspections wereconducted during the second year. Theother alternative – obtain clean inspec-tions and reduce its Vehicle andHazMat OOS rates – is difficult for acarrier to do. Most times the onlyHazMat transported by the carrier is thematerial that requires the HMSP in thefirst place. So, should a motor carrier beunable to renew its HMSP due to OOSrates be subject to a roadside inspectionwhile transporting HMSP materials, thecarrier is in noncompliance with the reg-ulations and subject to appropriate cor-rective or punitive actions.

All of this is a moot point unless theHMSP requirements are enforced inearnest. States that have not adoptedPart 385 are urged to consider doing so.Only through strong roadside inspectionenforcement of the HMSP requirementscan there be a more effective program toassure the safe and efficient transporta-tion of hazardous materials subject to therequirements of the HMSP program.

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

GuardianF E D E R A L N E W S

15

CCMTA’s Standing Committee onCompliance and Regulatory Affairs(CRA) recently outlined four prioritieswhich included: Cargo Securement;Electronic On-Board Recorders; SafetyRating Reciprocity with the U.S.; and,Human Factors research project.

Cargo SecurementIn September 2010, the Council ofMinisters approved amendments to theNational Safety Code (NSC) Standard10 designed to implement the original2004 standard’s default working loadlimit sunset provision and address anumber of editorial and technicalchanges identified in the standard.

Other amendments consist primarilyof changes requested by industry to sim-plify and clarify requirements that applyto specific situations and are gearedmainly to the construction industry, for-est products sector, crushed car recyclingand utility companies. They were devel-oped by CCMTA through consultationswith all provinces and territories andongoing discussions with stakeholdersthrough regular public forums hosted byCCMTA and CVSA, with support fromFMCSA. Full compliance with the pro-visions related to the rating and markingof tiedowns will be required andenforced in all jurisdictions effectiveJanuary 1, 2011. Specifically, it states

that on or before January 1, 2011, noperson shall use a tiedown to securecargo to a vehicle unless it is marked bythe manufacturer with respect to itsworking load limit.

Electronic On-Board RecordersCCMTA is developing a standardEOBR use that will leverage the U.S.work and will provide Canada theopportunity to move forward with itsown standard while ensuring compatibil-ity with the U.S.

Canada/U.S. Safety RatingReciprocityProgress towards implementation of the2008 Joint Memorandum of Understand-ing to accept safety ratings has slowedwhile FMCSA focuses its efforts on theimplementation of its CSA initiativedesigned to identify poorly performingcarriers. Despite the slowdown,CCMTA and FMCSA reconfirmedtheir mutual commitment to safety rat-ing reciprocity in August 2010. FMCSAhas indicated that it will be ready for fullreciprocity once CSA has been imple-mented and appropriate rulemakingintroduced. In the meantime, work onreciprocal data exchange and data quali-ty will continue in the coming yearthrough the Canada/U.S. Carrier DataExchange working group.

Human Factors in Motor CarrierSafety Research ProjectThe Human Factors project is a three-year study focused on developing risk-based, data-driven strategy for interven-tions addressing human factors for lightand heavy vehicle drivers involved incommercial vehicle crashes. A compre-hensive report on the findings is expect-ed in late January/early February.

Other NewsThe Committee reported that they areencouraged by the recent developments inthe U.S. in the area of FMPs, including apublic forum in August by the MotorCarrier Safety Advisory Committee ofFMCSA to explore implementation anddeployment issues. Recommendationswere expected to go to FMCSAAdministrator Anne Ferro in December.

Update and revamping of the NorthAmerican Standard Inspection (NASI)curriculum continues, with EQAT’s2010 annual meeting which took placeNovember 21-25, 2011 in Saskatoon. Aninstructor session was held in Monctonin May, and a NASI course was providedfor Nunavut in Winnipeg August 29-September 12. A certification of motor-coach instructors will take place inMoncton in March, and Ontario andQuebec are also planning inspectorcourses later in the year.

CCMTA’s Standing Committee on Compliance and Regulatory Affairs Outlines Priorities for 2011

16

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

GuardianF E D E R A L N E W S

17

SCT Reinforces Training, Productivity of Federal Motor Carrier Inspectors

The Annual Congress of Federal MotorCarrier Inspectors 2010, took place inCocoyoc, Morelos, November 29th toDecember 3rd, 2010, organized by theMexican Federal Motor Carrier Admin-istration (DGAF) from the Ministry ofCommunications and Transportation(SCT). Its main goal is to promotethrough the work of inspections, verifi-cations and monitoring of Federal Motorcarriers, road safety, competitiveness &sustainability in Mexican Highways.

With this Congress, the agencystrengthened the skills of over 400 fieldofficers from the 32 state offices and 68regional centers, and, in turn, updatedthe criteria under which these personnelof the SCT Centers apply the regula-tions throughout the country.

Field officers from all SCT Centersattended the courses taught by SCTexperts regarding topics such as: the fed-eral motor carrier rules and codes; licenseissuance and verification; inspection ofphysical and mechanical conditions,weight and dimensions, hazardous mate-rial vehicle inspection, and low green-house gas emissions. Inspections to

motor carriers and training centers werealso discussed.

In addition, there were conferenceslectured by representatives of agenciesrelated to the SCT: the Federal Police,the Mexican Association of InsuranceInstitutions, and the Insured RiskCoordination Office.

By updating the criteria for implemen-tation of standards and best practices ofinspection, verification and monitoring,the SCT works to abate the irregular issues

found among the federal motor carriers. Asa result, a reduction of accidents on federalhighways is expected as well as slowingdown road deterioration caused by vehiclesexceeding the authorized weight anddimensions. Moreover, the SCT looks for-ward to increasing efficiency and competi-tiveness of the transport sector and encour-aging motor carriers to operate friendlywith the environment.

Finally, another objective of thisAnnual Congress was to urge integrationand information sharing of best practicesamong the staff of the SCT Centers. Anenvironment of collaboration will facili-tate improvement of the services theseSCT Centers provide to the society.

On the Congress’ inauguration, theUnder Minister of Transportation, Mr.Humberto Treviño Landois, stressed theimportance of a culture of “facts anddata,” since only through constant meas-urement, and continuous modernizationof the agency, the SCT is able to deter-mine which are the practices that yieldthe best results; promote a reliable infor-mation system; and thus, remain as cut-ting edge Ministry.

SCT looks forward to

increasing efficiency

and competitiveness of

the transport sector

and encouraging motor

carriers to operate friendly

with the environment.

18

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

In 2009, the American Trucking Association developed andpresented a series of webinars on CSA 2010. These presenta-tions were well received, as they provided a large amount ofaccurate information about the upcoming implementation ofCSA 2010. After attending these presentations, it became evi-dent to CVSA members industry and enforcement alike thatthere was a lack of clarity on the definition of a pre-inspectionscreen. At the same time, it was apparent that there was nowritten guidance on a national level from CVSA in relation tothe definition of a pre-inspection screen.

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

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

With the goal of reconciling these two potentially differentobjectives, CVSA hosted an open discussion session in theSpring of 2010 at the San Antonio meeting. The goals of thediscussion were to:• Facilitate an open discussion issue on how both enforcement

and associate members perceive a pre-inspection screen asopposed to an inspection, and

• To identify members of a smaller and focused working groupthat will provide clarity and resolution regarding these dif-ferences by the development of a joint outreach plan orstatement that communicates to stakeholders CVSA’s intenton 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?

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

• Once clarity is obtained, what form should it be in?Training bulletin, operational policy, grant requirement, orrule?

• Should CVSA recommend using data from an alternativesource (third party) be included in data measurementprocesses/systems?

As a result of this discussion, a workgroup was formed. Thisgroup met twice during the summer of 2010 and presented itsrecommendations to the Program Initiatives committee forreview. The recommendation was to propose written guidancein the form of CVSA Operational Policy defining and clarify-ing an inspection screen. The following was the policy as pro-posed by the work-group:

CVSA Pre-Inspection Screen PolicyDepending 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 stake-

holders 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 enforce-

ment official to collect basic or identifying information from a driv-

er 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 inspec-

tion 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.

CVSA Provides Leadership to Stakeholders onDifferences Between an Inspection and aScreen for an InspectionBy Maj. Mark Savage, Colorado State Patrol

GuardianC V S A N E W S

19

This language was proposed to the Program InitiativesCommittee at the CVSA Fall meeting in Anaheim, CA. Afterextensive discussion, the committee felt that the policy shouldbe more specific in order to reduce potential confusion on theroadside. The committee also understood the far reachingimpacts of this policy and recommended that the language bereviewed by a cross-section of the other committees. Thiswould ensure that the final product was of the highest qualitypossible by identifying all potential impacts.

To accomplish this, CVSA leadership tasked this revision tothe recently created Ad-Hoc committee on CSA. At presstime, this proposed policy change is being revised by the Ad-Hoc members, who consist of several members of CVSA indus-try and enforcement alike. The Ad-Hoc has asked the regionpresidents to forward the proposed changes to their regions inthe hope that all members have a say in the development of thefinal product.

For further information on this important issue contact yourregion president or Alan Martin, chair of the CVSA CSA Ad-Hoc committee.

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

In-Service Inspector TrainingMaterials 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 chal-

lenge and we need the involvement of all affected parties to help

us better understand these issues and put into place practical solu-

tions. 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.

CVSA Raises Money for CaliforniaAssociation of Highway Patrolmen’sWidows and Orphans Fund

20

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

Law enforcement officers who pulledover nearly 53,000 commercial andpassenger vehicle drivers duringCVSA’s Operation Safe Driver cam-paign found that passenger car driversare speeding at alarming rates aroundcommercial vehicles. Recently releaseddata shows the top three reasons warn-ings and citations were issued to bothcommercial and non-commercial vehi-cle drivers include speeding, failing touse a safety belt, and failure to obeytraffic control devices.

“CVSA’s Operation Safe Driver istargeting each and every driver, whetherthey drive a passenger car or a CMV,and alerting offenders that their poordriving behaviors result in lives lost,”said Stephen A. Keppler, CVSA’s execu-tive director. “We will continue toemphasize this point, through both edu-cation and enforcement tactics, until weeliminate those driver behaviors that arespecifically linked to causing crashes.”

Of the warnings issued to CMVdrivers, 20.3 percent were for speeding(versus 61.2 percent for passenger cardrivers); 4.2 percent were for failure toobey traffic control devices (compared to5.8 percent for passenger car drivers);and, 2.6 percent were issued for failingto use a seat belt while operating theirvehicle (compared to 2.8 percent for pas-senger car counterparts). Of the citationsissued to CMV drivers, 13.7 percentwere for speeding (versus 51.6 percentfor passenger car drivers); 4.6 percentwere for failure to obey traffic controldevices (compared to 1.5 percent forpassenger car drivers); and, 10 percentwere issued for failing to use a seat beltwhile operating their vehicle (comparedto 8.0 percent for passenger car counter-parts). CMV drivers were issued signifi-

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

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 159 2.3% 41 0.5%

Improper passing 42 0.6% 27 0.3%

Reckless driving 18 0.3% 13 0.1%

Speeding 1,434 20.3% 1,195 13.7%

Violation of the basic speed law/

Driving too fast for conditions 17 0.2% 20 0.2%

Inattentive and/or careless driving 57 0.8% 22 0.3%

Improper turn 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 2 0.0% 1 0.0%

Failing to use seat belt while operating CMV 185 2.6% 870 10.0%

Using/equipping CMV with a radar detector 11 0.2% 26 0.3%

Size & weight 951 13.5% 2,292 26.3%

State/local laws 3,616 51.2% 3,670 42.1%

Total 7,062 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%

Improper passing 49 0.7% 31 0.4%

Reckless driving 7 0.1% 37 0.5%

Speeding 4,363 61.2% 3,970 51.6%

Violation of the basic speed law/

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%

Possession/use/under influence of drugs 1 0.0% 69 0.9%

Possession/use/under influence of alcohol 26 0.4% 82 1.1%

Failing to use seat belt 199 2.8% 613 8.0%

State/local laws 1,416 19.9% 2,489 32.3%

Total 7,126 7,700

GuardianC V S A N E W S

21

cantly more warnings and citations in2010 for failing to buckle up (1,055) ver-sus in 2009 (672).

The data, collected during the fourthannual Operation Safe Driver campaign,October 17-23, 2010, revealed that5,004 law enforcement personnel at1,971 locations across the United Statesand Canada participated in the cam-paign. Operation Safe Driver waslaunched in 2007 by CVSA, in partner-ship with FMCSA, to address the prob-lem of improving the behavior of alldrivers operating in an unsafe manner —either by, in, or around commercial vehi-cles — and to initiate educational andenforcement strategies to address thoseexhibiting high-risk behaviors.

“Everyone who gets behind thewheel of a car or truck must commit —unfailingly — to do two things: alwaysobey the traffic laws, and never allowyourself to become distracted,” saidFMCSA Administrator Anne S. Ferro.“Once you get into the driver’s seat,safety is literally in your hands.”

On the enforcement front, details onthe results include:• 39,784 CMV Roadside Inspections

(5.3 percent resulted in the driverbeing placed out-of-service; 27.4 per-cent of the Level I Inspections result-ed in the vehicle(s) being placed outof service. In 2009, there were 30,294inspections conducted and a driverOOS rate of 5.3 percent, vehicleLevel I OOS rate of 26.1 percent;

• For Drivers: 0.44 violations perroadside inspection (0.44 in 2009);0.08 OOS violations per roadsideinspection (same in 2009); 0.04citations per roadside inspection(0.04 in 2009);

• For Vehicles: 1.04 violations perroadside inspection (1.12 in 2009);0.23 OOS violations per roadsideinspection (0.19 in 2009); 0.08citations per roadside inspection(0.05 in 2009);

• 21,555 CMV Driver Traffic Enforce-ment Contacts: 7,062 warnings wereissued (0.33 per contact); 8,724 cita-tions 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 TrafficEnforcement Contacts: 7,126 warn-ings were issued (0.55 per contact);7,700 citations were issued (0.60 percontact); In 2009, there were 10,917contacts, which resulted in 3,818warnings (0.35 per contact) and10,365 citations (0.95 per contact);

• 31,737 CMV Driver License checks(27,903 in 2009) and 9,878 Non-CMV Driver License checks (8,577in 2009); and,

• 64 targeted Compliance Reviewson truck and motorcoach opera-tions were conducted on carriersemploying the “worst of the worst”commercial drivers of which 53received a safety rating as a result ofthe review. Of those fifty-three, 13carriers (or 20 percent) received aConditional Safety Rating. (com-pared to the national average ofcarriers rated Conditional in 2010was 23.1 percent); and, eight carri-ers (or 13 percent) received anUnsatisfactory Safety Rating.(compared to the national averageof carriers rated unsatisfactory in2010 was 2.5 percent).

New CVSA Associateand Local Enforcement

Members

Ace Trucking Repair, Inc.

Asociacion Nacional deTransporte 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 Associationand Foundation

UAP Heavy Vehicle Parts Division

Weatherford International, Inc.

22

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

The Cooperative Hazardous MaterialsEnforcement Development (COHMED)program, while under the umbrella ofCVSA, is not “just another” CVSA con-ference. COHMED actually differs sub-stantially from most CVSA programs inthe sense that most attendees are HazMatcoordinators, instructors and roadsideinspectors and the conference itself isdirected at industry which, similar to itsrole in CVSA, plays a major part inCOHMED as well. Without our industrypartners, COHMED could not exist.

At each conference, training sessionsare given in topic specific areas that mostagencies could not afford to give to theirmembers. Topics for this year’s confer-ence include:• US/Canadian Safety marks-

Differences 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 OrganizationTechnical Instructions

• Hazardous Materials TransportationChemistry for Dummies

The presentations are given to theattendees to bring back to their statesand provide this information to theinspectors.

Industry donates their time andequipment to make these classes the bestin the country and each year they suc-ceed in their endeavors. There are twomain benefits for industry to attendCOHMED. The first is the ability toprovide accurate and informative train-ing to enforcement personnel. As mem-bers of the enforcement communityknow, we are only as good as the educa-tion we receive. If we can get the besttraining directly from the industrysource, we can eliminate any ambiguity.The second is the networking that occursat the conference. Companies cannot puta price tag on the contacts made at thisconference.

The following is a brief overview ofthe changes that occurred to COHMEDduring 2010:• Term limits on the current executive

leadership were formally establishedduring this last year, as well as a newposition of “Past Chair.” Each posi-tion of the executive leadership will

be held for a two-year period com-mencing with the position ofNational Vice-Chair. After the two-year period the National Vice-Chairwill ascend to the position ofNational Chair. The National Chairwill become the Past Chair, whichwas created to assist and advise thecurrent National Chair.

• This year, COHMED/CVSA lost anintegral part of its organization. PaulBomgardner, who during his eight-year tenure with CVSA handled allthe finances and behind the scenesdetails that made each and everyCOHMED conference a reality, isnow serving FMCSA as the TeamLeader in FMCSA’s HazardousMaterial Division. Paul’s vast experi-ence in hazardous materials spansmore than 30 years. In addition toCVSA and its members, his serviceincludes 12 years with the MarylandState Police, the last four as aCorporal in charge of the MotorCarrier Safety Assistance Program(MCSAP), and 13 years as theDirector of Hazardous MaterialsPolicy with the American TruckingAssociations. This background madehim a perfect fit for COHMED,because it provides him the perspec-

COHMED Provides Informative Training to Enforcement on Hazardous MaterialsTransportationBy T/Sgt. Thomas Fuller, New York State Police, Program Administrator,

Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Unit, Hazmat/Radiological/Technological Program

Guardian

23

C O V E R S T O R Y

tive to clearly understand both theindustry and enforcement sides ofHM transportation.

In addition to his daily duties asTeam Leader, Paul has taken on therole and responsibility of the ActingDivision Chief in the HazardousMaterial Division and has demon-strated his eagerness and devotion toHazMat transportation. On January2, 2011, Paul officially becameFMCSA’s new Chief of theHazardous Materials Division.Hopefully, as the new Division Chiefwe will continue to see Paul atCOHMED representing FMCSAand its dedication to the program.However, it will be strange to see Paulon the opposite side of the table thisyear. Please join us in congratulatinghim on his new position, as well as hisyears of service to COHMED.

• During the summer CVSA Executivecommittee meeting, COHMED wasofficially recognized as a “Program”under CVSA.This classification is nec-essary to bring about fiscal responsibil-ity. Programs will now have to operatewithin a budget in order to continue itsoperation. Also being an official pro-gram within CVSA, COHMED willnow have a regular meeting that will

occur during the CVSA Conferencesand Workshops. Some concerns werevoiced about this change at the execu-tive committee meeting in Anaheim,CA, and President Dowling, VicePresident Palmer and ExecutiveDirector Stephen Keppler have gra-ciously offered their time to meet withinterested parties at the Tampa confer-ence to listen to their concerns.

• This year’s COHMED conference,held in Tampa, January 31 to February4, represents the biennial changing ofthe executive leadership. The currentNational Chair Rex Railsback (KS)will take the position of the newlyformed Past Chair and Bill Reese (ID)will assume the position of NationalChair. Rex is currently a TechnicalTrooper with the Kansas HighwayPatrol, and is currently assigned toMCSAP Troop I in Olathe, KS. Rexis a prominent figure in our world ofHazMat due to his dedication by,among other things, being anAssociate Staff Instructor, and EQATmember for FMCSA’s NationalTraining Center as well as his years ofattendance at COHMED. Rex waselected to the position of Region IIIVice-Chair during the 2004 confer-ence held in San Diego and served

under Paul Cliff of Michigan. In2007, Rex assumed the position ofRegion III Chair in Salt Lake City,and in 2009 (Mesa) he was elected tothe position of National Chair. Inaddition to all the previously men-tioned changes this year that occurredduring his tenure was a historic agree-ment signed between PHMSA,CVSA, and COHMED leadership,which will foster greater co-operationamong the parties.

At the conference, current NationalVice-Chair William “Bill” Reese willreceive the gavel from Rex and assumethe position of National Chair. Bill has been a long time attendee atCOHMED and is currently a Captainwith the Idaho State Police in chargeof Commercial Vehicle Safety. Bill’sresume in hazardous materials isimpressive and will continue the fineleadership legacy of COHMED.

In conclusion, we hope you can availyour agencies the opportunity to attendthe COHMED conference and/or sup-port during the coming year.

24

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

In every roadside inspection course on hazardous materials, wediscuss both Reportable Quantities and Marine Pollutants, theirimpact on shipping documents, package markings, and theapplicability of the regulations for roadside inspection purposes.While we use essentially the same steps for determining theirpresence and compliance with the regulations, each categorypresents unique challenges. (Note: I’ll deal here only with“chemical” hazardous substances. Radionuclides are a topic alltheir own.) And yes, there will be math.

Let’s first discuss the history of these two requirements. Theconcept of “RQ” or Reportable Quantities of HazardousSubstances comes from laws and regulations outside the U.S.DOT. 49 CFR Includes notes on this in the introduction toAppendix A to the §172.101 Table, as follows:

“1. This appendix lists materials and their correspondingreportable quantities (RQ's) that are listed or designated as‘hazardous substances’ under section 101(14) of theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601(14) (CERCLA; 42U.S.C. 9601 et. seq. ). This listing fulfills the requirement ofCERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9656(a), that all ‘hazardous sub-stances,’ as defined in 42 U.S.C. 9601(14), be listed and reg-ulated as hazardous materials under 49 U.S.C. 5101–5127.”

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

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

tank car loads of the soil fumigant, metam sodium, derailed andbegan spilling the product into the Sacramento River. Metamsodium did not meet the definition of any U.S. DOT hazardclass 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 identifyingthe material. In response to demands by Congress, U.S. DOTadopted the Marine Pollutant requirements soon after this inci-dent. PHMSA typically updates the MARPOL list every twoyears as part of the HM-215 docket series, adopting changesbased on the U.N. Recommendations, IMDG Code, and otherinternational regulatory changes.

In each case, we must remember several important thingsabout determining the presence of a hazardous substance ormarine pollutant. For hazardous substances, the materials arelisted by name in 49 CFR §172.101 Appendix A, list of haz-ardous substance table, and each material has an associatedReportable Quantity, 1, 10, 100, 1000 or 5000 lbs. For roadsideinspections, the Reportable Quantity is the amount of theHazardous Substance present in each package. Another issue isthat the Reportable Quantities listed in Appendix A are netweight, not gross weight; so to determine whether §172.203(c)and§172.324 (for non-bulk packagings) apply, you must knowthree things: (1) that the substance appears in the HazardousSubstance list in Appendix A; (2) the capacity of the package(s)you are inspecting; and, (3) the concentration of the substance ifthe material is a mixture or solution. You might also need theempty, or tare, weight of the packaging.

The most common mistake with Reportable Quantity viola-tions comes from forgetting that for 49 CFR, “RQ” is per pack-age. For example, Acetone has a RQ of 5,000 lbs. per package.Pure acetone weighs approximately 6.54 lbs. per gallon, so 765gallons or more of pure acetone meets the Reportable Quantity inone package. Then, if given a gross weight of all packages, youneed to also know how many packages in the shipment. A ship-ping 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 90drums, the gross weight of the packages is 333 lbs. each. A quickrule 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” bulkpackagings such as IBC’s and smaller DOT 56 or 57 portabletanks, the 5,000 lb. RQ is also highly improbable. So by lookingat package size, you might eliminate RQ with no real math usage.

Reportable Quantities and Marine Pollutants, a Closer Look By Capt. Bruce Bugg, Region 4 Commander, Georgia MCCD, and CVSA HM Committee Chair

GuardianC O V E R S T O R Y

The next step will involve some investigation. Some ship-ping documents may give you a percentage of a chemical, evenif not required. The driver may have been supplied with a chem-ical analysis of the material, and have that information in a sep-arate document. The shipper may supply a material safety datasheet (MSDS) to the driver. If not, if you have Internet access,a web search in the format <brand name> MSDS, with thebrand or trade name of the product may yield a Material SafetyData 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 thequantity by weight or mass in one package and exceed the per-centage for the RQ in the table in §171.8.

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

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

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

For bulk packages, there are no marking requirements forreportable quantities, only a shipping paper requirement. Fornon-bulk packages, §172.324 applies, and the package markingrequirements are similar to the shipping paper requirements –“RQ” and the name of the hazardous substance, if not alreadyon the package marking (as part of the shipping name, or to sat-isfy the requirement is §172.301(b)).

Marine Pollutants, while checked in a similar manner, haveseveral important differences. In many cases, we only need tocheck Marine Pollutants in bulk packagings. See 49 CFR§171.4(c): “Exceptions. Except when all or part of the trans-portation is by vessel, the requirements of this subchapter spe-cific to marine pollutants do not apply to non-bulk packagingstransported by motor vehicle, rail car or aircraft.” If the ship-ment has a vessel leg, then the requirements apply to both bulkand non-bulk packagings.

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

For example, one of our officers recently inspecteda vehicle transporting aviation gasoline. To achievethe octane rating necessary for piston-driven aircraft,aviation gasoline does contain some concentration oftetraethyl lead. “Gasoline, leaded” appears in the

(continued on page 26)Hazardous substance for the purposes of this subchapter, means a material,

including its mixtures and solutions, that—

(1) Is listed in the appendix A to §172.101 of this subchapter;

(2) Is in a quantity, in one package, which equals or exceeds the reportable quan-

tity (RQ) listed in the appendix A to §172.101 of this subchapter; and (empha-

sis added)

(3) When in a mixture or solution—

(i) For radionuclides, conforms to paragraph 7 of the appendix A to §172.101.

(ii) For other than radionuclides, is in a concentration by weight which equals

or exceeds the concentration corresponding to the RQ of the material,

as shown in the following table:

Concentration by Weight

RQ pounds Percentage Parts per

(kilograms)Million

5000 (2270)10 100,000

1000 (454)2 20,000

100 (45.4)0.2 2,000

10 (4.54)0.02 200

1 (0.454)0.002 20

The term does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction

thereof which is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a haz-

ardous substance in appendix A to §172.101 of this subchapter, and the

term does not include natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas,

or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such syn-

thetic gas).”

Summary of Hazardous Substance and Marine Pollutant Requirements

Hazardous Substances (“RQ”)• List-based• Check on both bulk and non-bulk package• May need to find percentage/concentration to verify• RQ is per package • Shipping paper requirement – §172.203(c)• Non-bulk marking requirement – §172.324 • Bulk marking – None

Marine Pollutant (“MARPOL”)• List-based and criteria-based• Not required for non-bulk packages by highway• Allowed on non-bulk, both package and vehicle• 10% or greater concentration for most• 1% or greater concentration for Severe MP (“PP”)• Shipping paper requirement - §172.203(l)• Package marking requirement - §172.322• Exceptions - §171.4 and §172.322(d)

(continued from page 25)Marine Pollutant Table. No “PP” is in col-umn 1 for this gasoline variety, so 10 per-cent or higher tetraethyl lead would benecessary to reach the marine pollutantdesignation. A review of the MSDS forthis “AvGas,” as it is known, revealed alead concentration of approximately 0.1percent, well below even a Severe MarinePollutant.

Non-bulk packages, and vehicles con-taining them, may also be marked formarine pollutant, especially in interna-tional commerce. This is typical on inter-modal containers, and is allowable.

Some “bad” news about Marine

Pollutants: Unlike hazardous substances,which are strictly list-based, marine pol-lutant is both list-based and criteria-based. This possibility is addressed inNote 4 before the §172.101 Appendix Bmarine pollutant table: “4. If a material isnot listed in this appendix and meets thecriteria for a marine pollutant as providedin Chapter 2.9 of the IMDG Code,(incorporated by reference; see §171.7 ofthis subchapter), the material may betransported (emphasis added) as a marinepollutant in accordance with the applica-ble requirements of this subchapter.”

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

aquatic toxicity can correctly designate amaterial as a marine pollutant, even ifthe material does not appear by name inthe Appendix B table. The shipper canthen offer shipping documents thatinclude the “MARINE POLLU-TANT” designation in §172.203(l), andoffer markings for Marine Pollutantsdescribed in §172.322.

By the way, the marine pollutant markhas changed, effective January 14, 2010.The revised marking is a diamond, insteadof a triangle, the words “Marine Pollutant”are no longer present, and the symbol haschanged (see illustration at right).

Marine Pollutant marking is required

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

It has been seven years now since Ibecame a CVSA-certified inspector withthe Ministry of Transportation ofOntario. I must admit, before I washired I had no idea about the amount ofknowledge required or what the rolesand responsibilities of being aTransportation Enforcement Officerentailed. I thought it just involved sit-ting in a scale house and watching atruck roll over a scale pad. Working indifferent parts of Ontario (from withintwo hours of the Manitoba border towithin thirty minutes of Niagara Falls)

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

First of all, inspectors must be currenton all of the applicable legislation as wellas the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC). It is not onlyimportant to know the material, butimperative to be able to apply it correct-ly. Most of us have stopped vehicles thatyou know shouldn’t be going down thehighway, however, learning CVSA’sOOS criteria helps us understand theseverity of some of the defects that are

not as obvious as others.One of the “obvious” defects I recent-

ly encountered was brought to my atten-tion by a local tow truck operator. Adriver was getting ready to leave a localwarehouse and go back to his terminal inToronto (approximately an hour away)after his load was refused. The receiverhad refused the load due to the conditionthe trailer was in. The driver had hit atree with the side of his trailer back inNew Hampshire (Figure 1). Ignoringthe damage, the driver continued to theload destination point in the Niagara

INSPECTOR’S CORNER

Knowing and Applying CVSA’s Out-of-Service CriteriaImperative to Role of InspectorBy Richard Robinson, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Transportation Enforcement

Officer, NAIC 2010 Grand ChampionRichard Robinson

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3

26

only on bulk packaging by highway, butwith a big exception: If the materialrequires placarding, and placards are dis-played, the Marine Pollutant mark is notrequired. See §172.322(d): “TheMARINE POLLUTANT mark is notrequired— (3) Except for transportationby vessel, on a bulk packaging, freightcontainer or transport vehicle that bearsa label or placard specified in subparts Eor F of this part.”

In conclusion, as with many aspectsof the regulations, the HazardousSubstance and marine Pollutant require-ments may be complex and subtle.Proper application of the regulations

takes time, investigation, and effort.

GuardianRegion. Upon conducting a full Level Iinspection of the vehicles, the trailer wasobviously in no condition to continue.Along with some brake and steeringOOS defects, the right side of the van-body semi-trailer was pressed in severalinches causing the roof to buckle. Withthe integrity of the trailer severely com-promised, the lower rail on the same sidewas noticeably sagging and starting tocrack (Figure 2). The right trailer doorwas tied closed because it could nolonger latch properly. To top it off, theload consisted of over 43,000 lbs. ofpaper rolls, much of which was over thedamaged section. While I was inside thetrailer taking pictures, I could hear thetrailer starting to creak.

On the side of the road CVSAinspectors have the responsibility toabide by the OOS criteria developed byCVSA. Our actions can and will heavi-ly impact on the business of a carrier.This is particularly true in the motor-

coach industry. Being a certified motor-coach inspector, I have first had dealingswith drivers as well as carriers. Beingjust minutes from one of the primetourist destinations in North America(Niagara Falls), I occasionally help outour “Bus Team” inspecting visiting andlocal motorcoaches. Although thesetypes of vehicles are carrying the mostprecious cargo of all, people, the designof these vehicles restricts the driver’sability to do a thorough inspection. BusTeam members have inspected countlessmotorcoaches in varying conditions.One coach had two brake rotors thatwere cracked in several spots (Figure 3).Another was found to have brake shoesfalling out of the drum on the steer axleand the air bag mounting support rustedthrough on both sides (Figures 4 and 5).If it wasn’t for these dedicated officersthe 40 plus passengers could have beengetting an unplanned tour of the emer-gency room at the local hospital.

As inspectors we are responsible tothe industry in delivering and applyingthe legislation and OOS criteria in a fairand appropriate manner. We are alsoresponsible to the rest of the motoringpublic to remove the unsafe vehicles andfatigued and unqualified drivers from thehighway.

CVSA programs such as “BrakeSafety Week” and seminars on topicssuch as hours of service and load securityput on by individual jurisdictions giveinspectors the opportunity to reach out tothe trucking industry on more of a per-sonal, friendly basis. Participation inthese dealings go far to create an atmos-phere where we can educate the industryand help drivers understand their respon-sibilities and clarify any confusion theymay have so they can do their job better.

I find this occupation to be anextremely rewarding one and I must sayI would be lying if I didn’t enjoy findingthe odd “truck of the day” with differentthings wrong. However, take a step awayfrom the road once in a while and getinvolved in other projects. Set up a cargosecurement or a trip inspection seminarwith your local trucking association orprovide feedback to CVSA on what hasbeen working on the road and anyimprovements that could be made. Themain goal is to make the job all you canand enjoy it.

Figure 4 Figure 5

27

“Old” Marine Pollutant Marking Marine Pollutant Marking Required 01/14/2010

NOTE: Border color is optional.

28

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

In talking with roadside inspectors andexamining inspection reports from mystate and others its seems fairly obviousthat many roadside CMV inspectors arenot checking the basic operation ofAutomatic Braking Systems (ABS) inthe course of conducting NorthAmerican Standard Level I or II inspec-tions. I believe this can be attributed atleast in part to the lack of a basic under-standing of how ABS systems operate. Inthis article I’ll try to explain the basics,reveal some common violations found,and suggest some common write-ups. I’llconcentrate on air-braked vehicles, buthydraulic-braked vehicles share manycommon components and terminology.

Many mechanics and owners ofCMVs also seem to be at a disadvantagein some cases because they have a limit-ed understanding of ABS and often lackthe equipment necessary to diagnose sys-tem problems. For example, a commonABS defect is an instrument panel orexternal mounted ABS test/malfunctionlamp that remains lit. A test/malfunctionlamp that remains on indicates a defectin the system, but the easy answer for aminority of drivers, owners, andmechanics is to place a piece of blacktape over the instrument panel lamp orunplug the external lamp. I’ve had driv-ers tell me that they got tired of theamber lamp being constantly illuminatedin their rearview mirror at night, so theyjust unplugged the lamp. I’ve also beentold by a few drivers that when theypointed out the problem to their respec-tive mechanic, the mechanic did nothave any way to diagnose what’s makingthe malfunction lamp stay on. In onecase a company owner told me he did notthink ABS was an essential componentand that he did not have the time to send

a his truck or trailer to a dealer to havethe system properly repaired. Alterna-tively, larger fleets with adequatelytrained and equipped technicians canquickly diagnose and repair these sys-tems. Moreover, carriers of any size witheffective safety programs often utilizemaintenance contractors that are proper-ly equipped to handle ABS problems.

First let’s talk about applicabilitydates for basic ABS systems and compo-nents. Vehicles manufactured on or afterthese dates must be equipped with ABSsystems:• 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 afterMarch 1, 1998;

• Hydraulic braked CMVs (all): Man-ufactured on or after March 1, 1999;and,

• Additionally, air-braked trailers Manu-factured after March 1, 1998 musthave an externally mounted test/mal-function lamp (originally there was asunset date of March 1, 2009 for thiscomponent, but the sunset date hasbeen repealed and the requirementthat trailers be so equipped has beenextended indefinitely).

Basic ABS ComponentsEach ABS-equipped vehicle is equippedwith a control module, wheel rotationsensors, and test/malfunction indicator(s).Newer tractors (mfg. on or after March1, 2001) will have two ABS test/mal-function lamps in the instrument panel;one is for the tractor’s ABS and the otheris for trailer(s) ABS. These newer trac-tors receive a signal from the trailer’s

ABS for testing and malfunction pur-poses. This instrument panel trailer ABSlamp is supposed to duplicate thetest/malfunction feature of the externallymounted ABS lamp on the trailer(s).

Motor vehicle safety standardsrequire the steering axle and at least oneof the rear axles of tractors, dolly con-verters, and trailers to be equipped withABS. In other words, not all axles will beequipped with ABS rotation sensors.Some truck and trailer manufacturerswill routinely equip all axles with rota-tion sensors, while others will equip onlyone of the drive axles and/or one of thetrailer axles.

The control module on the trailer isusually located adjacent to or integratedinto the air-brake relay valve near the airreservoir. The tractor control modulemay be located at several locationsdepending upon the manufacturer.

Basic Inspection Procedures• Test the ABS by utilizing the test/

malfunction lamps in the instrumentpanel and externally mounted (ontrailers). Use all of the followingmethods to until a satisfactory test isachieved or you confirm a defect. Ifan ABS lamp fails to operate proper-ly, then a defective ABS write-upshould be made.

• Method 1 (power unit) – Whileobserving the tractor’s instrumentpanel have the driver turn the igni-tion key to the on position (do notstart engine); the tractor’s ABS lampshould illuminate for a short periodand then go out. This indicates a suc-cessful test. If the tractor was manu-factured on or after March 1, 2001there will be two ABS test lamps, onefor the tractor and one for the trailer.

ABS – The Simple Basics for InspectorsBy Capt. John E. Harrison, Georgia Department of Public Safety, Member Vehicle Committee

29

GuardianC O M M I T T E E N E W S

If the trailer ABS lamp comes onmomentarily and then goes out thena successful test is indicated.

• Method 1 (trailer) – Have the driverturn the tractor’s ignition key to theon position while you observe thetrailer’s externally mounted ABS testlamp. If the lamp comes on momen-tarily and then goes out a successfultest is indicated.

• Method 2 (trailer) – If method 1above does not work, then have thedriver turn the key to the on positionand then apply the service (foot)brake and hold. If the external ABSlamp comes on momentarily andthen goes out then a successful test isindicated. If the ABS lamp remainslit or does not come on at all whilethe service brake is applied, then adefective trailer ABS is indicated.

• Method 3 (certain cargo tank trailers)– If both of the methods above fail toyield a successful test, then have thedriver: (1) turn the tractor ignition tothe on position, (2) have the driverthen unplug the trailer’s electricalpigtail, and (3) have the driver recon-nect the pigtail while you observe theexternal ABS lamp. If the lampcomes on momentarily and then goesout, a successful test is evident. If thelamp fails to operate, then the trailer’sABS is defective.

• Detailed ABS inspection proce-dures and bulletins are available atwww.cvsa.org.

Common Violations/Problems• ABS test/malfunction lamp(s) remains

lit or does not come on at all; this indi-cates a defective ABS system.

• Externally mounted test/malfunctionlamp disconnected or missing.

• Wheel rotation sensor(s) wire cut,torn, or disconnected; indicates adefective ABS system. This is oftenobvious because the wires runningalong the axle toward the hub aredangling or cut.

• Control cable or sensor wires to the con-trol module are disconnected; this con-dition is most prevalent on trailers. If atrailer is experiencing an ABS defectsome mechanics will just unplug thecontrol cable that runs from the tractorand the front of the trailer at the controlmodule. By doing this: (1) the externaltest/malfunction lamp will not operate,

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

An inspection of the ABS systemshould be a part of every Level I inspec-tion and optionally a part of a Level IIinspection. Moreover, carriers shouldmake ABS inspections a part of routinemaintenance.

PrePass was the inaugural sponsor of CVSA's International Safety Team because ofour belief that commercial vehicle safety ultimately rests with the state and provin-cial enforcement personnel charged with inspecting operators every day. TheInternational Safety Team award is one important tool to recognize and honor theall-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.

REGION IConnecticut, Delaware, District ofColumbia, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts, New Hampshire, NewJersey, New York, Pennsylvania, PuertoRico, Rhode Island, US Virgin Islands,and Vermont.

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

REGION IIIColorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,Missouri, Nebraska,North Dakota, Northern MarianaIslands, Ohio, South Dakota, andWisconsin.

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

REGION VAlberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,New Brunswick, Newfoundland andLabrador, Nova Scotia, NorthwestTerritories, Nunavut, Ontario, PrinceEdward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan,and Yukon.

I

V

IVIII

II

30

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

Ohio has always sought to be innovative inits approach to motor carrier safety.Whether this has been as an early adopterof the MCSAP program or via the imple-mentation of technology to assist in theachievement of programmatic goals, Ohiohas continually worked hard to find newand better ways to get the job done.

The new entrant program is an exampleof how the state has sought to overcomeproblems and get the job done in the mostefficient and effective manner possible.Shortly after the new entrant program wasimplemented the state discovered a numberof serious problems that were interferingwith meeting the demand placed on inspec-tors charged with conducting new entrantreviews. First, many carriers were beingincluded in the program improperly causingstaff an excessive amount of time in contact-ing each company and sometimes conduct-ing the bulk of a review only to determinethat they never should have been in the pro-gram to begin with. Second, investigatorsoften had to spend days playing phone tagwith carriers attempting to contact themand set up an appointment.Finally, the trav-el time to and from carrier facilities oftenmeant that only a single review could beaccomplished in a day even though theoret-ically two could be done due to the shorttime frame necessary to conduct them.

With these three problems in mind thestaff at the Public Utilities Commission ofOhio (PUCO) came up with a simple, yeteffective solution. Rather than putting theburden on field inspectors to track downcarriers, schedule appointments and thendrive out and meet carriers, a new systemwas developed where the focus is onbringing the carriers to the staff.

Under Ohio’s New Entrant review pro-gram, carriers are first contacted by the statevia a form letter. This letter instructs the car-

riers to contact the PUCO to schedule theirnew entrant safety audit. Carriers call in tothe PUCOs main office where an officeworker reviews the requirements of the pro-gram with them and conducts a pre-auditover the phone. This ensures that the carri-er has a basic understanding of what isrequired of them and is a double check toweed out anyone who should not be in theprogram. At the conclusion of the pre-audit,staff proceeds to set up a day, date, time andlocation for an audit. Based upon where thecarrier is located versus the assignment terri-tories of field staff they pair the carrier upwith a staff person. Each staff person has afixed facility that they report into and thosefacilities now serve as central points to whichcarriers are sent for the reviews. Using fixedlocations makes scheduling easier andensures that more carriers can be reviewedduring a single day since they come to thestaff rather than the other way around.

Once a review has been scheduled aform letter is sent to the carrier remindingthem what they are required to bring tothe audit as well as the day, date and timethat the audit will be conducted. Reviewsare also added to each staff person’s onlinecalendar and are tracked using a custombuilt Field Information Reporting System(FIRS) that allows each field person to seethe details of their assignments as well asother information relevant to their jobs.

The results of these steps in Ohio havebeen overwhelmingly positive. The statehas had less than a half percent of the carri-ers assigned to it not receive their reviewprior to the deadline for completion. Nearlya thousand carriers per year come throughthe new entrant program in Ohio and sincethe program was first implemented less than50 have exceeded the statutorily requiredtime,most of which were due to other prob-lems outside the control of the state.

Ohio’s New Entrant Program Is An Example ofHow to Overcome Problems to Get the Job DoneBy Alan Martin, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio,

Deputy Director, Transportation

Guardian

31

R E G I O N A L N E W S

Nova Scotia Vehicle Compliance OutreachRecognizes Best PracticesBy Dan Leopold, Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and

Infrastructure Renewal, Manager, Vehicle Compliance

The Mission of Nova Scotia VehicleCompliance is ‘Safety and Compliance,through Education, Inspection, andEnforcement.’ Our goals are to increasethe safety of road users and to protect thehighway infrastructure of Nova Scotia; toenforce specific legislation with respect tocommercial vehicle traffic; and, to interactwith industry providing information andguidance on best practices.

Officers are expected to conduct 120Level I CVSA inspections per year, as wellas maintain their daily contact levels tomeet our mission and goals. A tall orderon certain days, however I continue to beamazed at how professionally and enthusi-astically my officers approach their job.

Outreach of course is a major part ofdaily activities. I am a firm believer thatwe must build relationships within indus-try, especially since we enforce the lawsand regulations that pertain to them.Outreach is our opportunity to level theplaying field and answers questions thatare on the mind of those we see every day.By attending meetings within communityor company facilities it also provides anopportunity for a more candid (and com-fortable) conversation.

We are regularly called to attend agri-cultural meetings, hours of service presen-tations, local safety events, our Regional

Commercial Driving Championships anda myriad of other forums. We enjoy eachof these, however, our officers already havefull schedules and we are often looking forvolunteers. Although all of our officers arealways willing to help out, some certainlygo the extra mile and beyond.

Officer Dennis Gemmell is one suchperson. Dennis regularly attends agricul-tural meetings (where he often meets manyof his “regular clients”). He is no strangerto winter snow plow operator meetings orstopping to say a few words to the guys onthe jobsite. He regularly participates inJoint Initiatives with the RCMP (mostrecently helping out with our new bill toIncrease Safety for First Responders andOthers). Dennis has also organized a jointinitiative between our Division, theRCMP, our MVI Inspectors and our audi-tors. This initiative received rave reviewsand great press, and saw defects beingidentified and addressed in commercialvehicles as well as passenger vehicles.

In the fall I was approached to haveone of my officers perform a Level ICVSA inspection in front of an audienceat the APTA/MMTA TransportationSafety Conference in October (AtlanticProvinces Trucking Association/MaineMotor Transport Administration). Ofcourse I agreed and was very pleased to

send Officer Gemmell. This was anothergreat opportunity to work with Industryand I was confident Dennis would repre-sent us well. Some of the comments andfeedback I have received included:

“There were a number of people who com-mented to me how well he knew his stuff. Ipersonally wanted to thank your department,the Province of Nova Scotia and Dennis fordoing such a great job”

—Carl Fiander, General Manager,Profile Solutions.

“For many, it was the first time they haveseen what is involved in an actual inspec-tion... the better we understand the better jobwe can do at compliance”

—David Miller, Manager,Safety and Training,

Armour Transportation Systems.

Officer Gemmell will be recognizedfor his outreach efforts during our annualDecember meeting. However, Dennis isonly one of so many officers that allow usto keep our roads safe and meet our mis-sion of safety and compliance, througheducation, inspection, and enforcement.

32

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

For years, most geologists working in theAppalachian basin (Alabama to Maine)knew about the large deposits of natural gasthat were trapped between horizontal layersof Marcellus Shale in Ohio, Pennsylvania,West Virginia and New York. Until 2003,however, very few of these experts wereexcited about the Marcellus Shale regionsince traditional vertical drilling techniquesrarely yielded profitable quantities of natu-ral gas. In 2003, however, new drillingtechnology involving hydraulic fracturingwas unveiled in Washington County, PAand has turned the Marcellus Shale regioninto a major contributor to the natural gassupply of the United States. A MarcellusShale well is first drilled vertically thenturned horizontal in the shale zone. Highpressure water, mixed with a proprietarymix of chemicals and sand, is blasted at theshale to cause fracturing, known in theindustry as hydrofrac.The fracturing releas-es the gas for recovery into the drilling pipe.The fracturing water is pumped back out,stored, or treated. In early 2008, ThePennsylvania State University completed astudy in which they estimated that theMarcellus region might contain more than500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -enough to supply the entire United Statesfor two years with an approximate value ofone trillion dollars.

In 2005, Pennsylvania issued just fourpermits for companies to drill into theMarcellus Shale, but in 2010, it issued more

than 2,500. While the expansion of naturalgas development in Pennsylvania affordscertain economic advantages to the state, ithas also posed a serious commercial motorvehicle safety challenge to Pennsylvania lawenforcement. Large gas drilling operationsroutinely involve moving a large amount ofequipment, vehicles, and supplies intoremote areas. In fact, industry estimatesindicate that the operation of just one gaswell (start to finish) results in as many as1,350 commercial motor vehicle trips intoand out of the drilling site. Many of thesevehicles weigh at or above the state legallimit of 80,000 lbs.

Pennsylvania’s rural roads and bridgeshave begun to crumble under the weightand volume of these trucks, and the condi-tion of its local rural infrastructure posesan immediate safety concern as heavy

trucks, and particularly those with unse-cured loads, are more prone to rollover andcrash when driven on a crumbling roadsurface. Moreover, the condition of theseroads makes it extremely difficult foremergency services vehicles such as ambu-lances, fire and police vehicles to respondto emergencies in a timely manner.

In response to these emerging commer-cial vehicle safety issues, the PennsylvaniaState Police partnered with thePennsylvania Public Utility Commissionand the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection to conductproactive roadside inspections in thoseareas most impacted by the truck trafficsupporting gas drilling operations. Manyof these enforcement campaigns have alsobeen coordinated and conducted jointlywith our safety partners in the New YorkState Police. In 2010, Pennsylvania StatePolice motor carrier enforcement person-nel conducted in excess of 3,400 roadsideinspections of commercial motor vehiclesoperated in conjunction with MarcellusShale drilling operations, resulting in morethan 7,900 driver/vehicle violations and a41 percent out-of-service vehicle rate.

Increased enforcement, however, isjust one means by which the Pennsylva-nia State Police and its safety partnershope to ensure industry compliance withthe motor carrier safety regulations.Through outreach and educationalefforts, they hope to solicit voluntary

Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling Impacts Commercial Vehicle Safety inPennsylvaniaBy Lt. Raymond J. Cook, Pennsylvania State Police, Commander, Commercial Vehicle Safety Division

Pennsylvania State Police and its safety partners remain

committed to their goal of preventing trucks crashes,

fatalities, and injuries throughthe development of consistent,

uniform, and effective commercial motor vehicle

safety programs.

Guardian

33

R E G I O N A L N E W S

compliance by all those operating insupport of this growing industry.

In October, the State Police and thePennsylvania Marcellus Shale Coalitionhosted the first Marcellus ShaleTransportation Safety Day in StateCollege, PA. The intent of this effortwas to better educate carriers and driverssupporting the natural gas industry ofPennsylvania’s regulations to improvetheir safe operating practices. Morethan 225 industry representatives regis-tered for the one-day event and attendedbreakout sessions hosted by the StatePolice, PA Public Utility Commission,PA Department of Transportation, PADepartment of Environmental Protec-tion, and FMCSA

In addition to educating the industry,the State Police have been working toeducate all law enforcement in the state.With more than 1,200 municipal policeagencies in Pennsylvania, the intent is toraise the awareness of those lawenforcers working in the MarcellusShale region. To date, more than 250local police officers have been educatedabout applicable laws and regulationsthat govern the safe movement of thesevehicles on state and local roadways.

Despite the transportation safetychallenges presented by this growingindustry, the Pennsylvania State Policeand its safety partners remain commit-ted to their goal of preventing truckscrashes, fatalities, and injuries throughthe development of consistent, uniform,and effective commercial motor vehiclesafety programs. They remain confidentthat the time proven strategy of enforce-ment, combined with education, willenable them to ensure the safety of allthose who travel the roads and highwaysof their Commonwealth.

34

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

Over the years, the state of Washingtonhas been very proactive in the design,development, and deployment of tech-nologies to enable more targeted inspec-tions of commercial vehicles to keep traf-fic moving and minimize disruptions intravel and commerce. These technolo-gies also play an important role inimproving safety on the state’s roadways.

Throughout August of 2009, mem-bers of the Washington State Patrol(WSP) Commercial Vehicle Divisionand Washington State Department ofTransportation (WSDOT) ExpandedCommercial Vehicle InformationSystems and Networks (CVISN) Projectteamed up to carry out a statewide feasi-bility study for creating an unattendedand fully automated infrared inspectionsystem as an integrated component ofthe CVISN system.

The project is now wrapping up theproof of concept for yet another technol-ogy. This is an Automated License PlateRecognition (ALPR) system which hasleveled the playing field for automatedsorting of commercial vehicles both withand without transponders on the primaryroadways. The sorting, through comput-erized message signs tells a passing truckif they are to report to the weigh stationor may keep going. The WSDOT

ALPR system gives Washington theopportunity to provide more targetedinspections by checking all commercialvehicles automatically against a commer-cial vehicle database as they approach theweigh station. The system then providesWSP Officers with all available vehicleinformation. Using the system to makemore intelligent decisions about whichvehicles warrant a more targeted inspec-tion, Washington is able to more quicklyassess the commercial vehicle trafficflowing through checkpoints to mini-mize delays for vehicles with good safetyand maintenance histories. The ALPRsystem uses the SpikeHDTM integratedALPR system from PIPS Technologycoupled with software developed in-house it is fully integrating into the exist-ing WSDOT CVISN system.

The SpikeHD incorporates a dual-lens camera with integrated ALPRprocessor and infrared illumination all inone sealed housing. The color lens of thecamera captures an overview image ofthe vehicle, and the infrared lens of thecamera captures an image of the licenseplate for interpretation by the integralprocessor. The infrared illumination,safe and relatively invisible to the humaneye, illuminates the license plate for theinfrared lens in all lighting and weather

conditions. The infrared image of thelicense plate is then passed along to theon-board processor for optical characterrecognition (OCR) whereby the image istranslated to text based on a highlyrefined OCR engine designed for thestate. This information is then used bythe CVISN system to pull historicalinformation on the vehicle and make adecision if a vehicle should be broughtinto the station or is good to pass. Thisinformation is also used by officers tomake decisions in near-real-time as vehi-cles approach the weigh station.

Another technology of interest wasthermal imaging for automated brake, tireand bearing inspections. The group’sAugust research of the thermal imagingtechnology determined that an off theshelf Flir‚ A325 thermography camera andassociated ThermoVision‚ ExaminerIR‰software would provide the needed func-tionality for the project. For the study thecamera was set up along the incomingramp at various heights and angles atweigh stations around the State. A laptopcomputer provided the monitor and cap-tured video from the camera as vehiclespassed. Vehicles were examined live andvideo was saved for later study.

It was quickly discovered that thehuman eye and mind cannot effectively

Technology-Enabled Commercial Vehicle Enforcement in WashingtonImproves Safety and Efficiency

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 brakeon 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.

Guardian

35

R E G I O N A L N E W S

process the images fast enough with vehi-cles moving at speeds estimated over fivemiles an hour. However, the use of com-puter automation allows for automationof this process, and at much higherspeeds. For the study trucks coming intothe scale are monitored with the cameraand when something looks to be defectivesuch as a possible inoperative brake aWSP Officer stops the vehicle and checksits condition. This provides the opportu-nity to learn what a defective piece ofequipment looks like when viewed ininfrared, thus enabling officers to makeobservations of a more preventativenature – identifying potentially unsafe cir-cumstances and alerting the driver/ownerof the vehicle for correction. During thestudy a number of vehicles were placedout of service based upon what was iden-tified although, this was not the purposeso statistics were not logged.

The initial study focused on viewingfrom the side directly on the wheel areaand then across under the vehicle at theinside of the brake at different angles.These arrangements in many cases gavegood visual inspection for the human eye.A further study was carried out to seewhat the camera would capture if embed-ded in the roadway looking up. Thisstudy utilized a weigh station inspectionpit with the camera located in the pit tosimulate the camera in the roadway.Trucks were instructed to pass over thepit as if on the road. As the first truckreached the camera everyone watchingrealized this was by far the best approach.Before the first hour had passed 4 truckswere placed out of service for one or morenon-functional brakes.

Some of the benefits identified withembedding the camera in the roadwaywere that one camera with a wide angle

lens was all that was needed whereas aside scan required two cameras to getboth sides. The visibility looking upfrom the road provides a wide open andclear view of all the brakes regardless ofthe vehicle style or what may be hangingdown. Washington has elected to go inthis direction due to the much better andconsistent viewing along with cost sav-ings of one versus two cameras and asso-ciated enclosures, wiring, and labor costs.

An enclosure to handle the environ-mental conditions is currently beingdeveloped for this method. Software isbeing developed for the automation andto tie it into the other components of theWSDOT CVISN system. This new

system will scan all incoming vehiclesand notify the WSDOT CVISN useronly when a defect is identified. Therebyfreeing up the Officer to do their othertasks and giving them a powerful newtool. The Officer will be able to quick-ly see which area they need to look atbefore the truck reaches them.

With these automated tools the WSPOfficers will help keep additional safevehicles moving along and identify moretroubled vehicles that would have slippedby without a close hands on inspection.Once in full operation this technologywill save lives in WA State by helping totake more malfunctioning commercialvehicles off the road.

REGIONAL RAP

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 exten-sive training for Motor Carrier Officers, recognition the Division has received fromFMCSA and other agencies, Public Information and Educational outreach to both thecarrier community and the Public, Enforcement activity, such as Targeting AggressiveCars and Trucks (G-TACT), and CVSA-sponsored events such as Roadcheck andBrake Safety week, and the overall program effectiveness on leading to reductions inCommercial 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 recenttransfer into the Colorado State Patrol’s Motor Carrier Safety Section retired onNovember 1, 2010. Although Monroe was only in the Motor Carrier SafetySection a few months he enjoyed his time and was clearly dedicated to commer-cial vehicle safety. At the present time a replacement has not been appointed andSgt. Rocco Domenico is serving as the interim acting officer in charge.

REGIONAL RAP

NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY PATROL RECOGNIZES THREE OFFICERS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO HIGHWAY SAFETY

On Wednesday, 8 December 2010, Capt. William T. Belch andLt. Douglas R. Shackelford of the North Carolina State HighwayPatrol and Dr. Ronald G. Hughes of NC State University wererecognized for their efforts to provide safe and efficient trans-portation on the highways of North Carolina. The three wereawarded the Patrol’s Meritorious Service Award by Col. MichaelM. Gilchrist, Commander, of the NC State Highway Patrol andthe Gold Circle Award by Secretary Reuben Young of theDepartment of Crime Control and Public Safety.

During the 2010 summer travel season, the North CarolinaState Highway Patrol conducted a series of three large scale opera-tions called Operation Road W.A.T.C.H. The Operation RoadW.A.T.C.H. concept which stands for Wolfpacks (enforcementteams), Alcohol detection,Traffic enforcement, CDL violations andHomeland security was developed in 2006, by Lt. Shackelford,while then assigned as the Motor Carrier Enforcement TroopLieutenant, at Troop C Headquarters, Raleigh, NC. Dr. Hughesplayed an important role in the identification of high crash corri-dors, the provision of detailed GIS mapping and data analysis prod-ucts, as well as participating in the Commercial Motor VehicleAwareness training that accompanied the operations, by enlistinglocal law enforcement agencies to assist in each of these operations.Capt. Belch spear headed the plan by putting it into action and over-seeing the operational planning, logistical coordination and imple-mentation. Capt. Belch’s dedication to highway safety and leader-ship brought the plan together.

The unequaled drive, professional excellence and steadfastdedication of the 230 State Highway Patrol personnel and locallaw enforcement officers deployed during the operations to thecause of highway safety led to a very successful campaign. Theirefforts allowed the series of Road W.A.T.C.H. Operations, overthe 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 serv-ice. There were also 1,253 vehicle equipment violations detect-ed and of those 136 vehicles were placed out of service. In con-junction with the inspections being conducted, size and weightactivities were also conducted. These activities detected 123weight violations, resulting in 938,204 pounds of overweightpenalties being assessed. In addition to Commercial MotorVehicle inspections being conducted, traffic enforcement teamswere deployed in high crash corridors with Patrol personnel,local Police and Sheriff Department personnel using LIDARSand high visibility patrols to account for 616 traffic violationscited and 336 warnings being issued in Iredell, Mecklenburgand Johnston Counties.

Also, during the course of the year the NC State HighwayPatrol conducted a series of small scale Operation RoadW.A.T.C.H.’s in conjunction with its Rural Road TicketingAggressive 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 bracedthemselves for an inspection. As they exited the roadway, they saw motor carrier policeunits were stationed and waiting for their arrival. But with further examination, theyalso spotted Santa Claus. As the police units approached their vehicles, the truck driv-ers were surprised to be handed treats and appreciation as well as information for safeholiday travels.

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

36

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

AAMVA PRESENTS 2010 CMV HIGHWAY SAFETY AWARD TO WASHINGTON STATE PATROL

The work of the Washington StatePatrol (WSP), Commercial VehicleDivision (CVD) has contributed to areduced number of fatalities and injuriesresulting from crashes involving com-mercial motor vehicles. WSP’s hardwork and dedication to saving lives hasyielded results and won it the 2010Commercial Motor Vehicle HighwaySafety Award. The 2010 Award waspresented at the AAMVA InternationalConference held in St. John, NewBrunswick, Canada in late August.

The WSP takes a proactive approachto reduce fatalities and crashes involvingcommercial vehicles. 629 WSP troopersare certified to conduct Level III driverinspections. There are 242 NorthAmerican Standard Level I CertifiedCMV Inspectors. WSP CommercialVehicle Division is continually recog-nized as a national leader in CMV andschool bus safety due to its outstandingefforts in education and enforcement.

WSP has reached out to the communi-ty to provide presentations and public infor-mation. In 2009, the WSP CommercialVehicle Division conducted over 491 pre-sentations to local CMV industry, stateagencies, private sector, educational facili-ties, community groups and job fairs.Through these presentations, over 52,300citizens were reached addressing safetyaround CMVs. The WSP outreach andeducation efforts also include the compli-ance review program. Through this pro-gram, WSP took a proactive approach inreaching out to educate carriers on how tobecome compliant with federal and stateCMV regulations.

WSP has also been proactive in com-bating aggressive driving activitiesspecifically around CMVs. The TACT(Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks)

program has been successful inWashington combating aggressive driv-ing behavior. The program’s mission isto reduce CMV related crashes, injuriesand fatalities through educating bothpassenger vehicle and truck drivers onhow to share the road safely.

As a result, in 2009, 10 assigned WSPCVD TACT officers located around thestate of Washington:• Contacted over 12,479 violators;• Arrested 12 drivers for DUIs, 3,324

aggressive drivers, 11 reckless driversand 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 hasplaced special emphasis on are theOperation Safe Driver program, AnnualCVSA Roadcheck program andOperation Air Brake / Brake SafetyWeek. Each of these opportunities isused, not only to enforce, but to educatethe motor carrier community on safeoperational practices.

As a result of these efforts, the numberof fatalities and injuries resulting fromcrashes involving commercial motor vehi-cles has gone down. In 2009 Washingtonhad an 8% reduction in CMV-caused col-lisions from 705 to 651. Additionally,there was a 50% reduction in CMVinvolved fatalities from 2008 to 2009.

Capt. Darrin T. Grondel accepted theaward on behalf of Washington StatePatrol, Commercial Vehicle Division.

“It is an honor and a privilege toreceive this award on behalf of theWashington State Patrol… This awardtruly reflects the hard work, dedicationand commitment of our Commercial

Vehicle Division officers and stakehold-ers improving safety and the quality oflife in Washington State. Our vision is tomake Washington roadways the safest inthe nation and this award demonstrateswe are on the right course. We haveimplemented various strategies and pro-grams aimed at safety, which ultimatelysaves lives,” said Grondel.

The CMV Highway Safety Awardprogram is a distinguished service awardfor commercial vehicle safety created torecognize individuals, agencies or juris-dictions that have made significant con-tributions to improving highway safetyinvolving commercial motor vehicles andtheir drivers.

Nomination forms for the 2011CMV Highway Safety Award are nowavailable. Consider nominating a state,agency or individual who has made sig-nificant contributions to improvinghighway safety. Nominees may includeCDL testers, law enforcement officers,public safety or law enforcement agen-cies, or motor vehicle administrationpersonnel that have utilized creative pro-grams, policies or systems proven toimprove safety and/or reduce crashes,injuries and fatalities. Nominations forthe award can be made on behalf of indi-viduals, agencies or a jurisdiction.

The CMV Highway Safety Award pro-gram is a collaborative effort betweenFMCSA, the American Association ofVehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and theInternational Registration Plan, Inc. (IRP,Inc.). IRP, Inc. administered the award onbehalf of FMCSA and AAMVA.

For additional information on theaward and nomination details visit theIRP, Inc. website at www.irponline.orgor contact Tim Adams at (502) 845-0398 or by email at tadams@irpinc.org.

37

GuardianR E G I O N A L N E W S

Employees at A&R Transport Inc.understand that performing their jobsafely, bringing safety first, proves to be awinning combination. Without safetyfirst, A&R Transport Inc. wouldn’t be anindustry leader it has become today.

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

A&R Transport has many types ofservices that reflect their commitment tosafety. A couple of the more recentmovements to bring safety to the fore-front are A&R’s EOBR/ELOG pro-gram as well as their restructured newhire training program.

EOBR / E-LOG ProgramThe company most recently introducedan EOBR (Electronic on BoardRecorder) program, commonly knownas E-LOG, to its growing fleet oftrucks. The E-LOG program hasproven to be a winner, providing dis-patchers, terminal managers, and driv-ers with the capabilities of knowing a driver’s hours of service (HOS) at any point. This allows for a closer driver/dispatcher relationship. A&RTransport has also set up withQualcomm to alert a member of man-agement via email when a driver on E-LOG has a hard braking event, at thetime of the hard brake. Qualcomm’sreporting structure also allows animmediate viewing of any HOS viola-tions. Immediate viewing of a driver’sHOS, immediate notification of hardbrakes, and immediate capabilities toview HOS violations allow A&RTransport to intervene sooner.

New Hire Training, Safety From The StartUpon hire at A&R Transport, a driverreceives hands on training with a terminaldriver trainer. The terminal driver trainersare trained annually by our corporate team,and are leaders within their respective ter-minal fleet. This initial time (usually span-ning a two-week period) allows the newhire to get accustomed to some of A&R’ssafety policies and work procedures. Afterthe initial training period is completed, thetrainee attends a week-long corporatetraining session at A&R’s corporate head-quarters in Illinois. During this trainingweek, the driver gets hands on with thecorporate trainer, to answer any furtherquestions/issues the trainee may have. Aswell, the trainee attends a new hire classroom session. This sessions’ primary focusis on safety, and is given by a member ofthe safety management team. This is anexcellent time to get one on one with atrainee before releasing him/her into thesystem. The week-long corporate trainingsession, in class and hands on, is whereA&R Transport really instills and solidifiestheir ‘Safety First’ vision with the trainee.

The EOBR/ELOG and the NewHire Training programs in place at A&Rare just two means of many where A&RTransport creates a culture, a culture thatreflects ‘Safety First.’

A&R Transport Safety Facts• 7.8 percent Vehicle DOT out-of-serv-

ice, National Average (2007-08) is22.27 percent.

• 4.3 percent Driver DOT out-of-

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

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

• A&R has seen a 35 percentdecrease in injuries and illnessesfrom 2007-2009.

• The number of drivers placed out-of-service has steadily decreased by21 percent from 2007-2009.

• Their number of moving violationshave also decreased by 39 percentfrom 2007-2009.

• 2004: NTTC OutstandingPerformance Trophy.1. 2004 frequency of 0.169 DOT

reportable accidents per millionmiles, and

2. 2004 lost time injury rate of 0.79.

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

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

INDUSTRY SPOTLIGHT

A&R Transport Inc. Providing ‘Safety First’

38

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

Guardian

39

A S S O C I A T E M E M B E R N E W S

As the one of the country’s largest truck-ing, intermodal and logistics providers,Schneider National has almost 10,000trucks crisscrossing North America’sroads every day. To ensure the drivers ofthose trucks – and the freight they arehauling – arrive safely, we make everyeffort to thwart the enemies who stand inthe way of safe deliveries. That includesvolatile weather systems and sophisticat-ed rings of cargo thieves. But a threat justas serious and just as real actually comesin the form of a device that fits in thepalm of your hand: the cell phone.

The issue of distracted driving mayhave risen to national prominence thisyear with the banning of texting whiledriving in many states, but the truckingindustry has been proactively battling itfor years. Schneider is proud to say weare winning the war on distracted drivingthrough some common sense efforts thatevery carrier can and should employ.

Our efforts can be divided into twoseparate tracks: policy and affirmation.Because company policies against dis-tracted driving are a significant deterrentto driver distraction and have been provento improve safety performance, Schneideradded a policy prohibiting use of cellphones and all other mobile communica-tions devices while driving in 2003. Useof a Bluetooth, headset, ear buds or otherhands free devices also distract attention

from driving and are also off-limits. ForSchneider drivers, defensive driving is Job#1. Any violation of this policy is groundsfor immediate termination.

We believe enforcement of this policyis everyone’s obligation. To that end,driver managers will NEVER call a driv-er on their cell phone if the truck is mov-ing, and driver cell phone numbers arenot accessible to customer service repre-sentatives. Even driver recruiters play arole; if they receive a call from a prospec-tive driver on their cell phone, they askthem to find a safe place to park and callback when they’ve done so. This sets theexpectation early on that Schneider doesnot tolerate distracted driving.

The policy provides a “have-to” mes-sage, but the affirmation is designed totrigger a “want-to” mentality that is evenmore important. Every Schneider asso-ciate is asked to sign a card that reads:“Because I am a disciplined, safety-con-scious professional, I lead-by-exampleand maintain constant situational aware-ness while driving.” We selected thesewords to trigger a self-image that willpositively influence behavior.

Why is this an important piece of ourbattle strategy? People act in accordancewith the person we know ourselves to be atthe subconscious level. Affirmations are away to reprogram our self-image, whichcan regulate our behavior in a positive

manner. This belief-based model of safe-ty leadership is simple: Our beliefs shapeour attitudes, which influence our habits,which result in the behavior. To address anindividual’s behavior, it is best to address itat the root--the belief level. WhenSchneider associates believe that distracteddriving is irresponsible and dangerous,they don’t do it. We have seen this worktime and time again and know we are suc-cessfully reprograming our associatesregarding appropriate cell phone whenthey are both on and off the job.

Company-provided technology alsoplays a part in regulating distracted drivingamong our associates. Back in 2005,Schneider blanked visibility to in-cab com-munications technology when the vehiclewas in motion. We took things to the nextlevel in 2010 when we equipped everySchneider truck with a unit that offerstext-to-voice navigation instructions froman in-cab audio speaker system, includingvisual in-cab turn-by-turn directions aspart of a mirror/gauge scan pattern.

Of course, all these tactics are onlypossible because Schneider has had asteadfast commitment to placing “safetyfirst and always” since we first openedour doors in 1935. The culture of safetythat permeates our organization is cru-cial to the success of any anti-distracteddriving strategy that is enacted. Ourassociates know these policies and pro-grams aren’t just a “flavor of the month.”Rather, they are part of the fabric thatcomprises our enterprise, which enablesthem to adopt the behaviors and adhereto our requirements much more easily.As a result, Schneider’s incidence rate ofaccidents caused by distracted driving isamong the lowest in the industry – proofthat the war against distracted driving iswinnable, indeed.

Winning the War Against Distracted Driving:One Company’s Battle Strategy RevealedBy Don Osterberg, Schneider National, Inc., Senior Vice President of Safety & Security

The transportation of hazardous materi-als continues to be one of the most high-ly-regulated forms of transportation inNorth America and throughout theworld – and for good reason. In order todo it is safely, it is critical that govern-ment regulators, enforcement and indus-try routinely collaborate on the imple-mentation of regulations, policy, bestpractices, education and training.The Cooperative Hazardous MaterialsEnforcement Development (COHMED)Program is a shining example of this col-laboration. CVSA is proud to be animportant partner in helping to organizeand host this important annual gather-ing. While COHMED delivers excellentvalue in terms of shared information, akey byproduct of the event is the rela-tionships that are developed and nur-tured not just at the event, but through-out the year. CVSA Members andAssociate Members who participate inCOHMED are among the brightest ingovernment and industry and are lookedto as “go to” experts in their field.

We also are very fortunate to haveexcellent participation and support bythe federal governments in the UnitedStates, Canada and Mexico. This year,we are pleased to have the Pipeline andHazardous Materials Safety Administra-tion providing financial assistance tohelp with COHMED. It is with assis-tance such as this that we are able tocontinue to bring top notch programsand activities in support of CVSA’s

Mission to save lives. I encourageCVSA’s entire membership to takeadvantage of this great knowledgeresource. COHMED, along with theLevel VI Program with DOE and theHazardous Materials Committee con-tinue to be assets in CVSA helping toprovide best-in-breed ideas to the safemovement of hazardous materials. IfHazMat is your bag, and in your area ofresponsibility, these activities are a “mustdo” in your participation with CVSA.The knowledge you will gain from par-ticipation will be of great value to youand the organization you work for.

I want to take this opportunity tothank all of the Members and AssociateMembers who are part of our HazMatactivities for their efforts, your commit-ment is much appreciated by all of us.Due to the highly-technical nature ofHazMat, I know many of you go abovethe call of duty to be available to otherswho are in need of support and onbehalf of the entire membership Ithank you.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

Government Regulators, Enforcement, Industry Collaboration Critical to EnsuringSafety of HazMat TransportationBy Stephen A. Keppler, CVSA, Executive Director

40

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

Stephen A. Keppler

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE(continued from page 5)

review the bill and is also participating ina task force of manufacturers and truck-ing industry representatives to alsoreview the bill and provide feedback toSenators Pryor and Alexander. The useof EOBR’s has taken on added impor-tance in light of FMCSA’s new hours-of-service proposal.

Safety Technology Bill — The “Truck

Safety Technology Tax Incentive Act”which CVSA has been actively sup-porting has a good chance of beingconsidered if a Reauthorization takesshape. The trucking industry sup-ports the bill.

Exemptions from Federal MotorCarrier Safety RegulationsA top priority of CVSA has been to sun-set existing industry safety exemptionsand to establish regulatory proceduresfor granting them as prescribed in

Section 31315, Title 49, U.S. Code.Topping the list are the various hours-of-service exemptions provided to the agri-cultural and utility industries. CVSA’sdiscussion of this issue with the SenateCommerce Committee staff has alreadyresulted in a Committee request to GAOto review this issue and catalogue all ofthe exemptions both in statute and inregulations that have been enacted sincethe 1950’s. Such a review should showthe magnitude of the problem and theneed to find ways to resolve it.

Guardian

41

Guardian

41

R A D I N S P E C T I O N N E W S

Level VI Classes Scheduled for 2011

Under a cooperative agreement with the

U.S. DOE, CVSA has scheduled the

Level VI classes for 2011 to certify inspec-

tors 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 madepossible under a CooperativeAgreement with the U.S.Department of Energy.

Ensuring Safe Transportationof Radioactive Material

From January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009, the North American StandardLevel VI Inspection Program on Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) shipments hadan 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 andeven fewer out-of-service violations. The Level I and Level VI combined out-of-serv-ice rate for vehicles is 0.88 percent and 0.00 percent for drivers. Most notable for theWIPP shipments is that less than one percent of inspections, for both vehicle and driv-er, find Level I out-of-service violations (that is, the more serious violations). Thevehicle and driver combined percentage is less than one percent for both Level VI out-of-service violations. This continued improvement is attributed to the importance theU.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the carriers place on keeping the dedicatedequipment highly maintained and using dedicated high-quality drivers.

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

The continued ultimate goal of the North American Level VI Inspection Programfor shipments of Transuranic Waste and Highway Route Controlled Quantities(HRCQ) of Radioactive Materials is the safe, uneventful shipments of radioactivematerial from point of origin to destination. The states, carriers and DOE are proudof the continued excellent safety program that keeps driver and vehicle out-of servicerates very low. Low out-of-service rates held lead to a low number of incidents. The95.38 percent and 88.99 percent of inspection during this period with no violationsshows the determination by the states, carriers, DOE, and HRCQ shippers to contin-ue to improve this program.

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

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) WasteIsolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) crossed a key milestonetoday when it was recertified by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This deci-sion means that the EPS, after a thorough review,concluded that the underground repository contin-ues to display its ability to safety contain transuran-ic (TRU) waste for the duration of WIPP’s 10,000-year regulatory period.

“The EPA’s thorough review concluded thatWIPP continues to meet all regulatory performancerequirements,” said DOE Assistant Secretary forEnvironmental Management Dr. Ines Triay. “TheEPS’s recertification supports my long-held beliefthat WIPP personifies our commitment to theAmerican taxpayer toward cleaning up the nation’sdefense-generated waste in a safe, efficient andcompliant manner.”

EPA recertification verifies the sites’ continuedcompliance with federal disposal regulations and isbased on various independent technical analyses,public comments and a thorough review of facilityinformation submitted by DOE. On June, 29,2010, the EPA declared WIPP’s ComplianceRecertification Application to be complete.

EPA initially certified WIPP in 1998. The recerti-fication process with the EPA takes place every fiveyears, as required by the WIPP Land WithdrawalAct. This is the second time WIPP has been recer-tified since opening in 1999. In 2004, WIPP sub-mitted its application for the previous recertifica-tion, which it received in 2006. For WIPP to receiverecertification, the EPA verifies that the changesmade at the facility during the preceding five-yearperiod will not impact the ability of WIPP to con-tain TRU waste. The recertification process is not areconsideration of the decision to open WIPP.

“The EPA’s decision shows that the plan formanaging WIPP, which was put together afterdecades of research and study, remains the bestway to safely isolate TRU waste for thousands ofyears and beyond,” said Interim Acting CarlsbadField Office Manager Ed Ziemianski.

CVSA will be conducting two additional Peer Reviews on the LevelVI Program during 2011. This review will be a comprehensive reviewof two states’Level VI Inspection Program. A team leader and a four-member peer review group who are members of the CVSA Level VIProgram Committee, National Level VI Instructors, WesternGovernors Association, Southern State Energy Board, The Councilof State Governments Midwestern and Northeast Offices, WIPPCarriers and DOE will conduct the reviews.

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

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

42

WIPP Receives Second EPARecertification

CVSA Conducting Additional Peer Reviews on Level VI Inspection Programs

First Quarter 2011 www.cvsa.org

CVSA Addresses Blue RibbonCommission

CVSA’s Level VI Program Director Larry Stern, speaking onbehalf of the Alliance, outlined specific steps and timelines need-ed to plan for the executive a large-scale fuel transportation cam-paign in front of a Blue Ribbon Commission on American’sNuclear Future on Transportation & Storage SubcommitteeMeeting at the Wyndham Hotel in Chicago November 2, 2010.

President Obama directed that the Commission be estab-lished to conduct a comprehensive review of the policies formanaging the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. TheCommission provides advice and makes recommendations onissues including alternative for the storage, processing, and dis-posal of civilian and defense spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.The commission was established in accordance with provisionsof the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5U.S.C.App. 2, and as directed by the President’s Memorandumfor the Secretary of Energy dated January 29, 2010: Blue RibbonCommission of on American’s Nuclear Future. This charterestablishes the Commission under the authority of the U.S.Department of Energy (DOE).

Guardian

43

R A D I N S P E C T I O N N E W S

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

Idaho Operations—AdvancedMixed Waste Treatment Project(AMWTP)The mission of AMWTP is to safely, com-pliantly and efficiently retrieve, character-ize, process, package and ship 65,000 cubicmeters of historically managed storedtransuranic nuclear waste for shipment topermanent disposal sites outside of Idahoand to support the receipt and treatment oftransuranic waste from other DOE sitesfor shipment to the DOE’s Waste IsolationPilot Plant near Carlsbad, NM.

AMWTP has shipped more than36,000 cubic meters of radioactive wasteout of Idaho since May 2005, more thanany other site in the DOE complex.More than 4,000 shipments have beenmade safely and without incident fromAMWTP to WIPP, accounting fornearly half of the contact-handledtransuranic waste permanently disposedin WIPP. It’s a 1,250 mile trip fromIdaho facility to WIPP.

Of the 65,000 cubic meters of radioac-tive waste stored at DOE’s Idaho site, anestimated 20 percent has been historicallymanaged stored as transuranic waste, butsubsequently reclassified as mixed low-level waste. Using funding provided toDOE through the American Recovery andReinvestment Act (ARRA), as of April 1,2010 Bechtel BWXT Idaho (BBWI) has

been able to safely and compliantly ship anadditional 2,200 cubic meters of low-leveland mixed low-level radioactive waste outof Idaho, to commercial and federal per-manent disposal site.

The Idaho Cleanup Project contractbegan in March of 2005. CH2M-WGIdaho, LLC is ahead of schedule andcontinues to get additional work com-pleted (ARRA funds, etc.)• 4,200 cubic meters of Mixed Low

Level Waste (MLLW) has beenshipped from Idaho for disposal, pri-marily at the Nevada Test Site (NTS)and EnergySolutions in Utah.

• 500 cubic meters of Low LevelWaste (LLW) has successfullyshipped offsite.

• 2,800 meters of Hazardous Waste,Universal Waste, and Recycle hasshipped from the INL for disposalor reuse.

• Without any transportation events,the project has successfully main-tained a compliant waste manage-ment program and continues tomeet company contact milestones.

• Using ARRA funds, CH2M-WGIdaho, LLC is shipping waste con-taining Uranium-233 to the NevadaTest Site in a Type B cask, model10-160B, owned by the DOE.

• The Idaho Cleanup Project leads thecomplex for shipping RH-TRUwaste from Idaho to DOE’s Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad,NM for disposal. Through the cam-paign, 204 shipments have beencompleted, without incident.

Savannah River SiteSavannah River Site (SRS) is a keyDOE industrial complex dedicated tothe National Nuclear Security Adminis-tration program. SRS supports theDOE national security and non-prolif-eration programs. Additionally, SRSsupports the EM program, whichaddresses the reduction of risks throughsafe stabilization, treatment, and dispo-sition of legacy nuclear materials, spentnuclear fuel, and waste.

SRS encompasses multiple cleanupprojects which will benefit under ARRA.These include the Deactivation andDecommissioning (D&D) M&D AreasRecovery Act Project, the D&D P&RRecovery Act Project, the D&D Soil andGroundwater Activities Site-wide Recov-ery Act Project and the Transuranic &Solid Waste Recovery Act Project.

Ongoing activities include MLLW tocommercial treatment and disposal atEnergySolutions or NTS; identifyingthe disposition path for LLW (15,000drums of depleted uranium oxide(DUO)); 805 drums of DUO to OakRidge in June 2010; CH and RH TRUwaste to WIPP; and, LLW (HeavyWater) to commercial vendor for solidi-fication and disposal at NTS.

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

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.

PRESIDENTCapt. Steve DowlingCalifornia Highway Patrol

VICE PRESIDENT Maj. David PalmerTexas Department of Public Safety

SECRETARY/TREASURER Lt. Thomas KellyMaine State Police

CVSA Executive Committee, Committee & Program Chairs

REGION PRESIDENTS Region I Sgt. David MedeirosRhode Island State Police

Region II Capt. Bruce BuggGeorgia Department of Public Safety

Region III Maj. Mark SavageColorado State Patrol

Region IV Lt. Bruce PolleiUtah Highway Patrol

Region V Steve CallahanAlberta Transportation, Commercial Vehicle

Enforcement

LOCAL PRESIDENT Tom JacquesPittsburgh Bureau of Police

REGION VICE PRESIDENTS (Non-Voting)Region I Sgt. Raymond WeissNew York State Police

Region II Capt. Craig MedcalfOklahoma Highway Patrol

Region III Alan MartinPublic Utilities Commission of Ohio

Region IV Capt. Chris MayrantNew Mexico Department of Public Safety

Region V Reg WightmanManitoba Infrastructure and Transportation

LOCAL VICE PRESIDENTRobert MillsFort Worth Police Department

PAST PRESIDENTS Francis (Buzzy) France, Maryland State Police Darren E. Christle, Manitoba Infrastructure

and TransportationCapt. John E. Harrison, Georgia Department

of Public Safety

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 ChairMauricio Hinojosa, Secretaria de

Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT)Adolfo Spinola, Secretarìa de Seguridad Publica,

Policìa Federal Preventiva

ASSOCIATE NON-VOTING MEMBER Larry Bizzell, Chair Associate AdvisoryCommittee, FedEx Express

COMMITTEE CHAIRS

Associate Advisory Larry Bizzell Committee FedEx Express Driver-Traffic Enforcement Capt. Dan MeyerCommittee Kansas Highway PatrolHazardous Materials Capt. Bruce BuggCommittee Georgia Department of Public SafetyInformation Systems Capt. William ( Jake) ElovirtaCommittee Vermont Department of Motor VehiclesPassenger Carrier VacantCommitteeProgram Initiatives Sgt. William (Don) RhodesCommittee South Carolina State Transport PoliceSize and Weight Capt. Jay ThompsonCommittee Arkansas Highway PoliceTraining Committee Capt. Craig Medcalf

Oklahoma Highway PatrolVehicle Committee Kerri Wirachowsky

Ontario Ministry of Transportation

44

PROGRAM CHAIRS

Level VI Inspection Carlisle SmithPublic Utilites Commission of Ohio

COHMED Tpr. Rex RailsbackKansas Highway Patrol

International Safety Team Capt. Bill DofflemyerMaryland State Police

Saved by the Belt Sgt. David MedeirosRhode Island State Police

Operation Safe Driver Lt. Col. Jack HegartyArizona Department of Public Safety

Operation Airbrake John MeedSaskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure

Roadcheck John MeedSaskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure

North American Inspectors M/Tpr. R.C. PowellChampionship (NAIC) Virginia State Police

Paul TamburelliCheckmark Vehicle Safety Services Inc.

Academy Express, LLCAMBEST, Inc.

Bestway Express, Inc.Boyle Transportation

Brown Line, LLCCambridge Systematics, Inc.Compliance Safety Systems

DATTCO, Inc.DiSilva Companies

G & D Trucking, Inc. / HoffmanTransportation, LLC

Greyhound Lines, Inc.Greyhound Canada Transportation

CorporationGrocery Haulers, Inc.

James Burg Trucking CompanyLynden, Inc.

Motor Transport Association of Connecticut, Inc.New Jersey Motor Truck Association

Registrar of Imported VehiclesRegScan, Inc.

Rubber Manufacturers AssociationThe Besl Transfer Co.Travel and Transport

Universal Truckload Services, Inc.YRC Worldwide, Inc.

ABF Freight System, Inc.Arizona Trucking Association

Austin Powder CompanyContinental CorporationCovenant Transport, Inc.

Daecher Consulting Group, Inc.Groendyke Transport, Inc.

Help, Inc.Intermodal Association of North AmericaInternational Road Dynamics, Inc. (IRD)

LandstarOhio Trucking Association

Schlumberger Technology Corporation STEMCO

SYSCO CorporationTML Information Services, Inc.

Transport Service Co.United Motorcoach Association Vehicle Inspection Systems, Inc.

A & R Transport, Inc.DEKRA America, Inc.

Great West Casualty CompanyJ.J. Keller & Associates, Inc.

May Trucking CompanyMercer Transportation Company

Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)R+L Carriers

Shell Oil Products, USSpecialized Carriers & Rigging Association

Tyson Foods, Inc.

2010 CVSA SPONSORSDIAMOND

BENEFACTOR

Dibble Trucking, Inc. Mid-West Truckers Association

PLATINUM

GOLD

SILVER

BRONZE

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

2011 COHMED CONFERENCEJanuary 31 – February 4, 2011Tampa, FL

BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETINGFebruary 1, 2011Tampa, FL

WINTER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGFebruary 2, 2011Tampa, FL

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGApril 10, 2011Chicago, IL

6TH ANNUAL FMCSA MCSAPLEADERSHIP CONFERENCEApril 11, 2011Chicago, IL

NORTH AMERICAN CARGOSECUREMENT HARMONIZATION PUBLIC FORUMApril 11, 2011Chicago, IL

2011 CVSA WORKSHOPApril 12 – 14, 2011Chicago, IL

ROADCHECK 2011June 7 – 9, 2011

SUMMER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGAugust 8, 2011Orlando, FL

NAIC 2011August 8 – 13, 2011Orlando, FL

2011 CVSA ANNUAL CONFERENCESeptember 26 – 29, 2011Austin, TX

Presorted Standard

US POSTAGE

PAIDBALTIMORE, MD

PERMIT # 33616303 Ivy Lane, Suite 310Greenbelt, MD 20770-6319