The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) recently announced the new techniques it would use in conducting a carrier on-site compliance review (not-so- good news for carriers and you’ll discover why later).

The recent changes are a part of the US Department of Transportation’s new rules and techniques for on-site compliance reviews imposed on trucking companies.

One of which is the expanding interviews conducted on carrier staffs as well as checking on the company’s social media accounts. In the recent years, the FMCSA has appreciated (and has embraced) the latest “Enhanced Investigative Techniques,” according to Jeff Davis, a consultant at the Fleet Safety Services. And in the last meeting of the National Association of Small Trucking Companies in November 2016, he stated that the FMCSA has been changing ways with which they’re conducting audits.

He added that the FMCSA in the last years called for and conducted a thorough on-site compliance review at the headquarters, but which contact to some administrative personnel and safety directors might had been limited [But the FMCSA that offers a preview of the Carrier Safety Administration scores under the proposed changes seek for industry feedback].

A few major changes proposed include reducing intervention thresholds in some SMS to CSA and its “Safety Measurement System percentile rankings. Davis cited a requirement wherein carriers should have each of its trucks undergo a yearly inspection. He added that in the past the only thing you need was to show that you did the inspection with a piece of paper, and then the auditor would just check the box and carry on. But now, things changed – and one of which is that you need to show past documents and reveal your company’s culture. They’d also be holding past and sequestered one-on- one interviews with drivers, sales and accounting as well as they’d be checking your company’s social media accounts, as stated earlier.

Along these lines, Ron Crampton, the training center director of FMCSA, in a quarterly Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance guardian publication, revealed their intention of making training in EIT made available to the state auditing staff, in addition to the trained federal force.

However, there is the issue that obtaining the Part C of the report might require the request of the Freedom of Information Act. [Getting the information is invaluable learning for truck carriers, not only receiving Parts A and B, detailing general company details as well as any violations found, respectively.] [Why you need Part C? It’s the section of the report that shows the exact notes of the auditor and the operation methods or ways you underwent the audit. The Part C also details the people that the auditors have talked to, along with their responses – down to the very last word.]

Knowing all these, the next million-dollar question you probably have in mind is, “Do the compliance reviews changed?”

Here’s the thing. The FMCSA, as stated above, is changing the process in which it’s conducting compliance reviews on carriers. The administration also revealed that they’d be using expanded interviews within the organization members, although experts said that the FMCSA has already been doing this for quite a while. [And the truth is that they’ve just recently announced it after completing the training involved to implement the new techniques.]

There are certain things that emerge – and are now taking full force. But then, you need to take note – the administration had recently shifted and trended from full to focused reviews, although there are certain patterns that the experts are seeing when it comes to these compliance reviews.

Trends in Safety and Compliance in FMCSA

1. Reviews are due to complaints against the CSA scores

In the past, the FMCSA put complaints – as a lower priority concern – when deciding to conduct a compliance review. For example, those scores, which basics are on alerts, were once the main determining factor for a review.

Now the tides turned.

Complaints are now being put on a higher priority than they ever were. And a few reasons include,

Driver coercion rule

The DOT, in 2016, released its final rule on driver coercion, which is a very different violation from harassment that’s tied to e- logging devices. Consequently, many of the complaints are considered as if coercion has happened, and so a visit usually followed.

But then, a very few cases of coercion were found after the investigation – and that makes the whole matter even more interesting.

And what’s happening while the inspector is conducting an investigation is discovering problems that later call for a compliance review – again while the inspector is at the specific location –an on-the- spot compliance review, what do you think?

In the last years, there were several carriers that were scoreless on alert in fact obtained the best scores in compliance basics –but are now getting a focused review on hours of service, although not all the time – and that’s resulting in a “CONDITIONAL” rating plus a fine.

Convenience of complaint filing

The administration made complaint filing very easy than it had been in the previous years.

For example, if you’re the complainant, you’d be requested a written complaint for sending to the administration – not now.

Today, all you need is to visit its website and detail the complaint.

2. Most common violation, still, is false logs of hours of service

This is the area where most carriers are committing violation during the focused reviews – and mainly due to fake or false logs.

If you’re the carrier, you need to ensure that you’d be cross-referencing time – and not only the date – in the documents together with logs from your drivers.

What these logs include? Aside from those above, the documents could highlight fuel from reports, reimbursement receipts and tolls, among others.

3. Suspended or invalid CDLs among drivers is another concern

You only need a few violations on these in order to have you on a BASIC on alert status.

To avoid the problem, you must be able to monitor and ensure that driver’s licenses of your carrier drivers aren’t invalid or suspended. (*A ground for suspension is “not updating medical information” for example).

[Take note: States aren’t also communicating consistently about suspended driver’s licenses.]

4. Part of the issue in regards to the latest compliance reviews is the changes to the medical card verification procedure

You’re going to be a target if you’re not running a CDLIS report or not checking the doctor’s license via the US national registry.

Debates are going on – and they’re an interesting battle arena for many who are wondering as to the time that a system report against the CDLIS issued one is acceptable.

As a general advice, you might want to run the latest report on CDLIS, although interpretations saying that if everything required is already on a report, you might be able to use it.

The issue, however, is being “all the needed details.”

5. The DVIR process is becoming an “easy target”

Prior to December of 2015, making a case in terms of reports of driver vehicle inspection was more difficult for an auditor or inspector.

Gathering information was time-consuming, not mentioning that inspector has to see a fineable case although not that easy with carrier drivers submitting a daily DVIR.

But with the latest rule – as to filing out a DVIR – it is easier to make a case when an inspector saw a defect.

Now, the inspectors are implementing roadside inspections and using a list of maintenance issues.

They’re also asking for the DVIR – for that specific date. Today, you should have a minimum of 10 to make up for no DVIR or not listed issue. A few other things that they could use against a DVIR are reports of breakdown, which is filed by your carrier driver that should have also given the report to the repair shop for maintenance and repair records, which are showing different items that the driver should have been aware of obviously.

Things that a carrier must do at a minimum to avoid compliance reviews issues include,

 You should be able to train your repair shop to issue a report when they perform or see repairs that should’ve been seen by your driver, and then be able to compare these issues with your driver’s DVIR.

 You must also cross-reference roadside inspections, which contain listed issues with the DVIR of your truck driver.

 You should review your internal processes to find out ways on which your drivers are coordinating and communicating to the repair shop when maintenance or repairs are required, and then cross-reference it with your driver’s DVIR.

There you have the latest trends in FMCSA Safety and Compliance that you should know to stay on the right track and start making adjustments. A few highlighted above include training your carrier’s repair shop and asking them for a report when seeing or performing repairs that should have been seen by your driver and comparing these items with the entries in the DVIR. Most importantly – keep yourself updated with the latest changes/trends on the techniques used by the FMCSA in conducting compliance reviews for your own good.

Did you find this post helpful? Let us know in the comment section and spread the word about it on your social media accounts today!

Topics: trucking compliance, trucking complaince Alberta, complaince

About Trux Solutions

We know you aren’t just looking for a safety and complianceservice and  management company; you are looking for a solutions provider. At Trux Solutions, we tell our carrier customers to do what they do best – haul freight safely and on time – and let us take care of the rest.

We are an independently-owned and operated commercial transportation consulting company that specializes in helping our clients turn their safety programs into profit centres because we know that a safe carrier is 40% more productive and generates more profits.

Reduce the risk and cost of your business development