Alternative Truck and Bus Inspection Strategies (2006)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

D-1 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW GUIDES STATE QUESTIONNAIRE NO. 1 Interviewee(s):______________________ Representing:_____________________ Interviewed by:____________________ Date of Interview:__________________ Objective: Part I—Roadside Inspection This session is designed to: • Document the state’s current roadside safety processes and systems; • Review if/how credential and safety data currently are shared with roadside safety personnel in your state; • Review if data from other jurisdictions are used by roadside safety personnel in your state; • Establish performance measures/priorities to use when evaluating roadside enforcement model recommendations; and • Identify current challenges, future plans, and opportunities for roadside enforcement processes and systems. Background • Is the CVISN program a priority to your state? What has been your level of involvement in the CVISN program? Current Practice Inspection Process/Systems • Please briefly describe your state’s current roadside enforcement strategy (Which agency is responsible, criteria that you use to select trucks for inspection, how many inspections are done at fixed inspection stations and how many are done at mobile sites, number of fixed inspection stations and number of mobile sites that can be used, what other types of roadside operations does your state perform such as security scans, weight checks). • Do roadside enforcement personnel currently use an algorithm (i.e., ISS or ISS-2) or safety data to prioritize/select commercial vehicles for roadside inspections? – If yes, which data are used and how is the information sent to the roadside? – If no, how are vehicles currently selected for inspection? – Which agency(ies) determine the criteria/data to be used in selecting vehicles for inspection? – How frequently is this criteria revisited? • Do roadside enforcement personnel currently access credential information (i.e., IRP, IFTA, OS/OW, CDL) for enforcement purposes at the roadside? – If yes, which data are used, from which system(s) are data retrieved (i.e., legacy systems, CVIEW) and how is the information sent to the roadside? – If no, would this data be useful to roadside enforcement personnel? • Has ASPEN inspection software been deployed to all of your state’s roadside enforcement personnel? – If yes, which version of ASPEN is deployed? – If no, is the state planning to deploy ASPEN? • Do roadside enforcement personnel have access to the Internet from the roadside? – Do roadside personnel have access to a wireless network? Are there “dead spots” in wireless coverage around the state?

• How are inspections uploaded to FMCSA (i.e., via SAFER data mailbox, via SAFETYNET)? • How soon after an inspection is conducted is the report uploaded to FMCSA? • How frequently does your state download inspection data from FMCSA? • Are there other tools used by your state’s enforcement personnel to facilitate the inspection process? Information Needs at Roadside Please note any data elements or records below that you feel would be desired by your state’s road- side enforcement personnel to better perform their current and future’s expanded duties. ___ Static data elements (VIN, CDL, U.S. DOT, etc.). Please specify which ones. ___ Hours of service (HOS) record. ___ Fault code record. ___ Wheel spin record. ___ Over spin record. ___ Tire pressure record. ___ Axle weight record. ___ Electronic manifest record. ___ Driver performance record (last two hours). Challenges and Future Strategies • Does your state consider hazmat trucking shipments as a potential security threat? If so, please describe any plans that the state is considering to address this threat. • Are there other special truck shipment types that are considered to have a unique threat? • What are the biggest safety/security concerns in your state? • What are the biggest challenges confronting roadside enforcement personnel in your state? • Are there any planned enhancements or changes to your state’s roadside enforcement operations? • Are there opportunities/new operations (i.e., virtual inspections) that your state should pursue in the roadside enforcement arena? • Are there any known inhibitors to change (i.e., funding, need to change legislation/administrative code)? • What are your general thoughts about CVISN? What are the perceived benefits/costs of the CVISN program? Objective: Part II—E-Screening This session is designed to: • Document the state’s current electronic screening system; • Review the process by which carriers can register their transponders with the state; • Review the data currently used to screen vehicles electronically; and • Identify current challenges, future plans, and opportunities for electronic screening processes and systems. Background • What has been your level of involvement in the CVISN program? Current Practices Please briefly describe your state’s current e-screening strategy (use of PrePass/Norpass/other sys- tem, criteria that you use to give trucks the green light, is WIM integrated, anything that is considered special, is your state’s electronic screening program in production or is it a prototype?) D-2

D-3 What was the motivation for deploying this strategy/system (i.e., improved customer service, improved operational efficiency)? • In what ways has the system met your expectations? • In what ways has the system failed to meet your expectations? Screening • What screening software (i.e., Model MACS, home-grown) is used in your state’s electronic screen- ing program? – Who is responsible for maintaining/updating the screening software? – Who is responsible for maintaining/updating the electronic screening hardware/infrastructure? • What are your state’s electronic screening bypass criteria? – Which agency(ies) determines the bypass criteria? – How are the criteria changed? – What is the basis for change? • Where is a vehicle’s screening decision calculated (i.e., at a central location, at the roadside)? – How frequently is the decision updated? • What data (e.g., credential, safety, height, and weight) are used to calculate a vehicle’s screening decision? – Where does the necessary data come from and how often is it updated? – Is data from other jurisdictions used in the screening decision? – If yes, where does this data come from and how often is it updated? – If no, how are screening decisions for vehicles of out-of-state carriers calculated? • Has your state determined a random pull-in rate for motor carriers participating in the electronic screening program? – If yes, what is the pull-in rate? – Is this pull-in rate carrier-specific? – What, if any data has been collected specifically about carriers weighed and inspected based on random pull-ins? – Has the rate ever been changed? If so, what data and calculations were used to support the deci- sion to change the rate? • How many inspection sites exist in your state? – How many of the sites are fixed? – Who operates and/or staffs these sites? – What are the sites’ standard hours of operation? – Do the sites have sufficient capacity to inspect the vehicles that pass or do they become “over- whelmed” due to the volume of traffic? • How many sites are equipped with electronic screening infrastructure in your state? – Which site(s) are equipped? – Are the site(s) operational? – Which agency(ies) administer the electronic screening program? Challenges and Future Strategies • What are the biggest challenges confronting electronic screening in your state? • Are there any planned enhancements or changes to your state’s electronic screening program? • Are there opportunities/new operations (e.g., virtual weigh stations, interoperability with other transponder-based programs) that the state should pursue in the electronic screening arena? • Does your state participate in PRISM? How does this affect the Electronic Screening process? • What are the known inhibitors to change (e.g., funding, technical infrastructure of existing systems, need to change legislation/administrative code)? • In terms of e-screening, what are your general thoughts about CVISN? What are the perceived benefits/costs of the CVISN program? • What quantitative or anecdotal information can you provide in terms of the costs and benefits of electronic screening based on your work to date?

INDUSTRY INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE NO. 1 Contact Name: ______________________ Representing: ____________________ • Is the overall inspection process working or not working? Why? • Do you feel that certain vehicles are being targeted? If so—which ones? • If certain vehicles are being targeted, from an industry perspective is the targeting of certain vehicles good or bad? Why? • If certain vehicles are being targeted is the targeting improving safety? Why? • Are there specific states that do a better job than others? Why? • Are there specific states that do a worse job than others? Why? • Do you think that data-related selection technologies (e.g., ISS and SafeStat) are effective in iden- tifying potentially unsafe drivers/vehicles/carriers? Why or why not? • Do you think other technologies such as weigh-in-motion, on-board sensors (brake, tire, light, engine, HOS, etc.) or license plate readers are effective? Why or why not? • If you could revamp the system what would you do? Drivers/vehicles/carriers? Interviewee(s):______________________ Representing:_____________________ Interviewed by:___________________ Date of Interview:_________________ Format: _________________ About CVISN The term CVISN (Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks) refers to the collec- tion of information systems and communications networks that support commercial vehicle opera- tions (CVO). The CVISN program is a way for existing and newly designed systems to exchange information through the use of standards and available communications infrastructure. The CVISN program provides a framework or “architecture” that will enable government agencies, the motor car- rier industry, and other parties engaged in CVO safety assurance and regulation to exchange infor- mation and conduct business transactions electronically. The goal of the CVISN program is to improve the safety and efficiency of commercial vehicle oper- ations. The current, primary objective of the CVISN Program is to develop and deploy information systems that will support new capabilities in three areas: 1. Safety Information Exchange—Provide improved electronic exchange of MCMIS and other safety information among roadside and deskside, state and Federal systems; 2. Credentials Administration—Allow motor carriers to apply for, pay for, and receive creden- tials electronically; and 3. Electronic Screening—Automatically screen vehicles as they approach weigh stations and allow those that are safe and legal to bypass without slowing down or stopping. Objective The purpose of this interview is to: • Identify particular aspects of the program that encouraged motor carriers to participate in the CVISN program; • Understand how core CVISN deployment has affected motor carriers’ business operations; • Establish strategies for better marketing CVISN to expand motor carrier participation; and • Improve the CVISN deployment process in the future. Background • How long have you been with your organization? • How long have you been involved with CVISN? • What was your organization’s role, if any, with the CVISN deployment and program? • What was your personal role, if any, with the CVISN deployment and program? D-4

Safety Information Exchange Pre-Deployment • What benefits did motor carriers expect from safety information exchange? • How frequently did motor carriers review their Federal safety scores (e.g., SafeStat, ISS, ISS-2, MCSIP Level) prior to CVISN deployment? • Were they satisfied with the timeliness and accuracy of the old process? • What were the biggest issues/problems related to the old process? • What did you feel was the biggest selling point for the industry prior to deployment? • Deployment? • How were motor carriers involved in the CVISN deployment of safety information exchange (e.g., policy, financing, design, testing, training)? • What were the main technical or institutional challenges that arose for motor carriers as a result of safety information exchange? How were these solved? Post-Deployment • Did motor carriers realize all of the anticipated benefits? Why or why not? • What aspects of safety information exchange worked well and not well for motor carriers? • What enhancements to safety information exchange would you like to see included in the program? Electronic Credentialing Pre-Deployment • How would you rate the user-friendliness of the credentialing processes prior to CVISN (e.g., excel- lent, good, fair, poor)? – What were the best aspects of the credentialing process prior to CVISN? – What were the biggest issues related to the credentialing process prior to CVISN? • What benefits, if any, did motor carriers expect from electronic credentialing: a. 24/7 access? b. Access from office (no need to visit government office)? c. Single point of contact for doing business with the state? d. Improved efficiency? e. Improved accuracy? f. Improved timeliness/turnaround? g. Ability to pay for credentials electronically? h. Other. • What did you feel was the biggest selling point for the industry prior to deployment? • What costs did motor carriers expect to incur (if any) for participating in electronic credential- ing services? Deployment • How were motor carriers involved in the CVISN deployment for electronic credentialing (e.g., pol- icy, financing, design, testing, training)? • What were the main technical or institutional challenges that arose for motor carriers as a result of electronic credentialing? How were these solved? Post-Deployment • Did motor carriers realize all of the anticipated benefits? Why or why not? • Did the participation cost more, less, or the same as expected? Why or why not? • What aspects of electronic credentialing worked well or not well for motor carriers? • What factors (e.g., ability to pay for the credential on-line, ability to print credential at office, improved turnaround time, better service) are affecting a motor carrier’s decision to use elec- tronic credentialing? D-5

• What enhancements to electronic credentialing would you like to see included in the program (e.g., any other credentials you would like to see automated, electronic payments accepted, single access portal for all of a state’s credentials)? Electronic Screening Pre-Deployment • What benefits, if any, did you expect from electronic screening: i. Improved efficiency (e.g., saved fuel, driver utilization)/increased number of vehicles pass- ing station and reduced waiting time at stations? j. Reduced delays in delivering freight and more reliability in meeting customer commitments? k. Level playing field by reducing numbers of illegal or unsafe carriers? l. Other. • What did you feel was the biggest selling point for the industry prior to deployment? • Did motor carriers anticipate any costs being associated with participation in electronic screening? • Did motor carriers have any reservations about participating in electronic screening? Deployment • How were motor carriers involved in the CVISN deployment for electronic screening (e.g., pol- icy, financing, design, testing, training)? • What were the main technical or institutional challenges that arose for motor carriers as a result of electronic screening? How were these solved? Post-Deployment • Did electronic screening have the expected impact (solicit quantitative responses where available): m. Improved efficiency (e.g., saved fuel, driver utilization)/increased number of vehicles pass- ing station and reduced waiting time at stations? n. Reduced delays in delivering freight and more reliability in meeting customer commitments? o. Level playing field by reducing numbers of illegal or unsafe carriers? p. Other. • What aspects of electronic screening worked well and not well for motor carriers? • What factors (e.g., cost of transponder) affect a motor carrier’s decision to use electronic screening? • What enhancements to electronic screening would you like to see included in the program? Challenges and Future Strategies • What was your experience like working with your state government to deploy CVISN? Do you have any suggestions for improving state/motor carrier relationships in the future? • What do you see as the biggest challenges for expanding CVISN participation among motor carriers? • What are effective strategies for increasing awareness of CVISN among motor carriers? For exam- ple, are there particular conferences, magazines, or web sites that are commonly used by the motor carrier industry? How do you reach your carriers? Where do you personally look for information? Expanded CVISN As you might know already, FMCSA is working on defining capabilities for the Expanded CVISN program. Please rate your perception of the importance of the following capabilities to the motor carrier industry (very important, somewhat important, neutral, not important): • Driver Information Sharing Driver Information Sharing Driver Information Sharing – Establish driver information snapshots for use in all processes (e.g., hiring, inspection, enforce- ment, credentialing) – Improve enforcement’s and carrier’s access to driver data to target safety risk D-6

• Enhanced Safety Information Sharing – Improve safety data quality – Improve carrier access to safety data • Smart Roadside – Provide roadside personnel with better access to data systems – Establish virtual/remote roadside sites • Expanded E-Credentialing – Improve access to electronic credentialing (data standards, access levels) – Improve electronic credentialing, for example through use of a single portal and adding new credentials (e.g., OS/OW, Hazmat) D-7