Commercial Motor Vehicle Carrier Safety Management Certification (2007)

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.

15 This overview describes the full range of programs and activities that relate to CMV certification and best practices evaluation. For each program, the following elements will be addressed, whenever applicable: • Objectives. These are the catalysts or driving factors leading to certification, self-evaluation or other programs. • Focus. Examples are compliance, crash avoidance, best practices, human factors, risk rating, customer acceptance, public relations, or other. • Development Process. This area includes whether baseline data were used and the degree of stakeholder involvement. • Program Costs. This includes costs borne both by certifying organizations, and fleets. • Pre and Post Attitudes. Where available, the question of satisfaction or perceived value is addressed. • Continuity of Program. This includes use of ongoing or periodic reviews to validate stakeholder status. • Marketing and Public Relations. This examines how certified organizations use the information in promoting their status. • Evaluation Processes. This examines any specific evaluation processes to gage effectiveness of certification in meeting initial program objectives, including use of baseline data and ongoing post program measurement of results. 3.1 Topology of Certification Programs To date, the literature does not yield an organized approach to classification of certification or self-evaluation programs. All programs appear to identify a range of management prac- tices and procedures that are believed to reduce risks of crashes or commercial vehicle injury or equipment damage incidents. The following topology or classification of certification and self-evaluation schemes displays options for carriers and gov- ernmental entities to consider. This scheme is drawn from the research team’s experience with the current and proposed program schemes. A. Formal Certification Programs. These programs are char- acterized by formal processes that are generally accepted within an industry setting or practice area. Standards or processes are developed within a formal set of procedures, involving significant peer review. Audits are generally involved, and businesses that are certified are permitted to hold out their certification status to the general public. B. Mandated or Recommended Practice Standards. This classification requires fleets or organizations to meet pre- scribed standards as a condition for an accepted business relationship. The standards could be regulatory or industry promulgated. C. Alternative Compliance Standards. This classification involves waiver of defined regulatory requirements in return for documented or proven adherence to defined standards or practice requirements. D. Self-evaluation/Best Practices Standards. This classifica- tion includes those programs which set out industry defined best practices to enable fleets or business entities to strive toward a defined level of risk avoidance and hold them- selves out as meeting state of the practice safety performance processes. 3.2 Summary of Programs The following summary is organized by the topology clas- sification outlined in Section 3.1 and addresses each of the elements relating to certification programs set out in the introduction to this section. 3.2.1 Formal Certification Programs ISO 9000 Certification The definitive study on ISO 9000 certification effects on commercial vehicle accident reduction is a 2003 report from the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota (Naveh et al. 2003). C H A P T E R 3 Overview of Ongoing and Related Programs

As described in the study, the nature of ISO 9000 is as follows: • ISO certification is a common quality innovation by United States and European organizations. • Certification requires that organizations have verifiable routines and procedures in place for product design, manu- facture, delivery, service and support. • The organization must strictly monitor its processes and must follow process documentation. • Third party auditor site visits are required twice yearly to verify compliance. • Customer needs at all steps of the value chain are paramount. • Managers must set up essential business processes for training, skills, procedures, and policies. • There are built-in continuous process improvement mechanisms. Objectives. The study sought to examine a potential cor- relation between voluntary ISO 9000 certification by motor carriers and traffic safety. Additionally, the study authors identified these potential benefits: • New regulatory procedures might be developed based on ISO 9000 processes. • Safe motor carriers could be identified and regulatory efforts targeted. • A mechanism to leverage public resources on carriers with poorer safety performance could be identified. • A focus on “up-stream” issues rather than on downstream non-compliance issues could be used. • Awareness of ISO 9000 might be a means to reform regu- latory processes. Focus. The study focus included a detailed look at finan- cial performance, based on a hypothesis that there are correla- tions between financial performance and safety performance. For the purposes of the study, the key financial performance measure was return on assets (ROA). The safety measures used as dependent variables in the studies were drawn from the FMCSA safety evaluation scheme—SafeStat (see http:// ai.volpe.dot.gov)—and included the following safety evalua- tion areas: • Driver related safety performance and compliance • Vehicle related safety performance and compliance • Safety management values Development Process. The study involved one case study of a bulk carrier involved in developing an ISO certification process. Additionally, the study authors consulted with the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI). The statistical analyses did not require consultation with stake- holders. Through the evaluation process, the study did estab- lish a relationship between pre certification and post certifi- cation financial performance and better safety performance among certified carrier organizations. Program Costs. Costs of ISO certification are significant. This study did not require any single carrier to bear incremen- tal costs, over and above those already internalized in the business processes. It should be noted that one of the objectives of ISO 9000 is to identify productivity and continuous process improvements that ultimately reduce overall business costs. Pre and Post Attitudes. One of the pilot test fleets is still active in the Carrier Safety Management System (CSMS) and is advertising its involvement through press releases. An unpublished feasibility study indicates that two of the test fleets contacted were pleased with CSMS and would still use it, with or without CSA certification (Feasibility Study 2006). This study also reports that both fleets believe that other car- riers should use the program because there were large gains, even with substantial investment. However, the two fleets question the applicability of the program to small fleets, given the investment commitment involved. Continuity of Program. No study follow up has been identified. The ISO 9000 processes continue to be emphasized in business practice, but there is no continuing evaluation of certification relationships to motor carrier safety performance. Marketing and Public Relations. The carrier involved in the study’s case study was being encouraged by its insurance carrier to undertake certification to improve its safety per- formance. This external pressure overrode any public relations objectives. Evaluation Processes. Using matched samples and statis- tical analyses set out in the report, the study compared ISO 9000 registered companies with the 5 best-matched samples. The results indicated fewer fatal, injury, and tow crashes among carriers with higher ROA scores and indicated that adoption of ISO 9000 practices has a positive effect on motor carrier safety. Canadian Standards Association In 2000, the CSA published a safety management standard for motor carriers. The Standard—CSA B619-00 Carrier Safety Management System (CSMS)—is specific to the motor carrier industry and can be found at the following website: http://www.csa.ca/news/releases/Default.asp?articleID= 3381&searchType=exactPhrase&searchWordList=trucking& language=English In July 2001, the CSA also published a set of guidelines for development and implementation of a safety management 16

system, Carrier Safety Management Essentials—Guidelines to Assist in the Implementation of a Carrier Safety Manage- ment System. According to a recent unpublished feasibility study (Feasibility Study 2006), the CSMS was initially developed in response to requests from the Ontario Ministry of Trans- port as a means to deal with a spate of accidents caused by trucks losing wheels. The Ministry had intended to reference the standard in new legislation, but decided not to provide this mandate. The CSMS includes a series of requirements: • Management commitment to safety through set policies and resources • Implementation of a carrier safety management system, which includes establishing and maintaining documented procedures and records dealing with transportation safety planning, inspection, maintenance and repairs, performance monitoring, and training • Safety management system support, which includes defin- ing the various policies, procedures, and practices that must be in place to address standards requirements • A continuous improvement system including regular inter- nal safety system audits, management reviews, and docu- mented preventative actions As a complement to the published CSMS, the CSA developed a Carrier Safety Management System Qualification program. The voluntary program offers an annual auditing service that reviews the carrier’s safety management system efforts and leads to potential use of a qualification mark, consisting of a CSA CSMS label displayed on fleet vehicles. Focus. CSA indicates that the purpose of standards devel- opment was to provide a system “designed to help manage the risk of accidents and safety incidents.” An additional objective was to help carriers establish baseline processes that would result in improved performance in safety, service, and pro- ductivity, as well as promote uniform safety performance among the entire motor carrier industry. However, the prin- cipal evaluation criterion has been much narrower and relates primarily to regulatory violation rates. The standard and guide stress compliance with regulations. They do not focus on measurement of incidents and crashes. Development Process. The CSA standard was developed through a committee process that included industry repre- sentatives and regulatory specialists. The technical committee included motor carriers, industry association representatives, shippers, insurers, consumer organizations, and regulators. As part of the process, four carrier companies participated in pilot projects to provide feedback from industry representatives. Program Costs. There is no documentation of the costs of compliance with the CSMS, and the research team was unable to contact carriers in the pilot program. However, the Feasibility Study reported that initial costs for one firm included one person for two years to go beyond CSA guidelines and include more comprehensive incident reporting and tracking. One person is responsible for keeping the system active and spends about 2 days per week doing so. CSA annual manda- tory audits through its Quality Management Institute cost $6,000. The Feasibility Study also suggests the following with respect to program costs: • The CSMS implies that fleets should have an independent safety officer, which could be unrealistic in smaller fleet operations. • CSA annual audit requirements could be costly. • Required audits of on-site contractors’ safety management systems could also be costly. Continuity of Program. After the pilot effort, no addi- tional fleets appear to have been certified. Marketing and Public Relations. This aspect is a signifi- cant feature of CSMS. CSA encourages fleets to use the CSMS mark to demonstrate to customers, regulators, and the public that they have adopted a safety management system. The mark indicates a qualified carrier in a competitive marketplace. A recent press release touted certification of the last unit of a pilot test fleet, completing certification of the entire fleet. The benefit expressed was to help the firm “demonstrate to cus- tomers, enforcement agencies, and the public that it is con- tinuously meeting safety obligations, in a way that provides a consistently high level of service.” Evaluation Processes. The CSA standard includes ele- ments relating to record and reporting requirements. The Feasibility Study indicates that CSMS provides limited cover- age of safety objectives, safety indicators, and safety targets, including measurable safety objectives or monitoring and analysis of incidents. A case study report published by CSA in 2003 focuses primarily on “violation rates,” and indicates that these rates decreased with involvement in CSMS. These rates take into account driver performance, vehicle condition, and convictions, based on provincial regulatory requirements. The Feasibility Study contacts with two pilot fleets indicated that incident rates (crashes and injuries) were reduced by about 19%, and that insurance rates were reduced by 20%. 3.2.2 Mandated or Recommended Practice Standards SDDC Requirements As a condition for contracting with motor coach companies, the SDDC requires safety certification, over and above FMCSA requirements. The Military Bus Agreement provides that 17

carriers need not have an active FMCSA Safety Fitness Rating, but if the carrier receives less than a satisfactory rating, the car- rier cannot be used until the SDDC reviews the carrier’s infrac- tion. Additionally, SDDC performs a “capability survey,” involving an on-site facilities, terminals, and equipment (FTE) inspection performed by the government or an authorized subcontractor. FTE inspections are also performed periodi- cally to assure safe performance. Additionally, SDDC requires a minimum of 12 months operating experience before services are considered and imposes added requirements for drivers. For motor carriers who seek to transport military ship- ments, SDDC requires the following (over and above FMCSA requirements): • The carrier must agree to permit unannounced safety and security inspections of its facilities, terminals, employees, and operational procedures by the Department of Defense (DOD) civilian, military personnel, or DOD contract employees. • For carriers who wish to transport materials designated by DOD as protected or sensitive, the firm must be in an approved status of not less than 12 consecutive months and have satisfactory performance. Additionally, a “satis- factory” safety rating must be on file and maintained with the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Trans- portation, and/or the appropriate state agency or commis- sion in the case of intrastate transportation. Safety ratings that are “unsatisfactory,” “conditional,” “insufficient infor- mation,” or “not rated” will not be accepted. Responsible Care Beginning in 1988, the ACC (formerly the Chemical Manu- facturers Association), initiated the Responsible Care initiative. Participation in Responsible Care is mandatory for compa- nies that are members of the Council. The Council has also developed a companion program for partner companies, including motor carriers that carry chemical products. Each participating company is required to make a CEO-level com- mitment to uphold several program elements: • Measuring and reporting performance, • Implementing the Responsible Care security code, • Applying the Responsible Care management system (RCMS) to achieve and verify results, and • Obtaining independent certification that a management system is in place and functions according to professional standards. Responsible Care has been adopted by chemical and related industries in 52 countries that share a common commitment to advancing the safe and secure management of chemical products and processes. A key component of the Responsible Care system is trans- portation safety, which is treated in a generic approach for total operations, as follows. Objectives. The Responsible Care program shares a range of objectives with the ISO 9000 program. Its fundamentals are listed as follows: • Sharing best practices to improve performance and trust among business partners • Obtaining benefits from improved performance • Expanding marketing opportunities • Shaping government thinking as to need for increased regulation Focus. The principal program focus is on management practices that in themselves lead to improved performance, including safety performance. The core element is the RCMS, which is used to drive continuous improvements in environ- mental, health, safety, and security performance. The RCMS is based on the effective practices of leading private-sector companies, the Global Environmental Management Initia- tive (GEMI), the ISO, and federal regulatory requirements. The RCMS framework addresses policy and leadership; plan- ning; implementation, operation, and accountability; perfor- mance measurement and corrective action; and management systems review. A key component of Responsible Care is mandatory certi- fication of a company’s Responsible Care management sys- tem by an independent, accredited auditing firm. These firms audit headquarters and chemical facilities to ensure that every Responsible Care company has in place a rigorous framework to achieve performance and verify results. All Responsible Care companies must obtain initial certification by December 31, 2007. Thereafter, certification must be renewed every 3 years. A new cycle of certification audits begins in 2008. Companies may choose from two certification options: (1) RCMS certification, which verifies a company has imple- mented a system that functions according to professional standards or (2) RC14001 certification (a certification process developed and overseen by the Council), which combines RCMS and ISO 14001 into a single, more cost-effective audit process. In addition to earning ISO 14001 certification, the RC14001 certification enables companies to be recognized for meeting RCMS requirements that extend beyond the scope of an environmental management system, such as occupational health and safety, transportation safety, security, product stewardship, and community outreach. The Responsible Care initiative has established a compre- hensive series of standardized performance measurements through which individual companies and the industry track and publicly report their results on an annual basis. This process allows Responsible Care companies to benchmark their per- 18

formance, set specific goals and targets to improve, and verify their progress. It also enables the public to understand how industry is working to improve performance and to track the results. Performance measures and specific protocols have been established for various trucking sectors, including less than truckload, bulk trucking, non-bulk trucking, and logistics companies. A recent addition to the Responsible Care program is secu- rity. The Responsible Care security code addresses site, cyber, and transportation security. Facilities are required to conduct comprehensive security vulnerability assessments, implement security enhancements and obtain independent verification of those enhancements. Implementing the security code under a strict timeline is mandatory for members of the ACC. Development Process. The ACC provides staff support and advice to member companies and partner companies for achieving certification and for the audit and reporting processes. A number of manuals and specific guidelines are available to member and partner firms. Program Costs. There is no documented source on pro- gram compliance costs, but they can be assumed to be sub- stantial, as in the ISO 9000 program. However, most companies internalize the costs because the practices are often consistent with individual company policies. Marketing and Public Relations. The ACC encourages accredited firms to use the related marks and maintains lists and information on accredited member and partner firms on its website. Evaluation Processes. Continuing evaluation of per- formance measures is an integral part of the Responsible Care program. While the specific detailed metrics are not publicly available, the program indicates that, since 1995, the number of distribution incidents among Responsible Care member companies declined by 27%, while the volume of chemicals shipped increased 11% for the business of chemistry overall. Also, from the most recent reporting year (2002 to 2003), dis- tribution incidents declined 1.3% among Responsible Care member companies. The metrics used in this evaluation are hazardous mate- rial handling incidents reported to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Insurance Practices as Related to Certification Principles Insurance practices related to certification principles are included in the Mandated or Recommended Practice Stan- dards section (Section 3.2.2) of the Summary of Programs section (Section 3.2) because of the significant impact that insurance availability has on motor carrier operations. To the degree that insurance companies seek to influence motor car- rier firm management practices, this influence can easily override the requirements of motor carrier regulatory schemes. In effect, insurance companies are applying “certi- fication” schemes to the carriers they insure, to minimize risk (safety controls) and control costs. They are promulgating standards as a condition for an accepted business relation- ship between the carrier and the insurance company. For this reason, the nature of the “standards” can be a guide in con- sidering certification schemes, because their objectives are virtually the same. The information in the following subsections is drawn from conversations with personnel from firms that offer insurance coverage to motor carriers. They also reflect the practices of the broader motor carrier insurance industry. An overview of insurance underwriting risk evaluation schemes that are often applied in trucking coverage (called Commercial Auto- mobile Liability coverage) is also described. The subsections provide the following information: 1. Schedules and Guidelines provide a brief description of the factors insurers consider in evaluating a company and its risk. 2. Dimensions of Coverage provide the industry definitions and considerations in Commercial Auto Liability coverage. 3. Overview of Fleet Exposures provides insurer expecta- tions about the way the insured companies manage their risk factors. 4. Workers’ Compensation Model provides a description of how a more data intensive risk evaluation model is applied in workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The third element, overview of fleet exposures, has direct relevance to elements of certification. Schedules and Guidelines. Insurance underwriters must undergo an extensive prospective insured evaluation process to arrive at the appropriate price for a given policy. Insurance carriers devote significant resources to developing and refining their risk evaluation processes and, most, if not all, of these processes are proprietary. Although proprietary, most risk evaluation processes con- sider four major factors: • Program design, financial, coverage dimensions, and market conditions. Program design factors define the aggregate and single event limits and deductibles of the policy or coverage being considered. • Financial factors evaluate the ability of the insured com- pany to pay both the policy premium and the deductible portion of the anticipated losses. 19

• Coverage factors evaluate the overall nature of the insured’s business operations (as related to the policy or coverage) and the loss exposures, which are present in those business operations. • Market condition factors consider the overall insurance mar- ket profitability, competition, and societal/industry trends that may be used to adjust any policy prices. The following subsections are limited to business operations risk factors, because program design, financial, and market conditions are beyond the scope of this synthesis. Most risk evaluation models use rating guidelines and schedules when evaluating account dimension factors. The guidelines define “expected average” conditions for a given industry sector, geographical area, or both. Rating schedules define a series of credits and/or debits to compensate for any account specific variance from expected average. For example, underwriting guidelines would define expected averages for issues such as driver age, experience, and motor vehicle rating (MVR) quality for a trucking industry sector such as regional/dry van/general freight carriers. The rating schedule would define account specific credits/debits for, say poorer than expected MVR quality. For each evaluation, the sum of debits/credits for all of the coverage dimensions is fed into the pricing model and is a determinant of ultimate premium price. Dimensions of Coverage. Coverage dimensions focus on the critical elements of the business operation that could lead to losses. These include • Primary fleet business usage, • Geography, • Fleet exposures, and • Management controls. Coverage dimensions consider what the prospective insured does and how they do it. This is generally accomplished by describing the flow of the business process. Also considered is a description of the company history, with emphasis on any recent changes in the organization, management, or culture. Finally, consideration is given to any merger or acquisition activity and discontinued products, services, or operations. Primary fleet business usage considerations link the fleet to the primary business. For for-hire trucking operations, the primary business description is synonymous to the fleet business description. For all other businesses, such as private fleets, the role of the fleet in supporting the primary business is critical in evaluating the specific account risk. Geography refers to the terrain, traffic, weather, and high- way conditions of the primary locale in which the fleet is being operated. For example, risks are different in level vs. moun- tainous operations, congested (urban) vs. non congested (rural) operations, Interstate highways vs. county operations. Fleet exposures encompass the review of conditions that have led to losses (e.g., loss analysis review) or the conditions that may lead to a future loss (e.g., loss exposure). Generally, exposures for auto liability are separated into two broad categories: driver and vehicle. Management controls provide an evaluation of systems that have been put in place to prevent losses. The evaluation process begins with the results of the fleet exposure review. Consider- ation is then given to whether there are systems in place to mitigate the exposures that are present in the operation. Overview of Fleet Exposures—Driver and Vehicle. Driver exposures consider the following: • Driver record: Number and severity of moving violations. Most evaluation schemes have a matrix that defines the maximum allowable major and minor offenses. • Driver age. The percentages of younger (e.g., 24 years old and younger) and older (e.g., 65 years old and older) drivers are examined, based on studies that have confirmed a higher crash involvement rate for these groups. • Driver experience: Both total and in-type experiences are examined. For trucking, in-type experience is critical if the fleet is operating “non standard vehicle” configurations (e.g., tanker or specialized vehicles). • Driver type: This refers to the primary job of the vehicle driver. For over the road fleets, the primary job is driving. But for private fleets, driving duties may be secondary to the primary job function. • Driver turnover: Both ongoing and seasonal variations in turnover are considered. Vehicle exposures consider the following: • Vehicle type: Consideration is given to whether the vehicle is a tractor-trailer, straight truck, cement mixer, dump truck, or other. • Vehicle use: The primary “vocational” application is con- sidered. Dump trucks are different in operational risks than are general delivery vehicles. • Vehicle operation: This factor relates to how, when, where, and why vehicles are being operated. • Commodity type: Different commodities present different exposures to losses. Management controls focus on an evaluation of the safety management systems an insurer would expect to see in place for a given set of fleet exposures. Fleets are often classified by their overall standing with respect to safety management in the industry as a whole, for example, sub par, average, and 20

excelling fleet operations. These are examples of how insurers look at driver management: • Driver Qualification. This system encompasses the controls that ensure that properly qualified drivers are selected to operate the fleet vehicles. • Driver Development and Training. Insurers consider how management incorporates a continuum of training activity in driver management, including, classroom, written, and refresher training. • Driver Supervision. Insurers look carefully at the quality and depth of the system of oversight of driver behavior and activities relating to risks, including tracking of incidents and violations, as well as credentialing. • Incident Management. The most important elements insur- ers look for relate to how the fleets handle accident report- ing, accident scene handling, investigation, and remedial actions. The best practices are carefully documented and use detailed and structured approaches to ensure behavioral changes and reduction of risk activity. Fleets using these practices keep detailed records and track accidents to ensure appropriate downward trending and improved results. • Fatigue Management. Exemplary fleets carefully track driver out of service violations in driver logs, employ systematic approaches in monitoring driver logs, and carefully con- trol dispatching and route planning to ensure drivers are not put in a position that extends driving times beyond authorized hours. • Vehicle Inspection, Repair and Maintenance. Insurers con- sider that the safest fleets carefully track their vehicle out of service rates, use a process to manage daily vehicle inspec- tion reports, have preventive maintenance systems in place, “spec” vehicles to ensure safe handling loads for normal fleet operations, and keep detailed vehicle performance and maintenance records. Workers’ Compensation Model. The workers’ compen- sation model for evaluating risk differs from the model used for commercial auto liability. The principal difference is that the workers’ compensation model uses impartial external data sources that consistently track (and report) employee expo- sure (e.g., payroll/hours worked), claim, and injury data. Those sources include Insurance Services Organization and the National Council on Compensation Insurance. The result is that insurers are able to accurately determine expected losses (e.g., employee injury rates) for most Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes. These expected losses are then used to set class codes and rate schedules for broad industry groups. It is difficult to apply the workers’ compensation system to trucking because all trucking jobs cannot be put into one exposure class (SIC 4200). Within this trucking class code there is a wide variety of jobs. However, there is currently just one rate schedule for all trucking jobs. To deal with this, underwriters use a concept called “class fit” to adjust a workers’ compensation premium rate up or down (e.g., is the opera- tion at the high, medium, or low end of the trucking expo- sure class?). Also, the workers’ compensation model uses a superior “exposure” base. This base is payroll or hours worked. Payroll (and hours) can be accurately reported and audited. There is general industry agreement that more hours worked leads to more exposure. Nonetheless, there may be lessons from the workers’ com- pensation model to aid in evaluating risk in trucking opera- tions and provide a foundation for certifying safe operations. One recommendation in the insurance community is that the trucking industry should collect better accident and claim information. Second, the workers’ compensation model suggests that better identification of data needed leads to better decisions. The trucking insurance industry has confidence in its identi- fication exposures, but there is sparse data on safety perfor- mance in each exposure area. In the discussion of certification evaluation systems, a key point made is that any system must show a relationship between the certification standard and improved results. Thus, in an insurance context, a key might be to find the data sources that measure “execution.” For example, what should be measured, collected, and reported to benchmark execution in the area of effective driver training and development? What should be measured to prove effective execution of accident scene handling? What should be mea- sured to validate effective preventative maintenance systems? Whether in the context of insurance or in consideration of the effectiveness of certification regimes, the workers’ com- pensation model demonstrates the need to relate decisions on relative risk to real results. 3.2.3 Alternative Compliance Standards Australian Heavy Vehicle Safety Programs Australia has pioneered the concepts of accreditation and alternative compliance programs. An excellent summary of the history, purposes, and status of Australia’s approach can be found at www.ntc.gov.au. The topic to review is the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme (NHVAS). This section summarizes the Australian effort and current programs. It also describes ongoing considerations of the scheme and how it relates to (1) improved safety performance of involved truck fleets and (2) the voluntary, industry spon- sored TruckSafe best practices program. The NHVAS is included in this section based on the orig- inal objectives of the scheme, although some elements do not 21

provide fleets exemptions from regulatory requirements. The National Transport Commission (NTC) of Australia has undertaken a policy review of accreditation, with the aim of digesting experiences with NHVAS and related programs since 1997, and determining what policy approaches to alter- native compliance schemes might be adopted. That review is ongoing. On the basis of a range of pilot projects in Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland, the Australian Ministerial Council for Road Transport approved, in 1997, a national heavy vehicle operator accreditation process, now known as the NHVAS. In Western Australia, a non-national scheme was developed to deal with safety of restricted access vehicles near metropolitan areas. This scheme is not discussed further here, because NTC considers that it does not comply with the national policy framework and is not available across the entire country. Objectives. The NHVAS was introduced as a voluntary alternative to conventional enforcement. As presented by NTC, “it allows heavy vehicle operators to demonstrate, through audit of their transport management systems or driver assess- ments, that their vehicles and drivers comply with regulatory standards, and in doing this, operators gain access to some variation from compliance and enforcement practices.” More specifically, the long-term objectives are listed as follows: • Improve member operator efficiency by reducing impact of conventional regulatory requirements. • Raise levels of compliance of non-accredited operators through targeted enforcement. • Improve road safety. • Increase productivity of the transport industry through adoption of “good” management practices. • Allow higher mass (weight) limits to be introduced in a responsible way. Focus. In the pilot stages, three modules were considered: mass management, maintenance management, and fatigue management. The mass management and maintenance man- agement modules were offered to the industry, with fatigue management to be introduced in 2008. Operators who seek entry to NHVAS are first audited to ensure that they have the capacity to achieve the relevant stan- dards. Initial accreditation is for 2 years, with an assessment performed before expiration of the accreditation period. The program is administered under business rules for NHVAS, approved by the transport ministers of the partici- pating jurisdiction. Under the rules, operators are allowed variance in some aspects of enforcement practice, but are not exempted from applicable regulatory requirements. The costs of entry and audits are borne by the operator. NTC publishes requirements for auditing procedures. Once approved, main- tenance of accreditation is dependent on the operator’s con- tinuing compliance, and performance is monitored through compliance audits, investigation of complaints, and random compliance checks. The focus of each module is as follows: 1. Mass Management a. Standards. The focus of accreditation standards is on accurate and documented weights in trips by registered vehicles, as well as documented suspension maintenance. b. Concessions. Accredited vehicles are allowed higher weight limits than those not accredited in return for doc- umented mass management compliance. 2. Maintenance Management a. Standards. NTC indicates that “Maintenance Manage- ment Standards reflect industry ‘good’ practice and will be used to assess the suitability of elements of an opera- tor’s Maintenance Management System.” Standard ele- ments are daily checks of roadworthiness, fault recording and reporting, fault repair, maintenance schedules and methods, records and documentation, clearly defined responsibilities and accountability, an internal review system, and training and education. b. Concessions. Accredited carriers are not subject to annual inspections in jurisdictions where they are required. This concession is especially beneficial to interstate carriers. 3. Fatigue Management. While NTC does not plan to imple- ment this module until 2008, proposed polices and stan- dards have been published. a. Standards. Ten advanced fatigue management standards are involved: (1) scheduling and rostering must include fatigue management measures, (2) operating limits must provide drivers and operators flexibility to manage fatigue, (3) drivers must be in a fit state to perform duties, (4) drivers must participate in a health management system to understand fatigue, (5) management prac- tices must be directed to control fatigue risks, (6) work- place conditions must support fatigue management, (7) demonstrated knowledge and awareness must be part of the program, (8) clear responsibilities and account- abilities are to be established, (9) full documentation and records must be available, and (10) an internal review system must be in place. b. Concessions. Accredited operators are allowed extra flexibility over the “standard hours” option. For exam- ple, an accredited operator can work 14 hours per day compared with the standard 12 hours. The accredited operator will still need to keep records via logbooks or alternatives (electronic). Other flexible working arrange- ments are to be defined by NTC. Development Process and Continuity of the Program. NHVAS was developed through three pilot programs, with 22

mass management piloted in Victoria, maintenance manage- ment piloted in New South Wales, and fatigue management piloted in Queensland. The NTC, including the transpor- tation ministers of each state, embraced the scheme at the national level, and has taken responsibility for coordinating national policy and implementation efforts. Industry associ- ations in each state and nationally have been involved, as well as the individual fleets that were involved in the pilot projects. NTC continues analyzing policy and program options and sponsoring studies related to the program. Program Costs. Detailed information on costs of accred- itation is not available. However, in a policy scoping paper made available to the research team by NTC, this analysis is instructive: “There is a perception that only the larger and well-run com- panies have taken up accreditation because it can be easily accommodated within their corporate management systems. Additionally, the benefits accruing from not requiring an annual inspection through accreditation in Maintenance Manage- ment . . . for a large fleet . . . are substantial. For these companies, the marginal cost is small and the benefits represent significant productivity gains as well as providing access to reduced insurance premiums.” Marketing and Public Relations. NHVAS does not have a heavy emphasis on public relations related to accreditation, in contrast to the TruckSafe program of the ATA, presented in Section 3.2.4. Accreditation in the mass management mod- ule has become an important qualifier for competitive fleets, because it enables them to haul higher and more efficient loads. The suggestion that there may be reduced insurance premiums resulting from accreditation is another potential marketing point for participation in the scheme. Evaluation Processes. In 2005, a study published by Austroads provided an important evaluation of safety and other benefits of NVHAC and other safety accreditation schemes (Wright et al. 2005). The study focuses on a full range of safety management programs and serves as an important resource for assessing benefits of these programs. For NHVAS, the study included a large interstate fleet that had been accredited for both mass management and mainte- nance management. For maintenance management, the fleet identified the fol- lowing benefits: • Development of a qualified person in each state trained in accident investigation, with benefits in the accident claims process. • Better understanding of responsibilities through the quality assurance process. • Reduced costs through waived inspections. • Better availability of equipment and less down time. • Introduction of a maintenance software system. For mass management, the fleet identified the following benefits: • Lower running costs (i.e., fewer trips). • Higher payloads. • Clients gain through fewer loads/trucks for given tonnage. • Fewer enforcement interceptions. • Reduction in accidents. Province of Alberta PIC Program In 1995, the Province of Alberta founded the PIC program through the Ministry of Alberta Transportation and Utilities (now Alberta Transportation). The program was developed as a joint venture with a number of safety-focused commer- cial truck carrier and bus operators. The broad objective was to focus regulatory resources on operators other than those with excellent safety records, primarily through weigh station bypass (preclearance) practices. Good carriers bypass the weigh station, allowing enforcement officers to concentrate on car- riers who have not demonstrated good safety performance. Routine administration of the program was suspended in summer 2003. The Ministry of Transportation initiated a joint government/industry re-engineering effort to focus on governance, operational, and financial issues in the program. In February 2006, a new business plan was launched. The Government of Alberta has committed to provide an initial start-up investment in the new organization and to purchase and install an automated vehicle identification (AVI) preclearance system, which allows trucks to bypass weigh stations or other inspection sites. Industry participants will rent transponders and the revenue will go to the new PIC organization. PIC is a Council of the Alberta Motor Transport Associ- ation, which employs the program director and provides management support. An Advisory Council of stakeholders, including the motor transport industry and Alberta Govern- ment Representatives, governs the program. Carriers are entitled to bypass privileges if (a) their safety performance meets prescribed benchmarks and measurements and (b) they meet a defined list of program requirements and submit quarterly reports. Annual audits to ensure compli- ance with program requirements are conducted. Carriers also are entitled to exemption from a number of audits and receive prorated fees for annual vehicle registration renewal. Objectives. The program seeks to recognize carriers with high safety performance and encourage other carriers to par- ticipate through the bypass and audit exemptions members 23

receive. Through the stringent requirements, the program is designed to help members improve safety performance and ultimately improve highway safety. Another objective is to permit the Province to focus resources on carriers with poorer safety performance. Focus. Two focus elements are involved in the program: 1. Excellent safety performance, based on qualifying criteria. The PIC standards set benchmarks and measurement criteria as thresholds for entry into the program based on the following: a. A “risk factor” which is a mathematical formula weigh- ing conviction points per vehicle, collision points per vehicle, and CVSA out of service rates per vehicle. b. Lost time claim rate. c. Preventable collisions per million miles. d. CVSA out of service rate. e. Drivers’ hours of service violations. 2. Safety Program Audits, including prescribed safety man- agement procedures and practices relating to the following: a. New driver hiring and training process. b. Weights and dimensions management. c. Vehicle maintenance programs. d. Collision and near-collision analysis and corrective action process. e. Program for the on-road monitoring of drivers. f. Dangerous goods procedures. Development Process. The re-engineering effort was the basic process used to define the current PIC program. Stake- holder involvement was key to evaluating the past program and designing the current effort. Program Costs. As with other good practice programs, carriers bear and must internalize the costs of quality assur- ance procedures. The safety program audit component of PIC, with the prescribed program requirements, imposes signif- icant administrative actions that carriers must implement. Additionally, the carriers pay the lease rate for transponders used in weigh station bypass. Pre and Post Attitudes. Anecdotal information indicates that a reason for original program suspension was low carrier participation rates in relation to overall program manage- ment costs on the part of the Alberta Government. The com- mitment of the Alberta Motor Truck Association to support the current PIC program is seen as a positive endorsement by the industry organization of the value of the concept. Continuity of Program. PIC has developed a business plan for the period February 1, 2006, to March 31, 2008. After the initial Alberta Government subsidy, the program will need to bear its own costs. Carrier participation will be a test of the overall value and acceptance of the program within the com- mercial vehicle industry. Marketing and Public Relations. One of the program vision statements is that PIC will be recognized as industry leaders in safety by carriers, customers, contractors, the Alberta Government, other North American jurisdictions and the general public. Members are recognized for safety excellence and can use the program as a selling tool with customers. Additionally, participants receive lower Worker Compensa- tion Board (WCB) rates because a Certificate of Recognition is a requirement, and this entitles the bearer to a 40% reduc- tion and rebate on its WCB rates. Participation also serves as proof to insurance companies that fleets are registered in a compliance program and therefore may be eligible for a lower insurance rate. Fleets also receive an “excellence” rating on the carrier profile, which is expected to add to shipper confidence. Evaluation Processes. The program-required bench- marks and measures are in effect built-in evaluations of indi- vidual member fleet safety performance. The program intends to permit each member to measure safety performance rela- tive to other PIC members, to the industry in general, and potentially to specific industry segments. However, there is no apparent evaluation scheme to determine how PIC will affect or influence overall industry performance. United States Preclearance Programs— PrePass and NorPass PrePass and NorPass are two preclearance systems active in the United States that evolved from the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems Network (CVISN) program developed by the FMCSA in the 1990s. Both programs equip qualified carriers with transponders, and fleet vehicles are able to bypass weigh stations so long as the fleet performance is consistent with established criteria. States participate in the program by equipping weigh stations with AVI technology. PrePass sites number more than 260 in 25 states. NorPass is active in 7 states and operates close to 60 sites. HELP, Inc., the owner of PrePass, employs Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) to market and administer the program, and NorPass is administered through each individual state. Both programs have made arrangements for use of program transponders in the EZ-Pass toll system, an added benefit for program participants. Objectives. The mutual objectives of both systems are to offer carriers with strong safety performance an incentive to maintain performance through benefits of weigh station bypass, which include reduced time in transit and reduced fuel costs. For state enforcement agencies, the benefit enables concen- 24

tration on poorer performing carriers and drivers and reduces congestion at enforcement sites. Focus. Carrier qualification for both programs is based on performance measured against FMCSA safety evaluation criteria. For PrePass, bypass eligibility is based on a carrier’s vehicle and driver out of service rates and SafeStat Safety Evaluation Areas (SEAs). Carriers with 3 SEA values of 75 or greater are not eligible. In addition, carriers with a driver and vehicle SEA of 75 or greater and at least one vehicle or driver out of service rate that is double the national average are not eligible. For NorPass, each state establishes threshold criteria that are somewhat similar to the PrePass qualifications. In both systems, carrier vehicles must have a current state regis- tration through the International Registration Plan and have current International Fuel Tax Agreement status. Development Process. PrePass was developed with a broad stakeholder involvement, through HELP, Inc., a non- profit organization of carrier and state representatives. The PrePass bypass criteria were developed through a HELP, Inc., committee process. NorPass has a board of stakeholders that prescribes program details and coordinates state actions. Program Costs. PrePass carriers pay a monthly fee for each vehicle enrolled, with unlimited bypass privileges. Nor- Pass carriers purchase transponders and pay no fee for bypass of NorPass sites. NorPass carriers can seek enrollment in PrePass, use a compatible transponder, and then pay neces- sary PrePass fees. Pre and Post Attitudes. The PrePass program has some 385,000 vehicles enrolled and has achieved significant growth over the life of the program. Given the fee for use arrange- ment involved in PrePass, the enrollment level is a statement of satisfaction in the program. Continuity of Program. Both programs are ongoing and in a position to continue offering services. Evaluation Processes. Carrier safety performance is “built in” to the programs because carriers must maintain thresh- old performance to remain eligible for participation in the programs. There is no available documented information on whether these programs are achieving the objective of enabling enforce- ment personnel to focus on less safe carriers. 3.2.4 Self-Evaluation and Best Practices Standards TruckSafe TruckSafe accreditation is an industry-sponsored best prac- tices program developed in the 1990s by the ATA (see this web location for program details: http://www.atatruck.net.au/ trucksafe_about_us.html). The program is audit-based, with certification achieved after a fleet applies and submits to an audit of operations to demonstrate adherence to the Truck- Safe system requirements. Objectives. ATA represents TruckSafe as a business and risk management system designed to improve the safety and professionalism of trucking operations. The association sug- gests that the program will deliver competitive advantages to certified operators and enable operators to verify to cus- tomers that they are reducing risks through safe work prac- tices and responding to trends requiring trucking suppliers to have risk management systems in place. Other purposes are to enable fleets to • Reduce maintenance costs, • Improve truck insurance benefits, • Reduce workers’ compensation costs, and • Improve internal operational productivity and employee health and well being. Focus. The TruckSafe program offers four modules to operators: 1. Management. This module is aimed at ensuring that the fleet has documented business systems in place to cover each of the standards. 2. Maintenance. This module focuses on keeping vehicles and trailers in a safe and roadworthy condition. Elements of the standard cover daily checks, fault reporting and recording, fault repair, scheduled maintenance, maintenance records and documentation, maintenance responsibilities, internal review, and maintenance training and education. Truck- Safe maintenance certification also complies with Aus- tralia’s Maintenance component of the NHVAS. 3. Training. This module focuses on ensuring that drivers are licensed, authorized, and trained for the full range of driving tasks. 4. Workplace and Driver Health. This module focuses on (1) driver fitness and health and (2) meeting occupational health and safety requirements. It includes requirements relating to workplace health and safety, driver health screen- ing (including medical exams), roles of medical practitioner, rehabilitation, and fatigue management. Development Process. ATA developed the TruckSafe module through an industry advisory committee that main- tains oversight over the program. The ATA has also actively participated in review and involvement in the NHVAS effort and sought consistency and continuity between the programs. Program Costs. In addition to the internal costs for devel- oping processes and systems that are compliant with TruckSafe 25

standards, fleets pay application, administration, and audit fees for certification. These range from about $1,000 for the small- est fleets to nearly $10,000 for fleets with 250 vehicles or more. Pre and Post Attitudes. ATA widely disseminates infor- mation about TruckSafe certified operators and offers a num- ber of testimonials from involved operators. Certified fleets are supportive of the program and its benefits, as indicated by their continued involvement in the program. Continuity of Program. The success of TruckSafe has led to its growth within ATA, and a number of efforts to bring about consistency between NHVAS and TruckSafe. In recent years, the NHVAS program has accepted TruckSafe audits as meeting the minimum standards for the NHVAS maintenance module. Additionally, the program gained accreditation from the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services as an audited maintenance program for the purposes of the Aus- tralian Fuel Tax Credit System. An ongoing National Transport Commission policy review of accreditation programs has set out a number of options that will bring increased coordination and consistency between TruckSafe and the NHVAS. Marketing and Public Relations. ATA provides a num- ber of public relations avenues for accredited fleets and encourages individual fleet advertisement of accreditation as a competitive advantage when dealing with customers and the general public. Evaluation Processes. There is no available comprehen- sive documented analysis of how well the TruckSafe program achieves its objectives. Wright et al. (2005) includes a section on one TruckSafe accredited carrier that documents expected benefits from training, maintenance, and workplace health and safety standards included in the program. An ongoing policy review raises the question of comparing accident experience between accredited and non-accredited carriers, but this analysis is not yet available. NPTC Best Practices Program In early 2004, the NPTC initiated the Best Practices Safety Guide, an online benchmarking management tool designed to give users a comprehensive guide to implementation of best management practices in fleet safety. NPTC is a national asso- ciation representing corporate and business truck fleets. The guide can be accessed at the NPTC website at www.nptc.org. The online interactive tool is also designed to let fleets com- pare themselves with national averages and other private fleets. The users answer an electronic questionnaire that provides fleet managers a snapshot of their status in six key areas of safety performance. After the questionnaire is completed, the users receive an immediate score and general feedback based on the answers provided. They are also provided lists of recommended best practices from which they can prioritize for improvement. The guide was drawn from a web-based tool called Virtual Fleet Risk Manager. The tool was developed for an insurance company. Objectives. The core objectives of the program are to enable NPTC member fleets to reduce accidents and inci- dents, improve compliance, demonstrate responsible care on the part of management, provide focused training at reduce costs, and monitor performance improvement through a long- term, consistent practice. The guide is comprehensive, focusing on an entire management system that will improve safety performance. Focus. The Best Practices Safety Guide includes practices and suggestions for action as follows: • Leadership/Management – Management that “walks the talk” and is firm but fair – Promotion of individual accountability – Participative involvement at all levels – Open door policies – High-level visible support – Managers serve as coaches • Driver – Screening and selection practices – Orientation and training including initial and ongoing training in defensive driving and life skills – Regulatory compliance – Motivation – Incentives and rewards • Equipment – Reduction of out of service rates – Preventive maintenance schedules – Annual inspections – Safety technology – New equipment safety review – Pre/post trip process – Mechanic training and development – Vehicle specs with safety focus • Event Management – Event reporting and root cause analysis relating to accidents/incidents, hazmat spills and releases, terrorist threats, security breaches, and theft – Emergency procedures – Security planning – Investigation – Documentation – Action planning/prevention • Culture – Open communications – Pride and passion – Safety acceptability/ownership – Proactive safety approach by employees 26

– No short cuts – Team approach – Strong customer focus • Evaluation and Measurement – Accidents – Injuries – Key incidents – Observation/documentation – Audits – Roadside out of service rates – Security breaches – Product excursions Development Process. The program was developed by the NPTC Best Practices subcommittee of the Council’s Safety Committee. Much of the content was drawn from the Virtual Fleet Risk Manager program and adapted for private fleet operational settings. Program Costs. There is no cost to NPTC members for participation in the program. Sponsorships from NPTC asso- ciate member (vendors and suppliers) companies provided the start-up costs for program content design and website development. Pre and Post Attitudes. NPTC’s Safety Committee pro- vides an oversight of the Best Practices program and has gen- erally received positive feedback from those fleet managers who have used it. Continuity of Program. NPTC intends to continue the program indefinitely and continue to refine it as needed. Based on feedback received, some additional tools have been added, and emphasis on safety incentive programs is being added as well. Evaluation Processes. To date, there has been no com- parative analysis of accidents/incidents of fleets that are or are not participating in the program. A recent analysis of the Virtual Fleet Risk Manager tool could be relevant to the Best Practices program effectiveness. Napier University in the United Kingdom analyzed the core elements of the driver module of the program and found that using the tool is an effective way to identify the highest risk drivers and design risk mitigation approaches to improve their performance. Other Best Practices Guidelines and Analyses Quebec Trucking Association. The Quebec Trucking Association in Canada was developed as a member service to assist fleets in meeting safety-rating requirements under Quebec motor carrier regulations. According to the Feasibility Study, the program is entitled “Logic Software,” and offers a number of best practices guidelines, but is not as compre- hensive as the broader Canadian Safety Management Systems approach. The Feasibility Study points out that Logic Soft- ware does not provide guidance on safety policies and safety risk assessment. I-95 Corridor Coalition Field Operational Test 10: Best Practices in Motor Carrier Safety Management. In an August 2001 report prepared for the I-95 Corridor Coalition a series of factors contributing to exemplary motor carrier safety performance were identified (Stock 2001). Included in the study process was a survey of some 600 commercial motor carriers who were believed to be among the safest operators. Safety management practices of safer fleets were presented. Key factors identified as most important to safe fleets included the following: • In-house training programs • Communication and safety awareness through regular and frequent safety meetings and constant reminders that safety is the first priority • Supervision of drivers through monitoring and review of on-road performance, compliance with hours of service regulations, and traffic citations • Awards programs designed to recognize drivers who are safe • Thorough documentation and review of all accidents • Frequent equipment inspection by drivers and mechanics • Preventative maintenance and timely repairs • Enforcement focus on poor safety performers FMCSA Survey of Safety Management Practices Among the Safest Motor Carriers. In response to a request from the FMCSA, the Supply Chain Management Center of the University of Maryland published a study focusing on the safety management practices of the motor carrier industry’s safety performance leaders (Corsi and Barnard 2003). After identification of safety leaders, the study surveyed close to 150 carriers and asked for identification of key safety issues and practices. The results focused on the following: • Driver hiring practices • Driver training practices • Encouraging and reinforcing safe driving behavior • Managing and monitoring driver activities • Managing vehicle maintenance More specific subelements of these issues and practices are spelled out in the study, providing additional insight on detailed practices within each focus area. American Trucking Association Foundation Reports on Best Practices. In 1996 and 1997, the American Trucking Association Foundation (now the American Transportation Research Institute) published two research reports on effec- tive safety management practices of motor carriers. The first 27

report—Making a Difference. . . . A Compendium of Safety Management Practices of Award Winning Carriers—codified highly effective safety management practices of carriers with outstanding over the road safety performance. The second report—SafeReturns. . . . A Compendium of Injury Reduction and Safety Management Practices of Award Winning Carriers— expanded the focus of the first report to include a detailed overview of motor carrier efforts to reduce incidence and cost of workplace injuries. SafeReturns includes the substance of the first report. SafeReturns was based on a series of case studies, workshops, and surveys. The analysis identified four factors as critical to successful safety management: • Top management commitment to safety • Including employees as part of the solution • Safety focus in all aspects of the operation • A comprehensive approach The report spells out components of each of the critical factors and points out that “the most safety-efficient compa- nies follow the same basic formula—hiring, training, reviewing, compensating and managing—fairly, consistently, and with great attention to detail.” 3.2.5 Self-Evaluation and Certification Programs Related to the Commercial Motorcoach Industry The literature review did not produce any defined safety cer- tification or self-evaluation programs within the motorcoach industry. There are no publications or articles describing cer- tifications or self-evaluations within the motorcoach industry. Two different surveys have been performed by the American Bus Association and the United Motorcoach Association to provide benchmarks concerning carrier size, services, pas- senger volumes, and numerous other operating characteristics. One of these efforts was prepared for the American Bus Asso- ciation in July 2000 (Motorcoach 2000 Census) and the other was prepared in the fall 2000 for the United Motorcoach Association (2000 United Motorcoach Association Bench- marking and Operating Ratios Study). A similar type of effort is underway in Canada and should be available in the near future. Additionally, CTBSSP Synthesis 6, “Operational Dif- ferences and Similarities Among the Motorcoach, School Bus, and Trucking Industries,” presents detailed information on the motorcoach industry. While these studies provide some dimension to the size and segments of the industry and the many different operat- ing benchmarks and ratios, they do not provide any specific information regarding safety certification or self-evaluation of safety programs. Outside of the literature, there are numerous activities within the motorcoach industry in the United States and Canada to provide certifications, self-evaluations, or benchmarking in the area of safety. Some of these activities are directed specifically at particular programs (e.g., training) while others are focused on data targeted to measure accident frequencies and severities for individual companies or groups of companies. Two homogeneous motorcoach insurance captive pro- grams capture accident data from each member and develop a measurement of accidents per power unit in each fleet. The data are accumulated and analyzed over time. They are also accumulated and analyzed among each member of the group. Benchmarks are identified based on broad group data. Next, individual fleet progress in reducing accidents is monitored in relation to these benchmarks. Both of these groups have improved their accident frequency experience over time. This would suggest that benchmarking an individual company’s performance against other similar companies is worthwhile in assessing the effectiveness of a safety program. The International Motorcoach Group, an organization of more than 50 motorcoach companies, has developed and implemented a driver training program that “certifies” drivers after they complete training and pass a final exam. The intent of this program is to produce a higher quality driver because of the consistent training program used among all members. The consistency of training has proven valuable among the group because it produces a common expectation of the knowledge and ability of a driver that has successfully completed this training. No data have been compiled to reflect whether this training has produced reductions in accident frequencies for this group. As described in Section 3.2.6, the North American Trans- portation Management Institute (NATMI) has recently devel- oped and deployed a certification program for a motorcoach fleet safety director. This program was developed with the guidance and participation of the Bus Industry Safety Council, which is part of the American Bus Association. This program certifies directors of safety after they complete specified courses and pass a cumulative final exam. This certification program is administered through academic institutions to give it credibility and objectivity. Large motorcoach companies (100 or more units) have developed safety management programs that can be considered best practices within the industry. One large fleet with five oper- ating locations and more than 300 power units implemented and measured the effects of a comprehensive safety manage- ment program in 2002. This program combines the imple- mentation of safety policies and procedures that incorporate consistent hiring standards, training provisions, operational standards, and monitoring and reporting requirements. The application of this type of management system has produced a reduction in accident frequency of approximately 50%, has 28

reduced driver turnover, and has improved customer satisfac- tion. The fleet is also using technology as part of its manage- ment program. A data event recorder in each bus monitors activities and driving behavior, enhancing the overall program. Sophisticated programs such as these set the bar for the indus- try as a whole and become examples that can be reapplied, in whole or in part, by smaller operators. Many motorcoach operators transport members of the mil- itary. To do so, they must go through a rigorous review of their safety management operations. This review was developed and required by the Military SDDC. The review is consistently applied to all relevant aspects of a safety management pro- gram. The ratings received by operators provide a measure of the quality of their programs. While these ratings are not pub- lic knowledge, operators use these ratings with their customers to ensure them of the quality of their safety programs. 3.2.6 Safety Manager Certification Two related programs, targeted at individual safety managers in fleet operations, are available to safety and other program managers in the motor carrier and motorcoach industries. NATMI. NATMI has been delivering professional certifi- cation programs for several decades (see www.natmi.org). The Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Center for Integrated Transportation Safety and Security (CITSS) oversees the cer- tification process, accredits NATMI’s training programs, and administers the certification examinations. NATMI offers training in safety management and professional management certification for safety managers and safety supervisors. Certified Transportation Manager (CTP). The NPTC offers private fleet and other motor carrier professionals a comprehensive certification in management of motor carrier operations. The safety component of the certification cur- riculum includes the following elements: • Establish company environmental, health, and safety policies and standards concerning transportation. • Monitor and evaluate safety and environmental programs and training to ensure compliance and effectiveness. • Develop and implement safety and environmental programs in conjunction with personnel training. • Establish and manage environmental and safety regulations as they apply specifically to the facility. • Provide assistance and information to resolve all fleet- related insurance claims such as vehicle accidents; over, shortage, and damage (OS); workers’ compensation; haz- ardous materials; unemployment; property; and so forth. 29