One of my new trucks failed a Level 2 today,

The problem with the restarts is on slow weeks where there is no freight, you end up with a 34, run 3 days and no freight and do another 34; under the new rules you will just lose all those extra days because you will have a designated 34 restart on the same day each week. It may not hurt if you are running all the time, but what about the winter months in some market where the freight really drops.

 

Yeah, I understand this... they want to write tickets to create revenue for the State... I get it. The problem I have with CSA IS the warning citations cannot be contested under due process of the law... yet the warnings can and do punish a driver and the drivers company... under penalty of the law. Then, one can only contest this via DataQ which is reviewed by the very officers that write the warning citation. Cough... Cough, This is insane and a total conflict of interest at best... with no revenue being generated in the first place... It's real funny how the DOT guys that post in here seem to shut up when ever I point this out...

 

Well, not around here. All fines go to the school district. I don't care if they ever get another dime. No incentive to write tickets, not for financial reasons, and there is no quota or target on tickets. And what fine is associated with a warning on a DOT inspection?

Warnings on a DOT inspection (those that CSA assigns points for) are not "citations" and cannot ever land you with fines, jail time, or a criminal record. How can a warning on an inspection ever have legal ramifications? ("under penalty of the law")

Yes, DataQ inspection challenges do involve the officer who did the inspection, why should'nt they? Isn't he the one who did the inspection? However, they also get at least 2 layers of supervision above that officer involved, including that officer's direct supervisor. If there are questionable violations or a history of such, corrective action is taken, including sanctions on the officer.

Not shutting up, just waiting to have a rational conversation about the facts.

I will agree with you on one point - the CSA program has eroded the relationship between the DOT inspector and the driver/carrier. And your point about due process is well taken. I think there are lawsuits pending in Federal Court that will decide this issue and may change the nature of the CSA program.

As I have said before, I was much happier, and you and I got along much better before CSA. I would like to see it be able to improve.

 

That is the problem with the current CSA situation. Inspection violations, which used to not be such a huge deal unless they were serious violations, or many many minor violations, are now used by others (CSA). What used to just affect your Safestat score now has impact on insurance, etc.

I agree with you on the fix-it-ticket scenario. Minor violations which are easily fixed should only have a minor and short term impact. But look at it from an inspector's point of view: they are still violations during an inspection. We cannot ignore them, and when DataQ'd, if it was really a violation and really there, should it be removed?

Something needs to change, either the CSA program or they need to revamp the FMCSA roadside inspection system so minor violations do not have major implications.

 

"In a DOT capacity..." Yeah, that describes line officer inspectors. But being in a DOT capacity does not mean we have the "capacity" to change anything.

Have you ever been in the Army? How much change can a Private have on the operations of the Army? Privates cannot band together to sign a petition and carry it to the Pentagon and demand change! They would get change, just not the kind they were looking for...

 

Where did I say warnings were fines?

Nor did I say they were citations. Warnings on inspections can cause a carrier to lose authority... which bars them from business under penalty of the law. Again these 'warnings' cannot be contested under due process of the law.

Seriously, you do not see the conflict of interest here? Officers of the law... the job IS to enforce infractions of the law... period that is it. Challenges of of these enforcement actions are to be challenged or reviewed in a court in which all parties have an equal say in defending their position of an infraction of the law... This, my friend is due process. CSA allows officers of the law to unilaterally decide the outcome of a minor infraction(at least in the sense it didn't warrant writing an actual citation in the officers eyes or opinion). And NO having the officers supervisors also review the DataQ is also NOT due process.... after all they are still involved with actual enforcement too. This is an over step of police powers that is just frightening. Now an officer of the law.. under due process, has every right to be present and present their case to the judge for review of the contested infraction... CSA warnings do not allow for this...

On this we both agree... Before CSA, we could count on you guys to get the boss to fix something that we needed fixing if they were baulking. We could pull into a scale, pull around even if we had a green light... pop in, and talk to you guys about it... Then, get on the phone with the boss and say I'm at such and such scale they pulled me around... wink wink... we need this fixed ASAP as in now... wanna talk to the DOT officer about it... And it got fixed within hours... Now, no driver in their right mind would do such a thing.

 

Not exactly, and definitely not a quick thoughtless process. http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/Interventions.aspx

There are avenues of redress, but no due process of law as most understand it is required or available. Why you ask, because whether it's a citation or warning if it's a violation of the FMCSR's, it's a "Regulation" violation, not a violation of "Law". There is a difference.

In the case of those enforcing the FMCSR's their job is not enforcing laws, but enforcing compliance with regulations, regulations that carry "civil" penalties, not criminal "law" penalties.

If you wish to challange an action (After your Data Q) in reference to a civil violation of a regulation, you must involve yourself in a civil action in court. In many if not most cases you will have to initiate the action. There usually is no infraction of law as you stated but a violation of a regulation. Big difference where due process is concerned.

The enforcement officer does not unilaterally decide the outcome. He merely documents any violations of the regulations either by citation or warning. He/she has no way of knowing the eventual outcome. As far as a warning rather than a citation is concerned, a violation must still exist for a warning, you just escape a fine with the warning. They could just quit writing warnings on inspections, and issue citations. Now you get a fine as well as a CSA value for the company.

Couple of things, one already noted above. Due process "under law" as you understand it, is for criminal charges, not regulatory compliance enforcement. Due process for regulatory enforcement is what ever is afforded you by the regulations, laws covering regulation enforcement and court decisions within the scope of administrative law.

What is a CSA warning? The warning is for a violation of the FMCSR's. Warnings do carry weight with CSA. Until one recognizes and understands the difference between laws and regulations, and law enforcement and regulation compliance enforcement they will continue making the same due process mistake.

Best regards