This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
FROM THE HILL • Violations that are factually incorrect.


• Violations for items not required by regulation (e.g., 100 air mile radius driver lacing a logbook).


• Crashes attributed to the carrier because the vehicle was towed, but not due to disabling damage.


EXAMPLES OF DATAQ REQUESTS YOU SHOULD NOT FILE:


• Crashes where you believe your driver was not at fault. Though reasonable, these requests will not be considered. Don’t waste your time or burden the system with these requests.


• Unsubstantiated claims (e.g., your driver states that the violation did not occur).


• The violation occurred but you took correction action (e.g., you fired the driver or repaired the defect).


• Citations that were “reduced” or removed, but not based on the merits of the charge (e.g., plea bargain, citing officer failed to appear in court). FMCSA’sDataQsUser’s Guide recommends states honor such challenges only when the citation as dismissed because the violation was cited erroneously.


IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS FORMOTOR CARRIERS


• Frivolous Challenges- The filing of frivolous challenges should be actively avoided. Engaging in this practice substantially burdens the system, making it more difficult for states to address legitimate DataQ requests in a timely fashion. Also, it is simply counterproductive. Carriers that abuse the system are less likely to have any of their requests taken seriously or addressed promptly, including those that have merit.


• Stacking – Many carriers fileDataQs to address circumstances they consider to be “stacking,” without fully understanding how stacking is defined. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) defines stacking as the issuance of separate citations for the same violation or the compounding of fines on a single citation for multiples of the same violation. For example, issuing a separate citation for each of three brakes out of adjustment, rather than a single citation for exceeding 20% of the brakes out of adjustment, would be considered stacking. Also, issuing separate citations for an inoperative turn signal and an inoperative stop lamp, rather than a single citation for one inoperative bulb, would be considered stacking too.


It is important to point out that when You’ve been looking for something like this for a long time. Call today!


violations of the same section are cited repeatedly they will only count once in the CSA Safety Measurement System. For instance, if a roadside inspection report reflects several separate violations for lighting (393.9 a)., the carrier will only be assessed 2 points (the severity weight for a single violation). If, however, several lighting violations are cited under separate sections (e.g., 393.9a and 393.9t) the carrier will be assessed points for each uniquely cited violation. RW


10 ROADWISE | ISSUE 4, 2013 | www.mttrucking.org


T


H


E


B


E


S


T


O


F


B


O


T


H


O


W


R


L


D


S


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24