Add your feed to SetSticker.com! Promote your sites and attract more customers. It costs only 100 EUROS per YEAR.

Title


Description

TAG 15/20


Your domain [ rss | feed ]


Pleasant surprises on every page! Discover new articles, displayed randomly throughout the site. Interesting content, always a click away

One Source Freight Solutions

Distribution & Logistics Solutions

VIDEO: Preventability Determinations without Rulemaking: Why Should the Trucking Industry Care? 9 Sep 2019, 3:25 pm

SUMMARY VIDEO (12:00) on ASECTT YouTube channel


Preventability Determinations without Rulemaking: Why Should the Trucking Industry Care?

Presented by: Mark Andrews, Henry Seaton, and Rick Gobbell
On behalf of the Motor Carrier Regulatory Reform Coalition 
9/6/2019  https://vimeo.com/asectt/preventability

0:00 Introductions
4:44 David Gee Message
12:52 Discussion Topics
—
CALL TO ACTION
1:01:55 What is next?
• We must hold the Agency accountable for submitting this issue for rulemaking.
• Petition for Rulemaking filed June 14, 2019 by MCRR representing over 10,000 regulated carriers. (See asectt.blogspot.com and follow the link to “Preventability.”)
• In letter dated August 21 and received August 29, 2019 the FMCSA denied Petition for Rulemaking, merely shunting it over to the “guidance” docket on “Preventability.” See regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2014-0177-0147.
• Request to General Counsel.
• Extension and FOIA request will be filed.
• Must file judicial appeal by October 20 if August 21 letter is final order. 
—
 DISCUSSION TOPICS
13:24 What are Preventability Determinations?
• FMCSA’s proposal to adopt a program to examine certain categories of crashes upon request by using an unvetted, undefined “preventability” standard.
• Preventability is an artificial construct of the Agency’s choosing and would apply only to limited categories of crashes (8 categories were used in the test study but the Agency plans to expand without analysis).
• Crashes determined to be nonpreventable would be removed from the list of recordable accidents.
• Based upon the test study, 5,247 crashes would be removed leaving about 125,000 crashes annually as recordable and “presumed preventable.”
• 6,632 additional RDRs were submitted and rejected either as “preventable” or as not falling within an “eligible” crash category, thus of 12,247 submitted only 43% were granted.
—
16:18 Where would this appear and for what purpose?
ANSWER:
• Crash information published by Agency on website / purpose not identified.
• Data used in SMS scores not published as per FAST Act but available to public from third parties.
• Preventability finding is not for Agency’s own use!
• But clearly intended as an alternative vetting criteria for use by shippers, brokers, insurers and plaintiff’s bar.
—–
44:22 Typical Agency rejection of RDR submission:
“The Crash Preventability Demonstration Program Request for Data Review (RDR) that you submitted is ineligible for participation in the program because there is no evidence the other driver was operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol.”
—
46:49 How does this tie into CSA 2010 and the FAST Act?
After the decade old CSA 2010 run-up and implementation as guidance, Congress added the following additional perquisites to use of CSA which have not been addressed in the Notice and Request for Comment.
—
48:45 If there are all these issues with the preventability program, how does the Agency propose to adopt this program with these unanswered challenges?
Answer: By bypassing rulemaking and issuing a 60 day “Notice and Request for Comment” and then ignoring the principal issues and administrative law requirements and adopting the program as “Guidance”
See “Crash Preventability Determination Program” Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0177 (regulations.gov)
Comments due October 4, 2019
—
50:32 Take Note
• Making new policy by “Guidance” is the procedural tool for bureaucratic overreach.
• The preventability program bears all the hallmarks of being a “rule,” not mere guidance.
• Administrative Procedure Act (APA) – section 551(4) defines a rule as “the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret or prescribe law or policy (emphasis added).”
—
1:08:38 Conclusion
—
1:09:49 • APA issues aside, the program also would modify CSA accident scoring in a way that requires – but has not received – detailed scrutiny under section 5221 of the FAST Act (Pub.L. 114-94). Going forward, the program would “remove crashes with not preventable determinations from the SMS Crash Indicator BASIC calculation” (84 Fed.Reg. at 38090). As noted above, however, only a small minority of reportable crashes would benefit from the program, whether defined as in the past or under the guidelines going forward.

Making and Publishing Preventability Findings as Guidance without Due Process or Rulemaking – a Mistake of Epic Proportion 14 Aug 2019, 8:26 pm


[CLICK HERE FOR PDF]
Making and Publishing Preventability Findings as Guidance without Due Process or Rulemaking – a Mistake of Epic Proportion
Henry E. Seaton
Law Office of Seaton & Husk, LP
henryseaton@transportationlaw.net
info@transportationlaw.net
www.transportationlaw.net


FMCSA proposes expanded crash preventability determination program
Based on its two years’ experience with a demonstration program, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced that has decided to operate a crash preventability demonstration program that would use a streamlined process and exclude from Safety Measurement System metrics those crashes found to be not preventable. In an August 5 Federal Register notice, FMCSA also said that it would tweak the existing list of reviewable crashes slightly and would begin reviewing additional crash types to determine whether they, too, are predominantly not preventable. Crashes through July 2019 would be reviewable under the demonstration program, which will continue through September. Also, crashes reviewed during the demonstration program would remain in the calculation of the SMS Crash Indicator BASIC.
FMCSA invited comments on the proposal by October 4. However, the published document is not a formal notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In June, the Motor Carrier Regulatory Reform (MCRR) coalition of 10 trucking-related organizations submitted a petition to FMCSA for a rulemaking in the event it planned, as publicly announced, to change how it analyzes and publishes data on motor carrier crashes. A major problem with FMCSA’s approach is that the term “preventability” does not equate to carrier fault or a systemic violation of safety violations, the MCRR coalition argued. Although FMCSA plans to make changes in the allowable crash types and in the review process in October, the agency said proposed SMS changes would go into effect only after review of comments.
            
FMCSA is modifying the existing crash types under the demonstration program slightly. The most significant change is to expand “motorist under the influence” to “individual under the influence” to allow for non-preventable findings of crashes involving impaired pedestrians and bicyclists. The agency also plans to test eight additional crash types that frequently were submitted during the demonstration program but did not qualify under the terms of the program. In a couple of cases, FMCSA will test non-preventability determinations for crashes where another driver involved in the crash – but not the one striking the CMV – was under the influence or driving in the wrong direction. Other crash types FMCSA plans to test include those where the CMV is struck:
·      On the side in the rear;
·      By a vehicle that did not stop or slow in traffic;
·      By a vehicle that failed to stop at a traffic control device;
·      By a vehicle that was making a U-turn or illegal turn;
·      By a driver who experiences a medical issue that causes the crash;
·      By a driver who admits falling asleep or to distracted driving.
The agency said it planned to review the new crash types for 24 months, but it may cut that short if it gathers enough information to discontinue the type or make further changes.
FMCSA acknowledged that because SMS is a relative system, removing crashes from the Crash Indicator BASIC may increase the percentiles of other carriers, potentially resulting in a higher percentile for a carrier that had no additional crashes. The agency noted, however, that the Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles are not publicly available and can be accessed only by the motor carrier, FMCSA, and law enforcement users. “This change would not change any carrier’s safety fitness rating or ability to operate, not would it establish any obligations or impose legal requirements on any motor carrier.”
For the Federal Register notice, visit https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-16693.
COMMENT: Crash Preventability Determination Program
The Agency is attempting to avoid scrutiny of the program as required by rulemaking, the Administrative Procedures Act, the FAST Act, and administrative rulings. The preventability standard has not been vetted, the Agency has not provided for due process or judicial appeal or offered any justification for publishing preventability findings which the Agency itself cannot use or prove with any certainty affects carrier compliance. This is the most important issue because past experience has taught publication of roadside data using artificial standards and statistical flaws results in misuse by shippers, insurers and particularly plaintiff’s bar to the detriment of the vast majority of carriers who are unrated.
MCRR has filed the attached formal Petition for Rulemaking well in advance of the Agency’s notice which to date has been ignored. Now is the time for the Agency to withdraw its Notice and Request for Comments. This issue is too important to allow the Agency to summarily avoid making findings of fact and conclusions of law in the required rulemaking process or the safeguard against bureaucratic overreach. 
CALL TO ACTION
Your help and support is needed! Please email info@transportationlaw.net and request participation with MCRR members in responding to this issue. Please also visit  http://asectt.blogspot.com/ for important updates. Thank you!
Henry E. Seaton
Law Office of Seaton & Husk, LP
2240 Gallows Road
Vienna, VA 22182
Tel: 703-283-4251
henryseaton@transportationlaw.net
[VIEW  Petition for Rulemaking on Scope and Use of “Preventability” here http://asectt.blogspot.com/2019/08/petition-for-rulemaking-on-scope-and.html]

Petition for Rulemaking on Scope and Use of “Preventability” 14 Aug 2019, 4:11 pm


BEFORE THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Docket No. FMCSA-_______________
THE MOTOR CARRIER REGULATORY REFORM (“MCRR”) COALITION’S
PETITION FOR RULEMAKING ON SCOPE AND USE OF “PREVENTABILITY” DETERMINATIONS IN ASSESSING SAFETY FITNESS OF MOTOR CARRIERS

           COMES NOW, the Motor Carrier Regulatory Reform (MCRR) coalition and files this its Petition for Rulemaking under 49 C.F.R. § 389.31.  MCRR submits that rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 551, 553) is a necessary prerequisite to any permanent implementation of a process for determining “preventability” of commercial motor vehicle accidents as proposed in the Crash Preventability Demonstration Program (“CPDP”) announced by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA” or “Agency”) in July 2017.
I.  Identity of the Parties
            MCRR for the purpose of this Petition is composed of ten trade associations including:
                        Air and Expedited Motor Carriers Association
                        Alliance for Safe, Efficient and Competitive Truck Transportation
                        American Home Furnishings Alliance/Specialized Furniture Carriers
                        Apex Capital Corp.
                        Auto Haulers Association of America
                        National Association of Small Trucking Companies
                        Tennessee Motor Coach Association
                        The Expedite Alliance of North America
                        Transportation & Logistics Council
                        Transportation Loss Prevention & Security Association
            Petitioners’ membership includes shippers, brokers and carriers directly affected by the proposed preventability procedure and publication of preventability findings.  MCRR’s membership includes over 10,000 small, frequently unrated motor carriers.  Their interests are entitled to statutory protection under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Paperwork Reduction Act and other requirements for administrative due process before they are assigned safety fitness ratings that can put them out of business under 49 CFR Part 385.
            Petitioners’ interests require particularized regulatory analysis prior to implementation of any guidance having the effect of a new rule.  If CPDP were made permanent in August 2019 as recently announced by the Secretary of Transportation, the result would be a comprehensive re-definition of what constitutes accident “preventability” for purposes of calculating the “accident factor” used in assigning safety ratings to motor carriers under 49 C.F.R. Part 385, Appendix B, section II.B(e).  Unquestionably, this re-definition of an essential term used in the safety fitness determination process under 49 U.S.C. § 31144 would set a new standard of “general … applicability and future effect,” thus constituting a new “rule” within the meaning of APA (5 U.S.C. § 551(4)).  If CPDP is baked into the safety fitness determination process without being vetted in the rulemaking docket for which MCRR petitions here, the result will be an open-and-shut violation of the APA.
II. Background
            Over 98 percent of the 525,000 motor carriers the Agency regulates are small businesses under Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines.  The Agency is required to make safety fitness determinations and disclose those determinations to the public under 49 U.S.C. § 31144(a)(3).  Yet during the past 9 years, the Agency has been able to provide actual safety ratings to only about 12,000 carriers per year even when using its methodology known as Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) as a supposed improvement over Part 385 procedures.  The resulting regulatory limbo has left over 95 percent of the regulated carriers in a position of not holding a current safety rating, thus operating as “unrated” yet approved by the Agency to perform service on the nation’s roadways.
            Neither collecting and publishing CSA roadside data and scores nor issuing crash preventability findings can be shown to advance the Agency’s mandate to provide safety ratings to all carriers. The insufficient data quality and systemic flaws of CSA have not been addressed almost ten years after its implementation.  No compelling argument for making preventability determinations has been made to show how the Agency’s mandate of issuing safety ratings to all carriers would be enhanced.
            MCRR’s proposal for a biennial desktop audit (modeled on the Agency’s current process for desktop audits of “new entrant” motor carriers under 49 U.S.C. § 31144(g))[1]is a more effective proposal which should be considered prior to institutionalization of preventability determinations, resumed publication of CSA scores, or further tinkering with the Agency’s sketchy “Corrective Action Plan” for CSA under the FAST Act.  In any event, the CPDP should not be made permanent until it is (i) reviewed as a proposed rule under APA, (ii) subjected to cost-benefit analyses based on likely caseloads, (iii) safeguarded with administrative appeal processes, (iv) expanded to include many additional categories of accidents which often involve no fault of the carrier, and (v) clarified to reflect that no determination of fault by the Agency is expressed or implied with regard to accident categories not within the expanded scope of CPDP.
III. Argument
            The Agency has no statutory mandate to set up ad hoc tribunals for making so-called “preventability” determinations.  As used in the CPDP test study, the preventability standard is an artificial construct with no proven correlation to causation, fault, or carrier liability, much less is it a proven indicator of safety compliance by carrier management or a proven predictor of future crashes.
            1.         Requirement for Rulemaking. In considering the Agency’s CSA 2010 / SMS program, Congress expressly included the following relevant provisions in the FAST Act (Pub.L. 114-94), which mandate APA-compliant rulemaking, preclude the misuse of guidance and forbid the republication of CSA/SMS scores without subsequent Congressional approval.  See, for example:
            — Section 5202, which expands public participation in formulation of major rules, and requires regulatory impact studies on representative segments of the motor carrier industry.
            — Section 5303, which mandates periodic review, public comment and weeding out in relation to FMCSA “guidance” documents.
            — Section 5304, which requires USDOT to publish, prioritize and take tangible action on all rulemaking petitions, rather than merely sitting on them.
            — Section 5221, which requires detailed scrutiny of the statistical validity of any proposed program to reform or replace CSA – a process which the Agency has barely begun.
            The National Transportation Policy, 49 U.S.C. 13101, also requires the Agency to consider the effect of any new policy initiative on the needs of the traveling and shipping public, and on free market competition in which all carriers, regardless of size, compete on an equal footing if they are fit to operate.
            2.         Effect on Small Businesses. Petitioners submit that establishing a preventability standard, particularly for small unrated carriers, will have the unintended consequences of (1) establishing an inaccurate alternative vetting standard that will result in a higher insurance cost; (2) fomenting reluctance on the part of the shipping public to use carriers whose crashes have not been determined to be preventable; and (3) resulting in misuse of “preventability” by the plaintiffs’ personal injury bar to characterize small and unrated carriers as unfit for use under an alternative standard that is inconsistent with statute and existing regulations.
            3.         Due Process. While crash preventability is considered in the context of a compliance review, the broad exceptions to preventability review under the test program are very different from those used under Part 385.  The CPDP offers no procedure for adjudication, and no appeals process.  As proposed, it amounts to an ad hoc grand jury proceeding in which the crash is presumed preventable.  By the proposed publication of 130,000 crashes annually as subject to the preventability standard, small carriers will be required to pre-litigate every reportable crash at significant cost.
            Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 504, information and data collected by enforcement officers concerning crashes are not admissible in court.  Moreover, MCRR can show that SMS methodology and the concept of “preventability” is frequently used by the plaintiffs’ bar to prejudice a jury’s attitude toward the defendant carriers and the motor carrier industry in particular.  Even more troubling is the fact that many recorded crashes would never be screened as preventable or non-preventable under the current program, because their fact patterns would not fit the narrow strictures currently defined by the Agency.  This scoping issue would have a particularly misleading effect with respect to small carriers, given the small sample sizes and the paucity of crash data available in their safety records.
            The only tangible effect of case-by-case “preventability” determinations by the Agency would be to create yet another series of bogus “safety” evaluations which the plaintiffs’ bar could portray – along with legally and statistically flawed CSA data – as seemingly plausible alternatives to Part 385 safety ratings and/or SAFER snapshots.  “Preventability” determinations would be even more insidious than CSA because they would misuse the findings made on individual crashes to undermine the carrier’s over-all safety record – and to cast doubt on its legal status as fit to operate and fit to use pursuant to the determinations necessarily made by FMCSA under section 31144 in order to register it as a motor carrier in the first place.       
            4.         Absence of Cost-Benefit Analysis. There has been no cost-benefit analysis for making the preventability study permanent.  Based upon the Agency’s own data, Petitioners can show the results are insignificant.  During the test period the Agency made determinations on less than 5 percent of the crashes and found that almost half of the crashes submitted for review could not be considered under the narrow fact patterns eligible for review.  Even when front facing cameras show crashes caused by motorists drifting left of center and hitting the commercial motor vehicle head on, the Agency has declined to determine the accident was preventable because the motor carrier could not demonstrate the motorist was either drunk or attempting to commit suicide.
            5.         Need for True Regulatory Reform. Executive Orders 13771 and 13777 require the Agency to remove two regulations for each new regulation it proposes. In this context, MCRR submits that the scope and magnitude of adopting a permanent preventability standard and publishing its results is premature to say the least, at a time when Congress and the Agency are still working through the procedures prescribed by the FAST Act with regard to the future of CSA/SMS and the validity and use of roadside truck safety data in general.
            Clearly, the adoption of the test program as guidance would impose a new and significant financial burden on carriers, requiring them to contest preventability immediately upon the occurrence of any accident so as to avoid the adverse consequences of loss of business and increased insurance rates that would flow from a preventability determination.  Moreover, accident reconstruction and litigation is a long drawn-out process; its effects on the carrier would be compounded by having to submit a request for an FMCSA preventability determination and by gathering all of the facts in support thereof.  The resulting burdensome costs of this additional layer of fact-finding have not been calculated and are not covered by insurance.  Thus, adopting the preventability standard by guidance would have a significant financial impact and effect on the industry.  It also would insert the Agency into the role of quasi-judicial finder of fact, imposing substantial new administrative burdens on FMCSA and the motor carrier industry alike.
IV.  Conclusion and Request for Relief
            For all the reasons stated in this Petition, imposition of a new fact-finding regime on the trucking industry and on the Agency’s small staff – especially through the short cut of “guidance” – would be an ill-considered diversion from the safety compliance mission to which FMCSA always has given priority.  The result would be to make it even more difficult for the Agency to fulfill its statutory mandate of assigning safety ratings to all carriers it regulates.  If the Agency is to consider taking on additional fact-finding duties as a federal accident review board, it should do so only after full public notice and comment on such issues as (i) who would do the fact-finding; (ii) whether the fact-finders would be agency employees, contractors or both, (iii) how their work would be funded without further crippling the carrier safety rating process, and (iv) how to provide appropriate disclaimers for accidents as to which no findings would be made due to limitations on fact patterns eligible for review.
                                                                        Respectfully submitted,
                                                                        THE MOTOR CARRIER REGULATORY
                                                                        REFORM COALITION
SIGNATURE-HES                                                                        By Counsel:
                                                                        Henry E. Seaton, Esq.
                                                                        The Law Office of Seaton & Husk, LP
                                                                        2240 Gallows Road
                                                                        Vienna, VA 22182
                                                                        T: 703-283-4251; F: 703-573-9786
                                                                        henryseaton@transportationlaw.net
                                                                        Mark Andrews, Esq.
                                                                        Clark Hill, PLC
                                                                        1001 Pennsylvania Ave NW
                                                                        Suite 1300 South
                                                                        Washington, DC 20004                                   
                                                                        T: 202-552-2352; F: 202-572-8684
                                                                        mandrews@clarkhill.com

[1]See Comments submitted by MCRR in “Regulatory Review” Docket No. DOT-OST-2017-0069 (November 16, 2017) at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-1680and Comments submitted by MCRR to the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) (July 19, 2018) at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2006-26367-0154.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 19, 2019 19 Jun 2019, 4:04 pm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 19, 2019

Trucking industry coalition pushes FMCSA for rulemaking before changing crash metrics

A coalition of 10 trucking-related organizations has petitioned the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for a rulemaking if the agency intends to change how it analyzes and publishes data on motor carrier crashes. The petition was filed on June 14, 2019, by the Motor Carrier Regulatory Reform (MCRR) coalition, which includes organizations representing more than 10,000 carriers, shippers and brokers.

FMCSA officials have indicated that they plan to make permanent as a matter of enforcement policy its crash preventability pilot program, which has been in place for nearly two years. As of the end of the first quarter this year, carriers had submitted nearly 11,000 requests for crash preventability determinations under FMCSA’s narrowly defined program since August 2017. However, the program has not been subject to a formal rulemaking process.

In its petition, the MCRR coalition argued that FMCSA must conduct a rulemaking before adopting any permanent program to call balls and strikes on crashes. Publication of preventability metrics would, among other things, constitute a violation of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and federal executive orders intended to protect the industry against bureaucratic overreach in the name of guidance, the coalition told the agency.

A key problem with FMCSA’s approach is that the term “preventability” is an artificial construct that does not equate to carrier fault, much less to a systemic violation of safety regulations. The MCRR coalition argues that the publication of preventability data and metrics would result in increased insurance rates and lost business by carriers that the FMCSA acknowledges are fit to operate and, therefore, fit for shippers and brokers to use. The subjectivity of the preventability standard and its lack of due process suggest that adopting the trial program as policy guidance would hurt the industry, especially small carriers.

About the MCRR coalition
Motor Carrier Regulatory Reform (MCRR) coalition is an affiliation of organizations that frequently weigh in with FMCSA and Congress to promote reasonable regulation and enforcement affecting motor carriers and their business partners. The coalition membership varies slightly depending on the particular issue. For purposes of the crash preventability rulemaking petition the coalition includes:

  • Air and Expedited Motor Carriers Association
  • Alliance for Safe, Efficient and Competitive Truck Transportation
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance/Specialized Furniture Carriers
  • Apex Capital Corp.
  • Auto Haulers Association of America
  • National Association of Small Trucking Companies
  • Tennessee Motor Coach Association
  • The Expedite Alliance of North America
  • Transportation & Logistics Council
  • Transportation Loss Prevention & Security Association
Yours truly,
David Gee, Chairman of ASECTT
ASECTT@gmail.com

What is the IRT? 25 Mar 2019, 7:57 pm


What is the IRT?

Henry E. Seaton


IRT stands for Item Response Theory. It is the FMCSA’s acronym for a new numbers-crunching proposal which would allow the Agency to develop a new system to process and publish new algorithm driven scores for motor carriers.

An excellent article on the IRT model written by Nell Sedransk, PhD will be published soon in the Journal of Transportation Management. Critics of CSA SMS methodology, of which I am one, point out that the NAS in recommending the IRT method noted that it did not address data sufficiency or accuracy issues which have plagued SMS methodology and led to its removal.

Under the Daubert standard used for admission of studies and analyses in court, data accuracy issues must be addressed. Also, OMB requires the FMCSA to follow the Data Quality Act which places restraints on Agency publication of findings which cannot be supported as true or accurate.

Although the NAS suggests inclusion of a number of invasive and irrelevant data issues like driver pay, driver turnover, and method of pay, the IRT is left with basically the same roadside data which has been roundly criticized.

The IRT, when using SMS data, is faced with the same junk-in-junk-out issue which led the Agency to present and then withdraw the safety fitness determination rulemaking that would have identified based on data a mere 252 carriers for an unsat, the majority of whom had no relevant crashes based on the Agency’s own data.

One must ask, how can the Agency propose to use the same flawed and insufficient data and expect a different result?

Moreover, there is a new significant and looming issue with the misuse of algorithms and mathematical profiling which the FMCSA’s pivot to the IRT presents. In an article entitled, “Our Software is Biased Too” it is noted that “Data scientists and civil rights groups are raising the alarm about algorithms that determine everything from who goes to jail to how much your insurance will cost.” See Wall Street Journal (March 23,-24, 2019) at B4.

The author concludes, “No matter how much we know about algorithms making them ‘fair’ may be impossible.” Clearly, the publication of algorithm-generated carrier scores to determine which carriers go to “safety jail” and which ones are subject to crippling insurance costs presents a systemic fairness issue because of the data sufficiency issues for small carriers.

OSFS Tracking – Case Study 7 Aug 2017, 6:04 pm

OSFS Tracking Device – Case Study

One Source Freight Solutions was contacted by the President of a local Election Printing and Services company in early 2016.

This company had been contracted to supply the election ballots for the 2016 Presidential Election for several states Nationwide.

It was estimated there would be close to 200 palletized orders routed from their facility in the coming months which would require a variety of service modes to locations throughout the United States.

Improved visibility was a key priority for this project.

Several concerns drove their request for an improved solution above and beyond the traditional sporadic GPS updates.

Specified requirements included:

  • Provide internal and external updates of order’s location several times per day
  • Verify order is following its pre-determined / time specific path in route to its final destination.
  • Receive alerts if the order travels outside of the pre-determined path.
  • Provide real-time visibility to specific contacts with a “need to know” status
  • Proactively address any challenges related to delays in transit.
  • Provide delivery arrival updates to receiving department contacts
  • Safeguard against tampering, theft or hijacking concerns

A small tracking device was selected that could meet and exceed the above requirements.  Several devices were purchased along with the recommended cellular service to monitor each device.  A process was then created to oversee the dispatch of the order, location while in transit, delivery of the order and return of each device.  The tracking device was placed in a pre-addressed FedEx envelope and affixed to a pallet for every order.  In each case the receiving contact was alerted to retrieve this envelope upon delivery and set aside for FedEx to pick up so it could be quickly returned to Phoenix for its next outbound journey.

Batteries became fully charged within the course of a day and the battery life had the ability to last for several weeks.

The project was completed in Nov 2016. A meeting was later set to review the entire project. Our client reported 100% satisfaction. Each order delivered on time and met the necessary visibility requirements.

GPS Tracking Unit – Example from previous shipment

2017 UNEDA Conference White Paper 28 Apr 2017, 8:35 pm

We had a great time sponsoring and attending UNEDA’s North American Conference. Take a look at our OSFS Asset Recovery Logistics White Paper summarizing our offerings and capabilities!

Reach out via email to John Martin or John Genzale for more information or to quote. We look forward to building a customized and cost effective solution to your asset recovery, reverse logistics, or white glove needs!

 

Super Charlie Scramble – Charlie Luther Fundraiser Golf Tournament 9 Jan 2017, 9:33 pm

Come join us for a great cause on Friday, January 13th, 2017 – 1:00pm shotgun at Lone Tree Golf Club to help raise money for Thomas Luther’s son Charlie Luther who was recently diagnosed and being treated for Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. We’ll be doing a 1pm shotgun start and the format will be an 18 hole scramble with the usual fun games and drinking holes.

ABOUT CHARLIE LUTHER

On November 11th, Charlie Thomas Luther was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. As devastating as this news has been Charlie has responded like a true champion. He is fighting this disease with a positive attitude and wants to someday be a mentor for other children going through this difficult journey. His giving heart has given way to a flood of questions regarding support.

The Luther family is extremely grateful to have such an incredible network of friends and family around us to offer up any support that may be needed. Through this network a fund raising Golf Tournament has been set up to assist the family with the burden a cancer diagnosis can deliver. All proceeds will go towards covering any medical costs outside insurance coverage, healthy fresh meals for Charlie, home schooling needs, and any unforeseen costs. In the event all costs are covered by insurance and this fund raising activity, all remaining proceeds will be donated directly to Phoenix Children’s Hospital Cancer unit.

It was a life changing experience for the Luther’s to be there with Charlie and they would like to give back to all those that are fighting this wicked disease and those that work diligently to find a cure should there be any surplus funds resulting from the event and other donations received to date. We are all confident that Charlie will rise above to conquer this battle so that he can continue to play football, go paint balling and get back to doing everything an 11 year old boy should be doing!

Once you’ve completed payment, please contact Todd Zegers at tzegers@cloudblue.com or 602-502-3247 to confirm your foursome.

 

If you are interested please follow the link below:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/super-charlie-scramble-charlie-luther-fundraiser-golf-tournament-tickets-30016702766?utm_source=eb_email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=order_confirmation_email&utm_term=eventname&ref=eemailordconf

 

NMFC’ National Motor Freight Class guidelines, effective April 18, 2015, concealed damages must be reported to carriers within 5 days after delivery. 21 Apr 2015, 2:20 pm

Currently, concealed damages can be reported up to 15 days after delivery for consideration of a valid claim, but per NMFC guidelines effective April 18, 2015, the time period for reporting concealed damages is being reduced 5 days.  .

 

Supplement 1 to NMF 100-AO, effective April 18, 2015

 

ITEM 300135-A REPORTING CONCEALED DAMAGE

(a) When damage to, or loss of, contents of a shipping container is discovered by the consignee that could not have been determined at time of delivery it must be reported by the consignee to the delivering carrier upon discovery. (b) Reports must include a request for inspection by the carrier’s representative. (c) Notice of loss or damage and request for inspection may be given by telephone or in person, but in either event must be confirmed by sa written or electronic communication. s (d) While awaiting inspection by carrier, the consignee must hold the shipping container and its contents in the same condition they were in when damage was discovered, insofar as it is possible to do so. s (e) Unless otherwise specified by the carrier, notice of loss or damage should be provided to the carrier within five (5) business days from the date of delivery. s (f) If five (5) business days, or such other period as specified by the carrier, pass between the date of delivery of the shipment by carrier and date of report of loss or damage and request for inspection by consignee, it is incumbent upon the consignee to offer reasonable evidence to the carrier’s representative when inspection is made that loss or damage was not incurred by the consignee after delivery of shipment by carrier.

 

SUPPLEMENT 1 TO NMF 100-AO PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE INVESTIGATION AND DISPOSITION OF FREIGHT CLAIMS FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE

Only participants in the NMFC® at the time the transportation occurs may use the provisions herein. 14 For explanation of abbreviations and reference marks, see last page of this Supplement. ©NMFTA 2015 ITEM 300135-A-Continued s (g) Reasonable evidence includes, but is not limited to: 1. Identifying the party(ies) responsible for unloading, 2. Identifying the chain of custody of the article, including prior transportation by any mode, 3. Location(s) of the article(s) once the shipment was received until the damage was noted, 4. Any mechanical or physical handling by the consignee subsequent to delivery by the carrier. s (h) If a clear delivery receipt is available on the shipment, e.g. no damage or shortage is noted, the claimant must provide documentation showing that damage or loss occurred prior to delivery

One Source Freight Solutions joins R2 Recycling Leader program 22 Oct 2014, 2:43 pm

One-Source-Seri-Logo

Boulder, Colorado – SERI announced today that transportation and logistics provider One Source Freight Solutions is the latest organization to join the growing R2 Recycling Leaders program, which recognizers leadership efforts in electronics recycling among companies and non-profit organizations.

One Source Freight Solutions has been a consistent supporter of the R2 Standard since its development in 2008, and provided guidance in the drafting of Provision 12 of the R2:2013 Standard, covering transport of recyclable electronics. One Source Freight Solutions has designed its reverse logistics and supply chain management solutions to prioritize adherence to the R2 Standard.

One Source Freight Solutions joins a growing coalition of 14 R2 Recycling Leader partners which also includes DIRECTV, Goodwill Industries International, Greeneye Partners, Keep America Beautiful, Microsoft, Oracle, Panasonic, Recycle Across America, Reverse Logistics Sustainability Council, Sony America, SourceAmerica, Wistron Corporation and Xerox. Participating partners make a commitment to support sustainable electronics recycling, as well as consider R2 certification when choosing a recycling partner. Importantly, R2 Leaders also take a leadership role in a project to advance responsible reuse and/or recycling around the world, such as funding pilot projects for responsible recycling in developing countries, or creating new programs for electronics collection, refurbishment or recycling.

Page processed in 3.439 seconds.

Loading Offers..
Home Privacy Policy