Link to Help Guide - Table of Contents
 

SafeStat
History Help
The Carrier SafeStat Result History report provides a historical view of the carrier's performance over multiple SafeStat runs. Due to improvements made to the SafeStat methodology over the years, comparison of some safety results may be misleading. Please click on the icon Version Notes to view the version improvements associated with the past 6 SafeStat runs.
 

SafeStat Version Notes
Improvements to SafeStat have resulted in different versions of the SafeStat algorithm over the years. The following identifies the SafeStat run date, the associated version number, and a description of the version improvements.

graphic January 2004 SafeStat Run (Version 8.6)
graphic January 2003 SafeStat Run (Version 8.5)
graphic March 23, 2002 and September 28, 2002 SafeStat Runs (Version 8.4)
graphic September 22, 2001 SafeStat Run (Version 8.3)
graphic March 24, 2001 SafeStat Run (Version 8.2)
graphic September 23, 2000 SafeStat Run (Version 8.1)
graphic March 25, 2000 SafeStat Run (Version 8)
graphic Sept. 25, 1999 SafeStat Run (Version 7)
graphic March 26, 1999 and Sept. 26, 1998 SafeStat Runs (Version 6.1)
graphic March 28, 1997 SafeStat Run (Version 6)
graphic October 4, 1997 SafeStat Run (Version 5)


January 8, 2004 SafeStat Run (Version 8.6)

Enforcement History Indicator (EHI) will use only closed enforcement cases initiated from compliance reviews (CRs) or terminal audits. Carriers will still need CR (or terminal audit)-initiated enforcements within the past 30 months to receive a deficient EHI of 75 or higher. Also, EHIs will not be calculated for carriers with a single closed enforcement case that is older than 30 months. The prior version of SafeStat calculates an EHI for any carrier with an enforcement case within the past six years. This change will allow the EHI to be more responsive in assessing carriers with more current problems or a pattern of long-term problems. Note that carriers with a closed enforcement case within last 30 months and carriers with multiple closed enforcements over the last 6 years will still receive an EHI.


January 6, 2003 SafeStat Run (Version 8.5)

The Accident Involvement Indicator (AII) and the Recordable Accident Indicator (RAI), which are used to compute the Accident SEA will no longer be calculated for carriers with one crash.

Reason: Crash rates based on only one crash do not provide enough information to compute meaningful numerical percentile rankings.

March 23, 2002 SafeStat Run (Version 8.4)

  1. The power unit (PU) figures used in the Accident Involvement Indicator (AII) will be an average of the carrier's PU totals at the end of the three time periods used for time-weighting in the AII calculation (0-6 months, 6-18 months, and 18-30 months). The PUs numbers are used as a measure of exposure in the AII to estimate the number of power units operated over a 30-month time period when reportable crashes could have occurred. Due to the potentially significant changes in exposure of individual carriers over the course of 30 months (via downsizing, mergers, etc.), an average number of PUs provides a better estimation of vehicle exposure for carriers that have updated their MCS-150 Motor Carrier Census information.
  2. The trip-lease power unit (PU) numbers are added to the owned and term-leased PUs to determine the total number of PUs of a carrier. SafeStat uses this number of PUs when accounting for a carrier's exposure to crashes in the Accident Involvement Indicator (AII). Including accurate trip-leased PU figures will improve the accuracy of exposure for carriers that extensively used this type of leasing arrangement.
  3. Enforcement History Indicator (EHI) will use all closed enforcement cases, including those not initiated from compliance reviews (CRs) or terminal audits. Enforcement cases not initiated from CRs or terminal audits will receive a significantly lower severity weight than cases initiated from CRs. Carriers will still need CR (or terminal audit)-initiated enforcement within the past 30 months to receive a deficient EHI of 75 or higher. The distinction between enforcement cases based on CR/terminal audits and those from other sources is made because CR/terminal audit-initiated enforcement cases are based on a more comprehensive investigation of a carrier's operations than other initiating sources such as roadside or dock inspections.

September 22, 2001 SafeStat Run (Version 8.3)

Prior versions of SafeStat used only the violations of acute and critical regulations that were used as part of the safety rating as defined in Part 385 Appendix B of the FMCSR. In an effort to incorporate more information from compliance reviews, the HM Review Indicator (HMRI) has been expanded to include non-ratable violations of acute and critical regulations. These HM-related non-ratable violations that are listed in Chapter 12 of the FMCSA Field Operations Training Manual are severe, and often result in enforcement action from FMCSA. A full listing of the non-ratable (and ratable) violations are listed in the SafeStat Methodology document - Appendix. The following table lists the severity weighting for the violations used in the HRMI calculation:
Severity weight Criterion
1 Ratable violations of critical regulations that are compliance or paperwork oriented.
1 Non-ratable violations of acute and critical regulations.
2 Ratable violations of critical regulations that are performance oriented.
3 Ratable violations of all acute regulations.

March 24, 2001 SafeStat Run (Version 8.2)

    The Enforcement History Indicator (EHI) is limited to only data from enforcement cases initiated from a compliance review.


September 23, 2000 SafeStat Run (Version 8.1)

    Summary of Improvements to the SafeStat algorithm

    • The violation list of acute and critical regulations has been updated.
    • The following improvements have been made to the calculation of the Enforcement History Indicator (EHI):
      1. Uses only closed enforcement cases that were initiated within the past six years.
      2. EHI of 75-100 are applied to each carrier that:
        • (1) had a recent closed enforcement case (within 30 months) and no subsequent compliance review or
        • (2) had a recent closed enforcement case (within 30 months) and its the most recent subsequent compliance review resulting in violations of Acute/Critical regulations.
      3. EHI of 50-74 are applied to each carrier that:
        • (1) had its most recent closed enforcement case more than 30 months ago or
        • (2) had a recent closed enforcement case (within 30 months) and its most recent subsequent compliance review was "clean" (i.e., resulted in no Acute/Critical violations).

    Reason:

    • Carriers with a prior enforcement history who demonstrate good safety practice through a recent compliance review will no longer be viewed as "deficient".
    • The Enforcement History Indicator range was expanded to include the 50-100 percentile (previously the indicator range included the 75-100 percentile). This change will provide information on more carriers.
    • It uses only closed enforcement cases within the past six years, which is consistent with FMCSA's policy, Uniform Fine Assessment.

March 25, 2000 SafeStat Run (Version 8)

    A full-scale review was performed on the SafeStat algorithm with the objective of improving consistency in the indicator calculations and the determination of all four SEA values. The review focused on making improvements and achieving greater consistency in the calculations while maintaining the underlying methodology and preserving the best aspects of the algorithm. Many of the changes have no effect on CR prioritization, but give the safety investigators and other stakeholders important additional information on the carrier’s status in each SEA. The improvements bring SafeStat closer to providing a complete safety status assessment of all carriers with sufficient data.

    General Summary of Improvement Objectives:

    • Increase the consistency of the SEA and indicator calculations while simplifying the algorithm.
    • Eliminate the possibility of offsetting bad performance with other information. This focuses the attention on the deficient areas in order to find opportunities for safety improvement.
    • Provide a more complete coverage of carriers with indicators and SEA values. Although emphasis remains on identifying the worst 25th percentile in each SEA, indicators and SEA values below 75 will now be calculated for many more carriers. In Version 8, every carrier that meets the data sufficiency tests will be provided with an indicator and SEA value. This is accomplished without compromising existing rules that require a "critical mass of bad data" (e.g., 2 crashes, 3 OOS violations) to obtain deficient values of 75 or higher.
    • Preserve underlying SafeStat measures that determine the indicators, and in turn, the SEA values and SafeStat Score. This allows for comparisons of measures and the detection of possible trends from cycle to cycle.

    The following lists the changes for Version 8 in each SEA as well as changes in the SafeStat Categories.

    Accident SEA
    Accident Involvement Indicator (AII) Improvements:
    • Assign all carriers with 0 crashes an indicator of 0.
    • Carriers with 1 crash will be assigned an indicator from 0 to 74 based on the crash rate (AIM).
    • Carriers with no crashes within the last 24 months will be limited to a maximum indicator of 74.
    Recordable Accident Indicator (RAI) Improvements:
    • Assign all carriers with 0 crashes an indicator of 0.
    • Carriers with 1 crash will be assigned an indicator from 0 to 74 based on the crash rate (RAR).

    Driver SEA
    Driver Inspection Indicator (DII) Improvements:
    For all carriers with 3 or more driver inspections:
    • Carriers with no driver OOS inspections will be assigned an indicator (DII) of 0.
    • Carriers with 1-2 driver OOS inspections and a DII > 74 will be assigned an indicator (DII) capped at 74.
    Driver Review Indicator (DRI) Improvements:
    • Carriers with a CR and no violations (critical/acute and non-critical/acute) will be assigned a DRI (and SMRI, VRI, and, if applicable, HMRI) of 0.
    Moving Violation Indicator (MVI) Improvements:
    • The computation of the MVI remains the same, but now values below the 75th percentile will be assigned.
    Driver SEA Calculation Improvements:
    • The driver-review exclusion rule will be eliminated. Previously, the Driver SEA was assigned no value when a compliance review was performed within 6 months that resulted in no driver-related acute/critical violations regardless of other driver data. The Driver SEA calculation will now be the maximum of the review (DRI) and inspection (DII) indicators, and will only use the MVI when its value is greater than the DRI and DII. If the MVI is greater than the maximum of the DRI and DII then the Driver SEA will equal the weighted average of MVI and the maximum of the DII and DRI, (placing twice as much weight on the DII/DRI as the MVI). Previously, the Driver SEA was calculated using a complex weighted average of all three indicators resulting in some undesired situations. The following illustrates the new Driver SEA calculation:
      If MVI > MAX(DII, DRI), then
      Driver SEA = (MVI+ (2 x MAX(DII,DRI)) / 3
      Else
      Driver SEA = MAX(DII,DRI)
    Vehicle SEA
    Vehicle Review Indicator (VRI) Improvements:
    • Made consistent with DRI.
    • See DRI Improvements.
    Vehicle Inspection Indicator (VII) Improvements:
    • Made consistent with DII.
    • For all carriers with 3 or more vehicle inspections:
      • Carriers with no vehicle OOS inspections will be assigned an indicator (VII) of 0.
      • Carriers with 1-2 vehicle OOS inspections and a VII > 74 will be assigned an indicator (VII) capped at 74.
    Vehicle SEA Calculation Improvements:
    • Made consistent with the other SEAs.
    • Vehicle SEA calculation will be the maximum of the review (VRI) and inspection (VII) indicators, instead of a complex weighted average used previously.
    Vehicle SEA = MAX(VII,VRI)
     Safety Management SEA
    Safety Management/Haz Mat Review Indicators (SMRI/HMRI) Improvements:
    • Made consistent with DRI/VRI.
    • See DRI Improvements.
    Enforcement History Indicator (EHI) Improvements:
    • Re-calibrate the EHI range of 85-100 to 75-100 in order to reflect the increase in the enforcement rates and expand scoring to the worst 25th percentile used throughout SafeStat.

    SafeStat Score/Category Ranges
    Change the SafeStat Score threshold between Category A & B from 300 to 350. This new threshold assures that Category A carriers will have an Accident SEA value of 75 or higher along with 2 other SEA values of 75 or higher.

    Category Previous SafeStat Runs Current SafeStat Run (version 8)
    A >=300 and <=550 >=350 and <=550
    B >=225 and < 300 >=225 and <350

    Note: A small number of coding errors related to OOS order violations were found in the roadside inspection data reported by Ontario Canada in previous SafeStat runs. The March 25, 2000 SafeStat run excluded these inspections, however, these errors may have affected the Driver Inspection Indicator (DII) results previously released and currently included under "History". If you have a question about the effect of these violations on a particular carrier, please address your question to "Feedback" citing the carrier's name and DOT number.

Go to Top of Page

September 25, 1999 SafeStat Run (Version 7)

graphic

 

  1. Increase the Driver SEA weight (from 1 to 1.5) in calculating the SafeStat score. SafeStat-scored carriers will still be required to have at least two deficient SEAs. (A SEA with a value from 75 to 100 is defined as deficient). Therefore, the SafeStat score is calculated as follows:

    Reason: This change is based on the SafeStat Effectiveness Study results showing that carriers with deficient Driver SEAs with values of 75 and higher have higher future crash rates than carriers with deficient Vehicle SEAs or Safety Management SEAs. Therefore the increased weighting of carriers with deficient Driver SEAs makes SafeStat more efficient in prioritizing carriers likely to have crashes.

     

  2. Modify the SafeStat Score ranges for Categories A, B, and C as follows:

    Category

    Previous SafeStat Runs

    Current SafeStat Run
    (Version 7)

    A

    >=300 and <=500

    >=300 and <=550

    B

    >=225 and < 300

    >=225 and <300

    C

    >=150 and < 200

    >=150 and <225

    Reason: The increased weighting placed on the Driver SEA necessitated recalibrating the SafeStat score range for Categories A, B, and C. Although there will be no additional SafeStat-scored carriers, scored carriers are reprioritized leading to possible changes in their category assignments if they have a Driver SEA of 75 or higher.

     

  3. Change the way the indicators in the Accident SEA (Accident Involvement Indicator (AII) and Recordable Accident Indicator (RAI)) are combined to allow for Accident SEA values under 75.

    Reason: While SEA values under 75 are not needed for CR prioritization, stakeholders and other safety programs may want to use Accident SEA values below 75 in making decisions related to motor carrier safety.

     

  4. Recalibrate RAI group 1 to 2-4 crashes (previously 2-5) and group 2 to 5-19 crashes (previously 6-19).

    Reason: RAI groups are defined by having the same proportion of crashes in each group. Changes in recordable crash distribution necessitate periodic recalibrations of crash groupings used in the AII and RAI within the Accident SEA.

     

  5. Incorporate 392.5C2 violations into SafeStat as a jumping OOS order violation in the Driver Inspection Indicator (DII) in the Driver SEA.

    Reason: A 392.5C2 violation occurs when a driver has violated the OOS orders related to a 392.5 violation (use or possession of alcohol). 392.5C2 should be included with the other jumping

    OOS orders violations (396.9C2, 395.13C1, 395.13D1, & 395.13D2).

     

  6. Add 392.4A violations into SafeStat as a moving violation used in the Moving Violation Indicator (MVI).

Reason: 392.4A violation occurs when the driver is found using or possessing drugs. 392.4A should be incorporated with the other moving violations which already include a similar violation cite, 392.4.

 

Go to Top of Page

March 26 and September 26, 1998 SafeStat Runs (Version 6.1)

Expanded the new indicator, the Moving Violations Indicator, from being used in only PRISM states to being used in all states.

Reason: The MVI proved to be an effective indicator identifying poor performing carriers when tested on carriers in the PRISM states. With minor modifications, the MVI is now being applied to all motor carriers nationally.

 

Go to Top of Page

March 28, 1997 SafeStat Run (Version 6)

  1. Change the Recordable/Preventable Accident Indicator (RPAI) to the Recordable Accident Indicator (RAI).

    Reason: Due to recent changes in the Compliance Review (CR) methodology, "preventability" of recordable crashes is no longer being captured in the CR data available to SafeStat. To accommodate this change, the RPAI will be replaced with the RAI. The RAI follows the same basic methodology as the RPAI with only minor changes. The RAI will use all recordable crashes as opposed to the RPAI’s recordable/preventable crashes. The peer groupings for the RAI were slightly altered to account for larger number of crashes being recorded.

     

  2. Change the calculation of the Accident SEA. Previously, SafeStat considered a "Satisfactory" rating for the Accident Factor (factor 6) issued within the past 6 months when combining the RPAI and Accident Involvement Indicator (AII) to obtain an Accident SEA value. The new methodology considers if there have been any state-reported crashes after a review has been performed when combining the RAI and AII.

    Reason: Because "Satisfactory" ratings are no longer issued according to the new CR methodology, it will not be incorporated into the SafeStat methodology. The improved approach uses the latest state-reported crash data available (reportable crashes that have occurred after the CR was performed) with the RAI and AII to calculate the Accident SEA Value.

     

  3. FOR PRISM STATES ONLY: Pilot test a new indicator, Moving Violations Indicator (MVI), that uses moving violations recorded during roadside inspections.

Reason: Since more moving violation citation information is being collected during roadside inspections, there is a great potential to use such information in determining motor carrier safety status. Preliminary tests have shown that there is a positive relationship between the MVI and high crash rates.

The MVI uses methodology similar to that currently being used in the Accident Involvement Indicator (AII). Note that the MVI will be used only on carriers domiciled within the five PRISM states. There is a potential to incorporate carriers domiciled in others states in the future.

 

Go to Top of Page

October 4, 1997 SafeStat Run (Version 5)

  1. Using the enforcement initiation date - State_Investigation_Completed field (as opposed to the currently used closed enforcement date) to determine the age of closed enforcement cases.

    Reason: The date currently used in the algorithm, closed enforcement case date, is the day that the enforcement case is closed. For non-safety reasons such as due process, the closed enforcement case date can be years after the case was initiated, thereby making the date somewhat inaccurate for determining the safety status of carriers. The State Investigation Completed date best represents when serious violations have been found that result in an enforcement case being initiated. This date can be used to obtain an accurate age of the enforcement case. It is important to note that SafeStat will still only use closed enforcement cases.

     

  2. Delete the "reformed" carrier rule used in calculating the Enforcement History Indicator (EHI). The rule states that if a carrier has a CR that is more recent than the enforcement case and the CR results in an overall satisfactory rating, the carrier does not receive an EHI. The logic of this rule was to provide carriers with poor enforcement histories a means of redeeming themselves based on a subsequently review that resulted in an overall Satisfactory rating.

    Reason: The "reformed" carrier rule was re-assessed because the rule uses the overall ratings, which, as of April 1997, were no longer being issued. The effectiveness study results show that, using the current reformed carrier rule, the "reformed" carriers performed significantly worse (59% higher crash rate than the total carrier average) than the "non-reformed" carriers (10% higher crash rate). This defeats the purpose of the rule which was to exclude carriers that do not pose a high crash risk. Deleting the rule altogether will improve the effectiveness of the EHI and simplify the algorithm. The indicator will work as it was originally intended - to identify carriers with a history of enforcement cases. Analogous to convictions on a criminal record or incidents on a credit check, these events (enforcement cases) will remain with the carrier for an extended period of time and not be overwritten simply by short-term good behavior (e.g., good recent CR results).

     

  3. Suspending the use of the Hazardous Material Inspection Indicator (HMII) until roadside inspection data can indicate that a particular inspection involved examining for HM violations.

    Reason: The results of the effectiveness study show that this indicator is ineffective in predicting carriers with high crash rates. The ineffectiveness of the HMII is probably partially due to the fact the HMII does not normalize by the number of HM inspections and instead uses the total number of inspections. Using this normalization factor leads to identifying large, exclusively HM carriers by default. These carriers tend to be safer than most other carriers. There is still merit for incorporating an indicator in SafeStat that uses HM OOS violations. Before such an indicator can be used, it is imperative that good normalization data (i.e., HM inspections) be collected. However, until there is a means of obtaining a carrier’s total number of HM inspections, the HM OOS violations data will be excluded from SafeStat.

  4. Changing severity weighting of crashes used in AII from:

Towaway = 1

Injury = 2

Fatal or HM Release = 3

To:

Towaway = 1

Injury or Fatal = 2

Add 1 if HM was released

Reason: This change in crash severity weighting gives the crashes with a fatality the same weight as an crash resulting in injury. The justification for this weighting is that a fatal crash is a type of injury crash. Once a crash has occurred, whether one of the injured participants survives or not depends on a myriad of factors (e.g., type of car/truck involved, age, height, weight, health, and number of participants, seat belt use, quality and speed of emergency services, etc.) that are largely inconsequential to the safety status of the motor carrier involved.

 

Go to Top of Page

 

In order to view PDF files, you will need the Adobe® Acrobat® Reader™, a plug-in available from Adobe Systems, Inc. You may obtain this free plug-in at: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html