Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

MCSAP Reviews Noteworthy Practices through April 2011 by 87bn1yX0

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 84

									This is an FMCSA document created by the MCSAP Review Team to list the Noteworthy Practices / Good Program Activities that were documented during
each of the MCSAP Reviews.
The intended use is to share information across States with the idea that practices conducted by one State may be beneficial to another State.
The most recent Noteworthy Practices Report will be available on the FMCSA National Communities Website to authorized FMCSA and State personnel.
This worksheet allows filtering by Review Year, State, Area (Regulatory, Financial, Safety), and Topic Area.

Line No. = Sort Order for Report
NP Number = Noteworthy Practice Number in State Report.

Review Year            State        NP Number               Area          Topic

  Click Here        Click Here                            Click Here    Click Here


2010              AL               AL/NP-1           Reg               Adoption of
                                                                       FMCSRs and
                                                                       HMRs




2011              LA               LA/NP-1           Reg               Adoption of
                                                                       FMCSRs and
                                                                       HMRs




2010              MI               MI/NP-1           Reg               Adoption of
                                                                       FMCSRs and
                                                                       HMRs




2010              KY               KY/NP-1           Reg               Medical
                                                                       Waiver
                                                                       Program
2010   MI   MI/NP-2   Reg   Medical
                            Waiver
                            Program




2009   NH   NH/NP-1   Reg   Medical
                            Waiver
                            Program




2008   IA   IA/NP-1   Reg   Regulatory
                            Review




2009   DC   DC/NP-1   Reg   Right of
                            Entry




2011   LA   LA/NP-2   Reg   Right of
                            Entry




2010   AK   AK/NP-3   Fin   Accounting
2010   AL   AL/NP-4   Fin   Accounting



2008   AR   AR/NP-1   Fin   Accounting




2007   AZ   AZ/NP-1   Fin   Accounting




2009   CA   CA/NP-2   Fin   Accounting

2011   CO   CO/NP-2   Fin   Accounting




2009   DC   DC/NP-4   Fin   Accounting



2007   DE   DE/NP-3   Fin   Accounting




2007   FL   FL/NP-1   Fin   Accounting




2009   GA   GA/NP-5   Fin   Accounting




2008   IA   IA/NP-3   Fin   Accounting




2009   ID   ID/NP-2   Fin   Accounting

2007   IL   IL/NP-3   Fin   Accounting




2008   IN   IN/NP-3   Fin   Accounting



2010   KS   KS/NP-3   Fin   Accounting
2010   KY   KY/NP-4   Fin   Accounting




2011   LA   LA/NP-5   Fin   Accounting



2009   MA   MA/NP-2   Fin   Accounting

2010   ME   ME/NP-3   Fin   Accounting



2010   MI   MI/NP-4   Fin   Accounting



2008   MN   MN/NP-1   Fin   Accounting




2007   MO   MO/NP-1   Fin   Accounting




2005   MS   MS/NP-1   Fin   Accounting




2008   NC   NC/NP-5   Fin   Accounting




2010   ND   ND/NP-3   Fin   Accounting



2009   NE   NE/NP-2   Fin   Accounting

2009   NH   NH/NP-3   Fin   Accounting

2010   NV   NV/NP-3   Fin   Accounting



2011   NY   NY/NP-3   Fin   Accounting



2011   OR   OR/NP-2   Fin   Accounting
2007   PA    PA/NP-1   Fin   Accounting




2007   PA    PA/NP-2   Fin   Accounting




2010   SC    SC/NP-3   Fin   Accounting



2009   VI    VI/NP-4   Fin   Accounting

2008   UT    UT/NP-1   Fin   Accounting




2009   VA    VA/NP-2   Fin   Accounting




2007   VT    VT/NP-2   Fin   Accounting




2009   WI    WI/NP-2   Fin   Accounting

2008   WY    WY/NP-2   Fin   Accounting




2010   AL    ALNP-7    Fin   Budgeting



2007   AZ    AZ/NP-3   Fin   Budgeting




2007   DE3   DE/NP-1   Fin   Budgeting




2007   FL    FL/NP-3   Fin   Budgeting




2007   IL    IL/NP-1   Fin   Budgeting
2010   SC   SC/NP-5   Fin   Budgeting



2010   MI   MI/NP-8   Fin   Budgeting




2007   MO   MO/NP-3   Fin   Budgeting



2007   NM   NM/NP-1   Fin   Budgeting




2010   NV   NV/NP-7   Fin   Budgeting




2005   OH   OH/NP-1   Fin   Budgeting




2007   VT   VT/NP-1   Fin   Budgeting




2010   AK   AK/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2010   AL   AL/NP-2   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2009   CA   CA/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2011   CO   CO/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2009   DC   DC/NP-2   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2007   FL   FL/NP-5   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2009   GA   GA/NP-2   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2008   IA   IA/NP-5   Fin   Budget
                            Updates

2009   ID   ID/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2008   IN   IN/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2010   KS   KS/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2010   KY   KY/NP-2   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2011   LA   LA/NP-3   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2009   MA   MA/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2010   ME   ME/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2010   MI   MI/NP-3   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2008   NC   NC/NP-2   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2010   ND   NC/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2009   NE   NE/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2009   NH   NH/NP-2   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2011   NJ   NJ/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2007   NM   NM/NP-2   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2010   NV   NV/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2011   NY   NY/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2011   OR   OR/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2009   PR   PR/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2010   SC   SC/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2008   SD   SD/NP-2   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2009   TX   TX/NP-2   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2009   VI   VI/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2009   VA   VA/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates
2009   WI   WI/NP-1   Fin   Budget
                            Updates


2010   ND   ND/NP-6   Fin   CVSP
                            Preparation



2009   NH   NH/NP-6   Fin   CVSP
                            Preparation




2005   MS   MS/NP-2   Fin   Grant
                            Expenses
2005   MT   MT/NP-2   Fin   Grant
                            Expenses




2009   GA   GA/NP-4   Fin   Indirect
                            Costs
2009   ID   ID/NP-7   Fin   Indirect
                            Costs
2008   MN   MN/NP-2   Fin   Indirect
                            Costs

2005   MS   MS/NP-3   Fin   Indirect
                            Costs

2008   NC   NC/NP-4   Fin   Indirect
                            Costs
2008   SD   SD/NP-4   Fin   Indirect
                            Costs


2010   AL   AL/NP-6   Fin   Invoicing

2007   AZ   AZ/NP-2   Fin   Invoicing

2009   CA   CA/NP-3   Fin   Invoicing
2011   CO   CO/NP-4   Fin   Invoicing
2007   DE   DE/NP-2   Fin   Invoicing

2007   FL   FL/NP-2   Fin   Invoicing

2008   IA   IA/NP-4   Fin   Invoicing



2009   ID   ID/NP-3   Fin   Invoicing
2007   IL   IL/NP-2   Fin   Invoicing




2010   KS   KS/NP-5   Fin   Invoicing
2009   MA   MA/NP-3   Fin   Invoicing

2010   MI   MI/NP-6   Fin   Invoicing
2007   MO   MO/NP-2   Fin   Invoicing




2010   ND   ND/NP-5   Fin   Invoicing

2009   NE   NE/NP-3   Fin   Invoicing
2009   NH   NH/NP-4   Fin   Invoicing

2010   NV   NV/NP-5   Fin   Invoicing
2011   OR   OR/NP-4   Fin   Invoicing
2009   TX   TX/NP-4   Fin   Invoicing
2009   VA   VA/NP-3   Fin   Invoicing
2009   WI   WI/NP-3   Fin   Invoicing


2009   CA   CA/NP-4   Fin   MOE &
                            Substantiatio
                            n

2010   SC   SC/NP-6   Fin   MOE &
                            Substantiatio
                            n
2010   SC   SC/NP-7   Fin   MOE &
                            Substantiatio
                            n


2010   AL   AL/NP-5   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2011   CO   CO/NP-3   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2009   DC   DC/NP-3   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2007   DE   DE/NP-4   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory




2009   GA   GA/NP-3   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory



2009   ID   ID/NP-5   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2009   ID   ID/NP-6   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2007   IL   IL/NP-4   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2008   IN   IN/NP-2   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2010   KS   KS/NP-4   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2010   KY   KY/NP-5   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2011   LA   LA/NP-4   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2010   MI   MI/NP-5   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory
2008   NC   NC/NP-3   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2010   ND   ND/NP-4   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2009   NE   NE/NP-5   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2009   NH   NH/NP-5   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2011   NJ   NJ/NP-2   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2010   NV   NV/NP-4   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2011   NY   NY/NP-2   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2011   OR   OR/NP-3   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2009   PR   PR/NP-2   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2010   SC   SC/NP-4   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2008   SD   SD/NP-3   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2009   TX   TX/NP-3   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory



2009   VI   VI/NP-2   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory

2007   VT   VT/NP-3   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory




2009   WI   WI/NP-5   Fin   Procurement
                            & Inventory



2010   AK   AK/NP-2   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n

2010   AL   AL/NP-3   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n

2007   AZ   AZ/NP-4   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n
2011   CO   CO/NP-5   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n

2007   FL   FL/NP-4   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n




2009   GA   GA/NP-1   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n




2008   IA   IA/NP-2   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n




2009   ID   ID/NP-4   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n

2010   KS   KS/NP-2   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n

2010   KY   KY/NP-3   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n

2011   LA   LA/NP-6   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n

2009   MA   MA/NP-4   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n

2010   ME   ME/NP-2   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n

2008   NC   NC/NP-1   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n




2010   ND   ND/NP-2   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n

2009   NE   NE/NP-4   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n




2010   NV   NV/NP-2   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n

2011   NY   NY/NP-4   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n

2009   PR   PR/NP-3   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n

2010   SC   SC/NP-2   Fin   Reconciliatio
                            n
2008   SD   SD/NP-1    Fin   Reconciliatio
                             n




2009   TX   TX/NP-1    Fin   Reconciliatio
                             n




2009   VI   VI/NP-3    Fin   Reconciliatio
                             n

2009   VA   VA/NP-4    Fin   Reconciliatio
                             n

2009   WI   WI/NP-4    Fin   Reconciliatio
                             n

2008   WY   WY/NP-1    Fin   Reconciliatio
                             n




2010   AL   AL/NP-9    SPP   Communicati
                             on &
                             Coordination




2010   AK   AK/NP-5    SPP   Communicati
                             on &
                             Coordination




2010   AK   AK/NP-7    SPP   Communicati
                             on &
                             Coordination




2007   IL   IL/NP-5    SPP   Communicati
                             on &
                             Coordination

2010   KY   KY/NP-10   SPP   Communicati
                             on &
                             Coordination

2010   ME   ME/NP-14   SPP   Communicati
                             on &
                             Coordination
2010   MI    MI/NP-13   SPP   Communicati
                              on &
                              Coordination

2010   MI    MI/NP-15   SPP   Communicati
                              on &
                              Coordination




2009   NE    NE/NP-15   SPP   Communicati
                              on &
                              Coordination

2009   NH    NH/NP-18   SPP   Communicati
                              on &
                              Coordination




2007   PA    PA/NP-5    SPP   Communicati
                              on &
                              Coordination




2009   PR    PR/NP-5    SPP   Communicati
                              on &
                              Coordination

2010   SCS   SC/NP-10   SPP   Communicati
                              on &
                              Coordination




2010   SC    SC/NP-13   SPP   Communicati
                              on &
                              Coordination




2010   SC    SC/NP-14   SPP   Communicati
                              on &
                              Coordination
2009   TX   TX/NP-6    SPP   Communicati
                             on &
                             Coordination




2008   UT   UT/NP-2    SPP   Communicati
                             on &
                             Coordination



2008   UT   UT/NP-8    SPP   Communicati
                             on &
                             Coordination

2009   VA   VA/NP-10   SPP   Communicati
                             on &
                             Coordination

2005   WV   WV/NP-2    SPP   Communicati
                             on &
                             Coordination




2008   WY   WY/NP-4    SPP   Communicati
                             on &
                             Coordination




2010   AL   AL/NP-14   SPP   Crash
                             Reporting




2007   AZ   AZ/NP-7    SPP   Crash
                             Reporting




2007   AZ   AZ/NP-8    SPP   Crash
                             Reporting




2011   CO   CO/NP-8    SPP   Crash
                             Reporting
2009   GA   GA/NP-10   SPP   Crash
                             Reporting




2010   KY   KY/NP-9    SPP   Crash
                             Reporting



2010   KY   KY/NP-14   SPP   Crash
                             Reporting

2011   LA   LA/NP-11   SPP   Crash
                             Reporting




2010   ME   ME/NP-9    SPP   Crash
                             Reporting

2010   MI   MI/NP-11   SPP   Crash
                             Reporting




2007   MO   MO/NP-5    SPP   Crash
                             Reporting




2010   ND   ND/NP-10   SPP   Crash
                             Reporting
2011   NJ   NJ/NP-5   SPP   Crash
                            Reporting




2011   NJ   NJ/NP-6   SPP   Crash
                            Reporting




2011   OR   OR/NP-7   SPP   Crash
                            Reporting




2011   OR   OR/NP-8   SPP   Crash
                            Reporting




2011   OR   OR/NP-9   SPP   Crash
                            Reporting




2008   UT   UT/NP-3   SPP   Crash
                            Reporting




2009   VA   VA/NP-7   SPP   Crash
                            Reporting




2005   OH   OH/NP-2   SPP   CVSP
                            Planning &
                            Implementati
                            on
2009   CA   CA/NP-9     SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on




2011   CO   CO/NP-10    SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on




2009   ID   ID/NP-8.    SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on
2010   KS   KS/NP-8     SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on




2010   KY   KY/NP-8     SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on



2010   KY   KY/NP-12.   SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on




2011   LA   LA/NP-10    SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on




2007   MO   MO/NP-10    SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on
2008   NC   NC/NP-8     SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on




2010   ND   ND/NP-8     SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on



2009   NE   NE/NP-14.   SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on




2009   NH   NH/NP-16    SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on




2009   NH   NH/NP-17    SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on




2010   NV   NV/NP-14    SPP   CVSP
                              Planning &
                              Implementati
                              on
2005   OH   OH/NP-2    SPP   CVSP
                             Planning &
                             Implementati
                             on




2010   SC   SC/NP-18   SPP   CVSP
                             Planning &
                             Implementati
                             on




2009   VI   VI/NP-6    SPP   CVSP
                             Planning &
                             Implementati
                             on
2008   UT   UT/NP-9    SPP   CVSP
                             Planning &
                             Implementati
                             on




2009   VA   VA/NP-9.   SPP   CVSP
                             Planning &
                             Implementati
                             on




2009   VA   VA/NP-12   SPP   CVSP
                             Planning &
                             Implementati
                             on
2009   WI   WI/NP-6.   SPP   CVSP
                             Planning &
                             Implementati
                             on




2009   CA   CA/NP-6    SPP   Data
2010   ME   ME/NP-5    SPP   Data




2010   ME   ME/NP-8    SPP   Data




2010   ME   ME/NP-10   SPP   Data




2010   ME   ME/NP-12   SPP   Data




2008   MN   MN/NP-3    SPP   Data
2005   MT   MT/NP-3    SPP   Data




2010   NV   NV/NP-15   SPP   Data




2010   NV   NV/NP-16   SPP   Data




2011   OR   OR/NP-6    SPP   Data
2005   WV   WV/NP-1    SPP   Data




2009   DC   DC/NP-6    SPP   Driver
                             Manual




2008   IA   IA/NP-6.   SPP   Driver
                             Manual




2009   MA   MA/NP-6    SPP   Driver
                             Manual




2009   NE   NE/NP-7.   SPP   Driver
                             Manual




2009   NH   NH/NP-8    SPP   Driver
                             Manual




2011   NJ   NJ/NP-4    SPP   Driver
                             Manual



2010   NV   NV/NP-13   SPP   Driver
                             Manual
2011   OR   OR/NP-11   SPP   Driver
                             Manual




2008   UT   UT/NP-7    SPP   Driver
                             Manual




2009        VA/NP-8.   SPP   Driver
                             Manual




2010   AL   AL/NP-8    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities




2009   DC   DC/NP-5    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities

2008   IN   IN/NP-6    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities




2010   KS   KS/NP-6    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities




2011   LA   LA/NP-8    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities




2010   ME   ME/NP-7    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities



2010   ME   ME/NP-13   SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities
2010   MI   MI/NP-16   SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities




2008   MN   MN/NP-5    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities




2007   MO   MO/NP-8    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities




2010   ND   ND/NP-9    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities



2009   NE   NE/NP-12   SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities



2010   NV   NV/NP-19   SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities




2011   OR   OR/NP-5    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities
2011   OR   OR/NP-13   SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities




2011   OR   OR/NP-14   SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities




2011   OR   OR/NP-16   SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities

2009   PR   PR/NP-4    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities



2008   UT   UT/NP-6    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities




2008   WY   WY/NP-5    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities




2008   WY   WY/NP-6    SPP   Enforcement
                             Activities




2009   CA   CA/NP-11   SPP   Highway
                             Safety Plan




2011   CO   CO/NP-12   SPP   Highway
                             Safety Plan
2009   ID   ID/NP-13   SPP   Highway
                             Safety Plan




2009   MA   MA/NP-5    SPP   Highway
                             Safety Plan




2009   NE   NE/NP-6.   SPP   Highway
                             Safety Plan




2009   NH   NH/NP-7    SPP   Highway
                             Safety Plan




2010   AK   AK/NP-6    SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation



2009   CA   CA/NP-10   SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation



2009   DC   DC/NP-7    SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation



2009   DC   DC/NP-8    SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation



2008   IA   IA/NP-7    SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation



2008   MD   MD/NP-1    SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation
2010   ME   ME/NP-4    SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation




2010   MI   MI/NP-17   SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation




2007   MO   MO/NP-9    SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation




2009   NE   NE/NP-16   SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation




2011   NJ   NJ/NP-3    SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation



2010   NV   NV/NP-18   SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation



2011   NY   NY/NP-7    SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation



2011   NY   NY/NP-9    SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation



2011   OR   OR/NP-12   SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation
2010   SC   SC/NP-8    SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation




2010   SC   SC/NP-9    SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation



2008   UT   UT/NP-4    SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation



2009   VA   VA/NP-11   SPP   Multi-
                             Organization
                             Participation




2010   AL   AL/NP-15   SPP   Outreach




2007   AZ   AZ/NP-5    SPP   Outreach




2007   AZ   AZ/NP-9    SPP   Outreach
2009   CA   CA/NP-7    SPP   Outreach




2009   CA   CA/NP-8    SPP   Outreach




2011   CO   CO/NP-13   SPP   Outreach




2007   DE   DE/NP-5    SPP   Outreach




2007   DE   DE/NP-6    SPP   Outreach




2009   GA   GA/NP-8    SPP   Outreach




2008   IA   IA/NP-11   SPP   Outreach




2009   ID   ID/NP-12   SPP   Outreach
2008   IN   IN/NP-4     SPP   Outreach




2008   IN   IN/NP-5.    SPP   Outreach




2011   LA   LA/NP-9     SPP   Outreach




2010   MI   MI/NP-10.   SPP   Outreach




2010   MI   MI/NP-12    SPP   Outreach




2008   NC   NC/NP-7     SPP   Outreach




2009   NE   NE/NP-10    SPP   Outreach



2009   NH   NH/NP-9     SPP   Outreach
2009   NH   NH/NP-10   SPP   Outreach



2009   NH   NH/NP-11   SPP   Outreach




2010   NV   NV/NP-11   SPP   Outreach




2011   NY   NY/NP-6    SPP   Outreach




2011   OR   OR/NP-15   SPP   Outreach




2007   PA   PA/NP-4    SPP   Outreach




2010   SC   SC/NP-12   SPP   Outreach




2010   SC   SC/NP-15   SPP   Outreach




2008   UT   UT/NP-5    SPP   Outreach
2009   WI   WI/NP-9.   SPP   Outreach




2009   WI   WI/NP-10   SPP   Outreach




2009   ID   ID/NP-9    SPP   Quarterly
                             Reporting

2010   NV   NV/NP-12   SPP   Quarterly
                             Reporting




2010   AL   AL/NP-11   SPP   Technology




2010   AL   AL/NP-12   SPP   Technology
2010   AL   AL/NP-13   SPP   Technology




2010   AK   AK/NP-8    SPP   Technology




2010   AK   AK/NP-10   SPP   Technology




2009   GA   GA/NP-11   SPP   Technology




2008   IA   IA/NP-9    SPP   Technology




2008   IA   IA/NP-10   SPP   Technology




2009   ID   ID/NP-14   SPP   Technology



2009   ID   ID/NP-15   SPP   Technology
2010   KS   KS/NP-7    SPP   Technology




2010   KS   KS/NP-     SPP   Technology




2010   KY   KY/NP-7    SPP   Technology




2010   KY   KY/NP-11   SPP   Technology



2010   ME   ME/NP-11   SPP   Technology




2007   MO   MO/NP-4    SPP   Technology
2007   MO   MO/NP-6   SPP   Technology




2007   MO   MO/NP-7   SPP   Technology




2005   MT   MT/NP-4   SPP   Technology




2008   NC   NC/NP-6   SPP   Technology




2010   ND   ND/NP-7   SPP   Technology
2009   NE   NE/NP-13   SPP   Technology



2009   NH   NH/NP-13   SPP   Technology




2009   NH   NH/NP-15   SPP   Technology




2010   NV   NV/NP-17   SPP   Technology




2010   NV   NV/NP-21   SPP   Technology
2010   NV   NV/NP-22   SPP   Technology




2011   NY   NY/NP-5    SPP   Technology



2011   OR   OR/NP-10   SPP   Technology




2010   SC   SC/NP-11   SPP   Technology




2010   SC   SC/NP-17   SPP   Technology
2010   SC   SC/NP-19   SPP   Technology




2009   TX   TX/NP-7    SPP   Technology




2009   VI   VI/NP-5    SPP   Technology




2009   VA   VA/NP-6.   SPP   Technology




2009   WI   WI/NP-7    SPP   Technology




2010   AL   AL/NP-10   SPP   Training




2010   AK   AK/NP-9    SPP   Training

2008   AR   AR/NP-2    SPP   Training




2008   AR   AR/NP-3    SPP   Training




2009   CA   CA/NP-5.   SPP   Training
2011   CO   CO/NP-6    SPP   Training




2011   CO   CO/NP-7    SPP   Training




2011   CO   CO/NP-9    SPP   Training




2011   CO   CO/NP-11   SPP   Training




2008   FL   FL/NP-6    SPP   Training




2009   GA   GA/NP-7    SPP   Training




2009   GA   GA/NP-9    SPP   Training




2008   IA   IA/NP-8    SPP   Training




2009   ID   ID/NP-10   SPP   Training
2010   KY   KY/NP-13   SPP   Training




2011   LA   LA/NP-7    SPP   Training




2009   MA   MA/NP-7    SPP   Training




2008   MD   MD/NP-2    SPP   Training




2008   MD   MD/NP-3    SPP   Training




2008   MD   MD/NP-4    SPP   Training
2010   ME   ME/NP-6    SPP   Training




2010   MI   MI/NP-9    SPP   Training




2009   NE   NE/NP-9    SPP   Training




2009   NE   NE/NP-11   SPP   Training




2009   NH   NH/NP-12   SPP   Training




2007   NM   NM/NP-4    SPP   Training




2010   NV   NV/NP-8    SPP   Training
2010   NV   NV/NP-10.   SPP   Training




2010   NV   NV/NP-20    SPP   Training




2011   NY   NY/NP-8     SPP   Training



2008   OK   OK/NP-1.    SPP   Training




2011   OR   OR/NP-17    SPP   Training



2011   OR   OR/NP-18    SPP   Training




2011   OR   OR/NP-19    SPP   Training
2011   OR   OR/NP-20   SPP   Training




2007   PA   PA/NP-3    SPP   Training




2009   PR   PR/NP-6    SPP   Training



2010   SC   SC/NP-16   SPP   Training




2008   TN   TN/NP-1    SPP   Training




2009   VA   VA/NP-5    SPP   Training




2009   VA   VA/NP-13   SPP   Training



2008   WY   WY/NP-3    SPP   Training
ew Team to list the Noteworthy Practices / Good Program Activities that were documented during

th the idea that practices conducted by one State may be beneficial to another State.
ilable on the FMCSA National Communities Website to authorized FMCSA and State personnel.
 Area (Regulatory, Financial, Safety), and Topic Area.




                                                   Description



                                 Adoption of FMCSRs and HMRs
              The Review Team commends the efforts of Alabama in its recent amendments to
              Code 32-9A-2 in SB482, which effectively discourages waivers and exemptions to the
              adopted FMCSRs. The newly amended Code 32-9A-2(b)(5) adds the following
              provision:
              • The department may promulgate regulations granting any waiver, variance, or
              exemption permitted under 49 U.S.C. 31104(h) and federal regulations promulgated
              thereto at 49 C.F.R. 350.339 - 350.345, provided that variance, waiver, or exemption
              does not result in the loss of federal Motor Carrier Safety Program funding and does
              not take effect unless approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation if such
              approval is required.
              The Review Team recognizes that pressure is sometime brought to bear on
              legislators and the MCSAP agencies with regulatory authority to waive or exempt
              from requirements certain transportation interests in the State. This new amendment
              provides a statutory restriction on the granting of waivers and exemptions, which
              effectively expresses the State’s disposition toward consideration of them. (Per
              Regulatory Review)


               Adoption of Regulations – The State’s manner of adopting the FMCSRs and HMRs is
              excellent. The Review Team commends the State for its use of clear, simple, and
              straight-forward statutory language that captures the scope and intent of the State,
              while leaving room for discretion on the part of the DSPC, the authorized agency.
              With the exception of the reported findings, the adoptive provisions by the DSPC are
              further examples of direct and understandable language in the actual incorporation of
              the regulations in Title 33, Part V, chapter 103. (Per Regulatory Review)


              Adoption of the FMCSRs and HMRs – The Review Team commends the Michigan
              authorities for their diligence in developing an updated body of law which is almost
              entirely compatible with the FMCSRs and HMRs. Michigan has carefully amended
              and updated its adoption of the Federal requirements to accommodate certain State
              interests to maintain compatibility within the tolerance limits of the MCSAP Grant
              conditions in 49 CFR Part 350. The MSP has been very responsive to incompatibility
              findings in the past and has effectively managed its resources to gain the cooperation
              of the legislature in taking the corrective actions where necessary to eliminate
              incompatibilities. (Per Regulatory Review)


              Medical Waiver Program
              Medical-Waiver Program – The Review Team commends the Kentucky authorities for
              the structuring of the Medical Waiver Program contained in 601 KAR 11:040. It was
              the intention of the FMCSA through its predecessor agencies, when promulgating the
              Tolerance Guidelines in 49 CFR 350.341, not to obstruct the efforts of any of the
              States in the MCSAP in providing opportunities for drivers who did not meet the
              Federal standards in 49 CFR 391.41(b) to demonstrate their abilities through waiver
              programs, provided safety considerations received primary attention. The detailed
              application, conditions, duration, and medical verification contained in Kentucky’s
              waiver program in 601 KAR 11:040 exemplify the elements that should be part of a
              successful undertaking. (Per Regulatory Review)
Medical-Waiver Program – The Review Team commends the Michigan authorities for
the structuring of the Medical Waiver Program contained in MCL 480.13. It was the
intention of the FMCSA through its predecessor agencies, when promulgating the
Tolerance Guidelines in 49 CFR 350.341, not to obstruct the efforts of any of the
States in the MCSAP to provide opportunities for drivers who did not meet the
Federal standards in 49 CFR 391.41(b) to demonstrate their abilities through waiver
programs, provided safety considerations received primary attention. The detailed
application, conditions, duration, and medical verification contained in Michigan’s
waiver program, including the creation of a Motor Carrier Safety Appeal Board, in
MCL 480.13, exemplify the elements that should be part of a successful undertaking.
(Per Regulatory Review)


Medical-Waiver Program – The Review Team commends the New Hampshire
authorities for the structuring of the Medical Waiver Program contained in Part Saf-C
909, implementing the authorization in RSA 266:72-a III for the Commissioner to
waive specific requirements or standards of the medical examination for any
intrastate driver “who has a valid commercial driver's license issued by this state on
or after January 1, 1990, if it would not jeopardize public safety to grant such a
waiver.”

It was the intention of the FMCSA through its predecessor agencies, when
promulgating the Tolerance Guidelines in 49 CFR 350.341, not to obstruct the efforts
of any of the States in the MCSAP to provide opportunities for drivers who did not
meet the Federal standards in 49 CFR 391.41(b) to demonstrate their abilities
through waiver programs, provided safety considerations received primary attention.
The detailed application, conditions, duration, and medical verification contained in
New Hampshire’s Medical Waiver Program in §§ Saf-C 909.01 – 909.18 exemplify
the elements that should be part of a successful undertaking. It also was the intention
of the USDOT when the Tolerance Guidelines were promulgated that the Federal
agency could learn from the experience of States operating such waiver programs.
Therefore, the Review Team would expect that New Hampshire is collecting data to
Regulatory Review
In completing the MCSAP Regulatory Inventory Document, Iowa conducted an
exceptional review and analysis of the compatibility of its laws and regulations with
the FMCSRs and HMRs. The level of detail and documentation included in this effort
was exemplary. (Per Regulatory Review)


Right of Entry
Right of Entry (ROE) Authority – The Review Team commends the District’s
enactment of the enforcement authority of the MPD in DC Code § 8-1403.01, which
clearly enumerates the powers available to the police officers in conducting inspection
activities at the roadside or at the premises of a motor carrier. Coupled with the 2008
regulatory amendments in 18 DCMR §§ 1400.3 and 1400.4, which set forth the
obligations of motor carriers and their employees with respect to these powers, the
language employed clearly describes the ROE authority intended in 49 CFR
350.201(g). (Per Regulatory Review)


 Enforcement Authority – The Review Team also commends the State for its clear
expression of its policy with respect to the regulation and enforcement of motor carrier
safety and safe transportation of HM in RS 32:1501, which effectively sets the
grounds for the grant of extraordinary powers to the Secretary and his enforcement
officers in RS 32:1505. The Review Team believes the language used in expressing
the extent of the authority to stop and inspect CMVs without a warrant and to gain
access to the premises and to the books and records of motor carriers to conduct
compliance reviews is exemplary and could benefit other States experiencing
difficulties in this area. (Per Regulatory Review)


Accounting
The MSCVE has established a series of project cost codes that are used to identify
MCSAP-eligible costs associated with each specific MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial
Review)
The MCSU has established a series of project cost codes that are used to identify
MCSAP-eligible costs that are used to identify costs associated with a specific
MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)
The AHTD has established a series of accounting codes that are used when incurring
costs against each of the various MCSAP Grant Agreements. These codes identify
every MCSAP-eligible cost item, which are then entered into its accounting system
against a specific MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)

The State established a series of codes that identify each of the various MCSAP
Grant Agreements. Although DPS does not record costs directly against these Grant
codes in the accounting system, DPS does record the amount of the Grant, certain
costs directly against the Grant, and Federal payments. As a result, DPS can
generate reports identifying unpaid Grant amounts directly from DPS’ official
accounting system. (Per Financial Review)


The ASD has established a series of codes that are used to identify costs, which will
be billed against the MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)
The CSP has established unique appropriation codes that distinguishes actual costs
incurred for each MCSAP Grant received (i.e., an appropriation code for the 2009
Basic/Incentive Grant, another code for the 2010 Basic/Incentive Grant, and another
code for the 2010 New Entrant Grant). (Per Financial Review)

The MPD has established a series of specific codes that are used to identify all
MCSAP billable costs with the exception of salaries and benefits. (Per Financial
Review)
The State has established a series of codes that are used when incurring costs
against each of the MCSAP Grant Agreements. These codes identify every item of
cost that is entered into the State’s accounting system back to a specific MCSAP
Grant. (Per Financial Review)
Florida has attempted to accumulate “all” MCSAP-eligible costs in its official
accounting system. With the exception of indirect costs and MCSAP-eligible costs
incurred by some local agencies, all eligible MCSAP costs, which includes the 80
percent Federal share, the 20 percent State share, and the MOE expenses, are
entered into the FDOT accounting system and coded to a project number that relates
to a specific MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)


The MCCD has established a series of codes that are used when incurring costs
against each of the various MCSAP Grant Agreements. These codes are designed to
identify every item of cost that is entered into the State’s accounting system back to a
specific MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)

 The State has established a series of project codes that are used when incurring
costs against each of the various MCSAP Grant Agreements. These codes identify
almost every item of eligible cost that is entered into the State’s accounting system
back to a specific MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)

The ISP has established a series of codes that are used to identify costs that are
MCSAP-billable costs. (Per Financial Review)
The State has established a series of codes that are used when incurring costs
against each of the MCSAP Grant Agreements. These codes identify every item of
cost that is entered into the State’s accounting system back to a specific MCSAP
Grant. (Per Financial Review)
The ISP has established a series of codes that are used when MCSAP-related items
are secured via the procurement system. (Per Financial Review)

The KHP has established a series of program, fund, and budget unit cost codes that
are used to identify total MCSAP eligible costs also are used to identify costs
associated with a specific MCSAP Grant and various MCSAP activities. (Per
Financial Review)
 The KSP financial personnel have established a series of project codes that are used
to identify MCSAP-eligible costs and job codes used to identify costs associated with
a specific MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)

 The LSP has established a series of reporting category and project cost codes that
are used to identify MCSAP-billable and MOE costs associated with each specific
MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)
 The MSP has established a series of codes that are used to identify costs that
identify MCSAP billable costs. (Per Financial Review)
The MSP has established a series of project cost codes that are used to identify
MCSAP-billable costs that are used to identify costs associated with a specific
MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)
 The MSP has established a series of project cost account codes that are used to
identify MCSAP-eligible costs and are also used to identify costs associated with
each specific MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)
 The MSP and MnDOT have established a series of MCSAP codes that are used
when incurring costs against each of the various MCSAP Grant Agreements. These
codes identify each MCSAP-eligible cost item that is entered into the respective
accounting systems against a specific MCSAP Grant. These systems also identify
costs associated with the State’s MOE requirements. (Per Financial Review)


 The State has established a series of codes which are used when incurring costs
against each of the various MCSAP Grant Agreements. These codes identify every
item of cost that is entered into the State’s accounting system back to a specific
MCSAP Grant, thereby providing an accurate and reliable accounting methodology.
When it is time to prepare an invoice against a specific MCSAP Grant, the
Comptroller’s Office can request a report from the accounting system, which indicates
the amount of costs that need to be invoiced and provides a detailed summary by line
item of expenses to substantiate the overall total invoiced. (Per Financial Review)



The MDPS accounting system maintains separate and distinct cost records for the
MCSAP program. To determine the amount of a MCSAP monthly billing to FMCSA,
the MDPS accounting staff queries the accounting system for current MCSAP
charges for which a printout is produced that serves as backup for the PR-20
voucher. This process makes an easy task of the PR-20 preparation. (Per Financial
Review)
The State has established a series of codes which are used when incurring costs
against each of the various MCSAP Grant Agreements. These codes are designed to
identify almost every item of cost that is entered into the State’s accounting system
back to a specific MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)

The NDHP has established a series of project cost codes that are used to identify
MCSAP-eligible costs that are used to identify costs associated with a specific
MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)
 The NSP has established a series of codes that are used to identify MCSAP billable
costs. (Per Financial Review)
The NHSP has established a series of codes that are used to identify MCSAP billable
costs. (Per Financial Review)
The NHP financial personnel have established a series of project codes that are used
to identify MCSAP-eligible costs and job codes used to identify costs associated with
a specific MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)
The NYSDOT has established a series of PINs that are used to identify MCSAP-
billable and MOE costs associated with each specific MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial
Review)
The ODOT has established a series of project cost codes that are used to identify
MCSAP-billable costs associated with a specific MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial
Review)
The State has established a series of codes which are used when incurring costs
against each of the various MCSAP Grant Agreements. These codes identify every
item of cost that is entered into the State’s accounting system back to a specific
MCSAP Grant, thereby providing an accurate and reliable accounting methodology.
(Per Financial Review)
When the time comes to prepare an invoice against a specific MCSAP Grant, the
Comptroller’s Office can request a report from the accounting system, which indicates
the amount of costs that need to be invoiced and provides a detailed summary by line
item of expense to substantiate the overall total invoiced. (Per Financial Review)

The STP has established a series of project cost codes that are used to identify
MCSAP-eligible costs that are used to identify costs associated with a specific
MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)
The VIPD has established a series of codes that are used to identify MCSAP billable
costs. (Per Financial Review)
UDOT and the UHP have established a series of accounting codes that are used
when incurring costs against each of the various MCSAP Grant Agreements. These
codes identify every MCSAP-eligible cost item, which then are entered into their
respective accounting systems against a specific MCSAP Grant. This system also
identifies costs associated with the State’s MOE requirements. (Per Financial
Review)
The VSP has established a series of codes in the Virginia accounting system that are
used to identify costs which identifies MCSAP-eligible costs of the VSP and also
those costs that will be billed against the MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)

The State has established a series of codes that are used when incurring costs
against each of the MCSAP Grant Agreements. These codes identify every item of
cost that is entered into the State’s accounting system back to a specific MCSAP
Grant. (Per Financial Review)
The WSP has established a series of codes that are used to identify MCSAP billable
costs. (Per Financial Review)
State has established a series of accounting codes, which are used when incurring
costs against each of the various MCSAP Grant Agreements. These codes identify
almost every item of cost that is entered into the State’s accounting system back to a
specific MCSAP Grant. (Per Financial Review)


Budgeting
The MCSU annually adjusts the hourly rate assigned to Level II Inspections
performed by CVE troopers which are considered MCSAP-eligible costs. (Per
Financial Review)
The CVSP budget is all-inclusive in that it includes a budget for each line item of
expense and provides a high level of detail of individual cost items included for the
major items of expense. The CVSP budget also includes the numbers of personnel
that constitute the salary and benefits budgeted amounts. (Per Financial Review)

The CVSP budget includes only those cost items covered by the amount of the Grant,
(80 percent Federal plus the 20 percent State share); but for those items, the budget
is all-inclusive in that it includes a budget for each line item of expense and provides a
high level of detail of individual cost items included in the major items of expense.
(Per Financial Review)
Although the CVSP budget includes only those cost items covered by the amount of
the Grant (80 percent Federal plus the 20 percent State share), for those items, the
budget is all-inclusive in that it includes a budget for each line item of expense and
provides a high level of detail for individual cost items included in the major expense
items. (Per Financial Review)
The CVSP budget includes only those cost items covered by the amount of the Grant,
(80 percent Federal plus the 20 percent State share); but for those items, the budget
is all-inclusive in that it includes a budget for each line item of expense and provides a
high level of detail of individual cost items included in the major items of expense.
(Per Financial Review)
The CVSP Budget was prepared in the correct format, included pertinent line items,
and included both total eligible costs and costs expected to be charged to the MCSAP
Basic Grant. (Per Financial Review)
The Review Team commends the MSP on its preparations of its CVSP budget and
MOE calculations. The CVSP budget was prepared in the correct format and included
both Grant amounts (Federal and State shares) together with total eligible costs. The
MSP also maintained documentation reflecting actual MCSAP-eligible costs for 2002
through 2007 to substantiate that the MSP has met its MOE requirements for 2007
through 2009. (Per Financial Review)


The CVSP budget is all-inclusive, as it includes a budget for each participating State
and local agency and clearly indicates individual expense items associated with each
agency. (Per Financial Review)
The CVSP budget includes only those cost items covered by the amount of the Grant,
(80 percent Federal plus the 20 percent State share); but for those items, the budget
is all-inclusive in that it includes a budget for each line item of expense and provides a
high level of detail of individual cost items included in the major items of expense.
(Per Financial Review)
The Review Team commends the NHP on its preparations of its CVSP budget and
MOE calculations. The CVSP budget was prepared in the correct format and included
both Grant amounts (Federal and State shares) together with total eligible costs. The
NHP also maintained documentation reflecting actual MCSAP-eligible costs for 2003
through 2007, and prepared almost perfect MOE calculations and templates for 2007
through 2009. (Per Financial Review)


The MCSAP budget submitted with the annual CVSP is ideal; this spreadsheet
reflects total costs associated with the MCSAP program; identifies those costs that
are “eligible” for reimbursement under the MCSAP program; and determines which of
these eligible costs will actually be charged to the MCSAP grant versus which will be
used to satisfy the MOE requirements. The amounts chargeable to the MCSAP grant
are then split between the 80 percent FMCSA share and the 20 percent State match.
(Per Financial Review)


The CVSP budget includes only those cost items covered by the amount of the Grant,
(80 percent Federal plus the 20 percent State share); but for those items, the budget
is all-inclusive in that it includes a budget for each line item of expense and provides a
high level of detail of individual cost items included in the major items of expense.
(Per Financial Review)

Budget Updates
The MSCVE financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The MCSU financial personnel always update the CVSP Budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The CVSP budget is always updated to reflect any major changes related to line
items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The CSP financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The MPD financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
MCCO always updates the CVSP budget to reflect any major changes related to the
expense line items. (Per Financial Review)
The MCCD always updates the CVSP budget to reflect any major changes related to
line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The CVSP budget is always updated to reflect any changes in the Grant amount
and/or major changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)

The ISP always updates the CVSP budget to reflect any major changes related to line
items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The ISP automatically updates the CVSP budget to reflect any major changes related
to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The KHP financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The KSP financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The LSP financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The MSP always updates the CVSP budget to reflect any major changes related to
line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The MSP financial personnel always update the CVSP Budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The MSP financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The CVSP budget is always updated to reflect any major changes related to line
items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The NDHP financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The NSP always informs the FMCSA DO of any CVSP budget changes via email.
(Per Financial Review)
The NHSP always updates the CVSP budget to reflect any major changes related to
line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
  The NJDOT financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The DPS always updates the CVSP budget to reflect any major changes related to
line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The NHP financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The NYSDOT financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any
major changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The ODOT financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The PSC financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The STP financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The CVSP budget is always updated to reflect any major changes related to line
items of expense. (Per Financial Review
The CVE always updates the CVSP budget to reflect any major changes related to
line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The VIPD financial personnel always update the CVSP budget to reflect any major
changes related to line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The VSP’s CVSP budget is always updated to reflect any major changes related to
line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
The WSP always updates the CVSP budget to reflect any major changes related to
line items of expense. (Per Financial Review)
CVSP Preparation
The Review Team commends the NDHP on its preparation of its 2010 CVSP Budget,
which was prepared in the correct format, included pertinent line items, and included
columns for both costs expected to be charged to the MCSAP Basic Grant and total
eligible costs. (Per Financial Review)
The NHSP financial personnel actively participate in the development of the CVSP
budget and MOE calculation documents. This participation gives them a much better
understanding of how all aspects of the MCSAP accounting and billing processes fit
into the overall MCSAP. (Per Financial Review)

Grant Expenses
No “prorated” salary costs are charged to the MCSAP program; only the salaries and
benefits of the MHP personnel who spend 100 percent of their time on MCSAP
activities are charged directly. With the exception of an indirect overhead cost (since
this is the first year the MDPS is the MCSAP lead agency, it has yet to determine
exactly how indirect costs will be determined/accumulated), all costs recorded against
MCSAP are limited to those utilized by the 30 highway patrolmen assigned full time to
the program. This includes travel, office space rent, supplies, equipment, and
vehicles. No other costs are “prorated and/or otherwise distributed” to the MCSAP
program. (Per Financial Review)
No “prorated” salary costs are charged to the MCSAP program; only the salaries and
benefits of the MHP personnel who spend 100 percent of their time on MCSAP
activities are charged directly. With the exception of a small percentage (8.6 percent
of actual salary and benefits costs of the 10+ MCSAP employees), all costs recorded
against MCSAP are limited to those directly utilized by the 10+ MCSAP employees.
These costs include travel, office space rent, supplies, equipment, and vehicles. No
other costs are “prorated and/or otherwise distributed” to the MCSAP program. (Per
Financial Review)


Indirect Costs
The MCCD has established an indirect cost rate for the MCSAP that has been
approved by the FMCSA DO. (Per Financial Review)
The ISP has established an indirect cost rate for the MCSAP. (Per Financial Review)

Both the MSP and MnDOT have established an indirect cost rate that can be utilized
when determining total MCSAP-eligible costs, thereby facilitating an accurate MOE
computation. (Per Financial Review)
The MDPS has maximized cost items that are charged directly to the MCSAP grant
and has held indirect (distributed) costs to a minimum. (Per Financial Review)

The State has established an indirect cost rate for the MCSAP that has been
approved by the FMCSA DO. (Per Financial Review)
The lead MCSAP agency has established an indirect cost rate that has been
approved by the FMCSA DO. (Per Financial Review)
Invoicing
The MCSU has established a monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)

The State established a routine monthly billing process for all MCSAP Grants. (Per
Financial Review)
The ASD has established a monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)
The CSP has a standard monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)
The State has established a routine quarterly billing process against all MCSAP
Grants. (Per Financial Review)
The State established a routine invoicing process for all MCSAP Grants. (Per
Financial Review)
The State has established a routine billing process against all MCSAP Grants and is
striving to bill all MCSAP costs on a monthly basis. (Per Financial Review)

The ISP has established a monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)
The State has established a routine billing process for all MCSAP Grants that were
included in the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Rapid Approval State
Payment System (RASPS) billing cycle. The State is urged to maintain a routine
billing process, preferably not less than monthly, in 2008 and future years, when it will
be reimbursed directly from DELPHI, as opposed to RASPS through FHWA. (Per
Financial Review)
The KHP has established a monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)
The MSP has established a quarterly billing process. (Per Financial Review)

The MSP has established a monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)
The State has established a routine monthly billing process for all MCSAP Grants.
There also are written procedures that inform all sub-grantees of the processes to be
followed during the monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)

The NDHP has established a monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)

The NSP has established a monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)
The NHSP has established a monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)

The NHP financial personnel have established a monthly billing process. (Per
Financial Review)
The ODOT has a standard monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)
The CVE has established a monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)
The VSP has established a monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)
The WSP has established a monthly billing process. (Per Financial Review)

MOE & Substantiation
The ASD has captured total MCSAP-eligible costs for all fiscal years through 2008,
and has accurately substantiated actual MOE costs for those fiscal years, thereby
including a verifiable MOE calculation for use in preparing both the 2009 and 2010
CVSPs. (Per Financial Review)
The MOE calculations were prepared correctly. (Per Financial Review)



The STP is able to substantiate its State Certification requirements that the State met
its MOE requirements for 2009. (Per Financial Review)


Procurement & Inventory
The MCSU procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The CSP procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory to
record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The MPD procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The State identifies each piece of inventoried equipment with the funding source from
which it was purchased. Federal regulations prescribing procedures for inventorying
equipment purchased with Federal Grant funds stipulates that the State’s inventory
records must specifically identify each piece of inventoried equipment with the funding
source from which it was purchased. (Per Financial Review)


Through the State procurement process, the MCCD assigns a cost code to the
equipment, which automatically updates the equipment inventory records to record
the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The ISP procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory records
to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The ISP sales proceeds of all excess equipment and vehicles are credited back to the
MCSAP. (Per Financial Review)

The State identifies each piece of inventoried equipment with the funding source from
which it was purchased. (Per Financial Review)

The ISP procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory records
to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The KHP procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The KSP procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

 The LSP procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory to
record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The MSP procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)
The State procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

 The NDHP procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The NSP procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The NHSP procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The NJDOT procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The NHP procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The NYSDOT and NYSP procurement processes automatically update the equipment
inventory to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The ODOT procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment.

The PSC procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The STP procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The State procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory to
record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

Through the State procurement process, the CVE assigns a cost code to the
equipment, which automatically updates the equipment inventory records to record
the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)

The VIPD financial personnel have a manual procurement process in place that
allows the VIPD to update the equipment inventory records to record the purchase of
capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)
The State identifies each piece of inventoried equipment with the funding source from
which it was purchased. Federal regulations prescribing procedures for inventorying
equipment purchased with Federal Grant funds stipulates that the State’s inventory
records must specifically identify each piece of inventoried equipment with the funding
source from which it was purchased. (Per Financial Review)


The WSP procurement process automatically updates the equipment inventory
records to record the purchase of capitalized equipment. (Per Financial Review)


Reconciliation
Through the FMCSA Division Office (DO), the MSCVE periodically checks the State’s
unbilled balances for each MCSAP Grant with the Federal DELPHI accounting
reports. (Per Financial Review)
Through the FMCSA DO, the MCSU checks the State’s unbilled balances for each
MCSAP Grant with the Federal DELPHI accounting reports. (Per Financial Review)

The State and the local FMCSA DO reconcile their Grant financial tracking reports
and records with the Federal Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS) and the
DELPHI accounting systems. This ensures uniformity in the execution of Grant
Agreements, amounts expended/reimbursed, and unpaid balances within the various
Grants. (Per Financial Review)
Through the FMCSA DO, the CSP checks the State’s unbilled balances for each
MCSAP Grant with the Federal DELPHI accounting reports. (Per Financial Review)

 The State and local FMCSA DO reconcile their Grant financial tracking reports and
records with the Federal Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS) and the
DELPHI accounting system. This ensures uniformity in the execution of Grant
Agreements, amounts expended/reimbursed, and unpaid balances within the various
Grants. (Per Financial Review)
 The MCCD and FMCSA Division Office (DO) routinely reconcile their Grant financial
tracking reports and records with the Federal DELPHI system. This reconciliation
ensures uniformity in the execution of Grant Agreements, amounts
expended/reimbursed, and unpaid balances within the various Grants. (Per Financial
Review)
The State and FMCSA Division Office (DO) routinely reconcile their Grant financial
tracking reports and accounting records with the Federal DELPHI system. This
ensures uniformity in the execution of Grant Agreements, amounts
expended/reimbursed, and unpaid balances of the various MCSAP Grants. (Per
Financial Review)
The ISP works with the Division Office (DO) to reconcile unbilled balances for each
MCSAP Grant with the Federal DELPHI accounting reports. (Per Financial Review)

Through the FMCSA Division Office (DO), the KHP checks the State’s unbilled
balances for each MCSAP Grant with the DELPHI accounting reports. (Per Financial
Review)
Through the FMCSA DO, the KSP checks the Commonwealth’s unbilled balances for
each MCSAP Grant with the Federal DELPHI accounting reports. (Per Financial
Review)
 Through the FMCSA DO, the LSP checks the State’s unbilled balances for each
MCSAP Grant with the Federal DELPHI accounting reports. (Per Financial Review)

The MSP works with the FMCSA Division Office (DO) to reconcile its unbilled
balances for each MCSAP Grant with the Federal DELPHI accounting reports. (Per
Financial Review)
Through the FMCSA DO, the MSP checks the State’s unbilled balances for each
MCSAP Grant with the Federal DELPHI accounting reports. (Per Financial Review)

The State and FMCSA Division Office (DO) routinely reconcile their Grant financial
tracking reports and records with the Federal DELPHI systems. This reconciliation
ensures uniformity in the execution of Grant Agreements, amounts
expended/reimbursed, and unpaid balances within the various Grants. (Per Financial
Review)
Through the FMCSA DO, the NDHP checks the State’s unbilled balances for each
MCSAP Grant with the DELPHI accounting reports. (Per Financial Review)

The NSP works with the FMCSA DO to reconcile the unbilled balances for each
MCSAP Grant with the DELPHI accounting system. This reconciliation ensures
uniformity in the execution of Grant Agreements, amounts expended/reimbursed, and
unpaid balances within the various Grants. (Per Financial Review)

Through the FMCSA DO, the NHP checks the State’s unbilled balances for each
MCSAP Grant with the Federal DELPHI accounting reports. (Per Financial Review)

Through the FMCSA DO, the NYSDOT checks the State’s unbilled balances for each
MCSAP Grant with the Federal DELPHI accounting reports. (Per Financial Review)

Through the FMCSA DO, the PSC reconciles the Commonwealth’s unbilled balances
for each MCSAP Grant with the Federal DELPHI accounting reports. (Per Financial
Review)
Through the FMCSA Division Office (DO), the STP checks the State’s unbilled
balances for each MCSAP Grant with the DELPHI accounting reports. (Per Financial
Review)
The State and FMCSA Division Office (DO) routinely reconcile their Grant financial
tracking reports and records with the DELPHI accounting system. This reconciliation
ensures uniformity in the execution of Grant Agreements, amounts
expended/reimbursed, and unpaid balances within the various Grants. (Per Financial
Review)
The CVE and FMCSA Division Office (DO) routinely reconcile their Grant financial
tracking reports and records with the Federal DELPHI system. This reconciliation
ensures uniformity in the execution of Grant Agreements, amounts
expended/reimbursed, and unpaid balances within the various Grants. (Per Financial
Review)
The VIPD financial personnel, through the FMCSA DO, reconcile the Territory’s
unbilled balances for each MCSAP Grant with the Federal DELPHI accounting
reports. (Per Financial Review)
The VSP works with the DO on a quarterly basis to compare the unbilled balances on
its Excel spreadsheets against each MCSAP Grant with the Federal DELPHI
accounting reports. (Per Financial Review)
The WSP checks the State’s unpaid balances for each MCSAP Grant with the
Federal DELPHI accounting reports which are maintained by the FMCSA DO. (Per
Financial Review)
The State and FMCSA DA routinely reconcile their Grant financial tracking reports
and records with the Federal Departmental Accounting System (DELPHI) system.
This action ensures uniformity in the execution of Grant Agreements, amounts
expended/reimbursed, and unpaid balances within the various Grants. (Per Financial
Review)

Communication & Coordination
The MCSU conducts a 1-day quarterly session to address emergent issues, new
training items, and other relevant topics. The MCSU also has implemented a Unit
meeting every 6 weeks to provide new information on a more current basis. An e-mail
distribution list is used to send information to MCSU personnel on an immediate basis
plus the information is then included in its written materials (i.e., Handbook). (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)


The MSCVE issues a daily training “Fact of the Day” / “Catch of the Day” e-mail that
is distributed to all certified officers. Some of these e-mails clarify regulations; other e-
mails report on unusual CMV enforcement events. These daily e-mails have been so
successful, that the MSCVE receives requests from other jurisdictions and trainers to
be added to the distribution. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The MSCVE conducts CMV awareness sessions with the general police officers (non
North American Standard Inspection [NASI]-certified officers) in the local police
departments regarding the differences between a CMV and a passenger vehicle.
These sessions are usually requested by the police departments, although, there are
times when the MSCVE may suggest an awareness session. The MSCVE also has a
program where a CVEO will ride-along with a local police department officer to show
what to look for on CMVs and how to conduct a CMV stop. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


The ISP meets on a monthly basis to review the past month’s fatalities, identify
causes, and to identify any correction actions or enforcement details that may be
needed. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The KSP established the CVE Programs Branch to support all data collection, CVSP
development, coordination of National Training Center training programs, and other
support activities. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The CVEU coordinates BEG enforcement activities with other Federal agencies
including the CBP, USBP, and ICE. (Per Border Enforcement Grant Review)
The MSP has established an internal Ad Hoc Crash Work Group that meets on a
regular basis to address issues related to crash reporting and data collection. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)

The CVSP and Border Enforcement Grant (BEG) planning process both involve
extensive input from regional command and supervisory staff. These staff are asked
to provide input on what worked; what did not work and why; future directions; and
continuation of existing initiatives. Regional command and supervisory staff also are
involved in reviewing the draft plans to provide additional feedback. Finally, the CVSP
and BEG plans are reviewed by the MTSC to ensure coordination of all activities.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The Captain hosts a quarterly meeting with CED field lieutenants and sergeants to
discuss, amongst other things, each area’s progress with respect to its expected
accomplishments. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The MCEU, the NHSP Financial Team, the DMV, and the Commissioner’s Office
operate as a cohesive team singularly focused on conducting the right safety
activities within the regulatory parameters in order to meet its goals of reducing
crashes, injuries, and fatalities in New Hampshire, resulting in one of the lowest
fatality rates in the nation based on 2007 FARS data. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)
Pennsylvania also has an extensive notification process to make the field immediately
aware of changes to regulations, policies, practices, interpretations, etc. This is
accomplished through quarterly mailings, e-mails (requiring affirmative viewing with
escalation), Special Orders, Target Special Orders, and i-net posting (PSP’s internal
communications system) with e-mail notification. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)
The OMCHMS has frequent meetings with field personnel which allow it to quickly
disseminate new information and to address any emergent training issues. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)

The State has a robust and complete information distribution system to disseminate
information. In between in-service refresher trainings, new or changes to regulations
and/or policies are sent to the field via e-mail with an attachment memorandum. The
notification requires an electronic signature to document that the information has
been received. Regulation books are automatically updated on an annual basis. The
updated regulatory and/or policy information is also added to the DPS’ intranet
Website. The STP also provides the information to the SCTA who distributes the
information to its membership. Changes are also discussed during the quarterly
industry meeting. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)



The STP has developed its own STP Safety Inspection Manual (March 2010), a
component of which is to select safe inspection sites. The Safety Inspection Manual
includes detailed information to consider when selecting an inspection site including:
(1) site selection based on a volume of CMV traffic sufficient to support the work
activity; (2) provides safe working conditions for inspectors, drivers, and for other
authorized personnel; (3) provides sufficient space available or reasonably adjacent
to for the safe parking of vehicles placed out of service (OOS); (4) location and
distance to nearest public telephone; and (5) location and distance to cities or towns
providing taxi service, meals, lodging, and vehicle repair facilities and wrecker service
for heavy CMVs. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)



Based on one of the recommendations from the 2006-2007 SC MCSAP Program
Review, the STP has developed a Procedural Manual for the Motor Carrier
Compliance (MCC) Unit that mirrors the FMCSA Compliance Review procedures.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The CVE MCB is a model organization for providing CMV support services including
in-service training, performance monitoring, data quality, and conducting Compliance
Reviews (CRs) and Safety Audits (SAs). The MCB has consolidated all staff, program
support activities, and statewide program activities such as training, CRs, and SAs
under a single commander. This enables improved coordination of program activities
and improved quality control as all staff work in the same office under a unified
command staff. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The UDOT and UHP meets on a monthly basis to review trends from reporting and to
make adjustments for resource assignments for the upcoming month. During this
meeting, CR results are discussed so UHP is aware of carriers to observe more
closely. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The UHP hosts mini-focus groups of Inspectors at the field level to look for innovative
new ideas for conducting safety and enforcement activities. As a result, a number of
ideas generated from these mini-focus groups have been implemented. (Per Safety
and Program Performance Review)
The MCSS Lieutenant hosts a quarterly meeting with his field sergeants to discuss,
amongst other things, each area’s progress with respect to its expected
accomplishments. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The WVPSC has excellent communication from upper management to its field staff.
Monthly supervisor meetings with upper management are conducted in the agency’s
headquarters. Clear agendas are set out covering recurring items as well as new
issues. Supervisors are required to go back to their territories and conduct similar
meetings with their staff to disseminate the material given from headquarters. Both
supervisors and their staffs are required to indicate their receipt and understanding of
the information by their signature. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)



The District Captains, as part of the Patrol Staff, meet on a monthly basis to discuss
fatalities that occurred the previous month, along with activities conducted during the
previous month. Among other things, the meeting includes discussions of MCSAP
activities for the coming months. Information from these meetings is then
disseminated to the respective Division Lieutenants for distribution to all field
personnel. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


Crash Reporting
The ALDPS has a policy that all crash reports are to be submitted within 3 days from
the date of the crash even though the Federal requirement is 90 days. In addition,
The ALDPS has a policy that all inspections reports are to be submitted within 4 days
from the date of the inspection even though the Federal requirement is 21 days. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)


The State has a Personnel Deployment Enforcement Program (PDEP), which allows
officers to enter crash causation factors. The PDEP, along with the use of Motor
Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), which indicates high corridor
crash locations, allows the CVEB to focus its enforcement activities in terms of issue
awareness and crash locations. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The State has implemented a discretionary process that notifies designated
government and political officials immediately when there is a crash involving
fatalities, serious injuries, and/or is highly visible (e.g., the overturned tanker that
caught on fire on a major metropolitan bridge). This notification is done using a Major
Crash Notification Form. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The MCSS headquarters personnel review all CMV crash reports to determine crash
causation. Once a crash cause has been determined, the causation is assigned a
code that is included on the crash report uploaded to MCMIS. The Administrative
Services Section then periodically generates reports from SAFETYNET that
summarize crash causation factors. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
MCCD has established a model data quality control program. A staff person has
responsibility for reviewing all crash reports to ensure accuracy and correct errors.
This staff person also works directly with the Georgia Department of Transportation
(GDOT) on issues related to improving data quality. As a result, the listing of crash
report errors contained on the cover sheet that is sent with the crash report batch file
sent bi-monthly has been reduced close to 75 percent. A similar process is used for
quality control for inspection reports, where one staff person checks each inspection
report to ensure accuracy. When an error is identified, the inspection report is
returned to the MCO who wrote the report and the MCO is responsible for correcting
the error. DPS stated that anytime a report needs to be corrected, it always makes
sure that the MCO who originated the report is the one who corrects the report to
ensure consistency and accuracy. DPS also has hired a retired MCCD captain as a
consultant to conduct quality control reviews of inspection reports. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)


The KSP developed a uniform, electronic crash reporting form that is used by the
KSP and major police departments throughout the Commonwealth. Use of this
electronic form enables the real-time collection and analysis of crash data. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)
Through its electronic crash reporting system, the Commonwealth has a
SAFETYNET-compliant crash reporting form. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
 The LSP works with the LSU for crash analysis. The LSU maintains the CMV crash
data and uses it to identify high crash corridors, which includes an assessment of
crash causation factors and additional analysis in support of CMV enforcement. The
LSU also conducts a second review of all crash reports to ensure completeness and
accuracy and releases the crash reports to the LSP for uploading into MCMIS after
the LSU completes final edits and checks. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
The CVEU has a State statute that requires that all crash reports are to be submitted
within 5 days from the date of the crash even though the Federal requirement is 90
days. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
Michigan has developed a crash reporting system that enables TSD Motor Carrier
Officers (MCOs) and investigators to access real-time information on crash data. This
includes information on crash locations, type of vehicle/cargo involved, time of day,
season, weather, global positioning system (GPS) location, and other crash related
information to support the planning and conducting of enforcement activities. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)


MSHP crash reconstruction is an extensive and thorough process, resulting in a
report that sets an example for other States to follow. In addition to standard crash
reconstruction training, MSHP also offers an advance CMV crash reconstruction
training course and provides extensive ongoing crash reconstruction training. Every
fatality involving a CMV will undergo a Level IV inspection, which is included as part
of the crash reconstruction report. In its crash reconstruction process, the MSHP has
access to the CMV’s black box to identify equipment settings at the time of the crash,
which helps with driver and vehicle information gathering. MSHP can use MapScene
software to input evidence that is collected at the crash site to produce scaled
animated crash reconstructions. This information can subsequently be used by
insurance companies, attorneys, and/or victims. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


The State requires that all crash reports are to be submitted within 10 days from the
date of the crash even though the Federal requirement is 90 days. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)
The State of New Jersey Police Crash Investigation Report (Form NJTR-1 Revision
R3/06) is the only approved form for reporting motor vehicle crashes to the NJDOT’s
Bureau of Safety Programs (BSP). All law enforcement officers, who investigate
crashes, are required to use this report. Law enforcement officers are required to
forward this report to the NJDOT’s BSP within 5 days of their investigations being
finalized. Fatal crash reports must be faxed to the BSP while other types of reports
are to be mailed. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The State requires drivers, who are involved in crashes within the State, to notify the
local police department or nearest office of the county police or the NJSP of the crash
if the crash results in an injury or death to a person or property damage in excess of
$500. The State also requires the driver to forward a written report of the crash to the
NJDOT’s BSP if the crash is not investigated by a law enforcement officer. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)


All law enforcement agencies within the State responsible for investigating and
reporting crashes must utilize the Oregon DMV’s crash report. Law enforcement
agencies are required to fax the Oregon DMV Police Truck/Bus/Hazmat Crash
Supplemental form to the Oregon DMV within 24 hours of a crash involving a CMV.

 Drivers involved in crashes in the State must complete and submit to the Oregon
DMV a standard DMV crash report within 72 hours of a crash if the crash resulted in
damages to his/her vehicle over $1,500, an injury (no matter how minor), death,
damage to any one person’s property over $1,500, any vehicle with damage over
$1,500, and any vehicle is towed from the scene as a result of damages. In addition,
a motor carrier crash report must be filed by CMV operators within 30 days of a CMV
crash when there is a recordable CMV crash.


ODOT’s Transportation Development Division’s Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit
has a comprehensive CMV crash database that provides any combination or scenario
of information sought. The unit reconciles and analyzes the various crash reports.
Oregon determines preventability of CMV crash and tracks CMV-at-fault crashes. The
State has an individual within the department assigned and dedicated to maintaining
the crash database. This person inputs, designs, and analyzes the crash data and is
responsible for uploading all crashes into MCMIS.


UHP has an e-mail notification system that proactively notifies the UHP office, UDOT,
and FMCSA via e-mail when a crash has occurred in Utah. The e-mail notification
provides these three agencies with early warning information, especially in a high-
profile case or one that may have a high number of fatalities. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)
Virginia’s Police Crash Report (FR300P Revised 07/07) contains all SAFETYNET
data elements and won a Best Practice award from the National Safety Council’s
Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals. The project title was:
Virginia DMV Advanced CMV Data Extraction, Analysis, and MCMIS Upload. It
included a redesign of the crash report and other things related to crash data quality.
The award was given to Virginia because or its efforts to improve CMV data quality
and timeliness. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


CVSP Planning & Implementation
The PUCO brings together all the CMV safety stakeholders in the state to
collaboratively begin the MCSAP CVSP planning process. These meetings start in
the April – May time frame each year. The participating stakeholders include: the
PUCO; OSHP; Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT); Ohio Trucking
Association (OTA); FMCSA; Governor’s Highway Safety Office; FHWA; and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). This process greatly
facilitates in ensuring that the CVSPs address CMV crash reduction. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)
Strike Force Planning – The CVS develops written plans that include performance
metrics and data collection and reporting requirements when developing a plan to do
a concentrated strike force targeting a high crash corridor or other area identified as
requiring an increased enforcement level of effort. The documented performance
metrics and data collection and reporting requirements helps the CVS obtain data
that can be used to assess the effectiveness of strike force activities. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)


The MCSS uses a “grass-roots” approach for developing the CVSP. Select field
personnel are included in discussions about successes/failures from the previous
year’s CVSP. As part of this discussion, they are asked to identify what activities
should/should not be included in the CVSP or if there are new areas that should be
included. The CVSP is then drafted by headquarters personnel and once finalized
and approved, the supervising headquarters sergeants meet with field personnel to
discuss the final plan and implementation strategies. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


The sources of all data used in developing the CVSP are referenced in footnotes.
This links data directly to authoritative sources and establishes consistency in the
Program Objectives listed in the CVSP. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
Kansas uses a “bottoms-up” approach in developing the annual CVSP. Regional
command staff meets at headquarters to discuss program effectiveness and issues;
identify new problem areas; and develop problem statements, performance
objectives, and associated CVSP plan components. The regional command staff is
then required to report progress on a quarterly basis. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


The KSP utilizes a CVSP planning process that involves the regional command staff
in assessing prior year performance, identifying program needs, and providing input
into defining the problem statements and developing performance objectives for the
CVSP. Including regional command staff helps facilitate buy-in and support for the
CVSP implementation. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The regional commanders are responsible for analyzing crash data to identify high
crash corridors and locations for strike force activities and then reporting on the
effectiveness of strike force activities. This includes not only information on
enforcement actions―number of citations issued, inspections conducted―but also
on performance metrics such as the impact of strike force activities on any changes
in crash rates resulting from the strike force. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
 The LSP uses a “bottoms-up” approach to CVSP planning. The LSP headquarters
personnel conduct monthly meetings with the regional command staff and FMCSA to
identify issues and to review program implementation and performance. The monthly
meeting includes a regular assessment of the progress in implementing the current
CVSP, identifying program activities that do not need to be included in the next year’s
CVSP, and identifying new or additional enforcement activities that should be
included. The CVSP is then developed based on the LSU data analysis and input
from field personnel. Once the CVSP is approved by FMCSA, the LSP headquarters
personnel meet with field personnel to review the plan and discuss implementation.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


 MoDOT has a full-time dedicated staff member responsible for the overall
implementation and execution of the MCSAP. This staff member is responsible for all
components of the MCSAP including administration; planning; coordination amongst
participant agencies; evaluation and monitoring; ensuring compliance with Federal
regulations; financial accountability; and CVSP and financial reporting. Having a
dedicated staff member has been instrumental in Missouri’s implementation of a
comprehensive, well-coordinated and seamless MCSAP. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review
The MCE CVSP planning process involves bringing all CMV sergeants from each of
the field troops together on an annual basis and conducting a facilitated discussion to
identify which program activities were effective; which were not and why; what new
problems need to be addressed; and any other information pertinent to CMV
enforcement in their respective region. This information is then used to develop the
program objectives; problem statements; program strategies and activities; and other
information needed for the CVSP. Each troop is provided with a detailed statistical
analysis that highlights high crash corridors and locations and is asked to prepare its
own specific plans for implementing the CVSP and conducting CMV activities. Each
troop is required to report back to MCE on a quarterly basis on effectiveness;
problems encountered and resolutions; changes to the enforcement plans; and other
information relevant to performance. This is a “grass-roots” approach for planning,
implementation, and performance monitoring that enables each troop to take
ownership of their enforcement activities as well as being held accountable for
performance. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The NDHP uses a “bottoms up” approach for developing and implementing their
CVSP. Field supervisory personnel are asked for input on the effectiveness of the
previous year’s activities and activities to be included in the current year plan. Field
supervisory personnel also are brought together to discuss plan implementation. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)


The CED’s preparation and execution of its CVSP is a collaborative effort within CED
management, including:
• Collecting input from the field during the CVSP preparation.
• Disseminating the information to the field lieutenants and sergeants once the
CVSP is approved and implemented, with the expectation that each field lieutenant
and sergeant take responsibility for implementing its portion of the plan, including
developing area-specific plans to meet the CVSP goals.
• Field sergeants communicating the goals of the CVSP to their field staff.
• Reporting field results on a routine basis – monthly / quarterly
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review).
The CVSP planning process is a very well thought-through, well-planned, well-
developed, and well-executed process that actively seeks out and incorporates CVSP
training information into the CVSP development process using the appropriate CVSP
model and template information and thorough data analysis techniques. The CVSP
development process is inclusive of the MCEU management team, the DMV, the
Commissioner’s Office, the financial team, and a number of other State and Federal
agencies in its development. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The CVSP Planning Team creates a Microsoft® PowerPoint summarization of the
CVSP for dissemination to all NASI-certified inspectors who are then empowered to
carry out their respective portions of the plan. Units meet frequently to discuss
progress and review data trends. On a quarterly basis, the MCEU management team
meets to discuss progress at the State level. These quarterly meetings now also
include the DMV Statistician who provides crash and inspection information. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)


Implementing the CVSP is a very well thought-through, well-planned, well-developed,
and well-executed process that actively seeks out and incorporates CVSP training
information into the CVSP development process using the appropriate CVSP model
and template information and thorough data analysis techniques. The CVSP
development process includes input from the NHP management team, the
Commercial Operations troopers, technical, financial, and FMCSA personnel in its
development. The CVSP is used as a dynamic tool for the MCSAP implementation.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The PUCO brings together all the CMV safety stakeholders in the state to
collaboratively begin the MCSAP CVSP planning process. These meetings start in
the April – May time frame each year. The participating stakeholders include: the
PUCO; OSHP; Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT); Ohio Trucking
Association (OTA); FMCSA; Governor’s Highway Safety Office; FHWA; and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). This process greatly
facilitates in ensuring that the CVSPs address CMV crash reduction. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)
The STP has a comprehensive and thoroughly integrated CVSP Preparation and
Execution process. The STP integrates components of the FMCSA Planning
Memorandum, State-specific safety objectives, district enforcement plans, and the
size and weight plans to identify the common activities of general and targeted
enforcements efforts. The STP also analyzes its data to determine high-crash
locations compared to enforcement activity to identify areas of concern. Results of the
previous year’s CVSP are also analyzed and activities that did not yield the expected
results are re-evaluated and either modifications are made to the approach or the
activity is discontinued. The STP also involves State, Federal, and industry partners
in the CVSP in a cooperative effort to maximize efficient use of resources and taking
into consideration
the safety concerns of each partner. Partners include the DMV, DOT, Office of
Highway Safety (OHS), FMCSA, and SCTA in a cooperative effort to reduce
duplication of effort and to maximize efficient use of resources. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)

The US Virgin Islands is using a “bottoms up” approach for CVSP planning where
input is obtained from field personnel on such factors as the identification of program
needs, problems that should be addressed, and program effectiveness. (Per Safety
and Program Performance Review)
The UDOT and UHP host an annual MCSAP conference and “Top Hands”
conference. During the MCSAP conference, the CVSP initiatives for the upcoming
year are introduced to field personnel, providing them with an understanding of how
their specific roles fits into the overall picture of safety and enforcement in Utah. The
Top Hands conference held in the spring outlines how well the State is doing in
meeting the goals. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


MCSS’ preparation and execution of its CVSP is a collaborative effort amongst the
management team and field personnel, including:
• Collecting input from the field during the CVSP preparation.
• Disseminating the information to the field sergeants once the CVSP is approved
and implemented, with the expectation that each field sergeant take responsibility for
implementing his/her portion of the plan – including developing area-specific plans to
meet the CVSP goals.
• Reporting field results on a routine basis – monthly / quarterly.
• Field sergeants communicating the goals of the CVSP to the field staff.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

 The MCSS has developed a series of presentations that outline the year’s CVSP
objectives, the year’s modifications to the operations manual, and how to correctly
capture data. These presentations are delivered to all MCSS personnel. (Per Safety
and Program Performance Review)
 Wisconsin’s CVSP planning process results in obtaining ownership support from the
MCES field personnel. The annual meeting in which the Headquarters staff and field
supervisors review previous performance, crash data, plan goals, and objectives
helps ensure the final CVSP is realistic and is designed so that the plan is
successfully implemented. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


Data
Data Quality – The CVS has established a process where inspection and crash data
is reviewed first by each inspector’s or officer’s supervisor as well as by the staff of
the Central Records Unit (CRU). These data reviews are conducted to ensure
technical correctness of all reports and to identify and correct non-matching errors.
California also has allocated the staff resources necessary to ensure the timeliness
and accuracy of inspection and crash report uploads. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)
The CVEU has a Data Control Specialist and Motor Carrier Supervisor who can run
monthly and quarterly statistical reports using State, SAFETYNET, Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS), and Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS) crash data to identify crash trends and profiles to determine where CVEU
enforcement resources are best utilized, to aid both in quarterly reporting and CVSP
development. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The CVEU has made a commitment, by assigning resources, to ensure that crash
and inspection data are uploaded timely, and are complete and accurate. As a result,
the State is rated “Green” or “Good” in all the State Safety Data Quality (SSDQ) crash
and inspection measurement categories. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
The CVEU identified the majority of its fatalities were occurring on non-Interstate
highways. As a result, the State was given authority to conduct a pilot study that
would allow 100,000 pound 6-axle combination vehicles to utilize the interstate
system where they were previously limited to 80,000 pounds. The intent of the study
is to determine if it results in a lower fatality rate as these vehicles will now be allowed
to travel on the safer interstate system rather than driving through built-up
communities. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


BEG inspections are tracked on Daily Detail Activity Sheets completed by each
inspector which are then consolidated into one statewide spreadsheet. Additional
details beyond the standard inspections, such as inspection results (i.e., violations,
out of service (OOS) orders, etc) and type of carrier (foreign carrier) are kept on the
detailed sheet. The Daily Detail Activity Sheet is not only used for tracking additional
statistics for the BEG Program but also is used to record hours for BEG activity. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)


As noted, Minnesota uses crash data to identify not only high-crash corridors, but also
uses crash data to conduct an extensive analysis of crash causes. This data has
been used to develop a State-specific objective to improve CMV safety. In particular,
Minnesota is focusing its CMV enforcement inspection and review programs on driver
behavior. Commercial Vehicle Inspectors (CVIs) are giving special attention to driver
fatigue, violations of hours of service (HOS) requirements, and driver qualification
issues. The State focuses review activity on carriers with driver related safety
problems. This is a good example of how a State can use crash data analysis to
target enforcement actions. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The FMCSA Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) reports show
that Montana has been one of the five states in the nation with the lowest non-match
rates for inspection and accident reports. A major reason for this is that the State has
provided the ASPEN software to both MCSAP personnel and to MDT personnel,
which has enabled the State to automate both data entry at roadside and the
uploading of information to SAFETYNET.
The success in reducing non-match rates was achieved as follows:
1.    Between 80 – 85 percent of total inspections are performed with ASPEN
software.
2.    Those officers that utilize the ASPEN software are also given access to the
most current Injury Surveillance System (ISS) database. By entering the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) number or motor carrier (MC) number the
chances of recording the proper motor carrier are increased significantly.
3.    Training is given to all officers on how to correctly identify the motor carrier.
4.    Violation disputes on inspections concerning incorrect motor carriers on
inspection reports are monitored to reveal any re-training issues.
5.    Incorrect motor carriers on inspection reports can reflect on each officer’s
performance appraisal.
6.    Non-match reports in MCMIS are monitored and corrections made as
appropriate.
The success in maintaining timeliness rates was achieved as follows:
1.    Between 80 – 85 percent of total inspections is performed using ASPEN
software, allowing for electronic upload.
2.    Timeliness rates are part of the data entry personnel performance appraisal.
3.    Daily uploads to MCMIS greatly improves timeliness rates.
4.    Adequate staffing levels for data entry plays a significant role in improved
timeliness rates.
5.    Monitoring hand-written reports to ensure timely submission.
(Per Safety and Performance Review)

The NHP’s MCSAP is a thoroughly data-driven program starting with the Goal
Achievement Sheet completed at the trooper level. This data is analyzed and
discussed monthly at Commanders meetings; analyzed and discussed for quarterly
reporting and annual CVSP preparation; aids in evaluating trends on strategies that
worked; and identifies those strategies where anticipated results did not meet
expectations. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The NHP’s data-driven program includes the routine use of data trends (3-5 years)
when determining its goals, objectives, strategies, and effectiveness in its safety
program, thus avoiding data anomalies that may occur from year-to-year (e.g., a
weather incident may cause a bus crash with numerous fatalities causing the fatality
rate to go up for that year). Utilization of trend data also has carried over into reporting
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) using 3-year segment averages to better evaluate its
true crash reduction efforts. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The MCTD’s data driven program includes the routine use of data trends (3-5 years)
when determining its goals, objectives, and strategies. Utilization of tread data also
has been carried over into reporting vehicle miles traveled (VMT) using 3-year
segment averages.
The WVPSC is a data-driven organization. The WVPSC develops numerous reports
based on available statistical data. These reports are used by management to plan
and make decisions on a variety of issues, such as resource distribution, staff
evaluation, and problem solution strategies. Some examples of these reports are:
1. Safety Audit inventory vs. Cost Report. This report is used to determine the cost
effectiveness of Safety Audits.
2. Seatbelt Usage Report. This report is used to target seatbelt enforcement and
outreach programs.
3. WV CMV Crash by Month Reports. These reports are used to determine injuries
by month, timing of crashes, crashes by county, and injuries by
     county, fatalities by county, and timing by intrastate carriers. These reports are
used to determine CMV crash causes, what to do about them, and how
    to include them in the CVSP preparation process. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)




Driver Manual
The District has a comprehensive section about safe driving practices in its Driving
Manual for non-CMV drivers, which includes specific information on the No Zone and
Sharing the Road with Large Trucks, including topics such as maneuverability,
passing, and following. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The State’s 2006 – 2007 Driver’s License Manual lists additional tips for driving safely
around CMVs beyond the standard no-zone, signaling, and lane changes. Additional
tips include such things as driving up and down steep hills, discussing runaway truck
ramps, and cautions about wide right turning. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
Massachusetts has comprehensive best practices for safe driving around CMVs in its
Sharing the Road section in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Driver’s Manual
(01/2009) and in its Driving Safely section in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Registry of Motor Vehicles Commercial Driver’s Manual (Version 2.0 Revision 0708).
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


Nebraska has listed comprehensive best practices for safe driving in and around
CMV and non-CMVs in both its Nebraska Driver’s Manual 2008 (including detailed
information on the no-zone and driving considerations around a CMV), and in its
Nebraska Training Manual for Commercial Driver’s Licensing December 2008. This
latter document is adapted from the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA), which includes detailed information on seeing,
communication, managing space, controlling speed, and braking. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)


New Hampshire has comprehensive best practices for safe driving in its CDL Driver
Manual including detailed information on:
a. Seeing.
b. Communication.
c. Managing Space.
d. Controlling Speed.
e. Braking.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The State’s Commercial Driver License Manual is based on the AAMVA 2005 CDL
Testing Model document, which includes information on seeing, communicating,
space management, controlling speed, seeing hazards, and distracted driving. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)
Nevada’s March 2009 Commercial Drivers License Handbook includes information
on seeing, communicating, controlling speed, space management, weather
conditions, backing-up, and control of the vehicle (braking, steering, accelerating,
shifting gears). The Handbook also includes a section on awareness of Drivers Who
Are Hazards. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The Oregon Commercial Drivers License Manual (2010-2011 Edition) is based on the
AAMVA 2005 CDL Testing Model document, which includes information on seeing,
communicating, space management, controlling speed, seeing hazards, and
distracted driving. The manual also includes a public service announcement called
“Respect the Hill”, which cautions the CMV driver on the safe manner of descending
Emigrant Hill, commonly referred to a “Cabbage Hill”.


The 2007 Passenger Driver Manual section outlining how to drive safely around
CMVs contains an extensive section on how to drive around a CMV including braking,
turning, blind spots, maneuverability, and common driving mistakes when driving
around trucks. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

 Virginia’s CDL Driver Manual has a robust section on best driving practices including
detailed information on:
a. Seeing.
b. Communication.
c. Managing Space.
d. Controlling Speed.
e. Braking.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

Enforcement Activities
The MCSU has significant CMV enforcement augmentation through the use of CVE
troopers and the use of local law enforcement through the City Officer Program
(COP). The locals sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to meet the
qualification, training (and annual in-service training), and implementation
requirements to participate in the CMV enforcement program. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)
The MCSU has the ability to impound a vehicle and arrest the driver for a violation of
an out of service (OOS) order. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

ISP has established a Voluntary Inspection Program (VIP) for Commercial Vehicle
Enforcement Officers (CVEOs) and Motor Carrier Inspectors (MCIs). Under the
program a CVEO or an MCI who have completed a minimum of eight inspections or
other CMV enforcement actions during a specified time period (usually a monthly time
period) may submit a request to be approved for overtime to conduct additional
inspections. Overtime is paid per inspection conducted or per enforcement action.
This offers an incentive for ISP officers to increase the number of inspections and
enforcement actions conducted. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)



The KHP’s Truck on Patrol for Safety (TOPS) is a program where a KHP trooper rides
with a CMV driver or uses its own CMV to observe road behaviors. When the trooper
identifies infractions such as no seat belt, speeding, unsafe driving, or any other
enforcement issue, the trooper radios identifying information to KHP troopers
stationed in patrol cars along the route the CMV is traveling. TOPS activities are
conducted up to 14 weeks per year.


The LSP requires NASI-certified personnel establish quarterly work plans and targets
and monitor their individual performance to ensure that targets are achieved. Work
plan monitoring is required to ensure that personnel do not wait until the final quarter
of the year to conduct the required number of annual inspections; instead conducting
inspections evenly throughout the year. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
The MSP has implemented the Level III Enforcement Program, which augments its
inspection program with 14 additional non-CVEU troopers conducting Level III
inspections. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The CVEU uses an overtime (OT) strategy in its implementation of BEG that allows
the CVEU to implement BEG activities when financial resources are available and to
protect staffing levels when financial resources are not available. (Per Border
Enforcement Grant Review)
The Special Transportation Enforcement Team (STET) program is a tool for targeting
particular areas for enforcement actions. The program is based on needs identified at
the roadside and the targeting of areas where enforcement coverage generally does
not have a significant presence. The STET program has been a means of ensuring
that routes by-passing enforcement facilities are targeted for periodic enforcement.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


Minnesota sends enforcement actions for Federal violations through FMCSA’s civil
procedure system. The SafeStat algorithm utilizes enforcement case data as an
additional element to compare safety performance against other motor carriers. In
2007, 23 percent of Minnesota’s MCSAP-eligible reviews resulted in an enforcement
case being sent through the FMCSA civil procedure system. Since many States only
issue a local enforcement case, Minnesota’s submission of enforcement cases
through FMCSA exceeds the national average of 10 percent. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)


Missouri is considered a corridor State for the transportation of illegal drugs. As a
result, Missouri has implemented an aggressive drug interdiction program. Members
of the MSHP have attended Drug Interdiction Assistance Program (DIAP) and Desert
Snow drug interdiction training, which includes what to look for in the paperwork
during a traffic stop, which has led to a significant increase in the amount of drugs
that have been seized. MSHP also works closely with the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) on criminal interdiction projects, and also when the MSHP
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement (CVE) pulls over a CV and then calls in the DEA to
assist when needed. On occasion, drug case investigations expand beyond the initial
seizure. The MSHP works with other State law enforcement agencies when the case
expands beyond its borders. The MSHP’s drug interdiction program is considered a
model program, and as a result, MSHP has been asked to consult with other State
and Federal agencies on its drug interdiction program.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)




MCOD provides troopers with a statewide map that shows the locations of all WIM
sites, fixed weigh and inspection facilities, and safe sites for conducting roadside
enforcement and inspection activities. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
Nebraska requires that intrastate motor carriers obtain a U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) number which allows it to conduct an intrastate compliance
review (CR) program using its own SafeStat list. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)
The NHP implemented its version of FMCSA’s TACT via the Badge on Board
program, a program idea suggested by an NHP trooper. The Badge on Board
program is a high-visibility enforcement program that uses education, enforcement,
and evaluation activities to reduce CMV-related crashes. Due to the seriousness of
unsafe driving near large trucks and buses, the NHP adopted a no-tolerance policy
during TACT operations, meaning an unsafe moving violation near a large truck
observed by the NHP will result in a citation. This program is conducted in
collaboration with NDOT and has resulted in favorable results. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)


 The MCTD has significant CMV enforcement augmentation through the use of OSP,
city, and county law enforcement officers. MCSAP sub-grantees are required to sign
Interagency Agreements agreeing to meet the MCTD’s qualification, training, and
CVSP implementation requirements including a requirement to, when possible, record
all inspections on ASPEN software and electronically upload computer-driven
inspections daily to FMCSA’s SAFER database or to provide paper inspections to
ODOT on ODOT Driver/Equipment Compliance Check Form No. 735-9242.
When a motor carrier’s driver or vehicle is cited for a safety defect or violation on the
driver/equipment compliance check form, the MCTD requires the motor carrier to
correct the safety defect and violation and certify that corrective action has been
taken and return driver/equipment compliance check form to the MCTD within 15
days of the inspection. The MCTD tracks motor carriers’ compliance. Failure to
comply with this requirement is grounds for the motor carrier receiving a CR and/or
enforcement by the MCTD.


MCTD performs CRs using the CAPRI software to collect CR information and to rate
intrastate motor carriers based on its adoption of 49 CFR 385 by reference. The
MCTD uses a rating letter which is very similar to the one used by FMCSA. Carriers
are selected for CRs based on FMCSA’s SafeStat A and B List, based on received
complaints against a carrier, based on carriers not reporting crashes to ODOT’s DMV,
or based on carriers not returning driver/equipment compliance check forms to the
MCTD within 15 days of the inspection.


The MCTD invites non-participating and participating MCSAP agencies to take part in
strike force activities at high crash locations or corridors to promote cooperation,
coordination and participation in CMV safety.
The Commonwealth has regulations that require for-hire motor carriers to notify the
PSC if there is a business name change, a change in address, or change in the
power units, which effectively allows the Commonwealth to track motor carriers. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)
Utah contracted with the University of Utah to conduct a seatbelt usage study to
determine if the State had an issue with seatbelt usage. Utah discovered through this
study that Utah’s use of seatbelts exceeded the national average for usage of
seatbelts. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The State has a proactive follow-up system for carriers reporting on inspection
violation corrections that includes a follow-up letter to carriers not responding within
15 days, and 30-day reminder letters. If after, 30 days, a response is still not
received, the WHP forwards the information for interstate carriers to FMCSA for
further action on serious violations such as OOS, driver impairment, lack of operating
authority, etc. For intrastate carriers, the WHP will initiate a CR, which may result in a
show probable cause order to cancel the carrier’s operating authority within Wyoming.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The WHP sends out a recognition letter, a winter and summer driving video and
brochure, and other safety issue information to carriers that receive a Satisfactory
Rating during a CR. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


Highway Safety Plan
State Highway Safety Plan – The CHP has the lead for developing the traffic
enforcement component of the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and the
CVS, in turn, prepares the commercial vehicle component of the SHSP. The CVS co-
chairs the work group (with the California Department of Transportation [Caltrans])
that oversees implementation of the commercial vehicle component. As a result, the
CVS is able to coordinate CVSP goals and objectives with those in the SHSP. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)


The Colorado Strategic Plan for Improving Roadway Safety (SPIRS) which
encompasses the State’s entire Safety Plan contains a large truck section that is
robust in terms of a focused, well defined large truck problem statement; a
comprehensive list of elements and strategies to address the issues in the problem
statement (running the spectrum of public outreach and education; highway
engineering; driver licensing; information technology; and a variety of enforcement
activities); and quantitatively defined performance measures for success. (Per Safety
and Program Performance Review)
The CVS is responsible for providing the information and data used to develop the
CMV component of the SHSP. The development of the CVSP, the inputs to the
SHSP, and inputs to the ISP Strategic Plan are done concurrently using the same
information and data sources as a means to ensure that all three plans are internally
consistent and properly coordinated. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The CVES coordinates its CVSP with the Commonwealth’s Strategic Highway Safety
Plan (SHSP). The CVSP is specifically cited in the SHSP including a number of
CVSP strategies and measurements that would apply to all vehicles, including CMVs.
Additionally, the CVES Lieutenant and the CVSP Coordinator are members of the
SHSP Planning Committee and the Data Quality Subcommittee. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)
The NSP coordinates its CVSP with the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP). The CVSP cites the SHSP and includes initiatives reported in the SHSP
such as Seatbelt Enforcement and Reduced Impaired Driving. Additionally,
representatives of the NSP, including representatives of the CED, participate on the
SHSP Steering Committee discussing the SHSP’s emphasis areas. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)
The MCEU coordinates its CVSP with the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP) through quarterly participation of two MCEU team members on the SHSP’s
Planning Committee and CRMS Committee. The MCEU credits its participation on
the committees as one reason why the CRMS is being developed. The CRMS is
currently in the process of being implemented through coordination with a number of
State and local agencies. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


Multi-Organization Participation
The MSCVE routinely participates in Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)-
sponsored programs and other joint enforcement activities such as Roadcheck, Brake
Week, Operation Safe Driver, Share the Road, multi-agency / multi-jurisdictional
activities and participation in industry and public workshops/forums. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)
Interstate Strike Forces – The CVS has conducted joint strike forces with both
Arizona and Nevada. Inspectors and officers from the visiting jurisdiction conduct
inspections and officers from the host jurisdictions record the results and issue OOS
citations based on inspection results. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The MCSU routinely participates in District-wide MPD strike forces, with the MCSU
handling the CMV component of the strike forces. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)



The MCSU participate in tri-“State” efforts for the Smooth Operator Program focusing
on aggressive driving. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)




The State has extensive relationships with border States in conducting daily MCSAP
activities along with specialized activities such as Operation Missouri, Iowa,
Nebraska, Kansas (MINK), in addition to participating in national programs such as
Roadcheck and Operation Safe Driver. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
In addition to the national program elements, the State CVSP includes a fairly lengthy
list of regional and State-based MCSAP enforcement initiatives that are all geared
towards reducing crashes and fatalities. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
The CVEU routinely participates in Commercial Vehicle Safety Administration (CVSA)-
sponsored programs such as Roadcheck, Operation Air Brake and Operation Safe
Driving. In addition, the CVEU also has participated in regional truck and bus blitzes
and coordinates enforcement activities with other Federal agencies including the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)


The TSD Captain meets on a regular basis with his counterparts from the States of
Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and sometimes Illinois to exchange information on
enforcement actions; to discuss crash trends and types; and to plan interstate
enforcement actions. These meetings result in the States coordinating enforcement
actions or strike forces on a particular corridor or highway. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)
The Missouri MCSAP has a number of Federal, State, and local agency participants.
To create a comprehensive and coordinated MCSAP, all MCSAP-participating
agencies meet four to five times per year. During these meetings, the agencies
review MCSAP results from the previous quarter, determine if any strategy
adjustments are needed; identify opportunities to improve the MCSAP in the
upcoming quarter; coordinate training needs; identify ways for the agencies to extend
cooperation beyond State borders; coordinate cross-agency initiatives; and discuss
other MCSAP-related issues. Missouri has a high number of FMCSA, State, and local
agencies participating in the MCSAP. The spirit of cooperation that has come as a
result of these meetings has led to a seamless implementation of the MCSAP. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)



In addition to participating in standard national safety programs, which include
Roadcheck; Operation Safe Driver; Operation Air Brake (conducting Level I
inspections instead of Level IV so the inspection goes into the carrier profile); and
Brake Safety Week, the CED also participates in cross-border initiatives such as
Operation Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas (MINK). The CED is also working
on reciprocity agreements with its border States which would honor each other’s CDL
requirements allowing drivers to travel up to 150 miles in the border State. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)


The State routinely participates in CVSA and FMCSA sponsored programs and other
joint enforcement activities such as Roadcheck, Operation Air Brake, Operation Safe
Driver, TACT, Homeland Security Motor Coach Details, and Operation Safe Freight
Details. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The State participates in a number of national program efforts such as Roadcheck,
Operation Air Brake, Brake Safety Week, Operation Safe Driver, Operation Pipeline,
Badge on Board (TACT), as well as participating in joint State enforcement initiatives.



The State conducts a number of joint safety training activities with the NYSMTA. This
includes delivering regional transportation law safety training programs at regional
forums organized by NYSMTA and participating in round table discussions with motor
carriers at the NYSMTA annual meeting. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
Through the MCSAP annual planning session, if the data analysis identifies a
problem location or jurisdiction, the NYSDOT will work with the local law enforcement
agencies to get them involved in CMV safety enforcement activities. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)

The MCTD and its participating MCSAP agencies routinely participate in CVSA and
FMCSA sponsored programs and other joint enforcement activities such as
Roadcheck, Operation Air Brake, Operation Safe Driver, TACT, and multi-
agency/multi-jurisdictional activities including industry and public workshops/forums.
The STP routinely participates in Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)-
sponsored programs such as Roadcheck, Operation Air Brake and Operation Safe
Driving. In addition, the STP also participates in a multitude of other multi-State, multi-
State agency, multi-Federal agency, and multi-local agency enforcement activities
such as Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), Operation Sea Hawk, Rolling Thunder,
Hands across the Border, Driving Under the Influence Initiative, etc. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)


The STP has a close working relationship with the South Carolina Trucking
Association (SCTA) and, along with the DPS, DMV, and industry representatives,
meets with the SCTA on a quarterly basis. Proposed legislative changes and policies
are reviewed with the SCTA. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

UDOT has cooperative agreements in place with its border States of Arizona,
Colorado, and Nevada where Port of Entry (POE) officers are co-located to allow for
enhanced coordination of safety and enforcement inspections. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)

The MCSS has a robust safety program which includes participation in a number of
national programs such as Roadcheck, Operation Safe Driver, Operation Air Brake,
Operation Safe Student; and a number of Commonwealth-specific targeted strike
forces such as Port Check and Land, Air, and Speed Check. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)


Outreach
MCSU has a number of innovative enforcement and outreach activities:
a. Take Back Our Highways – a program where a massive traffic enforcement blitz is
conducted in conjunction with Mississippi, Tennessee, and Georgia.
b. Courtesy inspection – Done in conjunction with MCSU inspections at rest stops,
the Alabama Trucking Association (ATA) sets up simultaneous CMV inspections
stations at the same rest stops and conducts courtesy inspections. If the ATA
identifies a serious safety issue, the ATA asks the MCSU to conduct an official
inspection to determine if there is a violation that requires a citation or an out of
service (OOS) order.
c. CMV Ride Along Program (TACT) – Conducted in conjunction with the ATA,
troopers ride with a CMV driver, detects violations that occur around the CMV, and
relays the violation and vehicle description to troopers strategically positioned to
conduct traffic stops.
d. CMV Wraps – The use of TACT funds to “wrap” safety messages (i.e., No Zone)
around six CMVs that travel throughout the State.
e. Infinity Program – The use of an Infinity seized during a drug operation to serve as
an unmarked patrol vehicle as part of the TACT Program, that travels throughout the
State to identify CMVs driving unsafely or passenger vehicles driving unsafely around
CMVs.
f. Media involvement – Prior to each of its safety initiatives, the MCSU calls a press
conference with local media a Judicial Outreach to providethat requires each Sergeant
The State has implemented outlets as a means Program visibility and to outline the
to meet with the judges in its jurisdiction on an annual basis to deliver updated
regulations and to review CMV issues. Additionally, on an annual basis, the CVEB will
deliver a CMV enforcement presentation and host a question and answer session at
the annual judges’ meeting. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The State sends a notification card to the carrier when one of its driver’s is issued an
OOS order. The carriers have responded positively to this program, especially as a
number of drivers might not report the violation as required. Next year, the State will
expand the notification program to include traffic enforcement violations. (Per Safety
and Program Performance Review)
Judicial Outreach – The California Judicial Council, the State office responsible for
court administration, conducts a bi-annual Traffic Safety Conference for the State’s
judiciary. The CVS is invited to participate in the conference and give presentations
on the CMV safety enforcement. The CVS also has a training presentation on
commercial vehicle enforcement that can be provided to the judiciary on request.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


Outreach – The CVS has used the Department of Public Safety’s Public Information
Office (PIO) to identify target audiences for commercial vehicle safety outreach and
education. The PIO provides ready access to an existing network of groups working
with the CHP and helps with outreach to the traveling public in addition to the trucking
industry. The CVS transports a simulator throughout the State that is used for safety
demonstrations, and has posted safety educational materials on the CVS Website to
improve accessibility to safety information. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)


The MCSS received funding to implement FMCSA’s TACT program. A component of
the TACT was MCSS’ coordination of a public outreach program through the CSP
Public Information Office that include three television spots, three bill boards, and
radio advertisements tailored to specific target audiences. The outreach also created
magnetic signs that truckers could put on their trailers warning of the dangers of
tailgating. The TACT outreach campaign won the People’s Choice Award in the New
Denver Ad Club Award Show, called The Fifty. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


The DSP provides several unique public awareness venues. One is the “No Zone”
awareness given to high school students. A CMV is brought to the high school and
students are encouraged to sit in the cab of the CMV, giving the students first hand
knowledge of the “No Zone” area. The second is a Citizen’s Police academy. Citizens
are provided with an overview of all of Delaware’s law enforcement activities,
including CMV activities, to heighten citizen law enforcement awareness. This
academy is routinely attended by lawyers and doctors. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


Delaware has a judicial outreach program where the DSP provides the judges with
updated regulations. In working with the judicial system, Delaware was able to
strengthen CMV laws, fines, and penalties. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
MCCD conducts a proactive outreach program to the motor carrier industry and the
traveling public. MCCD serves on the Georgia Motor Truck Association (GMTA)
Safety Counsel and attends the annual GMTA meeting. At the meeting, MCCD sets
up a booth, provides outreach materials, and conducts a mock inspection as a
demonstration for the industry. MCCD also operates a Quarterly Safety Inspection
Program in conjunction with the GMTA. Representatives from the GMTA road safety
team are asked to conduct inspections at weigh stations. If the GMTA team identifies
potential violations, an motor carrier officer (MCO) is asked to verify any violation and
take the appropriate enforcement action as necessary. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


The State produces the Iowa Truck Information Guide summarizing CMV rules and
regulations which is given to carriers and drivers. The State also provides laminated
cards containing information for the drivers and carriers about the safe transportation
of HM, including emergency response information when there is an HM event. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)


CVS has developed educational videos on truck safety (for both passenger vehicle
and CMV audiences) and has made these publicly available on the ISP Website.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The CVED has an IRAP that sends out notifications by mail when a carrier is late
mailing a verification of repairs/violation corrections. The first notification takes place
usually 30-45 days after the end of the month in which those inspections took place to
give adequate time for carriers to send them in. A month later, the CVED sends a
second notification to carriers that did not respond to the first notification. This
program serves two purposes. One to get the carriers to comply and two to make
carriers aware that these inspections took place as many drivers won’t turn them into
the company until forced to if there are driver violations. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


In Indiana, prosecutors and judges are elected officials. The ISP has hired a retired
judge to work with elected prosecutors and the judiciary to educate them how to
properly prosecute, as well as adjudicate CDL and CMV enforcement actions. For
example, although Indiana State law does not allow a Commercial Driver’s License
(CDL) citation to be granted a Probation Before Judgment (PBJ), prosecutors have, at
times, negotiated a PBJ with CDL holders. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
The LSP has developed outreach materials – radio spots, videos, television
advertisements Web announcements, and print materials – with select industry
groups such as the sugar cane and logging industries. These materials are delivered
at the time of peak operations – for example, sugar cane harvesting – to promote
safe operations. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The TSD has developed a quarterly commercial vehicle enforcement newsletter that
is provided to local law enforcement; District Court judges and magistrates; and
prosecutors. The newsletter provides information on changes in FMCSRs, Michigan
CMV laws, and other CMV related enforcement issues. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)
Michigan has established the Michigan Truck Safety Commission (MTSC), a public-
private sector commission funded by a $10 surcharge on each power unit registered
by Michigan. The surcharges are directed to a Truck Safety Fund, established in 1988
and administered by the Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP). The fund
generates about $2 million per year which is used to support education, enforcement,
and research designed to improve truck safety. The MTSC is directed by a Board of
11 Commissioners that include representatives from law enforcement and the
trucking industry. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


MCE conducts CMV Awareness Training throughout the State to provide local
enforcement personnel with an understanding of how to enforce traffic laws for CMVs.
The training includes a discussion of the North Carolina statutory requirement that
only SHP officers may conduct CMV enforcement activities and how that differs from
traffic law enforcement. The training also includes information on how to identify a
potential CMV enforcement activity that may require contacting SHP and requesting
that a CMV enforcement officer be dispatched to investigate the potential CMV
enforcement activity. The State considers the training as a highly successful outreach
program and is conducted as part of operations such as Road-Watch. (Per Safety
and Program Performance Review)


Nebraska has innovative “public services” messages regarding its No Zone
Campaign by adding full-size decals to, nine semi-trailers of five participant motor
carriers. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The MCEU implemented a Judicial Outreach Program. During this Outreach, the
Justices observed roadside inspections and were provided with information regarding
CMVs, adoption of Federal regulations, and the ramifications of CMV equipment
violations, licensing, and poor driver behavior in regards to public safety and
owner/operator accountability. To date, three justices from two counties have
participated. As a result, the MCEU reported that the conviction rates and fines in the
two counties represented by the Justices dramatically increased. For example, a
$2500 fine was levied for an OOS order violation and two $600 fines were levied for
two brake violations. In the past, this fine level was rarely supported. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)
The NHSP Troop G conducts a program presenting CMV safety information to other
law enforcement agencies throughout the State. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)
The Troop G New Entrant Team hosts free monthly informational classes to the
general motor carrier public that are open to all. The curriculum consists of a
classroom "safety audit", with an overview of the FMCSRs; driver qualifications; CDL
licenses; insurance requirements; parts and accessories required, drug and alcohol
testing; drug and alcohol prohibitions; hours of service (HOS); HM transportation; and
inspection reports and maintenance. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The NHP has a designated Commercial Operations trooper in each Command to
support the Judicial Outreach Program (JOP). This is volunteer specialized duty. The
troopers receive a list of the courts that fall within their assigned region. The JOP
includes a personal visit at least once a year to the judges and district attorneys.
During these visits, the JOP troopers provide updated FMCSRs and HMRs regulation
books; leave their business card with 24/7 cell phone contact information and a back-
up phone number; and offer their services regarding any questions that arise or to
appear in court. When the assigned trooper is away from the region, the cell phone is
still serviced. The NHP reported the JOP a success as the judges are no longer
dismissing as many CMV citations. The courts also are contacting the NHP more
frequently with questions and requests.


The NYSP has developed an outreach brochure that is provided to drivers at the time
of an inspection or enforcement action. The brochure includes a pocket that is used
for the citation or inspection report and includes a Post lnspection Check List with
instructions for the driver, information on where to send traffic tickets, instructions to
motor carriers on what needs to be done to service violations, safety information, and
a CSA Weblink. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


In a continuing effort to improve public safety, the MCTD maintains a toll-free Hotline
and online incident form. This provides the public with a means to report unsafe
operations and actions by motor carriers and their drivers to the MCTD.

 A highlight of the Pennsylvania MCSAP training and outreach program is its training
for the Magisterial District Judges. The Magisterial District Judges have a week-long
regional training session. The PSP is given a block of time to review qualifications for
drivers, CDL requirements, OOS requirements, HOS requirements, etc. with these
judges. This program will eventually reach all 655 judges in the State and heightens
the awareness of the MCSAP in the judicial system. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


The State has a “Share the Road” Website that includes a number of tips and
explanatory information including: (1) don’t cut in front, (2) don’t linger, (3) don’t
tailgate, (4) use care when merging on interstates and freeways, and (5) watch out for
large trucks’ wide right turns. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The STP has a Motor Coach Coordinator who is the point of contact for educational
contacts and outreach. The Coordinator also is responsible for planning and
coordinating the activities required prior to a destination inspection. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)
Utah has launched two highly successful public awareness campaigns – “Drive to
Stay Alive” targeting CMV drivers and encouraging them to “Buckle Up ~ Slow Down
~ Stay Alert,” and the “Truck Smart” campaign targeting passenger cars on how to
drive safely around CMVs. The campaigns have been well received by both the
trucking industry and the motoring public. Utah believes that these two campaigns
have increased public awareness and reminds the trucking industry to drive safely.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
 MCES has implemented a number of innovative outreach and education programs
such as the Motor Carrier Hotline, which provides carriers and commercial/non-
commercial drivers with ready access to a venue for obtaining information and
resolving issues. The MCES also is using the WSP Website to post outreach and
education materials and safety information. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
Each MCES officer is required to conduct or participate in a certain number of
outreach activities as part of their regular duties. The officer is required to report on
his or her participation and successful completion of this requirement is included as
part of an officer’s overall performance review. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)

Quarterly Reporting
The Idaho Quarterly Reports are performance-based and link information presented
on progress to corresponding Program Objectives identified in the CVSP. (Per Safety
and Program Performance Review)
The NHP Commercial Operations uses a variation of law enforcement’s COMSTAT
model, called SafeStat, which is a model for reporting, tracking, monitoring, and
evaluating all CMV enforcement activities. The model starts with the use of the Goal
Achievement Sheet used to record daily trooper activity. This information is rolled up
into a monthly SafeStat report by Command, and then rolled into the overall
Headquarters report. The Commanders meet monthly to discuss progress towards
reaching their respective goals, including discussions about crash profiles and any
new strategies that may be needed to reduce crashes. The monthly SafeStat reports
then roll into a quarterly SafeStat report, one specific to the MCSAP, which is
submitted to FMCSA. These quarterly SafeStat reports are then used in the annual
CVSP preparation. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)




Technology
Significant IT applications and support.
• Center for Advance Public Safety (CAPS) – which among other things, includes a
daily e-mail on the current number of fatalities year-to-date (YTD) compared to last
year.
• Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE) – that enables troopers to use
filters to access near real-time crash data including crash locations, cause, crash
severity, fatalities, time of day, day of week, weather conditions, and other information
which can then be mapped and used to plan roadside enforcement activities.
• Mobile Officer Virtual Environment (MOVE) – an application used in the field for
enforcement purposes and brings programs such as ASPEN, E-Cite, E-Crash, E-
Weight, LETSGO, and GPS coordinates under one application.
• Alabama Dashboard for Visualization and Corridor Enforcement (ADVANCE) – a
significant enhancement in the level of detailed provided by CARE.
• HOTSPOTS – which is a mapping system that identifies high crash locations and
allows an individual trooper to plan his/her duty route in order to hit the HOTSPOTS to
conduct enforcement activities at the high risk time of day.
• The Targeting Aggressive Cars and Trucks (TACT) Website.
• Wireless access at access points (i.e., Starbucks) in addition to wireless access
using air cards.
• Camera technology which allows the troopers to take and attach photographs to the
inspection report of relevant information obtained during an inspection for later
reference, especially during DataQ resolution.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)



State troopers can do an E-Swear using a “thumb print” signature, which is “co-sworn”
by the magistrate, on issued citations which allows the troopers to submit citations in
any of the counties for transmission to the applicable court. E-Swear makes it easier
for the troopers to submit citations timely as the troopers travel across several
counties during the day. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The significant role that the University of Alabama (UA) plays in supports of the
MCSU with its data analysis as well as the assessments of program effectiveness.
The UA is continually looking for means to improve highway safety through being an
active partner with the Alabama Highway Patrol Division (ALHPD). The UA calls in
troopers to ask them what they think about certain ideas or UA personnel may ride
around with the troopers to see what is happening out on the road to develop ideas of
software that might be helpful to them. The UA is currently correlating citation and
crash information as another means to identify high-risk locations. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)


The MSCVE takes advantage of technology to further the MCSAP given its funding
and staffing levels. Noteworthy uses of technology include:
a. Implementation and deployment of the Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS)
which allows for the electronic submission of citations and crash reports, thereby
improving accuracy, timeliness, and completion of submitted forms.
b. Implementation of the weigh-in-motion (WIM) motion program coupled with
“virtual weigh station” wireless technology that allows for remote monitoring of CMVs
crossing weigh sites and if warranted, can dispatch enforcement when needed.
c.     Implementation of video microphone technology during enforcement activities,
especially during an out of service (OOS), to record conversation and actions that
occurred during the stop. This has significantly reduced the number of complaints
from carriers.
d. Use of an Infrared Inspection System (IRIS) van which uses thermal imaging
technology to accurately identify brake malfunctions.
e. Use of a Mobile Inspection Station (MIS) capable of operating anywhere in rural
and remote areas not covered by weigh stations for an extended period of time. The
MIS is a fully functioning CMV inspection station with tools to conduct Level I
inspections at roadside.
f.     Use of wireless technology at roadside allowing access to information systems
to verify, among other things, the CDL status, operating authority, and financial
responsibility.
(Per MSCVE has a designated an information technology (IT) person responsible for
The Safety and Program Performance Review)
the equipment and software that supports the MCSAP. Support includes computer
and software upgrades, and traveling to locations to complete upgrades. The MSCVE
also has a designated person who conducts data analysis in support of the CVSP
development and quarterly reporting. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


MCCD has worked with DPS information technology (IT) staff to develop a field in
ASPEN that allows MCOs and other enforcement personnel to verify that Commercial
Driver License (CDL) status has been verified. This data is used by MCCD to monitor
compliance with the requirement that CDL status be verified at the time of any
enforcement action or inspection. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


Every stop includes a Commercial Driver License (CDL) Status Check which utilizes
the National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS), which not only
does a State-specific search, but a 50-State search, along with searches of other
relevant databases (Wants and Warrants). The State also has the ability to do
background checking of carriers before it go on premises to conduct a CR. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)


The State is technology progressive and has implemented such leading edge
programs such as Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS) and Ticketing Aggressive
Cars and Trucks (TACT)-like Program and utilizing other technologies such as mobile
data communications for access to various FMCSA databases. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)
The three CVS sergeants verify that CDL status checks have been done by obtaining
reports directly from CDLIS or by checking the ISP Computer Aided Dispatch system.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The ISP uses bar code scanners to scan CDLs and registration cards. Use of the bar
code scanners enables the electronic upload of information and has reduced the
upload error rate. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
Kansas has assigned staff resources to support crash and inspection reporting.
These staff resources provide quality control services and resolve any issues
identified with a crash or inspection report. As part of its quality control services, the
KHP has hired a former trooper who is responsible for analyzing and correcting
problems identified in crash reports that are not validated by KCrash. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)


Kansas has made a substantial investment in the development of information
technology applications to support data collection and reporting:
+G185The Kansas Law Enforcement Reporting System (KLERS) is a statewide
electronic crash reporting system.
• KGate is the Kansas Department of Transportation’s (KDOT) georeferenced web
portal that screens crash reports submitted through KLERS to flag vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 10,000 pounds or more as well as HM as potential
CMV crashes. Screening criteria also includes other variables such as number of
axles. Additionally, KGate provides the ability to dynamically display, as examples,
crash locations, traffic volumes, and video log, with digital imagery as background.
This provides a baseline system for enterprise-wide data access for decision-making.
• KCrash is a system that screens each file extracted by KGate to determine if the
crash is a reportable crash. KCrash electronically checks each file for accuracy and
completeness. The data entry clerk processes validated files for upload into MCMIS.
Invalidated files are flagged for correction.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)




The Commonwealth has invested substantial resources to develop information
technology applications to support commercial vehicle enforcement activities:
a. Redundancy in communications – Troopers may use the Kentucky Automated
Vehicle Information System (AVIS) system using Radio Frequency (RF) equipment to
access National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS), the National
Crime Information Center (NCIC), and other databases. CVE personnel also have air
cards enabling wireless Internet connectivity. Finally, in the event an inspector is in a
“dead zone”, the inspector can use the radio to connect to Dispatch.
b. Kentucky developed the Kentucky Clearinghouse which provides a snapshot of
information on a motor carrier. The snapshot draws information from multiple sources
and gives an inspector the background information on a carrier needed to support
enforcement and inspection activities (i.e., registration, insurance, safety rating).
c. Kentucky developed the Kentucky Open Portal System (KYOPS) to support
enforcement and inspection activities. Support includes a global positioning system
(GPS) function that enables the KSP to generate maps showing crash locations and
enforcement activities by inspector in any geographic region in the Commonwealth.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)




The KSP established a mandatory field in ASPEN that an inspector must check to
verify that the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) status has been checked. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)
The CVEU embraces the routine use of technology in its day-to-day execution of
enforcement activities including the use of wireless technology, Commercial Vehicle
Information Exchange Window (CVIEW), Commercial Vehicle Information Systems
and Networks (CVISN), Inspection Selection System (ISS), SafeStat, Query Central,
Licensing & Insurance (L&I), A&I, Maine Criminal Justice Information System
(MCJUSTIS), Sentri, bar code readers, and its planned implementation of the
automated features in MCRS. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The MoDOT Motor Carrier Services (MCS) Division has developed and implemented
a Web-based computer system that allows carriers to request permits, file reports,
and update its equipment records. In determining what permits are needed, the
system asks a series of questions that, based on responses and applicable
regulations, directs the carrier to the required permits. This system provides a 24-hour
access by authorized users. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
Missouri has proactively developed and implemented a Missouri-based Safety Status
Measurement System (SafeStat) Program. The Missouri SafeStat Program goes
beyond the Federal-level SafeStat Program, providing MoDOT the opportunity to
identify poor performing intrastate motor carriers. The Missouri SafeStat makes
maximum use of performance and compliance data to assess motor carriers in three
broad Safety Evaluation Areas (SEAs): accident SEA, driver SEA, and vehicle SEA.
Currently, if a motor carrier is unacceptable in any of the three SEAs, it may be
targeted for an on-site Compliance Review (CR). The selection system includes
motor carriers whose scores rank in the top 50 percentile of worst performers. The
Missouri SafeStat model has been carried into 11 other states, with the assistance of
MoDOT personnel. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)



MoDOT’s CVISN program, which integrates various motor carrier programs, allows
State personnel and carriers to obtain information using a “one-stop” system. CVISN
includes the integration of the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA), the
International Registration Plan (IRP), the Performance and Registration Information
Systems Management (PRISM) System, and the Commercial Vehicle Information
Exchange Window (CVIEW). Missouri also has included additional modules into
CVISN: over-dimension/over weight permitting, operating authority, automated route
routing, and safety audit tracking. CVISN also provides a summary view of a motor
carrier’s status in the various program areas and will prevent such occurrences as
permits being issued if a carrier owes fees (e.g., IFTA) in another area. The CVISN
development and implementation also has enhanced cross-State department
communications in understanding motor carrier service delivery. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)


The State of Montana is currently using the Commercial Vehicle Information
Exchange Window (CVIEW), but referred to as “Preview” in Montana) to exchange
safety information to and from roadside to support inspection activities. The Preview
tool enables enforcement personnel to validate safety and credentials information on
a real-time basis when conducting an inspection or enforcement action. A summary
of Preview use is shown in Figures 1 and 2. (Per Safety and Performance Review)


North Carolina has developed the State-specific Fuel Tax Compliance System
(FuelTaCs) software that supports CMV enforcement activities. FuelTaCs includes
functionality to electronically track inspections by level and number for each
enforcement officer based on the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY). FuelTaCs provides an
automated system for tracking how each enforcement officer is progressing in
meeting certification requirements. Certification requirement information is available
to both officer and supervisor. The system also generates a warning notice if an
officer has not met certification requirements within 1 month of the end of the FFY.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


Software Applications: The NDHP Records Management System includes the
following functionality:
a. eCitation – All citations are issued using an electronic system. Citations also are
sent to the court system electronically.
b. Reporting – Citations can be tracked by USDOT number, license type, and CFR
violation. The Records Management System produces monthly reports that analyzes
citations by violation type and links the violations using the USDOT number and the
CDL number to the carrier. These reports are used to identify high-risk carriers and
are used for input in the CVSP development. The Records Management System also
allows on-line inquiry functionality for analyzing data in a variety of views such as
CFR violation type and carrier.
c.     Crash Mapping – The Records Management System produces maps showing
the locations of crashes throughout the State. Crash mapping reports are used by
supervisory personnel to identify high-crash locations for enforcement actions.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
Nebraska has developed and implemented a Nebraska-based Safety Status
Measurement System (SafeStat) Program to identify carriers for an intrastate CR.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
Having identified a problem with the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of crash
reporting, the NHDOT, in collaboration, with the NHSP and DMV, developed a Web-
based CRMS, which has automated the State’s Traffic Accident Reports (DSMV 159
and DSMC 161). (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The DMV has a near real-time State crash database that includes CMV crash data.
This database can be used to analyze quarterly crash data to determine ongoing
effectiveness of enforcement resource deployment. The DMV Statistician actively
works with the MCEU on data analysis. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
The State has a designated Information Technology (IT) Technician responsible for
the equipment and software that supports the MCSAP. Support includes computer
and software upgrades, and traveling to all locations to complete upgrades or re-
installs not only for NHP personnel but also for the allied agencies. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)
Crash information capture/reporting is fully electronic.
All NHP troopers have wireless access allowing them to access information systems
such as CDLIS, ISS, L&I, Query Central, and Commercial Vehicle Information
Exchange Window (CVIEW) to obtain current carrier/driver information. Driver Wants
and Warrant information can be obtained through a Dispatch-initiated National Law
Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS) inquiry. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


The NYSDOT has added a field to ASPEN that requires an inspector to verify that
he/she has checked CDL status through CDLIS or via the NYSPN. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)
Significant IT applications and support.
·      The MCTD operates a cutting edge ITS program called the Green Light
Program available to any motor carrier operating a CMV in Oregon. Transponders
issued in this program are compatible with all other U.S. preclearance programs, thus
providing carriers with a great deal of flexibility. Oregon also encourages carriers to
use its Oregon Green Light transponders in other States’ programs.
·      The Green Light Program works in conjunction with Oregon’s Enforcer software
program. CMVs precleared by the Green Light Program continue unimpeded on their
journey while other CMVs are directed into static scales where Enforcer allows
MCEOs to easily enter license plate numbers and collect weight information. Enforcer
also automates the citation process by allowing officers to enter weight or vehicle-
related violation details into the computer which, in turn, prints citations for drivers.
·      The MCTD also uses specialized software known as Real Time to collect
details of all enforcement activities. Real Time is available to inspectors and
enforcement officers throughout the State and allows them to view records of
citations, warnings, and scale crossings (weigh station event data) for any period of
time. The database is queried using the CMV’s license plate number or a carrier’s
file/authority number. Inspectors routinely use this database to verify driver’s
logbooks.
·      The ODOT expanded the benefits of Real Time by developing Oregon Scale
Crossings and Reports (OSCAR). This database reflects the times and dates CMVs
cross various scales in the State. OSCAR is made available to all motor carriers
desiring to verify their drivers’ records of duty status for accuracy. Additionally,
The STP has a statistician that runs monthly SAS reports and analyzes State,
MCMIS, and Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) crash data to identify crash
trends and profiles to determine where STP enforcement resources are best utilized.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
 Inspection data quality is maintained through a series of reviews prior to upload into
MCMIS. Supervisors review and sign-off on hard copies of the inspection reports. The
STP Lieutenants, the MCSAP Coordinator, and the SAFETYNET Coordinator also
spot check the inspection reports. Additionally on a weekly basis, the SAFETYNET
Coordinator conducts a full data quality review of all inspection reports. (Per Safety
and Program Performance Review)
A State-specific field has been added to ASPEN that an inspector is required to check
to verify that a commercial driver’s license (CDL) status check was conducted. The
STP runs monthly reports using SAFETYNET data to verify CDL status checks are
conducted and cross references these reports with the Commercial Driver’s License
Information System (CDLIS) Check Utilization reports on the FMCSA CDL / MCSAP
Workgroup Website. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


DPS has developed the CVE-3 software application to support CMV activities in
Texas. The system is fully compliant with the requirements of FMCSA’s ASPEN
application and is also used by CVE to monitor officer and inspector performance.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The US Virgin Islands has purchased a software application―ReportBeam― and
modified the system to support crash reporting. ReportBeam functionality includes an
electronic crash reporting form and data analysis tools that can be used to produce a
map showing crash locations as well as assessing factors such as crash causation
factors, time of day for a crash, and weather conditions. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


Every VSP trooper has wireless communication enabling roadside access to such
systems as NLETS, ISS, L&I, PIQ, Query Central (for CDLIS access), and ASPEN
(for immediate upload of inspections). (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
WSP’s information technology (IT) applications provide officers at roadside with
access to all available information necessary for supporting enforcement activities. An
example of this is the WSP’s Mobile Data Interface that links all DOT databases (i.e.,
WSP, Department of Motor Vehicles [DMV]) to enable an officer at roadside to
access all information available about a driver or a motor carrier―criminal history,
outstanding warrants or other information that would not be available if the officer
simply accessed CMV-specific information. The IT applications also enable managers
to track and report on the performance of each officer by number and type of
inspections conducted. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)




Training
The MCSU has a specific 3-day course for alcohol detection within its training
academy that involved demonstrating a practical application of the affects of alcohol
(volunteers drinking). (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The MSCVE has trained all CVEOs in the Drug Interdiction Assistance Program
(DIAP). (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The State conducts an annual Inspector Competition where 16 selected inspectors
compete for the best inspector. The 16 inspectors inspect the same CMV and are
then judged on the thoroughness of the inspection. This is noteworthy as this program
is also used to highlight areas where additional training may be needed for all of its
inspectors. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The current State philosophy regarding training is that all officers receive all training.
The AHP currently has a training team of 10 trainers that can go into the field to
conduct training courses, which helps to ensure that training is received at relatively
the same time. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

Training – The CVS provides an extra week of training for all personnel as part of the
North American Standard Inspection (NASI) Level I training. The extra week includes
instruction on California specific statutes, regulations, and enforcement policies and
also a practice truck inspection under the direction of an NASI Level I certified officer
or inspector. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The MCSS has implemented a mentoring program for troopers newly certified to
conduct CRs and New Entrant SAs. For CRS, a newly certified trooper conducts
three CRs under the direction of one mentor, two CRs under a second mentor, and a
final CR under the direction of the supervising sergeant. For SAs, the trooper
conducts two SAs under the direction of a first mentor, two more under the direction
of a second mentor, and a final SA under the direction of the supervising sergeant.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The MCSS Administrative Services Section periodically reviews DataQ challenges to
identify training requirements. Specifically, they assess whether or not a particular
trooper is subject to frequent DataQ challenges or if there is a consistent problem
across multiple troopers that is generating DataQ challenges. The resolutions of
these DataQ challenges are used to develop training materials and are also used as
part of the examination that troopers must take to qualify for national competitions.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The MCSS has developed an on-line Intrastate Safety Audit Training available
through Survey Monkey. The training is designed so that an intrastate New Entrant
takes the training and the result can be reviewed by MCSS. Based on the responses
submitted, the carrier may be selected for an educational visit or possibly an
intrastate CR. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


MCSS personnel are cross-trained in multiple program areas. For example, 16
personnel are NASI Level I certified and certified to conduct CRs. Thirteen personnel
are certified to conduct New Entrant SAs. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
MCCO has implemented a New Entrant Training program for all new inter- and
intrastate motor carriers. MCCO requires that a company official responsible for a
new carrier’s safety program attend a New Entrant Safety Seminar that covers all
regulatory requirements within 180 days of receiving a U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) number. Failure to attend a seminar within this time period is
an automatic trigger for a Compliance Review (CR) of the motor carrier. (Per Safety
and Program Performance Review)


MCCD requires that once an officer completes the two-week North American
Standard Inspection (NASI) training, the officer is required to attend an additional
week of training that covers Georgia specific issues such as Georgia traffic laws and
enforcement and exemptions and exceptions to FMCSRs and HMRs. (Per Safety
and Program Performance Review)


MCCD has established a career path for MCOs that has improved recruitment efforts.
New recruits attend the Georgia DPS academy and graduate as an MCO I, certified
as a law enforcement officer. MCO Is are assigned to the field to receive on-the-job-
training for several months and then complete the NASI training to become NASI-
certified. Once the MCO becomes certified, the officer is promoted to MCO II. If an
MCO II becomes certified to conduct hazardous materials (HM) inspections, the
officer is then promoted to MCO III. Each promotion increases the MCO’s
compensation package. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The State will have sent all its ISP MCSAP Unit officers to Desert Snow training by
the end of September 2008 and approximately 60 percent of the MVE officers have
attended either Drug Interdiction Assistance Program (DIAP) or Desert Snow. All ISP
and MVE officers have basic training in drug interdiction activities and recognition for
impaired drivers. MVE and ISP officers all have Preliminary Breath Testers (PBTs) for
use. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The ISP has established the CVS as a career path within the ISP. Candidates must
apply for acceptance and are paid at a higher pay grade than regular troopers. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)
The CVE has developed a training module for crash data collection that defines the
selection criteria for reporting truck and bus crashes on the Uniform Police Traffic
Collision Report (UPTCR) and in the KYOPS; that identifies qualifying CMVs and non-
CMVs captured on the Commercial Vehicle section of the UPTCR and KYOPS; and
provides detailed guidance for completing the relevant sections of the UPTCR and
KYOPS to ensure proper translation into Kentucky’s and FMCSA’s crash databases.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


 The MCSAP in-service training is offered once per quarter and troopers attend one of
the quarterly sessions conducive to the troopers’ schedules giving maximum benefit
for all troopers to attend training. Training is tailored to address particular issues that
emerge during the year. Specific aspects of the training that are noteworthy include:
·     Headquarters solicitation of input from field personnel to identify training needs
based on field experience.
·     Analysis of DataQs to identify trends that indicate potential problems or issues.
This information is then used to develop remediation strategies – for example,
additional training.
·     Dedicating one session per year to having MCSAP certified personnel conduct
an inspection while being observed by supervisory personnel to verify understanding
with requirements.
(Per Safety and Program Performance Review)


The CVES has a strong commitment to its training program. Through a High Priority
Grant, the CVES administers the Regional Training Academy which allows CVES
personnel to take easy advantage of training classes that are offered. All sworn
personnel are North American Standard Inspection (NASI) Level I certified; all have
been given the Basic HM Enforcement Training; all have received operating authority,
Unified Carrier Registration (UCR), and insurance check training; all have received
Drug Interdiction Assistance Program (DIAP) training through the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program; and all are field sobriety- and breath test operator-
certified. Additionally, 20 CVES troopers attended the Drug Enforcement
Administration’s (DEA) Advance Drug Interdiction School; 1 trooper was trained by
the National Training Center (NTC) as a Cargo Tank Instructor; 1 trooper was trained
as a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE); 2 troopers are CR-certified, 3 troopers are SA-
certified; and 8 troopers are NTC instructor-certified. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


The State training program is robust, thorough, well-maintained and executed. All
training is conducted by the MDSP which is also responsible for tracking all personnel
training coursework and certifications. The State’s fraudulent document detection
program is recognized nationwide. The MDSP also supports training for out-of-State
MCSAP personnel when there are class openings. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)
All sworn officers and some Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division (CVED)
civilians are sent to a drug interdiction training, including Desert Snow training. To
attend drug interdiction training, an inspector needs to be MCSAP-certified. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)
The State conducts anti-terrorism and fraudulent document training. The State
assisted in developing the fraudulent document detection classes. As a result, the
State now provides fraudulent document training throughout the country. Through the
State’s efforts, approximately 19-20 cases of fraudulent license cases have been
detected, some of which have evolved into issues related to hazmat enforcement and
illegal aliens. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The CVEU places a high degree of importance on the experience level and on-going
training of its troopers. To start, all troopers enter with CVEU with usually 7 years of
experience already as an MSP trooper. In addition, all CVEU enforcement personnel
are sent through core training and are certified in NASI Part A, NASI Part B,
Hazardous Materials (HM) general, and cargo tank. In addition, all CVEU troopers are
sent to Drug Interdiction Assistance Program (DIAP). The MSP also includes a crash-
date collection module in the ME Criminal Justice Academy (MJCA). (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)


The TSD has developed a Commercial Vehicle Awareness training program for local
law enforcement agencies. The training program provides an overview of truck safety
enforcement and is designed to promote an understanding of how to conduct CMV
traffic safety enforcement. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

Every NSP trooper, regardless of whether the trooper is assigned to the CED, is
trained through the State Patrol Training Academy to detect drivers that are impaired
by alcohol or drugs and to take appropriate enforcement action. Refresher in-service
training is also conducted every 2 years. A number of troopers also have been
through the Drug Interdiction Assistance Program (DIAP) or Desert Snow training.
Every CED trooper has a preliminary breath tester (PBT) for use at the roadside.
PBTs and intoxilyzers are also available at the weigh stations. The NSP has 30
minutes’ access to county facilities. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)



Nebraska’s State Patrol Training Academy and annual in-service training includes
training on the NASI, including selection of inspection site safety issues. The NSP
also conducts an additional annual in-service training session regarding any
legislative updates and training in areas that may need some additional attention (i.e.,
properly identifying a motor carrier, when and how to check for operating authority,
DataQ training, being more descriptive on violations, etc.). (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


All NHSP troopers are trained through the Police Academy in identifying drivers that
are impaired by various substances, such as alcohol, narcotics, and/or prescription
drugs, as well as those drivers involved in the transportation of controlled substances.
All NHSP troopers are certified in administering field sobriety tests by using
preliminary breath testers (PBTs). Approximately 50 percent of Troop G troopers are
certified to administer the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath tester and recertify annually by
completing a written and practical test. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)


 The State has developed a training program on Commercial Vehicle Law
Enforcement that includes a module on how an enforcement officer should approach
a CMV during an enforcement action. This module includes training on how to safely
approach a CMV and safeguards an officer should take to ensure the officer’s safety
during the course of an enforcement action. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
The NHP has implemented an aggressive training program for its own Commercial
Operation troopers, Commercial Vehicle Safety Inspectors (CVSIs), traffic
enforcement troopers, and allied agency personnel involved in conducting CMV
inspections. The NHP requires that troopers and allied agency personnel recertify
every 3 years on whatever certifications they carry such as Part A, Part B, HM, CR,
bulk packaging, load securement, etc. During recertification, updates to applicable
Federal and State regulations and policies are reviewed, along with Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) policies and procedures. The NHP also will use the
recertification time to train or cover refresher items based on emergent issues that
had been identified. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)
The NHP has an aggressive impaired driver drug and alcohol recognition program:
• Nevada has enacted a 0.04 percent blood alcohol content (BAC) law for CMV
drivers and enforces on-duty commercial driver BAC not to exceed 0.01, or any
detectable amount, as a basis for placing a CMV driver out of service (OOS).
• In addition, penalties are doubled for driving with a BAC of greater than 0.04.
• The NHP requires all drivers to submit to chemical testing if intoxication is
suspected in any vehicle driver.
• All NHP troopers are trained in the recognition of an alcohol-impaired driver through
the required DPS training academy and in subsequent recertification training
sessions. Allied agencies obtain alcohol-impaired driver recognition training from their
own training academy or through the standard police officer training class.
• NHP Commercial Operations has equipped its troopers with Preliminary Alcohol
Screening (PAS) or Portable Breath Detector (PBD) devices. PAS devices provide an
on-the-spot accurate measurement of blood alcohol concentrations of suspected
drunk drivers.
• CVSIs conducting CRs and SAs include reviews of company alcohol and drug
testing programs to ensure they meet Federal regulations and provide additional
guidance in terms of the importance of these programs to both management and
drivers. Additionally, some NHP troopers have received Drug Recognition Expert
(DRE)
training for detecting drug influence.
• Other troopers have attended Drug Interdiction Assistance Program (DIAP)
classes.
• NHP's drug interdiction program includes Operation Pipeline and a drug-detecting K-
9 program. Troopers also utilize laser measuring devices to detect if trailer
units have hidden storage compartments for hiding contraband, and are trained to
recognize discrepancies in driver hours of service (HOS) logbooks that may indicate
possible drug activity. Each Command also has a team whose main responsibility is
to find drugs as part of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) initiative.
The NHP has a robust impaired driving recognition program that includes academy
and subsequent trainings, and in equipping troopers with PBTs. Additionally, some
troopers have received DRE certification. The NHP has state-of-the-art equipment
such as laser measuring devices to detect hidden storage compartments. Troopers
are trained on recognizing discrepancies in HOS logs that may indicate possible drug
activity.
The NYSDOT and NYSP conduct periodic reviews of DataQs to identify problem
areas and training needs. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)

The OHP has established a Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Career Path program
for OHP troopers. Through the Commercial Vehicle Traffic Enforcement Program
(CVTEP), interested troopers can be trained and certified in commercial vehicle
enforcement and in turn be available to fill any vacancies in Troop S. This approach
offers two significant benefits. First, troopers can receive training and certification
before they enter Troop S, thus reducing the time new troopers would need to “come
up to speed” if and when they are assigned to Troop S on a full-time basis. Second,
through CVTEP, the number of personnel available to support commercial vehicle
enforcement is significantly expanded. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)


The MCTD provides the attendees of NASI and in-service training courses with
screen shots from the Oregon DMV mainframe to illustrate the proper way to access
an in-state and/or out-of-state driver’s CDL status.
The MCTD monitors driver OOS rates as licensing OOS rates of MCTD, OSP, city,
and county law enforcement personnel quarterly using SAFETYNET data. If a driver
OOS rate of an inspector or agency falls below the National average driver OOS rate,
the inspector and/or agency could be decertified as an inspector/MCSAP participating
agency.
The MCTD provides timely updates and/or reminders of changes to its safety
regulations and/or inspection procedures through the use of Truck Inspection Notices,
which are e-mailed to all certified inspectors in the State.
Once the MCTD’s CVSP is approved, the MCTD posts the CVSP to ODOT’s
Website, prepares a brochure titled Summary of Oregon Truck Safety and Guide to
the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan, and provides a copy of the brochure to each
CMV inspector in the State.
Pennsylvania has implemented a comprehensive and coordinated training and
outreach program, which is tracked and managed by a MCSAP Training Manager.
Features of Pennsylvania’s MCSAP training includes:
• Pro-active analysis of reports looking for areas where training may be needed.
• Implementing 3 weeks of training for new inspectors: allocating 2 weeks on
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Level I training, followed by 1 week of
training encompassing regulations, regulation enforcement, use of ASPEN, citation
writing, selection of appropriate inspection sites, and other elements as identified.
• Training for municipal police departments requiring that they have automated tools
(e.g., laptops, software, etc.) for uploading inspection data, which will eventually
phase out the paper processes.
• Additional basic training includes Standard Field Test Training (SFTT) and motor
coach.
• Second tier training includes hazardous materials, cargo securement, explosives
and Drug Recognition Enforcement (DRE).
• Annual re-certification classes covering program issues, reporting, uploading,
regulatory changes, etc. (Per Safety and Program Performance Review)



The OMCHMS delivers a presentation (Microsoft® PowerPoint) that discusses how to
select safe roadside locations for inspections. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
The STP places a high degree of importance on the experience level and on-going
training of its officers. To start, all enforcement officers are Class I certified. In
addition, enforcement officers are required to spend 9 weeks in the SC Criminal
Justice Academy (CJA), which is the State’s law enforcement training academy. The
STP also conducts a 4 week STP Basic Training course which addresses aspects of
the job not covered in the CJA or in North American Standard Inspection (NASI)
courses. Enforcement officers also must attend 40 hours of additional law
enforcement training in the form of continuing education credits on an annual basis,
as well as annual in-service refresher training. The STP also emphasizes experience
and on-going training for its Level VI certified inspectors based on the number of
radioactive shipments traveling through the State. (Per Safety and Program
Performance Review)


The THP requires that all cadets complete the North American Standard Inspection
(NASI) Level-I training as part of their graduation requirements. This practice
introduces all new troopers to Commercial Vehicle Enforcement (CVE) and ensures
that graduating troopers have a basic understanding of truck safety. (Per Safety and
Program Performance Review)


The VSP ensures all VSP troopers are trained in identifying drivers that are impaired,
regardless of whether the trooper is assigned to the MCSS for CMV enforcement.
VSP also sends a number of troopers for additional training such as Drug Interdiction
Assistance Program (DIAP), Desert Snow, and Level I inspection training. (Per
Safety and Program Performance Review)


MCSS troopers must have at least 5 years experience as a VSP trooper before they
can be considered for transfer into the MCSS. (Per Safety and Program Performance
Review)
The State is in the process of cross-training personnel in the duties currently
performed by the MCSAP Financial Grants Manager. When the Financial Grants
Manager is away from the office, these personnel will be knowledgeable in the
MCSAP financial activities. (Per Financial Review)

								
To top