Emergency Response Guidebook


Book Description

Does the identification number 60 indicate a toxic substance or a flammable solid, in the molten state at an elevated temperature? Does the identification number 1035 indicate ethane or butane? What is the difference between natural gas transmission pipelines and natural gas distribution pipelines? If you came upon an overturned truck on the highway that was leaking, would you be able to identify if it was hazardous and know what steps to take? Questions like these and more are answered in the Emergency Response Guidebook. Learn how to identify symbols for and vehicles carrying toxic, flammable, explosive, radioactive, or otherwise harmful substances and how to respond once an incident involving those substances has been identified. Always be prepared in situations that are unfamiliar and dangerous and know how to rectify them. Keeping this guide around at all times will ensure that, if you were to come upon a transportation situation involving hazardous substances or dangerous goods, you will be able to help keep others and yourself out of danger. With color-coded pages for quick and easy reference, this is the official manual used by first responders in the United States and Canada for transportation incidents involving dangerous goods or hazardous materials.




Roundabouts


Book Description

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide - Second Edition explores the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of roundabouts. The report also addresses issues that may be useful in helping to explain the trade-offs associated with roundabouts. This report updates the U.S. Federal Highway Administration's Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, based on experience gained in the United States since that guide was published in 2000.




Ten Thousand Commandments


Book Description




Autonomous Vehicle Technology


Book Description

The automotive industry appears close to substantial change engendered by “self-driving” technologies. This technology offers the possibility of significant benefits to social welfare—saving lives; reducing crashes, congestion, fuel consumption, and pollution; increasing mobility for the disabled; and ultimately improving land use. This report is intended as a guide for state and federal policymakers on the many issues that this technology raises.







Motor Carrier Safety


Book Description

OfficeWhy GAO Did This StudyHighlightsAccountabilityIntegrityReliability August 2007 MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY Federal Safety Agency Identifies Many High-Risk Carriers but Does Not Assess Maximum Fines as Often as Required by Law Highlights of GAO-07-584, a report to the Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has the primary federal responsibility for reducing crashes involving large trucks and buses. FMCSA uses its "SafeStat" tool to target carriers for reviews of their compliance with the agency's safety regulations based on their crash rates and safety violations. As requested, this study reports on (1) the extent to which FMCSA's policy for prioritizing compliance reviews targets carriers with a high risk of crashes, (2) how FMCSA ensures compliance reviews are thorough and consistent, and (3) the extent to which FMCSA follows up with carriers with serious safety violations. To complete this work, GAO reviewed FMCSA's regulations, policies, and safety data and contacted FMCSA officials in headquarters and nine field offices. By and large, FMCSA does a good job of identifying carriers that pose high crash risks for subsequent compliance reviews, ensuring the thoroughness and consistency of those reviews, and following up with high-risk carriers. FMCSA's policy for prioritizing compliance reviews targets many high-risk carriers but not other higher risk ones. Carriers must score among the worst 25 percent of carriers in at least two of SafeStat's four evaluation areas (accident, driver, vehicle, and safety management) to receive high priority for a compliance review. Using data from 2004, GAO found that 492 carriers that performed very poorly in only the accident evaluation area (i.e., those carriers that scored among the worst 5 percent of carriers in this area) subsequently had an aggregate crash rate that was more than twice as high as that of the 4,989 carriers to which FMCSA gave high priority. FMCSA told GAO that the agency plans to assess whether giving high priority to carriers that perform very poorly in only the accident evaluation area would be an effective use of its resources. FMCSA promotes thoroughness and consistency in its compliance reviews through its management processes, which meet GAO's standards for internal controls. For example, FMCSA uses an electronic manual to record and communicate its compliance review policies and procedures and teaches proper compliance review procedures through both classroom and on-the-job training. Furthermore, its investigators use an information system to document their compliance reviews, and its managers review these data, helping to ensure thoroughness and consistency between investigators. For the most part, FMCSA and state investigators cover the nine major applicable areas of the safety regulations (e.g., driver qualifications and vehicle condition) in 95 percent or more of compliance reviews, demonstrating thoroughness and consistency. FMCSA follows up with many carriers with serious safety violations, but it does not assess maximum fines against all of the serious violators that GAO believes the law requires. FMCSA followed up with more than 99 percent of the 1,196 carriers that received proposed unsatisfactory safety ratings from compliance reviews completed in fiscal year 2005, finding that 881 of these carriers made safety improvements and placing 309 others out of service. However, GAO found that FMCSA (1) does not assess maximum fines against carriers with a pattern of varied serious violations as GAO believes the law requires and (2) assesses maximum fines against carriers for the third instance of a violation, whereas GAO reads the statute as requiring FMCSA to assess the maximum fine for the second.




Motor Carrier Safety


Book Description




Analysis of FMCSA's Revised Civil Penalties (1995-2006)


Book Description

This final report updates the results of a July 2004 report that was prepared in response to Section 222(d) of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA). Section 222(d) of the Act required the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study of the effectiveness of the revised civil penalties established in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in ensuring prompt and sustained compliance with Federal motor carrier safety and commercial driver's license laws. The 2004 study focused primarily on the impact of the changes in the revised civil penalty schedule on the dollar amount of the fines assessed to the carrier and on the number of violations assessed. The primary objective of this followup report is to reevaluate the findings of the 2004 study, using a more comprehensive database that includes more years of data. The research was conducted by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration's (RITA's) John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (The Volpe Center) under a project plan agreement with the FMCSA.