Commonwealth Numbered Regulations - Explanatory Statements Commonwealth Numbered Regulations - Explanatory Statements[Index] [Search] [Download] [Related Items] [Help]
INTERSTATE ROAD TRANSPORT AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 1999 (NO. 1) 1999 NO. 11
EXPLANATORY STATEMENTSTATUTORY RULES 1999 NO. 11
Issued by Authority of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services
Interstate Road Transport Act 1985
Interstate Road Transport Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1)
Subsection 56(1) of the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 (the Act) provides that the GovernorGeneral may make regulations, prescribing matters required or permitted by the Act to be prescribed, or necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to the Act.
Subsection 56(2) further provides that, without limiting the generality of subsection 56(1), the regulations may make provision for, among other things: regulating the use and operation of registered motor vehicles and trailers; prescribing operating standards; and regulating the conduct or activities in, or in connection with the operation or use of, registered motor vehicles or trailers.
Section 13 of the Act further provides for the making of regulations for and in relation to:
* requirements for registered motor vehicles and trailers, and
* requirements for the owner of a registered motor vehicle or trailer to cause acts or things to be done in relation to the motor vehicle or trader.
The Act and Interstate Road Transport Regulations (the Regulations) establish the Federal Interstate Registration scheme (FIRS), which provides a national licensing scheme for heavy vehicles on interstate journeys, as an alternative to the various State registration requirements. The States and Territories administer FIRS on behalf of the Commonwealth.
The Regulations prescribe, among other things, that certain classes of heavy vehicles manufactured after 31 December 1987 must, if registered under FIRS, be designed or modified to limit their maximum road speed to 100 kilometres per hour. Vehicles registered under FIRS are subject to State and Territory laws relating to speeding. The Regulations also prescribe that annual inspections are required for the registration of vehicles under the Act.
The purpose of the Regulations is to make provision for two policies that have been agreed by the Ministerial Council for Road Transport. These policies have already been implemented in a number of jurisdictions, and the Regulations enable FIRS vehicles to be treated on an equivalent basis to State or Territory registered vehicles. The Regulations provide for:
* sanctions to deal with repeated breaches of speed limits by enabling State and Territory authorities to suspend the registration of speed limited heavy vehicles registered under the FIRS, and to require the fitting of speed limiters for non-speed limited vehicles; and
* an exemption from the requirement for an annual registration inspection for vehicles operated by members of approved maintenance management compliance assurance schemes.
Two Regulatory Impact Statements are attached, addressing each of these amendments.
Details of the Regulations are attached.
The Regulations commenced on gazettal.
ATTACHMENT
Interstate Road Transport Amendment Regulations 1999
The amendments to the Regulations contain the following features
Regulation 1 cites the name of the Regulations as the Interstate Road Transport Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 1).
Regulation 2 provides that the regulations commence on gazettal.
Regulation 3 provides that the provisions in Schedule 1 amend the Interstate Road Transport Regulations.
Schedule 1
Clause 1 renames the regulations to Interstate Road Transport Regulations 1986 in line with new naming conventions for regulations.
Clause 2 inserts a heading indicating that Part M Division 1 of the Regulations relate to paragraphs 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985.
Clause 3 inserts new provisions that allow registration authorities to sanction heavy vehicle owners (which includes persons who are responsible for the vehicle under a lease) who allow their vehicles to be persistently driven at excessive speeds. Following a warning letter for the first instance of speeding, the provisions provide that on subsequent occasions registration authorities may require the fitting of a speed limiter to vehicles that are not already fitted with one, and the testing of speed limiters where they are fitted.
A note to the regulations indicates that under sl1 of the Act, registration authorities may cancel or suspend registrations.
Clause 4 inserts new provisions that provide that operators who are members of an approved maintenance management compliance assurance scheme may be exempted from the requirement for vehicles to have an annual registration inspection.
F 0 R S
Federal Office of Road Safety
REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT
MANAGEMENT OF SPEEDING HEAVY VEHICLES
FORS
January 1999
CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND 3
Current Sanctions for Drivers of Heavy Vehicles 5
Need for Nationally Uniform Legislation 6
Policy Authority 6
2. PROBLEM 8
3. OBJECTIVES 10
4. IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES 11
1. Maintain the status quo 11
2. Industry self-regulation 11
3. Penalties for the owners of FIRS heavy vehicles . 11
4. General "chain of responsibility" requirements in compliance and enforcement
legislation 12
5. RTF 'grounding' proposal 12
5. CONSULTATION 15
6. COSTS AND BENEFITS 17
Implementation costs 18
Ongoing costs 19
Cost to vehicle owners 20
Cost to customers 21
BENEFITS 21
IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS 23
8. IMPLEMENTATION 27
Review 28
1. BACKGROUND
The Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 (IRT Act) establishes the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme (FIRS), and the Interstate Road Transport Regulations provide for the scheme's operation. FIRS provides a national registration scheme for heavy vehicles engaged in interstate journeys, as an alternative to State registration. The States and Territories administer the Scheme on behalf of the Commonwealth. There are approximately 10 000 heavy vehicles registered under FIRS. There are a total of 345 000 heavy vehicles registered in Australia. Thus FIRS vehicles comprise approximately 2.9 percent of heavy vehicles. Heavy vehicles are those with a gross vehicle mass (GVM) over 4.5 tonnes.
In 1995 the peak road freight industry body, the Road Transport Forum (RTF), developed a proposal for the management of speeding heavy vehicles travelling more than 15km/h in excess of the open road speed limit of 100km/h. This proposal initially called for the immediate grounding of a heavy vehicle caught exceeding 115km/h in a 100km/h zone. The RTF made this proposal to Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, the NRTC and widely publicised it to industry and the general public.
Feedback received led the RTF to alter their initial proposal and instead propose a staged enforcement response to speeding:
* first offence - speed limiter to be fitted
* second offence - grounding at base location
* third offence - grounding at some agreed place.
The RTF proposal did not contain any time limits on the commission of these offences. Further detail on this alternative is contained in section 4.
Speed limiters while being an important component of the response to speeding heavy vehicles are not alone considered to be adequate for ensuring compliance with speed limits for two reasons:
(a) the Australian Design Rule (ADR) 65 only came into effect in 1991 requiring all new heavy goods vehicles over 12 tonnes, and buses over 5 tonnes be speed limited to a maximum of 100km/h. Vehicles registered before 1991 are not subject to the requirement.
(b) Because speed limiters work by cutting engine power rather than applying brakes, speed limited vehicles can sometimes exceed the speed set by the limiter when travelling downhill. A report by Hartwood Consulting found that it is possible for a speed limited heavy vehicle travelling at or near legal mass on gradients which can be found on arterial roads in Australia to reach speeds in excess of 15km/h above the speed limited speed.
The NRTC commissioned Nelson English of Nelson English, Loxton and Andrews Pty Ltd, (NELA) to survey the available data on speeding vehicles. The consultant's report Heavy Vehicle Speeding: An Analysis of the Available Evidence (Technical Working Paper 18, May 1996) found:
* the incidence of open-road speeding in excess of 115km/h by heavy trucks is between 0.5% and 4%;
* for the most part, these vehicles are driven safely;
* speeding increases the severity of crashes, but not necessarily their frequency; and
* the role of speeding in relation to other causes of heavy vehicle crashes is in the order of five to twenty percent, probably at the lower end of this range.
Thus, the Nelson English report indicates that speeding is a significant cause of heavy vehicle crashes, (5 to 20%) and increases their severity, directly contributing to levels of death and injury. Further, submissions received by the NRTC questioned the consultant's findings and suggested speeding was a more significant problem than Nelson English suggested. The Commercial Vehicle Industry Association of NSW stated that the statistics were lacking in depth and they did not support the study's findings. The New Zealand Land Transport Safety Authority and the Australian Federal Office of Road Safety also expressed reservations about the findings.
In July 1996, the National Road Transport Commission (NRTC) released a policy proposal for the management of speeding heavy vehicles.'
In it the, Commission set out four rationales for increasing efforts to control heavy vehicles speeding:
* to improve safety
* to remedy a situation where operators who comply with the law are subject to competitive disadvantage against those who regularly speed;
* to enhance credibility of road transport law (and thereby promote greater compliance); and
* to improve public confidence in the road transport industry (and thereby facilitate the introduction of more efficient vehicles onto public roads).
After distribution of this paper to jurisdictions, police and various industry bodies and calls for comment, the NRTC in a submission to the MRCT meeting in November 1997 proposed the following:
For a first breach, both speed limited vehicles and non-speed limited vehicles will receive a warning notice.
'NRTC, Management of Speeding Heavy Vehicles: Policy Proposal, July 1996
* For a second breach a speed limited vehicle will be required to have the speed limiter certified as operating correctly, whereas a non-speed limited vehicle win be required to have a speed limiter fitted.
* On the third breach, suspension of registration for 28 days will occur for speed limited vehicles and non-speed limited vehicles will be required to have their speed limiter certified.
* The fourth breach will see the suspension of registration of speed limited vehicles for a period of three months and non-speed limited vehicles will have their registration suspended for 28 days. For subsequent breaches, both speed limited and non-speed limited vehicles will undergo suspension of registration for 3 months.
These actions would apply when the breaches occur within a three-year period. This is in line with the current policy of demerit points for drivers.
The proposed penalty structure was agreed by MCRT.
Current Sanctions for Drivers of Heavy Vehicles
* In most jurisdictions, only drivers are penalised for exceeding the speed limit. In all States and Territories (except NT) the penalty is a fine and demerit points are accrued.2
* In the Northern Territory, where there is an open road speed limit, road trains are derated (ie no longer considered a road train} but allowed to travel under permit to its destination for a first offence, and to the nearest town for a subsequent offence if they are found to be travelling in excess of 95km/h, as these vehicles are speed limited to 90km/h.
* In Victoria, there is a provision for the cancellation of registration of state registered vehicles which have been detected travelling at more than 110km/h in a 100km/h zone on two occasions, irrespective of the elapsed time between events. In July 1998 Victoria implemented the suspension of registration penalty agreed by MCRT.
* New South Wales requires heavy vehicles which are not speed limited and are found travelling in excess of 100km/h to have a speed limiter fitted. Vehicles that do not have a speed limiter fitted are currently required to travel at no more than 90km/h. In July 1998 NSW implemented the suspension of registration penalty agreed by MCRT.
* In some jurisdictions, where a vehicle is detected travelling in excess of 100km/h and has a speed limiter fitted, a minor defect notice may be issued to the owner of a vehicle. The vehicle owner would then be required to have a speed limiter certified as working and repaired, if necessary.
2 The NT does not have a demerit point system but will do so under the proposed National Driver Licensing Scheme.
Need for Nationally Uniform Legislation
The speeding heavy vehicles policy agreed by MCRT is part of a national process to develop and implement nationally uniform or consistent road transport laws. In 1990-91 two Special Premiers' Conferences were held in Adelaide and Brisbane, at which discussions of the impediments imposed by road transport inefficiencies to microeconomic reform were prominent. At the second of these Conferences Heads of Government agreed to a cooperative national heavy vehicle registration scheme, uniform technical and operating regulations together with 'nationally consistent' charges on heavy vehicles.
These decisions led in turn to the signing of the Heavy Vehicles Agreement which was given effect through the passage of the Commonwealth National Road Transport Commission Act 1991. The Light Vehicles Agreement, extending the national process to light vehicles, was signed in 1992.
National Road Transport Reform is also an obligation under the National Competition Policy Agreement, contributing to making Australia's road transport system more competitive.
The aim of these processes is primarily to improve the efficiency and safety of the road transport industry and improve the administrative efficiency of its regulation. The speeding heavy vehicles policy was agreed to by all Transport Ministers in the context of the national uniformity process.
The Commonwealth is thus obliged to implement this policy.
Policy Authority
There is agreement between Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments to implement a registration suspension penalty for repeated speeding offences by heavy vehicles.
The then Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon Mark Vaile MP, in the company of other Ministers, agreed at the November 1997 MCRT meeting to a policy for the suspension of registration of heavy vehicles detected speeding on repeated occasions. The NRTC proposed suspension of registration penalty was regarded as the most appropriate form of penalty rather than the RTF policy of grounding vehicles which the Ministerial Council considered too harsh, involved greater implementation problems and some legal difficulties (equity and natural justice).
The States and Territories are progressively implementing the agreed MCRT policy (NSW and Victoria did so in July 1998) and although vehicles registered under FIRS are required to comply with relevant State regulations (eg road rules), State authorities cannot suspend the registration of FIRS vehicles because the IRT Act regulations do not currently include provisions to allow this.
Unless the IRT regulations are amended FIRS registered vehicles will continue to be immune from the suspension of registration penalty. It is necessary to address this inequitable situation to ensure the national policy is effective in controlling speeding heavy vehicles. The proposed amendments to the IRT Act are to complement existing sanctions against drivers for breaches of posted speed limits.
2. PROBLEM
The incidence of speeding heavy vehicles is a significant problem on Australian roads both in relation to its impact on industry competition and on public safety. Currently the Interstate Road Transport (IRT) Act 1985 allows heavy vehicles registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme (FIRS) to speed without facing the heavy sanctions that State registered vehicles incur such as suspension of registration. State registered vehicles are thus subject to a competitive disadvantage. Existing penalties and enforcement are an insufficient deterrent to FIRS vehicles speeding.
By breaching speed limits some FIRS operators are gaining a competitive advantage because a higher (faster) standard of service can be offered to customers. This situation is clearly deficient from a safety and competition viewpoint. A solution is necessary to remedy this problem which is widely seen as a major loophole in FIRS legislation. The consultations involved in the early implementation of the proposal by NSW and Victoria in July 1998 identified the need to bring FIRS vehicles into line with the legislation as soon as possible.
The NSW RTA has provided evidence that FIRS operators are taking advantage of the current situation. Statistics from the operation of the SafetyCam for the calender year 1998 show that FIRS vehicles are overrepresented in total speeding breaches. Nationwide FIRS vehicles represent less than 3% of total heavy vehicle registrations yet the evidence in NSW indicates that approximately 250/0 of the heavy vehicles caught breaching speed limits are FIRS vehicles. Of even more concern is that SafetyCam statistics for 1998 also found that FIRS vehicles represented 49% of the heavy vehicles caught doing speeds in excess of 115km/h. It is these vehicles travelling at over 115km/h that a remedy would target. Further evidence from the operation of the SafetyCam which records vehicle travel times showed that 60% of the heavy vehicles found to have travel times quicker than legal speed limits would allow were FIRS vehicles.
The Nelson English3 report indicates that speeding is a significant cause of heavy vehicle crashes, (5 to 20%) and increases their severity, directly contributing to levels of death and injury. Information is collected on articulated trucks, as these are the heavy vehicles more at risk of being involved in crashes. In 1997 there were 144 fatal crashes involving articulated trucks, which involved 169 fatalities. In addition in 1997 there were 457 crashes involving articulated trucks that resulted in hospitalisation and 612 people were hospitalised as result of these crashes4. Of the 144 fatal crashes 98 (or 68%) occurred where the speed limit at the crash site was over 100km/h5.
______________________
3 Heavy Vehicle Speeding An Analysis of the Available Evidence (NRTC Technical Working Paper 18, May 1996).
Speeding is one of the most visible and widely recognised public safety concerns. The greater severity of the consequences of heavy vehicle crashes involving speeding warrant action to assure the public that the risks associated with the problem are being addressed. In crashes involving heavy vehicles it is typically the 'other vehicle' and its occupant that bear the major impact. Most fatalities in these crashes are not in the heavy vehicle. Public perception is that heavy vehicle speeding is a problem. Motorists are feeling unsafe on the road. If the road transport industry is to introduce more efficient vehicles onto public roads by, for example, increasing mass limits, increased public confidence in the industry would be necessary.
Increasing the penalties for drivers does not address what is often considered to be a key source of the problem: outside pressure on drivers. Operators, in some cases, are setting and/or condoning schedules that cannot be met without speeding.
Although some jurisdictions (ie Vic, NT, NSW, SA) penalise State registered vehicle owners and/or operators (in addition to drivers), there is not as yet a consistent national approach applying to all heavy vehicle operators (both State and FIRS registered).
Current FIRS legislation, by not subjecting FIRS operators to the same sanctions as operators with State registered vehicles creates the opportunity and incentive for FIRS operators to condone speeding. The relationship between the operator and the driver is characterised by imbalance. This imbalance where the operator holds the bargaining power allows operators to continue to condone the breaking of speeding laws and limits the amount of evidence available to prove this. There is no incentive or protection for drivers to provide the necessary evidence. Some evidence is starting to build up in court cases where employer/ consignor pressure is increasingly being cited as a factor in crashes. However operators are not going to admit to setting unrealistic deadlines and drivers are reluctant to complain because they believe their jobs depend on doing what is asked, and there is a ready supply of drivers to replace them. This has made quantitative evidence difficult to obtain.
The increased risk of crashes and the risk to an operator's reputation is taken into account by more reputable operators, where they can exercise some clout with their customers and get them to accept a level of service that reflects realistic times. However many operators are reluctant or unable to achieve this end. The intensively competitive nature of the road transport industry is the underlying factor behind the problem. The supply of operators and drivers far exceeds the demand forcing prices down and therefore the intense competition among suppliers allows these sorts of practices to exist. Operators who comply with speeding laws are easily replaced by operators who offer faster delivery times, and can thus exercise an unfair quality advantage due to inadequate sanctions for speeding offences.
____________________________
4 FORS, Road Injury Australia Quarterly Bulletin, Dec 1997, p.9.
5 FORS, Road Fatalities Australia 1997 Statistical Summary, pp.30-31.
3. OBJECTIVES
* Remove the unfair commercial advantage from those FIRS operators who consistently breach the law by speeding. The Government is seeking to address a problem with the law identified by industry. This will enhance the credibility of road transport law and promote greater compliance.
* By reducing the opportunity for the law to be broken the objective is to make roads safer through reducing the incidence of drivers of heavy vehicles speeding and to reduce the severity of road crashes involving heavy vehicles. This should also improve public perception and public safety concerns regarding heavy vehicle speeding.
* To move the onus of responsibility on to operators ('chain of responsibility' principle). Increasing the costs of speeding to owners will reduce the pressure on drivers to speed.
* To implement a policy already agreed by the Ministerial Council for Road Transport.
4. IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES
There are five main options for the management of speeding heavy vehicles:
1. Maintain the status quo
To do nothing would mean that heavy vehicle speeding by FIRS vehicles remains a driver offence only and the operator is not penalised. Penalising the driver through licence suspension is an insufficient deterrent to speeding heavy vehicle operators as the competitive structure of the industry is such that there is no shortage of drivers available. This option would not meet the objective of placing upon FIRS operators an increased level of responsibility for their drivers nor will it reduce the competitive advantage of FIRS operators who deliberately breach the law. It will not reduce the severity of heavy vehicle road crashes nor will it improve public perception and public safety concerns regarding heavy vehicle speeding. This option would mean continuing to utilise state regimes and would not fix the problem of inconsistency between State and FIRS legislation. It would also mean disregarding an MCRT decision.
2. Industry self-regulation
As the amendment proposed is designed to penalise operators who systematically break speeding laws, industry self-regulation is not regarded as an effective means of dealing with the problem. Selfregulation would not provide a significant deterrent to the offence, it would not place the onus of responsibility on operators because it provides insufficient incentives to comply with the law, therefore it will not improve road safety and would not address the inconsistency in current State and FIRS legislation. Industry self-regulation tools such as codes of conduct and operators establishing 'rules' to regulate driver behaviour may be useful in encouraging compliance in addition to regulatory amendment but are not alone considered sufficient to achieve the objectives because of the incentive structure created by the intensely competitive nature of the road transport industry.
3. Penalties for the owners of FIRS heavy vehicles.
This would include the retrospective fitting of a speed limiter to a vehicle that is not already required to have a speed limiter fitted by the relevant Australian Design Rule (ADR), the requirement to have a speed limiter certified or the temporary suspension of the registration of a vehicle that persistently speeds. This option is basically the proposal put forward by the NRTC.
Advantages:
* Increases the onus on the vehicle owner to be responsible for the actions of his/her driver therefore meeting one of the main objectives.
* Greater enforcement and penalties should make roads safer by reducing the incidence of drivers of FIRS heavy vehicles speeding and reduce the severity of road crashes involving FIRS heavy vehicles. This should also improve public perception and public safety concerns regarding FIRS heavy vehicle speeding.
* Takes away the unfair commercial advantage from those FIRS operators who consistently breach the law by speeding.
Limitations:
* This option does not necessarily target a company that sets schedules which can only be met via speeding as only the vehicle owner (who may be subcontracted for the task) is penalised. However new legislation on Road Transport Reform (Driving Hours) Regulations was agreed to by Ministerial Council on 15 January 1999. This legislation includes provisions that penalise any persons in breach of driving hours regulations as a result of scheduling practices and speeding. It allows for drivers, owners and operators (where these differ) to be penalised. The legislation is expected to come into effect within six months of agreement by Ministers.
4. General "chain of responsibility" requirements in compliance and enforcement legislation.
* vehicle operator could be penalised for persistent breaches of not only speed limits, but all aspects of the road law. This option would meet the objectives for developing a system to manage speeding heavy vehicles and would allow the operator as well as the owner to be targeted. Such a system could operate in conjunction with a specific policy or by itself.
Chain of responsibility provisions will be included in the compliance and enforcement provisions of the National Road Transport Law. It is not expected that these provisions will be available for implementation through the national law in the near future, other than for Dangerous Goods and for Truck Driving Hours. Therefore, this option is discounted as not feasible at the present time.
5. RTP 'grounding' proposal
The penalty of immediate grounding of a vehicle was initially raised as a possible sanction by the RTF to include within a regime for the management of speeding heavy vehicles. The major advantage of grounding as a sanction for speed is that it is considered to be an effective deterrent. This arises out of three features:
* Grounding is immediate. The punishment is seen as a direct consequence of the offence and is therefore more meaningful than a fine or other sanction applied later.
* Grounding affects not only the driver of the vehicle but the operator, in that it affects the operator's ability to deliver on schedule, and therefore affects contract performance and profitability. Grounding may also affect the consignor and the recipient of the load.
* Where it causes a vehicle to be immobilised on the side of the road, grounding is a visible sanction that sends an immediate message to other drivers and operators.
However grounding is not considered a feasible or appropriate option for the reasons outlined below:
* Giving enforcement personnel the power to ground gives them the power to punish unilaterally. Generally, the law requires punishment to be imposed by courts, not directly by police and enforcement personnel. This is so even in the case of Traffic Infringement Notices (TINs) which always provide for a case to be heard in court at the defendant's option.
* Not only is the power to impose punishment given to the enforcement officer, there is no realistic opportunity for appeal or review of the officer's decision because the punishment has been carried out by the time any opportunity to seek appeal arises.
* The availability of a grounding power can place enforcement officers in, a difficult position, particularly where the discretion to ground is fairly wide. This may expose enforcement personnel to undesirable pressures and claims of partiality.
* Grounding impacts differentially depending on when and where it is applied and upon the type of cargo and type of operation. The effect of grounding will generally be greater in the case of just-in-time operations, for higher value loads and remote locations. Grounding could potentially have a major impact where, for example, livestock or perishables were involved. The RTF proposal that grounding take effect at base location or at some agreed place is designed to address these concerns in relation to livestock, perishables, bonded goods, and dangerous goods.
* The exercise of grounding power which leads to loss or damage (eg late delivery, deterioration of the load) may expose enforcement personnel and enforcement agencies to liability claims.
* To be effective, grounding requires observation of the vehicle over a continuous period, some form of physical immobilisation or the provision of a secure area for grounded vehicles. This may have significant cost implications for enforcement agencies.
* If immediate grounding is to be used as a response to repeated incidences of speeding, accurate real-time information on prior convictions or TINs must be available to the enforcement officer. This may present difficulties, at least in some jurisdictions.
Currently powers for "immediate" grounding only apply when it is unsafe for the vehicle to continue eg. Blood alcohol concentration offences, roadworthiness, gross mass.
While immediate grounding may meet the objective of penalising the consignor of goods, there are sufficient concerns regarding the efficacy of grounding as a penalty for a speed limiter offence to warrant its exclusion from the policy proposal and assessment of its financial impacts.
The RTF grounding proposal was the major alternative considered in place of a suspension of registration penalty. Immediate grounding may meet the objectives and some of its limitations may be addressed in the j
future. However, the problems associated with its practical implementation, likely higher costs involved and lack of jurisdiction support led Ministerial Council to reject grounding as an option for dealing with the management of speeding heavy vehicles at the November 1997 ATC meeting.
On the basis of the options considered above this RIS will assess the impact of introducing a regime for managing speeding heavy vehicles which enforces penalties for the owners of heavy vehicles against a base case of no change in the current approach (ie option 3 (NRTC proposal) against option 1). The details of option 3 (penalties for the owners of FIRS heavy vehicles) are elaborated in section 6. It is option 3, the NRTC proposal that was agreed to by the MCRT in 1997. The decision of the MCRT precludes consideration of the impacts of other options in more detail.
The existence of laws and regulations covering heavy vehicle speeding and the MCRT decision taken on this issue means Government action in the form of a regulatory amendment is needed to correct this problem. The MCRT decision was made after consideration and debate of the various options within government departments and industry.
5. CONSULTATION
The main parties affected by the proposed amendments to regulations are State and Territory Governments, the Road Transport Forum, road transport operators, owners and employees, road transport customers, road users, police, road authorities, the NRTC and the community in general.
In May 1996, the NRTC published a technical working paper entitled Speeding Heavy Vehicles: An Analysis of Available Evidence prepared by Nelson English of Nelson English, Loxton and Andrews Pty Ltd. This document was circulated to industry, road authorities, police and other interested parties and discussed at a workshop involving representatives of these interests in Melbourne in May 1996.
The workshop provided significant input into the development of the policy.
Following the release of the technical working paper, a policy proposal (Management of Speeding Heavy Vehicles: Policy Proposal) was released widely for comment to road authorities, industry and other interested organisations and received extensive media coverage. The NRTC called for public comment on its proposal and received some 25 submissions. One of the issues raised in responses to the policy proposal was the margin that should be allowed before action against the registered operator of the vehicle was triggered. In order to investigate this issue, Hartwood Consulting was commissioned to undertake a technical review of the speeds that can be reached on different road gradients by heavy vehicles with effectively functioning speed limiters. In light of this paper and the comments received on the initial policy proposal, the policy proposal was refined.
The report by Hartwood Consulting Down Hill Speed Performance of Speed-Limited Heavy Vehicles was circulated for information in October 1997 to representatives of road authorities, police, the road transport industry and other interested parties and was released as a Technical Working Paper in December 1997.
Some road authorities and enforcement agencies commented that the 15km/h leeway proposal allowed excessive leeway over the limit to which the speed control device was set. There was also comment that the 15km/h was not based on adequate research and that a lower margin should be used for road trains. The report by Hartwood Consulting found that:
* The major factors that determine the maximum speed of a speedlimited vehicle are road gradient and vehicle mass; and
* It is possible for a speed limited heavy vehicle travelling at or near legal mass on gradients which can be found on arterial roads in Australia to reach speeds in excess of 15km/h above the speed limited speed.
The major implication of the results for the implementation of policy on management of speeding heavy vehicles is that a reading taken on an inappropriate combination of gradient and distance does not indicate that a speed limiter is defective. In light of this work, the NRTC considered that the allowed leeway should not be reduced below 15km/h, and that, for the purposes of these provisions, speed readings should not be taken in inappropriate locations. Also a separate and parallel system of fines and demerit points for heavy vehicle drivers caught speeding up to and beyond 115km/h does exist. The aim of this proposal is to augment these existing sanctions by targeting operators who are repeatedly caught significantly exceeding legal speed limits.
In addition to the consultation done by the NRTC the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) is involved in ongoing consultations with the road transport industry and jurisdictions on road transport reform issues. Specifically, the implementation of the proposal in NSW and Victoria in July 1998 involved extensive and continuing consultations with those jurisdictions on the need to bring FIRS vehicles into line with the legislation as soon as possible. Jurisdictions and industry have consistently maintained their view on the importance of ensuring that the immunity of FIRS vehicles from the stricter penalties is eliminated.
6. COSTS AND BENEFITS
The proposed penalties for the owners of heavy vehicles detected exceeding the speed limit by more than 15km/h under Option 3 (penalties for the owners of FIRS heavy vehicles) can be summarised as:
Speed limited vehicle Non-speed limited vehicle
1st breach Warning notice Warning notice
2nd breach Requirement to have Requirement to have
speed limiter certified speed limiter fitted
3rd breach Suspension of Requirement to have
registration for 28 speed limiter certified
days
4th breach Suspension of Suspension of
registration for 3 registration for 28
months days
Subsequent breach Suspension of Suspension of
(following lifting of registration for 3 registration for 3
suspension) months months
It is proposed that these sanctions will apply when the breaches occur within a three-year period. This is similar to the current demerit points for drivers. The policy is designed to penalise repeated breaches of road laws. It is expected that, once the policy is approved, operators will regulate the behaviour of their own members (employees). The threat of sanctions (such as the suspension of registration) will encourage 'rules' to be made by operators in the trucking industry to avoid these sanctions. Re-offence rates therefore will be low. Industry administered codes of conduct may* emerge which will encourage compliance and selfpolicing (ie industry will be best placed to police conduct).
Initially under the Option 3 (penalties for the owners of FIRS heavy vehicles) response proposed by the NRTC there was no warning given to non-speed limited vehicles, they were automatically required to fit a speed limiter. After further consultation the NRTC decided that an initial warning was crucial to their approach as prior to the receipt of the warning, an operator may not have had any indication that there may be a problem with a particular vehicle or driver. Receipt of the warning is intended to allow the operator to initiate internal procedures to manage vehicles and/or drivers in such a way as to avoid a repetition of behaviour. This is consistent with the developing approach of placing additional onus on transport operators to take responsibility for behaviours that are in their control.
COSTS
Implementation costs
Following the release of the initial NRTC policy proposal, estimates were requested from jurisdictions on the cost of establishing a system for the management of speeding heavy vehicles. These estimates were based on the initial policy proposal described above. Although the two proposals differ slightly, the estimates received from the jurisdictions are applicable to the revised proposal being assessed.
Responses to the data request were received from six jurisdictions (SA, ACT, NT, NSW, Vic, Q1d). Jurisdictions stressed that the estimates were preliminary. Estimates of the costs associated with system changes, therefore, are tentative.
To implement a scheme for the management of speeding heavy vehicles, all jurisdictions except the Northern Territory will have to establish a system that can link offences to a vehicle rather than just to a, driver as currently occurs. The Northern Territory already has a system that links offences to vehicles.
Only three jurisdictions were able to provide a cost for establishing a system to link offences to vehicles. New South Wales estimated a cost of $80 000 -$90 000, South Australia estimated it would cost $70 000 and Victoria estimated $800 000 - $1 million.
Extrapolating these costs to the rest of Australia means costs could vary from $490 000 (assuming the costs for all jurisdictions are similar to SA) to $5.7 million (assuming the costs for all jurisdictions are similar to Victoria).
The estimates for Victoria involved a one off cost of modifying the VicRoads computer system to link offences to vehicles. If this link were made, it may be also used for other applications. Thus this cost is not fully attributable to the speeding suspension penalties. Extrapolation of these costs for each jurisdiction and full attribution to this policy initiative is a "worst case" scenario.
New South Wales also estimated that it would, cost $200 000 to establish a system that would allow it to transfer data on visiting vehicles to a vehicle's home jurisdiction. The ACT, while not being able to provide a cost estimate, also indicated that the cost would be significant as the information could not be exchanged via the demerit points exchange system and would either require the operation of the National Exchange of Vehicle and Driver Information System (NEVDIS) or a time consuming and costly manual process. The cost of a system that would allow the transfer of visiting vehicle information will vary depending on whether an advanced automated system is adopted or a manual process is used or a stand alone personal computer based system similar to the demerit points exchange system is used. However, the ACT is committed to the implementation of NEVDIS in any case, necessitating upgrade costs.
The NRTC noted that the cost estimates provided were preliminary and that the basis of the estimates varied between the jurisdictions which responded. The NRTC considers it likely that the policy could be implemented at a cost near or below the bottom of the range presented. The NRTC recommends that jurisdictions investigate low cost methods of implementation of the measures.
Ongoing costs
A precise estimate of the ongoing costs cannot be made, as this would require data on the likely rates of re-offending. This could be estimated using re-offence rates for heavy vehicle drivers over a three year period, which is. the time limit on the commission of the offences. This data, however, is difficult to extrapolate to vehicles because the data does not contain the speed a driver was travelling at, or whether the driver was driving a heavy vehicle. The data are also costly to obtain from road authority databases. Only South Australia was able to provide an estimate that 16% of heavy vehicle drivers were detected speeding twice in two years and 14% were detected speeding more than twice in 2 years.
Existing re-offence data may also not be a very useful guide to the likely re-offence rate after the proposal is implemented as the underlying philosophy of the policy is deterrence.
NSW indicated that in 1996/97 there were 4 835 speeding offences for drivers with a heavy vehicle licence travelling 15km/h over the speed limit. This cannot be differentiated into the type of vehicle being driven or the speed zone.
The NSW RTA has provided evidence that FIRS operators are taking advantage of the current situation. Statistics from the operation of the SafetyCam for the calender year 1998 show that FIRS vehicles are overrepresented in total speeding breaches (25%). Nationwide FIRS vehicles represent less than 3% of total heavy vehicle registrations yet the evidence in NSW indicates that approximately 25% of the heavy vehicles caught breaching speed limits are FIRS vehicles. Of even more concern is that SafetyCam statistics for 1998 also found that FIRS vehicles represented 49% of the heavy vehicles caught doing speeds in excess of 115km/h. It is these vehicles travelling at over 115km/h that a suspension of registration penalty would target. Further evidence from the operation of the SafetyCam which records vehicle travel times showed that 60% of the heavy vehicles found to have travel times quicker than legal speed limits would allow were FIRS vehicles.
Victoria provided an indication of the effect of its previous policy of cancelling a vehicle's registration for travelling above 110km/h.
´In managing speeding vehicles, Victoria, in addition to a regulatory regime, has introduced road safety campaigns and speed cameras, therefore it is difficult to isolate effects of the regulation alone. Victoria's experience is that while there have been few licence cancellations, a downward trend has been observed in the percentage of heavy vehicles travelling at speeds of 110km/h or more in 1996 compared with 1995."
The proposed regime for the management of speeding heavy vehicles would require jurisdictions to:
* issue and record a penalty notice (these notices may be warnings, requirements that a speed limiter be fitted, or requirements that a speed limiter be certified depending on the number of offences committed);
* exchange offence information with other jurisdictions;
* administer a temporary suspension to registration; and
* sight a current road speed limiter certificate and clear the outstanding offence on the system.
These costs vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Table 5.1 details the cost for those jurisdictions that were able to provide estimates.
Table 5. 1: Process Costs ($)
NSW VIC QLD SA NT
Issue and record penalty notice 17.25 50.00 50.006 27.00 60.00
Exchange offence information - 20.00 4.00 30.00 10.00
Administer suspension 39.45 50.00 4.007 - 60.00
Sight and note current speed 35.00 18.00 220.00 - 20.00
limiter certificate 1
Note: Where a range of costs were given, the maximum has been used in the analysis.
As stated above, the overall cost cannot be determined due to the lack of information on the number of re-offenders but the typical cost for, say, Queensland for a speed limited vehicle that commits 3 offences is as follows:
1. A warning notice is issued $ 50.00
2. A notice requiring the speed limiter to be certified is issued $ 50.00
- the notice is cleared $220.00
3 Suspension is administered $4.00
TOTAL $324.00
Similarly for NSW, the cost would be $108.95, for Victoria $168, for the Northern Territory $200.
Cost to vehicle owners
A vehicle owner would incur costs if his/her vehicle was found travelling in excess of 15km/h above speed limiter capacity two or more times. Costs to operators, where necessary, would include the cost of having a speed limiter fitted, the cost of having a speed limiter certified as effective and the cost of having a vehicle's registration suspended for either 28 days or three months.
____________________________
6 If the matter goes to court the cost is $200 - $300
7 Does not include system development, on-road enforcement or the appeal process.
Data on the cost of fitting a speed limiter and having a speed limiter certified were obtained from industry sources. These costs do not include the cost of having the vehicle unavailable for use. Cost of suspension of registration have been calculated from Thorensen (1993), Survey of freight vehicle costs - 1991, ARR239, Australian Road Research Board.
Table 5.2: Cost to Vehicle Owner
Penalty cost
Fitting a speed limiter 2000-3000
Certification of speed limiter 200
28 day suspension 3300
3 month suspension 10500
Note: Suspension costs are based on capital costs for a six-axle articulated vehicle. If the driver cannot be reassigned due to a lack of vehicle, wage costs would need to be included. In this case, the costs would be $10 300 for 28 days and $33 100 for 3 months. Costs vary depending on the type of vehicle.
For a speed-limited six axle articulated vehicle which commits four offences, the cost to the owner is estimated to be $14 000 and for a vehicle that is not speed limited, the cost is estimated to be $6 600.
A total expected cost to industry cannot be calculated due to the lack of information on the re-offence rate. Furthermore, if the proposed policy were effective, the re-offence rate would fall, reducing the direct cost to industry.
In addition to the administrative and operator costs, there may be an impact on productivity due to a reduction in the incidence of speeding leading to increased trip times for operators who habitually condone speeding. This impact has not been assessed, as data was unavailable.
Cost to customers
The potential cost to road transport customers of introducing the proposed changes is limited to a notional lower level of service (as a result of longer delivery times).
BENEFITS
Implementation of the recommended policy is likely to result in benefits in a number of areas.
Firstly, the proposed policy will reduce the opportunity for FIRS operators to gain a commercial advantage by deliberately operating in contravention of the law. Not only will this policy create a flatter playing field in the heavy vehicle industry it will deter persons who are currently breaking the law from continuing to do so by making the penalty equate to the crime being committed. This amendment is primarily concerned
Page 22 of 28 Regulatory Impact Statement: Management of Speeding Heavy Vehicles
with penalising persons who are breaking an existing law and gaining advantage from doing so. This will enhance the credibility of road transport law and promote greater compliance.
The extent of benefit derived from eliminating this problem is difficult to
quantify. The industry structure is such that drivers/employees have no
incentive to provide the evidence necessary to prove FIRS
operators/ owners are currently abusing existing laws which allow them
to get away with encouraging speeding or setting schedules that require
speeding. However, the evidence provided by the NSW RTA, which shows
FIRS vehicles as being ten times over-represented in speeding offences in
NSW, does provide some hard evidence of the problem. Anecdotal
evidence from both government and industry sources also suggests that
this is the case and that significant benefits will result from this
amendment.
Secondly, there may be a reduction in the severity and frequency of road crashes. In the review of the incidence of speeding heavy vehicles8, the consultant found that up to 4% of heavy vehicles were speeding more than 115km/h. It also concluded that the role of speeding in relation to other causes of heavy vehicle crashes is in the order of five to twenty percent, and that speeding led to an increase in the severity but not necessarily the frequency of crashes.
There are no data, however, on the number of crashes involving heavy vehicles travelling 15km/h above their speed-limiter speed, as the speed at which a vehicle was travelling when it crashed is usually not known or recorded on crash reports.
The average cost of a crash involving an articulated truck resulting in a fatality or a serious injury is $209,000.9 This includes cost to persons in all crashes, vehicle damage, cargo loss, emergency services, insurance administration and vehicle replacement. To offset the estimated implementation costs of between $490,000 and $5.7million, between 2.3 and 33.5 fatal or serious injury crashes would need to be avoided.
By reducing the opportunity for the law to be broken roads should be made safer through reducing the incidence of drivers of heavy vehicles speeding and reducing the severity of road crashes involving heavy vehicles. This should also improve public perception and public safety concerns regarding heavy Vehicle speeding. The road transport industry is particularly concerned with this factor and has been the driving force behind this reform. The problem of open-road speeding by heavy vehicles is considered to be a major cause of the road transport industry's poor public image.
Governments and industry consider that penalising both the driver and the owner/operator is more effective than penalising only the driver at fault. The aim is to follow the 'chain of responsibility' and penalise operators whose scheduling practices may be forcing drivers to speed. By moving the onus of responsibility on to operators (chain of responsibility' principle) this will increase the costs of speeding to owners and will therefore reduce the pressure on drivers to speed because the financial incentives and loophole in FIRS legislation which encouraged this practice will no longer exist. However, the number of offenders deterred from breaching the speeding laws as a result of the proposal is unable to be quantified, as the data necessary is not available.
_________________________________
8 Nelson English Loxton and Andrews, Heavy Vehicle Speeding: An Analysis of the Available Evidence,
NRTC Technical Working Paper 18, May 1996.
9 This value Yes obtained from NRTC (1993) and adjusted to current prices using CPI
In addition there are other potential benefits of reducing heavy vehicle speeding. These include reduced fuel consumption which means reduced vehicle emissions (a major greenhouse gas contributor) and reduced fuel costs for operators. Wear and tear on both vehicles and road infrastructure may also be reduced. These benefits cannot be easily quantified.
While the actual number of offenders penalised under the proposed amendment is difficult to estimate and may not be considered significant the unquantified benefits are argued to outweigh the costs that have been quantified. The reasons for the lack of quantified benefits have been made clear and it is believed that the lack of quantitative evidence should not reduce the weight given to them in evaluating this proposal.
IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS
The cost of having a speed limiter fitted or having a vehicle off the road will have a disproportionate impact on small operators, as these costs will represent a larger proportion of their business income when compared to larger operators. This is particularly the case for single vehicle fleets where having a vehicle's registration suspended means the business is unable to operate.
While the burden of this regulatory amendment falls disproportionately on small businesses who persistently break speeding laws this is not regarded as a sufficient reason to exclude small business from the changes or make any special provisions to allow for this factor.
Small business makes up a large proportion of heavy vehicles on Australian roads10 and as such excluding or altering the penalties applied to them would significantly reduce the benefits of the proposal. Specifically, the effectiveness of the amendments in deterring the industry from breaking the law would be significantly reduced. The larger proportional impact on small operators is expected to have a greater deterrence effect on those operators who make up the majority of the industry. It is also the case that any penalty regime faces similar factors regarding the impact on small business.
Small operators adhering to speed limit laws will benefit from a reduction in the competitive advantage of both small and large operators who repeatedly breached speeding laws. This policy will therefore create a fairer industry in which small operators who conduct their business without breaking speeding laws can compete for business without being unduly disadvantaged by a loophole in existing laws.
__________________________
10 The majority of FIRS vehicles are also likely to be owned by small operators.
7. EVALUATION
The Commonwealth is obliged to implement this proposal (Option 3) by a decision of the Ministerial Council for Road Transport. This decision was taken as part of the national road transport reform process, which is a component of the National Competition Policy, to make Australia's road transport system more competitive and nationally consistent.
The incidence of speeding heavy vehicles is a problem on Australian roads both in relation to its impact on industry competition and on public safety.
The quantified costs for establishing a system for managing speeding heavy vehicles are significant and cannot be offset by quantified benefits. However, implementation of the recommended policy is likely to result in significant unquantified benefits in a number of areas. The significance of and consensus surrounding these unquantified benefits suggests that they outweigh quantified costs.
Of the five options investigated to meet the objectives outlined in. section 3 the NRTC Option 3 (penalties for the owners ' of FIRS heavy vehicles) alternative is proposed to be the most suitable for a number of reasons:
* It has the capacity to meet all three objectives in relation to removing the unfair advantage of FIRS operators, improving public safety and placing the onus of responsibility on operators.
* It is simple and justified in that the amendment to regulations is simply enabling people who are breaking a law to be penalised appropriately. In doing so a more equitable system is created. It does not produce a new offence. Rather, it increases sanctions that target operators who repeatedly break existing laws.
* The unquantified benefits outlined above are considered to outweigh the costs. The widespread support for this proposal from industry, State and Territory governments and other affected parties suggests that significant benefits will be achieved as a result of its implementation. The support shown for this policy by jurisdictions and industry is not indisputable evidence that significant net benefits will be achieved but in the absence of more quantitative proof and in the context of the MCRT decision it does provide a sound basis for the proposal
Recommendation
That FIRS legislation be amended to include the proposed penalty provisions so that FIRS operators are subject to equivalent penalties for speeding as State and Territory registered heavy vehicles. The staged response (shown below) proposed to apply to operators of heavy vehicles detected in excess of 15km/h above speed limited speeds will apply over a three-year reporting period.
Speed limited vehicle Non-speed limited
vehicle
15t breach Warning notice Warning notice
2nd breach Requirement to have Requirement to have
speed limiter certified speed limiter fitted
3rld breach Suspension of Requirement to have
registration for 28 speed limiter certified
days
4th breach Suspension of Suspension of
registration for 3 registration for 28
months days
Subsequent breach Suspension of Suspension of
registration for 3 registration for 3
months months
A simple "one trigger fits all roads" approach to determining a breach is recommended as proposed by the NRTC. Under the proposal, if a speedlimited vehicle is travelling at a speed more than 15km/h higher than the speed capability control (speed limiter) should allow, there is taken to be prima facie evidence that the limiter is not functioning effectively and a breach may be recorded."
In recommending the "one trigger" approach, the NRTC rejected multiple triggers as being too complex and involving too much uncertainty and discretion.
That said, given the potential for vehicles to exceed even the 15km/h margin under the effects of gravity in some circumstances, a defence against breaches may be allowed where it can be shown that the topography of the road, rather than a non-operating speed limiter, could have caused the vehicle to exceed the 15km/h margin.
The accrual period for sanctions is three years from the date of the first offence.
The provisions are intended to apply in addition to any sanctions imposed on a driver under State laws for speeding offences.
__________________________
11 Where a vehicle belongs to a class which, if constructed today, would be required to have a speed limiter fitted, but which is not subject to this requirement due to its age, travelling at a speed more than 15km/h above the open-road limit would constitute the first breach.
8. IMPLEMENTATION
The proposal will be implemented through amendment to Interstate Road Transport (IRT) regulations. The Commonwealth is responsible for the amendments to FIRS legislation. The FIRS is administered by the States on behalf of the Commonwealth. The amendment to IRT regulations will apply in all jurisdictions.
Both NSW and Victoria have already successfully implemented the proposal. Queensland is aiming to have the proposal fully implemented by April 1999 and Tasmania by March 1999. Other jurisdictions are progressing with the implementation of the agreed approach. In the Northern Territory the amendment to IRT regulations will apply, however in practice, the amendments will have little effect for vehicles operating in the NT due to the existence of open speed limits on open roads. However, this is an issue for the NT in its implementation of the agreed national policy.
The proposal provides mechanisms to proceed against vehicle operators, in order to augment existing sanctions against drivers. Some of the implementation difficulties in this approach result from the fact that registration databases link vehicles to registered operators, rather than the person or company which may actually operate the vehicle on a day-to-day basis. However as discussed earlier this problem is addressed by the incoming implementation of Road Transport Reform (Driving Hours) Regulations agreed to by Ministerial Council on 15 January 1999. This legislation includes provisions that penalise any persons in breach of driving hours regulations as a result of scheduling practices and speeding. It allows for drivers, owners and operators (where these differ) to be penalised. The legislation is expected to come into effect within six months of agreement.
Some jurisdictions have raised other implementation issues. These jurisdictions argue that these issues can only be resolved through the drafting of model legislation and business rules. For example:
* Whether the 'topographical defence' for vehicles speeding when travelling down hill on inclines of a certain steepness is workable.
* A system for ensuring that details of relevant offences committed in other jurisdictions are passed on to the jurisdiction of registration and counted under the scheme.
* Consistent administrative procedures based on the model legislation, to ensure that application of the law is nationally consistent.
The information on the new penalties for FIRS vehicles will be transmitted to industry by various means:
The amendments will be gazetted.
* The Minister will issue a press release that will be widely circulated to industry and the media.
* As part of national road transport reforms the NRTC and the jurisdictions will run information campaigns
Review
Chain of responsibility provisions is a major component of the compliance and enforcement module of the National Road Transport Law that is currently being developed. This legislative proposal is scheduled to be submitted to Ministerial Council for consideration at the end of 1999. Once the National Road Transport Law is implemented the current management of speeding heavy vehicles proposal will be reviewed in light of this.
The NRTC Amendment Act 1998 (due to commence on or before 3 January 1999) requires that the NRTC Act and Road Transport Reform legislation be reviewed at least every six years. The next review is due in 2004. The amendments to IRT regulations would be included in this review.
FIRS legislation is to be reviewed by the Department of Transport and Regional Services during the first half of 1999.
Part of the National Competition Council's (NCC) responsibility is also to assess road transport reforms. The NCC is an independent body that will review the competition aspects of the proposed amendment.
The effectiveness of the proposal will be assessed using data collated by States on the number of heavy vehicles speeding and the penalty imposed under the new arrangements. The lower the number of offences recorded will be taken to imply that the amended regulations are serving as an effective deterrent to heavy vehicle speeding (taking into account other factors which impact upon speeding).
F O R S
Federal Office of Road Safety
REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT
AMENDMENT TO INTERSTATE ROAD
TRANSPORT (IRT) REGULATIONS - EXEMPTION
FROM ANNUAL VEHICLE INSPECTION
FORS
January 1999
REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT
AMENDMENT TO INTERSTATE ROAD TRANSPORT (IRT)
REGULATIONS - EXEMPTION PROM ANNUAL VEHICLE
INSPECTION
CONTENTS
CONTENTS 2
REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT 3
PROBLEM 3
BACKGROUND 3
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE
FIRS REGISTRATION SCHEME 5
OBJECTIVES 7
POLICY AUTHORITY 7
IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES 8
Option 1 8
Option 2 8
Option 3 8
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 9
ASSUMPTIONS 9
INSPECTION REGIMES 10
QUANTIFIED IMPACTS 11
PILOT EVALUATION 12
Improved road safety (community benefits) 14
Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection and Safety 15
Improved road transport efficiency 15
UNQUANTIFIED IMPACTS 16
On-road enforcement 16
RESTRICTIONS ON COMPETITION 16
IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS 17
CONSULTATION 18
SUMMARY OF VIEWS 19
ADDRESSING COMMENTS 20
CONCLUSION 21
MONITORING 22
ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLICITY 22
REVIEW 24
REFERENCES 25
APPENDIX 26
REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT
AMENDMENT TO INTERSTATE ROAD
TRANSPORT (IRT) REGULATIONS - EXEMPTION
FROM ANNUAL VEHICLE INSPECTION
PROBLEM
State and Territory heavy vehicle operators who are members of maintenance management quality assurance schemes (alternative compliance schemes) are progressively being exempted from compulsory periodic registration inspection requirements as States and Territories introduce the appropriate legislation.
Operators who are registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme do not currently have access to the same exemptions. This creates a competitive disadvantage for FIRS operators, as they are not able to take up efficiency and productivity gains available under the scheme.
BACKGROUND
Annual pre-registration inspection for heavy vehicles (defined in road transport legislation as vehicles over 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass) is mandatory in NSW, Queensland, ACT and NT, and in SA for road trains and B-doubles. Vehicles registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme (FIRS) have to be inspected before registration under Regulation 13 of the Interstate Road Transport Regulations in all States and Territories, regardless of State practice.
Under the Heavy Vehicle Alternative Compliance Scheme (HVACS) developed by the National Road Transport Commission (NRTC), heavy vehicles that are accredited under an approved maintenance management compliance assurance scheme are exempt from inspection on annual renewal of registration. The Ministerial Council on Road Transport (MCRT) in November 1997 endorsed a comprehensive alternative compliance package which included provision for accredited operators of heavy vehicles to be exempt from compulsory annual vehicle inspection [Appendix].
A maintenance management compliance assurance scheme has been piloted in NSW. The pilot program was completed in 1996, Since 20 May 1998 operators of heavy vehicles accredited under Trucksafel and registered under State legislation in NSW, have been eligible for exemption from annual registration inspection. Queensland Transport will also offer a scheme once legislation is passed early in 1999, but currently offers exemption to Queensland-registered operators accredited under Trucksafe in NSW. Victoria requires twice annual inspections for buses licensed to carry passengers and offers exemption from one inspection to operators accredited under the Quality Assurance Maintenance System (trucks are not required to have pre-registration inspections in Victoria).
Operators of FIRS registered vehicles are not able to participate in such schemes, since the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 and Regulations do not permit exemption (FIRS vehicles are subject to inspection in jurisdictions where this is not required for State registered vehicles). This situation creates an obstacle to road transport reform objectives and is contrary to an agreed decision of the Australian Transport Council (see p.7 below).
____________________________________
1 Trucksafe is an industry-operated accreditation scheme for heavy vehicle operators that provides for management structures, training, and other facilities to improve efficiency, safety, achieve occupational health and safety responsibilities and generally improve industry performance. Trucksafe includes a maintenance management component that meets the standards approved by Ministerial Council and has been approved by NSW as an appropriate maintenance management compliance assurance scheme. The RTA NSW has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Trucksafe to this effect.
Because the exemption is not available to heavy vehicles registered under F1RS the Commonwealth Government is seen to be holding back reform, and is under increasing pressure from the States and Territories, and from the road transport industry, to act on it.
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE
Alternative compliance, or compliance assurance, is aimed at creating an operating environment where transport operators, regulatory authorities and enforcement agencies work in cooperation, rather than in a traditional compliance/enforcement relationship.
The means of implementing alternative compliance is the National Heavy Vehicle Alternative Compliance Scheme being developed jointly by State and Territory jurisdictions, the Commonwealth and the National Road Transport Commission (NRTC). The operational modules being developed are maintenance management, mass management, and fatigue management.
Alternative compliance provides for operators of heavy vehicles to voluntarily take direct responsibility for meeting regulatory standards and requirements rather than relying on traditional enforcement structures and methods, and traditional relationships with enforcement authorities. Some aspects of traditional enforcement may be relaxed: operators may be exempt from passing over weighbridges, or from compulsory roadworthiness inspections. In return, operators set up their own maintenance or vehicle weighing arrangements, together with records and management structures. Verification is by audit on behalf of the registering authority.
Operators must be members of an accreditation scheme with operating standards and guidelines approved by the regulating authority. Such guidelines were approved by Ministerial Council in November 1997 (see Appendix). Breaches may result in removal of the operator from the scheme. Potential benefits of alternative compliance are:
* reduction in the cost to the regulatory authority (and hence to the community) of compliance with regulatory requirements
* improved compliance with regulation as vehicle operators accept direct responsibility, and hence exercise closer control, rather than rely on official action to assure compliance
* improved compliance with regulation for vehicles not part of schemes as authorities have more enforcement resources to direct to those vehicles
* improved safety because of better roadworthiness
* improved vehicle productivity because of reduced down time for compliance under traditional compliance regimes.
The attraction for operators is improved public image and vehicle and operator productivity. For road authorities and enforcement agencies the arrangement results in improved levels of compliance, not only by scheme members but also by non-members through more effective targeting of conventional enforcement.
FIRS REGISTRATION SCHEME
The Federal Interstate Registration Scheme set up under the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985 provides for a scheme of registration for interstate transport operations. It operates in parallel with State registration systems and is administered by the States on the Commonwealth's behalf. FIRS was set up initially as a means of introducing uniform charges and some technical reforms that were considered desirable but not yet implemented by all States and Territories.
With the advent of the National Road Transport Commission and the progressive adoption of reforms the Commission initiated, many of the purposes for which the FIRS scheme was instituted were superseded. States and Territories have been pressing for the FIRS scheme to be abolished. Although the Australian Transport Council has agreed that the FIRS scheme would be abolished when all jurisdictions have adopted the national heavy vehicle registration scheme (a. key component of the national reform program), the Commonwealth Minister has only agreed to review the FIRS legislation. Steps have been taken as of January 1999 to initiate such a review.
As for State motor vehicle registration arrangements, the FIRS scheme requires updating to implement NRTC reforms. There have been several amendments to date, and there will be others. Depending on the reform concerned and the available head of power, the scheme may be updated by amending Regulations under the Act or the Act itself.
Generally, industry favours the FIRS registration scheme, principally because FIRS registration is cheaper than State registration2. Although the numbers are small in absolute terms (there are about 10,500 FIRS registered heavy vehicles) they represent a significant proportion of the vehicles likely to be involved in interstate operation, since about 70% of heavy vehicles, small as well as large, are engaged in short distance or local, such as intraurban, transport work,
There are few if any operational disadvantages to vehicle operators in registering under the FIRS scheme. On the contrary the FIRS scheme, and particularly the fact that FIRS and State/Territory registration arrangements are not updated to implement NRTC reforms at the same time, provides loopholes that operators are quick to exploit. .
_____________________________
2 Although there is now a system of national charges for registration of heavy vehicles which mean that the very large differences between States that used to exist are no longer, some jurisdictions levy stamp duty that can be a significant cost, eg up to $56000 for first registration of a new semi-trailer.
Because of the difficulty of obtaining a slot in the Commonwealth Parliamentary timetable, it is invariably the FIRS legislation that drags behind State implementation of reforms. Amending the FIRS legislation to implement reforms is cumbersome and occasionally difficult because the legislation is being made to do things that were not contemplated at the time it was framed. This aspect is also part of the review referred to above.
In the case of the maintenance management alternative compliance scheme, which provides for a concession in relation to pre-registration inspections for heavy vehicles, FIRS registered vehicles are at a disadvantage relative to State registered vehicles. Because of other advantages to interstate operators as outlined above, it is not likely that a temporary disadvantage would induce operators to switch to State registration.
States and Territories on the other hand do not favour the FIRS scheme because of the administrative complexity of running two parallel registration schemes, because of enforcement complexities and because they lose revenue. In addition, the same loopholes that operate to the advantage of FIRS operators operate to the disadvantage of the States and in some instances (stamp duty and the nationally agreed speeding heavy vehicles policy, see separate RIS) amount to outright evasion of responsibilities. This is undesirable in principle and exacerbates State dislike of the FIRS scheme.
OBJECTIVES
The objective is to remove the competitive disadvantage to operators of FIRS registered vehicles not having access to maintenance management compliance assurance schemes available to operators of State registered vehicles.
This serves the broader road transport reform objective for which NRTC was enacted, i.e. to advance road transport reform by:
* improving road safety (through improved levels of compliance);
* improving efficiency of road transport;
* reducing administrative costs for operators and agencies.
POLICY AUTHORITY
At the November 1997 meeting of the Ministerial Council on Road Transport the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon Mark Vaile, MP in the company of other Transport Ministers, endorsed a comprehensive alternative compliance package. This package proposed establishing a national accreditation scheme, based initially on the pilot Mass Management and Maintenance Management schemes with the option of adding other modules as they are developed and approved by Ministers3.
The mass management and maintenance management schemes were evaluated in the National Road Transport Commission's Regulatory Impact Statement Alternative Compliance for Maintenance Management and Mass Management, prepared by Kinhill Economics (NRTC 1997). This document formed part of the proposal considered by Ministers in their November 1997 decision.
Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon John Anderson MP agreed on 22 December 1998 to amending the Interstate Road Transport Regulations to allow FIRS registered vehicles to take part in the Maintenance Management scheme, and hence to be exempt from annual inspection on renewal of registration.
________________________________
3 The Mass Management and Maintenance Management schemes were piloted in Victoria and NSW respectively. A Fatigue Management pilot is in progress in Queensland.
IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Policy options for achieving the objective are limited. Although the policy proposal agreed to by Ministers at ATC - to reduce the impact of conventional enforcement - was stated broadly, the 'maintenance management' program initially piloted in NSW and now to be adopted in all jurisdictions has defined characteristics and a set of specified standards and guidelines to which intending operators must conform. Therefore, the options available are essentially only two: to implement or not to implement.
Reforms approved by Australian Transport Council have to be implemented by all affected jurisdictions, except that for FIRS registered vehicles it is Commonwealth legislation that requires amendment.
Three options are addressed below.
Option 1
Amend the Interstate Road Transport Regulations to allow for exemption from inspection of FIRS registered heavy vehicle operators who are participating in maintenance management compliance assurance schemes.
The proposed amendment inserts a category of vehicles to be exempted from annual inspections for renewal of registration.
It will provide for exemption from annual inspection for operators who are accredited under a maintenance management compliance assurance scheme. Exemption is provided only from annual inspections on renewal of registration. Vehicles are still subject to initial inspection to gain FIRS registration, random inspections and inspection on alteration or modification of the registered motor vehicle or trailer.
Option 2
Maintain the existing situation. FIRS registered vehicles remain subject to compulsory inspection prior to registration in all jurisdictions. Operators of these vehicles will be at a competitive disadvantage compared to other operators.
Option 3
Offer exemption from inspection, but rescind the agreement to require maintenance management alternative compliance. Not feasible because (1) it involves reversing a Ministerial Council decision, and (2) it is contrary to one of the road transport reform objectives (see above).
Options 2 and 3 are both contrary to an agreed decision of Australian Transport Council and accordingly are not considered further. The Commonwealth is under the same obligation as the States to implement NRTC reforms.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
The primary source of information for assessment of impacts for this proposal is the assessment undertaken by the NRTC in preparing its RIS on the evaluation of the maintenance management and mass management pilot schemes [NRTC 1997]. That assessment included evaluation of alternatives.
That document assesses the impact of maintenance management, and assumes takeup in relation to an undifferentiated vehicle fleet (ie the base assumption is that all vehicles are eligible to enter schemes). This is not automatically so for FIRS registered vehicles, and the correction of that anomaly is the object of this amendment.
ASSUMPTIONS
Data for determining quantifiable costs and benefits have been derived primarily from two sources: results and evaluations of the pilot maintenance management scheme (Coopers & Lybrand 1996 cited in NRTC 1997), and questionnaires completed by agencies for the RIS prepared by NRTC (Appendix B, NRTC 1997). The results of the pilot evaluations have been used by agencies in estimating take up rates for the scheme and the costs that individual agencies could incur in setting up and managing schemes.
The pilot scheme evaluation indicated that its objectives were realised; that operators believed there were benefits for them in participation in a mass management scheme. There was a belief that vehicles would be more roadworthy as a result, although objective information on improved safety performance (ie fewer crashes resulting from vehicle defects) is not available. A later discussion (p. 14 below) elaborates on this issue.
Under the IRT legislation FIRS registered vehicles are required to undergo annual preregistration roadworthiness inspection (IRT Regulations 13, 14, 15), regardless of the requirements in the State in which they obtain FIRS registration (see INSPECTION REGIMES, below). It is estimated that about ten percent of FIRS registered vehicles will take advantage of the exemption. There may be a larger takeup rate in "non-inspection" jurisdictions, but because there are fewer FIRS registered vehicles there the best available estimate is about 10 per cent nationally, ie around 1100 vehicles. This estimate also reflects a judgement (NRTC 1997, Appendix D) that operators of fleets, rather than single vehicles, are likely to find maintenance management more attractive because of the opportunity to spread setup and recurrent costs over a number of vehicles, with the greatest benefits (and the lowest per-vehicle unit costs) available to larger fleets. In general the largest fleets operate in the larger jurisdictions.
The following analysis has been carried out on an estimate of the proportion of all eligible vehicles, derived from NRTC (1997). Not all desirable quantifiable data (eg the estimated takeup of vehicles as a proportion of the total fleet in each jurisdiction) is available in that source. For FIRS registered vehicles the assumptions apply although positive impacts may be overestimated because of the small numbers involved.
INSPECTION REGIMES
Under present arrangements FIRS registered vehicles (at present around 10,500 trucks and trailers) are treated differently from their State registered counterparts. All FIRS registered vehicles have to have an annual preregistration roadworthiness inspection. For State registered vehicles this is true only in NSW, Queensland, ACT and NT, and in SA for B-doubles and road trains only.
Therefore, in jurisdictions where there is at present no compulsory heavy vehicle inspection regime, FIRS registered vehicles presently incur inspection fees and down time that State registered vehicles in those jurisdictions do not. These costs are estimated at $557 per vehicle per year (after NRTC 1997, Appendix D), assuming an inspection fee of $60.
Estimated take up of maintenance management schemes nationally, once available in all jurisdictions, is 11,610 vehicles (Table 1, below). This includes FIRS registered vehicles. This is derived from an NRTC estimate (1997 Appendix D, citing Coopers & Lybrand 1996) of an average takeup rate of 10% except in jurisdictions where inspections are not presently required (Victoria 1%, and 5% in WA and Tasmania). Takeup is considered to be greatest for operators of large fleets where setup and operating costs of maintenance management can be spread and the unit (per vehicle) cost is lowest.
No more rigorous estimates than these are available for FIRS registered vehicles. Although there could be incentive for a higher takeup rate in jurisdictions in which inspections are not presently required, as discussed above, the fact that benefits are less for operators of small fleets could also affect takeup rates and, all things considered, a 10% average takeup rate is considered reasonable.
Table 1: Estimated takeup of maintenance management schemes (all vehicles)*
Jurisdiction Number of Vehicles Total registered vehicles in fleets greater
than:
>10 vehicles# >40 vehicles#
NSW 5,200 16,120 8,320
ACT 115 356 184
Vic 430 13,283 6,855
Qld 3,090 7,905 4,080
SA 1,360 4,219 2,176
WA 960 5,935 3,063
Tas 250 1,545 798
NT 205 635 328
Total 11,610 49,998 25,804
Derived from NRTC (1997)
# From NSW data it was estimated by extrapolation that for Australia as a whole
about 31% of vehicles are in fleets >10 vehicles and 16% in fleets >39 vehicles
(NRTC 1997)
QUANTIFIED IMPACTS
Quantified benefits and costs, over a five year analysis period, include agency and operator set up and recurrent costs, vehicle efficiencies for operators and road safety and road wear benefits for the community. More costs and benefits may become apparent over a longer period.
Operator benefits and costs are summarised as follows from a more detailed treatment in NRTC (1997), Appendix D.
Table 2: Operator costs and benefits of participation in maintenance management
schemes
Operator benefits, average per vehicle:
Reduction in vehicle downtime costs in preparing for mandatory $229
heavy vehicle inspections; reduction in delays at on-road
intercepts:
Benefits from reduced annual inspections $241
Savings in vehicle inspection fees $33-50
Total $503-550
Operator costs, average per vehicle:
Setup costs for maintenance management $163
Recurrent costs $237
Total $400
This results in an average net benefit of $103-150 per vehicle to operators, with the following qualifications: benefits and costs vary between jurisdictions (see Table 4 below) and for large and small operators: large operators will have a net benefit of savings over costs while the reverse is true for small operators.
Agency costs and benefits are summarised as follows, using the same source data.
Table 3: Agency costs and benefits of maintenance management schemes
Agency costs and benefits, average per vehicle:
Agency setup costs: $44.50-$83.50
Recurrent costs: administration and data management: $33-66
Inspection fees forgone: $33-50
Accreditation fees accrued: $11-20
Community road safety benefit* $83
* See discussion p. 14 below
PILOT EVALUATION
The source for the following data is the NRTC RIS based on the mass management and maintenance management pilot project (NRTC 1997). Victoria and NSW undertook evaluations of the pilot programs of the mass management and maintenance management components of the Heavy Vehicle Alternative Compliance Scheme. The following table drawn from that evaluation provides a summary of the dollar impact, by State, of a mass management compliance assurance scheme. The data from which this table is drawn is in the NRTC RIS for the two schemes (NRTC 1997).
Table 4: Summary of quantified impacts of maintenance management, by jurisdiction*
Net Present Value
Agencies Operators Community Total
NSW -1.495 1.457 1.801 1.764
ACT -0.042 0.012 0.020 -0.011
Vic -0.109 -0.392 0.074 -0.427
Q1.d -0.783 0.570 0.803 0.589
SA -0.531 0.179 0.236 -0.117
WA -0.244 -0.875 0.166 -0.953
Tas -0.064 -0.229 0.043 -0.249
NT -0.080 0.027 0.036 -0.018
Total -3.349 0.749 3.178 0.579
Derived from NRTC (1997)
The maintenance management scheme accrues a surplus ($0.579 million) of quantifiable benefits over quantifiable costs. Surpluses are estimated for NSW and Queensland.
Annual vehicle inspection for heavy vehicles is required in NSW and Queensland (and in SA, for road trains and B-doubles only). In these jurisdictions, quantifiable community benefits totally or substantially offset agency costs, and operators accrue a surplus of quantifiable benefits over quantifiable costs.
Quantifiable impacts are negative in the remaining jurisdictions, marginally so in SA, ACT and NT. This result directly reflects the effect of offsetting agency costs in the larger jurisdictions where inspection is now required, and the lack of that benefit where inspection is not required. For ACT and NT it is likely that because of agency fixed costs and small populations, the benefits from the likely small number of compulsory inspections not undertaken cannot be realised. For SA the result probably reflects the fact that only B-doubles and road trains are subject to inspection, given that these vehicle types represent only a small proportion of total heavy vehicle registrations.
In all jurisdictions except Victoria, WA and Tasmania the impact for operators is positive, indicating that there is benefit to them in participating in maintenance management compliance assurance schemes. Operators also perceive a range of non-quantified benefits that serve to offset marginal, or at the individual operator level difficult to measure, cost impacts4. Operator perceptions about non-quantifiable impacts of maintenance management are outlined below (p. 15).
Costs: Operator impacts dominate, totalling over $14.5m over five years, compared with $2.3m for agencies.
Benefits: Operators benefit by almost $14m over five years, compared with just over $3m in community road safety benefits.
For operators, the major part of the benefit comes from savings in vehicle down time from reduced vehicle inspections.
Overall, 90 per cent of the 29 operators accredited under the pilot maintenance management scheme conducted in NSW were satisfied with the pilot. They experienced a range of unquantifiable benefits including increased internal accountability, enhanced management sIdUs, greater confidence in fleet roadworthiness, improved company image and employee esteem, improved relations with inspectorates, and an expectation of better targeted enforcement of nonaccredited operators.
Quantified net benefits are concentrated in NSW and Qld where annual inspections are required. For FIRS registered vehicles positive benefits may be assumed in remaining ("no inspection") jurisdictions, although whether the impact would be commensurate with the number of FIRS vehicles taking up maintenance management is difficult to estimate. Where the numbers are small fixed agency costs of maintaining an inspection arrangement for FIRS vehicles only would probably overwhelm the savings from per-unit inspections not now required.
These impacts may be summarised as follows:
Benefits Agencies Operators
Fewer vehicles to deal with Reduced down time in
as part of traditional having vehicles inspected/
inspection arrangements better vehicle productivity
Improved ability to target Perceptions of better
operators not part of vehicle condition, better
schemes management, better
public image
Better service to
customers
_______________________________________
4 Previous studies (eg May et al. 1984) have indicated that road transport operators as an industry group are least aware of the costs of operation, at least where smaller operators are concerned. Road transport has the highest bankruptcy rate of any industry group.
Costs: Setup Agencies Operators
Administrative control Own maintenance
systems for schemes and facilities or arrangements
scheme participants with a provider
Costs of obtaining
accreditation
Costs: Recurrent Management structures
and record systems
Maintaining records of Audit fees
operators in schemes
Systems for recording Record systems and audit
breaches and transferring trails
data interstate
Improved road safety (community benefits)
The community road safety benefit is derived from the greater preventative enforcement resources that the scheme will allow to be directed to vehicles not part of the scheme: random roadside inspections and (where appropriate) issue of defect notices, etc.
The NRTC maintenance management evaluation estimated that a 10% take up of maintenance management in NSW would result in annual road safety benefits of $430,000. The benefits arise firstly from improved roadworthiness of maintenance management vehicles and secondly because alternative compliance releases inspectors for more intensive enforcement of non-accredited, vehicles. A 10% take up in NSW would total approx 5200 vehicles, and yield a road safety benefit of $83 per vehicle per year (NRTC 1997).
Information on the cost effectiveness of enforcement of heavy vehicle roadworthiness is not available. This estimate includes an assumption that current enforcement expenditure yields a benefit cost ratio at least equal to one, and accordingly that the value of inspectorate resources released for targeting of non-accredited operators will yield additional road safety benefits at least equal to the value of those resources.
This remains true for FIRS registered vehicles in jurisdictions where annual inspections are now required, since they operate under the same conditions as State registered vehicles and what applies for one applies for the other. In jurisdictions where the only vehicles presently required to undergo annual inspection are FIRS registered, the whole of the State's inspection resources devoted to managing annual inspections can be directed to random and other on-road activities.
For road authorities and enforcement agencies, improved levels of compliance of non-accredited operators can be achieved through increased concentration/targeting of enforcement resources.
Enhanced safety culture among participating operators reduces risk to the community as a whole.
Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection and Safety
The evaluation of the NSW pilot program yielded no firm evidence on the safety impacts of the program. One important presumption of maintenance management programs is that as operators accept responsibility for vehicle maintenance, and institute the appropriate management structures and accountability framework, there will be continual attention to wear and tear items and hence a higher continuing standard of roadworthiness (vehicle operators were certainly of this belief). This is considered superior to reliance on an inspection program, for which there may be less continual attention to vehicle condition but an intensive yearly effort to bring the vehicle up to a standard suitable to pass the annual inspection.
There is considerable debate about the effectiveness of annual pre-registration roadworthiness inspections (eg Keatsdale 1998). One aspect of this is a doubt about whether compulsory inspection regimes are able to ensure safe vehicles throughout the year: with normal wear and tear what is legal one week (eg tyre tread depth or the amount of play in steering rack and suspension bushes) may be outside tolerances and illegal the next. A more important issue is whether safety defects are actually identified at the annual inspection (Keatsdale, op cit). However, even given these the identified incidence of safety defects causing or contributing to crashes is very low: in at least one study (Adelaide in-depth crash study, cited in Keatsdale, op. cit) no more than one percent of fatal crashes.
For these reasons some authorities prefer a policy of random checks which, coupled with policies that lower the age of the vehicle fleet, together with encouraging vehicle owners to carry out periodic preventive maintenance, would better control safety defects than an annual compulsory inspection.
Nevertheless several jurisdictions require, and will require for the forseeable future, compulsory periodic inspections. Some (eg South Australia and Queensland) require inspections for heavy vehicles even where they do not for passenger vehicles. Although not stated, this would be on the presumption that intensive use and the safety consequences of crashes involving heavy vehicles dictate such an approach.
Improved road transport efficiency
Benefits to transport efficiency arise from
* more effective vehicle use by operators through not having to undergo official vehicle inspection requirements
* reduced direct costs to operators for inspection fees and charges
These benefits arise from annual inspection procedure savings: there is reduced vehicle down time in annual inspections (including preparation, travel and inspection time) and on-road interceptions (including at permanent weighing stations). These savings are estimated at $456,000 annually for an accredited fleet of 1990 vehicles (pilot study data, NRTC 1997), representing savings of $229 per vehicle per year.
Benefits also arise from improvement in fleet reliability, improved public image and productivity. These arise from greater attention to preventive maintenance because of direct acceptance of responsibility for roadworthiness and general vehicle condition continually, rather than relying on an intensive yearly effort to meet inspection requirements (see above). It follows that preventive maintenance deals with wearing items before they fail rather than repair after failure, and hence increases overall vehicle reliability. Attention of this sort also leads to more regular attention to engine maintenance and hence reduced emissions and fuel consumption.
UNQUANTIFIED IMPACTS
An important feature of the assessment is the range of impacts not able to be quantified in dollar terms, but which are potentially important in decisions to participate in compliance assurance schemes. Perceived but unquantified benefits may induce operators to seek to take part even if the quantifiable benefits are not evident or not identifiable.
Perceived unquantified benefits to operators of joining compliance assurance schemes might include
Belief that their fleet is maintained better
Perception that industry image is improved
Better relationship with the regulating authority (cooperative rather than adversarial)
Improved management practices and possibly better cost control of vehicle operation
Improved operational efficiency and knowledge/ control over the condition of the fleet.
On-road enforcement
Levels of on-road enforcement could also influence takeup between jurisdictions, because enforcement entails vehicle delay. NRTC (1997) estimated this at 15 minutes per inspection, and further that in NSW the intercept rate is 3 per vehicle per year (estimates not available for other jurisdictions). NRTC has estimated heavy vehicle operating costs at $67/hour (1997, appendix D), yielding a per-vehicle average cost of on-road enforcement to the operator of $50.25 pa. Reduced on-road inspection for participating vehicles could therefore yield a tangible if small productivity benefit.
Jurisdictions differ in their relative enforcement effort, and in the emphasis each places on particular elements of road law. This will affect the amount of time taken in on-road enforcement. There is insufficient data to estimate this effect.
RESTRICTIONS ON COMPETITION
There is no bar to operators participating in a scheme provided they meet the criteria and the costs of joining and participating. Whether individual operators decided to join a scheme and avail themselves of exemption from inspection would be a commercial decision like any other.
Making the scheme available to vehicles registered under the FIRS scheme improves competition to the extent that these vehicles have to date been barred from a scheme that confers efficiency, safety and productivity benefits. In jurisdictions where there is at present no compulsory heavy vehicle inspection regime, FIRS registered vehicles are at a cost and efficiency disadvantage compared to their State registered counterparts.
The outcome is a complex relationship. FIRS vehicles participating in schemes incur costs that State vehicles in non-inspection jurisdictions do not. However the cost of doing so is less than the compulsory inspections that they would otherwise have to undergo. Further, being part of a maintenance management compliance assurance scheme may confer competitive advantage in a similar way that in the transport and in other fields, businesses undertaking quality assurance programs have competitive advantage. Further again, for similar reasons operators of non-FIRS registered vehicles in non-inspection jurisdictions may join schemes such as Trucksafe, which necessarily entails taking on a roadworthiness assurance component and the concomitant costs, which they do not otherwise incur.
Whether with, or without, maintenance management compliance assurance schemes, there are differences within and between jurisdictions that confer advantages on some operators rather than others.
IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS
One issue is size of operator. NRTC (1997) estimated greatest benefits for those operators with fleets of 40 or more vehicles, where maintenance system set up and running costs are spread across a larger number of vehicles. Unit costs rise and benefits decrease as fleet size decreases. On NRTC estimates of the proportion of vehicles in medium and large fleets (3 1% with more than 10 vehicles), 69% of the vehicle fleet consists of fleets of 10 vehicles or less, and these would be considered small businesses.
Therefore, for smaller operators accreditation may be financially unattractive because of its relatively higher costs, and participation may rest on unquantifiable benefits (eg vehicle productivity gains and potential to maintain competitive position, see p. 15 above). Some small operators may not enter schemes because the costs of doing so are perceived to outweigh any benefits. NRTC (1997) estimated that the smaller the fleet, the higher are the per-unit setup and recurrent costs, as below:
Table 5: Maintenance management scheme participation costs and fleet size
Cost category Setup Recurrent
1-10 vehicles 442 658
40+ vehicle fleet 137 225
Average 163 237
CONSULTATION
The development of the Heavy Vehicle Alternative Compliance Scheme, and the creation and operation of the Alternative Compliance Coordinating Group involved an extensive consultation process. This has involved State and Territory registration and enforcement agencies, road transport operators (direct and through representative bodies), and motoring organisation peak bodies representing other road users. The consultation phase on alternative compliance for maintenance management included the following:
Review of the results of earlier consultations carried out by NRTC and agencies
Review of evaluation of the pilot scheme
Consultations with agencies, including the distribution of a proforma questionnaire seeking information about take up, operations and quantifiable costs and benefits of the scheme
Consultation with a limited number of industry representative bodies.
Consultations were conducted in the period October to December 1996. A summary of that consultation is reported here. Note that some of the consultation was in relation to both mass management and maintenance management since both were considered together in much of the development and consultation phase.
In addition, the Department has consulted with the Road Transport Forum about the proposal.
Options for Improving Operator Performance Paper (April 1993)
The development of the NRTC's general approach to compliance and enforcement commenced with the release of this paper which sought comment on broad issues relating to compliance with road transport law. The outcome of an extensive round of consultations with transport operators and regulatory agencies held following receipt of comments was that both industry and government would support further examination of alternative approaches to compliance.
Alternative Compliance Discussion Paper (May 1994)
This paper focuses directly on alternative compliance and proposed the development of a framework, for the establishment of alternative (nonmandatory) compliance schemes.
Meeting of Officials 28-29 June 1994
Meeting was held to examine the potential for establishing a national voluntary accreditation framework. The meeting developed a set of underlying principles for the development of alternative compliance schemes. Following this meeting the Alternative Compliance Coordinating Group (ALTCO) was established by the Transport Agency Chief Executives (TACE) and the NRTC to coordinate the development of the modules of the Heavy Vehicles Alternative Compliance Scheme.
Alternative Compliance Workshop 6-7 July 1994
This two-day workshop was attended by representatives of road agencies, policy, industry associations and road transport operators. The workshop supported the establishment of a national alternative compliance framework consisting of, initially, mass, roadworthiness, fatigue and system access modules, as well as process modules on administration, legal issues and audit. Principles and framework were endorsed by the Ministerial Council for Road Transport in December 1994.
The Alternative Compliance Coordinating Group (ALTCO)
ALTCO was then established by Transport Agency Chief Executives (TACE) and the NRTC to coordinate development of the modules of the Heavy Vehicle Alternative Compliance Scheme. ALTCO comprises representatives from all jurisdictions, industry representatives from the Road Transport Forum and the Australian Bus and Coach Association, a police representative and the Australian Automobile Association (AAA).
Interim Regulatory Impact Statement May 1995
The RIS concluded that "there were net benefits in continuing the investigation of alternative compliance through the modules currently under development." The RIS was circulated widely and noted by MCRT.
Other Consultations
The progress of the development of alternative compliance has been widely publicised through trade and mainstream press and through the presentation of papers to industry and general forums.
Consultation in Maintenance Management Module - NSW
The RTA established a project team to develop a roadworthiness (maintenance) module for the Heavy Vehicle Alternative Compliance Scheme. The project team had a membership ranging from 4 to 10 people and worked closely with the RTFs Trucksafe Team 2000 project to align the maintenance management standards and audit processes for both Schemes.
SUMMARY OF VIEWS
All agencies would offer alternative compliance schemes based on results of pilot scheme evaluations (ACT, only if 'no cost link' to NSW delivery agreed).
Industry commented on the need for adequate financial incentives (more relevant to mass management) but these should not deviate too greatly from what is available to conforming operators under conventional enforcement.
Additional enforcement of non-accredited operators made possible by alternative compliance could unfairly penalise those operators who maintain high levels of compliance but choose to remain outside the scheme. The peak road transport body, Road Transport Forum, commented that the decision by operators to become accredited would be made on maintaining their competitive position, rather than on benefits. In other words, operators placed more value on the productivity gains from participation (less down time in preparing vehicles for inspection and having them inspected), which maintained or perhaps improved their competitive position compared to other operators, than they were in financial cost benefit that might be difficult for them to identify.
Operators also made suggestions to improve the operation of the scheme, including allowing integration of alternative compliance audits and other quality. system audits to help reduce costs. They also reported some tendency for inspectors to target' accredited operators.
Such issues have been raised by industry peak bodies with the regulatory agencies concerned.
ADDRESSING COMMENTS
Key suggestions for improvements from accredited operators were:
More written guidance material on the standards and their implementation would enhance compliance. This suggestion came primarily from small to medium operators and those not participating in other quality management initiatives;
Allowing integration of alternative compliance audits and other quality system audits would help reduce this cost item.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of quantifiable benefits and costs, implementation of maintenance management would be strongly supported in NSW and Queensland, where vehicle inspection is mandatory. In the ACT, SA and NT, the estimated outcomes are marginally negative but probably supportive of implementation considering the potential positive impacts which have not been quantified.
For these three jurisdictions combined, the scheme would break even if its
w
implementation saved an extra 1.4 hospitalisation crashes in total over a five year period, over and above the road safety benefits estimated in the impact analysis (NRTC 1997).
For the remaining jurisdictions costs exceed benefits, for operators as well as agencies. Community positive impacts, mostly safety, offset these negative impacts to some extent. For operators in these jurisdictions, however, unquantifiable benefits may lead operators to opt to participate regardless.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the proposed amendment to the Interstate Road Transport Regulations to remove the competitive disadvantage to operators of FIRS registered vehicles having access to maintenance management compliance assurance schemes available to operators, of State registered vehicles be supported.
IMPLEMENTATION
The scheme would be implemented by the States and Territories, for both State registered and FIRS registered vehicles. For FIRS registered vehicles the change will be implemented by amendment to the Interstate Road Transport Regulations. Vehicle operators will be required to institute the administration and management procedures and structures required under the approved standards and guidelines, and apply for admission to an approved maintenance management scheme and in turn, accreditation by the State or Territory administering authority. In most instances, this will be the body also responsible for vehicle registrations.
FIRS is administered by the road agencies in jurisdictions on behalf of the Commonwealth (pursuant to an agreement made under Section 6 of the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985). The Minister will gazette approved maintenance management compliance assurance schemes for the purpose of FIRS legislation. Administration of alternative compliance relating to FIRS operators would be picked up under arrangements agreed between scheme providers and road agencies. Both the, road agencies and the scheme providers will have responsibilities for administration of the scheme.
-For operators who are admitted to schemes, nominated vehicles (it is not required that the entire fleet be included) will be identified by a windscreen sticker visible from outside the vehicle. All participating vehicles so identified will be exempt from the requirement for an annual pre-registration inspection on renewal of registration, but FIRS vehicles will not be exempt from inspections required to gain FIRS registration, or from inspections required following modification to the registered motor vehicle or trailer. Participating vehicles will still be subject to random roadside inspection.
MONITORING
Compliance of an operator accredited under a compliance assurance maintenance management scheme will be monitored by a rigorous audit framework. This involves an entry audit, periodic audits, triggered audits on complaint to the accrediting authority, and provisions for breaches and penalties, including withdrawing accreditation.
Road authorities have responsibilities for enforcing roadworthiness standards as they apply to heavy vehicles registered in their jurisdiction. Approved scheme providers also have responsibilities for monitoring compliance of operators in accordance with roadworthiness standards, business rules and a code of conduct under agreements with State and Territory road agencies (eg the memorandum of Understanding between the RTA NSW and the Road Transport Forum for the operation of Trucksafe).
ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLICITY
As mentioned above, administration of maintenance management compliance assurance schemes will be undertaken by road agencies which already administer FIRS. As indicated -in the quantitative analysis, FIRS registered vehicles are estimated to represent no more than ten per cent of the vehicles expected to participate in schemes.
FIRS registered vehicles are not therefore expected to contribute significantly to the administrative task. In addition, the system proposes the use of outside auditors rather than direct agency resources, which would be limited to a monitoring role in the first instance, and action to deal with breaches.
PREVIEW
Both the NRTC and the Department of Transport and Regional Services are responsible for review of the proposed amendments.
The NRTC Amendment Act 1998 (which commenced on 3 January 1999) requires that the NRTC Act and Road Transport Reform legislation be reviewed at least every six years. The next review is due in 2004. The introduction and operation of maintenance management compliance assurance schemes would be included in this review.
FIRS legislation is to be reviewed by the Department of Transport and Regional Services during the first half of 1999.
Part of the national competition Council's (NCC) responsibility is also to assess road transport reforms. The NCC is an independent body that will review the competition aspects of the maintenance management reform.
The effectiveness of the scheme will be monitored by the States and Territories. It is expected that audit outcomes will be the principle means of determining effectiveness, together with direct enforcement elements such as defects identified at on-road inspections, compared with non-accredited vehicles.
REFERENCES
National Road Transport Commission (1997), Regulatory Impact Statement Alternative Compliance for Maintenance Management and Mass Management, prepared by Kinhill Economics NRTC Melbourne, February
May TE, Mills G and Scully J (1984) National Road Freight Industry Inquiry, Report, AGPS Canberra, September
Keatsdale Pty Ltd (1998) Cost Effectiveness of Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection A Report for the Federal Office of Road Safety, February (unpublished draft)
26
APPENDIX
ATC Communique, 14 November 1997 (extract)
Alternative Compliance: National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme -
Maintenance Management Accreditation Standards
ATC - Communique, 14 November 1997
including QLD, SA and VIC believe that their existing industry arrangements would pass the public benefit test.
The NSW Minister for Transport considered that some elements of the NZ approach might be useful in overcoming some problems with the industry in his State.
MINISTERIAL COUNCIL FOR ROAD TRANSPORT
The meeting convened as the Ministerial Council for Road Transport (MCRT) and discussed items referred to it by the National Road Transport Commission (NRTC).
NRTC STRATEGIC PLAN
Ministers discussed and agreed to the National Road Transport Commission's strategic plan covering the three years to 2000/01. The plan provides a good focus for the future direction of the Commission in fast tracking reforms, becoming more involved in implementation and giving greater attention to innovation, road safety and the environment. It also provides a clear statement of the Commission's objectives, and improves accountability and consultative procedures with stakeholders. It maps national road transport reform for the next three years, making reform objectives and performance transparent.
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE POLICY
Ministers endorsed a comprehensive alternative compliance package.
The package proposes establishing a national accreditation scheme, based initially on the pilot Mass Management and Maintenance Management schemes with the option of adding other modules as they are developed and approved by Ministers.
The package proposes a national scheme which will allow automatic entry for operators accredited under industry schemes using consistent standards and audit processes. It would also provide the flexibility necessary to cover existing alternative compliance arrangements.
Ministers also committed to reducing the impact of conventional enforcement activities on accredited operators.
The NRTC will establish an implementation group to resolve any outstanding issues.
MANAGEMENT OF SPEEDING VEHICLES
Ministers endorsed a proposal for managing speeding heavy vehicles, which focuses on targeting the minority of operators who are responsible for repeated offences. The proposal involves extending the penalties for repeated offences of exceeding the open road limit by more than 15km/h to a sequence of graduated penalties, culminating in suspension of a vehicle's registration for up to three months.
This proposal is supported by the road transport industry as an effective way to reduce the incidence of speeding heavy vehicles and improve public perceptions of the industry. Council also agreed that a working group be established to resolve the remaining implementation issues
0
MASS LIMITS
http://www.dot.gov.au/atc/atc5.htm 03/12/1997
Alternative Compliance:
National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme
Maintenance Management
Accreditation Standards
Maintenance Management Systems
Work by industry and government agencies has clearly identified that it is desirable to move heavy vehicle compliance strategies away from complete reliance on direct enforcement mechanisms to a system which allows demonstrably good operators, with existing auditable systems, to benefit from their good record and avoid the delays and complexities inherent in a direct enforcement regime.
The Maintenance Management Standards reflect industry 'good' practice and will be used to assess the suitability of elements of an operator's Maintenance Management System.
However, to be considered roadworthy, a heavy vehicle must comply with the national Road Transport Reform (Vehicle Standards) Regulations (the "Vehicle Standards") and the relevant Australian Design Rules ("ADRs"). These contain mandatory requirements for the safe design, construction and maintenance of heavy vehicles.
The national Vehicle Roadworthiness Guidelines give practical information about wear, damage or change to the more important systems of a vehicle in-service to operators and managers, and enable consistent roadworthiness performance criteria to be applied in each State or Territory of Australia and provide the base standard for the Maintenance Management module of the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme.
The national Vehicle Roadworthiness Guidelines also cite the following relevant principles in the development of the maintenance system:
* Equipment required by the Heavy Vehicle Standards to be on a vehicle must be present and working, properly.
* Equipment which is essential for the safe operation of a vehicle and for the control of its emissions, must be kept in good condition.
* Manufacturer's recommendations relevant to the safety of particular vehicle parts or to the control of emissions must be considered.
It is considered that vehicles maintained in accordance with systems that comply with the Maintenance Management Standards are likely to comply with the Vehicle
Standards and Vehicle Roadworthiness Guidelines. ,
A.1 Daily Cheek
Standard: The Maintenance Management System must include a Daily Check for each vehicle when it is in use.
Description: The Daily Cheek is a documented instruction of simple roadworthiness cheeks. The operator shall define when the inspection is carded out, by whom and how it is recorded. The individual completing the daily check shall acknowledge the vehicle to be roadworthy to the limits of the inspection.
Criteria: An operator would need to demonstrate the following:
a. That there is a documented instruction detailing when the check is
carried out, who carries it out, and how the check is recorded.
b. That the Daily Check covers as a minimum the inspection of..
1 . Wheels and Tyres
* Tyres for pressure (visual check) and tread integrity.
* Wheel security.
2. Lights and Reflectors
* All lights, including clearance lights
* All reflectors and lenses.
3. Windscreen, Mirrors and Wipers
* Windows and Mirrors for security, damage and grime.
* Wipers and windscreen washers ensuring clear forward vision.
4. Structure and Bodywork
* All panels and readily visible structural members secure.
* Leaks of any fluid (oil, fuel, air, water, refrigerant/coolant, hydraulic fluid, brake fluid or other).
5. Brakes
* Brake failure indicators.
* Pressure vacuum gauges.
* Drain air tanks (full air and air-over-hydraulic systems only on rigids and articulated combinations. Bus and coaches exempted).
6. On-Road Vehicle Fault Report Any faults found during the Daily Cheek are to be recorded within the On-Road Vehicle Fault Report.
C. That the individual(s) who caries out the check understands that they are certifying that the vehicle is roadworthy to tile limits of the inspection, when the vehicle leaves the yard or depot.
Note: Records for completion of the Daily check may be retained in any format.
A.2 Fault Recording and Reporting
Standard: The Maintenance Management System must ensure that provision is made to record and report vehicle faults on both the hauling and the trailing equipment,
Description: The driver should be able to record and report any recognisable fault 'Occurring during the course of a journey so that it may be assessed and rectified.
Criteria: An operator would need to demonstrate the following:
a. A means to record faults occurring during a journey that is retained in
the vehicle and covers both trailing and hauling equipment.
b. A documented instruction exists which details how a driver records
faults occurring during a Journey and how the faults are reported to the
maintenance provider, as soon as possible.
C. A documented instruction exists that provides direction to fix major or
serious faults as soon as possible, even if the vehicle is away from
home base.
d. A documented instruction exists which provides for faults occurring at
any other time are reported to the maintenance provider as soon as
possible.
Note: Records for completion of the fault repair may be in any format acceptable.
A.3 Fault Repair
Standard: The Maintenance Management System provides for the identification, assessment and action on reported faults.
Description: The Maintenance Management System has a method of identifying, assessing and taking action on reported faults from any source (ie driver, maintenance provider, manager, &c) and determine the priority placed upon the repair of the fault.
Criteria: An operator would need to demonstrate the following:
a. That there is a method in place to identify and assess the nature of a
fault and place priority on its repair.
b. Where the fault is deferred, the person making the decision must be
identified on the record.
C. Where a decision is made to monitor the condition of a fault, the
decision to monitor is recorded. The system must also set the upper
limits for when a monitored condition is repaired ie every 1000 km,
when parts are received etc.
d. Where a decision is made to monitor the condition of a fault, the
identity of the person who makes the decision is recorded.
e. At the completion of the repair, records show the fault has been
rectified and tested, where appropriate.
4.4 Maintenance Schedules and Methods
Standard: The Maintenance Management System must include Periodic Maintenance Schedules with identified service periods that describe the tasks to be completed.
Description: Evidence that the vehicle is being systematically maintained. This Will be through a series of work schedules pertinent to various vehicle and system components. Within the maintenance schedules, or available to the maintenance provider, will be a description of the tasks for the inspection, service, repair or replacement of components utilised within the vehicle. This information must be relevant to the operating vehicle.
Criteria: An operator would need to demonstrate the following:
a. Evidence that at the time of entry into the scheme, the nominated fleet
has been certified roadworthy by a qualified person experienced in the
inspection of heavy vehicles in accordance with the national
Roadworthiness Guidelines (Vehicle Standards) and the Australian
Design Rules (ADRs). The evidence cannot be more than 6 months old.
A recent statement from the operator or designated responsible person,
verifying that the nominated fleet is roadworthy.
b. Maintenance schedules provide for the periodic maintenance of the
vehicle at defined intervals of time, distance or hours of use. Schedules
must include a description of the tasks to be completed during the
service.
C. Evidence that maintenance and repairs are only undertaken by persons
having suitable qualifications or experience to competently complete
any maintenance tasks, or to do so under suitable supervision.
d. That a table of tolerances and wear limits for major components exists
and that it complies with at least the national Vehicle Standards.
A.5 Records and Documentation
Standard. Documented evidence must be maintained to demonstrate the effective operation of the Maintenance Management System.
Description: Essential to the maintenance system is the keeping and preservation of pertinent records.
Criteria.. An operator would need to demonstrate the following:
a. As a minimum, the following documented evidence:
I. that the daily check is being completed in accordance with the ' instruction;
II. that faults occurring on the road are being recorded and reported in accordance with the procedures;
III. that reported faults are being repaired in accordance with the set method;
IV. that vehicles are maintained in accordance with the set periodic schedules;
V. that the persons maintaining vehicles under the Maintenance Management System are suitably qualified or experienced to do so;
VI. that records, procedures, and methods in place under the system are regularly reviewed in accordance with the procedures.
b. Current documentation is available to all relevant personnel and at all
locations where operations essential to the effective functioning of the
system are performed.
C. That a record of nominated vehicles is kept and regularly updated. The
format should be able to record the following details for each
nominated vehicle : type of unit; manufacturer; d ate of construction;
registration number; and unique identifier.
A.6 Responsibilities
Standard: The authorities, responsibilities and duties of all positions involved in the management, operation, administration, participation and verification of the Maintenance Management System are current, clearly defined and documented.
Description: Responsibility for the each operation of the Maintenance Management, System is to rest with appropriate people within the road transport operation as nominated by the operator.
A.7 Internal Review
Standard: The Maintenance Management System must be subject to annual internal review to verify that all results and activities comply with the systems policies, procedures and instructions.
Description: An internal review of the Maintenance Management System is a regular look at the system against the standards to see that it complies. An effective review will pick up problem areas in the basic requirements, show failures to comply with procedures, and. identify non-compliances that should be fixed as soon as possible.
Criteria: An operator would able to demonstrate the following:
a. Procedures exist that define how the internal review is to be
undertaken.
b. An annual Internal review schedule.
C. Internal reviews are undertaken by persons independent of the activity
being reviewed, where practical.
d. That there is a documented method to identify and correct all non-conformances
detected from all sources to make sure the incidents are
not repeated.
e. That the responsibilities for identifying and correcting all non-
conformances are current, clearly defined and documented.
f. That all non-conformances and action taken to correct then are
recorded and quarterly compliance statements produced containing
advice of..
* number of vehicles in the accredited fleet
* the total number of daily checks conducted over the period and
the total number of incidences where the check was not done;
* total number of services and total number of incidences where
services were not carried out at the recorded intervals;
* total number of fault repairs and total incidences when faults
were not closed out
g. That changes to documents and procedures are recorded and the
original documents and procedures are kept for external audit purposes.
A.8 Training and Education
Standard.. The persons who hold a position of responsibility under the Maintenance Management System are trained in and familiar with the specific policy, procedure and instruction they are to carry out.
Description: Training and education is essential to ensure all employees, including managers, understand the Maintenance Management System, and have the appropriate knowledge and skills to carry out the tasks given to them,
Alternative Compliance:
National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme
Maintenance Management
Audit Matrix
Maintenance Management Standards Audit Matrix
A2 The maintenance management -system must ensure that provision is made to record and report vehicle faults for both the hauling and the trailing equipment.
Criteria Assessment Step How does the Operators' system Indicate evidence of Compliance Compliance
address the requirement? Implementation sighted Audit Only Code
A2 a. A means to record faults occurring Evidence that there is a
that is retained in the vehicle and covers means to record faults.
both trailing and hauling equipment. Evidence that (lie
means is kept in the
vehicle.
Evidence that (lie faults
on both hauling and
trailing equipment (are
being recorded.
A2 b. Documented instruction which Review the
details how a driver records faults documented instruction
occurring during a journey and how the and ensure the
faults are reported to the maintenance requirements are met.
provider as soon as possible.
A2 c. Documented instruction that allows Review the
for major or serious faults to be fixed as documented instruction
soon as possible, even if the vehicle is and ensure the
away from home base. requirements are met.
A2 d. Documented instruction that ensures Review the
faults which occur at any other time are documented instruction
reported to the maintenance provider as and ensure the
soon as possible. requirements are met.
A5 Documented evidence demonstrating Review evidence.
compliance with the set procedure, policy X
and instructions.
Current documentation available to all Review
relevant personnel and at all locations documentation,
where operations essential to the effective
functioning of the system are performed.
A6 Evidence that the responsibilities of Review evidence.
personnel have been clearly defined and X
documented.
A8 Evidence that the person(s) Review evidence.
responsible have been trained in the X
procedure, policy and/or instruction they
are to carry out.
Overall assessment of compliance with the Standard:
Notes / Issues Noted
A3 The maintenance management system provides for the identification, assessment and action on faults.
Criteria Assessment Step How does the Operators' system Indicate evidence of Compliance Compliance
address the requirement? Implementation sighted Audit Only Code
A3 a. That there is a method in place to Review the method in
identity and assess the nature of a fault place to ensure the
and place a priority on its repair. requirements are met.
A3 b. Where the fault is deferred, tile Review evidence.
person making the decision must be
identified on the record.
A3 c. & A3 d. Review evidence.
Where a decision is made to monitor the
condition of a fault, the decision to
monitor is to be recorded.
Upper limits for repair must be set,
The person making the decision must be
identified on the record.
A3 e. Records show that the fault has been Review evidence,
rectified and where appropriate, tested.
A5 Documented evidence demonstrating Review evidence,
compliance with the set procedure, policy X
and instructions.
Current documentation available to all Review
relevant personnel and at all locations documentation.
where operations essential to the effective
functioning of the system are performed.
A6 Evidence that the responsibilities of Review evidence,
personnel have been clearly defined and X
documented.
A8 Evidence that the person(s) Review evidence. X
responsible have been trained in the
procedure, policy and/or instruction they
are to carry out.
Overall assessment of compliance with the Standard:
Notes / Issues Noted
Maintenance Management Standards Audit Matrix
4A The maintenance management system must include periodic rnaintenance schedules, with identified service periods, that describe the tasks to be completed.
Criteria Assessment Step How does the Operators' system Indicate evidence of Compliance Compliance
address the requirement? Implementation sighted Audit Only Code
A4 a. Evidence that at the time of entry Review evidence that
into the scheme, the -nominated fleet has inspections have been
been certified roadworthy by a qualified undertaken in On -Entry
person experienced in the inspection of accordance with Audit only
heavy vehicles in accordance with the national Vehicle
nation21 Vehicle Standards and the Standards and ADRs.
Australian Design Rules (ADRs). 71e
evidence cannot be more than 6 months Evidence that persons
old. A recent statement from the operator doing the inspections
or designated responsible person, are qualified to inspect
verifying that the nominated fleet is to the national Vehicle
roadworthy. Standards and the
ADRs.
N.B/: Non-compliance to criteria A4a
means entry to the scheme denied.
A4 b. Maintenance schedules provide for Review schedules and
the periodic maintenance of the vehicle ensure the
defined intervals of time distance or hours requirements are met.
of use. Schedules must include a
description of the tasks to he completed
during the service.
A4 c. Evidence that maintenance repairs Review evidence.
are only undertaken by persons having
suitable qualifications or experience to
competently complete any maintenance
tasks, or to do so under suitable
supervision.
A4 d. That a table of tolerances and wear Verify that it exists.
limits for major components exists and
that it complies with at least the National
Vehicle Standards.
A5 Documented evidence demonstrating Review evidence.
compliance with the set procedure, policy X
and instructions.
Current documentation available to all Review
relevant personnel and at all locations documentation.
where operations essential to the effective
functioning of the system are performed.
A6 Evidence that the responsibilities of Review evidence.
personnel are current, clearly defined and X
documented.
Overall assessment of compliance with the Standard:
Notes / Issues noted:
A7 The maintenance management system must be subject to annual internal review to verify that all results and activities comply with the system's policies, procedures and
instructions.
Criteria Assessment Step How does the Operators' system Indicate evidence of Compliance Compliance
address the requirement? Implementation sighted Audit Only Code
A7 a. Procedures exist that define 'how Review the procedure
the internal review is to be undertaken. and ensure the
requirements are met.
A7 b. An annual internal review schedule. Review the schedule
and ensure the
requirements are met.
A7 c A7 c & A6 Review evidence.
Where practicable, internal reviews are
undertaken by persons independent of the X
activity being reviewed, and that their
responsibilities are current, clearly defined
and documented.
A7d A7e A7f &A5 Review evidence.
Documented evidence demonstrating
* conduct of internal reviews; X
* identification of non-conformances;
* actioning of non-conformances;
* quarterly reports that record all non
conformances and corrective actions;
* changes to documents and procedures;
* original documents and procedures for
external audit purposes.
Current documentation available to all Review
relevant personnel and at all locations documentation.
where operations essential to the effective
functioning of the system are performed.
A8 Evidence that the person(s) Review evidence.
responsible have been trained in the X
procedure, policy and/or instruction they
are to carry out,
Overall assessment of compliance with the Standard
Notes / Issues noted: