WASHINGTON — Major trucking companies and brokers who book their freight are pressuring the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to attach a safety rating to carriers operating without such a rating — a situation that exists for over 90% of the freight market.
The concern comes as FMCSA looks at developing a new way to verify when a motor carrier is fit to operate trucks in interstate commerce, known as a safety fitness determination (SFD). The agency issued a preliminary advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in August to get public feedback on whether and how to revamp its current rating methodology.
FMCSA’s own statistics red-flags the problem. Of 690,091 interstate freight carriers eligible for an FMCSA safety rating in 2021, 646,777 — roughly 94% — did not have a rating, according to the agency’s most recent annual safety data, published in December 2022.
Source: FMCSA data snapshot as of January 28, 2022.
“A system that rates less than 10% of the eligible population is unacceptable,” wrote Lane Kidd, managing director of the Alliance for Driver Safety & Security, known as the Trucking Alliance, in comments responding to the proposed rulemaking. The group consists of nine of the country’s largest truckload carriers, including J.B. Hunt (NASDAQ: JBHT), Knight-Swift (NYSE: KNX) and Schneider National (NYSE: SNDR).
“These unrated carriers are treated disparately by brokers and shippers who must rely on other metrics to make important safety-based business decisions,” Kidd stated.
The Transportation Intermediaries Association, which represents truck brokers and 3PLs, agrees.
“TIA supports a speedy rulemaking because one of the most significant challenges for the third-party logistics industry is the manner in which motor carrier safety ratings are currently being used by personal injury lawyers, insurers, and the media, among others,” said TIA Vice President of Government Affairs Chris Burroughs in comments filed with the notice.
“The misuse of safety ratings, which manifests itself in nuclear verdicts, higher insurance rates, and reputational damage is especially acute in light of the fact that 90% of motor carriers are currently considered ‘unrated’.”
FMCSA admits to regulatory loopholes
FMCSA’s current SFD system is based on data collected during a compliance review investigation, conducted either on-site at the motor carrier’s place of business or remotely through a review of its records using a secure portal.
After analyzing six factors — which incorporate crash involvement and hours of service violations — a carrier is assigned one of three safety ratings: satisfactory, conditional or unsatisfactory.
But because of loopholes in the system, a carrier is not prohibited from operating with a conditional rating even though a review revealed a safety breakdown. For example, a carrier with a documented noncompliance in vehicle maintenance and controlled substances testing would receive a proposed conditional rating. If the proposed rating becomes final, it still allows the carrier to continue operating.
FMCSA also admits that the current SFD process strains agency staff, reaching only a small percentage of carriers. That leaves the majority without a rating at all, setting up the potential for a huge number of unsafe trucks operating on the highways at any time.
“Because the agency has resources to issue safety ratings to only a small percentage of motor carriers each year, a safety rating does not necessarily reflect the current safety posture of a motor carrier,” the agency acknowledged in the ANPRM.
Potential solutions lack consensus
Most groups representing carriers, shippers, brokers and safety advocates agreed that the current system was broken and needed to be made simpler and more clear, but differed on how to make that happen.
Solutions ranged from using a single “unfit” category, advocated by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance as well as proposed previously by FMCSA, to expanding to a five-point number system, supported by Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA).
“The current system is confusing and not intuitive,” commented Madan Gopal, staff safety strategy engineer for the Austin, Texas-based company, which is ramping up production of its long-delayed Semi electric truck.
“Also, the meanings of ‘unsatisfactory’ and ‘conditional’ may be confused with one another. A five-point system, with 1 assigned to ‘conditional’ and 5 assigned to ‘unfit-out of service’ may be more understandable.”
In between CVSA and Tesla is a call, by TIA, to move to a simple fit/unfit rating system.
“For many years, TIA has been a strong proponent of a “red light/green light” system for the use of motor carriers as a substitute for the current, confusing and conflicting” system, Burroughs asserted.
“Not providing a safety rating of some kind for every carrier would continue the confusion and ambiguity that exists in the current [process]. This important change is not only essential to eliminating unsafe motor carriers from the road but also eliminating confusion in the marketplace as to what the existing ratings mean.”
The National Industrial Transportation League, a shipper group supporting TIA, commented, “Think how many bad actors would be put out of business if shippers and 3PLs were told not to use them (unfit). A simple binary safety rating system that distinguishes a fit or unfit carrier will help clear up a great deal of confusion.”
But several carrier groups — the National Motor Freight Traffic Association, representing LTL carriers; the National Association of Small Trucking Companies, which represents small-business carriers; and the National Private Truck Council (NPTC) — believe FMCSA should retain its three-tier system.
Among reasons cited for keeping three categories versus a binary system, NPTC asserted that eliminating “conditional” as a rating would mean carriers currently holding that status “would be compelled to suspend operations until such time as the agency could conduct another compliance review and reconsider the safety fitness rating, whenever that might be,” the group stated.
“It essentially forces the company out of its trucking operations.”
John
Did anyone notice 10 ELD providers being removed last Friday? Is that a factor in safety of fleets?
TIMOTHY J GALVIN
IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT A SAFETY RATING SAYS, A TRUCK CAN STILL BREAK DOWN OR HAVE A TIRE BLOWN OUT, OR WEATHER , TRAFFIC RELATED ACCIDENTS AT ANY TIME! A GOOD SAFETY RATING DOES NOT GUARANTEE PERFORMANCE! THATS WHAT BROKERS AND SHIPPERS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES NEED TO KNOW!. . .STOP THE RATING NONSENSE! NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE!. .
Clinton Seals
Well in my opinion coming from 50 years in the industry is that back in the days when we had an attractive trucking industry with skilled drivers that primarily were monitored before becoming OTR drivers , we had regulations that allowed a driver to stop a clock to help them out when needed, we had HOS that was applicable to all and exemptions were only given to actual emergencies. We had drivers out here that were courteous and safety minded . Now move forward and with the pool of so many unqualified inexperienced and now non English speaking operators being allowed all over our roads that the FMCSA is giving Authority is in my opinion unacceptable and it is the root of many problems we are having now. If our country wants to get our industry back in order then why don’t they focus on the the issuance of Authority first and foremost must have a current CDL and require the applicants as an independent to have a minimum of 2 years of verifiable experience with no no preventable accidents or any serious infractions with a carrier before Independent Authority can be given , this alone would solve a huge amount of our Safety issues were having now.
Oh how I would like to go on and on about so many other issues but this proposal would be a great start to our Safety to our roads and to the Trucking Industry.
Short hood
They need to do inspections on brokers also.
John M Broha
I’ve been in the transportation industry for 35 years. And the level of qualified drivers and equipment safe enough to operate are at an all time low. The demand for carriers has out weighed all the normal safety factors. Fed needs to Act not only on rating carriers but eliminating unsafe drivers, equipment and companies from the industry. It’s out of control Guys.
Sam sturges
I have been driving a truck for over 30 years and when fmcsa took over completely the big fortune 500 company’s though a party big guy wins little guy gets the axe big time
Chris
This will only make freight rates higher with less trucks to move freight. AAANNNDD, there will still be accidents because this does not pertain to the whole driving community around trucks, so they are still gonna drive crazy as always without any recourse. Plan and simply put…Attack the truckers as always. Don’t go after the smaller vehicles and look for bad drivers there. Stupid Effin people in the FMCSA & the government. Get a REAL job and quit effin with the truckers!!!!
Sean
They can change the rating system when they update the crash preventability criteria for noted fault. The specific criteria is ridiculous. If someone is at fault it should be that simple. I can’t remove a non fault crash if I was side swiped or cutoff and have camera proof showing the driver was not at fault. The criteria for CPD must be updated to reflect fault and allow the carrier that relief. The crash Data basic is very misleading. 70% of accidents are caused by PVs. It should be no different than a regular accident. As a trucker I can’t challenge an accident where my truck was turning left and was hit by a speeding car with no headlights on. The PV driver was cited. Because I wasn’t rear-ended, The PV wasn’t driving the wrong way, under the influence or making an illegal turn this accident still counts against the Numbers in the CPD program.