Watch Now


FMCSA questioned on studies added to safety fitness rulemaking

Agency may be relying on dated and irrelevant information, carrier groups contend

(Photo: Jim Allen/FreightWaves)

WASHINGTON — A group of trade associations is warning federal regulators against including data the groups consider too old and irrelevant for use in developing a rule aimed at determining if a trucking company should stay in business.

In a joint filing with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the 11 associations, which represent trucking companies, truck drivers, manufacturers and logistics companies, contend that six technology-related studies FMCSA recently added to its Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) are “befuddling” in the context of formulating new regulations affecting carrier safety fitness.

“The majority of the documents cited are dated and have no direct relevance to a new SFD, or to the agency’s previous notice of a possible reboot of its Safety Measurement System (SMS),” the group wrote in comments filed with FMCSA on Monday.

“Stakeholders do not object to the FMCSA’s consideration of technology to assist carriers in operating more safely and reducing highway fatalities. It is an entirely different question, though, whether unproven AI can be developed in sufficient quantity to create an SFD.


“The cost of the new data system, and of massaging enough data to be statistically relevant for over 95% of the regulated carriers that are extremely small and have less than five trucks, is an unsolved problem … for which there is no easy or cheap answer.”

In the ANPRM issued last year, FMCSA asked the trucking industry for feedback on whether it should look more favorably on carriers and owner-operators that adopt and use safety technologies — such as crash avoidance systems — in determining a safety rating for those carriers and drivers.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association has opposed that approach, asserting that small-business carriers would be at a disadvantage while only larger carriers and those that can afford to install new technologies would benefit.

“If these motor carriers are rewarded with better safety ratings, then smaller carriers would likely see their safety rating downgraded without any actual change in their safety performance,” OOIDA argued in its own comments filed on Monday. “Driver training, experience, and safety performance must still be valued over the mere installation of safety technologies.”


OOIDA, like the 11 associations in their joint filing, also pushed back on the studies FMCSA added to the docket which the agency may rely on for a formal proposed rule. OOIDA cited, among other things, a lack of demographic information, limited sample size and the age of the reports.

“We believe the studies contain various flaws that limit their findings,” OOIDA stated. “These reports should not be used as a basis to incorporate the adoption and use of safety technologies into the SFD methodology.”

Technology approach has supporters

But some safety groups disagree with OOIDA’s stance on incorporating technology into potential new rules to determine carrier safety and also do not oppose FMCSA considering the studies that were added to the docket.

The Institute for Safer Trucking, Road Safe America and the Safe Operating Speed Alliance commended FMCSA for its “proactive approach” of adding the research to the docket and for considering safety technology in SFD.

“When a carrier invests in active and preventative safety technologies like [intelligent speed assistance] and [automatic emergency braking], it underscores their commitment to preventing harm and operating safely,” the groups stated in comments filed with FMCSA.

“Encouraging the adoption of such proven technologies, some of which have yet to be required, through SFD recognition would help accelerate their widespread implementation and enhance road safety.”

The Alliance for Driver Safety & Security, a coalition known as the Trucking Alliance and whose members include large trucking companies, also fully supports using crash-avoidance technology in determining carrier safety scores.

“In fact, the Trucking Alliance supports the study of all peer-reviewed research regarding truck safety,” the group wrote in its comments. “This process can help develop a Safety Fitness Determination that more closely addresses the need for safety management in the industry.”


Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher.

14 Comments

  1. Earnest Leroy hudgins

    They’re making rules that are against drivers I mean they’re coming up with the speed limiter Rule That makes trucks only do 68 mile an hour they don’t understand that trucks have different weight different horsepower which means that when you’re driving you won’t be able to pass each other when it’s necessary because the cars are gonna be in the left lane knowing that the trucks can’t do more than 68 it’s gonna cause a small disaster I wish they would just understand that the mega carriers are already turning their trucks back so why do you need to worry about everybody Also the e log is a problem because of the situation as you gotta work the clock there are times you’re driving when you’re not usually awake which means people who are used to driving during the day or now forced to drive at night that causes fatigue I mean you guys are really trying to cookie cutter everybody thinking everybody’s the same and it’s not everything from the speed limiters to the e log there’s gotta be changed I don’t think you understand and I think the people that are running the agency are not people that are actually been working as a driver or know anything about trucking the mega carriers are using their input to make rules and regulations To their advantage they know if they slow everybody down with the same speed which is a disaster I don’t know how you can do it without having rollingboot blocks like I said the cars are not gonna let the trucks pass each other because they know once they get in the left lane they’re gonna have to sit behind them the cars are all ready speeding way too fast it’s gonna cause Road rage the cars are going to start break check in trucks because they’re mad because they’ve been behind them because 2 trucks won’t be able to pass each other cause they’re covering at the same speed that’s totally ridiculous I wanted to put my 2 cents in because I need people to wake up You’re not understanding what that’s gonna cost I’m already having problems and I’m only governed at 71 and that’s a major problem to the cars that are trying to pass me because I have to try to pass somebody it’s crazy please reconsider

  2. Pete

    They need to Crack down more on truck driven schools I talked to a man about a week ago that just got out of school and he did nothing but paper work he told me that he only drove for 20 minutes and I heard other schools doing the same it’s really disturbing that these schools only train to do paper work and not how to drive its really sad

  3. Jaswaaa

    What are they going to start taking advice from someone who actually knows what they’re talking about I am So sick and tired of these people making rules for people behind desk For people who drive truck you don’t know what it is like It is like to drive a truck so you should not be Making rules for those who drive trucks if you Don’t know what it is like to drive a truck

  4. JOHN F. STEVENS

    PLEASE BE ADVISED, FOR SAFETY PURPOSES, THE ELOG SHOULD BE AMENDED/OR REPURPOSED TO ALLOW THIS AS A SAFETY MEASURE!! REST MEASUREABLY ASSISTS HEALTH,ASWELL AS PHYSICAL HEALTH!! AS REQ., DRIVERS SHOULD BE PAID!! TIME,PRESSURE, AND STRESS WORK AGAINST THEM!! RUNNING STRAIGHT TIME WORKS AGAINST THEM!! AT TIMES EVEN SCHEDULED DELIVERY AND PICKUP TIMES WORK AGAINST THEM!! PLEASE MAKE DECISIONS AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND WHEN RUNNING DRIVERS LIVELIHOODS!! NO TWO DAYS ARE THE SAME FOR A DRIVER!! THEY NEED LATITUDES THAT ARE WITHIN THE THE LAW TO DO THE JOB SAFELY!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION!! RESPECTFULLY!! OUR DRIVERS NEED THIS TYPE OF HELP MORE NOW THAN EVER!! THEY ARE KILLING THEMSELVES AND OTHERS UNDER THE PRESENT SYTEM TRYING TO MAKE PICKUPS, DELIVERYS,AND TRYING TO MAKE A LIVING!! THEY ARE GETTING DELAYED AT EVERY POINT, AND NEED TO BE COMPENSATED, FAIRLY AND PERSONALLY!! AND A FINAL CAVEAT, STILL NO BATHROOMS, OR FOOD AT LOCATIONS REQ THEM TO HOLD THEIR POSITIONS!! HONESTLY THIS IS CRUEL AND TOTALLY UNUSUAL PINISHMENT WHILE ATTEMPTING TO DO A GREAT JOB FOR THEM!! THANKS AGAIN!! LETS QUIT KILLING DRIVERS!!

  5. Kevin S Piercy

    The problem right now is non cdl holders driving trucks. They hold an international license, but not a cdl. I can’t believe that the county sheriffs don’t take them off the road, and fine them and the companies they work for. I furthermore can’t understand how they are insuring these law breakers. If one of my family members gets hurt, I want a nuclear settlement against them!

  6. Charles Knighten

    Currently utilize accident mitigation system with a Class 8 vehicle. It is a very useful tool if used properly. Even when used as recommended by manufacturer, the unit has its flaws.
    It can read a wider path than one lane , may consider vehicles merging in front of other vehicles. Brakes are applied instantly. Can be dangerous at times.
    The system does work. It will not allow truck to hit object it front of it.

Comments are closed.

John Gallagher

Based in Washington, D.C., John specializes in regulation and legislation affecting all sectors of freight transportation. He has covered rail, trucking and maritime issues since 1993 for a variety of publications based in the U.S. and the U.K. John began business reporting in 1993 at Broadcasting & Cable Magazine. He graduated from Florida State University majoring in English and business.