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.”
Ronald Lee Trujillo
Id like to know why the FMCSA has the right to disqualify truck drivers for marijuana usage when so many states have decriminalized it’s use. Marijuana can show up in your system even if a trucker has stopped using it. This practice is a violation of a truckers right to pursue the use when not working.
Tudor
FMCSA should focus on Shippers and receivers , also should set a maxim amount for detention. For semeone in the office with no experience in bussines it’s easy to screw small businesses.
Atex Freight Broker Training Inc
I’m glad I don’t drive a truck but any device or system that incorporates or relies on ANY type of system whether it’s AI or not should be tested to the point where there is almost zero negative incidents that occurs. It’s all about safety.
David Stevens
The fmcsa should be at our boarders.
With how much we are regulated and checked.
I think they would do a good job at protecting our boarders.
SuperDan Trucking
Brilliant! Allow the larger companies, who in fact make up for the majority of accidents, too dictate what the FMCSA does. We’ve seen this movie. They implemented and mandated e logs. What happened? Accidents went UP, not down. Look at the statistics when the USA was shut down for covid. Accidents plummeted! What happened? There was mostly trucks on the road with trucks.
So doing this, as mentioned by OOIDA, will adversely affect the largest portion of Trucking: the small carriers. These mega carriers are the same ones that insist that they can reduce pay, reduce the age of drivers (to 18 in some cases) and somehow, things will be ok. Because that’s easier and cheaper than increasing wages!
More experience should equal more money. More skin in the game (owner operators) equals more safety and more pride in what they do. There’s no answer other than that!
R.Michael Rhoades
I’ve Drove many trucks with AI. To me they are kind of dangerous themselves, breaking when you approach overhead signs. Having to work harder to pass safely another vehicle running there 4 way flashers. Telling you to slow down when you are safely doing the posted speed limit etc, etc. Makes me wonder why it’s made these decisions? Breaking when it’s not necessary.
Makes me think I’m not the driver, even though I have 25+ years safe and accident free driving.!!
I thought I was hired to operate this commercial vehicle safely, but l guess systems and AI are the future of driving.. I’d like to see it pull over and throw chains on all required axles when needed..