WASHINGTON — Federal regulators are asking for public feedback on finding a new way to determine whether motor carriers are safe to operate on the nation’s roads.
In an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on Monday, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration stated that it is not yet making specific proposals but wants input on potentially using its safety management system (SMS) methodology to issue safety fitness determinations (SFDs).
“The Agency’s current SFD process is resource-intensive and reaches only a small percentage of motor carriers,” FMCSA stated. “A successful SFD methodology may: target metrics that are most directly connected to safety outcomes, provide for accurate identification of unsafe motor carriers, and incentivize the adoption of safety-improving practices.”
With crashes involving large trucks increasing over the past decade — up over 40% between 2013 and 2022, according to government data — FMCSA has been under pressure to get better at identifying unsafe carriers, and the rules FMCSA uses to identify them have a direct effect on carriers’ ability to stay in business as well as on their hiring of commercial truck drivers.
FMCSA currently uses a three-tiered comprehensive review (CR) process that may result in a “satisfactory,” “conditional” or “unsatisfactory” safety rating.
Of the CRs conducted in FY 2019 (the last year before the pandemic limited the number of CRs conducted due to safety concerns), 306 resulted in a final safety rating of unsatisfactory, 1,842 in a final safety rating of conditional and 2,701 in a final safety rating of satisfactory.
“Only a small percentage of carriers with safety management control deficiencies are required to submit corrective action to continue operating and avoid a final unfit determination based on an unsatisfactory rating,” according to FMCSA.
In the proposed rulemaking, FMCSA seeks comment on a list of 12 questions, including whether it should retain this three-tier rating system or — as it asked in a similar Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in 2016 that was never acted upon — replace it with a single rating of “unfit” for those carriers that did not successfully complete a safety review.
“Under such a structure, carriers that completed safety fitness reviews successfully would continue operating and not appear different, in terms of their SFD, from carriers that had not yet been reviewed,” FMCSA states. “Would this approach be sufficient to ensure safety?”
The agency also notes in the current proposed rulemaking that the existing SFD does not use all available safety data, such as all inspection-based data. It requests input, therefore, on whether its SMS methodology should be used to issue SFDs in a manner similar to what was noted in the 2016 proposed rulemaking.
“If so, what adjustments, if any, should be made to that proposal?” FMCSA asks.
“If not, should the agency include more safety data in the SFD process in other ways and, if so, how? The Agency is interested in comments specifically on whether the integration of on-road safety data into the SFD process would improve the assessment of motor carriers’ safety posture and the identification of unfit motor carriers.”
Other questions FMCSA is asking for comment on include:
- Should motor carriers of passengers be subject to higher standards than other motor carriers in terms of safety fitness rating methodology?
- How will states be affected if the agency changes the SFD? What resources might be needed to accommodate any changes, and how long would it take to incorporate proposed changes?
- Given the importance of driver behavior in preventing crashes, how should the agency incorporate driver behavior data into the SFD? What data should the agency use? How should this methodology distinguish between data resulting in a conviction and data without a conviction?
- Should SFD consider motor carriers’ adoption and use of safety technologies in a carrier’s rating? How should this fit into the SFD methodology?
- Given that unsafe driving behaviors, such as speeding and texting while driving, are highly correlated with crash risk, should the safety fitness rating methodology give more weight to [such] unsafe driving violations?
D
Start with people who clearly can’t drive regular cars and be in traffic, next people who can’t and should not be behind the wheel of a tractor trailer and don’t do the right thing I have first hand what people do on the road and disrespect truck driver because if it wasn’t for us there would not anything in stores,ie. Food,Fuel,Cars,Houses,Clothing without truck driver nothing would
be were it should be and then some trains,planes etc. Start there
Danieljay L Stevens
How about go back to how things used to be when drivers didn’t have these stupid “safety” rules. They are one of the reasons there are these accidents cause drivers go over their time to find a safe place to park to sleep. Let the drivers sleep when they need to not when the government says to.
Billy w carlson jr
Why not mandate the camera law for all commercial trucks owner operators
Included and should be monitored by
Fmcsa safety fitness ratings should be per yearly for each carrier
Joseph W Bowley
Safety of the trucks is paramount. But. Condensing all the trucks in one or two lanes when there are 3+ lanes mixed in with 4wheelers? Jamming us all together is a recipe for catastrophe. Having multiple speed limits for different vehicles on the same Rd? Whoever thought that was a good idea? I think every trooper should spend a shift in the pass seat of a truck! Then see the games cars play on the Rd. Pass you, pull in front of you, on the brakes or just want to roll just Infront of you? Multiple times, EVERY DAY. Every troop should have a truck with cameras front, side viewing. 7-8 of 10 vehicles that pass me are holding phones. Or laptops. Even a baby!!! Not breast feeding or purpling? Just holding while texting with other hand. And it’s the truck drivers fault?
Kevin Pickett
Increase of 20% from 2013 to 2022 oddly aligns with government mandated hours of service. Specifically ELD. When will they learn? More regulations had always directly resulted in more accidents. The DOT simply can’t handle the truth. They cause a large margin of accidents through their continued efforts to strip the AMERICAN truck driver of his/her ability to perform the job. More rules? More deaths!
Heathen
Every new rule creates more problems, and gives greater ability for the industry to take advantage of us. How about they actually investigate complaints towards shady DOT inspectors, and look into the consequences of their rules before they try to patch a problem with a jackhammer?
More rules means more need, means more funding. Answered my own question.
Ron King
Safety should be number one concern, what happened to all the states with the hardaxx reputation of Safety inspection. The drivers should know what is not safe, and stand firm. Not doing a pre trip, not cool. If you fine company and driver, too many drivers not being taught the rules. The law is there for drivers, hands free devices ,Bluetooth, no texting, use to be $2,000 to $2,500 if a driver was caught texting or holding cell phone and talking, what happened to that?
Larry Brian Byrd
To stop texting and driving they need to invent a permanent fixed app to our phones that at anytime the phone is moving five to ten mph it can only receive and place phone calls all other apps and tech will freeze just like our computers put us on the drive line and have no override button sorry passengers but you can be a distraction to drivers as well in commercial and non commercial vehicles I think that would solve a lot of this