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?
Patrick Connors
While texting and driving along with speeding are risk factor multipliers, there’s attention required for the non professional sector of drivers. Often, cars speed up intentionally to prevent trucks from changing lanes, pass to just slow down in front of us, speed, text while driving and ride for miles behind us with high beam headlights on at night. The complete lack of respect for the people who move goods and services is sad and disgusting.
James Herron
The type of data that should be used in all cases is inpection data. I would advise, against allowing carrier to DOT inspect their own vehicles and equipment, as I feel the company I drive for is leaving the trailer inspections blank, and making up an inspection report as needed without actually doing an inspection. This would fall under maintnence.
Passenger transortation should fall under if not more restrictive than hazmat. More lives are at risk when a driver is fatigued, or a tire blows out.
I peraonally do not see “speeding” as the cause of an accident, “speeding” does increase the ammount of damage in all vehicles. Distracted, innatentive, or otherwise impaired (without drugs or alcohol) are leading real causes of accident. Crack down more.
If everyone wants to keep saying speeding is a factor, well, need to enforce the law with actual law enforcement! Any given day, I can set my cruise at the speed limit, and not pass anything for hours, but get passed like I’m standing still alot, by both POV’s, and CMV’s.
A side note: I get into traffic, I get off phone (blue tooth). I do not have a radio in the truck, weather radio via cb, thats it. Limits distractions, and no cruise in traffic or anything other than dry, non-windy roads.
I think the first step in training great drivers, is in the schools in question, and those that are instructing!
Can we bring back drivers ed into high schools!!!
Richard Miller
Looking at the years they say truck accidents are up proves that the so called policies they passed to make things safer have failed. So now they are going to muck things up with more rules. So now they are asking for more input to correct their mistakes. They don’t listen to any input. It is just a ruse.
Colin J Grams
We don’t need tougher regulations, you need to look at the actual cause of the accident. Most truck and car crashes are caused by the car NOT the truck. You need to back off and let us do our job. I understand that you want to prevent crashes but no matter what you do bad things are still going to happen.
Rommel jaggernauth
The majority of truck accidents are caused by people in their personal vehicles.When does the government plan to do something about this.I,ve been driving since 2013 and every day I’m behind the wheel i almost have a collision with 4 wheelers because they cut you off to get off at the exit or change lanes like their in a nascar race.As soon as you try to keep a good stopping distance they jump in the space.State police needs to start giving out citation to motorist for unsafe lane change ,tailgating etc etc.The fact is no body wants to be behind a truck so they do whatever they can to get in front.Stop blaming these crashes on all drivers in a truck
Withheld
I think that the biggest problem is that a lot of the “foreign people” that are operating commercial vehicles cannot read, write or speak fluent English enough to operate their vehicles in a safe, professional manner. They exceed the speed limits in reduced speed zones, follow too closely ( don’t maintain proper following distance), and cannot read the information signs because they are printed in English. I’ve been driving 37 years and when I first started driving it was great. Drivers were courteous, helpful and easy to get along with. Now it’s an occupation that is looked upon as being hostile towards the public because of the negative impact as a result of this. I can only hope that the FMCSA will realize that the biggest problem is the language barrier which works hand in hand with safety so that everyone is communicating on the same level.
Reginald Webb
I’ve been a driver for 40 plus years the main problem I see is lack of training getting a cdl and being turned loose on the road In six weeks is just insane no way they can aquire the experience needed to do this job safely
Daniel Schepis
More you regulate the more unsafe the roads are. The actual data is clear. Like crystal clear. Its pure data.
This is not about safety its about shrinking the market into super carriers that can complete objectives favorable to government intrest. Major corporations can more readily change fleets into electric and green energy. Fewer carriers are easier to regulate and collect taxes from. More complex regulations means an increase in clerical and technical mistakes that generate more money through citation as taxation.
Mega carriers actually like this because more power in fewer hands allows them more control over the markets . So they are not using the influence they already have to resist this but rather to drive the spot market out of competition are supporting it.
Thats your truth.