WASHINGTON — Federal regulators are providing a rare glimpse into information they may consider for a significant rule affecting how carriers are considered fit to be operating.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published on Friday a “notice of data availability” — or “NODA” — to alert the public about a set of studies it could rely on to develop a proposed or final rule that will be used to determine a carrier’s safety fitness rating.
“This NODA is necessary to disclose such possible reliance and to provide the interested public an opportunity to comment on the accuracy and relevance of the information,” FMCSA stated.
P. Sean Garney, a motor carrier regulations expert and co-director of Scopelitis Transportation Consulting, pointed out that it’s the first such notice to be published by the agency since its inception more than 20 years ago, based on a search of Federal Register documents.
“What’s more interesting to me are the research titles listed and what they could mean for rulemaking,” Garney told FreightWaves. He noted that of six reports listed in Friday’s Federal Register notice, three are related to the effectiveness of driver-assist types of technology. A fourth study that is not listed in the Federal Register but has been added to the rulemaking docket relates to the effectiveness of front-crash prevention systems in reducing large truck crash rates.
All four cited a positive correlation between technology and safety.
“Could FMCSA be suggesting they’re considering crediting carriers who go beyond compliance by adopting safety technology?” Garney asked.
FMCSA posed that question — whether its current safety fitness determination (SFD) regulations consider motor carriers’ adoption and use of safety technologies in a carrier’s safety rating — in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) issued last year.
The OOIDA Foundation, an affiliate of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, is reviewing the studies mentioned in the notice, an OOIDA spokesman told FreightWaves.
In comments filed on the ANPRM, OOIDA, which represents small-business truckers, maintained that installing safety technologies does not ensure improved safety.
“We believe rewarding carriers that simply adopt safety technologies without improving actual safety performance would only benefit motor carriers who can afford costly new technologies,” OOIDA stated. “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.
“We would also note that CMVs equipped with safety technologies today still end up in crashes. Driver training, experience, and safety performance must still be valued … over the mere installation of safety technologies.”
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) sided with OOIDA in opposing FMCSA formulating a rule that would consider a carrier’s use of safety technology into the SFD.
In comments filed on the ANPRM, CVSA asserted that if a motor carrier that proactively deploys safety technology intended to prevent or mitigate the severity of crashes ends up receiving an “unfit” designation from FMCSA, the technology is not having its intended benefit.
“Either the technology has been purchased but is not being used properly, or the motor carrier’s other safety management processes are so insufficient that their poor performance offsets the safety benefit of the technology,” CVSA stated.
“Either way, the end result is that the SFD methodology has identified patterns of unsafe behavior that could, if deemed accurate, justify removing the motor carrier from operations. That determination should not be masked by adjustments to the SFD methodology in an attempt to reward carriers for deploying safety technology unsuccessfully.”
Reports and studies that FMCSA may consider in formulating a new safety rule:
- Bell, Jennifer L., et al. (2017). “Evaluation of an in-vehicle monitoring system (IVMS) to reduce risky driving behaviors in commercial drivers: Comparison of in-cab warning lights and supervisory coaching with videos of driving behavior.” Journal of Safety Research.
- Cicchino, Jessica B. (2017). “Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates.” Accident Analysis & Prevention.
- Lotan, Tsippy and Toledo, Tomer (2006). “In-vehicle data recorder for evaluation of driving behavior and safety.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
- Cai, Maio, et al. (2021). “The association between crashes and safety-critical events: Synthesized evidence from crash reports and naturalistic driving data among commercial truck drivers.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies.
- Chen, Guang Xiang (2008). “Impact of federal compliance reviews of trucking companies in reducing highway truck crashes.” Accident Analysis & Prevention.
- NHTSA (2023). 2021 FARS/CRSS coding and validation manual.
- Teoh, Eric R. (2021) “Effectiveness of front crash prevention systems in reducing large truck real-world crash rates.” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Related articles:
Jerry D Hopper
Fmcsa should be abolished, the trucking industry is over regulated, fmcsa creates more issues then solutions, its all about power and control, micro management. Statistics don’t back up their claims. Follow the money….
Vintagedog
I think that if the government considered the USA first, and reconsidered the $100s of BILLIONS they give away to other countries, we could afford to build the roads we need for the 21st century right here in the USA.
That would benefit every driving American.
I’ll trust good roads long before I trust any machines doing our thinking.
It would also allow time to refine the technology to the point it requires a minimum cost for companies, if it eventually does gets implemented.
This certainly doesn’t sound like controlling inflation, but like more government regulation against small business.
ELDs were for “safety reasons”, too.
Check the stats on that one.
Conal Colden
Maybe safety devices should be put in regular vehicles as alot of the time it’s there driving impaired or over tired and speeding that has caused alot of accidents that include trucks. But the trucking companies and drivers have to pay for jackasses on the road.
William C Blackburn
Start making anyone who has a driver’s license has to answer questions about all types of vehicles on the road. You would be surprised at the people who have a private driver license think a tractor trailer can stop quicker than a car or pickup truck.
Andrew
This absolutely ridiculous. They have so many laws for the regular truck driver. But very little that regulates common car drivers. It is over reach it is way over reach. I’m sorry they should spend more time on providing parking places and areas for trucks today.. The average ratio for parking spots versus number of trucks is ten to 1. Not to mention the severely overpriced. Food at the truck stops also any other amenity period. Truck drivers are struggling they need help not more regulation. They need places that they can work out at the truck stops. Medical facilities at the truck stops. I am sick and tired of seeing over regulation. Then they will turn around. Bring somebody in not from this country and not even have to pass a basic safety Test. They are given allowances they cannot speak. English and they cannot read english. Many of them are from third world countries. So they drive like they’re from third World countries. Tell me is there any other places more regulated than what we are. Would you have the same for pilots who fly airplanes? Besides the basic safety test and basic health test. Would it also be With shrink conductors. The list goes on and on. Violation of a rights complete Disrespect for drivers and the respective livelihood. Do you realize then a fine in a truck for a truck? Driver usually starts at five hundred dollars.. Search the patriot act What was designed to stop terrorist instead? They reach over to the truck driver in many other areas. Where does not belong. Again before I go on and on. There is too much over reach this is ridiculous. We already go through many batteries of tests. However, the percentage of drivers. Found it fault during accidents are actually over seventy five percent common card drivers, not truck drivers.. Believe it or not.
Rick Lynch
I’m a driver of 38yrs. I find all the safety technology Companies put in their trucks does more harm than good. I disarm the Safety Warning device every change I get because of the loud warning sounds they make when triggered. Soon, the Trucking Companies Insurance provide that make up these rules will have to start driving our trucks because they are driving us into a different way of making a living.
Jw
Well just about everything mentioned in this used to be handled very easily by having cb’s in use but those days are long gone. Back in the day we used to know what the road conditions were 100- 200 miles before we got to a situation or if something happened just in front of us a driver going the other direction would inform us of something bad and we would be able to prepare for the situation. WE COMMUNICATED, now they use for nothing if they even have one. Today is very sad for those that still drive.
darryl hopper
I believe that all these safety measures should be in all cars first as a driver for over 45 yrs I find that automobiles are a real problem mostly they leave 5 min before they are do at work recklessly driving is a big problem but all of you are so about big rigs that you are not looking at the major problems of Auto wrecks and trucks