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:
Patrick Pegher
Sounds like more collusion between A.I. developers and insurance companies, backed up by legislators invested in both; having nothing to do with safe operation of CMVs.
“Coaching”? Really? People who never set foot in a CMV, living in a virtual world rather than facing reality and fact.
Thomas Baker
John like to speak with you.I have a book coming out next week .just retired due to illness but the book is based on helping people who are thinking about a career as a professional driver.What it takes. I started in 1968. Email me will give you my numder.
Lawrence Gayfield
All of the extra tech is distracting. The alarms go off when they shouldn’t extra noise for a job that is already stressful from making a maneuver to turning all of it. Here the alarm we start looking at dash for warning lights etc. Instead of what we are doing.
Clarence Sharpe
I believe something more needs to be done about obtaining a class C license, like every renewal!put cameras in their vehicle, to alert them of being distracted driving following to close ,getting over in front us too soon or last minute after passing us ,existing! Not maintaining the speed limit in any lane!
Brian R. Messick
Here in Texas there already starting to not do safety inspections on all cars and trucks and this is as reckless as it can get, Why would you not perform safety Inspections as a requirement on all vehicles as They are required on commercial trucks, this is where federal regulations needs to step in , if here in Texas this new law takes place they should basically build all new vehicles without any safety regulations, so stuck on stupid the politicians scream about pollution but allow your family to get into a vehicle without a annual safety state safety inspections, that means no check on lighting, Horns, Tires, and on and on now let’s keep regulations strict on what moves commoties, groceries, goods, and everything under the sun that’s right here in Texas no more vehicles annual Safety Inspections, Thank you for being iliterit and not caring about The number 1priority vehicles safety , more bigger. Road and transportation safety , where are you Pete Budashed, and your automobile safety administration alliance, more stuck on stupid.
Justin Bastian
The collision sensor is a great idea it just has bugs that need to be addressed…it’s got to be better as far as being able to distinguish a vehicle from a reflector bc we all know how sudden braking affects handling in wet/icy conditions it can almost be more beneficial to not have it just saying feedback is important for someone who doesn’t drive they have no idea what we face on a daily basis and seriously truck drivers use to stick together now its an every driver for themselves mentality remember when this was a lifestyle now its just a bunch of self centered individuals sad yes extremely true….
T
If the so called safety bored actually pays attention there have been far more accidents with cmv since they regulated all the safety features a truck must have such as crash mitigation devices speed limiters. The only required thing a truck must have for insurance purposes is a road facing drive cam
Al-Solo Nyonteh
An organization with double digits fatalities crashes (also known as murder by commercial vehicle) and triple digits non fatalities crashes (also known as assault with commercial vehicle) are not safe for the general public, case closed. The FBI would labeled most bigger trucking companies with double digits fatalities a “public enemy” and a threat to public safety. They are lucky the FMCSA is taking the lead. It’s like rewarding Al Capone for getting tax accounting software.