In a collaborative submission to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), these 11 associations, representing various stakeholders in the trucking industry, argue that six technology-related studies recently integrated into the Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) are perplexing within the context of shaping new regulations impacting 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. “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 released the previous year, the FMCSA sought input from the trucking sector on whether it should favorably consider carriers and owner-operators embracing safety technologies, such as crash avoidance systems, when determining safety ratings. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) opposed this approach, asserting that it would disadvantage small-business carriers, with only larger ones and those capable of affording new technologies benefiting.

“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 said. “Driver training, experience, and safety performance must still be valued over the mere installation of safety technologies.”

OOIDA, aligning with the 11 associations in their joint submission, also expressed reservations about the studies added to the docket, which the agency might rely on for a formal proposed rule. OOIDA cited factors such as 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 said. “These reports should not be used as a basis to incorporate the adoption and use of safety technologies into the SFD methodology.”

Contrarily, certain safety groups differ with OOIDA’s stance on integrating technology into potential new rules for determining carrier safety. These groups support the FMCSA’s inclusion of the studies in the docket and commend the agency for its proactive approach. The Institute for Safer Trucking, Road Safe America, and the Safe Operating Speed Alliance praise FMCSA’s consideration of 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 said. … 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.”

Additionally, the Alliance for Driver Safety & Security, a coalition known as the Trucking Alliance, including members from large trucking companies, fully endorses the use of 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 said. “This process can help develop a Safety Fitness Determination that more closely addresses the need for safety management in the industry.”

Source: Freightwaves

The post Studies Added to Safety Fitness Rulemaking Cause Questions to be Directed at FMCSA appeared first on Truck Drivers USA.

On Jan. 12, FMCSA released a notice of data availability in the Federal Register, encompassing reports addressing in-vehicle monitoring systems, the correlation between crashes and safety-critical events, the impact of federal compliance reviews, the efficacy of safety technology, and recent fatality crash data. The public is invited to contribute feedback until Feb. 12.

“This (notice) identifies information the agency has become aware of and provides an opportunity for public comment,” FMCSA wrote. “The agency may consider this information in preparation for further regulatory action following an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.”

This initiative follows FMCSA’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking published on Aug. 29, which sought input on whether adjustments are necessary in the process of determining a motor carrier’s safety fitness. Comments for this notice were accepted until Nov. 29.

The current safety fitness determination relies on an analysis of existing motor carrier data and information gathered during a compliance review. It incorporates six factors – general, driver, operational, vehicle, hazardous materials, and crashes – to assign a safety fitness rating of satisfactory, conditional, or unsatisfactory.

Following the advance notice, FMCSA received 176 comments, as reported on the Regulations.gov website. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), representing small-business truckers, emphasized to FMCSA that any changes should not penalize carriers without a rating.

“The FMCSA safety fitness determination process has a direct effect on motor carriers’ ability to stay in business,” OOIDA wrote in its comments. “Historically, the safety fitness determination structure has not been proven as a reliable methodology to properly determine a motor carrier’s fitness to operate. Most of the (program’s) shortcomings relate to the inaccuracy and inconsistency of the data that is collected and analyzed during a safety investigation.”

The OOIDA Foundation is actively reviewing the reports recently released by FMCSA.

For those wishing to comment on the new notice, FMCSA has provided a month-long window. Click here to comment.

Source: Land Line

The post New Reports Influence Safety Fitness Rulemaking appeared first on Truck Drivers USA.

The FMCSA had initiated an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on Aug. 29, seeking input on potential revisions to the process of determining a motor carrier’s safety fitness. The comment period remained open until Nov. 29.

OOIDA argued that the existing safety fitness determination process has proven to be ineffective.

“The FMCSA safety fitness determination process has a direct effect on motor carriers’ ability to stay in business,” OOIDA wrote. “Historically, the safety fitness determination structure has not been proven as a reliable methodology to properly determine a motor carrier’s fitness to operate. Most of the (program’s) shortcomings relate to the inaccuracy and inconsistency of the data that is collected and analyzed during a safety investigation.”

Currently, a safety fitness determination is only assigned after a compliance review is conducted, a system that OOIDA highlighted as reaching only a limited percentage of motor carriers. The association stressed that the success of any program relies on the availability of accurate information, asserting that the current system falls short in this regard.

“In fiscal year 2019, FMCSA and its state partners conducted 11,671 compliance reviews out of a population of more than 567,000 active interstate motor carriers,” OOIDA wrote. “These factors contribute to an unreliable system that does not produce uniform or objective safety fitness determinations … Any reforms must not penalize the overwhelming majority of carriers that will never receive a rating.”

Notably, OOIDA brought attention to the fact that FMCSA’s CSA Safety Measurement System does not contribute to generating safety fitness determinations.

“As FMCSA pursues the development of a new methodology to determine when a motor carrier is unfit to operate, the agency must avoid relying on the Compliance, Safety, Accountability and Safety Measurement System programs,” OOIDA wrote. “Since their inception in 2010, CSA and SMS have completely failed in their objective to reduce injuries, fatalities and crashes. This will not change until CSA/SMS incentivizes actual safety performance instead of regulatory compliance.”

In 2016, FMCSA had proposed using a carrier’s absolute measure in SMS to determine safety fitness. However, facing opposition from OOIDA and others, the proposal was eventually withdrawn.
As of the latest update, the regulations.gov website indicated that FMCSA received 176 comments on the notice; click here to view them. The agency is now tasked with reviewing these comments to determine whether to proceed with a formal proposal.

Source: Land Line

The post OOIDA Stands up for Carriers in Safety Fitness Process, Said They Shouldn’t be Penalized for Not Having a Rating appeared first on Truck Drivers USA.