Have you ever considered that a diligent trucking company could be labeled "unsafe" simply because of where it operates? Imagine your company working tirelessly to keep America's economic engine running, with every driver following protocol and every truck meticulously maintained. Yet your safety rating suffers because your base is in a state with stricter enforcement, while competitors in more lenient jurisdictions get better scores. Is this not blatant geographic discrimination?
ATA's Call for Justice
The American Trucking Associations (ATA) is leading the charge against this injustice. They've issued a forceful appeal to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), demanding a comprehensive review of the current safety rating system to address long-standing regional biases and data reliability issues. This isn't just an industry dispute—it's a fundamental question of fairness affecting America's economic backbone.
Questioning the Current System
In their formal comments to FMCSA, ATA highlighted significant flaws in the Compliance Review (CR) process and the methodology determining when and how reviews are conducted. They called for evaluation of all interventions, including unrated and off-site audits. The extended 30-day comment period granted by FMCSA—closing November 30—acknowledges the complexity of these systemic issues.
FMCSA's Reform Efforts
This dialogue stems from FMCSA's initiative to develop new methods for determining carrier fitness for interstate operations, aiming to improve the much-criticized Safety Measurement System (SMS). Critics argue SMS unfairly penalizes minor infractions, damaging companies' reputations and threatening their livelihoods. While supporting methodological updates, ATA insists FMCSA must first incorporate industry feedback before finalizing changes to the rating system.
The Data Dilemma
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has previously raised concerns about data sufficiency in CSA/SMS methodologies. FMCSA established a minimum threshold requiring 11 violation inspections for evaluation, but ATA argues similar data limitations plague Safety Fitness Determinations (SFD). "If these safety performance data will determine operational fitness, FMCSA must address all identified limitations," GAO cautioned.
Enforcement Disparities
ATA emphasizes how geographic enforcement differences create unfair advantages. For example, Texas issued vehicle maintenance violations for 84% of its 2022 citations, compared to Indiana's 34%. "A carrier operating primarily in Texas is more likely to receive maintenance violations and face stricter scrutiny—not because their vehicles are less safe, but because of location," ATA explained.
Industry Perspectives
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) noted FMCSA's current SFD process covers only about 2% of interstate carriers annually, creating an unreliable system. "CSA/SMS has completely failed to reduce injuries, deaths, and crashes since 2010," OOIDA stated, urging FMCSA to avoid relying on these flawed metrics.
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) advocates replacing the three-tier rating system ("satisfactory," "unsatisfactory," and "conditional") with a single "unfit" designation, arguing the current labels mislead the public about carrier safety.
The National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC) called the existing system "terribly broken," suggesting simple changes like renaming "unrated" to "authorized to operate" could immediately improve transparency.
Legal Consequences
NASTC highlighted how Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores—often inaccurate—are weaponized in court. "Plaintiff attorneys routinely use CSA scores as 'evidence' against carriers," they reported, causing safe companies to lose business over perceived rather than actual safety risks.
As this critical debate continues, the trucking industry awaits reforms that could reshape its operational landscape—and America's supply chain future.