The American Trucking Associations calls for federal review of safety evaluations, citing inconsistent enforcement and flawed data that disadvantage carriers in certain states.
Consider two freight companies with identical operations—one based in Texas, the other in Indiana. Due solely to Texas' stricter enforcement of vehicle maintenance violations, the Texan carrier could receive a poorer safety rating. This fundamental inequity lies at the heart of the American Trucking Associations' (ATA) challenge to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) safety rating system.
ATA's Challenge: A Question of Fairness and Accuracy
In formal comments submitted to FMCSA, the ATA identified systemic flaws in the Compliance Review (CR) process and the methodology determining when and how reviews occur. The trade association's critique extends beyond ratings to encompass all interventions, including non-rating audits and remote compliance checks. The extended comment period concluded November 30.
FMCSA's request for public input seeks new methods to assess motor carriers' fitness for interstate operations, with the stated goal of repairing the Safety Measurement System (SMS). Industry critics argue the current system unfairly penalizes operators for minor infractions, damaging market reputation over procedural missteps rather than actual safety performance.
While supporting modifications to carrier fitness determinations, the ATA insists FMCSA must first incorporate substantive industry feedback before finalizing changes to the rating framework.
Legislative Mandates and Scientific Models
The 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act required the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct an independent SMS evaluation. Following this mandate, FMCSA withdrew a 2016 proposed rulemaking pending NAS analysis.
The resulting 2017 NAS report, "Improving Motor Carrier Safety Measurement," validated SMS's structural framework while recommending six improvements. Chief among these was development of an Item Response Theory (IRT) statistical model. NAS suggested that if IRT proves superior at identifying high-risk carriers, it should replace SMS just as SMS superseded SafeStat.
Data Integrity: The Foundation of Reliable Ratings
The ATA strongly objected to FMCSA's 2016 Carrier Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) proposal for its heavy reliance on Compliance, Safety, and Accountability (CSA) program data and SMS metrics. The association maintains that accurate fitness determinations require consistent, uniform data sources—a requirement currently unmet.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports have previously highlighted data sufficiency concerns in CSA/SMS methodologies. FMCSA responded by establishing an 11-violation minimum inspection threshold for evaluated carriers. The ATA notes these data limitations equally compromise SFD determinations unless addressed.
Geographic Disparities: Enforcement Inconsistencies
Regional enforcement variations create another systemic flaw. Certain jurisdictions disproportionately emphasize specific regulations, the ATA contends. For example, Texas cited vehicle maintenance violations for 84% of its 2022 infractions, compared to Indiana's 34%.
"While certain violations may vary geographically, vehicle maintenance standards shouldn't fluctuate by jurisdiction," the ATA stated. This discrepancy means Texas-based carriers face disproportionate scrutiny in maintenance categories, potentially receiving lower SMS scores than Indiana counterparts with identical vehicle conditions—simply due to differing enforcement priorities.
Industry Perspectives: OOIDA, CVSA and NASTC Weigh In
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) noted FMCSA's SFD process evaluated just 2% of interstate carriers in 2019. "This unreliable system produces neither uniform nor objective fitness determinations," OOIDA told regulators, urging avoidance of CSA/SMS data in new methodologies.
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), representing enforcement personnel, advocated replacing the current three-tier rating system (satisfactory, conditional, unsatisfactory) with a single "unfit" designation. CVSA argues the current structure misleads with outdated assessments and lacks enforcement resources for regular compliance reviews.
The National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC) called the present system "deeply flawed," supporting reform toward simpler, fairer standards. NASTC highlighted how unrated compliant carriers suffer marketplace disadvantages, suggesting "authorized to operate" as preferable to "unrated" status.
Industry concerns extend to litigation consequences, where CSA scores become courtroom evidence despite acknowledged flaws. "Plaintiffs' attorneys routinely use these scores as 'proof' of carrier negligence," NASTC warned, emphasizing the real-world business impacts of potentially inaccurate safety ratings.