Imagine two trucking companies with similar operations—one based in a state known for strict penalties on vehicle maintenance violations, the other not. Simply due to geography, the former could face harsher scrutiny and even be labeled "unsafe." Is this fair? The American Trucking Associations (ATA) is urging federal regulators to address this disparity and reform the current safety rating system.
Industry Demand: Restructuring Freight Safety Ratings
The ATA has submitted formal comments to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), calling for a comprehensive review of the Compliance Review (CR) process and how the agency determines inspection methods and timing. The ATA's recommendations extend beyond ratings to include all interventions, such as unrated and off-site audits. The association previously secured a 30-day extension for the comment period, which closed on November 30.
The FMCSA is soliciting public input to develop a new methodology for assessing whether motor carriers are fit to operate in interstate commerce, aiming to repair flaws in the Safety Measurement System (SMS). Critics argue the SMS unfairly penalizes carriers for minor operational missteps, tarnishing their market reputation.
While not opposing changes to carrier fitness determinations, the ATA insists the FMCSA must first incorporate industry feedback before finalizing revisions. The extended comment period—granted due to the "complexity and breadth" of issues raised by three trade groups—reflects the agency's acknowledgment of public interest in the process.
FAST Act and NAS Study: Controversies and Paths Forward
Section 5221 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act mandated an independent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review of the SMS. In 2017, the FMCSA withdrew a 2016 proposed rulemaking to await the NAS study. The resulting report, Improving Motor Carrier Safety Measurement , concluded the SMS's structure was sound and its method for identifying high-risk carriers defensible. However, the NAS proposed six improvements, including adopting an advanced statistical model called Item Response Theory (IRT) if proven superior to the SMS.
The ATA strongly opposed the FMCSA's 2016 "Safety Fitness Determination (SFD)" proposal for over-relying on Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) and SMS data. The association maintains that SFD assessments require uniform data sources to accurately represent carrier fitness, but persistent data limitations undermine this goal.
Data Gaps and Regional Bias: The Hidden Flaws in Safety Ratings
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has repeatedly flagged data inadequacies in the CSA/SMS framework. The FMCSA responded by setting an 11-violation inspection minimum for carrier evaluations. The ATA warns these same limitations jeopardize SFD determinations unless resolved.
A key concern is regional enforcement disparities. "Some jurisdictions disproportionately cite certain violations," the ATA noted. For example, 84% of violations issued in Texas in 2022 involved vehicle maintenance, compared to 34% in Indiana. "Maintenance violations should be assessed consistently, regardless of location," the ATA argued, noting Texas-based carriers face disproportionate scrutiny.
This geographic bias means two identical fleets could receive vastly different SMS scores—not due to actual safety performance, but because of where they operate.
Other Industry Voices: Systemic Failures and Solutions
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) criticized the FMCSA's SFD process for covering just 2% of interstate carriers in 2019. "This unreliable system cannot produce objective fitness determinations," OOIDA stated, urging the agency to abandon CSA/SMS reliance, calling the program a "total failure" in reducing accidents.
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) proposed replacing the three-tier rating system ("satisfactory," "conditional," "unsatisfactory") with a single "unfit" designation. Current ratings, based on infrequent compliance reviews, often become outdated and misleading, the group said.
The National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC) labeled the system "broken," advocating for simpler, fairer standards. It suggested renaming "unrated" carriers as "operating authorized" to mitigate unwarranted stigma.
Truckers increasingly complain CSA scores inaccurately brand safe carriers as risky, costing them business as brokers and shippers treat these ratings as gospel. "Plaintiffs' attorneys weaponize CSA scores in court," NASTC warned, highlighting the real-world consequences of flawed metrics.