Find the anchor story in this series, “Stoking the log fires,” via this link.
But the precision and quantity of ELD data could give on-site auditors an extra-effective tool for declaring a carrier Unfit on the basis not only of uncovered hours violations, but also moving violations.
The potential path to the SFD rule’s Unfit determination that’s been getting the most attention from watchers and the trucking media thus far is the truly brand-new one: for a fleet to fail two SMS BASIC categories solely as a result of roadside inspection violations. For instance, Carrier X accumulates a boatload of hours violations at roadside and a bunch of speeding tickets, thereby failing Hours and Unsafe Driving BASIC categories of measurement.
The other way to receive an Unfit determination is for critical violations to be uncovered via on-site investigations. Despite FMCSA’s warning that this is what’s coming, that route to the Unfit determination has gotten less attention, says TransComply compliance consultant Avery Vise. That’s because “on its face it doesn’t look any different” from the compliance review process today, but the reality is that moving violations now are weighted only slightly in any safety rating.
An auditor’s review may “note that there’s X number of speeding tickets or violations of 392.2 – the catch-all for every state and local rule,” most often speeding infractions, Vise says. But those violations don’t influence the rating outcome nearly as much as other violations, if an auditor pays any attention to them at all.
Today, auditors look for critical and acute violations in six different categories, called “Factors.” Fail two and an Unsatisfactory rating can be issued. Hours and what few moving violations may apply are housed in the single “Operational” factor.
