FMCSA's safety rating revamp: Truckers caution against use of CSA SMS, roadside data

Cicely Waters: Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining today's public listening session hosted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Todd Dills: That was the voice of FMCSA's communications director, Cicely Waters, opening last week's virtual listening session around the agency's efforts to potentially improve the safety rating system it uses for determining carriers’ fitness to operate in interstate commerce. Today we're going to sit in on virtually the entire session from this past week, featuring a bevy of views in response to chief areas of inquiry you'll hear agency reps outline as we get into the discussion. I'm Todd Dills, your host, as usual, for this edition of the Overdrive Radio podcast dated July 1, 2024, and regular readers will know the effort around the safety rating change has been a long time in coming.

Since the CSA safety measurement system came into play a decade and a half ago, agency reps have floated the idea routinely of using roadside data, in part to determine a safety rating. Yet they’ve certainly experienced loads of pushback from carriers on that notion, and this session was no outlier in that regard. Commenter Daniel Shelton pointed out inadequacies he saw in a myriad violations used in parts of the CSA SMS that well have really nothing to do with the bedrock indicator of safety in his mind, crashes, and particularly those that can reliably be shown as the fault of motor carrier.

Daniel Shelton: I’ve never seen a shipping paper where the ID number, shipping name, hazard class, and packing group in the wrong order ever was a crash causation.

Todd Dills: Listen on for the rest of that viewpoint later in the podcast, but know that Shelton also questioned the agency's crash preventability determination program and its efficacy in identifying non preventable crashes to exclude them from carriers records. Agency reps on the call noted that non preventable determinations would exclude those crashes from a safety rating. Yet Shelton told this story about one such he'd seen up close, and then attempted to use the data queue system to exclude from the carrier's scores.

Daniel Shelton: You know, there was a, there was a terrible crash that occurred on September 29 of last year. The NTSB was on the ground Saturday morning. There were five fatalities as a result of an HM release. And, the Illinois division office and the investigators were there for a week working with NTSB and with the motor carrier, and I was present. And at the end of the week, the division office provided us a letter stating the crash was non preventable. And they said, you'll need that letter because you left the data queue to crash when it gets uploaded. Well, we did that, and the results of that was it does not fit the guidelines.

Todd Dills: That’s likely -- and I'm just speculating here really -- because the crash wasn't of one of the limited number of crash types that are part of the crash preventability program today and thus eligible for review. Be that as it may, Shelton went on to detail further problems with the CSA SMS that stand to complicate any move to use SMS data in a new safety rating system.

Daniel Shelton: So as of today, it is still showing up in MCMIS as a preventable crash and adversely affecting the carriers creating methodology and we did everything that we were supposed to do and nothing happened. So the only point I want to make is words are important and I like what you're I like what you're saying and it sounds really good and words are important, but actions matter more. You got to be able to back up what you say by your actions. Thank you very much.

Todd Dills: The virtual session last week was but one of two that are planned. As FMCSA enforcement and compliance director Tom Liberatore noted, there will be another.

Tom Liberatore: Another listening session, virtual, at the end of July.

Todd Dills: Its July 31 to be exact. Find a link to where you can register to lodge your own commentary in the show notes and or the post that houses this podcast for July 1, 2024 at overdriveonline.com/overdrive-radio. There’s a lot more to the discussion here, including thoughts on moving away from a three-tier satisfactory, conditional and unsatisfactory rating regime to a single rating system. Also rewarding carriers for safety technology use, or not, and much more. After the break, we’ll dive in directly with Liberatore, joined by FMCSA compliance chief Dave Yessen. Throughout and near the beginning, transportation specialist Stacy Ropp. Cicely Waters moderates everything, meanwhile, with plenty voices from within trucking, brokerage and amongst crash victims advocacy groups as well. So keep tuned.

Speaker: Prepping for springtime? Reach for Howes. Clean, protect and lubricate your diesel engine with Howes diesel defender. It'll provide superior cleaning, maximum lubrication and a guaranteed increase in fuel economy for all your other spring projects. Reach for Howes Multipurpose lubricator and penetrating oil, with a thousand and one uses on almost any surface. It's the only can you'll need. Find Howes products at retailers and truck stops nationwide and visit Howesproducts.com for more information.

Todd Dills: Yes, you can find our fine friends at Howes at HOWES, Howesproducts.com. here's Tom Liberatore setting us up.

Tom Liberatore: I'm sure most of the people on the line today are aware of what, FMCSA safety fitness determination process, or SFD is and how it's utilized. But just in case you are not, what is safety fitness determination, or SFD rating, which is part of our CSA program? it's a rating that's assigned to determine the ability of a motor carrier, to continue to operate in interstate commerce. Right now, there is a three tier system which, Stacy, who was, introduced earlier, we'll be getting into as we kind of do some of the overview of the questions that were asked in the ANPRM. the process itself, the regulation surrounding the process has been in effect since 1991. It has been modified several times over the years. so obviously the process that's in place now, it's not the same one that was in place, in 1991. But, just to summarize, what the current SFD process is, it, is based on an existing motor carrier data, information such as out of service rate, crash involvement, and other data that's collected during compliance, review. you'll see the term compliance review and investigation used interchangeably several times. They're essentially the same thing. so if we say investigation or compliance review, they're an allegory for the same type of process. as I said, it's a three tier or three option outcome that you have right now. following the investigation or compliance review, you'll have one of three ratings coming out of that, either satisfactory, unsatisfactory, or conditional. Motor carriers may also remain unrated. Obviously, we don't have the ability to, do compliance reviews or investigations of every motor carrier that's registered with the FMCSA. So those that have not been the subject of, an investigation or compliance review, will remain unrated. There's also some other reasons why you may remain unrated, but that is also an option. it's more, really, than I can get into today. In order, in the essence of time, if you are interested, understanding the full methodology, please see the reference we have right there, which is in part 385, 49 CFR part 385.

Todd Dills: Liberatore then referenced the docket on regulations dot gov for commentary on the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking issued last year, and asked particular questions about potential changes to the safety rating process. Regular Overdrive readers will recall our own coverage of that comment period. The docket number where you can access details of the questions at regulations dot gov is FMCSA-2022-0003.

Tom Liberatore: We received around 176 comments that were submitted, about half were actually relevant to SFD. Since it's an open comment period, individuals are free to comment on, whatever they wish in relationship to FMCSA operations. So you'll see some of them that actually were relevant to other areas of our operational stance, such as our safety measurement system, or SMS, and, other programs that are administered by FMCSA. But, still, that leaves around 80 comments or so, that were relevant to what we were proposing in the SFD ANPRn that was released, as you see there last August and, closed last November 29, of 2023. Most, of the comments, many of them were actually in favor, of revising SFD. But there was a lot of mixed feedback exactly on how we should revise that, which is really the impetus for what we're doing today, which is why we're hosting these additional listening sessions, to really allow people to provide us some further input as to what they think would be a recommended course of action as FMCSA reevaluates our assets. At this point. In the interest of time, I think I will stop talking, and actually turn it over to, Stacy and Dave to facilitate the rest of the conversation for today. So thank you, Stacey. Dave, whenever you're ready.

Stacy Ropp: Thank you, Tom.

So, my name is Stacey Ropp. I'm a transportation specialist within the compliance division at FMCSA, and I am on the safety fitness determination rulemaking project. So now we're going to transition into kind of the heart of today's call getting into our SFD discussion. so just to remind everyone, we are taking your comments and your feedback, anything that you would like for us to know about safety fitness determination, any kind of topic related to SFD, feel, free to voice that or type that into the chat as your question. But here we do have highlighted four specific topic areas that we're most interested in hearing your feedback in. These were some of the topics we heard, many different comments on the. And also, a lot of mixed feedback. so these are kind of the four areas we'd like some more clarity and just some more feedback from everybody with whatever you can provide. So, just to highlight them, we have the current three tiered rating system that Tom spoke of earlier, which is satisfactory, unsatisfactory, and conditional. And also carriers can still be left unrated if they haven't had a compliance investigation. So we want to hear from you. Should FMCSA retain this three tiered system and why or why not? The next topic would be on, switching to a proposed single rating of Unfit. And with this unfit rating, all other carriers would then be presumed fit to operate unless they have this unfit determination. So we'd like to hear your thoughts on this and if there should be any kind of, accommodation for carriers that have gone through a compliance investigation successfully versus those that have not had any sort of compliance investigation under this, single rating of unfit.

Our next topic, we want to hear some feedback on use of our inspection based data. Primarily, this would be our SMS system that records all of motor carriers roadside inspections and crash history. Should FMCSA look to incorporate SMS into our, SFD rating system? And if not, are there any other type of inspection based or roadside based data that we should consider incorporating? And how so? And the final topic we're interested in hearing is how we could possibly incorporate driver behavior. what kind of data should FMCSA consider incorporating? Is there a way that we should distinguish between a driver conviction versus a non conviction? And should more weight be given to these unsafe driving violations? similar to how we have it now set up with hours of service, should we kind of put more weight on these unsafe driving behaviors? So, again, as you go through with your comments, please, also keep in mind just generally what improvements or changes should be made, to any of these four proposed discussion topics or any other comments you may have. which stakeholders do you think benefit most from your suggestions? And are there any stakeholders that would not benefit from any sort of a proposed change? And what is the overall benefit to safety? So, with that, I'd like to turn it over to all of you, and we'll start going through some of the questions and comments.

Cicely Waters: If you have any questions now, you may enter those questions in the q and a box.

Todd Dills: The voice of FMCSA public affairs director Cicely Waters there.

Cicely Waters: Or if you'd like to ask those questions out loud, please feel free to tap the raise hand icon. We'll acknowledge you, take you off mute, and you'll be able to ask your question.

I'll, turn to the Q and A box first, as I see we do have one general question here, and, Tom, if I could turn to you first for answering this question, and it's really just a general question at the top of the session. you noted that FMCSA cannot perform a compliance review on every carrier that the agency authorizes. Can you expand on that statement just a bit?

Tom Liberatore: Yeah, sure, sure. It's, honestly just a resource, limitation. I mean, considering. If you considering the millions of, CDL holders that are currently engaged in interstate commerce and the tens and tens of thousands of carriers that are in operation across the country, it does become a resource, and logistical issue based upon the current resources, available to FMCSA in order to do that. in addition, there are certain statutory requirements that FMCSA has in regards to prioritization of certain types of, investigations, say those involving motor, carriers that are of the highest safety risk to the public. so, those are just some of the reasons why it's, logistically a challenge reference CSA to conduct a compliance review of every carrier. obviously, you know, if individuals have additional comments that they want to provide on that, that's, you know, partially what today is about too, as well. and I, think we also want to mention real quick, I know what's up here on the screen, that if for some reason, there, you don't feel comfortable announcing your question publicly or typing it in, you can also submit a questions, in the docket up until August 7. So you can still submit additional comments and rank.

Todd Dills: That would be the same docket number mentioned before, FMCSA-2022-0003. In the documents tab there you'll see the advance proposal and several other docs that can serve as a springboard for any commentary on the safety rating process.

Cicely Waters: Lindsey Schindler, we see that your hand is raised, Martin. If you could unmute Lindsey for her for the question.

Lindsey: If we use, the data from, for the driver fitness, would you be using elds for that like you do for hours of service?

Dave Yessen: Dave Yesen, chief of the compliance division. Could you just expand upon that a little bit more?

Lindsey: Well, how would you guys then monitor whether speeding and, inattentive driving and.

Dave Yessen: Things like that currently ELD, whether or not you are using an ELD or not using ELD, is currently part of our safety fitness determination process. When we do an investigation under, you know, our hours of service, examination, one of the questions that we had asked and I think Stacy had gone through is should we be looking more into driver behavior, unsafe driver behaviors, and assigning more weight to that aspect, when we are determining, you know, a safety rating, a carrier safety rating. So, for example, now when we look at hours of service and we conduct an investigation, if we find critical violations of an hours of service regulation, there's an actual, double pointing that is used, under that particular factor. So I guess the obvious question would be, if we are doing an investigation or if we're using as potentially proposed, roadside data to determine carriers, safety fitness status, should we be assigning more weight to those behaviors, you know, like speeding, reckless driving, in those areas when, we're doing a safety, fitness determination? I think that's a good question that we're asking.

Lindsey: How do you guys currently gather that information?

Dave Yessen: Well, that information right now, you know, we gather that information through roadside inspection reports, that are done by the state. You know, I mean, there's approximately two to 3 million of those a year. and that information gets fed into our safety measurement system, which is what we use to determine which carrier we're going to investigate. And then when we go on site to investigate, we're looking at those, unsafe behaviors to see if there's any kind of correlation to what's going on at a company, that might be causing drivers to speed, you know, for example, could be a hiring issue that they're not doing, when they're hiring. So it could be a safety, you know, it could fall under safety, their fitness category. or it could be that operationally they're requiring drivers to, you know, potentially speed in order to complete runs, which might have an hour as a service impact. So it can vary depending on, the circumstances.

Cicely Waters: When we do an investigation, our next question asks, in a single rating system, would conditional, non-rated and satisfactory carriers have the same rating of fit?

Dave Yessen: So I think that is the, that's the fundamental question. if you went to a single rating system, the thought process would be that unless you were deemed to unfit, then there would be potentially everybody, everybody else would be fit. So there would be no segregation, between a conditional, non rated and satisfactory carrier. we would be looking for those carriers that would be deemed unfit, as just a single rating system. And as Tom alluded, it's good to hear what people think about that versus, you know, what we think about it. we're here to hear what you, what you want to tell us about it.

Cicely Waters: Patrick Bode, we see that you also have your hand up. Please go ahead with your question.

Patrick: Yeah, on states that, you know, I understand a lot of the data, is being generated by state level, but how do you regulate the state? LE, I know several states that, for instance, will only do a level two inspection if they already see something wrong. They won't do a level two inspection, but, just out of the blue and give you either write something up or give you a clean inspection with that particular state directive to the state agencies that are doing or the LE and the scale houses have ah, directives that, you know, they'll do a walk around if everything looks good, they'll do a level three. If they see something at that time they will do a level two. So how would you regulate the states, I guess to even a playing field, for those areas?

Dave Yessen: So I think in that comment, you know, we really need to kind of take a step back a bit, as part of the ANPRM, questions that we had asked was whether or not we should be using roadside inspection data in some type of unfit, you know, in some type of rating process. You know, just to clarify, again, like Tom said, the only time we issue safety ratings now are, is if we conduct an investigation, on site at a motor carrier's place of business. you know, and one of the proposals that we put in the ANPRM is should we be using roadside data, to also do a potential, you know, rating process, an unfit standardization. And I think the commenter brings up a point as to how that would potentially play into any kind of new SFD standard. And I think some of the things that we see from the SMS side of it, because we do see that data does roll in, from our perspective, we do separate violations into basics and we score, you know, a carrier's performance based on clean inspections. it doesn't have to be an inspection with no violations to actually be a clean inspection in a particular basic. So there are variables involved that we would want to look at to make sure that that playing field was as even as possible. and I mean from a reference standpoint, you know, I believe the last time we took a look, almost half of the inspections that come into sms are clean inspections. so when you're talking millions of inspections and half are clean, there are plenty of inspections that are being conducted out there, that are not showing violations that are being attributed to a carrier. And you know, that is actually performing very well. So, but definitely something we would want to consider.

Patrick: Yes, well, and that's why I brought that up is if you're, you know, I think the state or the SMS data is important and does give a better viesw, used along with on-site data in making a rating determination. and I will also put my two cent in that I think a single fit or unfit is not the best route to go. I think it needs to be a multiple tiered, unrated conditional or satisfactory tier system. I agree with the three three tier system. That way I play it on both sides of the fence as a safety professional and a carrier, as well as a, safety professional in the logistics side, and it definitely gives you a better picture of the carrier that you're entrusting your shipments to. Am I going to pay a higher rate to somebody that, you know, has less crashes and. And guaranteed to be there? Yeah, might go a little higher rate than I normally would compared to somebody else. So I do think it's very important for all parties involved. Thank you.

Cicely Waters: Turning back to our Q and A box, I see that we do have a question from Jay Grimes of OOIDA, and Jay's question and feedback notes that as FMCSA considers using SMS methodology in SFD, is the agency planning on proposing additional changes to SMS methodology similar to the notice issued in February of 2023?

Tom Liberatore: Dave, I can jump in real quick just to Jay's question. Jay, just to make sure I understand, and you can feel free to come off mute. Are you saying, until we incorporate the proposed changes that we talked about in 2023 or anything in addition to the proposed changes we were talking about.

Todd Dills: In 2023, regular readers will probably recall those proposed changes and preview of them. FMCSA launched well more than a year ago now, including a big simplification of the violation weighting points system and various changes to some of the categories. I'll post a link to our comprehensive outline of the changes and further reporting about them in the show notes for this podcast.

As Jay Grimes, OIDA's federal affairs director, began to clarify his question to Tom Liberatore, he referenced the National Academy of Sciences recommendations to FMCSA for the CSA safety measurement systems improvements. Changes proposed last year acted on some of those recommendations, but not all by a long stretch. Here's how Grimes put it.

Jay Grimes: Yeah, so in that February 2023, that really addressed the first recommendation from the National Academy's SMS review. I know there were six total recommendations. Are you working on kind of those other recommendations? And certainly, yes, we would urge you to finalize further SMS recommendations before any SFD, new SFD rulemaking, incorporates SMS.

Tom Liberatore: I mean, certainly, we are obviously considering. Proposed in 2023, right? I mean, we. We put that out for a reason when we're in the process of evaluating the comments and assessing what can be changed and how quickly it can be changed. And. And there's some subsequent communications that we would need to put out before we actually implemented anything, in terms of those changes to SMS. So I, would say, yes, there are things that we're working on specific to what we put out, in 2023. beyond that, I can't get into a lot of detail about the other stuff right now. Dave can probably provide some additional technical comments, since he's really more of an expert in the inner workings of the methodology than I. But I do appreciate the comment there, which is exactly the kind of stuff we're looking for today. The second half of your comment about, avoiding the incorporation, until some of the other things are, are included. you know, that's the type of feedback we're looking for from today. So.

Thank you, Jay.

Dave Yessen: Only that I think question seven on the screen …

Todd Dills: That's FMCSA's Dave Yessen, again.

Dave Yessen: Kind of ask that question. Should SMS methodology be used? you know, obviously, like I said, we haven't made a decision in one direction or another. That's why we put the ANPRM out there. and I think some of the other things that we asked were, if we didn't use SMS, is there another way that we could potentially use roadside data, in an SFD calculation, outside of an SMS system, which I think is also a possibility. So I think this is the kind of feedback that we're looking for.

Cicely Waters: We do have a question here, and the question is from John Hardin, who asks, if using unsafe driving violations and other offenses, how will you balance the different level of enforcement from different states, for example, cell phones in Georgia versus the same in other less aggressive states, perhaps?

Dave Yessen: So I would say, you know, that's always a concern, know, and I think that, it's something we always take under advisement. So, you know, we appreciate the comment. You know, as far as what states, you know, one thing that we always are careful of is, you know, some states may have issues with certain types of violations in their jurisdictions, that they feel are important, and need to be enforced, more heavily than maybe another state. So we would never want to get into a, you know, telling the state what to look for or not look for. But it is something that we could definitely, take under advisement when we're looking at a new SFD, process.

Tom Liberatore: I'm reading some of the, comments in the q and a, Cicely, right now. Some of them, like I see one from Kevin Blackwell and one from Kim, start for getting an opinion on question seven.

Dave Yessen: I think there's one from Jackie Polk. And I'll just, I think that we need the three tier system, as it takes a very long time to get re rated. If you went with a pass fail system, there are times that should apply and the unsatisfactory rating is there for that purpose. But they're also time when it's something not as critical where they should be allowed to consider operating, but also working on connect correct. Any issues. And I think that kind of goes back to what we were asking, you know, about the benefits of the three tiered system. you know, one of the issues that we have now with SFD, obviously, is if you are conditional, you are allowed to operate. but there is a, you could submit evidence, of corrective action to get that rating either upgraded back to satisfactory or back to potentially, a non rated capacity. I think one of the aspects of a single tiered rating system, would allow us from a FMCSA perspective to ensure that we are, you know, we have the resources available to address those pass or those, or, I'm sorry, those failed carriers. So that a carrier that actually did fail, they would have sufficient time and we would address it in a sufficient timely manner, to potentially get them off that failed list. So I think that's a, that's a great comment, so thank you for that.

Cicely Waters: And we have a question by Linda Polk. Linda asks what considerations or changes will be made by insurance companies if you adopt the single rating system versus the three tier system? Will it help or hurt insurance pricing if carriers only have one rating system? And I don't know if we can speculate as to what the insurance companies may do, Tom or Dave, but I turn to you for any feedback there.

Tom Liberatore: Yeah. Whether we. No, we can't. No, no, we won't. I'll, say it that way. yeah, that's really, you know, what the insurance companies do or how they utilize, you know, publicly available information is up to them. we're really, interested in, obviously, our primary mission, which is safety and how this impacts our carrier community and our carrier stakeholders. so that's really something we can get into as to how insurance companies may or may not use the information. I think the question, you know, in terms of adopting a single or three tier system, I, know that that's really something we are looking for feedback on. you know, it's, I think, David, on this earlier where we have our, you know, we, we think we know, you know, or we may think we know what direction we want to go in, but, it really is for those individuals that deal with this on a day to day basis. And what worked and what didn't work or isn't working. really from that perspective right now with the three tier system, what's the feedback on? Is it what's working and not working? And if they go into a single system, there's been some comments in the q and a. About some of the potential pros and cons of doing that. that's, really, something that would be useful for us. just while I have the floor, Cicely, I see there's another there's some other comments in there about how to improve conditional or unsatisfactory ratings. I mean, those are m more of the day to day type of stuff that you certainly have information on. And, if anyone has those types of questions, they can certainly reach out to us separately. there's ways to get in contact with us, and we can walk someone through the process. As to how to improve a rating. that's what the 3515 and 3517 process is currently, in existence for now. And really is kind of somewhat separate from what we're looking at today. But we can certainly help answer that question for them if they want to contact us separately.

Cicely Waters: Mike Canistra.

Mike Canistra: Mike Canistra, logistic dynamics up in Buffalo. I think that the problem that many of us run into is if you go to the, you know, the three tiered system, or that we're currently in a three tiered system, we're forgetting about the, you know, the fourth tier, which is the 92% of the carriers that are not rated. And I think, you know, me and my personal experience with a company, I think that's our struggle more than anything, is the amount of not rated carriers that are in there. So, you know, if we went to a, to a two tier or whatever the next progression might be, what happens with those with that 90% that's out there that's really never been rated? I guess that's, you know, a lot of our concern, I think.

Dave Yessen: Yeah. So I think that's a that's a great point. you know, when we look at some of the, issues that get pointed out with our current system, and I mentioned, you know, only ratings that only ratings only get assigned when we're on, when we're doing an investigation, I think part of the, you know, understanding is that not being able to reach everything, and Tom had alluded to this, I think, you know, the number is somewhere north of 800,000 federally regulated carriers. Around 2% get investigated per year. and that's why I think as part of this SFD discussion is this concept of assessing everyone, essentially, that we have data on. with an SFD, would be helpful in an understanding that carriers were being assessed, and if they didn't rise to an unfit standard, then, you know, that would sort of put a dent in the 92%. But that's sort of the question that we're asking, how do we get there? And I think some of the other issues that we talk about is the value of a satisfactory rating from 1988 versus somebody who had a review last month. but it was an unratable review. is there maybe the potential of identifying carriers, that way, you know, if you're unfit, reviewed, not reviewed, is another concept. So I think these are all good questions that we're looking for. Feedback.

Cicely Waters: I see that we also have a hand raised. Jackie Polk.

Jackie Polk: Good afternoon. Thank, you for recognizing me. And I want to speak regarding the driver behavior. I'm not sure I understand between how to distinguish between conviction versus no conviction. I'm assuming that would be a citation or something of that nature. But do want to mention that as I look at the rating system, it is rating a motor carrier. Certainly they hire drivers, and hopefully they are doing the necessary background checks to help them make the best hiring decisions possible. However, sometimes what the driver does, is kind of like our kids. You know, when they're not in front of us, we aren't certain what they're doing, but as soon as we find out that they've done something, we take action. And so I just want to caution that while I think that, yes, unsafe driving violations are more serious in nature, I also think that the motor carrier deserves the opportunity to show what they did as a result of that. and again, someone eluded to the fact that every jurisdiction is going to have different, plans and procedures in place for how they handle roadside inspections. So one motor carrier may have this issue and is caught, while another could have more of it taking place, but their drivers never caught doing it. So some of it is subjective. And I really did like a comment that someone else made about, you know, some of the safety systems that motor carriers are employing, that they should receive, you know, some sort of positive benefit if vehicles are equipped with those safety mechanisms.

Dave Yessen: Part of, in our current SFD process, in one of our factors related to maintenance, we do use a carrier's out of service rate to determine, potentially what their safety rating would be. So I mean, as another alternative as well. There could be the potential that, you know, there could be a calculation based on their, you know, unsafe driving behaviors of their drivers, that could also factor into it. So, I mean, there are, there are avenues, that can be explored. And I understand your comment about, convictions versus, you know, citations. And, you know, a lot of the data we get are observed behaviors, on an inspection report that don't necessarily, you know, revolt, result in a conviction or even a citation. but they are, you know, they are little pieces to the puzzle that we, we do look at, and we always. And we're looking for patterns, specifically.

Cicely Waters: I see we have another hand raised. Zach, please go ahead with your question.

Zach: yes, thank you. I was shared, a few things there in the comments, and I just. From the perspective of truck crash victims, executive director here at the Truck Safety Coalition. We're of the strong opinion that, again, it's what's in the title, right. Safety fitness determinations. The point we view of this system is to provide as objective as possible, right. With the limited data you have available. That's been a lot of the discussion today. You're piecing things together. you know, what can we look at that's most likely going to be true, ah, for future performance based on what past performance you have. and I think it all belongs, every single piece is relevant, and as someone just said, over time, will show a pattern. there's lots of opportunities for carriers, whether small or large, to provide corrective action, corrective training to drivers. If they see a theme, they should be the first one seeing it, by the time someone, happens to be randomly inspected, most of the time they're random. Right. odds are whatever behaviors in our view are being observed at that point are not new. so I think that's something worth noting. a point in time is typically already telling a story that we're just getting in on, into some of the other points or questions raised. Just wanted to affirm that, yes, driver behavior should be weighted. I think that's a no brainer. and we should be rewarding those who, hire and provide good training and provide that corrective action, or drivers of their own accord who make a point to drive as safe as possible and not put people at risk for short term gait. and I think that that's very helpful information for, the public at large, for shippers, for brokers, for insurers. It's all relevant and necessary for folks to make the most informed decisions they can if they're prioritizing safety. And that would help safety at large for everyone else. The idea that those we know, if there is, the listing of those technologies that we know are statistically less likely to have crashes, folks should receive some sort of benefit for that in the rating system. it does not indicate necessarily that they'll operate safely, but we know if they do utilize these technologies, whether it be telematics or automatic emergency braking, other advanced driver assistance systems, even forward collision warning, alone has significant, ah, safety benefit. Folks, should be rewarded for that. And then just lastly on this discussion on the lack of consistency amongst enforcement. That's nothing new. It's been that way forever. And the idea that the safety fitness determination should take into account that there's inconsistent enforcement capability or willingness. So therefore we shouldn't hold people to a high standard. I mean, that's a race to the bottom. I don't see how that should be something that's relevant to be accounted for and how all this is calculated. So that was a lot of comments. I appreciate your time in doing this listening session. Thank you.

Cicely Waters: We'll turn to Jay Grimes, who also has a question and then to the chat box. as I see, we have some new questions there as well. Jay, go ahead with your question.

Jay Grimes: Just commenting on the technology question and whether that should be considered. And as Zach mentioned, we're not going to know if they're operating more safely. And I think that's the important thing that we need to analyze. And that carriers simply shouldn't be automatically rewarded just for the mere installation of safety technologies that, you know, it's a critical question to determine what qualifies, and that's probably another issue. But certainly there's a whole lot of so called safety technologies out there that are available. but unless they're actually improving safety performance, you shouldn't be automatically rewarded for that. from the small business perspective, that can create certainly a scenario where can't afford some of these technologies and then larger carriers who are in, could be rewarded just for the installation. that's going to have a negative effect on the kind of comparative rating to some smaller carriers who could see their rating downgraded even without a change in their actual safety performance. do have to, I think, value driver experience, driver training, actual safety performance over the simple installation of some technologies.

Cicely Waters: John Harden, Martin if you could unmute John for his question or comment.

John: There's a lot of discussion back and forth in the different enforcement, rates of the state. And I had one of those questions. I'm a former officer and I can assure you that if one of my operators or drivers gets a citation, I'm grateful they were stopped. It may have prevented an accident. The issue is not a complaint in the sense that we don't think these are valid or that we're over enforced. We have an excellent law enforcement community here in the state of Georgia, but you may have a carrier in Georgia that has an unsafe driving score that's significantly higher than, say, someone in Colorado, but a crash score that is one or two or even zero. And that's happened to us. My only concern, and it's nothing, the race to the bottom. I get that perception, but that's not the concern. The concern is if you're going to rate us fit or unfit and include SMS data. We would like that to be even throughout, like carriers. And I know SMS is supposed to do that and I'm not an expert in it, and maybe I'm completely wrong in this thought, but if we're doing everything we can and we run in a more aggressive state, but we're not crashing and we bought all the technology and we're doing this, yet we're compared to somebody that doesn't get near the scrutiny. Are we just perform, are we performing better with the lower crash rating or. I just. The issues with SMS are things that we like to talk about in the safety community. I'm all for SMS, but if it determines our rating, that could be complicated, especially if it goes to just two. You're fit or unfit. I mean, you're talking about shutting people down that are good, strong, positive, safety minded carriers, potentially, I guess. But I'm new to this, so I'll hang up and listen.

Dave Yessen: There has to be a distinction between SMS and SFD m. Of that there is no doubt. because if you understand the concept of SMS, it is for. It's our agency's prioritization tool. And as you mentioned, within sms, there are safety event groupings, that put carriers of like size or like safety events compared, together, you know, so each carrier gets, a measure which is their quote unquote true safety score. and then they're also, then given a percentile, which is, you know, how they are comparing to carriers of like size or like activities. I think trying to do something for SFE perspective, you would want to be very careful about using any kind of comparison, concept like percentiles. I believe back in 2016 when we were looking at certain basics and only use here measure and then drawing a line towards the top of that, you know, zero to 100 scale, to determine which carriers unfit. And it was going to be a hard line. I mean, there could potentially be, a concept where, you know, some carriers would never cross that bar in a particular month, because it wasn't, a percentile ranking for comparison purposes. So I think your point is valid in that, you know, you could just use our current version of SMS into an SFD. but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't components to it, that couldn't be used in an SFD.

Cicely Waters: Daniel Shelton, please go ahead with your question or comment. Yes.

Daniel Shelton: Okay. my comment is, for. And my, my question for FMCSA and also, directed for the gentleman from Georgia, regarding his concerns. it's. It's been my experience, and I don't speak, you know, I know from where I come from, I'm assuming that the mission of FMCSA has not changed and the mission is to reduce crashes. So if that's the case, which I think it is, then we should certainly be looking at crashes as the primary emphasis on the safety fitness rating methodology, whether it be preventable, not preventable. And all those things that go into that, all these other violations that are in the federal motor care safety regulations, assume we go toward preventing crashes. Some do, but most don't. And most, a lot of them are paperwork violations. So there's got to be some way to fret out those that really matter for crash or reducing crashes versus those that don't. And I'll just give you one example. I've never seen a shipping paper where the id number, shipping name, hazard class and packing group in the wrong order ever was crash causation. So, so all these things, I mean, it's certainly a violation, and if the regulation is there, it should be enforced equally. But as the gentleman from Georgia stated, and I agree with him 100%, they're not all enforced the same. So in order to make this work, FMCSA, you got your, your work cut out for you to get all the states on the same level. So good luck with that.

Cicely Waters: Linda, I see that your hand is up.

Linda: Oh, there are certain. I've had experience with certain, weigh station employees who see is their job to just find something wrong, regardless how minor it is or not. Have any leniency for example, I had, like, I was driving, and shortly after getting on the road, a rock hit the windshield, and there was no way I could stop and get that fixed before I got to the weigh station. fortunately, they did not make me, I don't think they made me be out of service for that one. but it was close. And so is there a way for compassion to be called upon when a driver has something minor? But another situation I had recently, and one of our drivers there, taillight, went out. Well, it was between the time they did their pre inspection and they got to the way station. It was working in the pre inspection, they had a extra bulb in the truck, and so they fixed it right there at the way station. And yet they were still dinged for having a, light out. Is there not some way for common sense and mercy to be shown in those kind of situations?

Tom Liberatore: You know, I can certainly appreciate your comment. I mean, you know, that really is individual officer discretion, at the time of the stop. It's the same, when any of us are stopped either for speeding or not slowing down sufficiently for a stop sign. it's a lot of factors that weigh into whether a citation is issued or nothing, from FMCSA perspective, we don't, dictate any type of parameters, from that regard. and there are organizations such as the commercial vehicle safety alliance that really works with, our state partners, to help identify best practices for enforcement, ah, regarding interpretation of our, federal carrier safety regulations. But from an FMCSA perspective, obviously, as we're looking, at it from an SFD perspective and even through SMS, is to see it's the objective data we're getting. If in the officer's discretion, there was a violation and a citation was issued, we take the data from that point and do the analysis and comparison across the group, that we currently do. I mean, that's certainly something that can be shared with our law enforcement community. And like I said, through the commercial vehicle Safety alliance and other entities that represent law enforcement, you can also reach out to your local mixap lead agency in your state, if you feel that, you have concerns about how certain things are being interpreted. and, that information should be available on our website as well, if you wanted to try to do that.

Cicely Waters: Thank you so much for your time today. I'll, now turn to mister Darrell Rubin, associate administrator for safety for FMCSA, for closing comments.

Darrell Rubin: Well, thank you and hello to everybody. I'm going to close this out by saying thank you for a couple things. One, thank you all for taking the time to participate in today's listening event. Whether you shared thoughts or comments verbally or in writing, we're collecting all of those and taking each one very seriously. I want to let you know that by doing all of these sessions, it enables us to gather more information, to be able to make better decisions with and you have from onset FMCSA that we do these to learn and understand and be able to take the information and apply it the best way possible. So again, thank you all for taking the time today. We appreciate your feedback and hope to hear future feedback from you all you as well in these listening sessions. So thank you and have a great rest of your day.

Todd Dills: As noted at the top, another virtual session is taking place July 31 at 02:00 p.m. to 03:30 p.m. eastern time. Find a link to where you can register for that session in the show notes and in the post that houses this Overdrive radio edition for July 1, 2024. Big thanks for listening, wherever you find the podcast. It's on the world famous overdriveonline.com, of course, as noted, and on Spotify and Soundcloud, Apple Podcasts and YouTube, TuneIn, Podcast Addict most any listening platform. Subscribe so you don't miss an episode. And thanks again for the for hanging through to the end.