Washington, D.C. — A coalition of eleven trade associations has formally warned the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) that the foundational evidence for its proposed Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) rule is flawed. The groups submitted comments arguing that six technology-related studies added to the administrative docket are obsolete and irrelevant to the development of a modern safety rating system for motor carriers. This critique strikes at the core of FMCSA regulations aimed at redefining how carrier viability is measured on American highways.

The controversy centers on the FMCSA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), which previously solicited input on rewarding carriers that adopt advanced safety technologies, such as crash avoidance systems, with better safety ratings. The coalition contends that the documents cited in the current rulemaking stage lack direct relevance to either the new SFD or the agency's earlier plans to reboot the Safety Measurement System (SMS). They assert that the data is too dated to serve as a reliable basis for regulatory standards that will affect the entire commercial trucking sector.

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) joined the broader coalition in opposing the use of these specific studies. OOIDA highlighted significant methodological weaknesses, including limited sample sizes, the absence of demographic data, and the age of the reports. The group argued that these flaws limit the findings to the point where they cannot support a shift in SFD methodology. OOIDA maintained that driver training, experience, and actual safety performance must remain the primary metrics, rather than the mere installation of hardware that may not reflect operational safety outcomes.

What This Means for Drivers

For an owner-operator or a CDL-A driver managing a small fleet, the potential inclusion of technology adoption in safety ratings creates a significant economic risk. The coalition warned that the cost of implementing the data systems required to prove safety fitness is an unsolved problem for the vast majority of regulated carriers. Since over 95 percent of these carriers operate fewer than five trucks, the expense of proving technological compliance could be prohibitive. If the FMCSA proceeds with a system that favors those who can afford expensive crash avoidance systems, smaller entities may see their safety ratings downgraded despite maintaining strong operational records. This dynamic could force many independent operators to exit the market or incur debt they cannot sustain, fundamentally altering the landscape for truck driver jobs and OTR truck driver employment opportunities.

Industry Reaction

Reaction within the industry is sharply divided, with safety advocacy groups pushing back against the trade associations' concerns. The Institute for Safer Trucking, Road Safe America, and the Safe Operating Speed Alliance praised the FMCSA for considering safety technology in the SFD process. These groups argue that when a carrier invests in active preventative measures like intelligent speed assistance and automatic emergency braking, it demonstrates a genuine commitment to preventing harm. They believe that recognizing these investments through safety ratings will accelerate the widespread adoption of proven technologies that are not yet federally required. The Trucking Alliance, representing major trucking companies, also fully supports the integration of crash-avoidance technology into safety scores, stating that peer-reviewed research should guide the development of a system that better addresses safety management needs.

Key Points

• Eleven trade associations and OOIDA submitted comments arguing that six studies in the FMCSA docket are outdated and methodologically flawed.
• The coalition warns that requiring advanced safety technology for good SFD ratings will disproportionately harm small carriers with fewer than five trucks.
• Safety groups like the Institute for Safer Trucking support the FMCSA's approach, arguing it will incentivize the adoption of crash avoidance systems.
• The debate highlights a growing tension between performance-based safety metrics and technology-based compliance in FMCSA regulations.

Looking for a better trucking job?

Photo by Mathias Reding on Pexels