2024-27087. Enhanced Carrier Safety Measurement System (SMS)

Table 1—Straight and Combination Carrier Criteria

Carrier type	Criteria
Straight Carrier	More than 30 percent of the total Power Units (PUs) in their fleet are Straight trucks/other vehicles.
Combination Carrier	70 percent or more of the total PUs in their fleet are Combination trucks/motorcoach buses.

2. Consolidated Violations

Nine commenters (ABA, ATA, IFDA, MTA, NSTA, NTTC, OOIDA, Veolia, and an anonymous commenter) expressed support for reorganizing the existing 959 roadside violations into 116 violation groups. ABA, IFDA, and MTA agreed with FMCSA that the change will make the system easier for carriers and other stakeholders to understand and help improve consistency in enforcement of violations with similar underlying safety issues. NSTA stated that the change will “reduce confusion for operators.” NTTC added that this is “a positive change which will permit companies to [more easily] facilitate training topics . . . for their personnel.” The anonymous commenter wrote that the reorganization allows “more clear insight into areas of concern” for carriers, but pointed out that there are still areas of overlap between violation groups, citing the “HOS Requirements” and “HOS Requirements—Nominal” violation groups in the Hours of Service Compliance Category and the “Brakes—OOS” and “Brakes” violation groups in the Vehicle Maintenance Compliance Category.

Three commenters (Advocates, CVSA, and FedEx) shared concerns about the new reorganization. Advocates believes the change “could diminish the importance of some violations and ignore flagrant violators of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.” CVSA is concerned that the combination of this change and the simplified severity weights “may not accurately reflect a motor carrier's safety performance.” FedEx asked whether this change would lead to less visibility and requested that FMCSA retain the granular level of violation data provided today on the SMS website.

FMCSA Response

FMCSA agrees with the anonymous commenter's assessment that there are still areas of overlap between the “HOS Requirements” and “HOS Requirements—Nominal” and the “Brakes” and “Brakes—OOS” violation groups. In response, FMCSA has consolidated these overlapping violation groups to further prevent inconsistencies in how violations are cited for the same underlying safety issue. See the Reorganization of Violations section of this notice for details.

In response to Advocates' concern, FMCSA's analysis indicated that grouping violations will not reduce their importance for prioritization purposes. The Agency's analysis shows that, in terms of prioritization, determining whether a safety issue is identified is more important than determining how many ways it was documented. Grouping carrier violations before analyzing the data ensures that carriers are treated fairly by holding similar carriers with similar safety issues to the same standard—regardless of how those issues were documented.

Regarding CVSA's concern, FMCSA analyzed the overall effectiveness of the proposed changes compared to the current SMS. FMCSA found that these changes would increase the number of carriers prioritized for intervention by 3 percent—and that this group of ( print page 91877) prioritized carriers would have a crash rate 10 percent higher than those currently prioritized by SMS. Therefore, CVSA's belief that the proposed changes, taken together, may not accurately reflect a carrier's safety performance was not substantiated.

FMCSA is committed to ensuring that its SMS methodology for prioritizing motor carriers for interventions accurately reflects carriers' safety performance. The Agency will continue to evaluate the SMS methodology's effectiveness and propose improvements when needed. For more details on overall effectiveness of the proposed changes, see the Prioritization Preview Foundational Document.^[5]

In response to FedEx's question, the new violation groupings will not change the level of violation information available; details on individual violations will continue to be displayed in the Inspection History tab on the SMS website.

3. Simplified Violation Severity Weights

Four commenters (CVSA, FedEx, Veolia, and Adrienne Anderson) agreed with FMCSA's proposal to move from a 1 to 10 scale for violation severity weights to simplified 1 or 2. FedEx stated that this change “will be easier to administer . . . [and] the weights could help stabilize scores . . . by reducing the impact of outlier violations.” Adrienne Anderson commented that the “weights make more sense and [make it] more attainable to get below thresholds.”

Three commenters (Adam Loutsch, MTA, and Roehl Transport, Inc.) agreed with the change while proposing modifications to the weighting of specific violation types. Loutsch suggested that some “serious” moving violations receive higher weights than “regular” moving violations. MTA recommended that FMCSA should add a level to the weighting approach to “address minor `administrative' violations such as form and manner violations.” Roehl Transport, Inc. echoed MTA and suggested “administrative” violations that do not contribute to crashes should receive a weight of 0.

Six commenters (ABA, ATA, Drivewyze, ICSA, IFDA, NSTA, NTTC, and Dmitri Kachan) agreed with FMCSA's proposal to move away from the 1 to 10 scale, but expressed concerns with moving to a 1 or 2 scale. ABA commented that this change could reduce the system's effectiveness by masking the individual violation's correlation to safety risk. NTTC expressed a similar concern that the new weighting “may not accurately reflect the increased likelihood of a vehicle being involved in an accident.” ATA, Drivewyze, ICSA, IFDA, NSTA, and Dmitri Kachan all expressed the same concern that a simplified scale will make it difficult to distinguish between less severe and more severe violations.

Riky Von Honaker disagreed with the proposal, suggesting that the new weighting system will show which carriers get the most violations, rather than which carriers should be prioritized.

FMCSA Response

FMCSA's analysis shows that assigning a customized weight to all violations was not as important as noting that the violation occurred. The number of violations a carrier has is a strong indicator of its safety compliance, or lack thereof. Carriers with poor safety management practices have patterns of violations across the compliance categories—regardless of each violation's level of egregiousness. Conversely, carriers with strong safety management practices have fewer violations per inspection. In addition, moving toward a simplified scale for severity weights does not inhibit SMS from identifying carriers with high crash rates. Of the three approaches to simplified severity weights evaluated by FMCSA, this 1 or 2 scale approach identifies the highest crash rate for carriers prioritized in any category at 6.95 crashes per 100 PUs. In addition, this crash rate is 39 percent higher than the national crash rate over the same analysis period of 5.00 crashes per 100 PUs. For more information on the analysis for the simplified severity weights, view the Prioritization Preview Foundational Document.^[6]

4. Proportionate Percentiles

Seven commenters (ATA, MTA, NSTA, NTTC, OOIDA, Veolia, and Zoom Transportation Inc.) voiced support for moving from the safety event groups used in SMS to proportionate percentiles to eliminate large percentile changes that occur for non-safety-related reasons. OOIDA stated that “. . . this proposal is sound and should help protect small-business truckers from witnessing radical jumps in their [percentile] without reason,” and Zoom Transportation Inc. agreed, noting that proportionate percentiles are “excellent in terms of classification and reducing percentile jumps.” NSTA also pointed out that proportionate percentiles would “result in a more accurate identification of `at-risk operators.' ”

Two commenters (ABA and Greyhound) expressed concerns about motorcoach comparisons with other carrier types and requested that the prioritization methodology only compare motorcoaches to other motorcoaches.

Two commenters (FedEx and SambaSafety) requested additional information on how proportionate percentiles would work in the new prioritization methodology.

FMCSA Response

FMCSA recognizes ABA and Greyhound's suggested approach to only compare motorcoaches to other motorcoaches. However, of the 764,117 interstate carriers subject to FMCSA assessment, only 0.03 percent (1,963) are considered motorcoaches ^[7] —this subset is not large enough to provide stable carrier-to-carrier comparisons or accurately indicate how a motorcoach's performance is trending from month to month.

Regarding FedEx and SambaSafety's request for more information on proportionate percentiles, step-by-step instructions for calculating proportionate percentiles are available in Table 9 of the Prioritization Preview Foundational Document.^[8] In addition, FMCSA is working on a set of communications materials that will be available when the final methodology is implemented.

5. Improved Intervention Thresholds

Six commenters (ABA, ATA, MTA, NTTC, Schneider, and Veolia) submitted comments supporting the changes to the Intervention Thresholds for Vehicle Maintenance, Vehicle Maintenance: Driver Observed, Driver Fitness, and Hazardous Materials Compliance Categories. ATA stated that “these changes are justified as they place a greater focus on prioritizing intervention for safety categories that have the greatest correlation to crash risk.” FedEx also commended FMCSA on its “risk-management driven ( print page 91878) approach” to the Intervention Thresholds in the Driver Fitness and Hazardous Materials Compliance Categories.

Two commenters (OOIDA and an anonymous commenter) offered critiques of the Intervention Threshold changes. OOIDA questioned whether the Agency should use the Driver Fitness or Hazardous Materials Compliance Categories to assess safety risk if a carrier has to be worse than 90 percent of their peers in order for the Agency to prioritize them. The anonymous commenter suggested without further explanation that the Intervention Thresholds for all the categories should be adjusted to 80 percent.

FMCSA Response

FMCSA acknowledges OOIDA's concern about the high thresholds for the Driver Fitness and Hazardous Materials Compliance Categories. FMCSA's analysis shows that every category has a different relationship to crash rate, with some having a higher correlation than others. Adjusting the thresholds ensures that the Agency focuses its enforcement program on carriers with the highest crash risk. In addition, the Driver Fitness and Hazardous Materials Compliance Categories can help carriers identify and improve patterns of noncompliance that contribute to their companies' overall safety, regardless of whether the carriers are over the threshold in these categories.

6. Greater Focus on Recent Violations

Ten commenters (ABA, ATA, CVSA, ICSA, Kathleen Ravin, MTA, NSTA, NTTC, OOIDA, and Veolia) expressed support for calculating percentiles only for carriers with cited violations in the past 12 months. This change applies to the Hours of Service, Vehicle Maintenance, Vehicle Maintenance: Driver Observed, Hazardous Materials, and Driver Fitness Compliance Categories. ABA “strongly endorses” this change, noting that it will benefit the Agency by “better targeting resources towards carriers that pose a greater safety risk” and will “incentivize carriers to more aggressively manage compliance problem areas.” NSTA concurs with ABA that this change could help the Agency focus on “more prevalent at-risk operators.” ICSA and Ravin also echoed the importance of incentivizing continuous improvement and behavior change. ICSA noted that “it's especially important to smaller fleets that otherwise could be unfairly penalized by past mistakes.” CVSA voiced agreement, noting that this change will “provide a more accurate assessment of the motor carrier's current safety performance.” ATA also expressed support and suggested that this change should be applied to all categories.

Schneider noted that this standard for calculating a percentile provides a “logical threshold for the industry's many small carriers” but suggested that this standard be applied differently for larger fleets by considering (1) whether a small number of violations in past 12 months is at an “acceptable” threshold and (2) the percentage of a larger carrier's “clean” inspections (inspections without violations).

Two commenters (TSC and Advocates) expressed concern with the proposal, stating that the new data sufficiency standard does not consider carriers that either have not received an annual inspection or have never been reviewed by the Agency at all.

FMCSA Response

FMCSA acknowledges Schneider's suggestion to account for the percentage of “clean” inspections or an “acceptable” number of violations per inspection for larger carriers when calculating percentiles. However, the purpose of this change is to account for smaller carriers that have not received inspections with violations in the past 12 months, thereby focusing the Agency's enforcement efforts on those with more recent safety issues. In addition, under the current SMS, there is no need for a percentile exemption or adjustment for carriers that receive more frequent inspections. When frequently inspected carriers have a relatively low number of violations per inspection, they will have a low percentile reflecting better than average compliance, and thus not be subject to prioritization.

FMCSA recognizes TSC and Advocates' concern that this updated standard does not account for carriers that have not received an annual inspection or have never been reviewed by the Agency. However, FMCSA has other enforcement tools to help to minimize the number of carriers that are not reviewed by the Agency or its State Partners. For example, the New Entrant program includes a safety audit on all new carriers entering in interstate commerce operations while the Inspection Selection System encourages law enforcement to inspect drivers and vehicles managed by carriers with little to no recent inspection history.

7. Updated Utilization Factor

Three commenters (MTA, Veolia, and Yellow Corporation) support the extension of the Utilization Factor from carriers that drive up to 200,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per average PU to carriers that drive up to 250,000 VMT per average PU. MTA indicated that a “safely operating carrier must receive credit” for its traveled miles and not be “limited by an artificial mileage ceiling.” Yellow Corporation voiced support for the change and recommended that the Agency consider incorporating driver information from Question 27 in the Motor Carrier Identification Report (MCS-150) in the Utilization Factor to better account for carriers with “significant city operations.”

Two commenters (Advocates and ATA) expressed concern with the extension of the Utilization Factor to 250,000 VMT per average PU. Advocates pointed out that the “benefits from reporting higher VMT could incentivize carriers to overestimate their usage.” ATA believes the Utilization Factor should remain capped at 200,000 VMT per average PU. ATA stated that its own data analysis indicates that the average miles per truck per year have decreased significantly since 2009, citing that in 2022 “for-hire truckload carriers had an average miles per truck of 95,829, which was 10.5 percent below that of 2009 (107,112 miles).”

FMCSA Response

FMCSA acknowledges that its self-reported carrier data may show lower average miles per truck in 2022, similar to ATA's analysis. However, higher-utilization carriers that drive between 200,000 and 250,00 VMT per average PU still exist, and the updated Utilization Factor is designed to account for them. In addition, FMCSA revisited its analysis of carrier-reported VMT from 2016, using more current data from the December 2020 Motor Carrier Management Information System snapshot, and confirmed that the conclusions from 2016 are still accurate. Results from this analysis are available in the Prioritization Preview Foundational Document.^[9]

In response to Yellow Corporation's suggestion, the current Utilization Factor uses a carrier's VMT per average number of PUs, or vehicles, to account for different levels of on-road exposure to inspections and crashes. Question 27 in the MCS-150 form ^[10] asks carriers to report the number of interstate and intrastate drivers who operate CMVs for ( print page 91879) their company on an average workday, as well as the total number of drivers regardless of employment status and total of number of drivers that hold a valid commercial driver's license. FMCSA believes that incorporating carrier-reported driver information from the MCS-150 would increase the Utilization Factor's complexity and lead to less accurate results.

III. Other Changes Considered and Not Proposed

1. Item Response Theory Modeling

The vast majority of commenters did not address FMCSA's analysis and decision not to move forward with an Item Response Theory (IRT) model for prioritization due to the model's complexity and inability to accurately identify motor carriers for safety interventions. Of the seven commenters that addressed it, five commenters (ABA, Advocates, ATA, CVSA, and ICSA) voiced support for FMCSA's decision. ABA stated, “We endorse every effort to address issues of complexity, and ensure that the tool is understandable, accessible, and user-friendly to the greatest extent possible.” ATA added, “[We believe] that the ability to easily explain CSA SMS methodology to drivers and motor carriers alike is important.” ICSA echoed the views held by ABA and ATA.

OOIDA acknowledged the difficulties with applying an IRT model to the motor carrier industry while expressing concern that the decision not to move forward with IRT could indicate that the Agency has not properly considered the other recommendations from the National Academies of Science (NAS).

TSC disagreed with FMCSA's decision, stating that IRT could run parallel to SMS and be used as a tool to provide enhanced carrier oversight.

FMCSA Response

FMCSA explained its decision not to adopt an IRT methodology and provided an overview of the limitations and challenges with using an IRT model for prioritization purposes in the February 2023 notice.

This notice focuses on addressing comments on the proposed changes to SMS, which were developed as a result of exploring the feasibility of the first NAS recommendation to develop an IRT model for prioritization.

2. Geographic Variation

Three commenters (ATA, IFDA, and OOIDA) expressed disappointment that FMCSA did not address geographic variation—that is, differences in CMV inspection and violation rates by State—commenting that this may lead to unfair SMS results for carriers that operate primarily in States with higher-than-average enforcement rates. ATA noted that while a State-focused approach may work for speeding violations, it may not for vehicle maintenance violations that need to be applied consistently in any operating condition, and that “. . . CSA SMS scores are often a reflection of where a motor carrier operates, not how safely it does so.” OOIDA commented, “If the agency is going to create a universal safety rating for carriers that prioritizes different kinds of enforcement, by frequency or even in enforcement oversight, then they must account for those varying philosophies in how States enforce the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.”

FMCSA Response

FMCSA explored the feasibility of incorporating a model to address geographic variation during the design stage of the Agency's IRT model and revisited this analysis while developing the proposed methodology. Based on the results of these models, FMCSA concluded that it would not improve the Agency's ability to identify high-risk carriers. Further, it would undermine the goals of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, the Agency's grant program that provides financial assistance to States to reduce the number and severity of crashes, and resulting injuries and fatalities, involving CMVs and to promote the safe transportation of passengers and HM. For more on the varying challenges States face related to crash reduction and why it is important for FMCSA to encourage States to tailor their crash reduction strategies to local conditions and challenges, see the February 2023 notice.

IV. Additional Changes to SMS

In addition to the changes to SMS outlined above, FMCSA made additional changes based on analysis conducted and issues identified during the preview and comment period.

1. Reorganization of Violations

The following changes were put into effect in the preview, and in the current SMS methodology where applicable, to align with the needs of FMCSA's enforcement program.

FMCSA moved violation 390.3E from Unsafe Driving to Driver Fitness and added 392.15 to Driver Fitness to reflect the root of the underlying safety issue more accurately. Violations 390.3E and 392.15 both relate to operating a CMV while prohibited from performing safety-sensitive functions per § 382.501(a) in FMCSA's Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse. Since these violations address whether a driver meets drug and alcohol requirements to perform safety-sensitive functions, they are more closely aligned with the Driver Fitness Compliance Category, which covers driver requirements for the safe operation of CMVs, including training, experience, licensing, and medical qualifications. Additional information on 390.3E and 392.15, including violation code descriptions, and the new violation group in the Driver Fitness Compliance Category, is provided in the table below.

Table 2—Unsafe Driving Violation Moving to the Driver Fitness Compliance Category

Violation group	Federal violation code	Violation code description
Operating While Prohibited (New)	390.3E	Prohibited from performing safety-sensitive functions per 382.501(a) in the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse.
Operating While Prohibited (New)	390.15	Driver prohibited from performing safety sensitive functions per § 382.501(a) in the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse.

To further prevent inconsistencies that occur when multiple violations are cited for a similar underlying issue, FMCSA made additional changes to the violation groups in Hours of Service and Vehicle Maintenance Compliance Categories.

FMCSA moved HOS violations in the “HOS Requirements—Nominal” violation group to the “HOS Requirements” group. A list of the “nominal” violations that were consolidated is provided in the table below. ( print page 91880)

Table 3—“HOS Requirements—Nominal” Violations Moving to the “HOS Requirements” Violation Group

Federal violation code	Violation code description
395.3A2-PROPN	Driving beyond 14-hour duty period (Property carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation.
395.3A3-PROPN	Driving beyond 11 hour driving limit in a 14-hour period. (Property carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation.
395.3B1-PROPN	Driving after 60 hours on duty in a 7-day period. (Property carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation.
395.3B2-NOM	Driving after 70 hours on duty in an 8-day period. (Property carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation.
395.5A1-PASSN	Driving after 10 hour driving limit (Passenger carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation.
395.5A2-PASSN	Driving after 15 hour driving limit (Passenger carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation.
395.5B1-PASSN	Driving after 60 hours on duty in a 7-day period. (Passenger carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation.
395.5B2-PASSN	Driving after 70 hours on duty in an 8-day period. (Passenger carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation.

In addition, FMCSA consolidated the single Vehicle Maintenance violation in the “Brakes—OOS” violation group under the “Brakes” group. The “OOS” violation is listed in the table below.

Table 4—“Brakes—OOS” Violation Moving to the “Brakes” Violation Group

Federal violation code	Violation code description
396.3A1BOS	BRAKES OUT OF SERVICE: The number of defective brakes is equal to or greater than 20 percent of the service brakes on the vehicle or combination.

In February 2024, FMCSA also moved 13 Vehicle Maintenance violations from the Lighting violation group to Clearance Identification Lamps/Other violation group in the current and preview SMS methodologies. This change will be carried over to the new methodology, where the violations will be part of the Clearance Lamp violation group in the new Vehicle Maintenance: Driver Observed Compliance Category. This update aligned the current SMS and the enhanced methodology with the latest changes to violations recorded as part of the roadside inspection program. A list of the Lighting violations that were moved to the Clearance Lamp violation group is provided in the table below.

Table 5—Lighting Violations Moving to “Clearance Lamp” Violation Group

Federal violation code	Violation code description
393.9A-LIL	Lighting—Identification lamp(s) inoperative.
393.9A-LLPL	Lighting—License plate lamp inoperative.
393.9A-LSML	Lighting—Side marker lamp(s) inoperative.
393.9B-LIL	Lighting—Identification lamp(s) obscured.
393.9B-LLPL	Lighting—License plate lamp obscured.
393.11A1-LIL	Lighting—Identification lamp(s) missing.
393.11A1-LLPL	Lighting—License plate lamp missing.
393.11A1-LPL	Lighting—Parking lamp(s) missing.
393.11A1-LSML	Lighting—Side marker lamp(s) missing.
393.17A1-LDCL	Lighting—Driveaway, clearance lamp(s) missing on front of towing vehicle.
393.17A2-LDSML	Lighting—Driveaway, side marker lamp(s) missing on front of towing vehicle.
393.17B1-LDSML	Lighting—Driveaway, side marker lamp(s) missing on rearmost towed vehicle.
393.17D-LDSML	Lighting—Driveaway, side marker lamp(s) missing on intermediate towed vehicle.