FMCSA Extends Deadline to Comment After Criticism of Revised Safety Rules

Faced with increasing criticism from the trucking industry, federal regulators are giving motor carriers more time to comment on how changes in new safety rules could affect their safety-measurement system scores, a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration spokeswoman said last week.

The agency extended to July 30 the public comment period for the Compliance, Safety, Accountability program “enhancements” announced in late March; the comment period originally was set to close on May 29.

“The agency extended the comment period to provide carriers with additional opportunities to preview their data,” an FMCSA spokeswoman said.

In an April 24 interview with Transport Topics, FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro said that only about 3,000 of the 500,000 active carriers had ever checked their scores online (5-7, p. 1).

However, Rob Abbott, vice president of safety policy for American Trucking Associations, said that, in addition to wanting to gather more feedback, FMCSA may have issued the extension to accommodate meetings the agency had scheduled after the original comment closing date with some carriers to discuss their concerns.

Several ATA carrier members met with Ferro on June 6 to discuss concerns with the new hazardous materials rating category.

In addition, ATA has requested that FMCSA put additional data and analysis in the public record that could be used in developing ATA’s public comments. The agency may have needed more time to gather the information and put it in the docket, Abbott said.

In a June 5 posting on its CSA website, FMCSA encouraged carriers to preview their safety scores as they would be with the proposed changes.

“FMCSA will review comments and make any necessary changes prior to implementation,” the announcement said.

FMCSA said the proposed CSA changes include strengthening the Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category, or BASIC, for Vehicle Maintenance by incorporating cargo/load securement violations from the current Cargo-Related BASIC. The enhancements also call for changing the Cargo-Related BASIC to the Hazardous Materials BASIC to better identify hazmat-related safety and compliance problems.

The proposed changes also will alter the current terminology, “inconclusive” and “insufficient data,” to fact-based descriptions and will separate crashes with injuries from crashes with fatalities on a carrier’s profile.

Although FMCSA has said it made many of the changes to respond to industry complaints, some of them are actually creating new concerns, most of them related to the newly created Hazardous Materials BASIC.

In about 40 comments filed as of late last week, some large and small carriers with otherwise good safety records complained that the creation of the new hazardous materials scoring category would cause their scores to jump — in some cases, above the allowable threshold that can generate agency intervention — without giving an accurate portrayal of a carrier’s crash risk.

One of those commenters, Knight Transportation, Phoenix, said FMCSA’s attempt to eliminate a bias against flatbed carriers has had the unintended effect of creating a bias against carriers that do not specialize in or frequently handle hazmat.

“This is a concern for many safe and reputable motor carriers,” Knight said in written comments filed on May 5.

Knight said that it has received nearly 10,000 inspections in the past two years, but only 81 of them have been “hazmat relevant.”

“Because less than 1% of our in­spections involve hazmat, we are very appropriately not considered a hazmat carrier in the other BASICs,” Knight said. “Yet, we have a 98% score in the proposed Hazmat BASIC despite having only one violation to date in 2012.”

Likewise, ABF Freight System Inc., Fort Smith, Ark., said that because the proposed changes would create a bias against non-hazmat carriers, they should be withheld from public view.

“The hazmat BASIC score, as proposed, is not a reliable indicator of safety performance and crash risk, and will lead the public to believe this score to be a reflection of safety,” ABF said in written comments. “This erroneous perception by shippers, insurers, the news media and the motoring public is damaging.”

J.B. Hunt Transport, Lowell, Ark., voiced similar concerns. It said it hauled 3.2 million loads in 2011, of which only 35,091 were placarded hazmat shipments.

“FMCSA should question the value of a hazardous material BASIC score and whether or not such a score really identifies carriers that pose a greater risk of being involved in crashes or whether they are identifying incidental violations,” Hunt said.

Hunt also questioned the wisdom of including cargo securement violations in a vehicle maintenance category.

“A missing tie-down has nothing to do with the mechanical soundness of the vehicle,” Hunt wrote. “Vehicle defects are items such as lights, tires and suspension. How does improperly secured freight apply to mechanical defects?”

Hunter Transportation Co. Inc., a small North Pleasant, S.C., carrier, summed up many of the expressed concerns made by large and small truckers alike.

“The proposed new Hazmat BASIC appears to be at odds with the FMCSA goal of reducing accidents, fatalities and injuries,” Hunter wrote. “The Hazmat BASIC does nothing to promote any of the above-listed goals of CSA.”