NTSB Sharply Criticizes Plan to Reduce Inspection Reports

This story appears in the Oct. 28 print edition of Transport Topics.

A proposed rule eliminating the requirement that interstate truck drivers submit vehicle inspection reports even though the driver has found no vehicle defects or deficiencies could lead to “catastrophic crashes,” the National Transportation Safety Board said in written comments to federal regulators.

“Although the requirement to submit a no-defect [driver vehicle inspection report] is not a guarantee that drivers will conduct thorough vehicle inspections, the requirement creates a system of accountability that encourages drivers to do so,” NTSB said.

“Without requiring some type of documentation, such as the signature on the DVIR, drivers may be less likely to conduct inspections and less likely to detect and document vehicle problems,” it added.

NTSB’s comments were among various opinions made in response to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Aug. 7 Federal Register announcement that it intends to eliminate the so-called “no-defect” DVIR requirement as a way to save more than 47.2 million driver hours and $1.7 billion industrywide without jeopardizing safety.

The DVIR requirement dates to 1939. However, if the proposed rule becomes final, drivers still will be required to perform pre-trip evaluations of equipment condition, but only complete DVIRs “if any defects or deficiencies are discovered or reported during the day’s operations.”

Many groups and individuals commenting on the proposal said they supported the rule, saying it was a good way to reduce paperwork for drivers and motor carriers.

Some of the supporters included American Trucking Associations; Nasstrac; the National Motor Freight Traffic Association; Con-way Freight; the Petroleum Marketers Association of America; the National Automobile Dealers Association; the American Pyrotechnics Association and a few individual truck drivers.

“When no defects are noted, which incidentally is the vast majority of the time, completing this report is a colossal waste of my time and my employer’s money [printing, binding, retention, etc.],” wrote Michigan truck driver Stephen Carter. “Frankly, in an occupation where my efficiency is already negatively impacted by burdensome, time-constraining regulations, I can [more wisely] use the freed-up time elsewhere.”

But other individuals and disparate organizations joined NTSB in expressing concerns that safety could be compromised by the rule.

“I have been a driver and motor-carrier owner for many years and have never viewed the daily DVIR paperwork requirement as a burden,” said James Tower. “Preparing a DVIR on a daily basis requires the driver to specifically file a report and certify whether or not defects were discovered with his vehicle. I believe it is imperative in the interest of highway safety to continue to require commercial drivers to prepare a DVIR whether or not defects have been discovered.”

The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety said eliminating the no-defect DVIRs will result in a lower level of driver attention to vehicle maintenance and safety and a higher percentage of vehicle violations and out-of-service orders.

“The FMCSA cites no study, pilot program or data to indicate that the elimination of no-defect DVIRs will not degrade vehicle maintenance and safety,” the nonprofit public interest group said in written comments this month.

The Advocates said that nearly 30% of motor carriers with a Compliance, Safety, Accountability program Vehicle Maintenance BASICs (Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories) score have such an extremely poor rating that they exceed the 80% threshold score and are on alert status.

“That translates into 20,563 motor carriers that are in violation of the CSA standards of safety for vehicle maintenance,” Advocates said. “Given this poor record of motor carriers for vehicle maintenance, the agency should not delete the no-defect DVIR requirement.”

The American Association for Justice, a trial lawyers trade organization, said most truck drivers use the daily report as a checklist, much like airline pilots, and that eliminating the requirement would “dramatically” increase truck accidents, injuries and fatalities.

“Eliminating DVIRs will be interpreted by many drivers as eliminating the necessity for a pre-trip inspection,” the lawyers group said. “Even drivers who understand that an inspection is still necessary will not have the report and its list of parts and accessories to use as a checklist, which is important to ensure consistency.”

In its comments, ATA said that although it supports the proposal, it believed FMCSA overstated the time and cost savings it will create.

“In most cases, drivers must still complete pre- and post-trip inspections,” ATA said. “Preparing the paperwork for a “no-defects” inspection report is not time-consuming, and ATA doubts that, over the course of a year, it takes 47.2 million hours industrywide.”

Zonar Systems, an electronic fleet-management systems provider, said it supported the proposal but had concerns.

“The critical time component is the inspection itself . . . to ensure that the driver is actually walking around the truck inspecting the critical components,” Zonar wrote.