Trucking Supports FMCSA’s 5-Year Plan, But Wants More Focus on Car Drivers

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s 5-year strategic plan that would extend its regulatory reach to include shippers, brokers and receivers appears to generally have support from the trucking industry, but faces opposition from industries that could face greater scrutiny.

At press time, about 40 trade organizations and individuals had filed written comments in response to the plan, most in support of the idea that supply chain participants other than truckers play a significant role in truck safety and should be regulated.

One of those in support of the idea was American Trucking Associations, which agreed with the agency’s 2011-2016 intention to focus on the entire commercial motor vehicle “transportation life cycle,” a concept the agency said will enhance safety from “warehouse to boardroom.”

However, ATA also said it was concerned that FMCSA does not plan to use more of its resources to address the role of passenger-vehicle drivers in causing truck crashes.

“FMCSA should consider addressing the external factors that have the greatest impact on commercial motor vehicle safety, such as the role others in the supply chain play in requiring and inducing violations,” ATA said in written comments. “The emphasis on compliance and enforcement is disconcerting in that it represents a reluctance to explore more creative approaches to truck safety.”

By minimizing the emphasis on addressing passenger-vehicle driver behavior, “FMCSA will, at best, only impact the minority of truck crashes — perhaps less than 30% — caused by truck drivers,” ATA said.

The National Retail Federation said it supported the agency’s plan to raise the bar for entry into the motor carrier industry and remove high-risk truck drivers, but said it was concerned about a “new focus on entities such as the shipper or receiver who might be outside the traditional jurisdiction of FMCSA.”

“Before the agency decides to look for new regulatory authorities, it needs to take its time to determine the effectiveness of new regulations on the overall goal of improving safety in the industry,” the retailers said in written comments.

Likewise, the Transportation Intermediaries Association called the agency’s plan “vague.”

“TIA believes that safety, safety determination and the interpretation of safety data is the sole responsibility of FMCSA, and not brokers and shippers,” the group wrote.

The National Association of Manufacturers also said it was concerned with the plan.

“Any attempt for FMCSA to seek oversight over domestic business-to-business transactions and activities involving roadway movements would be an inappropriate authority for FMCSA to request,” NAM said. “It would also add unnecessary burdens to small and large businesses alike, without improving safety.”

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said it “fully supports FMCSA imposing greater responsibility on all parties who have an influence on the demands of drivers in truck transportation.”

“If FMCSA wants to significantly improve highway safety and reduce truck crashes, then it must change its enforcement focus from one that is almost entirely directed to punishing drivers to one that proactively and forcefully supports drivers,” OOIDA said.

But perhaps the most stinging criticism of the FMCSA plan came from joint comments from shippers’ group Nasstrac and the Health & Personal Care Logistics Conference.

“In proposing to regulate shippers, receivers and intermediaries, FMCSA may be focusing on the segment of the U.S. economy that is least likely to be able to regulate effectively or efficiently,” the groups wrote.

“Does FMCSA have the staff, or the expertise, to regulate not just the hundreds of thousands of registered motor carriers, but also the millions of shippers, receivers and intermediaries, with all their variations in needs, revenues, facilities, capacities, resources, and levels of awareness of logistics and transportation?” the groups asked.

While the nonprofit group Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety lauded the agency for its “lofty and worthy” goals, it noted that the plan lacked specifics.

“Advocates believes that establishing specific, measurable overall safety goals that are actively pursued would improve the clarity and the focus of the strategic plan,” the group wrote.

In individual comments, several truckers also welcomed the notion that others in the supply chain play a role in highway safety.

“Shippers, receivers, etc, are a very large problem,” commented Susan Ackley, a driver based in Atco, N.J. “I have been held up on many occasions for six to eight hours just to get loaded or unloaded — and then reprimanded because I refused to drive illegally to make the appointment time.”