FMCSA moving forward with crash risk study

Mark Schremmer

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is moving forward with a study looking at how a truck driver’s work schedule relates to crash risk.

In a notice that was published in the Federal Register on Monday, April 20, FMCSA said the study, “Crash Risks by Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Schedules,” will answer important questions about how work schedules relate to driver performance and fatigue.

“The information collection will be used to examine the relative risk of crashes and inspection violations based on various factors related to the driver’s work schedule and demographics,” FMCSA wrote.

Information from duty logs, as well as incident and crash data, will be collected electronically, and driver data will be sent to a third-party telematics company by motor carriers participating in the study. That data will be married up with data collected by FMCSA in the Motor Carrier Management Information System database – such as recordable crashes and inspection violation records.

The agency first announced the study in November 2025 and accepted public comments for 60 days.

FMCSA received 19 comments focused on topics such as fatigue risks, inflexible hours-of-service regulations, the lack of safe and legal truck parking, the lack of driver autonomy and concerns about the study’s design and recruitment.

In its comments filed in January, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association told the agency that hours-of service logs don’t indicate whether or not a truck driver is tired.

“As proposed, we do not believe the Information Collection Request (ICR) will achieve FMCSA’s objectives of answering questions related to driver schedules and how these factors impact overall driver performance and fatigue,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer wrote. “Hours-of-service logs do not reveal anything about fatigue, simply how many hours a driver was on duty. Additionally, crash rates tend to increase during certain times of day, which may have absolutely no connection with how long a trucker has been on duty. In order for a more accurate analysis, the ICR should incorporate control groups for comparison, which are notably absent from the proposal.”

FMCSA responded that the study is observational and that the study design controls for time-of-day effects by including duty and driving time-of-day as covariates in the modeling framework.

“This separates time-of-day effects from the effects of schedule factors (e.g., long duty) and prevents confounding between these factors,” FMCSA wrote. “While the commenter noted HOS logs do not directly measure fatigue and do not capture all the factors influencing driver fatigue, HOS logs do provide information on sleep opportunity, time awake, and time-on-task, all of which are directly related to fatigue risk.”

CVSA’s International Roadcheck Scheduled for May 12-14

Washington, D.C. (Feb. 12, 2026) – From May 12 to 14, enforcement personnel throughout North America will inspect commercial motor vehicles and commercial motor vehicle drivers for compliance with vehicle, cargo and driver regulatory requirements as part of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s (CVSA) 72-hour inspection, enforcement and data-collection initiative, International Roadcheck.

During International Roadcheck, inspectors at weigh/inspection stations and pop-up inspection sites primarily conduct the North American Standard Level I Inspection, a 37-step procedure that includes two major parts – an examination of the driver’s operating requirements and an assessment of the vehicle’s mechanical fitness.

For the driver portion of the inspection, inspectors check the driver’s qualifications, license, record of duty status, medical examiner’s certificate, seat belt usage, skill performance evaluation certificate (if applicable), and status in the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (in the U.S.). Inspectors also look for signs of alcohol and/or drug impairment. If an inspector identifies driver out-of-service violations, they will place the driver out of service, restricting that driver from operating their vehicle.

For the vehicle portion of the inspection, inspectors assess the vehicle’s brake systems, cargo securement, coupling devices, driveline/driveshaft components, driver’s seat, fuel and exhaust systems, frames, lighting devices, steering mechanisms, suspensions, tires, wheels, rims, hubs, and windshield wipers. Inspections of motorcoaches/buses and other passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles also include examination of emergency exits, seating, and electrical cables and systems in the engine and battery compartments. If out-of-service violations are found during an inspection, the vehicle will be placed out of service and restricted from movement until all out-of-service violations have been properly addressed.

A vehicle that successfully passes a Level I or V Inspection without any critical vehicle inspection item violations may receive a CVSA decal, which is valid for up to three months. A valid decal signals to commercial motor vehicle enforcement personnel that the vehicle was recently inspected and did not have out-of-service violations.

Each year, International Roadcheck places special emphasis on a driver violation category and a vehicle violation category to highlight those aspects of an inspection.

The driver focus for this year’s International Roadcheck is on electronic logging device (ELD) tampering, falsification or manipulation. During an inspection, the inspector will review the driver’s record of duty status as usual and check for false or manipulated entries, with a focus on ELD tampering.

Inaccurate ELD entries may result from a driver’s lack of understanding of the federal regulations and exemptions. However, in some cases, inaccurate entries are purposefully used to conceal hours-of-service violations, and some records are manipulated to conceal driving time (with no indication the record was edited as required by federal regulations).

Last year, falsification of record of duty status was the second most-cited driver violation, at 58,382 violations. And five out of the top 10 driver violations were related to hours of service or ELDs.

This year’s International Roadcheck vehicle focus is cargo securement. Improper or inadequate cargo securement poses a serious risk to the driver and other motorists by adversely affecting the vehicle’s maneuverability and/or causing unsecured loads to fall or become dislodged, resulting in roadway hazards and/or crashes.

In 2025, 18,108 violations were issued because cargo was not secured to prevent leaking/spilling/blowing/falling and 16,054 violations were issued for vehicle components or dunnage not being secured.

During the 72 hours of International Roadcheck, data will be collected, and the results will be released later this year.

Truck drivers support changing back to 30-day emergency window

Mark Schremmer

When there’s an emergency, it’s truck drivers who often come to the rescue, delivering critical supplies and assistance to areas of need.

That’s why the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association supports the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s proposal to widen its emergency relief window back to 30 days.

In 2023, FMCSA published a final rule reducing the duration of automatic regulatory relief for an emergency from 30 days to 14. This past January, FMCSA proposed reverting to 30 days.

Groups like OOIDA and the National Propane Gas Association are all for it.

“We feel the 30-day period provides sufficient time to deliver emergency assistance without negatively impacting safety, and the initial rulemaking did not adequately justify restricting the emergency relief period,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer wrote in comments filed on Tuesday, March 10.

In fact, OOIDA and NPGA helped fuel the potential expansion of the relief window. Soon after FMCSA announced its rule in 2023, the two groups filed a joint petition for reconsideration.

“FMCSA has failed to provide sufficient evidence and explanation to support its conclusions and its departure from longstanding policy and intent,” NPGA and OOIDA wrote. “In addition, the final rule fails to resolve ambiguities relating to pre-disaster emergency declarations. As a result, compliance with various provisions of FMCSA’s final rule is not practicable, is unreasonable and is not in the public interest.”

A crucial factor is that there is no evidence that a wider relief window has deterred safety.

If you recall, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted FMCSA to issue emergency relief for more than two years. The agency was unaware of any increase in crashes related to the regulatory relief.

“The agency has always maintained that a 30-day emergency relief period does not negatively impact road safety,” OOIDA wrote. “During the previous rulemaking process, we also questioned why the agency was considering changes since they indicated that they lack specific data necessary to warrant altering the scope of (the regulation). As such, we are confident that amending the 2023 final rule will provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than the 14-day relief period. We believe that regulatory relief should ensure that any motor carrier providing direct assistance can continue doing so, given the unpredictable and volatile nature of emergency scenarios. This can best be accomplished by restoring the 30-day emergency relief window.”

The proposal to expand the window was also supported by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the Montana Department of Transportation and several other industry trade groups.

CVSA announces dates for this year’s three-day International Roadcheck

Truckers News

You’ve got 90 days or so to either plan to take time off or get yourself and your truck ready for the annual three-day inspection blitz planned by law enforcement in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

From May 12 to 14, enforcement personnel throughout North America will inspect commercial motor vehicles and commercial motor vehicle drivers for compliance with vehicle, cargo and driver regulatory requirements as part of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s 72-hour inspection, enforcement and data-collection initiative, International Roadcheck.

During International Roadcheck, inspectors at weigh/inspection stations and pop-up inspection sites primarily conduct the North American Standard Level I Inspection. This 37-step procedure includes two major parts – an examination of the driver’s operating requirements and an assessment of the vehicle’s mechanical fitness.

For the driver portion of the inspection, inspectors check the driver’s qualifications, license, record of duty status, medical examiner’s certificate, seat belt usage, skill performance evaluation certificate (if applicable), and status in the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (in the U.S.). Inspectors also look for signs of alcohol and/or drug impairment. If an inspector identifies driver out-of-service violations, they will place the driver out of service, restricting that driver from operating their vehicle.

For the vehicle portion of the inspection, inspectors assess the vehicle’s brake systems, cargo securement, coupling devices, driveline/driveshaft components, driver’s seat, fuel and exhaust systems, frames, lighting devices, steering mechanisms, suspensions, tires, wheels, rims, hubs, and windshield wipers. Inspections of motorcoaches/buses and other passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicles also include examination of emergency exits, seating, and electrical cables and systems in the engine and battery compartments. If out-of-service violations are found during an inspection, the vehicle will be placed out of service and restricted from movement until all out-of-service violations have been properly addressed.

A vehicle that successfully passes a Level I or V Inspection without any critical vehicle inspection item violations may receive a CVSA decal, which is valid for up to three months. A valid decal signals to commercial motor vehicle enforcement personnel that the vehicle was recently inspected and did not have out-of-service violations.

Each year, International Roadcheck places special emphasis on a driver violation category and a vehicle violation category to highlight those aspects of an inspection.

The driver focus for this year’s International Roadcheck is on electronic logging device (ELD) tampering, falsification or manipulation. During an inspection, the inspector will review the driver’s record of duty status as usual and check for false or manipulated entries, with a focus on ELD tampering.

Inaccurate ELD entries may result from a driver’s lack of understanding of the federal regulations and exemptions. However, in some cases, inaccurate entries are purposefully used to conceal hours-of-service violations, and some records are manipulated to conceal driving time (with no indication the record was edited as required by federal regulations).

Last year, falsification of record of duty status was the second most-cited driver violation, at 58,382 violations. And five out of the top 10 driver violations were related to hours of service or ELDs.

This year’s International Roadcheck vehicle focus is cargo securement. Improper or inadequate cargo securement poses a serious risk to the driver and other motorists by adversely affecting the vehicle’s maneuverability and/or causing unsecured loads to fall or become dislodged, resulting in roadway hazards and/or crashes.

In 2025, 18,108 violations were issued because cargo was not secured to prevent leaking/spilling/blowing/falling and 16,054 violations were issued for vehicle components or dunnage not being secured.

Getting Ready for the USDOT Registration System

‘Brokers could do more’: SCOTUS hears oral arguments in cornerstone liability case

Jason Cannon

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a high-stakes legal battle that could determine whether freight brokers can be held liable for selecting unsafe trucking companies.

The case, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, centers on the scope of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA). The outcome could reshape the liability landscape for the multibillion-dollar logistics industry and affect the rights of victims injured in commercial truck accidents. A decision is expected by the end of the term in June.

Life-altering collision

The dispute stems from a Dec. 7, 2017, crash on Interstate 70 in Illinois. Missouri truck driver Shawn Montgomery had pulled his truck onto the shoulder for mechanical repairs when he was struck by a tractor-trailer driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena, a driver for Indiana-based Caribe Transport II. Montgomery suffered permanent disfigurement and the loss of a leg in the collision.

Montgomery filed a state negligence lawsuit against the driver, the carrier, and C.H. Robinson, the freight broker that coordinated the shipment. He alleged that C.H. Robinson was negligent in hiring an unsafe motor carrier.

Legal tug-of-war

C.H. Robinson argues that the FAAAA’s Section 14501(c)(1) preempts such claims because they interfere with a broker’s “price, route, or service.” While a district court initially ruled that the claims fell under a “safety exception” for state regulatory authority over motor vehicles, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, shielding the broker from the lawsuit.

Before the justices, Montgomery’s counsel argued that the FAAAA was intended to stop states from enacting economic regulations, not to dismantle long-standing, safety-based tort laws.

Plaintiff attorney Paul Clement argued that while Congress sought to deregulate the economics of the transportation industry, it specifically preserved state authority over safety and contended that negligent hiring claims fall squarely within a “safety exception” for state regulations with respect to motor vehicles.

“The whole point of the tort is to keep dangerous motor vehicles off of the road,” Clement told the justices . He argued that brokers should not be “scot-free” when they hire carriers they know are poorly maintained or underinsured

C.H. Robinson counsel Theodore Boutrous Jr. noted before the court Wednesday that brokers are merely middlemen who do not own or operate vehicles, adding that the role of the broker is to match “federally approved carriers with shippers,” and there is no duty on the part of the broker to ensure they match a load with a safe carrier.

Boutrous contended that the fault of failing to provide a safe driver lies with the fleet and the driver. “The broker doesn’t know all that,” Boutrous argued, adding that brokers do not have the ability to control or inspect a motor vehicle. “Brokers aren’t safety experts.”

“Brokers don’t know the safety record of the driver. That’s confidential,” added Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General for the Department of Justice.

However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that “brokers could do more” to ensure safer highways. “I guess my question is, given the safety implications, why would Congress have wanted to cut it off at carriers and not include brokers when, I think, although they haven’t traditionally done it, brokers could do more to ensure that carriers are hiring safe drivers who don’t have issues with their history or whether they can read the signs or whatever it might be, and that will reduce the number of fatal trucking accidents, which is a huge problem?”

Plaintiff attorney Paul Clement contended that the state tort system could provide a trucking safety backstop. Clement claimed that 94% of motor vehicles on the road have no federal inspection data, adding that there are numerous platforms available that provide brokers with carrier safety records, enabling them to make better carrier choices.

Industry and government response

Lawyers for C.H. Robinson countered that the plain text of the law expressly preempts state tort claims. They argued the safety exception applies only to regulations with a “direct connection” to the operation of motor vehicles—a category they say excludes brokers, who do not own or operate the trucks themselves.

In a notable turn, the U.S. government filed a brief supporting C.H. Robinson. Federal officials reversed their previous stance on the issue, concluding after a fresh review that a broker’s duty to select carriers does not meet the “direct link” requirement to motor vehicles required by the statute.