Tyson Fisher
In 2020, Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., introduced a new bill that would devote funding for the creation of more truck parking. Five years later, he’s not giving up.
On Thursday, Feb. 27, Bost – along with Reps. Angie Craig, D-Minn., Pete Stauber, R-Minn., and Salud Carbajal, D-Calif. – reintroduced the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act. If signed into law, the bill, HR1659, would dedicate $755 million to expanding parking capacity.
“I grew up in a family trucking business,” Bost said. “I know firsthand how difficult, and oftentimes dangerous, it can be when America’s truckers are forced to push that extra mile in search of a safe place to park. By expanding access to parking options for truckers, we are making our roads safer for all commuters and ensuring that goods and supplies are shipped to market in the most efficient way possible. This is a matter of public safety for everyone, and I’m committed to do all I can to drive this legislation over the finish line.”
Right out of the gate, the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act has 26 co-sponsors. That includes a bipartisan, 50/50 split of 13 Democrats and 13 Republicans, ranging from Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., representing urban Kansas City to Rep. Jeff Hurd, R-Colo., who represents mostly rural Western Colorado.
Bost first introduced the bill in March 2020.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association worked closely with Bost to develop meaningful truck parking legislation that would garner support throughout the industry. OOIDA President Todd Spencer thanked Bost and Craig for continuing their efforts to address the nationwide parking crisis.
“Lack of safe truck parking has been a top concern of truckers for decades, and as a former truck driver, I can tell you firsthand that when truckers don’t have a safe place to park, we are put in a no-win situation,” Spencer said. “We must either continue to drive while fatigued or out of legal driving time or park in an undesignated and unsafe location like the side of the road or abandoned lot. It forces truck drivers to make a choice between safety and following federal hours-of-service rules. The current situation isn’t safe for the truck driver, and it’s not safe for others on the road.”
This will be Congress’ fourth chance to address truck parking by dedicating money that is already available to projects that increase capacity. The bill was first introduced in March 2020 in the 116th Congress. Although it died in committee with 14 bipartisan co-sponsors, the bill has gained more traction each year it was reintroduced.
In the 117th Congress, the truck parking bill picked up 39 co-sponsors and cleared the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. However, it never made it to a vote by the full House.
The last version of the bill attracted 53 co-sponsors – 27 Democrats and 26 Republicans – and had a similar fate. It passed the committee with a 60-4 vote but never reached the full House.
The four committee votes against the parking bill were Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.; Scott Perry, R-Pa.; Chuck Edwards, R-N.C.; and Eric Burlison, R-Mo.
The Senate version, spearheaded by Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., appeared in the last two Congresses. Although it picked up only two co-sponsors in 2022, more than a dozen signed on last year.
The Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act has enjoyed broad support from the trucking industry. Last year, more than a dozen trucking industry stakeholders led by OOIDA urged the House to move forward with the bill.
“Accessing safe and secure truck parking is an integral part of daily life for professional drivers, many of whom travel the nation’s interstates for weeks at a time,” the coalition told House leadership. “Members of Congress from every corner of the country and across the political spectrum have supported HR2367 because they understand their constituents are affected by truck drivers’ ability to meet necessary rest requirements and operate as safely as possible.”
Asectt
FMCSA reopens comment period on broker transparency
In a sign that the Trump administration is considering expanded broker transparency in some form, FMCSA has reopened the comment period on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued last November despite a halt on almost all other federal regulatory activity initiated during the Biden administration. As is typical with a change in the party controlling the executive branch, President Trump ordered a broad regulatory freeze immediately after taking office on January 20.
(See article below.)
Comments were due January 21, but FMCSA has reopened the comment period for another 30 days until March 20 at the request of the Small Business in Transportation Coalition. The agency also said that it would consider comments submitted between January 21 and the February 18 comment period reopening.
Reopening the comment alone would not necessarily mean that FMCSA under the Trump administration still adheres to the approach expressed by the Biden administration’s FMCSA in November. However, a separate email message distributed to industry stakeholders on February 18 is further evidence that the change in the White House has not shifted the agency’s thinking. The final paragraph of that email message states:
“Broker transparency is intended to enable efficient outcomes in the transportation industry by providing the material information necessary for the transacting parties to make informed business decisions. Broker transparency also supports the efficient resolution of disputes between parties. Though the current regulations are meant to provide broker transparency, the Agency believes that Regulation and Enforcement Regulatory and Legislative Update – February 2025 2 broker transparency is rare in practice. By reinforcing the regulations, the Agency believes that broker transparency, and its benefits, would become more common.” For the Federal Register notice extending the comment period, visit https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2025-02707 . For the NPRM and comments submitted already, visit https://www.regulations.gov/document/FMCSA-2023-0257-0001.
Truck Leasing Task Force issues final report opposing lease-purchase programs
On the final full business day of the Biden administration, FMCSA’s Truck Leasing Task Force (TLTF) issued its final report, focusing on issues related to lease-purchase programs. A separate report was submitted by the staff of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which had been retained as a consultant to the TLTF.
The TLTF report unequivocally opposes lease-purchase programs. The report states that the task force began with a range of perspectives, including members who believed such programs could provide an important avenue to truck and small business ownership. “Over the last year and half, however, the comments drivers and non-driver industry stakeholders provided in public meetings and submitted to the public docket, as well as data reviewed by TLTF, told a consistent and increasingly troubling story: lease-purchase programs cause widespread harm without offering meaningful scale opportunities for truck and small business ownership.” The report goes on to state that “such arrangements, whereby a motor carrier controls the work, compensation, and debts of the driver, should be prohibited.
For further discussion of the TLTF report, see the “Advocacy and Comment” section below. For the TLTF and CFPB staff reports, visit https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/advisory-committees/tltf/final-report.
DOT appoints several FMCSA officials
Although FMCSA does not yet have an administrator or nominee, the position already has a designated senior advisor. Recently confirmed DOT Secretary Sean Duffy has announced numerous staff appointments within DOT and its modal agencies, including several at FMCSA.
The most senior position announced is Jesse Elison as chief counsel. Elison has worked in various legal capacities over the past 20 years, including stints both at law firms and at trucking operations, including Watkins and Shepard, Quality Distribution, Montgomery Transport LLC, and the Bennett Family of Companies. He most recently was a partner with Taylor and Nelson PL in Atlanta.
Duffy named Adrienne Camire senior advisor to the FMCSA administrator. Camire served as chief counsel for the Federal Highway Administration late in the first Trump presidency. Previously, she was as an adjunct professor at New England Law in Boston and worked in banking for about 15 years.
Matt Schuck has joined FMCSA as director of communications and senior governmental affairs officer. Schuck has held numerous positions over the past 14 years in communications and public relations, including a brief stint as communications director for then-U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy.
FMCSA withdraws two pending rulemakings following regulatory freeze
In keeping with the usual practice following a partisan change in the White House, President Trump on January 20 issued a broad 60-day regulatory freeze that includes not only rules and proposed rules issued by the Biden administration but also “any agency statement of general applicability and future effect that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue.”
For FMCSA, the freeze resulted in the withdrawal of two rulemaking proceedings that had been under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). One was a proposed rule that had been under OMB review for more than a year to make changes in regulations governing commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operations, inspection, repair, and maintenance to ensure safe and secure operations of CMVs equipped with automated driving systems. The proposed rule would have been a step toward a federal regulatory regime for autonomous CMVs.
The other proceeding was an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) submitted for OMB review just four days before the end of the Biden administration. According to DOT’s regulatory agenda published last fall, the ANPRM would have sought information how FMCSA could enhance the physical safety of women truck drivers and trainees and address the negative impacts of workplace sexual harassment. It also would have addressed the safety of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists.
Nomination hearing for Trump’s DOL pick held February 19
Although the Senate has already confirmed most cabinet secretaries, including several that have been widely controversial, the nomination of Lori Chavez-DeRemer is still pending as secretary of the Department of Labor (DOL). The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a February 19 hearing on Chavez DeRemer’s nomination.
Among the general public, Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination is not as high profile as several others, but President-elect Trump’s pick following the election raised concerns in the business community, including in the trucking industry. As a member of Congress in the most recent session, she was one of only three Republicans to co-sponsor the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. Among the many elements of the pro-union PRO Act is a restrictive ABC test for worker classification similar to the one in California’s AB 5 law.
Although President Trump’s nomination of Chavez-DeRemer is at odds with expectations for a Republican nomination for DOL secretary, the action appears to square with other Trump positions recently. For example, he sided with the labor union in its dispute with management over automation and job security at intermodal container ports on the East and Gulf Coasts. To view a video stream of the Senate confirmation hearing for Chavez-DeRemer, visit https://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/nomination-of-lori-m-chavez-deremer-to-serve-as-secretary-of-labor.
Trump orders 10-for-1 deregulation initiative
Building on a 2-for-1 initiative rolled out in his first administration, President Trump in late January issued an executive order directing that before issuing a new rule, regulation, or guidance document, federal agencies must identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed. For fiscal 2025, the total incremental cost of all new regulations including the savings from repealed regulations must be “significantly less than zero.” The White House Office of Management and Budget will ensure standardized measurement and estimation of regulatory costs.
EPA refers Biden administration’s CARB waivers to Congress
In a move that sets the stage for a possible legal battle with California, the Environmental Protection Agency said that it will be transmitting to Congress for its review the Biden administration “rules” granting waivers under the Clean Air Act that allowed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to implement its own emissions standards on commercial vehicles as well as passenger cars.
For trucking, the CARB regulations at issue are the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule and the heavy duty Omnibus Low NOx rule. The ACT rule requires that an increasing share of commercial trucks sold in California qualify as “zero-emissions vehicles” or ZEVs. The low NOx rule sets an emissions standard that differs from the federal standards set to take effect in 2027. EPA granted a waiver for the ACT rule in April 2023, and it granted a low NOx rule waiver last December.
In a news release, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin characterized the Biden administration as having “failed to send the rules on California’s waivers to Congress, preventing Members of Congress from deciding on extremely consequential actions that have massive impacts and costs across the entire United States.” However, according to a report issued in August by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, EPA’s waivers to California under CAA are not reviewable by Congress under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) because they are “orders,” which are not subject to the CRA, and not “rules.”
Regardless of what happens to the waivers, truck and engine manufacturers might still have to abide by the requirements of CARB’s ACT and low NOx in California. In July 2023, CARB and all the medium- and heavy-duty manufacturers signed the Clean Truck Partnership (CTP), which, among other things, requires manufacturers to abide by the ACT and NOx requirements even if California ultimately is deemed not to have the authority to impose them by regulation.
The latest developments related to the ACT rule come after CARB in January withdrew a waiver request for its Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) rule, which would have required fleets operating in the state to purchase ZEVs. CARB withdrew the required due to certain disapproval from the Trump administration. CARB’s withdrawal of the ACF rule creates an odd situation in that manufacturers must ensure that an increasing percentage of trucks are ZEVs, but fleets are not required to buy those trucks.
Bills on FMCSA enforcement authority introduced in the House and Senate
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) and Rep. Mike Ezell (R-Mississippi), along with 13 other co-sponsors, have reintroduced into the 119th Congress their legislation (H.R. 880) to clarify FMCSA’s authority to enforce commercial regulations and impose civil penalties on bad actors. Also, Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) – both members of the key Senate Commerce Committee – introduced the legislation (S. 337) in the Senate.
H.R. 880/S. 337, which is billed as focusing on household goods shipments, also would require FMCSA to ensure that regulated entities have physical principal places of businesses before receiving authority. In addition, the bill requires entities seeking broker or freight forwarder authority to disclose any relationship involving common ownership, management, control, or familial relationship with other carriers, brokers, or forwarders if they occurred within the past three years. Motor carrier applicants for authority already are subject to such a requirement. For more information on H.R. 880, visit https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/880. For more information on S. 337, visit https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/337.
Retrospective and the Road Ahead
Chaos from the Congressional lame-duck session has focused attention on the economic realities and unintended consequences of the past eight years of enforcement by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA or Agency) relating to rules of commerce and safety. With respect to our four major issues – safety, regulatory reform, fraud prevention, and labor/owner operator issues – the FMCSA’s track record for rulemaking ranges between poor and none.
Economic Realities and Unintended Consequences
- Safety Fitness Determinations With regard to adopting a new safety fitness rule, the Agency is stuck on the continuing notion that Safety Measurement System (SMS) methodology can somehow be rebooted. Yet it has been soundly rejected by Congress and acknowledged by the Agency’s court settlement as not a safety fitness determination. Furthermore, SMS methodology, when informally used as a vetting process, has resulted in only 12,079 Advocacy and Comment Legislation Regulatory and Legislative Update – February 2025 5 carriers profiled for a safety audit per year, of whom only approximately 362 were assigned an unsatisfactory safety rating.
The Agency has suggested at various times over the past several years that artificial intelligence can augment a reboot of SMS, and has made efforts to encourage a “Beyond Compliance” initiative which has not proven fruitful. Based on its unofficial “listening sessions” without comprehensive notices of proposed rulemaking, it appears that the Agency has problems satisfying the requirements for a cost benefit analysis, particularly when possible use of new technology is involved. When and if a new, comprehensive safety fitness determination (SFD) rule will be proposed is unknown.
- Fraud
Without instituting rulemaking, the Agency has identified its Office of Registration as responsible for fighting fraud through the use of a new registration system. The proposed system is intended to provide for better vetting of new applicants with focused attention on facial recognition and increased data security. This initiative is intended to address the so-called bait-and-switch scams which arise from fraudulent applications by brokers and carriers. Yet this is but one type of fraud and embezzlement schemes which plague the industry.
This program is being advanced without rulemaking. It has been consistently objected to as piecemeal in the context of the Agency’s admission that rulemaking for new applicant vetting will be necessary in the future, and that this initiative involves substantial and material questions of fact and law that have not been properly addressed.
Unfortunately, none of the Agency’s pending formal and informal initiatives address the compelling need for criminal prosecution of fraud arising out of federal statutes involving truck transportation. The piecemeal handling of miscellaneous initiatives, such as “transparency” and on-line registration with “smart logic,” palpably ignore the extent and nature of fraud and the compelling need for FMCSA and DOT involvement.
Notwithstanding the precedent for criminal prosecution and cooperative undertakings with sister agencies, FMCSA offers no victim assistance. In response to Congressional overtures, its limited participation in criminal prosecutions has focused on safety-related issues, with only reluctant agreement to assume some responsibility for enforcing civil penalties. Pending Congressional bills, that seek to confirm the Agency’s already existing authority to impose civil fines and place bait-and-switch offenders out of service, cannot alone address the scope of the problem.
Other peripheral Agency initiatives, such as the bond replenishment requirement, do not adequately address the fraud issue. In fact they have unintended consequences such as the added cost of the bond, withdrawal of willing sureties from the market, and increased leverage for freight charge collectors seeking recourse against unknowing shippers and consignees.
- Attack on Owner-Operator Model
In the closing days of the last Administration, a Truck Leasing Task Force Report was issued. See https://search.app/n4dbUrgkeLoB8Qkr5. This report was a political creation by pro-labor advocates. Far from being a comprehensive evaluation of “common truck lease agreements and their terms” under the six criteria specified on April 7, 2022 by the former Secretary of Transportation, the Task Force Report aims at alleged abuses of owner-operators in certain categories of agreements with carriers.
The task force members were apparently cherry-picked and no advocate of the owner-operator model was chosen. The resulting 51-page report reads like a plaintiff’s advocate brief, not an impartial review. It focuses on a handful of abuses in certain types of equipment lease-purchase contracts and is not supported by any statistical support.
In this regard, the owner operator / independent contractor model is governed by the truth-in-leasing regulations at 49 CFR Part 376, which creates a carve-out that shifts compliance burdens from lease operators to motor carriers and provides that carriers can use independent contractors without re-designating them as “employees.” Compliant contracts under Part 376 allow owner operators to leverage their contract relationships with the carrier that can handle the safety, insurance, and solicitation of round-trip freight. Such contracts require 15 day minimum payment terms, and create a valuable small business opportunity that can withstand analysis of alleged “employee” status.
Clearly, the role of the FMCSA under its regulations and the National Transportation Policy is to encourage blue-collar entrepreneurship and access to financing as well as insurance, safety compliance, and loads without forced dispatch. Yet the report makes no mention of the efficacy of the existing rules nor of the model’s importance in encouraging small businesses.
Also missing is any statistical analysis of the amount of leased equipment subject to the truth-in-leasing carve out, nor of the various lease-to-own financing protocols which allow owner operators to leverage their owner operator contracts with carriers to assume or enter truck leases. These protocols, like a mortgage, provide “skin in the game,” allowing drivers to purchase equipment over time based upon an amortization chart with portability and the right to complete the purchase at any time. This is a far more secure opportunity than is available for employees who may be terminated at any time and left without a job or benefits.
ATA has estimated there are an estimated 1.4 million independent contractors. Lease-purchase agreements are a standard way of financing the purchase of their new and used equipment. Many carriers, both large and small, help facilitate the lease-purchase of equipment by employee drivers who wish to set their own hours and own schedules. Nowhere does the report treat the importance of the owner operator model, nor consider the economic realities of how carriers and owner operators can work together to mutual advantage.
Clearly, the Task Force Report was not intended as an objective analysis of the types of financial arrangements that exist for purchases of equipment between owner-operators and their carrier partners. The only focus is on alleged bad actors and on alleged violations of the truth-in-leasing regulations. Without a survey of the types and nature of the leasing arrangements, including the number of owner-operators and carriers that use them successfully on a win-win basis, the study is of little conclusionary value.
The Need for Common Sense Solutions
In sum, there is no pending rulemaking nor are there any serious answers to the pressing need for a new safety fitness rating, for addressing systemic fraud, or for dealing effectively with the challenges to the owner operator model. These issues beg for common-sense solutions. Clearly, listening sessions are no substitute for administrative due process and rules which can meet the standards for judicial review. Fragmentary treatment of tangential issues like the new bond requirements, the transparency rulemaking, and the pending new application procedure have a piecemeal effect and do not address in systematic fashion the major issues requiring rulemaking.
As a matter of advocacy, now is the time to consider the road ahead and alternative proposals which can best address these basic issues.
- Safety Fitness Alternative
After SMS methodology, based on roadside inspections, was withdrawn in 2017, the Secretary of Transportation requested regulatory reform proposals in Docket No. DOT-OSB-2017-0069. Therein, a simpler and more straightforward alternative to the use of SMS was presented but has not been acted upon. The proposal involves use of the so-called desktop audit, which was developed to replace on-site compliance reviews during the COVID pandemic and is still in use today. If adopted with modifications, this program would result in the pre-grant interviewing and testing of new applicants using existing federal and state inspectors. The reasonable fixed cost could be passed on to the new applicant; the resulting safety fitness finding of “fit to operate” could eliminate the red light / green light issue facing the shipping public, and could result in lower insurance costs by virtue of the new carriers having been vetted for safety.
- Fighting Fraud
As part of the proposed pre-application audit for carrier safety, the same pre-grant scrutiny could provide hands-on vetting of new broker, forwarder, and carrier applicants for compliance with commercial regulations and for authentication under the Agency’s fraud initiatives. This existing system could be adopted on an annual or biennial basis and conducted as part of the registrants’ regular update for both safety and fraud purposes.
- Need for Criminal Prosecution of Supply Chain Fraud in Truck Transportation
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) has not taken an active role in monitoring, policing, or prosecuting violations of federal criminal law with respect to felonies involving interstate trucking. Fraud enforcement tools clearly are available to the U.S. DOT through FMCSA’s specific recordkeeping requirements, including the segregation of funds and expenses, and the creation of a constructive trust. These tools create access to FMCSA registrant data necessary to establish a prima facie case of fraud, embezzlement, and related remedies. The Agency’s express jurisdiction includes not only civil remedies but the clear authority to work with DOJ and sister agencies in developing criminal indictments, marshalling evidence, and aiding in the prosecution of perpetrators of not only regulated entities but also third-party accomplices. Coordinated interagency participation is necessary to address this issue. Congressional oversight in support will be needed.
- The Owner Operator Issue and Related Pro-Labor Initiatives
A large part of our advocacy has been addressed to participating in U.S. DOT and state law initiatives to protect the small business rights and remedies of owner-operators. Active support for the existing court standards on independent-contractor treatment, for the importance of the Part 376 carve-out, and for the need to oppose divergent state laws like AB5 in California requires continuing effort. Positive signs for success in future advocacy include (1) the previous support by the new President for an economic realities test at the Department of Labor; and (2) favorable court precedent in the so-called Chevron deference decision and other recent cases that indicate traditional precedent will apply to review of bureaucratic overreach. Advocacy supporting federal preemption of inconsistent state initiatives affecting needed uniformity also should be encouraged. Readers with interest in supporting advocacy issues are welcome to send their contact information and questions to asectt@gmail.com.
Luke Kibby
In an era where government efficiency programs like DOGE increasingly scrutinize federal agencies for waste and inefficiencies, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) finds itself under the microscope.
Critics argue that the agency’s regulatory reach is excessive and its spending inefficient, calling for budget cuts and policy rollbacks.
However, such criticisms often overlook the essential role FMCSA plays in safeguarding public safety and supporting the economic infrastructure of the United States.
Let’s take a deeper look at FMCSA and talk about where the scrutiny lies with the agency.
The FMCSA’s Mission and Impact
The FMCSA was established in 2000 with a clear mandate: to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. This mission is not merely bureaucratic rhetoric; it addresses a critical public safety issue.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), large trucks were involved in 5,237 fatal crashes in 2022 alone. These incidents not only result in tragic loss of life but also cost billions in economic damages each year.
By enforcing safety regulations, the FMCSA directly contributes to reducing these numbers, thereby saving lives and minimizing economic losses.
But what exactly does FMCSA do?
Operational Efficiency and Corporate-Like Structure
Did you know that FMCSA runs more like a small corporation versus a large over-staffed agency? It’s true.
The FMCSA operates with a streamlined, corporate-like organizational structure, comprising specialized offices that manage safety programs, legal compliance, financial oversight, policy formulation, and technological advancements. These are the different offices:
- Office of the Administrator: Oversees the agency’s overall operations and strategic direction.
- Office of Administration: Manages human resources, facilities, and administrative services.
- Office of Chief Counsel: Provides legal guidance and support.
- Office of Chief Financial Officer: Handles budgeting, financial management, and resource allocation.
- Office of Safety: Focuses on developing and enforcing safety regulations.
- Office of Policy: Formulates policies to enhance motor carrier safety and efficiency.
- Office of Research and Information Technology: Conducts research and manages IT systems to support the agency’s mission.
This division of labor ensures focused expertise and operational efficiency.
For example, the Office of Research and Information Technology drives data-driven decision-making by leveraging telematics and predictive analytics to identify high-risk carriers. This approach enables the agency to allocate resources more effectively, enhancing enforcement precision while reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on compliant carriers.
Addressing Concerns of Waste and Misallocated Funding
Critics often cite waste and misallocated funding as reasons to downsize federal agencies.
For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that in fiscal year 2023, the federal government made an estimated $236 billion in improper payments, which include overpayments, underpayments, and payments with insufficient documentation. While this figure encompasses all federal agencies, it underscores the potential for financial mismanagement within large organizations.
However, the FMCSA has consistently demonstrated fiscal responsibility.
According to the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General, the FMCSA has implemented robust internal controls to monitor grant disbursements and minimize improper payments.
Additionally, the agency’s strategic investment in technology—such as the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program—has optimized safety enforcement, ensuring that resources are directed toward carriers posing the highest safety risks. And this program is in the process of being improved.
Balancing Regulation with Industry Needs
One of the primary criticisms against FMCSA is the perceived overreach in regulatory measures, such as Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) and Hours-of-Service (HOS) regulations… and rightly so.
Saving 96 lives by mandating long-haul truckers to have a telematics device in their truck does seem like overreach.
However, fatigue is a leading cause of truck-involved accidents, and HOS regulations are scientifically formulated to combat this issue.
The FMCSA has shown flexibility by amending these rules based on stakeholder feedback, including adjustments to accommodate adverse driving conditions and short-haul exemptions.
This adaptive approach illustrates the agency’s commitment to balancing safety needs with operational realities.
Beyond safety, FMCSA’s regulatory framework supports economic stability.
The trucking industry is the backbone of the American economy, transporting over 70% of all freight tonnage annually. Ensuring a safe and efficient transportation network not only prevents costly accidents but also sustains supply chain reliability.
The FMCSA’s policies, therefore, protect both public safety and economic interests, creating a secure environment for commerce to thrive.
A Necessary Agency for Safety and Economic Security
The FMCSA is not just reactive; it proactively invests in research and technological innovation.
The agency is exploring advanced safety technologies such as Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) systems and vehicle-to-vehicle communication to further enhance road safety.
Additionally, FMCSA collaborates with industry stakeholders to develop regulatory frameworks for autonomous commercial vehicles, positioning the U.S. as a leader in the global transportation technology race.
Amidst growing calls for government downsizing, it is crucial to recognize the indispensable role FMCSA plays in safeguarding American roads and supporting the economy.
Far from being a wasteful bureaucracy, the FMCSA exemplifies responsible governance through its strategic, data-driven, and adaptive regulatory approach. Its continued existence and adequate funding are essential not only for public safety but also for maintaining economic stability in an interconnected, logistics-driven economy.
As debates over federal spending intensify, we should at least have a better appreciation for FMCSA workers across the United States.
The FMCSA has updated the Crash Preventability Determination Program (CPDP). One of the changes significantly affects dash camera users. Here’s what you need to know.
Tom Bray
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has updated the Crash Preventability Determination Program (CPDP). This update is big news because FMCSA is expanding the types of crashes they review. One of the changes sifnificantly affects dash cam users.
What is the CPDP?
The CPDP allows a carrier to request a preventability review of a crash. If it is found not preventable, the crash will not be scored in the carrier’s Crash BASIC in the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program,. “Not-preventable” means the carrier’s driver did not cause the crash and could not have avoided it.
For a crash to be reviewed, it has to fall into specific categories (struck in the rear, struck in the rear at the side, struck by a motorist going the wrong direction, etc.).
To request a preventability review for a crash that meets eligibility criteria, the carrier must:
- Initiate a DataQs request for data review (RDR) asking for a preventability determination.
- Provide a copy of the police accident report and any other documents to support their argument.
- Submit post-crash drug and alcohol test results if there was a fatality.
Additional Crash Types Eligible for Review Added
With this update, FMCSA is accepting preventability RDRs for more types of crashes. For example, one of the new categories is a crash where dash camera video provided by the carrier demonstrates the crash was not preventable.
Dash Camera Footage Could Make Any Crash Reviewable
This is a game-changer – any crash can be reviewed and determined to be not preventable, not just the ones that fall into specific categories. If video footage from a dash camera proves the crash was not preventable, FMCSA will review it and make a preventability determination.
Adding to the List of Reasons to Have Dash Cams
Many carriers have experienced the advantages of dash cameras. First, there is the exoneration power of dash cameras. Having video footage that clearly shows what happened when the crash occurred allows a carrier to settle accident claims quickly.
Second, there is the reduction in crashes many carriers using dash cameras have experienced. This is because dash cameras allow the carrier to locate problem behaviors and counsel, coach, and retrain the drivers involved. The benefit of fewer crashes is a reduction in claims losses and an improvement in the carrier’s Crash BASIC score in CSA.
This update to the Crash Preventability Determination Program provides an additional advantage to having dash cameras.
Timing
The FMCSA announced in a Federal Register, notice that the new eligibility criteria went into effect for crashes occurring on or after December 1, 2024. Therefore, if you had a crash that occurred on or after that date, you can ask for a preventability determination based on dash camera video footage alone.
Jeremy Wolfe
Donald Trump resumed control of the nation’s federal agencies this week. With a change in administration, what will agency management look like for 2025?
This is the first part of a three-part series on 2025’s regulatory outlook. You can read part two here. Part three will be linked here when it is published.
Agency rulemakings will likely slow down under a Trump administration, but there are still several key regulations that may impact carriers this year.
Industry experts from Scopelitis Law Firm and the Truckload Carriers Association shared their outlook on how the new administration will manage commercial carriers.
Fewer agency rulemakings
Agency rulemakings in general will likely slow down through 2025 and the rest of Trump’s term. EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation—including its subsidiaries the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration—will likely see fewer new regulations.
One of the most significant parts of another Trump administration is the return of agency deregulation. In the first month of his first term, Trump issued an executive order requiring a “two-for-one” deregulation effort. For every one new regulation with significant costs, two others needed to be removed.
Agencies move slower between presidents
The leadership transition should also slow down rulemaking processes, particularly in early 2025. Each new president involves widespread replacement of top agency officials.
“Somebody comes into the seat to lead FMCSA and they have to be caught up to speed on where they are on the rulemakings, brought up to speed on the rulemaking process and where they stand right now, as well as understanding all the background of those rules that were going on in the Biden administration that may or may not move forward in the Trump administration,” Heller said.
Trump already issued a hiring freeze and regulatory freeze on the first day of his administration. If the freezes mirror those of his first term, they may remain in effect for months.
“We are wondering if something like that still comes into play,” David Heller, VP of government affairs for TCA, told FleetOwner. “It was not necessarily agency specific. It could be two DOT rules that could be rolled back, that may not necessarily have anything to do with trucking, in order to institute a new rule that did pertain to trucking.”
The “two-for-one” order had a small impact on new regulatory costs, and Trump might pursue a more extreme measure this time. In December, he suggested a “ten-for-one” order for his next term.
Rulemakings carriers should watch
Transportation agencies will continue to develop new regulations, despite the slowdown. Regulators have several major new pending rules that could affect commercial carriers. Fleet managers should watch the following rules in 2025.
Broker transparency
FMCSA may issue a final rule on broker transparency in 2025. The agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in November 2024, “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions,” which makes it more difficult for brokers to avoid their obligation to disclose records to carriers.
Carriers have a right to the records of freight brokers’ transactions by law, but brokers use several workarounds to avoid real disclosure. This includes contract waivers, slow and manual paperwork, and an implied threat of retaliation. The NPRM proposed four steps to weaken brokers’ paperwork approach but did not address contract waivers or retaliation.
Scopelitis’s Sharma noted that broker transparency is a uniquely intrusive regulation but is likely supported under the second Trump administration.
“FMCSA’s recent proposed rulemaking is a case of regulatory intrusion into a transportation marketplace that Congress deregulated and intended to leave up to the markets. No analogous government mandate to service cost disclosure comes to mind, but that is what the FMCSA has proposed mandating,” Sharma said. “That said, it’s worth recalling that the first Trump administration elected to publish the petitions submitted by OOIDA and the Small Business Trucking Coalition, thus essentially initiating the rulemaking process.”
FMCSA will likely publish a final rule on broker transparency within the year.
Independent contractor rule
The U.S. Department of Labor’s independent contractor rule, which lays out how the department differentiates between employee and contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act, is a contentious issue in trucking. Independent contractor classification is a key policy issue for most trucking industry groups.
The first Trump administration’s DOL issued a final rule outlining its interpretation of FLSA in 2020. The definition departed from precedent established by case law in favor of an agency standard that was simpler and erred toward contractor status. The Biden administration issued a rule overriding that interpretation in 2024. The new rule mostly coincided with the original but moved closer to existing case law and, because of this, erred closer to employee status.
The Trump DOL now has the opportunity to issue another overriding rule, returning to an interpretation that resembles the 2020 final rule.
“We expect the president-elect to revert back to what he did in his previous administration and support the independent contractors as they are today,” Heller said.
However, this Trump term is different from the first. Labor issues may not be as easily predicted.
Trump’s pick for Secretary of Labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, was one of only three Republicans who voted against party lines in favor of the PRO Act. Trump also played a surprise pro-labor role weeks before his inauguration when he supported the International Longshoremen’s Association union in their negotiations with dock employers.
Despite the pro-labor twists in Trump’s ramp-up to presidency, Sharma also expects the 2020 rule to return.
“We anticipate that rule to be reinstated via the current multiple litigations challenging the Biden 2024 IC Test Rule,” Sharma said. “People were surprised by the nomination of former Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, one of three Republican House members to vote for organized labor’s PRO Act, but we still believe a California-like ABC test (requiring new legislation) for federal wage and hour purposes is unlikely.”
CSA scores
FMCSA is working on an overhaul to its Compliance, Safety, Accountability program. The agency proposed major revisions to CSA scores in early 2023 and announced further changes in December 2024. FMCSA may formally publish the revisions as a final rule in 2025.
CSA scoring through the Safety Measurement System is a major component of modern fleet operations, influencing everything from client relations and insurance rates to federal investigations.
Trucking industry stakeholders have criticized CSA scoring for not addressing how each state differs in its enforcement priorities.
“The biggest issue with CSA is almost always going to be its correctness to eliminate geographical biases,” Heller said. “As an industry, we shouldn’t be afraid to have our safety systems measured at the carrier level; we should insist it be done correctly.”
While FMCSA has regularly tweaked CSA scoring since 2010, the latest update still does not normalize for geography.
It is still unclear when FMCSA will publish the CSA overhaul final rule, but Scopelitis sees a good chance it will arrive this year.
“We anticipate the FMCSA will move forward with this proposal in 2025, even under a new administration,” Chris Eckhart, attorney with Scopelitis, told FleetOwner.
While the industry waits for a final rule, the agency allows carriers to preview what their new scoring might look like through the CSA Prioritization Preview website.
Crash Preventability Determination Program
FMCSA is also developing a final rule to update its Crash Preventability Determination Program. If a carrier suffers a crash and then shows FMCSA that it was non-preventable, that incident won’t affect the carrier’s CSA score.
The program began in 2020 and received regular adjustments since. FMCSA issued a notice for its latest update in December. The update adds four new crash types to the program’s existing 16 crash types, expanding which types of incidents are eligible under the program. The new crash types include accidents where another motorist lost control and where a video demonstrates the sequence of events.
“With motor carriers’ increasing use of onboard cameras, this additional crash type is a significant improvement to the CPDP,” Eckhart said.
Speed limiters
FMCSA and NHTSA are still working on a joint rulemaking to mandate speed limiters in heavy commercial vehicles. The agencies first issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2016.
“Speed limiters have been kicked down the road several times,” Heller said. “There were several due dates in which the agency was going to come out with a supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking.”
In the fall 2024 regulatory agenda, FMCSA and NHTSA suggested they would issue a supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking in mid-2025. If successful in publishing an NPRM, it would still take several months or years before the agencies issue a final rule. The final rule would then allow several months or years before the limiter requirements for OEMs take effect.
In addition to rulemaking delays, the agencies have also not yet shared the exact speed limit that their mandate would set. FMCSA initially proposed 68 mph in 2023 but quickly revoked the number.
“Because of the constant delay in issuing the SNPRM, we’re not wholly convinced that this rulemaking is going to be moving forward,” Heller said.
AEB mandate
FMCSA and NHTSA are planning a final rule to mandate automatic emergency braking systems on new heavy trucks.
The agencies issued a joint NPRM for the AEB rule in 2023. If the agencies do release the AEB final rule in 2025, it would still take multiple years to affect manufacturers. When NHTSA issued an AEB final rule for passenger vehicles in 2024, it set the effective date as September 2029.
AEB systems are also already popular among large carriers.
“I think the tea leaves almost always read that innovators are going to beat regulators,” Heller said. “And AEB is an innovation that carriers are already using.”
Carrier registration system
FMCSA is still working on its next version of an online carrier registration system, which could transform registration processes this year.
Carriers have to use several separate paper forms to manage and update their information. The agency hopes a new registration system can simplify carrier registration processes, forms, and verification through a single online platform.
The new FMCSA Registration System, or FRS, would replace the Unified Registration System (URS), which suffered from poor implementation. FMCSA first planned to develop URS in 1996, created the platform with only partial functionality in 2015, and then never finished it. URS today still only serves first-time applicants with their initial registrations.
FRS, if it lives up to the hype, would integrate several forms into a simplified series of questions and add more robust verification to combat fraud. FMCSA suggested it would launch FRS sometime in 2025.
Mark Schremmer
Addressing Highway Trust Fund shortfalls and a lack of truck parking were among the topics discussed at the House Highways and Transit subcommittee’s first hearing of the 119th Congress.
The subcommittee held the hearing “America Builds: Highways to Move People and Freight” on Wednesday, Jan. 22.
Rep. David Rouzer, R-N.C., chairman of the subcommittee, used his opening statement to discuss inequities with the current Highway Trust Fund, which uses fuel taxes to pay for federal road and bridge projects. According to Rouzer, the fund hasn’t been fully solvent since 2008.
“We must also have a frank conversation about the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund – the main funding source for highway projects,” Rouzer said. “Since 2008, Congress has transferred approximately $275 billion to cover the shortfall of revenues as expenditures have grown.”
Although the problem is not a new one, the congressman said it is time for lawmakers to figure out a new funding mechanism, as electric vehicles are not contributing to the current system.
“Highway funding relies on a user-pay principle,” Rouzer said. “It’s pretty simple: You purchase fuel to fill up your vehicle to use the roads, and the fuel tax collected from that purchase is put into the Highway Trust Fund. However, electric vehicles, which are often heavier than their conventional counterparts because of the weight of their batteries, do not pay in the Highway Trust Fund.”
In previous sessions, a vehicle-miles-traveled tax and tolls have been presented as potential ways to correct the issue. However, a VMT tax has raised concerns over privacy, and the trucking industry has argued against efforts to create truck-only tolls.
Rouzer suggested that getting all vehicles to pay their fair share should be a priority.
“It is wholly unfair that an entire segment of users doesn’t contribute to the roads and bridges they use,” he said. “This won’t address the greater solvency issue, obviously, but we must rectify this so that all users are treated fairly and contribute to the systems on which they rely.”
Dennis Dellinger, president of Cargo Transporters, testified that funding should be generated in an equitable manner.
“The trucking industry is the leading payer into the Highway Trust Fund, contributing almost half of all revenues while representing less than 5% of road users,” Dellinger wrote in his submitted testimony. “While the trucking industry is proud to pay our fair share, Congressional attention and action is necessary to ensure a lasting, viable and equitable revenue source for continued infrastructure investments.”
Truck parking
The truck parking crisis across the nation has been well-documented. The 2019 Jason’s Law Report found that 98% of drivers regularly experience problems finding safe parking. According to the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and the American Trucking Associations, there is only one truck parking space for every 11 truckers nationwide.
Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., introduced the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act in the previous two sessions. The bill would allocate $755 million over three years to the construction of parking spots. According to the bill text, any project funded by the bill cannot include paid parking. All parking under the bill must be publicly accessible and free of charge.
Bost, who is expected to reintroduce the bill, asked Jim Tymon of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials if states would pursue funding for truck parking if Congress created a grant program.
“If there was a grant program for truck parking, states would be interested in that,” Tymon said. “I would say that it’s not just availability of funding on the state DOT side. A lot of the right-of-way that the state DOTs have control of, there is a restriction as to what they can do within that right-of-way, including establishing new rest areas and commercializing them to be able to support truck parking.”
Bost then asked Tymon for additional conversations with his staff to determine what would need to be done to make sure truck parking expansion was possible.
