USA Banner

Official US Government Icon

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure Site Icon

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Icon United States Department of Transportation United States Department of Transportation

CSA Safety Fitness Determination NPRM FAQs

If finalized as proposed, would the SFD rule supersede the HMSP enforcement policy issued on June 19, 2015?

Yes. The NPRM proposes conforming amendments to 49 CFR Part 385, Subpart E, HM Safety Permits.

How do the “HM Compliance Failure Standards” relate to the 2012 HMSP fixed disqualification standards?

There is not a direct comparison that can be made between the existing failure standards and the proposed HM Compliance Standards.  The HM Failure standard is an absolute measure based on carrier performance in the HM Compliance BASIC and the 2012 HMSP fixed disqualification standards considers the carrier’s crash rate and driver, vehicle, and HM OOS rates to be below the 70th percentile and describes other conditions that must be satisfied to qualify for the initial issuance of a permit.  

How does the HMSP crash rate 0.136 relate to the SFD failure standard crash rates?

The HMSP crash rate is a fixed qualification standard which compares a HMSP carrier’s crash rate to the national average, and utilizes crashes reported in the agency’s Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS).  Under the proposed SFD the failure standard for crash rates would only be used if evaluated for preventability during an investigation which is consistent with FMCSA’s existing methodology. The Agency calculates a motor carrier’s crash rate by dividing the motor carrier’s number of recordable interstate and intrastate crashes in the previous 12 months by 1,000,000. The failure standards for crash rates are 1.5 for general operations and 1.7 for urban operations.  

Why did the Agency propose to use the absolute measure as the failure standard for HMSP holders, rather than maintain the fixed HMSP disqualification rates?

While both measures of compliance provide a fixed standard, the absolute measure involved a more comprehensive use of the available performance data.  The Agency is clear however, in the NPRM that it is seeking input on this fixed failure threshold. 

If an HMSP holder exceeds the failure standard, does it have the option to continue to operate under a compliance agreement in this proposal?

Yes, however as proposed, the motor carrier’s Hazardous Materials Safety Permit would still be subject to suspension or revocation in accordance with 49 CFR Part 385.421.

The proposed SFD “unfit” triggers with one month scores, while the existing HMSP enforcement policy requires disqualifying scores for 2 months.  What happens with that policy under this proposed rule?

If finalized as proposed, the SFD rule would supersede the existing HM enforcement policy and  would be run monthly and would initiate a proposed unfit if the failure measures are met or exceeded. The proposed methodology requires that a carrier fail two or more BASICs before a proposed unfit determination would be issued.  The current HMSP enforcement policy would remain in effect however if a carrier meets or exceeds the HM BASIC or meets and exceeds thresholds of any two other BASICs over a consecutive two-month period, FMCSA will identify the carrier for a comprehensive investigation.