The factors to be considered in determining the safety fitness and assigning a safety rating include information from safety reviews, compliance reviews and any other data. The factors may include all or some of the following:
(a) Adequacy of safety management controls. The adequacy of controls may be questioned if their degree of formalization, automation, etc., is found to be substantially below the norm for similar carriers. Violations, accidents or incidents substantially above the norm for similar carriers will be strong evidence that management controls are either inadequate or not functioning properly.
(b) Frequency and severity of regulatory violations.
(c) Frequency and severity of driver/vehicle regulatory violations identified during roadside inspections of motor carrier operations in commerce and, if the motor carrier operates in the United States, of operations in Canada and Mexico.
(d) Number and frequency of out-of-service driver/vehicle violations of motor carrier operations in commerce and, if the motor carrier operates in the United States, of operations in Canada and Mexico.
(e) Increase or decrease in similar types of regulatory violations discovered during safety or compliance reviews.
(f) For motor carrier operations in commerce and (if the motor carrier operates in the United States) in Canada and Mexico: Frequency of accidents; hazardous materials incidents; accident rate per million miles; indicators of preventable accidents; and whether such accidents, hazardous materials incidents, and preventable accident indicators have increased or declined over time.
(g) Number and severity of violations of CMV and motor carrier safety rules, regulations, standards, and orders that are both issued by a State, Canada, or Mexico and compatible with Federal rules, regulations, standards, and orders.
[53 FR 50968, Dec. 19, 1988, as amended at 58 FR 33776, June 21, 1993; 72 FR 36788, July 5, 2007]
Notes of Decisions
Geeta Chhetri v. United States, 823 F.3d 577 (11th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” 49 C.F.R. § 385.7 . 12 Case: 15-10644 Date Filed: 05/12/2016 Page: 13 of 26 safety and transportation records to determine whether a motor carrier meets the safety fitness standard.”
Silverado Stages, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Saf. Admin., 809 F.3d 1268 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
“Second, based on these violations, as well as other factors such as the carrier’s accident history, see 49 C.F.R. § 385.7 , the FMCSA assigns carriers one of three ratings: “satisfactory,” “conditional,” or “unsatisfactory,” id.”
Tyson v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 608 S.E.2d 266 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
“The defendants argue that because FMCSA regulations require motor carriers to determine the “preventable accident rate per million miles,” 49 CFR § 385.7 , it necessarily follows that the internal review to determine whether the accident in question was preventable “fits…”
Transam Trucking, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Saf. Admin., 808 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2015).
“Following a compliance review, the agency considers factors enumerated in 49 C.F.R. § 385.7 and utilizes a prescribed methodology to assign the motor carrier one of three possible safety fitness ratings: satisfactory, conditional, or unsatisfactory.”
Commodity Carriers, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Admin., 434 F.3d 604 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
“49 C.F.R. § 385.7 . 4 . The investigator reported that "there was no other accurate means of verifying those drivers' logs, such as on-board computers or other supporting documents showing a date, time and location.”
Ahmed Hassan Vs. Roland Williams (l-0213-16, Ocean Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
· cites it 2× “preventable accident indicators have increased or declined over time," 49 C.F.R. § 385.7 (f). Conceivably, a statement that an accident was "preventable" may be "so far contrary" to ABF's "pecuniary, proprietary, or social interest" by undermining ABF's standing with federal…”
Ahmed Hassan Vs. Roland Williams (l-0213-16, Ocean Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
· cites it 2× “preventable accident indicators have increased or declined over time," 49 C.F.R. § 385.7 (f). Conceivably, a statement that an accident was "preventable" may be "so far contrary" to ABF's "pecuniary, proprietary, or social interest" by undermining ABF's standing with federal…”
Burrell v. Duhon (W.D. Ky. 2019).
“49 C.F.R. §385.7 . The final ratings are made available to the public.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.