Please disable your Ad Blocker in your browser's extentions.

FMCSA officially expands ability to shut down carriers with pattern of noncompliance

mirror truck inspectionThe Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has published a final rule expanding its ability to shut down motor carriers who display a pattern of “egregious disregard” for compliance with federal safety rules.

The rule, published in the Federal Register Jan. 22, gives the agency authority to suspend or revoke the operating authority of carriers who have a pattern of “egregious” noncompliance, per the rule, and also carriers who allow persons who have a history of “egregious” noncompliance “to exercise controlling influence over their operations.”

The rule also again strengthens the agency’s ability to target “chameleon” carriers or “reincarnated” carriers, defined in the rule as those who “operate multiple entities under common control to conceal” a lack of compliance with federal safety rules.

Related: FMCSA broadening out-of-service order scope to carriers with pattern of violating safety rules

It will become effective Feb. 21.

The publication of the rule follows direction from Congress from both of the most recent highway funding authorization bills — SAFETEA-LU, passed in 2009, and the current MAP-21 law, passed in 2012.

Under the new rule, FMCSA will determine whether a carrier has failed to comply with safety regulations or has tried to conceal such noncompliance. It then — if a carrier “meets [the agency’s] initial threshold — it will further evaluate the carrier to see if it has made a pattern out of not complying with safety rules or is a reincarnated carrier.

If the agency finds a carrier does have a pattern or has attempted to conceal noncompliance, it can revoke or suspend the carrier’s authority.

The rule should only affect a small amount of carriers each year, FMCSA says in the Federal Register entry.

A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was originally published in November 2012, and the agency accepted public comment for 60 days.

Industry stakeholders such as the American Trucking Associations, FedEx, Werner, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the Transportation Intermediaries Association, the Truck Safety Coalition (a group of fleets), the Teamsters and the North American Transportation Consultants submitted comments or questions about the rule. The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety also submitted comment, among others.

ATA, OOIDA, NATC and FedEx (No. 2 in CCJ’s Top 250) commented seeking a definition of “pattern of noncompliance” from the agency, to which the agency said it will determine a pattern on a case-by-case basis and must have the “flexibility to tailor its enforcement actions” accordingly.

“The Agency believes enforcement is best served when there is room for discretion, explanation, and consideration of the unique circumstances of each individual and carrier,” it said in another comment from OOIDA, who was seeking a request for a “more exact formula” for how the agency would determine a pattern of noncompliance.

In response to a comment from Werner Enterprises (No. 10 in CCJ’s Top 250), the agency said the rule targets “only the worst actors” in the for-hire industry.

Werner had commented  that carriers who already have an “excellent record and culture of safety and compliance” might come under fire in the rule for hiring “an officer” who has a history of not complying with safety rules. Carriers could then be punished without actually having done anything unsafe or have a negative safety rating, Werner said.

The agency further responded that it finds it unlikely a carrier with a strong record of safety and compliance would place someone with a history of disregard for safety compliance in a position of control, but that if it does, there are safeguards in the rule, as the agency must give notice to a carrier that it could have its authority revoked, and the carrier could respond.

Click here to read the entire rule or to see more questions about the rule from industry stakeholders and the responses from FMCSA.


How can you win. If all is left to inspection sights that have quotas to meet. We as truckers might as well retire. Let them move their freight with a horse and buggy.  Truckers look out for each other and also smaller vehicles, they do not get the respect they deserve. and they are always moving someone's freight for less then they should be getting. They leave their families to help keep the good ol United States running. I hate to see when anyone dies in an accident but lets compare how many truckers compared to other vehicles on the road caused the accidents. We all here when we do something wrong. But what about when a DOT sights a Flatbed for no overhead clearance lights. Come on lets make sure our DOTs have the training they need as well. They want to shut down smaller companies and then ask an owner operator to carry our Christmas Tree to the Capital. While Obama will take Christ right out of Christmas. I am ranting I know, just agitated to see our truckers working day and night with no appreciation from our government. I agree with safety and that it needs to be put first. I know all truckers do. But instead of helping us they want to hurt us in every way. Why cant they set some rate standards. People wanting us to haul 48000 lbs for a dollar. that is crazy. If anyone ever comes up with an ideal to get some trucker appreciation let me know.

Mister Truck
Mister Truck

I read the entire rule as well as the comments and questions. Obviously, Chameleon carriers and industry scofflaws are a problem that need to be addressed. However, there seems to be quite a bit of "slop" in the language, as well as many items that are left to the discretion of the enforcement officer.  I see tons of room for abuse and another open ended excuse for the FMCSA to run good carriers through the mill.


Too bad the FMCSA has become an antagonist to the industry rather than a fair and aggressive watchdog.




Foxx said last year that not enough carriers were shut down.  Looks like he has a plan to change all that this year.

Paul L
Paul L

I agree something must be done to stop these bad carriers but I do not like the fact that the agency can consider each situation differently.  There seems to be room for abuse or corruption in such a blank check. 


I fear this is just anouther step in killing the little guy and helping the big guy. I can read between the lines. Killing the small carrier has been the focus of the DOT for a few years now.

James Jaillet is the News Editor for CCJ and Overdrive. Reach him at