Significant data flaws in the FMCSA’s Motus system are arbitrarily altering insurance limits and revoking operating authorities, creating immediate compliance risks for commercial fleets.
- Out-of-service inaccuracies: Motus frequently fails to display active out-of-service orders, contradicting the more reliable SAFER system and masking severe safety violations.
- Arbitrary insurance limit changes: The system is automatically altering federal filing requirements, leaving tens of thousands of carriers unexpectedly underinsured and vulnerable to operating authority revocation.
- Flawed cancellation and revocation processes: Old insurance policies are failing to cancel upon replacement, and valid motor carrier operating authorities are being erroneously revoked without justification.
- Misleading excess policy displays: Motus incorrectly displays the limits of excess insurance policies, creating a false impression of adequate primary coverage where dangerous gaps actually exist.
Motus, a new online registration system designed to replace the decades-old Unified Registration System (URS), launched in May. In theory, it is supposed to streamline how motor carriers interact with the government.
In practice, it's done anything but that.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) new registration system continues to struggle with data inaccuracies, leaving motor carriers vulnerable to out-of-service orders and surprise operating authority revocations.
Central Analysis Bureau (CAB), a company within CCJ parent company Fusable's brand portfolio, held a webinar Tuesday, highlighting six issues that have emerged from Motus' clunky rollout.
1. Inaccurate out-of-service designations
Motus is failing to correctly flag motor carriers that have been placed out-of-service by issue of a formal out of service order. The older SAFER system remains the accurate source of truth for out-of-service designations.
"We have seen out-of-service orders for fleets which were not out of service when Motus went live, which have went out of service since," said CAB Senior Product Manager Jay Weinberg. "We see that on the out-of-service page from the FMCSA as well as on SAFER. So, even if they say that SAFER is not being updated, we know it is because it has been updated since Motus went live."
2. Arbitrary changes to insurance limits
The Motus system has abruptly altered the minimum insurance filing requirements for carriers because the requirement now appears to be based on the carrier's application details instead of the historical OP-1 form process.
CAB analysis found that 150,076 carriers saw their filing requirement increase, while 73,681 saw a decrease. Of the carriers with increased requirements, 27,287—approximately 18%—used to carry adequate insurance but no longer do.
For example, Hamilton Reese and Associates (Docket MC3) needed $750,000 BIPD under the legacy system and had a matching $750,000 filing. Under Motus, the requirement jumped to $5,000,000, but the filing on file remains $750,000.
CAB Chief Operating Officer Shuie Yankelewitz reminded fleet managers to monitor, verify and sometimes challenge filing limits.
3. Failures in 'cancellation by replacement'
Under the old system, a new primary insurance filing would automatically cancel an older policy. In Motus, relying on filings being canceled by replacement is not so reliable anymore.
For Docket MC1714580, three BIPD filings on the same policy all show as "Active" at once because earlier filings were never canceled when newer ones took effect. Conversely, Docket MC1656409 experienced the opposite failure: a newer Prime Insurance filing was immediately marked "Replaced," while an older Progressive County Mutual filing incorrectly stayed active, meaning Motus canceled the wrong one.
As a result, the carrier's coverage record no longer reflects reality, leaving those relying on Motus unable to tell which filing is actually in force.
"Sometimes we're seeing that the cancellation by replacement is not working at all; sometimes the cancellation by replacement is replacing the wrong one," Yankelewitz said.
4. Inadequate insurance, active authority
In a bizarre glitch, Motus is displaying some authorities as active despite having no valid insurance. For instance, Richard White (Docket MC73) shows a current status of "Active" on Motus, but the status reason reads "Revoked," as if the authority is active because it was revoked.
The carrier requires $1,000,000 BIPD but has $0 insurance on file, meaning they have no coverage at all. Prior to Motus, this authority was Inactive, and while Motus's own Operating Authority History confirms that shift, nothing in the record justifies calling it Active now. Ultimately, active authority doesn't guarantee adequate insurance. The two need to be checked together, noted Yankelewitz.
5. Authority canceled for no clear reason
Conversely, valid operating authorities are being canceled without justification. Burnham Service Co., Inc. (USDOT 930080, Docket MC682) held active Common and Contract authority for Property and Household Goods, which was reinstated in 2005 with no further revocation on record since.
Under Motus, all four of the carrier's authority types now show "Inactive" with the status reason listed as "Discontinued Revocation." The carrier's insurance is current and adequate with $1,000,000 required and on file, meaning nothing about its filings explains why authority would now be inactive.
"This one's actually quite painful because we're actually hearing from motor carrier partners of ours, or friends of ours in the industry that are dealing with motor carriers, who are being taken out of business, put on the side of the road if they're operating, because Motus decided that their authority needed to be canceled without any legitimate reason," Yankelewitz said. "This is really impacting a lot of people. A lot of motor carriers we've heard from are saying that this is their reality; where their authority was canceled for no obvious reason. We don't really know why their authority was canceled."
6. Excess insurance filings displayed incorrectly
Motus is failing to accurately display the underlying limits of excess insurance policies, creating the false impression of compliance.
Accu Chem Conversion Inc (Docket MC335767) requires $1,000,000 BIPD, and Motus shows exactly $1,000,000 filed and active. The $1,000,000 filing is actually a BIPD/Excess policy covering only the layer from $5,000,000 to $6,000,000, with no primary policy underneath it at all.
While Motus shows the amounts matching precisely, the carrier actually has zero coverage from $0 to $5,000,000—a total primary coverage gap. A matching required-vs-filed number doesn't prove real coverage — an excess policy can show "adequate" with zero primary underneath.
