Suit Filed Alleges FMCSA Overreach in Publication of SMS Methodology

Recommendation: Delay publication of the SMS methodology until an independent assessment validates the approach and the data format, avoiding pressure against a rushed release. This step protects the involved stakeholders and helps preserve the original integrity of the methodology.

The suit cites a cumulative trail of information from inspections, mail submissions, and other inputs, asserting that the current publication may not reflect a balanced measurement approach. FMCSA should supply the evaluation framework used to produce the scores and explain how the format accommodates diverse carrier operations. The filing references december filings and calls for clearer disclosure from cvsa participants and other parties.

Suggested steps include a public, time-bound assessment of the data, a transparent evaluation of the measurement methods, and a revised format for reprocessing the underlying records. The plan should make the original dataset and correspondence from mail submissions accessible to an independent panel, with cvsa and involved agencies participating.

To land practical results, FMCSA should publish a decoupled checklist covering data provenance, the measurement approach, and the assessment criteria. It should require a formal comment period, allow mail-based submissions, and incorporate a cumulative review of inspections trends before any final release. The team should report a clear timeline in december or shortly after, with a concrete path to rework the methodology if new data arrives against external critique.

In sum, the suit underscores how a cumulative process can misalign public trust if publication precedes thorough reprocessing and evaluation. By making the original data, the mail submissions, and the cvsa-involved inputs transparent, the FMCSA can build a stronger approach that withstands scrutiny and informs inspections policy decisions.

FMCSA SMS Methodology Publication and Safety Measurement System: Key Points for Stakeholders

Begin by mapping your fleet’s safety metrics to the three SMS categories and determine how each category contributes to scores. Review the published methodology in the section that identifies weighting formulas and the formats used for scoring.

Publicly share the background and the documentation used for determining safety scores, including non-cargo operations and any placarded fleets. veolia examples illustrate how placarded fleets appeared in SMS statistics, showing the impact on overall results.

During the april release period, submit responses and identify any inconsistencies between published SMS results and your on-the-ground data. Use regulationsgov to guide submissions and request clarifications via the section that explains why a given score appeared.

Create a practical tour of your data flows to verify which data entries feed the SMS, and ensure you submit documentation that demonstrates the link between driver behavior, placarded trucks, and safety outcomes.

Identify the three key responses FMCSA expects for data corrections: confirm the underlying data, explain the variance, and resubmit corrected files within the announced period.

Between the available formats and the SMS scoring logic, stakeholders should establish a clear routine to monitor the cumulative effect across fleets, especially for hazmat and non-cargo operations.

Maintain a focused section for feedback loops, collecting input from drivers, fleet managers, and safety staff to refine data submission practices. Focus on specific data points such as hours-of-service, inspections, and placarded compliance records to sharpen scoring clarity.

This approach helps stakeholders prepare for a future alignment with FMCSA methodologies and supports proactive risk management across fleets.

What the Lawsuit Claims About FMCSA’s SMS Methodology Publication

Publish the full SMS methodology in the docket now to enable independent assessment and informed actions.

The lawsuit argues that FMCSA overreach is evident in how the methodology was shared. It points to:

• Publication of a public content summary with a sidebar link rather than a full, auditable methodology, with key details discovered only after stakeholder inquiries.
• Unexplained selection of data elements and scoring rules, hindering the ability to determine how crashes, placards, or other factors affect the SMS results.
• Lack of a transparent data trail (sources, dates, and weighting) that would support independent review and replication.
• Public communication that does not clearly map SMS outcomes to safety actions, enabling misinterpretation and confusion.
• Publication timing that complicates assessment during holidays or when offices in washington and other states are short-staffed, undermining timely input.

To address the issue, the docket should acknowledge what was discovered and set a forward plan. The filing urges FMCSA to:

1. Determine and disclose the full methodology, including data sources, selection criteria, and scoring rules, in a single, accessible content block in the docket.
2. Provide a clear alignment between SMS content and actual safety outcomes, with an explanation of how placards and other indicators are used in the model.
3. Publish a full, systematic documentation that can be reviewed by researchers and stakeholders before any future actions are taken.
4. Engage stakeholders in a formal process (including carrier groups and state agencies) to gather input before decisions that may influence policy.
5. Set a timeline that accommodates review during non-holiday periods and allows washington-based agencies to contribute input.

Ultimately, the docket would reflect a balanced approach: acknowledge limitations, propose improvements, and ensure content supports safe, data-driven decisions, not surprises.

How the SMS Methodology Was Developed and Released: Timeline and Stakeholders

Identify stakeholders and publish a clear timeline; define required inputs and keep private commenters aligned on the plan to guide the release.

FMCSA-led teams conducted interviews, data pulls, and technical sessions with shippers, carriers, and enforcement partners; when commenters asked, they outlined the agenda, specified the types of data, and mapped the process from concept to publication.

The methodology was developed with a consistent format, assembling a package of statistics and available datasets; throughout the project, mcief guidance anchored the methodological choices and ensured alignment with policy goals.

Segmentation work separated high-risk truck operations by carrier type, geography, and behavior patterns; the team focused on speeding indicators and warning signs to sharpen the SMS scoring and targeting.

The release packaged the methodology with clear documentation, available for commenters and industry users; private sector feedback shaped revisions, and the publication reflected a transparent format that is easy to interpret and reproduce.

Key milestones followed a defined process, with milestones documented and updated because stakeholder input demanded refinement; the timeline shows when steps were conducted, when statistics were recalculated, and when the final methodology was issued.

Ongoing monitoring continues to refine segmentation, adjust required thresholds, and incorporate new data; the goal remains to provide actionable guidance for shippers, truck operators, and enforcement partners while avoiding overreach.

Data Sources, Transparency, and Public Access to the Methodology

Publish a complete, machine-readable data dictionary and the original data sources used to compute the SMS weights, with a public revision history and dates for each update. Store data in stable formats, provide a subject-level explanation of how each source influences the score, and document how determinations are applied to the results.

Identify data categories that feed the scores, including crash data, roadside inspection results, time windows, and trucking attributes. Document cleaning steps, field mappings, and the exact fields used to calculate the weights. Include metrics on sample size, regional coverage, and how missing data are handled, with links to resources and a clear path to the public view via httpaifmcsadotgovsms.

Expose the algorithm with a transparent weight calculation approach, including the rationale for weight ranges and any normalization. Provide code or pseudocode to support reproducibility and invite submissions from associations and private entities to propose changes, captured in a dedicated revision log. Maintain a contact channel (contact) and recognize adrienne as a steady point of contact for revision requests and ongoing inquiries.

Before any release, remove private identifiers and redact sensitive fields; offer aggregated statistics suitable for broad use while preserving privacy. Provide a formal process for data corrections and submissions, with predictable response times and clear criteria for accepting updates. Ensure ongoing resources guide stakeholders through the methodology and data sources, strengthening trust across trucking and associations.

Maintain an accessible, time-stamped record of how the method evolves, and encourage better collaboration among agencies, associations, and private entities. The public can review data provenance, the document detailing the approach, and the submissions workflow, with adrienne and the team ready to address questions and improvements on an ongoing basis.

Practical Effects on Carriers and SMS Scores

Submit a focused mitigation plan within 15 days to shield carriers from abrupt SMS score shifts tied to published methods. The plan, once submitted, should include concrete steps, milestones, and assigned responsibilities to limit disruption and clarify how methods align with day-to-day operations.

Expect score volatility to rise as crashes and related events are reinterpreted under the new publication. Carriers should monitor responses from drivers and fleet managers; provide a clear channel to explain changes and minimize misinterpretation to protect operations and reduce risk.

Implement a targeted intervention to separate reckless behavior from routine risk. Use identifying data to spot patterns and avoid blanket penalties. they and management must align resources to enforce the plan without distracting from safety work.

Prioritize the most impactful factors and incorporate field feedback. Align the order of data elements with performance priorities so the part of the score affected by recent changes reflects real safety improvements, not publication artifacts. The goal is clarity for carriers and auditors alike.

Accountable leadership is essential. Senior management must be accountable for decisions and for communicating updates. Provide support through training and access to the right data; avoid blame while driving responsibility across the fleet.

Below is the proposed evaluation framework to monitor impact after this publication. Track metrics such as score stability, responses turnaround times, and the rate of identified reckless behaviors. Build a tank of risk indicators across carriers and report weekly to adjust course.

Incorporate ongoing learning: capture driver and carrier feedback via simple, timely channels; update the policy heading as needed; and keep the support function aligned with risk management objectives.

Legal Path, Remedies Sought, and Potential Court Outcomes

Seek a preliminary injunction to pause the publication of the SMS methodology until the court reviews the agency’s process.

In federal court, file a complaint alleging fmcsas overreach, supported by the Administrative Procedure Act, First Amendment concerns, and privacy principles. Argue that the methodology, as submitted, relies on data linked to crashes and that publication without guardrails creates risk to data integrity and public trust. Include Elizabeth’s declaration and fedex operations examples to illustrate where the method could misclassify incidents or expose sensitive information. Build a record showing the data is linked to a system and that the definition of identifying data is broader than the driver-only subset.

The remedies sought include a stay of publication; injunctive relief; declaratory judgment; orders to replace or modify the methodology to a defensible definition based on a driver-only dataset; require securement measures to protect roadside and in-vehicle data; demand very documented redaction of identifying fields; require FMCSA to provide a very documented, auditable explanation; compel production of internal documents the corporation submitted; and ensure capacity and risk controls are added before any further release, taking holidays and prior data into account.

The court could grant a narrow injunction focusing on specific datasets, deny parts, or remand the case to FMCSA to refine the methodology’s definitions and safeguards. It may order temporary relief or a more durable remedy depending on the factual record, and it could require a fix to the definition of driving risk or the driver-only classification, or to replace the current system with a more conservative approach. Expedited briefing, discovery, and a structured timetable for action may accompany the ruling.

Courts weigh the harms of delay against the public interest. The record may show that crashes data are misinterpreted unless properly linked to capacity metrics, and that restraint on release protects privacy and accuracy. The defense may emphasize support for safety improvements and improved reporting by a corporation. The decision should consider holidays, prior incidents, and the ability to replace or update the system promptly.

Remedy	Rationale	Potential Outcome
Temporary restraining order / preliminary injunction	Pause publication while review completes; address privacy and accuracy concerns	Grant in full, grant in part, or denied with expedited schedule
Declaratory judgment	Clarify legality and scope of SMS publication under fmcsas guidelines	Advisory ruling that informs subsequent actions
Redaction or tighten data definition	Protect identifying data; ensure driver-only data is properly defined	Improved safeguards; guides future releases
Replace or revise methodology	Based on auditable definitions and validated sources	Agency action required; timeline varies
Protective order / securement measures	Limit access to sensitive data; prevent roadside leakage	Distribution controls; faster implementation