**Analysis of**

**New Entrant Motor Carrier**

**Safety Performance and Compliance**

**Using SafeStat**

**March 2000**

**Prepared for: Prepared by:**

**Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration John A. Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center**

**Office of Data Analysis & Information Systems Economic Analysis
Division, DTS-42**

**Data Analysis Division Kendall Square**

**400 Seventh Street, S.W. Cambridge, MA 02142**

**Washington, DC 20590**

####### PREFACE

This report documents the findings of a special study undertaken to
update, confirm and expand upon previous studies on the comparative (to
experienced carriers) safety performance and compliance of large
commercial motor vehicle operators (motor carriers) newly entering into
U.S. interstate operations. Once these operator/carriers engage in
interstate operations with large commercial motor vehicles, they are
required to register with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)
and they become subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). In particular, this study was accomplished to help provide a
basis for formulating the details of a new entrant education and safety
assurance process including the possible need for special emphasis among
the component groups of new entrants. Component groups include U.S.,
Canadian, and Mexican domiciled motor carriers newly registering with
the USDOT for interstate operations in the U.S..

The study was performed at the Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center (the Volpe Center) under a Project Plan Agreement with the
Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA). The Volpe Center technical project manager was
Donald Wright of the Economic Analysis Division in the Office of System
and Economic Assessment. The study was undertaken and this report was
written by Donald Wright with assistance from Jon Ohman of the Economic
Analysis Division and Leon Parkin of EG&G Services. At the FMCSA, the
project was managed by Dale Sienicki of the FMCSA's Office of Data
Analysis and Information Systems, Data Analysis Division.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[Section]{.underline} [Page]{.underline}

1\.
BACKGROUND...............\...\......\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
1-1

2\. SIZES OF AND CHANGES IN CARRIER
POPULATIONS\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\..... 2-1

3\. ANALYSIS OF SAFESTAT
RESULTS...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
3-1

3.1. Accident
SEA.........................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
3-1

3.2. Driver
SEA..................\.......................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
3-2

3.2.1. Driver Inspection Indicator
(DII).........\.....................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
3-3

3.2.2. Moving Violations Indicator
(MVI)...........................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\... 3-6

3.3. Vehicle
SEA\...........................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
3-6

3.4. Safety Management
SEA\.........................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
3-10

4\. ANALYSIS OF EXPOSURE TO FMCSA
OVERSIGHT\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
4-1

4.1. Compliance
Reviews.................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
4-1

4.2. Driver Roadside
Inspections....................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
4-3

4.3. Vehicle Roadside
Inspections...................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
4-4

5\. SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSIONS.........................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
5-1

5.1. SafeStat
Analysis...\...................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
5-1

5.1.1. Accident
SEA................................\.....................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-1

5.1.2. Driver
SEA......\..................................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-2

5.1.3. Vehicle
SEA...\.......................\..............................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-2

5.1.4. Safety Management
SEA\........................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-3

5.1.5.
Conclusion...................................\.....................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-4

5.2. Analysis of Exposure to FMCSA Oversight
...\...............\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.... 5-4

5.2.1. Compliance
Reviews.......................\.....................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-4

5.2.2. Driver Roadside
Inspections...................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-5

5.2.3. Vehicle Roadside
Inspections.....\..............................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-5

5.2.4.
Conclusion...................................\.....................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-5

5.3. General
Conclusion..............................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-6

**LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS**

**FIGURES**

[Figure]{.underline} [Page]{.underline}

2-1 Active U.S. Carriers in the MCMIS Census
File\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
2-1

2-2 Active Canadian Carriers in the MCMIS Census
File\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
2-2

2-3 Active Mexican Carriers in the MCMIS Census
File\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
2-2

2-4 Power Unit Distribution by Experience
Level\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
2-3

2-5 Driver Distribution by Experience
Level\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
2-4

3-1 Percent of Carriers with Deficient Accident SEA Values by Experience
Level\...\...\.... 3-2

3-2 Percent of Carriers with Deficient Driver SEA Values by Experience
Level\...\...\...\..... 3-3

3-3 Percent of Carriers with Deficient Driver Inspection Indicators

by Experience
Level\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
3-4

3-4 Percent of Carriers with Deficient Driver Inspection Indicators

by Experience Level and Domicile of
Carrier\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
3-5

3-5 Percent of Carriers with Deficient Moving Violation Indicators

by Experience
Level\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
3-6

3-6 Percent of Carriers with Deficient Vehicle SEA Values by Experience
Level\...\...\...\... 3-7

3-7 Percent of Carriers with Deficient Vehicle Inspection Indicators

by Experience
Level\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
3-8

3-8 Percent of Carriers with Deficient Vehicle Inspection Indicators

by Experience Level and Domicile of
Carrier\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
3-9

3-9 Percent of Carriers with Deficient Safety Management Review
Indicators

by Experience
Level\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
3-10

4-1 Number of Compliance Reviews by Experience
Level\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
4-2

4-2 Number of Driver Roadside Inspections by Experience
Level\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.... 4-3

[Figure]{.underline} [Page]{.underline}

4-3 Number of Vehicle Roadside Inspections by Experience
Level\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\..... 4-4

**TABLES**

[Table]{.underline} [Page]{.underline}

4-1 Amount of FMCSA Oversight by Experience Level

\- September 1997 to September
1999\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
4-1

4-2 SafeStat Results by Domicile of
Carrier\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
4-2

**1. BACKGROUND**

This special study was undertaken at the Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center (the Volpe Center) in conjunction with a project for the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to develop a process
for the safety qualifying and monitoring of new entrant interstate motor
carriers. New entrant interstate motor carriers are defined as motor
carriers initially registering for interstate operations with the FMCSA
and thus newly subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSR). For purposes of this study, motor carriers are considered to be
new entrants for the first two years following their registration with
the FMCSA to perform U.S. interstate operations. Some of these "new
entrants" may not be new [operators]{.underline}, having previously
established operations within a state or foreign country

This study follows an earlier study[^1] also performed at the Volpe
Center for the FMCSA that found new entrants to have significantly lower
levels of safety regulation compliance than experienced carriers,
suggesting a need for additional education and oversight. Due to data
limitations, earlier studies produced inconclusive results with respect
to new entrant crash rate comparisons to experienced carriers. Following
those earlier findings and resulting recommendations, the FMCSA
requested that the Volpe Center further study and develop a process to
safety qualify and monitor new entrants. The study described in this
report updates, confirms, and expands upon the previous studies of new
entrant safety compliance and performance, and helps provide a basis for
formulating the details of a new entrant process.

Because of increased trade with Mexico and Canada, occasioned in part by
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), increasing numbers of
motor carriers domiciled in those countries are newly registering with
the FMCSA. Since these motor carriers are usually experienced carriers,
but subject to different safety regulations and different levels of
safety education, enforcement, and oversight in their own countries,
they are broken out for study separately from U.S. new entrants. Thus,
the safety analysis of new entrants includes the comparative study of
four groups: 1) U.S. experienced carriers, 2) U.S. new entrants, 3)
Mexican carriers, and 4) Canadian carriers. In addition to confirming
the need for a new entrant program, this study helps to identify the
possible need for special emphasis among the component groups of new
entrants.

In performing this study the Volpe Center took advantage of a relatively
new analytical process or tool developed at the Center for the FMCSA
that evaluates the safety status of both individual and groups of motor
carriers. Called SafeStat,[^2] it uses data from a variety of state and
federal sources to measure the relative safety performance and
compliance of individual motor carriers in four Safety Evaluation Areas
(SEAs): Accident, Driver, Vehicle, and Safety Management. SafeStat is
currently used by the FMCSA to identify and prioritize motor carriers
for on-site compliance reviews (CRs) and roadside inspections. In
addition to measuring the safety compliance and performance of
individual carriers, SafeStat can also be used to assess the relative
safety status of defined groups of carriers (such as new entrants) and
provide for comparisons with other defined groups (such as experienced
carriers). Furthermore, using SafeStat and FMCSA Census File data, group
analysis and comparisons by domicile (state or country) of the carrier
are also possible. In addition to the safety status analysis, by using
data from the FMCSA Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS),
the amount of safety oversight/intervention (compliance reviews,
roadside inspections, moving violations, and enforcement actions
initiated) can be determined for the identified groups. In this way, the
amount of current oversight may be related to the safety status
measurements.

This study is organized into five sections. Section 2 uses the FMCSA's
MCMIS Census of registered interstate motor carriers to identify and
count the carriers in the four groups: U.S. experienced carriers (in
operation two or more years), U.S. new entrants (in operation less than
two years), Mexican carriers, and Canadian carriers. The Census is based
on the Form MCS-150 information provided by motor carriers that register
with the U.S. DOT to perform interstate operations. A motor carrier is
required to register with the FMCSA using Form MCS-150 prior to or
shortly after commencing interstate operations. Examined in this section
are the numbers of carriers, their size distributions (in terms of
numbers of power units operated), and the rates of increase in their
numbers. In Section 3, the safety performance and compliance of the four
groups are measured and compared in terms of SafeStat SEAs and
indicators. Section 4 describes the level of safety oversight of the
four groups of carriers by the FMCSA. Section 5 contains a summary and
conclusions.

**2. SIZES OF AND CHANGES IN CARRIER POPULATIONS**

In this section, the sizes of and recent changes in carrier populations
for U.S., Canadian, and Mexican new entrants and their experienced
counterparts are examined. The data source is the FMCSA Census File of
motor carriers in the MCMIS, which contains carrier registration
information from Form MCS-150. Population totals and changes from
September 1997 to September 1999, the date of the most recent SafeStat
run, are examined. As of late September 1999, there were about 508,500
registered (U.S., Canadian, and Mexican) carriers, of which about 90,500
had been registered less than two years. In this study, a new entrant is
defined as any carrier registered for less than two years, while an
experienced carrier is defined as any carrier registered for two or more
years.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="3.2256944444444446in"}Figure 2-1 shows a steady increase in the
active U.S. interstate motor carrier population over the two-year
period, rising from about 401 thousand to almost 486 thousand, an
increase of almost 85 thousand, or 21.1 percent.

### 

### Figure 2-1. Active U.S. Carriers in the MCMIS Census File

These data indicate that over 40,000 U.S. carriers per year are being
added to the Census.

Figure 2-2 shows that over 3,200 Canadian carriers were added to the
Census during the same two-year period, an increase at 27.2 percent,
which is slightly greater that the 21.1 percent increase in the number
of U.S. carriers. Figure 2-3 shows that, during the same period, over
2,700 Mexican carriers were added to the Census, an increase of 54.9
percent, more than double the percentage increase of U.S. carriers.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.995833333333334in" height="3.5375in"}

####### Figure 2-2. Active Canadian Carriers in the MCMIS Census File

While 93 percent of new entrants are U.S.-based carriers, the number of
foreign carriers (and, in particular, the number of Mexican carriers) is
increasing at a much faster rate than the number of U.S.-based carriers.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.995833333333334in"
height="3.3340277777777776in"}

####### Figure 2-3. Active Mexican Carriers in the MCMIS Census File

In order to gain some additional perspective on the actual number of
vehicles operated by new entrants as compared to experienced carriers,
fleet size and drivers employed distributions were also computed. Figure
2-4 shows the number of power units registered to new entrants compared
to experienced carriers. Figure 2-5 contains the distribution of the
number of drivers employed by new entrants compared to experienced
carriers. In both distributions, it can be seen that, as expected, new
entrants are smaller with the majority having 1 or 2 power units and
drivers. It is not surprising that some "new entrants" have larger
fleets and employ more drivers since many may have established
[intra]{.underline}state operations prior to registering for
[inter]{.underline}state operations. The data show some carriers with
"0" power units or drivers since they either short-term lease these
resources or failed to complete the information on their MCS-150
registration forms.

![](media/image4.wmf)

####### Figure 2-4. Power Unit Distribution by Experience Level

**Figure 2-5. Driver Distribution by Experience Level**

![](media/image5.wmf)

**3. ANALYSIS OF SAFESTAT RESULTS**

In this section, an analysis of the results of the September 1999
SafeStat run is made comparing new entrant and experienced carriers,
and, where possible, Canadian and Mexican carriers. SafeStat measures
the relative safety performance and compliance of individual motor
carriers in four Safety Evaluation Areas: Accident, Driver, Vehicle, and
Safety Management. Since complete crash data and exposure measures are
not available for Canadian and Mexican carriers, their Accident SEA
values are not reliable and, therefore, are not broken out separately.
Similarly, the lack of reliable data precludes the separate analysis of
Canadian and Mexican carriers in the Safety Management SEA. Most of the
data on which the Safety Management SEA is based come from compliance
reviews and resulting enforcement actions. Few Canadian and no Mexican
carriers receive these on-site safety investigations. Comparisons are
generally possible for the Driver and Vehicle SEAs, which are based on
roadside inspection and traffic enforcement data and indicators.

**3.1. ACCIDENT SEA**

The Accident SEA is based on crash rate data from state-reported crashes
involving commercial motor vehicles and recordable crashes obtained
during FMCSA on-site compliance reviews. Two or more crashes are
required for a motor carrier to receive an Accident SEA value. The
values are expressed in percentile terms where 100 is the highest or
worst value and 0 is the lowest or best. SafeStat specifically
identifies as deficient any value at or above 75 (i.e., performance is
in the worst 25^th^ percentile).

Figure 3-1 shows the proportions of new entrant and experienced carriers
scoring at or above the 75^th^ percentile (deficient). These results
show that almost half (47.7 percent) of new entrant carriers were
deficient in the Accident SEA. This result is significantly higher than
that for experienced carriers of whom less than one fourth (23.7
percent) were deficient. Figure 3-1 shows new entrant carriers to have
significantly higher crash involvement according to SafeStat. This
result is particularly significant, since earlier studies failed to show
poorer crash performance by new entrants, due to data limitations and
the lack of an appropriate tool, such as SafeStat.

![](media/image6.wmf)

### Figure 3-1. Percent of Carriers with Deficient Accident SEA Values

### by Experience Level

**3.2. DRIVER SEA**

The Driver SEA in SafeStat is based on three indicators using
independent data sources. They are: the Driver Inspection Indicator
(DII), which is based on out-of service violations from driver roadside
inspections; the Driver Review Indicator (DRI), which is based on
driver-related violations from on-site compliance reviews; and the
Moving Violations Indicator (MVI), which is based on moving violations
issued in conjunction with traffic stops that resulted in roadside
inspections. As in the Accident SEA, the values are expressed in
percentile terms where 100 is the highest or worst value and 0 is the
lowest or best. SafeStat specifically identifies as deficient any value
at or above 75 (i.e., performance is in the worst 25^th^ percentile).

Figure 3-2 shows the proportions of new entrant and experienced carriers
scoring at or above the 75^th^ percentile (i.e., deficient). These
results show that over half (55.2 percent) of new entrant carriers were
deficient in the Driver SEA. This result is significantly higher than
that for experienced carriers, of which about one fourth (26.9 percent)
were deficient. Figure 3-2 shows new entrant carriers to have
significantly worse driver safety compliance and performance when
compared to experienced carriers, according to SafeStat. These results
are consistent with findings from previous studies, which showed new
entrants to have lower levels of compliance than experienced carriers.

### ![](media/image7.wmf)Figure 3-2. Percent of Carriers with Deficient Driver SEA Values

### by Experience Level

**3.2.1. Driver Inspection Indicator (DII)**

In addition to the overall comparison of new entrants to experienced
carriers, it is possible to break out the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican
carriers for one of the indicators in the Driver SEA, the Driver
Inspection Indicator (DII). This is because both the out-of-service
violation data and the normalizing data (number of inspections) from
roadside inspections are complete and comparable. Data from the other
two indicators that contribute to the Driver SEA, which come from
compliance reviews and moving violations, are only valid for U.S.
carriers whose operations are mainly in the U.S. and that receive
compliance reviews. The Driver Inspection Indicator is a more
sophisticated and inclusive measure of roadside inspection performance
than the commonly used simple out-of-service (OOS) rate. The DII
accounts for up to a 30-month history and weights the out-of-service
inspections by both severity (number of OOS violations found) and the
date of the inspection (most recent inspections are considered to be
more indicative of the current status and are assigned greater weights).

Figure 3-3 compares the DIIs for new entrants and experienced carriers.
As in the overall Driver SEA, new entrants had significantly worse
performance with the DII, with almost 52 percent of the carriers in the
worst 25^th^ percentile as compared with a normal 25 percent of the
experienced carriers.

##### ![](media/image8.wmf)Figure 3-3. Percent of Carriers with Deficient Driver Inspection Indicators

##### by Experience Level

Figure 3-4 breaks out the DII results by domicile of carrier. While
comparisons of the DII among U.S., Canadian, and Mexican new entrants
confirm their poor performance as compared to experienced carriers, they
do not reveal great differences among them. Actually, US new entrants
had slightly higher DII values than did either of the foreign carrier
groups.

![](media/image9.wmf)

![](media/image11.wmf)

### Figure 3-4. Percent of Carriers with Deficient Driver Inspection Indicators

### by Experience Level and Domicile of Carrier 

**3.2.2. Moving Violations Indicator (MVI)**

A second component of the Driver SEA is the Moving Violations Indicator
(MVI). The MVI is based on moving violations issued in conjunction with
traffic stops resulted in roadside inspections. As in the Driver SEA,
the values are expressed in percentile terms where 100 is the highest or
worst value and 0 is the lowest or best. SafeStat specifically
identifies as deficient any value at or above 75 (i.e., performance is
in the worst 25^th^ percentile).

Figure 3-5 shows the proportion of new entrant and experienced carriers
scoring above the 75^th^ percentile (deficient). These results show that
nearly half (47.4 percent) of new entrant carriers were deficient in the
MVI. This result is significantly higher than that for experienced
carriers of whom less than one fourth (23.9 percent) were deficient.
Figure 3-5 shows new entrant carriers to have significantly higher
driver moving violation rates as compared to experienced carriers
according to SafeStat. These results are consistent with findings from
previous studies, which showed new entrants to also have lower levels
compliance with Federal safety regulations than experienced carriers.

![](media/image12.wmf)

#### Figure 3-5. Percent of Carriers with Deficient Moving Violation Indicators

#### by Experience Level

**3.3 VEHICLE SEA**

The Vehicle SEA in SafeStat is based on two indicators using independent
data sources. They are: the Vehicle Inspection Indicator (VII), which is
based on out-of-service violations from vehicle roadside inspections;
and the Vehicle Review Indicator (VRI), which is based on
vehicle-related violations from on-site compliance reviews. As in the
Accident and Driver SEAs, the values are expressed in percentile terms
where 100 is the highest or worst value and 0 is the lowest or best.
SafeStat specifically identifies as deficient any value at or above 75
(i.e., performance is in the worst 25^th^ percentile).

Figure 3‑6 shows the proportions of new entrant and experienced carriers
scoring at or at or above the 75^th^ percentile (i.e., deficient). These
results show that over 34 percent of new entrant carriers were deficient
in the Vehicle SEA. This result is higher than that for experienced
carriers, of which less than one third (27.1 percent) were deficient.
Although not dramatic, these results indicate that new entrant carriers
have somewhat worse vehicle safety compliance and performance when
compared to experienced carriers. These results are also consistent with
findings from previous studies, which showed new entrants to have lower
levels of compliance than experienced carriers.

![](media/image13.wmf)

### Figure 3-6. Percent of Carriers with Deficient Vehicle SEA Values

### by Experience Level

In addition to the comparison of new entrants to experienced carriers,
it is possible to break out the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican carriers for
one of the indicators in the Vehicle SEA, the Vehicle Inspection
Indicator (VII). This is because both the out-of-service violation data
and the normalizing data (number of inspections) from roadside
inspections are complete and comparable. Results from the other
indicator used in the Vehicle SEA, the indicator relating to compliance
reviews, are only valid for U.S. carriers whose operations are mainly in
the U.S. and that generally are the only carriers subject to FMCSA
compliance reviews. The Vehicle Inspection Indicator is a more
sophisticated and inclusive measure of vehicle roadside inspection
performance than the commonly used simple out-of-service (OOS) rate. The
VII accounts for up to a 30-month history and weights the out-of-service
inspections by both severity (number of OOS violations found) and the
date of the inspection (most recent inspections are considered to be
more indicative of the current status and are assigned higher weights).

Figure 3-7 compares the VIIs for new entrants and experienced carriers.
As in the overall Vehicle SEA, new entrants had worse performance with
the VII, with 34.0% of the carriers in the worst 25^th^ percentile as
compared with a more normal 27.1 % of the experienced carriers.

![](media/image14.wmf)

### Figure 3-7. Percent of Carriers with Deficient Vehicle Inspection Indicators

### by Experience Level

Figure 3-8 breaks out the VII results by domicile of carrier.
Interestingly, comparisons of the VII for U.S., Canadian, and Mexican
new entrants show their relative performance to be comparable to
experienced carriers of the same domicile. There are significant
differences among the three domiciles, however, with the Canadian
carriers having exceptionally low VIIs, the U.S. carriers having closer
to expected levels and the Mexican carriers much higher than expected.
Indeed, almost 60% of the Mexican carriers (both new entrant and
experienced) fell in the worst 25^th^ percentile of the VIIs. Actually,
U.S. new entrants had significantly higher VII values than do the
Canadian carriers, which had exceptionally low 8.6 (for new entrants)
and 7.0 (for experienced carriers) average VIIs.

![](media/image15.wmf)

![](media/image17.wmf)

### Figure 3-8. Percent of Carriers with Deficient Vehicle Inspection Indicators

### by Experience Level and Domicile of Carrier 

**3.4. SAFETY MANAGEMENT SEA**

The Safety Management SEA in SafeStat in based on three indicators, two
based on compliance review data and one based on data from enforcement
cases. They are: the Safety Management Review Indicator (SMRI), which is
based on violations of acute and critical regulations that are related
to safety management programs and practices (as opposed to violations
committed during actual driver or vehicle operations); the Hazardous
Material Review Indicator (HMRI), which is based on violations of the
Hazardous Material Regulations (HMR), if applicable; and the Enforcement
History Indicator, which is based on the carrier's entire enforcement
case history. As in the Accident, Driver, and Vehicle SEAs, the values
are expressed in percentile terms where 100 is the highest or worst
value and 0 is the lowest or best. SafeStat specifically identifies as
deficient any value at or above 75 (performance is in the worst 25^th^
percentile).

Since one of the indicators, the EHI, requires a history of enforcement
cases that only experienced carriers would have, and another indicator,
the HMRI, is not applicable to most carriers, the only meaningful way to
compare new entrants and experienced carriers in the Safety Management
SEA is to use the third indicator. That is, show the compliance levels
found in the most recent compliance review as measured by the SMRI.

Figure 3-9 shows the results of the SMRI comparison and indicates that
new entrant carriers had significantly worse safety management
compliance compared to experienced carriers. These results are also
consistent with findings from previous studies, which showed new
entrants to have lower levels of compliance with the FMCSR and HMR than
experienced carriers.

![](media/image18.wmf)

### Figure 3-9. Percent of Carriers with

### Deficient Safety Management Review Indicators

### by Experience Level

Although overall comparisons of new entrant and experienced carriers may
be made for the SMRI, separate breakouts of foreign carriers are not
possible, since those carriers generally do not receive compliance
reviews.

## 4. ANALYSIS OF EXPOSURE TO FMCSA OVERSIGHT

This section compares the level of safety oversight of experienced
carriers and new entrant carriers by the FMCSA. Where meaningful,
breakouts of the component groups (U.S., Canadian, and Mexican carriers)
are also done. Specifically, comparisons are made for compliance
reviews, driver roadside inspections, and vehicle roadside inspections.
Table 4-1 shows the amount of FMCSA oversight for new entrants and
experienced carriers during the study period, September 1997 to
September 1999

**Table 4-1.**

**Amount of FMCSA Oversight by Experience Level**

**- September 1997 to September 1999**

+--------------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+
| #                        | **New       | *            | **Total**   |
|                          | Entrants**  | *Experienced |             |
| # Type of Oversight      |             | Carriers**   |             |
+--------------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+
| Compliance Reviews       | 1,072       | 13,538       | 14,610      |
+--------------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+
| Driver Roadside          | 364,191     | 2,811,318    | 3,175,509   |
| Inspections              |             |              |             |
+--------------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+
| Vehicle Roadside         | 287,352     | 2,166,100    | 2,453,632   |
| Inspections              |             |              |             |
+--------------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+

**4.1. COMPLIANCE REVIEWS**

As shown in Figure 4-1, of the 14,610 compliance reviews performed in
the two-year period prior to the last SafeStat run (September 1997 to
September 1999), 13,538, or 92.6%, were on experienced carriers
(carriers that had been registered for two or more years at the time of
the review), while 1,072 reviews were performed on new entrant carriers
(carriers that had been registered for less than two more years at the
time of the review). Almost all of the compliance reviews were on U.S.
carriers, since very few Canadian carriers and no Mexican carriers
receive reviews. Direct comparisons of the percentages of new entrants
and experienced carriers that received reviews are difficult, since an
unknown percentage of registered carriers in the census are no longer
active. This is particularly true for the experienced carrier group.
Since 90,564 carriers registered in the two-year time period, however,
it can be estimated that the percentage of "new entrants" receiving
reviews was about 1.2% (1,072/90,564). The average population over the
last two years of experienced carriers was about 401,000. Therefore, the
percentage of experienced carriers receiving reviews was about 3.4%
(13,538/401,000), or almost three times the percentage of new entrants
receiving reviews during that period. The lower percentage of new
entrants receiving reviews is not surprising, since SafeStat is being
used to identify and prioritize carriers for reviews based on safety
performance and compliance data over a time frame of up to 30 months.
Recent registrants are less likely to have accumulated sufficient data
to be scored by SafeStat.

### 

### 

![](media/image19.wmf)

### Figure 4-1. Number of Compliance Reviews by Experience Level

A potentially more serious discrepancy exists with the exclusion of most
foreign carriers, some of which are being scored by SafeStat, but are
not receiving compliance reviews. This is particularly the case with
Mexican carriers, as shown in Table 4-2. Although 307 Mexican carriers
were scored by SafeStat (i.e., deficient in two or more SEAs), none
received reviews. An additional 933 Mexican carriers were deficient in
one SEA. The majority of those were deficient in the Vehicle SEA. Also,
the percentage of Mexican carriers receiving SafeStat scores (i.e.,
4.0%) was more than three times the percentage of U.S. carriers
receiving SafeStat scores (i.e., 1.2%).

### Table 4-2.

### ![](media/image20.wmf)SafeStat Results by Domicile of Carrier

**4.2. DRIVER ROADSIDE INSPECTIONS**

As shown in Figure 4-2, of the nearly 3.2 million driver roadside
inspections performed in the two-year period prior to the last SafeStat
run (September 1997 to September 1999), about 2.8 million, or 88.5%,
were on experienced carriers' drivers (drivers of carriers that had been
registered for two or more years at the time of the inspection). About
364 thousand driver inspections, or 11.5%, were performed on new entrant
carriers (drivers of carriers that had been registered for less than two
years at the time of the inspection). Since about 91,400 carriers
registered in the two-year study time period out of a total census
population of 509,000 at the end of the period, then almost 18% of the
population could be considered "new entrants". Therefore, although 18%
of the carriers were new entrants, they received less than 12% of the
total driver inspections. Conversely, it was estimated that over 86% of
the driver inspections were performed on experienced carriers, which
represented about 82% of the carrier population. The lower percentage of
driver inspections performed on new entrants is not surprising for two
reasons. The first is the smaller fleet sizes that are typical of new
entrants. The second is due to the increasing use of the SafeStat-based
Inspection Selection System (ISS), which is being used by the states to
identify and prioritize carriers for roadside inspections. Since
SafeStat is based on safety performance and compliance data over a time
frame of up to 30 months, recent registrants are unlikely to have
accumulated sufficient data to be scored by SafeStat and targeted by the
ISS.

![](media/image21.wmf)

####### Figure 4-2. Number of Driver Roadside Inspections by Experience Level

**4.3. VEHICLE ROADSIDE INSPECTIONS**

As shown in Figure 4-3, of the over 2.4 million vehicle roadside
inspections performed in the two-year period prior to the last SafeStat
run (September 1997 to September 1999), nearly 2.2 million, or 88.3%,
were on experienced carriers' vehicles (vehicles of carriers that had
been registered for two or more years at the time of the inspection).
About 287 thousand vehicle inspections, or 11.7%, were performed on new
entrant carriers (vehicles of carriers that had been registered for less
than two years at the time of the inspection). Since 90, 564 carriers
registered in the two-year study time period out of a total census
population of 509,000 at the end of the period, then almost 18% of the
population could be considered "new entrants." Therefore, although
almost 18% of the carriers were new entrants, they received less than
12% of the total vehicle inspections. Conversely, it was estimated that
over 88% of the vehicle inspections were performed on experienced
carriers, which represented about 82% of the carrier population (and
probably less than that since an unknown proportion may have been
inactive). As with driver inspections, the lower percentage of vehicle
inspections performed on new entrants is not surprising for two reasons.
The first is the smaller fleet sizes that are typical of new entrants.
The second is due to the increasing use of the SafeStat-based Inspection
Selection System (ISS), which is being used by the states to identify
and prioritize carriers for roadside inspections. Since SafeStat is
based on safety performance and compliance data over a time frame of up
to 30 months, recent registrants are unlikely to have accumulated
sufficient data to be scored by SafeStat and targeted by the ISS.

![](media/image22.wmf)

### Figure 4-3. Number of Vehicle Roadside Inspections by Experience Level

## 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

As shown in Section 2, there are both a significant and increasing
number of new entrant interstate motor carriers registering each year
with the U.S. DOT. The total registered interstate motor carrier
population increased by over 90,000, or 21%, during the two years
examined by the study. Of these new entrants, a relatively small
proportion are of foreign domicile (3,209 were Canadian carriers and
2,743 were Mexican carriers). The registration rate of new foreign
carriers, however, exceeds that of U.S. carriers. During the two-year
study period, the increase in the registered Canadian carrier population
was over 27%, while the increase in the Mexican carriers was over 50%.
During the same period, the increase in the U.S.-domiciled carrier
population was 21.1%. Therefore, while 93% of new entrants are
U.S.-based carriers, the number of foreign carriers (in particular, the
number of Mexican carriers) is increasing at a much faster rate.

#### 5.1. SAFESTAT ANALYSIS

SafeStat results were used to measure the comparative safety compliance
and performance of new entrant carriers and experienced carriers. Where
possible, additional comparisons were made between U.S. and foreign
carriers. SafeStat, measures the relative safety performance and
compliance of individual motor carriers in four Safety Evaluation Areas:
Accident, Driver, Vehicle, and Safety Management. The values are
expressed in percentile terms where 100 is the highest or worst value
and 0 is the lowest or best. SafeStat specifically identifies as
deficient any value at or above 75 (performance is in the worst 25^th^
percentile). Since complete crash data and exposure measures are not
available for Canadian and Mexican carriers, their Accident SEA values
are not reliable and, therefore, are not broken out separately.
Similarly, the lack of reliable data precludes the separate analysis of
Canadian and Mexican carriers in the Safety Management SEA. The Safety
Management SEA is based on data from compliance reviews and resulting
enforcement actions. Few Canadian and no Mexican carriers receive these
on-site safety investigations. Comparisons are generally possible for
the Driver and Vehicle SEAs.

# 5.1.1. Accident SEA

The Accident SEA in SafeStat is based on crash rate data from
state-reported crashes involving commercial motor vehicles and
recordable crashes obtained during FMCSA on-site compliance reviews. Two
or more crashes are required for a motor carrier to receive an Accident
SEA value.

Figure 3-1 shows the proportions of new entrant and experienced carriers
scoring above the 75^th^ percentile (deficient). These results show that
almost half (47.7%) of new entrant carriers were deficient in the
Accident SEA. This result is significantly higher than that for
experienced carriers, of which less than one fourth were deficient
(23.7%). In summary, new entrant carriers have significantly higher
crash involvement according to SafeStat. This result is particularly
significant since earlier studies had failed to confirm higher crash
rates among new entrants.

###### **5.1.2. Driver SEA**

The Driver SEA in SafeStat is based on three indicators using
independent data sources. They are: the Driver Inspection Indicator
(DII), which is based on out-of service violations from driver roadside
inspections; the Driver Review Indicator (DRI), which is based on
driver-related violations from on-site compliance reviews; and the
Moving Violations Indicator (MVI), which is based on moving violations
issued by state enforcement agencies in conjunction with traffic stops
resulting in roadside inspections.

Figure 3-2 shows the proportions of new entrant and experienced carriers
scoring at or above the 75^th^ percentile (i.e., deficient). These
results show that over half (55.2%) of new entrant carriers were
deficient in the Driver SEA. This result is significantly higher than
that for experienced carriers of whom less than one third were deficient
(26.9%). Figure 3-2 shows new entrant carriers to have significantly
worse driver safety compliance and performance when compared to
experienced carriers according to SafeStat. These results are consistent
with findings from previous studies, which showed new entrants to have
lower levels of compliance than experienced carriers.

In addition to the overall comparison of new entrants to experienced
carriers, it is possible to break out the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican
carriers for one of the indicators in the Driver SEA, the Driver
Inspection Indicator (DII). Figure 3-3 compares the DIIs for new
entrants and experienced carriers. As in the overall Driver SEA, new
entrants had significantly worse performance with the DII with almost
52% of the carriers in the worst 25^th^ percentile as compared with a
normal 25% of the experienced carriers.

The DII results were also compiled by domicile of the carrier. While
comparisons of the DII between U.S., Canadian, and Mexican new entrants
confirms their poor performance as compared to experienced carriers, it
does not reveal great differences among them. Actually, U.S. new
entrants had slightly higher DII values than did either of the foreign
carrier groups.

#### 5.1.3. Vehicle SEA

The Vehicle SEA in SafeStat is based on two indicators using independent
data sources. They are: the Vehicle Inspection Indicator (VII), which is
based on out-of-service violations from vehicle roadside inspections;
and the Vehicle Review Indicator (VRI), which is based on
vehicle-related violations from on-site compliance reviews.

Figure 3‑6 shows the proportions of new entrant and experienced carriers
scoring at or at or above the 75^th^ percentile (i.e., deficient). These
results show that over 34% of new entrant carriers were deficient in the
Vehicle SEA. This result is higher than that for experienced carriers,
of which less than one third (27.1%) were deficient. Although not
dramatic, these results indicate that new entrant carriers have somewhat
worse vehicle safety compliance and performance when compared to
experienced carriers. These results are also consistent with findings
from previous studies, which showed new entrants to have lower levels of
compliance than experienced carriers.

In addition to the comparison of new entrants to experienced carriers,
it was possible to break out the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican carriers
for one of the indicators in the Vehicle SEA, the Vehicle Inspection
Indicator (VII). As in the overall Vehicle SEA, new entrants had worse
performance with the VII, with almost 34% of the carriers in the worst
25^th^ percentile as compared with a more normal 27.1% of the
experienced carriers.

Comparisons of the VIIs for US, Canadian, and Mexican new entrants shows
their relative performance to be comparable to experienced carriers of
the same domicile. There are significant differences, however, among the
three domiciles with the Canadian carriers having exceptionally low
VIIs, the U.S. carriers having closer to expected levels, and the
Mexican carriers much higher than expected. Indeed, almost 60% of the
Mexican carriers (both new entrant and experienced) fell in the worst
25^th^ percentile of the VII. Actually, U.S. new entrants had
significantly higher VII values than did the Canadian carriers, which
had exceptionally low 8.6 (for new entrants) and 8.0 (for experienced
carriers) average VIIs.

# 5.1.4. Safety Management SEA

The Safety Management SEA in SafeStat is based on three indicators, two
based on compliance review data and one based on data from enforcement
cases. They are: the Safety Management Review Indicator (SMRI), which is
based on violations of acute and critical regulations that are related
to safety management programs and practices (as opposed to violations
committed during actual driver or vehicle operations); the Hazardous
Material Review Indicator (HMRI), which is based on violations of the
Hazardous Material Regulations (HMR), if applicable; and the Enforcement
History Indicator, which is based on the carrier's entire enforcement
case history.

Since one of the indicators, the EHI, requires a history of enforcement
cases that only experienced carriers would have, and another indicator,
the HMRI, is not applicable to most carriers, the only meaningful way to
compare new entrants and experienced carriers in the Safety Management
SEA is to use the third indicator. That is, show the compliance levels
found in the most recent compliance review as measured by the SMRI.

Figure 3-9 shows the results of the SMRI comparison and indicates that
new entrant carriers had significantly worse safety management
compliance compared to experience carriers. These results are also
consistent with findings from previous studies, which showed new
entrants to have lower levels of compliance with the FMCSR and HMR than
experienced carriers.

###### **5.1.5. Conclusion**

In conclusion, it can be stated that SafeStat results show new entrants
to have significantly lower levels of safety compliance and performance.
In addition, while crash rate indicators could not be accurately
calculated for foreign carriers, compliance levels are significantly
lower for Mexican carriers, particularly related to vehicle inspection
violations,

## 5.2. ANALYSIS OF EXPOSURE TO FMCSA OVERSIGHT

Comparisons were made of the level of safety oversight of experienced
carriers and new entrant carriers by the FMCSA. Where meaningful,
breakouts of the component groups (U.S., Canadian, and Mexican carriers)
were also done. Specifically, comparisons were made for compliance
reviews, driver roadside inspections, and vehicle roadside inspections.

**5.2.1. Compliance Reviews**

Of the 14,610 compliance reviews performed in the two-year period prior
to the last SafeStat run (September 1997 to September 1999), 13,538, or
92.6%, were on experienced carriers (carriers that had been registered
for two or more years at the time of the review), while 1,072 reviews
were performed on new entrant carriers (carriers that had been
registered for less than two years at the time of the review). Almost
all of the compliance reviews were on U.S. carriers, since very few
Canadian carriers and no Mexican carriers receive FMCSA reviews. Of the
90,564 carriers that newly registered in the two-year study time period,
1,072, or 1.2%, received compliance reviews. The average population of
experienced carriers over the two-year study period was about 401,000,
of which 13,538, or 3.4%, received compliance reviews. Thus, the
percentage of experienced carriers receiving reviews was almost three
times the percentage of new entrants receiving reviews during that
period. The lower percentage of new entrants receiving reviews is not
surprising, since SafeStat is now being used to identify and prioritize
carriers for reviews based on safety performance and compliance data
over a time frame of up to 30 months. Recent registrants are less likely
to have accumulated sufficient data to be scored by SafeStat.

The study also noted a potentially more serious discrepancy with respect
to compliance reviews brought about by the exclusion of most foreign
carriers, some of whom are being scored by SafeStat, but are not
receiving reviews. This is particularly the case with Mexican carriers,
as shown in Table 4-2. Although 307 Mexican carriers were scored by
SafeStat (measured deficiency in two or more SEAs), none received
reviews. An additional 933 Mexican carriers were deficient in one SEA.
The majority of those were deficient in the Vehicle SEA. Also, the
percentage of Mexican carriers receiving SafeStat scores (i.e., 4.0%)
was more than three times the percentage of U.S. carriers receiving
SafeStat scores (i.e., 1.2%).

**5.2.2. Driver Roadside Inspections**

Of the nearly 3.2 million driver roadside inspections performed during
the study period, about 2.8 million, or 88.5%, were on experienced
carriers' drivers (drivers of carriers that had been registered for over
two years at the time of the inspection) and about 364 thousand driver
inspections, or 11.5%, were performed on new entrant carriers' drivers
(drivers of carriers that had been registered for less than two years at
the time of the inspection). Therefore, the 18% of the carrier
population consisting of new entrants received less than 12% of the
total driver inspections. Conversely, it was estimated that over 86% of
the driver inspections were performed on experienced carriers, which
represented about 82% of the carrier population. The lower percentage of
driver inspections performed on new entrants is not surprising for two
reasons. The first is the smaller fleet sizes that are typical of new
entrants. The second is due to the increasing use of the SafeStat-based
Inspection Selection System (ISS), which is being used by the states to
identify and prioritize carriers for roadside inspections. The situation
is similar to that with compliance review prioritization. Since SafeStat
is based on safety performance and compliance data over a time frame of
up to 30 months, recent registrants are unlikely to have accumulated
sufficient data to be scored by SafeStat and targeted by the ISS.

**5.2.3. Vehicle Roadside Inspections**

Of the over 2.4 million vehicle roadside inspections performed during
the study period, nearly 2.2 million, or 88.3%, were on experienced
carriers' vehicles (vehicles of carriers that had been registered for
over two years at the time of the inspection) and about 287 thousand
vehicle inspections, or 11.7%, were performed on new entrant carriers'
vehicles (vehicles of carriers that had been registered for less than
two years at the time of the inspection). Since about 91,400 carriers
registered in the two-year study time period out of a total census
population of 509,000 at the end of the period, then almost 18% of the
population could be considered "new entrants." Therefore, although
almost 18% of the carriers were new entrants, they received less than
12% of the total vehicle inspections. Conversely, it was estimated that
over 88% of the vehicle inspections were performed on experienced
carriers, which represented about 82% of the carrier population (and
probably less than that since an unknown proportion may have been
inactive). As with driver inspections, the lower percentage of vehicle
inspections performed on new entrants is not surprising for two reasons.
The first is the smaller fleet sizes that are typical of new entrants.
The second is due to the increasing use of the SafeStat-based Inspection
Selection System (ISS), which is being used by the states to identify
and prioritize carriers for roadside inspections. Since SafeStat is
based on safety performance and compliance data over a time frame of up
to 30 months, recent registrants are unlikely to have accumulated
sufficient data to be scored by SafeStat and targeted by the ISS.

**5.2.4. Conclusion**

In conclusion, the study shows that new entrants receive
disproportionately less FMCSA oversight than experienced carriers. This
is true for both of the FMCSA-sponsored safety programs, roadside
inspections, and compliance reviews. A particular gap is evident with
respect to the lack of compliance reviews for Mexican carriers
identified by SafeStat to have safety deficiencies in their U.S.
operations.

**5.3. GENERAL CONCLUSION**

In general, the study's findings support increased safety education and
oversight for new entrant motor carriers. In particular, any "new
entrant program" that is formulated to address these objectives should
have a component that emphasizes closing the gaps in the current safety
assurance of Mexican carriers.

[^1]: "New Entrant Safety Research: Final Report," April 1998, John A.
    Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), DTS-42,
    Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA 02142.

[^2]: For a detailed description of SafeStat, see "SafeStat: Motor
    Carrier Safety Status Measurement System Methodology: Version 7,"
    October 1999, which is also available from the Volpe Center.