FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

FMCSA Contacts: Darin Jones, (708) 283-3573; Bonnie Simmons, (202) 366-2967

Uniformity of Roadside Safety

Inspections of Commercial Vehicles

and Drivers on the National Level

Introduction

Over the past 20 years, the number of miles traveled by large commercial vehicles has

increased more rapidly than those traveled by passenger vehicles. The safety of these

commercial vehicles is an important component of overall traffic safety. This was 

recognized by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA, formerly the

Office of Motor Carriers of the Federal Highway Administration) at the Truck and Bus

Safety Summit in Kansas City in March 1995. At that summit, roadside inspections of

commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) was an important topic. 

The number and percentage of safety violations found relating to CMVs and their 

drivers in roadside inspections indicates that these inspections are important to overall

traffic safety. The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) was created by the

United States Congress in 1983 to improve the safety of truck operations and to reduce

truck-related crashes and fatalities. The MCSAP agencies find voluntary compliance

with safety regulations to be the most effective and lasting way to increase safety. But

if enforcement of these safety regulations during roadside inspections is inconsistent,

then carriers may remain out of compliance.

To examine the issue of roadside inspection uniformity, the FMCSA initiated a research

project to provide practical information to FMCSA, commercial carriers, MCSAP agencies, and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), to guide and improve standardized roadside enforcement of commercial motor vehicle regulations across North

America. This tech brief is based on the project final report, Uniformity of Roadside

Safety Inspections of Commercial Vehicles and Drivers on the National Level: Summary

and Conclusions, which is available from the National Technical Information Service.

Purpose

The project had several objectives, including the following:

• Assess the uniformity of roadside safety inspections of CMVs, estimate the 

magnitude and locations of the problem, and prioritize issues to be resolved.

• Explore the perceptions of uniformity in roadside inspections among researchers, 

carriers, drivers, inspectors, and law enforcement supervisors, and the factors that

may contribute to disparities.

• Document and evaluate agency roadside practices and administrative controls for

maximizing uniformity of inspections.

• Promulgate conclusions and recommendations with the greatest potential impact on

improving roadside enforcement.

Tech Brief

The goal of the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration

(FMCSA) is to reduce the 

number and severity of large

truck-involved crashes

through more commercial

motor vehicle and operator

inspections and compliance

reviews, stronger enforcement

measures against violators,

expedited completion of 

rulemaking proceedings, 

scientifically sound research,

and effective CDL testing,

recordkeeping, and sanctions.

The Office of Research and

Technology manages research

and technology development

and deployment programs 

for the FMCSA.

There are eight major research

and technology focus areas:

crash causation and profiling;

regulatory evaluation and

reform; compliance and

enforcement; HAZMAT safety

and cargo tank integrity; 

driver training and performance management; driver

alertness and fatigue; driver

physical qualifications; and

car-truck proximity.

Compliance and enforcement

concentrates on studies 

directed toward improving

carrier compliance with,

and/or enforcement of, 

existing Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Regulations.

Office of Research and

Technology

400 Seventh Street, SW

MC-RT; Room 3107

Washington, DC 20590
Methodology

Members of the project team began by conducting 

a review of literature relating to CMV inspections, 

as well as surveying the MCSAP agencies in all 

States and territories, and the motor carrier industry

to learn practices and perceptions relating to 

inspections. 

Questionnaires directed at the MCSAP agencies 

were designed to assess the uniformity of roadside

inspections of CMVs and drivers across the States,

within a State, and even within a specific agency.

Surveys distributed to motor carriers were designed

to examine safety inspection issues and their 

consistency from the perspective of the motor carrier.

In order to obtain more in-depth information,

researchers contacted selected State MCSAP agency

directors to conduct follow-up interviews.

After the literature review and surveys, project team

members assembled an advisory group including

inspectors, regulators, and the motor carrier industry

to help guide the project’s subsequent activities. The

initial meeting of the group took place in Chicago,

Illinois on October 14-15, 1998. The group identified

priority issues, developed data collection procedures,

recommended States for participation, and drafted a

tentative schedule for State visits. 

The States selected for

site visits were Illinois,

Arizona, California,

Tennessee,

Connecticut,

Minnesota, and West

Virginia. While on

site, advisory group

members reviewed

completed inspection

reports, observed the

inspection process,

and held local industry focus group sessions. After all site visits had been completed, the full advisory

group reconvened to

discuss their findings,

recommendations,

and best practices.

Findings

While conducting

their field site visits,

project team members

observed 253 inspections. The great majority of these

inspections were uniformly conducted in accordance

with the guidelines established for the North

American Standard Inspection (NASI) criteria, and

most CMV drivers thought that the inspections were

fair. Table 1 shows the observed cooperation of 

drivers with the inspection process, as rated by 

inspectors and observing team members; it also shows

the degree of fairness of these inspections, as rated

by the drivers. Observer comments did indicate that it

is not possible to eliminate individual variance in

inspections, such as in the order in which inspection

steps are followed and the thoroughness in checking

a given item.

Drivers interviewed were generally not aware of what

a CMV inspection involved, the levels of inspection, or

what out-of-service (OOS) criteria or penalties are.

Only 40 percent of drivers were able to explain what

a CVSA inspection decal was - the decal given by an

inspector when a vehicle or driver has no critical 

safety violations. And although all observed vehicle

inspectors were trained according to the NASI criteria,

they are generally not trained or expected to inform

drivers about the level of inspection being conducted

or to explain the CVSA decal.

Participants in the driver/industry focus group 

sessions did not consistently identify any problems

State CMV inspectors conducting a roadside vehicle inspection.
with uniformity or fairness of inspections for 

inspections carried out by State-level inspectors; most

concerns about the lack of uniformity during the

inspection process were addressed to inspections 

carried out by municipal or county law enforcement

agency inspectors.

Recommendations

Based on what was learned from the site visits, the

earlier project surveys, and project team deliberations, the team offered recommendations to improve

the CMV inspection process generally, and the uniformity of those inspections in particular. These included:

1. Improve partnerships among inspectors/inspecting

agencies, drivers/CMV carriers, CMV associations

and trade organizations, CVSA, and FMCSA to 

educate drivers about the roadside inspection

process and CVSA decal.

2. Provide adequate equipment and a suitable 

environment for inspections, including sufficient

room for multiple inspections to be carried out

simultaneously, room to park out-of-service 

vehicles, and a desk or table for inspectors and 

drivers to review paperwork and inspection results.

3. Assure that all inspections continue to be 

performed in a uniform manner through the

implementation of a program that will observe the

inspection process and make recommendations for

continuing improvement.

4. All States should have regularly scheduled inservice and refresher training for all commercial

motor vehicle inspectors. The project team 

suggests that CVSA develop minimum standards

for annual retraining criteria for inspectors.

5. Conduct research to learn more about the role of

non-State-agency inspectors in the inspection

process, including the number of local agency

inspectors, retraining requirements for these

inspectors, and guidelines within local agencies 

as to when, where, and how inspections are 

conducted.

A complete list of the findings and recommendations

is available in the study final report.

Best Practices

In the course of their site visits, team members 

identified approaches to the CMV inspection process

and commercial vehicle safety that merit consideration by other States. While not all of these “best 

practices” would directly affect the uniformity of

inspections, they do offer the potential for improving

the inspection process:

Some CMV drivers violate an out-of-service order

because they do not fully comprehend what “out-ofservice” means, while others consciously disregard the

order. The West Virginia Public Service Commission

requires drivers who are placed OOS to sign a form

that explains penalties for violating an OOS order and

acknowledge that they are aware of the penalties

involved. The subsequent follow-up showed that only

5 of almost 300 drivers violated an OOS order, as 

compared to approximately 25 percent previously.

Another best practice, developed by the California

Highway Patrol, was developed to enhance communication between the roadside inspector and the CMV

driver being inspected. Good communication is 

important for inspection efficiency, but when multiple

vehicles are being inspected at the same site, it is 

difficult to hear over the truck engines, and a driver

Table 1. 

Observed Cooperation of Drivers and Fairness of Inspections

DEGREE OF COOPERATION OR FAIRNESS

Very High Very Low Not Stated

5 4 3 21

Driver Cooperation

- from inspector 173 44 10 1 1 24

- from observer 183 53 8 1 8

Fairness of Inspection 222 22 3 1 5

Use of NASI standards* 154 66 25 8

* NASI = North American Standard Inspection criteria. Observers did not rate the compliance with these standards at the first two sites visited.
Researcher

This study was performed by

Northwestern University Traffic

Institute, Illinois State Police

Force, Evanston, Illinois 60204

Distribution

This Tech Brief is being distributed according to a standard

distribution. Direct distribution

is being made to the Service

Centers and Divisions.

Availability

The study final report is 

available from the National

Technical Information 

Service, (703) 605-6000, 

Order No.: PB2000-104507.

Key Words

roadside inspections; best 

practices; survey; MCSAP; 

uniformity; vehicle out-ofservice criteria; North American

Standard Inspection criteria. 

Notice

This Tech Brief is disseminated

under the sponsorship of the

Department of Transportation

in the interest of information

exchange. The Tech Brief 

provides a synopsis of the

study’s final publication. The

Tech Brief does not establish

policies or regulations, nor does

it imply USDOT endorsement of

the conclusions or recommendations. The U.S. Government

assumes no liability for its 

contents or their use.

Web Site

All FMCSA Tech and Analysis

Briefs may be accessed at:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

Technical Writer

Hallie Magyar, Avalon

Integrated Services.

might hear and obey the instructions of the wrong inspector. To overcome this 

problem, inspectors with the California Highway Patrol use multichannel, short range

portable radios to make driver-inspector communications clearer and more certain.

A comprehensive list of identified best practices, along with contact persons and

addresses for more information about these practices, can be found in the study final

report. 

Conclusion

Project researchers found no evidence of a significant problem with the overall 

uniformity of CMV inspections. Almost all inspections were performed in compliance

with the NASI criteria. Drivers interviewed in the field as well as those participating in

the local driver/industry focus group sessions did not identify any significant problems

with uniformity or fairness of inspections.

However, there does appear to be a lack of knowledge among drivers about both the

levels and practices of roadside safety inspections. The final report suggests that all

agencies involved in the MCSAP work toward enhancing the overall knowledge and

awareness in the CMV safety inspection program.

May 2000

Publication No. FMCSA-MCRT-00-010 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov