Latest news with #FMCSA
Time Business News
2 days ago
- Automotive
- Time Business News
Should You Hire a Driver After SAP Program Completion? Pros and Cons for 2025
Should you hire a driver after SAP program completion? This is a common question many fleet managers and employers in the trucking industry are asking in 2025. With FMCSA and DOT compliance requirements growing stricter, understanding the benefits and risks of hiring SAP-cleared drivers is essential for making informed staffing decisions. The DOT SAP Program (Substance Abuse Professional Program) is designed to rehabilitate drivers who violated drug and alcohol policies. After successful SAP program completion, these drivers are legally eligible to return to safety-sensitive duties — but does that mean you should immediately put them back on the road? ✔ For complete guidance on DOT SAP compliance, visit our DOT SAP Program page. Drivers who finish the SAP process meet DOT's Return-to-Duty standards, ensuring your company remains legally compliant. Drivers given a second chance may demonstrate improved loyalty and commitment, reducing turnover risks. SAP-cleared drivers are subject to follow-up testing, making them one of the most monitored groups on the road — reducing immediate safety concerns. ✔ Learn more about SAP Evaluation to understand the process drivers undergo. Some insurers may raise premiums if your fleet includes drivers with past DOT violations, impacting operational costs. Despite SAP clearance, employers may still worry about reliability or potential relapse, affecting team trust. Clients or partners may view employing SAP-cleared drivers as a liability, influencing business relationships. Employers have the right to make hiring decisions even after SAP program completion but cannot discriminate solely based on past SAP participation. Decisions must align with EEOC guidelines and internal company policies. ✔ For a detailed compliance guide, check the FMCSA Clearinghouse Rules. Q1: Is it mandatory to rehire a driver after SAP program completion? No, employers are not legally required to rehire SAP-cleared drivers but must document valid, non-discriminatory reasons for refusal. Q2: Does SAP program completion erase a driver's past violation from records? No. The violation remains on file in the FMCSA Clearinghouse for five years or until follow-up testing is complete. Q3: Can a driver apply to other companies after SAP program completion? Yes, drivers are free to seek employment elsewhere, but all prospective employers must review Clearinghouse records. Deciding whether to hire a driver after SAP program completion requires balancing safety, cost, legal compliance, and company culture. While SAP-cleared drivers meet DOT standards, your final decision should align with fleet risk management goals. For trusted DOT SAP Evaluation and employer compliance solutions, visit: 🔗 Or explore SAP services at: 🔗 TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Bloomberg
7 days ago
- Automotive
- Bloomberg
Trucking's English-Language Rule for Drivers Will Backfire
Foreign-born truck drivers may need to bone up on their English-language skills by June 25. That's when authorities have the green light to bar holders of commercial driver's licenses from the road because they don't have a sufficient grasp of the language. Large trucking companies, which normally decry driver shortages, have been pushing for this change, citing safety reasons. The Trump administration was more than happy to rescind a 2016 directive by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that suspended the lack of English-language proficiency as a reason for putting a driver out of service. 'America First means safety first,' Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said when he signed the order during a May 20 event in Austin, Texas. 'Americans are a lot safer on roads alongside truckers who can understand and interpret our traffic signs.'
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Does DOT's enforcement policy put truck safety at risk?
WASHINGTON — A new enforcement policy being considered by the U.S. Department of Transportation marks a significant change in enforcement of trucking violations, and crash-victim advocates are concerned it will make the roads less safe. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued in May, the DOT is proposing several administrative changes, including how it oversees enforcement procedures by several of its modal agencies, including the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The NPRM 'proposes updates to the Department's procedural requirements governing the review and clearance of guidance documents, and the initiation and conduct of enforcement actions, including administrative enforcement proceedings and judicial enforcement actions brought in Federal court,' the proposal states. Significantly for the trucking industry, DOT's proposal follows a trend within government to push adjudication out of the regulatory agencies and into the federal courts. Unless a statute or regulation clearly authorizes an agency such as FMCSA to enforce a legal requirement directly through an administrative enforcement proceeding, DOT's NPRM states, 'the proper forum for the enforcement action is Federal court, and the enforcement action must be initiated in court by attorneys of the Department of Justice acting in coordination with DOT counsel.' Zach Cahalan, executive director of the Truck Safety Coalition, a truck-crash victim advocacy group, believes that placing enforcement for truck industry violations in the hands of courts and judges unfamiliar with how the industry operates could result in less enforcement and riskier carriers. 'TSC is deeply concerned that these changes will severely diminish DOT's ability to enforce safety regulations against carriers,' Cahalan told FreightWaves. 'The notion that regulated entities should have their fate decided by federal judges rather than the DOT is absurd and unheard of. Make no mistake, this is a radical departure from the longstanding accepted norms and will only benefit industry. This will result in far less enforcement and more unsafe carriers operating discriminately on our roads.' Cahalan also noted DOT's plan to adopt the 'Brady rule' in all enforcement actions, including those of the FMCSA, as part of the proposed rule. The rule states that the government has a duty to disclose exculpatory information – information that could clear someone of guilt or blame – in criminal cases. Adopting the rule for enforcement actions 'will contribute to the Department's goal of open and fair investigations and administrative enforcement proceedings,' DOT stated. 'These disclosures should include any material evidence … that may be favorable to the regulated entity in the enforcement action—including evidence that tends to negate or diminish the party's responsibility for a violation or that could be relied upon to reduce the potential fine or other penalties.' But adopting such a practice, Cahalan said, 'does strike me as favorable to industry.' Brian Stansbury, who was chief counsel at FMCSA during the Biden administration, understands why safety advocates are concerned with the proposed policy shift. 'Giving members of the regulated community the ability to disqualify the enforcement official that they're dealing with gives the regulated community real power to push back on enforcement proceedings,' Stansbury, now a partner at the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, told FreightWaves in an interview. 'My concern is that it could make enforcement harder for the department if the first move every single time by a member of the regulated community is to try to disqualify the enforcement official. This could result in additional delays and wasted resources spent addressing requests to disqualify. This is an even greater concern with respect to FMCSA enforcement, where you have so many enforcement matters occurring at any given time.' Regarding adoption of the Brady rule in administrative enforcement actions, 'I believe government enforcement officials should be held to a high level of impartiality with a focus on justice, not getting a favorable result, and I am comfortable with the regulated community to have tools to ensure they get exculpatory information,' he said. 'But it also gives bad actors a tool to delay and undermine enforcement actions, and those bad actors are probably the ones most inclined to operate unsafely. It's the risk of abuse that we have to be thoughtful about.' P. Sean Garney, co-director of Scopelitis Transportation Consulting and an FMCSA regulations expert, said that while DOT's policy shift seeks to reduce regulatory red tape, it is no gift to the trucking industry. 'I think this is more about regulatory philosophy than an industry versus safety issue,' Garney told FreightWaves. 'Some regulations protect industry and keep bad actors out. Good actors in the industry have a vested interest in setting a reasonable standard through regulation.' Garney pointed out that a provision within the proposal that weakens the power of guidance documents could actually work against the industry. 'Without this guidance they won't know how to stay compliant and will not have a reliable foundation on which to build their operations.' The deadline for public comment on DOT's proposed enforcement changes is June 16. Trump administration wants to cut FMCSA workforce by 7% DOT's deregulation barrage raises compliance concerns for trucking Freight industry: Which regulations should DOT cut? Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher. The post Does DOT's enforcement policy put truck safety at risk? appeared first on FreightWaves.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Will Texas Enforce FMCSA English Proficiency Rules for Intrastate CDL Drivers?
In Texas, drivers who cannot read or speak English may still be issued commercial driver's licenses if they operate solely within the state's borders. This policy is not new. Per Texas Transportation Code § 522.043(b), the state prohibits requiring English language proficiency for intrastate-only CDL holders. The Texas Administrative Code and the official Texas Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Handbook support this stance, noting that ELP only applies to interstate drivers. But a new enforcement directive from FMCSA, effective June 25, states that any commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver failing to meet the English proficiency standard under 49 CFR 391.11(b)(2) will be placed out of service if operating in interstate commerce. The issue? Texas isn't enforcing this for intrastate fleets and never really has. Federal Funds at Risk? MCSAP Says Maybe This enforcement discretion may violate the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), a federal grant program that gives states funding for enforcement in exchange for aligning with FMCSA safety regulations. 49 CFR 350.305 outlines the limited list of allowable state-level variances. English proficiency isn't one of them. So, unless Texas has formally petitioned FMCSA for a variance – and DPS leadership confirms the state hasn't – Texas' refusal to enforce this could jeopardize MCSAP funding. TDPS Says No to ELP Enforcement, But FMCSA Says That's Changing The Playbook directly messaged leadership at Texas DPS, and the agency stated that it does not have a formal FMCSA-approved exemption. However, historically, FMCSA has turned a blind eye. That leniency may be coming to an end. Texas never enforced English proficiency for Intrastate drivers before the 2014-2015 FMCSA enforcement directive and still hasn't. But now, with FMCSA saying ELP violations will result in out-of-service orders, the conversation is shifting. Texas may be forced to act if FMCSA chooses to enforce funding eligibility under MCSAP. What's at Stake for Fleets? For now, fleets operating intrastate in Texas may continue employing non-English-speaking drivers with a restricted CDL if they stay within the state. But carriers need to be extremely careful: Interstate operations are subject to federal ELP enforcement. That includes for-hire and private carriers operating across state lines or hauling loads that begin or end outside Texas. MCSAP enforcement could force Texas to revise its policies or risk losing significant federal funding. Border state complications may emerge. As a border state, Texas is uniquely exposed to federal scrutiny, especially given the broader political climate and FMCSA's evolving enforcement stance. Compliance Is No Longer Optional The key takeaway? Carriers must evaluate whether their drivers are genuinely intrastate and ensure their CDL designations, load documentation and operational areas support that claim. The days of looking the other way on English proficiency may be numbered. As the FMCSA steps up enforcement and grant eligibility becomes more stringent, states like Texas may be forced to close the gap between state law and federal expectations or risk the financial and regulatory fallout. The post Will Texas Enforce FMCSA English Proficiency Rules for Intrastate CDL Drivers? appeared first on FreightWaves.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
New Carrier Authorities Are Surging in Surprising Places
If you think you know where new trucking companies are planting roots, think again. Yes, Texas and California still lead the nation in raw numbers of new MCs granted. But something very different is happening when you zoom in. Quiet ZIP codes like 93722 (Fresno, CA) and 78045 (Laredo, TX) are quietly leading the nation in new authority issuances. And it's not random; it's not just about about the way America's trucking landscape is being reshaped—zip code by zip code—by a complex combination of regulation loopholes, international labor dynamics, and a post-pandemic market still struggling to find its footing. Using verified authority history data from it's time to pull the curtain back. It isn't just about where the growth is, it's about what kind of growth we're seeing—and whether current systems are equipped to handle far this year, 26,394 new motor carrier authorities have been granted according to FMCSA data, compiled via Just in May, here's how the top 10 states stack up: California – 694 Texas – 664 Florida – 404 Illinois – 288 Pennsylvania – 259 Ohio – 252 Georgia – 249 North Carolina – 192 New Jersey – 175 Indiana – 148 Nothing shocking there—until you get below the state line. When we narrowed the lens, the picture changed. These were the top ZIP codes for MCs granted in May 2025: These ZIPs represent more than numbers—they reflect nodes in a freight network that's under growing scrutiny. Fresno now leads the nation in MCs granted last month. Being the fifth largest city in California, at first glance, it looks like a win for entrepreneurial trucking. The Central Valley has long been home to a thriving Punjabi trucking community—deeply experienced, asset-based, and critical to ag and reefer beneath that foundation is a rising pattern of 'one and done' authorities. Many of these MCs are linked to short-lived LLCs. They file, run for a few months under one DOT number, then vanish—sometimes popping back up days later under a different MC. The phenomenon is called 'ghost fleeting' and leads us to question how many of these fleets we are missing. Laredo shows up twice in the top 10 ZIPs. As the largest land port between the U.S. and Mexico, that's not surprising. But multiple FreightWaves investigations have uncovered deeper issues: Carriers domiciled in Laredo have been linked to misuse of B-1 visa drivers—Mexican nationals who are only permitted to cross the border but are often found running domestic freight. FMCSA has limited enforcement powers on visa status, leaving a massive gap in oversight. The labor cost advantage is massive—so large, in fact, that compliant U.S. carriers are being undercut in their own backyard. And now, with two dozen new MCs popping up in just one city last month, the oversight burden is growing faster than enforcement can keep up. These ZIPs are hotspots for immigrant-led companies—many with strong business acumen and solid ties to major reefer shippers. But just like Fresno, the risk is not with the community—it's with the system failing to verify who's legitimate and who's laundering safety scores through shell MCs. In many cases, FMCSA isn't auditing these carriers until months past the 18-month new entrant window, if at all. According to the FMCSA Pocket Guide and analysis of audit completion records: 2021: 119,872 MCs were granted. Only 45% (54,149) received their required safety audit. 2022: 108,019 MCs were granted. Just 44% (47,404) were audited. That means nearly 60% of new entrants were operating without a formal FMCSA review during the most critical time in their company's lifecycle. And if we believe the 2025 numbers are on pace, we're looking at another 15,000+ carriers potentially slipping through the cracks this year alone. FMCSA's proposed English Language Proficiency (ELP) crackdowns are looming. Once in place, carriers employing drivers who can't meet minimum language requirements face being flagged or revoked. But the rule isn't law yet—and that delay is giving rise to a wave of 'beat the buzzer' authority filings. The mindset is 'start the company now. Get on the road. Worry about the rules later.' Take Texas as an example. Recently, we saw a federal crackdown on a Texas-based commercial license fraud ring that issued hundreds of CDLs to unqualified applicants. Several of those licenses were tied to carriers based in Houston (77089) and surrounding ZIPs. Many of those licenses were sold to out-of-state drivers who listed Texas addresses to avoid stricter home-state requirements. It's not theoretical. It's happening, and it's reshaping who's actually behind the wheel in parts of the country. Stakeholders from every corner of the trucking ecosystem—from safety consultants to driver schools—have sounded the alarm about a growing underground labor market. U.S. carriers are increasingly contracting foreign drivers through shady channels, especially in places like Laredo, TX and San Diego, CA. And if you think they're just running a few loads, think again. Some are running national lanes under assumed identities, rented MC numbers, or safety ratings they didn't earn. It depends who you are. If you're a broker or shipper, are you onboarding carriers from ZIPs like 78045 or 93722 without really looking deeper into your vetting processes? If you're a new MC, are you aware that simply having a DOT number isn't enough? Do you know if your driver isn't qualified, or your audit never happens, you're not only risking your business—you're risking criminal liability? If you're the FMCSA, is your system agile enough to keep up with an industry that's learning how to beat your processes faster than you can write rules? Technology may be moving faster than you can keep up. Right now, it's easier to get authority than to get audited, and it's easier to find a loophole than to find a Level 1 inspection. In May 2025, California (694) and Texas (664) topped the nation in new Motor Carrier (MC) authority grants, but accident data reveals a contrasting storyline—one that raises red flags as new entrants surge past compliance capacity. Fatal crashes involving large trucks jumped 18% from 4,821 in 2020 to 5,700 in 2021, while injury crashes increased 11% over the same period . Property damage-only crashes surged 25%, climbing from 322K to 401K in that timeframe. FMCSA's analysis shows crash rates for new entrants nearly tripled, rising from 1.3% (in the 2018 cohort) to 3.5% (by 2021). We're not just seeing more carriers being granted authority; we're seeing more crashes involving the ones with newer authorities. The acceleration of entries—especially in ZIP codes like Fresno (93722) and Laredo (78045)—is not matched by audit or enforcement capacity. The result is a growing pipeline of high-risk drivers and unvetted carriers entering service, operating before infrastructure can catch up. This isn't about fear-mongering. This is about facing facts. The numbers from the FMCSA aren't just a heatmap of new businesses—they're a warning sign. A red flag. A signal that the surge in MCs may be lapping our ability to track, audit, or even understand who's really in the cab. The people pointing this out aren't against growth, we're against blind growth. We're not questioning the dream. We're questioning the foundation it's being built on. At the end of the day, the fastest-growing ZIP codes for new carriers are the same ones named in federal indictments, major accidents, and cross-border enforcement loopholes—we owe it to the entire industry to slow down and look closer. The post New Carrier Authorities Are Surging in Surprising Places appeared first on FreightWaves.
