Rejected: FMCSA denies ‘high-risk’ motor carrier’s exemption
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration concluded that a motor carrier recently given a high-risk designation was not a good candidate for an exemption.
In a notice that was published in the Federal Register on Friday, Feb. 6, FMCSA denied CloudTrucks’ exemption request from requirements involving employment applications.
Specifically, the company asked to be exempt from collecting information from prospective drivers, including employers’ names, addresses, dates of employment, reasons for leaving, nature of the position the driver held and whether the driver was subject to the alcohol and controlled substances testing requirements.
CloudTrucks proposed establishing its own verification process that cross-references national databases.
According to the company, the exemption would improve highway safety by relying on credible federal databases and would enhance efficiency.
But FMCSA cited CloudTrucks’ safety performance record as one of the reasons it denied the exemption.
“As noted by commenters, CloudTrucks’s on-road safety data, including driver fitness violations, indicate ongoing safety management concerns,” FMCSA wrote in the notice. “CloudTrucks met the criteria for FMCSA’s ‘high-risk’ definition as recently as March 2025. CloudTrucks was cited for 27 driver fitness violations in the past two years during inspections, 20 of which were out-of-service violations. Given CloudTrucks’s safety performance record and recent designation as high risk, FMCSA does not find that the requested exemption will likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved by complying with the regulations.”
Another rejection
Another exemption request recently denied by FMCSA came from a company that transports prisoners.
Colorado Hunstman Transport sought an exemption from hours-of-service regulations because it would decrease the chances of violent prisoners escaping and lessen the tax burden.
FMCSA wasn’t having it, saying the company’s proposal “permits dangerously long work hours without proper rest or oversight.” LL