Commercial vehicles safety in Canada

Commercial Vehicle Safety in Canada 2012-2018
(PDF, 2.14 MB)

Annual Report to Parliament
2012-2018 seven-year review

Prepared by:

Multi-Modal & Road Safety Programs
Transport Canada
October 2021

Executive summary

This is the 12th Annual Report to Parliament on Commercial Vehicle Safety in Canada. As per the mandate set out in Section 25 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act (MVTA), the report (1) reviews the progress of the implementation of the rules and standards respecting the safe operation of extra-provincial truck and bus undertakings, and (2) reviews available statistical information regarding trends of highway accidents in Canada involving motor vehicles operated by extra-provincial truck and bus undertakings. This edition of the report covers the 2012-2018 seven year period. Detailed information is presented for each of those seven years and trend assessments are also conducted.

Part I of the report presents the regulatory update and focusses on the implementation of the National Safety Code (NSC) standards and the Safety Fitness Framework (SFF), which is embodied in the revised MVTA. Part II presents the motor carrier safety assessment. Note that the regulatory update is based on fiscal years (in this case 2011/12 to 2017-/18), and that the safety assessment is based on calendar years (2012 to 2018). Also, since it is not possible to differentiate between extra and intra-provincial undertakings in collision statistics, the data presented in the safety assessment include all trucks and buses that fall under the regulatory oversight of the NSC.

Part I

The NSC is a comprehensive set of 16 standards that provide minimum operational and performance requirements for all important aspects of commercial vehicle, driver and motor carrier safety, with the objectives of reinforcing truck and bus safety, promoting efficiency in the motor carrier industry, and ensuring the implementation of consistent safety standards across Canada. It is applicable to trucks with a Registered Gross Vehicle Weight (RGVW) in excess of 4,500 kg and buses with a designated seating capacity of more than 10 persons, including the driver.

The critical objective of the MVTA and the NSC is that similar safety (collision) and compliance (inspection and conviction) performance must result in similar safety ratings in each jurisdiction. Through successive contribution programs, the federal government has provided funding to the provinces and territories (P/Ts) to administer the NSC and monitor motor carrier safety performance in Canada. The period under review in this report includes both the 2009/10-2014/15 and the 2015/16-2019/20 contribution agreements between Transport Canada and the P/Ts.

The key differences between these two agreements and the previous funding program relate to the withdrawal of pre-defined performance measures with regards to enforcement of the NSC, primarily number of roadside inspections and facility audits. The obligation for P/Ts to report on the number of inspections and facility audits conducted on intra-provincial motor carriers was also removed. Enforcement data for the first 9 years under this new regime do not reveal any significant changes.

On the basis of data reported by the P/Ts through a survey conducted by Transport Canada (TC), the report details minor and more significant deviations from NSC standards across the country. For example, it is noted that even though NSC standards are meant to apply to all commercial vehicles that weigh more than 4,500 kg (whether they are considered as intra- or extra-provincial), BC, AB, SK and YK have not implemented this general requirement. The BC weight threshold varies only slightly from the NSC requirement; this deviation is therefore considered to be minor and unlikely to be changed. There are more significant differences in AB, YK and SK. While the NSC weight threshold for extra-provincial motor carriers is set at 4,500 kg in AB and YK and at 5,000 kg in SK, in AB and YK the threshold applies to all intra-provincial motor carriers at 11,794 kg or more. In SK it applied to intra-provincial motor carriers at 11,000 kg until 2014, when it was increased to 11,794 as in AB and YK.

With regard to the implementation of the 2007 Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations (HoS), the data indicate that 11 of 13 jurisdictions had implemented revised provincial regulations by the end of 2018, but that AB and SK have yet to implement provincial hours of service regulations that mirror federal regulations. In those two provinces, the federal regulations apply to extra-provincial carriers only and different regulations apply to intra-provincial carriers.

Regarding the status of implementation of the revised MVTA, which was enacted in 2006^{Footnote 1}, the 2012-2018 period can be characterized as one where additional incremental changes were made in P/Ts’ safety rating systems to further align them with the Act. A number of minor changes were made to enhance the overall effectiveness of the safety rating system implemented by all jurisdictions. Many of these changes were minor and involved adjustments, slight policy modifications and changes in enforcement practices. Some were more significant and required additional work on systems and were completed as jurisdictional resources permitted. Overall, for the 2012-2018 period, it can be concluded that the reduction of both significant and minor deviations by the P/Ts rendered the national system of safety ratings for motor carriers more consistent than in previous years.

Finally, part I reviews jurisdictional level of enforcement of the MVTA and NSC standards. Enforcement data is presented and analysed and inferences are made with regard to the potential impacts of the removal of performance measures and of some reporting requirements in the latest two agreements. Overall, enforcement data shows that there is little evidence to support the notion of a significant impact after nine years under the new reporting requirements and the removal of performance measures. The number of facility audits conducted have remained fairly stable under the new agreements, even though no comparison can be made with the situation under the former requirements, given the changes. In addition, there was a 22% increase in Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) inspections between the years 2017/18 and 2008/09, that is, before and after performance targets were removed. There were 262,276 inspections in 2008/09 and 320,041 in 2017/18, representing an increase of 57,765 inspections. There is also no sign of changes in the type of CVSA inspections the P/Ts have elected to perform. The evidence suggests that a relatively robust, stable and dynamic safety fitness framework has been implemented by the P/Ts.

Part II

The second part of the report reviews crash statistics with a special focus on crashes involving heavy vehicles under the regulatory oversight of the NSC. The number of vehicles involved in various categories of crashes are presented, as well as single vehicle crashes, driver conditions and actions at the time of the crash and casualties resulting from heavy vehicle crashes. Crash rates, estimated on the basis of an econometric forecasting model derived from the former Canadian Vehicle Survey (CVS), are also discussed.

Globally, the safety assessment indicates positive downward trends for a wide variety of safety indicators. Most importantly, there was a 12.3% decrease in fatalities related to heavy vehicle crashes between 2012 and 2018, with 2018 seeing the lowest count in the 1992-2018 period. There was also a 7.1% reduction in serious injuries from 2012 to 2018.

Estimates of exposure from the CVS suggest a 28.1% increase in heavy vehicles’ Vehicle Kilometers Travelled (VKT) between 2012 and 2018. However, the model suggests that this increase is not associated with negative safety outcomes. According to the estimates, between 2012 and 2018, there was a 28.4% decrease in heavy vehicle fatal crash rates and a 26.1% reduction in injury crash rates (per 100 million VKT).

Notwithstanding these positive safety trends, on April 6, 2018, a tractor-trailer collided with a charter bus carrying the Humboldt Broncos junior hockey team, resulting in 16 fatalities and 13 injuries.

With regards to crash contributing factors, NCDB data shows that for the 2012-2018 period vehicle defects were associated with less than 4% of fatal heavy vehicle crashes. Driver actions and to a lesser extent driver conditions, were identified as more significant contributing factors. While the numbers are low and drivers’ conditions was considered as “not normal” in only 5% of fatal CMV crashes, fatigue and alcohol were identified as key contributing factors for those crashes. It is important to note however that fatigue is seriously underreported in this type of database. With regards to driver actions, when drivers were considered as “not driving properly”, in 27% of fatal CMV crashes, inattention and speeding were the top contributors.

In sum, NCDB data for the 2012-2018 period reveals that inattention (which relates both to fatigue and distraction) and driving too fast (which relates to high-risk driving behaviors), are key crash contributing factors for heavy vehicle fatal crashes in Canada. This is consistent with the comprehensive assessment detailed in the final report of CCMTA’s Human Factors and Motor Carrier Safety Task Force.

Introduction

Section 25 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1985, C.29 (3rd Supp.) requires the federal Minister of Transport to prepare an annual report and table it before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after the Minister completes it. The report shall contain the following:

The available statistical information respecting trends of highway accidents in Canada, involving motor vehicles operated by extra-provincial truck and bus undertakings; and
The progress of the implementation of the rules and standards respecting the safe operation of extra-provincial truck and bus undertakings.

The requirement is to focus on extra-provincial truck and bus undertakings. Motor carriers are identified as extra-provincial if they transport goods and passengers in more than one province or territory (P/T) or internationally, whereas they are identified as intra-provincial (also known as “local”) if their operations are limited to the boundaries of one jurisdiction and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of a province or territory. It is however not possible to differentiate between extra and intra-provincial truck and bus undertakings when reporting on the implementation of the various safety standards since they apply equally to both and since the data is not broken down as such.

Similarly, collision data is reported for extra- and intra-provincial truck and bus undertakings as well as for non-commercial vehicles for comparison purposes. The term commercial vehicle refers to a truck with a Registered Gross Vehicle Weight (RGVW) in excess of 4,500 kg or a bus with a designated seating capacity of more than 10 persons, including the driver.

The report is structured in two broad sections. Part I focuses mainly on the NSC and the national SFF. It provides descriptions of these two core elements of motor carrier safety oversight in Canada as well as progress reports on their implementation for the years 2012 to 2018. Part I also describes the efforts made by the P/Ts to enforce the revised Motor Vehicle Transport Act (MVTA) and to apply the NSC standards for this seven-year period.

Part II is a review of road safety statistics focussed on the 2012-2018 timeframe. Note that because of the nature of the data, part I is based on fiscal years and part II on calendar years. The report is written as if back in time, in this case at the end of 2018, and does not discuss subsequent developments or measures taken, which will be addressed in the reports covering future years.

Part 1 – Implementation and status of the national safety code

NSC program overview

Motor carrier safety in Canada is a joint responsibility between the federal government and the P/Ts. The federal government has responsibility for extra-provincial truck and bus transport; however under the MVTA, the P/Ts enforce federal regulations for extra-provincial carriers on behalf of the federal government and have sole responsibility for intra-provincial operations.

The NSC program was developed in 1987-88 by the federal, provincial and territorial governments. This regulatory regime focuses on oversight of safety performance instead of economic controls which are typically based on market entry and exit, route and commodities as well as fees and services.

The NSC is a comprehensive set of 16 standards that provides minimum operational and performance requirements for all important aspects of commercial vehicle, driver and motor carrier safety, with the objectives of reinforcing truck and bus safety, promoting efficiency in the motor carrier industry, and ensuring the implementation of consistent safety standards across Canada. It applies to drivers and carriers operating commercial vehicles exceeding an RGVW of 4,500 kg (except buses, which are defined by a designated seating capacity of more than 10, regardless of RGVW) and is intended for both extra and intra-provincial operations.

The NSC standards are developed by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), which is the key national institution dealing with motor carrier regulation, through committees of federal, provincial and territorial governments, industry and associate members. Transport Canada (TC) and the P/Ts are equal members of CCMTA, however the standards are implemented and legislation enforced by the provincial and territorial governments.

Since 1987-88, the standards have evolved and been amended in order to enhance their effectiveness and to respond to new regulatory issues in the trucking and busing industry. As was reported in the 2006 annual report, a 2004 independent assessment concluded that most standards had been implemented through the enactment of regulation or legislation in the P/Ts at that time.

TC has co-funded the consistent and harmonized implementation of the NSC since 1987 through a series of contribution programs. TC’s purpose in this area is mainly to improve motor carrier safety in Canada by facilitating the consistent implementation, by P/T governments, of the 16 standards under the NSC.

The amended MVTA of 2006 continues to allow provincial and territorial governments to enforce federal regulations on federal motor carriers on behalf of the federal government. These governments are in turn responsible for ensuring that their safety rating systems comply with the requirements of the NSC.

The federal role is to provide funds, administrative support and advice to the P/Ts in order to assist in the implementation and enforcement of the NSC. TC also has responsibility for monitoring the performance and the impact of the NSC program and for promoting national consistency in the application of the standards, as well as international harmonization.

Description of NSC standards

Table 1 below identifies the NSC standards, indicates whether they are under review by CCMTA, when they were last amended, notes whether they are subject to a Canada/US reciprocity agreement and provides a description of their key elements.

Table 1: National Safety Code Standards
#	Name	Description
1	Single Driver Licence Compact - 1988 Canada/US Commercial Driver Licence (CDL) Reciprocity Agreement – 1989	Prohibits a driver from holding more than one driver’s licence. In addition, administrative procedures have been established to ensure driving infractions are assigned to a single licence and record. A series of checks must also be conducted along with incorporating the driver record from a previous jurisdiction.
2	Knowledge and Performance Tests (Drivers) – 1988 Canada/US CDL Reciprocity Agreement – 1989	Establishes a process for standardized written and road testing of commercial drivers. It also identifies the key elements that will be evaluated by government officials charged with administering the tests. Note: Since 1988, jurisdictions have updated their individual requirements by upgrading knowledge tests to prevent fraud, and enhance road tests. In addition, air brake training became mandatory.
3	Examiner Training Program – 1988 Canada/US CDL Reciprocity Agreement – 1989	A standard designed to upgrade the skills and knowledge of driver examiners and ensure they are consistent across Canada.
4	Classified Driver Licensing System – 1988 Canada/US CDL Reciprocity Agreement – 1989	Establishes a uniform classification and endorsement system for driver licences and ensures that a licence issued in one province/territory is recognized in all provinces/territories.
5	Self-Certification Standards and Procedures – 1988	Outlines the criteria for permitting carriers and driver training schools to train and test commercial drivers. Note: Not implemented in smaller jurisdictions due to the lack of demand arising from smaller carrier, driver and fleet populations. This does not detract from national uniformity of requirements.
6	Medical Standards for Drivers – 2017 Revised annually by CCMTA Canada/US Medical Reciprocity Agreement – 1998	The CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers sets the medical criteria used to establish whether drivers (all classes) are medically fit to drive. Requires commercial drivers to undergo periodic medical examinations.
7	Carrier and Driver Profiles – Revised 2002 Part of safety fitness framework	Provides jurisdictions with a record of driver and carrier performance in terms of compliance with safety regulations. Supports enforcement activity to remove unsatisfactory drivers and carriers from service, and identifies the type of information which must be maintained on each commercial driver and vehicle.
8	Short-Term Suspension – 1988	Describes the criteria for suspending a driver’s licence on a short-term (24 hour) basis when a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe the driver's ability is affected by alcohol or drugs.
9	Hours of Service Federal regulations were implemented January 1, 2007. Matching jurisdictional regulations were implemented in 2007 by most jurisdictions	Limits the number of hours a commercial driver can be on duty and operate a commercial vehicle. It outlines the requirement to complete daily logs, describes the various cycles of operation and sets out driver and carrier record-keeping requirements.
10	Cargo Securement – Amended 2010 Revised annually.	Outlines the minimum requirements for securing loads. Latest version is product of joint Canada/US research and standards harmonization effort.
11	Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection (PMVI) – Revised every 5 years Updated in 2014. Canada/US Reciprocity Agreement – 1991	Outlines minimum requirements for maintenance and periodic inspections of the 3 million commercial vehicles operated by motor carriers in Canada.
12	CVSA On-Road Inspections Updated annually	Outlines the criteria for CVSA on-road inspections conducted by provincial and territorial commercial driver and vehicle enforcement inspectors.
13	Trip Inspection – Revised March 2009 Implemented in 2006	Prescribes daily trip inspection requirements on carriers. Intent is to ensure early identification of vehicle problems and defects, and to prevent the operation of vehicles with conditions that are likely to cause or contribute to a collision or vehicle breakdown.
14	Safety Rating – Revised August 2009 Implemented federally January 1, 2006 with matching rules in provinces. Part of safety fitness framework Canada/US Reciprocity Agreement – 1994/2008	Establishes the motor carrier safety rating framework by which each jurisdiction assesses the safety performance of motor carriers.
15	Facility Audits – Revised 2003 Part of safety fitness framework Canada/US Reciprocity Agreement – 1994/2008	Outlines the audit process used by jurisdictions to determine a carrier's level of compliance with all applicable safety standards.
16	First Aid Training (Voluntary standard)	Outlines the core elements that should be contained in a basic first aid course for commercial drivers.

NSC co-funding and contribution agreements

The NSC co-funding program is one of the ways TC works with the P/Ts to address motor carrier safety in Canada. TC’s contribution is aimed at the development, revision, implementation, administration and enforcement of NSC standards, as well as monitoring motor carrier safety performance. Overall, since 1987, the federal contribution under the NSC programs has been in excess of $140 million. The 2011/12-2017/18 period under review covers two co-funding programs. TC contributed $26.4 million for the 2009/10-2014/15 agreements and $22.2 million for the 2015/16-2019/20 program.

TC also contributes $60K a year to update enforcement training materials and the curriculum that assists Canadian jurisdictions to remain compliant with (CVSA) roadside inspection standards. This contribution is made through a renewed contract administered by the CCMTA. These funds are added to P/T resources in their respective motor carrier safety programs and are critical to smaller jurisdictions, allowing them to participate in the development and consistent implementation of nationally established safety rules applying to the truck and bus industry in Canada.

The consistent implementation of the NSC standards is the main objective of the contribution programs. However, the implementation of the revisions that are made to the standards, and which are agreed to by CCMTA, is not a condition for funding per se. Moreover, the specific focus of the 2009/10-2014/15 and 2015/16-2019/20 contribution programs remains the implementation of the SFF, which requires the P/Ts to assign motor carriers a rating based on safety performance by incorporating collision, conviction and inspection data, as well as facility audit results, in a consistent, harmonized manner.

The SFF is embodied in revised NSC standards 7 (driver and carrier profiles), 14 (safety ratings) and 15 (facility audits) that were included into federal legislation under the revised MTVA in 2006. The P/Ts have agreed that these three standards will apply to all motor carriers (private/for-hire, extra and intra-provincial) so that similar safety and compliance performance result in a similar safety rating in each jurisdiction.

Changes to performance measures and reporting requirements

Removal of enforcement targets

Research has established that roadside inspections and facility audit activities have a positive impact on reducing collisions. As a consequence, and consistent with the results and recommendation of an evaluation of the NSC that was conducted in 2003, the 2004/08 contribution agreements with the jurisdictions included requirements specifying the minimum number of roadside inspections and facility audits to be conducted every year.

However, for the 2009/10-2014/15 and 2015/16-2019/20 co-funding programs, these enforcement targets were removed at the P/Ts’ request. P/Ts argued that mandatory audit target levels focused only on federally regulated motor carriers:

diverted enforcement resources away from local motor carriers;
did not allow them flexibility in deploying expensive audit resources and may have created inequities by diverting scarce resources to extra-provincial motor carriers that were not necessarily perceived to be at risk for future accidents and convictions, in comparison to local motor carriers that may have had a higher number of collisions or poorer compliance records;
made the safety rating regime rigid and not sufficiently driven by accident, inspection and conviction data contained in the safety rating systems deployed in each jurisdiction.

As a result, and given the federal government’s confidence in the P/Ts’ commitment to maintain a sufficient level of enforcement, Transport Canada agreed to remove the performance targets. If the number of CVSA inspections increase or remain relatively stable, then the enforcement level and TC’s monitoring ability would likely not be impacted. However, a sharp drop in absolute number or changes in the types of CVSA inspections being conducted could create issues relative to the equity of enforcement of the NSC and MVTA requirements.

Therefore, it is important to monitor the number of roadside inspections and facility audits conducted by the P/Ts. Analysis of these enforcement data trends are instrumental in assessing the impact of this new approach. Pages 50-62 of this report present data up until 2018 and a summary statement is made on pages 63-64. As will be shown, at this time, the data does not indicate any significant nor systematic decrease in enforcement further to the removal of targets.

Changes in reporting requirements

Requirements to report on number of inspections and facility audits related to motor carriers are intended to ensure a relatively consistent and level enforcement playing field for extra-provincial motor carriers operating in Canada. Agreements prior to 2009 contained requirements for jurisdictions to report on the number of inspections and facility audits conducted on all (intra- and extra-provincial) motor carriers. However, for the 2009/10-2014/15 and 2015/16-2019/20 agreements, the reporting requirements were streamlined. Consequently, in order to continue to be eligible for TC funding, the P/Ts are required to report, by year:

the total number of new safety fitness and active certificates issued by jurisdiction for extra-provincial truck and bus operators by year;
the number of facility audits conducted on extra-provincial motor carriers;
the total number of safety ratings assigned by category (i.e. satisfactory, satisfactory un-audited, conditional and unsatisfactory) to extra-provincial motor carriers;
the total number of active intra-provincial motor carriers, but they are not obliged to report the total number of safety ratings assigned by category to intra-provincial motor carriers or the number of facility audits conducted on intra-provincial motor carrier.

Further to these changes in reporting requirements, TC is still able to monitor the split between extra- and intra-provincial motor carriers operating in each jurisdiction, since the total number of extra and intra-provincial motor carriers is still reported, allowing for historical analysis.

However, in the past, the statistics describing the intra-provincial safety rating categories were also reported, which provided a basis for evaluating where the focus of jurisdictional efforts was directed, relative to the safety fitness framework, between extra and intra-provincial motor carriers. It is possible that TC’s ability to evaluate whether the safety fitness framework is being equitably applied to both intra- and extra-provincial motor carriers could be impacted by the change in reporting requirement. This potential issue is being monitored.

Some important provisions remain unchanged in the 2009/10-2014/15 and 2015/16-2019/20 co-funding agreements. The agreements still require the P/Ts to report, by year:

the total number of accidents, inspections and convictions they exchange (transmit and receive) to and from other jurisdictions through the Inter-provincial Records Exchange (IRE) maintained by the CCMTA;
the total number of full time enforcement personnel dedicated to performing CVSA inspections and staff conducting facility audits. This data is used by TC to ensure relative consistency and equity in the application of the NSC and MVTA requirements to both extra- and intra-provincial motor carriers across Canada; and
the total number of CVSA inspections levels 1 through 5. The different CVSA inspections are characterized by the thoroughness by which the drivers’ paperwork and vehicle is inspected. Typically, level 1 inspections are more comprehensive and are more labour intensive and costly to deliver (i.e. they take more time to complete) than other inspections under the CVSA program. Given that it is not possible, at roadside, to distinguish between extra- and intra-provincial drivers and vehicles, contrary to the above-mentioned issue relative to facility audits, these statistics include both.

Also unchanged in the latest agreements is the obligation for extra-provincial carriers to obtain a Safety Fitness Certificate issued by their base plate jurisdiction (where they are registered) and for each of the P/Ts to recognize the certificates issued by other jurisdictions as being valid. All of the P/Ts have undertaken to assign safety ratings to their base plated carriers and to evaluate safety performance in a consistent manner.

2012-2018 status of jurisdictional implementation of NSC standards

Tables 2 to 8 and associated notes indicate that the P/Ts have undertaken the bulk of the work to implement NSC standards and MVTA requirements. NU however is not included in the tables because no roads currently join the territory to other parts of Canada. As such, commercial activity in NU is solely intra-provincial and not a federal responsibility.

Table 2: NSC implementation by jurisdiction 2012
NSC Standard	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
General Requirements 1: 4,500kg> 2: Unique Identifier 3: Weight 4: Exemptions^{Footnote 1} 5: Intra/extra	MVTA Y Y Y Y Extra Only	Y Y 5000 (M)^{Footnote 2} Same	Y Y 4500 (S) Some^{Footnote 3} Diff.	Y Y 5000 (S) Some^{Footnote 4} Diff.	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some^{Footnote 3} Diff	Y Y 4500 Some Same
Safety Certificate Operating Authority^{Footnote 5}	MVTA	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 6}	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 7}	Y Bus	Y Bus	N Y Bus	Y Bus	Y
Financial Responsibility Minimum $1,000,000 Dangerous Goods $2,000,000 Endorsement	MVTA	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	N N N (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y N (M)^{Footnote 8}
NSC 1 Single Driver Licence Concept	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 2 Knowledge and Performance Tests	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 3 Driver Examiner Training Program	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 4 Classified Driver Licensing System	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 5 Self Certification and Procedures^{Footnote 10}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N/A	Y	N/A	N/A	N/A	Y
NSC 6 CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers – Frequency^{Footnote 11}	N/A	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 7 Carrier/Driver Profiles	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 8 Short Term Suspension	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 9 Hours of Service^{Footnote 13}	Y Jan 1/07	Y March 1/07^{Footnote 14}	TBD	Y (S)	Y June 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y June 15/07	Y June 30/07	Y Dec 09	Y Jan 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y May 1/08	Y Jan 1/09
NSC 10 Cargo Securement^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 11 Commercial Vehicle Maintenance and Periodic Inspection requirements^{Footnote 16}	NA	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 17}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N (M) ^{Footnote 18}
NSC 12 CVSA On-Road Inspections	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 13 Trip Inspection^{Footnote 19}	N/A	TBD	Y July 1/09	Y Motorcoach 2012^{Footnote 20}	Y July 1/08	Y July 1/07	TBD	TBD	TBD	Y April 1/09	Y July 2012	Y Aug 1/08	Y Dec 2011
NSC 14 Safety Rating System and Procedures	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 15 Facility Audit	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place, N = Regulatory requirements not in place, M = Minor deviation, N/A = Not applicable, S = Significant deviation, TBD = To be determined, Diff = Different treatment for extra/intra-provincial carriers. Notes: Footnote 1 Most jurisdictions have minor exemptions (e.g. farm vehicles, fire trucks, urban transit buses). These vehicles do not typically fall under federal jurisdiction. Return to footnote 1 referrer BC NSC applies to vehicles at 5,000 kg threshold as this is tied to vehicle registration and insurance systems in the province. Return to footnote 2 referrer AB /YK NSC threshold is at 4,500 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers but at 11,794 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer SK NSC threshold is at 5,000 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers and similar to BC tied to the vehicle registration and insurance systems but at 11,000 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to footnote 4 referrer All truck and bus operators require a safety fitness certificate (SFC). Bus operators require an operating authority in addition to a Safety Fitness Certificate. The application process in many jurisdictions is much easier than it was in previous years. NL does not issue a Safety Fitness Certificate for any motor carrier; however, the unique NSC number is printed on each registration document. Buses do require an operating authority. Return to footnote 5 referrer AB streamlined the requirements for bus operators to obtain an operating authority. Return to footnote 6 referrer NB is still working to implement all aspects of application process and insurance requirements for safety certificates. Return to footnote 7 referrer PE modifications to insurance requirements are still pending. NT is unlikely to mandate the insurance endorsement provisions of the safety certificate requirements as there are not enough insurance companies in NT that can provide this endorsement. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer ON uses an alpha designation for driver licenses instead of numeric – otherwise all NSC classes of license present. Return to footnote 9 referrer In small jurisdictions the carrier population is not large enough to support self-certification of some NSC standards (e.g. PMVI) and hence the standard is not adopted. This non-implementation is not considered as a significant variation. Return to footnote 10 referrer Some jurisdictions include requirements that are more stringent than NSC minimum requirements for frequency. In addition, the process is more tightly controlled as doctors are required to report the conditions that can affect driving. A medical assessment can be required at any time and upon renewal of license. A Canadian commercial drivers’ license (CDL) cannot be obtained or renewed without a medical certificate. CDL’s are renewed at least once every five years (sometimes more frequently). Return to footnote 11 referrer ON has introduced their Driver Behavior Predictive Model with adjusted points that meet or exceed Standard 7. Return to footnote 12 referrer Revised federal HoS regulations were implemented on January 1, 2007. These rules apply to any motor carrier that crosses a provincial/territorial boundary or an international border. Matching or mirror regulations governing both extra and intra-provincial motor carriers have to be enacted in provincial legislation in order for federal regulations to be enforced by provincial authorities. The table indicates the actual implementation date for the new regulations in each jurisdiction. Where target dates of implementation have not been established, TBD (to be determined) is indicated. AB and SK apply federal HoS regulations to extra-provincial carriers only; different regulations apply to intra-provincial carriers. Return to footnote 13 referrer By policy, BC does not enforce HoS requirements on any intra or extra-provincial commercial motor vehicles (e.g. trucks) between 5,000 kg and 11,794 kg. Return to footnote 14 referrer A series of amendments to the cargo securement standard were approved by the Council of Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety in the fall of 2010. A period of educational enforcement will precede the full implementation of the revisions. Most jurisdictions are now using the “adopt by reference” method to keep the standard updated, which explains the lack of variance from one jurisdiction to another for the year 2011. Return to footnote 15 referrer CCMTA began an initiative to update the comprehensive maintenance and inspection standards applying to trucks, buses and trailers. Return to footnote 16 referrer MB implemented the significant 2004 revisions to the standard but did not implement the minor revisions made in 2006. Return to footnote 17 referrer Inspection facilities are available in NT for extra-provincial motor carrier vehicles and NT is assisted by AB in complying with the national periodic inspection requirements. Return to footnote 18 referrer All Canadian jurisdictions are moving to implement enhanced pre- and post-trip inspection requirements for commercial operators. There are different schedules for different vehicles (truck/buses). Revised target implementation dates are shown in the table. The challenge for a number of jurisdictions appears to be the requirement for mandatory under body inspections on a fixed kilometer or schedule for motor coaches. Return to footnote 19 referrer SK still needs to implement the underbody inspections for motor coaches. Otherwise the standard is in place. Return to footnote 20 referrer

Table 3: NSC implementation by jurisdiction 2013
NSC Standard	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
General Requirements 1: 4,500kg> 2: Unique Identifier 3: Weight 4: Exemptions^{Footnote 1} 5: Intra/extra	MVTA Y Y Y Y Extra Only	Y Y 5000 (M)^{Footnote 2} Same	Y Y 4500 (S) Some^{Footnote 3} Diff.	Y Y 5000 (S) Some^{Footnote 4} Diff.	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some^{Footnote 3} Diff	Y Y 4500 Some Same
Safety Certificate Operating Authority^{Footnote 5}	MVTA	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 6}	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 7}	Y Bus	Y Bus	N Y Bus	Y Bus	Y
Financial Responsibility Minimum $1,000,000 Dangerous Goods $2,000,000 Endorsement	MVTA	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	N N N (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y N (M)^{Footnote 8}
NSC 1 Single Driver Licence Concept	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 2 Knowledge and Performance Tests	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 3 Driver Examiner Training Program	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 4 Classified Driver Licensing System	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 5 Self Certification and Procedures^{Footnote 10}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N/A	Y	N/A	N/A	N/A	Y
NSC 6 CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers – Frequency^{Footnote 11}	N/A	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 7 Carrier/Driver Profiles	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 8 Short Term Suspension	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 9 Hours of Service^{Footnote 13}	Y Jan 1/07	Y March 1/07^{Footnote 14}	TBD	Y (S)	Y June 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y June 15/07	Y June 30/07	Y Dec 09	Y Jan 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y May 1/08	Y Jan 1/09
NSC 10 Cargo Securement^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 11 Commercial Vehicle Maintenance and Periodic Inspection requirements^{Footnote 16}	NA	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 17}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N (M) ^{Footnote 18}
NSC 12 CVSA On-Road Inspections	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 13 Trip Inspection^{Footnote 19}	N/A	N Unknown^{Footnote 21}	Y July 1/09	Y Motorcoach 2012^{Footnote 20}	Y July 1/08	Y July 1/07	TBD	TBD	TBD	Y April 1/09	Y July 2012	Y Aug 1/08	Y Dec 2011
NSC 14 Safety Rating System and Procedures	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 15 Facility Audit	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place, N = Regulatory requirements not in place, M = Minor deviation, N/A = Not applicable, S = Significant deviation, TBD = To be determined, Diff = Different treatment for extra/intra-provincial carriers. Notes: Footnote 1 Most jurisdictions have minor exemptions (e.g. farm vehicles, fire trucks, urban transit buses). These vehicles do not typically fall under federal jurisdiction. Return to footnote 1 referrer BC NSC applies to vehicles at 5,000 kg threshold as this is tied to vehicle registration and insurance systems in the province. Return to footnote 2 referrer AB /YK NSC threshold is at 4,500 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers but at 11,794 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer SK NSC threshold is at 5,000 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers and similar to BC tied to the vehicle registration and insurance systems but at 11,000 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to footnote 4 referrer All truck and bus operators require a safety fitness certificate (SFC). Bus operators require an operating authority in addition to a Safety Fitness Certificate. The application process in many jurisdictions is much easier than it was in previous years. NL does not issue a Safety Fitness Certificate for any motor carrier; however, the unique NSC number is printed on each registration document. Buses do require an operating authority. Return to footnote 5 referrer AB streamlined the requirements for bus operators to obtain an operating authority. Return to footnote 6 referrer NB is still working to implement all aspects of application process and insurance requirements for safety certificates. Return to footnote 7 referrer PE modifications to insurance requirements are still pending. NT is unlikely to mandate the insurance endorsement provisions of the safety certificate requirements as there are not enough insurance companies in NT that can provide this endorsement. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer ON uses an alpha designation for driver licenses instead of numeric – otherwise all NSC classes of license present. Return to footnote 9 referrer In small jurisdictions the carrier population is not large enough to support self-certification of some NSC standards (e.g. PMVI) and hence the standard is not adopted. This non-implementation is not considered as a significant variation. Return to footnote 10 referrer Some jurisdictions include requirements that are more stringent than NSC minimum requirements for frequency. In addition, the process is more tightly controlled as doctors are required to report the conditions that can affect driving. A medical assessment can be required at any time and upon renewal of license. A Canadian commercial drivers’ license (CDL) cannot be obtained or renewed without a medical certificate. CDL’s are renewed at least once every five years (sometimes more frequently). Return to footnote 11 referrer ON has introduced their Driver Behavior Predictive Model with adjusted points that meet or exceed Standard 7. Return to footnote 12 referrer Revised federal HoS regulations were implemented on January 1, 2007. These rules apply to any motor carrier that crosses a provincial/territorial boundary or an international border. Matching or mirror regulations governing both extra and intra-provincial motor carriers have to be enacted in provincial legislation in order for federal regulations to be enforced by provincial authorities. The table indicates the actual implementation date for the new regulations in each jurisdiction. Where target dates of implementation have not been established, TBD (to be determined) is indicated. AB and SK apply federal HoS regulations to extra-provincial carriers only; different regulations apply to intra-provincial carriers. Return to footnote 13 referrer By policy, BC does not enforce HoS requirements on any intra or extra-provincial commercial motor vehicles (e.g. trucks) between 5,000 kg and 11,794 kg. Return to footnote 14 referrer A series of amendments to the cargo securement standard were approved by the Council of Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety in the fall of 2010. A period of educational enforcement will precede the full implementation of the revisions. Most jurisdictions are now using the “adopt by reference” method to keep the standard updated, which explains the lack of variance from one jurisdiction to another for the year 2011. Return to footnote 15 referrer CCMTA began an initiative to update the comprehensive maintenance and inspection standards applying to trucks, buses and trailers. Return to footnote 16 referrer MB implemented the significant 2004 revisions to the standard but did not implement the minor revisions made in 2006. Return to footnote 17 referrer Inspection facilities are available in NT for extra-provincial motor carrier vehicles and NT is assisted by AB in complying with the national periodic inspection requirements. Return to footnote 18 referrer All Canadian jurisdictions are moving to implement enhanced pre- and post-trip inspection requirements for commercial operators. There are different schedules for different vehicles (truck/buses). Revised target implementation dates are shown in the table. The challenge for a number of jurisdictions appears to be the requirement for mandatory under body inspections on a fixed kilometer or schedule for motor coaches. Return to footnote 19 referrer SK still needs to implement the underbody inspections for motor coaches. Otherwise the standard is in place. Return to footnote 20 referrer BC has not currently implemented Standard 13 due to concerns with the timelines for mandatory under body inspections for motor coaches. Return to footnote 21 referrer

Table 4: NSC implementation by jurisdiction 2014
NSC Standard	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
General Requirements 1: 4,500kg> 2: Unique Identifier 3: Weight 4: Exemptions^{Footnote 1} 5: Intra/extra	MVTA Y Y Y Y Extra Only	Y Y 5000 (M)^{Footnote 2} Same	Y Y 4500 (S) Some^{Footnote 3} Diff.	Y Y 5000 (S) Some^{Footnote 4} Diff.	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some^{Footnote 3} Diff	Y Y 4500 Some Same
Safety Certificate Operating Authority^{Footnote 5}	MVTA	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 6}	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 7}	Y Bus	Y Bus	N Y Bus	Y Bus	Y
Financial Responsibility Minimum $1,000,000 Dangerous Goods $2,000,000 Endorsement	MVTA	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	N N N (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y N (M)^{Footnote 8}
NSC 1 Single Driver Licence Concept	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 2 Knowledge and Performance Tests	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 3 Driver Examiner Training Program	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 4 Classified Driver Licensing System	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 5 Self Certification and Procedures^{Footnote 10}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N/A	Y	N/A	N/A	N/A	Y
NSC 6 CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers – Frequency^{Footnote 11}	N/A	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 7 Carrier/Driver Profiles	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 8 Short Term Suspension	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 9 Hours of Service^{Footnote 13}	Y Jan 1/07	Y March 1/07^{Footnote 14}	TBD	Y (S)	Y June 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y June 15/07	Y June 30/07	Y Dec 09	Y Jan 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y May 1/08	Y Jan 1/09
NSC 10 Cargo Securement^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 11 Commercial Vehicle Maintenance and Periodic Inspection requirements^{Footnote 16}	NA	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 17}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N (M) ^{Footnote 18}
NSC 12 CVSA On-Road Inspections	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 13 Trip Inspection^{Footnote 19}	N/A	N Unknown^{Footnote 21}	Y July 1/09	Y Motorcoach 2012^{Footnote 20}	Y July 1/08	Y July 1/07	TBD	TBD	TBD	Y April 1/09	Y July 2012	Y Aug 1/08	Y Dec 2011
NSC 14 Safety Rating System and Procedures	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 15 Facility Audit	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place, N = Regulatory requirements not in place, M = Minor deviation, N/A = Not applicable, S = Significant deviation, TBD = To be determined, Diff = Different treatment for extra/intra-provincial carriers. Notes: Footnote 1 Most jurisdictions have minor exemptions (e.g. farm vehicles, fire trucks, urban transit buses). These vehicles do not typically fall under federal jurisdiction. Return to footnote 1 referrer BC NSC applies to vehicles at 5,000 kg threshold as this is tied to vehicle registration and insurance systems in the province. Return to footnote 2 referrer AB /YK NSC threshold is at 4,500 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers but at 11,794 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer SK NSC threshold is at 5,000 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers and similar to BC tied to the vehicle registration and insurance systems but at 11,794 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to footnote 4 referrer All truck and bus operators require a safety fitness certificate (SFC). Bus operators require an operating authority in addition to a Safety Fitness Certificate. The application process in many jurisdictions is much easier than it was in previous years. NL does not issue a Safety Fitness Certificate for any motor carrier; however, the unique NSC number is printed on each registration document. Buses do require an operating authority. Return to footnote 5 referrer AB streamlined the requirements for bus operators to obtain an operating authority. Return to footnote 6 referrer NB is still working to implement all aspects of application process and insurance requirements for safety certificates. Return to footnote 7 referrer PE modifications to insurance requirements are still pending. NT is unlikely to mandate the insurance endorsement provisions of the safety certificate requirements as there are not enough insurance companies in NT that can provide this endorsement. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer ON uses an alpha designation for driver licenses instead of numeric – otherwise all NSC classes of license present. Return to footnote 9 referrer In small jurisdictions the carrier population is not large enough to support self-certification of some NSC standards (e.g. PMVI) and hence the standard is not adopted. This non-implementation is not considered as a significant variation. Return to footnote 10 referrer Some jurisdictions include requirements that are more stringent than NSC minimum requirements for frequency. In addition, the process is more tightly controlled as doctors are required to report the conditions that can affect driving. A medical assessment can be required at any time and upon renewal of license. A Canadian commercial drivers’ license (CDL) cannot be obtained or renewed without a medical certificate. CDL’s are renewed at least once every five years (sometimes more frequently). Return to footnote 11 referrer ON has introduced their Driver Behavior Predictive Model with adjusted points that meet or exceed Standard 7. Return to footnote 12 referrer Revised federal HoS regulations were implemented on January 1, 2007. These rules apply to any motor carrier that crosses a provincial/territorial boundary or an international border. Matching or mirror regulations governing both extra and intra-provincial motor carriers have to be enacted in provincial legislation in order for federal regulations to be enforced by provincial authorities. The table indicates the actual implementation date for the new regulations in each jurisdiction. Where target dates of implementation have not been established, TBD (to be determined) is indicated. AB and SK apply federal HoS regulations to extra-provincial carriers only; different regulations apply to intra-provincial carriers. Return to footnote 13 referrer By policy, BC does not enforce HoS requirements on any intra or extra-provincial commercial motor vehicles (e.g. trucks) between 5,000 kg and 11,794 kg. Return to footnote 14 referrer A series of amendments to the cargo securement standard were approved by the Council of Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety in the fall of 2010. A period of educational enforcement will precede the full implementation of the revisions. Most jurisdictions are now using the “adopt by reference” method to keep the standard updated, which explains the lack of variance from one jurisdiction to another for the year 2011. Return to footnote 15 referrer CCMTA began an initiative to update the comprehensive maintenance and inspection standards applying to trucks, buses and trailers. Return to footnote 16 referrer MB implemented the significant 2004 revisions to the standard but did not implement the minor revisions made in 2006. Return to footnote 17 referrer Inspection facilities are available in NT for extra-provincial motor carrier vehicles and NT is assisted by AB in complying with the national periodic inspection requirements. Return to footnote 18 referrer All Canadian jurisdictions are moving to implement enhanced pre- and post-trip inspection requirements for commercial operators. There are different schedules for different vehicles (truck/buses). Revised target implementation dates are shown in the table. The challenge for a number of jurisdictions appears to be the requirement for mandatory under body inspections on a fixed kilometer or schedule for motor coaches. Return to footnote 19 referrer SK still needs to implement the underbody inspections for motor coaches. Otherwise the standard is in place. Return to footnote 20 referrer BC has not currently implemented Standard 13 due to concerns with the timelines for mandatory under body inspections for motor coaches. Return to footnote 21 referrer

Table 5: NSC implementation by jurisdiction 2015
NSC Standard	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
General Requirements 1: 4,500kg> 2: Unique Identifier 3: Weight 4: Exemptions^{Footnote 1} 5: Intra/extra	MVTA Y Y Y Y Extra Only	Y Y 5000 (M)^{Footnote 2} Same	Y Y 4500 (S) Some^{Footnote 3} Diff.	Y Y 5000 (S) Some^{Footnote 4} Diff.	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some^{Footnote 3} Diff	Y Y 4500 Some Same
Safety Certificate Operating Authority^{Footnote 5}	MVTA	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 6}	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 7}	Y Bus	Y Bus	N Y Bus	Y Bus	Y
Financial Responsibility Minimum $1,000,000 Dangerous Goods $2,000,000 Endorsement	MVTA	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	N N N (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y N (M)^{Footnote 8}
NSC 1 Single Driver Licence Concept	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 2 Knowledge and Performance Tests	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 3 Driver Examiner Training Program	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 4 Classified Driver Licensing System	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 5 Self Certification and Procedures^{Footnote 10}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N/A	Y	N/A	N/A	N/A	Y
NSC 6 CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers – Frequency^{Footnote 11}	N/A	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 7 Carrier/Driver Profiles	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 8 Short Term Suspension	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 9 Hours of Service^{Footnote 13}	Y Jan 1/07	Y March 1/07^{Footnote 14}	TBD	Y (S)	Y June 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y June 15/07	Y June 30/07	Y Dec 09	Y Jan 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y May 1/08	Y Jan 1/09
NSC 10 Cargo Securement^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 11 Commercial Vehicle Maintenance and Periodic Inspection requirements^{Footnote 16}	NA	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 17}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N (M) ^{Footnote 18}
NSC 12 CVSA On-Road Inspections	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 13 Trip Inspection^{Footnote 19}	N/A	TBD Unknown^{Footnote 21}	Y July 1/09	Y Motorcoach 2012^{Footnote 20}	Y July 1/08	Y July 1/07	TBD	TBD	TBD	Y April 1/09	Y July 2012	Y Aug 1/08	Y Dec 2011
NSC 14 Safety Rating System and Procedures	MVTA	Y (M)^{Footnote 22}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 15 Facility Audit	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place, N = Regulatory requirements not in place, M = Minor deviation, N/A = Not applicable, S = Significant deviation, TBD = To be determined, Diff = Different treatment for extra/intra-provincial carriers. Notes: Footnote 1 Most jurisdictions have minor exemptions (e.g. farm vehicles, fire trucks, urban transit buses). These vehicles do not typically fall under federal jurisdiction. Return to footnote 1 referrer BC NSC applies to vehicles at 5,000 kg threshold as this is tied to vehicle registration and insurance systems in the province. Return to footnote 2 referrer AB /YK NSC threshold is at 4,500 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers but at 11,794 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer SK NSC threshold is at 5,000 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers and similar to BC tied to the vehicle registration and insurance systems but at 11,794 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to footnote 4 referrer All truck and bus operators require a safety fitness certificate (SFC). Bus operators require an operating authority in addition to a Safety Fitness Certificate. The application process in many jurisdictions is much easier than it was in previous years. NL does not issue a Safety Fitness Certificate for any motor carrier; however, the unique NSC number is printed on each registration document. Buses do require an operating authority. Return to footnote 5 referrer AB streamlined the requirements for bus operators to obtain an operating authority. Return to footnote 6 referrer NB is still working to implement all aspects of application process and insurance requirements for safety certificates. Return to footnote 7 referrer PE modifications to insurance requirements are still pending. NT is unlikely to mandate the insurance endorsement provisions of the safety certificate requirements as there are not enough insurance companies in NT that can provide this endorsement. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer ON uses an alpha designation for driver licenses instead of numeric – otherwise all NSC classes of license present. Return to footnote 9 referrer In small jurisdictions the carrier population is not large enough to support self-certification of some NSC standards (e.g. PMVI) and hence the standard is not adopted. This non-implementation is not considered as a significant variation. Return to footnote 10 referrer Some jurisdictions include requirements that are more stringent than NSC minimum requirements for frequency. In addition, the process is more tightly controlled as doctors are required to report the conditions that can affect driving. A medical assessment can be required at any time and upon renewal of license. A Canadian commercial drivers’ license (CDL) cannot be obtained or renewed without a medical certificate. CDL’s are renewed at least once every five years (sometimes more frequently). Return to footnote 11 referrer ON has introduced their Driver Behavior Predictive Model with adjusted points that meet or exceed Standard 7. Return to footnote 12 referrer Revised federal HoS regulations were implemented on January 1, 2007. These rules apply to any motor carrier that crosses a provincial/territorial boundary or an international border. Matching or mirror regulations governing both extra and intra-provincial motor carriers have to be enacted in provincial legislation in order for federal regulations to be enforced by provincial authorities. The table indicates the actual implementation date for the new regulations in each jurisdiction. Where target dates of implementation have not been established, TBD (to be determined) is indicated. AB and SK apply federal HoS regulations to extra-provincial carriers only; different regulations apply to intra-provincial carriers. Return to footnote 13 referrer By policy, BC does not enforce HoS requirements on any intra or extra-provincial commercial motor vehicles (e.g. trucks) between 5,000 kg and 11,794 kg. Return to footnote 14 referrer A series of amendments to the cargo securement standard were approved by the Council of Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety in the fall of 2010. A period of educational enforcement will precede the full implementation of the revisions. Most jurisdictions are now using the “adopt by reference” method to keep the standard updated, which explains the lack of variance from one jurisdiction to another for the year 2011. Return to footnote 15 referrer CCMTA began an initiative to update the comprehensive maintenance and inspection standards applying to trucks, buses and trailers. Return to footnote 16 referrer Adopted by reference June 2015. Return to footnote 17 referrer Inspection facilities are available in NT for extra-provincial motor carrier vehicles and NT is assisted by AB in complying with the national periodic inspection requirements. Return to footnote 18 referrer All Canadian jurisdictions are moving to implement enhanced pre- and post-trip inspection requirements for commercial operators. There are different schedules for different vehicles (truck/buses). Revised target implementation dates are shown in the table. The challenge for a number of jurisdictions appears to be the requirement for mandatory under body inspections on a fixed kilometer or schedule for motor coaches. Return to footnote 19 referrer SK still needs to implement the underbody inspections for motor coaches. Otherwise the standard is in place. Return to footnote 20 referrer BC has not currently implemented Standard 13 due to concerns with the timelines for mandatory under body inspections for motor coaches. Return to footnote 21 referrer As of June 1, 2015, BC introduced three additional safety rating options: Excellent (to recognize carriers who had achieved an Excellent audit result as well as a Satisfactory profile status); Conditional-Unaudited and Unsatisfactory-Unaudited (to ensure unaudited carriers are still publicly accountable for their on-road performance prior to a quantifiable facility audit being completed. Return to footnote 22 referrer

Table 6: NSC implementation by jurisdiction 2016
NSC Standard	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
General Requirements 1: 4,500kg> 2: Unique Identifier 3: Weight 4: Exemptions^{Footnote 1} 5: Intra/extra	MVTA Y Y Y Y Extra Only	Y Y 5000 (M)^{Footnote 2} Same	Y Y 4500 (S) Some^{Footnote 3} Diff.	Y Y 5000 (S) Some^{Footnote 4} Diff.	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some^{Footnote 3} Diff	Y Y 4500 Some Same
Safety Certificate Operating Authority^{Footnote 5}	MVTA	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 6}	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 7}	Y Bus	Y Bus	N Y Bus	Y Bus	Y
Financial Responsibility Minimum $1,000,000 Dangerous Goods $2,000,000 Endorsement	MVTA	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	N N N (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y N (M)^{Footnote 8}
NSC 1 Single Driver Licence Concept	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 2 Knowledge and Performance Tests	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 3 Driver Examiner Training Program	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 4 Classified Driver Licensing System	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 5 Self Certification and Procedures^{Footnote 10}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N/A	Y	N/A	N/A	N/A	Y
NSC 6 CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers – Frequency^{Footnote 11}	N/A	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 7 Carrier/Driver Profiles	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 8 Short Term Suspension	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 9 Hours of Service^{Footnote 13}	Y Jan 1/07	Y March 1/07^{Footnote 14}	TBD	Y (S)	Y June 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y June 15/07	Y June 30/07	Y Dec 09	Y Jan 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y May 1/08	Y Jan 1/09
NSC 10 Cargo Securement^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 11 Commercial Vehicle Maintenance and Periodic Inspection requirements^{Footnote 16}	NA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N (M)^{Footnote 17}
NSC 12 CVSA On-Road Inspections	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 13 Trip Inspection^{Footnote 18}	N/A	TBD^{Footnote 20}	Y July 1/09	Y Motorcoach 2012^{Footnote 19}	Y July 1/08	Y July 1/07	Y Nov 2016	TBD	TBD	Y April 1/09	Y July 2012	Y Aug 1/08	Y Dec 2011
NSC 14 Safety Rating System and Procedures	MVTA	Y (M)^{Footnote 21}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 15 Facility Audit	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place, N = Regulatory requirements not in place, M = Minor deviation, N/A = Not applicable, S = Significant deviation, TBD = To be determined, Diff = Different treatment for extra/intra-provincial carriers. Notes: Footnote 1 Most jurisdictions have minor exemptions (e.g. farm vehicles, fire trucks, urban transit buses). These vehicles do not typically fall under federal jurisdiction. Return to footnote 1 referrer BC NSC applies to vehicles at 5,000 kg threshold as this is tied to vehicle registration and insurance systems in the province. Return to footnote 2 referrer AB /YK NSC threshold is at 4,500 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers but at 11,794 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer SK NSC threshold is at 5,000 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers and similar to BC tied to the vehicle registration and insurance systems but at 11,794 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to footnote 4 referrer All truck and bus operators require a safety fitness certificate (SFC). Bus operators require an operating authority in addition to a Safety Fitness Certificate. The application process in many jurisdictions is much easier than it was in previous years. NL does not issue a Safety Fitness Certificate for any motor carrier; however, the unique NSC number is printed on each registration document. Buses do require an operating authority. Return to footnote 5 referrer AB streamlined the requirements for bus operators to obtain an operating authority. Return to footnote 6 referrer NB is still working to implement all aspects of application process and insurance requirements for safety certificates. Return to footnote 7 referrer PE modifications to insurance requirements are still pending. NT is unlikely to mandate the insurance endorsement provisions of the safety certificate requirements as there are not enough insurance companies in NT that can provide this endorsement. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer ON uses an alpha designation for driver licenses instead of numeric – otherwise all NSC classes of license present. Return to footnote 9 referrer In small jurisdictions the carrier population is not large enough to support self-certification of some NSC standards (e.g. PMVI) and hence the standard is not adopted. This non-implementation is not considered as a significant variation. Return to footnote 10 referrer Some jurisdictions include requirements that are more stringent than NSC minimum requirements for frequency. In addition, the process is more tightly controlled as doctors are required to report the conditions that can affect driving. A medical assessment can be required at any time and upon renewal of license. A Canadian commercial drivers’ license (CDL) cannot be obtained or renewed without a medical certificate. CDL’s are renewed at least once every five years (sometimes more frequently). Return to footnote 11 referrer ON has introduced their Driver Behavior Predictive Model with adjusted points that meet or exceed Standard 7. Return to footnote 12 referrer Revised federal HoS regulations were implemented on January 1, 2007. These rules apply to any motor carrier that crosses a provincial/territorial boundary or an international border. Matching or mirror regulations governing both extra and intra-provincial motor carriers have to be enacted in provincial legislation in order for federal regulations to be enforced by provincial authorities. The table indicates the actual implementation date for the new regulations in each jurisdiction. Where target dates of implementation have not been established, TBD (to be determined) is indicated. AB and SK apply federal HoS regulations to extra-provincial carriers only; different regulations apply to intra-provincial carriers. Return to footnote 13 referrer By policy, BC does not enforce HoS requirements on any intra or extra-provincial commercial motor vehicles (e.g. trucks) between 5,000 kg and 11,794 kg. Return to footnote 14 referrer A series of amendments to the cargo securement standard were approved by the Council of Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety in the fall of 2010. A period of educational enforcement will precede the full implementation of the revisions. Most jurisdictions are now using the “adopt by reference” method to keep the standard updated, which explains the lack of variance from one jurisdiction to another for the year 2011. Return to footnote 15 referrer CCMTA began an initiative to update the comprehensive maintenance and inspection standards applying to trucks, buses and trailers. Return to footnote 16 referrer Inspection facilities are available in NT for extra-provincial motor carrier vehicles and NT is assisted by AB in complying with the national periodic inspection requirements. Return to footnote 17 referrer All Canadian jurisdictions are moving to implement enhanced pre- and post-trip inspection requirements for commercial operators. There are different schedules for different vehicles (truck/buses). Revised target implementation dates are shown in the table. The challenge for a number of jurisdictions appears to be the requirement for mandatory under body inspections on a fixed kilometer or schedule for motor coaches. Return to footnote 18 referrer SK still needs to implement the underbody inspections for motor coaches. Otherwise the standard is in place. Return to footnote 19 referrer BC has not currently implemented Standard 13 due to concerns with the timelines for mandatory under body inspections for motor coaches. Return to footnote 20 referrer As of June 1, 2015, BC introduced three additional safety rating options: Excellent (to recognize carriers who had achieved an Excellent audit result as well as a Satisfactory profile status); Conditional-Unaudited and Unsatisfactory-Unaudited (to ensure unaudited carriers are still publicly accountable for their on-road performance prior to a quantifiable facility audit being completed. Return to footnote 21 referrer

Table 7: NSC implementation by jurisdiction 2017
NSC Standard	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
General Requirements 1: 4,500kg> 2: Unique Identifier 3: Weight 4: Exemptions^{Footnote 1} 5: Intra/extra	MVTA Y Y Y Y Extra Only	Y Y 5000 (M)^{Footnote 2} Same	Y Y 4500 (S) Some^{Footnote 3} Diff.	Y Y 5000 (S) Some^{Footnote 4} Diff.	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some^{Footnote 3} Diff	Y Y 4500 Some Same
Safety Certificate Operating Authority^{Footnote 5}	MVTA	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 6}	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 7}	Y Bus	Y Bus	N Y Bus	Y Bus	Y
Financial Responsibility Minimum $1,000,000 Dangerous Goods $2,000,000 Endorsement	MVTA	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	N N N (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y N (M)^{Footnote 8}
NSC 1 Single Driver Licence Concept	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 2 Knowledge and Performance Tests	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 3 Driver Examiner Training Program	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 4 Classified Driver Licensing System	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 5 Self Certification and Procedures^{Footnote 10}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N/A	Y	N/A	N/A	N/A	Y
NSC 6 CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers – Frequency^{Footnote 11}	N/A	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 7 Carrier/Driver Profiles	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 8 Short Term Suspension	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 9 Hours of Service^{Footnote 13}	Y Jan 1/07	Y March 1/07^{Footnote 14}	Y (S)	Y (S)	Y June 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y June 15/07	Y June 30/07	Y Dec 09	Y Jan 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y May 1/08	Y Jan 1/09
NSC 10 Cargo Securement^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 11 Commercial Vehicle Maintenance and Periodic Inspection requirements^{Footnote 16}	NA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N (M)^{Footnote 17}
NSC 12 CVSA On-Road Inspections	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 13 Trip Inspection^{Footnote 18}	N/A	TBD^{Footnote 20}	Y July 1/09	Y Motorcoach 2012^{Footnote 19}	Y July 1/08	Y July 1/07	Y Nov 2016	TBD	TBD	Y April 1/09	Y July 2012	Y Aug 1/08	Y Dec 2011
NSC 14 Safety Rating System and Procedures	MVTA	Y (M)^{Footnote 21}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 15 Facility Audit	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place, N = Regulatory requirements not in place, M = Minor deviation, N/A = Not applicable, S = Significant deviation, TBD = To be determined, Diff = Different treatment for extra/intra-provincial carriers. Notes: Footnote 1 Most jurisdictions have minor exemptions (e.g. farm vehicles, fire trucks, urban transit buses). These vehicles do not typically fall under federal jurisdiction. Return to footnote 1 referrer BC NSC applies to vehicles at 5,000 kg threshold as this is tied to vehicle registration and insurance systems in the province. Return to footnote 2 referrer AB /YK NSC threshold is at 4,500 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers but at 11,794 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer SK NSC threshold is at 5,000 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers and similar to BC tied to the vehicle registration and insurance systems but at 11,794 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to footnote 4 referrer All truck and bus operators require a safety fitness certificate (SFC). Bus operators require an operating authority in addition to a Safety Fitness Certificate. The application process in many jurisdictions is much easier than it was in previous years. NL does not issue a Safety Fitness Certificate for any motor carrier; however, the unique NSC number is printed on each registration document. Buses do require an operating authority. Return to footnote 5 referrer AB streamlined the requirements for bus operators to obtain an operating authority. Return to footnote 6 referrer NB is still working to implement all aspects of application process and insurance requirements for safety certificates. Return to footnote 7 referrer PE modifications to insurance requirements are still pending. NT is unlikely to mandate the insurance endorsement provisions of the safety certificate requirements as there are not enough insurance companies in NT that can provide this endorsement. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer ON uses an alpha designation for driver licenses instead of numeric – otherwise all NSC classes of license present. Return to footnote 9 referrer In small jurisdictions the carrier population is not large enough to support self-certification of some NSC standards (e.g. PMVI) and hence the standard is not adopted. This non-implementation is not considered as a significant variation. Return to footnote 10 referrer Some jurisdictions include requirements that are more stringent than NSC minimum requirements for frequency. In addition, the process is more tightly controlled as doctors are required to report the conditions that can affect driving. A medical assessment can be required at any time and upon renewal of license. A Canadian commercial drivers’ license (CDL) cannot be obtained or renewed without a medical certificate. CDL’s are renewed at least once every five years (sometimes more frequently). Return to footnote 11 referrer ON has introduced their Driver Behavior Predictive Model with adjusted points that meet or exceed Standard 7. Return to footnote 12 referrer Revised federal HoS regulations were implemented on January 1, 2007. These rules apply to any motor carrier that crosses a provincial/territorial boundary or an international border. Matching or mirror regulations governing both extra and intra-provincial motor carriers have to be enacted in provincial legislation in order for federal regulations to be enforced by provincial authorities. The table indicates the actual implementation date for the new regulations in each jurisdiction. Where target dates of implementation have not been established, TBD (to be determined) is indicated. AB and SK apply federal HoS regulations to extra-provincial carriers only; different regulations apply to intra-provincial carriers. Return to footnote 13 referrer By policy, BC does not enforce HoS requirements on any intra or extra-provincial commercial motor vehicles (e.g. trucks) between 5,000 kg and 11,794 kg. Return to footnote 14 referrer A series of amendments to the cargo securement standard were approved by the Council of Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety in the fall of 2010. A period of educational enforcement will precede the full implementation of the revisions. Most jurisdictions are now using the “adopt by reference” method to keep the standard updated, which explains the lack of variance from one jurisdiction to another for the year 2011. Return to footnote 15 referrer CCMTA began an initiative to update the comprehensive maintenance and inspection standards applying to trucks, buses and trailers. Return to footnote 16 referrer Inspection facilities are available in NT for extra-provincial motor carrier vehicles and NT is assisted by AB in complying with the national periodic inspection requirements. Return to footnote 17 referrer All Canadian jurisdictions are moving to implement enhanced pre- and post-trip inspection requirements for commercial operators. There are different schedules for different vehicles (truck/buses). Revised target implementation dates are shown in the table. The challenge for a number of jurisdictions appears to be the requirement for mandatory under body inspections on a fixed kilometer or schedule for motor coaches. Return to footnote 18 referrer SK still needs to implement the underbody inspections for motor coaches. Otherwise the standard is in place. Return to footnote 19 referrer BC has not currently implemented Standard 13 due to concerns with the timelines for mandatory under body inspections for motor coaches. Return to footnote 20 referrer As of June 1, 2015, BC introduced three additional safety rating options: Excellent (to recognize carriers who had achieved an Excellent audit result as well as a Satisfactory profile status); Conditional-Unaudited and Unsatisfactory-Unaudited (to ensure unaudited carriers are still publicly accountable for their on-road performance prior to a quantifiable facility audit being completed. Return to footnote 21 referrer

Table 8: NSC implementation by jurisdiction 2018
NSC Standard	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
General Requirements 1: 4,500kg> 2: Unique Identifier 3: Weight 4: Exemptions^{Footnote 1} 5: Intra/extra	MVTA Y Y Y Y Extra Only	Y Y 5000 (M)^{Footnote 2} Same	Y Y 4500 (S) Some^{Footnote 3} Diff.	Y Y 5000 (S) Some^{Footnote 4} Diff.	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 Some Same	Y Y 4500 N Same	Y Y 4500 Some^{Footnote 3} Diff	Y Y 4500 Some Same
Safety Certificate Operating Authority^{Footnote 5}	MVTA	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 6}	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus	Y Bus^{Footnote 7}	Y Bus	Y Bus	N Y Bus	Y Bus	Y
Financial Responsibility Minimum $1,000,000 Dangerous Goods $2,000,000 Endorsement	MVTA	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	N N N (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y Y Y	Y Y Y	Y Y N (M)^{Footnote 8}
NSC 1 Single Driver Licence Concept	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 2 Knowledge and Performance Tests	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 3 Driver Examiner Training Program	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 4 Classified Driver Licensing System	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 5 Self Certification and Procedures^{Footnote 10}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N/A	Y	N/A	N/A	N/A	Y
NSC 6 CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers – Frequency^{Footnote 11}	N/A	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y (M)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 7 Carrier/Driver Profiles	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 8 Short Term Suspension	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 9 Hours of Service^{Footnote 13}	Y Jan 1/07	Y March 1/07^{Footnote 14}	Y (S)	Y (S)	Y June 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y June 15/07	Y June 30/07	Y Dec 09	Y Jan 1/07	Y Jan 1/07	Y May 1/08	Y Jan 1/09
NSC 10 Cargo Securement^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 11 Commercial Vehicle Maintenance and Periodic Inspection requirements^{Footnote 16}	NA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N (M)^{Footnote 17}
NSC 12 CVSA On-Road Inspections	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 13 Trip Inspection^{Footnote 18}	N/A	TBD^{Footnote 20}	Y July 1/09	Y Motorcoach 2012^{Footnote 19}	Y July 1/08	Y (M) July 1, 2018	Y Nov 2016	TBD	Y Feb 1 2018	Y April 1/09	Y July 2012	Y Aug 1/08	Y Dec 2011
NSC 14 Safety Rating System and Procedures	MVTA	Y (M)^{Footnote 21}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
NSC 15 Facility Audit	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place, N = Regulatory requirements not in place, M = Minor deviation, N/A = Not applicable, S = Significant deviation, TBD = To be determined, Diff = Different treatment for extra/intra-provincial carriers. Notes: Footnote 1 Most jurisdictions have minor exemptions (e.g. farm vehicles, fire trucks, urban transit buses). These vehicles do not typically fall under federal jurisdiction. Return to footnote 1 referrer BC NSC applies to vehicles at 5,000 kg threshold as this is tied to vehicle registration and insurance systems in the province. Return to footnote 2 referrer AB /YK NSC threshold is at 4,500 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers but at 11,794 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer SK NSC threshold is at 5,000 kg for extra-provincial (federal) carriers and similar to BC tied to the vehicle registration and insurance systems but at 11,794 kg for intra-provincial (local) carriers. Return to footnote 4 referrer All truck and bus operators require a safety fitness certificate (SFC). Bus operators require an operating authority in addition to a Safety Fitness Certificate. The application process in many jurisdictions is much easier than it was in previous years. NL does not issue a Safety Fitness Certificate for any motor carrier; however, the unique NSC number is printed on each registration document. Buses do require an operating authority. Return to footnote 5 referrer AB streamlined the requirements for bus operators to obtain an operating authority. Return to footnote 6 referrer NB is still working to implement all aspects of application process and insurance requirements for safety certificates. Return to footnote 7 referrer PE modifications to insurance requirements are still pending. NT is unlikely to mandate the insurance endorsement provisions of the safety certificate requirements as there are not enough insurance companies in NT that can provide this endorsement. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer ON uses an alpha designation for driver licenses instead of numeric – otherwise all NSC classes of license present. Return to footnote 9 referrer In small jurisdictions the carrier population is not large enough to support self-certification of some NSC standards (e.g. PMVI) and hence the standard is not adopted. This non-implementation is not considered as a significant variation. Return to footnote 10 referrer Some jurisdictions include requirements that are more stringent than NSC minimum requirements for frequency. In addition, the process is more tightly controlled as doctors are required to report the conditions that can affect driving. A medical assessment can be required at any time and upon renewal of license. A Canadian commercial drivers’ license (CDL) cannot be obtained or renewed without a medical certificate. CDL’s are renewed at least once every five years (sometimes more frequently). Return to footnote 11 referrer ON has introduced their Driver Behavior Predictive Model with adjusted points that meet or exceed Standard 7. Return to footnote 12 referrer Revised federal HoS regulations were implemented on January 1, 2007. These rules apply to any motor carrier that crosses a provincial/territorial boundary or an international border. Matching or mirror regulations governing both extra and intra-provincial motor carriers have to be enacted in provincial legislation in order for federal regulations to be enforced by provincial authorities. The table indicates the actual implementation date for the new regulations in each jurisdiction. Where target dates of implementation have not been established, TBD (to be determined) is indicated. AB and SK apply federal HoS regulations to extra-provincial carriers only; different regulations apply to intra-provincial carriers. Return to footnote 13 referrer By policy, BC does not enforce HoS requirements on any intra or extra-provincial commercial motor vehicles (e.g. trucks) between 5,000 kg and 11,794 kg. Return to footnote 14 referrer A series of amendments to the cargo securement standard were approved by the Council of Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety in the fall of 2010. A period of educational enforcement will precede the full implementation of the revisions. Most jurisdictions are now using the “adopt by reference” method to keep the standard updated, which explains the lack of variance from one jurisdiction to another for the year 2011. Return to footnote 15 referrer CCMTA began an initiative to update the comprehensive maintenance and inspection standards applying to trucks, buses and trailers. Return to footnote 16 referrer Inspection facilities are available in NT for extra-provincial motor carrier vehicles and NT is assisted by AB in complying with the national periodic inspection requirements. Return to footnote 17 referrer All Canadian jurisdictions are moving to implement enhanced pre- and post-trip inspection requirements for commercial operators. There are different schedules for different vehicles (truck/buses). Revised target implementation dates are shown in the table. The challenge for a number of jurisdictions appears to be the requirement for mandatory under body inspections on a fixed kilometer or schedule for motor coaches. Return to footnote 18 referrer SK still needs to implement the underbody inspections for motor coaches. Otherwise the standard is in place. Return to footnote 19 referrer BC has not currently implemented Standard 13 due to concerns with the timelines for mandatory under body inspections for motor coaches. Return to footnote 20 referrer As of June 1, 2015, BC introduced three additional safety rating options: Excellent (to recognize carriers who had achieved an Excellent audit result as well as a Satisfactory profile status); Conditional-Unaudited and Unsatisfactory-Unaudited (to ensure unaudited carriers are still publicly accountable for their on-road performance prior to a quantifiable facility audit being completed. Return to footnote 21 referrer

Variance from full implementation of the NSC by jurisdiction

While it has been a general objective of the NSC that intra- and extra-provincial motor carriers are treated in like manner, each jurisdiction under the original NSC agreement is free to set different regulatory rules and record keeping requirements for truck and bus companies that operate wholly within their province or territory. Deviations to the NSC therefore do exist in the country and it is one of the core mandates of the annual reports to Parliament to document them. Tables 2 to 8 present detailed information relative to how the NSC standards are implemented in Canada over this seven-year period and identify variations with the standards, whether they are minor or significant, as well as cases where intra- and extra-provincial carriers are treated differently. The tables were circulated to the P/Ts and updated on the basis of their input. As such, a deviation remains recorded from the previous year’s report unless a jurisdiction specifically indicates that it has been removed.

Many of the variances are minor and have existed for a number of years. Some jurisdictions may be inclined to leave them in place until more substantial amendments are made to their regulations.

The NSC standards are dynamic and are periodically reviewed and updated to address contemporary issues in the motor carrier industry in Canada. Variances can occur due to different jurisdictional legislative priorities and obtaining resources to implement changes of revised NSC standards. Thus, in any given year, there can be higher or lower variances in consistency relative to the full implementation of the NSC. Historically, however, jurisdictions have typically moved to eliminate those inconsistencies over a longer time frame. As shown below, deviations can be related to general requirements or provisions of the NSC framework or they can be related to specific NSC standards.

Variances with regard to general provisions of the NSC

The NSC standards are meant to apply to all commercial vehicles that weigh more than 4,500 kg, whether they are considered as intra- or extra-provincial. Tables 2 to 8 show that except for BC, AB, SK and YK, the P/Ts have implemented this general requirement. BC varies only slightly from the NSC requirement; this is tied to the fact that the registration and insurance system are being maintained by a different agency. This deviation is therefore considered to be minor and unlikely to be changed.

In the case of AB, YK and SK, the NSC weight threshold for extra-provincial motor carriers is set at 4,500 kg (AB, YK) and 5,000 kg (SK). However, in AB and YK the NSC weight threshold applies to all intra-provincial motor carriers at 11,794 kg or more, while in SK the application of NSC standards to intra-provincial motor carriers was set at 11,000kg until 2014, when it was increased to 11,794 like in AB and YK.

This means that in AB, SK and YK the full NSC applies only to intra-provincial vehicles that are over these weight thresholds. Vehicles below these thresholds, which operate wholly within these provinces, are exempted from the application of numerous NSC standards (e.g. hours of service rules, trip inspection and annual inspection, the safety rating program, etc.). While this variance is significant, these vehicles generally do not travel outside these provinces.

Variances with regard to specific NSC standards

The 2012-2018 data indicate that most jurisdictions continue to exempt some types of vehicles from the NSC program in their local regulations. These include municipal and farm vehicles, ambulances, fire trucks, hearses and some vehicles used in specific trades (e.g. plumbers). Since these vehicles are typically used locally, these deviations to NSC requirements do not generally affect extra-provincial truck and bus operations.

Three jurisdictions (AB, SK and YK) continue to treat extra- and intra-provincial carriers differently in their regulations. BC exempts trucks with GVWR of 11,794 kg or less from requirements to comply with the HoS regulations. By policy, BC does not enforce HoS requirements on commercial motor vehicles between 5,000 and 11,794 kg for both intra- and extra-provincial carriers.

Nearly every P/T has implemented the financial responsibility (insurance) and application process requirements of the MVTA and the NSC. PE and NT have yet to complete and implement outstanding regulatory requirements.

With regard to the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations, tables 2 to 8 indicate that 11 of 13 jurisdictions had implemented revised provincial rules by the end of 2018. AB and SK have yet to implement provincial hours of service rules that mirror federal regulations. In those two provinces, the federal regulations apply to extra-provincial carriers only and different regulations apply to intra-provincial carriers.

Tables 2 to 8 indicate incremental progress on the implementation of the revised trip inspection standard. The standard was significantly upgraded to include new criteria for identifying and repairing defects and includes specific new schedules that have to be completed for different types of commercial vehicles (i.e. trucks, trailers and buses). In 2015, BC indicated it was awaiting the result of a trial in ON prior to implementation. The standard was implemented in 2012 in NL, in 2015 in MB and in 2016 in QC. In NS the regulations came into force in 2018, matching NSC 13 with the additional requirement to remove snow and ice from commercial vehicles prior to operating on a highway. As of 2018, two provinces (BC and NB) had yet to implement the revised standard.

2012-2018 status of safety fitness framework

Tables 9 to 15 present the 2012-2018 jurisdictional status regarding the implementation of the amended MVTA (2006) and the NSC standards included in the safety rating system. A note that the amended MVTA continued the focus of the 1987 amendments to the Act, when economic regulation of the industry was replaced by a focus on safety. The 2006 amendments consolidated the focus on safety fitness and were intended to create a nationally consistent safety fitness framework for motor carriers. In brief, the amendments require extra-provincial carriers to have a safety fitness certificate, which is to be issued by provincial authorities consistently throughout the country, on the basis of NSC 14 – Safety Rating, creating a uniform national safety regime.

The tables indicate that the P/Ts have made further incremental progress to reduce the variances in safety rating requirements that were noted by Knowles in 2004 in an evaluation of the state of readiness of Canadian jurisdictions to implement the revised MVTA^{Footnote 2}. Tables 9 to15 are discussed in the next section addressing the implementation of the general provisions of the revised MVTA.

Table 9: NSC safety rating regime – 2012 status of implementation
MVTA Components^{Footnote 1}	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
1) General	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
2) Identifies poor operators	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
3) Adopted four stage intervention model^{Footnote 2}	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 2}	Y	Y
4) Base plate carriers only monitored	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
5) U.S. carriers in safety rating regime^{Footnote 4}	N/A	N	N	N	N	Y^{Footnote 5}	Y^{Footnote 5}	N	N	N	N	N	N
6) Applications/insurance provision	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N(S)^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y
7) All NSC Vehicles	N/A	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y
8) All carriers evaluated on 24 month basis of data	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
9) All carrier collision, inspection and convictions exchanged	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
10) All facility audits per NSC Standard 15	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}
11) Assign/change safety ratings based on 4 rating categories	MVTA	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	N (S)^{Footnote 11}	Y (M)^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y^{Footnote 13}
12) All elements of safety rating standard 14 Implemented (e.g. safety plans)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 15}	Y	Y
13) All collisions pointed per severity formula (e.g. 2, 4, 6 points)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
14) Use CCMTA conviction equivalency table	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
15) At fault preventability of collisions assessed	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
16) Receive and use U.S. data in safety rating system^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	N TBD^{Footnote 15}	N	Y
17) Exchanges carrier information electronically with other jurisdictions	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 16}	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place; S = Significant deviation; N = Regulatory requirements not in place; UNK = Unknown; M = Minor deviation; N/A = Not applicable. Notes: Footnote 1 Results in this table are based on internet research and updates provided by jurisdictions to CCMTA. Return to footnote 1 referrer All jurisdictions use: 1) letter 2) interview 3) audit 4) show cause hearing, as part of the intervention process. Speed by which a carrier can move from 1 to 4 and an unsatisfactory rating varies as poor on-road performance (collisions/inspections and convictions) can result in some intervention steps being skipped (warning letter/interview) and prompt an immediate facility audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. In ON, the order of intervention has the audit preceding the interview. Return to first footnote 2 referrer Return to second footnote 2 referrer BC and SK systems have 5 elements in the intervention process. New entrants are visited by BC/SK staff shortly after their safety certificate is issued to confirm their ability to comply with record keeping requirements. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer On September 14, 2008 Canada and the United States signed a new agreement to reciprocally recognize each other’s safety rating process. The safety rating/compliance review reciprocity agreement was signed by CCMTA and FMCSA and committed both sides to working towards exchanging collision, inspection and conviction data to populate the motor carrier profiles maintained in both countries. The intent of the revised reciprocity agreement is to eliminate duplication of tracking and monitoring efforts of motor carriers on both sides of the border thus removing an important impediment to cross border trade. Return to footnote 4 referrer ON/QC assigns safety ratings to U.S. and Mexican motor carriers operating in their jurisdiction which is allowed. Based on a pre-existing reciprocity agreement on safety ratings and the intent to implement, the rest of the jurisdictions exclude U.S. motor carriers from their system. As a result extra-provincial motor carriers operating into the U.S. will have 2 safety ratings – 1 issued by the Canadian jurisdiction in which they are base plated and another issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in the United States. U.S. motor carriers may have a competitive advantage over some Canadian extra-provincial motor carriers as they do not have to register in the safety rating programs of other Canadian jurisdictions (Exception ON/QC). Return to first footnote 5 referrer Return to second footnote 5 referrer NB: not all elements of the application and insurance verification process in place due to resource issues. NL adopted application process in 2005 in regulation November 2005. Return to first footnote 6 referrer Return to second footnote 6 referrer AB/SK/YK safety ratings for extra-provincial carriers at NSC weight threshold. Safety rating system applies to intra-provincial motor carriers at the 11,000 kg threshold (SK) and at the 11,794 kg and greater threshold (AB/YK). Return to first footnote 7 referrer Return to second footnote 7 referrer Return to third footnote 7 referrer BC/AB use a 12-month (more stringent) window than 24 month prescribed in NSC. More recent events weighted more heavily. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer NT was continuing to work to implement quantifiable audits and pass/fail criteria per NSC standard 15. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 9 referrer Return to second footnote 9 referrer ON has five rating categories and includes “excellent”. AB implemented an “excellent” category for motor carriers in their Partners in Compliance (PIC) program in 2010. BC launched a "Premium" carrier program in 2011 that recognizes the safest motor carriers in their safety rating program. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 10 referrer Return to second footnote 10 referrer Return to third footnote 10 referrer Return to fourth footnote 10 referrer QC as part of a carrier acceptance strategy to introduce the original MVTA revisions did not implement the “satisfactory un-audited” category or requirement for audit to get satisfactory rating. QC has indicated this issue is under review in 2011. Return to footnote 11 referrer NB experiencing difficulty in immediately assigning unsatisfactory rating when minimum insurance levels not met. This is a reporting issue that will be addressed as part of a long term modernization project to upgrade systems. Return to footnote 12 referrer NT implemented a system to assign 4 safety ratings per MVTA and NSC. Return to footnote 13 referrer ON/QC: a conditional safety rating can be applied based on carrier’s on-road safety performance without having failed an audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 14 referrer Return to second footnote 14 referrer BC/AB/SK/MB/NT use U.S. event data (e.g. accidents and CVSA inspections) in their safety rating methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. It is unknown whether other Canadian jurisdictions include U.S. event data in their methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. NL may not be receiving and using US data. To be confirmed. Return to first footnote 15 referrer Return to second footnote 15 referrer Return to third footnote 15 referrer NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to footnote 16 referrer

Table 10: NSC safety rating regime – 2013 status of implementation
MVTA Components^{Footnote 1}	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
1) General	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
2) Identifies poor operators	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
3) Adopted four stage intervention model^{Footnote 2}	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 2}	Y	Y
4) Base plate carriers only monitored	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
5) U.S. carriers in safety rating regime^{Footnote 4}	N/A	N	N	N	N	Y^{Footnote 5}	Y^{Footnote 5}	N	N	N	N	N	N
6) Applications/insurance provision	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N(S)^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y
7) All NSC Vehicles	N/A	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y
8) All carriers evaluated on 24 month basis of data	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
9) All carrier collision, inspection and convictions exchanged	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
10) All facility audits per NSC Standard 15	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}
11) Assign/change safety ratings based on 4 rating categories	MVTA	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	N (S)^{Footnote 11}	Y (M)^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y^{Footnote 13}
12) All elements of safety rating standard 14 Implemented (e.g. safety plans)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 14}	Y	Y
13) All collisions pointed per severity formula (e.g. 2, 4, 6 points)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
14) Use CCMTA conviction equivalency table	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
15) At fault preventability of collisions assessed	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
16) Receive and use U.S. data in safety rating system^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	N TBD^{Footnote 15}	N	Y
17) Exchanges carrier information electronically with other jurisdictions	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 16}	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place; S = Significant deviation; N = Regulatory requirements not in place; UNK = Unknown; M = Minor deviation; N/A = Not applicable. Notes: Footnote 1 Results in this table are based on internet research and updates provided by jurisdictions to CCMTA. Return to footnote 1 referrer All jurisdictions use: 1) letter 2) interview 3) audit 4) show cause hearing, as part of the intervention process. Speed by which a carrier can move from 1 to 4 and an unsatisfactory rating varies as poor on-road performance (collisions/inspections and convictions) can result in some intervention steps being skipped (warning letter/interview) and prompt an immediate facility audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. In ON, the order of intervention has the audit preceding the interview. Return to first footnote 2 referrer Return to second footnote 2 referrer BC and SK systems have 5 elements in the intervention process. BC’s interventions are: 1) warning letter, 2) safety plan self-assessment, 3) educational compliance review (introduced January 2013), 4) audit, 5) show cause hearing. New entrants are visited by BC/SK staff shortly after their safety certificate is issued to confirm their ability to comply with record keeping requirements. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer On September 14, 2008 Canada and the United States signed a new agreement to reciprocally recognize each other’s safety rating process. The safety rating/compliance review reciprocity agreement was signed by CCMTA and FMCSA and committed both sides to working towards exchanging collision, inspection and conviction data to populate the motor carrier profiles maintained in both countries. The intent of the revised reciprocity agreement is to eliminate duplication of tracking and monitoring efforts of motor carriers on both sides of the border thus removing an important impediment to cross border trade. Return to footnote 4 referrer ON/QC assigns safety ratings to U.S. and Mexican motor carriers operating in their jurisdiction which is allowed. Based on a pre-existing reciprocity agreement on safety ratings and the intent to implement, the rest of the jurisdictions exclude U.S. motor carriers from their system. As a result extra-provincial motor carriers operating into the U.S. will have 2 safety ratings – 1 issued by the Canadian jurisdiction in which they are base plated and another issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in the United States. U.S. motor carriers may have a competitive advantage over some Canadian extra-provincial motor carriers as they do not have to register in the safety rating programs of other Canadian jurisdictions (Exception ON/QC). Return to first footnote 5 referrer Return to second footnote 5 referrer NB: not all elements of the application and insurance verification process in place due to resource issues. NL adopted application process in 2005 in regulation November 2005. Return to first footnote 6 referrer Return to second footnote 6 referrer AB/SK/YK safety ratings for extra-provincial carriers at NSC weight threshold. Safety rating system applies to intra-provincial motor carriers at the 11,000 kg threshold (SK) and at the 11,794 kg and greater threshold (AB/YK). Return to first footnote 7 referrer Return to second footnote 7 referrer Return to third footnote 7 referrer BC/AB use a 12-month (more stringent) window than 24 month prescribed in NSC. More recent events weighted more heavily. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer NT was continuing to work to implement quantifiable audits and pass/fail criteria per NSC standard 15. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 9 referrer Return to second footnote 9 referrer ON has five rating categories and includes “excellent”. AB implemented an “excellent” category for motor carriers in their Partners in Compliance (PIC) program in 2010. BC launched a "Premium" carrier program in 2011 that recognizes the safest motor carriers in their safety rating program. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 10 referrer Return to second footnote 10 referrer Return to third footnote 10 referrer Return to fourth footnote 10 referrer QC as part of a carrier acceptance strategy to introduce the original MVTA revisions did not implement the “satisfactory un-audited” category or requirement for audit to get satisfactory rating. QC has indicated this issue is under review in 2011. Return to footnote 11 referrer NB experiencing difficulty in immediately assigning unsatisfactory rating when minimum insurance levels not met. This is a reporting issue that will be addressed as part of a long term modernization project to upgrade systems. Return to footnote 12 referrer NT implemented a system to assign 4 safety ratings per MVTA and NSC. Return to footnote 13 referrer ON/QC: a conditional safety rating can be applied based on carrier’s on-road safety performance without having failed an audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 14 referrer Return to second footnote 14 referrer Return to third footnote 14 referrer BC/AB/SK/MB/NT use U.S. event data (e.g. accidents and CVSA inspections) in their safety rating methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. It is unknown whether other Canadian jurisdictions include U.S. event data in their methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. Return to first footnote 15 referrer Return to second footnote 15 referrer NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to footnote 16 referrer

Table 11: NSC safety rating regime – 2014 status of implementation
MVTA Components^{Footnote 1}	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
1) General	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
2) Identifies poor operators	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
3) Adopted four stage intervention model^{Footnote 2}	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 2}	Y	Y
4) Base plate carriers only monitored	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
5) U.S. carriers in safety rating regime^{Footnote 4}	N/A	N	N	N	N	Y^{Footnote 5}	Y^{Footnote 5}	N	N	N	N	N	N
6) Applications/insurance provision	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N(S)^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y
7) All NSC Vehicles	N/A	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y
8) All carriers evaluated on 24 month basis of data	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
9) All carrier collision, inspection and convictions exchanged	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
10) All facility audits per NSC Standard 15	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}
11) Assign/change safety ratings based on 4 rating categories	MVTA	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	N (S)^{Footnote 11}	Y (M)^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y^{Footnote 13}
12) All elements of safety rating standard 14 Implemented (e.g. safety plans)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 14}	Y	Y
13) All collisions pointed per severity formula (e.g. 2, 4, 6 points)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
14) Use CCMTA conviction equivalency table	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
15) At fault preventability of collisions Assessed	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
16) Receive and use U.S. data in safety rating system^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	N TBD^{Footnote 15}	N	Y
17) Exchanges carrier information electronically with other jurisdictions	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 16}	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place; S = Significant deviation; N = Regulatory requirements not in place; UNK = Unknown; M = Minor deviation; N/A = Not applicable. Notes: Footnote 1 Results in this table are based on internet research and updates provided by jurisdictions to CCMTA. Return to footnote 1 referrer All jurisdictions use: 1) letter 2) interview 3) audit 4) show cause hearing, as part of the intervention process. Speed by which a carrier can move from 1 to 4 and an unsatisfactory rating varies as poor on-road performance (collisions/inspections and convictions) can result in some intervention steps being skipped (warning letter/interview) and prompt an immediate facility audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. In ON, the order of intervention has the audit preceding the interview. Return to first footnote 2 referrer Return to second footnote 2 referrer BC and SK systems have 5 elements in the intervention process. BC’s interventions are: 1) warning letter, 2) safety plan self-assessment, 3) educational compliance review (introduced January 2013), 4) audit, 5) show cause hearing. New entrants are visited by SK staff shortly after their safety certificate is issued to confirm their ability to comply with record keeping requirements. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer On September 14, 2008 Canada and the United States signed a new agreement to reciprocally recognize each other’s safety rating process. The safety rating/compliance review reciprocity agreement was signed by CCMTA and FMCSA and committed both sides to working towards exchanging collision, inspection and conviction data to populate the motor carrier profiles maintained in both countries. The intent of the revised reciprocity agreement is to eliminate duplication of tracking and monitoring efforts of motor carriers on both sides of the border thus removing an important impediment to cross border trade. Return to footnote 4 referrer ON/QC assigns safety ratings to U.S. and Mexican motor carriers operating in their jurisdiction which is allowed. Based on a pre-existing reciprocity agreement on safety ratings and the intent to implement, the rest of the jurisdictions exclude U.S. motor carriers from their system. As a result extra-provincial motor carriers operating into the U.S. will have 2 safety ratings – 1 issued by the Canadian jurisdiction in which they are base plated and another issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in the United States. U.S. motor carriers may have a competitive advantage over some Canadian extra-provincial motor carriers as they do not have to register in the safety rating programs of other Canadian jurisdictions (Exception ON/QC). Return to first footnote 5 referrer Return to second footnote 5 referrer NB: not all elements of the application and insurance verification process in place due to resource issues. NL adopted application process in 2005 in regulation November 2005. Return to first footnote 6 referrer Return to second footnote 6 referrer AB/SK/YK safety ratings for extra-provincial carriers at NSC weight threshold. Safety rating system applies to intra-provincial motor carriers at the 11,794 kg and greater threshold. Return to first footnote 7 referrer Return to second footnote 7 referrer Return to third footnote 7 referrer BC/AB/SK use a 12-month (more stringent) window than 24 month prescribed in NSC. More recent events are weighted more heavily in BC and AB, but not in SK. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer Return to third footnote 8 referrer NT was continuing to work to implement quantifiable audits and pass/fail criteria per NSC standard 15. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 9 referrer Return to second footnote 9 referrer ON has five rating categories and includes “excellent”. AB implemented an “excellent” category for motor carriers in their Partners in Compliance (PIC) program in 2010. BC launched a "Premium" carrier program in 2011 that recognizes the safest motor carriers in their safety rating program. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 10 referrer Return to second footnote 10 referrer Return to third footnote 10 referrer Return to fourth footnote 10 referrer As part of a carrier acceptance strategy to introduce the original MVTA revisions, QC did not implement the “satisfactory un-audited” category or requirement for audit to get satisfactory rating. QC indicated this issue was under review in 2011. Return to footnote 11 referrer NB experiencing difficulty in immediately assigning unsatisfactory rating when minimum insurance levels not met. This is a reporting issue that will be addressed as part of a long term modernization project to upgrade systems. Return to footnote 12 referrer NT implemented a system to assign 4 safety ratings per MVTA and NSC. Return to footnote 13 referrer ON/QC: a conditional safety rating can be applied based on carrier’s on-road safety performance without having failed an audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 14 referrer Return to second footnote 14 referrer Return to third footnote 14 referrer BC/AB/SK/MB/NT use U.S. event data (e.g. accidents and CVSA inspections) in their safety rating methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. It is unknown whether other Canadian jurisdictions include U.S. event data in their methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. NL may not be receiving and using US data. To be confirmed. Return to first footnote 15 referrer Return to second footnote 15 referrer NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to footnote 16 referrer

Table 12: NSC safety rating regime – 2015 status of implementation
MVTA Components^{Footnote 1}	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
1) General	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
2) Identifies poor operators	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
3) Adopted four stage intervention model^{Footnote 2}	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 2}	Y	Y
4) Base plate carriers only monitored	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
5) U.S. carriers in safety rating regime^{Footnote 4}	N/A	N	N	N	N	Y^{Footnote 5}	Y^{Footnote 5}	N	N	N	N	N	N
6) Applications/insurance provision	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N(S)^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y
7) All NSC Vehicles	N/A	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y
8) All carriers evaluated on 24 month basis of data	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
9) All carrier collision, inspection and convictions exchanged	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
10) All facility audits per NSC Standard 15	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}
11) Assign/change safety ratings based on 4 rating categories	MVTA	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y^{Footnote 11}	Y (M)^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y^{Footnote 13}
12) All elements of safety rating standard 14 Implemented (e.g. safety plans)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 14}	Y	Y
13) All collisions pointed per severity formula (e.g. 2, 4, 6 points)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
14) Use CCMTA conviction equivalency table	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 17}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
15) At fault preventability of collisions assessed	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
16) Receive and use U.S. data in safety rating system^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	N TBD^{Footnote 15}	N	Y
17) Exchanges carrier information electronically with other jurisdictions	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 16}	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place; S = Significant deviation; N = Regulatory requirements not in place; UNK = Unknown; M = Minor deviation; N/A = Not applicable. Notes: Footnote 1 Results in this table are based on internet research and updates provided by jurisdictions to CCMTA. Return to footnote 1 referrer All jurisdictions use: 1) letter 2) interview 3) audit 4) show cause hearing, as part of the intervention process. Speed by which a carrier can move from 1 to 4 and an unsatisfactory rating varies as poor on-road performance (collisions/inspections and convictions) can result in some intervention steps being skipped (warning letter/interview) and prompt an immediate facility audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. In ON, the order of intervention has the audit preceding the interview. Return to first footnote 2 referrer Return to second footnote 2 referrer BC and SK systems have 5 elements in the intervention process. BC’s interventions are: 1) warning letter, 2) safety plan self-assessment, 3) educational compliance review, 4) audit, 5) show cause hearing. New entrants are visited by SK staff shortly after their safety certificate is issued to confirm their ability to comply with record keeping requirements. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer On September 14, 2008 Canada and the United States signed a new agreement to reciprocally recognize each other’s safety rating process. The safety rating/compliance review reciprocity agreement was signed by CCMTA and FMCSA and committed both sides to working towards exchanging collision, inspection and conviction data to populate the motor carrier profiles maintained in both countries. The intent of the revised reciprocity agreement is to eliminate duplication of tracking and monitoring efforts of motor carriers on both sides of the border thus removing an important impediment to cross border trade. Return to footnote 4 referrer ON/QC assigns safety ratings to U.S. and Mexican motor carriers operating in their jurisdiction which is allowed. Based on a pre-existing reciprocity agreement on safety ratings and the intent to implement, the rest of the jurisdictions exclude U.S. motor carriers from their system. As a result extra-provincial motor carriers operating into the U.S. will have 2 safety ratings – 1 issued by the Canadian jurisdiction in which they are base plated and another issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in the United States. U.S. motor carriers may have a competitive advantage over some Canadian extra-provincial motor carriers as they do not have to register in the safety rating programs of other Canadian jurisdictions (Exception ON/QC). Return to first footnote 5 referrer Return to second footnote 5 referrer NB: not all elements of the application and insurance verification process in place due to resource issues. NL adopted application process in 2005 in regulation November 2005. Return to first footnote 6 referrer Return to second footnote 6 referrer AB/SK/YK safety ratings for extra-provincial carriers at NSC weight threshold. Safety rating system applies to intra-provincial motor carriers at the 11,794 kg and greater threshold. Return to first footnote 7 referrer Return to second footnote 7 referrer Return to third footnote 7 referrer BC/AB/SK use a 12-month (more stringent) window than 24 month prescribed in NSC. More recent events weighted more heavily in BC and AB, but not in SK. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer Return to third footnote 8 referrer NT was continuing to work to implement quantifiable audits and pass/fail criteria per NSC standard 15. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 9 referrer Return to second footnote 9 referrer ON has five rating categories and includes “excellent”. AB implemented an “excellent” category for motor carriers in their Partners in Compliance (PIC) program in 2010. As of June 1, 2015, BC has seven rating categories including “excellent” (to recognize carriers who had achieved an excellent audit result as well as a Satisfactory profile status), “conditional-unaudited” and “unsatisfactory-unaudited” (to ensure unaudited carriers are still publicly accountable for their on-road performance prior to a quantifiable facility audit being completed). For data exchange purposes, “conditional-unaudited” and “unsatisfactory-unaudited” are currently translated back to their satisfactory-unaudited. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 10 referrer Return to second footnote 10 referrer Return to third footnote 10 referrer Return to fourth footnote 10 referrer Since summer 2015, Quebec complies with the 4 ratings categories. Return to footnote 11 referrer NB experiencing difficulty in immediately assigning unsatisfactory rating when minimum insurance levels not met. This is a reporting issue that will be addressed as part of a long term modernization project to upgrade systems. Return to footnote 12 referrer NT implemented a system to assign 4 safety ratings per MVTA and NSC. Return to footnote 13 referrer ON/QC: a conditional safety rating can be applied based on carrier’s on-road safety performance without having failed an audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 14 referrer Return to second footnote 14 referrer Return to third footnote 14 referrer BC/AB/SK/MB/NT use U.S. event data (e.g. accidents and CVSA inspections) in their safety rating methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. It is unknown whether other Canadian jurisdictions include U.S. event data in their methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. NL may not be receiving and using US data. To be confirmed. Return to first footnote 15 referrer Return to second footnote 15 referrer NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to footnote 16 referrer BC uses the Conviction Equivalency Table in relation to the equivalency codes, but in October 2015 revised the points associated with each conviction type to better reflect the correlation to future accidents as well as using a 5 point scale to more accurately identify carrier’s on-road performance. Return to footnote 17 referrer

Table 13: NSC safety rating regime – 2016 status of implementation
MVTA Components^{Footnote 1}	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
1) General	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
2) Identifies poor operators	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
3) Adopted four stage intervention model^{Footnote 2}	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 2}	Y	Y
4) Base plate carriers only monitored	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
5) U.S. carriers in safety rating regime^{Footnote 4}	N/A	N	N	N	N	Y^{Footnote 5}	Y^{Footnote 5}	N	N	N	N	N	N
6) Applications/insurance provision	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N(S)^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y
7) All NSC Vehicles	N/A	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y
8) All carriers evaluated on 24 month basis of data	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
9) All carrier collision, inspection and convictions exchanged	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
10) All facility audits per NSC Standard 15	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}
11) Assign/change safety ratings based on 4 rating categories	MVTA	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y^{Footnote 11}	Y (M)^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y^{Footnote 13}
12) All elements of safety rating standard 14 Implemented (e.g. safety plans)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 14}	Y	Y
13) All collisions pointed per severity formula (e.g. 2, 4, 6 points)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
14) Use CCMTA conviction equivalency table	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 17}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
15) At fault preventability of collisions assessed	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
16) Receive and use U.S. data in safety rating system^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	N TBD^{Footnote 15}	N	Y
17) Exchanges carrier information electronically with other jurisdictions	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 16}	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place; S = Significant deviation; N = Regulatory requirements not in place; UNK = Unknown; M = Minor deviation; N/A = Not applicable. Notes: Footnote 1 Results in this table are based on internet research and updates provided by jurisdictions to CCMTA. Return to footnote 1 referrer All jurisdictions use: 1) letter 2) interview 3) audit 4) show cause hearing, as part of the intervention process. Speed by which a carrier can move from 1 to 4 and an unsatisfactory rating varies as poor on-road performance (collisions/inspections and convictions) can result in some intervention steps being skipped (warning letter/interview) and prompt an immediate facility audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. In ON, the order of intervention has the audit preceding the interview. Return to first footnote 2 referrer Return to second footnote 2 referrer BC and SK systems have 5 elements in the intervention process. BC’s interventions are: 1) warning letter, 2) safety plan self-assessment, 3) educational compliance review, 4) audit, 5) show cause hearing. New entrants are visited by SK staff shortly after their safety certificate is issued to confirm their ability to comply with record keeping requirements. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer On September 14, 2008 Canada and the United States signed a new agreement to reciprocally recognize each other’s safety rating process. The safety rating/compliance review reciprocity agreement was signed by CCMTA and FMCSA and committed both sides to working towards exchanging collision, inspection and conviction data to populate the motor carrier profiles maintained in both countries. The intent of the revised reciprocity agreement is to eliminate duplication of tracking and monitoring efforts of motor carriers on both sides of the border thus removing an important impediment to cross border trade. Return to footnote 4 referrer ON/QC assigns safety ratings to U.S. and Mexican motor carriers operating in their jurisdiction which is allowed. Based on a pre-existing reciprocity agreement on safety ratings and the intent to implement, the rest of the jurisdictions exclude U.S. motor carriers from their system. As a result extra-provincial motor carriers operating into the U.S. will have 2 safety ratings – 1 issued by the Canadian jurisdiction in which they are base plated and another issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in the United States. U.S. motor carriers may have a competitive advantage over some Canadian extra-provincial motor carriers as they do not have to register in the safety rating programs of other Canadian jurisdictions (Exception ON/QC). Return to first footnote 5 referrer Return to second footnote 5 referrer NB: not all elements of the application and insurance verification process in place due to resource issues. NL adopted application process in 2005 in regulation November 2005. Return to first footnote 6 referrer Return to second footnote 6 referrer AB/SK/YK safety ratings for extra-provincial carriers at NSC weight threshold. Safety rating system applies to intra-provincial motor carriers at the 11,794 kg and greater threshold. Return to first footnote 7 referrer Return to second footnote 7 referrer Return to third footnote 7 referrer BC/AB/SK use a 12-month (more stringent) window than 24 month prescribed in NSC. More recent events weighted more heavily in BC and AB, but not in SK. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer Return to third footnote 8 referrer NT was continuing to work to implement quantifiable audits and pass/fail criteria per NSC standard 15. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 9 referrer Return to second footnote 9 referrer ON has five rating categories and includes “excellent”. AB implemented an “excellent” category for motor carriers in their Partners in Compliance (PIC) program in 2010. As of June 1, 2015, BC has seven rating categories including “excellent” (to recognize carriers who had achieved an excellent audit result as well as a Satisfactory profile status), “conditional-unaudited” and “unsatisfactory-unaudited” (to ensure unaudited carriers are still publicly accountable for their on-road performance prior to a quantifiable facility audit being completed). For data exchange purposes, “conditional-unaudited” and “unsatisfactory-unaudited” are currently translated back to their satisfactory-unaudited. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 10 referrer Return to second footnote 10 referrer Return to third footnote 10 referrer Return to fourth footnote 10 referrer Since summer 2015, Quebec complies with the 4 ratings categories. Return to footnote 11 referrer NB experiencing difficulty in immediately assigning unsatisfactory rating when minimum insurance levels not met. This is a reporting issue that will be addressed as part of a long term modernization project to upgrade systems. Return to footnote 12 referrer NT implemented a system to assign 4 safety ratings per MVTA and NSC. Return to footnote 13 referrer ON/QC: a conditional safety rating can be applied based on carrier’s on-road safety performance without having failed an audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 14 referrer Return to second footnote 14 referrer Return to third footnote 14 referrer BC/AB/SK/MB/NT use U.S. event data (e.g. accidents and CVSA inspections) in their safety rating methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. It is unknown whether other Canadian jurisdictions include U.S. event data in their methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. NL may not be receiving and using US data. To be confirmed. Return to first footnote 15 referrer Return to second footnote 15 referrer NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to footnote 16 referrer BC uses the Conviction Equivalency Table in relation to the equivalency codes, but in October 2015 revised the points associated with each conviction type to better reflect the correlation to future accidents as well as using a 5 point scale to more accurately identify carrier’s on-road performance. Return to footnote 17 referrer

Table 14: NSC safety rating regime – 2017 status of implementation
MVTA Components^{Footnote 1}	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
1) General	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
2) Identifies poor operators	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
3) Adopted four stage intervention model^{Footnote 2}	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 2}	Y	Y
4) Base plate carriers only monitored	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
5) U.S. carriers in safety rating regime^{Footnote 4}	N/A	N	N	N	N	Y^{Footnote 5}	Y^{Footnote 5}	N	N	N	N	N	N
6) Applications/insurance provision	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N(S)^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y
7) All NSC Vehicles	N/A	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y
8) All carriers evaluated on 24 month basis of data	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
9) All carrier collision, inspection and convictions exchanged	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
10) All facility audits per NSC Standard 15	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}
11) Assign/change safety ratings based on 4 rating categories	MVTA	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y^{Footnote 11}	Y (M)^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y^{Footnote 13}
12) All elements of safety rating standard 14 Implemented (e.g. safety plans)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 14}	Y	Y
13) All collisions pointed per severity formula (e.g. 2, 4, 6 points)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
14) Use CCMTA conviction equivalency table	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 17}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
15) At fault preventability of collisions assessed	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
16) Receive and use U.S. data in safety rating system^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	N TBD^{Footnote 15}	N	Y
17) Exchanges carrier information electronically with other jurisdictions	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 16}	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place; S = Significant deviation; N = Regulatory requirements not in place; UNK = Unknown; M = Minor deviation; N/A = Not applicable. Notes: Footnote 1 Results in this table are based on internet research and updates provided by jurisdictions to CCMTA. Return to footnote 1 referrer All jurisdictions use: 1) letter 2) interview 3) audit 4) show cause hearing, as part of the intervention process. Speed by which a carrier can move from 1 to 4 and an unsatisfactory rating varies as poor on-road performance (collisions/inspections and convictions) can result in some intervention steps being skipped (warning letter/interview) and prompt an immediate facility audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. In ON, the order of intervention has the audit preceding the interview. Return to first footnote 2 referrer Return to second footnote 2 referrer BC and SK systems have 5 elements in the intervention process. BC’s interventions are: 1) warning letter, 2) safety plan self-assessment, 3) educational compliance review, 4) audit, 5) show cause hearing. New entrants are visited by SK staff shortly after their safety certificate is issued to confirm their ability to comply with record keeping requirements. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer On September 14, 2008 Canada and the United States signed a new agreement to reciprocally recognize each other’s safety rating process. The safety rating/compliance review reciprocity agreement was signed by CCMTA and FMCSA and committed both sides to working towards exchanging collision, inspection and conviction data to populate the motor carrier profiles maintained in both countries. The intent of the revised reciprocity agreement is to eliminate duplication of tracking and monitoring efforts of motor carriers on both sides of the border thus removing an important impediment to cross border trade. Return to footnote 4 referrer ON/QC assigns safety ratings to U.S. and Mexican motor carriers operating in their jurisdiction which is allowed. Based on a pre-existing reciprocity agreement on safety ratings and the intent to implement, the rest of the jurisdictions exclude U.S. motor carriers from their system. As a result extra-provincial motor carriers operating into the U.S. will have 2 safety ratings – 1 issued by the Canadian jurisdiction in which they are base plated and another issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in the United States. U.S. motor carriers may have a competitive advantage over some Canadian extra-provincial motor carriers as they do not have to register in the safety rating programs of other Canadian jurisdictions (Exception ON/QC). Return to first footnote 5 referrer Return to second footnote 5 referrer NB: not all elements of the application and insurance verification process in place due to resource issues. NL adopted application process in 2005 in regulation November 2005. Return to first footnote 6 referrer Return to second footnote 6 referrer AB/SK/YK safety ratings for extra-provincial carriers at NSC weight threshold. Safety rating system applies to intra-provincial motor carriers at the 11,794 kg and greater threshold. Return to first footnote 7 referrer Return to second footnote 7 referrer Return to third footnote 7 referrer BC/AB/SK use a 12-month (more stringent) window than 24 month prescribed in NSC. More recent events weighted more heavily in BC and AB, but not in SK. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer Return to third footnote 8 referrer NT was continuing to work to implement quantifiable audits and pass/fail criteria per NSC standard 15. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 9 referrer Return to second footnote 9 referrer ON has five rating categories and includes “excellent”. AB implemented an “excellent” category for motor carriers in their Partners in Compliance (PIC) program in 2010. As of June 1, 2015, BC has seven rating categories including “excellent” (to recognize carriers who had achieved an excellent audit result as well as a Satisfactory profile status), “conditional-unaudited” and “unsatisfactory-unaudited” (to ensure unaudited carriers are still publicly accountable for their on-road performance prior to a quantifiable facility audit being completed). For data exchange purposes, “conditional-unaudited” and “unsatisfactory-unaudited” are currently translated back to their satisfactory-unaudited. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 10 referrer Return to second footnote 10 referrer Return to third footnote 10 referrer Return to fourth footnote 10 referrer Since summer 2015, Quebec complies with the 4 ratings categories. Return to footnote 11 referrer NB experiencing difficulty in immediately assigning unsatisfactory rating when minimum insurance levels not met. This is a reporting issue that will be addressed as part of a long term modernization project to upgrade systems. Return to footnote 12 referrer NT implemented a system to assign 4 safety ratings per MVTA and NSC. Return to footnote 13 referrer ON/QC: a conditional safety rating can be applied based on carrier’s on-road safety performance without having failed an audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 14 referrer Return to second footnote 14 referrer Return to third footnote 14 referrer BC/AB/SK/MB/NT use U.S. event data (e.g. accidents and CVSA inspections) in their safety rating methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. It is unknown whether other Canadian jurisdictions include U.S. event data in their methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. NL may not be receiving and using US data. To be confirmed. Return to first footnote 15 referrer Return to second footnote 15 referrer NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to footnote 16 referrer BC uses the Conviction Equivalency Table in relation to the equivalency codes, but in October 2015 revised the points associated with each conviction type to better reflect the correlation to future accidents as well as using a 5 point scale to more accurately identify carrier’s on-road performance. Return to footnote 17 referrer

Table 15: NSC safety rating regime – 2018 status of implementation
MVTA Components^{Footnote 1}	TC	BC	AB	SK	MB	ON	QC	NB	NS	PE	NL	YT	NT
1) General	MVTA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
2) Identifies poor operators	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
3) Adopted four stage intervention model^{Footnote 2}	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 3}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 2}	Y	Y
4) Base plate carriers only monitored	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
5) U.S. carriers in safety rating regime^{Footnote 4}	N/A	N	N	N	N	Y^{Footnote 5}	Y^{Footnote 5}	N	N	N	N	N	N
6) Applications/insurance provision	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N(S)^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 6}	Y	Y
7) All NSC Vehicles	N/A	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 7}	Y
8) All carriers evaluated on 24 month basis of data	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y (M)^{Footnote 8}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
9) All carrier collision, inspection and convictions exchanged	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
10) All facility audits per NSC Standard 15	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 9}	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 9}
11) Assign/change safety ratings based on 4 rating categories	MVTA	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 10}	Y^{Footnote 11}	Y (M)^{Footnote 12}	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 10}	Y	Y^{Footnote 13}
12) All elements of safety rating standard 14 Implemented (e.g. safety plans)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y (M)^{Footnote 14}	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 14}	Y	Y
13) All collisions pointed per severity formula (e.g. 2, 4, 6 points)	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
14) Use CCMTA conviction equivalency table	N/A	Y (M)^{Footnote 17}	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
15) At fault preventability of collisions Assessed	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
16) Receive and use U.S. data in safety rating system^{Footnote 15}	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	UNK	N TBD^{Footnote 15}	N	Y
17) Exchanges carrier information electronically with other jurisdictions	N/A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y^{Footnote 16}	Y	Y
Key: Y = Regulatory requirements in place; S = Significant deviation; N = Regulatory requirements not in place; UNK = Unknown; M = Minor deviation; N/A = Not applicable. Notes: Footnote 1 Results in this table are based on internet research and updates provided by jurisdictions to CCMTA. Return to footnote 1 referrer All jurisdictions use: 1) letter 2) interview 3) audit 4) show cause hearing, as part of the intervention process. Speed by which a carrier can move from 1 to 4 and an unsatisfactory rating varies as poor on-road performance (collisions/inspections and convictions) can result in some intervention steps being skipped (warning letter/interview) and prompt an immediate facility audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. In ON, the order of intervention has the audit preceding the interview. Return to first footnote 2 referrer Return to second footnote 2 referrer BC and SK systems have 5 elements in the intervention process. BC’s interventions are: 1) warning letter, 2) safety plan self-assessment, 3) educational compliance review, 4) audit, 5) show cause hearing. New entrants are visited by SK staff shortly after their safety certificate is issued to confirm their ability to comply with record keeping requirements. Return to first footnote 3 referrer Return to second footnote 3 referrer On September 14, 2008 Canada and the United States signed a new agreement to reciprocally recognize each other’s safety rating process. The safety rating/compliance review reciprocity agreement was signed by CCMTA and FMCSA and committed both sides to working towards exchanging collision, inspection and conviction data to populate the motor carrier profiles maintained in both countries. The intent of the revised reciprocity agreement is to eliminate duplication of tracking and monitoring efforts of motor carriers on both sides of the border thus removing an important impediment to cross border trade. Return to footnote 4 referrer ON/QC assigns safety ratings to U.S. and Mexican motor carriers operating in their jurisdiction which is allowed. Based on a pre-existing reciprocity agreement on safety ratings and the intent to implement, the rest of the jurisdictions exclude U.S. motor carriers from their system. As a result extra-provincial motor carriers operating into the U.S. will have 2 safety ratings – 1 issued by the Canadian jurisdiction in which they are base plated and another issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in the United States. U.S. motor carriers may have a competitive advantage over some Canadian extra-provincial motor carriers as they do not have to register in the safety rating programs of other Canadian jurisdictions (Exception ON/QC). Return to first footnote 5 referrer Return to second footnote 5 referrer NB: not all elements of the application and insurance verification process in place due to resource issues. NL adopted application process in 2005 in regulation November 2005. Return to first footnote 6 referrer Return to second footnote 6 referrer AB/SK/YK safety ratings for extra-provincial carriers at NSC weight threshold. Safety rating system applies to intra-provincial motor carriers at the 11,794 kg and greater threshold. Return to first footnote 7 referrer Return to second footnote 7 referrer Return to third footnote 7 referrer BC/AB/SK use a 12-month (more stringent) window than 24 month prescribed in NSC. More recent events weighted more heavily in BC and AB, but not in SK. Return to first footnote 8 referrer Return to second footnote 8 referrer Return to third footnote 8 referrer NT was continuing to work to implement quantifiable audits and pass/fail criteria per NSC standard 15. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 9 referrer Return to second footnote 9 referrer Return to third footnote 9 referrer ON has five rating categories and includes “excellent”. AB implemented an “excellent” category for motor carriers in their Partners in Compliance (PIC) program in 2010. As of June 1, 2015, BC has seven rating categories including “excellent” (to recognize carriers who had achieved an excellent audit result as well as a Satisfactory profile status), “conditional-unaudited” and “unsatisfactory-unaudited” (to ensure unaudited carriers are still publicly accountable for their on-road performance prior to a quantifiable facility audit being completed). For data exchange purposes, “conditional-unaudited” and “unsatisfactory-unaudited” are currently translated back to their satisfactory-unaudited. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 10 referrer Return to second footnote 10 referrer Return to third footnote 10 referrer Return to fourth footnote 10 referrer Since summer 2015, Quebec complies with the 4 ratings categories. Return to footnote 11 referrer NB experiencing difficulty in immediately assigning unsatisfactory rating when minimum insurance levels not met. This is a reporting issue that will be addressed as part of a long term modernization project to upgrade systems. Return to footnote 12 referrer NT implemented a system to assign 4 safety ratings per MVTA and NSC. Return to footnote 13 referrer ON/QC: a conditional safety rating can be applied based on carrier’s on-road safety performance without having failed an audit. NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to first footnote 14 referrer Return to second footnote 14 referrer Return to third footnote 14 referrer BC/AB/SK/MB/NT use U.S. event data (e.g. accidents and CVSA inspections) in their safety rating methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. It is unknown whether other Canadian jurisdictions include U.S. event data in their methodologies for evaluating their base plate extra-provincial motor carriers. NL may not be receiving and using US data. To be confirmed. Return to first footnote 15 referrer Return to second footnote 15 referrer NL adopted in regulation in 2005. Return to footnote 16 referrer BC uses the Conviction Equivalency Table in relation to the equivalency codes, but in October 2015 revised the points associated with each conviction type to better reflect the correlation to future accidents as well as using a 5 point scale to more accurately identify carrier’s on-road performance. Return to footnote 17 referrer

2012-2018 status of implementation of the MVTA

Tables 9 to 15 were also completed on the basis of P/T input. As such, a deviation remains recorded from the previous year unless a jurisdiction specifically indicates to TC that the deviation has been removed. Again, NU is not included in the tables, given that no roads currently join the territory to other parts of Canada and that commercial activity in NU is solely intra-provincial and not a federal responsibility. Overall, the tables indicate that the P/Ts have generally implemented consistent safety rating systems.

The P/Ts have developed and implemented a safety rating regime based on the MVTA amendments and are issuing safety ratings to their base plate motor carriers. Tables 9 to15 indicate that nearly all the P/Ts have established safety rating regimes pursuant to and compatible with the MVTA.

At the end of 2011, few significant deviations remained. QC had not implemented the satisfactory un-audited rating category and not all elements of the application and insurance verification process were in place in NB. Table 12 indicates that as of 2015 QC complied with the four rating categories. In 2018, NB reported introducing incremental changes to its Motor Vehicle and Driver IT system and specified that the insurance verification process would be addressed in the course of this modernization project. In NT, a pilot project containing revisions to the audit program was completed in 2018, however, a system with audits that includes quantifiable pass/fail criteria had not yet been implemented.

Overall, considerable work has been undertaken by the P/Ts since 2004 to build systems and reduce differences in safety rating methodologies. Many of the methodology variances noted in the Knowles study in 2004 prior to the implementation of the MVTA in 2006 have been eliminated on an incremental basis as jurisdictional legislative schedules and resources permitted.

Four stage intervention model

The P/Ts continue to use a four stage intervention model that includes 1) warning letter, 2) interview, 3) facility audit and 4) show cause hearing. They also apply the various sanctions available under the standard (i.e. monetary fines, fleet limitation orders, and the ultimate sanction, preventing a motor carrier from continuing to operate).

It is important to stress that NSC standards represent minimum requirements. As such, a deviation from the standard may in some cases produce positive safety outcomes. For example, a number of jurisdictions indicated that even though the standard underlines that these intervention steps should be followed sequentially, their systems have been adapted to intervene earlier and skip intervention levels if a carrier begins experiencing collisions or compliance issues or poses a significant risk to the motoring public. A further example is a motor carrier subject to an immediate facility audit if it is involved in a fatal or injury producing collision. In such a case, timely intervention to take early action against the unsafe motor carrier is more important than following the prescribed intervention levels.

A number of P/Ts also indicated that steps 1 to 3 could occur in a very compressed time period (e.g. one week) while it can take longer to gather the evidence to proceed with a show cause hearing. The ability to move quickly through the intervention steps or to by-pass a step is also likely to generate safety benefits as an unsafe motor carrier will be dealt with more quickly.

Tables 9 to 15 indicate that both BC and SK have an additional intervention level in their safety rating programs. Interventions in BC are 1) warning letter, 2) safety plan self-assessment, 3) educational compliance review (implemented in 2013), 4) audit and 5) show cause hearing. In SK, a new motor carrier is visited by provincial staff shortly after their safety certificate is issued to confirm their ability to comply with the standards and the record keeping requirements. This is another example of a variation that has the potential to create positive safety benefits.

Issuing safety ratings to base plate carriers only

All the P/Ts issue safety ratings only to their base plate carriers. However, both ON and QC also require foreign motor carriers to register in their safety rating program if they intend to operate in their province. This is to ensure that U.S. and potentially Mexican motor carriers operating in their jurisdiction are subject to a monitoring and sanctioning regime per the safety fitness framework. Thus, if U.S. motor carriers have poor safety records (crashes) or compliance (failed inspections and convictions) these two jurisdictions can take action against the motor carriers requiring them to improve their safety performance or risk losing the ability to continue to operate in these provinces.

Safety rating reciprocity with the U.S. – safety of trans-border operations

In 2011, CCMTA was continuing technical work with the U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to render operational a 2008 reciprocity agreement on safety ratings. The agreement originally envisioned that safety data would flow to the base-plate jurisdiction so that only one country would be monitoring and sanctioning extra-provincial or international carriers operating in both countries. It was anticipated that both countries would be in a better position to effectively monitor and sanction their respective motor carriers under the renewed agreement, as the motor carriers’ safety performance would be evaluated on continent-wide incident data (i.e. accidents, inspections and convictions).

Subsequently the U.S. indicated that it would not cease monitoring and rating Canadian operators in the U.S., as originally stipulated in the 2008 agreement due to a Congressional mandate to track "high-risk" carriers, including Canadian operators. Although further work on data and policy issues was undertaken in 2012 by the two countries, it was concluded that outstanding technical issues could not be resolved and the reciprocity goal of the 2008 agreement could not be realized at that time.

As a result, CCMTA recommended in 2012 that an independent assessment of options to monitor the safety of U.S. operators in Canada be conducted. The study was to focus on U.S. carrier risk assessment, competitive issues and cost considerations. Work was carried out 2013 and 2014, the final report was delivered in 2015 and CCMTA discussions on the management of trans-border operations continued in 2015 through 2018. In 2018, the issue was removed from the CCMTA committee’s list of priorities. The evolution of the situation will be monitored in upcoming annual reports.

Insurance provisions

The 2006 MVTA amendments made liability and cargo insurance mandatory for motor carriers to apply for a Safety Certificate and be permitted to operate in Canada. Tables 9 to 15 show that nearly all P/Ts have implemented the requirements respecting the application and insurance provisions of the MVTA. Changes to bring the NB requirements in line with the MVTA are planned as part of a long term modernization program. All of the other P/Ts reported that a lack of insurance would result in cancellation of the NSC certificate.

Inclusion of all NSC vehicles in safety rating program

Nearly all of the P/Ts include all motor carriers (extra-provincial and intra-provincial) in their safety rating regimes. In AB, YK, and SK, motor carriers operating extra-provincially or internationally are included in the full NSC program at the 4,500 kg weight. However, if they operate only within these respective provinces, the full provisions of the NSC rating program are applied only at the 11,794 kg in AB and YK. In SK the threshold was set at 11,000 kg until 2014, and then increased to 11,794.

While these differential thresholds constitute a variance from the NSC requirements, it is difficult to establish the national significance of these deviations since the exempted vehicles presumably do not travel outside these provinces. As such, while the deviation may be significant within these jurisdictions, federal motor carriers are still subject to the full safety rating and NSC rules across the country.

Safety rating based on 24 months of collision, inspection and conviction data

The MVTA and NSC safety rating standard require jurisdictions to review event data (collisions, inspections and convictions) over a 24 month period to establish the safety rating. If the motor carrier has been in business for a shorter period of time, as in the case of a new carrier, the jurisdiction must use all collision, inspection and conviction data on file to assign the safety rating. In addition, the P/Ts must normalize the weighted data using the carrier’s fleet size to reflect the motor carrier’s exposure to risk when assigning one of four safety ratings.

Tables 9 to 15 indicate that all P/Ts, with minor exceptions, are adhering to these requirements. The BC and AB methodologies use a 12-month window which is a shorter time-frame than the MVTA and NSC requirements. It should be noted that the standard is silent on weighting data from different years. These jurisdictions have adjusted their systems and methodologies post-MVTA implementation to put emphasis on more recent collision, inspection and conviction events. In 2014, SK also adopted a 12-month window.

In other PTs, as per the requirements of standard 14, the safety rating is based on 24 months of data. However, heavier weight may be placed on the most recent events. Jurisdictions have changed their methodologies to make them more sensitive or responsive in identifying “problem” carriers.

Sending/receiving collision, inspection and conviction data

The NSC and MVTA require P/Ts to exchange data with other jurisdictions to populate their driver and carrier profiles and to set/change the safety ratings of their motor carriers. Tables 9 to 15 indicate that all the P/Ts are now exchanging the data specified by the MVTA and NSC standards.

Carrier safety rating categories

NSC standard 14 and the MVTA specify that a four safety rating system should be applied. Most jurisdictions have implemented the rating categories required. In 2015 QC implemented the “satisfactory un-audited” rating category, aligning the province with other P/T jurisdictions.

Both ON and AB deviate slightly from MVTA and NSC requirements by including an “excellent” category in their safety rating scheme. As of 2015, BC has seven ratings, with three categories of ratings more than the four that are specified in NSC standard 14, including “excellent”, “conditional-unaudited” and “unsatisfactory-unaudited”. Note however, that for data exchange purposes, “conditional-unaudited” and “unsatisfactory-unaudited” are currently translated back to satisfactory-unaudited.

This is another example where a deviation to the standard is likely to have positive safety outcomes. Motor carriers can achieve these ratings only if their collision, inspection and conviction records are demonstrably superior to other motor carriers based on the results of a facility audit.

Other

All the P/Ts remained members in good standing with the CVSA and conducted inspections per the criteria which are revised on an annual basis.

The only variances from the standards that were reported with regard to rating methodologies relate to the systems in QC and ON generating a “conditional” rating based solely on on-road data, without having failed an audit. Officials from these jurisdictions indicated that their systems were updated regularly and that this served to “prompt” an intervention action by the agency. This is another example of a variation that may have a positive safety benefit as the ON/QC systems will prompt an earlier intervention (e.g. warning letter, interview, audit) than what might occur if their respective systems were not so data driven. Other P/Ts may have included similar “prompts” in their respective systems.

Development work on electronic logging devices

The 2012-2018 period was critical for the development of the mandatory use of electronic logging devices (ELD) to enforce compliance with hours of service regulations in Canada. ELDs help to ensure that a commercial driver’s work and rest hours are recorded accurately and reliably. These devices will replace paper-based daily logs, which can be falsified or incomplete, and, in some cases, duplicated or missing.

Although research and consultative efforts on this issue can be traced back to 2005, the 2012-2018 period under review saw intense development taking place from the federal government as well as from the P/Ts, both individually and within CCMTA. On December 16, 2017 Transport Canada published the Regulations Amending the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations (Electronic Logging Devices and Other Amendments) in the Canada Gazette Part 1. While this regulatory work was taking place, a significant effort was also undertaken by provincial and federal representatives within CCMTA’s ELD Technical Standard working group to develop the Canadian ELD Standard.

Once completed, the standard will be incorporated by reference in the final federal regulation, which is anticipated for publication in Canada Gazette Part II in 2019. It will establish minimum performance and design specifications for ELDs, which will be largely based on U.S. technical requirements, but adapted to accommodate the Canadian HOS regulations. Furthermore, in order to provide a high level of confidence in the effectiveness of the ELDs, third party certification was determined to be the most reliable method for ensuring that ELD models and software versions will be compliant with the Technical Standard and the amendments. The evolution of the ELD file will be monitored in future annual reports.

2012-2018 status of jurisdictional enforcement of the MVTA and NSC standards

Enforcement of the NSC standards comprises two components: CVSA on-road inspections and facility audits. TC’s co-funding to jurisdictions is tied in part to jurisdictions performing both of these components. This approach is taken as a result of studies demonstrating a positive impact on safety.

The elimination of the performance targets for CVSA inspections and facility audits and the streamlining of the reporting requirements may however impact TC’s ability to assess equity between extra- and intra-provincial motor carriers and formulate an overall view of commercial vehicle safety in Canada. It is possible that with less data to review, the picture will become more limited and fragmented than in past years. A mitigating variable is that P/Ts still report on CVSA inspections and the audits conducted on extra-provincial carriers, although no targets have been established. Future assessments will determine the extent of the impact.

The data presented below come from jurisdictional reports supplied to TC based on the revised reporting requirements contained in last two co-funding agreements.

CVSA on-road inspections

Research has repeatedly established that conducting roadside inspections of commercial vehicle drivers and vehicles has positive impacts on safety and compliance rates. Trained P/T inspectors conduct these inspections at roadside, weigh scales and motor carrier facilities based on inspection procedures and criteria created by CVSA, known as the North American Standard Inspection Program.

In Canada, the out-of-service (OOS) criteria developed by CVSA is specified in NSC standard 12 CVSA on-road inspections, which is updated annually. NSC 12 focusses on four key areas: drivers, vehicle, dangerous goods and administrative compliance. CVSA inspections now include up to eight levels, however levels 1 to 5 are used on a more regular basis, with level 1 representing the most comprehensive inspection procedure^{Footnote 3}.

Prior to the removal of CVSA inspection targets in 2008/09, the P/Ts were generally exceeding the targets indicating fairly robust enforcement activities in all jurisdictions. As can be seen in table 16 and figure 1, this trend continues as the removal of targets did not result in a reduction of the total number of inspections.

The 331,511 inspections conducted in 2009/10 and the 320,982 conducted in 2010/11 exceed all other years where targets were still in effect, with only the year 2005/06 having higher totals for CVSA inspections. As can be seen in table 16 there are only a few instances (yellow), where inspection numbers fall below the former targets levels. However the national picture is fairly stable post target removal, including for the 2012-2018 period under review.

Table 16: CVSA inspections 2008/09–2017/2018
	Targets^{Footnote *}	08/09	09/10	10/11	11/12	12/13	13/14	14/15	15/16	16/17	17/18
BC	22,545	27,786	27,382	26,089	27,762	31,865	29,454	25,556	22,996	22,098	23,305
AB	21,724	30,986	32,013	36,720	32,119	32,771	30,156	30,913	25,947	28,124	28,367
SK	8,555	11,438	17,860	15,218	13,052	9,943	11,462	13,904	13,963	15,808	12,617
MB	6,445	6,680	7,494	6,189	4,837	3,541	3,841	4,876	3,804	3,804	7,125
ON	77,153	90,288	104,120	95,513	102,807	102,651	110,345	120,960	119,548	113,412	142,782
QC	26,943	56,928	100,440	96,320	35,408	65,204	73,620	79,328	77,692^{Footnote **}	77,692^{Footnote **}	77,692^{Footnote **}
NB	5,642	25,422	28,991	29,808	26,714	25,729	26,013	24,962	20,117	11,710	12,973
NS	3,961	7,801	7,502	10,145	10,618	7,987	9,578	8,971	9,390	9,354	10,908
PE	1,036	2,381	2,160	1,677	1,759	1,521	1,154	1,779	1,267	1,239	1,361
NL	1,243	1,265	1,748	1,986	1,765	1,636	1,157	1,047	1,333	1,941	1,349
YK	562	657	909	782	892	801	629	770	605	682	627
NT	1,584	644	892	535	635	1,021	834	840	1,120	741	935
Tot	179,495	262,276	331,511	320,982	258,368	284,670	298,213	313,906	297,782	286,605	320,041
Footnote * Data unavailable from QC starting 2015/16, numerical value created averaging 10 previous years; Return to footnote * referrer Footnote Data unavailable from QC starting 2015/16, numerical value created averaging 10 previous years. Return to first footnote referrer Return to second footnote referrer Return to third footnote referrer Yellow indicates instances when targets were not met in a jurisdiction.

Figure 1: Number of CVSA roadside inspections in Canada per fiscal year before and after the 2009/10 removal of targets

Text version

Year	Total
Target*	179,495
05-06	347,256
06-07	306,908
07-08	302,275
08-09	262,276
09-10	331,511
10-11	320,982
11-12	258,368
12-13	284,670
13-14	298,213
14-15	313,906
15-16	297,782
16-17	286,605
17-18	320,041

Roadcheck 2012-2018

Roadcheck is a 72-hour safety inspection program undertaken yearly by Canadian, US and Mexican enforcement officers to promote motor carrier safety. The event is coordinated by CVSA in partnership with CCMTA member jurisdictions. Heavy vehicles are randomly selected for inspection according to procedures developed by CVSA. Brakes, steering, wheels, tires, frames and the manner in which loads were secured are inspected, as well as driver documentation for compliance with licensing and HoS rules.

The procedure for Roadcheck allows jurisdictions the flexibility of conducting the blitz for a minimum of 48 hours over the 72-hour period, up to the full 72 hours. The results do not account for vehicles waved through and considered ‘passed’ due to the presence of a valid CVSA decal. Only vehicles without a valid CVSA inspection decal are inspected and reported on. The implication of this sampling method is that the results of Roadcheck in terms of out of service (OOS) rates should not be extrapolated to the overall population of motor carriers. Finally, note that the tables and information below are sourced from CCMTA press releases.

Tables 17 to 22 below summarize the Canadian results of CVSA’s “Roadcheck” operation for the years 2012 to 2017. In 2018, the data presented by CCMTA was nationally aggregated, making it impossible to present it in the usual table format. Nationally aggregated results are therefore presented on p.58 for 2018. On average, over 80% of commercial vehicles successfully passed Roadcheck inspections in the 2012-18.

Table 17: Canadian Roadcheck 2012 results
	Trucks Inspected	Trucks OOS	Drivers OOS	% Trucks OOS	% Drivers OOS	Buses Inspected	Buses OOS	Drivers OOS	% Buses OOS	% Drivers OOS
BC	612	165	28	27.0	4.6	74	9	1	12.2	1.4
AB	500	145	30	29.0	6.0	50	2	4	4.0	8.0
SK	605	84	7	13.9	1.2	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
MB	343	74	2	21.6	0.6	3	0	0	0	0
ON	2,915	542	76	18.6	2.6	39	4	1	10.3	2.6
QC	935	100	16	10.7	1.7	2	0	0	0	n/a
NB	232	36	5	15.5	2.2	27	8	0	29.6	0
PE	95	9	3	9.5	3.2	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NS	242	34	6	14.0	2.5	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NL	315	54	8	17.1	2.5	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
YT	83	16	0	19.3	0	1	0	0	0	0
NT	52	3	3	5.8	5.8	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Total	6,929	1,262	184	18.2	2.7	196	23	6	11.7	3.1
Note: OOS: Out of service; n/a: denotes jurisdictions which did not participate in motor coach inspections.

Table 18: Canadian Roadcheck 2013 results
	Trucks Inspected	Trucks OOS	Drivers OOS	% Trucks OOS	% Drivers OOS	Buses Inspected	Buses OOS	Drivers OOS	% Buses OOS	% Drivers OOS
BC	558	154	19	27.6	3.4	76	8	2	10.5	2.6
AB	524	180	35	34.4	6.7	91	9	8	9.9	8.8
SK	398	108	10	27.1	2.5	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
MB	413	99	2	24.0	0.5	4	0	0	0	0
ON	3,398	683	64	20.1	1.9	23	4	0	17.4	0
QC	1,038	198	16	19.1	1.5	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NB	238	47	7	19.7	2.9	22	2	0	9.1	0
PE	103	11	3	10.7	2.9	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NS	253	45	2	17.8	0.8	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NL	259	49	2	18.9	0.8	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
YT	92	16	1	17.4	1.1	1	1	0	0	0
NT	37	7	6	18.9	16.2	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Total	7,311	1,597	167	21.8	2.3	217	24	10	11.1	4.6
Note: OOS: Out of service; n/a: denotes jurisdictions which did not participate in motor coach inspections.

Table 19: Canadian Roadcheck 2014 results
	Trucks Inspected	Trucks OOS	Drivers OOS	% Trucks OOS	% Drivers OOS	Buses Inspected	Buses OOS	Drivers OOS	% Buses OOS	% Drivers OOS
BC	581	160	28	27.5	4.8	59	10	3	16.9	5.1
AB	533	214	40	40.2	7.5	66	7	2	10.6	3
SK	529	95	16	18	3	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
MB	429	95	6	22.1	1.4	8	1	0	12.5	0
ON	3,667	782	61	21.3	1.7	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
QC	1,562	309	31	19.8	2	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NB	224	33	0	14.7	0	21	2	0	9.5	0
PE	90	14	0	15.6	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NS	260	56	5	21.5	1.9	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NL	172	29	7	16.9	4.1	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
YT	97	26	3	26.8	3.1	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NT	50	14	1	28	2	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Total	8,194	1,827	198	22.3	2.4	154	20	5	13	3.2
Note: OOS: Out of service; n/a: denotes jurisdictions which did not participate in motor coach inspections.

Table 20: Canadian Roadcheck 2015 results
	Trucks Inspected	Trucks OOS	Drivers OOS	% Trucks OOS	% Drivers OOS	Buses Inspected	Buses OOS	Drivers OOS	% Buses OOS	% Drivers OOS
BC	625	138	14	22.1	2.2	71	8	0	11.3	0
AB	404	155	22	38.4	5.4	97	9	1	9.3	1.0
SK	479	118	29	24.6	6.1	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
MB	356	82	2	23.0	0.6	7	0	0	0	0
ON	3,755	564	64	15.0	1.7	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
QC	1,459	253	16	17.3	1.1	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NB	230	33	4	14.3	1.7	32	2	0	6.3	0
PE	69	8	0	11.6	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NS	268	55	2	20.5	0.7	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NL	293	96	14	32.8	4.8	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
YT	64	7	1	10.9	1.6	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NT	27	2	0	7.4	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Total	8,029	1,511	168	18.8	2.1	207	19	1	9.2	0.5
Note: OOS: Out of service; n/a: denotes jurisdictions which did not participate in motor coach inspections.

Table 21: Canadian Roadcheck 2016 results
	Trucks Inspected	Trucks OOS	Drivers OOS	% Trucks OOS	% Drivers OOS	Buses Inspected	Buses OOS	Drivers OOS	% Buses OOS	% Drivers OOS
BC	724	139	14	19.2	1.9	96	6	7	6.3	7.3
AB	463	167	17	36.1	3.7	39	6	0	15.4	0
SK	615	136	21	22.1	3.4	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
MB	290	63	4	21.7	1.4	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
ON	3,397	530	46	15.6	1.4	73	10	3	13.7	4.1
QC	1,486	277	25	18.6	1.7	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NB	241	28	3	11.6	1.2	22	2	0	9.1	0
PE	32	5	1	15.6	3.1	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NS	255	53	5	20.8	2.0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NL	282	62	13	22.0	4.6	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
YT	56	7	0	12.5	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NT	46	13	0	28.3	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Total	7,887	1,480	149	18.8	1.9	230	24	10	10.4	4.3
Note: OOS: Out of service; n/a: denotes jurisdictions which did not participate in motor coach inspections.

Table 22: Canadian Roadcheck 2017 results
	Trucks Inspected	Trucks OOS	Drivers OOS	% Trucks OOS	% Drivers OOS	Buses Inspected	Buses OOS	Drivers OOS	% Buses OOS	% Drivers OOS
BC	639	155	14	24.3	2.2	82	12	0	14.6	0
AB	487	146	36	30	7.4	43	3	1	7.0	2.3
SK	495	93	11	18.8	2.2	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
MB	334	98	3	29.3	0.9	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
ON	2,810	453	42	16.1	1.5	118	5	2	4.2	1.7
QC	1,729	330	26	19.1	1.5	3	0	0	0	0
NB	279	40	2	14.3	0.7	19	0	0	0	0
PE	41	4	0	9.8	0	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NS	313	64	2	20.4	0.6	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NL	295	75	8	25.4	2.7	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
YT	31	1	1	3.2	3.2	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
NT	30	16	1	53.3	3.3	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Total	7,483	1,475	146	19.7	2	265	20	3	7.5	1.1
Note: OOS: Out of service; n/a: denotes jurisdictions which did not participate in motor coach inspections.

Below are Roadcheck’s highlights for each year of the 2012-18 period:

2012:

7,125 CVSA level 1 inspections conducted in 93 sites across Canada;
1,262 trucks, 23 buses and 190 drivers were placed out of service for various defects and violations;
18.2% out of service rate for trucks, 11.7% for buses;
2.7% of truck drivers and 3.1% of bus drivers out of service.

2013:

7,528 CVSA level 1 inspections conducted in 167 sites across Canada;
1,597 trucks, 24 buses and 177 drivers were placed out of service for various defects and violations;
18.9% out of service rate for trucks, 12.3% for buses;
3% of truck drivers and 0.8% of bus drivers out of service.

2014:

8,348 CVSA level 1 inspections conducted in 201 sites across Canada;
1,827 trucks, 20 buses and 203 drivers were placed out of service for various defects and violations;
22.3% out of service rate for trucks, 13% for buses;
2.4% of truck drivers and 3.2% of bus drivers out of service.

2015:

8,236 CVSA level 1 inspections conducted in 174 sites across Canada;
1,511 trucks, 19 buses and 169 drivers were placed out of service for various defects and violations;
18.8% out of service rate for trucks, 9.2% for buses;
2.1% of truck drivers and 0.5% of bus drivers out of service.

2016:

8,117 CVSA level 1 inspections conducted in 146 sites across Canada;
1,480 trucks, 24 buses and 159 drivers were placed out of service for various defects and violations;
18.8% out of service rate for trucks, 10.4% for buses;
1.9% of truck drivers and 4.3% of bus drivers out of service.

2017:

7,748 CVSA level 1 inspections conducted across Canada;
1,475 trucks, 20 buses and 149 drivers were placed out of service for various defects and violations;
19.7% out of service rate for trucks, 7.5% for buses;
2% of truck drivers and 7.5% of bus drivers out of service.

2018:

6,727 CVSA level 1 inspections conducted across Canada;
1,375 trucks, 25 buses and 158 drivers were placed out of service for various defects and violations;
20.4% aggregated out of service rate.

Facility audits

Conducting a facility audit involves a certified auditor visiting a motor carrier’s principal place of business in order to conduct comprehensive assessments. Audits are conducted on the basis of a procedure defined in NSC Standard # 15 Facility Audits. As stated in the standard, it consists of a detailed examination of specific records, interviews with safety personnel as well as data collected during CVSA inspections. Audits serve as a means of evaluating a carrier's safety compliance and performance with respect to the identification of violations. The results are used in conjunction with the carrier profile (see NSC Standard # 7 Carrier and Driver Profiles) to establish the carrier safety rating (NSC Standard # 14 Carrier Safety Rating). Audits must be quantifiable, uniformly delivered within each jurisdiction and compatible with other jurisdictions. They are conducted by trained jurisdictional staff.

Facility audits are used to assign a satisfactory, conditional (in most jurisdictions) or unsatisfactory rating. The results of an audit typically require motor carriers to implement steps to improve safety and compliance performance within set time frames. If safety and compliance performance does not improve or becomes worse, the P/T may declare the motor carrier unsatisfactory and revoke the safety certificate, which prevents the carrier from operating on Canadian roads.

Research has established that conducting facility audits has positive impacts on subsequent safety and compliance rates. It was for this reason that TC included minimum targets for audits in the contribution program with the P/Ts in former contribution agreements. However, as mentioned, as of 2009/10 the P/Ts are no longer required to meet these minimum audit targets and are no longer required to report on the number of audits conducted on intra-provincial motor carriers.

P/Ts have historically consistently met the annual audit targets specified in the previous TC co-funding agreements, conducting usually significantly more audits than the minimum required. This may be due to the safety rating system prompting jurisdictions to conduct audits based on collision, inspection and conviction data recorded against motor carriers in their respective carrier profiles.

Table 23 shows that, for the years under the former funding agreements, the number of audits peaked in 2005/06 at 2,258 and declined in the following years, down to 1,857 audits in 2007/08. Note that no comparison can be made with the subsequent years (starting 2009/10), which reflect the situation under the new contribution agreements, where no audit targets were set and where the P/Ts stopped reporting on the number of audits conducted on intra-provincial motor carriers. Given that both changes occurred simultaneously, it is not possible to assess the short term impact of target removal on the number of audits conducted. Table 23 however indicates that for those subsequent years (2009/10 to 2017/18), the nationally aggregated number of audits conducted on extra-provincial motor carriers remained fairly stable, suggesting that if the removal of targets had an effect, this effect has for now remained constant.

Table 23: Facility audits 2005/06-2017/18
	05/06	06/07	07/08	08/09	09/10^{Footnote *}	10/11	11/12	12/13	13/14	14/15	15/16	16/17	17/18
BC	349	340	300	295	205	251	253	190	126	80	45	47	52
AB	252	206	221	339	182	395	377	368	339	318	319	347	323
SK	125	133	82	80	42	30	32	49	42	42	38	30	36
MB	85	86	125	92	48	56	58	62	58	36	51	51	25
ON	747	803	496	681	237	200	211	269	248	278	175	152	158
QC	456	279	292	252	92	229	99	69	103	88	113^{Footnote **}	113^{Footnote **}	113^{Footnote **}
NB	71	85	81	79	65	94	98	155	113	61	93	47	76
NS	129	137	215	173	31	12	25	7	17	26	43	36	17
PE	15	15	17	13	13	13	13	13	13	13	13	13	13
NL	23	21	21	21	2	1	22	20	21	3	3	3	3
YK	3	3	4	3	3	4	7	7	8	6	6	6	8
NT	3	3	3	3	0	3	2	1	3	3	3	3	3
Tot	2,258	2,111	1,857	2,031	920	1,288	1,197	1,210	1,091	954	902^{Footnote *}	848^{Footnote **}	827^{Footnote **}
Footnote * Audit targets removed in 2009/10 and reporting requirements changed: P/Ts now only report on the number of audits conducted on extra-provincial motor carriers. Return to first footnote * referrer Return to second footnote * referrer Footnote Data unavailable from QC starting 2015/16, estimate created averaging 6 previous years with similar reporting requirements. Return to first footnote referrer Return to second footnote referrer Return to third footnote referrer Return to fourth footnote referrer Return to fifth footnote referrer

One jurisdiction shows a clear downward trend in number of audits starting in 2012-13 and another jurisdiction shows a mild decreasing trend starting in 2015/16 (yellow). However given that these decreases were initiated years after the removal of targets, they are probably related to internal factors rather than target removal.

The nationally aggregated data does indicate a mild downward trend from 2013/14 to 2017/18, however this is mainly explained by the decrease observed in one or two jurisdictions. Furthermore, in the absence of data from QC for the years 2015/16 to 2017/18, an estimate was created averaging the 6 previous comparable years of data for that province. If the actual numbers from QC were to be higher that this estimation, this could compensate, at least in part, for the mild national decrease that is currently shown in table 23. The situation will be reassessed once QC data is made available for those years.

There are a number of potential impacts related to the withdrawal of performance targets and changes in reporting requirements. Not having a total number of extra- and intra-provincial motor carrier audits will compromise future analysis of historical trends. In addition, without having the number of audits carried out on intra-provincial motor carrier, it is more challenging to assess the overall robustness and the national equity of the safety fitness framework. For example, it would not be possible to detect intra- and extra-provincial motor carrier equity issues should a P/T (improbably) not conduct or conduct far fewer audits on intra-provincial motor carriers. However unlikely due to P/Ts’ interest in safe motor carriers in their jurisdictions, such a scenario could jeopardize the NSC / MVTA principle that similar safety performance result in consistent and compatible safety ratings between intra- and extra-provincial motor carriers nationally. Note however that the latest co-funding agreement continues to require the P/Ts to report on the number of inspector and audit personnel deployed, and as long as these remain stable over time, it can be reasonably assumed that similar numbers of total audits are being performed on both extra and intra- provincial motor carriers.

Data exchange

The safety rating framework and the NSC co-funding contribution agreements require the P/Ts to exchange collision, inspection and conviction data. The data is used in determining safety ratings and disciplining motor carriers. The exchange of collision, inspection and conviction data is therefore critical to ensure the robustness, comprehensiveness and completeness of the safety rating established by each jurisdiction for motor carriers under its supervision.

The CCMTA Canadian Conviction Equivalency Code tables are a reference tool that establishes equivalency of offences across the P/T legislative and regulatory frameworks. This enables jurisdictions to take appropriate action based on a common understanding of the severity of the infraction.

Table 24 summarizes the 2012-2018 seven-year trend in the volume of exchange of conviction information between jurisdictions. The values in the table represent the total number of convictions sent to other P/Ts by each jurisdiction for each of the seven years under review.

Table 24: Data exchange (convictions sent) fiscal years 2011/12 – 2017/2018
Year	2011/12	2012/13	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18
Total	59,201	62,607	62,385	75,902	80,125^{Footnote *}	84,161^{Footnote *}	76,705^{Footnote *}
Footnote * Data not available in QC starting 2015/16, value includes estimate averaging four previous years for QC. Return to first footnote * referrer Return to second footnote * referrer Return to third footnote * referrer

P/Ts began using conviction information from other jurisdictions in their safety rating systems around 2002. The historical data indicates that the number of convictions exchanged remained relatively stable and consistent from 2005 to 2009. However, a significant increase in the number of convictions exchanged among jurisdictions occurred in the 2009/10 year. Then, as shown in table 24, there was an upwards trend in the volume of conviction data sent by jurisdictions during the 2011/12-2017/18 period. This is likely due to continuous enhancements made in individual jurisdictional systems to process the convictions. Overall, for the period, the data suggests that the safety fitness framework is functioning properly as more data is being exchanged and processed.

Jurisdictional staffing levels

The number of jurisdictional staff dedicated to enforcement activities can be used as an indicator of the level of effort, across the country, to support the SFF and to enforce motor vehicle safety regulations and NSC standards. The reporting requirements associated with the co-funding agreements specify that P/Ts report on the number of roadside inspectors and facility auditors on staff. Table 25 summarizes the number of personnel involved in the on-road and audit enforcement of the MVTA from 2011/12 to 2017/18. Historically P/T staffing levels have fluctuated and are affected by retirements, government priorities and budgets relative to filling vacant positions. Data from past reports to Parliament indicate that P/T staffing of on-road (CVSA inspections) personnel peaked in 2008/09 with 1,203 enforcement officers, while a peak of 112 full time equivalent (FTE) staff performed audits of motor carriers in 2007/08.

Table 25 reveals that staffing levels have remained relatively stable over the 7 years under review, although there has been a mild decreasing trend in the number of auditors. However, as discussed previously, the output of this workforce - the number of CVSA inspections and facility audits - remains fairly constant. Again, caution is warranted given that an estimate had to be created for QC as of the year 2015/16.

Table 25: Jurisdictional staffing levels 2011/12-2017/18
Years	2011 - 2012 FTEs		2012 - 2013 FTEs		2013 - 2014 FTEs		2014 - 2015 FTEs		2015 - 2016 FTEs		2016 - 2017 FTEs		2017 - 2018 FTEs
	Road	Audit	Road	Audit	Road	Audit	Road	Audit	Road	Audit	Road	Audit	Road	Audit
BC	153	17	180	17	175	17	184	16	179	14	176	13	186	13
AB	132	9	132	9	104	9	94	9	95	9	94	9	100	9
SK	36	4	22	3	30	4	42	5	48	6	47	6	35	6
MB	42	8	42	8	42	8	42	7	42	7	42	7	42	6
ON	310	35	306	33	288	29	303	28	290	28	281	27	280	27
QC	245.9	18.9	252	19	252	19	258	17	253^{Footnote *}	18.5^{Footnote *}	253^{Footnote *}	18.5^{Footnote *}	253^{Footnote *}	18.5^{Footnote *}
NB	47	3	36	3	46	3	49	3	54	3	43	3	44	3.5
NS	30	3	45	3	38	3	38	2	43	3	43	3	41	2
PE	11	1	11	1	11	1	12	1	13	1	11	1	11	1
NL	16	1	14	1	15	1	15	1	29	7	34	7	34	6
YK	3.4	.1	3	.1	3	.1	3	.1	3	.1	3	.1	2	.1
NT	12	1	10	1	8.5	1	9	1	10	1	9	.1	9	1
Total	1,038	101	1,053	98.1	1,012	95.1	1,049	90.1	1,059^{Footnote *}	97.6^{Footnote *}	1,036^{Footnote *}	95.6^{Footnote *}	1,037^{Footnote *}	93.1^{Footnote *}
Key: FTEs = Full Time Employees; Road = On-road inspectors; Audit = Jurisdictional Auditors. Note: This table does not include staffing for administering other NSC standards. Footnote * Data not available in QC for that year. Estimate averaging four previous years for QC. Return to first footnote * referrer Return to first footnote * referrer Return to first footnote * referrer Return to first footnote * referrer Return to first footnote * referrer Return to first footnote * referrer Return to first footnote * referrer Return to first footnote * referrer Return to first footnote * referrer Return to first footnote * referrer Return to first footnote * referrer Return to first footnote * referrer

It is important to note that this table does not include all of the personnel that are used by jurisdictions to administer and enforce the MVTA and NSC standards. For example, all jurisdictions have staff that conduct knowledge and road tests, verify medicals and regulate the garages that perform annual inspections. Moreover, the table does not include the staff that process NSC/MVTA applications, perform policy analysis, or the IT resources in each jurisdiction that build the motor carrier monitoring systems and integrate the data used in assigning and rating motor carriers. The contribution agreements between TC and the jurisdictions do allow jurisdictions to recoup a small portion of staff costs for administering the regulations for extra-provincial motor carriers but only for those staff directly involved in CVSA roadside inspections and audit enforcement.

Part I summary

The regulatory update presented in part I is partly based on data reported by the P/Ts in a comprehensive survey conducted by Transport Canada. The review centers on three key components: the status of implementation of NSC standards in Canada, the national implementation of the MVTA safety fitness regime and enforcement efforts conducted by P/Ts in support of the NSC and the MVTA.

Tables 2 to 8 provided comprehensive details on deviations from NSC standards across the country. Deviations can be related to general requirements of the NSC framework or to specific NSC standards. In terms of general requirements, for example, it is important to note that NSC standards are meant to apply to all commercial vehicles that weight more than 4,500 kg, whether they operate as intra- or extra-provincial motor carriers. In this regard, the data indicate that AB, SK and YK have not implemented this general requirement. As a result, in these provinces, safety programs and regulations are not the same for intra- and extra-provincial motor carriers.

With regard to hours of service regulations, the data shows that 11 of 13 jurisdictions had implemented revised provincial rules by the end of 2018, but that AB and SK have yet to implement provincial hours of service rules that mirror the federal regulations. In those two provinces, the federal regulations apply to extra-provincial carriers only and different regulations apply to intra-provincial carriers.

With regard to the safety fitness framework, the data presented in tables 9 to 15 indicate that a fairly consistent safety rating system has been implemented by the P/Ts across Canada. Overall, the 2012-2018 period can be characterized as a period where additional incremental changes were made in P/T safety rating systems to further align them with the MVTA. A number of changes were made to enhance the overall effectiveness of the safety rating system implemented by all jurisdictions. Many of these changes were minor and involved adjustments, slight policy modifications and changes in enforcement practices. Some were more significant and required additional work on systems and were completed as jurisdictional resources permitted. Overall, in the 2012-2018 period, the reduction of both significant and minor deviations by the P/Ts rendered the national system of safety ratings for motor carriers more consistent than in previous years.

Under the 2009/10-2014/15 and 2015/16-2019/20 co-funding agreements with the P/Ts, TC continues to focus on achieving a consistent safety fitness regime in all jurisdictions to ensure equity in treatment between extra and intra-provincial motor carriers. The overall assessment for the period indicates that the P/Ts have implemented safety rating regimes which for the most part are compatible with the MVTA and safety fitness requirements. Incremental progress was made as jurisdictions continue to eliminate minor variances in requirements that affect extra-provincial motor carriers. The data indicates that the P/Ts are steadily moving to eliminate those variances (e.g. QC adopted the satisfactory un-audited rating and work continues in NT to develop and implement a quantifiable audit).

With regard to the absence of performance targets in the 2009/10-2014/15 and 2015/16-2019/20 co-funding agreements, the evidence indicates that the level of enforcement effort after nine years under the new reporting requirements has remained stable. The number of facility audits conducted have remained fairly constant under the new agreements, even though no comparison can be made with the situation under the old regime, given changes in reporting requirements. Furthermore, in 2015/16, there were 35,506 more CVSA inspections conducted in Canada compared to 2008/09, which was the last year under the old regime. This represents a 13% increase following the removal of performance targets. There is also no evidence to suggest that the P/Ts have elected to perform the less costly and time consuming type of CVSA inspections. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that a relatively robust, stable and dynamic safety fitness framework has been implemented in the P/Ts.

It is possible that assessing the equity in application of the SFF to both extra-and intra-provincial carriers in the absence of reporting on intra-provincial audit results and safety ratings could be more challenging. However, the P/Ts are still reporting on audits conducted on extra-provincial motor carriers, which is TC’s primary responsibility under the MVTA. The number of audits conducted on extra-provincial motor carriers has remained fairly stable across the 2011/12-2017/18 period under review. The nationally aggregated data does indicate a mild downward trend from 2013/14 to 2017/18, however this is mainly explained by a decrease observed in one jurisdiction, likely the result of internal issues rather than the removal of targets.

Going forward, TC will continue to monitor and assess what impact, if any, the removal of performance targets has on the safety fitness framework, with particular emphasis on extra-provincial motor carriers.

Part 2 - commercial vehicle safety statistics

Introduction

The second part of the report provides data on reportable traffic collisions in Canada. Trend information respecting the general driving population is first presented followed by an assessment of collisions involving CMVs, including buses, straight trucks and tractor-trailers^{Footnote 4}.

All vehicle, driver and victim information are derived from Transport Canada’s National Collision Database (NCDB), which is a compilation of police report records of reportable traffic collisions that occurred on public roads in Canada. Collision data is sent to Transport Canada by each jurisdiction on a calendar year basis. Therefore, in contrast with the regulatory updates that constitute the first part of this report and which are based on fiscal years, the following safety statistics will mainly focus on the 2012-2018 calendar years.

General road users collisions and casualties

Canada’s road safety record continues to improve, as can be seen in table 26 and figures 2 to 4, which provide a general view of the trend in collisions and casualties from 1999 to 2018. In table 26, the columns headed “Collisions” indicate the total number of casualty collisions (includes collisions with serious injuries and fatalities, excludes property damage only collisions) while the columns headed “Victims” indicate the total number of victims in terms of fatalities, serious injuries and total injuries from collisions.

Figures 2, 3 and 4 plot the information on victims from table 26 and illustrate the steady improvement trends in terms of total casualties, fatalities and serious injuries for the 1999-2018 timeframe.

Table 26: Collisions and casualties 1999-2018
	Collisions		Victims
	Fatal^{Footnote 1}	Personal Injury^{Footnote 2}	Fatalities^{Footnote 3}	Serious Injuries^{Footnote 4}	Injuries^{Footnote 5} (Total)
1999	2,632	148,683	2,980	16,187	218,457
2000	2,548	153,290	2,904	15,581	222,848
2001	2,415	149,023	2,758	15,296	216,542
2002	2,583	153,832	2,921	15,894	222,665
2003	2,487	150,493	2,777	15,110	216,123
2004	2,438	145,150	2,735	15,572	206,104
2005	2,551	145,559	2,898	15,792	204,701
2006	2,586	142,517	2,871	16,044	199,976
2007	2,455	138,615	2,753	14,410	192,745
2008	2,193	127,571	2,431	12,851	176,394
2009	2,007	123,449	2,216	11,955	170,770
2010	2,021	123,615	2,238	11,796	172,081
2011	1,849	122,350	2,023	10,940	167,741
2012	1,848	122,834	2,075	11,104	166,727
2013	1,772	120,371	1,951	10,662	164,525
2014	1,675	114,618	1,841	10,445	156,558
2015	1,695	117,846	1,889	10,855	161,061
2016	1,737	116,534	1,899	10,564	158,791
2017	1,694	112,714	1,856	10,107	152,772
2018	1,743	108,371	1,922	9,494	152,847
Footnote 1 "Fatal collisions" include all reported motor vehicle crashes that resulted in at least one death, where death occurred within 30 days of the collision, except in Quebec before 2007 (eight days). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 "Personal injury collisions" include all reported motor vehicle crashes which resulted in at least one injury but not death within 30 days of the collision, except in Quebec before 2007 (eight days). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 "Fatalities" include all those who died as a result of a reported traffic collision within 30 days of its occurrence, except in Quebec before 2007 (eight days). Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 "Serious Injuries" include persons admitted to hospital for treatment or observation. Serious injuries were estimated from 1999 to 2018 because several jurisdictions under-reported these numbers. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 "Total Injuries" include all reported severities of injuries ranging from minimal to serious. Return to footnote 5 referrer

Figure 2: Road crash victims 1999-2018: total injuries

Text version

Year	Injuries (Total)
1999	218,457
2000	222,848
2001	216,542
2002	222,665
2003	216,123
2004	206,104
2005	204,701
2006	199,976
2007	192,745
2008	176,394
2009	170,770
2010	172,081
2011	167,741
2012	166,727
2013	164,525
2014	156,558
2015	161,061
2016	158,791
2017	152,772
2018	152,847

Figure 3: Road crash victims 1999-2018: fatalities

Text version

Year	Fatalities (Total)
1999	2,980
2000	2,904
2001	2,758
2002	2,921
2003	2,777
2004	2,735
2005	2,898
2006	2,871
2007	2,753
2008	2,431
2009	2,216
2010	2,238
2011	2,023
2012	2,075
2013	1,951
2014	1,841
2015	1,899
2016	1,899
2017	1,856
2018	1,922

Figure 4: Road crash victims 1999-2018: serious injuries

Text version

Year	Serious injuries (Total)
1999	16,187
2000	15,581
2001	15,296
2002	15,894
2003	15,110
2004	15,572
2005	15,792
2006	16,044
2007	14,410
2008	12,851
2009	11,955
2010	11,796
2011	10,940
2012	11,104
2013	10,662
2014	10,445
2015	10,855
2016	10,564
2017	10,107
2018	9,484

In 2018, 1,922 persons lost their lives on Canadian roads compared to 25, 20 and 56 in air, marine and rail respectively. These numbers emphasize that road transportation remains a serious health and safety issue for the Canadian population. Nevertheless, even though road safety represents a challenge in transportation, it is important to note that annual fatalities have dropped a significant 45.1% between 1992 and 2018. Notwithstanding a significant increase in the number of registered motor vehicles, Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT) as well as GDP growth (see figure 5), it is worth noting that 1579 fewer people lost their life on Canadian roads in 2018 compared to 1992.

Figure 5: Fatalities v. traffic and gross domestic product, 2002-2018

Text version

Year	GDP	Traffic	Fatalities
2002	1	1	1
2003	1.033373	0.992585	0.950702
2004	1.075426	0.997027	0.936323
2005	1.126378	1.011421	0.992126
2006	1.179796	1.03892	0.982883
2007	1.22674	1.058445	0.942485
2008	1.261505	1.037218	0.832249
2009	1.235669	1.06167	0.758644
2010	1.298523	1.069994	0.766176
2011	1.333561	1.074877	0.692571
2012	1.365496	1.084567	0.710373
2013	1.388391	1.122449	0.667922
2014	1.417618	1.142043	0.630264
2015	1.422676	1.165411	0.646696
2016	1.430859	1.193717	0.65012
2017	1.47858	1.218468	0.635399
2018	1.516409	1.245063	0.657994

Figure 6 shows that for the 2012-2018 period, general road user fatalities dropped in 2013, reached a low point in 2014, rose again in 2015 and 2016, dropped in 2017 and rose again in 2018. As illustrated in figure 3, this up and down pattern has been the norm for the past 20 years. Nevertheless, the key overarching trend is that there is a general decline in road fatalities, and this is also true for 2012-2018 period under review.

Figure 6: Road fatalities, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Road fatalities (Total)
2012	2,075
2013	1,951
2014	1,841
2015	1,889
2016	1,899
2017	1,856
2018	1,922

In sum, as per the trend of the past 20 years, road casualties are overall decreasing notwithstanding increased exposure. This trend is concurrent with incremental safety initiatives undertaken by governments and industry, on the basis of sound scientific research, policy and countermeasures development.

Commercial vehicle involvement in traffic collisions

The next sections provide detailed information on commercial vehicle involvement in traffic collisions. The data presented is taken from the NCDB. The first section presents general collision trends involving commercial vehicles, presented together with an analysis of the evolution of heavy truck crashes based on exposure estimation derived from the Canadian Vehicle Survey (CVS).

The second section reviews NCDB information on commercial vehicle driver actions and conditions at the time of the crash as well as statistics related to single commercial vehicle collisions, which have been linked to driver fatigue in the scientific literature. The final section provides information regarding the victims of collisions involving commercial vehicles.

Collisions involving commercial vehicles 2012-2018

Table 27 provides a summary of commercial vehicles and all other vehicles involved in collisions, by crash severity and vehicle category, for the 2012-2018 period. Figures 7, 9, 11 and 13 illustrate this information for the seven years under review and figures 8, 10, 12 and 14 show the same variables, but over a wider 26-year window (1992-2018).

In 2018 there were 375 commercial vehicles (including trucks and buses) involved in fatal collisions, compared to 403 in 2012, a 7% decrease. As can be seen in figure 9, fatal CMV collisions fluctuated over the seven-year period with a peak in 2017, but the general trend remains a global decrease. The yearly average for the period is 394 fatal crashes, 18.1% less than the yearly average for the previous seven-year period (2005-2011), which was of 481 fatal collisions. Figure 10 illustrates the fluctuation over the 1992-2018 period. Although it is not linear, the data reveals a general downward trend. In 1992, there were 525 commercial vehicles involved in fatal collision, compared to 375 in 2018, which represents a 28.6% reduction. The year 2015 saw the lowest number of heavy vehicles involved in fatal collisions for the 26-year period, with 361 vehicles.

In 2018 there were 8,472 commercial vehicles involved in injury collisions, a 7.3% reduction from the 9,141 reported in 2012. The average for the 2012-2018 seven-year period was 8,818 injury crashes, which is 16.4% less than the average for the previous seven-year period of 10,553 vehicles. Figure 11 illustrates this downward trend in injury collisions for the 2012-2018 period. Table 27 data further reveals a mild decreasing trend in property damage only (PDO) collisions for the seven-year period, with a low in 2016 followed by two years of consecutive increases in 2017 and 2018 (see figures 13 and 14).

Table 27: Number of commercial vehicles and all other vehicles involved in reportable traffic collisions by vehicle type and severity, Canada, 2012–2018
		2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Fatal	All Buses	26	38	28	33	31	28	30
	Straight Trucks > 4536 kg	153	137	143	122	122	141	129
	Tractor-Trailers	224	227	240	206	220	262	216
	Total Commercial Vehicles	403	402	411	361	373	431	375
	Non-Commercial Vehicles Involved With Commercial Vehicles	335	334	396	343	377	375	354
	Total Vehicles Involved in Collisions Involving Commercial Vehicles	738	736	807	704	750	806	729
	Total All Other Vehicles Involved	2,202	2,164	1,971	2,045	2,165	2,037	2,176
	Total All Vehicles Involved	2,940	2,900	2,778	2,749	2,915	2,843	2,905
Injury	All Buses	1,976	1,898	1,805	1,895	1,782	1,673	1,678
	Straight Trucks > 4536 kg	3,859	3,841	3,867	3,781	3,559	3,739	3,737
	Tractor-Trailers	3,306	3,452	3,578	3,075	2,987	3,181	3,057
	Total Commercial Vehicles	9,141	9,191	9,250	8,751	8,328	8,593	8,472
	Non-Commercial Vehicles Involved With Commercial Vehicles	7,952	8,063	8,308	7,793	7,389	7,612	7,591
	Total Vehicles Involved in Collisions Involving Commercial Vehicles	17,093	17,254	17,558	16,544	15,717	16,205	16,063
	Total All Other Vehicles Involved	203,419	200,242	189,962	197,466	194,855	187,353	183,755
	Total All Vehicles Involved	220,512	217,496	207,520	214,010	210,572	203,558	199,818
PDO	All Buses	6,625	7,166	7,401	6,960	5,948	6,190	6,516
	Straight Trucks > 4536 kg	19,576	20,587	20,708	20,690	19,453	20,532	21,224
	Tractor-Trailers	14,370	15,164	15,150	13,703	12,607	13,987	14,681
	Total Commercial Vehicles	40,571	42,917	43,259	41,353	38,008	40,709	42,421
	Non-Commercial Vehicles Involved With Commercial Vehicles	30,966	32,962	33,558	32,252	29,812	31,579	32,905
	Total Vehicles Involved in Collisions Involving Commercial Vehicles	71,537	75,879	76,817	73,605	67,820	72,288	75,326
	Total All Other Vehicles Involved	658,377	702,612	757,558	763,985	726,238	760,019	773,225
	Total All Vehicles Involved	729,914	778,491	834,375	837,590	794,058	832,307	848,551
Total	All Buses	8,627	9,102	9,234	8,888	7,761	7,891	8,224
	Straight Trucks > 4536 kg	23,588	24,565	24,718	24,594	23,134	24,412	25,090
	Tractor-Trailers	17,900	18,843	18,968	16,984	15,814	17,430	17,954
	Total Commercial Vehicles	50,115	52,510	52,920	50,466	46,709	49,733	51,268
	Non-Commercial Vehicles Involved With Commercial Vehicles	39,253	41,359	42,262	40,388	37,578	39,566	40,850
	Total Vehicles Involved in Collisions Involving Commercial Vehicles	89,368	93,869	95,182	90,854	84,287	89,299	92,118
	Total All Other Vehicles Involved	863,998	905,018	949,491	963,513	923,258	949,409	959,156
	Total All Vehicles Involved	953,366	998,887	1,044,673	1,054,367	1,007,545	1,038,708	1,051,274

Figure 7: Number of commercial vehicles involved in reportable collisions, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Reportable collisions (Total)
2012	50,115
2013	52,510
2014	52,920
2015	50,466
2016	46,709
2017	49,733
2018	51,268

Figure 8: Number of commercial vehicles involved in reportable collisions, 1992-2018

Text version

Year	Reportable collisions (Total)
1992	43,525
1993	41,554
1994	45,673
1995	43,695
1996	42,223
1997	43,799
1998	40,510
1999	40,563
2000	42,040
2001	40,699
2002	43,648
2003	47,742
2004	48,371
2005	50,403
2006	49,538
2007	54,484
2008	51,557
2009	43,967
2010	43,128
2011	44,383
2012	40,571
2013	42,917
2014	43,259
2015	41,353
2016	38,008
2017	40,709
2018	42,421

Figure 9: Number of commercial vehicles involved in fatal collisions, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Fatal collisions (Total)
2012	403
2013	402
2014	411
2015	361
2016	373
2017	461
2018	375

Figure 10: Number of commercial vehicles involved in fatal collisions, 1992-2018

Text version

Year	Fatal collisions (Total)
1992	525
1993	591
1994	572
1995	541
1996	504
1997	559
1998	502
1999	561
2000	555
2001	508
2002	543
2003	535
2004	565
2005	526
2006	549
2007	557
2008	478
2009	422
2010	418
2011	417
2012	403
2013	402
2014	411
2015	361
2016	373
2017	431
2018	375

Figure 11: Number of commercial vehicles involved in injury collisions, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Injury collisions (Total)
2012	9,141
2013	9,191
2014	9,250
2015	8,751
2016	8,328
2017	8,593
2018	8,472

Figure 12: Number of commercial vehicles involved in injury collisions, 1992-2018

Text version

Year	Injury collisions (Total)
1992	10,429
1993	10,549
1994	11,150
1995	10,535
1996	10,368
1997	10,605
1998	9,823
1999	9,956
2000	10,347
2001	9,963
2002	10,602
2003	11,116
2004	11,244
2005	11,768
2006	11,254
2007	11,480
2008	10,718
2009	9,218
2010	9,545
2011	9,751
2012	9,141
2013	9,191
2014	9,250
2015	8,751
2016	8,328
2017	8,593
2018	8,472

Figure 13: Number of commercial vehicles involved in property damage collisions, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Property damage collisions (Total)
2012	40,571
2013	42,917
2014	43,259
2015	41,353
2016	38,008
2017	40,709
2018	42,421

Figure 14: Number of commercial vehicles involved in property damage collisions, 1992-2018

Text version

Year	Property damage collisions (Total)
1992	43,525
1993	41,554
1994	45,673
1995	43,695
1996	42,223
1997	43,799
1998	40,510
1999	40,563
2000	42,040
2001	40,699
2002	43,648
2003	47,742
2004	48,371
2005	50,403
2006	49,538
2007	54,484
2008	51,557
2009	43,967
2010	43,128
2011	44,383
2012	40,571
2013	42,917
2014	43,259
2015	41,353
2016	38,008
2017	40,709
2018	42,421

Figure 15 below illustrates the contribution of NCDB categories of heavy vehicles as well as light duty vehicles (cars, pick-up trucks, sport utility vehicles) to heavy vehicle fatal crashes from 1992 to 2018.

Figure 15: Number of vehicles involved in fatal heavy vehicle crashes by type of vehicle, 1992-2018

Text version

Year	Light duty vehicles	Buses	Straight trucks	Tractor-trailers
1992	507	46	184	295
1993	598	37	212	342
1994	578	46	198	328
1995	535	31	168	342
1996	457	43	168	293
1997	495	33	189	337
1998	461	43	169	290
1999	558	33	169	359
2000	507	36	167	352
2001	448	33	163	312
2002	505	37	169	337
2003	495	38	172	325
2004	500	40	164	361
2005	469	29	187	310
2006	593	22	198	329
2007	483	37	194	326
2008	385	35	187	256
2009	397	29	167	226
2010	337	35	148	235
2011	371	30	164	223
2012	335	26	153	224
2013	334	38	137	227
2014	396	28	143	240
2015	343	33	122	206
2016	377	31	122	220
2017	375	28	141	262
2018	354	30	129	216

Figure 16 focuses on the contribution of specific categories of heavy vehicles to fatal crashes, excluding light duty vehicles (LDV), for the 2012-2018 period. As can be seen, tractor-trailers are over-represented compared to straight-trucks and buses. However, as shown further below in table 28 and figure 25, it is estimated that in the 2012-2018 period tractor-trailers covered more than three times more VKT than straight trucks, which suggests that exposure is a significant factor in their over-representation in fatal crashes. In terms of trends, figure 16 shows a rather stable situation for tractor- trailers and buses and a mild decrease for straight trucks.

Figure 16: Commercial vehicles involved in fatal collisions by type of vehicle, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Buses	Straight trucks	Tractor-trailers
2012	26	153	224
2013	38	137	227
2014	28	143	240
2015	33	122	206
2016	31	122	220
2017	28	141	262
2018	30	129	216

Figure 17 illustrates the contribution of NCDB categories of heavy vehicles as well as LDVs to heavy vehicle injury crashes from 1992 to 2018. As it was the case for fatal crashes, LDVs are over-represented in commercial vehicle injury crashes.

Figure 17: Number of vehicles involved in injury heavy vehicle crashes by type of vehicle, 1992-2018

Text version

Year	Light duty vehicles	Buses	Straight trucks	Tractor-trailers
1992	9,917	2,063	4,811	3,555
1993	9,831	2,032	4,790	3,727
1994	10,233	2,153	4,845	4,152
1995	9,858	2,043	4,601	3,891
1996	9,538	1,963	4,585	3,820
1997	9,706	1,907	4,575	4,123
1998	8,846	1,746	4,175	3,902
1999	9,031	1,744	4,153	4,059
2000	9,248	1,930	4,284	4,133
2001	9,019	1,857	4,314	3,792
2002	9,452	2,090	4,495	4,017
2003	9,940	2,139	4,746	4,231
2004	10,024	2,032	4,893	4,319
2005	10,188	2,147	5,202	4,419
2006	9,952	1,953	5,194	4,107
2007	10,004	2,126	5,322	4,032
2008	9,280	2,087	5,047	3,584
2009	8,105	2,058	4,209	2,951
2010	8,396	2,089	4,274	3,182
2011	8,338	2,111	4,285	3,355
2012	7,952	1,976	3,859	3,306
2013	8,063	1,898	3,841	3,452
2014	8,308	1,805	3,867	3,578
2015	7,793	1,895	3,781	3,075
2016	7,389	1,782	3,559	2,987
2017	7,612	1,673	3,739	3,181
2018	7,591	1,678	3,737	3,057

Figure 18 illustrates the contribution of specific categories of heavy vehicles to injury crashes, excluding light duty vehicles, for the 2012-2018 period. The situation depicted is different than the distribution of heavy trucks categories in the case of fatal crashes. Even though they have far less VKT exposure, straight trucks are more involved in injury collisions than tractor-trailers. In terms of trends, figure 18 reveals mild decreases for all three categories.

Figure 18: Commercial vehicles involved in injury collisions by types of vehicle, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Buses	Straight trucks	Tractor-trailers
2012	1,976	3,859	3,306
2013	1,898	3,841	3,452
2014	1,805	3,867	3,578
2015	1,895	3,781	3,075
2016	1,782	3,559	2,987
2017	1,673	3,739	3,181
2018	1,678	3,737	3,057

Figure 19 depicts the involvement rate of commercial vehicles by crash severity. As can be seen, CMVs are over-represented in fatal collisions. The resulting casualties are shown in figure 20. For the 2012-2018 period, while CMVs represented only 4.9% of total vehicles involved in road crashes, they were involved in 20.4% of road fatalities. This reality could be explained by CMVs’ relative weight and mass compared to that of light-duty vehicles.

Figure 19: Commercial vehicles involvement rate by collision severity, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Fatal	Injury	PDO crashes
2012	13.7	4.14	5.55
2013	13.86	4.22	5.55
2014	14.79	4.45	5.18
2015	13.13	4.089	4.94
2016	12.79	3.95	4.78
2017	15.16	4.22	4.89
2018	12.9	4.24	4.99

Figure 20: Commercial vehicles collision involvement rate and resulting road casualties, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Involvement rate	Injuries	Fatalities
2012	5.25	7.01	19.51
2013	5.25	7.21	20.8
2014	5.06	7.62	22.43
2015	4.786	7.16	20.698
2016	4.63	6.86	19.64
2017	4.787	7.2	21.66
2018	4.87	7.38	18.47

Looking at crash contributing factors, figure 21 shows that vehicles defects are associated with less than 4% of fatal CMV crashes.

Figure 21: Collision involvement of commercial vehicles with defects, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Fatal crashes	Injury crashes	PDO crashes
2012	2.68	2.31	2.25
2013	3.13	2.33	2.29
2014	3.85	2.06	2.36
2015	3.81	2.19	2.65
2016	3.1	2.59	2.53
2017	0.96	2.45	2.49
2018	2.18	2.22	2.44

Figure 22 reveals that CMV driver actions, and to a lesser extent drivers’ condition, are more significant contributing factors than vehicle defects. Note however that NCDB data stem from police reports and not from in-depth crash-causation analysis. Such data has documented limitations with regards to quantifying the prevalence of complex human factors issues such as inattention as it relates to distraction and/or fatigue. The data from crash-causation studies conducted in other contexts and using various methodologies estimate the contribution of driver factors to 80 to 90% of road crashes for both light duty vehicles and heavy vehicle crashes^{Footnote 5}.

Figure 22: Contributing factors in commercial vehicle fatal collisions, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Vehicle defect	Driver condition	Driver action
2012	2.68%	4.29%	29.2%
2013	3.13%	4.7%	26.63%
2014	3.85%	4.36%	26.41%
2015	3.81%	5.28%	23.75%
2016	3.1%	6.51%	30.31%
2017	0.96%	4.82%	26.98%
2018	2.18%	4.92%	27%

Figure 23 presents NCDB data on CMV drivers’ condition, when it was identified as being other than normal, in fatal CMV crashes for the 2012-2018 period. Note that the numbers are small and that overall CMV drivers’ condition was considered as normal in 95% of the fatal crashes. Nevertheless, for the remaining 5%, when driver condition is identified as other than normal, driving under the influence of alcohol (32%) and fatigue/falling asleep (29%) were the most frequently identified contributors in the dataset. Note however that it is widely accepted that data based on police reports tend to seriously underestimate the contribution of fatigue and fatigue-related inattention to crashes.

For comparison purposes, figure 24 illustrates the condition of light duty vehicle (LDV) drivers (cars, pick-up trucks, sport utility vehicles) in overall fatal crashes, when the condition was considered as other than normal for the same period. Of importance is the notion that the LDV driver condition was identified as other than normal in 23.5% of overall fatal crashes, which is almost five times more than what it was for CMV drivers (4.96%). In terms of key differences in the profile of crash contributors, it is worth noting that the rate of alcohol is much higher for LDV drivers and that the rate of fatigue is almost three times higher for CMV drivers.

Figure 23: CMV driver condition, when condition is considered as “other than normal”, in 4.96% of CMV fatal crashes, for the 2012-2018 period – NCDB

Text version

CMV driver condition	Number of CMV fatal crashes
Fatigued	38
Inexperience	4
Alcohol	42
Drugs	13
Illness	5
Other Driver Condition	28

Figure 24: LDV driver condition, when condition is considered as “other than normal”, in 23.5% of overall fatal crashes, for the 2012-2018 period – NCDB

Text version

LDV driver condition	Number of fatal crashes
Fatigued	359
Inexperience	70
Alcohol	1828
Drugs	361
Illness	214
Other Driver Condition	530

Figure 25 provides NCDB data on CMV driver actions when they were identified as not driving properly in fatal CMV crashes for the 2012-2018 period, which was the case in 27% of fatal crashes. Among these, the categories inattention (27%), other driving action (22%) and driving too fast (14%) were the most commonly identified driver behaviors.

It could however be debated whether inattention should also be related to the driver condition category, since it is well documented that a significant portion of inattention problems are related to hypovigilance, the early signs of fatigue. As can be seen in figure 25, inattention, which also includes distracted driving, is the most significant crash contributing factor for fatal CMV crashes.

Figure 25: CMV driver actions, when considered as “not driving properly”, in 27.2% of fatal CMV crashes, for the 2012-2018 period – NCDB

Text version

CMV driver action	Number of fatal CMV crashes
Other Driver Action	158
Lost Control	32
Reversing Unsafely	5
Wrong Direction	3
Wrong Side of Road	46
Disobey Traffic Control	43
Fail to Yield	73
Improper Passing	34
Too Fast	103
Inattention	192
Too Close	24

Again, for comparison purposes, figure 26 illustrates the actions of LDV drivers in overall fatal crashes for the same period, when driver actions were considered as not driving properly, which was the case for 50.5% of these crashes, almost twice that of CMV drivers (27%). In terms of key differences, speeding was the top contributing factor with 22% of cases, compared to 14% for CMV drivers, followed by inattention with a 20% contribution, which is less than the 27% observed with CMV drivers.

Figure 26: LDV driver actions, when considered as “not driving properly”, in 50.5% of overall fatal crashes, for the 2012-2018 period – NCDB

Text version

CMV driver action	Number of fatal LDV crashes
Other Driver Action	1175
Lost Control	734
Reversing Unsafely	25
Wrong Direction	64
Wrong Side of Road	650
Disobey Traffic Control	432
Fail to Yield	571
Improper Passing	499
Too Fast	1580
Inattention	1431
Too Close	76

In sum, NCDB data for the 2012-2018 period emphasize that inattention (relates to both fatigue and distraction) and driving too fast (relates to high-risk driving) are key crash contributing factors for heavy vehicle fatal crashes. This is consistent with the assessment conducted by the CCMTA Human Factors and Motor Carrier Safety Task Force. The presence of alcohol as a contributing factor also needs to be noted: on average there were 6 fatal CMV crashes associated with alcohol per year.

Heavy truck exposure and collision involvement rates, 2012-2018

The concept of exposure to collision risk considers data on the amount of travel when accounting for differing collision rates, for example between heavy trucks and light duty vehicles. It therefore represents a better indicator of commercial vehicle safety than simple comparisons of absolute raw collision data that do not account for exposure.

This section provides data from Statistics Canada’s former Canadian Vehicle Survey (CVS), which estimated VKT by straight trucks >4,500 kg, tractor-trailers > than 15,000 kg and all heavy trucks (a combination of both categories). It is understood that VKT data is considered to represent a better exposure indicator than other measures such as heavy truck registrations, which have gone up significantly in recent years. VKT is not available for buses in the CVS. It is important to note that since the CVS lapsed in 2009, heavy truck VKT data presented here is estimated using an econometric forecasting model, based on previously reported CVS data in the years leading up to 2009.

As can be seen in table 28 and figure 27, the model estimates an overall increase in heavy trucks VKT for the 2012-2018 period. Figure 28 illustrates that this increase occurred mainly after the economic downturn of 2008 and 2009, and that it would be mainly related to tractor-trailer transportation activities.

Nevertheless, as can be seen in figures 29 and 30 which illustrate heavy truck fatal and injury crash rates per 100 million VKT (calculated on the basis of CVS estimation and NCDB data), this increase in exposure did not translate into a deterioration of safety performance. In fact, figures 29 and 30 reveal that fatal and injury crash rates have both been decreasing between 2012 and 2018 (28.4% for fatal crashes and 26.1% for injury crashes). Overall, according to this model, the significant increase in exposure for tractor-trailers after 2009 correlates with a decrease in crash rate. Also of interest is the notion that the decrease in heavy vehicle crash rate takes place after the 2007 implementation of the new Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations. Figure 10, shown previously, also illustrates a break in the trend line for raw numbers of heavy vehicle fatal crashes after 2007. While is not possible to establish causality with descriptive statistics such as these, this information is not insignificant.

Globally, the econometric forecasting model estimates that during the 2012-2018 timeframe, heavy trucks (including both straight trucks and tractor-trailers) travelled an annual average of about 44.9 billion kilometres (10.6 billion for straight trucks and 34.4 billion for tractor-trailers).

Table 28: Estimate of vehicle kilometers travelled, 2012-2018
	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Truck type	(millions)
Straight trucks	10,005.0	10,115.0	10,408.0	10,592.0	10,795.5	11,032.5	11,248.9
Tractor trailers	29,585.0	31,113.0	32,621.7	34,203.5	35,898.0	37,651.3	39,494.7
Total	39,590	41,228	43,030	44,795	46,694	48,684	50,744

Figure 27: Estimate of vehicle kilometers travelled by category of heavy truck, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Straight trucks	Tractor trailers
2012	10,005	29,585
2013	10,115	31,113
2014	10,408.02	32,621.67
2015	10,591.98	34,203.5
2016	10,795.48	35,898.04
2017	11,032.47	37,651.33
2018	11,248.85	39,484.66

Figure 28: Estimate of vehicle kilometers travelled by category of heavy truck, 2005-2018

Text version

Year	Straight trucks	Tractor trailers
2005	9,150.8	18,312.1
2006	8,442.4	18,870.1
2007	9,372.1	21,218.9
2008	9,646.70	20,010.3
2009	9,216.2	18,889.5
2010	9,292	21,911
2011	9,876	28,302
2012	10,005	29,585
2013	10,115	31,113
2014	10,408.02	32,621.67
2015	10,591.98	34,203.5
2016	10,795.48	35,898.04
2017	11,032.47	37,651.33
2018	11,248.85	39,494.66

It is interesting to note further that according to the model, tractor-trailers generally have lower collision involvement rates than straight trucks, despite travelling more than twice the distance. As shown in figures 29 and 30, straight trucks have higher collision rates than tractor-trailers for both fatal and injury collisions. The dense urban setting where straight trucks are more likely to operate is one plausible contributor.

Figure 29: Estimated involvement rate of heavy trucks in fatal collisions per 100 million VKT, 2005-2018

Text version

Year	Straight trucks	Tractor trailers
2005	2.054465	1.69287
2006	2.38084	1.748798
2007	2.069974	1.545792
2008	1.938487	1.279341
2009	1.812027	1.196432
2010	1.592768	1.077085
2011	1.660591	0.78793
2012	1.529235	0.75714
2013	1.354424	0.729599
2014	1.373941	0.735707
2015	1.151815	0.602277
2016	1.130102	0.612847
2017	1.278046	0.695859
2018	1.146784	0.546909

Figure 30: Estimated involvement rate of heavy trucks in injury collisions per 100 million VKT, 2005-2018

Text version

Year	Straight trucks	Tractor trailers
2005	56.86934	24.15343
2006	61.53463	21.76989
2007	56.78557	19.00664
2008	52.32878	17.92077
2009	45.66958	15.62244
2010	46.00732	14.52695
2011	43.38801	11.85782
2012	38.61069	11.17458
2013	37.99308	11.09504
2014	37.15404	10.97123
2015	35.69682	8.990307
2016	32.96749	8.320789
2017	33.89088	8.448572
2018	33.22117	7.740286

Commercial vehicles involved in single-vehicle collisions

Table 29 presents NCDB data relative to single-vehicle CMV crashes. This crash category is often associated with the presence of fatigue, given that fatigue-related crashes tend to be single vehicle run-off-the-road incidents. However using single-vehicle crashes as a sole indicator for the presence of fatigue has clear limitations. The problem of fatigue is complex and difficult to quantify, and as such it should be assessed with methodologies using multiple criteria. Single-vehicle crashes are nevertheless linked to fatigue in the literature and a trend assessment is certainly relevant in any discussion on the potential impacts of HOS regulations on driver fatigue.

Figure 31 reveals a significant decrease in overall single-vehicle CMV crashes from 2007 to 2009, following a steady increasing trend that was initiated around 2000. Looking back at figure 8, we however see that there was an overall drop in CMV crashes for the same period. Nevertheless, as shown in figure 32, the ratio of single vehicle CMV crashes to overall CMV crashes also dropped for the same period, coinciding in time with the publication of the 2007 HOS regulations. These new regulations, providing drivers with 25% more time to sleep and rest compared to the old regime, could have contributed to this improvement.

Table 29: Number of commercial vehicles involved in single-vehicle collisions
		2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Fatal	All buses	12	13	15	13	10	10	7
	Straight Trucks > 4536 kg	38	35	21	25	27	28	31
	Tractor-Trailers	25	25	28	28	30	36	24
	Total Commercial Vehicles	75	73	64	66	67	74	62
Injury	All Buses	693	648	533	622	585	544	572
	Straight Trucks > 4536 kg	711	649	619	640	559	610	630
	Tractor-Trailers	684	685	685	657	623	631	629
	Total Commercial Vehicles	2,088	1,982	1,837	1,919	1,767	1,785	1,831
PDO	All Buses	382	415	398	364	355	395	430
	Straight Trucks > 4536 kg	3,582	3,579	3,509	3,707	3,727	4,022	4,062
	Tractor-Trailers	3,611	3,690	3,643	3,256	3,062	3,381	3,461
	Total Commercial Vehicles	7,575	7,684	7,550	7,327	7,144	7,798	7,953
Total	All Buses	1,087	1,076	946	999	950	949	1,009
	Straight Trucks > 4536 kg	4,331	4,263	4,149	4,373	4,313	4,660	4,723
	Tractor-Trailers	4,320	4,400	4,356	3,941	3,715	4,048	4,114
	Total Commercial Vehicles	9,738	9,739	9,451	9,313	8,978	9,657	9,846

Figure 31: Number of single CMV crashes (all crashes), 1992-2018

Text version

Year	Number of heavy vehicles involved in single vehicle crashes
1992	9,328
1993	9,171
1994	9,554
1995	9,609
1996	9,017
1997	9,380
1998	9,106
1999	8,885
2000	9,475
2001	9,529
2002	10,352
2003	11,294
2004	11,803
2005	12,423
2006	12,403
2007	12,854
2008	11,336
2009	9,664
2010	9,699
2011	9,937
2012	9,738
2013	9,739
2014	9,451
2015	9,313
2016	8,978
2017	9,657
2018	9,846

Figure 32: Rate of single-vehicle CMV crashes to overall CMV crashes, 1992-2018

Text version

Year	Rate of single-vehicle CMV crashes
1992	0.171222
1993	0.174043
1994	0.16646
1995	0.17544
1996	0.169828
1997	0.17066
1998	0.179129
1999	0.173943
2000	0.178969
2001	0.186222
2002	0.188929
2003	0.190157
2004	0.196128
2005	0.198143
2006	0.202198
2007	0.193232
2008	0.180645
2009	0.180275
2010	0.182686
2011	0.18216
2012	0.194313
2013	0.185469
2014	0.17859
2015	0.18454
2016	0.192211
2017	0.194177
2018	0.19205

Casualties resulting from collisions involving commercial vehicles

Table 30, as well as figures 33 to 44, present information on casualties resulting from collisions involving commercial vehicles by injury severity, road user category and commercial vehicle type, for the 2012-2018 period.

Table 30: Road user casualties in collisions involving commercial vehicles and all other vehicles by injury severity and vehicle type, Canada, 2012–2018
		2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Fatalities	All Buses	14	10	3	3	5	5	20
	Straight Trucks > 4536 kg	28	21	20	17	15	19	19
	Tractor-Trailers	27	31	33	25	36	43	32
	Commercial Vehicle Occupant total	69	62	56	45	56	67	71
	Occupants Of Other Vehicles Inv. With Commercial Vehicles	272	271	299	299	253	275	232
	Cyclists	15	18	10	7	13	11	8
	Pedestrians	49	53	47	40	50	48	43
	Total Victims Of Collisions Involving Commercial Vehicles	405	406	413	391	373	402	355
	Victims Of All Other Collisions	1,670	1,545	1,428	1,498	1,526	1,454	1,567
	Total	2,075	1,951	1,841	1,889	1,899	1,856	1,922
Injuries	All Buses	1,526	1,359	1,224	1,398	1,358	1,219	1,299
	Straight Trucks > 4536 kg	1,304	1,306	1,260	1,294	1,200	1,222	1,258
	Tractor-Trailers	1,184	1,192	1,274	1,089	999	1,117	1,099
	Commercial Vehicle Occupant Total	4,014	3,857	3,758	3,781	3,557	3,558	3,656
	Occupants Of Other Vehicles Inv. With Commercial Vehicles	7,129	7,289	7,480	7,005	6,652	6,793	6,840
	Cyclists	222	199	171	220	172	175	144
	Pedestrians	550	468	485	488	473	450	437
	Total Victims Of Collisions Involving Commercial Vehicles	11,963	11,863	11,927	11,540	10,887	11,004	11,110
	Victims Of All Other Collisions	154,764	152,662	144,631	149,521	147,904	141,768	139,445
	Total	166,727	164,525	156,558	161,061	158,791	152,772	150,555
Total	All Buses	1,540	1,369	1,227	1,401	1,363	1,224	1,319
	Straight Trucks > 4536 kg	1,332	1,327	1,280	1,311	1,215	1,241	1,277
	Tractor-Trailers	1,211	1,223	1,307	1,114	1,035	1,160	1,131
	Commercial Vehicle Occupant Total	4,083	3,919	3,814	3,826	3,613	3,625	3,727
	Occupants Of Other Vehicles Inv. With Commercial Vehicles	7,401	7,560	7,779	7,304	6,905	7,068	7,072
	Cyclists	237	217	181	227	185	186	152
	Pedestrians	599	521	532	528	523	498	480
	Total Victims Of Collisions Involving Commercial Vehicles	12,368	12,269	12,340	11,931	11,260	11,406	11,465
	Victims Of All Other Collisions	156,434	154,207	146,059	151,019	149,430	143,222	141,012
	Total	168,802	166,476	158,399	162,950	160,690	154,628	152,477

Figure 33 shows a downward trend in overall casualties resulting from CMV crashes from 1992 to 2018. The 1998-2007 period reveals an increasing trend but this was followed by a significant drop between 2008 and 2009. Figure 34, focussed on the 2012-2018 period, shows significant decreases in 2015 and 2016 followed by mild increases in 2017 and 2018.

Figure 33: Total casualties in collisions involving commercial vehicles, 1992-2018

Text version

Year	Total casualties in collisions
1992	14,744
1993	14,931
1994	15,678
1995	15,006
1996	14,594
1997	14,715
1998	13,483
1999	14,063
2000	14,339
2001	13,955
2002	14,646
2003	14,901
2004	15,327
2005	15,552
2006	15,039
2007	15,218
2008	13,931
2009	12,139
2010	12,633
2011	12,658
2012	11,963
2013	11,863
2014	11,927
2015	11,540
2016	10,887
2017	11,004
2018	11,110

Figure 34: Total casualties in collisions involving commercial vehicles, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Total casualties in collisions
2012	12,368
2013	12,269
2014	12,340
2015	11,931
2016	11,260
2017	11,406
2018	11,465

Figures 35 indicates a downward trend in fatalities resulting from CMV crashes from 1992 to 2018, with a significant drop for the 2007-2010 period. With regards to the 2012-2018 period, figure 36 shows mild increases in 2013 and 2014 followed by significant decreases for 2015 and 2016, an increase in 2017 and a sharp decrease in 2018, creating a global downward trend for the period. Fatalities related to CMV crashes went from 405 in 2012 to 355 in 2018, a 12.3% decrease and also the lowest count since 1992.

Figure 35: Fatalities in collisions involving commercial vehicles, 1992-2018

Text version

Year	Total fatalities in collisions
1992	587
1993	669
1994	643
1995	608
1996	561
1997	675
1998	564
1999	587
2000	600
2001	553
2002	572
2003	573
2004	585
2005	570
2006	553
2007	564
2008	497
2009	437
2010	412
2011	427
2012	405
2013	406
2014	413
2015	391
2016	373
2017	402
2018	355

Figure 36: Fatalities in collisions involving commercial vehicles, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Total fatalities in collisions
2012	405
2013	406
2014	413
2015	391
2016	373
2017	402
2018	355

Figure 37 shows that for the 2012-2018 period, the majority (69.4%) of fatalities resulting from CMV crashes were the occupants of light duty vehicles involved in these collisions. CMV occupants represented 15.5% of the fatalities, pedestrians 12% and cyclists 3%.

Figure 37: Fatalities of CMV occupants and other road users involved in CMV collisions, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	CMV occupants	LDV occupants	Cyclists	Pedestrians
2012	69	272	15	49
2013	62	271	18	53
2014	56	299	10	47
2015	45	299	7	40
2016	56	253	13	50
2017	67	275	11	48
2018	71	232	8	43

In terms of CMV occupant fatalities, figure 38 shows a downward trend from 2012 to 2015, followed by an increasing trend from 2016 to 2018, resulting in an overall mild increasing trend for the period. Looking at CMV occupant fatalities per category of heavy vehicles for the same period, figure 39 indicates an upward trend in tractor-trailer and bus occupants’ fatalities and a downward trend for occupants of straight trucks. Note that there was a sharp spike in bus occupant fatalities in 2018. This is explained by the tragic collision involving a motor coach carrying the Humboldt Broncos junior hockey team and a tractor-trailer, which resulted in 16 fatalities and 13 injuries.

Figure 38: CMV occupants’ fatalities in road crashes, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Total CMV occupants' fatalities
2012	69
2013	62
2014	56
2015	45
2016	56
2017	67
2018	71

Figure 39: CMV occupant fatalities by categories of CMV, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Buses	Straight trucks	Tractor-trailers
2012	14	28	27
2013	10	21	31
2014	3	20	33
2015	3	17	25
2016	5	15	36
2017	5	19	43
2018	20	19	32

With regard to injuries resulting from CMV crashes, figure 40 reveals a downward trend between 1992 and 2018, again with a significant drop from 2007 to 2009. For the 2012-2018 period, figure 41 shows an increase in 2014, significant decreases in 2015 and 2016 and mild increases in 2017 and 2018. The overall result is a downward trend between 2012 and 2018, with a 7.1% reduction for the period.

Figure 40: Injuries in collisions involving commercial vehicles, 1992-2018

Text version

Year	Total injuries in collisions
1992	14,744
1993	14,931
1994	15,678
1995	15,006
1996	14,594
1997	14,715
1998	13,483
1999	14,063
2000	14,339
2001	13,955
2002	14,646
2003	14,901
2004	15,327
2005	15,552
2006	15,039
2007	15,218
2008	13,931
2009	12,139
2010	12,633
2011	12,658
2012	11,963
2013	11,863
2014	11,927
2015	11,540
2016	10,887
2017	11,004
2018	11,110

Figure 41: Injuries in collisions involving commercial vehicles, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Total injuries in collisions
2012	11,963
2013	11,863
2014	11,927
2015	11,540
2016	10,887
2017	11,004
2018	11,110

Figure 42 indicates that for the 2012-2018 period, the majority (61.5%) of injuries resulting from CMV crashes were to the occupants of light duty vehicles involved in these collisions. Injuries to CMV occupants represented 32.7% of cases, to pedestrians 4.2% and to cyclists 1.6%.

Figure 42: Injuries of CMV occupants and other road users involved in CMV collisions, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	CMV occupants	LDV occupants	Cyclists	Pedestrians
2012	4,014	7,129	222	550
2013	3,857	7,289	199	468
2014	3,758	7,840	171	485
2015	3,781	7,005	220	488
2016	3,557	6,652	172	473
2017	3,558	6,793	175	450
2018	3,656	6,840	144	437

With regards to CMV occupant injuries, figure 43 reveals a downward trend from 2012 to 2014, a mild increase in 2015, a sharp decrease in 2016 and a mild increasing trend up to 2018, creating an overall downward trend for the period, with 9% fewer injuries in 2018 than in 2012. Looking at the heavy vehicle categories, figure 44 indicates that on average bus occupants (including passengers) represent 35.8% of injuries, straight truck occupants 33.8% and occupants of tractor trailers 30.4%.

Figure 43: CMV occupants’ injuries resulting from road crashes, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Total CMV occupants' injuries
2012	4,014
2013	3,857
2014	3,758
2015	3,781
2016	3,557
2017	3,558
2018	3,656

Figure 44: CMV occupant injuries resulting from road crashes by category of CMV, 2012-2018

Text version

Year	Buses	Straight trucks	Tractor-trailers
2012	1,526	1,304	1,184
2013	1,359	1,306	1,192
2014	1,224	1,260	1,274
2015	1,398	1,294	1,089
2016	1,358	1,200	1,117
2017	1,219	1,222	1,117
2018	1,299	1,258	1,099

Part II summary

The safety assessment presented in part II of this report paints a picture where numerous road safety indicators show improving trends. Some of the data presented look back as far as 1992, enabling a wider overview of the situation. The positive trending is very significant over the long term. Looking at the 2012-2018 period under review, comprehensive assessments also reveal positive trending, although with more variability, depending on which variable is assessed.

Data related to general road user casualties reveal a steadily improving situation, even in the face of increasing exposure and a rising number of all classes of vehicles on Canadian roads. As such, the 2012-2018 period experienced the lowest fatality rates in recent history. Looking back as far as 1999, the data reveals that the years 2014 and 2017 were the ones where the fewest Canadians died as a result of road crashes. This could be related to incremental safety initiatives undertaken by governments and industry, on the basis of sound scientific research, policy and countermeasures development. Nevertheless, with 1841 road fatalities in 2014 and 1856 in 2017, it is clear that efforts to lower these numbers further need to remain significant, focussed, data driven and innovative.

The positive trending is also apparent when looking at the safety performance of the Canadian motor carrier industry. Even in the presence of increasing traffic and growing economic activity, the number of fatalities and injuries related to heavy vehicle crashes is decreasing over time. The lowest number of fatalities since 1992 was recorded in 2018 with a count of 355, 47% less than the highest count of 675 observed in 1997. Looking at the 2012-2018 period, there is a general decreasing trend, although the number of fatalities increased mildly in 2013 and 2014, with a more significant spike in 2017. With regards to injuries, there is again a positive trend since 1992, and even more so for the 2012-2018 period. Although there were mild increases in 2014, 2017 and 2018, the decreases observed in 2015 and 2016 were more significant.

Looking more closely at CMV crashes, the data reveals that heavy vehicles are over-represented in fatal collisions compared to other classes of vehicles. For the 2012-2018 period, while CMVs represented only 4.9% of total vehicles involved in road crashes, they were associated with 20.4% of road fatalities. This reality is mainly explained by CMVs’ relative weight and mass compared to that of light-duty vehicles. Consequently, for the period, 69% of the fatalities resulting from CMV crashes occurred in light duty vehicles involved in those crashes. CMV occupants represented 15.5% of fatalities, pedestrians 12% and cyclists 3%. Furthermore, tractor-trailers were over-represented in fatal crashes and buses and straight-trucks in injury crashes.

The safety assessment also leveraged an econometric forecasting model to estimate exposure trends and crash rates from Statistic Canada’s former Canadian Vehicle Survey for straight trucks >4,500 kg and tractor-trailers > than 15,000 kg. The model estimates an overall increase in heavy trucks VKT for the 2012-2018 period. This increase would have been initiated after the economic downturn of 2008 and 2009, and it would be mainly related to tractor-trailer transportation activities. The model further suggests that this increase in exposure did not translate into a deterioration of safety performance. In fact, fatal and injury crash rates calculated on the basis of the model and NCDB data have both been decreasing between 2012 and 2018 (28.4% for fatal crashes and 26.1% for injury crashes).

With regards to crash contributing factors as assessed by police officers at crash scenes, NCDB data shows that for the 2012-2018 period vehicle defects were associated with less than 4% of fatal crashes. Driver actions and to a lesser extent driver conditions, were identified as more significant contributing factors. While the numbers are low and driver conditions was considered as “not normal” in only 5% of fatal CMV crashes, fatigue and alcohol were identified as key contributing factors for those crashes. It is important to note however that fatigue is seriously underreported in this type of database. With regards to driver actions, when drivers were considered as “not driving properly”, in 27% of fatal CMV crashes, inattention and speeding were the top contributors.

In sum, NCDB data for the 2012-2018 period reveals that inattention (which relates to both fatigue and distraction) and driving too fast (which relates to high-risk driving behaviors), are key crash contributing factors for heavy vehicle fatal crashes in Canada. This is consistent with the comprehensive assessment detailed in the final report of CCMTA’s Human Factors and Motor Carrier Safety Task Force^{Footnote 6}.

Annex 1 - abbreviations for provinces and territories

Alberta: AB
British Columbia: BC
Manitoba: MB
New Brunswick: NB
Newfoundland and Labrador: NL
Northwest Territories: NT
Nova Scotia: NS
Nunavut: NU
Ontario: ON
Prince Edward Island: PEI
Quebec: QC
Saskatchewan: SK
Yukon: YT

Footnotes

Footnote 1

See Commercial Vehicle Safety in Canada: Comprehensive Review of the Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, Transport Canada, 2015, for context.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

CCMTA Carrier Safety Rating Project Readiness Review – Final Report” – September 2, 2004 – Prepared by Knowles Canada – available from both CCMTA at www.ccmta.ca and Transport Canada at https://tc.canada.ca/.

Return to first footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

For a description of CVSA inspection levels: https://www.cvsa.org/inspections/all-inspection-levels/

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

From NCDB: Straight trucks are units over 4536 kg with a permanent mounted cargo body and tractor-trailers are road tractors with or without semi-trailers.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

Thiffault, P. (2011). Addressing human factors in the motor carrier industry in Canada (https://www.ccmta.ca/web/default/files/PDF/human-factors_report_May_2011.pdf).

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

Thiffault, P. (2011). Addressing human factors in the motor carrier industry in Canada (https://www.ccmta.ca/web/default/files/PDF/human-factors_report_May_2011.pdf).

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Commercial vehicles safety in Canada

On this page

Executive summary

Part I

Part II

Introduction

Part 1 – Implementation and status of the national safety code

NSC program overview

Description of NSC standards

NSC co-funding and contribution agreements

Changes to performance measures and reporting requirements

Removal of enforcement targets

Changes in reporting requirements

2012-2018 status of jurisdictional implementation of NSC standards

Variance from full implementation of the NSC by jurisdiction

Variances with regard to general provisions of the NSC

Variances with regard to specific NSC standards

2012-2018 status of safety fitness framework

2012-2018 status of implementation of the MVTA

Four stage intervention model

Issuing safety ratings to base plate carriers only

Safety rating reciprocity with the U.S. – safety of trans-border operations

Insurance provisions

Inclusion of all NSC vehicles in safety rating program

Safety rating based on 24 months of collision, inspection and conviction data

Sending/receiving collision, inspection and conviction data

Carrier safety rating categories

Other

Development work on electronic logging devices

2012-2018 status of jurisdictional enforcement of the MVTA and NSC standards

CVSA on-road inspections

Figure 1: Number of CVSA roadside inspections in Canada per fiscal year before and after the 2009/10 removal of targets

Roadcheck 2012-2018

Facility audits

Data exchange

Jurisdictional staffing levels

Part I summary

Part 2 - commercial vehicle safety statistics

Introduction

General road users collisions and casualties

Figure 2: Road crash victims 1999-2018: total injuries

Figure 3: Road crash victims 1999-2018: fatalities

Figure 4: Road crash victims 1999-2018: serious injuries

Figure 5: Fatalities v. traffic and gross domestic product, 2002-2018

Figure 6: Road fatalities, 2012-2018

Commercial vehicle involvement in traffic collisions

Collisions involving commercial vehicles 2012-2018

Figure 7: Number of commercial vehicles involved in reportable collisions, 2012-2018

Figure 8: Number of commercial vehicles involved in reportable collisions, 1992-2018

Figure 9: Number of commercial vehicles involved in fatal collisions, 2012-2018

Figure 10: Number of commercial vehicles involved in fatal collisions, 1992-2018

Figure 11: Number of commercial vehicles involved in injury collisions, 2012-2018

Figure 12: Number of commercial vehicles involved in injury collisions, 1992-2018

Figure 13: Number of commercial vehicles involved in property damage collisions, 2012-2018

Figure 14: Number of commercial vehicles involved in property damage collisions, 1992-2018

Figure 15: Number of vehicles involved in fatal heavy vehicle crashes by type of vehicle, 1992-2018

Figure 16: Commercial vehicles involved in fatal collisions by type of vehicle, 2012-2018

Figure 17: Number of vehicles involved in injury heavy vehicle crashes by type of vehicle, 1992-2018

Figure 18: Commercial vehicles involved in injury collisions by types of vehicle, 2012-2018

Figure 19: Commercial vehicles involvement rate by collision severity, 2012-2018

Figure 20: Commercial vehicles collision involvement rate and resulting road casualties, 2012-2018

Figure 21: Collision involvement of commercial vehicles with defects, 2012-2018

Figure 22: Contributing factors in commercial vehicle fatal collisions, 2012-2018

Figure 23: CMV driver condition, when condition is considered as “other than normal”, in 4.96% of CMV fatal crashes, for the 2012-2018 period – NCDB

Figure 24: LDV driver condition, when condition is considered as “other than normal”, in 23.5% of overall fatal crashes, for the 2012-2018 period – NCDB

Figure 25: CMV driver actions, when considered as “not driving properly”, in 27.2% of fatal CMV crashes, for the 2012-2018 period – NCDB

Figure 26: LDV driver actions, when considered as “not driving properly”, in 50.5% of overall fatal crashes, for the 2012-2018 period – NCDB

Heavy truck exposure and collision involvement rates, 2012-2018

Figure 27: Estimate of vehicle kilometers travelled by category of heavy truck, 2012-2018

Figure 28: Estimate of vehicle kilometers travelled by category of heavy truck, 2005-2018

Figure 29: Estimated involvement rate of heavy trucks in fatal collisions per 100 million VKT, 2005-2018

Figure 30: Estimated involvement rate of heavy trucks in injury collisions per 100 million VKT, 2005-2018

Commercial vehicles involved in single-vehicle collisions

Figure 31: Number of single CMV crashes (all crashes), 1992-2018

Figure 32: Rate of single-vehicle CMV crashes to overall CMV crashes, 1992-2018

Casualties resulting from collisions involving commercial vehicles

Figure 33: Total casualties in collisions involving commercial vehicles, 1992-2018

Figure 34: Total casualties in collisions involving commercial vehicles, 2012-2018

Figure 35: Fatalities in collisions involving commercial vehicles, 1992-2018

Figure 36: Fatalities in collisions involving commercial vehicles, 2012-2018