[Federal Register: October 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 200)]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2004-18898]
Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 Initiative
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public listening session.
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is
holding a public listening session to obtain feedback on the Agency's
Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 initiative (CSA 2010), a
comprehensive review and analysis of FMCSA's current commercial motor
carrier safety and enforcement programs. FMCSA will use the upcoming
listening session to inform the public on the conceptual direction and
progress of CSA 2010, and obtain feedback from its partners and
stakeholders. To facilitate the upcoming listening session, FMCSA has
included in this notice a number of questions that commenters are
invited to address.
DATES: The Public Listening Session will be held on November 16, 2006
from 8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Written comments must be received by December
Location: The Public Listening Session will be held at the Hyatt
Regency on Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20001. The telephone number is (202) 737-1234.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Management
System (DMS) docket number FMCSA-2004-18898, using any of the following
- Web site: http://dmses.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
- Fax: 202-493-2251.
- Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
- Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
- Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy McNair, Assistant Program
Manager, CSA 2010, (202) 366-0790.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Format of Listening Session: During the
Public Listening Session, FMCSA will describe its progress on CSA 2010
to date. FMCSA will accept comments on the CSA 2010 operational model
and any additional information FMCSA should consider to promote the
success of the CSA 2010 initiative.
The listening session will run from 8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Participant
registration will be from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. The session will include a
morning plenary session (9 a.m.) and four facilitated breakout sessions
(10:15 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.), related to the CSA 2010 operational model:
(1) Measurement, (2) Safety Fitness Determination, (3) Intervention
Selection, and (4) Safety Data and Validation. Attendees will be able
to participate in one of the breakout sessions and will have an
opportunity to comment on the key questions listed herein by topic, as
well as hear the comments of other stakeholders assigned to the topic.
More details on this process are included in the on-line pre-
Registration information and instructions: To attend the listening
session, attendees can register online at http://www.csa2010.com. In
addition to registration information, the registration Web site
provides additional location and agenda details. To register, click the
Register button on the left side of the homepage to display the online
registration form. The registration form requests information about the
attendee and breakout session preference. Due to size and space
limitations, attendees may not be assigned to their first breakout
session preference; however, FMCSA will strive to accommodate
attendees' first or second choice. Once the form is complete, submit
the form to complete the registration process and a registration
confirmation will appear. If there are any questions, or if you prefer
to register via telephone, please contact email@example.com or
telephone (301) 495-8458.
Instructions for submitting written comments: Comments regarding
CSA 2010 can also be filed with the Department of Transportation's
Docket Management System (DMS). All submissions must include the Agency
name and docket number for this Notice. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Statement heading
for further information.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or the docket
(see ADDRESSES section above). If you want us to notify you that we
received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped
envelope, postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that appears
after submitting comments on-line.
Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the Department of Transportation's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477; Apr. 11, 2000). This information is also available at http://dms.dot.gov.
In August 2004, FMCSA embarked on CSA 2010--a comprehensive review
and analysis of FMCSA's current commercial motor vehicle safety
compliance and enforcement programs (69 FR 51748, August 20, 2004). The
goal of CSA 2010 is the development and deployment of a new operational
model, a new approach to using FMCSA resources to identify drivers and
operators that pose safety problems and to intervene to address those
problems. FMCSA understands how important it is to the success of this
initiative to obtain active and timely feedback from its partners and
stakeholders. The Agency held a series of public listening sessions on
CSA 2010 in September and October of 2004. These sessions were designed
to collect public input regarding ways FMCSA could improve its process
of monitoring and assessing the safety performance of the commercial
motor carrier industry. Participants were a cross section of
individuals including industry executives, truck and bus drivers,
insurance and safety advocacy groups, State and local government
officials, and enforcement professionals. FMCSA was encouraged that the
majority of participants supported the agency's goal of improving the
current process through the CSA 2010 initiative.
During the 2004 listening sessions, the stakeholder community
expressed many different opinions regarding the various entities,
activities, and environmental factors that contribute to safety. The
sessions highlighted that safety indicators can be difficult to
identify and measure. Participants also commented on the effectiveness
of current processes and offered creative ideas for FMCSA to consider
when crafting new policies and processes. For example, in almost every
listening session, participants suggested using incentives rather than
penalties to encourage safe behavior. Participants expressed a strong
interest in comprehensive, consistent, relevant, and accurate data that
are easily accessible to all. Some participants expressed a willingness
to self-disclose data and to help keep safety data current. For further
detail on the public listening sessions, visit FMCSA's Web site at
see the final report, "Comprehensive Safety Analysis Listening
On July 20, 1998, the Agency issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM), entitled "Safety Fitness Procedures" (63 FR
38788), seeking comments and supporting data on the issues that should
be considered in developing a future safety fitness rating system. Many
of the participants in the 2004 listening sessions suggested that FMCSA
delay publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking until the Agency makes
its final decisions regarding its long-term plan for monitoring safety
under CSA 2010. Accordingly, the Agency withdrew the ANPRM (70 FR
67405, November 7, 2005).
Recently, FMCSA requested comments from the public on planned
improvements to the Agency's Motor Carrier Safety Status Measurement
System (SAFESTAT) algorithm (71 FR 36170, May 3, 2006). The SAFESTAT
system analyzes current and historical safety performance and
compliance information to rank the relative safety fitness of
commercial motor carriers. SAFESTAT enables FMCSA to quantify and
monitor trends in the safety status of individual motor carriers. FMCSA
focuses compliance review and roadside inspection resources on carriers
posing the greatest potential safety risk. SAFESTAT involves
analytically assessing a motor carrier in four Safety Evaluation Areas
(SEAs), including: (1) Accident, (2) Driver, (3) Vehicle, and (4)
Safety Management. The Agency has proposed improvements that would
simplify the Accident SEA, increase the relevance of moving violations
in the Driver SEA, include in the Vehicle SEA vehicle out-of-service
violations from inspections marked as driver-only, and shorten the data
exposure time period considered by SAFESTAT from 30 months to 24
months. The proposed improvements are intended to make the algorithm
more effective in identifying motor carriers that pose a high crash
risk. The proposed changes are also consistent with FMCSA's CSA 2010
initiative. The ultimate goal of CSA 2010 is development of an optimal
operational model that will allow FMCSA to focus its limited resources
on improving the safety performance of high-risk operators. The comment
period closed July 3, 2006.
The results of FMCSA's recent Large Truck Crash Causation Study
also provide important input for the development of a new operational
model. This study was the first nationwide examination focused on pre-
crash factors. Study findings indicate that drivers of large trucks and
other vehicles involved in truck crashes are ten times more likely to
be the cause of the crash than other factors, such as weather, road
conditions, and vehicle performance. These results suggest that efforts
to assess safety performance and to apply interventions to improve
performance should focus on drivers. Among the changes under
consideration in CSA 2010 are several that would improve the data
collected on drivers and would add interventions applicable to
individual drivers. Additional information on the Large Truck Crash
Causation Study is available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov.
Upcoming Listening Session: The purpose of the upcoming listening
session is for FMCSA to update its stakeholders and partners on the
progress that has been made since the listening sessions in 2004. To
facilitate the upcoming listening session, FMCSA has included in this
notice a number of questions designed to elicit input on possible
features of the CSA 2010 operational model. In responding to the
questions commenters are requested to provide supporting rationale, and
supporting documentation wherever possible. FMCSA plans to hold annual
CSA 2010 listening sessions to continue the process of updating
partners and stakeholders and receiving feedback.
Current Operational Model: To understand FMCSA's goals for
assessing and improving motor carrier safety, it is important to
understand the Agency's current process. FMCSA currently collects
several kinds of data on motor carriers, including Federal and State
information on crashes and roadside inspections, results of on-site
compliance reviews, and enforcement actions. FMCSA uses the data to (1)
determine which motor carriers should be selected for on-site
compliance reviews, and (2) determine the safety fitness of motor
carriers. To analyze the data it collects, the Agency uses SAFESTAT.
Each month, SAFESTAT generates a list of high-priority motor
carriers for which FMCSA plans compliance review visits. In selecting
motor carriers for compliance reviews, SAFESTAT works with four SEAs
referenced above: (1) Accident, (2) Driver, (3) Vehicle, and (4) Safety
Management. For a full description of the SAFESTAT methodology, visit
FMCSA's Web site at: http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov.
FMCSA issues a safety fitness determination and a corresponding
safety rating as a result of an on-site compliance review (CR). The CR
assesses whether a commercial motor carrier's safety management
controls are functioning effectively to ensure acceptable compliance
with the safety fitness standard found at 49 CFR 385.5. Currently, the
safety ratings that result from a CR are Satisfactory, Conditional, or
Unsatisfactory. FMCSA may take enforcement actions against a motor
carrier as a result of the CR.
Limitations of the Current Operational Model
FMCSA's compliance and safety programs improve and promote safety
performance. However, despite increases in the regulated population, as
well as increased programmatic responsibilities, Agency resources
available for these efforts have remained relatively constant over
time. In its present structure, FMCSA's CR program is resource-
intensive and reaches only a small percentage of motor carriers. On-
site CRs take one safety investigator an average of 3 to 4 days to
complete, and thereby determine a motor carrier's safety fitness. At
present staffing levels FMCSA can perform CRs on only a small portion
of the 700,000 active interstate motor carriers. These factors have
made it increasingly difficult to make sustained improvements to motor
carrier safety using existing programs and information systems. In
addition, the Large Truck Crash Causation Study clearly indicates that
increased attention should be given to drivers. Although FMCSA
determines, to a limited extent, the compliance and safety of
commercial motor vehicle drivers and pursues enforcement against them
if warranted, current FMCSA systems do not evaluate the safety fitness
of individual commercial motor vehicle drivers.
For these reasons FMCSA is exploring ways through CSA 2010 to
improve its current processes for monitoring and assessing the safety
performance of motor carriers and drivers.
New Operational Model--CSA 2010
The goal of CSA 2010 is to develop a new approach to assessing the
motor carrier safety performance of a larger segment of the motor
carrier industry, while optimizing the use of Agency resources. CSA
2010 is designed to help FMCSA affect a larger number of motor carriers
and drivers using a broader array of compliance interventions. In
conceptualizing a new operational model, FMCSA began with a list of
ideal attributes and components that it believes should be part of any
model for safety oversight:
Flexible--Adaptable to Changing Environment. Accommodate changes to
the transportation environment, such as evolutions in technology and
changing programmatic responsibilities.
Efficient--Maximize Use of Resources. Produce greater efficiencies
by maximizing use of resources to improve Agency productivity, as well
as the safety performance of members of the motor carrier community.
Effective--Improve Safety Performance. Increase the quality of
contact with the motor carrier community by identifying those behaviors
associated with poor safety, and focusing compliance and safety efforts
on those unsafe behaviors.
Innovative--Leverage Data and Technology. Improve safety by
innovative use of data and technology to leverage its impact. Improve
timeliness and accuracy of data used for determining safety fitness,
and pursuing enforcement actions against unsafe entities of the motor
carrier community. A key factor to the success of this component is the
information technology/business transformation project COMPASS. More
information on COMPASS is available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov.
Equitable--Fair and Unbiased. Assess and evaluate motor carrier
safety and enforce federal laws and safety regulations to ensure
consistent treatment of similarly situated members of the motor carrier
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17OC06.063
One conceptual operational model for CSA 2010 shown here would
measure safety performance and compliance, determine safety fitness,
recommend interventions, apply interventions, and track and evaluate
safety improvements for FMCSA regulated entities. The model would
continuously evaluate and monitor regulated entities' compliance and
safety performance. It would be significantly different from the
current model in that the safety fitness determination made under CSA
2010 would be independent of the compliance review. The safety fitness
determination would be based on performance data and would lead to a
broader array of compliance interventions.
A conceptual model of this nature would be composed of four
integrated and independent components: (1) Measurement, (2) Safety
Fitness Determination, (3) Intervention Selection, and (4) Tracking,
Evaluation and Data Validation. These four components are represented
as diamonds in the Operational Model Concept diagram above. Components
are the portions of the operational model in which a distinct action
would occur. These components would be supported by three data elements
that are represented by boxes in the diagram. They are (1) Safety Data,
(2) Intervention History, and (3) Entity Characteristics. Components
and elements identified to date which could be supportive of the CSA
2010 initiative are described in greater detail below.
A Measurement Component could collect, categorize, analyze, and
score safety data on regulated entities. It could automatically
categorize data into behavioral areas, examples of which are identified
below as Behavioral Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories or
BASICs. BASICs would represent behaviors that lead to or increase the
consequences of crashes. Rather than rely on the results of a
compliance review, FMCSA could use motor carrier or driver performance
data in the identified behavioral areas to determine safety fitness.
The Measurement Component could be supported by the Safety Data
Element, which would include data from past interventions, crashes,
motor vehicle/driver inspections, and other data sources. The goal of
such a system would be to provide an objective, performance-based
measure for each motor carrier and driver. The measurement could be
regularly updated and made publicly available. Among the BASICs
currently under consideration to generate this measure are:
1. Unsafe Driving--Dangerous or careless operation of commercial
motor vehicles. Data would include driver traffic violations and
convictions for speeding, reckless driving, improper lane change,
inattention, and other unsafe driving behavior.
2. Fatigued Driving--Driving commercial motor vehicles when
fatigued. This would be distinguished from incidents where
unconsciousness or an inability to react is brought about by the use of
alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substances. Data would include (1)
hours-of-service violations discovered during a compliance review,
focused review, roadside inspection, or post-crash inspection, and (2)
crash reports with driver fatigue as a contributing factor.
3. Driver Fitness--Operation of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) by
drivers who are unfit to operate a CMV due to lack of training,
experience, or medical qualification. Data would include (1) inspection
violations for failure to have a valid and appropriate commercial
driver's license, or medical or training documentation, (2) crash
reports citing a lack of experience or medical reason as a cause or
contributory factor, and (3) violations from a compliance review or
focused review for failure to maintain proper driver qualification
files, or use of unqualified drivers.
4. Controlled Substances and Alcohol--Operation of a CMV while
impaired due to alcohol, illegal drugs, and misuse of prescription
medications or over-the-counter medications. Data would include (1)
roadside violations involving controlled substances or alcohol, (2)
crash reports citing driver impairment or intoxication as a cause, (3)
positive drug or alcohol test results on drivers, and (4) lack of
appropriate testing or other deficiencies in motor carrier controlled
substances and alcohol testing programs.
5. Vehicle Maintenance--CMV failure due to improper or inadequate
maintenance. Data would include (1) roadside violations for brakes,
lights, [[Page 61135]] and other mechanical defects, (2) crash reports citing a mechanical
failure as a contributing factor, or (3) violations from a compliance
review or focused review associated with pre-trip inspections,
maintenance records, and repair records.
6. Improper Loading/Cargo Securement--Shifting loads, spilled or
dropped cargo, and unsafe handling of hazardous materials. Data would
include (1) roadside inspection violations pertaining to load
securement, cargo retention, and hazardous material handling, and (2)
crash reports citing shifting loads, or spilled/dropped cargo as a
cause or contributing factor.
7. Crash/Incident Experience--Histories or patterns of high crash
involvement, including frequency and severity. Data would include law
enforcement crash reports and crashes reported by the carrier and
discovered during compliance reviews.
The concept of quantifying compliance and safety by numerical
scores derived from data is not new to FMCSA. While a Measurement
Component would be similar in approach to the agency's current system,
SAFESTAT, there are key differences. In the Measurement Component,
safety problems would be quantified by a greater number of behavioral
areas associated with crash involvement and would use a broader range
of available data. The goal is to identify poor performance early and
take interventions before small violations become larger safety
If the CSA 2010 model were to include a Measurement Component with
some or all of the features described above:
1. Are the BASICs, referenced above, sufficient for measuring the
safety performance of commercial motor carriers and drivers? If not,
what other categories of data should be used?
2. Should the BASICs be weighted and scored in determining an
objective measure of the safety performance of each commercial motor
vehicle driver and carrier, if so, how? Please explain.
3. What is the appropriate historical timeframe to use when
measuring the safety performance of CMV drivers and carriers (how far
to look back)? Should the timeframe for carriers be different from the
timeframe for drivers? Please explain.
4. What data should be used in each of the BASICs to provide an
objective measure of the safety performance of CMV drivers and
carriers, and from which sources should these data be obtained? Please
5. What methodology should be used to quantify the relationship
between crash causation and a given BASIC? Please explain.
6. What other issues should the Agency be considering with respect
to the Measurement Component?
7. What do you see as the critical success factors for implementing
a measurement system based on data from the BASICs? What are key
potential obstacles to implementation?
Safety Fitness Determination
Under 49 U.S.C. 31144, FMCSA is required to "maintain by
regulation a procedure for determining the safety fitness of an owner
or operator." The CSA 2010 conceptual model could include a Safety
Fitness Determination Component to regularly determine the safety
fitness of motor carriers and drivers of commercial motor vehicles.
This determination could be based on performance-based data from the
BASICs described above. This component could also incorporate the
regulated entity's history of responses to prior interventions.
The Safety Fitness Determination Component could be used to
determine whether a motor carrier, owner, or operator can Continue to
Operate or is Unfit. On a regularly scheduled basis, FMCSA could
evaluate all safety performance and compliance-based BASIC scores of
each regulated entity. Safety fitness could be determined for all
carriers and drivers for which there is sufficient data and could be
determined on a regular basis as new data enter the operational model.
A compliance review would not be required prior to a safety fitness
determination. FMCSA anticipates a change of this nature would result
in a significant increase in the number of safety fitness
determinations issued by the Agency. The safety fitness determinations
and the methodology used would be made available to the public, as they
Currently, a safety fitness determination results in a rating of
Satisfactory, Conditional, or Unsatisfactory. In the operational model
under consideration, only two ratings would be used: Continue to
Operate or Unfit. However, carriers, drivers, or owner-operators
allowed to continue operations could be subject to a pending,
intermediary intervention, as discussed below. Those with the most
egregious safety problems could be deemed Unfit immediately and, in
that case, would be subject to the prohibitions on operations contained
in 49 U.S.C. 31144.
If the CSA 2010 model were to include a Safety Fitness
Determination Component with some or all of the features described
1. What other data or behavioral factors, beyond the BASICs
referenced above, should be considered in the safety fitness
determination process for motor carriers or drivers? What data or
behavioral factors should not be considered and why?
2. Should some BASICs be weighted more heavily than others? If so,
which ones and why?
3. What is the appropriate timeframe that FMCSA should use in
assessing safety fitness (e.g., the past 18 months, 24 months, 36
months)? Please explain.
4. How often (e.g., monthly, quarterly, annually) should FMCSA
assess safety fitness and issue safety fitness determinations under the
new operational model? Please explain.
5. Should safety fitness determinations be more stringent for
certain industry groups such as passenger carriers or carriers of
hazardous materials? Why or why not?
6. Should FMCSA adopt a two-tiered rating system (Continue to
Operate or Unfit) instead of the current three-tiered rating system
(Satisfactory, Conditional, and Unsatisfactory)? Why or why not?
7. What other issues should the Agency be considering with respect
to the Safety Fitness Determination Component?
Intervention Selection and Entity Characteristics
The CSA 2010 conceptual model could include an Interventions
Component which would identify appropriate FMCSA interventions for
regulated entities with specific safety problems, depending on the
outcomes of the Safety Fitness Determination and Measurement
Components. An intervention, as used in this context, refers to any
action FMCSA would take to correct unsafe behavior and achieve
compliance. Aside from roadside inspections, the primary compliance
intervention currently used is the compliance review. In the approach
under consideration, the Agency could have a broader array of
interventions, including: (1) Web-based education, (2) warning letters,
(3) request for submission of documents, (4) targeted roadside
inspections, (5) focused on-site reviews, (6) comprehensive on-site
reviews, and (7) enforcement actions.
An Interventions Component of this nature would not necessarily
rely on a [[Page 61136]] compliance review to determine appropriate interventions. Measurement
and Safety Fitness Determination Components under consideration could
allow a driver or carrier to continue operating, but with some
intermediary intervention pending. The Interventions Component would be
designed as a tool to support correction of unsafe behavior. Once it
has been determined that an intervention is necessary, an intervention
could be selected to effectively and efficiently remediate the unsafe
behavior. Interventions could be selected according to the BASIC scores
from the Measurement and Safety Fitness Determination components, and
the Entity Characteristics and Interventions History Data Elements.
A Characteristics Data Element could influence what type of
intervention is selected. For example, a motor carrier transporting
passengers could be selected for a stronger intervention than a general
freight hauler, depending on the circumstances involved and available
Responses to prior interventions could be considered in the
selection of future interventions through the Interventions History
Data Element. Responses to prior interventions could also be considered
by the Safety Fitness Determination Component.
If the CSA 2010 model were to include an Interventions Component
with some or all of the features described above:
1. Would the larger set of compliance interventions under
consideration here be more effective than the interventions currently
used by FMCSA? Please explain.
2. Are there other types of driver and carrier interventions not
described above that would improve motor carrier safety? Please
3. Are there specific incentives that FMCSA could offer to
encourage and promote improved safety performance? Please describe.
4. Should FMCSA use different interventions and intervention
thresholds for certain carriers and drivers, such as those involved in
the transport of passengers or hazardous materials? Please explain.
5. Would you support a system whereby FMCSA would declare CMV
drivers Unfit, if warranted, and the States would suspend their
driver's license (commercial or other)? Please explain.
6. What other issues should the Agency be considering with respect
to the Interventions Selection Component?
7. How should responses to FMCSA interventions be factored into the
safety fitness determinations?
Safety Data and Tracking, Evaluation and Data Validation
Given the data-dependent nature of the CSA 2010 model under
consideration, data validation would be essential. As FMCSA deploys its
IT modernization project, COMPASS, as the IT foundation for CSA 2010,
robust data validation systems and techniques would be employed to
ensure the accuracy and completeness of data. The information systems
supporting the CSA 2010 model eventually adopted would examine the
quality of incoming data by checking for anomalies. As it does
currently, FMCSA would also ensure that regulated entities would have a
way to correct data. The Agency's DataQs System already provides an
electronic means for filing concerns about the Federal and State data
that FMCSA releases to the public. Through this system, data concerns
are automatically forwarded to the appropriate office for resolution.
The system also allows filers to monitor the status of each filing.
The Tracking, Evaluation and Data Validation Component under
consideration could support the three other components identified here:
Measurement, Safety Fitness Determination, and Intervention Selection.
The information systems supporting CSA 2010 would track regulated
entities and would associate them with the relevant data collected by
FMCSA. Data pertaining to regulated entities could include
characteristics, BASIC scores, safety fitness determinations,
interventions, and responses to interventions. FMCSA is working to
replace existing paperwork tracking systems with automated data
collection systems so that safety fitness determinations are made with
the most current data available.
If the CSA 2010 model were to include a safety data component with
some or all of the features described above:
1. What safety data are available that are not currently being used
to measure the safety performance of drivers and carriers?
2. Are there safety data not available that are needed for this
approach to be equitable? If so, please describe and discuss any
potential barriers to collecting such data.
3. How could FMCSA better incorporate data quality assurance
processes into CSA 2010?
4. What unique identifiers should be used to tie drivers and
carriers to their safety performance data?
5. Are there any major obstacles that must be overcome to achieving
accurate and complete data for use in the new operational model? Please
6. What other issues should the Agency be considering with respect
to Safety Data and Tracking, Evaluation and Data Validation?
7. Radio frequency identification device (RFID)-enabled license
plates could be used to identify commercial motor vehicles at highway
speeds. This could help focus inspection and traffic enforcement
activities on unsafe or unregistered entities. What barriers would
there be to States' issuing RFID enabled license plates?
FMCSA is targeting full deployment of CSA 2010 by calendar year
2010, subject to budgetary constraints. The following timeline provides
the major milestone dates that are planned prior to targeted
Define operational model technical 2006 to 2010.
Prototype \1\ development and testing.. 2006 to 2007.
Pilot test development................. 2006 to 2007.
Pilot testing.......................... 2008.
Evaluate pilot test results............ 2009.
Develop/define data resources.......... 2006 to 2009.
Develop data systems and software...... 2006 to 2009.
Develop/draft new rulemakings.......... 2007 to 2009.
Develop/draft needed legislation....... 2007 to 2008.
Develop/draft new policies............. 2007 to 2009.
Training for pilot testing............. 2006 to 2007.
Training for deployment................ 2008 to 2009.
Outreach & public listening sessions... Annually.
\1\ Prototype refers to testing in a laboratory environment, whereas
pilot refers to actual testing with State partners.
1. What approaches do you recommend FMCSA use to work closely with
its partners and stakeholders in building the CSA 2010 operational
model? Please explain.
2. Are there certain initiatives which would support the CSA 2010
operational model eventually adopted that could be implemented now?
3. Please provide any additional comments or information you may
have that would be relevant to the development of the CSA 2010
Issued on: October 11, 2006.
John H. Hill,
[FR Doc. 06-8723 Filed 10-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P