[Federal Register: September 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 53483-53490]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16se08-107]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
announces a public listening session to obtain feedback from interested
parties on the Agency's Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010)
initiative, a comprehensive review, analysis, and restructuring of
FMCSA's current safety fitness determination process and enforcement
programs. FMCSA will use the listening session to brief participants on
the direction and progress of CSA 2010 and obtain feedback from its
partners and stakeholders. FMCSA also requests comments on the CSA 2010
operational model described in this notice.
DATES: The Public Listening Session will be held on October 16, 2008,
from 8 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. Participant registration will be from 8 a.m.
to 9 a.m. Written comments must be received by January 31, 2009.
ADDRESSES: The Public Listening Session will be held at the Key Bridge
Marriott, 1401 Lee Highway, Arlington, VA 22209. You may submit
comments identified by FDMS Docket ID Number FMCSA-2004-18898 and by
any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for
this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
[[Page 53484]]
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This
information is also available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy McNair, Program Manager
Assistant, 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 and address
specific aspects of the CSA 2010 operational model. FMCSA will accept
comments on the CSA 2010 operational model and any additional
information that commenters believe FMCSA should consider for the
success of the CSA 2010 initiative. The session will include a one and
one-half hour morning plenary session (9 a.m.), and two facilitated
breakout sessions. Each breakout session will be run two consecutive
times so that all attendees will have the opportunity to participate in
both sessions. Each session will run for one and one-half hours,
beginning at 11 am and 1:15 pm.
The plenary and breakout sessions listed below will address
specific aspects of the CSA 2010 initiative. Later sections of this
notice provide supporting information for each of these areas.
(1) Plenary Session--Overview of CSA 2010 and the Operational Model
Test
(2) Breakout Session--Safety Measurement System (SMS) and Safety
Fitness Determination (SFD)
(3) Breakout Session--Safety Data Quality
The agenda for the listening session is as follows:
Morning
8-9 Registration
9-10:45 Welcome and Agenda Overview/CSA 2010 Overview and Operational
Model Test Panelist Q & A (Plenary Session)
10:45-11 Break
11-12:30 Breakout 1 (Participants attend SMS/SFD or Data Quality
session)
Afternoon
12:30-1:15 Lunch
1:15-2:45 Breakout 2 (Participants attend SMS/SFD or Data Quality
session)
Registration information and instructions: To attend the listening
session, attendees can register online at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/csa2010-register. In addition to registration information, the
registration Web site provides additional details about the agenda. If
there are any questions, or if an attendee prefers to register via
telephone, please contact the registration help desk at 206-284-7850.
Background
In August 2004, FMCSA embarked on CSA 2010--a comprehensive review
and analysis of the FMCSA motor vehicle safety compliance and
enforcement programs (69 FR 51748, August 20, 2004). The goal of CSA
2010 is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of FMCSA's
compliance and enforcement program with the ultimate goal of achieving
a significant reduction in large truck and bus crashes, injuries, and
fatalities. Under the CSA 2010 initiative, FMCSA is developing and
deploying a new approach to using agency resources to identify drivers
and motor carriers that pose safety risks based on their crash
experience and violations of safety regulations and to intervene to
reduce those risks as soon as they become apparent. FMCSA understands
how important it is to obtain feedback on this approach from partners,
stakeholders, and other interested parties.
The Agency held the first 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 motor carrier
industry. The majority of participants supported the Agency's goal of
improving the current safety fitness determination process through the
CSA 2010 initiative. For further information on the public listening
sessions held in 2004, visit the FMCSA Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ (click on the CSA2010 link) and see the final
report, ``Comprehensive Safety Analysis Listening Sessions.''
On November 16, 2006, FMCSA held another listening session to
gather information and feedback on CSA 2010 (71 FR 61131, October 17,
2006). The session was held in Washington, DC, with close to 100
attendees that included a cross-section of Federal, State, and local
government agencies, motor carriers, industry associations, insurance
and consulting firms, and safety advocacy groups. The event focused on
four major aspects of CSA 2010: (1) Measurement; (2) Safety Fitness
Determination; (3) Intervention Selection and Entity Characteristics;
and (4) Safety Data and Tracking, Evaluation and Data Validation.
Participants provided valuable information on these topics, which FMCSA
has taken into account during its continued development of the CSA 2010
operational model. For further information on the public listening
session held in 2006, visit FDMS Docket Identification Number FMCSA-
2004-18898 at http://www.regulations.gov and see the final report,
``Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010, 2006 Listening Session.''
On December 4, 2007, FMCSA held a listening session to brief
stakeholders and partners on the progress that had been made since 2006
(72 FR 62293, November 2, 2007). FMCSA provided detailed information in
three breakout sessions on specific aspects of the CSA 2010 initiative:
(1) Safety Measurement System; (2) Safety Fitness Determination (SFD);
and (3) Operational Model Test. Participants in the 2007 listening
session focused their comments and questions most frequently on issues
relating to the CSA 2010 intervention process, concerns about the
quality of safety data, and the proposed SFD methodology. For further
information on the public listening session held in 2007, visit FDMS
Docket Identification Number FMCSA-2004-18898 at http://www.regulations.gov and see the final report, ``Comprehensive Safety
Analysis 2010, 2007 Public Listening Session.''
The purpose of the October 2008 listening session is for FMCSA to
brief stakeholders, partners, and other interested parties on the
progress that has been made since the listening session in December
2007. FMCSA plans to hold additional listening sessions to continue the
process of updating the public and to receive feedback.
[[Page 53485]]
Current Operational Model and Its Limitations
FMCSA's current operational model employs SafeStat to analyze the
safety status of individual motor carriers and to prioritize them for a
compliance review (CR). SafeStat uses data from a variety of State and
Federal sources to measure the relative safety of motor carriers in
four Safety Evaluation Areas (SEAs): Accident, Driver, Vehicle, and
Safety Management. (For a full description of the SafeStat methodology,
visit the FMCSA Web site at: http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov.) A CR is an on-
site examination of a carrier's operations, such as drivers' hours of
service, to determine whether the carrier meets the safety fitness
standard found at 49 CFR 385.5. Currently, a CR can result in one of
three safety ratings: Satisfactory, Conditional, or Unsatisfactory.
The current FMCSA enforcement intervention is very labor-intensive,
allowing the Agency and its State partners to assess the safety
performance of only a small fraction of the motor carrier industry.
Because each CR may take one safety investigator an average of 3 to 4
days to complete, depending on the location and size of the carrier,
FMCSA can perform CRs at present staffing levels on only a small
portion of the approximately 700,000 interstate carriers listed in the
agency's census. Further compounding this limitation is the fact that
the full CR is generally deployed at a carrier's place of business as a
one-size-fits-all tool to address what may not be a comprehensive
safety problem. Although FMCSA's current approach has contributed to a
reduction in the rate of large truck and bus fatalities, the factors
described above will make it increasingly challenging to sustain and
further these improvements to large truck and bus safety over the
coming years.
For these reasons, along with improvements in the quality of data
available to FMCSA and improved ways to measure the safety of motor
carriers, FMCSA is exploring ways through CSA 2010 to improve its
current process for monitoring, assessing, and enforcing the safety
performance of motor carriers and drivers.
Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010
CSA 2010 is a major FMCSA initiative to improve the effectiveness
of the Agency's compliance and enforcement programs. CSA 2010 will help
the Agency assess the safety performance of a greater segment of the
motor carrier industry and intervene with more carriers to change
unsafe behavior earlier. The ultimate goal is to achieve a significant
reduction in large truck and bus crashes, injuries, and fatalities,
while making efficient use of the resources of FMCSA and its State
partners. In contrast to the Agency's current operational model, CSA
2010 is characterized by (1) a more comprehensive safety measurement
system; (2) a broader array of progressive interventions; (3) a safety
fitness determination (SFD) methodology that is based on performance
data and not necessarily tied to an on-site compliance review; and (4)
supporting information technology systems that will help FMCSA and its
State partners implement and continuously evaluate each of these
elements. To date, FMCSA has made significant progress in its
development of the CSA 2010 operational model, launching a field test
in February 2008.
Safety Measurement System
The role of the Safety Measurement System (SMS) within the CSA 2010
operational model is to monitor and quantify the safety performance of
commercial motor carriers and drivers through data available in the
Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), FMCSA's database
for carrier census information, roadside inspection data, crash data,
etc. Under CSA 2010, these data would include violations found during
roadside inspections, traffic enforcement, and the intervention process
(discussed below) as well as violations associated with crashes. SMS
would group these data into seven Behavioral Analysis Safety
Improvement Categories (BASICs), each of which includes regulatory
requirements for both motor carriers and drivers: Unsafe Driving,
Fatigued Driving, Driver Fitness, Controlled Substances and Alcohol,
Vehicle Maintenance, Improper Loading/Cargo Securement, and Crash
History. FMCSA developed the BASICs under the premise that commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) crashes can ultimately be traced to the behavior of
motor carriers and drivers. There are six important ways that the SMS
is different than the Agency's current measurement system, SafeStat:
1. SMS is organized by specific behaviors (BASICs) while SafeStat
is organized into four broad SEAs.
2. SMS identifies safety risks in the same structure in which CSA
2010 addresses those risks, while SafeStat prioritizes carriers for a
one-size-fits-all compliance review.
3. SMS uses all safety-based inspection violations while SafeStat
uses only out-of-service violations and selected moving violations.
4. SMS uses risk-based violation weightings while SafeStat does
not.
5. SMS impacts the safety fitness determination of an entity, while
SafeStat has no impact on an entity's safety rating.
6. SMS assesses individual drivers and carriers, while SafeStat
assesses only carriers.
The SMS methodology is described in more detail in the sections below
headed ``Safety Measurement System'' and ``Safety Fitness
Determination.''
Interventions
The use of targeted interventions to improve unsafe behavior is a
cornerstone of the CSA 2010 operational model. Interventions are
actions taken by FMCSA or its State partners to address safety
deficiencies that cause an entity to receive an unfavorable score in
the SMS. Currently, FMCSA relies on the CR, a one-size-fits-all
comprehensive audit of regulatory compliance, to determine enforcement
actions and assess safety fitness. In contrast, CSA 2010 interventions
respond to specific safety risks and are designed to be progressive.
The goal is to reach a larger segment of the industry and to change
unsafe behavior early on.
The interventions developed for implementation in CSA 2010 can be
grouped into one of two categories:
Investigative interventions are an attempt to find the causal
factors of a safety performance issue that is identified by the
measurement system.\1\ FMCSA believes that such identification will, in
many cases, help motor carriers and drivers to apply the most effective
corrective actions. These interventions include targeted roadside
inspections, offsite investigations, and on-site investigations
(focused and comprehensive).
Corrective interventions are aimed at encouraging a change in
safety behavior by correcting causal factors identified by
investigative interventions with actions that range from educational to
punitive. These interventions include Warning Letters, Cooperative
Safety Plans, Notices of Violation, Notices of Claim, and Settlement
Agreements. Under FMCSA's planned SFD process, corrective interventions
could result in FMCSA determining a carrier unfit
[[Page 53486]]
through the safety fitness determination process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although FMCSA believes that identifying causal factors
through redesigned investigations will prove beneficial to safety,
the Agency recognizes that it is ultimately the responsibility of
motor carriers and drivers to know, understand, and comply with all
applicable Federal safety regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.'' Under the Agency's current operational model, FMCSA uses
the CR process to determine motor carrier safety fitness and issue
safety ratings, which can be Satisfactory, Conditional, or
Unsatisfactory and are defined under 49 CFR part 385.
The development of an alternative SFD methodology is guided by
concerns about FMCSA's current SFD process both from within and outside
the Agency. In particular, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
recommendation H-99-06 urges FMCSA to ``Change the safety fitness
rating methodology so that adverse vehicle and driver performance-based
data alone are sufficient to result in an overall unsatisfactory rating
for the carrier.''
In response to these concerns, FMCSA is developing an SFD
methodology that would (1) allow it to assess the safety performance of
a larger segment of the motor carrier industry; (2) not be tied to an
onsite compliance review; and (3) take into account virtually all FMCSA
safety regulations. This methodology is described in more detail in the
sections below headed ``Safety Measurement System'' and ``Safety
Fitness Determination.''
Information Technology Systems
Information technology (IT) systems is the fourth major component
of CSA 2010. New information resources and modified, existing
information systems have been made available to FMCSA, State partners,
and operational model test carriers to track and update the safety
performance data from regulated entities as they are received, link
relevant data to the correct entity, validate the data, and provide the
mechanisms for correcting data. These systems will also allow FMCSA to
provide important data to a third-party evaluator who will render an
opinion of the relative effectiveness and efficiency of the CSA 2010
processes relative to existing processes.
COMPASS is the Agency's major IT modernization initiative. CSA 2010
is coordinating closely with the COMPASS program so that the timelines
of both programs are synchronized as much as possible. CSA 2010 full
deployment will rely on modernized, flexible IT systems that COMPASS
provides.
Current CSA 2010 Priorities
Operational Model Test
In February 2008, FMCSA began testing the new CSA 2010 operational
model. The purpose of the operational model test is to determine both
the feasibility and effectiveness of the new CSA 2010 interventions and
SMS. The test is scheduled to run in two Phases for 30 months into mid-
2010, at which time FMCSA is targeting full CSA 2010 implementation.
The 30-month timeframe is designed to provide sufficient data for
statistical purposes to support third-party evaluation of the
operational model test results.
During the operational model test, FMCSA is not providing any
regulatory relief. Motor carriers are not rated under the CSA 2010 SFD
methodology, because that methodology must yet be implemented through
rulemaking. Instead, a motor carrier with poor safety performance, and
found to be unresponsive to the new CSA 2010 interventions, undergoes a
CR and is rated in accordance with the Agency's current compliance and
enforcement process, and is subject to fines, penalties, and other
actions to bring about compliance.
The test is taking place in four States: Colorado, Georgia,
Missouri, and New Jersey, which provides one test State for each of the
four FMCSA Service Centers. FMCSA randomly divided motor carriers
domiciled in the test States into two equal sized groups: A test group
and a control group.
The test group carriers receive CSA 2010 interventions based on
information provided by the SMS. The control group is addressed through
the Agency's current operational model, which involves the use of
SafeStat to identify motor carriers for compliance reviews and any
required enforcement actions. Again, motor carriers in the test group
with poor safety performance, and found to be unresponsive to the new
CSA 2010 interventions, undergo a compliance review and are rated in
accordance with the Agency's current compliance and enforcement
process.
Phase I: In January 2008, FMCSA trained approximately 26 Federal
and State investigators to carry out the new CSA 2010 interventions on
the test group carriers during the operational model test. In February
2008, the Agency initiated the first phase of the operational model
test: This startup phase included only three BASICs: Unsafe Driving,
Fatigued Driving, and Vehicle Maintenance.
Phase II: Phase two of the operational model test is scheduled to
begin in late-September, at which point the remaining BASICs will be
added: Driver Fitness, Controlled Substances and Alcohol, Improper
Loading/Cargo Securement, and Crash History. As the test progresses
into phase two, FMCSA intends to add currently excluded SafeStat
category A/B motor carriers to the test. Including A/B carriers will
help demonstrate the effectiveness of the new interventions on the
group of carriers that FMCSA traditionally targets.
Implementation: As the test progresses and more data are gathered,
the Agency anticipates being able to make ongoing quantitative and
qualitative evaluations of the effectiveness of CSA 2010, which will
guide broader implementation.
Safety Measurement System
Implementation of CSA 2010 will rely on accurate, objective
measurement of the safety performance of individual motor carriers and
drivers. The CSA 2010 SMS is designed to monitor and quantify the
performance of motor carriers and drivers through data available in the
Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). Under CSA 2010,
the data would include violations found during roadside inspections,
traffic enforcement, and the intervention process (discussed below) as
well as violations associated with crashes.
As mentioned above, the SMS is organized into seven BASICs, each of
which includes regulatory requirements for both motor carriers and
drivers. These categories are derived from the existing FMCSA
regulatory structure, the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, and other
analyses and studies conducted by the Agency:
Unsafe Driving. Operation of a CMV in a dangerous or careless
manner. Examples of violations are speeding, reckless driving, improper
lane change, and inattention.
Fatigued Driving. Operation of a CMV by a driver who is in
noncompliance with hours-of-service regulations. This BASIC includes
violations of driving and on-duty time limits as well as failure to
maintain complete, accurate logbooks.
Driver Fitness. Operation of a CMV by a driver who is unfit due to
lack of training or required qualifications. Examples of violations
include failure to have a valid, appropriate commercial driver's
license or being medically unqualified to operate a CMV.
Controlled Substances and Alcohol. Operation of a CMV by a driver
who is in possession of alcohol or illegal drugs or is impaired due to
alcohol, illegal drugs, or misuse of prescription or over-the-counter
medications. Examples of
[[Page 53487]]
violations include use or possession of controlled substances or
alcohol.
Vehicle Maintenance. CMV failure due to improper or inadequate
maintenance. Examples of violations include faulty brakes or lights and
other mechanical defects as well as failure to make required repairs.
Improper Loading/Cargo Securement. CMV incidents resulting from
shifting loads, spilled or dropped cargo, and unsafe handling of
hazardous materials. Examples of violations include improper load
securement, cargo retention, and unsafe handling of hazardous
materials.
Crash History. A history or pattern of crash involvement, including
frequency and severity, based on information from State-reported
crashes.
The SMS measures the performance of an entity (motor carrier or
driver) in each BASIC, employing a four-step process: (1) Relevant
inspection, violation, and crash data from MCMIS are attributed to an
entity to create a safety-event history; (2) the entity's violations
and crashes are classified into BASICs; (3) time- and severity-
weighting, normalization, peer-grouping, and data-sufficiency criteria
are applied to the data to form a quantifiable measure for the entity
in each BASIC; and (4) on the basis of comparison of the entity's BASIC
measure with those of its peers, a rank and percentile are assigned. A
carrier's score in each BASIC is based on data from the past 24 months.
FMCSA is designing one SMS consisting of the Carrier Safety
Measurement System (CSMS) for carriers, and the Driver Safety
Measurement System (DSMS) for drivers. The Agency is implementing both
systems in their prototype stages to support the CSA 2010 operational
model test.
During the CSA 2010 operational model test, FMCSA is using SMS
results to identify and monitor entities with safety problems for
inclusion in the intervention process. Ultimately, in cases where
measurement results indicate a strong crash risk to the public, FMCSA
will apply those results, along with other factors, to the
determination of a carrier's safety fitness.
Safety Fitness Determination
In the November 2, 2007 Federal Register notice announcing last
year's listening session, FMCSA laid out a preliminary SFD methodology
(72 FR 62298--62299, November 2, 2007). This methodology is designed to
meet the intent of the NTSB recommendation H-99-06 in the context of
the new BASICs, while acknowledging the latest research that indicates
that driver behavior is a major contributing factor in causing crashes.
The methodology is based strongly on performance data, and does not
require a comprehensive on-site review for a safety fitness
determination, which would be issued regularly on all carriers for
which the Agency has sufficient data. As shown in Table 1, under this
methodology there would be three major factors that could impact a
motor carrier's safety fitness determination: (1) Roadside inspection
and crash data; (2) violations in the areas of essential motor carrier
safety management found during the intervention process (see Table 2);
and (3) 15 violations which FMCSA believes are so fundamental to
ensuring safety that no motor carrier should be allowed to operate if
any of these violations are found and not immediately corrected (see
Table 3). As shown in Table 1, data obtained under factors (1) and (2)
would align with the seven BASICs in the CSA 2010 SMS.
Overall, the response to this proposed methodology was favorable
from stakeholders attending the December 2007 listening session. In
June 2008, after considering the potential safety benefits and
operational feasibility, FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee recommended that the agency continue to work on CSA 2010 to
address the NTSB's recommendation rather than making amendments to the
cucrrent SFD to address the NTSB concerns prior to the implementation
of CSA 2010. Accordingly, FMCSA is proceeding with the development of a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to address safety fitness
determination under CSA 2010. The developmental basis for the
rulemaking is the preliminary safety fitness methodology referenced
above and summarized in Table 1. FMCSA is targeting publication of the
NPRM in 2008.
Table 1--Proposed Preliminary CSA 2010 Safety Fitness Determination Methodology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-stand alone BASICs:
Driver fitness, drug/
Stand alone BASICs: Unsafe driving, alcohol,cargo Fifteen fundamental Safety fitness
fatigued driving securement, vehicle violations determination
maintenance, verifiable
crash rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of BASICs: Number of BASICs: See Table 3 below..... Continue Operation,
(1) With SMS measure above Unfit (1) With SMS measure or Marginal Unfit.
threshold, or verifiable crash rate
(2) Where essential safety management above Unfit threshold,
violations are 10 percent or more of or.
records checked (2) Where essential
safety management
violations are 10
percent or more of
records checked.
1................................... ....................... ....................... Unfit.
0................................... Greater Than 1........ ....................... Unfit.
0................................... 0..................... 1..................... Unfit.
0................................... 1..................... 0..................... Marginal.
0................................... 0..................... 0..................... Continue Operation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The methodology in Table 1 makes a distinction between ``stand
alone'' and ``non-stand alone'' BASICs. For the ``stand alone'' BASICs
a failure in only one of them would result in a proposed Unfit status,
whereas for the ``non-stand alone'' BASICs a failure in more than one
of them would be required for the proposed Unfit status. The rationale
for this distinction is that, although each of the BASICs applies to
both carriers and drivers, the ``stand alone'' BASICs are more directly
related to driver behavior. Recent research indicates that driver
behavior is a major contributing factor in causing crashes. In
particular, an effectiveness study on the SMS, ``Incorporating the
Carrier Safety Measurement System Results into the Proposed Safety
Fitness Determination Process,'' November 2007, FMCSA and
[[Page 53488]]
John Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, has shown that
carriers with past poor performance in the Unsafe Driving or Fatigue
Driving BASICs were subsequently involved in crashes at a considerably
higher rate than the overall crash rate of the motor carrier
population.
Safety Data Quality
Both the SMS and SFD methodologies depend on high quality roadside
inspection and crash data to be collected and attributed to motor
carriers' safety performance records. Because of this reliance on high
quality data, FMCSA would like to share some details of its ongoing
safety data quality improvement efforts.
Through the State partnership in the Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program (MCSAP), FMCSA shares a safety goal with the States
to reduce the number and severity of crashes involving large trucks and
buses on our Nation's highways. To meet this common goal, inspection
and crash data that are collected and reported to FMCSA must meet high
standards of uniformity, completeness, accuracy and timeliness. The
FMCSA has made significant strides to improve the data quality of crash
and inspection data by the development of a comprehensive program that
includes: Raising the awareness of the these standards, developing a
means to measure State safety data quality, and working directly with
States through either a State on-site review process or direct
technical assistance to improve the quality of State safety data.
This comprehensive data quality program supports the Department of
Transportation (DOT) data quality guidelines and addresses specific
recommendations put forth in the DOT Inspector General's report,
``Improvements Needed in the Motor Carrier Safety Status Measurement
System'' (SafeStat) report, February 2004, available at the following
url: http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/mh2004034.pdf.
High quality data are the underpinning of effective safety programs
at the State and Federal levels, including CSA 2010. The data quality
programs include the following key areas that promote improvements to
data quality:
DataQs is an online system accessible on the Analysis and
Information (A&I) Online http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov Web site that was
developed to facilitate data challenges by motor carriers and to track
corrective actions.
The State Safety Data Quality Map (SSDQ) is an evaluation
tool for State-reported crash and inspection data that is released to
the public on a quarterly basis on the A&I Online Web site. This
evaluation measures States on the completeness, timeliness, accuracy,
and consistency of State-reported crash and inspection data in FMCSA's
Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS).
Monthly monitoring provides information accessible to
States and Federal personnel on the completeness, timeliness, accuracy,
and consistency of State-reported crash and inspection data. This
reporting summarizes the evaluation results and tracks the States'
progress on a monthly basis.
On-site and off-site reviews of State-reported crash and
inspection data provide support to States to identify areas for
potential process improvement and provide the technical assistance to
implement recommendations.
Crash data collection training provides State-specific
crash investigation training on the crash data needed by FMCSA.
Additionally, FMCSA provides technical and analytical
assistance to States to help them use good quality safety data and
analysis in developing their Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans (CVSPs).
The quality of data submitted by States has shown marked
improvement since the inception of the program. The federal oversight
agency, Government Accountability Office (GAO), has taken notice as
FMCSA has made efforts to improve the quality of CMV data. In 2005, GAO
found that, while challenges remain, FMCSA's efforts have contributed
to CMV data quality improvements. In particular, they reported that
FMCSA's Safety Data Quality Improvement Program (SaDIP) supported state
efforts to improve data quality. GAO concluded in that report, ``* * *
FMCSA's collaborative efforts with states have had a positive impact on
improving the quality of states' crash data, therefore ultimately
enhancing the ability of both federal and state governments to make
highway planning and safety enforcement decisions (GAO-06-102, Highway
Safety: Further Opportunities Exist to Improve Data on Crashes
Involving Commercial Motor Vehicles, p. 30). In 2007, GAO reported that
FMCSA ``* * * acted to improve the quality of SafeStat data by
completing a comprehensive plan for data quality improvement,
implementing an approach to correct inaccurate data, and providing
grants to states for improving data quality, among other things'' (GAO-
07-585, Identifying High Risk Motor Carriers, p. 5).
The FMCSA is committed to evaluating States' data, developing
improvement tools for States, and assisting individual States as they
work toward improving their data collection processes. This approach
will result in an effective and comprehensive approach to improving the
quality of State safety data.
Comments Requested
FMCSA requests comments from all interested parties on the CSA 2010
program elements described in this notice. FMCSA is particularly
interested in comments related to the Safety Measurement System,
interventions, preliminary safety fitness determination methodology,
and operational model test. Commenters are requested to provide
supporting data and rationale wherever possible.
Table 2--Areas of Essential Motor Carrier Safety Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Scheduling a run which would necessitate the vehicle being operated
at speeds in excess of those prescribed (Sec. 392.6).
2. Operating a motor vehicle not in accordance with the laws,
ordinances, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it is being
operated (Sec. 392.2)(Safety related violations only).
3. No operating authority (392.9a(a).
4. False reports of records of duty status (Sec. 395.8(e)).
5. Requiring or permitting driver to drive more than 11 hours (Sec.
395.3(a)(1)).
6. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive more than 10
hours (Sec. 395.5(a)(1)).
7. Requiring or permitting driver to drive after 14 hours on duty (Sec.
395.3(a)(2)).
8. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive after 15 hours
on duty (Sec. 395.5(a)(2)).
9. Requiring or permitting driver to drive after 60 hours on duty in 7
days (Sec. 395.3(b)(1)).
10. Requiring or permitting driver to drive after 70 hours on duty in 8
days (Sec. 395.3(b)(2)).
11. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive after 60 hours
on duty in 7 days (Sec. 395.5(b)(1)).
[[Page 53489]]
12. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive after 70 hours
on duty in 8 days (Sec. 395.5(b)(2)).
13. Requiring or permitting short-haul property CMV driver to drive
after 16 hours on duty (Sec. 395.1(o)).
14. No records of duty status (Sec. 395.8(a)).
15. Failing to submit record of duty status within 13 days (Sec.
395.8(i)).
16. Failing to preserve records of duty status for 6 months (Sec.
395.8(k)).
17. Failing to preserve supporting documents (Sec. 395.8(k)).
18. Fraudulent or intentional alteration of a supporting document (Sec.
395.8(k)).
19. Requiring or permitting driver to drive after 70 hours in 7 days
(Alaska)(Sec. 395.1(h)(1)(iii)).
20. Requiring or permitting driver to drive after 80 hours on duty in 8
days (Alaska)(395.1(h)(1)(iv)).
21. Requiring or permitting driver to drive more than 15 hours
(Alaska)(Sec. 395.1(h)(1)(i)).
22. Requiring or permitting driver to drive after being on duty 20 hours
(Alaska)(Sec. 395.1(h)(1)(ii)).
23. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive more than 15
hours (Alaska) (Sec. 395.1(h)(2)(i)).
24. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive after 20 hours
on duty (Alaska)(Sec. 395.1(h)(2)(ii)).
25. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive after 80 hours
on duty in 8 days (Alaska)(Sec. 395.1(h)(2)(iv)).
26. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive after 70 hours
on duty in 7 days (Alaska)(395.1(h)(2)(iii)).
27. Failing to investigate driver's background (Sec. 391.23(a)).
28. Failing to maintain driver qualification file on each driver
employed (Sec. 391.51(a))(Use current guidance of no element of DQ
file requirements found).
29. Operating a CMV without a valid CDL (Sec. 383.23(a))(Safety
related loss only).
30. Failing to train hazardous material employees as required (Sec.
172.704(a) & Sec. 177.800(c)).
31. Using a driver not medically re-examined each 24 months (Sec.
391.45(b)(1)).
32. Using a driver not medically examined and certified (Sec.
391.45(a)).
33. Using a driver before receiving a negative pre-employment result
(Sec. 382.301(a)).
34. Failing to perform random alcohol tests at the applicable rate (Sec.
382.305(b)(1)).
35. Failing to perform random controlled substance tests at the
applicable rate (Sec. 382.305(b)(2)).
36. Using a driver without a return to duty test (Sec. 382.309).
37. Failing to keep minimum records of inspection and maintenance (Sec.
396.3(b)).
38. Requiring or permitting a driver to drive without the vehicle's
cargo being properly distributed and adequately secured (Sec.
392.9(a)(1)).
39. Transporting a HM without preparing a shipping paper (Sec.
172.200(a) & Sec. 177.817(a))(no shipping paper at all).
40. Transporting HM in a package with an identifiable release of HM
(Sec. 173.24).
41. Loading a cargo tank with an HM which exceeds the maximum weight of
lading marked on the specification plate (Sec. 173.24b(d)(2)).
42. Loading HM not in accordance with the separation and segregation
table (Sec. 173.30/177.848(d)).
43. Transporting HM in an unauthorized cargo tank (Sec. 173.33(a)).
44. Transporting or loading two or more materials in a cargo tank motor
vehicle which resulted in an unsafe condition (Sec. 173.33(a)(2)).
45. Transporting a hazardous material in a cargo tank motor vehicle
which has a dangerous reaction when in contact with the tank (Sec.
173.33(b)(1)).
46. Transporting an unacceptable HM shipment (Sec. 177.801).
47. Failing to attend a cargo tank during loading/unloading (Sec.
177.834(i)).
48. Offering a cargo tank which has not successfully completed a test or
inspection which has become due (Sec. 180.407(a)).
49. Failing to test and inspect a cargo tank which has been in an
accident and has been damaged (Sec. 180.407(b)(2)).
50. Failing to conduct a pressure test on a cargo tank which has been
out of HM service for one year or more (Sec. 180.407(b)(3)).
51. Failing to test and inspect a cargo tank which has been modified
(Sec. 180.407(b)(4)).
52. Failing to conduct a test or inspection on a cargo tank when
required by DOT (Sec. 180.407(b)(5)).
53. Failing to periodically test and inspect a cargo tank (Sec.
180.407(c)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Fundamental Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Failing to implement an alcohol and/or controlled substance testing
program (Sec. 382.115(a) or (b)).
2. Using a driver who has refused to submit to an alcohol or controlled
substances test required under part 382 (Sec. 382.211).
3. Using a driver known to have tested positive for a controlled
substance (Sec. 382.215).
4. Knowingly allowing, requiring, permitting, or authorizing an
employee with a commercial driver's license which is suspended,
revoked, or canceled by a State or who is disqualified to operate a
commercial motor vehicle as defined in Part 383 (Sec. 383.37(a)).
5. Knowingly allowing, requiring, permitting, or authorizing a driver
who is disqualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle (Sec.
383.51(a)).
6. Operating a motor vehicle transporting property without having in
effect the required minimum levels of financial responsibility coverage
(Sec. 387.7(a)).
7. Using a disqualified driver (Sec. 391.15(a)).
8. Using a physically unqualified driver (Sec. 391.11(b)(4)).
9. Failing to require a driver to make a record of duty status (Sec.
395.8(a)) (Complete lack of any records of duty status).
10. Requiring or permitting the operation of a motor vehicle declared
``out-of-service'' before repairs are made (Sec. 396.9(c)(2)).
11. Using a commercial motor vehicle not periodically inspected (Sec.
396.17(a)). (Complete lack of any periodic inspections).
12. Operating a passenger carrying vehicle without having in effect the
required minimum levels of financial responsibility (Sec. 387.31(a)).
13. Failing to implement a random controlled substances and/or an
alcohol testing program (Sec. 382.305).
14. Failing to correct out-of-service defects listed by a driver in a
driver vehicle inspection report before the vehicle is operated again
(Sec. 396.11(c)).
15. Transporting a forbidden material (Sec. 177.801).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 53490]]
Issued on: September 10, 2008.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-21561 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
|
|
|
