[Federal Register: November 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 62293-62302]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02no07-95]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 62294]]
restructuring of FMCSA's current commercial motor carrier safety 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 December 4, 2007,
from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Participant registration will be from 8 a.m.
to 9 a.m. Written comments must be received by January 31, 2008.
Location: The Public Listening Session will be held near Dallas at
the Sheraton Arlington Hotel, 1500 Convention Center Drive, Arlington,
Texas 76011. The phone number is 817-261-8200.
ADDRESSES: 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 online instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods:
Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
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. FMCSA will accept comments on the CSA 2010 operational model
and any additional information FMCSA should consider for the success of
the CSA 2010 initiative.
The session will include a morning plenary session (9 a.m.), and
three facilitated breakout sessions. Each breakout session will be run
three consecutive times so that all attendees will have the opportunity
to participate in all three sessions. Each session will run for 90
minutes, beginning at 10:15 a.m., 12:15 p.m., and 2 p.m. This will
allow 15 minutes between each breakout session and 30 minutes for
lunch. The three breakout sessions will address specific aspects of the
CSA 2010 initiative: (1) Safety Measurement System, (2) Safety Fitness
Determination, and (3) Operational Model Test. Attendees will have the
opportunity to comment, as well as hear the comments of other
stakeholders.
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 (301) 495-8458.
Instructions for submitting written comments: Comments regarding
CSA 2010 can be filed with the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS).
For detailed instructions on submitting comments see ADDRESSES section
above. All submissions must include the Agency name and docket
identification number for this notice. Note that all comments received
will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading for further
information.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to 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).
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 the development and deployment of a new operational model, a
new approach to using FMCSA resources to identify drivers and motor
carriers that pose safety problems and to intervene to address those
problems as soon as they become apparent. FMCSA understands how
important it is to the success of this initiative to obtain feedback
from its partners and stakeholders and other interested parties.
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 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 from its partners and
stakeholders (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 included a plenary session and four
breakout sessions, which described 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 at each of the breakout
sessions provided valuable information, which FMCSA has taken into
account during its continued development of the CSA 2010 operational
model. For further information on the public listening sessions 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.''
The purpose of the December 2007 public listening session is for
FMCSA to brief its stakeholders and partners on the progress that has
been made since the listening session in 2006. FMCSA plans to hold
additional CSA 2010 listening sessions to continue the process of
updating its partners and stakeholders and receive feedback.
Current Operational Model and Its Limitations
FMCSA currently collects several kinds of data on motor carriers,
including Federal and state information on crashes and roadside
inspections, 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. Currently FMCSA employs SafeStat, an
[[Page 62295]]
analytical process that evaluates the safety status of individual motor
carriers. SafeStat uses data from a variety of state and Federal
sources to measure the relative safety performance and compliance of
individual motor carriers in four Safety Evaluation Areas (SEAs):
Accident, Driver, Vehicle, and Safety Management. SafeStat is currently
used by the FMCSA to identify and prioritize motor carriers for on-site
compliance reviews (CRs) and roadside inspections. For a full
description of the SafeStat methodology, visit the FMCSA 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 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 can result from a CR are Satisfactory, Conditional, or
Unsatisfactory. FMCSA may take enforcement actions against a motor
carrier as a result of the CR. A significant limitation of this process
is that a motor carrier's safety rating generally cannot change without
the conduct of an additional compliance review. As a result, the
meaning of a motor carrier's safety rating in terms of being a current
assessment of its safety diminishes over time and may be misleading to
those that might incorrectly interpret it as a reflection of a motor
carrier's current safety status.
FMCSA compliance and safety programs improve and promote safety
performance. However, despite increases in the motor carrier
population, as well as increased programmatic responsibilities, Agency
resources available for these efforts have remained relatively constant
over time. Further compounding this limitation in the current process
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. In its present structure, the FMCSA
compliance review 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 are used to
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
challenging to make sustained improvements to motor carrier safety
using existing intervention programs and measurement systems. Moreover,
in recent years the decline in the rate of large truck and bus
fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled has leveled off.
For these reasons, along with improvements in the quality of data
available to FMCSA and improved ways to measure carrier safety, 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. The Agency believes that CSA 2010 has the
potential to achieve a greater reduction in large truck and bus
crashes, and that additional Agency resources would impact this
potential crash reduction even more.
Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010
CSA 2010 is a major FMCSA initiative to improve the effectiveness
of the Agency's compliance and enforcement programs. Its ultimate goal
is to achieve a greater 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 measurement system, (2) a safety fitness determination
methodology that is based on performance data and not necessarily tied
to an on-site compliance review, and (3) a broader array of progressive
interventions. FMCSA believes that CSA 2010 will help the Agency assess
the safety performance of a greater segment of the industry and
intervene with more carriers to change unsafe behavior earlier.
FMCSA has made significant progress in its development of the CSA
2010 operational model, and is planning on launching a field test of
the model beginning in January 2008. There are four major components to
CSA 2010: (1) Measurement, (2) Interventions, (3) Safety Fitness
Determination, and (4) Information Technology. Each component and its
status are described below. While the Agency requests comments on all
aspects of the CSA 2010 operational model, there are three specific
areas that will be the subjects of the breakout sessions during the
upcoming listening session: (1) Safety Measurement System, (2) Safety
Fitness Determination, and (3) Operational Model Test. The illustration
below demonstrates how the major components of CSA 2010 would work
together. In developing the new model FMCSA continues to strive for
flexibility, efficiency, effectiveness, innovation, and equity.
[[Page 62296]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02NO07.010
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 motor carriers and drivers through
data available in the Motor Carrier Management Information System
(MCMIS). Under CSA 2010 these data would include violations found
during roadside inspections, traffic enforcement, and the intervention
process (discussed below), as well as crashes. SMS would group data
into seven Behavioral Analysis Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs),
each of which includes regulatory requirements for both motor carriers
and drivers.
Unsafe Driving--The operation of commercial motor vehicles in a
dangerous or careless manner. Example violations include speeding,
reckless driving, improper lane change, and inattention.
Fatigued Driving--The operation of commercial motor vehicles by
drivers in non-compliance with the hours-of-service (HOS) regulations.
This BASIC focuses on violations of the HOS regulations including
violations of driving time limits, driving after reaching on-duty time
limits, and failure to maintain complete and accurate log books. This
BASIC is not intended to suggest that the Agency has determined that
the driver was actually fatigued. Also, instances related to the
Fatigued Driving BASIC are distinguished from incidents where
unconsciousness or inability to react is brought about by the use of
alcohol, drugs, or other controlled substances.
Driver Fitness--The operation of commercial motor vehicles (CMV) by
drivers who are unfit to operate a CMV due to lack of training or
medical qualifications. Example violations include failure to have a
valid and appropriate commercial driver's license and being medically
unqualified to operate a CMV.
Controlled Substances and Alcohol--The operation of CMVs by drivers
who are in possession of alcohol or illegal drugs, or impaired due to
alcohol, illegal drugs, or misuse of prescription or over-the-counter
medications. Example violations include the use or possession of
controlled substances or alcohol.
[[Page 62297]]
Vehicle Maintenance--Commercial motor vehicle failure due to
improper or inadequate maintenance. Example violations include brakes,
lights, and other mechanical defects, and 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. Example violations include improper load
securement, cargo retention, and hazardous material handling.
Crash--Histories or patterns of crash involvement, including
frequency and severity. It is based on information from state-reported
crashes.
FMCSA developed the BASICs under the premise that CMV crashes can
ultimately be traced to the behavior of motor carriers and drivers. The
categories are derived from the existing FMCSA regulatory structure,
the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, and other analyses and studies
conducted by the Agency.
Four principal steps would be used to assess entity (motor carrier
or driver) performance in each BASIC. First, relevant inspection,
violation, and crash data from the Motor Carrier Management Information
System would be attributed to an entity to create a safety event
history. Second, each entity's violations and crashes would be
classified into a BASIC. Third, these data would then be time weighted,
severity weighted, normalized, and peer grouped to form a quantifiable
measure for the entity in each BASIC. In addition, the Safety
Measurement System would employ data sufficiency standards to ensure
there are enough data to produce meaningful measures of safety
performance. Finally, based on a comparison of each entity's BASIC
measure to those of its peers, a rank and percentile would be assigned.
The motor carrier's score in each BASIC would be based on data from the
past 24-months. These steps are illustrated below in Figure 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02NO07.011
FMCSA anticipates using the SMS results in CSA 2010 to identify and
monitor entities with safety problems with respect to its BASICs for
inclusion in the intervention process (described below under
Interventions). Also, in cases where the SMS results are robust enough
to indicate strong crash risk to the public, FMCSA anticipates applying
these results along with other factors that could lead to a proposed
Unfit safety fitness determination (described below under Safety
Fitness Determination). Thus, FMCSA would establish thresholds for each
BASIC to trigger the intervention process and play a role in adverse
safety fitness determinations.
FMCSA is designing two Safety Measurement Systems--one for
carriers, Carrier Safety Measurement System (CSMS), and one for
drivers, Driver Safety Measurement System (DSMS). Both systems are in
the prototype stage and will be used to support the operational model
test discussed below. FMCSA plans to demonstrate the Safety Measurement
System during the upcoming listening session.
There are six important differences between the SMS and the
Agency's current measurement system, SafeStat:
1. SMS is organized by seven specific behaviors (BASICs) while
SafeStat is organized into four general Safety Evaluation Areas (SEAs).
2. SMS identifies safety problems in the same structure in which
CSA 2010 addresses those problems, 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 fitness rating.
6. SMS assesses individual drivers and carriers, while SafeStat
assesses only carriers.
Interventions--Over the past year FMCSA has made considerable
progress in developing the system of interventions that would be used
under CSA 2010. It provides a broad array of tools that would be used
in a systematic way to intervene with a carrier and its drivers,
depending on the BASIC measures identified by the Safety Measurement
System. The interventions are designed to be progressive, increasing in
severity and interaction with motor carriers and their drivers. The
goal is to use the interventions to reach a larger segment of the motor
carrier industry, and to change unsafe behavior early:
Warning Letter--The warning letter would be sent to a motor carrier
when its safety performance data exceeds the Safety Measurement System
threshold for intervention in one or more BASICs. The letter would
advise the motor carrier of the apparent safety problems, and the
potential consequences of continued operation in that way. It would
also refer the motor carrier to Web-based educational tools and
information for self improvement, and the letter would provide the
motor carrier with instructions on how to challenge the underlying
safety data if the motor carrier believes the data is in error.
[[Page 62298]]
Targeted Roadside Inspection--The warning letter would also trigger
targeted roadside inspection. The same information on deficient BASICs
described in the warning letter would be reflected in roadside
information software used by roadside inspectors. This would enable
them to monitor the status of those safety problems with that motor
carrier, and confirm their existence or correction. This would also
help improve the overall effectiveness of roadside inspections.
Off-Site Investigation--The off-site investigation would enable
FMCSA and its state partners to evaluate safety problems without the
cost of sending enforcement officials to a motor carrier's place of
business. It would involve requests for documentation from the carrier
and third-parties, and constitute a desktop review of available
information to determine the nature and extent of identified safety
problems. The off-site investigation would be triggered by persistent
safety problems, or those severe enough to warrant investigation.
Focused On-Site Investigation--The focused on-site investigation
would take place at the motor carrier's place of business, and would be
employed when the carrier exhibits a persistent safety problem in one
area. It would enable FMCSA and its state partners to focus on the
identified safety problem without spending time and resources where no
other safety problems have been identified. It would involve reviewing
records, interviewing personnel, analyzing practices, and identifying
corrective actions. The focused on-site investigation could be
triggered by a continuing deficient or worsening BASIC, or a fatal
crash or complaint.
Comprehensive On-Site Investigation--The comprehensive on-site
investigation would also take place at the motor carrier's place of
business. It would be employed when the carrier exhibits broad and
complex safety problems through multiple deficient BASICs, and would be
similar to the compliance review conducted under the Agency's current
operational model. The comprehensive on-site investigation could be
triggered by continuing deficient or worsening multiple BASICs, or a
fatal crash or complaint.
Cooperative Safety Plan--The cooperative safety plan (CSP) could be
triggered after investigation reveals safety problems for which the
motor carrier expresses a willingness to remedy. It could be used to
support safety improvements before the levying of fines. It would be a
structured plan developed and implemented voluntarily by the motor
carrier. The CSP would be the motor carrier's action plan to address
safety problems. The Agency would monitor the carrier's safety
performance, and increase intervention if performance does not improve.
Notice of Violation--The purpose of the notice of violation would
be to increase the motor carrier's awareness of enforcement intent on
the part of the Agency. It could be useful where the violation is
immediately correctable. It would put the carrier on notice of specific
regulatory violations. The motor carrier would then have to provide
evidence of corrective action, or successfully challenge the identified
safety violations. The notice of violation could provide the motor
carrier with motivation to change unsafe behavior to avoid a fine.
Notice of Claim--The purpose of the notice of claim is to deter
severe or persistent unsafe behavior. It is issued as a formal document
and served on the violator to compel compliance. The notice of claim
would be triggered by evidence of a severe regulatory violation or
history of violations, sufficient to justify assessment of penalties.
Settlement Agreement--The purpose of the settlement agreement is to
contractually bind the motor carrier to take actions to improve safety.
The motor carrier is given the opportunity to enter into the settlement
agreement to avoid fines or suspension of operations. The settlement
agreement identifies the consequences to the motor carrier if it does
not take the agreed upon action and return to compliance. The agreement
would allow the carrier to avoid significant penalties by committing to
major safety improvements, for example, with the understanding that
failure to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement would
result in the immediate imposition of the maximum penalty that would
otherwise have been levied.
Unfit Suspension--A motor carrier is placed out of business.
While the above interventions are presented in their logical
sequence of severity, it is important to note that FMCSA and its state
partners would not necessarily follow this sequence for each carrier.
Instead, factors such as carrier history, level of safety performance,
motor carrier characteristics, and investigative discretion could
influence the intervention selected to encourage change in unsafe
behavior.
Another distinguishing feature of CSA 2010 is the investigative
process. Under CSA 2010 one of the primary goals during the
intervention process would be to identify the root cause of the safety
problem under investigation. FMCSA believes that identifying the root
causes would in many cases help motor carriers and drivers apply the
most effective corrective actions. At the same time, however, it is
important to note that FMCSA is a Federal enforcement agency, and that
ultimately it is the responsibility of motor carriers and drivers to
know, understand, and comply with all applicable safety regulations.
Finally, the new intervention process would also require that areas
of essential motor carrier safety management be subject to sampling of
motor carrier records. These data could impact a carrier's safety
fitness determination, as described below under Safety Fitness
Determination. The specific regulatory areas that would be subject to
such sampling are listed below in Table 2.
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 compliance review process to issue
motor carrier safety ratings, which can be Satisfactory, Conditional,
or Unsatisfactory, defined under 49 CFR part 385. Under CSA 2010,
safety fitness determinations would be based on safety performance
data, and would not necessarily require an on-site investigation like
today's compliance review. FMCSA believes that this approach would
enable the Agency to assess the safety performance of a greater segment
of the motor carrier industry, and make formal safety fitness
determinations that are available to the public and more reflective of
a motor carrier's current performance.
During the November 2006 listening session, FMCSA discussed the
concept of changing the safety fitness determination methodology from
the current three tier system of Satisfactory-Conditional-
Unsatisfactory to a two tier system of Continue Operation or Unfit.
FMCSA pointed out that: (1) The governing legislation requires only
that the Agency determine the safety fitness of an owner or operator,
(2) the two-tier approach seemed simpler, and (3) it would move away
from use of the term Satisfactory. That term can be misperceived by the
public as FMCSA approval of a carrier, when in fact the Agency has
simply found no patterns of violations during the most recent CR that
rise to the Conditional or Unsatisfactory level. Under the Agency's
current operational model, the term Satisfactory can also remain with a
motor carrier for several years even
[[Page 62299]]
though its safety performance may have deteriorated.
Since November 2006, FMCSA has made significant progress in
developing a preliminary CSA 2010 safety fitness determination
methodology. Under this methodology, FMCSA has dropped the concept of
having a two-tier system in favor of the three-tier system. This change
is based in large part on comments received in response to last year's
public listening session. There were substantial comments indicating
the need to make a distinction among carriers within the Continue
Operation category, so that the public would know about those carriers
with which the Agency is intervening; and to make it clear that sub-par
performance, even in a single behavior area, would be identified with
an adverse safety fitness determination. After considering these
comments, FMCSA has tentatively decided to use the three-tier approach
in this CSA 2010 safety fitness determination methodology. However, for
purposes of this methodology, the Agency is considering changing the
three-tier terminology from Satisfactory-Conditional-Unsatisfactory to
Continue Operation-Marginal-Unfit. The Agency believes that this
terminology might eliminate the public's possible misperception
associated with the term Satisfactory. The term Marginal has been
substituted for Conditional because it may be more meaningful in
conveying the message, ``marginal in safety performance.'' Likewise the
term Unfit may convey a clearer message than the term Unsatisfactory,
especially given the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA 21) requirement concerning Unfit motor carriers (65 FR 50919 dated
August 22, 2000).
Under this methodology, there would be four major factors that
could impact a motor carrier's safety fitness determination: (1)
Roadside inspections results as assessed by the Safety Management
System (SMS) through stand alone or non-stand alone BASICs, (2) a
verifiable crash rate, (3) where essential safety management violations
are 10 percent or more of records checked during the intervention
process, and (4) fifteen 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. Factors (1), (2), and (3) would align within the seven
BASICs referenced above in the Safety Measurement System. These same
factors would be applied to a set of safety fitness criteria to
determine a BASIC failure.
A carrier's SMS measures and verifiable crash rate in Factors (1)
and (2), respectively, would be applied to a set of Unfit thresholds to
determine a BASIC failure. These thresholds would be based on the
carrier's absolute BASIC measures and crash rate, as opposed to the
relative percentile rankings from the SMS.
Carriers that have received interventions resulting in violations
in the areas of essential motor carrier safety management that equal or
exceed a 10% violation rate of records check will also result in a
BASIC failure.
Table 1 below illustrates how these BASIC failures would interact
to determine a motor carrier's safety fitness:
Table 1.--Preliminary CSA 2010 Safety Fitness Determination Methodology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Stand Alone BASICs:
Driver Fitness Drug/
Stand Alone BASICs: Unsafe Alcohol Cargo Fifteen
Driving Fatigued Driving Securement Vehicle Fundamental Safety Fitness Determination
Maintenance Verifiable Violations
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.
threshold, or verifiable crash rate Unfit.
(2) Where essential safety above Unfit threshold,
management violations are 10 or.
percent or more of records (2) Where essential
checked 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 above methodology 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 Safety Management System 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.
FMCSA believes that this preliminary safety fitness determination
methodology would allow the Agency to assess the safety performance of
a larger segment of the motor carrier industry. In contrast to the
Agency's current methodology, this approach is not tied to an on-site
compliance review and it takes into account virtually all of the safety
regulations. FMCSA would issue safety fitness determinations on all
motor carriers for which it has sufficient data. These would be updated
monthly and made available to the public.
Information Technology--Information technology (IT) is the fourth
major component of CSA 2010, and 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. With respect to CSA 2010, COMPASS will track and
update the safety performance data from regulated entities as they are
received, link relevant data to the
[[Page 62300]]
correct entity, validate the data, and provide the mechanisms for
correcting data. COMPASS will also support the intervention process as
FMCSA and its state partners gather safety performance data on motor
carriers and drivers.
Operational Model Test
FMCSA is planning to field test the new CSA 2010 operational model
(Op-Model) beginning in January 2008. The purpose of the test is to
determine both the feasibility and effectiveness of the new CSA 2010
interventions and Safety Management System.
During the Op-Model test, FMCSA will not be providing any
regulatory relief. Motor carriers will not actually be rated under the
CSA 2010 safety fitness determination methodology, because that
methodology must yet be implemented through rulemaking. Instead, a
motor carrier in the Op-Model test with poor safety performance, and
found to be unresponsive to the new CSA 2010 interventions, would
undergo a compliance review and be rated in accordance with the
Agency's current compliance and enforcement process and be subject to
fines, penalties, and other actions to bring about compliance.
The test will take place in four states: Colorado, Georgia,
Missouri, and New Jersey, which will provide one test state for each of
the four FMCSA Service Centers. FMCSA anticipates that this geographic
and demographic diversity will help provide a representative cross-
section of the motor carrier population. Approximately ten percent of
the total number of active carriers and power units in the U.S. are
based in these four states. Carriers that are domiciled in these four
states will be assigned to one of three groups:
Current Process Group: This is a small number of carriers that is
excluded from the test, as discussed below.
Test Group: This is approximately \1/2\ of the remaining carriers.
Control Group: This is approximately \1/2\ of the remaining
carriers.
Carriers in the Current Process Group include the following:
Carriers that have had a compliance review within the past 18
months. This should help avoid the question of whether a carrier's
performance improvement was due to a CSA 2010 intervention or the
compliance review.
SafeStat category A/B carriers. This exclusion would ensure that
FMCSA complies with relevant mandates and policies to perform
compliance reviews on category A and B motor carriers. It would also
help focus the test on carriers with mediocre performance which are not
currently being reached. Roadside and accident data that feed the CSA
2010 operational model are already being used and applied to A and B
carriers.
Chameleon carriers. These are carriers that attempt to evade
enforcement actions or out-of-service orders by re-registering as new
entrants and operating under new DOT numbers. Once identified, these
carriers would be removed and subject to current compliance and
enforcement actions.
The carriers that are thus excluded will continue to be subject to
current processes, including compliance reviews. These exclusions are
designed to ensure that the two remaining groups of carriers (test and
control) are similar in characteristics for evaluation purposes.
After the exclusions described above are made, FMCSA plans to
randomly divide the remaining motor carriers domiciled in the test
states into two equal sized groups--a test group and a control group.
The control group would be 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.
Those motor carriers in the test group would receive CSA 2010
interventions based on information provided by the Safety Measurement
System. Again, motor carries in the test group with poor safety
performance, and found to be unresponsive to the new CSA 2010
interventions, would undergo a compliance review and be rated in
accordance with the Agency's current compliance and enforcement
process. FMCSA anticipates that the number of such carriers would be
relatively low, since SafeStat A/B carriers will be initially excluded
from the test.
However, as the test progresses, FMCSA is considering adding
SafeStat A/B motor carriers to the test. Including A/B carriers would
help demonstrate the effectiveness of the new interventions on the
group of carriers that FMCSA traditionally targets. It may be that with
some of the less time-consuming CSA 2010 interventions, FMCSA could
reach A/B carriers more quickly than they would otherwise be reached
using the compliance review process. If the new interventions are
effective, the carrier could be moved off of the A/B list, thereby
eliminating the need for a compliance review. If, however, the carrier
does not respond, it would be removed from the test and undergo the
traditional compliance review and any necessary enforcement action.
The Agency plans to begin the test in January 2008. The test would
have two phases. Phase I would be a six-month startup phase where only
three BASICs would be measured: Unsafe Driving, Fatigued Driving, and
Vehicle Maintenance. This would allow time for the test to become fully
operational by June 2008, when the remaining BASICs would be added.
The test is scheduled to run for 30 months into mid-2010, at which
time FMCSA is targeting full CSA 2010 implementation. The thirty-month
timeframe is designed to provide sufficient data for statistical
purposes with results evaluated at periodic intervals. It is
anticipated that full implementation of CSA 2010 could take place
through the addition of more states when the safety fitness
determination rulemaking is completed. Of course, the Agency will
consider the results of the ongoing Op-Model test in fine tuning the
rulemaking through notice and comment. Likewise, comments received
during the rulemaking will be considered for any needed course
correction during the Op-Model test. Initially, the results will likely
be more qualitative than quantitative. However, as the test progresses
and more data are gathered, the Agency anticipates being able to make
quantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of CSA 2010. As with any
planned activity, FMCSA will continue to fine tune its plans for the
Op-Model test until it commences in January 2008.
FMCSA plans to use approximately 30 Federal and state investigators
to carry out the new CSA 2010 interventions in the test group. Training
for the investigators involved in the test group is planned for late
January 2008, after which the Op-Model test will immediately begin.
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 rationale and data wherever possible.
[[Page 62301]]
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)).
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)).
[[Page 62302]]
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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued on: October 30, 2007.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-21671 Filed 11-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P