[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91874-91880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27087]
[[Page 91874]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0066]
Enhanced Carrier Safety Measurement System (SMS)
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; response to public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA announces enhancements to the Safety Measurement System
(SMS) used to identify motor carriers for safety interventions and
addresses comments received in response to FMCSA's Federal Register
notice titled, ``Revised Carrier Safety Measurement System (SMS).''
These enhancements build on the Agency's efforts to continually improve
SMS, which it first implemented in 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wesley Russell, Compliance
Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001,
(615) 620-9377, [email protected]. If you have questions regarding
viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations, (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In December 2010, FMCSA implemented SMS to identify high risk motor
carriers for investigations (75 FR 18256, Apr. 9, 2010). Section
5305(a) of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub.
L. 114-94; 129 Stat. 1312; Dec. 4, 2015) requires FMCSA to ensure, at a
minimum, that a review is conducted on motor carriers that demonstrate,
through performance data, that they are among the highest risk carriers
for 4 consecutive months. FMCSA and its State enforcement partners also
use SMS to identify and prioritize motor carriers for inspections and
less resource-intensive interventions, such as automated warning
letters.
SMS also provides motor carriers and other stakeholders with safety
performance data, which is updated monthly, through the public website
at https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SMS. Under section 5223 of the FAST Act,
FMCSA removed SMS percentiles and alerts from the public SMS website
for motor carriers transporting property. Passenger carrier percentiles
and alerts remain publicly available, as well as inspection,
investigation, crash, and registration data for all carriers.
On February 15, 2023, FMCSA proposed the following changes to its
SMS and announced a 90-day preview and comment period for stakeholders
(88 FR 9954):
1. Reorganized and Updated Safety Categories (Now ``Compliance
Categories''), Including New Segmentation;
2. Consolidated Violations;
3. Simplified Violation Severity Weights;
4. Proportionate Percentiles Instead of Safety Event Groups;
5. Improved Intervention Thresholds;
6. Greater Focus on Recent Violations; and
7. Updated Utilization Factor.
During the 90-day preview and comment period, motor carriers could
log in to the Prioritization Preview \1\ to see what their own
prioritization results would be under the proposed SMS methodology. The
public was able to view what a logged-in carrier would see using
example data. In addition, FMCSA held three question-and-answer
sessions in March 2023 for the industry and the public, where
participants were able to ask questions about the proposed changes and
receive real-time responses. The comment period ended on May 16, 2023.
Following the comment period, the Agency has continued to make the
Prioritization Preview site available to industry and other safety
stakeholders, so they have ample time to review and understand the
impacts of the enhancements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/prioritizationpreview/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Public Comments and Response
FMCSA received 176 comments in response to the February 2023,
notice. Of these, 111 submissions contained comments specific to the
changes proposed in that notice; 65 submissions contained comments that
were not relevant to the notice. The commenters included motor
carriers, drivers/owner-operators, industry associations, and safety
advocates. The following entities submitted relevant comments:
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), American Bus
Association (ABA), American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA), Chamber
of Commerce and Industry, et al. (Arizona Organizations), Arizona
Trucking Association, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA),
Downeast Shipping LLC, Driver iQ, Drivewyze Ltd (Drivewyze), FedEx
Corporation (FedEx), Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Greyhound), Independent
Carrier Safety Association (ICSA), International Foodservice
Distributors Association (IFDA), Motor Carrier Insurance Education
Foundation (MCIEF), Minnesota Trucking Association (MTA), National
School Transportation Association (NSTA), National Tank Truck Carriers,
Inc. (NTTC), Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA),
Roehl Transport, Inc., SambaSafety, Schneider National, Inc.
(Schneider), Shippers Preferred Express, Tour Up, Truck Safety
Coalition (TSC), Veolia North America (Veolia), Yellow Corporation,
Zoom Transportation Inc., Adrienne Anderson, Kellie Case, Dmitri
Kachan, Adam Loutsch, Brian Loysen, Kathleen Ravin, Elizabeth St.
Clare, Riky Von Honaker, and individuals who did not identify their
organizations. Many stakeholders provided comments on multiple proposed
changes and topics. Comments outside the scope of the February 2023
notice are not discussed in this notice.
Most of the comments on the February 2023, notice voiced support
for the proposed changes. Some comments voiced concerns that this
notice will address. The proposals for reorganized safety categories,
consolidated violations, simplified violation severity weights, and
greater focus on recent violations generated the most comments. In
addition, many commenters suggested alternative approaches to a
proposed change or requested that FMCSA provide further analysis or
solicit additional input. The following sections provide a summary of
the comments received and the Agency's responses for each proposed
change.
1. Reorganized and Updated Safety Categories (Now ``Compliance
Categories''), Including New Segmentation
A. Changing ``BASICs'' to ``Safety Categories'' (Now ``Compliance
Categories'')
The vast majority of commenters did not address the proposal to
replace the term Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories,
or BASICs, with ``safety categories.'' Three commenters (ATA, ABA, and
Driver iQ) agreed with the proposal to replace ``BASICs'' with another
term but suggested alternative terminology to ``safety categories.''
ATA suggested using ``compliance categories,'' rather than ``safety
categories,'' commenting that ``[r]eferring to the BASICs as
`Compliance Categories' simplifies the
[[Page 91875]]
terminology to a more understandable and relatable reference. It also
will allow motor carrier operations and the enforcement community to
more accurately pinpoint and address compliance concerns.'' ABA
supported ATA's view, suggesting that `` `compliance categories' . . .
more accurately depicts the information categorized.'' Driver iQ also
echoed ATA's comments.
Two of the four commenters (MCIEF and Riky Von Honaker) that
addressed this proposal did not agree with it. MCIEF requested that
FMCSA continue to use BASICs as it emphasizes the purpose of the
Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program to analyze safety
behavior, identify issues, and help carriers improve with the goal of
preventing crashes. Riky Von Honaker expressed concerns that the new
terminology could be used against carriers in litigation.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA acknowledges ATA, ABA, and Driver iQ's suggestion to replace
``BASICs'' with ``compliance categories'' instead of ``safety
categories.'' FMCSA's analysis has demonstrated a strong relationship
between each ``BASIC'' or category and safety; under the enhanced
methodology, the group of carriers prioritized in any category has a
crash rate of 7.77 crashes per 100 power units (PUs), which is 10
percent higher than the current methodology--and higher than the
national crash rate for the same time period of 5.00 crashes per 100
PUs.\2\ However, FMCSA acknowledges the public comments and has decided
to move forward with ``compliance categories'' instead of ``safety
categories'' as this will provide simpler and more relatable
terminology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Available in table 23 of the Prioritization Foundational
Document https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Reorganized Safety Categories (Now ``Compliance Categories''):
Unsafe Driving and Vehicle Maintenance
i. Unsafe Driving
Four commenters (ABA, ATA, MTA, and Adrienne Anderson) expressed
support for the new Unsafe Driving Compliance Category, which
incorporates: (1) Controlled Substances/Alcohol (CS/A) violations and
(2) all Operating while Out-of-Service (OOS) violations. ATA stated
that moving CS/A violations is ``logical,'' as drug and alcohol
impaired driving is a form of unsafe driving, and that grouping all
Operating while OOS violations under Unsafe Driving will help
``enforcement personnel more easily identify motor carriers who have
violated OOS orders.'' ABA noted that these changes ``better reflect
compliance realities and connections to actual safety risks.''
Three commenters (Advocates, NTTC, and an anonymous commenter) did
not agree with moving CS/A violations to Unsafe Driving. Advocates and
NTTC expressed the concern that this change may dilute the severity of
CS/A violations and make it harder to identify carriers that employ
drivers engaged in unsafe behaviors related to the use of controlled
substances and alcohol. Advocates also pointed out that ``aside from
increasing the number of carriers prioritized, [this change] appears to
have little impact on the population of prioritized carriers from the
aspects of crash rate and violation rate.'' An anonymous commenter also
concurred that CS/A violations should remain separate from Unsafe
Driving without further explanation.
Tour Up did not agree with moving violations related to operating
while OOS to Unsafe Driving. Tour Up disagreed because being placed OOS
for a ``chafed airline under the tractor that [the driver] was unaware
of'' is not comparable to ``reckless driving and speeding.''
FMCSA Response
FMCSA acknowledges the comments from Advocates, NTTC, and the
anonymous commenter. The sparsity of CS/A violations inhibited the CS/A
BASIC's ability to identify high crash risk carriers. FMCSA's
Exploratory Factor Analysis showed that the CS/A violations were
strongly associated with the Unsafe Driving BASIC. By integrating CS/A
violations into the new Unsafe Driving Compliance Category, the Agency
will continue to hold carriers and drivers accountable for drug and
alcohol compliance, while focusing its investigative resources on
carriers with higher crash rates. FMCSA's analysis shows that the group
of carriers prioritized in the new Unsafe Driving Compliance Category
would have a crash rate of 10.63 crashes per 100 PUs, which is 3
percent higher than the Unsafe Driving BASIC in the current
methodology.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Available in table 23 of the Prioritization Foundational
Document https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to Tour Up's comment, FMCSA moved operating while OOS
violations to the new Unsafe Driving Compliance Category because they
reflect a type of unsafe driving behavior: a driver or motor carrier
continuing to operate after receiving an OOS Order. Operating while OOS
is similar to other violations in the Unsafe Driving Compliance
Category, such as texting, speeding, and reckless driving, as they all
indicate the driver made an unsafe driving decision related to
operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV).
ii. Vehicle Maintenance
Nine commenters (Arizona Organizations, ATA, Brian Loysen,
Elizabeth St. Clare, FedEx, IFDA, MTA, OOIDA, and Shippers Preferred
Express) supported the reorganization of the Vehicle Maintenance
category into two categories: (1) a new Vehicle Maintenance: Driver
Observed Compliance Category and (2) a Vehicle Maintenance Compliance
Category. ATA and FedEx emphasized that the new Vehicle Maintenance:
Driver Observed category more accurately reflects how carriers perform
maintenance and assess compliance. ATA noted that it ``will allow for
greater distinction between vehicle maintenance violations that are
indicative of vehicles in poor maintenance condition regardless of the
thoroughness of the driver performing a pre- or post-trip inspection
that day.'' ATA, IFDA, MTA, and OOIDA also noted that the new Vehicle
Maintenance: Driver Observed category has the potential to protect
drivers from being held accountable for violations that they could not
have reasonably discovered during a pre-trip inspection. Elizabeth St
Clare added that this category would be useful for ``targeted
training.''
While supportive of the new Vehicle Maintenance: Driver Observed
category, ATA and MTA also recommended that the Agency engage industry
stakeholders in determining which violations should be included in the
category and conduct analysis to measure the category's effectiveness.
Downeast Shipping LLC pointed out that this new category highlights
a larger issue about ``driver controllable violations'' and suggests
that these violations be removed from a carrier's results.
FMCSA Response
Regarding ATA and MTA's suggestion to solicit industry input on the
violations in the Vehicle Maintenance: Driver Observed Compliance
Category and conduct analysis to measure the effectiveness of the
category, FMCSA developed the new Vehicle Maintenance categories by
leveraging results from an Exploratory Factor Analysis showing which
violations were strongly associated with each other
[[Page 91876]]
along with Intermodal Equipment Provider ``Pre-Trip'' designations,
developed with input from industry and enforcement. For more details on
the development of the new compliance categories, see the
Prioritization Preview Foundational Document.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA disagrees with Downeast Shipping LLC's suggestion to remove
violations in the Vehicle Maintenance: Driver Observed Compliance
Category from carriers' results. Carriers have a responsibility to
ensure that their drivers understand and comply with the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations.
C. New Segmentation: Driver Fitness and Hazardous Materials Compliance
Categories
Five commenters (ATA, IFDA, MTA, Schneider, and Veolia) voiced
support for the proposed segmentation in Driver Fitness Compliance
Category by Straight and Combination carriers and in Hazardous
Materials Compliance Category by Cargo Tank and Non-Cargo Tank
carriers. ATA noted that this new segmentation ``addresses inequities
that have existed in the current CSA SMS'' and ``will allow for greater
accuracy in identifying safety controls.'' Three commenters (Advocates,
FedEx, and NTTC) specifically expressed support for segmentation in the
Hazardous Materials Compliance Category. NTTC mentioned that segmenting
this category by Cargo Tank and Non-Cargo Tank carriers ``is believed
to tremendously reduce the opportunity for a cargo tank truck to get
more violations than a van truck due to many inherent trailer
differences.'' Advocates tentatively supported segmentation but
requested that the Agency provide more data. FedEx also expressed
support for this change and encouraged the Agency to explore further
segmentation between small package and palletized freight.
Kellie Case and an anonymous commenter asked for additional
clarification. Case asked if the Agency has considered normalizing
between carriers that occasionally transport hazardous materials (HM)
and those that are dedicated HM carriers. The anonymous commenter asked
how carriers with both Straight and Combination vehicles would be
treated in the Driver Fitness Compliance Category.
FMCSA Response
In response to Kellie Case's question, the Hazardous Materials
Compliance Category focuses solely on the portion of a carrier's
operation that is hauling HM, and whether the carrier frequently or
rarely hauls HM should not have an impact on the carrier's ability to
comply with the Hazardous Materials Regulations.
Regarding the anonymous commenter's question, Straight and
Combination segmentation would work the same way it does for the Unsafe
Driving and Crash Indicator BASICs in the current SMS. A carrier's
designation of Straight or Combination in the Driver Fitness Compliance
Category depends on the percentage of those types of vehicles in its
operations, as outlined in the table below.
Table 1--Straight and Combination Carrier Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier type Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Straight Carrier............. More than 30 percent of the total Power
Units (PUs) in their fleet are Straight
trucks/other vehicles.
Combination Carrier.......... 70 percent or more of the total PUs in
their fleet are Combination trucks/
motorcoach buses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Consolidated Violations
Nine commenters (ABA, ATA, IFDA, MTA, NSTA, NTTC, OOIDA, Veolia,
and an anonymous commenter) expressed support for reorganizing the
existing 959 roadside violations into 116 violation groups. ABA, IFDA,
and MTA agreed with FMCSA that the change will make the system easier
for carriers and other stakeholders to understand and help improve
consistency in enforcement of violations with similar underlying safety
issues. NSTA stated that the change will ``reduce confusion for
operators.'' NTTC added that this is ``a positive change which will
permit companies to [more easily] facilitate training topics . . . for
their personnel.'' The anonymous commenter wrote that the
reorganization allows ``more clear insight into areas of concern'' for
carriers, but pointed out that there are still areas of overlap between
violation groups, citing the ``HOS Requirements'' and ``HOS
Requirements--Nominal'' violation groups in the Hours of Service
Compliance Category and the ``Brakes--OOS'' and ``Brakes'' violation
groups in the Vehicle Maintenance Compliance Category.
Three commenters (Advocates, CVSA, and FedEx) shared concerns about
the new reorganization. Advocates believes the change ``could diminish
the importance of some violations and ignore flagrant violators of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.'' CVSA is concerned that the
combination of this change and the simplified severity weights ``may
not accurately reflect a motor carrier's safety performance.'' FedEx
asked whether this change would lead to less visibility and requested
that FMCSA retain the granular level of violation data provided today
on the SMS website.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA agrees with the anonymous commenter's assessment that there
are still areas of overlap between the ``HOS Requirements'' and ``HOS
Requirements--Nominal'' and the ``Brakes'' and ``Brakes--OOS''
violation groups. In response, FMCSA has consolidated these overlapping
violation groups to further prevent inconsistencies in how violations
are cited for the same underlying safety issue. See the Reorganization
of Violations section of this notice for details.
In response to Advocates' concern, FMCSA's analysis indicated that
grouping violations will not reduce their importance for prioritization
purposes. The Agency's analysis shows that, in terms of prioritization,
determining whether a safety issue is identified is more important than
determining how many ways it was documented. Grouping carrier
violations before analyzing the data ensures that carriers are treated
fairly by holding similar carriers with similar safety issues to the
same standard--regardless of how those issues were documented.
Regarding CVSA's concern, FMCSA analyzed the overall effectiveness
of the proposed changes compared to the current SMS. FMCSA found that
these changes would increase the number of carriers prioritized for
intervention by 3 percent--and that this group of
[[Page 91877]]
prioritized carriers would have a crash rate 10 percent higher than
those currently prioritized by SMS. Therefore, CVSA's belief that the
proposed changes, taken together, may not accurately reflect a
carrier's safety performance was not substantiated.
FMCSA is committed to ensuring that its SMS methodology for
prioritizing motor carriers for interventions accurately reflects
carriers' safety performance. The Agency will continue to evaluate the
SMS methodology's effectiveness and propose improvements when needed.
For more details on overall effectiveness of the proposed changes, see
the Prioritization Preview Foundational Document.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to FedEx's question, the new violation groupings will
not change the level of violation information available; details on
individual violations will continue to be displayed in the Inspection
History tab on the SMS website.
3. Simplified Violation Severity Weights
Four commenters (CVSA, FedEx, Veolia, and Adrienne Anderson) agreed
with FMCSA's proposal to move from a 1 to 10 scale for violation
severity weights to simplified 1 or 2. FedEx stated that this change
``will be easier to administer . . . [and] the weights could help
stabilize scores . . . by reducing the impact of outlier violations.''
Adrienne Anderson commented that the ``weights make more sense and
[make it] more attainable to get below thresholds.''
Three commenters (Adam Loutsch, MTA, and Roehl Transport, Inc.)
agreed with the change while proposing modifications to the weighting
of specific violation types. Loutsch suggested that some ``serious''
moving violations receive higher weights than ``regular'' moving
violations. MTA recommended that FMCSA should add a level to the
weighting approach to ``address minor `administrative' violations such
as form and manner violations.'' Roehl Transport, Inc. echoed MTA and
suggested ``administrative'' violations that do not contribute to
crashes should receive a weight of 0.
Six commenters (ABA, ATA, Drivewyze, ICSA, IFDA, NSTA, NTTC, and
Dmitri Kachan) agreed with FMCSA's proposal to move away from the 1 to
10 scale, but expressed concerns with moving to a 1 or 2 scale. ABA
commented that this change could reduce the system's effectiveness by
masking the individual violation's correlation to safety risk. NTTC
expressed a similar concern that the new weighting ``may not accurately
reflect the increased likelihood of a vehicle being involved in an
accident.'' ATA, Drivewyze, ICSA, IFDA, NSTA, and Dmitri Kachan all
expressed the same concern that a simplified scale will make it
difficult to distinguish between less severe and more severe
violations.
Riky Von Honaker disagreed with the proposal, suggesting that the
new weighting system will show which carriers get the most violations,
rather than which carriers should be prioritized.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA's analysis shows that assigning a customized weight to all
violations was not as important as noting that the violation occurred.
The number of violations a carrier has is a strong indicator of its
safety compliance, or lack thereof. Carriers with poor safety
management practices have patterns of violations across the compliance
categories--regardless of each violation's level of egregiousness.
Conversely, carriers with strong safety management practices have fewer
violations per inspection. In addition, moving toward a simplified
scale for severity weights does not inhibit SMS from identifying
carriers with high crash rates. Of the three approaches to simplified
severity weights evaluated by FMCSA, this 1 or 2 scale approach
identifies the highest crash rate for carriers prioritized in any
category at 6.95 crashes per 100 PUs. In addition, this crash rate is
39 percent higher than the national crash rate over the same analysis
period of 5.00 crashes per 100 PUs. For more information on the
analysis for the simplified severity weights, view the Prioritization
Preview Foundational Document.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Proportionate Percentiles
Seven commenters (ATA, MTA, NSTA, NTTC, OOIDA, Veolia, and Zoom
Transportation Inc.) voiced support for moving from the safety event
groups used in SMS to proportionate percentiles to eliminate large
percentile changes that occur for non-safety-related reasons. OOIDA
stated that ``. . . this proposal is sound and should help protect
small-business truckers from witnessing radical jumps in their
[percentile] without reason,'' and Zoom Transportation Inc. agreed,
noting that proportionate percentiles are ``excellent in terms of
classification and reducing percentile jumps.'' NSTA also pointed out
that proportionate percentiles would ``result in a more accurate
identification of `at-risk operators.' ''
Two commenters (ABA and Greyhound) expressed concerns about
motorcoach comparisons with other carrier types and requested that the
prioritization methodology only compare motorcoaches to other
motorcoaches.
Two commenters (FedEx and SambaSafety) requested additional
information on how proportionate percentiles would work in the new
prioritization methodology.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA recognizes ABA and Greyhound's suggested approach to only
compare motorcoaches to other motorcoaches. However, of the 764,117
interstate carriers subject to FMCSA assessment, only 0.03 percent
(1,963) are considered motorcoaches \7\--this subset is not large
enough to provide stable carrier-to-carrier comparisons or accurately
indicate how a motorcoach's performance is trending from month to
month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ FMCSA defines motorcoaches as those registered to transport
passengers and defined as a ``motorcoach'' in the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act. More information on MAP-
21 is available at https://www.transportation.gov/map21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding FedEx and SambaSafety's request for more information on
proportionate percentiles, step-by-step instructions for calculating
proportionate percentiles are available in Table 9 of the
Prioritization Preview Foundational Document.\8\ In addition, FMCSA is
working on a set of communications materials that will be available
when the final methodology is implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Improved Intervention Thresholds
Six commenters (ABA, ATA, MTA, NTTC, Schneider, and Veolia)
submitted comments supporting the changes to the Intervention
Thresholds for Vehicle Maintenance, Vehicle Maintenance: Driver
Observed, Driver Fitness, and Hazardous Materials Compliance
Categories. ATA stated that ``these changes are justified as they place
a greater focus on prioritizing intervention for safety categories that
have the greatest correlation to crash risk.'' FedEx also commended
FMCSA on its ``risk-management driven
[[Page 91878]]
approach'' to the Intervention Thresholds in the Driver Fitness and
Hazardous Materials Compliance Categories.
Two commenters (OOIDA and an anonymous commenter) offered critiques
of the Intervention Threshold changes. OOIDA questioned whether the
Agency should use the Driver Fitness or Hazardous Materials Compliance
Categories to assess safety risk if a carrier has to be worse than 90
percent of their peers in order for the Agency to prioritize them. The
anonymous commenter suggested without further explanation that the
Intervention Thresholds for all the categories should be adjusted to 80
percent.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA acknowledges OOIDA's concern about the high thresholds for
the Driver Fitness and Hazardous Materials Compliance Categories.
FMCSA's analysis shows that every category has a different relationship
to crash rate, with some having a higher correlation than others.
Adjusting the thresholds ensures that the Agency focuses its
enforcement program on carriers with the highest crash risk. In
addition, the Driver Fitness and Hazardous Materials Compliance
Categories can help carriers identify and improve patterns of
noncompliance that contribute to their companies' overall safety,
regardless of whether the carriers are over the threshold in these
categories.
6. Greater Focus on Recent Violations
Ten commenters (ABA, ATA, CVSA, ICSA, Kathleen Ravin, MTA, NSTA,
NTTC, OOIDA, and Veolia) expressed support for calculating percentiles
only for carriers with cited violations in the past 12 months. This
change applies to the Hours of Service, Vehicle Maintenance, Vehicle
Maintenance: Driver Observed, Hazardous Materials, and Driver Fitness
Compliance Categories. ABA ``strongly endorses'' this change, noting
that it will benefit the Agency by ``better targeting resources towards
carriers that pose a greater safety risk'' and will ``incentivize
carriers to more aggressively manage compliance problem areas.'' NSTA
concurs with ABA that this change could help the Agency focus on ``more
prevalent at-risk operators.'' ICSA and Ravin also echoed the
importance of incentivizing continuous improvement and behavior change.
ICSA noted that ``it's especially important to smaller fleets that
otherwise could be unfairly penalized by past mistakes.'' CVSA voiced
agreement, noting that this change will ``provide a more accurate
assessment of the motor carrier's current safety performance.'' ATA
also expressed support and suggested that this change should be applied
to all categories.
Schneider noted that this standard for calculating a percentile
provides a ``logical threshold for the industry's many small carriers''
but suggested that this standard be applied differently for larger
fleets by considering (1) whether a small number of violations in past
12 months is at an ``acceptable'' threshold and (2) the percentage of a
larger carrier's ``clean'' inspections (inspections without
violations).
Two commenters (TSC and Advocates) expressed concern with the
proposal, stating that the new data sufficiency standard does not
consider carriers that either have not received an annual inspection or
have never been reviewed by the Agency at all.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA acknowledges Schneider's suggestion to account for the
percentage of ``clean'' inspections or an ``acceptable'' number of
violations per inspection for larger carriers when calculating
percentiles. However, the purpose of this change is to account for
smaller carriers that have not received inspections with violations in
the past 12 months, thereby focusing the Agency's enforcement efforts
on those with more recent safety issues. In addition, under the current
SMS, there is no need for a percentile exemption or adjustment for
carriers that receive more frequent inspections. When frequently
inspected carriers have a relatively low number of violations per
inspection, they will have a low percentile reflecting better than
average compliance, and thus not be subject to prioritization.
FMCSA recognizes TSC and Advocates' concern that this updated
standard does not account for carriers that have not received an annual
inspection or have never been reviewed by the Agency. However, FMCSA
has other enforcement tools to help to minimize the number of carriers
that are not reviewed by the Agency or its State Partners. For example,
the New Entrant program includes a safety audit on all new carriers
entering in interstate commerce operations while the Inspection
Selection System encourages law enforcement to inspect drivers and
vehicles managed by carriers with little to no recent inspection
history.
7. Updated Utilization Factor
Three commenters (MTA, Veolia, and Yellow Corporation) support the
extension of the Utilization Factor from carriers that drive up to
200,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per average PU to carriers that
drive up to 250,000 VMT per average PU. MTA indicated that a ``safely
operating carrier must receive credit'' for its traveled miles and not
be ``limited by an artificial mileage ceiling.'' Yellow Corporation
voiced support for the change and recommended that the Agency consider
incorporating driver information from Question 27 in the Motor Carrier
Identification Report (MCS-150) in the Utilization Factor to better
account for carriers with ``significant city operations.''
Two commenters (Advocates and ATA) expressed concern with the
extension of the Utilization Factor to 250,000 VMT per average PU.
Advocates pointed out that the ``benefits from reporting higher VMT
could incentivize carriers to overestimate their usage.'' ATA believes
the Utilization Factor should remain capped at 200,000 VMT per average
PU. ATA stated that its own data analysis indicates that the average
miles per truck per year have decreased significantly since 2009,
citing that in 2022 ``for-hire truckload carriers had an average miles
per truck of 95,829, which was 10.5 percent below that of 2009 (107,112
miles).''
FMCSA Response
FMCSA acknowledges that its self-reported carrier data may show
lower average miles per truck in 2022, similar to ATA's analysis.
However, higher-utilization carriers that drive between 200,000 and
250,00 VMT per average PU still exist, and the updated Utilization
Factor is designed to account for them. In addition, FMCSA revisited
its analysis of carrier-reported VMT from 2016, using more current data
from the December 2020 Motor Carrier Management Information System
snapshot, and confirmed that the conclusions from 2016 are still
accurate. Results from this analysis are available in the
Prioritization Preview Foundational Document.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Yellow Corporation's suggestion, the current
Utilization Factor uses a carrier's VMT per average number of PUs, or
vehicles, to account for different levels of on-road exposure to
inspections and crashes. Question 27 in the MCS-150 form \10\ asks
carriers to report the number of interstate and intrastate drivers who
operate CMVs for
[[Page 91879]]
their company on an average workday, as well as the total number of
drivers regardless of employment status and total of number of drivers
that hold a valid commercial driver's license. FMCSA believes that
incorporating carrier-reported driver information from the MCS-150
would increase the Utilization Factor's complexity and lead to less
accurate results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/form-mcs-150-and-instructions-motor-carrier-identification-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Other Changes Considered and Not Proposed
1. Item Response Theory Modeling
The vast majority of commenters did not address FMCSA's analysis
and decision not to move forward with an Item Response Theory (IRT)
model for prioritization due to the model's complexity and inability to
accurately identify motor carriers for safety interventions. Of the
seven commenters that addressed it, five commenters (ABA, Advocates,
ATA, CVSA, and ICSA) voiced support for FMCSA's decision. ABA stated,
``We endorse every effort to address issues of complexity, and ensure
that the tool is understandable, accessible, and user-friendly to the
greatest extent possible.'' ATA added, ``[We believe] that the ability
to easily explain CSA SMS methodology to drivers and motor carriers
alike is important.'' ICSA echoed the views held by ABA and ATA.
OOIDA acknowledged the difficulties with applying an IRT model to
the motor carrier industry while expressing concern that the decision
not to move forward with IRT could indicate that the Agency has not
properly considered the other recommendations from the National
Academies of Science (NAS).
TSC disagreed with FMCSA's decision, stating that IRT could run
parallel to SMS and be used as a tool to provide enhanced carrier
oversight.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA explained its decision not to adopt an IRT methodology and
provided an overview of the limitations and challenges with using an
IRT model for prioritization purposes in the February 2023 notice.
This notice focuses on addressing comments on the proposed changes
to SMS, which were developed as a result of exploring the feasibility
of the first NAS recommendation to develop an IRT model for
prioritization.
2. Geographic Variation
Three commenters (ATA, IFDA, and OOIDA) expressed disappointment
that FMCSA did not address geographic variation--that is, differences
in CMV inspection and violation rates by State--commenting that this
may lead to unfair SMS results for carriers that operate primarily in
States with higher-than-average enforcement rates. ATA noted that while
a State-focused approach may work for speeding violations, it may not
for vehicle maintenance violations that need to be applied consistently
in any operating condition, and that ``. . . CSA SMS scores are often a
reflection of where a motor carrier operates, not how safely it does
so.'' OOIDA commented, ``If the agency is going to create a universal
safety rating for carriers that prioritizes different kinds of
enforcement, by frequency or even in enforcement oversight, then they
must account for those varying philosophies in how States enforce the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.''
FMCSA Response
FMCSA explored the feasibility of incorporating a model to address
geographic variation during the design stage of the Agency's IRT model
and revisited this analysis while developing the proposed methodology.
Based on the results of these models, FMCSA concluded that it would not
improve the Agency's ability to identify high-risk carriers. Further,
it would undermine the goals of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance
Program, the Agency's grant program that provides financial assistance
to States to reduce the number and severity of crashes, and resulting
injuries and fatalities, involving CMVs and to promote the safe
transportation of passengers and HM. For more on the varying challenges
States face related to crash reduction and why it is important for
FMCSA to encourage States to tailor their crash reduction strategies to
local conditions and challenges, see the February 2023 notice.
IV. Additional Changes to SMS
In addition to the changes to SMS outlined above, FMCSA made
additional changes based on analysis conducted and issues identified
during the preview and comment period.
1. Reorganization of Violations
The following changes were put into effect in the preview, and in
the current SMS methodology where applicable, to align with the needs
of FMCSA's enforcement program.
FMCSA moved violation 390.3E from Unsafe Driving to Driver Fitness
and added 392.15 to Driver Fitness to reflect the root of the
underlying safety issue more accurately. Violations 390.3E and 392.15
both relate to operating a CMV while prohibited from performing safety-
sensitive functions per Sec. 382.501(a) in FMCSA's Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse. Since these violations address whether a driver meets
drug and alcohol requirements to perform safety-sensitive functions,
they are more closely aligned with the Driver Fitness Compliance
Category, which covers driver requirements for the safe operation of
CMVs, including training, experience, licensing, and medical
qualifications. Additional information on 390.3E and 392.15, including
violation code descriptions, and the new violation group in the Driver
Fitness Compliance Category, is provided in the table below.
Table 2--Unsafe Driving Violation Moving to the Driver Fitness
Compliance Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Violation code
Violation group violation code description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating While Prohibited 390.3E Prohibited from
(New). performing safety-
sensitive functions
per 382.501(a) in the
Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse.
Operating While Prohibited 390.15 Driver prohibited from
(New). performing safety
sensitive functions
per Sec. 382.501(a)
in the Drug and
Alcohol
Clearinghouse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further prevent inconsistencies that occur when multiple
violations are cited for a similar underlying issue, FMCSA made
additional changes to the violation groups in Hours of Service and
Vehicle Maintenance Compliance Categories.
FMCSA moved HOS violations in the ``HOS Requirements--Nominal''
violation group to the ``HOS Requirements'' group. A list of the
``nominal'' violations that were consolidated is provided in the table
below.
[[Page 91880]]
Table 3--``HOS Requirements--Nominal'' Violations Moving to the ``HOS
Requirements'' Violation Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal violation code Violation code description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
395.3A2-PROPN................ Driving beyond 14-hour duty period
(Property carrying vehicle)--Nominal
Violation.
395.3A3-PROPN................ Driving beyond 11 hour driving limit in a
14-hour period. (Property carrying
vehicle)--Nominal Violation.
395.3B1-PROPN................ Driving after 60 hours on duty in a 7-day
period. (Property carrying vehicle)--
Nominal Violation.
395.3B2-NOM.................. Driving after 70 hours on duty in an 8-
day period. (Property carrying vehicle)--
Nominal Violation.
395.5A1-PASSN................ Driving after 10 hour driving limit
(Passenger carrying vehicle)--Nominal
Violation.
395.5A2-PASSN................ Driving after 15 hour driving limit
(Passenger carrying vehicle)--Nominal
Violation.
395.5B1-PASSN................ Driving after 60 hours on duty in a 7-day
period. (Passenger carrying vehicle)--
Nominal Violation.
395.5B2-PASSN................ Driving after 70 hours on duty in an 8-
day period. (Passenger carrying
vehicle)--Nominal Violation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FMCSA consolidated the single Vehicle Maintenance
violation in the ``Brakes--OOS'' violation group under the ``Brakes''
group. The ``OOS'' violation is listed in the table below.
Table 4--``Brakes--OOS'' Violation Moving to the ``Brakes'' Violation
Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal violation code Violation code description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
396.3A1BOS................... BRAKES OUT OF SERVICE: The number of
defective brakes is equal to or greater
than 20 percent of the service brakes on
the vehicle or combination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2024, FMCSA also moved 13 Vehicle Maintenance
violations from the Lighting violation group to Clearance
Identification Lamps/Other violation group in the current and preview
SMS methodologies. This change will be carried over to the new
methodology, where the violations will be part of the Clearance Lamp
violation group in the new Vehicle Maintenance: Driver Observed
Compliance Category. This update aligned the current SMS and the
enhanced methodology with the latest changes to violations recorded as
part of the roadside inspection program. A list of the Lighting
violations that were moved to the Clearance Lamp violation group is
provided in the table below.
Table 5--Lighting Violations Moving to ``Clearance Lamp'' Violation
Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal violation code Violation code description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
393.9A-LIL................... Lighting--Identification lamp(s)
inoperative.
393.9A-LLPL.................. Lighting--License plate lamp inoperative.
393.9A-LSML.................. Lighting--Side marker lamp(s)
inoperative.
393.9B-LIL................... Lighting--Identification lamp(s)
obscured.
393.9B-LLPL.................. Lighting--License plate lamp obscured.
393.11A1-LIL................. Lighting--Identification lamp(s) missing.
393.11A1-LLPL................ Lighting--License plate lamp missing.
393.11A1-LPL................. Lighting--Parking lamp(s) missing.
393.11A1-LSML................ Lighting--Side marker lamp(s) missing.
393.17A1-LDCL................ Lighting--Driveaway, clearance lamp(s)
missing on front of towing vehicle.
393.17A2-LDSML............... Lighting--Driveaway, side marker lamp(s)
missing on front of towing vehicle.
393.17B1-LDSML............... Lighting--Driveaway, side marker lamp(s)
missing on rearmost towed vehicle.
393.17D-LDSML................ Lighting--Driveaway, side marker lamp(s)
missing on intermediate towed vehicle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Frequency of Updates to Data Inputs for SMS
Currently, FMCSA updates the SMS website once a month with SMS
results for motor carriers. Complete prioritization results are
available to motor carriers and enforcement personnel that are logged
into the SMS website.\11\ Logged-in motor carriers can only view their
own data, while logged-in enforcement users can view safety data for
all carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Available at https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/sms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA will continue to calculate the SMS results monthly, but in
alignment with FMCSA's commitment to continuous improvement, the Agency
is exploring the feasibility and impacts of providing more frequent
updates to the inspection and crash data that is displayed on the SMS
website. The Agency will share its decision and supporting findings in
the follow-up notice announcing the enhanced SMS methodology.
V. Next Steps
FMCSA thanks industry stakeholders and enforcement personnel for
engaging in an inclusive preview and comment period to continually
improve its SMS methodology. Opportunities for more information,
including a webinar series on the changes, will be announced on the
Prioritization Preview website \12\ in the coming months. A follow-up
notice in the Federal Register will announce the launch date of the
enhanced SMS website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/prioritizationpreview.
Vincent G. White,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-27087 Filed 11-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P