[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 96269-96274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28377]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0233]
Crash Preventability Determination Program
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; response to public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA announces changes to its Crash Preventability
Determination Program (CPDP). Under the CPDP carriers and drivers may
submit requests for data review (RDR) to FMCSA to determine the
preventability of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes. FMCSA
proposed these changes in its Federal Register notice, ``Crash
Preventability Determination Program,'' published at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2022-0233 on April 13, 2023. This
notice finalizes the proposed changes, responds to comments received,
and outlines next steps for implementation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Catterson Oh, Compliance Division,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-6160, [email protected].
If you have questions regarding viewing or submitting material to
the docket, contact Dockets Operations, (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA organizes this notice as follows:
I. Background
II. Summary of Public Comments and Response
III. List of Eligible Crash Types
A. Changes to Existing Crash Types
B. New Crash Types
IV. Reminders on CPDP Process and System Impacts
A. Process
B. Document Requirements
C. Impacts to Safety Measurement System (SMS) and Pre-Employment
Screening Program (PSP)
D. Implementation of Crash Type Updates to CPDP
V. Other Comments on Changes Not Proposed
VI. Next Steps
I. Background
FMCSA currently accepts RDRs in its DataQs system to evaluate the
preventability of 16 specific crash types as set forth in a notice
published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2020 (85 FR 27017). On
April 13, 2023, FMCSA proposed changes to existing and new crash types
in CPDP and announced a 60-day preview and comment period for
stakeholders (88 FR 22518). The comment period ended on June 12, 2023.
II. Summary of Public Comments and Response
FMCSA received 60 unique comments in response to the April 2023,
notice; one comment was received outside the notice comment period. Of
these, 53 submissions contained comments specifically on the changes
proposed in that notice. The commenters included motor carriers,
drivers/owner-operators, industry associations, and safety consultants.
The following entities submitted relevant comments: AIST Safety
Consultants, American Trucking Associations (ATA), Big M, Cessna
Transport, David W. Blankenship LLC, Fuel Delivery Services Inc., Heyl
Truck Lines, Independent Carrier Safety Association, J.B. Hunt
Transport, Inc., Knight-Swift Transportation, Lytx, National Motor
Freight Traffic Association, Inc. (NFMTA), National Tank Truck Carriers
(NTTC), National Waste and Recycling Association, Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), Ray Walker Trucking, Sanborn,
Brandon, Duvall & Bobbitt Cp., L.P.A., Siskiyou Transportation, Inc.,
The Forward Group, Inc., TMC Transportation, Trailiner Corp, Veolia
North America, Werner Enterprisers, Inc., a consortium of associations
Air & Expedited Motor Carriers Association, Airforwarders Association,
Alliance for Safe, Efficient and Competitive Truck Transportation, Auto
Haulers Association of America, American Home Furnishings Alliance,
Apex Capital Corp, National Association of Small Trucking Companies,
Sompo International, Specialized Furniture Carriers, The Expedite
Association of North American, Transportation & Logistics Council,
Transportation Loss Prevention and Security Association, and
individuals who did not identify their organizations. Many stakeholders
provided comments on multiple proposed changes and topics. Comments
outside the scope of the April 2023 notice are not discussed in this
notice.
Comments in response to the April 2023, notice largely supported
the proposed changes. The relevant topics generating the most responses
were: (1) proposal for new crash types, particularly the inclusion of
requests that have video evidence of the crash; (2) changing the
eligibility standard for wrong direction crashes; and (3) the
turnaround time for a preventability determination on an eligible
crash. In addition, many commenters suggested additional crash types to
include as eligible for the program. Two commenters (Josh Curry and
Charles E. Guitard) stated their opposition to expanding the program.
Josh Curry noted that the ``cost to benefits ratio can't justify it,''
and Charles E. Guitard would like the Agency to address existing
issues, such as the lack of truck parking. The following sections
provide a summary of the comments received and the Agency's responses.
III. List of Eligible Crash Types
A. Changes to Existing Crash Types
While many commenters favored expanding the eligibility of the
program, few specifically addressed the changes to existing crash types
that would allow more crashes to be eligible. Five commenters (Werner,
NFMTA, NTTC, Steve Davis, Siskiyou Transportation, Inc., and OOIDA)
specifically expressed support for the proposed modifications.
AIST Safety Consulting supported FMCSA's proposal to remove the
phrase ``The Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) was struck because'' to
address unfair disqualification of CMVs that were the striking vehicle
but could not have avoided the collision.'' They also supported the
acceptance of multi-vehicle crashes as eligible under the existing
crash types.
The Independent Carrier Safety Association and ATA supported the
change to the crash type originally worded ``When the CMV was struck by
a driver who admitted to falling asleep or admitted to distracted
driving'' to remove the admission requirement.
Barry Poole of Griffith, Indiana, recommended that FMCSA, ``Please
strike the term committing or attempting to commit suicide and replace
with died by or attempting to die by.''
FMCSA Response
FMCSA will modify the list of existing crash types as proposed in
the April 13, 2023, notice. These changes will encompass more
scenarios, such as where the CMV was not the striking vehicle and
multi-vehicle crashes.
[[Page 96270]]
B. New Crash Types
Many commenters welcomed the addition of new eligible crash types
to the program. The notice proposed adding the following types:
1. CMV was struck on the side by a motorist operating in the same
direction.
2. CMV was struck because another motorist was entering the roadway
from a private driveway or parking lot.
3. CMV was struck because another motorist lost control of their
vehicle. The Police Accident Report (PAR) must specifically mention
loss of control either in the citation, contributing factors, and/or
PAR narrative.
4. Any other type of crash involving a CMV where a video
demonstrates the sequence of events of the crash.
Twenty-six commenters supported the inclusion of the four new crash
types. The crash type ``Any other crash involving a CMV where a video
demonstrates the sequence of events of the crash,'' generated the most
comments, with fourteen commenters (The Forward Group, Inc., Jeff
Loggins, Trailiner Corp, AIST Safety Consultants, J.B. Hunt, NWRA,
NTTC, Independent Carrier Safety Association, ATA, Werner Enterprises,
Inc., David Search, and three anonymous posters) specifically
addressing this change.
Three commenters (Jeff Loggins, Trailiner Corp, and an anonymous
commenter) offered remarks on the challenges of uploading videos to the
DataQs system. These commenters requested that the DataQs system be
updated to allow upload of more file types and larger file sizes.
ATA, J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., and an anonymous commenter
expressed concerns with the Agency's handling of video files. ATA's
comments noted ``ATA urges FMCSA to further clarify that any video
evidence should be reviewed, not just an onboard video recorder (i.e.,
surveillance footage, cell phone video, etc.). Furthermore, FMCSA
should clarify the expectation for demonstrating the sequence of events
of the crash . . . FMCSA should not expect, nor require, video evidence
in the hours and days leading up to the crash. Additionally, FMCSA
should take steps to ensure data privacy when submitting video evidence
and ensure that any video submissions are permanently deleted after a
determination has been made.'' J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., believes that
video submissions should be treated as confidential business
information and exempt from public disclosure. An anonymous commenter
inquired about the policies surrounding video submissions, stating
``What will be done with the videos that are submitted? . . . Just
think it should also be disclosed if we will be submitting our private
footage.''
In addition to the four proposed crash types, many commenters also
requested the program expand to include other crash types. The crash
types suggested by commenters are listed below.
1. Crashes at non-controlled intersections, when video evidence is
provided
2. Crashes where the other vehicle tries to outrun the truck
3. Crashes with an abandoned vehicle left in the roadway
4. Crashes where the other vehicle makes an improper lane change or a
sideswipe crash
5. Crashes where the other driver is not legally licensed to drive
6. Weather related crashes (2 comments)
7. Crashes where the other driver took unsafe actions (2 comments)
8. Crashes where the other vehicle is operated at excessive speed
9. Crashes where the other vehicle has an extreme lane incursion
10. Crashes where the other motorist causes the crash
11. Crashes where other vehicle pulls out of parking lot
12. Crashes where other vehicle ``Failed to Maintain Lane''
13. Crashes where other vehicle fails to ``yield right of way''
14. Crashes instigated by a road rage incident
15. Crashes if the Crash avoidance systems were not recording or
detecting any harsh or hard handling prior to the crash or improper
handling of the CMV prior to or at the time of the crash
FMCSA Response
FMCSA reviewed the list of proposed crash types and found that many
were already incorporated in the new and modified crash types proposed
in the April 2023, notice. FMCSA does not plan to include additional
crash types beyond those proposed in the April 13, 2023, notice at this
time. The eligible crash types listed are less complex crash events
that do not require extensive expertise to review. Crash scenarios not
specifically listed as eligible may be accepted to the program if a
video showing the sequence of the crash is submitted with the request.
Regarding suggestions to increase file size and type limitations in
DataQs to accommodate video file submissions, FMCSA notes that in
September 2023, the file size limitation in DataQs was increased to 25
MB, and the system accepts most commonly used file formats. In response
to comments by ATA, J.B. Hunt and an anonymous commenter on video
privacy and security, FMCSA notes that all files uploaded to DataQs are
encrypted. Information submitted to the CPDP is not used for
enforcement purposes. FMCSA also notes that documents uploaded to RDRs
continue to be accessible in DataQs after a determination is made, and
the RDR may be reopened if additional information is provided to the
Agency. Federal records management regulations require the Agency to
keep files submitted to the DataQs system for a mandated timeframe.
The video footage submitted with the CPDP request is expected to
include the full sequence of the crash, but submitters should not
include video files of hours or days preceding the crash. As a result,
the final list of eligible crash types is as follows:
1. CMV was struck in the rear by a motorist
2. CMV was struck on the side at the rear by a motorist
3. CMV was struck while legally stopped at a traffic control device or
parked, including while the vehicle was unattended
4. CMV was struck because another motorist was driving in the wrong
direction
5. CMV was struck because another motorist was making a U-turn or
illegal turn
6. CMV was struck because another motorist did not stop or slow in
traffic
7. CMV was struck because another motorist failed to stop at a traffic
control device
8. CMV was struck because another individual was under the influence
(or related violation, such as operating while intoxicated), according
to the legal standard of the jurisdiction where the crash occurred
9. CMV was struck because another motorist experienced a medical issue
which contributed to the crash
10. CMV was struck because another motorist fell asleep
11. CMV was struck because another motorist was distracted (e.g.,
cellphone, GPS, passengers, other)
12. CMV was struck by cargo or equipment from another vehicle, or
debris (e.g., fallen rock, fallen trees, unidentifiable items in the
road)
13. CMV crash was a result of an infrastructure failure
14. CMV struck an animal
15. CMV crash involving a suicide death or suicide attempt
[[Page 96271]]
16. CMV was struck on the side by a motorist operating in the same
direction as CMV
17. CMV was struck because another motorist was entering the roadway
from a private driveway or parking lot
18. CMV was struck because another motorist lost control of the vehicle
19. CMV was involved in a crash with a non-motorist
20. CMV was involved in a crash type that seldom occurs and does not
meet another eligible crash type (e.g., being struck by an airplane,
skydiver, or a deceased driver in another vehicle)
21. Any other type of crash, not listed above, where a CMV was involved
and a video demonstrates the sequence of events of the crash
IV. Reminders on CPDP Process and System Impacts
A. Process
Two commenters (OOIDA and Bryan Henry) want FMCSA to proactively
review crashes for preventability and remove the requirement for the
motor carrier or driver to submit a request. OOIDA stated that ``Given
the CPDP data over the last five years, the burden should now fall on
the agency, rather than the submitter, to overturn qualifying crashes .
. . We believe transferring the burden to the agency to determine crash
preventability will help keep safe, experienced motor carriers in
business and will also reduce the current backlog of CPDP
submissions.''
Additionally, two other commenters (Sanborn, Brandon, Duvall &
Bobbitt Co., L.P.A. and Henry Seaton) believe that the CPDP lacks due
process. Sanborn, Brandon, Duvall & Bobbitt Co., L.P.A. commented ``We
advocate for the CPDP to restore procedural and substantive due process
to the CPDP by providing a hearing, a right to appeal, the right to
subpoena evidence and witnesses, and by withholding the CSA score
effects of crashes until the due process results in a finding the crash
was preventable.''
Eleven commenters (Jeff Wood, Stephen Hobbs, AIST Safety
Consulting, Knight-Swift Transportation, Ray Walker Trucking, TMC
Transportation, Sanborn, Brandon, Duvall & Bobbitt Co., L.P.A., J.B.
Hunt Transport, Inc., National Tank Truck Carriers, ATA, and OOIDA)
addressed the review time associated with receiving a determination
from the CPDP. All eleven comments on this topic noted that the review
time is too long. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., asked FMCSA to ensure
adequate staffing for the expanded program.
The April 2023 notice maintained that for crashes resulting in a
fatality, proper DOT post-accident drug and alcohol testing results or
the required explanation of why the tests were not completed or not
completed within the timeframes specified in Sec. 382.303(d)(1) and
(d)(2), must be submitted. Knight-Swift Transportation commented on
this requirement and would like more consideration for circumstances
where privacy laws prevent the motor carrier from getting an update on
the severity of injuries from the crash. They request that an
``Undecided'' determination be rendered only if the carrier does not
provide a reason for not performing the test.
FMCSA Response
The CPDP process will remain initiated by a request from the motor
carrier, driver, or authorized representatives. The burden is on the
submitter to provide compelling evidence that the crash is eligible and
not preventable. Submitters are encouraged to submit other documents to
support their request including videos, pictures, and court documents.
The crash data fields that are submitted to FMCSA in the Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS) are a subset of the information
that is available on the PAR. FMCSA does not have direct access to PARs
or other supporting documentation about a crash; and a preventability
determination requires more information than is available in MCMIS.
Regarding the due process comments, the CPDP is a voluntary program
that supports the SMS. FMCSA does not believe that using recorded
crashes for safety assessment and enforcement workload prioritization
purposes constitutes deprivation of a property interest for which due
process is required. This program does not amend any prior legislative
rules, nor does it provide a basis for any new enforcement actions. And
it does not require a notice and comment rulemaking under the
Administrative Procedure Act (49 U.S.C. 551, 553). This program does
not alter FMCSA's safety fitness standard under 49 U.S.C. 31144 and 49
CFR part 385. As expressly stated on the SMS website, FMCSA uses SMS
data to prioritize motor carriers for further monitoring, and data ``is
not intended to imply any federal safety rating of the carrier pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 31144.'' This program does not impact preventability
determinations made through FMCSA safety investigations conducted under
49 CFR part 385, nor the preventability standard contained therein.
Preventability will be determined according to the following standard:
``If a driver, who exercises normal judgment and foresight could have
foreseen the possibility of the accident that in fact occurred and
avoided it by taking steps within his/her control which would not have
risked causing another kind of mishap, the accident was preventable.''
The crash preventability determinations made under this program
thus will not affect any carrier's safety rating or ability to operate.
FMCSA will not issue penalties or sanctions on the basis of these
determinations, and the determinations do not establish any obligations
or impose legal requirements on any motor carrier. These determinations
also will not change how the Agency will make enforcement decisions.
FMCSA emphasizes that these determinations do not establish legal
liability, fault, or negligence by any party. Fault is generally
determined in the course of civil or criminal proceedings and results
in the assignment of legal liability for the consequences of a crash.
By contrast, a preventability determination is not a proceeding to
assign legal liability for a crash. Under 49 U.S.C. 504(f), FMCSA's
preventability determinations may not be admitted into evidence or used
in a civil action for damages and are not reliable for that purpose (85
FR 27017, 27018).
If a submitter receives a determination that the crash was
Preventable or Undecided, or if the RDR is closed for failure to submit
additional requested documents, the RDR may be re-opened once.
Additionally, submitters have an option to create a new RDR if
additional documents or evidence is provided. FMCSA will reconsider the
request if the submitter provides additional documentation to support
the request.
Regarding Knight-Swift Transportation's request for leniency on the
program requirement for proper DOT post-accident drug and alcohol
testing results or the required explanation of why the tests were not
completed or not completed within the timeframes specified in Sec.
382.303(d)(1) and (d)(2), the Agency will not change this requirement
for fatal crashes. This program requirement aligns with carriers'
responsibilities for post-accident drug and alcohol testing outlined in
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
FMCSA continues to provide clarification and individual reminders
to submitters participating in the program, as questions have arisen.
To assist the public in better understanding the CPDP process and
system impacts,
[[Page 96272]]
FMCSA is providing the following reminders.
Preventability Standard
The Agency emphasizes that these changes to the CPDP do not affect
the legal standard for or procedures governing FMCSA's safety fitness
determinations under 49 U.S.C. 31144 and 49 CFR part 385, subpart A.
The Agency's standard for making a preventability determination for
purposes of assigning a safety fitness rating remains unchanged and is
set forth in 49 CFR part 385, Appendix B, section II.B(e). The burden
for a CPDP not preventable determination continues to be on the
submitter to show by compelling evidence that the crash was not
preventable. FMCSA will continue to display the current disclaimer on
the SMS website and will continue to include language in its
determination notifications to submitters explaining that a crash
preventability determination does not assign fault or legal liability
for the crash.
Process
FMCSA will continue to make a determination of ``Preventable'' if
there is evidence that the driver or carrier could have prevented the
crash or was prohibited from operating the CMV at the time of the
crash. This includes, but is not limited to, out-of-service violations,
license violations, and driver prohibitions in the Agency's Drug and
Alcohol Clearinghouse.
FMCSA will continue to rely on the MCMIS crash report to confirm
that the driver was properly licensed at the time of the crash. If this
information is missing from the MCMIS report or MCMIS indicates the
wrong license class for the vehicle being operated, the Commercial
Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) report will be used to
verify the driver's license. Additionally, the CDLIS report is used to
confirm the driver was not operating with an open license withdrawal or
while suspended due to a drug or alcohol violation. The crash will be
deemed ``Preventable'' if documentation shows that the driver was not
qualified at the time of the crash.
If CDLIS is used to verify the license and the driver has renewed
the license or medical certificate since the date of the crash,
evidence of licensing or medical certification on the date of the crash
will continue to be requested from the submitter. Failure to provide
any requested information within 14 calendar days will continue to
preclude a ``Not Preventable'' determination and result in an
``Undecided'' determination.
As a reminder, for crashes resulting in a fatality, proper DOT
post-accident drug and alcohol testing results, or the required
explanation of why the tests were not conducted or not completed within
the timeframes specified in Sec. 382.303(d)(1) and (d)(2), must be
submitted. The tests must be conducted in accordance with the
requirements of 49 CFR part 40, which requires the use of a urine
specimen for drug testing and either breath or saliva testing for
alcohol. An exception for post-accident alcohol testing conducted under
the authority of Federal, State, or local officials permits the use of
a blood test. Additionally, post-accident drug testing under the
authority of Federal, State, or local officials requires the use of a
urine specimen for drug testing. The crash will be deemed
``Preventable'' if the drug or alcohol test results are positive or the
driver refuses to submit to a test. More information about proper drug
and alcohol testing procedures can be found at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/drug-alcohol-testing-program.
Failure to provide requested documents within 14 calendar days may
preclude a ``Not Preventable'' determination and may result in an
``Undecided'' determination.
B. Document Requirements
Three commenters (Siskiyou Transportation, Inc., ATA, and Werner
Enterprises, Inc.) responded to FMCSA's continued requirement for
submitters to provide the complete PAR to participate in the program.
Siskiyou Transportation, Inc. and ATA want FMCSA to accept requests
that do not include a PAR but have other crash information reports.
Werner Enterprises, Inc. would like the PAR requirement rescinded for
requests where there is sufficient video footage of the event. Both ATA
and Werner Enterprises, Inc. commented on the difficulty and delay that
is associated with obtaining PARs.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA will continue to require a PAR issued from a law enforcement
agency as a condition of eligibility for the program. This official
documentation is needed to corroborate other information provided with
the RDR to ensure the correct carrier, driver, and crash event is being
reviewed for preventability. Additionally, the Agency found during the
2-year Crash Preventability Demonstration Program that the PAR is best
single source of crash information and that the majority of PARs
submitted contained sufficient detail to complete a preventability
review (84 FR 38087).
C. Impacts to SMS and PSP
FMCSA did not propose changes to the use, display, and notations of
determinations from the CPDP on SMS and PSP. Six commenters (the
National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA), TMC Transportation,
the Owner-Operators OOIDA, Lewis Britton, Jeff Loggins, and Sanborn,
Brandon, Duvall & Bobbitt Co., L.P.A.) recommended that FMCSA modify
how crashes submitted to the program, and those determined ``Not
Preventable,'' are handled on SMS and PSP. NMFTA and OOIDA want FMCSA
to remove crashes determined ``Not Preventable'' entirely from SMS. TMC
Transportation would like a 30-day grace period before a crash is
posted to SMS so the carrier has an opportunity to request a
preventability review of the crash. Lewis Britton, Jeff Loggins, and
Sanborn, Brandon, Duvall & Bobbitt Co., L.P.A. would like FMCSA to
suspend the use of crashes submitted to the CPDP in SMS calculations
while the requests are under review.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA is not making changes to the way determinations from the CPDP
are used, displayed, or notated on SMS and PSP at this time. FMCSA will
continue to list Not Preventable crashes on the public SMS website.
However, the crash will continue to appear in a separate table from all
other crashes. Crashes found to be ``Not Preventable'' will not be
included in the calculation of the motor carrier's Crash Indicator
BASIC. Crashes found to be ``Preventable'' and ``Undecided'' will
continue to be used the calculation of the Crash Indicator BASIC. Only
not preventable determinations will continue to be noted on the
driver's PSP record. The Agency believes that the public display of all
crashes, regardless of the preventability determination, provides the
most complete information regarding a motor carrier's safety
performance record. The Agency is committed to the open and transparent
reporting of safety performance data.
FMCSA is committed to ensuring that its methodology for
prioritizing motor carriers for interventions accurately reflects
carriers' safety performance. The Agency will continue to evaluate the
methodology's effectiveness and propose improvements when needed.
D. Implementation of Crash Type Updates to CPDP
FMCSA stated in the April 2023, notice that it expected to have a
start date for the new crash types, and the
[[Page 96273]]
new crash types would not be retroactive, that is, a crash that
occurred before the start date of the new crash types would not become
eligible for submission under the CPDP after the start date. Keith
Shields, John Casey, and an anonymous commenter requested that FMCSA
apply eligibility of the new crash types retroactively. Keith Shields
asked that the new crash types apply to crashes that occurred 1 year to
18 months before the start date of the new crash types. The anonymous
commenter would like a 12-to-24-month retroactive application for the
acceptance of crashes with video evidence.
FMCSA Response
The eligibility criteria for the new and updated crash types will
not be applied retroactively to ensure that crashes that occurred
during the same period are analyzed with a consistent set of criteria.
The Agency will accept RDRs for the new and updated crash types for
crashes that occur on or after December 1, 2024. FMCSA will announce on
the CPDP website at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/crash-preventability-determination-program when DataQs will be available to accept the
submissions of the new and updated crash types. Crashes that occur
before December 1, 2024, will be evaluated under the eligibility
criteria established on May 2020 (87 FR 27017).
The Agency reworded the updated crash type to expand eligibility by
including indirect types of crashes. For example, ``CMV was struck by a
driver who experienced a medical issue which contributed to the crash''
has changed to ``CMV was struck because another motorist experienced a
medical issue which contributed to the crash,'' which allows for
scenarios where a motorist (V1) experiencing a medical issue strikes
another vehicle (V2) which then strikes a CMV (V3). To be eligible for
the prior definition, V1 had to directly strike V3, but the updated
changes allow for an indirect strike.
The below table shows the current list and new and updated eligible
crash types for crashes occurring on or after December 1, 2024:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final list of new and updated
eligible crash types (for
Current list of eligible crash types crashes occurring on or after
December 1, 2024)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CMV was struck in the rear by a 1. CMV was struck in the rear
motorist. by a motorist.
2. CMV was struck on the side at the 2. CMV was struck on the side
rear by a motorist. at the rear by a motorist.
3. MV was struck while legally stopped 3. CMV was struck while legally
at a traffic control device (e.g., stopped at a traffic control
stop sign, red light or yield); or device or parked, including
while parked, including while the while the vehicle was
vehicle was unattended. unattended.
4. CMV was struck by a motorist driving 4. CMV was struck because
in the wrong direction. another motorist was driving
in the wrong direction.
5. CMV was struck by another motorist
in a crash when a driver was operating
in the wrong direction.
6. CMV was struck by a vehicle that was 5. CMV was struck because
making a U-turn or illegal turn. another motorist was making a
U-turn or illegal turn.
7. CMV was struck by a vehicle that did 6. CMV was struck because
not stop or slow in traffic. another motorist did not stop
or slow in traffic.
8. CMV was struck by a vehicle that 7. CMV was struck because
failed to stop at a traffic control another motorist failed to
device. stop at a traffic control
device.
9. CMV was struck by an individual 8. CMV was struck because
under the influence (or related another individual was under
violation, such as operating while the influence (or related
intoxicated), according to the legal violation, such as operating
standard of the jurisdiction where the while intoxicated), according
crash occurred, where the individual to the legal standard of the
was charged or arrested, failed a jurisdiction where the crash
field or other test, or refused to occurred.
test.
10. CMV was struck by another motorist
in a crash where an individual was
under the influence (or related
violation such as operating while
intoxicated), according to the legal
standard of the jurisdiction where the
crash occurred, where the individual
was charged or arrested, failed a
field or other test, or refused to
test.
11. CMV was struck by a driver who 9. CMV was struck because
experienced a medical issue which another motorist experienced a
contributed to the crash. medical issue which
contributed to the crash.
12. CMV was struck by a driver who 10. CMV was struck because
admitted falling asleep or admitted another motorist fell asleep.
distracted driving (e.g., cellphone,
GPS, passengers, other).
11. CMV was struck because
another motorist was
distracted (e.g., cellphone,
GPS, passengers, other).
13. CMV was struck by cargo, equipment, 12. CMV was struck by cargo or
or debris (e.g., fallen rock, fallen equipment from another
trees, unidentifiable items in the vehicle, or debris (e.g.,
road); or crash was a result of an fallen rock, fallen trees,
infrastructure failure. unidentifiable items in the
road).
13. CMV crash was a result of
an infrastructure failure.
14. CMV struck an animal............... 14. CMV struck an animal.
15. CMV struck an individual committing 15. CMV crash involving a
or attempting to commit suicide. suicide death or suicide
attempt.
16. CMV was struck on the side
by a motorist operating in the
same direction as CMV.
17. CMV was struck because
another motorist was entering
the roadway from a private
driveway or parking lot.
18. CMV was struck because
another motorist lost control
of the vehicle.
19. CMV was involved in a crash
with a non-motorist.
16. CMV was involved in a crash type 20. CMV was involved in a crash
that seldom occurs and does not meet type that seldom occurs and
another eligible crash type (e.g., does not meet another eligible
being struck by an airplane or crash type (e.g., being struck
skydiver or being struck by a deceased by an airplane, skydiver, or a
driver). deceased driver in another
vehicle).
[[Page 96274]]
21. Any other type of crash,
not listed above, where a CMV
was involved and a video
demonstrates the sequence of
events of the crash.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Other Comments on Changes Not Proposed
In addition to the changes proposed in the April 2023, notice, six
commenters (Jeff Loggins, Steve Davis, AIST Safety Consulting, Knight-
Swift Transportation, Siskiyou Transportation, Inc., and TMC
Transportation) requested that FMCSA expand the eligibility
requirements for the crash type ``CMV was struck because another
motorist was driving in the wrong direction.'' The current eligibility
guide states that the crash must have the following elements, ``The
vehicle in the crash was driving in the wrong direction (e.g.,
northbound in the southbound lanes) AND the vehicle was completely in
the wrong lane (i.e., not partially across the center line).'' All six
commenters want FMCSA to consider crashes where the other vehicle was
partially across the center line as eligible under this crash type.
Steve Davis made the recommendation, ``My recommendation is that if any
portion of the oncoming vehicle crosses the center line and strikes our
CMV resulting in a DOT Recordable accident, then it should be deemed as
non-preventable on the part of the motor carrier.'' AIST Safety
Consulting would like FMCSA to, ``Broaden eligibility for Wrong
Direction cases . . . Consider cases where a vehicle is partially in
the opposite lane, making it impossible for a CMV to avoid a collision
without swerving dangerously.'' The comments from Knight-Swift
Transportation included the suggestion, ``Wrong way accidents--we would
like the CPDP amended to allow for wrong way accident to allow DataQ
submission when:
1. Not Fully Over the Centerline--The vehicle that struck the CMV
was not completely over the center line when the crash occurred.
2. Opposing Direction Sideswipe--The vehicle that struck the CMV
was not completely over the center line when it side-swiped the CMV.
Three commenters would like FMCSA to offer educational resources
for carriers and drivers submitting requests to CPDP. Joshua Anderson
would like additional fields when submitting an RDR to help users
select the appropriate crash type. AIST Safety Consulting recommends
adding a glossary to the Eligibility Guide that is available at https://fmcsa.dot.gov/crash-preventability-determination-program. And ATA
wants enhanced resources for carriers that explain the RDR process,
including minimum documentation requirements.
FMCSA Response
The current eligibility guide states that the crash must have the
following elements, ``The vehicle in the crash was driving in the wrong
direction (e.g., northbound in the southbound lanes) AND the vehicle
was completely in the wrong lane (i.e., not partially across the center
line).'' In response to the commenters, the Agency is staying with the
current criteria for the ``wrong direction'' crash type and will NOT
allow for partial crossing of the center line. As stated above, the
crash types that are eligible for the CPDP are less complex crash
events that do not require extensive expertise to review. However, the
addition of the new crash type, where a CMV was involved and a video
demonstrates the sequence of events of the crash, may allow for partial
crossing of the center line types of crashes.
FMCSA will continue to update the Eligibility Guide to ensure it
provides the most up-to-date criteria for each crash type. All the
resources published on the https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/crash-preventability-determination-program website will be updated to ensure
submitters have the resources to make a complete request.
VII. Next Steps
FMCSA will post information on the CPDP website https://fmcsa.dot.gov/crash-preventability-determination-program notifying
submitters of the date when FMCSA will accept submissions under the new
and updated crash types set forth in this notice.
Vincent G. White,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-28377 Filed 12-3-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P