81 FR 45206 - Crash Weighting Analysis
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 133 (July 12, 2016)
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 133 (July 12, 2016)
| Page Range | 45206-45210 | |
| FR Document | 2016-16427 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 45206-45210] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-16427] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0177] Crash Weighting Analysis AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; response to public comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On January 23, 2015, FMCSA announced the results of the Agency's study on the feasibility of using a motor carrier's role in crashes in the assessment of the company's safety. This study assessed (1) whether Police Accident Reports (PARs) provide sufficient, consistent, and reliable information to support crash weighting determinations; (2) whether a crash weighting determination process would offer an even stronger predictor of crash risk than overall crash involvement and how crash weighting would be implemented in the Agency's Safety Measurement System (SMS); and (3) how FMCSA might manage a process for making crash weighting determinations, including the acceptance of public input. Based on the feedback received in response to the January 23, 2015, Federal Register notice, FMCSA conducted additional analysis to improve the effectiveness of the Crash Indicator Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category (BASIC). In addition, the Agency will develop and implement a demonstration program to determine the efficacy of a program to conduct preventability determinations on certain types of crashes that generally are less complex. ADDRESSES: Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on-line. Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information contact Mr. Catterson Oh, Compliance Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone 202-366- 2247 or by email: [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program is FMCSA's enforcement model that allows the Agency and its State partners to identify and address motor carrier safety problems before crashes occur. The Agency's SMS quantifies the on-road safety performance of motor carriers to prioritize enforcement resources. FMCSA first announced the implementation of the SMS in the Federal Register on April 9, 2010 (75 FR 18256) (Docket No. FMCSA-2004-18898). Violations are sorted into BASICs, which include a Crash Indicator BASIC. Since its implementation in 2010, the SMS has used recordable crash records involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that are submitted by the States through the Agency's Motor Carrier Management Information System, in addition to compliance and safety performance in other BASICs, to prioritize carriers for safety interventions. The Agency uses the definition of ``accident'' in 49 CFR 390.5, which means an occurrence involving a CMV operating on a highway in interstate or intrastate commerce that results in: (i) A fatality; (ii) bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or (iii) one or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, [[Page 45207]] requiring the motor vehicle(s) to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle. The term accident does not include an occurrence involving only boarding and alighting from a stationary motor vehicle; or an occurrence involving only the loading or unloading of cargo. The crash data reported to FMCSA by the States does not specify a motor carrier's role in the crash or whether the crash was preventable. The Crash Indicator BASIC weights crashes based on crash severity, with more weight given to fatality and injury crashes than those that resulted in a vehicle being towed from the scene with no injuries or fatalities. While the public SMS Web site provides information on the recordable crashes of motor carriers, the percentile created by the system is not and has never been publicly available. The Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles are available only to motor carriers who log in to view their own data, as well as to Agency and law enforcement users. In addition, Section 5223 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation, Pubic Law 114-94 (FAST) Act prohibits the Agency from making available to the general public information regarding crashes in which a determination is made that the motor carrier or the commercial motor vehicle driver is not at fault. Research on the issue of crash preventability conducted by FMCSA, as well as independent organizations, has demonstrated that crash involvement, regardless of role in the crash, is a strong indicator of future crash risk. FMCSA's recently completed SMS Effectiveness Test shows that, as a group, motor carriers with high percentiles in the Crash Indicator BASIC have crash rates that are 85 percent higher than the national average. (https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/CSMS_Effectiveness_Test_Final_Report.pdf). This document and related reports are available in the docket of this notice. Stakeholders have expressed concern that the Crash Indicator BASIC may not identify the highest risk motor carriers for intervention because it includes all crashes without regard to the preventability of the crash. In addition, some industry representatives have advised that while the Crash Indicator BASIC percentile is not publicly available, some customers are requiring motor carriers to disclose this information before committing to a contract. In an attempt to identify a methodology and process for conducting preventability reviews, FMCSA completed a study on the feasibility of using a motor carrier's role in crashes as an indicator of future crash risk. The analysis focused only on the three broad questions below addressing the procedural issues surrounding a crash weighting program and the feasibility of implementing such a program; it did not focus on any other implications of the program. The three questions were separately designed and analyzed to inform Agency decisions. 1. Do PARs provide sufficient, consistent, and reliable information to support crash weighting determinations? 2. Would a crash weighting determination process offer an even stronger predictor of crash risk than overall crash involvement, and how would crash weighting be implemented in the SMS? 3. Depending upon the analysis results for the questions above, how might FMCSA manage the process for making crash weighting determinations, including public input to the process? The Agency's research plan was posted on the Agency's Web site on July 23, 2012, at http://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/CrashWeightingResearchPlan_7-2012.pdf. The resulting report is titled ``Crash Weighting Analysis'' and is in the docket associated with this notice. The draft research was peer reviewed, and the peer review recommendations are also in the docket. II. Summary of Comments FMCSA received 54 docket submissions in response to the January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3719) notice. The commenters represented motor carriers, drivers, industry associations, safety advocates, and State enforcement partners. The comments focused on: (1) The impacts of the SMS information, (2) methodology changes needed in SMS, and (3) the preventability determination process. A. Impacts of SMS Information There was a majority opinion from the commenters that the establishment and use of a Crash Indicator BASIC percentile without consideration of crash preventability has been detrimental to motor carriers. Even though this percentile is not publicly available--it is only available to the Agency, law enforcement, and motor carriers who log into the FMCSA's Portal to view their own data--commenters expressed concern that the percentile is inaccurate, unfair, and negatively impacts their businesses. Even though the Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles are not publicly available, the American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA) and the Minnesota Trucking Association (MTA) advised that shippers are requiring motor carriers to show their percentiles before contracting with them. Industry representatives indicated that the percentiles are inaccurate because non-preventable crashes are included and, therefore, the percentiles portray motor carriers as unsafe even when their drivers or vehicles did not cause a crash. Safety advocates, including Road Safe America, Truck Safety Coalition, and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), supported keeping all crashes in the SMS system. These groups advised that using all crashes best predicts future crash risk and that the public should have access to all of the crash data. FMCSA Response: As FMCSA has indicated previously, the SMS is a prioritization tool for the Agency and its law enforcement partners. The Agency's Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles have never been in the public view because FMCSA recognized the Crash Indicator BASIC did not factor in preventability. As discussed in this notice, as well as a separate notice published today in the Federal Register, FMCSA is proposing a demonstration program in which certain types of non-preventable crashes would be removed from the SMS. FMCSA's SMS Effectiveness Test, discussed above, supports the Agency's continued use of the Crash Indicator BASIC for its own resource prioritization during the analysis period. The Agency notes that crashes will not affect a motor carrier's safety rating unless the carrier's role in the crashes is considered first. B. Methodology Changes Crash Definition Tim Watson recommended that the Agency change the recordable crash definition to eliminate tow-aways. Mr. Watson contended that the Agency's focus should be on fatal and injury crashes and that, often, the damage requiring a tow is not severe. It is his opinion that focusing on the fatal and injury crashes would be more manageable and cost-effective for FMCSA. FMCSA Response: Revising the definition of recordable crash would be a change to the regulatory text that is beyond the scope of this notice. However, FMCSA conducted additional analysis to determine how removing tow-away crashes from the Crash Indicator BASIC would impact its effectiveness in identifying high risk [[Page 45208]] carriers. A report including this analysis titled ``Crash Indicator BASIC Scenario Analysis'' has been added to this docket. This report suggests that removing tow-away crashes from the Crash Indicator BASIC would not improve the effectiveness of this BASIC and would significantly reduce the Agency's ability to identify and intervene with high-risk carriers. Removing tow-away crashes would result in a lower overall crash rate (5.99 crashes per 100 power units [PUs]) than the current Crash Indicator BASIC (6.34 crashes per 100 PUs), which suggests that it is not as effective at identifying high crash risk carriers. The number of crashes for this scenario is much lower than the number of crashes for the current Crash Indicator BASIC (10,854 vs. 15,638 crashes). Changes in size demographics show that under this scenario the smallest group of carriers, those with 1-5 power units, totals 286 compared to 1,379 carriers over Intervention Threshold in the current Crash Indicator BASIC. This is a 79 percent reduction in the number of carriers over the Intervention Threshold. Therefore, the Agency would have fewer opportunities to intervene through warning letters or other contact to potentially reduce crashes. Weighting of Fatal and Injury Crashes The American Bus Association (ABA) and National School Transportation Association (NSTA) presented a different perspective. These groups contended that the extra weighting of fatal and injury crashes has greater, and inappropriate, impacts on the passenger carrier sectors of the industry. Because of the volume of passengers, there is rarely a crash involving a bus that does not result in at least one injury. As a result, extra weighting on these crashes would automatically raise the Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles for passenger carriers. FMCSA Response: FMCSA completed additional analysis in the Crash Indicator BASIC Scenario Analysis on the impacts of removing or altering the weighting for fatal and injury crashes for all motor carriers. The result of this change would be an overall crash rate (6.13 crashes per 100 power units) for the group of carriers over the intervention threshold that is lower than the crash rate for the group of carriers over the intervention threshold in the current Crash Indicator BASIC (6.34 crashes per 100 power units), which suggests that it is not as effective at identifying high crash risk carriers. Separate Safety Event Groups for Passenger and Property Carriers The passenger carrier industry also suggested that FMCSA should establish separate safety event groups for passenger and property carriers. The ABA, NSTA, and FirstGroup America indicated that this change would result in a more balanced comparison of crashes. FMCSA Response: FMCSA previously considered this suggestion in the development of SMS and determined that it was not a viable option because the population of passenger carriers is too small and the range of company sizes, based on power units, is too great to establish reasonable safety event groups. Grouping this small population separately would result in artificially high percentiles for some carriers. However, as part of the correlation study required by Section 5221 of the FAST Act, this issue will be studied further by the National Academy of Sciences and any recommendations will be addressed upon completion of that study. Normalize Based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ABA and NSTA recommended that FMCSA normalize the number of crashes using VMT to adjust the percentiles for the exposure of large carriers. It was presented that such a change would distinguish between carriers in high traffic areas and those that are not. These commenters believed that this change in the method of calculation would result in more accurate percentiles for large carriers. FMCSA Response: FMCSA notes that VMT is already factored into the calculation of the Crash Indicator BASIC percentile. Currently, to normalize the Crash Indicator calculation, the Crash Indicator BASIC measure is calculated by dividing the sum of the time/severity weight for all applicable crashes by the Average Power Units (PU) multiplied by the Utilization Factor. The Utilization Factor is based on industry segment (combination or straight) and VMT, as noted in the following tables. [[Page 45209]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12JY16.000 As a result, FMCSA is not considering any additional changes to how VMT is used with in the Crash Indicator. However, on June 29, 2015, the Agency published a Federal Register Notice titled, ``Future Enhancements to the Safety Measurement System (SMS),'' in which the Agency proposed increasing the maximum VMT used in the Utilization Factor to more accurately reflect the operations of high-utilization carriers. This proposed change would not impact the methodology described above. A preview of this proposed change, will be announced in a future Federal Register notice. Additionally, FMCSA aligned its VMT data requirements with the Unified Registration System (URS). Previously, the SMS only used VMT data from a carrier's registration form when the VMT-associated calendar year was within 24 months of the current year. This improvement enables the SMS to use a carrier's VMT data regardless of VMT-associated calendar year. C. Minimum Number of Crashes While not submitted as a comment, the Agency also considered increasing the minimum number of crashes required in a 24 month period from two to three, or five, like the other SMS BASICs, before the crashes will be included in the SMS calculation. As analyzed in the Crash Indicator BASIC Scenario Analysis, the overall crash rate for the group of carriers over the intervention threshold using a minimum of three crashes is about the same as the crash rate for the group of carriers over the intervention threshold in the current Crash Indicator BASIC (6.33 vs. 6.34 crashes per 100 Power units). This suggests that using a minimum of three crashes would continue to identify a group of carriers with high crash rates. However, this change in data sufficiency provides the Agency with a high level of confidence. The number of crashes covered under this scenario is only slightly lower than the number of crashes for the current Crash Indicator BASIC (14,838 vs. 15,638 crashes). However, when the minimum number of crashes is raised to five, the overall crash rate for the group of carriers over the intervention threshold is lower than the crash rate for the group of carriers over the intervention threshold in the current Crash Indicator BASIC (6.23 vs. 6.34 crashes per 100 PUs), which suggests that raising the minimum number of crashes to five would reduce the effectiveness of the Crash Indicator BASIC in identifying high crash risk carriers. The number of crashes covered under this scenario is lower than the number of crashes for the current Crash Indicator BASIC (13,337 vs. 15,638 crashes). Based on this additional analysis, FMCSA is proposing to change the minimum number of crashes from two to three before a percentile is calculated in the Crash Indicator BASIC. This change is being added to the list of proposed enhancements announced in docket FMCSA-2015-0149, ``Future Enhancements to the Safety Measurement System (SMS)'' published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2015. The Agency will propose this change and announce a preview of this change in a future Federal Register notice. D. Preventability Determination Process The American Trucking Associations (ATA) provided a list of certain types of non-preventable crashes and suggested that FMCSA establish a process by which documents could be submitted on these crashes and they could be removed from the motor carriers' record. These crashes included when the CMV is struck by a motorist who:Was found responsible by law enforcement for the crash; Was the sole party cited; Was driving under the influence; Crossed the centerline or median; Was driving the wrong way; Struck the truck in the rear; or Struck the truck while legally stopped. [[Page 45210]] Additionally, ATA recommended that FMCSA consider a crash non- preventable when an individual commits suicide or vehicles are incapacitated by animals. There were many comments that indicated that PARs, as currently completed and submitted to FMCSA, are not adequate for completing a preventability determination. KSS Trucking noted, ``I must comment on the PAR accuracy in this situation. After reading the report and interviews I have noted some discrepancies. From something as simple as my license plate number . . . to something as extensive as my interview, there are differences in what was reported and what was recorded.'' Also, Advocates agreed with the Agency that ``PARS cannot be relied on to reach dependable determinations as to crash causation.'' Several commenters, including the ATA, National Waste and Recycling Association, and MTA, recommended that FMCSA require uniform PARs. The Oregon Department of Transportation recommended using PARs, Department of Motor Vehicle crash reports, and State motor carrier crash reports to determine preventability. Also, numerous commenters suggested using the Agency's existing Request for Data Review (RDR) process through the DataQs system for these requests. NM Transfer Company, Inc. and Vigillo LLC recommended that FMCSA require States to make preventability determinations with the funding they are provided through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. The National Motor Freight Traffic Association, Inc. added that it is their opinion that police are taught to find fault. AMSA and ATA recommended that FMCSA tell the States not to upload the crash if the CMV or driver was not at fault. The Institute for Makers of Explosives suggested that all of the crashes be reviewed using the process currently in place for applicants for Hazardous Materials Safety Permits. There were differing opinions on if and how the public could be involved in the preventability determination process. Advocates and the Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association (OOIDA) indicated that adjudications hearings are needed to protect the interests of all persons involved. Advocates also noted that the Agency did not propose any deterrents for filing fraudulently and excessively. OOIDA noted that, ``When the government seeks to determine whether a[n] individual or company is at fault for causing bodily injuries or property damage, it must provide the accused a right to a hearing before a neutral fact- finder; the ability to offer evidence and witnesses; and the opportunity to challenge evidence and witnesses against them. Under our country's systems of legal fairness and due process, FMCSA may not unilaterally determine fault, notify the public of that determination, and punish the motor carrier by damaging its reputation. This is a problem with both FMCSA's current and proposed system of dealing with crashes. If there was a legal proceeding related to an accident where there was a finding of fault or admission, FMCSA may rely upon the determination of fault in that proceeding. That would be the only reliable source of information about crash fault to FMCSA.'' Regarding the estimated costs for a preventability determination process, the National Tank Truck Carriers indicated ``this would be money well spent if it served the over-riding purpose of identifying unsafe driving behavior.'' However, several commenters, including Advocates, indicated that this would be millions of dollars ``that would not lead to any improvement in data quality.'' FMCSA Response: The Agency considered the list of crash scenarios recommended by ATA and agrees to consider whether certain of these scenarios are most often non-preventable. As a result, the Agency is developing a demonstration program and a process for submitting documentation about these crashes through the DataQs program, similar to the process by which individuals may submit documentation of adjudicated citations. It will then evaluate the data to determine if the hypothesis offered by ATA--that certain types of crashes are non- preventable--is proven correct, and, if so, whether changes should be made to the Agency's programs. A separate Federal Register notice seeking comments and input on a process to make preventability determinations on some specific types of crashes is available elsewhere in today's Federal Register and is also in docket FMCSA-2014-0177. Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: July 5, 2016 T.F. Scott Darling, III, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. 2016-16427 Filed 7-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
![45206 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Notices
copy of the certification when driving, the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. Federal document management system
for presentation to a duly authorized 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is is available 24 hours each day, 365 days
Federal, State, or local enforcement still effective at the end of the 2-year each year. If you want acknowledgment
official. period, the person may apply to FMCSA that we received your comments, please
for a renewal under procedures in effect include a self-addressed, stamped
VII. Conclusion
at that time. envelope or postcard or print the
Based upon its evaluation of the 44 Issued on: June 29, 2016. acknowledgement page that appears
exemption applications, FMCSA after submitting comments on-line.
Larry W. Minor,
exempts the following drivers from the Privacy Act: In accordance with 5
diabetes requirement in 49 CFR Associate Administrator for Policy.
U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
391.41(b)(10), subject to the [FR Doc. 2016–16429 Filed 7–11–16; 8:45 am]
from the public to better inform its
requirements cited above 49 CFR BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P rulemaking process. DOT posts these
391.64(b)). comments, without edit, including any
Shannon M. Anfindsen (GA) personal information the commenter
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
Jessie L. Arrant, Jr. (GA)
Joseph M. Benech (RI) Federal Motor Carrier Safety described in the system of records
Mark L. Birch (WI) Administration notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can
Shane M. Burgard (MN) be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
Jonathan W. Cottom (PA) [Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0177] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
David J. Davenport (WA) information contact Mr. Catterson Oh,
Wesley O. Davis (SC) Crash Weighting Analysis
Compliance Division, Federal Motor
Steven P. DelPizzo (PA) AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
Savering F. Demiter (PA) Administration (FMCSA), DOT. New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
Brandon A. Dipasquale (NY) ACTION: Notice; response to public DC 20590, Telephone 202–366–2247 or
Gregory P. Doyle (CO) comments. by email: Catterson.Oh@dot.gov. If you
Scott A. Fetner (AL) have questions on viewing or submitting
Alfredo Flores (KS) SUMMARY: On January 23, 2015, FMCSA material to the docket, contact Docket
Timothy D. Funk (IL) announced the results of the Agency’s Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826.
James D. Gage (MI) study on the feasibility of using a motor SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Leslie G. Goodwin (KS) carrier’s role in crashes in the
Diane M. Greenberg (VA) assessment of the company’s safety. I. Background
Brent P. Griswold (NY) This study assessed (1) whether Police The Compliance, Safety,
Earl E. Hudson, III (SC) Accident Reports (PARs) provide Accountability (CSA) program is
Gregory A. Huffman (TX) sufficient, consistent, and reliable FMCSA’s enforcement model that
Donald R. Kuehn (MN) information to support crash weighting allows the Agency and its State partners
Robert D. Lair, Jr. (AR) determinations; (2) whether a crash to identify and address motor carrier
Mark A. Leman (IL) weighting determination process would safety problems before crashes occur.
Terry D. Leuthold (MT) offer an even stronger predictor of crash The Agency’s SMS quantifies the on-
Michael S. Massa (PA) risk than overall crash involvement and road safety performance of motor
Jordan L. Moss (GA) how crash weighting would be carriers to prioritize enforcement
Ted A. Moyer (FL) implemented in the Agency’s Safety resources. FMCSA first announced the
Lynette A. Occhipinti (WA) Measurement System (SMS); and (3) implementation of the SMS in the
Derek D. Patrick (MI) how FMCSA might manage a process for Federal Register on April 9, 2010 (75 FR
Joseph M. Petrucci (NH) making crash weighting determinations, 18256) (Docket No. FMCSA–2004–
James W. Prather (OH) including the acceptance of public 18898). Violations are sorted into
Edward O. Prosser (RI) input. BASICs, which include a Crash
Dennis L. Ruff (WA) Based on the feedback received in Indicator BASIC.
William J. Shrader (CA) response to the January 23, 2015, Since its implementation in 2010, the
Ronald L. Smith (KS) Federal Register notice, FMCSA SMS has used recordable crash records
Wayne D. Smith (VT) conducted additional analysis to involving commercial motor vehicles
Carnnell A. Taite (MI) improve the effectiveness of the Crash (CMVs) that are submitted by the States
Garrett J. Tousignant (IL) Indicator Behavior Analysis and Safety through the Agency’s Motor Carrier
Franklin G. Towell (IN) Improvement Category (BASIC). In Management Information System, in
Robert S. Townsend (NH) addition, the Agency will develop and addition to compliance and safety
Zachary C. Warrick (NE) implement a demonstration program to performance in other BASICs, to
Zachary C. White (CA) determine the efficacy of a program to prioritize carriers for safety
Mark K. Wittig (NY) conduct preventability determinations interventions. The Agency uses the
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) on certain types of crashes that definition of ‘‘accident’’ in 49 CFR
and 31315 each exemption is valid for generally are less complex. 390.5, which means an occurrence
two years unless revoked earlier by ADDRESSES: Docket: For access to the involving a CMV operating on a
FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked docket to read background documents highway in interstate or intrastate
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
if the following occurs: (1) The person or comments, go to www.regulations.gov commerce that results in: (i) A fatality;
fails to comply with the terms and at any time or visit Room W12–140 on (ii) bodily injury to a person who, as a
conditions of the exemption; (2) the the ground level of the West Building, result of the injury, immediately
exemption has resulted in a lower level 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., receives medical treatment away from
of safety than was maintained before it Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 the scene of the accident; or (iii) one or
was granted; or (3) continuation of the p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, more motor vehicles incurring disabling
exemption would not be consistent with except Federal holidays. The on-line damage as a result of the accident,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jul 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM 12JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_45339/page/1.svg)
![45208 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Notices
carriers. A report including this analysis inappropriate, impacts on the passenger too small and the range of company
titled ‘‘Crash Indicator BASIC Scenario carrier sectors of the industry. Because sizes, based on power units, is too great
Analysis’’ has been added to this of the volume of passengers, there is to establish reasonable safety event
docket. This report suggests that rarely a crash involving a bus that does groups. Grouping this small population
removing tow-away crashes from the not result in at least one injury. As a separately would result in artificially
Crash Indicator BASIC would not result, extra weighting on these crashes high percentiles for some carriers.
improve the effectiveness of this BASIC would automatically raise the Crash However, as part of the correlation
and would significantly reduce the Indicator BASIC percentiles for study required by Section 5221 of the
Agency’s ability to identify and passenger carriers. FAST Act, this issue will be studied
intervene with high-risk carriers. FMCSA Response: FMCSA completed further by the National Academy of
Removing tow-away crashes would additional analysis in the Crash Sciences and any recommendations will
result in a lower overall crash rate (5.99 Indicator BASIC Scenario Analysis on be addressed upon completion of that
crashes per 100 power units [PUs]) than the impacts of removing or altering the study.
the current Crash Indicator BASIC (6.34 weighting for fatal and injury crashes for
Normalize Based on Vehicle Miles
crashes per 100 PUs), which suggests all motor carriers. The result of this
Traveled (VMT)
that it is not as effective at identifying change would be an overall crash rate
high crash risk carriers. The number of (6.13 crashes per 100 power units) for ABA and NSTA recommended that
crashes for this scenario is much lower the group of carriers over the FMCSA normalize the number of
than the number of crashes for the intervention threshold that is lower than crashes using VMT to adjust the
current Crash Indicator BASIC (10,854 the crash rate for the group of carriers percentiles for the exposure of large
vs. 15,638 crashes). Changes in size over the intervention threshold in the carriers. It was presented that such a
demographics show that under this current Crash Indicator BASIC (6.34 change would distinguish between
scenario the smallest group of carriers, crashes per 100 power units), which carriers in high traffic areas and those
those with 1–5 power units, totals 286 suggests that it is not as effective at that are not. These commenters believed
compared to 1,379 carriers over identifying high crash risk carriers. that this change in the method of
Intervention Threshold in the current calculation would result in more
Separate Safety Event Groups for accurate percentiles for large carriers.
Crash Indicator BASIC. This is a 79
Passenger and Property Carriers FMCSA Response:
percent reduction in the number of
carriers over the Intervention Threshold. The passenger carrier industry also FMCSA notes that VMT is already
Therefore, the Agency would have fewer suggested that FMCSA should establish factored into the calculation of the
opportunities to intervene through separate safety event groups for Crash Indicator BASIC percentile.
warning letters or other contact to passenger and property carriers. The Currently, to normalize the Crash
potentially reduce crashes. ABA, NSTA, and FirstGroup America Indicator calculation, the Crash
indicated that this change would result Indicator BASIC measure is calculated
Weighting of Fatal and Injury Crashes in a more balanced comparison of by dividing the sum of the time/severity
The American Bus Association (ABA) crashes. weight for all applicable crashes by the
and National School Transportation FMCSA Response: FMCSA previously Average Power Units (PU) multiplied by
Association (NSTA) presented a considered this suggestion in the the Utilization Factor. The Utilization
different perspective. These groups development of SMS and determined Factor is based on industry segment
contended that the extra weighting of that it was not a viable option because (combination or straight) and VMT, as
fatal and injury crashes has greater, and the population of passenger carriers is noted in the following tables.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jul 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM 12JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_45339/page/3.svg)
![45210 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 133 / Tuesday, July 12, 2016 / Notices
Additionally, ATA recommended that finder; the ability to offer evidence and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FMCSA consider a crash non- witnesses; and the opportunity to
preventable when an individual challenge evidence and witnesses Federal Motor Carrier Safety
commits suicide or vehicles are against them. Under our country’s Administration
incapacitated by animals. systems of legal fairness and due [Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0177]
There were many comments that process, FMCSA may not unilaterally
indicated that PARs, as currently determine fault, notify the public of that Crash Preventability Program
completed and submitted to FMCSA, determination, and punish the motor
are not adequate for completing a AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety
carrier by damaging its reputation. This
preventability determination. KSS Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
is a problem with both FMCSA’s current
Trucking noted, ‘‘I must comment on ACTION: Notice; request for public
the PAR accuracy in this situation. After and proposed system of dealing with
crashes. If there was a legal proceeding comment.
reading the report and interviews I have
noted some discrepancies. From related to an accident where there was SUMMARY: On January 23, 2015, FMCSA
something as simple as my license plate a finding of fault or admission, FMCSA announced the results of the Agency’s
number . . . to something as extensive may rely upon the determination of study on the feasibility of using a motor
as my interview, there are differences in fault in that proceeding. That would be carrier’s role in crashes in the
what was reported and what was the only reliable source of information assessment of the company’s safety.
recorded.’’ Also, Advocates agreed with about crash fault to FMCSA.’’ This study assessed: Whether police
the Agency that ‘‘PARS cannot be relied Regarding the estimated costs for a accident reports (PARs) provide
on to reach dependable determinations preventability determination process, sufficient, consistent, and reliable
as to crash causation.’’ Several the National Tank Truck Carriers information to support crash-weighting
commenters, including the ATA, indicated ‘‘this would be money well determinations; whether a crash-
National Waste and Recycling weighting determination process would
spent if it served the over-riding
Association, and MTA, recommended offer an even stronger predictor of crash
purpose of identifying unsafe driving
that FMCSA require uniform PARs. The risk than overall crash involvement and
Oregon Department of Transportation behavior.’’ However, several
how crash weighting would be
recommended using PARs, Department commenters, including Advocates,
implemented in the Agency’s Safety
of Motor Vehicle crash reports, and indicated that this would be millions of
Measurement System (SMS); and how
State motor carrier crash reports to dollars ‘‘that would not lead to any FMCSA might manage a process for
determine preventability. Also, improvement in data quality.’’ making crash-weighting determinations,
numerous commenters suggested using FMCSA Response: The Agency including the acceptance of public
the Agency’s existing Request for Data considered the list of crash scenarios input.
Review (RDR) process through the recommended by ATA and agrees to Based on the feedback received in
DataQs system for these requests. consider whether certain of these response to the January 23, 2015,
NM Transfer Company, Inc. and scenarios are most often non- Federal Register notice, FMCSA
Vigillo LLC recommended that FMCSA preventable. As a result, the Agency is announced in a separate notice
require States to make preventability elsewhere in today’s Federal Register
developing a demonstration program
determinations with the funding they that it conducted additional analysis in
and a process for submitting
are provided through the Motor Carrier response to comments received.
Safety Assistance Program. The National documentation about these crashes
through the DataQs program, similar to However, in this notice, FMCSA is
Motor Freight Traffic Association, Inc. proposing to develop and implement a
added that it is their opinion that police the process by which individuals may
submit documentation of adjudicated demonstration program to determine the
are taught to find fault. AMSA and ATA efficacy of a program to conduct
recommended that FMCSA tell the citations. It will then evaluate the data
preventability determinations on certain
States not to upload the crash if the to determine if the hypothesis offered by
types of crashes that generally are less
CMV or driver was not at fault. The ATA—that certain types of crashes are
complex. This notice provides FMCSA’s
Institute for Makers of Explosives non-preventable—is proven correct,
proposal for a demonstration program
suggested that all of the crashes be and, if so, whether changes should be and seeks additional comment.
reviewed using the process currently in made to the Agency’s programs. A
place for applicants for Hazardous DATES: Comments must be received on
separate Federal Register notice seeking
Materials Safety Permits. or before September 12, 2016.
comments and input on a process to
There were differing opinions on if make preventability determinations on ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
and how the public could be involved some specific types of crashes is bearing the Federal Docket Management
in the preventability determination available elsewhere in today’s Federal System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA–
process. Advocates and the Owner- 2014–0177 using any of the following
Register and is also in docket FMCSA–
Operator Independent Driver methods:
2014–0177.
Association (OOIDA) indicated that Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
adjudications hearings are needed to Issued under the authority delegated in 49 www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
protect the interests of all persons CFR 1.87 on: July 5, 2016 instructions for submitting comments.
involved. Advocates also noted that the T.F. Scott Darling, III, Mail: Docket Management Facility;
Agency did not propose any deterrents U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Acting Administrator.
for filing fraudulently and excessively. [FR Doc. 2016–16427 Filed 7–11–16; 8:45 am] New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
OOIDA noted that, ‘‘When the Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
government seeks to determine whether Washington, DC 0590–0001.
a[n] individual or company is at fault Hand Delivery or Courier: West
for causing bodily injuries or property Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
damage, it must provide the accused a 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
right to a hearing before a neutral fact- Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jul 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JYN1.SGM 12JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_45339/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2016-07-12 01:59:15
Document Modified: 2016-07-12 01:59:15
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice; response to public comments. | |
| Contact | For information contact Mr. Catterson Oh, Compliance Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone 202-366- 2247 or by email: [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 45206 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR