Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61131 

Disciplinary Actions 

Under the existing laws, each agency 

retains the right, where appropriate, to 

discipline a Federal employee for 

conduct that is inconsistent with 

Federal antidiscrimination and 

whistleblower protection laws, up to 

and including removal. If OSC has 

initiated an investigation under 5 U.S.C. 

1214, however, according to 5 U.S.C. 

1214(f), agencies must seek approval 

from the Special Counsel to discipline 

employees for, among other activities, 

engaging in prohibited retaliation. 

Nothing in the No FEAR Act alters 

existing laws or permits an agency to 

take unfounded disciplinary action 

against a Federal employee or to violate 

the procedural rights of a Federal 

employee who has been accused of 

discrimination. 

Additional Information 

For further information regarding the 

No FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR 

part 724, as well as the appropriate 

offices within your agency (e.g., EEO/ 

civil rights office, human resources 

office, or legal office). Additional 

information regarding Federal 

antidiscrimination, whistleblower 

protection and retaliation laws can be 

found at the EEOC Web site (http:// 

www.eeoc.gov) and the OSC Web site 

(http://www.osc.gov). 

Existing Rights Unchanged 

Pursuant to section 205 of the No 

FEAR Act, neither the Act nor this 

notice creates, expands or reduces any 

rights otherwise available to any 

employee, former employee or applicant 

under the laws of the United States, 

including the provisions of law 

specified in 5 U.S.C. 2302(d). 

Dated: October 11, 2006. 

Scott J. Bloch, 

Special Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E6–17171 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7405–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 5581] 

Culturally Significant Objects Imported 

for Exhibition Determinations: 

‘‘Masterpieces of Russian Art’’

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

following determinations: Pursuant to 

the authority vested in me by the Act of 

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 

2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 

27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 

2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et 

seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of 

October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority 

No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as 

amended, and Delegation of Authority 

No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], 

I hereby determine that the objects to be 

included in the exhibition 

‘‘Masterpieces of Russian Art’’, 

imported from abroad for temporary 

exhibition within the United States, are 

of cultural significance. The objects are 

imported pursuant to loan agreements 

with the foreign owners or custodians. 

I also determine that the exhibition or 

display of the exhibit objects at The 

Museum of Russian Art, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota, from on or about October 20, 

2006 until on or about December 30, 

2006, and at possible additional venues 

yet to be determined, is in the national 

interest. Public Notice of these 

Determinations is ordered to be 

published in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. 

Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the 

Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 

(telephone: 202/453–8050). The address 

is U.S. Department of State, SA–44, 301 

4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, 

DC 20547–0001. 

Dated: October 10, 2006. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department 

of State. 

[FR Doc. E6–17234 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2004–18898] 

Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 

Initiative 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of public listening 

session. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) is 

holding a public listening session to 

obtain feedback on the Agency’s 

Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 

initiative (CSA 2010), a comprehensive 

review and analysis of FMCSA’s current 

commercial motor carrier safety and 

enforcement programs. FMCSA will use 

the upcoming listening session to 

inform the public on the conceptual 

direction and progress of CSA 2010, and 

obtain feedback from its partners and 

stakeholders. To facilitate the upcoming 

listening session, FMCSA has included 

in this notice a number of questions that 

commenters are invited to address. 

DATES: The Public Listening Session 

will be held on November 16, 2006 from 

8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Written comments 

must be received by December 18, 2006. 

Location: The Public Listening 

Session will be held at the Hyatt 

Regency on Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001. 

The telephone number is (202) 737–

1234. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by DOT Docket Management 

System (DMS) docket number FMCSA–

2004–18898, using any of the following 

methods: 

Web site: http://dmses.dot.gov. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the 

plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cathy McNair, Assistant Program 

Manager, CSA 2010, (202) 366–0790. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Format of 

Listening Session: During the Public 

Listening Session, FMCSA will describe 

its progress on CSA 2010 to date. 

FMCSA will accept comments on the 

CSA 2010 operational model and any 

additional information FMCSA should 

consider to promote the success of the 

CSA 2010 initiative. 

The listening session will run from 8 

a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Participant registration 

will be from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. The session 

will include a morning plenary session 

(9 a.m.) and four facilitated breakout 

sessions (10:15 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.), 

related to the CSA 2010 operational 

model: (1) Measurement, (2) Safety 

Fitness Determination, (3) Intervention 

Selection, and (4) Safety Data and 

Validation. Attendees will be able to 

participate in one of the breakout 

sessions and will have an opportunity to 

comment on the key questions listed 

herein by topic, as well as hear the 

comments of other stakeholders 

assigned to the topic. More details on 

this process are included in the on-line 

pre-registration site. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
61132 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 

Registration information and 

instructions: To attend the listening 

session, attendees can register online at 

http://www.csa2010.com. In addition to 

registration information, the registration 

Web site provides additional location 

and agenda details. To register, click the 

Register button on the left side of the 

homepage to display the online 

registration form. The registration form 

requests information about the attendee 

and breakout session preference. Due to 

size and space limitations, attendees 

may not be assigned to their first 

breakout session preference; however, 

FMCSA will strive to accommodate 

attendees’ first or second choice. Once 

the form is complete, submit the form to 

complete the registration process and a 

registration confirmation will appear. If 

there are any questions, or if you prefer 

to register via telephone, please contact 

admin@csa2010.com or telephone (301) 

495–8458. 

Instructions for submitting written 

comments: Comments regarding CSA 

2010 can also be filed with the 

Department of Transportation’s Docket 

Management System (DMS). All 

submissions must include the Agency 

name and docket number for this 

Notice. Note that all comments received 

will be posted without change to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information provided. Please see the 

Privacy Statement heading for further 

information. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov at any time or the docket 

(see ADDRESSES section above). If you 

want us to notify you that we received 

your comments, please include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope, postcard, 

or print the acknowledgement page that 

appears after submitting comments online. 

Privacy Act: Anyone may search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or of the person signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review the Department of 

Transportation’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477; Apr. 11, 2000). This information 

is also available at http://dms.dot.gov. 

Background 

In August 2004, FMCSA embarked on 

CSA 2010—a comprehensive review 

and analysis of FMCSA’s current 

commercial motor vehicle safety 

compliance and enforcement programs 

(69 FR 51748, August 20, 2004). The 

goal of CSA 2010 is the development 

and deployment of a new operational 

model, a new approach to using FMCSA 

resources to identify drivers and 

operators that pose safety problems and 

to intervene to address those problems. 

FMCSA understands how important it is 

to the success of this initiative to obtain 

active and timely feedback from its 

partners and stakeholders. The Agency 

held a series of public listening sessions 

on CSA 2010 in September and October 

of 2004. These sessions were designed 

to collect public input regarding ways 

FMCSA could improve its process of 

monitoring and assessing the safety 

performance of the commercial motor 

carrier industry. Participants were a 

cross section of individuals including 

industry executives, truck and bus 

drivers, insurance and safety advocacy 

groups, State and local government 

officials, and enforcement professionals. 

FMCSA was encouraged that the 

majority of participants supported the 

agency’s goal of improving the current 

process through the CSA 2010 initiative. 

During the 2004 listening sessions, 

the stakeholder community expressed 

many different opinions regarding the 

various entities, activities, and 

environmental factors that contribute to 

safety. The sessions highlighted that 

safety indicators can be difficult to 

identify and measure. Participants also 

commented on the effectiveness of 

current processes and offered creative 

ideas for FMCSA to consider when 

crafting new policies and processes. For 

example, in almost every listening 

session, participants suggested using 

incentives rather than penalties to 

encourage safe behavior. Participants 

expressed a strong interest in 

comprehensive, consistent, relevant, 

and accurate data that are easily 

accessible to all. Some participants 

expressed a willingness to self-disclose 

data and to help keep safety data 

current. For further detail on the public 

listening sessions, visit FMCSA’s Web 

site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safetysecurity/csalisteningsessions.htm and 

see the final report, ‘‘Comprehensive 

Safety Analysis Listening Sessions.’’

On July 20, 1998, the Agency issued 

an Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM), entitled ‘‘Safety 

Fitness Procedures’’ (63 FR 38788), 

seeking comments and supporting data 

on the issues that should be considered 

in developing a future safety fitness 

rating system. Many of the participants 

in the 2004 listening sessions suggested 

that FMCSA delay publishing a notice 

of proposed rulemaking until the 

Agency makes its final decisions 

regarding its long-term plan for 

monitoring safety under CSA 2010. 

Accordingly, the Agency withdrew the 

ANPRM (70 FR 67405, November 7, 

2005). 

Recently, FMCSA requested 

comments from the public on planned 

improvements to the Agency’s Motor 

Carrier Safety Status Measurement 

System (SAFESTAT) algorithm (71 FR 

36170, May 3, 2006). The SAFESTAT 

system analyzes current and historical 

safety performance and compliance 

information to rank the relative safety 

fitness of commercial motor carriers. 

SAFESTAT enables FMCSA to quantify 

and monitor trends in the safety status 

of individual motor carriers. FMCSA 

focuses compliance review and roadside 

inspection resources on carriers posing 

the greatest potential safety risk. 

SAFESTAT involves analytically 

assessing a motor carrier in four Safety 

Evaluation Areas (SEAs), including: (1) 

Accident, (2) Driver, (3) Vehicle, and (4) 

Safety Management. The Agency has 

proposed improvements that would 

simplify the Accident SEA, increase the 

relevance of moving violations in the 

Driver SEA, include in the Vehicle SEA 

vehicle out-of-service violations from 

inspections marked as driver-only, and 

shorten the data exposure time period 

considered by SAFESTAT from 30 

months to 24 months. The proposed 

improvements are intended to make the 

algorithm more effective in identifying 

motor carriers that pose a high crash 

risk. The proposed changes are also 

consistent with FMCSA’s CSA 2010 

initiative. The ultimate goal of CSA 

2010 is development of an optimal 

operational model that will allow 

FMCSA to focus its limited resources on 

improving the safety performance of 

high-risk operators. The comment 

period closed July 3, 2006. 

The results of FMCSA’s recent Large 

Truck Crash Causation Study also 

provide important input for the 

development of a new operational 

model. This study was the first 

nationwide examination focused on precrash factors. Study findings indicate 

that drivers of large trucks and other 

vehicles involved in truck crashes are 

ten times more likely to be the cause of 

the crash than other factors, such as 

weather, road conditions, and vehicle 

performance. These results suggest that 

efforts to assess safety performance and 

to apply interventions to improve 

performance should focus on drivers. 

Among the changes under consideration 

in CSA 2010 are several that would 

improve the data collected on drivers 

and would add interventions applicable 

to individual drivers. Additional 

information on the Large Truck Crash 

Causation Study is available at http:// 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61133 

Upcoming Listening Session: The 

purpose of the upcoming listening 

session is for FMCSA to update its 

stakeholders and partners on the 

progress that has been made since the 

listening sessions in 2004. To facilitate 

the upcoming listening session, FMCSA 

has included in this notice a number of 

questions designed to elicit input on 

possible features of the CSA 2010 

operational model. In responding to the 

questions commenters are requested to 

provide supporting rationale, and 

supporting documentation wherever 

possible. FMCSA plans to hold annual 

CSA 2010 listening sessions to continue 

the process of updating partners and 

stakeholders and receiving feedback. 

Current Operational Model: To 

understand FMCSA’s goals for assessing 

and improving motor carrier safety, it is 

important to understand the Agency’s 

current process. FMCSA currently 

collects several kinds of data on motor 

carriers, including Federal and State 

information on crashes and roadside 

inspections, results of on-site 

compliance reviews, and enforcement 

actions. FMCSA uses the data to (1) 

determine which motor carriers should 

be selected for on-site compliance 

reviews, and (2) determine the safety 

fitness of motor carriers. To analyze the 

data it collects, the Agency uses 

SAFESTAT. 

Each month, SAFESTAT generates a 

list of high-priority motor carriers for 

which FMCSA plans compliance review 

visits. In selecting motor carriers for 

compliance reviews, SAFESTAT works 

with four SEAs referenced above: (1) 

Accident, (2) Driver, (3) Vehicle, and (4) 

Safety Management. For a full 

description of the SAFESTAT 

methodology, visit FMCSA’s Web site 

at: http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov. 

FMCSA issues a safety fitness 

determination and a corresponding 

safety rating as a result of an on-site 

compliance review (CR). The CR 

assesses whether a commercial motor 

carrier’s safety management controls are 

functioning effectively to ensure 

acceptable compliance with the safety 

fitness standard found at 49 CFR 385.5. 

Currently, the safety ratings that result 

from a CR are Satisfactory, Conditional, 

or Unsatisfactory. FMCSA may take 

enforcement actions against a motor 

carrier as a result of the CR. 

Limitations of the Current Operational 

Model 

FMCSA’s compliance and safety 

programs improve and promote safety 

performance. However, despite 

increases in the regulated population, as 

well as increased programmatic 

responsibilities, Agency resources 

available for these efforts have remained 

relatively constant over time. In its 

present structure, FMCSA’s CR program 

is resource-intensive and reaches only a 

small percentage of motor carriers. Onsite CRs take one safety investigator an 

average of 3 to 4 days to complete, and 

thereby determine a motor carrier’s 

safety fitness. At present staffing levels 

FMCSA can perform CRs on only a 

small portion of the 700,000 active 

interstate motor carriers. These factors 

have made it increasingly difficult to 

make sustained improvements to motor 

carrier safety using existing programs 

and information systems. In addition, 

the Large Truck Crash Causation Study 

clearly indicates that increased attention 

should be given to drivers. Although 

FMCSA determines, to a limited extent, 

the compliance and safety of 

commercial motor vehicle drivers and 

pursues enforcement against them if 

warranted, current FMCSA systems do 

not evaluate the safety fitness of 

individual commercial motor vehicle 

drivers. 

For these reasons FMCSA is exploring 

ways through CSA 2010 to improve its 

current processes for monitoring and 

assessing the safety performance of 

motor carriers and drivers. 

New Operational Model—CSA 2010 

The goal of CSA 2010 is to develop a 

new approach to assessing the motor 

carrier safety performance of a larger 

segment of the motor carrier industry, 

while optimizing the use of Agency 

resources. CSA 2010 is designed to help 

FMCSA affect a larger number of motor 

carriers and drivers using a broader 

array of compliance interventions. In 

conceptualizing a new operational 

model, FMCSA began with a list of ideal 

attributes and components that it 

believes should be part of any model for 

safety oversight: 

Flexible—Adaptable to Changing 

Environment. Accommodate changes to 

the transportation environment, such as 

evolutions in technology and changing 

programmatic responsibilities. 

Efficient—Maximize Use of 

Resources. Produce greater efficiencies 

by maximizing use of resources to 

improve Agency productivity, as well as 

the safety performance of members of 

the motor carrier community. 

Effective—Improve Safety 

Performance. Increase the quality of 

contact with the motor carrier 

community by identifying those 

behaviors associated with poor safety, 

and focusing compliance and safety 

efforts on those unsafe behaviors. 

Innovative—Leverage Data and 

Technology. Improve safety by 

innovative use of data and technology to 

leverage its impact. Improve timeliness 

and accuracy of data used for 

determining safety fitness, and pursuing 

enforcement actions against unsafe 

entities of the motor carrier community. 

A key factor to the success of this 

component is the information 

technology/business transformation 

project COMPASS. More information on 

COMPASS is available at http:// 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov. 

Equitable—Fair and Unbiased. Assess 

and evaluate motor carrier safety and 

enforce federal laws and safety 

regulations to ensure consistent 

treatment of similarly situated members 

of the motor carrier community. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
61134 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 

One conceptual operational model for 

CSA 2010 shown here would measure 

safety performance and compliance, 

determine safety fitness, recommend 

interventions, apply interventions, and 

track and evaluate safety improvements 

for FMCSA regulated entities. The 

model would continuously evaluate and 

monitor regulated entities’ compliance 

and safety performance. It would be 

significantly different from the current 

model in that the safety fitness 

determination made under CSA 2010 

would be independent of the 

compliance review. The safety fitness 

determination would be based on 

performance data and would lead to a 

broader array of compliance 

interventions. 

A conceptual model of this nature 

would be composed of four integrated 

and independent components: (1) 

Measurement, (2) Safety Fitness 

Determination, (3) Intervention 

Selection, and (4) Tracking, Evaluation 

and Data Validation. These four 

components are represented as 

diamonds in the Operational Model 

Concept diagram above. Components 

are the portions of the operational 

model in which a distinct action would 

occur. These components would be 

supported by three data elements that 

are represented by boxes in the diagram. 

They are (1) Safety Data, (2) Intervention 

History, and (3) Entity Characteristics. 

Components and elements identified to 

date which could be supportive of the 

CSA 2010 initiative are described in 

greater detail below. 

Measurement 

A Measurement Component could 

collect, categorize, analyze, and score 

safety data on regulated entities. It could 

automatically categorize data into 

behavioral areas, examples of which are 

identified below as Behavioral Analysis 

and Safety Improvement Categories or 

BASICs. BASICs would represent 

behaviors that lead to or increase the 

consequences of crashes. Rather than 

rely on the results of a compliance 

review, FMCSA could use motor carrier 

or driver performance data in the 

identified behavioral areas to determine 

safety fitness. The Measurement 

Component could be supported by the 

Safety Data Element, which would 

include data from past interventions, 

crashes, motor vehicle/driver 

inspections, and other data sources. The 

goal of such a system would be to 

provide an objective, performance-based 

measure for each motor carrier and 

driver. The measurement could be 

regularly updated and made publicly 

available. Among the BASICs currently 

under consideration to generate this 

measure are: 

1. Unsafe Driving—Dangerous or 

careless operation of commercial motor 

vehicles. Data would include driver 

traffic violations and convictions for 

speeding, reckless driving, improper 

lane change, inattention, and other 

unsafe driving behavior. 

2. Fatigued Driving—Driving 

commercial motor vehicles when 

fatigued. This would be distinguished 

from incidents where unconsciousness 

or an inability to react is brought about 

by the use of alcohol, drugs, or other 

controlled substances. Data would 

include (1) hours-of-service violations 

discovered during a compliance review, 

focused review, roadside inspection, or 

post-crash inspection, and (2) crash 

reports with driver fatigue as a 

contributing factor. 

3. Driver Fitness—Operation of 

commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) by 

drivers who are unfit to operate a CMV 

due to lack of training, experience, or 

medical qualification. Data would 

include (1) inspection violations for 

failure to have a valid and appropriate 

commercial driver’s license, or medical 

or training documentation, (2) crash 

reports citing a lack of experience or 

medical reason as a cause or 

contributory factor, and (3) violations 

from a compliance review or focused 

review for failure to maintain proper 

driver qualification files, or use of 

unqualified drivers. 

4. Controlled Substances and 

Alcohol—Operation of a CMV while 

impaired due to alcohol, illegal drugs, 

and misuse of prescription medications 

or over-the-counter medications. Data 

would include (1) roadside violations 

involving controlled substances or 

alcohol, (2) crash reports citing driver 

impairment or intoxication as a cause, 

(3) positive drug or alcohol test results 

on drivers, and (4) lack of appropriate 

testing or other deficiencies in motor 

carrier controlled substances and 

alcohol testing programs. 

5. Vehicle Maintenance—CMV failure 

due to improper or inadequate 

maintenance. Data would include (1) 

roadside violations for brakes, lights, 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICESEN17OC06.063</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61135 

and other mechanical defects, (2) crash 

reports citing a mechanical failure as a 

contributing factor, or (3) violations 

from a compliance review or focused 

review associated with pre-trip 

inspections, maintenance records, and 

repair records. 

6. Improper Loading/Cargo 

Securement—Shifting loads, spilled or 

dropped cargo, and unsafe handling of 

hazardous materials. Data would 

include (1) roadside inspection 

violations pertaining to load 

securement, cargo retention, and 

hazardous material handling, and (2) 

crash reports citing shifting loads, or 

spilled/dropped cargo as a cause or 

contributing factor. 

7. Crash/Incident Experience—

Histories or patterns of high crash 

involvement, including frequency and 

severity. Data would include law 

enforcement crash reports and crashes 

reported by the carrier and discovered 

during compliance reviews. 

The concept of quantifying 

compliance and safety by numerical 

scores derived from data is not new to 

FMCSA. While a Measurement 

Component would be similar in 

approach to the agency’s current system, 

SAFESTAT, there are key differences. In 

the Measurement Component, safety 

problems would be quantified by a 

greater number of behavioral areas 

associated with crash involvement and 

would use a broader range of available 

data. The goal is to identify poor 

performance early and take 

interventions before small violations 

become larger safety problems. 

Questions 

If the CSA 2010 model were to 

include a Measurement Component 

with some or all of the features 

described above: 

1. Are the BASICs, referenced above, 

sufficient for measuring the safety 

performance of commercial motor 

carriers and drivers? If not, what other 

categories of data should be used? 

2. Should the BASICs be weighted 

and scored in determining an objective 

measure of the safety performance of 

each commercial motor vehicle driver 

and carrier, if so, how? Please explain. 

3. What is the appropriate historical 

timeframe to use when measuring the 

safety performance of CMV drivers and 

carriers (how far to look back)? Should 

the timeframe for carriers be different 

from the timeframe for drivers? Please 

explain. 

4. What data should be used in each 

of the BASICs to provide an objective 

measure of the safety performance of 

CMV drivers and carriers, and from 

which sources should these data be 

obtained? Please describe. 

5. What methodology should be used 

to quantify the relationship between 

crash causation and a given BASIC? 

Please explain. 

6. What other issues should the 

Agency be considering with respect to 

the Measurement Component? 

7. What do you see as the critical 

success factors for implementing a 

measurement system based on data from 

the BASICs? What are key potential 

obstacles to implementation? 

Safety Fitness Determination 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31144, FMCSA is 

required to ‘‘maintain by regulation a 

procedure for determining the safety 

fitness of an owner or operator.’’ The 

CSA 2010 conceptual model could 

include a Safety Fitness Determination 

Component to regularly determine the 

safety fitness of motor carriers and 

drivers of commercial motor vehicles. 

This determination could be based on 

performance-based data from the 

BASICs described above. This 

component could also incorporate the 

regulated entity’s history of responses to 

prior interventions. 

The Safety Fitness Determination 

Component could be used to determine 

whether a motor carrier, owner, or 

operator can Continue to Operate or is 

Unfit. On a regularly scheduled basis, 

FMCSA could evaluate all safety 

performance and compliance-based 

BASIC scores of each regulated entity. 

Safety fitness could be determined for 

all carriers and drivers for which there 

is sufficient data and could be 

determined on a regular basis as new 

data enter the operational model. A 

compliance review would not be 

required prior to a safety fitness 

determination. FMCSA anticipates a 

change of this nature would result in a 

significant increase in the number of 

safety fitness determinations issued by 

the Agency. The safety fitness 

determinations and the methodology 

used would be made available to the 

public, as they are today. 

Currently, a safety fitness 

determination results in a rating of 

Satisfactory, Conditional, or 

Unsatisfactory. In the operational model 

under consideration, only two ratings 

would be used: Continue to Operate or 

Unfit. However, carriers, drivers, or 

owner-operators allowed to continue 

operations could be subject to a 

pending, intermediary intervention, as 

discussed below. Those with the most 

egregious safety problems could be 

deemed Unfit immediately and, in that 

case, would be subject to the 

prohibitions on operations contained in 

49 U.S.C. 31144. 

Questions 

If the CSA 2010 model were to 

include a Safety Fitness Determination 

Component with some or all of the 

features described above: 

1. What other data or behavioral 

factors, beyond the BASICs referenced 

above, should be considered in the 

safety fitness determination process for 

motor carriers or drivers? What data or 

behavioral factors should not be 

considered and why? 

2. Should some BASICs be weighted 

more heavily than others? If so, which 

ones and why? 

3. What is the appropriate timeframe 

that FMCSA should use in assessing 

safety fitness (e.g., the past 18 months, 

24 months, 36 months)? Please explain. 

4. How often (e.g., monthly, quarterly, 

annually) should FMCSA assess safety 

fitness and issue safety fitness 

determinations under the new 

operational model? Please explain. 

5. Should safety fitness 

determinations be more stringent for 

certain industry groups such as 

passenger carriers or carriers of 

hazardous materials? Why or why not? 

6. Should FMCSA adopt a two-tiered 

rating system (Continue to Operate or 

Unfit) instead of the current three-tiered 

rating system (Satisfactory, Conditional, 

and Unsatisfactory)? Why or why not? 

7. What other issues should the 

Agency be considering with respect to 

the Safety Fitness Determination 

Component? 

Intervention Selection and Entity 

Characteristics 

The CSA 2010 conceptual model 

could include an Interventions 

Component which would identify 

appropriate FMCSA interventions for 

regulated entities with specific safety 

problems, depending on the outcomes 

of the Safety Fitness Determination and 

Measurement Components. An 

intervention, as used in this context, 

refers to any action FMCSA would take 

to correct unsafe behavior and achieve 

compliance. Aside from roadside 

inspections, the primary compliance 

intervention currently used is the 

compliance review. In the approach 

under consideration, the Agency could 

have a broader array of interventions, 

including: (1) Web-based education, (2) 

warning letters, (3) request for 

submission of documents, (4) targeted 

roadside inspections, (5) focused on-site 

reviews, (6) comprehensive on-site 

reviews, and (7) enforcement actions. 

An Interventions Component of this 

nature would not necessarily rely on a 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
61136 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 

compliance review to determine 

appropriate interventions. Measurement 

and Safety Fitness Determination 

Components under consideration could 

allow a driver or carrier to continue 

operating, but with some intermediary 

intervention pending. The Interventions 

Component would be designed as a tool 

to support correction of unsafe behavior. 

Once it has been determined that an 

intervention is necessary, an 

intervention could be selected to 

effectively and efficiently remediate the 

unsafe behavior. Interventions could be 

selected according to the BASIC scores 

from the Measurement and Safety 

Fitness Determination components, and 

the Entity Characteristics and 

Interventions History Data Elements. 

A Characteristics Data Element could 

influence what type of intervention is 

selected. For example, a motor carrier 

transporting passengers could be 

selected for a stronger intervention than 

a general freight hauler, depending on 

the circumstances involved and 

available information. 

Responses to prior interventions 

could be considered in the selection of 

future interventions through the 

Interventions History Data Element. 

Responses to prior interventions could 

also be considered by the Safety Fitness 

Determination Component. 

Questions 

If the CSA 2010 model were to 

include an Interventions Component 

with some or all of the features 

described above: 

1. Would the larger set of compliance 

interventions under consideration here 

be more effective than the interventions 

currently used by FMCSA? Please 

explain. 

2. Are there other types of driver and 

carrier interventions not described 

above that would improve motor carrier 

safety? Please describe. 

3. Are there specific incentives that 

FMCSA could offer to encourage and 

promote improved safety performance? 

Please describe. 

4. Should FMCSA use different 

interventions and intervention 

thresholds for certain carriers and 

drivers, such as those involved in the 

transport of passengers or hazardous 

materials? Please explain. 

5. Would you support a system 

whereby FMCSA would declare CMV 

drivers Unfit, if warranted, and the 

States would suspend their driver’s 

license (commercial or other)? Please 

explain. 

6. What other issues should the 

Agency be considering with respect to 

the Interventions Selection Component? 

7. How should responses to FMCSA 

interventions be factored into the safety 

fitness determinations? 

Safety Data and Tracking, Evaluation 

and Data Validation 

Given the data-dependent nature of 

the CSA 2010 model under 

consideration, data validation would be 

essential. As FMCSA deploys its IT 

modernization project, COMPASS, as 

the IT foundation for CSA 2010, robust 

data validation systems and techniques 

would be employed to ensure the 

accuracy and completeness of data. The 

information systems supporting the CSA 

2010 model eventually adopted would 

examine the quality of incoming data by 

checking for anomalies. As it does 

currently, FMCSA would also ensure 

that regulated entities would have a way 

to correct data. The Agency’s DataQs 

System already provides an electronic 

means for filing concerns about the 

Federal and State data that FMCSA 

releases to the public. Through this 

system, data concerns are automatically 

forwarded to the appropriate office for 

resolution. The system also allows filers 

to monitor the status of each filing. 

The Tracking, Evaluation and Data 

Validation Component under 

consideration could support the three 

other components identified here: 

Measurement, Safety Fitness 

Determination, and Intervention 

Selection. The information systems 

supporting CSA 2010 would track 

regulated entities and would associate 

them with the relevant data collected by 

FMCSA. Data pertaining to regulated 

entities could include characteristics, 

BASIC scores, safety fitness 

determinations, interventions, and 

responses to interventions. FMCSA is 

working to replace existing paperwork 

tracking systems with automated data 

collection systems so that safety fitness 

determinations are made with the most 

current data available. 

Questions 

If the CSA 2010 model were to 

include a safety data component with 

some or all of the features described 

above: 

1. What safety data are available that 

are not currently being used to measure 

the safety performance of drivers and 

carriers? 

2. Are there safety data not available 

that are needed for this approach to be 

equitable? If so, please describe and 

discuss any potential barriers to 

collecting such data. 

3. How could FMCSA better 

incorporate data quality assurance 

processes into CSA 2010? 

4. What unique identifiers should be 

used to tie drivers and carriers to their 

safety performance data? 

5. Are there any major obstacles that 

must be overcome to achieving accurate 

and complete data for use in the new 

operational model? Please explain. 

6. What other issues should the 

Agency be considering with respect to 

Safety Data and Tracking, Evaluation 

and Data Validation? 

7. Radio frequency identification 

device (RFID)-enabled license plates 

could be used to identify commercial 

motor vehicles at highway speeds. This 

could help focus inspection and traffic 

enforcement activities on unsafe or 

unregistered entities. What barriers 

would there be to States’ issuing RFID 

enabled license plates? 

Other Considerations 

FMCSA is targeting full deployment 

of CSA 2010 by calendar year 2010, 

subject to budgetary constraints. The 

following timeline provides the major 

milestone dates that are planned prior to 

targeted deployment: 

Define operational model 

technical requirements.

2006 to 2010. 

Prototype 1 development 

and testing.

2006 to 2007. 

Pilot test development ..... 2006 to 2007. 

Pilot testing ....................... 2008. 

Evaluate pilot test results 2009. 

Develop/define data resources.2006 to 2009. 

Develop data systems and 

software.

2006 to 2009. 

Develop/draft new 

rulemakings.

2007 to 2009. 

Develop/draft needed legislation.2007 to 2008. 

Develop/draft new policies.2007 to 2009. 

Training for pilot testing .. 2006 to 2007. 

Training for deployment .. 2008 to 2009. 

Outreach & public listening sessions.Annually. 

Deploy ............................... 2010. 

1Prototype refers to testing in a laboratory 

environment, whereas pilot refers to actual 

testing with State partners. 

Questions 

1. What approaches do you 

recommend FMCSA use to work closely 

with its partners and stakeholders in 

building the CSA 2010 operational 

model? Please explain. 

2. Are there certain initiatives which 

would support the CSA 2010 

operational model eventually adopted 

that could be implemented now? Please 

explain. 

3. Please provide any additional 

comments or information you may have 

that would be relevant to the 

development of the CSA 2010 

operational model. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / Notices 61137 

Issued on: October 11, 2006. 

John H. Hill, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–8723 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Petition for Waiver of Compliance 

In accordance with part 211 of Title 

49 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), notice is hereby given that the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

has received a request for a waiver of 

compliance with certain requirements of 

its safety standards. The individual 

petition is described below, including 

the party seeking relief, the regulatory 

provisions involved, the nature of the 

relief being requested, and the 

petitioner’s arguments in favor of relief. 

BNSF Railway Company 

Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–

2006–25894 

Part 213 of Title 49 at § 213.113(a) 

states, in part ‘‘* * * when an owner of 

track learns, through inspection or 

otherwise, that a rail in track contains 

any of the defects listed * * *, 

operation over the defective rail is not 

permitted until (1) The rail is replaced; 

or (2) The remedial action prescribed 

* * * is initiated.’’ Based on the 

forgoing, when a rail flaw detector 

operator picks an ultrasonic indication 

for hand test verification, that indication 

must be considered a defect and 

remedial action taken until hand test 

determines it is not a defect. BNSF 

Railway Company (BNSF) believes posttest processing of detected rail-flaw data 

has potential to increase rail test 

productivity and therefore improve 

safety by increasing frequency of testing. 

BNSF is proposing a delayedverification pilot program to 

demonstrate feasability and benefits of 

nonstop rail flaw test with delayed 

verification. BNSF proposes a delayedverification pilot program to 

demonstrate feasibility and benefits of 

nonstop testing with delayed 

verification on its Barstow, Aurora, and 

St. Croix subdivisions. The elements of 

BNSF’s program pilot program are: 

• If million gross tons of traffic since 

last rail test is greater than 10, all 

indications of possible defects will be 

verified immediately. 

• Indications of possible transverse 

defects estimated to be greater than 25 

percent will be verified immediately. 

• Indications of possible longitudinal 

defects estimated to be greater than 2 

inches will be verified immediately. 

• Indications of possible bolt hole 

cracks estimated to be greater than 1 

inch in joint bars, and any indications 

of possible bolt hole cracks not within 

joint bars, will be verified immediately. 

• Indications not requiring immediate 

verification will be verified within 48 

hours. 

Since FRA has not yet completed its 

investigation of BNSF’s petition, the 

agency takes no position at this time on 

the merits of BNSF’s stated 

justifications. 

All communications concerning these 

proceedings should identify the 

appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver 

Petition Docket Number 2006–25894) 

and must be submitted to the Docket 

Clerk, DOT Docket Management 

Facility, Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), 

400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. Communications received within 

45 days of the date of this notice will 

be considered by FRA before final 

action is taken. Comments received after 

that date will be considered as far as 

practicable. All written communications 

concerning these proceedings are 

available for examination during regular 

business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the 

above facility. All documents in the 

public docket are also available for 

inspection and copying on the Internet 

at the docket facility’s Web site at 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000, (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). The 

statement may also be found at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, October 11, 

2006. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E6–17165 Filed 10–16–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Petition for Waiver of Compliance 

In accordance with Part 211 of Title 

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

notice is hereby given that the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) received 

a request for a waiver of compliance 

with certain requirements of its safety 

standards. The individual petition is 

described below, including the party 

seeking relief, the regulatory provisions 

involved, the nature of the relief being 

requested, and the petitioner’s 

arguments in favor of relief. 

Pioneer Valley Railroad (PVRR) 

Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA–

2000–7094 

The Pioneer Valley Railroad (PVRR) 

has petitioned for a continued waiver of 

compliance for train employees from the 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 21103(a), the 

Federal hours of service law (HSL). This 

provision requires the railroad to 

neither require nor allow train 

employees to begin or remain on duty 

in excess of 12 hours in a 24-hour 

period without receiving the 

appropriate 8 or 10-hour statutory offduty period. However, the HSL contains 

an exemption (49 U.S.C. 21102(b)) 

permitting a railroad, that employs not 

more than 15 employees subject to the 

statute to seek an exemption from the 

12-hour limitation. PVRR states that it is 

not its intention to employ a train crew 

over 12 hours per day under normal 

circumstances, but this exemption, if 

continued, would help its operation if 

unusual operating conditions are 

encountered. 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in these proceedings by 

submitting written views, data, or 

comments. FRA does not anticipate 

scheduling a public hearing in 

connection with these proceedings since 

the facts do not appear to warrant a 

hearing. If any interested party desires 

an opportunity for oral comment, they 

should notify FRA, in writing, before 

the end of the comment period and 

specify the basis for their request. 

All communications concerning these 

proceedings should identify the 

appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver 

Petition Docket Number 2000–7094) and 

must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, 

DOT Docket Management Facility, 

Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. 

Communications received within 45 

days of the date of this notice will be 

considered by FRA before final action is 

taken. Comments received after that 

date will be considered as far as 

practicable. All written communications 

concerning these proceedings are 

available for examination during regular 

business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the 

above facility. All documents in the 

public docket are also available for 

inspection and copying on the Internet 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES