91874 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2024 / Notices 

1Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/

prioritizationpreview/. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2022–0066] 

Enhanced Carrier Safety Measurement 

System (SMS) 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice; response to public 

comments. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces 

enhancements to the Safety 

Measurement System (SMS) used to 

identify motor carriers for safety 

interventions and addresses comments 

received in response to FMCSA’s 

Federal Register notice titled, ‘‘Revised 

Carrier Safety Measurement System 

(SMS).’’ These enhancements build on 

the Agency’s efforts to continually 

improve SMS, which it first 

implemented in 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Wesley Russell, Compliance Division, 

FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, (615) 620– 

9377, wesley.russell@dot.gov. If you 

have questions regarding viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, 

contact Dockets Operations, (202) 366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In December 2010, FMCSA 

implemented SMS to identify high risk 

motor carriers for investigations (75 FR 

18256, Apr. 9, 2010). Section 5305(a) of 

the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114– 

94; 129 Stat. 1312; Dec. 4, 2015) requires 

FMCSA to ensure, at a minimum, that 

a review is conducted on motor carriers 

that demonstrate, through performance 

data, that they are among the highest 

risk carriers for 4 consecutive months. 

FMCSA and its State enforcement 

partners also use SMS to identify and 

prioritize motor carriers for inspections 

and less resource-intensive 

interventions, such as automated 

warning letters. 

SMS also provides motor carriers and 

other stakeholders with safety 

performance data, which is updated 

monthly, through the public website at 

https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SMS. Under 

section 5223 of the FAST Act, FMCSA 

removed SMS percentiles and alerts 

from the public SMS website for motor 

carriers transporting property. Passenger 

carrier percentiles and alerts remain 

publicly available, as well as inspection, 

investigation, crash, and registration 

data for all carriers. 

On February 15, 2023, FMCSA 

proposed the following changes to its 

SMS and announced a 90-day preview 

and comment period for stakeholders 

(88 FR 9954): 

1. Reorganized and Updated Safety 

Categories (Now ‘‘Compliance 

Categories’’), Including New 

Segmentation; 

2. Consolidated Violations; 

3. Simplified Violation Severity 

Weights; 

4. Proportionate Percentiles Instead of 

Safety Event Groups; 

5. Improved Intervention Thresholds; 

6. Greater Focus on Recent Violations; 

and 

7. Updated Utilization Factor. 

During the 90-day preview and 

comment period, motor carriers could 

log in to the Prioritization Preview 1 to 

see what their own prioritization results 

would be under the proposed SMS 

methodology. The public was able to 

view what a logged-in carrier would see 

using example data. In addition, 

FMCSA held three question-and-answer 

sessions in March 2023 for the industry 

and the public, where participants were 

able to ask questions about the proposed 

changes and receive real-time responses. 

The comment period ended on May 16, 

2023. Following the comment period, 

the Agency has continued to make the 

Prioritization Preview site available to 

industry and other safety stakeholders, 

so they have ample time to review and 

understand the impacts of the 

enhancements. 

II. Summary of Public Comments and 

Response 

FMCSA received 176 comments in 

response to the February 2023, notice. 

Of these, 111 submissions contained 

comments specific to the changes 

proposed in that notice; 65 submissions 

contained comments that were not 

relevant to the notice. The commenters 

included motor carriers, drivers/owneroperators, industry associations, and 

safety advocates. The following entities 

submitted relevant comments: 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 

(Advocates), American Bus Association 

(ABA), American Trucking 

Associations, Inc. (ATA), Chamber of 

Commerce and Industry, et al. (Arizona 

Organizations), Arizona Trucking 

Association, Commercial Vehicle Safety 

Alliance (CVSA), Downeast Shipping 

LLC, Driver iQ, Drivewyze Ltd 

(Drivewyze), FedEx Corporation 

(FedEx), Greyhound Lines, Inc. 

(Greyhound), Independent Carrier 

Safety Association (ICSA), International 

Foodservice Distributors Association 

(IFDA), Motor Carrier Insurance 

Education Foundation (MCIEF), 

Minnesota Trucking Association (MTA), 

National School Transportation 

Association (NSTA), National Tank 

Truck Carriers, Inc. (NTTC), OwnerOperator Independent Drivers 

Association (OOIDA), Roehl Transport, 

Inc., SambaSafety, Schneider National, 

Inc. (Schneider), Shippers Preferred 

Express, Tour Up, Truck Safety 

Coalition (TSC), Veolia North America 

(Veolia), Yellow Corporation, Zoom 

Transportation Inc., Adrienne 

Anderson, Kellie Case, Dmitri Kachan, 

Adam Loutsch, Brian Loysen, Kathleen 

Ravin, Elizabeth St. Clare, Riky Von 

Honaker, and individuals who did not 

identify their organizations. Many 

stakeholders provided comments on 

multiple proposed changes and topics. 

Comments outside the scope of the 

February 2023 notice are not discussed 

in this notice. 

Most of the comments on the 

February 2023, notice voiced support 

for the proposed changes. Some 

comments voiced concerns that this 

notice will address. The proposals for 

reorganized safety categories, 

consolidated violations, simplified 

violation severity weights, and greater 

focus on recent violations generated the 

most comments. In addition, many 

commenters suggested alternative 

approaches to a proposed change or 

requested that FMCSA provide further 

analysis or solicit additional input. The 

following sections provide a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Agency’s responses for each proposed 

change. 

1. Reorganized and Updated Safety 

Categories (Now ‘‘Compliance 

Categories’’), Including New 

Segmentation 

A. Changing ‘‘BASICs’’ to ‘‘Safety 

Categories’’ (Now ‘‘Compliance 

Categories’’) 

The vast majority of commenters did 

not address the proposal to replace the 

term Behavior Analysis and Safety 

Improvement Categories, or BASICs, 

with ‘‘safety categories.’’ Three 

commenters (ATA, ABA, and Driver iQ) 

agreed with the proposal to replace 

‘‘BASICs’’ with another term but 

suggested alternative terminology to 

‘‘safety categories.’’ 

ATA suggested using ‘‘compliance 

categories,’’ rather than ‘‘safety 

categories,’’ commenting that 

‘‘[r]eferring to the BASICs as 

‘Compliance Categories’ simplifies the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2024 / Notices 91875 

2Available in table 23 of the Prioritization 

Foundational Document https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_

Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf. 

3Available in table 23 of the Prioritization 

Foundational Document https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_

Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf. 

terminology to a more understandable 

and relatable reference. It also will 

allow motor carrier operations and the 

enforcement community to more 

accurately pinpoint and address 

compliance concerns.’’ ABA supported 

ATA’s view, suggesting that 

‘‘ ‘compliance categories’ . . . more 

accurately depicts the information 

categorized.’’ Driver iQ also echoed 

ATA’s comments. 

Two of the four commenters (MCIEF 

and Riky Von Honaker) that addressed 

this proposal did not agree with it. 

MCIEF requested that FMCSA continue 

to use BASICs as it emphasizes the 

purpose of the Compliance, Safety, 

Accountability (CSA) program to 

analyze safety behavior, identify issues, 

and help carriers improve with the goal 

of preventing crashes. Riky Von 

Honaker expressed concerns that the 

new terminology could be used against 

carriers in litigation. 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA acknowledges ATA, ABA, 

and Driver iQ’s suggestion to replace 

‘‘BASICs’’ with ‘‘compliance categories’’ 

instead of ‘‘safety categories.’’ FMCSA’s 

analysis has demonstrated a strong 

relationship between each ‘‘BASIC’’ or 

category and safety; under the enhanced 

methodology, the group of carriers 

prioritized in any category has a crash 

rate of 7.77 crashes per 100 power units 

(PUs), which is 10 percent higher than 

the current methodology—and higher 

than the national crash rate for the same 

time period of 5.00 crashes per 100 

PUs.2 However, FMCSA acknowledges 

the public comments and has decided to 

move forward with ‘‘compliance 

categories’’ instead of ‘‘safety 

categories’’ as this will provide simpler 

and more relatable terminology. 

B. Reorganized Safety Categories (Now 

‘‘Compliance Categories’’): Unsafe 

Driving and Vehicle Maintenance 

i. Unsafe Driving 

Four commenters (ABA, ATA, MTA, 

and Adrienne Anderson) expressed 

support for the new Unsafe Driving 

Compliance Category, which 

incorporates: (1) Controlled Substances/ 

Alcohol (CS/A) violations and (2) all 

Operating while Out-of-Service (OOS) 

violations. ATA stated that moving CS/ 

A violations is ‘‘logical,’’ as drug and 

alcohol impaired driving is a form of 

unsafe driving, and that grouping all 

Operating while OOS violations under 

Unsafe Driving will help ‘‘enforcement 

personnel more easily identify motor 

carriers who have violated OOS orders.’’ 

ABA noted that these changes ‘‘better 

reflect compliance realities and 

connections to actual safety risks.’’ 

Three commenters (Advocates, NTTC, 

and an anonymous commenter) did not 

agree with moving CS/A violations to 

Unsafe Driving. Advocates and NTTC 

expressed the concern that this change 

may dilute the severity of CS/A 

violations and make it harder to identify 

carriers that employ drivers engaged in 

unsafe behaviors related to the use of 

controlled substances and alcohol. 

Advocates also pointed out that ‘‘aside 

from increasing the number of carriers 

prioritized, [this change] appears to 

have little impact on the population of 

prioritized carriers from the aspects of 

crash rate and violation rate.’’ An 

anonymous commenter also concurred 

that CS/A violations should remain 

separate from Unsafe Driving without 

further explanation. 

Tour Up did not agree with moving 

violations related to operating while 

OOS to Unsafe Driving. Tour Up 

disagreed because being placed OOS for 

a ‘‘chafed airline under the tractor that 

[the driver] was unaware of’’ is not 

comparable to ‘‘reckless driving and 

speeding.’’ 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA acknowledges the comments 

from Advocates, NTTC, and the 

anonymous commenter. The sparsity of 

CS/A violations inhibited the CS/A 

BASIC’s ability to identify high crash 

risk carriers. FMCSA’s Exploratory 

Factor Analysis showed that the CS/A 

violations were strongly associated with 

the Unsafe Driving BASIC. By 

integrating CS/A violations into the new 

Unsafe Driving Compliance Category, 

the Agency will continue to hold 

carriers and drivers accountable for drug 

and alcohol compliance, while focusing 

its investigative resources on carriers 

with higher crash rates. FMCSA’s 

analysis shows that the group of carriers 

prioritized in the new Unsafe Driving 

Compliance Category would have a 

crash rate of 10.63 crashes per 100 PUs, 

which is 3 percent higher than the 

Unsafe Driving BASIC in the current 

methodology.3

With regards to Tour Up’s comment, 

FMCSA moved operating while OOS 

violations to the new Unsafe Driving 

Compliance Category because they 

reflect a type of unsafe driving behavior: 

a driver or motor carrier continuing to 

operate after receiving an OOS Order. 

Operating while OOS is similar to other 

violations in the Unsafe Driving 

Compliance Category, such as texting, 

speeding, and reckless driving, as they 

all indicate the driver made an unsafe 

driving decision related to operating a 

commercial motor vehicle (CMV). 

ii. Vehicle Maintenance 

Nine commenters (Arizona 

Organizations, ATA, Brian Loysen, 

Elizabeth St. Clare, FedEx, IFDA, MTA, 

OOIDA, and Shippers Preferred 

Express) supported the reorganization of 

the Vehicle Maintenance category into 

two categories: (1) a new Vehicle 

Maintenance: Driver Observed 

Compliance Category and (2) a Vehicle 

Maintenance Compliance Category. 

ATA and FedEx emphasized that the 

new Vehicle Maintenance: Driver 

Observed category more accurately 

reflects how carriers perform 

maintenance and assess compliance. 

ATA noted that it ‘‘will allow for greater 

distinction between vehicle 

maintenance violations that are 

indicative of vehicles in poor 

maintenance condition regardless of the 

thoroughness of the driver performing a 

pre- or post-trip inspection that day.’’ 

ATA, IFDA, MTA, and OOIDA also 

noted that the new Vehicle 

Maintenance: Driver Observed category 

has the potential to protect drivers from 

being held accountable for violations 

that they could not have reasonably 

discovered during a pre-trip inspection. 

Elizabeth St Clare added that this 

category would be useful for ‘‘targeted 

training.’’ 

While supportive of the new Vehicle 

Maintenance: Driver Observed category, 

ATA and MTA also recommended that 

the Agency engage industry 

stakeholders in determining which 

violations should be included in the 

category and conduct analysis to 

measure the category’s effectiveness. 

Downeast Shipping LLC pointed out 

that this new category highlights a larger 

issue about ‘‘driver controllable 

violations’’ and suggests that these 

violations be removed from a carrier’s 

results. 

FMCSA Response 

Regarding ATA and MTA’s suggestion 

to solicit industry input on the 

violations in the Vehicle Maintenance: 

Driver Observed Compliance Category 

and conduct analysis to measure the 

effectiveness of the category, FMCSA 

developed the new Vehicle 

Maintenance categories by leveraging 

results from an Exploratory Factor 

Analysis showing which violations were 

strongly associated with each other 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
91876 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2024 / Notices 

4Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_

Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf. 

along with Intermodal Equipment 

Provider ‘‘Pre-Trip’’ designations, 

developed with input from industry and 

enforcement. For more details on the 

development of the new compliance 

categories, see the Prioritization Preview 

Foundational Document.4

FMCSA disagrees with Downeast 

Shipping LLC’s suggestion to remove 

violations in the Vehicle Maintenance: 

Driver Observed Compliance Category 

from carriers’ results. Carriers have a 

responsibility to ensure that their 

drivers understand and comply with the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations. 

C. New Segmentation: Driver Fitness 

and Hazardous Materials Compliance 

Categories 

Five commenters (ATA, IFDA, MTA, 

Schneider, and Veolia) voiced support 

for the proposed segmentation in Driver 

Fitness Compliance Category by Straight 

and Combination carriers and in 

Hazardous Materials Compliance 

Category by Cargo Tank and Non-Cargo 

Tank carriers. ATA noted that this new 

segmentation ‘‘addresses inequities that 

have existed in the current CSA SMS’’ 

and ‘‘will allow for greater accuracy in 

identifying safety controls.’’ Three 

commenters (Advocates, FedEx, and 

NTTC) specifically expressed support 

for segmentation in the Hazardous 

Materials Compliance Category. NTTC 

mentioned that segmenting this category 

by Cargo Tank and Non-Cargo Tank 

carriers ‘‘is believed to tremendously 

reduce the opportunity for a cargo tank 

truck to get more violations than a van 

truck due to many inherent trailer 

differences.’’ Advocates tentatively 

supported segmentation but requested 

that the Agency provide more data. 

FedEx also expressed support for this 

change and encouraged the Agency to 

explore further segmentation between 

small package and palletized freight. 

Kellie Case and an anonymous 

commenter asked for additional 

clarification. Case asked if the Agency 

has considered normalizing between 

carriers that occasionally transport 

hazardous materials (HM) and those that 

are dedicated HM carriers. The 

anonymous commenter asked how 

carriers with both Straight and 

Combination vehicles would be treated 

in the Driver Fitness Compliance 

Category. 

FMCSA Response 

In response to Kellie Case’s question, 

the Hazardous Materials Compliance 

Category focuses solely on the portion of 

a carrier’s operation that is hauling HM, 

and whether the carrier frequently or 

rarely hauls HM should not have an 

impact on the carrier’s ability to comply 

with the Hazardous Materials 

Regulations. 

Regarding the anonymous 

commenter’s question, Straight and 

Combination segmentation would work 

the same way it does for the Unsafe 

Driving and Crash Indicator BASICs in 

the current SMS. A carrier’s designation 

of Straight or Combination in the Driver 

Fitness Compliance Category depends 

on the percentage of those types of 

vehicles in its operations, as outlined in 

the table below. 

TABLE 1—STRAIGHT AND COMBINATION CARRIER CRITERIA

Carrier type Criteria 

Straight Carrier ..................................... More than 30 percent of the total Power Units (PUs) in their fleet are Straight trucks/other vehicles. 

Combination Carrier ............................. 70 percent or more of the total PUs in their fleet are Combination trucks/motorcoach buses. 

2. Consolidated Violations 

Nine commenters (ABA, ATA, IFDA, 

MTA, NSTA, NTTC, OOIDA, Veolia, 

and an anonymous commenter) 

expressed support for reorganizing the 

existing 959 roadside violations into 116 

violation groups. ABA, IFDA, and MTA 

agreed with FMCSA that the change will 

make the system easier for carriers and 

other stakeholders to understand and 

help improve consistency in 

enforcement of violations with similar 

underlying safety issues. NSTA stated 

that the change will ‘‘reduce confusion 

for operators.’’ NTTC added that this is 

‘‘a positive change which will permit 

companies to [more easily] facilitate 

training topics . . . for their personnel.’’ 

The anonymous commenter wrote that 

the reorganization allows ‘‘more clear 

insight into areas of concern’’ for 

carriers, but pointed out that there are 

still areas of overlap between violation 

groups, citing the ‘‘HOS Requirements’’ 

and ‘‘HOS Requirements—Nominal’’ 

violation groups in the Hours of Service 

Compliance Category and the ‘‘Brakes— 

OOS’’ and ‘‘Brakes’’ violation groups in 

the Vehicle Maintenance Compliance 

Category. 

Three commenters (Advocates, CVSA, 

and FedEx) shared concerns about the 

new reorganization. Advocates believes 

the change ‘‘could diminish the 

importance of some violations and 

ignore flagrant violators of the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.’’ 

CVSA is concerned that the 

combination of this change and the 

simplified severity weights ‘‘may not 

accurately reflect a motor carrier’s safety 

performance.’’ FedEx asked whether 

this change would lead to less visibility 

and requested that FMCSA retain the 

granular level of violation data provided 

today on the SMS website. 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA agrees with the anonymous 

commenter’s assessment that there are 

still areas of overlap between the ‘‘HOS 

Requirements’’ and ‘‘HOS 

Requirements—Nominal’’ and the 

‘‘Brakes’’ and ‘‘Brakes—OOS’’ violation 

groups. In response, FMCSA has 

consolidated these overlapping 

violation groups to further prevent 

inconsistencies in how violations are 

cited for the same underlying safety 

issue. See the Reorganization of 

Violations section of this notice for 

details. 

In response to Advocates’ concern, 

FMCSA’s analysis indicated that 

grouping violations will not reduce their 

importance for prioritization purposes. 

The Agency’s analysis shows that, in 

terms of prioritization, determining 

whether a safety issue is identified is 

more important than determining how 

many ways it was documented. 

Grouping carrier violations before 

analyzing the data ensures that carriers 

are treated fairly by holding similar 

carriers with similar safety issues to the 

same standard—regardless of how those 

issues were documented. 

Regarding CVSA’s concern, FMCSA 

analyzed the overall effectiveness of the 

proposed changes compared to the 

current SMS. FMCSA found that these 

changes would increase the number of 

carriers prioritized for intervention by 3 

percent—and that this group of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2024 / Notices 91877 

5Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_

Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf. 

6Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_

Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf. 

7FMCSA defines motorcoaches as those 

registered to transport passengers and defined as a 

‘‘motorcoach’’ in the Moving Ahead for Progress in 

the 21st Century (MAP–21) Act. More information 

on MAP–21 is available at https://

www.transportation.gov/map21. 

8Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_

Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf. 

prioritized carriers would have a crash 

rate 10 percent higher than those 

currently prioritized by SMS. Therefore, 

CVSA’s belief that the proposed 

changes, taken together, may not 

accurately reflect a carrier’s safety 

performance was not substantiated. 

FMCSA is committed to ensuring that 

its SMS methodology for prioritizing 

motor carriers for interventions 

accurately reflects carriers’ safety 

performance. The Agency will continue 

to evaluate the SMS methodology’s 

effectiveness and propose 

improvements when needed. For more 

details on overall effectiveness of the 

proposed changes, see the Prioritization 

Preview Foundational Document.5

In response to FedEx’s question, the 

new violation groupings will not change 

the level of violation information 

available; details on individual 

violations will continue to be displayed 

in the Inspection History tab on the 

SMS website. 

3. Simplified Violation Severity Weights 

Four commenters (CVSA, FedEx, 

Veolia, and Adrienne Anderson) agreed 

with FMCSA’s proposal to move from a 

1 to 10 scale for violation severity 

weights to simplified 1 or 2. FedEx 

stated that this change ‘‘will be easier to 

administer . . . [and] the weights could 

help stabilize scores . . . by reducing 

the impact of outlier violations.’’ 

Adrienne Anderson commented that the 

‘‘weights make more sense and [make it] 

more attainable to get below 

thresholds.’’ 

Three commenters (Adam Loutsch, 

MTA, and Roehl Transport, Inc.) agreed 

with the change while proposing 

modifications to the weighting of 

specific violation types. Loutsch 

suggested that some ‘‘serious’’ moving 

violations receive higher weights than 

‘‘regular’’ moving violations. MTA 

recommended that FMCSA should add 

a level to the weighting approach to 

‘‘address minor ‘administrative’ 

violations such as form and manner 

violations.’’ Roehl Transport, Inc. 

echoed MTA and suggested 

‘‘administrative’’ violations that do not 

contribute to crashes should receive a 

weight of 0. 

Six commenters (ABA, ATA, 

Drivewyze, ICSA, IFDA, NSTA, NTTC, 

and Dmitri Kachan) agreed with 

FMCSA’s proposal to move away from 

the 1 to 10 scale, but expressed concerns 

with moving to a 1 or 2 scale. ABA 

commented that this change could 

reduce the system’s effectiveness by 

masking the individual violation’s 

correlation to safety risk. NTTC 

expressed a similar concern that the 

new weighting ‘‘may not accurately 

reflect the increased likelihood of a 

vehicle being involved in an accident.’’ 

ATA, Drivewyze, ICSA, IFDA, NSTA, 

and Dmitri Kachan all expressed the 

same concern that a simplified scale 

will make it difficult to distinguish 

between less severe and more severe 

violations. 

Riky Von Honaker disagreed with the 

proposal, suggesting that the new 

weighting system will show which 

carriers get the most violations, rather 

than which carriers should be 

prioritized. 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA’s analysis shows that 

assigning a customized weight to all 

violations was not as important as 

noting that the violation occurred. The 

number of violations a carrier has is a 

strong indicator of its safety compliance, 

or lack thereof. Carriers with poor safety 

management practices have patterns of 

violations across the compliance 

categories—regardless of each 

violation’s level of egregiousness. 

Conversely, carriers with strong safety 

management practices have fewer 

violations per inspection. In addition, 

moving toward a simplified scale for 

severity weights does not inhibit SMS 

from identifying carriers with high crash 

rates. Of the three approaches to 

simplified severity weights evaluated by 

FMCSA, this 1 or 2 scale approach 

identifies the highest crash rate for 

carriers prioritized in any category at 

6.95 crashes per 100 PUs. In addition, 

this crash rate is 39 percent higher than 

the national crash rate over the same 

analysis period of 5.00 crashes per 100 

PUs. For more information on the 

analysis for the simplified severity 

weights, view the Prioritization Preview 

Foundational Document.6

4. Proportionate Percentiles 

Seven commenters (ATA, MTA, 

NSTA, NTTC, OOIDA, Veolia, and 

Zoom Transportation Inc.) voiced 

support for moving from the safety 

event groups used in SMS to 

proportionate percentiles to eliminate 

large percentile changes that occur for 

non-safety-related reasons. OOIDA 

stated that ‘‘. . . this proposal is sound 

and should help protect small-business 

truckers from witnessing radical jumps 

in their [percentile] without reason,’’ 

and Zoom Transportation Inc. agreed, 

noting that proportionate percentiles are 

‘‘excellent in terms of classification and 

reducing percentile jumps.’’ NSTA also 

pointed out that proportionate 

percentiles would ‘‘result in a more 

accurate identification of ‘at-risk 

operators.’ ’’ 

Two commenters (ABA and 

Greyhound) expressed concerns about 

motorcoach comparisons with other 

carrier types and requested that the 

prioritization methodology only 

compare motorcoaches to other 

motorcoaches. 

Two commenters (FedEx and 

SambaSafety) requested additional 

information on how proportionate 

percentiles would work in the new 

prioritization methodology. 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA recognizes ABA and 

Greyhound’s suggested approach to only 

compare motorcoaches to other 

motorcoaches. However, of the 764,117 

interstate carriers subject to FMCSA 

assessment, only 0.03 percent (1,963) 

are considered motorcoaches 7—this 

subset is not large enough to provide 

stable carrier-to-carrier comparisons or 

accurately indicate how a motorcoach’s 

performance is trending from month to 

month. 

Regarding FedEx and SambaSafety’s 

request for more information on 

proportionate percentiles, step-by-step 

instructions for calculating 

proportionate percentiles are available 

in Table 9 of the Prioritization Preview 

Foundational Document.8 In addition, 

FMCSA is working on a set of 

communications materials that will be 

available when the final methodology is 

implemented. 

5. Improved Intervention Thresholds 

Six commenters (ABA, ATA, MTA, 

NTTC, Schneider, and Veolia) 

submitted comments supporting the 

changes to the Intervention Thresholds 

for Vehicle Maintenance, Vehicle 

Maintenance: Driver Observed, Driver 

Fitness, and Hazardous Materials 

Compliance Categories. ATA stated that 

‘‘these changes are justified as they 

place a greater focus on prioritizing 

intervention for safety categories that 

have the greatest correlation to crash 

risk.’’ FedEx also commended FMCSA 

on its ‘‘risk-management driven 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
91878 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2024 / Notices 

9Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_

Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf. 

10Available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

registration/form-mcs-150-and-instructions-motorcarrier-identification-report. 

approach’’ to the Intervention 

Thresholds in the Driver Fitness and 

Hazardous Materials Compliance 

Categories. 

Two commenters (OOIDA and an 

anonymous commenter) offered 

critiques of the Intervention Threshold 

changes. OOIDA questioned whether 

the Agency should use the Driver 

Fitness or Hazardous Materials 

Compliance Categories to assess safety 

risk if a carrier has to be worse than 90 

percent of their peers in order for the 

Agency to prioritize them. The 

anonymous commenter suggested 

without further explanation that the 

Intervention Thresholds for all the 

categories should be adjusted to 80 

percent. 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA acknowledges OOIDA’s 

concern about the high thresholds for 

the Driver Fitness and Hazardous 

Materials Compliance Categories. 

FMCSA’s analysis shows that every 

category has a different relationship to 

crash rate, with some having a higher 

correlation than others. Adjusting the 

thresholds ensures that the Agency 

focuses its enforcement program on 

carriers with the highest crash risk. In 

addition, the Driver Fitness and 

Hazardous Materials Compliance 

Categories can help carriers identify and 

improve patterns of noncompliance that 

contribute to their companies’ overall 

safety, regardless of whether the carriers 

are over the threshold in these 

categories. 

6. Greater Focus on Recent Violations 

Ten commenters (ABA, ATA, CVSA, 

ICSA, Kathleen Ravin, MTA, NSTA, 

NTTC, OOIDA, and Veolia) expressed 

support for calculating percentiles only 

for carriers with cited violations in the 

past 12 months. This change applies to 

the Hours of Service, Vehicle 

Maintenance, Vehicle Maintenance: 

Driver Observed, Hazardous Materials, 

and Driver Fitness Compliance 

Categories. ABA ‘‘strongly endorses’’ 

this change, noting that it will benefit 

the Agency by ‘‘better targeting 

resources towards carriers that pose a 

greater safety risk’’ and will ‘‘incentivize 

carriers to more aggressively manage 

compliance problem areas.’’ NSTA 

concurs with ABA that this change 

could help the Agency focus on ‘‘more 

prevalent at-risk operators.’’ ICSA and 

Ravin also echoed the importance of 

incentivizing continuous improvement 

and behavior change. ICSA noted that 

‘‘it’s especially important to smaller 

fleets that otherwise could be unfairly 

penalized by past mistakes.’’ CVSA 

voiced agreement, noting that this 

change will ‘‘provide a more accurate 

assessment of the motor carrier’s current 

safety performance.’’ ATA also 

expressed support and suggested that 

this change should be applied to all 

categories. 

Schneider noted that this standard for 

calculating a percentile provides a 

‘‘logical threshold for the industry’s 

many small carriers’’ but suggested that 

this standard be applied differently for 

larger fleets by considering (1) whether 

a small number of violations in past 12 

months is at an ‘‘acceptable’’ threshold 

and (2) the percentage of a larger 

carrier’s ‘‘clean’’ inspections 

(inspections without violations). 

Two commenters (TSC and 

Advocates) expressed concern with the 

proposal, stating that the new data 

sufficiency standard does not consider 

carriers that either have not received an 

annual inspection or have never been 

reviewed by the Agency at all. 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA acknowledges Schneider’s 

suggestion to account for the percentage 

of ‘‘clean’’ inspections or an 

‘‘acceptable’’ number of violations per 

inspection for larger carriers when 

calculating percentiles. However, the 

purpose of this change is to account for 

smaller carriers that have not received 

inspections with violations in the past 

12 months, thereby focusing the 

Agency’s enforcement efforts on those 

with more recent safety issues. In 

addition, under the current SMS, there 

is no need for a percentile exemption or 

adjustment for carriers that receive more 

frequent inspections. When frequently 

inspected carriers have a relatively low 

number of violations per inspection, 

they will have a low percentile 

reflecting better than average 

compliance, and thus not be subject to 

prioritization. 

FMCSA recognizes TSC and 

Advocates’ concern that this updated 

standard does not account for carriers 

that have not received an annual 

inspection or have never been reviewed 

by the Agency. However, FMCSA has 

other enforcement tools to help to 

minimize the number of carriers that are 

not reviewed by the Agency or its State 

Partners. For example, the New Entrant 

program includes a safety audit on all 

new carriers entering in interstate 

commerce operations while the 

Inspection Selection System encourages 

law enforcement to inspect drivers and 

vehicles managed by carriers with little 

to no recent inspection history. 

7. Updated Utilization Factor 

Three commenters (MTA, Veolia, and 

Yellow Corporation) support the 

extension of the Utilization Factor from 

carriers that drive up to 200,000 Vehicle 

Miles Traveled (VMT) per average PU to 

carriers that drive up to 250,000 VMT 

per average PU. MTA indicated that a 

‘‘safely operating carrier must receive 

credit’’ for its traveled miles and not be 

‘‘limited by an artificial mileage 

ceiling.’’ Yellow Corporation voiced 

support for the change and 

recommended that the Agency consider 

incorporating driver information from 

Question 27 in the Motor Carrier 

Identification Report (MCS–150) in the 

Utilization Factor to better account for 

carriers with ‘‘significant city 

operations.’’ 

Two commenters (Advocates and 

ATA) expressed concern with the 

extension of the Utilization Factor to 

250,000 VMT per average PU. 

Advocates pointed out that the ‘‘benefits 

from reporting higher VMT could 

incentivize carriers to overestimate their 

usage.’’ ATA believes the Utilization 

Factor should remain capped at 200,000 

VMT per average PU. ATA stated that 

its own data analysis indicates that the 

average miles per truck per year have 

decreased significantly since 2009, 

citing that in 2022 ‘‘for-hire truckload 

carriers had an average miles per truck 

of 95,829, which was 10.5 percent 

below that of 2009 (107,112 miles).’’ 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA acknowledges that its selfreported carrier data may show lower 

average miles per truck in 2022, similar 

to ATA’s analysis. However, higherutilization carriers that drive between 

200,000 and 250,00 VMT per average 

PU still exist, and the updated 

Utilization Factor is designed to account 

for them. In addition, FMCSA revisited 

its analysis of carrier-reported VMT 

from 2016, using more current data from 

the December 2020 Motor Carrier 

Management Information System 

snapshot, and confirmed that the 

conclusions from 2016 are still accurate. 

Results from this analysis are available 

in the Prioritization Preview 

Foundational Document.9

In response to Yellow Corporation’s 

suggestion, the current Utilization 

Factor uses a carrier’s VMT per average 

number of PUs, or vehicles, to account 

for different levels of on-road exposure 

to inspections and crashes. Question 27 

in the MCS–150 form 10 asks carriers to 

report the number of interstate and 

intrastate drivers who operate CMVs for 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2024 / Notices 91879 

their company on an average workday, 

as well as the total number of drivers 

regardless of employment status and 

total of number of drivers that hold a 

valid commercial driver’s license. 

FMCSA believes that incorporating 

carrier-reported driver information from 

the MCS–150 would increase the 

Utilization Factor’s complexity and lead 

to less accurate results. 

III. Other Changes Considered and Not 

Proposed 

1. Item Response Theory Modeling 

The vast majority of commenters did 

not address FMCSA’s analysis and 

decision not to move forward with an 

Item Response Theory (IRT) model for 

prioritization due to the model’s 

complexity and inability to accurately 

identify motor carriers for safety 

interventions. Of the seven commenters 

that addressed it, five commenters 

(ABA, Advocates, ATA, CVSA, and 

ICSA) voiced support for FMCSA’s 

decision. ABA stated, ‘‘We endorse 

every effort to address issues of 

complexity, and ensure that the tool is 

understandable, accessible, and userfriendly to the greatest extent possible.’’ 

ATA added, ‘‘[We believe] that the 

ability to easily explain CSA SMS 

methodology to drivers and motor 

carriers alike is important.’’ ICSA 

echoed the views held by ABA and 

ATA. 

OOIDA acknowledged the difficulties 

with applying an IRT model to the 

motor carrier industry while expressing 

concern that the decision not to move 

forward with IRT could indicate that the 

Agency has not properly considered the 

other recommendations from the 

National Academies of Science (NAS). 

TSC disagreed with FMCSA’s 

decision, stating that IRT could run 

parallel to SMS and be used as a tool to 

provide enhanced carrier oversight. 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA explained its decision not to 

adopt an IRT methodology and provided 

an overview of the limitations and 

challenges with using an IRT model for 

prioritization purposes in the February 

2023 notice. 

This notice focuses on addressing 

comments on the proposed changes to 

SMS, which were developed as a result 

of exploring the feasibility of the first 

NAS recommendation to develop an IRT 

model for prioritization. 

2. Geographic Variation 

Three commenters (ATA, IFDA, and 

OOIDA) expressed disappointment that 

FMCSA did not address geographic 

variation—that is, differences in CMV 

inspection and violation rates by State— 

commenting that this may lead to unfair 

SMS results for carriers that operate 

primarily in States with higher-thanaverage enforcement rates. ATA noted 

that while a State-focused approach may 

work for speeding violations, it may not 

for vehicle maintenance violations that 

need to be applied consistently in any 

operating condition, and that ‘‘. . . CSA 

SMS scores are often a reflection of 

where a motor carrier operates, not how 

safely it does so.’’ OOIDA commented, 

‘‘If the agency is going to create a 

universal safety rating for carriers that 

prioritizes different kinds of 

enforcement, by frequency or even in 

enforcement oversight, then they must 

account for those varying philosophies 

in how States enforce the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Regulations.’’ 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA explored the feasibility of 

incorporating a model to address 

geographic variation during the design 

stage of the Agency’s IRT model and 

revisited this analysis while developing 

the proposed methodology. Based on 

the results of these models, FMCSA 

concluded that it would not improve the 

Agency’s ability to identify high-risk 

carriers. Further, it would undermine 

the goals of the Motor Carrier Safety 

Assistance Program, the Agency’s grant 

program that provides financial 

assistance to States to reduce the 

number and severity of crashes, and 

resulting injuries and fatalities, 

involving CMVs and to promote the safe 

transportation of passengers and HM. 

For more on the varying challenges 

States face related to crash reduction 

and why it is important for FMCSA to 

encourage States to tailor their crash 

reduction strategies to local conditions 

and challenges, see the February 2023 

notice. 

IV. Additional Changes to SMS 

In addition to the changes to SMS 

outlined above, FMCSA made 

additional changes based on analysis 

conducted and issues identified during 

the preview and comment period. 

1. Reorganization of Violations 

The following changes were put into 

effect in the preview, and in the current 

SMS methodology where applicable, to 

align with the needs of FMCSA’s 

enforcement program. 

FMCSA moved violation 390.3E from 

Unsafe Driving to Driver Fitness and 

added 392.15 to Driver Fitness to reflect 

the root of the underlying safety issue 

more accurately. Violations 390.3E and 

392.15 both relate to operating a CMV 

while prohibited from performing 

safety-sensitive functions per 

§ 382.501(a) in FMCSA’s Drug and 

Alcohol Clearinghouse. Since these 

violations address whether a driver 

meets drug and alcohol requirements to 

perform safety-sensitive functions, they 

are more closely aligned with the Driver 

Fitness Compliance Category, which 

covers driver requirements for the safe 

operation of CMVs, including training, 

experience, licensing, and medical 

qualifications. Additional information 

on 390.3E and 392.15, including 

violation code descriptions, and the 

new violation group in the Driver 

Fitness Compliance Category, is 

provided in the table below. 

TABLE 2—UNSAFE DRIVING VIOLATION MOVING TO THE DRIVER FITNESS COMPLIANCE CATEGORY

Violation group Federal 

violation code Violation code description 

Operating While Prohibited (New) ............ 390.3E Prohibited from performing safety-sensitive functions per 382.501(a) in the Drug 

and Alcohol Clearinghouse. 

Operating While Prohibited (New) ............ 390.15 Driver prohibited from performing safety sensitive functions per § 382.501(a) in the 

Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse. 

To further prevent inconsistencies 

that occur when multiple violations are 

cited for a similar underlying issue, 

FMCSA made additional changes to the 

violation groups in Hours of Service and 

Vehicle Maintenance Compliance 

Categories. 

FMCSA moved HOS violations in the 

‘‘HOS Requirements—Nominal’’ 

violation group to the ‘‘HOS 

Requirements’’ group. A list of the 

‘‘nominal’’ violations that were 

consolidated is provided in the table 

below. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
91880 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2024 / Notices 

11Available at https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/sms. 

12Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

prioritizationpreview. 

TABLE 3—‘‘HOS REQUIREMENTS—NOMINAL’’ VIOLATIONS MOVING TO THE ‘‘HOS REQUIREMENTS’’ VIOLATION GROUP

Federal violation code Violation code description 

395.3A2–PROPN ................................. Driving beyond 14-hour duty period (Property carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation.

395.3A3–PROPN ................................. Driving beyond 11 hour driving limit in a 14-hour period. (Property carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation. 

395.3B1–PROPN ................................. Driving after 60 hours on duty in a 7-day period. (Property carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation. 

395.3B2–NOM ...................................... Driving after 70 hours on duty in an 8-day period. (Property carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation. 

395.5A1–PASSN .................................. Driving after 10 hour driving limit (Passenger carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation. 

395.5A2–PASSN .................................. Driving after 15 hour driving limit (Passenger carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation. 

395.5B1–PASSN .................................. Driving after 60 hours on duty in a 7-day period. (Passenger carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation. 

395.5B2–PASSN .................................. Driving after 70 hours on duty in an 8-day period. (Passenger carrying vehicle)—Nominal Violation. 

In addition, FMCSA consolidated the 

single Vehicle Maintenance violation in 

the ‘‘Brakes—OOS’’ violation group 

under the ‘‘Brakes’’ group. The ‘‘OOS’’ 

violation is listed in the table below. 

TABLE 4—‘‘BRAKES—OOS’’ VIOLATION MOVING TO THE ‘‘BRAKES’’ VIOLATION GROUP

Federal violation code Violation code description 

396.3A1BOS ......................................... BRAKES OUT OF SERVICE: The number of defective brakes is equal to or greater than 20 percent of 

the service brakes on the vehicle or combination. 

In February 2024, FMCSA also moved 

13 Vehicle Maintenance violations from 

the Lighting violation group to 

Clearance Identification Lamps/Other 

violation group in the current and 

preview SMS methodologies. This 

change will be carried over to the new 

methodology, where the violations will 

be part of the Clearance Lamp violation 

group in the new Vehicle Maintenance: 

Driver Observed Compliance Category. 

This update aligned the current SMS 

and the enhanced methodology with the 

latest changes to violations recorded as 

part of the roadside inspection program. 

A list of the Lighting violations that 

were moved to the Clearance Lamp 

violation group is provided in the table 

below. 

TABLE 5—LIGHTING VIOLATIONS MOVING TO ‘‘CLEARANCE LAMP’’ VIOLATION GROUP

Federal violation code Violation code description 

393.9A–LIL ........................................... Lighting—Identification lamp(s) inoperative. 

393.9A–LLPL ........................................ Lighting—License plate lamp inoperative. 

393.9A–LSML ....................................... Lighting—Side marker lamp(s) inoperative. 

393.9B–LIL ........................................... Lighting—Identification lamp(s) obscured. 

393.9B–LLPL ........................................ Lighting—License plate lamp obscured. 

393.11A1–LIL ....................................... Lighting—Identification lamp(s) missing. 

393.11A1–LLPL .................................... Lighting—License plate lamp missing. 

393.11A1–LPL ...................................... Lighting—Parking lamp(s) missing. 

393.11A1–LSML ................................... Lighting—Side marker lamp(s) missing. 

393.17A1–LDCL ................................... Lighting—Driveaway, clearance lamp(s) missing on front of towing vehicle. 

393.17A2–LDSML ................................ Lighting—Driveaway, side marker lamp(s) missing on front of towing vehicle. 

393.17B1–LDSML ................................ Lighting—Driveaway, side marker lamp(s) missing on rearmost towed vehicle. 

393.17D–LDSML .................................. Lighting—Driveaway, side marker lamp(s) missing on intermediate towed vehicle. 

2. Frequency of Updates to Data Inputs 

for SMS 

Currently, FMCSA updates the SMS 

website once a month with SMS results 

for motor carriers. Complete 

prioritization results are available to 

motor carriers and enforcement 

personnel that are logged into the SMS 

website.11 Logged-in motor carriers can 

only view their own data, while loggedin enforcement users can view safety 

data for all carriers. 

FMCSA will continue to calculate the 

SMS results monthly, but in alignment 

with FMCSA’s commitment to 

continuous improvement, the Agency is 

exploring the feasibility and impacts of 

providing more frequent updates to the 

inspection and crash data that is 

displayed on the SMS website. The 

Agency will share its decision and 

supporting findings in the follow-up 

notice announcing the enhanced SMS 

methodology. 

V. Next Steps 

FMCSA thanks industry stakeholders 

and enforcement personnel for engaging 

in an inclusive preview and comment 

period to continually improve its SMS 

methodology. Opportunities for more 

information, including a webinar series 

on the changes, will be announced on 

the Prioritization Preview website 12 in 

the coming months. A follow-up notice 

in the Federal Register will announce 

the launch date of the enhanced SMS 

website. 

Vincent G. White, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27087 Filed 11–19–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES