```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91874-91880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27087]

[[Page 91874]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0066]

Enhanced Carrier Safety Measurement System (SMS)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department 
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; response to public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces enhancements to the Safety Measurement System 
(SMS) used to identify motor carriers for safety interventions and 
addresses comments received in response to FMCSA's Federal Register 
notice titled, ``Revised Carrier Safety Measurement System (SMS).'' 
These enhancements build on the Agency's efforts to continually improve 
SMS, which it first implemented in 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wesley Russell, Compliance 
Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, 
(615) 620-9377, [email protected]. If you have questions regarding 
viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets 
Operations, (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In December 2010, FMCSA implemented SMS to identify high risk motor 
carriers for investigations (75 FR 18256, Apr. 9, 2010). Section 
5305(a) of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. 
L. 114-94; 129 Stat. 1312; Dec. 4, 2015) requires FMCSA to ensure, at a 
minimum, that a review is conducted on motor carriers that demonstrate, 
through performance data, that they are among the highest risk carriers 
for 4 consecutive months. FMCSA and its State enforcement partners also 
use SMS to identify and prioritize motor carriers for inspections and 
less resource-intensive interventions, such as automated warning 
letters.
    SMS also provides motor carriers and other stakeholders with safety 
performance data, which is updated monthly, through the public website 
at https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SMS. Under section 5223 of the FAST Act, 
FMCSA removed SMS percentiles and alerts from the public SMS website 
for motor carriers transporting property. Passenger carrier percentiles 
and alerts remain publicly available, as well as inspection, 
investigation, crash, and registration data for all carriers.
    On February 15, 2023, FMCSA proposed the following changes to its 
SMS and announced a 90-day preview and comment period for stakeholders 
(88 FR 9954):
    1. Reorganized and Updated Safety Categories (Now ``Compliance 
Categories''), Including New Segmentation;
    2. Consolidated Violations;
    3. Simplified Violation Severity Weights;
    4. Proportionate Percentiles Instead of Safety Event Groups;
    5. Improved Intervention Thresholds;
    6. Greater Focus on Recent Violations; and
    7. Updated Utilization Factor.
    During the 90-day preview and comment period, motor carriers could 
log in to the Prioritization Preview \1\ to see what their own 
prioritization results would be under the proposed SMS methodology. The 
public was able to view what a logged-in carrier would see using 
example data. In addition, FMCSA held three question-and-answer 
sessions in March 2023 for the industry and the public, where 
participants were able to ask questions about the proposed changes and 
receive real-time responses. The comment period ended on May 16, 2023. 
Following the comment period, the Agency has continued to make the 
Prioritization Preview site available to industry and other safety 
stakeholders, so they have ample time to review and understand the 
impacts of the enhancements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/prioritizationpreview/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Public Comments and Response

    FMCSA received 176 comments in response to the February 2023, 
notice. Of these, 111 submissions contained comments specific to the 
changes proposed in that notice; 65 submissions contained comments that 
were not relevant to the notice. The commenters included motor 
carriers, drivers/owner-operators, industry associations, and safety 
advocates. The following entities submitted relevant comments: 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), American Bus 
Association (ABA), American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA), Chamber 
of Commerce and Industry, et al. (Arizona Organizations), Arizona 
Trucking Association, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), 
Downeast Shipping LLC, Driver iQ, Drivewyze Ltd (Drivewyze), FedEx 
Corporation (FedEx), Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Greyhound), Independent 
Carrier Safety Association (ICSA), International Foodservice 
Distributors Association (IFDA), Motor Carrier Insurance Education 
Foundation (MCIEF), Minnesota Trucking Association (MTA), National 
School Transportation Association (NSTA), National Tank Truck Carriers, 
Inc. (NTTC), Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), 
Roehl Transport, Inc., SambaSafety, Schneider National, Inc. 
(Schneider), Shippers Preferred Express, Tour Up, Truck Safety 
Coalition (TSC), Veolia North America (Veolia), Yellow Corporation, 
Zoom Transportation Inc., Adrienne Anderson, Kellie Case, Dmitri 
Kachan, Adam Loutsch, Brian Loysen, Kathleen Ravin, Elizabeth St. 
Clare, Riky Von Honaker, and individuals who did not identify their 
organizations. Many stakeholders provided comments on multiple proposed 
changes and topics. Comments outside the scope of the February 2023 
notice are not discussed in this notice.
    Most of the comments on the February 2023, notice voiced support 
for the proposed changes. Some comments voiced concerns that this 
notice will address. The proposals for reorganized safety categories, 
consolidated violations, simplified violation severity weights, and 
greater focus on recent violations generated the most comments. In 
addition, many commenters suggested alternative approaches to a 
proposed change or requested that FMCSA provide further analysis or 
solicit additional input. The following sections provide a summary of 
the comments received and the Agency's responses for each proposed 
change.

1. Reorganized and Updated Safety Categories (Now ``Compliance 
Categories''), Including New Segmentation

A. Changing ``BASICs'' to ``Safety Categories'' (Now ``Compliance 
Categories'')
    The vast majority of commenters did not address the proposal to 
replace the term Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories, 
or BASICs, with ``safety categories.'' Three commenters (ATA, ABA, and 
Driver iQ) agreed with the proposal to replace ``BASICs'' with another 
term but suggested alternative terminology to ``safety categories.''
    ATA suggested using ``compliance categories,'' rather than ``safety 
categories,'' commenting that ``[r]eferring to the BASICs as 
`Compliance Categories' simplifies the

[[Page 91875]]

terminology to a more understandable and relatable reference. It also 
will allow motor carrier operations and the enforcement community to 
more accurately pinpoint and address compliance concerns.'' ABA 
supported ATA's view, suggesting that `` `compliance categories' . . . 
more accurately depicts the information categorized.'' Driver iQ also 
echoed ATA's comments.
    Two of the four commenters (MCIEF and Riky Von Honaker) that 
addressed this proposal did not agree with it. MCIEF requested that 
FMCSA continue to use BASICs as it emphasizes the purpose of the 
Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program to analyze safety 
behavior, identify issues, and help carriers improve with the goal of 
preventing crashes. Riky Von Honaker expressed concerns that the new 
terminology could be used against carriers in litigation.
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA acknowledges ATA, ABA, and Driver iQ's suggestion to replace 
``BASICs'' with ``compliance categories'' instead of ``safety 
categories.'' FMCSA's analysis has demonstrated a strong relationship 
between each ``BASIC'' or category and safety; under the enhanced 
methodology, the group of carriers prioritized in any category has a 
crash rate of 7.77 crashes per 100 power units (PUs), which is 10 
percent higher than the current methodology--and higher than the 
national crash rate for the same time period of 5.00 crashes per 100 
PUs.\2\ However, FMCSA acknowledges the public comments and has decided 
to move forward with ``compliance categories'' instead of ``safety 
categories'' as this will provide simpler and more relatable 
terminology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Available in table 23 of the Prioritization Foundational 
Document https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Reorganized Safety Categories (Now ``Compliance Categories''): 
Unsafe Driving and Vehicle Maintenance
i. Unsafe Driving
    Four commenters (ABA, ATA, MTA, and Adrienne Anderson) expressed 
support for the new Unsafe Driving Compliance Category, which 
incorporates: (1) Controlled Substances/Alcohol (CS/A) violations and 
(2) all Operating while Out-of-Service (OOS) violations. ATA stated 
that moving CS/A violations is ``logical,'' as drug and alcohol 
impaired driving is a form of unsafe driving, and that grouping all 
Operating while OOS violations under Unsafe Driving will help 
``enforcement personnel more easily identify motor carriers who have 
violated OOS orders.'' ABA noted that these changes ``better reflect 
compliance realities and connections to actual safety risks.''
    Three commenters (Advocates, NTTC, and an anonymous commenter) did 
not agree with moving CS/A violations to Unsafe Driving. Advocates and 
NTTC expressed the concern that this change may dilute the severity of 
CS/A violations and make it harder to identify carriers that employ 
drivers engaged in unsafe behaviors related to the use of controlled 
substances and alcohol. Advocates also pointed out that ``aside from 
increasing the number of carriers prioritized, [this change] appears to 
have little impact on the population of prioritized carriers from the 
aspects of crash rate and violation rate.'' An anonymous commenter also 
concurred that CS/A violations should remain separate from Unsafe 
Driving without further explanation.
    Tour Up did not agree with moving violations related to operating 
while OOS to Unsafe Driving. Tour Up disagreed because being placed OOS 
for a ``chafed airline under the tractor that [the driver] was unaware 
of'' is not comparable to ``reckless driving and speeding.''
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA acknowledges the comments from Advocates, NTTC, and the 
anonymous commenter. The sparsity of CS/A violations inhibited the CS/A 
BASIC's ability to identify high crash risk carriers. FMCSA's 
Exploratory Factor Analysis showed that the CS/A violations were 
strongly associated with the Unsafe Driving BASIC. By integrating CS/A 
violations into the new Unsafe Driving Compliance Category, the Agency 
will continue to hold carriers and drivers accountable for drug and 
alcohol compliance, while focusing its investigative resources on 
carriers with higher crash rates. FMCSA's analysis shows that the group 
of carriers prioritized in the new Unsafe Driving Compliance Category 
would have a crash rate of 10.63 crashes per 100 PUs, which is 3 
percent higher than the Unsafe Driving BASIC in the current 
methodology.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Available in table 23 of the Prioritization Foundational 
Document https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regards to Tour Up's comment, FMCSA moved operating while OOS 
violations to the new Unsafe Driving Compliance Category because they 
reflect a type of unsafe driving behavior: a driver or motor carrier 
continuing to operate after receiving an OOS Order. Operating while OOS 
is similar to other violations in the Unsafe Driving Compliance 
Category, such as texting, speeding, and reckless driving, as they all 
indicate the driver made an unsafe driving decision related to 
operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV).
ii. Vehicle Maintenance
    Nine commenters (Arizona Organizations, ATA, Brian Loysen, 
Elizabeth St. Clare, FedEx, IFDA, MTA, OOIDA, and Shippers Preferred 
Express) supported the reorganization of the Vehicle Maintenance 
category into two categories: (1) a new Vehicle Maintenance: Driver 
Observed Compliance Category and (2) a Vehicle Maintenance Compliance 
Category. ATA and FedEx emphasized that the new Vehicle Maintenance: 
Driver Observed category more accurately reflects how carriers perform 
maintenance and assess compliance. ATA noted that it ``will allow for 
greater distinction between vehicle maintenance violations that are 
indicative of vehicles in poor maintenance condition regardless of the 
thoroughness of the driver performing a pre- or post-trip inspection 
that day.'' ATA, IFDA, MTA, and OOIDA also noted that the new Vehicle 
Maintenance: Driver Observed category has the potential to protect 
drivers from being held accountable for violations that they could not 
have reasonably discovered during a pre-trip inspection. Elizabeth St 
Clare added that this category would be useful for ``targeted 
training.''
    While supportive of the new Vehicle Maintenance: Driver Observed 
category, ATA and MTA also recommended that the Agency engage industry 
stakeholders in determining which violations should be included in the 
category and conduct analysis to measure the category's effectiveness.
    Downeast Shipping LLC pointed out that this new category highlights 
a larger issue about ``driver controllable violations'' and suggests 
that these violations be removed from a carrier's results.
FMCSA Response
    Regarding ATA and MTA's suggestion to solicit industry input on the 
violations in the Vehicle Maintenance: Driver Observed Compliance 
Category and conduct analysis to measure the effectiveness of the 
category, FMCSA developed the new Vehicle Maintenance categories by 
leveraging results from an Exploratory Factor Analysis showing which 
violations were strongly associated with each other

[[Page 91876]]

along with Intermodal Equipment Provider ``Pre-Trip'' designations, 
developed with input from industry and enforcement. For more details on 
the development of the new compliance categories, see the 
Prioritization Preview Foundational Document.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA disagrees with Downeast Shipping LLC's suggestion to remove 
violations in the Vehicle Maintenance: Driver Observed Compliance 
Category from carriers' results. Carriers have a responsibility to 
ensure that their drivers understand and comply with the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Regulations.
C. New Segmentation: Driver Fitness and Hazardous Materials Compliance 
Categories
    Five commenters (ATA, IFDA, MTA, Schneider, and Veolia) voiced 
support for the proposed segmentation in Driver Fitness Compliance 
Category by Straight and Combination carriers and in Hazardous 
Materials Compliance Category by Cargo Tank and Non-Cargo Tank 
carriers. ATA noted that this new segmentation ``addresses inequities 
that have existed in the current CSA SMS'' and ``will allow for greater 
accuracy in identifying safety controls.'' Three commenters (Advocates, 
FedEx, and NTTC) specifically expressed support for segmentation in the 
Hazardous Materials Compliance Category. NTTC mentioned that segmenting 
this category by Cargo Tank and Non-Cargo Tank carriers ``is believed 
to tremendously reduce the opportunity for a cargo tank truck to get 
more violations than a van truck due to many inherent trailer 
differences.'' Advocates tentatively supported segmentation but 
requested that the Agency provide more data. FedEx also expressed 
support for this change and encouraged the Agency to explore further 
segmentation between small package and palletized freight.
    Kellie Case and an anonymous commenter asked for additional 
clarification. Case asked if the Agency has considered normalizing 
between carriers that occasionally transport hazardous materials (HM) 
and those that are dedicated HM carriers. The anonymous commenter asked 
how carriers with both Straight and Combination vehicles would be 
treated in the Driver Fitness Compliance Category.
FMCSA Response
    In response to Kellie Case's question, the Hazardous Materials 
Compliance Category focuses solely on the portion of a carrier's 
operation that is hauling HM, and whether the carrier frequently or 
rarely hauls HM should not have an impact on the carrier's ability to 
comply with the Hazardous Materials Regulations.
    Regarding the anonymous commenter's question, Straight and 
Combination segmentation would work the same way it does for the Unsafe 
Driving and Crash Indicator BASICs in the current SMS. A carrier's 
designation of Straight or Combination in the Driver Fitness Compliance 
Category depends on the percentage of those types of vehicles in its 
operations, as outlined in the table below.

           Table 1--Straight and Combination Carrier Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Carrier type                           Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Straight Carrier.............  More than 30 percent of the total Power
                                Units (PUs) in their fleet are Straight
                                trucks/other vehicles.
Combination Carrier..........  70 percent or more of the total PUs in
                                their fleet are Combination trucks/
                                motorcoach buses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Consolidated Violations

    Nine commenters (ABA, ATA, IFDA, MTA, NSTA, NTTC, OOIDA, Veolia, 
and an anonymous commenter) expressed support for reorganizing the 
existing 959 roadside violations into 116 violation groups. ABA, IFDA, 
and MTA agreed with FMCSA that the change will make the system easier 
for carriers and other stakeholders to understand and help improve 
consistency in enforcement of violations with similar underlying safety 
issues. NSTA stated that the change will ``reduce confusion for 
operators.'' NTTC added that this is ``a positive change which will 
permit companies to [more easily] facilitate training topics . . . for 
their personnel.'' The anonymous commenter wrote that the 
reorganization allows ``more clear insight into areas of concern'' for 
carriers, but pointed out that there are still areas of overlap between 
violation groups, citing the ``HOS Requirements'' and ``HOS 
Requirements--Nominal'' violation groups in the Hours of Service 
Compliance Category and the ``Brakes--OOS'' and ``Brakes'' violation 
groups in the Vehicle Maintenance Compliance Category.
    Three commenters (Advocates, CVSA, and FedEx) shared concerns about 
the new reorganization. Advocates believes the change ``could diminish 
the importance of some violations and ignore flagrant violators of the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.'' CVSA is concerned that the 
combination of this change and the simplified severity weights ``may 
not accurately reflect a motor carrier's safety performance.'' FedEx 
asked whether this change would lead to less visibility and requested 
that FMCSA retain the granular level of violation data provided today 
on the SMS website.
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA agrees with the anonymous commenter's assessment that there 
are still areas of overlap between the ``HOS Requirements'' and ``HOS 
Requirements--Nominal'' and the ``Brakes'' and ``Brakes--OOS'' 
violation groups. In response, FMCSA has consolidated these overlapping 
violation groups to further prevent inconsistencies in how violations 
are cited for the same underlying safety issue. See the Reorganization 
of Violations section of this notice for details.
    In response to Advocates' concern, FMCSA's analysis indicated that 
grouping violations will not reduce their importance for prioritization 
purposes. The Agency's analysis shows that, in terms of prioritization, 
determining whether a safety issue is identified is more important than 
determining how many ways it was documented. Grouping carrier 
violations before analyzing the data ensures that carriers are treated 
fairly by holding similar carriers with similar safety issues to the 
same standard--regardless of how those issues were documented.
    Regarding CVSA's concern, FMCSA analyzed the overall effectiveness 
of the proposed changes compared to the current SMS. FMCSA found that 
these changes would increase the number of carriers prioritized for 
intervention by 3 percent--and that this group of

[[Page 91877]]

prioritized carriers would have a crash rate 10 percent higher than 
those currently prioritized by SMS. Therefore, CVSA's belief that the 
proposed changes, taken together, may not accurately reflect a 
carrier's safety performance was not substantiated.
    FMCSA is committed to ensuring that its SMS methodology for 
prioritizing motor carriers for interventions accurately reflects 
carriers' safety performance. The Agency will continue to evaluate the 
SMS methodology's effectiveness and propose improvements when needed. 
For more details on overall effectiveness of the proposed changes, see 
the Prioritization Preview Foundational Document.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to FedEx's question, the new violation groupings will 
not change the level of violation information available; details on 
individual violations will continue to be displayed in the Inspection 
History tab on the SMS website.

3. Simplified Violation Severity Weights

    Four commenters (CVSA, FedEx, Veolia, and Adrienne Anderson) agreed 
with FMCSA's proposal to move from a 1 to 10 scale for violation 
severity weights to simplified 1 or 2. FedEx stated that this change 
``will be easier to administer . . . [and] the weights could help 
stabilize scores . . . by reducing the impact of outlier violations.'' 
Adrienne Anderson commented that the ``weights make more sense and 
[make it] more attainable to get below thresholds.''
    Three commenters (Adam Loutsch, MTA, and Roehl Transport, Inc.) 
agreed with the change while proposing modifications to the weighting 
of specific violation types. Loutsch suggested that some ``serious'' 
moving violations receive higher weights than ``regular'' moving 
violations. MTA recommended that FMCSA should add a level to the 
weighting approach to ``address minor `administrative' violations such 
as form and manner violations.'' Roehl Transport, Inc. echoed MTA and 
suggested ``administrative'' violations that do not contribute to 
crashes should receive a weight of 0.
    Six commenters (ABA, ATA, Drivewyze, ICSA, IFDA, NSTA, NTTC, and 
Dmitri Kachan) agreed with FMCSA's proposal to move away from the 1 to 
10 scale, but expressed concerns with moving to a 1 or 2 scale. ABA 
commented that this change could reduce the system's effectiveness by 
masking the individual violation's correlation to safety risk. NTTC 
expressed a similar concern that the new weighting ``may not accurately 
reflect the increased likelihood of a vehicle being involved in an 
accident.'' ATA, Drivewyze, ICSA, IFDA, NSTA, and Dmitri Kachan all 
expressed the same concern that a simplified scale will make it 
difficult to distinguish between less severe and more severe 
violations.
    Riky Von Honaker disagreed with the proposal, suggesting that the 
new weighting system will show which carriers get the most violations, 
rather than which carriers should be prioritized.
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA's analysis shows that assigning a customized weight to all 
violations was not as important as noting that the violation occurred. 
The number of violations a carrier has is a strong indicator of its 
safety compliance, or lack thereof. Carriers with poor safety 
management practices have patterns of violations across the compliance 
categories--regardless of each violation's level of egregiousness. 
Conversely, carriers with strong safety management practices have fewer 
violations per inspection. In addition, moving toward a simplified 
scale for severity weights does not inhibit SMS from identifying 
carriers with high crash rates. Of the three approaches to simplified 
severity weights evaluated by FMCSA, this 1 or 2 scale approach 
identifies the highest crash rate for carriers prioritized in any 
category at 6.95 crashes per 100 PUs. In addition, this crash rate is 
39 percent higher than the national crash rate over the same analysis 
period of 5.00 crashes per 100 PUs. For more information on the 
analysis for the simplified severity weights, view the Prioritization 
Preview Foundational Document.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Proportionate Percentiles

    Seven commenters (ATA, MTA, NSTA, NTTC, OOIDA, Veolia, and Zoom 
Transportation Inc.) voiced support for moving from the safety event 
groups used in SMS to proportionate percentiles to eliminate large 
percentile changes that occur for non-safety-related reasons. OOIDA 
stated that ``. . . this proposal is sound and should help protect 
small-business truckers from witnessing radical jumps in their 
[percentile] without reason,'' and Zoom Transportation Inc. agreed, 
noting that proportionate percentiles are ``excellent in terms of 
classification and reducing percentile jumps.'' NSTA also pointed out 
that proportionate percentiles would ``result in a more accurate 
identification of `at-risk operators.' ''
    Two commenters (ABA and Greyhound) expressed concerns about 
motorcoach comparisons with other carrier types and requested that the 
prioritization methodology only compare motorcoaches to other 
motorcoaches.
    Two commenters (FedEx and SambaSafety) requested additional 
information on how proportionate percentiles would work in the new 
prioritization methodology.
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA recognizes ABA and Greyhound's suggested approach to only 
compare motorcoaches to other motorcoaches. However, of the 764,117 
interstate carriers subject to FMCSA assessment, only 0.03 percent 
(1,963) are considered motorcoaches \7\--this subset is not large 
enough to provide stable carrier-to-carrier comparisons or accurately 
indicate how a motorcoach's performance is trending from month to 
month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FMCSA defines motorcoaches as those registered to transport 
passengers and defined as a ``motorcoach'' in the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act. More information on MAP-
21 is available at https://www.transportation.gov/map21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding FedEx and SambaSafety's request for more information on 
proportionate percentiles, step-by-step instructions for calculating 
proportionate percentiles are available in Table 9 of the 
Prioritization Preview Foundational Document.\8\ In addition, FMCSA is 
working on a set of communications materials that will be available 
when the final methodology is implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Improved Intervention Thresholds

    Six commenters (ABA, ATA, MTA, NTTC, Schneider, and Veolia) 
submitted comments supporting the changes to the Intervention 
Thresholds for Vehicle Maintenance, Vehicle Maintenance: Driver 
Observed, Driver Fitness, and Hazardous Materials Compliance 
Categories. ATA stated that ``these changes are justified as they place 
a greater focus on prioritizing intervention for safety categories that 
have the greatest correlation to crash risk.'' FedEx also commended 
FMCSA on its ``risk-management driven

[[Page 91878]]

approach'' to the Intervention Thresholds in the Driver Fitness and 
Hazardous Materials Compliance Categories.
    Two commenters (OOIDA and an anonymous commenter) offered critiques 
of the Intervention Threshold changes. OOIDA questioned whether the 
Agency should use the Driver Fitness or Hazardous Materials Compliance 
Categories to assess safety risk if a carrier has to be worse than 90 
percent of their peers in order for the Agency to prioritize them. The 
anonymous commenter suggested without further explanation that the 
Intervention Thresholds for all the categories should be adjusted to 80 
percent.
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA acknowledges OOIDA's concern about the high thresholds for 
the Driver Fitness and Hazardous Materials Compliance Categories. 
FMCSA's analysis shows that every category has a different relationship 
to crash rate, with some having a higher correlation than others. 
Adjusting the thresholds ensures that the Agency focuses its 
enforcement program on carriers with the highest crash risk. In 
addition, the Driver Fitness and Hazardous Materials Compliance 
Categories can help carriers identify and improve patterns of 
noncompliance that contribute to their companies' overall safety, 
regardless of whether the carriers are over the threshold in these 
categories.

6. Greater Focus on Recent Violations

    Ten commenters (ABA, ATA, CVSA, ICSA, Kathleen Ravin, MTA, NSTA, 
NTTC, OOIDA, and Veolia) expressed support for calculating percentiles 
only for carriers with cited violations in the past 12 months. This 
change applies to the Hours of Service, Vehicle Maintenance, Vehicle 
Maintenance: Driver Observed, Hazardous Materials, and Driver Fitness 
Compliance Categories. ABA ``strongly endorses'' this change, noting 
that it will benefit the Agency by ``better targeting resources towards 
carriers that pose a greater safety risk'' and will ``incentivize 
carriers to more aggressively manage compliance problem areas.'' NSTA 
concurs with ABA that this change could help the Agency focus on ``more 
prevalent at-risk operators.'' ICSA and Ravin also echoed the 
importance of incentivizing continuous improvement and behavior change. 
ICSA noted that ``it's especially important to smaller fleets that 
otherwise could be unfairly penalized by past mistakes.'' CVSA voiced 
agreement, noting that this change will ``provide a more accurate 
assessment of the motor carrier's current safety performance.'' ATA 
also expressed support and suggested that this change should be applied 
to all categories.
    Schneider noted that this standard for calculating a percentile 
provides a ``logical threshold for the industry's many small carriers'' 
but suggested that this standard be applied differently for larger 
fleets by considering (1) whether a small number of violations in past 
12 months is at an ``acceptable'' threshold and (2) the percentage of a 
larger carrier's ``clean'' inspections (inspections without 
violations).
    Two commenters (TSC and Advocates) expressed concern with the 
proposal, stating that the new data sufficiency standard does not 
consider carriers that either have not received an annual inspection or 
have never been reviewed by the Agency at all.
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA acknowledges Schneider's suggestion to account for the 
percentage of ``clean'' inspections or an ``acceptable'' number of 
violations per inspection for larger carriers when calculating 
percentiles. However, the purpose of this change is to account for 
smaller carriers that have not received inspections with violations in 
the past 12 months, thereby focusing the Agency's enforcement efforts 
on those with more recent safety issues. In addition, under the current 
SMS, there is no need for a percentile exemption or adjustment for 
carriers that receive more frequent inspections. When frequently 
inspected carriers have a relatively low number of violations per 
inspection, they will have a low percentile reflecting better than 
average compliance, and thus not be subject to prioritization.
    FMCSA recognizes TSC and Advocates' concern that this updated 
standard does not account for carriers that have not received an annual 
inspection or have never been reviewed by the Agency. However, FMCSA 
has other enforcement tools to help to minimize the number of carriers 
that are not reviewed by the Agency or its State Partners. For example, 
the New Entrant program includes a safety audit on all new carriers 
entering in interstate commerce operations while the Inspection 
Selection System encourages law enforcement to inspect drivers and 
vehicles managed by carriers with little to no recent inspection 
history.

7. Updated Utilization Factor

    Three commenters (MTA, Veolia, and Yellow Corporation) support the 
extension of the Utilization Factor from carriers that drive up to 
200,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per average PU to carriers that 
drive up to 250,000 VMT per average PU. MTA indicated that a ``safely 
operating carrier must receive credit'' for its traveled miles and not 
be ``limited by an artificial mileage ceiling.'' Yellow Corporation 
voiced support for the change and recommended that the Agency consider 
incorporating driver information from Question 27 in the Motor Carrier 
Identification Report (MCS-150) in the Utilization Factor to better 
account for carriers with ``significant city operations.''
    Two commenters (Advocates and ATA) expressed concern with the 
extension of the Utilization Factor to 250,000 VMT per average PU. 
Advocates pointed out that the ``benefits from reporting higher VMT 
could incentivize carriers to overestimate their usage.'' ATA believes 
the Utilization Factor should remain capped at 200,000 VMT per average 
PU. ATA stated that its own data analysis indicates that the average 
miles per truck per year have decreased significantly since 2009, 
citing that in 2022 ``for-hire truckload carriers had an average miles 
per truck of 95,829, which was 10.5 percent below that of 2009 (107,112 
miles).''
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA acknowledges that its self-reported carrier data may show 
lower average miles per truck in 2022, similar to ATA's analysis. 
However, higher-utilization carriers that drive between 200,000 and 
250,00 VMT per average PU still exist, and the updated Utilization 
Factor is designed to account for them. In addition, FMCSA revisited 
its analysis of carrier-reported VMT from 2016, using more current data 
from the December 2020 Motor Carrier Management Information System 
snapshot, and confirmed that the conclusions from 2016 are still 
accurate. Results from this analysis are available in the 
Prioritization Preview Foundational Document.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Available at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/New_Methodology_for_Prioritization_Foundational_Document_112222_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to Yellow Corporation's suggestion, the current 
Utilization Factor uses a carrier's VMT per average number of PUs, or 
vehicles, to account for different levels of on-road exposure to 
inspections and crashes. Question 27 in the MCS-150 form \10\ asks 
carriers to report the number of interstate and intrastate drivers who 
operate CMVs for

[[Page 91879]]

their company on an average workday, as well as the total number of 
drivers regardless of employment status and total of number of drivers 
that hold a valid commercial driver's license. FMCSA believes that 
incorporating carrier-reported driver information from the MCS-150 
would increase the Utilization Factor's complexity and lead to less 
accurate results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/form-mcs-150-and-instructions-motor-carrier-identification-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Other Changes Considered and Not Proposed

1. Item Response Theory Modeling

    The vast majority of commenters did not address FMCSA's analysis 
and decision not to move forward with an Item Response Theory (IRT) 
model for prioritization due to the model's complexity and inability to 
accurately identify motor carriers for safety interventions. Of the 
seven commenters that addressed it, five commenters (ABA, Advocates, 
ATA, CVSA, and ICSA) voiced support for FMCSA's decision. ABA stated, 
``We endorse every effort to address issues of complexity, and ensure 
that the tool is understandable, accessible, and user-friendly to the 
greatest extent possible.'' ATA added, ``[We believe] that the ability 
to easily explain CSA SMS methodology to drivers and motor carriers 
alike is important.'' ICSA echoed the views held by ABA and ATA.
    OOIDA acknowledged the difficulties with applying an IRT model to 
the motor carrier industry while expressing concern that the decision 
not to move forward with IRT could indicate that the Agency has not 
properly considered the other recommendations from the National 
Academies of Science (NAS).
    TSC disagreed with FMCSA's decision, stating that IRT could run 
parallel to SMS and be used as a tool to provide enhanced carrier 
oversight.
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA explained its decision not to adopt an IRT methodology and 
provided an overview of the limitations and challenges with using an 
IRT model for prioritization purposes in the February 2023 notice.
    This notice focuses on addressing comments on the proposed changes 
to SMS, which were developed as a result of exploring the feasibility 
of the first NAS recommendation to develop an IRT model for 
prioritization.

2. Geographic Variation

    Three commenters (ATA, IFDA, and OOIDA) expressed disappointment 
that FMCSA did not address geographic variation--that is, differences 
in CMV inspection and violation rates by State--commenting that this 
may lead to unfair SMS results for carriers that operate primarily in 
States with higher-than-average enforcement rates. ATA noted that while 
a State-focused approach may work for speeding violations, it may not 
for vehicle maintenance violations that need to be applied consistently 
in any operating condition, and that ``. . . CSA SMS scores are often a 
reflection of where a motor carrier operates, not how safely it does 
so.'' OOIDA commented, ``If the agency is going to create a universal 
safety rating for carriers that prioritizes different kinds of 
enforcement, by frequency or even in enforcement oversight, then they 
must account for those varying philosophies in how States enforce the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.''
FMCSA Response
    FMCSA explored the feasibility of incorporating a model to address 
geographic variation during the design stage of the Agency's IRT model 
and revisited this analysis while developing the proposed methodology. 
Based on the results of these models, FMCSA concluded that it would not 
improve the Agency's ability to identify high-risk carriers. Further, 
it would undermine the goals of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance 
Program, the Agency's grant program that provides financial assistance 
to States to reduce the number and severity of crashes, and resulting 
injuries and fatalities, involving CMVs and to promote the safe 
transportation of passengers and HM. For more on the varying challenges 
States face related to crash reduction and why it is important for 
FMCSA to encourage States to tailor their crash reduction strategies to 
local conditions and challenges, see the February 2023 notice.

IV. Additional Changes to SMS

    In addition to the changes to SMS outlined above, FMCSA made 
additional changes based on analysis conducted and issues identified 
during the preview and comment period.

1. Reorganization of Violations

    The following changes were put into effect in the preview, and in 
the current SMS methodology where applicable, to align with the needs 
of FMCSA's enforcement program.
    FMCSA moved violation 390.3E from Unsafe Driving to Driver Fitness 
and added 392.15 to Driver Fitness to reflect the root of the 
underlying safety issue more accurately. Violations 390.3E and 392.15 
both relate to operating a CMV while prohibited from performing safety-
sensitive functions per Sec.  382.501(a) in FMCSA's Drug and Alcohol 
Clearinghouse. Since these violations address whether a driver meets 
drug and alcohol requirements to perform safety-sensitive functions, 
they are more closely aligned with the Driver Fitness Compliance 
Category, which covers driver requirements for the safe operation of 
CMVs, including training, experience, licensing, and medical 
qualifications. Additional information on 390.3E and 392.15, including 
violation code descriptions, and the new violation group in the Driver 
Fitness Compliance Category, is provided in the table below.

     Table 2--Unsafe Driving Violation Moving to the Driver Fitness
                           Compliance Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Federal          Violation code
        Violation group           violation code        description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating While Prohibited                390.3E  Prohibited from
 (New).                                            performing safety-
                                                   sensitive functions
                                                   per 382.501(a) in the
                                                   Drug and Alcohol
                                                   Clearinghouse.
Operating While Prohibited                390.15  Driver prohibited from
 (New).                                            performing safety
                                                   sensitive functions
                                                   per Sec.   382.501(a)
                                                   in the Drug and
                                                   Alcohol
                                                   Clearinghouse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further prevent inconsistencies that occur when multiple 
violations are cited for a similar underlying issue, FMCSA made 
additional changes to the violation groups in Hours of Service and 
Vehicle Maintenance Compliance Categories.
    FMCSA moved HOS violations in the ``HOS Requirements--Nominal'' 
violation group to the ``HOS Requirements'' group. A list of the 
``nominal'' violations that were consolidated is provided in the table 
below.

[[Page 91880]]

  Table 3--``HOS Requirements--Nominal'' Violations Moving to the ``HOS
                     Requirements'' Violation Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal violation code             Violation code description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
395.3A2-PROPN................  Driving beyond 14-hour duty period
                                (Property carrying vehicle)--Nominal
                                Violation.
395.3A3-PROPN................  Driving beyond 11 hour driving limit in a
                                14-hour period. (Property carrying
                                vehicle)--Nominal Violation.
395.3B1-PROPN................  Driving after 60 hours on duty in a 7-day
                                period. (Property carrying vehicle)--
                                Nominal Violation.
395.3B2-NOM..................  Driving after 70 hours on duty in an 8-
                                day period. (Property carrying vehicle)--
                                Nominal Violation.
395.5A1-PASSN................  Driving after 10 hour driving limit
                                (Passenger carrying vehicle)--Nominal
                                Violation.
395.5A2-PASSN................  Driving after 15 hour driving limit
                                (Passenger carrying vehicle)--Nominal
                                Violation.
395.5B1-PASSN................  Driving after 60 hours on duty in a 7-day
                                period. (Passenger carrying vehicle)--
                                Nominal Violation.
395.5B2-PASSN................  Driving after 70 hours on duty in an 8-
                                day period. (Passenger carrying
                                vehicle)--Nominal Violation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FMCSA consolidated the single Vehicle Maintenance 
violation in the ``Brakes--OOS'' violation group under the ``Brakes'' 
group. The ``OOS'' violation is listed in the table below.

  Table 4--``Brakes--OOS'' Violation Moving to the ``Brakes'' Violation
                                  Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal violation code             Violation code description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
396.3A1BOS...................  BRAKES OUT OF SERVICE: The number of
                                defective brakes is equal to or greater
                                than 20 percent of the service brakes on
                                the vehicle or combination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In February 2024, FMCSA also moved 13 Vehicle Maintenance 
violations from the Lighting violation group to Clearance 
Identification Lamps/Other violation group in the current and preview 
SMS methodologies. This change will be carried over to the new 
methodology, where the violations will be part of the Clearance Lamp 
violation group in the new Vehicle Maintenance: Driver Observed 
Compliance Category. This update aligned the current SMS and the 
enhanced methodology with the latest changes to violations recorded as 
part of the roadside inspection program. A list of the Lighting 
violations that were moved to the Clearance Lamp violation group is 
provided in the table below.

   Table 5--Lighting Violations Moving to ``Clearance Lamp'' Violation
                                  Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal violation code             Violation code description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
393.9A-LIL...................  Lighting--Identification lamp(s)
                                inoperative.
393.9A-LLPL..................  Lighting--License plate lamp inoperative.
393.9A-LSML..................  Lighting--Side marker lamp(s)
                                inoperative.
393.9B-LIL...................  Lighting--Identification lamp(s)
                                obscured.
393.9B-LLPL..................  Lighting--License plate lamp obscured.
393.11A1-LIL.................  Lighting--Identification lamp(s) missing.
393.11A1-LLPL................  Lighting--License plate lamp missing.
393.11A1-LPL.................  Lighting--Parking lamp(s) missing.
393.11A1-LSML................  Lighting--Side marker lamp(s) missing.
393.17A1-LDCL................  Lighting--Driveaway, clearance lamp(s)
                                missing on front of towing vehicle.
393.17A2-LDSML...............  Lighting--Driveaway, side marker lamp(s)
                                missing on front of towing vehicle.
393.17B1-LDSML...............  Lighting--Driveaway, side marker lamp(s)
                                missing on rearmost towed vehicle.
393.17D-LDSML................  Lighting--Driveaway, side marker lamp(s)
                                missing on intermediate towed vehicle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Frequency of Updates to Data Inputs for SMS

    Currently, FMCSA updates the SMS website once a month with SMS 
results for motor carriers. Complete prioritization results are 
available to motor carriers and enforcement personnel that are logged 
into the SMS website.\11\ Logged-in motor carriers can only view their 
own data, while logged-in enforcement users can view safety data for 
all carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FMCSA will continue to calculate the SMS results monthly, but in 
alignment with FMCSA's commitment to continuous improvement, the Agency 
is exploring the feasibility and impacts of providing more frequent 
updates to the inspection and crash data that is displayed on the SMS 
website. The Agency will share its decision and supporting findings in 
the follow-up notice announcing the enhanced SMS methodology.

V. Next Steps

    FMCSA thanks industry stakeholders and enforcement personnel for 
engaging in an inclusive preview and comment period to continually 
improve its SMS methodology. Opportunities for more information, 
including a webinar series on the changes, will be announced on the 
Prioritization Preview website \12\ in the coming months. A follow-up 
notice in the Federal Register will announce the launch date of the 
enhanced SMS website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Vincent G. White,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-27087 Filed 11-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
```