Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Notices 96269 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program.) 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). 

Antonio Johnson, 

Director of Planning, Environmental and 

Right of Way, Federal Highway 

Administration, California Division. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28369 Filed 12–3–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2022–0233] 

Crash Preventability Determination 

Program 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice; response to public 

comments. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces changes to 

its Crash Preventability Determination 

Program (CPDP). Under the CPDP 

carriers and drivers may submit requests 

for data review (RDR) to FMCSA to 

determine the preventability of 

commercial motor vehicle (CMV) 

crashes. FMCSA proposed these 

changes in its Federal Register notice, 

‘‘Crash Preventability Determination 

Program,’’ published at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA2022-0233 on April 13, 2023. This 

notice finalizes the proposed changes, 

responds to comments received, and 

outlines next steps for implementation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Catterson Oh, Compliance Division, 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance, 

FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, (202) 366– 

6160, Catterson.Oh@dot.gov. 

If you have questions regarding 

viewing or submitting material to the 

docket, contact Dockets Operations, 

(202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA 

organizes this notice as follows: 

I. Background 

II. Summary of Public Comments and 

Response 

III. List of Eligible Crash Types 

A. Changes to Existing Crash Types 

B. New Crash Types 

IV. Reminders on CPDP Process and System 

Impacts 

A. Process 

B. Document Requirements 

C. Impacts to Safety Measurement System 

(SMS) and Pre-Employment Screening 

Program (PSP) 

D. Implementation of Crash Type Updates 

to CPDP 

V. Other Comments on Changes Not 

Proposed 

VI. Next Steps 

I. Background 

FMCSA currently accepts RDRs in its 

DataQs system to evaluate the 

preventability of 16 specific crash types 

as set forth in a notice published in the 

Federal Register on May 6, 2020 (85 FR 

27017). On April 13, 2023, FMCSA 

proposed changes to existing and new 

crash types in CPDP and announced a 

60-day preview and comment period for 

stakeholders (88 FR 22518). The 

comment period ended on June 12, 

2023. 

II. Summary of Public Comments and 

Response 

FMCSA received 60 unique comments 

in response to the April 2023, notice; 

one comment was received outside the 

notice comment period. Of these, 53 

submissions contained comments 

specifically on the changes proposed in 

that notice. The commenters included 

motor carriers, drivers/owner-operators, 

industry associations, and safety 

consultants. The following entities 

submitted relevant comments: AIST 

Safety Consultants, American Trucking 

Associations (ATA), Big M, Cessna 

Transport, David W. Blankenship LLC, 

Fuel Delivery Services Inc., Heyl Truck 

Lines, Independent Carrier Safety 

Association, J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 

Knight-Swift Transportation, Lytx, 

National Motor Freight Traffic 

Association, Inc. (NFMTA), National 

Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC), National 

Waste and Recycling Association, 

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 

Association (OOIDA), Ray Walker 

Trucking, Sanborn, Brandon, Duvall & 

Bobbitt Cp., L.P.A., Siskiyou 

Transportation, Inc., The Forward 

Group, Inc., TMC Transportation, 

Trailiner Corp, Veolia North America, 

Werner Enterprisers, Inc., a consortium 

of associations Air & Expedited Motor 

Carriers Association, Airforwarders 

Association, Alliance for Safe, Efficient 

and Competitive Truck Transportation, 

Auto Haulers Association of America, 

American Home Furnishings Alliance, 

Apex Capital Corp, National Association 

of Small Trucking Companies, Sompo 

International, Specialized Furniture 

Carriers, The Expedite Association of 

North American, Transportation & 

Logistics Council, Transportation Loss 

Prevention and Security Association, 

and individuals who did not identify 

their organizations. Many stakeholders 

provided comments on multiple 

proposed changes and topics. 

Comments outside the scope of the 

April 2023 notice are not discussed in 

this notice. 

Comments in response to the April 

2023, notice largely supported the 

proposed changes. The relevant topics 

generating the most responses were: (1) 

proposal for new crash types, 

particularly the inclusion of requests 

that have video evidence of the crash; 

(2) changing the eligibility standard for 

wrong direction crashes; and (3) the 

turnaround time for a preventability 

determination on an eligible crash. In 

addition, many commenters suggested 

additional crash types to include as 

eligible for the program. Two 

commenters (Josh Curry and Charles E. 

Guitard) stated their opposition to 

expanding the program. Josh Curry 

noted that the ‘‘cost to benefits ratio 

can’t justify it,’’ and Charles E. Guitard 

would like the Agency to address 

existing issues, such as the lack of truck 

parking. The following sections provide 

a summary of the comments received 

and the Agency’s responses. 

III. List of Eligible Crash Types 

A. Changes to Existing Crash Types 

While many commenters favored 

expanding the eligibility of the program, 

few specifically addressed the changes 

to existing crash types that would allow 

more crashes to be eligible. Five 

commenters (Werner, NFMTA, NTTC, 

Steve Davis, Siskiyou Transportation, 

Inc., and OOIDA) specifically expressed 

support for the proposed modifications. 

AIST Safety Consulting supported 

FMCSA’s proposal to remove the phrase 

‘‘The Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) 

was struck because’’ to address unfair 

disqualification of CMVs that were the 

striking vehicle but could not have 

avoided the collision.’’ They also 

supported the acceptance of multivehicle crashes as eligible under the 

existing crash types. 

The Independent Carrier Safety 

Association and ATA supported the 

change to the crash type originally 

worded ‘‘When the CMV was struck by 

a driver who admitted to falling asleep 

or admitted to distracted driving’’ to 

remove the admission requirement. 

Barry Poole of Griffith, Indiana, 

recommended that FMCSA, ‘‘Please 

strike the term committing or attempting 

to commit suicide and replace with died 

by or attempting to die by.’’ 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA will modify the list of 

existing crash types as proposed in the 

April 13, 2023, notice. These changes 

will encompass more scenarios, such as 

where the CMV was not the striking 

vehicle and multi-vehicle crashes. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
96270 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Notices 

B. New Crash Types 

Many commenters welcomed the 

addition of new eligible crash types to 

the program. The notice proposed 

adding the following types: 

1. CMV was struck on the side by a 

motorist operating in the same 

direction. 

2. CMV was struck because another 

motorist was entering the roadway from 

a private driveway or parking lot. 

3. CMV was struck because another 

motorist lost control of their vehicle. 

The Police Accident Report (PAR) must 

specifically mention loss of control 

either in the citation, contributing 

factors, and/or PAR narrative. 

4. Any other type of crash involving 

a CMV where a video demonstrates the 

sequence of events of the crash. 

Twenty-six commenters supported 

the inclusion of the four new crash 

types. The crash type ‘‘Any other crash 

involving a CMV where a video 

demonstrates the sequence of events of 

the crash,’’ generated the most 

comments, with fourteen commenters 

(The Forward Group, Inc., Jeff Loggins, 

Trailiner Corp, AIST Safety Consultants, 

J.B. Hunt, NWRA, NTTC, Independent 

Carrier Safety Association, ATA, Werner 

Enterprises, Inc., David Search, and 

three anonymous posters) specifically 

addressing this change. 

Three commenters (Jeff Loggins, 

Trailiner Corp, and an anonymous 

commenter) offered remarks on the 

challenges of uploading videos to the 

DataQs system. These commenters 

requested that the DataQs system be 

updated to allow upload of more file 

types and larger file sizes. 

ATA, J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., and an 

anonymous commenter expressed 

concerns with the Agency’s handling of 

video files. ATA’s comments noted 

‘‘ATA urges FMCSA to further clarify 

that any video evidence should be 

reviewed, not just an onboard video 

recorder (i.e., surveillance footage, cell 

phone video, etc.). Furthermore, 

FMCSA should clarify the expectation 

for demonstrating the sequence of 

events of the crash . . . FMCSA should 

not expect, nor require, video evidence 

in the hours and days leading up to the 

crash. Additionally, FMCSA should take 

steps to ensure data privacy when 

submitting video evidence and ensure 

that any video submissions are 

permanently deleted after a 

determination has been made.’’ J.B. 

Hunt Transport, Inc., believes that video 

submissions should be treated as 

confidential business information and 

exempt from public disclosure. An 

anonymous commenter inquired about 

the policies surrounding video 

submissions, stating ‘‘What will be done 

with the videos that are submitted? . . . 

Just think it should also be disclosed if 

we will be submitting our private 

footage.’’ 

In addition to the four proposed crash 

types, many commenters also requested 

the program expand to include other 

crash types. The crash types suggested 

by commenters are listed below. 

1. Crashes at non-controlled 

intersections, when video evidence 

is provided 

2. Crashes where the other vehicle tries 

to outrun the truck 

3. Crashes with an abandoned vehicle 

left in the roadway 

4. Crashes where the other vehicle 

makes an improper lane change or 

a sideswipe crash 

5. Crashes where the other driver is not 

legally licensed to drive 

6. Weather related crashes (2 comments) 

7. Crashes where the other driver took 

unsafe actions (2 comments) 

8. Crashes where the other vehicle is 

operated at excessive speed 

9. Crashes where the other vehicle has 

an extreme lane incursion 

10. Crashes where the other motorist 

causes the crash 

11. Crashes where other vehicle pulls 

out of parking lot 

12. Crashes where other vehicle ‘‘Failed 

to Maintain Lane’’ 

13. Crashes where other vehicle fails to 

‘‘yield right of way’’ 

14. Crashes instigated by a road rage 

incident 

15. Crashes if the Crash avoidance 

systems were not recording or 

detecting any harsh or hard 

handling prior to the crash or 

improper handling of the CMV 

prior to or at the time of the crash 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA reviewed the list of proposed 

crash types and found that many were 

already incorporated in the new and 

modified crash types proposed in the 

April 2023, notice. FMCSA does not 

plan to include additional crash types 

beyond those proposed in the April 13, 

2023, notice at this time. The eligible 

crash types listed are less complex crash 

events that do not require extensive 

expertise to review. Crash scenarios not 

specifically listed as eligible may be 

accepted to the program if a video 

showing the sequence of the crash is 

submitted with the request. 

Regarding suggestions to increase file 

size and type limitations in DataQs to 

accommodate video file submissions, 

FMCSA notes that in September 2023, 

the file size limitation in DataQs was 

increased to 25 MB, and the system 

accepts most commonly used file 

formats. In response to comments by 

ATA, J.B. Hunt and an anonymous 

commenter on video privacy and 

security, FMCSA notes that all files 

uploaded to DataQs are encrypted. 

Information submitted to the CPDP is 

not used for enforcement purposes. 

FMCSA also notes that documents 

uploaded to RDRs continue to be 

accessible in DataQs after a 

determination is made, and the RDR 

may be reopened if additional 

information is provided to the Agency. 

Federal records management regulations 

require the Agency to keep files 

submitted to the DataQs system for a 

mandated timeframe. 

The video footage submitted with the 

CPDP request is expected to include the 

full sequence of the crash, but 

submitters should not include video 

files of hours or days preceding the 

crash. As a result, the final list of 

eligible crash types is as follows: 

1. CMV was struck in the rear by a 

motorist 

2. CMV was struck on the side at the 

rear by a motorist 

3. CMV was struck while legally 

stopped at a traffic control device or 

parked, including while the vehicle 

was unattended 

4. CMV was struck because another 

motorist was driving in the wrong 

direction 

5. CMV was struck because another 

motorist was making a U-turn or 

illegal turn 

6. CMV was struck because another 

motorist did not stop or slow in 

traffic 

7. CMV was struck because another 

motorist failed to stop at a traffic 

control device 

8. CMV was struck because another 

individual was under the influence 

(or related violation, such as 

operating while intoxicated), 

according to the legal standard of 

the jurisdiction where the crash 

occurred 

9. CMV was struck because another 

motorist experienced a medical 

issue which contributed to the 

crash 

10. CMV was struck because another 

motorist fell asleep 

11. CMV was struck because another 

motorist was distracted (e.g., 

cellphone, GPS, passengers, other) 

12. CMV was struck by cargo or 

equipment from another vehicle, or 

debris (e.g., fallen rock, fallen trees, 

unidentifiable items in the road) 

13. CMV crash was a result of an 

infrastructure failure 

14. CMV struck an animal 

15. CMV crash involving a suicide death 

or suicide attempt 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Notices 96271 

16. CMV was struck on the side by a 

motorist operating in the same 

direction as CMV 

17. CMV was struck because another 

motorist was entering the roadway 

from a private driveway or parking 

lot 

18. CMV was struck because another 

motorist lost control of the vehicle 

19. CMV was involved in a crash with 

a non-motorist 

20. CMV was involved in a crash type 

that seldom occurs and does not 

meet another eligible crash type 

(e.g., being struck by an airplane, 

skydiver, or a deceased driver in 

another vehicle) 

21. Any other type of crash, not listed 

above, where a CMV was involved 

and a video demonstrates the 

sequence of events of the crash 

IV. Reminders on CPDP Process and 

System Impacts 

A. Process 

Two commenters (OOIDA and Bryan 

Henry) want FMCSA to proactively 

review crashes for preventability and 

remove the requirement for the motor 

carrier or driver to submit a request. 

OOIDA stated that ‘‘Given the CPDP 

data over the last five years, the burden 

should now fall on the agency, rather 

than the submitter, to overturn 

qualifying crashes . . . We believe 

transferring the burden to the agency to 

determine crash preventability will help 

keep safe, experienced motor carriers in 

business and will also reduce the 

current backlog of CPDP submissions.’’ 

Additionally, two other commenters 

(Sanborn, Brandon, Duvall & Bobbitt 

Co., L.P.A. and Henry Seaton) believe 

that the CPDP lacks due process. 

Sanborn, Brandon, Duvall & Bobbitt Co., 

L.P.A. commented ‘‘We advocate for the 

CPDP to restore procedural and 

substantive due process to the CPDP by 

providing a hearing, a right to appeal, 

the right to subpoena evidence and 

witnesses, and by withholding the CSA 

score effects of crashes until the due 

process results in a finding the crash 

was preventable.’’ 

Eleven commenters (Jeff Wood, 

Stephen Hobbs, AIST Safety Consulting, 

Knight-Swift Transportation, Ray 

Walker Trucking, TMC Transportation, 

Sanborn, Brandon, Duvall & Bobbitt Co., 

L.P.A., J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 

National Tank Truck Carriers, ATA, and 

OOIDA) addressed the review time 

associated with receiving a 

determination from the CPDP. All 

eleven comments on this topic noted 

that the review time is too long. J.B. 

Hunt Transport, Inc., asked FMCSA to 

ensure adequate staffing for the 

expanded program. 

The April 2023 notice maintained that 

for crashes resulting in a fatality, proper 

DOT post-accident drug and alcohol 

testing results or the required 

explanation of why the tests were not 

completed or not completed within the 

timeframes specified in § 382.303(d)(1) 

and (d)(2), must be submitted. KnightSwift Transportation commented on this 

requirement and would like more 

consideration for circumstances where 

privacy laws prevent the motor carrier 

from getting an update on the severity 

of injuries from the crash. They request 

that an ‘‘Undecided’’ determination be 

rendered only if the carrier does not 

provide a reason for not performing the 

test. 

FMCSA Response 

The CPDP process will remain 

initiated by a request from the motor 

carrier, driver, or authorized 

representatives. The burden is on the 

submitter to provide compelling 

evidence that the crash is eligible and 

not preventable. Submitters are 

encouraged to submit other documents 

to support their request including 

videos, pictures, and court documents. 

The crash data fields that are submitted 

to FMCSA in the Motor Carrier 

Management Information System 

(MCMIS) are a subset of the information 

that is available on the PAR. FMCSA 

does not have direct access to PARs or 

other supporting documentation about a 

crash; and a preventability 

determination requires more 

information than is available in MCMIS. 

Regarding the due process comments, 

the CPDP is a voluntary program that 

supports the SMS. FMCSA does not 

believe that using recorded crashes for 

safety assessment and enforcement 

workload prioritization purposes 

constitutes deprivation of a property 

interest for which due process is 

required. This program does not amend 

any prior legislative rules, nor does it 

provide a basis for any new enforcement 

actions. And it does not require a notice 

and comment rulemaking under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (49 U.S.C. 

551, 553). This program does not alter 

FMCSA’s safety fitness standard under 

49 U.S.C. 31144 and 49 CFR part 385. 

As expressly stated on the SMS website, 

FMCSA uses SMS data to prioritize 

motor carriers for further monitoring, 

and data ‘‘is not intended to imply any 

federal safety rating of the carrier 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31144.’’ This 

program does not impact preventability 

determinations made through FMCSA 

safety investigations conducted under 

49 CFR part 385, nor the preventability 

standard contained therein. 

Preventability will be determined 

according to the following standard: ‘‘If 

a driver, who exercises normal 

judgment and foresight could have 

foreseen the possibility of the accident 

that in fact occurred and avoided it by 

taking steps within his/her control 

which would not have risked causing 

another kind of mishap, the accident 

was preventable.’’ 

The crash preventability 

determinations made under this 

program thus will not affect any 

carrier’s safety rating or ability to 

operate. FMCSA will not issue penalties 

or sanctions on the basis of these 

determinations, and the determinations 

do not establish any obligations or 

impose legal requirements on any motor 

carrier. These determinations also will 

not change how the Agency will make 

enforcement decisions. 

FMCSA emphasizes that these 

determinations do not establish legal 

liability, fault, or negligence by any 

party. Fault is generally determined in 

the course of civil or criminal 

proceedings and results in the 

assignment of legal liability for the 

consequences of a crash. By contrast, a 

preventability determination is not a 

proceeding to assign legal liability for a 

crash. Under 49 U.S.C. 504(f), FMCSA’s 

preventability determinations may not 

be admitted into evidence or used in a 

civil action for damages and are not 

reliable for that purpose (85 FR 27017, 

27018). 

If a submitter receives a determination 

that the crash was Preventable or 

Undecided, or if the RDR is closed for 

failure to submit additional requested 

documents, the RDR may be re-opened 

once. Additionally, submitters have an 

option to create a new RDR if additional 

documents or evidence is provided. 

FMCSA will reconsider the request if 

the submitter provides additional 

documentation to support the request. 

Regarding Knight-Swift 

Transportation’s request for leniency on 

the program requirement for proper 

DOT post-accident drug and alcohol 

testing results or the required 

explanation of why the tests were not 

completed or not completed within the 

timeframes specified in § 382.303(d)(1) 

and (d)(2), the Agency will not change 

this requirement for fatal crashes. This 

program requirement aligns with 

carriers’ responsibilities for postaccident drug and alcohol testing 

outlined in the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Regulations. 

FMCSA continues to provide 

clarification and individual reminders 

to submitters participating in the 

program, as questions have arisen. To 

assist the public in better understanding 

the CPDP process and system impacts, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
96272 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Notices 

FMCSA is providing the following 

reminders. 

Preventability Standard 

The Agency emphasizes that these 

changes to the CPDP do not affect the 

legal standard for or procedures 

governing FMCSA’s safety fitness 

determinations under 49 U.S.C. 31144 

and 49 CFR part 385, subpart A. The 

Agency’s standard for making a 

preventability determination for 

purposes of assigning a safety fitness 

rating remains unchanged and is set 

forth in 49 CFR part 385, Appendix B, 

section II.B(e). The burden for a CPDP 

not preventable determination 

continues to be on the submitter to 

show by compelling evidence that the 

crash was not preventable. FMCSA will 

continue to display the current 

disclaimer on the SMS website and will 

continue to include language in its 

determination notifications to 

submitters explaining that a crash 

preventability determination does not 

assign fault or legal liability for the 

crash. 

Process 

FMCSA will continue to make a 

determination of ‘‘Preventable’’ if there 

is evidence that the driver or carrier 

could have prevented the crash or was 

prohibited from operating the CMV at 

the time of the crash. This includes, but 

is not limited to, out-of-service 

violations, license violations, and driver 

prohibitions in the Agency’s Drug and 

Alcohol Clearinghouse. 

FMCSA will continue to rely on the 

MCMIS crash report to confirm that the 

driver was properly licensed at the time 

of the crash. If this information is 

missing from the MCMIS report or 

MCMIS indicates the wrong license 

class for the vehicle being operated, the 

Commercial Driver’s License 

Information System (CDLIS) report will 

be used to verify the driver’s license. 

Additionally, the CDLIS report is used 

to confirm the driver was not operating 

with an open license withdrawal or 

while suspended due to a drug or 

alcohol violation. The crash will be 

deemed ‘‘Preventable’’ if documentation 

shows that the driver was not qualified 

at the time of the crash. 

If CDLIS is used to verify the license 

and the driver has renewed the license 

or medical certificate since the date of 

the crash, evidence of licensing or 

medical certification on the date of the 

crash will continue to be requested from 

the submitter. Failure to provide any 

requested information within 14 

calendar days will continue to preclude 

a ‘‘Not Preventable’’ determination and 

result in an ‘‘Undecided’’ 

determination. 

As a reminder, for crashes resulting in 

a fatality, proper DOT post-accident 

drug and alcohol testing results, or the 

required explanation of why the tests 

were not conducted or not completed 

within the timeframes specified in 

§ 382.303(d)(1) and (d)(2), must be 

submitted. The tests must be conducted 

in accordance with the requirements of 

49 CFR part 40, which requires the use 

of a urine specimen for drug testing and 

either breath or saliva testing for 

alcohol. An exception for post-accident 

alcohol testing conducted under the 

authority of Federal, State, or local 

officials permits the use of a blood test. 

Additionally, post-accident drug testing 

under the authority of Federal, State, or 

local officials requires the use of a urine 

specimen for drug testing. The crash 

will be deemed ‘‘Preventable’’ if the 

drug or alcohol test results are positive 

or the driver refuses to submit to a test. 

More information about proper drug and 

alcohol testing procedures can be found 

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

regulations/drug-alcohol-testingprogram. 

Failure to provide requested 

documents within 14 calendar days may 

preclude a ‘‘Not Preventable’’ 

determination and may result in an 

‘‘Undecided’’ determination. 

B. Document Requirements 

Three commenters (Siskiyou 

Transportation, Inc., ATA, and Werner 

Enterprises, Inc.) responded to FMCSA’s 

continued requirement for submitters to 

provide the complete PAR to participate 

in the program. Siskiyou 

Transportation, Inc. and ATA want 

FMCSA to accept requests that do not 

include a PAR but have other crash 

information reports. Werner Enterprises, 

Inc. would like the PAR requirement 

rescinded for requests where there is 

sufficient video footage of the event. 

Both ATA and Werner Enterprises, Inc. 

commented on the difficulty and delay 

that is associated with obtaining PARs. 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA will continue to require a 

PAR issued from a law enforcement 

agency as a condition of eligibility for 

the program. This official 

documentation is needed to corroborate 

other information provided with the 

RDR to ensure the correct carrier, driver, 

and crash event is being reviewed for 

preventability. Additionally, the Agency 

found during the 2-year Crash 

Preventability Demonstration Program 

that the PAR is best single source of 

crash information and that the majority 

of PARs submitted contained sufficient 

detail to complete a preventability 

review (84 FR 38087). 

C. Impacts to SMS and PSP 

FMCSA did not propose changes to 

the use, display, and notations of 

determinations from the CPDP on SMS 

and PSP. Six commenters (the National 

Motor Freight Traffic Association 

(NMFTA), TMC Transportation, the 

Owner-Operators OOIDA, Lewis Britton, 

Jeff Loggins, and Sanborn, Brandon, 

Duvall & Bobbitt Co., L.P.A.) 

recommended that FMCSA modify how 

crashes submitted to the program, and 

those determined ‘‘Not Preventable,’’ are 

handled on SMS and PSP. NMFTA and 

OOIDA want FMCSA to remove crashes 

determined ‘‘Not Preventable’’ entirely 

from SMS. TMC Transportation would 

like a 30-day grace period before a crash 

is posted to SMS so the carrier has an 

opportunity to request a preventability 

review of the crash. Lewis Britton, Jeff 

Loggins, and Sanborn, Brandon, Duvall 

& Bobbitt Co., L.P.A. would like FMCSA 

to suspend the use of crashes submitted 

to the CPDP in SMS calculations while 

the requests are under review. 

FMCSA Response 

FMCSA is not making changes to the 

way determinations from the CPDP are 

used, displayed, or notated on SMS and 

PSP at this time. FMCSA will continue 

to list Not Preventable crashes on the 

public SMS website. However, the crash 

will continue to appear in a separate 

table from all other crashes. Crashes 

found to be ‘‘Not Preventable’’ will not 

be included in the calculation of the 

motor carrier’s Crash Indicator BASIC. 

Crashes found to be ‘‘Preventable’’ and 

‘‘Undecided’’ will continue to be used 

the calculation of the Crash Indicator 

BASIC. Only not preventable 

determinations will continue to be 

noted on the driver’s PSP record. The 

Agency believes that the public display 

of all crashes, regardless of the 

preventability determination, provides 

the most complete information 

regarding a motor carrier’s safety 

performance record. The Agency is 

committed to the open and transparent 

reporting of safety performance data. 

FMCSA is committed to ensuring that 

its methodology for prioritizing motor 

carriers for interventions accurately 

reflects carriers’ safety performance. The 

Agency will continue to evaluate the 

methodology’s effectiveness and 

propose improvements when needed. 

D. Implementation of Crash Type 

Updates to CPDP 

FMCSA stated in the April 2023, 

notice that it expected to have a start 

date for the new crash types, and the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Notices 96273 

new crash types would not be 

retroactive, that is, a crash that occurred 

before the start date of the new crash 

types would not become eligible for 

submission under the CPDP after the 

start date. Keith Shields, John Casey, 

and an anonymous commenter 

requested that FMCSA apply eligibility 

of the new crash types retroactively. 

Keith Shields asked that the new crash 

types apply to crashes that occurred 1 

year to 18 months before the start date 

of the new crash types. The anonymous 

commenter would like a 12-to-24-month 

retroactive application for the 

acceptance of crashes with video 

evidence. 

FMCSA Response 

The eligibility criteria for the new and 

updated crash types will not be applied 

retroactively to ensure that crashes that 

occurred during the same period are 

analyzed with a consistent set of 

criteria. The Agency will accept RDRs 

for the new and updated crash types for 

crashes that occur on or after December 

1, 2024. FMCSA will announce on the 

CPDP website at https://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/crashpreventability-determination-program 

when DataQs will be available to accept 

the submissions of the new and updated 

crash types. Crashes that occur before 

December 1, 2024, will be evaluated 

under the eligibility criteria established 

on May 2020 (87 FR 27017). 

The Agency reworded the updated 

crash type to expand eligibility by 

including indirect types of crashes. For 

example, ‘‘CMV was struck by a driver 

who experienced a medical issue which 

contributed to the crash’’ has changed to 

‘‘CMV was struck because another 

motorist experienced a medical issue 

which contributed to the crash,’’ which 

allows for scenarios where a motorist 

(V1) experiencing a medical issue 

strikes another vehicle (V2) which then 

strikes a CMV (V3). To be eligible for the 

prior definition, V1 had to directly 

strike V3, but the updated changes 

allow for an indirect strike. 

The below table shows the current list 

and new and updated eligible crash 

types for crashes occurring on or after 

December 1, 2024: 

Current list of eligible crash types Final list of new and updated eligible crash types 

(for crashes occurring on or after December 1, 2024) 

1. CMV was struck in the rear by a motorist ........................................... 1. CMV was struck in the rear by a motorist. 

2. CMV was struck on the side at the rear by a motorist ........................ 2. CMV was struck on the side at the rear by a motorist. 

3. MV was struck while legally stopped at a traffic control device (e.g., 

stop sign, red light or yield); or while parked, including while the vehicle was unattended.

3. CMV was struck while legally stopped at a traffic control device or 

parked, including while the vehicle was unattended. 

4. CMV was struck by a motorist driving in the wrong direction ............. 4. CMV was struck because another motorist was driving in the wrong 

direction. 

5. CMV was struck by another motorist in a crash when a driver was 

operating in the wrong direction.

6. CMV was struck by a vehicle that was making a U-turn or illegal turn 5. CMV was struck because another motorist was making a U-turn or 

illegal turn. 

7. CMV was struck by a vehicle that did not stop or slow in traffic ........ 6. CMV was struck because another motorist did not stop or slow in 

traffic. 

8. CMV was struck by a vehicle that failed to stop at a traffic control 

device.

7. CMV was struck because another motorist failed to stop at a traffic 

control device. 

9. CMV was struck by an individual under the influence (or related violation, such as operating while intoxicated), according to the legal 

standard of the jurisdiction where the crash occurred, where the individual was charged or arrested, failed a field or other test, or refused 

to test.

8. CMV was struck because another individual was under the influence 

(or related violation, such as operating while intoxicated), according 

to the legal standard of the jurisdiction where the crash occurred. 

10. CMV was struck by another motorist in a crash where an individual 

was under the influence (or related violation such as operating while 

intoxicated), according to the legal standard of the jurisdiction where 

the crash occurred, where the individual was charged or arrested, 

failed a field or other test, or refused to test.

11. CMV was struck by a driver who experienced a medical issue 

which contributed to the crash.

9. CMV was struck because another motorist experienced a medical 

issue which contributed to the crash. 

12. CMV was struck by a driver who admitted falling asleep or admitted 

distracted driving (e.g., cellphone, GPS, passengers, other).

10. CMV was struck because another motorist fell asleep. 

11. CMV was struck because another motorist was distracted (e.g., 

cellphone, GPS, passengers, other). 

13. CMV was struck by cargo, equipment, or debris (e.g., fallen rock, 

fallen trees, unidentifiable items in the road); or crash was a result of 

an infrastructure failure.

12. CMV was struck by cargo or equipment from another vehicle, or 

debris (e.g., fallen rock, fallen trees, unidentifiable items in the road). 

13. CMV crash was a result of an infrastructure failure. 

14. CMV struck an animal ........................................................................ 14. CMV struck an animal. 

15. CMV struck an individual committing or attempting to commit suicide.15. CMV crash involving a suicide death or suicide attempt. 

16. CMV was struck on the side by a motorist operating in the same 

direction as CMV. 

17. CMV was struck because another motorist was entering the roadway from a private driveway or parking lot. 

18. CMV was struck because another motorist lost control of the vehicle. 

19. CMV was involved in a crash with a non-motorist. 

16. CMV was involved in a crash type that seldom occurs and does not 

meet another eligible crash type (e.g., being struck by an airplane or 

skydiver or being struck by a deceased driver).

20. CMV was involved in a crash type that seldom occurs and does 

not meet another eligible crash type (e.g., being struck by an airplane, skydiver, or a deceased driver in another vehicle). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
96274 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Notices 

Current list of eligible crash types Final list of new and updated eligible crash types 

(for crashes occurring on or after December 1, 2024) 

21. Any other type of crash, not listed above, where a CMV was involved and a video demonstrates the sequence of events of the 

crash. 

V. Other Comments on Changes Not 

Proposed 

In addition to the changes proposed 

in the April 2023, notice, six 

commenters (Jeff Loggins, Steve Davis, 

AIST Safety Consulting, Knight-Swift 

Transportation, Siskiyou 

Transportation, Inc., and TMC 

Transportation) requested that FMCSA 

expand the eligibility requirements for 

the crash type ‘‘CMV was struck because 

another motorist was driving in the 

wrong direction.’’ The current eligibility 

guide states that the crash must have the 

following elements, ‘‘The vehicle in the 

crash was driving in the wrong direction 

(e.g., northbound in the southbound 

lanes) AND the vehicle was completely 

in the wrong lane (i.e., not partially 

across the center line).’’ All six 

commenters want FMCSA to consider 

crashes where the other vehicle was 

partially across the center line as 

eligible under this crash type. Steve 

Davis made the recommendation, ‘‘My 

recommendation is that if any portion of 

the oncoming vehicle crosses the center 

line and strikes our CMV resulting in a 

DOT Recordable accident, then it 

should be deemed as non-preventable 

on the part of the motor carrier.’’ AIST 

Safety Consulting would like FMCSA to, 

‘‘Broaden eligibility for Wrong Direction 

cases . . . Consider cases where a 

vehicle is partially in the opposite lane, 

making it impossible for a CMV to avoid 

a collision without swerving 

dangerously.’’ The comments from 

Knight-Swift Transportation included 

the suggestion, ‘‘Wrong way accidents— 

we would like the CPDP amended to 

allow for wrong way accident to allow 

DataQ submission when: 

1. Not Fully Over the Centerline—The 

vehicle that struck the CMV was not 

completely over the center line when 

the crash occurred. 

2. Opposing Direction Sideswipe— 

The vehicle that struck the CMV was 

not completely over the center line 

when it side-swiped the CMV. 

Three commenters would like FMCSA 

to offer educational resources for 

carriers and drivers submitting requests 

to CPDP. Joshua Anderson would like 

additional fields when submitting an 

RDR to help users select the appropriate 

crash type. AIST Safety Consulting 

recommends adding a glossary to the 

Eligibility Guide that is available at 

https://fmcsa.dot.gov/crashpreventability-determination-program. 

And ATA wants enhanced resources for 

carriers that explain the RDR process, 

including minimum documentation 

requirements. 

FMCSA Response 

The current eligibility guide states 

that the crash must have the following 

elements, ‘‘The vehicle in the crash was 

driving in the wrong direction (e.g., 

northbound in the southbound lanes) 

AND the vehicle was completely in the 

wrong lane (i.e., not partially across the 

center line).’’ In response to the 

commenters, the Agency is staying with 

the current criteria for the ‘‘wrong 

direction’’ crash type and will NOT 

allow for partial crossing of the center 

line. As stated above, the crash types 

that are eligible for the CPDP are less 

complex crash events that do not 

require extensive expertise to review. 

However, the addition of the new crash 

type, where a CMV was involved and a 

video demonstrates the sequence of 

events of the crash, may allow for 

partial crossing of the center line types 

of crashes. 

FMCSA will continue to update the 

Eligibility Guide to ensure it provides 

the most up-to-date criteria for each 

crash type. All the resources published 

on the https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

crash-preventability-determinationprogram website will be updated to 

ensure submitters have the resources to 

make a complete request. 

VII. Next Steps 

FMCSA will post information on the 

CPDP website https://fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

crash-preventability-determinationprogram notifying submitters of the date 

when FMCSA will accept submissions 

under the new and updated crash types 

set forth in this notice. 

Vincent G. White, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28377 Filed 12–3–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2022–0246] 

Parts and Accessories Necessary for 

Safe Operation; Application for an 

Exemption From Polytech Plastic 

Molding, Inc., USDOT #1764512 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; 

denial of exemption. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

announces its decision to deny an 

application from Polytech Plastic 

Molding, Inc. (Polytech, USDOT 

#1764512) for an exemption to allow it 

to operate commercial motor vehicles 

(CMVs) equipped with a module 

manufactured by Intellistop, Inc. 

(Intellistop). The Intellistop module is 

designed to pulse the required rear 

clearance, identification, and brake 

lamps from a lower-level lighting 

intensity to a higher-level lighting 

intensity 4 times in 2 seconds when the 

brakes are applied and then return the 

lights to a steady-burning state while the 

brakes remain engaged. The Agency has 

determined that Polytech did not 

demonstrate that it would likely achieve 

a level of safety equivalent to, or greater 

than, the level of safety achieved by the 

regulation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Sutula, Vehicle and Roadside 

Operations Division, Office of Carrier, 

Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC–PSV, 

(202) 366–9209, Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590– 

0001; MCPSV@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, go to 

www.regulations.gov, insert the docket 

number ‘‘FMCSA–2022–0246’’ in the 

keyword box, and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, 

sort the results by ‘‘Posted (NewerOlder),’’ choose the first notice listed, 

click ‘‘Browse Comments.’’ 

To view documents mentioned in this 

notice as being available in the docket, 

go to www.regulations.gov, insert the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1