Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67405 

after the date of the final agency 

decision. 

* * * * * 

6.0 Preparation for Combined Mailings 

of Standard Mail and Package Services 

Parcels 

[Revise title of 6.1 as follows:] 

6.1. Combined Machinable Parcels—

DBMC Entry 

* * * * * 

[Revise title of 6.1.2.] 

6.1.2 Basic Standards 

* * * * * 

6.1.3 Postage Payment 

[Revise 6.1.3 to add requirement for eVS and reorganize to read as follows:] 

Mailers must pay postage for all 

pieces with a permit imprint at the Post 

Office serving the mailer’s plant using 

one of the following postage payment 

systems. The applicable system 

agreement must include procedures for 

combined mailings approved by 

Business Mailer Support. 

a. Manifest Mailing System (MMS), 

under 2.0; 

b. Optional Procedure (OP) Mailing 

System, under 3.0, until January 1, 

2007; or 

c. Alternate Mailing System (AMS), 

under 4.0, until January 1, 2007. 

d. Effective January 1, 2007, for 

mailings presented under 705.6.0, 

mailers must document and pay postage 

using the Electronic Verification System 

under 705.2.9. 

* * * * * 

[Revise title of 6.2 to read as follows:] 

6.2 Combining Parcels—DSCF Entry, 

Parcel Post OBMC Presort and BMC 

Presort 

* * * * * 

6.2.3 Postage Payment 

[Revise text of 6.2.3 to include e-VS 

requirement for DSCF Entry parcels, to 

read as follows:] 

Mailers must pay postage for all 

pieces with a permit imprint at the Post 

Office serving the mailer’s plant using 

an approved manifest mailing system 

under 2.0. The following conditions also 

apply. 

a. The applicable system agreement 

must include procedures for combined 

mailings approved by Business Mailer 

Support. 

b. Effective January 1, 2007, for 

mailings presented under 705.6.0, 

mailers must document and pay postage 

using the Electronic Verification System 

under 705.2.9. 

* * * * * 

7.0 Combining Package Services 

Parcels for Destination Entry 

* * * * * 

7.1 Combining Parcels 

* * * * * 

7.1.2 Basic Standards 

[Add the following sentence at the end 

of 7.1.2b.] 

b. * * * Effective January 1, 2007, for 

mailings presented under 705.7.0, 

mailers must document and pay postage 

using the Electronic Verification System 

under 705.2.9. 

* * * * * 

An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR 

111 to reflect these changes will be 

published if the proposal is adopted. 

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 05–22156 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 385 

[Docket No. FMCSA–1998–3639] 

RIN 2126–AA37 

Safety Fitness Procedures; Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM); withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration [formerly Office 

of Motor Carriers (OMC) within Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA)] 

withdraws its July 20, 1998 ANPRM and 

request for comments pertaining to the 

future evolution of the safety fitness 

rating system. After the ANPRM was 

published, FMCSA began the 

Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 

Initiative (CSA 2010), a comprehensive 

review and analysis of FMCSA’s current 

commercial motor carrier safety 

compliance and enforcement programs. 

FMCSA held a series of public listening 

sessions pertaining to CSA 2010 in 

September and October 2004. Many 

commenters at those listening sessions 

suggested that FMCSA delay publishing 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) until the agency makes its final 

decisions regarding its long-term plan 

for monitoring motor carrier safety 

under CSA 2010. Therefore, this 

rulemaking is no longer necessary 

because, as CSA 2010 proceeds, FMCSA 

expects to publish a rulemaking that 

would propose a new and improved 

safety compliance and monitoring 

methodology based on more recent 

information and policy. 

DATES: The ANPRM with request for 

comments published July 20, 1998 is 

withdrawn as of November 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Nicole McDavid, Office of Enforcement 

and Program Delivery, (202) 366–0831, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 

p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 6, 1997, FHWA (now 

FMCSA) published a final rule 

incorporating its safety fitness rating 

methodology (SFRM) as Appendix B to 

49 CFR 385. In that document, the 

agency identified its ultimate goal as 

creating a more performance-based 

means of determining the fitness of 

motor carriers to conduct commercial 

motor vehicle (CMV) operations in 

interstate commerce. The final rule 

announced that FHWA would soon 

publish an ANPRM that would address 

the future evolution of its rating system 

methodology. Since that final rule, 

Congress substantially heightened the 

importance of Unsatisfactory ratings by 

amending 49 U.S.C. 31144 to prohibit 

transportation of any property in 

interstate commerce by motor carriers 

with Unsatisfactory ratings. 

(Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century [Pub. L. 105–178, June 9, 1998, 

112 Stat. 107]) 

On July 20, 1998, FHWA issued an 

ANPRM titled ‘‘Safety Fitness 

Procedures’’ (63 FR 38788) seeking 

comments and supporting data on what 

issues should be considered in 

developing a future safety fitness rating 

system. Specifically, the ANPRM 

invited responses to 21 detailed 

questions focusing on what a future 

SFRM should include. 

On October 9, 1999, the Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary) rescinded his 

authority to FHWA to carry out most of 

the motor carrier functions and 

operations (64 FR 56270, October 19, 

1999) and redelegated that authority to 

the Director of the new Office of Motor 

Carriers. On October 29, 1999, the 

Secretary rescinded his authority to 

FHWA to carry out other duties and 

powers related to motor carrier safety 

vested in the Secretary by statute (64 FR 

58356). Then, on January 1, 2000, 

responsibility for motor carrier 

67406 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1Comments were received from the following: 11 

State governmental organizations (Arizona 

Department of Public Safety; Colorado Department 

of Public Safety, Colorado State Patrol; Department 

of California Highway Patrol; Idaho Department of 

Law Enforcement, State Police Division; Iowa 

Department of Transportation; Louisiana 

Department of Public Safety and Correction, 

Louisiana State Police; Michigan Department of 

State Police; Michigan Public Service Commission; 

Oregon Department of Transportation; Oregon 

Freight Advisory Committee; and Public Utilities 

Commission of Ohio, Transportation Department), 9 

motor carriers (ABC Bus Companies, Inc.; 

CoachUSA; Duplainville Transport; Frozen Food 

Express Industries, Inc.; HCI U.S.A. Distribution 

Companies, Inc.; Interstate Distributor Co.; 

Thompson Trucking, Inc.; Werner Enterprises, Inc.; 

and Yellow Corporation and subsidiaries), 8 trade 

associations (American Insurance Association; 

American Trucking Associations (ATA); 

Association of Waste Hazardous Materials 

Transporters; Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; 

National Private Truck Council (NPTC); National 

Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.; Transportation Lawyers 

Association; and Truckload Carriers Association), 3 

consulting groups (Consolidated Safety Services, 

Inc.; International Motor Carrier Audit Commission; 

and Tran Services), a utility company (Alabama 

Power Company), a safety advocacy group 

(Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety), a labor 

union (International Brotherhood of Teamsters), an 

insurance company (Great West Casualty 

Company), the Canadian Council of Motor 

Transport Administrators, and an individual. 

functions, operations, and safety within 

the Department of Transportation was 

transferred from FHWA to the 

Administrator of a new agency—

FMCSA (65 FR 220, January 4, 2000). 

In August 2004, FMCSA embarked on 

CSA 2010—a comprehensive review 

and analysis of FMCSA’s current 

commercial motor vehicle safety 

compliance and enforcement programs 

that aims to identify better methods of 

improving highway safety (69 FR 51748, 

August 20, 2004). Currently, FMCSA 

and State agencies are able to conduct 

compliance reviews on only a small 

percentage of the more than 675,000 

motor carriers listed in FMCSA’s Motor 

Carrier Management Information System 

(MCMIS). Therefore, FMCSA is looking 

for ways to: (1) Improve monitoring of 

motor carriers, (2) make agency 

processes more efficient, and (3) expand 

its enforcement and compliance reach 

in the regulated community. These 

actions would improve FMCSA’s ability 

to meet its goal of significantly reducing 

crashes, fatalities, and injuries involving 

large trucks and buses. The intent of 

CSA 2010 is to establish an operational 

model that could be used to confirm 

that a motor carrier has a safe operation 

as well as to identify unsafe motor 

carrier operations that should be 

targeted for compliance and 

enforcement activities. This new 

operational model will be critical to 

ensuring FMCSA can keep pace with 

the burgeoning motor carrier industry 

and continue to provide for the safe 

transportation of people and goods on 

the nation’s highways. Moreover, this 

new operational model will directly 

affect any future SFRM. 

In September and October 2004, 

FMCSA held a series of public listening 

sessions pertaining to CSA 2010. 

Specifically, FMCSA was soliciting 

input on ways that it could improve its 

process of monitoring and assessing the 

safety of the motor carrier industry and 

how that information should be 

presented to the public. Although 

broader in scope than the ANPRM, the 

public listening sessions included much 

input regarding improving FMCSA’s 

safety and compliance programs. 

Specific to the Safety Fitness Procedures 

rulemaking initiative, many commenters 

offered suggestions and 

recommendations regarding safety 

indicators, compliance reviews, data 

gathering, performance measures, safety 

fitness ratings, regulatory compliance, 

rewards versus penalties to encourage 

compliance, and the use of third-party 

resources. Moreover, many commenters 

at those listening sessions suggested that 

FMCSA delay publishing a NPRM under 

the Safety Fitness Procedures 

rulemaking action until FMCSA makes 

its final decision regarding its long-term 

plan for monitoring motor carrier safety 

under CSA 2010. For further detail on 

the public listening sessions, see 

FMCSA’s final report, ‘‘Comprehensive 

Safety Analysis 2010 Listening 

Sessions’’ (Docket No. FMCSA–2004–

18898). 

Summary of Comments to the ANPRM 

The 1998 ANPRM invited responses 

to 21 specific questions focusing on how 

the future FMCSA SFRM should look. 

FMCSA received 37 public comments 

on this rulemaking. An Appendix to this 

notice lists the questions asked in the 

ANPRM and provides a summary of the 

comments received to date on each 

question. 

FMCSA Decision 

After reviewing the public comments 

on the Safety Fitness Procedures 

ANPRM and the public’s input at the 

CSA 2010 public listening sessions, 

FMCSA has determined that it is in the 

public’s interest to withdraw the 

ANPRM and defer further rulemaking 

activity in this area until FMCSA 

establishes its revised operational model 

under CSA 2010 that will set forth the 

methodology for a future safety fitness 

rating system. As noted above, the 

agency has reviewed and summarized 

all of the comments received to date. 

FMCSA will address the comments 

received in response to this ANPRM in 

the context of the CSA 2010 initiative 

and in any SFRM rulemaking growing 

out of that comprehensive safety 

analysis. 

Because numerous comments in 

response to the ANPRM addressed the 

use of third-party contractors, we think 

it informative to note FMCSA has been 

using contractors to conduct safety 

audits since January 2004. The use of 

contractors was, and is, necessary to 

address the need for heightened safety 

compliance monitoring under the New 

Entrant Safety Assurance Process. 

FMCSA has built into its contracts with 

third-party contractors effective 

safeguards against fraud and other 

abuses. It requires private contractors to 

meet the same minimum certification 

requirements as Federal and State safety 

auditors, including certain education, 

experience, and testing requirements. 

FMCSA anticipates publishing a new 

rulemaking addressing a motor carrier 

safety fitness rating system consistent 

with the new methodology for 

monitoring motor carrier safety 

developed as part of the CSA 2010 

initiative. FMCSA will consider fully all 

comments to this ANPRM in developing 

any new rulemaking document 

addressing a motor carrier safety fitness 

rating system or methodology. 

Therefore, FMCSA is withdrawing its 

July 20, 1998 ANPRM on Safety Fitness 

Procedures. 

Issued on: October 31, 2005. 

Annette M. Sandberg, 

Administrator. 

Appendix—Discussion of Comments to 

the ANPRM 

FMCSA’s 1998 ANPRM on Safety Fitness 

Procedures invited responses to 21 specific 

questions focusing on how the agency’s 

future SFRM should look. FMCSA received 

responses from 37 commenters 1. Listed 

below are the questions asked in the ANPRM 

and, under each, a summary of the public 

comments the agency has received to date. 

As noted in the preamble to this notice, 

FMCSA will address these comments in the 

context of the CSA 2010 initiative and in any 

SFRM rulemaking growing out of that study. 

Question 1. What do you believe should be 

the principal ingredients of a rating system? 

What kind of a rating system would best suit 

your needs? Why? 

Many commenters asserted that crash 

involvement should be the principal criterion 

used in a rating system with regulatory 

compliance mentioned nearly as often and 

vehicle inspections following as a close third. 

Other commenters mentioned driver 

qualifications, out-of-service violations, 

moving violations, and general (unspecified) 

performance data. Several commenters 

believed the factors used in FMCSA’s current 

rating system are appropriate. 

Most commenters wanted a rating system 

that encourages safety, reduces motor carrier 

crash risk, and recognizes safe motor carriers. 

ATA would like to see a safety fitness rating 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67407 

system that reflects safety performance rather 

than regulatory compliance. The State of 

Louisiana asserted that the rating system 

allows the State to fulfill its obligation of 

ensuring motorists’ safety. 

Question 2. What benefits do you expect to 

gain from a rating system? What business 

decisions do you presently base on carrier 

ratings? 

Commenters cited the following benefits 

from a rating system: 

• Improved safety for commercial motor 

vehicle drivers and other motorists, 

• Lower insurance rates, 

• Greater marketing potential and more 

business for safer motor carriers, 

• More efficient use of State and local 

resources to target unsafe motor carriers, 

• Crash reduction, 

• Community recognition, and 

• Ability to obtain a hazardous materials 

permit. 

One commenter stated the current system is 

acceptable. 

With regard to business decisions, many 

commenters reported that the rating system 

assists them in hiring motor carriers. The 

Arizona Department of Public Safety; 

Michigan Department of State Police, 

Michigan Public Service Commission; and 

Oregon Department of Transportation noted 

that the rating system supports their 

enforcement strategies. Another commenter 

indicated that the rating system should help 

motor carriers improve their performance 

and compliance. Thompson Trucking, Inc. 

remarked that the rating system would not 

affect its business decisions. 

Question 3. Are there differences in the 

way ratings should be used? (e.g., by FHWA 

[FMCSA]? by shippers? by others?) 

Most commenters agreed that safety fitness 

ratings have different uses. Some 

commenters suggested that FMCSA use the 

ratings as part of the compliance review in 

determining which motor carriers have 

adequate safety controls in place. Others 

commented that shippers could use ratings to 

determine whether a motor carrier is 

responsible and adheres to the same 

standards as the shipper. 

Two commenters contended that safety 

ratings should not have different uses. One 

commenter added that only FMCSA should 

use the ratings. 

Question 4. If ratings must impact the 

continued operations of rated carriers, what 

is the appropriate threshold for determining 

that a carrier is unsatisfactory, meaning 

‘‘unfit to operate’’? 

Commenters deemed the following events 

or factors as appropriate Unsatisfactory 

thresholds: 

• Abnormally high crash rate, 

• Failure to correct a problem after 

receiving notice of the problem, 

• Lack of safety management controls, 

• Inspection failures, 

• Continued violation of the FMCSRs, and 

• Use of unqualified drivers. 

Other commenters, including the 

Association of Waste Hazardous Materials 

Transporters and ATA, stated that only 

violations of performance-related regulations, 

as opposed to paperwork-related violations, 

should result in an Unsatisfactory rating. The 

Michigan Department of State Police went 

further by suggesting that in assigning 

Unsatisfactory ratings, FMCSA count only 

those performance-related regulations which, 

if violated, could expose the driver or the 

public to imminent harm. 

The Colorado Department of Public Safety, 

Colorado State Patrol suggested using a 

weighted point system such as that employed 

by SafeStat. Several other commenters 

recommended setting a minimum standard 

rather than ranking motor carriers against one 

another. 

Question 5. Should the FHWA [FMCSA] 

continue to maintain the three ratings: 

Satisfactory, Conditional, or Unsatisfactory? 

If yes, what benefits do you perceive in 

maintaining the three ratings? 

Commenters, including motor carriers, 

trade associations, and State governments, 

were split almost evenly on this question. 

Those commenters who supported keeping 

the current three ratings of Satisfactory, 

Conditional, and Unsatisfactory gave reasons 

such as: (1) The ratings are easy to 

understand and adequately serve their 

intended purpose and (2) the ratings provide 

essential information to the public, shippers, 

and motor carriers. One commenter noted 

that if FMCSA changed the rating system, 

past ratings might become irrelevant. 

Another commenter suggested FMCSA keep 

at least the Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory 

ratings but add intermediate levels (besides 

the Conditional rating used in the current 

methodology). 

Among those commenters taking the 

opposite position, most recommend limiting 

the ratings to Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory. 

Several commenters also suggested placing 

new motor carriers in a probationary or 

provisional status until they receive a rating. 

Other commenters recommended replacing 

the current rating system with SafeStat. 

Question 6. What should be the highest tier 

in such a system, and what should it 

connote? 

Commenters agreed that Satisfactory 

should be the highest tier in the rating system 

and suggested a Satisfactory rating connote 

that the motor carrier 

• Is doing a good job of decreasing crashes 

and moving violations and maintaining 

regulatory compliance. 

• Has acceptable compliance and 

management efforts. 

• Has acceptable performance measures. 

• Is safe enough to be in business. 

• Meets the requisite criteria for the class. 

• Is 90- to 100-percent compliant with the 

regulations. 

• Has an acceptable level of compliance. 

Question 7. How long should any rating 

last? 

Opinions on this question varied 

considerably. Commenters suggested 

timeframes ranging from 6 months to 

indefinitely or until some indicator falls 

below an acceptable level. Most commenters 

believed the duration should be tailored to 

the rating. Many commenters suggested using 

SafeStat as a model. 

Question 8. Do you see any benefit to a 

single rating system by the FHWA [FMCSA] 

which would be concerned only with 

unsatisfactory carriers that would have to 

improve or cease operating? 

Most commenters did not support a system 

focusing solely on the Unsatisfactory rating. 

They believed such a system would be 

inadequate and potentially misleading as 

well as make a negative impression on the 

public. The Association of Waste Hazardous 

Materials Transporters noted that a single 

rating system would not fulfill FMCSA’s 

obligation to both Congress and the States to 

provide affirmative evidence of compliance. 

In contrast, several commenters contended 

that a single-rating system would be more 

efficient. One commenter suggested that 

FMCSA use such a system if the resources 

are unavailable to support a tiered rating 

system. 

Question 9. Should such ratings be 

determined entirely by objective 

(performance-based) criteria? Why? 

Commenters were almost evenly split with 

slightly more commenters, including the 

Arizona Department of Public Safety; 

Colorado Department of Public Safety, 

Colorado State Patrol; Louisiana Department 

of Public Safety and Correction, Louisiana 

State Police; and Michigan Department of 

State Police, favoring the use of performancebased criteria in conjunction with the motor 

carrier’s level of regulatory compliance. 

Many commenters in this group noted that 

performance data and regulatory compliance 

are complementary measures of safety fitness 

because performance data are indicators of 

past behavior while regulatory compliance 

points to future behavior. 

Among the commenters who suggested 

using only performance-based criteria, 

several contended that performance and 

effort correlate directly with safety whereas 

regulatory compliance must be assessed more 

indirectly through the motor carrier’s 

compliance with paperwork requirements. In 

contrast, one commenter suggested basing the 

safety rating solely on regulatory compliance. 

Question 10. What data elements best 

reveal the safety performance of the motor 

carrier and should receive consideration in 

future safety fitness determinations? 

Commenters suggested using the following 

data elements (in order of the frequency with 

which they were mentioned) to make safety 

fitness determinations: 

(1) Crashes (taking into account fault 

versus no fault), 

(2) Inspections/out-of-service violations, 

(3) Regulatory compliance, 

(4) Moving violations, 

(5) Use of qualified drivers, 

(6) Management controls (such as training 

and substance abuse testing), 

(7) Hazardous materials compliance and/or 

violations, 

(8) Current data elements, and 

(9) Financial condition of the motor carrier. 

The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 

and Michigan Department of State Police 

contended public opinion regarding these 

data elements would inevitably show bias. In 

their view, FMCSA should conduct research 

to identify the salient risk factors and use 

those factors as the data elements. 

Question 11. How should regulatory 

compliance be treated in safety fitness 

determinations? Which regulations are most 

important in evaluating safety fitness? 

Nearly all commenters believed FMCSA 

should consider regulatory compliance in 

67408 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

determining a motor carrier’s safety fitness 

rating. Many commenters suggested that the 

motor carrier’s desire and ability to operate 

within the regulations be considered a safety 

benchmark. 

A number of commenters believed FMCSA 

should distinguish between violations of 

acute and critical regulations. Those 

commenters believed paperwork errors 

should not be considered a compliance 

violation for safety fitness purposes. ATA 

and Werner Enterprises, Inc. recommended 

FMCSA conduct research to verify a link 

between compliance and safety before using 

compliance violations in determining safety 

fitness ratings. 

With regard to the regulations most 

important to the evaluation of safety fitness, 

commenters cited the following issues (in 

descending order of the frequency with 

which they were mentioned): 

(1) Vehicle inspections (related both to 

repair and maintenance), 

(2) Qualifications of drivers, 

(3) Reporting of crashes, 

(4) Drug and alcohol testing, 

(5) Logbook violations, and 

(6) Hazardous materials violations. 

The NPTC suggested that any regulations 

regarding management controls would be 

most important to safety fitness 

determinations. The Louisiana Department of 

Public Safety and Correction, Louisiana State 

Police contended that all the regulations are 

important because they represent the 

minimum safety standards. 

Question 12. How should poor compliance 

be reconciled with good safety experience? 

Should a motor carrier be rated 

unsatisfactory even if it has a low accident 

rate? 

A number of commenters supported giving 

Unsatisfactory ratings to motor carriers with 

poor compliance but good safety experience. 

Two of those commenters added that FMCSA 

should differentiate between motor carriers 

making paperwork mistakes and those that 

ignore the regulations. In contrast, four 

commenters opposed assigning 

Unsatisfactory ratings to motor carriers with 

low crash rates. 

Commenters who contended that 

noncompliance with the safety regulations 

should be evaluated independently of crash 

rates gave the following reasons: 

• There appears to be a correlation 

between compliance and future safety fitness, 

• A low crash rate could simply be a 

matter of luck, and 

• Allowing noncompliant motor carriers to 

escape an Unsatisfactory rating would be 

unfair to motor carriers that comply with the 

regulations. 

Seven commenters maintained that 

FMCSA must consider both regulatory 

compliance and safety performance. 

However, they did not suggest specific ways 

to achieve this. 

One commenter posited that if poor 

compliance coexists with good safety 

experience, this could mean the regulations 

have little impact on safety. 

Question 13. Do you believe there is 

presently sufficient data available to make 

judgments about a motor carrier’s ability to 

stay in business? 

Most commenters believed FMCSA has 

sufficient performance and compliance data 

to determine whether it is safe to allow a 

motor carrier to stay in business. However, 

several commenters expressed reservations 

about the sufficiency, accuracy, and quality 

of the data collected by FMCSA. NPTC 

argued that SafeStat seriously underreports 

crashes for two reasons: (1) The current 

database is limited to crashes meeting the 

National Governors Association reporting 

standards, which exclude less-severe crashes, 

and (2) States and local jurisdictions have 

inadequate reporting procedures. NPTC also 

recommended that FMCSA expand and 

prioritize the types of data it presently 

captures on driver behavior and vehicle 

condition. 

ATA considered the safety rating so 

important that it believed FMCSA’s data 

must be impeccable. ATA urged the agency 

to work with law enforcement, the States, 

and the trucking industry to help improve 

the accuracy and quality of the data. ATA 

asserted that in the interest of fairness and 

uniformity, FMCSA should take 

responsibility for correcting data errors or 

discrepancies instead of referring the motor 

carrier to the State(s) that provided the data. 

In addition, ATA noted the importance of 

keeping MCS–150 forms current as many 

performance measures are based on 

information motor carriers provide on the 

forms. 

The Transportation Lawyers Association 

criticized the adequacy of FMCSA’s data and 

contended that there are due process 

concerns when a safety rating based on 

questionable data carries severe economic 

consequences. 

Other commenters cited a need for better 

controls on the data collections, noting that 

many inspectors record only inspections 

with negative results keeping no record of 

positive inspections. One commenter 

questioned whether FMCSA has enough 

inspectors to review all the available data. 

Question 14. Should carriers be grouped by 

similarity of operations? By size? 

A majority of commenters supported 

grouping motor carriers in some way. The 

most frequently recommended sorting 

criteria were operating environment (rural 

versus urban), size, and type of transport. 

One commenter suggested grouping motor 

carriers by MCS–150 filing categories. 

Of those commenters opposed to sorting 

motor carriers into groups, some argued that 

FMCSA should apply uniform standards to 

all motor carriers. The Colorado Department 

of Public Safety, Colorado State Patrol 

contended that grouping motor carriers 

would be unnecessary if FMCSA rated all 

motor carriers against a particular standard 

rather than ranking them. 

Question 15. Are there significant benefits 

to be derived from a third-party [private 

contractor] on-site review system for 

evaluating motor carriers? What do you 

perceive them to be? 

Commenters were almost evenly split 

between supporting and opposing the use of 

private contractors. Those commenters 

favoring the concept believed it would garner 

industry support and represent a better use 

of FMCSA’s resources. Several commenters 

recommended contracting with trade 

associations or insurance companies, 

provided they were of the same caliber as 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

inspectors. Most commenters in this group 

also recommended that Federal and State 

Governments maintain the right to conduct 

inspections under certain circumstances. One 

commenter suggested using private 

contractors exclusively for data collection 

and not for enforcement actions. 

Those commenters opposing the use of 

private contractors believed it would open 

the door to inappropriate interpretations of 

the rating methodology. They also contended 

that any resource savings could be canceled 

by FMCSA expenditures for training and 

monitoring of the contractors. The 

Transportation Lawyers Association noted 

that in an Office of the Inspector General’s 

Report, dated March 26, 1997, the U.S. 

Department of Transportation stated its 

opposition to the use of private contractors 

because of legal considerations and the cost 

and complexity of developing and 

monitoring such a system. 

Two commenters stated they would need 

more information about who pays and 

controls the private contractors, what role the 

Federal and State Governments would play, 

and who enforces the regulations before they 

can adequately respond to this question. 

Question 16. If a third-party [private 

contractor] review system were to start up, 

what should be the Federal role in such a 

system? 

Most commenters stated that the Federal 

Government should have significant 

involvement with private contractors by 

setting standards and providing guidance, 

certification, and training. However, a 

significant minority believed the Federal 

Government should take a more limited role, 

such as by monitoring private contractors 

through random audits and other methods. 

Several commenters asserted that the Federal 

Government should focus solely on 

compliance and enforcement issues. 

Question 17. Could and should a private 

third-party [contractor] review system coexist 

with a Federal system? What would be their 

respective roles? What relationships should 

there be, if any, between coexisting Federal 

and private review systems? 

Commenters had a range of opinions on 

this question. The most frequent 

recommendation was for the Federal 

Government to audit private contractors. 

Many commenters suggested using private 

contractors solely to collect data or, at the 

very most, to conduct an initial review that 

would be subject to FMCSA review. Other 

commenters recommended using private 

contractors only as consultants, who would 

assist motor carriers with improving their 

safety performance. In contrast, some 

commenters recommended training and 

certifying private contractors to conduct 

complete reviews in place of FMCSA. 

Many commenters did not support a 

private contractor system because they 

doubted it could be implemented 

successfully. One commenter contended that 

such a system would likely increase the 

incidence of litigation against the agency by 

motor carriers receiving Unsatisfactory 

ratings. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 214 / Monday, November 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67409 

Question 18. What should be the effect of 

the third-party [private contractor] rating on 

the carrier’s operation? What kind of review 

procedures would be required? 

Many commenters stated that a private 

contractor review should have the same 

effect on the motor carrier’s operation as one 

conducted by the Federal Government. Other 

commenters advocated using private 

contractors strictly as consultants—the 

contractor would not rate the motor carrier. 

Still other commenters suggested the role of 

private contractors be limited to data 

collection. One commenter suggested making 

private contractor reviews voluntary but 

publishing the results for the benefit of the 

public. 

Two commenters opposed the use of 

private contractors. One commenter argued 

that large motor carriers would have an 

economic advantage because they could more 

easily afford these private contractors. 

With respect to review procedures, several 

commenters recommended establishing an 

appeals process for private contractor 

compliance reviews. One commenter 

recommended that FMCSA automatically 

review any Unsatisfactory rating assigned by 

a private contractor. Another commenter 

stated that private contractors should not be 

allowed to assign ratings. 

Question 19. Should the information from 

third-party [private contractor] on-site 

reviews become a part of the FHWA [FMCSA] 

database? How should such information be 

treated? 

Most, but not all, commenters supported 

including private contractor review 

information in the FMCSA database provided 

data-collection controls are in place. In 

addition, a majority of the commenters 

recommended using private contractor 

review data in the same way as the data 

collected by FMCSA. However, several 

commenters added that information collected 

by private contractors should be coded and 

continuously monitored to ensure safety data 

integrity and quality. 

Question 20. Should a third-party reviewer 

[private contractor] have direct access to the 

FHWA’s [FMCSA’s] database to a greater 

extent than such information is presently 

available to the public? 

Most commenters supported such access so 

long as a confidentiality agreement is in 

place. Other commenters suggested that 

private contractors be allowed access only to 

publicly available information in the FMCSA 

database. Several commenters specifically 

opposed allowing private contractors access 

to FMCSA databases. A few commenters said 

that private contractors should have access 

only to the motor carrier information needed 

to complete a review. 

Question 21. Should there be standards for 

third-party [private contractor] reviews, 

including the identification of the relevant 

data elements to be employed for evaluative 

purposes? How should such standards be 

developed? 

Nearly all commenters supported holding 

private contractors to defined standards. 

Most commenters believed contractor 

standards should mirror those standards used 

by FMCSA and its MCSAP-funded 

enforcement partners. One commenter 

recommended a task group to develop 

separate standards for private contractors. 

[FR Doc. 05–22062 Filed 11–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P