Crash Preventability Determination Program |
|---|
|
James A. Mullen
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
6 May 2020
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27017-27022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09679]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0177]
Crash Preventability Determination Program
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 27, 2017, FMCSA announced a demonstration program to
evaluate the preventability of eight categories of crashes through
submissions of Requests for Data Review to its national data correction
system known as DataQs. On August 5, 2019, based on experiences with
the demonstration program, FMCSA proposed a Crash Preventability
Determination Program with a streamlined process. FMCSA proposed to
modify the Safety Measurement System to exclude crashes with not
preventable determinations from the prioritization algorithm and
proposed noting the not preventable determinations in the Pre-
Employment Screening Program. This notice responds to comments received
on the proposal and announces the start of the Agency's new Crash
Preventability Determination Program.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Catterson Oh, Compliance Division,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-6160, Catterson.Oh@dot.gov. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Operations, (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Since its implementation in 2010, FMCSA's Safety Measurement System
(SMS) has used safety performance information in the Behavior Analysis
and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs), in addition to recordable
crashes involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), to prioritize
carriers for safety interventions (75 FR 18256). The Crash Indicator
BASIC uses crashes from the previous 24 months to calculate percentiles
for motor carriers. In addition, the public SMS website lists motor
carriers' recordable crashes. Although the Crash Indicator BASIC
percentiles have never been publicly available, stakeholders have
expressed concern that the use of all crashes in SMS, without an
indication of preventability, may give an inaccurate impression about
the risk posed by the company.
In response to this concern, FMCSA announced a demonstration
program on July 27, 2017, to evaluate the preventability of certain
categories of crashes (82 FR 35045). Based on its experience in
conducting the demonstration program, and the strong support for
continuing and expanding this program, FMCSA is initiating the Crash
Preventability Determination Program (CPDP) as described in this
notice. Through this program, motor carriers and drivers may submit
eligible crashes for preventability determinations through FMCSA's
DataQs system. FMCSA will remove crashes that were not preventable by
the motor carrier or driver from the SMS prioritization algorithm.
FMCSA will also note the not preventable determinations in the driver's
Pre-Employment Screening Program (PSP) record and will note not
preventable, preventable, and undecided determinations in the motor
carrier's list of crashes on the public SMS website.
Implementation Proposal
General Comments
FMCSA received 111 comments to this docket. More than 90 commenters
supported the proposal and the Agency's plan to continue the program.
Many noted their support of the expansion of eligible crash types.
Gregory Cohen advised that Greyhound Lines, Inc., participated in the
demonstration program and supports
[[Page 27018]]
the continuation of the program. Dave Guyer, Cindy Staten, Dave Fisher,
Scott Conklin, and several anonymous commenters advised the program
should be maintained. Associations including the Owner Operator
Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), the American Trucking
Associations, the International Foodservice Distributors Association,
National School Transportation Association, and Truckload Carriers
Association supported the proposal.
Thirteen commenters, including the Motor Carrier Regulatory Reform
Coalition (MCRRC) and the National Association of Small Trucking
Companies (NASTC), opposed the program. Both MCRRC and NASTC requested
that the proposed changes be made through notice and comment
rulemaking. MCRRC detailed this request by additional letters to
FMCSA's Administrator dated June 14 and September 5, 2019, and
requested an extension of the comment period by letter dated September
13, 2019. FMCSA posted these letters to this docket and considered the
June 14 letter as part of MCRRC's comments. MCRRC and NASTC expressed
concern that preventability would be conflated with fault, and that
this confusion may cause negative impacts to insurance rates and
outcomes in private litigation. MCCRC and NASTC stated that the program
would cause unfair harm to small carriers.
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) expressed multiple
concerns, including issues with the new crash types, reviewers'
qualifications, Federalism impacts, and the impact of an FMCSA not
preventable determination on a State's criminal charges. The Insurance
Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) indicated the program does not
improve safety and recommended FMCSA incentivize best practices and
reward carriers' investments in safety.
The other commenters either asked questions or provided comments
that made it difficult to discern their position on the proposal.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA declined to extend the comment period in response to MCRRC's
September 13, 2019, request because MCRRC failed to show good cause for
its request. FMCSA has provided ample notice and opportunities to
comment throughout the development of this program, from the
publication of its initial crash weighting analysis in 2015 (80 FR
3719), through the announcement of the demonstration program in 2017
(82 FR 35045), and the 2019 proposal to implement this program (84 FR
38087). At each stage, FMCSA has solicited, considered, and responded
to public comments.
This program does not amend any prior legislative rules nor does it
provide a basis for any new enforcement actions, and 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.
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.
In response to MCRRC's and NASTC's concerns about the potential
conflation of preventability and fault, and CVSA's concern about the
impact on State criminal proceedings, FMCSA added a disclaimer to the
SMS website that states:
A crash preventability determination does not assign fault or
legal liability for the crash. These determinations are made on the
basis of information available to FMCSA by persons with no personal
knowledge of the crash and are not reliable evidence in a civil or
criminal action. Under 49 U.S.C. 504(f), these determinations are
not admissible in a civil action for damages. The absence of a not
preventable determination does not indicate that a crash was
preventable.
In addition, FMCSA will continue to include the following text in
its determination notifications to submitters, which it included during
the demonstration program:
FMCSA made this crash preventability determination on the basis
of information available to the Agency at the time of the
determination, and it is not appropriate for use by private parties
in civil litigation. This determination does not establish legal
liability, fault, or negligence by any party and was made by persons
with no personal knowledge of the crash. This crash preventability
determination will not affect any motor carrier's safety rating or
ability to operate. FMCSA will not issue penalties or sanctions on
the basis of this determination. This crash preventability
determination does not establish any obligations or impose any legal
requirements on any motor carrier.
FMCSA addresses the impact of the program on small carriers in the
``Effectiveness Analysis'' section below. In response to IIHS's
comments, FMCSA acknowledges that the demonstration program was a first
step in examining the impacts of preventability determinations on SMS
with a small data set. Continuing the program and expanding crash types
will allow FMCSA to continue to conduct analysis with more crashes.
Regarding reviewer qualifications, FMCSA reviewed nearly 15,000
police accident reports (PAR) during the demonstration program.
Eligible crashes will continue to reviewed by two reviewers and 10
percent of the crashes will also be reviewed for quality control. FMCSA
recognizes that the law enforcement who respond to the crash have the
most information on the event. That is why the CPDP requirements
include submission of the PAR. Additionally, the Agency notes that the
eligble crash types for the CPDP continue to be generally less complex
crash events.
In response to IIHS' suggestion to incentivize best practices, the
Agency notes that its preventability standard at 49 CFR 385, Appendix
B, assesses if a driver exercising normal judgment and foresight could
have avoided the crash by taking steps within his/her control without
causing another kind of mishap.
The CPDP already takes into account whether the driver or vehicle
was operating in violation of an out of service regulation at the time
of the crash, which encourages carrier-wide best practices. The PAR
generally does not contain sufficient information to account for best
practices in the manufacturing of vehicles at this time.
[[Page 27019]]
Changes to Eligible Crash Types
FMCSA proposed two changes to the original eight crash types.
First, FMCSA would combine the crash type involving infrastructure
failures and debris with the crash type for CMVs struck by cargo and
equipment. The distinction between these two crash types did not result
in different determinations and, in some cases, required submitters to
resubmit their Requests for Data Review (RDRs) under the other crash
type. In addition, FMCSA proposed changing the ``Motorist Under the
Influence'' crash type to ``Individual Under the Influence'' to include
crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists and others.
In the August 2019 notice, FMCSA proposed to test the eight
additional crash types. These crashes were frequently submitted during
the demonstration program, but did not qualify for one of the original
crash types.
Comments
Victor Van Kuilenburg asked that the Agency review all crashes.
Some commenters provided additional crash types for consideration in
the program. The National Motor Freight Traffic Association and United
Motorcoach Association noted that the proposal made it unclear if
unoccupied vehicles were still being included in the crash type that
includes parked vehicles.
CVSA expressed concern about expanding the crash types because of
concerns about the reviewers' training and experience. Specifically,
CVSA said that the additional crash types require higher standards of
training and education. CVSA noted the extensive training that crash
reconstructionists receive. CVSA also requested clarification of the
``under the influence'' standard.
An anonymous commenter asked if the crash type of ``When the CMV is
struck by a driver who experiences a medical issue which causes the
crash'' includes when the CMV driver has the medical issue.
OOIDA recommended adding a ``Rare or Unusual Crash'' type and noted
the recent crash between a CMV and a skydiver.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA supports OOIDA's proposal for a ``Rare or unusual crash''
type and added this type to DataQs. However, the Agency expects that
most crashes submitted to this type will not meet the standard and will
be common, recurring crash types. When this occurs, the RDR will be
found to be not eligible and closed upon review. The Agency does not
support further expanding the crash types in the program at this time.
The proposed new types are a reasonable extension of the demonstration
program based on the volume of not eligible crashes submitted and
reviewed, and the Agency's expected ability to determine preventability
based on the documentation received from submitters.
FMCSA acknowledges that the text to include unattended vehicles was
inadvertently omitted from the August 2019 notice and the final list of
crashes has been revised to reflect this.
In addition, as FMCSA noted in the August 2019 notice, all not
preventable crashes will be removed from the calculation of the Crash
Indicator BASIC. However, the Agency will analyze the new crash types
for 24 months but may announce changes earlier if certain crash types
cannot be consistently reviewed. If the new crash types are able to be
consistently reviewed, the Agency may consider expanding the program to
include additional crash types in the future.
Regarding reviewer qualifications, FMCSA is building on its
experience in reviewing nearly 15,000 PARs during the demonstration
program. Because the eligible crash types are, by design, less complex
crash events, FMCSA does not believe these reviews require extensive
expertise. In addition, FMCSA has built in a quality control process to
ensure the consistency and quality of these reviews. Eligible crashes
will continue to be reviewed by two reviewers, and 10 percent of the
crashes will also be reviewed for quality control. FMCSA will also
require the submission of the PAR because FMCSA recognizes that the law
enforcement official who responds to the crash will have the most
information on the event.
Regarding the ``under the influence'' standard used, FMCSA is
requiring the PAR or other document submitted to demonstrate that the
other driver was charged with or arrested for driving under the
influence (or a related charge such as operating while intoxicated),
document a failed field sobriety test, document a blood alcohol level
of .08 for non-CMV drivers or .04 for a CMV driver, or documentation of
a refusal to test.
To respond to the anonymous question about medical issues, the
crash is not eligible if the submitter's driver was the person with the
medical condition.
SMS and PSP Changes
During the demonstration program, notations of the preventability
determinations were made in the motor carrier's list of crashes on the
publicly available SMS website. Crashes were not removed from the
calculation of the Crash Indicator BASIC in SMS but the motor carrier
was provided an alternative measure and percentile without not
preventable crashes.
FMCSA proposed that for eligible crashes occurring on or after
August 1, 2019, FMCSA would continue to display the crashes with
preventability notations in the carrier's list of crashes on the public
SMS website, but would remove crashes with not preventable
determinations from the SMS Crash Indicator BASIC calculation. FMCSA
would also note the not preventable determinations in the driver's
record in PSP.
Comments
Numerous commenters supported both the removal of not preventable
crashes from SMS entirely and the notation of these crashes on PSP.
Lori Fisher, Jeff Loggins, Larry Nestor, and Stacey Johnson and OOIDA
all supported removing the not preventable crashes from the SMS
calculation.
MCRRC and NASTC opposed this change, noting that all other crashes
will be ``presumed preventable.''
FMCSA Response
FMCSA is implementing the associated changes to these information
systems. The SMS public display is being revised to list not
preventable crashes occurring on or after August 1, 2019, separately
from other crashes to make it clear they are not included in the Crash
Indicator BASIC. The carrier's list of crashes and the notations
associated with not preventable crashes will remain publicly available.
Crashes deemed not preventable will not be used to prioritize motor
carriers for safety interventions. FMCSA will continue to display one
of three determinations for the eligible crashes that it reviews:
1. Reviewed--Not Preventable--``FMCSA reviewed this crash and
determined that it was not preventable.''
2. Reviewed --Preventable--``FMCSA reviewed this crash and
determined that it was preventable.''
3. Reviewed --Undecided--``FMCSA reviewed this crash and could not
make a preventability determination based on the evidence provided.''
Crashes with ``Reviewed--Preventable'' and ``Reviewed--Undecided''
will continue to be included in the Crash Indicator BASIC. The absence
of a not preventable determination does not indicate that a crash was
preventable. The Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles will remain
[[Page 27020]]
available only to motor carriers who log in to view their own data, as
well as to FMCSA and law enforcement users.
Determination notations for crashes reviewed in the previous
demonstration program will remain in SMS for 2 years from the date of
the crash. The Agency previously announced that crashes reviewed during
the demonstration program would not be removed from the Crash Indicator
BASIC, and some carriers may have decided not to participate on that
basis. Therefore, crashes reviewed during the demonstration program
will not be removed from calculation of the SMS Crash Indicator BASIC
but motor carriers will still have access to the alternative measures
and percentiles.
Crashes remain in SMS for 2 years from the date of the crash and
remain in PSP for 5 years from the date of the crash. As a result,
FMCSA will not review crashes that are more than 5 years old.
End of Demonstration Program and Start of New Program
The demonstration program accepted crashes in the eight original
eligible crash types that occurred from June 1, 2017, through July 31,
2019. RDRs for these crashes were accepted through September 30, 2019.
Comments
There were no comments specifically about the end of the
demonstration program or start date for the CPDP. With the publication
of this notice, FMCSA's DataQs sytem is available to accept RDRs for
the expanded list of eligible crashes occurring on or after August 1,
2019.
Public Input Changes
FMCSA proposed to cease the 30-day public input period and cease
the practice of publishing preliminary not preventable determinations.
This change allows RDRs to be closed with not preventable
determinations without the 30-day delay and will reduce resources to
take additional action on the RDR. In addition, FMCSA proposed to stop
publishing a list of not preventable determinations on the Agency's
website. The Agency will continue to publish quarterly statistics, as
was done during the demonstration program.
Comments
Angela Petry, Doug Anonymous, and Greyhound Lines commented that
the 30-day public input period should be eliminated. No commenters
opposed this change.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA will discontinue the 30-day public input period in the CPDP.
However, as reflected in the August 2019 notice, the Agency will
continue to accept information about any crash by email to
crash.preventability@dot.gov. Any information received will be fully
considered and could result in a change in the determination.
Document Requirement
FMCSA proposed requiring submitters to provide the complete PAR to
participate in the program.
Comments
MCRRC objected to the Agency's reliance on PARs in the CPDP because
PARs are hearsay that are entitled to little or no weight in a fault or
legal liability determination. Alex Scott of Michigan State University
stated that the program contradicts FMCSA's previous position on the
sufficiency and reliability of the information in PARs.
FMCSA Response
The demonstration program did not require any specific documents be
submitted with the RDR so that the Agency could determine which
documents were the strongest for future use. Based on the more than
14,000 RDRs reviewed, FMCSA determined that the PAR is the best single
source of crash information. FMCSA's experience thoughout the
demonstration program was that the majority of PARs submitted contained
sufficient detail to complete a preventability review. As noted above,
preventability determinations do not assign fault or legal liability
for a crash. In addition, FMCSA notes that previous studies of PAR
accuracy were based on fatal crashes and were not limited to the
generally less complex crash types in the demonstration program. The
reviewers will continue to rely on PARs and other documents submitted
to conduct the review.
Therefore, when submitting RDRs to the CPDP, the submitter must
provide the PAR and is encouraged to submit other documentation
providing compelling evidence that the crash is eligible and was not
preventable. The DataQs system continues to accept documents, photos,
and videos that do not exceed 5 MB in formats including MP4, MPG, MKV,
AVI, MPEG, and WMV file types.
If only the PAR is submitted and it contains conflicting
information about the crash (e.g., the narrative is different than the
diagram or point of impact information), the crash may found to be not
eligible or the determination may be undecided.
Process Information
FMCSA proposed to develop the functionality in DataQs to allow
FMCSA to change the crash type on behalf of the submitter to another
eligible crash type, when appropriate. The Agency also proposed
streamlining the review process and using only one stage of contract
reviewers to provide a recommendation. In addition, FMCSA proposed
allowing the contract reviewers to close RDRs for crashes that are not
one of the eligible crash types.
FMCSA proposed to rely on the Motor Carrier Management Information
System (MCMIS) crash report to confirm the driver's license and medical
certification status as part of implementation.
FMCSA proposed to continue reviewing post-crash inspection reports
and if the inspection shows that the CMV or driver was in violation of
an out of service (OOS) regulation under the North American Standard
OOS Criteria prior to the crash or that the driver was not properly
licensed, the crash will be deemed preventable. In addition, FMCSA
proposed to continue to request post-crash drug and alcohol test
results when the crash results in a fatality.
Comments
Several commenters noted that it took longer than expected for RDRs
to be reviewed in the demonstration program and supported changes to
improve the process.
FMCSA Response
As a result, FMCSA is implementing these process improvements.
However, FMCSA is making one clarification regarding the use of MCMIS
to confirm proper licensing on the date 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 report will be used to verify the
driver's license. If the driver has renewed his/her license and/or
medical certificate since the date of the crash, evidence of licensing
and/or medical certification on the date of the crash will be requested
from the submitter. Failure to provide this information will continue
to preclude a not preventable determination and will result in an
undecided determination. If documentation shows that the driver was not
qualified, the crash will be deemed preventable.
If drug and alcohol testing results, or the required explanation of
why the tests were not completed, are not submitted, this will also
preclude a not
[[Page 27021]]
preventable determination and will result in an undecided
determination. If the drug and/or alcohol test results were positive,
the crash will be deemed preventable.
FMCSA will continue to make preventable determinations if there is
evidence that the driver and/or carrier was legally prohibited from
operating the CMV at the time of the crash. Specfically, if a post-
crash inspection identifies a driver or vehicle violation of an OOS
regulation and the violation existed before the crash and was not
attributed to the crash, or if the MCMIS crash report or other
documents reviewed as part of the determination indicate that the
driver was not qualified to drive on the date of the crash, the crash
is not eligible for a not preventable determination because the driver
and/or carrier were legally prohibited from operating the CMV at the
time of the crash.
Also, to improve program efficiencies and facilitate postings with
SMS, the updated DataQs system will not allow a submitter to complete
the process if there is not a MCMIS crash report submitted by the
State. However, the submitter may enter the required information and
save the RDR in DataQs and then submit once the crash is in MCMIS. A
State's delay in submitting the crash to FMCSA does not delay the
removal of a not preventable crash from SMS because SMS uses only
crashes that are in MCMIS.
Effectiveness Analysis
During the demonstration program, 4,089 unique motor carriers
submitted more than 14,700 RDRs. FMCSA conducted an analysis of the 2-
year demonstration program and a copy is in the docket. For purposes of
the updated analysis, FMCSA looked at the data for the 2,124
participating carriers that had at least one crash determined to be not
preventable. The report includes three primary analyses: (1) Summary of
safety profiles of carriers that participate in the program; (2) impact
on carriers' Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles; and (2) impact on SMS
effectiveness.
The first analysis found that participating carriers are more
likely to be large combination carriers (greater than 51 Power Units
(PU)), have more inspections per PU, and have a crash risk that does
not differ from non-participants. The second analysis found that, on
average, carriers with not preventable crashes removed have a
percentile drop of 9 points in the recalculated Crash Indicator BASIC.
Only a small number of carriers change alert status in the Crash
Indicator BASIC--out of both participating and non-participating
carriers, 134 carriers gain alert status and 136 carriers lose alert
status as a result of excluding not preventable crashes from the Crash
Indicator BASIC. The third analysis found that removing not preventable
crashes from the Crash Indicator BASIC should not have an impact on the
effectiveness of FMCSA's prioritization programs (SMS, High-Risk). This
is due to the relatively low number (about 2%) of crashes determined to
be not preventable and removed from the calculation.
In conclusion, the evaluation of the effectiveness of the
demonstration program found that while carriers who have had not
preventable crashes removed via the demonstration program saw a
reduction on their Crash BASIC percentiles, there was negligible impact
on the overall SMS effectiveness.
On average, carriers that had not preventable crashes removed from
the calculation of their Crash Indicator BASIC had a percentile drop of
9 points in that BASIC. The decrease in percentiles was slightly
greater for smaller carriers, primarily due to the low participation by
carriers in smaller safety event groups. In addition, after the removal
of not preventable crashes, small carriers were less likely have a
sufficient number of crashes to be evaluated in the BASIC under the
data sufficiency standards used in SMS.
To evaluate the impact of these changes on FMCSA's ability to
identify high risk motor carriers for safety interventions, the
analysis compared the future crash rate of the group of carriers in
alert status before and after the removal of the not preventable
crashes from the Crash Indicator BASIC. Although the group of carriers
in alert status after removal of the not preventable crashes had a
slightly higher future crash rate than the group in alert status before
removal of the not preventable crashes, the analysis team found a
negligible impact on the ability of the Crash Indicator BASIC to
identify high risk carriers. The effectiveness analysis determined that
when not preventable crashes were removed, the group of carriers
identified in SMS, when considering all BASICs, had a future crash rate
97% higher than the group of carriers not identified.
The lack of an impact on SMS effectiveness is mainly a result of
the relatively small number of carriers that participated in the
demonstration program. Only 169 and 208 carriers were projected to gain
and lose alerts in the Crash Indicator BASIC, respectively, which is a
small fraction (2 percent) of the 8,634 carriers identified in the
Crash Indicator BASIC.
Comments
Alex Scott of Michigan State University indicated that the program
is biased to large carriers, does not improve identification of high
risk carriers, and does not provide any evidence it improves crash
predictability.
Justin Smoot, MCRRC, and NASTC also expressed concern that large
carriers were over represented in the demonstration program.
FMCSA Response
FMCSA notes that participation by small carriers with fewer than 15
power units in the demonstration program was only 6 percent of the
submissions. However, overall DataQs use by this same population is
45.5 percent. As a result, the Agency expects that the new program, and
the removal of crashes from the SMS Crash Indicator BASIC, will result
in an increased use by small carriers with eligible crashes.
Because SMS segments carriers into safety event groups, SMS does
not directly compare the crash records of large carriers to those of
small carriers. The greater participation by large carriers in the
demonstration program therefore had no impact on the percentiles of
small carriers.
The Agency's effectiveness analysis discussed above concluded that
removing the not preventable crashes does not impede the Agency's
ability to identify high risk carriers. This program offers all
carriers and drivers the opportunity to request and obtain the removal
of eligible not preventable crashes from their SMS calculations to more
accurately reflect their crash history.
Lastly, FMCSA has never indicated that SMS predicts crashes. FMCSA
uses SMS to identify and prioritize motor carriers for safety
interventions before crashes occur, using risk management techniques
for high consequence, low likelihood events and considering carrier
exposure across carriers of all sizes. Therefore, there was no
expectation that this program would improve crash prediction.
Impact of SMS Changes
Although the removal of not preventable crashes from the Crash
Indicator BASIC will not impact the Agency's ability to identify high
risk carriers, some carriers will see changes to their Crash Indicator
BASIC percentiles. The Agency points out again that because SMS is a
relative system, the removal of not preventable crashes will decrease
the Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles of some
[[Page 27022]]
carriers and may increase the Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles of
other carriers in the same safety event group. As a result, a motor
carrier that does not have any additional crashes may see its Crash
Indicator BASIC percentile increase because its peers submitted RDRs
and the not preventable crashes were removed from the calculations. In
addition, even a motor carrier that has not preventable crashes removed
may see its Crash Indicator BASIC percentile increase if its peers had
a greater number of not preventable crashes removed.
The Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles have never been publicly
available and will remain available only to motor carriers who log in
to view their own data, as well as to FMCSA and law enforcement users.
This program will not change any carrier's safety fitness rating or
ability to operate, nor will it establish any obligations or impose
legal requirements on any motor carrier. This program also will not
change how the Agency makes enforcement decisions.
National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Correlation Study
FMCSA is making these changes to SMS separately from its ongoing
work in response to the June 27, 2017, NAS report, ``Improving Motor
Carrier Safety Measurement.'' The NAS report noted that the crash
preventability program was of interest but did not issue a
recommendation directly relating to the program.
Implementation
Preventability Standard
The standard for making a preventability determination is provided
in 49 CFR part 385, Appendix B, section II.B(e): ``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.'' This continues
to be the standard used by the Agency for all preventability reviews.
The burden continues to be on the submitter to show by compelling
evidence that the crash was not preventable.
Crash Types
FMCSA is implementing all crash types proposed in the August 2019
notice and adding a ``Rare or unusual crash'' type. However, to help
submitters find the correct eligible crash type, FMCSA rearranged the
order of crashes to group like crash events together. As a result, the
final list of eligible crash types is:
Struck in the Rear type of crash when the CMV was struck:
In the rear; or
on the side at the rear.
Wrong Direction or Illegal Turns type of crash when the CMV was
struck:
By a motorist driving in the wrong direction; or
by another motorist in a crash when a driver was operating
in the wrong direction; or
by a vehicle that was making a U-turn or illegal turn.
Parked or Legally Stopped type of crash when the CMV 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.
Failure of the other vehicle to Stop type of crash when the CMV was
struck:
By a vehicle that did not stop or slow in traffic; or
by a vehicle that failed to stop at a traffic control
device.
Under the Influence type of crash when the 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 sobriety or other
test, or refused to test; or
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 sobriety test or other tests, or refused to test.
Medical Issues, Falling Asleep or Distracted Driving type of crash
when the CMV was struck:
By a driver who experienced a medical issue which
contributed to the crash; or
by a driver who admitted falling asleep or admitted
distracted driving (e.g., cellphone, GPS, passengers, other).
Cargo/Equipment/Debris or Infrastructure Failure type of crash when
the 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.
Animal Strike type of crash when the CMV:
Struck an animal
Suicide type of crash when the CMV:
Struck an individual committing or attempting to commit
suicide
Rare or Unusual type of crash when the 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).
DataQs
With publication of this notice, DataQs is available to accept RDRs
for eligible crashes occurring on or after August 1, 2019. Submitters
must provide a PAR and are encouraged to provide other documents,
photos, and videos to present compelling evidence that the crash is
eligible and not preventable. FMCSA may request additional information
on the crash, which may include any documentation the carrier is
required to maintain under the Agency's regulations. Failure to submit
documents requested by the Agency may cause the RDR to be closed
without a preventability determination or with an undecided
determination.
Only eligible crashes submitted to FMCSA's CPDP will be reviewed.
RDRs for crash preventability reviews should not be submitted to the
States or other organizations through DataQs and will be closed.
As during the demonstration program, 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. FMCSA will reconsider the request if the
submitter provides additional documentation to support the request.
Agency Websites
FMCSA established a new website for the CPDP at www.fmcsa.dot.gov/crash-preventability-determination-program. This website includes
frequently asked questions and tools to help submitters complete the
RDR process in DataQs. This website will be updated quarterly to
provide information on the RDRs received and reviewed by the Agency.
The website for the demonstration program will continue to be
available at www.fmcsa.dot.gov/crash-preventability-demonstration-program.
The Agency's Motor Carrier Safety Planner at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/carrier-safety/motor-carrier-safety-planner
also includes information about the CPDP.
James A. Mullen,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-09679 Filed 5-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P