Crash Weighting Analysis, 3719-3723 [2015-01144]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices State of New York: Portageville Bridge Project, Towns of Portage and Genesee Falls, Livingston and Wyoming Counties, New York. The purpose of the Project is to address the existing deficiencies at the Portageville Bridge on the Southern Tier rail freight route across the Genesee River by providing a modern rail crossing of the Genesee River at its current location that is capable of carrying current industry standard freight rail loads, to the greatest degree possible meeting Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Class 4 speeds, while reducing ongoing maintenance efforts and costs. The Project is needed in order for Norfolk Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, December 15, 2014. Southern, the Project Sponsor, to continue safe, reliable, and efficient rail Bryon H. Rakoff, operations on the Southern Tier route. Deputy Manager, Airports Division. These operations are critical to the [FR Doc. 2015–01213 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] economic viability and growth of the BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Southern Tier and other affected areas of New York. The actions by the Federal agencies, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and the laws under which such actions Federal Highway Administration were taken, are described in the FHWA Final Environmental Impact Statement Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions (FEIS) for the project, approved by on the Portageville Bridge Project, FHWA in the Record ofDecision (ROD) Livingston and Wyoming Counties, issued on December 29, 2014, and in New York other documents in the FHWA administrative record. The FEIS, ROD, AGENCY: Federal Highway and other documents in the FHWA Administration (FHWA), DOT. administrative record file are available ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA by contacting the FHWA at the addresses provided above. The FEIS and and Other Federal Agencies. ROD can be viewed and downloaded SUMMARY: This notice announces actions from the project Web site at https:// taken by FHWA and other Federal www.dot.ny.gov/portagevillebridge. This agencies that are final within the notice applies to all Federal agency meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(1)(1). The decisions as of the issuance date ofthis actions relate to the Portageville Bridge notice and all laws under which such Project. Those actions grant approvals actions were taken, including but not for the project. limited to: DATES: By this notice, FHWA is advising 1. General Environmental Statues: the public of final agency actions National Environmental Policy Act (42 subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(1)(1). A claim U.S.C. 4321–4355); Economic, social, seeking judicial review ofthe Federal and environmental effects (23 U.S.C. agency actions on the railway bridge 109(h)); Uniform Relocation Assistance project will be barred unless the claim and Real Property Acquisition Policies is filed on or before June 22, 2015. If the Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. Chapter 61 and Federal law that authorizes judicial 49 CFR 24); Public Hearings (23 U.S.C. review of a claim provides a time period 128). of less than 150 days for filing such 2. Air: Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. claim, then that shorter time period still 7506(c) and 40 CFR part 93); Safe, applies. Efficient Use, and Preservation ofthe FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Navigable Airspace (14 CFR part 77); Jonathan D. McDade, Division Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Administrator, Federal Highway Improvement Program (23 U.S.C. 149). Administration, Leo W. O’Brien Federal 3. Noise: Standards (23 U.S.C. 109(i)). Building, Albany, New York 12207, 4. Land: Section 4(f) ofthe Department Telephone (518) 431–4127. of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 CFR 774); Farmland SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201— hereby given that FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency 4209); Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601–4– actions by issuing approvals for the 4601–11) following railway bridge project in the tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Town of Plymouth, Plymouth County Registry of Deeds, Book 3099, page 406. The Airport completed a Real Estate Appraisal Report and Review Appraisal for the parcels. The appraisal was conducted in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The appraisal concludes that the Plymouth Municipal Airport will receive fair market value for the land that it is releasing in this proposed land release and property exchange. In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title 49 of the United States Code, the FAA invites public comment on this proposal. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Jan 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3719 5. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and 50 CFR 402); Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661–667(d)); Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668– 668(c)). 6. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 and 36 CFR part 800). 7. Social and Economic: Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (49 U.S.C. 10501), the Federal Railway Safety Act of 1970 (49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq.). 8. Wetlands and Water Resources: Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300(f)-3000)(6)); Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 & 1987 (33 U.S.C. 1251–1387); National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271–1287) and Genesee River Protection Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)); Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401). 9. Hazardous Materials: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601–9675). 10. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 12898 Environmental Justice; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species; E.O. 11988 of 1977 Floodplains. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(1)(1) Jonathan D. McDade, Division Administrator, Albany NY. [FR Doc. 2015–00986 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–22–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0177] Crash Weighting Analysis Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; request for public comment. AGENCY: FMCSA announces a study to inform decision making about the feasibility of using a motor carrier’s role in crashes as an indicator of future crash risk in response to stakeholder interest SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM 23JAN1 3720 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices and as part of the Agency’s commitment to continuous improvement. This study assesses (1) whether Police Accident Reports (PARs) provide sufficient, consistent, and reliable information to support crash weighting determinations; (2) whether a crash weighting determination process would offer an even stronger predictor of crash risk than overall crash involvement and how crash weighting would be implemented in the Agency’s Safety Measurement System (SMS); and (3) how FMCSA might manage a process for making crash weighting determinations, including the acceptance of public input. This notice advises the public of the availability of the study report for review and comment, along with a request for feedback on what steps the Agency should take regarding crash and PAR data quality. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015. page that appears after submitting comments on-line. Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this study, contact Ms. Dee Williams, Chief, Compliance Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone 202–366–1812 or by email: dee.williams@dot.gov. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA– 2014–0177 using any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001. • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. • Fax: 1–202–493–2251. Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12–140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement I. Public Participation and Request for Comments tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ADDRESSES: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Jan 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials. Submitting Comments If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA–2014–0177), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission. To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov and put the docket number, ‘‘FMCSA–2014–0177’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and click ‘‘Search.’’ When the new screen appears, click on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this notice based on your comments. Viewing Comments and Documents To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, ‘‘FMCSA–2014– 0177’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, click ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ button and choose the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12–140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. II. Background The FMCSA is dedicated to reducing crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. The Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program is FMCSA’s enforcement model that allows the Agency and State Partners to address motor carrier safety problems before crashes occur. The foundation of CSA is the SMS, which quantifies the on-road safety performance of motor carriers to prioritize enforcement resources. The SMS uses recordable crash records involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that are submitted by the States through the Agency’s Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) to assess motor carriers’ crash risk and prioritize them for safety interventions using the SMS Crash Indicator. To define recordable crash, the Agency relies on the definition of ‘‘accident’’ found in 49 CFR 390.5, which means (1) except as provided in paragraph (2) of the definition, an occurrence involving a CMV operating on a highway in interstate or intrastate commerce that results in: (i) A fatality; (ii) bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or (iii) one or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, requiring the motor vehicle(s) to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle. (2) The term accident does not include: (i) An occurrence involving only boarding and alighting from a stationary motor vehicle; or (ii) an occurrence involving only the loading or unloading of cargo. A CMV is also defined at 49 CFR 390.5, as any self-propelled or towed E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM 23JAN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property when the vehicle: (1) Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating, or gross vehicle weight or gross combination weight, of 4,536 kg (10,001 pounds) or more, whichever is greater; or (2) is designed or used to transport more than eight passengers (including the driver) for compensation; or (3) is designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, including the driver, and is not used to transport passengers for compensation; or (4) is used in transporting material found by the Secretary of Transportation to be hazardous under 49 U.S.C. 5103 and transported in a quantity requiring placarding under regulations prescribed by the Secretary under 49 CFR, subtitle B, chapter I, subchapter C. Because the crash data reported to FMCSA by the States does not specify a motor carrier’s role in the crash, the Crash Indicator uses all of a motor carrier’s recordable crashes, and is not available publicly. The Crash Indicator does weight crashes based on crash severity, however, with more weight given to fatality and injury crashes than to those that meet the definition of an accident only because one or more vehicles was towed from the scene. Research on this issue conducted by FMCSA, as well as independent organizations, has demonstrated that crash involvement, regardless of role in the crash, is a strong indicator of future crash risk. In fact, the Crash Indicator is one of the strongest predictors of crashes within the SMS. FMCSA’s recently completed SMS Effectiveness Test (ET) shows that motor carriers above the Intervention Threshold in the Crash Indicator have a future crash rate that is 85 percent higher than the national average (https:// csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/CSMS_ Effectiveness_Test_Final_Report.pdf). This document and related reports are available in the docket of this notice. Since FMCSA has implemented the SMS, some stakeholders have expressed concern that the Crash Indicator may not identify the highest risk motor carriers for intervention because it looks at all crashes without regard to the role of the carrier in the crash. In response to stakeholder interest and as part of the Agency’s commitment to continuous improvement, FMCSA has completed a study on the feasibility of using a motor carrier’s role in crashes as an indicator of future crash risk. The analysis focused only on the three broad questions below addressing the procedural issues surrounding a crash weighting program and the feasibility of VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Jan 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 implementing such a program; it did not focus on any other implications of the program. The three analysis questions are separate analyses designed to inform Agency decisions. • Do PARs provide sufficient, consistent, and reliable information to support crash weighting determinations? • Would a crash weighting determination process offer an even stronger predictor of crash risk than overall crash involvement, and how would crash weighting be implemented in the SMS? • Depending upon the analysis results for the questions above, how might FMCSA manage the process for making crash weighting determinations, including public input to the process? The Agency’s research plan was posted on the Agency’s Web site at https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/ CrashWeightingResearchPlan_72012.pdf on July 23, 2012. The resulting report is titled ‘‘Crash Weighting Analysis’’ and is in the docket associated with this notice. The draft research was peer reviewed, and the peer review recommendations are also in the docket. III. Summary of Analysis The discussion below summarizes the results of the three questions addressed in this analysis. Each question is addressed independently. The FMCSA seeks comments on the analyses’ approaches and results. Because FMCSA does not receive PARs from the States, the Agency created a database for analysis using 10,892 PARs obtained from two national datasets: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS). Depending upon State procedures, most PARs do not indicate the reason for a crash; therefore, the FMCSA employed a review process based on the process developed for FMCSA’s Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS), particularly the methodology for assigning the ‘‘critical event’’ and the ‘‘critical reason’’ for the critical event. This methodology focuses on pre-crash events, such as vehicle and driver actions/movements, driver condition, and the environment at the crash scene, to identify the circumstances leading to the crash.1 The critical event is the event that immediately led to the crash and that put the vehicle or vehicles on 1 For details on the LTCCS methodology, go to https://www.ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/ltccs/ default.asp?page=method. PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3721 a course that made the crash unavoidable. The critical reason is the immediate reason for the critical event or the failure leading to the critical event, for example, if a CMV driver drives too fast for the roadway type. The FMCSA reviewed the PARs and determined the critical event and critical reason to identify a motor carrier’s role in a crash and assign a crash weighting for analysis purposes. In order to derive the most robust analysis of each study question, the Agency used several crash data sources, including PARs, the NMVCCS, and the MCMIS. Question 1: Do PARs provide sufficient, consistent, and reliable information to support crash weighting determinations? One of the key questions for this study is whether FMCSA could make reliable crash weighting determinations based solely on PARs, since the PAR is often perceived as the most common and timely record of a crash. This analysis (1) reviewed PAR sufficiency for determining a motor carrier’s role in a crash; (2) compared a sample of PARs with other data sets to assess the reliability of the information on the PARs; and (3) assessed the feasibility of identifying (coding) the motor carrier’s role for particular types of crash events without reviewing the PAR. In this study, FMCSA reviewed and coded three years of crash data, a total of 10,892 PARs from the FARS and NMVCCS, to identify the critical reason for the crash. Ninety-one percent of the PARs met the criteria to be reviewed for a critical reason determination (at least one vehicle involved in the crash was a CMV, the CMV was regulated by FMCSA, and the crash met the criteria for a recordable crash). Nine percent could not be reviewed because it could not be determined from the PAR that all of these criteria were met. Of the 91 percent of the PARs that could be reviewed, 3 percent could not be coded for a critical reason due to incomplete, inconsistent, or insufficient information. The PARs were then reviewed to determine how reliably (or accurately) they depicted the circumstances of the crash. Specific fields on the PARs were compared to the information in related fields in the FARS, which provides more robust information than the PAR alone. The FMCSA did not attempt to infer these data fields from the narrative sections of the PAR. The following table provides an overview of the match rate between PARs and FARS. The Agency was unable, in this type of analysis, to establish which record, the PAR or E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM 23JAN1 3722 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices FARS, was more accurate, but simply identified the fact that the two data sources were not in agreement. Data field PAR/FARS match PAR/FARS non-match Driver Contributing Factors ................................................................................................. First Harmful Event ............................................................................................................. Traffic-Way Flow ................................................................................................................. Weather Conditions ............................................................................................................ Roadway Surface Conditions ............................................................................................. 12.6% ............... 46.9 .................. 52.4 .................. 95.7 .................. 96.7 .................. 5.3% ................. 5.6 .................... 14.9 .................. 3.2 .................... 2.3 .................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES The FMCSA also compared the critical reasons assigned for this study with those assigned in matching records from the NMVCCS, which employs a similar critical reason determination process. The analysis found that the majority of the critical reason determinations, about 90 percent, matched between these two data sources. The Agency also assessed the practicality of coding crashes for two types of crash events using information available in the MCMIS as an approach to crash weighting that would not require reviewing an actual PAR: (1) Single-vehicle crashes deemed to be ‘‘attributable’’ to the motor carrier; and (2) both single- and multiple-vehicle crashes with associated post-crash inspection records indicating a precrash out-of-service (OOS) condition on the CMV involved. Single-vehicle attributable crashes are those for which the MCMIS event code description did not indicate a collision with a pedestrian; a motor vehicle in transport; an animal; work zone maintenance equipment; or other/unknown movable object or ‘‘other.’’ It was hypothesized that the critical reason for these two types of crashes would be assigned to the CMV if the PARs were reviewed. Analysis results suggest that the coding of single-vehicle crashes without a PAR review is feasible, but is dependent upon accurate data as to the number of vehicles involved. For crashes with a pre-crash OOS condition, PAR reviewers did not assign the critical reason to the CMV in a majority of cases as they did not consider the post-crash inspection results, but the PAR alone. Question 2: Would a crash weighting determination process offer an even stronger predictor of crash risk than overall crash involvement, and how would crash weighting be implemented in the SMS? This portion of the crash weighting analysis assumed PAR sufficiency and reliability and looked at whether a crash weighting methodology in the SMS VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Jan 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 Crash Indicator BASIC would provide a sharper view of the highest risk motor carriers by identifying motor carriers with higher future crash rates. Crash weights were derived based on (1) the critical reason assignments for the 10,892 PARs that were reviewed; and (2) on 671 single-vehicle attributable crashes identified in the MCMIS. The Agency employed various statistical and analytical approaches to assess crash weighting benefits. The analysis used crash data from 2009– 2010 to define Crash Indicator percentiles, then tracked the future (January 2011 to June 2012) crash rate of motor carriers above the Intervention Threshold. The analysis applied two approaches for modifying crash weights and analyzed the effect of each on the crashpredictive strength of the current Crash Indicator. The first applied higher severity weights for crashes where the critical reason was assigned to the CMV and for single-vehicle attributable crashes and applied lower weights for crashes that were reviewed but not assigned to the CMV. The second approach simply removed crashes that were reviewed but not assigned to the CMV. Both of these approaches were applied to the same two sets of crashes: All crashes and fatal crashes only. Results showed that modifying the Crash Indicator by changing the crash weights based on a motor carrier’s role in a crash does not appear to improve its ability to predict future crash rates when all crashes are considered. Modifying the Crash Indicator to include crash weighting improves its ability to predict future crash rates when only fatal crashes are considered. When the crash weighting methodology was applied, the carriers that were identified for intervention had future crash rates that are 1.8 percent to 5.0 percent higher, when removing crashes not assigned to the CMV during the PAR review. Fatal crashes are, however, less than 3 percent of all crashes in the MCMIS. PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Missing PAR data 82.0% 47.5 32.8 1.1 1.0 Question 3: How might FMCSA manage the process for making crash weighting determinations, including public input to the process? The objective of this part of the analysis was to identify how a crash weighting process might be structured and, based on this process, estimate the resources required for both start-up and ongoing implementation. Implementing a crash weighting effort on a national scale requires a method for uniformly acquiring the final PARs for all or a subset of crashes; a process and system for uniform analysis; and a method for receiving and analyzing public input. It must be noted that FMCSA does not currently receive PARs from the States and that they may be difficult to obtain, due to the requirements for secure data collection and storage, which creates a significant, albeit unknown, cost to the Agency. The annual costs for reviewing and coding PARs, including the acceptance of public input, will vary depending upon the number of PARs reviewed, the number of appeals, and the crash weighting determination process established by the Agency. This analysis estimates potential costs of between $3.9 million and $11.2 million annually. The analysis also provided some insight into the amount of time it would take to make these determinations. The data provided some indication that the timeframe for the entire crash weighting determination process, from the submission of the crash report through the determination process, could be so significant as to make the value of the determination questionable for the purposes of use in the SMS, given the 24-month analysis period used by the SMS. IV. Request for Comments The Agency completed the study to inform decision making concerning the feasibility of using a motor carrier’s role in crashes as an indicator of future crash risk. Based on the information that is provided, what steps should the Agency E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM 23JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices take regarding crash and PAR data quality? Are there other data, research, or related materials FMCSA should take into consideration? Dated: January 16, 2015. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. 2015–01144 Filed 1–21–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA–2000–7363; FMCSA– 2002–12432; FMCSA–2002–12844; FMCSA– 2002–19477; FMCSA–2006–26066; FMCSA– 2008–0266; FMCSA–2008–0340; FMCSA– 2009–0321; FMCSA–2010–0114; FMCSA– 2010–0187; FMCSA–2010–0354; FMCSA– 2010–0385; FMCSA–2012–0040; FMCSA– 2012–0337; FMCSA–2012–0338; FMCSA– 2012–0339] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments. AGENCY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 27 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. SUMMARY: This decision is effective February 25, 2015. Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA–2000–7363; FMCSA–2002–12432; FMCSA–2002– 12844; FMCSA–2002–19477; FMCSA– 2006–26066; FMCSA–2008–0266; FMCSA–2008–0340; FMCSA–2009– 0321; FMCSA–2010–0114; FMCSA– 2010–0187; FMCSA–2010–0354; FMCSA–2010–0385; FMCSA–2012– 0040; FMCSA–2012–0337; FMCSA– 2012–0338; FMCSA–2012–0339], using any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES DATES: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Jan 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001. • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. • Fax: 1–202–493–2251. Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to https:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to https:// www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12–140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on-line. Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, 202– 366–4001, fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64–224, Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3723 of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it finds ‘‘such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.’’ The procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381. II. Exemption Decision This notice addresses 27 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 27 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are: Sava A. Andjelich (IN) William Audinwood (NY) Jose C. Azuara (TX) Kenneth L. Bowers, Jr. (MN) Keith E. Breeding (IN) Lester W. Carter (CA) Lisa M. Durey (IL) Matthew T. Eggers (IA) Dennis E. Fisher (NY) Andrew G. Fornsel (NY) Jerry Hall (KY) Thomas D. Laws (IN) Harry J. McSuley, Jr. (PA) Dennis R. O’Dell, Jr. (OK) Jerry W. Parker (OH) Dennis W. Pevey (GA) Gary W. Phelps (PA) Charles D. Reddick (GA) Myriam Rodriguez (CA) Bobby L. Rupe (TX) Jules M. Sancho, Jr. (LA) Frank Santak (DE) Henry A. Shelton (AL) Gary Wanek (NE) Keith Washington (IL) Kenneth J. Weaver (WY) Cameron R. Whitford (NY) The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist’s or optometrist’s report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver’s qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM 23JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3719-3723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01144]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0177]


Crash Weighting Analysis

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

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces a study to inform decision making about the 
feasibility of using a motor carrier's role in crashes as an indicator 
of future crash risk in response to stakeholder interest

[[Page 3720]]

and as part of the Agency's commitment to continuous improvement. This 
study assesses (1) whether Police Accident Reports (PARs) provide 
sufficient, consistent, and reliable information to support crash 
weighting determinations; (2) whether a crash weighting determination 
process would offer an even stronger predictor of crash risk than 
overall crash involvement and how crash weighting would be implemented 
in the Agency's Safety Measurement System (SMS); and (3) how FMCSA 
might manage a process for making crash weighting determinations, 
including the acceptance of public input. This notice advises the 
public of the availability of the study report for review and comment, 
along with a request for feedback on what steps the Agency should take 
regarding crash and PAR data quality.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket 
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2014-0177 using any of the 
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 
5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number 
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without 
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140 
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document management system 
is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want 
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement 
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits 
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT 
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information 
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the 
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this study, 
contact Ms. Dee Williams, Chief, Compliance Division, Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 
DC 20590, Telephone 202-366-1812 or by email: dee.williams@dot.gov. If 
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, 
contact Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and 
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
notice (FMCSA-2014-0177), indicate the specific section of this 
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each 
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material 
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of 
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing 
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your 
document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding 
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov and 
put the docket number, ``FMCSA-2014-0177'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and 
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment 
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following 
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual 
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your 
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no 
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic 
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they 
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard 
or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the 
comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble 
as being available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov and 
insert the docket number, ``FMCSA-2014-0177'' in the ``Keyword'' box 
and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and 
choose the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the 
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket 
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West 
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Background

    The FMCSA is dedicated to reducing crashes, injuries, and 
fatalities involving large trucks and buses. The Compliance, Safety, 
Accountability (CSA) program is FMCSA's enforcement model that allows 
the Agency and State Partners to address motor carrier safety problems 
before crashes occur. The foundation of CSA is the SMS, which 
quantifies the on-road safety performance of motor carriers to 
prioritize enforcement resources.
    The SMS uses recordable crash records involving commercial motor 
vehicles (CMVs) that are submitted by the States through the Agency's 
Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) to assess motor 
carriers' crash risk and prioritize them for safety interventions using 
the SMS Crash Indicator. To define recordable crash, the Agency relies 
on the definition of ``accident'' found in 49 CFR 390.5, which means 
(1) except as provided in paragraph (2) of the definition, an 
occurrence involving a CMV operating on a highway in interstate or 
intrastate commerce that results in: (i) A fatality; (ii) bodily injury 
to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives 
medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or (iii) one or 
more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the 
accident, requiring the motor vehicle(s) to be transported away from 
the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle. (2) The term accident 
does not include: (i) An occurrence involving only boarding and 
alighting from a stationary motor vehicle; or (ii) an occurrence 
involving only the loading or unloading of cargo.
    A CMV is also defined at 49 CFR 390.5, as any self-propelled or 
towed

[[Page 3721]]

motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport 
passengers or property when the vehicle: (1) Has a gross vehicle weight 
rating or gross combination weight rating, or gross vehicle weight or 
gross combination weight, of 4,536 kg (10,001 pounds) or more, 
whichever is greater; or (2) is designed or used to transport more than 
eight passengers (including the driver) for compensation; or (3) is 
designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, including the 
driver, and is not used to transport passengers for compensation; or 
(4) is used in transporting material found by the Secretary of 
Transportation to be hazardous under 49 U.S.C. 5103 and transported in 
a quantity requiring placarding under regulations prescribed by the 
Secretary under 49 CFR, subtitle B, chapter I, subchapter C.
    Because the crash data reported to FMCSA by the States does not 
specify a motor carrier's role in the crash, the Crash Indicator uses 
all of a motor carrier's recordable crashes, and is not available 
publicly. The Crash Indicator does weight crashes based on crash 
severity, however, with more weight given to fatality and injury 
crashes than to those that meet the definition of an accident only 
because one or more vehicles was towed from the scene.
    Research on this issue conducted by FMCSA, as well as independent 
organizations, has demonstrated that crash involvement, regardless of 
role in the crash, is a strong indicator of future crash risk. In fact, 
the Crash Indicator is one of the strongest predictors of crashes 
within the SMS. FMCSA's recently completed SMS Effectiveness Test (ET) 
shows that motor carriers above the Intervention Threshold in the Crash 
Indicator have a future crash rate that is 85 percent higher than the 
national average (https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/CSMS_Effectiveness_Test_Final_Report.pdf). This document and related 
reports are available in the docket of this notice.
    Since FMCSA has implemented the SMS, some stakeholders have 
expressed concern that the Crash Indicator may not identify the highest 
risk motor carriers for intervention because it looks at all crashes 
without regard to the role of the carrier in the crash. In response to 
stakeholder interest and as part of the Agency's commitment to 
continuous improvement, FMCSA has completed a study on the feasibility 
of using a motor carrier's role in crashes as an indicator of future 
crash risk. The analysis focused only on the three broad questions 
below addressing the procedural issues surrounding a crash weighting 
program and the feasibility of implementing such a program; it did not 
focus on any other implications of the program. The three analysis 
questions are separate analyses designed to inform Agency decisions.
     Do PARs provide sufficient, consistent, and reliable 
information to support crash weighting determinations?
     Would a crash weighting determination process offer an 
even stronger predictor of crash risk than overall crash involvement, 
and how would crash weighting be implemented in the SMS?
     Depending upon the analysis results for the questions 
above, how might FMCSA manage the process for making crash weighting 
determinations, including public input to the process?
    The Agency's research plan was posted on the Agency's Web site at 
https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/documents/CrashWeightingResearchPlan_7-2012.pdf on July 23, 2012. The resulting report is titled ``Crash 
Weighting Analysis'' and is in the docket associated with this notice. 
The draft research was peer reviewed, and the peer review 
recommendations are also in the docket.

III. Summary of Analysis

    The discussion below summarizes the results of the three questions 
addressed in this analysis. Each question is addressed independently. 
The FMCSA seeks comments on the analyses' approaches and results.
    Because FMCSA does not receive PARs from the States, the Agency 
created a database for analysis using 10,892 PARs obtained from two 
national datasets: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National 
Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS).
    Depending upon State procedures, most PARs do not indicate the 
reason for a crash; therefore, the FMCSA employed a review process 
based on the process developed for FMCSA's Large Truck Crash Causation 
Study (LTCCS), particularly the methodology for assigning the 
``critical event'' and the ``critical reason'' for the critical event. 
This methodology focuses on pre-crash events, such as vehicle and 
driver actions/movements, driver condition, and the environment at the 
crash scene, to identify the circumstances leading to the crash.\1\ The 
critical event is the event that immediately led to the crash and that 
put the vehicle or vehicles on a course that made the crash 
unavoidable. The critical reason is the immediate reason for the 
critical event or the failure leading to the critical event, for 
example, if a CMV driver drives too fast for the roadway type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For details on the LTCCS methodology, go to https://www.ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/ltccs/default.asp?page=method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FMCSA reviewed the PARs and determined the critical event and 
critical reason to identify a motor carrier's role in a crash and 
assign a crash weighting for analysis purposes. In order to derive the 
most robust analysis of each study question, the Agency used several 
crash data sources, including PARs, the NMVCCS, and the MCMIS.

Question 1: Do PARs provide sufficient, consistent, and reliable 
information to support crash weighting determinations?

    One of the key questions for this study is whether FMCSA could make 
reliable crash weighting determinations based solely on PARs, since the 
PAR is often perceived as the most common and timely record of a crash. 
This analysis (1) reviewed PAR sufficiency for determining a motor 
carrier's role in a crash; (2) compared a sample of PARs with other 
data sets to assess the reliability of the information on the PARs; and 
(3) assessed the feasibility of identifying (coding) the motor 
carrier's role for particular types of crash events without reviewing 
the PAR.
    In this study, FMCSA reviewed and coded three years of crash data, 
a total of 10,892 PARs from the FARS and NMVCCS, to identify the 
critical reason for the crash. Ninety-one percent of the PARs met the 
criteria to be reviewed for a critical reason determination (at least 
one vehicle involved in the crash was a CMV, the CMV was regulated by 
FMCSA, and the crash met the criteria for a recordable crash). Nine 
percent could not be reviewed because it could not be determined from 
the PAR that all of these criteria were met. Of the 91 percent of the 
PARs that could be reviewed, 3 percent could not be coded for a 
critical reason due to incomplete, inconsistent, or insufficient 
information.
    The PARs were then reviewed to determine how reliably (or 
accurately) they depicted the circumstances of the crash. Specific 
fields on the PARs were compared to the information in related fields 
in the FARS, which provides more robust information than the PAR alone. 
The FMCSA did not attempt to infer these data fields from the narrative 
sections of the PAR.
    The following table provides an overview of the match rate between 
PARs and FARS. The Agency was unable, in this type of analysis, to 
establish which record, the PAR or

[[Page 3722]]

FARS, was more accurate, but simply identified the fact that the two 
data sources were not in agreement.

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Data field                  PAR/FARS  match          PAR/FARS  non-match        Missing PAR data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver Contributing Factors......  12.6%....................  5.3%....................  82.0%
First Harmful Event..............  46.9.....................  5.6.....................  47.5
Traffic-Way Flow.................  52.4.....................  14.9....................  32.8
Weather Conditions...............  95.7.....................  3.2.....................  1.1
Roadway Surface Conditions.......  96.7.....................  2.3.....................  1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FMCSA also compared the critical reasons assigned for this 
study with those assigned in matching records from the NMVCCS, which 
employs a similar critical reason determination process. The analysis 
found that the majority of the critical reason determinations, about 90 
percent, matched between these two data sources.
    The Agency also assessed the practicality of coding crashes for two 
types of crash events using information available in the MCMIS as an 
approach to crash weighting that would not require reviewing an actual 
PAR: (1) Single-vehicle crashes deemed to be ``attributable'' to the 
motor carrier; and (2) both single- and multiple-vehicle crashes with 
associated post-crash inspection records indicating a pre-crash out-of-
service (OOS) condition on the CMV involved. Single-vehicle 
attributable crashes are those for which the MCMIS event code 
description did not indicate a collision with a pedestrian; a motor 
vehicle in transport; an animal; work zone maintenance equipment; or 
other/unknown movable object or ``other.'' It was hypothesized that the 
critical reason for these two types of crashes would be assigned to the 
CMV if the PARs were reviewed. Analysis results suggest that the coding 
of single-vehicle crashes without a PAR review is feasible, but is 
dependent upon accurate data as to the number of vehicles involved. For 
crashes with a pre-crash OOS condition, PAR reviewers did not assign 
the critical reason to the CMV in a majority of cases as they did not 
consider the post-crash inspection results, but the PAR alone.

Question 2: Would a crash weighting determination process offer an even 
stronger predictor of crash risk than overall crash involvement, and 
how would crash weighting be implemented in the SMS?

    This portion of the crash weighting analysis assumed PAR 
sufficiency and reliability and looked at whether a crash weighting 
methodology in the SMS Crash Indicator BASIC would provide a sharper 
view of the highest risk motor carriers by identifying motor carriers 
with higher future crash rates. Crash weights were derived based on (1) 
the critical reason assignments for the 10,892 PARs that were reviewed; 
and (2) on 671 single-vehicle attributable crashes identified in the 
MCMIS.
    The Agency employed various statistical and analytical approaches 
to assess crash weighting benefits. The analysis used crash data from 
2009-2010 to define Crash Indicator percentiles, then tracked the 
future (January 2011 to June 2012) crash rate of motor carriers above 
the Intervention Threshold.
    The analysis applied two approaches for modifying crash weights and 
analyzed the effect of each on the crash-predictive strength of the 
current Crash Indicator. The first applied higher severity weights for 
crashes where the critical reason was assigned to the CMV and for 
single-vehicle attributable crashes and applied lower weights for 
crashes that were reviewed but not assigned to the CMV. The second 
approach simply removed crashes that were reviewed but not assigned to 
the CMV. Both of these approaches were applied to the same two sets of 
crashes: All crashes and fatal crashes only.
    Results showed that modifying the Crash Indicator by changing the 
crash weights based on a motor carrier's role in a crash does not 
appear to improve its ability to predict future crash rates when all 
crashes are considered. Modifying the Crash Indicator to include crash 
weighting improves its ability to predict future crash rates when only 
fatal crashes are considered. When the crash weighting methodology was 
applied, the carriers that were identified for intervention had future 
crash rates that are 1.8 percent to 5.0 percent higher, when removing 
crashes not assigned to the CMV during the PAR review. Fatal crashes 
are, however, less than 3 percent of all crashes in the MCMIS.

Question 3: How might FMCSA manage the process for making crash 
weighting determinations, including public input to the process?

    The objective of this part of the analysis was to identify how a 
crash weighting process might be structured and, based on this process, 
estimate the resources required for both start-up and ongoing 
implementation.
    Implementing a crash weighting effort on a national scale requires 
a method for uniformly acquiring the final PARs for all or a subset of 
crashes; a process and system for uniform analysis; and a method for 
receiving and analyzing public input.
    It must be noted that FMCSA does not currently receive PARs from 
the States and that they may be difficult to obtain, due to the 
requirements for secure data collection and storage, which creates a 
significant, albeit unknown, cost to the Agency. The annual costs for 
reviewing and coding PARs, including the acceptance of public input, 
will vary depending upon the number of PARs reviewed, the number of 
appeals, and the crash weighting determination process established by 
the Agency. This analysis estimates potential costs of between $3.9 
million and $11.2 million annually.
    The analysis also provided some insight into the amount of time it 
would take to make these determinations. The data provided some 
indication that the timeframe for the entire crash weighting 
determination process, from the submission of the crash report through 
the determination process, could be so significant as to make the value 
of the determination questionable for the purposes of use in the SMS, 
given the 24-month analysis period used by the SMS.

IV. Request for Comments

    The Agency completed the study to inform decision making concerning 
the feasibility of using a motor carrier's role in crashes as an 
indicator of future crash risk. Based on the information that is 
provided, what steps should the Agency

[[Page 3723]]

take regarding crash and PAR data quality? Are there other data, 
research, or related materials FMCSA should take into consideration?

    Dated: January 16, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-01144 Filed 1-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.