1. FMCSA Programs and Initiatives Update
Pamela Pelcovits
Office Director for Policy and Program Development
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
June 7, 2010

2. Administrator Ferro’s Core Priorities
Raise the safety bar to enter the industry;
Require operators to maintain high safety standards to remain in the industry; and
Remove high-risk operators from our roads and highways.
CORE PRIORITIES
Since Administrator Ferro took office in November of last year, she has focused all of us on her core priorities for moving the Agency forward.
FMCSA has a number of initiatives and programs underway aimed at achieving our mission. Her priorities set a strategic framework in which to prioritize the Agency’s responsibilities and clearly focus our efforts and resources on a vision of eliminating severe and fatal crashes involving commercial vehicles. FMCSA must:
Raise the safety bar to enter the industry;
Require operators to maintain high safety standards to remain in the industry; and
Remove high-risk operators from our roads and highways.
This strategic framework applies to companies, drivers, brokers, and service-providers alike. To achieve the best outcome within this framework, FMCSA must improve its program and rule-development processes, its stakeholder relationships, and the health of the organization.
While recognizing the important safety work that remains to be accomplished, I would like to point to some of the recent safety improvements in motor carrier safety:
Total miles traveled by all vehicles has grown significantly over the past 10 years, most significantly for large trucks and buses - there has been a 16 percent increase in miles traveled by these vehicles from 1998 to In addition, the number of large trucks and buses registered has increased 17 percent over this time period.
Even with the continued growth in commercial vehicle traffic, the most recent data available show that our Nation's highways experienced their lowest number of fatalities (4,525 in 2008) from crashes involving large trucks and buses since fatal crash data collection began in 1975.
Fatalities from large truck or bus crashes have dropped for three years in a row, a decline of 15 percent from 2006 to 2008.
Safety improvements have been realized not only in terms of fatal crashes, but also in injury crashes. In 2008, 113,000 people were injured in crashes involving large trucks and buses, the lowest number of persons injured in these crashes since 1988, the first year of injury crash data collection.
The number of people injured in large truck and bus crashes declined 10 percent from 2006 to 2008.
The reduction in severe and fatal crashes involving commercial motor vehicles comes about through the dedication and hard work of many people represented by the stakeholders in this room. We are broadening the participation of these stakeholders on our Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) to improve the transparency of the input we receive about our programs. However, we can and must do more. FMCSA's employees are passionate about saving lives. With clear priorities and productive stakeholder relationships, I assure this Committee and the public that we are on a path to demonstrate the effectiveness of our passion better than ever.

3. Comprehensive Safety Analysis (CSA) 2010
FMCSA’s new enforcement business model
Separate the safety fitness determination process from the comprehensive on-site CR
Assess the safety performance of a larger population of carriers than the current CR approach, based on data
Achieve a greater reduction in large truck and bus crashes, fatalities and injuries

4. Four Major Elements of CSA 2010
Measurement (inspection, investigation and crash data) – Replace SafeStat with Carrier Safety Measurement System (CSMS)
Interventions
Safety Fitness Determination
Information Technology

5. CSA BASICS
FMCSA will monitor 7 key behaviors linked to CMV crash risks:
Unsafe Driving
Fatigued Driving
Driver Fitness which includes licensing and medical compliance standards
Crash History
Vehicle Maintenance
Improper Loading and Cargo
Controlled Substances - Drugs and Alcohol

6. CSA 2010 Timeline Carrier preview of violation data (April 2010)
Carrier preview of preliminary BASIC scores, CSMS (later this year)
Use of new CSMS for new interventions (later this year)
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to request public comment on the new Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) methodology (late 2010)
Final Rule to implement new SFD in 2011, pending review of public comments to NPRM

7. STRATEGIC PLANNING Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC)
- New Members
- Considering Distracted Driving This Week
DOT Draft Strategic Plan
- Review on DOT website
- Comment by June 15
FMCSA Strategic Plan
- Comment Opportunity Planned for this Summer

8. Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs)
April 5, 2010 – Final Rule on EOBRs
Remedial Directive Provision - requires use of EOBRs for carriers with a 10% or greater HOS violation rate, based on a single compliance review:
Must use EOBRs for 2 years
Failure to comply will result in “unfit” determination
Approximately 2,850 carriers would be issued a directive each year; 5,700 carriers would be operating under a directive each year, after the first full year the rule is in effect.
Implementation Date: June 2012
ELECTRONIC ON-BOARD RECORDERS (EOBRs) On April 5, 2010, the Agency took another step toward reducing the number of fatigue related crashes by publishing a final rule mandating the use of EOBRs by carriers that have violated the hours of service rules. This action will reduce the likelihood of falsified or incomplete records of duty status.
The final rule follows up on the January 2007 NPRM but broadens the remedial directive to require installation of EOBRs on many more carriers. It represents a significant step forward in response to Congressional concerns about the 2007 NPRM, the NTSB Most Wanted Safety Recommendation concerning EOBRs, and the public comments we received in response to the proposal. The final rule establishes: 1) a new performance-oriented standard for EOBR technology; 2) a mandate for certain motor carriers to use EOBRs to remediate regulatory noncompliance (a remedial directive); and 3) incentives to promote voluntary EOBR use by all carriers. The rule will result in approximately 5,700 motor carriers being required to use EOBRs each year after the first full year of implementation.

9. EOBRs (Cont.)
The April 2010 final rule provides 2 incentives to promote the voluntary use of EOBRs:
Relief from HOS supporting documents used to verify on-duty, driving time (all other supporting documents would still be required);
Alternative method for driver HOS records sampling during a compliance review— random sampling instead of focused sample.
The Agency will begin a new EOBR rulemaking by the end of 2010 to expand the mandate to a broader population of carriers.
INCENTIVES FOR VOLUNTARY USE
The final rule provides incentives for motor carriers to voluntarily use EOBRs. These include elimination of the requirement to retain and maintain supporting documents related to driving time as this information will be maintained and accessible from the EOBR. Additionally, compliance reviews that reveal a proposed 10 percent or higher violation rate based on the initial focused sample would be expanded to assess a random sampling of the motor carrier’s overall HOS records.
NEW EOBR Rulemaking
The FMCSA acknowledges the safety concerns of Congress, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the many organizations and individuals that submitted comments to the NPRM in support of a broader EOBR mandate. The Agency has begun work to evaluate regulatory options for significantly expanding the population of carriers covered by an EOBR mandate.
However, the Agency cannot extend the EOBR mandate beyond those covered by this final rule because the scope of the current rulemaking proceeding is limited to compliance-based regulatory approaches, implemented through a remedial directive. Therefore, FMCSA will examine the issue of a broader mandate under a new rulemaking proceeding in response to the safety concerns raised by Congress, the NTSB, and commenters to the docket.

10. Hours of Service
October 2009 – Settlement agreement between FMCSA and safety advocates to initiate a new HOS rulemaking:
Submit NPRM to the Office of Management and Budget by July 26, 2010
Publish Final Rule by July 26, 2011
December 2009, February 2010 – Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) ideas and concepts
January 2010, March 2010 – Listening Sessions
NPRM is currently under Agency review, publication later this year.
HOURS OF SERVICE FOR TRUCK DRIVERS Regulating the number of hours commercial drivers may work has been a Federal government responsibility for 75 years, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Through the years, there have been three reforms of the rules, the most notable of which was the April 2003 rule, when FMCSA made significant revisions. The 2003 rule limited driving to 11 hours within a 14-hour, non-extendable window after coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty (known as the 11-hour rule). Although the rules concerning weekly limits for on-duty time were unchanged, drivers were allowed to restart the weekly limit calculation after they took 34 consecutive hours off duty (known as the 34-hour restart provision). The rule also extended the requisite off-duty time from 8 to 10 hours, providing drivers more time for restorative rest.
As this Subcommittee is well aware, FMCSA's efforts to craft revised hours of service (HOS) regulations for CMV drivers has been an arduous process and has resulted in court challenges. In October 2009, FMCSA entered into a settlement agreement with parties that had challenged the rule and agreed to undertake a new rulemaking.
One of our top priorities has been to elicit the views of stakeholders affected by this rule and for the Agency to craft an HOS rule that provides the best framework for managing fatigue and making our roads as safe as possible.
To that end, in December 2009, FMCSA tasked its MCSAC with providing the Agency with a list of ideas and concepts that should be considered in drafting a HOS rule. In January, FMCSA took steps to encourage all interested parties to help the Agency identify new research and perspectives. Specifically, the Agency posted the MCSAC’s meeting notes, opened the HOS public docket and held a series of public "listening sessions" around the country. Over 3,500 people participated in the listening sessions - in person, by phone, or web - to provide a broad range of comments, ideas, information, and relevant research the Agency might consider in developing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). We are committed to using all of the information we have received to propose a rule that addresses the concerns of our stakeholders and presents the safest option. FMCSA intends to publish its NPRM later this year and issue a Final Rule no later than July 2011.

11. Distracted Driving
FMCSA Research - “Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations,” October 1, 2009.
Study investigated the prevalence of driver distraction in safety-critical events (crashes, near crashes, lane departures)
Data on 200 drivers, 3 million miles of driving
Texting was the most risky behavior; 23.2 times more likely to be involved in a safety-critical event.
Texting Drivers’ eyes were off the road for 4.6 seconds during the 6-second interval before the event.
DISTRACTED DRIVING Since the Department's historic Distracted Driving Summit last fall, FMCSA has played an active role in supporting Secretary LaHood's efforts in bringing to bear all the tools at DOT's disposal to address this critical safety issue. FMCSA completed its "Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations" study and released the final report on October 1, The purpose of the study was to investigate the prevalence of driver distraction in CMV safety-critical events (e.g., crashes, near-crashes, unintended lane departures). The study included over 200 truck drivers and 3 million miles of data. The dataset was obtained by placing video recorders on vehicles and monitoring the behavior of real drivers driving in real-world situations.
The study concluded that drivers who engage in texting took their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds out of the 6 seconds prior to a safety-critical event. At 55 miles per hour, this means that the driver is traveling the length of a football field, including the end zones, without looking at the road and is 23 times more likely to have a safety critical event than drivers who do not text while driving. Because of the safety risks associated with texting while driving, FMCSA took expedited action. The Agency published regulatory guidance in the Federal Register on January 27 regarding the applicability of current regulations to texting by commercial motor vehicle drivers. The regulatory guidance clarified that truck and bus drivers operating in interstate commerce who text while driving commercial vehicles may be subject to civil or criminal penalties of up to $2,750. FMCSA followed up on the regulatory guidance by publishing a NPRM with an explicit prohibition against texting on April 1, The NPRM also provides driver disqualification penalties that would enable FMCSA and its State partners to take unsafe drivers off of the road.
As part of our effort to get the maximum amount of public participation and collaboration in the texting rulemaking, the Department announced an unprecedented partnership with Cornell University. The Cornell e-Rulemaking Initiative (CeRI) partnership will make the Federal regulatory process more accessible to the public through its "Regulation Room," an online public participation environment where people can learn about and discuss proposed Federal regulations and provide effective feedback to the Department. This is an important step toward keeping President Obama’s promise of opening government to more effective public citizen participation.

12. Distracting Activities
Task
Odds Ratio
Text message on cell phone
23.24
Other- complex (e.g., cleaning side mirror rummaging through a bag, etc.)
10.07
Interact with/look at dispatching device
9.93
Write on pad, notebook, etc.
8.98
Use a calculator
8.21
Look at a map
7.02
Dial a cell phone
5.93
This slide provide a small sample of the types of distrating activities we observed during the study. The drivers engaged in these activities with the full knowledge that they were being monitored with a camera in their vehicles.

13. FMCSA’s Texting Regulatory Guidance
January 26, 2010, the Secretary and FMCSA Administrator announced regulatory guidance concerning texting by truck and bus drivers
Guidance is based on current regulation (Section )
“Texting” is the review of, or preparation and transmission of, typed messages on an electronic device
Includes engaging in any form of electronic data retrieval or electronic data communication
Federal civil penalties for violations of Section may be up to $2,750

14. FMCSA’s Texting Rulemaking
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to explicitly prohibit texting by interstate truck and bus drivers was published on April 1, 2010
Public comment period ended on May 3, 2010
The rule includes:
Driver disqualification penalties (60 days for 2nd offense within 3 years; 120 days for 3 or more offenses within 3 years)
CDL disqualification penalties (violations of State traffic laws concerning texting)
Civil penalty of up to $2,750
We received more than 400 comments in response to the NPRM. We’re currently reviewing those comments and plan to issue a final rule later this year.

15. Medical Standards Medical Review Board, active since 2006
Merger of Medical Certification and CDL
Published final rule in December 2008;
Compliance dates: 2012 for State licensing agencies; 2014 for CDL holder
National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners;
Establish minimum training and testing of healthcare professionals who issue medical cards.
NPRM was published December 2008, Final Rule will be issued in late 2010.
Initiate series of rulemakings to update medical standards, (such as diabetes, vision, cardiovascular)
DRIVER MEDICAL STANDARDS - PROGRAMS The FMCSA's medical program promotes the safety of America's roadways through the development and implementation of medical qualification standards that ensure physical qualifications of interstate truck and bus drivers. The Agency receives important advice and recommendations concerning the physical qualifications and standards for CMV drivers from its Medical Review Board (MRB), a Federal Advisory Committee Act committee. FMCSA staff reviews MRB recommendations in developing regulatory options for future rulemakings.
In the meantime, FMCSA is phasing in new regulatory requirements issued in December 2008 to combine the medical certification process with the commercial driver's license (CDL) issuance and renewal process. The rule requires interstate CDL holders and those applying for a CDL to operate heavy trucks and buses in interstate commerce to provide a copy of the medical certificate to the State licensing agency as proof the individual is medically qualified to drive commercial vehicles in interstate commerce.
Later this year, FMCSA expects to issue a final rule to establish a National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners. This rulemaking would establish minimum training and testing requirements for all healthcare professionals that issue medical certificates for interstate truck and bus drivers.

16. Onboard Safety Systems
Forward Collision Warning System (with Adaptive Cruise Control) 1 3 1 2
Lane Departure Warning System 2
The three onboard safety systems that I am going to talk about this morning are: 1) forward collision warning systems, 2) lane departure warning systems, and 3) roll stability control systems. I will cover how each of these three onboard safety systems function in more detail, as well as the crashes that they address. Since FMCSA recently completed analyses of the costs and benefits of these onboard safety systems for the motor carriers that may purchase them, upcoming slides will also show the results of these analyses. These results focus on the probability of a truck being involved in the different types of crashes preventable by these systems and their estimated benefits and costs.
Roll Stability Control System 3

17. Adaptive Cruise Control
Uses data from forward collision warning system
Works to maintain separation of 2¼ - 3¼ seconds behind followed vehicle
Decelerates the vehicle by:
– Defueling the engine
– Engaging the engine retarder
– Allowing an automated transmission to downshift (if equipped)
A forward collision warning system can be integrated with Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) which helps to maintain a specific following interval between the truck and the vehicle it is following by decelerating the vehicle. If the vehicle is outside of this range ACC operates as normal cruise control.
(Retarders for medium-duty engines are typically exhaust brakes, which work by restricting the flow of exhaust gases and thus increasing the backpressure inside the engine, and ultimately slowing the vehicle. Although they offer only about half the retarding power of engine brakes, they have an advantage in terms of weight, noise and cost.)

18. Forward Collision Warning Systems
Crashes Preventable by Forward Collision Warning Systems
~9,000 – 18,000 rear-end crashes/year
Here are the estimated annual average numbers of rear end crashes preventable by a Forward Collision Warning System.
What is important to remember about rear end crashes is that they frequently involve multiple vehicles.
Crash data in the General Estimates System (GES) were used to estimate the average annual number of preventable crashes over a five-year period, 2001–2005, by using the technology on large trucks. Then, using information from motor carriers and the and our own field operational tests, efficacy rates were calculated and used to estimate the portion of these crash types that could be prevented by each technology, since we know that the technology won’t prevent every crash in the category.
Property
Damage Only
Injury
Fatal
TOTAL
21% Efficacy
5,813
2,735 49
8,597
44% Efficacy
12,180
5,730
103
18,013

19. Lane Departure Warning Systems
Camera watches road ahead – not driver
Tracks road and vehicle position in lane
Monitors for weaving and lane drifts
Alerts driver before lane departure
Blocks warnings automatically if:
Turn signal is used
Speed is less than ~35 mph
Let’s look at the lane departure warning system (LDWS).
As a reminder about the technology, LDWS are forward-looking, vision-based systems, consisting of a main unit and small video camera mounted on the vehicle’s windshield recording data of the upcoming roadway. Algorithms within LDWS interpret video images of the lane to estimate the vehicle state (lateral position, speed, heading, etc.) and the road alignment (lane width, road curvature, etc.).
LDWS warn drivers of a lane departure when the vehicle is traveling above a certain speed threshold and the vehicle’s turn signal is not used to make an intended lane change or departure. In addition, LDWS notify drivers when lane markings are inadequate for detection, or if the system malfunctions.
LDWS do not take any automatic action to control the vehicle. Therefore, drivers remain responsible for the safe operation of their vehicles.

20. Lane Departure Warning Systems
Crashes Preventable by Lane Departure Warning Systems
~4, ,000 crashes/year where the truck runs off the road or inadvertently travels over the lane line
The types of crashes that Lane Departure Warning System (LDWS) prevent include :
Same and opposite lane departure side-swipes and
Single vehicle roadway departures that result in rollovers or collisions
Again, crash data in the General Estimates System (GES) were used to estimate the average annual number of preventable lane departure crashes addressed by lane departure warning systems.
Property
Damage Only
Injury
Fatal
TOTAL
23-24% Efficacy
2945
826 33
3804
46-53% Efficacy
6164
1750 71
7985

21. Roll Stability Control Systems
Sensors monitor vehicle dynamics (e.g., velocity)
Software estimates instability of a large truck based on
Mass
Velocity
If instability threshold reached, software sends signals to decelerate vehicle by
Reducing vehicle throttle
Applying brakes
Next, let’s look at the Roll Stability Control (RSC) system and the most common type of crashes preventable by this system.
Currently available RSC systems continuously monitor lateral forces while the vehicle is in operation. An electronic control unit within the RSC system processes the information received from the onboard sensors to detect when there is risk of a rollover.
RSC systems automatically reduce the throttle and apply engine and foundation brakes to counteract the tendency of a vehicle to rollover due to excessive speed in a curve.

22. Roll Stability Control Systems
Crashes Preventable by Roll Stability Control Systems
Primarily rollovers of combination trucks on a curve
~1, ,000 rollovers/year due to excessive speed in a curve
Here are the estimated average annual numbers of combination vehicle rollovers due to excessive speed in a curve that are preventable by Roll Stability Control systems. This set of rollovers consists of particularly severe crashes with well over 50% resulting in injuries and fatalities.
Again, crash data in the General Estimates System (GES) were used to estimate the average annual number of combination vehicle rollovers in a curve preventable by roll stability control systems.
Property
Damage Only
Injury
Fatal
TOTAL
37% Efficacy
602
769 51
1,422
53% Efficacy
862
1,102 73
2,037

23. Questions FMCSA’s main web site: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov
CSA 2010 web site:
Participation in rulemakings (submitting comments):
Distracted driving information: