MCSAP Planning Meeting - 2019

2019 MCSAP Planning MeetingMay 1, 2019

Chicago, Illinois

Discussion Topics

• FY 2019/2020 MCSAP Status• FY 2019 High Priority Grant Status• Inspection Modernization Update• Recent MCSAP Policy Questions• New MCSAP Formula Recommendation Walkthrough

• Working Group Process• Major Recommendations• Next Steps

FY 2019/20 MCSAP Status• FY 2019 – full authorization received by FMCSA

• $299,735,500• All Phase-1 funds have been processed by FMCSA• Phase-2 (final) currently in process for distribution (May)• Same process as FY 2018

• FY 2020• FAST authorized amount = $304,069,500• eCVSP expected available June 3, 2019• All States/Territories will be on Multi-year CVSPs• Final year of FAST

High Priority Grant• FY 2019

• Total amount $43,340,000• HP-ITD = $Minimum of $20 million• HP-CMV = $23.34 million

• HP-CMV Closed on April 16• HP-ITD Closed on April 26• Applications are currently going through intake review• Session tomorrow at 3:45 (check Agenda) to review process in

prep for FY 2020

Other FMCSA Updates• Inspection Modernization

• Internal review of acquisition/development approach• Targeted completion CY 2020

• Recent Policy Questions • Covered Farm Vehicles• Scheduled Inspections• Traffic Enforcement Inspections• More Discussion on these topics during the Program Quality Session

tomorrow

Covered Farm Vehicles• MCSAP Comprehensive Policy Sec. 5.3.8• Operators of covered farm vehicle (CFV) are not subject to most

FMCSRs

• FMCSA will not reimburse through MCSAP for inspections of CFVs. • However, the time spent to determine if a vehicle or driver meets the

definition of a CFV is a MCSAP eligible expense.

• Violations should be cited if determined driver/vehicle is not under CFV exemptions.

• Detail why the exemption does not apply.

Scheduled Inspections

• Discussed in MCSAP Comprehensive Policy Sec. 5.3.4

• The FMCSA recognizes occasional need• Used for training/certification of inspectors• Should be Level 1 or 5 inspections• Should be monitored closely by the State to prevent manipulation of

carrier safety ratings/scores.• State mandated inspection programs are not MCSAP eligible

Traffic Enforcement - What’s the Story behind the Numbers?

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000Where Did the Traffic Enforcement Violations Go?

What’s the Story behind the Numbers?• Specific Examples• Over 150,000 inspections annually that used to automatically be

publicly reported as traffic enforcement (generic 392.2), are now more precisely coded as State Vehicle Registration violations and are no longer automatically reported as traffic enforcement

• Other Examples that used to automatically be publicly reported as traffic enforcement (generic 392.2), but are now more precisely coded and are no longer automatically reported as traffic enforcement:

• Over 30K IRP violations – 392.2IRP• Over 20K IFTA violations – 392.2FT• Over 20K State Operating Authority violations – 392.2AU• Over 20K State Insurance violations – 392.2IN

Proposal for Feedback• Split publicly reported traffic enforcement inspections and violations

into two categories

• Initiated by Officer Observed Driver Behavior• Populate this category with inspection violations that feed the CSA Safety

Measurement System (SMS) Unsafe Driving BASIC and Controlled Substances & Alcohol BASIC

• Also include inspections with 392.2S (speeding) and 392.2SLLS1 (1-5 MPH over limit) that are excluded from SMS

• Initiated by Officer Observed Vehicle or Other Issues• Populate this category with other inspection violations when officer deliberately marks

inspection as a “traffic enforcement” stop in inspection software, but no Unsafe Driving BASIC, Controlled Substances & Alcohol BASIC violations are recorded

The MCSAPFormula Working Group RecommendationsTom Keane, FMCSAThomas Liberatore, FMCSAColonel Taylor, South Carolina Dept. of Public SafetyDianne Gunther, Volpe Center

2019 MCSAP Planning MeetingMay 1, 2019

Chicago, Illinois

MCSAP Formula Working Group

• Established by the Secretary of Transportation in March 2016 as required by the FAST Act

• Sought to analyze requirements and factors for a new allocation formula with ultimate recommendation to Secretary

• Composed of representatives from:o State Agencieso FMCSAo An organization representing State CMV enforcement agencies

Thank You, Working Group Members!State Agencies:• Lt. Donald Bridge, Jr., Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles • Lt. Thomas Fitzgerald, Massachusetts State Police • Michelle N. Lopez, Colorado State Patrol • Alan R. Martin, Ohio Public Utilities Commission • Lt. Brent Moore, Georgia Department of Public Safety• Maj. Brian Preston, Arizona Department of Public Safety • John E. Smoot, Kentucky State Police • Col. Leroy Taylor, South Carolina Department of Public Safety Organization Representing State CMV Enforcement Agencies:• Adrienne Gildea, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)

FMCSA: • Thomas Liberatore• Nancy Anne Baugher• Caitlin Cullitan• Dan Meyer• Courtney Stevenson

Guiding Principles and Working Group ProcessCol. Leroy Taylor, Dianne GuntherSouth Carolina Department of Public Safety U.S. DOT Volpe Center

The Working Group established guiding principles that the formula should:• Improve upon the previous MCSAP formula, using it as a

baseline for improvement.• Address grant consolidation changes (e.g., Border and New

Entrant).• Meet specific FAST Act formula requirements.• Be safety-based (primary objective), with crash risk at the

forefront of analysis.

Guiding Principles (continued)

• Promote stability in funding.• Respond to changes in crash risk to continually reflect current

trends.• Use high-quality, regularly updated data sources.• Respond to changes in overall funding levels.

The Working Group developmentprocess sought to:

• Identify areas in the formula to improve.• Create alternative formula designs.• Evaluate impacts with respect to the guiding principles.

The Group relied on a number of different tools throughout the process.

• Varied expertise of the Group membership.• Review of other grant formulas and scientific literature.• Qualitative and quantitative research into areas of improvement.• Iterative evaluation of alternative formula designs.• Collaborative decision making in an effort to obtain viewpoints

from all States and programs for consideration.

Many additional factors and formula features were discussed at length.

• More than 20 factors were considered and discussed at length, but were not ultimately included in the proposed formula.

• Some examples include:• CMV VMT – No reliable, national public data source exists.• Crashes – States should not be punished for effective programs.• Economic considerations (e.g., cost of living) – No existing cost of living

indices accurately reflect the cost of running a CMV safety program.• See the Working Group’s report for more examples and

explanations.

RecommendationsThomas LiberatoreChief, State Programs Division, FMCSA

The new formula that emerged recommends a number of changes, including:

• Provisions to stabilize funding from year to year.• Removing the previous Incentive Formula.• New Border Component.• Adding Carrier Registrations.

Stabilized Funding

• Year-to-year stability in State share of total MCSAP funding.• No State will see funding:

oDecrease by more than 3% each yearo Increase by more than 5% each year

• Prevents drastic changes to funding in the first year after implementation of the new formula.

No Incentive Formula

• Removes the incentive formula present in previous version.• Promotes stability in funding, aligning with guiding principles.• FAST Act increased FMCSA flexibility to enforce requirements

for participation in MCSAP.oDiminishes need for incentive formula.oStates are still required to meet data quality standards.

Border Component

• Border funding allocated proportionally based on personnel needs at points of entry.oUses both ratio of personnel to crossing volume and the minimum

limit of personnel per port of entry.• Comprises up to 11% of total MCSAP funds.• Addresses consolidation of grants brought about by FAST Act.

Carrier Registrations

• Adds carrier registrations to data used to estimate crash risk.• Accounts for additional workload and cost incurred by States

that have a high CMV carrier population.• Takes advantage of better carrier registration data that is now

available.

Other Changes

• 1997 highway miles changed to current year dataoAllows the formula to be up to date and responsive.

• New Territory ComponentoNo longer a fixed amount allocated to each Territory.o0.49% of MCSAP funds proportionally allocated based on population.

Next StepsThomas LiberatoreChief, State Programs Division, FMCSA

Rulemaking Process

• Office of the Secretary has completed review of theproposed formula.

• WG Report/Addendum is now on FMCSA website.• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is forthcoming.• Partners & public encouraged to provide comments on NPRM. • FMCSA will review/address comments and issue a Final Rule.• After Final Rule is issued, new formula is implemented.

New Formula v. Interim

• Objective to implement new formula in FY 2020• Dependent upon publication of the NPRM, response to comments and

publication of Final Rule• Estimated this process needs completed by EOCY 2019

• States will have two options for MOE requirements• Option 1: Stick with 2004/2005 baseline• Option 2: Request modification based on match difference under “old”

formula v. new• States need to run this analysis!• Examples in Chicago

MOE Adjustment Process• FAST Act Maintains MOE Requirement - Sec 5101(f)(1)

• (A) – Average of FY 2004/2005 expenditures; OR• (B) – Level in the year a new allocation formula under Sec 5106 is implemented.

• FAST Act Allows the Secretary, at the request of the State, to waive ormodify the baseline MOE.

• Annual Waiver/Reduction Process – similar to now, must put request in writing and provide details as to why a reduction/waiver is needed for that fiscal year

• Permanent Waiver/Reduction • Request must be made within Fiscal Year of new Formula (by Sept. 30 of

implementation year)• Will perpetually establish the jurisdiction’s MOE baseline

MOE Adjustment Cont.• Waiver

• State must make VERY compelling case for complete waiver• Adjustment Process –Outlined in FAST Act Sec.

5107(b)(2) • Step 1 – Establish average baseline from 2004/2005• Step 2 – Calculate average match from FYs 2013 – 2015 for

MCSAP for each jurisdiction (20 percent match)• Step 3 – Calculate estimated match according to 31104(b) at 15%

(FMCSA using new formula). Actual used upon implementation• Step 4 – Subtract the amount in Step 2 from the amount in Step 3

• If Step 4 total is > 0, you subtract that total from the amount in Step 1= NEW MOE

• If Step 4 total is < 0, you use the amount in Step 1 as the MOE

ExamplesState A – Reduced MOE

• Step 1: FY 2004/2005 MOE = 1,000,000

• Step 2: Average FY 13 – 15 match = 200,000

• Step 3: Match under new formula = 250,000

• Step 4: 250,000 – 200,000 = 50,000

• New MOE = 1,000,000 – 50,000 = 950,000

State B – No MOE Change

• Step 1: FY 2004/2005 MOE = 1,000,000

• Step 2: Average FY 13 – 15 match = 50,000

• Step 3: Match under new formula = 45,000

• Step 4: 45,000 – 50,000 = -5,000

• MOE Unchanged = 1,000,000

Wrap – Up• States should run this analysis to see if a request for a

permanent adjustment is worthwhile• REMEMBER…YOU HAVE TO REQUEST IT THE FY OF THE

NEW FORMULA

• The FMCSA will be sharing necessary information (match totals, MOE baseline, etc.) with Division Offices

• Please don’t hesitate to ask questions.

• We want our partners to make the decision that is best for safety and for them.

More InformationLearn More: Read the FAQs and Working Group report on the FMCSA website: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/grants/fast-act-mcsap-formula-working-group

Share Your Feedback: Members of the public are encouraged to submit comments in the NPRM.

Questions on the Rulemaking Process:Thomas LiberatoreChief, State Programs Division, FMCSAthomas.liberatore@dot.gov

Up NexteCVSP Updates and Training for New Multi-Year eCVSP users and First-Time eCVSP users (Sgt. Dan Parks, Delaware State Police, Candy Brown, USDOT/Volpe Center, and Karen Brooks), Fourth Floor, State Ballroom • Updates to the FY 2020 eCVSP tool will be presented featuring live system

demonstration and training on functionality. This session will be tailored for new Multi-Year users for FY 2020 and First-Time eCVSP users.

Grants Management Update (Thomas Martin, James Ross), Second Floor, HonoreBallroom • Presentation on multiple grants management topics critical for MCSAP and High

Priority grantees. This presentation will cover proper cost accounting and documentation processes necessary for compliance with FMCSA grant conditions in the following areas:

Questions?