Profiles
8J N@;<CP I<GFIK<; @E @E;LJKIP E<NJ
media, the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) is demanding an audit of
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin-
istration. It turns out they aren’t the only
ones. The Department of Transportation’s
Office of the Inspector General and the
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
are both engaging in separate investigations
of FMCSA and the Compliance, Safety,
Accountability (CSA) compliance moni-
toring system.
The three investigations are all separate,
but they are essentially asking the same
question: Is FMCSA improving safety on
the nation’s highways?
EKJ9 8L;@K
Citing a number of accidents that it has
investigated, the NTSB has raised ques-
tions about FMCSA’s ability to regulate the
industry and improve safety. The NTSB has
demanded that FMCSA undergo a full audit
by government officials.
NTSB criticized the “quality and thor-
oughness” of FMCSA’s compliance reviews
and took a hard line against FMCSA per-
forming focused compliance reviews that
only look at one area of the regulations.
F==@:< F= K?< @EJG<:KFI ><E<I8C
The second investigation is coming from
within the Department of Transportation
(DOT) itself. The Office of the Inspector
=D:J8 =XZ\j FejcXl^_k f] >fm\ied\ek @em\jk`^Xk`fej
By Matthew Wrobel, Foley Services
General (the Internal Affairs department
for the DOT agencies) is looking at the
effectiveness of enforcement actions taken
under the CSA program. Congressional
leaders on the House subcommittee on
Highways and Transit requested the DOT
investigation.
>8F @EM<JK@>8K@FE
Finally, the GAO, Congress’s team of
investigators, has also been ordered to
investigate the CSA program. Specifically,
it is looking at how well CSA assesses the
potential danger to public safety that a
motor carrier poses. That report is expected
in early January. Specific concerns were
raised regarding targeted investigations
being used more often than full compliance
reviews. These investigations only look at
specific compliance issues.
N?8KËJ 9<@E> CFFB<; 8K6
So why are multiple branches of the
government suddenly looking at FMCSA
with a magnifying glass? There are two
main reasons.
First, crashes. Over the past few years,
there have been a number of high profile
crashes involving Commercial Motor
Vehicles. FMCSA is supposed to be pre-
venting crashes and, in many of these cases,
there were preexisting factors that would
suggest that FMCSA should have caught
the problem before the crash.
Second, CSA. CSA, to say the least,
is a controversial system. It is an entirely
new look at compliance enforcement.
Specifically, because it actually lowers the
amount of interaction that FMCSA has
with carriers. While FMCSA has the math
that “proves” its effectiveness, CSA is a
tough sell to safety-conscious Congressmen
and women.
N?8K ;F<J K?@J D<8E6
In the short term, don’t expect any
changes. These reports have to be issued,
Congress will need to discuss them, and
FMCSA will have to respond. It will prob-
ably be years before any concrete changes
are made.
Carriers should be nervous about this
level of investigation of FMCSA. The most
likely outcome of this is that there will
be more enforcement and harsher, faster
punishments. Congress has already forced
FMCSA to act more aggressively this year.
This summer’s Surface Transportation Bill
forced FMCSA to issue fines to carriers that
could not afford to pay them.
With investigations being triggered
by crashes as the NTSB investigation was,
FMCSA will be less likely to allow carriers
to stay on the road once a problem has been
discovered. If targeted investigations are
no longer acceptable, carriers will face a
future with detailed compliance reviews as
the norm.
{äÊUÊ"
&ENERGY
