1.) FMCSA’s primary mission is to reduce the number and severity of crashes  involving large trucks and buses. FMCSA uses a data-driven analysis model called SafeStat to assess  carriers’ risks relative to all other carriers based on safety indicators, such  as their crash rates and safety violations identified during roadside  inspections and prior compliance reviews. 2.) SafeStat Identifies Many High-risk Carriers, but Enhancements Could Identify Carriers with Even Higher Risks

SafeStat identifies many carriers that pose a high risk for crashes and is  about twice as effective (83 percent) as randomly selecting carriers for  compliance reviews. Using Either a Statistical Approach or Modifying Existing SafeStat Categorization Rules Could Improve Identification of High-risk Carriers

In June 2007, we reported that FMCSA could improve SafeStat’s ability to  identify carriers that pose high crash risks if it applied a statistical  approach, called the negative binomial regression model, to the four  SafeStat safety evaluation areas instead of its current approach. By its very nature the regression  approach looks for the “best fit” in identifying the degree to which prior  accidents and driver, vehicle, and safety management violations identify  the likelihood of carriers having crashes in the future, compared to the  current SafeStat approach, in which the relationship among the four  evaluation areas is based on expert judgment. First, FMCSA  is concerned that this would require placing correspondingly less  emphasis on the types of problems the compliance review is designed to  address so that crashes can be reduced (i.e., the lack of compliance with  safety regulations related to drivers, vehicles, and safety management that  is captured in the other evaluation areas). We found that while driver, vehicle, and safety  management evaluation area scores are correlated with the future crash  risk of a carrier, high crash rates are a stronger predictor of future crashes  than poor compliance with safety regulations. FMCSA’s mission—as well  as the ultimate purpose of compliance reviews—is to reduce the number  and severity of truck and bus crashes. FMCSA’s Management of Its Compliance Reviews Promotes Thoroughness and Consistency

Our preliminary assessment is that FMCSA manages its compliance  reviews in a way that meets our standards for internal control, thereby  promoting thoroughness and consistency in the reviews. It does so by  establishing compliance review policies and procedures through an  electronic manual and training, using an information system to document  the results of its compliance reviews, and monitoring performance. FMCSA records and  communicates its policies and procedures electronically through its Field  Operations Training Manual, which it provides to all federal and state  investigators and their managers. According to FMCSA  and state managers and investigators, the managers review all compliance  reviews in each division office and state to ensure thoroughness and  consistency across investigators and across compliance reviews. For the most part, 95 percent or more  of the compliance reviews covered each major applicable area in the  agency’s safety regulations. FMCSA Follows Up with Many Carriers with Serious Safety Violations but Does Not Assess Maximum Fines for All of the Violations Required by Law

Our preliminary assessment is that FMCSA placed many carriers rated  unsatisfactory in fiscal year 2005 out of service and followed up with  nearly all of the rest to determine whether they had improved. Furthermore, FMCSA does not  assess maximum fines against all carriers, as we believe the law requires,  partly because FMCSA does not distinguish between carriers with a  pattern of serious safety violations and those that repeat a serious  violation. FMCSA Followed Up with Almost All Carriers That Received a Proposed Safety Rating of Unsatisfactory

FMCSA followed up with at least 1,189 of 1,196 carriers (99 percent) that  received a proposed safety rating of unsatisfactory following compliance  reviews completed in fiscal year 2005. FMCSA  issued out-of-service orders to 306 of these carriers. The  language of the statute does not allow FMCSA’s interpretation; rather, it  requires FMCSA to assess the maximum allowable fine for each serious  violation against a carrier that has previously committed the same serious  violation. GAO-07-585. GAO-07-771R.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has the primary federal responsibility for reducing crashes involving large trucks and buses. FMCSA uses its "SafeStat" tool to select carriers for reviews for compliance with its safety regulations based on the carriers' crash rates and prior safety violations. FMCSA then conducts these compliance reviews and can place carriers out of service if they are found to be operating unsafely. This statement is based on a recent report (GAO-07-585) and other nearly completed work. GAO assessed (1) the extent to which FMCSA identifies carriers that subsequently have high crash rates, (2) how FMCSA ensures that its compliance reviews are conducted thoroughly and consistently, and (3) the extent to which FMCSA follows up with carriers with serious safety violations. GAO's work was based on a review of laws, program guidance, and analyses of data from 2004 through early 2006.

What GAO Found

FMCSA generally does a good job in identifying carriers that pose high crash risks for subsequent compliance reviews, ensuring the thoroughness and consistency of those reviews, and following up with high-risk carriers. SafeStat is nearly twice as effective (83 percent) as random selection in identifying carriers that pose high crash risks. However, its effectiveness could be improved by using a statistical approach (negative binomial regression), which provides for a systematic assessment to apply weights to the four SafeStat safety evaluation areas (accidents and driver, vehicle, and safety management violations) rather than FMCSA's approach, which relies on expert judgment. The regression approach identified carriers that had twice as many crashes in the subsequent 18 months as did the carriers identified by the current SafeStat approach. FMCSA is concerned that adopting this approach would result in it placing more emphasis on crashes and less emphasis on compliance with its safety management, vehicle, and driver regulations. GAO believes that because (1) the ultimate purpose of compliance reviews is to reduce the number and severity of truck and bus crashes and (2) GAO's and others' research has shown that crash rates are stronger predictors of future crashes than is poor compliance with FMCSA's safety regulations, the regression approach would improve safety. GAO's preliminary assessment is that FMCSA promotes thoroughness and consistency in its compliance reviews through its management processes, which meet GAO's standards for internal controls. For example, FMCSA uses an electronic manual to record and communicate its compliance review policies and procedures and teaches proper compliance review procedures through both classroom and on-the-job training. Furthermore, investigators use an information system to document their compliance reviews, and managers review these data, helping to ensure thoroughness and consistency between investigators. For the most part, FMCSA and state investigators cover the nine major applicable areas of the safety regulations (e.g., driver qualifications and vehicle condition) in 95 percent or more of compliance reviews, demonstrating thoroughness and consistency. GAO's preliminary assessment is that FMCSA follows up with almost all carriers with serious safety violations, but it does not assess the maximum fines against all serious violators that GAO believes the law requires. FMCSA followed up with at least 1,189 of 1,196 carriers (99 percent) that received proposed unsatisfactory safety ratings from compliance reviews completed in fiscal year 2005. For example, FMCSA found that 873 of these carriers made safety improvements and it placed 306 other carriers out of service. GAO also found that FMCSA (1) assesses maximum fines against carriers for the third instance of a violation, whereas GAO reads the statute as requiring FMCSA to do so for the second violation and (2) does not always assess maximum fines against carriers with a pattern of varied serious violations, as GAO believes the law requires.