1.) The agency’s primary mission is to reduce the number and  severity of crashes involving large trucks and buses. 2.) FMCSA can  take a range of enforcement actions against carriers with violations,  including  issuing notices of violation informing carriers of identified violations and  indicating that additional enforcement action may be taken if the  violations are not corrected; issuing compliance orders directing carriers to perform certain actions  that FMCSA considers necessary to bring the carrier into compliance with  regulations;   assessing fines for violations of the safety regulations; fines require  carriers to pay a specific dollar amount to FMCSA;    placing carriers or drivers out of service for unsatisfactory safety  performance, failure to pay a fine, or imminently hazardous conditions or  operations; revoking the operating authority of carriers for failure to carry the  required amount of insurance coverage;   pursuing criminal penalties in some instances when knowing and willful  violations can be proved; and   seeking injunctions from a court for violations of a final order such as an  out-of-service order. However,  modifications to FMCSA’s policy that carriers have to score among the  worst 25 percent of carriers in two or more safety evaluation areas to  receive high priority for a compliance review and focusing more on crash  risk could result in the selection of carriers with a higher aggregate crash  risk. FMCSA’s Policy for Prioritizing Compliance Reviews Leads the Agency to Conduct Compliance Reviews on Many High- Risk Carriers but Not on Other Higher Risk Ones

FMCSA’s policy for prioritizing carriers for compliance reviews based on  their SafeStat scores results in FMCSA’s conducting compliance reviews  on carriers with a higher aggregate crash risk than carriers that are not  selected. I for a discussion of these studies.) FMCSA officials told us that the agency plans to assess whether the  approach developed in this report—giving high priority to carriers that  perform very poorly in only the accident evaluation area (such as those  that scored among the worst 5 percent)—would be an effective use of its  resources. SafeStat does a good job of  identifying carriers that pose high crash risks. Finally, FMCSA has been very helpful and responsive during  both our—largely concurrent—reviews. FMCSA’s Management of Its Compliance Reviews Promotes Thoroughness and Consistency

FMCSA manages its compliance reviews in a fashion that meets our  standards for internal control, thereby promoting thoroughness and  consistency in the reviews. In addition, it  employs an information system that documents the results of compliance  reviews and allows FMCSA and state managers to review the compliance  reviews for thoroughness, accuracy, and consistency. FMCSA records and communicates its  policies and procedures electronically through its “Field Operations  Training Manual” (hereafter called the operations manual), which it  provides to all federal and state investigators and their managers. FMCSA Follows Up with Many Carriers with Serious Safety Violations but Does Not Assess Maximum Fines against All of the Serious Violators Required by Law

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 the maximum fines  against all of the serious violators that 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. More specifically, FMCSA used the following approaches to follow  up with these carriers:    Follow-up compliance review. Finally, we found that FMCSA assesses maximum fines against carriers  that twice repeat a serious violation. 3.) The authors  selected motor carriers from MCMIS in December 2000 with complete data  for the accident, driver, vehicle, and safety management safety evaluation  areas. Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology

To determine the extent to which FMCSA’s policy for prioritizing  compliance reviews targets carriers that subsequently have high crash  rates, we analyzed data from FMCSA’s MCMIS on the June 2004 SafeStat  assessment of carriers and on the assessed carriers’ crashes in the 18  months following the SafeStat assessment. In assessing how FMCSA ensures that its compliance reviews are  completed thoroughly and consistently, we reviewed our report on  internal control standards for the federal government.
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 target carriers for reviews of their compliance with the agency's safety regulations based on their crash rates and safety violations. As requested, this study reports on (1) the extent to which FMCSA's policy for prioritizing compliance reviews targets carriers with a high risk of crashes, (2) how FMCSA ensures compliance reviews are thorough and consistent, and (3) the extent to which FMCSA follows up with carriers with serious safety violations. To complete this work, GAO reviewed FMCSA's regulations, policies, and safety data and contacted FMCSA officials in headquarters and nine field offices.

What GAO Found

By and large, FMCSA does a good job of 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. FMCSA's policy for prioritizing compliance reviews targets many high-risk carriers but not other higher risk ones. Carriers must score among the worst 25 percent of carriers in at least two of SafeStat's four evaluation areas (accident, driver, vehicle, and safety management) to receive high priority for a compliance review. Using data from 2004, GAO found that 492 carriers that performed very poorly in only the accident evaluation area (i.e., those carriers that scored among the worst 5 percent of carriers in this area) subsequently had an aggregate crash rate that was more than twice as high as that of the 4,989 carriers to which FMCSA gave high priority. FMCSA told GAO that the agency plans to assess whether giving high priority to carriers that perform very poorly in only the accident evaluation area would be an effective use of its resources. 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, its investigators use an information system to document their compliance reviews, and its 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. FMCSA follows up with many carriers with serious safety violations, but it does not assess maximum fines against all of the serious violators that GAO believes the law requires. FMCSA followed up with more than 99 percent of the 1,196 carriers that received proposed unsatisfactory safety ratings from compliance reviews completed in fiscal year 2005, finding that 881 of these carriers made safety improvements and placing 309 others out of service. However, GAO found that FMCSA (1) does not assess maximum fines against carriers with a pattern of varied serious violations as GAO believes the law requires and (2) assesses maximum fines against carriers for the third instance of a violation, whereas GAO reads the statute as requiring FMCSA to assess the maximum fine for the second.