trucker safety

8/13/2019 Trucker Safety

1/13

New York State Oce of the State Comptroller

Thomas P. DiNapoli

Division of State Government Accountability

Report 2012-S-13 January 2014

Selected Aspects of the Motor

Carrier Safety Assistance Program

Department of Transportaon


2/13

2012-S-13

Division of State Government Accountability 1

Execuve SummaryPurposeTo determine whether the Department of Transportaon (Department) is taking appropriate

acons to ensure that commercial carriers whose vehicles or drivers have been found to have

violaons serious enough to warrant their removal from service are making appropriate, melyrepairs or correcons. This audit covers the period October 1, 2008 through June 17, 2013.

BackgroundThe Department is responsible for administering State parcipaon in the Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Assistance Program (Program). The Programs goal is to reduce the number and severity

of crashes, fatalies, and injuries involving commercial motor vehicles. Roadside inspecons

of commercial vehicles are a primary part of the Departments acvies. The inspecons are

performed by Department inspectors and specially trained State Police and local police ocers.

When inspecons idenfy violaons, carriers typically receive a trac citaon. However,

inspecons somemes uncover violaons serious enough to warrant immediately removing thevehicle from service unl they are xed. Carriers with poor safety records may also be subject to

more stringent Department enforcement, including on-site compliance reviews or formal Noces

of Violaon, which may result in addional penales.

Key Findings The Department does not monitor whether carriers submit required cercaons that violaons

have been repaired, or when submied, if they are on me. As a result, 39 percent of the

cercaons for out-of-service violaons during our audit period were not submied, while 26

percent were submied late.

The Department did not always impose penales when it found that carriers knowingly placed

the public at risk by connuing to operate out-of-service vehicles prior to repairs. In about

60 percent of the cases we reviewed, the Department did not use progressive enforcement

acons. Instead, violators in these instances typically received a trac citaon.

Key Recommendaons Acvely monitor carrier compliance with the requirements for cercaon that vehicles have

been repaired. Develop strategies to improve carrier compliance, parcularly for those with

poor safety histories and out-of-service violaons.

Impose progressive enforcement acons, such as compliance reviews and formal Noces of

Violaon, when carriers are found to have connued to operate out-of-service vehicles.

Other Related Audits/Reports of InterestDepartment of Transportaon: Selected Truck Inspecon Pracces (2003-S-24)

Department of Transportaon: School Bus Safety Inspecon Program (2000-S-10)
http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093004/03s24.pdfhttp://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093001/00s10.pdfhttp://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093001/00s10.pdfhttp://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093004/03s24.pdf


3/13

2012-S-13


State of New York

Oce of the State Comptroller


January 22, 2014

Ms. Joan McDonald

Commissioner

Department of Transportaon

50 Wolf Road

Albany, NY 12232

Dear Commissioner McDonald:

The Oce of the State Comptroller is commied to helping State agencies, public authoriesand local government agencies manage government resources eciently and eecvely and, by

so doing, providing accountability for tax dollars spent to support government operaons. The

Comptroller oversees the scal aairs of State agencies, public authories and local government

agencies, as well as their compliance with relevant statutes and their observance of good business

pracces. This scal oversight is accomplished, in part, through our audits, which idenfy

opportunies for improving operaons. Audits can also idenfy strategies for reducing costs and

strengthening controls that are intended to safeguard assets.

Following is a report of our audit entled Selected Aspects of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance

Program. This audit was performed according to the State Comptrollers authority under Arcle

V, Secon 1 of the State Constuon and Arcle II, Secon 8 of the State Finance Law.

This audits results and recommendaons are resources for you to use in eecvely managing

your operaons and in meeng the expectaons of taxpayers. If you have any quesons about

this report, please feel free to contact us.

Respecully submied,




4/13

2012-S-13


State Government Accountability Contact Informaon:

Audit Director: John Buyce

Phone:(518) 474-3271

Email:[email protected]:



110 State Street, 11th Floor

Albany, NY 12236

This report is also available on our website at: www.osc.state.ny.us

Table of Contents

Background 4

Audit Findings and Recommendaons 6

Carrier Return of Inspecon Reports 6

Acons Taken on Repeat Out-of-Service Violaons 6

Recommendaons 7

Audit Scope and Methodology 7

Authority 8

Reporng Requirements 8

Contributors to This Report 9

Agency Comments 10

State Comptrollers Comments 12
mailto:StateGovernmentAccountability%40osc.state.ny.us?subject=http://www.osc.state.ny.us/http://www.osc.state.ny.us/mailto:StateGovernmentAccountability%40osc.state.ny.us?subject=


5/13

2012-S-13


BackgroundThe Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (Program) provides Federal nancial assistance to

states to reduce the number and severity of accidents and hazardous materials incidents involving

commercial vehicles. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administraon (FMCSA), the Federal

oversight agency, sets forth the condions for parcipaon by states and local jurisdicons andpromotes the adopon and uniform enforcement of safety rules, regulaons, and standards

compable with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulaons and Federal Hazardous Material

Regulaons for both interstate and intrastate motor carriers and drivers.

Under Federal law, each state parcipang in the Program is required to develop an annual

Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan (Plan) outlining the states commercial motor vehicle safety

objecves, strategies, acvies and performance measures.

The New York State Department of Transportaons (Department) Motor Carrier Compliance

Bureau (Bureau) is responsible for the administraon of the statewide Program, including

preparaon of the Plan. The Bureaus Plan describes various eld operaons including: roadsidetruck inspecons; new entrant safety audits; compliance reviews; complaint invesgaons;

security visits; hazardous material carrier reviews; oversize/overweight compliance outreach; and

various educaonal programs. The Bureau also invesgates consumer complaints on household

goods moving companies and is responsible for customer informaon support.

Roadside inspecons of commercial trucks and buses are a primary funcon of the Departments

parcipaon in the Program. Inspecon teams, which include Department motor vehicle

inspectors and specially trained New York State Police troopers and local law enforcement ocers,

perform the inspecons. The Department generally does not perform motor vehicle inspecons

unless State or local law enforcement ocers are present at the inspecon site. The inspeconteams work out of six regional locaons.

Motor vehicle inspecons can have one of several outcomes: no violaons, minor violaons,

out-of-service violaons, or a combinaon of minor and out-of-service violaons. Out-of-service

violaons must be xed before the driver may operate the vehicle again. The vehicle may

be repaired on site or towed for repairs. The driver receives a copy of the inspecon report.

According to Federal and State regulaons, motor carriers have 15 days to return the inspecon

report to the Department, cerfying that the necessary repairs or correcons have been made.

In addion, the driver may be issued a trac citaon by law enforcement ocers.

In a typical year about 110,000 roadside inspecons are conducted by the Departments inspectors,New York State Police, and local police. For the four Federal scal years ended September 30,

2012, of 448,842 inspecons conducted, 90,368 (20 percent) resulted in a citaon for one or

more out-of-service violaons. An inspecon can have violaons on vehicles, drivers or both.

The 90,368 inspecons included 76,229 out-of-service violaons on vehicles and 21,417 out-of-

service violaons on drivers.


6/13

2012-S-13


When carriers have a poor safety record, addional acons can be taken to improve compliance.

For example, FMCSA may visit the carrier to conduct a Federal compliance review, the Department

may conduct a State compliance review, or the Department may issue a formal Noce of Violaon.

When a Noce of Violaon is issued, the carrier is required to appear before an Administrave

Law Judge and may be subject to addional penales.


7/13

2012-S-13


Audit Findings and Recommendaons

Carrier Return of Inspecon Reports

Federal and State regulaons require motor carriers to return inspecon reports and repaircercaons to the Department within 15 days. The cercaons have greater signicance for

out-of-service violaons because the vehicle problems found are more serious and could place

the public at greater risk. However, most carriers do not return these reports and cercaons

on me, if at all. Department data shows that, of 90,368 inspecon reports with out-of-service

violaons issued during our audit period, only about 35 percent (31,254) were returned on me.

Another 26 percent (23,558) were returned late. More signicantly, 35,556 reports and repair

cercaons (39 percent) were never returned at all.

When carriers do not return the inspecon reports and repair cercaons, the Department has

no assurance that the out-of-service violaons have been corrected. Even so, the Department has

not put a tracking system in place to monitor compliance with the 15-day requirement, or evenwhether these reports are received at all. Department ocials stated they rely instead on the

results of subsequent roadside inspecons rather than pursuing carriers that have not returned

the inspecon reports. However, the roadside inspecon process provides lile assurance that

any one oending vehicle is likely to be subjected to a subsequent inspecon, especially over the

shorter term when it may sll be operang with a known deciency in need of repair.

We also found the Department does not use the response data to gain insights that could

help assess the risks associated with individual carriers operang within the State. Analysis of

informaon on response meliness or non-compliance could be a useful tool to target carriers for

addional enforcement eorts.

Acons Taken on Repeat Out-of-Service Violaons

We found that the Department oen did not use progressive enforcement acons when dealing

with a carrier that connued to operate an out-of-service vehicle without rst repairing it.

Furthermore, in some cases we found carriers knowingly cered that repairs were made even

though they were not, as proven by subsequent inspecons.

During our audit period, the Department completed 196 inspecon reports that cited 207

violaons for operang a vehicle that had already been placed out-of-service as a result of an

earlier inspecon. In many cases, we could not trace the specics of all violaons associatedwith these repeat inspecons because the prior inspecons either occurred in a dierent state

or took place before the start of our scope period. However, for 49 of 59 inspecon reports

where complete data was available, we were able to determine that the carrier cered to the

Department that the inial violaons had been repaired.

In 19 of these 49 cases, we found the carrier had already returned its cercaon of repairs

to the Department before the second inspecon, which then idened that the same out-of-


8/13

2012-S-13


service violaon persisted. However, because the Department does not acvely monitor the

return of the cercaons, it is unlikely it would make this connecon to idenfy that a false

cercaon had been submied. For the remaining 30 cases, it was unclear whether the carriers

cercaons were false since Department records indicate they were not received unl aer the

second inspecon had already been performed.

For almost one-third (63) of these 196 repeat out-of-service inspecons, further enforcement

was not deemed necessary because the carrier had either gone out of business, had its Federal

authority revoked or formally removed the vehicle from the road (e.g., vehicle sold, registraon

cancelled). For 51 of the remaining 133 inspecons (38 percent), records show the Department

did impose progressively more serious penales on the carrier, such as performing an on-site

compliance review or issuing a formal Noce of Violaon. In contrast, for the remaining 82 cases

(62 percent), enforcement acons taken against these repeat oenders were limited to, at most,

a trac citaon issued by State or local police.

Carriers are less likely to make necessary repairs and avoid repeated out-of-service violaons if

they know the penales for such behavior will be the same as for less serious infracons. Whilethe 196 inspecon reports cing carriers for repeat out-of-service violaons may seem few in

comparison to the over 90,000 out-of-service violaons issued, it is important to consider that

these represent more serious cases. These carriers knowingly placed the public at potenal risk

by operang vehicles that had already been idened as having serious defects, and in some

cases misrepresented that these defects had been repaired. In our opinion, more progressive

enforcement acon is warranted in most, if not all, of the cases in which carriers connue to

operate unsafe vehicles.

Recommendaons

1. Acvely monitor carrier compliance with the requirements for cercaon that vehicles have

been repaired. Develop strategies to improve carrier compliance, parcularly for those with

poor safety histories and out-of-service violaons.

2. Impose progressive enforcement acons, such as compliance reviews and Noces of Violaon,

when carriers are found to have connued to operate out-of-service vehicles.

Audit Scope and Methodology

The objecve of our audit was to determine whether the Department is taking appropriate aconsto ensure that commercial carriers whose vehicles or drivers have been found to have defects or

violaons serious enough to warrant their removal from service are making appropriate, mely

repairs or correcons. This audit covers the period October 1, 2008 through June 17, 2013.

To accomplish our audit objecve, and to determine whether internal controls related to our

objecve were adequate and funconing as intended, we interviewed Department ocials and

reviewed relevant laws, regulaons, policies and procedures. We also used computer assisted


9/13

2012-S-13


audit techniques to analyze the Departments roadside inspecon data.

We conducted our performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auding

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sucient,

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our ndings and conclusions based on

our audit objecves. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for ourndings and conclusions based on our audit objecve.

In addion to being the State Auditor, the Comptroller performs certain other constuonally and

statutorily mandated dues as the chief scal ocer of New York State. These include operang

the States accounng system; preparing the States nancial statements; and approving State

contracts, refunds, and other payments. In addion, the Comptroller appoints members to

certain boards, commissions and public authories, some of whom have minority vong rights.

These dues may be considered management funcons for purposes of evaluang organizaonal

independence under generally accepted government auding standards. In our opinion, these

funcons do not aect our ability to conduct independent audits of program performance.

Authority

The audit was performed according to the State Comptrollers authority as set forth in Arcle V,

Secon 1 of the State Constuon and Arcle II, Secon 8 of the State Finance Law.

Reporng Requirements

A dra copy of this report was provided to Department ocials for their review and comment. We

considered their comments in preparing this nal report and have aached them in their enretyto the end of this report. The Department agreed with our recommendaons and indicated steps

it is taking to implement them. In addion, we have included State Comptrollers Comments to

address statements in the Departments response.

Within 90 days aer nal release of this report, as required by Secon 170 of the Execuve Law,

the Commissioner of the Department of Transportaon shall report to the Governor, the State

Comptroller, and the leaders of the Legislature and scal commiees, advising what steps were

taken to implement the recommendaons contained herein, and where the recommendaons

were not implemented, the reasons why.


10/13

2012-S-13



Andrew A. SanFilippo, Execuve Deputy Comptroller

518-474-4593, [email protected]

Tina Kim, Deputy Comptroller


Brian Mason, Acng Assistant Comptroller


Vision

A team of accountability experts respected for providing informaon that decision makers value.

Mission

To improve government operaons by conducng independent audits, reviews and evaluaons

of New York State and New York City taxpayer nanced programs.

Contributors to This Report

John Buyce, Audit Director

Steve Goss, Audit Manager

Joel Biederman, Audit Supervisor

Sco Heid, Examiner-in-ChargeMichele Turmel, Examiner-in-Charge

Stephon Pereyra, Sta Examiner

Craig McLaren, Student Assistant
mailto:asanfilippo%40osc.state.ny.us%0D?subject=mailto:tkim%40osc.state.ny.us%0D?subject=mailto:bmason%40osc.state.ny.us?subject=mailto:bmason%40osc.state.ny.us?subject=mailto:tkim%40osc.state.ny.us%0D?subject=mailto:asanfilippo%40osc.state.ny.us%0D?subject=


11/13

2012-S-13


Agency Comments


12/13

2012-S-13


*

Comment

1

*

Comment

2

* See State Comptrollers Comments, page 12.


13/13

2012-S-13


State Comptrollers Comments

1. While addional enforcement acon was taken in many instances, in the case of out-

of-service violaons we found it oenmes was not progressive enough based on the

seriousness of repeat out-of-service violaons. Specically, 82 cases had addional

acons of at most a trac cket which is typical even for less serious violaons.2. The 90,368 inspecons include 76,229 out-of-service violaons on vehicles and 21,417

out-of-service violaons on drivers. Some inspecons had both types so the violaons

exceed the number of inspecons. We amended the report to clarify this point.

trucker safety

Documents