OIG: Low participation in cross-border program puts FMCSA at risk of not meeting goals

The OIG report noted specific concerns about the English language proficiency (ELP) testing, citing a requirement that responses to the test be made in English.

The Trucker Staff

9/6/2012

WASHINGTON — The low participation in the cross-border demonstration pilot program puts the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration at risk of not meeting its goals for providing an adequate and representative sample of Mexico-domiciled carriers and inspections necessary to assess the impact on motor carrier safety, the Department of Transportation’s Office of the Inspector General says in a report released last month.

When the program was initiated in October 2011, the agency estimated that at least 46 carriers would be needed to obtain a target of 4,100 inspections within three years to provide a statistically valid analysis of program participants’ safety performance.

At the time the OIG conducted its review, four Mexico-domiciled carriers had been granted operating authority and 89 inspections had been conducted.

As of press time, the FMCSA website shows that six carriers have been granted authority and 124 inspections had been conducted.

In addition, the OIG report said, the FMCSA's oversight mechanisms did not ensure full compliance with pilot program requirements, noting at the time of the review earlier this year, the agency’s staff did not comply with new English language proficiency requirements for testing drivers on traffic and road signs during two of three PASAs the OIG observed.

“Although the 30 applications FMCSA received (for participation in the pilot) indicates that participation may increase, we cannot determine at this time whether increased participation will be sufficient to provide an adequate and representative sample of carriers and inspections,” the OIG said.

The OIG report noted specific concerns about the English language proficiency (ELP) testing, citing a requirement that responses to the test be made in English.

“Specifically, during the three PASAs we observed –– two in the United States and one in Mexico — the FMCSA auditors correctly followed the requirements for the driver interview,” the report said. “The ELP guidance and training was developed for expeditious testing by enforcement officials in a time-sensitive roadside environment. However, PASAs (pre-authorization safety audits) are not conducted under such constraints. Based on our observations of PASAs, sufficient time is available for testing drivers on all 21 road signs rather than the four randomly selected signs. Mexico–domiciled drivers may not recognize all critical road signs. For example, drivers who did not pass the road sign test were often unable to explain the meaning of ‘Railroad Crossing’ and ‘Wrong Way’ signs in either language. Testing drivers on all 21 signs could provide a greater level of safety assurance and better ensure drivers’ comprehensive knowledge of road signs.”

The OIG report made four recommendations to the FMCSA concerning program improvements to FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferr

1. Revise FMCSA’s traffic and road sign testing policy and procedures to (a) require English responses to questions about traffic and road signs in accordance with the Federal Register requirements; (b) require testing of all 21 traffic and road signs used for the PASA test; (c) add a height clearance road sign to the traffic and road sign test; and (d) provide training and guidance on traffic and road sign testing to all enforcement officials.

2. Revise FMCSA’s quality assurance procedures for PASAs to ensure that field supervisors and new entrant specialists validate the agency’s verification of the Secretaria de Communiciones y Transportes-tested drivers and ensure the accuracy of drug and alcohol statistical summary reports and the accuracy of random drug and alcohol testing pools before approving PASAs.

3. Revise FMCSA’s pilot program monitoring plan to include proactive controls such as periodic checks of electronic monitoring data quality and reporting accuracy, and

4. When appropriate program participation warrants, complete the development of mechanisms for detecting cabotage violations as called for in the electronic monitoring contract.

The FMCSA concurred with recommendations one and four, but did not concur with recommendations two and three.