The phrase “putting a goat on Neptune” originated in IBM’s research and development department during its glory days. It was used to describe what was perceived to be an impossible task – something that just was not going to happen.
One of the biggest concerns in the industry when it comes to CSA is the consistent, or lack thereof, enforcement across state lines. Every time I hear this issue at industry events the representative of the FMCSA responds that the Agency takes this issue seriously and is working to fix it. I believe the Agency does take this issue seriously. Unfortunately, I also believe that their ability to impose their will upon the state enforcement agencies is akin to putting a goat on Neptune.
The Numbers: Enforcement statistics (FMCSA A&I Online) would appear to confirm the perceived inconsistency of inspections across state lines. In the state of Indiana 31.7% of all Driver Violations written were for speeding (392.2S) in calendar 2010. Cross over to Ohio and that number falls to 16.9% in the same calendar year. Head out west to Arizona and the percentage of all 392.2S violations was a mere 4.2% of the total Driver Violations for calendar 2010.
Another example was recently brought to my attention. In the state of Washington 11.2% of all Driver Violations in 2010 were for failure to obey a traffic control device (392.2C). If you continue down I-5 through Oregon and California that percentage drops to 1.5% and 3.8% respectively. What is it about the traffic control devices in Washington that give drivers so much trouble? I do not know the answer to that question. I drive through Washington on a frequent basis. Their traffic lights are red, yellow and green and their stop signs are red with 8 sides – same as all other liberal, left-leaning states on west coast.
Frequent examples appear in the data that seem to confirm inspection and enforcement inconsistency across states. The question that keeps being asked is when is this going to be addressed?
The Response: As I stated, I believe the Agency absolutely takes this issue seriously. In July of 2010 Administrator Ferro responded to a letter from John Hausladen, President of the Minnesota Trucking Association. Mr. Hausladen was outlining Minnesota’s experience as a CSA pilot state and suggesting the Agency consider the states findings as CSA moved forward. First on Mr. Hausladen’s list: Inconsistency in State Enforcement. Mr. Hausladen provided inspection statistics to support Minnesota’s contention that enforcement across state lines was inconsistent.
Administrator Ferro responded to Mr. Hausladen’s concern thusly: FMCSA fully understands the importance of promoting a uniform and consistent roadside inspection program. The letter goes on to state that A principal goal of this committee is consistent documentation of roadside inspection and violation data. …… CVSA staff and our State partners began work to prepare guidance that promotes more consistent documentation of roadside inspection and violation data.
Read carefully what Administrator Ferro wrote: First, the agency clearly understands the importance of this issue – that’s a good thing. However, the Administrators response skirts the core issue of consistent enforcement and instead cites a principle goal of consistent documentation. The Agency and their and state partners are preparing guidance and promoting consistent documentation of inspection data.
“Preparing guidance” and “promoting consistency” of documentation, in this writers opinion, is not addressing the question of enforcement consistency. Why is the Agency spending its time “guiding” and “promoting” consistent documentation instead of what the industry is really asking for, which is a requirement of consistent enforcement of inspections across state lines? I believe the answer is because they cannot. The Agency is doing the best it can but the reality is that its influence over states has limits. The best the Agency can apparently do is to guide states and promote the consistent documentation of the inconsistent inspections.
The Reality: The conundrum that envelops the issue enforcement consistency lies in state vs. federal government. CSA is a federal operational model that is being implemented by 50 different state jurisdictions. Under CSA the FMCSA gives a carrier one score for each of the 7 BASIC’s – fair enough. However, depending on which state you’re in today, you may get an entirely different test that you’re scored on tomorrow.
The U.S. Constitution establishes a government based on “federalism,” or the sharing of power between the national, and state (and local) governments. Under the U.S. Constitution, both the national and state governments are granted certain exclusive powers and share other powers.
One power exclusive to the federal government is to regulate commerce between states. One power exclusive to the state government is to provide for public health and safety. One power shared by both federal and state government is the making and enforcing laws. Just think of CSA in the context of this political and bureaucratic reality for a moment.
It doesn’t take much grey matter to begin to realize that while improving industry safety is a worthwhile cause, the FMCSA holds limited sway over individual states when it comes to enforcement consistency – a main concern for carriers and the industry. Can you see the feds going to the state of Arizona and telling them that they can no longer write 49% of all Driver Violations for either General/Form and Manner or a Non-English speaking driver? That’s what I thought as well.
I don’t want to be pessimistic. Try and remember CSA is evolving – it’s a journey, not a destination. Having said that, when it comes to getting enforcement consistency across all 50 states I think I’ll show my left-coast tendencies and take my chances with the goat.
