GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

MOTOR CARRIER 

SAFETY 

Reincarnating 

Commercial Vehicle 

Companies Pose 

Safety Threat to 

Motoring Public; 

Federal Safety Agency 

Has Initiated Efforts 

to Prevent Future 

Occurrences 

July 2009 

GAO-09-924 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

July 2009

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY 

Reincarnating Commercial Vehicle Companies Pose 

Safety Threat to Motoring Public; Federal Safety 

Agency Has Initiated Efforts to Prevent Future 

Occurrences Highlights of GAO-09-924, a report to 

congressional requesters 

In 2008, the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

reports that there were about 300 

fatalities from bus crashes in the 

United States. Although bus 

crashes are relatively rare, they are 

particularly deadly since many 

individuals may be involved. 

FMCSA tries to identify unsafe 

motor coach carriers and take 

them off the road. 

GAO was asked to determine (1) to 

the extent possible, the number of 

motor coach carriers registered 

with FMCSA as new entrants in 

fiscal years 2007 and 2008 that are 

substantially related to or in 

essence the same carriers the 

agency previously ordered out of 

service, and (2) what tools FMCSA 

uses to identify reincarnated 

carriers. To identify new entrants 

that were substantially related to 

carriers placed out of service, GAO 

analyzed FMCSA data to find 

matches on key fields (e.g., 

ownership, phone numbers, etc.). 

GAO’s analysis understates the 

actual number of reincarnated 

carriers because, among other 

things, the matching scheme used 

cannot detect minor spelling 

changes or other deception efforts. 

GAO also interviewed FMCSA 

officials on how the agency 

identifies reincarnated carriers. 

GAO is not making any 

recommendations. In July 2009, 

GAO briefed FMCSA on its findings 

and incorporated the agency’s 

comments, as appropriate. 

GAO’s analysis of FMCSA data for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 identified 20 

motor coach companies that likely reincarnated from “out of service” carriers. 

This represents about 9 percent of the approximately 220 motor coach 

carriers that FMCSA placed out of service during these 2 fiscal years. The 

number of likely reincarnated motor carriers is understated, in part, because 

GAO’s analysis was based on exact matches and also could not identify 

owners who purposely provided FMCSA deceptive information on the 

application (e.g., ownership) to hide the reincarnation from the agency. 

Although the number of reincarnated motor coach carriers that GAO 

identified was small, these companies pose a safety threat to the motoring 

public. According to FMCSA officials, under registration and enforcement 

policies up to summer 2008, reincarnation was relatively simple to do and 

hard to detect. As a result, motor coach carriers known to be safety risks were 

continuing to operate. According to FMCSA data, 5 of the 20 bus companies 

were still in operation as of May 2009. GAO referred these cases to FMCSA for 

further investigation. 

Examples of Reincarnating Motor Coach Carriers

Location 

Reason for out-ofservice order Description 

Texas Failure to pay a $2,380 

fine related to 5 safety 

violations. 

• Owner of “out-of-service” carrier registered 

“new entrant” carrier in daughter’s name. 

• In 2008, the new carrier’s new entrant 

registration was revoked and the owner was 

convicted of cocaine possession. 

New York Failure to pay fine. • “New entrant”“ carrier was located in a 

church. The “out-of-service” carrier was 

located next door in a school affiliated with 

the church. 

• FMCSA had not conducted a new entrant 

review of the new company as of July 2009. 

California Failure to pay 

approximately $5,000 

fine related to 11 safety 

violations. 

• New motor coach business located in retail 

store. 

• Several brochures and business cards of 

“out-of-service” carrier were displayed on 

counter. 

• In June 2009, the new carrier was ordered 

out-of–service for failing to pay a fine. 

Source: GAO. 

The 20 cases that GAO identified as likely reincarnations were registered with 

FMCSA at the time that FMCSA did not have any dedicated controls in place 

to prevent motor coach carriers from reincarnating. In 2008, FMCSA 

instituted a process to identify violators by checking applicant information 

against those of poor-performing carriers. For example, if FMCSA finds a new 

entrant with a shared owner name or company address for an out-of-service 

company, the agency will make inquiries to determine if the new applicant is 

related to the out-of-service carrier. If such a determination is made, FMCSA 

still faces legal hurdles, such as proving corporate successorship, to deny the 

company operating authority.

View GAO-09-924 or key components.

For more information, contact Gregory Kutz at 

(202) 512-6722 or kutzg@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-924 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 3 

Reincarnated Motor Carriers Exist 6 

Tools FMCSA Uses to Identify Reincarnated Carriers and Their 

Limitations 12 

Corrective Action Briefing 16 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 18 

Appendix II Reincarnated Motor Coach Carriers 20 

Appendix III Summary of Reincarnated Motor Coach Carriers 24 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 25 

Tables 

Table 1: Summary Information on Potentially Reincarnated Motor 

Coach Carriers 8 

Table 2: Summary Information on Potentially Reincarnated Motor 

Coach Carriers 20 

Table 3: Match Results on Key Identifying Fields for Potentially 

Reincarnated Carriers 24 

 Motor Carrier Safety 
Abbreviations 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EMIS Enforcement Management Information System 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

IRP International Registration Plan 

L&I Licensing & Insurance 

MCMIS Motor Carrier Management Information System 

PCVP Passenger Carrier Vetting Process 

PRISM Performance and Registration Information Systems Management 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
Page 1 GAO-09-924 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

July 28, 2009 

The Honorable James L. Oberstar 

Chairman 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson 

House of Representatives 

On August 8, 2008, a bus carrying a group of people on a religious 

pilgrimage crashed in Sherman, Texas, killing 17 people and injuring 15 

others. State and federal investigators attributed the accident to the loss of 

tread on a recapped tire installed on the bus’s front right steering axle—

the use of recapped tires on the steering wheels is a violation of federal 

regulations. The driver lost control of the bus, struck a curb, and crashed 

through the guardrail of a bridge. The bus fell about 8 feet, landed on its 

right side and slid about 24 feet. Twelve passengers died at the scene, 

while five others died after being taken to nearby hospitals. The carrier 

that operated the bus was the reincarnation of a motor coach company 

that had been deemed unsafe and ordered out of service by the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 2 months prior to the 

accident. The new company registered with FMCSA using the same 

physical and mailing addresses as the carrier ordered out of service. At the 

time of the crash, the carrier did not have proper operating authority from 

FMCSA, because it had not yet designated a process agent or provided 

proof of insurance to FMCSA. Thus, specifying a process agent and 

providing proof of insurance were the only steps standing in the way of the 

new company obtaining operating authority from FMCSA. 

According to FMCSA, in 2008 about 300 fatalities occurred nationwide 

associated with motor coach carriers.1

 In an attempt to reduce the number 

1

Crashes involving motor coach carriers may result from errors by bus or passenger-vehicle 

drivers; vehicle condition; and other factors. 

 Motor Carrier Safety
 

and severity of crashes involving buses, FMCSA seeks to identify unsafe 

motor coach carriers and take them off the road. Motor coach carriers 

ordered out of service are not supposed to return to the road until FMCSA 

determines that safety compliance issues have been resolved. 

The Committee is concerned that unscrupulous owners may attempt to 

evade the out-of-service orders by closing down and reopening as new bus 

companies, a practice known as “morphing” or “reincarnating.”2

 To 

address the serious safety concerns of reincarnating motor coach carriers, 

you asked us to determine (1) to the extent possible, the number of motor 

coach carriers registered with FMCSA as new entrants in fiscal years 2007 

and 2008 that are substantially related to or in essence the same carriers 

the agency ordered out of service, and (2) what tools FMCSA uses to 

identify reincarnated carriers. 

To identify new entrants that registered with FMCSA and were 

substantially related to motor coach carriers ordered out of service, we 

analyzed FMCSA data to find exact matches on key fields (i.e., company 

name, owner/officer name, address, phone number, cell phone number, 

fax number, vehicle identification number, and driver names). Our 

analysis understates the actual number of reincarnated motor coach 

carriers since the matching scheme used cannot detect minor spelling 

changes or other deception efforts, such as changing the company’s name, 

address, and ownership. In addition, our analysis is understated because 

FMCSA only provided us data on vehicles and drivers when an accident or 

inspection took place, and thus the data does not include the entire 

population of vehicles or drivers for either new entrants or out-of-service 

carriers. Our analysis also could not identify all reincarnated motor coach 

carriers where the owners purposely provided FMCSA bogus information 

on the application (e.g., ownership) to hide the reincarnation from 

FMCSA. For the motor coach carriers identified, we interviewed, if 

possible, the owners to validate whether the company had reincarnated. 

To determine the tools FMCSA uses to identify reincarnated motor coach 

carriers, we interviewed FMSCA officials on the process that the agency 

uses to identify potentially reincarnating carriers. We also obtained and 

 

2

GAO recently issued another report that looked at FMCSA use of commercial vehicle 

registrations to identify and prevent the registrations of vehicles of reincarnating carriers, 

which includes motor coach companies. See GAO, Motor Carrier Safety: Commercial 

Vehicle Registration Program Has Kept Unsafe Carriers from Operating, but 

Effectiveness Is Difficult to Measure, GAO-09-495 (Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2009). 

Page 2 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

examined policies and other FMCSA documentation to obtain an 

understanding of the design of its motor carrier enrollment process. We 

did not perform any tests of the controls and therefore cannot make a 

conclusion on the effectiveness of any controls in place or whether they 

have reduced the number of reincarnated carriers. For more details on our 

methodology, see appendix I. 

We conducted the work for this investigation from November 2008 

through July 2009 in accordance with quality standards for investigations 

as set forth by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency. 

FMCSA’s primary mission is to reduce the number and severity of crashes 

involving large commercial trucks and buses conducting interstate 

commerce. It carries out this mission in the following ways: issuing, 

administering, and enforcing federal motor carrier safety and hazardous 

materials regulations; and gathering and analyzing data on motor carriers, 

drivers, and vehicles, among other things. FMCSA also takes enforcement 

actions and funds and oversees enforcement activities at the state level 

through Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program grants. 

Background 

For-hire motor carriers are required to register with FMCSA and obtain 

federal operating authority before operating in interstate commerce. 

Applicants for passenger carrier operating authority must submit certain 

information to FMCSA, including contact information and U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) number, and must certify that they 

have in place mandated safety procedures. After publication of the 

applicant’s information in the FMCSA Register, a 10-calendar-day period 

begins in which anyone can challenge the application. Within 90 days of 

the publication, the carrier’s insurance company must file proof of the 

carrier’s insurance with FMCSA. Applicants must also designate a process 

agent, a representative upon whom court orders may be served in any 

legal proceeding. After FMCSA has approved the application, insurance, 

and process agent filings, and the protest period has ended without any 

protests, applicants are issued operating authority. 

FMCSA ensures that carriers, including motor coach carriers, comply with 

safety regulations primarily through compliance reviews of carriers 

already in the industry and safety audits of carriers that have recently 

Page 3 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

started operations.3 Compliance reviews and safety audits help FMCSA 

determine whether carriers are complying with its safety regulations and, 

if not, to take enforcement action against them, including placing carriers 

out of service.4

 FMCSA makes its compliance determination based on 

performance in six areas: one area is the carrier’s crash rate, and the other 

five areas involve the carrier’s compliance with regulations, such as 

insurance coverage, driver qualifications, and vehicle maintenance and 

inspections. 

Carriers are assigned one of three Carrier Safety Ratings based on their 

compliance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). 

These ratings include “satisfactory,” for a motor carrier that has in place 

and functioning adequate safety management controls to meet federal 

safety fitness standards; “conditional,” for a motor carrier that does not 

have adequate safety management controls in place to ensure compliance 

with the safety fitness standard, that could result in a violation of federal 

safety regulations; or “unsatisfactory,” for a motor carrier that does not 

have adequate safety management controls in place to ensure compliance 

with the safety fitness standard, which has resulted in a violation of 

federal safety regulations. 

Carriers receiving an unsatisfactory rating have either 45 days (for carriers 

transporting hazardous materials in quantities that require placarding or 

transporting passengers) or 60 days (for all other carriers) to address the 

safety concerns. If a carrier fails to demonstrate it has taken corrective 

action acceptable to FMCSA, FMCSA will revoke its new entrant 

registration and issue an out-of-service order, which prohibits the carrier 

from operating until the violations are corrected. Further fines are 

assessed if it is discovered that it is operating despite the out-of-service 

order. 

 

3

FMCSA and state law enforcement agency capabilities are dwarfed by the size of the 

industry and, as a result, are only able to conduct compliance reviews on about 2 percent 

of carriers—about 18,400 in fiscal year 2008. Safety audits are required for all new entrants 

to the trucking industry; approximately 37,400 safety audits were conducted in fiscal year 

2008. In addition to compliance reviews and safety audits, FMCSA and state law 

enforcement agencies conduct about 2.3 million vehicle inspections each year at weigh 

stations and other locations to assess the safety compliance of individual vehicles. 

4

Safety audits and compliance reviews also provide education and outreach opportunities 

for motor coach carriers and drivers on safety. 

Page 4 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

Federal law requires new carriers to undergo a new-entrant safety audit 

within 18 months of when the company begins to operate. Carriers are 

then monitored on an ongoing basis using various controls that include but 

are not limited to annual vehicle inspections and driver qualification 

regulations. However, FMCSA may suspend a company or vehicle’s 

operation at any time by ordering it out of service if it determines that an 

imminent safety hazard exists. (An imminent hazard means any condition 

of vehicle, employee, or commercial motor vehicle operations which 

substantially increases the likelihood of serious injury or death if not 

discontinued immediately.) In addition, FMCSA orders carriers out of 

service for failure to pay civil penalties levied by FMCSA, failing to take 

required corrective actions related to prior compliance reviews, or failing 

to schedule a safety audit. Out-of-service carriers are supposed to cease 

operations and not resume operations until FMCSA determines that they 

have corrected the conditions that rendered them out of service. If a 

carrier fails to comply with or disregards an out-of-service order, FMCSA 

may assess a civil monetary penalty each time a vehicle is operated in 

violation of the order. 

FMCSA and state law enforcement agencies use several methods to ensure 

that carriers ordered out of service, including motor coach companies, do 

not continue to operate. For example, FMCSA and its state partners 

monitor data on roadside inspections, moving violations, and crashes to 

identify carriers that may be violating an out-of-service order. FMCSA will 

visit some suspect carriers that it identifies by monitoring crash and 

inspection data to determine whether those carriers violated their orders. 

Also, recently, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance began to require 

checking for carriers operating under an out-of-service order during 

roadside inspections and to take enforcement action against any that are. 

However, given the large size of the industry, the nation’s extensive road 

network, and the relatively small size of federal and state enforcement 

staffs, it is difficult to catch motor coach carriers that are violating out-ofservice orders. In addition, some carriers change their identities by 

changing their names and obtaining new DOT numbers5

—these carriers 

are generally referred to as reincarnating carriers—to avoid being caught. 

 

5

The DOT number serves as a unique identifier when collecting and monitoring a carrier’s 

safety information acquired during audits, compliance reviews, crash investigations, and 

inspections. Companies that operate commercial vehicles transporting passengers in 

interstate commerce must be registered with FMCSA and must have a DOT number. 

Page 5 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

Our analysis of FMCSA data for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 identified 20 

motor coach companies6

 that likely reincarnated from “out-of-service” 

carriers.7

 This represents about 9 percent of the approximately 220 motor 

coach carriers that FMCSA ordered out of service8

 for those fiscal years.9

The analysis was based on two or more exact matches of data for the new 

entrant with the data for the out-of-service carriers on the following 

categories: company name, owner/officer name, address, phone number, 

cell phone number, fax number, vehicle identification number, and driver 

names. These 20 motor coach companies registered with FMCSA before 

FMCSA developed processes specifically for detecting reincarnated bus 

companies that were established subsequent to the Sherman, Texas, crash 

(see next section). The number of potential reincarnated motor coach 

carriers is understated because (1) our analysis was based on exact 

matches, so it could not find links if abbreviations were used or typos 

occurred in the data, (2) FMCSA only provided us data on vehicles and 

drivers when an accident or inspection took place, and thus the provided 

FMCSA data does not include the entire population of vehicles or drivers 

for either new entrants or out-of-service carriers, and (3) our analysis 

could not identify owners who purposely provided FMCSA bogus or 

otherwise deceptive information on the application (e.g., ownership) to 

hide the reincarnation from the agency. Although the number of 

reincarnated motor coach carriers that we could identify was relatively 

small, the threat these operators pose to the public has proven deadly. 

According to FMCSA officials, registration and enforcement policies at the 

time of the Sherman, Texas, crash, reincarnation was relatively simple to 

do and hard to detect. As a result, motor coach carriers known to be safety 

risks were continuing to operate, such as the company that was involved 

in the bus crash in Sherman, Texas. 

Reincarnated Motor 

Carriers Exist 

Five of the reincarnated carriers we identified were still operating as of 

May 2009. Our investigation found one of them had not received a safety 

 

6

For the 20 cases we identified, 13 were granted operating authority by FMCSA. 

7

For carrier types other than motor coach, such as commercial trucking, our analysis 

identified 1,073 potentially reincarnated companies for the same 2 fiscal years. Of these, at 

least 500 are still active as of June 2009. We referred the active carriers to FMCSA for 

further investigation. 

8

This number includes carriers ordered out of service for reasons other than failure to 

make contact with DOT while they are in the New Entrant program. 

9

According to FMCSA, there were approximately 4,000 motor coach carriers that were 

operating during fiscal year 2008. 

Page 6 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

evaluation and two carriers had been given a conditional rating after the 

agency determined its safety management controls were inadequate. The 

remaining two motor coach carriers were deemed satisfactory in a FMCSA 

compliance review because FMCSA inspectors were likely not aware of 

the potential reincarnations. We referred all five companies to FMCSA for 

further investigation. Based on our review of FMCSA data, we found that 

the agency already identified six of the 20 reincarnated motor coach 

carriers and ordered them out of service. The agency discovered them 

while performing a crash investigation (as in the case of the bus accident 

in Sherman, Texas), compliance reviews, or other processes. In addition, 

new carriers are subject to a safety audit within 18 months.10

Several of the reincarnated carriers we identified were small businesses 

located in states neighboring Mexico and making trips across the border. 

Our investigation also determined that all of the reincarnated motor coach 

carriers we identified were directly related to companies that received 

fines for safety problems shortly before being ordered out of service. 

Based on our analysis of the FMCSA data, we believe they reincarnated to 

avoid paying these fines and continue their livelihood. For example, we 

found instances where carriers continued to operate despite being ordered 

out of service for failure to pay their fines. In fact, one carrier was 

operating for several months after being placed out of service. We believe 

that these carriers reincarnated into new companies to evade fines and 

avoid performing the necessary corrective actions. 

We attempted to contact the owners to ask why they reincarnated but 

were unable to reach many of them. For the six owners that we did 

interview none said that they had shut down their old companies and 

opened new ones to evade the out-of-service orders. 

Table 1 summarizes information on 10 of the 20 cases that we investigated. 

Appendix II provides details on 10 others we examined. Appendix III 

provides a summary of the key data elements that matched on the new 

entrants that were substantially related to out-of-service carriers. 

 

10FMCSA officials stated that they have an internal policy of conducting safety audits of 

motor coach new entrants within 9 months and claim that they currently conduct these 

audits within 5 months. 

Page 7 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

Table 1: Summary Information on Potentially Reincarnated Motor Coach Carriers 

Case State Details 

1 Texas • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same phone number, fax number and cell 

phone number as the “old company” carrier. 

• The new company started in March 2007, eight months before FMCSA ordered the old company out of 

service. 

• Six days after the new company was formed, a motor coach carrying sixteen passengers operated by 

the old company was stopped and inspected on the US/Mexico border ay Laredo, Texas. The old 

company was charged with five violations and fined $2,380. 

• FMCSA ordered the old company out of service in November 2007 for failing to a pay a fine. 

• In 2008, the new carrier’s new entrant registration was revoked and the owner was convicted of cocaine 

possession. 

2 New York • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same fax number, company officer name, 

driver, and vehicle as the “old company” carrier. 

• The old company was subject to a compliance review in May 2007 and was cited for five safety 

violations, including failure to implement an alcohol and controlled substances testing program. 

• The new company started in August 2007 and was located at a church. The location of the old carrier 

was a school located next to and affiliated with the church. 

• FMCSA had not conducted a new-entrant safety audit of the carrier, as of July 2009. 

3 California • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same phone number and company officer 

as the “old company” carrier. 

• In December 2006, FMCSA cited the old company for eleven safety violations including failure to 

implement an alcohol and controlled substances testing program. 

• The old company was ordered out of service in February 2007 for failure to address the violations. In 

addition, in March 2007, the old company was charged with operating despite being subject to the above 

out-of-service order and fined $5,620. 

• The new company started in June 2008 and received a satisfactory safety rating in October 2008. 

• A week after our interview FMCSA revoked the new company’s authority, and in June 2009, ordered it 

out-of-service for falling to pay a fine. 

4 California • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same business name, address, company 

officer name, phone number, and some of the same drivers and vehicles as the “old company” carrier. 

• The old company was cited for twenty-seven safety violations and fined $2,000 in April 2007. Violations 

included using drivers before they received a negative controlled substance test. 

• The old company was ordered out of service in September 2007 for failure to pay the above fine. 

• In October 2007, FMCSA found the old company still operating a motor coach despite its out-of-service 

order. A fine of $6,910 was assessed. 

• The old company was cited for fifteen safety violations in a January 2008 compliance review. Violations 

included knowingly allowing an employee to operate a commercial motor vehicle with a suspended 

license. A fine of $2,000 was assessed. 

• The new company started in May 2008 and ordered it out of service in October 2008 as unfit. 

Page 8 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

Case State Details 

5 Texas • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same address, phone number, fax number, 

and company officer name as the “old company” carrier. In addition, the “new company” business name 

was the Spanish translation of the “old company” carrier’s name. 

• The old company had a compliance review in November 2006 and was cited for eleven safety violations. 

It received a conditional safety rating. The violations included using a driver before receiving a negative 

pre-employment controlled substance test. 

• In February 2008, the old company was subject to another compliance review and was cited for ten 

safety violations. It received an unsatisfactory rating. The violations included using a driver before 

receiving a negative controlled substance test and failing to annually conduct the required amount of 

random alcohol and controlled substances testing. A fine of $143,000 was later levied. 

• In April 2008, the old company was ordered out of service as FMCSA determined the carrier failed to 

take the necessary steps to improve its safety rating. 

• The new company was registered 13 days before the out-of-service order against the old company was 

to take effect. 

• The new company had a compliance review in August 2008 and was cited for nine safety violations. The 

violations included using a driver before receiving a negative controlled substance test. FMCSA identified 

it as a reincarnated carrier, and ordered it out of service in August 2008 as “unfit”. 

• The new company received a “conditional” safety rating in October 2008 but is listed as inactive as of 

July 2009. 

6 Maryland • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same business name, phone number, cell 

phone number, company officer name, and some of the same vehicles as the “old company” carrier. 

• FMCSA revoked the old company’s registration authority in March 2007 due to loss of insurance. 

• The new company opened about a month later, in April, 2007. 

• The new company received a compliance review in September 2008 after a roadside inspection revealed 

the company used a vehicle with the old company’s DOT number on a motor coach. The new company 

was cited for twenty-one safety violations and was given an unsatisfactory rating. Violations include 

failing to implement a random controlled substances and alcohol testing program and hiring drivers 

before receiving negative results on such tests. 

• The owner attempted to reincarnate again two weeks prior to the September 2008 compliance review. 

However, FMCSA detected the attempt and refused to grant operating authority. 

7 Arkansas • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same business address, phone number, 

fax number, and company officer name as the “old company” carrier. 

• The old company had a compliance review done in May 2007 and was cited for nine safety violations. 

The violations included conducting unauthorized motor carrier operations in the United States and failing 

to maintain driver qualification files. A fine of $3,050 was assessed. 

• FMCSA ordered the old company out of service on October 2007 for failure to pay the above fine. 

• The new company started in late June 2007, about 3 months before the old company was ordered out of 

service. 

• The new company had a compliance review done in November 2008 and was cited for seven safety 

violations. The violations included conducting interstate operations during a period when its registration 

was suspended. A fine of $2,000 was assessed. 

• The new company was ordered out-of-service by FMCSA in March 2009. 

Page 9 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

Case State Details 

8 Texas • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same two drivers as the “old company” 

carrier. The addresses were identical except for the omission of “RD” in the street name. 

• The old company had a compliance review in May 2008 and was cited for twenty safety violations. The 

violations included knowingly allowing a driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle before receiving a 

negative controlled substance test. 

• FMCSA ordered the old company out of service as “Unfit” in June 2008. 

• The new company was started in June 2008, the same month the old company was declared unfit. 

• The new company, while operating without authority, was involved in a fatal crash in August 2008 that 

killed seventeen people. 

• FMCSA placed the new company out of service as an “Imminent Hazard” the day after the accident. 

• FMCSA has linked the old company out-of-service orders to the new company. 

• The new company is currently inactive as of May 2009. 

9 California • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same phone number, fax number, and 

company officer name as the “old company” carrier. 

• The old company had a compliance review done in May 2007 and was cited for eighteen safety 

violations, including five critical violations. The violations included using a driver who refused to submit a 

controlled substance test, allowing a driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle before receiving a 

negative drug test, and conducting interstate operations without operating authority. A fine of $2,200 was 

assessed for these violations. 

• Over the course of 2007, the company corrected previous errors and received a “satisfactory” 

compliance review in September 2007. 

• FMCSA ordered the old company out of service in February 2008 for failing to pay fines. 

• In October 2007, the new company was formed. 

• The new company was active as of May 2009. 

10 Texas • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same business address, two of the same 

drivers, and two of the same vehicles as the “old company” carrier. 

• The old company has a compliance review in September 2006 and was cited for eight safety violations. 

FMCSA gave the old company a conditional safety rating. The violations included failure to implement a 

controlled substances testing program. 

• The old company received another compliance review in October 2007 and was cited for nineteen safety 

violations. The violations included using a driver before receiving a negative controlled substance test 

and failing to maintain inquiries into the driver’s driving record in qualification files. A fine of $2,200 was 

assessed. 

• In December 2007, old company was ordered out of service and ruled unfit because it failed to improve 

its safety rating. 

• The owner of the old company stated that the company went out of business after his bus caught on fire. 

The owner also stated that his daughter is the one who owns the new company and that he works as her 

driver. The owner also stated that the new company is currently under a repayment schedule to pay fines 

owed to DOT. 

• The new company was active as of May 2009. 

Source: GAO. 

The following narratives provide detailed information on three of the more 

egregious cases we examined. 

Page 10 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

Case 1: The owner of a Houston motor coach company registered a new 

carrier with the same phone number, fax number, and cell phone number 

as the old one. The new company started in March 2007, 8 months before 

FMCSA ordered the old company out of service. The two companies 

appear to have operated simultaneously for a period of time. Six days after 

the new company was formed, a motor coach carrying 16 passengers 

operated by the old company was stopped and inspected on the United 

States–Mexico border at Laredo, Texas. The old company was charged 

with five violations, including “Operating without required operating 

authority.” The old company owes $2,000 in fines. Our investigators 

contacted one of the owner’s daughters. She stated that her mother was 

arrested for possessing drugs when she crossed the border from Mexico 

into the United States, and that her mother subsequently opened another 

bus company using another daughter’s name. The daughter said she was 

not involved with the bus company. In 2008, the new carrier’s new entrant 

registration was revoked and the owner was convicted of cocaine 

possession. 

Case 2: The owner of a New York motor coach company located at a 

church registered a new carrier using the same fax number, driver, and 

vehicle as the old one. FMCSA conducted a compliance review for the old 

company on May 30, 2007. Five safety violations were identified, including 

one “Acute” violation for “Failure to implement an alcohol and/or 

controlled substances testing program.” The old company, which was 

ordered out of service in October 2007 for failing to pay a fine, still has 

$2,000 in outstanding fines as of May 2009. On August 9, 2007, 

approximately 2 months prior to FMCSA ordering the old company out of 

service, a new carrier was established with the same company officer 

name and fax number as the old carrier. The location of the old carrier 

was a school, which was associated with (and located next door to) the 

church. The owner of the new company claimed that the old company 

belonged to his father, not him, and that it was a “completely different 

business from his own.” FMCSA records clearly show that this is not the 

case. The new owner is listed as “Vice President” of the old company, and 

“President” of the new company. The owner of the new company is also 

cited as being present during the Compliance Review conducted on May 

30, 2007. The new company registered with FMCSA in August 2007 and 

FMCSA has not conducted a new-entrant safety audit of the new carrier as 

of July 2009, exceeding FMCSA’s internal goal of 9 months. 

Case 3: The owner of a Los Angeles motor coach company registered a 

new carrier using the same social security number, business name, phone 

number, fax number, and company officer as the old one. FMCSA 

Page 11 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

conducted a compliance review on the old company in December 2006, 

resulting in an “Unsatisfactory” safety rating. The review cited 11 safety 

violations, including one “Acute” violation for “Failure to implement an 

alcohol and/or controlled substances testing program” and four “Critical” 

violations for failure to maintain driver and vehicle records. Since the old 

company did not take the necessary steps to fix the violations within 45 

days, it was ordered out of service in February 2007. A month later a motor 

coach operated by the old company was inspected in Douglas, Arizona. 

The company was charged with operating a commercial motor vehicle 

after the effective date of an “unsatisfactory” rating and fined $5,620. 

The same owner started the new company in June 2008. FMCSA 

conducted a compliance review on the new carrier and gave it a 

“satisfactory” safety rating in October 2008. FMCSA officials stated that 

they were not aware of any affiliation with the previous company. Our 

investigators visited the place of business of the new carrier, which was 

being run out of a retail store. Although the old carrier was out of service, 

several brochures and business cards for the old carrier were displayed on 

the store’s counter, showing the same phone number as the new company. 

We attempted to contact the owner, but the business representative stated 

that the owner was currently in Mexico as the driver on a bus tour and 

could not be contacted. A week after our interview, unrelated to our 

investigation, FMCSA revoked the new company’s authority due to lack of 

insurance. 

Tools FMCSA Uses to 

Identify Reincarnated 

Carriers and Their 

Limitations 

Passenger Carrier Vetting 

Process 

Prior to the August 2008 crash in Sherman, Texas, FMCSA did not have a 

dedicated processe to identify and prevent motor coach carriers from 

reincarnating. At that time, an out-of-service carrier could easily apply 

online for a new DOT number and operating authority. In the application, 

the owner could include the same business name, address, phone 

number(s), and company officer(s) that already existed under the out-ofservice DOT carrier. FMCSA did not have a process to identify these 

situations, and, thus, FMCSA would have granted the new entrant 

operating authority upon submission of the appropriate registration data. 

Page 12 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

Subsequent to the Sherman crash, FMCSA established the Passenger 

Carrier Vetting Process (PCVP), which requires the review of each new 

application for the potential of being a reincarnation.11 Under this process, 

FMCSA executes a computer matching process to compare information 

contained in the motor coach carrier’s application to data of poorperforming motor coach carriers dating back to 2003. Specifically, it 

performs an exact match on the application with fields in nine categories 

across various FMCSA databases.12 This produces a list of suspect carriers 

and the number of matches in each category, which serve as indicators for 

further investigation. FMCSA officials stated that they have begun to 

enhance the computer-matching portion of the PCVP process. Specifically, 

the system will also be able to match fields that are close, but not 

necessarily exact matches of each other. For instance, “John P. Smith Jr.” 

would match “John Smith,” and “Maple Ln.” would match “Maple Lane.” 

This enhancement should improve its ability to detect those carriers 

attempting to disguise their prior registration. 

In addition to the computer matching, FMCSA Headquarters personnel 

receive and review each new carrier application for completeness and 

accuracy. It reviews the application for any red flags or evidence the 

company is a potentially unsafe reincarnated motor coach carrier. For 

example, the FMCSA staff check secretaries of state databases for the 

articles of incorporation to identify undisclosed owners. If the computermatching process or FMCSA Division Office review identifies any 

suspected motor coach carriers attempting to reincarnate, FMCSA sends a 

Verification Inquiry letter to the applicant requesting clarification. If the 

carrier does not respond to the Verification Inquiry Letter within 20 days, 

the application will be dismissed. If the response to the letter shows the 

applicant is attempting to reincarnate, FMCSA issues a Show Cause Order 

stating that the application for authority will be denied unless the carrier 

can present evidence to the contrary. If the application is not completed, 

FMCSA dismisses the application and thus no authority is given.13

 

11According to DOT officials, FMCSA began to use PCVP for screening applications of 

household goods carriers in April 2009. 

12The nine categories are authorities actions, compliance reviews, enforcement actions, 

accidents and violations, names, phone numbers, addresses, e-mails, and insurance 

information. 

13According to DOT officials, since the PCVP has been implemented, about 900 passenger 

carrier applications have been received. They also stated that over 100 applications have 

been dismissed or withdrawn and 1 was issued a show cause order. 

Page 13 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

After the carrier is approved to operate, FMCSA requires all new carriers, 

including motor coach carriers, to undergo a safety audit within 18 months 

of approval. During this review, FMCSA should identify whether the new 

motor coach company is a reincarnation of a prior carrier. Although we 

did not specifically evaluate the effectiveness of the new-entrant audit 

process, we found two cases where FMCSA did not identify new motor 

coach carriers as reincarnations of companies it had ordered out of 

service and after the PCVP went into effect. Because we did not evaluate 

the effectiveness of the new-entry safety audit and the PCVP, we do not 

know the extent to which reincarnated carriers are still able to avoid 

FMCSA detection when registering to operate with the agency. 

Performance and 

Registration Information 

Systems Management 

(PRISM) 

GAO recently reported14 that PRISM provides up-to-date information on 

the safety status of the carrier responsible for the safety of a commercial 

vehicle prior to issuing or renewing vehicle registrations. PRISM generates 

a daily list of vehicles registered in the state that are associated with 

carriers that have just been ordered out of service by FMCSA. It is a tool 

that can be used by state personnel. PRISM’s innovation is that it is 

designed to associate vehicle identification numbers with out-of-service 

carriers to prevent the carrier from registering or reregistering its vehicles. 

Although PRISM is a potential deterrent to a carrier wishing to 

reincarnate, only 25 states have implemented the system to the extent that 

they can automatically identify out-of-service carriers and then deny, 

suspend, or revoke their vehicle registrations.15 Another limitation to 

PRISM’s effectiveness is that it only includes vehicles that register under a 

protocol known as the International Registration Plan (IRP)16—which 

 

14GAO-09-495. 

15According to FMCSA officials, in addition to the 25 states, 4 other states suspend and 

revoke vehicle registrations for out-of-service carriers using PRISM; however, they do so 

on a case-by-case basis when requested by FMCSA and do not have the capability to check 

the safety status at the time vehicle registration renewals are requested in order to deny 

them. These 4 states also do not report any suspension or revocation information to 

FMCSA. Additionally, there are 2 other states that deny, suspend, and revoke vehicle 

registrations of out-of-service carriers, but these states do so when requested by FMCSA, 

not through the regular structure of the PRISM program. As such, we did not include these 

6 states in our count. 

16IRP is used to register commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of over 

26,000 pounds that travel between two or more states or Canadian provinces. The protocol 

is followed to ensure an equitable distribution of registration fees, which is based on 

vehicle miles traveled in each state or Canadian province. All states (except Alaska and 

Hawaii) are members of IRP. 

Page 14 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

pertains only to carriers involved in interstate commerce. Charter buses 

are exempt from IRP (interstate) registration and thus not subject to 

PRISM.17 Furthermore, vehicles are not checked at registration since 

companies are not required to supply this information on their application 

to FMCSA. 

Legal Impediments to the 

Denial or Revocation of 

Reincarnated Carriers’ 

Operating Authority 

FMCSA’s duty and authority to deny operating authority registration to 

persons not meeting statutory requirements is provided by statute.18 A 

person applying for registration must demonstrate that he or she is willing 

and able to comply with the safety regulations, other applicable 

regulations of the Secretary, and the safety fitness requirements.19

Complexities regarding the application of State laws on corporate 

successorship may, in certain instances, affect the agency’s ability to deny 

operating authority to or pursue enforcement against unsafe reincarnated 

motor carriers under these statutory provisions. The complexities include 

the legal standard that must be met to hold a newly formed corporation 

liable for civil penalties assessed against its corporate predecessor. 

The facts necessary to satisfy the legal standard—whether under federal 

or State law—require documentation outside the normal compliance 

review processes. FMCSA uses a detailed Field Worksheet which lists 

types of evidence that would be needed, including company contact 

information, documentation on management and administrative 

personnel, business assets, tax records, insurance, payroll, drivers, 

vehicles, customer lists, advertising and promotional materials, corporate 

charters, and information on the corporate acquisition or merger at issue. 

This labor intensive investigative process is not undertaken unless strong 

preliminary evidence indicates that the new company is a reincarnation of 

a former motor carrier against which enforcement was taken and that the 

reincarnation was for the purpose of evading enforcement action or 

violation history of the predecessor company. 

 

17Charter buses provide service to groups traveling together to a specified location or for a 

particular itinerary. 

18See 49 U.S.C. § 13902. 

19The safety fitness requirements are provided in 49 U.SC. 31144. Additional authority to 

suspend, amend or revoke registration is provided in a separate statutory provision. See 49 

U.S.C. 13905. 

Page 15 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

In order to make it easier for FMCSA to place a reincarnated carrier out of 

service, the Highways and Transit Subcommittee of the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

approved legislation on June 24, 2009, that would impose a uniform federal 

standard and would authorize FMCSA to deny or revoke operating 

authority from a carrier who failed to disclose a relationship with a prior 

carrier. The legislation would also authorize FMCSA, in certain cases, to 

impose civil penalties against a reincarnated motor carrier that were 

originally imposed against a related motor carrier. 

We briefed U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) officials on the 

results of our investigation. They agreed that reincarnation of motor coach 

carriers is an important concern but stated that there are legitimate 

reasons for motor coach carriers to transfer ownership or reincorporate, 

or both, such as divorce, death, relocation, or new business opportunities. 

DOT officials stated that they established the PCVP to identify and attempt 

to prevent reincarnated carriers from receiving approval for operating 

authority. DOT officials stated that the PCVP is also used for household 

goods carriers and that they hope to use the process for other types of 

carriers if they obtain the resources to support this process. However, 

DOT officials stated that even if DOT has identified a carrier as a 

reincarnation, DOT must still prove that the new carrier is the corporate 

successor to the old carrier in order to deny or revoke the operating 

authority of the new carrier. DOT officials stated that this standard differs 

between states and that certain states require a very high standard of 

proof. As such, this determination is labor-intensive and requires 

documentation outside the normal compliance review process. DOT 

officials also provided technical comments to the report, which we 

addressed, as appropriate. 

Corrective Action 

Briefing 

As agreed with your office, unless you announce the contents of this 

report earlier, we will not distribute it until 3 days after its issue date. At 

that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of 

Transportation and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-6722 or kutzg@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

Page 16 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
 

last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

Gregory D. Kutz 

report are listed in appendix IV. 

Managing Director 

Forensic Audits and Special Investigations 

Page 17 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To identify new entrants that were substantially related to motor carriers 

ordered out of service, we obtained and analyzed information from the 

following DOT databases: the Motor Carrier Management Information 

System (MCMIS), the Licensing & Insurance (L&I) system, and the 

Enforcement Management Information System (EMIS) as of December 

2008. We identified new motor coach1

 operators as those that had a New 

Entrant Program entry date of October 1, 2006, or later. We identified outof-service motor carriers as those with an active, nonrescinded out-ofservice order in place and who had been ordered off the road for reasons 

other than failure to make contact with DOT while in the New Entrant 

Program. We matched the new entrant carriers with those that were 

ordered out of service on the following key fields: company name, 

owner/officer name, address, phone number, cell phone number, fax 

number, vehicle identification number, and driver names. For the motor 

coach carriers identified, we interviewed, if possible, the owners to 

validate whether the company had reincarnated and, if possible, determine 

the reason for the reincarnation. 

Our analysis understates the actual number of reincarnated carriers 

because the matching scheme used cannot detect even minor changes in 

spelling, addresses, or owner names. In addition, the number is 

understated because FMCSA only provided us data on vehicles and drivers 

when an accident or inspection took place, and thus the provided FMCSA 

data does not include the entire population of vehicles or drivers for either 

new entrants or out-of-service carriers. Our analysis also could not identify 

all reincarnated carriers where the owners purposely provided FMCSA 

bogus or deceptive information on the application (e.g., ownership) to 

hide the reincarnation from FMCSA. 

To determine the tools FMCSA uses to identify reincarnated carriers, we 

interviewed FMSCA officials on the process that the agency uses to 

attempt to identify potentially reincarnating carriers. We also obtained and 

examined policies and other FMCSA documentation to obtain an 

understanding of the design of its motor carrier enrollment process. We 

did not perform any tests of the controls and therefore cannot make 

conclusions on its effectiveness. 

 

1

We used the definition of a motor coach carrier provided to us by FMCSA. Motor coach 

carriers are those carriers in the Licensing & Insurance (L&I) database that have “active” 

passenger authority and $5 million in insurance, or have an “active” Motor Carrier 

Management Information System (MCMIS) status and are listed as Private Motor Carriers 

of Passengers. 

Page 18 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To determine the reliability of DOT’s databases, we reviewed the system 

documentation and performed testing on the validity of the data. We 

performed electronic testing of the data including verifying the 

completeness of the carrier data against numbers published by DOT. We 

discussed the sources of the different data types with DOT officials and 

discussed their ongoing quality-control initiatives. Based on our review of 

agency documents and our own testing, we concluded that the data 

elements used for this report were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

Data Reliability 

We conducted the work for this investigation from November 2008 

through July 2009 in accordance with quality standards for investigations 

as set forth by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency. 

Page 19 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
Appendix II: Reincarnated Motor Coach 

Carriers 

Page 20 GAO-09-924 

In the body of the report, we provide detailed information on 10 

reincarnated carriers. Table 2 below provides detailed information on the 

other 10 motor coach carriers that we investigated and determined were 

potential reincarnations. The cases were primarily identified by two or 

more exact matches of FMCSA data for new entrants and for out-ofservice carriers in the following categories: company name, owner/officer 

name, address, phone number, cell phone number, fax number, vehicle 

identification number, and driver names. 

Table 2: Summary Information on Potentially Reincarnated Motor Coach Carriers 

Case State Details 

11 California • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same corporate name and address as 

the “old company” carrier. The president of the new company had the same name as the owner of 

the old company, except for the omission of a first and last name. 

• The old company received was inspected in April 2006 and was cited for operating a commercial 

motor vehicle without a driver’s license. 

• FMCSA ordered the old company to cease interstate operations in August 2006 for failure to pay a 

fine. 

• The old company was removed from the New Entrant program in May 2007 for failure to appear for 

a scheduled safety audit. 

• The new company started in August 2008. 

• The new company had a compliance review in May 2009 and was cited for nineteen safety 

violations. The violations included using a driver before receiving a negative controlled substance 

test, failing to implement a random controlled substance and alcohol testing program, and 

conducting operations without operating authority. A fine of $1,980 was assessed. 

• As of July 2009, the new company does not have operating authority. 

12 Texas • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same company name, three of the 

same drivers, and one of the same vehicles as the “old company” carrier. In addition, the addresses 

of the companies indicated that they were next door to each other. 

• FMCSA conducted a compliance review of the old company in September 2006 and cited four 

safety violations, including one acute violation. The violations included failing to implement a random 

controlled substance and alcohol testing program. A fine of $2,000 was assessed. 

• In February 2007, FMCSA ordered the old company to cease operations for failure to pay the above 

fine. 

• The new company began in January 2008, but it is currently inactive. 

Appendix II: Reincarnated Motor Coach 

Carriers 

 Motor Carrier Safety
Appendix II: Reincarnated Motor Coach 

Carriers 

Case State Details 

13 Texas • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the two of the same drivers and three of 

the same vehicles as the “old company” carrier. The addresses were identical except for “East” 

being changed to “E” in the street name. The company officer names for both the old and the new 

company shared the same last name. 

• Inspectors examined a bus operated by the old company in October 2006 as it prepared to ferry 

passengers from Mexico to the US and determined its condition was likely to cause an accident or a 

breakdown of the vehicle. The company was subsequently fined $850. 

• FMCSA revoked the old company’s operating authority in January 2007. 

• Two months later, in March 2007, the old company was discovered illegally ferrying 33 passengers 

from Mexico into the US. FMCSA subsequently fined the firm $2,380. The same month inspectors 

caught the old company, the new one was opened. 

• FMCSA ordered the old company to cease all operations in September 2007 for failure to pay the 

above fines. 

• The new company had a compliance review done in September 2008 and was cited for seven 

violations of carrier safety rules, including failure to implement a random controlled substance and 

alcohol testing program. A fine of $2,000 was assessed. 

• The new company was ordered out-of-service in June 2009 for failing to pay the above fine. 

14 Arizona • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same mailing address and telephone 

number as the “old company” carrier. The company officer names are identical, except for the 

omission of the middle initial. The company names are almost the same. Following the name, 

“Tours” was replaced with “and associates.” 

• The old company had a compliance review in October 2006 and was cited for ten safety violations. 

The violations included failing to maintain proper proof of financial responsibility and operating a forhire carrier service without proper operating authorities. A fine of $3,260 was assessed. 

• The old company had another compliance review in January 2007 and was cited for five safety 

violations. The violations including failing to maintain driver qualification files for each driver 

employed. A fine of $2,000 was assessed. 

• The old company was placed out-of-service for failure to pay fines in April 2007. 

• In June 2007, an enforcement action was taken against the old company for conducting interstate 

operations while being subject to an out-of-service order. A fine of $5,520 was assessed. 

• The new company started in September 2007. 

• The new company was put out of service in March 2008 after being rejected from the New Entrant 

Program due to no contact. 

• The new company is currently inactive as of May 2009. 

15 New York • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same address and company officer 

name as the “old company” carrier. 

• FMCSA placed the old company out of service after being revoked from the New Entrant Program 

due to a no-show safety audit. 

• The new company left the New Entrant Program due to inactivation. 

• The new company is currently inactive. 

Page 21 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
Appendix II: Reincarnated Motor Coach 

Carriers 

Case State Details 

16 Washington • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same phone number as the “old 

company” carrier. The addresses were identical except “N First ST” was changed to “North 1ST” in 

the street name. 

• The old company had a compliance review conducted in November 2004 that resulted in an 

“Unsatisfactory” rating. Sixteen safety violations were identified, including five critical violations for 

improper controlled substance testing procedures and using a driver before receiving a negative 

controlled substances test. 

• A fine of $1,990 was assessed as a result of these violations. In April 2005, the carrier was placed 

out of service for failure to pay the fine. 

• When the carrier was ordered out of service, FMCSA staff requested that the carrier’s file be flagged 

“to prevent possible reinstatement until full payment of their civil penalty is received.” 

• The new company started the New Entrant program in December 2006 and operated for five months 

until leaving the program because they had become inactive. 

17 Georgia • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same phone number as the “old 

company” carrier. One of the company officer names is identical, except for the addition of the suffix 

“JR”. The addresses were identical except “RD” was changed to “ROAD” in the street name. 

• The old company had a compliance review done in November 2006 and was cited for eight safety 

violations. The violations included failing to implement a random controlled substances and alcohol 

testing program. A fine of $2,000 was assessed. 

• The old company was subject to an out of service order in July 2007 for failure to pay the above fine.

• The new company started the same month the old one was put out of service, but it was removed 

from the New Entrant Program in November 2007 due to no contact. 

• The new company is currently inactive. 

18 California • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same phone number and fax number 

as the “old company” carrier. 

• The owner of the old company told our investigators that she sold the company to one of her drivers. 

This driver is now listed as the owner of the new company. 

• In addition, the owner of the old company now works as an assistant to the owner of the new 

company, her former driver. 

• The old company received a compliance review in December 2006 and was cited for thirteen safety 

violations. The violations include one acute violation for failing to implement a random controlled 

substance and alcohol testing program. A fine of $2,000 was assessed. 

• The old company was placed out of service by FMCSA in May 2007 for failure to pay the above fine.

• The new company started in July 2008 and received a “satisfactory” compliance review in October 

2008. 

• The new company was active as of June 2009. 

19 California • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had five of the same drivers and six of the 

same vehicles as the “old company” carrier. 

• From June 2000 to June 2008, FMCSA cited the old company for seventy-eight safety violations. It 

was fined $1,220 for allowing a driver to operate a commercial vehicle without a valid federal license 

or permit. 

• The old company was ordered out of service in January 2008. 

• The owner of the new company did not respond to repeated phone calls by our investigators. 

• The new company had a “Conditional” safety rating in June 2008. 

• The new company is currently inactive. 

Page 22 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
Appendix II: Reincarnated Motor Coach 

Carriers 

Case State Details 

20 North Carolina • FMCSA data indicate that the “new company” carrier had the same phone number as the “old 

company” carrier. The addresses also were identical except that “LANE” was changed to “LN” in the 

street name. 

• The old company was reincarnated from a carrier that was ordered out of service in 2003. 

• The old company underwent a compliance review in August 2006 and received an unsatisfactory 

safety rating. 

• The old company received two fines totaling $19,500. The fines were not paid. 

• The new company had a “Conditional” safety rating in December 2007 and was placed out-ofservice in April 2008. 

Source: GAO. 

Page 23 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
Appendix III: Summary of Reincarnated Appendix III: Summary of Reincarnated Motor Coach Carriers 

Motor Coach Carriers 

As stated earlier, we identified 20 new entrants that were substantially 

related to motor carriers ordered out of service. We identified these new 

entrant carriers by matching them with those that were ordered out of 

service on the following key fields: company name, owner/officer name, 

address, phone number, cell phone number, fax number, vehicle 

identification number, and driver names. Table 3 below provides the fields 

that were matched between the new entrant and the carrier that was 

ordered out of service. 

Table 3: Match Results on Key Identifying Fields for Potentially Reincarnated Carriers 

Case SSN / EIN Company name Officer names Address Phones Fax Cell Drivers Vehicles 

1 X X X X 

2 X X X X 

3 X X X X 

4 X X X X X X 

5 X X X X X X 

6 X X X X X X 

7 X X X X 

8 X X 

9 X X X X X 

10 X X X 

11 X X X 

12 X X X X X 

13 X X X 

14 X X X X 

15 X X 

16 X X 

17 X X X 

18 X X 

19 X X 

20 X X 

Source: GAO. 

Note: “X” indicates the data elements that matched. 

Page 24 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

Acknowledgments 

Gregory D. Kutz, (202) 512-6722 or kutzg@gao.gov

GAO staff who made major contributions to this report include Matthew 

Valenta, Assistant Director; John Ahern; Donald Brown; John Cooney; 

Paul Desaulniers; Eric Eskew; Timothy Hurley; Steve Martin; Vicki 

McClure; Sandra Moore; Andrew O’Connell; Anthony Paras; Philip Reiff; 

and Ramon Rodriguez. 

Page 25 GAO-09-924 Motor Carrier Safety

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(192306) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper