Comment Letter ATA

American Trucking Associations
950 N. Glebe Road, Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22203
Driving Trucking’s Success

American Bus Association

700 13th Street NW, Suite 575, Washington, DC 20005

August 14, 2009

Via email to [email protected]
Ms. Ginger LeMay
PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology
Transportation Security Administration
601 South 12th Street
Arlington, VA 20598-6011

Re:

OMB Control Number: 1652-0036: “Intent to Request Renewal from OMB of One
Current Public Collection of Information: Highway Corporate Security Review”

The American Trucking Associations (ATA)1 and the American Bus Association
(ABA) submit these comments in response to the Transportation Security Administration’s
Intent to Request Renewal from the Office of Management and Budget of One Current
Public Collection of Information: Highway Corporate Security Review.2 ATA previously
commented on the original information collection notice, suggesting that the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) better coordinate its Corporate Security
Review (CSR) program with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA)
Security Contact Review (SCR) inspections.3 Our organizations are disappointed that the
recommendations, which would have both eliminated redundancies and saved taxpayer
funds, were largely ignored. TSA now is presenting its information collection request to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) unchanged.
We recommend that TSA reconsider its submission to OMB and work to ease the
financial and administrative burdens on the taxpayer by adopting ATA’s earlier
suggestions:

1

ATA is a federation of motor carriers, state trucking associations, and national trucking
conferences that promotes and protects the interests of the trucking industry. Directly, and through its
affiliated organizations, ATA represents more than 37,000 motor carriers of every size, type, and class in the
U.S., Canada and Mexico.
2
See 74 Federal Register 28264-5 (June 15, 2009).
3
See 74 Federal Register 9620 (March 5, 2009) for original Information Collection Notice. A copy
of ATA’s comments on that request is available online at
http://www.truckline.com/AdvIssues/Security/Documents/ATA%20CSR%20Comments%20FINAL.pdf.

Comments of the American Trucking Associations and American Bus Association
OMB Control Number: 1652-0036
Page 2 of 4
•
•

•

TSA should review the data already collected through FMCSA‘s SCR and other
FMCSA programs rather than replicate aspects of other federal security audit
programs;
TSA should leverage the resources identified in its October 2008 Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with FMCSA and build upon its previous
collaboration in the Missouri CSR Pilot project to appropriately incorporate
security measures from FMCSA’s SCR and other FMCSA-administered review
programs; and
If TSA believes that the SCR is not effective in certifying that trucking
companies have established compliant security programs, then TSA should
advise FMCSA as to the additional specific information that FMCSA needs to
collect in the SCR process.

In addition to the justification offered in our earlier set of comments, we offer two
further reasons that TSA should partner with FMCSA rather than compete with its sister
agency. These matters go to the very the purpose underlying the OMB review of
information collections, namely that the collection is unnecessary and undermines quality
and accuracy of federal programs. The two further reasons are as follow:
A Separate Information Collection is Unnecessary
In their Notice, TSA states that they must continue to administer the CSR as a stand
alone program in order to support their security mission. Specifically, TSA believes “the
relationships these face-to-face contacts foster are critical to the Federal Government’s
ability to reach out to the surface transportation stakeholders affected by the CSRs.”4
Despite this assertion, TSA has moved to train State police to perform the CSRs. If TSA
conducts CSRs through State police, the agency will be subcontracting out any
relationships with stakeholders before they can be formed, much less maintained.
Secondly, these State police inspectors are the same personnel who administer the
FMCSA’s SCR inspections. Thus, TSA is asking the same personnel to inspect the same
carriers for virtually the same criteria as a pre-existing FMCSA information collection.
The notice also states that TSA intends to conduct 400 CSRs yearly. According to
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) 2008-2009
Registration Data, just under 40,000 companies are registered to transport hazardous
materials by highway.5 Under this scenario, TSA will need 100 years to perform a CSR
for every hazardous materials hauler registered with PHMSA, making return visits to
companies that volunteer for CSRs roughly once a century. The frequency and manner in
which CSRs are conducted is inadequate for TSA’s stated intention of building
relationships.

4

74 Federal Register 28265 (June 15, 2009).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Registration Data for 2008-2009.
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.ebdc7a8a7e39f2e55cf2031050248a0c/?vgnextoid=
d37d8490d52dc110VgnVCM1000009ed07898RCRD&vgnextchannel=218a2b91769cc110VgnVCM100000
9ed07898RCRD&vgnextfmt=print.
5

Comments of the American Trucking Associations and American Bus Association
OMB Control Number: 1652-0036
Page 3 of 4
We also note that TSA has mischaracterized the burden associated with this
information collection. The Federal Register notice states that each CSR takes two to
three hours to complete and that the total annual cost to respondents is zero.6 Putting aside
the actual time that each visit takes (which can easily exceed three hours), TSA
representatives must be escorted by one or more employees while on-site and typically
interview several additional employees during their visit. The costs associated with these
activities are not zero. TSA must properly include the respondent’s employees’ costs in
the cost burden associated with the CSRs.

Enforcement
TSA’s insistence that the same inspectors administer different reviews under
multiple programs has already created confusion on the enforcement front. One ATA
member carrier reported that an inspector attempted to cite the company for “violating”
TSA’s Voluntary Security Action Items (SAI), a series of countermeasures recommended
to motor carriers that undergo a CSR. When the company’s security officer protested that
the SAIs are not required by regulation, the inspector instead cited the company for failing
to follow their site security plan—even though the SAIs were not incorporated into said
plan. This is an example of TSA’s failure to provide adequate training on the goals and
scope of the program. When multiple programs are subcontracted to the same inspectors,
such errors will only proliferate. Combining the programs reduces opportunities for
confusion.

Conclusion
TSA and FMCSA are each inspecting motor carriers and each inspection program
has significant overlapping criteria. These overlaps are a waste of scarce government
resources and create additional administrative burdens for the regulated community. To
eliminate these redundancies and waste, TSA should work with FMCSA to broaden the
scope of the SCR program and should be privy to the data generated under the program.
TSA should also retain the authority to conduct follow-up visits where necessary, but TSA
should not be running a largely redundant inspection program. The areas of motor carrier
safety and security are inextricably linked and government efforts to encourage safety and
security improvements should be standardized to ensure maximum adoption. TSA has
already taken the first step by enlisting the State police that assist FMCSA in their
inspections. TSA simply needs to take the second step and work with FMCSA to align the
security requirements for the two programs. GAO has also suggested this approach,
stating:
By leveraging resources with FMCSA, TSA may be able to address other
priorities, such as conducting additional vulnerability assessments,

6

Id. at 28265/1.

Comments of the American Trucking Associations and American Bus Association
OMB Control Number: 1652-0036
Page 4 of 4
improving security mitigation programs beyond the hazardous materials
sector, and addressing highway infrastructure protection.7
TSA should implement these suggested changes. By working with FMCSA, the
State police through the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and the Highway Motor
Carrier Sector Coordinating Council, a truly robust and effective program can be
implemented.
Thank you for considering our concerns on this issue. Should you have any
questions related to these issues, please contact ATA’s Boyd Stephenson at 703-838-7982
or [email protected] or ABA’s Norman Littler at 202-842-1645 or
[email protected].
Respectfully submitted,

Boyd Stephenson
Manager
Security and Cross Border Operations
American Trucking Associations

cc:

Clyde J. Hart, Jr.
Senior Vice President
Government Affairs
American Bus Association

Rose McMurray
Acting Administrator
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Kevin Neyland
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Acting Administrator
Office of Management and Budget
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

7

U.S. General Accounting Office. Commercial Vehicle Safety: Risk-Based Approach Needed to Secure the
Commercial Vehicle Sector. 27 February 2009. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0985.pdf.