Objective

To determine the extent of implementation of the five recommendations made in our initial audit report, Enforcement of Article 19-A of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (2018-S-7).

About the Program

In 1972, a tragic school bus and freight train collision near Congers, New York, that involved bus driver negligence prompted legislation to amend the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law. The amendment, Article 19-A: Special Requirements for Bus Drivers (Law), created qualification standards for bus drivers. The Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) is responsible for overseeing the Article 19-A Program (Program) and establishing and enforcing policies to support the Law’s requirements.

Every motor carrier, as defined in the Law, must enroll in the Program, comply with its requirements, and ensure that their bus drivers meet the Law’s qualification standards. These standards include, for example, passing a medical examination, practical and behind-the-wheel driving tests, and maintaining a safe driving record both on and off the job. Additionally, school bus drivers must undergo criminal background checks. Motor carriers are required to maintain records showing that each of their drivers has met these standards. As of September 2020, Department records showed 2,852 active motor carriers enrolled in the Program.

Our initial audit sought to determine if the Department was taking adequate steps to both identify motor carriers that must comply with the Law and enforce the Law’s requirements. We identified deficiencies in the Department’s policies and procedures that could result in motor carriers operating out of compliance with the Program’s requirements, with the associated risk that under- or unqualified drivers were operating vehicles and potentially jeopardizing safety. For example, the Department did not clarify certain regulatory terms, which caused confusion among staff in determining whether certain entities are subject to the Law or could receive an exemption. We also found that the Department didn’t consistently document the basis for entities’ exemptions or review past exemptions to determine if they were still appropriate. In addition, it did not use all readily available information to identify entities that may have been subject to, but were not enrolled in, the Program. We identified 311 entities that were not enrolled in the Program but appeared to be subject to its requirements. Finally, we found that the Department’s revised process for reviewing motor carrier compliance, which uses desk reviews with advance notice of the sample of driver files instead of the prior on-site review, introduced a risk that carriers could alter the records.

Key Findings

We found that the Department has implemented four of the five recommendations from our initial audit report, and has partially implemented one recommendation.

Key Recommendation

Officials are given 30 days after the issuance of the follow-up report to provide information on any actions that are planned to address the unresolved issue discussed in this report.