FMCSA, in Its Own Words

In 2010, the Government Accountability Office published GAO-10-38, a comprehensive review of FMCSA's household goods consumer protection program. GAO interviewed FMCSA headquarters officials, field division administrators, household goods enforcement specialists, and DOT leadership.

What they said, on the record, to Congress's independent auditors, explains everything that has happened since.

'Many of FMCSA's headquarters officials told us that while the agency was obligated to provide oversight of the household goods moving industry, safety is the agency's priority, not consumer protection, giving the impression that they viewed their latter responsibilities as less of a priority.'

(GAO-10-38, page 29)

'According to a senior FMCSA official, even if the agency were provided with additional resources, the resources would be used to support its safety mission, not household goods consumer protection activities.'

(GAO-10-38, page 31)

This is an agency official telling Congress's auditors that more money would not help, because the agency would spend it on something else. The problem is not funding. It is institutional will.

'One of those officials noted that even though some draft household goods regulations were languishing, given the backlog of rulemaking for safety efforts, finalizing household goods regulations would be secondary to finalizing safety-related rules.'

(GAO-10-38, page 30)

Sixteen years later: the proficiency exam Congress required in 2012 does not exist. Section 14704 implementing rules have not been written in 31 years. The HHG Working Group's 19 recommendations (2017) are mostly unimplemented. The regulations are still languishing. They were never going to be prioritized.

'In our interviews with field staff who carry out FMCSA's household goods enforcement activities, both division administrators and the household goods specialists we interviewed said that although FMCSA was tasked with enforcing interstate household goods regulations, they viewed its primary responsibility as ensuring commercial vehicle safety and their priority in focusing their enforcement resources was safety, not consumer protection.'

(GAO-10-38, page 30)

'Some field staff commented that FMCSA headquarters officials had not provided them with sufficient guidance and direction to pursue household goods enforcement efforts, and those field staff observed reluctance on the part of the agency to focus on interstate household goods consumer protection efforts.'

(GAO-10-38, page 30)

The field investigators who actually handle consumer complaints told GAO that headquarters does not support their work. The reluctance is not at the field level. It is institutional.

'FMCSA's primary mission is safety, to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses, a valid and important mission that carries out the will of Congress. Most of the agency's staff, initiatives, programs, and training revolve around meeting the agency's safety mission, with the agency spending about 92 percent of its budgetary resources on reducing crashes resulting in injuries and fatalities.'

(GAO-10-38, page 30-31)

92% of FMCSA's budget goes to safety. Consumer protection is not one of the agency's five strategic goals (Safety, Productivity, Security, Global Connectivity, Organizational Excellence). HHG consumer protection is an objective under 'Productivity,' listed alongside reducing traffic congestion.

'The only performance measure listed under this goal, according to the fiscal year 2010 budget, the only performance measure is number of total crashes involving large trucks and buses per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, which is indirectly related to its household goods responsibilities.'

(GAO-10-38, page 31-32)

'OST officials also told us that when DOT was considering where to put responsibility for its consumer protection efforts involving the aviation industry, it considered placing oversight with the Federal Aviation Administration. However, because FAA handles safety regulation and operates in support of a safety mission, DOT officials realized that there was the potential for consumer protection efforts to be lost in FAA's safety mission, so they created OAEP within OST.'

(GAO-10-38, page 34)

DOT officials predicted exactly what would happen if consumer protection was placed inside a safety agency. They prevented it for aviation. They did not prevent it for moving.

These statements were made in 2009 and 2010. They were published by GAO in January 2010. They were submitted to Congress.

In the 16 years since:

FMCSA's budget allocation to consumer protection has not materially changed. Consumer protection is still not a strategic goal. The proficiency exam, the hostage load remedy, the Section 14704 rules, the broker disclosure regulations, all remain unimplemented. FMCSA cancelled its hostage load compensation policy in 2020. The agency has closed zero broker enforcement cases since September 2024. The Chief of Commercial Enforcement and the Lead HHG Investigator have left the agency.

The agency told Congress's auditors, in its own words, that it does not prioritize consumer protection, would not use additional resources for it, and views its HHG responsibilities as secondary to its safety mission. Sixteen years of outcomes confirm that these were not off-the-cuff remarks. They were statements of institutional policy.