Constitution Gets in Way of Full Inspection
...yet somehow, we're not overrun with dangerous
situations.
The Government Accounting Office has just released a report,
prepared for Congressman William Lipinski (below-right), that
details some of the practices, hurdles, and dangers of our current
freight-transportation regulation. While the system obviously works
pretty well, and while amost all breaches turn out to be
careless-shipper related, there is a finite but nagging problem of
how to deal with those who would intentionally harm this branch of
our infrastructure.
As the GAO says, "Each day, businesses,
individuals, and government agencies package and ship dangerous
goods on ships, trains, trucks, and airplanes. Dangerous goods are
by definition chemical, including infectious, substances (or
anything containing such substances) that pose a threat to public
safety or the environment during transportation. When these goods
are properly packaged, labeled, and stowed onboard, they can be
transported safely, but when they are not, they can pose
significant threats to people and property. Improper, or
'undeclared,' shipments of dangerous goods are particularly
dangerous in air transport because there is little room for error
or time to take corrective action if a problem occurs in
flight—a lesson learned tragically in 1996 when a ValuJet
plane crashed in Florida after oxygen generators caught fire in the
plane’s cargo compartment."
After a lengthy and careful examination, the agency realized
that, "Little is known about the nature and frequency of undeclared
shipments of dangerous goods." There are several reasons for this.
The largest is that, most of the time, one can assume that nothing
goes wrong, when such shipments are made. That is, of course, the
generally-intended scenario, even by sloppy or uninformed
shippers.
Another reason things go smoothly most of the time is that,
"Private industry does business primarily with 'known shippers.'"
That case is self-explanatory.
However, there is always a tradeoff between
security and liberty; and the Constitution was designed from the
start to safeguard liberty. Those whose job it has become to
safeguard everyone find that limits to their powers can get in the
way of their task. The report notes, "Statistically valid,
generalizable data are not available and would be difficult to
obtain, not only because more inspections would entail costly
delays for carriers but also because Constitutional protections
limit DOT’s and the Postal Service’s inspection
authority."
A third factor that hinders compliance with dangerous-goods
shipping rules comes from a perceived inconstistency in the FAA's
own enforcement: "FAA’s enforcement guidance calls for
documenting the reasons for any changes in the fines its inspectors
initially propose. GAO’s review of enforcement case files
indicates that the reasons for changes were not always documented.
FAA attributes some changes to the results of penalty negotiations.
Because FAA is not always following its guidance, it cannot ensure
that its fines are appropriate or consistent."
The
GAO doesn't make recommendations based on constitutionality. It
bases its recommendations on practicality; so when it proposes
"legislative changes," it is making the assumption that Congress
will honor the foundational document of our nation: "GAO recommends
that DOT improve its enforcement approach by (1) determining
whether the unique characteristics of air transport warrant the
development of a legislative proposal that would enhance
DOT’s authority to inspect packages shipped by air and (2)
requiring FAA to strengthen its policy on documenting the reasons
for changes to the amounts of the recommended fines."
It's a problem that will have to be addressed. We'll find out if
liberty wins...
ANN's Daily Aero-Term (11.29.25): Waypoint
See All