Of course, in principle, lying to the public is still morally wrong; however, there is a fundamental difference between lying to protect the interests of your company in a manner that allows your company to continue putting the public at risk and lying to protect the interests of your company in a manner that merely minimizes the potential future harm to your company arising from past mistakes, provided appropriate steps are implemented to correct the situation in the future. The best possible solution to the ethical dilemma presented would comprise the following components:

commitment from the company president to thoroughly investigate the allegations of the state public safety director.

A commitment from the company president to implement all the steps necessary to resolve the problems identified by the state public safety director.

A public statement that acknowledges the importance of working with the state public safety director's office to ensure the safety of all vehicles operated by your company.

A commitment from the company president to settle any civil suits arising from liability in connection with previous failures to ensure the safety of company vehicles if those failures resulted in financial and other types of harm to individuals involved in accidents with company vehicles.

The intent of these components is simply to rectify the situation to prevent any future harm caused by previous failures on the part of the company to maintain the safety of its vehicles and to compensate innocent victims of such company failures without causing unnecessary financial harm to the company. Misrepresenting the truth and taking no action to solve the problem would result in continued risk of harm to the public safety, health, and welfare.

On the other hand, it is not absolutely necessary to admit the truth of the problem to the extent the purpose of that non-admission is limited to minimizing damaging the reputation and future viability...

Conversely, it is not morally acceptable to misrepresent the truth to the extent the purpose of the denial is to avoid making the changes necessary to protect the public from potential harms caused by your company's failure to maintain necessary maintenance procedures. Provided you can emphasize your company president of the importance of improving maintenance procedures as necessary to provide adequate improvement to the condition of your company's truck fleet, you could satisfy your moral obligation to the general public while mitigating the potential harm to your company. If so, a statement such as the following might be the best possible solution to the problem:
At Acme Trucking Corporation, we are tremendously disappointed by the allegations levied against our company by the state public safety director. We believe that our maintenance procedures and standards are state of the art within the interstate trucking industry. We are confident that a full investigation of the matter will exonerate Acme of any wrongdoing in the unfortunate circumstances that precipitated the state public safety director's inquiry, but we remain absolutely committed to preserving the health, safety, and welfare of the public and we will fully cooperate in any and all investigations of our operations and procedures.

We have already confirmed to our satisfaction that the findings of the state public safety director are in error and that none of Acme's policies or procedures contributed in any way to the accident that triggered the state's inquiry, but we applaud and support the public safety director's persistence and vigilance. We have scheduled an immediate comprehensive review of all Acme maintenance and record-keeping practices and we have issued a formal directive to all Acme facilities to submit to a full safety audit designed to identify any and all necessary changes to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and to implement them irrespective of any costs to Acme."