U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66–918 PDF 2011

HOW BEST TO IMPROVE BUS SAFETY 

ON OUR NATION’S HIGHWAYS 

(112–35) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 13, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Ferro, Hon. Anne S., Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ................................................................................................................... 8 

Gillan, Jacqueline S., Vice President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 8 

Palmer, Major David L., Texas Department of Public Safety, and Vice President, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance ......................................................... 8 

Pantuso, Peter, President and CEO, American Bus Association ......................... 8 

Parra, Victor S., President and CEO, United Motorcoach Association ............... 8 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Ferro, Hon. Anne S. ................................................................................................. 36 

Gillan, Jacqueline S. ................................................................................................ 57 

Palmer, Major David L. ........................................................................................... 94 

Pantuso, Peter .......................................................................................................... 100 

Parra, Victor S. ........................................................................................................ 109 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Responses to questions: 

Ferro, Hon. Anne S., Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ................................................................................................................ 49 

Palmer, Major David L., Texas Department of Public Safety, and Vice 

President, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance ............................................. 99 

Pantuso, Peter, President and CEO, American Bus Association ..................... 105 

Parra, Victor S., President and CEO, United Motorcoach Association ........... 122 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 66918.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 66918.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 66918.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 66918.004
(1) 

HOW BEST TO IMPROVE BUS SAFETY 

ON OUR NATION’S HIGHWAYS 

MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 2167, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Mr. MICA. Good afternoon. I would like to call this hearing of the 

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to order. Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘How Best to Improve Bus Safety on Our 

Nation’s Highways.’’ 

The order of business today will be opening statements by Members, and then we have a panel of witnesses assembled today that 

will testify about the subject at hand. The order of business to proceed is I will begin with my opening statement, we will yield to 

other Members, and then we will try to expedite hearing from our 

witnesses of which we will hear from all of them and then take 

questions afterwards. 

I am pleased to be with you this afternoon. And I will begin by 

trying to lay some groundwork with my opening statement. 

I welcome our witnesses and Members today. Thank you for coming back, too, I know the House isn’t in session until a little bit— 

well, it is in session but not voting until later tonight. And the reason for this hearing is actually, I think, very important. We will, 

in a few weeks, we hope to roll out legislation that dramatically reestablishes, sets new policy, for various modes of transportation. 

As some of you may know, we plan to roll out the new transportation legislation in two phases. Starting on Wednesday, we will 

have a rollout of a draft of a passenger rail reform bill. We are 

going to introduce a separate piece of legislation dealing with that 

particular provision. We do have some provisions that are rather 

dramatic and a change in the way things are currently conducted 

with our major passenger rail provider, and that is Amtrak, and we 

want a full opportunity for, again, a new direction in passenger rail 

to be fully aired and also included in a separate bill which we will 

see if we have adequate support in the House and Senate to move 

forward as part of the larger measure. 

The balance of the multimodal bill will be rolled out a few weeks 

afterwards. And we are doing it in a little bit different fashion. We 

started, as you know, hearing testimony from around the United 

States and started in Mr. Rahall’s district in Beckley, West Virginia. We went as far as the Pacific Ocean and probably two or 

2 

three dozen hearings around the country, here in Washington, to 

try to craft and assemble the best ideas for any reforms necessary 

or that people could provide the committee with. We ended up actually in this room, we had a little libation and pizza with Members and discussed some of the basic parameters for the legislation, 

and during the past few weeks, our staff have been working on incorporating provisions for both the passenger rail segment and also 

for the balance of the modes in a legislative vehicle. 

We, again, hope to have that rolled out soon. But as they complete that work, we wanted to make certain that we had the very 

best provisions possible for bus safety. 

Mr. DeFazio, I want to thank him; I want to thank Mr. Rahall 

and others for cooperating and pulling this hearing together. Before 

we conclude the provisions of that bill, Mr. DeFazio had done a 

hearings previously on passenger bus safety and I think it is absolutely vitally important that we have the latest, most up-to-date 

input from some of those involved with this matter before us as we 

conclude and finalize the drafting of provisions for our larger bill. 

This all has been highlighted, unfortunately, by some very tragic, 

dramatic accidents that have taken place with some of our buses, 

our passenger buses. We had a horrible accident on March of 2011 

on the New Jersey Turnpike, we had another horrendous accident 

in New York with 15 fatalities, injuries in these incidents. We have 

had, again, unfortunately, in North Carolina, another horrible accident in the Greensboro, North Carolina, area where four passengers were killed and 53 others injured. 

So, the purpose of the hearing is to look at our current laws, our 

regulations, and the administration, those provisions that we currently have in statute or in rules, and make certain that we have 

the very best measures in the bill that we are drafting. We have 

taken ideas from both sides of the aisle in our preliminary work, 

and hopefully we will have some additional input today because, 

again, one fatality is far too many. 

Now, let me say, too, as I conclude, that the industry overall does 

have a very excellent safety record. Bus operations transport between 750 million and 800 million passengers a year, and that we 

have very few fatalities per mile traveled and we have one of the 

greatest safety records, particularly among the well known and legacy bus passenger companies. Unfortunately, that is not the case 

with many of the other operators, and we don’t have an exact number, I will ask for the number of operators, but that troubles me 

too that we don’t have that data. How can we monitor if we do not 

have the exact data, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration we will hear from representatives at that agency, responsible 

for some of the Federal enforcement, administration of the laws, 

and also our States are vital players, and we need to make certain 

that they also have in place, again, the very best safety provisions 

so that any and all accidents can be prevented. It may be impossible, but it should be our goal. 

So, unfortunately, we are brought here by a series of bus tragedies that have captured the attention not only of Congress but the 

Nation, and we want to make certain on the eve of finalizing legislation that will deal with that subject that we have the best possible provisions. 

3 

I had noticed that even over the weekend, I am told that Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration has closed down a couple of 

operators, marginal at best, operators. I am glad to hear that, but 

when you have—and I understand that they were actually transporting people under the bus, I don’t know if it was in the luggage 

area or what, but that is not an acceptable means of operation. And 

if necessary, we will provide in law or, again, working with our 

State partners, whatever measures are necessary to make certain 

that people are transported on buses safely throughout the United 

States. 

So that is our goal. That is our reason for this hearing. I appreciate, again, our witnesses, and hopefully, we will come out of this 

hearing a little bit more knowledgeable and a little bit more prepared to finalize the important legislation we are about to craft and 

submit. 

I will say, too, as we go forward with this process, in closing, 

whether it is the passenger rail segment or the bill, not only do I 

want the Democrat minority Members to have a full opportunity 

for participation, but also other Members of Congress and the public and the industry and others who are affected by the law and 

any organizations that, again, support safety and good transportation for the United States of America. 

So we will have a full opportunity to participate on Wednesday. 

We will be web casting, I believe, at 11 o’clock and people can go 

to our Web site and participate in the rollout of a first section of 

the bill, and then in several weeks, the same procedure will be followed. We will also have a number you can call. You will have the 

ability as public or interested parties to also ask questions as we 

roll out these new provisions in law. 

So, again, we want full participation. And I am pleased that 

Members are able to be with us, again, on short notice and our witnesses. 

With that, I would like to yield to the ranking member of the 

subcommittee, Mr. DeFazio. And this is a full committee hearing. 

I thought it was important that we bring it to the full committee 

level. And I am so pleased that he would come back and, again, 

continue his hard work to make certain that bus passenger safety 

is a priority. Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for bringing 

this important issue forward. I think it is particularly timely before 

we move forward with authorization because clearly, some new authority is needed; and perhaps some mandates—dare I say that 

word here in a Republican Congress. But when we deregulated 

interstate commerce for buses, we had sort of an absurd level of 

regulation where they had to declare every route by section, by 

highway, by turn-off, they had to file all of their rates and different 

rates for different seats or whatever and different schedules. But 

the intention of deregulation was to bring about competition, not 

to kill people. And that is where a total deregulatory environment 

fails us. 

We do have the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

and since I last held hearings on this, I am pleased to see that they 

have stepped up the number of inspections and enforcement. But 

given—what we are told, and we will get into this in the hearing— 

4 

the level of new entrants, it seems impossible to track an everchanging group of characters. 

Only a very, very small percentage are those who would put people in the baggage compartment, have incompetent or exhausted 

drivers, drive buses with bald tires, failed brakes, causing fires and 

other problems. It is a very, very small minority in the industry. 

But the industry, those who are legitimate in the industry, both 

the associations and others, should draw together to work with us 

to figure out a way to get these people out and keep them out. Because when they kill people, people just associate it with the entire 

industry even though the industry itself is very, very safe. It is a 

few bad actors. 

And that is the key here, and that is what I hope comes out of 

this hearing, is we figure out a way to keep these people out, if 

they are in, to get them out, and to vigorously prosecute them 

when they have committed violations of the law. 

I think a number of our State partners have failed us in this. 

Some States just allow these gypsies or whatever you want to call 

them, Chinatown buses, these fly-by-night folks to present a certificate saying they have inspected their own buses and their buses 

are OK and the State says, oh, if you say your buses are OK, your 

buses are OK. Other States are more rigorous. I think we may 

need to set a higher bar here in authorization for the States. And 

we can have a carrot-stick approach, too. 

Many States have, I understand, and we have limited funds, 

have diverted all their money into truck inspection and safety. 

That is a problem too. So maybe we need to look at the levels of 

funding. And, of course, the proposed levels of funding under the 

Ryan budget would be a dramatic reduction in funding for the Federal Government and Federal pass-throughs to the States to enforce safety, which would mean more people would escape scrutiny 

that they should have so we can find them and put them out of 

business. 

And then there is this whole thing of morphing, which the agency seems to be dealing with or trying to deal with, but it seems like 

perhaps more authority is needed there where these people are 

morphing and, in this case, of this bad actor who killed people in 

Virginia, they morphed very quickly into another company and 

were continuing to operate. We have got to figure out a way to get 

at that so they can’t morph, they can’t continue to operate under 

any guise, the people who are responsible for these substandard operations and for killing people. That is the bottom line here. 

And I think it is something we would all have in common, and 

I would welcome the industry representatives as well as the safety 

representatives as well as the regulators to give us a vision on how 

we are going to get there. 

We are not going back to the ICC, we are not going to regulate 

every route, every fare, every thing, no one is proposing that. But 

how is it in a deregulated environment we do get the level of safety 

and security we want, and legitimate operators? So I welcome the 

testimony from the panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your excellent comments and again for 

your strong advocacy on behalf of bus safety, Mr. DeFazio. 

5 

Let me yield to one of my senior Members, the gentleman from 

North Carolina, Mr. Coble first. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I 

know of no issue that is more significantly important than promoting safety on our Nation’s highways, and that is the purpose of 

this hearing. I thank you all for being here. Mr. Chairman, I thank 

you and the ranking members for having scheduled it and I yield 

back. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And it is good to see you back. And you 

are looking pretty good. You have been fighting a little bit of that 

skin cancer and we are very pleased to see you. You looking fantastic this week. 

Mr. COBLE. I have not yet reached the threshold of Hollywood 

handsome, but I am working on it. 

Mr. MICA. Ready to go star in any show. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, you are recognized. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for holding this important hearing today. 

In this committee and for me, safety is a top priority, across all 

the modes of transportation we have to strive to make them safer 

because that is absolutely critical. 

First, I just want to say to those folks who have lost their loved 

ones and their families of those that have been injured, you have 

our deepest sympathy. But it is important to note that intercity 

motorcoach industry including schedule service and charter tour 

operations is an extremely safe mode of transportation. In total, 

our Nation has approximately 35,000 motorcoaches that provide 

over 750 million passenger trips annually with a safety record of 

.03 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled. That is according to 

the National Safety Council. It is the safest way for passengers to 

move around this country. So they have had a record that has been 

safe, we have certainly had some fatalities here recently. And we 

have got to make sure, as the ranking member said, to get those 

bad actors off the road. So there is room for us to improve. 

As I said, the recent accidents have highlighted the issues regarding enforcement. We have to make sure that the best trained 

drivers are out there transporting our citizens safely around the 

country. 

I am particularly interested in hearing from our witnesses regarding how we can keep unsafe or rogue bus operators off the Nation’s highways. May 31, 2011, a bus crashed near Fredericksburg, 

Virginia, killed 4 passengers and injured 53 others. Sky Express, 

the company that has been operating that bus, has had numerous 

safety violations. And, in fact, they were under an extension 

when—of their violations to conform to what the FMCSA had laid 

down for them. 

Again, they had that accident, that 10-day extension. But today 

they are operating under a different name. We have got to figure 

out a way to, as I said, keep those rogue operators, those people 

that continually violate or consistently violate safety standards, to 

make sure that they are off the highways. 

I appreciate the steps that Secretary LaHood and the Department of Transportation started in 2009 and in recent weeks have 

6 

built upon that to ensure that bus travel is as safe as possible, and 

we must evaluate the effectiveness of these steps as we go forward. 

We want to ensure that the U.S. DOT and FMCSA have the appropriate necessary authorities to ensure safety and look forward to 

the testimony from the FMCSA today. 

I also want to point out that our Nation’s motorcoach industry 

is largely a small business, family-owned industry, 95 percent of 

motorcoach companies operate fewer than 25 motorcoaches. And we 

must ensure that we take a balanced approach to this. We want 

to make sure the highest level of safety, we want to protect those 

people that are using the services by rooting out bad actors. But 

this is a small business, family-owned industry that we can’t take 

a broad brush and paint them all because they are committed to 

making—95 percent of them or more, committed to making sure 

that they are transporting passengers in a safe manner. So we 

have to focus on that and make sure that we do it in a way that 

is not going to hurt them in this already weak economy. 

I want to briefly mention the legislation that I proposed, H.R. 

1390, the Bus Uniform Standards and Enhanced Safety Act. The 

legislation focuses on increasing oversight and enforcement, ensuring one of the best, most well-trained able drivers transport passengers and improving motorcoach safety standards based on 

sound scientific research, testing and analysis, not on emotion. We 

have got to make sure when we are doing these things that it 

makes sense scientifically. The bottom line is that we must get the 

bad actors off the road. So I am looking forward to hearing testimony today for your ideas, and again, appreciate the chairman 

holding this extremely important hearing today. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Indiana, 

Mr. Bucshon. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this very important hearing today and I thank the ranking 

member. I took advantage of the motorcoach system when I was in 

college riding it too and from my college town to my small town in 

Illinois. And I know how important it is to the people in Indiana, 

since I am in a fairly rural State and the people do take advantage 

of the motorcoach system. 

It is, however, also very important to continue to look at the safety, realizing that we do have some bad actors out there that do 

compromise a system which, for the most part, is an extremely safe 

way for people to travel, even in light of the recent tragic crashes 

that have resulted in loss of life. 

So thank you for holding this hearing. I am looking forward to 

hearing the testimony so that we can continue to make this mode 

of travel very safe for our citizens. And with that, I yield back. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Harris, the gentleman from Maryland is recognized. 

Dr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want 

to echo my colleague from North Carolina who clearly one of the 

greatest functions we could have is to keep our highways safe, and 

that includes keeping our bus transportation safe. Representing a 

7 

rural district, pretty clearly, my district will depend upon bus 

transportation. We do want to keep it safe. 

I would just ask that we don’t do what has been so trendy in the 

past, which is that when something like this happens, we come up 

with a whole new series of regulations that punish the good actors 

almost more than the bad actors. We can’t afford, my colleague 

from Pennsylvania points out correctly that a lot of the bus companies are, in fact, small bus companies. They are the small businesses that can thrive. Two of my daughters took interstate bus 

trips within the past month. The one that took one over the weekend, the air conditioning ran out, which although it is not a safety 

issue, it certainly is not comfortable, but it was a safe bus trip. 

They both felt safe taking that mode of transportation. They trusted the carriers. And we need to continue helping the good actors 

and certainly regulating against the bad actors, but again avoiding 

the temptation of creating a set of regulations that paints with a 

very broad brush an industry that really has a very admirable safety record overall. 

And, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for holding 

the hearing. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MICA. If all Members have gained recognition, we will proceed with our panel of witnesses. And again, I thank them for coming in on somewhat short notice, but I believe this will be a very 

important hearing, again, as we try to craft and finalize provisions 

in a new 6-year authorization. 

Our witnesses today start out with Anne Ferro, who is the administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; 

Major David Palmer, Texas Department of Public Safety, on behalf 

of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, thank you for being 

with us; Mr. Peter Pantuso, president and CEO of American Bus 

Association; Mr. Victor Parra, president and CEO of United Motorcoach Association; and Ms. Jacqueline Gillan, and she is vice president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. 

I thank all of the witnesses for being with us. 

Normally, what we like you to do is try to limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. You could submit, just request through the chair, additional information, documentation or information that you would 

like to be made part of the record, and we will do that. And we will 

also withhold questions until we have heard from all of the witnesses, and then we will go through and provide the panel with the 

questions from Members. 

So with those ground rules, again, I welcome you. And let’s start 

off and hear from our Federal administrator, the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration of the United States Department of 

Transportation. 

Welcome, and you are recognized. 

8 

TESTIMONY OF HON. ANNE S. FERRO, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; MAJOR 

DAVID L. PALMER, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 

AND VICE PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE; PETER PANTUSO, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN 

BUS ASSOCIATION; VICTOR S. PARRA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

UNITED MOTORCOACH ASSOCIATION; AND JACQUELINE S. 

GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND 

AUTO SAFETY 

Ms. FERRO. Chairman Mica, Ranking Member DeFazio, thank 

you for the opportunity to speak today. This year has been the 

worst period in recent history for motorcoach safety, with 6 crashes 

resulting in 25 deaths and numerous injuries just since January. 

My deepest condolences go to the families who have lost loved 

ones in these crashes. And I join the employees of FMCSA and our 

State enforcement partners in taking these losses to heart. It is exceedingly frustrating that despite tighter safety standards and dramatic increases in the number of inspections and enforcement actions that we are taking that the risks to passengers continues 

from a few bad actors. 

FMCSA’s safety mission is our number one priority, and we are 

fully engaged in an all-out crackdown investigation into illegal passenger carriers. We have a comprehensive investigation underway 

specifically in the case of the tragic Sky Express crash which occurred May 31st in which four women were killed. 

When we found out that Sky Express was attempting to operate 

and sell tickets even after we had shut them down, we issued a 

cease and desist order. On the same day, we subpoenaed the 

records of three Internet Web sites that sell tickets for Sky Express 

and other bus companies. The informal leasing practices of some 

motorcoach companies allows them to skirt safety rules moving 

equipment and drivers among companies with valid DOT numbers. 

And unregulated Web sites broker and sell tickets with no transparency to the public. 

We are shutting down unsafe carriers as quickly as our authority 

permits. Just since January, we have declared 18 bus companies 

unsatisfactory, that is, issued an out-of-service order for those 18. 

We have another 15 pending that are in their appeal period, and 

that means they must stop operating. And if a carrier or its drivers 

and vehicles present a severe risk, we don’t wait for the 45-day appeal period that is allowed for motorcoach carriers. We declare 

them an imminent hazard, and we shut them down immediately. 

This past week we used our imminent hazard authority to shut 

down three companies, including one in Michigan that has already 

been mentioned, that had put passengers in the cargo hold. The behavior by these few is absolutely outrageous, and we have got to 

stop it. 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has had his eye on motorcoach safety since 2009, when he charged FMCSA and NHTSA to 

develop and implement comprehensive motorcoach safety action 

plan. The actions within this plan address many NTSB recommendations, including electronic on-board recorders, better use 

of inspection violation data, a ban on texting and cell phone use, 

9 

and stronger oversight of drivers’ medical qualifications and drug 

and alcohol test results. 

FMCSA has proposed, or is close to final rule or programs in all 

of those areas. But we do need additional authority as some have 

already mentioned. Thus, we have provided technical assistance to 

the committee with regard to several recommendations that would 

strengthen our authority over these bad actors. First, is to allow us 

to conduct en route inspections and our law enforcement partners 

at the State level, not just restrict us to inspections on motorcoach 

companies at points of origin and destination. Second is to establish a Federal successor liability standard to enable us to more 

quickly and surely shut down reincarnated carriers. Third is to require full safety audits before a company can receive its passenger 

carrier authority. 

The fourth is to raise the penalty for violations by bus companies that attempt to operate illegally to $25,000 per violation. It is currently $2,000 with a cap at 11. And lastly, allow us to regulate passenger ticket sellers. We refer to them as brokers. We currently 

regulate freight brokers. We regulate household goods brokers. We 

have no authority over passenger carrier brokers. 

Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding this hearing today. 

We greatly appreciate the spotlight on bus safety. Our commitment 

at FMCSA has never been higher. And I look forward to answering 

any questions you may have. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony. 

And we will hear now from Major David Palmer, and he is with 

the Texas Department of Public Safety and testifying today on behalf of Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. 

Welcome, and you are recognized. 

Mr. PALMER. Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahall, members 

of the committee, thank you for holding this hearing. Let me say 

at the outset that on behalf of CVSA and its members, we have 

pledged a renewed emphasis on bus safety. A step that we can immediately take at no additional cost is to lift the current restriction 

in the law that prohibits en route roadside bus inspections. 

SAFETEA–LU enacted this restriction which has removed a critical tool designed to immediately identify driver and mechanical 

issues, safety issues, hampering enforcement’s efforts. 

We commit to you if this restriction is lifted, we will immediately 

encourage all of our State members to put resources towards en 

route bus inspections and to take aggressive enforcement action 

when warranted. This step will provide an immediate infusion of 

enforcement activity to enhance bus and highway safety. 

The results of a recent bus safety strike force is ordered by a 

number of State Governors with encouragement assistance from 

FMCSA has resulted in a significant number of buses and drivers 

being placed out of service for mechanical or driver violations. 

These strike forces generally included safety inspections at origins 

or destinations. 

We are firm believers that many more lives could be saved and 

injuries avoided if en route inspections were, once again, permitted 

to allow States to conduct these inspections when and where necessary. Since the so-called curbside operators such as Sky Express 

do not typically operate out of a fixed place of business or terminal, 

10 

the most effective way to inspect them is through random en route 

inspection program. Just this past Friday, the Maryland State Police stopped four Sky Express buses operating on the Capital Beltway. Although at the time they were being moved because of repossession by the bank and not under Sky Express’ authority, since 

they had been placed out of service, it so happened that two of the 

drivers did not have commercial drivers licenses, two did not have 

medical certificates, and all four did not have logbooks, all of which 

are out of service conditions. 

This is just one of many examples of why en route inspections 

are necessary. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask how many more are out there? 

Enforcement is a major component of bus safety, but not the only 

one. When it is necessary to close down a passenger carrier operating illegally, the full force and authority of FMCSA in conjunction with State enforcement is necessary. When unscrupulous activities are discovered, criminal prosecution must be considered and 

pursued. 

Additionally, State enforcement and oversight is necessary 

through the inspection and audit processes to uncover potential 

passenger carrier drivers and equipment problems. 

Finally, when it comes to specific safety standards such as crash 

worthiness, NHTSA must aggressively implement safety belt and 

other safety systems requirements. 

Chameleon carriers are a significant problem that must be dealt 

with more aggressively. FMCSA’s vetting process has been an important tool in helping to identify and take action on carriers who 

are ‘‘changing their stripes.’’ FMCSA, working cooperatively with 

the States, must be given authority to transfer past safety performance activity from one carrier to another when it is discovered they 

are substantially the same operation. 

FMCSA must also be given more authority over brokers. Companies that purchase transportation for customers need to be held accountable for not conducting the proper due diligence for safety. 

Brokers discovered not doing so and hiring unsafe operators need 

to be shut down. 

Another significant issue is bus fires. A Volpe transportation 

study completed in 2009 showed that a bus or motorcoach is lost 

to a fire every 2 days in the United States. Enforcement can help 

mitigate this problem by conducting more roadside inspections 

where we can inspect brakes, tires and wheels, which are the origin of many of these fires. 

We support the provisions in both the House and Senate bus 

safety bills that require a safety audit and compliance review of all 

interstate passenger carriers and State-based safety inspections for 

all commercial passenger carrying vehicles. Each State must also 

have a bus safety and enforcement program that is appropriate for 

the needs of that State. 

As you might expect, by directing more of their efforts towards 

bus safety, States face the potential need for additional resources 

and funding. What we don’t want to happen is by focusing more 

on bus safety and enforcement, it comes at the expense of other 

critical commercial vehicle safety and enforcement programs. 

11 

Unlike trucking companies, intercity passenger carriers have 

been exempt from any hours of service changes in recent years. 

Since driver fatigue seems to have been a contributing factor in a 

number of recent bus crashes, we recommend FMCSA study whether the current hours of service rules for bus drivers are adequate 

and if warranted based on data and analysis, propose necessary 

changes. 

In closing, and to reiterate a previous statement, if Congress 

chooses to, once again, enable en route bus inspections, the CVSA 

will commit to assisting the States and FMCSA by immediately 

conducting en route inspections as well as continuing strike forces 

and other enforcement activities throughout the country. We believe this is the most appropriate and effective response to immediately impact bus safety. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I will be happy 

to answer any questions. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

And we will hear next from Peter Pantuso, president and CEO 

of the American Bus Association. Welcome, and you are recognized. 

Mr. PANTUSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ABA is the trade association for the over-the-road bus industry and for the tour and travel industry, all of whom have a deep interest in safety. Our motorcoach members operate nearly 60 percent of all the coaches on the 

road today. ABA shares this committee’s concern and their frustrations over unsafe motorcoach companies. And, Mr. Chairman, I 

cannot overemphasize the concern or the disgust that ABA has 

over the manner in illegal companies continue to operate. 

These companies are not part of the American Bus Association. 

More importantly, we are also encouraged by the work of Administrator Ferro and her team that they have done to seek out unsafe 

companies and put them out of service. 

Making bus travel safer is at the top of our agenda. The bus industry continues to be one of the safest modes. However, as was 

pointed out, even one fatality is too many. Today we ask for more 

effective regulations and for more enforcement. 

ABA was an early and enthusiastic supporter of Secretary 

LaHood’s motorcoach safety action plan. We believe in strengthening State bus inspection programs, enforcing medical qualifications for drivers and using technology to enhance motorcoach safety. 

The lack of dedicated Federal and State funding for bus inspections leads to inconsistent enforcement, making it too easy for carriers to reopen after they have been put out of business, too easy 

for financially marginal companies to obtain authority, and still too 

easy for individuals to obtain a commercial driver’s license with a 

passenger endorsement. 

The lack of consistent and adequate enforcement of current Federal regulations must be addressed today. 

When Secretary LaHood issued the action plan, he declared, and 

I quote, ‘‘a robust compliance and enforcement program is critical 

to ensuring motorcoach carriers operate safely.’’ 

We certainly applaud the stepped-up enforcement over the last 

couple of months and a near record number of motorcoach companies being put out of business putting unqualified drivers and their 

12 

equipment out of service and declaring some an imminent hazard. 

Certainly, FMCSA has done an excellent job of vetting new entrants into the system. 

We welcome the New York Police Department’s effort to inspect, 

to ticket and to tow unsafe buses in the recent tragic accidents. But 

one-time programs are too rare and they are certainly too spotty. 

It is consistent, effective enforcement that is the most vital factor 

in motorcoach safety. 

The data shows that 54 percent of motorcoach fatalities from 

1999 to 2009 were accidents caused by either unsafe or by illegal 

companies. 

FMCSA needs additional staffing and money to inspect bus operations. Funding for commercial motor vehicle inspections is largely 

via the Federal Government’s MCSAP program. And we think a 

certain percentage of MCSAP funds should be specifically allocated 

for bus inspections. 

If States are unwilling or they are incapable of managing vigorous bus inspection programs that meet the Federal standards, 

then we believe a portion of those MCSAP money should be used 

to hire third-party inspectors. As it stands now, perhaps 8 or 10 

States have very good effective inspection programs. This inequity 

must end. The bus inspection programs must be uniform so as not 

to create safe havens for illegal operators. 

We must raise the safety bar for passenger carriers. While 

FMCSA has made gains in vetting and visiting new carriers sooner, we would certainly like to see a query into the fitness of an operator before the first passenger ever boards the bus. We believe 

that Congress should require an applicant background check for 

drivers, especially those with a passenger endorsement on their 

CDL. And when FMCSA has determined that a carrier presents an 

imminent safety hazard and issues an out-of-service order, they 

also need congressional authority to not only close the operation, 

but make sure the facilities are locked up and make sure the vehicles are impounded. 

ABA recommends that FMCSA undertake more consumer awareness as was begun on May 5th with the Secretary’s consumer 

checklist. And we also believe a more friendly database, the safer 

system and the SMS system is appropriate for consumers. 

And, finally, regarding seatbelts in coaches, Mr. Chairman, ABA 

and its members support seatbelts in new buses following the testing that was done by the Department of Transportation that they 

already undertook to determine what type of belt the seat design 

and the anchorage that would be appropriate to save lives. 

We are also enthusiastic supporters of H.R. 1390, and we thank 

the members of this committee who have cosponsored that bill. 

Our industry continues to grow. We will provide the safest, the 

most cost effective and environmentally efficient mode of transportation, but we can only do it if current regulations are enforced 

equally and all carriers. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will answer any questions you 

and the committee might have. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and we will get back to you on that. 

Now we will hear from Mr. Victor Parra, president and CEO of 

United Motorcoach Association. Welcome. You are recognized, sir. 

13 

Mr. PARRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member DeFazio 

and members of the committee, I appreciate you calling this hearing today and the opportunity to appear before you. The committee 

has a long and distinguished record of promoting safety on our 

roadways. On behalf of the United Motorcoach Association, it is my 

goal to provide the committee with our perspective on the factors 

that contribute to our industry’s notable safety record, but also our 

goal of improving on that record. 

Founded in 1971, the United Motorcoach Association represents 

the full spectrum of bus and motorcoach operations, from small 

family charter and tour to nationwide scheduled and commuter 

service operations. The United States Small Business Administration, as Mr. Shuster pointed out, estimates that over 90 percent of 

the motorcoach operators are, in fact, small businesses. 

UMA is deeply saddened by the recent motorcoach accidents, and 

we extend our deepest sympathies to the victims, their families and 

all those who are affected. And while it is a fact, as Mr. Mica pointed out, that our industry has the safest record, one fatality is one 

fatality too many. That is why one of our primary objectives is to 

promote safety and compliance in this industry. We do this through 

several initiatives. First, we have our Bus and Motorcoach Academy, which is accredited through the College of Southern Maryland. We do training for drivers as well as motorcoach companies 

to instill a safety culture in their organization. We have safety 

management seminars that we hold at the NTSB, National Transportation Safety Board’s, training center. Of course our annual conference and regional and State meetings are also heavily ladened 

with safety training programs. UMA is a member and sponsor of 

the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, an active member in their 

passenger carrier committee and we routinely volunteer to assist 

the National Transportation Safety Board in any of their investigations as we did following the accident involving Worldwide Tours. 

UMA has long advocated for strong and improved enforcement of 

existing Federal and State motor carrier safety regulations for our 

vehicles and drivers. Additionally, UMA has long supported initiatives based on sound science and research that truly improves safety, many of which are included in Mr. Shuster’s bill, which is cosponsored by members of this committee, Congresswoman Eddie 

Bernice Johnson, Congressman Tim Holden and Congresswoman 

Jean Schmidt, as well as other Members of Congress. 

The bill contains reasonable and attainable guidelines that enhance the National Transportation Safety Administration’s efforts 

to promulgate new rules that will improve motorcoach occupant 

protection. 

In addition to Mr. Shuster’s bill, in August 2007, NHTSA announced NHTSA’s approach to motorcoach safety in a series of 

evaluations including occupant retention, window glazing, emergency egress, stability control, roof strength and flammability. In 

December 2007, NHTSA conducted a first-ever motorcoach crash 

test, and subsequent to that promulgated regulations for threepoint seatbelts on all new coaches. And in fact, UMA supports that 

initiative. 

In December 2010, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, launched its long awaited comprehensive safety analVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:02 Dec 15, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\6-13-1~1\66918.TXT JEAN
14 

ysis 2010. FMCSA and their State partners now have the capability to more readily identify noncompliant carriers and target 

problematic carriers with the goal of preventing accidents before 

they occur. 

Just months into implementation, UMA concludes CSA is already altering behaviors and producing results. We are most satisfied that this program will serve the long-term needs of the enforcement community. 

UMA has deep reservations regarding legislative efforts that 

could intentionally harm small entrepreneurs’ entry as new carriers. While some often use the term ‘‘illegal’’ and ‘‘rogue carriers’’ 

and ‘‘new entrants’’ in the same reference, there are no direct parallels UMA is aware that would signify new entrants afford a disproportionate risk to the traveling public, and indeed, anecdotal 

evidence suggests otherwise. 

Having said that, UMA enthusiastically supports the Secretary’s 

efforts to establish minimum knowledge requirements for companies who seeks to transport passengers and have steadfastly recommended classroom and exam requirements followed by compliance audits within 45 days after conditional operating authority is 

granted. 

While UMA continues to support limited driver and vehicle inspections to terminal and destination locations that do not interfere 

with passenger safety or schedules, we do not and have never supported allowing drivers or vehicles to continue operating unsafely. 

However, we remain concerned about any random inspections, 

roadside inspections. Just this past week a 76-year-old woman from 

Minnesota died when her car in which she was driving hit the 

backend of a motorcoach that was stopped alongside an I–95 State 

trooper. The trooper narrowly escaped injuries. Fortunately, no 

passengers on the coach were seriously injured. 

Congress has wisely protected motorcoach passengers from roadside accidents, and those protections should remain. 

In conclusion, we appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony regarding these matters and stand ready to contribute to ongoing efforts to enhance safety of bus and motorcoach operations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

And now we will hear from Jackie Gillan. And she is the vice 

president of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. Welcome, 

and you are recognized. 

Ms. GILLAN. Thank you and good afternoon. Thank you very 

much for the opportunity to testify. I first testified before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit in 2006 about motorcoach 

safety problems. Again, in 2007, I testified after the Bluffton University baseball team crash in Georgia. Both hearings highlighted 

the need for Congress to take action to improve Federal oversight 

of the industry as well as direct DOT to issue overdue safety standards for occupant protection. Five years later, after those hearings, 

there have been more than 108 crashes resulting in at least 136 

deaths and thousands of injuries. It is time for Congress to act and 

pass the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act, H.R. 873, sponsored by 

Representative John Lewis and others. This overdue legislation 

15 

will direct the DOT to implement lifesaving recommendations of 

the NTSB that have languished for over 40 years. 

Those who travel by motorcoach rather than air do not expect to 

be treated as second class citizens when it comes to safety and they 

do not expect the motorcoach to be a death trap in the event of a 

crash. H.R. 873 is supported by Advocates, consumer health and 

safety groups and the families of those killed and injured in motorcoach crashes. 

Why is this legislation needed? Further delays and excuses can 

no longer be tolerated and have contributed to needless deaths and 

injuries. This is not just Advocates’ opinion, but the opinion of 

NTSB as well. 

Congress must step in now and ensure the safety improvements 

that NTSB has recommended are implemented. 

H.R. 873 will protect consumers before they buy a ticket and 

board the bus and after they take their seat and the trip begins. 

For example, there are no substantive training requirements in 

Federal regulations for entry-level commercial drivers, including 

motorcoach drivers. Compare that to a recent proposed FAA rule 

issued at the direction of Congress that requires at least 1,500 

hours of flight time before a pilot can operate a commercial flight. 

Also, safety ratings for motorcoach companies are incomplete, out 

of date or simply not available. In my testimony, I reference efforts 

by Advocates’ staff to find out about the safety of Florida motorcoach companies. There are 143 companies headquartered in Florida, 36 companies have no safety ratings at all, 5 companies are 

operating with conditional ratings indicating there are safety deficiencies. And among the 102 companies with satisfactory safety 

ratings, only 2 have ratings in all of the categories. 

H.R. 873 will require that every motorcoach carrier receives a 

safety rating within 3 years. 

Recent crashes also indicate that driver fatigue and violation of 

Federal hours of service rules are common. It is time that FMCSA 

revise the hours of service rule for motorcoach drivers and gets 

tough on companies that push drivers to exceed driving limits and 

falsify their logbooks. 

The Virginia crash that occurred last week has also revealed a 

dirty little secret that safety advocates have warned about for 

years. Giving motorcoach companies with an unsatisfactory safety 

rating 45 days or longer to continue operating and carrying passengers is simply unacceptable. Passengers boarding Sky Express 

had absolutely no idea the dangerous risks they faced choosing that 

carrier. In the 48 days during which Sky Express operated with an 

unsatisfactory rating, the company may have exposed as many as 

100,000 passengers to dangerous and deadly operating conditions. 

The NTSB has been loud and clear in the agency’s ‘‘Most Wanted 

Recommendations’’ that motorcoach occupants need better protection in a crash. Motorcoach crashes are violent and cause passengers to be thrown around and frequently ejected. This is why 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration needs to be directed to issue basic safety standards in the next 2 years that will 

result in occupants having the safety protections that we now have 

in cars. And I am talking about basic systems like seatbelts, roof 

16 

crush protection, anti-ejection window glazing and rollover prevention technology. 

The motorcoach industry’s gold-plated cost figures circulating 

around Capitol Hill for safety improvements required in H.R. 873 

are wildly inflated, unreliable and undocumented. Actually, the 

cost of equipping new motorcoaches with the safety improvements 

required in the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act will cost less than 

a dime per passenger. Who in this hearing room today would not 

pay an extra dime to protect their child or parent or spouse in a 

crash? 

In closing, I urge you to pass the Motorcoach Enhanced Safety 

Act, and thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and I want to thank all of our witnesses 

for their testimony and recommendations. And we will start questioning. I will begin with a few questions of my own and then we 

will yield to other Members. 

Well, again, I think what we are trying to do here is see what 

the missing pieces are to making certain that we have the very 

best legislation in place, best regulation, where we are going to regulate, best cooperation from the States and private industry. 

I heard first from our Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator a list of recommendations that have been suggested, and we 

heard other recommendations from other panelists. There are 

issues with just about all of these and, for example, if we start with 

the en route inspections, and I think there were restrictions put 

under the last 6-year authorization that do inhibit some of the en 

route inspections and I think the thought there was you inspect the 

bus either before people get on it or at the end and maybe not unless there was a serious indication that there was some problem en 

route you wouldn’t shut down the service. 

We probably could tighten that up some. 

I think part of the problem starts even before that, Mr. DeFazio 

spoke about it, others have spoken about it, is getting a hand on 

these rogue operators, people who don’t comply, the changing the 

name of the operation over the Internet. We have seen that in 

other industries too, where bad players, you try to build a mousetrap to catch the rats and they find some other way to get to the 

cheese whether it is in the passenger bus operations or in other endeavors. 

I guess I go back to the very basic involvement of Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration in reviewing these folks in the time 

also that we have. Now, I guess what is it, 18 months they can actually start operations before they get some of that inspection? Is 

that correct? 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct. It is 18 months for new entrants before they receive their authority, but for motorcoach passengers, we 

set a standard of an inspection or of a safety review of that carrier 

within 9 months of their first receiving their authority for motorcoach operators. 

Mr. MICA. So your recommendation is that before they start service, they should have that certification? 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct. 

Mr. MICA. Now, someone else is talking about a review of their 

capability, if it could be done by, you know, you have what, 1,080 

17 

employees with FTEs full-time equivalent employees, and I believe 

that the division is about 800 in the field, and maybe 200-some in 

Washington. 

That is approximate. 

But many of the inspections are done or enforcement is done at 

the State level, is that also not correct? 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct, yes. 

Mr. MICA. So, and I know the Administration has recommended 

additional positions in Washington. Sometimes, though, from a 

practical standpoint, it is better to empower State folks who are 

closer, as far as enforcement and regulation. What would you think 

of—well, obviously you are recommending more Federal employees. 

Is there any mix or pre-review or audit that could be done do you 

think that would enhance, again, the performance? 

The other thing, too, is the bad actors, I have heard of games and 

other industries, they go through an inspection and then the good 

tires come off and they put them on another vehicle, or the drivers 

that they list aren’t the drivers that drive and keeping up with 

that. How do we get did the best enforcement other than—this is 

a tough question for you, maybe I should ask others—other than 

just with the Feds. Are there other things that we can require sort 

of on the spot that would do a good job, too? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, if I might jump in, I think you have framed the 

question very well in the context of rogue operators and en route 

inspections. A very significant challenge in the destination-origination inspection model is that rogue operators don’t necessarily have 

prescheduled sites where we would know where their destination 

is or where they are originating the trip. So it is very valuable to 

have the concept of en route inspections. 

Most of those carriers will operate on main corridors. Law enforcement would have very clear guidelines on to when and where 

it is safe to pull a motorcoach carrier aside in an area where passengers have safe disembarkment and an opportunity for another 

bus to come pick them up. 

In other words, multifold, number one, additional inspection activity, as Advocates indicated, creates additional data in our measurement system and identifies the behavior of carriers. Rogue carriers aren’t necessarily going to comply with the standard of an origin and a destination that is fixed. 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, where you are carrying passengers, 

though, it is a little bit unique. I mean, we don’t inspect the planes 

en route and pull them over to the side or parachute the passengers out while we do an inspection, FAA inspection. The presumption is that that plane should be inspected before it ever takes 

off and carries a passenger, same thing with Amtrak and others 

that don’t meet safety standards. 

We are not pulling the train over, everybody disembark on the 

side, the track, and we will do a quick FRA inspection or FTA inspection. Again, you want a practical solution. 

Ms. FERRO. That is right. 

Mr. MICA. Well, I am trying to stop them, I think with Mr. 

DeFazio, from getting in business in the first place and staying. 

When I ask the staff how many operators do we have and they say 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration can’t tell us, because 

18 

it is a revolving and evolving number the way things are set up 

now and people get into business by various means, again, they are 

circumventing the provisions that we have. 

How do we get a handle on that from the very beginning? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, again, perhaps the most efficient model is to 

combine the roadside inspection activity that is already under way 

where we have 12,000 strong State law enforcement across the 

country who are trained commercial vehicle, complemented by the 

new entrant grant program that is in existence today in the context 

of a pre-authority safety audit by a cadre both of State and Federal 

inspectors. 

And then, lastly, I will say with our fiscal year 2012 budget request, we include an additional $20 million in State grants, again 

in the context of strengthening the compliance safety accountability 

component of these programs. So, in terms of what is the most efficient model, really it is taking part of all three of those components, utilizing what we already have and boots on the ground, but 

utilizing it more effectively. 

Mr. MICA. Well, another thing that I usually favor is tough enforcement. The $25,000 fine is a stiff fine compared to $2,000. 

What does the bus association, American Bus Association feel 

about that? 

Mr. PANTUSO. When it comes to more enforcement, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think anything can be second. We are certainly in 

favor of anything that gets these bad operators off the road. We are 

also in favor of more inspections. You know, one of the ways to do 

that, that we have discussed in the past, is giving more resources 

to FMCSA. Not only increasing their budget, but also taking those 

companies that are already undergoing Department of Defense inspections, about 400 or 500 of them, and put them off to the side. 

They are already being inspected. Inspections by DOD almost the 

same as FMCSA’s, some would even say it is more rigorous. But 

why have them re-inspected again, a month later or a year later 

by the same State or Federal inspection system when they have already been looked at very, very rigorously? 

Mr. MICA. Well, I think I will never forget the testimony we had 

in one of our field hearings where a small family operator, a husband and wife of, actually, a trucking firm, I think, in this case, 

and the wife gave testimony—was that in Arkansas—it might have 

been, we did a number of hearings. But the wife had compiled a 

list of all the agencies that their little two-person firm, husband 

and wife, had to comply with. And she read that thing, it must 

have taken her 5 minutes to read all the agencies and regs she had 

to deal with. And then after she got through with that, then they 

cited all the taxes and all the fees that they had to pay. It was 

quite an eye opener. 

And the problem we have in dividing the economic pie in Congress or in any legislative body is how much regulation, taxation, 

law, impositions do you put on businesses? I know it is easier for 

a big player maybe that is on the stock exchange to stay in business, and we want everyone to comply as far as safety. But we also 

have to balance a small operator and give them some shot. And 

sometimes folks are trying to eliminate some of the competition, 

19 

again, through over regulation of an industry. So we do have that 

balance to keep in mind. 

Thank you, again, Jackie Gillan, for your testimony. A number 

of your recommendations we are considering, and I hope that 

through better inspections and better defined authority requirements on safety equipment, things of that sort, that we can have 

safer buses and better passenger bus safety. So, thank you. You 

don’t have to comment. We just appreciate your advocacy. 

Let me yield now, if I may, to the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Both to Ms. Ferro and 

Major Palmer. You were both pretty emphatic about en route inspections. How would you solve this problem that people are putting up—danger, safety, inconvenience? How could we solve the en 

route problem, because it seems to me that is critical for these 

gypsy operators? I mean, they have no fixed place of business, they 

have a post office box somewhere, you know. So how would you do 

it? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, I think Major Palmer will provide better detail, 

but clearly we set guidelines in terms of where and when and what 

conditions need to exist in order for that bus to be pulled over in 

a safe place. There is a suggestion to consider something like business continuity insurance requirement for motorcoach operators so 

they would be required to provide another bus to come to the location in order to move passengers safely away if, in fact, that bus 

is put out of service. 

So there are provisions like that to ensure the safety and safe 

passage of the passengers. But in terms of process I would defer 

to Major Palmer. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Major. 

Mr. PALMER. Yes, sir, Mr. Ranking Member, that is absolutely 

correct. I really don’t know the numbers but I can tell you in 

Texas, for example, we have policies and procedures in place already. So even under current regulation, if you stop an en route 

bus for, you know, a serious safety violation, we have procedures 

in place that—the utmost importance, when we stop a bus, wherever it is at, is the safety of the passengers and the driver and also 

our enforcement officer. We don’t want to put them in any harm’s 

way any more than we would want to put passengers. 

So, for example, depending on where it was and for whatever 

reason that bus was stopped, if it was deemed, you know, unsafe, 

then we would escort that bus to a safe location and inspect it 

there to ensure that the passengers are well taken care of. Typically a very quick screening or even a driver inspection, you know, 

you are talking maybe 10 or 15 minutes to be able to do that typically, and we would focus on those efforts. 

You know, it has been the late nineties since I inspected a bus, 

but I know that when I would stop a bus roadside back then one 

of the first things I would do after I made the initial contact with 

that driver is I would address the passengers, because the passengers are, like, what’s going on? 

And what I found historically is that the passengers were very 

appreciative when we did take that time, when you tell them what 

you are looking for and about the safety aspects, they encourage 

that. 

20 

So we would have specific procedures in place, and that is something that FMCSA could provide leadership on and CVSA specifically would be able to provide that, you know, we have operational 

policies that all the States agree to through our MOUs and we 

could also enhance that enforcement that way. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure. I mean, if a bus were speeding you can stop 

them, right? 

Mr. PALMER. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. If a truck is speeding, you can stop it. I mean, we 

did have this elderly person who drove into the back of the bus, 

clearly not good driving on that person’s part. So to say, gee, we 

shouldn’t have any capability of pulling people over because every 

once in a while someone who is asleep, on their cell phone, or incompetent is going to drive into it, I mean, this is a problem. And 

in my State, if your patrol car is here and the bus is there, and 

it is a two-lane or a three-lane highway, you are required to leave 

the lane empty and move to the left. 

Mr. PALMER. Same here. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. There are ways to protect the safety of those people for a short stop and then if there is a problem get them off the 

highway. 

But I think having an absolute prohibition only favors the people 

who do not have a fixed base of operation. There is no way to get 

them. Where are you going to get them when they stop somewhere 

in downtown New York, which changes every day wherever they 

are going to drop people off or wherever they are going. So I think 

opposing this entirely is not reasonable and would urge the association in saying that there should be no capability, think about how 

we can get at it again. 

How do we get at the bad actors who aren’t in your association 

that we want to get at, and this, I think, is the key. It was from 

both law enforcement and from the Administrator, it was key. And 

I think we need to modify that provision of the law. 

The other thing would be State inspections. I see here in the 

ABA testimony that you say State inspection programs must be 

strengthened. Fewer than a dozen States have effective bus inspection programs and less than half have any program at all. 

Mr. PANTUSO. That is correct. Mr. DeFazio, we just don’t think 

there are enough States focusing on bus inspections. They are focusing on trucks, they are doing commercial vehicle inspections, 

they are doing an admirable job with the resources they have, but 

there aren’t enough that are focused on bus operators. 

You know, we saw the accident that happened in New Jersey 

about 2 months ago. That company was supposedly based in Pennsylvania, but nobody ever saw them in Pennsylvania. The company 

that had the accident in Virginia was based in North Carolina, but 

they were based in a housing development. There was no sign of 

that bus or buses at that facility or at that house whatsoever. So 

we are concerned, we are concerned about the way some of these 

companies operate, as you are. 

We are also concerned, as you mentioned earlier about en route 

inspections, about the safety of the passengers. Most of our passengers are seniors or they are children. We also have passengers 

with disabilities who are on the coach. We just need to make sure 

21 

whatever change there is allows for the accommodation of those 

passengers. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And for those, basically, operating out of a housing 

development or a post office box, it seems to me that requiring an 

annual inspection by each State of these, of each vehicle every 

year, would that be an unreasonable burden? 

Mr. PANTUSO. It would not be unreasonable. I think inspectors 

need to go into those facilities and look at not only the facilities, 

but those vehicles as well. 

Mr. PARRA. I agree. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And that would also get at some of these people. It could be kind of like, you know, this is a little different, but 

with the Coast Guard—I live on a boat here. And you can get the 

Coast Guard Auxiliary to certify your boat on an annual basis. And 

it is very improbable that they will do a random boarding to do a 

safety inspection if you have a current sticker showing that you 

were inspected. 

So if we did do annual inspections and people had some sort of 

a decal—although obviously those things can be counterfeited, then 

that would potentially, I mean that would be someone that the police would be much less likely to look at as someone who needs an 

en route inspection, it seems to me. 

So, I mean, it seems to me some way of getting the States to do 

this, incenting them to do it and requiring them to do it, and some 

sort of a process. And then perhaps, and I will take it one step further. What if you had to annually show it. Now you go one time 

to FMCSA, pay $300, and it is good forever. 

Why wouldn’t you say, OK, on an annual basis you have to show 

that your vehicle has been inspected or we will suspend that authority? Mr. Pantuso. 

Mr. PANTUSO. Mr. DeFazio, I would just say as we look at the new entrant program, we think that $300 is not enough. It costs 

$350 to get a hot dog vendor’s license on the streets of Washington, 

DC. Yet we are allowing people to come into the business who are 

going to be carrying upwards of 50-plus people at a time for only 

$300. 

Mr. MICA. Right. 

Mr. PANTUSO. We certainly think there should be a higher bar 

of entry. And if it is a higher amount, those funds can be used to 

fund these pre-inspections that we are talking about. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Got a number in mind? 

Mr. PANTUSO. It could be a $1,000, it could be $2,000. It has got 

to be a reasonable number so that it can’t create a barrier to entry. 

It is, as was described earlier, a mom and pop small business. 

We want to encourage that, but at the same time we want to 

make sure people coming in have got the wherewithal to maintain 

their equipment. And if they don’t have more than $300, I question 

how they can do that down the road. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Parra, what do you think of that? 

Mr. PARRA. We don’t have any objection to raising the bar. We 

just want to make sure that the bar is reasonable. You know, if it 

is $500 to $1,000, that is reasonable. But we want to make sure, 

however, that it isn’t a barrier because these companies create jobs, 

they are good for the economic base of wherever they are. 

22 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I got that, but I am glad you agree. To the Administrator, then, do you have the authority to do that or is that statutory? 

Ms. FERRO. Currently it is statutory, and we would propose, 

again, in our technical assistance increasing the limit and keep in 

mind also it is a one-time fee. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, OK. So that seems like we have some consensus on that and it is hopefully something we could put in the 

bill. So a requirement on States for inspections, a higher one-time 

fee for registration which could help fund some of the safety and 

doing the pre-inspections. 

And then I will see if I can get one step further, you know, the 

chairman referenced airlines. Well, when we do airlines, we require 

that the operator actually be certified, and I have been here long 

enough that I remember when we threw Frank Lorenzo out of the 

industry. So, the question would be could we require—we talk 

about background checks and medical certificates and all of that— 

could we have background checks for operators because that way 

we could get at this phantom problem because we know this person, they had a company that violated the law, they are not a 

qualified operator to start another company with a different name 

and run those buses. 

Could we have something like that? Yes? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, indeed, we could, in terms of liability and responsibility for principals who have already been identified as unsafe, as reincarnated that they could be barred in some regard from 

operating or—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Can you do that administratively or do you need 

statutory authority? 

Ms. FERRO. We cannot do that. We would need statutory. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. You need statutory authority. Well, I would hope 

we could provide that too and obviously it would be used only in 

extreme cases, but some of these people are bad, repeat offenders 

and we want to stamp them out here. I mean, what we are going 

to do is provide more business for the good operators. 

With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think there are quite a 

few things we could do statutorily to help here. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for your 

testimony. Ms. Ferro, the private over-the-road bus industry provides approximately 750 million passenger trips annually. How 

safe is the motorcoach industry compared to other modes of transportation? 

Ms. FERRO. Sir, is that question for me? 

Mr. COBLE. Yes. 

Ms. FERRO. Again, I think we have agreed—we agree with many 

of the other speakers that it is among the safest. We are somewhat 

limited in our inspection data on the industry writ large by virtue 

of this inspection restriction that the enforcement is currently 

under. But, yes, generally in terms of the number of crashes they 

are very low. 

Mr. COBLE. And I realize accidents are inevitable, they are going 

to occur. But do you attribute anything specifically, any shortcoming to the recent motorcoach accidents, Ms. Ferro? 

23 

Ms. FERRO. Let me just clarify, again, the vast majority of the 

industry is operating very effectively and these are small operators 

who have found a way to make safety and profitability go hand in 

hand and be highly complementary, those individual owner operators, small business owners. 

In regard to the recent crash, again, we are in the midst of the 

investigation, but at the outset we can see that the facility with 

which some of the bad actors move equipment and drivers among 

companies with valid DOT numbers is one of the loopholes, in our 

perspective. We need stronger leasing regulation, which is something that is within FMCSA’s authority that we need to proceed 

with, as well as stronger tools to prohibit reincarnation on a more 

effective level than we can today. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that. 

Ms. GILLAN. Mr. Coble, could I just add to that? I just wanted 

to say that motorcoach crashes have increased dramatically and we 

have many, many more people taking them. And, unfortunately, 

our safety systems are not adequate. 

So, while, yes, it is a relatively safe mode of transportation, we 

have this double standard where we have zero tolerance for aviation crashes even though we now have as many people using 

motorcoaches and we have hundreds of people dying. Already this 

year, 27 people have been killed and hundreds have been injured 

in 11 motorcoach crashes. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that. 

Major Palmer, distinguish for me, if you will, the difference between en route bus inspections and strike force operations. And in 

terms of time and money, which of the two serve us better? 

Mr. PALMER. Well, they are both unique in their own right. They 

both accomplish, they ultimately accomplish inspections, but they 

do it in a different way. The en route inspection is something that, 

it is a surprise. I mean, it is not something that you can prepare 

for. 

I mean, the good carriers out there don’t have an issue. The ones 

that don’t, they don’t have time to prepare or change out some 

equipment or make some quick fixes to get by for a day. 

The distant—most of the strike forces that are done now are related to they are either going to be some type of imminent hazard 

violation involved before they are stopped, but mostly they are actually destination inspections, either origin or where they are going 

to end up. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, are strike force inspections given an advance 

notice; are they surprised? 

Mr. PALMER. They can be both. There is surprise at the beginning, but once the first group of buses get there to the location and 

we start inspecting them, then the surprise is gone. So then, then 

other folks can find out that, hey, that’s where we are at. 

But they both have, they both truly have their benefit. It is just 

that you are isolated to a particular location. You are also at the 

mercy, so to say, of either a business, whether it be somebody like 

SeaWorld or Fiesta, Texas, or some other venue or the actual passenger carrier company, whether they would let us come to their 

facility and do inspections. So that is one of the downsides to the 

origin and destination. 

24 

Mr. COBLE. I got you. Thank you, sir. Thank you all for your testimony. 

Mr. MICA. Would the gentleman yield? I just have one quick 

question for the Administrator. 

Mr. COBLE. I yield to the chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Now, it is my understanding that you grant the operating authority for all of these buses, and it is my understanding 

that the DOT gave operating authority to Sky Express, WorldWide 

Travel and Super Luxury Tours operating authority of DOT, and 

you get that little number that they put on the side, you gave all 

of those, right? Those were the ones involved in—but then after the 

incidents you withdrew that authority. 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct. Both, all three of those carriers had 

passenger carrier authority prior to our vetting program, and all 

three have been shut down, that is correct. 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, that answers my question, but I am concerned that it didn’t happen in reverse order. 

Mr. COBLE. I reclaim and yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you . Let me yield to Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Ferro, first of all, in your testimony on page 3, you reference 

a new program Think Safety, Every Trip, Every Time. And you 

talk about the fact that this is available online. What other process 

do you have in place for consumers to know about this, because, 

to be frank with you, this seems a little unrealistic. 

I was recently in New York. I bought a ticket for the Loop trip, 

and I mean, I didn’t go online and I am a fairly informed, I think, 

consumer. So what else are you doing besides this to communicate 

with people? 

Ms. FERRO. We have several strategies. One is to just make sure 

people know that there is safety information available on our Web 

site about carriers and some of the trade associations also provide 

links to individual carriers’ safety data so that customers themselves can link in and understand that they can think safety every 

trip every time. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK, but other than Web sites, what process do 

you have for the average consumer? In the testimony today it was 

spoken about that you are talking about seniors and people who 

are riding who are not going on the Web site. Do you have any 

plan, any process, people call a number, is there something available in bus areas that they have to post? What other aggressive 

things have you done and, if not, it is OK, we just need to know 

where we are. 

Ms. FERRO. Two areas in particular. There are van operators and 

the whole population of the faith-based community and others who 

utilize the 16 passenger vans are a core constituency to whom we 

have actively reached out in the past. With regard to motorcoach 

operations, again, it is through our Web site, it is through this particular campaign that the Secretary just launched recently. 

But I would add, very importantly, it is the proposal through our 

technical assistance to allow us to regulate brokers of passenger 

tickets; that is, those who sell tickets online, those who tell tickets 

through brokerage and travel services. 

25 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I don’t think you are understanding my question. Maybe it is my fault, maybe I am not clearly stating it. The 

question I am asking you, if I am an average consumer, I go to buy 

a ticket for a motorcoach and I walk up to Greyhound Lines or 

New York Loop trips. 

How do I know what to look for in this particular motorcoach to 

know that it is safe, or you know, that they pass, that they have 

a decal or, you know, that they are approved by the Department 

of Transportation? Is there any system that you have in place to 

communicate to the average consumer who walks up—I am not 

talking about someone who is using a Web site—who walks up. Do 

we have any communication in place? 

Ms. FERRO. We do not today. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK, thanks. I have got to keep going, I am 

sorry. I have only got 21⁄2 minutes. 

Mr. Pantuso, you mention in your testimony that you think that 

there should be some sort of inquiry into the fitness of an operator 

prior to that individual being able to begin operations. Can you describe more of what you meant by that? 

Mr. PANTUSO. Absolutely. Right now, as was pointed out, there 

is an 18-month window and FMCSA, we agree, has done a great 

job of shortening that window, I think Administrator Ferro said to 

9 months. 

But we believe before the first passenger gets on board that 

somebody needs to go and look at that carrier and ask them where 

they will be getting the maintenance done when they begin operating, what kind of equipment are they going to operate, what kind 

of training do they have for their driver. How knowledgeable is the 

operator? Those kinds of questions that should be asked before the 

trip ever takes place and before somebody ever gets on board. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. If there is no objection, would you mind submitting some of those helpful questions that you think should be 

considered for the record? 

Mr. PANTUSO. I will, absolutely. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. I am not done yet. I am not done 

yet. 

Mr. MICA. OK. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. A couple of other things I wanted to ask a few 

questions on. 

Ms. Administrator, there was talk that States use the same pool 

of funding for truck inspections as they do for bus inspections. And 

coming from a port community, I would find that to be very problematic. 

Are you opposed to identifying a specific percentage through legislation that was directed, or do you have a suggestion to of when 

to ensure that more motorcoaches are getting some of these funds 

to be inspected? 

Ms. FERRO. We are pleased to work with the committee on that 

recommendation. I will tell you today, through the annual commercial safety plan process, we require States to develop and include 

in their commercial vehicle safety plans, which is part of their annual grant application process, the identification of a region or 

State appropriate bus safety plan driven by what their bus safety 

data is saying, by their bus population. 

26 

So it is incorporated into every State safety plan. It is less formal 

in some States, but it is very much a part of their activity. But, 

again, with regard to your proposal I will be happy to work with 

you on that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK, and my last question and the remainder 

that I will submit for the record is Mr. Pantuso said in his statement that dozens of States actually don’t even have programs at 

all. How is it, is it your understanding, do you concur with that or 

did I accurately describe your statement? 

Mr. PANTUSO. To clarify it, we don’t see good bus inspection programs in a lot of States. We see some States that are very vigorous, 

Minnesota, Michigan does a great, great job. California does a 

great job, Massachusetts does a great job, New Jersey, Connecticut 

do great jobs. There are others that do very, very good jobs that 

are very, very rigorous. Yet at the same time we see a lot of States 

that just don’t put enough emphasis on bus inspections. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So Ms. Ferro, are you working with the ABA? 

Ms. FERRO. We work closely with all of our stakeholders in this 

regard to identify the best strategies to root out the worst offenders. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So you are familiar with the ones that they feel 

are not appropriate? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. We are familiar with that concern and it has 

been part and parcel over the past 4 years why the agency has incorporated an expectation of a bus safety action plan within each 

commercial safety plan submitted by the States. It is truly an 

evolving process, but it is part of our expectation for each State, 

and we work closely with those States on strike forces. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady and I ask to grant unanimous 

consent that the recommendation made by the gentlelady of California be made part of the record. 

Mr. DeFazio asks unanimous consent that the record of today’s 

hearing remain open for a period of 2 weeks for submission of information or response to questions by the committee. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Let me now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I apologize for the delay. I know you wanted to get out by 4 o’clock. 

Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am a little 

confused on the roadside inspection, so I will direct the question to 

Ms. Ferro and Mr. Pantuso and see what your answers are, maybe 

you will clarify for me. Are we allowed to do, still allowed, or it is 

not prohibited to do roadside inspections? 

Ms. FERRO. Roadside inspections are authorized for high-risk operator behavior. So if that driver is showing extreme rates of speed, 

unsafe operating behavior, if the bus is smoking, a wheel rim is on 

fire, something to that effect, they can certainly take action. 

Mr. SHUSTER. What about targeting a bus company that has 

shown that it has violated operations, safety rules, that wouldn’t 

be imminent or a reason to target them? 

Ms. FERRO. That is not currently authored through the current 

statute, no. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Pantuso, your view on that? 

27 

Mr. PANTUSO. Congressman, I think, again, our concern goes 

back to the safety of the passengers. And if there is a change in 

the law, as long as the passengers are in some fashion protected, 

as long as the seniors, the students, those passengers with disabilities are taken care of and are not left on a hot bus or along the 

side of the road, there are adequate facilities, we are certainly fine 

with some modification to the existing law. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So if in the bill that I propose, if we put in there, 

allowing those bus operations that don’t have a home base, is that 

something your industry or Mr. Parra would support, being able to 

inspect them on the road? Because obviously you, most of your operators, not all of your operators, that I know, have a home base 

and it is easy to get in there and—go ahead. 

Mr. PANTUSO. That is a good question. Companies that operate 

from the curb, if you will, like some of the ones we have seen operating point to point service, or even charter buses, may not have 

a terminal where people go to get the bus but ultimately they have 

a home base and pickup points. There is an owner of that company 

and hopefully they have a garage, they have maintenance facilities 

or places where they take buses to be maintained, and they have 

training. So someplace there is a place to examine the paperwork 

and the buses. 

The other thing is that they all take passengers to the same 

place. They all, good and bad companies, go to the same destinations. If it is a charter or a tour, their passengers are going to the 

same place that good bus company passengers are traveling to. If 

it is a scheduled service operation, they are coming to Washington, 

going to New York, they are doing other point-to-point destinations. 

So there is a destination, there is an origin, certainly if there is 

an opportunity to do inspections en route if the bus or the company 

is identified as unsafe and take care of the passengers. The passengers are the first and foremost concern. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Parra. 

Mr. PARRA. Yes. I would just add to that, and I would hope that 

if a company does have a marginal safety record that they would 

be stopped before they even got on the road, whether it would be 

closing them down. The CSA program, for example, right now, red 

flags those companies that may not have had an accident but, in 

fact, because of one of the five categories they are considered a 

risk. They have an alert listing next to their name. 

FMCSA will intercede at that point and hopefully when the carrier, in fact, has enough alerts on their listing that they would be 

stopped, prevented from operating. That is, to me, the best way to 

catch them, as opposed to trying to get them on the road. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Ms. Ferro. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, I appreciate Mr. Parra’s point. The challenge is 

that these rogue operators are the very ones that never would have 

been inspected because we don’t always know where their origin or 

destination is. They are stopping at empty strip shopping sort of 

abandoned sites, large parking lots, areas that may be Map 

Quested, but are no fixed termini in terms of a tourist destination 

or a casino of some sort. So, again, it is this very sort of population 

that we don’t have inspection data on so we wouldn’t see them as 

a flag in the SMS. 

28 

Mr. SHUSTER. But as Mr. Pantuso said, they start somewhere. I 

mean, they have got some sort of home base, even if very small. 

Major, you look like you are ready. 

Mr. PALMER. Yes, if I may add, I can give you an example in 

Texas. In the Houston area, we have some of these operators that 

literally the only way we can sometimes figure out where they are 

at or where they are going to pick up or come out of is we go to 

certain areas and we look for fliers. And the fliers tell them where 

to pick them up at, and that is what is one of the major challenges, 

and that is happening in Houston, Texas. 

And the other thing is that in relationship to specific legal language about, you know, who the en route inspection would be applied to, it would be very difficult. And to us, from a State perspective, that is more of a policy issue and that could be a policy at the 

FMCSA level. At the very least you would see the States would implement certain policies to ensure the safety of the passengers, because that is the bottom line. We want them to be safe. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Just so I understand, Ms. Ferro. If you can’t get 

them en route but can you at the beginning and at their destination, you can inspect them at both places? 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct, that is correct. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK, all right. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Indiana, 

Mr. Bucshon. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Ferro, I have a 

couple of questions related to budgetary process. 

Do you know what your budget was in 2008? 

Ms. FERRO. I do. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Can you tell me? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, sir. We had $300 million in grant authority, 

State grant authority, and I believe it was $220 or $230 million in 

operating revenue. 

Dr. BUCSHON. So ballpark, $530 million. 

Ms. FERRO. $530 million. 

Dr. BUCSHON. $530 million. And how about 2010? 

Ms. FERRO. 2010 we were at $320 million in grants and $250 million in our—$246 million in our actual, so that is about $556 

million. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Yes. You can add faster than me. 

OK. And then the request for this year, the 2012 budget is, for 

the total? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, the request for our 2012 budget is $50 million 

more, $20 million of that for State grants and $30 million for operations, predominantly additional folks in the field and systems investment. So it is about 100 positions and an additional $50 million. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Well, my concern is in a time when, you know, we 

are expanding spending at the Federal level almost exponentially, 

compared to 2008, you know, and this year, you know, the 2012 

budget, I am trying to figure out in my own mind exactly why, if 

in 2008, you know, it seemed like what you were doing was adequate, but every year it seems like every agency in the Federal 

Government, not just yours, continues to ask for more money. And 

we haverecently, I had bus crashes in 2011 which it didn’t seem 

29 

like the increased amount of money that you had from 2008 to 

2010 really made any difference. 

So in my own mind I am trying to justify exactly why that would 

be. And it seems to me that it might be more or a better thing to 

do to maybe transfer more of the money that you have allocated 

from the Federal rollover to the States so that we can have a more 

pointed inspection programming at the States rather than continuing to increase our budget at the Federal level. 

Now what do you think about that idea? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, sir, I certainly defer to the wisdom of the committee. I will say that the investment in FMCSA, which is a relatively new agency, and the shape of what it means to have the 

proper regulatory and enforcement structure over the motor carrier 

industry is, frankly, still being formed. It is an agency that was 

spun off of Federal Highways a little over 10 years ago. 

With regard to the investment that is proposed, again, it is specific to boots on the ground, either through the State grants or our 

own field system. And one of the challenges that has been identified with the last crash has to do with are we getting to our thorough inspections that we call compliance reviews of the high-risk 

carriers quickly enough? And that is always a resource issue. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Yes, I am just responding somewhat to the unfair 

characterization of, you know, trying to control the budget and the 

Ryan budget, and it seems that a lot of folks want to say that if 

we go back to a spending level that we had just a few years ago 

that that is—these are draconian, dramatic cuts that are going to 

significantly impinge on our ability to run your organization and 

others, and I would argue that that is not true. So I wanted to just 

clarify exactly what you are planning to do. 

How many people do you have working for you, do you know? 

Ms. FERRO. We currently have 1,090. 

Dr. BUCSHON. And what are all those, what is the breakdown on 

what those folks do? Are they all here in Washington? What do 

they do. 

Ms. FERRO. No, no, no. 800 of them are in the field. We have division offices in every State. We have both a division administrator, 

as well as is safety investigators, as well as—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. Let’s break down how many administrators versus 

investigators? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, there is one division administrator for each 

State. And investigators are driven by the size of the motor carrier 

population in that State, as well as the magnitude of the crash history and elsewhere. Again, out of that 800, roughly 500 are dedicated to investigation and inspection activity. 

We also have four regional service centers which process. Each 

investigation has the risk of prompting a legal action by a carrier, 

which may be an appeal, which may be related to the result of the 

inspection or investigation itself. So there is the, what we call mission critical support associated with our work, which has to do with 

lawyers as well as, pardon me, you know in some cases attorneys, 

litigation attorneys as well as our system support. 

Let me clarify, I apologize. We have, out of the numbers I cited, 

400 investigators and 250 inspectors along our southern border out 

30 

of that 800, and then there are additional, again, support personnel 

and auditors. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Duncan, welcome, and you are recognized. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

don’t intend to ask any questions, because I just was able to get 

here a few minutes ago. I have read key portions of the testimony, 

though, but I just want to say this, I know that Mr. Pantuso’s organization has, I think, 800 members and Mr. Parra’s organization 

1,200 members. And I think what that says to us is that this, fortunately, is an industry still with mostly very small and mediumsized businesses. 

I have noticed in almost every industry that becomes very highly 

regulated or overly regulated it ends up in the hands of a few big 

giants. And I hope that we don’t go overboard in reaction to a couple of bad operators. I don’t have any problems with coming down 

very hard on the rogue or the very bad operators. 

But when I was in law practice, I represented a small, one of my 

clients was a small bus company that had three drivers. The owner 

of the company had driven, I think, it was over 2 million miles at 

the time I represented him without an accident and his other two 

drivers had driven well over a million miles without an accident. 

As far as I know, they never had any kind of accident that was 

their fault at all. And that was a good company, and it was a very, 

as you could tell, a very small business. 

So I appreciate the work that these companies do. They provide 

a very, very important service to the people of this Nation and especially to lower and middle-income people. 

So let’s be very careful in what we do and let’s work to do what 

we need to do, but be very careful that we don’t run out the little 

guys or make it very hard for new people to come into the business 

because of two or three companies that have messed up. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. Let’s go back 

now. We have gone through all of the members on the panel, and 

we will now yield back to Mr. DeFazio for additional questions, our 

ranking member. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that 

Chairman Duncan was able to have an opportunity to review some 

of the testimony, and I would agree with his sentiments, which is 

we do not want, we are not proposing to regulate those who are 

doing a good job in unreasonable ways. 

We have had some consensus on the fees that are charged for 

entry from both the associations, the possibility of raising those 

fees to a reasonable level, but wouldn’t bar entry but would also 

help better fund the inspection certification program. We had discussion of certifying operators so we can basically, when you get a 

bad operator, it sticks with them, even though they might come up 

with a new corporate entity or a new spiffy name on a Web site 

for their curb-to-curb service. 

And, you know, that, I think, could be helpful. We had some discussion, although there isn’t agreement, but there is some opening, 

I think with Mr. Shuster’s comments on what you do en route 

31 

versus how you could get at carriers who don’t have really a fixed 

place of operations, and then the State inspection problem, which 

again, we had some consensus on where the States aren’t doing 

their job to certify the buses. 

Just one or two other quick questions. I don’t understand in Administrator Ferro’s testimony, it says, ‘‘revise current law to ensure 

driver’s CDL can be suspended or revoked for drug and alcohol-related offenses committed in noncommercial vehicles.’’ 

I thought that already was allowed. We were looking at the statute here. 

Ms. FERRO. Right now most of those offenses—it is funny, actually I saw that same point I think that is actually a misprint because I agree currently for serious offenses we have the authority 

to require States to disqualify. 

To clarify the particular provision we are looking for, when we 

issue an out-of-service order on a driver, there is no connection between our action and the State CDL, and we feel there needs to 

be an action. Otherwise, really, the driver has no, there is no harm, 

no foul. And the driver may not pay the fine. If there is a fine, another employer might hire that driver because there is no think between that driver and their authority to operate a commercial vehicle. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So right now even though you may suspend 

or bar them, the States are not required to follow suit? 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I think we had talked about this with trucking, 

where we have people who sort of hop States—— 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. When they have had serious problems and we have 

talked about having a unified database so we can keep track of 

people, and is there a requirement on the trucking side that States 

revoke a CDL? 

Ms. FERRO. In terms of—only for State convictions and for—on 

a commercial operator—let me clarify—for sufficient serious violations a State is required to disqualify that driver from holding their 

CDL, but a direct link for certain violations or an out-of-service 

order is not necessarily in that list of serious violations. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, I would appreciate seeing some language on 

that so we can better—— 

Ms. FERRO. We will. If I can just clarify the drug and alcohol 

piece, for positive tests on a drug or alcohol test, there is no link 

to the individual CDL. So that randomized process of drug and alcohol testing for which we are currently advancing a clearinghouse, 

should a driver test positive today or in the future, there is no link 

between that and the driver’s CDL status. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. That is certainly something to think about 

how you would deal with that. 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, we don’t want people—and that would be for 

someone who is actually operating and failed a test while operating? 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And there is no way to say isn’t that person put 

out of service at that point if they test positive for alcohol? 

32 

Ms. FERRO. The driver may be put out of service but, again, if 

it is a positive test after a crash, and it is not related directly to 

the CDL—if I may, let me go ahead and provide language before 

I dig myself a hole on that one. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, that would be OK. And the one other thing 

on your penalty that again is statutory for passenger carriers that 

attempt to operate without U.S. DOT authority. So these are people who didn’t even pay the $300 and initially qualify? These are 

just total rogues? I mean, they are just out there driving around? 

Ms. FERRO. It is that population as well as those we might have 

shut down and resumed operations. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. 

Ms. FERRO. In other words, those who we have removed their authority to operate, and they have resumed operations regardless. So 

it is both populations. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, OK. And again I think we had some consensus that perhaps that fine for those kinds of people could be 

raised from both associations and discussed what would be a reasonable level of fine. But we certainly want to discourage those 

kinds of people. Again, we want to focus on the people that are 

good and encourage them to do better, and we want to get these 

other people out. 

Ms. GILLAN. Congressman DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. 

Ms. GILLAN. Advocates would also recommend that you look at 

criminal penalties for reincarnated carriers and people that are operating without sufficient operating authority, because clearly the 

financial penalties are not enough, you know, to persuade these 

people that, you know, they shouldn’t be going back into business. 

So if you had criminal penalties, I think that really increases the 

stakes and I think that may get their attention if they thought 

they might be going to jail by doing something like this, putting so 

many people at risk. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, I would have to think about that. The key 

thing about it is if you go criminal, then we get a referral to the 

Judiciary Committee, and that is kind of bureaucratic. And beyond 

that the U.S. Attorneys generally, they don’t want—I mean, if it involves someone who has actually had serious infractions that led 

to injury or death or something, then perhaps they would pursue 

it. But normally they wouldn’t be very interested in pursuing it, so 

we would have to kind of qualify it maybe and think about how we 

might do that, and then I would be open to suggestions. 

Administrator. 

Ms. FERRO. If I might mention two other strategies that are core 

to this and, again, they recognize that small operators, independent 

business owners who are doing it right have every reason to continue operating correctly. And one is this authority to regulate brokers. As long as passengers who are buying tickets, whether it is 

through the web or through a site at a curbside, if there is no requirement on those brokers to disclose who they are selling tickets 

for and conceivably provide some sort of a link to the safety information on that carrier, then passengers can continue to really buy 

tickets blindly. 

33 

Furthermore, they buy tickets thinking that the seller has a connection and some responsibility for the quality of the operations. 

The passengers we are seeing today who have lost their tickets, by 

virtue of the companies we shut down, have no recourse other than 

going through some State consumer protection agency. 

So we would recommend, we have authority over the brokers of 

every other kind of commercial movement, the sale of that. We 

would encourage the authority to have some level of requirements 

on brokers of passenger tickets. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So you have, like you have a requirement over 

freight brokers, for instance. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, household goods brokers. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Moving, storage, those things? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, so this is the only area where you don’t have 

that authority? 

Ms. FERRO. Correct. And we are just asking for full disclosure. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, again, I would like to see a suggestion there 

on how that—and do either of the associations have any insight on 

that? 

Mr. PARRA. Mr. DeFazio, we have had a concern about brokers 

for a long time. They have no skin in the game and we have fought 

very hard to ensure that consumers work directly with motorcoach 

operators and bypass the middlemen, as we call them. 

Our concern with any kind of registration would, in effect, give 

them some level of legitimacy, which we don’t believe they should 

have. 

So we are sort of torn. We understand the concern with brokers 

and share that concern, but we don’t want to give them a level of 

legitimacy that would make someone feel comfortable that they are 

dealing with somebody that is reputable because they are, quote, 

unquote, registered by the FMCSA. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Mr. Pantuso. 

Mr. PANTUSO. You know, the devil is always in the details, Mr. 

DeFazio. And certainly as you are talking about brokers, as we sit 

here, the kind of broker that was selling tickets for the company 

that had the accident in Virginia, those are the kinds of brokers 

I think we are talking about. 

By the same token, a lot of the industry buy and sell bus services 

from one another. Companies are leasing buses from each other if 

their capacity is full and they need to get a bus from someone else. 

Tour operators hire buses. So how that broker is defined is a key 

question. But certainly the brokers we are talking about here 

today, we would certainly be in favor of regulating those brokers. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, if we are talking about freight brokerage 

they are required to have bonding. 

Ms. FERRO. That is correct. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I mean, maybe that is something—at least then in 

this case, there would be some potential recourse for people who 

bought tickets through a broker, then they would have someplace 

to go and file a claim against the bond or whatever. Maybe something along those lines would help to some degree. 

Any suggestions you have regarding that would be welcome. So 

thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this has been very 

34 

helpful. I think I find substantial grounds for some modest improvements in law here that will get at the bad actors, and I would 

welcome those actions by the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the ranking member. He has my assurance, 

and we have been talking in between the testimony here in looking 

at the provisions that we intend to put in the next 6-year authorization that will strengthen our ability to deal with the problems 

that we have heard. One fatality is too many, which I said at the 

beginning. 

I have learned some things here, too, and let me clarify as we 

close, the Federal Government now gives, as far as motor vehicle 

safety operations grants, all but two States are recipients of those 

funds; is that correct? 

Ms. FERRO. All States receive motor carrier assistance. 

Mr. MICA. They are all now receiving. 

Ms. FERRO. All. Two are at—receive half of the full amount. 

Mr. MICA. Because they do not meet the Federal standard? 

Ms. FERRO. Precisely. 

Mr. MICA. I discussed with Mr. DeFazio, Florida some time ago 

had a limited enforcement operation and we found that, actually, 

their State law was not compliant with the Federal regs and we 

were having a rash of truck accidents. So we went back to the 

State legislators, and they cooperated and upgraded. Now they get 

the full amount. 

But my point here though is we are providing funding, but—and 

talking about the ticket brokering, by the time somebody is buying 

a ticket, that is way down the pike from where all this problem and 

responsibility starts. I mean, if you are arriving, getting on a bus 

and it has a DOT license number such and such or operator, carrier, whatever number and DOT has initially certified that in some 

way, the public doesn’t know, Members of Congress don’t know 

what that entails. But there should be some responsibility to make 

certain that you have the very best operators possible, not pulling 

the certificate after they have killed a host of people. 

And even, I mean, even if you control—the American Bus Association may control 60 percent of the buses, but I ask this question, 

one of the worst accidents occurred with one of your members who 

was debarred from your membership after the accident, so that is 

late in the game. 

But if we are putting Federal money into State enforcement, the 

other thing is most of the activities are now around truck and highway safety issues. And we had testimony here today that only 12 

States actually are taking active interest, we heard some anecdotal 

information about the poor level of operations as far as bus passenger safety enforcement. So that has got to change. We are going 

to have to make a change there. I think Mr. DeFazio and I agree 

on that. We have to have some better assurances, both from DOT 

in that initial issuance of a license or operating certification. 

And then further down the pike and at each level. 

Enforcement is so important, I don’t think even if I had gotten 

1,080 Federal officials, I am never going to be able to handle what 

needs to be done in the States and localities on the road. So we 

have to empower them to do this. 

35 

The other thing, too, is stopping the bus on the highway. I just 

have great concern, maybe some of the provisions we put in law 

were good, but, we may need a different approach, again, as far as 

some of these random inspections. But the last thing I want to see 

is on the interstate, a major highway, is bus passengers unloaded 

or some kind of inspection. 

I believe before a passenger gets on that bus that there has to 

be some assurance that that is safe. And for heaven’s sakes, we 

know that most of these operators are small operators, many are 

in the gaming industry, what type of enforcement rocket science is 

it to inspect the bus before this ever leaves the station, people 

know where they are leaving from or their departure site or as it 

arrives. 

So I have concerns about how we do this from a practical standpoint, and I don’t want to put more people at risk in the process. 

Competition is important, and we want to make certain a little 

carrier has a shot at this too. 

This isn’t just about preserving the bottom line for major carriers 

in this, and we will have to look at some innovative ways maybe 

the proposal with third-party inspections, some way of getting more 

inspection for less dollars and less bureaucracy. That might be an 

innovative approach from Washington. But maybe we can do that 

too. 

And then I want to go back and look at NTSB recommendations 

we really didn’t get into in detail. We want to make certain that 

we don’t leave those recommendations on the shelf. 

I know in other industries and modes of transportation, we have 

done that in the past to make certain that there is some follow 

through and compliance when we have seen a mistake it shouldn’t, 

or a gross error, it shouldn’t happen again. So, again, I appreciate 

your testimony today, your participation. This is a quickly held 

hearing, but we are looking at all of the provisions that we are trying to incorporate into a 6-year major piece of legislation. We 

thought it would be fitting that we review this in a bipartisan manner and try to come up with, again, the best possible provisions to 

ensure that the traveling public, particularly bus passengers, have 

every element of safety in place and that we responsibly provide for 

that and by our legislation or by the regulation allow the agency 

to help do its job better, and also for the States that end up with 

a lot of the responsibility in this process. 

So, again, I thank the witnesses. 

We will leave the record open for 2 weeks as the unanimous request by Mr. DeFazio has been passed, and we may be submitting 

additional questions to the witnesses for response for and to be 

made part of the official record of proceedings today. 

There being no further business to come before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the U.S. House, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

36 


Insert offset folio 5 here 66918.005
37 


Insert offset folio 6 here 66918.006
38 


Insert offset folio 7 here 66918.007
39 


Insert offset folio 8 here 66918.008
40 


Insert offset folio 9 here 66918.009
41 


Insert offset folio 10 here 66918.010
42 


Insert offset folio 11 here 66918.011
43 


Insert offset folio 12 here 66918.012
44 


Insert offset folio 13 here 66918.013
45 


Insert offset folio 14 here 66918.014
46 


Insert offset folio 15 here 66918.015
47 


Insert offset folio 16 here 66918.016
48 


Insert offset folio 17 here 66918.017
49 


Insert offset folio 18 here 66918.018
50 


Insert offset folio 19 here 66918.019
51 


Insert offset folio 20 here 66918.020
52 


Insert offset folio 21 here 66918.021
53 


Insert offset folio 22 here 66918.022
54 


Insert offset folio 23 here 66918.023
55 


Insert offset folio 24 here 66918.024
56 


Insert offset folio 25 here 66918.025
57 


Insert offset folio 26 here 66918.026
58 


Insert offset folio 27 here 66918.027
59 


Insert offset folio 28 here 66918.028
60 


Insert offset folio 29 here 66918.029
61 


Insert offset folio 30 here 66918.030
62 


Insert offset folio 31 here 66918.031
63 


Insert offset folio 32 here 66918.032
64 


Insert offset folio 33 here 66918.033
65 


Insert offset folio 34 here 66918.034
66 


Insert offset folio 35 here 66918.035
67 


Insert offset folio 36 here 66918.036
68 


Insert offset folio 37 here 66918.037
69 


Insert offset folio 38 here 66918.038
70 


Insert offset folio 39 here 66918.039
71 


Insert offset folio 40 here 66918.040
72 


Insert offset folio 41 here 66918.041
73 


Insert offset folio 42 here 66918.042
74 


Insert offset folio 43 here 66918.043
75 


Insert offset folio 44 here 66918.044
76 


Insert offset folio 45 here 66918.045
77 


Insert offset folio 46 here 66918.046
78 


Insert offset folio 47 here 66918.047
79 


Insert offset folio 48 here 66918.048
80 


Insert offset folio 49 here 66918.049
81 


Insert offset folio 50 here 66918.050
82 


Insert offset folio 51 here 66918.051
83 


Insert offset folio 52 here 66918.052
84 


Insert offset folio 53 here 66918.053
85 


Insert offset folio 54 here 66918.054
86 


Insert offset folio 55 here 66918.055
87 


Insert offset folio 56 here 66918.056
88 


Insert offset folio 57 here 66918.057
89 


Insert offset folio 58 here 66918.058
90 


Insert offset folio 59 here 66918.059
91 


Insert offset folio 60 here 66918.060
92 


Insert offset folio 61 here 66918.061
93 


Insert offset folio 62 here 66918.062
94 


Insert offset folio 63 here 66918.063
95 


Insert offset folio 64 here 66918.064
96 


Insert offset folio 65 here 66918.065
97 


Insert offset folio 66 here 66918.066
98 


Insert offset folio 67 here 66918.067
99 


Insert offset folio 68 here 66918.068
100 


Insert offset folio 69 here 66918.069
101 


Insert offset folio 70 here 66918.070
102 


Insert offset folio 71 here 66918.071
103 


Insert offset folio 72 here 66918.072
104 


Insert offset folio 73 here 66918.073
105 


Insert offset folio 74 here 66918.074
106 


Insert offset folio 75 here 66918.075
107 


Insert offset folio 76 here 66918.076
108 


Insert offset folio 77 here 66918.077
109 


Insert offset folio 78 here 66918.078
110 


Insert offset folio 79 here 66918.079
111 


Insert offset folio 80 here 66918.080
112 


Insert offset folio 81 here 66918.081
113 


Insert offset folio 82 here 66918.082
114 


Insert offset folio 83 here 66918.083
115 


Insert offset folio 84 here 66918.084
116 


Insert offset folio 85 here 66918.085
117 


Insert offset folio 86 here 66918.086
118 


Insert offset folio 87 here 66918.087
119 


Insert offset folio 88 here 66918.088
120 


Insert offset folio 89 here 66918.089
121 


Insert offset folio 90 here 66918.090
122 


Insert offset folio 91 here 66918.091
123 


Insert offset folio 92 here 66918.092
124 


Insert offset folio 93 here 66918.093
125 


Insert offset folio 94 here 66918.094
126 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 95 here 66918.095