U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

26–374 PDF 2017

FAST ACT IMPLEMENTATION: IMPROVING THE 

SAFETY OF THE NATION’S ROADS 

(115–21) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 18, 2017 

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 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, Vice 

Ranking Member 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania, Vice Chair 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

WITNESSES 

Walter C. ‘‘Butch’’ Waidelich, Jr., Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway Administration: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement, submitted jointly with Mrs. Jefferson and Mr. Danielson .............................................................................................................. 45 

Responses to questions for the record submitted by the following Representatives: 

Hon. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania ......................................................... 56 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon ............................................................. 56 

Hon Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon, on behalf of Hon. John Garamendi 

of California ............................................................................................ 58 

Hon. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland ................................................... 59 

Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois ................................................................ 60 

Daphne Y. Jefferson, Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement, submitted jointly with Mr. Waidelich and Mr. Danielson .............................................................................................................. 45 

Responses to questions for the record submitted by the following Representatives: 

Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri ................................................................... 61 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon ............................................................. 62 

Hon. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania ......................................................... 62 

Hon. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland ................................................... 64 

Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal of California ...................................................... 65 

Jack Danielson, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement, submitted jointly with Mr. Waidelich and Mrs. Jefferson ............................................................................................................. 45 

Responses to questions for the record submitted by the following Representatives: 

Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri ................................................................... 66 

Hon. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland ................................................... 66 

Hon. Garret Graves of Louisiana ............................................................. 66 

Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois ................................................................ 67 

Hon. T. Bella Dinh-Zarr, Member, National Transportation Safety Board: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Responses to questions for the record submitted by the following Representatives: 

Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri ................................................................... 82 

Hon. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland ................................................... 83 

PREPARED STATEMENTS PREPARED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland ................................................................. 42 

Page

VI 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tennessee, 

submission of the following: 

National Transportation Safety Board, Highway Accident Brief, Passenger Vehicle/School Bus Collision and Roadway Departure, Houston, 

TX, Accident No. HWY15FH010, NTSB/HAB–16/05 ................................. 85 

National Transportation Safety Board, Highway Accident Brief, School 

Bus Roadway Departure, Anaheim, CA, Accident No. HWY14FH010, 

NTSB/HAB–16/06 ......................................................................................... 100 

National Transportation Safety Board, Highway Accident Brief, Collision 

of Two School Buses with Subsequent Rollover, Knoxville, TN, Accident 

No. HWY15FH002, NTSB/HAB–16/04 ........................................................ 121 

Accident Report of the National Transportation Safety Board, ‘‘School 

Bus and Truck Collision at Intersection, New Chesterfield, New Jersey,’’ February 16, 2012, NTSB/HAR–13/01, PB2013–106638 1

Accident Report of the National Transportation Safety Board, ‘‘Multivehicle Collision, Interstate 44 Eastbound, Gray Summit, Missouri,’’ 

August 5, 2010, NTSB/HAR–11/03, PB2011–916203 2

Letter of May 8, 2017, from Peter Osborn, New York Division Administrator, 

Federal Highway Administration, to Matthew Driscoll, Commissioner, New 

York State Department of Transportation, submitted by Hon. John J. Faso, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of New York .............................. 37 

Jack Danielson, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, response to requests for information from Hon. John 

J. Faso of New York and Hon. Doug LaMalfa of California ............................. 38, 41 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Prepared statement from the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials ....................................................................................... 131 

1This 113-page report can be found online at the National Transportation Safety Board’s 

website at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1301.pdf. 2This 104-page report can be found online at the National Transportation Safety Board’s 

website at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1103.pdf. 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 26374.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 26374.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 26374.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 26374.004
(1) 

FAST ACT IMPLEMENTATION: IMPROVING 

THE SAFETY OF THE NATION’S ROADS 

TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Graves (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. We will call the subcommittee to 

order. And I want to welcome everybody here. Good morning. 

We all share the same critical goal of reducing the number of fatalities and serious injuries on our Nation’s roads. Over the past 

years, Federal transportation safety programs, along with other 

factors, have played an important role in reducing these numbers. 

When this committee was developing its surface transportation bill 

a couple years ago, improving safety on our Nation’s roads was one 

of the very key principles. Today, we are here to examine the implementation of the safety provisions in the FAST Act [Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation Act]. 

The FAST Act is the first long-term surface transportation bill in 

a decade. It improves our Nation’s infrastructure. It reforms Federal surface transportation programs and refocuses those programs 

on addressing national priorities. And it encourages innovation to 

make the surface transportation system safer and more efficient. 

The FAST Act also provides our non-Federal partners with important resources to improve the safety of our Nation’s roads. These 

resources include but aren’t limited to: increasing funding for Federal transportation safety programs across the modal administrations; reforming certain NHTSA safety programs to reduce barriers 

to State eligibility; improve incentives for roads or for States to 

adopt laws and regulations to improve highway safety; consolidate 

nine existing FMCSA grant programs into four; streamlining the 

program requirements to reduce administrative cost and improve 

the flexibility for the States; and improving safety by incentivizing 

the adoption of innovative truck and bus safety technologies and 

accelerated implementation of safety regulations that are required 

by law. So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the 

progress that their agencies are making in implementing the safety 

provisions of the FAST Act. 

And I thank you all for being here today. I know some of you 

traveled farther than others. 

2 

And, with that, I will turn to Ranking Member Norton for her 

opening statement. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And, first, I want to say how much I appreciate this hearing on 

improving the safety of the Nation’s roads. This is an issue of critical importance because safety has not been improving. Just yesterday, I was on the floor for the approval of safety for the Metro system here. Safety is becoming a critical concern in transportation. 

Since I have been ranking member, our Subcommittee on Highways and Transit has spent considerable time on issues of critical 

importance, like technology and innovation and automation. As important as those subjects are, I hope we can have more hearings 

on safety. We have had two hearings on public safety now, and I 

hope this is another one in what will be a series. I have written 

requesting a hearing on the oversight and monitoring of motor carrier safety under the CSA program, for example. There are a number of other topics regarding safety that are worthy of exploration. 

Mr. Chairman, motor vehicle crashes should be negative, should 

be going down, decreasing in numbers. You know, that is the 

American way. Either we want things to go up every year, like the 

economy, or we want things to go down, like crashes. So I was astounded that, in preparing for this hearing, to learn that pedestrian fatalities have increased—that is an increase I am not looking 

for—by almost 10 percent, 9.5 percent in 2015. They are at their 

highest level since 1996. What is wrong with us? What is wrong 

with what we have been doing that these figures have been getting 

worse? 

I have particular concerns in the District of Columbia where pedestrian deaths represent 56 percent of all traffic fatalities. We are 

asking people to get out and walk, and then you take your life in 

your hands as you cross the street. The figures are continuing to 

get worse. The first 9 months of 2016, we saw an 8 percent higher 

rate than the figures I have just quoted in 2015, which were already 10 percent higher themselves. So we really can’t sit idly by. 

I think the public wants us to do something. Obviously, these are 

matters at the local level and State level, but they are surely matters here for this technology. 

Now, I am pleased at technology at this hearing. Technology is 

an important piece of how we would enhance safety, in my regard. 

And I am fascinated by the work being done to advance innovative 

solutions for future generations to avoid needless loss of life. But 

full automation, which I believe would reduce needless deaths, is 

really not around the corner, as exciting as it is. The three leading 

causes of death in 2015 were responsible for two-thirds of all 

deaths, and they were all based on human factors. I am not sure 

technology—what technology will do about them. We haven’t got to 

this in technology yet. Because these factors were—almost twothirds were because of alcohol impairment, speeding—maybe we 

can do something about that with innovation—and distracted driving. 

So the question before the House, as they say, is, what steps can 

be taken now, right now, to bring down auto fatalities and injuries 

to ensure that, when you get behind a car or a bus or a truck, for 

3 

example, that you have the training and education necessary to 

take on that responsibility, safety. 

One of my own major issues as ranking member has been more 

robust commercial truck and bus driver training. Buses, but particularly trucks, are an increasing mode of transportation in our 

country. Congress first directed the Department of Transportation 

to develop training standards for commercial motor vehicle drivers 

in 1991. That was over 25 years ago. Between 1991 and 2016, the 

Department failed to produce a rule that provided adequate training standards for drivers. All of that time, no rule. 

Late last year, though, the Department of Transportation put out 

a new rule based on negotiated rulemaking. I was very hopeful, 

given the negotiated rulemaking. But this rule failed to include a 

minimum number of hours behind-the-wheel training. So it is all 

up to the trucking companies how much training they get. And the 

Congress of the United States is taking no responsibility for those 

trucks out there where people are driving without adequate training to drive a truck. That rule, which did not have a minimum 

amount of hours, was the really a missed opportunity and great 

disappointment. 

So I am hoping that today’s hearing will be a change from our 

endless request, which has become the norm, for exemptions and 

calls to block DOT safety rules. There is room for improvement in 

many rules of the Federal Government. But rather than cause to 

simply eliminate regulations, we should be challenging industry, 

Department of Transportation, stakeholders, all to be more creative 

and work toward the common goal to utilize their own resources 

and imagination to create a more safe road for all. 

So I am very pleased that we have a National Transportation 

Safety Board member here. For 50 years, the NTSB has been the 

leader in setting a high bar for safety and informing Congress of 

what policy solutions will generate the greatest safety improvements. But bear in mind, the NTSB does not have enforcement authority. It is up to this committee and to the Congress of the 

United States. 

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Now, I am pleased to have Ranking 

Member DeFazio. Would you like to make an opening statement? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased we are 

having this hearing today. It is important to hear—in this case, I 

am pleased we are hearing, actually—from a career staff as opposed to political hacks. So perhaps we will get some good information here today. 

You know, we seem to be going the wrong way when it comes 

to surface transportation. In particular, we had a spike in fatalities. We have twice the rate of fatalities of other high-income countries. You know, obviously, there are some issues here. I believe 

part of the problem is the state of our infrastructure, in places 

where it is obsolete, obsolescent, or deteriorated, that that contributes to the fatality rate. And so the lack of investment is part of 

the problem, and obviously, the same lack of investment has led to 

reductions in our safety programs of FHWA, FMCSA, and NHTSA 

are all part and parcel funded through the same process, which, is, 

you know, the Highway Trust Fund, which is underfunded so that 

4 

I believe the solution both for rebuilding our infrastructure and for 

enhanced safety comes with more robust funding. 

Also, you know, we need to, you know, have sensible regulations. 

But there is, I think, a little bit—in this particular administration, 

they are going overboard in terms of restraining reasonable and 

needed safety regulations. And I fear that they will continue to go 

down that path. 

I mean, I did support, in the FAST Act, you know, provisions to 

require that they revisit and retool some of the CSA system. But 

we want to take corrective action. We want to update it. We want 

to make it accurate. And we want it to be a tool that will be useful 

in terms of identifying areas or operators who need more attention 

or perhaps even shouldn’t be allowed to operate. But, you know, we 

can’t just throw out the whole concept of having a better system, 

which I fear this administration will do. 

So, hopefully, today we will hear some ideas from these career 

folks, and hopefully Congress will see fit to include that in its oversight and future actions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Ranking Member DeFazio. 

With that, I will welcome our panel and introduce them. 

We have Mr. Walter Waidelich, who is the Acting Deputy Administrator at the Federal Highway Administration. We have Mrs. 

Daphne Jefferson, who is the Deputy Administrator at the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration. We have Mr. Jack Danielson, 

who is the Acting Deputy Administrator at the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. And we have the Honorable T. Bella 

Dinh-Zarr, who is a member of the National Transportation Safety 

Board. 

With that, I would ask unanimous consent that all witnesses’ full 

statements be included in the record. 

Without objection, that is so ordered. 

And since your written testimonies have been made a part of the 

record, the committee would ask that you limit your summary at 

least to 5 minutes or be pretty close. 

And, with that, Mr. Waidelich, you can begin. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER C. ‘‘BUTCH’’ WAIDELICH, JR., ACTING 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; DAPHNE Y. JEFFERSON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; JACK 

DANIELSON, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL 

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; AND HON. T. 

BELLA DINH-ZARR, MEMBER, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD 

Mr. WAIDELICH. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and 

the members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today 

to talk about FAST Act implementation and ensuring the safety of 

our roads. 

As I am sure you hear often today, safety is the Department’s 

number one priority. At the Federal Highway Administration, we 

strive every day to ensure that our highways, bridges, and tunnels 

are safe and reliable for the American people. The recent increase 

in highway fatalities, after decades of decline, underscores the imVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Sep 14, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\7-18-2~1\26374.TXT JEAN
5 

portance of the coordinated efforts of the agencies represented here 

today to address road safety. 

FHWA is a proud member of the Road to Zero Coalition, and we 

look forward to working with our sister agencies and this committee on the critical vision of achieving zero fatalities by 2050. 

The cornerstones of our efforts to eliminate fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads is our Highway Safety Improvement 

Program, which provides an estimated average of $2.6 billion of 

funding per year over the course of the FAST Act. 

Through the HSIP and other efforts, FHWA emphasizes a datadriven, performance-based approach to save lives. We estimate that 

highway safety improvement projects result in $4 to $7 of benefits 

for every dollar invested. Projects funded through the HSIP must 

be consistent with the States’ strategic highway safety plan which 

is developed by States in coordination with Federal, local, and Tribal partners. These plans establish each State’s individualized safety goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas, and integrate the four 

E’s of highway safety: engineering, education, enforcement, and 

emergency medical services. 

A growing number of States are using HSIP funds for projects 

on locally owned and rural roads, and more local agencies are participating in the development of strategic highway safety plans. 

This local investment is critical to our Road to Zero goal. And in 

2015, 19 percent of the U.S. population lived in rural areas, but 

rural road fatalities accounted for 49 percent of all road fatalities. 

In addition to the HSIP, the FAST Act also continued performance management standards first enacted in MAP–21. One of our 

primary achievements in recent years has been implementing these 

performance management standards for safety. Beginning this 

summer, States and metropolitan planning organizations will set 

data-driven annual safety performance targets for the first time. 

They will measure, in part, the number and rate of fatalities and 

serious injuries. And they will use that data to inform future investment choices. 

FHWA, in coordination with NHTSA, has provided significant resources to advance implementation of the safety performance management requirements, including delivering target-setting workshops in 45 States. In addition to implementing these core Federal 

aid programs, FHWA is also looking to the future of safety innovation and research. Through our Every Day Counts initiative, we encourage States to adopt proven but underutilized safety countermeasures. 

We are also working with State partners to expand vehicle-to-infrastructure or V2I communications technology, which is now eligible for funding under major Federal aid highway programs. FHWA, 

in coordination with our sister agencies, is developing a vision 

statement clarifying our important role in advancing connected 

automated technologies and preparing our national roadway infrastructure for an automated vehicle future. When leveraged with 

V2I communications technology, connected automation has the potential to deliver significant safety, mobility, and environmental 

benefits. 

Finally, FHWA continues to invest resources to identify the next 

generation of safety technology, including through our many reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Sep 14, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\7-18-2~1\26374.TXT JEAN
6 

search programs run out of the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center. 

While I focus my remarks today on FHWA’s programs with safety in the name, FHWA strives to incorporate safety in the entire 

$44 billion Federal-aid highway program so all Americans can benefit from safe and reliable roads. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to 

appear before you on these critical issues, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Now we will hear from Mrs. Jefferson. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Good morning. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Good morning. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify about the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s 

work to improve truck and bus safety and implement the FAST 

Act. It is an honor to testify alongside my colleagues Jack Danielson and Butch Waidelich. 

FMCSA’s mission is to save lives by preventing crashes. We oversee more than half a million truck and bus companies and almost 

5 million active commercial driver’s license holders. Americans depend on the trucking industry to move more than two-thirds of the 

Nation’s freight. The large majority of motor carriers are skilled, 

committed to safety, and play by the rules. It is our task to identify 

the small fraction that are at high risk for a crash. Highway fatalities and crashes involving large trucks and buses have dropped in 

the past decade, but they have been increasing in recent years. In 

2015, for example, the number of fatalities involving commercial 

motor vehicles rose 4.1 percent from the previous year. 

We must be vigilant to reduce crashes. This includes conducting 

data-driven safety compliance and enforcement activities, 

leveraging safety technologies, ensuring driver qualifications, and 

expanding partnerships. We rely on our partners in State and local 

law enforcement to keep our highways safe. 

Through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, the 

MCSAP program, more than 13,000 law enforcement personnel act 

as a force multiplier conducting more than 3 million roadside inspections each year. Congressional funding in fiscal year 2015 has 

allowed us to sharpen our risk-management tools to identify and 

prioritize high-risk carriers. We revised our algorithm to identify 

carriers with a crash rate three times higher than the national average. We investigated 90 percent of them within 3 months to help 

bring them back into compliance. 

We commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to take a 

close look at our Safety Measurement System, or SMS, that we use 

to prioritize motor carriers. The study made recommendations to 

further improve SMS. We are taking these recommendations seriously and will submit a corrective action plan to Congress. 

Additionally, we are addressing industry concerns about crash 

preventability. Later this week, we will announce a 24-month demonstration program to review less complex crashes to determine if 

they were preventable and can be removed from the motor carrier’s 

records. 

7 

Under Secretary Chao’s leadership, FMCSA is looking to the future. We have been encouraging industry to develop advanced driving systems that improve both safety and economic competitiveness. We are meeting with key players through a series of public 

meetings and listening sessions to discuss advanced driving systems and truck platooning. 

Another example of leveraging technology is the use of electronic 

logging devices to address hours-of-service compliance and driver 

fatigue. We are working closely with the industry, law enforcement, 

and stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition to electronic logging devices as its first compliance date approaches later this year. 

We are focused also on driver health and education as key components of safety. Last year, we published a final rule on the Drug 

and Alcohol Clearinghouse. This new program with a compliance 

date of 2020 will enable the agency and employers to identify individuals who test positive for use of controlled substances or abuse 

of alcohol. 

To improve driver education, we published the Entry-Level Driver Training rule last December. This was a product of negotiated 

rulemaking in which our stakeholders worked side by side with us 

to formulate minimum training requirements for all new drivers. 

We will establish a registry of training schools with appropriate 

curriculum standards for classroom and on-road training. 

FMCSA is also a member of the Road to Zero Coalition, a partnership with the National Safety Council, NHTSA, and FHWA 

with the aim of eliminating truck fatalities within 30 years. We 

have heard from our industry partners and safety advocates that 

it is important to educate drivers like you and me on how to safely 

share the road with commercial motor vehicles. 

As a result, FMCSA has recently announced its Our Roads, Our 

Safety campaign that will focus on States with the highest incidence of crashes. This targeted approach will allow us to reach 

drivers where education and awareness can make the greatest difference. 

Mr. Chairman, we must do more to make our roadways safe for 

the traveling public. Every FMCSA employee, our State partners, 

our DOT sister agencies, and our stakeholders share this solemn 

commitment to bring this tragic increase in highway fatalities back 

down. Together, with your support, we can improve safety for all. 

I would be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mrs. Jefferson. 

Mr. Danielson. 

Mr. DANIELSON. Good morning, Chairman Graves, Ranking 

Member Norton, and the distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, thank you for the opportunity to update you on 

NHTSA’s implementation of the FAST Act and our efforts to improve safety on our Nation’s roads. For the last 50 years, NHTSA 

has diligently worked to fulfill our mission, to save lives, prevent 

injuries, and reduce the economic cost due to road traffic crashes 

through education, research, setting safety standards, and enforcement. We could not work toward our mission without the support 

of this committee and your work on the FAST Act. 

8 

In 2015, we lost 35,092 people on our public roads. That was a 

7.2-percent spike in traffic fatalities and the largest single-year increase in 50 years. Unfortunately, the preliminary numbers appear 

to show that roadway fatalities increased further in 2016. 

As many know, 94 percent of serious crashes are the result of 

human choices, such as distraction, alcohol and drug impairment, 

speeding, and fatigue. The bottom line is the overwhelming majority of crashes result from someone making a poor choice. In the 

FAST Act, Congress provided more tools to combat unsafe driving 

behavior, including such persistent challenges as impaired and distracted driving. 

How many times have you observed the driver in the car next 

to you texting or looking down at a phone? How often was that car 

swerving, falling below the speed limit, or, worse, speeding toward 

another car? Sending or reading a text takes your eyes off the road 

for an average of 5 seconds. At 55 miles an hour, that is like driving the length of an entire football field with your eyes closed. Distracted driving is a prime example of the poor choice that can 

cause crashes. And the FAST Act is helping us address that 

through grants to States that enact lifesaving distracted driving 

laws. 

In fiscal year 2017, we were able to award 27 grants to States 

to address distracted driving. These grant funds are available for 

a variety of safety purposes, including distracted driving enforcement. We look forward to working closely with the States to increase the number of these grants in future years as more States 

enact these important laws. 

In addition to distracted driving grants, the priority safety grants 

in areas such as occupant protection, impaired driving, and motorcycle safety, the FAST Act added grants to promote pedestrian and 

bicycle safety, 24/7 sobriety programs to combat drunk driving and 

racial profiling collection. 

Today, technology plays a substantial and growing role to improve roadway safety with a long-term potential of removing the 

human factor from the crash equation altogether. There is a good 

deal of excitement over the potential of automation in vehicles to 

prevent crashes and save lives. 

Automated driving systems are capable of addressing critical 

cause of over 90 percent of serious crashes. Secretary Chao has 

made the review and improvement of the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy a top priority. The Secretary is focused on establishing 

a framework that supports innovation and the safe testing and deployment of automated driving systems. 

Technology has the potential to greatly improve safety as well as 

the travel experience. However, technology is a double-edged 

sword. Over the long term, it promises us an amazing future of 

safe and convenient mobility. But in the near term, it poses an immediate threat from every other driver on the road who refuses to 

put down their phone. Sadly, too many of these drivers are young 

drivers whose inexperience magnifies the risk to themselves and 

those around them. NHTSA is always looking for creative ways to 

increase roadway safety and improve driver behavior. 

With your continued support, our safety campaigns, such as 

Click It or Ticket; Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over; and U Text, U 

9 

Drive, U Pay will encourage safe driving choices, and these campaigns are changing driver behavior and attitudes for the better. 

Safety is NHTSA’s highest priority. And I thank the subcommittee and the staff for its continued support and for devoting 

the resources and time to the important safety challenges that 

NHTSA confronts. And I look forward to answering any questions 

you may have. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Ms. Dinh-Zarr. 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. Good morning, Chairman Graves—— 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Good morning. 

Ms. DINH-ZARR [continuing]. Ranking Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

today on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board. 

We have just heard that more than 35,000 people die on our Nation’s roads each year. As an independent Government investigative agency, the NTSB is at the scene of some of the worst of these 

crashes. We provide assistance to families, and we make safety recommendations to prevent these tragedies from happening again. 

Our Most Wanted List identifies 10 focus areas that we know 

firsthand can improve transportation safety. Seven of these areas 

specifically affect highway safety. They are impairment, distraction, occupant protection, fatigue, medical fitness, collision-avoidance technologies, and event data recorders. 

More than 10,000 fatalities each year in the United States involve an alcohol-impaired driver. Impairment by other drugs is also 

a rising concern. We have recommended a comprehensive approach 

to address impaired driving including lowering of the per se blood 

alcohol content, strengthening requirements for ignition interlocks, 

and taking strong action to prevent commercial drivers from using 

these substances. 

In 2015, more than 3,400 died, and 391,000 people were injured 

in distracted driving crashes. Effective change requires strict laws, 

proper education, and effective enforcement. We have recommended banning nonemergency use of portable electronic devices by all drivers, high-visibility enforcement, and targeted communication campaigns. 

We have investigated many crashes in which improved occupant 

protection systems, such as seatbelts, child restraints, and vehicle 

design features could have reduced injuries and saved lives. Since 

1995, we recommended that States require primary enforcement of 

seatbelt laws for all vehicle seating positions equipped with a passenger restraint system. While schoolbuses generally are safe, we 

have identified benefits from using lap and shoulder restraints. 

Thus, we have recommended training for bus drivers, students, and 

parents on the importance and proper use of seatbelts and that 

States or school districts consider lap/shoulder belts when purchasing new schoolbuses. 

Fatigue is a significant concern, especially in commercial trucking and bus operations. For more than 25 years, we have advocated 

the use of technology like electronic logging devices. These devices 

may be used as part of a carrier’s fatigue management program. 

Such programs can reduce fatigue-related crashes and should be 

required for all carriers. 

10 

More than 90 percent of crashes can be attributed to driver error, 

and increased implementation of vehicle-based and driver-assist 

collision-avoidance technologies can aid drivers and help reduce the 

occurrence of certain types of crashes. 

Finally, data recorders capture and store critical information 

that help investigators determine the cause of a crash and guide 

companies and operators to take proactive steps toward prevention. 

We have frequently expressed our concern about the lack of requirements for heavy commercial vehicles to have event data recorders. 

The FAST Act provides critical resources to help States reduce 

highway deaths and injuries by focusing on seatbelt use, impaired 

and distracted driving countermeasures, motorcyclist safety, and 

graduated driver licensing laws. 

We continue to monitor progress on other initiatives, such as 

hair testing for commercial motor vehicle operators, and ensuring 

that deficiencies in the FMCSA Compliance, Safety, and Accountability Program are addressed to identify carriers that pose the 

greatest risk to the public. 

The NTSB is also looking at other safety issues. Next week, we 

will consider a safety study examining speeding-related passenger 

vehicle crashes. We are also developing a special investigation report regarding pedestrian safety. 

Finally, NTSB recognizes that emerging technologies in automated vehicle systems have significant potential safety benefits. 

We have a history of calling for automation to provide an increasing margin of safety in all modes of transportation. We plan to 

complete our investigation of the first known fatal crash of a vehicle operating under automated control systems later this year. And, 

of course, when it is complete, we would be happy to provide you 

with the findings of this investigation and any crash we have investigated so that it might be helpful to you in your work to make 

our roads safer. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

And I would be happy to take any questions. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you very much to all our witnesses. 

Now I will go and start questions. I am going to start with Mr. 

Gibbs. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn’t expecting that 

right quick. 

Mrs. Jefferson, recently the National Academy of Sciences finished their CSA and SMS study, and I was wondering—it said 

something about FMCSA used a more detailed, structurally sound 

mathematical model. Does the agency intend to develop a model 

to—with CSA scores? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Congressman Gibbs, thank you for that question. 

FMCSA appreciates the work that the National Academy of 

Sciences performed on the FMS study. Our intent is to implement 

the recommendations of that study. We will be engaging the Academy of Sciences to continue working with us as well as engaging 

stakeholders as we go about developing our corrective action plan. 

11 

Mr. GIBBS. Whatever model is developed or used, will it count— 

not count against drivers who are not at fault in an accident? Because that has been one of the big problems in the current scoring. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Well, I can’t speak in detail on what the model 

will entail. We would be happy to keep Congress abreast as we go 

through the process. But we are looking at opportunities through 

a crash preventability pilot program to look at crashes that drivers 

may come back and say those—they were not at fault and provide 

them an opportunity to provide information so that they can be removed from the record. 

Mr. GIBBS. Because I think in this—the Academy of Sciences 

identified a small number of violations that correlate with crashes, 

but yet they identified nearly 900 other possible motor safety regulation violations. You know, it would be nice if maybe they focus 

their attention on the regulations that correlate with crashes. I 

mean, you know, put more priority to that. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. One of the recommendations was that the 899 

potential violations, we review those and focus on the ones that 

have the greatest correlation to safety. So we will be taking a looking at that. 

Mr. GIBBS. Does the agency plan to hold public meetings or invite stakeholders to meet with the agency during this planning period for a formal response to the recommendations of their report? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Yes, we do. We are working now to figure out 

how to conduct a public meeting before the 120-day deadline for 

submitting the corrective action plan. And as a part of our planning, we will engage stakeholders throughout the process. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Also, you know, the FAST Act included several 

reforms. One was for process for interested veterans from Active 

Duty service and women to obtain a commercial driver’s license. 

Have we seen an increase in the number of veterans in that program? What is the status of more veterans and women obtaining 

the CDLs? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. We are working on rulemaking that will make 

it easier for men and women who have used heavy commercial vehicles in the military to transition into civilian life. We are also 

working with the Veterans Administration and the Department of 

Defense in helping to facilitate transition of veterans coming into 

the commercial motor vehicle industry. 

Mr. GIBBS. Very good. 

Mr. Danielson, the FAST Act required DOT to conduct a study 

about marijuana-impaired driving, submit a report to Congress. 

Can you provide us an update and status of that report? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Of course, sir. The report is in its final agency 

review, and we hope to have it in your hands very soon. 

Mr. GIBBS. Also, NHTSA roadside studies have shown the presence of marijuana among drivers is increased and that marijuanapositive driving now exceeds alcohol-positive driving. What steps is 

NHTSA taking to address this issue? 

Mr. DANIELSON. The role of impairment by drugs is not well understood. There are two basic reasons for that. One is there is not 

a scientifically acceptable threshold for impairment by drugs. The 

other is that there is not—there is not a technology to detect drug 

impairment. 

12 

However, what we do know, a couple things, is that marijuana 

usage has gone up 50 percent from 2007 to 2014, and we also know 

that, through laboratory studies, that marijuana impairs judgment 

and impairs your ability to drive, particularly with reaction time. 

And so what NHTSA—NHTSA addresses this via training of law 

enforcement through our drug recognition expert program. We have 

8,000 law enforcement officials who are trained to go through an 

extensive battery of tests on the roadside of people who are suspected of impairment by drugs. This is a court-accepted process. 

NHTSA is also working on research to develop a drug detection 

method, a device that we could give to law enforcement using oral 

fluids. 

Mr. GIBBS. I guess I am out time. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Ranking Member Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mrs. Jefferson, you, perhaps, heard my opening remarks—in my 

opening remarks, my concern about driver training. Now, Congress 

has the same concern—expressed that concern in the FAST Act 

when it directed the FMCSA to give, quote, ‘‘safety the highest priority.’’ So I was heartened that, after 25 years, there was a rulemaking that was going to get all of the factors, especially the number of hours of training necessary. And lo and behold, you did. You 

had negotiated rulemaking. Negotiated rulemaking is consensus 

rulemaking. So while you had disparate actors, they agreed on 15 

to 30 hours of training, depending on other factors. That was a triumph after 25 years. 

Now, last year, that rule came out without those minimum number of hours. It seems to me that you have not met the congressional mandate to give safety the highest priority if you have left 

the most important factor, the number of hours of training, out of 

the rule. 

So how do you reconcile? Why, indeed, were those hours, which 

the stakeholders agreed upon, not made a part of the rule? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Ranking Member Norton, safety is our highest 

priority. The Entry-Level Driver Training rule was a negotiated 

rulemaking. A key part of that negotiation was developing curriculum that set some minimum standard for commercial driver 

training. 

Ms. NORTON. Mrs. Jefferson, I am going to ask you to answer my 

question. I didn’t say you didn’t—that you didn’t develop an appropriate curriculum. I thank you for that. 

I am asking a very specific question. If you were able to get such 

disparate stakeholders to agree on the number of hours training 

necessary, why did the rule not include that since there was agreement on that factor? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. The number of hours—— 

Ms. NORTON. Fifteen to thirty hours. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Fifteen to thirty hours, depending on the class 

of the CDL—— 

Ms. NORTON. And the license, et cetera, yes. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. And those hours were based on the minimum 

level of curriculum that was agreed to. That curriculum, that 

13 

course requirement, is a part of the rule. There has been no 

change—— 

Ms. NORTON. Why was 15 to 30 hours not a part of the rule, Mrs. 

Jefferson? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. The 15 to 30 hours was used as a minimum to 

get to those out to those courses. In order to get through the 

courses and to allow for the flexibility, it is a minimum. It may 

very well take longer—— 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, wait a minute. Are you saying that, in order 

to get through the course, the curriculum that I congratulate you 

for issuing, that you will have had to have 15 to 30 hours of onthe-road training? On-the-road training. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. It depends on the skill set that somebody brings 

into the program. We are setting the curriculum that they are required to have. In order to successfully complete entry-level driver 

training, they will have to complete the curriculum that was agreed 

to. The curriculum—— 

Ms. NORTON. Are you saying, Mrs. Jefferson—this is very confusing. Are you saying that the curriculum involved on-the-road 

driver training or not? Is that your testimony? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. That is a part of the entry-level driving training 

requirement. We just did not state a minimum number of hours. 

The curriculum that the industry, as well as the driving training 

schools and academics, developed is what was included in the rule. 

That is a minimum level of training that is required for the CDL. 

Ms. NORTON. On-the-road driver training. 

So you think the rule already incorporates the 15 to 30 hours on 

the road because of the curriculum and what is necessary to, in 

fact, pass the curriculum? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. We do. We believe that what is in the final rule 

is sufficient to provide a level—a standard level of entry-level driver training across the country. It has 20-plus years to get there. 

Ms. NORTON. Twenty-five years. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Twenty-five years, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Mrs. Jefferson, I will take another look at it. The 

fact that you didn’t—that you eschewed the number of hours seems 

to me to be very strange. 

I do want to ask: What is wrong with us, Mr. Danielson? We find 

that driver accidents, fatalities are going up. And then I was given 

some figures that show that U.S. traffic fatality rate is twice the 

average of 19 other high-income countries. Why is that? What are 

we they doing that we are not doing? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Ranking Member Norton, the increase that we 

saw in 2015 was—by rate—was the highest increase that we saw 

in 50 years. But it coincided with another historic increase, which 

was a rate increase of vehicle miles traveled. There is no single 

cause to the increase in fatalities. However, we do know that over 

90 percent of serious crashes are due to human choice and error, 

and that is why two-thirds of NHTSA’s budget goes directly out to 

the States in the form of formula grants to address these serious 

behavioral issues, which are the choice to speed, to drink and drive, 

to send a text from behind the wheel. 

But to address your specific question about the comparison, last 

year, NHTSA joined with FMCSA and Federal Highway, along 

14 

with the National Safety Council, to launch of Road to Zero initiative, which is an unprecedented initiative involving over 300 partners of behavioral safety, vehicle manufacturers, and road user 

groups, with a goal of driving this trend back down and completely 

eliminating roadway fatalities over the span of 30 years. 

This is akin to what other countries have done. The country of 

Sweden, which is on the other side of many of the charts that you 

will see from where the U.S. is, embarked on this 20 or 30 years 

ago, and it has had a tremendous effect by bringing all of these different groups together to address this complicated behavioral question. 

Ms. NORTON. So we are now doing what other countries have already done, and you expect that to drive down these fatalities and 

injuries? 

Mr. DANIELSON. That is the goal. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Bost. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mrs. Jefferson, there is something that concerns me, because I 

have got a—several of my companies—just so you know, I drove 

tractor-trailers most of my life. I drove my first tractor-trailer 

across the lot when I was 9 years old. I come from a family that 

started in 1933 in the trucking industry. And I believe that safety 

is vitally important. But I also see some of the rules and the concerns I have as the rules move forward at a time when driver 

shortages are so bad. And I want safety first. But I need to look 

and see what we can do to make sure, as we implement certain 

things, that those things can be implemented and still allow us the 

opportunity to provide—because we got a lot of people out there 

needing products and needing to keep products moving. 

So what I want to know is, is there anything—whenever we implement the ELD [electronic logging device]—and we are coming up 

on a deadline when it has to be implemented. Several companies 

don’t have them in place yet. They are trying. The expense is very 

large. Do we have some kind of mechanism in there that allows leeway for the implementation of this, or are there any things out 

there that allow you and the rules to allow that to happen and give 

a wise opportunity for those companies to meet those regulations? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Congressman, the first implementation date or 

compliance date for electronic logging devices is December 18 of 

this year. 

Mr. BOST. I know that. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. And we have been working very closely with industry as well as our State and local law enforcement partners towards preparing for that date. We have over 70 providers that have 

signed up, ELD providers, and we are seeing the cost of equipment 

come down as we get closer to the date, as we get more and more 

companies that are providing the equipment. 

And there are—the ELD rule was intended to be a performancebased rule to allow for lower cost solutions for small businesses or 

small carriers up to state-of-the-art fleet management systems for 

larger systems. Those lower cost systems are compliant with the 

rule. And we will continue throughout the rest of the summer and 

15 

into the fall to get out and meet with drivers and try to understand 

the issues. But we do see the cost coming down. 

Mr. BOST. OK. Let me ask you this, then, because what I really 

want to know is, if—as they are trying to turn this up and you are 

limited on the amount of people that can install them and you have 

all this, now you are hitting their December hard line, after that 

December hard line, someone is stopped, they are charged, and 

how are they charged? Is there any way that there can be an extension if they do not have these programs in place? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. We don’t have a way to extend it. The compliance date was in the final rule. However, I can assure you that we 

are working with industry, with our State and local law enforcement partners to make sure that not only are we ready but also, 

what is the state of the industry as we get closer to that date? And 

we are seeing, as I said, more and more companies coming in with 

lower cost solutions. And the companies that have previously 

equipped with automated onboard recording devices have an additional year to upgrade to the ELD standards. 

Mr. BOST. OK. So my question—then is the company, then, the 

one that is responsible, or is the driver? If all of a sudden a driver 

gets in one that is not equipped, are they responsible? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. The company is responsible for the vehicle. The 

driver is responsible for keeping track of their hours of service. 

Mr. BOST. So they can use a regular logbook to do that after December 18? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. If they have an exemption to be able to use it. 

Mr. BOST. If they have the exemption. OK. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Yes. 

Mr. BOST. All right. So what I also need to know, then, I guess, 

and because I am running out of time, but as we move forward 

with this, is there any exemptions for times like, for instance, when 

we have a very bad cold snap and we have propane drivers and gas 

haulers that need to get products, is there going to be exemptions 

for extension of hours? Because once you have an ELD in place, it 

is no longer based on your manual logbook. Now, all of a sudden, 

we are on the technology and everything like that. So the same 

thing for grain season. Same thing for—the list goes on and on of 

those times when product needs to be moved and people need extra 

hours to get those products moved. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Congressman, let’s keep in mind that the 

hours-of-service regulations have not changed. It is just the method 

of recording hours of service. And so, during heating season, where 

companies currently can request exemptions—— 

Mr. BOST. They can still do that. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON [continuing]. Hours of service, they can still do 

that. 

Mr. BOST. OK. Thank you very much. 

My time has expired. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Mrs. Jefferson, as you know, part of MAP–21 was that, you 

know, FMCSA should develop rules that would prevent employers 

from forcing drivers to drive beyond their authorized hours. You 

have published a final coercion rule to implement this more than 

16 

18 months ago. Luckily, it escaped the Trump ban on safety rules. 

But I am not aware of any use of this coercion rule. I am very disturbed by a recent series of articles in USA TODAY. This is something that I actually held hearings on back in 2008, as I recall, the 

abuse of drivers at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. And 

these are very specific stories. And one employee was terminated 

after speaking to USA TODAY, and another employee was told 

‘‘there is the door’’ when he was told to drive beyond legal limits. 

And they say this is a pervasive pattern, that one company, Morgan Southern, was particularly mentioned. I think others have 

problems also. 

Have you prosecuted anybody there? Are you following through 

on any complaints by drivers there using the coercion rule? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Ranking Member DeFazio, we are investigating 

complaints that come in under the coercion rule. I can’t speak to 

specifics at this point, but we would be happy to get back to you 

on specifics. But we do have several that we are investigating. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. I hope that you will use this, because, you 

know, detention time and the port drayage are two areas where we 

are forcing people to drive beyond their authorized hours. And, you 

know, we need to be taking meaningful enforcement action of abusive practices. 

So thank you. 

Mr. Danielson, last year, NHTSA proposed a phase 2 voluntary 

guideline for distractive electronic devices that are aftermarket, not 

installed in the car. I have seen—I read an article about devices 

that will project your email onto your windshield so you can be 

emailing as you drive or reading your email. Would that be considered a distraction? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And where are we at with the phase 2 voluntary guidelines? Is that—now, we heard from the Trump administration they weren’t going to impede safety rules. So is this one 

moving forward? 

Mr. DANIELSON. These were guidelines, sir, so they were advice 

to device manufacturers for things for them to consider when they 

are designing these devices that, when used during driving, would 

minimize the potential for distraction. 

I would point out, without naming any individual companies, 

that several device manufacturers that are well-known have already begun to roll out optional features where a device owner can 

elect to turn on this feature and the smartphone can detect if you 

are driving your car and then delay notifications of text and other 

things until you are done with your driving trip. 

So device manufacturers are already taking a look at this and 

trying to determine. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yeah, some. But there is always—I mean, this was 

actually a heads-up display on the windshield. Now, I would consider that would be fairly distracting. It doesn’t have anything to 

do with the conduct of the vehicle itself. 

Ms. Dinh-Zarr, would you—would NTSB have concerns about 

these sort of devices, and do you think we need something more 

than voluntary guidelines? 

17 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. Thank you, Ranking Member DeFazio. We absolutely have concerns about any type of distracting technology. And 

that is why we have investigated accidents where we have seen 

that technology has had an impact. 

As far as regulations, we leave that up to the wisdom of your 

judgment of the DOT. But we have made recommendations to 

avoid these types of distractions in vehicles. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. I should add that is in addition to our collisionavoidance type of technologies. And we have made recommendations in support of those. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. When we have great collision avoidance or 

great self-driving cars and people can email or twerp or Twitter to 

their heart’s content while they are driving. But I have real concerns about it going on in the current atmosphere. 

I am going to look into this further to see whether or not the voluntary guidance has had an impact and whether or not there are— 

there is always going to be someone who is going to say: Well, we 

don’t care about the voluntary guidance. 

I would like to know if actually someone is marketing these 

heads-up displays that put your email on the windshield. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Denham. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your 

work on the FAST Act. I wanted to briefly discuss one aspect of the 

FAST Act, something that I had championed specifically for the 

State of California, important to the State of California but many 

other States as well. And that is the NEPA Reciprocity Act. That 

was H.R. 2497 when it was a standalone bill. But the legislation 

proposes changes to title 23. Basically, the NEPA Reciprocity Act 

would say that a State like California that has CEQA and NEPA, 

you go with the highest environmental policy. You just don’t do it 

twice. So we are looking for the rule on this. We are looking for 

the implementation on this. 

And, Mr. Waidelich, I wonder if you could give us an update on 

where we are with the proposed rule. 

Mr. WAIDELICH. We are actually working through that process 

and working on that rule, and we should be seeing something soon. 

A concern that has been voiced with that particular provision is the 

statute of limitations of 2 years versus the 120 days. There have 

been some concerns from the State of California whether that 

would be an incentive or a disincentive as far as taking on that responsibility. But we are working on that rule, and we should be 

coming out with that soon. 

Mr. DENHAM. You used the word ‘‘soon’’ twice. What is your ballpark on ‘‘soon’’? 

That means a lot of things here in Congress. 

Mr. WAIDELICH. It does. But, again, we are working through that 

process. And we don’t have a timeline specifically on that, but soon. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. We are obviously looking for not only to the 

rule but the implementation quickly. And it is certainly something 

we want to continue to work with you on, but, you know, we have 

got summer projects starting up, already ongoing in California, and 

many have reached out to say: Why are we going through this procVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Sep 14, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\7-18-2~1\26374.TXT JEAN
18 

ess twice when you have already passed a new law that doesn’t 

force us to do that? 

So, whether it is road construction or a variety of other projects, 

including some of the water storage projects that the President has 

talked about in California, going through this duplicative process 

not only slows things down, but it really decreases the amount of 

people that are willing—or businesses that are willing to bid on 

these projects going through a long and cumbersome process. That 

also gives you two opportunities to sue and litigate during the process. So it is certainly something that we want to get done quickly, 

and we would look forward to working with you not only on the 

rule but the judicial review process as well. 

And ‘‘soon’’ in our book would be quickly, since we are moving— 

we are hoping that, with the President wanting to get rid of the 

duplication in Government and cut regulations, since we have already passed this one into law, we would hopefully hope that 

‘‘soon’’ is 30 days or less. We have been waiting a while. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Lowenthal. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you, members of the panel. 

I had some questions. But I want to switch to something I heard 

in the panel’s testimony. 

And, Ms. Dinh-Zarr, the Honorable Ms. Dinh-Zarr. In your testimony, you mentioned the NTSB’s ongoing work to investigate a 

fatal crash involving autonomous technology, autonomous. And I 

look forward to the final results and the recommendations of this 

investigation. I agree with you the technology presents real opportunities to improve safety and save lives. But I want to know, what 

can we do today to make sure that this technology is developed and 

deployed safely? What do you see us as really beginning to focus 

on? 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. Thank you, Congressman Lowenthal. A lot of the 

technology that is available today is actually the building block for 

complete automation. And Congress has an important role to play 

because of the wide range of stakeholders. I believe that we have 

a unique background because we have worked in automation in 

other modes of transportation, especially aviation. And we have 

seen the positive and the negative effects—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Uh-huh. 

Ms. DINH-ZARR [continuing]. Of automation, as we have seen 

with, for example, airline pilots. So, I think that our lesson is that 

we have to remember that it is not a panacea. It is a whole 

progress. We have a continuum, as you know, of automation. And 

as we progress towards more and more complete automation, we 

have to be aware of where the driver or the operator, in the case 

of aviation, needs to step in. So I think the biggest issue is that 

there is a lot of automation that is already being used, collisionavoidance systems, a lot of lighting, emergency braking. All of 

those are a part of automation. It is not complete automation. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Uh-huh. 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. But I think we shouldn’t delay those for fear of 

other dangers. 

19 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. When do you see this rolling out? Can you give 

us some timeframe? 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. I am sorry, sir? 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. How do you see this playing out and rolling out, 

the time that we are going to begin to see much more automation 

on our streets? 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. As you know, we are investigating the Williston, 

Florida, accident. And as more and more use of it comes along, the 

NTSB is in a unique position. We only make recommendations 

based on tragedies that have occurred. So I think that we will be 

making more recommendations from our end as, unfortunately, we 

see more. But, at the same time, we hope that the use of automation in the sense of collision avoidance and safety will also be increasing, and that could happen rather quickly. It is happening 

now, in fact. It is already happening. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

I am going to follow up on Representative DeFazio’s comments, 

Mrs. Jefferson, to the FMCSA’s coercion rule that the Representative brought up just a little earlier. I represent the Port of Long 

Beach. So I have seen this over—and I have represented it since 

I was on the city council and the State. And so I have seen this 

issue about drayage drivers and misclassification and potential 

wage theft for now over 20 years that has been going on. And so 

there have been many port drivers, drayage drivers, and have 

brought up many of these wage theft and misclassification cases. 

And in California, our labor commissioners received hundreds of 

these claims. 

I would just like to know how FMCSA is coordinating with the 

State of California’s Department of Industrial Relations or with the 

Department of Labor here at the Federal level to disseminate information about driver’s rights under the coercion. How are we coordinating? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Thank you, Congressman Lowenthal. I have 

also seen the recent reports out of USA TODAY and other publications. And it is concerning. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. I was actually on the docks while this was all 

taking place. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. We have not, at this point, coordinated with the 

State of California or the Department of Labor. We will take a look 

and follow up as necessary and be happy to get back with you. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Well, I would like that, if you could get back to 

me. 

And thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. I now recognize Ranking Member Norton for a motion. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cummings of this committee is not able to be here but had 

a special interest in safety and has asked that we enter into the 

record, by unanimous consent, a statement related to the tragic 

school bus crash that occurred in Baltimore last year. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Without objection so ordered. 

[Hon. Cummings’ written statement is on pages 42–44.] 

20 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. And, with that, we will move to Mr. 

LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to our panelists for appearing here today. 

Let’s get right to it. Administrator Waidelich, you know, this revamping of the FASTLANE [Fostering Advancements in Shipping 

and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies] into now the INFRA [Infrastructure for Rebuilding 

America] program, we are glad to see the President continuing to 

push the proposal of infrastructure grants. In Butte County, in 

northern California, where I represent, my home county, actually, 

they had submitted under the FASTLANE program. That wasn’t 

fully acted upon at the time. But they will resubmit. So the 

project’s impacts were mostly on goods movement and regional 

economies. And that was unquestioned. But, also, an additional factor, as many of you have all heard about the crisis we had with 

Oroville Dam last February with the impending possible failure of 

the spillway there when the lake was very full and an evacuation 

of nearly 200,000 people in Butte County, it really underlined, underscored the issue with State Highway 70 through there, which is 

one of the—Butte County is one of the few counties of some size 

that doesn’t have a complete four-lane system linking NorCal to 

Sacramento and farther south. It has a patchwork of some four 

lanes. So what was underlined in this situation was that you had 

a State highway with much two-lane area that caused a bottleneck 

that was hours of standstill for people in an evacuation zone here 

as, again, brought on by that crisis with Oroville Dam. Thankfully, 

nothing ultimately washed out with the so-called emergency spillway there. But they didn’t know. They had no idea. 

And if you saw the illustration there on the TV news, the helicopters were—the dam goes across the Feather River. So you see 

Highway 70 traverses Feather River and below. You saw cars 

parked on the bridges on Highway 70 over Feather River. I mean, 

that just has the images of a disaster movie if something were to 

give away, those people that couldn’t move on those bridges there, 

as well as all up and down Highway 70. 

So what I think the Federal agencies should consider, and I 

would like to have your opinion, is the impact of grant programs, 

and then maybe we highlight the ones that have both the positive 

economic impact and you get the double-plus of the public safety, 

or vice versa, for a system like that. 

So can you include these factors when considering the upcoming 

INFRA applications? Is that something that we can help urge you 

to have a sense—be like a double benefit when we are looking at 

an acute safety situation as well? 

Mr. WAIDELICH. First of all, Congressman, I am very familiar 

with that particular area and I–70 in that area, or State Route 70 

in that area, and Oroville and the dam. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. WAIDELICH. Under FASTLANE, there are the small grants 

that will be announced soon. And under the INFRA program, there 

is improved criteria within that including innovation and safety to 

incorporate that actually in the application. So, the answer is, as 

21 

far as can it be considered, within our Federal Register notice, it 

says, we will be considering that as part of the criteria. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Good bang for the buck. Double—go ahead. I am 

sorry. 

Mr. WAIDELICH. Basically, yes. That would be included. And there is—the INFRA package came out last June. At $1.5 billion, 

it combines the large portion from 2017 and the dollars for that 

particular program in 2018. And, again, there is 120 days for those 

applications to be submitted. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Is there anything the communities in the area 

could do to be helpful to underline or, you know, give you more impetus in the process to—you know, to show how strong of a need 

it is? 

Can the communities help underline that a little bit more? 

Mr. WAIDELICH. I am sure as a part of that as far as, you know, 

with the application endorsements from the communities and others, and leveraging with the other stakeholders that are involved 

with that project and that have a stake in that project. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yeah. Well, there is a railroad interstate interface 

up in Shasta County they are quite concerned about too. So, but, 

we will speak on a different time on that. 

I have just a little time left. I had hoped to talk a little bit with 

Mrs. Jefferson about the ELD situation. 

But the ELD mandates, do you believe that more time could be 

helpful for some of the smaller stakeholders, some of the smaller 

companies on that, with implementation of ELDs? We are seeing 

a possible exemption for livestock haulers and others. Is this something that we could look at as the impending deadline comes on? 

You will have to be really short on my time. I am sorry. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. We believe there is sufficient time for equipage 

between now and the end of the year, but we would certainly welcome followup with you to have a discussion. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you. 

Mr. Danielson, your agency has enacted an impairment standard 

for alcohol use which is .08 across the country. Has any similar 

standard been set for impairment for marijuana use while driving? 

Mr. DANIELSON. No, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Do you know of any studies being conducted currently that would be geared toward setting a scientifically valid impairment level for drivers using marijuana? 

Mr. DANIELSON. We are actively engaged in research in this area. 

There is—the impairment, impairment by drugs, is not well understood. And, of course, there is no scientifically accepted standard 

for it. But we are actively engaged in research in this area and, in 

addition to that, attempting to develop technological devices that 

law enforcement could use to test oral fluids to determine impairment. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. You are aware of the fact that recreational use of marijuana is legal in at least six States now and 

medical use of marijuana, or THC, is also permissible in a number 

of other States? Do you believe that it is important for the Federal 

22 

Government to come up with a standard for impairment because 

of the fact that marijuana or THC remains in the blood for—or remains detectable in a urine sample for 30 days; for blood, I think 

7 days; saliva, I am not sure. There might be some Fourth Amendment issues in terms of search and seizure with respect to that. 

But do you believe that it is important that the Federal Government come up with an impairment standard for marijuana? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes, sir. Since 2007, we have seen a 50-percent 

increase in marijuana usage. And so we think it is—what we do 

know about marijuana is that it impairs judgment. It impairs your 

driving ability, particularly with respect to reaction time. And so 

we think it is important to develop a scientifically based threshold 

for impairment so we can get unsafe drivers off the road. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Certainly. But for someone who used 

marijuana one time 28 days ago and then they are subjected to a 

urine test, that doesn’t show impairment at the time that the person was driving. 

Mr. DANIELSON. That is correct. So what we are looking for is 

specific to impairment, not just usage, but impairment at the time 

of driving. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Dinh-Zarr, more than 15 years ago, NTSB recommended 

that all new commercial vehicles be manufactured with collision 

warning systems. More recently, the board has recommended that 

all new commercial vehicles be equipped with automatic emergency 

braking. Last Congress, I introduced the Safe Roads Act, which 

would require that all new commercial vehicles are equipped with 

both of these important safety technologies. Can you discuss the 

importance of collision warning systems and automatic emergency 

braking, especially on heavy vehicles that can weigh 80,000 pounds 

or more? And, Mr. Danielson, if you could give me your opinion on 

that as well. 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. Thank you, Congressman. I greatly appreciate 

that question. 

The NTSB, as you mentioned, has been advocating and has been 

recommending these types of safety tools be in vehicles, especially 

heavy vehicles, for many years. And that is because of the crash 

investigations that we have conducted. When a heavy vehicle is in 

a crash and sometimes it is a multivehicle crash, the results are 

catastrophic. And we know that these collision-avoidance technologies such as automatic emergency braking can and will reduce 

the number of these fatal crashes. 

So we support more movement in this area. And that is in combination with our other commercial vehicle safety recommendations 

involving fatigue management and speeding. So it is all part of a 

group of safety efforts. But those technologies are something we 

have long advocated and we will continue to advocate for. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you. 

Briefly, Mr. Danielson. 

Mr. DANIELSON. We agree. Crash-avoidance technologies have 

tremendous potential to save lives, particularly in heavy vehicles. 

And that is why we have created the standard for electronic stability control. You might have heard that we convened a group of 

automakers last year to get their agreement to make automatic 

23 

emergency braking standard in all light vehicles by model year 

2022, which is several years before it would have been possible 

using just a notice and comment rulemaking approach. And we anticipate that this technology will expand beyond the light vehicle 

fleet eventually. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Smucker. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning. I would like to thank the chairman for scheduling 

this hearing, obviously important. We still have far too many fatalities on our highways. So I applaud the effort of the coalition to reduce that to zero. It is a laudable goal, one that I think can be 

achieved. 

I did just—a point of clarification, Mr. Danielson, in response to 

another question, we have seen those deaths rise slightly: I think 

about 9 percent in 2015 and then, for 6 months of 2016, might have 

an uptick as well. You mentioned vehicle miles traveled is up as 

well. So are you saying per—if you compared the two, are we still 

declining as a rate per vehicle miles traveled? 

Mr. DANIELSON. The fatality rate outpaced the rate increase with 

vehicle miles traveled. There is a well-known correlation between 

fatalities and vehicle miles traveled. And when you take a look 

past the last major four recessions, you can actually see the dip in 

both the VMT and the fatality rate. 

However, it doesn’t answer the whole question. What we do know 

is that, as the economy recovers and the price of gas, something, 

that part of the population that is most sensitive to the price of gas 

and tends to travel more when the economy starts to recover and 

the gas prices go along also tends to be that part of the population 

that is overrepresented in crash populations because they tend to 

be inexperienced drivers, either very young drivers or very, very 

old. So this seems to be kind of a multiplying effect. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Yeah. Of all the initiatives, I guess, or things on 

the horizon in regards to improving or decreasing the fatalities, I 

think autonomous vehicles obviously has a lot of promise, and I 

know technology already is being used. 

But I think it is important, as that develops over the next number of years and decades, that there is a—you know, I think we are 

going to need a Federal standard. And we are seeing activities from 

the States to develop standards as well. 

So the Federal standard, I believe your agency will be responsible for the standard. Am I right on that? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMUCKER. And can you describe what steps NHTSA is taking 

internally to prepare to serve as that Federal entity to regulate autonomous vehicles? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes, sir. First of all, I would like to point out 

that we have taken nothing off the table with regards to a future 

governance structure. But what we do believe is, as this technology 

develops, we want to use the right tool for the right time. And we 

believe that the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy that we released last year was the right tool in that it provided the world’s 

first national framework for the safe testing and deployment of 

24 

automated vehicles, which was designed to discourage a patchwork 

of State laws with respect to vehicle performance and safety but, 

at the same time, was adaptive enough to leave room for market 

innovation. And as we go forward, we are going to collect more information that will be necessary for future actions relative to a future governance structure. 

Mr. SMUCKER. I believe there was a period to take public comments as a part of that. What is the next step in addressing those 

comments? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Last month, the Secretary in Detroit announced 

that NHTSA and the Department would be releasing an updated 

version of the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy within the next 

few months, and she has directed NHTSA to begin to prepare that 

update, and we are doing that right now. 

Mr. SMUCKER. So when can we expect that? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Timeframe was the next few months. She announced that last month. 

Mr. SMUCKER. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

I guess I would like to ask questions to two of the witnesses at 

the table. Being from Texas, of course, we have lots and lots of 

trucks, and safety is a major issue. And I noticed that, Ms. DinhZarr, that you have determined that speed is a major issue as well 

as some of the underride guards. Have you attempted to make recommendations along these lines? And what kind of results have 

you had? 

I guess, Mr. Danielson, I would like you to respond as well. 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. Thank you, Congresswoman Johnson. 

I am also from Texas, so I certainly recognize the importance of 

trucking to our Nation’s health and welfare. 

And, yes, we have made recommendations regarding speed limiters as well as front, rear, and side underride guards. We conducted a study in 2013 on underride crashes and on safety of 

underride guards. And we made recommendations regarding setting performance standards regarding those underrides. 

Mr. DANIELSON. Congresswoman, both of those areas are areas 

of active consideration and activity for the agency. On speed limiters, we released in concert with FMCSA last year an NPRM that 

we received public comments on, and we are reviewing those. With 

respect to rear underride guards, we released an NPRM in 2015 

and received comments, and we are reviewing those as well. We 

are also doing active research in this area to develop test procedures for overlap crashes in a rear crash scenario with a rear 

guard. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Some of those studies have indicated 

that 73 percent reduction in accidents could happen. Are you having any conversation with truck users or the companies? What kind 

of feedback are you getting there? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes. We receive a lot of public comments on that 

rule. And we are reviewing that now. The goal of the NPRM—what 

the NPRM was looking at was harmonizing our standard with the 

25 

standard that is already present in Canada, which, I believe, is a 

35-mile-an-hour crash test threshold for rear guards. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. But are you optimistic that we can 

achieve these goals of some speed reduction and some improvement 

in the trucks? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Because this is a regulatory proposal that is active on the agenda, I am somewhat constrained in forecasting the 

content and timing of our regulatory agenda. But I can tell you 

that this is an area of active consideration in the agency. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Have you received some positive acceptance from some of the truckers? 

Mr. DANIELSON. I would have to—I would have to go back and 

review those comments and get back to you, Congresswoman. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. OK. Well, thank you very much. 

That is all. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Perry. 

Mr. PERRY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to the panel for your attendance. 

I think my questions will be directed to Mrs. Jefferson. First, regarding the FAST Act and the fact that it created a military pilot 

program for individuals, select personnel, between the ages of 18 

to 21 years of age, as well as a process to ease the integration of 

veterans in getting their CDLs and performing in that industry. I 

also know that the trucking industry has a—like many other industries, is struggling to find labor and help to do the driving. So I am 

just wondering if you have any metrics to describe how those two 

programs are going? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Thank you, Congressman Perry, for that question. We are in the process of rulemaking to move forward with the 

military driver converting from military service to civilian and reducing barriers to getting a commercial driver’s license, as well as 

moving forward with plans for the under-21 drivers who have previous military experience. So those are moving forward. 

Mr. PERRY. So you are in the rulemaking process. At what point? 

Do you have an expected date to put them out for public comment? 

Or do you have a timeline at all that you can describe? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in 

June. And we will continue to work through that process of getting 

public comment. In addition to that, there are other areas where 

we are working with our State partners as well as the motor vehicle Administrators to make sure that we do everything we can to 

support our men and women who are coming out of military service 

into civilian life. 

Mr. PERRY. All right. Thank you. 

As you may know, in April, I introduced a bill regarding comprehensive regulatory reform in the passenger carrier industry 

called BUSREGS–21. I drafted the legislation because I kept hearing from constituents and owner-operators in the district and literally from across the country about a culture of overzealous enforcement from the agency. And I saw it myself when I first came 

to Congress, when I talked to a previous Director. You know, 

schoolbuses and motorcoaches are two of the safest modes of surface transportation that we have. Yet the regulations just keep 

coming and coming for these folks, and they are struggling to 

26 

maintain their businesses. And if you are trying to get into the 

business, you can just about forget it. So my bill attempts a direct 

regulatory reset. 

Now, on a positive note, I want to report that the agency has already rescinded two regulations that my bill proposed to rescind, 

the carrier fitness determination and the minimum insurance limits, and is proposing a revision to a third, the lease and interchange rule, which is also exceptionally problematic. One of the 

other things that is in the bill is an amendment to the mission 

statement. 

Mrs. Jefferson, I just want to get your thoughts on it. Obviously, 

we want your mission statement to be about safety, right? But we 

also want to include the industry in itself because a robust industry that is profitable and that is safe is good for, not only the employees and the owners, but for the public that wants to travel and 

use them in schoolbuses. I don’t know where any of us would be 

without the schoolbus industry and ability to get our kids safely to 

school. So, with that, we also want to add, not only the priority on 

safety, but fostering an environment for a thriving passenger carrier industry. And this would be consistent with the FAA’s mission 

statement and other agencies. And I am just wondering what your 

thoughts are on that, if you find that objectionable, or if that is 

something we can work on together, or if that is something totally 

out of the realm of possibilities, from your standpoint. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Well, I think, as you said, safety is our top priority. But we believe a healthy, robust, commercial motor vehicle 

industry, both trucks and buses, is good for safety. I think companies across the industry, whether it be passenger carriers or property carriers, the vast majority realize that safety is a part of their 

business model. And it is good for business. And so, from the standpoint of FMCSA, we would be happy to work with you because we 

believe that a healthy industry is a safe industry. And the more 

money and profitability, hopefully, those profits will also be used 

for safety. 

Mr. PERRY. I am sure you can imagine—I will close with this— 

I am sure, as the owner of one of the companies, whether it is a 

schoolbus company or motorcoach company, the absolute last thing 

you want to hear or see in the news is there has been an accident 

where somebody was hurt. And it behooves all of them to do things 

as safely as they can for the viability of their business, if not their 

own conscience. So I appreciate your comments. 

Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. 

I want to thank you, the chairman, and the ranking member, 

who is not here, Mr. DeFazio, for taking into consideration a request that I, along with Representative Cummings and Duncan, 

penned to hold a hearing that could touch on schoolbus safety in 

light of the accidents that have been discussed here in Maryland 

and in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and others. 

In November 2016, these accidents occurred: 6 dead in Baltimore 

and 6 dead in Chattanooga; 31 passengers injured; 6 school-aged 

children were taken—‘‘too early’’ is not the right term. They were 

27 

taken, and that was wrong. No more precious cargo is there for any 

commercial carrier than children, school-aged children, entrusted 

by their parents to go and get educated to have a better life. 

The NTSB has had ongoing investigations into these accidents 

and cannot answer questions directly related to each case. I understand that. But in both cases, it seems there were a number of 

safety precautions and oversight issues that could have prevented 

or mitigated the risk of injuries and fatalities suffered from the unfortunate events. 

Having said that, I want to ask a few questions of Ms. Dinh-Zarr. 

In five reports since 2010, including accident investigations involving schoolbus crashes in Anaheim; Chesterfield, New Jersey; Knoxville; Houston, Texas; and Gray Summit, Missouri, the NTSB made 

several observations in which it concluded that 

compartmentalization was not enough to prevent all injuries, particularly in accidents involving side impact or high-speed rollover. 

Yet, on your website, the NTSB states that it believes and recommends that new schoolbuses should provide children with threepoint seatbelts. 

A, does this recommendation still stand? Can you elaborate how 

the NTSB came to the conclusion that compartmentalization was 

an insufficient safety mechanism? And when can we expect the investigations of the Chattanooga and Baltimore crashes to be released? And those are my questions for you. 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. Thank you, Congressman—— 

Mr. COHEN. You are welcome. 

Ms. DINH-ZARR [continuing]. Cohen. I appreciate your asking 

those questions because schoolbus crashes are always some of the 

hardest for us to investigate but, obviously, very important to make 

sure that our children get to school safely. 

We can’t speak specifically about some of the issues that you 

mention regarding the investigation but we are looking into medical fitness as well as screening of drivers in schoolbuses. You mentioned the three-point seatbelt, the lap/shoulder harness seatbelt 

recommendation. That still does stand. We are recommending that 

States and school boards, as they buy new schoolbuses, buy buses 

that have this type of better restraint system. In our crash reconstruction and our investigations, we found that there are certain 

types of crashes, such as a rollover crash or a side impact crash, 

where having a three-point seatbelt is very important. 

I should say that schoolbuses are very safe vehicles. It is much 

safer for a child to go to school in a schoolbus than almost any 

other vehicle. Compartmentalization is an important tool for safety 

on the schoolbus, but it primarily helps with forward-type collisions. So that is why that three-point seatbelt recommendation still 

stands. 

Mr. COHEN. Your statement, you said that you would—States 

should consider when purchasing new buses. ‘‘Consider.’’ Have you 

thought of anything stronger than ‘‘consider’’ and mandating, since 

it is such an important safety element that you have endorsed and 

found studies? 

And I have got five reports on schoolbus investigations that I 

want to enter into the record where they all say that school seatbelts would have saved children’s lives. 

28 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. We certainly will consider it. And as the investigation for these two November schoolbus crashes continues, we 

will, again, consider how the wording goes. 

In the past, we have always attempted to balance being very prescriptive with the feasibility of some of our recommendations. But 

we will certainly take your comments under consideration. 

Mr. COHEN. I hope so. I have been working on this since the 

1990s, and I have always had school boards against it. They don’t 

want to spend the money. And the money should come secondary 

to the safety. 

I would like to introduce for the record, without objection, these 

five reports that all indicate that seatbelts on schoolbuses would 

save lives. Dollars shouldn’t be the issue with our precious cargo. 

[The 113-page report about the Chesterfield, NJ, collision (Accident Report 

NTSB/HAR–13/01, PB2013–106638) can be found online at https:// 

www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1301.pdf. The 

104-page report about the Gray Summit, MO, collision (Accident Report 

NTSB/HAR–11/03, PB2011–916203) can be found online at https:// 

www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1103.pdf. The 

other three reports are on pages 85–130.] 

Mr. COHEN. There are some other issues I have dealt with. And 

I only have a few seconds left. But I want to ask this: Are there 

any recommendations that any of you all have on graduated driver’s licenses, to how we should try to improve those, those laws in 

the States, and/or ignition interlock laws for multiple DUI offenders? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Sir, for all of our national priority programs that 

are kind of on the newer side, there is a period of time that it takes 

for States to comply. And graduated driver’s license is the biggest 

example of this. We have zero States who are eligible for these programs. 

NHTSA is going to work with these States to try and get them 

eligible. Congress sort of relaxed some of the standards. States still 

aren’t there. But we have seen, over time, particularly with our 

more mature priority programs, that States do come along, and 

they do work. The strong laws that Congress requires under the 

FAST Act do work over time in terms of saving lives. And we have 

seen it with occupant protection. In 2016, for the first time, seatbelt usage nationwide went over 90 percent. And that is largely because of the strong laws required under the authorization of Congress. So we don’t want to encourage lowering the standards too 

much. We take it on ourselves to try and work with the States to 

provide technical assistance to get them where they need to be in 

order to have strong laws on the books. 

Mr. COHEN. Before I yield back the time that I don’t have, I just 

want to thank you for what you have done. I passed a seatbelt law 

in Tennessee 15 years ago. And Jim Hall worked with us closely 

on that. I appreciated his support and hope you all will keep up 

the standards, because it was difficult to get the standards in there 

to say kids couldn’t use cell phones or kids had to put on their seatbelts or the number of passengers and all that. 

And ignition interlock is something else we worked on back then. 

And for multiple DUI offenders, they ought to be able to do the 

Constitution backwards. 

29 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I came to Congress, I owned a road construction business. 

So I know firsthand how dangerous it can be working in construction zones. We actually put the lines on the road that saved lives. 

You know, I always used to say: You never read in the paper the 

names of the people whose lives you have saved. 

There is only so much signage and protection that you can offer 

your employees to protect them from the constant threat of distracted drivers and speeding trucks and vehicles. The data speaks 

for itself. According to FHWA, in 2014, 119 roadway construction 

workers lost their lives in work zone crashes. In 2015, 700 people 

were killed in work zones as a result of motor vehicle crashes. 

Just last month, I was personally touched by such an incident. 

Michael J. Friendy, who I had hired when I had my business, he 

was a 41-year-old from my hometown in Hazleton. He was setting 

up a construction zone on Interstate 81 when he was struck by a 

car and killed instantly. I knew Mike for over 20 years and was 

incredibly saddened by his death. My thoughts and prayers continue to be with his friends and his family and his coworkers as 

they grieve this incredible loss. 

Acting Deputy Administrator Waidelich, in your opinion, what 

steps can this committee take to combat work zone crashes and improve the safety for roadway construction workers and contractors 

so that we don’t lose more talented, and hard-working and good 

people like Michael Friendy? 

Mr. WAIDELICH. Congressman, you are correct with stating that 

the dangers of work zones today, especially with the increases in 

volumes of traffic, night work that is going on, and more work that 

is going on out on our roadways because we are trying to rehabilitate and reconstruct our infrastructure. 

The Federal Highway Administration works in many different 

ways to improve work zones, to work with our stakeholders, whether it be States or locals or others. First, we have the ‘‘Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices,’’ which includes minimum standards for work zone safety signing and buffer zones and those types 

of elements within a particular work zone. 

We work on deployment of technologies, for example, intrusion 

alarms that would alarm workers when the work zone is actually 

intruded by a particular vehicle. 

A big part also is awareness and public education. During Work 

Zone Awareness Week, we work with AASHTO and ATSSA and get 

the word out, because work zones are not only dangerous for workers; they are also dangerous for those vehicles that are going 

through it. As you stated, it was over 500 motor vehicle fatalities 

that occurred in work zones also on an annual basis. 

And in working with this committee, I would hope that availability of those funds for deployment of those types of innovations, 

and for education and awareness about work zones, would continue. 

Mr. BARLETTA. We got to do a lot more work. Because the only 

thing that was separating them from live traffic were rubber cones. 

30 

Back in 2015, when this committee was working on a highway 

bill, I pushed for language to be included that would reform motor 

carrier safety scores to make sure that they were more reflective 

of a company’s safety record. Just last month, the National Academy of Sciences published a report, as required by the FAST Act, 

detailing their findings on the Compliance, Safety, Accountability 

program, more commonly known as CSA. 

Deputy Administrator Jefferson, does FMCSA believe that the 

findings of this report require the Safety Measurement System to 

be replaced with a more defensible statistical model? And, if so, 

what are the agency’s specific plans and timetable for implementing such a corrective action plan? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Congressman Barletta, FMCSA supports the 

findings of the National Academy of Sciences, and we are grateful 

to the volunteers who worked on that study. It is our intent to provide a corrective action plan to Congress within 120 days of submitting that report. 

We are also working with the Academy of Sciences to identify 

strategies for implementing those recommendations. They have 

given us a roadmap, if you will, of ways to improve SMS. And it 

is our intent to follow through on that. And so, as we go through 

the process of developing an implementation strategy, that will get 

us to a better result. And so we appreciate the work that they have 

done and also our intent to include industry and other stakeholders 

in the process as we go along as well, and, of course, keeping Congress aware of our actions as we proceed. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like to address my question to Ms. Dinh-Zarr. You 

have had the experience both inside the regulatory world and outside as an advocate. So I think you bring a special perspective to 

how to make regulation, what it takes to get it done, and why you 

need it, what goes on behind the scenes to protect our safety. I 

raised concerns in this committee a number of times about what 

I think is the President’s kind of misguided Executive order where 

he says, for every regulation you put in place, you have to eliminate two, this arbitrary rule. As you heard from some of my colleagues, regulation has become kind of a punching bag, or a dirty 

word. Where regulation is bad, we need to get rid of regulation. 

They tend to forget that regulation is put in place for the safety 

of people who are driving or who are riding on our highways and 

buses and cars and going to school, our children. 

Also, they tend to forget that the regulations that you all put in 

place are the result of legislation that we pass. I have got a list 

of the regulations that were required by the FAST Act, just the 

FAST Act. And I would remind this committee that some of the 

people who are criticizing regulations voted for that FAST Act that 

required you all to put in place these regulations. 

So I would just ask you kind of what your perspective is on making regulations in this new environment where you have to strike 

two that you thought were good for safety now in order to do someVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:14 Sep 14, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\7-18-2~1\26374.TXT JEAN
31 

thing else as technology changes, communication changes, the 

world changes. Would you address that for us? 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. Thank you, Congresswoman Titus, for that very 

complex question. 

Clearly, we are not a regulatory agency. So we are a little bit different from my colleagues here on the panel. But the recommendations we make do affect regulation. And we are very careful about 

that. We are not for regulation that is unneeded. Any recommendations we make that affect regulations are based on an investigation 

of a terrible tragedy, and intended to prevent similar tragedies 

from happening again. 

That said, we also make recommendations that allow other options other than regulations. So many of our recommendations regarding impaired driving, distracted driving, are targeted more toward States, for example. Sometimes it is targeted towards companies. Sometimes it is targeted towards associations. 

So we seek a balance between ensuring that those regulations 

that are most safety critical do go forward and are not delayed. I 

will give you an example: The safety fitness determination. We are 

very concerned that that delay will affect safety because that rulemaking was withdrawn. I hope that all of us, no matter where we 

come from, are prioritizing safety in our decisionmaking regarding 

regulations as well as other forms of advancing safety. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. 

Other members of the panel want to address this from the standpoint of your agencies, striking two to do one new one? 

Mr. WAIDELICH. I think maybe I can just affirm from the Federal 

Highway Administration, I agree that safety is the number one priority of the Department, and that does take a priority in this twofor-one rule. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. We at the FMCSA are reviewing all of our regulations. But as we continue to focus on safety, we take that into 

consideration. And so we want to make sure that the rules that are 

in place remain current and relevant but continue to focus our attention on safety. 

Mr. DANIELSON. I would just echo the comments of my colleagues. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LAMALFA [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Graves from Louisiana is recognized, 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Waidelich, in August of last year, in south Louisiana, we experienced one of the greatest floods in U.S. history. It was about 

the fourth most expensive flood disaster, according to FEMA data. 

It was, by some measures, estimated to be a 1,000-year flood. 

If you can put pictures up. 

I want to show you one component. So that is, obviously, an 

offramp. There is the freeway running from the bottom right toward the top left, that black strip there. And, obviously, that is all 

water. All that brown is water up there. 

If you go to the next one, that is the interstate right there. So 

the right side is the north side of the interstate. The left side is 

32 

the south side. So that is—I guess the north side is the westbound 

lane, and the left side is the eastbound lane. 

You may think that that is a levy in between. That is actually 

a safety wall. You can imagine that—that is actually a shopping 

center in the back right of that. 

If you can go to the next one, I think I have a better picture. The 

next one. Maybe not. Can you go back twice? 

So that is actually a shopping center back there, just to give you 

an idea of how that wall forced the pooling of water and exacerbated the flooding in this situation. And, also, all up and down the 

highway here, we had several pockets where the interstate was 

flooded that—I don’t remember the number right off. I think there 

were an estimated 1,500 cars that were just stuck on the interstate. They couldn’t get anywhere because there was flooding on either side of them. 

Could you, perhaps, comment on that safety feature? As you see, 

there are no drainage outlets in that. That barrier goes on for 

miles, which also is an impediment to law enforcement and emergency vehicles trying to cross over. Does that look normal? 

Mr. WAIDELICH. I would hate to say whether it looks normal or 

not, not knowing specifically what is down there. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. I hope it doesn’t look normal with 6 

or 8 feet of water—— 

Mr. WAIDELICH. When we have these types of events, it allows 

us to assess those situations with the emergency relief dollars and 

to determine how do we move forward with this into the future. As 

a matter of fact, in the FAST Act, it asked us to look at these types 

of situations where you have repetitive type of natural disasters 

that cause these types of events on our roadways and to make 

those determinations about what to do in the future with these, potentially upgrading facilities and changing the facilities so it 

doesn’t happen again. 

With that said, we have been having a lot of intense weather 

events over the last several years around the country. As we also 

move forward with the FAST Act implementations of asset management, risk-based asset management, my hope is as we move to 

the future and correct these particular roadways, that we take that 

into consideration in these areas where you may have evacuation 

routes and things like that. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. This can’t be the first time you have 

ever seen something like this. 

Mr. WAIDELICH. No. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Most of the walls that I have seen, 

well, look, I certainly understand the safety aspects: It blocks rubbernecking. It prevents head-on collisions, and certainly there is 

value there. But why there are not drain outlets in that wall and 

why Federal standards would not call for certain increment of 

drainage flow or offsetting walls or something in some areas, I simply don’t understand. I mean, we beg for levees like this all over 

south Louisiana, and to have one on the interstate is crazy. It just 

doesn’t make sense to me at all. 

And you have many towns, in Livingston, Walker, Denham 

Springs, even in Baton Rouge, that the flooding was significantly 

exacerbated on the north side of the interstate as a result of this 

33 

safety feature. And so I want to ask if you could please go back to 

Federal Highways and advise us on the status of updating standards from lessons learned like this, the timeline of that. If you 

could advise us on how long it is going to take to get new standards 

in place to where we don’t have situations like this again. And here 

we are approaching a year after the flood, no one has touched the 

wall. Still there. No drainage outlets, no nothing. And, God forbid, 

we have another big flood. But we are down at the bottom of one 

of the largest watersheds in the world, and that certainly is possible. Could you do that? 

Mr. WAIDELICH. I will. I will take that back and get back with 

you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Great. Thank you very much. 

I have one other question. I am looking at time. I am going to 

go ahead and submit that for the record, related to timing of finalizing regulations in the FAST Act. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMALFA. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair would like to recognize the gentleman from California 

for 5 minutes, Mr. DeSaulnier. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is such a pleasure to be here serving under your chairmanship. 

I want to make sure that my comments are not taken in a way 

that detracts from this historical confidence and professionalism of 

all your agencies. But I am concerned, obviously, about the numbers we have in our staff report that the increase in fatalities and 

traffic accidents in the United States, from NHTSA, Mr. Danielson, 

increased so dramatically from 2014 to 2015. Over 35,000 Americans lost their lives, one every 15 minutes. This is the largest increase over a 1-year period in 50 years of recordkeeping. And then 

the Centers for Disease Control, their research showing that we are 

an outlier in that regard when we look at other countries. 

So my question is in context to that. But, historically, you have 

all done a good job. But the urgency of a world that is changing 

so rapidly and your ability to adapt to that. So I am going to bring 

three incidents, areas, just as an illustration. I want you to respond 

to it. 

First, in procurement, I had a constituent die on Highway 101 

in Marin County in northern California some years ago when he 

fell asleep and ran into a guardrail that had been approved by 

NHTSA, built by Trinity Industries. There was subsequently a 

New York Times story, about a year ago, over a $100 million judgment against Trinity. The ABC affiliate in San Francisco found out 

that Caltrans had, literally, thousands of these modified guardrails 

that were dangerous to the public and turned out to be involved in 

fatalities around the country, litigation against Department of 

Transportation, Texas, Virginia. And my response when I was looking at this in the legislature, was from the Secretary of Transportation of—great professional in the Brown administration, the director of Caltrans, was they relied on NHTSA. And you had approved this. And you hadn’t responded to it. 

So I bring that in the context of the urgency for you to respond 

to situations like this and the confidence that is important for the 

34 

public and States to have in you, because they do. And then so 

that. So it is more illustrative of the story of your ability to adapt. 

And the other two areas, one of which has been brought up here 

extensively about marijuana and the increased use. CRS, I have a 

constituent, Phillip Drum, who, because his sister died in an accident that was attributed to someone who was abusing marijuana 

in the other vehicle, made it his cause to come here and around the 

country. But in research we have gotten from the CRS because of 

his questions is that several studies have shown that THC in people’s blood was roughly twice as likely to be responsible for deadly 

crashes than drugs or alcohol, other drugs or alcohol. So the ability 

for you to respond to that in a world where States are approving— 

Colorado and now California—the legalization of marijuana I think 

it is particularly important in the perception that people rely on 

NHTSA to be responsive. So how you can do that and Congress 

can. 

And, lastly, in the area of technology. Having dealt with Apple 

and other providers, it is my belief that technology exists right 

now—and there has been a story, at least in Money magazine that 

Apple believes in their next platform, they will have technology so 

that you can shut down phones when there is movement in the car 

so that they can’t receive. And so the issue of distraction could be 

inhibited quite a bit. 

There is currently technology, but it requires a Federal Communications Commission waiver that, for less than $30, you can put 

a device in the car so a parent could—and it could intercept any 

kind of transmissions either coming in or out of the car. 

So those three instances are just illustrative to me of the urgency 

and the confidence that the public and States need and the private 

sector that you have the ability to respond quickly. And the urgency is particularly acute, because if we are an outlier, there are 

lives at risk. Not to indulge in hyperbole. So what is it that you 

think you need from us to be able to be more responsive or to communicate more clearly to States that there is a danger involved, a 

prospective danger, while you do your due diligence, to legalizing 

marijuana? There is a danger involved if we don’t get on top of distracted driving. And there may be technology. So how can we prod 

Apple and Samsung to get us that technology sooner rather than 

later? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Sir, you raise a lot of really important points, 

particularly about behavioral safety. The one thing—your point on 

2015 and the largest rate increase in 50 years is right on. And that 

is a source of major concern. Historically—I would just like to, you 

know, broaden our aperture just a little bit. If you go back those 

50 years and look at our fatality rate at that time, today, we are 

one-fifth where we were 50 years ago. So vehicles are safer. Roadways are safer. And the work—— 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Mr. Danielson, I don’t mean to interrupt you. 

But the first comments I made were meant to address that. So we 

have done really good work. But we have got this anomaly right 

now that I think we have to have a sense of urgency about correcting. So I acknowledge what we have done. 

35 

Mr. DANIELSON. OK. I would like to defer to my colleague at Federal Highway on the first issue of the guardrails. And then I can 

address your second and third issue. 

Mr. WAIDELICH. Let me see if I can address guardrails very 

quickly. There are standards for roadside hardware, and they have 

improved over the years. Our current standard is MASH, ‘‘Manual 

for Assessing Safety Hardware.’’ It is a national standard. It was 

just recently adopted. The previous one was NCHRP 350. Roadside 

hardware is tested to those standards. That is like the laboratory 

test. I hate to say it and call it that way, but it is a controlled test. 

When that test is passed and we at Federal Highway review those 

test results to ensure that it passes, States will use that roadside 

hardware out if they choose. 

You also have to assess in-service performance, maintenance, 

and construction practices that go along with this, which may vary 

from State to State. When it comes to guardrail end terminals, we 

do have an in-service pilot on that with four States currently involved in that. And what we have found from reviewing those end 

terminals is that none of those end terminals are better or worse 

than the others. So our program is fact-based, and data-driven, and 

performance-based. And without that data showing us that these 

truly are dangerous or more dangerous than what else is out there, 

we would not pull those particular devices. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So, Mr. Danielson, the Chair is indulging me. 

I appreciate those comments, although we can engage in further 

conversation outside of my limited time. 

Mr. DANIELSON. OK. On marijuana, as you mentioned, you have 

a number of States that are legalizing marijuana. From 2007 to 

2014, we saw a 50-percent increase in usage. And we know that 

marijuana impairs judgment and impairs driving ability, particularly with reaction time. And so our research is geared to try and 

establish a baseline threshold where we can establish impairment. 

Because, right now, we don’t have a scientifically acceptable 

threshold for impairment of marijuana. And the other technological 

challenge associated with that is the detection of impairment. Even 

once we have that, do we have the technology to test either, you 

know, oral fluids or other biometric features to establish impairment by law enforcement officials. 

Right now, NHTSA uses the drug recognition expert program, 

where we train about 8,000 law enforcement officials on a battery 

of tests to basically—because different drugs have different effects—to basically establish impairment by various drugs. These 

are court-accepted procedures, but it is very complicated. It takes 

a lot of time to train law enforcement. They are very important. 

But having a device would be very important. 

On distraction, you mentioned, just recently, there was several 

press reports about—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. We will have to ask that we—but we can have a 

second round of questions, if you care to stay for that. So—just got 

to be fair. 

OK. Thank you for—I will recognize now Mr. Faso for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FASO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Waidelich, are you familiar with the issue between your 

agency and New York State relating to certain signage that New 

36 

York State has erected over the last 2 years relating to tourism 

and other travel promotion and other New York State promotional 

signage along State highways, and your agency has declared that 

these signs are not in compliance with regulation and is seeking to 

have New York State remove the signs? Can you update—number 

one, are you familiar with this issue, and can you update me on 

your agency’s position on this matter? 

Mr. WAIDELICH. I am familiar with the issue on signs in New 

York. And we have issues in other States. And we, as an agency, 

work with those States to bring the States back into compliance. 

Currently, we are working with New York to see if there is a way 

we can develop a pilot with those particular signs. But, yes, we are 

working with the State of New York and the DOT to do that. 

Mr. FASO. And what is the consequence if New York doesn’t comply with the regulations? 

Mr. WAIDELICH. Again, we like to work with the State to bring 

them in compliance, but we do have the ability to withhold Federal 

funds if it comes down to that. 

Mr. FASO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to include for the record 

a letter from Peter Osborn to the commissioner of the New York 

State Department of Transportation, dated May 8, 2017, in which 

it says that they have not received any response from the State on 

this exact issue of the pilot. So I would like to follow up with the 

Acting Administrator on this topic going forward. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

37 


Insert offset folio 5 here 26374.005
38 

Mr. FASO. And, Ms. Dinh-Zarr, I had not—I apologize for not 

being here earlier. I was in an Agriculture Committee meeting, but 

I was intrigued by your response on the three-point safety belt. At 

what point did the three-point safety belts become required by 

manufacturers in rear seats of vehicles? 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. In passenger vehicles rather than—— 

Mr. FASO. Passenger vehicles, yes. 

Ms. DINH-ZARR [continuing]. Schoolbuses? I should get back to 

you with the exact dates. 

Mr. FASO. My understanding, it was 2008 or 2007 that this became required for the rear seats. 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. I believe that is correct. I suppose NHTSA could 

answer that better. I know a lot of vehicles had them long before 

that. They were voluntarily installing them. 

Mr. FASO. Because I have had some incidents in my district 

where people have regrettably suffered serious injury or even fatality only wearing a lap harness, a lap seatbelt, in vehicles that were 

manufactured pre the required deadline. I think it was 2008 again. 

Has there been any effort by the agency to try to encourage vehicle manufacturers to alert auto consumers of the dangers and advise them as to how one might add a rather inexpensive safety enhancement to those seatbelts? 

Ms. DINH-ZARR. The NTSB has not done that. What we did do 

is look at rear occupant protection. And we looked at other ways 

to protect occupants of the vehicle. But it does take 20 or more 

years before the fleet overturns. And there are plenty of cars that 

are before that requirement. 

But we did look at, in our rear occupant protection workshop, the 

crashworthiness of the rear occupant area. 

Mr. FASO. OK. 

And, Mr. Danielson, again, I hadn’t intended to raise this question, but the question on marijuana use and what is the definition 

or the lack of definition of incapacity based upon consuming marijuana substances. Is there a standard that we should be looking at 

asking your agency or others to develop as to what might be the 

appropriate level for which we know what the blood alcohol count 

is for alcohol, for instance? What should be the standard for marijuana? 

Mr. DANIELSON. The goal would be to develop a standard, but 

that needs to be developed scientifically so the data—the data and 

technology isn’t quite there, and the research isn’t quite there. But 

we are working towards that actively. Particularly given this data, 

we try and have our programs be data-driven, and so we see these 

increases, and we want to get on top of this. So our research is focused in this area to try and establish a threshold. 

Mr. FASO. Could you advise us for the record as to the timing on 

that and whether we should anticipate or whether it is appropriate 

to contemplate legislation in this area? I would appreciate that. 

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes, sir. 

[Please refer to the insert on page 41 for the information for the record.] 

Mr. FASO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right. The gentleman yields back. 

39 

We have an opportunity for an additional round of questioning 

for those that are still here. 

Did you have any more, Mr. Faso, or would—— 

Mr. FASO. I am done. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. I will turn to my ranking member here. 

Ms. Norton, would you have additional questions in this round? 

Ms. NORTON. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. Thank you. 

Well, I do. Otherwise, we will be soon finished after that. 

So I want to come back with Mrs. Jefferson, our Deputy Administrator there, following up on the ELDs. I ran out of time earlier. 

We know with this mandate coming down the pike here for the 

electronic logging devices that is projected to cost around $2 billion 

to implement as imposed under the previous administration, that, 

again, in my neighborhood, we have very many small independent 

carriers in ag industry and the related services they provide between a mill, livestock, whatever. And so they are seeing this as 

a heavy burden. It is a little different deal for the large carriers. 

Many of them already use these technologies, as we know. And 

they are good. It is good technology. But, again, the small carriers 

really have a hard time bearing these new costs with a mandate 

such as this. And they don’t really see an opportunity for compensation. 

But just last night, my understanding, in the THUD, that the 

legislation provided in full committee a 1-year delay of the mandate for livestock haulers and, I think, insect haulers here, which 

sounds kind of funny. But that means beekeepers, I think, primarily. So that likely gets through here. So is FMCSA ready to 

know the difference between on implementing that for livestock 

haulers for the 150-mile, as the crow flies, exemption zone that is 

being sought and worked through? Will they be geared to be able 

to do that should we complete this legislation for that additional 

delay for those types of carriers? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Congressman, there are ag exemptions that 

exist to hours of service and some of those, as you related, to the 

150 air miles for certain livestock and insects. I am assuming bees 

as well. And those don’t change under the ELD mandate. ELD is 

basically the methodology for tracking hours of service for those 

who currently are required to track their hours of service. And so 

exemptions that exist to hours of service currently will exist after 

December 18. And so we will continue to work with agriculture and 

segments of that industry that have questions or concerns about 

the ELD implementation. 

We believe that ELDs will promote safety, making it easier to 

record hours of service for those who are required to maintain 

records of on-duty status. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, certainly, no one is against safety, but it 

isn’t always easier for everybody to come up with—you know, me 

to mandate. You know, we had some pro-regulation arguments 

here. We have a lot of frustration with regulations. A lot of people 

are looking for flexibility, and they have unique situations that 

they are—you know, were—let’s say livestock hauling, for example. 

That is a unique situation where the livestock might be at a particular time and weather, what have you. And you can’t just stop. 

40 

And other cases too. There are other types of industry seeking 

some types of exemptions too, and, you know, rentals and even 

Government contracting and some of the large carriers that have 

unique delivery needs. So I just want to know that FMCSA is looking at some of these. Do you see that any further exemption might 

be granted where these folks can prove that the regulation, all 

well-intended, really harms them? 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. We have a process for those who are seeking 

exemptions. 

As I said, there are currently exemptions to hours of service that 

exist for segments of agriculture. If the request is an exemption to 

the hours of service, they may already exist. 

When it comes to being able to meet the compliance state for 

electronic logging devices, our target is December 18. We will be 

happy to follow up and talk about specific issues that you may 

have. We also are providing information, questions and answers, on 

our website. We continue to update those every day to make sure 

that folks understand the upcoming requirements for ELDs. We 

also have information on hours of service that is available as well. 

And—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. I just want to—and I am short on time here. But 

I just want the idea that those that are going to be in the enforcement capacity will be fully informed of whatever exemptions, 

whether it is the livestock and ag-type one or others that may come 

down the pike, so that people aren’t getting caught in the middle 

out there, if they have—if enforcers haven’t been properly trained 

on that, you will see that that information is out there. 

Mrs. JEFFERSON. Absolutely. We work very closely with law enforcement to ensure they have up-to-date information. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. 

And, briefly, I want to jump to Mr. Danielson. 

In your opening statement there, you had some very interesting 

information on marijuana and its effects. And we have several 

States now having legalized it, even still in defiance of Federal law. 

And you were talking about impairment. 

Would you recap just for a few seconds impairment and some of 

the other stats you gave in the beginning? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes, sir. 

The bottom line for impairment would—by drugs is that it is not 

well understood because there is not a scientifically—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. You are talking reaction time is down and—— 

Mr. DANIELSON. Yeah. 

Mr. LAMALFA [continuing]. Awareness? 

Mr. DANIELSON. So what we do know is that usage rate has gone 

up 50 percent. We also know from laboratory studies that marijuana impairs judgment and impairs driving ability, particularly 

reaction time, which makes it dangerous to use when driving. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Now, what is the—you have different potency. 

You have different types of ability to ingest marijuana or marijuana product. How many hours after it has been used. I mean, do 

you have these kinds of stats that you are working forward, you 

know, with potency? How many hours ago you have used it before 

you would resume driving? What do you have on that? 

41 

Mr. DANIELSON. Well, that would be part of—that would be part 

of the research in order to establish a threshold. 

Mr. LAMALFA. How is your research coming? What do you need? 

Mr. DANIELSON. That is what I owe for the record. I was asked 

previously to provide some additional information for the record on 

that research. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Would you provide that to my office as well, 

please? 

Mr. DANIELSON. Yes, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

NHTSA is currently conducting research on the crash risk associated with 

marijuana use by drivers and methods for identifying marijuana use by 

drivers at the roadside, including screening technologies and behavioral 

cues. Information from this research might be used to improve tools for use 

by criminal justice officials in arresting and prosecuting drugged drivers. 

Current technology is unable to provide evidence of marijuana impairment 

by drivers and developing methods that are accurate and reliable will require a significant scientific breakthrough. The timing of such a non-linear 

scientific advance is uncertain. NHTSA is exploring opportunities to stimulate progress. 

Mr. LAMALFA. What do you need, though, additionally to have a 

handle on this for—in general, for—because we don’t seem to have 

clear standards for what a DUI is. And you especially tie that to 

trucking, for example, you got a big problem. Go ahead. 

Mr. DANIELSON. Because we understand alcohol impairment so 

well, and we have an easy test—drugs are different because drugs 

just—the body reacts to them differently depending on the drug. So 

we have had somewhat of a complex battery approach to this 

where we train law enforcement officers to do roadside tests with 

people who are suspected of drug impairment. As we move forward 

with this research, our hope is that we would have something that 

would be perhaps a device, not unlike a breathalyzer, where we 

could test people for drug impairment. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yeah. Certainly, it has a couple different things. 

THC, my understanding, goes away right away, but the other elements of it stay in the cells of the body much longer. And so it 

sounds like we need more information on how to quantify that. 

Well, with that, I will stop there. And so if there is not any further questions from any committee members, we will go ahead and 

thank each of you for your time, your appearance, your travel for 

being here today. It has been very helpful and a good ongoing discussion. 

So I would ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s 

hearing remain open until such time our witnesses have provided 

answers to any questions that may have been submitted to them 

in writing and that unanimous consent—that the record remain 

open for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

So, without objection, so ordered. 

If no other members have anything to add, the subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

42 


Insert offset folio 6 here 26374.006
43 


Insert offset folio 7 here 26374.007
44 


Insert offset folio 8 here 26374.008
45 


Insert offset folio 9 here 26374.009
46 


Insert offset folio 10 here 26374.010
47 


Insert offset folio 11 here 26374.011
48 


Insert offset folio 12 here 26374.012
49 


Insert offset folio 13 here 26374.013
50 


Insert offset folio 14 here 26374.014
51 


Insert offset folio 15 here 26374.015
52 


Insert offset folio 16 here 26374.016
53 


Insert offset folio 17 here 26374.017
54 


Insert offset folio 18 here 26374.018
55 


Insert offset folio 19 here 26374.019
56 


Insert offset folio 20 here 26374.020
57 


Insert offset folio 21 here 26374.021
58 


Insert offset folio 22 here 26374.022
59 


Insert offset folio 23 here 26374.023
60 


Insert offset folio 24 here 26374.024
61 


Insert offset folio 25 here 26374.025
62 


Insert offset folio 26 here 26374.026
63 


Insert offset folio 27 here 26374.027
64 


Insert offset folio 28 here 26374.028
65 


Insert offset folio 29 here 26374.029
66 


Insert offset folio 30 here 26374.030
67 


Insert offset folio 31 here 26374.031
68 


Insert offset folio 32 here 26374.032
69 


Insert offset folio 33 here 26374.033
70 


Insert offset folio 34 here 26374.034
71 


Insert offset folio 35 here 26374.035
72 


Insert offset folio 36 here 26374.036
73 


Insert offset folio 37 here 26374.037
74 


Insert offset folio 38 here 26374.038
75 


Insert offset folio 39 here 26374.039
76 


Insert offset folio 40 here 26374.040
77 


Insert offset folio 41 here 26374.041
78 


Insert offset folio 42 here 26374.042
79 


Insert offset folio 43 here 26374.043
80 


Insert offset folio 44 here 26374.044
81 


Insert offset folio 45 here 26374.045
82 


Insert offset folio 46 here 26374.046
83 


Insert offset folio 47 here 26374.047
84 


Insert offset folio 48 here 26374.048
85 


Insert offset folio 49 here 26374.049
86 


Insert offset folio 50 here 26374.050
87 


Insert offset folio 51 here 26374.051
88 


Insert offset folio 52 here 26374.052
89 


Insert offset folio 53 here 26374.053
90 


Insert offset folio 54 here 26374.054
91 


Insert offset folio 55 here 26374.055
92 


Insert offset folio 56 here 26374.056
93 


Insert offset folio 57 here 26374.057
94 


Insert offset folio 58 here 26374.058
95 


Insert offset folio 59 here 26374.059
96 


Insert offset folio 60 here 26374.060
97 


Insert offset folio 61 here 26374.061
98 


Insert offset folio 62 here 26374.062
99 


Insert offset folio 63 here 26374.063
100 


Insert offset folio 64 here 26374.064
101 


Insert offset folio 65 here 26374.065
102 


Insert offset folio 66 here 26374.066
103 


Insert offset folio 67 here 26374.067
104 


Insert offset folio 68 here 26374.068
105 


Insert offset folio 69 here 26374.069
106 


Insert offset folio 70 here 26374.070
107 


Insert offset folio 71 here 26374.071
108 


Insert offset folio 72 here 26374.072
109 


Insert offset folio 73 here 26374.073
110 


Insert offset folio 74 here 26374.074
111 


Insert offset folio 75 here 26374.075
112 


Insert offset folio 76 here 26374.076
113 


Insert offset folio 77 here 26374.077
114 


Insert offset folio 78 here 26374.078
115 


Insert offset folio 79 here 26374.079
116 


Insert offset folio 80 here 26374.080
117 


Insert offset folio 81 here 26374.081
118 


Insert offset folio 82 here 26374.082
119 


Insert offset folio 83 here 26374.083
120 


Insert offset folio 84 here 26374.084
121 


Insert offset folio 85 here 26374.085
122 


Insert offset folio 86 here 26374.086
123 


Insert offset folio 87 here 26374.087
124 


Insert offset folio 88 here 26374.088
125 


Insert offset folio 89 here 26374.089
126 


Insert offset folio 90 here 26374.090
127 


Insert offset folio 91 here 26374.091
128 


Insert offset folio 92 here 26374.092
129 


Insert offset folio 93 here 26374.093
130 


Insert offset folio 94 here 26374.094
131 


Insert offset folio 95 here 26374.095
132 


Insert offset folio 96 here 26374.096
133 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 97 here 26374.097