U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–665 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

FAST ACT IMPLEMENTATION: MOTOR CARRIER 

PROVISIONS 

(115–45) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 22, 2018 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-transportation?path=/ 

browsecommittee/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 

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 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

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 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

(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 

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 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

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 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL 1 

Hon. Raymond Martinez, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration .......................................................................................................... 6 

PANEL 2 

Dale N. Krapf, Chairman, Krapf Group, Inc. ........................................................ 31 

Mike VanMaanen, Owner, Eastern Missouri Commission Company, on behalf 

of the Livestock Marketing Association ............................................................. 31 

Captain Christopher J. Turner, President, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance ....................................................................................................................... 31 

Jennifer Tierney, Board Member, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, 

on behalf of the Truck Safety Coalition ............................................................. 31 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Raymond Martinez ......................................................................................... 45 

Dale N. Krapf ........................................................................................................... 58 

Mike VanMaanen .................................................................................................... 75 

Captain Christopher J. Turner ............................................................................... 82 

Jennifer Tierney ....................................................................................................... 92 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Raymond Martinez, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Mark Meadows of North Carolina ......................................................... 49 

Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal of California ............................................................. 53 

Hon. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania ................................................................... 54 

Hon. Brenda L. Lawrence of Michigan ........................................................... 55 

Hon. Brian Babin of Texas .............................................................................. 56 

Dale N. Krapf, Chairman, Krapf Group, Inc., submission of the following: 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania .............................................................................................................. 70 

Clarification of hearing remarks ..................................................................... 73 

Written statement of Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway 

and Auto Safety, submitted for the record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

of the District of Columbia .................................................................................. 101 

Letter of November 9, 2017, from Hon. Brian Babin of Texas to President 

Donald J. Trump, submitted for the record by Hon. Babin .............................. 132 

Hon. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, submission of the following: 

Report entitled ‘‘A Brief Look at the Far Horizon: An Exploration of 

What’s to Come for Trucking,’’ by The Technology & Maintenance 

Council’s Future Truck Committee Far Horizons Subcommittee, November 2002 .................................................................................................. 135 

Report entitled ‘‘The Domain of Truck and Bus Safety Research,’’ Transportation Research Circular No. E–C117, by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, May 2007 1

1This 151-page report can be found online at the Transportation Research Board’s website 

at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec117.pdf. 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 36665.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 36665.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 36665.003
(1) 

FAST ACT IMPLEMENTATION: MOTOR 

CARRIER PROVISIONS 

TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2018 

1HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

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

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any point. 

And I want to say good morning to everybody and welcome all 

of our witnesses for being here today. I look forward to having a 

very productive discussion about the various motor carrier issues 

facing the industry. 

And I am very happy to welcome Administrator Ray Martinez to 

the committee for the first time. I know all Members on both sides 

are very interested to hear from Mr. Martinez on a number of 

issues that are before the agency. 

As many of you know, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

Act, or FAST Act, was the first long-term surface transportation reauthorization bill in a decade and included a number of reforms to 

laws governing the safety and oversight of commercial motor vehicles. Specifically, the FAST Act increased funding for and consolidated motor carrier grant programs and streamlined programs to 

reduce administrative costs and regulatory burdens on the States. 

Something I am very proud of that was important to a number 

of committee members was that the FAST Act reformed the Compliance, Safety, Accountability program, the CSA program. We 

heard loud and clear the concerns from the industry, the Government Accountability Office, and the DOT [Department of Transportation] inspector general, and the committee is going to continue to 

look closely and monitor closely these reforms as FMCSA [Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration] implements them. 

In addition, the FAST Act reformed the regulatory process by requiring FMCSA to use the best available science and data on various segments of the motor carrier industry when developing 

rulemakings and establishing a process under which the public or 

the industry can petition FMCSA to revise or repeal regulations if 

they are no longer current or consistent or uniformly enforced. 

Finally, the FAST Act provided opportunities to veterans by easing the process for individuals who are currently serving in either 

2 

the armed services or Reserve components to find employment in 

the trucking industry. And it also established a pilot program for 

veterans and Reserve members younger than 21 years of age who 

received training during their service in the military to drive certain commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce. 

Our witnesses are going to offer their feedback on the implementation of various motor carrier provisions of the FAST Act as well 

as a number of other issues that are facing the industry today. 

I want to thank you again, all of you, for appearing today. I know 

it takes time out of your schedules to be here, and we look forward 

to hearing your testimony. 

With that, I will turn to Ms. Norton for her opening statement. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Chairman Graves. I very 

much appreciate this hearing, especially at this time when we have 

a new Administrator, Administrator Martinez, whom I am pleased 

to welcome. 

I particularly appreciate this hearing, as well, Mr. Chairman, because in June of 2017 I wrote and requested a hearing because of 

the upcoming release—it hadn’t yet been released, but there was 

considerable interest in the release—of the National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s study of the FMCSA’s compliance and safety program. 

So I think that what you are doing today is certainly in keeping 

with what my concerns have been. And, clearly, your calling this 

hearing today shows that you, Mr. Chairman, have the same concerns. And I appreciate your using this hearing, now that we have 

a new Administrator, for us to assess where we are on the very 

vexing issue of the increase in the number of people who lose their 

lives because of truck accidents. 

Usually, we are able to do something in our country when we see 

things going up and then we gradually take action and the problem 

begins to decrease. But there has been an almost 30-percent increase in the number of fatal truck and bus crashes in the last almost 10 years since 2009. With the new Administrator, with these 

figures showing no movement, this hearing is especially timely so 

that we can understand where we are and can move forward more 

rapidly. 

The major concern I have, Mr. Chairman, is with the safety fitness determination rule. The agency has been working on this rule 

for more than a decade in order to get a better system to track the 

safety record of motor carriers. So I understand the difficulty of the 

issue, but the timespan becomes unacceptable in light of what we 

are seeing with the increase in truck and bus fatalities. 

I note that 85 percent of carriers do not have a safety rating, and 

if you look more closely at these figures, it shows that 40 percent 

of the ratings are more than a decade old, which means that they 

are probably not a good indicator of the carriers’ current level of 

safety. So we are really behind, even where we have been doing 

better. 

To the credit of the trucking industry, that industry has asked 

for years for a bright-line safety test that would be developed by 

the agency. That effort, of course, is currently underway at the 

FMCSA to evaluate its underlying data and analysis model, to look 

at its algorithms. But that is what you have been doing, or that 

3 

is what the agency has been doing for 10 years. I say time is up 

and that the time has come for ensuring that the agency responsible for ensuring truck and bus safety actually issues safety ratings. 

I have long advocated a more robust commercial truck and driver 

training, for more commercial truck and bus training. There 

seemed to have been agreement, but I was disappointed that we 

did not get exactly what I wanted in the final rule. 

Congress first directed the Department of Transportation to develop training standards for commercial motor vehicles a quarter 

of a century ago. In 2016, the FMCSA did issue a new rule based 

on the recommendations of a negotiated rulemaking. Now, negotiated rulemaking is a very good way to proceed. However, the 

agency failed to advance a critical recommendation that proceeded 

from that rulemaking: to require a minimum number of hours behind the wheel training. 

Mr. Chairman, this is graduation season. In order to graduate 

from college or high school, you have to have a number of hours. 

That is how we know whether you are educated in the subject, 

whether you are trained. I don’t see how we can fail to require the 

same for people who get behind the wheel of the biggest vehicles 

on the road. 

I want to commend Administrator Martinez for his efforts, the efforts of the agency in implementing the electronic logging device 

rule. We call it ELD. That mandate that Congress did pass in 

MAP–21 [Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act], the 

bill before the FAST Act. I particularly note that you, yourself, Mr. 

Martinez, mentioned the ELDs and called them lifesaving technology. I believe that the committee entirely agrees with you. 

I am disturbed by claims that ELDs are the cause of major disruptions in the trucking industry. Let’s look at what they do. The 

requirement to move to electronic timekeeping does not make any 

change in the underlying duty rules. A driver is legally allowed to 

drive for the same amount of time whether tracking hours electronically or on paper. The difference, of course, in having an ELD 

means a driver must completely and fully comply with Federal limits. I am not sure, therefore, what the objection should be. 

I strongly support the ongoing dialogue. It is the way to proceed, 

in my judgment, among the U.S. DOT and Congress toward the collaboration that has moved us this far. 

I note that we do not have representatives from the American 

Trucking Associations, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 

Association, or labor. We do not have a shipper witness. I believe 

that complex motor carrier safety regulatory issues warrant robust 

discussion in Congress with all stakeholders represented. Hearings 

where a wide swath of industry is left off the agenda amount to 

a missed opportunity. 

I ask unanimous consent to include in the hearing record submissions from stakeholders not able to sit at the witness table for today’s hearing. Could I have a consent for that, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Without objection. 

[A statement from the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety is on pages 

101–131.] 

4 

Ms. NORTON. Finally, I would like at this time also to welcome 

Jennifer Tierney, who will be on the second panel, and other volunteers from the Truck Safety Coalition in the audience today. 

Thank you for this hearing. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. I will now turn to the chairman of the 

full committee, Bill Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to Administrator Martinez for being here. You have 

been, I guess, I figure, about 3 months on the job, but I know you 

have vast experience in this industry. And so, again, welcome. We 

are glad you are here today, as well as all the witnesses. 

One of the goals of the FAST Act was to provide the motor carrier operators with some regulatory relief while also maintaining a 

very high level of safety, and I think we are moving significantly 

in that direction. So I appreciate what the folks are doing over at 

the FMCSA in making that progress. 

So, again, looking forward to hearing from you today, Administrator. But, in addition, I would also like to welcome one of our 

stakeholders that is going to testify, Mr. Dale Krapf from Pennsylvania, who operates motorcoach and schoolbuses throughout Pennsylvania. 

Welcome. It is good to have you here and your vast experience 

and knowledge about operating out there in the real world and 

having to deal with inside the beltway and the impediments we put 

up, sometimes wrongly, to do things and it affects your business 

negatively. 

But I am looking forward to hearing from all our witnesses 

today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I 

yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will now turn to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

It is certainly an important subject. I think that we could have 

had a more diverse panel representing trucking interests and the 

people who work in the industry, but it is what it is. 

I thank Mr. Martinez for being here. I think this is the first 

hearing we have had him. And he has a lot of challenges ahead. 

You know, we had 12 people die every day in large-truck crashes 

in 2016. That is 4,371 deaths in 1 year. Now, imagine if we had 

a fraction of that in aviation or some other critical public transportation sector. We need to deal with this. 

I mean, there is potentially technology in the future that will 

help. I have seen the driver-assist Uber truck, the Tesla truck, and 

others. They are not self-driving, but they can do driver-assist. So 

there may be some technological fixes out there. But there are certainly other fixes which relate to training, as enumerated by the 

ranking member, to fatigue, which is an extraordinary problem, 

and other issues. 

And there are a few things pending that I am concerned about. 

I mean, first is we had a recent amendment on the FAA bill regarding exemptions from liability for brokers because there is no 

reliable data out there from FMCSA. I have raised concerns about 

the CSA with several Administrators. We did put a mandate in the 

5 

FAST Act that this be reviewed and corrective action be taken so 

that we can have meaningful and accurate safety data out there for 

anyone who wants to hire a company or a driver. And they can look 

and say, whoa, I don’t think I want to hire that one, but, oh, this 

one, triple-A-plus, great. So we need to get that done. 

The other issue there would be that part of the reason for that 

exemption is because more and more litigation—they are looking 

for anybody, somewhere, who can pay the catastrophic costs of a 

large-truck accident. You know, in 1980, Congress set the level at 

$750,000 for insurance. Now, if we just pegged that to CPI, it 

would be $2 million, except that the DOT itself says that it is more 

a relationship to medical costs, and so it should be more like $3 

million, if it were indexed for medical costs since 1980. 

And, again, for lack of that and a meaningful CSA score, we are 

having Congress attempt to push through liability exemptions and 

other things. We have to get this stuff done. 

Then the other issue that causes, I think, a lot of problems in 

the industry is detention time. You know, if you study economics, 

there is something called an external diseconomy. I dump my 

waste out the back door into the river; someone else has to clean 

it up. You know, if someone else has to pay for it, that is an external diseconomy. I saved money; I dumped it out the back door. 

So we have some warehousers and others who are receiving 

goods or ports where the drivers have no predictability. And they 

are on the clock. And, wow, I am sitting here waiting to get—well, 

we don’t care. Sorry. You are going to sit there 5 hours. We are 

busy right now. We don’t schedule you. We didn’t make 

accomodation for you. Except that drivers have to move on to another delivery and make a living. 

So, you know, they are often confronted with getting paid, moving goods by the load, or, you know, not getting adequate rest, 

which could mean a violation of rest and duty time, which can lead 

to accidents. 

I asked for an IG [inspector general] study. We didn’t get too 

much done because there is no reliable data. Another mandate of 

the bill was that your agency mandate a rule where truck drivers 

would report detention so we could put together a database. 

The other good thing about that would be, if it became a public 

database, then you could actually have a market-based solution, in 

part because drivers could say, ‘‘I am never taking a load to that 

place. Everybody has to wait 5 hours. I am not going there.’’ And 

that could cause some corrective action on the part of some of these 

receivers of the freight. 

But the IG study did say that a 15-minute increase in average 

time loading or unloading at a facility increases the expected crash 

rate by 6.2 percent. Wow. That is an extraordinary thing that could 

be avoided with more efficiency in the system. 

But, you know, when someone who doesn’t care to be efficient because it would cost them a little money, you know, and they no 

longer get penalized, like we used to do, and say, wait a minute, 

if you make that driver sit there for 2 hours, you are going to pay 

for their time—that was what detention pay was, and it went away 

with deregulation. 

6 

So we have created some problems in the whole chain of delivery 

and efficiency of the system that I think we need to deal with. I 

mean, you know, people say, oh, we can’t have any more rules, they 

all have unintended consequences. But there are also unintended 

consequences of totally repealing rules, as I have just described 

with the detention time problem and other things. 

So thoughtful rulemaking that does not unnecessarily impede the 

industry but actually facilitates the improvement of the industry 

could help us deal with the driver shortage, could help us deal with 

safety issues. I mean, there is a lot that could be done here beneficially. 

So I look forward to hearing from the Administrator and the 

other witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. All right. 

Today, we are going to have two panels of witnesses. 

And I want to again welcome the Honorable Ray Martinez, who 

is the Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

I would ask unanimous consent that his full statement be included in the record. 

And, without objection, that is so ordered. 

And since your written testimony is going to be included as part 

of the record, the committee would request that you limit your testimony to 5 minutes. 

With that, Mr. Martinez, we appreciate you being here. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RAYMOND MARTINEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you very much, Chairman Graves, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Members DeFazio and Norton, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you very much for inviting me to 

testify about FMCSA’s work. 

FMCSA’s primary mission is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. We regulate more than 

half a million interstate motor carriers and nearly 4.7 million active holders of commercial driver’s licenses. 

Our commercial Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program supports 13,000 State law enforcement partners, who conduct 3.5 million commercial motor vehicle inspections each year. 

We thank Congress for the FAST Act changes that streamlined 

our grant programs and increased funding levels, providing critical 

resources so that our State enforcement partners and other grantees can carry out important safety work every day. 

We have seen much success, but much more remains to be done. 

Highway fatalities increased from 2015 to 2016 in all segments, including crashes involving large trucks and buses. So our work, Mr. 

Chairman, continues. 

Since beginning my tenure with FMCSA in February of this 

year, we have engaged with our industry and safety partners, 

working consistently to maintain the safest transportation system 

possible. One of the ways FMCSA is working toward these goals is 

helping industry transition to ELDs to address hours-of-service 

compliance and driver fatigue. 

7 

The ELD rule requires most drivers to use ELDs to record information about their hours of service. Full enforcement of the rule 

began April 1st of this year, and we are seeing some preliminary 

results. Of the nearly 300,000 driver inspections conducted since 

April 1st, less than 1 percent of drivers inspected have been cited 

for failing to have an ELD when they were required to have one. 

The FMCSA is also working to address the unique needs of the 

agricultural industry, and we have heard a lot from that sector. For 

example, the agency has issued two 90-day temporary waivers from 

the ELD rule for agriculture-related transportation. 

FMCSA has worked to ensure that our partners and stakeholders understand the requirements surrounding the use of ELDs. 

Since 2017, we have conducted more than 550 outreach events regarding ELD requirements nationwide, with more events planned 

in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to mention the efforts the 

FMCSA is making to help military members and veterans transition to civilian life. We thank Congress for working with the 

FMCSA to reduce those administrative barriers. These efforts include options such as allowing States to waive the skills test for 

military personnel with appropriate experience. 

Additionally, we are finalizing a rulemaking to establish a training program for qualified providers at the Department of Veterans 

Affairs to become certified in conducting commercial drivers medical examinations. We are working to implement an ‘‘under 21’’ 

driver pilot program to allow drivers with certain military training 

to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce. The 

FMCSA believes these rulemakings will produce better trained and 

qualified commercial motor vehicle drivers. 

And, finally, FMCSA is moving toward encouraging innovation, 

one of Secretary Chao’s top priorities, with our work with our partners on automated driving systems. 

The Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee met recently to 

discuss highly automated CMVs [commercial motor vehicles] and 

will issue recommendations later this year. We are working with 

NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration], Federal 

Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, as 

well, to develop comprehensive plans to better manage Department 

initiatives related to automated vehicles. 

The FMCSA recently released a request for comments about regulations that could be a barrier to the safe testing and deployment 

of these technologies on public roads. The comment period ended 

on May 10th, and we are reviewing the information that was received. 

Engaging the community through outreach activities with industry, safety advocates, driver organizations, and the motoring public 

is ongoing. 

Mr. Chairman, the public expects a safe, efficient, and reliable 

transportation system. With your continued support, FMCSA employees, our partners, and stakeholders will continue sharing this 

commitment to maintaining safety for all road users. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Martinez. 

8 

We will now turn to the chairman of the full committee, Bill Shuster, for questions. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You talked a little bit about the—in the FAST Act, we created 

a military pilot program, and you mentioned that a little bit. Can 

you tell me how far along you are? Are we starting to see the effects of it, or is it still in the planning process? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes. Much of what we do—and, again, I am 3 

months on the job, just about—involves a lot of data gathering before these programs can be launched. 

I have been assured that the pilot will be stood up by early next 

year. And what it would look to do is to provide the opportunity 

for military personnel between the ages of 18 to 21, with appropriate training, to transition very easily into the commercial side. 

Currently, we are completing an information collection process. 

And we will need to get Office of Management and Budget approval 

to collect additional data during the pilot program. Because it is a 

pilot program. We hope to gather additional information from that 

to see if this could actually be expanded to a larger population. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, again, there is a driver shortage out there. 

As you move forward, any way we can be of help to you with OMB, 

we certainly want to. 

Because, as I said, there is a driver shortage, and that is the 

next question. What are the things that you may be able to do, 

what are the things that maybe we need to do to improve that? My 

understanding was there is a 50,000 to 75,000 shortage of drivers 

and that number is going to continue to grow. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Right. And one of the things that—I do believe 

it is worth—I think this pilot program is an excellent first step, because the logic is simple: Look at some of those younger drivers. 

The difficulty is that, if you look at the broader population, 

younger drivers are involved in a higher percentage of crashes, injuries, and fatalities in the general population. That doesn’t necessarily mean that in a segment—for instance, military personnel, 

who have training, who have discipline, that they might be able to 

certainly put that type of general data aside. 

So expanding the population of potential drivers, I think, is one 

way to look at it. The other thing is to look at what is happening 

with drivers out there, what is the quality of life that these drivers 

have. Driving in the commercial sector has always been a very difficult job, and are we making this harder, or are we making it 

something that people could look forward to and say, this is a good 

career, not just a job on a temporary basis? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. Well, I know we had a roundtable a couple 

months ago talking about autonomous trucks, and, of course, the 

fear for many out there is that it is going to displace drivers. Well, 

the folks that I have been talking to in the trucking industry said 

you are talking about 40 or 50 years before that happens. 

And the idea that you can take the toughest—and you tell me 

if your experience is different from mine. But from what I hear, the 

toughest drivers to get are those that have to do the long haul, 

have to leave home for weeks at a time and drive long stretches 

of road. It is monotonous. And with autonomous vehicles, you can 

reduce the amount of drivers on those stretches. And then when 

9 

you pull into a city—Pittsburgh or New York or Los Angeles—when 

the truck pulls off the road, there is a group of drivers there at 

some facility that can take it the final mile, the toughest part of 

the haul, and, also, they can be home at night, or most nights. 

So is that something that you perceive it the same sort of way? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. We are very excited about the prospects and the 

possibilities of fully autonomous vehicles and what that would 

bring. Of course, any change will have some levels of disruption. 

But, from our perspective, you know, we are looking at, what 

would that add to the safety environment? It is all about safety. 

And we believe that there are some real possibilities there for both 

improving safety, efficiency, and the economy. 

That said, I must say that, while, as you said, we might look at 

40, 50 years for a fully autonomous vehicle, I am excited about all 

the additional safety measures that are being added to trucks on 

a daily basis because of these developments in technology. 

And that, by the way, ties into the previous question. It is making the job a little bit easier for those drivers, because you have 

this additional technology that is available today, that is being incorporated today, that is helping them on the road and making it 

safer. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. There are lots of technologies going out 

there. And I just want to make the point, I always try to make this 

point, is that, although we have seen, I think, an uptick a little bit 

in accidents and fatalities in the trucking industry, but over a long 

period of time I think the numbers stay pretty consistent that 75 

percent of the accidents that truck drivers are in are not their 

fault. It is the traveling public that cuts them off or whatever. 

So, again, the folks in the industry are doing a good job. They 

can do better, but I think that all these new technologies certainly 

can help to make it even safer out there. 

So thank you very much. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. I will turn to Ranking Member Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Martinez, you will perhaps recall I mentioned in my opening 

remarks my concern that the agency does not have a reliable, easyto-read system to verify the safety of a motor vehicle. This has been 

a long-outstanding issue. 

And the agency is 7 months late in submitting an action plan 

that Congress required in the FAST Act. This was made even more 

urgent because of recommendations by the National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and I mentioned their study, 

as well, in my opening statement. 

When will Congress receive the action plan required by the FAST 

Act? Remember, the FAST Act, I think, was passed 3 years ago. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you. 

That is correct. The report, I believe, was due December 17 of 

last year. You can imagine my disappointment in assuming this position in February and seeing that that had not been submitted. I 

can tell you that, as we speak today, it is in final departmental review, and I hope that that will be forthcoming. 

But that said, we have been directed—— 

10 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you hope that it will be forthcoming, Mr. 

Martinez? It is in final review. If it is in final review, you should 

be able to tell us when you expect it to be final. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. And I don’t have a date for when that would be 

made available. 

What I will say is that we have not waited for that study to be 

put forward. We are moving. We have fully accepted the National 

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s recommendation, and we are moving forward with their recommendations. 

Ms. NORTON. So you are now in the process of implementing the 

recommendations of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. That is correct. We have accepted those recommendations. We have started with having initial public meetings to continue to gather input into the corrective action plan. 

We have contracted with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, in fact, to continue for them to provide 

guidance to us, because we think that that is something that was 

sorely needed at the FMCSA. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I do appreciate that. It does seem that you 

have the information in hand to proceed, and not waiting in a bureaucratic fashion—— 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Right. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. For that endpoint is important to us. 

Last year, the agency withdrew a proposed safety fitness determination rule that had been developed by the prior administration. 

Now, this rule is what I thought all of us are always after. It cut 

through all of the confusing data, all of the technical stuff, to provide a bright-line safety test by assigning a ‘‘safe’’ and ‘‘unsafe’’ rating. That is what the public and the industry want and expect the 

Government’s truck and bus safety regulator to produce. 

Are you committed to issuing a final rule? We call it the safety 

fitness determination rule, SFD. And what is the timeline for that 

rule so that we can all understand what is safe and what is not 

safe? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, I think that would be helpful. This goes 

back to the old adage of ‘‘bad data in gives you bad data out’’ and, 

in fact, for an agency like ours, may often result in greater confusion, in misplaced enforcement efforts, and perhaps litigation. 

I think it is critical at this time to focus on making sure that we 

are gathering the right data for analysis. And that involves preliminarily speaking with industry representatives, safety advocates, and third parties like the National Academies of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine—— 

Ms. NORTON. Do you operate on the basis of a timeline, Mr. Martinez? They have been doing that all along. So, unless you have a 

timeline, I don’t know how we can expect that the public will understand what is safe and what is not safe. I would like to get some 

understanding from you of what at least the timeline is. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. And I can’t give you a hard date for when something—— 

Ms. NORTON. All right. Mr. Martinez, I can understand that you 

are new, but could I ask you that you get to the chairman a 

timeline? I am not even asking you for a date. 

11 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. I am asking for a timeline, because I think this 

critical information going to the public is so important. 

Finally, let me ask you about the fatalities I think all of us on 

both sides have been discussing. There has been a compelling case 

made to mandate automatic emergency braking as a way to prevent the increase in these deaths. Now, this technology has been 

commercialized a long time ago and is mandated in trucks in the 

EU [European Union] and, I understand, will be in every car by 

2020. 

That is very important, that the industry is ahead of the Federal 

Government. Why can’t we mandate this automatic emergency 

braking to indicate to the industry we understand what they are 

about and they should get to it even more rapidly? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, those are areas that, of course, especially 

with emergency—with the braking systems, that we are evaluating. I will say this: That, as was referenced earlier, some of the 

great advances are already occurring in industry, and they are incorporating new technologies across the board that are improving 

safety, regardless of mandates. 

So that is an area that we would be happy to work with Congress and work with the industry to continue to study to see what 

would make sense. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I appreciate your answer, but I also appreciate the industry is going ahead and doing it. I think it is a good 

thing that Congress ought to be very involved, and I think they are 

doing it for a reason. Nobody wants to be involved in and incur the 

liability if one of these accidents in fact takes place. 

So I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator, thanks for being here. 

The first question is, when we did the FAST Act, it established 

a pilot program for veterans and Reserve members younger than 

21. If they were driving heavy trucks in the military, they could 

now drive heavy trucks out, going through stuff. How is that working out? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. We are in the final stages, and, as I have said, 

the pilot program should be stood up next year. We are in a datagathering mode right now, and we need at least one approval before we can roll that out. 

We think that is going to be helpful, not just because it will add 

a new population to the driving population, but also the data that 

we hope to get may inform us and Congress about whether that 

population can be expanded beyond military. 

Mr. HUNTER. So I have data here in front of me. I was well-prepared for this hearing. In 2016, 16- to 20-year-old male drivers 

were actually less likely to be involved in fatal crashes than their 

21- to 24-year-old counterparts. Have you found that? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I am not familiar with that data. 

Mr. HUNTER. Are you looking at data like that? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, we know the general data in the population 

of general drivers. But I think, more specifically, we would want 

to look at those in that age group that have commercial driver’s liVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:06 Jun 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\5-22-2~1\36665.TXT JEAN
12 

censes and drive intrastate. And that is not information that I currently have. 

Mr. HUNTER. So let me ask you, how many States, contiguous 

States, allow for a commercial driver’s license between the ages of 

18 and 21? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I don’t know that off the top of my head, but that 

would be relevant information. 

Mr. HUNTER. Well, let me answer it for you, Administrator. The 

answer is all of them. All 48 contiguous States allow for commercial driver’s licenses for trucks after you are 18 and between the 

ages of 18 and 21. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Uh-huh. 

Mr. HUNTER. I have a bill called the DRIVE-Safe Act. There is 

a companion bill in the Senate. And it allows for a pilot program 

for people ages 18 to 21 to go drive. That is why I am asking this. 

There is pushback on this, but I don’t get why, because, again, all 

48 States allow for an 18-year-old to get a CDL [commercial driver’s license]. 

So you can drive from San Diego to Sacramento, which is about 

500 miles, but you can’t drive from San Diego to Reno, which is 

just over 500 miles. So it is the exact same distance. And if you 

overlay California over New York State, it goes all the way down 

to North Carolina. So you can drive from San Diego all the way up 

to northern California. It would be like driving from New York City 

all the way down to North Carolina. But that is illegal, because you 

cross State lines. 

OK. Can you explain that, how that makes sense, just logically, 

in our minds? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. No. And I am not actually familiar with that, and 

I believe that that is something that deserves exploration. 

As a former motor vehicle commissioner both in New York and 

New Jersey, you know, I will say that those who are in that population who have a CDL would be probably safer than the general 

population. The problem is the general population of those in that 

age group are disproportionately involved in crashes, injuries, and 

fatalities at high rates of speed—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Let me interrupt you again. I have the stats from 

2012 to 2016. For those 4 years and 2016, which is the latest year 

for NHTSA data, 16- to 20-year-old male drivers are less likely to 

be involved in fatal crashes than their 21- to 24-year-old counterparts. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I would be happy to see that data. And, frankly, 

as I stated earlier, we can only move with information that is provided to us or that we can be informed by. That is how we make 

regulations, and that is how we move forward. 

I think that to cut to your question, which I think is an important one, there is a shortage of drivers. There is a population that 

could easily help in that effort. The question is, you know, can we 

have some kind of a structured environment, like the military pilot 

program, where we know we are getting disciplined individuals 

who have been trained, perhaps go into mentorship programs or 

something like that, so that it is not the general population that 

you are dealing with, it is regulated. 

13 

Now, I will say kind of what we did as motor vehicle commissioners around the country, where we adopted graduated driver’s 

license programs, where the younger drivers were basically told, 

you are on a conditional situation and you have to have a certain 

amount of training, et cetera, before you can drive. 

So I think it is worth exploring. We are not unalterably opposed 

in any way to this. It is something we would be eager to work with 

Congress, the industry, and safety advocates on. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Administrator. 

And I just want to stress one last time, again, you can be 18 or 

19 or 20 and drive in any State in the country. You simply can’t 

cross a State line. 

So I am not sure what putting more rigor—we all for it, making 

sure it is safe, and more classes. But, right now, it exists as is. And 

we have the power in this committee to give people jobs and to 

make it so you can drive interstate commerce, not just intrastate 

commerce, and you will be legal when you cross that 1-foot State 

border. 

So thank you very much. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Administrator, I mentioned earlier the issue regarding insurance. And, in fact, I mean, obviously, this predated you, but it came 

out of DOT in 2014: ‘‘Current insurance limits do not adequately 

cover catastrophic crashes, mainly because of increased medical 

costs.’’ And the estimate would be that today, that would be about 

3 million bucks. 

What is your experience with from New Jersey and/or opinion 

about looking at a review of this 1980 limit? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, it does seem, just looking at it from the outside, that when you see a date of 1980 that that is problematic. We 

understand the importance of the issue as well. Insurance coverage 

is about ensuring that, in the unlikely event a crash occurs, those 

involved are all protected. 

Back to 2014, the FMCSA published an ANPRM, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, with the hopes of collecting information. And what the FMCSA found, unfortunately—and, again, this 

does predate me—was that much of the relevant information that 

would inform the agency to move forward was proprietary in nature, and we would not have access to it, and it was not being voluntarily provided. 

We do believe that there is relevant information out there, both 

in the industry and—from the insurance industry, perhaps, but certainly in the commercial motor vehicle industry. And we would be 

eager to work with Congress on this, should Congress choose to 

move forward. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So you are saying you can’t get the experience data 

from the industry. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. We can’t get the—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. From the insurance industry. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. That is correct. Much of it is proprietary. And, of 

course, you always have to look at information that is provided to 

you—— 

14 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Uh-huh. 

Mr. MARTINEZ [continuing]. With some judgment as to whether 

it is skewed or not. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But I think there is also, though, a kind of—I 

think there is some data on how many crashes there are and how 

expensive they were, and this could be looked at through a study. 

But, I mean, beyond that, I carry a million bucks for my own personal vehicle, you know, for liability, and I question whether that 

is enough. I mean, for a large, heavy truck, $750,000, common 

sense says, eh, that is probably not enough. I mean, sure, crashes 

are not that likely, but when they do happen, the severity is such 

that—you know. It is unfortunate, because this is causing a chain 

of events where now someone hires a lawyer because of a fatality 

or an injury, and the lawyer says, ‘‘Well, it is only 750,000 bucks. 

Your medical costs are $3 million. Well, we have to go after the 

truck manufacturer, we have to go after the broker, we have to 

go’’—I mean, we don’t have deep pockets here if it isn’t a big company and it is an individual driver. 

So something, I think, needs to be done here to better protect the 

public interest. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. And, Congressman, I agree with you; it deserves 

some evaluation. We, I think, have tried this before my time here, 

and they felt that they didn’t have the information on hand to 

move forward with certainty. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. But that doesn’t mean that it is not worth exploring. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Well, if you come up with some innovative 

ideas on how to move forward on this issue, I would love to chat 

about it. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And then quickly, just back to detention time, because, again, I think this is a root problem for a lot of drivers. 

There is certainly anecdotal evidence and actual documented evidence about how little many drivers can earn because of their 

delays either at ports or at—and when they are doing piece rate 

especially—and at delivery points. 

And I think it is also, you know, the likeliest form of incentive 

or, shall we say—I don’t know if you want to say ‘‘incentive’’—for 

someone to violate hours of service. Because, hey, I had to sit there 

3 hours, and now I have to get this other load, and if I don’t get 

that load, then I get blacklisted because I didn’t keep up. 

And so, how are we going to move forward on getting, as the 

DOT inspector general said, reliable, accurate, representative data 

on the frequency and severity of driver detention, which, prior to 

you, your agency concurred with, but there doesn’t seem to have 

been any action? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I agree with you on the detention time problem. 

We have, again, received—in my personal conversations with industry, from the driver level to companies, owner-operators, this is 

a problem out there, and it does translate into a safety issue. 

Currently, the FMCSA will be publishing a request for information from the industry, from drivers, technology vendors, and shippers to better understand the scope and the characteristics of the 

15 

detention time, because that is something that we are going to 

need. 

Regrettably, FMCSA doesn’t have any real authority or jurisdiction over this. However, as I said, it is a safety issue, because it 

is an abuse of the drivers, and it is abuse of those operators if they 

are indeed held up 5, 6 hours, and it becomes a safety issue. 

I believe, in an odd way, the electronic logging devices, which 

have been somewhat controversial, may provide some ray of light 

here, not for FMCSA but for industry to gather industrywide information to see how widespread is this problem, who is abusing this. 

And if they were to voluntarily provide that information to 

FMCSA, we would be happy to review it. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I agree. It seems like the ELD is purpose-built for 

this. You know, it is an app, essentially, and you just have one category in the app which you hit, which is detention time, while you 

are sitting there, and when it is over, you click off. And then the 

company, the individual, whatever, would have reams of data over 

time. 

OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Gibbs? 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Chairman. 

Thank you, Administrator, for being here. 

This might have been answered earlier, but I want to just kind 

of reconfirm it. I have been working to reform the CSA program, 

because I think it has a lot of issues about fair representation, fair 

to our motor carriers. 

I think, you know, in the FAST Act, the reforms and revisions 

were supposed to be to Congress by January. I think maybe you 

answered this, that you don’t have a timeline, but you hope to have 

it soon. Is that right? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. On the CSA? 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, that is correct. It was supposed to be, I believe, submitted in December 2017. 

Coming in in February, I obviously asked what was the delay. It 

is currently under final review. I don’t have a specific—— 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

Mr. MARTINEZ [continuing]. Date that it would be issued, but it 

is not holding us up in implementing recommendations and moving 

forward with corrections. We have actually contracted with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to help 

guide us to implement these recommendations. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I would just like to reinforce with you, since you 

are new in the position, that the program has just been really unfair, where our drivers, our trucking companies have been getting 

dinged, when it hasn’t been their fault, when there is an accident. 

It hurts their insurance rates, hurts their ability to be hired by 

other shippers. So I think that that is absolutely necessary. 

Also, on another note, I heard from my constituents concerns 

about the rest periods/hours of service. I know the ranking member 

has just addressed and asked questions about that. But has 

FMCSA given any thought to making changes beyond the arbitrary 

hour limits? 

16 

You know, a driver sees congestion—I guess what I am just saying is more flexibility for the drivers when they know they can’t get 

there because there is an accident on the road and they pull off. 

Do they get flexibility? I am hearing this from my constituents. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, Congressman, the—of course, our priority is 

always safety, so we look at any of these issues through that lens. 

I believe that a great first step has been these electronic logging 

devices, because now it makes everybody on a level playing field. 

And we all know, we have to admit that, you know, paper logs 

were fudged in the past. And now we can say, OK, it is electronic, 

less susceptible to that, certainly. 

Now let’s look at hours of service and see whether some modifications—that is, not extending the hours, but providing some flexibility in the current rules. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. And I will say that we are engaging with our 

stakeholders in the regulated community on this, and safety advocates, to say, what would be acceptable? 

And I would also add—because you are going to hear later from 

the enforcement community—we can’t make these rules so complicated. Because these are all engagements that occur on the side 

of the road or in circumstances where it is law enforcement and 

stakeholders of the regulated community, we have to make sure 

that there are clear rules, but that provide flexibility. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. I think ‘‘flexibility’’ is the key word, so I kind of 

wanted to get a point across. 

Speaking of electronic logging devices, has your agency seen any 

issues where they are not working? And have you been forced to 

intervene with the manufacturers? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. There is a large number of manufacturers and 

different devices. At present, there are about 370 different devices 

available, 247 manufacturers. 

We have seen some reporting of ELDs that do not work. It has 

been sporadic. We have not had to deregister anyone as yet, but 

we are willing to do that should a particular provider or device 

show that they are not—— 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. 

On another note, how many regulations has your agency rescinded since Secretary Chao has been Secretary? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I don’t believe that we have, quote/unquote, ‘‘rescinded’’ any regulations, although that is something that we are 

always looking to rescind or update. 

Of course, rescinding a regulation—to rescind a regulation you 

have to go through, essentially, the regulation process, so it would 

be somewhat time-consuming. 

But we are always looking for that, because that is what our 

stakeholders in the industry would look for, the updating of regulations. 

Mr. GIBBS. And so you are still planning on examining—— 

Mr. MARTINEZ. We are constantly reviewing our regulations, yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Sires? 

17 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Administrator Martinez, for being here. 

Administrator, I have been advocating for years that the Department of Transportation help evaluate and address the problem of 

undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnea in commercial vehicle operators. 

As it stands now, we do not even know how widespread this 

problem is, because there is no concerted effort to study this frequency in highway transportation operators. We are only made 

aware of the effects of sleep apnea after a high-profile accident. 

I represent Hoboken, New Jersey, and the last accident that happened with the rail in Hoboken, it was found that sleep apnea was 

part of the cause. 

Now, I am just wondering—we don’t even do a study on sleep 

apnea to see the effects on the vehicle operators. Is that something 

that you would be willing to look into in the future? 

Because I know that it was there for a while, that it was going 

to be done, and there were some comments to withdraw it. But if 

we don’t study it, we don’t even know how impactful it is. And now 

we are starting to find out that in the commuter rail industry it 

is very prevalent, some of these accidents that sleep apnea is causing. 

I know how debilitating it is, because I suffer from sleep apnea, 

and, for me, sometimes it is difficult. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you for that question. Because I know 

that, while OSA, obstructive sleep apnea, may be controversial or 

whether to mandate it or not, the health and well-being of drivers, 

commercial motor vehicle drivers, is of paramount importance to 

us. And OSA is a concern. It is one of those factors that is a concern to us, just like, say, diabetes might be. 

But the current safety programs that we have—as you know, 

commercial motor vehicle drivers do have to go through a health 

screening. Those providers are registered with us. And we enforce 

with them that they should continue to rely upon their medical 

training and expertise to determine whether a driver exhibits the 

multiple risk factors for OSA, because there are risk factors. 

And these medical professionals, we believe, should be trained 

properly to evaluate the individual in front of them to say whether 

they are a candidate for that. 

And I think that is where we stand right now. 

Mr. SIRES. So do you think we have the tools to make any kind 

of decisions on sleep apnea for operators? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. At this point, we are relying on the medical training of the doctors and medical professionals that currently do the 

medical evaluations of the drivers to say, does the driver in front 

of them show the risk factors for OSA. 

I can’t inform that. I can’t improve what training those medical 

professionals do, except to encourage them that this is something 

that is important to CMV drivers and to the FMCSA, that this is 

something that they should evaluate. 

Mr. SIRES. OK. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. The Chair notes the presence of our 

colleague, Congressman Mike Gallagher. 

18 

And we appreciate your interest in this topic, and welcome to the 

committee. 

And, with that, I would ask unanimous consent that Congressman Gallagher be allowed to fully participate in today’s hearing. 

And, without objection, that is so ordered. 

And we will now move to Mr. Denham. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Martinez, there has been a lot of discussion not only about 

ELDs but the F4A amendment. The F4A amendment is called that 

because, in 1994, Tip O’Neill actually had this as part of the FAA 

bill. We also call this the Denham amendment because we have 

passed it five times now into the Senate, and we are getting tired 

of doing that. 

But my basic questions are about the safety as it pertains to 

meal and rest periods. California and Washington, in their wisdom, 

have tried to create a patchwork. 

If you have more States that continue down this road, if more 

States continue to add their own meal and rest periods, first of all, 

how would the trucking companies be able to adhere to a patchwork across the entire country? 

And, secondly, what does that do to safety across the country if 

you are forcing drivers to pull over based on a clock versus based 

on when they are actually tired and these professionals want to 

take a break? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, thank you. And, as you know, hours of service is one of the things that we struggle with every day, in terms 

of regulating this community. We have that on a national basis, 

and that doesn’t mean that it is not controversial from time to 

time, and we are always looking at it. 

I can’t imagine how much more complicated it would be if individuals States adopted their own meal and rest break and hours 

of service, if you will. It would highly complicate the landscape, not 

just for the regulated community, for the companies and the drivers, but also for the enforcement community. 

So we certainly deal with this in other areas, which is why we 

like uniformity. We have uniformity in vehicle maintenance issues, 

drug and alcohol testing, and health screening of the drivers. Those 

are national. And I would just be very cautious if we go into that 

world of having 50 States or more jurisdictions add a patchwork of 

different rules and regulations. 

Mr. DENHAM. So, with the ELDs, electronic logging devices, being 

implemented across the board and capturing drivers’ hours, can 

you not also use the ELDs to show that you are actually taking a 

break and verifying that you are taking a break and, hopefully, 

doing it when you are tired versus when are you stuck on the Golden Gate Bridge or some other bridge across the country that you 

happen to have that time come up? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, that is correct. As was noted earlier by another Member, the ELDs basically are a recording device. We have 

not changed the hours of service. Basically, it is whatever you 

would have normally put on your paper log, you now do it on your 

electronic log. 

19 

So that is exactly what would happen. You would log that you 

are taking your break at such-and-such a time and for such-andsuch a reason, if you saw fit. 

Mr. DENHAM. Do you anticipate other States are going to follow 

in California and Washington’s footsteps? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I have given up predicting these issues. I would 

just say, from a regulatory point of view and in my conversations 

with industry, I know that it would be a complicating factor. 

Mr. DENHAM. But, in this case, Federal preemption for interstate 

commerce is necessary for F4A, for this amendment, meal and rest, 

for safety concerns, having uniformity across the country. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I think, from the regulatory perspective and I believe from the regulated industry, uniformity is always something 

that would be sought. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman 

and Ranking Member, for holding this hearing. I apologize for 

being back and forth in more than one committee. 

Safety continues to be our top priority, not only here in Congress 

and at home but also for your Administration, Mr. Martinez. And 

so I am delighted that you are here today. 

As you acknowledged in your testimony, the discussion around 

highly automated commercial motor vehicles is quickly emerging as 

a prominent issue in the context of safety on our roads. In fact, I 

think many would agree that it is difficult to keep up with the pace 

with which the technology itself continues to evolve. 

The AV technologies represent a unique opportunity to improve 

safety on our roads but also present new challenges as we look to 

regulate the industry and identify the best framework in which to 

do so. 

I understand that the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee 

met as recently as October of 2017 to discuss the AV commercial 

vehicles. 

Can you speak more to the level of coordination between your 

agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

and the Federal Highway Administration and also the Federal 

Transit Administration to manage these new initiatives as it relates to the AVs? What are the initiatives? And where would you 

like to see more intra-agency and interagency coordination? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you very much for that question, because, 

obviously, it is a very forward-looking and future-looking issue of 

autonomous vehicles and automated driving systems. 

And we are working very closely with our sister agencies—the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Transit 

Administration, and Federal Highway Administration—on this. 

Most recently, we issued a request for comments from industry 

and the public on, what do you think of our existing regulations as 

it relates to possible testing of commercial motor vehicles, automated vehicles, on the roadways? 

Most of the general public, when they think about highly automated vehicles or fully automated vehicles, think in terms of passenger vehicles. They are not really thinking of that in the comVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:06 Jun 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\5-22-2~1\36665.TXT JEAN
20 

mercial space. And yet we know, as you mentioned, this technology 

is rapidly developing, and there may be very much a lot of interest 

from the marketplace. So we have to be ready for it. 

The first thing that we are doing, as I said, is asking for questions from the public. We also will be doing two listening sessions 

this year. And I expect that committee to issue a report helping to 

advise me this year as well. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Well, thank you. 

As you know, I represent Dallas, which is the home of one of the 

Nation’s largest motorcoach operators in the United States, called 

Greyhound. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Uh-huh. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. In your testimony, you speak of the importance of working cooperatively with our industry and safety 

partners to maintain the safest transportation system possible. 

In addition to that, I have one of the largest transportation locals 

in the country, because we are a major trade area with a lot of 

truck traffic. 

So I would like if you would speak to more of the coordination 

with industry partners, such as Greyhound, and detail some of the 

examples of where the industry is doing well and other things that 

need to be improved. 

Because even with the automobile manufacturers I have been in 

touch with—and they are going to keep up with the market. And 

so this might hit us faster than we think, and especially in my particular area. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you. 

So I will address specific to automated vehicles and dealing with 

those industry partners. But I will say that we have a very good 

relationship with the associations of which Greyhound, I know, is 

a member, so certainly the American Bus Association, United Motorcoach Association, National Association of Motorcoach Operators, International Motorcoach Group. And then we also deal with 

some of the groups that are not—you know, faith-based organizations that have buses, tour organizers, conference planners, things 

like that. 

In my short time in this position, I have met with Greyhound but 

also with some of the other major operators. I come from a State, 

in New Jersey, where we are on a corridor, that 95 corridor, where 

buses are up and down there all the time, and I will say this: Bus 

transportation in the United States is safe. I encourage it. And we 

have a very good working relationship to maintain that level of 

safety, because it is good for their business, as well, to say, we 

have, you know, a sterling reputation in safety. 

So we will continue that as this technology moves forward. Because, as I said earlier, they are incorporating a lot of this automated technology into their vehicles now. We don’t necessarily 

have to wait for the fully autonomous vehicles. And I think that 

makes the driving a little bit easier for drivers, and it should make 

the passengers a little bit more at ease. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Martinez, thank you for being here. 

21 

I understand late last year the FMCSA’s online National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners was compromised, and it was 

forced to be shut down for a period of time while the agency investigated the hack. I was made aware of this when a constituent 

reached out to my office after being unable to access the registry. 

Can you explain to the committee what exactly happened and 

provide an update on the status of the online registry? 

And were there any lessons learned that we can share with other 

agencies to help prevent other databases from being compromised 

in the future? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you for that question. 

There was an unauthorized attempt to access the National Registry. As it is described to me, somebody attempted to get in the 

front door, and they got, you know, through the screen door but 

didn’t get into the system itself, so they were not able to access any 

personally identifiable information, PII. But, nevertheless, that was 

a clear sign for us that we had to be careful. 

All of these types of systems, whether it is in FMCSA or other 

Federal agencies or in the private sector, unfortunately there is an 

active community of hackers that are out there. And you don’t 

know exactly what they are going for, but, certainly, personally 

identifiable information is something that is a primary target. 

Currently, we have stood up kind of a manual workaround. It is 

not ideal, and I know that it is not ideal, because when I went to 

see my doctor, who actually does this, she complained to me just 

last week that it is a little bit cumbersome. And I promised her, 

as I promise you, we want to get this up and running and fully 

functional as quickly as possible. 

It is a great idea. It facilitates doctors participating in this program. But we are not going to stand this up fully until we are assured of the safety. So, currently, we are working with the Department’s IT lead and outside vendors to ensure that the next 

iteration will be safe. 

Mr. DAVIS. So when you say ‘‘quickly,’’ you got any estimates in 

time? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I believe it is a matter of months. It will be short 

term, but we are making progress every day, and we are getting 

updates every day from our vendors and from our partners at the 

Department. 

Mr. DAVIS. I won’t ask you to be any more specific, but can you 

please keep my office apprised of the progress? And I would encourage you to make the months a smaller amount of months rather 

than a few extra months. 

Mr. Martinez, one of the more positive safety trends I have seen 

is the decrease in bus-related fatalities over the past 40 years. In 

fact, since the mid-1970s, we have more than doubled the number 

of buses on the road, nearly tripled the number of bus miles traveled each year, and yet decreased the number of bus-related accidents by 30 percent. And, in 2016, we had the second lowest number of bus-related accident fatalities since 1975. 

What do you attribute this positive trend to? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I believe, as I kind of alluded to in a previous response, a very close working relationship with industry. They know 

what we are looking for. They are better prepared. 

22 

Frankly, you know, as a regulatory agency and working with our 

State partners, we really don’t want to write violations. We would 

prefer that everybody know exactly what is required. And I believe 

that that has been adopted by the major carriers, certainly the associations. 

So we do training work with all the associations. We work very 

closely with the operators around the country. And we take it seriously because, obviously, it is not just a commercial motor vehicle, 

but it is a commercial motor vehicle that is transporting people. 

But I believe it is the combination of education, continued enforcement efforts that are uniform, and, I believe, improvements to 

the vehicles themselves, the engineering and the safety improvements to the vehicles over the years. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, Mr. Martinez, again, thank you for your time. 

Thanks for being here. 

And I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the ranking member, for holding this hearing today. 

And, Mr. Martinez, thank you for being here. 

The Port of Newark I am sure you are familiar with, you know, 

a key component of the largest seaport on the eastern seaboard, is 

located in my district. Thousands of trucks carry billions of dollars 

of goods through there every year. Yet, at this critical port, as 

across the country, there is a severe shortage of truck drivers. And 

this is in a city with an 8-percent unemployment rate. 

And I know you were previously chief administrator of the New 

Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission—we still call it the DMV—so you 

are, no doubt, aware of the State’s particular problems in this regard. 

I know you have been asked this question about the truck driver 

shortage in the past, but I would really appreciate if you would 

speak about it at this point. You know, since you have formerly 

been head of a State agency that licenses drivers, could you speak 

to that? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Certainly. 

And I am glad that you mentioned, you know, the unique, or 

somewhat unique—about the Port of Newark there. I was just visiting one of the major transportation companies that operates out 

of Elizabeth—major trucking companies—just last week. And as I 

go around the country, I talk to companies and associations, and 

they are like, ‘‘We need more drivers. We need more drivers.’’ 

And part of the way—obviously, it is good for the drivers that are 

currently in the market, because they are getting some incentives 

to join. One of the incentives that I believe industry is already providing is, ‘‘Hey, we are a safe operator. We will work with you in 

terms of your schedules.’’ 

But there is a shortage, and so how do you expand that population? And you put the second piece in there about, if we have 

folks, particularly younger folks, who are unemployed, we deserve 

to look at that. I really do believe that deserves a hard look. 

Now, we are moving forward with the military driving pilot program, and we hope to get some good information from that that 

will advise us on how to move forward. But, obviously, if Congress 

23 

chooses to go forward, we would like to work with Congress on 

whatever suggestions you might have. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. 

So, in terms of that, I mean, you know, I know it is—get into private industry and businesses. But how do we incentivize opportunities for people to even approach that as a potential career? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Right. Well, one of the things that I just kind of 

alluded to is some people think that commercial motor vehicle driving is kind of going to be a dying career. It is not. We are going 

to have commercial drivers for a very, very, very long time, and we 

need more of them. 

And we need to say, even with all this automation that we are 

talking about, you are not going to have fully autonomous vehicles, 

you know, next year. Certainly, testing would be occurring. But 

make that work somewhat more attractive. The pay is certainly 

good. 

I know that some of the major corporations are actually beginning by training, bringing on those younger drivers for intrastate 

driving, not interstate driving, and starting on smaller trucks, 

keeping them in training programs, and encouraging them that 

this is a career, it is not just a job for the summer. And then they 

realize that they could spend a lifetime in a very, very good career. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. All right. Well, thank you for your time. 

And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Thanks, Dad. 

I first want to congratulate you. Secondly, I know you have some 

strong Cajun blood in your organization, and so the expectations 

for your agency have significantly increased. 

You all maintain the Safety Measurement System score, and that 

is an important tool to help to inform, I think, a lot of folks about 

the safety and the ability of different drivers, to point out situations when you have drivers that are unsafe. But I do have a concern in terms of how that score is put together. 

The score, as I understand it, how it is put together right now, 

would include factors that don’t have anything to do with the actual drivers, in some cases. You may have infrastructure failure. 

You may have an at-fault driver that is driving under the influence, that may be going the wrong way down a one-way road, that 

may actually hit an unattended truck that is parked legally. Yet 

that will affect the SMS score of a driver. 

You are right now working on a demonstration program, the 

Crash Preventability Demonstration Program, to help, I think, 

tease out some of those, perhaps, crashes or incidents that don’t 

really inform anyone about the true safety of a driver. Can you give 

us an update on how that is going? 

And I just want to reiterate the importance of this. I think the 

SMS score is very important, but if we are sending inaccurate information or if we are setting an inappropriate baseline or average, 

then it is sending distorted information and distorted safety information, which could actually be concerning. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Correct. 

And, as I have mentioned before, it is that, you know, what data 

are we actually using. I think the industry correctly pointed out 

24 

that, you know, let’s look at this and drill down. And I believe that 

this crash preventability pilot program has actually been informative to the FMCSA. 

We recognize industry’s concern about these, quote/unquote, ‘‘not 

preventable crashes.’’ Over 3,700 crashes of that nature have been 

submitted so far, most of which we determined to be not preventable by the motor carrier. And so that is a fairness. 

And I think that what we have done through this project is to 

say, let’s use two scores here, full transparency. So, in evaluating 

this, we had 1,657 that were deemed not preventable. To your 

point, something falls from a bridge and hits the truck, or a truck 

is legally parked and somebody crashes into it, those are not preventable. And so what we do is we provide an alternate score to 

the company or the driver to say, well, this is what your score 

would look like with that included and without. 

I believe, in total, requests for review were submitted by about 

1,300 different companies. So we think this is useful. I think it is 

a good first step to just be fully transparent. And we will continue 

the conversation with industry. 

Mr. GRAVES OF LOUISIANA. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to Mr. Babin. 

Dr. BABIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank you, Mr. Graves. 

I would like to put up a slide on there. I don’t know if anybody 

can see that or not. But this actually is a summary of actions taken 

to give relief or not from the electronic logging device mandate over 

the past year. 

Last November, I delivered a letter and a speech—by the way, 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit it for the record—asking the 

administration for a 90-day waiver for all sectors of the trucking 

industry before the mandate went into effect on December the 

18th. Unfortunately, the top one, the answer was ‘‘no’’ for all sectors. 

[Congressman Babin’s letter to President Trump is on pages 132–134.] 

Dr. BABIN. Other sectors have had better luck, Mr. Martinez. 

And, by the way, it is good to get to meet you in person, since 

you and I have spoken on the phone several times. 

Other sectors have had better luck. The Motion Picture Association of America, MPAA, doesn’t have to worry about ELDs for 5 

years. The same with the California private company Rail Delivery 

Services, as you can see. Other waivers and exemptions have been 

granted for truck rental companies, package delivery services, cattle and insect haulers. And the list goes on and on. 

But there are two pending exemptions down here that I would 

like for you to see, requests that I strongly support, and a number 

of my colleagues do as well: OOIDA’s [Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association’s] request for a 5-year ELD waiver for 

small trucking fleets with excellent safety records; and then the 

Agricultural Retailers Association request to be included with their 

ag industry counterparts in the 150-aerial-mile exemption. 

Is FMCSA going to give them the same good treatment as they 

gave Hollywood film studios and grant these exemption requests? 

25 

And I also would add, is it true that the Motion Picture Association of America—does that include adult films as well? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, I don’t—— 

Dr. BABIN. Does it include that industry? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Pardon me? 

Dr. BABIN. Does it include that industry as well? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I honestly don’t know that, but I would be happy 

to respond through the Chair, if that information is actually available to us. 

Dr. BABIN. All right. Well, if you would respond to that question, 

I would just ask you about the two pending ones. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Certainly. 

And all of these requests for waivers or exemptions are evaluated 

on their own. And there have been a substantial amount of requests for waivers or exemptions to the rule. Many of these are 

still pending. It is unfortunate that it is taking time to evaluate 

them, but they are all evaluated on their own merit, and I hope 

that we will have answers on all of these shortly. 

The one that you refer to from the Motion Picture Association of 

America—and what you find is that the trucking industry is very, 

very segmented. Many of them have particular issues and concerns. 

When looking at a request for a waiver or an exemption, it is 

geared towards, OK, when will you come into compliance? What is 

the timeframe for coming into compliance? 

So that is one of the threshold questions. And so those who apply 

for that should come with a reasonable timeframe, or join that 

with, what are you doing now that currently meets or exceeds existing safety standards that would essentially match what is required by an ELD? 

And so, with the motion picture industry—and I am not that familiar with that waiver, but I will tell you that, as I am advised, 

it is a very unique industry, where the drivers work for multiple 

companies in the course of a day, using multiple vehicles during 

the course of a day. They do not drive for much of the day; they 

are actually working on set. 

In order to meet the requirements that we would usually get 

from an ELD, they actually use a third-party evaluator that, each 

day, goes through that driver’s, that employee’s record and says 

how many hours they were driving, for whom, and such and such. 

And with that, also, the industry basically said, we are looking 

to be compliant, and we hope to do so if we can find a vendor that 

can work with the particularities of our industry. And I guess that 

argument was found compelling by my predecessor. 

Dr. BABIN. Well, you know, all of our sectors of our trucking industry are unique. 

And, Mr. Chairman, can I reclaim my time that I was going to 

get before it was yielded to me? 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. No, because we did two—we went way 

over. 

Dr. BABIN. You did? OK. All right. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mrs. Lawrence? 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you. 

My question is on the issue of mandatory driver’s training. The 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP–21, 

26 

which was signed into law by President Obama in 2012, required 

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to establish minimum training requirements for individuals seeking a commercial 

driver’s license, or a CDL, including behind-the-wheel training. 

Safety groups and labor organizations and owner-operators have 

all expressed support for a mandated number of minimum hours 

of behind-the-wheel training. 

Is your agency currently working on issuing a rule to mandate 

enhanced driver’s training? And, in your opinion, is there a need 

for mandatory driver’s training? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. The entry-level driver training rule, as it is 

called, is an example of what is a labor-intensive but, we think, 

beneficial process that is called negotiated rulemaking. It has included representatives from the trucking industry, bus, insurance 

industry, State law enforcement, State licensing agencies, and safety advocacy groups to come to some consensus about how we move 

forward to both incorporate mandatory training—because we all 

agree that that would be a good thing in the commercial vehicle 

space. 

The minimum number of hours, which I think is the nut of your 

question, was not included in the final rule, but we do think that 

it is important that entry-level drivers obtain this mandatory training. And that is scheduled—we are on target for January of 2020, 

where CDL applicants will have to obtain entry-level driver training from registered training providers who comply with the 

FMCSA’s training standards. And State driver licensing agencies 

must confirm completion of that required training before they issue 

or upgrade a license. I think that is a great first step. 

What we heard back during the discussions was that—and this 

is a lot from the schools and the companies. They say, look, you 

may get some drivers that are really prepared, so an arbitrary 

timeframe is not really helpful. Some drivers may require more 

training; some require very little. And I can tell you, as a motor 

vehicle commissioner, we see that in the testing, that some people 

come in very well-prepared and able to pass the exams very quickly, and in other cases it takes multiple tries. 

So I think this is a good first step. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. So, to be clear, in 2020, will it be goal, progress 

training? So if you meet the objectives, you have completed? Or will 

it be the mandatory number of hours in 2020 that would be mandated? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. What is mandated would be that you take the 

entry-level training from a registered training provider—— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes. 

Mr. MARTINEZ [continuing]. Not a minimum number of hours. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A couple things. The first I want to touch on—first of all, thank 

you, Mr. Martinez, for appearing today and for your recent help on 

issues we have been all working on, especially to do with ELDs and 

rural trucking. 

Please touch a little more on what was brought up a bit earlier 

with veterans. I mean, veterans need jobs, and we have a trucker 

27 

shortage. And so a couple of my colleagues were talking about the 

differences in the rules. 

What I am drilling down to here is the FAST Act created a pilot 

program where those between 18 and 21 can operate interstate. 

And my colleague stated really well about how in California you go 

500 miles and not cross the State line and you cross six States on 

the east coast. 

So how are things coming, again, for being able to plug those 

below-21-year-old veterans that may be available for that market, 

you know, solving veterans jobs and shortage of trucking jobs with 

others that might have a pretty decent amount of experience in 

that short amount of time but it may be from the military? How 

are we doing on implementing that, please? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. So, again, this was a congressional mandate, and 

we welcomed it because I think everybody agrees that those coming 

out of the military should be able to transition to civilian jobs, and 

this is a great career for those with the appropriate training in the 

military. 

So we are currently completing our information collection, and 

we then will have to present that to the Office of Management and 

Budget for approval on the scenario for how we continue to collect 

data after the program is stood up. 

I am hoping that this program will be stood up early next year 

and that we will immediately begin getting information on that 

group. So it will be helpful because we will be able to have military 

personnel exiting into this new career, and the Government will be 

able to get data that we can then use to go forward to see whether 

this can be expanded to others in the population. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. OK. It was in something called the FAST Act, 

so I hope we get, you know, fast results. Thank you. 

Shifting to the issue—and, again, I thank FMCSA for getting to 

a relief. Also, one of the good things that was contained in the omnibus was some immediate relief, and then a little longer term, for 

livestock. And how that runs up against the problematic ELD device, again, for what Mr. Babin was talking about. You know, it 

just doesn’t work so well for rural folks, mom-and-pop, all that. 

And so, as we are getting down to the ELD mandate—and he already took a shot at the Hollywood movie folks. And I think he 

even said something about adult films, but I won’t go there. But 

they are getting their relief; a couple others are. 

But, I mean, you know, Mr. Martinez—and, again, you have been 

very helpful, but just for the record here, you agree that hauling 

livestock is a heck of a lot different than hauling a lot of other 

products, you know, whatever inanimate objects might be on a 

truckload, right? The challenges they face with weather and heat 

and all that, right? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Indeed. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. 

So what we have is really three issues here: the driver, the other 

drivers on the road, and the animals that you have in the trailer. 

So, as statistics have shown when we have made this argument 

in recent months, livestock haulers already have a greater responsibility than a lot of other issues, and so, with that, a very strong, 

28 

strong safety record. So we won’t debate that either. I think that 

is pretty clear. 

So the current hours-of-service regulation in the ELD mandate, 

is that even capable of understanding the flexibility that is needed 

to properly, safely transport livestock, some of it very long distances, you know, from where they are raised to where they need 

to go? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I will say that we are actively engaged in discussions with the agricultural transport sector and specifically livestock haulers. As you know—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. But on paper, though, is the mandate—I mean, I 

appreciate the discussions. I do. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. But when we are getting down to legal terms, 

words on paper, et cetera, is there flexibility—is there the capability to even understand what that means, that can be flowed out? 

Is there a rulemaking, regulatory-making, that can flow from that 

that really takes into account the flexibility that is truly needed 

when you have animals in a trailer and, you know, the need to get 

from A to B without having to race ahead of what—you know, because you are hearing these stories now, racing ahead of when that 

ELD slams the door on you— 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Uh-huh. 

Mr. LAMALFA [continuing]. Speeding, cutting corners, whatever, 

because you are going to be in a bad way. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Do you really think they have the flexibility to do 

that? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, obviously, this is an area that very—in the 

past, Congress has specifically exempted livestock haulers or certain agricultural haulers from some requirements. 

In this instance, of course, FMCSA has provided a waiver 

through June 18. The livestock transporters specifically have 

been—enforcement on them has been exempted through the remainder of the fiscal year. 

We continue conversations, but we also have specific guidance 

that will be forthcoming shortly that will provide some additional 

flexibility to this industry. 

And I think that within the current existing regulations, agriculture in general has some exemptions or some rules that they 

play by that, when we meet with many of these groups, they realize, ‘‘Well, you know, I don’t even think ELD applies to me.’’ 

And so, much of what we have to do is continued outreach and 

education and flexibility because of the unique nature of their sector. Of course, we are all concerned about safety. They have to 

share the road; they have to be safe. I believe that, with continued 

work together, we can get there. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So we have that commitment from you on getting 

to a real solution then. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. Well, I do appreciate it. And, again, you have 

been very helpful in listening to me and my colleagues on that 

leading up today. So I appreciate, you know, the breathing room. 

29 

And October 1 is great, but that is going to be upon us before we 

know it too. 

So, anyway, thank you very much. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Lowenthal. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Martinez, thank you for being here and sharing with us your 

thoughts. 

You know, I am going to follow back up on an amendment that 

passed in the FAA bill that preempted my State, California’s labor 

protections for truck drivers that were engaged in interstate commerce. 

You know, I come from Washington after serving in the California Legislature, and sometimes I feel that we spend more time 

here talking about California’s labor laws than we did, actually, in 

California talking about California. 

But proponents of the amendment claim that no intrastate drivers, those transporting a load entirely within California, will be affected by this preemption. That is what they said, but I am not 

sure I really believe this. 

In my district, which I represent the Port of Long Beach, every 

day, truckers transport goods from our ports to inland distribution 

centers. That goes on all the time. These trips take place entirely 

within California. But the cargo is from overseas trade, bound for 

destinations across the country. 

So my question is, under the FMCSA’s definitions, are these 

drayage trips considered interstate commerce subject to a Federal 

preemption or not? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Congressman, that is an interesting question. 

And I guess, following the logic, I would still say that, because it 

is completely intrastate, it is not subject to that. However, it is a 

legal question, and it is one that I would have to—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Could you get back to me on that? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Through the Chair, I would be happy to do that. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Because that is really a critical—you know, because those goods are going across State lines, ultimately, and coming from foreign—— 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I will get back to you through the Chair. Thank 

you. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

The next question I have is that, a year ago, Ranking Member 

DeFazio and I both asked Deputy Administrator Jefferson about reported labor abuses in the drayage industry at the ports of Long 

Beach and L.A. In response to our questions, FMCSA replied that, 

since the coercion rule went into effect in 2016, only one carrier has 

been fined for a violation of the rules. One violation out of over 600 

complaints. 

Administrator Martinez, can you update the committee on the effects of this rule? Have more investigations been completed or more 

violations found in the past year? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes. And it is an area that needs continued work, 

because our latest statistics indicate that we have received almost 

550 coercion complaints. But, as you will imagine, some of them 

are simply complaints. They don’t rise to a level of what would 

30 

meet the definition of coercion. We have had some, I would say, enforcement actions, but only in the dozens. 

What we do need, frankly, is to better advertise the fact that 

companies and individuals, drivers, can complain to us through our 

website, which is FMCSA.DOT.gov. We look for this type of information, and we look for some cases that are ripe for investigation 

and enforcement action. But we haven’t seen those as yet. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. So what you are saying is you have had 550 

complaints, that the actual violations out of that were found to be 

in the dozens maybe. How many—— 

Mr. MARTINEZ. It is actually 950, sir. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. What? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I’m sorry. It’s 950 complaints. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. So, out of 950, 20, 25 or so, in the dozens. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. And how many of those were fined? 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I don’t know what the nature of the enforcement 

is. I don’t have that information, but I would be happy to provide 

it. It could be any number of—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Because for those of us on the ground in that 

area, this seems so incredulous, that there are not more bad actors 

actually found. You know, drivers in California prevailed in hundreds of complaints before the State’s labor commission against 

port trucking companies. So we have hundreds of them in California and just a handful here at the Federal level. It doesn’t make 

any sense to me. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. I agree. And I am interested in this issue, particularly—essentially, in this coercion rule, we are trying to protect 

the integrity of what we all are working for, to keep the drivers 

and everybody that shares the roadway safe from being forced to 

do things that are against the law or against regulation. 

So I couldn’t agree more, and we are going to remain focused on 

this. We hope that drivers and companies will report this, and we 

will investigate them. We will investigate every single one. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you. 

And, with that, I want to thank you, Mr. Martinez, for being 

here. 

And we will recess for a few minutes just to seat the next panel. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. BOST [presiding]. I would like to welcome our second panel: 

Mr. Dale Krapf, chairman, Krapf Group; Mr. Mike VanMaanen, 

owner of the Eastern Missouri Commission Company, on behalf of 

the Livestock Marketing Association; Captain Christopher Turner, 

president of Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; and Ms. Jennifer 

Tierney, board member for Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, on behalf of the Truck Safety Coalition. 

Mr. Krapf will be along shortly. 

Since your written testimony has been made a part of the record, 

the committee requests that you limit your summary to 5 minutes. 

31 

And, Mr. Krapf, you are going to be recognized first, if that is 

all right. So I would like to recognize you for 5 minutes for your 

opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF DALE N. KRAPF, CHAIRMAN, KRAPF GROUP, 

INC.; MIKE VANMAANEN, OWNER, EASTERN MISSOURI COMMISSION COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSOCIATION; CAPTAIN CHRISTOPHER J. TURNER, 

PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE; AND 

JENNIFER TIERNEY, BOARD MEMBER, CITIZENS FOR RELIABLE AND SAFE HIGHWAYS, ON BEHALF OF THE TRUCK 

SAFETY COALITION 

Mr. KRAPF. Chairman Graves, Ranking Members Norton—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. You want to pull that mic closer to you. It bends 

down too. There you go. 

Mr. KRAPF [continuing]. Ranking Member DeFazio, members of 

the subcommittee, on behalf of the Krapf Group and the schoolbus 

and motorcoach industry I proudly represent, thank you for calling 

this hearing today. 

Having just celebrated our 75th anniversary, the Krapf Group is 

a family owned and operated passenger transportation business established in 1942 by my father, George Krapf, Jr. 

Along with representing the Krapf Group today, I am also representing the views of the National School Transportation Association [NSTA] and the United Motorcoach Association [UMA]. 

The FAST Act contains critical policy elements that have begun 

to correct regulatory overreach that was suffocating investment, 

growth, and employment in the schoolbus and motorcoach industry 

but has done little to improve safety. 

A few highlights from my written testimony: 

The halting of the former administration’s push to increase minimum financial responsibility limits without evidence of inadequacy 

or understanding of its impact was of the utmost importance. Absent your action, the moves would have devastated both the private 

schoolbus and motorcoach industries and the public we serve. 

Both NSTA and UMA support a provision in H.R. 2120, Buses 

United for Safety, Regulatory Reform, and Enhanced Growth for 

the 21st Century Act, introduced by subcommittee member Representative Scott Perry, that would return the establishment of 

minimum insurance limits to Congress. 

CSA reform is another important provision in the FAST Act. We 

trust FMCSA is incorporating the National Academies of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine’s recommendations, and we seek more 

opportunities to contribute to the finished product. We hope any 

new process will represent an accurate, fair assessment of motor 

carriers and be an effective tool for identifying those motor carriers 

in need of intervention. 

An issue near and dear to my heart relates to how accidents are 

reported on the Federal level, Federal records, in which the motor 

carrier contributed nothing to the accident. This happened to my 

company, and we endured the indignity and the loss of business by 

the display of erroneous information. 

I am pleased to report that, as a result of the passage of the 

FAST Act, FMCSA finally established a procedure for removing 

32 

those crashes that were not preventable by the motor carrier but 

for which the motor carrier had no fault. 

The FAST Act also allowed FMCSA discretion to continue displaying inspection information for motorcoach operation. FMCSA 

extended that discretion to all passenger carriers, including schoolbus operations, in violation of the specifics of the statute. 

Congress and industry mutually agree that the current CSA program is flawed and not a valid tool for consumers to make a credible safety evaluation of a particular company, which can lead to 

unfair and flawed perspectives on that particular company. 

My own company has experienced a loss of business because of 

the unnecessary decision. UMA and NSTA seek this subcommittee’s assistance to correct this injustice and move information on 

passenger carriers from public view until all CSA reforms have 

been dictated by the FAST Act are completed. This provision is also 

included in H.R. 2120. 

Additionally, we applaud the inclusion of the provision addressing the process of new entrant application. We are pleased to report the process that has previously taken 4 to 6 months, often 

even longer, has returned considerably to less than 30 days. We 

hope that this change will result in our industry seeing new life 

and begin to grow once again. The FAST Act mandates that 

motorcoaches be afforded equal access to toll facilities and high occupancy lanes. We should seek support from Congress to instruct 

the Federal Highway Administration to require all public authorities to set out the rates, terms, and conditions for use of the facilities that they applied to public transit and motorcoaches. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Norton, important motor carrier policy enacted in the FAST Act were just in the nick of time. 

The Nation needs and deserves a thriving passenger carrier industry supported by regulations that actually improve safety. Thank 

you. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Krapf. Mr. VanMaanen, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. VANMAANEN. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton 

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

testify. We appreciate that perspectives from agriculture were 

sought regarding the interactions with the FMCSA, which is authorized by the FAST Act. My name is Mike VanMaanen. My family and I own and operate the Eastern Missouri Commission Company, and the Missouri Valley Commission Company, which are located in Bowling Green and Boonville, Missouri. I am testifying 

today on behalf of the Livestock Marketing Association. LMA represents livestock markets across the United States. Livestock markets serve as a hub together and sell livestock from farmers and 

ranchers in a competitive bidding environment. I market these livestock to buyers gathering loads to be shipped to the next part of 

the production chain. This movement is entirely dependent upon 

the use of a very limited population of highly skilled drivers who 

tend to be independent on our operators. Rigid hours-of-service requirements do not work well for hauling live animals. 

We appreciate the recognition of the Congress and the agency 

that livestock hauling is unique, and look forward to continuing to 

work together to find solutions for this targeted segment of drivers. 

33 

Livestock auction markets, farmers and ranchers are particularly 

impacted by the transportation laws and regulations. Many animals not born in the center of the country must be trucked many 

miles to lush grasslands and feed yards in the Midwest and Southern Plains. These cattle must be shipped quickly and safely. Time 

is everything for the well-being of the animals being transported. 

The key is safely hauling live animals, especially in times of great 

heat and humidity. This is to stop as infrequently as possible and 

to keep the trailer moving to provide proper ventilation. 

The majority of the livestock hauls can be concluded within the 

timeframe outlined by the hours-of-service regulation. However, 

unfortunately, for livestock located in or heading to States outside 

the center of the country, this is not the case. When a driver runs 

out of time while hauling live animals, they are given the grim 

prospect of unloading the livestock or leaving them on the trailer 

for a 10-hour stretch to suffer from the elements, lack of ventilation, and possible injuries. Simply unloading the animals for 10 

consecutive hours to rest is also not a good option. First, there is 

often nowhere to unload them; there are no pen systems available 

along the major American highways, and owners of the pens, feed 

yards and livestock markets are extremely hesitant to accept livestock in transit due to liability, staffing, and biosecurity concerns. 

Even if a location is willing to take animals, unloading and reloading those animals has a negative impact on their well-being. In 

fact, it is more stressful than the effect of transport itself. 

Our drivers value both motorists and live animal safety. A livestock hauler is forced by nature of their cargo to drive slower and 

more cautiously than the conventional cargo hauler, because the 

live animals move throughout the trailer and can be severely injured if the driver turns too suddenly, drives too fast or stops too 

quickly. Safety is so important to the livestock industry that many 

livestock haulers have participated in additional specialized training. 

Due to all of this, livestock haulers boast a fantastic safety 

record. National studies show that far less than 1 percent of the 

accidents involved livestock transporters. With this great track 

record of safety in mind, American agriculture needs some relief. 

The current hours-of-service requirements provide a too rigid, onesize-fits-all framework. This, combined with the unforgiving nature 

of electronic log devices, will result in cattle on the coast and in the 

Southeast being severely discounted, or even worse, wholly unprofitable to raise. Not only will this lead to farmers, ranchers, and 

livestock haulers dropping out of business, it will be felt in the very 

real way by the American consumer trying to put an affordable 

meal on the table. The hours-of-service framework needs to be 

changed with respect to live animal haulers. These individuals 

need more flexibility in order to safely get their live cargo to its 

destination. The LMA sincerely appreciates the several members of 

this subcommittee for their assistance and diligent work towards 

safe and practical solutions for our Nation’s livestock haulers. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you. Captain Turner, you’re recognized for 5 

minutes. 

34 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton and members of the subcommittee for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing. My 

name is Chris Turner and I am in charge of the Kansas Highway 

Patrol’s Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program [MCSAP] and 

president of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, representing 

State agencies to enforce commercial motor carrier safety regulations in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. 

To start, today’s topic is particularly timely given that we are 

midway through the current highway bill, and I want to thank you 

for your ongoing commitment to improving CMV safety. And I 

would also like to thank Administrator Martinez. I have had the 

opportunity to meet with him recently on several occasions, and I 

have been impressed with his knowledge, willingness to listen, and 

commitment to FMCSA’s mission of saving lives. We look forward 

to working with him and his team. 

When considering FAST Act implementation, we recognize a 

growing trend within the agency, and it is a lack of progress on 

critical issues. While FMCSA has made headway on components of 

the FAST Act, work remains to be done on a number of key requirements, including finalizing a new MCSAP grant formula, and 

improvements to the agency’s IT and data systems. The issue also 

affects grants and State programs. Between the appropriation 

delays and the approval process at DOT, it takes so long for the 

funds to be disbursed, the States sit idly by, unsure of how much 

funding they will receive and when. Meanwhile, regulatory activity 

at the agency, FMCSA’s core responsibility, has come to a near 

standstill, with a growing backlog of rulemaking and petitions. For 

example, in 2016, FMCSA sent a letter to a member of the 

broadband service industry indicating that wireless and broadband 

services qualify under the public utilities hours-of-service exception. CVSA [Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance] petitioned the 

agency in May of 2017 to update the regulations making it official. 

In March of this year, the agency granted the petition. Yet, we are 

still waiting for the rulemaking to be initiated. And this is for a 

simple update to a definition. 

It is critical to both the enforcement community and motor carrier industry that the Federal safety regulations are clear, that 

they are effective and enforceable. No matter where you stand on 

the role of Government and regulation, we should all be able to 

agree that maintaining the regulations, keeping them current and 

clear is a necessary and important function. 

Because the agency cannot move forward with rulemaking, they 

have come to rely heavily on interpretations, personalized letters, 

electronic communications, enforcement guidance, frequently asked 

questions and other means to provide enforcement and industry 

with the clarity they need when an issue arises. That is with the 

expectation that the regulations will be updated at some point in 

the future. Often, that update never takes place. 

I want to be clear that this is not meant as a criticism to the 

hard-working people at FMCSA. We understand that they face a 

number of challenges, both internally and externally. A new administration means turnover, new leadership and often a shift in priorities, as well as a pause in the regulatory work as people get up 

35 

to speed. And also, implementation of the ELD rule, for FMCSA 

has been the agency’s top priority. And the agency has been 

plagued with frivolous challenges and meritless exemption requests. But it isn’t a new issue, it is one that has been growing 

steadily over the years, it is ingrained in the culture of the agency 

and must be addressed. 

We need to make sure that FMCSA has the necessary resources, 

technical staff, authority, and time to meet the agency’s core responsibility, maintaining the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. And we are hopeful that under Administrator Martinez’s 

leadership, we will begin to see a shift in the culture at FMCSA. 

And finally, we believe that more can be done to improve the coordination with our North American partners. Commerce does not 

stop at our borders, and we have long recognized that harmonization between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico benefits industry, enforcement, our economy, and consumers. 

As the pace of regulation stalls here in the U.S., our partners 

continue to move forward, and as a result, the regulations drift further apart. And inconsistencies in the regulations result in inconsistencies in the inspection and enforcement process, creating separate sets of rules for industry to follow. While the regulations in 

the three countries will never be identical, more can be done to improve the reciprocity and uniformity of CMV safety regulations 

among the three nations, which will help support the flow of people 

and goods that fuel our economy. 

Thank you. And I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you. Ms. Tierney, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. TIERNEY. Good morning, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member 

Norton, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Jennifer 

Tierney, and I am a board member for Citizens for Reliable and 

Safe Highways, as well as one of the millions of Americans whose 

loved one was killed in a truck crash. I traveled to be here today 

from North Carolina. My motivation to be testifying before you 

comes from the loss of my daddy, Jim Mooney, and the goal of preventing families from suffering preventable truck crashes and fatalities and injuries. My dad was in a horrific truck underride 

crash on a dark, back country road when he crashed into the side 

of a jackknifed tractor trailer that was blocking the roadway. 

Truck crash deaths and injuries have been dramatically rising in 

recent years. Since 2009, annual truck crash fatalities have increased 28 percent. In 2016, 4,317 people were killed in truck 

crashes. And early data for 2017 indicates that truck crash fatalities are up another 10 percent. During that same time, truck crashes and resulting injuries have also risen 475,000 and 145,000, respectively. 

My comments today will focus on policies that can improve truck 

safety, and appropriate steps to implementing and enforcing them. 

The first I would like to touch on is automatic emergency braking. 

It is a proven technology that leading trucking companies in other 

countries have been using for years to reduce the number of the 

crashes their truck drivers are involved in; and also, to mitigate 

the severity of truck crashes that do occur. 

36 

In the United States, some motor carriers have been voluntarily 

using AEB for at least 10 years and have established, beyond question, its effectiveness and reliability. For example, Schneider National, a major trucking company, experienced a 69-percent decrease in rear end crashes, and a 95-percent reduction in rear end 

collision claims since it began equipping new tractors in 2012. We 

urge this subcommittee to consider the benefits requiring this technology can provide. 

A final rule requiring the use of speed limiting technology set at 

65 miles per hour or lower should apply to all trucks. A recent 

study out of Ontario found that the incidents of heavy trucks 

speeding in a crash dropped 73 percent, following implementation 

of the speed limiter mandate. This study directly debunked the 

claim that speed differentials would lead to an increase in overall 

crashes involving big rigs, finding no such evidence of an increase. 

This lifesaving technology has also been a standard component in 

most trucks’ engine control modules since the 1990s because so 

many other countries already mandate their use in commercial 

motor vehicles. As a result, most trucks would not require a retrofit, but would, instead, need to have their speed limiters set. We 

urge this subcommittee to take action to require speed limiter use 

by all trucks existing and new. 

Truck driving is one of the most dangerous occupations according 

to the Department of Labor. Currently, there is no minimum requirement for behind-the-wheel training hours. We urge this subcommittee to require FMCSA to modify the entry-level driver training to include a minimum behind-the-wheel training requirement. 

Truck underride crashes can be catastrophic. Unfortunately, I 

know that all too well, because the car goes under the trailer, bypassing the crumple zone and airbag deployment safety features; in 

severe collisions, the passenger compartment intrusion occurs. A 

requirement for all trucks and trailers to be equipped with energy 

absorbing rear and side underride guards would protect car occupants from underride crashes. 

We are very grateful today to subcommittee member Representative Cohen, for introducing the Stop Underrides Act, and also to 

Representative DeSaulnier and other Representatives on the subcommittee who are cosponsors. We are also thankful to Senators 

Gillibrand and Rubio for introducing the Senate version. This lifesaving legislation will strengthen rear underride guards, mandate 

side underride guards, and require proper maintenance of these 

guards. We urge subcommittee members to join this bipartisan effort. 

An electronic logging device is a critical safety technological device to ensure compliance of Federal hours-of-service rules. Attempts to delay, weaken or reverse the effort, or to allow exemptions for special industry or special interests to the ELD rule 

should be swiftly and soundly rejected. 

During a time when truck safety is in serious decline, increasing 

truck size or weight or limiting shipper and broker liability would 

be steps in the wrong direction. The DOT has not offered significant solutions to address the rising number of truck crashes. At the 

same time, the administration has already withdrawn two 

37 

rulemakings and delayed four, all of which would have improved 

safety. 

Moving forward, I am hoping that members of the subcommittee 

will prioritize safety and remember that death and injury figures 

are not merely statistics, but are people, like my dad, who were 

needlessly killed or hurt in a truck crash. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and 

I am pleased to answer your questions. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you. I am going to start questioning now. I will 

do 5 minutes and then we will go to other Members, each will be 

given 5 minutes to question. 

Mr. Krapf, how many years have you been in the motor—bus 

business? 

Mr. KRAPF. Fifty-one years. 

Mr. BOST. OK. I came from a trucking business myself. My 

grandfather started a trucking business in 1933, and I actually ran 

that business for 10 years. I loved it for 8. That being said, under 

the new rules and the—here is a real question that I am concerned 

about because of the uniqueness of your situation, is there adequate differences allowed for the operation of buses and the 

uniqueness of yours that has given away with the FMCS or for the 

Federal motor safety, do you think, like hours of service, as well 

as the difference between what you do and what a motor carrier 

would do that is actually an operating truck hauling freight, is 

there enough adequate—— 

Mr. KRAPF. Absolutely. There is a huge difference. 

Mr. BOST. There is a huge difference. And they keep up with 

that? I mean, the rules are correct, as far as you are concerned? 

Mr. KRAPF. Well, I am not sure that they are all correct. I would 

have to look into detail. But first of all, our training programs are 

much more extensive than our counterpart in the trucking industry. For schoolbus drivers in the State of Pennsylvania, I don’t 

know whether it is national or not, we provide 40 hours of training, 

classroom training, and then another 10 hours of bus training for 

them to get their license. Plus all the background checks that are 

required, there is like six or eight background checks that are required as well. 

Mr. BOST. And that is because of the children obviously. 

Mr. KRAPF. Absolutely. 

Mr. BOST. Mr. VanMaanen—I am going to say it right—in your 

case, you are dealing with livestock. Right now, we are looking at 

a possible waiver, specifically, because once you pick that livestock 

up, you have got to move from point A to point B. Is it possible to 

meet the—we do what is best for the livestock, as well as do what 

is best to be—to make sure your drivers are safe. 

Mr. VANMAANEN. I think there needs to be a little bit of flexibility involved in that. There is a lot of hauls that can be done 

within the time period of hours of service, but there is also some 

that extend past that. It would be problematic if we didn’t have a 

grace period at the start or at the end, or some flexibility of a nap 

time during the haul that I would hate to see a truck get shut 

down within an hour’s worth, or 100 miles of their destination and 

those cattle would have to sit on that truck for 10 hours or 

offloaded when they are that close. 

38 

Mr. BOST. And I want to ask also, now you deal with livestock 

and livestock only? 

Mr. VANMAANEN. Well, that is correct. Mainly cattle, used to be 

in the hog-buying business, transported a lot of hogs also. 

Mr. BOST. Is there any variance that you can do under the electronic logging system? Are there variances that allow you to be 

flexible on going from point A to point B, or the amount of hours 

in service with the electronic system? 

Mr. VANMAANEN. I don’t think we would complain about the 

electronic system. We want to be compliant as long as it is built 

in to give us the flexibility we need to transport our product. 

Mr. BOST. But it doesn’t do that now? 

Mr. VANMAANEN. No, it does not, it does not do that now. 

Mr. BOST. Right. And that is the concern that we are having with 

the fact that—— 

Mr. VANMAANEN. That is correct. It doesn’t have an exempt button or an ag exempt button that can be pushed or it can be, you 

know, recorded in that direction. So yes, it does not have that flexibility built in. 

Mr. BOST. And just a quick statement, because I know what is 

involved with drivers, I believe that our electronic logging, which 

is good, and I think that we can use it correctly, but without any 

ability, and excuse the expression, ‘‘common horse sense’’ that can 

be used while driving down the road to make sure, for instance, we 

are not stopping in an unsafe place, because that can increase the 

amount of accidents by not being able to get to a rest area or a 

truck stop, and the dangers that exist for four-wheeled vehicles 

who don’t have an hourly requirement to drive underneath the 

truck quite often is out there as well. 

So thank you. My time has about expired, so I will turn it over 

to Ms. Norton for 5 minutes. 

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

Mr. Krapf, I believe I just heard you say in answer to the chairman’s question that there is schoolbus driver training? 

Mr. KRAPF. Yes, ma’am, that is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Does that include behind-the-wheel training? 

Mr. KRAPF. That does include behind-the-wheel training. 

Ms. NORTON. May I compliment you on that, because that is 

what we have been trying to get for other kinds of training, particularly truck training. 

Mr. Krapf, you indicated in your testimony, you spoke of regulatory overreach in the FAST Act. I understand the FAST Act was 

a very bipartisan bill. And you spoke about it having a negative effect on investment, even employment in the schoolbus and motorcoach industry. And you said it did little to improve public safety— 

improve safety. But I would like to cite to you two recent examples 

that I find very troublesome with private schoolbus companies that 

have had what I think most would regard as preventable accidents, 

and they are very serious accidents. 

As we speak, right at this moment, the National Transportation 

Safety Board is meeting on recommendations stemming from two 

schoolbus accidents operated by private schoolbus operators. One 

killed 12 people, and 6 of them were children. And one of them, the 

investigators found that the schoolbus driver had a history of seriVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:06 Jun 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\5-22-2~1\36665.TXT JEAN
39 

ous health issues, and that in the past 5 years, had been involved 

in at least 12 crashes or incidents while operating a schoolbus or 

a personal vehicle. Now imagine somebody like that is driving a 

schoolbus. 

In the second accident, now being considered by the National 

Transportation Safety Board, the driver had a history of repeated 

complaints of speeding, aggressive driving, and at least one prior 

schoolbus accident. Now these two crashes, as you can see by what 

might have been taken by the authorities in advance, just didn’t 

need to happen, so I am going to ask you, we don’t know what the 

NTSB will be recommending, but I want to know if you will support whatever recommendations they may make for ending these 

kinds of deaths for children on schoolbuses? 

Mr. KRAPF. You are asking if I would support that, whatever 

the—— 

Ms. NORTON. If they issue a recommendation aimed at preventing future deaths of school children on schoolbuses, would this 

be a recommendation you could support? 

Mr. KRAPF. Yes, ma’am, it would. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Krapf. I know there are 

others—my colleagues may want to ask questions, so I won’t proceed with my next question. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you. Congressman Barletta, you are up. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Mr. Krapf, great to see you again. 

Thanks for being here. It is always—always enjoy having a fellow 

Pennsylvanian on the panel. 

In your testimony, you mentioned FMCSA improperly assigned a 

fatality to your publicly viewable record. While these records do not 

indicate fault, but rather account for your involvement, it sounds 

like this incident had a significant impact on your business. Could 

you help this committee understand the consequences of that fatality record? 

Mr. KRAPF. I think there are so few fatalities in the busing industry, being 20 annually with 30-plus years of statistics in the 

motorcoach industry, and 5 in the schoolbus industry annually, 

again, over a 30-, or 35-year period, that any fatality on your 

record is a bad indication as you being a poor operator. So when 

the public, or your customers can go into your record and see that 

you have a fatality on your record, it is a big blemish, because 

there are so few of them in our industry. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. I want to switch gears here and talk 

about an issue that is very important to me, and that is, the safety 

of our students when they are riding the bus to and from school. 

I know this is a big priority for Krapf Transportation, and the rest 

of the schoolbus industry. 

Earlier this year, I asked Secretary Chao what the Department 

of Transportation could do to harden infrastructure at our Nation’s 

schools to protect students. I think we need to include enhanced security measures for schoolbuses in that equation, I think we are 

leaving them out. 

Mr. Krapf, do you agree that schoolbuses need to be included in 

the conversations that we are having about school safety? And is 

there anything Congress can do to help you better protect our Nation’s students? 

40 

Mr. KRAPF. As someone in this industry that transports over 

300,000 students per day, Congressman, that is my greatest fear. 

If we do everything in the school similar to our airports to protect 

the safety of our students in the schools, then they are—the terrorist or whoever that individual might be, are going to pick the 

next soft target, and that would be the schoolbus. And that is a 

huge fear of not only me, but everyone in the industry. Probably 

if I would have to guess, probably only 20 percent of our buses are 

behind gated fences. So how easily would it be it for someone to 

get into a bus overnight and put a bomb underneath the bus or 

something similar to that? So absolutely, it has to be an extension 

of the schoolday when transporting in the schoolbuses. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I agree. As we look at trying to keep bad people 

out of our schools, we can’t forget where the kids go once they come 

out of school and they get on that bus. I believe we really need to 

start having this conversation, including transportation, as well as 

schoolbuses and making sure these kids—no parent should ever 

worry about their child once they leave their home. And you know, 

we are talking about a lot of stuff around here, but the best way 

to stop this is to not let it happen in the first place. I think we need 

to start expanding our conversation not only to the schools, but 

also try to think ahead of what the next soft target would be. I fear 

that myself, kids sitting on a schoolbus, so thank you. And I hope 

Congress will begin to heed the call of the American people and 

start looking at keeping these kids safe when they are in the 

school. We do a hell of a good job keeping ourselves safe. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BOST. I want to advise Members that they called votes, but 

we are going to try to get through, we have two other Members on 

the panel. Mr. Payne, you are recognized. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is really for anyone. 

Mr. Krapf, I was involved in schoolbus transportation prior to me 

going into public office. And you said you are responsible for 

300,000 children on schoolbuses? 

Mr. KRAPF. That is correct. 

Mr. PAYNE. I was going to mention my 10,000, but never mind. 

But in New Jersey last week, a schoolbus was hit by a truck, 

killing 1 teacher and 1 student, injuring 43 others. And you know, 

I understand schoolbuses are subjected to rigorous safety regulations at both the State and Federal levels. But most of these regulations are designed to make schoolbuses safer for travel on local 

roads, not for interstate, highway accidents like last week’s. The 

NTSB has recommended requiring seatbelts on schoolbuses, but as 

of last week, only six States require them. This seems like an area 

really ripe for Federal involvement. What are your thoughts, sir? 

And I would like everyone to weigh in, please. 

Mr. KRAPF. First of all, my heart goes out to the families involved in the accident last week. It was a very unfortunate circumstance. All the details are not actually available to the public 

yet, so I can’t speak to that. But as an industry, we are not opposed 

to seatbelts on schoolbuses. However, we do believe that the seatbelt law should be regulated by each individual State so that where 

the funding is—the funding for the schools comes from the State, 

and any seatbelt regulation we would not, as an industry, want it 

41 

to be an unfunded mandate. So we think it should be regulated by 

the State. 

In addition to that, as an operator of schoolbuses, since it is the 

safest ground transportation that we know of in this country, we 

want as many of the students on the buses as possible because it 

is the safest mode. One of the statistics I read a few years ago, 

there is like 850, or 860 students killed going to and from school 

each day by various other means, whether it is bike, walk, their 

parents’ car, their own car, whereas if they are on schoolbuses 

there are only 5. So, you know, we are cognizant of that law is 

going to create additional expense to the schoolbus industry, and 

we want to make sure that that expense doesn’t preclude the safety 

of our buses. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Sir? 

Mr. VANMAANEN. I am not an expert on transporting students. 

I have served on our local school board and we owned and operated 

our own business. And I was aware of the statistic that the safest 

mode of transportation for students is on the schoolbus versus any 

other way of getting them to and from school, so I commend all 

schoolbus operators for that. 

Mr. PAYNE. Sir. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you for the question. We would first agree 

that schoolbus transportation is incredibly safe, as is the bus industry as a whole, and congratulate them for their efforts in the safe 

transportation of children. We would say that each crash, especially in a schoolbus where a risk is heightened, is tragic. And we 

would support the safety measures as long as they were reliable 

and they are proven as NTSB’s recommendations usually are. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Ms. TIERNEY. The Truck Safety Coalition represents thousands 

and thousands of victims and survivors of truck crashes all over 

the country. So every life is precious, and nobody knows that more 

than we do, so we would certainly support seatbelts in buses and 

any other available technology that would save lives, all lives are 

precious. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Thank you for your testimony here today. We 

really appreciate you coming in and giving your perspective on 

these issues. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you. Mr. Cohen you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you putting together this 

panel, Chairman Graves and all, and all the witnesses who testified here. 

In 2014, my constituents who are present, Randy and Laurie 

Higgenbotham, lost their 33-year-old son, Michael, like thousands 

of others unfortunately have, to the harrowing tragedy that is 

truck underride: the circumstance wherein all the passengers’ safety mechanisms placed in passenger vehicles are effectively rendered null with striking the rear side or front of a semitruck tractor-trailer. 

Ms. Tierney, I appreciated your testimony because you testified 

that you have lost a particular family member to this particular 

painful type of tragedy. In 2016, truck crash fatalities totaled 

4,317, a 28-percent increase since 2009. That same year, the numVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:06 Jun 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\HT\5-22-2~1\36665.TXT JEAN
42 

ber of truck crashes totaled 475,000, resulting in 145,000 injuries. 

Of those injuries, we know some of the most debilitating injuries 

resulting from truck underride crashes. What can we do to address 

this problem, especially, should every Member of this Congress 

support the bill that is just bipartisan in the Senate that has been 

introduced to mandate the placement of truck underrides? 

Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. TIERNEY. We absolutely should pass comprehensive 

underride protection that would strengthen the rear guard standard that we currently have. It would require a side underride 

guard, and it would study certainly front underride guards, and the 

maintenance of all those guards that is lifesaving technology. Absolutely. 

Mr. COHEN. Based on your time advocating for truck underride, 

do you think there is any chance the industry would voluntarily 

self-regulate for the sake of safety in this matter? 

Ms. TIERNEY. While some in the industry have, and for them, we 

are very grateful for that but others have not and probably would 

not. Therefore, I do believe that a mandate is needed to make sure 

that the entire industry is doing the safest thing to prevent these 

catastrophic crashes. 

My dad was killed when Michael Higgenbotham was a baby, so 

this is a problem that has being going on for decades and decades 

so I do believe a mandate is needed. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, I found from my sponsorship and responses I 

got from a whole lot of folks from the trucking industry has been 

negative, and harrowing, and that the safety of a potential victim 

is not of a concern, or something that they think is fiscally within 

their possibilities. 

In 2002, a report was issued by the Technology & Maintenance 

Council of the American Trucking Associations, entitled ‘‘A Brief 

Look at the Far Horizon.’’ This is 16 years ago, an exploration of 

what is to come for trucking. It predicted, even anticipated, regulations on the front and side underride. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 

this particular paper. 

Mr. BOST. Without objection. 

[The report entitled ‘‘A Brief Look at the Far Horizon: An Exploration of 

What’s to Come for Trucking’’ is on pages 135–158.] 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

As far as back as 2002, industry was already predicting regulations be promulgated on rear side and front underride. In the report, the American Trucking Associations predicted the underride 

regulations for straight trucks will come as early as 2005. The report shows that industry even predicted a front and side underride 

regulation be issued as early as 2006. What other reason would the 

trucking industry have had as far back as 2002 to be issuing predictive reports about future regulation on truck underrides, if not 

for the fact they knew people were dying and that lawmakers 

would take notice? 

Ms. Tierney, what evidence is there that side underrides, front 

underrides, and stronger rear underride guards can increase the 

43 

likelihood of preventing passenger compartment intrusion and ultimately fatalities from car and truck collisions? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I saw it, and I saw it with my own eyes. I witnessed the rear underride and side underride crash test at IIHS 

[Insurance Institute for Highway Safety]. It was one of the most 

profound things I have ever witnessed in my life. Those crash tests 

were successful in both cases, and they prevented passenger compartment intrusion. They took a crash that most likely would have 

been deadly or catastrophic, and turned it to an injury where a 

driver would have walked away. So they absolutely do save lives. 

And this is an issue that is so long needed and so heartbreaking 

to people that continue to lose their loved ones in this way. My dad 

died of massive head injuries, and Jayne Mansfield was probably 

the most well-known underride crash in this country. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Ms. Tierney. I have to admit. I remember when Jayne Mansfield died, and that was like—I remember, I 

think it was the 1960s, it was that far back. And my staff cautioned me not to mention her name, since you have, I think I can 

do it. That means that issue is that far back, over 50 years ago, 

people have died for that reason, and it should have come to the 

attention, and safety should have been a concern. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to enter into the record a 2007 

report issued by Transportation Research Board of the National 

Academies, entitled ‘‘The Domain of Truck and Bus Safety Research’’ into the record. 

Mr. BOST. Without objection. 

[The 151-page report entitled ‘‘The Domain of Truck and Bus Safety Research’’ can be found at the Transportation Research Board’s website at 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec117.pdf.] 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

In this 2007 report, a study conducted by the University of 

Michigan Transportation Research Institute, noted that both front 

underrides caused particularly fatal results and the properly 

undesigned front underrides could reduce fatalities by 27 to 37 percent. My heart goes out to all the families who have been affected 

by these tragic collisions, Marianne Karth, Lois Durso, Ms. 

Tierney, and especially Randy and Laurie Higgenbotham, whose 

son, Michael, our constituent, was killed in a truck underride crash 

in the Memphis area. 

There are times when we are called upon to simply do the right 

thing. I hope any colleagues will consider the Stop Underrides Act 

and help end needless preventable deaths. It is our constitutional 

duty to keep the American people safe and taking any action to 

prevent these deaths is the right thing to do. 

I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you. And seeing no others seeking recognition, 

I would like to thank each of the witnesses for their testimony 

today. I ask unanimous consent that the record for today’s hearing 

remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing, 

and 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. 

44 

Without objection so ordered. If no other Member has anything 

to add, this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

45 


Insert offset folio 4 here 36665.004
46 


Insert offset folio 5 here 36665.005
47 


Insert offset folio 6 here 36665.006
48 


Insert offset folio 7 here 36665.007
49 


Insert offset folio 8 here 36665.008
50 


Insert offset folio 9 here 36665.009
51 


Insert offset folio 10 here 36665.010
52 


Insert offset folio 11 here 36665.011
53 


Insert offset folio 12 here 36665.012
54 


Insert offset folio 13 here 36665.013
55 


Insert offset folio 14 here 36665.014
56 


Insert offset folio 15 here 36665.015
57 


Insert offset folio 16 here 36665.016
58 


Insert offset folio 17 here 36665.017
59 


Insert offset folio 18 here 36665.018
60 


Insert offset folio 19 here 36665.019
61 


Insert offset folio 20 here 36665.020
62 


Insert offset folio 21 here 36665.021
63 


Insert offset folio 22 here 36665.022
64 


Insert offset folio 23 here 36665.023
65 


Insert offset folio 24 here 36665.024
66 


Insert offset folio 25 here 36665.025
67 


Insert offset folio 26 here 36665.026
68 


Insert offset folio 27 here 36665.027
69 


Insert offset folio 28 here 36665.028
70 


Insert offset folio 29 here 36665.029
71 


Insert offset folio 30 here 36665.030
72 


Insert offset folio 31 here 36665.031
73 


Insert offset folio 32 here 36665.032
74 


Insert offset folio 33 here 36665.033
75 


Insert offset folio 34 here 36665.034
76 


Insert offset folio 35 here 36665.035
77 


Insert offset folio 36 here 36665.036
78 


Insert offset folio 37 here 36665.037
79 


Insert offset folio 38 here 36665.038
80 


Insert offset folio 39 here 36665.039
81 


Insert offset folio 40 here 36665.040
82 


Insert offset folio 41 here 36665.041
83 


Insert offset folio 42 here 36665.042
84 


Insert offset folio 43 here 36665.043
85 


Insert offset folio 44 here 36665.044
86 


Insert offset folio 45 here 36665.045
87 


Insert offset folio 46 here 36665.046
88 


Insert offset folio 47 here 36665.047
89 


Insert offset folio 48 here 36665.048
90 


Insert offset folio 49 here 36665.049
91 


Insert offset folio 50 here 36665.050
92 


Insert offset folio 51 here 36665.051
93 


Insert offset folio 52 here 36665.052
94 


Insert offset folio 53 here 36665.053
95 


Insert offset folio 54 here 36665.054
96 


Insert offset folio 55 here 36665.055
97 


Insert offset folio 56 here 36665.056
98 


Insert offset folio 57 here 36665.057
99 


Insert offset folio 58 here 36665.058
100 


Insert offset folio 59 here 36665.059
101 


Insert offset folio 60 here 36665.060
102 


Insert offset folio 61 here 36665.061
103 


Insert offset folio 62 here 36665.062
104 


Insert offset folio 63 here 36665.063
105 


Insert offset folio 64 here 36665.064
106 


Insert offset folio 65 here 36665.065
107 


Insert offset folio 66 here 36665.066
108 


Insert offset folio 67 here 36665.067
109 


Insert offset folio 68 here 36665.068
110 


Insert offset folio 69 here 36665.069
111 


Insert offset folio 70 here 36665.070
112 


Insert offset folio 71 here 36665.071
113 


Insert offset folio 72 here 36665.072
114 


Insert offset folio 73 here 36665.073
115 


Insert offset folio 74 here 36665.074
116 


Insert offset folio 75 here 36665.075
117 


Insert offset folio 76 here 36665.076
118 


Insert offset folio 77 here 36665.077
119 


Insert offset folio 78 here 36665.078
120 


Insert offset folio 79 here 36665.079
121 


Insert offset folio 80 here 36665.080
122 


Insert offset folio 81 here 36665.081
123 


Insert offset folio 82 here 36665.082
124 


Insert offset folio 83 here 36665.083
125 


Insert offset folio 84 here 36665.084
126 


Insert offset folio 85 here 36665.085
127 


Insert offset folio 86 here 36665.086
128 


Insert offset folio 87 here 36665.087
129 


Insert offset folio 88 here 36665.088
130 


Insert offset folio 89 here 36665.089
131 


Insert offset folio 90 here 36665.090
132 


Insert offset folio 91 here 36665.091
133 


Insert offset folio 92 here 36665.092
134 


Insert offset folio 93 here 36665.093
135 


Insert offset folio 94 here 36665.094
136 


Insert offset folio 95 here 36665.095
137 


Insert offset folio 96 here 36665.096
138 


Insert offset folio 97 here 36665.097
139 


Insert offset folio 98 here 36665.098
140 


Insert offset folio 99 here 36665.099
141 


Insert offset folio 100 here 36665.100
142 


Insert offset folio 101 here 36665.101
143 


Insert offset folio 102 here 36665.102
144 


Insert offset folio 103 here 36665.103
145 


Insert offset folio 104 here 36665.104
146 


Insert offset folio 105 here 36665.105
147 


Insert offset folio 106 here 36665.106
148 


Insert offset folio 107 here 36665.107
149 


Insert offset folio 108 here 36665.108
150 


Insert offset folio 109 here 36665.109
151 


Insert offset folio 110 here 36665.110
152 


Insert offset folio 111 here 36665.111
153 


Insert offset folio 112 here 36665.112
154 


Insert offset folio 113 here 36665.113
155 


Insert offset folio 114 here 36665.114
156 


Insert offset folio 115 here 36665.115
157 


Insert offset folio 116 here 36665.116
158 

Æ 


P:\Hearings\115\HT\5-22-2018_36665\117.eps