U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–267 PDF 2006

CURBSIDE OPERATORS: BUS SAFETY

AND ADA REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

(109–52)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 2, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Gillan, Jacqueline S., Vice President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 23

Golden, Marilyn, Policy Analyst, Disability Rights Education and Defense

Fund ...................................................................................................................... 23

Hamilton, Bruce, President/Business Agent, Amalgamated Transit Union

Local 1700, AFL-CIO ........................................................................................... 23

Liang, Pei Lin, President, Fung Wah Bus Transportation, Inc. .......................... 30

Pantuso, Peter J., President and CEO, American Bus Association ..................... 23

Sandberg, Annette, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ........................................................................................................................ 4

Wang, David, Co-Owner and Manager, Eastern Travel, Inc. .............................. 30

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 37

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland ............................................................... 38

Porter, Hon. Jon, of Nevada ................................................................................... 00

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Gillan, Jacqueline S ................................................................................................. 44

Golden, Marilyn ....................................................................................................... 57

Hamilton, Bruce ....................................................................................................... 66

Liang, Pei Lin .......................................................................................................... 79

Pantuso, Peter J ...................................................................................................... 80

Sandberg, Annette ................................................................................................... 165

Wang, David ............................................................................................................. 171

(1)

CURBSIDE OPERATORS: BUS SAFETY AND

ADA REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

Thursday, March 2, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES, WASHINGTON,

D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2167,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri [chairman

of the committee] presiding.

Mr. PETRI. The Subcommittee will come to order.

I would like to welcome all of our members and witnesses to today’s hearing on Curbside Operators: Bus Safety and ADA Regulatory Compliance. The purpose of today’s hearing is to learn more

about the curbside operator industry and determine if there are

safety violations and Americans With Disabilities Act, or ADA violations. If there are, we want to hear about the extent of those violations and what can be done to bring these carriers into compliance with the law.

Recently, there has been a lot of attention in the media about

curbside operators and whether they comply with Federal law and

regulations. For those who are not familiar with curbside operators, they are full fare interstate buses that pick up and drop off

passengers on the street, rather than traditional bus terminals.

They are also referred to as Chinatown buses, because they originally served the northeast Asian communities by transporting restaurant workers from one Chinatown to another city’s Chinatown.

Curbside operators now have expanded beyond their original

routes and passenger and service the entire Eastern Seaboard from

Boston to Albany to Philadelphia to Richmond, Virginia. They have

also expanded their passenger base to include professionals, students and tourists. Something that was familiar to me as a Peace

Corps volunteer over in Somalia, where there were bus or other

transportation operations at a certain point, and whenever enough

people lined up to fill up the bus, they would take off. But this is

not the typical American approach.

In recent media reports, passengers of curbside operators have

questioned whether these buses are safe to transport people. Bus

fires along the interstates and horror stories of buses breaking

down on the side of the road, leaving passengers stranded for

hours, are rampant in the news and among the traveling public.

Passengers and other interstate users have asked the Government

to ensure that these buses are safe. Unfortunately, they have not
2

been given a straight answer as to whether they are safe and comply with the law.

However, these curbside operators have peaked the Government’s interest enough to warrant a week-long safety inspection

crackdown in the northeast. In late October, Federal, Sate and

local authorities teamed up to inspect buses in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland. The Northeast

Passenger Carrier Strike Force, as it became known, performed

over 400 safety inspections on buses and uncovered over 500 safety

related violations. As a result, 56 buses and 13 drivers were placed

out of service.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration followed up on

the inspection sweep in December by performing compliance reviews on 14 curbside operators. The Federal inspectors found that

176 safety related violations and 11 of these 14 carriers had violated the ADA.

Besides questioning the safety of this industry, the media has reported blatant non-compliance with the ADA. In the winter of

2004, a Boston couple attempted to board a curbside operator with

their seeing-eye dog, only to be turned away due to their no animal

policy. But when they agreed to leave the dog at home, they were

turned away anyway. The operator refused the sale a second time

because it claimed they could not take responsibility for transporting a visually disabled person without any visual aids like a seeingeye dog.

The Attorney General of Massachusetts investigated the situation and found sufficient evidence to file suit against this curbside

operator, claiming the company intentionally ignored the State’s

disability access law.

Today we have three panels of witnesses. The first panel is the

Administrator from the agency that regulates interstate buses, the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, or FMCSA. On our

second panel, we have representatives from groups who have an interest in interstate bus activity. And finally, we will hear from

three operators whose operations seem to be representative of the

issues we are examining today.

We look forward to hearing the testimony from all of our witnesses. Now I will yield to Mr. DeFazio for any opening statement

that he may wish to make.

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

this hearing.

I think it is very good that the Committee is exerting some oversight over this subset of the industry and over how it is being regulated and overseen by the Administration. First, Administrator

Sandberg, I understand this is your last week. Thank you for your

service.

We are concerned, at least Ranking Member Oberstar and I, that

as far as I know, there is still not a nominated successor. That is

an ongoing concern. Hopefully if any of the minders, the political

minders down there at DOT are listening in, they will remind the

Secretary that it would be, we think, imperative that a permanent

replacement soon be nominated.

I appreciate the fact that you did undertake last, I guess it was

last summer, the Northeast Passenger Carrier Strike Force inves-
3

tigation. I think the results of that are quite startling and I would

only reflect, I am new in this position on this subcommittee. But

I have more expertise in aviation. If we had had a sudden inspection over and above our regular regulatory regime which uncovered

anywhere near those numbers of violations in serious ways, it

would be reverberating still throughout the industry and the press.

Just because we are dealing with people of lower incomes and in

a less high profile industry does not mean that we should allow,

with our regulatory role over interstate commerce, these sorts of

problems to continue to not be addressed. Our staff has reviewed

from the SAFESTAT program your scoring. They found that 6 of

the 25 major curbside folks had problems and very poor scores, but

only 3 were marked for review. We would be very curious why the

other three were not and why we are not seeing more robust, ongoing monitoring. Perhaps it reflects problems that are even bigger

than curbside buses that go to other areas of jurisdiction under

your department.

I think the Congress certainly has expressed its concern in this

area by the very robust increase in funding that we put into the

SAFETEA-LU bill. It is actually almost a 20 percent increase over

the last five years. So I think that you have there certainly a vision

and a strong indication by Congress that we would like more ongoing inspections and scrutiny of all aspects that fall under your division. Because it is not just the people who are either on the buses

or driving the trucks who are at risk, but also the rest of the traveling public who is being put at risk, should there be a major accident involving defective vehicles or drivers who are not fully in

compliance with all the regulations for their license.

With that, I look forward to your testimony. Again, I thank the

Chairman. I think hopefully we are getting ahead of the problem

here. We are not going to have a tombstone mentality. And we are

going to prevent some tragedy from happening.

Mr. PETRI. Are there any other opening statements? Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, for

bringing us together today on a discussion of our Nation’s most

traveled transport system. According to the American Bus Association, private buses transport almost three-quarters of a billion passengers a year. That is more than Amtrak and all the airlines put

together.

Overall, it is the safest mode of travel on our Nation’s highways

and currently the most affordable. However, I am deeply troubled

by some recent reports of safety violations by some of the carriers.

Low cost transportation options should be available to consumers

all along the corridor, but even if the dollar amount is small, the

actual price is safety. It is far too high a cost.

I am concerned also to learn that some companies may be denying disabled persons travel on their bus lines. In fact, there is an

article in the Washington Post today, very troubling. Non-compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act is a serious infraction and a violation of American civil rights. I am hopeful that the

Subcommittee will gain a more complete understanding of the situation here today and look forward to working with all the parties

to ensure the safety and security of all private bus line passengers.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Any other opening statements? If not, we will begin with the first

panel, Annette Sandberg, Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, United States Department of Transportation.

Welcome. You know the drill and we look forward to your summary statement.

TESTIMONY OF ANNETTE SANDBERG, ADMINISTRATOR,

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Ms. SANDBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

DeFazio and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting

me to discuss the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s

oversight role of curbside bus operations.

Motorcoaches are one of the safest forms of commercial transportation. According to our licensing and insurance data base, approximately 3,900 interstate motorcoach companies operate 35,000

motorcoaches in the United States. There are approximately

120,000 motorcoach drivers who have commercial drivers licenses

with passenger endorsements.

For the previous ten calendar years, there has been a yearly average of 22.4 motorcoach occupant fatalities. The Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration has established a National Motor

Coach Safety program with emphasis on six areas. One, increase

the number of motorcoach compliance reviews, which are the investigation of a company’s safety practices. Two, develop and implement a separate CR prioritization system for motorcoach carriers.

Three, establish formal motorcoach inspection programs within all

the States. Four, improve safety data. Five, reduce motorcoach

fires. And six, expedite safety audits of new motorcoach carriers.

I would like to quickly outline each of these areas. One, motorcoach company compliance reviews. Our agency has planned an increase in the number of compliance reviews conducted on motorcoach companies. In fiscal year 2005, FMCSA and our State partners conducted 457 motorcoach compliance reviews, surpassing our

established goal of 375. Our fiscal year 2006 goal is 450, a 20 percent increase over our previous year’s goal. And we anticipate that

we will surpass that goal as we did in 2005.

Two, passenger carrier compliance review prioritization system.

Our agency chose to develop a separate system for prioritizing motorcoach carriers for two reasons. One, the availability of motorcoach safety data is more limited than that of property carriers because of infrequent roadside safety inspections and fewer compliance reviews. And two, the belief that motorcoach companies

should receive more program attention and enforcement resources.

This approach aligns our selection criteria with the National

Transportation Safety Board recommendation that we revise the

SAFESTAT system to compare passenger carriers with one another. FMCSA will implement the passenger carrier CR

prioritization system during this calendar year.

Three, motorcoach inspections. While all States conduct motorcoach inspections, not every State has a formal motorcoach inspection program. By way of memorandum, our agency will require

State agencies that receive MCSAP grant funds to revise their com-
5

mercial vehicle safety plans to include a bus inspection program.

FMCSA will conduct a meeting with our MCSAP partners in early

May to discuss this issue.

Four, improved safety data. Safety data are important to our

agency to employ our resources effectively and efficiently. In the

past three years, there have been significant improvements in the

timeliness and quality of our motorcoach safety data, largely

through a series of recent inspection and compliance review strike

forces. Having accurate and complete data about the bus companies

we regulate is vital for our safety mission. Additionally, we are conducting a bus crash causation study mandated by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA) to determine the reasons for

and factors contributing to serious bus crashes.

Five, motorcoach fires. Another important aspect of our safety

program relates to the problem of motorcoach fires. Presently, our

agency is taking action to address bus fires. To this end, we have

approached the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) about a coordinated data sharing program between our

two agencies to more quickly identify and correct vehicle safety

problems. We are working together with NHTSA to identify the

causes of these fires, and once they are identified, our agencies will

take appropriate action.

Six, new entrant passenger carriers. Of the 40,000 to 50,000 new

carriers that enter interstate commerce each year, several hundred

of these are new entrant passenger carriers. We have implemented

a new policy that makes passenger carriers a greater safety priority. New entrant passenger carriers are now subject to an on-site

safety audit within nine months of beginning operations, instead of

the usual 18 months for other coach carriers.

Finally, we are working on a proposed rule to strengthen new entrant program standards across the bus and truck industries. In

September of 1998, the Department of Transportation amended its

ADA regulations to require accessible over-the-road bus service.

The regulations ensure accessible, timely over-the-road bus service

for passengers with disabilities, including wheelchair users. These

regulations apply to inter-city and fixed route bus operators and to

demand responsive or charter operators. Non-compliance with the

ADA regulations is an issue throughout the bus industry. It is not

limited to curbside bus companies.

Based on the hundreds of telephone calls we received from bus

companies about ADA regulations, we have found they frequently

do not understand the responsibility to provide timely, accessible

bus service to individuals with disabilities. While the Department

of Justice is the only entity with the power to enforce violations of

the ADA regulations, the Department of Transportation has done

much to assist its efforts. In addition to reminding motorcoach operators about their annual reporting requirements, we compile data

and submit the industry data to the Department of Justice, as well

as complaints.

Our safety partnership with the motorcoach industry is vital toward making our highways safer. Each motorcoach company’s effort is needed to improve the safety of our highway passenger

transportation.
6

Mr. Chairman, during my tenure at FMCSA, I have worked hard

to accomplish the goal of increased safety for our Nation’s traveling

public. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to briefly

outline some of the work we have done to make this segment of

transportation safer. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much for your summary.

Mr. DeFazio, do you have questions?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Sandberg, I appreciate the ongoing efforts. But given the

fairly dramatic increase in funding that we put forward in

SAFETEA-LU, could you just focus a little bit more on the new initiatives, or how you are augmenting the ongoing safety program?

And in particular, obviously to the subject of the hearing here,

given the number of violations found and the other issues that

were raised by your scoring system.

Ms. SANDBERG. Certainly. The first thing that we realized, in

order for us to identify unsafe motorcoach operators, we have to

have data in our data base. We have about 680,000 companies that

we regulate nationwide. Of those 680,000 less than 4,000 are motorcoach companies. So first we had to have data that would help

us identify, out of those hundreds of thousands of companies, which

ones we need to focus on, whether it be truck companies or motorcoach companies.

Our data system is driven by roadside inspections, it is driven by

compliance reviews, it is driven by crash data and other types of

information that we receive. One of the problems that we have is

in SAFETEA-LU, there is a requirement that we are no longer able

to do roadside inspections of motor coach operations. SAFETEA-LU

prohibits us from doing that. We have to either do it at origin or

destination.

So what we are doing is now focusing our inspection efforts at

origin or destination sites. Some of that is working together with

our State partners to make sure that they have an established plan

and that they are actually doing motorcoach inspections.

The other thing that we have done through our grant operations

is make sure that each State has bus ramps. Buses are much more

difficult to inspect than a truck, because it is hard to crawl under

them. So we provide the State agencies with bus ramps, and they

are able to purchase those bus ramps so they can actually roll the

bus up onto the ramps and get under the bus to look for safety defects underneath. But again, the inspections drive the overall data

system. So by feeding the system at the front end by doing more

inspections, that will help us better identify the unsafe bus operators at the back end.

We don’t have enough bus crashes annually, as I said, there are

about 22 fatalities that are attributed to motorcoach operations

each year, to really use crashes as the only indicator. So by doing

more inspections, that will help us drive more compliance reviews.

In addition to the inspections, we have set these higher goals of

doing compliance reviews on more motorcoach operations than we

had done in the past. Those compliance reviews will also help derive additional data to help us focus on unsafe operators.
7

And then the last thing is really working on companies that we

call, we basically label them as non-entrants. These are companies

that are actually doing business in interstate commerce and they

have never registered with us. So we are working with our State

partners to identify those companies that actually should be registered as an interstate carrier, get them registered and then get

them into the system so that we can begin collecting data on them

to determine whether they are safe or not.

Mr. DEFAZIO. As I said, last year, there were 39 fatalities, there

was an increase. Just back to this issue which I raised in my opening statement, we had found in your previous, you apparently are

now augmenting your data base, and we will perhaps have more

data. But even previously, when the 25 major curbside bus operators were reviewed in SAFESTAT, six came up unsatisfactory. But

only three were marked for review. Why would someone who came

up with an unsatisfactory score not get a more comprehensive review?

Ms. SANDBERG. If they are marked unsatisfactory, then typically

we have an enforcement action ongoing, and we will review them

eventually. But we might not have done a recent compliance review

on that company. There are a number of reasons. I would have to

know the specific companies. We would be happy to, if we have the

information, provide you with that information.

Additionally, some may have gone out of business.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So the normal procedure would be that anyone

rated unsatisfactory, would with some sense of urgency—do you

have enough inspectors or people to physically do this? Is that part

of the problem?

Ms. SANDBERG. We have about 700, close to 800 people nationwide, in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. But that

is augmented by over 11,000 State and local law enforcement that

the grant monies, the increases that you talk about that were provided in SAFETEA-LU, that money goes to the States to augment

those additional resources for inspections, compliance reviews and

audits.

So we feel that given that volume we need to make sure each

State has an identified motorcoach program. One of the things that

we looked at last year when we saw the increase in fatalities wa

that we started asking what States had specific motorcoach safety

programs. Not many did. While they did some inspections, they did

not have an identified program.

So what we are doing through the commercial vehicle safety

plans is telling them, you have to have an identified program on

how you are going to target motorcoach operations in your respective State. Some States are going to have a more robust program.

For example, I would say that the best State is New Jersey right

now. Because of the number of motorcoaches that operate in that

State, they already have an identified program. So we are looking

at how many motorcoach operations occur in that State and looking

at how robust the State’s program needs to be. That is the work

that we are doing right now.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Is there a deadline for the States that don’t currently have programs?
8

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes. We are meeting with our State partners in

May at a large meeting where we will talk about their MCSAP

grants. They will write their commercial vehicle safety plans for

this year over the summer, and those plans have to be established

by October.

Mr. DEFAZIO. And if it is not, is there some sort of extension of

Federal—

Ms. SANDBERG. If it is not, we do not approve their plan and we

do not give them money. We will hold the money until they have

an approved plan.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So there are consequences. Again, I am just concerned that we use the past fatality measure as, I mean, yes, it

shows some level of success, although the up spike is of concern,

and that is not an insignificant number of lives, 39 lives. So that

is an ongoing concern.

But when you find log book problems or particularly drug testing

problems, it seems to me anecdotally it is often fatigue that is

found to be a factor in the interstate bus drivers. And then obviously lack of drug testing would raise tremendous concerns for people who are conducting passengers.

Are fines being levied on these actions?

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes, they are, sir.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Are they substantial?

Ms. SANDBERG. Some of the fines are substantial. In fact, in a

couple of enforcement actions that we took last year we used our

eminent hazard authority, which means that we can go into a company and rather than give them time to correct the problems, place

them out of service immediately for eminent hazard. We are using

this authority more and more. And, more specifically, on motorcoach companies because of the potential that if they are operating

unsafely they could do more damage on the highway.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My

time has expired.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mrs. SCHMIDT?

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I have a question regarding the ADA requirements. I think one of the arguments that is made by the curbside

operators is how costly it would be to have ADA requirements on

their buses. But it bothers me because from a personal perspective,

when I was elected and brought a group of people up here, one of

them was disabled. They were able to raise him on the back end

of the bus and get him seated in and he was able to use the restroom, and had no problems.

Aren’t there laws in place that require buses that are used for

commercial purpose to have ADA accessible facilities for individuals, so that they can travel as freely as people that don’t have secondary issues?

Ms. SANDBERG. The way that the ADA regulations work, that the

Department established, for large operations, and large fixed route,

would be more than $7.2 million in revenue a year. They are required by October of this year to have 50 percent of their fleet accessible, and by the year 2012 to have 100 percent of their fleet accessible, with the caveat that any brand new buses that they buy

or lease have to be accessible.
9

With regard to small fixed route, and that would be under $7.2

million of revenue per year, there is not that specific deadline.

However, they have the same requirement that if they buy any

new buses or they lease any new buses, those buses have to be accessible. In addition, they have a 48 hour notice requirement, so

that if somebody calls them and says, in 48 hours, I need to take

your bus somewhere, they have to provide an accessible bus.

The dilemma we have had, whether it is large fixed route or

small fixed route, is oftentimes they don’t understand their responsibility. Companies are supposed to report to the Department of

Transportation on whether they are meeting the accessibility requirements. I can tell you that up to this point, the reporting has

been very poor across the industry. Last year we only had 21 percent of the bus companies actually file the required report. That is

better than it was two years ago when it was 6 percent. Right now

we are sending out letters annually saying you have to report.

The reporting is kind of the first step, because then that helps

us identify whether they are purchasing accessible buses or not

and whether they are meeting the mandates. Then we send that

information over to the Department of Justice. There are laws that

require that these buses be accessible, whether it is the 48 hour notice requirement, or that they have purchased or leased buses.

The way that the ADA is set up, though, the Department of Justice has the primary responsibility for doing enforcement on these

cases. So what we do is when we discover either through a complaint where somebody calls us and says, we tried to get on a bus

and they told us to call a larger fixed route carrier or somebody

else, we take those complaints, we try to gather additional information and then give that to the Department of Justice to take action.

We have referred 11 complaints over to the Department of Justice

in the last 24 months.

As we proceed forward, and we are doing new entrant audits

where we go into a company early on, we will also look for ADA

compliance. If we discover that there is non-compliance, we will

send those cases over to the Department of Justice.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Do you also follow up with the Department of

Justice to see what kind of action they have levied against these

individuals?

Ms. SANDBERG. We ask. We do not always hear, because usually

they will say it is under investigation. I am really sorry that my

counterpart from the Department of Justice is not here today. But

they do not always tell us exactly where the case is. They will just

say it is in the works. That is all I have heard.

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me ask you this. You said that you are concerned about the

firms that operate on low economic margins, because the first thing

you said they do is they cut safety, is that right?

Ms. SANDBERG. That is correct.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you have any sense of how profitable curbside

services are, and how their profitability compares to the services,

say, like a Greyhound?
10

Ms. SANDBERG. We do not get that kind of financial data at the

Department of Transportation. I know some curbside operators do

very well. I think that there are some that are going to be on a

panel, too, after me. They may be able to tell you. I do not know.

I do not have that specific financial data.

Mr. CUMMINGS. What percentage of curbside buses are regularly

inspected by FMCSA?

Ms. SANDBERG. Well, for us to specifically inspect them, we work

with our State partners. For example, at the southern border, we

have hundreds of inspectors down there and we regularly inspect

all of those buses coming across from Mexico into the United

States. The border is really the only place coach carriers, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, has certified inspectors.

We do have some people that are safety investigators and also

inspectors that are spread out through the Country, but usually

there are only four or five to a State. So we will work with the

State agencies in that specific State and what we have done most

recently is the Northeast Corridor Task Force, where a lot of these

curbside bus operations have been working all the way from New

York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, well, we did not

go quite that far, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, D.C.

We worked with local agencies all throughout that area and did

hundreds of inspections and are encouraging them to continue having an inspection emphasis, not just on curbside, but on all motorcoach operations. Because we find that even other motorcoach operations, whether it is tour or charter, or even some of the large fixed

routes, still have safety problems that we need to address.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. As far as commercial bus operators, are

they required to post any of their safety ratings on their buses?

Ms. SANDBERG. No, they are not.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And how many curbside services have you shut

down, any?

Ms. SANDBERG. I do not have that number. I know we have shut

down a few. What they do is typically, when we start enforcement

action, they will go out of business. And we have had this problem,

where we start enforcement action, they go out of business, they

try to recreate themselves under a new name and then we track

them down again. So that is the more likely scenario, whereas we

are getting ready to shut them down, then they go out of business.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And just the last question, what would it take,

give me the scenario that it would take to get you to the point of

wanting to shut somebody down, shut a company down. In other

words—

Ms. SANDBERG. Typically it is a flagrant violation of the safety

regulations. One of the things that we have found with the

curbside operators is that they are like a lot of small operators that

we see on the trucking industry side, where they are simply not

aware of all the safety regulations that they are required to follow,

whether it be the types of drivers that they hire or that they do

drug and alcohol testing.

One of the things that we have found when we identify these carriers and tell them where they have deficiencies is that they have

been very quick to correct them. What it takes is somebody that

would go in and look, and let’s say they do not have a drug and
11

alcohol testing program. And the carrier continues to say, we are

not going to have a drug and alcohol testing program.

That leads us to believe that they are clearly violating the safety

regulations, they know what they are supposed to be doing, and

they are not doing it. Violations of this nature will lead us to shut

them down.

Mr. CUMMINGS. How can we get in front of that, though? In other

words, it just sounds like a back door approach. You have problems, and then we say, look, you are bad, but in the process, the

public safety is in jeopardy. It seems like we need to be in advance

of some of that. Are there things that are being done to, because

you know anybody will say ignorance of the law. This just makes

sense, particularly being ignorant of the way your system works.

Ms. SANDBERG. Right.

Mr. CUMMINGS. It seems like we are almost, you are almost inviting these violations. Are you following me?

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes, and there is something specifically that we

are doing to address that. When I came into the agency three years

ago, we were just rolling out a rule called the New Entrant Safety

Assurance Process.

The disagreement that I had personally about the process, was

that it was all education focused and not enforcement focus. What

we did was we went into carriers that were just operating in interstate commerce, and we would say, okay, let’s educate you on how

you are supposed to be doing business. They should have already

known that.

To me there are significant violations that should immediately

shut a company down. So we are doing a new entrant rulemaking

process right now to change the system. And there are going to be

11 violations that if a company has violated these things, and they

are fundamental to safety, drug and alcohol testing, using drivers

that are qualified, making sure drivers follow hours of service,

those kinds of things, those will be in there. And if a company is

not doing those, we will shut the company down immediately.

I think that is one of the areas where we have clearly needed to

strengthen our process, so that these people couldn’t just continue

to operate and pretend like they did not know what they were

doing.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Sodrel.

Mr. SODREL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems like we have

two issues on the table here with the curbside operators. One is

ADA compliance, the other is safety compliance. ADA compliance

is important. But it is an inconvenience for disabilities that are trying to travel. Failure to comply with safety standards is life threatening.

I might say, in my other life, I used to be a coach operator. So

I have a little prior experience in the bus business. We had a company in Indiana called Hammond Yellow that was known not to be

a particularly high level carrier and was inspected several times

and many of their vehicles were placed out of service. But the company was not closed up until they went off a ramp at I-70 in Indi-
12

anapolis and killed two people, a coach of a high school athletic

team and his daughter.

So a previous question that was asked, it is better to get ahead

of the curve than behind the curve. And it is serious, any time you

close a business down or close their operations down, it is taking

a livelihood away from someone who owns and operates the buses

and the people that work there. So it is serious, I do not suggest

that we take that lightly.

On the other hand, there have been times where the system was

a little slow to react. I do not know how these curbside folks, with

no facilities operate, this is probably the biggest problem I have-

-the lack of any facilities to maintain a piece of equipment. I do not

know how you do that effectively. I do not know how you comply

with the law effectively.

Where do you find their place of business? When you go to inspect a curbside operator, if they do not have a maintenance facility and they do not have some central place of business, where do

you even conduct an inspection? Just on the street?

Ms. SANDBERG. One, when they register with us, they have to

identify a place of business where they keep their central records.

That is not necessarily where their buses might be kept. So when

we do a compliance review, that will be where we go to look for

their driver logs, their safety records, those kinds of things.

To do inspections, we have worked with our State and local partners to identify where they are picking up passengers and dropping

them off, since those are the two locations that we can actually do

inspections. And that is where we do the inspections, is on the side

of the road.

Mr. SODREL. Being from the midwest, we do not have a lot of

that. I have noticed here in the city, a bus stopping on the street

corner and picking people up, in fact, not far from where I am sitting. But it is not something that we were confronted with in the

midwest.

But we either have to enforce the rules formally or eliminate the

rules. Otherwise people are competing on an unlevel playing field.

I think the public’s safety is served by enforcing the rules formally

as opposed to eliminating any rules.

Thank you for being here. I may have some questions later, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Pascrell.

Mr. PASCRELL. Administrator Sandberg, in a 2003 speech that

you made, you said the following: ‘‘Our investigations revealed a

complex web of business relations,’’ point one, ‘‘among these fare

operators. It is challenging to determine who is responsible for

their operations.’’ I read that a couple of times, the first time I

said, I must have read it incorrectly. But that is what you said.

It is my understanding that while your administration cited

many curbside operators in violation of safety laws, you fined them,

you just reported that again today, and you shut them down, some

of them. But they continue to operate. This sounds like an enforcement problem.

What enforcement tools, what investigative tools do you need to

ensure that repeat offenders are shut down permanently, and have

I stated what you said correctly?
13

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes, you have stated what I said correctly. The

dilemma is, and we have the same thing with what I call the low

lying truck companies. These are companies that are in business

simply to try to make some money and safety is not a priority to

them at all. So they go into business, we identify them as being unsafe because they do not keep their equipment up, they are not

drug and alcohol testing their drivers, they are pushing their drivers to violate hours of service.

So we begin taking enforcement action. Then what the company

does is they shut down and they recreate themselves. And they

come and enter into our system as somebody new. Oftentimes new

boards of directors, new owners, they will completely recreate

themselves. It is very difficult for us to identify that they were actually this older company.

Some of what we are doing right now in our licensing and registration system is, we have a number of red flags that will trigger

in our system if a company tries to recreate itself and it uses an

address that is similar to one that we have shut down, it uses a

name of any of the board members that is similar, or an owner.

Those are three flags that help us identify them.

The other thing that we are doing is when we go in and do new

entrant audits, because every one of these companies, when they

recreate themselves, becomes a new entrant, we have to go in and

do an audit. On bus companies, we are actually doing those audits

at 9 months instead of 18 months.

When we go in and do those audits we try to identify if it is a

company that actually was in business before under some other

name. If we identify that that is the case, we tag back to the old

name and the old safety record where we can, and apply that to

those companies.

The second thing that we do, and we are working with a number

of States, is a program called PRISM, which is our registration information system. Under PRISM, there are currently 21 States

that have signed on, and it is fully operational. When we place a

bus company or a truck company out of service, the biggest difficulty is getting them to stop operating.

In some instances, we have actually parked people outside their

place of business to see if they move their truck or bus, and we

have done that recently, where we placed a company out of service,

we were worried that they were going to continue operating. So we

put somebody outside there for about a week to look to see if they

were going to move those buses. They did not, and fortunately they

followed the out of service order.

The other way to do it, though, is through PRISM, the States

mark the license plates of that particular carrier in their system,

so that the plates get pulled and revoked and they cannot continue

to operate. It is much more of a flag for enforcement officers if

there is no license plate on the truck.

Mr. PASCRELL. So what you are saying is you do have the tools,

you have the resources and the tools.

Ms. SANDBERG. The dilemma is, we only have 21 States that

have PRISM operational right now.

Mr. PASCRELL. Excuse me. You have the resources and the

tools—
14

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes, we do.

Mr. PASCRELL.—to enforce the Federal laws. Is that what you are

telling us today?

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you. Second question is this. The Americans With Disabilities Act compliance and enforcement is within

the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, correct?

Ms. SANDBERG. Correct.

Mr. PASCRELL. I fail to comprehend why not being in compliance

with the ADA has seemingly no bearing on the granting of operating authority of a bus carrier. If a company is in clear violation of

the Federal law, why should a Federal agency grant it authority

to do anything? So in your opinion, how can Congress remedy this

situation?

Ms. SANDBERG. The way that our licensing regulations are set

up, there are three things that we look at to grant operating authority: the economic, safety and financial responsibility, and these

are old carryovers from the ICC days, and those are the only three

things that we look at. ADA is not part of that.

One of the things that we are doing, though, to try to be more

aggressive with regard to the Americans With Disabilities Act, sir,

is that we are reminding new entrants of their responsibilities

under the ADA and in our new entrant rulemaking that I just

spoke about earlier, we are going to have a component that when

we go in and do a safety audit and we identify non-ADA compliance with any company, we will then forward that to Justice, so

that they can begin taking aggressive steps to address those companies.

Mr. PASCRELL. Should there be a Federal law mandating, and is

there not a Federal law mandating that even small companies comply with ADA?

Ms. SANDBERG. They have to have 48 hours notice, yes. And

those are much more difficult to identify.

Mr. PASCRELL. And who enforces that, the Justice Department?

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes.

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Sodrel, did you have additional questions?

Mr. SODREL. No, Mr. Chairman, not at this time.

Mr. PETRI. Okay. Mr. DeFazio?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A couple of things that have come up, Madam Administrator. I

was concerned to hear about the out of service and still operating

issue. I do not know what else we can do in terms of more. Has

there ever been, if someone was to attempt, and apparently they

must have, are there instances where people have attempted to

continue operating?

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes.

Mr. DEFAZIO. At that point, does it become a criminal issue? Has

there been a criminal prosecution if they are under a Federal compliance order, and they are ignoring the order and continuing to

jeopardize public safety?

Ms. SANDBERG. We try to work with the States to identify those

carriers, place them out of business. There have been instances, I
15

think, where criminal charges have been brought at a State level.

I think there may have been some instances where a U.S. attorney

has brought some Federal criminal charges. But they are very, very

difficult.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. Well, I mean, the recreation, it seems to me

that perhaps we need a different fitness standard. I am thinking

of aviation. Part of a fitness review is financial wherewithal, the

credentials of the principal officers and those sorts of things which

would, if we had that standard and a company had had problems,

and they tried to reestablish themselves under another business

name, if we had more stringent fitness standards, they would not

have any potential of getting another number.

Do you feel that perhaps, and whether it could be done administratively or whether we would have to do it statutorily that we

should have more robust fitness standards? Because you said you

can’t look at and don’t look at their financial condition, which is a

big red flag in the aviation industry and I would assume it would

be the same in bus or trucking.

Ms. SANDBERG. When the ICC terminated and gave us a lot of

the functions that used to exist there, a lot of those financial regulations went away under the ICC Termination Act. One of the dilemmas we have, and we have had this in the medical arena, even,

in comparing us to aviation, is the volume of companies that operate in this line of business, 680,000 companies.

So we had this issue come up last year about why couldn’t we

put the same kind of medical requirements on truck and bus drivers that we put on airline pilots. There is a much smaller pool of

airline pilots than there are truck and bus drivers. We look at our

pool being about 7 to 10 million as opposed to, I think it is 600,000

for airline pilots. If we tried to equate just that regulation regime

alone to our industry, it would be hundreds of millions of dollars.

So I guess that is the balancing act. We are trying to tighten

down some of our regulations to identify loopholes. Having been a

former police officer, I can tell you, most of the time the crooks are

one step ahead. These people that do not want to do business right

are always going to try to find a loophole and continue to do business. That is where we really need to work with our State and local

partners to identify these pockets of problems and really focus on

them and take care of the safety issue that they are causing.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Is the issuance of a number, which I guess is sort

of the certification you provide, is that a routine procedure? It is

my understanding in talking to staff that in a couple of States,

Massachusetts and New York, the police have reported that essentially the addresses provided were fake, and then the whole question of the required 18 month review, which I guess for new operators is not always conducted.

So I mean, is this just because of the volume, it is a rather routine paper exercise, and you do not have the wherewithal or it is

not required that there actually be a site visit or some sort of confirmation that this is a bona fide business and that that address

actually exists, and therefore, the records might exist that we

would go and review?

Ms. SANDBERG. To get the actual registration number, that is a

fairly easy process at the front end. You can go on to our web site
16

and you can probably register to be a company today and it would

take you maybe an hour, if that. That part is fairly easy. The audit

process though is where we help identify those that have filed false

addresses. Because one of the things that we have to have is the

ability to contact that company to go do the audits.

As I said, for motorcoach operations, we flag them that we are

going to do a motorch ch audit within the first nine months of operation. For all other commercial ch ch vehicles, it is 18 months. That

is when we will identify if the information that they provided on

that registration information at the front end was correct or not.

If they do not respond to an audit request, we can simply flag

them out and tell them that they can no longer operate. We are

strengthening some of our new audit process in this new rulemaking to do just that, to make sure that if these people do not

respond to an audit request or they are simply evading us by giving us a false address that we can deal with them in that manner.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Several members have additional questions. I thought I might ask, myself, you alluded to this, but do you

have a—clearly this is, primary front line enforcement within a

Federal framework must be done by the State and local authorities.

Is there a big difference between States so far as complaints from

the public about this kind of thing, number one? And is there a big

difference between complaints from the public from these, because

of experiences with these sort of jitney or China operators, whatever you want to call them, and what we regard as a more traditional Greyhound and so on?

No service is going to be perfect. There are going to be bad experiences just in the nature of, unfortunately, in the nature of just

doing business and interaction. Is this a disproportionate source of

problems and is it localized? Should we be focusing on helping

some States beef up their operations? What is the nature of the

problem and how can we deal with it, basically?

Ms. SANDBERG. The nature of the problem is very unique to what

I would say the Northeast Corridor. I can tell you, having come

from Washington State, we do not have these kinds of bus operations out there where they go curbside. You just would not see a

bus pull up by a sidewalk and see a bunch of people get on.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Didn’t the Green Tortoise come to Washington, or

is that an Oregon and California and Mexico thing?

Ms. SANDBERG. That is Oregon and California.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay.

[Laughter.]

Ms. SANDBERG. But it is very unique to the Northeast Corridor.

The only other place that we have identified a corridor where there

are curbside operations is California to Nevada, primarily into the

Las Vegas area. And we are seeing some of those curbside operators pop up there.

There are some smaller, more small fixed route and large fixed

route. Typically they operate out of a terminal. They are easy to

identify.

Again, in looking at the curbside operators, that being primarily

a Northeast Corridor problem, we are targeting them in a very specific way. But we are looking at ch ch ch ch across the bh rd. To
17

keep it in perspective, of the 680,000 companies, this means, and

I am looking at about 3,900 companies, and they equate to whatever fatality number, 22, 39. If you look at all commercial ch ch vehicle fatalities, it is 5,000. We are trying to drive those numbers

down.

So while I need to focus attention here, and believe me, I honestly believe that one fatality is too many. But I also need to focus

on the other 4,000 plus fatalities that occur with regard to trucks.

So we are trying to balance our resources. Part of doing that is

really making sure that the States, which have far more people out

there on the rh dside, the 11,000 plus people, have a formalized

program.

Now, for some States that do not have a large curbside problem,

they are not going to have a huge focus on curbside operators. In

fact, if they did, we would say, hey, that should not be in your plan

unless you can tell us where the curbside operators operate in your

State. But they should have a ch ch ch ch program. Every State

has charter operators, every State has tour operators. And those

bus companies need to be inspected also. They need to make sure

that their drivers are being drug and alcohol tested. And they need

to make sure that they are following the hours of service rule.

So occasionally, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we recently had a

bus crash up in Wisconsin and five people died in that crash. That

was a charter operator. We are working together with the NTSB

to try to identify what the cause of that crash was.

But we need to focus on what the unique problem is for each

State, and then make sure the State has a plan on how they are

going to go about addressing that. Some of that is through doing

inspections at origin or destination. It is through doing these targeted compliance reviews. And since we are going to be doing another 450 this next year, making sure that we target the right companies and continue to look at companies and make sure that all

companies are operating safely.

But it is very unique to the Northeast Corridor, the curbside operators.

Mr. PETRI. And so far as looking at it from the point of view of

the traveling public, clearly they must be providing a service some

people want or at least maybe because of cost or because of convenience, they have identified shifts in the market quicker than more

traditional operators?

Ms. SANDBERG. Right. I run into people all the time that say that

they have taken these curbside operators and they had a great bus

ride. But I am not sure, I do not watch the market economy, obviously they are focusing on something. Because they are filling up

the buses and they are moving people.

There are millions of people that take bus transportation every

year. It is a very safe, economical way to travel. And a lot of people

use it, whether it is the curbside operators or the larger fixed

routes.

Mr. PETRI. So it is a marketing opportunity for Greyhound or

people like that, that that are not getting into certain communities,

presumably, or whatever.

Ms. SANDBERG. I would leave that for the folks at Greyhound or

whoever might be here from ABA.
18

Mr. PETRI. But do you get a disproportionate amount or would

you say that complaints from the public are roughly the same as

best you can tell from the different types of operators? Or is this

a hot spot of complaints?

Ms. SANDBERG. We have not had hundreds of thousands of complaints, actually I get far more complaints in the area of household

goods than I do with regard to ADA compliance. But we have gotten complaints. And to me, any complaint is serious. If somebody

needs to have affordable transportation and it is being denied, we

need to take that very seriously. So any complaints that we have

received, what we have tried to do is identify the carrier, find out

do they have accessible buses, and check to see if they are meeting

the regulations. And if they are not, then forwarding that case to

the Department of Justice to take appropriate enforcement action.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Duncan?

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you for calling this hearing. This is something that I don’t know

really anything about. I am sorry I did not get to hear most of your

testimony and your responses to questions, because I have been

with 136 students and teachers from a school in my district.

But let me ask you this. And maybe you have already covered

this. How many bus companies are there total, charter operators

and everything, that are doing the right thing and registering with

you? How many bus companies have gone through the legal process, so to speak?

Ms. SANDBERG. We have registered in our data base 3,900 bus

companies.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thirty-nine hundred.

Ms. SANDBERG. Thirty-nine hundred.

Mr. DUNCAN. And then, how many of these curbside operators

are there that you know about or what is your best estimate?

Ms. SANDBERG. The estimate changes daily. But I believe right

now 24, 25, is what they tell me for curbside operators.

Mr. DUNCAN. So it is not really fair, is it, to make all those honest people do the right thing and then let these others not do that.

Is that basically one of your feelings?

Ms. SANDBERG. That is correct. That is why we are doing strike

force activities.

Mr. DUNCAN. That would be understandable. And you say that

it would take, did I hear you say that it would take an hour, only

about an hour to register, is that correct?

Ms. SANDBERG. It is right around there. It depends on the complexity of the paperwork. But if you go online and fill the forms out

online, it is not very difficult.

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you think that the regulatory requirements, are

they so burdensome that it would cause a great increase in the

price these companies would have to charge? I had a member of my

staff tell me that there is one company that takes people directly

from Union Station to New York City for $35. Do we have any kind

of idea about, if somebody goes through all your regulatory processes, would that price have to double or triple or what?
19

Ms. SANDBERG. No. Most of the companies that follow our regulatory process can actually probably beat that fare. But the folks

from ABA could answer specific pricing questions.

Mr. DUNCAN. And the company, you said it was a charter company in Wisconsin that had a recent wreck, but that was not a

curbside operator?

Ms. SANDBERG. No, it was not.

Mr. DUNCAN. How many, say, in the last—when was this

curbside operation, when was this first bought to your attention?

Ms. SANDBERG. I believe in 2004 is when we started the Northeast Corridor Task Force.

Mr. DUNCAN. So since that time, how many wrecks have there

been of these curbside operators, do you know? Have there been a

lot of accidents?

Ms. SANDBERG. My staff tells me there have been three.

Mr. DUNCAN. Three. Anybody been killed?

Ms. SANDBERG. No. Except for I guess somebody ran into the

back of a bus and that person died. But it wasn’t the bus’s fault.

Mr. DUNCAN. Are these companies, based on your investigation,

do they have insurance?

Ms. SANDBERG. That is part of the requirement of our giving

them operating authorities. They have to post insurance.

Mr. DUNCAN. But as far as the curbside operators, you don’t

know whether they have insurance or whether they don’t?

Ms. SANDBERG. No, they have to show us that they have insurance. I do know that some of the curbside operators have had difficulty getting insurance, particularly if we have been taking enforcement action on them. But they have to post insurance and

show that their insurance is valid in order for us to allow them to

continue to operate.

Mr. DUNCAN. I see. So there may be some curbside operators operating without insurance, but all the ones that you have checked

so far have it, is that what you are saying?

Ms. SANDBERG. If they are operating in interstate commerce and

they have registered with us, they have to have insurance. Now,

there are some—

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I know, but the problem is that they don’t

register with you, at least when they first start operating, is that

correct?

Ms. SANDBERG. No, if they are operating in interstate commerce,

by law they have to register with us. What we have found, though,

in working with our State and local partners, there are some that

are trying to operate, once we identify that they are operating, in

interstate commerce, which means that they are crossing State

lines. We go to the company, tell them that they have to cease operations until they register, and until they comply with all the financial requirements.

Mr. DUNCAN. I guess I am a little confused. You said, I thought

you said they all register with you right at the first. And that surprised me. I thought these were companies that that were not registered. But they all register with you right at the very first.

Ms. SANDBERG. They are supposed to, yes.

Mr. DUNCAN. Doesn’t that trigger the regulatory process, then?
20

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes, it does. That means that they have to have

insurance in order to move. In fact, we will not give them a number

unless they can show that they have insurance. We will not give

them the authority to operate without insurance.

Mr. DUNCAN. You are confusing me, because if a company has to

register with you when it first starts operating, and that triggers

the regulatory process, then why are they called curbside operators? I mean, there is something real simple that you or I one is

missing, and it is probably me.

But you said that they can’t operate until they register with you

and they all register with you. And that starts a regulatory process. So what I am trying to figure out is, how do you call them

curbside operators? They just haven’t gone through all the steps

yet?

Ms. SANDBERG. No, the definition of a curbside operator is somebody that picks up and drops off their passengers at a curbside.

They are a regular bus company. They have registered with us,

they just don’t operate out of terminals like Greyhound or Peter

Pan or one of those companies. That is why they are called

curbside operators. They operate a bit differently in that they do

not have a terminal site that they pick up passengers and drop

passengers off at.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, that by itself is not illegal, though, is that

right?

Ms. SANDBERG. No, it is not.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, if all these curbside operators register with

you and that creates a regulatory process, then I still don’t see, I

really thought there was, I thought these people were all operating

illegally, but they are not.

Ms. SANDBERG. No. What will happen occasionally, and this is

only occasionally, and we have the same problem with trucking

companies, where you get somebody that gets the idea, hey, I want

to go into business. They go and they buy a bus and they just start

picking people up. Those are what we call non-entrants. It means

that they don’t know that all these rules and regulations apply to

them. If they cross State lines, then our regulations apply.

And as we have done these strike force activities, we have identified some of those companies. But they are few and far between.

A majority of them know that they have to register with us, they

register with us, they get their insurance, they put the name on

the side of the bus and they start operating.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, but then you said that some of these companies, you don’t know whether they are abiding by the hours of

service rules, you don’t know whether they have given drug tests

to their employees, and all that kind of thing. Do you not, when

they register with you, do you not immediately tell them of all hose

things and then go ahead and start checking them?

Ms. SANDBERG. They are made aware of our rules. But because

we have 40,000 and 50,000—it is between 40,000 and 50,000 new

entrants every year in interstate commerce, and that is truck and

bus companies combined. What we do is, the rule requires that we

get to those new entrants within the first 18 months of operation.

We don’t do the audit prior to them getting operating authority.
21

They actually can get operating authority, begin operating and

then we go in and do the audit.

With bus companies, specifically, we do it within the first nine

months of operation. We will go in and look at all of their records,

make sure that they are doing drug and alcohol testing, make sure

that they have drivers that have a passenger endorsement, look at

their hours of service logs, those kinds of things. And then of

course, any truck or bus that is out there, whether they are in new

entrant or have been in business for a while, as they pass the rh

dside or if the State chooses to inspect them, can inspect them at

any point in time.

Mr. DUNCAN. So if a curbside operator registered with you at the

first and you said you can’t get to them possibly for 18 months—

Ms. SANDBERG. The first nine.

Mr. DUNCAN. Oh, the first nine months. So if they have something happen six or eight months, they could be in operation six

or eight months and there is no real violation that they have done,

if it is your agency’s fault or whatever for not getting to them sooner, is that right?

Ms. SANDBERG. We try to get to them in the first nine months.

If they do something at month five, we do not have control over

that.

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Sodrel?

Mr. SODREL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to relate a little short story to you. You have two

kinds of people that fail to comply with the law. You have people

who are ignorant of the law and you have people that do it with

malice and forethought. I had a candid conversation with one of

your inspectors, and this is several years ago, so I do not think I

am doing him a disservice. I told him I thought he came in and

did inspections at our place because the coffee was good. That is

the way we started the conversation.

He said, well, the coffee is good, matter of fact, but he said that

the system of evaluating agents was based more on process than

results, that when he was first hired, he started chasing bad guys

that were bad guys by malice. Well, if somebody is doing it with

malice, they try to cover up the fact that they are violating the law.

They know they are violating the law, so they try to make sure you

don’t find out about it, which requires checks to see when a vehicle

may have gone across a way station, you have to pull fuel tickets,

see when it was fueled and look at motel room receipts. You have

to do all this work to find the person that is doing it with malice.

The inspector was told that he was not doing enough audits. So

I was just wondering, is your system of evaluating agents still process oriented or is it results oriented? Is it bad guys caught or going

through the motions?

Ms. SANDBERG. It is very much results oriented. I am not going

to say that it hasn’t always been that way. We clearly had a bit

of an education bent when I came in. But I am an enforcement person. I came from the State Police, and I am about results. And that

is what we get measured on, both by OMB on how they look at how

much money they give us and by the Members up here on the Hill,

on whether we are getting results from our programs.
22

So we have modified some of our programs to be more enforcement focused. I believe that first people need to be educated in

what their responsibilities are as a business operator and that we

need to make sure everybody understands what the law is, that we

write our rules in plain English. As you know, sometimes in Government, particularly if you get a lot of lawyers involved, and I can

say this because I am one, it is not easy for the average person to

understand what it is that we put on paper.

So we need to make it very clear on what our expectations are

that they are supposed to do, if it is drug and alcohol testing, how

do they go about doing that, if it is getting drivers with commercial

drivers licenses, what should they look for, those kinds of things.

But in the back end, there are those people that just simply, no

matter how much we educate them, are not going to do it. That is

when we need to have the enforcement hammer and we need to

take care of those people, and if they don’t comply after we enforce,

then we need to take them out of business. They need to decide to

be doing something different.

So that is the strategy I have used the last three years that I

have been here. And if you look at a lot of our rulemakings, that

is the focus that we are moving toward, is education at the front

end, make sure they understand what their responsibilities are as

a business owner, coming into the commercial vehicle business, and

then if they don’t get it after that, then we need to enforce.

Mr. SODREL. If I might just follow up on that one, Rudy Guiliani

went in as mayor of New York, they had a system of policing where

you basically had precincts and people went out in the precincts

and did whatever they did. His idea was, we need to throw the resources at the problem. So we need to identify where are the problems, and rather than having everybody patrolling every place, we

throw our assets at the place where the most problems exist.

And the question is, do you have any similar system with regard

to enforcement today where you can use the assets to their best advantage. Obviously, everybody has a finite number of assets.

Ms. SANDBERG. Absolutely. That is our SAFESTAT system. Not

everybody likes our system. That is too bad. Clearly, the audits and

the inspections that have been done on that system show that it

identifies high risk carriers. The system is driven by inspections at

the rh d side, or in the case of ch ch ch ch, at origin and destination.

So all the inspections that are done by the hundreds of thousands of people that are out there, actually it is over 3 million rh

dside inspections done every year. All those inspections are uplh

ded into our system, so it identifies what company was inspected,

when were they inspected and what violations were discovered.

We also look at ch ch carrier management areas as we go in and

do compliance reviews and other ways, when we are doing audits.

We also look at crash data. States report crash data to us and that

is uplh ded into the system.

The system then has an algorithm that looks at all other carriers

that are like that particular carrier and it identifies those that are

the highest risk. Then the highest risks are rated in our system

and then our enforcement people, along with the State folks, are

told to go visit this carrier. This is considered the highest risk car-
23

rier, they are at a much greater risk for being involved in a crash,

not maintaining their vehicles, other problems. And that is how we

go and visit.

Mr. SODREL. Thank you. Thank you for being here today, and

thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, and we appreciate your contribution to

this hearing.

Ms. SANDBERG. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. The second panel consists of Jacqueline Gillan, Vice

President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; Marilyn Golden, Policy Analyst at the Disability Rights Education and Defense

Fund; Bruce Hamilton, President of Local 1700, Amalgamated

Transit Union; and Peter Pantuso, President and CEO of the

American Bus Association.

We welcome you all to this hearing. We appreciate the effort that

went into your prepared statements and we look forward to hearing your approximately five minute summaries of the same, starting with Ms. Gillan.

TESTIMONY OF JACQUELINE S. GILLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY; MARILYN

GOLDEN, POLICY ANALYST, DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION

AND DEFENSE FUND; BRUCE HAMILTON, PRESIDENT/BUSINESS AGENT, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 1700,

AFL-CIO; PETER J. PANTUSO, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION

Mr. GILLAN. Thank you very much. I would like to extend my appreciation to the Subcommittee for having the hearings today and

for inviting advocates to testify.

Many of us in this hearing room have family members of friends

who have taken advantage of bargain fares offered by intercity

curbside bus operators or put our child on a chartered school bus

for an out of town school field trip, or traveled on a church-sponsored trip using hired bus transportation. Motor ch ch safety is a

serious concern for anyone who relies and uses this growing and

affordable mode of transportation.

Unfortunately, when it comes to ch ch ch ch safety, consumers

are bh rding buses blindfolded because of chronic and continuing

failures by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to regulate the safety of this industry and the inexcusable lack of public

information available to companies about the safety record of ch ch

ch ch companies.

In particular, little is known about the size of curbside ch ch ch

ch operations, including how many companies are evading Federal

and State safety requirements and how much Government oversight is being applied to ensure that unsafe operators and unsafe

drivers are off the rh d.

Since 1999 alone, NTSB has investigated and reported on eight

major ch ch ch ch crashes. Because ch ch ch ches carry up to 55

passengers, when a crash does occur, it can be catastrophic and

deadly. Every day there are thousands of small commuter airline

flights in the U.S., yet in most cases each aircraft is carrying fewer

passengers than over-the-rh d ch ch ch ches that may be filled to

capacity. Unfortunately, public authorities have chronically over-
24

looked ch ch ch ch safety and it is not being held to the same high

standards as aviation safety.

One of the major problems is that the Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Administration lacks reliable information on State annual

bus safety inspections, and there are major deficiencies for identifying ch ch carriers, including ch ch ch ch operators that are high

safety risks. Today, only half of the States even have an improved

periodic inspection program despite a 1984 Federal law directing

DOT to issue standards for annual inspections of commercial ch ch

vehicles, including ch ch ch ches.

There have been countless studies by GAO and the DOT Inspector General documenting insufficient data, incomplete data and inaccurate data that the FMCSA has about these carriers. Also, Government compliance reviews or the safety evaluations of commercial ch ch vehicle operators, where the Government gives rating

scores of satisfactory condition or unsatisfactory, are grossly out of

date or for the most part, not given at all to the vast majority of

operating companies.

Data deficiencies and incomplete safety information keeps consumers in the dark. Let me give you a brief example. My staff went

on the FMCSA web sit and evaluated ch ch ch ch information in

four States: Maryland, Wisconsin, Oregon and Texas. Let me use

as an example my own Sate of Maryland. There were 100 ch ch ch

ch companies listed, more than half of them were not rated at all,

5 had a conditional rating and 39 had a satisfactory rating. Of the

39 companies with a satisfactory rating, more than half were totally incomplete and did not evaluate these companies in more

than in all four of the possible categories.

Also, these ratings were out of date. Most of them were given in

the 1990s. In fact, there was one rating that had been assigned 18

years ago.

There are also inadequate Federal and State requirements for ch

ch ch ch drivers, even though they carry 55 people. Motor ch ch

drivers are required to have a commercial drivers license with an

additional bus endorsement that can be obtained by passing a short

knowledge test.

But there is no behind the wheel driving requirements in the

Federal law. Although DOT has been studying this for 20 years,

they produced a model curriculum and they were directed by Congress in the 1991 ISTEA Act to issue an entry level driver training

rule.

In May of 2004, they did an abrupt about face and issued a rule

that did not require any behind the wheel training for candidates

seeking an entry level CDL to operate a truck or a bus. As a result

of this rule, advocates filed suit against FMCSA and last year, in

a unanimous and blistering decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia found that the final rule was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of the agency discretion and remanded the

rule to FMCSA.

What can be done? Advocates would like to offer some suggestions for Congressional consideration. First, we need to have the information and we would recommend requiring a detailed oversight

report on curbside ch ch ch ch operating safety. Congress should

ask the DOT Inspector General or another Federal oversight orga-
25

nization, such as GAO, to conduct an in-depth evaluation of

curbside ch ch ch ch operations that identifies how many there are,

which ones are successfully operating or evading State and Federal

compliance requirements and what needs to be done to ensure a

high level of public safety.

Second, we need more stringent State bus inspection programs.

Third, we need to accelerate the basic reform of safety data reporting and compliance reviews. This has been a recommendation of

the NTSB on their most wanted list since 1999.

We also need to upgrade the testing requirements for both entry

level CDLs and special endorsements, especially those for ch ch ch

ch operations. And finally, we need to require entry level commercial ch ch vehicle and advanced ch ch ch ch driver training requirements for actually operating a ch ch ch ch.

This is the conclusion of my testimony. There is much work to

be done, and Advocates would very much like to work with this

Committee to ensure that no matter whether you get on a plane

or get on a train, or use a bus, that you ought to be guaranteed

the same level of safety by our Federal Government.

Thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Ms. Golden.

Ms. GOLDEN. Thank you.

More than 15 years ago, I watched with exhilaration and pride

as the first President Bush signed the Americans With Disabilities

Act, granting millions of people with disabilities comprehensive

civil rights. Exhilaration because it was the culmination of work by

thousands of people with disabilities and our supporters, and pride

because my colleagues and I at the Disability Rights Education and

Defense Fund, a national law and policy center on disability civil

rights, had made a significant contribution to the ADA. We have

been deeply involved in its unfolding ever since.

As our society recently gave our final farewell to Rosa Parks, I

was reminded that the Montgomery bus boycott she started fully

integrated those buses in 1955. But in 1998, more than 40 years

later, people with disabilities were still waiting for the right to ride

the long distance bus. How long, we asked, must we wait.

Then almost eight years ago, one of the last pieces of the ADA

fell into place when the U.S. Department of Transportation issued

the rules guaranteeing disability access in intercity bus travel. As

that regulation was implemented, we saw companies that had supported the ADA and companies that had resisted it come into compliance with that landmark law.

In my own life, what once would have been impossible became

unremarkable when one day a few years ago I needed transport between two major cities in Texas, my State of origin, and I had a

smooth and anonymous trip on an accessible lift-equipped over-therh d bus.

But in the last few years, the rise of curbside operators that completely disregard the ADA has meant that no longer are all transportation options available to people with disabilities. I will address what the ADA requires of these companies, at least the major

things, with a lot of the details in my written testimony. The key

to bus access for mobility impaired people, who like me, can’t use
26

the steps, is the ADA’s requirement that all new buses must be

wheelchair accessible.

The cost issue for this is ameliorated by a DOT subsidy program

unrelated to the ADA. But most curbside operators do not obtain

new buses. They get used buses, which means they fall under what

the Americans With Disabilities Act requires the interim service

requirements. They are the same ones a big company like Greyhound must follow at first, until its entire bus fleet is accessible,

so that it graduates out of this category.

But in the case of an operator using used buses, like the companies we are talking about, they would be required to follow the interim requirements indefinitely. And that means, as Ms. Sandberg

stated earlier, the company is allowed to require a rider with a disability to give up to 48 hours advance notice. But then it must provide accessible service on the bus run the person requested, and

not at another time.

In narrow circumstances, such a company, if it is small, may provide an equivalent service instead, that is, service in a different vehicle, as long as it departs as soon as the main vehicle, goes as

quickly to the same destination, costs the same and provides an

equal service in every other way. This is really only practical with

an accessible bus.

Though, if a company is going, say, from New York to Boston at

noon on Tuesday, and it has several buses going at the same time

to the same destination point, it would be okay under the equivalency standard for only one of these buses to provide wheelchair access. Other than in this narrow circumstance, the equivalency provision does not help the curbside operators very much. They are

still required by the ADA to provide an accessible vehicle on any

run, as long as an individual with a disability provides 48 hours

advance notice.

There are also general non-discrimination issues which prohibit

excluding the blind travelers discussed earlier, and compliance

with those rules costs nothing. There are also rest stop requirements, training requirements and information collection provisions

which require the companies confirm any accessibility request in

writing and documenting any failure to provide accessible service

to the individual.

Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Hamilton.

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my

name is Bruce Hamilton. I am the President of Amalgamated Transit Union National Local 1700, representing about 4,000 employees

of Greyhound Lines.

It is a pleasure to be here today to speak on behalf of our members, as well as members of other ATU locals representing workers

who work with Peter Pan Lines and Bonanza Lines and other carriers who provide intercity bus service in the U.S.

Thank you very much for holding this hearing, and thank you for

inviting the ATU to participate. Having driven a Greyhound bus

for almost 30 years, I know first-hand the level of skill and training

that is required, as well as the importance of maintaining a fleet

that meets or exceeds Federal safety standards. Safety is of promi-
27

nent importance to the ATU. That is why we work closely with the

industry and with our employers, both in the development of driver

safety and vehicle standards, and the implementation of those and

other Federal standards in the workplace.

The Greyhound driver and maintenance training programs,

which were developed in partnership with the ATU, are examples

of our joint commitment not only to meeting Federal standards, but

to exceeding them. These training programs, which are widely recognized as the best in the industry, ensure that every driver and

mechanic has competed extensive hands-on training covering all

DOT driver and vehicle safety requirements, as well as additional

safe driving skills, emergency evacuation practices and health and

safety precautions. Drivers and mechanics also attend frequent refresher courses on a variety of these issues.

The ATU is proud of the safe, efficient, friendly and affordable

intercity bus service that our members provide across this Country.

We are dedicated to ensuring that the companies whose employees

we represent are able to continue to provide a valuable service to

the traveling public.

Unfortunately, the continuation of this service has been threatened recently by the emergence of these numerous fringe bus operations that is the subject of this hearing today. Reports from passengers, ATU members, other legitimate bus providers and State

and local and Federal officials, paint a picture of curbside operators

that too often fail to comply with Federal rules governing hours of

service, drug and alcohol testing, medical examinations, CDLs,

proper registration, licensing, insurance and maintenance practices. In addition, there are numerous reports and complaints that

these carriers fail to safely dispose of waste products and are not

in compliance with the accessibility standards set by the ADA.

By ignoring these laws, these companies are able to undercut established carriers such as Greyhound and Peter Pan that follow

Federal rules and support good jobs for their employees. Recent

media reports have documented several serious accidents involving

curbside operators within the last year, including two bus fires and

a pedestrian fatality. As well as questionable incidents, including

a recent incident where a driver fled the scene when police

launched a surprise inspection of bus operations in New York’s

Chinatown. These incidents and others are explored further in my

written testimony.

What I really want to speak to you about today is what my fellow

ATU members have themselves witnessed while sharing the rh ds

with these other carriers. The most common complaints heard from

ATU members about curbside operators concern their erratic and

dangerous driving behavior. Drivers frequently report being cut off

by these carriers, excessive speeding, constant lane changes, and

driving in the prohibited left lane.

It is also not uncommon for a Greyhound or Peter Pan driver to

see these vehicles broken down at the side of the rh d. In these instances, good Samaritan ATU members have stopped to pick up

stranded passengers and have delivered them to their destinations

without requesting payment.

Members have reported seeing vehicles owned by these companies doing routine maintenance, such as oil change and other en-
28

gine work, in empty parking lots or on the side of the rh d. This

evidences a failure to have adequate maintenance and inspection

facilities, as required under the Federal regulations.

In Boston, ATU members working out of the same terminal as

the drivers for these carriers have reported that many of the drivers do not speak English. Since the ability to read and speak

English is required of any commercial ch ch vehicle driver, these

experiences call into question the driver’s qualifications and validity of their CDLs.

Our members also regularly hear complaints from passengers

who have previously traveled with curbside carriers. These include

unsafe driving practices, inability to communicate with the driver,

unsanitary or inoperable restroom facilities, the lack of anyone to

help with baggage, and numerous other complaints. Similarly, passengers with disabilities have reported being turned away by

curbside operators and often told to go to Greyhound for accessible

service.

These reports of incidents should come as no surprise to Federal

officials. Recent FMCSA compliance reviews indicate that low cost

operators score dramatically low, below the national average in

terms of safety. There is no excuse for continuing to allow these unsafe companies on the rh d. We must be more aggressive with the

enforcement of safety regulations, the penalties must be significant

enough to deter violations and follow-up must ensure continued

compliance.

By allowing a fringe element of the industry to evade basic requirements, legitimate operators are placed in an impossible competitive position. More importantly, the safety and well-being of

passengers and other highway users is needlessly jeopardized.

There is simply no reason for this double standard to exist. Federal, State and local officials must institute measures that will protect the traveling public from this growing safety threat on our Nation’s highways.

Thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Pantuso.

Mr. PANTUSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

DeFazio, members of the Committee.

ABA is the primary trade association representing the private

over-the-rh d bus industry and has 800 bus operator members who

represent in total about 65 percent of all the private buses on the

rh d today. ABA’s members provide all types of transportation services.

Today’s hearing exposes a real threat, not only to the bus industry, to the transportation system, but especially to the 774 million

individuals who travel by bus annually. The problem of unregulated, unfit, ill-policed ch ch ch ch companies is one of growing concern. And we agree with Administrator Sandberg: our concerns are

for all passenger carriers who do not comply with in the boundaries

of the law and that safety is a primary concern.

But Mr. Chairman, let me be clear. We are talking about an industry with a stellar safety record, and the companies we are talking about, the curbside operators, do not represent the industry
29

and are in fact a black eye for the industry, operating outside of

the law.

Let me define curbside operators and the harm that they can and

will eventually cause. Let me also be clear that this is not a ‘‘David

versus Goliath’’ issue. In an industry that is primarily made up of

mom and pop companies, these operators, the curbside operators,

are some of the largest in the industry, and in fact, promote themselves as such.

The operators I am describing bh st of providing low cost service

between cities, as you earlier described, Mr. Chairman. And their

service begins and ends on street corners. Typically they have no

maintenance program, let alone maintenance facilities, and they

seemingly operate on a shoestring.

The carriers also operate in defiance of Federal, State and local

laws. Chief among their deficiencies is the lack of wheelchair accessible buses in their fleets. The Americans With Disabilities Act that

requires as of this October that large scheduled carriers have at

least 50 percent of their fleet lift-equipped and provide 48 hour

service and should have been buying ch ches for the last 6 years

with lifts have been doing so. But these carriers have not been following those rules and regulations. Wheelchair lifts are not cheap,

as was pointed out, at $40,000 per lift and a cost of $40 million to

the industry annually.

Curbside operators have no wheelchair lifts, so therefore they

have no ability to comply with the ADA law. And typically, as was

noted, they direct their customers who are in need of lift-equipped

ch ches to Trailways, Greyhound and other reputable carriers.

All interstate bus companies are licensed by the FMCSA, and

FMCSA is supposed to license only carriers who are fit, willing and

able to abide by the law and the regulations of the Secretary of

Transportation. The Secretary may in fact invoke authority of any

carrier that fails to comply with the regulations.

However, FMCSA allows curbside operators who are in clear violation of the ADA law a civil right operating authority, arguing it

cannot use ADA violations to deny authority to any carrier.

FMCSA argues that the ADA bus regulations promulgated in 1998

by the Secretary of Transportation are not in fact regulations of the

Secretary of Transportation and cannot be used to determine fitness.

The position is unsound legally, and as a matter of public policy,

lacks any common sense. FMCSA’s view allows a violation of the

law if the law is enforced by another agency. Even if it does abdicate its responsibility for the service requirements under the ADA

law, it cannot foist responsibility for the ADA equipment requirements and the purchase requirements on any other agency.

FMCSA is required to enforce Federal DOT safety regulations.

As has been noted, many of the curbside operators have well documented lists of safety deficiencies. They lack proper equipment,

trained drivers, safety and security training and protocols for environmental waste.

Even worse, some of these operators do not have operating authority. Recently, Dragon Ch ch, for example, which operates between Washington and Albany, New York, had no authority to operate that route and had no application applying for authority.
30

Speeding, braking, traffic laws, ignoring other infractions of the

law, were detailed in one recent Washington Post column. Other

articles detail failures to aid passengers in emergency situations.

And even to heed the passengers’ warnings when the driver was

alerted when the bus was on fire.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, the

ABA believes that the laws concerning safety and security, as well

as compliance with ADA, should apply to all carriers. The safety

of passengers should not be compromised under any circumstance,

certainly not for cost. Denying authority or revoking the authority

of an operator who violates or refuses to abide by the laws should

be a mandatory function of FMCSA, and Congress should insist

that FMCSA and the Department of Transportation do what is required to prevent any carrier from making a mockery of our safe

transportation system.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I think this panel has provided some very solid

direction for the Committee. I am hopeful the Committee will

choose to follow up aggressively on a number of the concerns that

have been raised here, everything from the safety concerns to the

ADA concerns. I just hark back, we used to have a restaurant rating system, this would be sort of a minimal thing in Oregon, where

there is like a big seal on the door, A, B, C, you know, et cetera.

The Restaurant Association lobbied it out of existence because it

hurt their business too much when people were getting Cs and Ds.

But something like, put a big seal there and say, basically, caution, you are about to get on a bus that really hasn’t been inspected. But this is endemic, and we have to take some action here.

Otherwise we are going to be acting after a tragedy.

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for being here.

Mr. PETRI. I want to thank you also for your testimony. We may

be submitting some questions in writing to you. We have one more

panel and we are going to be having votes in about 10 minutes. So

we thank you very much.

The third panel consists of Mr. Pei Lin Liang, Owner of Fung

Wah Bus Transportation, Inc., and Mr. David Wang, Co-Owner and

Manager of Eastern Travel, Inc. Gentlemen, we thank you for submitting your prepared statements. As you know, we invite you to

make summary remarks for about five minutes.

We will begin with Mr. Liang. Please proceed.

TESTIMONY OF PEI LIN LIANG, PRESIDENT, FUNG WAH BUS

TRANSPORTATION, INC.; DAVID WANG, CO-OWNER AND MANAGER, EASTERN TRAVEL, INC.

Mr. LIANG. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I, Pei Lin Liang, am the President of

Fung Wah Bus Transportation, Inc. Our bus company began five

years ago. We service only one route: Boston to New York City and

back. Our fleet consists of 20 buses.

Our efforts to comply with ADA regulations include, however are

not limited to, establishment of company policy that complies with
31

ADA regulations, training of all employees to provide services to

the disabled and to budget for the future purchases of handicapped

accessible buses and other needed equipment to provide such service. At this time, we have one wheelchair accessible bus that runs

daily.

Bus safety and ADA regulatory compliance is a major concern of

Fung Wah. Our experience in maintaining ADA compliance has

been a difficult one. We have identified three issues of concern.

One, inconsistency in the law. As a bus service provider, we must

comply with many different bodies of law. Some of the other bodies

of law are not consistent with ADA regulations. How can we comply with inconsistent rules?

If a blind passenger with a service animal comes abh rd a Fung

Wah bus with only window seat available, we are confused as to

where to situate the service animal. DOT rules state that the aisle

must not be obstructed. We cannot separate the blind passenger

and her service animal. We cannot impose on a fellow passenger

to move out of his aisle seat. Furthermore, if we find a passenger

willing to move, again, where do we situate the service animal?

Second, practical issues with ADA compliance. All Fung Wah

drivers are trained to provide the correct care to our disabled passengers. Our drivers feel uncomfortable getting disabled passengers

of the opposite sex to and from the restroom. On busy weekends

and the like, a trip to New York City from Boston might take up

to six hours, where one or two trips to the restroom might be needed. There are many occasions that a disabled passenger might be

dropped off at the bus terminal to be picked up by another caregiver at the destination. During that trip, the driver must get that

passenger to the restroom.

Three, wheelchair accessible buses are expensive. Fung Wah is

a small company, and having to budget an extra 10 percent or

more for the wheelchair accessible buses has not been easy. The 10

percent increase in price is only for used buses. For new buses, the

price difference gets even greater.

Thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Now we turn to Mr. Wang.

Mr. WANG. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my

name is Aimin Wang, co-owner and managing director of Eastern

Travel and Tours, Inc. Thank you for inviting me to testify today

on the important topics of Curbside Operator: Bus Safety and ADA

Regulatory Compliance.

Eastern Travel and Tours, Inc. is a minority-owned small business, incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. It has

been in business as a ch ch carrier of passengers since 2002. Currently, we provide daily bus trips between New York City and

Washington, D.C., and limited service to Rockville, Maryland and

Richmond, Virginia under authority issued by the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration, MC-429551.

Here is an overview of the measures we took to ensure the safety

of our passengers. One, bus safety, A, controlled substance and alcohol use testing. We have a written company policy about substance abuse and testing. Each driver has a copy of it. We have

pre-employment tests, pre-transfer tests, random tests, post-acci-
32

dent tests, reasonable suspicion tests, return to duty test, follow up

test.

B, qualification of drivers. This is our ‘‘to-do’’ list for all drivers.

Complete application for employment, make inquiries to previous

employers, get a New York State DMV report through insurance

agents or driver. Resubmit a DMV report if the driver has been

employed more than one year. Copy the driver’s medical certificate.

Fill out the annual violations list, if the driver has been employed

more than one year.

Fill out the I-9 immigration form and review proper identification. Rh d test the driver. If the driver is new to the company, he

must complete the hours of service record to document all the work

in the previous seven days period. Get the driver to sign a release

and contact previous employers to check on drug and alcohol testing results.

Provide the driver with a copy of our drug and alcohol testing

company policy along with a contact name and phone number.

Send the driver for pre-employment drug test and do not use the

driver until we get the results of the drug test. Check the driver’s

CDL to be sure that he or she has the proper endorsements to

drive the bus.

In addition to the above, every driver must be 19A active under

the New York State law.

C, additional safety measures. We have a driver manual and a

written safety policy. In addition, we have ch ch vehicle accident

register, documented safety meetings and a ch ch vehicle maintenance logs. We also carefully control drivers’ hours of service, and

follow 10/60/70 rules.

Number two, ADA regulations. We are committed to protecting

the rights of persons with disabilities. All persons with disabilities

have priority when bh rding the bus. We ensure that the drivers

are trained to properly use lift and securement devices, properly

maintain lift and securement devices, and assist and treat individuals with disabilities who use the service in a respectful manner.

In addition, we have a log sheet to record special disability service requests. It includes customer name, telephone number and the

date the customers made the request. As a small operator, we do

have one ch ch equipped with a wheelchair lift, and it is running

on a daily basis.

As small business owners, we are working hard to run our business and to comply with the bus safety and ADA regulations. If

there are problems that need fixing, the Government agency should

help us deal with these problems. We do need more help from the

Department of Justice about ADA issues. We do need more help

from the Department of Homeland Security about terrorist issues.

And we do need more help from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration about safety issues.

And Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, we do

need your help to protect consumers’ rights, to prevent the price of

the bus tickets from Washington, D.C. to New York City from skyrocketing to $45 one way again.

Once again, thank you for inviting me to appear before you

today.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you both for your testimony.
33

We may be interrupted by some bells, and that will mean that

I and other members, Mr. DeFazio will have to go and vote. But

until that time, I would like to ask a few questions.

Do you have an association of curbside bus operators, or are you

each unaffiliated in any way?

Mr. WANG. We are unaffiliated. We tried to, we have an idea to

get a Chinatown bus association, so we can more control all our

Chinatown bus companies, that we can talk to each other, share

safety issues and ADA issues. That is in the planning, yes.

Mr. PETRI. How do you market to the public? Is it through web

sites, or word of mouth or probably a combination of means? Do

you advertise in the newspapers, or post your schedules on the

web?

Mr. WANG. Word of mouth is the most important. And a very few

on the internet. We have very few times to run in the newspaper.

It is all friends telling friends, telling family members. That is why

in the beginning we all would lose money. Now it is picking up, so

more and more people know us now.

Mr. PETRI. There are issues which in terms of communicating

with passengers, if you have passengers from a variety of different

communities, the drivers may not be able to communicate to all the

passengers, if the driver does not know English or if he does not

know whatever, the passengers probably speak a variety of different languages. They will not all know English, probably.

Mr. WANG. Yes. Most all our drivers speak English, because not

all of my drivers are Chinese. I have some Spanish drivers. The

rule is very clear, it says the driver has to speak enough English

to communicate with the officers and the DOT inspectors. But what

is called enough? Because I know one of my drivers, one inspector

inspected him, said he is okay. Then the other inspector put him

out of service, saying he could not speak English.

So it is very tough for us to control. What is the standard that

they have to speak English, the standard of spoken English? It is

very, very tough.

Mr. LIANG. I think that some drivers are stuttering. The Chinese

stutter, and sometimes the police, especially on the highway, so

they say, oh, you don’t speak English.

Mr. PETRI. We do have rules, and we argue about them, and they

exist for a good purpose, to help protect the public, and to make

sure that different people with handicaps or with other problems

have access to transportation services.

Do you have any ideas about what we could do that would help

improve compliance with the rules or opportunity for people to understand the rules, so that we can avoid lawsuits and putting people out of business and provide good service, and low cost service,

competition is a good thing. But it should be fair competition. If

you are competing by not abiding by the rules, that is not fair competition.

Mr. WANG. Yes, everybody knows that the rules about the wheelchair, usually it is 48 hours. For example, the Fung Wah, we run

the bus for the wheelchair. But another company, this is a bus that

used to go down, out of our company, this was leased, run the other

company, the wheelchair is a part of the schedule, use of the wheelchair.
34

Mr. PETRI. So you are saying, the 48 hours, for a smaller operator, notice of 48 hours in advance to be using a wheelchair, people

don’t understand that and don’t give you the 48 hours notice, it is

not fair for them to create that—you are not out of compliance?

Mr. WANG. Yes, but for 48 hours, because we do have a wheelchair lift on a daily basis. So if people call me in 48 hours, I can

switch the schedule to fit the person’s schedule. The answer is,

safety is always our top priority. We do not want to break down

a bus on the rh d. From my interest, I want people safe, no breakdown. If I keep breaking down on the rh d, nobody is going to take

my bus.

If we are safe, it is really a big issue, like a big company that

says, why I have so many customers. The people do not risk their

lives to save $5. Let’s say three months ago my internet sales price,

one way from New York to Washington, was $21. Greyhound is

$20. But we didn’t lose any customers. My sales are still going up.

Now maybe they increase about $23.

So if anybody just wants to save $2, put their life at risk? That

does not make sense.

Mr. PETRI. Well, we thank you very much for being here today.

How many buses do you operate, each of you?

Mr. WANG. My company only owns six buses. All the rest I am

leasing from outside.

Mr. PETRI. How many do you lease?

Mr. WANG. About three on the weekends. Friday to Sunday only.

Mr. PETRI. All right, so six to ten buses?

Mr. WANG. Nine total, yes.

Mr. PETRI. And you, sir?

Mr. LIANG. Twenty.

Mr. PETRI. Twenty? All right.

And are most of your interactions with State regulators, or are

you dealing with the Federal most of the time?

Mr. WANG. Both. New York DOT, like in New York State, the

New York DOT inspects us like every six months. We must go to

an inspection facility to inspect your bus every six months. And

also, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety, by random inspection, last

year I said about eight times to ten times, mostly in Chinatown,

New York and in Chinatown, Washington, D.C.

The person from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, they also come to our office every year to see all our documents, make sure we are complying with every regulation. They

also, whenever they come, they ask, do you have a wheelchair lift

bus. Every time, they do ask these questions, yes.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wang, your company, your driver value under the Federal

system is 74, which means that you basically are very close to falling into the lowest quartile, if you understand that. You are skating on the edge here. And a lot of it goes to hours of service. You

have had people who have been violating the rules by driving too

many hours, which is clearly a potential safety problem, as I mentioned earlier to the Administrator. Most often, or oftentimes driver

fatigue is identified.
35

What have you done to rectify that problem? Can you assure us

that this is not going to continue?

Mr. WANG. Yes, this driver has issues, because one of my drivers

gets out of service for, he didn’t write in the log book and this driver has been terminated right away. Because we tell him so many

times, hey, you have to keep, when you are on duty, you have to

write in the log book. He says, oh, okay, and never, and then the

last time they found it, he was terminated right away.

Also, the data is like statistics, you can see, we only have three

drivers that got inspected. Once you have one out, it affects your

score a lot. If I had 1,000 drivers, and have a couple out, then the

score would still be good.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. But it only takes one driver falling asleep

to kill a lot of people.

Mr. WANG. I know. We control, we are very seriously controlling

the hours of service for our drivers. Because we know if something

goes wrong, and if I break the law, then we have a lot of troubles.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. And then Mr. Liang, you have a failing

score. Your value is 86, meaning 86 percent perform better. You

have an extraordinary number of speeding violations. And then

other safety violations, following too closely, speeding, improper

lane change. This is very disturbing. I think that people who are

riding on your buses would be very disturbed to know about this.

You also have some duty time violations. What have you done to

rectify these problems? Can you assure us these have been taken

care of?

Mr. LIANG. Sir, I have experienced, I have some drivers talk

about their English is not so good. But they know how to talk to

the police. But I just spoke to some of the drivers about their stuttering, their English is the same. So sometimes the police, when

the police stop the buses, stop the driver, they want to talk about

some of the questions, some of the reasons. But they are stuttering.

So the police get the summons for the driver. That is the first

thing.

The second thing, in Connecticut, the signs are different. Example, Connecticut, the 95 in Connecticut, exit 3, this is the weigh

station. But the sign says no bus in the weigh station, no bus. But

the highway, 84 highway, the exit 73 and 74, have that bus, truck,

trailer, all commercial.

So when the bus passed the 95 exit, the second and third, some

of the police said, oh, you passed the weigh station. So they got a

summons, the first thing.

The second thing, I have the express, a mini-ch ch. Nobody

knows that. The mini-ch ch is 28 seats. When I drive the mini-ch

ch and 25 people are in the bus. But I go to the weigh station on

84, in the exits 73 and 74, the exit that is a weigh station. But I

got a summons that it is overweight. Why? Nobody knows. The police, why, you are overweight, your bus is overweight. That was recent, I got a ch ch summons.

Last year, around October, I went to the office in Massachusetts,

Boston. I showed them the ticket, ch ch summons. Last year in October.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I think just the number and the pattern, there

may be some capability of, you certainly have recourse to the court
36

systems in those States, and I am not certain whether these are

actually resolved or not, or they were ticketing and we don’t know

how they were resolved. Obviously your recourse is to the judges

in those States. But that is a very large number of speeding violations, particularly in Massachusetts.

My concerns are not assuaged here. But I really don’t have further questions at this point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. We thank you both for coming and for your testimony.

We are concerned with making sure that there is fair enforcement, but that there is also compliance. We are recognizing that,

especially when you are dealing with people who are not as fluent

in English and with some of the procedures and rules, that it is a

management problem for you, it is an enforcement problem for us.

I hope that you possibly, if you form some curbside operators association, it might help with communications between the enforcement agencies and your organizations, to help reduce misunderstandings or unfair enforcement or unfair competition by your organizations.

We thank you again for preparing the statements that you have

submitted and for your response to the questions today.

Thank you. And this hearing is adjourned.]

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175

Æ