U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

74–038 PDF 2011

THE PRICE OF UNCERTAINTY: HOW MUCH COULD 

DOT’S PROPOSED BILLION DOLLAR SERVICE 

RULE COST CONSUMERS THIS HOLIDAY SEASON? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

STIMULUS OVERSIGHT, AND GOVERNMENT 

SPENDING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

Serial No. 112–132 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL

RELATIONS AND PROCUREMENT REFORM

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma, Chairman 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on November 30, 2011 ...................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Statements of: 

Ed Nagle III. .............................................................................................. 42 

Glen Keysaw .............................................................................................. 48 

Robb Mackie .............................................................................................. 63 

Frank Miller .............................................................................................. 103 

Henry Jasny ............................................................................................... 111 

Jesse David ................................................................................................ 152 

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: 

The Honorable Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Safety Administration .................................. 3 

Marchelle Wood ......................................................................................... 150 

(1) 

THE PRICE OF UNCERTAINTY: HOW MUCH 

COULD DOT’S PROPOSED BILLION DOLLAR 

SERVICE RULE COST CONSUMERS THIS 

HOLIDAY SEASON? 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AFFAIRS, STIMULUS

OVERSIGHT, AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Jordan [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Jordan, DesJarlais, Labrador, Buerkle, 

Kelly, Issa, (ex officio), Kucinich, and Braley. 

Staff Present: Ali Ahmad, Communications Advisor; Michael R. 

Bebeau, Assistant Clerk; David Brewer, Counsel; Sharon Casey, 

Senior Assistant Clerk; Christopher Hixon, Deputy Chief Counsel, 

Oversight; Kristina M. Moore, Senior Counsel; Kristin L. Nelson, 

Professional Staff Member; Cheyenne Steel, Press Assistant; Sharon Meredith Utz, Research Analyst; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; Claire Coleman, Minority Counsel; Carla 

Hultberg, Minority Chief Clerk; Paul Kincaid, Minority Press Secretary; and Adam Koshkin, Minority Staff Assistant 

Mr. JORDAN. We welcome everyone to our hearing this morning, 

‘‘The Price of Uncertainty: How Much Could DOT’s Proposed Billion Dollar Service Rule Cost Consumers?’’ We want to get started. 

I’m glad we have our—my friend and ranking member here, Mr. 

Kucinich. I’ll start with our opening statements, and I’ve got a 

longer opening statement than normal, so I’ll read fast. 

This last week ordinary people across this great United States 

have engaged in the annual tradition of shopping for Christmas 

gifts, rising at predawn hours to take advantage of Black Friday 

sales and Cyber Monday deals. The shopping season is vital to the 

survival of so many small retailers. The vast majority of all retailers and 80 percent of all U.S. Communities depend solely on trucks 

to deliver and supply the products sold in stores or ordered online. 

At last count, trucks moved $8.3 trillion worth of goods annually, 

facilitating nearly 60 percent of the economy. 

Unfortunately, these merchants and professional truck drivers 

who bring the goods to market have a very real reason to be worried this year. The Department of Transportation Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration has produced a multibillion-dollar 

2 

regulation, the Hours of Service rule, that threatens to raise prices 

and cut revenues this holiday season, further jeopardizing our fragile economic recovery. DOT’s Hours of Service rule, which is one of 

only seven regulations, President Obama admitted, impose an annual cost of at least $1 billion on the economy. It is being reviewed 

at the White House as we speak. This regulation will hurt an array 

of job creators, from truckers to grocers to bakers and retailers, all 

of whom rely on trucking to operate. The rule, which has received 

nearly 30,000 comments, has been the subject of widespread and 

bipartisan concern. Critics of the rule include multiple Democratic 

Senators and the administration’s small business watchdog, the 

Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy. 

At this time I would like to enter into the record a comment letter from the Office of Advocacy to Administrator Ferro. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

3 


Insert offset folio 1 here 74038.001
4 


Insert offset folio 2 here 74038.002
5 


Insert offset folio 3 here 74038.003
6 


Insert offset folio 4 here 74038.004
7 


Insert offset folio 5 here 74038.005
8 


Insert offset folio 6 here 74038.006
9 


Insert offset folio 7 here 74038.007
10 

Mr. JORDAN. In February 2011 I joined with a bipartisan group 

of 122 House Members who wrote the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary, Mr. LaHood, to express the concern that altering the current Hours of Service rules is unnecessary and would result in more trucks and drivers on the road to transport the same 

amount of goods, increasing final product costs and congestion on 

the Nation’s already overcrowded highways. This letter points out 

that the proposed rules could actually decrease safety because they 

could cause drivers to rush, adding stress, and increasing the likelihood of an accident. 

While I support the goals of increased highway safety and reducing the driver fatigue, this rule appears to be a solution in search 

of a problem. Even DOT admits that, ‘‘the data shows no decline 

in highway safety since the implementation of the 2003 Hours of 

Service rule and its readoption in 2005, and the 2007 interim final 

rule.’’ Moreover, trucking-related accidents are at an all-time low. 

The Department of Transportation’s own data shows that 2009 saw 

the largest annual decline in fatal trucking accidents on record. 

Meanwhile, the number of truck miles traveled and the number of 

registered trucks has increased from 221 billion miles in 2004 to 

288 billion miles today. The number of registered large trucks has 

also increased by nearly 3 million. Accordingly, it appears the current rules are working and are striking the appropriate balance. 

In order to justify the expensive regulation, it appears the DOT 

is playing games with the numbers and is using fuzzy math in an 

attempt to justify their action. One of our witnesses today will explain how DOT is rigging the system. 

At this time I would like to also enter into the record a report 

by Edgeworth Economics entitled ‘‘Review of FMCSA’s Regulatory 

Impact Analysis for the 2010–2011 Hours of Service Rule.’’ Again, 

without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 8 here 74038.008
12 


Insert offset folio 9 here 74038.009
13 


Insert offset folio 10 here 74038.010
14 


Insert offset folio 11 here 74038.011
15 


Insert offset folio 12 here 74038.012
16 


Insert offset folio 13 here 74038.013
17 


Insert offset folio 14 here 74038.014
18 


Insert offset folio 15 here 74038.015
19 


Insert offset folio 16 here 74038.016
20 


Insert offset folio 17 here 74038.017
21 


Insert offset folio 18 here 74038.018
22 


Insert offset folio 19 here 74038.019
23 


Insert offset folio 20 here 74038.020
24 


Insert offset folio 21 here 74038.021
25 


Insert offset folio 22 here 74038.022
26 


Insert offset folio 23 here 74038.023
27 


Insert offset folio 24 here 74038.024
28 


Insert offset folio 25 here 74038.025
29 


Insert offset folio 26 here 74038.026
30 


Insert offset folio 27 here 74038.027
31 


Insert offset folio 28 here 74038.028
32 


Insert offset folio 29 here 74038.029
33 


Insert offset folio 30 here 74038.030
34 

Mr. JORDAN. This report highlights the inventive methodologies 

and improbable assumptions DOT uses to increase the apparent 

net benefits of the rule. When real-world assumptions are used, 

this study finds that the rule will impose a net cost to society. I 

also want to emphasize that there is a strong bipartisan agreement 

on the need to ensure and improve highway safety; however, it is 

my sincere belief that the regulation as currently proposed could 

actually have a negative impact on safety. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to bring transparency to the 

rulemaking process so that we understand the full consequences of 

Federal regulation before it becomes law. And with that, I now 

yield to the distinguished member from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding 

this hearing and for the opportunity to make this presentation. 

This question is being framed around how much the proposed rule, 

which limits the number of hours commercial truck drivers can be 

on the road, could cost consumers. But I would respectfully submit 

there are far more appropriate questions: whether this proposed 

rule will help ensure that all of our loved ones will be safe and able 

to enjoy each other’s company, which the proposed rule, that is 

what it’s all about, is saving lives. 

Truck driver fatigue is a serious safety problem that threatens 

everyone who gets on a highway every day. Each year on average 

4,000 people are needlessly killed and 100,000 are injured, 100,000 

are injured in truck crashes. Evidence suggests that truck driver 

fatigue is a major factor in these crashes. 

Under the Hours of Service rule currently in effect, truck drivers 

can drive more than 77 hours a week. Think about that. You know, 

we’re all used to thinking about a 40-hour week. When Congress 

is in session we probably put in an 80-hour week, some of us at 

least, I would say, and you get tired. But if you’re driving a truck 

with all of that machinery and mass in motion, there are consequences when fatigue sets in. There’s a human dimension here 

that cannot be ignored, and under the amounts of driving currently 

allowed, 65 percent of drivers reported that they often or sometimes felt drowsy while driving; 48 percent say they’ve fallen asleep 

while driving the previous year. 

I will say this again. You know, some of us here have been in 

legislatures, some of us had to drive a great distance to legislatures. When you’re on a schedule and the legislature is in session, 

you know, if you have a long drive you can get drowsy. It’s happened to me, it’s happened to all of us. It happens. And we have 

to realize that truck drivers are not immune from this. You get the 

combination of these tired truckers driving loads of 80,000 pounds; 

it can make a lethal weapon that we don’t want alongside our families driving on highways. 

There are brave people in the audience today who came to support stricter standards for truck drivers because they’ve been unfortunate to have felt firsthand the devastating effects of truck 

driver fatigue. 

Now, Ed Slattery is here with his son Peter, and they’ve submitted a statement for the record, Mr. Chairman, which I would 

like—but I want to read from parts of his statement so that members of this subcommittee and others will know the real costs of 

35 

truck crashes involving tired truckers. And so, you know, without 

objection, I would like to submit his entire statement for the 

record. 

Mr. JORDAN. So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

36 


Insert offset folio 31 here 74038.031
37 


Insert offset folio 32 here 74038.032
38 

Mr. KUCINICH. But I want to quote from something. It’s a compelling testimony. Mr. Slattery, thank you and your son for being 

here. 

‘‘It was a beautiful, clear day on August 16, 2010, when my family’s lives were changed forever. My wife Susan and our two sons, 

Peter and Matthew, were returning home from a big family reunion in Rocky River, Ohio, which happens to be in my district. 

That was the home of Susan’s parents, George and Ginger Palmer. 

Susan grew up in Cleveland, and all of her family still lives in 

Ohio.’’ 

Mr. Slattery writes, ‘‘I would have been with them, but I wasn’t 

able to travel because I was recovering from shoulder surgery. As 

they neared the 190-mile marker on the Ohio Turnpike in 

Streetsboro at around 11:45 a.m., a truck driver behind the wheel 

of a triple trailer truck had fallen asleep and crashed into the back 

of our car.’’ 

Mr. Slattery writes, ‘‘In an instant I lost my wife, and Peter and 

Matthew were in emergency surgery. Following the impact with 

our car, the truck went on to hit two other semis and four more 

passenger vehicles before stopping at a divider and bursting into 

flames. The weeks following the crash were spent juggling surgeries for both boys, meeting with doctors, lawyers, and funeral directors, all while ensuring that someone was always at Peter and 

Matthew’s side. For some time, I spent each day wondering if Matthew would make it to the next. 

After about a month, the boys were stable enough to return to 

Baltimore where we began a journey dealing with the long-term effects of a crash, including the loss of my wife Susan. Peter, who 

was suffering a broken pelvis and facial fracture, was conscious 

and being moved to a helicopter when he overheard the paramedics 

pronounce his mother dead. He will recover physically, but the 

long-term psychological effects are yet to be determined. Matthew, 

who is in a coma from massive head trauma, continues to make 

progress every day but is permanently disabled and requires 

around-the-clock care. Our lives will never be the same, but I can 

work to reduce truck driver fatigue so that another family will not 

have to suffer the tremendous loss that my family lives with every 

single day. If adopted, a proposed rule will save lives, improve driver health, reduce costs to society. I urge this subcommittee not to 

impede the progress the Department of Transportation has made 

to improve the HOS rule and protect the safety and well-being of 

our families.’’ 

Mr. Slattery and Peter, who are here, I just want you to know 

that we are going to be very sensitive to the concerns that are expressed here, and we thank you very much for attending this hearing so that you can listen to the testimony. 

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

Mr. JORDAN. Let me thank the ranking member for his statement. 

[The information follows:] 

39 


Insert offset folio 33 here 74038.033
40 


Insert offset folio 34 here 74038.034
41 

Mr. JORDAN. Let me also express on behalf of the chair and the 

entire committee our sympathies to the Slattery family and to your 

son Peter and the loss you have suffered. Obviously, we are all concerned about safety and we just want to make sure that whatever 

rule is put forward does, in fact, protect people as best we can, but 

also takes into account the economic concerns that I think are valid 

as well, so I appreciate that from our ranking member. 

Does the gentlelady from New York wish to make an opening 

statement? 

Ms. BUERKLE. No, thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. We’ll get right—does the gentleman, the doctor from 

Tennessee have anything? 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. We’ll get right to our witnesses, and let me 

introduce, first we have Mr. Ed Nagle is president and CEO of 

Nagle Companies in Walbridge, Ohio, and has been involved in the 

trucking industry for over 30 years. 

We also have Mr. Glen Keysaw, who is the executive director of 

transportation and logistics for the Associated Food Stores Company. 

Mr. Robb MacKie is President and CEO of the American Bakers 

Association and has served on the food industry coalition for Hours 

of Service regulation, so worked directly with the issue in front of 

us. 

We have Mr. Frank Miller, director of logistics at Badcock & 

More, a home furniture company headquartered in Mulberry, Florida, and has worked on transportation issues for over 20 years. 

We have with us also Mr. Henry Jasny, he was vice president 

and general counsel for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. 

And Dr. Jesse David, who is an economist and senior vice president at Edgeworth Economics with 15 years of experience in regulatory policy evaluations. 

Pursuant to the rules of the committee, all witnesses are sworn 

in, so if you will just please stand and raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, and if you do, just nod in the affirmative. Let the record 

show that everyone answered in the affirmative. 

STATEMENTS OF ED NAGLE III, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NAGLE 

COMPANIES; GLEN KEYSAW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF 

TRANSPORTATION/LOGISTICS, ASSOCIATED FOOD STORES, 

INC., ROBB MACKIE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN 

BAKERS ASSOCIATION; FRANK MILLER, DIRECTOR OF LOGISTICS, BADCOCK & MORE; HENRY JASNY, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, ADVOCATE FOR HIGHWAY 

AND AUTO SAFETY; AND JESSE DAVID, PH.D., SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT, EDGEWORTH ECONOMICS 

Mr. JORDAN. And we’re going to start with Mr. Nagle, and then 

we’ll just move down the line. You guys know the rules, you get 

5 minutes, and stay as close to that as you can, and then we’ll get 

to our questions once we’ve heard from all six of you. Mr. Nagle. 

42 

STATEMENT OF ED NAGLE III 

Mr. NAGLE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. In addition to being employed in the trucking industry over 30 years, I grew up in it, as my late grandfather began 

driving after World War II and then ran several trucking companies, including his own until retirement. Our company, we service 

most of the top ten food manufacturers as well as the largest food 

distributors in the United States. 

There are two elements of this proposed Hours of Service reform 

that will critically affect the industry: the reduction in the allowable driving hours from 11 to 10 and combined with the 34-hour 

restart provision that requires two consecutive midnight to 6 a.m. 

off duty periods. For our company, this effectively reduces our ability to generate revenue by 17 percent, as in our operation our drivers would be limited to working 50 hours a week from the current 

60. Our cost of operations is a fixed cost of $75 an hour with our 

equipment. Changing it to this proposed 50 hours, our fixed cost 

now becomes $90 an hour with nothing more than the stroke of a 

pen. 

FMCSA states that ‘‘we note that the proposed rule,’’ so on and 

so forth, without significantly compromising the driver’s ability to 

do their jobs and earn a living. And I need to ask Secretary 

LaHood what his definition of ‘‘significant’’ is. Basically they’re admitting that a driver’s ability to perform his duties and earn an income will be compromised. Our truck payments, our drivers’ wages, 

our insurance costs and all the associated costs of business don’t 

go down just because our ability to produce revenue has been restricted. 

The current proposal is effectively influenced by the Teamster 

Union LTL daytime-only drivers. That represents 10 percent of the 

entire industry workforce, and by placing great emphasis on the 

studies that are essentially based on an irrelevant percentage of 

the entire trucking industry is a smokescreen. It is an illusion that 

was being proposed will be a one-fit-for-all panacea of solutions for 

an industry that is safer today than at any time in recorded history. 

In order for our company just to break even with all the proposed 

constraints, we would need to raise our rates about 20 percent. 

That will have a serious hyperinflationary consequence on our 

economy, and households will be suffering the most. 

Since 2003 there have really been no prior—excuse me, since 

1938 there have been no substantive changes in the Hours of Service. Since 2003 this will be the fifth proposed change. What has occurred in our industry over the last 8 years requiring so many legislative actions? Sadly, those of us who eat, sleep, breathe, and live 

transportation feel that politics is becoming the pulse of our industry and not pragmatic supply-chain solutions. Since 2003 there’s 

been a 33 percent drop in truck-related fatalities as well as a 40 

percent drop in truck-related injuries; not only a percentage basis, 

but on a per million-mile-basis has been significantly reduced. 

Our company is an irregular route carrier, meaning that we have 

no predictability in our scheduled freight. Drivers encounter events 

every day that are unplanned and totally out of their control. We 

have lost a very important provision starting in 2003 and elimiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:56 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74038.TXT APRIL
43 

nated in its entirety in 2005, which is the split-sleeper berth provision. That was one fundamental log book provision that gave our 

drivers the flexibility to comply with Hours of Service in the areas 

in which they get involved in unpredictable and out-of-control situations. The receivers will not let us drop, you know, our equipment, 

stay there for 10 hours, and we’re being forced at times to run illegally because we’re out of hours until we get to a safe haven. 

As an industry, we are asking that even though FMCSA acknowledges the lack of available rest areas, provide us the opportunity and the drivers to remain legal with the flexibility of finding 

a place that can accommodate them comfortably. 

So in summary, please keep the 11-hour driving rule, maintain 

the current 34-hour restart provision that would not include two 

consecutive midnight to 6 a.m. off duty, and if we can continue to 

get that sleeper berth provision, that would be a tremendous benefit to the industry. 

Thank you very much, and best wishes to you and your families 

for the holiday season. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Nagle. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Nagle follows:] 

44 


Insert offset folio 35 here 74038.035
45 


Insert offset folio 36 here 74038.036
46 


Insert offset folio 37 here 74038.037
47 


Insert offset folio 38 here 74038.038
48 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Keysaw. 

STATEMENT OF GLEN KEYSAW 

Mr. KEYSAW. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Glen Keysaw. I’m the director of transportation and logistics for Associated Food Stores based in Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Associated is a retail cooperative founded in 1940. We’re a privately held company that provides grocery products and services to 

about 500 independently owned retail supermarkets in eight Western States from three warehouse distribution centers. 

Thank you for inviting me today, today’s hearing on pending 

Hours of Service rules. My testimony is presented on behalf of Associated Food Stores and the Food Marketing Institute, which represents retail supermarkets and food wholesalers throughout the 

United States. I plan to summarize and ask that my entire written 

testimony and attachments be made a part of the record. 

Mr. Chairman, Associated Foods strongly supports the current 

Hours of Service regulations. We do not support the new Hours of 

Service rules that are being proposed by the Department of Transportation for the following important reasons: Pending Hours of 

Service rules will not be good for the grocery store industry as they 

will not be good for my company, and, in particular, our truck drivers. 

The proposed Hours of Service rules will also negatively impact 

consumers who shop for groceries in our stores. If DOT decides to 

finalize this rulemaking, it will adversely affect my company in 

terms of costs. I’ve done a quick economic estimate on the proposed 

rules to our Farr West warehouse. Under the HOS proposal, if 

we’re to maintain the same level of service to our retail accounts 

from our Ogden facility, we will need to make a capital investment 

of $1.7 million for new equipment, namely tractors and trailers. A 

new tractor with a sleeper costs about $116,000 and the trailer 

costs about $75,000. We will incur increased costs, such as salaries 

and benefits for additional drivers, totaling more than $200,000 annually. In this regard, I’m very worried from a strict safety perspective that we won’t have enough qualified drivers available to 

fill our future needs under the new HOS rules. 

I should mention that since the inception of the current HOS 

rules, Associated truck fleet has traveled 52 million miles. During 

this time we have had eight preventible DOT reportable accidents. 

This translates to 1.5 accidents per million miles compared to the 

national average of 0.7 accidents per million miles. In addition, Associated has not had a single inspection resulting in our equipment 

or drivers being put out of service. We are proud of our safety 

record and don’t want to see any changes that might negatively impact it. 

My company will also incur additional fuel and maintenance 

costs for newly acquired equipment over $100,000 along with expenditures for insurance and miscellaneous fixed costs. As such, 

the total costs of the rulemaking for our Ogden warehouse will be 

well over $2 million. For an industry that operates on a profit margin of 1 percent, any new costs resulting from the Hours of Service 

proposal will be felt immediately. 

49 

Earlier I mentioned that the DOT rulemaking won’t be good for 

our truck drivers. With its reduced drive time, the rules will mean 

more layovers for them. My company is proud of the fact that over 

65 percent of our drivers are able to go home and be with their 

families after they complete their shift, but this won’t be the case 

under the Hours of Service proposal. This means our drivers’ quality of life will suffer. 

I have a letter from one of our drivers who traditionally does a 

route from the Farr West warehouse to stores in Twin Falls, Idaho, 

that I would like to enter into the record. This run takes about 10 

to 11 hours. The reason he likes this job and this route is that he 

gets to spend the night at home with his family, but under the new 

rules he will have to sleep in his truck 2 to 3 nights a week. 

Consumers, unfortunately, will be paying more for groceries because our transportation costs will increase. The proposed rules 

will also mean increased transportation costs for all agriculture-related sectors, from farmers all the way to retail. 

Sadly, consumers who live in rural areas will be hurt most in 

terms of how much they will be paying for their groceries because 

of this rulemaking. With the current economic recession, we can’t 

afford any unnecessary and costly regulations such as the new 

Hours of Service proposal. Higher prices for groceries will be tough 

for families who are already struggling financially, especially the 

14 million Americans who are unemployed, the millions of seniors 

living on fixed incomes, and for those who are dependent on domestic feeding programs such as WIC, whose benefits won’t buy as 

much when food prices go up. It’s difficult to project how much the 

proposed Hours of Service rules will ultimately cost consumers, but 

we know there will be increased costs that will unfortunately have 

to be passed along. 

To conclude, we believe that current Hours of Service rules are 

working well, and we see no quantifiable reason to change them. 

The rules that are on the books are easily understood, they are promoting safety and compliance. Over the past 7 years since the current Hours of Service rules were put in place, fatalities and injuries 

involving large commercial vehicles are down by more than onethird. As a matter of fact, fatality and injury statistics are at their 

lowest levels, even though the number of miles driven is increasing. Our industry strongly supports the current Hours of Service 

framework, and it should be retained. Thanks for allowing me to 

participate. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Keysaw. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Keysaw follows:] 

50 


Insert offset folio 39 here 74038.039
51 


Insert offset folio 40 here 74038.040
52 


Insert offset folio 41 here 74038.041
53 


Insert offset folio 42 here 74038.042
54 


Insert offset folio 43 here 74038.043
55 


Insert offset folio 44 here 74038.044
56 


Insert offset folio 45 here 74038.045
57 


Insert offset folio 46 here 74038.046
58 


Insert offset folio 47 here 74038.047
59 


Insert offset folio 48 here 74038.048
60 


Insert offset folio 49 here 74038.049
61 


Insert offset folio 50 here 74038.050
62 


Insert offset folio 51 here 74038.051
63 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. MacKie. 

STATEMENT OF ROBB MACKIE 

Mr. MACKIE. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my 

name is Robb MacKie, and I’m the President and CEO of the 

American Bakers Association. ABA is the voice of the wholesale 

baking industry and advocates on behalf of the $102 billion baking 

industry, employing 630,000 skilled employees and more than 700 

baking and supplier facilities around the country. ABA members 

produce bread, rolls, Thanksgiving pies, tortillas, and many other 

wholesome, nutritious, baked products for America’s families. 

The wholesale baking industry currently operates the fourth 

largest fleet of vehicles behind the Postal Service, FedEx,and UPS. 

ABA greatly appreciates this opportunity to provide its perspective 

on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Hours of 

Service regulation. 

The majority of ABA members utilize their own fleets of vehicles 

for the interstate distribution of baked goods to their customers. 

The industry views itself as bakers and not as trucking companies. 

Driving is incidental to the true function of route sales representatives, which is sales and customer service. The wholesale baking 

industry makes its living on delivering the freshest possible product to grocery stores and restaurants. In addition to the safety of 

the industry’s employees and the public, the idea of a truck with 

a company or family name on the side of it involved in a traffic accident is a huge incentive to operate in a safe manner. 

The nature of many bakers’ distribution systems involve operators making repeated and sometimes lengthy stops during the 

course of their work day. Route sales representatives may make a 

couple of dozen stops in a single day. They spend more than half 

of their time in nondriving activities, servicing the customer, stocking shelves or in-store marketing activities. 

The rule at the heart of today’s hearing marks the fourth major 

rewrite of this regulation by FMCSA in the past 12 years. The current Hours of Service regulations have been effective in improving 

safety, as demonstrated by the current crash data trends. The safety performance of trucks has improved at unprecedented rates 

under the current Hours of Service regulations. The number of 

fatal accidents and injuries involving large trucks have declined by 

more than a third to historically low levels. Given these facts, we 

find it difficult to understand the rationale for added regulation, especially one that even FMCSA recognizes would disproportionately 

and negatively impact the short-haul segment of the trucking industry, of which bakers are part. 

Typically DOT has treated the vehicles that our industry operates similarly even though, as you can see, they’re very different 

vehicles indeed. According to FMCSA, the relative costs and benefits differ considerably between the long-haul and the short-haul 

segments. Most of the costs arise on the short-haul segment, but 

all of the purported benefits come from reducing long-haul crashes. 

Fatigue and fatigue-related crashes are considerably less common 

in short-haul operations, where the operator is typically returning 

home at the end of their work day. 

64 

FMCSA crash data indicates that commercial motor vehicles less 

than 26,000 pounds account for 52 percent of registered trucks but 

account for 10 percent of fatal accidents and 14 percent of nonfatal 

accidents. Clearly, any fatality is too many, but logic and cost-benefit analysis dictates that any regulatory effort be proportional to 

the risk. 

Another undue burden would be created by the proposed change 

in the 34-hour restart provision, requiring drivers to rest a minimum of two consecutive complete nights. This would do little to 

promote driver safety in short-haul operations and wreak havoc 

with finely tuned distribution systems. A typical route sales representative will not have two consecutive days off, as bakeries are 

down on Tuesdays and Sundays. Also, most deliveries by bakers 

take place in the early morning, the very hours required by the 

rule that they be at rest, to ensure that local grocery store shelves 

are well stocked with the freshest possible product for customers. 

Many baked goods have 4 to 5 days of shelf life, making timely delivery critical. 

The change to the 34-hour restart provision outlined in the rule 

could also require short-haul operators to deploy more equipment 

and resources during peak commuter driving hours. This could adversely impact safety and air emissions while also negatively impacting productivity for both the drivers and the customers. This 

may result in lost sales as well as production delays. 

If the new Hours of Service regulations become effective, it will 

be more difficult and costly to deliver products, increase traffic during the most congested times of the day, and result in more dangerous roads. 

In conclusion, there is little safety benefit or rationale to change 

the existing rules. Again, the proposal would require significant 

changes to baking industry distribution systems, would impact employee work hours, and increase the cost of delivering fresh bakery 

products. Ultimately, the consumer will feel these costs at the 

checkout aisle. With the high unemployment and high food inflation, now is the worst time to be pushing regulation for regulation 

sake. 

The ABA appreciates this opportunity to provide input to the 

subcommittee and be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. MacKie. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. MacKie follows:] 

65 


Insert offset folio 52 here 74038.052
66 


Insert offset folio 53 here 74038.053
67 


Insert offset folio 54 here 74038.054
68 


Insert offset folio 55 here 74038.055
69 


Insert offset folio 56 here 74038.056
70 


Insert offset folio 57 here 74038.057
71 


Insert offset folio 58 here 74038.058
72 


Insert offset folio 59 here 74038.059
73 


Insert offset folio 60 here 74038.060
74 


Insert offset folio 61 here 74038.061
75 


Insert offset folio 62 here 74038.062
76 


Insert offset folio 63 here 74038.063
77 


Insert offset folio 64 here 74038.064
78 


Insert offset folio 65 here 74038.065
79 


Insert offset folio 66 here 74038.066
80 


Insert offset folio 67 here 74038.067
81 


Insert offset folio 68 here 74038.068
82 


Insert offset folio 69 here 74038.069
83 


Insert offset folio 70 here 74038.070
84 


Insert offset folio 71 here 74038.071
85 


Insert offset folio 72 here 74038.072
86 


Insert offset folio 73 here 74038.073
87 


Insert offset folio 74 here 74038.074
88 


Insert offset folio 75 here 74038.075
89 


Insert offset folio 76 here 74038.076
90 


Insert offset folio 77 here 74038.077
91 


Insert offset folio 78 here 74038.078
92 


Insert offset folio 79 here 74038.079
93 


Insert offset folio 80 here 74038.080
94 


Insert offset folio 81 here 74038.081
95 


Insert offset folio 82 here 74038.082
96 


Insert offset folio 83 here 74038.083
97 


Insert offset folio 84 here 74038.084
98 


Insert offset folio 85 here 74038.085
99 


Insert offset folio 86 here 74038.086
100 


Insert offset folio 87 here 74038.087
101 


Insert offset folio 88 here 74038.088
102 


Insert offset folio 89 here 74038.089
103 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. Chairman Jordan, members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Frank Miller, and I’m the director of logistics for W.S. 

Badcock Corporation. Thank you very much for the opportunity to 

come here today to testify on the Department of Transportation’s 

proposed changes to the drivers’ Hours of Service regulations. 

Today I will testify on behalf of W.S. Badcock Corporation and 

the National Retail Federation. Badcock, the NRF, and its members strongly support the current Hours of Service regulations and 

question the need to make changes. The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Agency must consider significant economic impact that 

changes to the current Hours of Service will have across the industry, including the impact to retail operations at both the store and 

distribution center level. Unfortunately, we do not believe the proposed changes meet these requirements and will have a significant 

negative impact on the industry, the economy, and potentially driver safety. 

W.S. Badcock Corporation is one of the largest privately owned 

home furniture retailers in the United States. Founded in 1904, 

Badcock has been operating for more than a hundred years with 

300 stores and 1,200 associates located throughout the Southeast. 

As the world’s largest retail trade association and the voice of retail 

trade worldwide, NRF represents retailers of all types and sizes, 

including chain restaurants, industry partners from the United 

States, and more than 45 countries abroad. Retailers operate more 

than 3.6 million U.S. establishments that support one in four U.S. 

jobs; 42 million working Americans contributing $2.5 trillion to annual GDP, retail is truly the daily barometer for the Nation’s economy. 

Badcock’s transportation network consists of more than 45 tractor-trailers which run more than 4 million miles annually in eight 

southeastern States and a fleet of delivery trucks operating from 

Badcock stores to the customers’ homes. In addition, Badcock 

tenders more than $3 million in freight annually with U.S.-based 

common carriers. We estimate that the proposed change in Hours 

of Service rules could increase transportation costs for Badcock by 

10 to 20 percent annually. For Badcock, this would result in an estimated increase of approximately $2.8 million annually. We are 

also concerned about the possibility for adverse unintended consequences as a result of the proposed changes that could lead to 

further increases in cost. 

For Badcock, a reduction in driving time from 11 hours to 10 

hours would affect an estimated 11 percent of loads, resulting in 

an approximate cost of $1.5 million, force the company to increase 

driver compensation to retain drivers, and increase its fleet size 

and pay higher rates for trucking. The changes to the 34-hour restart could affect an estimated 6.6 percent of Badcock loads a year, 

resulting in an additional annual cost of $940,000. Those common 

carriers utilized by the company would most certainly also be impacted by the change. We feel the changes will result in more lost 

carrier productivity that will be passed directly to the consumer as 

millions of dollars in rate increases. 

104 

In addition, it is important to note that distribution networks are 

experiencing increased demand, which is expected to grow substantially. This is significant as the economy continues to recover from 

one of the worst recessions in history. 

Additional trucks and drivers will be necessary to meet this 

growing demand regardless of the Hours of Service requirements. 

Adding new capacity will be extremely difficult, as there is currently a shortage of available safe, qualified drivers. 

We are also concerned about the potential adverse impact on 

road and highway safety and on many environmental investments 

in the supply chain and transportation industry. The proposed 

changes to the Hours of Service rules may increase the number of 

trucks deployed to move the same freight while restricting the ability to move a portion of this freight during nonpeak commuting 

hours. 

In the transportation sector, many retailers are actively pursuing 

strategies to greatly reduce their carbon footprint in the supply 

chain. Many of these initiatives involve efforts to reduce hauls and 

deploy trucks as productively as possible during nighttime hours. 

To conclude, on behalf of W.S. Badcock Corporation and the National Retail Federation, I again would like to thank you for this 

opportunity to testify during today’s hearing. On behalf of America’s retailers, we urge the FMCSA to maintain the current Hours 

of Service regulations which are working, and I look forward to answering any questions the members of the committee may have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

105 


Insert offset folio 90 here 74038.090
106 


Insert offset folio 91 here 74038.091
107 


Insert offset folio 92 here 74038.092
108 


Insert offset folio 93 here 74038.093
109 


Insert offset folio 94 here 74038.094
110 


Insert offset folio 95 here 74038.095
111 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Jasny. 

STATEMENT OF HENRY JASNY 

Mr. JASNY. Good morning, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member 

Kucinich, and members of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, 

and thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am Henry Jasny, 

vice president and general counsel for Advocates for Highway and 

Auto Safety, a nonprofit coalition of public health, safety, consumer 

groups, and insurers dedicated to advancing highway safety. 

Advocates has worked on truck safety issues, and driver fatigue 

in particular, for 20 years, participating in national summits, the 

Hours of Service regulatory docket, which we filed many comments 

on, and in the legal litigation that’s been ongoing. Truck crashes 

are a serious and deadly problem that kill thousands and injure 

tens of thousands of people each year. Even with the recent decline 

in large truck crashes, over 3,380 people were killed and 73,000 injured in 2009. This is equivalent to a major airplane crash every 

other week of the year. The annual cost to society remains over $40 

billion. 

To put a face to these statistics, I know that Mr. Slattery was 

introduced, and his son Matthew, earlier by ranking member 

Kucinich. Also in the audience is Marchelle Wood who lost her college-aged daughter and a friend to a tired trucker crash in 2002. 

The DOT estimates that crashes involving truck driver fatigue 

kill as many as 500 people a year, but the actual number we think 

may be twice that figure. We think that this shopping Christmas 

season, consumers will want to know that when they go to pick up 

their bargains that they can return home safely without running 

into a tired trucker. 

The research and the science support reform of the HOS rule. 

Studies have found that since the current HOS rule went into effect, large numbers of truckers admit to falling asleep behind the 

wheel while operating commercial motor vehicles that weigh up to 

80,000 pounds. We saw one side with statistics regarding nearly 

half of the truckers who were polled in 2006, after this current rule 

went into effect, said they had fallen asleep at least once in the 

prior year. Those statistics are a clear warning that driver fatigue 

remains a major safety problem that needs to be addressed by a 

change in the rules. 

The 2003 final rule on which the current rules are based contradicts the scientific research and evidence regarding fatigue and 

the FMCSA’s own findings of fact. The basic principles are 

straightforward. Driving and working long hours causes fatigue, as 

shown in truck crash data. Crash risk increases geometrically after 

the 8th consecutive hour of driving a truck. Driving during the 

11th consecutive hour exposes both drivers and the public to an additional hour of danger when the crash risk is at its highest level. 

Allowing only 34 hours off duty instead of taking more time for 

rest and recovery, as was allowed in the prior rule before 2004, results in cumulative fatigue due to lack of sufficient sleep. And finally, truck drivers need between 7 and 8 hours of sleep each night 

between shifts to be alert while driving. FMCSA found that drivers 

get less than 6 hours of sleep on average between work shifts 

under the current rule, since the current HOS rule violates those 

112 

basic principles of science and it is fundamentally flawed and needs 

to be revised. 

Furthermore, claims that there is no safety problem under the 

current rules or that the current rules have contributed to safety 

are false, have no scientific support, and no basis in fact. They are 

literally junk science. 

The legal decisions also support reform of the HOS rule. The two 

unanimous decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals that vacated the 

rule reinforced the view that the current rule was unsafe and 

needs to be reformed. The initial decision held that the lack of 

analysis of the driver health issue was fatal to the rule. The court 

went on, however, to point out that many legal deficiencies in the 

agency’s reasoning abounded. Among them, the court questioned 

the legal sufficiency of the agency’s justification to the 11-hour 

limit and rebuked the agency for not addressing cumulative fatigue 

resulting from the short 34-hour restart provision. The judge who 

wrote that initial opinion was nominated to the Federal Court 

bench by Senator Jesse Helms. 

The cost of reform of the rule. Not reforming the Hours of Service 

rule will cost consumers and taxpayers billions of dollars in deaths, 

injuries, and crash costs as well as driver health costs and shortened life spans. The benefits to society of the option supported by 

Advocates, the 10-hour rule, far outweigh the costs and result in 

an economic benefit to the country of between $380 million and 

$1.2 billion annually from reduced impacts on driver health, coupled with the prevention of numerous deaths and injuries and 

crashes. 

The reform option supported by Advocates also would create 

40,000 new driver jobs. This is a major benefit to society at a critical time for job creation. This is in stark contrast to the current 

HOS rule, which eliminated nearly 50,000 jobs since it took effect 

in 2004. Unfortunately, not all companies have good safety records 

like Mr. Keysaw’s company, so they need to be governed by regulations that will keep them in line. 

And finally, in closing, I would like to say that the Edgeworth 

analysis that you’ve introduced to the record recommends that 

there be no calculation for driver health and safety costs, medical 

costs. And we think that that’s an unreasonable position, and that 

if that was adopted by the agency, that that would build in an arbitrary and capricious argument if the rule goes up on review to the 

court once again. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my written 

statement to the record. 

[Prepared statement Mr. Jasny follows:] 

113 


Insert offset folio 96 here 74038.096
114 


Insert offset folio 97 here 74038.097
115 


Insert offset folio 98 here 74038.098
116 


Insert offset folio 99 here 74038.099
117 


Insert offset folio 100 here 74038.100
118 


Insert offset folio 101 here 74038.101
119 


Insert offset folio 102 here 74038.102
120 


Insert offset folio 103 here 74038.103
121 


Insert offset folio 104 here 74038.104
122 


Insert offset folio 105 here 74038.105
123 


Insert offset folio 106 here 74038.106
124 


Insert offset folio 107 here 74038.107
125 


Insert offset folio 108 here 74038.108
126 


Insert offset folio 109 here 74038.109
127 


Insert offset folio 110 here 74038.110
128 


Insert offset folio 111 here 74038.111
129 


Insert offset folio 112 here 74038.112
130 


Insert offset folio 113 here 74038.113
131 


Insert offset folio 114 here 74038.114
132 


Insert offset folio 115 here 74038.115
133 


Insert offset folio 116 here 74038.116
134 


Insert offset folio 117 here 74038.117
135 


Insert offset folio 118 here 74038.118
136 


Insert offset folio 119 here 74038.119
137 


Insert offset folio 120 here 74038.120
138 


Insert offset folio 121 here 74038.121
139 


Insert offset folio 122 here 74038.122
140 


Insert offset folio 123 here 74038.123
141 


Insert offset folio 124 here 74038.124
142 


Insert offset folio 125 here 74038.125
143 


Insert offset folio 126 here 74038.126
144 


Insert offset folio 127 here 74038.127
145 


Insert offset folio 128 here 74038.128
146 


Insert offset folio 129 here 74038.129
147 


Insert offset folio 130 here 74038.130
148 


Insert offset folio 131 here 74038.131
149 

Mr. JASNY. I would also ask that the statement of Marchelle 

Wood—I would like to submit that to the record, and I would be 

ready to answer any questions. 

Mr. JORDAN. Without objection. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Wood follows:] 

150 


Insert offset folio 132 here 74038.132
151 


Insert offset folio 133 here 74038.133
152 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Jasny. Let me also express, on behalf of the chair and the committee, our sympathies to the Wood 

family, and thank you for being here today. 

Dr. David. 

STATEMENT OF JESSE DAVID, PH.D. 

Dr. DAVID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I’m an economist and a vice president at Edgeworth Economics, a consulting firm here, based here in Washington. I have 

a Ph.D. with a specialization in public finance and environmental 

economics and 15 years of experience in regulatory policy evaluation. I was retained, my firm was retained by the ATA to analyze 

the cost-benefit calculations in FMCSA’s RIA. My report focuses on 

whether the agency’s methods are accurate and consistent with 

current data and compares the agency’s approach to the approach 

taken in previous RIAs. 

To summarize, the proposal to restrict driving time to 10 hours 

a day from the current limit of 11 hours, FMCSA estimates lost 

productivity costs of about $1 billion per year and benefits of about 

$1.4 billion per year related to reduced crashes and improved driver health. So the net benefits estimated by the agency for that option are about $380 million per year. 

To obtain these results, FMCSA made several changes to their 

previous approaches used in previous RIAs. I find that in every instance the new methods increased the purported benefits of the 

proposed rule. However, many of these new approaches misapply 

available data, use outdated information or lack empirical support 

entirely, and I’ll describe here three of the most significant issues. 

First, FMCSA uses outdated information on large truck crashes. 

Since the proposed rule is intended to reduce crash frequency, obviously this is a key input to the analysis. FMCSA uses a figure of 

434,000 crashes per year, which is approximately the rate of crashes 10 years ago before the current HOS rules were implemented. 

Large truck crashes, however, have fallen steadily since then, recently falling to 286,000 in 2009. That’s 34 percent lower than the 

agency’s figure. I’ll note that decline was occurring before as well 

as during the current economic downturn, as you can see from a 

chart which I attached to my testimony. FMCSA’s use of old data 

inflates the benefit of the proposed rule by about $250 million per 

year. 

A second issue relates to FMCSA’s calculation of the fraction of 

crashes caused by driver fatigue. Obviously this is another critical 

assumption since that proposed rule would affect only those types 

of crashes. In the 2007 RIA, FMCSA concluded that fatigue was a 

factor in about 7 percent of crashes. The agency now uses different 

methods and data, in particular the large truck crash causation 

study or LTCCS and calculates a figure about twice as high, 13 

percent. 

However, the agency’s new method is flawed. FMCSA inappropriately assumes that each associated factor identified in the LTCCS 

for a particular crash was the cause of the crash, even if multiple 

factors were present. So, for example, suppose investigators identified three associated factors for a crash, a particular crash—prescription drug use, speeding, and fatigue. The agency assumes that 

153 

eliminating only driver fatigue would have caused that crash to be 

avoided. This new method contradicts FMCSA’s own conclusions in 

the LTCCS report when it had acknowledged that each associated 

factor should not be considered to represent an independent cause 

of the crash. Increasing the assumed fraction of crashes caused by 

fatigue from 7 percent in the previous RIA to the unsupportable 13 

percent figure inflates the benefits of the proposed rule by $330 

million per year. 

A third issue relates to the benefits of increased sleep time for 

driver health. Previously FMCSA had concluded that existing HOS 

rules did not adversely affect driver health. The agency now, however, includes substantial health benefits from small increases in 

sleep time within the normal range of 6 to 8 hours, and in fact according to FMCSA about half of the total benefits of the rule would 

come from this rather than from reduced crashes. 

One problem with FMCSA’s approach relates to the application 

results from a study by Ferrie, a sleep researcher. Ferrie measured 

mortality rates for a cohort of British civil servants in the 1980s 

who had reported sleep levels in the categories of 5 hours or less, 

6, 7, 8, and 9 hours or more. While Ferrie did find increased mortality associated with the lowest and highest sleep levels, the researchers found no statistically significant differences between the 

mortality rates of people who reported between 6 and 8 hours of 

sleep. 

Other academic research confirms this conclusion. For example, 

Cappuccio found there is no evidence that sleeping habitually between 6 and 8 hours per day in an adult is associated with harm 

and long-term health consequences. FMCSA cites the Cappuccio 

study but ignores this key finding. I understand that Professor 

Cappuccio has submitted a report into this docket stating that the 

agency misinterpreted his research to support its conclusions. 

FMCSA’s unsupported assumptions about reduced driver mortality inflate the benefits of the proposed rule by $690 million annually. 

In addition to these three issues, there are other unsupported assertions and methodological errors in the RIA which further inflate 

the apparent benefits of the proposed rule. If these problems are 

corrected, I find that the new rule would result in a net cost of 

about $320 million annually rather than a net benefit of $380 million, as calculated by the FMCSA. 

I note that Mr. Jasny stated that we had a recommendation that 

the new rule not include benefits from improved driver health. 

That’s certainly not my position. I just believe the calculation 

should be done based on the most accurate and the best available 

data. I thank you for your time, and I encourage you to read my 

report for additional information on these questions. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Doctor. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. David follows:] 

154 


Insert offset folio 134 here 74038.134
155 


Insert offset folio 135 here 74038.135
156 


Insert offset folio 136 here 74038.136
157 


Insert offset folio 137 here 74038.137
158 

Mr. JORDAN. Let me just start with you. Mr. Jasny, in his testimony, said that this new proposal would create 40,000 jobs. And 

we just heard from four witnesses, the first four witnesses who said 

it’s going to cost them more money, this new rule, yet Mr. Jasny 

said it’s going to create more jobs. As an economist, what’s your 

take on what may happen with the new rule? 

Dr. DAVID. Well, the goods still have to be transported, so under 

the FMCSA’s assumption, the drivers who are now driving are 

going to drive fewer hours. Those hours would need to be replaced. 

I assume that their income would go down, and possibly someone 

else’s income would go up. Perhaps there would be some new drivers. I think the overall amount of driving probably wouldn’t change 

that much. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay, let me come to Mr. MacKie. It seems to me 

the current rules are working. We’ve got—the safety numbers have 

been good. That’s with increased miles, we’ve seen increased trucking miles over the last decade. I mean, is in fact the current rule 

working in your estimation just the way it’s supposed to? 

Mr. MACKIE. Well, it’s certainly not perfect as it applies to short 

haul, and we continue to work with DOT on some issues around 

the edges, but by and large it works, and the data, as we’ve heard 

today, clearly illustrates that. I mean, it’s a pretty substantial reduction, 30, 33, 34 percent reduction in those accidents involving 

trucks. So it seems to be working pretty well. 

Mr. JORDAN. And would you also agree that there’s the potential, 

at least, if the new rule is put in place, that we could see potentially more accidents, we could see a harm to the safety record because, as Dr. David just talked about, there will now be more drivers on the road. My understanding is the way the rule would work 

as well, there would potentially be more drivers on the road during 

the daytime hours when there’s also more just people, nontruck 

drivers out, going, doing the shopping, going to work, doing the 

things they do. Is that a fair assessment? 

Mr. MACKIE. It absolutely is. I think you will get a few—our 

members indicate they would have to hire swing drivers to cover 

those additional hours, frankly, to be on the margin of safety and 

error so they don’t run the risk of going over the reduced hours 

that would be available. 

Similarly, the—particularly in our industry, as Mr. Keysaw can 

attest to, you know, we are delivering products in the early morning hours, 4 or 5 a.m., so that when the customer walks in the 

store the first thing in the morning they have got fresh bread. 

Mr. JORDAN. Right. 

Mr. MACKIE. And so you’re going to push those hours into the 

daytime hours, and it’s going to be—— 

Mr. JORDAN. What about the midnight rule? Do you think there’s 

also the potential—we would like to not think this, but also the— 

possibly the potential that some drivers may want to drive a little 

faster to beat that deadline? 

Mr. MACKIE. I think that is—I don’t have any data to back that 

up, but clearly—— 

Mr. JORDAN. But it’s—— 

Mr. MACKIE. —human nature indicates they’re going to want to 

get home sooner. 

159 

Mr. JORDAN. —fair to assume that they may try to, when increased speed means increased chances of accident, increased 

chances of harm? 

Mr. MACKIE. Absolutely. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. And then so it seems to me the current 

rule is working, there’s the potential for increased safety concerns 

under the new rule, and as we’ve heard from the first four witnesses, all this is going to create more cost, and I would still argue 

that there’s—you know, the idea that we’re going to have more 

jobs, I mean, just basic economics says, okay, let’s—what’s the example you always get in economics class? Let’s go break everyone’s 

windows so that we’ll have to hire more people to come fix the windows. We created jobs, but did that really add to the overall economy, add to wealth, add to what we want to have happen in our 

economy? I would argue this is in some ways moving in that direction, so it just doesn’t make sense to me. 

Mr. Nagle, talk to me briefly about the 34—moving from the 34- 

hour rule to the consecutive nights and what that may mean. And 

it seems to me that’s the one that could be a potential big cost to 

trucking companies. 

Mr. NAGLE. That is potentially a real problem because of the fact 

that you may have a driver that gets in after midnight, it could be 

12:15, 12:30, and he now has to literally go 54 hours until his next 

available driving time, so he’s going to lose an entire day of productivity, ultimately a day of his wage, and the company itself is going 

to have the same loss of revenue, increasing our fixed costs per 

hour even further. Drivers are going to stay away from home 

longer. FMCSA states that even though they don’t have the statutory authority to address the lack of available rest areas and accommodations for truck drivers, it’s going to cause these guys or 

force these guys to stop in areas where there are no accommodations. They’re going to be in shopping mall parking lots, they’re 

going to be just pulled off the road on some of the major highways. 

They’re not going to have rest; you know, essentially forcing a guy 

to stay 54 hours in an area the size between the top and lower 

bunks of your children’s homes is inhumane and cruel. They’re not 

going to have any restroom facilities, they’re not going to be able 

to have hot food or any of the accommodations. How somebody can 

rest better under those conditions is beyond my reasoning. 

So the quality of life is going to diminish further, and for our 

area of service, we’re a regional carrier that services primarily the 

East Coast from Baltimore-D.C. up to Portland, Maine, it’s going 

to just reduce our productivity substantially. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Nagle. My time is up. I’ll yield now 

to the ranking member. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know, 

since the debate here is really monetizing the costs of regulation 

versus monetizing the cost of not having effective or better regulation, I just want to submit for the record two documents. 

[None submitted.] 

Mr. KUCINICH. One speaks to the regulatory impact analysis for 

the HOS proposed rule estimates that, based on a 10-hour work 

day, the monetized annual safety benefits and driver health improvement benefits range from below $300 million to more than 

160 

$2.4 billion in quantifiable benefits from reduced crash and injury 

costs, lower medical and health payments, and longer, healthier 

driver life expectancy. 

One of the—you know, you can’t just talk about the cost of regulation which—without looking at the compensating factors if you 

don’t have the extra costs from these crashes. 

Now, how do you monetize the cost, going beyond that, to the 

Slattery family or the Wood family? You know, actually juries do, 

which is one of the reasons why the Insurance Institute of Highway 

Safety filed—the research arm of the industry filed an amicus brief 

in a lawsuit that supports and affirms the problem of fatigue and 

our insurance companies that are members of Advocates for Auto 

and Highway Safety, they support reducing fatigue. If we’re going 

to have a hearing on the costs, and I think it’s a legitimate question, what are the costs, but you’ve got to weigh it in terms of what 

are the costs to society on the other side. If you don’t do both, you 

don’t really get a fair reading. 

Now, Mr. Nagle, I want to ask you questions about a company 

that my staff has identified. My staff found that there’s a Nagle Toledo, Inc., which is listed on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration safety measurements system as DOT 423609. You’re 

here as the CEO of the Nagle Companies. I have a copy of the bio 

that was submitted to this committee that goes over your involvement in the industry, and it has you as CEO of Nagle Companies, 

and it also lists Nagle Toledo, Inc. as one of the companies that you 

lead. Is that correct? 

Mr. NAGLE. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Okay. Well, you know, I want to discuss something with you because the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s compliance review, which I have a copy of here, of Nagle 

Toledo reviews—or reveals serious Hours of Service and other safety violations. Now, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, Nagle Toledo has received 12 unsafe driving violations within the past year and 23 over the past 2 years. Now that’s 

in this report. Is that information accurate? 

Mr. NAGLE. That is correct. 

Mr. KUCINICH. And the Motor Carrier Safety Management System also shows that Nagle Toledo has received 13 fatigued driving 

violations within the past year, 32 over the past 2 years; in the 

past year, 9 of the 13 violations resulted in an out-of-service order, 

including seven violations for requiring or permitting the driver to 

drive after 14 hours on duty, one false report of driver’s record of 

duty status, and one violation for requiring or permitting the driver 

to drive more than 11 hours. Is this information that was given to 

the government, is that correct? 

Mr. NAGLE. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. KUCINICH. And is it also true that Nagle Toledo has been involved in two Department of Transportation reported truck crashes 

over the past year and five in the past 2 years; is that correct? 

Mr. NAGLE. I would have to defer that the report’s probably correct. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Okay. Let me ask you this. You know, I understand you’re here opposed to going back to the 10-hour limit on 

consecutive driving. But help us in this committee, in terms of your 

161 

own experience, your own experience, how is that practical and 

how can I take your testimony, based on the record that’s in here— 

you know, help me square your— the record that’s in here with 

your testimony, Mr. Nagle, please. 

Mr. NAGLE. Thank you for those points, and I’m glad to address 

the issue. First of all, the stepped-up CSA enforcement at the beginning of the year, we also did the same on our internal controls. 

What that report doesn’t tell you is there were 7 or 8 offenders during that time period. Prior to that audit, we had fired four or five 

of those individuals because of those violations, and that was prior 

to the audit. The other two or three were on their final warning 

and had since been terminated before we even received that report 

back from the PUCO. 

Mr. NAGLE. Now, we take that very seriously. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, listen, I imagine. I mean, you are running 

a company, you have to take it seriously because—— 

Mr. NAGLE. Correct. 

Mr. KUCINICH. —there is a bottom line you have to be concerned 

about. You have to be concerned about your insurance costs. 

But what I’m wondering, as a boss, you’ve got workers who are 

putting in all these more hours. Don’t you have some concern that 

they might be working too many hours and it makes your company 

vulnerable—if not just your company, you know, the people in the 

larger community? I mean, don’t you have a concern about that at 

all? 

Mr. NAGLE. Sir, I have a tremendous concern about that. In fact, 

I personally spend time educating the general public about sharing 

the road and also communicating to them that our drivers are not 

just these killer trucks that some of the people try to portray. It’s 

more than just a cost-benefit analysis, okay? I have a moral obligation to make sure that our drivers operate in a safe fashion. 

Now, part of the issues that came up—fatigue is probably one of 

the most misnamed things. And several of those were literally a 

clerical error, where the driver mis-added his hours of service. But, 

more importantly, with the split-sleeper-berth issue that I mentioned briefly before—and it’s in my written report—when one of 

our drivers will go into an area that’s, you know, heavily populated, 

we get detained above and beyond the hours of service. Well, 

they’re not allowed to stay at a customer in Brooklyn or wherever 

the place may be. We’re forced at times, during a period of time, 

to drive illegally to go to a safe haven. 

So I would say half of those violations were a result of the logbook changes that have occurred over the last 5 years. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence in 

giving the witness time to respond because I know that expanded 

the time that I had. 

I just want to add this, if I may, with the chair’s indulgence. 

Mr. JORDAN. Sure. 

Mr. KUCINICH. You got rid of some of these employees so 

there—— 

Mr. NAGLE. Correct. 

Mr. KUCINICH. —would be a little bit more than a clerical error. 

And the only point I’m making, Mr. Chairman—and I want to 

thank you for being fair here—and that is that, you know, it’s imVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:56 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74038.TXT APRIL
162 

portant to hear from Mr. Nagle, but, look, there are issues of fatigue here that we can’t gloss over. That’s my point. 

You know, I didn’t rip you apart—— 

Mr. NAGLE. Right. 

Mr. KUCINICH. —for this record. You know, we can do dramatics 

here, but I’m not interested in that. I just want to point out that 

this issue is a legitimate issue of driver fatigue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. 

Real quickly before yielding to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Keysaw, do you want fatigued and unsafe drivers on 

the road representing the companies you represent? 

Mr. KEYSAW. No, definitely not. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. MacKie, do you? 

Mr. MACKIE. Absolutely not. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Miller, do you? 

Mr. MILLER. Absolutely not. 

Mr. JORDAN. No, because, I mean, it’s in your best interest for 

the wellbeing, for the profitability of your company. In fact, I would 

assume many of the trucks that are on the road for you guys and 

Mr. Nagle as well, you probably have the sign I’ve seen, if you don’t 

like my driving, call a number. Do you have some of those signs 

on your truck, Mr. MacKie? 

Mr. MACKIE. Absolutely. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Keysaw? 

Mr. KEYSAW. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Miller, do you? 

Mr. MILLER. We don’t, but we are in the process of implementing 

electronic—— 

Mr. JORDAN. And I assume that the reason, Mr. MacKie, that 

you have those on the back of your truck is because—did you probably get some benefit from insurance-wise, insurance payments? Or 

you just want the public to know that if your company’s name is 

on the trailer of that truck that you got safe drivers there. So 

there’s market forces involved in a safe record, as well, right? 

Mr. MACKIE. No, there’s clearly an economic benefit. But, clearly, 

these drivers, and particularly in our industry, I mean, they’re 

20–25-year employees, so there’s a family connection there, as well. 

I mean, you don’t want these people to get hurt any more than 

anybody else does. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yeah. And Mr. Nagle understands the concern because when he had drivers who weren’t following the rules, he got 

rid of them. Because he understands that’s in the best interest of 

the safety, but also in the best interest of his company. 

Correct, Mr. Nagle? 

Mr. NAGLE. That would be correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. Thank you. 

I would yield now to the chairman of the full committee. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank all the members of the subcommittee senior 

to me for yielding. I appreciate the indulgence. 

I’ll go to the same four folks. With all due respect to the last two 

witnesses, I really think this is about people who actually operate 

trucking fleets here today and what is the practical implication. I 

163 

know the numbers are not supported based on past arithmetic. I 

know that the numbers are supported slightly based on current 

arithmetic. But let’s go through some of the arithmetic and how it 

impacts you. 

Mr. Nagle, I’ll start with you, since your record was called into 

question. Hopefully those signs on your trucks say, ‘‘And please 

don’t call while driving,’’ because you’re going to be distracted as 

a car driver following that truck. The number-one issue of the Department of Transportation’s overall Cabinet officer, Ray LaHood, 

is, in fact, distracted driving. 

Isn’t that as much a part of the problem, that accidents and 

problems and even tickets that your drivers receive have a lot to 

do with their lack of focus, not necessarily how long they’ve been 

up, but a lack of focus? Isn’t that one of the major points that you 

look for in your drivers? 

Mr. NAGLE. One of the things that we have found out is, typically, it’s not because of a distraction. When they’re stopped, again, 

it’s because of, you know, increased enforcement. They’ll use another reason to check a driver’s logs for stopping. It could be a 

marker light that’s out; the driver could be going three miles an 

hour over the speed limit. So the fatigue factor or logbook factors 

have not been the reasons for their stops; it’s been for something 

else. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, Mr. Keysaw—and I have had the opportunity of 

driving large rigs in my quite distant past, including more buses 

than trucks, but my father had a trucking company, trucking repair company primarily. The one thing I find interesting about particularly large-rig drivers is that their ability to be employed depends on their record. No question at all, you lose a record, you 

lose your employability. 

But here’s the other thing that I always question. In your experience, the four of you, as operators or overseers of operations, is 

there anything in these new regulations that is going to ensure 8 

hours of restful sleep? Anything? 

Now, are you all familiar with the crash in Buffalo in which two 

pilots were so tired from having flown across country and then gotten on a plane and being up for endless hours even though their 

actual duty day was only a couple of hours, when they looked at 

the ice building up on the wings and apparently were so tired that 

they couldn’t figure out that they were going to crash? Now, FAA 

has regulations about sleep. There actually are regulations. They’ve 

tried to create regulations about duty day. But they have the same 

problem that you have. 

Nothing in this regulation—and I saw all positive heads nodding—nothing in this regulation is going to guarantee that the 

driver goes to bed and stays in beds and sleeps well for 8 hours. 

If we are not actually guaranteeing rest—the last two witnesses 

that talked about these studies and what they showed, that doesn’t 

mean a darn thing. If you’ve got sleep apnea, you could be off the 

road for 54 hours and come back just as incapable of being a good 

driver. 

Now, for the four that have operated, how many of you have fired 

people for drinking within the window of their driving, either just 

before, during, or after? All of you? You’ve all fired people for 

164 

drinking. Same question: Is anything in this regulation going to 

know that when they leave work for the prescribed period of time 

that they’re not just going to the bar? 

So you can come back tired, with a hangover, having actually 

driven for maybe 6 or 8 or 10 hours to go see mom in upstate 

Michigan from Toledo, and you come back and you’ve met all the 

requirements of this new regulation, but, in fact, you’re not fit for 

the next 10 or 11 hours. Isn’t that true? 

Mr. KUCINICH. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ISSA. Not yet. 

Is there anyone that knows of anything in this regulation that’s 

going to ensure that you actually have rested drivers versus ensure 

that you have drivers that are simply available for duty about 10 

percent less time? 

I would yield to the gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank—— 

Mr. ISSA. Cleveland, not Toledo, but, you know. 

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank my friend for doing that. 

You know, we’re not really here to talk about whether drivers go 

to bars or owners, you know, drink at home, okay? That’s not the 

point. You know, the bottom line here is, who’s running the business? It is not the drivers who are running the business. 

You are a businessman, and I respect that about you. I mean, 

you bring a dimension to this Congress because you understand 

business. My dad was a truck driver. You know, he wasn’t calling 

the shots on how many hours he worked. He had a contract; that 

had something to do with it. But— 

Mr. ISSA. Well, reclaiming my time, are any of you aware of a 

study that shows that the duty day in the 11th hour for a well-rested—or the 10th hour, actually, going into the 11th cutoff—that 

during that time there is a significant diminishment of capability? 

In other words, for any of you—and, Dr. David, I actually would 

go to you; you’ve looked at these studies. These studies are about 

how long you sleep. If you were to, from the economic material you 

reviewed, if you were to view the risk of the 11th hour, assuming 

that you got a good night’s sleep, that you’re well rested, competent, not distracted, and sober, and having been sober, let’s say, 

for the previous 24 hours, was there anything that would tell what 

the actual risk of the 11th hour was? And if so, was it scored? 

Dr. DAVID. I think the studies show that the risk of a fatiguerelated accident does increase. I think the issue is, how many of 

these are there and how many would be reduced by this regulation. 

Mr. ISSA. Exactly. If you were to score just the 11th hour, if you 

will, or the difference between 10 and 11, if you were to score that, 

what would the accident ratio and/or cost be in isolation? Because, 

as I see it, in the study that supports this regulation, you have to 

throw in the cart, the horse, the buggy, the whip, and everything 

to get slightly into a positive ratio of a cost-benefit. Isn’t that true? 

Dr. DAVID. I found that the ratio was negative, using the best 

available and most current available data. And I note that the only 

way you can get to that negative is by including the issues related 

to driver health, not just the crash issue. If you just looked at the 

number of crashes, I think FMCSA would agree, under their own 

analysis, the answer was in the negative territory. 

165 

Mr. ISSA. Last question—— 

Mr. JASNY. Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. —very quickly. 

Mr. JASNY. Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. Isn’t it true that more crashes occur in the first part 

of a shift than the last part, that drivers actually have a poorer 

record in their first 4 or 5 hours than they do in their last 4 or 

5 hours. 

Mr. Nagle, since you’ve been picked on, when do these crashes 

occur? 

Mr. NAGLE. Typically, in the first 4 hours of their on-duty status. 

Mr. ISSA. So, real world, dirty fingernails, you do the job, you 

look at these people. The fact is you’re more concerned about them 

going out not rested in those first 4 hours than the last hour, based 

on real-world experience. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the chairman. 

I yield now to the gentleman from Iowa. 

Mr. JASNY. Mr. Chairman? I have a response, quickly. 

Mr. JORDAN. Go right ahead. 

Mr. JASNY. For one thing, crashes in the 11th hour, while they 

are not as numerous as in the earlier hours—that’s only because 

most drivers are driving the first 8 hours; not all drivers are driving the 11th hour—but the risk, the rate of crash, is much higher 

in the 11th hour. And that’s been shown, in the earlier hours, that 

statistically—— 

Mr. ISSA. Will you make that available, the studies, for the 

record? 

Mr. JASNY. Absolutely. 

Mr. KUCINICH. And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, without objection, 

there’s a research report and study showing adverse health and 

safety effects of longer working hours and inadequate rest time. 

Without objection, I would like to submit that. 

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate that, although I didn’t quite hear the last 

part. You said ‘‘and inadequate rest,’’ so it’s a combined study. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Of longer working hours and inadequate rest 

time. It shows adverse health and safety effects. This is from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. 

Mr. ISSA. And, Mr. Chairman, although I don’t disagree with the 

unanimous consent, I do want it to be noted for the record that the 

combining of long work hours and inadequate rest makes a different point than the actual period of time that you work. Inadequate rest is something I think we’re all, here on the dais, wanting to figure out how you would get. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Without objection? 

Mr. JORDAN. Without objection. 

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you. 

Mr. JORDAN. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized. 

Mr. BRALEY. Let me start by asking the panel, how many of you 

have actually worked as a licensed truck driver in your lives? Any 

of you? 

I have. And I can tell you from personal experience that the level 

of stress on a truck driver goes up in direct proportion to what’s 

going on in their workplace environment. If you’re hauling grain 

166 

during harvest season in Iowa, you have a lot more stress on you 

than you do if you’re hauling it on a summer day. 

And one of the concerns I have is that we’re really talking about 

two different things here today. The first four witnesses on the 

panel, called by the majority, are making a common point, which 

is that the rules that are being proposed are bad for business. You 

all agree with that point, don’t you? 

Okay. Well, in an ideal world, the best rule for business would 

be no hours-of-service limitation, where you were free to set your 

own timeframe. 

And yet you’re shaking your head, Mr. Nagle, because you know 

there’s a problem with that. Because there are backside costs, liability costs, that will come if we don’t have some reasonable restriction on hours of duty. Is that correct? 

Mr. NAGLE. Uh-huh. 

Mr. BRALEY. So what we’re really arguing about is whether the 

rule that’s been proposed or the rule that’s in place makes more 

sense for the purpose that this agency was set up to address. And 

if you look at that purpose, it is not called the Federal Motor Carrier Profit Administration. It’s called the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration. And it’s to set up the rules of the road that 

give people a level playing field that protect both the interest of the 

people who want to haul commerce across the roads of this country, 

which I was proud to do, and also protect the consumers who use 

that same highway and may not be involved in that system. 

Now, Mr. Miller, you made the point that one of the problems 

facing the industry, which I am acutely aware of, is a shortage of 

qualified, safe drivers. Do you remember saying that? 

Mr. MILLER. I do. 

Mr. BRALEY. Now, here’s what I don’t understand. We’re in a recession now. There are a lot of people looking for work—9 percent 

unemployment in this country. Why is the industry not able to find 

enough qualified, safe drivers if that is the case? 

Mr. MILLER. Sir, I don’t have a good explanation for you. I can 

tell you that we are a premium driving operation. We operate a 

safe, legal fleet. We very rarely bump the 11 hours. However, I go 

through an average of 500 applications to put a qualified driver in 

my truck. And that’s my concern, that people will be forced to put 

drivers that are not qualified and that are unsafe on the road. 

Mr. BRALEY. And that is my point. I’m as sympathetic as you can 

believe. One of the problems is that there is a huge shortage of 

qualified drivers. And I think economists would tell us that perhaps one of the reasons for that shortage is that people looking for 

work do not find the workplace conditions and the pay worth the 

risk of trying to become qualified to drive a truck, which I think 

is an honorable and noble occupation and one I was proud to be 

part of. 

But if we are looking at one of the reasons that may be contributing to that, I would argue it could have something to do with the 

Hours of Service requirement. And one of the things we know, Mr. 

Jasny and Dr. David, is, this isn’t unique to the trucking industry. 

We’ve seen this same issue come up in resident physician duty 

hours, as people have become concerned that patient safety is being 

compromised by forcing resident physicians to work long hours 

167 

without appropriate rest, and that compromises their ability to do 

their job effectively and impacts patient safety. 

So, having heard the testimony today, I would like both of you 

to respond to the public safety concern and how that relates to the 

ability to hire qualified, safe drivers. 

Mr. JASNY. Well, Mr. Braley, working conditions are always an 

important issue. Certainly, in shift work, we’ve seen that in studies 

of shift work all over the world. It’s the working conditions. 

In these specific areas, if you look at—the economist Michael 

Belzer wrote a book called ‘‘Sweatshops on Wheels.’’ And he’s essentially saying that these are the modern-day sweatshops because 

of those working conditions, having to deliver just in time all the 

time, being under the gun, driving longer hours. And for many noncontract and nonunion drivers, they’re exempt from the Fair Labor 

Standards Act. 

Mr. BRALEY. Dr. David? 

Dr. DAVID. I mean, I don’t think there’s any question that reducing the amount of on-duty time would reduce the number of accidents. The question is, how much and is it worth it? 

I mean, we have a rule that’s more restricted than rules used to 

be. Those rules were more restrictive than the rules before that. 

And before that there weren’t any rules. So the question is, where 

do you stop? And cost-benefit is one piece of information you can 

use to get there, as long as it’s done properly. 

Mr. BRALEY. And just so that I’m clear on one of the principal 

points of your testimony, your testimony was that your economic 

analysis of the tradeoffs between the current rule and the proposed 

rule is there were actual economic benefits to going to the proposed 

rule? 

Dr. DAVID. Well, there would be reduced crashes, but there 

would be increased costs. So I calculated that, on net, the increased 

costs would outweigh the value of the reduced crashes. That is obviously sensitive to the assumptions you use and how restrictive 

the rule is. But under the assumptions the FMCSA uses, I calculated that the cost would be higher. 

Mr. BRALEY. But the point that you also made is that those costs 

include opportunity. In other words, the added cost of transportation for these same goods and services could result in new jobs 

becoming available, taking people off of unemployment, making the 

taxpayers of this country pay less of that burden, and having those 

new employees paying into Social Security, Medicare, State and 

Federal taxes, as well. 

Dr. DAVID. I mean, this rule isn’t going to be undone when we 

come out of a recession, so I would never recommend regulation in 

order to solve an unemployment problem. But in terms of the number of people actually driving trucks, that could change. 

Mr. BRALEY. But the point is that this is an analysis about the 

tradeoffs between safety on the one hand and what’s a good business requirement on the other hand, and you’re always going to 

have some of those tradeoffs. 

Dr. DAVID. That’s absolutely true. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. David, you’re not the only one who’s concluded 

that there’s going to be significant increased costs. The Obama adVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:56 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74038.TXT APRIL
168 

ministration itself has said there’s going to be increased costs with 

this new rule. 

Dr. DAVID. Absolutely. The number—— 

Mr. JORDAN. One of only a handful of rules that they’ve said is 

going to cost at least over $1 billion, correct? 

Dr. DAVID. The agency’s numbers was about $1 billion in increased costs. 

Mr. JORDAN. A billion dollars in increased costs at a time when 

we got 9 percent unemployment, correct? 

Dr. DAVID. As I say, it’s $1 billion today, and it will continue to 

be $1 billion under their assumptions going forward. 

Mr. JORDAN. Right. Thank you. 

I turn now to the gentlelady from New York. Oh, I’m sorry, that’s 

right, the gentleman from Tennessee is first. I apologize. 

Doctor? 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Nagle, can you tell us about the steps your company takes 

to help ensure driver safety and health? 

Mr. NAGLE. I didn’t hear the last word. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Can you tell me about the steps your company 

takes to help ensure driver safety and health? 

Mr. NAGLE. Well, I don’t know about health. I mean, we’re required to go through regular physicals and so forth. 

But, just our company alone, we do not have the onboard electronic recorders. So when our drivers call in every morning, they 

have to advise our operations people how much longer they have 

to drive for the day and when their next 10-hour break is up for 

their sleep. So we schedule pickups and deliveries around that 

availability of their time and for their sleep. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Well, let me ask, do you think there’s a 

pressing need for this rule, or do you believe the current rules 

allow your drivers to balance safety and driver health? 

Mr. NAGLE. I think the current rules are a lot better than what’s 

being proposed. I would say that if you can add or bring back in 

the split-sleeper-berth provision, that will even add additional good 

rest and solid rest time. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Do you think there’s anything else motivating 

DOT to propose these rules besides safety and health concerns? 

Mr. NAGLE. Well, there’s a tremendous influence from union LTL 

drivers that—they’re not impacted at all by the 34-hour reset provision. And some of those carriers, I would—well, I would think they 

would be more adversely affected by the 11-to-10-hour change. But 

they’re taking studies based on a small percentage of drivers that 

don’t represent the typical motor carrier industry and trying to 

broad-brush some of those regulations over them. So there are definitely other interests that are being represented in this proposal. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Keysaw, I’ll ask you the same question. Do you think there’s 

anything else motivating DOT? 

Mr. KEYSAW. To tell you the truth, I don’t know. I’m not aware 

of anything. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. That’s fair. 

169 

Mr. Jasny, do you acknowledge that trucking fatalities and injuries have declined since 2004 when the current Hours of Service 

rules have been in effect? 

Mr. JASNY. They have declined—they went up initially the first 

2 years, in 2004 and 2005, that the rule went into effect. They’ve 

come down in the last 2 years, but it’s been shown that it has nothing to do with the Hours of Service rule itself per se. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Do you acknowledge that the number of truck 

miles traveled has increased since that time? 

Mr. JASNY. Yes. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Do you acknowledge that registered large 

trucks have also increased since that time? 

Mr. JASNY. The registered number has gone up, although last 

year and the year before, the number of vehicle miles traveled for 

large trucks, for combination trucks, have gone down. Overall, the 

LTL trucks have made up the difference, so VMT has remained 

about flat. But for the vehicles that bump up against the Hours of 

Service rule most, that VMT has gone down last year and the year 

before. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Based on these facts, it would appear 

that the 2008 Hours of Service regulations have been and continue 

to be very effective in improving highway safety. Is it your essential argument that you can never have too much regulation? 

Mr. JASNY. No, not at all. You need the right regulations. And 

what we have now is not the right regulations, for the reasons I’ve 

stated in the record. They are contradictory of the scientific evidence in the record. They were disputed by the court of appeals as 

being illogical and of questionable validity. 

And I would like to point out that, in 2000, there was a notice 

of proposed rulemaking that actually would have applied different 

Hours of Service regimes to different parts of the industry, and 

Congress told the agency that they couldn’t do that. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Do you believe that the regulation should 

have to at least contribute more benefit to society than it costs society? 

Mr. JASNY. I believe that it’s clear from the regulatory analysis 

that these do. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Driver fatigue can be a cause or factor 

in any accident, do you agree—— 

Mr. JASNY. Yes. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. —whether it’s passenger vehicle—— 

Mr. JASNY. Most crashes are multifactorial incidents. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Are you aware that, according to DOT’s 

own data, that driver fatigue does not rank among the most common factors for truck-driver-related fatalities? 

Mr. JASNY. Yes, but they also underestimate the percentage of 

crashes that involve fatigue. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Are you aware that the percentage of fatalities due to passenger-vehicle driver fatigue is higher than to 

truck driver fatigue? 

Mr. JASNY. I don’t know that statistic. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Well, I guess in light of the fact that 

there’s more fatigue-related accidents and deaths with passenger 

170 

cars, do you think that there should be drive time restrictions on 

passenger vehicles? 

Mr. JASNY. It’s a different operating environment, and most passenger vehicles are regulated by States, they’re not regulated by— 

they’re not a regulated industry. So it would be difficult to do, and 

it’s up to States to do that. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Well, I think the point is we all want to 

drive on safer highways, whether it’s trucks, cars. And the point 

is, where do we find a balance in regulation. So that’s why we’re 

all here. 

But I’m out of time. Thank you. 

Mr. JASNY. Right. But going back to the 2003 final rule, that, 

from its conception, was wrong. And we’re trying to correct that, 

and we’ve been trying to correct that for the last 8 years and save 

some lives. 

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Well, for the record, the truck percentage 

is 1.4 and passengers is 1.7. 

I yield back. 

Ms. BUERKLE. [presiding.] I now yield myself 5 minutes. 

I would like to submit for the record a statement from the Retail 

Industry Leaders Association and Kraft Foods, both who express 

respect for DOT’s intent to prevent crashes but feel the proposed 

rule falls short of accomplishing the goal, without objection. 

[The statement from the Retail Industry Leaders Association and 

Kraft Foods follows:] 

171 


Insert offset folio 138 here 74038.138
172 


Insert offset folio 139 here 74038.139
173 


Insert offset folio 140 here 74038.140
174 


Insert offset folio 141 here 74038.141
175 


Insert offset folio 142 here 74038.142
176 


Insert offset folio 143 here 74038.143
177 


Insert offset folio 144 here 74038.144
178 


Insert offset folio 145 here 74038.145
179 


Insert offset folio 146 here 74038.146
180 


Insert offset folio 147 here 74038.147
181 

Ms. BUERKLE. First of all, Mr. Slattery and Mrs. Wood have left 

the room, and the chairman had expressed our sympathies for their 

losses. But I think, as I sit here, there’s not a person in this room, 

whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, we’re Americans and 

we want our highways safe. And to think that we don’t is really 

disingenuous. So I think we start with that premise. We all have 

family members out there, and we want them to be safe. 

But every time a rule or a regulation is passed, or a statute, 

there’s a loss of freedom. So, in my mind, when we do that, we 

need to justify it. So as I look at these regulations and I see that 

the statistics have improved with the current regulations that are 

in place, I say to myself, why are we taking these steps, what is 

it that’s motivating this, when the statistics—and we all agree— 

and so much of this job is balance, balancing safety, balancing our 

economy and trying to get our economy back on track and be prosperous. 

So when I look at the numbers and the statistics—in 1979, there 

were 7,054 fatalities; in 2009, there were 3,619 fatalities—almost 

a 50 percent decrease. In 1979, there were 0.461 fatalities per 100 

million miles; in 2009, there were 0.123—a decrease of almost 75 

percent. 

So it appears to me that the current regulations are moving in 

the right direction. They’re making the highways more safer, 

they’re becoming safer, the fatalities are down. And, in the meantime, we’re not disadvantaging or creating more obstructions and 

more regulations for our industry. 

So my first question, Mr. Jasny, is why? Why do we want to 

change something that appears to be working? The statistics toward more safe highways is working. 

Mr. JASNY. Because just as if the Dow Jones goes up on any particular day, individual stocks may be going the other way. In this 

case, while there are a lot of regulations that we’ve supported and 

the agency has finally come to adopt in recent years that are improving safety and helping, this one is swimming upstream, this 

one is going against the current. 

This one is not proved to help with fatigue. The statistics and 

even the agencies say in the notice of proposed rulemaking that 

there is no connection between the recent downturn, which is probably—if you look in my Appendix C, the chart that I included from 

the Motor Carrier Safety Administration, shows that crashes are 

not result of fatigue but more what are the economic conditions 

and the downturn in long-haul vehicle miles traveled. 

So there’s still somewhere between 500 and 1,000 people out 

there who are dying in crashes involving trucks, and most of the 

victims in those crashes, 97 percent, are passenger car victims, people in passenger cars who die, not necessarily the truck drivers. 

And so there are still about 1,000 lives out there, we think, that 

can be saved by a better rule. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Dr. David, would you like to respond to that? 

Dr. DAVID. Well, I addressed this to a question Mr. Braley 

brought up earlier, which is that, clearly, restricting hours can 

have some effect on fatalities and on large-truck crashes generally. 

The question is, at what point do you stop? And that’s a judgment 

that has to be made based on the data. 

182 

And, you know, I mean, there’s no question that there could be 

some improvement. The question is whether it’s a large improvement or a small one. 

Ms. BUERKLE. I’m a freshman here, and two things that constantly impress me down here is, number one, the disconnect between Washington and, in particular in this committee, businesses. 

And so, when we look at these proposed rules, I’m always concerned that the stakeholders aren’t at the table, that the bureaucracies and the agencies are making these rules that affect the businesses. 

Did any of you participate in or offer up any or have any input 

into these proposed rules, of the first four? 

Dr. David, when Mr. Jasny talked about the court of appeals 

striking down the last regulation, I would like for you to just comment on that. 

Dr. DAVID. I’m sorry, I don’t have any opinion about that. 

Ms. BUERKLE. My understanding is—Mr. Jasny, do you know 

why they struck down that regulation? 

Mr. JASNY. Yes. The initial decision struck it down because they 

did not consider the health of the drivers when imposing a rule 

that would affect drivers. And that was—— 

Ms. BUERKLE. So it was procedural rather than substantive. 

Mr. JASNY. No. That was substantive because there was a statutory mandate to consider that issue and the agency did not consider the issue. 

The court then went on, in an unusual dicta, to point out all the 

problems that involve the substantive issues regarding safety, regarding the 11 hours, regarding the 34 hours, that the court saw 

as problems when the case came back. 

Ms. BUERKLE. I don’t mean to cut you off, but my time is running 

out here, and I do want to ask Dr. David one more question. 

Dr. David, you mentioned in your testimony that there were several errors in DOT’s methodology. Can you just expound on that for 

us a little bit? 

Dr. DAVID. Well, there were a number of cases where assumptions were made without any kind of basis. There were, for example, calculation errors where something as simple as rounding a 

number for no reason can mean a difference of $100 million in the 

regulation. 

There were several other cases which I outlined in my report. 

They total up to being worth several hundred million dollars per 

year, which could make the difference between a positive benefit 

and a negative benefit for this rule. 

Ms. BUERKLE. On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you think DOT’s 

cost-benefit analysis rates in terms of accuracy? 

Dr. DAVID. I’m sorry, I’ve not been called upon to do that before. 

I describe what I find as either mistakes or assumptions that are 

made that don’t seem appropriate given current data, and I think 

you would have to make your own judgment about how it grades 

relative to the other ones. 

Mr. JASNY. If I may, I would like to submit for the record a rebuttal that my organization has drafted with regard to the Edgeworth analysis that points out the flaws in their reasoning. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Without objection. 

183 

Mr. JASNY. Thank you. 

[The rebuttal follows:] 

184 


Insert offset folio 148 here 74038.148
185 


Insert offset folio 149 here 74038.149
186 


Insert offset folio 150 here 74038.150
187 

Ms. BUERKLE. I am out of time. I now yield to Mr. Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Nagle, there was some discussion just a few minutes ago 

with the good gentleman from Ohio, who I respect very highly, 

about your safety record. And it always amazes me—I’m also a 

freshman here, and I sit here and we talk about new regulations 

and we talk about the cost of new regulations, and it always 

amazes me that there’s always testimony that, under existing regulations, we’re catching people who are making mistakes and 

we’re—as you indicated, you fired a bunch of people who made 

those mistakes, and yet we have this administration wanting more 

and more regulation, when it seems like the regulations that are 

already in place are doing their job. 

Would you comment on that a little bit? It seems like you didn’t 

need new regulation to—number one, the people who were penalized were penalized under existing regulation, and you, as a businessman, didn’t need new regulation to tell you that you needed to 

get rid of those people. Can you comment on that a little bit, if I’m 

making any sense at all? 

Mr. NAGLE. You are. The regulations as they currently exist, 

okay, what had happened is, through CSA enforcement, the driver’s background became much more important and much more public. And so we have to take that into consideration. So, at that 

time, now we place greater emphasis on internal audits and internal logs. And that’s where we found a lot of these occurrences, and 

that’s why we got rid of those. 

But in terms of would we have taken those steps knowing that 

this proposed regulation were in the forefront, we would have 

taken those steps regardless. So I really think that just adding additional regulations, additional regulations, when less than 2 percent of the trucking companies have actually been audited and 

checked—okay? We’re doing a poor job enforcing the current regulations on the other 98 percent of the carriers—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay, can you stop right there? That’s what frustrates me the most, is we have regulators who are not doing their 

job, we do a poor job with the current regulations, and we think 

that the solution is to add more regulations instead of just doing 

our damn job, instead of just doing the things that we should be 

doing right now. We do it in the trucking industry, we do it in 

every single industry. 

And what we have is an administration that thinks by adding 

more and more regulations we’re going to have more safety, when 

if they just did their job, they just actually enforced the regulations 

that are already in place, we would have the safety that we need. 

What do you think about that, Mr. MacKie? 

Mr. MACKIE. Well, I would just reiterate the point that several 

of us made, is we’ve been down this road four times in the last 12 

years. And it’s not an issue of not enough regulation. It’s hard for 

companies. Again, particularly in our industry—we’re bakers first, 

not, you know, trucking companies—we want to know what the 

rules are and that work for us. And instead of changing the rules, 

moving the goalpost back and forth that we’ve had in the last 12 

years, some certainty there would be enormously helpful. 

188 

And right now these regulations seem to be working, so why 

don’t we stick with them for a while? 

Mr. LABRADOR. Exactly. And it seems like they’re working. We’re 

catching the offenders, we’re catching the people that are not doing 

the right job. And, instead, what we have is a bunch of eggheads 

telling us that if we do some stupid formula that we’re going to 

have a little bit more safety, when—I believe you have your 

name—do all of you have your names on your trucks? It’s your reputation that is on the line if there’s no safety, right? 

So what are the market forces that help you to make these decisions—not regulatory forces, but market forces? What do you do, 

Mr Keysaw? You have your name on your truck. 

Mr. KEYSAW. Yeah, we do. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So what do you think about every morning, not 

the formulas that the eggheads are going to give us, but what do 

you think about every morning when you think about truck safety? 

Mr. KEYSAW. Well, because we have our name on our trucks, we 

think about, you know, what reputation we have out there to the 

grocery industry and, you know, our customers that go into our 

stores that have the same name on it. So we know we’re very visible out there, and we want the safest fleet. 

Associated Foods has gone to the extent of putting electronic recorders in their tractors more than a decade ago so that we could 

have the safest fleet out there. We also take quality of life for the 

drivers very seriously, because we know they’re the ones, at the 

end of the day, that will make sure our roads are safe. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Now, do all of you—I heard, I think it was Mr. 

Miller who said that you are having a hard time finding employees. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. Qualified, safe drivers. That is correct. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Are all of you having that problem? Every single 

one of you. 

So who is going to take the additional 40,000 jobs that apparently are going to be created by this regulation if you can’t even 

find enough qualified workers under the existing law? I’m sorry, 

that’s just a rhetorical question. 

But, again, eggheads are running this country instead of actual, 

real people who understand what’s happening here in America and 

how jobs are created and how jobs are destroyed. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. May I interject a comment? 

Mr. JORDAN. [Presiding.] Certainly. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. One of the concerns that I have in all of the reporting, when we see fatigue-related accidents, there is no correlation 

that at least I have seen as to whether that is a compliance-related 

accident. In other words, okay, the driver was fatigued, but was he 

fatigued because he was not following the existing laws and violating those laws? 

The second is the topic of sleep apnea. We’re just beginning to 

explore that topic. As well as CSA 2010; we haven’t even begun to 

see the benefits of that, which is only a year into fruition, which 

is probably the most sweeping, comprehensive method that the 

FMCSA has taken in looking at carriers, as well as providing us 

189 

a tool to manage our carriers and our fleets better in the data that 

it provides to us. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from Idaho for 

his good questions. 

I want to thank our first panel for your great testimony and your 

willingness to answer the questions and be with us today. We’re 

going to dismiss you now, and we’ll get to our second panel. So 

thank you all again. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Ferro, it’s good to have you with us. And we 

have to do the swearing-in bit again. So I apologize; you just got 

seated. If you’re ready, stand and raise your right hand and we’ll 

get started. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

Ms. FERRO. I do. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. 

And let the record show that the Administrator answered in the 

affirmative. 

Okay. Thank you for being with us. I know you have a busy 

schedule, as well, and we appreciate your time here. And it may 

just be you and me, so this will be brief probably. But you’ve got 

your 5 minutes. If you need a little more time, go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANNE S. FERRO, ADMINISTRATOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and discuss the FMCSA’s efforts to reduce 

fatigue-related crashes involving trucks through the enhancements 

of the Federal Hours of Service rule. 

The FMCSA is an agency of 1,000 employees overseeing an industry of more than 500,000 carriers and millions of drivers. With 

a workforce 80 percent of which is across the country in the field, 

we are dedicated to our congressionally mandated mission to save 

lives by reducing crashes involving large trucks. We achieve this 

mission through a mix of enforcement strategies, rules, and tools 

designed to target our efforts on noncompliant carriers and drivers. 

We also use research and data analysis to improve overall industry safety. And our research shows that fatigue remains a significant factor in truck-related crashes. Many commercial drivers are 

still not getting enough rest and breaks under the current rule. 

Last year, 2010, nearly 4,000 people died in crashes involving large 

trucks. By the Department’s estimates, approximately 500 of those 

would have been related to a fatigued driver. 

Each and every life is precious, and while it’s hard to place a 

monetary value on human life or a family suddenly left without a 

mother, a father, a child, a friend, a sibling, or a colleague, we can 

estimate the economic cost of commercial motor vehicle crashes. 

Costs include property damage, cargo damage, bridge and road 

damage, vehicle damage, lost wages, lost productivity, workers’ 

190 

comp costs, medical insurance, health costs, and the list goes on 

and on. 

These costs do not discriminate between safety advocate and 

small-business owner. They impact everybody. In fact, a company 

with a 2 percent profit margin would have to earn an additional 

gross revenue rate of $1.25 million to overcome the costs—unexpected, unscheduled costs—of a crash that would cost them up to 

$25,000 in costs not covered through insurance. Those are the costs 

of recovery for a business owner. There is no recovery capacity for 

a parent to overcome the loss of a child. 

The purpose of the proposed Hours of Service rule is to reduce 

driver fatigue and, thus, reduce fatigue-related crashes involving 

commercial vehicles. In developing this NPRM, FMCSA provided 

an unprecedented level of transparency and input from all sectors—safety advocates, small-business owners, drivers, shippers, 

the public at large, large trucking companies, you name it. 

We began by seeking input from our Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee, a body that was structured under SAFETEA–LU 

that is made up of representation from law enforcement, from the 

shipping and trucking industries, from insurance, safety advocacy 

community, and labor. Using the input from the advisory committee, we set about holding five listening sessions across the country—this is before developing the rule—in order to gain as much 

input as we could in building the rule itself, the proposed rule. 

So the NPRM that followed relied upon the input we received, an 

extensive review of fatigue-related scientific literature, crash data, 

driver health and mortality information, and thorough economic 

analyses. The NPRM was developed using the principles of President Obama’s Executive order, which calls for us to use quantitative and qualitative cost-benefit data, public participation, user 

participation, and a strong exchange of ideas. 

Because we’re still in the NPRM stage, I’m somewhat limited in 

how detailed I can respond to some of the questions that may be 

asked, but please rest assured that the final rule will be based on 

careful consideration of all the input we received, the additional 

data that were submitted to the docket. The draft final rule is currently under review at the OMB. 

So, again, I just want to reinforce that I speak for all of the 

FMCSA employees across the country to say we are passionately 

committed to our congressionally mandated mission to reduce 

crashes involving trucks and buses. Together with our State enforcement partners across the country, we work every day, 24/7, to 

fulfill this mission, fulfill the public’s expectation for safety and 

safe travel. Our citizens deserve no less. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Ferro follows:] 

191 


Insert offset folio 151 here 74038.151
192 


Insert offset folio 152 here 74038.152
193 


Insert offset folio 153 here 74038.153
194 


Insert offset folio 154 here 74038.154
195 


Insert offset folio 155 here 74038.155
196 


Insert offset folio 156 here 74038.156
197 


Insert offset folio 157 here 74038.157
198 


Insert offset folio 158 here 74038.158
199 


Insert offset folio 159 here 74038.159
200 

Mr. JORDAN. And I’ll be brief, as well. 

You said there were 4,000 fatalities in the last year—last year 

you had records of—because of truck accidents? Four thousand, 

was that the number you gave? 

Ms. FERRO. For 2010, our estimates—we continue—we collect 

crash data directly from our State law enforcement partners as 

part of our Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. And through 

that data, preliminarily, we’re showing an uptick in 2010. 

Again, crash rates still remain at historic lows, which is a tremendous outcome—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. 

Ms. FERRO. —not even close to being low enough, but that’s what 

we’re showing preliminarily for—— 

Mr. JORDAN. So crash rates are at historic lows. And you said 

4,000 for 2010. What—— 

Ms. FERRO. I said upwards of. 

Mr. JORDAN. What was it in 2009? What was it in 1995? Give 

me some comparison. 

Ms. FERRO. So, in 2009, I want to say 3,360, roughly, in truckinvolved fatalities. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. That’s a definite number? That’s not some estimate, it’s a definite number? 

Ms. FERRO. That’s our absolute number. 

Mr. JORDAN. And then, for 2010, you said it is approximately 

4,000, or is there a definite number? 

Ms. FERRO. No, that’s not a definite number. That is an estimate. 

And I said it is approaching 4,000. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. So 3,300, the number you gave for 2009, is 

a definite number. What was the definite number 10 years ago, 12 

years ago, 15 years ago? 

Ms. FERRO. It was closer in the high 4,000 range. I don’t have 

that specific number, but I will certainly provide it to the committee. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. But the trend has been down, or is it pretty 

level or—— 

Ms. FERRO. The trend—and I think you heard some of the prior 

witnesses indicate, there’s been roughly a 30 percent decline in 

truck-related fatalities. We’re still upwards of 75,000 injury-related 

crashes. 

Mr. JORDAN. And what’s that number like? Is that number the 

same? 

Ms. FERRO. That also has declined, yes, which is very positive. 

Mr. JORDAN. And then you mentioned the 500 related to fatigue. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. And how did you determine that? 

Ms. FERRO. That’s based on our estimates of fatigue-related 

crashes—which we feel, by the way, are an underestimate—derived 

from our Large Truck Crash Causation Study, which shows approximately 13 percent of fatal truck crashes attributed to fatigue. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. And, under the new rule, what does your 

modeling suggest will be the overall fatality number and the number attributable to fatigue? 

Ms. FERRO. So, under this rule—certainly, I heard a lot of talk 

from the prior witnesses. We’ve got costs, we’ve got benefits. WithVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:56 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\74038.TXT APRIL
201 

out the rule, we’ve got costs today that we estimate approach $1.4 

billion in costs to society as a whole in crashes and driver mortality, as in health. 

What we propose under this rule—and, again, there were two options in the rule we proposed. We identified benefits that include 

a reduction in deaths directly under the 10-hour option of approximately 49. And under the 11-hour option, I want to say it was 

about 28. And those are deaths specifically attributed to fatigue-related driving, not all crashes and deaths related to truck crashes. 

Mr. JORDAN. So what you’re saying is you go from 500 to—what 

number next year? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, again, you’re presuming next year the rule is 

in effect. We are still in a proposed rulemaking stage. So in the 

year in which—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, whatever year, whatever year it goes into effect. 

Ms. FERRO. Let’s, you know, fast forward to a year when the rule 

is fully in play—and this is a proposed rule. Under the option 

where we proposed 10 hours of driving time, which was the agency’s preferred option, we would see a reduction, an estimated reduction, in deaths of approximately 49, and under the 11-hour option of 26. 

Mr. JORDAN. And what was the other number that you—what 

does your projection suggest on the 3,300 fatality number, overall 

number? 

Ms. FERRO. I don’t have that. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. 

Ms. FERRO. I don’t have that, but we will certainly follow up if 

we can project that. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. 

Well, I want to thank you for coming today. We had, I think, a 

good discussion with our first panel. And because we have no other 

Members here—and I apologize, it’s the nature of, as you know, 

Congress’ schedule that we didn’t have more of our Members able 

to ask you questions. But thank you for coming. 

Ms. FERRO. Well, if I might, just in closing real quickly, reinforce 

again, the purpose of this rule is to reduce fatigue-related crashes 

involving trucks by reducing and setting improved rest breaks and 

improved likelihood of rest for professional commercial drivers. 

It is our obligation as a Federal agency to strive toward the 

safest operating environment possible for commercial vehicles and 

protect the public. And we feel strongly that the proposed rule 

heads us in that direction. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. 

Ms. FERRO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. You bet. Thank you. 

And we’re adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

202 


Insert offset folio 160 here 74038.160
203 


Insert offset folio 161 here 74038.161
204 


Insert offset folio 162 here 74038.162
205 


Insert offset folio 163 here 74038.163
206 


Insert offset folio 164 here 74038.164
207 


Insert offset folio 165 here 74038.165
208 


Insert offset folio 166 here 74038.166
209 


Insert offset folio 167 here 74038.167
210 


Insert offset folio 168 here 74038.168
211 


Insert offset folio 169 here 74038.169
212 


Insert offset folio 170 here 74038.170
213 


Insert offset folio 171 here 74038.171
214 


Insert offset folio 172 here 74038.172
215 


Insert offset folio 173 here 74038.173
216 


Insert offset folio 174 here 74038.174
217 


Insert offset folio 175 here 74038.175
218 


Insert offset folio 176 here 74038.176
219 


Insert offset folio 177 here 74038.177
220 


Insert offset folio 178 here 74038.178
221 


Insert offset folio 179 here 74038.179