U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

94–380 PDF 2015

THE FUTURE OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE 

SAFETY: TECHNOLOGY, SAFETY INITIATIVES, 

AND THE ROLE OF FEDERAL REGULATION 

(114–15) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 29, 2015 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

WITNESSES 

Danny Schnautz, Vice President, Clark Freight Lines, on behalf of the OwnerOperator Independent Drivers Association: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, 

a Delegate in Congress from the District of Columbia .............................. 63 

Tom B. Kretsinger, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, American 

Central Transport, on behalf of the American Trucking Associations: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut ....................... 78 

William ‘‘Bill’’ Reese, Captain, Idaho State Police, on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

Additional comments for the record ................................................................ 92 

Brian Scott, President, Escot Bus Lines, LLC, on behalf of the United Motorcoach Association: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement 1 ........................................................................................ 95 

LaMont Byrd, Director of Safety and Health, International Brotherhood of 

Teamsters: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 108 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, 

a Delegate in Congress from the District of Columbia .............................. 130 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, of Connecticut ................................................................. 43 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Richard L. Hanna, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New York, submission of press release, American Transportation Research 

Institute, ATRI Research Finds Truck Operations and Safety Have Been 

Impacted by 34-Hour Restart Provisions, April 29, 2015 ................................. 15 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, submission of the following documents: 

Letter to Hon. Napolitano from Ron Cottingham, President, Peace Officers Research Association of California, February 18, 2013 ..................... 21 

Written statement of Lawrence Liberatore, Board Member, Parents 

Against Tired Truckers ................................................................................ 134 

Written statement of Ron Wood, Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition, and 

Member, Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee, Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration .......................................................... 136 

Written statement of Frank Wood, Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition ....... 138 

1The appendix to Mr. Scott’s prepared statement can be found online at the U.S. House 

of Representatives Document Repository at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW12/20150429/ 

103351/HHRG-114-PW12-Wstate-ScottB-20150429.pdf. 

Page

VI 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, submission of the following documents—Continued 

Written statement of Joan Claybrook, Cochair, Advocates for Highway 

and Auto Safety ............................................................................................ 140 

Letter to House Committee on Appropriations from five Idaho groups 

in opposition to special interest truck safety exemptions in the fiscal 

year 2016 THUD appropriations bill, May 12, 2015 .................................. 159 

Letter to House Committee on Appropriations from Parents Against Tired 

Truckers and Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways imploring the 

removal of all anti-truck safety provisions in the fiscal year 2016 

THUD appropriations bill, May 12, 2015 ................................................... 161 

Hon. Reid J. Ribble, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, submission of a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration study 

summary of truck stopping distances ................................................................. 32 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

American Bus Association, written statement of Peter J. Pantuso, President 

and Chief Executive Officer ................................................................................ 165 

Associated General Contractors of America, written statement .......................... 167 

Uline, written statement of Elizabeth Uihlein, President ................................... 171 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 94380.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 94380.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 94380.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 94380.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 94380.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 94380.006
(1) 

THE FUTURE OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY: TECHNOLOGY, SAFETY INITIATIVES, AND THE ROLE OF FEDERAL REGULATION 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m. in room 

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

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. We will go ahead and call the hearing 

to order. I appreciate everybody being here today, and we are going 

to focus on the future of motor carrier safety. And it is important 

to note at the outset that the safety record of commercial motor 

carriers and motorcoach operators has improved dramatically since 

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration was established 

in 1999. 

According to the FMCSA’s most recent ‘‘Large Truck and Bus 

Crash Facts,’’ the number of large trucks and buses involved in 

fatal crashes decreased by 17 percent and 4 percent, respectively, 

from 2003 to 2013. Industry, drivers, and the enforcement community alike deserve the credit for all of these achievements. 

Congress, and this committee in particular, has played an important role as well, from creating the FMCSA to focus specifically on 

truck and bus safety, to authorizing the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, which provides resources for States to enforce 

Federal commercial motor vehicle regulations. I am concerned, 

however, about the growing scope and number of new regulations 

being placed on the industry. Just in the past few years, the agency 

has imposed new hours-of-service regulations; implemented the 

controversial CSA program; and, at the direction of Congress, it 

has imposed new equipment mandates on both truck and bus operations and operators. 

I am also concerned about the growth of FMCSA. The budget for 

the agency has more than doubled since fiscal year 2001, its first 

full year of operation, and stands at $572 million. While I support 

a strong safety program, we need to ensure that funds are being 

spent on initiatives that will move the needle in terms of reducing 

crashes, injuries, and fatalities on the Nation’s highways. Of particular concern to me is a recent regulatory proposal to raise the 

2 

minimum levels of financial responsibility, potentially by millions 

of dollars. 

As this committee continues to work on the long-term surface 

transportation reauthorization, we should examine what additional 

safety technologies and initiatives and commonsense reforms to the 

regulatory process could be employed to further reduce crashes, injuries, and deaths attributable to commercial motor vehicles, if 

more regulation is needed—or should Congress concentrate to a 

greater extent on providing the right incentives for truck and bus 

operators to operate safely? 

We are grateful that each of the stakeholders represented today 

has developed thoughtful policy recommendations, and look forward to a robust debate over the specific proposals. From providing 

greater flexibility to State enforcement agencies, to encouraging the 

development and deployment of active safety systems and reforming the way FMCSA undertakes rulemakings, various proposals deserve robust debate and some serious consideration. 

I am hopeful that today’s hearing is going to provide our subcommittee members with insight into the broad spectrum of proposals to continue improving motor carrier safety and inform this 

committee’s work as we develop a long-term surface transportation 

reauthorization bill. And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

And I now recognize Ms. Norton for her opening statement. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Chairman Graves, for scheduling this hearing. This is an important hearing. And I congratulate you, because it is the first hearing under your leadership. And 

I look forward to working closely with you. 

I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that both you and Chairman Shuster 

want a long-term highway bill. So before I say anything about the 

direct subject matter, important vehicle safety issues, I must express the frustration I am hearing, not only in my district, but 

from around the country, about the delay, or what appears to be 

delay, in getting through this committee a long-term surface transportation authorization bill. 

Mr. Chairman, if not a long-term bill—for example, a 4-year bill, 

and I have been here when there have been 6-year bills—certainly 

a longer term bill than the past, the very short bill that was passed 

in 2012. We need the longest term bill possible. It is inconceivable 

to me that we are 10 days away from May 31st, the date the deadline expires. And I have seen no indication that, during this period, 

there has been movement on even trying to get a bill. 

That is what is most troubling to me, Mr. Chairman. And it is 

particularly frustrating, now that we are full into the construction 

season. And there is no certainty of the future of a highway and 

transit program with funding, whatsoever, that we have been able 

to transmit to State and local governments. So, what do we see 

them doing? They are already slowing down projects that have 

been long delayed. 

I also do not see the search for a sustainable solution to shore 

up the Highway Trust Fund. We know what happened with the solution we have been using for 50 years; we ran out of funds, and 

funds had to be transmitted from the Treasury in order to just get 

through the authorized period. The Congressional Budget Office esVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:33 Aug 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\HT\4-29-1~1\94380.TXT JEAN
3 

timates that the shortfall, if we use that approach, is $174 billion 

over the next 10 years. And that is just to maintain funding levels, 

without doing anything about what have become now increasingly 

urgent needs in our State and localities. The gap for a 6-year bill at current levels is $92 million. And if 

you want to see that increase, the longer we hold up, the more expensive whatever bill we put out will be. So you would think that 

there would be every effort to contain the cost by getting a bill out 

on the streets now. 

The real test is how quickly Congress moves after we pass whatever extension we do, of course, to find a funding plan for a longterm bill. I know that Chairman Shuster stands firm in wanting 

our committee and our subcommittee to move a robust, long-term 

bill. It is up to the Republican leadership and the tax-writing committees to come to the table and show that they are serious, as 

well. 

Today’s hearing, of course, is about the future of motor carrier 

safety. This is a subject that I am very interested in, and particularly the innovative technologies and new ideas that I have begun 

to hear about to raise the bar on safety. I hope this hearing, however, is a refreshing change from what has become the norm on 

truck and bus issues: endless requests for exemptions and calls to 

block DOT safety rules. 

There is, no doubt, room for some improvement on many rules 

that the Federal agencies have issued. But, rather than calls to 

eliminate regulation, as has become the norm, we should be challenging industry, DOT, and stakeholders to sit down, be creative, 

work toward a common goal, and utilize their resources in a way 

that will have the most positive effect on safety. 

I know we can do this. This is not an impossible task. I am very 

interested to hear about steps in the right direction. For example, 

DOT recently convened a negotiated rulemaking committee to develop a rule on driver training. More robust driver training is 

something Congress has directed DOT to consider for nearly 25 

years. The first directive was in a bill in 1991. To say this rule is 

overdue is putting it fairly mildly. I hope that this new committee 

can facilitate a rule that all parties can agree to, which will expedite DOT’s publication of the rule, and limit litigation once it is finalized. 

I would also like to recognize, finally, Mr. Chairman, the dedication of safety advocates and family members of truck accident victims who come to Members of Congress and continue to work tirelessly to educate Congress and the public. Their stories help to 

heighten our awareness of the real-world impacts that policy decisions have on our constituents’ lives. I welcome their presence here 

today, as we discuss this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, I may have to leave because of the Rules Committee, but I will certainly return. And, again, I thank you for this 

hearing. 

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

I am very pleased to have Ranking Member DeFazio with us, 

and I would yield to him for an opening statement. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. First and foremost, congratulations on taking over the very important Subcommittee on 

4 

Highways and Transit. This, I think, is your first official hearing. 

And so, congratulations on that. It is an appropriate subject. 

You know, I am also looking forward to working with you on a 

long-term, robustly funded surface transportation bill. I think everybody in the audience should clap at that point. 

I delved very deeply into highway and motor carrier safety during my 4 years as chairman of the subcommittee. We held nine 

hearings. Many of the problems we investigated—development of 

the CSA, drug testing, medical qualifications of drivers, bus safety, 

truck size and weight, FMCSA’s oversight of carriers—it is all, unfortunately, still very much a work in progress. Very little has been 

settled. 

Since FMCSA was created, Congress has continuously legislated 

in this area. In MAP–21 alone, we directed FMCSA to undertake 

41 regulatory changes, most of which required rulemaking. We 

keep mandating lots of activity. And today it seems to have resulted in less clarity for the industry, and a wide variety of stakeholders. I think we can do better. 

The title of this hearing is ‘‘The Future of Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety,’’ and I hope some forward-thinking ideas come out of 

this hearing. I am very open to solutions that allow flexibility, 

while advancing safety, and helping drivers do their jobs more efficiently. And I think, in order to look holistically at safety, we have 

got to look at the realities and the pressures on the ground or on 

the highway and the industry, and understand what drives decisionmaking and behavior by companies and drivers. 

And Federal rules are just one part of that. You know, temporarily blocking FMCSA efforts or granting exemptions may provide 

some degree of relief or advantage to one segment of the industry 

or another, but it is a Band-Aid approach. It is not what we should 

be doing, long term. 

Let’s take an example. And I spent some time on this issue: 

hours of service. FMCSA’s regulations are incredibly difficult to understand. You know, for our economy to thrive, we can’t hamstring 

companies with overly prescriptive rules. At the same time, hours 

of service are the basic wage and hour laws for the men and 

women whose office is the highway, and they aren’t eligible for 

overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. And we need to address the, really, very important potential for fatigued drivers on 

the highways. 

But I don’t think we can get there until we address some underlying issues, such as detention time. Changes in hours-of-service 

rules will have limited impact, if we haven’t dealt with detention 

time, particularly as it relates to independent and small-business 

drivers. The truck driver gets to the loading dock, shipper facility, 

they can sit there, say, 3 hours, sometimes even more, waiting. But 

it counts against their daily and weekly on-duty limits. And most 

truck drivers are paid by the load, rather than a set wage, particularly the independent and small business. So these drivers often 

face the impossible choice between earning less money than they 

need to stay in business, despite working a 14-hour day, or violating hours-of-service rules, or shaving them a little bit. 

That is a problem that should be dealt with. We used to have 

rules to deal with that. There is no incentive on the other side of 

5 

these loads any more, without detention time pay, to be efficient 

for the drivers. It is better with the bigger companies, because they 

can really carry some clout there. But, for a lot of the small business and independents, it is a very real problem. 

I have introduced legislation on the detention time in the past, 

you know, because we owe it to drivers to get the rules right, to 

combat fatigue, and to give them a fair shot at making a good living. And if the current rules don’t get to that goal, then Congress 

needs to look at other solutions. 

I look forward to hearing some innovative ideas. I thank the witnesses for their somewhat voluminous testimony. I did read it all 

on the airplane yesterday. Luckily, I had a 5-hour flight. And coffee. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But there are some very interesting premises in 

there. I do find some differences of opinion on some critical issues, 

and hopefully that will come out during the hearing today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thanks, Ranking Member DeFazio. 

So, I would like to welcome all of our witnesses here. And I know 

some of you traveled a long ways, and we obviously appreciate 

that. I am very—I am especially pleased to introduce Tom 

Kretsinger, who hails from the Kansas City area. Tom joined the 

family business in 1981, after graduating from law school, and has 

served as the president of American Central Transport since 2005. 

It is a truckload carrier operating over 300 trucks. Tom is an active 

member of the American Trucking Associations, serving on its ATA 

Executive Committee and board of directors, and chairing the ATA 

Litigation Center. He is a previous chairman of the Truckload Carriers Association, and serves on TCA’s board of directors. 

Tom, welcome to the committee. 

I would also like to welcome our other panelists, Mr. Danny 

Schnautz, vice president, Clark Freight Lines, and he is here on behalf of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association; Captain Bill Reese, with the Idaho State Police, on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; Mr. Brian Scott, who is president 

of Escot Bus Lines, on behalf of the United Motorcoach Association; 

and Mr. LaMont Byrd, who is the director of safety and health, 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

I would ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be included in the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. And, without objection, that is so ordered. 

And since your written testimony is going to be made a part of 

the record, the committee would ask that you please limit your testimony to 5 minutes. 

And, with that, Mr. Schnautz, we will start with you. 

6 

TESTIMONY OF DANNY SCHNAUTZ, VICE PRESIDENT, CLARK 

FREIGHT LINES, ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER-OPERATOR 

INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION; TOM B. 

KRETSINGER, JR., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN CENTRAL TRANSPORT, ON BEHALF OF THE 

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS; WILLIAM ‘‘BILL’’ 

REESE, CAPTAIN, IDAHO STATE POLICE, ON BEHALF OF THE 

COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE; BRIAN SCOTT, 

PRESIDENT, ESCOT BUS LINES, LLC, ON BEHALF OF THE 

UNITED MOTORCOACH ASSOCIATION; AND LAMONT BYRD, 

DIRECTOR OF SAFETY AND HEALTH, INTERNATIONAL 

BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 

Mr. SCHNAUTZ. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Danny 

Schnautz, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of 

the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association. 

My experience in the trucking industry covers over 30 years, and 

has given me the opportunity to work as a long-haul trucker operating across the United States, as well as in motor carrier management. Additionally, I am a reserve sheriff’s deputy captain and a 

pilot. 

OOIDA represents the small-business truckers that are the majority of the trucking industry. More than 90 percent of U.S. carriers own 20 or fewer trucks, and half of all carriers are 1-truck 

operations. The average small-business trucker has driven more 

than 20 years and 2 million accident-free miles. 

This hearing comes at a critical time for the future of motor carrier safety policy. Instead of a reasoned understanding and approach to improving highway safety by addressing the key factors 

behind at-fault truck crashes, FMCSA policy enforcement is driven 

by a goal of absolute compliance with the letter of every single regulation, no matter the connection to at-fault crashes. This is a huge 

missed opportunity to achieve greater safety results at a lower regulatory burden. 

This focus on compliance with each of hundreds of regulations is 

the genesis for many of the FMCSA’s most recent, most costly, and 

most flawed regulatory and enforcement policies, including changes 

to hours-of-service rules, technology mandates, and the Compliance, Safety, Accountability program called CSA. 

‘‘We were compliant, and we were legal, but we weren’t safe.’’ A 

major carrier CEO said this recently, and he couldn’t be more correct. Under its current methodology, CSA inaccurately paints safe, 

small carriers as unsafe, reducing access to business, and opening 

them up to misguided enforcement activities. Meanwhile, truly unsafe carriers that crash frequently get ignored. 

Two examples illustrate the flaws of FMCSA’s current approach. 

Recently, one of my company’s trucks was inspected by a Texas 

State trooper. Although the truck was in stellar condition, an inspection violation impacting our CSA score was issued, because the 

trooper determined that the decals for two digits of the truck’s 

USDOT number were unreadable. Also, at a recent safety meeting, 

rather than discuss topics that would actually relate to safety outcomes, such as breaking down the preventative actions a driver 

could have taken to avoid a crash, or highlighting proper following 

7 

distance, because of CSA we train drivers on the proper completion 

of a form. 

One of OOIDA’s greatest concerns is that the FMCSA’s approach 

will force many of the safest drivers and carriers out of the industry, because it inhibits them from being successful small business 

owners. These are small business truckers with every incentive to 

operate safely. 

The current focus on technology initiatives actually hinders safety by placing more pressure on drivers when they are already 

caught between a regulatory rock and an economic hard place. 

Technology is not a substitute for skilled professional drivers, as it 

results in drivers more focused on not triggering an alert than on 

making smart, safe driving decisions. With technology in the name 

of safety further devaluing the skill of the driver, the longstanding 

approach by the entire supply chain to pay drivers for their productivity, not their value, pushes for more miles and decreases safety. 

In addition to today’s hyper-focus on compliance and technology, 

the FMCSA is also advancing an action that directly targets small 

carriers, and will result in no safety benefit. OOIDA is opposed to 

a likely 500-percent increase in motor carrier financial responsibility requirements, and we thank Chairman Graves for his help in 

combating this effort. This change will cause annual truck premiums to increase by $10,000 or more, despite FMCSA’s own data 

showing that the cost of 99 percent of truck-involved crashes are 

covered currently. 

Instead of these approaches, OOIDA sees the upcoming highway 

reauthorization as an opportunity to set into motion needed 

changes to FMCSA policy and enforcement priorities. A top goal 

should be an effectiveness review of existing FMCSA regulations, 

many of which have been on the books for decades with no evaluation on their impact to safety. 

Second, Congress should require any new regulations to be focused on addressing a specific problem and, based upon research, 

reflecting the entire industry, not just the experience of large motor 

carriers. 

Critically, as the GAO and others have recommended, CSA 

scores should be removed from public view until the FMCSA corrects the accuracy of the program’s data and methodology. We are 

grateful to Congressman Barletta for his safety-focused bill on this 

issue, and the committee’s work on a long-term reauthorization. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and for holding today’s 

hearing. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you very much. 

Now we will move to Mr. Kretsinger. 

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

Ranking Member Norton, members of the subcommittee, I am Tom 

Kretsinger, president and CEO of American Central Transport. 

Today I testify on behalf of American Trucking Associations, the 

largest trade association for the trucking industry, representing 

more than 35,000 member companies. I will speak today about the 

trucking industry’s positive safety record, and about a fundamental 

change in the Government’s approach to truck safety that is needed 

to continue this long-term trend. 

8 

The truck-involved fatality rate has decreased 74 percent since 

1975, and in the last decade alone, has dropped 38 percent. Continuous improvement will require an acknowledgment of the principal 

causes of truck crashes and appropriate countermeasures. The vast 

majority of truck crashes are the result of driver errors, not vehicle 

defects. FMCSA’s crash causation study found driver error was a 

critical reason behind 87 percent of crashes studied. Many improvements will also require a broadened approach from the current 

rules and enforcement-centric model to one promoting voluntary 

adoption of safety technologies and initiatives. 

ATA believes the discussion of the most effective ways to improve 

truck safety falls into three categories: rules, enforcement, and a 

new partnership. 

ATA has a proud history of supporting new commonsense safety 

rules. ATA was an early advocate of mandatory drug and alcohol 

testing, the CDL program, and the upcoming drug and alcohol 

clearinghouse. ATA continues to call for regulatory initiatives to 

improve safety. 

Regarding these regulations, ATA supports a proposed rule to 

mandate electronic logging devices to track hours-of-service compliance, a pending rule to mandate stability control devices, with 

some flexibility to account for the diversity of the industry. ATA is 

also eager to see a proposed rule calling for mandatory speed limiters on trucks, since vehicle speed is the greatest contributor to 

highway crashes. 

Finally, recognizing the role of driver behavior in crashes, 

FMCSA should make development of a national system to alert 

motor carriers to moving violations and license suspensions one of 

the agency’s top priorities. 

Turning to enforcement, continuation of long-term improvement 

in truck safety will require a change in the Government’s enforcement approach. Despite clear evidence driver behavior is responsible for the majority of crashes, Federal funding for on-road truck 

enforcement is predominantly spent on inspecting vehicle condition, 

not traffic enforcement. Government research shows traffic enforcement, coupled with a limited inspection, is at least four times more 

effective in preventing crashes and saving lives. Yet FMCSA data 

reflects a steep decline in enforcement activity. FMCSA’s current 

safety efforts are largely limited to compliance and enforcement. 

The agency should use a carrot and stick, but is focused on using 

the stick. This approach is limited in its effectiveness, and does not 

address ways to compel positive behavioral change. Government 

should partner with us to promote voluntary adoption of innovative 

safety tools and technologies. In short, Government could establish 

criteria for meeting a gold standard and reward the fleets that 

made it. 

Government incentives can accelerate adoption of new tools and 

technologies already being embraced by the industry. Among the 

more promising technologies are video event recorders. These devices, mounted on a windshield, can monitor what occurs inside 

and outside a vehicle. Records are saved when risky driving or collisions are detected, and a supervisor is subsequently alerted. My 

company is a good example. We are currently employing these technologies, voluntarily, and it is really helping. We have seen a 64- 

9 

percent reduction, both in the number of events and the severity 

of events, all while increasing the number of units in our trucks. 

Mr. Chairman, we are eager to work with the Government on 

more creative safety approaches. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you very much. 

Captain Reese? 

Mr. REESE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for holding this important hearing, and for 

inviting the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance to testify. My 

name is Bill Reese, and I am a captain with the Idaho State Police. 

I currently serve as the president of CVSA. 

The alliance represents the jurisdictions responsible for the enforcement of commercial motor vehicle safety laws in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. As Congress considers the future of CMV safety, 

we believe there are a number of opportunities to make changes 

that will help advance our collective goal of reducing crashes and 

saving lives. Most critical is giving the States more flexibility to design and implement programs that improve CMV safety. Our top 

priority is saving lives, but we also have a responsibility to meet 

a long list of requirements under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, and to enforce the associated safety regulations, 

doing all of this with limited resources. 

A State’s commercial vehicle safety program is comprised of a 

number of aspects, including roadside inspections, traffic enforcement on commercial motor vehicles, compliance reviews, safety audits, targeted strike forces, educational activities, and even traffic 

enforcement on private citizens operating dangerously around commercial motor vehicles. The appropriate level for each activity varies from State to State, and changes over time. States need the 

ability to design a comprehensive CMV safety program that uses 

creative solutions to address issues unique to that State. 

That is not to say that the States should not be held accountable. 

Congress and FMCSA should focus on setting broad parameters, 

program elements, goals, and expected outcomes, and then hold the 

States accountable for meeting program goals, using our annual 

commercial vehicle safety plan. 

We also support consolidating and streamlining the grants, 

which will reduce administrative burden on the States and provide 

more stability. This will enable States to spend more time and resources on doing the work of their program, rather than administering it. 

We also believe more work needs to be done to update and clean 

up the Federal regulations, which will benefit both enforcement 

and industry. 

Clarity, consistency, uniformity, and enforceability are the cornerstones of an effective regulatory framework. However, over 

time, additional regulatory authority, coupled with changes to the 

industry and technology, can result in inconsistent, outdated, and 

redundant regulatory language. To address this, CVSA supports requiring that FMCSA conduct a full review of the Federal regulations every 5 years, in collaboration with CVSA and industry. This 

will help with streamlining the regulations, eliminating outdated 

10 

or redundant regulations, and clarifying those that need adjustment. 

Work is also needed to bring the safety regulations in line with 

regulatory guidance, interpretations, and policy memos issued by 

the agency. While this puts additional administrative burden on 

FMCSA, maintaining the regulations is one of the agency’s core responsibilities, and the benefits and savings that will accrue for enforcement, industry, and the public justify this endeavor. 

Congress should also consider eliminating or minimizing the 

number of legislative exemptions in the future. Legislative exemptions complicate enforcement and have no safety oversight. 

Finally, maximizing technology and improving data quality can 

help capitalize on existing enforcement activities, as well as industry investments. It is imperative that those in the safety and enforcement communities take full advantage of technology to improve safety. New technologies like license plate readers and virtual inspection locations can expand enforcement’s footprint, allowing a jurisdiction to cover more miles and more drivers and vehicles than it can with inspectors at fixed facilities, alone. 

And we fully support policies that encourage industry to deploy 

technologies that can assist in preventing and mitigating crashes, 

such as vehicle stability and collision warning systems. It should 

be noted, though, that any new requirements on States or industry 

must be developed with the enforcement community in mind. Deployment of systems and devices will only be effective if they are 

functioning, and used properly. 

One last note. We provided a number of recommendations on 

how to improve the future of CMV safety, which we hope will be 

helpful as this committee works on the next transportation bill. 

However, even with streamlined grants, clear regulations, top-quality data, and full use of all available technology, the State programs cannot be effective without adequate funding. Funding for 

State CMV programs must keep pace with the growing motor carrier industry. 

That concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thanks, Captain. 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, members of the subcommittee, on behalf of members of the 

United Motorcoach Association, thank you for calling this hearing 

today, and for the opportunity to represent the bus and motorcoach 

industry in my testimony. This committee has a long and distinguished record of promoting commercial motor vehicle safety in a 

reasonable and defensible regulatory climate. 

I am the president of Escot Bus Lines, a second-generation, family-owned and operated bus and motorcoach company with offices 

and facilities located throughout central Florida. Like most bus 

companies, we started small when my parents, Louis and Diane 

Scott, purchased two mini-buses in 1983. Currently, we operate a 

fleet of 84 motorcoaches. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to frame this conversation from one critical perspective: bus and motorcoach travel is extremely safe. 

Percentagewise, large buses account for less than one-tenth of 1 

11 

percent of the annual highway fatality toll. This remarkable safety 

record is no small achievement, and is largely attributable to the 

vigilance and dedication of the men and women that drive, maintain, own, and manufacture our equipment. In a nutshell, our business is moving people safely, timely, and economically. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration also plays a 

critical role in facilitating interstate commerce and ensuring the 

safety of commercial motor vehicles. However, UMA is increasingly 

concerned that the culture of the agency, through its actions, have 

not served the cause of public safety, and have been harmful to existing bus and motorcoach carriers and the continued growth and 

health of the industry. 

We are concerned enough to worry about the continued viability 

of this important transportation sector. For the first time I can recall in my 30-plus-year career, the Nation’s motorcoach industry is 

in decline. A recent census report by John Dunham and Associates 

for the American Bus Association Foundation concluded that in 

2013 the number of motorcoach companies decreased by nearly 5 

percent, a loss of 153 carriers in that year alone. Total passenger 

trips by motorcoach in the U.S. declined by a whopping 32 million. 

You may believe the regulatory climate at FMCSA is a significant contributing factor. The biggest issue to UMA is the current 

regulatory climate at FMCSA. Let me share a real-life example of 

the negative impacts of the current hostile enforcement posture of 

FMCSA. 

Another example is Jeff and Judy Rodgers, who together founded 

Southeastern Tours in North Carolina over two decades ago. The 

company passed compliance reviews with satisfactory ratings in 

2003, 2005, and in 2010. The last review began very differently, 

when the FMCSA representative stated, ‘‘I am going to warn you 

now that we have done five audits like this, and we have put four 

out of business.’’ 

Paperwork snafus, in combination with other correctable deficiencies, led the company being placed out of service. A long, miserable trail of employee layoffs, equipment repossessions, foreclosures, and unpaid creditors are a hallmark of FMCSA’s unwarranted, out-of-service orders. Today, Jeff and Judy remain on the 

sidelines with an uncertain future. Jeff and Judy Rodgers deserve 

the same opportunity as my parents, Louis and Diane Scott. There 

are many other examples in my written testimony. 

The single largest threat to passenger carriers today is FMCSA’s 

decision to propose a potentially massive increase in minimum financial responsibility limits for passenger carriers. MAP–21 directed FMCSA to study the adequacy of current limits and submit 

their findings in a report to Congress, which, like every State legislative body in the Nation, has historically established requirements. The report failed to include any analysis for passenger carriers, but focused exclusively on trucks, yet suggests limits as high 

as a 400-percent increase. 

The suggestion that limits should be increased without any study 

whatsoever is unconscionable. UMA supports a bill introduced just 

last night by Congressman Scott Perry that clarifies that passenger 

limits should be established by Congress, and directs FMCSA to do 

a comprehensive study of current limits and accident claims history 

12 

of passenger carriers, consult with both the bus and insurance industries on the study, and submit that study to Congress. 

FMCSA’s CSA program is another concern. If a driver of a car 

crashes into a legally stopped bus and is killed, nobody believes the 

bus and driver or company should be held accountable. Yet FMCSA 

insists on displaying these crashes to the public as a recorded fatal 

crash, absent any specific context. The display of nonpreventable 

crashes to the public is malicious, irresponsible, discouraging for 

motor carriers, and misleading to the public. 

These flaws are not just UMA’s views, but GAO agrees. The GAO 

report of February 2014 concluded that ‘‘...FMCSA identified many 

carriers as high risk that were not later involved in a crash, potentially causing FMCSA to miss opportunities to intervene with carriers that were involved with crashes.’’ My company received a violation, citing us with failing to display the ‘‘LLC’’ at the end of our 

name. In another instance, finding no violations in a recent inspector of a driver in a vehicle, an enforcement official decided the restroom was smelly, and the carrier was cited. 

All too often, we hear enforcement officials say, ‘‘Well, we have 

to find something.’’ In any analysis, safety is not improved, the taxpayer is cheated, and CSA continues irresponsibly. 

Finally, UMA is concerned about the delays in approving new entrant applicants for operating authority. 

That concludes my testimony. Thank you very much. 

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

Mr. Byrd? 

Mr. BYRD. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, members 

of the subcommittee, my name is LaMont Byrd, I am the director 

of safety and health at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

As a union representing more than 600,000 commercial drivers, we 

welcome the invitation to testify today. 

Our members contend daily with crumbling roads, long work 

hours, bigger trucks, increased congestion, and poorly trained drivers, all of which undermine safety. In order to ensure highway 

safety, these issues must be addressed. 

The current hours-of-service rule is designed to give drivers an 

opportunity for sufficient rest. It represents two decades of rulemaking, court challenges, and numerous studies. Two critical components of the rule were suspended in last year’s cromnibus: the 

changes to the 34-hour restart provision increases the number of 

hours that a driver may work from 70 hours to over 80 hours per 

week; and the required consecutive off-duty periods from 1 a.m. to 

5 a.m., also suspended, were designed to mitigate cumulative fatigue. 

With the DOT driver restart study underway, Congress should 

not consider making either of these provisions permanent. The 

Teamsters strongly oppose increases to truck size and weight. The 

industry claims that increasing truck size and weight limits will result in fewer trucks on the road. With every increase, truck traffic 

has grown as shippers have taken advantage of cheaper rates and 

divert freight from rail to trucks. Highway design, stopping distances, congestion, and the current condition of our infrastructure 

are all factors that need to be considered as we debate this issue. 

13 

The Teamsters Union also opposes increasing 28-foot double 

trailers to 33 feet. Adding 10 feet to an already elongated tractortrailer combination decreases maneuverability and visibility, and 

compromises safety. Congress should not entertain special interest 

truck size and weight exemptions until it can examine the results 

of the ongoing comprehensive truck size and weight study. 

Testing drivers for substance abuse is necessary to keep unfit 

drivers off the road. But hair testing presents some interesting 

challenges. Our primary concern is there are no national standards, as with urine testing. Thresholds for positive test results are 

low to a point where secondhand smoke and environmental exposures to marijuana, for example, could affect test results. Since 

there are real consequences for those who test positive, it is important to ensure that these tests produce accurate and fair results. 

Equipping trucks with the latest safety technologies will eventually help reduce truck crashes. Technology such as vehicle stability, 

lane departure warning, and collision warning systems, can help 

drivers to avoid accidents. The Teamsters also support electronic 

logging devices to track hours of service. However, it is important 

to provide drivers with proper training to ensure a high level of 

driver acceptance, and that the data used by—collected by these 

technologies not be used to harass the drivers. 

For too long, the minimum insurance for motor carriers has remained at $750,000. The 30-year standard has become woefully insufficient, as accidents can easily cost millions of dollars. The 

Teamsters support raising liability coverage to $4.5 million, and indexing it to inflation of medical costs. In that same vein, the Teamsters Union has serious concerns about attempts to create a national hiring standard for motor carriers. While we appreciate the 

challenges that shippers and brokers experience in determining 

what constitutes a safe motor carrier, proposed legislation is overly 

broad in that it imposes no liability for negligent selection of a 

motor carrier. 

Fixing DOT’s safety rating system is a better solution. Safe operating procedures for motor carriers require accountability. 

FMCSA’s CSA program provides that accountability, and we support it. While not perfect, we believe that it is a major improvement over the previous program. Our members report that, as a result of CSA, they are able to perform more comprehensive pre-trip 

and post-trip inspections, because carriers are more sensitive to 

how vehicle maintenance, for example, affects the carrier’s CSA 

score. 

As I conclude, I want to mention detention time. Teamster drivers are compensated for waiting time, but that is not always the 

case with nonunion drivers. The longer they wait, the more time 

they lose, which can affect the time that they have left to drive. 

These drivers can then feel pressured to violate safety regulations 

by driving while fatigued. 

The IBT is committed to keeping our drivers and all others with 

whom they share the road safe. We look forward to working with 

you to help grow a transportation network that meets the future 

needs of this country, moves freight efficiently, and improves safety 

on our Nation’s highways. Thank you. 

14 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Byrd. We will now 

move into questions. We will start with Mr. Hanna. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Kretsinger and Mr. 

Schnautz, the—I have a report that came out today from the American Transportation Research Institute that has studied the hours 

of service, the 34-hour restart rule, that was initiated without the 

completion of the study last July. And the results are very predictable, based on the nature of the study and the quality of the study. 

I will give you a quick idea of what it is, I just would like your response. 

The crash data analyzed shows a statistically significant increase 

in truck crashes after July 1, 2013. Specifically, with injury and 

tow-away crashes in particular, the increase in injury and towaway crashes would be expected, based on shifting of trucks to 

more congested weekday travel due to increased traffic and exposure. The truck GPS data analyzed identified a shift, because of 

this rule, from—to daytime hours, and—from nighttime hours to 

daytime hours, and from weekends to more congested weekdays. 

All of it could have been anticipated, in my view, and has been 

widely talked about. 

So that the—it is—what we are suggesting here—and I would 

like to submit this for the record—is that this rule actually made 

the world less safe for people in your industry. And it is, in my 

view, specifically because they never even bothered to study the 

change in dynamics of when they were asking people to drive. 

[The information follows:] 

15 


Insert offset folio 7 here 94380.007
16 

Mr. HANNA. And I am not asking you to confirm or not, but I 

would just like your—both of your opinions. 

Mr. KRETSINGER. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I 

saw this study this morning, and I think it proves the law of unintended consequences quite well. And it confirms what I hear from 

talking to my drivers. Average age of our drivers is 50 years old, 

so these men and women have been around a while. And they tell 

me, when you used to get out of the city, you know, you hit that 

open road, and it would be kind of relaxing. They tell me they are 

in traffic pretty much all the time now. And, of course, traffic 

around them is often on a cell phone. 

So, I think it is true that pushing—you know, micromanaging 

the hours the way they have done has pushed more trucks onto the 

road during weekdays and daylight hours, and that is when the 

cars are there. And it is not surprising you will have more trouble. 

Mr. SCHNAUTZ. Yes. For sure, the hours-of-service restrictions 

are flawed, in that they try to predict what a driver is going to be 

feeling and thinking in the days and weeks and hours ahead, which 

is impossible to do. 

I have lived under hours of service, I made a living under hoursof-service regs. So I can tell you that the more flexibility that we 

have, the better they are. And whenever they put in more restrictions, they do cause more problems, unintended consequences, for 

sure. But there are so many times when a driver just needs a different hour that day. And every time we reduce that hour availability to him, even if it is not part of a pattern, then we further 

erode highway safety. 

Mr. HANNA. The interesting thing is that they have elected to 

continue the study, and are using the same university to do the 

study. And it is pretty clear that everybody involved in this is 

digging in, for lack of a better term, to prove that what we know 

through this study and all kinds of anecdotal evidence is not true, 

so that they are engaging in a study they would like us to believe 

that they will come out with later in the year that is unbelievable 

on its face because they are hiring the same people to do it again, 

who are well paid and clearly have decided that, no matter what 

the world tells them, they are incapable of making a mistake. 

Thank you for your indulgence. I am over my time, I think. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Ms. Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding 

this hearing today. This has long been an issue for me on a number 

of levels, because I represent the Port of Los Angeles. And, along 

with Long Beach, it is the largest port complex in this country. And 

one of the moves that I worked on very hard was the idea of off— 

moving cargo off-peak. And we do have a system at Long Beach 

and Los Angeles where we are, I think at this point, close to 50 

percent of the cargo we are moving in the weekends and in the evenings. 

We were on the Panel on 21st-Century Freight Transportation of 

this committee, and one of the recommendations that came from 

the panel was that ports across the country implement moving 

cargo in the evenings and the weekends, mainly because it allows 

our truck drivers to not have to compete with the commuters during rush hour on Monday through Friday. So I think it makes 

17 

sense. I would like to see that, really, as a policy, nationwide. I 

think it makes a lot of sense. 

You know, one of the issues that I—has come to my attention in 

my port area is the classification of independent contractor for 

some of the port truck drivers. And I was with them this Monday. 

They were striking because they felt like there was wage theft and 

unfair employment practices by categorizing them as independent 

contractors, as opposed to employees of the country—I mean of the 

company. And many of these drivers are stuck at the bottom of the 

economic ladder, while other industry workers around our ports— 

railroads, longshoremen—are making a good living. These drivers, 

you know, told me that they are overworked and underpaid, which 

I think leads to unsafe roads, because of the welfare of the driver. 

So, Mr. Byrd, for you, some of these port truck drivers have seen 

victories in courts. And yet, still, I think this unfair practice exists. 

Again, particularly from my experience around the ports. What do 

you—is there a role—is there a Federal role in fixing this injustice? 

And what would that be? 

Mr. BYRD. Thank you for the question. I think it is a very tough 

and very challenging issue that you raise. With respect to Teamster drivers, our driver members are typically paid for all of their 

off-duty time. So I—and then there is this whole idea of paid-for 

detention time. 

Ms. HAHN. Right. 

Mr. BYRD. Which I think is probably a little easier to enforce, 

should there be a contract between the shipper and a motor carrier, 

than it would be for an independent driver. So we think it is important to properly classify the drivers, on the one hand. 

We think that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

is doing rulemaking on coercion that we think might lend itself to 

helping to resolve this, because it brings—as I understand this proposed rule, it brings shippers into the jurisdiction of the agency. 

And this might be a way to bring them in and give independent 

drivers some leverage in dealing with the issue. 

Ms. HAHN. You know, in terms of the detention time or wait 

time, again, many of these drivers are only paid sometimes by the 

load, when they pick it up or drop it off. And yet there was so much 

wait time, I particularly felt badly for them recently, at the—what 

was going on at the ports, because of the shippers who gave up the 

chassis, the ownerships of the chassis, to a third party, which 

meant the chassis were not where they needed to be for these drivers to pick up the chassis and their load, which gave them more 

wait time and detention time. 

Could you—I just have a few seconds left, but could you elaborate on your comment earlier that sometimes these drivers are 

then pressured to drive more hours? 

Mr. BYRD. Yes. When you have a situation—and we have talked 

with the port drivers, also. When you have a situation where you 

have these extended wait periods, and you are paid by the load, 

and the shipper expects the product to be moved, they are oftentimes pressured to carry that load, without regard to where they 

stand with respect to compliance with hours of service. That is a 

very—a real problem. Again, we think that the coercion rulemaking 

might help us on that. 

18 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Well, I think driving a truck is a good career, it ought to be a 

good career, and ought to be something where someone could earn 

a good living by driving a truck, moving this country’s goods. So 

thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. We have had a procedural vote called, 

so there is just one vote. And what we will do is break, go take that 

vote. And please come back as promptly as you can, so the witnesses don’t have to wait too long. But we should be—just a matter 

of time to run over there and run back. So we will—so moved. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Hanna, I recognize you for a motion. 

Mr. HANNA. Motion to adjourn. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Recess. 

Mr. HANNA. Recess until after the vote. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HANNA. So we will be—see you back. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. So it has been moved to recess, 

which—I see no objection. So moved. And we will stand in recess 

until we get back. It shouldn’t be too long. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thanks, everybody, for your patience. 

And we will bring this hearing back to order. And we will move to 

Mr. Barletta for questions. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Captain Reese, as you know, I have been very concerned with 

FMCSA’s Compliance, Safety, Accountability program. I have 

heard from companies in my district that the scores are flawed and 

do not provide good information about the safety record of the commercial motor vehicle companies. Many of your fellow panelists’ 

testimony mentioned violations that impact the CSA score, but 

have little to do with crash risk, such as Mr. Schnautz’s comments 

on the violations for a blanket not being present in a sleeper cab. 

What are your concerns with the CSA program, and are the safety scores fit for the general public? 

Mr. REESE. Thank you, Congressman. CVSA supports the legislation you have to remove the scores from public display for a number of reasons. This is—and we sent a letter stating that to 

FMCSA. 

CSA is separate from the MCSAP program, and should not force 

changes. It is beginning to impact our State programs. Motor carriers are now requesting inspections frequently, in an effort to try 

to get clean inspections and get their scores down. The DataQ process is being affected. It is an unfunded mandate. And it is a growing burden, and it has just increased since we have the citation adjudication to deal with now. 

There are data quality issues, and this could be fixed by implementing hard coding and SmartLogic software. It is something that 

we have been encouraging FMCSA to do. Some of the traffic enforcement violations that are committed, and citations issued but 

no inspections done, that information is not in there. 

We would like to see the program fully implemented, which 

would include the safety fitness determination and intervention 

process. They both remain incomplete. And the bottom line is it 

19 

was not being used as intended. We have shippers using this to determine whether a carrier is safe, and it was never intended for 

that. And these are just some examples on why we would like to 

see the scores come down from public view. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Just yesterday I finally received a response from DOT Secretary Foxx to my question about the ongoing 

truck size and weight study. And, in short, it states that the study 

will not—will not—include an evaluation of the impacts of heavier 

trucks on our local roads and bridges. 

This is unacceptable. Heavy trucks today travel about 50 billion 

miles on local roads, the roads that are not being studied. And that 

amounts to about one-third of all their travel. These are the same 

local roads excluded from the study that carry about two-thirds of 

the miles traveled by the public in their cars. 

Now, compared to our interstates and major highways, these 

roads are simply not—they are simply built differently. My family 

was in the road construction business. We built roads and bridges. 

I know how many inches of concrete are on an interstate, and I 

know how many inches of asphalt are on a public or local or township road. It is not the same. 

Mr. Byrd and Mr. Schnautz, both of you represent the drivers 

and the people driving on our local roads. In your professional experience, what have been the conditions you have experienced driving the first and last mile of your routes on local roads? 

Mr. SCHNAUTZ. First of all, we see a lot of variance in highway 

markings, in lane size, in ramp radiuses, things like that, which 

makes it very challenging. 

Second of all, we do see a lot of substandard roads. We see that 

on the interstates, too, which is typically in the small towns or any 

town, whenever you are off of the interstate. We are ready to see 

lanes that you need to try to avoid because it has the big holes in 

them, and that is hard on your truck. We are often seeing roads 

that we can’t go down, or have weight limits on them, that challenge us to get where we are trying to go without taking a route 

that we weren’t prepared to take. 

Mr. BYRD. And I think that our memberships who have operated 

on the secondary roads have experienced similar—have similar experiences. I think it is pretty clear to us that, oftentimes, these secondary roads are not, you know, quite as safe as a larger interstate. 

Mr. BARLETTA. So you agree the secondary roads are more dangerous, as found by The Road Information Program report published last year. 

Is there anything in your experience that says that these statistics are wrong? 

Mr. BYRD. There is nothing in my experience or in my discussions with our driver membership that would suggest otherwise. 

Mr. SCHNAUTZ. Secondary roads are more dangerous. We have a 

lot of different traffic speeds going on. You have a lot of turns. So, 

for sure, they are more dangerous. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And who pays for the secondary roads? The local 

townships, the municipalities, the cities who are having the most 

trouble providing services to their people. I was a mayor, too, and 

I understand that just as well. 

20 

I am going to press Secretary Foxx to find a way to get answers 

to these questions about the impact on local roads, because that is 

what I asked for in the study, and that is not what I am getting. 

I don’t care how long it takes. Congress can’t make a decision of 

this magnitude without knowing how this will impact the safety of 

our constituents, and the ability of the States and the localities to 

pay for their critical transportation infrastructure. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to 

the witnesses. 

I want to tell Mr. Byrd on the port truck drivers we are with you. 

We think that this has been an area where the State of California 

has been long trying to get some clarity and some assistance to 

these independent truck drivers. So thank you for your help. And 

I am also very concerned, Mr. Byrd, about the increase in truck 

size. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I have an email from highway patrol, of 

California Highway Patrol, opposing increased truck weights, because it creates much more violent and damaging crashes, and it 

goes on to give other information. And also, the Peace Officers Research Association sent a letter in, actually, in February 2013 in 

regard to the same thing, saying that they oppose efforts to increase truck size and weight. For the record? 

[No response.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, the letters for the record? 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

21 


Insert offset folio 8 here 94380.008
22 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. And the issue was raised 

when I was in the State Assembly of California, back in the nineties, and the truck weights and sizes, the effect of stopping distances, the braking, the vehicle stability control, many of the highways and on-ramps and off-ramps in California just cannot handle 

the large trucks. And I know a couple years ago there was an effort 

to increase the tandem 53-footers, and we also opposed that, simply 

because our on-ramps, off-ramps, and highways are not able to 

handle the tandem 53-footers. 

The fact that it does save lives—and there are a couple of people 

in the audience who have young—who have had family members 

killed in accidents, and I think we need to, Mr. Chairman, allow 

them to have an entry into the record about the reason why they 

feel it is a necessity to be able to allow the general public to have 

a weigh-in on this, because it is their safety we are talking about. 

So, the other thing, Mr. Byrd, is DOT recently decided to allow 

Mexican truck companies to apply for authority to operate longhaul trucking services in the United States. And we went over that 

issue a couple years back, here in this committee. It based its decision on the results of a pilot required by the Congress that determined the safety of long-haul trucking operations beyond the border in the U.S. But the inspector general issued a report saying 

DOT reached its conclusion based on unreliable data, that the 

small sample of participating motor carriers was not sufficiently 

representative to allow DOT to apply the study results to all Mexican truck companies. 

Well, fortunately, NAFTA requires it, if I remember correctly. 

This is one of the parts of the agreement, is—but we need to be 

sure that, if we are going to allow these trucking companies, that 

they meet all the safety requirements that we have on our trucking 

companies and all of our operations. And if you believe that limited 

inspections conducted on these trucks during the pilot program provided enough information to support DOT’s decision to allow them 

on our U.S. roads. 

And, Mr. Schnautz, would you comment on that? 

Mr. SCHNAUTZ. Yes, I would be happy to. No, we do not think 

that the inspections and the data that are being used to open that 

border up are at all adequate. We saw a lot of nonconformances in 

inspections during the program. We pointed those out. And it 

wasn’t even really meeting the definition of a pilot program, because of the way it was structured. 

But those out-of-service violations were not being properly 

flagged and then recorded and then reported. And with that overlooked data, and then a far less amount of data than what they initially said they would—going to find and use, there is no way that 

this is at all representative of the Mexican trucking industry, as a 

whole. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, we had great concerns over the ability 

to keep track of their driving hours, one; of the ability to have 

trucks operate with the same conditions we asked of our own 

trucks; with the language issue; with the hazardous material carried on there. And there were—many of those issues have been discussed ad nauseam, I might add. And I think we need to be able 

to ensure that, if we do, that we do provide them with some—how 

23 

would I say—something to follow, so that we can tell them that 

they will be able to operate, but they have to have their trucks. 

I did speak to the Mexican consulate, or the—somebody on the 

other side. And they indicated to me that all their trucks met the 

specs, and that they were new trucks. Well, I begged to differ, and 

I told him so. So we need to be sure that you let us know, because 

this is an issue of safety on our side, and that is something we all 

need to be concerned about. 

And thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Perry? 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First question will be to 

Mr. Scott. 

It seems to me that, you know, every single one of us in the room 

and everybody outside the room is interested in driving on safe 

roads. And certainly, as a business owner myself, there is almost 

no upside to minimizing your focus on safety. I mean, whether the 

cost to your hurt employees or broken equipment or the liability 

that would come from cutting corners in that regard. 

But, with that having been said, can you describe what effect a $20 million insurance minimum would do to a company like yours? 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, thank you very much for the question. Basi- cally, going from the current $5 million to $20 million, essentially, 

you know, quadrupling the current standard, would be financially 

devastating. And for companies smaller than myself, it would literally put them out of business. And it very well could put us out 

of business, as well. It would most certainly discourage anybody, 

any new entrants, from coming into this industry, because they 

simply would not be able to afford it. And there has been no study, 

no data shown, that even proves that it is even necessary to do 

that. 

Mr. PERRY. I mean, from my perspective, it is almost like the action might be designed specifically to put the companies out of 

business, to a certain extent. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I would agree with you. To me, it seems like 

a solution in search of a problem. 

Mr. PERRY. Has your company experienced any crashes that have exceeded the current $5 million limit? 

Mr. SCOTT. We have been in business for 33 years. And no, we 

have never experienced a loss that has even come remotely close 

to that. 

Mr. PERRY. So, based on that—and you have got 30-some years 

in it; you are the expert, I am not, so I am just going to ask you— 

what would you see would be the rationale to raise—for the Federal Government—I am not even thinking that this is the purview 

of the Federal Government. But if it is—so, if that is the case, what 

would you suppose would be the rationale to raise it to that? 

Mr. SCOTT. I can only speculate on what the thoughts are behind 

the scenes of—to do that. But it would create a significant hardship 

on the industry. It would reduce the size and scope of our industry 

by an amount I am not even sure I can measure. But, as you saw 

in my comments, the industry is already in decline, and this could 

very well be, you know, the nail in its coffin. 

Mr. PERRY. So, I mean, just like any other business owners, you 

are choosing—you have got a certain amount of revenue. You have 

24 

got to pay employees, you have got to upgrade equipment, you have 

got to maintain equipment. You have got to pay operating costs associated with all that stuff. The more that you pay in insurance 

premiums that—for which you don’t use—right? You already stated 

that in 30-some years you haven’t used anything close to that limit. 

That detracts and takes away from everything else, including 

maintenance and safety. Doesn’t it? 

Just for anybody that has never operated a business, I think it 

is important for you to clarify that, because they might not understand that. A lot of folks think that that is just part and parcel to 

doing business. But something has to give. Your top line has to 

change, or your bottom line has to. One of them has to change. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, you are absolutely correct. At the end of the 

day, any increase, any mandate that adds cost to a business has 

to be passed on to consumers. So our industry—passengers choose 

to travel by bus because it is convenient, and it is economical, and 

it is safe. You throw that $20 million around there, and the economical is going to go out the window. 

And you are absolutely correct that businesses are going to be 

forced to make choices. Do I pay my insurance premium this 

month? Do I pay my bus payment this month? I can’t give my drivers a raise. OK? All of those things play a factor. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you. Moving on, Mr. Schnautz—if I have pronounced that correctly—just because you are operating out on the 

road as well, and I am sure you see this much more than folks like 

me do—would you say the enforcement emphasis should be focusing on some of the most egregious things? And I would just characterize—I imagine somehow you can get in trouble from a safety violation for having oil—having an oil leak. And as a person who has 

driven old cars and worked on old cars and aircraft, sometimes you 

would use the terminology, ‘‘If it is not leaking, it means it is 

empty.’’ 

So, what can you tell me about—shouldn’t our focus be on the 

most egregious of things? 

Mr. SCHNAUTZ. Absolutely. We get citations for a trailer ID light 

being out on a daytime, 20-minute drive. And that light won’t be 

used in that 20-minute drive. We get all kinds of violations that 

really don’t at all reward us for having inflated tires that are— 

have plenty of tread. And whenever we see these things, it has 

turned us into—a standard of perfection is all that is available to 

us. And that is not real world. That just does not do anything but 

cause us to focus on these details. And, as was said a minute ago, 

that money comes from somewhere. The time to focus on that 

comes from somewhere. It could be training, it could be other, more 

important maintenance issues. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Gibbs? 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I had to go testify on 

the Rules Committee, so I have missed your testimony, but I have 

read it. And I also hope I don’t ask a redundant question. 

But I want to start with either Mr. Schnautz or Mr. Kretsinger 

about CSA scores, the Compliance, Safety, Accountability. When I 

talk to my truckers in my district, I—the stories they tell me are 

just unbelievable and scary. I had one tell me that, I guess, the 

25 

bridge has fallen down there in Cincinnati on I–75, a hunk of concrete fell off and hit the truck, and the truck got dinged on his CSA 

score. 

So, one of you want to elaborate on what is really going on out 

there? Because I—you know, I have heard—I heard the Administrator told one trucking person, driver, or entity, you know, ‘‘You 

were there.’’ So, I mean, it is definitely broken. Because what happens in these scores, when it is not held—you know, when it is not 

their fault? It dings on the insurance rates, my understanding, and 

it also can ding them on—when potential customers, shippers, are 

looking at safety records and stuff. 

So, would you just kind of tell us what is going on in that regard? 

Mr. KRETSINGER. Sure. Thank you for that question. And I can 

give you some personal experience. We pride ourselves on being by 

the book. We preach that always. By the book, no exceptions. I tell 

people, ‘‘You don’t like the rules, call your congressman. But we are 

going to follow them, regardless.’’ 

Our scores were all very good, and getting better, except for 

crash. 

Mr. GIBBS. Except for what? 

Mr. KRETSINGER. Crash. 

Mr. GIBBS. Oh, crash. OK. 

Mr. KRETSINGER. So we were having crashes. We have had some 

bad winters. Some of those were preventable by our driver, and 

some were not. Some were car rear-ending our trailer. But we saw 

an audit coming. We know that. It is very good for focusing resources, Federal resources, on audits. 

But, any rate, they came in, they audited us, spent 3 or 4 days. 

And at the end of all that, except for two or three minor violations, 

we were compliant. And so, what is the end of this story? ‘‘You are 

compliant.’’ I don’t see where that changed much. 

Attorneys have become very creative at chasing money. And one 

of the things they have done is, through brokers and shippers, 

under a negligent entrustment theory, or negligent supervision—so 

they have made these folks very nervous for CSA scores, something 

they don’t have a lot of control on. So, I mean, it is—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Excuse me. I have also heard that a trucking company can be, depending on the size of the business and the number 

of truck and different categories—and I had one trucking company 

tell me they got moved—they had a—they were at the top of the 

one category and then they got shifted in the other category. And 

nothing changed, other than to get shifted in the category, and 

their CSA went really bad. Is that—— 

Mr. KRETSINGER. Yes, we don’t understand that. I mean one 

month our crash score was good, and next month it was high. We 

got audited, still on our record, it is now good again. I don’t know 

why. 

I also would point out that these other CSA alerts are supposed 

to predict a crash. Our other scores are great. So they are out of 

joint. I don’t think it is accurate. 

Mr. SCHNAUTZ. On the—speaking of predicting a crash, the driver fitness basic is actually counter to predicting a crash, and that 

has been shown by the FMCSA data. Our company, like many othVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:33 Aug 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\HT\4-29-1~1\94380.TXT JEAN
26 

ers, is misrepresented by our CSA score. Our crash rate is better 

than industry average, and our out-of-service rate is better than an 

industry average. So those two key metrics were safer than industry average. 

However, if you look at our CSA score, we don’t look better than 

industry average. And it is because of the lights I mentioned earlier. It is easy money for an agency, for a jurisdiction, to pull a 

truck over that has one light obviously out, write the ticket, let him 

go. So that is a big disconnect. The revenue has—drives this a lot, 

and we all here follow the money. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I am almost out of time, I want to ask one more 

quick question. In my subcommittee dealing with the waters of the 

United States rule, I mean, we have heard lots of testimony where 

the EPA did not engage the stakeholders or the States, and all 

that. Do you feel that FMCSA engages with the industry effectively, and also determines the impact of their regulations on especially small carriers? 

Mr. SCHNAUTZ. Absolutely not. No. 

Mr. GIBBS. Anybody else want to respond? Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I would say absolutely not. It is a hostile 

environment. And there was a time when FMCSA would work with 

the industry, and those days are long gone. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all our witnesses. 

First question that I have is for Mr. Kretsinger. You raised the 

idea of a gold standard program to have fleets voluntarily adopt innovative safety tools that would enhance safety. I believe, too, safety is paramount. And this idea of a gold standard program is actually pretty intriguing. 

Can you offer some thoughts on what this program would look 

like, and how it could improve safety in the near and the long 

term? 

Mr. KRETSINGER. Certainly, and thank you, Congressman, for 

that. There is a lot of cool technology coming out, you know. You 

have heard of some of it. What is it going to be in 2 years? It is 

a rapidly evolving thing. But these are tools that cost money, that 

are voluntary, and can have a big impact, if you combine that with, 

you know, driver counseling and coaching and the other things. 

So, a lot of members of ATA have gone out and spent the money 

on these things, even though they are not required by any Government to do it, because they see that it is good business and the 

right thing to do to be safe. That is what we all want. 

So, I think, if the Government was able to do something like help 

them on other areas if they do this, that provides incentives for 

more and more to do it. And I think the cumulative effect would 

be a lot more safety. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you very much for your response to that. 

Moving on to a different subject, I think it is very important to 

make sure we are focusing on the most effective ways to actually 

reduce and prevent traffic incidents. In your testimony you point 

out that FMCSA’s report shows that more than four times as many 

27 

crashes are prevented because of traffic enforcement in comparison 

to standard roadside inspections, and yet traffic enforcement only 

makes up about 10 percent of field enforcement interventions, with 

that percent dropping, of course, as we know, in recent years. 

I agree, too, that this is concerning. And I know that the ATA 

is not advocating for a specific solution on this disparity, but I 

would ask you broadly, how can we achieve a better balance here? 

Mr. KRETSINGER. I think what the focus ought to be is on the 

cause. And the cause is driver behavior. Not only the behavior of 

the truck drivers, but, even more so, the behavior of the passenger 

drivers. But so much of our problem is caused by something they 

do or they don’t do. If you can impact that, you are going to have 

a greater impact on all of our goal, safety, than if you are spending 

your money on things that don’t, like many of the things that happen in the scale house don’t cause wrecks. 

So, if we can funnel our resources, our money, our people towards the things that do cause wrecks—and on these event recorders, we are seeing it. I mean, we are—it is kind of a picture paints 

a thousand words. It is following too close, it is distracted driving, 

it is not looking far ahead, it is people in the public not understanding how to drive safely around a big 18-wheeler going down 

the road at a high speed. 

If we can get to that, you will make a big impact. Whether a mud 

flap or a crack in the windshield or one light out, those things are 

important, but they are not going to have near the impact as behavior. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. Thank you for your responses. 

Mr. Byrd, thank you also for being here today and testifying. I 

am a strong supporter of workforce training efforts. I believe they 

are a key part of creating and also maintaining jobs. As a matter 

of fact, I am once again introducing a bill that would make it more 

flexible for people to access unemployment benefits and not be punished if an antiquated system hasn’t approved specific training, so 

that we can get people into jobs and employ more people. 

You mentioned in your testimony the efforts at FMCSA to expand entry-level driver training. How have your interactions with 

FMCSA been on this regulation? 

Mr. BYRD. Thank you for the question, Congressman. We have 

participated in the entry-level driver training advisory committee, 

along with other stakeholders, since late February. I think that, 

overall, the experience has been very positive. I think that the 

stakeholders—you know, unions, motor carriers, et cetera—have 

had a really great opportunity to have input. We think that the 

agency is listening to us, and hopefully, you know, at the end of 

the process, we will be able to come up with a reasonable proposed 

rule that will be acceptable to the motor carrier industry and the 

drivers. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Hardy? 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Scott, I would like to probably address you first on this one. 

It has kind of been addressed already, but being a previous business owner myself—that is one of the reasons I came to Washington, is that I don’t believe my children have the same opportuniVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:33 Aug 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\HT\4-29-1~1\94380.TXT JEAN
28 

ties today to start a business, expand a business, and grow a business to employ, which I have had the opportunity. 

You talk about in your testimony that you don’t believe that 

somebody could start that business today with regulation. You 

talked about insurance. Is there any other regulations that you feel 

that might be—the Federal Government might be holding back 

from that opportunity that we should provide, as—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, we could certainly lower taxes. 

Mr. HARDY. Any others? 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, the—our industry is, obviously, most heavily 

regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

However, you know, what we have seen in the course of the 30 

years that we have been in business it that it is what I will call 

mission creep, what seems like from just about every Federal agency that has purview over what we do, whether that is OSHA, 

whether that is HHS—I mean you can go down the list of them. 

I think that the regulatory burden in general is—it just seems 

to be one of ‘‘got you’’ from just about every agency that there is 

out there. I mean the one that myself and our industry is feeling— 

the motorcoach industry, as well as the other folks up here on the 

truck side—is just that weight right now that we have coming from 

FMCSA that doesn’t really seem to be accomplishing much of any 

goal. So that is really kind of the number one. 

But it seems that, you know, mission creep from just about every 

other agency—I mean we have actually been audited by TSA. I 

mean it just seems like there is just this never-ending, you know, 

envelope of Federal regulations that just seems to be coming 

around us, and it just doesn’t seem to be stopping. So, I would say, 

pretty much everything. 

Mr. HARDY. OK, thank you. Mr. Kretsinger, Mr. Schnautz, I 

would also like to address this to you—and you kind of hit on it— 

as a business owner myself, those incidents that—in the construction industry that we encountered—as you know, in the construction industry you spend a lot of time on inner streets, you spend 

a lot of time within large communities like the Las Vegas area, and 

other. We found that that aggressive driver, in the majority of the 

cases, was usually the fault. And, like I say, we end up getting hit 

with the insurance, we get hit with those regulations. 

And I have known throughout my career many, many individuals 

who have been recognized for being million-mile or 2-million-mile 

drivers without any incidents, which is amazing to think that you 

could do that, in the first place. Do you feel like—that some of 

these restrictions are starting to maybe cost those good drivers 

down the road, either one of you? 

Mr. SCHNAUTZ. Absolutely. You mentioned aggressive drivers, 

and that is a good counterpoint, is that some truck drivers aren’t 

safer, just because they have technology. And it comes down to the 

driver. We can’t use technology as a replacement for a good driver. 

But, yes, drivers and me, as a driver, often felt like I was a target. If I stopped on the side of the road and I got hit, it was going 

to be my fault. If I turn down a road to try to pull into a Stopand-Go to get a Coke, maybe that is a no-truck street. So every 

time we do this, we force the driver into every narrower lane, 

where he or she can exist and do their jobs. And it is not the same 

29 

as it was when I was growing up with my dad in the trucks, back 

in the seventies, whenever many of those regulations didn’t exist, 

or weren’t enforced at all. 

So, whenever we do that—and I hear it from our drivers regularly, our veteran drivers, especially, that whenever ELDs come in, 

they are just going to leave, or when this happens, or when that 

happens. 

Mr. KRETSINGER. I would just say that one thing we look at all 

the time, and the industry does, is driver shortage. I mean there— 

it is a problem. Everyone in the industry lists it as their numberone problem. And there is a lot of factors that go into that. Some 

of it is regulation, some is congestion. Some is it is a job that is 

not for everyone. So, I don’t think it is any one thing. I think it 

is more of a cumulative impact. 

Now, the old cowboy trucker of 10, 20 years ago, he’d get in his 

big-hood truck, go down the road, he had no idea what he was 

doing. He would be out a long time, and come back. Now, with 

data, there is so much technology in the engine, in the ELDs, in 

the things we are doing, that they are really not alone any more 

in that truck. It does give a good measure of control for safety, but 

it also takes away some of the independence, which was the allure 

to these people for many years. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. I see I am out of time. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Mr. Ribble? 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, it has been a long afternoon for all of you. Thank you for 

being here. I know that there are some guests in the room that 

have photos of loved ones that have either been killed or injured 

in crashes, and I want you to know that we take those concerns, 

and—very seriously, to try to figure out how in the world we can 

do a better job here, so there is less of that there. And I appreciate 

you coming. And certainly my deepest condolences. 

I would like to maybe start with Captain Reese. Do you believe, 

Captain, that it would be safer, our roads, highways would be 

safer, with fewer big trucks than more big trucks? 

Mr. REESE. I don’t really have any data, one way or the other, 

to say that. I will just say that CVSA’s stance on size and weight 

on larger trucks has always been a safety one. And we don’t want 

to see anything done on that until this study comes out, and we 

don’t want to see an increase in size and weight until we can be 

sure everything can be done safely. 

Mr. RIBBLE. It just seems to me that, obviously, minutes of exposure, the amount of time a driver is on the road versus time that 

a driver is not on the road, the driver not on the road is safer than 

the driver on the road. It just seems to me. Would you agree, at 

least agree with that? 

Mr. REESE. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Mr. Kretsinger, would you agree with that? 

Mr. KRETSINGER. I would say you would have no wrecks if nobody turned their engine on. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Got it. 

Mr. KRETSINGER. But you would have no economy, either. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Of course, of course. But, I mean, there is a line here 

that you draw at some point. 

30 

Mr. KRETSINGER. Yes. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Right? We heard earlier a discussion from Mr. 

Barletta about the idea of heavier trucks riding on city and town 

and rural roads and State roads, as opposed to the interstate. 

Mr. Byrd, in your testimony you mentioned an exemption that 

my State, Wisconsin, received that you opposed. They didn’t really 

get an exemption. The current weights of trucks that were currently driving on a U.S. highway when it becomes an interstate 

were grandfathered to an interstate highway. What would have 

happened, had that grandfather not happen, is those trucks would 

often have been redirected off the interstate, where it is much 

safer, to the county and city roads that you later—earlier testified 

in your testimony that you oppose. 

And so, it almost seems like you are contradicting the very same 

thing—the very thing that you hope to get at, would be to keep the 

heavier trucks on the interstate and off those roads. And I would 

encourage the Teamsters to reevaluate that position, because you 

might actually end up working against your own best self-interests. 

Mr. Reese, if you could, just for a moment—I am going to ask 

your permission, sir, to maybe take off your CVSA hat for a 

minute, and talk to me a little bit about Idaho. You are from Idaho, 

a State patrolman from Idaho. And they have experience with 

heavier, multiple axle trucks, and have had for several years. I understand that Idaho allows trucks to carry up to 129,000 pounds 

on multiple axles. Has this worked out well for the State? And do 

you have concerns about seeing other States moving into a similar 

direction? 

Mr. REESE. Now, we ran a project for about 15 years, a pilot 

project in a southern part of our State, and we did allow vehicles 

to go up to 129,000 pounds. At the end of that pilot, we deemed 

that project a success. I will emphasize that these vehicles had 

more axles, they were able to bridge the weight because the damage to the roads was obviously a concern. 

And we are in the process right now of making that project go 

statewide, and we are moving it to the panhandle, which has a 

much different road system. And, as we do this, we are adding 

some additional safety requirements. We are in the process now to 

permit these loads. Some of the things we are looking at is a minimum number of years of experience for drivers who participate, 

because we don’t want new drivers operating these bigger loads. 

They need to have the long combination vehicle training that is in 

the FMCSA’s regulations. Safety-related things like that, because 

if we have these bigger loads on the road, we want them to be safe. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Yes, certainly. And, hopefully, if there—if, in fact, 

those heavier trucks were there with more axles, more displaced 

weight that—stopping capabilities being the same, the reduction in 

the number of vehicles—which goes to my earlier question—the potential reduction in the number of vehicles and exposure on the 

road wouldn’t necessarily go down, because weight is distributed 

across fewer vehicles. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert 

into the record a study released by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration last year. The study found that a six-axle, 

31 

97,000-pound truck stops just as quickly as a five-axle truck loaded 

at 80,000 pounds. And I think it is important information to have. 

Mr. HARDY [presiding]. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

32 


Insert offset folio 9 here 94380.009
33 


Insert offset folio 10 here 94380.010
34 


Insert offset folio 11 here 94380.011
35 


Insert offset folio 12 here 94380.012
36 


Insert offset folio 13 here 94380.013
37 


Insert offset folio 14 here 94380.014
38 


Insert offset folio 15 here 94380.015
39 


Insert offset folio 16 here 94380.016
40 

Mr. RIBBLE. All right, thank you. Thank you very much. 

I realize that discussion about truck weights and safety, sometimes these things can get very, very complicated, and often heated, where they don’t actually have to be. We are all trying to get 

to the same place. We want to get to the same place the right way. 

And so I want to thank you all for your testimony today. You guys 

did terrific, all of you. And so thank you for being here. And with 

that, I yield back. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. Mr. Mica? 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. Sorry, I came a little late. This is the 

day of dueling hearings. 

Somebody said Mr. Scott might have an answer for me. But in 

some previous hearings I have mentioned that I have run into 

some people in the trucking industries that have told me that we 

are doing it all wrong, that, you know, the logs or the Governors 

or whatever you have got on these vehicles, all that can be compromised, or may not be as effective. 

But again, one of the individuals described to me that there is 

a device that you can have someone look into, it looks at the pupils, 

the eye, and can tell whether someone is fatigued. And he says that 

is the technology we need to be going to. Mr. Scott, are you aware 

of anything like that? 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, thank you, Congressman Mica. I have heard of 

that. I don’t have any—— 

Mr. MICA. See, and I brought it up a couple times as we discuss 

these things. Everybody says they have heard of it, but nobody has 

gotten to that technology. I pulled a couple of articles. There are 

other—there are some things that Caterpillar is using, and here is 

a Nissan driver attention detector, but this—these are not that 

kind of thing. 

What I am interested in is when we pull over a driver, you have 

him look into that, we have him blow into a—you know, a device 

to find out if they are intoxicated. But I am told the technology exists. Now, I want somebody to come back and let us know if this 

is real or not. Can you look into it, let us know? 

Who else is in a position to check this out? Has anyone else 

heard of this? 

Mr. SCHNAUTZ. Our association has heard of it, but there is no 

concrete information behind it, not enough experience to know if it 

has any value or does any good. Most things like that have—can 

be shown to have a good track record before they are really put 

into use. And the best thing is a driver that is experienced and motivated to do the right thing. 

Mr. MICA. We don’t have anybody from the highway, do we, on 

this panel? 

[No response.] 

Mr. MICA. Federal Highway Administration? No? No. 

Well, again, the industry needs to help take a lead in finding 

technologies. And if this technology is out there, and it does seem 

like it is plausible, that you could have a device like this, the biggest issue we still have with these big—the big crashes is fatigue 

and driver drowsiness, and some of those factors. Isn’t that still one 

of our biggest causes of the accidents, guys? Everybody? 

Mr. SCHNAUTZ. Actually—— 

41 

Mr. MICA. Let the record reflect three out of five nodded their 

head yes. OK, good. 

Mr. SCHNAUTZ. Actually, it is just driver behavior. Whether it is 

the car or the truck, as we said earlier, and just a bad decision, 

maybe trying to take an exit at the last minute, following too closely, things like that we see quite a bit. So it is just driver decisionmaking, not necessarily fatigue being the top item. 

Mr. MICA. Do you have a—and I guess there is American Trucking Associations. They are not here. But I just wonder if there is 

an association. And you got labor here, too, who should be concerned. Yes, sir? 

Mr. KRETSINGER. Yes, Congressman. I am representing ATA. 

And a couple things I would offer. One, I think they have some information on some of this technology that they would be happy to 

provide. I would also offer that one thing that is becoming more 

prevalent in the industry is event recorders. 

Mr. MICA. Is what? 

Mr. KRETSINGER. Event recorders. And event—— 

Mr. MICA. Oh, event recorders, yes. 

Mr. KRETSINGER. Yes. And this is a camera—— 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. KRETSINGER [continuing]. That points out, and also in towards the driver—— 

Mr. MICA. Well, the vehicles now, today—I have been renting 

some cars lately, and, my God, I move slightly towards another vehicle, I mean, there is great alerts because you—my biggest hazard 

in driving is that blind spot. And when I don’t have my wife next 

to me, screaming, ‘‘You’re going to hit’’—you know—but now you 

have got this. It is incredible, the devices, and we will get there, 

with vehicles. 

But I would like you all, somebody from American Trucking Associations, go back and look at this. I will see if I can find the individual—and they told me the military had used some of this to test 

the fatigue of troops and things, and it was fairly valid. But we 

need to be looking at those kinds of technologies for safety enforcement. 

You know, you don’t want to burden the truckers with too much 

technology, but there are devices that can save lives and be cost 

effective. So we just need to stay ahead of that game, because, 

again, maybe that is because I am getting older, but I was just 

with a—on one of the interstates with the double trailers in rain, 

and it was pretty hairy. And if they get drowsy or, you know, lose 

their place for a minute, we are all toast. So we got to do a better 

job for safety for the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Mr. HARDY. Any other Members? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HARDY. If—don’t see any other Members. I would like to follow up just a bit with the direction I was headed earlier, on questioning. This might be for Mr. Reese. 

As you know, in the West, and particularly Utah, they have done 

some studies on their highways and other areas of—where they 

have actually increased the speed limits, tested up to 80 miles an 

42 

hour. And it is—I believe their results were positive, that they actually have had less traffic incidents. 

With some of the restrictions to—holding trucks to 65, would it 

be better that maybe that be held within the State’s purview of 

how those trucks move? Because it is back to that aggressive driver, that slower truck moving on a freeway. Any comments on that 

from your side, Captain? 

Mr. REESE. That kind of goes down the line of speed limiters. 

And right now we are waiting to see what FMCSA’s—what they 

come out with on speed limiters. But the States do have various 

speed limits. We just raised on our—some of our interstates in 

Idaho last year we raised to 80 miles an hour for cars, and 70 for 

trucks. So we still have some variance there. 

But you have also got the variances in geography and stuff from 

State to State and area to area, as well. And that affects truck operations, as well. Areas like Idaho, where we have a lot of hills, the 

trucks slow down anyway on the hills. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. Are there any further questions from 

members of the subcommittee? 

[No response.] 

Mr. HARDY. Seeing none, I would like to thank each witness for 

their testimony today. And your contribution to today’s discussion 

has been very informative and helpful. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s 

hearing remain open until such time our witnesses have provided 

answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and a unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 

days for additional comments and information submitted to—by 

Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. HARDY. Without objection, so ordered. 

If there are no further Members having anything more to add, 

the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

43 


Insert offset folio 17 here 94380.017
44 


Insert offset folio 18 here 94380.018
45 


Insert offset folio 19 here 94380.019
46 


Insert offset folio 20 here 94380.020
47 


Insert offset folio 21 here 94380.021
48 


Insert offset folio 22 here 94380.022
49 


Insert offset folio 23 here 94380.023
50 


Insert offset folio 24 here 94380.024
51 


Insert offset folio 25 here 94380.025
52 


Insert offset folio 26 here 94380.026
53 


Insert offset folio 27 here 94380.027
54 


Insert offset folio 28 here 94380.028
55 


Insert offset folio 29 here 94380.029
56 


Insert offset folio 30 here 94380.030
57 


Insert offset folio 31 here 94380.031
58 


Insert offset folio 32 here 94380.032
59 


Insert offset folio 33 here 94380.033
60 


Insert offset folio 34 here 94380.034
61 


Insert offset folio 35 here 94380.035
62 


Insert offset folio 36 here 94380.036
63 


Insert offset folio 37 here 94380.037
64 


Insert offset folio 38 here 94380.038
65 


Insert offset folio 39 here 94380.039
66 


Insert offset folio 40 here 94380.040
67 


Insert offset folio 41 here 94380.041
68 


Insert offset folio 42 here 94380.042
69 


Insert offset folio 43 here 94380.043
70 


Insert offset folio 44 here 94380.044
71 


Insert offset folio 45 here 94380.045
72 


Insert offset folio 46 here 94380.046
73 


Insert offset folio 47 here 94380.047
74 


Insert offset folio 48 here 94380.048
75 


Insert offset folio 49 here 94380.049
76 


Insert offset folio 50 here 94380.050
77 


Insert offset folio 51 here 94380.051
78 


Insert offset folio 52 here 94380.052
79 


Insert offset folio 53 here 94380.053
80 


Insert offset folio 54 here 94380.054
81 


Insert offset folio 55 here 94380.055
82 


Insert offset folio 56 here 94380.056
83 


Insert offset folio 57 here 94380.057
84 


Insert offset folio 58 here 94380.058
85 


Insert offset folio 59 here 94380.059
86 


Insert offset folio 60 here 94380.060
87 


Insert offset folio 61 here 94380.061
88 


Insert offset folio 62 here 94380.062
89 


Insert offset folio 63 here 94380.063
90 


Insert offset folio 64 here 94380.064
91 


Insert offset folio 65 here 94380.065
92 


Insert offset folio 66 here 94380.066
93 


Insert offset folio 67 here 94380.067
94 


Insert offset folio 68 here 94380.068
95 


Insert offset folio 69 here 94380.069
96 


Insert offset folio 70 here 94380.070
97 


Insert offset folio 71 here 94380.071
98 


Insert offset folio 72 here 94380.072
99 


Insert offset folio 73 here 94380.073
100 


Insert offset folio 74 here 94380.074
101 


Insert offset folio 75 here 94380.075
102 


Insert offset folio 76 here 94380.076
103 


Insert offset folio 77 here 94380.077
104 


Insert offset folio 78 here 94380.078
105 


Insert offset folio 79 here 94380.079
106 


Insert offset folio 80 here 94380.080
107 


Insert offset folio 81 here 94380.081
108 


Insert offset folio 82 here 94380.082
109 


Insert offset folio 83 here 94380.083
110 


Insert offset folio 84 here 94380.084
111 


Insert offset folio 85 here 94380.085
112 


Insert offset folio 86 here 94380.086
113 


Insert offset folio 87 here 94380.087
114 


Insert offset folio 88 here 94380.088
115 


Insert offset folio 89 here 94380.089
116 


Insert offset folio 90 here 94380.090
117 


Insert offset folio 91 here 94380.091
118 


Insert offset folio 92 here 94380.092
119 


Insert offset folio 93 here 94380.093
120 


Insert offset folio 94 here 94380.094
121 


Insert offset folio 95 here 94380.095
122 


Insert offset folio 96 here 94380.096
123 


Insert offset folio 97 here 94380.097
124 


Insert offset folio 98 here 94380.098
125 


Insert offset folio 99 here 94380.099
126 


Insert offset folio 100 here 94380.100
127 


Insert offset folio 101 here 94380.101
128 


Insert offset folio 102 here 94380.102
129 


Insert offset folio 103 here 94380.103
130 


Insert offset folio 104 here 94380.104
131 


Insert offset folio 105 here 94380.105
132 


Insert offset folio 106 here 94380.106
133 


Insert offset folio 107 here 94380.107
134 


Insert offset folio 108 here 94380.108
135 


Insert offset folio 109 here 94380.109
136 


Insert offset folio 110 here 94380.110
137 


Insert offset folio 111 here 94380.111
138 


Insert offset folio 112 here 94380.112
139 


Insert offset folio 113 here 94380.113
140 


Insert offset folio 114 here 94380.114
141 


Insert offset folio 115 here 94380.115
142 


Insert offset folio 116 here 94380.116
143 


Insert offset folio 117 here 94380.117
144 


Insert offset folio 118 here 94380.118
145 


Insert offset folio 119 here 94380.119
146 


Insert offset folio 120 here 94380.120
147 


Insert offset folio 121 here 94380.121
148 


Insert offset folio 122 here 94380.122
149 


Insert offset folio 123 here 94380.123
150 


Insert offset folio 124 here 94380.124
151 


Insert offset folio 125 here 94380.125
152 


Insert offset folio 126 here 94380.126
153 


Insert offset folio 127 here 94380.127
154 


Insert offset folio 128 here 94380.128
155 


Insert offset folio 129 here 94380.129
156 


Insert offset folio 130 here 94380.130
157 


Insert offset folio 131 here 94380.131
158 


Insert offset folio 132 here 94380.132
159 


Insert offset folio 133 here 94380.133
160 


Insert offset folio 134 here 94380.134
161 


Insert offset folio 135 here 94380.135
162 


Insert offset folio 136 here 94380.136
163 


Insert offset folio 137 here 94380.137
164 


Insert offset folio 138 here 94380.138
165 


Insert offset folio 139 here 94380.139
166 


Insert offset folio 140 here 94380.140
167 


Insert offset folio 141 here 94380.141
168 


Insert offset folio 142 here 94380.142
169 


Insert offset folio 143 here 94380.143
170 


Insert offset folio 144 here 94380.144
171 


Insert offset folio 145 here 94380.145
172 


Insert offset folio 146 here 94380.146
173 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 147 here 94380.147