U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

86–220 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 108–972 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FEDERAL MOTOR 

CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 10, 2003 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, 

Ranking 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

ROBERT W. CHAMBERLIN, Republican Chief Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

GREGG ELIAS, Democratic General Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 10, 2003 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Breaux ................................................................................. 12 

Statement of Senator Brownback ........................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 16 

Statement of Senator Smith ................................................................................... 95 

Statement of Senator Sununu ................................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES

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

Teamsters ............................................................................................................. 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Claybrook, Joan B., President, Public Citizen ...................................................... 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Duncan, Douglas G., President and CEO, FedEx Freight on behalf of the 

American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) ..................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Harrison, Joseph M., President, American Moving and Storage Association 

(AMSA) .................................................................................................................. 78 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80 

Hurst, Peter, President, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; accompanied 

by Lieutenant Paul Sullivan, Massachusetts State Police ............................... 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Sandberg, Hon. Annette M., Acting Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration .......................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

APPENDIX

Letter dated June 9, 2003 to Hon. John McCain from Hours of Service 

Coalition ................................................................................................................ 107 

Letter dated May 27, 2003 to Annette M. Sandberg, Acting Administrator, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from Hours of Service Coalition ........................................................................................................................ 107 

Written questions submitted by Hon. John B. Breaux to: 

Hon. Annette M. Sandberg .............................................................................. 109 

Douglas G. Duncan, LaMont Byrd, Joan B. Claybrook, Peter Hurst and 

Joseph M. Harrison ...................................................................................... 112 

Written questions submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to Hon. Annette 

M. Sandberg ......................................................................................................... 111 

(1) 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FEDERAL MOTOR 

CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2003 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room SR– 

253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John E. Sununu, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SUNUNU. Good morning. On behalf of Committee Chairman John McCain, I’m pleased to call to order today’s hearing on 

motor carrier safety and welcome our witnesses, beginning with 

Annette Sandberg. We meet today to consider what has been accomplished with respect to truck and bus safety since the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration was created in 1999 and to 

hear the recommendations of the Administration, the trucking industry, and safety advocates for the future of the program. 

FMCSA has set a goal of reducing the rate of fatalities in truck 

crashes to 1.65 fatalities per hundred million miles of truck travel 

by 2008. This goal represents a 30 percent improvement over the 

fatality rate in 2001 and obviously will require a strong commitment on the part of FMCSA, the states, as well as industry. 

A major element of the Federal Government’s safety effort is the 

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, a state program to fund 

officers who perform equipment inspections, enforce traffic regulations, and conduct compliance reviews of carriers with poor safety 

records. FMCSA and the states also administer the Commercial 

Driver’s License Program, which was established to prevent truck 

drivers from obtaining more than one license in order to hide bad 

driving records. Additionally, FMCSA is in the process of implementing a New Entrants Program, a very important program mandated by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 and 

aimed at educating new, inexperienced trucking companies about 

safety requirements. 

Since FMCSA was established, truck safety has been trending in 

the right direction. That is, indeed, good news. In 2002, the number 

of fatalities and accidents involving large trucks declined 3.5 percent, to approximately 4,900 fatalities, while highway fatalities 

overall for all vehicles increased slightly compared to 2001. 

I hope the witnesses will comment on whether current initiatives 

will be sufficient to continue to lower the fatality rate in crashes 

2 

involving large trucks in order to achieve the 30 percent goal of reducing fatalities over the next 5 years or whether or not we need 

to adjust those priorities. 

The Committee will also hear testimony this morning about consumer fraud in the household goods moving industry. FMCSA, 

while primarily a safety agency, is also responsible for enforcing 

Federal regulations that apply to interstate movers. Complaints 

have been growing about rogue movers, who hold goods hostage 

and demand payments many times higher than the estimates originally provided to the customer. Consumers need protection against 

such fraudulent acts. 

The Motor Carrier Safety Program is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2003. It’s anticipated that both FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Programs will be reauthorized as part of comprehensive legislation to reauthorize the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, lovingly known 

here on Capitol Hill here as TEA–21. It’s the intent of the Committee to mark up and report legislation to reauthorize the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration and National Highway Traffic 

Safety Programs as soon as next week. It’s our goal to be fully prepared for the floor action during Senate debate on TEA–21, which 

is expected to take place later this summer. 

Again, thank you to all of our witnesses. And we begin with the 

Honorable Annette Sandberg, who is the Acting Administrator for 

FMCSA. Welcome, Ms. Sandberg, and we’re pleased to take your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANNETTE M. SANDBERG, 

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER 

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. SANDBERG. Thank you, sir. Chairman Sununu, it is my 

pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the Motor Carrier 

Safety reauthorization. 

When Secretary Mineta testified before you in May, he highlighted highway safety as the centerpiece of SAFETEA. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is committed to working 

with you to reduce fatalities on our nation’s highways. With your 

help, we will make important changes to reduce unnecessary loss 

of life. 

Due in large part to your efforts, fatalities involving large trucks 

have declined 4 years in a row, even as travel increased. This is 

significant progress, but much remains to be done. 

I commit to build on this success by bringing greater efficiency 

to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration programs. To 

enhance our existing programs, the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, the Commercial Driver’s License Program, border 

and performance registration and information system management, 

we envision them separately funded, totaling $1.4 billion over the 

reauthorization. 

TEA–21 restructured the MCSAP program to promote performance-based activities, providing flexibility to state grantees to invest in areas of the greatest crash reduction. Reauthorization 

would expand motor carriers’ relationship with our state partners 

into new areas of compliance, allowing us to amend traffic enforceVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
3 

ment, improve performance incentive funding, and fund new-entrant reviews. 

The New Entrant Program will improve safety by requiring new 

motor carriers to undergo safety audits within their first 18 months 

of operation. Numbering almost 50,000 annually, these new entrants pose a real risk to commercial motor vehicle safety. Fortysix states will work with us to conduct these audits, a partnership 

that will yield significant results. 

In the area of commercial driver’s license, accurate and complete 

drivers’ history records are a key to enhanced safety. The CDL 

grants under this program will allow states to enhance technology 

and upgrade recordkeeping systems and increase our ability to 

identify problem drivers. 

The Performance Registration Information Management System 

Grants links safety fitness to vehicle registration at the State level, 

and identifies high-risk carriers based on their over-the-road performance, and actively monitors their safety performance. Under 

this program, carrier identification is made at the time of vehicle 

registration. Currently, just 25 states participate. As more states 

become fully operational and suspend vehicle registration in conjunction with Federal out-of-service orders, fewer vehicles associated with high-risk carriers will operate on the road. 

Border safety remains a priority. And currently it is funded by 

the MCSAP program. We propose to create a separate grant program to address current and future needs. Congress required that 

the Department of Transportation Inspector General verify, to his 

satisfaction, all the statutory conditions prior to opening the border. The Motor Carrier Safety Administration has met these requirements. Currently, the border remains closed due to a ruling 

by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Administration is considering appropriation action. Meanwhile, our agency is ready to 

ensure border operation safety and will be ready whenever the border opens. 

Another important aspect of our reauthorization proposal is the 

creation of a standing medical review board to provide the agency 

with expert medical advice on driver qualification standards and 

guidelines, medical examiner education, and research, enhancing 

our ability to adapt and update our regulations. Establishment of 

a medical registry would respond to the NTSB, which issued eight 

safety recommendations in September 2001. These recommendations asked that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

establish comprehensive standards for qualifying medical providers 

and conducting qualification exams. 

As enforcement is the centerpiece of motor carrier safety, I would 

like to emphasize improvements in the household goods enforcement. I know that the Chairman and Members of this Committee 

have noticed the increase in consumer complaints about household 

goods carriers. Our proposal establishes more visible enforcement 

through increased investigations and expanded outreach. Our efforts seek to increase consumer awareness, helping them to make 

better informed decisions when moving across state lines. Additionally, we seek authority for state attorneys general to enforce Federal household goods regulations against interstate carriers. We believe this authority will help reduce these abusive practices. 

4 

This reauthorization represents the first opportunity for our new 

agency to step forward and stand on its own and chart our course. 

With your help, we can continue to improve highway safety for 

motor freight and passenger carriers and all highway travelers. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration’s proposal to achieve this goal, and 

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

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sandberg follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ANNETTE M. SANDBERG, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, and Senators of the Committee. It is my 

pleasure to appear before you today as this Committee considers reauthorization of 

the motor carrier safety program. 

When Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta appeared before this Committee in May to present the President’s reauthorization proposal, he outlined the 

centerpiece of the Administration’s bill—highway safety. We have worked closely in 

the Department, joining NHTSA and FHWA, to develop our safety proposals. Our 

collaboration with the other safety agencies is essential because highway safety has 

many facets and no single solution. If we are to stem the tide of this terrible loss 

of life on our Nation’s highways we all must play a role, combine our knowledge 

and expertise, and coordinate our program delivery. My colleagues and I share the 

belief that our programs are complementary rather than competing. We are committed to working together with this Committee to reduce fatalities on our Nation’s 

highways. With your help, we will make much needed changes over this decade to 

reduce this senseless loss of life. 

This Committee demonstrated great leadership in the passage and enactment of 

the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) and the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA). The changes you crafted in these 

Acts have reduced fatalities in crashes involving trucks four years in a row, even 

as travel increased. This is clear and unequivocal progress, and justifies the confidence of your Committee in the impact that FMCSA would have on commercial 

motor vehicle safety. FMCSA has taken your direction and acted upon it. Despite 

this progress, much remains to be done. I commit to build on this success and to 

improve commercial motor vehicle safety by bringing greater efficiency and effectiveness to FMCSA’s programs. 

Enhancing Our Safety Grant Programs 

Overall, TEA–21 and MCSIA provided a solid foundation for our traditional motor 

carrier safety grant programs—Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), 

Commercial Drivers’ License Program (CDL), Border, and the Performance Registration Information System Management (PRISM). In TEA–21, CDL and PRISM were 

funded from Information System funds, while Border was a set-aside from MCSAP. 

We envision these four programs as separate grant programs totaling $1.4 billion 

over the six-year authorization. 

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program Grants 

TEA–21 eliminated most earmarks from MCSAP and restructured it to promote 

performance-based activities. This change provided the needed flexibility to State 

grantees to allow them to invest in areas of the greatest crash reduction based on 

their own circumstances. Our State partners conduct roadside inspections, perform 

compliance reviews, and enforce traffic laws on commercial operations. Reauthorization would continue to support this vital partnership and expand our relationship 

with states into new areas of compliance. This will enable us to address our future 

challenges by building on our past success. 

While we recommend that most major features of the MCSAP remain unchanged, 

we believe we can improve MCSAP by amending the traffic enforcement component, 

improving the performance incentive funding, and providing funding to support new 

entrant reviews. 

The current MCSAP includes an incentive for states to improve safety performance if they demonstrate improvement in any or all of five categories related to reduction of large-truck involved fatal accidents and fatal accident rates, timely 

upload of CMV inspection and accident data, and verification of CDL information. 

The Agency proposes to provide 100 percent MCSAP funding to states for performance incentives. 

5 

To address unsafe operation of passenger vehicles around large trucks, we seek 

discretion to fund traffic enforcement. This provision will give participating jurisdictions greater flexibility to use MCSAP funding for traffic enforcement when necessary to reduce large-truck related crashes. Education of the general public about 

sharing the road with large trucks is important, as well as targeted education to 

young adults on this subject. All State driving license manuals should reflect this 

information. 

As outlined in MCSIA, a new entrant program to bring motor carriers into compliance with safety regulations at the onset of operations can improve safety. These 

new entrants, numbering 40,000–50,000 annually, will be targeted to improve commercial motor vehicle safety. Through MCSAP, a Federal-State partnership will be 

established to implement the New Entrant Program. Overseeing and supporting the 

conduct of safety audits, establishing baseline data, and implementing a program 

of regular data collection to assess the progress of the New Entrant Program will 

enable FMCSA to fulfill its statutory mandate to improve new entrant safety performance. This program will meet the requirements set out in Section 350 of the 

FY 2002 DOT Appropriations Act as a precondition to opening the Southern border 

to Mexican commercial vehicles. 

Forty-six states have committed to work with us to conduct new entrant safety 

audits, having agreed to provide approximately 195 of the estimated 262 State and 

Federal personnel needed. The State personnel will be either new hires or be reassigned from other law enforcement duties. In FY 2003, these individuals were supported through MCSAP grant funds. Contracted safety auditors were used to make 

up the balance of staff. Over the reauthorization period these individuals will be 

supported through MCSAP grant funds. Approximately 67 contracted safety auditors will be used to make up the balance of staff. We plan to hire 32 full-time Federal staff to cover program oversight, including management, review, and approval 

of the safety audits. We believe this Federal-State partnership, like the traditional 

MCSAP, will yield significant results. 

Commercial Drivers License Grants 

The CDL grants provided under TEA–21 were a set-aside from the agency’s information system funds. MCSIA provided additional funding when new driver disqualification standards and record-keeping requirements were imposed on states. Improving the accuracy and completeness of driver history records is key to enhanced 

safety. The driver’s license is the main form of personal identification in the United 

States. Ensuring the bearer of the license is in fact who he or she claims to be depends on a diverse set of security technologies. Particularly in the transportation 

of hazardous materials, states need current driver licensing technology. Grants 

under this program will allow states to enhance this technology and continue to upgrade their record-keeping systems. We propose up to a 10 percent set-aside, which 

can be provided to states at 100 percent funding. 

We propose increased CDL grant funding for: (1) improving State control and 

oversight of State licensing agency and third party testing facilities; (2) developing 

management control practices to detect and prevent fraudulent testing and licensing 

activities; (3) supporting State efforts to conduct Social Security Number and Bureau for Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service) number verification for CDLs; and (4) maintaining the central depository of Mexican and Canadian driver convictions in the U.S., the disqualification 

of unsafe Mexican and Canadian drivers, and the notification of Mexican and Canadian authorities of convictions and/or disqualifications. 

Together, these activities will add to the variety of driver’s license technologies 

for safety and security, and will enhance FMCSA’s ability to identify problem drivers. 

Performance Registration Information Management System Grants 

The PRISM program was pilot-tested in ISTEA and mandated as a new program 

in TEA–21. Linking safety fitness to vehicle registration at the State level, it identifies high risk carriers based on their actual over the road performance, provides 

many opportunities for poor performing carriers to improve, actively monitors safety 

progress, and applies progressively harsher sanctions to those carriers who fail to 

improve. Under PRISM, identification of the carrier responsible for the safe operation of vehicles is made at the time of vehicle registration. Through the use of a 

‘‘Warning Letter’’, thirty percent of the carriers improve their safety performance 

without Federal intervention. PRISM provides for immediate, visual identification 

to law enforcement that the carrier should not be on the road by removing the license plates. As more states become fully operational and suspend vehicle registration in conjunction with Federal out of service orders, vehicles associated with highVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
6 

risk carriers will be prevented from operating on the road. With 25 participating 

States, this program does not require long-term Federal maintenance once the state 

receives its development funds. 

Border Enforcement Grants 

Border safety activities continue to remain a high priority for FMCSA and the 

states. Under TEA–21, border operations, both northern and southern, are funded 

as a 5 percent set-aside from MCSAP. We propose to create a separate grant program to address current and future State needs at the border. In the FY 2002 Appropriations Act, Congress established requirements for opening the U.S.-Mexico 

border to long-haul commercial traffic. This event alone, when fully realized, necessitates a separate grant program to ensure a stable funding source for State inspectors and operations. 

One Congressional requirement for opening the border was that the DOT Inspector General must verify the satisfaction of all statutory conditions. Inspector General Ken Mead concluded that FMCSA has met these requirements, including the 

hiring and training of enforcement personnel and the establishment of inspection facilities and safety procedures at the southern border. Due to our actions, Secretary 

Mineta certified that the Department had met the Congressional mandates, providing a basis for the President to lift the moratorium on granting operating authority to Mexican carriers within the interior of the United States in November 2002. 

Currently, the border remains closed because of the 9th Circuit Court ruling that 

DOT had not conducted the appropriate, in-depth environmental analysis for certain 

rules designed to satisfy the Congressional requirements. The Court held that the 

environmental assessment that the agency prepared was inadequate, and that 

FMCSA should have prepared an Environmental Impact Statement and Clean Air 

Act Conformity Analysis. The Administration filed an en banc appeal of the decision 

to the 9th Circuit on March 10, which was denied. The Administration is considering appropriate next steps in responding to the ruling. Meanwhile, FMCSA is 

ready now, and will be ready whenever the border is opened, to ensure the safety 

of border operations. 

Information Systems 

Information systems and analysis support all of the agency’s safety programs and 

will underlie our future efforts to improve program delivery. Data collected across 

the country by Federal safety investigators and State partners from roadside inspections, crashes, compliance reviews, and enforcement activities provide a national 

perspective on carrier performance and assist in determining enforcement activities 

and priorities. This allows us to analyze program effectiveness and direct resources 

in the most efficient and productive manner to improve motor carrier safety. 

In TEA–21, this Committee provided essential dedicated funding to improve Federal and State systems of carrier, vehicle, and driver safety records, and enhance 

State on-line capabilities for roadside enforcement. With this funding we greatly improved the accuracy and timeliness of our inspection and crash data and made this 

information available on-line to shippers, carriers, and insurance companies. We 

created new systems to allow motor carriers to register for authority on-line and file 

the necessary insurance documentation. With long-term funding and authority we 

can continue our progress and upgrade our ability to identify the high-risk carriers 

through data improvements. 

Regulatory Development 

Regulatory development is another fundamental element of FMCSA’s compliance 

and enforcement process. This is an area where greater attention and resources are 

needed to address all mandated regulations and ensure program performance will 

not be compromised. Previously, funding for this activity has been obtained by borrowing against other program activities, such as research and technology, requiring 

the agency to struggle with inconsistent funding streams. 

The absence of a consistent funding source causes starts and stops in a process 

that requires a consistent level of effort for timely completion of regulations and 

their supporting analyses. For this reason, we are proposing to dedicate funds to our 

regulatory development program. We will also use our funds to examine alternative 

regulatory programs. In TEA–21, Congress provided FMCSA with authority to establish exemption and pilot programs under strict safety controls. We now operate 

a vision exemption program where applications total more than 60 per month. We 

are approached routinely to consider other alternative programs to our safety regulations. However, these are resource intensive programs with ample Federal oversight responsibilities. We need to approach these activities cautiously. 

7 

Medical Review Board and Registry 

The authorization for a standing medical review board will provide the agency 

with much needed expert medical advice on driver qualification standards and 

guidelines, medical examiner education, and medical research. The members would 

come from leading medical/academic institutions and serve 3 to 5-year terms. In the 

past, we have assembled expert medical specialists on an ad hoc basis to review the 

standards and guidelines for qualifying truck and bus drivers. A standing review 

board will greatly enhance the agency’s ability to adopt regulations that reflect current medical advances. Many of the medical standards currently in effect were originally adopted in the 1970s, or earlier. 

With over six million commercial drivers under our jurisdiction, we must ensure 

that only drivers physically qualified to operate a commercial vehicle are doing so. 

There are tragic examples where this has not been the case. A medical examiner 

lacking familiarity with our medical criteria certified a Louisiana bus driver with 

heart and kidney disease who later crashed, killing 22 passengers. A medical examiner registry, as called for in our proposal, will help FMCSA to provide more comprehensive information on medical practitioners to drivers and carriers. It will help 

disseminate information to practitioners regarding medical policies and requirements relevant to the physical qualifications of commercial drivers. 

A medical registry is necessary to upgrade the quality of CDL driver medical 

qualification exams. With the registry, we will better monitor the quality and practices of medical examiners. A certification process will ensure that medical examiners are qualified to perform driver physical exams. Establishment of a medical 

registry of qualified medical examiners would respond to the National Transportation Safety Board, which issued eight safety recommendations in September 2001 

recommending that FMCSA establish more comprehensive standards for qualifying 

medical providers and conducting medical qualification exams. 

Strengthening Enforcement 

Enforcement is the centerpiece of our motor carrier safety program. This Committee made much needed improvements to our enforcement program under TEA– 

21. I believe those changes contributed substantially to the reduction in fatalities 

that we see today. We propose to expand the toolbox of enforcement techniques, 

close loopholes that permit unsafe practices, and improve our penalty structure. 

While there are many such features included in our legislative proposal, I would like 

to emphasize only a few today, addressing various penalties for motor carrier noncompliance with out-of-service violations and safety record-keeping requirements, 

improvements to household goods enforcement, and new authority over motor carrier management and operations. 

Intrastate Violations 

The agency’s enforcement reach must extend to the intrastate operations of interstate carriers in order to enhance safety and ensure uniformity in enforcement and 

oversight responsibilities. At present, our inability to reach intrastate operations 

represents an artificial line from a safety point-of-view. When our investigators examine a carrier’s operations they must discard intrastate safety violations they discover. If an interstate carrier is declared unfit to operate, it may continue to operate 

solely within a state. 

Many interstate motor carriers have substantial intrastate operations. For purposes of safety, it is counterproductive to create two classes of accidents and safety 

inspection data—one subject to Federal jurisdiction, the other not—when, typically, 

both involve the same vehicles, drivers, dispatchers, mechanics, and safety management controls and may have the same safety result. In examining a motor carrier’s 

accident and inspection data, it is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, to determine whether the vehicle involved was making an interstate or intrastate trip. 

We seek to amend this enforcement boundary so that we may take steps to prevent 

unsafe carriers from operating. Under this proposal, a Federal safety determination 

of an interstate motor carrier suspends both interstate and intrastate operations. 

Similarly, a state safety determination that an intrastate carrier is unfit halts both 

its intrastate and any interstate operations. 

Congress has recognized this limitation in other motor carrier safety programs 

and has set precedents in eliminating inter/intrastate distinctions in the areas of 

hazardous materials, drug and alcohol testing, and CDL regulations. In these cases, 

Federal regulations apply to the full scope of operations. An unfit carrier should not 

be allowed to operate anywhere. 

8 

Oversight of Company Officials 

Similarly, we have limited authority over company officials who exhibit continual 

disregard of safety management practices. We find a few motor carrier managers 

that order, encourage, and tolerate widespread regulatory violations. When caught, 

they declare bankruptcy, rename the motor carrier and reshuffle the managers’ titles, sell its assets to a pre-existing shell corporation owned and managed by the 

same people, or otherwise attempt to evade the payment of civil penalties or obscure 

the identity of the motor carrier and, thus, its safety record. These individuals perpetuate a casual indifference to public safety. Although the total number of such officials is small, their actions create a risk disproportionate to their numbers. 

To address this practice we seek authority to suspend, amend, or revoke the registration of a for-hire motor carrier if any of its officers has engaged in a pattern 

or practice of avoiding compliance, or concealing non-compliance, with Federal motor 

carrier safety standards. This provision is intended to address those few motor carrier officers who have shown unusual and repeated disregard for safety compliance 

and would be used only in the most serious cases. 

Household Goods Enforcement 

I know that the Chairman and Senators of this Committee have noticed an increase in the number of constituent complaints regarding unscrupulous household 

goods carriers. The letters we receive, as well as the calls coming into the FMCSA 

hotline, have been increasing. FMCSA receives thousands of consumer complaints 

annually. Currently, the Agency has three full-time commercial investigators devoted to the Household Goods Enforcement and Compliance program and has budgeted for more for FY 2004. 

While the household goods industry as a whole performs over a million successful 

moves annually, a small group of unscrupulous people scattered over a handful of 

states has used this industry to bilk unsuspecting consumers of their hard earned 

money. The complaints from the American moving public have reached significant 

proportions. 

We need to establish a more visible enforcement program through increased investigations, and a more robust outreach effort to reduce the number of consumer 

complaints filed against household goods carriers and brokers. Our efforts will also 

be aimed at increasing consumer awareness to allow shippers to make better-informed decisions before they move across State lines. 

Household goods carriers operating in interstate commerce are required to have 

or participate in an arbitration program as a condition of their registration with 

FMCSA. The arbitration programs must comply with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

14708, and the carrier must submit to binding arbitration upon shipper request for 

cargo damage or loss claims of $5,000 or less. Seventy-five percent of the complaints 

we receive pertain to loss and damage claims. 

FMCSA intends to conduct an extensive study of existing Household Goods Dispute Settlement Programs and alternative arbitration programs in the household 

goods moving industry. We need this critical information to determine the extent 

of the problem, to determine effective strategies and countermeasures, and to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs in resolving loss and damage disputes and 

claims between shippers and carriers. 

We cannot continue to address these consumer issues on our own—safety is our 

primary business. Even with additional resources, household good disputes will likely increase. As such, we seek authority for state attorneys general to enforce Federal 

household goods regulations against interstate household goods carriers. This approach has been successful in increasing state enforcement of Federal telemarketing 

regulations. We believe it will help to reduce abusive practices among movers of 

household goods. 

Out-of-Service Orders and False Records 

The out-of-service order is one of the tools we have to prevent a motor carrier 

from operating when it is unfit. Once issued, the order is designed to stop a carrier 

from continuing to operate until it comes into compliance. In some instances, carriers violate these orders and consider the safety fines as a ‘‘cost of doing business.’’ 

This mentality shows a flagrant disregard for the safety of the highway users. Currently, carriers who knowingly require or authorize drivers to violate the order are 

subject to a maximum civil penalty of only $16,000. To be effective, the penalty 

should be harsh to ensure compliance with the order. If a carrier knowingly and 

willfully requires a driver to violate an order, we propose a fine of $100,000, up to 

one-year imprisonment, or both. If a driver violates an order, there should be a 

standard of progressive fines and disqualification standards. 

9 

False records or companies that hamper the ability of our safety investigators to 

access safety records can limit the effectiveness of our enforcement program. A few 

carriers will deliberately impede our investigators by refusing access to records, 

buildings, or equipment or falsifying records to obscure safety violations. To deter 

those who refuse access to their records, we propose a $500 per day fine, up to a 

maximum of $5,000 for the same violation. Increasing the current fines for false 

records to $1,000 per day, up to a maximum of $10,000 per violation, would stem 

this practice. 

Fundamental Building Blocks for Program Delivery 

When this Committee established the FMCSA under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, you wanted a results-oriented and performance-driven safety 

organization. FMCSA shares that vision and wants to build an organization in this 

reauthorization that maximizes program safety benefits while utilizing an efficient 

delivery system. 

Research and Technology 

FMCSA’s ability to integrate research and technology into our regulatory and enforcement programs has contributed to sound policy-making. MCSIA did not establish separate authority for a FMCSA research and technology program. We believe 

this authority is fundamental to ensuring that our future safety decisions are based 

on sound research. Research and technology supports life-saving and injury-reducing 

projects that create qualified and alert drivers, smart commercial vehicles, smart 

roadside facilities, secure hazardous material shipments, and expanded partnerships 

with states and universities. 

The primary goal of FMCSA research and technology activities is to improve commercial vehicle safety and security by promoting studies on issues most frequently 

related to the cause of crashes and loss of life. Based on regulatory and enforcement 

needs and on input from stakeholders, industry, government, and academia, we 

have investigated, among others, driver fatigue and health issues, vehicle stability, 

carrier and shipper safety management, and a variety of vehicle-based safety technologies. We have actively participated in research activities sponsored by the 

Transportation Research Board and have cooperated with numerous transportation 

research centers and laboratories in the U.S. and abroad. FMCSA’s role in the 

transportation research community will increase as we expand our partnerships beyond traditional roles and participate in and sponsor top-level national conferences 

and workshops. Finding effective solutions and harnessing emerging technologies 

does not happen without a solid research foundation. 

Section 1704 of the Department’s Reauthorization proposal would provide Federal 

ITS deployment funds each Fiscal Year to support of the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) Deployment program. The Department is 

requesting $25 million in its FY 2004 budget request for CVISN deployment. Eligible states would receive grants up to $2.5 million each for deployment of CVISN 

core capabilities in the areas of safety information exchange, interstate credentials 

administration, and roadside electronic screening. States that have already implemented core capabilities could be eligible to receive up to $1 million of Federal ITS 

funds for deploying enhanced CVISN capabilities that improve safety and the productivity of commercial vehicle operations, and enhance transportation security. 

Conclusion 

TEA–21 and MCSIA provided a solid foundation for the motor carrier safety program. This reauthorization represents the first opportunity for our new agency to 

step forward, stand on its own, and chart our course for the future. Critical program 

characteristics—flexibility, a strong Federal-State partnership, and essential enforcement tools for our Federal programs—should be reinforced. 

I look forward to working with you on this critical endeavor to improve highway 

safety for the motor freight and passenger carrier industries and all highway travelers. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on FMCSA’s proposal to achieve this 

goal. I would be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you very much. 

Let me begin my questions by focusing a little bit on safety 

issues. A 30 percent goal is pretty significant, reducing the fatalities by 30 percent over the next 5 years. How do you intend to 

achieve that? What are the principal areas of focus that will allow 

you to meet that tough goal? 

10 

Ms. SANDBERG. There are a number of strategies that we have. 

First, I’d like to speak in the global perspective, and then narrow 

it down. 

Right now, Motor Carriers works in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Highways. We all share the same safety goal inside the Department of 

Transportation, and that’s to reduce the overall fatalities to 1.0 per 

100 million vehicle miles traveled, by the year 2008. And so we 

have a number of strategies that cut across all of our modes to 

achieve that goal. 

And one that clearly ties with Motor Carriers and the National 

Highway Safety Administration is to increase seatbelt usage. Federal Highways is also working with us on this. We know that if we 

can increase seatbelt usage to 90 percent in this country, that by 

the year 2008 we will have saved 4,000 lives, and so that’s a major 

goal. 

In addition, it’s a specific goal for us, in Motor Carriers, because 

we know that motor carrier—that truck drivers and bus drivers, 

their use is lower then the average population. Average seatbelt 

usage across the country right now is about 75 percent. In the 

motor carrier population, it’s about 48 percent, and so we have 

some significant work to do with our state partners to increase 

seatbelt usage of even truck drivers. 

Senator SUNUNU. How do you determine what the belt usage is 

among truck drivers? 

Ms. SANDBERG. We do a survey similar to the survey that the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does for all belt 

users. We use the same methodology and the same surveying 

mechanisms, where they actually stand on overpasses and at street 

corners to see if the belts are being used. 

Senator SUNUNU. You’d think that people that drove for a living 

would be more inclined to take advantage of the safety equipment. 

Ms. SANDBERG. You would think so, and I think that we need to 

work on some of the message. But, then again, I think that most 

people would be inclined to use the safety belt if they knew the impacts, particularly when they’re involved in a crash. So we are 

working on some educational components, as well as enforcement 

components, to try to reinforce that message. 

Senator SUNUNU. What share of the accidents that are taking 

place involve—accidents that involve large trucks—are related to 

equipment problems, what share are related to driver behavior, 

and what share would you attribute to other factors? 

Ms. SANDBERG. I do not have that specific breakdown, but I can 

get that for you. I do know that a majority of the crashes, at least 

if I’m remembering the data correctly, are due to driver—or behavior problems. 

Senator SUNUNU. Do you feel confident that the allocation of 

funds for motor carrier safety are lining up reasonably with the different causes of accidents that I just described? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes, I do. As you see from specifically the four 

grant programs that I spoke about in my opening statement, those 

four grant programs really provide a substantial amount of money 

to the states, specifically to do inspections, as well as look at driver 

11 

log books and the other types of things that we need to ensure that 

drivers are doing. 

One other specific component, though, that we think is a new 

safety feature here is the New Entrant Program, and that really 

gives us an opportunity to focus on what we know are the greatestrisk carriers. The data show that, currently, carriers that enter 

interstate commerce are the most—less likely to be safe. And so 

this New Entrant Program allows us to, one, when they register to 

be an interstate carrier, we give them conditional operating authority. And while they have conditional operating authority, they’re 

actually flagged in our system to be inspected more often so that 

state roadside inspectors will know that they are a new entrant. 

We also, in the audit process, will audit them within the first 18 

months to make sure that they are meeting all the conditions of 

operating authority. Once they successfully pass that audit, then 

they will be given full operating authority. So this gives us an opportunity to look at them early and often to make sure that they’re 

operating safely. 

Senator SUNUNU. The budget request for 2004 raises the cost of 

the federally managed part of the program to just over 200 million, 

from 117. What’s the key justification for this kind of an increase? 

Ms. SANDBERG. That’s our administrative expenses. When we 

were initially formed under MCSIA in 1999, our administration 

was funded out of a portion of the take-down from Federal Highway’s grants. And since we’ve been formed, we’ve had to come back 

in for supplemental budget increases. And, in reality, the Federal 

Highway Administration has actually been floating us along with 

our IT infrastructure, our human resources, our procurement, our 

payroll, those kinds of functions. Federal Highways has advised me 

that at the end of this Fiscal Year, they’re going to cutoff that support, and so we felt that it was time, one, for us to stand our own 

and make sure that our administration was funded cleanly, without Federal Highways supplementing that out of other monies that 

should have been allocated to other things. 

Senator SUNUNU. Back to the New Entrants Program just for a 

moment, you highlighted in your testimony that this is one of the 

key initiatives consuming your time, your focus right now. What 

are your principal concerns with respect to that program and your 

ability to ensure that it’s successful? 

Ms. SANDBERG. The principal concerns with the New Entrant 

Program, having 40,000 to 50,000 new entrants a year, is making 

sure that we actually get to all 40,000 to 50,000 of those new entrants. We have 46 states that have indicated that they want to 

partner with us on that program; however, we know that some of 

those states cannot fully partner, whether it’s through statutory requirements that they’re not allowed to actually participate in the 

program or whether they can’t actually hire all the people. So our 

biggest challenge is going to be to make sure that we get as many 

states onboard as we can, get those state people hired, give them 

the funding to make sure that they can start doing new entrants 

in the states that they’re responsible for, and then we need to supplement that with additional contractors and other employees to 

help make sure that we get to all 40,000 or 50,000 new entrants 

within that first 18 months. 

12 

Senator SUNUNU. Currently, there are over 20 open rulemaking 

proceedings related to directives that were required by the Motor 

Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, TEA–21, and other legislation that we’ve passed. Could you describe a little bit why these 

rulemakings are still open? I’m sure that there are different reasons for different rulemakings, but, in general, what is keeping you 

from completing the work and what’s your plan for concluding action on these Congressional mandates? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes, thank you. Actually, we had a number of 

significant rulemakings that were outstanding, not just from 

MCSIA in 1999, but from some earlier Congressional mandates, 

some of those dating back 10 years from when the agency was inside the Federal Highway Administration. What we have done is, 

we have gone through and made a prioritized listing and looked at 

which of those were mandated under MCSIA, and we’re working 

aggressively on those, as well as which ones have the biggest safety 

impact. And so those are getting the highest priority right now so 

that we get those rulemakings done. 

We’ve established a new procedure inside Motor Carriers. We 

have weekly regulatory meetings so that staff can keep track—actually, what they do is, they update myself, the deputy administrator, and the acting deputy administrator on what progress we’re 

making toward getting that backlog finished. And we’ve set a 

benchmark for each year. There are timelines that they have to report on, and if any of those timelines slip, then they are required 

to come in and report why they have slipped, how we’re going to 

make up the time, so that we make sure that we keep on track. 

And our goal is to try to get as many of the backlog done within 

the next 2 years as we possibly can. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. 

We’re joined by Senator Breaux, and at this time I’d yield to the 

Senator for any comments or questions he cares to ask. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. BREAUX, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being late. 

I have a statement, which I want to present, and it’s not directed 

particularly at you, Ms. Sandberg, because some of the problems 

we have go back through several different Administrations. 

I remember that last month Secretary Mineta came before the 

Committee to talk about the Administration’s proposed SAFETEA, 

which would authorize all kinds of new transportation initiatives, 

to the tune of about $247 billion, with about only 1 percent of that 

money focused on motor carrier safety, of the $247 billion. 

Before we move toward authorizing a whole bunch of new bold 

initiatives in this area, I question what has happened to all the 

things that we have initiated in the past that have never been finished. And before we start going into new areas and new requirements, I would like to see the old areas and the old requirements 

completed. 

Let me just review some of the things that have been unfinished 

and, in some cases, even unstarted. 

13 

With regard to ISTEA, Congress directed the Department to 

issues rules addressing railroad highway grade crossings in February 1995. In July 1988, the Department issued a proposed rule 

prohibiting commercial motor vehicle drivers from driving onto railroad grade crossings unless there was sufficient space to drive completely through the crossing without stopping on the tracks. Hardly 

an innovative idea. But that’s the last we’ve heard of that. Almost 

5 years after that proposed rule, and more than 8 years after the 

Congress first set the Congressional deadline, we are still waiting 

on a rule that arguably could save thousands of lives. 

And in TEA–21, the Secretary was to have initiated a rulemaking by January 1999 to determine whether Federal safety 

standards should be applied to interstate school bus transportation 

operations. The agency issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in October 2001 and then did nothing else. I mean, what 

happened to it? 

The Secretary was supposed to carry out a pilot program with 

one or more states to improve the timely exchange of pertinent 

driver performance and safety records among motor carriers. The 

purpose, obviously, was to determine the extent to which driver 

records, including their fines and penalties and failures to appear 

for court, should be included as part of any driver information system. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has yet to 

propose a pilot program to carry out this Congressional directive 

from 1998. What’s happened with that? 

The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act directed the agency 

to address the safety of commercial van operations that transported 

nine to fifteen passengers. Since that congressional directive, the 

NTSB has stressed that special dangers are associated with the operation of these vans, and the final rule was supposed to be issued 

by December 9, 2000, but the only action by DOT has been the 

issuance of the proposed rule back in 2001. Where is the regulation? 

On medical certifications, as you may remember, back on Mother’s Day of 1999, we had this tragic accident in Louisiana where 

22 of my constituents lost their lives as a result of a horrible bus 

accident involving a motorcoach that they were traveling in. The 

bus driver was found to be fatigued, had several serious medical 

conditions, and was under the influence of both sedatives and cocaine at the time of the accident. The NTSB recommended that the 

Department of Transportation take steps to strengthen the medical 

certification process. 

Three years after that, 2002, last year, four Louisiana children 

lost their lives in yet another bus accident in Garland, Texas. The 

bus driver in that accident was also found to be under the influence 

of sedatives and cocaine, exactly the situation we had in Louisiana. 

And last July, the Department did issue a final rule, disqualifying commercial motor vehicle drivers who have lost their driver’s 

licenses after being convicted of a serious offense while driving a 

passenger vessel. The final rule also disqualified anyone who has 

been convicted of committing a drug- or alcohol-related offense. 

Now, this was a good step. I congratulate the Department for doing 

it, but I don’t think it’s nearly enough. 

14 

Almost a year has passed since the accident in Garland, Texas, 

and DOT has yet to issue any rules regarding the medical fitness 

of commercial bus drivers. The medical professionals are not required to notify anyone if they see a medical problem that could affect the ability of a commercial vehicle driver to drive safely. There 

are no health thresholds or requirements tied to a person’s ability 

to get a commercial driver’s license, or even to renew one. 

Last September, Secretary Mineta wrote me that they had drafted a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing a process for combining the medical certification process with the issuance and renewal of the commercial driver’s license and that this proposed rule 

would be published by March of this year. Last month, you testified, before our Committee, that it would now be December of this 

year before we saw this rule. Now, here we are in mid-June, and 

we’ve still not seen a proposed regulation in this area, much less 

the final regulation. 

And last month the Administration presented its proposed reauthorization bill that would create a medical review board. Good 

idea. I question how long it’s going to take to get a medical review 

board up and running. And why do we have a temporary board instead of having permanent staff people to oversee the medical 

issues related to commercial driver’s license, rather than simply a 

part-time board? 

And, finally, let me mention something that’s ancient history, the 

commercial vehicle driver biometric identifier. And this thing was 

directed by the Secretary under the Truck and Bus Safety Regulation Act in 1988 to establish minimum uniform standards for a biometric identification system to ensure the identify of commercial 

motor vehicle operators. We issued a proposed regulation in 1991, 

Congress amended the mandate to require that commercial drivers 

had some form of this unique identifier, not necessarily as a biometric identifier, by January 2001. Yet DOT has not issued anything since 1991. 

So, I took a long time, Mr. Chairman, pointing this out, but here 

we are looking at new regulations. We haven’t finished the old regulations. Time after time, when Congress comes in and says—you 

happen to be there, and you’re catching the target of this, but, anybody else in the past 10 years could be having the same point made 

to them—is that we write a bill, issue instructions, call for rules 

and regulations, and it’s just not followed through. I don’t know 

why we’d want to do a whole other round of new regulations when 

we haven’t finished the old ones. So, that’s just a statement of everything we’ve been able to find that has not yet been done that’s 

already been required. Your comments? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Thank you, Senator. 

Actually, you point out exactly the problem I faced when I came 

in to the Administration in December of last year. And one of the 

things that the Secretary asked me to focus on was to look at the 

backlog in regulations and have a proposal on how we’re going to 

reduce that backlog. 

What we’ve proposed in SAFETEA is not to add new programs, 

but it’s actually to shore up the infrastructure that we have in 

place so that we can, exactly, deal with this problem. If you look 

at one of the proposals we have, which is the increase in funds for 

15 

our regulatory program, we’re actually asking for a $9 million increase. Part of that is, is that we have not had the funding to do 

the necessary staff research and regulatory evaluation to get these 

regulations done. 

And so we are working through that backlog right now. What’s 

happened is, the agency will start taking a step forward, and then 

we are given a whole host of new regulations. For example, we 

were given the new regulations that we needed to formulate for 

NAFTA so that we could open the southern border. And so we 

spent a tremendous amount of time last year working on those regulations. 

We now have staff shifted. They’re focusing on the backlog of regulations. And all the ones that you mentioned are on my hotlist. 

I look at those each week, particularly the ones that we know are 

going to be the biggest safety benefit. 

The New Entrant Program that I spoke of earlier in my opening 

statement, that was a mandate by Congress when the agency was 

formed, in 1999, under MCSIA, and so we had to get that regulation in place. The funding that we’re asking for and the authority 

that we’re asking for there is actually what we need in order to 

make that program work so that we can meet the Congressional 

mandate. 

As far as the other regulations, we have a number of programs 

underway. And, as I said at the hearing in May, we will have the 

medical certification tied to the commercial driver’s license. That 

notice of proposed rulemaking will be out this year. The 15-passenger van or the camionette rule, that will be out very shortly. 

We are working aggressively on all of these to deal with the 

backlog. And I know that some of them are 10 and 12 years old. 

And, to me, that’s unacceptable, and I’ve told staff that, and we’re 

going to continue to work through that backlog as quickly as we 

can. Some of the funding that we’ve asked for is to do just that. 

Senator BREAUX. I thank you for that. I don’t want to belabor the 

point. I think that some of the regulations and proposals that we 

required are probably now ancient history and outdated. Things 

that go back 10 years, maybe it was something to address the situation 10 years ago; and it may not be applicable to today. We need 

to take a look at some of these requirements that we’ve never been 

able to do. 

Everybody has always come up here, and say the same thing. 

Your challenge is going to be to actually get it done. No one has 

ever come up and said, ‘‘We’re not going to do the regulation.’’ Everybody who comes before Congress says, ‘‘We’re going to get right 

on it. We’re going to get it done, I promise you.’’ And then nothing 

ever happens. 

These are critical areas, particularly the medical certification for 

driver’s licenses. These things have to be done. I wish you the best 

of luck, and get in there and kick you know what to get it done. 

Ms. SANDBERG. I’ll be happy to provide periodic reports on our 

progress, if you would like that, Senator. 

Senator BREAUX. I think it would be very helpful, because, I 

mean, we just can’t let this thing hang forever, and I—— 

Ms. SANDBERG. I agree. 

16 

Senator BREAUX. Good luck, and our best toward getting this 

thing done. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary SUNUNU. Senator Lautenberg? 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I’ll take just a couple of minutes, if I might, to make a quick statement. 

And I thank you for holding this important hearing on motor carrier safety. And I welcome Ms. Sandberg again and wish her luck, 

if I may, in getting on with the job. And we don’t want to make 

it more difficult, but I do have a couple of questions. 

And it’s obvious that trucks and buses perform critical roles in 

our national transportation system, and we need them. But these 

vehicles share the road with smaller passenger vehicles, and those 

carry our families. And SUVs look miniature next to the large 

trucks. And trucks traveling at high speeds on our highways right 

next to the smaller vehicles can lead to disaster. And as more and 

more trucks and cars clog our highways, motor carrier safety becomes an ever increasingly important issue. 

And while motor carrier safety is not on the mind of every American, anyone who has ever shared the road with a large tractortrailer truck senses the safety risks. And the State of New Jersey 

bears more than its share of the Nation’s truck traffic. We have 

over 11,000 heavy trucks registered in our state, but countless 

more travel through New Jersey from north to south delivering 

goods between points and commercial destinations. 

We are concerned about these behemoths, some of which are 53- 

feet long and weigh as much as 80,000 pounds, and we will resist 

the pressure from some states to increase current weight and 

length limits so that even bigger trucks can barrel through our 

state. Bigger trucks present bigger safety risks, and we have to seriously ask ourselves if we’re willing to tolerate those risks. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation reported that multi-trailer trucks are likely to be involved in more fatal crashes, 11 percent 

more likely, than today’s single-trailer trucks. 

In 1991, I authored the freeze on longer combination vehicles, including triple-trailer trucks. And these things are as long as a 737 

jetliner. And yet, in addition to efforts to increase size and weight 

limits, some states skirt restrictions by creating loopholes for some 

carriers. For instance, in Iowa, transportation officials created an 

exception for heavier trucks to carry such nondivisible loads as construction equipment and livestock. If there’s a sheep that can’t fit 

on a 53-foot trailer, maybe we’ll hear about it on Thursday at the 

hearing that Senator Brownback is chairing on cloning. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BROWNBACK. We’ll try to cover that for you, Frank. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Sam, if we are looking at sheep longer 

than 53 feet, then we’ve got a problem. Please don’t permit it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. We’re getting to the point where these 

trucks ought to be on steel wheels and not on rubber tires. Not only 

17 

are bigger trucks more dangerous; their loads cause considerably 

more damage to our highways and bridges. 

So last month, I introduced S. 1140, the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Protection Act, and that bill would freeze the current 

state and Federal limitations on truck size and weight, putting an 

end to the pressure to keep raising the limits unless Congress, 

after full debate, decides otherwise. My bill also closes decade-old 

loopholes that the trucking industry is exploiting to carry heavier 

loads and skirt weight limits. And I hope that Committee Members 

will join Senators DeWine and Feinstein and I as we push to get 

this bill passed. 

And I look forward to having a moment for a question of Ms. 

Sandberg. Is your agency considering any changes to the freeze on 

longer combination vehicles? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Senator Lautenberg, as I pointed out at my confirmation hearing on the 8th, the Department has not taken a position on whether to reexamine the 1991 freeze on LCVs. But what 

the Department—the question that we are looking at, which is a 

much broader question, has to do with the increase in freight that 

we’re going to see over the next 10 years. We know that the projected freight increase is going to be by 43 percent over the next 

10 years, which means that every mode inside Department of 

Transportation has to become part of the solution. 

And so what we are examining is how we work with highways— 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Railroads, and others—to look at how we’re going to accommodate that 

increase in capacity. But we have not taken a position on the 

freeze. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. But if what you say is where you’re 

going, it’s all right with me, as long as all modes are included. 

That’s the critical issue. Because to overburden our highways, really, with that much more traffic without really paying attention to 

it—and there’s, you know, a huge resistance to pouring more concrete. 

But we go on to say, according to NHTSA, almost 30 percent of 

all large-truck drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2001, something 

that Senator Breaux was talking about, had at least one prior 

speeding conviction compared to 20 percent of the passenger-car 

drivers involved in fatal crashes. What are we doing to address this 

problem—and you mentioned it briefly to Senator Breaux—of recurring high-risk behavior by some truck drivers? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes, as Senator Breaux pointed out earlier, we 

recently passed a regulation, or finalized a regulation, last fall to 

look at a truck driver’s entire driving record to determine whether 

they should hold a commercial driver’s license. And what that regulation basically says is, if the driver has had a DUI or a drug-involved incident, whether it’s in a car or a truck, and their license 

is suspended, then their commercial driver’s license will be suspended. If they have two in a lifetime, then they lose their lifetime 

privilege to have a commercial driver’s license. 

To look at lesser included offenses, what we’ve done is, if a state 

suspends or revokes a driver’s license of an individual—for speeding, for improper lane changes, those kinds of traffic violations— 

18 

then they would also lose their commercial driver’s privilege, 

whether they were driving in a car or driving in a truck. 

So this gives us an opportunity to look at the entire safety picture of these drivers. Before, we were only looking at the fines and 

the penalties while they were in a commercial vehicle. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And all the states contribute to a database 

that’s accessible for—— 

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG.—for review? 

Ms. SANDBERG. All states know that they need to get their data 

bases up so that we can put these violations into the commercial 

driver’s license information system—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So that it is—is that a condition that has 

not yet been met? 

Ms. SANDBERG. They have 3 years to come into compliance once 

the regulation is issued. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. When will the regulation—— 

Ms. SANDBERG. The regulation was issued last fall. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Last fall, so—— 

Ms. SANDBERG. And most states are going to be able to get their 

systems up. That’s also the increase that we asked for in our commercial driver’s license. We asked for an increase of $11 million, for 

a total of $22 million. And part of that was to help states get funding early on to update their systems so that they can come into 

compliance with this particular—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG.—what happens, Ms. Sandberg, at the end 

of the 3-year period, if the state hasn’t complied? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Then they are in jeopardy of losing some of their 

MCSAP money, the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program funding. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Is that an important grant that the states 

look for? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes, it is. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SUNUNU. Senator Brownback? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Senator Sununu, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate you holding this hearing. 

Ms. Sandberg, welcome. I want to focus you on the hours-of-service regulation, something I know you’re intimately familiar with 

and I’m sure you receive thousands of comments about. In particular, I want to look in on the agricultural commodities, farm 

supplies, groundwater well-drilling rigs, construction material, 

transportation, drivers of utility-service vehicles, snow and ice removal, so the areas that are in a limited radius of where they’re 

traveling to, but are often involved in a lot of hours. And I have 

a written statement I’ll submit to the record on the specific points. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today as well as Senator 

Sununu for holding this hearing. As the Congress continues to look at the ReauthorVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
19 

ization of TEA–21, or SAFETEA, as the Administration is calling it, I am pleased 

that we have the opportunity today to talk about issues that are very important to 

many people in my state. 

The Administration has made a commitment to safety in the highway bill, as we 

see through the title alone: SAFETEA. I commend the President and Secretary Mineta for their efforts in highway safety. And I too am committed to promoting safety 

on our Nation’s highways. I am also committed to ensuring that any efforts we take 

in safety reflect a common sense approach to addressing the problem of safety. 

Specifically, I look forward to hearing Ms. Sandberg’s comments on the hours-ofservice rules that govern commercial operators. While I am encouraged by the willingness of the FMCSA to listen to and respond to the thousands of comments it received on the proposed rule as well as their decision to throw out many of the proposals that would have imposed significant burdens on the motor carrier industry, 

I am concerned about recent developments in this area as the rule becomes finalized. This new rule, which becomes effective January 4, 2004, marks the first significant change to the hours-of-service rules since 1939. I certainly hope that 

changes made to this rule reflect the intent of the Congress and actually address 

safety, rather than result in unnecessary burdens on industries dependent on motor 

carriers. 

For example, the ground water industry has been directly effected by the hoursof-service requirement. In the 1995 National Highway System Designation Bill the 

Congress granted the ground water industry limited relief under the hours-of-service rules. The ground water industry has operated safely and efficiently within the 

maximum driving and on-duty time provisions that were established in this legislation. 

However, the Department of Transportation has repeatedly demonstrated the desire to ignore congressional intent and re-regulate the ground water industry in a 

manner that would essentially ‘‘hollow out’’ the industry’s limited relief. Most recently, DOT has expressed the desire to regulate the industry’s off duty time. 

It is my hope that as Congress pursues highway reauthorization, we maintain the 

relief the Congress granted the ground water industry in 1995, and prevent DOT 

from hollowing out this relief through arbitrary regulation that ignores congressional intent. Furthermore, if DOT or the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration do intend to change the rules affecting the ground water industry, they do so 

only after a study has been conducted specifically relating to the ground water industry. To my knowledge, the FMCSA has never studied fatigue as it specifically 

relates to the ground water industry and has no intention to do so. 

On a related note, the FMSCA published a final rule on April 28th, 2003 regarding hour-of-service which significantly changes the current operation of the hoursof-service. I am most concerned about the impact these changes will have on small 

businesses. Specifically, the final rule adopted by the FMCSA increases the required 

off-duty time for drivers of commercial motor vehicles from eight to 10 consecutive 

hours; increases driving time from 10 to 11 hours; reduces a driver’s total on-duty 

time from 15 hours to 14 hours; and most significant to many small businesses 

across the country, the final rule allows ‘‘short-haul’’ drivers to be on-duty 16 hours 

once in every seven-day period; and allows drivers to restart the cumulative 60-or70 hour clock after taking 34 hours off duty. Under these new guidelines off-duty 

time taken by the driver during a 14-hour period, such as meal breaks, showers, 

or rest breaks, will not extend the driver’s work day. While these breaks may seem 

insignificant, I can assure you that a few minutes multiplied by thousands of drivers, results in decreased efficiency across many industries on the road. 

I look forward to addressing this issue further in my questions to the panel. 

Again, thank you to our witnesses for being here to discuss the future of safety on 

our nation’s highways. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I understand the Department of Transportation has done a report examining these specific industries outlined—is that correct?—on whether or not to provide some exemptions under the hours-of-service regulations or a different set of 

rules, in some of these areas? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Actually, the exemptions that were under the old 

rule continue under the new rule. So all the exemptions that were 

put in the National Highway Act are still in place. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Now, is there a proposal to change those 

rules to make them stricter? 

20 

Ms. SANDBERG. No, there is not. 

Senator BROWNBACK. OK. And do you anticipate that you’re 

going to be changing any of those rules for short-haul, water-well 

drillers, construction equipment, utility-service vehicles? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Not at this time. One of the things I’ve instructed 

the staff is that we will not make any changes to regulation without specific data showing that there is a safety problem. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Now, I had understood that there is a proposal sent to you that would request that operators be allowed the 

choice between the final rule that is being proposed, or the more 

strict proposal, on hours of service for these more short-haul type 

of provision—I don’t have a better term to use than ‘‘short haul,’’ 

versus the current rule that they are operating under—that they 

would have a choice. Now, is that being proposed? 

Ms. SANDBERG. We have a number of petitions for reconsideration from various groups, looking at the old rules and the new 

rules, and we have a requirement that we have to post those and 

go through some deliberation. And so we’re in the process of doing 

that right now. I don’t know if, specifically, one of those requests 

is from this group. 

Senator BROWNBACK. So are you considering, then, a change for 

short-haulers that’s being in the proposed form at this point, that’s 

gone to you, but it hasn’t been put on forward? 

Ms. SANDBERG. We’re required to look at all petitions for reconsideration. 

Senator BROWNBACK. All right. So you are considering—— 

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes, anything that—— 

Senator BROWNBACK.—a more strict environment for short-haul. 

Ms. SANDBERG. No, it’s not to make it more strict. I was—I think 

it was to make it more lax. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Because they would—— 

Ms. SANDBERG. That they could continue to apply certain things 

under the old rule. Some of it has been misunderstandings from 

certain groups, who have had a little bit of difficulty understanding 

what exemptions still apply, what the hundred-mile radius rule— 

how that still applies. And so we’re trying to work with those 

groups to eliminate any misunderstandings and then deal with any 

petitions that they may have under the specific new rule. 

Senator BROWNBACK. All right. So that I’m clear, then, you are 

not proposing any changes to the hours of service regarding the litany of groups that I’m just lumping in the category of a short-haul 

category on limiting any further their hours of service or changing 

the rules regarding their hours of service. 

Ms. SANDBERG. Their rules changed, the same as everybody 

else’s, when we issued the final rule in April. And, actually, that 

rule went into effect and will be implemented January 4th of next 

year. So if the old hours-of-service rule applied to them, the new 

hours-of-service rule will now apply. 

Senator BROWNBACK. OK. 

Ms. SANDBERG. Their exemptions, though, stay the same. So 

whatever they were exempt from under the old rule, they stay exempt from under the new rule. 

Senator BROWNBACK. OK. Then let me particularly focus you on 

water-well drillers. We have a number of water-well drillers in 

21 

Kansas. It’s big. It’s a need that we have. Are the rules for them 

going to change, come January 2004? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes, they are. 

Senator BROWNBACK. OK. What are they going to change to? 

Ms. SANDBERG. They are allowed to work 14 hours a day and 

drive 11 hours. The old rule was that they were allowed to work 

15 hours a day and drive 10 hours. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Now, weren’t they given a specific exemption under the hours-of-service—— 

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes, and that—— 

Senator BROWNBACK.—reg, under the 1995 National Highway 

System Design Act? 

Ms. SANDBERG. That’s correct. And when that exemption kicks 

in, that exemption would apply to the new hours-of-service rule. 

Senator BROWNBACK. OK. So interpret what you mean, to me. 

Then, come January 2004, the water-well drillers come under the 

new rule, but the exemption—— 

Ms. SANDBERG. The exemption—— 

Senator BROWNBACK.—will allow them—— 

Ms. SANDBERG.—still applies. 

Senator BROWNBACK.—to operate under the old rule. 

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes. Well, no. It allows them to continue operating—whatever the exemption said—and I can’t, off the top of my 

head, tell you exactly what that exemption said. I would be happy 

to give you that information later, for the record. 

Senator BROWNBACK. OK, if you could, because I’m getting a lot 

of push from people that are in the short-haul business saying, 

‘‘Come January 2004, the world radically changes for us.’’ And I’m 

looking at what we put forward as exemptions in the law in 1995, 

and I’m thinking that, you know, the congressional opinion hasn’t 

changed in that period of time. They should be allowed the flexibility more to operate—if you’re within this hundred-mile radius 

where you’re not going long distances, but you could be involved in 

long hours—you can get a water well-driller, once they start drilling, they need to continue—— 

Ms. SANDBERG. Uh-huh. 

Senator BROWNBACK.—in this operation, because stopping and 

starting again’s going to be very difficult and make the process 

much more lengthy and much more expensive for people to go into. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

FMCSA Response 

Section 345(a) of the 1995 National Highway System Designation Act granted 

limited exemptions under the Hours-of-Service regulations for transportation of 

agricultural commodities and farm supplies, transportation and operation of 

ground water well drilling rigs, transportation of construction materials and 

equipment, drivers of utility service vehicles, and snow and ice removal. 

Specifically, Section 345(a)(2) of the Act granted exemptions for transportation and operation of ground water well drilling rigs: 

‘‘(2) TRANSPORTATION AND OPERATION OF GROUND WATER WELL 

DRILLING RIGS—Such regulations shall, in the case of a driver of a commercial motor vehicle who is used primarily in the transportation and operation of 

a ground water well drilling rig, permit any period of 7 or 8 consecutive days 

to end with the beginning of an off-duty period of 24 or more consecutive hours 

for the purposes of determining maximum driving and on-duty time.’’ 

Section 345(e)(3) defines ground water well drilling rig—The term ‘‘ground 

water well drilling rig’’ means any vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, semi-trailer, 

22 

or specialized mobile equipment propelled or drawn by mechanical power and 

used on highways to transport water well field operating equipment, including 

water well drilling and pump service rigs equipped to access ground water. 

Ms. SANDBERG. Senator, we’d be happy to come up and meet 

with you and figure out exactly what it is that their concern is and 

give you a specific answer as to how the new rules apply, how the 

exemption applies, how the exemption applied under the old rule, 

and how it will apply under the new rule. 

Senator BROWNBACK. OK. But it would be my desire that the exemption they’re currently operating under would continue, come 

January 2004. I mean, that’s what I’ll be pushing for. That’s what 

I think would make sense. I think the old rule has worked pretty 

well. Do you know any reason why we would need to change their 

current hours? 

Ms. SANDBERG. No, the way that the staff briefed me is that the 

exemptions still apply the same. 

Senator BROWNBACK. OK. And you have no particular reason, 

from your studies that you’ve done, safety studies, to think that 

this should change. 

Ms. SANDBERG. Not on this specific group, no. But, again, like I 

said, we would be happy to come up and find out exactly what the 

issue is that they have. 

Senator BROWNBACK. OK, good. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Senator Brownback. 

Let me just ask a few more closing questions. You had mentioned 

the household goods issues. Could you describe, in a little bit more 

detail, exactly what powers you all are recommending that the attorney generals be given in dealing with household goods complaints? 

Ms. SANDBERG. Yes, actually, the provision that we have in the 

reauthorization proposal gives the state attorneys general the authority to enforce all the Federal regulations that currently exist, 

so they would have the ability to take enforcement cases. 

Senator SUNUNU. For example? 

Ms. SANDBERG. For example, if they have a carrier who has given 

false information to an individual—let’s say they—it’s like a hostage-goods example, where they tell you that it’s going to cost you 

$2,000 to move, you know, they actually load your goods up, and 

then all of a sudden it costs you $4,000 once all your goods are on 

the truck. Then they would have the ability to enforce under our 

regulations. 

Senator SUNUNU. Is there a precedent for attorneys general 

being given this power? In other words, any other areas of the Federal Government where they’re allowed to enforce Federal statutes? 

Ms. SANDBERG. That, I do not know, Senator. I can find out and 

give you an answer for the record. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

FMCSA Response 

There is precedent in the telecommunications/telemarketing area. Both the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102–243), and the Telemarketing 

and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–297), contain 

provisions authorizing State Attorneys General to bring actions in court to enforce 

23 

provisions of these statutes or of the implementing regulations adopted pursuant to 

them. Language from both Public Laws appears below: 

• Pub. L. 102–243: 

Section 227 

(f) ACTIONS BY STATES—— 

(1) AUTHORITY OF STATES-Whenever the attorney general of a State, or an 

official or agency designated by a State, has reason to believe that any person has engaged or is engaging in a pattern or practice of telephone calls 

or other transmissions to residents of that State in violation of this section 

or the regulations prescribed under this section, the State may bring a civil 

action on behalf of its residents to enjoin such calls, an action to recover for 

actual monetary loss or receive $500 in damages for each violation, or both 

such actions. If the court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated 

such regulations, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the 

award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available 

under the preceding sentence. 

• Pub. L. 103–297: 

SEC. 4. ACTIONS BY STATES. 

(a) IN GENERAL-Whenever an attorney general of any State has reason to believe that the interests of the residents of that State have been or are being 

threatened or adversely affected because any person has engaged or is engaging in a pattern or practice of telemarketing which violates any rule of 

the Commission under section 3, the State, as parens patriae, may bring a 

civil action on behalf of its residents in an appropriate district court of the 

United States to enjoin such telemarketing, to enforce compliance with such 

rule of the Commission, to obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of residents of such State, or to obtain such further and other 

relief as the court may deem appropriate. 

Senator SUNUNU. Any other questions? 

[No response.] 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you very much, Ms. Sandberg. 

Ms. SANDBERG. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SUNUNU. We’ll now ask that our second panel of witnesses come forward. 

Our second panel includes Mr. Douglas Duncan, president and 

CEO of FedEx Freight; Mr. LaMont Byrd, Director of Safety and 

Health for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Ms. Joan 

Claybrook, President of Public Citizen; Mr. Peter Hurst, President 

of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; and Mr. Joseph Harrison, President of American Moving and Storage Association. 

I want to thank each of the witnesses for taking the time to be 

with us at this hearing today. We will include your full statement 

in the record. Feel free, and, in fact, be encouraged, to summarize 

your testimony. 

And let us begin with Mr. Duncan. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

FEDEX FREIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING 

ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (ATA) 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting 

the American Trucking Association to express our views on this 

very important subject. 

As you stated, my name is Doug Duncan. I’m the President and 

CEO of FedEx Freight, headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee, and 

I’m testifying today on behalf the American Trucking Association, 

the ATA. 

24 

The trucking industry is large and diverse, and while the industry has disagreements on many issues, we all agree that safety is 

and must be the number one priority, whether considering changes 

in business practices or changes in the law. We are justifiably 

proud of our progress that we have made. 

Over the past two decades, the trucking industry’s fatal accident 

rate has come down by 53 percent, and injury and property damage 

crashes are at historical lows, as well. Furthermore, the number of 

fatal accidents involving trucks is down for 5 years in a row, even 

as fatal accidents involving other vehicles have continued to climb. 

Everyone, including the FMCSA, the CVSA, and the states, 

NHTSA, and the industry deserve some credit for these achievements. However, we do believe that there is more that can be done 

to prevent accidents and save lives. 

Mr. Chairman, FMCSA’s focus has traditionally centered on enforcing vehicle and driver regulations. While this is important, the 

best available research shows that traffic violations that are more 

a result of unsafe driving behaviors, particularly speeding and failing to yield the right of way, may be more prevalent causes of accidents. Unfortunately, neither FMCSA nor NHTSA’s budgets reflect 

this research. The ATA believes that both agencies should adopt a 

stronger focus on visible speed and traffic law enforcement and 

that the program authorization and the budget for MCSAP and 

Section 402 programs should reflect that emphasis, as well. 

Along with stepped-up traffic enforcement should come greater 

efforts to educate motorists and commercial drivers about how to 

share the road more safely with one another. Traditionally, the 

FMCSA has placed the burden of preventing truck-involved crashes 

on the truck driver and the trucking industry; however, the best 

available crash data indicates that the majority of truck-involved 

fatal crashes involved one truck and one automobile, and that the 

unsafe actions of the automobile driver play a contributing role in 

about 70 percent of those fatal crashes. 

These findings were recently confirmed by the AAA Foundation 

for Traffic Safety, the leading advocate for motorists. The foundation found that, in some cases, unsafe actions by the car drivers 

were a contributing role in up to 75 percent of the fatal truck/car 

crashes. 

Therefore, by focusing its truck-safety resources and attention 

primarily on truck drivers and trucking companies, the FMCSA is 

addressing a relatively small portion of the fatal crashes involving 

trucks. 

A large cooperative effort is needed to attack the problem of motorists being unaware of the operating limitations of large trucks 

and buses. Private sector organizations and groups, in cooperation 

with FMCSA and NHTSA, can combine resources and expertise for 

the development and dissemination of information to their constituencies and to the general public. This effort should seek to more 

widely disseminate consistent credible information and messages 

by funding and leveraging off programs that are already in place. 

Mr. Chairman, Congress can also assist in assuring trucking 

companies have information they need to make sure that the drivers they hire are safe by authorizing the trucking company access 

25 

to the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration driver safety 

data and information during the hiring process. 

ATA also requests the Committee’s assistance in addressing the 

issues with the FMCSA’s SafeStat system, identified by the DOT 

Inspector General. Conceptually, the SafeStat system is good, but 

it can be improved to help better target unsafe motor carriers. 

In addition, while this falls outside of the Committee’s jurisdiction, ATA urges the Committee not to lose sight of the safety benefits of targeted investment in highway infrastructure as a part of 

overall strategy in improving highway safety. Poor road conditions 

and obsolete road designs play a role in nearly 12,000 highway 

deaths each year. ATA urges Congress to address this problem by 

focusing investment on projects that can prevent accidents and 

mitigate their severity. 

Mr. Chairman, as there is a shortage of highway capacity, there 

is also a shortage of truck parking capacity on many of the major 

trucking corridors. Together with the Truckload Carriers Association, the National Association of Truckstop Operators, and the 

CVSA, ATA has developed a comprehensive approach to resolving 

this problem through the use of public/private partnerships. We 

hope the Committee will agree to support this important initiative. 

I would also like to alert the Committee to another safety challenge facing the trucking companies and drivers. While the trucking companies are required to perform regular maintenance on our 

vehicles, a loophole in the Federal law allows 800,000 pieces of 

leased intermodal equipment to escape that regulation. We urge 

Congress to close this loophole by directing the Secretary to apply 

safety regulations equitably to all regulated equipment. And I believe the Teamsters also support this recommendation. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the ATA recommends the Committee promote research that will allow for the adoption of effective safety 

regulations. For example, NHTSA should direct and undertake research to determine the appropriate method for incorporating reliability performance standards into future standards pertaining to 

trucks and provide dedicated sources for funding of this project. 

ATA further recommends that the Secretary be directed to 

prioritize all Federal driver/vehicle-related research so that the majority of those funds support the research of the most common 

cause of accidents: the human factor. 

In addition, ATA recommends that Congress require the Secretary to establish the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee 

and extend the authorizing period by a minimum of 5 years. 

Mr. Chairman and Member of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to offer these thoughts regarding these safety issues. 

Much more detail is contained in the written testimony. And we 

look forward to working with the Committee to improve the safety 

and mobility of the Nation’s highway transport system. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, FEDEX

FREIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (ATA) 

Introduction 

Chairman Sununu and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to express the trucking industry’s perspectives regarding Truck and Highway Safety 

26 

Program issues that are of great importance to the trucking industry. I am Doug 

Duncan, President & CEO of FedEx Freight. As part of the FedEx Corp. family of 

companies, FedEx Freight is the market leader in providing next-day and secondday regional, less-than-truckload freight services. FedEx Freight generates more 

than $2 billion in annual revenues and is comprised of two operating companies, 

FedEx Freight East and FedEx Freight West. 

I am appearing before the Committee today on behalf of the American Trucking 

Associations, Inc. (ATA). ATA is the national trade association of the trucking industry. ATA is a federation of affiliated State trucking associations, conferences, and 

other organizations that together include more than 37,000 motor carrier members, 

representing every type and class of motor carrier in the Nation. ATA represents 

an industry that employs nearly ten million people, providing one out of every fourteen civilian jobs. This includes the more than 3 million truck drivers who travel 

over 400 billion miles per year to deliver to Americans nearly 70 percent of their 

transported food, clothing, finished products, raw materials, and other items. 

American industrial and commercial enterprises are able to compete more effectively in the global marketplace due to the benefits of safe and efficient trucking. 

Truck transportation is the most flexible mode for freight shipment, providing doorto-door service to every city, manufacturing plant, warehouse, retail store and home 

in the country. For many people and businesses located in towns and cities across 

the United States, trucking services are the only available means to ship goods. 

Trucks are the sole providers of goods to 80 percent of American communities. Five 

percent of the Nation’s GDP is created by truck transportation. Actions that affect 

the trucking industry’s ability to move its annual 9 billion tons of freight have significant consequences for the ability of every American to do their job well and to 

enjoy a high quality of life. 

While we are a large and highly diverse industry, ATA members all agree that 

highway safety is job number one for our companies and our industry. Promoting 

and advancing safety is not only the right thing to do for our industry, it makes 

good business sense. I appreciate the opportunity to share our ideas with this Committee on ways to improve highway and truck safety. 

The Trends in Truck Safety 

Mr. Chairman, the past two reauthorization acts developed and promoted by this 

Committee have been instrumental in revitalizing and refocusing Federal surface 

transportation policy, particularly in the area of highway safety, and we commend 

this Committee for its ongoing leadership. The programs that this Committee has 

created and authorized have contributed to improving highway safety, and overall 

truck safety. 

According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the safety trends in the trucking industry are clearly heading in the right direction. In their 

most recent report entitled, ‘‘Large Truck Crash Facts 2001,’’ FMCSA reports that 

over the last 20 years (1981 to 2001), the fatal crash rate for large trucks has declined from 4.5 fatal crashes per 100 million miles traveled to 2.1 fatal crashes per 

100 million miles traveled, a 53 percent decrease. (See Table 1 from FMCSA’s report) 

27 

FMCSA also reports that the large truck injury and property damage crash rates 

are also on the decline. From 1988 to 2000 (1988 was the first year in which 

FMCSA began collecting and analyzing injury and property damage crash data), the 

large truck injury crash rate has declined from 67.9 injury crashes per 100 million 

miles to 41.2 injury crashes per 100 million miles, a 39 percent decline. Similarly, 

the property damage only crash rate declined between 1988 and 2000 from 210.7 

crashes per 100 million miles to 153.7 crashes per 100 million miles, a 27 percent 

decline. (See Tables 4 & 5 from FMCSA’s report on the next page) 


610DUNCA1.eps
28 

FMCSA also reports that alcohol involvement for large truck drivers involved in 

fatal crashes has declined 75 percent since 1982, the first year that the Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System (FARS) included data for alcohol involvement in fatal 

crashes. 

FMCSA’s report has a wealth of additional data and information on trends, and 

ATA encourages Committee Members and staff to view the report online at: http:// 

ai.volpe.dot.gov/CarrierResearchResults/CarrierResearchResults.asp?file=PDFs/ 

LargeTruckCrashFacts2001.pdf 

Additionally, within the last two weeks, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a new crash study entitled ‘‘An Analysis of Fatal 

Large Truck Crashes.’’ This report also has a great deal of useful information, and 

can be viewed online at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/ 

2003/809-569.pdf 

The U.S. Congress, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the State agencies involved in truck safety, and the millions of people employed in the trucking industry 

should be proud of and pleased with the truck safety progress that has been made 

to date. However, ATA strongly believes that more can and should be done. However, the right policies must be established and the most effective actions must be 

taken, especially when resources are limited. Put more simply, the solutions must 


610DUNCA2.eps 610DUNCA3.eps
29 

1Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents, Indiana University, DOT HS 805 099, May 

1979. 

address the problems. Incorrect or ineffective policies and actions may only blunt 

our pursuit of safer transportation systems. Our collective goal must be to continue 

to push the trends even further in the right direction. ATA’s recommendations 

throughout the remainder of this testimony are aimed at achieving this goal. Our 

recommendations are categorized in the following three areas: 

1. Traffic Safety and Truck Safety Program Recommendations 

2. Regulatory Change Recommendations, and 

3. Research and Advisory Committee Recommendations 

I. Traffic Safety and Truck Safety Program Recommendations 

Truck safety has improved over the last 20 years. An interesting question, however, is ‘‘What has caused the improvement?’’ This is a tough question to answer 

for both industry and government officials. We believe that some programs that 

have been implemented in the last 10 to 20 years have contributed to the overall 

positive picture. The industry supported Federal-State truck safety inspection grant 

program (known as the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program or MCSAP) has 

had an impact by improving truck condition; the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) 

program has contributed by raising the bar for driver entry into the industry; and 

the implementation of voluntary drug testing by the industry, followed by a mandatory Federal drug and alcohol testing program, has also contributed in a positive 

way. It is very likely that the increase in seat belt use by truck drivers and other 

motorists has also had a positive impact. Many other industry and government initiatives are likely to have had some benefit as well. The point here, however, is that 

we still need to have a better understanding of what has worked and why. Additionally, we still do not understand thoroughly how and why truck crashes occur. 

A. Safe Speeds Save Lives—Greater Speed Enforcement Is Needed 

ATA recommends that Congress authorize additional funding for the Section 402 

Highway Safety Grant Program administered by NHTSA, and the MCSAP truck 

safety grant program administered by FMCSA, specifically for increased traffic and 

speed enforcement efforts in the highway reauthorization bill. ATA further recommends that Congress make it clear in legislative language that MCSAP funding 

should be used for State speed enforcement efforts aimed at both commercial and 

non-commercial drivers, and that speed enforcement activities aimed at commercial 

drivers do not have to be linked to a North American Standard Inspection. Additional funding, additional emphasis, and greater Federal leadership are needed on 

this issue to reduce the speed and unsafe driving behaviors of all drivers on our 

highways in order to save lives. 

ATA is also a firm believer in the life-saving benefits of seat belt use. ATA recommends that Congress continue to support and fully fund the occupant protection 

programs of NHTSA, including the ongoing ’Click It or Ticket’ grant program. 

Justification—Since the results of FMCSA’s ongoing large truck crash causation 

study are not yet available, policymakers must use the best available data and information to make informed policy and program decisions. For years, crash research 

has found that human errors and unacceptable driver behaviors are the primary 

causes of (or primary contributing factors to) highway crashes, including truck-involved crashes.1 It is interesting to note, however, that both the Congress and the 

U.S. DOT have traditionally taken different approaches to improving traffic safety 

versus truck safety. NHTSA’s traffic safety programs have focused on gaining strong 

traffic laws, educating the public on these strong laws, and then using visible and 

targeted traffic enforcement programs to enforce these laws in order to positively 

affect motorist behavior. NHTSA has shown that this selective traffic enforcement 

program (STEP) approach effectively changes motorist behavior and thereby increases highway safety. NHTSA has also focused on improving its traffic safety and 

crash data collection and analysis in order to better guide the agency’s programs 

and resource expenditures. 

FMCSA’s truck safety programs, on the other hand, have focused on increasing 

the number and scope of regulations on drivers and motor carriers, enforced through 

on-road safety inspections and facility compliance audits. Unfortunately, FMCSA 

does not have persuasive research that shows increased regulatory and compliance 

efforts equal greater truck safety. Since so much of truck safety is rooted in overall 

traffic safety, Congress and FMCSA should seriously consider much more of a traffic 

safety approach toward improving truck safety. 

30 

2The Unsafe Driving Acts of Motorists in the Vicinity of Large Trucks, Anacapa Sciences, Inc. 

for the Federal Highway Administration, February 1999. 3 An Analysis of Fatal Large Truck Crashes, U.S. DOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, DOT HS 805 569, June 2003. 4The Relative Contribution of Truck Drivers and Passenger Vehicle Drivers to Truck-Passenger 

Vehicle Traffic Crashes, The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI 

98–25), June 1998; and, Identifying Unsafe Driver Actions that Lead to Fatal Car-Truck Crashes, 

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, April 2002. 

To expand on this point, NHTSA reports that speeding was a contributing factor 

in more than 30 percent of all fatal crashes in 2001. This means that more than 

12,800 people lost their lives in 2001 in part due to speed-related crashes. This is 

simply unacceptable. The time has come to combat excessive speeding, in order to 

improve both traffic and truck safety. There are four words that every motorist and 

every commercial vehicle driver needs to remember when they buckle up and take 

the wheel of their vehicle: SAFE SPEEDS SAVE LIVES! 

The Section 402 Highway Safety Grant Program administered by NHTSA supports many outreach and enforcement programs, including the priority programs to 

encourage the proper use of occupant protection devices and reduce drug and alcohol 

impaired driving. While these programs clearly deserve a high priority by NHTSA, 

ATA is concerned that strong, visible speed enforcement may not be getting the 

focus, attention and funding it deserves. 

Additionally, the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), administered by FMCSA, focuses on priority truck and bus safety initiatives that, for the 

most part, do not address speeding truck and bus drivers, or other motorists with 

which commercial drivers share the road. The MCSAP program, a generally successful truck and bus safety inspection program, is simply not putting enough emphasis 

on traffic enforcement activities. Strong, visible speed enforcement aimed at commercial vehicle drivers, as well as other motorists with whom commercial drivers 

share the road, needs to take on a much greater role in the MCSAP program. In 

fact, there is currently an artificial constraint that keeps the amount of speed enforcement activity in the MCSAP program small. FMCSA’s regulations require that 

all speed enforcement stops of trucks (as well as all other types of traffic enforcement stops) include an appropriate North American Standard Inspection of the 

truck or the driver, or both, for the activity to be eligible for MCSAP funding. This 

inspection requirement, found at 49 CFR 350.111, is unnecessary and unwarranted 

and discourages traffic enforcement for commercial motor vehicles. Additionally, 

since speeding and other unsafe driving behaviors of non-commercial drivers play 

an even greater role in truck-involved crashes than do the actions of the commercial 

motor vehicle driver,2 the MCSAP program must also include traffic enforcement efforts aimed at unsafe motorist behavior. This funding should be in addition to the 

money provided for traditional MCSAP enforcement activities. 

B. A Comprehensive Education and Outreach Program Is Needed 

ATA recommends that Congress authorize and fund a comprehensive Share the 

Road Safely education and outreach program that is designed to educate and change 

the behavior of all highway users. This effort must be coupled with increased 

MCSAP traffic enforcement to have the desired outcomes. A program evaluation requirement should also be included. This program should be funded at not less than 

$5 million dollars annually. 

Justification—The majority of truck-involved crashes are multi-vehicle crashes 

that involve one truck and one passenger vehicle.3 Traditionally, FMCSA (and its 

predecessor organization) has placed the burden of preventing these truck-involved 

crashes on the truck driver and the trucking industry. However, the best available 

crash data indicates that the actions of the truck driver play a contributing role in 

only 30 percent of fatal crashes where another vehicle is involved. The unsafe actions of the automobile driver play a contributing in about 70 percent of the fatal 

crashes involving a truck.4 Therefore, by focusing their resources and attention on 

truck drivers and trucking companies, FMCSA is addressing a relatively small portion of the fatal crashes involving trucks. 

A large cooperative effort is needed to attack the problem of motorists being unaware of the operating limitations of large trucks and buses and, therefore, being 

unaware of how to more safely share the road with these vehicles. Private sector 

organizations and groups, in cooperation with FMCSA and NHTSA, can provide resources and expertise for the development and dissemination of information to their 

constituencies and to the general public. This effort should not undermine or overtake existing efforts such as ATA’s Share the Road program, or AAA’s Share with 

Care program. Rather, it should seek to more widely disseminate consistent and 

credible Share the Road Safely information and messages by funding and leveraging 

31 

5Share the Road Safely Program Needs Better Evaluation of Its Initiatives, U.S. General Accounting Office, May 2003. 6 Ibid, p. 12. 

off of programs already in place. FMCSA has a very small Share the Road Safely 

program and has traditionally spent less than one percent of its annual budget on 

this program.5 There is a small coalition as part of this program, in which ATA is 

a participant, which could provide the foundation for a much larger and more effective outreach effort. As recommended recently by the U.S. General Accounting Office,6 this education and outreach effort should be closely coordinated with the increased traffic enforcement efforts, similar to NHTSA’s STEP approach described 

above. 

C. Safety Screening of Truck Drivers Can Be Improved 

ATA recommends that Congress authorize FMCSA to provide access to safety 

data and information contained in MCMIS, within the confines of the Privacy Act 

and consistent with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

Justification—FMCSA collects a substantial amount of driver and company compliance and safety performance information in a safety database called the Motor 

Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). This safety information is different from the information captured on a driver’s motor vehicle record maintained 

by the State licensing agencies. State motor vehicle records typically contain information on driver traffic law convictions (e.g., speeding, reckless driving, etc.). 

MCMIS contains information on a driver’s compliance with the medical certification 

process, the hours of service regulations, and other safety regulations that apply to 

the driver. Motor carrier employers currently have access to driver-specific information only for those drivers they currently employ. Truck safety could be improved 

if trucking companies had the ability to access driver-specific safety information contained in MCMIS during the driver screening and hiring process, in order to make 

more informed hiring decisions. Prospective employees would be asked to authorize 

the inquiry before a company is given access to the information. Reauthorization 

provides a real opportunity to make this existing safety database more useful than 

it already is, from a safety standpoint. 

D. Improve the Motor Carrier Compliance Review Targeting System Known as 

SafeStat 

ATA recommends that Congress direct the Secretary to address and improve the 

data and methodological shortcomings in FMCSA’s Safety Status Measurement System (SafeStat) identified by the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General 

during its recent audit. 

Justification—FMCSA administers a safety scoring system that assigns a numerical score to every trucking company on which they have sufficient safety and demographic data. The score, and some of the data used to generate the score, is currently made publicly available on FMCSA’s website. Serious concerns with the scoring system methodology, and with some of the safety data used in the system, led 

to a Congressional request for a DOT Inspector General audit that began in November 2002. Preliminary results from the audit indicate that the system can be improved substantially, and the final report to be released in the very near future will 

contain specific recommendations for improving the system. 

E. Create A Safe Driving Environment Through Sound Infrastructure Investments 

ATA recommends that Congress fund research that explores better highway design and management practices, particularly those that could result in improved 

truck safety. We also urge Congress to earmark money to State and local planning 

agencies to help them to better understand the unique needs of freight transportation, including those related to safety. Finally, we would like to see a much greater share of Federal highway funds directed toward those projects and highway networks that are most critical to motorist safety and to economic productivity. 

Justification—Poor road conditions and obsolete road designs contribute to nearly 

a third of all fatal crashes in the United States. In other words, more than 12,000 

people die each year in collisions with roadside hazards such as trees, utility poles, 

and embankments, and almost another 3,500 die in rollover crashes often related 

to veering off the roadway. Rollover crashes are a particularly significant concern 

for truck drivers. Many ramps were not designed to accommodate trucks’ physical 

characteristics, and some have become notorious for the number of rollover truck 

accidents that have occurred because they were not designed with trucks in mind. 

And unlike other areas of highway safety—such as drunk driving, seat belt use, 

and vehicle design—where significant gains have been made, the percentage of faVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
32 

talities related to roadside hazards has actually risen over the past two decades. 

Fortunately, this trend can be reversed. Well designed and maintained roads reduce 

vehicle deaths and injuries. They also save Americans billions of dollars in medical 

costs and productivity. 

Often, relatively simple, inexpensive changes can be made to roads that will 

produce tremendous safety improvements. Building wider shoulders, installing rumble strips, improving traffic signal timing to accommodate the slower acceleration 

of larger vehicles are all basic concepts that could improve truck safety. Unfortunately, knowledge about how to accommodate trucks’ unique operating characteristics is lacking among many agencies. ATA has recommended that, on a general 

basis, State and local planning agencies need to hire people with specific freight 

transportation expertise. 

Congress should also focus limited Federal resources on projects that promise the 

greatest safety benefit. The National Highway System (NHS) carries approximately 

75 percent of all truck traffic and 40 percent of overall traffic. Yet about half of the 

NHS is comprised of two-lane, undivided highways. Because the NHS is the backbone of the Nation’s freight transportation system, a single accident on the NHS can 

have ripple effects throughout the supply chain due to late deliveries caused by congestion related to the incident. It is also possible to identify specific priority projects. 

According to one study, fixing the Nation’s 167 worst highway bottlenecks would 

prevent 287,000 crashes, including 1,150 fatalities. 

F. Greater Truck Parking Can Improve Safety 

ATA recommends that the Committee support the initiative to increase the 

amount of truck parking in certain freight corridors and, more specifically, support 

the recommendations contained in Attachment A. 

Justification—The continuing growth of long-haul truck travel has produced tremendous demand by truck drivers for long-term rest. These needs arise when drivers require sleep while on the road, and when they need to fulfill their federally 

mandated hours-of-service obligations. While adequate long-term truck parking is 

available in many areas, there is a shortage of capacity on many of the Nation’s 

major trucking corridors. According to a 2002 survey of truck drivers conducted for 

FHWA, 89 percent of respondents said that they are usually unable to find parking 

at public rest areas, and 66 percent usually had a problem finding space at a truck 

stop. 

While the solution is often to expand the number of available parking spaces, in 

some cases the problems can be resolved through methods other than having to 

build new parking spaces. For example, better signage, improved security measures, 

and enhanced parking area design can all play a role in resolving the parking shortage. In addition, non-traditional approaches, such as allowing truck parking at 

weigh stations, commuter lots or warehouse facilities are being utilized successfully 

in some parts of the country currently and may be a feasible solution in other locations as well. ATA, in partnership with the Truckload Carriers Association, the 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and the National Association of Truckstop Operators, has developed a comprehensive proposal for addressing the truck parking 

shortage (see Appendix A). 

II. Regulatory Recommendations 

A. The Safety of Intermodal Chassis Can Be Improved 

ATA recommends that Congress direct the Secretary of Transportation to equitably apply and enforce laws designed to ensure the safe condition of all regulated 

equipment, including intermodal chassis and trailers. Antiquated regulations should 

be replaced with ones that are in tune with current industry operations 

Justification—Mr. Chairman, while the trucking industry cooperates with its 

intermodal partners in many areas, and will do so during this reauthorization cycle, 

there is one area on which we disagree. That area is the responsibility for safety 

and maintenance of the intermodal chassis on which intermodal cargo containers 

are transported on the highway. ATA is very concerned that foot-dragging by the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, and by many in the rail and ocean carrier industries, to work with the trucking industry to resolve the ‘‘equipment roadability’’ 

issue is having serious safety and economic impacts. Since the advent of containerized shipping in the 1970s, a serious safety loophole has remained in the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. This loophole is commonly referred to as ‘‘equipment roadability.’’ 

As containerized intermodal freight has evolved over the decades, the Federal 

safety regulations have not kept pace. As a result, 750,000 intermodal chassis and 

83,000 intermodal trailers are operating in a safety loophole. These frame-like trailers (intermodal chassis) are used exclusively to haul intermodal containers, and are 

33 

7Transportation Research Board Special Report 267, Regulation of Weights, Lengths and 

Widths of Commercial Vehicles, 2002. 8 Ibid., p. 5–1. 

interchanged between steamship lines, railroads, and intermodal trucking companies. The chassis are also classified as commercial motor vehicles by FMCSA. However, they evade traditional FMCSA safety oversight. 

FMCSA safety regulations fundamentally assume that trucking companies have 

daily management control over all trucks and trailers they take onto public roadways. Based upon that assumption, the regulations read, ‘‘Every motor carrier shall 

systematically inspect, repair, and maintain. . .all motor vehicles subject to its control.’’ 

FMCSA’s interpretation of systematic maintenance is, ‘‘. . . a regular or scheduled 

program to keep vehicles in a safe operating condition.’’ It explains that the agency 

does not specify maintenance intervals, leaving that decision to trucking company 

management, based on fleet and vehicle considerations. So how does FMCSA know 

if a motor carrier is failing to ‘‘keep vehicles in a safe operating condition?’’ When 

MCSAP safety inspections, typically conducted by State law enforcement officials, 

drive a motor carrier’s safety score above a certain threshold, the agency and/or 

State send an envoy to the trucking company’s place of business to audit the maintenance and employee training records, inspect the carrier’s equipment, etc. 

While railroads and foreign-owned steamship lines (collectively called ‘‘providers’’) 

own or lease the intermodal chassis, and control their daily disposition, they claim 

they are not motor carriers, thus not technically responsible for the condition of their 

equipment under Federal safety regulations. However, they do affix the annual inspection sticker on their equipment, which constitutes an act of certification that the 

equipment was inspected in detail at least once a year. Providers conduct the annual inspection pursuant to the FMCSA’s regulations, but many do not conduct systematic maintenance on the same equipment, which is likewise mandated by 

FMCSA’s regulations. This explains the poor condition of intermodal chassis and 

points to FMCSA’s failure to close their own regulatory loophole to hold the controlling party accountable for the safety compliance of their own equipment that is operated on public roads. 

A recent study conducted jointly by the FMCSA and the University of Maryland 

provides support for ATA’s concern about the equipment roadability issue. This 

study looked at 11 sectors of the trucking industry, one of which was intermodal 

operations. Researchers used nine safety performance measurements and other data 

managed by FMCSA to analyze the safety performance of each sector. One significant finding is that intermodal trucking operations were found to be average or better-than-average in six of the nine measurements. However, in the two measurements relating to vehicle condition, the intermodal sector ranked poorly. Specifically, among the 11 sectors, intermodal operations ranked last for vehicle safety condition and second-to-last (10th) for accumulating vehicle out-of-service violations. 

Thus, the latest research findings from FMCSA confirm what intermodal trucking 

executives have been saying for years – that the equipment controlled by steamship 

lines and railroads, and subsequently provided to motor carriers for brief periods of 

time, are potentially unsafe because they are not maintained by those controlling 

parties as required by FMCSA regulations. 

FMCSA has acknowledged that it has jurisdiction over the issue, but has failed 

to place safety responsibility on the proper party. That places the 833,000 intermodal chassis and trailers squarely in a longstanding safety loophole. 

B. Overly Restrictive Federal Size and Weight Standards Prevent Safety 

Improvements 

ATA urges Congress to give states additional flexibility to determine the appropriate size and weight regulations for trucks operating on highways under their jurisdiction. 

Justification—At the request of Congress, the Transportation Research Board 

(TRB) recently issued a new report on the impacts of Federal truck size and weight 

regulations.7 Among the report’s conclusions was that the largely static and inflexible system of Federal regulation that currently exists ‘‘. . . discourages private-and 

public-sector innovation aimed at improving highway efficiency and reducing the 

costs of truck traffic . . .,’’ including costs related to accidents involving trucks.8

In a nutshell, the TRB report concludes that states should be given greater authority, with strong Federal oversight, to make decisions with regard to the size and 

weight limits of trucks on highways under their jurisdiction. This reflects ATA’s own 

policy. TRB further recommends that Federal regulatory oversight of weight limits 

34 

9 Ibid., p. 5–16. 10 Accident Rates For Longer Combination Vehicles, Scientex Corp., 1996. 11Longer Combination Vehicle Safety Performance in Alberta 1995 to 1998, Woodrooffe and 

Assoc., March 2001. 

should not be extended to the NHS, as S. 1140, the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act (SHIPA) seeks to do.9

There is no doubt that continuing or further restricting current Federal size and 

weight limits will cost lives. While it would not make sense from a safety or economic standpoint to allow larger or heavier trucks to operate on every highway or 

in every state, Congress cannot continue to ignore the growing body of evidence that 

supports the fact that opportunities to prevent accidents through size and weight 

reform are available. Those states that identify these opportunities should be allowed to take advantage of them. 

Allowing the expanded operation of more productive trucks would have two safety 

benefits. First, carriers would need fewer trucks to haul a given amount of freight, 

thereby reducing accident exposure. Second, studies have consistently found that 

certain trucks with greater carrying capacity have a much better safety record than 

trucks that are in common use today. A study sponsored by the Federal Highway 

Administration found that the accident rate for longer combination vehicles (LCVs) 

is half that of other trucks.10 A recent Canadian study found that LCVs have an 

accident rate that is five times lower than the rate for tractor-semitrailers.11 This 

study also found that during the 10-year period after LCVs were authorized to operate on a large scale in the Province of Alberta, the number of registered trucks 

dropped by 19 percent, even though the economy grew and non-truck vehicle registrations grew by 23 percent. The report concluded that increased truck productivity due to expanded LCV use was the most likely reason for this reduction in 

truck registrations. 

ATA is not seeking changes to size and weight regulations during reauthorization. 

However, the approach suggested by TRB provides Congress with the opportunity 

to review this issue based on the facts, and ATA encourages the Committee to consider supporting it. 

III. Research and Advisory Committee Recommendations 

A. Reliability Performance Standards for Commercial Motor Vehicles are Needed 

ATA believes it is imperative that NHTSA be directed to undertake a research 

program to determine the appropriate method for incorporating reliability performance standards into future Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards pertaining to 

trucks, and provide a dedicated source of funding for this project. NHTSA should 

be required to report to Congress on its work within two years, including the steps 

necessary to establish a reliability program and a timetable for doing so. NHTSA 

should also be directed to allow trucking equipment users and their representatives 

an opportunity to participate in the development and implementation of this program equal to that of manufacturers. 

Justification—Since 1968, NHTSA has written Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards (FMVSS) which measure short-term output for vehicle safety, that is, 

manufacturers must certify that their equipment meets the regulatory standards 

when it is placed on the market to be sold. NHTSA has never considered reliability—which is intrinsic to the overall elements of a design—in determining its vehicle safety standards. 

Today, as equipment systems and subsystems become more technologically complex, and truck manufacturers move to limit the ability of commercial fleets to specify which particular components to install in a particular vehicle, equipment reliability is rapidly becoming an overwhelming concern for motor carriers. An example 

of existing reliability standards for vehicle systems can be found in regulations established by the Environmental Protection Agency for emissions control, in 40 CFR 

86.085. This issue is vital to highway safety, as compromises in reliability can deliver short-term performance enhancements, and may lower system costs, but may 

also lead to safety system failures when the equipment is most needed. 

B. Prioritization in the Research Program is Needed 

ATA recommends that the Secretary of Transportation be directed to prioritize all 

Federal driver and vehicle-related research so that the majority of funds support research in the most-common cause of accidents—human factors. The Secretary 

should direct NHTSA to undertake a multi-year research project to determine the 

effects of risk-adaptation in both commercial and passenger vehicles, and to determine if there are ways in which such effects may be mitigated. NHTSA should also 

be directed to allow vehicle equipment users and their representatives, including the 

35 

trucking industry, an opportunity for participation in this program equal to that of 

manufacturers. 

Justification—Although the best available data continue to indicate that the overwhelming majority of traffic accidents are caused by driver behavior problems and 

human error, a significant percentage of Federal research and regulatory effort has 

been and continues to be focused on vehicles and equipment, with far less effort 

spent on human factor issues. Motor carriers continue to incorporate a number of 

new electronics systems into their commercial motor vehicles. Many of these may 

eventually interact with drivers and make decisions on their behalf. There is evidence of a growing danger from ‘‘risk-adaptation’’—the tendency of drivers to take 

greater risks when faced with the false security of a system that promises greater 

safety. One example of this phenomenon can be seen in antilock braking systems 

(ABS) for passenger vehicles. NHTSA has found that these systems do not offer a 

net safety benefit, as ABS-equipped cars were simply involved in different kinds of 

accidents than cars without ABS, not fewer or less deadly ones. A better understanding of how this phenomenon works and, more importantly, ways in which it 

might be mitigated is necessary, as vehicles become more complex in the alreadycomplicated highway environment. 

C. A Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee Should Be Established 

ATA recommends that Congress require the Secretary to establish a motor carrier 

safety advisory committee and extend the authorizing period by a minimum of five 

years. 

Justification—Section 105 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 

authorized the Secretary of Transportation to establish a commercial motor vehicle 

safety advisory committee to provide advice and recommendations on a wide range 

of motor carrier safety issues. The advisory committee was to remain in effect until 

September 30, 2003. 

More than three years after passage of the Act, DOT has taken no official action 

to establish an advisory committee. ATA finds this fact very troubling. Establishment of the Committee would bring together various industry segments, law enforcement, advocacy groups, manufacturers, and government officials to discuss the 

most pressing motor carrier safety issues. These groups often have conflicting opinions on important highway safety issues. Bringing them together in an advisory capacity would allow FMCSA to proactively develop regulatory and program changes 

that have a greater chance of being embraced and supported by the agency’s stakeholders. An advisory committee could also provide the regulators with a regular opportunity to better understand the safety, economic, and human impacts that their 

actions might have on various segments of society. 

IV. ATA’s Reaction to the Administration’s SAFETEA Proposal 

ATA commends the Bush Administration for releasing a surface transportation reauthorization bill (SAFETEA) that recognizes the need for substantial highway safety improvements and greater freight transportation efficiency. While ATA has a 

number of specific concerns, we believe the bill represents a positive first step in 

the reauthorization process. 

Some of the SAFETEA initiatives that ATA supports include: 

• Creation of a new highway safety improvement program funded at $1 billion 

in 2004 and growing each year to $1.5 billion in 2009. 

• Improvements in the project development process to ensure integration of 

freight transportation. 

• A requirement that states identify a freight transportation coordinator. 

• A set aside of funding for highways that connect intermodal freight facilities to 

the National Highway System, and a 90 percent state matching fund requirement for these highways (as opposed to the current 80 percent match). 

• A proposal to fund ‘‘ready-to-go’’ projects at major traffic bottlenecks and to cut 

bureaucratic delay in the project development process so needed highway 

projects can move to completion more expeditiously. 

• A greater focus on improving motor carrier information and data analysis systems. ATA trusts that these improvements will extend to the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration’s safety status (SafeStat) measurement system. 

ATA opposes the following SAFETEA proposals: 

• While the Administration has stated a commitment to improving freight transportation, SAFETEA would subsidize the intermodal movement of freight at the 

expense of the highway system, which carries the vast majority of the Nation’s 

freight. The bill proposes expansion of funding eligibility to the Surface TransVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
36 

portation Program and the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) for intermodal freight transportation projects, including rail facilities, even though just over one percent of the Nation’s freight moves via 

intermodal rail. Trucks deliver 68 percent of the freight and are the exclusive 

provider of freight transportation services to more than 80 percent of American 

communities. A true commitment to improving freight efficiency cannot include 

the further diversion of limited funds from the Nation’s ailing highways. A fair 

transportation bill will not require one transportation mode to subsidize its 

competitors. 

• The U.S. Department of Transportation’s own research suggests that the proposed investment levels will not be adequate to even maintain current highway 

system conditions and traffic congestion levels. We urge Congress to increase 

the Federal commitment to highways without raising taxes and to prioritize 

funding for highways of national significance. 

• The proposal would eliminate the ability of trucking companies to pay their 

heavy vehicle use taxes (HVUT) on a quarterly basis and requires each truck 

to display a decal demonstrating payment of the tax. While we recognize that 

HVUT evasion is a serious problem, law-abiding trucking companies should not 

be punished because of the actions of a few miscreants. We strongly oppose the 

decal requirement. It is unnecessary, an added administrative burden and redundant to procedures already available as proof of fees paid. In addition, we 

are concerned about the adverse financial impact of elimination of the quarterly 

payment privilege on trucking companies. 

• ATA opposes the exemption of safety, security and idle reduction technologies 

from the Federal excise tax on trucks and truck equipment. This provision 

would place the Federal government in a position of having to create a new Federal bureaucracy to evaluate potentially thousands of devices. ATA also has 

strong reservations about the exposure to legal liability created by federally-endorsed safety technologies. 

• ATA opposes the Administration’s proposal to continue the Interstate Highway 

toll programs created by TEA 21. Tolling existing Interstate Highways creates 

a disincentive for motorists to use Interstates, which are the safest roads. Alternative secondary routes are likely to be at least four times more dangerous than 

an Interstate Highway. 

• ATA opposes the Administration’s rest area commercialization pilot program. 

States in general have not demonstrated that they are willing to address the 

truck parking shortage issue. Ninety percent of truck parking is privately provided, and solutions to the truck parking shortage are more likely to be addressed by the private sector than by the public sector. Along with the Truckload Carriers Association, the National Association of Truck Stop Operators and 

the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, ATA has developed the comprehensive 

proposal in Attachment A to address the truck parking shortage that focuses 

on public-private partnerships. 

Summary 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, ATA makes the following recommendations. 

I. Traffic Safety and Truck Safety Program Recommendations 

ATA recommends that Congress authorize additional funding for the Section 402 

Highway Safety Grant Program administered by NHTSA, and the MCSAP truck 

safety grant program administered by FMCSA, specifically for increased traffic and 

speed enforcement efforts in the highway reauthorization bill. ATA further recommends that Congress make it clear in legislative language that MCSAP funding 

should be used for State speed enforcement efforts aimed at both commercial and 

non-commercial drivers, and that speed enforcement activities aimed at commercial 

drivers do not have to be linked to a North American Standard Inspection. Additional funding, additional emphasis, and greater Federal leadership are needed on 

this issue to reduce the speed and unsafe driving behaviors of all drivers on our 

highways in order to save lives. 

ATA is also a firm believer in the life-saving benefits of seat belt use. ATA recommends that Congress continue to support and fully fund the occupant protection 

programs of NHTSA, including the ongoing ’Click It or Ticket’ grant program. 

ATA recommends that Congress authorize and fund a comprehensive Share the 

Road Safely education and outreach program that is designed to educate and change 

the behavior of all highway users. This effort must be coupled with increased 

MCSAP traffic enforcement to have the desired outcomes. A program evaluation reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
37 

quirement should also be included. This program should be funded at not less than 

$5 million dollars annually. 

ATA recommends that Congress authorize FMCSA to provide access to safety 

data and information contained in MCMIS, within the confines of the Privacy Act 

and consistent with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

ATA recommends that Congress direct the Secretary to address and improve the 

data and methodology shortcomings in FMCSA’s Safety Status Measurement System (SafeStat) identified by the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General 

during its recent audit. 

ATA recommends that Congress fund research that explores better highway design and management practices, particularly those that could result in improved 

truck safety. We also urge Congress to earmark money to State and local planning 

agencies to help them to better understand the unique needs of freight transportation, including those related to safety. Finally, we would like to see a much greater share of Federal highway funds directed toward those projects and highway networks that are most critical to motorist safety and to economic productivity. 

ATA recommends that the Committee support the initiative to increase the 

amount of truck parking in certain freight corridors and, more specifically, support 

the recommendations contained in Attachment A. 

II. Regulatory Change Recommendations 

ATA recommends that Congress direct the Secretary of Transportation to equitably apply and enforce laws designed to ensure the safe condition of all regulated 

equipment, including intermodal chassis and trailers. Antiquated regulations should 

be replaced with ones that are in tune with current industry operations 

ATA urges Congress to give states additional flexibility to determine the appropriate size and weight regulations for trucks operating on highways under their jurisdiction. 

III. Research and Advisory Committee Recommendations 

ATA believes it is imperative that NHTSA be directed to undertake a research 

program to determine the appropriate method for incorporating reliability performance standards into future FMVSS pertaining to trucks, and provide a dedicated 

source of funding for this project. NHTSA should be required to report to Congress 

on its work within two years, including the steps necessary to establish a reliability 

program and a timetable for doing so. NHTSA should also be directed to allow 

trucking equipment users and their representatives an opportunity to participate in 

the development and implementation of this program equal to that of manufacturers. 

ATA recommends that the Secretary of Transportation be directed to prioritize all 

Federal driver and vehicle-related research so that the majority of funds support research in the most-common cause of accidents—human factors. The Secretary 

should direct NHTSA to undertake a multi-year research project to determine the 

effects of risk-adaptation in both commercial and passenger vehicles, and to determine if there are ways in which such effects may be mitigated. NHTSA should also 

be directed to allow vehicle equipment users and their representatives, including the 

trucking industry, an opportunity for participation in this program equal to that of 

manufacturers 

ATA recommends that Congress require the Secretary to establish a motor carrier 

safety advisory committee and extend the authorizing period by a minimum of five 

years. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to offer our thoughts regarding these safety issues. We look forward to working with 

the Subcommittee to improve the safety and mobility of our Nation’s highway transportation system. 

ATTACHMENT A—REAUTHORIZATION PROPOSAL TO IMPROVE TRUCK PARKING

Background 

The growth of long-haul truck travel has produced tremendous demand by truck 

drivers for long-term rest. These needs arise when drivers require sleep and when 

they need to fulfill their federally mandated hours-of-service obligations. While adequate long-term truck parking is available in most areas, there is a shortage of capacity on many of the Nation’s major trucking corridors. While the solution is often 

to expand the number of available parking spaces, in some cases the problems can 

be resolved through methods other than having to build new parking spaces. For 

example, better signage, improved security measures, and enhanced parking area 

38 

design can all play a roll in resolving the parking shortage. In addition, non-traditional approaches, such as allowing truck parking at weigh stations, commuter lots 

or warehouse facilities are being utilized successfully in some parts of the country 

currently and may be a feasible solution in other locations as well. However, there 

continues to be a need to specifically identify where truck parking shortages do exist 

and why. 

For the most part, and with a few exceptions, state transportation agencies have 

shown little propensity for resolving this issue. In fact, only one state has taken advantage of the availability of Federal highway funding for building truck parking 

spaces—which has been available without a state matching requirement since 

1995—to alleviate the parking shortage. In the hierarchy of priorities, and within 

the range of available staff expertise, the provision of truck parking ranks well 

below highway construction and maintenance. Therefore, public rest areas are often 

the victims of state budget cuts and highway funding shortfalls. Moreover, truck 

parking does not have a strong local constituency. In fact, the topic often stimulates 

much local antagonism. This is because state and local officials do not place a high 

priority on meeting the parking needs of long-haul truck drivers. This means not 

only that relatively few public resources are dedicated to truck parking, but also 

that private providers of truck parking often have to deal with a variety of government-imposed roadblocks whenever they attempt to expand the availability of truck 

parking. This can encompass anything from zoning regulations to requirements that 

truck stop owners pay for infrastructure improvements to accommodate the additional traffic. 

While it has been difficult to document the extent of the truck parking shortage, 

and the specific causes of a lack of capacity in certain areas, perhaps the best information comes from truck drivers themselves. A 2002 truck driver survey conducted 

for the Federal Highway Administration at the request of Congress revealed the following: 

• 11 percent of truck drivers surveyed frequently or almost always find parking 

at rest areas. 

• 34 percent frequently or almost always find parking at truck stops. 

• 89 percent sometimes, rarely or almost never find parking at rest areas. 

• 66 percent sometimes, rarely or almost never find parking at truck stops. 

• 33 percent park on entrance or exit ramps for long-term rest. 

• 21 percent park illegally in parking lots for long-term rest. 

• 11 percent park on highway shoulders for long-term rest. On average, drivers 

who park in these locations do so two times per week. 

• When asked why drivers park on ramps and shoulders, 94 percent gave ‘‘no 

empty spaces at rest areas or truck stops’’ as a reason. A smaller number of 

drivers cited rest area time limits, more convenient access, or a lesser likelihood 

of being bothered by drug dealers and prostitutes as other reasons for parking 

on a ramp or shoulder. 

• 79 percent of drivers preferred truck stops for extended rest, while just 6 percent preferred rest areas. 

• The top five recommendations to improve the truck parking situation identified 

by drivers were: 

1. Build more truck stop spaces (79 percent) 

2. Build more rest area spaces (66 percent) 

3. Stop enforcement officers from waking drivers (57 percent) 

4. Eliminate time limits on truck parking spaces (49 percent) 

5. Improve parking layouts and configurations (46 percent) 

These results reflect other national and state studies of truck parking shortages. 

For example, a 1997 New York survey of truck drivers found that 80 percent were 

always, or often, unable to find parking at public rest areas. A recently released survey of truck drivers in Maine found that 79 percent of drivers parked on highway 

off-ramps or shoulders at some point; 42 percent on a daily or weekly basis. Most 

drivers said they parked at these locations because of a lack of convenient parking 

facilities. Interestingly, Maine truck drivers stated that relative to other Northeastern states, Maine did not have a chronic shortage of parking spaces. A 1999 

Tennessee study found that on an average weeknight nearly 44 percent of the 

parked trucks were pulled over on ramps and shoulders. 

All studies on the truck parking shortage have made similar recommendations on 

how to resolve the problem, and they fall into the following general categories: 

39 

• Federal funding for public and private parking facilities where demand is greatest. 

• Improved lighting and security for parking facilities. 

• Geometric improvements to improve truck access and throughput. 

• Opening up non-traditional facilities to trucks for long-term parking (e.g., weigh 

stations, commuter lots, warehouse parking lots, etc.). 

• Better signage to increase awareness of private facilities. 

• Elimination of parking time restrictions on trucks. 

The recommended course of action described in this document is intended to address truck parking problems according to the best available research. The proposal 

is supported by the American Trucking Associations, the Commercial Vehicle Safety 

Alliance, NATSO (representing travel plaza and truck stop owners) and the Truckload Carriers Association. 

Proposal 

I. Objectives 

A. Identify the geographic locations and highway corridors where availability of 

parking for drivers to stop and rest (both short term and long term) is inadequate and the reasons therefore. 

B. Increase availability of truck parking at existing truck stops and public rest 

stops. 

C. Upgrade truck parking area security. 

D. Improve existing roadside signage system and develop real-time communication 

system. 

E. Develop Intelligent Transportation System deployments that provide drivers 

with real-time information on the location and availability of parking spaces. 

II. Solutions 

A. Identify the specific geographic locations and highway corridors where the 

availability of parking for drivers to stop and rest (both short term and long 

term) is currently inadequate and the reasons therefore, and require future 

periodic comprehensive surveys 

B. Open inspection and weigh stations, park-and-ride facilities to truck parking 

during off-hours and non-peak periods of demand; exempt trucks from enforcement actions at these sites to encourage the use of the sites for parking by fatigued drivers. 

C. Provide tax credits and tax incentives to truck stop operators 

D. Provide tax credits and tax incentives for the develop of secure 24-hour access 

pickup and delivery ‘‘truck staging’’ facilities in or adjacent to metropolitan 

areas 

E. Develop a communication system that will provide drivers with real-time information on the location and availability of parking spaces, using cell telephones, 

radio frequencies, satellite-based text messaging systems and other avenues to 

broadcast parking locations and their availability to drivers. 

F. Establish a non-profit quasi-governmental corporation, the ‘‘Parking Assistance 

Resource Corporation’’ (PARC), for the purpose of more efficiently and cost-effectively managing Federal funding expended to increase the number and availability of commercial truck parking in those areas with a demonstrated shortage of spaces and/or other barriers to adequate availability of long-term truck 

driver parking (4 or more hours) 

1. PARC’s primary authority and responsibility would include: (1) conducting 

periodic surveys to identify the location(s) of truck parking shortages in the 

future and the reasons for the shortage(s); (2) developing best practices and 

recommended minimum design, security and lighting requirements; (3) reviewing and prioritizing grant applications from private enterprise and recommending grant applications aimed at alleviating the shortage at specific 

location(s) to the DOT Secretary for the Secretary’s approval; (4) identifying 

specific NHS corridors where regional/multi-state strategies would be most 

effective and encourage and facilitate cooperation among relevant entities. 

2. PARC would be funded with a grant from the Federal Highway Administration with funds authorized by Congress. Proposed funding levels are $5 million (2005); $8 million (2006); $12 million (2007); 16 million (2008); $20 million (2009). 

40 

3. PARC would be governed by a Board of Directors comprised of representatives from the following organizations: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, American Trucking Associations (ATA), Truckload Carriers Association (TCA); National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO), American Automobile Association (AAA), and Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 

(CVSA). 

G. Expand the eligibility of the Surface Transportation Program to allow 100 percent Federal funding for ‘‘Safety Rest Areas’’ on the NHS, as defined in Title 23 

U.S.C. Sec. 120(c). Safety rest areas are already eligible under the NHS program. In addition, add access routes, ramps and interchanges serving safety 

rest areas, regardless of whether or not they provide commercial services, to the 

list of projects eligible for 100 percent Federal share under Sec. 120. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Byrd, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF LAMONT BYRD, DIRECTOR, SAFETY AND 

HEALTH, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name 

is LaMont Byrd. I’m Director of Safety and Health for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

I’m pleased to appear here today on behalf of the hundreds of 

thousands of Teamster members who make their living driving on 

our Nation’s roads. It’s imperative to make their workplace as safe 

as possible, since it affects not only their safety, but the safety of 

the motoring public with whom they share the roads. 

Although there are a number of issues I’d like to discuss, in the 

interest of time I’ll focus on just a few and respectfully request that 

my written testimony be included in the record. 

In April 2003, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

issued a new hours-of-service regulation. Because the final rule is 

drastically different from the notice of proposed rulemaking, we’re 

still analyzing how its implementation will impact on our membership. However, at this point, we do agree with the FMCSA’s decision to increase the rest time each day, but we have serious concerns about how the new rule’s increase in consecutive hours behind the wheel each day, and the 34-hour restart provision, will 

impact on our members. We feel that the latter two provisions are 

likely to increase fatigue and negate any safety benefit that the increase in rest time per day would provide. In our investigation into 

the driver-fatigue issue, we concluded that one of the primary problems contributing to driver fatigue is noncompliance with the 

hours-of-service rule. 

If a Teamster driver is instructed to take a trip that violates the 

hours-of-service rule, he can refuse and has a collective bargaining 

agreement and the union to back him up. A non-union driver obviously has no such protections, and, therefore, may feel pressured 

to violate the rule. For this reason, we have pushed for better enforcement of the current rule and more funding to carry out enforcement. 

The rule that the FMCSA has promulgated does little, if anything, to boost enforcement of the hours-of-service rule, and unless 

this Committee finds a way to do that, we will have accomplished 

little or nothing with respect to reducing fatigue and the number 

of traffic accidents that result from it. 

On a separate issue, the Transportation Security Administration 

recently issued an interim final rule requiring criminal-background 

41 

checks for commercial motor vehicle drivers who currently possess 

or apply for a hazardous materials endorsement. For the most part, 

TSA borrowed the list of disqualifying offenses from the airline industry background check program. We’ve learned much from that 

initial program, including the need for waivers and appeals, which 

TSA has included. However, despite the appeal and waiver provisions, certain felony convictions do not necessarily point to potential terrorist behavior. 

I would like to recount a situation involving two Teamster members who are sisters and who work as flight attendants for Northwest Airlines. On a shopping trip to New York City, one of the sisters discovered some knock-off designer purses being sold on a 

street corner. Thinking that her friends back home would like to 

have some of these bags, she purchased several and mailed them 

back to her sister. Little did she suspect that this innocent act 

would lead to their felony convictions on interstate transportation 

of counterfeit goods. With no appeal process under the airline 

criminal background check program, both flight attendants face 

termination from jobs they’ve held for a combined 35 years. They 

are not terrorists, nor are they persons who should be suspect of 

committing terrorist acts. This situation should lead to changes in 

the airline background-check process and should serve as a warning for the hazardous materials endorsement check program. 

Another issue yet to be resolved is a requirement for criminal 

background checks for Mexican drivers who haul HAZMAT. To the 

best of my knowledge, the DOT has resolved the issue of criminal 

background checks for Canadian drivers hauling HAZMAT in the 

U.S. However, nothing has been reported on the status of criminal 

background checks for Mexican drivers. 

I need not remind the Committee that it was the Department of 

Transportation which insisted that all foreign-domiciled motor carriers are subject to all U.S. safety regulations. Therefore, Mexican 

drivers hauling HAZMAT must undergo a criminal background 

check. 

Furthermore, given that long-haul Mexican trucks may soon be 

traveling everywhere in the United States, a number of other 

issues brought out in the Inspector General’s recent audit report 

need to be addressed. I won’t go into them right now; rather, I ask 

that you review our written testimony. 

Finally, the Teamsters believe that some diabetics should be allowed to operate in interstate commerce, but current law prohibits 

them from doing so. In fact, current law only allows people who use 

insulin to operate a commercial motor vehicle in intrastate commerce on a waiver period not to exceed 3 years. Most Teamster 

members don’t operate in intrastate commerce; they operate in 

interstate commerce. And, unfortunately, many of them have lost 

their jobs as a result of diabetes, irrespective of the facts that they 

have a proven safe driving record and their medical condition is 

under control. 

The Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration has proposed 

an exemption program, but it does little to correct the problem. It 

would only permit people to participate in it if they participated in 

an intrastate waiver program for the 3 years immediately preceding their application for an exemption. 

42 

The Teamsters Union and the American Diabetes Association believe that the 3-year rule is unnecessary, based on the current 

practice of diabetes. This is a position that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s own expert medical panel pushed in 

both the FMCSA’s July 2000 report, as well as in the expert medical panel’s own additional comments, which were inserted in the 

public docket. We, therefore, urge the Committee to address this 

important issue in the upcoming TEA–21 reauthorization bill. 

With that, I, again, thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Byrd follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAMONT BYRD, DIRECTOR, SAFETY AND HEALTH, 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

My name is LaMont Byrd and I am Director of Safety and Health for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here 

today on behalf of our 1.4 million members on such an important issue: motor carrier safety. 

The Teamsters Union represents hundreds of thousands of workers who make 

their living driving on our Nation’s roads, from interstate highways to city streets. 

It is imperative to make their workplace as safe as possible since it affects not only 

their safety but also the safety of the motoring public with whom they share the 

roads. With that said, there are a number of issues that I’d like to mention that 

are integral to improving and strengthening motor carrier safety and decreasing the 

growing number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities on our Nation’s roads. 

Hours of Service 

In April, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issued new 

hours of service regulations that allow drivers to drive 11 hours and work a total 

of 14 hours after 10 consecutive hours off-duty. Current law allows 10 hours of driving time within a 15-hour on-duty period after 8 hours of rest. The Teamsters have 

not had nearly sufficient time to develop an opinion on all aspects of the regulation, 

since the final rule is drastically different from the first Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the FMCSA issued. We would have preferred an opportunity to comment 

on the new rule before it was finalized. However, we do agree with the FMCSA’s 

increase in the rest time for drivers. For some time, we have advocated the need 

for more rest time. Eight hours is not sufficient time for a driver to conduct personal 

business (such as eating, showering, and spending time with his/her family) and to 

get the necessary sleep. However, we cannot help but wonder what the FMCSA was 

thinking when it increased the consecutive number of hours behind the wheel for 

a driver, which essentially negates any benefits the increased rest time would provide. The fact is that by the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) own estimates, 

755 fatalities and 19,705 injuries result from fatigued drivers each year on U.S. 

roads. Numerous fatigue studies show that after eight hours of driving time a driver’s alertness significantly deteriorates. The U.S. military agrees. Twelve years ago, 

nearly 50 percent more soldiers died in accidents (235) than in battle (147). In the 

recent war in Iraq, there were only a third as many non-combat fatalities (36) as 

deaths in battle (101). The same pattern appears to hold for nonfatal injuries, with 

the data on evacuated Army troops showing that 107 had non-combat injuries, compared with 118 who had combat wounds. Col. Terry J. Walters, the physician who 

is chief of health policy in the office of the Army’s surgeon general, attributed the 

steep drop in non-combat deaths and injuries, in part, due to the Army’s efforts to 

improve driver safety and to ensure that soldiers were well-rested when operating 

vehicles. In the first Gulf War, motor vehicle accidents alone accounted for about 

half of all serious injuries. 

With that said, the Teamsters Union has concerns about the FMCSA’s increase 

in consecutive hours of driving and will be looking carefully at the effect this will 

have on the safety of our members and the safety of the motoring public. In addition 

to our concerns with increasing the consecutive number of hours behind the wheel, 

the Teamsters has significant concerns with the 34-hour restart provision in the 

FMCSA’s regulations. The cumulative effect of this allowance will significantly increase driving time and fatigue and has the potential of even eliminating Teamster 

jobs. 

43 

Finally, it is important to point out that Teamster drivers and their companies 

are the safest on the road. We obey the rules. If by chance, a Teamster driver is 

asked to take a trip that violates the hours of service rule, he/she can refuse and 

has the union to back him up. For this reason we have pushed for years for better 

enforcement of the current rules and more funding to carry out enforcement. The 

rule that the FMCSA has put forward does little if anything to boost enforcement 

of the existing rules, which is the major problem with hours of service. Unless this 

Committee finds a way to do that, we will have accomplished nothing with respect 

to reducing fatigue and the number of traffic accidents that result from it. 

Criminal Background Checks for Hazardous Materials Endorsement 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently issued an Interim 

Final Rule requiring criminal background checks for Commercial Motor Vehicle 

(CMV) drivers who currently possess or apply for a Hazardous Materials Endorsement in order to haul hazardous materials. The Teamsters Union intends to file 

comments to the Docket, but we want to make the Committee aware of several 

issues that may present problems for our members who may have committed some 

indiscretion in their past but have been rehabilitated, proved to be model citizens, 

and are productive members of their communities. 

For the most part, TSA has ‘‘borrowed’’ the list of disqualifying offenses from the 

airline industry background checks. We have learned much from that initial program, including the need for waivers and appeals, which TSA has included. TSA’s 

notification process keeps the criminal history record check information out of the 

hands of employers, who have used this information to dismiss employees in the airline industry for offenses committed beyond the look-back period and outside the 

scope of disqualifying offenses. However, despite the appeal and waiver provisions, 

certain disqualifying felony convictions do not necessarily point to potential terrorist 

behavior. 

I would like to recount a situation involving two Teamster members who are sisters and work as flight attendants for Northwest Airlines. On a shopping trip to 

New York City, one of the sisters discovered some ‘‘knock off’’ designer purses being 

sold on a street corner. Thinking that her friends back home would like to have 

some of these bags, she purchased several and mailed them back to her sister. Little 

did she suspect that that innocent act would lead to her and her sister’s felony convictions on interstate transportation of counterfeit goods. With no appeal process 

under airline criminal background checks, both flight attendants face termination 

from jobs they have held for a combined 35 years. They are not terrorists nor are 

they persons who should be suspect of committing terrorist acts. This situation 

should lead to changes in the airline background check process and should serve as 

a warning for the hazmat endorsement check and background checks in other industries as well. 

The trucking industry has been a place where reformed, former criminals have 

found a place to work, and where rehabilitation programs have encouraged entry 

into the trucking profession. For that reason, we intend to question the seven-year 

look-back provision. Although it is an improvement over the ten-year look-back in 

the airline industry, it is somewhat arbitrary when one considers whether a person 

is truly rehabilitated after four years, five years or even three years, for that matter, of committing a criminal act. 

In addition, although TSA does not require a revocation of a hazmat endorsement 

based on an initial review (Initial Notification of Threat Assessment), the agency 

does notify the state that the individual may be within the prohibited category 

under the rulemaking, in which case the state may take whatever action it deems 

appropriate or do nothing until TSA issues its final determination. The Teamsters 

Union is concerned that a state could take immediate action and revoke a hazmat 

endorsement upon initial determination by TSA. And while there are specific time 

limits in the rulemaking for initiating the waiver and appeals processes by the individual, TSA fails to put any specific deadlines on its review processes. We could envision a state revoking or denying a hazmat endorsement for a driver upon initial 

determination, and have TSA take several months to get through the waiver or appeal process, only to finally determine that there is no threat posed by the individual (Final Notification of Threat Assessment). The driver could be adversely affected in not being able to work during this period. We should note for the Committee that all of the union Less-than-Truckload (LTL) carriers require their drivers 

to possess hazmat endorsements because they do not know from one day to the next 

whether part of a shipment may contain hazardous materials. So if a driver loses 

his hazmat endorsement, he loses his job, regardless of whether he still has his commercial drivers license (CDL). We also question whether the TSA has sufficient resources and personnel to address this issue, especially in light of recent reports that 

44 

half of the 30,000 airport security screeners are still awaiting criminal background 

checks. We would remind the Committee that it is estimated that 3.5 million drivers 

currently possess a hazmat endorsement. For these reasons, we will also encourage 

the TSA to establish strict deadlines for their review processes. 

A final issue yet to be resolved is the requirement of criminal background checks 

for Mexican drivers who haul hazardous materials. The USA Patriot Act provided 

for such a requirement for U.S. drivers, and to the best of my knowledge the DOT 

has resolved the issue of criminal background checks for Canadian drivers hauling 

hazmat in the U.S. However, nothing has been reported on the status of criminal 

background checks for Mexican drivers. I need not remind the Committee that it 

was the DOT which insisted that all foreign domiciled motor carriers are subject to 

all U.S. safety regulations. Therefore, Mexican drivers hauling hazmat should and 

must undergo a criminal background check. Long-haul Mexican trucks will soon be 

traveling anywhere in the United States carrying chemicals, gasoline and other 

flammable liquids and gases. We need to know that terrorists will not find a more 

convenient way to infiltrate our hazardous materials industry. 

Cross-Border Trucking 

As this Committee well knows, the Teamsters Union has opposed the opening of 

the border to Mexican trucks for travel beyond the currently permitted commercial 

zones because of the serious concerns we have for the condition and safety of Mexican trucks. Had not the Teamsters and other safety groups voiced their concerns 

dating back to 1995, when the trucking provisions were to be first implemented, we 

fear that many of the safety measures put into practice within the past several 

years would never have occurred. While some may label us as obstructionists to free 

trade, we believe we have provided a valuable service to the motoring public in assuring that highway safety in this country will not be compromised. 

With that said, the DOT’s Inspector General just issued a Follow-Up Audit On 

The Implementation Of Commercial Vehicle Safety Requirements At The U.S.-Mexico 

Border. In it, the IG states that the FMCSA has made substantial progress in meeting the Murray-Shelby requirements incorporated in the past two Transportation 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts. However, there remain several areas of 

concern to us, and these, left uncorrected, could jeopardize the significant progress 

made to date. 

First, the IG reports that inspection facilities were sufficient at 24 of the 25 commercial crossings. The Teamsters can only assume that these are temporary facilities because this statement seems inconsistent with facts later reported in the audit. 

Congress provided $66 million for the four border states to construct and develop 

permanent border inspection facilities. In Arizona, which received $2.1 million, construction of a permanent inspection facility in Nogales has not been completed, and 

construction of a permanent inspection facility in Douglas is only in the planning 

phase. In California, which received $8.9 million, construction of an inspection facility in Tecate is only in the design phase. In New Mexico, which received $2.2 million, construction of a permanent inspection facility in Santa Teresa won’t be completed until 2005. In Texas, which received $52.8 million, permanent facilities at 

seven key border crossings—Eagle Pass, El Paso Bridge of the Americas, Laredo Columbia, Los Indios, Pharr, and Veteran’s Bridge, also won’t be completed until 2005. 

In addition, plans to construct a facility at Laredo World Trade Bridge, one of the 

largest ports of entry at the U.S.-Mexico border, are on hold. 

The IG also reports that at two border crossings—Douglas and San Luis in Arizona—a portion of the dedicated out-of-service space was not being used because the 

General Services Administration had not completed improvements. In addition, at 

five border crossings—Columbus, New Mexico and Eagle Pass, El Paso Bridge of 

Americas, Laredo World Trade Bridge, and Roma in Texas—the Bureau of Customs 

and Border Protection moved or planned to move FMCSA’s dedicated inspection and 

out-of-service spaces. For example, at the El Paso Bridge of Americas, without coordinating with FMCSA, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection inspectors 

notified the local supervisory inspector that within 4 days the dedicated inspection 

and out-of-service spaces would be moved to a less desirable location on the compound. Clearly, this is unacceptable. 

In addition, the IG reports that inspectors at 22 crossings could electronically access Mexican and U.S. databases to verify CDLs, license plates, authority to operate 

in the United States, and U.S. insurance coverage. There were problems at the 

other crossings, which I don’t need to detail at this time. What’s important to note 

here is that the IG states that it did not reverify the accuracy of the Mexican commercial driver’s license and vehicle registration databases. The Teamsters pose a 

question to the Committee: Who cares about being able to access a database if the 

45 

information in it may not be accurate? We would urge the Committee to investigate 

this further. 

We would also urge the Committee to look into how state and local law enforcement personnel will be able to access Mexico’s databases. From what we can tell, 

he/she is expected to call an 800 number to access this information and to check 

if a Mexican driver has insurance or proper operating authority. We would suggest 

that such a system may prove to be a disincentive for state law enforcement officials 

to vigorously pursue violations by Mexican carriers and drivers. 

Along these same lines, we question how the state and local law enforcement personnel will determine whether a Mexican driver/carrier is in violation of U.S. cabotage laws. If, for example, a driver was pulled over for running a red light in Florida 

and he was supposed to be taking a load to Idaho from Mexico, would the state and 

local law enforcement personnel recognize the cabotage violation and know how to 

enforce it? 

Finally, the IG audit reports that 18 states, including the border state of New 

Mexico and the states of Nevada and New York, have not yet adopted FMCSA’s rule 

authorizing their State inspectors to take action when they encounter a vehicle operating without authority. This finding leads us to question Secretary Mineta’s November 20, 2002, certification that authorizing Mexican carrier operations throughout the U.S. does not pose an unacceptable safety risk. The fact is that State inspectors need to be able to place Mexican carriers operating without authority out of 

service. The IG states that the primary concern here is not necessarily the long-haul 

carriers whose authority will be checked every 90 days, but rather carriers authorized to operate only in the commercial zones that continue beyond the zones and 

do so illegally. As reported by the IG in 1999, at least 52 Mexican-domiciled motor 

carriers operated improperly in 20 states beyond the four border state’s commercial 

zones, and roadside inspection data throughout the U.S. has shown that this practice has continued. Two of the 20 states were Nevada and New York, both of which 

have not authorized their State inspectors to place Mexican carriers out of service. 

Diabetes 

The Teamsters Union believes that some diabetics should be allowed to operate 

in interstate commerce but current law prohibits them from doing so. In fact, current law only allows people who use insulin to operate a Commercial Motor Vehicle 

(CMV) in intrastate commerce on a waiver for a period not to exceed 3 years. Most 

Teamster members don’t operate in intrastate commerce. They operate in interstate 

commerce, and unfortunately many of them have lost their jobs as a result of diabetes, irrespective of the fact that they have a proven driving record and their medical 

condition under control. The FMCSA has proposed an exemption program, but it 

does little to correct the current problem. It would only permit people to participate 

in it if they have participated in an intrastate waiver program for the three years 

immediately preceding their application for an exemption. 

But according to the FMCSA, there are as many as 20 states that do not have 

an intrastate waiver program or severely restrict participation through grandfather 

provisions. Thus, to participate in the program, you have to live in a state that has 

an intrastate waiver program, meet the state’s criteria for participation in the waiver program, work for an employer that has intrastate driving opportunities, and 

work for an employer who is willing to let you drive intrastate for three years. Obviously, the end result is that no one will actually be able to participate in this program. 

The Teamters Union and the American Diabetes Association believe that the 

three-year rule is unnecessary based on the current practice of diabetes, a position 

that FMCSA’s own Expert Medical Panel pushed in both the FMCSA’s July 2000 

report as well as in the Expert Medical Panel’s own additional comments which 

were inserted into the public docket. The Expert Medical Panel recommended a one 

or two month adjustment period, which the Teamsters would support following the 

doctor’s advice and replacing the three-year rule with a one or two month adjustment period. We therefore urge this Committee to express their concern with the 

three-year rule and address this issue in the upcoming TEA–21 reauthorization bill. 

Lack of Roadworthy Chassis 

The Teamsters Union currently represents several hundred port truck drivers and 

has been working to organize all of the approximately 50,000 truck drivers who haul 

intermodal containers in ports located throughout the United States. These truck 

drivers suffer from deplorable wage and working conditions, and while I will not get 

into specifics about the cause of their plight, I do want to focus on the fact that they 

are forced every day to haul containers on unsafe, unroadworthy chassis, perpetVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
46 

uating a motor carrier safety problem that has existed for decades and has been 

largely ignored by the FMCSA. 

Although widely disregarded, these workers play an integral role in United States 

trade. United States’ ports and the shipping industry form the foundation for international trade upon which the vitality of the free market economy depends. International trade experts reported that the global container trade rose from an estimated 83 million containers in 1990 to 198 million in 2000. And despite the economic downturn in 2001, the top 20 U.S. ports still experienced increases in container volume from the previous year. Experts predict that by 2010 at least 90 percent of all freight carried by ocean carriers will be transported by intermodal containers. Consequently, profits for ocean carriers have increased steadily for the past 

three years. 

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for port truck drivers. Port drivers are 

forced to spend an average of 3 hours per day, or 15 hours per week, in ports, all 

unpaid, waiting in various lines to pick up chassis and containers. Because of their 

economic plight and the fear of retaliation and blacklisting, they are forced to choose 

between hauling unsafe chassis or taking their place at the end of a new line, while 

the maintenance and repair shop makes the chassis barely roadworthy. Port drivers 

are forced to choose between hauling overweight containers or receiving no work as 

a result of their refusal. They are also forced to haul improperly labeled containers 

that often contain hazardous materials. Again, if the port driver complains, he or 

she is likely to suffer some form of retaliation. 

To correct this situation and assure that port drivers are given roadworthy chassis from the start, the Teamsters Union has joined with its union brothers on the 

docks, the ILA and ILWU, and the American Trucking Association, whose own 

member trucking companies have seen their safety ratings maligned, through no 

fault of their own, to support legislation that spells out who is responsible for inspection and repair of intermodal chassis and would require that equipment to comply with all commercial motor vehicle safety requirements before it is handed off 

to a port driver or trucking company. Mr. Chairman, motor carriers and drivers 

have been routinely cited and fined for violations of motor carrier safety regulations 

of chassis that they do not have an opportunity to systematically maintain. For the 

most part, rail carriers and foreign-owned steamship lines control the entire maintenance program for all 750,000 chassis under their management. Only those parties 

who control the equipment and have the opportunity and authority to maintain, repair and inspect that intermodal equipment should assume responsibility for the 

safety of that equipment. 

That is what we would propose in new legislation, and we are hopeful that you, 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee will work with us to assure that the 

thousands of chassis with containers that leave the ports every day have been maintained properly, inspected, and repaired if necessary, so that highway safety is not 

compromised by this segment of the trucking industry. 

Toll Collector Safety 

The Teamsters Union also represents hundreds of toll collectors and road crews 

across the United States who clearly work in hazardous conditions. These workers 

are exposed to fast-moving traffic with little or no protection. The DOT has addressed some of the safety issues involving road crews through its existing work 

zone safety program, although it is important to note that the DOT’s SAFETEA bill 

doesn’t seem to reauthorize it. We’re hopeful that was an oversight and that this 

Committee will address it in its TEA–21 reauthorization bill. However, nothing has 

been done to deal with the safety issues that toll collectors must face at toll plazas, 

especially with regard to EZ Pass or Smart Tag programs that have gone into effect. 

While the Teamsters Union is in no way advocating elimination of these programs, 

we are requesting that the Committee include in its TEA–21 reauthorization bill a 

study that examines the inherent dangers of toll and express toll programs to workers and others. 

15 Passenger Vans 

Despite mounting evidence that 15-passenger vans are inherently dangerous 

when driven by an untrained driver, and despite repeated Congressional mandates 

that the DOT take action to ensure that vehicles and their drivers meet Federal 

safety standards, the DOT has yet to issue a final rule requiring the application of 

all Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), including commercial drivers license CDL and drug and alcohol testing regulations, to these unsafe vans. Further, in proposed rules, the DOT has refused to require states to apply similar regulations to vans operating intrastate. 

47 

Compounding this problem is the fact that many school districts across the country are transporting students in these dangerous vehicles, typically driven by an untrained teacher, coach or parent, to school and school-related activities. While Federal law prohibits the sale of these and other vehicles that do not conform to Federal school bus standards, for the purpose of transporting school children, the law 

does not prohibit schools from using the vehicles when they are able to obtain them 

through other means. Schools are taking advantage of this loophole and, in an effort 

to save money, are using 15-passenger vans in lieu of school buses—often with fatal 

results. 

To explain, Section 4008(a) of TEA–21 changed the definition of commercial motor 

vehicle to cover all passenger vehicles that are designed or used to transport more 

than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation. In addition, TEA–21 required that all FMCSRs apply to those commercial motor vehicles, except to the extent that the Secretary of Transportation determines through a rulemaking proceeding, that it is appropriate to exempt such operators of CMVs designed or used 

to transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver) from the application 

of those regulations. 

In response to the changes made in TEA–21, the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) instituted a rulemaking which would have required all CMVs designed or 

used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver) to file a motor 

carrier identification report, mark their CMVs with a U.S. DOT identification number, and maintain an accident register. Under the proposed rule, these commercial 

passenger vans would be exempt from all other FMCSRs. This rulemaking was 

never finalized. 

Congress, in response to DOT’s failure to implement the changes required by 

TEA–21, enacted the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA), 

which, among other things, ordered the DOT to finalize the rulemaking initiated by 

FHWA. In addition, MCSIA stated that ‘‘[i]n no case should the rulemaking exempt 

from such regulations all motor carriers operating commercial vehicles designed or 

used to transport between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver) for compensation.’’ 

Although TEA 21 required the rulemaking to be finalized by December 9, 2000, 

the DOT has yet to finalize the proposed rule in accordance with the requirements 

of TEA–21 and MCSIA. The newly-created FMCSA did initiate a new rulemaking 

on January 11, 2001, which proposes requiring certain CMVs designed to transport 

between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver) that transport those passengers 

for direct compensation, interstate and to destinations beyond a radius of 75 miles 

to comply with the FMCSRs, except for the CDL and drug and alcohol testing regulations. FMCSA has not taken any further action on this proposed rule. At present, 

the FMCSRs apply to commercial motor vehicles designed or used to transport 16 

or more passengers (including the driver). 

Congress should require FMCSA to finalize its rulemaking expeditiously, and 

should require the application of all FMCSRs, including CDL and drug and alcohol 

testing regulations, to commercial passenger vehicles designed or used to transport 

between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver), regardless of the distance traveled. FMCSA should also be required to make the states adopt comparable intrastate standards as a condition of MCSAP participation. 

Hazardous Materials Reauthorization 

Finally, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters is committed to supporting 

legislation that will provide a safe work environment for its members who are involved in the handling and transportation of hazardous materials. As Congress prepares for reauthorization of TEA–21, we anticipate that the Committee may also 

consider reauthorization of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Program, which 

in our view is long overdue. 

Given the limited amount of time at this hearing, we won’t go into detail on our 

priorities for hazmat reauthorization. Rather, we encourage the Committee to hold 

a separate hearing on this important issue. In the interim, we leave you with the 

following: 

• The Teamsters support the existing shared jurisdiction of the Department of 

Transportation and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to ensure safety of all hazmat workers. 

• We urge all employees involved in, or around, the transportation of hazardous 

materials be included within the scope of DOT training requirements to assure 

their familiarization with the safety aspects of the HMR rules. 

• We urge the Committee to maintain and increase funding to non-profit employee organizations to train hazmat employee instructors, and to expand that 

48 

program to allow those instructors to train rank-and-file hazmat employees. We 

also urge the Committee to increase funding for training firefighters and other 

emergency responders. 

• We urge the Committee to reject any proposals to remove placards from hazmat 

shipments. 

• We urge the Committee to retain existing language that requires the Secretary 

of Transportation to coordinate with the Director of the National Institute for 

Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and others to monitor public sector 

emergency response planning and training for accidents/incidents involving hazardous materials. 

• We oppose any special interest exemptions from hazardous materials transportation safety regulations, including any efforts to increase the special permitting 

period above two years. 

With that, I thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I’d be happy 

to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Byrd. 

Ms. Claybrook? 

STATEMENT OF JOAN B. CLAYBROOK, PRESIDENT, 

PUBLIC CITIZEN 

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

I am here testifying today on behalf of Public Citizen, of which 

I am the President, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Parents Against Tired Truckers, and Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety. I’m an efficiency expert testifying for all of them. 

Several years ago, this Subcommittee held hearings on trucksafety programs, and Senator Breaux held up a list of more than 

20 actions mandated by Congress that the agency had ignored. The 

Administrator Clapp, at the time, stated that the agency was preparing a manual on how to do these regulations. Senator Breaux 

admonished the Administrator and told him he should ‘‘hammer 

and break some china’’ to get the attention of the agency staff. 

I’m here to report today that no china has been broken, and not 

much has been scratched. I do hope, however, that Administrator 

Sandberg will carry out the commitment that she’s made to this 

Committee to move these. 

But the agency has long been unresponsive to Congressional 

mandates, and last fall Public Citizen and some other safety groups 

decided to take seriously the Congressional mandates and sued the 

agency on five rules that had never been issued that the Congress 

had mandated. And the agency immediately settled that lawsuit. 

And attached to my full testimony are some specific commands 

that Congress made, and 20 of which are still delinquent. This is 

unacceptable, and we hope that the Committee will exercise great 

oversight over this agency, as a result. 

The annual death toll from truck crashes is equivalent to 26 

major airline crashes a year. They cost $24 billion a year. Trucks 

are over-involved in crashes. And while there’s been a recent reduction in deaths and injuries from truck crashes, a small amount, 

driver deaths in 2002 actually went up 1.2 percent. The Department of Transportation set a goal of 50 percent reduction in deaths 

within 10 years. This was in 1999. That’s what they would have 

to achieve, that yellow line, in order to do that. And, as a result, 

they changed their goal so that instead of having to have a reduction of 50 percent, they recently set a reduction to 1.65 million 

49 

truck miles traveled by 2008, in order to lessen the burden that 

they had originally undertaken. 

The agency has requested a 20 percent increase in their authorization budget for years 2004 to 2009. While our organization supports increased funding for truck safety programs, we’re not sure 

the agency knows how to spend it effectively without strong direction, specified goals, and sustained goading by the Congress. 

Our legislative proposal is extensively outlined in my statement 

that I’m submitting for the record. Without specific provisions requiring the agency to take action, it’s unlikely there will be much 

progress. 

Let me briefly describe the highlights of our proposals. 

First, bigger trucks. Safety groups oppose any increase in truck 

size and weight, any proposal to give individual states the option 

to set weight limits on the national highway system, and any attempt to repeal or thaw the LCV freeze enacted in 1991. This has 

been one of the most successful safety laws ever passed by Congress—and I acknowledge Senator Lautenberg’s important role in 

leading that—and it should be retained. 

Triple trailers and longer doubles are not suited for many U.S. 

highways—I would say New Hampshire is a great example of highways for which they are not suited—and are dangerous in many 

driving circumstances and are hated by the driving public. A recent 

Transportation Research Board report attempting to rationalize 

bigger, heavier trucks is deeply flawed, as I explain in my full 

statement. 

The hours-of-service rule. Current hours-of-service requirements 

are often characterized as sweatshop labor. The new rule by the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, just issued in late 

April, is slave labor. Under the new rule, scheduled to take effect 

shortly, a truck driver, in 4 weeks, could drive as many as 308 

hours. Compare this to the normal 40 hour work week for the majority of Americans, of 160 hours. Overall, the rule increases driving time by over 20 percent and from 10 to 11 hours of continuous 

driving. This increase was adopted despite overwhelming evidence 

that the risk of crash soars between the tenth and eleventh hour 

of driving. And without enforcement, such as a requirement for onboard recorders, a key provision dropped in the final rule, trucking 

companies and shippers will continue to abuse drivers and force 

them to violate even the new rule, with paper records. 

HAZMAT transportation. The agency is lax, even after 9/11. 

There are serious loopholes and regulatory gaps that would facilitate an intentional or unintentional incident. There is a lack of critical coordination between two DOT agencies who share responsibility for MCSA and RSPA, the Research and Special Programs Administration, which registers carriers to haul HAZMAT. For example, a motor carrier wishing to carry HAZMAT need only register 

with RSPA and pay a $300 annual fee. That’s it. It’s a paper action. Neither the carrier, nor RSPA, informed FMCSA about the 

authorization to carry HAZMAT, and RSPA has proposed some 

new standards, but there is no plan for implementation with 

FMCSA as to Mexican and Canadian trucks. 

Before being authorized to carry HAZMAT, a carrier should have 

to pass a safety audit and proficiency exam, and HAZMAT trucks 

50 

should be governed by the Global Positioning System technology to 

permit real-time tracking. In addition, FMCSA has failed to meet 

a congressional directive to require commercial driver’s licenses to 

contain some form of unique identifier, as Congress has twice directed. This in one of the rules challenged in our lawsuit, and they 

will now be issuing this rule. 

FMCSA is derelict in overseeing the safety of trucking companies. Their negligence in monitoring and evaluating the safety fitness of motor carrier companies would never be tolerated in aviation safety, the sister agency of FMCSA. There is no other word but 

‘‘appalling’’ to describe how unsafe motor carrier companies enter 

business, and this agency sits back and does nothing. 

We strongly support a program targeted at new motor carrier entrants—and I note that Ms. Sandberg mentioned some of those— 

and have proposed steps that the agency take to implement the 

program. Only in this way can we address the backlog of unrated 

motor carriers and stop unscrupulous companies from jeopardizing 

the safety of families on our roads. Yet FMCSA continues to initiate experimental pilot programs at the expense of safety, ignoring 

legislative directives, while undertaking costly and questionable 

programs. 

Just this week, it finally conceded to discontinue a proposal the 

agency had initiated for a pilot program to lower the age of interstate truck drivers from 21 to 18—20 drivers who are documented 

to be heavily overinvolved in crashes. 

Defects in the current commercial driver license program permit 

abuses. No training or prior certification of any kind are required 

to obtain a CDL for either truck or bus drivers in interstate commerce, and no CDL is even required of truck drivers of 10,000- to 

26,000-pound trucks. 

FMCSA also recently watered down its rule, disqualifying a CDL 

holder for offenses committed while operating either a commercial 

or noncommercial vehicle, to apply only if the violations resulted in 

suspension or revocation of the license, rather than conviction of 

various offenses. We urge the Congress to clarify the authority 

here. 

Truck crash data collection is inadequate—and I will quickly finish my statement, Mr. Chairman—due to a lack of uniformity. And 

FMCSA and NHTSA were urged, in 1999, in the statute, to improve the collection and uniformity, and it hasn’t happened yet. 

Many truck and bus issues at the Mexican border remain unresolved, most particularly the failure to require adequate safety audits of Mexico-domiciled carriers that operate just within the 20 

mile zone. 

Programs like Share the Road, which is supported by the administration, need to be reformed or terminated. This program is essentially a blame-the-driver program. It essentially says that car 

drivers should stay out of the way of trucks. And that’s called the 

No Zone program. You can’t be on either side or in the rear of a 

truck. I don’t know how you drive on most highways in America 

and obey that rule. This has been subject to two GAO investigations. It’s a waste of taxpayer money. And the only hope is that 

NHTSA, which is involved with car drivers, as opposed to truck 

drivers, would be designed to implement this program. If it fails to 

51 

reduce deaths and injuries, it should be sunset and the funds put 

into more effective programs. 

I doubt, if the airlines were causing crashes and deaths of smallplane operators, the equivalent of trucks to cars, the FAA would 

solve the problem with an education program that shielded the airlines. This is exactly what this program is doing. And the MCSAP 

money should not be used to support it. 

Finally, I’d like to comment on the Truck Advisory Committee, 

which was mentioned. I think that this is, once again, another program that should be—not be recreated. In a prior incarnation, it 

engaged in misbehavior and was eliminated. The Committee is a 

waste of money, because it’s intended, really, just to give trucking 

officials an inside track on the agency’s actions. And even though 

safety is spelled out in the agency statute as its top priority, only 

one safety group is represented, among 20 trucking members or associated—trucking related in the last Committee. 

Mr. Chairman, we will submit, for the record, further comments 

on the specific requirements of the Administration’s proposals and 

suggestions for other matters. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Claybrook follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOAN B. CLAYBROOK, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC CITIZEN, 

ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC CITIZEN, CITIZENS FOR RELIABLE AND SAFE HIGHWAYS

(CRASH), PARENTS AGAINST TIRED TRUCKERS, AND ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND

AUTO SAFETY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee 

on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marines for the opportunity to testify on 

the issue of improved motor carrier safety. My name is Joan Claybrook and I am 

President of Public Citizen and Chair of CRASH (Citizens for Reliable and Safe 

Highways). I am here today representing the truck safety views of Public Citizen 

as well as Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) and the Truck Safety 

Coalition, a partnership of CRASH and P.A.T.T. (Parents Against Tired Truckers). 

Each year, almost 5,000 people are killed in truck-related crashes and about 

130,000 more are injured. These statistics have been essentially steady for nearly 

a decade. The large number of truck-related deaths and injuries also carries an 

enormous personal and financial price tag. According to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), the costs of large truck crashes in 1997 exceeded $24 billion. 

Congress addressed this serious public health problem in 1999 by enacting legislation, the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA), Pub. L.106–159 

(Dec. 9, 1999), creating a new agency, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), with the clear, specific mission to make safety its top priority. 

Despite repeated promises by FMCSA to significantly reduce truck-related deaths 

and injuries on our highways and chart an improved course to enhance motor carrier safety, and despite increases in funding and resources for the new government 

agency, the traveling public remains the victim of an underachieving, and at times, 

indifferent agency. The annual death toll from truck-related crashes is the equivalent of 26 major airplane crashes every year. FMCSA adopted a goal in 1999 to reduce truck deaths and injuries by 50 percent over 10 years. That goal will not be 

achieved. 

More recently, as stated in the U.S. Department of Transportation Performance 

Plan for Fiscal Year 2004, the agency has adopted a new goal of also reducing the 

rate of truck crash fatalities from the baseline of 2.8 deaths per 100 million truck 

miles traveled (MTMT) in 1996 to no more than 1.65 deaths per 100 MTMT in 2008. 

While we regard this as an admirable—and extraordinarily difficult goal—to be 

achieved in only a few years given the most recent rate of 2.4 deaths per 100 

MTMT, there are serious questions about the intent of the Department and the 

FMCSA is choosing this new safety goal. Our concern is the fact that, under the 

right circumstances, given rapid growth in truck mileage accrued on an annual 

basis over the next several years, the rate of truck deaths using this exposure measure could continue to decline, even if only slightly, while the number of actual fataliVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
52 

ties could increase. We believe that the Department and the FMCSA need to reach 

both fatality reduction goals, as well as to make sure that they are compatible, but 

certainly not to abandon the target of dramatically reduced numbers of truck-crash 

related deaths in favor of only a better death rate as the achievement of its safety 

policies. This approach could be used to mask the fact that more people really died 

in a given year than in the prior year even though the rate of deaths was slightly 

better. NHTSA measures and publicizes both qualities. 

No one in Congress, government, industry or the general public would ever accept 

as a reasonable goal 26 air plane crashes a year that are finally cut only in half 

after 10 years and no one would accept excuses from the airlines that the skies are 

safer for passengers who fly because, even though more people died each year, the 

rate of deaths per air mile of travel decreased. The attached chart shows that 

FMCSA has yet to reach any annual benchmarks that would indicate the agency 

has made progress and is on the right course. There have been only marginal decreases in truck deaths in the last three years, the fatality rate is essentially static, 

and there are additional, worrisome increases in truck crash injuries. I want to 

stress that it is especially disturbing that the slight decline in overall deaths in 

truck-related crash involvements has been offset, according to the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s early Fatal Analysis Reporting System assessment, 

by an increase in the fatalities of truck occupants in these collisions from 704 deaths 

in 2001 to a preliminary figure of 712 deaths in 2002, an increase of 1.2 percent. 

Yet FMCSA delays or disregards congressional mandates for long-overdue and 

vital safety rulemakings. Unsafe motor carrier companies and drivers continue to 

violate safety rules and threaten the safety of the traveling public yet are insulated 

from effective Federal oversight by FMCSA’s failures to act. Attached to my testimony is a list of safety actions mandated by Congress since 1988 that FMCSA has 

ignored, delayed or deferred. Public Citizen filed suit against the agency last fall for 

not implementing five rulemaking actions. The agency immediately settled the suit, 

agreeing to act on all of them with final rules by June 2004. However, this list contains over twenty other congressional directives that have not been completed by the 

agency. 

Two years ago, the FMCSA was prepared to give the green light to opening the 

southern border to trucks and buses from Mexico without adequate safety measures 

in place. It took the direct intervention of Congress to mandate common sense actions by the agency such as safety inspections at proper facilities with trained professionals. Meanwhile, some sectors of the trucking industry already are pursuing 

an agenda to increase truck size and weight, to repeal the congressionally-enacted 

freeze on longer combination vehicles, and seek exemptions from Federal safety 

rules under the ruse of so-called ‘‘pilot programs.’’ Moreover, the agency’s failure to 

take concerted action to improve truck safety is at odds with public opinion. The 

American public is very supportive of measures to improve truck safety both in their 

opinions and their pocketbooks. When asked in a Lou Harris public opinion poll in 

1996 about truck safety, 81 percent of the respondents said they would be willing 

to pay more for goods if it meant an increase in truck safety. 

Three and one-half years after bipartisan enactment of the 1999 MCSIA, and 

prior to taking up the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (TEA–21), it is time to review with a critical eye the progress and problems 

related to motor carrier safety to assess what improvements are needed to protect 

public safety. 

Increasing Truck Size and Weight Will Imperil Public Safety 

Safety groups have reviewed the Regulation of Weights, Lengths, and Widths of 

Commercial Motor Vehicles, Special Report No. 267, Transportation Research Board 

(TRB) (2002), the latest effort to rationalize bigger, heavier trucks on American 

roads. Every TRB special report on truck size and weight policy over the past 16 

years has supported changes to increase the weights, lengths, and widths of large 

combination trucks—it appears that TRB has never seen a bigger truck it didn’t 

like. 

I would like to point out here to the members of the Committee that no explicit 

truck safety experts who are known to oppose increased truck sizes and weights 

were part of the TRB eight-person committee membership producing the Special Report. Also, of the eight outside reviewers, we know that at least four are all supportive of larger, heavier trucks. Although Advocates, CRASH, and other truck safety organizations have expertise and knowledge about truck size and weight safety 

issues and policy, none was invited to sit on the Committee or to perform an outside 

review of the draft of the Special Report. 

On the merits, the Special Report is seriously flawed in several major respects. 

The TRB Special Report states that there is no confirming information that the 

53 

1The evidence of chronic overweight violations, including violations by large trucks of the 

lower posted weight limits on many thousands of U.S. bridges, is well-known. However, official 

Federal government acknowledgement and documentation of these overweight violations ceased 

with the last report on state compliance with its Federal and state weight limits in March 1991. 

Overweight Vehicles—Penalties and Permits: An inventory of State Practices for Fiscal Year 

1989, FHWA–MC–91–003. Following issuance of this report, former Secretary Rodney Slater 

suspended preparation and transmission of these reports. Although annual reports to Congress 

are required on state certifications of compliance with Federal and state motor vehicle weight 

limits, no reports have been sent to Congress for 12 years. See Section 123, Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978, P.L. 95–599 (Nov. 6, 1978). 

larger, heavier truck configurations that it champions are actually safer, would inflict less damage on highways and bridges, or would even ultimately result in fewer 

heavier and larger trucks on U.S. roads. Although the TRB Special Report supports 

two specific configurations as the larger, heavier commercial vehicles of choice for 

widespread use—a 90,000 pounds or heavier tridem axle-based six-axle semi-trailer 

combination truck and a 111,000 pounds eight-axle tridem axle-based ‘‘B Train’’ 

doubles combination composed of twin 33-feet long trailing units—there are no specific arguments anywhere in the study detailing exactly why these configurations 

are better than the others reviewed in the report. In fact, the Special Report clearly 

cannot demonstrate any superior safety benefits of its two favored combination 

truck configurations. Also, the TRB Special Report effectively undermines any possible rationale for supporting these combinations by pointing out that virtually nothing is known about the relationship between specific design configurations, crash 

risk, and truck handling and stability for these larger trucks. 

With regard to the increased cost of operating heavier trucks, the Special Report 

argues that the infrastructure and externality costs that increase as a result of allowing larger and heavier trucks should be fully recaptured through adjustments in 

user fee equity scales, but, at the same time, the TRB committee indicates that recovery of only the costs of administering a permit system and of infrastructure damage is acceptable. The Special Report fails to acknowledge the reality that user fee 

equity has escaped policymakers for over 40 years, that the current Federal user 

fee for heavy vehicles has been capped at $550 per vehicle for 20 years, that the 

heaviest class of registered trucks dramatically underpays its fair share of user 

costs, and that the trucking industry has consistently and successfully opposed increases in user fees to offset the actual damage caused by large trucks. 

The Special Report also engages the chronic issue of illegally overweight trucks 

yet fails to acknowledge how pervasive and entrenched these violations are, and the 

extent to which, under current state enforcement regimes, the continuation of these 

violations by major sectors of the trucking industry are a large part of the profitability of these enterprises. Amazingly, the FMCSA has not complied with the law 

and issued the annual report on certification of size and weight compliance since 

1988.1

Finally, the TRB Special Report recommends a scheme for administering truck 

size and weight issues that is deeply flawed and would be dominated by interests 

supporting larger, heavier trucks regardless of the costs or safety consequences. The 

TRB Special Report recommends eliminating direct Congressional involvement in 

establishing nationally uniform size and weight limits, and the establishment of a 

new bureaucracy, the Commercial Traffic Effects Institute, to evaluate requests by 

states and the trucking industry for a variety of larger and heavier truck configurations. Funded by a mixture of highway trust fund and trucking industry monies, the 

Institute, the states, and the trucking industry would jointly develop standards implemented by the states to improve the safety of vehicles operating under the permit 

system. 

The effect of the TRB committee’s proposals would turn back the clock to a pre1956 era of control by the states of interstate commercial transportation, and the 

elimination of a meaningful Congressional role in establishing and guaranteeing the 

Federal interest in national size and weight limits. This is a recommendation for 

a fragmented state-by-state regime of truck size and weight limits susceptible to inordinate influence and manipulation by trucking industry interests and lobbying efforts. It essentially privatizes responsibility for public safety. 

These brief observations do not exhaust the full extent of the defects in this study. 

As an indication of the scientific weakness of the study, the Special Report recommends that trucks found after protracted operational experience to have shortcomings, including safety deficiencies, be withdrawn from service. This recommendation, however, is a further indication of the lack of credibility of the Special Report since no known truck configuration placed into service has ever been 

withdrawn from use, including some of the most unstable combinations, such as triple-trailer combinations composed of three short trailing units on single axles. CurVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
54 

2The 16 states are: Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nevada, Utah, 

Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, and Alaska. 

rently, 16 states allow triples and no state that has allowed their operation has 

banned them.2

Safety groups are also concerned about possible attempts to void the Longer Combination Vehicle (LCV) freeze that was enacted in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). This was a hard-won victory that stopped the 

spread of giant triple-trailer rigs and other immense, extra-heavy vehicles throughout the U.S., trucks that would surely have had catastrophic crashes resulting in 

loss of life and massive congestion, especially in regions of the U.S. that have denser 

traffic and older road designs. The LCV freeze also stopped the accelerated destruction of our roads and bridges at a rate that no Federal funding provisions in authorizing legislation could have kept pace with. 

The ISTEA LCV freeze was a bold, courageous move by Congress to limit the excesses of highway truck size. It saved lives and it helped to preserve our highways 

and bridges. It was a good idea 11 years ago, and it is a good idea today. At a time 

when there is little progress in decreasing truck crash deaths and injuries, we urge 

Congress not to increase truck size and weights, or to repeal or weaken the LCV 

freeze. 

The public remains steadfast in its opposition to bigger, heavier, and larger trucks 

as evidenced in Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety’s public opinion poll conducted by Lou Harris in 1996. By 88 percent to 7 percent, a majority of the American public is opposed to allowing bigger and heavier trucks on our highways. 

Recommended Actions: 

Oppose any increase in Federal truck size and weights on a national level and 

oppose legislation allowing any individual state exemptions. 

Oppose repeal of the congressionally mandated freeze on longer combination vehicles enacted by Congress in 1991. 

Many Truck and Bus Safety Issues at the Southern U.S. Border Are Still 

Unresolved 

The safety of vehicles entering the U.S. presents special difficulties from the 

standpoint of both operating safety and security. Although some progress may have 

been made on issues that Congress directed DOT to address, other important safety 

concerns remain unresolved. 

Several safety organizations called on FMCSA to require border-zone-only safety 

audits as a condition for Mexico-domiciled carriers to operate in the commercial 

zones. The agency rejected this recommendation in its March 19, 2002, final rule. 

This means that operating authority for Mexico-domiciled border-zone-only carriers 

will be awarded solely on the basis of paper applications, including certifications 

that are not independently corroborated, and on unverified documents submitted 

with the applications, such as the previous 12-month accident registers and the 

names of allegedly certified laboratories for testing drivers for alcohol and drug use. 

Two years ago, Congress rejected this approach to screening Mexico-domiciled carriers seeking to operate throughout the U.S. For both safety and security reasons, 

border zone Mexican motor carriers should also undergo a more rigorous evaluation. 

In addition, although FMCSA asserts that it will evaluate written safety oversight 

policies and practices used by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers, the agency does not 

actually require that any safety management controls used by a company to comply 

with U.S. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and the Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (HMRs) be in writing. Mexico-domiciled carriers should be required to have written safety management criteria representing how their companies will operate to comply with U.S. requirements. This is particularly important 

if the agency continues to refuse to require a threshold safety proficiency examination of motor carriers. 

The Administration has repeatedly stated and testified before Congress that all 

Mexican trucks and buses that enter the U.S. and operate on American roads must 

meet U.S. safety standards. Unfortunately, most Mexican trucks and buses were not 

built to U.S. standards. DOT, however, intends to turn a blind eye to this problem 

for two more years. 

Federal law requires that all vehicles, including those operated in the U.S. by foreign nationals to conduct trade, must be certified by the manufacturer as built in 

compliance with U.S. safety standards. Certification of compliance with the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable at the time of manufacture is 

not just a mere technicality, but an important safety protection. A number of major 

safety regulations have been adopted and implemented by the National Highway 

55 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) since the late 1980s such as anti-lock brakes 

for trucks and buses, automatic brake (slack) adjusters, a requirement for rear 

underride guards, and, among other things, safer emergency exits for buses. 

According to unverified information from Mexican vehicle manufacturers, an unspecified portion of the trucks and buses built in Mexico since 1994 meet U.S. standards. However, even the vehicles built to U.S. standards were not certified as such 

by the manufacturers. Thus, less (possibly far less) than one-third of the Mexican 

trucks and buses currently operating on Mexico’s Federal roads were built to U.S. 

standards, and DOT does not know how many or which trucks and buses were, in 

fact, built to U.S. safety standards. Moreover, Mexico did not have any vehicle safety standards until recently, or any requirement that manufacturers certify compliance with any vehicle safety standards. Thus, for Mexican-built trucks and buses, 

there are no labels or certification verifying compliance with U.S. standards. Canada 

has its own certification requirement, but this is to Canadian, not U.S., safety 

standards. While Canada’s standards for new vehicles are similar to U.S. standards 

in many respects, they are not identical. Even those Canadian standards that mimic 

U.S. standards may have been adopted years after they were required in U.S. safety 

standards. 

The FMCSA has proposed a two-year ‘‘grace period’’ for these vehicles. The agency 

intends to grant blanket permission to vehicles that have previously crossed the border to continue operating in the U.S. for another two years, regardless of whether 

they were or could be certified as having been built in compliance with U.S. safety 

standards. This means that unsafe vehicles that previously entered the U.S. in violation of U.S. law, or that begin to enter the U.S. prior to the issuance of the final 

rule, will be able to do so for another two years. The FMCSA is prepared to adopt 

this final rule even though it has no authority to rewrite the safety certification 

laws passed by Congress. 

In addition, there is no system to verify that Mexico-domiciled carriers entering 

the country are properly insured by a U.S.-licensed insurer in order to protect 

against liability for personal injuries and the costs of crash and environmental 

clean-up in the event of a hazmat spill. 

Finally, DOT has no effective plan to assure that Mexican-domiciled carriers adhere to U.S. hours-of-service (HOS) regulations when they enter the U.S. Although 

Mexican drivers may have been behind the wheel 8, 10, or even more hours when 

arriving at the border, FMCSA has no practical means of determining at the border 

whether these drivers have violated Mexican labor regulation restrictions on working time. At the very least, drivers arriving at the U.S. border who already meet 

or exceed the HOS 10-hour duty limit should be placed out-of-service for the required 8 hours off-duty time period. These sleep-deprived, fatigued drivers are a 

threat both to their own safety as well as to everyone that shares U.S. roads with 

them. This is another reason why electronic on-board recorders should be required 

on all trucks and buses operating in the U.S. 

Recommended Actions: 

To ensure improved motor carrier safety at the U.S.-Mexico border Section 350 

of S. 2808 (Rept. No. 107–224), Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations Legislation for 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, should be made a permanent provision 

in the FMCSA multi-year reauthorization legislation with other changes to improve safety. 

Require each truck transporting general freight or hazardous materials, and 

each bus or motor coach transporting passengers in the U.S. domiciled in other 

countries must undergo a full CVSA Level One inspection at U.S. borders every 

90 days and every truck transporting hazardous materials shall undergo a full 

CVSA Level Six inspection every 90 days. 

The FMCSA Final Rule to Increase both Consecutive and Weekly Driving 

Hours for Truck Drivers Is A Major Threat to Highway Safety. 

According to studies by the DOT, the National Transportation Safety Board and 

other research organizations, one of the leading causes of truck crashes is truck 

driver fatigue. In 2000, the FMCSA proposed amending the Federal rule on truck 

and bus driver hours-of-service (HOS). In that proposal the agency was willing to 

trade off necessary improvements in the Federal HOS regime against increasing 

driving time and shortcutting the amount of rest and recovery a commercial truck 

or bus driver needs after a tour of duty. Those proposed changes are unsafe for both 

commercial drivers and the public. 

However, safety groups strongly supported several of the basic concepts and elements of the proposed HOS rule. FMCSA properly acknowledged the crucial role of 

adequate driver rest and recovery of peak safety performance and alertness as cruVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
56 

cial in avoiding operator sleep deprivation and reduced vigilance. When commercial 

drivers are exhausted from excessive daily and weekly work hours and get inadequate rest, the risk of crashes that result in deaths and injuries substantially and 

predictably increases, a fact that the FMCSA acknowledged in the proposed rule. 

Large truck and bus crashes are especially lethal highway events because commercial vehicles are much more likely to involve passenger cars and other light vehicles 

in which the chances of severe injury or death to their occupants are dramatically 

increased. In fact, 98 percent of the people killed in two-vehicle crashes involving 

passenger vehicles and trucks are the occupants of the passenger vehicles and, as 

the General Accounting Office recently stressed in its report on the Share the Road 

Safely program conducted by the FMCSA, which I will discuss later in my testimony, when passenger vehicles and big trucks collide, the occupants of the small 

vehicles have more than 15 times the risk of dying as compared with the truck occupants. 

Commendably, FMCSA based its proposal on the adoption of a circadian, that is, 

a 24-hour work/rest shift cycle which an enormous body of research over many years 

has unerringly shown is necessary for ensuring adequate opportunity to gain sufficient recovery from long work hours. This is in contrast to the seriously fatiguing 

and dangerous effects of the rules (being changed by FMCSA as new rule) that permit drivers to drive and rest on an unnatural 18-hour cycle. The FMCSA for the 

most part also proposed a longer daily off-duty rest period than required under the 

current rule—which demands only a minimum of eight hours off-duty—and the 

agency insisted that this off-duty period be free from interruption by dispatchers 

and brokers. The agency also tried to provide for additional rest breaks during the 

day, although its effort is flawed in a number of ways, and it proposed that layover 

or ‘‘weekend’’ off-duty rest time shall take place over two successive nights. FMCSA 

also prohibited split rest time for solo drivers. Finally, the agency proposed to mandate on-board automated recordation (electronic on-board recorders or EOBRs) of 

driving duty time for two classes of commercial operators, an action Public Citizen, 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and other major safety organizations have 

urged and supported for many years. These reforms are necessary, well-supported 

by research findings, and are essential parts of any revision of the current regulations. 

The good, however, got thrown out in favor of the bad in the recent final rule 

issued by the agency in late April of this year. A circadian, daily work schedule is 

gone in favor of allowing drivers to alternate driving and sleep on a 21-hour rotation. Drivers can operate their rigs for an additional consecutive hour before resting, 

an addition of one hour to the old rule’s maximum of 10 hours. This was adopted 

despite overwhelming evidence in the research and the rulemaking record that the 

risk of a crash soars in these late hours of driving before a rest break, especially 

from the end of the 10th to the end of the 11th hour of driving. 

But perhaps an even more disturbing feature of the new rule is the FMCSA ‘‘restart’’ provision that will dramatically increase the total hours that a driver can operate his rig on either a 7-or an 8-day duty cycle. Under the old rule, if a driver 

constantly alternated driving and rest on a 10-hours-on, 8-hours-off schedule, that 

driver could exhaust the available maximum permitted driving and duty hours per 

7 or 8 days in as little as 4.5 to 5 days. Although that noncircadian rotation was 

exceptionally dangerous and exhausting, putting chronically sleep-deprived drivers 

behind the wheel for several days in a row, at least the old rule required ‘‘dead’’ 

time for the remainder of the 7 or 8 day tour of duty. Drivers had as much as 3 

days of layover time to recuperate before being forced to drive this kind of horrific 

work schedule again. You might say that, in a sense, the old rule provided for a 

kind of ‘‘weekend’’ for drivers. 

Under the new rule, that layover that could have been taken each week is gone. 

Truck drivers can now be forced to get back into their cabs and start 11 consecutive 

hours immediately after just a 34-hour off-duty period, an amount of off-duty time 

that research used by the agency itself shows is completely inadequate to restore 

driver alertness and safe performance after several days of long driving time. 

This is the ‘‘restart’’ provision that radically alters the landscape of commercial 

driver hours of service in America by creating what has been called a ‘‘floating’’ 

work week, that is, a week with no fixed number of work days and driving hours. 

Whereas these drivers used to be held to a maximum of 60 hours of total driving 

time in 7 days, or 70 hours total in 8 days, under the new rule, if milked for its 

maximum potential, these same drivers can be compelled to drive up to 77 hours 

in 7days or 88 hours in 8 days, increases of up to 23 percent more time spent behind 

the wheel than formerly permitted. 

Other admirable aspects of the proposed rule were also jettisoned in the agency’s 

quest for more hours, more work, more productivity wrung out of commercial drivVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
57 

ers already operating under the old rules to the point of exhaustion and fatigue-triggered crashes. Under the 2000 proposal, solo drivers were no longer allowed to be 

contacted by carrier dispatchers, or other officials in the supply chain such as shippers, brokers, and freight consignees during their off-duty rest period. Drivers also 

had their off-duty rest period protected under the 2000 proposal. Split rest periods 

in sleeper berths, which the agency’s own research review showed to be a major 

source of reduced length and quality of sleep for commercial drivers, were prohibited—drivers had to take their daily off-duty sleep in a single, unbroken block if 

they used a sleeper berth. 

Under the new rule issued in April, drivers again can be constantly harassed by 

officials in the supply chain to stay awake on stand-by for notification that a load 

is ready for them to pick up or that a delivery time or destination has been changed. 

Drivers can be repeatedly awakened to be told that their schedule has changed and 

that they have to start driving sooner. And that same driver can now go back to 

the practice of splitting off-duty rest time in sleeper berths into two small portions 

with hours of driving time between the two attempts to get some sleep. 

In its essence, Mr. Chairman, the FMCSA has issued a final rule that works truck 

drivers much harder than ever, allows the trucking industry to demand more work 

than ever from them, permits carriers to give them little more than 24 hours to 

begin driving another 77 or 88 hours in a tour of duty, allows trucking officials to 

wake them up over and over, and forces them under many operating circumstances 

to split up their rest time into pieces while being demanded to make deliveries sooner and faster than ever before. 

Yet I have not stressed the most amazing feature of this final rule—it claims that 

it will benefit safety more than the old rule! Although it is hard to believe even 

while reading it, the final rule demanding far more hours from truck drivers and 

allowing them less rest than ever before claims that these changes are cost beneficial and will actually save lives on our highways. Even though these drivers will 

have far more exposure on the road in a tour of duty than ever allowed before by 

the Federal government—more hours accumulated in a shorter period of time—and 

less time to rest than possible under the old regulation, the FMCSA actually goes 

through an arcane exercise in benefit-cost analysis to show how safety will be improved by longer consecutive driving hours, far more hours driven per week, while 

returning to the status quo ante of split sleeper berth rest time with drivers suffering repeated interruptions during their off-duty rest periods. 

It is not too strong to characterize this claim of improved safety as simply Orwellian. It is as if the government eliminated labor law protection of coal miners and 

provided a mathematics of costs and benefits that showed that miners working 

longer hours per day and per week, with less rest time, and forced to begin work 

at the drop of a hat when the management of the mines demands it, are safer and 

healthier than ever before. I think many members of Congress would regard such 

a claim as mind boggling and defying all logic. Yet this is exactly what the FMCSA 

has had the temerity to argue in issuing the final rule dramatically increasing driving hours for truck drivers. 

The last major feature of the final rule increasing commercial driver work hours 

is the elimination of the 2000 proposed rule to require on-board recorders, or 

EOBRs, on long-haul trucks to clock the amount of time drivers actually spend behind the wheel. As the University of Michigan showed a few years ago, corroborated 

by the FMCSA’s own regulatory analysis, violation of the regulatory ceilings on 

hours worked and driven, and of minimum rest time, is a chronic practice in the 

trucking industry that has gone on for decades and that has increased with the 

growth of Just In Time delivery demands that have turned truck trailers into rolling 

warehouses. In fact, there are trucking companies that stay in business because 

they run illegal hours and do not get caught. 

The FMCSA proposed in 2000 to put an end to this abusive practice of violating 

even the generous limits of the old rule by requiring tamperproof electronic recorders to validate driving time. This would have aligned the U.S. with European Economic Commission policy which, as of next year, will require a change from the old 

mechanical tachographs that have been required for years to new tamperproof, electronic recorders that will be more reliable and accurate to ensure that drivers don’t 

exceed maximum daily and weekly driving limits. 

This proposal to control excessive driving hours with EOBRs is discarded in the 

final HOS rule. The FMCSA, in a startling turnaround, states that it in fact didn’t 

get around to reviewing the merits of any of the recorders that it proposed certifying 

as compliant with the EOBR provision in the 2000 notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Accordingly, the agency states that it needs to study the issue some more because 

it didn’t do what it was supposed to do. No specifics are provided on how this research would be conducted, who would perform it, what its goals would be, when 

58 

it would be completed, and how precisely it would be brought into play with respect 

to the contours of the final regulation just issued. A large percentage of the industry, cutting across all types of highway transportation including passengers, general 

freight and hazardous materials regularly use various types of electronic on-board 

recorders to monitor both vehicle functions and driver hours-of-service compliance. 

In the meantime, the agency will fall back to relying on the paper logbooks that 

have been maintained for decades, logbooks that are widely and systematically falsified by trucking officials and drivers, a hand-written record of duty time that is 

regularly referred to as the ‘‘comic book’’ by drivers who know how to mask violations and conceal or lose documentation, such as receipts for tolls, lodging, food, and 

fuel, creating a paper trail that would show regulatory violations. 

So, next year the American people and truck drivers face on our highways a new 

regulation forcing drivers to work and drive even longer hours than ever before, allowed to have little rest and effectively no layover before being required to drive 

again, and to continue to exceed even the excessive limits on driving time allowed 

under the new rule without any accurate means adopted by our government to show 

whether these drivers are obeying the law. 

This regulation is an affront to a modern democratic society’s vision of protecting 

the safety, health, and well being of our workers and a direct threat to the safety 

of the millions of people who share the road every hour of every day with large 

trucks. This new rule is a formula for more truck crashes, more deaths, and more 

injuries instead of a well-reasoned effort to enhance highway safety and increase 

safe commercial trucking practices. 

Let me stress here again in closing this portion of my testimony that this new 

regulation directly contradicts the policies that are evolving in the western world 

about commercial driving. The European Union (EU) is set to advance highway safety and protect drivers by reducing the current driving hours ceiling from 56 to 48 

hours, with a general limit of nine (9) hours of driving each day, and off-duty time 

averaging 11 consecutive hours per day. The research supporting such reductions 

in working time and increasing rest time is overwhelming and the product of decades of investigation. But our government has ignored this research, disregarded 

the safety policies of several European nations, and moved exactly in the contrary 

direction to mount an increased threat to the health and safety of the American people. 

Recommended Action: 

Direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct rulemaking and issue a final 

regulation requiring on-board recorders no later than September 30, 2005. 

The New Motor Carrier Entrant Program Needs to Be Strengthened and 

Better Focused 

An example of FMCSA’s regulatory inaction is Section 210 of the MCSIA, which 

was intended to improve the agency’s safety oversight in approving the operating 

authority applications of new motor carrier entrants, both foreign and domestic. The 

Secretary of Transportation was directed to issue regulations requiring each owner 

and operator granted new operating authority to undergo a safety review within the 

first 18 months after beginning motor carrier operations. The Secretary was also directed in that same provision to initiate minimum requirements for applicant motor 

carriers, including foreign motor carriers, to ensure their knowledge of Federal safety standards, and to consider requiring a safety proficiency examination for any 

motor carrier applying for interstate operating authority. 

The FMCSA took no action until Congress reiterated the need for this rulemaking 

in H.R. 2299, the Department of Transportation Appropriations bill of FY 2002. 

Only then—and belatedly—did FMCSA respond by issuing an interim final rule 

without prior notice and comment, rather than issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, which would have allowed public comment on the merits prior to adoption. 

67 FR 31978 (May 13, 2002). 

Unfortunately, the agency has seen fit to allow domestic carriers to be awarded 

operating authority without undergoing any initial safety evaluation, just as it has 

decided to allow border-zone-only Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to be registered 

without a prior safety audit. A safety audit for U.S. carriers under the interim final 

rule issued by the FMCSA will only be performed after-the-fact, up to 18 months 

after the U.S. business is given operating authority. The FMCSA actually notes in 

the interim final rule that it might not even meet the 18-month statutory deadline 

for conducting safety audits, thereby providing itself with a loophole for not meeting 

its statutory obligation, in direct contradiction of the express legislative intent of 

Section 210. I should emphasize that the safety evaluation will not be a comprehensive compliance review that results in a safety rating. As a result, the new entrant 

59 

approval process put into effect by FMCSA will still allow domestic motor carriers 

to operate indefinitely without any assigned safety rating! 

The FMCSA should be directed to revise this policy to ensure that a new entrant 

motor carrier is not allowed to begin operations without either demonstration of its 

safety knowledge or its safety management competence. The agency should revise 

its interim final rule to require either a threshold safety proficiency examination of 

the applicant motor carrier, in accordance with the Congressional direction in Section 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, or to conduct a safety management review of the new entrant, including an inspection of its equipment 

and an evaluation of its safety management practices and competence. Without this 

initial safety evaluation of new applicant motor carriers, the agency essentially is 

allowing untested companies to begin hauling freight, transporting hazardous materials, and carrying passengers based only on a brief paper application that is accompanied by a fee paid by the applicant. 

Two years ago, Congress required both an initial and a subsequent on-site safety 

evaluation of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to ensure that they have adopted adequate safety practices before they are allowed to operate on U.S. roads. Safety 

groups believe that Congress should also require a similar on-site safety evaluation 

of domestic carriers, or that these applicants demonstrate successful performance on 

a safety proficiency examination, as the basis for awarding conditional operating authority. A grant of permanent operating authority should be made based on an 

‘‘exit’’ safety evaluation after the first 18 months of operation, including a review 

on site of safety equipment and an evaluation of safety management practices. However, it is not wise or responsible to allow these carriers to be awarded permanent 

operating authority without ever receiving a full safety compliance review and an 

assigned safety rating. 

I want to list here our recommendations for reforming the new entrant program 

to make it a better fail-safe test of the capability of new motor carriers to conduct 

operations and to avoid creating an even bigger backlog of unrated carriers—currently almost 450,000 are unrated—and of the many thousands of carriers bearing 

older, unrenewed ratings. We also think that the task of the agency immediately 

being expected to rate upwards of 40,000 new entrant applicants each year is an 

overwhelming task that needs to be spread out over several years before it operates 

at full throttle. I also want to stress that a strengthened new entrant program can 

eliminate many carriers whose safety practices and knowledge of how to comply 

with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations are inadequate. If we can weed 

out the bad actors early in their operating histories, not only will safety improve, 

but also unsafe carriers will be prevented from swelling the rolls of the registered 

interstate companies carrying freight and passengers for a few months only to go 

quickly out of business. 

Recommended Actions: 

Congress should direct FMCSA to establish a 5-year phase-in for evaluating new 

motor carrier entrants with a protocol for identifying high-risk carriers that 

would most strongly benefit from an initial safety evaluation. 

The FMCSA should be directed to conduct an ‘‘exit’’ safety evaluation of each 

new motor carrier after 18 months of operation. If a carrier fails this evaluation, 

a full safety compliance review should be triggered that results in an assigned 

safety rating. 

Truck Crash Data Collection is Inadequate and Inaccurate Due to a Lack 

of Uniformity 

Section 225 of the MCSIA calls on the Secretary through the joint efforts of the 

FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to cooperate with the states to improve collection and analysis of crash data involving 

commercial motor vehicles. However, there has been no action to require a nationally uniform crash data report form to be filled out by enforcement authorities so 

that a detailed, accurate national database of crash information on trucks and buses 

can be relied upon by both agencies to determine safety policies, including countermeasures and the accuracy of data entries to SafeStat to detect high-risk motor carriers in relation to their safety performance under the new entrant program, among 

other uses. 

Recommended Actions: 

Congress should direct the Secretary to conduct rulemaking in cooperation with 

NHTSA to adopt a nationally uniform crash data collection format that all 

states are required to use in order to increase the accuracy and reliability of data 

concerning crashes and other incidents involving commercial motor vehicles. 

60 

Congress should direct the Secretary to conduct rulemaking to consider changes 

to improve the SafeStat system itself, including, among other things, the use of 

exposure measures, such as vehicle-miles-traveled, in calculating the safety scores 

of carriers with regard to acute and critical violations. 

FMCSA Pursues Experimental ‘‘Pilot Programs’’ At The Expense of Safety 

Another example of how FMCSA defers Congressional directives and violates legislated deadlines for action is its pursuit of so-called ‘‘pilot programs.’’ The agency 

has offered a series of pilot programs over the last several years and continues to 

publish new initiatives even while ignoring legislatively mandated pilot programs, 

such as the Improved Flow of Driver History pilot study required by Section 4022 

of TEA–21. Moreover, the agency offers one pilot program after another without 

having concluded rulemaking, as directed by Section 4007 of TEA–21, to adopt the 

procedures for regulatory exemptions from the FMCSRs. No final rule setting out 

these procedures has been issued and the agency’s most recent semi-annual regulatory agenda has again pushed back the deadline for final action to March 2003. 

67 FR 33487–33488 (May 13, 2002). But no action has been taken while action 

under the deadline is now three months overdue. 

The FMCSA has proposed a pilot program to lower the age for interstate drivers 

of big trucks and motor coaches from the current minimum age of 21, to only 18– 

20 years old. This action was taken in response to a petition from an interstate 

motor carrier interest group that has argued for years that there are not enough 

commercial drivers to fill jobs driving large trucks and, so, the only solution is to 

start getting truck drivers even younger than 21. At one time, the minimum age 

for an interstate commercial driver was 25 years old. 

In comments opposing the 18–20 years old pilot program, major safety organizations systematically set out the research results, some of them produced by DOT 

itself, that consistently have shown for more than 30 years that teenage drivers in 

any vehicles have dramatically elevated crash involvement and traffic violation 

rates. These organizations detailed the research showing that current young truck 

drivers 21–25 years of age are badly over-represented in traffic violation convictions 

and in crash involvement rates. Also, they pointed out that every credible study for 

decades on the value of driver training has shown that even intensive driver training of young drivers makes little difference to their eventual crash involvement and 

violations rates. 

The FMCSA Pilot Program for younger drivers comes at a time when States, at 

the urging of DOT and safety groups, are enacting graduated driver license systems 

in order to reduce the exposure of teenage drivers to the risks of operating passenger motor vehicles when they are very young. Putting teenage drivers behind the 

wheel of an 80,000-pound big rig or a 55-passenger interstate motor coach is a regressive move and a recipe for potential catastrophes. 

The FMCSA has increasingly attempted to regulate through pilot programs, exemptions, and waivers over the last several years instead of fulfilling Congressionally mandated rulemaking requirements and meeting legislated deadlines. The 

agency expends resources on these experimental efforts instead of completing its 

enormous backlog of unmet regulatory actions—a backlog that the DOT officials in 

1999 fervently promised would be dealt with expeditiously. Congress relied on those 

representations in establishing an upgraded and separate Federal motor carrier 

safety agency. 

Recommended Actions: 

Congress should eliminate the use of pilot programs, waivers and exemptions by 

FMCSA unless specifically directed by Congress. 

Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Oversight Is Dangerously 

Inadequate 

The events of September 11, 2001 have pointed to another area requiring Congressional attention where safety and security are intertwined. This is the highway 

transportation of hazardous materials (hazmat). Safety groups are convinced that 

there are a number of aspects of hazmat transportation that can be readily addressed to make significant improvements in safety and security. 

At present, motor carriers that want to transport hazmat need only register with 

the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), pay the required fee 

(currently $300 per year), and begin to haul hazardous materials throughout the 

U.S. There is no requirement for a motor carrier, once it has secured general (nonhazmat) operating authority from the FMCSA, to go back to that agency and notify 

it that it has begun hauling hazmat. RSPA does not inform the FMCSA of the carriers that register to haul hazmat, and the FMCSA does not ask RSPA for hazmat 

61 

registration information. This lack of coordination and cooperation between the 

FMCSA and RSPA is ridiculous and creates opportunities for abuses. 

No motor carrier seeking to start hauling hazmat should be able to make this 

kind of major shift in its transportation services without the FMCSA knowing about 

it. A motor carrier should not only be required to notify the FMCSA immediately 

that it is beginning to haul hazmat by having to register with RSPA, but each carrier should have to apply to the FMCSA for additional operating authority for 

hazmat carriage. This application should include a safety audit of the motor carrier’s operations and a proficiency exam specifically for the purpose of testing the 

carrier’s knowledge of and capability to comply with the Federal hazmat regulations. 

In addition to operating authority, there is insufficient evidence of RSPA and 

FMCSA constantly coordinating hazmat regulation for motor carriers. RSPA has 

proposed requiring written security plans and expanded training for all motor carriers, both foreign and domestic, that apply to haul hazmat and Centers for Disease 

Control infectious disease selected agents (IDSA) in the U.S. This proposed requirement for training employees in hazmat/IDSA safety knowledge and safety measures 

would also affect all carriers entering the U.S. Aside from the fact that RSPA does 

not contemplate directly supervising the implementation of these requirements to 

ensure they are carried out in an effective manner, the two agencies do not have 

a joint plan for the effective implementation of this proposal with respect to Mexicodomiciled or, for that matter, Canadian-domiciled motor carriers. Neither has 

FMCSA announced how it intends to verify that the requirements are met by foreign-domiciled motor carriers entering the U.S. If this regulation is adopted by 

RSPA, it is crucial that the agencies determine how it will be implemented for foreign-domiciled motor carriers and how the two agencies will be able to determine 

that compliance by companies hauling hazmat/IDSA has been achieved. We recommend that Congress inquire of the two agencies how they contemplate implementing this RSPA rule and what coordinated actions will be taken to achieve compliance especially by foreign motor carriers. 

Truck drivers, after obtaining a hazmat endorsement for the commercial drivers’ 

license (CDL) by merely passing a written exam, can legally drive tractor semi-trailers carrying 80,000 pounds of placarded hazmat throughout the U.S. This underscores the crucial need for a secure and reliable identification of hazmat drivers to 

prevent dangerous and unauthorized persons from transporting hazmat. The Truck 

and Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1988 directed the Secretary to issue regulations 

by December 31, 1990, establishing minimum uniform standards for a biometric 

identification system to ensure the accurate identification of drivers. DOT took no 

regulatory action in response to this mandate. As a result, in 1998 Congress directed that CDLs contain some form of unique identifier after January 1, 2001, to 

minimize fraud and illegal duplication. Once again, there has been no action on this 

issue. As a result, Public Citizen, CRASH, and P.A.T.T. sued FMCSA on this and 

four other rules on which no action had been taken for unreasonable delay. FMCSA 

settled the lawsuit agreeing to specific deadlines for action on each of these rules. 

For hazmat minimum standards for drivers, the agency agreed to issue the rule by 

March 30, 2004. Failure to meet this deadline allows the court to hold the agency 

in contempt. In light of changed circumstances concerning the safety transport of 

hazmat transported across the U.S., Congress should direct the Secretary to accelerate the development of a unique identifier, at least for commercial drivers with 

hazmat endorsements. This biometric or other unique security identification would 

dovetail with the background criminal and driving record checks for hazmat licensure and endorsements that soon will come into play as a result of Section 1012 of 

the USA PATRIOT Act, Title X, Pub. L. 107–56 (Oct. 26, 2001). 

The ability to determine the location of drivers and hazmat loads on trucks is another crucial aspect for hazmat safety oversight. All hazmat carriage, including 

transport by motor vehicle, should be governed by Global Positioning System (GPS) 

technology that would permit real-time tracking of hazmat loads. This should be a 

requirement for gaining operating authority as a hazmat carrier. Safety inspectors 

should also be able to access GPS data in order to confirm other sources of hours 

of service compliance, as well as to determine whether hazmat vehicles have taken 

prohibited routes or have evaded safety inspections or weigh stations. 

With regard to hazmat routes, the current routing regulations for non-radioactive 

hazardous materials highway transport are too general and inadequate. The Federal 

requirements do not require states even to have highway routing criteria for these 

hazmat shipments, and many states continue to allow loads of hazmat to be transported on most roads and through major metropolitan areas across the Nation regardless of population or traffic conditions. Even worse, the burdens imposed on the 

states by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to justify alternative, diverVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
62 

1Security Requirements for Offerors and Transporters of Hazardous Materials, 68 FR 14510 

et seq., March 25, 2003; Enhancing Hazardous Materials Transportation Security, 68 FR 23832 

et seq., May 5, 2003. 

sionary routes for public and environmental protection have a chilling effect on the 

willingness of states and local public authorities to tell hazmat carriers to use 

longer, safer routes. Congress should require the states to adopt non-radioactive 

hazmat routing criteria instead of leaving this action to state option. 

Let me stress here at the end of this section of my testimony on hazmat transportation that the tragedies of 9/11 and, earlier, of the Murrah Federal Building bombing in 1995, as well as the repeated orange alerts issued for possible terrorist attacks have not impressed its message on the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA). Recent final regulations issued by RSPA indicate that the 

agency is not prepared to regulate vigorously in the area of hazardous materials 

(hazmat) transportation security.1 As reviewed below, the final rules have little prescriptive content and, in general, they do not change current regulations about the 

types and quantities of hazmat that may be transported by motor carriers that, if 

made more stringent, could result in tighter security control and improved public 

safety. 

This is surprising in light of 9/11 and the increased concern about the potential 

for hazmat incidents. In both rulemaking examples, the agency backed down from 

reasonable proposals in reaction to industry objections. In another instance RSPA’s 

decision fails to achieve government uniformity in how specific quantities of hazmat 

are regulated because it rejected any willingness to use the different, more stringent 

definitions of hazmat applied by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Here 

is an overview of both regulations’ deficiencies: 

• The RSPA deleted most of the major requirements of a proposed rule that 

would arguably improve enforcement oversight of hazmat security after receiving negative comments from the trucking industry (see specific aspects below). 

• The RSPA will require offerors and carriers of hazmat to have security plans, 

but will not prescribe what the plans must contain, will not review and approve 

them before adoption, and will not keep any on file at the agency. 

• The RSPA will require employee hazmat training, but will not specify any training requirements. 

• The RSPA will not require hazmat offerors or carriers to verify the accuracy of 

information supplied by job applicants who will handle or transport hazmat. 

• The RSPA has rejected changing any of the current types or level of hazmat 

requiring placarding, in order to increase hazmat transportation security, based 

on the more stringent definitions of hazmat used by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. 

• The RSPA makes no mention of the longstanding Congressional statutory mandate to institute a Federal permitting system for specific types of hazmat explosives, toxic-by-inhalation agents, and highway route-controlled radioactive substances. 

• The RSPA has ruled that mixtures of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, like that 

used to blow up the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, are 

not a sufficient security risk when transported in commerce to warrant detailed 

employee background checks for those workers handling or transporting such 

mixtures. 

• The RSPA has also ruled that it will not change the types or quantities of 

hazmat requiring placarding to place more stringent requirements on transporting toy caps, signal devices, flares, and distress signals (either combustible 

or explosive) in less than 1,000 lbs. quantities; the agency judged that such 

hazmat does not present a significant security threat involving their use during 

transportation for a criminal or terrorist act. 

More detailed comments on the two regulations are attached in Appendix B. 

Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), Final Rule; Security Requirements for Offerors and Transporters of Hazardous Materials, 68 FR 14510 

et seq., March 25, 2003 

The NPRM published May 2, 2002, proposed the following main features: 

• Requirement for motor carriers already registered with the agency to maintain 

a copy of that current registration certificate on board each motor vehicle transporting hazmat. 

63 

• Requirement for shipping papers to show the name and address of both the consignor (origin) and of the consignee (receiver) and for the shipping papers to 

show the shipper’s U.S. DOT Hazmat Registration number. 

• Requirement that shipper and carrier of certain highly hazardous materials develop and implement hazmat transportation security plans. 

• Requirement that hazmat shippers and carriers assure that their employee 

training includes a security component. 

The agency received more than 270 comments ‘‘from hazardous materials shippers, carriers, industry associations, and local government agencies.’’ There is no acknowledgement that RSPA received comments from any commercial motor vehicle 

or highway safety organizations anywhere in the final rule, although Advocates for 

Highway and Auto Safety filed extensive comments pointing out the cardinal shortcomings of the proposed rule. The highlights of the final rule are: 

• RSPA states that security measures cannot adversely affect the efficient transportation of hazmat or impose excessive economic burdens on the hazmat transportation industry. 

• The agency deleted a requirement that a copy of current hazmat registration 

be on board each vehicle. RSPA accepted the industry’s position that the certificate is no proof of security clearance for the hazmat carrier because ‘‘in no case 

is any background investigation conducted before registering an applicant, or 

even investigation to ensure that the applicant is a bona fide company legitimately engaged in the offering for transport and/or transporting hazardous materials.’’ RSPA does not mention any consideration for future rulemaking to propose such required background checks of hazmat carrier applicants. 

• RSPA deleted a requirement that shipping papers have current hazmat registration number because of industry opposition. 

• Although RSPA believed the proposal had merit it rejected in the final rule a 

requirement that shipping papers have name and address of both consignor and 

consignee. 

• Although RSPA adopted a requirement for security plans for both offerors of 

hazmat and carriers of hazmat there are no required elements for the plans in 

the final rule, shippers and carriers can use any risk model they like, and the 

agency will not review the plans for adequacy before the time of their adoption. 

RSPA also strengthens language in final rule as compared with the proposed 

rule to reduce the liability of a shipper or carrier if a terrorist action happens 

despite their compliance with the terms of the final rule. 

• RSPA weakened a requirement for employers who are shippers or carriers to 

confirm information provided by job applicants who would handle or transport 

hazmat. RSPA weakens the final rule by changing the employer’s responsibility 

from ‘‘verify’’ to ‘‘confirm’’ that information supplied by job applicants is accurate and agrees with industry comments that ‘‘verify’’ is too stringent. Moreover, 

RPSA ‘‘do[es] not expect companies to confirm all of the information that a job 

applicant may provide as part of the application process.’’ A question here is 

whether this meets the letter and spirit of the U.S. PATRIOT Act. 

• RSPA requires that employee hazmat training contain a security component but 

will not specify what to require. 

Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), Interim Final Rule: Enhancing Hazardous Materials Transportation Security. 68 FR 23832 et seq., 

May 5, 2003 

No prior NPRM. This interim final rule incorporates into the Hazardous Materials 

Regulations (HMR) a requirement that shippers and transporters of certain hazmat 

comply with Federal security regulations that apply to motor carrier and vessel 

transportation. The final rule also revises the procedures for applying for an exemption from the HMR to require applicants to certify compliance with applicable Federal transportation security laws and regulations. The final rule has several major 

weaknesses: 

• It requires persons offering for transport or actually transporting hazmat to develop and implement security plans, but the rule relies on the existing regulations concerning the types and amounts of hazmat and Centers for Disease Control ‘‘select agents.’’ 

• RSPA considered and rejected consideration of the application of the more stringent definitions of ‘hazmat’ used by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. RSPA nonetheless concluded that its present threshold amounts for 

64 

placarding of certain radioactive materials, explosives, and agents toxic by inhalation are sufficient to control any security risk of their improper use. This 

means that the agency required placarding and the use of a security plan to 

these smaller amounts of hazmat regulated by BATF. 

• The agency makes no mention of the hazmat motor carrier Federal permitting 

requirements Congress adopted in 49 U.S.C. § 5109 for specific types of hazmat 

that have never been implemented despite a clear statutory command enacted 

10 years ago. 

• RSPA concludes in the interim final rule that mixtures of ammonium nitrate 

and fuel oil, like that used to blow up the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, ‘‘do[es] not meet the definition of a Class 1 material under 

the HMR’’ and that they ‘‘generally do[es] not pose a sufficient security risk 

when transported in commerce to warrant detailed employee background 

checks.’’ 

• RSPA also has decided throughout the interim final rule that it will not review 

or disturb the current threshold quantities of different hazmat requiring 

placarding, such as toy caps, signal devices, flares, and distress signals less 

than 454 kg (1,000 lbs.). As a result, the agency states that it has judged that 

‘‘[w]hen shipped in amounts that do not require placarding, such shipments do 

not pose a security risk when transported in commerce sufficient to warrant detailed employee background check requirements at this time’’ and they ‘‘generally do not present a significant security threat involving their use during 

transportation for a criminal or terrorist act.’’ 

This is the quality of protection the U.S. people and their property are provided 

in this weak regulation. Although RSPA openly states that it is authorized under 

49 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq. to designate any hazmat, including explosives, as dangerous 

when transporting it in commerce because it poses an unreasonable risk to health, 

safety, or security, the agency has judged ‘‘that the most significant security risks 

are associated with the transportation of explosives shipments in quantities that require placarding under the HMR.’’ The shippers and carriers must formulate security plans to cover such transport, but the agency will not change the types and 

quantities of explosives subject to placarding that were adopted in a different—pre 

9/11/01—era. 

Recommended Actions: 

Congress should direct RSPA to review the need to expand the types of materials 

subject to the hazmat regulations; evaluate the need to lower the quantities permitted to be transported without placarding and the other current safety requirements (emergency notification procedures, etc.); require specific training and security plan criteria to be applied by RSPA for motor carriers. 

Congress should reaffirm its direction to the Secretary to implement the Federal 

safety permitting process in 49 U.S.C. 5109 for certain types of especially dangerous hazmat while also requiring an agency evaluation of whether the current 

types and quantities of hazmat listed there should be changed. 

Congress should direct RSPA, after motor carriers of hazmat register with RSPA 

as currently required, to provide immediate notification of such registration to 

FMCSA. And, subsequent to registration with both agencies, a hazmat motor 

carrier shall undergo both a preliminary safety review to determine initial safety 

fitness, as well as subsequent compliance reviews with a satisfactory rating in 

order to continue transporting hazmat both interstate and intrastate. 

Require Level Six Inspections of all trucks of motor carriers domiciled in other 

countries that are transporting placardable hazmat into the U.S. every 90 days. 

Require all motor carriers transporting hazmat to be equipped with tracking systems, electronic on-board hours of service recorders, truck/tractor/trailer security 

interdiction technology, and crash data event recorders. 

In order to improve security and safety, the Secretary is directed to issue regulations to implement 49 U.S.C. § 5109 by specifying the types and amounts of hazardous materials (hazmat) that can be transported only with a Federal permit: 

National System of Uniform Hazmat Motor Carrier Transportation Permits. 

Direct FMCSA to Assign Unique, Including Biometric Identifiers to All CDL 

Holders with Hazmat Endorsements. 

Direct FMCSA to Establish Regulations Requiring the States to Adopt Specific 

Routing Controls for Motor Carrier Transport of Hazmat. 

65 

Defects in the Current Commercial Driver License (CDL) Program Permit 

Abuses 

The time has come for the U.S. DOT to place more rigorous requirements on the 

ability to obtain and renew a CDL. It is at present far too easy to obtain a CDL 

in the U.S. No training or prior certification of any kind is needed to apply for and 

obtain a license to operate a truck or bus in interstate commerce. It is even easier 

in most states to obtain a license to operate a truck or bus solely intrastate. In fact, 

in some states, a chauffeur’s license or, in some instances, even an ordinary passenger vehicle operator’s license, is sufficient to operate a smaller commercial motor 

vehicle. 

Interstate CDLs are issued by states according to very minimal Federal rules, 

which have both a written and an on-road component. In most cases, passing a state 

test to obtain a CDL requires no specialized instruction. Many applicants are selftaught, have prepped with the aid of mail-order courses, or have been given only 

a few lessons by a truck or bus driver they know. No certification of any kind, such 

as the demonstration of having passed a federally approved training course, must 

be presented to take a multiple choice paper examination for the basic interstate 

CDL. The driving part of the test is often brief and perfunctory, and is often conducted in the parking lot of the inspection area. Many commercial drivers admit 

that they learned how to operate a truck only through their employment experience. 

This results in inexperienced drivers when they first take to the road carrying 

freight throughout the U.S. 

Special endorsements, such as the additional authorization to haul placardable 

quantities of hazardous materials, are, again, simply written ‘‘knowledge’’ tests. The 

applicant does not need to demonstrate any driving skills, but only answer a set of 

written questions about hazardous materials transport. There is no limit on the 

number of times that a test can be taken by an applicant, so many drivers simply 

take the test until they pass it. According to news reports, the average failure rate 

for the hazardous materials endorsement in one state, Oregon, is only slightly higher than the failure rate for applicants taking the very simple test for a passenger 

vehicle driver’s license (38 percent versus 35 percent). 

Another key shortcoming of the Federal CDL rules is the lack of a requirement 

for a commercial license for drivers operating trucks that are less than 26,001 

pounds gross vehicle weight. There are millions of single-unit trucks weighing between 10,001 and 26,000 pounds operating in interstate commerce with drivers who 

have no CDLs, who are not subject to mandatory drug and alcohol testing, and for 

whom the states often have patchy, unreliable driver records of traffic and other violations and convictions. This class of trucks comprise large single-unit delivery 

trucks, such as beverage trucks, large single-unit trucks used for interstate (primarily regional) movement of certain combustibles, small tankers used for propane 

delivery, single-unit regional moving vans, and many other single-unit trucks transporting a wide variety of cargo. Single-unit trucks are responsible for nearly a third 

of all truck-related fatalities and pose a significant safety problem. Overall, more 

than 40 percent of severe to fatal injuries each year in truck-related crashes are the 

result of single-unit truck collisions, according to FMCSA. 

Congress should extend the CDL requirement to vehicles weighing between 

10,001 and 26,000 pounds. By this action, Congress would include drivers in this 

weight class in an existing mandate for new data collection covering CDL-holders 

pursuant to Congressional direction in both the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for 

the Twenty-First Century (TEA–21) and the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act 

of 1999 (MCSIA). This information could be crucial in our efforts to improve both 

safety and security oversight of drivers operating commercial motor vehicles. 

Recommended Actions: 

Congress should direct FMCSA to issue a final regulation requiring drivers to 

secure CDLs to operate commercial motor vehicles between 10,001 and 26,000 

pounds gross vehicle weight. 

FMCSA Should be Directed to Implement the Recommendations of the U.S. 

DOT Office of Inspector General for Improving Federal and State 

Administration of the CDL 

Little more than a year ago, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG) released its detailed audit on the Federal and state administration of the Commercial Driver License (CDL), Improving the Testing and Licensing of Commercial Drivers, MH–2002–093, May 8, 2002. In general, the OIG 

found that Federal standards and state control over the issuance and follow-up oversight of the CDL were not sufficient to defend against the threat posed by individuals who seek to fraudulently obtain CDLs. The current Federal standards do not 

66 

2 A non-CMV, for the purposes of the CDL provisions in 49 CFR Pt. 383, includes all passenger vehicles up to 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating and all medium commercial vehicles from 10,001 to 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (not as rated, but actual operating 

weight). 

adequately address how the states should verify the eligibility of CDL applicants, 

and the states themselves do not fully implement the existing Federal standards to 

adequately monitor third-party testers. The OIG found with regard to the last mentioned issue of third-party testers that 23 states did not require these examiners to 

annually take the driving skills test administered by the third-party testers. 

The OIG also found that, although the FMCSA has increased the quality of its 

oversight reviews of state CDL programs, the agency nevertheless needs to broaden 

its reviews, improve the basis on which the states annually certify that their programs comply with Federal standards, and ensure that problems identified in state 

programs are corrected. The OIG also stressed that the agency needs to use the 

sanctions available to it when states fail to correct significant problems. 

The OIG noted in its audit report that that successful implementation of many 

of its corrective actions is contingent upon the completion of several rulemaking actions. However, to date, we are not aware of any rulemaking actions that have been 

proposed or completed to address the multiple abuses in the current CDL program 

to improve state oversight of their licensing efforts to prevent fraud. 

Recommended Actions: 

Congress should direct FMCSA to issue a final regulation that implements the 

findings and recommendations of the U.S. DOT Office of Inspector General’s Report to enhance safety and security. The final rule should include specific countermeasures that prevent fraudulent, inaccurate, or inadequate information from 

being used by the states to issue or renew CDLs; that ensure the competence and 

qualifications of licensing examiners, including third-party examiners; that improve the Federal oversight and review process for determining the adequacy of 

state CDL programs; and that apply appropriate Federal sanctions to any state 

that seriously or repeatedly violates Federal requirements for conducting its CDL 

program. 

Unacceptable Loopholes Still Exist for Commercial Drivers with Unsafe 

Personal Driving Records to Obtain and Retain a CDL 

Section 201 of Title II of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 

(H.R. 3419), the enabling legislation for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), provides for several new or amended types of CDL-holder disqualifications for a variety of offenses committed while operating either a commercial motor vehicle or a non-commercial motor vehicles (non-CMV). However, the language needs to be amended because of several undesirable outcomes that occurred 

when the agency finally implemented the provision several years after the congressional deadline. 

The FMCSA proposed implementing regulations for Section 201 (g) on May 4, 

2001 (66 FR 22499 et seq.) and July 27, 2001 (66 FR 39248 et seq.). In those proposed rules, the agency adopted several disqualification periods for various offenses 

committed by operating a non-CMV.2 However, subsequent to the issuance of a final 

rule on July 31, 2002 (67 FR 49742 et seq.), the FMCSA issued an amended final 

rule in response to a petition from several parties. 68 FR 4394 et seq. (January 29, 

2003). In that revision to the July 31, 2002, final rule, the FMCSA acknowledged 

that it had adopted disqualification periods for non-CMV offenses committed by 

CDL holders without regard for whether those offenses resulted in CDL suspension 

or revocation. Petitioners had alleged that the agency had exceeded its statutory authority by adopting provisions triggering CDL-holder disqualification without also 

specifying that such disqualification shall result only if the violations also result in 

CDL suspension or revocation. 

The consequence of this FMCSA January 2003 revision is far-reaching. Convictions for serious offenses by CDL holders in non-CMVs that would have systematically resulted in disqualification periods for CDL holders will now trigger disqualification only if the convictions result in suspension or revocation. This means that 

what had been adopted as a federally uniform system of removing offending CDL 

holders from the highways has effectively become a highly uneven system of disqualification that depends on individual state practice. If, for example, a CDL holder 

is convicted for one, two, or even three disqualifying offenses, but the state that 

issued the CDL does not require suspension especially after the first or second convictions, this CDL holder can continue to drive in interstate commerce. 

67 

In the final rule of July 31, 2002, the FMCSA acknowledged that convictions for 

the same serious offenses that would trigger disqualification for CDL holders that 

occurred prior to the issuance of a CDL would not adversely impact a CDL applicant 

in seeking commercial licensure: ‘‘[O]nly non-CMV convictions for offenses committed after a person obtains a CDL can be counted against his or her driving 

record.’’ 67 FR 49745. 

This is an anomalous result that needs correction in authorization legislation. If 

Congress intended that CDL holders be held accountable for convictions for serious 

offenses committed with a non-CMV, then it is equally important that convicted repeat offenders not be allowed to gain a CDL despite a string of prior serious violations. Section 201 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 should be 

amended so that an individual with 3 convictions involving a non-CMV for the same 

offenses that trigger disqualification after gaining a CDL shall be barred from being 

granted a CDL for at least 3 years after the third conviction for a serious traffic 

violation. If the non-CMV holder has been convicted for any serious offense for use 

of alcohol or controlled substances, or for an at-fault crash resulting in a fatality, 

the non-CMV holder is barred for life from being issued a CDL. 

Recommended Action: 

Section 201(g)(1) should be amended to ensure that CDL holders will have their 

licenses suspended or revoked for all serious traffic violations and not just those 

violations that have resulted in suspension or revocation of a personal driver license. 

Congress should direct FMCSA to issue a rule establishing the requirement that 

applicants are eligible to be awarded a CDL only if they have a convictions-free 

driving record for the previous three years for serious violations committed with 

any vehicle less than 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating. 

The Federal Medical Certification Required of Commercial Drivers Needs 

to Be Strengthened and Merged with the Commercial Driver License 

Although the FMCSA began the process almost 10 years ago of merging the commercial driver license (CDL) and the certificate issued to a commercial driver every 

two years showing that the driver meets the medical standards for operating trucks 

and buses in interstate commerce, that initiative stopped in the middle 1990s and 

no further action has been taken on this important issue. 

A number of abuses have been shown by the FMCSA and even representatives 

in the trucking industry to be chronic problems in the current Federal regime with 

the medical certification and the CDL issued as separate documents. Among other 

issues, drivers are sometimes tempted to drive with an expired certification because 

they failed their medical exams but their CDLs are still not up for renewal. Any 

action taken by the FMCSA to merge the two documents must ensure that drivers 

cannot get away with driving illegally with an expired medical certification. 

I want to take this opportunity to voice our strong support for the Administration’s proposal in Section 4005 of the ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act of 2003’’ calling for enactment of a medical review board 

and a national registry of certified medical examiners. Both of these ideas have considerable merit and, in fact, are long-overdue policy actions by the Department of 

Transportation. However, I believe that the current provision, as drafted, needs to 

be amended to specify that a central duty of the appointees to the medical board 

is the review of appeals of physical qualification denials issued by the prospective 

medical examiners. The expertise of these health care providers should be applied 

to resolving challenges to any denials of medical certifications for commercial drivers. 

It also is important for a medical review board in the FMCSA to be the result 

of selection criteria evaluated through public rulemaking by the agency. Further, 

the conduct of business by the board should always be in the sunshine to the extent 

permitted by privacy law and regulation. For example, Congress needs to specifically ensure that the meetings of the board will be open to public attendance, that 

all work products of the board including draft documents will be available for public 

review, and that the meetings of the board and any subcommittees or task forces 

are recorded for which a transcript is made available for public use. 

In addition, we recommend that term limits be placed on medical review board 

service. Appointments to the board should not exceed a term of three/four years, and 

a current member should not be able to succeed herself—membership should be on 

a constantly rotating basis in order to guarantee that fresh talent and perspectives 

are consistently injected into the board advice and recommendations. 

We also strongly support the other part of Section 4005 in the Administration’s 

bill establishing a national registry of appropriately trained medical examiners that 

68 

lists the certified preferred providers for conducting the physical qualification medical examinations for commercial motor vehicle drivers. This kind of national list of 

trained health care providers certified to conduct the physical examinations will finally put an end to the multiple abuses under the current system that sometimes 

result in unqualified drivers nevertheless being given a pass to continue to operate 

trucks and buses in interstate commerce. For example, a famous insider joke among 

commercial drivers concerns ‘‘doctor shopping’’—which, under the current FMCSA 

regulation also includes an advanced practice nurse, a physician’s assistant, and a 

chiropractor. If you can’t find a health care provider to pass you the first go-around, 

you have a good chance if you keep trying. 

The ease with which some drivers can find a health care provider to certify them 

has multiple causes. First, many practitioners are not aware that the medical standards for commercial drivers in several major health areas are higher and more stringent than for passenger vehicle licensure. As a result, some drivers can pass a physical linked to operation of a passenger vehicle, but would fail a medical examination 

using the higher standards for interstate commercial vehicle operation. It’s not that 

most of these practitioners are not competent but rather that they don’t know the 

regulations—and many drivers are happy that they don’t. 

Unfortunately, there are also health care providers who override the criteria of 

the regulations and nevertheless certify a driver even though technically that driver 

failed some part of the exam. There also are providers who do not conduct a thorough physical, failing to test in required health areas, so that certification is provided on the basis of an incomplete exam. 

These abuses can be substantially curtailed, if not eliminated, if the FMCSA is 

instructed to think along the lines of the well-trained, highly skilled cadre of flight 

surgeons currently used the Federal Aviation Administration that is specifically 

dedicated to performing the physicals for commercial pilots. We recommend that the 

FMCSA conduct rulemaking to garner a wide range of views on what the training 

and certification standards should be to govern these medical examiners. A national 

registry, for one thing, should be based on some demonstration of knowledge and 

proficiency in conducting physical examinations, and for an applicant to demonstrate a detailed understanding of the different medical standards in the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations used to qualify commercial drivers. We also recommend that anyone listed on the national registry be periodically re-certified by 

passing another proficiency examination as well as undergoing refresher training. 

Recommended Action: 

Direct FMCSA to include the driver fitness certification in the CDL issuance and 

renewal process, ensure that renewal periods coincide for both CDLs and medical 

certifications in each state, and establish a preferred registry of health care providers who pass a rigorous certification examination demonstrating their knowledge and competence to conduct comprehensive physical examinations of drivers 

seeking medical certification, including their understanding of the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Regulations. 

The ‘‘Share the Road Safely’’ Program Needs Major Reforms or It Should 

be Terminated 

The FMCSA’s predecessor agency, the Office of Motor Carriers in the Federal 

Highway Administration, began an effort in tandem with the trucking industry in 

the early 1990s called the ‘‘No Zone’’ that emphasized a truck driver’s ‘‘blind spots’’ 

on the road and the need for passenger vehicle drivers to avoid driving in these ‘‘no 

zones.’’ Unfortunately, the no zone was used immediately by the trucking industry 

as a propaganda weapon to try to offset the horrific crash figures associated with 

big truck crashes: although large trucks are only 4 percent of registered vehicles on 

the road, they are involved in 12 percent of fatal crashes, and 23 percent of the passenger vehicle occupants who die each year in multi-vehicle crashes were involved 

in crashes with large trucks, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The truck crash figures maintained by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety also emphasize that when large trucks collide with small passenger vehicles in 

fatal crashes, 98 percent of the people who die are in the small vehicles. 

Using bogus research claims, the trucking industry and even the FMCSA has kept 

up a steady drumbeat of claims that most fatal crashes involving large trucks and 

small passenger vehicles are primarily the fault of or are somehow caused by the 

drivers of the cars, pickup trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles. But in a General 

Accounting Office (GAO) report released at the end of May 2003, the GAO states 

that subsequent research by the FMCSA showed that, at most, only 35 percent of 

69 

3Truck Safety: Share the Road Safely Program Needs Better Evaluation of Its Initiatives, U.S. 

General Accounting Office, GAO–03–680, May 2003. 4Testimony of Phyllis Scheinberg, Director, Subcommittee on Ground Transportation, House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. Congress, March 17, 1999, GAO–T– 

RCED–99–122. 

fatal passenger vehicle—large truck collisions are attributable to passenger vehicles 

traveling in the No Zone.3

The new version of the ‘‘No Zone’’ program, dubbed the ‘‘Share the Road Safely’’ 

program since the year 2000, already had been heavily criticized by the GAO in a 

previous evaluation.4 The current GAO evaluation is similar to its previous evaluation and testimony in that both reviews stress the failure of the Share the Road 

Safely program to have quantified measures of effectiveness to determine the extent 

of the success of the effort to educate drivers how to operate their vehicles in the 

vicinity of large trucks. 

The May 2003 GAO report also criticizes the earlier FMCSA evaluations of the 

No-Zone/Share the Road program because these reviews were unable to determine 

any program effectiveness. The reasons that these evaluations could not really show 

any benefits were: 

• The evaluations relied on self-reporting by motorists, a process well-recognized 

to be inherently biased. 

• The FMCSA had no baseline of driver knowledge and behavior with respect to 

the No-Zone/Share the Road effort to use to compare before/after effects of the 

program. 

• The FMCSA had no ability to determine whether there were any changes in 

driving behavior or frequency of passenger vehicle-large truck crashes due to 

the influence of the program’s initiatives or because of other, different influences. 

The GAO report also stresses that the numerous highway safety officials and researchers contacted for the current evaluation of the Share the Road Safely program 

all agreed that public education efforts alone are unlikely to produce substantial 

changes in driver behavior and attitudes unless they are coupled with other safety 

initiatives such as local law enforcement programs to increase traffic law compliance. The report also points out that the FMCSA agreed that the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration has the expertise to develop and evaluate information 

programs aimed at improving driver safety consciousness and driving behavior. 

I would like to add here that the Administration bill called ‘‘SAFETEA’’ currently 

has two provisions for refunding the Share the Road Safely program. Section 4018 

of the Administration bill openly sanctions the program as an expanded effort, but 

provides no dedicated funds. 

The other provision, Section 4002, is where the money will come from. This long 

provision deals with motor carrier safety grants, primarily the reauthorization of the 

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), but expands the authorized use 

of funds to grant the Secretary broad discretion annually to use large percentages 

of these funds for any research or educational purpose, including funding private 

parties to conduct ‘‘activities and projects national in scope’’ to increase ‘‘public education or awareness.’’ This includes, of course, using Federal funds originally dedicated to furthering the states’ motor carrier safety oversight and enforcement programs to fund special interest groups and trade associations to conduct part of the 

Share the Road Safely program. I should also mention that part of the MCSAP 

funding authorized in Section 4002 of the Administration’s bill directs the states to 

emphasize the enforcement of passenger vehicle traffic violations instead of using 

these precious dollars to improve numerous aspects of motor carrier operations. 

So one of the purposes of a diluted MCSAP authorization provision is to siphon 

off limited Federal funds in uncontrolled amounts—funds originally intended to further the states’ capabilities to increase motor carrier safety—to further an initiative 

that the GAO has indicated as amounting to 10 years of effort and 6.8 million spent 

Federal dollars with no measurable safety product to show for the money. And we 

should not forget to mention here that the GAO points out in its May 2003 report 

that most of the funds over this past decade were used to hire contractors, with 

some contracts costing up to $300,000 a shot. Unfortunately, however, the agency, 

as the GAO also points out, has no accounting of where the contracted payments 

went before the year 2000 (1992–1999). Perhaps Congress should require an investigation of where this money went and to whom. 

As a result of these abuses of the public trust and the findings of the GAO in 

its recent report showing a decade of bankrupt agency and industry attempts at 

70 

‘‘educating’’ the public and thus classifying light vehicle drivers as the prime offenders in truck-car crashes, we have formed our own recommendations for reauthorizing the program that are directly supported by the results of the May 2003 GAO 

report and its own recommendations. 

Recommended Actions: 

The Share the Road Safely program should be transferred to NHTSA to take advantage of that agency’s expertise in creating, implementing, and evaluating educational programs, especially those addressing the need of changing driver behavior and attitudes. 

MCSAP funds should not be used for the Share the Road program, allowed by 

the Administration in its reauthorization bill, until the program has demonstrated concrete success in meeting the measurable goals set forth by the GAO. 

FMCSA Reauthorization 

The reauthorization request by FMCSA for FY 2004 is $447 million, growing to $499 million in 2009. This is about a 20 percent increase over current funding for 

FMCSA programs. While we strongly believe that more Federal funds need to be 

spent on truck safety, we are not sure that this agency knows how to spend it effectively without strong direction, specified goals and sustained goading from Congress. 

One only need to review the legislation passed in 1999 creating this agency, particularly the findings and purposes section, to realize the shortcomings of this agency. 

Unfortunately, the American public is paying the price, with their lives and hard 

earned taxpayer dollars. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify. I am pleased to answer any questions you 

and other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. 

Mr. Hurst? 

STATEMENT OF PETER HURST, PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL 

VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE; ACCOMPANIED BY LIEUTENANT 

PAUL SULLIVAN, MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE 

Mr. HURST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Peter Hurst. I’m the President of the Commercial 

Vehicle Safety Alliance and the Director of the Carrier Safety and 

Enforcement Branch for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. 

CVSA is an international association of state, provincial, and Federal truck and bus law enforcement agencies, along with representatives from industry in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. I 

want to thank the Committee for inviting us here today to present 

our proposals. 

Commercial vehicle safety and enforcement have come a long 

way in the 20-plus years that CVSA has existed. Since 1991, the 

out-of-service rate has declined by 29 percent, and the fatality rate 

of crashes involving commercial vehicles has dropped by 25 percent. These achievements are the direct result of the efforts of 

thousands of CVSA-certified front-line inspectors, the programs 

under the Motor Care Safety Assistance Program, and our industry 

partners. However, we cannot stand pat as we are faced with 

change and new challenges. The volume of goods moved by commercial trucking grows almost daily, as trucking has become the 

economic lifeblood of North America and the need to balance commerce with security takes on more importance. 

At this time, I would like to introduce our primary witness for 

today, Lieutenant Paul Sullivan, of the state of Massachusetts 

State Police and immediate past President of CVSA, who will 

present the details of CVSA’s reauthorization proposals. 

Senator SUNUNU. Welcome, Mr. Sullivan. 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. Thank you, sir. 

71 

It was only 10 days ago that 21-year-old rookie police officer, Jeff 

Parcell, was down doing his job in North Carolina, what he was 

trained to do, awareness and recognition programs, and he arrested 

the alleged Olympic bomber, Eric Rudolph, using an awareness and 

recognition concept. As we talk about traffic enforcement, new entrants, the effectiveness of the CDL program, the effectiveness of 

the technology programs, and the basic core group that we do every 

day, we share a goal with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. But to do so, we need an increase in resources and flexibility in how they are administered for both the Federal and the 

state programs. 

I’ve inspected thousands of trucks in my life, and I’ve been to 

hundreds of accident scenes. Now I’m talking to police officers 

about what their training needs are, and the local police officers 

are telling me that their training needs are—they want to know 

how to stop a truck, and they want the information on economic 

regulations that were created for seamless borders so that they can 

do some speed enforcement and maybe, when trucks spill something on the highway, they can also deal with that thing. 

But the regulations have created these people over here that 

know the regulations, and this knowledge gap in the middle, and 

the people on the right that don’t. And if we have bad drivers on 

the highway getting involved in crashes, and if they’re working for 

bad carriers, and we want an effective, quick means to get more 

people involved in traffic programs, then we need a commercial vehicle one-on-one with the local police officers and get those people, 

that really want to do the work, the knowledge that they need. And 

they’re telling me that they’re avoiding contact with commercial-vehicle operations, because we’ve made it too confusing for them and 

they’re going to be making mistakes left and right. 

And I’m also talking to the small mom-and-pop trucking companies, and they come to me for questions about—that they have on 

the regulations, and we’ve built up a relationship with these people. And there’s a knowledge gap there between the bigger companies that know and the small ones that don’t. And then the small 

ones become successful, and they grow, and they become interstate 

transportation. 

I want to suggest that they don’t grow overnight. Big interstate 

transportation fleets don’t pop up overnight. And the small people 

can’t be responsible for where their customers live. So now they’re 

involved in interstate transportation. But they still have that comfortable relationship they’ve always had with their state enforcement people, and they still seek them out, and they seek out local 

police officers to answer questions. And I’m suggesting, in the New 

Entrant Program, we not ignore that. 

New Entrants is not a new concept. Jurisdictions, states and 

provinces, have been practicing this program for years, and the 

small companies have been using private contractors for years to 

satisfy their needs. And I’m afraid that we’re going to ignore these 

successful state programs and provincial programs and the use of 

private contractors under the New Entrant Program. 

And using the same concept for CDL—CDL problems are not 

strictly with the system itself, the process. Police officers are making mistakes filling out citations. Judges are letting people go that 

72 

they shouldn’t. The licensing authorities are being very territorial 

in their information. We need to break down some of these institutional barriers. We’ve submitted our suggestions on how to do that 

under the CDL program. 

You know the results of the self-assessment program that CVSA 

conducted in Massachusetts and West Virginia, and how the system is not working the way it’s designed. But we have submitted 

suggestions for improvement of that system. 

And also on the ITS systems, we’ve built chimneys of information 

that work fantastically well by themselves, and now the time has 

come for these information systems to start talking to each other 

and to the roadside inspector. That’s who we represent here today, 

is the roadside inspector. And what might work very successfully 

at a desktop is not going to be very comfortable for a roadside inspector to do on the side of the road in a weigh station or if he’s 

on patrol using a laptop computer. We need to tie those systems 

in together, complete the link that was the promise of CVISN when 

it started. 

And, to recap, I’d like to talk about the MCSAP core program. 

It’s been very successful, as President Hurst mentioned. But to 

keep it going, we have suggested that the resources will, of course, 

have to be increased to maintain the level of efficiency that we 

have provided in the past, and that there should be some flexibility 

involved in expenditures for both Federal programs and the state 

programs. And we work very strongly with FMCSA, and congratulate them on their hard work, and for Mr. Hurst. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hurst follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER HURST, PRESIDENT AND PAUL SULLIVAN, 

LIEUTENANT, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE

I. Introduction 

I am Peter Hurst, President of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and Director of Carrier Safety and Enforcement Branch for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. CVSA is an international association of state, provincial, and Federal truck 

and bus law enforcement agencies along with representatives from industry in the 

United States, Canada, and Mexico. 

As CVSA President, and a motor carrier enforcement official from Canada, I just 

want to tell the Committee how important this reauthorization legislation is to 

CVSA. At the same time, it will be of great interest to the Provinces and Territories 

of Canada especially with respect to border and new entrant issues. 

At this time, I would like to introduce our primary witness for today, Lieutenant 

Paul Sullivan of the Massachusetts State Police and immediate past President of 

CVSA who will present the details of CVSA’s reauthorization proposals. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commerce Committee, I am 

Paul Sullivan, a Lieutenant with the Massachusetts State Police, and am here today 

to present CVSA’s reauthorization policy on behalf of all of our members. 

II. Challenges for the upcoming Reauthorization 

Our recommendations have been carefully considered to meet the following challenges ahead of us: 

• Help achieve the goal we share with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to reduce the truck fatality rate by 41 percent (from 1996 to 2008) or 

1.65 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. We appreciate the comments made by FMCSA Administrator-Designate Annette Sandberg before this 

Committee on May 21 in which she credited the states with playing a significant role in the preliminary estimated 3.5 percent reduction in fatalities resulting from commercial vehicle crashes for 2002. 

73 

• Strengthen safety enforcement programs that have worked and take on new 

programs which the performance-based approach has identified as having significant potential to achieve safety goals. 

• The need for a greater focus on commercial vehicle transportation security and 

the implication for front-line police charged with motor carrier safety enforcement. 

• Recognize that states are now facing their most severe budget crisis in many 

years as we determine a reasonable and appropriate balance between the funding of Federal and state operations. 

III. CVSA Reauthorization Recommendations 

Increase MCSAP by 5 percent annually over the life of the bill. 

A CVSA member survey indicates that states need an increase of 5 percent annually, or 30 percent over the life of the bill, to keep the roadside inspection and other 

enforcement programs such as motor carrier Compliance Reviews at their present 

strength. It is important to note that in most states, the MCSAP grant is used almost exclusively for inspector salaries. States have the greatest ability to impact 

safety’s bottom line of reducing crashes and injuries, and most importantly, saving 

lives. One of the primary reasons for this is the state roadside inspection program. 

This is the conclusion of two recent studies commissioned by the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration and undertaken by the Volpe National Transportation Systems: FMCSA Compliance Review Impact Assessment Model (February 

2002) and FMCSA Roadside Inspection and Traffic Enforcement Effectiveness Assessment (December 2001). Data was reviewed on compliance reviews, roadside inspections, and traffic enforcement for the year 1998. These are the primary enforcement programs constituting the ‘‘core’’ MCSAP programs. They created an analytical 

model to calculate the number of crashes avoided and injuries and lives saved. We, 

at CVSA, using dollar values taken from FMCSA’s cost-benefit analysis for the latest CDL Final Rule on July 31, 2002, assigned total dollar values to each of the 

these three categories. Roadside inspections resulted in the greatest number of 

crashes avoided, lives saved and injuries avoided. When attaching dollars to these 

numbers, roadside inspections provided the greatest return on investment. (See Attachment A for a more detailed summary). 

We are concerned that FMCSA’s proposal does not increase the MCSAP program 

at all in the first year of reauthorization, keeping it at $164,500,000, while the 

FMCSA’s administrative budget is increased by 59 percent in the first year of reauthorization. Looking at FMCSA’s projected increases in their Administrative budget 

for the life of the bill, their administrative budget goes up by another 11 percent 

and the MCSAP program goes up by 10 percent. FMCSA’s operations end up with 

a 70 percent increase over the life of the bill and MCSAP with only 10 percent over 

the life of the bill. We suggest that this is out of balance and that a 38 percent increase over the life of the bill for the MCSAP program is justified and reasonable. 

In discussing the funding levels for the MCSAP program, we feel we are obligated 

to tell you that many states are having great difficulty in coming up with the full 

20 percent match (MCSAP is an 80/20 program) to draw the maximum amount of 

their grant. Over the past two years, some 38 states were forced to roll over at least 

part of their full allocation to the following year. We realize that in these difficult 

economic times, this is an unfortunate reality in other Federal grant programs. But 

we do suggest that FMCSA work more closely with the states to try and resolve this 

problem. And we recommend that, as in the case of the ITS–CVO Commercial Vehicle Information Systems Network program administered by the Federal Highway 

Administration, consideration be given to allowing the states to use other Federal 

dollars for the match not to exceed 90 percent reducing the state share to 10 percent. 

Another funding source available to help resolve this problem is the High Priority 

Program. 

High Priority Program and Safety Performance Incentive Programs 

We support the purposes of both of these programs. Our members fully embrace 

the incentive, performance-based approach. We also support FMCSA’s proposed increase in the takedown for both programs from 5 percent to 10 percent of the overall 

MCSAP funding level. 

We are pleased that neither of these programs will require a matching contribution from the state. CVSA has been a strong advocate of 100 percent funding for 

these programs because, unlike the basic inspection program grant, projects under 

either of these programs cannot necessarily be planned to coincide with the state 

legislative budget cycles. We appreciate FMCSA’s recognition of this problem. 

74 

Traffic Enforcement 

Flexibility for the states to use MCSAP officers for traffic enforcement that is not 

tied to an inspection (current policy), should only be allowed when funds are provided over and above the basic MCSAP core inspection grant. CVSA suggests use 

of High Priority Program funds for this purpose. Traffic enforcement efforts should 

not take resources away from the core program. 

Traffic enforcement against the passenger car around trucks is something that 

should be tested in a pilot program to ensure uniform collection of violation data 

and provide a way to measure its effectiveness. We suggest that this pilot program 

be undertaken in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

This pilot should include the involvement of local law enforcement officers who 

already do traffic enforcement against the passenger car. There are close to 800,000 

such officials throughout the country. These officers would be trained in basic ‘‘rules 

of the road’’ for trucks and security awareness as well. The training would help 

make them more comfortable in doing traffic enforcement around trucks multiplying 

the impact on safety. 

Finally, the pilot program would be a way to test education/outreach strategies 

especially on the car/truck interaction issue. 

New Entrants 

We support this program which was a provision of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. It is important to do safety audits on the approximately 

50,000 new carriers entering the trucking business each year. Studies show that 

new entrants are more crash prone in their early stages of operation. 

This is a resource intensive program since in most cases, it requires a face to face 

meeting with the new entrant on site at the place of business. A survey of CVSA 

member jurisdictions indicates that the cost to fully implement a new entrant program would be $30,000,000 a year. The good news is that FMCSA’s overall cost estimate agrees with our survey. 

But a problem arises when it comes to finding the dollars to fund this program. 

FMCSA directed the implementation of this rule to begin in January 2003. Yet 

there is no line item in FMCSA’s 2003 budget that would fund the program with 

the result that states are ‘‘scrambling’’ to try and comply and in most cases are having to pull their enforcement personnel away from targeting known bad carriers to 

do the new entrant safety audits. We do not believe that Congress intended this to 

happen. 

In this past week, we have been hearing from members who are now working on 

their MCSAP commercial vehicle safety plan for Fiscal Year 2004 that starts in October and are uncertain about what to expect in 2004. They are asking whether 

there will be enough money in FMCSA’s 2004 budget to help them with this program? Will the reauthorization bill pass providing enough funding? 

When looking at FMCSA’s reauthorization proposal we find that the $17,000,000 

allocated for the states for this program is not enough. But we have learned that 

in public testimony before the Congress, FMCSA indicates that it is reserving another $16,000,000 within its Administrative budget to monitor and administer the 

program. This expenditure is to cover the cost of their hiring 32 new staff members 

and recruiting and training 67 private contractors to do safety audits in those states 

who are unable to implement a new entrant program on their own. 

While on this issue of private contractors, we ask FMCSA what kind of certification and quality control program will be established to assure the quality of these 

private contractors? And why should states be precluded from using properly certified private contractors? Shouldn’t this be an option for the states as well? We suggest everyone take a close look at what the Province of Manitoba is doing with respect to private contractors. They are implementing a uniform third party training, 

testing and accreditation program for use by all Canadian Provinces. 

CVSA believes there appear to be two possible solutions to this problem. The optimum solution would be to delay the implementation of this program until all jurisdictions are able to implement it and a pilot program has been undertaken that 

would establish the best way to carry out the program, including the use of private 

contractors, without encroaching on current state enforcement efforts such as roadside inspections and compliance reviews. MCSIA’99 contains a provision providing 

for a staging or phasing in of the program precisely to avoid siphoning resources 

from inspections and compliance reviews. If reauthorization legislation does not pass 

Congress by September of this year, then this may be the only option because an 

extension of 2003 funding levels will not leave FMCSA with any dollars at all to 

fund the program for 2004. 

75 

The other option, assuming reauthorization passes, is to direct that not less than 

$13,000,000 of the $16,000,000 FMCSA is reserving for its own efforts to administer 

and monitor the program go directly to the states. The $13,000,000 when added to 

the $17,000,000 reserved for the states reaches the $30,000,000 total that CVSA has 

determined is necessary for the states and obviates the need to cut into the state 

core inspection grant to fund the new entrant program. We believe that the remaining $3,000,000 should be adequate for FMCSA to exercise program oversight. 

Border Enforcement Grant Program 

Funding under this program should not be limited to just the border states. It is 

very possible that any state in the country could be affected by the opening of the 

Southern border. A clear example is the necessity for roadside officers to enforce vehicle registrations which is a provision in another part of this bill. 

Also, although it is not specifically detailed in the bill, FMCSA has otherwise stated in recent testimony that $9,000,000 of this grant program would be used to conduct 200,000 HM inspections at the Northern border. We ask how this money will 

be allocated to each of the Northern Border states? Will it be allocated as part of 

their annual MCSAP grant? 

CDL Program 

CVSA is pleased at the funding levels provided for a new CDL grant program that 

range from $22,000,000 in the first year to $25,000,000 in the last year of the bill. 

We have long advocated the creation of a separate CDL grant program with funding 

at these levels. 

But the purpose and conditions for CDL grants to the states are not clearly defined in the proposed Act. Additional statements on this issue by FMCSA at recent 

hearings still do not define clearly the purpose of the program and do not stress the 

importance of remedying the many of the documented deficiencies that now exist 

in the CDL program. Man drivers are not being sanctioned and are causing crashes 

and fatalities. 

CVSA recommends that the initial purpose of the grant program should be to encourage all states to undertake a comprehensive self-assessment of their CDL programs as has been done under CVSA (FMCSA funded) pilot program with the states 

of Massachusetts and West Virginia. The second part of the pilot program would 

be to specifically identify and implement those steps needed to correct the deficiencies. 

CVSA recommends that this new grant program: 

• be modeled after the MCSAP in terms of oversight and procedures, but with a 

50/50 match since state licensing agencies have substantial resources through 

their fee structures 

• provide accurate and timely driver information to roadside enforcement 

• establish specific conditions under which grants will be awarded such as the 

creation of a state interagency task force including all state agencies responsible 

for administration and enforcement of CDL rules such as the state lead MCSAP 

agency and judiciary, and the preparation of an annual work plan 

• require each state to undertake a CDL ‘‘Self-Assessment’’ program modeled 

after the CVSA pilot program funded by FMCSA under TEA–21. 

A major goal of this program must be for all states to participate in the grant 

program because many of the problems must be addressed nationwide to have the 

maximum impact. 

CVSA questions the designation of up to 25 percent of the CDL program for 

emerging issues without a clear definition of what they are. We believe the comprehensive self-assessment approach we recommend would certainly uncover any 

emerging issues that need to be addressed. 

ITS–CVO—Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks Deployment 

(CVISN) 

CVISN ties together all of the vehicle, driver and carrier information that roadside inspectors need accurately and in real time. It is a necessary and companion 

system to make available to the inspector at the roadside, the critical driver information we have discussed with respect to our proposed CDL grant program. 

Under TEA–21, $184,000,000 was authorized over the life of that bill for the 

states to deploy CVISN. However, only $40,000,000 actually reached the states with 

the result that as of today, only 9 states are at a point of being able to deploy 

CVISN Level I capabilities. Significant resources, $144,000,000 are needed to catch 

up. 

76 

We support Section 1704 in the Administration’s bill which is a clear step in the 

right direction to make up for lost time. By transferring the program to Title I of 

the Federal-aid-highway program, the funding for CVISN will be ‘‘fire-walled’’ and 

more protected from the earmarking process which was a major reason that the 

money authorized for CVISN in TEA–21 did not reach the states. 

However, the funding levels in Section 1704 are not fully adequate for the states 

to catch up in deploying CVISN. The allowance of $2.5 million per state falls short 

of the $144 million needed. Just as important is that the program remains a 50/ 

50 matching program which is not consistent with the 80/20 matching provisions applicable to MCSAP. While the states are allowed to use other Federal dollars as a 

part of the match up to 80 percent, they may not always be able to take advantage 

of this exemption from a practice that is otherwise precluded in most grant programs. As we have pointed out earlier in our testimony, in these difficult times, 

states are having a problem in general in meeting the matching requirements. 

Enforcement of Commercial Vehicle Registration Requirements 

The requirement for roadside officers to enforce vehicle registration should not be 

achieved through an out-of-service declaration, but rather through a ‘‘suspend operations declaration’’, or something similar. The use of an ‘‘out-of-service’’ declaration 

would have the effect of adding an item which is not ‘‘imminent’’ hazard to the 

CVSA Out-of-Service criteria. 

Use of MCSAP Funds for Local Government or Other Persons 

In several provisions of Sec. 4002 (a), the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, the Secretary of Transportation is provided the authority to make grants to 

a State agency, local government, or other person. 

To preserve the uniformity and integrity of all of programs that are funded under 

the MCSAP program, it is absolutely essential that in those instances where local 

governments or other persons may be the applicants, funding must first pass 

through, and be coordinated by, the state lead MCSAP agency. 

The hallmark of the CVSA inspection program is uniformity among all states, 

provinces and territories. To maintain this at the state and provincial level requires 

constant vigilance on our part. The need for this is just as great, or perhaps even 

greater, at the local level. The industry deserves this and, in our view, it is the only 

way to achieve the safety goals that we all support. 

Uniform Carrier Registration Plan 

It appears to us that Section 4008, Financial Responsibility for Private Motor Carriers, is the appropriate section to again direct the establishment of the Uniform 

Carrier Registration (UCR) program, which was first required in the ICC Termination Act. 

CVSA supports the legislation developed by an industry task force that would establish a new UCR program to supercede the existing Single State Registration System (SSRS) which now applies only to for-hire carriers in 38 states. In addition, and 

of great importance to CVSA, is that this industry proposal would guarantee that 

states would be reimbursed for those SSRS proceeds currently being used for motor 

carrier safety enforcement. 

Interstate Operations of Interstate Motor Carriers 

CVSA supports Section 4011 in the FMCSA proposal that would allow capture of 

intra-state violation data on a carrier that also operates in interstate commerce. In 

addition, we support the measure that would apply an out of service order on an 

interstate carrier to its intra-state operations as well. 

FMCSA Authority to Stop Commercial Vehicles 

CVSA recommends that this grant of authority to FMCSA in Section 4012 should 

be confined to border situations. We do not believe the Administration or Congress 

is interested in creating a new police force. This provision could be interpreted as 

an intention of FMCSA to assume control of all, or part of, the existing state inspection program and we recommend additional language in this section that would confine the prescribed FMCSA authority ‘‘in the vicinity of an inspection site at the border.’’ 

We also believe that Section 4012 would be an appropriate Section in the DOT 

proposal to more clearly reflect the process by which the North American Standard 

Inspection and Out of Service Criteria are developed and implemented by CVSA. 

Section 31102(b)(1)(J) Title 49, United States Code, should be amended by adding 

the following language: ‘‘This North American Standard Inspection and North American Standard Out of Service Criteria and decal program are developed by the ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
77 

mercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and are identified in Parts 350, 385, and 390 of the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.’’ 

We believe there is precedent for our recommendation in the NAFTA border safety provisions of the 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill passed by the Congress. 

International Cooperation 

We fully support the intent of Section 4015. Given the fact that hopefully our 

Southern border will soon be open to Mexican truck and bus traffic and our longstanding seamless operations at the Northern border with Canada and its Provinces, we need to foster greater participation and cooperation in international activities that would that enhance highway safety through exchange of information, conducting research, and examining needs, best practices, and new technology. 

One reason for our support is that this best describes what CVSA does as an alliance. 

We would make one very important recommendation that we believe supports the 

intent of this section. It is that data from Canadian and Mexican inspections of U.S. 

commercial vehicles should be allowed to be used by FMCSA for purposes of carrier 

ratings and possible enforcement actions. Also, financial consideration should be 

given to Canada and Mexico for their inspection and enforcement efforts in this regard. 

Truck Rest Areas 

We do not believe that the proposal in Section 1306, Title I of the Federal-aid 

Highway Act adequately address the overall problem of the shortage of adequate 

rest areas for truck drivers. We do not need any more studies or pilot projects in 

this regard. 

But we do believe that the proposal adopted by the American Trucking Associations and the National Truck Stop Operators will address the problem. It would establish a public-private partnership through the creation of a Parking Assistance 

Resource Corporation (PARC) to do the following: 

• identify the locations of truck parking shortages and the reasons for them 

• develop best practices and recommended minimum design, security and lighting 

requirements 

• review and prioritize applications from private enterprise aimed at alleviating 

the shortage at specific locations and make corresponding recommendations to 

the DOT Secretary 

• identify specific NHS corridors where regional and multi-state strategies would 

be effective in solving the problem 

PARC would be funded with a grant from the Federal Highway Administration 

and be governed by a Board of Directors comprised of representatives from FMCSA, 

ATA, TCA, NATSO, AAA, and CVSA. 

Training Passenger Car Drivers to Drive in the Vicinity of Commercial Vehicles 

CVSA supports the provision in Section 4002 under MCSAP that would require 

the states to revise their driver training manuals for passenger car drivers to include information and best practices for driving in the vicinity of commercial vehicles. 

However, we suggest that any administrative costs be funded by the state licensing agency that has jurisdiction over passenger car drivers. We believe that when 

appropriate, other state agencies must share the responsibility for highway safety. 

Motor Carrier Advisory Committee 

A Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee should be established by FMCSA. 

Section 105 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 authorized the 

Secretary of Transportation to establish a commercial motor vehicle safety advisory 

committee to provide advice and recommendations on a wide range of motor carrier 

safety issues. The advisory committee was to remain in effect until September 

30,2003. This never happened and CVSA believes the need to establish such a committee still exists. 

78 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you very much, Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. Harrison? 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH M. HARRISON, PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN MOVING AND STORAGE ASSOCIATION (AMSA) 

Mr. HARRISON. Good morning. I am Joe Harrison, President of 

the American Moving and Storage Association headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. AMSA is the national trade association of the 

moving and storage industry, representing 3,500 movers worldwide, 2,000 of which are interstate motor carriers regulated by the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Service 

Transportation Board. 


610HURST1.eps
79 

My complete statement to this Committee provides a detailed explanation of my industry’s position on a number of issues related 

to Federal regulation of the interstate moving industry and, in particular, the need to address the problems created by rogue movers. 

However, at the outset, I will address the primary purpose of 

this hearing, reauthorization of the Safety Administration’s programs and responsibilities. The moving industry supports the administration’s effort to improve highway safety. We operate an estimated 70,000 vehicles, and we are responsible for the operations of 

30,000 drivers that are on our Nation’s highways. We commend the 

administration for the sensible approach it developed in the formulation of its recently announced hours-of-service regulations. We 

will continue to provide input to the administration on important 

truck safety issues that it must address. 

Turning to its regulation of the moving industry, we also support the Administration’s request for an additional $1 million in funding 

to bolster its enforcement capabilities. We are disappointed that 

more money is not available for this important effort, since we are 

convinced, as was the General Accounting Office in its 2001 report 

to Congress, that effective regulation of the interstate moving industry requires strong Federal oversight and, in fact, is not conducive to regulation by 50 different states. 

Despite this, we are aware that serious consideration is being 

given to expanding regulation of interstate movers by authorizing 

the states to enforce the existing Federal statutes and regulations 

affecting my industry’s daily operations. While we firmly believe 

strict enforcement of the consumer protection regulations by the 

Federal Government is the most effective way to rein in illegal operators, and not state enforcement, rest assured that we welcome 

the opportunity to work with this Committee and your staff to 

fashion a legislative proposal that will address enforcement without impeding the operations of legitimate movers. 

As we move forward with this effort, Congress must not lose 

sight of the fact that the moving industry handles roughly 1.3 million interstate moves each year, the overwhelming majority of 

which are accomplished to the satisfaction of the moving public. 

I urge your Committee to bear this in mind and reject overzealous demands to exponentially increase my industry’s liability 

for loss or damage to goods. We are strongly opposed to any proposal that would expand our liability by making us also liable for 

damages arising from application of the state’s deceptive practices 

acts. The moving industry, just like any other segment of our Nation’s transportation industry—railroads, freight motor carriers, 

and freight forwarders—cannot withstand the economic uncertainties of loss-and-damage litigation that presents the potential for 

awards of punitive and other forms of consequential damages that 

are not related to the value of lost or damaged goods. 

On the rogue-mover issue, my association has discussed a number of legislative measures with your staff and their counterparts 

in the House, which we believe would disrupt the rogues’ ability to 

defraud consumers. Rogue movers exist solely to defraud the public. In its effort to deal with this problem, Congress must also not 

lose sight of the fact that only legitimate movers, those that are not 

at the heart of the problem, will comply with any new legislative 

80 

measures that are enacted. The rogue movers will not. They will 

continue to ignore the law. Certainly, that was the case with the 

illegal operators that are being prosecuted in the recent Federal 

criminal indictments of 42 rogue movers and 74 individuals that 

were involved in their operations. They were ignoring the law, and 

if they were allowed to continue to operate, they would ignore the 

existing law, as well as any other new enactments. Once again, the 

solution to the problem they have created is strict Federal enforcement and incarceration, if warranted. 

AMSA’s approach to dealing with rogue movers is grounded on 

our knowledge of the industry and our understanding of the traps 

rogues set for consumers. We, therefore, believe that the following 

legislative steps would seriously impact the operations of illegal operators and hamper their ability to defraud consumers. 

Number one, authorize the states to proceed against movers that 

violate Federal licensing, pricing, and arbitration requirements, or 

hold customers’ goods hostage. Two, establish civil and criminal 

penalties to combat unlawful hostage-freight practices. Three, require the regulation of Internet brokers of household goods. Number four, require that FMCSA establish meaningful registration requirements for authority to transport household goods. Number 

five, require that consumers receive written estimates of moving 

services, charges, and inventories of their goods. Number six, require that FMCSA increase its consumer-education activities. 

Number seven, establish a consumer complaint data center. And, 

finally, number eight, increase public access to mandatory loss-ordamage arbitration, and expand arbitration to include transportation payment disputes. 

AMSA believes these legislative proposals will help consumers 

avoid use of rogue movers and make it much more difficult for 

rogue movers to prey upon consumers. It should receive your serious consideration. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrison follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH M. HARRISON, PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN MOVING AND STORAGE ASSOCIATION (AMSA) 

My name is Joseph M. Harrison. I am the President of the American Moving and 

Storage Association (AMSA) with offices at 1611 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 

22314. 

AMSA is the national trade association of the regulated moving and storage industry with 3,500 members worldwide representing the entire spectrum of the industry, including approximately 25 national van lines, 1,100 independent regulated 

carriers, 1,600 agents of van lines, 1,000 of whom are also regulated carriers in their 

own right, and over 500 international movers. These entities contract with 30,000 

independent owner-operators who own equipment and perform much of the physical 

transportation of household goods. The industry employs roughly 450,000 workers, 

operates 66,000 trailers, 32,000 tractors and 18,000 straight trucks and generates 

revenues of $7 billion annually. We operate in every city, town, borough and hamlet 

in the United States. In addition to our interstate transportation service, we perform the intrastate and local moving and storage services that are required by consumers and industry. AMSA’s functions include representation and promotion of the 

interests of the moving and storage industry before Federal and State legislative 

and regulatory bodies. 

This statement is submitted in response to the Committee’s invitation to participate in its hearing on reauthorization of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) programs and responsibilities and the issue of fraud in the transportation of household goods. 

81 

1GAO–01–318, Consumer Protection in the Moving Industry, p. 22. 2Docket No. FMCSA 97–2979, Transportation of Household Goods; Consumer Protection Regulations, 63 Fed. Reg. 27126 (1998). 3 E.g., Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 14 U.S.C. § 6101, et 

seq., Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1666. et seq. 

Reauthorization 

The moving industry supports FMCSA efforts to improve highway safety. We commend the Administration for the sensible approach it developed in the formulation 

of its recently announced hours of service regulations. We will continue to provide 

input to the Administration on all important truck safety issues it must address. 

We also support the Administration’s request for an additional $1 million dollars 

in funding to bolster its moving industry enforcement capabilities. We are, however, 

disappointed that more money is not available for this important effort since we are 

convinced, as was the General Accounting Office in its 2001 Report to Congress, 

that effective regulation of the interstate moving industry requires strong Federal 

oversight and, in fact, is not conducive to regulation by the 50 states.1

It has become an accepted fact that rogue movers are the root cause of the current 

effort to involve the states in regulation of the interstate moving industry. Just recently a major blow was dealt to many unscrupulous operators by the criminal investigation and prosecution by the DOT Inspector General and the F.B.I. of 42 Florida-based rogue movers and 74 individuals that were involved in their operations. 

This is a prime example of the aggressive action that should be taken by the 

FMCSA to rid the industry of unlawful operators. Clearly, the solution to the problems created by rogue movers is more aggressive Federal enforcement of the existing Consumer Protection regulations and incarceration of the operators of these enterprises. This should be the main focus of FMCSA oversight of the moving industry. However limited their resources may be, the most effective use of those resources lies in action that is most beneficial to consumer shippers. This means vigorous prosecution of illegal operators. 

We also believe FMCSA must demonstrate a more concerted interest in and focus 

on regulatory issues and proceedings that are intended to assist consumer shippers 

of household goods. For example, an FMCSA proceeding that would completely revamp the existing household goods Consumer Protection regulations has been pending an inordinately long 5 years.2

In addition, on more than one occasion, AMSA has petitioned FMCSA requesting 

formal proceedings to address issues that directly impact the rights of consumers. 

Each request was rejected for reasons we would submit simply evidenced an unwillingness to regulate. 

Just recently (3 months ago) AMSA filed another petition with FMCSA requesting 

the adoption of regulations governing the relationship between brokers of household 

goods transportation services and consumers. A major regulatory void exists in this 

area and action is necessary to warn consumers of the unscrupulous practices of, 

most particularly, Internet brokers. AMSA drafted proposed regulations and, because of the urgency of this issue, recommended immediate FMCSA action. To date, 

no response has been received from FMCSA. 

State Regulation of the Interstate Moving Industry 

AMSA has advised your staff and their House counterparts that the moving industry is not opposed to conferring authority on the states to prosecute movers that 

violate important Federal licensing, pricing or arbitration requirements, or engage 

in hostage freight practices. We believe such a measure would seriously impact the 

rogue movers’ ability to defraud consumers. 

The Administration’s proposed solution (proposed Section 14710 of title 49), on the 

other hand, goes much further. If enacted, this provision would vest in the state’s 

authority to conduct investigations and institute civil actions related to all statutes, 

regulations, and orders administered by DOT and the Surface Transportation Board 

which now govern the entire licensed motor carrier and freight forwarder industries. 

(The language of proposed subsection (a)(1) is not limited to motor carriers and 

freight forwarders that are engaged solely in the transportation of household goods. 

Only subsection (a)(2), which is limited to foreign motor carriers, encompasses those 

that are engaged in the transportation of household goods). 

Approaching this issue from a broader perspective, to the extent Congressional 

precedent exists for the shifting of Federal enforcement authority to the states to 

prosecute entities that are engaged in interstate enterprises,3 we do not believe the 

82 

4See footnote 1. 

5 House Report 103–20. 

6 Id., p. 4. 

circumstances underlying enactment of those statutes are analogous to the circumstances presented by regulation of the interstate moving industry. 

Presently, Federal statutes and regulations preempt the entire field of regulation 

of the interstate moving industry. In addition to consumer protection regulations, 

interstate movers must comply with regulations governing registration, insurance 

and process service; binding estimates and guaranteed pickup and delivery service; 

extension of credit; van line/agent pooling and agent responsibility; owner-operator 

equipment leasing; loss and damage claim and dispute settlement, to name a few. 

This regulatory regime requires a uniform Federal approach to oversight and enforcement and is not suited to enforcement by the various authorities contained in 

50 States. In its March 2001 Report to Congress, the General Accounting Office essentially adopted this position noting that whatever benefits may result from enforcement by the states cannot be measured until it has been preceded by vigorous 

DOT enforcement.4

The Administration’s proposed statutory language is nearly identical to Section 

6103 of the Telemarketing Fraud Act (15 U.S.C. § 6103). In our view, enforcement 

of that Act by the FTC and the states is not an appropriate model of Federal/State 

cooperation when considering expanded regulation of the interstate moving industry. 

The legislative history of the Telemarketing Act is quite clear in its description 

of the magnitude of the fraudulent schemes Congress addressed with its 1994 legislation. Congress found that consumers and others were estimated to be losing $40 

billion annually to fraudulent telemarketers. Notwithstanding vigorous FTC efforts 

to curb those practices (90 cases in Federal courts halting fraud that was estimated 

to produce sales of over $1 billion), it was acknowledged that the FTC enforcement 

resources simply were not sufficient to adequately protect consumers. This was the 

case because, in part, telemarketers are not dependent upon fixed locations as 

points of sale, are very mobile, and move from state to state.5

Although the operations of telemarketers are easily distinguished from those of 

moving and storage operations, there has been a mistaken tendency to compare the 

two simply because rogue movers may also cross state lines. Thus, while on the one 

hand Congress was prompted to act because of the highly mobile nature of the 

fraudulent telemarketers, on the other hand, it understood the importance of not 

interfering with or in any way hampering the operations of legitimate telemarketers 

as evidenced by the following expression of congressional intent: 

The Committee is not interested in further regulating the legitimate telemarketing industry through this legislation. Rather, the goal is to curtail any 

deceptive (including fraudulent) and abusive practices by specific telemarketers.6

In a similar vein, AMSA is anxious to curb the practices of unscrupulous movers 

thus accounting for its support of limited State enforcement authority. However, 

routine operational problems that arise in the course of moving often become the 

basis for consumer complaints even though the problems are unavoidable—loss or 

damage, delayed pickups or deliveries, etc.—situations that impact the operations 

of the most efficient and reputable movers. Nonetheless, unavoidable problems can 

become the catalyst for persistent consumer complaints. Legitimate, regulated movers should not be subjected to an additional layer of 50 State regulators and their 

city, town and village subordinates that may or may not understand the boundaries 

of appropriate Federal regulation. Unfortunately, there has been an unwarranted 

tendency on the part of certain State attorneys general to assume that persistent 

consumer complaints, whether justified or not, require action on their part. 

We must not loose sight of the fact that unscrupulous movers are nothing more 

than crooked operators. They only exist to defraud the public. In its effort to deal 

with this problem, Congress must also not loose sight of the fact that only legitimate 

movers—those that are not at the heart of the problem—will comply with any new 

legislative measures that are enacted. The rogue movers will not. They will continue 

to ignore the law. Certainly that was the case with the illegal operators that are 

the subjects of the previously referred to criminal indictments (42 rogue movers and 

74 individuals). They ignored the law, and if they were allowed to continue to operate, they would ignore the existing law as well as any new enactments. 

Our experience indicates that many states are ill-suited to regulation of the interstate moving industry because they have elected to completely deregulate the transportation of household goods in their own intrastate commerce. While rogue movers 

83 

7 49 U.S.C. § 14706 

8 Illinois Compiled Statutes, 815 ILCS 510. 

9 California Civil Code, Sections 1750, et seq. 10 Chapter 17, Business and Commerce, Subchapter E. 11General Laws of Massachusetts, Part I, Title XV, Chapt. 93A, Section 2. 12 New York State Consolidated Laws, General Business Law, Article 22–A, Section 349. 

engage in interstate commerce, the majority of their efforts are devoted to local and 

intrastate moves. Before undertaking Federal regulation, the states should forcefully deal with unscrupulous movers that operate within their jurisdictions. 

AMSA welcomes the opportunity to work with this Committee and your staff to 

fashion a legislative proposal that will address expanded enforcement without impeding the operations of legitimate movers. 

Unlimited Carrier Liability Would Be Disastrous 

The members of AMSA remain unalterably opposed to any legislation that would 

authorize State officials or consumers to invoke or enforce State laws as an additional remedy to that provided by the Carmack Amendment.7 Any tinkering with 

Carmack to expose interstate movers to such expanded liability would likely have 

a severe disruptive economic effect on interstate commerce. 

The availability of State law claims to shippers and the states would obviously 

embrace both common law causes of action and those authorized by statute such as 

the various Deceptive Trade Practices Acts maintained by most states. The remedies 

available under such common law and statutory claims include injunctive relief, 

civil penalties, consequential economic damages, punitive damages, mental anguish 

and emotional distress damages, treble damages, and attorney’s fees. 

The moving industry’s concerns with the application of State laws is two-fold. 

First, carriers will be exposed to substantially increased liability. Unlike freight carriers, movers deal with the personal effects of individual consumers. As a result, virtually any claim for loss or damage to a shipment of household goods involves an 

emotional element, some more so than others. Allowing State laws to be invoked to 

permit recovery for mental anguish or emotional distress will undoubtedly convert 

every broken chair to a family heirloom having irreplaceable sentimental value. The 

potential increase in liability to carriers could well be devastating to the interstate 

moving industry. 

The second and more far reaching problem is the diverse nature of the various 

State laws. There is no uniformity among them. This, coupled with the potential for 

greater recovery under State law, would gut Carmack and effectively repeal it. 

The Carmack Amendment not only provides a uniform regime of carrier liability, 

it allows for complete compensation to shippers for their damages resulting directly 

from the loss, injury, or delay to their shipments. Carriers know and understand 

their liability exposure under this nationwide system. Expanding liability to include 

State laws will subject interstate movers to 50 different standards. 

To illustrate the point, consider the various Deceptive Trade Practices statutes 

maintained by most states. Although several states have adopted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, or a variation thereof, the implementation or enforcement of the remedies under such statutes is anything but uniform. This is so because these statute require a subjective determination of what is deceptive or unfair. For example, Illinois has adopted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.8

It defines a deceptive trade practice by listing 12 different categories of conduct, the 

last of which is a catchall for ‘‘any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood 

of confusion or misunderstanding.’’ 815 ILCS, 510, Section 2 (a)(12). California’s 

Consumers’ Legal Remedies Act 9 lists 23 different types of conduct deemed to be 

deceptive which differ from those in Illinois. Civil Code Section 1770 (a). In Texas, 

the Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act 10categorizes 27 types of 

conduct which, not surprisingly differ from Illinois and California. Massachusetts’ 

counterpart simply declares unlawful ‘‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the 

conduct of any trade or commerce.’’ 11 And New York has a similar definition.12

The uncertainty in these definitions is compounded by the enforcement authority 

granted to State officials and the basis for civil actions created for private litigants. 

In New York, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief, restitution, or civil penalty whenever he/she believes that a person, firm, corporation, association, or agent or employee thereof has engaged in or is about to engage in a deceptive practice. NYS, General Business Law, Art. 22–A, Section 349 (b). The same 

broad authorization is granted to the Massachusetts Attorney General. See General 

Laws of Mass., Part I, Art. XV, Chapt. 93A, Section 4. The same unbounded discretion is granted to the Texas Consumer Protection Division. See Chapt. 17, Texas 

Business and Commerce Code, Section 17.47. 

84 

While it might be argued that a State official is duty-bound to act with restraint 

in enforcing these laws, the same cannot be said of private plaintiffs who have a 

significant self-interest in pursuing a deceptive practice remedy. Yet these statutes 

afford the same unbridled basis for instituting a civil action. Massachusetts authorizes a civil action, including a class action, for any person injured by another person’s deceptive act or practice. Chapt. 93A, Section 9. In New York, any person who 

has been injured by a deceptive act or practice may institute a civil action for an 

injunction and money damages, which may be trebled, as well as attorney’s fees. 

N.Y.S. General Bus. Laws, Art. 22–A, Section 349. 

The remedies authorized by the Statutes also vary from state to state. Illinois authorizes a civil action for injunctive relief and attorney’s fees . However, proof of 

monetary damage is not required. A person need only show that he is ‘‘likely to be 

damaged.’’ 815 ILCS 510, Section 3. The Texas statute specifically authorizes recovery of economic damages and damages for mental anguish, as well as treble damages, and attorney’s fees. Texas Business and Commerce Code, Section 17.50. And 

California authorizes consumers to bring an action, including a class action, for injunctive relief, restitution, actual and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees. 

Civil Code Section 1780, 1781. 

The application of these State laws also presents significant procedural problems. 

Under the Carmack Amendment, a 2 year statute of limitation to bring a lawsuit 

for cargo loss or damage is imposed. This period commences from the time the shipper’s claim is denied. 49 U.S.C. 14706 (e). However, State laws often provide a different period. California has a 3 year limitation period and it starts to run from the 

date of commission of the deceptive practice. Civil Code Section 1783. In Texas, the 

period of limitation is 2 years, and it begins on the date the deceptive act or practice 

occurred or within 2 years after the consumer discovered it. Texas Business and 

Commerce Code Section 17.565. 

Legislation that would permit states and individuals to resort to State laws would 

turn the standard for measuring carrier liability for loss or damage back 100 years. 

The same problems that existed prior to enactment of Carmack would be revisited 

on the moving industry. Those difficulties were clearly summarized in Schultz v. 

Auld, 848 F.Supp. 1497 (D. Idaho, 1993): 

[I]f this Court were to adopt Plaintiff’s position, the uniformity and certainty 

of the national scheme would be compromised. The position asserted by Plaintiff 

would enable one moving from any state to the State of Idaho to proceed under 

the Idaho Consumer Protection Act. Such a rule would create an entirely new 

scheme of potential liability for a carrier, as the right to assert additional 

causes of action would fortuitously depend from where or to where the shipper 

moved. It is not difficult to imagine that every suit brought against a carrier 

of household goods would include allegations of intentional conduct or fraud in 

an effort to avoid the preemptive effect of the Carmack Amendment. Moreover, 

to account for increased liabilities occasioned by the exception, carriers would 

necessarily be required to increase their rates, thus further defeating congressional policy to encourage reasonable rates for transportation. 

Congress must not lose sight of the detrimental consequences of the current explosion of tort litigation throughout the Nation. When doctors are walking away in 

some states because of the cost of litigation, Congress should think twice before creating avenues for additional litigation. This is particularly so where, as here, there 

is in place a uniform Federal process that mandates full protection for aggrieved 

shippers. 

Pro-Consumer Initiatives Should Be Enacted 

AMSA officials have discussed with your staff a number of possible legislative proposals that would assist consumers in their dealings with reputable movers and 

would also help them avoid the schemes employed by rogue movers. It is appropriate to review some of those measures. 

Expanded Arbitration 

The Administration has also proposed that Section 14708 (a) of title 49 be amended by requiring that movers arbitrate with shippers all disputes involving claims of 

$5,000 or less and not, as now required, claims involving loss or damage to goods. 

AMSA is opposed to this proposal because its broad scope makes it difficult to reasonably predict its potential impact. It is clear, however, that, if enacted, this requirement will generate arbitration cases that arise from myriad complaints such 

as mere shipper dissatisfaction with a move apart from the fact that loss or damage 

to goods may not have occurred. Such an open-ended dispute settlement process is 

an invitation to shippers to pursue purely subjective disputes as trivial as the movVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
85 

13 49 C.F.R. § 375.3(d). 

er’s personnel lacked ‘‘professionalism’’ or their appearance, language or demeanor 

was unacceptable. In addition, consumers will be encouraged to pursue damages 

they believe result from alleged inaccurate representations concerning a carrier’s 

performance, emotional distress and physical inconvenience, all of which they would 

insist warrant some measure of damages, compounded possibly by requests for punitive damages. An obvious problem brought on by this scenario is the difficulty in 

determining how independent arbitrators will resolve disputes of this nature and 

what standards the moving industry must follow when addressing such claims. 

It is AMSA’s position that consumers would be better served if the existing mandatory binding arbitration threshold for loss or damage claims was increased from 

$5,000 to $10,000. This will provide greater consumer access to inexpensive neutral 

binding arbitration, thus avoiding the expense of costly litigation. It is also appropriate that the subject matter of claims that are eligible for arbitration be expanded 

beyond loss or damage to goods to include disputes involving the payment of carrier 

charges, a legitimate point of controversy between consumers and carriers. 

Hostage Freight 

The unlawful holding of consumers goods is a frequently employed tactic used by 

rogue movers to inflate charges and demand their payment in exchange for the consumer’s goods. The rogues obviously ignore the existing Consumer Protection regulation. It requires that movers relinquish possession of shipments moving on nonbinding estimates when the shipper requests delivery upon payment of 110 percent 

of the estimated charges and defer demand for payment of the balance for 30 days 

from delivery.13

Civil or criminal penalties should be imposed for blatant violations of the existing 

regulation. 

Operating Authority Registration Requirements 

Under the current FMCSA registration requirements, essentially anyone that is willing to pay a $300 filing fee and provide evidence of certain insurance can obtain 

authority to operate as a motor carrier of household goods throughout the entire 

United States. Many rogue movers have been granted multiple operating authorities 

under this most liberal system. They use their multiple authorities to play ‘‘bait and 

switch’’ games with consumers and to disavow knowledge of conduct they want to 

disclaim. 

In the case of applicants for household goods authority, it is AMSA’s position that 

all such applicants should, at the time of their application, be required to (1) specifically identify their loss and damage arbitration program, (2) identify their tariff and 

provide a sample of its notice of availability for inspection, (3) make certain disclosures related to the service they will perform on behalf of consumers, and (4) disclose all its affiliations and ownership ties with other movers. 

These are elementary requirements that can and should be met by all legitimate 

applicants for operating authority. 

Written Estimates and Inventories 

Consumer shippers of household goods deserve the benefit of written estimates of 

carrier charges for transportation and all related services. Reputable movers routinely provide this information to consumers. Rogue movers try to avoid putting 

anything in writing before they take possession of goods or their shipping documents are deliberately vague on the important points. 

Likewise, consumers should also receive written inventories of the goods they tender in sufficient detail to assist them in resolving any disputes they may have with 

their movers. 

Regulation of Brokers 

FMCSA should be required to establish regulations governing the relationship between consumers and brokers of household goods transportation services, but most 

particularly brokers that operate exclusively on the Internet. A regulatory void exists in this area and the phenomenal growth of consumer reliance on the Internet 

as a means of locating service providers has resulted in countless numbers of moving arrangements that have no basis in the existing Consumer Protection regulations. AMSA, as noted, submitted a proposal to FMCSA that would address this situation. 

Expanded Advice To Consumers 

FMCSA should be directed to employ all available means to disseminate information to consumers concerning the moving process and their rights when dealing with 

86 

movers. This would include the promulgation and dissemination of regulations 

through the FMCSA website and other means of communication customarily followed by Federal agencies. In this same connection, a consumer complaint data 

gathering system should be established by FMCSA. 

Conclusion 

The regulated interstate moving industry as represented by AMSA transports 

roughly 1.3 million interstate shipments each year with a high degree of consumer 

satisfaction. While the rogue mover problem is the predicate for possible Congressional action, the search for solutions must not result in statutory requirements that 

overburden and impair the legitimate mover’s ability to provide its essential service 

to the public. 

Since abolishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1996, AMSA has 

been telling Congress, at every opportunity, that the solution to the problems created by unlawful and rogue movers is more effective enforcement by the Federal 

Government of the existing statutes and regulations governing the moving industry. 

This position has not waivered. AMSA is not, however, opposed to strengthening the 

existing Federal statutory enforcement scheme. We believe our recommendations to 

this Committee will effectively deal with rogue movers, bearing in mind that no 

body of law can completely deter a criminal element. 

We also firmly believe that conferring enforcement authority on the states, or exposing the moving industry to potentially unlimited liability for its interstate service, would cause many moving and storage operators to question the wisdom of their 

continued involvement in interstate transportation. The network of small businesses 

that make-up the moving and storage industry should not be overburdened with 

State efforts to uniformly interpret and enforce Federal regulations, a proposition 

that will be virtually impossible to achieve. 

The interstate transportation of household goods is a Federal endeavor which 

should be regulated by the Federal Government. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you very much to all of our panelists. 

Let us begin the questioning with Senator Breaux. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all the 

panel members. 

You talked about diabetic drivers. I think someone—Mr. Byrd 

may have mentioned the proposals on drivers who use insulin. And 

I really don’t understand it, because it kind of says, well, if you 

have 3 years of commercial driving experience as a diabetic, then 

you have to have that in order to qualify to get a commercial driver’s license. I mean, I don’t see how you have it in the first place 

in order to have that experience as a commercial driver. 

Can anybody on the panel comment about the entire issue of diabetics being able to receive a commercial driver’s license? I’m trying 

to figure out what is a fair way of determining their fitness for 

driving. Anybody want to comment on it? Mr. Byrd, you had mentioned it. 

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I’d like to comment. Well, as I understand the 

issue, currently our members—we have an aging work force, aging 

membership, and a lot of our members are transitioning. They may 

not currently have diabetes, but, you know, they may have hypoglycemic-related issues that may transition over into having diabetes. One of the problems we’ve encountered is that these drivers, 

as they—they’re usually some high-seniority people. They are no 

longer able to drive, because they no longer qualify under the medical qualifications. 

But because we’re not involved in intrastate commerce, and 

many states—as I understand it, FMCSA has reported that roughly 

20 states either don’t have a waiver program, or they have some 

very, very significant limitations as to how to get into their waiver 

87 

program. Our folks never will have an opportunity to get the 3 

years of experience of driving while using insulin. 

Senator BREAUX. Do you have a recommendation on how we 

should handle this? 

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I think that the expert medical panel that 

FMCSA convened made recommendations. I think that the medical 

practice that’s employed, in terms of treating diabetes now, has advanced to a stage, or to a state, to where, according to the Committee, as I recall—it’s a month or two of evaluation to see how 

they tolerate using insulin, and then they’d be allowed to drive on 

an individual or a case-by-case basis. 

Senator BREAUX. Ms. Claybrook—thank you—do you have any 

comment on how we should test or judge these drivers? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. It is a conundrum, Senator, and I know there’s 

been a lot of controversy about this. We really don’t have a proposal, but perhaps we could submit something for the record that 

might be helpful to you. I’d like to think about it a little bit more. 

Senator BREAUX. Thank you. 

[Ms. Claybrook submitted the following:] 

ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY

Washington, DC, November 30, 2001 

SUMMARY OF COMMENT

Diabetes Exemption Program—Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Current Federal regulation prohibits persons who require insulin injections to 

treat their diabetes from driving commercial motor vehicles (trucks and buses) in 

interstate commerce. The FMCSA has proposed establishing a program to grant certain drivers with insulin treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) exemptions from the existing Federal medical safety standard. The agency already has a program under 

which exemptions are granted from the Federal vision standard to drivers who do 

not meet the existing vision requirements. Advocates presented a number of arguments against establishing the proposed program based on the scientific evidence 

and applicable legal standard. 

The comments reviewed all the important evidence cited by the agency and 

showed, in turn, how each failed to provide a convincing basis for the agency’s conclusion that persons with ITDM can operate at an equal level of safety performance. 

Advocates pointed out that all of the research studies available to the public provided, at best, mixed results. Even those that indicated that, in general, diabetic 

drivers might be able to operate vehicles safely, insulin treated diabetics (those for 

whom the program is designed) had a greater risk of medical impairment. Other 

cited research results did not distinguish between type of diabetes or by commercial 

vehicle size. The most recent study relied on by FMCSA to support the program, 

a 1997 study conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has not 

been made public. The agency violated principles of due process and fairness by proposing a program predicated on unpublished research results that are not available 

for public review and comment. Advocates’ comments also faulted the agency’s reliance on the FHWA Diabetes Waiver Program, which only had 116 drivers when it 

was discontinued in 1994 after Advocates successful litigation against the FHWA 

Vision Waiver Program. Because of poor research methodology, lack of a comparison 

group, the small number of participants and the fact that the program was terminated before completion, the data and conclusions from the FHWA waiver programs 

cannot be extrapolated to apply to other research and different drivers. 

The comments also took issue with FMCSA’s invocation of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) program that permits persons with ITDM to obtain third class 

pilots certificates. Reliance on the FAA program is misplaced because these certificates only permit the operation of private and personal aircraft. The FAA program 

prohibits, on safety grounds, anyone with ITDM from obtaining a second- or firstclass certificates that would permit air freight or passenger aircraft operation. Thus, 

the FAA actually prohibits the very types of operation that are directly analogous 

to commercial truck and bus operations, which the FMCSA exemption program 

seeks to allow. 

88 

Advocates presented a strong argument regarding the legal standard the FMCSA 

must apply in making safety determinations to grant exemptions. The comments 

stated that based on the evidence presented in this record the agency had not met 

its burden of proof or sustained the legal standard required by law to grant exemptions. The comments also countered the agency contention that the present legal 

standard for exemptions is more flexible, and affords the agency more discretion, 

than the previous legal standard for granting waivers from the Federal standards. 

Senator BREAUX. On driver disqualifications, on September 30, 

the—commercial motor vehicle drivers who are convicted of a traffic violation while operating a car, results in the cancellation or 

suspension or revocation of their car-driving privileges, are disqualified from getting a commercial motor vehicle license. Also disqualified are individuals convicted of committing drug- or alcoholrelated offenses while driving a car. That restriction has now been 

in place, as I take it, for approximately 8 months. Can anybody tell 

me, has anybody been disqualified as a commercial driver as a result of that new regulation in the 8 months it’s been in effect? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I don’t know that, Senator, but one of the things 

that we believe is that before a commercial driver’s license is 

issued, that the car-driving record should be checked, and I think 

that that would be an improvement. This is if—once they have 

their license, their truck license, then if they have these convictions, then—or revocations—then it puts at risk their CDL. But we 

believe that it ought to be something that’s checked initially, as a 

preventive measure. And I’m almost sure that, for pilots, that’s correct. 

Senator BREAUX. It is. 

Mr. Byrd, do you have a comment on this? 

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I receive probably about one call, possibly two 

calls per week concerning drivers who have received DWIs in their 

private cars. And now, pending, I guess, adjudication, they may be 

suspended. 

At this point, I don’t know of any actual cases of a person losing 

their CDL as a result. But I do know that there are some court 

cases that are in the process. 

Senator BREAUX. Mr. Duncan—thank you—what’s the policy of 

the Trucker’s Association with regard to hiring drivers who have 

previous convictions or revocations or lost their licenses? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, we do the background checks, and we will not 

hire those drivers. All right? And we do subsequent checks of the 

driver’s license record so that we find violations that even the driver hasn’t reported. So that’s done on a subsequent basis. But, you 

know, as in the testimony, we would like access to more of the 

FMCSA’s safety data, the roadside inspection data, and that type 

of thing, during the hiring process, so we would have more information about a driver that we are considering for hiring, more than 

just the driver’s license information. 

Senator BREAUX. Well, is the policy you just enunciated industrywide, or each company has their own policy with regard to hiring 

someone, for commercial driving purposes, who had lost their driver’s license as a—for driving a vehicle, a car? 

Mr. BYRD. I can’t state categorically that every company does 

that. No. 

Senator BREAUX. Ms. Claybrook, what should the policy be here? 

Should a person who has a previous conviction or a DWI, for inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
89 

stance, or had their license revocated, revoked, what have you, be 

able, in the future, to get a commercial driver’s license at all? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, I’m not sure that this should be a lifetime 

suspension from ever having the ability to get a CDL, but I do 

think that there ought to be criteria laid out so that they don’t just 

automatically, you know, after a year or two, be able to come back 

and get a CDL. I think there ought to be a program for the training 

or for making sure that they’re over the problem that they had, 

that they’re no longer drinking or taking drugs, and that there 

ought to be a substantial period of time, because otherwise drivers 

would just come back. 

Senator BREAUX. I take it that as of September 30 of last year, 

2002, commercial motor vehicle drivers who are convicted of traffic 

violations, while operating a car, which resulted in the cancellation, 

suspension, revocation of the driver’s license, are disqualified from 

operating a commercial motor vehicle. I’m not sure, but is that permanent, or is that for a period of time, for as long as the license 

is suspended? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Suspended, right. It’s until they get their driver’s license back again, I believe. 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. SENATOR?

Senator BREAUX. If they get their driver’s license, they’d be eligible for a CDL? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. That’s correct. 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. Senator? 

Senator BREAUX. Yes, Mr. Sullivan? 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. I think you’re going to find, sir, that the 

states are going to wait the 3-year period, as they—they’ll take this 

issue, particular issue, to their state legislatures. Even the states 

that have adopted the Federal regulations by rote will remove that 

and go to their legislature because of the importance of this issue. 

Senator BREAUX. You think some states will not follow this, you 

say? 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. No, I think everybody will follow it, but 

they’ll use a different mechanism to get there. By adoption. Massachusetts adopts a Federal regulation by adoption, and any change 

in the Federal regulations is a change in Massachusetts law, but 

I do not believe, from my conversations I’ve had with the licensing 

authority, the registry of motor vehicles, in Massachusetts, they 

are willing to do that with this, because of the nature of it. It think 

what we’re going to find is there’s going to be a delay on it, and 

they’re going to bring it to the state legislature to put it into our 

‘‘operating under the influence’’ law, or move it over under the 

Massachusetts general law, rather than into a regulation. 

Senator BREAUX. Well, my only comment would be, I don’t think 

there’s any question that someone who has lost their driver’s license to drive a vehicle, a car, should not be able to have a commercial driver’s license to drive a truck. It just seems like just common sense. 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. I believe it is common sense, sir, and I— 

my understanding of the rule is that the penalty phase will continue on to the same finite period as it would in the other one, and 

the major concern now is, are our systems strong enough to hold 

the giant influx of convictions from passenger cars and histories of 

90 

everybody? Is the CDL system going to hold that? Do we have 

enough faith in that system to say, ‘‘Well, we have the regulation 

in place, and are we going to be able to effectively manage it?’’ 

Senator BREAUX. Well, thank you. Thank the panel members. 

Thank you. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. 

Senator Lautenberg? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank the witnesses. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, for future reference—I’m going to alert 

Senator McCain to this, as well—I think that when we have six 

witnesses at the table, it’s awfully hard to be able to communicate 

the way we’d like to. 

But we welcome all of you in the group. And there’s so much 

ground that you’ve covered, with six people, all of whom present interesting testimony, that it’s hard to connect the dots. But the 

Chairman has been patient. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Duncan, I hold here an ad, run by the ATA, May 23 of this 

year, and it says, ‘‘Eighty-seven percent of America’s goods move by 

truck. But some want Congress to enact a national roadblock.’’ And 

it calls these roadblocks ‘‘bad for the economy, bad for public policy.’’ Would you mind describing what roadblocks you see Congress 

wanting to enact, please? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I think you’re referring to the SHIPA bill, 

which actually would extend legislation to more highway than—or 

just extend—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. What kind of legislation, Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. The SHIPA bill? Is that what you’re referring to? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. Well, for instance, would the ATA 

want to allow expanded use of triple-trailer trucks? 

Mr. DUNCAN. The ATA policy is that we believe the states are 

best suited to make those size and weight determinations. They 

best know which highway’s infrastructure can serve them and 

which ones cannot serve them. There are obviously lots of places 

where there cannot be any expanded weight and size. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So the Federal Government should not 

place standards on highways that the Federal Government contributes to? 

Mr. DUNCAN. It is the ATA policy that the states know best how 

to administer those regulations. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So if you had your druthers, you’d rather 

see the states just get the money from the Federal Government 

without condition as to what kind of vehicles, what highway construction there ought to be, et cetera. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I think you miss opportunities to enhance 

safety if you arbitrarily say that a certain state can’t do certain 

things. So—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I don’t understand that. I’m sorry. You say 

we miss opportunities for safety. Let me ask you this question. You 

say that we have to expand truck use and that we ought not to inhibit—how about—should we have a separate speed limit for 

trucks, do you think, different than the cars, if the highways are 

questionable as to the safety, or—for a speeding truck? 

91 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I think the safety experts would tell you, having vehicles moving at different speeds on the same highway creates a safety risk. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Creates a safety problem. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And you said that larger vehicles will promote safety and ‘‘no doubt that continuing to further restricting 

current Federal size and weight limit costs lives.’’ I guess that confirms what you said. So you make them bigger, and you start saving lives. So if we make them big enough and often enough, then 

we won’t lose anybody on the highway. Is that—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, Senator, we only operate larger combination 

vehicles on restricted highways in pretty remote areas. And by 

doing that, you can haul more freight with fewer drivers, more 

freight with fewer diesel engines, so there’s both a safety benefit 

and an economic benefit, but only in very restricted parts of the 

country. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you know whether triple trailers are 

involved in more accidents than just a regular double—or a regular 

long trailer? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Triple trailers, for both the ATA and our company 

specifically, have the best safety record of any combination of vehicles we operate. Now, that’s not to say that they’re inherently 

safer; it says that they’re operated in very restrictive highways, 

they’re operated in very restrictive weather conditions, only the 

most senior, well-trained drivers are put on those vehicles. So you 

put all those factors together, yes, the safety factor for those vehicles are the safest we have in our industry. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. But your testimony calls for more enforcement of speed laws, and so forth. But I don’t see your ad here 

that warns us that all we want to do here is put roadblocks in the 

way of—does that hyperbole get you a little bit or—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Senator, I don’t have that—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. 

Mr. DUNCAN.—ad in front of me. We’ll be glad to give you testimony to that—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The type’s pretty big. It says ‘‘Eightyseven percent of America—goods move by truck, but some want 

Congress to enact a national roadblock.’’ And the, you know—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, 87 percent is correct. I mean, fast-cycle distribution has become a way of life in commercial business here, and 

that is inherently supported by the trucking industry. Even if it’s 

moved subsequently by rail, the final delivery is accomplished by 

a truck in more cases than not. So it’s a very, very important part 

of our commerce. And all we’re saying is, we don’t want to promote 

any unsafe practices, but we don’t want to overlook practices that 

benefit the economy and also help in the environmental and the 

safety regard. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Ms. Claybrook, what do you have to say 

about the larger trucks and becoming safer? I must have some kind 

of an optical illusion. I’ve been driving a long time, as you can tell 

by the wrinkles and the color hair, but I always feel just a little 

bit more concerned about driving along a truck when he’s outracing 

me and I’m going too fast in the first place. 

92 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, first of all, the public hate these larger 

trucks, they fishtail and other things as they’re going down windy 

highways. I have a map of 16 states where the longer—the triples 

are allowed, the longer combination vehicles. It is true that they’re 

mostly in the western states. But, for example, my family lives in 

Oregon, and they’re on the highways in Oregon, and they have to 

drive past them all the time. So it’s not as though they’re separated 

from cars. 

In terms of going a different speed, these trucks take a much 

longer time to stop than do cars, and so if they’re going at the same 

speed as cars, then they’re going to have trouble stopping in the 

same distance that cars do. And so I think that that, alone, argues 

for them to go at a slower speed. 

I’d also say that the argument of the industry has always been, 

‘‘Well, we don’t drive in bad weather, and we only drive on certain 

highways, and we have the best drivers doing the pulling of these 

trucks.’’ But the fact is that the pressures of the trucking industry 

for just-in-time delivery, where drivers drive all night, and the 

shippers want their product at a certain time, or there are types 

of products that are, you know, subject to disintegration over a period of time if they’re not delivered quickly, there is just tremendous pressure. And if these trucks were allowed anyplace in the 

country, the trucking industry would do what it’s done with size 

and weight rules in the past, which—and you can, sort of, see it 

from this map—this one poor white state in the middle here is 

probably under a lot of pressure if the law was changed right now. 

It’s not, but it would be. And so they get as many states as they 

can, and then the last states, they put tremendous pressure on and 

say, ‘‘Well, we’re allowed to do it every other place.’’ 

If you have a triple that’s allowed in one state or two states, and 

then they want to deliver something in the third state that doesn’t 

allow triples, you know that there’s going to be tremendous pressure to allow them, regardless of the condition of the highway. 

So we think that the freeze on longer combination vehicles is 

very appropriate, and we hope that this Congress will not listen to 

the trucking industry and try and change that. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The U.S. DOT found, in its 2000 Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study, that multi-trailer trucks 

could be expected to experience an 11 percent higher fatal crash 

rate than single-trailer trucks. Does that 11 percent figure appear 

accurate to you? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. It does. I was going to use it. I should have, myself. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. We rely on the DOT to do Those kind of statistical analyses, and I think that it is correct. And any—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Duncan, what—— 

Ms. CLAYBROOK.—anyone just has to drive beside one of those 

vehicles and realize—among other things, by the way, they have 

great trouble going on and off the highways, because the highways 

were designed many years before the advent of triple trailers, and 

so you often see them going on the edges of the exit ramps and 

sometimes over the exit ramps. They also, when they go around 

corners, if you’re in the wrong position, your car can just be—— 

93 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Duncan, what do you think about that 

question, about the 11 percent higher in fatal crash than singletrailer trucks? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, the statistics we have do not support that. 

I’ve seen a number of statistics on highway crashes, both internally 

within our company, by the ATA, I’ve seen a recent study by the 

Ohio Turnpike, which showed that, over a 2 year period, I believe, 

that the triples combination had a 47-percent better accident frequency than all other combinations involved over that study of the 

time period. We can certainly get you those studies. 

But time and time again—they are safe vehicles when used on 

proper conditions in proper highways and with the proper drivers. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So you’re saying limited highway access—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Absolutely. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. Make sure that they don’t get onto 

other roads. We’re going to try to do that, Mr. Duncan. 

And Lieutenant Sullivan, you say you’ve stopped thousands of 

trucks in your day. Is there a—I don’t want to embarrass anybody 

in Massachusetts; I like the state very much, but—— 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG.—is there as much of a focus, do you think, 

that—your colleagues in law enforcement—on speeding trucks as 

there ought to be? Do you sense that you just don’t have the 

hands—is it tough to stop a speeding truck that’s got even a double 

behind it and moving along at a high rate of speed? 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. No. It’s not. You have to use discretion 

when you’re going to stop a truck. You can’t just pull it over like 

you’re going to do a passenger car and stand on the side of the road 

and wave it in running radar. But you have to have a plan, and 

you have to follow it to completion. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How about on a crowded highway? Is 

it—— 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. No. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. No? 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. It doesn’t. It doesn’t present a problem on 

a crowded highway, either. The problem is, is that with the resources available, the complexity of the regulations we’ve kind of 

ignored all the local police officers and even state police officers 

that don’t have the specialized training. We’ve kind of left them out 

in the lurch, and they’re embarrassed to stop trucks, because they 

don’t know anything about them. A speeding truck is a speeding 

truck, but—and when you lose control of the situation, police officers don’t like to do that. And that’s why we suggest—you know, 

we’ve got this knowledge gap. We’ve got to close it. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Uh-huh. Speeding truck more dangerous 

than a speeding car? 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. I don’t believe so. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You don’t. 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. No, I don’t. No, I don’t. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. We’re at odds on that, although with 

all due respect. 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

94 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I’m not a police officer, but I’ve got a lot 

of mileage on this body, and I’ve been interested in safety questions 

for a long time. Everyone knows—— 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. I think that—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG.—I mean, we’ve seen some horrible, horrible crashes in the State of New Jersey, where we are very, very 

crowded, because we’re an entryway. As a matter of fact, as I listened to the group here, I think the production facilities ought to 

move closer to the market—— 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. Well, all I can—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG.—down the highways—— 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN.—all I can do is speak from experience and 

from our statistics. And when we get involved in the speeding car 

and the speeding truck, and 70 percent of accidents are caused by 

driver error, and more than 50 percent is caused by passenger car, 

then it becomes—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Have you got a family—— 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN.—then it becomes—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG.—got a family, Lieutenant? Do you have a 

family? 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. Yes, I do. Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Would you rather see them not intimidated by large, speeding trucks or—I mean, the accidents that 

we’ve seen in our state—and I know that it’s not unique to New 

Jersey—when a truck hits a car, you’re looking at such incredible 

damage. I know that I worry about my family—my kids, my grandchildren—when they’re out there in the highway mixing it up with 

trucks. In New Jersey, we have, on our turnpike, if you’ve ever 

seen it—a very, very busy road, we separate, as much as possible, 

the cars and trucks, but it’s impossible, with the volume of trucks. 

And if Mr. Duncan is right, the only recourse is just to keep on expanding the facility—that we’re going to present ourselves with a 

problem, I think. Look—— 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Senator—— 

Lieutenant SULLIVAN. I agree, Senator. And the perception is 

that the greater damage in—because they’re so big, that they’re 

going to be dangerous, and we support the systems that can take 

these people, whether they’re passenger-car drivers or they’re truck 

drivers, off the road, and aggressive traffic enforcement against 

both. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Senator Lautenberg, can I just comment on one 

thing? Twenty-three percent of all passenger-vehicle occupants who 

die in multi-vehicle crashes are involved in a collision with a big 

truck, but big trucks are only 4 percent of all registered vehicles. 

So they do an enormous amount of damage to people. And one of 

the reasons that the statistics of 70 percent is caused by the car 

driver is because when the police interview people after the crash, 

there’s no car driver to interview, so the only person they interview 

is the truck driver, who says, ‘‘Yes, it wasn’t my fault. It was that 

guy over there.’’ And there have been several studies that have 

evaluated that. 

I would like to submit for the record something that rebuts that 

number, because this is ‘‘blame the car driver’’ time. 

95 

And while I think that—whether you’re a car driver or a truck 

driver, you ought to be arrested if you’re speeding. Nevertheless, I 

think that statistic is completely incorrect, and I would like to mention that. 

The other thing is, of course, when trucks are carrying hazardous 

materials, which many, many trucks are, and they’re speeding and 

have a crash, they can close down, you know, an entire city or community for a day, as we have seen in this area in the not-too-distant past. And so when these trucks are speeding, they don’t have 

the ability to stop in the same distance as cars. They’re completely 

intermixed with cars. I think that they are more dangerous even 

than car drivers. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. 

Mr. Chairman, you’ve been more than patient. I appreciate it. 

Thank you very much. 

We know one thing, that there is a message out there that says 

we have to make sure the rules and regulations are there and that 

they are enforced, and we have to provide the resources to be able 

to do that. 

And, Mr. Duncan, I think that when the industry talks about 

that Congress wants to erect national roadblocks, I think you ought 

to be prepared to mention what those roadblocks are, so we can get 

after those in the Congress who are recalcitrant, and we ought to 

make sure that everyone knows that all they’re doing is throwing 

up roadblocks. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

I’ve been advised we have a vote in approximately 10 or 15 minutes. 

Senator Smith? 

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, when I was a young boy, I remember our family made a move and when we got to the destination where our goods were to be delivered, the phone rang, and the 

mover was on the other end of the line saying if we didn’t pay X 

additional, that we wouldn’t get our stuff. It was a searing experience as a young boy. 

And recently—I don’t know why it is, but I’ve had several constituents come to me, who have moved to Oregon, and who have 

been held up, essentially bribed, by the people moving their goods. 

And I didn’t know how big a problem this is until I started looking 

into it. And apparently, depending on the year, the number of complaints will go from 4,000 to 9,000 to 20,000. This is highway robbery, literally. And I would like this Committee to focus on this 

problem. 

And I want to announce that—apparently today, the Department 

of Transportation has issued a new ruling to enhance household 

goods consumer protection. And apparently that’s really very much 

in need, and I would love to get the response—Mr. Harrison, 

maybe you can help me to understand what’s going on here, because the case I—I remember, as a boy, my Dad saying to the 

mover, ‘‘I will be calling the ICC as soon as we hang up here.’’ But 

the ICC doesn’t even exist anymore. And he got his stuff, because 

96 

he was able to say, ‘‘I’m taking you to the ICC unless I get my 

things.’’ 

But where do people go today? Where do they get redress? Where 

do they get justice on America’s highways when families are put 

into this kind of trauma, where they’ve got a deadline, a job, a 

schedule, and somebody says, I’m keeping all your stuff? 

Mr. HARRISON. Well, you’re right, Senator, the Interstate Commerce Commission regulated the moving industry since 1935 or so. 

The Congress eliminated that agency in end of 1995 and transferred the household good regulations and responsibilities to the 

DOT. But first the Federal Highway Administration, and now the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, have been somewhat 

indifferent about their responsibilities, relative to the enforcement 

of the consumer-protection rules, which have not changed; they’ve 

been on the books for a long time. 

Senator SMITH. Sure. 

Mr. HARRISON. And, as a consequence of that, since 1996, the socalled rogue movers have flourished and are ripping off consumers, 

mostly by holding shipments hostage and demanding four or five 

times more than what the original estimate called for, which is a 

violation of an existing Federal regulation. 

Senator SMITH. Right. 

Mr. HARRISON. But there hasn’t been sufficient enforcement by 

the Federal Government up until just recently. There seems to be 

a renewed interest by the agency, in terms of enforcement, and 

they are asking Congress for more money to, in fact, increase their 

enforcement activities. 

Senator SMITH. Well, I’m glad to hear that, and I’d like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this Committee make this the subject of 

a hearing, to turn up the heat and provide the resources, because 

the American people, in our mobile society, are getting ripped off. 

And I’ve had too many complaints—and it may just be a coincidence—that people come to me and say, I just had the worst experience moving to your State, by being ripped off by a moving van. 

And I just think if resources are needed, then this is a priority that 

ought to be put on the agenda of the U.S. Government, because 

this is interstate commerce, in a classic sense, and it is filled with 

corruption right now, and we’ve got to root it out. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to make these comments and making this point about a very crying need in American 

commerce. 

Thank you. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Senator Smith. And I would certainly highlight the fact that the Acting Administrator, Ms. 

Sandberg, addressed this issue briefly in her remarks. We wanted 

Mr. Harrison to be here, because we fully understood the degree to 

which complaints have increased and that this is an issue. And obviously the new rule that’s been put out today by FMCSA is an indication that they believe this to be a priority, as well. 

Let me conclude with a few questions, beginning with the issue 

of safety. Ms. Claybrook, you suggested—I think you said in your 

testimony—that the 1991 Act, which, I believe, Mr. Lautenberg 

was largely responsible for—was very successful, correct? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I did. 

97 

Senator SUNUNU. I look at fatalities, and I’m not an expert on 

the law, and I’m sure it is a step in the right direction, but with 

regard to its efficacy, in the 5 years following its passage in 1991, 

fatal accidents involving large trucks seem to have increased from 

roughly 4,500 fatalities per year to maybe 5,200, 5,300 per year. 

Why would that be? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, I was talking about the longer combination vehicle freeze. And the numbers that you cited are all large 

trucks; they’re not just the longer combination vehicles. 

And I will take a look, Senator, if we can find the data—it’s very 

hard to get this data—on the different types of trucks. It’s one of 

our complaints, that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s data is not uniform; and, therefore, it’s very difficult to evaluate, by type of truck, the fatalities. 

But what I meant by that was that—my statement was that it 

did stop the incursion of these longer combination vehicles—that is, 

triples and longer doubles—into other states. And there had been 

huge fights over whether or not to allow them in, and there had 

been proposals to have them in the East Coast and some of the 

smaller states with smaller highways and so on. So that’s essentially—— 

Senator SUNUNU. Well, any additional data that you might be interested in providing would be welcome. 

This was a point that came up during Administrator Sandberg’s 

testimony, that new regulations really should be based on evidence 

that indicates that those regulations will address concerns of safety. That’s what we’re all here for. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Absolutely. 

Senator SUNUNU. I mean, regardless of whether we agree or disagree on every specific regulation, everyone is concerned about 

safety. So data is important, and I know Mr. Duncan offered to provide some information that might reflect a different perspective 

than the statistic given regarding the 11 percent greater incidence 

of fatalities with certain large-truck vehicles. Again, that would be 

welcome, because—and I would want to make sure, as a policymaker, that we’re working with the best information possible. 

Ms. Claybrook, you suggested that—I think you said that the 

highways in New Hampshire were somehow not suited to trucks of 

a particular size. I’m not quite sure what you meant by that. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, I meant that in the East Coast, the highways are—particularly the ability to get on and off in all these 

major highways. You come from smaller roads—— 

Senator SUNUNU. Littler states, so we have littler roads? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. No, but you have many more single-lane roads, 

often in some of the older states. I didn’t mean because it was a 

littler state; but in the East Coast states—and, in the East Coast, 

particularly, in the New England area. Not in Maine. Maine, it has 

huge highways, and I’ve been on them—I’ve been on them in New 

Hampshire, as well—but you have a lot—— 

Senator SUNUNU. Do you think the per capita incidence of multilane roads in Maine is higher than the per capita incidence of 

multi-lane roads in New Hampshire? Is that what you’re suggesting? 

98 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. I think it might be, actually, but I’m not positive. But I think it might be. 

Senator SUNUNU. Let’s see. You had a map. And I think you 

talked about—experience of Oregon. I’m sorry Senator Smith left. 

But it would seem to me, as I understand the regulations, that Oregon is free to decide not to allow tandems if they so choose. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. That’s correct. 

Senator SUNUNU. Are you suggesting that the people in Oregon 

are consciously making decisions that aren’t in keeping with their 

safety interests? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, it’s the legislature that made the decision. 

But I think—— 

Senator SUNUNU. It’s the people that elected the legislators. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. That’s right. That’s correct. I think if you take 

a poll of the population in any state, you’ll see that they don’t like 

these trucks, whether it’s Oregon or any other state. It just happens that I have some family in Oregon, who moved there, were 

unused to triple trailers, and are scared to death of driving on 

those highways because of the triple trailers. 

Senator SUNUNU. Being an elected official, I’m conscious of the 

importance of public opinion, but are you suggesting that that’s 

how we should be promulgating new rules and regulations, is by 

taking polls? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. No, but I think that the public view ought to 

be taken into account, since they’re the victims in truck crashes. 

They’re the ones who are killed, and the public knows that. I think 

it’s in—and I’ll submit these polls for the record—that in the last 

8 or 10 years, advocates for highway and auto safety have taken 

polls on a number of different trucks, safety and auto safety issues, 

and the most overwhelming support is in the regulation of trucks. 

Senator SUNUNU. But there would seem to be some contradiction, 

just using the hypothetical case of Oregon, or the real case of Oregon. If the polls are so overwhelming, why would the legislature 

there either not take them into consideration in passing new rules, 

or, if these regulations are really contrary to the public will, why 

aren’t these legislators paying a political price? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Well, it takes a lot of organization to make that 

happen, Senator, as you know. 

Senator SUNUNU. A public citizen knows a lot about organization. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. But the rules for triple trailers have been in Oregon for a long time. And I certainly would like to see that, actually. I don’t know whether my family has the energy to get involved 

in doing something like that in Oregon. But I think that the legislators have felt the pressure of public opinion, but it’s more than 

just public opinion that has to be taken into account. And, obviously, the support of the trucking industry is another major factor 

in the decisionmaking process, and they’re probably much more potent, much more extensively, you know, involved in the legislative 

process than individual citizens. 

Senator SUNUNU. Speaking of the trucking industry, Mr. Duncan, is the ATA seeking to change the current size and weight restrictions? 

99 

Mr. DUNCAN. No. The ATA policy is that we think, we believe, 

and it is our policy that the states should be allowed, but there is 

no effort underway to change that. 

Senator SUNUNU. OK. You don’t see any contradiction there? 

That you don’t seek any changes, but you want the states to be allowed to seek changes? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, we are a diverse industry, where our members have lots of different agendas. The one that we agree upon, 

however, is truck safety. All right? So on that matter, we—it’s a 

matter of policy that we believe the states are best suited for that. 

But, you know, to comment briefly, I heard time and time again 

about the large, speeding truck. I would contend that the operative 

word there is ‘‘speeding,’’ and that’s the behavior that needs to 

stop, whether it’s a truck, whether it’s a car, whether it’s a bus, 

that that is the contributing factor. 

I would also say that we have limited funds to approach truck 

safety. There is a major study underway for truck causation among 

the DOT, and we are anxious to get that study completed, because 

I think the results of that will tell us where we can put the dollars 

to save the most lives. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Senator—— 

Senator SUNUNU. Ms. Claybrook, let me ask you a question, and 

you can comment on that. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Right. 

Senator SUNUNU. Maybe we can find some agreement here. Do 

you believe that carriers should have access to information on drivers’ history of logbook violations, DOT reportable crashes, and 

roadside inspections? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. By driver name—you mean by driver? 

Senator SUNUNU. Yes. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Do you mean generically or statistically or by 

individual driver? 

Senator SUNUNU. By driver. 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. By driver. I do think that there are privacy 

issues, and that there ought to be some communication with the 

driver before that occurs, but—— 

Senator SUNUNU. Certainly, but—I mean, but barring that, some 

sort of a system for communication. I mean, don’t you believe that 

the issues of safety here ought to drive us to want to share information about crash history and logbook violations? 

Ms. CLAYBROOK. Yes, I do, Senator. And I think it has to be done 

very cautiously and carefully, because there is a possibility for 

some kind of misuse of that data, and I think that people’s livelihoods depend on it, and so I just think—I would just say that it 

ought to be done very, very cautiously. 

I would like to comment on that truck causation study by the 

DOT. That has been roundly criticized and reviewed—is under review now by the Centers for Disease Control, and I think that the 

outcome of that study is going to be much in question. 

And I’d like to submit, for the record, a letter that the public interest groups wrote to the Centers for Disease Control, and another 

critique of that study. 

Senator SUNUNU. Please. I’d be very happy to take that for the 

record. 

100 

1K. Thiriez, G. Radja, G. Toth, Large Truck Crash Causation Study—Interim Report, Report 

No. DOT HS 809 527, September 2002. 2http://hstathim.niltgov/hq/Hquest/screen/TextBrowse/t/1049397685410/s/40169. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY

Washington, DC, May 7, 2003 

SUZANNE BINDER, M.D., Director, 

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

Atlanta, GA. 

Dear Dr. Binder: 

The supplemental appropriations legislation for Fiscal Year 2003, enacted February 13, 2003, contains a House and Senate conference agreement directing the 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control to evaluate the adequacy of the Truck Crash Causation Study’s (TCCS) research 

design, and to report findings to the House and the Senate Committees on Appropriations. Rept. 108–10, 108th Congress, 1st Sess. (February 13, 2003), p.1280. The 

TCCS is being conducted jointly by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in 

compliance with Section 224 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 

which directed the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation ‘‘to determine the causes of, and contributing factors to, crashes that involve commercial 

motor vehicles.’’ 

Highway and truck safety organizations strongly supported this language requiring the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control to evaluate the 

study design of the TCCS because of your agency’s sustained reputation as a leading 

institution in epidemiological research methods and outcomes. We are deeply concerned over the research approach used by NHTSA and FMCSA in this study to investigate the reasons for truck crashes. The two agencies decided three years ago 

to use a research protocol which only investigates a number of cases of crashes by 

tracing back a series of events and, through doing so, purportedly identifying the 

‘‘critical event’’ and ‘‘critical reason’’ for the subsequent crashes. The agencies regard 

this effort as sufficient to identify the ‘‘causes’’ of the crashes. There is no comparison group being used to construct hypotheses about the reasons for such crashes 

and to test whether the identification of the supposed ‘‘critical event’’ that the agencies claim as the ‘‘cause’’ or reason for the ensuing crash is borne out. 

The authors of the Interim Report on the TCCS assert that the most important 

aspect of the study’s data collection effort is the interviewing of crash participants 

and witnesses.1 This means that central reliance in the data entries and subsequent 

inferences about the chain of crash events is placed on characterizing narrative supplied by individuals who are on-scene during or soon after the crash. These problems of bias and subjectivity are fatal to the accuracy of the gathering of threshold 

data and information about how any of the investigated cases of crashes occurred. 

Many of these criticisms have been repeated by the Transportation Research 

Board’s special committee charged with overseeing the study in several meetings 

with the principal investigators in the two agencies, and in a letter to the former 

FMCSA Administration, Joseph Clapp, sent December 4, 2001 (copy attached). 

The TCCS relies on the lowest level of evidence and poorest research design identified by, among others, the National Institutes of Health U.S. Preventive Services 

Task Force.2 The safety community believes that the research design for the TCCS 

is deeply flawed and that conclusions drawn from the examination of truck crash 

cases cannot overcome bias and subjectivity. Unless corrective action is taken, we 

believe that the findings of the study will be misused, Congress will be seriously 

misled about the reasons for crashes, and misguided safety countermeasures will be 

enacted and funded for Federal agencies to carry out. Furthermore, NHTSA is asking Congress for funds to conduct a similar investigation over the next several years 

of passenger vehicle crash cases to determine the causes of car and light truck 

crashes. This new study is to be conducted using the same flawed study design as 

the TCCS. 

Preliminary 2002 data released last week by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that overall highway fatalities have increased, the highest number in 

over a decade. Properly understanding crash causation, for trucks and passenger 

cars, is critical to developing an action plan to bring down deaths and injuries in 

the next decade. Public policy initiatives to address this growing public health crisis 

will be ineffective without defensible studies on which to base our actions. For this 

101 

1 A task force comprising five committee members—John Billing, Michael Belzer, Anne 

McCartt, James McKnight, and Frank Wilson—visited Veridian Corporation, an FMSCA crash 

investigation contractor, in Buffalo, New York on July 9–10, 2001 to review crash case files. 

important reason, we welcome the impartial, professional review by the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the quality of the research being 

conducted by NHTSA and FMCSA. 

We would be pleased to have an opportunity to discuss further our concerns about 

the quality and direction of the TCCS. Thank you for your assistance. 

Sincerely, 

JUDITH LEE STONE, 

President. 

Joan Claybrook, President 

Public Citizen 

Clarence Ditlow, Executive Director 

Center for Auto Safety 

Stephen W. Hargarten, MD, MPH 

Medical College of Wisconsin, Emergency Medicine 

Jack Gillis, Director of Public Affairs 

Consumer Federation of America 

Daphne Izer, Founder and Board Member 

Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T.) 

Randi Baun, Executive Director 

Truck Safety Coalition 

Andrew McGuire, Executive Director 

Trauma Foundation 

December 4, 2001 

JOSEPH A. CLAPP, 

Administrator, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Mr. Clapp: 

The Committee for Review of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s 

Truck Crash Causation Study (TCCS) held its third meeting on August 20–21, 2001, 

at the National Research Council facilities in Washington, D.C. The enclosed meeting roster indicates the members, liaisons, guests, and TRB staff in attendance. On 

behalf of the Committee, I want to thank the staff members of the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) for their presentations and responses to committee questions. The committee believes the continuing exchange of views and ideas on this 

project is highly beneficial. 

The meeting provided the Committee with an opportunity to review a set of questions stemming from a task force review of several crash files and to discuss again 

the agency’s study methodology.1 In addition, the Committee heard a presentation 

about the database being prepared for the study and discussed the extent to which 

this database will be made available to the public. There was further discussion 

about the need to collect as much measurable data as possible about the crash characteristics of the roadway and vehicles involved. Finally, several committee members again underscored the need for the agency to document its method for assessing the crash data files and to consider using other analysis methods as well. 

The committee then met in closed session to deliber to on its findings and begin 

the preparation of this report, which was completed through co espondence among 

the members. This report summarizes key points made during the Committee’s 

iscussions and provides several recommendations to FMCSA. See Appendix A for a 

review of previous committee decisions that affect the Committee’s discussion and 

recommendations. 

Study Purpose and Agency Expectations 

The TCCS is a congressionally mandated study of the causes of truck-involved 

crashes leading to fatality or serious injury. The results of the study will be used 

to design and select cost-effective measures for reducing the number and severity 

102 

2Daniel Blower. Relative Contributions of Truck Drivers and Passenger Vehicle Drivers to 

Truck-Passenger Vehicle Traffic Crashes. UMTRI Report 98–25. 

of serious crashes involving large trucks. The study will consist of in-depth investigations of a nationally representative sample of 1000 large truck crashes, to be 

performed by teams of trained investigators from NHTSA’s National Automotive 

Safety Sampling System (NASS) project and FMCSA-funded truck safety inspectors. 

The full study involves data collection at 24 data collection sites. 

FMCSA staff reviewed the study’s aims for the Committee, emphasizing that the 

study is designed to enable the agency to draw inferences about circumstances and 

contributing factors associated with truck crashes, thus helping the agency meet its 

goals for reducing truck crash fatalities. The committee agrees with the agency that 

the primary objective of the study is to collect the most complete and accurate possible set of factual evidence for use by agency analysts as well as future researchers. 

However, the study’s goals are complicated by the fact that in more than 40 percent 

of fatal truck crashes, the driver of the other vehicle is believed to be solely responsible for the crash.2 Thus the Committee remains concerned about whether the data 

being collected on the 1000 crash cases will yield sufficient causal information to 

identify the most effective truck-related countermeasures. 

The TCCS is important for other reasons as well. It involves the largest nationally 

representative sample of truck crashes to date and is the first large-scale, on-scene 

investigation of such crashes. This study is also the first to use a combination of 

trained crash investigators and truck safety inspectors for data collection. Finally, 

the truck crash database being developed will be made available to the public and 

outside researchers as well as FMCSA and NHTSA researchers. 

In funding the TCCS, Congress requested ‘‘a comprehensive study to determine 

the causes of, and contributing factors to, crashes that involve commercial motor vehicles . . . [emphasis added]’’ (Motor Carriers Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Section 224). Extracting causal information in complex events like crashes is quite difficult and depends on collecting reliable and valid data on each possible causal or 

contributing factor. FMCSA staff informed the Committee that the agency is focusing on the contributing factor(s) that increase the risk of crashes; the agency is not 

attempting to isolate individual or primary causes of crashes. According to the agency, the TCCS—based on the Perchonok method—will yield findings about critical 

precrash events, the critical reasons for these events, and relative risks in truck 

crashes. While these findings may help the agency improve the effectiveness of 

truck crash countermeasures, they may not meet the goals set by Congress. The 

agency recognizes these expectations and is addressing them as it prepares a crash 

data analysis plan based on the analysis methodology described by Blower in Appendix B, pp. 13–19. The committee supports this effort and urges the Committee 

to consider other analysis approaches as well. Several committee members also 

noted that some of the distinctions the agency is making—for example, between causation and contributing factors that increase the risk of a crash—may be lost to decision makers and the public. Thus, clarity in both analyses and report writing is 

critical. 

Crash Event Assessment (Study Methodology) 

In its first letter report, dated November 15, 2000, the Committee noted that 

FMCSA has chosen a clinical or case analytic methodology for the study. The discussions at this meeting, however, indicated that both a clinical approach (on the part 

of NHTSA) and a statistical approach (on the part of FMCSA) are envisioned for 

the analysis. (Material provided to the Committee on these approaches is included 

in Appendix B, pp. 2–8.) While the Committee believes that both are rational approaches, it continues to be concerned about whether the methodology to be used 

in coding and analyzing the data will yield valid results. 

There was considerable discussion about how a critical event for each crash is 

identified in the Perchonok approach. (Appendix C contains background information 

on this approach provided previously by FMCSA.) The above-mentioned task force, 

which reviewed preliminary results from five crash investigations, disagreed with 

several critical events identified by agency analysts and also disagreed among themselves about appropriate critical events. The committee’s concern is not whether universal agreement can be achieved on every critical event, but whether the 

Perchonok method leads analysts to identify a critical event that can be challenged 

in light of the data in the crash case files. 

For example, the traditional Perchonok method does not recognize that failure to 

take an appropriate or expected action can be a critical event. This point is illustrated by a crash case involving a passenger car that did not stop at a red light 

and was struck by a left-turning truck (Appendix B, p. 11). In this example, the pasVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
103 

sage of the nonstopping car into the intersection after the light had turned red was 

not coded initially as the critical event. Agency staff now recognizes this limitation 

and has adapted the method to accept a driver’s failure to make an appropriate maneuver as a critical event. The risk, however, is that similar challenges, even on just 

a few cases, could lead to the judgment that the methodology is subjective or arbitrary, which would undermine the study’s conclusions. The committee previously 

urged FMCSA to follow the procedures of the version of the Perchonok method that 

is recognized as being the most objective for identifying key crash factors—the 

version shown to have the least bias toward any pre-determined outcome. The agency must thoroughly document the method being used so that other researchers can 

review the crash cases and independently analyze the results using the agency’s 

method. 

Previously the Committee urged FMCSA to conduct two independent assessments 

of each crash case and was informed that such assessments are planned for each 

of the TCCS’s 1000 cases. At the meeting FMCSA reported that it has also established a review panel to make final determinations about critical events in cases 

where the results of the independent assessments differ and these differences cannot be resolved. This is commendable. Nevertheless, FMCSA should identify the 

members of the review panel and document the procedures used by the panel to 

make final determinations. 

The agency discussed its plans to examine likely crash causes on the basis of statistical association and relative risk in the aggregate data, as well as case-by-case 

assessments. (A relative risk calculation regarding brake violations and crashes 

based on truck crash data collected in Michigan is described in Appendix B, pp. 17– 

18.) The committee suggests that FMCSA prepare a detailed, theoretically-based 

analysis plan for testing hypotheses. This plan should include a list of likely causes 

to be examined using statistical methods; a detailed analysis scenario for each 

cause; and a description of analyses that will examine alternative explanations for 

the observed effect (e.g., the examination of other equipment problems in the brake 

analysis to disprove the poor driver/poor equipment alternative theory). Such a plan 

will help the agency determine whether additional data are needed to support these 

analyses. Agency staff indicated that a preliminary analysis plan would be available 

to the Committee early in the first quarter of 2002. 

Crash Event Assessment (Alternative Analysis and Data Collection Issues) 

The TCCS represents an important opportunity for causal analysis using methods 

other than those chosen by FMCSA. Moreover, the Committee previously suggested 

that the agency consider conducting such analyses (for example, the ‘‘but for’’ analysis discussed in its March 9, 2001, letter report). The potential for such alternative 

analyses is directly related to the depth of the investigation conducted—how far 

back in time the investigator pursues each possible causal chain of events for each 

vehicle involved in a crash. It was clear for some of the cases reviewed by the task 

force, as well as those presented at previous committee meetings, that such causal 

chains had been thoroughly pursued. (In one case, for example, the event chain 

went back in time from a rear-end crash to the failure of the driver to reduce speed 

at the top of a hill to an incomplete or unsuccessful brake repair which the driver 

was aware of.) The committee urges FMCSA and NHTSA to reinforce in their instructions to investigators the need to examine these event chains thoroughly for 

each vehicle and driver and to include this information in the database and in the 

narratives. 

In some cases reviewed by the task force, there appeared to be data—potentially 

useful for current FMCSA analysis and for future agency and independent efforts 

to reconstruct the crashes more completely—that could have been collected but were 

not. These data were related to vehicle components and vehicle dynamics of the 

crash and they included brake condition, measurements of skid marks, and objective 

estimates of precrash speeds based on physical evidence at the crash scene. Agency 

staff indicated that they would instruct their investigators on the need and methods 

for collecting such data and for analyzing the data when necessary to identify the 

most likely of several possible critical events. 

In addition to the data currently being collected and suggested for collection, the 

Committee believes future alternative causal analyses would be further enhanced by 

recording the crash investigator’s assessment of whether a defensive avoidance maneuver or preventive action could reasonably have been taken by either the truck 

or nontruck driver to avoid the crash and what that maneuver or action might have 

been. This assessment could be based solely on the investigator’s judgment in light 

of the crash data file and could be described in the narrative that is part of every 

crash case file. A reasonable maneuver is one that could be taken by an average 

driver given the roadway and roadside environment, traffic volume, and ambient 

104 

weather conditions. Judgments about potential avoidance maneuvers, while subjective, provided important information in the Indiana Tri-Level study (see Appendix 

B); such maneuvers were judged to be possible in one-third of the cases examined. 

If a similar finding applied to truck crashes, it would be very important for identification and development of countermeasures, as well as for FMCSA’s enforcement 

and licensing/relicensing programs, especially because truck drivers can be required 

to undergo remedial training. In addition, the existing set of uncompleted cases 

should be reviewed by the investigators to determine whether avoidance maneuvers 

can be identified for them. 

Crash Data Files 

As noted above, a committee task force recently reviewed five crash case files. 

While these files were not yet complete—some follow-up data and interview information can take several months to obtain—the review provided the task force with 

a unique opportunity to become more familiar with the data being collected and the 

analysts’ interpretations of the contributing factors involved. The review led to a set 

of questions that was addressed by agency staff at the meeting. The discussion of 

these questions is reflected throughout this report. Some specific issues are addressed in the following paragraphs. 

Several committee members would like to review the five crash case files once 

they have been completed and entered in the database; they would also like to review additional completed files, time permitting. Agency staff pointed out that data 

continue to be added to the files, and data edits will take approximately 4–5 months 

to complete. According to agency staff, approximately 15–20 complete crash files 

should be available by March 15, 2002. The committee would like access to these 

crash files, as well as the interview forms, investigator notes, and other documents 

pertaining to the cases so they can be reviewed in detail. A review of completed 

cases will inform the Committee as to what final case files look like, give members 

another opportunity to review the data coding and critical event decisions, and allow 

them to check the usability of the public crash file structure. Agency staff assured 

the Committee that this review could be arranged. 

Information attesting to the truthfulness and accuracy of data is often as important as the data itself and must be included in the database. Task force members 

noted their concerns about data known or suspected by the crash investigators to 

be erroneous. When the crash investigators know or suspect a data item is false, 

they make written notations to that effect on the data forms. However, agency staff 

informed the Committee that these qualifying notes—sometimes called flags—are 

lost when the data are extracted from the database for release to the public. The 

committee strongly recommends that such qualifying information be included in the 

electronic database because, in its absence, future independent analysts will be unaware of such potentially false data items. 

The task force review of the crash files underscored the need for calculations 

based on physical measurements made at the crash site to verify data and information provided by drivers or others involved in or witnessing the crashes. Even basic 

calculations based on tire tracks or skid marks can help verify or disprove such subjective data. NHTSA staff indicated their intention to adopt simple speed-estimating 

procedures so that analytical methods will be used to the extent possible in future 

cases. 

Several committee members emphasized the need, in some cases, for accurate information on roadway geometry and related topics, including shoulder and lane 

widths, radius of curvature, superelevation, presence and dimensions of rumble 

strips, sight distance, sideslope grades, and final vehicle resting position. In certain 

cases it is also necessary to include information about the roadway upstream from 

the crash site, especially if there are questions about whether sight distance was 

adequate or stopping distance was a factor. Currently these items are noted only 

on a scaled sketch included in the crash case file. However, the Committee recommends that information on critical roadway geometry be tabulated for each case 

and included in the database. Doing so will facilitate future analyses by FHWA and 

other researchers interested in the relationships between highway design and safety. 

The committee inquired about the extent to which previous committee member 

suggestions for changes to the data forms have been adopted. Agency staff indicated 

that nearly every suggested change has been made. Several committee members, 

after a brief review of selected revised data forms, noted items that still could be 

improved. The committee’s concern is that data items must be well defined on the 

forms to yield data useful for analyses. Agency staff agreed to send copies of all the 

data forms to each of the members. At the request of agency staff, individual committee members will continue to review the forms and provide comments. Finally, 

105 

agency staff agreed to change some of the terminology in the crash event assessment form so that fault will not be inferred. For example, under driver-related factors, ‘‘decision errors’’ should be termed ‘‘decision factors’’, and ‘‘performance errors’’ 

should be termed ‘‘performance factors.’’ 

Public Access to Data 

An important aspect of the TCCS is that most of the data collected will be available to the public for analysis once the project is completed. However, data obtained 

in interviews conducted under nondisclosure agreements with interviewees may not 

be released. Two important issues emerged from the discussion about public access. 

First, the Committee understands the need to protect information that might lead 

to the identification of specific crashes and the individuals involved. While the agency standard and capability for protecting privacy appears to be high, it appears 

some information thus obtained, such as length of last sleep interval, will apparently be disclosed in an aggregated form. The rules regarding nondisclosure should 

be explicit and adhered to consistently or the agency risks losing the voluntary cooperation of crash-involved witnesses. Accordingly, the Committee urges FMCSA 

and NHTSA to review their nondisclosure rules and the way interviewers explain 

these rules to the interviewees to ensure that data sources are well protected. The 

agencies should also ensure that their field investigators comply with these rules 

and procedures. 

Second, while recognizing that privacy concerns are important, the Committee believes that information critical to successful analysis by others once the data have 

been made public should not be withheld unnecessarily. Of concern is interview information about driver hours of service, fatigue, work compensation, working conditions, and truck ownership. Agency staff stated that when such information can be 

obtained from secondary sources, it will become part of the public record. In addition, FMCSA plans to prepare analyses that aggregate much of this information, 

thereby disclosing it in a form that does not violate nondisclosure agreements. Nevertheless, the Committee urges FMCSA to find secondary sources for as many of 

such data items as possible; doing so will increase the amount of data released to 

the public and their usefulness. For example, it may be possible for FMCSA inspectors to collect information on work compensation, truck ownership, and related 

items from truck companies and owners, thereby reducing reliance on the driver 

and/or company interviews by NHTSA investigators. In many cases it will be necessary for investigators to check hours of service and sleep claims independently. 

The committee suggests that such independent checks be standard practice for all 

crash case investigations. 

Study Sampling Plan 

FMCSA staff noted that data collection is now under way at all 24 study sites, 

and while some sites are yielding crash cases at a rate within an expected range 

for these sites, others are falling short in this regard. Because the agency’s sampling 

plan is critical to achieving a nationally representative sample of crashes, the Committee would like to know whether the data collection effort is yielding the desired 

representative sample of truck crashes. Specifically, the Committee would like to 

know how many crashes are expected each year from each site, and how these figures compare with the basic NASS sample for these sites. The committee would also 

like to know, from the beginning of the study and for each study site, how many 

truck crashes have occurred, how many crash cases are under investigation, and 

how many crash investigations have been completed. In addition, the Committee requests that the agency categorize the crashes under investigation by type (e.g., rollover, rear end). and location (e.g., freeway, rural two-lane road, intersection). This 

information will provide a preliminary indication of the nature of the sample thus 

far and allow the crash selection methodology to be reviewed and any expected bias 

identified and assessed. The committee would like to have this information by January 31, 2002. 

Study Report Preparations 

There was considerable discussion about the potential study findings and how 

FMCSA plans to analyze and report them to Congress. To further ensure an adequate data collection and analysis plan, agency staff should begin preparing a 

strawman version of the report’s expected key findings based on a coherent theoretical statement of what the possible, causal or contributing factors are and including suggested formats for tables of key data the agency expects to be able to summarize. Preparing a draft of the opening paragraphs of the executive summary for the 

study’s final report would also be a useful exercise in this regard, since these paragraphs ultimately will provide the most important version of the study rationale and 

scope. Addressing these tasks now might reveal the need for additional data or analVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
106 

ysis. As noted above, agency staff indicated that a draft analysis plan would be 

available for review and comment by January 31, 2002. 

Future Meeting Plans 

If the Committee receives the completed crash case files by March 15, 2002 it 

plans to meet on or around June 15, 2002. This schedule will give the Committee 

time to review the files and prepare questions for the agency. Final meeting plans 

will depend on when the crash case files are available. 

Sincerely, 

FORREST COUNCIL, 

Chairman, 

Committee for Review of the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration’s Truck Crash Causation Study 

Enclosures 

Senator SUNUNU. Let me say thank you, again, to all the panelists. It’s been extremely helpful. And I welcome your submission of 

additional data for the record, and I look forward to working with 

you all on these issues. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(107) 

A P P E N D I X 

HOURS OF SERVICE COALITION

Alexandria, VA, June 9, 2003 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, Chairman, 

Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman McCain: 

In April 2000, after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

published the proposed ‘‘Hours of Service of Drivers; Driver Rest and Sleep for Safe 

Operations,’’ approximately 40 trade associations and corporations formed the Hours 

of Service Coalition to present our collective response to the proposal. The Hours 

of Service Coalition represents those commercial vehicle fleets that are primarily 

‘‘short-haul’’ as opposed to long-haul for-hire trucking. Our membership represents 

a diversity of industries such as utilities, contractors, parcel services, fuel suppliers, 

agricultural commodities and food delivery such as baking, snack, soft drink, beer 

and confections. The operators the coalition represents spend a large percentage of 

their workday in non-driving activities such as selling to or servicing customers, 

waiting for trucks to be loaded or unloaded, awaiting paperwork, etc. 

We strongly support the intention of FMCSA’s Final Rule,’’ 49 CFR Parts 385, 

390, and 395 (Docket No. FMCSA–97–2350), which is to increase safety on our Nation’s highways and reduce fatalities. It is designed to address driver fatigue problems with long-haul operation of tractor-trailers or tractor-semi-trailer combinations. Yet the cost burden of the new rules falls not on these high-risk operators, 

but on the short-haul carriers for whom no significant risk appears to have been 

identified. This discrepancy is so great that the agency could not cost-justify this 

rule for short-haul carriers. The question, then is: Why has the agency chosen to 

impose a rule wherein the entire burden, and none of the benefit, accrue to those 

least likely to be involved in fatigue-related accidents? 

We have brought this discrepancy to the attention of FMCSA through a petition 

for reconsideration of the final rule, and requested that FMCSA reopen this proceeding to reconsider how the 14-hour on-duty requirement would affect ‘‘short-haul’’ 

operators—those operators who spend large portions of their on-duty periods in nondriving activities. We requested that operators be allowed the choice of using 14 

hours of on duty time, of which 11 hours may be driving (Final Rule), or using 15 

hours of on duty time, of which 10 hours may be driving (Current Rule). 

Our petition for reconsideration is attached, and we ask that it be inserted into 

the Committee record following the Tuesday, June 10, 2003, hearing regarding reauthorization of the FMCSA. 

Thank you for your attention to this. 

Sincerely, 

HOURS OF SERVICE COALITION. 

HOURS OF SERVICE COALITION

Alexandria, VA, May 27, 2003 

Ms. ANNETTE M. SANDBERG, 

Acting Administrator, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Acting Administrator Sandberg: 

Pursuant to Part 389.35 of 49 CFR Ch. III, Rulemaking Procedures—Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, this letter (submitted in five copies) serves as our 

Petition for Reconsideration of the Final Rule published in the Federal Register on 

108 

April 28, 2003 ‘‘Hours of Service of Drivers; Driver Rest and Sleep for Safe Operations; Final Rule,’’ 49 CFR Parts 385, 390, and 395 (Docket No. FMCSA–97–2350). 

We wish to state at the outset that our organizations strongly support the intention 

of the Final Rule, which is to increase safety on our Nation’s highways and reduce 

fatalities. 

Our Associations represent businesses that employ operators for ‘‘short-haul’’ operations in which drivers return to their reporting location at the end of each shift. 

Operators in our industry often make numerous stops during the course of their 

daily on-duty activities. They spend a large percentage of their workday in non-driving activities such as selling to or servicing customers, waiting for trucks to be loaded or unloaded, awaiting paperwork, etc. Operators employed in our industries cannot reasonably be classified as ‘‘long-haul truckers,’’ and have the benefit of spending large portions of their on-duty time in non-driving capacities which minimizes 

driving-related fatigue. 

A number of our member companies have raised concerns about the provisions of 

the Final Rule that reduces total on-duty time from a flexible 15 hour-period to an 

inflexible 14-hour period from the time an operator begins his workday. A number 

of companies have noted that this change will require them to alter delivery routes 

and is likely to significantly alter distribution systems. Most importantly, some companies have indicated that in order to comply with the new Rule it will be necessary 

to increase the number of trucks on the road by 15 percent. Most of these new 

trucks will not be able to maximize their load capacity. We believe this could have 

the opposite affect of the intention of the Final Rule, which is to increase safety on 

our Nation’s highways and reduce fatalities. Indeed, FMCSA’s own analysis shows 

that the new daily on-duty time limitation has the ‘‘unintended consequence of requiring a significant increase in new [short haul] drivers . . . these new drivers 

would increase both costs and crashes’’, and ‘‘the increase in the need for new shorthaul drivers would more than offset the slight reduction in fatigue . . .’’ Furthermore, the change will have a disproportionate impact on distribution in rural areas 

and on small businesses that rely on these operations to bring products to their 

businesses. 

We are requesting a very narrow reconsideration of the Final Rule. We request 

that you reopen this proceeding to reconsider how the 14-hour on-duty requirement 

would affect ‘‘short-haul’’ operators, and we request that your agency consider allowing such drivers to retain the current 15-hour on-duty limit, if they spend large portions of their on-duty periods in non-driving activities. We request that operators 

be allowed the choice of using 14 hours of on duty time, of which 11 hours may be 

driving (Final Rule), or using 15 hours of on duty time, of which 10 hours may be 

driving (Current Rule). 

At the very least, this is an issue that merits more thorough consideration by 

FMCSA. During the rulemaking process, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contained such a radical departure from the current rule that it was difficult to focus 

on all aspects of the rulemaking. Our organizations spent the bulk of our review 

and our comments and presentations on the most egregious issues in the proposal— 

notably the limits on nighttime driving and mandatory two consecutive days off. 

In addition, the proposed rule’s break down of five categories of operations was 

complex and confusing to most fleet owners. Many of our operators would have 

shifted from one category to another on a daily basis. Each of the proposed categories had differing sets of on-duty, driving, and rest times. Almost no attention 

was paid to the one-hour reduction in the amount of on-duty time. 

While the reduction in daily on-duty time will clearly be costly and disruptive to 

‘‘short-haul’’ fleet operations, the FMCSA has failed to identify benefits that would 

justify these costs. FMCSA’s own research associates driver fatigue problems with 

long-haul operation of tractor-trailers or tractor-semi-trailer combinations. Yet the 

cost burden of the new rules falls not on these high-risk operators, but on the shorthaul carriers for whom no significant risk has been identified. It is unreasonable, 

and contrary to the public interest, to impose a rule wherein the entire burden, and 

little of the benefit, accrue to those least likely to be involved in fatigue-related accidents. 

In conclusion, we respectfully request that FMCSA reconsider the limit of on-duty 

time at 14 hours and provide operators the option of retaining the current rule’s 

provision for 15 hours of on-duty time with driving time limited to the current 10 

hours. We look forward to your consideration of our concerns and stand ready to 

discuss them with you. 

Sincerely, 

Air Conditioning Contractors of America 

American Bakers Association 

109 

American Frozen Food Institute 

American Supply Association 

Food Marketing Institute 

Grocery Manufacturers of America 

Independent Bakers Association 

International Mass Retail Association 

International Foodservice Distributors Association 

International Warehouse Logistics Association 

National Beer Wholesalers Association 

National Confectioners Association 

National Potato Council 

National Propane Gas Association 

National Roofing Contractors Association 

National Soft Drink Association 

National Turkey Federation 

Plumbing-Heating-Cooling-Contractors-National Association 

Snack Food Association 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

Cc: 

Secretary Norman Y. Mineta 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Senator Richard S. Shelby 

Chair, Transportation Subcommittee 

Senate Appropriations Committee 

Congressman Lee Terry 

(Nebraska-2nd) 

John Graham, Administrator 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

Thomas M. Sullivan 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN B. BREAUX TO

HON. ANNETTE M. SANDBURG

CDL Medical Certification 

In the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Congress directed the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to initiate a rulemaking to provide for a Federal medical qualification certificate to be made part of commercial 

drivers’ licensing process. In a letter Secretary Mineta sent to Senator John Breaux 

on September 24, 2002, he said that the Department would publish the proposed 

rule in March, 2003. To date, this rulemaking has not yet been issued. 

Question 1. The Department has not been able to even propose regulations integrating medical qualification certification with the commercial drivers’ licensing 

process in over three years. Yet the Mexican government already has this combined 

program in place. When will the Department issue the proposed rule to begin the 

process of establishing a procedure combining medical qualification with CDL qualification? 

Question 2. Will this rulemaking be issued as planned, or is the Administration 

waiting to see what action Congress takes on SAFETEA? 

Question 3. According to Secretary Mineta’s letter, the proposed rule combining 

the medical certification process with the CDL issuance and renewal processes 

would ‘‘reduce the incidence of medical examiners improperly certifying drivers who 

are not medically qualified to operate trucks and buses in interstate commerce.’’ 

How will the combining of the certification processes change the behavior of medical 

examiners? 

CDL Medical Examiners 

Under the Administration’s proposed bill, SAFETEA, FMCSA would initiate another rulemaking to set standards for medical examiners to meet in order to be 

qualified to examine commercially licensed drivers. FMCSA would also establish a 

medical review board to provide advice to FMCSA and guidelines to medical examiners to use in examining CDL applicants. 

110 

Question 1. It seems that we need some threshold health standards that commercial vehicle drivers must meet to qualify for a CDL. Yet, the Administration is proposing to establish standards for medical examiners to meet to be qualified to examine commercial drivers. How will the FMCSA determine that the medical examiners 

are qualified? Will the examiners be tested by FMCSA? 

Question 2. Qualified medical examiners will then have guidelines to follow in 

qualifying (or not) a prospective commercial vehicle driver. Guidelines are not mandatory, so it would follow that the medical examiners will have discretion in deciding who is qualified and who is not. Will this not lead to inconsistency among doctors? How will FMCSA ensure that the guidelines are uniformly applied? 

Question 3. How will CDL holders and applicants know which medical examiners 

are qualified under the FMCSA program? 

Question 4. Will the examiners have to be re-qualified, or will they obtain a lifetime qualification to perform the medical exams on CDL holders and applicants? 

Will the regulations include standards under which qualified medical examiners become disqualified? If so, will there be an appeals process for medical examiners who 

have been disqualified? 

Question 5. FMCSA has revised the certification form used by medical examiners 

to include more medical advisory guidance to assist examiners in making physical 

qualification determinations in order to ‘‘ensure that medical examiners are more 

knowledgeable of the physical qualification standards.’’ How will this change ensure 

that medical examiners use the guidance in examining CDL holders and applicants? 

Question 6. Once medical examiners have evaluation standards and have been 

certified by FMCSA, will they be the ultimate authority granting a medical certificate or will the FMCSA withhold final approval during an evaluation period (i.e.. 

The FAA uses a 60 review window) and then grant final approval or reject the medical examiner’s findings? 

Diabetic Drivers 

In TEA–21, Congress directed FMCSA to study the feasibility of eliminating the 

current blanket ban on insulin-treated drivers and move to a case-by-case assessment. FMCSA’s response was to propose the ‘‘three-year rule’’ under which potential 

drivers must operate a commercial motor vehicle while using insulin for three years 

before they can even apply for a CDL. Since that would be illegal for interstate driving, insulin-treated drivers must find intrastate driving opportunities in those states 

that allow insulin-treated drivers to drive commercial motor vehicles at all. 

Question 1. FMCSA’s own expert medical panel found the three-year requirement 

to be medically unnecessary and not supported by current treatment of diabetes. 

Why did FMCSA ignore its expert medical panel and support the three-year requirement? 

Question 2. Since about 20 states prohibit insulin-treated drivers from driving 

commercial vehicles, including Louisiana, what would FMCSA recommend commercial drivers do in those states to fulfill the three-year requirement? 

Question 3. The three-year rule is still just a proposed rule, and the docket for 

the rulemaking shows strong public support of major changes to that rule. Would 

additional guidance from Congress on the proposed exemption program in TEA–21 

reauthorization help speed the regulatory process? 

CDL Disqualifications 

Secretary Mineta stated that as of September 30, 2002, commercial motor vehicle 

drivers convicted of traffic violations while operating a car, which resulted in the 

cancellation, suspension or revocation of their drivers’ license, are disqualified from 

operating a commercial motor vehicle. Individuals convicted of committing drug-or 

alcohol-related offenses while driving a car are also disqualified. That restriction has 

been in force now for almost eight months now. 

Question 1. How many CDL holders have been disqualified as a result of this prohibition? 

Question 2. What steps has FMCSA taken to ensure that states are following this 

new rule by revoking the CDLs of disqualified individuals or by reporting the individuals to FMCSA? 

Secretary Mineta’s September 24 letter stated that a driver who causes a fatality 

through negligent or criminal operation of a commercial vehicle while driving with 

a canceled, suspended, or revoked CDL is disqualified from operating a commercial 

vehicle. 

Question 1. If a driver has a canceled or revoked CDL, isn’t the driver already 

disqualified? 

111 

Question 2. Shouldn’t negligent or criminal operation of a commercial vehicle be 

grounds for disqualification, whether or not the behavior causes a fatality? 

Question 3. Is operating a commercial vehicle with a canceled, suspended or revoked CDL a prima facie case of negligent or criminal operation of a commercial 

vehicle? 

Accident Investigation 

Question 1. Has FMCSA completed its investigation of the June 24, 2002, motor 

coach accident in Garland, Texas which killed four Louisiana children? 

New Entrants 

New motor carrier entrants and new drivers consistently have been shown to pose 

the greatest safety risk. Section 210 of MCSIA requires the FMCSA to conduct safety audits of new entrant motor carriers within 18 months of receiving operating authority. 

Question 1. How many safety audits has FMCSA performed? 

Question 2. How many drivers have been disqualified after being subject to a safety audit by FMCSA? 

Question 3. What types of driver behavior most commonly lead to disqualification 

from a safety audit? 

Household goods movers 

The protection of consumers involved in the movement of their household goods 

continues to be an issue for which action is needed. In recent years, there has been 

a growing number of complaints by people who have moved their household goods 

about movers engaging in illegal practices that leave the shippers with little or no 

recourse. 

Question 1. In March, a two-year investigation by DOT and the FBI led to the 

indictment of 16 interstate moving companies, as well as 74 operators, owners, and 

employees of interstate moving companies, for violations of consumer protection 

laws for shippers of household goods. Is the investigation continuing? Are there 

other similar investigations ongoing? Are we likely to see additional indictments in 

the near future? 

Question 2. SAFETEA proposes to allow state attorneys general to bring civil action against a carrier in Federal court enforcing Federal law. Why wouldn’t the Administration favor states bringing civil action under their own consumer protection 

laws? 

Question 3. What is a commercial zone in which laws governing interstate moves 

of household goods do not apply? What laws do apply? 

Question 4. The Carmack Amendment, in effect since 1906, limits the damages 

a consumer can seek against a household mover for negligence. The damages are 

limited to compensatory damages and do not allow for consumers to seek additional 

damages for mental anguish or emotional distress, even though losing all of your 

belongings in a move due to negligence by a household mover is extremely distressing. For example, how can a person be compensated for the loss of or irreparable damage to old family portraits or great-grandpa’s roll-top desk? Should the 

Carmack Amendment be repealed or amended? 

Question 5. How would you define a ‘‘rogue’’ mover? How many rogue movers are 

estimated to be operating in the United States at this time? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS TO

HON. ANNETTE M. SANDBERG

Hazardous Materials Background Checks 

On May 2, 2003, TSA, the FMCSA at DOT issued companion interim final rules 

which require background checks on commercial drivers certified to transport hazardous materials, conform the background check provisions with the Commercial 

Drivers License (CDL) program administered by the states, and define what hazardous materials should be covered. This new rule will affect approximately 3.5 million commercial drivers that possess, renew or apply for a hazardous materials 

(HAZMAT) endorsement on their CDL. These drivers will undergo a background 

records check that includes checks of criminal, immigration and FBI records. The 

rule does not apply to applicants for CDLs without a hazmat endorsement. 

Each applicant must pass the background check prior to being issued a license. 

There is also a provision for current CDL license holders, which allows for the volVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:26 Jan 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\86220.TXT JACKIE
112 

untary surrender of their license if they know they do not meet the new background 

check requirements. Within the next six months, the TSA will be conducting background checks of all existing license holders with hazmat endorsements. After eight 

months, the TSA will start background checks on new applicants for CDLs with 

hazardous materials endorsements. 

Question 1. What safeguards will be put into place to make sure that employers 

will not receive ‘‘private’’ employee information to specific findings of the employee’s 

background check except for a ‘‘pass’’ or ‘‘fail’’ answer? 

Question 2. How will employers guarantee that all commercial licensed drivers 

that they employ are not subjected to a hazardous materials endorsement background check for the sake of finding out the employee’s employability to transport 

non-hazardous materials freight? 

Funding for MCSAP to the States 

The Administration’s SAFETEA proposal decreases the amount of funding from 

previous years going to the states and increases the administrative funding of the 

motor carrier program. 

Question 1. Why is there more money going into the administration of the Federal 

motor carrier safety program now then there has been in previous years and less 

to the states that carryout the program? What additional resources are necessary 

to facilitate the management of the Federal motor carrier program? 

WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN B. BREAUX TO

DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, LAMONT BYRD, JOAN B. CLAYBROOK, PETER HURST AND

JOSEPH M. HARRISON

Diabetic Drivers 

FMCSA has issued a proposed rule that requires insulin-treated drivers to have 

three years of commercial driving experience while using insulin in order to qualify 

for a diabetes exemption in obtaining a CDL. This scheme would require an insulintreated driver to drive a commercial vehicle illegally for three years in order to qualify for the exemption. In effect, the three-year rule makes it impossible for almost 

anyone with diabetes to qualify for the program and a CDL. 

Question 1. Do you believe this is a fair method of qualifying insulin-treated drivers, especially given the fact that 20 states do not offer an intrastate waiver program so that drivers from those states would not have a chance to obtain a CDL 

under FMCSA’s diabetes exemption program? 

Question 2. How would you suggest that the licensing of diabetic drivers for interstate driving be accomplished? 

CDL Medical Qualifications 

Question 1. Should there be minimum medical qualifications for holders of commercial drivers licenses? 

Driver Disqualification 

As of September 30, 2002, commercial motor vehicle drivers convicted of traffic 

violations while operating a car, which resulted in the cancellation, suspension or 

revocation of the drivers’ license, are disqualified from operating a commercial motor 

vehicle. Individuals convicted of committing drug-or alcohol-related offenses while 

driving a car are also disqualified. This restriction has been in force now for almost 

eight months now. 

Question 1. Are you aware of any CDL holders that have been disqualified as a 

result of this prohibition? 

Question 2. How good are states in following this new rule by revoking the CDLs 

of disqualified individuals or by reporting the individuals to FMCSA? 

Household goods movers 

In recent years, there has been a growing number of complaints by people household goods about movers engaging in illegal practices that leave the or no recourse. 

The problem has grown with the increased popularity of t which shippers often 

enter into contracts with carriers because the prices o cheap. Complaints involve 

carriers who move goods for a stated price an the goods back to the shipper until 

the shipper pays additional charges. Ot goods that have been lost or damaged in 

a move performed by a carrier th found, leaving the shipper with no recourse. 

Question 1. There are several proposed ways to address this growing problem. 

One proposal would allow states to pursue consumer complaints about interstate 

113 

moves in their own state courts enforcing state laws. Another proposal would allow 

states to pursue the complaints, but in Federal court enforcing Federal law. Still 

another proposal would allow states to pursue complaints under Federal law, but 

only against so-called ‘‘rogue’’ movers. What do you think is the best way to offer 

the most protection to people who are hiring commercial movers to transport their 

household goods? 

Question 2. The Carmack Amendment limits the damages a consumer can seek 

against a household mover for negligence. If a mover loses or irreparably damages 

a shipper’s goods, the shipper can seek only to have the mover pay for the actual 

loss. There are no damages allowed for mental anguish or emotional distress, even 

though losing all of your belongings in a move due to negligence by a household 

mover is exteremely distressing. Should the Carmack Amendment be repealed or 

amended? 

Æ