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

57–103 PDF 2010

COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ANALYSIS 

2010: UNDERSTANDING FMCSA’S 

NEW SYSTEM OF MOTOR CARRIER 

OVERSIGHT 

(111–123) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

June 23, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

BOB FILNER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan, West 

Virginia, Vice Chair 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Ferro, Anne, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ...... 2 

Keppler, Steve, Interim Executive Director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance ....................................................................................................................... 2 

Klein, Keith, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Transport 

Corporation of America ........................................................................................ 2 

Spencer, Todd, Executive Vice President, Owner–Operator Independent Drivers Association ...................................................................................................... 2 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., of Oregon ......................................................................... 33 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 34 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 35 

Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California ................................................................... 39 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Ferro, Anne .............................................................................................................. 42 

Keppler, Steve .......................................................................................................... 71 

Klein, Keith .............................................................................................................. 94 

Spencer, Todd ........................................................................................................... 113 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Ferro, Anne, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: .....

Response to request for information from the Committee ........................ 53 

Slide entitled, ‘‘Current Measurement System vs. New’’ ........................... 12 

Keppler, Steve, Interim Executive Director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, response to request for information from the Committee ....................... 84 

Klein, Keith, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Transport 

Corporation of America, response to request for information from the Committee .................................................................................................................... 105 

Spencer, Todd, Executive Vice President, Owner–Operator Independent Drivers Association, response to request for information from the Committee ..... 119 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate, Incorporated, Richard P. Landis, 

President and Cheif Executive Officer, written statement for the record ....... 124 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 57103.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 57103.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 57103.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 57103.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 57103.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 57103.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 57103.007
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 57103.008
xiv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 57103.009
xv 


Insert offset folio 10 here 57103.010
xvi 


Insert offset folio 11 here 57103.011
(1) 

COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ANALYSIS: 2010 UNDERSTANDING FMCSA’S NEW SYSTEM OF 

MOTOR CARRIER OVERSIGHT 

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

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

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Peter A. DeFazio 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

This hearing is on a subject which is very important, an evolutionary change for the better, I believe, in how the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration does oversight of motor carriers. I 

and other Members of the Committee have been concerned, for 

years, over the understaffing at FMCSA, the small percentage of 

vehicles that are inspected on an annual basis and how that relates 

to other problems that are out there. In my opinion this new regime has promise. I think there are a number of legitimate concerns about the timeline for implementation and specific aspects of 

it which will come out during the hearing, so I look forward to the 

testimony. 

With that, I would turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing on the Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010, or the new 

plan by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

It is a top priority of this Committee and all of us to try to do 

everything possible to improve highway safety, and to improve it 

for everyone, not just drivers of passenger vehicles, but also for 

drivers of commercial motor vehicles. The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration is charged with regulating the safety of all 

trucks and buses involved in interstate commerce, and there are 

nearly 750,000 companies registered with this agency. 

In 2008, trucks traveled more than 225 billion miles and transported more than 13 billion tons of goods. In that same year, the 

number of fatalities and injuries from crashes involving large 

trucks fell to 4,229 fatalities and 90,000 injuries, their lowest level 

since the Department of Transportation began keeping statistics. 

And while it is good to see that progress, we still need to do as 

much as possible to keep trying to bring those numbers down. 

The agency has proposed a new enforcement and compliance 

model, as I mentioned, the CSA 2010, to further reduce commercial 

2 

vehicle crashes, fatalities, and injuries on our Nation’s highways. 

This new program is designed to allow FMCSA, together with its 

State partners, to target unsafe truck companies and focus limited 

resources on specific areas of deficiency. This efficient use of resources should maximize Federal and State enforcement efforts to 

reduce commercial vehicle fatality rates. While this objective is 

laudable, there are concerns about how this new model will be implemented. We will hear some of these concerns from our witnesses 

today. 

Our panel of witnesses represents the parties responsible for implementing this new program, as well as the industry that will be 

impacted by it, and I appreciate the witnesses taking time out from 

their busy schedules to come be with us today and I look forward 

to their testimony. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. With that, we will proceed 

to testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF ANNE FERRO, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; STEVE 

KEPPLER, INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL 

VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE; KEITH KLEIN, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, TRANSPORT 

CORPORATION OF AMERICA; AND TODD SPENCER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OWNER–OPERATOR INDEPENDENT 

DRIVERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Administrator Ferro, I appreciate your sitting on 

the panel. We have some administrators who are a little uptight 

about sitting on a panel with other folks; but since you are involved 

with, working with, and regulating some of their members, I think 

it is very appropriate. But we would also grant you a bit more 

time, if necessary, to summarize your remarks, and then we will 

hear from the others, before moving to questions. So I would recognize you first. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Duncan, and Members of the Subcommittee. I really do appreciate 

the opportunity to be here today, and I am always pleased to be 

part of a panel, particularly a panel of stakeholders and partners. 

CSA 2010, as both of you mentioned in your opening statements, 

is a performance-based, data-driven approach for the FMCSA to 

carry out its mission to significantly reduce severe and fatal crashes involving large trucks and buses. It upholds our mandate to 

place safety as our highest priority by strengthening how FMCSA 

determines motor carrier fitness, and how we target our enforcement efforts against those operating unsafely. The program was developed over 6 years through the hard work of our employees and 

input from many stakeholders, particularly those at the table here 

today. 

The program rests on three core components: a system, process, 

and rule. The Carrier Safety Measurement System, or CSMS, will 

replace the current system, SafeStat. Through the use of all safety 

violation data, weighted by crash risk, CSMS will give our investigators a more robust tool to use in identifying high-risk carriers 

for review. It will also be the basis for the selection system roadside enforcement officers use to focus their roadside inspections. 

3 

With regard to process, CSA 2010 introduces a new strategy 

known as interventions, and it frames it at four levels: The comprehensive onsite, much like today’s compliance review, focused onsite, offsite, and warning letters. Through a mix of these interventions, combined with roadside activity, we will increase the number 

of carriers we touch, and catch unsafe behaviors before they lead 

to a crash. And, finally, to reach its maximum effect, CSA 2010 will 

rest on a rule commonly referred to as the Safety Fitness Determination Rule. This rule will decouple the carrier safety rating 

from today’s onsite compliance review. The rule will enable FMCSA 

to propose carrier safety ratings through the carrier safety measurement system, thereby increasing the number of carriers we rate 

annually tenfold. The NPRM for this rule is expected in early 2011. 

This month, the agency completes a 2–1/2-year, nine State field 

test of the program. Preliminary findings show that we achieved a 

35 percent increase in investigations using this approach. In other 

words, we not only reached more carriers, but we did so with greater efficiency. And we have anecdotal evidence of carriers who examined and changed their practices as a result of a CSA 2010 contact and improved their safety, further confirming the old adage 

that, what gets measured gets done. 

The rollout for CSA 2010 officially began in April of this year 

with the launch of the data preview for all carriers. The actual 

safety measurement system will be previewed in late August, followed by full view to the public at the end of the year. The remaining components of the program, warning letters, NPRM, intervention process, and more, will continue throughout the year through 

the end of fiscal year 2011. By that time, the program will be 

known only by its initials, CSA, or Compliance, Safety, and Accountability. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to discuss 

this important program today. It is a huge step forward in this 

agency’s work to save lives through early intervention, compliance, 

and crash reduction. And with that, I conclude my remarks, and 

I will be pleased to answer any questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Keppler. 

Mr. KEPPLER. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for holding this important hearing and for inviting 

CVSA to testify. I am Steve Keppler, interim executive director of 

CVSA. 

CVSA commends FMCSA for planning, developing, and testing 

CSA 2010. It is the boldest step taken by the agency since its creation in 2000. We believe it will result in a more efficient and effective use of Federal and State enforcement resources, while at the 

same time, allowing us to monitor and affect the safety performance of more carriers than we do today. CSA 2010 will proactively 

target compliance and enforcement activities based upon performance data and crash risk. In addition, it will provide transparent 

performance data to the industry and others in the safety accountability chain in terms of how, when, and where they can access 

performance data which, hopefully, will result in carriers 

proactively identifying and addressing safety problems before they 

occur. As a result, CVSA expects CSA 2010 to provide measurable 

reductions in crashes, injuries, and deaths. 

4 

CSA 2010 is a significant step in our march towards zero deaths 

on our roadways. In my written testimony, I have outlined a number of reasons why we believe this to be the case. From a State enforcement perspective, CVSA believes CSA 2010 can be improved 

by, one, providing additional resources to the States to cover the 

costs of implementing the program to include items such as training, workforce adjustments, information system upgrades, managing data challenges and adjudication, CVSP and grant-related 

changes and outreach to the industry. 

Just as FMCSA has implementation costs, so do the States. Ensuring a through implementation process, FMCSA is sensitive to 

State needs—all States, not just the pilot States—with respect to 

the above items as well as any needed legislative, policy, or regulatory changes. Some States can do this fairly expeditiously 

through the administrative process, but others have more significant obstacles that will require more time. Again, in my written 

testimony, I have outlined a number of other recommendations and 

suggestions with respect to the States. 

In summary, CSA 2010 will be successful if, and only if, it is a 

partnership effort between FMCSA, the States, and industry. We 

believe FMCSA is working hard in this regard to listen to us, and 

we appreciate their willingness to work with us and our members 

on these issues. We certainly hope and expect that this will continue. 

This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. More details have 

been provided in my written statement. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to be here and participate in this hearing. We remain 

optimistic CSA 2010 will have a tremendous impact on driver, vehicle, and motor carrier safety into the future. I am happy to answer any questions at this time. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. Mr. Klein. 

Mr. KLEIN. Chairman DeFazio, Representative Duncan, Members 

of the Subcommittee, my name is Keith Klein, and I am executive 

vice president and chief operating officer of Transport America. 

Today I will testify on behalf of the American Trucking Associations, or the ATA. 

Mr. Chairman, as you likely know, ATA is a strong advocate of 

highway safety. In 2008, the most recent year reported, the truckinvolved fatality and injury rates fell to their lowest level since 

USDOT began keeping statistics. Today I will speak about our support for CSA 2010, some of the ATA’s substantive concerns with 

CSA 2010, and how these flaws will profoundly impact the industry 

and highway safety if not corrected. 

ATA supports CSA 2010 since it is based on safety performance, 

not paperwork requirements, it focuses limited enforcement resources on specific areas of deficiency, and it will eventually provide real-time updated safety performance measurements. However, ATA has a number of serious concerns with how CSA 2010 

will work that, if not addressed, will have a dramatic impact on 

motor carriers and on highway safety. 

Our principle intent in raising these concerns is to ensure that 

unsafe carriers are properly identified and selected for interventions. We are particularly concerned with the following three 

issues: 

5 

First, CSA 2010 considers all crashes, including those for which 

the motor carrier could not reasonably be held accountable. Hence, 

a carrier involved in a number of crashes for which it is not responsible is seen as just as unsafe as a like-sized carrier who is involved in the same number of crashes but caused them. 

I would like to show you a brief video clip which illustrates the 

problem. If you notice, on the right-hand side, as the truck comes 

across, you have got to watch the car that is right to the right of 

the truck. 

[video was played.] 

Mr. KLEIN. Obviously, in this instance, neither the trucking company nor the driver were responsible for the crash; however, CSA 

2010 counts this crash in measuring the company’s safety performance the same as it would if the company had caused the crash. 

FMCSA has signaled its intention to eventually consider only those 

crashes for which the motor carrier could reasonably be held accountable; however, it appears this change will not be made before 

the initial implementation date just a few months from now. 

Our second major concern is that CSA 2010 measures carrier 

risk exposure by using a count of each carrier’s trucks rather than 

the total number of miles that the vehicle has traveled. As a result, 

carriers who employ greater asset utilization will have more true 

exposure to crashes and other safety related events, but will be 

compared to carriers who have less exposure though the same 

number of trucks. FMCSA has acknowledged that this approach 

can create an inequity for some motor carriers and seems willing 

to consider mileage data at least in part as an exposure measure. 

However, the agency has not yet published a revised exposure formula. 

Our third major concern is that CSA 2010 counts both citations 

and warnings for moving violations and assigns them the same 

weight. This presents several problems. First, since these are merely warnings, there is no due process procedure for carriers or drivers to challenge the alleged violations. Regardless of their validity, 

they stay on the carrier’s record and are used to measure the carrier’s related safety performance. 

Second, in some States, law enforcement officers must have probable cause in order to stop a truck and conduct a vehicle inspection. 

In these States, we believe it is common for enforcement officials 

to stop trucks for trifling offenses and issue warnings as justification to conduct inspections. As a result, carriers operating in these 

States are disproportionately impacted and likely have worse driver violation scores. 

While these three issues reflect our primary concerns with the 

CSA 2010 methodology, we have other concerns as well. ATA respects that no system will be perfect; however, these systemic flaws 

will have a pronounced impact on the motor carriers and highway 

safety. 

Again, ATA supports the objectives of CSA 2010, but any system 

that is based on evaluating motor carrier safety comparatively 

must be grounded in sound data, sound math, and consistent measurements to be both equitable and effective. In short, there is a 

fundamental difference between using inconsistent data and an imperfect methodology for enforcement workload prioritization and 

6 

publicly displaying the results of the imperfect system to leverage 

additional scrutiny and economic consequences. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. Mr. Spencer. 

Mr. SPENCER. Good morning, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My 

name is Todd Spencer, and I have been involved with the trucking 

industry for more than 30 years, first as a driver and an owneroperator. I currently serve as the executive vice president of the 

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, representing the 

interests of small business truckers and professional drivers. 

OOIDA believes that the CSA 2010 initiative has the potential 

to be a major step in the right direction for FMCSA’s safety and 

enforcement efforts. For far too long, FMCSA’s enforcement priorities focused almost exclusively on targeting truck drivers and really didn’t go much farther at all. This has been an upside down effort of drivers being held responsible for just about anything and 

everything related to trucking, a particularly absurd notion considering that drivers are not required to be trained on the vast majority of operator and equipment regulations for which they are being 

held responsible. 

Drivers often are not the principle decision makers in the movement of goods. The idea of shared responsibility for safety represents a more accurate reflection of how the industry should function. While motor carriers are subject to tremendous pressures to 

meet unrealistic demands from the shipping community, they are 

in a far better position to control factors that may result in regulatory noncompliance than are truck drivers. 

We have heard all the horror stories about CSA 2010. OOIDA 

doesn’t share the ‘‘sky is falling’’ Chicken Little view that this is 

going to put hundreds of thousands of drivers off the road. We do 

think it will interject a level of accountability that has been sorely 

needed and has been missing. We share some of the concerns over 

warning tickets and at-fault accidents. This program, like any program, really gets down to the devil is in the details, and we look 

forward to working with FMCSA to address those issues and make 

this program truly effective and improve highway safety. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you for that succinct testimony. 

We will begin the first round of questions. 

Administrator Ferro, I am a bit puzzled as to timing and implementation. I have a number of questions about that. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, I think they 

are scheduled to report their findings on the program in December. 

And I am wondering, you have had pilots, which are a way we are 

supposed to work out kinks and/or problems and modify our proposals and look toward broader implementation, and now we have 

an evaluation of those pilots that we are not going to see until December; yet, you are proposing essentially a rollout of this program 

contemporaneous with the receipt of the evaluation and/or critique. 

Why wouldn’t you be informed by that which may lead to some 

changes before you would go to a broader implementation beyond 

the pilot States? 

Ms. FERRO. Mr. Chairman, certainly a fair question. With a 30- 

month pilot or operations model test under way since early 2008, 

7 

and the extensive work done in contacting and communicating with 

stakeholders, we have accumulated an enormous amount of information by testing this system and testing the validity of the correlation between the violations, the safety violations, the groupings 

of those safety violations into BASICs and their correlation to crash 

risk throughout this process. 

And in many cases, as we have come towards the end of the 

study period or the operations model period, we have been able to 

use some of the preliminary findings both to identify the effectiveness as well as the efficiency improvements in this new CSA process. We have also had, with the elements of the algorithm itself 

that underlie the safety management system for the carrier, those 

elements and those algorithms have been tested, the correlations 

have been tested, and they have been available through a transparent process—both our Web site as well as our kind of iterative 

Webinars for public comment and for feedback. 

And so at this point, we have a strong confidence in the system 

and the validity behind the system and continue to work with the 

input that we are receiving on fine-tuning some of the weightings 

behind portions of the algorithm. So in terms of the first phase, we 

are very confident that this is the step to take this year. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But you have got 41 States who aren’t in the system. You heard Mr. Keppler say that some of those States may 

have potential legal barriers. None of those, I am not aware that 

there has been any, other than having Webinars or a transparent 

system, there has been any meaningful engagement with those 

States and/or a timetable to those States and/or instructions to 

those States in terms of how they are going to have to change their 

existing systems in order to meaningfully gather and integrate 

their data the way the pilot States have done over the last 3 years 

between now and January 1st. And these are States that are under 

unbelievable stress, many of them are cutting personnel. And there 

will be no Federal assistance forthcoming. So I am not certain this 

is a realistic timeline. Could you comment on that? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes, I will clarify again. The process of submitting 

violation data to the FMCSA’s data base does not change under 

this system. The difference is that we are now using the violation 

data in a more robust and detailed manner than we have had before. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Though we have had some problems historically 

with some States’ meaningful and on-time comprehensive reporting 

of the data. 

Ms. FERRO. And that, in fact, has been the attention of IG reports in the past and as well as Congressional action, and as a result, we have been for the past 5 years undertaking a concerted effort to improve data quality working closely with CVSA through 

training, through grants, through our annual commercial vehicle 

safety planning effort with the States. So the data improvement 

quality has been a consistent path forward to the point at which 

we now receive, again, over 95 percent of crash reports, fatal crash 

reports within the time frame, which is 90 days, and about that 

many in terms of violation or inspection reports within the 21-day 

time frame, and the accuracy of the data has proven to be quite 

good as we continue to improve it. 

8 

It is a continuous improvement process, there is no doubt about 

it. And CVSA put together a workgroup last year to work closely 

with us on continuing that very focused effort. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But, Mr. Keppler, you raised the specter of two 

things. One, you said there may be some potential legal barriers. 

And then toward the end of your testimony, you questioned whether or not—answer that while I find your other quotation here. Oh, 

yes. On page 11: Another issue that has been brought to our attention is whether FMCSA will be able to implement the information 

systems and software changes to support field operations in a timely manner. So you have got a concern about information system 

software and legal authority. Do you think all that can be addressed by December 31? In my State, the legislature isn’t in session at that time. 

Mr. KEPPLER. Mr. Chairman, those are good questions. Through 

the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, the regulatory 

changes, there is 3 years to adopt regulatory changes. Many of the 

changes that are anticipated with CSA 2010 don’t necessarily need 

a regulatory change, are using the data differently. Because of the 

issue with the pilot States not necessarily knowing all the impacts 

yet, what our members have told us is they are in a kind of wait 

and see mode. They are supporting the program. They don’t fully 

know all the anticipated changes on the software and information 

system side and, as a result, they will have to make changes to 

their State systems. So many of the changes the Feds make, that 

FMCSA makes, the States need to make those changes as well. 

So there are some concerns. It is really more the unknown at this 

point. I know that FMCSA has been working very closely with the 

pilot States and have spent a considerable amount of time outreaching to the other States, but I think there are still some unknowns that we are hopeful will continue to work with FMCSA to 

get some clarity on what those implementation issues are and put 

a time line in place to address them. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I come from a probable cause State, and 43 percent 

of our inspections are conducted by the State police only after probable cause has been established. Now, the probable cause obviously 

results in either a warning or a citation. In Oregon, we conduct the 

other 57 percent of our inspections at weigh stations. But it seems 

to me there is a valid point here—a number of valid points—about 

some of the scoring system and the data we are putting in, the difference between what is being sent in as violations from a probable 

cause State in terms of volume and/or the gravity of those violations versus other States who don’t need that. Then there is the 

issue of a citation that has been successfully challenged in court 

but would still be scored, and then there is the issue raised by both 

representatives of the industry here, the at-cause or at-fault accidents. And these seem to be all issues and/or problems that have 

validity and need to be worked out. 

Administrator Ferro, how are you going to define the program to 

work those issues out, and what is the time line given the compressed schedule that you are on? 

Ms. FERRO. Sure. Let me clarify first. The component that we are 

rolling out this year is the system we use to prioritize our work on 

carriers we look at as well as allow the roadside inspector to focus 

9 

their inspection as they are pulling trucks over. So this is a work 

tool for us much like SafeStat. 

In terms of elements of those violations, the violation data itself 

is already being put into the system. That is not a new process. 

The method of interpreting that data and actually turning it into 

a carrier safety rating depends upon the adoption of the safety fitness determination rule, which is going to be an NPRM early next 

year. So that process, that opportunity to identify system interface 

and things will continue and be a very open and public and a 

longer term process than rolling out this initial tool this year. 

With regard to the specific reference to crash indicator, we recognize the issue of crash accountability. Our data continues to compel 

us, as we have always used it, to identify crashes regardless of 

fault as being an indicator of future likelihood of a crash, or likelihood of a future crash. That is just what the data says. And so to 

that—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. What would the data say about what we saw on 

the video? The data would say that that driver who was rammed 

and tried to avoid the vehicle causing a crash is more likely to 

cause another crash because someone, some jerk rammed him? I 

mean, it tracks jerks or something? 

Ms. FERRO. The way we will treat that data, again, I think is the 

core here; that data will only be listed as a crash. It will not be 

rated. It is an indicator on the system only, just as we use it today. 

Should a carrier safety fitness rating be impacted or be ready to 

be determined as unfit, any crashes in that carrier’s record will be 

assessed and analyzed for accountability before they are utilized to 

weigh in on that carrier safety rating. It is the process we use 

today. Now, going forward—we interestingly enough, parallel to 

ATA—also analyze a crash accountability process before we reveal 

this indicator as an actual measurement to the public. 

So that is an analysis that, as we have already discussed with 

some of Mr. Klein’s colleagues, is a process that we also have identified as a valid one. It has been a longstanding issue for FMCSA. 

It is not a new issue. It is one we are very determined to come up 

with an appropriate resolution for, for purposes of fairness and 

transparency, as you indicate. We won’t have that ready this year. 

But, again, that process and analysis is absolutely underway. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. One last question. I have exceeded my time. There 

is some difference of opinion, it seems to me, between the associations on the public availability of this data. I would like everybody 

to comment on that. Mr. Klein, you raised the concern. You might 

summarize your concern. Then Mr. Spencer might respond, and 

then Ms. Ferro and Mr. Keppler. 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My concern is until we get the data to be accurate and reflective 

of the true performance of a carrier, by making it public it misrepresents those carriers that are safe and might get a false positive in identifying them as being unsafe; or, even worse, having unsafe carriers operating that don’t get flagged in the system as being 

unsafe and therefore no consequences associated with it. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Spencer. 

Mr. SPENCER. I guess the concern that we will perhaps share is 

that we are concerned with the accuracy of the data and certainly 

10 

how that data is interpreted. We don’t have any specific issues with 

accidents. I mean, accidents are actually made available now until 

the SafeStat issue was questioned. But what is wrong with designating total accidents and at-fault accidents—have a distinction? It 

seems to make sense to us. 

We think the focus of safety is better served focusing exclusively 

on accidents. Having said that, the vast majority of accidents that 

take place on the road are not DOT reportable. Our members’ 

trucks are crashed into at truck stops on a regular basis by many 

of the companies that simply turn out, churn out untrained, unqualified drivers simply to fill seats. You have all heard about 

these chronic driver shortages we have. Well, this is nothing more 

than the industry’s propensity to churn, burn up drivers, great, 

great big turnover. Those guys do have lots and lots of crashes. 

Those things need to somehow be reflected, and they do represent 

an overall reflection of how a carrier will operate. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Briefly, Administrator Ferro, whoever wants to. 

Mr. KEPPLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would take 

issue with my distinguished panelist on the accuracy of the data. 

As Ms. Ferro indicated, 95 to 100 percent of the data is accurate. 

One of the things FMCSA did when they launched this program is 

do an analysis of the existing data in the system. That analysis 

showed the data is valid, accurate, and uploaded in a timely fashion. As she indicated, it is being uploaded in a timely fashion. Yes, 

several years ago it was an issue. But through millions of dollars 

of grants, through the safety data improvement program to the 

States, they have made enormous strides in terms of ensuring accuracy and timeliness of the data. 

On the public availability of the data, that portion of your question, we think that is a valuable approach to take, because having 

that information available to the public helps encourage other people in the safety accountability chain to view that data and take 

actions to impact safety. So we think that is an important aspect 

of the program. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Quickly, Administrator Ferro. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you. And I would reinforce Mr. Keppler’s 

point. Again, this program is about compliance, safety, and accountability, and public view of the data is part of that accountability measure. 

I do want to point out, though, carriers have had the opportunity 

to preview their data since April of this year, and we encourage everybody constantly to do so. By the end of August, carriers will be 

able to preview their data based on the measurement system. The 

public won’t have view of it until the very end of the calendar year. 

So, again, we want to be sure that carriers have ample opportunity 

to look at their data where they have questions about violations, 

to push it through the DataQ process, which is the process that 

pushes it out back through the State, and questions the validity in 

cases where they may have questions or uncertainty or challenge 

the accuracy of the violation itself. So there is a process itself already in place. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. I turn now to Ranking Member Duncan. 

11 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And yesterday I 

met with my staff and they told me many good things about this 

new system. But let me tell you about a concern I have by telling 

you what I am going through with another safety administration 

within the Department of Transportation. 

About 12 days ago, I was contacted by a company in Knoxville, 

ARC Automotive, that makes air bags and uses the chemicals that 

make the air bags explode, and for many, many years they have 

been getting a permit to use this chemical from the Pipelines and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. And in the past, they 

tell me that it always just took seven to ten days. They basically 

just got it done with a phone call. They have never had a safety 

violation. But the safety administration recently went to a new system that supposedly was more online, and then on their Web site 

they said it is going to be simpler, easier, more efficient, and so 

forth. 

So they filed a renewal application on May 1. And their permit 

that they had ran out ran out May 31, and they didn’t worry about 

it, because they thought that in the past it had been done so quickly and this new system was supposed to be better and quicker and 

so forth. Well, now they have had to lay off a third of their workforce, over 100 people, and they can’t get any response from this 

administration. And I sent down 12 days ago a letter, hand delivered to the administrator, emergency, to try to get these people 

back to work. 

And so now I hear about your coming in with a new system that 

is supposed to be better and so forth, and yet I am also told that 

it is more data driven, more data intensive, more information, and 

all that. And I am just wondering, when I chaired the Aviation 

Subcommittee, I used to hear complaints from the FAA inspectors 

that what the FAA cared more about was making sure they had 

all the paperwork in place and in order than they did about actually fixing real problems. And so I am just wondering, is this going 

to create more paperwork because it is getting more information, 

or is it—I liked what Mr. Spencer said about what we need to be 

concentrating on is actual accidents and the companies that are 

having the most accidents. So, do you understand why I am a little 

bit skeptical at this time? 

I remember a few years ago reading a column by a nationally 

syndicated columnist, Charley Reese, and he said that the computers had created a lot more paperwork now because he said that 

in the old days, if he were going to send a copy to somebody, he 

would put a piece of carbon paper in and he would send one copy. 

But now, he can push a button and send it to 20 or 200 or 2,000 

people. It has created a lot more paperwork for the Congressional 

offices, I know that. But I am just wondering about all that, particularly because I am going through a problem right now with this 

other safety administration at this time. 

Ms. FERRO. I appreciate that concern, and I am sorry for the 

problem today that ARC is experiencing particularly with regard to 

the employees. 

This might be an appropriate time to put up a slide that shows 

two pie charts, I think it is slide two. 

[The information follows:] 

12 


Insert offset folio 12 here 57103.012
13 

Specifically, the difference—to sum it up, this is not new paper. 

CSA 2010 takes existing violation data that carriers already receive through their inspection reports, and uses the data to assess 

the carriers’ performance by grouping it into seven BASICs. 

So if we looked at the current system, which would be on your 

left, the current system—and this is for our internal prioritization 

tool to identify which carriers we are going to go look at, as well 

as what roadside inspectors are going to be looking for. So our current system groups out of service data and crash data into four 

broad categories, and you have to have a deficient rating in two of 

the four for us to come take a look. 

Now we are taking the same inspection forms on out of services, 

but going beyond to any other violations that that inspection may 

have identified or an inspection report that is all clean, and we are 

using all of that data to analyze it into seven BASIC groupings 

that again is not new. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am not trying to overlook you. I have a bigger 

view of it right behind me. 

Ms. FERRO. So it is on your right, the sort of granularity that the 

new way of sorting the violation data achieves. So this is not new 

paper for a carrier. 

With regard to ARC as a hazardous materials carrier, you indicated that they have a very strong safety record. If a carrier is safe 

today, they are probably safe tomorrow under CSA 2010. But, 

again, under the new program it is our analysis of the data and 

the presentation of that data on the carrier’s screen through us, the 

CSA 2010 Web site, that enables the carrier to also look at where 

they see a deficiency in any one of those seven BASICS on the pie 

chart on the right, as opposed to this sort of averaged grouping of 

the four elements on the left. 

So, again, it is not new paperwork. It is a better analysis of current performance data that comes from regular inspection activity 

already happening at the roadside. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I have got some other questions, but I will wait 

until other Members have a chance. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Representative Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member. 

And thanks to each of you for being here today to help us with this. 

And I want to echo what the Chairman said, Administrator Ferro. 

I do think it is important you are sitting at the table with these 

folks because that is the way you are approaching this, and I appreciate all of you being here. 

Safety is obviously the number one concern for all of us and trying to get it right in a way that still gives economic viability to our 

truckers that are out there. I heard an interview with a gentleman 

a couple years ago that I think sums this up. He was working at 

Los Alamos Laboratories as a high energy particle physicist, and 

he was leaving that career because he wanted a greater challenge 

and he went into highway safety. And it was the truth. He said it 

had become too easy to deal with quantum physics; that he needed 

something where all the variables were unimaginable. 

So we are dealing with a very difficult situation. We are dealing 

with a lot of those variables. So I am very appreciative. And what 

we are trying to get at here is that sweet spot between a new proVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:50 Sep 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\57103.0 KAYLA
14 

gram that improves safety, but doesn’t pose the burden or an unfair nature onto our carriers. So just a couple questions. I also 

think it is very interesting today, I certainly wish there were more 

members here to hear what is happening. Colorado is here, Maryland is here, New Jersey is here, Minnesota is here. Pilot project 

States are aware of this. And I have been hearing this and been 

out there at Smith Trucking and others, and we are getting that. 

That is the way it should be. Pilot programs should be here. I guarantee that you have this after implementation, and this room will 

be full, of trying to get it right, because Mr. Spencer was right, the 

devil is in the details. So we appreciate everyone here. But I just 

had a few questions coming down on those types of things. 

I am concerned on, I guess, on several things. Maybe—and I 

don’t want to get too much into the theoretical—but there is a due 

process issue here that I feel like our carriers may be subject to: 

warnings. You don’t have a due process right to go in and appeal 

a warning. It is a warning and it is weighted and it is on, unlike 

a citation that might be there. And probable cause States, as the 

Chairman kept bringing up, I think this poses a huge issue with 

the validity of your data and the burden that is falling on certain 

carriers on how they are being weighted. So a couple of questions. 

The first, I would go through this. Administrator, have you 

looked at the correlations between actual crash risk, the correlation, paper violations as opposed to warnings as opposed to speeding tickets or whatever? What is the formula for that? And I guess 

I would also—my concerns are, all in the best interest of safety, 

you are getting feedback on this. I think we are finding obvious 

glitches in this. But we are already reporting and putting some 

people’s reputation on the line out there. The University of Michigan hasn’t reported yet. Why not wait until we get that? And if you 

can answer, I know it is a double-fold question, how you are 

weighting that? And why the time line? 

Ms. FERRO. Sure. So with regard to the weightings. First and 

foremost, yes, the safety violations that are utilized and sorted into 

those seven BASICs that I put up on the slide before are all identified, analyzed, and correlated to crash risk. And in fact, within 

each of those categories relative to the violations in those categories, they are weighted based on their severity of leading to that 

crash. In the case of HAZMAT it is more, what is the outcome of 

the crash if it happens on HAZMAT and load securement. 

That being said, with regard to violations, warnings, and citations, studies show, both our own analysis as well as one done by 

ATRI, the American Transportation Research Institute, that patterns of violation, patterns of moving violation convictions, or patterns in our case of violations do form an indicator of crash risk 

going forward. 

Mr. WALZ. Did you weight in there probable cause States with 

warnings? Your chance of getting one of those is greatly enhanced. 

And if that is going into a weighting, it seems like the validity of 

the question for those carriers or those operators is at risk. 

Ms. FERRO. Well, two things again. Weighting is reduced based 

on the timing of the violation or the aging of the violation, the severity as it leads to crash risk. We do not distinguish between 

warnings or violations today or warnings issued without a convicVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:50 Sep 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\57103.0 KAYLA
15 

tion. I will say, however, that based on some of our work with 

CVSA, we certainly have identified that there are thresholds on 

speed, for example, as a violation, over by 1 to 5 miles an hour, 5 

to 10, 10 to 15, and so on. And we are, with CVSA’s very clear assistance, identifying and—— 

Mr. WALZ. What about a citation that is dismissed in court? Does 

that just go away? 

Ms. FERRO. Now, that is a matter that is under review. I will tell 

you, I was just in Indiana and that State will remove that violation 

if the charge is dropped. 

Mr. WALZ. Should it not? Because wouldn’t it, in our legal system, indicate that that person was innocent no matter that they 

went through the process? Are you using a crystal ball to define 

what their intent was? That is my concern. 

Ms. FERRO. I will affirm to you that that matter is definitely 

under review in our organization. 

Mr. WALZ. The last thing I would ask, my time is up. I would 

ask our two carriers, Mr. Klein and Mr. Spencer, what does this 

do for the number of safety specialists you have got to put on board 

with your companies? And how does an independent operator handle that in terms of compliance to get there with this? 

Mr. SPENCER. Most of our members are individuals that own the 

truck they drive. Nobody has to be looking over their shoulder, 

shaking their finger, saying: Drive safe. Because not only is it their 

life, but their livelihood is on the line. And, as such, this particular 

group of people have exemplary safety records, and that shows on 

the highway. In the instance of—and those that they are going to 

generally employ are going to have similar traits, similar characteristics and mannerisms, because the closer you are to the boss, 

the easier it is for him to get a hold of you and make sure you are 

on the straight and narrow. 

Mr. WALZ. How do these guys keep up with all the paperwork? 

Or maybe there isn’t that much. That is what I am asking. What 

is going to happen in a company? Mr. Klein? 

Mr. KLEIN. In our organization, we have probably 10 people focused on safety right now. And that was prior to CSA 2010 pilot 

implementation as well. It has redirected their resources and 

where they are spending time. They are focused on things beyond 

the scope of accidents and other things that they did focus on before. And I think a lot of the smaller businesses, the smaller trucking companies will have to add safety resources in order to support 

the efforts under CSA 2010. 

Mr. WALZ. I yield back. Sorry about going over time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. No problem. Those are good questions. 

We are going in the order in which people were recorded by staff. 

So I have plausible deniability. And Mr. Sires would be next. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding 

this meeting and thank you for being here. 

I listened to all this data that you are collecting and everything 

else. I was just wondering, since the trucking business is made up 

basically of small business owners or self, how is all this implementation impacting small businesses? Is it sort of positive or is it negative? I know you said you agree with some of this stuff, but— 

16 

Mr. SPENCER. Well, obviously we are very optimistic that we can 

work with the agency and keep the focus in a direction that actually measures and assesses what are the real safety issues. 

Mr. SIRES. From the information that you have now, because I 

keep hearing all this information that we collect, have you made 

a determination? 

Mr. SPENCER. Well, we still have concerns over how tickets are 

recorded, warnings versus real tickets. We have concerns over accident causation. As we saw in the film, and actually the numbers 

show, over and over and over the truck driver is going to be the 

least likely to have caused the accident. 

Mr. SIRES. And I come from New Jersey. I am sure you collected 

a lot of good information. Do you share, do you sit down with the 

other pilot States and compare the data and see if there is a pattern? You know, do you do all this before you go on to some of the 

other States? Do you share with the new States that are coming 

in? 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. And Mr. Keppler might want to join in on this 

as well. We absolutely do. Our administrators throughout the country have been working with their peers in the test States and have 

been meeting both with industry representatives at drivers meetings, primarily with their State law enforcement partners, talking 

about the program. As I say this has been under development for 

upwards of 6 years. So the conversation has been constant and ongoing. It is getting very fine tuned now because we are so close to 

everything happening, and so folks are paying more attention. 

There are absolutely change management elements to this process. 

There is no doubt about it. We are taking violation data we have 

been collecting for years and actually using it to assess performance, and that is the big difference. 

But, yes, the conversation with the State partners has been constant. New Jersey has been a big help. They have been a pilot 

State. They have been a big part of that conversation with their 

other State colleagues. And we do meet as regions, we meet nationally, and then we meet locally when we are developing commercial 

vehicle safety plans and absolutely in developing this program. 

Mr. SIRES. How do you share the information with, say, New Jersey, the State troopers are the ones, basically. 

Ms. FERRO. Yes. Mr. Keppler might want to speak to that process 

from his perspective. 

Mr. KEPPLER. That is exactly right. This program, we have been 

working very closely with FMCSA, the pilot States. Our members 

are the organizations. New Jersey State Police is our member. So 

this has been an ongoing process for a number of years. At every 

one of our meetings, our conferences, constant interaction on the 

good parts of the program, how we can improve it. 

One other thing I did want to note to clarify, that the warning 

and citation information does not go and is not accounted for in the 

whole safety measurement system. Those are separate enforcement 

actions that do not get compiled in the whole data analysis part of 

the program. I want to make sure people understand that. Only the 

violation information. So it is a separate process, so that in terms 

of the violation’s clarity and severity, the citation and warning data 

does not count towards the motor carriers. 

17 

Mr. SIRES. Do you want to add anything? 

Mr. SPENCER. The only thing that I was going to add, and I 

should have said it a while ago, is that one of the reasons that we 

are positive about this program is that for the first time it is actually going to require the motor carrier industry to belly up to the 

bar and actually assume—not only assume responsibility, but that 

responsibility is going to engage them on the real need to fix some 

of the situations that create unsafe atmospheres for drivers, dealing with shippers and receivers and loading and detention time, 

some of these things that have just been lumped off on drivers; and 

if the driver doesn’t do right, you fire him and even replace him 

with somebody else. That doesn’t improve safety. That just sort of 

perpetuates what has problems. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KLEIN. Just to give some data relative to my organization. 

Because it is not public, I don’t see other companies, but I can talk 

about our data. 

In our unsafe driving BASIC, over 65 percent of our points come 

from speeding violations; and of that, only 25 percent of those were 

actually citations that were issued to our drivers. 75 percent of 

those points were coming from it being flagged on an inspection as 

a warning, as an opportunity to pull somebody over. So over 45 

percent of our points, almost half of the points in unsafe driving 

come from warnings according to the system. In addition to that, 

half of those come from three States which are probable cause 

States. 

Mr. SIRES. You don’t want to mention the States? 

Mr. KLEIN. I can provide a list of the probable cause States. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. We would now go to, I 

guess it would be Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 

your testimony. I am from the State of Maryland, and I just have 

a couple of questions related to training and guidance, Administrator Ferro. In your testimony, you indicated that prior to pilot 

testing there had been testing of CSA 2010, that you developed 

training for safety investigators on the new SMS and the CSA 2010 

interventions. Do you plan to train each of the remaining States as 

they are coming on line and for scheduled implementation in those 

States? 

Ms. FERRO. We will be training all of the States. Not all of it will 

be on site in the individual States; however, there is a strong onsite presence by our division offices and division administrators 

that complement the training that may come through, in some 

cases, Webinar; in some cases, off site with teams of enforcement 

officers at our training centers across the country or at training 

sites. But our goal is to do the first component of that training in 

person. 

Ms. EDWARDS. The reason I ask is because, Mr. Keppler, I think 

it was in your testimony where you indicated that there is such, 

I think, wide variation among the States around enforcement. And 

if there isn’t some sort of standard set of training that goes, how 

can you actually expect the States to clear up that variation and 

to make certain that at least from a long haul driver my uncle in 

18 

Nebraska, if he is driving across the country with his independent 

company, that there is the same set of standards across the country, and that investigators and inspectors understand that. And he 

can expect the same kind of enforcement in Nebraska when he arrives delivering his cargo in Maryland? 

Mr. KEPPLER. The core reason for our organization’s existence is 

uniformity and reciprocity. We have been working for almost 30 

years now to ensure that we promulgate standards from the roadside inspection process, the training. You are right, there is a lot 

of work. But I think what we have been doing over the last couple 

of years is putting in place, with FMCSA’s help, understanding as 

we are going through this process, what are those key pieces that 

we need to fold into the whole training program to ensure when we 

do roll this out we have got consistency and uniformity across not 

just U.S. but also Canada and Mexico? And it has been something 

we have been working very hard on with them. Yes, it is still a 

challenge, but I think we have got the pieces in place to make sure 

we can make it happen. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And Mr. Spencer, before we get on to that, do you 

have some sense, though, especially for some of your independent 

operators as well as the larger companies that they will understand 

that uniformity, that they will understand what those standards 

are and that violations are recorded in a similar way from one 

State to the next? 

Mr. SPENCER. The consistency and the quality of data has been 

a frustration in our industry, and I know with States, with the entire enforcement community, for decades. We have to be really, 

really optimistic that it can improve. But what this sort of underscores is the need for having a way to correct the record if violations or citations or warnings are written that should not have 

been. There needs to be a real meaningful way that an objective 

overview can take place and purge the record if that is what is required. Now, that is going to be key for the small person. Obviously, you don’t want to start out with ten points against you from 

day one. So we know from our experience that individual owneroperators are going to be the safest on the road. So they shouldn’t 

start out in the hole. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Did you have something to add, Ms. Ferro? And 

then I believe my time is about to expire. 

Ms. FERRO. I just wanted to clarify that we do develop and deliver uniform training through our Motor Carrier Safety Assistance 

Program across the country and have been for some years, and, in 

fact, that is the originating purpose of our training center. So that 

uniformity in training is a standard practice for us. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I just have one last question, and it has to do with 

things like in the metropolitan Washington area, particularly in 

Maryland, we reserve our left lane so that trucks, particularly 

those carrying hazardous materials, can’t use that left lane. But it 

is not totally clear to me whether things like that actually contribute overall to safety. Do you all have any comments about that? 

Ms. FERRO. I don’t. I will follow up with Federal Highways, 

though, and come back to you with a clear response for the record. 

It is a fair question. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Klein? 

19 

Mr. KLEIN. I can give you a little anecdote from our organization. 

We govern our trucks at a top speed of 62 miles an hour and 

strongly train and encourage our drivers to run the right lane, because lane changes create an opportunity for an accident to happen. So I believe having car traffic in a further left lane is a good 

idea. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Now Mr. Schauer. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will allow Mr. Spencer to respond. 

You wanted to respond to Ms. Edwards? 

Mr. SPENCER. Well, I did actually. It has been our experience, 

and, again, I am a former driver, all lane restrictions ever really 

do is cause higher concentrations of vehicles in those particular 

lanes, and they are generally all driving as fast as they can go, 

bumper to bumper. It sort of discourages what we see as intelligent 

driving, meaning if you need to go around a slower vehicle, you 

pass on the left and you move to right. 

These are sort of the rules of the road that ought to be second 

nature to old drivers, to all new drivers. Those kind of lane restrictions, and having different speed limits, too, just sort of works to 

obstruct and make it harder to change lanes. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity. 

Thanks for holding this hearing on the comprehensive safety analysis approach. 

First, my district is in Michigan, so it was good to see the University of Michigan’s leadership role in transportation safety. Many 

of their people live in my district. 

I have heard from some local businesses who question what is 

meant by driver fitness, and I wonder, Ms. Ferro, if you could start 

by talking about that. I am not sure they understand what this 

new safety analysis approach actually means. Maybe if you could 

talk about any rulemaking that might address driver fitness. I 

want to make sure they understand. 

I will specifically tell you, and this is sort of is where the rubber 

meets the road, I hear from a small business, they haul scrap tires, 

and he hears from one of his sort of peers in the business that drivers are going to be taken off the road because they weigh too much, 

not the vehicle, but they themselves. So talk about driver fitness 

and driver fitness within that. 

Ms. FERRO. A very interesting topic. 

Mr. SCHAUER. And if you could tell me the facts versus fiction so 

I can tell them what is actually going on. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you for the context, because I was still on my 

regulatory fitness mode. 

With regard to determining safety fitness, FMCSA is obligated 

for motor carrier, for vehicle, for driver, so it is across a range of 

entities or elements that are part of that commercial vehicle traveling on the highway. 

Specifically, it gets to the safety of that carrier, that vehicle or 

that driver, both with regard to—specific to driver, the driver’s violation data; with regard to unsafe practices, what you heard, lane 

changing, speeding, improper record with regard to their medical 

fitness and so on. 

20 

Now, there is a physical fitness component of being a commercial 

driver. There is a tough qualification standard with regard to blood 

pressure, with regard to any persistent specific types of disabling 

diseases. So that is, in fact, a component of driver fitness and is 

why unfit—or driver fitness is one of those carrier BASICS in 

terms of the DOT physical record. So your constituent isn’t too far 

off. 

With regard to the myth that this program will take drivers off 

the road because of their physical fitness, there is no change in the 

way we will treat drivers’ qualifications to be operating commercial 

vehicles under this program. It is just that we will be using more 

current violation data that has been determined at a roadside inspection or other stop. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Mr. Spencer, I want to hear from you in a second, 

and I will ask this as a follow-up. Is there any limit in terms of 

how much a driver can physically weigh as part of these standards? 

Ms. FERRO. There is not a weight limit. There are, however, conditions with regard to blood pressure, with regard to diabetes conditions, with regard to other elements that may contribute to a 

driver’s abilities to operate that vehicle safely. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Thank you. 

Mr. Spencer? 

Mr. SPENCER. Our organization, I would say, shares the concerns 

that maybe you have that have been conveyed to you in that we 

see a tremendous unfounded focus on looking at things like neck 

sizes or weight of truck drivers and somehow making a correlation 

between that and highway safety. When we talk to numerous millions and millions of miles safe drivers, we know the correlation to 

safety isn’t there, but they are certainly attempting to, in essence, 

sell this disease that you got and they got the cure. 

We think it can take drivers off the road, and we certainly hope 

that our lawmakers and policymakers will recognize snake oil 

when it is offered to them. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Are you addressing your concerns to Ms. Ferro 

and her agency? I am sort of trying to read between the lines here. 

Mr. SPENCER. At every opportunity. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Including this morning. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

We will go to Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First I am going to give more of a comment to you, Ms. Ferro. 

In terms of the progressive interventions, I would be really concerned with starting with a warning letter. I would tell you after 

what we have all lived through, unfortunately, now with the spill 

and many other things that have happened, I think inspections, if 

we know there is a problem, we need to go directly to the source. 

So my personal comments would be to that. 

For those of you who may not know me, I represent the Long 

Beach-Los Angeles area where over 45 percent of the entire Nation’s cargo goes through. So one of my questions is, how did you 

determine your pilot States? I am a little surprised that you didn’t 

include that area, since almost half of the Nation’s cargo, half of 

21 

the trucks, are going through that area. I was just a little curious 

why you didn’t include port communities, except for New Jersey? 

Ms. FERRO. And Maryland. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, I am not going to get into a tussle with 

my colleague, but I will venture to say port communities in size— 

I am talking about a real—I am going to leave it at that, because 

this is my buddy over here. You are not going to get me in trouble. 

Ms. FERRO. I am a Marylander. My apologies. 

So with regard to the selection of the pilot States, I am afraid 

ignorance is no excuse, but I was not on board at the time those 

were selected. In some cases it was a matter of our division administrators and our project team reaching out to States who wanted 

to be part of the pilot. However, I will follow up with you with specifics, if, in fact, California was contacted and for some reason we 

didn’t pursue. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, I would just say in terms of rolling out 

the program, it is going to become very difficult when you are piloting more smaller States who don’t have some of the unique challenges that we have. One of the biggest problems, on any given day 

we have a jackknifed truck, all kinds of things are going on on the 

710 Freeway. So it would just seem if we are going to be able to 

get at some of those issues, it would really help to test if, in fact, 

the system is going to be able to work in terms of some of the inspections and other things that are part of your program. 

Ms. FERRO. Well, if I may, with regard to California, one of the 

exciting components for us is that the incoming chair of CVSA, the 

organization that actually has all of its membership as State law 

enforcement officers, is Captain Dowling from California, who 

heads up the commercial vehicle law enforcement efforts in California. He has been an effective and very engaged member of the 

CSA 2010 discussion. So it is a very well discussed topic among 

California law enforcement, and very much part of our audience. 

If I could comment real quickly on your warning letter comment 

as well, if I may? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. If I could get through a couple of my others, 

and then we will—hopefully we be able to come back. 

One, I wanted to concur with the ATA that you would have the 

same rate for a driver whether the accident was at their fault or 

not. It just seems to me kind of basic. Why would you give the 

same rating if it wasn’t their fault? I mean, it is not their fault. 

So that didn’t really make sense. 

Then coming from local government, I am really concerned about 

having adequate funding to be able to roll out this program. What 

we don’t need is another unfunded mandate. So my question to you 

would be what are you going to do to make sure there is adequate 

funding, and how are you working with the administration to make 

sure that it is the case? 

Ms. FERRO. Would you like me to speak to the crash component 

as well? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Sure. In about 30 seconds. 

Ms. FERRO. OK. Well, we are examining crash accountability and 

identifying a process for determining before we get to the point of 

actually making crashes a measurement on the public system. So 

22 

that is point number one. We will continue to use it for 

prioritization purposes, but not as a measurement. 

With regard to resources, I think that is an ongoing discussion. 

I think Mr. Keppler put that on the table. We have, the agency, 

in our fiscal year 2011 budget, requested an additional about 50 

people for the field specific to this program. In addition, we support 

our State law enforcement through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, a nationwide grant program that funds vehicle 

enforcement around the country. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, I think it would be really important to 

know how you plan on utilizing those people, because, as I said, in 

my area alone we could stand to use 20 people. So if you could supply that information to the Committee. 

Then, finally, Mr. Spencer, if you could get at least one of your 

key points that you wanted to have included in the CSA 2010, 

what would that be? 

Mr. SPENCER. I guess it would really be a matter of placing the 

appropriate people and holding them accountable and responsible. 

I think it is curious, you are from L.A. and Long Beach where problems with port trucks specifically have been growing, have been 

bad for a long, long, long time, and those problems existed, whether 

they are safety, mechanical condition of the vehicles or environmental, mainly because the carriers that actually operated those 

trucks weren’t responsible, and they were not held responsible. 

Hopefully this CSA 2010 program will bring that accountability 

that is sorely needed. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, could I get an additional 5 seconds for her to answer the question on the warning letter? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. An additional 5 seconds. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I already asked it. She just has to answer. 

Ms. FERRO. Thank you very much for that consideration. 

In short, the warning letter is one of several measures we will 

use to give a carrier either an indication that we are coming to see 

them or a heads up that they are trending into an area of marginal 

safety. It is not a linear path on which we will take those actions. 

A carrier that has a sufficient poor rating in the area of, say, driver 

fatigue, we may do a targeted on-site investigation of them immediately. We wouldn’t wait for a warning letter. The warning letter 

is really getting at carriers who are sort of in the middle of that 

bell curve that we are not even touching today to say, hey, you are 

starting to trend in some areas you better be looking at. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

I turn now to the Ranking Member Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Administrator Ferro, your agency contracted with 

the University of Michigan to do a study. How much did you pay 

them for that study? 

Ms. FERRO. I do not know the answer to that question, but I can 

get it while I am here, or I can follow up with you, either way. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am just curious. What I am really wondering 

about is, that study is not going to be completed until December 

of this year, is my understanding. How much—did they just send 

you a card there? 

23 

Ms. FERRO. Two hundred fifty thousand dollars. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I understand it is not going to be completed until 

December, but it seems like everything is being done on this before 

you even get the results of that study. What do you say about that? 

Ms. FERRO. We have an obligation to use the most current data 

to improve our process of identifying carriers that are putting everybody else at risk on the highways, and the process of using our 

violation data came about through a very broad and open and 

transparent discussion that has been taking place and has been 

analyzed through our contractors in terms of their correlation to 

crash risk for some time. 

So in terms of our obligation as an agency to put safety as the 

highest priority and use our resources in the most effective way 

possible, as well as our law enforcement partners, it makes a great 

deal of sense for us to take a tested system and put it in place to 

identify and prioritize carriers we are going to look at either on site 

or through the roadside inspection. 

With regard to the Michigan study, which is an important element of this program, number one, there are preliminary indications from our work in the pilot States through the study that this 

program makes sense today, and it achieves efficiencies in change 

management in using this performance data in the system that we 

have developed. 

However, the additional information we will receive from the 

study will get closer to the question of what impact did it have on 

crashes in those pilot States, what impact did it show in terms of 

specific carriers—I don’t want to say and I think it won’t get to the 

specific carrier change in behavior, but the correlation between 

where that carrier is today relative to where they were prior to 

CSA 2010—so I think it gives us a more robust set of information 

to work with as we move into the process of the NPRM on the safety fitness determination rule itself. 

But building a system to prioritize and focus our work makes a 

great deal of sense to us today. Again, it has been in a very open 

method, so everybody has been seeing the process under way. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Keppler, in your testimony you said the pilot States have 

been able to contact more motor carriers, and the quality of the 

interaction has improved. What did you mean by saying that the 

quality of the interaction has improved, and this has resulted in 

more effective corrective measures and so forth? What did you 

mean by that? And also, are there any barriers that you believe are 

there for the States to just automatically adopt this new enforcement model? 

Mr. KEPPLER. To answer your first question, quality interaction 

has a lot to do with the interventions that are being put in place 

with CSA 2010. Under the previous process, it was a one-size-fitsall approach with the compliance reviews. So the interventions 

have been designed based upon the data on the carrier and driver 

performance. So the actual reason for the intervention in the first 

place is because we have got an identified safety problem. So when 

that investigator is in visiting with the carrier, they already know 

where their issues are, and they can design how they are going to 

interact with that carrier to help point those problems out, but also 

24 

give them, OK, here is the types of things you ought to do to 

change for the future. 

So to Administrator Ferro’s point, change management, it is not 

an audit anymore. It is not going in and checking paperwork. It is 

giving feedback back to the carrier saying, look, here are some 

things you can do to improve your safety performance, and here is 

what the data is showing us. So that is in terms of quality of the 

interaction, and it is, generally speaking, a shorter timeframe than 

what has been in the past. 

So these different interventions, it is shorter, it is quicker, it is 

to the point, it is in and out. So they are getting to touch more carriers, the quality is better, and the end result hopefully is sustained behavior over time. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Klein, what do you say about that? Has this 

system, have these interventions become more helpful to your 

members of the American Trucking Association? And also I am curious, what percentage of your companies’ accidents would you estimate that the company is accountable for causing? We have heard 

Mr. Spencer say that most of these trucking accidents aren’t caused 

by the truck drivers. 

Mr. KLEIN. That is true. 

I will answer the second part of that first. In our organization 

we don’t even look at cause, we look at preventability, which is a 

higher standard than just even cause. So could our driver have prevented that crash? In that case, last year, 26 percent of our crashes 

were preventable, so almost 75 percent were nonpreventable crashes. 

On the second part of your question—I apologize, I have lost the 

second part. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, Mr. Keppler is indicating that the quality of 

the interaction has improved, and he seems to think that this is 

making the system more helpful to the trucking companies and to 

drivers and so forth. Have you found that to be the case, and what 

has been done on this so far in the pilot States? 

Mr. KLEIN. In talking to the members of the Minnesota Trucking 

Association, I think you would get mixed reviews on the helpfulness of the process. I think some people feel that they had interventions and, based upon the audit, came out clean and felt it 

wasn’t a good use of government resources. I think other folks did 

learn some stuff through that process. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So, it is mixed. 

Mr. KLEIN. So it is a mixed feedback at this point. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Spencer, in your testimony you state that this 

new system shifts the focus from the driver to other stakeholders 

in the industry and recognizes that drivers are often not the principal decisionmakers in the shipment of goods. How do you think 

this focus will improve the level of safety in the trucking industry? 

Do you think that the company is more responsible and administrative decisions are more responsible for these accidents, or what 

do you mean by that exactly? 

Mr. SPENCER. Well, I have been chastised before for making a 

statement, but the safety culture that generally exists in trucking 

is it is the driver, and you are on your own. Obviously, the focus 

of virtually all enforcement, we cite the driver; he is going to be 

25 

the person that goes to jail. Yet generally drivers in their environment, they work around everyone else’s schedule. Drivers are not 

paid—or seldom, if ever, paid anything whatsoever for their time 

that is wasted, squandered in numerous situations by virtually everyone in the supply chain, and simply because no one else has to 

place a value. 

Now, that isn’t right, and I recognize the limits of FMCSA’s jurisdiction, but at a minimum what this program, we believe, will 

do is it will drag the motor carrier kicking and screaming into this 

situation, saying, look, you have got to help resolve the situation; 

whether it is hours of service or any number of other things, you 

have to help resolve it, because you can’t simply pass the buck to 

the driver and say, we fired him, problem solved. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. 

I recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much for holding this hearing 

and for the work that you and the staff have invested in the update 

on the motor carrier oversight. 

When we initiated the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, it was during the first years of the Republican Majority in the 

House and during the early part of the Clinton administration, and 

the proposal was to elevate the motor carrier safety oversight function from an office, a bureau in the Federal Highway Administration to the level of an administration with equal standing with the 

other modal administrations. 

At that point I said that ‘‘We are going to make a real change, 

and it ought to be substantive, and we ought to use aviation as a 

model.’’ So the opening paragraph of the new Act reads, ‘‘The administration shall consider the assignment and maintenance of 

safety as the highest priority.’’ 

I drew that language from the opening paragraph of the FAA Act 

of 1958, when the Eisenhower administration moved from the Civil 

Aeronautics Authority to the Federal Aviation Administration. 

They realized we are on the eve of the jet age, about which few 

people knew anything; didn’t know what challenges jet aircraft 

would pose for pilots, for passengers and for airports, and they 

thought it was important to put in the law that safety shall be the 

highest priority. 

I thought at the outset of this change, which we need to make, 

that we ought to have a similar goal and standard. And shortly 

after that, Secretary Slater set as a goal reducing fatalities by 50 

percent over a period of time, and that was a responsible and a reasonable approach. Secretary Pena— previous to Slater—had set a 

zero death goal in aviation, and while certainly that is our goal, 

should be our objective, zero in 5 years seemed beyond reach, and 

so has the 50 percent reduction. While the injuries involving large 

trucks are down from 142,000 in 1999 to 90,000 in 2008, that is 

injuries, fatalities have gone down less than 20 percent, maybe 15 

percent. 

So, I look at the work accomplished. I think there is movement 

in the right direction. I think the new agency under new management is moving in the right direction. But what I am concerned 

26 

about is your shifting—and, Ms. Ferro, thank you for taking on this 

job. Welcome to the world of conflict in motor carrier safety. Welcome to the Committee. We will have more hearings on this. You 

will be here as a frequent visitor, I hope. 

But the agency before your tenure shifted from the actual numbers of fatalities to rate per 100 million miles traveled. How do you 

justify that? How do you know how many hundred million miles 

have been traveled? You don’t have your own independent data. 

The industry does not maintain it. Only 2 percent of trucks are 

being inspected. You don’t have the personnel. States don’t have 

the personnel. How can you determine how many hundred million 

miles have been traveled when there aren’t on-board recorders to 

tell how many miles are on an individual truck? Where did this 

number come from? 

Ms. FERRO. I believe the data is through our Federal highway 

and actually NHTSA processes. I will tell you under the leadership 

of Secretary LaHood, he formed a safety council of the modal administrators of the USDOT. We are all a part of it. High on our 

list of areas to address is the commonality, currency, and appropriateness of how we are reporting our data as well as the analysis 

of that data. And the use of both the rate based on exposure, vehicle miles traveled, as well as actual people, because that is finally 

who we are talking about, are two very important components 

when we are identifying and measuring and reviewing our performance in the area of achieving great safety gains. So I will tell you 

certainly it is a point of vigorous discussion in the Department. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. See, on the one hand, I have been at this for a 

very long time, and on the one hand, the industry would like to 

make it appear that the accident fatality rates are being mitigated 

because there are more miles traveled; therefore, the incidence of 

fatalities and injuries is less. You are traveling more, but you are 

still killing nearly 5,000 people a year, still over 90,000 injuries involving trucks. 

The goal should not be to—it is like the clean water program. In 

the early answer to pollution, it was to dilute the pollution. A large 

body of water, toxics and nitrogen and phosphorus and others, put 

it in, and it will be diluted, so the effect will not be so great as if 

it were in a smaller body of water. Five thousand fatalities over 

several billion miles traveled looks a lot less injurious to the public 

and less a threat than 5,000 fatalities over maybe 100 million miles 

traveled. 

What I am getting at is you are watering down the effect of fatalities, you are watering down the number of fatalities with that. 

I have never seen a document justifying accidents per miles traveled because you have no database that is reliable for miles traveled. 

Ms. FERRO. Well, I can tell you in our daily work at the agency, 

and I have traveled around the country to try to meet with as 

many of our employees as possible, we don’t think in our daily 

work about rates. We think about people. We think about the people who are getting to go home each night. We think about the people making it to their places of work, who are making it to their 

families. 

27 

Our focus is saving lives through the significant reduction in 

crashes with commercial vehicles, and I set that work in a core 

framework of raising the bar to enter, maintaining a high standard 

to stay in, and ensuring high-risk behaviors are removed from the 

roadway. And that applies whether it is a motor carrier, a driver, 

or a vehicle, household goods mover, you name it. We have got to 

do every element of that. And CSA 2010 is a core component of ensuring that anyone we credential and allow to stay credentialed 

maintains a high standard to stay operating on the road, and it 

also identifies tools to get the high-risk behaviors off the road. 

So, again, I appreciate, I respect your perspective on rates, but 

I just want to say our focus on a daily basis is lives, not rates. And 

I can speak for our employees throughout the organization nationwide when I say that, because I have met with many of them. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I welcome that response and the change in 

spirit. It reflects an attitude, a culture of safety in the agency that 

that opening paragraph is intended to create, and that is the goal 

that I have, that we had. And I will say even when we went to conference with the Senate, John McCain was the lead negotiator in 

the other body, and he embraced that concept. So it is bipartisan, 

it is bicameral. But I want to see it reflected. I welcome your statement, and I hope that you convey that all the way through the 

agency. 

Now, what else do we need? You need more personnel. States 

need more personnel. 

Mr. Keppler, do you want to respond to that? 

Mr. KEPPLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think if you look at our written testimony, back to Administrator Ferro’s point, we look at it in 

lives saved. In 2007, the activities funded through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, roadside inspections, traffic enforcement and compliance reviews, on the order of $300 million, returned $5 billion in safety benefits just from the 866 lives that 

were saved in 2007. We think it is a very good investment of tax 

money. We are getting a higher return on our investment. 

So to your point on increased resources, we need to continue to 

fund those things that are working, and those things are working. 

And those are all key components of CSA 2010. All those activities 

are fueling the data that is providing all these interventions and 

all the outputs that we are trying to achieve. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. In your review of safety, Ms. Ferro, are you also 

incorporating the information from the National Driver Register? 

Ms. FERRO. In the incorporation of data on CSA 2010, utilizing 

our violation data? You know what, I will have to follow up on that. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would urge you to do that. 

I think the National Driver Register is a valuable tool, vital resource on drivers of multiple records of bad driving, where they 

have had their license suspended or revoked or otherwise affected 

from bad driving in one State can go to another State and try to 

get a license. 

Ms. FERRO. I will speak to that. The NDR is not part of the CSA 

violation measurement system. It is part of clearly what States use 

before issuing either a new CDL or a transferred CDL from another State. It is a vital part of our system for just what you say, 

to kind of close those loopholes on those drivers moving from State 

28 

to State and where their convictions appear not to be following. My 

apologies. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. In the interest of full disclosure, it was my language in the 1982 authorization, highway authorization. It wasn’t 

my initial idea, it was that of John Rhodes of Arizona, later the Minority Leader of the House, which, following a fatality involving a 

neighbor of ours out here in Washington whose daughter was 

killed, rear-ended by a truck, where the family pulled well off the 

traveled roadway. This driver had his license revoked in one State, 

got a license in a second State, had it suspended, and then got a 

third valid driver’s license in a third State. And the family said, we 

can’t bring Kammy back to life—she had been a babysitter for our 

two younger girls—but we want something to be done so that others don’t have this tragedy visited upon them. 

I found the National Driver Register and crafted language to update it, computerize it, and funding for it to expand it. It is an extremely valuable tool. You ought to incorporate it. We have made 

it available in aviation for those who want to be airline pilots as 

part of their background check. So incorporate that. 

I will withhold further questions at this time. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. 

I have got just a couple of final observations and questions. 

We have anecdotal evidence from some State DOTs that because 

of the concern that this data is going to be used in a different manner, after you go through your rulemaking next year, other than 

directing efforts at targeting companies that need some focus for 

safety issues to the ratings, that State DOTs are experiencing a 

tremendous number of appeals of citations. 

I would ask anybody, but, Mr. Keppler, has that been reported 

to you? 

Mr. KEPPLER. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. In the pilot States there 

has been an increase in the data challenges that have been submitted, and we are anticipating that to increase through CSA 2010. 

And I think it is an important aspect of moving forward, ensuring 

that appropriate resources are available to handle all of those and 

adjudicate them appropriately. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And how are those appropriate resources going to 

be made available in States that are dramatically slashing their 

budgets? 

Mr. KEPPLER. That is a very good question, sir. We are hopeful 

working with FMCSA that they have put additional money in their 

budget request. We are hopeful we can help assist the States where 

appropriate with providing additional resources through the 

MCSAP program and through other means to increase those resources, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Administrator Ferro, I note there was a modest increase requested. The budget crystal ball in appropriations is very 

cloudy at the moment. But I wasn’t aware that any large amount 

of that was to go to the States to help with problems like this. 

Ms. FERRO. This is very much a problem that we identified early 

on in my tenure with the agency, an awareness of the DataQ impact, or I should say the process of challenging a particular violation on our State partners. 

29 

We have looked within our MCSAP grant process and identified 

whatever leverage we have to allow for additional overtime to be 

used for DataQ processes. We are also developing a very clear 

guideline that we can—as well as from my perspective we need 

time frames so that we can minimize frivolous DataQs, but ensure 

the equity and fairness of the DataQ process so that States are, in 

fact, acknowledging where there is a legitimate change that needs 

to be made, it needs to be made. But that workload is certainly a 

very valid concern and one we are attuned to and working with our 

State partners on. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Do either of the associations have a comment on 

this phenomenon? 

Mr. SPENCER. Obviously we would certainly like to see additional 

Federal funding available, although we know it is not likely to happen in the immediate future anyway. But it kind of gets down to 

refocusing your priorities, refocusing, channeling your money 

where you get the largest payback. 

We think CSA 2010 has the potential to do a lot of good. We look 

at other programs, for example, the new entrant safety audit that 

is out there now that is required, that is funded at some level, and 

we saw no justification for a special audit of every new entrant 

when this initiative got off the ground. But we still question that 

in that the logical person would say, wait a minute, if we are going 

to give somebody approval authority to go operate across the country, shouldn’t we already have satisfied any safety concerns we 

had? So we think focusing those kinds of dollars in a more productive way would be better. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Klein, any comment? 

Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, we support increased funding for not 

only the rollout amongst the States, but also to make sure there 

is an appropriate data challenge process available. We think any 

credible process requires to have the data challenge option available, and, if resources are an issue, would support additional resources there. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I doubt it is going to happen. I am very concerned 

about this phenomenon, how we are going to deal with it. 

Mr. Keppler, you reference how CSA 2010 will impact safety rating reciprocity and data exchange with Canada and Mexico. I guess 

I would direct both to you and the Administrator, I can envision 

that perhaps we are having meaningful data exchange with Canada. I am not aware that we are having any meaningful data exchange with Mexico, or that there is any meaningful data down 

there to exchange with us regarding safety. So I would like you 

both to comment on that. Perhaps Administrator Ferro—well, Mr. 

Keppler, you raised it. You can go first. 

Mr. KEPPLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Several years ago FMCSA signed an MOU with Canada on safety-rating reciprocity. Canada has a different safety-rating process 

to some degree, different things, nuances, than we do in the U.S., 

and the CSA 2010 process obviously is going to change the whole 

rating scheme, how the data is treated, how it is handled, and how 

that impacts on a motor carrier’s safety fitness determination. So 

the reason we raised that issue is because Canada obviously wants 

30 

to work collaboratively in that process to ensure that there is equitable treatment across the border. 

From the Mexico perspective, I do know recently they have 

stepped up their efforts on the enforcement side. For example, we 

do an annual road check program that we did 2 weeks ago, and 

Mexico submitted more data in terms of inspections than they have 

ever done before. So it is helpful. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Real inspections? We have a problem here where 

we have probable cause-driven—I mean, generally most things in 

Mexico are bribe-driven. So I am not aware—we have just heard 

horror stories about their enforcement regime down there. I don’t 

give it any credibility, if they are sending us data that we can 

verify that data or that data is verifiable. 

They have no meaningful commercial driver’s license registering, 

they have no meaningful hours of service enforcement—well, they 

have no hours of service, and they have no hours of service enforcement. So what sort of safety data are we getting from Mexico about 

this driver, who doesn’t have hours of service requirements, was 

meeting his requirement to not have hours of service requirement? 

Or the one where this driver who isn’t subjected to drug testing 

wasn’t subjected to drug testing? Or this driver who was stopped 

and paid a bribe? What are we talking about here? 

Mr. KEPPLER. Well, in terms of the data exchange, I am not seeing that, because they are exchanging that information at the Federal level, so we don’t see that on a day-to-day basis. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Then let’s ask the Administrator what meaningful, verifiable and/or fact-checked data we are getting out of 

Mexico where we have actually sent inspectors down there to see 

that these activities are ongoing and are meaningful? 

Ms. FERRO. Well, the exchange exists today on the driver’s licensing fees. I will say I am very weak on the details with regard to 

this specific question, but I will happily follow up for the record. 

But with regard to anybody traveling in this country, any activity 

in the trade zone area, all of those carriers receive violations, inspections and violations, just like any other carrier. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. That is within the U.S. 

Ms. FERRO. And that is part of the rating process. Should any 

of that change such that carriers are operating long haul in the 

United States, any carrier under the old pilot program, if you recall, there was a very extensive—and it is required by law—on-site 

review and examination of any carrier that could do more than 

they are doing today. 

So, again, I would like to come back specifically with our current 

activity with regard to any data exchange, if I may, for the record, 

but reinforce that carriers operating in those trade zones today will 

also be rated clearly as part of CSA 2010. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. And we would encourage you within that 

20-mile zone to continue those activities robustly. I don’t think you 

are going to have to worry about the long haul. 

Then I would reflect, you talked about driver fitness. We held a 

hearing a couple of years ago on drug testing, which was rife with 

extraordinary problems, and also on the physical exams, which also 

had some similar problems in terms of phony input data or meaningless data coming in, and I am not aware what strides we have 

31 

made in those areas. I would be interested in talking about that. 

But I would just say unless things have changed a lot, I don’t think 

we are having a meaningful oversight of those fitness activities, unless we have corrected the problems. Hopefully we have. But I 

would be interested in hearing more about that. 

Finally, just on, again, a difference between Mr. Klein and Mr. 

Spencer, but everybody can chip in on this one, because FMCSA is 

proposing that—well, ATA has proposed drivers—if drivers who 

have a bad performance record or violations are dismissed, that 

you get some sort of partial credit for that. You might just want 

to expand on that, Mr. Klein, and we will have Mr. Spencer and 

then the others comment. 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to that, I can 

give an example of our organization. 

We had a driver who we dismissed this past year who had an 

issue with alcohol in the vehicle and got pulled over, and there was 

alcohol found in the vehicle. We terminated. 

We went back and looked at that situation to say, OK, what 

could we have done differently in the process of hiring, training, inspecting that individual, or coaching, to create a different outcome 

so we could have caught that earlier. We did the background check. 

We had the preemployment screening done. That individual actually went through a random drug test 2 years before this incident. 

And through our processes, we couldn’t find anything to say we 

could identify that we had a bad apple in our organization any earlier than the time that the inspection took place. But with our policies, as soon as that was identified, that individual was terminated 

from employment from our organization. 

So therefore, we believe there should be some credit given to 

have a process that allows you to take credit in those situations 

where you make the right business decision. We didn’t choose to 

keep that individual on. We chose to terminate at that point. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Spencer? 

Mr. SPENCER. I think it actually has sort of been the history of 

deregulation was spurn or no longer focus on veteran drivers. We 

are going to search out the new guy. We are going to train them 

or not train them the way we want them. We are going to turn 

them loose and ask the taxpayers to keep an eye on the people that 

we turn loose as drivers. 

That sort of has been the history of MCSAP, the history of trucking since deregulation. And, you know, the problem is, again, one 

driver that gets fired, that loses his license, is simply replaced with 

another identical or maybe even less trained and less qualified. 

So the problems of drugs and alcohol, obviously trucking is going 

to be one of the least likely professions to have those kinds of problems. But you can hire those things. And again, I mentioned earlier, by turnover, this constant quench to find new people, lowerpaid drivers to fill truck seats comes with its own set of problems. 

Simply firing somebody that is a problem, that you hired, and 

you asked taxpayers to actually keep an eye on for you and do 

background checks and all those things, somehow or another that 

doesn’t rise to the category of a reward to me. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Ms. Ferro? 

32 

Ms. FERRO. Chairman DeFazio, this program, CSA 2010, is about 

accountability, it is about compliance, it is about safety and crash 

reduction. So to the extent that a carrier—that drivers associated 

with a specific carrier demonstrate patterns of unsafe behavior enables us to then focus our look at that carrier when we go in to 

look at them. 

The focus is to get the carrier to say what in our business practices is prompting that unsafe behavior. It may be practices and 

pressures within the company itself, dispatch. In Mr. Klein’s case, 

clearly they have got a very rigorous process. It is an isolated instance. It will be treated as an isolated instance. You need an accumulation of violations in a particular area for that to actually count 

against that rating, three or more. That would be treated for just 

what it is. 

This is a process of looking at patterns, using performance data, 

identify patterns, and help that motor carrier identify what in their 

business practices may be driving those patterns. 

In the case where they have drivers that are good drivers, but 

have had a problem or an instance of a problem, they have an opportunity to detect, remediate and retain. If it is a high-risk driver 

and a pattern of high-risk driver, they do well, and they reward 

themselves, frankly, and their ratings down the road, and their insurance view down the road, and their shipper view down the road 

by taking care of that driver appropriately with dismissal. 

So that to us is kind of that reward system, the opportunity to 

measure, and identify, and detect and analyze. Again, if it is an 

isolated instance, it is not going to count against the rating. It will 

be lost in the averaging. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Keppler? 

Mr. KEPPLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would actually echo everything Administrator Ferro said. I think that the thing that—Mr. 

Klein obviously has a very responsible safety program. The purpose 

behind SMS within CSA 2010 is to look for patterns. We see anomalies and violations—and I am sure this is the exception and not 

the rule in his company— it will get lost, and it wouldn’t negatively 

affect the long-term safety fitness of his company. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. The bells are ringing. We are summoned to 

cast some trivial votes on some hortatory resolutions. That is all 

we do around here these days. 

Does anybody have anything that they weren’t asked and wanted 

to say? I am not encouraging this. Just if there is something you 

really want to say or do, raise your hand. 

OK. If not, I want to thank you all for your time. I think this 

helped open up this process and demystify it a little bit. I think it 

is a work in progress, and I think the Administrator recognizes 

that. 

I want to thank Helena on my staff. I don’t usually do this, but 

I was reading her memo on the plane yesterday. And I did have 

to read it twice, but it gave me a much greater understanding of 

the issues and the program, and I recommend it to anybody in the 

audience who wants to try to figure out what the heck it is we were 

talking about here today. 

Anyway, with that, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

33 


Insert offset folio 13 here 57103.013
34 


Insert offset folio 14 here 57103.014
35 


Insert offset folio 15 here 57103.015
36 


Insert offset folio 16 here 57103.016
37 


Insert offset folio 17 here 57103.017
38 


Insert offset folio 18 here 57103.018
39 


Insert offset folio 19 here 57103.019
40 


Insert offset folio 20 here 57103.020
41 


Insert offset folio 21 here 57103.021
42 


Insert offset folio 22 here 57103.022
43 


Insert offset folio 23 here 57103.023
44 


Insert offset folio 24 here 57103.024
45 


Insert offset folio 25 here 57103.025
46 


Insert offset folio 26 here 57103.026
47 


Insert offset folio 27 here 57103.027
48 


Insert offset folio 28 here 57103.028
49 


Insert offset folio 29 here 57103.029
50 


Insert offset folio 30 here 57103.030
51 


Insert offset folio 31 here 57103.031
52 


Insert offset folio 32 here 57103.032
53 


Insert offset folio 33 here 57103.033
54 


Insert offset folio 34 here 57103.034
55 


Insert offset folio 35 here 57103.035
56 


Insert offset folio 36 here 57103.036
57 


Insert offset folio 37 here 57103.037
58 


Insert offset folio 38 here 57103.038
59 


Insert offset folio 39 here 57103.039
60 


Insert offset folio 40 here 57103.040
61 


Insert offset folio 41 here 57103.041
62 


Insert offset folio 42 here 57103.042
63 


Insert offset folio 43 here 57103.043
64 


Insert offset folio 44 here 57103.044
65 


Insert offset folio 45 here 57103.045
66 


Insert offset folio 46 here 57103.046
67 


Insert offset folio 47 here 57103.047
68 


Insert offset folio 48 here 57103.048
69 


Insert offset folio 49 here 57103.049
70 


Insert offset folio 50 here 57103.050
71 


Insert offset folio 51 here 57103.051
72 


Insert offset folio 52 here 57103.052
73 


Insert offset folio 53 here 57103.053
74 


Insert offset folio 54 here 57103.054
75 


Insert offset folio 55 here 57103.055
76 


Insert offset folio 56 here 57103.056
77 


Insert offset folio 57 here 57103.057
78 


Insert offset folio 58 here 57103.058
79 


Insert offset folio 59 here 57103.059
80 


Insert offset folio 60 here 57103.060
81 


Insert offset folio 61 here 57103.061
82 


Insert offset folio 62 here 57103.062
83 


Insert offset folio 63 here 57103.063
84 


Insert offset folio 64 here 57103.064
85 


Insert offset folio 65 here 57103.065
86 


Insert offset folio 66 here 57103.066
87 


Insert offset folio 67 here 57103.067
88 


Insert offset folio 68 here 57103.068
89 


Insert offset folio 69 here 57103.069
90 


Insert offset folio 70 here 57103.070
91 


Insert offset folio 71 here 57103.071
92 


Insert offset folio 72 here 57103.072
93 


Insert offset folio 73 here 57103.073
94 


Insert offset folio 74 here 57103.074
95 


Insert offset folio 75 here 57103.075
96 


Insert offset folio 76 here 57103.076
97 


Insert offset folio 77 here 57103.077
98 


Insert offset folio 78 here 57103.078
99 


Insert offset folio 79 here 57103.079
100 


Insert offset folio 80 here 57103.080
101 


Insert offset folio 81 here 57103.081
102 


Insert offset folio 82 here 57103.082
103 


Insert offset folio 83 here 57103.083
104 


Insert offset folio 84 here 57103.084
105 


Insert offset folio 85 here 57103.085
106 


Insert offset folio 86 here 57103.086
107 


Insert offset folio 87 here 57103.087
108 


Insert offset folio 88 here 57103.088
109 


Insert offset folio 89 here 57103.089
110 


Insert offset folio 90 here 57103.090
111 


Insert offset folio 91 here 57103.091
112 


Insert offset folio 92 here 57103.092
113 


Insert offset folio 93 here 57103.093
114 


Insert offset folio 94 here 57103.094
115 


Insert offset folio 95 here 57103.095
116 


Insert offset folio 96 here 57103.096
117 


Insert offset folio 97 here 57103.097
118 


Insert offset folio 98 here 57103.098
119 


Insert offset folio 99 here 57103.099
120 


Insert offset folio 100 here 57103.100
121 


Insert offset folio 101 here 57103.101
122 


Insert offset folio 102 here 57103.102
123 


Insert offset folio 103 here 57103.103
124 


Insert offset folio 104 here 57103.104
125 


Insert offset folio 105 here 57103.105
126 


Insert offset folio 106 here 57103.106
127 


Insert offset folio 107 here 57103.107
128 


Insert offset folio 108 here 57103.108
129 


Insert offset folio 109 here 57103.109
130 


Insert offset folio 110 here 57103.110
131 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 111 here 57103.111