[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
                                FOR 2000

_______________________________________________________________________

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
                              FIRST SESSION
                                ________

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                             APPROPRIATIONS
                    FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman

 TOM DeLAY, Texas                  MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
 RALPH REGULA, Ohio                JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky           ED PASTOR, Arizona
 RON PACKARD, California           CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama           JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
 TODD TIAHRT, Kansas               JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
 KAY GRANGER, Texas                 

 NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full 
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full 
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
 John T. Blazey II, Richard E. Efford, Stephanie K. Gupta, and Linda J. 
                        Muir, Subcommittee Staff
                                ________

                                 PART 4
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
                                                                   Page

   Federal Highway Administration.................................  951
   Federal Transit Administration................................. 1399
   National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.................  728
 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY....................................    1

                              

                                ________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                ________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 61-250                     WASHINGTON : 2000




                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                   C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman

 RALPH REGULA, Ohio                    DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
 JERRY LEWIS, California               JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
 JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois          NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky               MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
 JOE SKEEN, New Mexico                 JULIAN C. DIXON, California
 FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia               STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
 TOM DeLAY, Texas                      ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
 JIM KOLBE, Arizona                    MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
 RON PACKARD, California               NANCY PELOSI, California
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama               PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
 JAMES T. WALSH, New York              NITA M. LOWEY, New York
 CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina     JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
 DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                 ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
 ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma       JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
 HENRY BONILLA, Texas                  JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
 JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan             ED PASTOR, Arizona
 DAN MILLER, Florida                   CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
 JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
 JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                CHET EDWARDS, Texas
 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey   ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr., 
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi            Alabama
 MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York           JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,            MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
Washington                             LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
 RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,            SAM FARR, California
California                             JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
 TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                   CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
 ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                  ALLEN BOYD, Florida
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa
 ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
 ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
 JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
 JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
 KAY GRANGER, Texas
 JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania     

                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                  (ii)


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                                  2000

                              ----------                              

                                        Tuesday, February 23, 1999.

                     SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY

                               WITNESSES

                                PANEL I

DAPHNE IZER, PARENTS AGAINST TIRED TRUCKERS
BONNIE PIERCE, VICTIM AND CONCERNED CITIZEN
SERGEANT MIKE LaPOINTE, MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE

                                PANEL II

KENNETH MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PHYLLIS SCHEINBERG, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, U.S. 
    GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
JIM HALL, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                               PANEL III

MARK EDWARDS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRAFFIC SAFETY SERVICES, AMERICAN 
    AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (AAA)
WALTER McCORMICK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, 
    INC.
JUDY STONE, PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY
HARRY EUBANKS, PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE
BRIAN O'NEILL, PRESIDENT, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY
TODD SPENCER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT 
    DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
EDWARD WYTKIND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AFL-CIO, TRANSPORTATION TRADES 
    DEPARTMENT

                                PANEL IV

KENNETH WYKLE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. 
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RICARDO MARTINEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 
    ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CHARLES HUNNICUTT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL 
    AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Wolf. Good morning. I welcome you to the Committee. 
Since becoming Chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation 
Appropriations, safety has been the number one priority of this 
Subcommittee, both with Republicans and with Democrats. For the 
past 4 years, the Subcommittee has worked diligently to provide 
adequate funding for safety-related activities and at times has 
actually added to the administration's request to ensure a 
needed safety enhancement.
    Safety is an area where you can never do too much. It is 
always time to redouble our efforts. I am concerned, however, 
that the Department of Transportation can and must do more, 
particularly in the area of truck safety. A total of 41,967 
people died on the Nation's highways in 1997. Most of these 
fatalities occurred in passenger vehicles. However, 5,355 
fatalities are the result of truck accidents. Due to the good 
work of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and 
safety improvements in automobiles, passenger vehicle 
fatalities have been declining in recent years. In contrast, 
trucking accident fatalities have been increasing at an 
alarming rate. For example, in 1997, trucking fatalities 
increased 4.5 percent over the previous year, the highest 
fatality level in this decade. At the same time, more and more 
commercial motor vehicles are driving more and more miles on 
our roadways. Trucking vehicle miles have increased by 40 
percent over the last decade. Over 20 percent of these trucks, 
more than one in five, are operating with safety defects so 
serious they should be placed out of service, so unsafe that 
they should be towed to a repair facility.
    While the number of unsafe trucks continue to rise, the 
number of compliance reviews done by the Department of 
Transportation has fallen by 50 percent and fines collected 
from unsafe trucking companies have fallen to the lowest level 
since 1992. It is clear that the Federal programs as they are 
currently constructed and administered are not doing enough to 
prevent unsafe operators from traveling on our highways and 
from becoming agents of death. Without more effective and 
aggressive programs to improve truck safety, fatalities will 
likely rise and more families will lose their loved ones.


                       introduction of witnesses


    I am pleased to welcome four panels of witnesses today. We 
will begin with Daphne Izer, the founder of Parents Against 
Tired Truckers, who lost a son in a truck related accident; 
Bonnie Pierce, a North Carolina mother who lost her oldest son 
in a tragic accident; and Sergeant Mike LaPointe, a 
Massachusetts State enforcement officer.
    Following the first panel, we will hear from the Inspector 
General, and witnesses from the U.S. General Accounting Office 
and the National Transportation Safety Board. Each of these 
panels will speak about their truck and bus safety 
investigations.
    The third panel will consist of a variety of witnesses from 
the trucking industry, insurance carriers, and the safety 
community.
    The last panel will consist of representatives from the 
U.S. Department of Transportation. We hope as part of the last 
panel's presentation, they will respond to the concerns and 
criticisms expressed by the previous three panels and address 
ways to fix these problems.
    While we may hear differing opinions on the course of 
action necessary to improve truck safety today, all of the 
witnesses, I hope, will agree and I certainly will that 5,355 
fatalities are 5,355 too many. We all have a common interest 
and a goal today to reduce the number of unsafe trucks 
operating on our Nation's highways, and this Committee is 
committed to doing everything it can.
    Before we recognize the panel, Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. No.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Pastor.
    Mr. Pastor. No.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. No.
    Mr. Wolf. Ms. Kilpatrick.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. No, thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Serrano.
    Mr. Serrano. No, thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Ms. Izer, you may proceed. Your full statement 
will appear in the record. Summarize as you see appropriate.

                           Panel I Witnesses


  DAPHNE IZER, CO-CHAIRPERSON, PARENTS AGAINST TIRED TRUCKERS 
                           (P.A.T.T.)

    Ms. Izer. Thank you. Chairman and distinguished members, I 
testify before you today as a wife, a school nurse, a taxpayer, 
a safety advocate, but above all, a mother of a child who was 
killed by a truck driver asleep at the wheel of his 80,000 
pound rig. Jeff picked up his friends that October night, set 
out for a fun time, a haunted hayride, but instead four 
lifeless bodies got a horror ride in a crushed car on a flatbed 
truck. Five families' lives changed forever.
    I want to say up front that I couldn't be angrier at the 
lack of movement on new hours-of-service rules and enforcement 
actions by Federal Highway Administration. I have to say I 
couldn't be more disheartened and denigrated as a parent of a 
child who lost his life to a truck driver who was violating 
outdated hours-of-service rules and as a taxpayer who loves 
this country. We have sat across the table from senior OMC 
officials on many occasions as they assured us that they were 
doing everything possible to see that another family did not 
have to lose a loved one on a dark, cold highway due to truck 
driver fatigue.
    To find out that the people who had the responsibility to 
ensure safe roads for all of us were actually working with the 
American Trucking Association's lobbying against the actions of 
the U.S. Congressmen working to improve highway safety sickens 
me. We were betrayed by the very people whose responsibility it 
was to save lives, not promote the productivity interest of the 
trucking industry. Not only should the transfer of the Office 
of Motor Carriers to NHTSA receive serious consideration, but a 
referral to the Department of Justice for investigation and 
possible indictment should be aggressively pursued against 
those at OMC who violated the public trust.
    Can anyone on this distinguished subcommittee tell me why 
of all the research that takes place on the trucking industry a 
certain percentage has to be conducted by the ATA? The trucking 
industry has a clear economic interest in the outcome. They 
receive funding from my Federal Government. They work side by 
side with Federal highway researchers and other Beltway bandits 
to delay, obfuscate and prolong research that turns out to be 
faulty from the beginning. Millions and millions of taxpayer 
dollars are being wasted each and every year while the Trucking 
Association's employees earn a comfortable living and Federal 
employees contract for future jobs after they leave government 
service.
    In February of 1995, Associate Administrator George Reagle 
from OMC commissioned nine internationally recognized sleep and 
behavior scientists to evaluate several research projects 
dealing with truck driver fatigue sponsored by the Office of 
Motor Carriers. One of the main studies that the group reviewed 
was the seven-year, multimillion dollar fatigue and alertness 
study. This is particularly significant as this study is held 
up by the OMC and the trucking industry as the current research 
that should form the basis of any revisions to the hours of 
service rules. The trucking industry loves this study because 
one of the major findings put forth is that the strongest, most 
consistent factor influencing driver fatigue and alertness was 
the time of day a person drove rather than the number of hours 
they drove. However, what is more important is what the OMC's 
own peer review panel said about this study and others. The 
panel stated the driver fatigue and alertness study suffered 
from poor design and an inappropriate statistical approach to 
address these major objectives. One of the panelists stated the 
study did not meet its objectives at all. The panel also stated 
that all four studies suffer from ambiguous objectives and 
poorly defined research hypotheses. One of the studies was 
found to essentially lack any scientific validity at all. This 
is the OMC's own expert panel, a group of recognized experts 
who are not affiliated with any Beltway bandit or beholden to 
ATA.

             peer review report on driver fatigue research

    However, the real story about the research partnership with 
ATA has to be obtained through a Freedom of Information Act. 
Chairman Wolf, I would like to submit the peer review report of 
commercial driver fatigue research to the subcommittee for the 
official record and encourage members of this body to read it.
    Mr. Wolf. Without objection it will appear in the record.
    [The report follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Izer. Thank you. Then you will get a clearer picture 
how the trucking industry works with OMC to produce bad 
research and bad public policy. What this amounts to is OMC 
gets one thing else off their desk. The trucking industry gets 
to delay and stall any actions on fatigue while they await the 
results. And Beltway bandits collect their checks thanks to the 
same American public who are dying on the highways due to this 
inappropriate partnering. Meanwhile, truck drivers, kids, 
mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, continue to die due to 
Federal Highway's lack of action on the hours of service rules, 
inspections, and educational programs against fatigue, sleep 
disorders and other safety issues. Can anyone tell me when this 
insanity is going to stop? PATT and other organizations have 
fought long and hard to see something done on this issue. I 
have testified until I am blue in the face. Congressman Wolf, I 
am tired. I urge you and this subcommittee please do not forget 
your constituents and us. It is time for Congress to take a 
long, hard look at this industry and make it safer. Please take 
steps now to save lives.
    I am here from Lisbon Falls, Maine, brought here by 
terrible circumstances and the desire to see changes made for 
my family, your constituents, and truck drivers and their 
families. I may be viewed as no match for the hordes of 
trucking industry, high-priced lawyers who spend their days in 
the halls outside this door but make no mistake about it, PATT 
is here to stay to see changes made and lives saved.
    I have discussed many other issues in my written statement, 
and I urge you to review the entire statement. Please include 
it in the hearing record. Thank you for giving me this 
opportunity, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you 
may have for me.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Izer follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Ms. Izer. I appreciate very much your 
taking the time in coming. As the father of five kids, I don't 
know that I understand your situation but I understand your 
commitment following your son's death. We will ask you 
questions later. We will ask the Justice Department to 
investigate this close proximity of OMC and the Trucking 
Association with the Inspector General. The Secretary has 
assured us they will move on it. The Inspector General will 
cover this topic in his presentation, but if nothing is done, I 
am sure we will ask the Department of Justice to investigate.
    Also, I have introduced legislation to move the Office of 
Motor Carriers out of the Federal Highway Administration into 
NHTSA. The Committee put that in its bill last year which was 
taken out in the closing days of the session. So we will commit 
to move OMC somewhere to make sure it is effective and not 
having an incestuous relationship with the trucking industry 
that you mentioned.

          BONNIE PIERCE, VICTIM AND CONCERNED CITIZEN

    Mr. Wolf. Ms. Bonnie Pierce.
    Ms. Pierce. Congressman Wolf, distinguished members of the 
subcommittee, my name is Bonnie Pierce, and I am the mother of 
Terry Pierce. I wonder how many can tell me what you were doing 
on December 10, 1993. You are probably saying to yourselves, 
she's kidding, that was more than 5 years ago. Well, I remember 
exactly what I was doing that day. I relive the events of that 
day every single day of my life. Even the littlest events of 
that day of December 1993 are unforgettable.
    I left lunch money on the kitchen table for my son Terry 
and I reminded him to make his bed before school. When he came 
home after wrestling practice later that afternoon to take a 
shower, before he went out for the evening with his girlfriend 
Holly, I also reminded Terry to pick his towel up off the 
bathroom floor. These were the little routine, everyday things 
I did almost on a daily basis, nothing out of the ordinary. I 
didn't know I was doing those things with Terry for the last 
time. Later that evening, when Terry phoned home to check in 
with me, which he always did, he simply said, mom, I am at 
Maurice's and I have got Maurice and we are leaving to go to 
the coach's house. The distance they had to go was a mere six 
miles. They were to meet up with the rest of the team and spend 
the night at Coach Stewart's home. Their plan was to get an 
early start the next morning for an all day wrestling 
tournament. I didn't know I was hearing Terry call me mom for 
the last time and I didn't know the last chance I ever had to 
speak with him was gone. I didn't know that within minutes of 
hanging up the phone, Terry and Maurice would meet up with a 
drowsy 61-year-old man driving an 80,000 pound tractor trailer 
[he was empty so he probably weighed approximately 26,000 to 
29,000 pounds] well into the 16th hour on the road that day. 
Instead of passing by Terry on a gentle curve, that tractor 
trailer driver drove straight through the back of that curve, 
crossing head on into Terry's lane and literally ran over the 
Honda Prelude Terry was driving. Terry and his friend Maurice 
lost their young lives that Friday night, December 10, 1993. My 
husband, Chris, and I lost our precious firstborn son. 
Christopher and Tim, our two surviving sons, lost their oldest 
brother and best friend. The wrestling team lost their captains 
and two of the brightest beacons of hope in a small rural 
community were gone.
    My life as I knew it in December 1993 was forever changed. 
The crash that took the life of my son was just that. It was 
not an accident. It was a preventable crash. That fatigued 
truck driver not only took the lives of two beautiful and 
innocent young men, he destroyed two families and our lives are 
forever changed. That change and desire to prevent what 
happened to me and my family from happening to another mother 
and her family is what brings me here today. Since the crash 
that took the life of my son, I have learned of Parents Against 
Tired Truckers and their goals, the American Trucking 
Association and so much more about the trucking industry in the 
United States that I could never have imagined. I have learned 
that most of the laws and regulations about trucking safety 
have not changed significantly in 60 years and I have come to 
realize that the significant area of concern is not so much 
changing the regulations, although I do feel there are few 
major areas such as hours of service that desperately need to 
be reevaluated and changes made but the critical issue must be 
enforcing laws already in existence.
    I know that my home State of North Carolina has gone from 
77 inspectors down to 20 in the past 2 years. Consequently at 
the same time, the carnage attributed to heavy truck crashes 
has established North Carolina as the fifth deadliest state in 
the Union. The United States as a whole, not just North 
Carolina, has a serious problem with enforcement of laws 
already in place.
    The problem begins with annual inspections of commercial 
vehicles. Why on God's green earth should we allow an owner of 
a tractor trailer to perform his own yearly inspection? Owners 
of passenger vehicles do not perform their own inspections. In 
1986, automobiles were required to have a third brake light. 
The back of a trailer is maybe ten times bigger than a car, yet 
the Department of Transportation with the trucking industry's 
support finds itself incapable of requiring those trailers to 
have sufficient reflective tape so they could easily be seen. I 
won't even go into the cost effectiveness of underride guards 
that have been required on trucks for years in Europe.
    Why was the tired trucker who killed my son on the road 
after 16 hours? The answer is simple. The Federal Office of 
Motor Carriers is incapable of enforcing safety regulations and 
the Federal Highway Administration is incapable of implementing 
new, more effective regulations. Current hours of service 
regulations are infective and counterproductive. They are not 
based on the 24-hour circadian rhythms. They are simply 
dangerous.
    The trucking industry is asking for hours of service 
regulations that will enable a truck driver to drive 14 out of 
24 hours. And whether it was due to the alleged cozy 
relationship between Mr. Reagle and ATA or not, it appears that 
the Federal Highway Administration is anxious to support the 
ATA's wishes despite the imminent dangers it will impose to the 
motoring public.
    The logic of ATA's proposal flies in the face of science 
and common sense. My son died because the trucking industry in 
the United States does not care. In addition to the devastation 
and hope that brought me here today, I sit before you as an 
informed voter and cherish your position. You are either part 
of a coming solution or part of a deadly problem. Please, 
please, take charge of the situation before more families are 
devastated like mine, and I urge you to be part of the 
solution. I thank you for holding this hearing and allowing me 
the opportunity to testify before you.
    Please include my statement in the hearing record.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Pierce follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


           MIKE LAPOINTE, MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE

    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Ms. Pierce. I appreciate your 
testimony very much.
    Next witness, Sergeant Michael Lapointe, Massachusetts 
State Police. Sergeant, your full statement will appear in the 
record.
    Mr. Lapointe. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 
members of the Committee. My name is Michael Lapointe. I have 
served with the Massachusetts State Police for 24\1/2\ years, 
and I have been assigned to the commercial vehicle enforcement 
section for 12 years. I also serve on the Regulatory Legal 
Affairs Committee at CVSA, the Commercial Vehicle Safety 
Alliance.
    I feel privileged to have been asked to testify before this 
Committee today and hope that I can contribute to improving 
motor carrier safety. I hope that in some small way we can 
prevent the tragedies that have been told to us this morning. I 
would like to speak on a few major issues from my perspective 
as an enforcement roadside enforcement officer. One of those 
issues is the mechanical condition of trucks on the road.
    Ten years ago in Massachusetts, when we started doing truck 
enforcement, the out of service rate was 55 percent. In 10 
years, that out-of-service rate has fallen between 23 and 30 
percent for level one inspections. I would also like to point 
out that the out-of-service rate has pretty much remained flat 
over the past 3 years. If you would ask me why the out of 
service rate has remained flat, it is in my opinion due to an 
increasing number of smaller carriers coming into the business. 
When we first see these carriers come on board, their trucks 
are in tip top condition and within a couple of years, because 
of economic reasons, trucks start deteriorating and are no 
longer being maintained and repaired like they were when they 
originally came on board. As we have stepped up our enforcement 
efforts, many carriers have become proactive in strengthening 
their maintenance programs. However, others have not and they 
are increasing the numbers.
    The other key ingredient to enforcement programs are 
compliance reviews, which is a full audit of a carrier's 
operations within his terminal. In Massachusetts we don't have 
statutory authority to do compliance reviews on intrastate 
carriers which might be problem carriers for us. However, OMC 
does perform compliance reviews on interstate carriers that are 
based within Massachusetts. To the best of my knowledge, in the 
last 6 months only one of those compliance reviews has been 
performed or completed in the western part of Massachusetts.
    The next issue I would like to touch on is the rest areas. 
At present, the lack and size of rest areas is a real problem 
and very directly related to the problem of driver fatigue. 
Most rest areas are too small to accommodate large trucks 
forcing the drivers to pull to the side of the road or in the 
breakdown lane to get their required sleep. In many cases this 
becomes a safety issue because oncoming traffic can strike the 
truck, causing injury or death. In most states, the problem 
exists across the board. Either the lack of rest areas or the 
size of rest areas limit the use, the full use of their rest 
area.
    Another issue is crash causation. The review of commercial 
vehicle crashes investigated by our section in the last 6 
months has shown that approximately 30 percent of the crashes 
were attributed to mechanical defects, while 70 percent of the 
crashes were caused by driver error either by the truck driver 
or the passenger car driver. Our best analysis in the majority 
of the cases where the driver was at fault, the crash was 
triggered by the passenger car driver either making an abrupt 
start in front of a large truck in traffic or an abrupt lane 
change into the path of a truck or an abrupt stop in front of a 
large truck. This is more than likely due to the fact that the 
passenger car drivers are not aware of the limitations of the 
large trucks that they are starting to pass, et cetera.
    All state enforcement officers need to be trained in 
accident investigation and causation so they can be done on a 
uniform basis in all jurisdictions. This would hopefully lead 
to a development of a national and international database.
    And finally, another problem we do have as roadside 
enforcement people is the problem of the fines and the judicial 
system. Many prosecutors, magistrates and judges are not 
familiar with the regulations, do not understand the 
recommended fine schedules of enforcement personnel and do not 
place the same importance on commercial vehicle violations as 
they do with criminal law violations. An in-depth and 
continuous judicial outreach program should be undertaken. It 
is my understanding that Federal Highway has such a program in 
place. More time and resources must be committed to this 
effort.
    Mr. Chairman, I have only touched on a few of the issues 
that I consider important. There is no one answer to the 
problem of motor carrier safety. It requires many different 
measures. Therefore, we have to try them all.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lapointe follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Wolf. I thank you, Sergeant. Mr. Sabo.

                       out-of-service definition

    Mr. Sabo. I thank the panel and I thank the Chairman for 
holding this very important hearing. Mr. Lapointe, what does 
out of service mean?
    Mr. Lapointe. Out of service is a term that is used to 
describe a mechanical condition on a vehicle or a condition on 
a driver's status that would deadline the truck or prevent the 
driver from continuing on. If it is a mechanical defect that is 
an out of service defect, it is a part of a document that we 
use that describes certain defects that are serious enough or 
of the type that would either lead to an accident or breakdown, 
it would prevent that truck from going any further. If we 
discover that type of a condition, the truck is placed out of 
service. The motor carrier or the operator, if it is an owner-
operator, is allowed to either perform the repairs on site or 
tow the vehicle to a repair facility and then continue on their 
trip.
    Mr. Sabo. You were up to 55 percent a few years ago and now 
it is still 23 to 30 percent and that is major----
    Mr. Lapointe. 55 percent is when we in Massachusetts first 
started. Prior to that we did not have inspection authority 
roadside. That was done by the Department of Transportation. 
But it was 55 percent when we started and we have brought that 
percentage down between 23 and 30 percent.
    Mr. Sabo. That is still incredibly high.
    Mr. Lapointe. It is not all of the vehicles that--for 
instance, if we have a weigh station that is opened, it is not 
55 percent of the vehicles that come into that weigh station. 
When we are set up in a weigh station at full complement, we 
will normally inspect approximately 10 percent of the vehicles 
that come into our weigh station. And that is not counting the 
weight enforcement. That is strictly motor carrier inspection 
where we crawl underneath the truck, check for brakes, 
suspension defects, frame defects, things like that. Ten 
percent of the traffic that would come through on a normal day 
will be inspected and right now, 23 to 30 percent of that 10 
percent would be placed out of service.
    Mr. Sabo. Are those random or are you making choices? You 
look and you are suspicious that it might have a problem?
    Mr. Lapointe. Most of the roadside enforcement people from 
our state are pretty familiar with the truck traffic that comes 
through our areas. They are familiar with the different 
carriers and they know the good carriers versus the bad 
carriers. There are times when we do random sampling for 
certain studies we might be doing but on a daily basis, we are 
targeting the bad trucks, the bad carriers, so to speak. We are 
looking for the bad ones.

                         out-of-service records

    Mr. Sabo. I am curious. How are records kept and what 
happens with them and are those kept by driver or are they kept 
by company or both?
    Mr. Lapointe. Which type of record now, sir?
    Mr. Sabo. For out of service or for--where you run into any 
other particular kind of problems. Are those records by company 
as well as by driver?
    Mr. Lapointe. When we do a roadside inspection, we complete 
the inspection on an inspection form, either on a handwritten 
form and now we have gone to a computerized system. As soon as 
we complete that inspection, we sign the form. The driver signs 
the form as receiving that inspection. We give him a copy of 
that inspection form. He then is supposed to, supposed to, 
return it to the carrier. If there are any equipment defects, 
the carrier has to make those repairs and then he sends a copy 
of that inspection form and any invoices or repair slips for 
the mechanical defects, he sends a copy of those to our office 
and then we file those in our files. If there are driver 
defects such as no medical card or expired medical card, that 
type of violation, he would--the carrier, would also have to 
send a copy of the inspection form with proof that the driver 
has now obtained a new or updated medical examination and form. 
They send that to our office and we file that as well. And they 
have to keep a copy of it in their office for any future 
compliance reviews.
    Mr. Sabo. Are they forwarded to anyone else? Are those 
records circulating in your office?
    Mr. Lapointe. Every inspection we do, is uploaded in what 
is called a Safetynet commuter system, which is here in 
Washington. All the States that are on Safety Net, all their 
inspections are uploaded to Safety Net and all that 
information, whether it be mechanical defects or driver 
violations, are all within Safety Net.
    Mr. Sabo. So they would have data by company and/or by 
driver?
    Mr. Lapointe. Yes, sir. If you had a name of a company or 
if you had a DOT number, they can extract that information by 
that--by entering that information, they can give you a 
carrier--what is called a carrier profile.
    Mr. Sabo. Do you have many cases where somebody gets this 
order and nothing happens? Do you have records of that also?
    Mr. Lapointe. Of companies that don't comply?
    Mr. Sabo. Yes.
    Mr. Lapointe. Oh, sure, many. They are allowed 15 days to 
return the form. If we don't hear from them within that 15 
days, we send them a reminder or a bad guy note or whatever you 
might want to call it. They are reminded that they are supposed 
to take action on the defects and then return the form to us. 
In many cases, especially if it is a driver violation, moving 
violation especially, some drivers do not want their carriers 
to know that they have been cited so they will take the 
inspection form that they were supposed to return to their 
carrier and dispose of it. So the carrier doesn't know what is 
going on but we do. If the drivers don't advise the carrier, 
they haven't complied with their end of the inspection. The 
carriers call on the phone and say, ``this is the first time we 
have heard of this.'' A lot of times it is very true, they 
haven't been notified by the driver. In the case of an 
oversight, some companies if they are very large, it may be 
lost in the shuffle but they are reminded and they are allowed 
that chance to fill out the necessary paperwork and forward it 
to us.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                  Factors That Contribute to Accidents

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Regula.
    Mr. Regula. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Sergeant, you 
mentioned a number of things that contribute to accidents, 
equipment efficiencies, drivers driving too long and the other 
witnesses likewise, that perhaps the enforcement intensity of 
the patrol in each of the States, even highway design and 
probably deregulation has resulted in some bad equipment 
getting out because anybody who can buy a steering wheel and 
tires can be a trucker.
    I wonder if you can prioritize these. Is there any one 
factor that contributes to fatalities as far as big trucks or 
is it a whole range of items because in trying to address the 
problem, it seems we need to identify where the deficiencies 
are.
    Mr. Lapointe. It is basically across the board actually. In 
most cases that we have investigated strictly a one vehicle 
accident or crash involving the truck itself, in most cases, it 
is driver error. We find the brakes are within adjustments. 
Suspension systems are fine. It is the driver that has either 
gone into an off-ramp too fast and rolls over or comes down a 
mountain grade and overuses the brakes, doesn't burn them out, 
just overuses them. They overheat, expanding the braking drums. 
Now there is no braking capacity. They don't run out of air. In 
the old days they would run out of air and that was it. They 
basically overheat the brakes and go over the curve or go over 
the edge and roll over. Once the vehicle cools off, the brake 
adjustments are basically where they were originally before 
they overheated. A lot of it is driver error.
    There is an old saying that a good driver can take a bad 
truck and make it go a long ways. Basically it is--if the 
driver anticipates, if he knows his area or if he pays 
attention to signs, signage that says, you know, steep grade 
four miles, use low gear, if they are not doing what they are 
supposed to do, then we are going to be at the bottom of the 
hill investigating an accident. If it is equipment related, 
usually if it is a truck that has struck a fixed object or a 
passenger car and it is directly related to vehicles, more than 
likely it is going to be brake adjustments and there are 
different factors that can affect brake adjustments. It can be 
the brake components themselves that are worn or just as they 
were worn, they weren't adjusted on a regular basis to bring 
them back into braking capacity. Other times there are parts 
that do fall off of trucks, leaf springs or spring assemblies, 
bolts, nuts and bolts, different parts of trucks may fall off. 
We have had brake shoes that have fallen off large trucks and 
gone through windshields. Luckily not--just minor injuries but 
luckily no deaths. All sorts of parts fall off of vehicles and 
fall off of passenger cars as well, but when they come off of 
trucks they are much larger so they just do a larger amount of 
damage.
    Mr. Regula. In your judgment in terms of total miles 
traveled, would trucks have a greater percentage of fatalities 
involving a truck as opposed to automobiles? The reason I ask 
it, I think one of the ladies testified there is something like 
5,000 plus deaths from truckers. I think the total number of 
highway deaths are in the range of 50,000. I was just curious 
whether trucks contributed in terms of miles traveled to a 
greater percentage and that would only be judgment based on 
your experience.
    Mr. Lapointe. I would say that trucks have more likelihood 
of being involved just by the mere fact of being exposed to 
traffic and more time on the road, whether it is--you know, 
they are--the cause of the accident or become part of the 
accident. They are just exposed to it just as well as we are 
because we are on the road eight hours a day and we are more 
likely to be rear ended assisting a motor vehicle on the side 
of the road or stopping a motor vehicle on the side of the road 
than the average motor vehicle would in its lifetime because 
the mere fact that we are in the breakdown lane and people are 
going by us and sometimes not paying attention.
    So we are exposed to it as well. But a truck, certainly 
with the number of miles, exposes itself and the driver to more 
possibilities of a crash or an incident.

                        Log Accuracy Enforcement

    Mr. Regula. Is there any real practical way to enforce the 
accuracy of logs because it would appear to me that some of 
these accidents result from drivers overextending time and 
going to sleep frankly. And yet you have to almost rely on the 
driver to keep his logs in an accurate fashion, or her. I see 
many women driving rigs these days on the Pennsylvania Turnpike 
and the Ohio Turnpike.
    Mr. Lapointe. Sir, a lot of it is the honor system. The 
driver basically has to be truthful in what he is putting down 
in his logbook. There are many ways to check that, different 
paperwork that we can access to double check the logs. In many 
cases there are some carriers that have gone to a computerized 
system, satellite systems where they can track their vehicle 
and driver on an hourly basis and when they see the driver 
approaching his termination in driving, they advise him by 
computer. Other carriers do it of course the old fashion way 
and the carriers review the time cards and they kind of keep an 
eye on what the drivers are doing. And in other cases, some 
carriers basically tell the drivers drive or walk. They are 
told if they don't drive, they will find another driver for the 
truck.

              Owner-Operators Versus Major Trucking Firms

    Mr. Regula. One last question. Do you have any feel whether 
more truck fatalities resulting from trucks is owner-operators 
versus the major trucking firms, which are more likely, such as 
J.B. Hunt, are more likely to have this satellite hookup?
    Mr. Lapointe. If the smaller carriers are involved in more 
accidents?
    Mr. Regula. Yes, or owner-operators or very small carriers 
versus the majors?
    Mr. Lapointe. No. We don't--I don't really see it as----
    Mr. Regula. You don't sense the difference of the two?
    Mr. Lapointe. No. The larger carrier, of course their 
equipment is going to be a little bit different. They have more 
of a turnover as far as their equipment. They may have a 
tendency to replace older equipment quicker than the smaller 
carriers but as far as driver violations between the large 
carrier and owner-operator, it can be pretty much--you can have 
road rage in a large company that has many drivers as in a one-
man operation.
    Mr. Regula. Thank you.

                         Enforcement Penalties

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Pastor.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
having the hearing. Thank you, Mrs. Pierce, Ms. Izer, thank you 
for being here and you have my most heartfelt condolences. I 
know it is very rough on you. I did notice when Officer 
Lapointe talked about fines in the judicial system, both of you 
perked up and agreed in terms that you both nodded. I would 
like to have your reaction to that point that Officer Lapointe 
made on the need, that the judicial system seems to be lacking. 
Would you like to comment on it?
    Ms. Pierce. I personally think the fines are too low 
myself. It is much easier for the carrier to just pay the fine 
and let the driver drive on versus losing the revenue. That is 
what I see. So I think they need to be much stricter, higher. 
It needs to be enforced harder, stronger than it is. And as far 
as out of service, I know that the driver involved in the wreck 
that took my son's life in a period of 90 days, owning two 
trucks, both between the two trucks, he had four out of service 
violations, four. And that is a lot. And it took him over a 
year to report this December 10, 1993 wreck to the Federal 
Highway Administration in Washington. So does it get looked 
after? I don't think so. I mean unless someone is going behind 
them like myself who said I have got to know what happened, I 
need to know what happened. If I had not done that, this wreck 
would have ended December 10, 1993, and that would have been it 
and nobody else would have asked another question.
    Mr. Pastor. Mrs. Izer.
    Ms. Izer. Not just the driver should be fined. In many 
cases the drivers are scapegoats being pushed by shippers, 
receivers and companies, so those are the people too that 
should be getting major fines. And when they are audited by 
OMC, they get civil penalties which is only cost of doing 
business. There needs to be trucking company owners going to 
jail just as Gunther did in Maryland and more and more of that 
is happening with the IG working with OMC. There are a lot of 
cases on the go in this country and that is what it is going to 
take.

                            Driver Training

    Mr. Pastor. Officer Lapointe, do you find that just the 
training of the driver or lack of training is a factor in many 
of these accidents? What are the factors that come into it?
    Mr. Lapointe. Where do we start?
    Mr. Pastor. You mentioned that sometimes they are coming to 
a sign that says a downgrade 6 percent and they tend to just 
not follow the information. You would think that for their own 
safety and because of better training they would react 
differently.
    Mr. Lapointe. The training aspect is important--we as 
enforcement people, we have to be trained--just for the basic 
inspection program, we go through 80 hours of training. And we 
have to do a minimum 40 inspections hands on and then we are at 
that point, certified to go out and start inspecting. On an 
annual basis, we have to be certified to inspect the trucks. We 
are not even driving the trucks. We are just inspecting what 
might be defects on the trucks, and we are also looking for the 
good trucks too because if there is a truck that passes all of 
that, they are given what's called a CVSA sticker. They are not 
given a green light but for the next 90 days if we see two 
trucks come through a weigh station or an inspection site, the 
truck with the sticker may just--we may just do a quick walk 
around, a peripheral check whereas a truck that doesn't have 
that sticker would be subject to a full inspection.
    But to get back to the driver, we have to go through all 
the training just to check the trucks, but the drivers may go 
through a driver training course to obtain a CDL and others do 
not. Others learn to drive from a brother, uncle, cousin, 
whoever has a trucking business. They get a learner's permit, 
learn to drive the way their brother or uncle shows them, and 
after a certain period of time driving, where they have a 
sponsoring driver, they go for their road test and if they pass 
it, down the road they go. They don't have to show a 
certification that they have passed a driving test. The only 
certification they have to show is license, medical card, and 
off they go. But there are some companies that do their own 
training because they want their vehicles to go down the road a 
certain way. In most cases where the drivers aren't looking--
aren't watching the signs, such as the steep downgrade, it 
could be either inattention, they are tired or familiarity with 
the area, they think they know the road; that way they don't 
have to down shift and use lower gears so they kind of take the 
shortcut. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

                         Licensing Requirements

    Mr. Pastor. Last week I saw a program that dealt with the 
problem they had in Chicago with licensing. People were being 
brought from Pennsylvania and New York and then supposedly they 
were tested and in some cases some of the drivers that were 
certified couldn't even read the signs in English or had other 
major problems. Is that a problem unique to Chicago?
    Mr. Lapointe. No. Actually, it is a problem in most states, 
really in most jurisdictions. For us in Massachusetts, we have 
a lot of what is called intermodal transfers or intermodal 
transportation where you have what looks like a steel box on 
the trailer that is transferred from, say, a dock area in New 
Jersey and then is transported up the interstate system to go 
to the Port of Montreal for whatever reason and vice versa or 
coming out of Boston, ports in Boston. A lot of drivers are new 
immigrants, they are Polish, Russians, of course the Canadian 
drivers. There is a regulation that says they are supposed to 
be able to communicate----
    Mr. Pastor. Read the signs.
    Mr. Lapointe. Read the signs and answer basic questions. In 
most jurisdictions if you were to cite someone for that, it 
would not go very well because, you know, the person is trying 
to make a living, that type of thing. But there is a regulation 
in place that says they are supposed to be able to communicate, 
at least be able to answer questions from enforcement persons 
or be able to read directions and things like that. I don't 
know if it really contributes to bad driving habits other than 
the fact they can't read the signs. They may have to, I 
suppose, make abrupt changes in their route of travel if they 
realize they have gone too far. We do find whether they--when 
these non-English speaking drivers are on a route to a certain 
destination, they will have detailed directions either in their 
own language or in numbers, mile markers and exit numbers, and 
they will have symbols, the whole thing, just so that they know 
how to get from one location to another--that another driver, 
put together because they have taken the run before.

                           OnBoard Computers

    Mr. Pastor. You mentioned some trucking companies are 
connected to a satellite. One such company is in Phoenix, 
Swift, and all their trucks are connected to a satellite 
system. The owner of the company said it was for his own 
business practices. Number one, because he wanted to minimize 
the insurance costs; and he also wanted to make sure that they 
could keep track of the drivers. Anywhere that he had a truck, 
he could check on the driver and could tell whether or not they 
had rested, whether or not they had stopped to eat, and those 
kinds of things.
    Mr. Lapointe. There are many companies that use an onboard 
computer, and they can actually tell when the vehicle brakes, 
when it accelerates, the speeds they are traveling. So they can 
also see their maintenance, the need for maintenance if there 
is a driver that is doing more braking than he should. And 
then, of course, it is an indication maybe he is speeding as 
well.
    Mr. Pastor. Because he is a large company, he can invest 
that kind of money, but smaller carriers can't do it. Do we see 
any future opportunity for those smaller companies?
    Ms. Izer. Excuse me. If the onboard computers were 
mandated, the costs would go down and companies would be able 
to afford it. It is like anything else.
    Mr. Pastor. You are saying, if we mandated that every truck 
had a connection to a satellite, that then the volume and maybe 
the business practice itself would bring better pricing and 
possibly future profits for the trucking company?
    Ms. Izer. Yes.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                              Driver Error

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
hosting this type of hearing.
    Sergeant, I think you said--most truck accidents are caused 
by driver error, I think you said; is that correct?
    Mr. Lapointe. They are triggered by driver error, yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Let me explore that with you. When you say 
``driver error,'' what do you mean by that?
    Mr. Lapointe. Well, depending on what type of crash.
    Mr. Rogers. Maybe some of the later panels would have more 
statistics on this, but I wanted your reaction to it. I assume 
we are talking about one element might be fatigue?
    Mr. Lapointe. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. Another element might be recklessness or 
carelessness or negligence?
    Mr. Lapointe. Inattention.
    Mr. Rogers. Inattention?
    Mr. Lapointe. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. Is drugs or alcohol a factor in any of these?
    Mr. Lapointe. In some cases. We don't see--it is not a 
major problem, but there is a problem with--there is a 
connection between driver fatigue and drugs. There is some 
correlation that some drivers that are overworked are taking 
drugs to stay awake and then become involved in crashes.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you have any idea, in your experience, what 
percent of accidents are caused by the use of pills or alcohol?
    Mr. Lapointe. No, I do not, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Is it a small percent?
    Mr. Lapointe. I would say it is a very small percent. In 
our part of the country, at least in my State, we--we do get a 
few, but we get very few operating under the influence of 
alcohol-related accidents as far as the truck drivers 
themselves.
    Mr. Rogers. Is amphetamines or what they used to call 
speed, are those types of things used commonly?
    Mr. Lapointe. That seems to be a common drug in some parts 
of the country. From what I understand, the longer-haul 
drivers, the ones that have to get from one coast to the other.
    Mr. Rogers. Trying to stay awake?
    Mr. Lapointe. Trying to stay awake, trying to meet the 
deadline.

                             Driver Fatigue

    Mr. Rogers. What percent of accidents would you, in your 
own estimation, attribute to driver fatigue?
    Mr. Lapointe. If it is just a truck crash, singular 
vehicle, or combination?
    Mr. Rogers. Whatever.
    Mr. Lapointe. I would say if it is a singular crash 
involving just a truck itself, depending on what time of day it 
is, if it is anywhere between say 10 at night and 6 in the 
morning, it is probably a 60 percent chance that it is going to 
be driver fatigue, because people are not made to be awake at 
night. They have a tendency to fall asleep.
    And in most cases that we go to at night, it is the driver 
that has fallen asleep and didn't realize it, or at the last 
second woke up because he was bouncing off of something and 
then made an evasive turn and then the truck has either rolled 
over or gone into the median. But it is probably 60 percent, 
and then the remainder would probably be speed or inattention. 
Other things that are going on in the truck, things maybe 
falling off the dash, reaching for the item that may have 
fallen off and then distracting him.
    Mr. Rogers. I am interested in the fatigue category. Is the 
cause of the fatigue mostly that those drivers are driving 
longer than they are supposed to, or is it the hours that 
they--day or night that they are driving that contributes 
mostly to that? Or what is it?
    Mr. Lapointe. It is probably lack of rest time, rest 
period. They are allowed a certain amount of time to drive each 
day within a 24-hour period and they are allowed a certain 
amount of time to be on duty. And then they are supposed to be 
off duty for 8 hours. Depending on how they budget their off-
duty time, nothing in the regulation says they have to be 
sleeping for 8 hours, and--that is where the problem lies, I 
think, because you could be--or they could be horseback riding 
for 8 hours off duty, get right back into a truck and start 
driving again. They are off duty because their activity is not 
motor carrier-related. As I said, there is no regulation that 
says they must sleep. It just says they have to be off duty and 
get adequate rest. But how does someone do that, someone get 
adequate rest in 3 hours? I don't know if you can do that or 
not.
    Mr. Rogers. If you could, by a magic wand, change 
regulations in the law to deal with the driver fatigue problem, 
what would you do?
    Mr. Lapointe. Well, first, I think I would increase the 
penalties for violating the hours of service, or the driver 
hours of service. If there was a violation of hours of service, 
they should be automatically built in for the driver and the 
carrier if there is a carrier involved.
    If it is owner-operator, you really can't--the carrier is 
the driver.
    Mr. Rogers. The lady said that just adds to the cost of 
business and there is no bearing----
    Mr. Lapointe. In many jurisdictions that is the case. If 
the fines are too low, then the carrier or the drivers look at 
it as a cost of doing business. They just pay the fines and on 
their way they go. But if you increase the penalties, then you 
certainly catch their attention.

                           License Suspension

    Mr. Rogers. What about revoking licenses for a period of 
time if they have so many violations, as we do in driving cars?
    Mr. Lapointe. Right. That is another possibility too. 
Either license suspension for either 30 days, 90 days or 
whatever. In some jurisdictions that could easily be done 
through State legislation. In other cases, it would--that would 
be almost an impossibility because it is someone's livelihood.
    In our State, if someone has a problem with their license, 
they are allowed to have what is called a waivered license or 
temporary license that they can use for employment. Unless it 
was written into the legislation that would mandate that they 
be suspended for a driver violation, they then would have a 
temporary license for work so they would still be working.
    Mr. Rogers. Many State legislatures--perhaps all of them, I 
don't know, but certainly most of them--have made the decision 
that between--if you balance a person's livelihood against 
another person's life, preserving the life is more important. 
And they have passed for automobile motorists' driver's 
licenses a series of laws that suspend licenses for a period of 
time, require retraining, revoking licenses even for people who 
drive automobiles.
    Should that not be the penalty that would be enforced for 
truck drivers who wheel these very large machines out there as 
well?
    Mr. Lapointe. There is a regulation in place right now. 
There are certain categories, moving violations, that if a 
driver is involved in speeding, 15 miles over the speed limit, 
following too close, things of that nature, that if they commit 
those type of violations--two within a year I believe it is--
that they--their CDL can be affected, which--certainly it does 
affect their right to operate that commercial vehicle. So that 
is in place.
    If a driver is suspended for 7 days or 15 days, whatever 
the case may be, they can find other employment, whatever the 
case might be. But usually if there is another part of the 
penalty that is involved, monetary or a permanent record on 
their license, that seems--because then if they go to another 
carrier for employment, they are supposed to advise that 
carrier of any previous violations they have. That is where it 
really kind of--it does catch their attention.
    When our State went to a CDL process, our truck violations, 
driver violations while in commercial vehicles decreased 
rapidly because they knew whatever types of violations they 
were going to commit probably would affect their CDL, which 
they never had before; they just basically had an operator's 
license. Your CDL, because of the way it is written, moving 
violations, it can suspend their CDL for a certain amount of 
time.
    Mr. Rogers. I thank you for your testimony. My condolences 
to the mothers.

                               Rest Areas

    Mr. Wolf. Ms. Kilpatrick.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for having the 
hearing we are discussing today. My condolences are with your 
families. Thank you for appearing.
    To Ms. Izer, as well as Ms. Pierce, you said quite a bit. 
Let me first of all commend PATT and the work that you do. I 
appreciate your work, and I think it is long overdue. If you--
you have us all here now--can make one recommendation to us, 
other than the service hours that we know that we have got to 
do something about, each of you, what will it be? As you have 
done the work, you had the loss in your family, you know what 
some of the laws are and the impact on our society, each of 
you, what would be that recommendation to this committee 
legislatively that we might do to address the problem?
    Ms. Izer. How many can I say? The lack of rest areas 
certainly is a huge problem.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. The facility itself?
    Ms. Izer. The rest area.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. As was mentioned, if the truck pulls in and 
because of its largeness they can't stay there, they go to the 
side of the road, that is the problem that you speak of?
    Ms. Izer. Yes. In 21 States there are limits in rest areas, 
Virginia being the one that enforces it the most, 2-hour limit. 
When truck drivers go in there, they are awakened by police and 
made to move on and ticketed in the process, and they are 
sometimes over their hours.
    And truck driver pay is another big issue. Right now they 
are paid by the mile. They are not making money unless wheels 
are turning. And something the general public is not aware of 
is that truck drivers spend hours loading and unloading, 
waiting to load and unload, that is, hours that are not 
documented because it would take away from their driving time. 
So in many cases they start out tired.

                           Truck Inspections

    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Pierce.
    Ms. Pierce. I would definitely have to agree with Ms. Izer 
on the things that she said, but to add, also, inspections. It 
weighs deep with me because being involved with DMV in North 
Carolina, I know that there are approximately 500,000 trucks 
registered within the State that I live in. That doesn't count 
what drives through the State, but just registered in our 
State. And in 1998 out of those 500,000 trucks between weigh 
station inspections and roadside, 26,297 inspections were 
performed. That is scary, 26,297 on a truck that a driver 
yearly inspects himself.
    I mean, so on top of what Daphne Izer said, along with 
inspections--I mean, without those inspections, you don't catch 
the violation of service hours. You don't catch what is wrong 
with the trucks. You don't catch any of those things. So 
inspections are a major issue.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. I come from a State where inspectors have 
been severely cut, and as we look across the country, it is 
happening all over the country. It is a major problem; and this 
Committee is the Committee that can address that, and I hope we 
will in this budget cycle.

                            accident reports

    To Sergeant Lapointe, would you refer to me the process by 
which--that I heard Ms. Pierce mention? There was an accident 
that a year later or sometime later, certainly not within that 
next 24 hours, the next 2 days, was then reported to the 
Federal Government. What is the rule of law on that? How soon 
after the infraction must it be reported?
    Mr. Lapointe. Normally, what would happen, if we are called 
to an accident or a crash, our people would investigate the 
accident. There are certain steps a carrier has to take. He has 
to ensure that the driver is either drug tested; and then if it 
is a reportable crash, what is called a reportable crash, if 
there is injury, death, or vehicle tow-away.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. As opposed to what other type of crash?
    Mr. Lapointe. Minor, say a minor fender bender.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Fender bender to the truck or to the car?
    Mr. Lapointe. Either case. Either one, it is not towed 
away, no injuries, no death.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. It is not reported?
    Mr. Lapointe. It is not a report--what is called a 
reportable accident to the Federal Government. In other words, 
there is a certain form that we have to fill out. The National 
Governors Association accident form. It is an accident form 
that all the States are using, with the minimum number of data 
fields that the Federal Government wants to collect; and every 
State is supposed to fill one of these out for a reportable 
accident that fits one of those categories.
    If it doesn't, then that form is not filled out. The 
accident would still be on file within the State jurisdiction 
as far as the DMV would have a record of that accident, because 
it might still fall into our parameters as far as an accident, 
but it wouldn't fall under the parameters for the reportable 
accident for the Federal Government.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Then those that are reportable--you were 
continuing, and I interrupted you. You were saying of those 
reportable to the Federal Government----
    Mr. Lapointe. Of those reportable, that are a reportable-
type accident, then the carrier is supposed to--has to notify 
OMC--there is a form that they fill out that they notify the 
Federal agency that their vehicle has been involved.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Is there a time certain that it must be 
done?
    Mr. Lapointe. I am not really sure. There is a time limit, 
but I am not sure exactly. I can't remember offhand what it is.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Something less than a year?
    Mr. Lapointe. Oh, yes.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Is it less than a month?
    Mr. Lapointe. I am really not sure.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Then what happens, reported to the Federal 
Government? Some unreportables didn't get reported; they stayed 
in State.
    Mr. Lapointe. Because it is a smaller type----
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Reportables did get reported?
    Mr. Lapointe. Reportables get reported. Usually what 
happens if it is a serious accident or incident, especially if 
it is a hazardous material incident, someone from OMC or DOT 
would come out to the scene or at least be in touch with us 
because they want to document the accident, the crash, 
everything that occurs as far as the hazardous material--if 
there was a leak, if there was any type of injury related to 
that incident.
    So it becomes more involved. But the Federal Government 
might send one of the investigators out to either assist us or 
get information from us. But the accident and any inspections 
that we do is uploaded to Washington to safety net, and there 
is supposed to be a mechanism in place that if a carrier has a 
certain number of inspections and the percentage of violations 
is greater than a certain number, then that would key in the 
need for a compliance review for that carrier.
    And if there is a certain number--say if there is a certain 
number of accidents, that carrier name keeps coming up, then 
that would warrant a compliance review to find out what the 
problem is, whether it is equipment, whether it is the carrier 
that is mismanaging, whether the drivers are all very bad 
drivers.

                           compliance review

    Ms. Kilpatrick. The compliance review is done by the 
Federal Government on that agency, wherever that is?
    Mr. Lapointe. As far as interstate. Some jurisdictions do 
interstate compliance reviews, but in most States the 
interstate carriers, compliance reviews are completed by DOT or 
the Office of Motor Carriers.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. In your opinion, is that compliance review 
effective? Done timely? Need enforcement?
    Mr. Lapointe. ``Effective'' meaning they go through all the 
steps that have to be taken. Whether it is timely or not, a lot 
of times we find there are problem carriers that should have 
had compliance reviews long before their time.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Why did they not? The Federal Government 
didn't get to them?
    Mr. Lapointe. Either they didn't get to it or they get lost 
in the shuffle. Sometimes in our State we have carriers that 
are interstate and intrastate, and the only vehicles or part of 
the carrier business that the OMC people wanted to look at was 
the interstate part of it. Most of our violations were with the 
vehicles that were intrastate. So those are the ones that are 
kind of missed.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. So there is some seeping through the 
cracks. You don't get any----
    Mr. Lapointe. We are trying in our State to get legislation 
to allow us to do the intrastate carriers that are problem 
carriers, so there is no carrier falling through the cracks.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Finally, for me, the inspector issue. You 
can use Massachusetts. Up to date? Enough? Need more?
    Mr. Lapointe. We can always use more.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Give me an idea of what you have today and 
what you had 5 and 10 years ago.
    Mr. Lapointe. Right now we have a unit that is 44 members 
strong, and that is including supervisory personnel.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. You don't do inspections? Supervisors do 
not?
    Mr. Lapointe. Some of us do.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Oh, you do?
    Mr. Lapointe. Oh, sure. Depending where the manpower is. If 
there is a crash, we certainly have to take care of things. We 
can't just let it just go away on its own. To be certified, we 
have to maintain a certain number of inspections per year. We 
are all trained from the very top to the bottom.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. How many trucks in Massachusetts 
registered?
    Mr. Lapointe. How many?
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Yes, that would require inspection every 90 
days?
    Mr. Lapointe. I couldn't tell you right now.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Roughly? One hundred?
    Mr. Lapointe. Oh, more than that.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Five thousand?
    Mr. Lapointe. More than that.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Don't keep taking me up. Just give me a 
number. You have got 44 inspectors and you have a hundred 
thousand trucks?
    Mr. Lapointe. Probably close.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. That is the point I was trying to make.
    Mr. Lapointe. We do a lot of interstate inspections too 
because of the interstate highways.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Sure.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, sir.

                           mechanical defects

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing 
today. Thank you, Ms. Izer and Ms. Pierce, for your testimony.
    Sergeant Lapointe, let me just ask you a quick question 
regarding the last 6 months' review. I noticed on here you have 
got 30 percent of the crashes were attributed to mechanical 
defects. Just roughly, is that 30 percent related to the 
mechanical defects of the truckers or are there some of those 
due to mechanical defects of the automobiles or----

                          passenger car error

    Mr. Lapointe. Some of those defects were passenger car 
defects as well. We don't separate it, you know, too far. We 
just--we were trying to get some numbers together a few weeks 
back, and those are the numbers that we came up with as far as 
equipment. We didn't break it down as to types of violations 
or, you know, if there were more brake violations with vehicles 
or tire violations with passenger cars.
    Mr. Aderholt. But there are some above?
    Mr. Lapointe. Right.
    Mr. Aderholt. Likewise, with the 70 percent, it would go 
the same?
    Mr. Lapointe. Right.
    Mr. Aderholt. Of course, you have it listed that part of it 
is automobile driver error and part of it is truck driver 
error. Of course, I know you--in getting the statistics 
together, I know you didn't break them up further, but in your 
opinion, is that pretty much--that 70 percent, is it broken 
down 50-50 as far as truck driver/automobile error, or does one 
have a greater majority of that 70 percent than the other?
    Mr. Lapointe. In that 6-month period that we looked at in 
our State, it was--the majority was in a passenger car 
triggering the accident of that 70 percent. And it would 
probably be--60 to 70 percent would be passenger car error.
    Mr. Aderholt. A lot of that is--as you mentioned earlier in 
your testimony, they don't appreciate that trucks cannot stop 
at a very----
    Mr. Lapointe. They just don't anticipate the size of it. 
And a lot of it has to do with the congestion, the traffic, 
either on the interstate system or on the State highway system.
    Mr. Aderholt. That is all I had. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Serrano.
    Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, ladies, 
thank you for your testimony. Like Chairman Wolf, I can't even 
begin to imagine what you must feel like, but I do commend you 
on the fact that you have taken your pain and your anger and 
used it to perhaps prevent one of my five children from being 
in that situation. I need to appreciate that.
    Sergeant, just two questions I have for you, one on your--
in your testimony you say that 70 percent of the accidents are 
caused by driver error. And then you say our best analysis 
indicates the majority of the cases where the driver is at 
fault, the crash was triggered by the passenger car driver who 
may be unaware of the limitations of the truck.
    Mr. Lapointe. Right.
    Mr. Serrano. So now who is at fault? Is it a combination?
    Mr. Lapointe. Actually, what it is, some passenger car 
drivers will make abrupt turns or stops near or in front of 
trucks and large trucks have inherent blind spots on both sides 
and in front of the truck where if a passenger car were to come 
along the side and make a lane change, the trucks don't see it. 
And another--there are a lot of combinations, but if the truck 
didn't see that car come into his view, rather than a gradual 
lane change, then the truck either makes a turn, say--a lot of 
trucks make a wide turn--the cars pull up alongside the right, 
they don't see it, and the truck is still making a legal right 
turn, but the passenger car is coming up along the right side.
    In a lot of cases the passenger cars in traffic will make a 
lane change directly in front of a truck and then slow down 
abruptly, and the truck has no place to go. And this happens 
because of congestion. The trucks, they are allowing distance 
between themselves and the car in front and the next few 
hundred feet another car cuts in front into that empty spot and 
then the truck--in most cases the brakes are fine, the weight 
of the vehicle itself just did not allow it to stop in time 
before striking that car that pulled in front.
    Mr. Serrano. You know, I have a--I always have an 
experience--this is probably better discussed with another 
panel of truckers, but I am the Member of Congress who has the 
longest commute in Washington and of most of the Members of 
Congress has the shortest commute back in his home district. I 
am a man of extremes.
    But it seems to me that no matter what lane I am in, the 
truck behind me on 95 always wants to read my license plate up 
close, and it is scary. I know it is not because I have a New 
York license plate. I don't want to deal with that. I don't 
have a congressional license plate. Now that would be a reason.
    But it seems no matter what lane I am in, and I have 
decided to travel this long route every day--in the evenings 
especially--you know, all the way in the slowest lane so that 
everybody can go as fast as they want to go. And there is 
always a truck on me, and I am not going to go past the speed 
limit because how do I know that trucker is not in cahoots--I 
don't know.
    Why is there always such closeness on the road?
    Mr. Lapointe. I don't drive a truck, but I imagine they 
don't want to lose their place in line as well. They want to 
keep that space and they don't want to keep falling back. What 
I am referring to, as far as the distance they try to keep, not 
stop-and-go traffic, but in normal traffic where it is 50, 55 
miles-per-hour and the passenger car might take--make a lane 
change to take an exit and cut across two lanes in front of the 
truck, and the truck has no place to go.
    We have had trucks jackknife and still strike the car 
because of the sheer weight of the vehicle, full braking 
capacity, just the whole energy of the vehicle moving, just 
does not stop in time and still strikes the vehicle. The driver 
tries to do what he can, but he still hasn't stopped in time, 
and it has struck the vehicle.

                              driver logs

    Mr. Serrano. Another question is, we were talking about--I 
know there are logs that are kept, and there are rules as to 
how much time you have to rest and so on. But how do you feel 
about the enforcement of these rules? Are they enforced? With 
so many trucks on the road, how do we really know that these 
folks are even attempting to get the rest, which we have 
already established is not enough; but how do we know they are 
attempting to do that? And if what we know--the statements 
which the ladies made, which we know, Ms. Izer, we know to be 
true, that there are so many people, truckers who lose time 
loading and unloading and they have to make it up--how do we 
know that some folks are not getting any rest at all?
    Mr. Lapointe. Some are not. They are just working around 
the clock. A majority of drivers that are on the road don't 
want to drive tired.
    There are a lot of drivers--and I will say this in front of 
everybody--that come into our inspection sites or see us 
sitting on the side of the road monitoring traffic, that will 
stop and ask to have their truck inspected because their 
carriers will not repair the deficiencies that they have noted 
for vehicles, and of course we oblige them. We take care of 
things.
    And there are--a lot of those drivers are the same type of 
drivers that won't drive tired; they will quit before they 
drive tired.
    But like I say, the majority of the drivers are very good. 
They are hard working. They have business to do, and they want 
to do it safely.
    It is hard for us. We can only do so much, short of getting 
search warrants for every truck to extract information from 
these people. Where did you start from? Where are you headed? 
Where were you 3 days ago?
    It is basically the honor system. Whatever is on their log, 
we have to go by. In some cases we call--it is called "funny 
books." They have two logs. The real logbook that is keeping 
their actual hours is what they are getting paid off of, and 
the "funny book" which makes it look good for us roadside 
enforcement people, and everything is right up to snuff and all 
the perfect hours of off duty and rest.
    So it is very hard. Unless we know--we are familiar with 
the carriers and the drivers, and we have had dealings with 
them in the past, then we have got different ways we can deal 
with that. So there are ways they get around the regulations 
like anything else.
    But the biggest thing is off duty or rest time and how they 
budget their time, their rest time.
    Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Sergeant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf. Ms. Granger.
    Ms. Granger. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Ms. Izer and 
Ms. Pierce, thank so you much for your efforts. We appreciate 
it very much.
    Sergeant Lapointe, a couple of things. One thing, I was 
surprised that you gave--you said there were so few wrecks 
where you felt there were drugs involved. Is this because there 
is good drug testing from the companies, the carriers? Are they 
policing themselves?
    Mr. Lapointe. I am just speaking as far as our State and 
what we get involved in as far as investigations. We are a very 
small State, so it really isn't too much of--I guess the only 
problem we have with long-distance drivers is as they are 
coming through our State. We really don't see the drug use, the 
type of speed and things like that that the larger States in 
the Western part of the country where they have long distances 
to travel between either their destination or rest stops or 
whatever.
    So we don't--we see occasionally marijuana, things like 
that, what are referred to as ``personal use drugs'' that they 
may use off duty or whatever. But the type of drugs that would 
be involved in long-distance driving, we don't see too much, or 
at least we don't get involved with it too much.

                            truck inspection

    Ms. Granger. One other thing. I can't get a picture of what 
the truck inspection is like. How long does it take and what is 
inspected? Can you tell us sort of what that is about? What is 
an average truck inspection?
    Mr. Lapointe. An average--well, this would be a full Level 
One, which is basically we look at every part of the truck 
above what we can see walking around the truck. Lights, 
windshield washers, horn, steering mechanism, lighting devices, 
stop lamps, directionals, head lamps; and then once we have 
completed that, we will usually get a creeper and then we get 
on the ground and then we crawl underneath the truck and look 
at suspension components, brake components, frame members, fuel 
systems for leaks. And we also mark the brakes and then we have 
the driver give a full brake application, and that is when we 
can tell if a brake is out of adjustment by measuring brake 
stroke.
    While we are underneath, we can also see if the brake 
components are worn to where they should be replaced. There is 
a certain regulation that brake pads have to be a certain 
thickness. While we are underneath, we look at that. We look at 
U-bolts that are holding axle positioning parts together. I 
really can't--I don't know how many parts there are all 
together.
    But usually a full Level One inspection, of course, 
includes the driver as well. We go through all his paperwork. 
We check his license through the computer, medical card. We 
do--if he is required to keep a log. Not all drivers are 
required to keep logs; if a driver is within 100-air-mile 
radius, he is exempt from that log requirement unless he goes 
over a certain number of hours driving. But if he is required 
to keep a log, then we go through his logbook to make sure he 
is not over his logs as far as his weekly total and his daily 
total.
    That entire Level One inspection should take somewhere 
between 30 and 45 minutes, depending on the number of--if it is 
a real junker and there are a lot of violations, it is going to 
take longer to write up the violations, but usually it is 30 
minutes to 45 minutes from the time we stop it until the time 
we cite violations, issue the citations and the inspection form 
and the driver is on his way.
    A Level Two which is a little bit abbreviated; it is 
basically just a walk-around. Whatever you can see from 
standing or kneeling near the vehicle is what is checked. So a 
Level Two, you would not check brake components unless you can 
actually see them, but you wouldn't be measuring brakes. We 
might not see all the frame components. We might not see the 
fuel systems, air system, that type of thing.
    Ms. Granger. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Wolf. Just a couple questions.
    I would just urge the members of the committee, if you get 
a chance, to go out on a truck inspection. I went out on one in 
October with the Loudoun County sheriff's department on the 
border of Fairfax County and Loudoun County. If my memory 
serves, I think over 50 percent of the trucks were in such 
violation--you mentioned 30 percent in Massachusetts--that they 
had to be taken out of service, literally, until a tow truck 
came and pulled them away a mechanic had to come out and fix 
them. Some had no brakes, bologna skin tires, just amazing.
    So to read it or hear it is one thing; but to see it, I 
think, makes quite an impact.

                           compliance review

    Sergeant, you mentioned that there was only one compliance 
review in all of western Massachusetts for the last 6 months.
    Mr. Lapointe. To the best of my knowledge.
    Mr. Wolf. Do you think that is sufficient?
    Mr. Lapointe. Oh, no. Certainly not. What has happened in 
the past, recent past, is that one of the troopers that works 
with me is assigned to do compliance reviews, and he has gone 
out to do compliance reviews with the representative from OMC; 
and at one point there, they were quite busy, and for some 
reason, it started reducing in numbers.
    Mr. Wolf. Are you aware, the compliance reviews have 
dropped from five a month to one a month at OMC?
    Mr. Lapointe. I believe it as far as our State. This is 
what I know in the western part of the State; in the eastern 
part of the State, they may be doing a few more, but I don't 
know, I supervise at the other end of the State.

                        office of motor carriers

    Mr. Wolf. Ms. Izer and Ms. Pierce, do you share the concern 
that I have that the Office of Motor Carriers is so close to 
the trucking industry that it absolutely has to be moved?
    Ms. Izer. Yes, sir, we have always felt that way.
    Ms. Pierce. Definitely. Without a doubt.
    Mr. Wolf. I would urge the committee members to look at the 
IG report that was done with regard to the lobbying and OMC. 
OMC employees were actually drafting letters for trucking 
companies to send to the Members of Congress lobbying against, 
in essence, what this committee did last year, which moved the 
Office of Motor Carriers to NHTSA. Then they were calling and 
doing many others. I just wanted to get that on the record.
    Do you share that concern too, Sergeant?
    Mr. Lapointe. Certainly if there is conflict, it should be 
eliminated. If it takes moving one agency or whatever, it 
should be done, because it is a conflict for enforcement as 
well.
    Mr. Wolf. I want to thank all of you for your testimony 
very much and appreciate it. I want to recognize Mr. Regula. I 
just thank you for your time. Thank you very much, all of you.

                          cdl license program

    Mr. Regula. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one question: 
Sergeant, has the development of the CDL program, a requirement 
for the truck drivers to have this new licensing system, do you 
think that has helped any?
    Mr. Lapointe. Has it helped any? Immeasurably. At one time, 
drivers could pull out their wallet and instead of the family 
photos, it was licenses from different states. If they got too 
many violations from one state, they would stop using that 
license for several weeks or months and start using a different 
state. We still have problems. The thing on TV the other night 
with Illinois issuing bogus licenses, that is a real problem 
there. There are problems where someone can get a CDL, even 
though they have some nasty driving habits, but it certainly 
has improved driver quality.
    Mr. Regula. Should the standards be tougher?
    Mr. Lapointe. Well, I don't know if they need to be 
tougher, but I often thought that because we as enforcement 
officers have to be recertified on an annual basis, maybe 
drivers should be recertified. But then where do we stop? Do 
passenger car drivers have to be recertified at a certain age? 
Some of us are getting along and we don't want to face what our 
parents did. They told our grandparents ``you can't drive any 
more''. Maybe some companies do that. They have the drivers go 
through a driver refresher thing. This just shows them the new 
updated equipment that might be out there or techniques in 
driving, too. Maybe recertification or relicensing or retesting 
every 3 or 4 years, 5 years, whatever it might be, might be a 
solution.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                           Panel II Witnesses

    Mr. Wolf. The next panel will be first Mr. Ken Mead, 
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; next will 
be Mr. Jim Hall, Chairman, National Transportation Safety 
Board; and then Ms. Phyllis Scheinberg, Associate Director for 
Transportation, U.S. General Accounting Office. All of your 
statements will be in the record, the full statement will be in 
the record. If you can summarize, we would appreciate it.
    Mr. Mead, we will begin with you.

      KENNETH MEAD, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
                         TRANSPORTATION

    Mr. Mead. I have two visuals, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you. I 
want to acknowledge, first, the Inspector General's staff that 
has been working many hours on this particular assignment, and 
the forthright responses of the motor carrier investigators 
across the country who responded to a workforce survey. Over 70 
percent of them responded, which is an unusually high response 
rate.
    Also, I commend the subcommittee for holding this hearing 
today and focusing attention on motor carrier safety. I can 
personally attest that Secretary Slater has made it clear to 
everyone that transportation safety is the department's number 
one strategic goal and the north star for all of DOT to follow.
    The Nation, Mr. Chairman, has had a very good year in 
commercial aviation and passenger rail safety. We should be 
able to say the same for all modes of transportation, but we 
cannot. There are over 445,000 interstate motor carrier 
companies. Most are good transportation companies who comply 
with the safety rules. However, there is a small portion of the 
industry that puts profit first and safety second and creates a 
risk on the Nation's roadways. We need to do a better job to 
get them to change their behavior and get them off the road 
promptly when they don't. We need to send a strong message that 
unsafe practices will not be tolerated.
    Mr. Chairman, the motor carrier issue is not new. In 1966, 
motor carrier safety was taken away from the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, in part because Congress concluded 
oversight was not effective. In 1987, 5,600 people lost their 
lives. Senator Hollings and 19 cosponsors proposed taking motor 
carriers from the Federal Highway Administration and creating a 
separate motor carrier administration. Both times the debate 
centered on the fact that too few trucks were being inspected, 
too many of those inspected were being placed out of service, 
and that driver fatigue was a major cause of crashes.

                highlights of inspector general findings

    Let me share the highlights of what we found. First, the 
goals for motor carrier safety need to change, and they need to 
be made much more bold than they are now. We must show that 
5,000 deaths a year involving large truck crashes is 
unacceptable. As you pointed out, 5,000 deaths annually equates 
to a major airline crash, with 200 fatalities every two weeks.
    DOT's published measure for truck safety is based on a 
reduction in what is known as the fatality rate. However, given 
the growth in the industry and increase in truck miles driven, 
the current goal can be achieved even with an increase in the 
absolute number of fatalities.
    I will illustrate with this chart. The red line in the 
chart shows the upper trend in the number of large trucks 
involved in fatal crashes, over 4,500 fatal crashes. The blue 
line shows the number of fatalities in large truck crashes, 
over 5,300. And the green line shows large truck vehicle miles 
traveled. As that green line goes up, the vehicle miles 
traveled increases, and that is why you can say that the 
fatality rate is staying the same or even going lower when in 
fact the number of lives lost is increasing.
    The fatality rate has been about 2.8 deaths per one hundred 
million miles traveled since 1995. The number of deaths in 
large truck crashes over that same period of time has increased 
by 437. Clearly, a consistent or lowered fatality rate does not 
equate to a decrease in the actual number of deaths.
    Mr. Chairman, the current performance measure ought to be 
changed to one that also aims substantially at reducing the 
number of fatalities and injuries associated with large truck 
crashes. That will send a clear and strong message. The safety 
program, regardless of where it is housed organizationally, 
would have to take action accordingly.
    Mr. Chairman, 66 percent of the safety investigators that 
responded to our survey said truck safety was good to 
excellent, 29 percent said fair, 5 percent said poor. That 
ought to be cause for concern. We all would be reluctant to 
board an airplane if the safety inspectors said airline safety 
was only ``fair.''
    Second, the Office of Motor Carriers has shifted its 
emphasis to a more collaborative ``partnership with industry'' 
approach. This approach to safety has enforcement as a last 
resort. This is fine, so long as the partnership and 
collaborative approach works, but it does not with many 
companies.

                       punishing repeat violators

    For example, repeat violators warrant, but often do not 
get, stiff and swift enforcement actions that have a deterrent 
effect and ensure sustained compliance. Violations we are most 
concerned about include matters such as requiring drivers to 
drive excessively long hours, fraudulent logs that falsify the 
hours driven, and mechanical problems, such as defective 
brakes, steering systems, controlled-substance testing 
irregularities and serious driving infractions. We found that 
during fiscal years 1995 to 1998, over 800 motor carriers were 
subject to multiple enforcement actions by the Office of Motor 
Carriers. Of these, over 100 had multiple violations of the 
same safety regulation each time the investigators did their 
reviews. Almost all were allowed to continue operating. The 
penalty amounts averaged around $2,500.

                    compliance reviews on operations

    We also found that investigators performed over 6,000 
compliance reviews on motor carrier operations in fiscal year 
1998, and they reported spending only about 55 percent of their 
time on compliance and enforcement activities. A majority 
indicated that in fact compliance review quality had improved 
over the last several years and the effectiveness of reviews 
would be improved if more were performed. Compliance reviews 
were not performed on over 200 of the top 1,600 high-risk 
carriers identified by the Office of Motor Carriers.
    For the 6,000 carriers that were subjected to compliance 
reviews, almost 1,000 were rated unsatisfactory, 2,600 
satisfactory, and 1,800 were rated conditional. The remainder 
were not rated.
    Further, in 1995, there were at least 487 carriers with 
unsatisfactory and conditional ratings that still had 
unsatisfactory and conditional ratings at the time of our audit 
work, which was in November. Since 1995, at least 138 of these 
carriers have been involved in crashes that have killed at 
least 39 people and injured at least 412 more.
    We found that most violations of safety regulations don't 
result in enforcement actions. This chart here illustrates the 
point. The red bar on the chart shows that 25,000 violations 
were found during compliance reviews. The blue line shows that 
enforcement actions; that is, fines, were processed on only 
about 3,000 of the violations found. As the chart shows, in the 
small percentage of those cases where fines were imposed, they 
were settled, on average, for 46 cents on the dollar, down from 
67 cents on the dollar in 1995.
    The average settlement is now about $1,600. Some carriers 
see their chances of being fined as low, and they are correct 
in their perception. Moreover, if they are fined, some see this 
as simply a cost of doing business.
    Nearly half of the OMC investigators responding to our 
survey rated the enforcement program as poor to fair--nearly 
half. Over 90 percent said the program would be moderately to 
much more effective if unsafe carriers were put out of service 
and if larger, more meaningful fines were imposed for the 
repeat violators. Over 85 percent said OMC ought to be taking 
more enforcement actions.
    Mr. Chairman, since 1997, the Office of Motor Carriers has 
been referring carriers with the most egregious records and 
indications of criminal behavior to our office. By the time 
these cases get to us, however, the motor carrier involved has 
been operating in violation of safety rules for an extended 
period of time, sometimes several years.
    Since 1997, 32 convictions have been obtained, and 1.6 
million in fines, restitutions and recoveries has been secored. 
We currently have 35 criminal investigations ongoing. Most of 
these cases involve drivers who violate drivers hours-of-
service rules, which is directly associated with driver 
fatigue. The companies maintain fraudulent records to conceal 
these violations. We usually don't go after the driver. We go 
after the carrier because the carrier often creates a climate 
in which that type of behavior is encouraged.
    A third point, OMC is using what is known as safety status 
measurement system to target motor carriers with poor safety 
records. This system is a major improvement over past practices 
and facilitates better targeting of problem carriers. Both 
points we recommended in a prior review in 1997. But the system 
is only as good as the data that goes in, and major 
improvements are needed.
    A fourth point, we reviewed safety oversight of trucks 
entering the United States from Mexico. About 44 percent of 
trucks entering the United States did not meet safety standards 
when inspected. That rate is unacceptably high, particularly in 
comparison to the 17 percent out-of-service rate for Canadian 
trucks and 25 percent for U.S. trucks. Except for California, 
which has a good, well-staffed inspection program, there are 
simply too few safety inspectors and too few inspections. Just 
as an example, at one crossing in El Paso, where 1,300 trucks 
enter the United States daily, there is only one inspector. He 
can do about 14 inspections a day, and that is for 1,300 trucks 
coming across.
    It is time to establish a strong inspection presence at the 
border.
    Finally, I will close on the OMC organizational issue. This 
is a difficult policy matter. We don't pretend to have all the 
answers or even a clear-cut answer. We know actions by OMC's 
senior leadership showed that an arm's-length relationship with 
the industry it regulated did not always exist, and this has 
damaged OMC's credibility.
    Reflecting on the organizational issue, over time, 
leadership and management can change and new leadership can 
take actions that will restore credibility. Our larger concern 
with the placement of motor carrier safety in the Federal 
Highway Administration is that the agency's major focus is on 
the investments of billions in highways and infrastructure. 
That emphasis is legitimate, but does it allow room for the 
daily, top-level attention required to improve motor carrier 
safety and greatly reduce what we all agree is a totally 
unacceptable number of fatalities and injuries?
    I don't mean to say that it cannot be done, but it would 
require a most extraordinary effort. I should point out that 
only 20 percent of the Office of Motor Carrier investigators 
responding to the survey expressed opposition to an 
organizational shift to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. Thirty-two percent said they neither favored 
nor opposed it.
    Regardless of the organizational home that is settled on, 
whether it is left where it is, combined with NTSA, or 
established as a new motor carrier administration--just 
shuffling chairs around and changing the sign over the door is 
not going to do it. Strong leadership and an arm's-length 
relationship with the industry it regulates, a clearly defined 
safety mission and a willingness to pursue strong enforcement 
actions, including total carrier shutdowns, will be needed from 
OMC.
    I hope the organizational debate today is not seen as a 
substitute or panacea for that. Also needed will be other 
safety measures, such as revisions of hours-of-service rules, 
greater company and driver accountability, and independent 
annual inspections of trucks. We are not in a position to 
endorse all of those, but they definitely need to be 
considered.
    Thank you.
    [The visuals and prepared statement of Mr. Mead follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Mead. Mr. Hall.

    JIM HALL, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

    Mr. Hall. Good morning, Chairman Wolf and members of the 
subcommittee. It is a pleasure to represent the men and women 
of the National Transportation Safety Board before you today on 
the subject of surface transportation safety. I would first 
like to compliment this subcommittee and the leadership of the 
chairman on your efforts to continually address the challenges 
posed by these safety issues.
    Mr. Chairman, factors that prevent the safe operation of 
heavy vehicles on our highways are reaching critical mass. Many 
of our interstate highways, which serve as major truck 
corridors, are over capacity and are often not ideally designed 
for heavy vehicular traffic. Meanwhile, the number of trucks 
and the amount of freight they transport continues to increase.
    Ten years ago, the motor vehicle industry manufactured 
about 130,000 heavy trucks annually, commonly called 18 
wheelers. Next year, that number will exceed 220,000. What is 
more, trucks today are even bigger and more powerful. In the 
mid-sixties, typical semi-trailers were 35 feet long. Today, 
they are 45 to 53 feet long and a foot wider than they used to 
be. Triple combination units can extend to over 90 feet in 
length.
    Adding to the problem, the very nature of truck 
transportation has moved to time sensitive or so-called just in 
time delivery. As industry shrinks inventory, they use trucks 
as mobile warehouses for production. The ramifications are 
clear: There is even more pressure on operators, shippers, 
brokers and drivers to keep vehicles moving to meet demanding 
production schedules.
    Other factors are also affecting heavy vehicle safety: 
Increased speed limits and overall driver shortage and, through 
NAFTA, the potential introduction into our highways of Mexican 
trucks and drivers that do not meet United States safety 
standards.
    The Safety Board has learned through its investigations 
that regardless of the cause, collisions between automobiles 
and heavy vehicles usually result in disproportionate injuries 
and fatalities for the car occupants. We are also revisiting 
occupant protection on school buses because of 7 fatal 
accidents involving school buses and trucks that the Board has 
investigated in the past 2 years.
    As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Board's primary product is 
safety recommendations. Over the years, they have provided the 
impetus for some major transportation safety improvements, such 
as commercial drivers licenses, better school bus construction 
standards, age 21 drinking laws, and second generation air 
bags. We have issued other recommendations that, if 
implemented, would improve the safety of our highways, and let 
me emphasize this, without the need for any additional testing.

                      hours of service regulations

    Let me suggest a few solutions that could be implemented 
right now. First, hours of service regulations. Almost 5 years 
ago the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that 
the Department of Transportation develop new hours of service 
rules that reflect the research on truck and driver fatigue. 
Specifically, the rules need to provide opportunity for drivers 
to obtain eight hours of continuous sleep after driving for 10 
hours. The Department of Transportation has yet to make any 
changes to this 62-year-old regulation.

                      collision warning technology

    Second, collision warning technology. The Department of 
Transportation has yet to act on our 1995 recommendation to 
evaluate this technology, which was developed at taxpayer 
expense by the Department of Defense. The United States Army is 
installing this technology as standard equipment on all its 
heavy trucks. Despite the Department of Transportation's 
inactivity, small segments of the industry have installed this 
technology voluntarily. In my opinion, it should be mandated 
for all new trucks, and we are going to examine this issue 
closely in our upcoming truck forum to be held in April.

                       on board recording devices

    Third, vehicle recorders. There are no compelling arguments 
why heavy vehicles should not be equipped with recorders. We 
have made significant progress in other modes. Everyone is 
familiar with the black boxes in commercial aviation. They are 
in use in rail and marine. However, we have seen very little 
movement in the truck and bus industries. We believe that 
adequate on board recording devices are necessary to identify 
safety trends, develop corrective actions, and conduct 
efficient accident investigations.
    That issue has been on our most wanted list since 1990, and 
in May the Board is going to conduct a symposium to continue to 
promote the development and use of recorders in all 
transportation modes.

                        maximum speed governors

    Finally, I would like to discuss maximum speed governors. 
Recently I saw their potential for benefits for heavy vehicles 
while in Australia. They are used extensively in Europe, as 
well as by some of our major motor carriers, including Swift 
that was referred to by Congressman Olver. Preventing heavy 
vehicles from traveling at speeds significantly greater than 
posted speed limits makes sense.
    On the same visit, I also saw technology in Australia that 
allows state road safety authorities to record truck speeds and 
calculate hours of service violations using overhead cameras. 
The Australians call it safety cam. Something like that could 
be used on the Beltway here. Although the technology is still 
being developed, we plan to investigate that closely as well.
    Effective leadership at all levels is needed to implement 
these safety measures now. As I said earlier, we will continue 
to see a dramatic increase in freight and passenger traffic on 
our highways. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have requested 
additional personnel for our highway safety program. This 
reflects the growth of the highway transportation system and 
the Department of Transportation's unsatisfactory responses to 
many of the recommendations I have highlighted today.
    Revisions of hours of service laws, recorders, collision 
warning technology, GPS, maximum speed governors, safety exams, 
highway design, reflective tape, rumble strips, parking in rest 
areas, and rules holding shippers and brokers responsible for 
setting reasonable delivery schedules, all can be applied 
today. No additional study is required.
    Much of the technology I have discussed was developed at 
the expense of the United States taxpayer, yet it is being used 
today primarily for the economic benefit of the private 
industry, not for the safety of the traveling public that paid 
for it. It is time, Mr. Chairman, to put safety first in heavy 
vehicle transportation.
    I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the 
committee.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


PHYLLIS SCHEINBERG, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, 
 RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, U.S. 
                   GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I appreciate your testimony 
very much.
    Next, Ms. Phyllis Scheinberg, Associate Director, U.S. 
General Accounting Office.
    Ms. Scheinberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 
Subcommittee. I am here today to discuss GAO's ongoing work for 
this subcommittee on the effectiveness of DOT's Office of Motor 
Carrier and Highway Safety in improving the safety of large 
trucks. Specifically, I will discuss trends in the truck 
crashes, factors that contribute to those crashes, and the 
Office of Motor Carriers' activities to improve the safety of 
large trucks.
    Despite decades of Federal oversight, more than 5,000 
people continue to die each year in crashes involving large 
trucks. First, let us look at the trends.
    For each mile that they travel, large trucks are involved 
in fewer crashes than cars, but truck crashes are more likely 
to result in fatalities, and most of the time the fatalities 
are occupants of the car.
    Of the nearly 42,000 people who died on our Nation's 
highways in 1997, about 5,400 died from crashes involving large 
trucks. This is illustrated by the top line of the chart that 
you see here.
    As you can see, fatalities increased by almost 900, or 20 
percent between 1992 and 1997. Fatalities may be increasing in 
part because trucks are driving an increasing number of miles 
each year. As shown by the bottom line on the chart, the 
fatality rate measures the number of fatalities per 100 million 
miles driven by large trucks. This rate decreased from 1988 to 
1992, but since then it has remained fairly constant at about 
2.8 to 2.9 deaths per 100 million miles traveled.
    As shown on the next chart, if truck travel continues to 
follow recent trends and the fatality rate is not reduced, the 
annual number of fatalities could increase to 5,800 this year, 
and to more than 6,000 next year. The chart also shows that the 
Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carriers has 
set a goal for reducing fatalities this year to 5,100. We 
believe this goal, which is substantially below our projected 
figure of 5,800, will not be met.
    To reduce fatalities from large trucks, it is important to 
understand the causes of the crashes. Unfortunately, no 
definitive information on the causes of fatal truck crashes 
exists. However, there is some information on the extent to 
which driver behavior and mechanical condition of the trucks 
may contribute to crashes.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Regarding driver behavior, errors on the part of the 
drivers have been cited frequently as contributing factors to 
fatal crashes between large trucks and cars. In 1997, errors by 
car drivers were reported in 80 percent of these crashes, while 
errors by truck drivers were reported in 28 percent of these 
crashes.
    A contributing factor is not necessarily a cause, because 
there are often many contributing factors reported by the 
officer at the scene of the crash. One driver factor, truck 
driver fatigue, has been identified as a significant issue 
affecting truck safety. Studies show that fatigue could be the 
primary factor in about 30 percent of the crashes in which only 
the truck driver is killed.
    Additionally, mechanical defects, such as worn brakes and 
unbalanced tires, have been cited as contributing factors to 
crashes involving large trucks, although less frequently than 
driver error.
    According to estimates in several studies, 5 to 13 percent 
of truck crashes are attributed to mechanical failures. The 
Office of Motor Carriers has undertaken a number of activities 
that it believes will allow it to meet its goal of 5,100 
fatalities this year. However, we do not believe that this goal 
will be reached, for three reasons.
    First, too much of the information that the Office of Motor 
Carriers relies on to target high risk trucking companies are 
incomplete, inaccurate, and untimely. For example, one 
important factor needed to more accurately target high risk 
companies is the number of crashes that the company trucks are 
involved in. This is a fairly simple piece of information.
    The Office of Motor Carriers estimates that in 1997 States 
did not report about 38 percent of all crashes and 30 percent 
of fatal crashes involving large trucks. Without this 
information, Motor Carriers cannot know for sure which trucking 
companies have the worst safety records and some of the worst 
companies may be going completely undetected.
    We also found that several of Motor Carriers' activities 
that possibly could improve large truck safety will not be 
completed by the end of this year. For example, Motor Carriers 
does not have an accurate count of the existing trucking 
companies or the number of large trucks in operation. It does 
not plan to update this information for another 2 years.
    In addition, over 3 years ago, the Congress directed FHWA 
to modify the existing hours of service rule to help reduce 
fatigue-related crashes. However, Motor Carrier officials do 
not expect the final rule to be issued at least until the year 
2000, and most likely later.
    Finally, Motor Carriers has not developed any way to 
measure the effectiveness of its no zone campaign that was 
launched in 1994 to reduce crashes between large trucks and 
cars. This campaign, which aims to educate car drivers about 
the limitations of large trucks, has a goal of reducing 
fatalities by about 10 percent over 5 years. However, as 
evidenced by the overall increase in fatalities since 1994, the 
campaign apparently is not making any progress towards its 
goal.
    These are some of the initiatives that the Office of Motor 
Carriers is undertaking either by itself or in partnership with 
the States. If effectively implemented, they could have a 
positive impact on large truck safety over the long term. 
However, Motor Carriers' ability to reach its short-term goals 
for reducing fatalities is limited by data problems and the 
fact that some key activities are several years away from 
completion. To significantly reduce fatalities, the Office of 
Motor Carriers needs to move much more aggressively to complete 
its planned activities to improve truck safety.
    Mr. Chairman, these findings summarize our work to date, 
and we plan to continue our review for this subcommittee on 
these issues. I will be pleased to answer any questions that 
you or the members of the committee might have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Scheinberg follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for the testimony. It was 
very good.
    Mr. Pastor.

                 placement of office of motor carriers

    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is very 
interesting, because in the three presentations everybody seems 
to know what the problem is, where it is, but we can't get to 
the situation, or how it is going to get done.
    I found it very interesting, because as I was reading Mr. 
Mead's report, I would agree with him that moving the Office of 
Motor Carriers from one office to another office to another 
office, wherever it may be, is like shifting chairs on the 
Titanic. They have a credibility problem. Obviously now we know 
that when Chairman Wolf wanted to pass legislation in moving 
the Office of Motor Carriers to NHTSA, that it created a 
commotion, and there were some people that I guess improperly 
went out and lobbied against its movement.
    We know who they are. I think that the Secretary has the 
responsibility, since they have identified this improper 
activity. He can begin to move them out. Obviously that will 
bring credibility. I think that is probably the biggest problem 
we have right now, is if those people acted improperly, and yet 
they are the same people who are not correctly implementing the 
program, then wherever we put them, it is not going to get 
done, properly if they are simply shifted along with the 
program to another agency.
    So I think one of the first situations we need to improve 
on is identifying the people who acted improperly and begin 
developing the process that begins to remove them, so the 
safety of all the Americans becomes the number one priority.
    I read in your report, Mr. Mead, that one of the problems 
you identified is NHTSA does not currently have an enforcement 
mission anywhere near what is needed to maintain effective 
oversight of the motor carrier industry and necessary to bring 
about significant reductions in fatalities. This is from your 
report.
    I wonder, by moving it to NHTSA, whether we can accomplish 
what we want to accomplish, which is safety on the highways. 
Would you like to comment on that one?
    Mr. Mead. Sure. Mr. Chairman, I take the liberty on 
commenting on the first observation made.
    The action was taken at the very top of the Office of Motor 
Carriers' leadership, very promptly, on receipt of our report. 
That report is available to you to read. People have been 
identified to the best of our knowledge. Administrator Wykle 
will be here later today and you can ask him what other 
followup actions he has taken in that regard.
    Regarding moving OMC to NHTSA, NHTSA does do enforcement 
actions. Usually, they do not have an enforcement role though, 
where they go out and kick tires or inspect facilities. 
Moreover, though both agencies have roughly the same number of 
people----

                              enforcement

    Mr. Pastor. Let me interrupt you for a moment. Don't you 
agree that function is very important? If you don't go out 
there and kick the tires and look underneath the bed of the 
truck, then we won't be able to find where the trucks are 
defective.
    Mr. Mead. Yes, sir, I think that is probably the central 
thesis of our statement. The action that needs to be taken is 
the enforcement.
    Most of NHTSA's people are in Washington. Most of the 
Office of Motor Carrier people are outside the Beltway, out 
where the action is, so to speak.

                     creation of new administration

    Mr. Pastor. In your report, on page 17 you say an option 
not often heard in current debate is the creation of a Surface 
Safety Administration within the Department of Transportation.
    Now, if the mission of this new administration is safety on 
our surface transportation infrastructure, which includes 
enforcement of all the rules that we may have, whether it be 
fatigue or out of service compliance, don't you think that 
would be a positive direction, rather than just moving the 
Office of Motor Carriers to another agency? Don't you think 
that might be something we ought to look at?
    Mr. Mead. I do think that option should be considered, 
along with the other options. I think it is clearly a 
legitimate one.
    Incidentally, there are two umbrella-type organizations. 
One is the Motor Carrier Administration. This is a proposal 
that a Motor Carrier Administration be created for this 
particular mode.
    There is also another proposal--a surface transportation 
safety administration. But this would bring together rail 
safety, pipeline safety, truck safety, and so forth. There is a 
school of thought that while this sounds good in concept, the 
process of actually implementing it would take so long and be 
so disruptive that it would not be worth pursuing.
    It is interesting to note though that during Secretary 
Pena's administration, just such a proposal was introduced. It 
was not accepted by the Congress.
    Mr. Pastor. You say it would take so long to implement. 
Now, there must be some ways we can shorten that implementation 
process.
    Mr. Mead. On the surface safety transportation 
administration----
    Mr. Pastor. Whatever, either surface administration. But I 
would think that that is something--if safety is the highest 
priority and should be the mission, rather than putting it with 
agencies that have other missions and safety does not get the 
priority that you say it needs to have, then have we really 
accomplished the goal that we set out to do?
    Mr. Mead. No, we haven't. I am concerned, to be perfectly 
candid on this, that we will get caught up in debating an 
organizational issue for a couple of years. Meanwhile we are 
losing more people on the highways, more injuries and more 
fatalities, even when there are actions, as Chairman Hall and 
Ms. Scheinberg and myself have outlined that should be taken 
now and are many years, in fact, overdue.
    Mr. Pastor. It is ironic, because Mr. Hall just gave us a 
number of things we can implement. So is it the resistance of 
the personnel in the Office of Motor Carriers? Is that where 
the problem is? Because from your report, it shows that the 
people are out in the field, they understand they are not doing 
the job, but want to do the job better.
    Mr. Mead. They are very frustrated--at least a substantial 
majority are. You should read some of the narrative comments 
that came in with this survey. They feel we need to get serious 
about the rules, especially a good number of the rules that 
exist. It is not so much a case that many new rules need to be 
enacted, so much as it is the present rules need to be 
enforced. OMC employees feel that a lot of their efforts either 
do not result in an enforcement action or, if they do, that it 
is inconsequential. Then they come right back out and find that 
same carrier committing the same offense again.
    Mr. Pastor. Mr. Chairman, could I ask two more questions?
    Mr. Wolf. Sure.

                     international issues and nafta

    Mr. Pastor. They deal with the border. I am quite familiar 
but I represent Nogales and San Luis, Arizona, which is getting 
traffic from Mexico due to the goods that are coming over.
    One of the problems that I see in the border states is 
NAFTA. The problem that we find ourselves in is that Arizona, 
as the State does not have the resources to dedicate to vehicle 
inspection, whether it be DPS, Department of Public Safety, or 
whether it be the Corporation Commission or whoever the agency 
down there is, it just does not have the resources.
    I saw in alternative three, which I may agree with you, 
that as we go into the year 2000, when we expect trucks to come 
over, I think that somehow we need to develop a plan where the 
Federal Government helps the border states develop the number 
of inspectors that are required and that they are trained 
properly. Then as you start with the heavy Federal presence at 
the beginning, that over a period of time then the State takes 
over.
    So I was looking at alternative three, that that might be 
something that we could implement and assure that we have the 
safety there at the border communities.
    Mr. Mead. A quick word on that. I think the investment in 
125 federal inspectors spanning across the border states would 
run you about 6 or 7 million dollars, which in the scheme of 
things is not an enormous amount of money. I also believe that 
in the States of Arizona, Texas and New Mexico, a commitment by 
the state to strengthen its truck enforcement regime while 
using the Federal inspectors at least until the trucks coming 
across are in much better condition is viable. The option you 
are referring to would take about 125 extra inspectors. Right 
now we have 13, by the way.
    Mr. Pastor. I know it.
    Mr. Mead. Incidentally, I visited Swift Transportation 
Company as part of our work, and they were very helpful and 
responsive.
    Mr. Pastor. They will enjoy the commercial.
    Congressman Serrano asked me what we were going to do in 
the short-term to make sure that the Mexican trucker would be 
in compliance, and I suggested to him that we need to send them 
to Illinois or Chicago.
    Ms. Scheinberg. Could I respond, Mr. Pastor, to your 
comment. I agree with you totally that the United States 
needs--the Federal Government needs to have a plan of what to 
do about opening the border. There should be a Federal plan: 
what are we going to tolerate, what are we going to live with, 
what are we going to do about the influx of trucks coming 
across the border.
    Right now we do not have a Federal plan. I think that has 
to come first.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you.

                             trucking lobby

    Mr. Wolf. Thank you. Before I recognize Mr. Aderholt, let 
me make a comment.
    I share a number of the points that the gentleman from 
Arizona made, particularly with regard to the Secretary. But I 
would also remind everyone that until this committee put 
language in last year to move OMC to NHTSA, nobody was doing 
anything about truck fatalities, and we see the fatality rate 
was increasing.
    Quite candidly, the trucking lobby had gotten absolutely, 
positively, categorically, too close to OMC. The employees at 
OMC, the mid-level employees, were throwing things over the 
transom and coming by my office because I represent this region 
and many of them live in my district, telling me of what was 
taking place. We had an IG investigation that this committee 
asked, because there is language in the bill that we pass every 
year, prohibiting lobbying by the agencies.
    They were in violation of the law. I think they were 
criminally in violation of law. For a government employee to be 
drafting letters to give to the companies to write to their 
Congressmen and Senators is illegal. Within 24 hours, about 1 
or 2 o'clock in the morning, the OMC trasfer was taken out of 
the bill. As a result of it being taken out, more people will 
die, unless something dramatically is done.

                 placement of office of motor carriers

    So the OMC situation and the language that the committee 
had was going to move it into NHTSA. Some people like NHTSA, 
some people don't. I do. NHTSA has done a relatively good job, 
correct me if I am wrong, of bringing about improvements to 
highway safety in the country. So the concept was to remove the 
leadership of OMC and have the inspection program of OMC 
shifted into NHTSA, whereby the leadership would provide it 
with more attention. And I think personnel is policy, bad 
leaders, bad, bad policy. The gentleman is right. You can make 
all the moves and shifts, but if you put the wrong people in 
who are too close to the industry, nothing changes. Do you want 
to take the head of Pfizer to be the next head of the Food and 
Drug Administration?

                             mexican trucks

    I mean, there is a certain arm's-length we ought to have. 
So that was the sense. And lastly, on this issue, with regard 
to trucks coming out of Mexico, my understanding is they have 
absolutely no inspection program, correct me if I am wrong, in 
the country of Mexico at all. My sense is on January 1, 2000, 
3\1/2\ million trucks now prohibited from coming across the 
border will be able to come across the border.
    We are just trying to bring it in. I am not wedded to 
NHTSA, although my own personal thing is I think it ought to be 
in NHTSA. OMC ought not be in the Federal Highway 
Administration. It is a small percentage of their budget. We 
have seen what has happened. We have seen the lives taken, the 
pain and suffering of agony then, and that yet to take place. 
We were just trying to force them to address this issue, get 
the Secretary to address the issue. If he wants to put it in 
some other adminstration, we are open. But I don't want to put 
it anywhere where the same relationship will be whereby the 
truckers will roll the agency and they pretty much get their 
own way, because that would be unacceptable.
    Mr. Pastor. If the gentleman would yield, I would tell you 
that you are correct in that Mexico does not have a program in 
which they regulate their trucking industry and determine 
whether or not they are in compliance. I don't think they are 
going to have one, because that is not their frame of mind in 
Mexico with this particular industry, or many of the 
industries.
    But my contention is that with NAFTA, we developed a free 
trade agreement and it is working. More trucks are going to be 
coming from Mexico into the United States. So it is a 
responsibility, I think, of our Federal Government to make sure 
that those trucks are safe to get on our streets.
    The problem has been that we put the responsibility on many 
states. Some states that do not have the resources or maybe 
don't have the willingness to get involved. So I agree with 
GAO, that we need to develop a Federal plan and decide what is 
adequate to make sure that these trucks that are coming over, 
that the Mexican trucker can read the signs, knows all the 
safety regulations, that the truck itself is safe to be on our 
highways. But it is in our interest to do it. And I think that 
is why I said that option three that was recommended by the 
Inspector General is very important, because it brings in a 
Federal presence, and weans it out as time goes by to the 
States to take responsibility.
    So I would agree with you that Mexico does not have a 
compliance program, and I would tell you they are not going to 
get one. So that is why I think it is very important that we 
implement something, develop a Federal strategy, so that we can 
protect our people, because these trucks are going to go from 
Arizona to California, they are going to go to Chicago. They 
are going to be all over the place.
    Mr. Wolf. If the gentleman would yield, I share his 
concern. I think we should, and I think there is a Federal 
responsibility there, and I think we should push the Secretary 
and the department and cooperate in every way possible. That is 
a nightmare yet to take place. The subject of the hearing has 
been fundamentally what is taking place here without the trucks 
from Mexico coming into the United States.
    You mentioned, Ms. Pierce, in North Carolina. I looked at 
your figures. Your death rate is going up. Some of the States 
have actually reduced their programs. So there is a 
responsibility. The trooper stated in the compliance reviews in 
western Massachusetts, your definition of western Massachusetts 
is from where west?
    Mr. Lapointe. Worcester County west.
    Mr. Wolf. One compliance review. There is a major problem 
right now in the United States just with the trucks that are 
from the United States. So I think the gentleman is right, I 
share his concern about beefing that up at the ordinary border, 
but think we also have to take care of the problem right here 
in the United States.
    Mr. Aderholt.

                      collision warning technology

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask a 
question to Mr. Hall. I was looking over your testimony and was 
interested in knowing about the collision warning technology 
and found that a little bit intriguing. Not being familiar with 
how that works, briefly, how does that work? Of course, I read 
over the examples you had in your testimony.
    Mr. Hall. First let me say, I appreciate Congressman Pastor 
identifying me correctly and I apologize to him.
    Congressman, I will try to be brief. Collision warning 
technology came out of the Department of Defense, where it was 
used initially for fighter planes. It is a system that is now 
being installed on about 10 percent of the freight liner trucks 
that are produced in the United States.
    Companies such as U.S. Express in Chattanooga, Tennessee, 
are equipping their entire fleet with the collision warning 
technology, and have had a dramatic impact on their accident 
rate. Unfortunately, according to their owners, who I visited, 
they have yet to have an impact on their insurance rate. But it 
provides a warning when a truck, heavy truck or vehicle, is 
approaching too closely. There is one set of warning lights and 
audible sounds in the truck that will indicate that you are 
closing too rapidly. When it can be used with the new automated 
speed control devices, it is very helpful in avoiding rear-end 
collisions and being sure that the truck driver knows when they 
are closing too quickly.
    It also has a capacity to let the trucks know about the 
vehicles that are on either side of them and may be coming up 
and attempting to dangerously cut in on them.
    The experience with it was developed and tested by the 
United States Army. They were so impressed with it that they 
require it now for all their trucks, and they have ordered it 
to be retrofitted on their entire fleet of heavy trucks.
    So it is technology that is available, it is in there.
    The Board in 1995 asked the Federal Highway Administration 
to look at this technology, and at that time we were told they 
would not look at it. We have classified that recommendation as 
unacceptable. That came out of an accident that occurneed in 
Menefee, Arkansas.
    There are several states like Tennessee where there are a 
lot of rear-end collisions, fog-related collisions, multiple 
collisions such as that. This technology would be very helpful 
in that type of situation as well.
    Mr. Aderholt. Of course, you said the DOT's response was 
that they had no plans for conducting the operational test. 
What was their reasons behind that?
    Mr. Hall. I can provide that for the record. I have it here 
if you would want to wait just a second.
    Mr. Aderholt. You can provide it for the record. That would 
be fine.
    Mr. Hall. We have it, and I will get it. There is a written 
response from them.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Mr. Aderholt. I would like to see it. Thank you, that would 
be it.

                      enforcement responsibilities

    Mr. Wolf. Ms. Kilpatrick.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a bit 
puzzled, because everyone at the table is kind of saying the 
same thing, enforcement. Mr. Hall, you gave a list of things 
that seem to me ought to be implemented. There has got to be 
some reasons, probably money and political, why they aren't. I 
think I want to start with you, Mr. ``Department.'' If in fact 
enforcement is what we say, okay, the rules are there, we don't 
need new rules, we may not even need a transfer of the 
authority, why are things not being enforced? Yes, local 
carriers are local, NHTSA is from the Federal Government. What 
would be the impact of transferring from the local to an agency 
out of Washington for monitoring?
    Mr. Mead. What we are talking about, essentially, are 
interstate carriers, which is what most of these roque carriers 
are. They travel interstate, they have a DOT number, they apply 
for their license through DOT, so you are going to need a 
Federal agency and a Federal presence. Now, there is a program 
called the motor carners safety assistance program or MSCAP for 
short, that provides funds to the states to support the 
inspection effort. That is a good program. I think it is funded 
now at about 80 or 90 million dollars a year. So you are going 
to need a Federal presence.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Okay. It now exists. We do have that 
Federal presence.
    Mr. Mead. Yes.

                      compliance review personnel

    Ms. Kilpatrick. The compliance officers that were in the 
first panel we talked about, I heard the Chairman say the 
compliances are now from five a month, which is poor in my 
opinion, insignificant, to once a month, compliance officers, 
they are Federal employees?
    Mr. Mead. There were 6,000 compliance reviews performed 
last year; 4,000 of them were done by Federal employees, and 
2,000 were done by state employees.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. 6,000 total?
    Mr. Mead. It is slightly over 6,000, but about 6,000, yes.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Would you say, if I asked you for a number, 
you probably wouldn't give it to me, is that adequate?
    Mr. Mead. No.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. How short are we? If we were in the best of 
circumstances and compliance officers, we had enough and they 
were monitoring the trucks and answering the complaints and 
looking at the reported, not to mention the unreported 
incidences, how many would we need? It is hard to put a number 
on it, but give me something. Give me a percent then. With the 
6,000, are we 50 percent in compliance?
    Mr. Mead. First of all, we think we can use our existing 
Federal resources more effectively. I believe the inspectors 
and investigators can do more compliance reviews than they are 
doing.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Whose job is it to see that they are being 
more effective?
    Mr. Mead. The Office of Motor Carrier Safety. They reported 
to us that 55 percent of the time they are doing compliance and 
enforcement work.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Is that adequate?
    Mr. Mead. No, it is not.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. What do you do to up that?
    Mr. Mead. You change the direction of this program--the 
value system driving the program, in my view. Secondly, even if 
these inspectors were performing compliance reviews 24 hours a 
day, this would not be enough.
    I would say that once we get this database cleaned up that 
GAO was referring to, and we have a solid profile of how many 
real problem carriers there are in the United States, that 
would form a good basis for an assessment.
    We know right now that there are 1,600 carriers in the top 
high-risk categories and 200 of them were not subjected to a 
compliance review this past year.

                         reporting requirements

    Ms. Kilpatrick. With Safe Status, we heard that many 
carriers don't report.
    Mr. Mead. It is the states. The states get a lot of Federal 
money. Maybe that should be a condition of receiving Federal 
aid.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Maybe that is something this committee 
should look at. That is the kind of thing we need to hear. It 
is no good if the States' Safe-Stat system is up and running if 
the States are not feeding into it. We need to do something by 
either monitoring or penalizing to see that the States do 
report reportable accidents they have.
    Mr. Mead. You certainly do.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. I think what you need to factor in as well, 
Congresswoman, is the technology. There are experiments in the 
field right now. OMC has an experiment going on with the Warner 
Trucking Company for automatic keeping of logs. The technology 
is available today, just as it is available with airplanes, to 
look at key systems of the truck, to maintain hours of service 
rules and regulations through computers and satellite 
technology.
    In fact, many of the major trucking companies are using 
that technology for their own economic benefit today. Their 
resistance is to using it for safety, and I think that will 
probably take action at the Federal level.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Probably two issues here: Cost is one. I 
would assume that everyone would want it. Cost would probably 
enter into it. Should it be mandatory, something we should 
require?
    Mr. Hall. For example, the collision warning technology, as 
it gets today, you could go and buy a new Freightliner truck 
and it would increase the list price by $2,500 to $3,500, in 
that range. The cost of this technology, just the cost of all 
technology, is getting lower.
    As was pointed out by one of the earlier witnesses, it is 
amazing when things are mandated and there is volume how much 
you can impact cost. But this technology is available.
    The technology is very important because if the technology 
was in place, the amount of manpower you would need at the 
State and Federal level to enforce the regulations would be 
dramatically impacted.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. So it is important as well as its 
effectiveness, as well as the monitoring in the long run would 
reduce maybe the cost of the equipment. But, more than that, 
the safety aspect would begin to be addressed?
    Mr. Hall. That is correct. As I point out again, we keep 
going back to Swift, because I think it is one of the 
outstanding carriers in the country, and there are many others. 
They are very safety conscious and they use this system and 
this technology also for safety. They also use it in case one 
of their truck drivers runs off with one of their trucks. They 
go find the truck with the technology.
    We are just saying let's take this technology that the 
American people have paid for and let us have a little of the 
benefit of it too.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. That is something to look at, too.
    Mr. Mead. I gave you an incomplete answer. Your question 
really went to how many inspectors they need, and obviously it 
could be a bottomless pit, with more than 450,000 carriers. But 
I guarantee you if we got serious about enforcement and let 
these truckers know when they have the serious safety 
infractions, they faced real consequences, things would shape 
up and they would shape up in a hurry.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. We agree with that. Two things mentioned 
today, not enough inspectors and then the fines are too low. 
Working together, they know if there is not enough of them, you 
probably won't catch me, if you catch me, I am going to get a 
meager fine. We have to do something about both of those.
    Finally, for me, I just left the Banking Committee in the 
105th Congress, and we had heard testimony in our money 
laundering hearings that many trucks from Mexico, because of 
NAFTA, are not stopped or inspected at all. Is that the case? 
Not only for safety, but for drugs or whatever as well.
    Mr. Mead. Yes, it is. I gave you a figure of what is 
happening in El Paso. Thirteen hundred trucks a day, one safety 
inspector there, he can check out 14.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. So it is because of manpower rather than 
some regulation that is in NAFTA why they are not being 
inspected?
    Mr. Mead. Yes.
    Mr. Pastor. If I may, you have a number of inspections. You 
have Customs inspecting the trucks basically to make sure that 
whatever the manifests that they are in fact carrying. You also 
may have the border patrol inspecting them for undocumented 
persons or products or you have the dogs sniffing the trucks so 
that any illegal drugs there may be found.
    But the inspection that deals with safety or lack of 
inspection basically is away from the gates, and after they 
cross the gates, they have been inspected by the dogs and been 
inspected by Customs, that they are inspected for safety. But 
there is a limitation. They can only go 25 miles from the 
border, which most of them do not. They just turn around.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. I have to take a look at that.
    Mr. Hall. I would just like to make a comment following up 
on what Congressman Pastor said. I was invited to go down to 
Mexico 2 years ago by their Secretary of Transportation, to 
look at the possibility of setting up an independent accident 
investigation board. One exists in Canada, one exists in the 
United States. There was not a counterpart in Mexico.
    There are a number of people in Mexico that are very 
interested about the safety in their country and obviously any 
trucks going across the border.
    However, they have been unsuccessful in being able to put 
structures in place that would begin putting some teeth in 
their safety program.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Finally, Mr. Chairman, if I might, my 
district is at the Canada-Michigan border. You mentioned about 
the Mexico-Arizona border as well. One officer there, Federal 
officer, yes; that inspector is a Federal employee, in El Paso?
    Mr. Mead. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. I am assuming the same at the Michigan-
Canada border.
    Mr. Mead. They don't find it necessary to inspect the 
Canadian trucks because so many of them are coming in to the 
U.S. in good condition. It is because of the condition of the 
Mexican trucks.
    I need to qualify my response about the Federal inspectors 
at the border. California has chosen to staff up on its own, 
and they have about 40 to 45 State inspectors there. I don't 
think the federal government have any inspectors there. And in 
the other States, Mr. Pastor was pointing out, some see this as 
a resource problem. For years the States have been saying it is 
a federal responsibility. The Feds say, well, it is a state 
responsibility. Perhaps we are expecting Mexico to establish an 
oversight program of its own. So, you have a three-way 
shootout.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. I just want to back up on the no need for 
inspecting the Canadian-Michigan border because you think the 
Canadian trucks are okay. Truck traffickers know that you think 
that as well. Six hundred fifty tons of drugs came into our 
country, 1996, when I was first in this Congress, reported to 
us by Mr. McCaffrey; 850 tons from Mexico, Peru, Bolivia and 
two other countries. Six hundred fifty tons got in. So don't 
take that position that the Canadian border is safe, we don't 
need to do that. They know that, too. They know that you are 
light on the borders at the Mexico border, but they also are 
very crafty and know. So to say you don't need them, I think, 
is a misnomer, and you probably ought to visit that as well.
    Mr. Mead. The inspector general doesn't make these 
policies. I am just reporting on what we are told.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. I understand you don't, but the need is 
there.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf. Ms. Granger.
    Ms. Granger. I am glad to see the attention concerning 
trucks coming in from Mexico. I am from Texas, and it is--the 
truckers in my State, it is a top concern. It is also a top 
concern from the communities on those highways where those 
trucks go through. So it is a great concern, and you said the 
numbers, if there are 14 being inspected, and 44 percent of 
those fail, and 1,300 are going through, you see where the 
problem is.
    Of course, I think it has to have a Federal solution 
because in Texas they can't expect--the State can't do those 
inspections for the trucks coming in from Mexico, for foreign 
trucks. So it is a great concern.
    My question is if those few that are inspected fail, then 
they can't come across the border, right?
    Mr. Mead. That is correct. There is significant economic 
consequence.
    Ms. Granger. But what happens beyond the fact that that one 
truck can't come across the border?
    Mr. Mead. There is a record maintained. In fact, one reason 
that inspector in El Paso can only inspect 14 trucks a day is 
because after he does an inspection--and so many of them he has 
to place out of service--he spends his time entering things 
into his portable computer so they have a database, and it is 
registered with the company. I don't believe, though, that 
there is necessarily any action taken against the carrier. But, 
boy, those drivers become angry, I visited the burden and the 
drivers there. They do not like to get pulled over for 
inspection because they can't continue on their journey. You 
are familiar with the logistics of the area. They have to call 
and say, I am here, I have to come back. And they do not like 
that.
    Ms. Granger. Right.
    Partially the rest of what you said is essentially nothing 
happens because that one truck can't come that day, but his 
chances of being stopped another day is very slim, much less 
anything happening to the carrier.
    Ms. Scheinberg, one other question. You said 30 percent of 
large truck fatalities aren't reported to the Office of Motor 
Carriers. Why, and what do we do about that?
    Ms. Scheinberg. States are not reporting all fatalities, 
and this is a very big problem because unless the Office of 
Motor Carriers gets the information, then they can't target the 
bad actors in the industry. Obviously, there needs to be a 
push, there needs to be an aggressive push to get the States to 
report this information. And as was mentioned earlier, this can 
be tied into the States' Federal grants. There is a mix of 
grants that this committee provides every year, about $90 
million that goes out to the States to develop safety programs 
including the data collection, and I think that you need to tie 
the reporting requirement to this money.
    Ms. Granger. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Tiahrt.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                fatalities: Rates Versus Actual Numbers

    I have a question for Mr. Mead. I was looking at the chart 
here, and I was trying to understand it. I think that if I use 
kind of a trend on this chart, it looks like the number of 
fatal crashes that large trucks are involved in has increased 
about 10 percent from 1991 to 1997. It is kind of hard because 
I am just making projections here, but it looks like about 10 
percent. And it looks like the number of fatalities in large 
truck crashes has increased maybe 15 percent, but the number of 
miles driven has increased by 30 percent. So is the actual 
fatal crashes per million miles decreasing, and is the number 
of fatalities in large truck crashes decreasing per million 
miles? Is that a trend, or is the trend the other way, because 
if you look at the chart, it looks like everything is 
increasing, but it is kind of difficult to tell because there 
is more miles being driven.
    Mr. Mead. The answer to your question is that for the last 
3 years, the fatality rate has stayed the same, even though 
more people are getting killed each year. And the reason for 
that is exactly as you say, the vehicle miles traveled and the 
number of trucks out there is increasing so that the rate can 
stay the same and the number of deaths go up.
    I take you back to 1989, though, and at that point in time, 
the fatality rate for trucks was about 3.7 per 100 million 
vehicle miles driven. Today it is 2.8. That compares with an 
overall fatality rate of 1.6 per 100 million passenger vehicle 
miles traveled. So the truck fatality rate is very substantial. 
It is substantially higher because of the introduction of heavy 
trucks, large trucks into the equation.
    We are recommending, as we noted in the opening of the 
testimony, that the Department change its current performance 
measure under the Government Performance and Results Act so 
that it also requires an absolute reduction in fatalities. So 
we have a meaningful goal, and I really think we need to 
supplement the existing performance measure.

                   results of accident investigations

    Mr. Tiahrt. Now, on these number of large trucks, large 
truck crashes, is there any way of telling how--I mean, 
something happened. Either the driver was in error, or there 
was something that mechanically went wrong. So in a sense it is 
all related to safety. But when you inspect a truck, do you 
inspect the driver? When you inspect the truck, is it 
mechanical that you are looking for or something broke with the 
driver?
    Mr. Mead. Both.
    Mr. Tiahrt. How do you tell when it is related to driver 
error in these number of--out of these fatalities, these 
crashes, some are directly related because the brakes gave out 
or somebody didn't--what was it? How do you tell? Is it just 
all the same?
    Mr. Mead. That is a really good point. You can't tell now. 
With the existing data they have, even for the fatalities, you 
can't do a real good cause analysis. Even stipulate that we 
can't isolate factors down to the single cause of an accident 
or the predominant cause, even what are the contributing 
causes. The databases that are currently in use still don't 
provide you solid information. So a lot of what you hear is 
anecdotal, highly dependent on what the police officer reports.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Somebody said that there are--I think it was 
you, Mr. Mead, that said there was about 450,000 carriers. Of 
problem carriers there are about 1,600 that are in the top 
category, 200 of which were never looked at. Of those 450,000 
carriers, are you referring to those that are within the United 
States, or are you including Canada and Mexico in that 
information?
    Mr. Mead. No, I wasn't including Mexico or Canada, and I 
was excluding intrastate carriers. These are strictly 
interstate.
    Mr. Tiahrt. How does that relate back to your data? Now, in 
your data, is that just interstate carriers, or is this 
intrastate carriers that are involved in these crashes and 
fatalities?
    Mr. Mead. The fatalities reported include both intrastate 
and interstate carriers. Interstate carriers are subject to the 
Federal Government's regulation. I cannot tell you how many of 
these carriers--how many of the fatalities, the 5,355 were 
attributable to intrastate carriers.
    Mr. Tiahrt. So we may be trying to fix a problem we can't 
fix. If a majority of these problems are coming from intrastate 
carriers, regardless of what we do, we may have little impact 
on that because it is all intrastate?
    Mr. Mead. No, I don't think it would go that far. We are 
pretty sure the interstate carriers are a significant part of 
the problem.

                foreign carriers and federal regulations

    Mr. Tiahrt. Out of this increase in fatal crashes from 1991 
to 1997, how many of those were from a carrier outside the 
United States coming in because of NAFTA?
    Mr. Mead. I would suspect very, very few, only because 
carriers from Mexico can only come into the United States right 
now for a very limited number of miles, regardless of the 
State. So that is one reason. There may be a few, but it should 
be a very small number.
    Mr. Tiahrt. The same with Canadian carriers, it would 
probably be a very small number?
    Mr. Mead. I would think so.
    You know, you raise a good point on the data, though. Not 
to put on the green eyeshade, but good data drives a lot, and 
we need to have a lot better data. That is an area where NHTSA 
and the Federal Highway Administration or the Office of Motor 
Carriers could really get together and provide a lot of value 
added; also with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which 
we have at DOT.
    Ms. Scheinberg. Mr. Tiahrt, could I just add to the 
discussion a little bit? When you are talking about interstate 
versus intrastate carriers and the kind of inspections and 
regulations and activity goes on, we have Federal standards, 
but almost all the inspections are by State officials. There 
are 2 million inspections a year that are done almost 
exclusively by State inspectors using Federal standards. By 
having that program, you really are affecting the intrastate 
carriers as well because the same people are doing both 
inspections of interstate and intrastate carriers.
    Mr. Tiahrt. I can't speak for every State, but in Kansas it 
seems like--I am pretty sure about this. I used to sit on the 
Transportation Infrastructure Committee in the Kansas State 
Senate, and it seems like our inspections either met or 
exceeded what was required by the Federal Government. And I 
assume most States are that way on their intrastate carriers. 
When you have one standard, it is easy to measure--no matter 
who is being measured, it is easier to use that same yardstick 
on both of them rather than change. So I think that Mr. Mead is 
wise in saying it probably would have some impact.
    Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. The NTSB has undertaken a safety study to look at 
the whole area of data collection and information that is 
maintained by the modal administrations. Since the Board's 
inception over 30 years ago, we have identified many 
deficiencies in the available databases and have made more than 
130 recommendations regarding those deficiencies to the modal 
administrations. We have seen deficiencies in each 
transportation mode that would keep us from getting a clear 
evaluation of the problem, and being able to effectively 
address it in the area of safety.
    You have hit on an important concern, and it is one that is 
not funded very well. What we are getting back in return should 
be a better product.

                     collision avoidance technology

    Mr. Tiahrt. I believe it was you, Mr. Hall, that was 
talking about collision avoidance. I don't know if that is the 
right term. Is that the right term?
    Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tiahrt. And it would cost approximately $2,500 per 
carrier--excuse me, per vehicle?
    Mr. Hall. I visited Freightliner to find out what they were 
doing in terms of technology. They advised that $2,500 to 
$3,500 would be the cost of the add-on. About 10 percent of new 
vehicles are equipped with that technology.
    Mr. Tiahrt. I would think that at some point the market 
would drive the necessity. The insurance carriers would say, 
you know, you have got a bad record here, and if you want to 
lower your rates, you are going to have to install collision 
avoidance systems in your trucks.
    I am hesitant to mandate. Four hundred fifty thousand 
carriers, I don't know how many trucks each one of them has but 
$2,500 would be in the billions that we would be putting a 
demand on our trucking industry, and that would sure pass down. 
And what percentage of these would we--of the 6,000 crashes or 
5,000 fatal crashes, I don't know how many we can reduce by 
this billion-dollar demand. I know that seems kind of cold, but 
eventually the market will drive safety issues.
    Mr. Hall. Let me say in response, Congressman, I think the 
panel that has been put together today is an excellent one. It 
might be worth the Chairman's interest to bring in the 
insurance industry as well. They are a very important player in 
what the trucking industry does and does not do in terms of 
safety.
    The public cost, of course, of 5,000 deaths, the cost to 
the taxpayers, local communities, the cost to our insurance 
rates is a significant factor as well that would have to be 
calculated if you are going to do a cost benefit look at this. 
Now, the FARS data indicates, which is the data that we do have 
that is put out, that in 1997, inattention was identified in 7 
percent of the accidents; failure to yield, 9 percent; 
speeding, 13 percent; and other is 41 percent, to give you an 
idea of the data you are having to deal with.
    So if that technology was available, it would have a 
tremendous impact. U.S. Express in Chattanooga, Tennessee, has 
equipped their entire fleet, and they have had a tremendous 
impact. There are other carriers that are also using that 
technology.
    Now, these are the leading motor carriers, the leading 
large operators. Any time we look at the trucking industry, we 
have got to recognize a significant number of independent 
owner-operators and to be sure we are not prejudicial in 
anything that has been done to that important segment.
    But this technology is available. As a matter of fact, we 
paid for it through the taxes we used for Department of Defense 
research.
    Mr. Tiahrt. It would be interesting to talk to some of 
these carriers to see what their perception of reduced costs in 
terms of human lives and property damage is, too. It is pretty 
hard----
    Mr. Hall. I have talked to Swift and U.S. Express. I am 
going to go see Warner, and we are going to have a hearing on 
this issue. I think there are a lot of responsible members in 
the trucking industry, but they are not going to do anything 
that puts them at a competitive disadvantage. A lot of the 
leadership in the safety area has to come from OMC, or whatever 
the appropriate Federal Government department is, if we are 
going to have an impact.
    Mr. Mead. If I might just put in a pitch to reinforce 
Chairman Hall's point here on recorders and tracking and how 
important both are. I have seen firsthand a case where a big 
rig pulled into a truck firm on the east coast, and 48 hours 
previous was in the Port of Los Angeles. One driver filled out 
that driver's log after he completed the trip. I am glad I 
wasn't on the highway near that driver, but it is very 
difficult to catch those types of trucking situations when you 
can't electronically track them. That is why your bigger 
trucking firms are going to the satellite tracking technology.
    Mr. Tiahrt. When we make so many cost demands on these 
independent truckers that are trying to make ends meet, we 
force them in a way to drive across the country in 48 hours so 
they can make enough money to pay off all the costs that we are 
demanding from them in the form of taxes and all these other 
extras that they add into their vehicle. So I think we have to 
find a balance here.
    Mr. Hall. Congressman, I think that the major influence on 
the independent operators as well as on the industry is the 
just in time concept which is a very important concept and 
important to economic growth. But the demand comes from the 
shippers, from the system, from the owners, and from the people 
that dispatch the loads out there. And unless that disparity is 
addressed at the Federal level, you are going to find people, 
obviously as we find in every aspect of life, that are doing 
the things that are going to provide monetary reward. That, I 
believe, is why you need some level playing field in terms of 
safety on our highways so that everyone is playing by the same 
rules.

                          owner-operator firms

    Mr. Tiahrt. We do all want to have safety on the highways 
we all drive, but I think when we--I have a great deal of 
respect for those who will financially risk everything to start 
a small business, and a lot of these truckers are just getting 
started in a small business. There is the Doobing family in 
Wichita, Kansas, who as a young man, he started a small 
business, and he recently sold out to TNT and became very 
successful, but he started out driving one truck. And many of 
these people have risked everything to drive one truck. I don't 
want to take that American dream away from them, their ability 
to pursue happiness. So in safety and our demands as a 
government, I hope we strike a balance where we don't force 
them into an unsafe situation because of our external demands, 
because we are not risking it all.
    Mr. Mead. I don't have a good answer to the single-truck 
firm, the independent owner-operator that you described. I 
think you raise an excellent point. I think part of the answer, 
though, with your larger firms is it is very rarely the driver 
that is driving excessive hours because he or she wants to. It 
is often an environment, our work shows, a culture that has 
created the demands placed on them by that company.
    Mr. Tiahrt. I want to thank the panel.
    Mr. Chairman, I may have some other questions that I would 
like to submit in writing.
    Mr. Wolf. Sure. Thank you very much.
    I want to follow up on what you said and Mr. Tiahrt's 
comments, too. I rode with a trucker about a month ago. He 
explained that he would have to go to a place to pick up a 
load, and they told him to be there at 8 in the morning, but 
they didn't load up until, I think, 6 at night. And as the 
first witness said, they do not get paid during that period of 
time, and the shipper pretty much told him unless you are in X 
by 7 a.m. tomorrow morning, you are not going to get paid. So 
the driver was at the mercy of the circumstance. He was an 
owner-operator driver who wanted to stay in business and ran a 
good truck, very clean, very, very efficient, but was 
manipulated by the system.
    So I think what you are saying is--did you want to make a 
comment?
    Mr. Hall. Just one comment. I don't think there is anybody 
more interested in safety on the highways than many of the 
truck drivers, because they spend much more time out of their 
lives on the highways than we do.
    In Australia, Mr. Chairman, they have just enacted new 
legislation that follows the chain back to the shipper or the 
broker in terms of responsibility. That is something the 
committee might be interested in looking at.
    Mr. Wolf. I have a number of questions. I will just ask a 
few, and the rest will be submitted for the record. The driver 
that you referred to came from California to where; on the east 
coast?
    Mr. Mead. Yes.
    Mr. Wolf. Were you there when the driver pulled in?
    Mr. Mead. Yes, I was.
    Mr. Wolf. And he went from California to how close to the 
Atlantic Ocean? Tell me what company or what State, how close 
to the Atlantic Ocean?
    Mr. Mead. He was real close to your district.
    Mr. Wolf. And he was driving 48 hours?
    Mr. Mead. Yes.
    Mr. Wolf. Are you going to prosecute that company? I hope 
you are.
    Mr. Mead. Well, the decision to prosecute is made by a 
different agency--the Justice Department makes the ultimate 
decision to prosecute. But we think not the driver, but the 
carrier, in this instance deserves prosecutive consideration.
    Mr. Wolf. What was the condition of the driver?
    Mr. Mead. He was not very alert. I don't want to get into 
the details. I don't think it would be appropriate to get into 
the details of that case. It made a very profound impression 
upon me.
    You know, we can sit here, we can read off papers, we can 
do our studies and so forth and so on. But it is a different 
matter when you get out there and you see these things 
firsthand and you see what the motor carrier investigators are 
experiencing. And it is appalling. I often think of Jane 
Garvey, the administrator at the Federal Aviation 
Administration--what she would do if some of her inspectors 
came in and said: we just checked out this airline, and we 
found that 20, 25 percent of the airlines aren't airworthy. 
Should we keep it from operating? I think the answer to that 
question is almost rhetorical.
    Mr. Wolf. Well, if you would keep the committee informed of 
the case, because obviously that ought to be prosecuted. You 
can't drive from California to wherever this is on the east 
coast in 48 hours and not have violated the hours of service. 
And I think the committee and the Congress and I think the 
first witness referred to the hours of service. We have talked 
a lot about where we move the boxes that the agency is in, but 
the hours of service and these other things are very, very 
important. That is clearly a violation.

                            safety oversight

    Very quickly, Ms. Scheinberg, do you think the Office of 
Motor Carriers has been effective in overseeing the safety of 
large trucks?
    Ms. Scheinberg. No, I would say they are not, evidenced by 
the continued increase in fatalities.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Mead, do you think OMC has been too tolerant 
of safety violations in the trucking industry, and what are 
your impressions?
    Mr. Mead. Yes, I do. I think they absolutely are too 
tolerant, and I believe the work force survey bears that out 
totally. This Nation needs to show that it is serious and that 
there are consequences for this type of behavior.
    Mr. Wolf. Why do you think compliance reviews have dropped 
from five to one per employee per month?
    Mr. Mead. I think the quality of the review, over time, has 
gotten better, frankly, based on what the investigators show. 
Also, I believe that the workday of the average investigator 
needs to be freed up so that they can get away from the 
paperwork and get out there and do what they are best at, 
investigating.
    I want to make very clear that the partnership efforts and 
the collaboration are just fine where both works. But we are 
talking about a portion of the trucking industry for which 
where that is not an appropriate modus operandi.
    Mr. Wolf. The IG found that 75 percent of the motor 
carriers sampled did not sustain a satisfactory rating on 
safety compliance reviews. What has the Office of Motor 
Carriers done since your last finding to induce carriers to 
sustain a satisfactory compliance rate?
    Mr. Mead. One of the biggest things they have done is they 
have improved their targeting system. But as we pointed out 
earlier, that has a lot of data problems. That is a major 
improvement and it is definitely going in the right direction. 
Generally most of our recommendations in that 1997 report call 
for exactly the same thing we are calling for today.

                        office of motor carriers

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Hall, how well do you think the Office of 
Motor Carriers is doing?
    Mr. Hall. Well, of course we measure performance by the 
recommendations we make out of the accident investigations, and 
we have been very concerned in the heavy vehicle area because 
we have 13 recommendations to Federal Highway that have been 
closed unacceptable----
    Mr. Wolf. Thirteen?
    Mr. Hall. Thirteen. Eleven are currently listed as open 
unacceptable. We have one open unacceptable to DOT and one open 
unacceptable to RSPA, which of course deals with an area we 
haven't discussed today, and that is the growth of the 
transport of hazardous materials on our highways in this 
Nation. And those recommendations, of course, deal with 
important areas concerning human fatigue and sleep, on-board 
recorders, time and duty, drugs. That is the measure of 
performance that we would have.
    Let me make a personal statement, Mr. Chairman. I welcome 
this hearing, and I think there are a lot of good people in the 
Office of Motor Carriers that have tried to perform their 
responsibilities. My personal observation is that any time you 
have an agency or an organization that has two 
responsibilities, one to give money out and the other to 
enforce regulations----
    Mr. Wolf. You mean the Federal Highway Administration?
    Mr. Hall. The Federal Highway, their responsibility to fund 
these programs, then you can't compete in terms of enforcement 
with the popularity for political appointees and senior 
officials to hand out the money. And I think that safety is an 
important responsibility. Personally, it ought to be put 
somewhere where it is a dedicated responsibility. That is one 
of the things we enjoy at the NTSB, and I think it has proven 
effective in the impact it has had on safety in our 
transportation system in our country.
    Mr. Wolf. So it can focus?
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    Mr. Mead. During the period of TEA-21, Mr. Chairman, $200 
billion will be spent on infrastructure. Somewhere in the 
neighborhoods of $600 to $700 million, will be spent on motor 
carrier safety. That is what we get a little concerned about 
when we talk about focus.

                      foreign carriers travel zone

    Mr. Wolf. The last question, just so we have it clear, we 
are talking about trucks now in the United States. My 
understanding is as of January 1, 2000, all of the trucks that 
are coming out of Mexico, could transverse the United States. 
This is a change. Correct me. Now trucks are permitted to go 
within 3 to 20 miles across the border; is that correct? What 
is the zone? How do they determine the zone; how far it is to 
go?
    Mr. Mead. They call that a commercial zone, and they are 
not allowed to go out of that. As Mr. Pastor said, they are 
supposed to go into that zone and go back home. With NAFTA, 
those trucks were supposed to be able to drive into the 
interior of the State, States first adjacent to the border, and 
then later into the interior of the United States.
    Mr. Wolf. So if there is no change as of January 1, 2000, 
next year, how far into the United States will those trucks be 
able to go?
    Mr. Mead. Anywhere. Well, I am handed a note here. It says, 
not on January 1, 2000. It says, ``they have not decided to 
lift it.'' I think what is meant here is, Mr. Pena announced 
that the administration was not going to open the border. You 
are talking about the terms of the----
    Mr. Wolf. If the Department of Transportation does nothing, 
will the 2000 January 1 date----
    Mr. Mead. No, because the administration will have to 
affirmatively lift the prohibition.
    Mr. Wolf. They have to affirm?
    Mr. Mead. Yes.
    Mr. Wolf. So if they do nothing----
    Mr. Mead. Nothing will happen.
    Mr. Pastor. They can only travel 25 miles. The Department 
of Transportation has to affirmatively say, we are implementing 
the program, and so now the trucks can go over. I am kind of 
pessimistic come January 1 the year 2000 that the Department of 
Transportation will lift it.
    Ms. Scheinberg. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to 
add to that. In December 1995, the President unilaterally did 
not allow Mexican trucks to come into the border States. He 
basically put a moratorium on the NAFTA agreement. So at this 
point unless the United States lifts that moratorium, this part 
of the NAFTA agreement won't be implemented.
    Mr. Wolf. We will have other questions for the record. I 
thank you very much for your testimony. You have been very 
helpful.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                          Panel III Witnesses

    Mr. Wolf. Next panel will be Mr. Mark Edwards, Managing 
Director of Traffic Safety Services of American Automobile 
Association; Mr. Walter McCormick, President and CEO, American 
Trucking Associations; Ms. Judy Stone, President, Advocates for 
Highway and Auto Safety; Mr. Harry Eubanks, President, 
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; Mr. Brian O'Neill, 
President, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Mr. Todd 
Spencer, Executive Vice President, Owner-Operator Independent 
Drivers Association; and Mr. Ed Wytkind, Executive Director, 
AFL-CIO, Transportation Trades Department.
    In the interest of time, if you can go in that order, and 
if you could summarize your statement. Your full statements 
will appear in the record. And for anyone out there who is 
thinking of the next panel after this one, the committee will 
just recess for maybe 15 minutes from whenever we finish.

   MARK EDWARDS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRAFFIC SAFETY SERVICES, 
                AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Wolf. The first witness, Mr. Edwards, and we will go 
through from that.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you very much for the opportunity to 
speak. I thank the Chair for his genuine interest and 
commitment on this particular safety issue. Having spent 30 
years in the highway safety profession, I have become convinced 
that we are not going to solve the truck safety problem or make 
demonstrative progress in truck safety unless someone like 
yourself takes a genuine interest in the problem. Otherwise, it 
is just going to continue to percolate.
    I want to begin my remarks just by telling you that with 
the data we have, that truck safety is not improving in this 
country. Ten years ago 8 percent of all fatal crashes in this 
country involved collisions with large trucks. In 1997, 9 
percent of all fatal crashes in the United States resulted from 
collisions with trucks. In spite of the fact that the fatality 
rate might be dropping, and in spite of the fact the vehicle 
miles traveled might be increasing, the reality is about 8 to 9 
percent of our fatal crash problem primarily involves 
collisions with large tucks. It has not changed in 10 years.
    Even though the rate has gone down, the rate has gone down 
equally for crashes involving passenger cars. And I suggest 
that many of the changes in safety we think we see in large 
trucks has more to do with increases in belt use, air bags, and 
other safety features in cars than improvements in truck 
safety. The rates of improvement are the same in both groups of 
vehicles.
    The safety problem with fatalities resulting from truck 
crashes is really cars and trucks colliding with each other. 
That is 80 percent of the problem.
    I am actually not very surprised that we haven't made much 
progress, and the reason I am not surprised is, we really lack 
a basic understanding of what contributes to their crashes. We 
have struggled all morning to understand what are the principle 
causes underlying truck crashes and how do we relate those 
causes to things that we do. The reality is we lack that basic 
understanding, and without understanding what causes crashes, 
we don't know what to fix.
    I was kind of reflecting as others were talking as to some 
reasonable examples that might drive that point home, and I 
noticed Mr. Mead struggled with one. We all struggled with it. 
The reality is when we look at fatal crashes, we don't know 
whether fatal truck crashes involve an interstate carrier or an 
intrastate carrier. We don't have the simplest answer. We don't 
even have an accurate count of the number of truck crashes that 
occur each year. Of the approximately 400 thousand that do 
occur, plus or minus 10 or 15 percent, we can't separate those 
vehicles that are regulated by Federal regulation from those 
that aren't.
    We heard a lot about inspection procedures and inspection 
of brakes. In this country we cannot answer the simple question 
are trucks that pass inspection more likely to have accidents 
than those that don't. We can measure how many trucks have bad 
brakes in our inspection programs, but our accident data 
systems don't tell us whether bad brakes were necessarily a 
factor. We don't even know if regulated carriers are safer than 
those that aren't.
    In my mind, our efforts to improve safety in the truck 
arena are like throwing darts in a darkroom. If we are 
successful in improving safety for large trucks, it is because 
we are lucky, because for the most part we really don't know 
what we are doing. In fact, all we really know about truck 
safety is we have to prevent cars and trucks from colliding in 
the first place. It is really an emphasis on crash prevention 
that is required.
    Mr. Chairman, we believe that much of what we need to know 
about causal factors in truck crashes will come from a detailed 
investigation of a large sample of crashes involving trucks. 
Such a study would give us information we need to make real 
gains in safety and know that we have done it. I suggest that 
those are the two questions we can't answer today. We believe 
that an investment of $5 million--and I realized my father 
probably just flipped over in his grave because he knows I am 
going to say $5 million isn't a lot of money and that is not 
how he raised me. I think an investment of $5 million over a 3- 
to 5-year period will produce information that we must have to 
understand what causes truck crashes so we can provide 
solutions in a straightforward manner. Such a comprehensive 
study will provide data and conclusions to benefit us for the 
next 15 or 20 years.
    Why do I think this approach will work? Because it actually 
already has. We did this very work 25 years ago when we made 
the decision to invest in crash data systems that helped us 
understand the safety problems with light vehicles. From all 
the work that was done, we learned three simple facts: One, 
that frontal crashes are the main problem. In frontal crashes, 
the injury mechanisms are ejection and the steering wheel. 
Those three facts have brought us virtually every safety 
improvement we see in today's automobiles. They are the reason 
we have air bags. They are the reason for seat belts. They are 
the reason for padded interiors. They are the reason for 
reinforced seat backs. There is literally not a safety feature 
found in automobiles today that can't be traced back to knowing 
those three or four simple facts that are a product of an 
investment this country made literally decades ago.
    We need the same information for crashes involving large 
trucks if we are to have the same success that you yourself 
alluded to earlier when talking about NHTSA. The reality is 
that we are not going to achieve a goal of zero crashes if we 
continue to know zero about what causes them. Our written 
report contains several other recommendations. In the interest 
of time, I focused on this one, and I look forward to any 
questions you have and look forward to your actions in the 
future. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Wolf. Your full statement will appear in the record, 
too.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mark Edwards follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    WALTER McCORMICK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN TRUCKING 
                        ASSOCIATES, INC.

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. McCormick.
    Mr. McCormick. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank you 
for having me. I am Walter McCormick, President of the American 
Trucking Associations, and I will summarize my testimony.
    Mr. Wolf. Your full statement will appear in the record.
    Mr. McCormick. Mr. Chairman, we commend you for holding 
this hearing today and for your commitment to highway safety. 
What we want you to know is that we share your commitment to 
highway safety because for the trucking industry, the highways 
are our workplace. Those people, the men and women driving the 
trucks, are our husbands, our wives, our mothers and our 
fathers. We want to see them operating in the safest possible 
work environment.
    Good companies, good operators, want bad operators off the 
road, and I am pleased that three of the trucking companies 
that were mentioned today by the inspector general and by the 
Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, Werner 
Enterprises, U.S. Express, and Swift Transportation, are all 
three ATA member companies, and they are indicative of the type 
of trucking companies that ATA represents.
    Mr. Chairman, since 1980, there has been a vast increase in 
the number of trucks operating on our highways given the open 
entry that was provided for under deregulation. And over the 
course of the last 19 years, every single significant 
improvement in truck safety has been either initiated by or 
supported by the American Trucking Associations. Let me go 
through some of them.
    The establishment of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance 
Program which provided for a 1,000 percent increase in truck 
inspections was supported by ATA. The development of a single 
uniform Federal license for truck drivers, the commercial 
driver's license, is supported by ATA. Mandatory drug testing, 
mandatory alcohol testing for truck drivers, the elimination of 
commercial zone exemptions for safety requirements was 
supported by ATA. And we have supported the ban on the use of 
radar detectors and the uniform 55-mile-an-hour speed limit. In 
fact, just yesterday, the Montana State House of 
Representatives and State Senate agreed on new legislation that 
would lower the speed limit for trucks traveling through that 
State at the request and initiative of the American Trucking 
Associations.
    So our commitment to safety is very closely in line with 
your own commitment, Mr. Chairman, but we would respectfully 
suggest that a simple transfer of the Office of Motor Carriers 
to NHTSA may not accomplish the lofty safety objectives that 
you have appropriately set.
    Mr. Chairman, we believe that agencies do best when they 
have a core purpose, when every employee understands what the 
mission is. At NHTSA, established 30 years ago as a result of 
the consumer movement, the mission is a consumer purpose. It is 
to regulate the manufacture of a consumer product, the 
automobile, the motor vehicle, and it does that core mission 
very, very well. But the three issues that have been addressed 
today where there is a consensus, fatigue regulation, more 
inspections, and more rest stops, are three areas where NHTSA 
has no real background and experience. Similarly, the Federal 
Highway Administration has a core mission, and their core 
mission is to build highways.
    We believe one of the principal problems with the Office of 
Motors Carriers today is that it is a very important agency 
that has been lost underneath the core mission of a larger 
agency, and a simple transfer to NHTSA would perpetuate that 
problem.
    Let me drive this home somewhat more graphically, Mr. 
Chairman. The American Trucking Associations is supporting law 
enforcement's call for a separate motor carrier administration. 
Now it may sound crazy for an industry to call for more 
government oversight, but consider the enormous impact that 
trucking has on our economy today. As shown on this first 
chart, trucking today represents 82 percent of the nation's 
freight transportation revenues. The remaining 18 percent is 
split among all other transportation modes. Yet, motor carriers 
are the only transportation mode that do not have a 
Presidentially-appointed administrator confirmed by the Senate 
and their own modal administration. Trucking will grow.
    As you can see in this second slide, the difference between 
the staffing at the Office of Motor Carriers and the Federal 
Aviation Administration. The inspector general earlier today 
told you that there are over 450,000 trucking companies in the 
United States. As you can see in this slide, the Office of 
Motor Carriers has 650 employees. It is a matter of resources 
as much as it is a matter of will.
    We believe, Mr. Chairman, that the right approach is the 
approach that has worked with air carriers, that has worked 
with rail, and has worked with other modes. There should be a 
separate motor carrier administration whose focus is to 
regulate the single largest mode of freight transportation, the 
most rapidly growing mode of freight transportation, and to do 
this in a comprehensive way.
    Over the course of the past year the Federal Aviation 
Administration has taken great pride in the fact that there was 
not a single death on a scheduled U.S. commercial air carrier. 
It attributed this to the fact that it has worked closely with 
its responsible partners in industry, that it has taken a modal 
approach to the regulation of air carriers, and that its 
purview over aviation is comprehensive and pervasive. So we 
would urge you, Mr. Chairman, to think outside the box, the 
boxes that were established three decades ago, and instead 
think boldly as we move into the 21st century and think about 
constructing the regulatory structure for the 21st century that 
best meets our Nation's freight transportation needs and the 
highway safety needs of our population. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
    [The slides and prepared statement of Walter McCormick 
follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  JUDITH LEE STONE, PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO 
                             SAFETY

    Mr. Wolf. Ms. Judy Stone, Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety.
    Ms. Stone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Advocates is a 
coalition of consumer health and safety organizations and 
insurance companies and trade associations who work together to 
improve highway and auto safety. We focus our efforts on all 
areas affecting highway and auto safety, the roadway, the 
vehicle, and the driver. We have a very long history, I think, 
of working with this committee and with you, Chairman Wolf, to 
try and advance highway safety, and we thank you for all that 
you are doing.
    My written statement today addresses a range of very 
specific highway safety issues that are going to require 
immediate attention if we are serious about further reducing 
highway deaths and injuries. So that I can fit into the 
committee's schedule, my oral statement will focus on the truck 
safety issue that is of particular interest to you today.
    Mr. Wolf. The whole statement will appear in the record.
    Ms. Stone. Thank you very much.

                         trends in truck safety

    In addition to concerns in the areas of speeding, drunk 
driving, safety belt and child safety seat use, teen drivers, 
intersection safety, and rollover crashes, there is a very 
troubling trend in truck safety which needs urgent attention. 
Fatalities from large truck crashes have increased about 10 
percent each year from 1995 through 1997. The fatal crash rate 
for large trucks is 2\1/2\ deaths per 100 million vehicle miles 
traveled, 50 percent greater than the rate of all vehicles on 
the roads. Large trucks are highly overinvolved in severe and 
fatal crashes, and when large trucks collide with smaller 
vehicles, 98 percent of the people who die are the occupants of 
the cars, unlike trucks.
    We cannot forget the drivers of big trucks and buses. In 
one year, there was a 16 percent increase in truck driver 
deaths in 1997 over 1996, an increase of 99 fatalities in a 
single year.

            motor carrier safety regulation and enforcement

    It is clear from these statistics and from the evidence 
compiled by the GAO and the OIG reports that the Federal 
Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) has 
fallen far short in its responsibilities to preserve and 
enhance the safety both of motor carriers and of the public who 
share the roads with large trucks and buses. It is imperative 
that motor carrier safety regulations and their enforcement 
zealously guard not only the safety of the entire traveling 
public, but especially protect and enhance both the health and 
safety of large truck and bus drivers.
    Unfortunately OMC has repeatedly failed its mission to 
ensure that the highest safety standards are enacted and 
maintained in the field. In fact, a list of regulatory 
deficiencies and increasing lapses of enforcement on the part 
of OMC is long. You already are familiar with the GAO and OIG 
reports demonstrating the chronic shortcomings of OMC's 
enforcement efforts, but there are also examples of regulatory 
failures, such as the agency ignoring congressional directives 
and timetables. Advocates is particularly familiar with these 
because we have wrestled with OMC for many years to establish 
more and better safety regulations.
    I would like to submit for the record a specific list of 
these shortcomings which I have here.
    Mr. Wolf. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Stone. OMC has recently been reorganized in connection 
with other administrative changes that have redistributed 
certain traditional OMC functions to other offices while 
attempting to integrate its essential operations with the 
Highway Safety Office at the Federal Highway Administration. We 
believe that reshuffling personnel and office functions within 
the Federal Highway Administration is not the sufficient 
answer. Instead, the first step toward fundamental reform 
should be moving the essential duties of OMC to the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) where new 
regulatory and enforcement efficiencies would be realized.
    Briefly, a move of OMC functions to NHTSA will benefit 
safety in the following ways. Truck safety responsibilities 
belong in the DOT agency, NHTSA, whose primary mission is 
highway safety. NHTSA already is responsible for issuing the 
safety standards for newly manufactured trucks. Relocating OMC 
to NHTSA will integrate the regulatory functions for new medium 
and heavy vehicle safety design and performance requirements 
with those governing commercial vehicle operating safety, 
thereby ensuring constant close coordination and timing of 
regulations for both safety arenas.
    Motor carrier safety regulation and enforcement will 
benefit from NHTSA's research and development engineering 
expertise, research infrastructure, and statistical 
capabilities, including their extensive knowledge of 
epidemiology, biomechanics, and injury control systems.
    OMC's field operations would be enhanced by placing them in 
NHTSA's well-administered system of regional offices, including 
the safety ombudsman functions of the Governors' Highway Safety 
Representatives, who work closely with State and local law 
enforcement.
    Regardless of the outcome of how OMC functions can be 
improved and relocated, pressing issues of both regulation and 
enforcement must be addressed in the near term if there is hope 
of improving upon the safety record of large trucks on our 
Nation's roads.
    At the head of this list is hours of service rulemaking. 
Actions by OMC appear to support an increase in driver duty and 
driving hours. As numerous safety organizations have pointed 
out in detail to the agency time and again, no research shows 
that safety can be preserved much less improved by letting 
commercial drivers operate big trucks and buses for even longer 
hours. In fact, the research over the past 20 years shows 
exactly the opposite. We know that most fatal crashes are 
single-vehicle events, and the National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB) has shown that a high percentage of these crashes 
clearly are the result of driver fatigue and sleep deprivation. 
Drivers simply fall asleep at the wheel.
    Next is the prospect of OMC awarding numerous waivers and 
exemptions and conducting many pilot programs relaxing key 
Federal motor carrier safety regulations. OMC has said on 
several occasions that it expects many applications for waivers 
and regulatory exemptions under the provisions of section 4007 
of TEA-21, which is the provision that governs requirements for 
pilot programs, waivers and exemptions.
    Motor carrier safety will not likely be improved in the 
next 5 years if hundreds of pilot projects are being conducted 
on our highways with the American public as guinea pigs. How 
will law enforcement possibly do its job if thousands of trucks 
are operating under a new set of experimental rules that change 
yearly, as many States have just pointed out to the agency. 
Inspections will be threatened as State and local police 
attempt to sort out dozens of different sets of rules of the 
road.
    We believe that NHTSA has an excellent history of public 
rulemaking on the merits of the issues and a conservative view 
of regulatory exemptions. That concludes my statement.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Judy Stone follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  HARRY EUBANKS, PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Eubanks, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.
    Mr. Eubanks. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the 
committee. I am Harry Eubanks. I am President of the Commercial 
Vehicle Safety Alliance. My day job is that of manager of motor 
carrier safety within the Oregon Department of Transportation. 
CVSA is an organization of commercial vehicle enforcement 
agencies in Canada, United States, and Mexico who are dedicated 
to improving highway safety within North America.
    Mr. Chairman, we commend you for holding this hearing and 
appreciate the opportunity to participate in an open discussion 
about motor carrier safety issues that we feel are of very 
vital importance to the Nation. I am going to briefly summarize 
my written statement and respond to any questions you may have 
afterwards.
    Just a quick assessment of the problems, some of which will 
probably be repeated. What you heard already, obviously the 
number of carriers in the industry has nearly doubled within 
the last 5 years. Fatal accidents and fatalities have increased 
at their highest level since 1989. Accident and fatality rates 
have essentially flattened. Since 1990, the national out-of-
service rates for vehicle and drivers have essentially remained 
constant. Compliance reviews, particularly those for interstate 
carriers, have dropped in half since 1991. And civil 
prosecutions of those interstate motor carriers are at their 
lowest level since 1989.
    Why has the enforcement dropped at the Federal level? We 
think there is probably several reasons. Prime reason, a 
reason, I should say, is due to policy change and the shift 
from that of a basic enforcement regulatory agency to that of 
an agency dealing more with performance-based issues, trying to 
be more of a, quote, safety agency. The shift in and of itself 
basically was done at the expense of some of our basic 
enforcement programs.
    Some of our recommendations, Mr. Chairman. Obviously 
compliance reviews must be increased drastically, particularly 
at the interstate level. We think obviously the hours of 
service rulemaking must move forward to improve those 
regulations. OMC needs to act on the carrier safety fitness 
rating rulemaking.
    We definitely need to develop better accident causation 
data. A few States are leading the way in this effort, and we 
should adopt their best practices and expand those to the 
national level.
    We also need to be able to better track unqualified or 
unsafe drivers. CDLIS needs to be improved. We need a better 
tool to identify and deal with unsafe drivers.
    As far as NAFTA in conjunction with our border State 
members, CVSA has helped train Mexican enforcement personnel in 
inspection procedures. It is now up to Mexico to rigorously 
engage their inspection program, particularly on those carriers 
who have applied for authority to cross the border under NAFTA.
    Going back to those prosecutions, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to make an additional point that I did not mention in my 
written statement. The drop in prosecutions is not only due to 
a policy shift within OMC. Part of the reason is that because 
OMC is part of Federal Highway. As part of Federal Highway, OMC 
must use Federal aid attorneys to handle the negotiation phase 
of their enforcement process. Too often safety cases are not 
well understood or supported by these attorneys, who have 
little or no prosecutorial experience or skill in dealing with 
motor carriers on an adversarial situation.
    I think this has a drastic effect on the field staff of the 
Office of Motor Carriers, who work hard and have worked hard in 
the past to do compliance reviews. Obviously when the 
enforcement or compliance reviews are not being effectively 
enforced, I think that has an effect on their ability to keep 
working hard at the issue.
    On where to place OMC, Mr. Chairman, CVSA thinks that the 
motor carrier safety responsibilities should be placed under a 
global administrator whose appointment requires congressional 
confirmation and ensures full accountability. We feel that 
modal administration provides a much greater focus and elevates 
safety issues in a manner not currently possible. The 
intermodal policies and issues that are increasingly important 
to maintain a safe and efficient transportation system are more 
effectively coordinated from administrator to administrator, 
and the States like mine, who have labored long and hard, who 
have invested a lot of money and time and effort into the 
safety process, need a strong partner at the national level as 
an advocate for motor carrier safety. We think that is best 
accomplished as a modal administration.
    The bottom line is that we recommend that those truck-
related activities of these various agencies be placed in a new 
top-to-bottom motor carrier safety administration.
    Motor carrier safety enforcement is unique both from a 
policy and implementation standpoint and should not have to 
be--or be forced to compete for attention and effort--excuse 
me, compete with other efforts on the highway construction or 
in the automobile standards side.
    I think also from my written statement you will note that 
we have some problems with the current Federal Highway 
reorganization of OMC. We feel it does not raise the visibility 
of motor carrier safety to its proper place. We think it 
somewhat weakens the OMC field structure, which has been a very 
strong key to the Federal-State partnership in the Motor 
Carrier Safety Assistance Program. Frankly, we think that 
organization plan demonstrates that we need probably a separate 
motor carrier safety administration.
    That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for 
the time and would be happy to respond to any questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Eubanks.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Eubanks follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   BRIAN O'NEILL, PRESIDENT, INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR HIGHWAY 
                             SAFETY

    Mr. Wolf. Brian O'Neill, President, Insurance Institute for 
Highway Safety. Your full statement will appear in the record.
    Mr. O'Neill. I will summarize some points, Mr. Chairman, 
thank you.
    The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit 
research and communications organization that identifies ways 
to reduce motor vehicle crashes and crash losses, and we are 
funded entirely by U.S. auto insurers.
    You have heard of a number of truck and highway safety-
related problems today, and many of them are directly due to 
ineffective enforcement of various laws and regulations. 
Effective enforcement of traffic laws and regulations, those 
laws and regulations aimed at commercial vehicles and 
commercial vehicle drivers as well as those aimed at all 
motorists, is necessary if we are going to achieve compliance 
with these laws and regulations.
    The first panel, you heard from two parents, tragedies 
involving truck drivers who had violated the hours of service 
regulations. You have heard from Sergeant LaPointe that truck 
drivers routinely violate the Federal regulations concerning 
the time permitted behind the wheel. Why? A principal reason is 
because the tools available to enforce these regulations, the 
manual logbooks, the comic books as they are often described, 
are woefully inadequate.
    But you also heard from Chairman Hall that more effective 
tools have been available for a long time. On-board recording 
devices, which can be used to much more effectively police and 
enforce the hours of service regulations for commercial vehicle 
drivers, have been on the NTSB's most wanted list since 1990. 
That is what Chairman Hall testified to this morning.
    In 1986, the Institute petitioned the Office of Motor 
Carrier Safety to require on-board recording devices to enable 
more effective enforcement of the hours of service regulations. 
We petitioned in October. In December of that year we were 
denied our petition. We filed a petition for reconsideration 
the following year. Again, we were denied that petition. In 
1989, the Institute petitioned the Office of Motor Carrier 
Safety to require on-board recorders for motor carriers 
transporting hazardous materials. In 1995, the Institute, with 
a number of other groups, including the Advocates for Auto and 
Highway Safety, the National Association of Governors' Highway 
Safety Representatives, Parents Against Tired Truckers and 
others, again petitioned the Office of Motor Carrier Safety to 
require on-board recording devices. There has been no action on 
that petition. That was a petition in 1995.
    Tools are available to more effectively enforce the laws 
and regulations. There are also tools available that are not 
being used to more effectively enforce speed limits and speed 
regulations. This is a problem not just for truckers, but for 
car drivers as well. Traditional police enforcement can be 
effective, but we have problems on very crowded highways today 
where making a traditional police stop is dangerous. There are 
ways to do this.
    You have heard again from Chairman Hall this morning about 
safety cameras. They are often referred to as speed cameras. 
These are being used in many countries increasingly on very 
densely traveled but fast urban roads, and they are very 
effective at controlling speeds, the speeds of both trucks and 
cars.
    I particularly would like to draw the attention of the 
committee to the program that has been going on in London 
involving the M25, which is the motorway that goes around 
London. The M25 is very similar to the Beltway and many other 
urban interstate highways where there is a lot of traffic, many 
lanes, and it is very difficult to make a traffic stop. I 
passed to the staff this morning a picture from the M25. It 
looks just like the Beltway except they are driving on the 
wrong side of the road. British authorities have established on 
a section of this urban highway, variable speed limits based on 
traffic conditions. Those variable speed limits are posted 
electronically, but then to make them work, they are enforced 
with cameras. It is very effective, very successful. It is 
reducing car crashes and truck crashes.
    Mr. Chairman, there are many tools available both for the 
Federal agencies to implement as well as local authorities. We 
need to make more effective use of tools that will enable the 
appropriate authorities to effectively enforce laws and 
regulations that already exist. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. O'Neill I appreciate your 
testimony. Good ideas there.
    [The prepared statement of Brian O'Neill and M25 picture 
follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    TODD SPENCER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OWNER-OPERATOR 
             INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Spencer, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 
Association. Your full statement will appear in the record. You 
can summarize.
    Mr. Spencer. Mr. Chairman Wolf, Mr. Sabo, members of the 
committee, my name is Todd Spencer. I am the Executive Vice 
President of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 
Association. OOIDA is the association representing the 
interests of the Nation's small business professional truckers. 
I am also pleased to have been able to play a part just a few 
weeks ago with the committee Chairman Wolf in allowing one of 
our members to get together with the Congressmen, with the 
Chairman, to learn a little bit more about this industry and 
about the topic that is so very important that we are 
discussing here today.
    OOIDA brings a unique perspective to this committee. We 
represent the segment of the trucking industry with the most at 
stake on highway safety issues. Our membership includes 
professional drivers, owner-operators and small fleet truckers 
usually operating 10 and fewer trucks. The typical member of 
our organization has nearly two decades of experience invested 
in trucking, drives in excess of 100,000 miles each year 
throughout many States in all types of weather and traffic, 
spends in excess of 240 nights each year on the highway 
delivering our Nation's goods.
    Government approaches to truck safety have been a source of 
tremendous frustration for our members for the past decade and 
longer. We believe substantial changes are needed in the 
Federal approach to trucking issues.
    Most of the discussion we hear from Washington on truck 
safety issues focus solely on the number of truck inspections 
and the number of fatal truck crashes that have occurred. As 
important as truck inspections are, and we would agree that 
they are an important tool in discovering safety violations, 
this is a very narrow safety focus if your goal is to improve 
total truck safety. How often trucks are inspected has little 
to do with how well a driver is trained, or with the economic 
coercion imposed upon drivers to make impossible deadlines, or 
with the lack of sufficient places on the highways for drivers 
to pull over and get adequate rest when needed, or with the 
compliance of States with the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance 
Program.
    Did you know there are no training requirements for someone 
to obtain a commercial driver's license that makes it legal to 
operate an 80,000-pound truck? All you need to do is pass a 
driving test. OOIDA strongly believes that merely passing a 
test, no matter how difficult, is no substitute for adequate 
training and some period of on-the-road apprenticeship with a 
qualified and experienced commercial driver. How else would 
someone really know what it takes to handle 80,000 pounds of 
truck and freight 3,000 miles away from home and across the 
country? In what other industry do we allow someone with no on-
the-job experience to take on such a responsibility?
    Less than 10 percent of motor carriers provide an adequate 
driver training program. This leaves open the question of 
whether or not the majority of entry-level drivers actually 
have the needed skills to safely operate commercial vehicles 
before they are turned loose on the highways by a motor 
carrier.
    I do know that a couple of years ago a memo came out from 
the Office of Motor Carriers alerting motor carriers that just 
because a driver had a commercial driver's license should not 
be interpreted to mean that driver actually has the necessary 
skills to drive the vehicle for which the CDL may say that 
driver is qualified. Scary, we believe.
    At OMC the primary focus seems to be on technological 
solutions, while meaningful actions are either delegated out to 
other nonanswerable organizations or put on a back shelf to 
gather dust. Professional truckers find it especially puzzling 
that adequate training and basic qualification of drivers that 
are so fundamental to safety could be overlooked in favor of 
pet technology projects with dubious safety benefits and huge 
price tags.
    Driver fatigue has been identified for many years as a 
major safety concern. Did you know, however, that there is a 
critical shortage of places for truck drivers to pull over and 
get adequate rest? In many regions of the country, it is nearly 
impossible to find a place to park your truck after 7 in the 
evening. The trend among States is to close, not open, rest 
areas. In fact there are States that arouse truck drivers out 
of rest areas after 2 hours whether or not the driver has had 
sufficient rest to comply with Federal hours of service 
regulations.
    Lack of adequate rest areas is a major problem facing 
America's truck drivers, and it is getting worse. It does 
little practical good to impose hours of service regulations on 
drivers without equal emphasis on identifying or creating 
places for drivers to rest.
    Another example of unsafe State practices involves 
inspections that require trucks to stop on the shoulder of the 
highway. Stopping on the shoulder of the road creates one of 
the most hazardous conditions on the road for the driver, the 
inspecting officer and for passing vehicles. People die in 
these accidents, deaths that are totally avoidable.
    Equally dangerous are those States with overcrowded weigh 
stations that require dozens of trucks at a time to line up on 
the shoulder of the road to wait to gain entry into the weigh 
station. We are not opposed to inspecting vehicles and 
enforcing weight limits, but these practices are creating 
unsafe conditions in the name of safety.
    The most elusive and powerful negative influence on safe 
driving are those motor carriers, brokers, shippers, receivers 
who require drivers to break safety regulations or who place 
impossible or illegal delivery deadlines on drivers and motor 
carriers. Under such circumstances it is invariably the driver 
who is penalized. Those who yield to pressure and accept unsafe 
loads are then penalized by safety enforcement officers for 
violating the regulations, while the real culprit suffers 
little, if any, liability exposure.
    At our organization's initiative, Congress passed as part 
of TEA-21 a driver hotline created at the Office of Motor 
Carriers. This hotline was supposed to allow drivers to report 
pressure being placed on them by motor carriers and others to 
violate Federal safety regulations. We are informed that 
drivers who call the hotline are connected to a recording 
asking them to leave a number where they can be called back. 
Without a live person answering the phone 24 hours a day who 
can explain to the driver his rights and provide support when 
he takes a personal risk to come forward to report problems, we 
have a cold line, not a hotline. A real hotline should trigger 
investigations so that the driver and others do not face 
further pressure to violate safety regulations.
    I have only touched on a few of the issues that we believe 
should be addressed in order to promote truck safety. I hope we 
can encourage you and others to focus on all of the issues.
    Currently the OMC is simply not equipped or structured to 
resolve the many vitally important issues that confront our 
Nation's trucking industry.
    The OOIDA board of directors recently passed a resolution 
calling for the creation of a Federal trucking administration 
with broad powers to regulate both the safety and, where 
necessary, the business relationships within the trucking 
industry. As much as a focus on safety is truly for the good of 
the trucking business, you need a thorough understanding of the 
trucking business if you are going to adequately address 
highway safety issues. Consolidation of all trucking-related 
matters, size and weight, economic oversight, and safety, 
within a single trucking administration would improve 
efficiency, reduce costs, and promote highway safety.
    Thank you very much for your cooperation.
    Mr. Wolf. I thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Todd Spencer follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  EDWARD WYTKIND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AFL-CIO, TRANSPORTATION 
                       TRADES DEPARTMENT

    Mr. Wolf. Next, last witness, Mr. Edward Wytkind, Executive 
Director, AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department. Your full 
statement will appear in the record. If you could summarize.
    Mr. Wytkind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You also have the 
distinction of being one of the few chairmen who pronounce my 
name correctly. That is a good start.
    Mr. Wolf. I just guessed.
    Mr. Wytkind. It is a good guess.
    Good morning. I guess it is afternoon. I did come here in 
the morning. Mr. Sabo, Mr. Chairman, I am certainly pleased to 
be here on behalf of our 30 unions in the Transportation Trades 
Department. For those who don't know, we represent several 
million workers in the aviation, rail, transit, highway, 
trucking and longshore industries.
    Let me first commend you and the subcommittee for holding 
this hearing and, of course, express our appreciation for 
letting us appear as part of the hearing record. I will 
summarize my statement and focus really on a couple of issues 
only, though we do address many others in the written 
statement.
    First, I think based on our track record and the track 
record of our unions, we have a strong record of fighting for 
safety for our members and for the general public. We believe 
that the two are joined at the hip, and we have always fought 
for both. From chronic driver fatigue on the highways and unmet 
work or training needs, to the challenges of HAZMAT 
transportation and the threat of unsafe trucks and buses 
entering the U.S. at our Mexican border, we believe all these 
things combined are very severe and call for swift action.
    With concerns mounting about the Federal Highway 
Administration's Office of Motor Carriers, you and others are 
supporting a proposal to transfer the OMC to National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Separately the findings 
of the DOT's Inspector General raised deep concerns regarding 
the inner workings of the OMC in policing motor carrier safety. 
We, too, are disturbed by the alleged incestuous relationship 
between the OMC and the trucking industry that it regulates and 
charges of improper activities in the lobbying area in an 
effort to deregulate the proposal that you, Mr. Chairman, 
championed but saw the proposal derailed.
    Fortunately we believe Secretary Slater is trying to 
respond forcefully. A major shake-up at the senior level at 
FHWA has already occurred following the release of the 
investigation, and we are confident that the Secretary will 
conduct a thorough internal review and audit and will move 
forward with an aggressive response to the problems that have 
been identified by you, Mr. Chairman, and by the IG.
    Let me state our strongly held view that while this debate 
is crucial, that while we need to be talking about motor 
carrier safety, we have to also at the same time allow the 
Secretary to complete the review without undue interference.
    We commend you, Chairman Wolf, for bringing the spotlight 
on the failures of the OMC and for working with us as we did 
with you on the ISTEA bill last Congress to advance the cause 
of truck, bus, and highway safety. We are still evaluating the 
OMC proposal. I am interested in the comments offered on this 
panel, but we are committed to stopping those in the industry 
who want to use this debate not to advance safety, but to skirt 
the very real issues and concerns that you have raised. We 
intend to do everything we can to use this important debate to 
bring focus to the safety issues beyond the matter of whether 
the enforcement duties should be housed within the DOT.
    The concerns raised today are conpounded by the fact that 
there is increased pressure to open the U.S.-Mexico border to 
the truck and bus traffic called for in the North American Free 
Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Fortunately, safety concerns have 
inspired the Clinton administration to keep the border closed 
for over 3 years since December of 1995. 6
    At the same time the IG in a scathing report recently 
concluded what we have been saying since 1990. Specifically the 
IG said, far too few trucks are being inspected at the border, 
and too few inspected trucks comply with U.S. standards.
    The IG report provides a shocking account of the 
inadequacies of border inspection capabilities. It concludes 
that Mexican trucks entering the U.S. through Mexico, Texas, 
and Arizona are unlikely to be inspected. I think you heard 
this figure earlier. In El Paso, Texas, 1,300 truck movements 
occur daily, but there is only one inspector who can inspect 10 
to 14 trucks daily. I don't have a math degree, but I can 
figure out what percentage that is, and it is really small.
    Some border crossings do not have an inspector assigned 
whatsoever, particularly during evenings and weekends. So while 
we are debating all the policy issues about cross-border 
transportation, all I need as a truck driver from Mexico is to 
watch to figure out how to enter the U.S. and when to enter it 
because there are so many times of the day when there are no 
checks at all, and you just kind of drive right there.
    I heard the word ``honor system'' earlier in a different 
context, but that is really what we are asking Mexico to 
operate under, which is an honor system. They don't check on 
their side of the border, and we are not checking on our side.
    The IG found a 1997 out-of-service rate in Texas, the 
Nation's busiest border-crossing State, of almost 50 percent. 
This compares to a national average of about 25 percent. In 
1998, the data is not much better. The IG found that in 1997, 
3.7 million commercial trucks entered the U.S. from Mexico. 
Only 1 percent, I will repeat 1 percent, were actually 
inspected, and 44 percent of the small number that were checked 
were removed from service. This means, and again I am not a 
mathematician, but a Mexican carrier has a 99 percent chance of 
evading an inspection. But for the U.S. motoring public and for 
commercial drivers in the United States, what the data means to 
them is that there is a 1 in 2 chance of them encountering an 
unsafe foreign motor carrier on the highway.
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Sabo, almost 2 years ago 
you joined 225 of your colleagues on a letter to President 
Clinton urging him to keep the current cross-border 
restrictions in place until safety concerns are adequately 
addressed. Let me quote from that letter: Although planning and 
coordination activities are under way, they are no substitute 
for improving enforcement systems. Declarations that all 
trucks, U.S. or foreign, must meet U.S. safety standards are 
meaningless without adequate oversight by competent inspectors. 
Finally, allowing Mexican carriers to drive freely throughout 
the four U.S. border States with no assurance whatsoever of 
their safety would unnecessarily endanger the traveling public.
    I submit that the IG investigation coupled with the 
separate findings of the GAO (Government Accounting Office) 
make it very clear that the U.S. is ill-prepared to deal with 
the safety hazards posed by the flood of Mexican truck and bus 
traffic permitted under NAFTA. The facts haven't changed. 
Vehicles that enter the U.S. still have an enormously high 
violation rate. U.S. inspection capabilities are substandard 
or, as I mentioned earlier, almost nonexistent. And there is no 
system in place to assure Mexican compliance with drivers' 
hours of service and basic labor standards such as minimum 
wage, which, under NAFTA, is supposed to apply to all the 
drivers.
    Highway safety goes beyond reforming government safety 
oversight capabilities. It is about curbing injury and death on 
our highways. Dealing with the OMC issue I have raised, Mr. 
Chairman, is an issue we agree with, and we want to join with 
you in this important undertaking, but in that context, the 
NAFTA cross-border provisions if implemented present a larger 
set of questions that also deserve an answer before we expose 
American highway users to thousands of unsafe foreign trucks. 
Opening our border to a flood of poorly regulated trucks and 
buses will only worsen the problems that have been identified 
here today. We stand ready to work with you, but we also urge 
you to help us keep the U.S.-Mexico border closed to unsafe 
motor carrier traffic as you have since December 1995.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wytkind follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       truck traffic and permits

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies for missing 
a good part of the testimony, but we had a delegation meeting 
with our new Governor. I thought it appropriate to be there.
    I am not sure who this is directed to, and I am not sure 
anybody would have an answer. Of truck traffic, what relative 
percentages on freeways versus nonfreeways; does anybody know?
    Mr. O'Neill. I don't know the exact numbers, but a 
disproportionate amount of the mileage of the trucks is done on 
limited access highways, which, of course, are our safest 
highways, and that is one of the reasons when you look at the 
truck rates per mile traveled, they appear safer than maybe 
passenger car rates per mile traveled. When you compare the 
rates on the same highways, truck accident rates are higher 
than cars because they are doing so much of their mileage on 
the safer highways.
    Mr. Sabo. The reason I ask, looking at the numbers I see 
over half of the truck fatality accidents are on rural 
noninterstate roads, which I suspect doesn't carry that great a 
proportion of truck traffic. And two-thirds of the accidents in 
rural areas, normally 14.6 percent of it is on interstate. I 
assume rural areas would include the bulk of the traffic 
between major centers. Over 52 percent is on the noninterstate-
traveled area. In total only about 25 percent of fatal 
accidents are on an interstate; 75 percent are not. I have to 
admit to lots of ignorance on how even basic licensing--I have 
trouble with that word it occurs--how does someone get a 
license with the State, 50 different regulations?
    Mr. Spencer. The CDL regulations were passed by Congress in 
1986, and basically what they required is that every State 
would set up a commercial driver licensing program that would 
conform to certain criteria, criteria for serious violations 
that would cause licenses to be suspended.
    Mr. Sabo. That is a joint reporting of violations.
    Mr. Spencer. Yes, and then, of course, that each State or 
States were pretty much given the latitude to decide how they 
would go about deciding whether someone was qualified to drive 
or licensed to drive, and what the system basically is, and in 
almost every instance, you go, take a vehicle to a licensing 
center and take an examiner for a ride, and if he thinks you 
did well enough, you are going to get a CDL.
    Our organization has real problems with that system that 
makes no greater effort to assure somebody is qualified, but 
that is because we think you end up with drivers that are just 
about as qualified as most of us were when we were 16 years old 
and initially got our licenses to drive cars. The only 
difference is these folks are driving vehicles that can weigh 
80,000 pounds.
    Mr. Sabo. Is there any separate permit granted? Are there 
permits for interstate trucking? You need special permits 
versus a series of State permits if you are trucking from one 
State to the next?
    Mr. Spencer. No. I believe each State is required to have 
the same basic license, and that license, if I am not mistaken, 
is required to be the same for intrastate drivers because of 
changes----
    Mr. Sabo. That is not my question. I am away from the 
driver to the company. As an owner-operator, do you have any 
special permit to be involved in interstate trucking versus, 
say, simply intrastate?
    Mr. Eubanks. Mr. Chairman, I can address that. I am Harry 
Eubanks from the State of Oregon, representing CVSA.
    The industry basically is deregulated in terms of economic 
regulation now, so you no longer have the old permit or 
certificate system that carriers were required to get before 
they could engage in for-hire transportation. Basically you 
just need to have the money to purchase a vehicle, and 
obviously you get licensed in the appropriate State and deal 
with the tax issues and start turning the wheels.
    Mr. Sabo. So when we hear of trucks not passing certain 
standards, those are individual State standards that they are 
not passing?
    Mr. Eubanks. It depends. If you are talking about 
inspection standards----
    Mr. Sabo. Yes.
    Mr. Eubanks [continuing]. Inspection standards are pretty 
much uniform across North America. My organization has worked 
hard for nearly 20 years to establish some uniform standards 
for inspection process. So those, I think, are fairly uniform.
    Mr. Sabo. For the vehicle?
    Mr. Eubanks. For the vehicle and for the driver, too. But 
that doesn't involve licensing. That is just how we go about 
making sure that those vehicles and drivers are complying with 
the regulations on the highway.
    Mr. Sabo. But as this gentleman indicated, the amount of 
training, there is no requirement other than pass a certain 
kind of test at a certain time; is that right?
    Mr. Spencer. Yes, sir. I think perhaps where you are going 
a little bit with that is that there is going to be a niche in 
trucking that would be both drivers and vehicles that basically 
don't participate in any kind of enforcement programs, and that 
they seldom come into contact with the commercial vehicle 
enforcement officers that we have heard from here today. In 
some instances the people we are talking about don't 
necessarily see themselves in the trucking community. Maybe 
they haul construction equipment or dirt or logs, or maybe they 
are farmers. Their principal occupation is agriculture or 
something other than commercial trucking.
    A big percentage of trucks that are on the road fall into 
those categories, and generally those trucks are not going to 
cross weigh stations or go through the inspections that are set 
up at roadside, but they are out there nevertheless, and when 
we hear about the bad things that happen in newspapers, 
oftentimes that is what we are talking about.
    Mr. Sabo. Todd?
    Mr. Tiahrt. I was wondering, Mr. Sabo, if you were going to 
get around to telling your Governor that there was something 
that he wasn't going to be able to do, and you were going to do 
it for him, and I wonder what Jesse ``The Body'' was going to 
say back to you.
    Mr. Sabo. No, he told us what not to do.

                            truck fatalities

    Mr. Tiahrt. I certainly wouldn't want to go the best out of 
three falls with him.
    Ms. Stone, you made the comment, and I didn't quite catch 
all of it, it was something about fatalities had increased 10 
percent per year. Did I catch that correctly, and if so, what 
were you referring to?
    Ms. Stone. Since 1995, I believe that was what we had in 
our statement, and what I was saying was that the fatalities 
have gone up nearly 10 percent. In 1995 they were 4,918 truck-
related fatalities.
    Mr. Tiahrt. It was truck-related then?
    Ms. Stone. Yes. And then in 1996, they were 5,142. And in 
1997, they were 5,355. That is about a 10 percent increase.
    Mr. Tiahrt. So again, you are just talking about raw 
numbers, not about miles driven?
    Ms. Stone. That is right.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Is this based on National Highway Traffic 
Safety numbers?
    Ms. Stone. It is.
    Mr. Tiahrt. I read your testimony, and it looks like the 
overall fatalities in the last 3 years is basically stable; up 
and down a little bit, but it was right around 41,900, 
something like that.
    Ms. Stone. That is right.

                       new safety administration

    Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. McCormick, you talked about focusing on 
some agency that, you know, in comparison to FAA, there was a 
lot of employees there. OMC has very few employees. Did you say 
OMC has responsibilities similar to FAA as far as motor 
carriers, or what was the name that you used for that? Was that 
OMC that you were referring to?
    Mr. McCormick. I was referring to OMC, but expanding OMC 
into a Federal motor carrier administration similar to what the 
law enforcement community has called for. And the idea is this: 
If you look at FAA, what FAA does is to take a comprehensive 
approach to aviation safety. They look at the aircraft. They 
look at the pilots. They look at the flight attendants. They 
look at the mechanics. They keep in mind as they regulate that 
mode of transportation what is the growth curve, what is going 
to be needed in the future in terms of additional airport 
capacity, in terms of additional inspectors.
    And FAA has not only 48,000 employees, but the FAA 
Administrator is appointed by the President and confirmed by 
the Senate. The FAA Deputy Administrator is appointed by the 
President and confirmed by the Senate. There is very strong 
accountability in oversight.
    The single largest transportation mode, though, motor 
carriers, does not have a Presidentially-appointed 
Administrator or Senate confirmation.

                            data collection

    Mr. Tiahrt. I see your point.
    Another question I have for Mr. Edwards, you said that, if 
I got it right, without knowing what causes accidents, we don't 
know what to do to fix them. Are we not collecting data in the 
right categories, or what kind of data would you advocate us--
how would you collect the data so we could draw some 
conclusions?
    Mr. Edwards. I propose in my written remarks that we charge 
the National Academy of Science's Transportation Research Board 
with the task of designing a study. I think we need to 
investigate about 3,000 crashes, and I would use the accident 
investigation technology that NHTSA now employs for light 
vehicles to collect very detailed data on the crashes 
themselves. Actually the factors that cause the crashes really 
come from an analysis of the data, and very seldom appear in 
the data themselves. I think that is a study we can do one 
time, and it would carry us a long way.
    The problem we have when it comes to trucks is that the 
fatality analysis reporting system (FARS), which we are all 
familiar with, only looks at fatal accidents. That is less than 
two percent of all accidents. There are 400 some odd thousand 
truck accidents a year. In FARS there is little or no 
information about the motor carriers who operate those trucks. 
There is little or no information about the trucks themselves. 
If we were to look at the national accident sampling system, 
which is our larger investigatory pool of accidents, we don't 
investigate accidents involving large trucks to any great 
degree because the focus is on light vehicle safety. We 
literally have no databases in the country that examine truck 
accidents in any detail. It is like trying to invest in the 
stock market without knowing what the Dow Jones average is. We 
are not going to be very successful:
    Mr. Tiahrt. I think you make a good point. It is important 
that you have good data. I am not sure how we can tackle this 
problem of making highways more safe when it comes to large 
trucks, because a lot of the accidents are directly related to 
drivers rather than the vehicle themselves.
    Mr. Edwards. It is a very good point. That is why we need 
to go out and collect and create a database. It has information 
in it not only about the trucks involved in the crash, but the 
passenger vehicles and the drivers of those vehicles and the 
roadways on which they occur. That information literally does 
not exist. The point is well taken.

                      system to reduce fatalities

    Mr. Tiahrt. If we are going to structure a system for more 
safety, then of course we have got to have the data, but it is 
difficult to tell from today is it--do we focus on something 
like--we were talking about collision avoidance? If so, we are 
asking a high price; what percentage would be collision 
avoidance, how much would we distract from that. The gentleman 
down here in the Institute for--Mr. O'Neill was talking about 
speeding and how that was related to it, what percentage is 
that, the fatalities.
    I don't think we have our arms around the information yet 
to structure a system to try to reduce the fatalities when it 
comes to large trucks, and perhaps a little more information 
might lead us to the right direction.
    Mr. Edwards. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. 
I am glad you understand it.
    Mr. Tiahrt. I am not sure I really do.
    Mr. O'Neill. Mr. Tiahrt, could I just make one point. There 
is not likely to be a single approach that is going to solve 
all of these problems. We are going to have to come up with a 
range of countermeasures. We know that fatigued truckers are a 
problem. We know that speeding is a problem. We know that many 
other things are a problem. We don't exactly know the 
magnitudes of those problems, but we have to look for 
countermeasures to address a range of the problems that have 
already been identified. It won't be a single silver bullet 
that will solve the problem.
    Mr. Tiahrt. In just a minute I want to give you an 
opportunity to speak. I do want to say, though, that fatalities 
have gone up, but when you consider the amount of freight that 
is being moved, overall I think truckers do a pretty good job 
in safety. The fatalities per million miles has gone down 
according to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, NHTSA, so I think we ought to be cautious when 
we approach this and have a good set of data rather than 
stirring things up too quickly. We have a trend as far as miles 
driven and fatalities per miles driven has gone down, so I 
don't want to make too big of a change at that time.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Spencer, go ahead.
    Mr. Spencer. Thank you very much. Just one further thought 
on that that seems really important, and that is that there is 
no one single magic bullet that is going to address this issue 
and we make a big mistake if we take the approach that there 
is. I was here last in D.C. 3 weeks ago and I watch on the 
evening news about three kids going to one of the local 
schools, a 17-year-old driver, two 14-year-olds, they are on a 
two-lane highway coming home. They are driving faster and lose 
control and run head on into a U-Haul truck, a gentleman trying 
to move his family to North Carolina.
    Now, next year those are going to be three truck-related 
fatalities to those people that advocate that trucks are the 
leading cause of fatalities on the road, yet that particular 
individual driving that truck isn't a truck driver but it is a 
truck.
    The issues there are how other drivers that share the road 
with trucks respond, handle, how they know how to drive. We are 
also talking about a major issue with the type of road that 
they are on. On two-lane roads, as was mentioned earlier, 
highway fatalities will always be significantly higher for both 
cars and trucks because those are roads are inherently more 
dangerous for all drivers.
    Mr. Wytkind. Mr. Tiahrt, you talked about human factors, I 
don't know the exact term that you used, and two observations 
are, first, when trucking deregulation was first advanced, the 
Teamsters Union and the whole labor movement opposed trucking 
deregulation for two reasons. One is because we warned that it 
was going to create substandard jobs in an industry that is 
safety sensitive, and it did that.
    And the second thing that we warned was that you were going 
to have this huge influx of motor vehicle operators who weren't 
ready to understand the cost of doing business and the 
responsibility that goes with it.
    At great risk to Chairman Wolf's hearing to start a debate 
about trucking deregulation, that is not the point of my 
comment. The point of my comment is that we hear a lot from the 
American Trucking Association and others about a driver 
shortage. That has become largely a myth for one reason. There 
is a shortage of good jobs in this industry. You have a lot of 
unemployed Teamsters, almost 200,000 since 1980, who were asked 
to take a 50 percent or more pay cut with fewer benefits or go 
do something else. Those chose the latter.
    So you have a shortage of skilled drivers in the economy 
because a lot of these workers have gone elsewhere to do other 
things because they don't want the jobs that the industry was 
beginning to produce.
    I think that is something that needs to be looked at. I 
can't quantify it and give you fancy data to support the 
notion. All I can tell you is that there is this problem in the 
industry and we can't find a way to address it except to say 
that has occurred steadily since 1980.
    Mr. Tiahrt. One would advocate that perhaps those drivers 
got a better job someplace else. I think the market will drive. 
In other words, higher wages will attract more people into the 
industry.
    If I go to my home city in Wichita, Kansas and I was there 
this weekend and I drove by a Braum's, it is a hamburger place 
like McDonald's, they are paying 7 and a quarter an hour with 
health benefits. That is far above minimum wage, but they have 
a need for people and in order to attract them they are paying 
higher wages. When the need in the trucking industry for 
drivers becomes great enough, they will heighten their wages. 
So I think economics will change that in some degree in the 
future. I think that is something we can't overlook.
    Can you tell me when deregulation happened?
    Mr. Wytkind. 1980.

                       truck safety improvements

    Mr. Tiahrt. Go ahead, Mr. McCormick.
    Mr. McCormick. I wanted to respond to your observation 
because you indicated that it was your perception that truck 
safety had improved, maybe not as much as all of us would like 
because what we all have is the same goal, no doubt about that.
    But just to give you a sense of perspective, in 1980, the 
year trucking was reregulated until now, the miles driven by 
trucks has increased by a whooping 77 percent. Actual deaths 
have dropped by 9.5 percent. There are 9.5 percent fewer people 
killed last year than in 1980.
    And the fatality rate has dropped by 48 percent. So what we 
have now done collectively is we have refocused our goal, and 
our goal is now to further improve truck safety and I believe 
what you heard today a consensus on is that there are three 
very specific things that we can do to address truck safety.
    First, solve the fatigue problem. The Department needs to 
move forward on new hours of service regulations. It hasn't 
done so for 60 years.
    Number 2, parking spaces, so when truckers are tired they 
can go to sleep.
    Number 3, increased enforcement. More trucks on the road 
require more enforcement, and I believe that everybody on this 
panel agrees with those reform measures.

                            foreign carriers

    Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you. I think you made a very good point. 
Mr. Wytkind, you said 1 in 2 chance of encountering a foreign 
driver when you were talking about people coming across----
    Mr. Wytkind. Based on the data, there is a 99 percent 
chance that a Mexican vehicle crossing over the border will not 
be inspected. But for the U.S. motoring public, there is a 1 in 
2 chance that that vehicle that they do encounter on the 
highway will be unsafe and will be in violation of U.S. 
standards based on the out of service rate.
    Mr. Tiahrt. On the vehicle that comes across the border?
    Mr. Wytkind. Yes, the truck and bus.
    Ms. Stone. I wanted to respond to your comment about the 
fatality rate versus fatals. This is something that we have 
discussed a lot in the highway safety field. We use the same 
methodology for passenger cars as well. I like some of the 
airline analogies that have been used today by several of the 
witnesses and it would be in my mind the same thing as saying 
because there are a whole lot more airplanes out there flying 
then the numbers don't look so bad, and I don't think that we 
would say that when it comes to airline crashes.
    Mr. Tiahrt. If it is your family it doesn't matter, just 
one more is too much. I have to agree.
    Mr. Wolf. I am going to recognize Mr. Serrano and we are 
not going to break for the 15 minutes because they said we may 
have a vote as early as 3:00 or as late as 3:15, so we are 
going to continue. Mr. Serrano.

                           urban truck safety

    Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I 
apologize for not listening to your testimony. I also was 
meeting with my governor, Governor Pataki, and the meeting took 
an hour. It was a half hour meeting and half an hour to get 
through the TV cameras in and out of the room trying to find 
out if he is going to announce for President today.
    Mr. Chairman, you will be glad to know when he found out 
that I am on this committee, I became very popular in my state.
    I have two concerns, and I don't know if they were covered 
and I hope someone could comment on them. One of them is urban 
truck safety.
    I represent an area in the Bronx which houses the large 
distribution point for fresh fruits and vegetables, the Hunts 
Point Market, which is well known to many people, and trucks 
going in and out of there, it is an amazing number, but they go 
through residential areas to get to the market.
    There are other problems, long term problems that we have 
to deal with. That area has the largest, most serious incidence 
of asthma in the Nation. We think that it is related to 
transfer stations that are there, over 40 transfer stations and 
perhaps to the truck fuel and so on.
    In addition, there is a problem that the community is very 
upset about, the fact that some kids have been killed by trucks 
that are going into that area and it doesn't seem--we don't 
seem to hear anything being discussed about that particular 
problem, that there is the highway situation that we know about 
and there is the fatigue involved in that, but what about urban 
truck safety? Does anyone have any information that I can take 
back?
    Mr. Edwards. If I might comment about urban trucks. We are 
looking at trucks between about 18,000 and 26,000 pounds of 
gross vehicle weight, the straight trucks, as we would call 
them. It relates to some of the points that I have tried to 
make about data.
    These trucks represent somewhere between a third and maybe 
half of all trucks involved in accidents, but we don't really 
have a reliable estimate. In our written report, we suggested 
that this particular group of trucks be focused on whether 
operators of these trucks meet CDL requirements and whether 
that might improve safety. A large portion of our trucking 
population in urban areas are these kinds of trucks. Under 
current regulations, except oddly enough in the City of New 
York, they are not required to hold CDLs. On the other side of 
the coin, we learned very recently from research done in the 
Federal Government by the Office of Motor Carriers that CDL 
does work, and so I would like you to consider those two 
points.
    A current countermeasure that we have that we have not 
explored is the possibility of extending that requirement to 
these trucks.
    Mr. Serrano. Your point was the trucks are not the size 
that we see on highways, but these trucks coming to the market 
are coming right off major highways.
    Mr. Edwards. Most of the urban truck crash problem, a large 
part of the urban truck crash problem is trucks between 18,000 
and 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. They might be coming 
right off the highway, but most of those are not your large 
semis.
    Mr. McCormick. We fought for and obtained an elimination of 
the exemptions for operation within commercial zones. It used 
to be if you had a heavy truck operation within a commercial 
zone you did not have to comply with the Federal motor carriers 
safety regulations. That has changed today.
    You are correct that every truck shipment begins and ends 
with a trip to a warehouse or terminal, so they do travel 
through urban areas and through areas where there are a lot of 
people congregated. We don't have good data on the number of 
those accidents and how they are specifically caused. We don't 
know which ones are done by dumptrucks and by wholly intrastate 
trucks that are therefore not subject to the Federal 
inspections, and I think that Mr. Edwards' call for additional 
data would be helpful.

                            foreign carriers

    Mr. Serrano. Thank you. The other one is an issue I think 
that may come to play, I want to know if it does come to play 
in this whole issue with Mexico.
    I had a gentleman in my district last year who was given a 
summons by the police and he has a court date because he was 
stopped, routine stop, truck driver, and he didn't speak 
English to the satisfaction of the police officer. And we found 
out to my amazement that there is Federal law or regulation 
that states that you must be able to speak or understand 
English properly. Now I spoke to this gentleman and he did have 
a heavy accent, but I could understand him. And of course I am 
not an expert in accents because most people who can't speak 
English well speak to me in Spanish so I can't stand up as an 
expert.
    It seemed to me now if that is happening in New York City 
in Yonkers, what does that say about this whole relationship 
with Mexico? Are we going to apply the same situation so that 
people who come across the border in addition to having safe 
trucks have to be fluent in English? How does that work?
    Mr. Wytkind. Mr. Serrano, I would just say one thing which 
is we focused on the safety issues of the driver who enters the 
United States who may not be fluent enough who can understand 
what the communication system is to operate as safely as 
possible under U.S. standards. But the answer to your question 
is that when a driver enters the United States he and she must 
comply with all U.S. standards, period. We believe that the 
system that is in place and being negotiated presently is very 
substandard and is years away from ever getting to a point 
where you can begin to have a debate about whether we are ready 
to open the border. But that issue just touches on many others, 
which is the whole matter of how you comply with U.S. 
standards. It is one thing to say that you do, it is another 
thing to actually be able to ensure it.
    So the answer is yes, a driver who enters the United States 
is expected to comply with all U.S. equipment and driver 
standards.
    Mr. Serrano. I understand that and I have no problem with 
that. I know that here in this country the Department right now 
is looking at this provision to see if it needs to be modified 
and what wording they could put out to the police on how to 
enforce it because I will give you a very ironic situation. 
This particular gentleman has been driving 14 years, and the 
test was given to him in New York in Spanish, so you can be 
tested in another language but then you can be fined for not 
being fluent in the language that you were not tested in.
    I am not suggesting that the answer is that you should 
never have given him a license, and he was willing to take a 
test. He said I know the signs and I know what they say. I just 
do not feel that comfortable with the police officer in a 
language other than Spanish.
    Just a thought because I suspect that somewhere along the 
line in view of some of the things that are happening in this 
country over the issue of language, added to safety will be 
this issue, and I suspect that some people--and in fact Mr. 
Pastor and I may have just committed a sin by bringing it out 
because someone will catch onto it and they may begin to make 
it a part of the safety package.
    Mr. Wytkind. We believe that any driver who enters the 
United States should be given a fair set of rules and should be 
told up front what the expectations are. There is that aspect 
of what you are raising here which is that you are asking 
drivers from the U.S. and Mexico to cross into each other's 
country, but there is no assurance of a system that you have 
any confidence in that the worker behind the wheel is going to 
be treated fairly and is going to be prepared for the 
requirements that he is supposed to fulfill when he or she 
enters the other country. There are a lot of issues to sort 
out. That is probably one of a hundred that needs to be 
understood.
    Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    I will have a number of questions for the record. I do want 
to just cover a couple of other points, though, and I agree 
with what Mr. Tiahrt said. When it is your family member, your 
mother or father or husband or wife, the tragedy strikes close 
to your heart. I have five children and we have a gravel 
driveway, and I remember at nighttime just waiting to hear the 
kids on the gravel driveway knowing that they are fine. I think 
your point that you made with regard to the airlines is a very 
good point. If you put this into airline crashes, as Mr. Mead 
did, it is one every 2 weeks. I think sometimes it doesn't 
trigger in our minds because one fatality will happen in Maine 
and one will happen in Virginia, and so it is scattered. But if 
it was all together, we all know the response that the National 
Transportation Safety Board made on the ValuJet and the FAA 
made on the ValuJet, as they should have and that was very 
appropriate. So I think Mr. Tiahrt is right, if it comes into 
your family, it is the pain and agony and suffering and so we 
think of that in terms of the value. The good Lord made each 
and every individual, so that is why it is important we work on 
that record, to get it down to seek a zero fatality, knowing 
that the degree of difficulty to reach it would be very tough, 
but that should be the goal.

                    comprehensive truck crash study

    Mr. Edwards, I would hope that the committee would be able 
to fund your idea. Who would do that, would NHTSA do it? Who 
would do that study?
    Mr. Edwards. I would propose that the National Academy of 
Sciences Transportation Research Board be charged with 
designing the study, and I would propose that NHTSA in 
cooperation with FHWA carry it out. NHTSA has the accident 
field investigation capability in place to do it. They just 
currently don't focus on trucks.
    Mr. Wolf. Why don't you work with the committee and call 
for that study to take place. If you can give us some thoughts 
of anything that would go into the study, we would be glad to 
have your help.

                        hours-of-service reform

    Mr. McCormick, you do agree the fatality rate has not 
leveled off. Why do you think, is it the hours of service? Is 
it the fatigue?
    Mr. McCormick. Mr. Chairman, everything that you have 
identified has been right on target. The Office of Motor 
Carriers has been very slow to act on congressionally mandated 
rulemakings. Hours of service reform, it is over 60 years since 
hours of service reform. The Department is nearly 2 years late 
on that rulemaking. Hours of service reform is the key issue 
when it comes to the issue of fatigue.
    Enforcement resources are a huge issue. So we agree that 
you have the appropriate goal, which is to reduce the number of 
deaths.
    Mr. Wolf. There was apparently no disagreement, and correct 
me if I am wrong, that OMC has not done the job? Does anyone 
take issue with that?
    Mr. Wytkind. I might just comment. The issue of reforming 
the hours of service regulations we are very supportive of, but 
what we strongly disagree on is what the reform should be.
    Mr. Wolf. I understand that.
    Mr. Wytkind. We agree with that notion, but I understand 
that on the other side of this debate there are others who want 
to free up drivers to drive more hours and that is really not 
the solution to our problem. We are deeply concerned by the 
lack of whatever necessary reforms that we can work out that 
are needed, but we are concerned about some proposals that 
would not strengthen hours of service but would weaken them.
    Mr. Wolf. That is a separate important issue. It is equally 
important as the locale. Where do we put this. But my sense is 
no one and even you did not disagree with the statement that 
OMC is not doing the job that it should have been doing. That 
is the basic premise.
    The second question, and I think it is obvious what your 
answer was going to be but I think you covered it in your 
testimony, Ms. Stone.

                           state inspections

    Mr. Eubanks, you testified total number of inspections done 
on the eight States have level one inspections at 50 percent or 
more. That is more than just walking around as the trooper told 
us. What are the eight States?
    Mr. Eubanks. I don't remember exactly that testimony.
    Mr. Wolf. It is in your testimony.
    Mr. Eubanks. Oh, I don't know which States right offhand 
but we can certainly supply that information to you.
    Mr. Wolf. I would appreciate that.
    [The information follows:]

    Nine states currently conducted at least 50 percent or more 
Level 1 inspections. They are California, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Idaho, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, West 
Virginia, and Wyoming.

                 placement of office of motor carriers

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. O'Neill, movement of Office of Motor 
Carriers, to where? Just because we came up last year with 
NHTSA, I tend to think that is a good idea. Where do you think, 
it should be placed?
    Mr. O'Neill. Certainly over the years NHTSA has been a much 
more effective agency and a much more effective regulatory 
agency than the Office of Motor Carrier Safety. Just to give 
you an example, for many years the Office of Motor Carrier 
Safety allowed truckers to disconnect their front brakes 
despite the fact that years earlier NHTSA had shown the 
importance of front brakes on tractors and required them on all 
new tractors, so we have had major disconnects between the 
vehicle sides of NHTSA and the Office of Motor Carrier Safety 
in the past.
    At a minimum I think the regulation of the vehicles in use 
could be greatly improved for commercial vehicles if it was 
moved to NHTSA as opposed to the large number of field 
inspections and field staff. I am not sure if that is best in 
NHTSA or somewhere else. But certainly it makes no sense to 
have NHTSA writing rules for new trucks and a different agency 
writing different and sometimes conflicting rules for trucks in 
use.

                                hot line

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Spencer, we will ask the next panel about the 
hot line and ask that it can be manned by a person who can 
interact and find out where you are and what the problem is, 
and so I do think that it would make sense to have more than a 
recording, to have a person there. It is probably not a bad 
idea for anyone to be able to call in if they see something. If 
you are here you will hear the answer, and if not we will let 
you know.
    On the border, and my sense is after this hearing, if the 
administration allows trucks to come across the border from 
Mexico under the current circumstances, there would be 
basically a scandal in the country. My sense is that issue 
certainly will not raise its head this year and maybe not for 
several years to come. There is no way that they could ever get 
the inspection up and running in time by the end of this year.
    So my sense is that that is probably not going to happen.
    Mr. Wytkind. Mr. Chairman, one point. As you know, there is 
a third year just passed by after the administration was under 
NAFTA supposed to begin processing the applications for foreign 
carriers to do business in the U.S. I believe at this date 
since you have not even seen the incremental phase in after 3 
years, in the year 2000 there is no way that a case could be 
made to open the border. Under NAFTA it would be in the entire 
48 States.

                            safety oversight

    Mr. Wolf. The thought of those trucks coming to Virginia 
and New York and Minnesota and places like that without any 
inspection system in place, I completely agree with you.
    The last comment, and I know that there are witnesses from 
the administration, you mentioned the Secretary has put 
together a blue ribbon panel, but the Department has really not 
met its responsibility.
    It took an investigation by the inspector general to move 
out the management at OMC. We were contacting the Department 
about this issues because employees from OMC were coming and 
saying this is what is going on, and we didn't get any 
response. It was like nothing was happening, and so I think the 
Department carries a greater responsibility here than maybe 
they even realize.
    Also the Secretary, who I think is a fine person, was the 
former administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. He 
has been there and he has seen this thing, so I think it is 
more of a responsibility for the Department and more of a 
responsibility for Secretary Slater. The rates in Arkansas are 
not good. If you look at the map of Arkansas, the accidents 
were something in the range of 104 deaths; and in California it 
was 425 or 435. I don't have the exact figure, we will put it 
in the record. And California has 52 congressional districts 
and Arkansas has four--California had 369 fatalities and 
Arkansas had 113 in 1997.
    So if you look at the figures, four congressional districts 
in Arkansas versus 52 in California, I think there is even a 
greater burden, and I am hoping that the Department will come 
forward and come out with some very forward looking, very 
aggressive programs because if this Congress doesn't deal with 
the issue, clearly more people will die in the following years 
if the General Accounting Office figures are accurate.
    So I think the Department has to come forward very, very 
aggressively to participate in this to make it happen. I think 
Secretary Slater will because I know he is interested in this 
and I know safety is a priority, but there is a great 
responsibility for the Department to participate in this to 
make sure that when we adjourn at the end of this year, whether 
it be in October or November or December, this is in place 
because when this is in place there will be a greater 
opportunity for the other things to fall in place. The hours of 
service, the fatigue issue, and the rest stop issue. I am going 
to write the Virginia state police to find out what are other 
States doing because I want the roads in the entire country to 
be safe, but also in my own State.
    Hopefully the Department and everybody will come together 
and they will say there was a major substantive change that 
saved lives and made things better.
    There will be questions for the record, but thank you very 
much for your testimony.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Panel IV Witnesses

    Mr. Wolf. The last panel with General Wykle, Administrator 
of the Federal Highway Administration, Dr. Ricardo Martinez, 
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, and Charles Hunnicutt, Assistant Secretary for 
Aviation and International Affairs of the Office of the 
Secretary, General Wykle, why don't you begin.

     GENERAL KENNETH WYKLE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY 
       ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Wykle. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the critical issue 
of motor carrier and highway safety. As you have noted, with me 
today is Administrator Martinez and Charles Hunnicutt as the 
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, and 
I appreciate the fact that the full statement will be recorded 
in the record.

                        safety: the top priority

    Safety is the top priority for the Department of 
Transportation. The safety of this Nation's transportation 
system is critical to all of us.

                   the motor carrier safety challenge

    Mr. Chairman, we wish to thank you and the subcommittee for 
focusing attention on motor carrier safety. The human toll of 
transportation crashes is devastating, as we have heard today 
from the families of the victims. FHWA is committed to reducing 
this toll. The motor carrier industry has grown dramatically in 
recent years and, as has been noted, there are more than 
450,000 business entities, over 6 million commercial drivers, 
some 7 million commercial vehicles traveling almost 200 billion 
miles per year on the Nation's highway.
    We have kept pace with this and have substantially cut the 
fatality rate per million truck miles traveled but that is not 
enough. While the fatality rate has dropped, the actual number 
of annual truck-related fatalities has remained around 5,000, 
plus or minus 10 percent, since 1969 and the large truck crash 
fatality rate has remained constant in the past few years. 
These numbers are unacceptably high. As a Nation we must break 
through this 5,000 fatality barrier and continue then on to 
fewer and fewer fatalities on the Nation's highways.

                         comprehensive approach

    To reduce the number of truck involved crashes we must 
address the driver, the vehicle, the roadway environment and, 
as Mr. Hall pointed out, leverage technology. We must do this 
in partnership, working as one Department of Transportation 
with the States and local governments and the private sector. 
New technologies and tougher enforcement offer the greatest 
potential for reducing fatalities.

                            the safe driver

    First the driver. FHWA uses education, training, outreach 
measures, combined with safety regulations to enhance driver 
safety. The Commercial Diver's Lcense, CDL program, provides 
uniform standards for the State to issue CDLs to drivers. The 
commercial driver's license information system, CDLIS, enables 
the Federal Highway Administration and its state partners to 
share up-to-date information. The CDL and CDLIS make it easier 
for Federal and state officials to remove unqualified truck 
drivers from the roadway. The Federal Highway Administration 
requires motor carriers to test and assure that drivers do not 
operate vehicles under the influence of alcohol and drugs. And, 
to comment on an earlier question, less than 1 percent of those 
vehicles involved in fatal crashes involve drivers who are on 
drugs. About 1 percent of those in fatal crashes have a BAC 
equal to or greater than 0.1. So a very small percentage are 
using drugs or alcohol who are involved in these crashes.
    Our regulations limit hours of driver service, and we have 
more than 25 completed, ongoing or planned research and 
technology projects focused on monitoring and counteracting 
driver fatigue. The most promising projects involve the use of 
intelligent vehicle initiatives, on board safety diagnostic 
devices to monitor driver alertness. Mr. Hall commented on 
this. We are exploring the use of the global positioning system 
technology by motor carriers to replace the paper logbooks. 
FHWA is continuing safety education initiatives to teach all 
drivers how to safely share the road with large trucks.

                             safe vehicles

    In the area of safe vehicles, FHWA and our partners are 
working to ensure commercial motor vehicles are inspected and 
maintained in safe operating condition. We have required some 
older vehicles to be retrofitted to improve safety. We will 
soon require conspicuity treatment for trucks and trailers to 
enhance their visibility.
    In fiscal year 1999 we distributed, with the support of 
Congress, $90 million in motor carrier safety assistance 
program, MCSAP, funds for the states. About 80 percent of these 
funds support the salaries of state safety inspectors who 
conduct more than 2 million roadside vehicle inspections each 
year. Each year FHWA trains approximately 100 state employees 
to conduct compliance reviews, 1,000 state motor carrier 
enforcement personnel to perform commercial motor vehicle 
inspections, and 500 state MCSAP officers to conduct motor 
coach inspections. The Federal Government funds 33,000 bus 
inspections a year. FHWA has been working closely with the NTSB 
and New Jersey on the recent bus crashes in that state.

                        safe roadway environment

    In the area of roadway environment, FHWA ensures that we 
construct highways and bridges that are safe ``by design''. The 
best example is the interstate system with many features 
designed for commercial motor vehicles. These features include 
roadway, bridge and interchange dimensions, turning and 
acceleration lanes, signals and signs that enhance safety. The 
fatal crash rate for all vehicles on the interstate system is 
about half the rate of all of the other roads.

                 technology to improve safe operations

    In the area of technology to improve safety operations, the 
global positioning system, as has been noted, crash avoidance 
systems like lane following devices, adaptive cruise control, 
lane merging and changing technologies, all have great 
potential to improve the safety of vehicle operations. 
Technology can improve enforcement and compliance. FHWA's 
investigators use the safety status measurement system, 
SAFESTAT, to target high safety risk motor carriers for safety 
compliance.
    We are expanding the performance and registration 
information systems management program under which state 
vehicle registration privileges can be suspended. The 
commercial vehicle information system and network, CVISN, 
integrates Federal, state and private information systems and 
networks which support commercial vehicle safety, roadside 
screening and credentialing. CVISN is being tested in Maryland 
and Virginia and eight other pilot states.

                         future recommendations

    As we look to the future, the inspector general's 1997 
report reviewed the motor carrier safety program and made a 
series of recommendations. We incorporated those 
recommendations into our motor carrier safety legislative 
proposals that the Congress enacted as part of TEA-21 which 
provides a 30 percent increase in funds for state motor carrier 
safety programs and gives us strong enforcement tools to shut 
down companies with poor safety records, increase fines and for 
the first time the authority to close them down the first time. 
Previously there had to be a pattern of misconduct or gross 
negligence. We have much stronger enforcement capability now 
with TEA-21. We are committed to tougher enforcement and we 
will aggressively use the new tools provided by TEA-21. We have 
asked the Public Works Committee chairman, Norman Mineta, to 
conduct a 90-day, independent review of the Department's motor 
carrier safety programs. He will consult with others outside 
the Department and consider whether our efforts are focused on 
actions that will reduce fatalities and injuries. We look 
forward to his report as we continue to improve the 
effectiveness of our motor carrier safety programs.
    Mr. Chairman, the Department is committed to working with 
you and with the Congress, and everyone with the commitment to 
saving lives, to reduce truck crashes. I will be glad to answer 
questions later. At this time, Dr. Martinez.

   RICARDO MARTINEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 
                     SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

    Dr. Martinez. Thank you, General, and thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. It is a pleasure to appear today before you and the 
subcommittee members. As Administrator Wykle pointed out, 
transportation safety is the Secretary's and the 
Administration's top priority as the Nation enters the 21st 
century. NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, 
and reduce traffic-related crashes and their costs. Our mission 
is very pure, very focused. It is to save lives, prevent 
injuries, and reduce traffic-related crashes and their costs. 
It was misstated earlier. That is our primary focus. We have a 
pure safety mission.
    Traffic-related deaths and injuries remain a national 
public health problem. They kill almost 42,000 people a year 
and injure another 3.8 million. The annual economic cost to 
society exceeds $150 billion, and the social costs are 
incalculable. Vehicle occupants accounted for 85 percent of 
traffic fatalities in 1997, with the remaining 15 percent being 
pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-occupants. Large trucks 
were involved in crashes, 13 percent of all fatalities reported 
in 1997.

             haddon matrix on human and vehicle environment

    The Haddon matrix is the model for our approach and program 
design, developed by the first Administrator, who was also a 
physician, William Haddon.
    With a matrix, we expand the focus on the human and vehicle 
environment to three phases of opportunities. They are 
precrash, crash, and after the crash. Each cell of the matrix 
has unique opportunities to prevent the crash, to minimize 
injuries should a crash occur, and to minimize the seriousness 
of the injury once it does occur, which is why we do EMS.

                    the four e's as countermeasures

    Our strategic approach emphasizes the four E's as 
countermeasures: Education and information, engineering and 
technology, enforcement and regulation, and economic 
incentives. We agree there is no magic bullet. We think that 
you have to have a comprehensive plan to attack in all of the 
ways that you can.

                     nhtsa truck safety initiatives

    Mr. Chairman, the issue of truck safety in the United 
States is an important one for the agency. Our strategic plan, 
which was updated in 1998 with the aid of FHWA and the U.S. 
traffic safety community, identified the size and nature of 
truck safety problems. It also addressed a number of critical 
initiatives NHTSA is implementing to improve truck safety. Many 
of these are planned in concert with FHWA's Office of Motor 
Carriers and the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. Our safety programs include vehicle driver and 
environmental issues. Our NHTSA vehicle issues address precrash 
and crash issues, such as automatic braking systems on trucks 
and trailers, research on new electronic braking systems, 
rollover prevention, conspicuity treatments, and truck 
underride guards.
    The National Advanced Driving Simulator will allow better 
research of human factors issues related to truck safety. We 
have a truck body for that purpose. The agency's strong 
enforcement programs ensure that safety benefits required by 
Federal safety standards are realized in all new trucks. Our 
defect investigation and recall programs help assure the safety 
of the in-service vehicle fleet, and while Mr. Pastor asked 
whether we kicked the tires, we rarely do, but we do crash the 
entire vehicle, and we pull them off the road if they are bad.
    NTHSA's initiatives include research on driver fatigue, 
driver workload, and ITS (intelligent transportation systems) 
human factors solutions to safe operator performance. We also 
have major behavior modification programs dedicated to 
aggressive driving, speeding, seat belt use, and impaired 
driving, which affect all drivers on the road--passenger cars, 
and trucks.
    Our national driver register program also complements 
FHWA's CDLIS licensing program, and our environmental programs 
include assuring that post crash medical care is available in 
coordination with rail grade crossing initiatives and design of 
roadside hardware, as it relates to vehicle design.

                               Conclusion

    Mr. Chairman, we are proud of our record. We now have the 
lowest fatality rate in history, the lowest percentage of 
alcohol-related crashes, and the highest seat belt use. We 
believe the best is yet to come through our partnerships with 
others who can help us reduce the terrible toll on highways. We 
stand ready to help, and the Department is committed to 
improving safety. Thank you.
    [The Haddon matrix and joint statement of General Wykle and 
Dr. Martinez follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    CHARLES HUNNICUTT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND 
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT 
                       OF TRANSPORTATION

    Mr. Wolf. Thank you. Mr. Hunnicutt.
    Mr. Hunnicutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee, for inviting me to testify before you about the 
Department's efforts to implement the North American Free Trade 
Agreement's land transportation access liberalization 
provisions. I would like to speak this afternoon about the 
course the Department has been pursuing with respect to 
implementation of the NAFTA, where we are in achieving our 
goals, and what our expectations are for the future.
    It is useful to remember why we included the transportation 
provisions in the NAFTA. Currently, truck trailers and usually 
power units as well, are exchanged in a narrow border zone. 
Allowing international freight hauling in the full border 
states will reduce congestion, improve environmental quality, 
increase efficiency, reduce costs, assure full and continuous 
coverage for bodily injury and property damage liability 
(insurance) and expand competition. This will benefit U.S. 
trucking firms but also all factories and stores that will have 
better supply chains on which to rely. It is also worth noting 
that the ability to travel into the border states without 
changing equipment creates an incentive that is now lacking to 
upgrade equipment. This change in itself will enhance safety 
and reliability while reducing the problems created by an older 
short haul fleet operating at the border.
    With respect to the course the Department has pursued, two 
principles have guided our efforts for more than 3 years and 
will continue to guide our actions as we move ahead with 
implementation. First is the Department's commitment to 
transportation safety. It was because of safety concerns that 
on December 18, 1995, former Secretary Federico Pena announced 
a delay in the lifting of restrictions on Mexican trucking 
operations that would have allowed extended operations into the 
southern border states. Since then, DOT has devoted substantial 
resources to addressing the safety issues associated with NAFTA 
implementation respecting trucks and buses.
    I want to emphasize today what we have said in other 
forums. Under NAFTA there will be no diminution of existing 
safety requirements for any vehicle or driver, foreign or 
domestic, operating in the United States. The second guiding 
principle is this administration's commitment to fulfilling our 
obligation under the agreement to lift restrictions on Mexican 
operators in stages once safety concerns have been addressed.
    Where are we in attaining our goals? Our efforts with 
regard to Mexico have proceeded in four major areas: One, 
standards compatibility among the NAFTA countries; two, 
enhancement of Federal enforcement programs, which I will 
address with regard particularly to the IG report; three, 
enhancement of state enforcement programs; and four, 
strengthening Mexico's regulatory and enforcement programs.
    I believe we have made substantial progress in each of 
these areas. Notwithstanding this progress, we were pleased 
recently to receive the very constructive report of our 
Inspector General's office on the Department's border 
enforcement activities. This report focused our attention on 
additional improvements that are needed in our joint Federal-
state border inspection program. It also made other useful 
recommendations that, when implemented, will assure that 
NAFTA's transport obligations will be met in a fashion that 
provides a credible enforcement presence and maintains a high 
level of public confidence in the safety of all commercial 
vehicles conducting cross border operations.
    The Inspector General's report offered six recommendations 
for additional actions the Department could take that would 
improve the regulatory enforcement and compliance of motor 
carriers engaged in cross-border operations. These 
recommendations include provision of additional resources for 
vehicle inspections, improved identification of Mexican 
vehicles traveling outside the commercial zones, and 
appointment of a department coordinator for NAFTA-related motor 
carrier activities. I am happy to report that the Department 
has formally responded to the Inspector General's office that 
we will implement or already have implemented each of the 
recommendations. All of these actions will be taken prior to 
our implementation of NAFTA's access provisions.
    Finally, I would like to say a few words about what the 
future holds. Since December of 1995, the Department has been 
engaged in more or less nonstop discussions with our Mexican 
colleagues to address concerns regarding implementation of 
NAFTA's transport provisions.
    Those discussions have always been cooperative, and as the 
results that I mention in my prepared text indicate, they have 
been constructive as well. While Mexico's administration would 
have clearly preferred to have seen NAFTA's provisions 
implemented on schedule, they have consistently expressed a 
desire to work with the Department to improve the safety and 
efficiency of commercial truck and bus operations not only in 
cross-border service but throughout Mexico as well. It has been 
this cooperative attitude by Mexico and our determination not 
to proceed with implementation until our concerns were 
addressed that has provided the basis for significant progress 
I outlined earlier in my remarks.
    I would also like to make note of the significant help that 
the Department has received to improve our border compliance 
and enforcement program through Congress's action in passing 
TEA-21. As you know, under the provisions of that legislation 
relating to border related programs, monies are dedicated for 
border infrastructure improvements, including inspection 
facilities. In addition, up to 5 percent of the monies 
dedicated to MCSAP, which provides Federal monies directly to 
state law enforcement agencies for the purpose of enforcing the 
Federal code of motor carrier safety regulations, can be 
directed to our efforts to enhance safety compliance in the 
border states. This will prove to be an important weapon in our 
efforts to improve and maintain cross border highway safety.
    In light of this progress we are now at a point that I 
believe could fairly be described as final negotiations leading 
to lifting cross-border restrictions. In negotiations as 
recently as this month both parties are in agreement as to 
issues that require additional attention. We are in the process 
now of fixing timeframes for the accomplishment of this work. 
If our work proceeds as we anticipate, I am confident that we 
may be able to move toward processing new applications for 
operating authority from Mexican carriers within a reasonable 
period of time. We will be working with Mexico and with the 
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on this issue as the 
implementation process proceeds.
    From the point of view of the negotiator, I do believe that 
it should be possible for this process to begin within a 
reasonable period of time. Through this process we will have 
used the provisions of the agreement to assure that U.S. 
obligations are undertaken responsibly and in a fashion 
consistent with the high expectations of the administration, 
the Congress and the American public for safety on our 
highways. I would like to emphasize, however, one point of 
process. Even with the very good progress we have made on 
safety issues with the government of Mexico, we are structuring 
our implementation process such that each application from a 
Mexican motor carrier will be evaluated on its individual 
merits. Only those carriers receiving approval will be 
permitted to operate beyond the commercial zones; and no 
application will be approved if both the carrier and the 
Mexican Department of Transport have not provided the necessary 
information and functional support that would allow us to make 
a favorable determination about the application.
    I would like to conclude my remarks this afternoon with a 
brief comment on our efforts to secure a more liberal operating 
environment in Mexico for our express package delivery 
industry. As you know, we have been negotiating with Mexico for 
some time on this issue. While progress has been slow, we 
continue to have a commitment from the Mexican transportation 
secretary to come to a resolution that will be satisfactory to 
both parties. We will continue to press this matter with Mexico 
and believe, with a will to solve it and a bit of creative 
thinking that a mutually beneficial solution can be found. Our 
efforts and those of the Mexican transportation department are 
focused in that direction.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hunnicutt follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              nafta issues

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Serrano.
    Mr. Serrano. Your last comment was the first question that 
I wanted to ask you. You painted a pretty glowing picture of 
the relationship with Mexico on this issue and I wondered if 
there were any items not in agreement, outstanding items, which 
could present a problem down the road?
    Mr. Hunnicutt. Yes, there are issues beyond ensuring our 
express delivery rights under the NAFTA agreement. In terms of 
specifics as to the safety regulations that will be implemented 
in Mexico, certification of drug testing laboratories, we have 
a great deal of work to do in a lot of areas. What I would like 
to communicate is that a lot of progress has been made and that 
progress will continue to be made as we work together. I do not 
mean to imply that because we are at the final stages that we 
have reached an agreement. It means that we have reached the 
final stages where we can see the remaining activities that 
have to be categorized and time frames set for implementation 
of changes on the Mexican side of the border and our side of 
the border as we implement the recommendations in the Inspector 
General's report.
    Mr. Serrano. It would seem to us here in Congress and 
certainly the way that our media would present it that we would 
have a lot of concerns about things that may take place in 
Mexico and the way that they do business or their lack of 
conducting business. Do you have any information as to--or 
could you share with us any information as to issues they 
presented where they think we are not doing what we should be 
doing or we are not as good as they are in that department? Has 
it come this way because the sense around here is that we have 
to make them change a lot of their behavior in order to make 
all of NAFTA, not just this part work. Are there some things 
over there that they are saying that we don't do to the benefit 
of people?
    Mr. Hunnicutt. There are some and in their intercity bus 
passenger system, they have a very advanced medical safety and 
security inspection program for drivers. They did not on the 
truck side.
    In reality, in the land transportation subcommittee in the 
NAFTA as we have sought to harmonize standards, it has really 
been U.S. and Canadian standards which have been more developed 
and more advanced. It has been us asking the Mexicans to move 
to our standards.
    In most instances we find that the government officials 
responsible for motor carrier safety in Mexico understand the 
issue and want to move for their own purposes for motor carrier 
safety in Mexico. Of course from our point of view we are 
really only concerned that the system work particularly well 
for those carriers who would apply for operating authority in 
the United States or to cross the United States to Canada, 
which is also included in the NAFTA.
    Mr. Serrano. Mr. Hunnicutt, I would not be honest with you 
if I told you that I remember everything that the NAFTA bill 
said. Some of us never got passed the labor and the 
environmental issues. But these issues that you are discussing 
with us today, this set of issues that you discuss, were they 
specifically set out in the agreement or were they set aside 
later for rulemaking and agreements?
    Mr. Hunnicutt. They set out as absolute matters of right in 
the agreement and in the implementing legislation in the United 
States, but do remember that despite the fact that the rights 
are set out, all three NAFTA countries continue to maintain the 
right to prevent any diminution of safety in the operation of 
their transportation system. So despite that Mexico has a right 
for us to process these applications for their motor carriers 
in the United States, we have a right to refuse to do that 
until we are satisfied that there is no diminution of safety. 
So they are competing obligations.
    Mr. Wolf. I want to tell you that your statement was quite 
frightening, Mr. Hunnicutt, because I was under the impression 
that there would be no way that they would permit this to go 
ahead. What is a reasonable time? You say within a reasonable 
time. Define reasonable for me.
    Mr. Hunnicutt. I am not trying to filibuster. I know that 
there is a lot of interest in these issues. My testimony 
changed somewhat, and one of the reasons that I didn't give a 
specific time as I gave you my oral presentation was the 
feeling was as negotiator, it is not always the best thing to 
set time frames because you are still dealing with a foreign 
government and you don't want them to know what you think the 
time frame is. On the other hand, the technical issues that 
need to be resolved in terms of the completion of the data 
transfer, we have to run some tests. The Mexicans now have 
completed driver information systems which are computerized and 
compatible with our systems. They have carrier data systems 
which are computerized and ready to be tested although not 
completed yet. So the question is looking at the amount of time 
that it would take to complete and test those systems.
    Mr. Wolf. You said that you had implemented the IG's 
report.
    Mr. Hunnicutt. That we have or will.
    Mr. Wolf. One of them was more inspectors. How much more 
money have you asked for inspectors?
    Mr. Hunnicutt. Most of the inspectors that the budget folks 
are looking at, we think we can provide in this fiscal year out 
of existing monies and we are also going back to talk to the 
States.
    Mr. Wolf. They talk about El Paso. Mr. Mead, how many were 
in El Paso?
    Mr. Mead. One.
    Mr. Wolf. One. That is just not appropriate. I don't want 
to spend too much time on this issue. Let me just ask you out 
of courtesy, could you inform us and keep us up to date on the 
negotiations and how well you are moving ahead. I would like to 
hold a hearing, whether it be in December or at another time, 
to look into this, to give the Congress an opportunity to look 
into this before you move ahead. Could you give us a commitment 
that you will come back to the committee before there is 
anything signed?
    Mr. Hunnicutt. We will keep you briefed on the status as we 
move forward.
    Mr. Wolf. Because the record of not only this 
administration but previous Republican administrations have not 
been very good with regard to drugs coming out of Mexico. We 
have heard the stories of how everything is working out and 
everything is fine but yet the supply is still coming across 
the border and the effectiveness has been less than good. So 
when you say very glowingly here, I am very suspicious.
    Mr. Hunnicutt. I understand. One of the reasons that 
Customs, INS and the drug enforcement agencies are interested 
in our reaching a solution to this problem is the relieving of 
the congestion and the status of the current border situation, 
which would allow greater control for the other enforcement 
agencies. So I think that is an important element here of why 
we do want to solve the border problem.
    Mr. Wolf. Does Mexico have a driver's hours of service?
    Mr. Hunnicutt. Yes. Mexico is adopting the Canadian and 
U.S. logbook. They will have their own hours of service 
regulations which will be slightly different than ours, but the 
logbook will be the North American standard logbook which 
allows U.S. inspectors to ensure that they have met the 
obligations once they are in the U.S.
    Mr. Wolf. So that is not done yet?
    Mr. Hunnicutt. Not officially adopted.
    Mr. Wolf. What about vehicle maintenance standards?
    Mr. Hunnicutt. They have the CVSA standards.
    Mr. Wolf. The IG report says they do not.
    Mr. Hunnicutt. The State of Arizona has trained a lot of 
the CVSA inspectors as part of their contribution to the 
process.
    Mr. Wolf. The IG report says they do not. They are wrong?
    Mr. Hunnicutt. I think they are wrong, actually.
    Mr. Wolf. If you could clear that up for the record.
    Mr. Mead. We will.
    [The information follows:]

    Mexico agreed to use CVSA standards, but as of December 
1998, there was neither evidence an inspection program was in 
place nor an indication when standards would be implemented.

    Mr. Wolf. Does Mexico have a safety rating system?
    Mr. Hunnicutt. It is in the same regulations that are 
prepared and not yet. What they have is an up or down system 
for their carriers where they can take their operating 
authority away.
    Mr. Wolf. So they do not as of yet?
    Mr. Hunnicutt. They have a pass-fail rating system.
    Mr. Wolf. If you can let the committee know before you do 
it, I would appreciate it.
    General Wykle, there was a comment made by somebody in the 
Federal Highway Administration, and I am not out to hurt 
anybody, but this is the comment. They said that the Office of 
Motor Carriers, and I will be glad to share with you privately, 
they said the Office of Motor Carriers is doing a good job. It 
has in place an effective enforcement program and that what OMC 
should be doing is spending more of its resources on a public 
relations campaign.
    Do you share that attitude?
    Mr. Wykle. Sir, we have a lot of great employees within the 
agency that are doing good work and so we have made progress in 
terms of reducing the fatality rate, but certainly we have a 
lot more that we can do. We want to reduce the actual number of 
fatalities and to me that is a lot more than a PR campaign.

                           compliance reviews

    Mr. Wolf. The compliance review is an essential component 
of both Federal and state commercial vehicle safety programs. 
The number of compliance reviews conducted has declined by 
roughly 50 percent since fiscal year 1995. Let me stipulate 
that you were not there then.
    Nr. Wykle. Right.
    Mr. Wolf. You have a distinguished career in the military 
and are a gentleman and so I am not attributing this decline to 
you. I have had that conversation with you privately, but I 
want the record to show that.
    They have declined by 50 percent since fiscal year 1995. 
What will the Department do to further encourage the states to 
conduct compliance reviews seeing that they have dropped so 
dramatically?
    Mr. Wykle. As we heard the IG say and also the GAO, in 
their 1997 reports they indicated at that time that the agency 
did not have a good system for determining which carriers to go 
conduct reviews on, so we initiated after that or those reports 
a performance based system to focus on those carriers that had 
the highest risk in terms of being prone to crashes. And that 
really looks at their past record. It looks at the licensing of 
their drivers. It looks at the registration of their vehicles 
and it looks at their past compliance history.
    So when you look in that great level of detail, it takes 
more time to do compliance reviews because they are more 
thorough in terms of doing that. We actually go in and look at 
their drug and alcohol testing results, do an analysis of their 
crashes and conducting the 50 state license check, as was 
mentioned earlier, to ensure that they don't have multiple 
licenses. So when you do that it takes more time. So we are 
working to correct the highest risk carriers.
    I heard the various comments in terms of the number of 
compliance reviews that have been done, and I admit that they 
have gone down or are going down, but there are a lot of 
different ways to slice that data.
    If you look at it as the IG said in terms of two compliance 
reviews per inspector per month, that is one way. If you look 
at the number being conducted throughout the states, a little 
bit over 6,000 per year, then that works out to one in each 
state every other day so that gives you a little different 
picture because sometimes there are two or three people working 
on a review so the output per individual is not the same as 
when you look at it cumulative.
    As I mentioned in my oral statement, we are going to put 
more emphasis on the enforcement side. We need to put more 
emphasis there, but recognizing that as we do them it takes 
more time than it has in the past because of the focused effort 
and the thoroughness of those reviews.

                          PENALTY ASSESSMENTS

    Mr. Wolf. The IG testified that on 12 percent of the 
trucking violations found result in penalty assessments and 
settlements amount to 45 percent of the dollar amounts 
assessed. Why have the civil penalty assessments and 
settlements decreased in recent years?
    Mr. Wykle. As you go in and find a carrier out of 
compliance, before you assess a penalty you give them an 
opportunity to make corrections. If they make corrections, then 
a penalty is not assessed. So when you use the IG's data and 
you look at the total number of carriers that were found out of 
compliance versus the penalties, that is the wrong measure 
because many of them may have corrected data so you are using 
the wrong number in terms of computing the actual penalty 
assessed.
    Mr. Wolf. Several witnesses earlier today indicated the 
lower the fine, the more likelihood that the company would just 
consider it the cost of doing business. What are your comments 
about that?
    Mr. Wykle. Certainly that is a view and I won't deny that 
view, but I would say to you, thanks to you and thanks to the 
Congress and TEA-21, we can now levy much more severe penalties 
than we could in the past. For the first time we could levy a 
penalty up to $10,000. So we were limited in terms of the 
amount in the past. Even today we are limited to the $10,000, 
but we then have the capability of fully shutting them down 
without showing a pattern.
    Mr. Wolf. Have any been shut down?
    Mr. Wykle. I can't give you an example.
    [The information follows:]

    In 1997, FHWA issued a total of 17 operations out-of-
service orders to carriers, and in 1998, 36 operations out-of-
service orders were issued. These numbers include shutdowns of 
hazardous materials carriers, passenger carriers, and other 
operations posing an imminent hazard. A draft proposed rule to 
implement the new, TEA-21 operations out-of-service authority 
for all unfit carriers is currently under review within the 
Department.

                        INSPECTOR GENERAL SURVEY

    Mr. Wolf. The Inspector General testified that 47 percent 
of the OMC personnel surveyed rated OMC's enforcement program 
as poor to fair.
    Mr. Wykle. I am certainly not happy with those numbers and 
that assessment in terms of the view of the people within the 
agency. But I would say to you the IG could just as well have 
said 53 percent thought it was good to excellent. If you look 
at that data, it is pretty much a bell shaped curve in terms of 
the data the IG looked at in the various five categories. It is 
slightly skewed to the right, which is on the lower side, but 
it is pretty close to the bell shaped curve. But having said 
all of that, we want to do better and we will work to try to 
change the attitude of the individuals in the organization, to 
understand the importance of doing these reviews and doing them 
in a quality manner.

                          LOBBYING ALLEGATIONS

    Mr. Wolf. What actions did the Department take on the 
lobbying activity with regard to the trucking association and 
the staff at OMC?
    Mr. Wykle. Let me say first of all, sir, I do not approve 
of the action that was taken. It is not something that we in 
any way support or encourage within the Department, and so I 
have taken action right away to conduct a complete review of 
that with the personnel people and the legal people to ensure 
that the action they might take from a decision standpoint will 
be supportable under scrutiny and appeal. We are about ready to 
act on that. As you know, in the report that came back as part 
of the IG submission through part of our organizational change, 
two of the people involved are now in another position so I do 
have----
    Mr. Wolf. Was anybody fired?
    Mr. Wykle. At this point that action has not been taken and 
we haven't made a determination until we finish the legal and 
personnel review.
    Mr. Wolf. Will you keep us informed because the 
determination will make a difference as to whether or not----
    Mr. Wykle. Sure. Absolutely, I will do that. I will also 
say to you, sir, I mentioned this to you a couple of weeks ago 
when we worked together, I have already also had a session 
where our lawyers briefed every senior executive within the 
agency on the anti-lobbying bill and pointed out the 
inappropriateness of that and what the appropriate action 
should be. So I am educating the entire senior executive 
service as well as reviewing the report itself.

                    ORGANIZATIONAL PLACEMENT OF OMC

    Mr. Wolf. To both General Wykle and Dr. Martinez then, and 
I am not going to put you in a spot, doctor, and ask you if you 
favor moving this to NHTSA or anything like that, but if you 
could both think about these questions. Wouldn't a combination 
of NHTSA and OMC help improve the Federal-state relationship 
and highway safety? Won't state officials have to deal with 
fewer Federal officials? Wouldn't one-stop shopping for 
technical assistance regarding grant administration be 
facilitated instead of preparing two performance-based plans--
one for MCSAP and one for Section 4402? Couldn't state 
officials be required to combine both state programs, meaning 
wouldn't it be easier for the states? This has no bearing as to 
whether you think it should be. We are not going to ask you 
that but, I mean, is there some truth in that? Perhaps we will 
let you go first, doctor.
    Dr. Martinez. With regards to the regional offices, we 
actually have regional teams that are working together with 
motor carriers. One of the reasons why there has been greater 
focus on behavioral human factors issues and programs is that 
we found ourselves going out to the same people but different 
agencies. So we began to work more closely that way. We have 
two states, I believe, which have pilot projects combining the 
MCSAP and Section 4402 program plans.

               STATES WITH MCSAP AND SECTION 402 PROGRAMS

    Mr. Wolf. What other states?
    Dr. Martinez. I don't know off the top of my head. I really 
don't.
    Mr. Wolf. You'll submit it for the record?
    Dr. Martinez. Yes.
    [The information follows:]

    The two states which are pilot testing a combined MCSAP/
Section 402 plan for fiscal year 2000 are Illinois and 
Missouri.

    Mr. Wolf. General.
    Dr. Martinez. I wasn't finished but----

                 COMPARISON OF NHTSA AND OMC FUNCTIONS

    Mr. Wolf. Go ahead.
    Dr. Martinez. In that regard, there are similar functions 
and similar issues that we are doing. Do you want me to just 
talk about those, or were you asking about the overall?
    Mr. Wolf. We are down to about 10 minutes. Why don't you 
develop this for the record. We have a lot of other questions.
    Dr. Martinez. I would just say there are areas where we 
have similar functions, and there are areas where we have 
different functions, and you have to look closely to be able to 
assess this situation.
    Mr. Wolf. If you could give the committee an indication 
where they are similar or where they are different to see if 
they could mix or not. General, maybe can you do the same 
thing.
    Mr. Wykle. Sure. We will certainly do that and provide 
information to you, and we are working closely together in 
several areas, as Ric mentioned. I mean, in the same 
communities we have worked as a team in that and our 
restructuring effort. I have committed, and they are already on 
board, one Federal highway liaison person to every NHTSA 
regional office because, as I indicated in my oral statement, 
safety by design in terms of our infrastructure is important so 
what Ric does may impact on the physical infrastructure or what 
we do on a physical infrastructure may impact on something he 
wants to do. So we are working together. We have gotten very 
glowing comments back in terms of that relationship.
    Dr. Martinez. I believe five of those who volunteered to 
start working with us are from the office of motor carriers, so 
there are some opportunities there.
    Mr. Wolf. We will just submit the other questions for the 
record in lieu of the time. Otherwise, you would have to come 
back and it would go on and on and on.
    [The information follows:]

    Mr. Wolf. General Wykle, describe the similarities and 
differences in the truck safety programs conducted by NHTSA and 
FHWA (OMCHS).
    [The information follows:]
    Although the two agencies have separate statutory 
responsibilities for safety activity, their programs to improve 
truck safety are often conducted in a shared, coordinated 
fashion. A number of their programs in fact directly complement 
and support each other. In vehicle safety, NHTSA is responsible 
for regulating manufacturers of heavy trucks, buses and 
trailers, while OMCHS regulates the operation of commercial 
motor vehicles. NHTSA's safety assurance office tests new 
vehicles for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards, and conducts defects investigations and safety 
recalls concerning commercial motor vehicles. FHWA's 
enforcement program focuses on the operational safety of motor 
carriers, drivers, and vehicles. NHTSA rulemaking activities 
are coordinated with OMCHS.
    NHTSA conducts truck research which supports the vehicle 
regulatory agenda of both agencies. For example, NHTSA's 
research on antilock braking systems (ABS) provided information 
to support NHTSA's requirements for new vehicles and helped 
OMCHS assess the feasibility of requiring retrofitting older 
vehicles with ABS. NHTSA's conspicuity research was the basis 
for OMCHS' retrofitting rulemaking on conspicuity. FHWA's 
research on brake adjustment criteria provided the NHTSA with 
useful information to evaluate its requirements for automatic 
brake adjusters. OMCHS driver research program is used to 
support regulatory initiatives concerning minimum standards for 
commercial motor vehicle operators, such as hours of service 
and licensing. NHTSA's driver research is used to support 
regulatory initiatives concerning the design of new vehicles.
    OMCHS administers the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance 
Program (MCSAP) which provides funds to States for the 
enforcement of commercial motor vehicle safety regulations. 
NHTSA provides Section 402 highway safety grants to States to 
implement effective programs to improve highway safety. FHWA 
grant recipients are generally enforcement agencies, while 
NHTSA's recipients are the Governors Highway Safety 
Representatives.
    NHTSA's crash databases cover all types of highway crashes, 
OMCHS's databases focus on commercial motor vehicle crashes and 
inspections.
    OMCHS uses NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System 
(FARS) to support rulemaking activity and obtain an overall 
picture of fatalities and injuries involving commercial motor 
vehicles. OMCHS maintains the Commercial Driver Licensing 
Information System (CDLIS) that contains the driving records of 
all Commercial Driver License (CDL) holders; NHTSA maintains 
the National Driver Register (NDR) which contains State reports 
on drivers whose privileges have been suspended or revoked. The 
CDLIS is used to ensure that each CDL holder has only one 
license and one driving record. The NDR is used to identify 
problem drivers in need of improvement and drivers under 
suspension and revocation.
    Mr. Wolf. Dr. Martinez, describe the similarities and 
differences in the truck safety programs conducted by NHTSA and 
FHWA (OMCHS).
    [The information follows:]
    Although the two agencies have separate statutory 
responsibilities for safety activity, their programs to improve 
truck safety are often conducted in a shared, coordinated 
fashion. A number of NHTSA's programs, in fact, directly 
complement and support the functions of OMCHS. In vehicle 
safety, NHTSA is responsible for regulating the safety 
performance of new trucks, while OMCHS issues regulations 
covering the in-service operating fleet. NHTSA has a separate 
vehicle enforcement program, but it ensures improved safety of 
both new and in-service trucks. NHTSA's enforcement office 
tests new vehicles for compliance with Federal rules, and 
conducts defect investigations and safety recalls affecting all 
trucks in operation. FHWA's enforcement program focuses on the 
operational safety of motor carriers. It concentrates on issues 
such as driver hours of service and licensing, and the safe 
operating condition of trucks on the road. Its field 
enforcement responsibilities are much more extensive that 
NHTSA's field-based enforcement programs. NHTSA's rulemaking 
and enforcement affecting trucks are coordinated with OMCHS. 
NHTSA conducts truck research, which supports the vehicle 
regulatory agenda and advances safety performance of the entire 
fleet in areas such as braking, on-board stability monitoring 
(to prevent truck rollover), and collision avoidance 
technology. Research results are shared with OMCHS and the 
industry. NHTSA is also conducting research in direct support 
of OMCHS regulation of carrier operations, for example, to 
develop new systems that will provide information to truck 
drivers about levels of fatigue and drowsiness. NHTSA augments 
its national crash and injury data files to include truck 
safety data needed by OMCHS, and crash data and analyses are 
provided to OMCHS and the motor carrier industry.
    NHTSA's highway safety activities address national issues 
such as impaired drivers, aggressive driving, speed, and 
occupant protection, and affect all facets of surface 
transportation. A number of these (including speed management 
and aggressive driving) have been collaborated with FHWA. NHTSA 
has several programs, such as EMS and automatic crash 
notification (ACN), which affect the overall roadway 
environment (which falls under the aegis of FHWA). There are a 
number of other areas where NHTSA's behavioral safety work 
directly supports OMCHS, such as Share The Road public 
education, educational and testing materials for truck driver 
licensing, and the agency's National Driver Register which is 
checked for license revocations, suspensions and serious 
traffic offenses as a required part of state licensing of truck 
drivers (which is complemented by the OMCHS Commercial Driver 
Licensing Information System--CDLIS). Both NHTSA and OMCHS 
manage separate processes for providing safety grants to 
states. NHTSA provides Section 402 grants and oversees 
incentive grants to improve alcohol safety, safety belt usage, 
and state traffic data systems. OMCHS administers the MCSAP 
grants to improve operational safety of trucks. Recently, 
however, the two agencies have undertaken a demonstration that 
coordinates Section 402 and MCSAP in two states, and plan to 
evaluate the merger's effectiveness. Each agency conducts 
regional operations, and these are increasingly coordinated to 
embody an intermodal approach on issues of mutual concern, such 
as occupant protection.

    Mr. Wolf. I want to thank the three of you and all the 
witnesses for, you know, coming and providing us good 
information. Hopefully working together, at the end of this 
Congress we could have a good chance to bring about safety. 
Thank you very much.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                           W I T N E S S E S

                               __________
                                                                   Page
Edwards, Mark....................................................1, 260
Eubanks, Harry...................................................1, 354
Hall, Jim........................................................1, 173
Hunnicutt, Charles...............................................1, 537
Izer, Daphne.....................................................  1, 3
LaPointe, Sgt. Mike.............................................. 1, 51
Martinez, Ricardo................................................1, 466
McCormick, Walter................................................1, 290
Mead, Kenneth.................................................... 1, 83
O'Neill, Brian...................................................1, 375
Pierce, Bonnie................................................... 1, 43
Scheinberg, Phyllis..............................................1, 209
Spencer, Todd....................................................1, 386
Stone, Judy......................................................1, 316
Wykle, Kenneth...................................................1, 465
Wytkind, Edward..................................................1, 397


                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

                     Federal Highway Administration
        [Does not include Surface Transportation Safety Hearing]

                                                                   Page
Accident Fatality Rates..........................................  1377
ADHS Program Allocations.........................................  1046
ADHS--Cost to Complete...........................................  1044
Administrative Expenses..........................................  1100
Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program............................  1113
Advisory Board...................................................  1178
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS)....................  1046
    ADHS--Cost to Complete.......................................  1042
    ADHS--Program Allocations....................................  1044
    Status of ADHS Funds.........................................  1059
Border Inspections...............................................   583
Bridge...........................................................   983
Central Artery...................................................  1343
Central Artery--Consultant Personnel.............................  1347
Central Artery--Cost Analysis....................................  1344
Central Artery--Estimated Number of Consultant Staff.............  1348
Central Artery--Staffing Levels..................................  1346
Clean Air Act Studies and Research...............................  1386
Commercial Driver's License Training Program.....................   580
Community/Federal Information Partnership Participation Program..  1105
Comparison of NHTSA and OMC Functions............................   561
Compliance Reviews...............................................   558
Comprehensive Approach...........................................   465
Construction Industry Unemployment Rates.........................  1379
Decline in Truck Crash Fatality Rate.............................   586
Deficient Bridges................................................  1374
Demonstration Projects...........................................  1348
Demonstration Projects--Carry Over Funds.........................  1349
Demonstration Projects--ISTEA Demonstration Projects.............  1350
Demonstration Projects--Obligations/Obligation Limitation........  1349
Demonstration Projects--Unobligated Balances/Appropriated 
  Projects.......................................................  1351
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program........................  1397
Discretionary Programs...........................................   981
Discretionary Program Project Benefits...........................  1007
Discretionary Program Recipients.................................   982
Discretionary Program Selection Criteria.........................  1004
Discretionary Programs--Post-Award Review........................  1007
DOT Rail-Highway Grade Crossing..................................  1149
Draft Road Map-Planning Research.................................  1173
Enforcement......................................................   571
Environment......................................................  1178
Environmental Research...........................................  1180
Environmental Research Program Accomplishments...................  1189
Estimated Transit Transfer.......................................   959
Excess Capacity Highway Construction Industry....................  1379
Exempt Programs..................................................   980
Federal-Aid Estimated Fiscal Year 200 Obligation Limitation......  1364
Federal-Aid Funding for Operations...............................  1241
Federal-Aid Highway Construction Price Trends....................  1377
Federal-Aid Highway Obligations..................................  1352
Federal-Aid Highway Obligations by Program.......................  1354
Federal-Aid Highways--Local Matching Requirements................  1062
Ferry Boat.......................................................   984
FHWA Hazardous Materials Team....................................   579
FHWA Opening Remarks.............................................   465
FHWA Relationship with State Partners............................   586
FHWA Resource Centers............................................   953
Field Office Restructuring.......................................   951
Field Office Supervisor-To-Employee Ratio........................  1091
Field Operations Staff Breakdown.................................  1091
FTE Levels.......................................................  1090
Future Recommendations...........................................   467
General Accounting Office Report--High Speed Rail Issues.........  1069
Global Warming...................................................  1396
Government Performance and Results Act...........................  1095
High Speed Rail Corridor Crossing Hazard Elimination.............  1009
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program............  1011
Highway Research Program Planned Activities......................  1132
Highway Trust Fund Balances in the Outyears......................  1368
Highway Trust Fund Spending Versus Receipts Highway Account......  1366
Information Systems Security Plan................................  1075
Information Technology...........................................  1075
In-House Research Projects.......................................  1382
Inspector General Survey.........................................   559
Integrated Safety Information....................................  1157
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Planning Activities.....  1220
Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) Program.....................  1217
Intelligent Vehicle Research.....................................  1217
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model......................1140, 1142
International Activities.........................................  1199
Intelligent Allocations..........................................  1199
Intelligent Scanning Trips.......................................  1199
Interstate Maintenance...........................................   987
Interstate Maintenance Program...................................  1010
Interstate Pavement Conditions by State..........................  1370
Investments in Transit...........................................   958
ISTEA Transit Obligations........................................   959
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS):
    ITS--Advances................................................  1227
    ITS--Advance National Systems and Standards Work.............  1306
    ITS--Allocation of Research and Operational Funds............  1223
    ITS--Authorized Funds by TEA-21..............................  1296
    ITS--Comparison of FY 2000 Budget/FY 1998 Spending 
      Allocation/FY 1999 Spending................................  1263
    ITS--Consumer Preference.....................................  1222
    ITS--Contracts...............................................  1290
    ITS--Crash Avoidance Research--GWU, LUS and Univ. of AL......  1295
    ITS--Deployment in Rural Areas...............................  1236
    ITS--Distribution of Funds for Research and Operational Test.  1236
    ITS--Energy Savings..........................................  1249
    ITS--Environmental Benefits..................................  1246
    ITS--Estimated Allocation....................................  1241
    ITS--Expenditures on ITS Deployment..........................  1240
    ITS--Federally-Funded ITS Projects...........................  1334
    ITS--FHWA's Tracking System..................................  1242
    ITS--Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Related Projects............  1282
    ITS--Incident Management.....................................  1262
    ITS--Increase Funding for Evaluations........................  1244
    ITS--Inspector General's Audit--House Report 105-648.........  1303
    ITS--Inter-Modal Freight Activities..........................  1254
    ITS--Investment Achievements.................................  1288
    ITS--Investments.............................................  1249
    ITS--Mainstreaming Activities................................  1252
    ITS--Management Improvement..................................  1290
    ITS--Market Demand...........................................  1221
    ITS--Market/ITS User Acceptance Research.....................  1316
    ITS--Model Deployment Initiative.............................  1256
    ITS--National ITS Program Plan...............................  1239
    ITS--Objectives/Safety.......................................  1229
    ITS--Obligations for FY 1998.................................  1229
    ITS--Obligations for FY 1999.................................  1230
    ITS--Operational Tests or Earmarked Deployment Projects......  1296
    ITS--Performance Criteria and Safety Evaluations.............  1293
    ITS--Personnel Assigned to the JPO...........................  1304
    ITS--Policy Assessment Evaluations...........................  1246
    ITS--R&D Funds...............................................  1293
    ITS--RABA....................................................  1338
    ITS--Reports or Strategic Plans..............................  1238
    ITS--Research and Operational Tested Technologies............  1228
    ITS--Research Projects.......................................  1235
    ITS--Review of the IVI Program--House 105-648................  1295
    ITS--Spending Plan...........................................  1224
    ITS--Spending/Obligations for RT-TRACS Projects..............  1259
    ITS--Standards Development...................................  1289
    ITS--Standards Testing.......................................  1315
    ITS--Standards Work..........................................  1309
    ITS--Strategic Plan..........................................  1230
    ITS--Strategic Vision........................................  1233
    ITS--Studies Assessing Cost and Benefits of ITS..............  1320
    ITS--Training................................................  1232
    ITS--Use of Funds Appropriated in FY 1999....................  1234
    ITS--Use of Program Support Funds............................  1304
    ITS--User Services...........................................  1228
ITS Mainstreaming Activities--FY 1997 to FY 2000.................  1251
Key Safety Challenges and DOT Responses..........................   566
Key Stakeholders.................................................  1118
Limitation on Administrative Expenses............................  1073
Lobbying Allegations.............................................   559
Local Matching Requirements......................................  1110
Local Share Requirements.........................................  1025
Major Impact.....................................................  1117
Major Research Topics or Activities..............................  1177
Marketing Highway Related Technologies Abroad....................  1206
Minimum Allocation/Guarantee and Emergency Relief Data...........  1361
Miscellaneous Programs Budget Authority and Obligations..........  1359
Motor Carrier Management Information System......................   581
National Advanced Driving Simulator..............................  1216
National Corridor Planning and Development and Coordinated Border 
  Infrastructure.................................................  1012
National Rural Development Program...............................  1103
National Rural Development Program Allocation....................  1104
National Technology Deployment Initiative........................  1210
Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPYS).................  1209
OMCHS Relationship with Industry.................................   576
On-Board Safety Devices..........................................   581
One DOT Internet Web Site........................................  1074
Opening Remarks..................................................   465
Organizational Placement of OMC................................560, 589
Organizational Placement of OMCHS................................   577
Other Programs...................................................  1023
Pan American Highway Institute...................................  1201
Pavement Conditions..............................................  1372
Pavements........................................................  1159
Penalty Assessments..............................................   558
Performance Measures.............................................  1167
Planning.........................................................  1165
Policy...........................................................  1194
Policy Research Program..........................................  1194
Predictive Models for Particulate Matter.........................  1181
Priority of Motor Carrier Safety.................................   565
Program Coordination.............................................  1114
Public Lands Highway.............................................   988
R&T Carryover Funds..............................................  1135
RABA (Revenue Aligned Budget Authority)..........................  1014
RABA Allocation Research and Technology..........................  1020
RABA--Budget Scoring.............................................  1020
RABA--State Ratios...............................................  1016
RABA--State Distribution of RABA.................................  1018
RABA--TCSP Program-RABA Funds....................................  1041
Read Your Road Partnership Program...............................  1144
Red Light Running Campaign.......................................  1155
Redistribution of Unobligated Federal-Aid Authority..............  1357
Research and Development Contractors.............................  1381
Research and Technology Program..................................  1117
Research on UV Headlights........................................  1146
Safe Roadway Environment.........................................   466
Safe Vehicles....................................................   466
Safety of Pedestrian and Bicycles................................  1148
Safety Research..............................................1139, 1156
Safety Research Development......................................  1143
Safety: The Top Priority.........................................   465
Scenic Byways....................................................   993
State Infrastructure Banks (SIB).................................  1070
SIB Allocations..................................................  1070
SIB Unobligated Balance..........................................  1072
Staffing--Executive Director's Office............................  1082
Staffing--Office of Chief Counsel................................  1083
Staffing--Office of Civil Rights.................................  1086
Staffing--Office of Program Quality Coordination.................  1089
Staffing--Office of Public Affairs...............................  1087
Staffing--Office of the Deputy Federal Highway Administrator.....  1081
Staffing--Office of the Federal Highway Administrator............  1080
State Apportionment of Bridge Funds..............................  1360
State Distribution of RABA.......................................  1018
State Infrastructure Banks (SIB).................................  1070
State Planning and Research (SP&R) and National Cooperative 
  Highway Research...............................................  1386
Statement of Kenneth R. Wykle and Ricardo Martinez...............   471
    Achieving a Breakthrough with Technology.....................   478
    Comprehensive Approach.......................................   473
    Conclusion...................................................   485
    CVISN........................................................   479
    ONE DOT Management...........................................   484
    Roadside Identification Feasibility..........................   480
    Safety is Top Priority.......................................   471
    Technology for Enforcement and Compliance....................   478
    Technology to Improve Driver Performance.....................   480
    Technology to Improve Vehicle Safety.........................   482
    The Motor Carrier Safety Challenge...........................   472
    The Safe Driver..............................................   474
    The Safe Vehicle.............................................   475
    The Safe Roadway Environment.................................   477
States With MCSAP and Section 402 Programs.......................   560
Status of ADHS Funds.............................................  1059
Strategic Planning for STR.......................................  1119
Structures.......................................................  1160
Surface Transportation Program...................................  1008
Surface Transportation Research..................................  1121
Sustainable Transportation Initiative............................  1165
TCSP Additional Grant Award Timeframe............................  1038
TCSP Grant Awards Status.........................................  1037
TCSP Program Criteria............................................  1039
TCSP Program--RABA Funds.........................................  1041
TCSP Proposals...................................................  1025
Technology to Improve Safe Operations............................   467
The Motor Carrier Safety Challenge...............................   465
The Safe Driver..................................................   466
TIFIA Budgetary Impact...........................................  1066
TIFIA Projects...................................................  1064
TIFIA Selection Criteria.........................................  1065
TIFIA Transit Project Evaluation.................................  1067
Training Activities..............................................  1077
TRANSIMS.........................................................  1168
TRANSIMS Activities..............................................  1171
TRANSIMS Funding.................................................  1170
Transportation Administrative Service Center (TASC)..............  1073
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot 
  Program (TCSP).................................................  1024
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) 
  of 1998........................................................  1064
Transportation Needs In National Parks...........................  1102
Tren Urbano......................................................  1340
Tren Urbano--Commonwealth's Highway Funds........................  1341
Tren Urbano--Minillas Extension..................................  1342
Tren Urbano--State and Federal Investment........................  1341
Truck Size and Weight Study......................................  1198
University Transportation Centers Program........................  1112
West Virginia--Corridor H Status.................................  1060

                     Federal Transit Administration

Access to Jobs:
    Reverse Commute Grants.......................................  1467
    Temporary Assistance to Needy Families...................1469, 1490
    Welfare to Work..............................................  1469
    FY 1999 Access to job Grant Awards...........................  1470
    Operating Expenses...........................................  1469
    Information Sharing..........................................  1548
Administrative Expenses:
    Advances and Reimbursements..................................  1403
    FTE..........................................................  1406
    FY 2000 Hiring Plan................................1405, 1408, 1437
    Proposed Staffing Increases..............................1404, 1407
    Reimbursement to the Inspector General.......................  1404
    Annual Incremental Costs of the Metropolitan Offices.........  1412
    Field Operations Staff.......................................  1438
    Information Technology Activities..................1439, 1441, 1452
    Onboard Positions............................................  1413
    Political Appointees.........................................  1438
    Salary and Benefits..........................................  1412
    Y2K Compliance program...................................1411, 1455
Advanced Technology Transit Bus..................................  1569
Advanced Vehicle Program.........................................  1532
Airports Served by Rapid Transit Lines...........................  1523
Alaska Railroad..................................................  1499
Annual Accident Data.............................................  1759
Annual Incremental Costs of the Metropolitan Offices.............  1412
Average Age of Bus Fleets....................................1777, 1780
Average Real Labor Compensation..................................  1776
BART Extension to the Airport....................................  1620
Bay Area Raid Transit (BART):
    Extension to the Airport.................................1620, 1795
    BART Financial Support.......................................  1621
    BART Cost Increases..........................................  1795
    BART Funding Sources.........................................  1797
Bus Obligations..................................................  1783
Bus Procurement Grants...........................................  1783
Bus Rapid Transit................................................  1546
Bus Testing......................................................  1567
Capital Funding..................................................  1777
Chemical/Biological Agent Detection Program......................  1524
Clean Fuels Formula Program..................................1500, 1503
Daily Journeys to Work on Transit in the U.S.....................  1756
DELPHI--Automated Accounting System Conversion...................  1449
Drug and Alcohol Testing Program.................................  1463
East St. Louis Metrolink Project.............................1596, 1602
EGM&M--Electronic Grant Making and Management System.............  1442
Electronic Commerce Program......................................  1445
Enterpirse Network Management Structure..........................  1448
Equipment and Infrastructure Activities and Products.............  1531
Existing FFGAs...................................................  1571
Farebox Recovery.................................................  1758
Field Operations Staff...........................................  1438
Financial Management Systems Funding Requirements................  1450
Finanical Oversight Activities...................................  1461
Formula Apportionments by State..................................  1752
Formula Programs.......................................1491, 1501, 1727
FTE..............................................................  1406
Fuel Cell Bus Program:
    Fuel Cell Bus Program........................................  1534
    Georgetown Fuel Cell Program.............................1534, 1536
    PEMFC........................................................  1536
    PAFC.........................................................  1537
Full Funding Grant Agreements:
    Existing FFGAs...............................................  1571
    Proposed FFGAs...............................................  1589
    FY 2000 FFGA Ratings.........................................  1593
    Revenue Operating Date.......................................  1598
FY 2000 Hiring Plan....................................1405, 1408, 1437
Garrett A. Morgan Initiative.....................................  1511
Georgetown Fuel Cell Bus Program.............................1534, 1536
Information Data Outreach for LAPD...............................  1528
Information Technology Activities......................1439, 1441, 1452
International Mass Transportation Program........................  1457
International Program............................................  1550
Long Island Railroad East Side Access (LIRR).................1496, 1790
Los Angeles:
    Mid-City and Eastside....................................1601, 1611
    North Hollywood Extension................................1610, 1612
    Pasadena/Blue Line Construction..............................  1615
    Special Master Ruling/Bus Consent Decree.................1601, 1612
Mass Transit Account.............................................  1772
Military Technology Adaptable to Transit.........................  1622
Minneapolis Light Rail...........................................  1604
National Transportation Database.......................1403, 1513, 1549
New Starts:
    Full Funding Grant Agreements:
         Existing FFGAs.................................  1571
         Proposed FFGAs.................................  1589
         FY 2000 FFGA Ratings...........................  1593
         Revenue Operating Date.........................  1598
    New Starts Projects..........................1586, 1592, 1597, 1674
    New Starts Pipelines.........................................  1587
    Disposition of New Start Earmarks............................  1676
    Unobligated Balances.........................................  1680
    Rating Criteria..........................................1593, 1705
    Dear Colleague Letter on New Starts..........................  1704
    Administrator Linton's Letter on New Start Process Changes...  1698
    New Starts Evaluation and Ratings........................1674, 1709
New Transit Investments..........................................  1551
Obligated Bus Projects...........................................  1637
Olympic Games................................................1493, 1606
Onboard Positions................................................  1413
Operating Costs..................................................  1469
Oversight Activities:
    Bus Safety...................................................  1530
    Triennial Reviews............................................  1466
    State Safety Oversight.......................................  1465
    Oversight Activities.........................................  1458
    Finanncial Management Oversight..............................  1463
Oversight Tracking System....................................1440, 1465
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program......................1504, 1507
Passenger Security...............................................  1525
Political Appointees.............................................  1438
Priority Bus Projects............................................  1399
Proposed Full Funding Grant Agreements...........................  1589
Proposed Staffing Increases......................................  1404
Ratings for Full Funding Grant Agreements....................1593, 1705
Recoveries.......................................................  1787
Reimbursement to the Inspector General...........................  1404
Reverse Commute Grants...........................................  1467
Riders and Cost..................................................  1489
Safety and Security:
    Drug and Alcohol Testing Program.............................  1463
    Safety and Security Programs, Projects and Activities....1522, 1799
    Passenger Security...........................................  1525
    Safety Investigations........................................  1400
    Safety and Security Technical Support Program................  1527
    Annual Accident Data.........................................  1759
Salary and Benefits..............................................  1412
Salt Lake City:
    Core Projects................................................  1495
    Olympic Games......................................1493, 1606, 1609
    Salt Lake City West-East Light Rail......................1493, 1605
    Salt Lake City Downtown Connector........................1608, 1790
Section 5309 Project Status......................................  1670
Security and Safety:
    Drug and Alcohol Testing Program.............................  1463
    Safety and Security Programs, Projects and Activities....1522, 1799
    Passenger Security...........................................  1525
    Safety Investigations........................................  1400
    Safety and Security Technical Support Program................  1527
    Annual Accident Data.........................................  1759
Set-Asides--Formula Programs.....................................  1492
St. Claire Metrolink Extension...................................  1603
TEAM--Transportation Electronic Award Management System......1442, 1447
Technology Sharing...............................................  1550
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families..........................  1490
Transit Accidents............................................1402, 1463
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking................................  1402
    Drug and Alcohol Testing Program.............................  1463
    Annual Accident Data.........................................  1759
Transit Planning and Research..........................1512, 1518, 1551
Transit Ridership of 30 Largest Transit Operators................  1754
Transportation Computer Center...................................  1725
Tren Urbano..................................................1615, 1793
Triennial Reviews......................................1400, 1401, 1465
Tunnel Design and Construction...................................  1545
Turnkey Demonstration Program..........................1542, 1617, 1620
University Transportation Research...............................  1509
Unobligated Bus Funds............................................  1625
Unrestricted Cash................................................  1439

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        [Does not include Surface Transportation Safety Hearing]

.08 Laws:
    Funding by State.............................................   850
    States.......................................................   770
Air Bag Funding..................................................   906
Alcohol:
    Efforts to Reduce Alcohol-Related Crashes....................   768
    Impaired Driving.............................................   590
    Impaired Driving Enforcement.................................   833
    Related Crashes by State.....................................   769
    Related Fatality Rates Per Vehicle Mile....................771, 773
Antilock Braking System (ABS) Research...........................   794
Auto Safety Hotline:
    Auto Safety Hotline..........................................   890
    Cost.........................................................   891
Biomechanics:
    Funding......................................................   895
    Research Program.............................................   893
Buckle Up America:
    Campaign.....................................................   767
    Implementation...............................................   747
Campaign Safe and Sober..........................................   892
Child Restraint:
    Fitting Stations...........................................737, 950
    Universal System.............................................   734
Compliance:
    Test Failure Data............................................   804
    Testing Program..............................................   807
Consumer Information.............................................   921
Contractors (Major)..............................................   883
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE):
    Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)........................   799
    Kyoto Agreement Impact on CAFE Standards.....................   803
    Penalties Collected..........................................   802
    Standards for Light Trucks and Vans..........................   800
Crash Avoidance Funding and Projects.............................   912
Crashes by Collision Type........................................   774
Emergency Medical Services.......................................   943
Fatal Crashes:
    By State.....................................................   762
    Estimated Cost...............................................   760
    Vehicles Involved In.........................................   764
Fatalities:
    By Vehicle Category..........................................   821
    Child Occupant Fatalities....................................   766
    For Selected Countries.......................................   825
    Impact of Speed Limit and Helmet Laws........................   818
    Occupant Crash Statistics....................................   815
    Pedalcyclist.................................................   813
    Rate Reduction in Commercial Vehicles........................   604
    Rates Attributed to Alcohol and Speed........................   819
    Vehicles Involved in Fatal Crashes...........................   764
FTE:
    FTE and On-Board Strength....................................   863
    Request......................................................   864
Funding:
    Air Bag......................................................   906
    Crash Avoidance..............................................   912
    Drivers License Identification Program.......................   946
    Safe Communities (Section 402)...............................   778
    Section 402 and 410..........................................   831
    Section 410 Allocation.......................................   826
    Truck Safety.................................................   594
FY 2000 Congressional Budget Summary.............................   728
Haddon Matrix:
    Four E's.....................................................   468
    Haddon Matrix..............................................468, 470
International Harmonization......................................   915
International Safety Ranking.....................................   781
Motor Cycle Helmet Laws:
    Mandatory....................................................   811
    Repeal of....................................................   812
NASS Issues......................................................   610
National Driver Register.........................................   944
National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS).......................   738
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP):
    Consumer Information.........................................   793
    Frontal Safety Information...................................   783
    Program Costs................................................   790
    Side Impact Testing..........................................   789
    Testing....................................................783, 789
    Testing Braking Performance..................................   792
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA):
    TEA-21 Authorization.........................................   731
    NHTSA and OMC Functions......................................   561
Occupant Fatality Crash Statistics...............................   815
Odometer Fraud Enforcement Program Effectiveness.................   810
Office of Motor Carrier Safety:
    Comparison of Functions......................................   561
    Coordination.................................................   597
    Enforcement..................................................   603
    Integration of Functions.....................................   601
    Merger of NHTSA and OMCHS....................................   606
    Placement....................................................   600
Opening Remarks of Ricardo Martinez, MD Administrator............   467
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)..............   933
Replacement Parts................................................   947
Reprogramming Actions............................................   882
Rulemaking Actions...............................................   888
Safe Communities:
    Funding (Section 402)........................................   778
    Safe Communities.............................................   924
Safety:
    Defects Investigation Budget.................................   797
    Recall Campaigns.............................................   795
    Standards Support............................................   936
Seat Belt:
    Key Provisions of Belt Use Laws..............................   755
    Safety Belt Use Enforcement..................................   754
    State Usage Rates............................................   748
    Usage and Lives Saved........................................   766
    Usage Rates..................................................   746
    Usages.......................................................   743
Section 157:
    Funding by State.............................................   855
    Section 157 and Section 405..................................   854
Section 163 and Section 410......................................   846
Section 402:
    Combining Section 402 and MCSAP..............................   608
    Funding for Alcohol Initiatives..............................   831
    Grant Obligations............................................   778
    Program Funding..............................................   777
    Staff Support................................................   777
    State Expenditures...........................................   774
Section 410 Funding Allocation...................................   826
Section 411 Grant Awards by State................................   852
Side Impact Air Bags.............................................   897
Speed:
    Aggressive Driving...........................................   592
    Estimated Cost of Speed Related Fatal Crashes................   760
    Increased Speed Limit Impact.................................   757
    Related Fatal Crashes........................................   760
    State Speed Limits...........................................   757
Staff:
    Incentive Grant Program......................................   866
    Office of the Administrator..................................   871
    Political Appointees.........................................   867
    Regional.....................................................   868
    Section 402 Staff Support....................................   777
Statement of Ricardo Martinez, MD Administrator..................   471
    States with Administrative License Revocation Laws...........   846
Strategic Plan:
    Strategic Plan...............................................   487
    Strategic Plan Transmittal Letter............................   486
Surface Transportation Issues....................................   590
Traffic Law Enforcement..........................................   939
Training Data Update.............................................   876
Travel (Overseas)................................................   838
Truck Safety:
    Funding......................................................   594
    Initiatives..................................................   468
    Priorities...................................................   598
    Responsibility...............................................   593
Truck Size and Weight............................................   605
Unobligated Balances.............................................   880
Vehicle:
    Compatibility................................................   931
    Fatalities by State..........................................   819
    Safety Compliance Program....................................   803
    Web Site ``Hits''............................................   891
Y2K:
    Technical Staff to Support Y2K Activities....................   865
    Y2K Funding..................................................   865

                     Surface Transportation Safety

Access to Rest Areas.............................................   459
Accident Data....................................................   257
Accident Reports.................................................    67
Accidents........................................................   670
ADP Funding Request..............................................   713
  Biographers:
    Edwards, Mark................................................   289
    McCormick, Walter............................................   310
    Stone, Judith Lee............................................   337
    Wytkind, Edward..............................................   406
Border Inspections...............................................   583
CDL License Program..............................................    75
Collison Avoidance Technology....................................   242
Collision Warning Technology...................................174, 231
Combining Section 402 and MCSAP..................................   608
Commercial Drivers Assessment....................................    82
Commerical Driver's License Training Program.....................   580
Common Truck Problems............................................   644
Comparison of NHTSA and OMC Functions............................   561
Compliance Review......................................68, 74, 558, 630
Compliance Reviews on Operations.................................    84
Compliance Reviews Personnel.....................................   235
Comprehensive Approach...........................................   465
Comprehensive Truck Crash Study..................................   417
Covert Operations................................................   647
Creation of New Administration...................................   227
Cumberland Gap Tunnel Project Status Report......................   623
Data Collection..................................................   410
Decline In Truck Crash Fatality Rate.............................   586
Driver Error.....................................................    63
Driver Fatigue...................................................    64
Driver Logs......................................................    71
Driver Training..................................................    61
Edwards, Mark (Managing Director, Traffic Safety Services, 
  American Automobile Association)...............................   260
Effectiveness of OMC's ``No-Zone'' Program.......................   421
Enforcement....................................................226, 571
Enforcement Actions to Reduce Fatalities.........................    78
Enforcement Backlog..............................................   725
Enforcement Penalties............................................    61
Enforcement Program..............................................   251
Enforcement Responsibilities.....................................   235
Eubanks, Harry (President, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance)...   354
Factors That Contribute to Accidents.............................    59
Failures of the OMC..............................................   460
Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes......................................   668
Fatalities: Rates versus Actual Numbers..........................   239
Fatality Rate for Commercial Motor Vehicles......................   433
Fatality Rate Reduction in Commercial Vehicles...................   604
Fatigue..........................................................   648
Federal Transit Administration...................................   256
FHWA Hazardous Materials Team....................................   579
FHWA Relationship with State Partners............................   586
Foreign Carriers...............................................414, 415
Foreign Carriers and Federal Regulations.........................   241
Foreign Carriers Travel Zone.....................................   246
FTA State Safety Oversight Activities............................   252
FTA's Safety Oversight...........................................   253
Future Recommendations...........................................   467
Hall, Jim (Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board).......   173
Highlights of Inspector General Findings.........................    83
Hot Line.........................................................   419
Hotline..........................................................   726
Hours-of-Service Regulation......................................   173
Hours-of-Service Reform..........................................   417
Improving Truck Safety with Frequent Inspections.................    77
Inspections versus Enforcement...................................    81
Inspector General Recommendations on Reducing Truck Deaths.......   249
Inspector General Survey.........................................   559
Integration of NHTSA/OMCHS Functions.............................   601
International Issues and NAFTA...................................   228
Introduction of Witnesses........................................     2
Key DOT Surface Transportation Issues............................   590
Key Safety Challenges and DOt Responses..........................   566
Key Surface Safety Issues Facing Department of Transportation....   431
Lapointe, Mike (Massachusetts State Police)......................    51
Large Truck Safety...............................................   254
Level 1 Inspections..............................................   452
License Suspension...............................................    65
Licensing Requirements...........................................    62
Lobbying Allegations.............................................   559
Log Accuracy Enforcement.........................................    60
Maximum Speed Governors..........................................   174
McCormick, Walter (President and CEO, American Trucking 
  Associates, Inc.)..............................................   290
MCSAP for Commercial Trucks at U.S. Borders--Exhibits............   162
MCSAP for Commercial Trucks at U.S. Borders--Findings and 
  Recommendations................................................   142
MCSAP for Commercial Trucks at U.S. Borders--Introduction........   137
MCSAP for Commercial Trucks at U.S. Borders--Synopsis............   125
MCSAP for Commercial Trucks at U.S. Borders--Table of Contents...   136
MCSAP for Commercial Trucks at U.S. Borders--Transmittal 
  Memorandum.....................................................   123
Mead, Kenneth (Inspector General, U.S. Department of 
  Transportation)................................................    83
Mechanical Defects...............................................69, 81
Meetings.........................................................   713
Merge of NHTSA and OMCHS.........................................   606
Mexican Trucks...................................................   229
Motor Carrier Management Information System......................   581
Motor Carrier Reviews and Safety Ratings.........................   250
Motor Carrier Safety Program (MCSAP) for Commercial Trucks at 
  U.S. Borders...................................................   122
Motor Carrier Safety Program funding Issues......................   693
Motor Carrier Safety Regulation and Enforcement..................   316
Moving OMCHS to NHTSA............................................   455
NAFTA............................................................   662
NAFTA Issues.....................................................   555
New Safety Administration........................................   410
NHTSA Truck Safety Funding.......................................   594
NHTSA Truck Safety Priorities....................................   598
NHTSA Truck Safety Responsibility................................   593
NHTSA/OMCHS Coordination.........................................   597
Office of Motor Carriers...................................74, 246, 255
Office of Motor Carriers--Enforcement Failures...................   320
Office of Motor Carriers--Regulatory Failures....................   318
Office of Motor Carriers Placement...............................   600
OMCHS Enforcement................................................   603
OMCHS Relationship with Industry.................................   576
OnBoard Computers................................................    63
On-Board Recording Devices.......................................   458
On Board Recording Devices.......................................   174
On-Board Safety Devices..........................................   581
O'Neill, Brian (President, Insurance Institute for Highway 
  Safety)........................................................   375
Opening Remarks..................................................     2
Opening Remarks--Wykle, Kenneth..................................   465
Operating Expenses for the Office of Motor Carriers..............   685
Organizational Placement of OMC................................560, 589
Organizational Placement of OMCHS................................   577
Out-of-Service Activities........................................   625
Out-of-Service Definition........................................    57
Out-of-Service Rates.............................................    79
Out-of-Service Records...........................................    57
Owner-Operator Firms.............................................   243
Owner-Operators..................................................    80
Owner-Operators Versus Major Trucking Firms......................    60
Panel I Witnesses................................................     3
Panel II Witnesses...............................................    83
Panel III Witnesses..............................................   260
Panel IV Witnesses...............................................   465
Passenger Car Error..............................................    70
Peer Review Report of Commercial Driver Fatigue Research.........     4
Penalty Assessments..............................................   558
Performance Registration Information and Systems Management 
  Program (PRISM)................................................   710
Performance-Based State Enforcement Program......................   682
Pierce, Bonnie (Victim and Concerned Citizen)....................    43
Placement of Office of Motor Carriers............................   418
Placement of Office of Motor Carriers..........................226, 229
Priority of Motor Carrier Safety.................................   565
Punishing Repeat Violators.......................................    84
Questions for the Record:
    AAA..........................................................   421
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety........................   431
    AFL-CIO, Transportation Trades Department....................   460
    American Trucking Associations, Inc..........................   424
    Aviation and International Affairs (OST/DOT).................   615
    Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance...........................   452
    Federal Highway Administration...............................   565
    FHWA and NHTSA...............................................   585
    General Accounting Office....................................   258
    Inspector General............................................   248
    Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.......................   455
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration...............   590
    National Transportation Safety Board.........................   254
    Office of Motor Carriers.....................................   625
    Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assoc., Inc...............   457
Reorganization of Motor Carrier and Highway Safety Programs......   707
Reporting and Regulatory Requirements............................   714
Reporting Requirements...........................................   236
Research Initiatives.............................................   674
Rest Areas.......................................................    66
Results of Accident Investigations...............................   240
Safe Roadway Environment.........................................   466
Safe Vehicles....................................................   466
Safety of Small Carriers.........................................   457
Safety Oversight...............................................245, 419
Safety: The Top Priority.........................................   465
Scheinberg, Phyllis (Associate Director, Transportation Issues, 
  Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, U.S. 
  GAO)...........................................................   209
Spencer, Todd (Executive Vice President, Owner-Operator 
  Independent Drivers Association, Inc.).........................   387
Staffing.........................................................   672
State Inspections..............................................418, 453
Statements:
    Edwards, Mark................................................   263
    Eubanks, Harry...............................................   356
    Hall, Jim....................................................   176
    Izer, Daphne G...............................................    34
    Lapointe, Mike...............................................    53
    McCormick, Walter............................................   294
    Mead, Kenneth................................................    89
    O'Neill, Brian...............................................   377
    Pierce, Bonnie...............................................    46
    Scheinberg, Phyllis..........................................   213
    Spencer, Todd................................................   390
    Stone, Judith Lee............................................   324
    Wytkind, Edward..............................................   400
States With MCSAP and Section 402 Programs.......................   560
Stone, Judith Lee (President, Advocates for Highway and Auto 
  Safety)........................................................   316
Surface Transportation Safety..................................248, 258
System to Reduce Fatalities......................................   411
Technology to Improve Safe Operations............................   467
The Motor Carrier Safety Challenge...............................   465
The Need for Data................................................   422
The Safe Driver..................................................   466
Transferring OMC to NHTSA........................................   423
Travel...........................................................   712
Trends in Truck Safety...........................................   316
Truck and Bus Accidents..........................................   648
Truck Fatalities.................................................   410
Truck Inspections................................................67, 73
Truck Safety Improvements........................................   413
Truck Size and Weight............................................   605
Truck Traffic and Permits........................................   408
Trucking Lobby...................................................   229
Urban Truck Safety...............................................   414
Witnesses: Panel I...............................................     3
Witnesses: Panel II..............................................    83
Witnesses: Panel III.............................................   260
Witnesses: Panel IV..............................................   465
Wytkind, Edward (Executive Director, AFL-CIO, Transportation 
  Trades Department).............................................   397

                                
