[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FAST ACT IMPLEMENTATION: IMPROVING THE SAFETY OF THE NATION'S ROADS
=======================================================================
(115-21)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 18, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-374 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JERROLD NADLER, New York
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DUNCAN HUNTER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BOB GIBBS, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JEFF DENHAM, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JOHN GARAMENDI, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Georgia
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
ROB WOODALL, Georgia DINA TITUS, Nevada
TODD ROKITA, Indiana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JOHN KATKO, New York ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Vice Ranking Member
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
DOUG LaMALFA, California DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JOHN J. FASO, New York
A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota
(ii)
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Columbia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JERROLD NADLER, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DINA TITUS, Nevada
BOB GIBBS, Ohio SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JEFF DENHAM, California ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JARED HUFFMAN, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JULIA BROWNLEY, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
ROB WOODALL, Georgia MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JOHN KATKO, New York EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
MIKE BOST, Illinois Georgia
DOUG LaMALFA, California LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania, Vice FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
Chair PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan Officio)
JOHN J. FASO, New York
A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
WITNESSES
Walter C. ``Butch'' Waidelich, Jr., Acting Deputy Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement, submitted jointly with Mrs. Jefferson and
Mr. Danielson.............................................. 45
Responses to questions for the record submitted by the
following Representatives:
Hon. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania........................ 56
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.......................... 56
Hon Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon, on behalf of Hon. John
Garamendi of California................................ 58
Hon. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland...................... 59
Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois......................... 60
Daphne Y. Jefferson, Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement, submitted jointly with Mr. Waidelich and
Mr. Danielson.............................................. 45
Responses to questions for the record submitted by the
following Representatives:
Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri.............................. 61
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.......................... 62
Hon. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania........................ 62
Hon. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland...................... 64
Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal of California..................... 65
Jack Danielson, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement, submitted jointly with Mr. Waidelich and
Mrs. Jefferson............................................. 45
Responses to questions for the record submitted by the
following Representatives:
Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri.............................. 66
Hon. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland...................... 66
Hon. Garret Graves of Louisiana.......................... 66
Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois......................... 67
Hon. T. Bella Dinh-Zarr, Member, National Transportation Safety
Board:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Responses to questions for the record submitted by the
following Representatives:
Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri.............................. 82
Hon. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland...................... 83
PREPARED STATEMENTS PREPARED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland.............................. 42
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Tennessee, submission of the following:
National Transportation Safety Board, Highway Accident Brief,
Passenger Vehicle/School Bus Collision and Roadway
Departure, Houston, TX, Accident No. HWY15FH010, NTSB/HAB-
16/05...................................................... 85
National Transportation Safety Board, Highway Accident Brief,
School Bus Roadway Departure, Anaheim, CA, Accident No.
HWY14FH010, NTSB/HAB-16/06................................. 100
National Transportation Safety Board, Highway Accident Brief,
Collision of Two School Buses with Subsequent Rollover,
Knoxville, TN, Accident No. HWY15FH002, NTSB/HAB-16/04..... 121
Accident Report of the National Transportation Safety Board,
``School Bus and Truck Collision at Intersection, New
Chesterfield, New Jersey,'' February 16, 2012, NTSB/HAR-13/
01, PB2013-106638 \1\
Accident Report of the National Transportation Safety Board,
``Multivehicle Collision, Interstate 44 Eastbound, Gray
Summit, Missouri,'' August 5, 2010, NTSB/HAR-11/03, PB2011-
916203 \2\
Letter of May 8, 2017, from Peter Osborn, New York Division
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, to Matthew
Driscoll, Commissioner, New York State Department of
Transportation, submitted by Hon. John J. Faso, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York.......... 37
Jack Danielson, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, response to requests for
information from Hon. John J. Faso of New York and Hon. Doug
LaMalfa of California
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Prepared statement from the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials................................... 131
----------
\1\ This 113-page report can be found online at the National
Transportation Safety Board's website at https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1301.pdf.
\2\ This 104-page report can be found online at the National
Transportation Safety Board's website at https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1103.pdf.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FAST ACT IMPLEMENTATION: IMPROVING THE SAFETY OF THE NATION'S ROADS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Graves (Chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. We will call the subcommittee to
order. And I want to welcome everybody here. Good morning.
We all share the same critical goal of reducing the number
of fatalities and serious injuries on our Nation's roads. Over
the past years, Federal transportation safety programs, along
with other factors, have played an important role in reducing
these numbers. When this committee was developing its surface
transportation bill a couple years ago, improving safety on our
Nation's roads was one of the very key principles. Today, we
are here to examine the implementation of the safety provisions
in the FAST Act [Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act].
The FAST Act is the first long-term surface transportation
bill in a decade. It improves our Nation's infrastructure. It
reforms Federal surface transportation programs and refocuses
those programs on addressing national priorities. And it
encourages innovation to make the surface transportation system
safer and more efficient. The FAST Act also provides our non-
Federal partners with important resources to improve the safety
of our Nation's roads. These resources include but aren't
limited to: increasing funding for Federal transportation
safety programs across the modal administrations; reforming
certain NHTSA safety programs to reduce barriers to State
eligibility; improve incentives for roads or for States to
adopt laws and regulations to improve highway safety;
consolidate nine existing FMCSA grant programs into four;
streamlining the program requirements to reduce administrative
cost and improve the flexibility for the States; and improving
safety by incentivizing the adoption of innovative truck and
bus safety technologies and accelerated implementation of
safety regulations that are required by law. So I look forward
to hearing from our witnesses on the progress that their
agencies are making in implementing the safety provisions of
the FAST Act.
And I thank you all for being here today. I know some of
you traveled farther than others.
And, with that, I will turn to Ranking Member Norton for
her opening statement.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, first, I want to say how much I appreciate this
hearing on improving the safety of the Nation's roads. This is
an issue of critical importance because safety has not been
improving. Just yesterday, I was on the floor for the approval
of safety for the Metro system here. Safety is becoming a
critical concern in transportation.
Since I have been ranking member, our Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit has spent considerable time on issues of
critical importance, like technology and innovation and
automation. As important as those subjects are, I hope we can
have more hearings on safety. We have had two hearings on
public safety now, and I hope this is another one in what will
be a series. I have written requesting a hearing on the
oversight and monitoring of motor carrier safety under the CSA
program, for example. There are a number of other topics
regarding safety that are worthy of exploration.
Mr. Chairman, motor vehicle crashes should be negative,
should be going down, decreasing in numbers. You know, that is
the American way. Either we want things to go up every year,
like the economy, or we want things to go down, like crashes.
So I was astounded that, in preparing for this hearing, to
learn that pedestrian fatalities have increased--that is an
increase I am not looking for--by almost 10 percent, 9.5
percent in 2015. They are at their highest level since 1996.
What is wrong with us? What is wrong with what we have been
doing that these figures have been getting worse?
I have particular concerns in the District of Columbia
where pedestrian deaths represent 56 percent of all traffic
fatalities. We are asking people to get out and walk, and then
you take your life in your hands as you cross the street. The
figures are continuing to get worse. The first 9 months of
2016, we saw an 8 percent higher rate than the figures I have
just quoted in 2015, which were already 10 percent higher
themselves. So we really can't sit idly by. I think the public
wants us to do something. Obviously, these are matters at the
local level and State level, but they are surely matters here
for this technology.
Now, I am pleased at technology at this hearing. Technology
is an important piece of how we would enhance safety, in my
regard. And I am fascinated by the work being done to advance
innovative solutions for future generations to avoid needless
loss of life. But full automation, which I believe would reduce
needless deaths, is really not around the corner, as exciting
as it is. The three leading causes of death in 2015 were
responsible for two-thirds of all deaths, and they were all
based on human factors. I am not sure technology--what
technology will do about them. We haven't got to this in
technology yet. Because these factors were--almost two-thirds
were because of alcohol impairment, speeding--maybe we can do
something about that with innovation--and distracted driving.
So the question before the House, as they say, is, what
steps can be taken now, right now, to bring down auto
fatalities and injuries to ensure that, when you get behind a
car or a bus or a truck, for example, that you have the
training and education necessary to take on that
responsibility, safety.
One of my own major issues as ranking member has been more
robust commercial truck and bus driver training. Buses, but
particularly trucks, are an increasing mode of transportation
in our country. Congress first directed the Department of
Transportation to develop training standards for commercial
motor vehicle drivers in 1991. That was over 25 years ago.
Between 1991 and 2016, the Department failed to produce a rule
that provided adequate training standards for drivers. All of
that time, no rule.
Late last year, though, the Department of Transportation
put out a new rule based on negotiated rulemaking. I was very
hopeful, given the negotiated rulemaking. But this rule failed
to include a minimum number of hours behind-the-wheel training.
So it is all up to the trucking companies how much training
they get. And the Congress of the United States is taking no
responsibility for those trucks out there where people are
driving without adequate training to drive a truck. That rule,
which did not have a minimum amount of hours, was the really a
missed opportunity and great disappointment.
So I am hoping that today's hearing will be a change from
our endless request, which has become the norm, for exemptions
and calls to block DOT safety rules. There is room for
improvement in many rules of the Federal Government. But rather
than cause to simply eliminate regulations, we should be
challenging industry, Department of Transportation,
stakeholders, all to be more creative and work toward the
common goal to utilize their own resources and imagination to
create a more safe road for all.
So I am very pleased that we have a National Transportation
Safety Board member here. For 50 years, the NTSB has been the
leader in setting a high bar for safety and informing Congress
of what policy solutions will generate the greatest safety
improvements. But bear in mind, the NTSB does not have
enforcement authority. It is up to this committee and to the
Congress of the United States.
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Now, I am pleased to have Ranking
Member DeFazio. Would you like to make an opening statement?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased we are
having this hearing today. It is important to hear--in this
case, I am pleased we are hearing, actually--from a career
staff as opposed to political hacks. So perhaps we will get
some good information here today.
You know, we seem to be going the wrong way when it comes
to surface transportation. In particular, we had a spike in
fatalities. We have twice the rate of fatalities of other high-
income countries. You know, obviously, there are some issues
here. I believe part of the problem is the state of our
infrastructure, in places where it is obsolete, obsolescent, or
deteriorated, that that contributes to the fatality rate. And
so the lack of investment is part of the problem, and
obviously, the same lack of investment has led to reductions in
our safety programs of FHWA, FMCSA, and NHTSA are all part and
parcel funded through the same process, which, is, you know,
the Highway Trust Fund, which is underfunded so that I believe
the solution both for rebuilding our infrastructure and for
enhanced safety comes with more robust funding.
Also, you know, we need to, you know, have sensible
regulations. But there is, I think, a little bit--in this
particular administration, they are going overboard in terms of
restraining reasonable and needed safety regulations. And I
fear that they will continue to go down that path.
I mean, I did support, in the FAST Act, you know,
provisions to require that they revisit and retool some of the
CSA system. But we want to take corrective action. We want to
update it. We want to make it accurate. And we want it to be a
tool that will be useful in terms of identifying areas or
operators who need more attention or perhaps even shouldn't be
allowed to operate. But, you know, we can't just throw out the
whole concept of having a better system, which I fear this
administration will do.
So, hopefully, today we will hear some ideas from these
career folks, and hopefully Congress will see fit to include
that in its oversight and future actions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Ranking Member DeFazio.
With that, I will welcome our panel and introduce them.
We have Mr. Walter Waidelich, who is the Acting Deputy
Administrator at the Federal Highway Administration. We have
Mrs. Daphne Jefferson, who is the Deputy Administrator at the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. We have Mr. Jack
Danielson, who is the Acting Deputy Administrator at the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And we have the
Honorable T. Bella Dinh-Zarr, who is a member of the National
Transportation Safety Board.
With that, I would ask unanimous consent that all
witnesses' full statements be included in the record.
Without objection, that is so ordered.
And since your written testimonies have been made a part of
the record, the committee would ask that you limit your summary
at least to 5 minutes or be pretty close.
And, with that, Mr. Waidelich, you can begin.
TESTIMONY OF WALTER C. ``BUTCH'' WAIDELICH, JR., ACTING DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; DAPHNE Y.
JEFFERSON, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION; JACK DANIELSON, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; AND HON. T.
BELLA DINH-ZARR, MEMBER, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Mr. Waidelich. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and
the members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me
today to talk about FAST Act implementation and ensuring the
safety of our roads.
As I am sure you hear often today, safety is the
Department's number one priority. At the Federal Highway
Administration, we strive every day to ensure that our
highways, bridges, and tunnels are safe and reliable for the
American people. The recent increase in highway fatalities,
after decades of decline, underscores the importance of the
coordinated efforts of the agencies represented here today to
address road safety.
FHWA is a proud member of the Road to Zero Coalition, and
we look forward to working with our sister agencies and this
committee on the critical vision of achieving zero fatalities
by 2050.
The cornerstones of our efforts to eliminate fatalities and
serious injuries on all public roads is our Highway Safety
Improvement Program, which provides an estimated average of
$2.6 billion of funding per year over the course of the FAST
Act.
Through the HSIP and other efforts, FHWA emphasizes a data-
driven, performance-based approach to save lives. We estimate
that highway safety improvement projects result in $4 to $7 of
benefits for every dollar invested. Projects funded through the
HSIP must be consistent with the States' strategic highway
safety plan which is developed by States in coordination with
Federal, local, and Tribal partners. These plans establish each
State's individualized safety goals, objectives, and key
emphasis areas, and integrate the four E's of highway safety:
engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical
services.
A growing number of States are using HSIP funds for
projects on locally owned and rural roads, and more local
agencies are participating in the development of strategic
highway safety plans.
This local investment is critical to our Road to Zero goal.
And in 2015, 19 percent of the U.S. population lived in rural
areas, but rural road fatalities accounted for 49 percent of
all road fatalities.
In addition to the HSIP, the FAST Act also continued
performance management standards first enacted in MAP-21. One
of our primary achievements in recent years has been
implementing these performance management standards for safety.
Beginning this summer, States and metropolitan planning
organizations will set data-driven annual safety performance
targets for the first time. They will measure, in part, the
number and rate of fatalities and serious injuries. And they
will use that data to inform future investment choices.
FHWA, in coordination with NHTSA, has provided significant
resources to advance implementation of the safety performance
management requirements, including delivering target-setting
workshops in 45 States. In addition to implementing these core
Federal aid programs, FHWA is also looking to the future of
safety innovation and research. Through our Every Day Counts
initiative, we encourage States to adopt proven but
underutilized safety countermeasures.
We are also working with State partners to expand vehicle-
to-infrastructure or V2I communications technology, which is
now eligible for funding under major Federal aid highway
programs. FHWA, in coordination with our sister agencies, is
developing a vision statement clarifying our important role in
advancing connected automated technologies and preparing our
national roadway infrastructure for an automated vehicle
future. When leveraged with V2I communications technology,
connected automation has the potential to deliver significant
safety, mobility, and environmental benefits.
Finally, FHWA continues to invest resources to identify the
next generation of safety technology, including through our
many research programs run out of the Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Center.
While I focus my remarks today on FHWA's programs with
safety in the name, FHWA strives to incorporate safety in the
entire $44 billion Federal-aid highway program so all Americans
can benefit from safe and reliable roads.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for the opportunity
to appear before you on these critical issues, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Now we will hear from Mrs.
Jefferson.
Mrs. Jefferson. Good morning.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Good morning.
Mrs. Jefferson. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify about the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's
work to improve truck and bus safety and implement the FAST
Act. It is an honor to testify alongside my colleagues Jack
Danielson and Butch Waidelich.
FMCSA's mission is to save lives by preventing crashes. We
oversee more than half a million truck and bus companies and
almost 5 million active commercial driver's license holders.
Americans depend on the trucking industry to move more than
two-thirds of the Nation's freight. The large majority of motor
carriers are skilled, committed to safety, and play by the
rules. It is our task to identify the small fraction that are
at high risk for a crash. Highway fatalities and crashes
involving large trucks and buses have dropped in the past
decade, but they have been increasing in recent years. In 2015,
for example, the number of fatalities involving commercial
motor vehicles rose 4.1 percent from the previous year.
We must be vigilant to reduce crashes. This includes
conducting data-driven safety compliance and enforcement
activities, leveraging safety technologies, ensuring driver
qualifications, and expanding partnerships. We rely on our
partners in State and local law enforcement to keep our
highways safe.
Through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, the
MCSAP program, more than 13,000 law enforcement personnel act
as a force multiplier conducting more than 3 million roadside
inspections each year. Congressional funding in fiscal year
2015 has allowed us to sharpen our risk-management tools to
identify and prioritize high-risk carriers. We revised our
algorithm to identify carriers with a crash rate three times
higher than the national average. We investigated 90 percent of
them within 3 months to help bring them back into compliance.
We commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to take a
close look at our Safety Measurement System, or SMS, that we
use to prioritize motor carriers. The study made
recommendations to further improve SMS. We are taking these
recommendations seriously and will submit a corrective action
plan to Congress.
Additionally, we are addressing industry concerns about
crash preventability. Later this week, we will announce a 24-
month demonstration program to review less complex crashes to
determine if they were preventable and can be removed from the
motor carrier's records.
Under Secretary Chao's leadership, FMCSA is looking to the
future. We have been encouraging industry to develop advanced
driving systems that improve both safety and economic
competitiveness. We are meeting with key players through a
series of public meetings and listening sessions to discuss
advanced driving systems and truck platooning.
Another example of leveraging technology is the use of
electronic logging devices to address hours-of-service
compliance and driver fatigue. We are working closely with the
industry, law enforcement, and stakeholders to ensure a smooth
transition to electronic logging devices as its first
compliance date approaches later this year.
We are focused also on driver health and education as key
components of safety. Last year, we published a final rule on
the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse. This new program with a
compliance date of 2020 will enable the agency and employers to
identify individuals who test positive for use of controlled
substances or abuse of alcohol.
To improve driver education, we published the Entry-Level
Driver Training rule last December. This was a product of
negotiated rulemaking in which our stakeholders worked side by
side with us to formulate minimum training requirements for all
new drivers. We will establish a registry of training schools
with appropriate curriculum standards for classroom and on-road
training.
FMCSA is also a member of the Road to Zero Coalition, a
partnership with the National Safety Council, NHTSA, and FHWA
with the aim of eliminating truck fatalities within 30 years.
We have heard from our industry partners and safety advocates
that it is important to educate drivers like you and me on how
to safely share the road with commercial motor vehicles.
As a result, FMCSA has recently announced its Our Roads,
Our Safety campaign that will focus on States with the highest
incidence of crashes. This targeted approach will allow us to
reach drivers where education and awareness can make the
greatest difference.
Mr. Chairman, we must do more to make our roadways safe for
the traveling public. Every FMCSA employee, our State partners,
our DOT sister agencies, and our stakeholders share this solemn
commitment to bring this tragic increase in highway fatalities
back down. Together, with your support, we can improve safety
for all.
I would be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank
you.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mrs. Jefferson.
Mr. Danielson.
Mr. Danielson. Good morning, Chairman Graves, Ranking
Member Norton, and the distinguished members of the
subcommittee. On behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, thank you for the opportunity to update you on
NHTSA's implementation of the FAST Act and our efforts to
improve safety on our Nation's roads. For the last 50 years,
NHTSA has diligently worked to fulfill our mission, to save
lives, prevent injuries, and reduce the economic cost due to
road traffic crashes through education, research, setting
safety standards, and enforcement. We could not work toward our
mission without the support of this committee and your work on
the FAST Act.
In 2015, we lost 35,092 people on our public roads. That
was a 7.2-percent spike in traffic fatalities and the largest
single-year increase in 50 years. Unfortunately, the
preliminary numbers appear to show that roadway fatalities
increased further in 2016.
As many know, 94 percent of serious crashes are the result
of human choices, such as distraction, alcohol and drug
impairment, speeding, and fatigue. The bottom line is the
overwhelming majority of crashes result from someone making a
poor choice. In the FAST Act, Congress provided more tools to
combat unsafe driving behavior, including such persistent
challenges as impaired and distracted driving.
How many times have you observed the driver in the car next
to you texting or looking down at a phone? How often was that
car swerving, falling below the speed limit, or, worse,
speeding toward another car? Sending or reading a text takes
your eyes off the road for an average of 5 seconds. At 55 miles
an hour, that is like driving the length of an entire football
field with your eyes closed. Distracted driving is a prime
example of the poor choice that can cause crashes. And the FAST
Act is helping us address that through grants to States that
enact lifesaving distracted driving laws.
In fiscal year 2017, we were able to award 27 grants to
States to address distracted driving. These grant funds are
available for a variety of safety purposes, including
distracted driving enforcement. We look forward to working
closely with the States to increase the number of these grants
in future years as more States enact these important laws.
In addition to distracted driving grants, the priority
safety grants in areas such as occupant protection, impaired
driving, and motorcycle safety, the FAST Act added grants to
promote pedestrian and bicycle safety, 24/7 sobriety programs
to combat drunk driving and racial profiling collection.
Today, technology plays a substantial and growing role to
improve roadway safety with a long-term potential of removing
the human factor from the crash equation altogether. There is a
good deal of excitement over the potential of automation in
vehicles to prevent crashes and save lives.
Automated driving systems are capable of addressing
critical cause of over 90 percent of serious crashes. Secretary
Chao has made the review and improvement of the Federal
Automated Vehicles Policy a top priority. The Secretary is
focused on establishing a framework that supports innovation
and the safe testing and deployment of automated driving
systems.
Technology has the potential to greatly improve safety as
well as the travel experience. However, technology is a double-
edged sword. Over the long term, it promises us an amazing
future of safe and convenient mobility. But in the near term,
it poses an immediate threat from every other driver on the
road who refuses to put down their phone. Sadly, too many of
these drivers are young drivers whose inexperience magnifies
the risk to themselves and those around them. NHTSA is always
looking for creative ways to increase roadway safety and
improve driver behavior.
With your continued support, our safety campaigns, such as
Click It or Ticket; Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over; and U Text,
U Drive, U Pay will encourage safe driving choices, and these
campaigns are changing driver behavior and attitudes for the
better.
Safety is NHTSA's highest priority. And I thank the
subcommittee and the staff for its continued support and for
devoting the resources and time to the important safety
challenges that NHTSA confronts. And I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Ms. Dinh-Zarr.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. Good morning, Chairman Graves----
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Good morning.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr [continuing]. Ranking Member Norton, and
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to
testify today on behalf of the National Transportation Safety
Board.
We have just heard that more than 35,000 people die on our
Nation's roads each year. As an independent Government
investigative agency, the NTSB is at the scene of some of the
worst of these crashes. We provide assistance to families, and
we make safety recommendations to prevent these tragedies from
happening again.
Our Most Wanted List identifies 10 focus areas that we know
firsthand can improve transportation safety. Seven of these
areas specifically affect highway safety. They are impairment,
distraction, occupant protection, fatigue, medical fitness,
collision-avoidance technologies, and event data recorders.
More than 10,000 fatalities each year in the United States
involve an alcohol-impaired driver. Impairment by other drugs
is also a rising concern. We have recommended a comprehensive
approach to address impaired driving including lowering of the
per se blood alcohol content, strengthening requirements for
ignition interlocks, and taking strong action to prevent
commercial drivers from using these substances.
In 2015, more than 3,400 died, and 391,000 people were
injured in distracted driving crashes. Effective change
requires strict laws, proper education, and effective
enforcement. We have recommended banning nonemergency use of
portable electronic devices by all drivers, high-visibility
enforcement, and targeted communication campaigns.
We have investigated many crashes in which improved
occupant protection systems, such as seatbelts, child
restraints, and vehicle design features could have reduced
injuries and saved lives. Since 1995, we recommended that
States require primary enforcement of seatbelt laws for all
vehicle seating positions equipped with a passenger restraint
system. While schoolbuses generally are safe, we have
identified benefits from using lap and shoulder restraints.
Thus, we have recommended training for bus drivers, students,
and parents on the importance and proper use of seatbelts and
that States or school districts consider lap/shoulder belts
when purchasing new schoolbuses.
Fatigue is a significant concern, especially in commercial
trucking and bus operations. For more than 25 years, we have
advocated the use of technology like electronic logging
devices. These devices may be used as part of a carrier's
fatigue management program. Such programs can reduce fatigue-
related crashes and should be required for all carriers.
More than 90 percent of crashes can be attributed to driver
error, and increased implementation of vehicle-based and
driver-assist collision-avoidance technologies can aid drivers
and help reduce the occurrence of certain types of crashes.
Finally, data recorders capture and store critical
information that help investigators determine the cause of a
crash and guide companies and operators to take proactive steps
toward prevention. We have frequently expressed our concern
about the lack of requirements for heavy commercial vehicles to
have event data recorders.
The FAST Act provides critical resources to help States
reduce highway deaths and injuries by focusing on seatbelt use,
impaired and distracted driving countermeasures, motorcyclist
safety, and graduated driver licensing laws.
We continue to monitor progress on other initiatives, such
as hair testing for commercial motor vehicle operators, and
ensuring that deficiencies in the FMCSA Compliance, Safety, and
Accountability Program are addressed to identify carriers that
pose the greatest risk to the public.
The NTSB is also looking at other safety issues. Next week,
we will consider a safety study examining speeding-related
passenger vehicle crashes. We are also developing a special
investigation report regarding pedestrian safety.
Finally, NTSB recognizes that emerging technologies in
automated vehicle systems have significant potential safety
benefits. We have a history of calling for automation to
provide an increasing margin of safety in all modes of
transportation. We plan to complete our investigation of the
first known fatal crash of a vehicle operating under automated
control systems later this year. And, of course, when it is
complete, we would be happy to provide you with the findings of
this investigation and any crash we have investigated so that
it might be helpful to you in your work to make our roads
safer.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you
today. And I would be happy to take any questions.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you very much to all our
witnesses.
Now I will go and start questions. I am going to start with
Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't expecting that
right quick.
Mrs. Jefferson, recently the National Academy of Sciences
finished their CSA and SMS study, and I was wondering--it said
something about FMCSA used a more detailed, structurally sound
mathematical model. Does the agency intend to develop a model
to--with CSA scores?
Mrs. Jefferson. Congressman Gibbs, thank you for that
question.
FMCSA appreciates the work that the National Academy of
Sciences performed on the FMS study. Our intent is to implement
the recommendations of that study. We will be engaging the
Academy of Sciences to continue working with us as well as
engaging stakeholders as we go about developing our corrective
action plan.
Mr. Gibbs. Whatever model is developed or used, will it
count--not count against drivers who are not at fault in an
accident? Because that has been one of the big problems in the
current scoring.
Mrs. Jefferson. Well, I can't speak in detail on what the
model will entail. We would be happy to keep Congress abreast
as we go through the process. But we are looking at
opportunities through a crash preventability pilot program to
look at crashes that drivers may come back and say those--they
were not at fault and provide them an opportunity to provide
information so that they can be removed from the record.
Mr. Gibbs. Because I think in this--the Academy of Sciences
identified a small number of violations that correlate with
crashes, but yet they identified nearly 900 other possible
motor safety regulation violations. You know, it would be nice
if maybe they focus their attention on the regulations that
correlate with crashes. I mean, you know, put more priority to
that.
Mrs. Jefferson. One of the recommendations was that the 899
potential violations, we review those and focus on the ones
that have the greatest correlation to safety. So we will be
taking a looking at that.
Mr. Gibbs. Does the agency plan to hold public meetings or
invite stakeholders to meet with the agency during this
planning period for a formal response to the recommendations of
their report?
Mrs. Jefferson. Yes, we do. We are working now to figure
out how to conduct a public meeting before the 120-day deadline
for submitting the corrective action plan. And as a part of our
planning, we will engage stakeholders throughout the process.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Also, you know, the FAST Act included
several reforms. One was for process for interested veterans
from Active Duty service and women to obtain a commercial
driver's license. Have we seen an increase in the number of
veterans in that program? What is the status of more veterans
and women obtaining the CDLs?
Mrs. Jefferson. We are working on rulemaking that will make
it easier for men and women who have used heavy commercial
vehicles in the military to transition into civilian life. We
are also working with the Veterans Administration and the
Department of Defense in helping to facilitate transition of
veterans coming into the commercial motor vehicle industry.
Mr. Gibbs. Very good.
Mr. Danielson, the FAST Act required DOT to conduct a study
about marijuana-impaired driving, submit a report to Congress.
Can you provide us an update and status of that report?
Mr. Danielson. Of course, sir. The report is in its final
agency review, and we hope to have it in your hands very soon.
Mr. Gibbs. Also, NHTSA roadside studies have shown the
presence of marijuana among drivers is increased and that
marijuana-positive driving now exceeds alcohol-positive
driving. What steps is NHTSA taking to address this issue?
Mr. Danielson. The role of impairment by drugs is not well
understood. There are two basic reasons for that. One is there
is not a scientifically acceptable threshold for impairment by
drugs. The other is that there is not--there is not a
technology to detect drug impairment.
However, what we do know, a couple things, is that
marijuana usage has gone up 50 percent from 2007 to 2014, and
we also know that, through laboratory studies, that marijuana
impairs judgment and impairs your ability to drive,
particularly with reaction time. And so what NHTSA--NHTSA
addresses this via training of law enforcement through our drug
recognition expert program. We have 8,000 law enforcement
officials who are trained to go through an extensive battery of
tests on the roadside of people who are suspected of impairment
by drugs. This is a court-accepted process.
NHTSA is also working on research to develop a drug
detection method, a device that we could give to law
enforcement using oral fluids.
Mr. Gibbs. I guess I am out time.
I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Ranking Member Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Jefferson, you, perhaps, heard my opening remarks--in
my opening remarks, my concern about driver training. Now,
Congress has the same concern--expressed that concern in the
FAST Act when it directed the FMCSA to give, quote, ``safety
the highest priority.'' So I was heartened that, after 25
years, there was a rulemaking that was going to get all of the
factors, especially the number of hours of training necessary.
And lo and behold, you did. You had negotiated rulemaking.
Negotiated rulemaking is consensus rulemaking. So while you had
disparate actors, they agreed on 15 to 30 hours of training,
depending on other factors. That was a triumph after 25 years.
Now, last year, that rule came out without those minimum
number of hours. It seems to me that you have not met the
congressional mandate to give safety the highest priority if
you have left the most important factor, the number of hours of
training, out of the rule.
So how do you reconcile? Why, indeed, were those hours,
which the stakeholders agreed upon, not made a part of the
rule?
Mrs. Jefferson. Ranking Member Norton, safety is our
highest priority. The Entry-Level Driver Training rule was a
negotiated rulemaking. A key part of that negotiation was
developing curriculum that set some minimum standard for
commercial driver training.
Ms. Norton. Mrs. Jefferson, I am going to ask you to answer
my question. I didn't say you didn't--that you didn't develop
an appropriate curriculum. I thank you for that.
I am asking a very specific question. If you were able to
get such disparate stakeholders to agree on the number of hours
training necessary, why did the rule not include that since
there was agreement on that factor?
Mrs. Jefferson. The number of hours----
Ms. Norton. Fifteen to thirty hours.
Mrs. Jefferson. Fifteen to thirty hours, depending on the
class of the CDL----
Ms. Norton. And the license, et cetera, yes.
Mrs. Jefferson. And those hours were based on the minimum
level of curriculum that was agreed to. That curriculum, that
course requirement, is a part of the rule. There has been no
change----
Ms. Norton. Why was 15 to 30 hours not a part of the rule,
Mrs. Jefferson?
Mrs. Jefferson. The 15 to 30 hours was used as a minimum to
get to those out to those courses. In order to get through the
courses and to allow for the flexibility, it is a minimum. It
may very well take longer----
Ms. Norton. Oh, wait a minute. Are you saying that, in
order to get through the course, the curriculum that I
congratulate you for issuing, that you will have had to have 15
to 30 hours of on-the-road training? On-the-road training.
Mrs. Jefferson. It depends on the skill set that somebody
brings into the program. We are setting the curriculum that
they are required to have. In order to successfully complete
entry-level driver training, they will have to complete the
curriculum that was agreed to. The curriculum----
Ms. Norton. Are you saying, Mrs. Jefferson--this is very
confusing. Are you saying that the curriculum involved on-the-
road driver training or not? Is that your testimony?
Mrs. Jefferson. That is a part of the entry-level driving
training requirement. We just did not state a minimum number of
hours. The curriculum that the industry, as well as the driving
training schools and academics, developed is what was included
in the rule. That is a minimum level of training that is
required for the CDL.
Ms. Norton. On-the-road driver training.
So you think the rule already incorporates the 15 to 30
hours on the road because of the curriculum and what is
necessary to, in fact, pass the curriculum?
Mrs. Jefferson. We do. We believe that what is in the final
rule is sufficient to provide a level--a standard level of
entry-level driver training across the country. It has 20-plus
years to get there.
Ms. Norton. Twenty-five years.
Mrs. Jefferson. Twenty-five years, yes.
Ms. Norton. Mrs. Jefferson, I will take another look at it.
The fact that you didn't--that you eschewed the number of hours
seems to me to be very strange.
I do want to ask: What is wrong with us, Mr. Danielson? We
find that driver accidents, fatalities are going up. And then I
was given some figures that show that U.S. traffic fatality
rate is twice the average of 19 other high-income countries.
Why is that? What are we they doing that we are not doing?
Mr. Danielson. Ranking Member Norton, the increase that we
saw in 2015 was--by rate--was the highest increase that we saw
in 50 years. But it coincided with another historic increase,
which was a rate increase of vehicle miles traveled. There is
no single cause to the increase in fatalities. However, we do
know that over 90 percent of serious crashes are due to human
choice and error, and that is why two-thirds of NHTSA's budget
goes directly out to the States in the form of formula grants
to address these serious behavioral issues, which are the
choice to speed, to drink and drive, to send a text from behind
the wheel.
But to address your specific question about the comparison,
last year, NHTSA joined with FMCSA and Federal Highway, along
with the National Safety Council, to launch of Road to Zero
initiative, which is an unprecedented initiative involving over
300 partners of behavioral safety, vehicle manufacturers, and
road user groups, with a goal of driving this trend back down
and completely eliminating roadway fatalities over the span of
30 years.
This is akin to what other countries have done. The country
of Sweden, which is on the other side of many of the charts
that you will see from where the U.S. is, embarked on this 20
or 30 years ago, and it has had a tremendous effect by bringing
all of these different groups together to address this
complicated behavioral question.
Ms. Norton. So we are now doing what other countries have
already done, and you expect that to drive down these
fatalities and injuries?
Mr. Danielson. That is the goal.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Bost.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Jefferson, there is something that concerns me,
because I have got a--several of my companies--just so you
know, I drove tractor-trailers most of my life. I drove my
first tractor-trailer across the lot when I was 9 years old. I
come from a family that started in 1933 in the trucking
industry. And I believe that safety is vitally important. But I
also see some of the rules and the concerns I have as the rules
move forward at a time when driver shortages are so bad. And I
want safety first. But I need to look and see what we can do to
make sure, as we implement certain things, that those things
can be implemented and still allow us the opportunity to
provide--because we got a lot of people out there needing
products and needing to keep products moving.
So what I want to know is, is there anything--whenever we
implement the ELD [electronic logging device]--and we are
coming up on a deadline when it has to be implemented. Several
companies don't have them in place yet. They are trying. The
expense is very large. Do we have some kind of mechanism in
there that allows leeway for the implementation of this, or are
there any things out there that allow you and the rules to
allow that to happen and give a wise opportunity for those
companies to meet those regulations?
Mrs. Jefferson. Congressman, the first implementation date
or compliance date for electronic logging devices is December
18 of this year.
Mr. Bost. I know that.
Mrs. Jefferson. And we have been working very closely with
industry as well as our State and local law enforcement
partners towards preparing for that date. We have over 70
providers that have signed up, ELD providers, and we are seeing
the cost of equipment come down as we get closer to the date,
as we get more and more companies that are providing the
equipment.
And there are--the ELD rule was intended to be a
performance-based rule to allow for lower cost solutions for
small businesses or small carriers up to state-of-the-art fleet
management systems for larger systems. Those lower cost systems
are compliant with the rule. And we will continue throughout
the rest of the summer and into the fall to get out and meet
with drivers and try to understand the issues. But we do see
the cost coming down.
Mr. Bost. OK. Let me ask you this, then, because what I
really want to know is, if--as they are trying to turn this up
and you are limited on the amount of people that can install
them and you have all this, now you are hitting their December
hard line, after that December hard line, someone is stopped,
they are charged, and how are they charged? Is there any way
that there can be an extension if they do not have these
programs in place?
Mrs. Jefferson. We don't have a way to extend it. The
compliance date was in the final rule. However, I can assure
you that we are working with industry, with our State and local
law enforcement partners to make sure that not only are we
ready but also, what is the state of the industry as we get
closer to that date? And we are seeing, as I said, more and
more companies coming in with lower cost solutions. And the
companies that have previously equipped with automated onboard
recording devices have an additional year to upgrade to the ELD
standards.
Mr. Bost. OK. So my question--then is the company, then,
the one that is responsible, or is the driver? If all of a
sudden a driver gets in one that is not equipped, are they
responsible?
Mrs. Jefferson. The company is responsible for the vehicle.
The driver is responsible for keeping track of their hours of
service.
Mr. Bost. So they can use a regular logbook to do that
after December 18?
Mrs. Jefferson. If they have an exemption to be able to use
it.
Mr. Bost. If they have the exemption. OK.
Mrs. Jefferson. Yes.
Mr. Bost. All right. So what I also need to know, then, I
guess, and because I am running out of time, but as we move
forward with this, is there any exemptions for times like, for
instance, when we have a very bad cold snap and we have propane
drivers and gas haulers that need to get products, is there
going to be exemptions for extension of hours? Because once you
have an ELD in place, it is no longer based on your manual
logbook. Now, all of a sudden, we are on the technology and
everything like that. So the same thing for grain season. Same
thing for--the list goes on and on of those times when product
needs to be moved and people need extra hours to get those
products moved.
Mrs. Jefferson. Congressman, let's keep in mind that the
hours-of-service regulations have not changed. It is just the
method of recording hours of service. And so, during heating
season, where companies currently can request exemptions----
Mr. Bost. They can still do that.
Mrs. Jefferson [continuing]. Hours of service, they can
still do that.
Mr. Bost. OK. Thank you very much.
My time has expired.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Jefferson, as you know, part of MAP-21 was that, you
know, FMCSA should develop rules that would prevent employers
from forcing drivers to drive beyond their authorized hours.
You have published a final coercion rule to implement this more
than 18 months ago. Luckily, it escaped the Trump ban on safety
rules. But I am not aware of any use of this coercion rule. I
am very disturbed by a recent series of articles in USA TODAY.
This is something that I actually held hearings on back in
2008, as I recall, the abuse of drivers at the ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach. And these are very specific stories.
And one employee was terminated after speaking to USA TODAY,
and another employee was told ``there is the door'' when he was
told to drive beyond legal limits. And they say this is a
pervasive pattern, that one company, Morgan Southern, was
particularly mentioned. I think others have problems also.
Have you prosecuted anybody there? Are you following
through on any complaints by drivers there using the coercion
rule?
Mrs. Jefferson. Ranking Member DeFazio, we are
investigating complaints that come in under the coercion rule.
I can't speak to specifics at this point, but we would be happy
to get back to you on specifics. But we do have several that we
are investigating.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. I hope that you will use this, because,
you know, detention time and the port drayage are two areas
where we are forcing people to drive beyond their authorized
hours. And, you know, we need to be taking meaningful
enforcement action of abusive practices.
So thank you.
Mr. Danielson, last year, NHTSA proposed a phase 2
voluntary guideline for distractive electronic devices that are
aftermarket, not installed in the car. I have seen--I read an
article about devices that will project your email onto your
windshield so you can be emailing as you drive or reading your
email. Would that be considered a distraction?
Mr. Danielson. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And where are we at with the phase 2
voluntary guidelines? Is that--now, we heard from the Trump
administration they weren't going to impede safety rules. So is
this one moving forward?
Mr. Danielson. These were guidelines, sir, so they were
advice to device manufacturers for things for them to consider
when they are designing these devices that, when used during
driving, would minimize the potential for distraction.
I would point out, without naming any individual companies,
that several device manufacturers that are well-known have
already begun to roll out optional features where a device
owner can elect to turn on this feature and the smartphone can
detect if you are driving your car and then delay notifications
of text and other things until you are done with your driving
trip.
So device manufacturers are already taking a look at this
and trying to determine.
Mr. DeFazio. Yeah, some. But there is always--I mean, this
was actually a heads-up display on the windshield. Now, I would
consider that would be fairly distracting. It doesn't have
anything to do with the conduct of the vehicle itself.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr, would you--would NTSB have concerns about
these sort of devices, and do you think we need something more
than voluntary guidelines?
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. Thank you, Ranking Member DeFazio. We
absolutely have concerns about any type of distracting
technology. And that is why we have investigated accidents
where we have seen that technology has had an impact.
As far as regulations, we leave that up to the wisdom of
your judgment of the DOT. But we have made recommendations to
avoid these types of distractions in vehicles.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. I should add that is in addition to our
collision-avoidance type of technologies. And we have made
recommendations in support of those.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. When we have great collision avoidance
or great self-driving cars and people can email or twerp or
Twitter to their heart's content while they are driving. But I
have real concerns about it going on in the current atmosphere.
I am going to look into this further to see whether or not
the voluntary guidance has had an impact and whether or not
there are--there is always going to be someone who is going to
say: Well, we don't care about the voluntary guidance.
I would like to know if actually someone is marketing these
heads-up displays that put your email on the windshield.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Denham.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
work on the FAST Act. I wanted to briefly discuss one aspect of
the FAST Act, something that I had championed specifically for
the State of California, important to the State of California
but many other States as well. And that is the NEPA Reciprocity
Act. That was H.R. 2497 when it was a standalone bill. But the
legislation proposes changes to title 23. Basically, the NEPA
Reciprocity Act would say that a State like California that has
CEQA and NEPA, you go with the highest environmental policy.
You just don't do it twice. So we are looking for the rule on
this. We are looking for the implementation on this.
And, Mr. Waidelich, I wonder if you could give us an update
on where we are with the proposed rule.
Mr. Waidelich. We are actually working through that process
and working on that rule, and we should be seeing something
soon. A concern that has been voiced with that particular
provision is the statute of limitations of 2 years versus the
120 days. There have been some concerns from the State of
California whether that would be an incentive or a disincentive
as far as taking on that responsibility. But we are working on
that rule, and we should be coming out with that soon.
Mr. Denham. You used the word ``soon'' twice. What is your
ballpark on ``soon''?
That means a lot of things here in Congress.
Mr. Waidelich. It does. But, again, we are working through
that process. And we don't have a timeline specifically on
that, but soon.
Mr. Denham. OK. We are obviously looking for not only to
the rule but the implementation quickly. And it is certainly
something we want to continue to work with you on, but, you
know, we have got summer projects starting up, already ongoing
in California, and many have reached out to say: Why are we
going through this process twice when you have already passed a
new law that doesn't force us to do that?
So, whether it is road construction or a variety of other
projects, including some of the water storage projects that the
President has talked about in California, going through this
duplicative process not only slows things down, but it really
decreases the amount of people that are willing--or businesses
that are willing to bid on these projects going through a long
and cumbersome process. That also gives you two opportunities
to sue and litigate during the process. So it is certainly
something that we want to get done quickly, and we would look
forward to working with you not only on the rule but the
judicial review process as well.
And ``soon'' in our book would be quickly, since we are
moving--we are hoping that, with the President wanting to get
rid of the duplication in Government and cut regulations, since
we have already passed this one into law, we would hopefully
hope that ``soon'' is 30 days or less. We have been waiting a
while.
I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Lowenthal.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, members of the panel.
I had some questions. But I want to switch to something I
heard in the panel's testimony.
And, Ms. Dinh-Zarr, the Honorable Ms. Dinh-Zarr. In your
testimony, you mentioned the NTSB's ongoing work to investigate
a fatal crash involving autonomous technology, autonomous. And
I look forward to the final results and the recommendations of
this investigation. I agree with you the technology presents
real opportunities to improve safety and save lives. But I want
to know, what can we do today to make sure that this technology
is developed and deployed safely? What do you see us as really
beginning to focus on?
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. Thank you, Congressman Lowenthal. A lot of
the technology that is available today is actually the building
block for complete automation. And Congress has an important
role to play because of the wide range of stakeholders. I
believe that we have a unique background because we have worked
in automation in other modes of transportation, especially
aviation. And we have seen the positive and the negative
effects----
Dr. Lowenthal. Uh-huh.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr [continuing]. Of automation, as we have seen
with, for example, airline pilots. So, I think that our lesson
is that we have to remember that it is not a panacea. It is a
whole progress. We have a continuum, as you know, of
automation. And as we progress towards more and more complete
automation, we have to be aware of where the driver or the
operator, in the case of aviation, needs to step in. So I think
the biggest issue is that there is a lot of automation that is
already being used, collision-avoidance systems, a lot of
lighting, emergency braking. All of those are a part of
automation. It is not complete automation.
Dr. Lowenthal. Uh-huh.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. But I think we shouldn't delay those for
fear of other dangers.
Dr. Lowenthal. When do you see this rolling out? Can you
give us some timeframe?
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. I am sorry, sir?
Dr. Lowenthal. How do you see this playing out and rolling
out, the time that we are going to begin to see much more
automation on our streets?
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. As you know, we are investigating the
Williston, Florida, accident. And as more and more use of it
comes along, the NTSB is in a unique position. We only make
recommendations based on tragedies that have occurred. So I
think that we will be making more recommendations from our end
as, unfortunately, we see more. But, at the same time, we hope
that the use of automation in the sense of collision avoidance
and safety will also be increasing, and that could happen
rather quickly. It is happening now, in fact. It is already
happening.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
I am going to follow up on Representative DeFazio's
comments, Mrs. Jefferson, to the FMCSA's coercion rule that the
Representative brought up just a little earlier. I represent
the Port of Long Beach. So I have seen this over--and I have
represented it since I was on the city council and the State.
And so I have seen this issue about drayage drivers and
misclassification and potential wage theft for now over 20
years that has been going on. And so there have been many port
drivers, drayage drivers, and have brought up many of these
wage theft and misclassification cases. And in California, our
labor commissioners received hundreds of these claims.
I would just like to know how FMCSA is coordinating with
the State of California's Department of Industrial Relations or
with the Department of Labor here at the Federal level to
disseminate information about driver's rights under the
coercion. How are we coordinating?
Mrs. Jefferson. Thank you, Congressman Lowenthal. I have
also seen the recent reports out of USA TODAY and other
publications. And it is concerning.
Dr. Lowenthal. I was actually on the docks while this was
all taking place.
Mrs. Jefferson. We have not, at this point, coordinated
with the State of California or the Department of Labor. We
will take a look and follow up as necessary and be happy to get
back with you.
Dr. Lowenthal. Well, I would like that, if you could get
back to me.
And thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. I now recognize Ranking Member
Norton for a motion.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cummings of this committee is not able to be here but
had a special interest in safety and has asked that we enter
into the record, by unanimous consent, a statement related to
the tragic school bus crash that occurred in Baltimore last
year.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Without objection so ordered.
[Hon. Cummings' written statement is on pages 42-44.]
Mr. Graves of Missouri. And, with that, we will move to Mr.
LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our panelists for appearing here today.
Let's get right to it. Administrator Waidelich, you know,
this revamping of the FASTLANE [Fostering Advancements in
Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of
National Efficiencies] into now the INFRA [Infrastructure for
Rebuilding America] program, we are glad to see the President
continuing to push the proposal of infrastructure grants. In
Butte County, in northern California, where I represent, my
home county, actually, they had submitted under the FASTLANE
program. That wasn't fully acted upon at the time. But they
will resubmit. So the project's impacts were mostly on goods
movement and regional economies. And that was unquestioned.
But, also, an additional factor, as many of you have all heard
about the crisis we had with Oroville Dam last February with
the impending possible failure of the spillway there when the
lake was very full and an evacuation of nearly 200,000 people
in Butte County, it really underlined, underscored the issue
with State Highway 70 through there, which is one of the--Butte
County is one of the few counties of some size that doesn't
have a complete four-lane system linking NorCal to Sacramento
and farther south. It has a patchwork of some four lanes. So
what was underlined in this situation was that you had a State
highway with much two-lane area that caused a bottleneck that
was hours of standstill for people in an evacuation zone here
as, again, brought on by that crisis with Oroville Dam.
Thankfully, nothing ultimately washed out with the so-called
emergency spillway there. But they didn't know. They had no
idea.
And if you saw the illustration there on the TV news, the
helicopters were--the dam goes across the Feather River. So you
see Highway 70 traverses Feather River and below. You saw cars
parked on the bridges on Highway 70 over Feather River. I mean,
that just has the images of a disaster movie if something were
to give away, those people that couldn't move on those bridges
there, as well as all up and down Highway 70.
So what I think the Federal agencies should consider, and I
would like to have your opinion, is the impact of grant
programs, and then maybe we highlight the ones that have both
the positive economic impact and you get the double-plus of the
public safety, or vice versa, for a system like that.
So can you include these factors when considering the
upcoming INFRA applications? Is that something that we can help
urge you to have a sense--be like a double benefit when we are
looking at an acute safety situation as well?
Mr. Waidelich. First of all, Congressman, I am very
familiar with that particular area and I-70 in that area, or
State Route 70 in that area, and Oroville and the dam.
Mr. LaMalfa. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Waidelich. Under FASTLANE, there are the small grants
that will be announced soon. And under the INFRA program, there
is improved criteria within that including innovation and
safety to incorporate that actually in the application. So, the
answer is, as far as can it be considered, within our Federal
Register notice, it says, we will be considering that as part
of the criteria.
Mr. LaMalfa. Good bang for the buck. Double--go ahead. I am
sorry.
Mr. Waidelich. Basically, yes. That would be included. And
there is--the INFRA package came out last June. At $1.5
billion, it combines the large portion from 2017 and the
dollars for that particular program in 2018. And, again, there
is 120 days for those applications to be submitted.
Mr. LaMalfa. Is there anything the communities in the area
could do to be helpful to underline or, you know, give you more
impetus in the process to--you know, to show how strong of a
need it is?
Can the communities help underline that a little bit more?
Mr. Waidelich. I am sure as a part of that as far as, you
know, with the application endorsements from the communities
and others, and leveraging with the other stakeholders that are
involved with that project and that have a stake in that
project.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yeah. Well, there is a railroad interstate
interface up in Shasta County they are quite concerned about
too. So, but, we will speak on a different time on that.
I have just a little time left. I had hoped to talk a
little bit with Mrs. Jefferson about the ELD situation.
But the ELD mandates, do you believe that more time could
be helpful for some of the smaller stakeholders, some of the
smaller companies on that, with implementation of ELDs? We are
seeing a possible exemption for livestock haulers and others.
Is this something that we could look at as the impending
deadline comes on? You will have to be really short on my time.
I am sorry.
Mrs. Jefferson. We believe there is sufficient time for
equipage between now and the end of the year, but we would
certainly welcome followup with you to have a discussion.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Mr. Danielson, your agency has enacted an impairment
standard for alcohol use which is .08 across the country. Has
any similar standard been set for impairment for marijuana use
while driving?
Mr. Danielson. No, sir.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Do you know of any studies being
conducted currently that would be geared toward setting a
scientifically valid impairment level for drivers using
marijuana?
Mr. Danielson. We are actively engaged in research in this
area. There is--the impairment, impairment by drugs, is not
well understood. And, of course, there is no scientifically
accepted standard for it. But we are actively engaged in
research in this area and, in addition to that, attempting to
develop technological devices that law enforcement could use to
test oral fluids to determine impairment.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You are aware of the fact that
recreational use of marijuana is legal in at least six States
now and medical use of marijuana, or THC, is also permissible
in a number of other States? Do you believe that it is
important for the Federal Government to come up with a standard
for impairment because of the fact that marijuana or THC
remains in the blood for--or remains detectable in a urine
sample for 30 days; for blood, I think 7 days; saliva, I am not
sure. There might be some Fourth Amendment issues in terms of
search and seizure with respect to that. But do you believe
that it is important that the Federal Government come up with
an impairment standard for marijuana?
Mr. Danielson. Yes, sir. Since 2007, we have seen a 50-
percent increase in marijuana usage. And so we think it is--
what we do know about marijuana is that it impairs judgment. It
impairs your driving ability, particularly with respect to
reaction time. And so we think it is important to develop a
scientifically based threshold for impairment so we can get
unsafe drivers off the road.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Certainly. But for someone who used
marijuana one time 28 days ago and then they are subjected to a
urine test, that doesn't show impairment at the time that the
person was driving.
Mr. Danielson. That is correct. So what we are looking for
is specific to impairment, not just usage, but impairment at
the time of driving.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr, more than 15 years ago, NTSB recommended
that all new commercial vehicles be manufactured with collision
warning systems. More recently, the board has recommended that
all new commercial vehicles be equipped with automatic
emergency braking. Last Congress, I introduced the Safe Roads
Act, which would require that all new commercial vehicles are
equipped with both of these important safety technologies. Can
you discuss the importance of collision warning systems and
automatic emergency braking, especially on heavy vehicles that
can weigh 80,000 pounds or more? And, Mr. Danielson, if you
could give me your opinion on that as well.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. Thank you, Congressman. I greatly appreciate
that question.
The NTSB, as you mentioned, has been advocating and has
been recommending these types of safety tools be in vehicles,
especially heavy vehicles, for many years. And that is because
of the crash investigations that we have conducted. When a
heavy vehicle is in a crash and sometimes it is a multivehicle
crash, the results are catastrophic. And we know that these
collision-avoidance technologies such as automatic emergency
braking can and will reduce the number of these fatal crashes.
So we support more movement in this area. And that is in
combination with our other commercial vehicle safety
recommendations involving fatigue management and speeding. So
it is all part of a group of safety efforts. But those
technologies are something we have long advocated and we will
continue to advocate for.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
Briefly, Mr. Danielson.
Mr. Danielson. We agree. Crash-avoidance technologies have
tremendous potential to save lives, particularly in heavy
vehicles. And that is why we have created the standard for
electronic stability control. You might have heard that we
convened a group of automakers last year to get their agreement
to make automatic emergency braking standard in all light
vehicles by model year 2022, which is several years before it
would have been possible using just a notice and comment
rulemaking approach. And we anticipate that this technology
will expand beyond the light vehicle fleet eventually.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Smucker.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. I would like to thank the chairman for
scheduling this hearing, obviously important. We still have far
too many fatalities on our highways. So I applaud the effort of
the coalition to reduce that to zero. It is a laudable goal,
one that I think can be achieved.
I did just--a point of clarification, Mr. Danielson, in
response to another question, we have seen those deaths rise
slightly: I think about 9 percent in 2015 and then, for 6
months of 2016, might have an uptick as well. You mentioned
vehicle miles traveled is up as well. So are you saying per--if
you compared the two, are we still declining as a rate per
vehicle miles traveled?
Mr. Danielson. The fatality rate outpaced the rate increase
with vehicle miles traveled. There is a well-known correlation
between fatalities and vehicle miles traveled. And when you
take a look past the last major four recessions, you can
actually see the dip in both the VMT and the fatality rate.
However, it doesn't answer the whole question. What we do
know is that, as the economy recovers and the price of gas,
something, that part of the population that is most sensitive
to the price of gas and tends to travel more when the economy
starts to recover and the gas prices go along also tends to be
that part of the population that is overrepresented in crash
populations because they tend to be inexperienced drivers,
either very young drivers or very, very old. So this seems to
be kind of a multiplying effect.
Mr. Smucker. Yeah. Of all the initiatives, I guess, or
things on the horizon in regards to improving or decreasing the
fatalities, I think autonomous vehicles obviously has a lot of
promise, and I know technology already is being used.
But I think it is important, as that develops over the next
number of years and decades, that there is a--you know, I think
we are going to need a Federal standard. And we are seeing
activities from the States to develop standards as well.
So the Federal standard, I believe your agency will be
responsible for the standard. Am I right on that?
Mr. Danielson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Smucker. And can you describe what steps NHTSA is
taking internally to prepare to serve as that Federal entity to
regulate autonomous vehicles?
Mr. Danielson. Yes, sir. First of all, I would like to
point out that we have taken nothing off the table with regards
to a future governance structure. But what we do believe is, as
this technology develops, we want to use the right tool for the
right time. And we believe that the Federal Automated Vehicles
Policy that we released last year was the right tool in that it
provided the world's first national framework for the safe
testing and deployment of automated vehicles, which was
designed to discourage a patchwork of State laws with respect
to vehicle performance and safety but, at the same time, was
adaptive enough to leave room for market innovation. And as we
go forward, we are going to collect more information that will
be necessary for future actions relative to a future governance
structure.
Mr. Smucker. I believe there was a period to take public
comments as a part of that. What is the next step in addressing
those comments?
Mr. Danielson. Last month, the Secretary in Detroit
announced that NHTSA and the Department would be releasing an
updated version of the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy within
the next few months, and she has directed NHTSA to begin to
prepare that update, and we are doing that right now.
Mr. Smucker. So when can we expect that?
Mr. Danielson. Timeframe was the next few months. She
announced that last month.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much.
I guess I would like to ask questions to two of the
witnesses at the table. Being from Texas, of course, we have
lots and lots of trucks, and safety is a major issue. And I
noticed that, Ms. Dinh-Zarr, that you have determined that
speed is a major issue as well as some of the underride guards.
Have you attempted to make recommendations along these lines?
And what kind of results have you had?
I guess, Mr. Danielson, I would like you to respond as
well.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. Thank you, Congresswoman Johnson.
I am also from Texas, so I certainly recognize the
importance of trucking to our Nation's health and welfare.
And, yes, we have made recommendations regarding speed
limiters as well as front, rear, and side underride guards. We
conducted a study in 2013 on underride crashes and on safety of
underride guards. And we made recommendations regarding setting
performance standards regarding those underrides.
Mr. Danielson. Congresswoman, both of those areas are areas
of active consideration and activity for the agency. On speed
limiters, we released in concert with FMCSA last year an NPRM
that we received public comments on, and we are reviewing
those. With respect to rear underride guards, we released an
NPRM in 2015 and received comments, and we are reviewing those
as well. We are also doing active research in this area to
develop test procedures for overlap crashes in a rear crash
scenario with a rear guard.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Some of those studies have indicated
that 73 percent reduction in accidents could happen. Are you
having any conversation with truck users or the companies? What
kind of feedback are you getting there?
Mr. Danielson. Yes. We receive a lot of public comments on
that rule. And we are reviewing that now. The goal of the
NPRM--what the NPRM was looking at was harmonizing our standard
with the standard that is already present in Canada, which, I
believe, is a 35-mile-an-hour crash test threshold for rear
guards.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. But are you optimistic that we can
achieve these goals of some speed reduction and some
improvement in the trucks?
Mr. Danielson. Because this is a regulatory proposal that
is active on the agenda, I am somewhat constrained in
forecasting the content and timing of our regulatory agenda.
But I can tell you that this is an area of active consideration
in the agency.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Have you received some positive
acceptance from some of the truckers?
Mr. Danielson. I would have to--I would have to go back and
review those comments and get back to you, Congresswoman.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. OK. Well, thank you very much.
That is all.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to the panel for your attendance.
I think my questions will be directed to Mrs. Jefferson.
First, regarding the FAST Act and the fact that it created a
military pilot program for individuals, select personnel,
between the ages of 18 to 21 years of age, as well as a process
to ease the integration of veterans in getting their CDLs and
performing in that industry. I also know that the trucking
industry has a--like many other industries, is struggling to
find labor and help to do the driving. So I am just wondering
if you have any metrics to describe how those two programs are
going?
Mrs. Jefferson. Thank you, Congressman Perry, for that
question. We are in the process of rulemaking to move forward
with the military driver converting from military service to
civilian and reducing barriers to getting a commercial driver's
license, as well as moving forward with plans for the under-21
drivers who have previous military experience. So those are
moving forward.
Mr. Perry. So you are in the rulemaking process. At what
point? Do you have an expected date to put them out for public
comment? Or do you have a timeline at all that you can
describe?
Mrs. Jefferson. We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
in June. And we will continue to work through that process of
getting public comment. In addition to that, there are other
areas where we are working with our State partners as well as
the motor vehicle Administrators to make sure that we do
everything we can to support our men and women who are coming
out of military service into civilian life.
Mr. Perry. All right. Thank you.
As you may know, in April, I introduced a bill regarding
comprehensive regulatory reform in the passenger carrier
industry called BUSREGS-21. I drafted the legislation because I
kept hearing from constituents and owner-operators in the
district and literally from across the country about a culture
of overzealous enforcement from the agency. And I saw it myself
when I first came to Congress, when I talked to a previous
Director. You know, schoolbuses and motorcoaches are two of the
safest modes of surface transportation that we have. Yet the
regulations just keep coming and coming for these folks, and
they are struggling to maintain their businesses. And if you
are trying to get into the business, you can just about forget
it. So my bill attempts a direct regulatory reset.
Now, on a positive note, I want to report that the agency
has already rescinded two regulations that my bill proposed to
rescind, the carrier fitness determination and the minimum
insurance limits, and is proposing a revision to a third, the
lease and interchange rule, which is also exceptionally
problematic. One of the other things that is in the bill is an
amendment to the mission statement.
Mrs. Jefferson, I just want to get your thoughts on it.
Obviously, we want your mission statement to be about safety,
right? But we also want to include the industry in itself
because a robust industry that is profitable and that is safe
is good for, not only the employees and the owners, but for the
public that wants to travel and use them in schoolbuses. I
don't know where any of us would be without the schoolbus
industry and ability to get our kids safely to school. So, with
that, we also want to add, not only the priority on safety, but
fostering an environment for a thriving passenger carrier
industry. And this would be consistent with the FAA's mission
statement and other agencies. And I am just wondering what your
thoughts are on that, if you find that objectionable, or if
that is something we can work on together, or if that is
something totally out of the realm of possibilities, from your
standpoint.
Mrs. Jefferson. Well, I think, as you said, safety is our
top priority. But we believe a healthy, robust, commercial
motor vehicle industry, both trucks and buses, is good for
safety. I think companies across the industry, whether it be
passenger carriers or property carriers, the vast majority
realize that safety is a part of their business model. And it
is good for business. And so, from the standpoint of FMCSA, we
would be happy to work with you because we believe that a
healthy industry is a safe industry. And the more money and
profitability, hopefully, those profits will also be used for
safety.
Mr. Perry. I am sure you can imagine--I will close with
this--I am sure, as the owner of one of the companies, whether
it is a schoolbus company or motorcoach company, the absolute
last thing you want to hear or see in the news is there has
been an accident where somebody was hurt. And it behooves all
of them to do things as safely as they can for the viability of
their business, if not their own conscience. So I appreciate
your comments.
Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
I want to thank you, the chairman, and the ranking member,
who is not here, Mr. DeFazio, for taking into consideration a
request that I, along with Representative Cummings and Duncan,
penned to hold a hearing that could touch on schoolbus safety
in light of the accidents that have been discussed here in
Maryland and in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and others.
In November 2016, these accidents occurred: 6 dead in
Baltimore and 6 dead in Chattanooga; 31 passengers injured; 6
school-aged children were taken--``too early'' is not the right
term. They were taken, and that was wrong. No more precious
cargo is there for any commercial carrier than children,
school-aged children, entrusted by their parents to go and get
educated to have a better life.
The NTSB has had ongoing investigations into these
accidents and cannot answer questions directly related to each
case. I understand that. But in both cases, it seems there were
a number of safety precautions and oversight issues that could
have prevented or mitigated the risk of injuries and fatalities
suffered from the unfortunate events.
Having said that, I want to ask a few questions of Ms.
Dinh-Zarr. In five reports since 2010, including accident
investigations involving schoolbus crashes in Anaheim;
Chesterfield, New Jersey; Knoxville; Houston, Texas; and Gray
Summit, Missouri, the NTSB made several observations in which
it concluded that compartmentalization was not enough to
prevent all injuries, particularly in accidents involving side
impact or high-speed rollover. Yet, on your website, the NTSB
states that it believes and recommends that new schoolbuses
should provide children with three-point seatbelts.
A, does this recommendation still stand? Can you elaborate
how the NTSB came to the conclusion that compartmentalization
was an insufficient safety mechanism? And when can we expect
the investigations of the Chattanooga and Baltimore crashes to
be released? And those are my questions for you.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. Thank you, Congressman----
Mr. Cohen. You are welcome.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr [continuing]. Cohen. I appreciate your asking
those questions because schoolbus crashes are always some of
the hardest for us to investigate but, obviously, very
important to make sure that our children get to school safely.
We can't speak specifically about some of the issues that
you mention regarding the investigation but we are looking into
medical fitness as well as screening of drivers in schoolbuses.
You mentioned the three-point seatbelt, the lap/shoulder
harness seatbelt recommendation. That still does stand. We are
recommending that States and school boards, as they buy new
schoolbuses, buy buses that have this type of better restraint
system. In our crash reconstruction and our investigations, we
found that there are certain types of crashes, such as a
rollover crash or a side impact crash, where having a three-
point seatbelt is very important.
I should say that schoolbuses are very safe vehicles. It is
much safer for a child to go to school in a schoolbus than
almost any other vehicle. Compartmentalization is an important
tool for safety on the schoolbus, but it primarily helps with
forward-type collisions. So that is why that three-point
seatbelt recommendation still stands.
Mr. Cohen. Your statement, you said that you would--States
should consider when purchasing new buses. ``Consider.'' Have
you thought of anything stronger than ``consider'' and
mandating, since it is such an important safety element that
you have endorsed and found studies?
And I have got five reports on schoolbus investigations
that I want to enter into the record where they all say that
school seatbelts would have saved children's lives.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. We certainly will consider it. And as the
investigation for these two November schoolbus crashes
continues, we will, again, consider how the wording goes.
In the past, we have always attempted to balance being very
prescriptive with the feasibility of some of our
recommendations. But we will certainly take your comments under
consideration.
Mr. Cohen. I hope so. I have been working on this since the
1990s, and I have always had school boards against it. They
don't want to spend the money. And the money should come
secondary to the safety.
I would like to introduce for the record, without
objection, these five reports that all indicate that seatbelts
on schoolbuses would save lives. Dollars shouldn't be the issue
with our precious cargo.
[The 113-page report about the Chesterfield, NJ, collision
(Accident Report NTSB/HAR-13/01, PB2013-106638) can be found
online at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/
Reports/HAR1301.pdf. The 104-page report about the Gray Summit,
MO, collision (Accident Report NTSB/HAR-11/03, PB2011-916203)
can be found online at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/
AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1103.pdf. The other three reports
are on pages 85-130.]
Mr. Cohen. There are some other issues I have dealt with.
And I only have a few seconds left. But I want to ask this: Are
there any recommendations that any of you all have on graduated
driver's licenses, to how we should try to improve those, those
laws in the States, and/or ignition interlock laws for multiple
DUI offenders?
Mr. Danielson. Sir, for all of our national priority
programs that are kind of on the newer side, there is a period
of time that it takes for States to comply. And graduated
driver's license is the biggest example of this. We have zero
States who are eligible for these programs.
NHTSA is going to work with these States to try and get
them eligible. Congress sort of relaxed some of the standards.
States still aren't there. But we have seen, over time,
particularly with our more mature priority programs, that
States do come along, and they do work. The strong laws that
Congress requires under the FAST Act do work over time in terms
of saving lives. And we have seen it with occupant protection.
In 2016, for the first time, seatbelt usage nationwide went
over 90 percent. And that is largely because of the strong laws
required under the authorization of Congress. So we don't want
to encourage lowering the standards too much. We take it on
ourselves to try and work with the States to provide technical
assistance to get them where they need to be in order to have
strong laws on the books.
Mr. Cohen. Before I yield back the time that I don't have,
I just want to thank you for what you have done. I passed a
seatbelt law in Tennessee 15 years ago. And Jim Hall worked
with us closely on that. I appreciated his support and hope you
all will keep up the standards, because it was difficult to get
the standards in there to say kids couldn't use cell phones or
kids had to put on their seatbelts or the number of passengers
and all that.
And ignition interlock is something else we worked on back
then. And for multiple DUI offenders, they ought to be able to
do the Constitution backwards.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Barletta.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I came to Congress, I owned a road construction
business. So I know firsthand how dangerous it can be working
in construction zones. We actually put the lines on the road
that saved lives. You know, I always used to say: You never
read in the paper the names of the people whose lives you have
saved.
There is only so much signage and protection that you can
offer your employees to protect them from the constant threat
of distracted drivers and speeding trucks and vehicles. The
data speaks for itself. According to FHWA, in 2014, 119 roadway
construction workers lost their lives in work zone crashes. In
2015, 700 people were killed in work zones as a result of motor
vehicle crashes.
Just last month, I was personally touched by such an
incident. Michael J. Friendy, who I had hired when I had my
business, he was a 41-year-old from my hometown in Hazleton. He
was setting up a construction zone on Interstate 81 when he was
struck by a car and killed instantly. I knew Mike for over 20
years and was incredibly saddened by his death. My thoughts and
prayers continue to be with his friends and his family and his
coworkers as they grieve this incredible loss.
Acting Deputy Administrator Waidelich, in your opinion,
what steps can this committee take to combat work zone crashes
and improve the safety for roadway construction workers and
contractors so that we don't lose more talented, and hard-
working and good people like Michael Friendy?
Mr. Waidelich. Congressman, you are correct with stating
that the dangers of work zones today, especially with the
increases in volumes of traffic, night work that is going on,
and more work that is going on out on our roadways because we
are trying to rehabilitate and reconstruct our infrastructure.
The Federal Highway Administration works in many different
ways to improve work zones, to work with our stakeholders,
whether it be States or locals or others. First, we have the
``Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,'' which includes
minimum standards for work zone safety signing and buffer zones
and those types of elements within a particular work zone.
We work on deployment of technologies, for example,
intrusion alarms that would alarm workers when the work zone is
actually intruded by a particular vehicle.
A big part also is awareness and public education. During
Work Zone Awareness Week, we work with AASHTO and ATSSA and get
the word out, because work zones are not only dangerous for
workers; they are also dangerous for those vehicles that are
going through it. As you stated, it was over 500 motor vehicle
fatalities that occurred in work zones also on an annual basis.
And in working with this committee, I would hope that
availability of those funds for deployment of those types of
innovations, and for education and awareness about work zones,
would continue.
Mr. Barletta. We got to do a lot more work. Because the
only thing that was separating them from live traffic were
rubber cones.
Back in 2015, when this committee was working on a highway
bill, I pushed for language to be included that would reform
motor carrier safety scores to make sure that they were more
reflective of a company's safety record. Just last month, the
National Academy of Sciences published a report, as required by
the FAST Act, detailing their findings on the Compliance,
Safety, Accountability program, more commonly known as CSA.
Deputy Administrator Jefferson, does FMCSA believe that the
findings of this report require the Safety Measurement System
to be replaced with a more defensible statistical model? And,
if so, what are the agency's specific plans and timetable for
implementing such a corrective action plan?
Mrs. Jefferson. Congressman Barletta, FMCSA supports the
findings of the National Academy of Sciences, and we are
grateful to the volunteers who worked on that study. It is our
intent to provide a corrective action plan to Congress within
120 days of submitting that report.
We are also working with the Academy of Sciences to
identify strategies for implementing those recommendations.
They have given us a roadmap, if you will, of ways to improve
SMS. And it is our intent to follow through on that. And so, as
we go through the process of developing an implementation
strategy, that will get us to a better result. And so we
appreciate the work that they have done and also our intent to
include industry and other stakeholders in the process as we go
along as well, and, of course, keeping Congress aware of our
actions as we proceed.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to address my question to Ms. Dinh-Zarr.
You have had the experience both inside the regulatory world
and outside as an advocate. So I think you bring a special
perspective to how to make regulation, what it takes to get it
done, and why you need it, what goes on behind the scenes to
protect our safety. I raised concerns in this committee a
number of times about what I think is the President's kind of
misguided Executive order where he says, for every regulation
you put in place, you have to eliminate two, this arbitrary
rule. As you heard from some of my colleagues, regulation has
become kind of a punching bag, or a dirty word. Where
regulation is bad, we need to get rid of regulation. They tend
to forget that regulation is put in place for the safety of
people who are driving or who are riding on our highways and
buses and cars and going to school, our children.
Also, they tend to forget that the regulations that you all
put in place are the result of legislation that we pass. I have
got a list of the regulations that were required by the FAST
Act, just the FAST Act. And I would remind this committee that
some of the people who are criticizing regulations voted for
that FAST Act that required you all to put in place these
regulations.
So I would just ask you kind of what your perspective is on
making regulations in this new environment where you have to
strike two that you thought were good for safety now in order
to do something else as technology changes, communication
changes, the world changes. Would you address that for us?
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. Thank you, Congresswoman Titus, for that
very complex question.
Clearly, we are not a regulatory agency. So we are a little
bit different from my colleagues here on the panel. But the
recommendations we make do affect regulation. And we are very
careful about that. We are not for regulation that is unneeded.
Any recommendations we make that affect regulations are based
on an investigation of a terrible tragedy, and intended to
prevent similar tragedies from happening again.
That said, we also make recommendations that allow other
options other than regulations. So many of our recommendations
regarding impaired driving, distracted driving, are targeted
more toward States, for example. Sometimes it is targeted
towards companies. Sometimes it is targeted towards
associations.
So we seek a balance between ensuring that those
regulations that are most safety critical do go forward and are
not delayed. I will give you an example: The safety fitness
determination. We are very concerned that that delay will
affect safety because that rulemaking was withdrawn. I hope
that all of us, no matter where we come from, are prioritizing
safety in our decisionmaking regarding regulations as well as
other forms of advancing safety.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Other members of the panel want to address this from the
standpoint of your agencies, striking two to do one new one?
Mr. Waidelich. I think maybe I can just affirm from the
Federal Highway Administration, I agree that safety is the
number one priority of the Department, and that does take a
priority in this two-for-one rule.
Mrs. Jefferson. We at the FMCSA are reviewing all of our
regulations. But as we continue to focus on safety, we take
that into consideration. And so we want to make sure that the
rules that are in place remain current and relevant but
continue to focus our attention on safety.
Mr. Danielson. I would just echo the comments of my
colleagues.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. LaMalfa [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Graves from Louisiana is recognized, 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Waidelich, in August of last year, in south Louisiana,
we experienced one of the greatest floods in U.S. history. It
was about the fourth most expensive flood disaster, according
to FEMA data. It was, by some measures, estimated to be a
1,000-year flood.
If you can put pictures up.
I want to show you one component. So that is, obviously, an
offramp. There is the freeway running from the bottom right
toward the top left, that black strip there. And, obviously,
that is all water. All that brown is water up there.
If you go to the next one, that is the interstate right
there. So the right side is the north side of the interstate.
The left side is the south side. So that is--I guess the north
side is the westbound lane, and the left side is the eastbound
lane.
You may think that that is a levy in between. That is
actually a safety wall. You can imagine that--that is actually
a shopping center in the back right of that.
If you can go to the next one, I think I have a better
picture. The next one. Maybe not. Can you go back twice?
So that is actually a shopping center back there, just to
give you an idea of how that wall forced the pooling of water
and exacerbated the flooding in this situation. And, also, all
up and down the highway here, we had several pockets where the
interstate was flooded that--I don't remember the number right
off. I think there were an estimated 1,500 cars that were just
stuck on the interstate. They couldn't get anywhere because
there was flooding on either side of them.
Could you, perhaps, comment on that safety feature? As you
see, there are no drainage outlets in that. That barrier goes
on for miles, which also is an impediment to law enforcement
and emergency vehicles trying to cross over. Does that look
normal?
Mr. Waidelich. I would hate to say whether it looks normal
or not, not knowing specifically what is down there.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. I hope it doesn't look normal with
6 or 8 feet of water----
Mr. Waidelich. When we have these types of events, it
allows us to assess those situations with the emergency relief
dollars and to determine how do we move forward with this into
the future. As a matter of fact, in the FAST Act, it asked us
to look at these types of situations where you have repetitive
type of natural disasters that cause these types of events on
our roadways and to make those determinations about what to do
in the future with these, potentially upgrading facilities and
changing the facilities so it doesn't happen again.
With that said, we have been having a lot of intense
weather events over the last several years around the country.
As we also move forward with the FAST Act implementations of
asset management, risk-based asset management, my hope is as we
move to the future and correct these particular roadways, that
we take that into consideration in these areas where you may
have evacuation routes and things like that.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. This can't be the first time you
have ever seen something like this.
Mr. Waidelich. No.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Most of the walls that I have
seen, well, look, I certainly understand the safety aspects: It
blocks rubbernecking. It prevents head-on collisions, and
certainly there is value there. But why there are not drain
outlets in that wall and why Federal standards would not call
for certain increment of drainage flow or offsetting walls or
something in some areas, I simply don't understand. I mean, we
beg for levees like this all over south Louisiana, and to have
one on the interstate is crazy. It just doesn't make sense to
me at all.
And you have many towns, in Livingston, Walker, Denham
Springs, even in Baton Rouge, that the flooding was
significantly exacerbated on the north side of the interstate
as a result of this safety feature. And so I want to ask if you
could please go back to Federal Highways and advise us on the
status of updating standards from lessons learned like this,
the timeline of that. If you could advise us on how long it is
going to take to get new standards in place to where we don't
have situations like this again. And here we are approaching a
year after the flood, no one has touched the wall. Still there.
No drainage outlets, no nothing. And, God forbid, we have
another big flood. But we are down at the bottom of one of the
largest watersheds in the world, and that certainly is
possible. Could you do that?
Mr. Waidelich. I will. I will take that back and get back
with you.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Great. Thank you very much.
I have one other question. I am looking at time. I am going
to go ahead and submit that for the record, related to timing
of finalizing regulations in the FAST Act.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. LaMalfa. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair would like to recognize the gentleman from
California for 5 minutes, Mr. DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is such a pleasure to be here serving under your
chairmanship.
I want to make sure that my comments are not taken in a way
that detracts from this historical confidence and
professionalism of all your agencies. But I am concerned,
obviously, about the numbers we have in our staff report that
the increase in fatalities and traffic accidents in the United
States, from NHTSA, Mr. Danielson, increased so dramatically
from 2014 to 2015. Over 35,000 Americans lost their lives, one
every 15 minutes. This is the largest increase over a 1-year
period in 50 years of recordkeeping. And then the Centers for
Disease Control, their research showing that we are an outlier
in that regard when we look at other countries.
So my question is in context to that. But, historically,
you have all done a good job. But the urgency of a world that
is changing so rapidly and your ability to adapt to that. So I
am going to bring three incidents, areas, just as an
illustration. I want you to respond to it.
First, in procurement, I had a constituent die on Highway
101 in Marin County in northern California some years ago when
he fell asleep and ran into a guardrail that had been approved
by NHTSA, built by Trinity Industries. There was subsequently a
New York Times story, about a year ago, over a $100 million
judgment against Trinity. The ABC affiliate in San Francisco
found out that Caltrans had, literally, thousands of these
modified guardrails that were dangerous to the public and
turned out to be involved in fatalities around the country,
litigation against Department of Transportation, Texas,
Virginia. And my response when I was looking at this in the
legislature, was from the Secretary of Transportation of--great
professional in the Brown administration, the director of
Caltrans, was they relied on NHTSA. And you had approved this.
And you hadn't responded to it.
So I bring that in the context of the urgency for you to
respond to situations like this and the confidence that is
important for the public and States to have in you, because
they do. And then so that. So it is more illustrative of the
story of your ability to adapt.
And the other two areas, one of which has been brought up
here extensively about marijuana and the increased use. CRS, I
have a constituent, Phillip Drum, who, because his sister died
in an accident that was attributed to someone who was abusing
marijuana in the other vehicle, made it his cause to come here
and around the country. But in research we have gotten from the
CRS because of his questions is that several studies have shown
that THC in people's blood was roughly twice as likely to be
responsible for deadly crashes than drugs or alcohol, other
drugs or alcohol. So the ability for you to respond to that in
a world where States are approving--Colorado and now
California--the legalization of marijuana I think it is
particularly important in the perception that people rely on
NHTSA to be responsive. So how you can do that and Congress
can.
And, lastly, in the area of technology. Having dealt with
Apple and other providers, it is my belief that technology
exists right now--and there has been a story, at least in Money
magazine that Apple believes in their next platform, they will
have technology so that you can shut down phones when there is
movement in the car so that they can't receive. And so the
issue of distraction could be inhibited quite a bit.
There is currently technology, but it requires a Federal
Communications Commission waiver that, for less than $30, you
can put a device in the car so a parent could--and it could
intercept any kind of transmissions either coming in or out of
the car.
So those three instances are just illustrative to me of the
urgency and the confidence that the public and States need and
the private sector that you have the ability to respond
quickly. And the urgency is particularly acute, because if we
are an outlier, there are lives at risk. Not to indulge in
hyperbole. So what is it that you think you need from us to be
able to be more responsive or to communicate more clearly to
States that there is a danger involved, a prospective danger,
while you do your due diligence, to legalizing marijuana? There
is a danger involved if we don't get on top of distracted
driving. And there may be technology. So how can we prod Apple
and Samsung to get us that technology sooner rather than later?
Mr. Danielson. Sir, you raise a lot of really important
points, particularly about behavioral safety. The one thing--
your point on 2015 and the largest rate increase in 50 years is
right on. And that is a source of major concern. Historically--
I would just like to, you know, broaden our aperture just a
little bit. If you go back those 50 years and look at our
fatality rate at that time, today, we are one-fifth where we
were 50 years ago. So vehicles are safer. Roadways are safer.
And the work----
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Danielson, I don't mean to interrupt
you. But the first comments I made were meant to address that.
So we have done really good work. But we have got this anomaly
right now that I think we have to have a sense of urgency about
correcting. So I acknowledge what we have done.
Mr. Danielson. OK. I would like to defer to my colleague at
Federal Highway on the first issue of the guardrails. And then
I can address your second and third issue.
Mr. Waidelich. Let me see if I can address guardrails very
quickly. There are standards for roadside hardware, and they
have improved over the years. Our current standard is MASH,
``Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware.'' It is a national
standard. It was just recently adopted. The previous one was
NCHRP 350. Roadside hardware is tested to those standards. That
is like the laboratory test. I hate to say it and call it that
way, but it is a controlled test. When that test is passed and
we at Federal Highway review those test results to ensure that
it passes, States will use that roadside hardware out if they
choose.
You also have to assess in-service performance,
maintenance, and construction practices that go along with
this, which may vary from State to State. When it comes to
guardrail end terminals, we do have an in-service pilot on that
with four States currently involved in that. And what we have
found from reviewing those end terminals is that none of those
end terminals are better or worse than the others. So our
program is fact-based, and data-driven, and performance-based.
And without that data showing us that these truly are dangerous
or more dangerous than what else is out there, we would not
pull those particular devices.
Mr. DeSaulnier. So, Mr. Danielson, the Chair is indulging
me. I appreciate those comments, although we can engage in
further conversation outside of my limited time.
Mr. Danielson. OK. On marijuana, as you mentioned, you have
a number of States that are legalizing marijuana. From 2007 to
2014, we saw a 50-percent increase in usage. And we know that
marijuana impairs judgment and impairs driving ability,
particularly with reaction time. And so our research is geared
to try and establish a baseline threshold where we can
establish impairment. Because, right now, we don't have a
scientifically acceptable threshold for impairment of
marijuana. And the other technological challenge associated
with that is the detection of impairment. Even once we have
that, do we have the technology to test either, you know, oral
fluids or other biometric features to establish impairment by
law enforcement officials.
Right now, NHTSA uses the drug recognition expert program,
where we train about 8,000 law enforcement officials on a
battery of tests to basically--because different drugs have
different effects--to basically establish impairment by various
drugs. These are court-accepted procedures, but it is very
complicated. It takes a lot of time to train law enforcement.
They are very important. But having a device would be very
important.
On distraction, you mentioned, just recently, there was
several press reports about----
Mr. LaMalfa. We will have to ask that we--but we can have a
second round of questions, if you care to stay for that. So--
just got to be fair.
OK. Thank you for--I will recognize now Mr. Faso for 5
minutes.
Mr. Faso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Waidelich, are you familiar with the issue between your
agency and New York State relating to certain signage that New
York State has erected over the last 2 years relating to
tourism and other travel promotion and other New York State
promotional signage along State highways, and your agency has
declared that these signs are not in compliance with regulation
and is seeking to have New York State remove the signs? Can you
update--number one, are you familiar with this issue, and can
you update me on your agency's position on this matter?
Mr. Waidelich. I am familiar with the issue on signs in New
York. And we have issues in other States. And we, as an agency,
work with those States to bring the States back into
compliance. Currently, we are working with New York to see if
there is a way we can develop a pilot with those particular
signs. But, yes, we are working with the State of New York and
the DOT to do that.
Mr. Faso. And what is the consequence if New York doesn't
comply with the regulations?
Mr. Waidelich. Again, we like to work with the State to
bring them in compliance, but we do have the ability to
withhold Federal funds if it comes down to that.
Mr. Faso. Mr. Chairman, I would like to include for the
record a letter from Peter Osborn to the commissioner of the
New York State Department of Transportation, dated May 8, 2017,
in which it says that they have not received any response from
the State on this exact issue of the pilot. So I would like to
follow up with the Acting Administrator on this topic going
forward.
Mr. LaMalfa. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faso. And, Ms. Dinh-Zarr, I had not--I apologize for
not being here earlier. I was in an Agriculture Committee
meeting, but I was intrigued by your response on the three-
point safety belt. At what point did the three-point safety
belts become required by manufacturers in rear seats of
vehicles?
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. In passenger vehicles rather than----
Mr. Faso. Passenger vehicles, yes.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr [continuing]. Schoolbuses? I should get back
to you with the exact dates.
Mr. Faso. My understanding, it was 2008 or 2007 that this
became required for the rear seats.
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. I believe that is correct. I suppose NHTSA
could answer that better. I know a lot of vehicles had them
long before that. They were voluntarily installing them.
Mr. Faso. Because I have had some incidents in my district
where people have regrettably suffered serious injury or even
fatality only wearing a lap harness, a lap seatbelt, in
vehicles that were manufactured pre the required deadline. I
think it was 2008 again.
Has there been any effort by the agency to try to encourage
vehicle manufacturers to alert auto consumers of the dangers
and advise them as to how one might add a rather inexpensive
safety enhancement to those seatbelts?
Ms. Dinh-Zarr. The NTSB has not done that. What we did do
is look at rear occupant protection. And we looked at other
ways to protect occupants of the vehicle. But it does take 20
or more years before the fleet overturns. And there are plenty
of cars that are before that requirement.
But we did look at, in our rear occupant protection
workshop, the crashworthiness of the rear occupant area.
Mr. Faso. OK.
And, Mr. Danielson, again, I hadn't intended to raise this
question, but the question on marijuana use and what is the
definition or the lack of definition of incapacity based upon
consuming marijuana substances. Is there a standard that we
should be looking at asking your agency or others to develop as
to what might be the appropriate level for which we know what
the blood alcohol count is for alcohol, for instance? What
should be the standard for marijuana?
Mr. Danielson. The goal would be to develop a standard, but
that needs to be developed scientifically so the data--the data
and technology isn't quite there, and the research isn't quite
there. But we are working towards that actively. Particularly
given this data, we try and have our programs be data-driven,
and so we see these increases, and we want to get on top of
this. So our research is focused in this area to try and
establish a threshold.
Mr. Faso. Could you advise us for the record as to the
timing on that and whether we should anticipate or whether it
is appropriate to contemplate legislation in this area? I would
appreciate that.
Mr. Danielson. Yes, sir.
[Please refer to the insert on page 41 for the information for
the record.]
Mr. Faso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right. The gentleman yields back.
We have an opportunity for an additional round of
questioning for those that are still here.
Did you have any more, Mr. Faso, or would----
Mr. Faso. I am done.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. I will turn to my ranking member here.
Ms. Norton, would you have additional questions in this
round?
Ms. Norton. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Thank you.
Well, I do. Otherwise, we will be soon finished after that.
So I want to come back with Mrs. Jefferson, our Deputy
Administrator there, following up on the ELDs. I ran out of
time earlier. We know with this mandate coming down the pike
here for the electronic logging devices that is projected to
cost around $2 billion to implement as imposed under the
previous administration, that, again, in my neighborhood, we
have very many small independent carriers in ag industry and
the related services they provide between a mill, livestock,
whatever. And so they are seeing this as a heavy burden. It is
a little different deal for the large carriers. Many of them
already use these technologies, as we know. And they are good.
It is good technology. But, again, the small carriers really
have a hard time bearing these new costs with a mandate such as
this. And they don't really see an opportunity for
compensation.
But just last night, my understanding, in the THUD, that
the legislation provided in full committee a 1-year delay of
the mandate for livestock haulers and, I think, insect haulers
here, which sounds kind of funny. But that means beekeepers, I
think, primarily. So that likely gets through here. So is FMCSA
ready to know the difference between on implementing that for
livestock haulers for the 150-mile, as the crow flies,
exemption zone that is being sought and worked through? Will
they be geared to be able to do that should we complete this
legislation for that additional delay for those types of
carriers?
Mrs. Jefferson. Congressman, there are ag exemptions that
exist to hours of service and some of those, as you related, to
the 150 air miles for certain livestock and insects. I am
assuming bees as well. And those don't change under the ELD
mandate. ELD is basically the methodology for tracking hours of
service for those who currently are required to track their
hours of service. And so exemptions that exist to hours of
service currently will exist after December 18. And so we will
continue to work with agriculture and segments of that industry
that have questions or concerns about the ELD implementation.
We believe that ELDs will promote safety, making it easier
to record hours of service for those who are required to
maintain records of on-duty status.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, certainly, no one is against safety, but
it isn't always easier for everybody to come up with--you know,
me to mandate. You know, we had some pro-regulation arguments
here. We have a lot of frustration with regulations. A lot of
people are looking for flexibility, and they have unique
situations that they are--you know, were--let's say livestock
hauling, for example. That is a unique situation where the
livestock might be at a particular time and weather, what have
you. And you can't just stop. And other cases too. There are
other types of industry seeking some types of exemptions too,
and, you know, rentals and even Government contracting and some
of the large carriers that have unique delivery needs. So I
just want to know that FMCSA is looking at some of these. Do
you see that any further exemption might be granted where these
folks can prove that the regulation, all well-intended, really
harms them?
Mrs. Jefferson. We have a process for those who are seeking
exemptions.
As I said, there are currently exemptions to hours of
service that exist for segments of agriculture. If the request
is an exemption to the hours of service, they may already
exist.
When it comes to being able to meet the compliance state
for electronic logging devices, our target is December 18. We
will be happy to follow up and talk about specific issues that
you may have. We also are providing information, questions and
answers, on our website. We continue to update those every day
to make sure that folks understand the upcoming requirements
for ELDs. We also have information on hours of service that is
available as well. And----
Mr. LaMalfa. I just want to--and I am short on time here.
But I just want the idea that those that are going to be in the
enforcement capacity will be fully informed of whatever
exemptions, whether it is the livestock and ag-type one or
others that may come down the pike, so that people aren't
getting caught in the middle out there, if they have--if
enforcers haven't been properly trained on that, you will see
that that information is out there.
Mrs. Jefferson. Absolutely. We work very closely with law
enforcement to ensure they have up-to-date information.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
And, briefly, I want to jump to Mr. Danielson.
In your opening statement there, you had some very
interesting information on marijuana and its effects. And we
have several States now having legalized it, even still in
defiance of Federal law. And you were talking about impairment.
Would you recap just for a few seconds impairment and some
of the other stats you gave in the beginning?
Mr. Danielson. Yes, sir.
The bottom line for impairment would--by drugs is that it
is not well understood because there is not a scientifically--
--
Mr. LaMalfa. You are talking reaction time is down and----
Mr. Danielson. Yeah.
Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. Awareness?
Mr. Danielson. So what we do know is that usage rate has
gone up 50 percent. We also know from laboratory studies that
marijuana impairs judgment and impairs driving ability,
particularly reaction time, which makes it dangerous to use
when driving.
Mr. LaMalfa. Now, what is the--you have different potency.
You have different types of ability to ingest marijuana or
marijuana product. How many hours after it has been used. I
mean, do you have these kinds of stats that you are working
forward, you know, with potency? How many hours ago you have
used it before you would resume driving? What do you have on
that?
Mr. Danielson. Well, that would be part of--that would be
part of the research in order to establish a threshold.
Mr. LaMalfa. How is your research coming? What do you need?
Mr. Danielson. That is what I owe for the record. I was
asked previously to provide some additional information for the
record on that research.
Mr. LaMalfa. Would you provide that to my office as well,
please?
Mr. Danielson. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
NHTSA is currently conducting research on the crash risk
associated with marijuana use by drivers and methods for
identifying marijuana use by drivers at the roadside, including
screening technologies and behavioral cues. Information from
this research might be used to improve tools for use by
criminal justice officials in arresting and prosecuting drugged
drivers. Current technology is unable to provide evidence of
marijuana impairment by drivers and developing methods that are
accurate and reliable will require a significant scientific
breakthrough. The timing of such a non-linear scientific
advance is uncertain. NHTSA is exploring opportunities to
stimulate progress.
Mr. LaMalfa. What do you need, though, additionally to have
a handle on this for--in general, for--because we don't seem to
have clear standards for what a DUI is. And you especially tie
that to trucking, for example, you got a big problem. Go ahead.
Mr. Danielson. Because we understand alcohol impairment so
well, and we have an easy test--drugs are different because
drugs just--the body reacts to them differently depending on
the drug. So we have had somewhat of a complex battery approach
to this where we train law enforcement officers to do roadside
tests with people who are suspected of drug impairment. As we
move forward with this research, our hope is that we would have
something that would be perhaps a device, not unlike a
breathalyzer, where we could test people for drug impairment.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yeah. Certainly, it has a couple different
things. THC, my understanding, goes away right away, but the
other elements of it stay in the cells of the body much longer.
And so it sounds like we need more information on how to
quantify that.
Well, with that, I will stop there. And so if there is not
any further questions from any committee members, we will go
ahead and thank each of you for your time, your appearance,
your travel for being here today. It has been very helpful and
a good ongoing discussion.
So I would ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
hearing remain open until such time our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may have been submitted to them
in writing and that unanimous consent--that the record remain
open for 15 days for additional comments and information
submitted by members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing.
So, without objection, so ordered.
If no other members have anything to add, the subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]