>> let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400 or e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> at a recent senate transportation hearing on the trucking industry and public safety, the outgoing administrator of the federal motor carrier safety administration stressed the need to limit the amount of time a truck driver can be on the road. safety experts and advocates also testified. senator risch ard blumenthal -- richard or blumenthal chairs while senator roy blunt is ranking member. this is just under two hours. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm going to call the hearing to order and apologize, first of all, for a little bit late

start. we just finished a vote which i just did, and i'm sure that we'll be joined by others of our colleagues for this very important hearing. today this subcommittee is focused on safety, particularly as it relates to trucks on our nation's roads and highways. this issue is something that i have cared about deeply throughout my career, and i appreciate senator blunt's commitment as well. i know he has been very, very focused on issues relating to safety. there may be some issues that divide us, but there is so much more that we have in common x be that's why we're having this hearing, that's why we're joined by witnesses who are really experts on this topic from across a wide spectrum. the administration, safety advocacy, law enforcement and the industry, the trucking industry and the men and women

who drive trucks. i'm eager to hear their testimony and decide what we can do to reduce the fatalities and the injuries on our roads. there have been a lot of headlines lately, and you've probably seen about tracy morgan who was seriously injured in a crash in early june involving a large truck which also injured very severely a connecticut resident. but this hearing today isn't about one person, whether tracy morgan or anyone else. it's about the 4,000 people who are killed each year in truck crashes and nearly 100,000 each year who are injured. and there are reasons to be concerned according to nhtsa. truck crash injuries increased by 40% from 2009 to 2012. and so the rules that have recently been implemented are front and center. i support these rules. i believe they're a step in the

right direction, and i believe that we should keep them in place because as one 2005 study conducted by fisma, the fmcsa demonstrated under the old rules, 65% of drivers reported feeling drowsy while driving and 48% admitted to falling asleep while driving at the same point during the can previous year. if we're going to make any changes, they ought to be with the proper facts and review of this committee. finish and i strongly caution against discarding years of careful analysis in addition while doing it on a strictly spending bill. the 2013 rules were designed to prevent truck drivers being forced to work too many hours, becoming exhausted and endangering themselves and other drivers on the road. and that has to be our

continuing goal. i'm open to hearing the views of my colleagues as well as the experts before us, and i think what we share here is a common commitment to safety, the best way of doing it is the path that we ought to choose. and for now i would say with the rules that we have before us which seem to be working, and we should allow to work before we consider changing or repealing them. with that, thank thank you so sr blunt for being here, the ranking member, be and i turn to him. >> well, thank you, chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. since i think the first hearing we had was on intermodal freight transportation. as you stepped up to become chairman of this subcommittee, and you and i both, i think, have a complete commitment to doing the best we can to be sure

that our transportation system is the best one for safety on the highway, the best one to let our economy prosper, to let people have jobs and job opportunity, to make all of that work in the best way. the things on trains, trucks, ports, all are important parts of what we're talking about here. we're glad to have the panel here. ms. farrell, thank you for your service. this may be the last time you appear in this particular job, but your commitment both in and now at the federal level have been significant, and thanks for the dedication you've brought to this job. certainly, as the chairman mentioned, the safety of truck traffic and all our traffic has gotten a lot of attention in recent days. senator collins, on the appropriations committee, did offer an amendment that was approved in a bipartisan vote

that would suspend the restrictions on the ability of driverses to restart their weekly on-duty time under hours of service rules. i think the best argument to be made there is it puts more people on the road during the daylight hours and maybe the second best argument to be made is i'm not sure that the proper research was ever done to think of the other implications of those new rules, but i'm sure we'll be talking about those rules today. the new restart provisions state that a restart period must include two back-to-back periods from 1-5 a.m. now, i'm not a 1-5 a.m. guy. my mom and dad were dairy farmers. i'm a 5 a.m. to whatever time it takes after that to get things done, but not everybody is best suited for every job, and that's maybe one of the things we need to consider just because i wouldn't be, want to be on the

road from 1-5 a.m. it's not the busiest time on the road. and some people may choose to decide that that's the best time to do the work that they need to do and that they want to do. the bipartisan amendment that was in the transportation, housing and urban development provision merely suspends the two restrictions on the restart time until fisma could adequately study the effects of what both of these restrictions are. certainly, we want to look at the testimony today, we want to listen to the testimony and ask the questions that we need to ask to be sure that our safety rules really do provide more safety, that they're reasonable, that families and individuals whose lives are lost, families whose lives are always impacted are getting the most protection that we can give with the safety

rules that we have. clearly, you know, we're talking a lot right now as we finish up this particular week in the congress about transportation funding, how important it is that we meet our obligationings. it's one of the -- obligations. it's one of the things from the very start the federal government was thought to be an important partner in. one of the things specifically mentioned in the constitution; road building, post offices and post roads, and we want to be sure we're doing that in one of the best ways we can. one of the best ways to do that is have hearings, ask questions and try to see legislation follows up on the information we achieve. again, chairman, you've been particularly vigorous in pursuing the potential for this subcommittee, and i'm glad to be working on it with you. and senator booker and others. >> thank you. thank you very much, senator blunt. i'm going to introduce the witnesses and then ask them to make their opening statements.

we're very grateful to ann ferro for being here today, she's the administrator of the federal motor carrier safety administration, in fact, the longest serving administrator in its history. she was appointed by president obama in 2009, and i join senator blunt in expressing my regret that this is probably your last appearance before this committee and wish you well in your future work. joan claybrook is a witness who really needs no introduction. she is co-chair of advocates for highway and auto safety and a frequent participant in our work and hearings. she is the former president of public citizen. prior to becoming president of public citizen in 1982, she was an administrator of the national highway traffic safety administration in the department of transportation. we're honored also to have david

palmer, major david palmer of the texas department of public safety. major palmer is the former president and board member of the commercial vehicle safety alliance which is an international organization that enforces commercial motor vehicle safety laws, and he's currently a major with the texas department of public safety where he oversees texas highway patrol division's highway safety operations center. mr. william jack dawson is a freight driver with ups. mr. dawson is a professional truck driver in dallas, texas, where he drives for ups. he's been a professional driver for 33 years, and he's currently a member of local 745. he trains new employees in areas of safety, precautions and driver improvement. dave is the senior vice president of public policy and

regulatory affairs at the american trucking associate inc., and he's been in that position since january of 2010. he served as vice president for safety, security and options at the hearn -- operations at the american trucking associations, and he was instrumental in working with the safety task force to develop an 18-point agenda to further improve safety on our nation's highways. we're honored and grateful that all of you are with us today, and we'll begin with ms. ferro, administrator ferro. >> thank you both for your kind recognition of my service and for the opportunity to be here today to talk about the progress that we have made in raising the bar for truck safety. the primary mission of fmcsa is to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. it's a mission stakeholders across the nation engage in and

strive to achieve every single day. we know that one life lost is one too many, and the more than 4,000 people who die each year on our roads due to truck and bus-related fatalities is unacceptably high. one of the most be important recent steps this agency has taken has been to implement a new -- [inaudible] for truck drivers. while most drivers and carriers put safety as their number one priority, the fact be remains that some are subject to exceptionally demanding work schedules, especially compared to working limits of the average american and compared to working limits in some other transportation safety sectors. for truck drivers, our rule took common sense and reasonable steps to put limits on the most extreme schedules. most important is that this rule is projected to save lives and prevent approximately 1400 crashes, over 500 injuries. and even if we use modest estimates of fatigue as a factor

in crashes, this rule is expected to assist in saving over 400 lives per year. now, some have said that the rule is causing harm to trucking companies, and yet the truth is we have not seen the documentation of that fact. in fact, truck tonnage is at an all-time high. since 2009 freight shipments in the for-hire industry have increased 30%, and trucking profitability is on par for record-setting profits this year. when i became administrator nearly five years ago, i set the foundation for a safe operating environment for trucking. starting with a performance-based enforcement platform that we call compliance, safety accountability or csa, moving to a ban on truck or bus drivers texting or talking on cell phones and measured the closed loopholes that allow unsafe drivers and companies to avoid being held accountable to importantsafety standards. all of this work was done in

partnership with stakeholders at this very table and using the best available data. our work has been greatly enhanced by map 21 which added clear requirements for improved hours through clocking devices and a strengthened rebel industry of certified medical examiners. while these steps are important to improving safety, we need to recognize that the economic pressures on trucking companies and drivers often reward the ones that push the limits. that's why we've been researching two closely-related issues; the impact of drive detention time and driver compensation on safety outcomes. many drivers, in fact, most drivers' compensation is tied to the number of miles they drive, and excessive waiting times associated with loading and unloading can negatively impact a driver's schedule, their earning potential and certainly interfere with a driver's ability to complete deliveries and complete that pay cycle.

in short, it creates an economic incentive for drivers to drive beyond the legal limits, drive beyond their physical limits, and in some cases, drive tired when they are least safe. for fmcsa, it comes back to safety. in fact, the dedicated, well-trained professionals or who are operating vehicles deserve to be fairly compensated for all the hours they are working. that's why the grow america act includes a proposal to insure that drivers are compensated for all op-duty time. on-duty time. mr. chairman, again, i want to thank you for the opportunity to join you today for this important subject. in our view, achieving safety every trip, every time takes all of us, and for that i am looking forward to answering any questions you might have today. thank you. >> thank you. ms. claybrook? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. it's a pleasure to be here with you and the subcommittee. i have my full statement which i

would like to submit for the record along with some other documents. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. i'm representing advocates of highway and auto safety which is a coalition of insurance companies and consumer organizations. i serve as the co-chair. be advocates has been involved in the issue of motor carrier safety for 25 years for good reason. truck crashes are a serious, deadly and costly program to families, our health care system and to our economy. government data illustrates the emotional and economic toll that large crashes take on the american public. they kill 3,921 and ininjured another 100,000 people in 2012 at a cost of more than $99 billion. and truck crash deaths and injuries are climbing. the the death toll caused by truck crashes is equivalent to a major airline crash every single week in this country, and we know that the congress would not put up with a major airline crash every single week in this country. so we think that they need, you

need to take some steps to improve truck safety. the death toll caused by truck crashes and the transportation crisis that results should never be tolerated by our elected leaders or by the department of transportation. and for the public it is a nightmare. in almost all truck/car crashes, it is the car occupants who are killed or severely injured 96% of the time. these victims reis side in every state across the country. i would like to take just a minute to introduce two parents and a young woman to this committee who are here to personally support improving truck safety, larry's teenage sonic was killed in 1997 on his way to sixing thats in new jersey. a tire trucker ran over his car when he was on the shoulder of the highway, and he is a board member of parents against tired truckers. swerved to avoid hitting a deer

coming to a stop in the right lane, they were killed moments later by a tired trucker who ran over their car even though no one was in the left-hand lane. and morgan lake is a truck survivor. last july she was hit from behind by a distracted driver. the impact plunged her car into the water. she freed herself and qualm to a bridge -- and swam to a bring pillar. my testimony this afternoon will focus on three campaigns that would jettison truck stay and undermine progress. they include the take on safety reforms incorporated by the obama administration in the 2011 hours of service rule. second, the ongoing problems with the credibility and reliability of the d.o.t. comprehensive truck size and weight study, and third, special legislation to preempt states and force them the allow longer

combination trucks. another concern about truck safety provisions is in the administration's grow america act. they are explained in detail in my written statement. first, fatigue. truck drives is one of the most -- truck driving is one of the most dangerous occupations in the united states. commercial drivers are exempt from maximum hours and overtime requirements of the fair labor standards act, amazingly, since 1937. the compensation for all other employees working more than 40 hours a week. in 2003 the federal motor carrier safety administration changed the hour of service rules, however, the rule dramatically increased working and driving hours. this was accomplished by allowing a so-called restart provision which permits drivers to restart their 60-70 hour driving limit at any point during the workweek by just taking 34 hours off duty.

the trucking industry enthusiastically embraced this change because it increased the maximum workweek to an amazing 82 hours and reduced the off-duty rest time available to one day and ten hours. the startling decline in driver sleep and increase in driver fatigue was documented in a 2006 survey of truck drivers. it showed that nearly two of thirds of the drivers surveyed, 65%, admitted to driving while tired, and nearly half, 48%, reported they actually fell asleep behind the wheel while driving in the previous year. however, the safety reforms finally adopted after nine years of consumer and safety litigation. in 2011 the hos rule was only implemented a year ago in 2013 had two positive changes that included a once-per-week limit on use of the 34-hour restart. you had to wait seven days.

reducing the max hum workweek from 82 hours to 70 hours. seems reasonable. also the agency adopted a requirement for two overnight off-duty periods between 1-5 a.m. to insure the rest will include two nighttime periods to permit a driver to achieve the most restorative type of sleep to meet the demands of the freight business while preparing for the rigors of driving these long hours. and this applies, i want to emphasize, only to those drivers who have maxed out on their 70 hours. it's just those drivers. unfortunately, even these minimal, common sense safety improvements are under attack, and as we've already heard, senator collins authored an amendment which would remove these rules by the appropriations bill. that is opposed by advocates, consumer health and safety groups, law enforcement, labor truck crash victims as well as several large trucking companies and d.o.t., instead we strongly

support an amendment that strips the collins amendment from the rules changes in the bill that is sponsored by senator cory booker of new jersey. we thank you so much, senator, for doing that, is and it is supported by a number of other senators including boxer, durbin, feinstein, gillibrand, markey, menendez and murphy, rock feller, schumer and more. second, to larger trucks. another issue that threatens the safety is the relentless and aggressive push by shipping interests to increase truck size and weights. and it is unending. they stand alone in their support for bigger, longer, heavier trucks because the american public certainly does not, and attached to my testimony is a public opinion poll series over the last 19 years that show consistent and strong opposition. in map 21 the congress required the secretary of transportation to conduct a comprehensive study of truck size and weight, issues including safety performance and infrastructure impact of trucks that would be bigger or heavier

than the current size and weight configurations. this critical study will influence federal and state transportation policy for years to come. it will atext working -- affect working conditions for truck drivers, law enforcement, national freight and intermodal investments, clean air, fuel economy and public health ask safety of our families. criticisms were recently validated by a 51-page report in march by the peer review committee of the academy of national sciences, and the summary is attached to hi testimony. -- my testimony. the study relies on selective, voluntarily-supply ared day from the trucking industry that has a clear economic interest in the outcome but ignores significant earlier d.o.t. studies that show increased crash risks associated with these trucks. the study plans to extrapolate the operation and performance of big rigs in sparsely-populated

rural states to evaluate trucks in congested urban areas as well. furthermore, d.o. to t. is basing the entire analysis on unpublished study by the district government here in washington on truck size ask weight. not peer-reviewed and hardly representative of bridges throughout america. because of these and many other flaws are so significant and the study lacks adequate transparency, at this time we recommend that the study be stopped until congress and the be public are assured that corrections are made, the findings are unbiased, unimpeachable and unchallengeable, and we appreciate the assistance of you, mr. chairman, and other senators, including senator booker, on this effort. finally, longer truck trailers, i would like to state absolute opposition to any proposals that would dramatically overturn and alter existing national freight policy by forcing states to allow 34 -- 33-foot trailers which the trucking industry is pushing. it will result in dangerous

double tandem rigs exceeding 85 feet in length or with three, 115 feet in length. these are trains on our highways. currently, 39 states do not allow these longer trailers, and they should not be force today pay for upgrades to accommodate them. so, mr. chairman, we deeply appreciate your having this hearing, truck deaths and injuries are climbing, and we need action. thank you very much. >> thank you. major palmer. >> mr. chairman, ranking member blunt, members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this important hearing and for inviting the commercial vehicle safety alliance to testify. my name is david palmer, and i'm a major and a commissioned law enforcement officer with the texas department of public safety and a past president of cvsa. the alliance represents state, local -- state, provincial and federal commercial safety officials responsible for the enforcement of commercial motor carrier safety laws in the united states, canada and

mexico. cvsa has a number of recommendations for improving truck and bus safety. uniformity and consistency in enforcement are essential cornerstones of an effective program. it is imperative that the enforcement community be provided clear and enforceable regulations, and exemptions must be minimized. changes to regulations when necessary need to be science-based and data-driven. further, much can be done to streamline the current grant process. eliminating redundancies in administrative process, allowing state personnel to focus our resources on program delivery rather than administration. in addition, we must be given the tools to effectively enforce those regulations and need funding that is commensurate with their responsibilities. as inspectors and law enforcement officers, it is critical that we have clear enforce bl regulations in order to have uniform effective enforcement. the recent effort to suspend

enforcement of a portion of hours of regulations while a study is conducted is an example of rackses that needlessly complicate the regulations and enforce. as a law enforcement officer, if i do not understand the rules, i cannot enforce them properly. the hours of service regulations are complicated enough to enforce as is, and the nearly constant change and uncertainty in the rules undermines enforcement. further, every time the regulations change we have to spend time and resources retraining our officers and inspectors, taking them out of the field and diverting scarce resources from other tasks. with approximately 13,000 cvsa-certified inspectors in the field, organizing and delivering training in all 50 states is a significant task. this is particularly wasteful considering after the study the provisions may be upheld, resulting in a new round of training and even more confusion for both industry and enforcement. cvsa does not oppose conducting

a study. regulations should be written to maximize safety while not overburdening enforcement or our nation's critical commercial vehicle industry. but the appropriate time to make any changes is after sound research has demonstrated a need and not before. while we recognize that the hours of service regulations must be written in a manner that meets the needs, the nation's safety these and is respectful of needs of the trucking industry, meeting these needs by shifting the burden to the enforcement community is not a responsible solution. another example of a policy that has resulted in additional burden on the enforcement community is the covered farm vehicle exemption included in map 21. exemptions often compromise safety and always complicate enforcement and should, therefore, only be granted in extreme cases. the covered farm vehicle exemption was intended to exempt a large portion of agricultural

vehicles from federal safety regulations. however, the exemption language left a lot open to interpretation. the end result is an exemption intended to provide relief to the agricultural committee which has created confusion, inconsistency and frustration both for industry and enforcement. most importantly, we don't know its impacts on safety. much can be done to improve safety. the regulations must be clear and enforceable. the states must be given funding commensurate with their responsibilities. new and expanded responsibilities mean improvements in safety, but only if we are able to effectively implement those policies. grant programs must provide states with flexibility, allowing us to meet our responsibilities through creative, state-specific solutions. the administrative burden associated with grant applications and reports should be-in poised -- minimized,

allowing the states to focus on our mission. we believe there are a number of opportunities to streamline the grants providing relief to the states. we must have accurate data on which to build our programs and to access safety technologies and systems that help us meet our goal of saving lives, preventing crashes and taking the unsafe carriers off the road. simply put, we must insure that the state enforcement agencies are given the tools we need to succeed. we look forward to working with this committee, fmcsa and the carrier industry to insure our goal of reducing deaths and injuries on the road. i look forward to answering your questions, and i want to just say thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. dawson. >> chairman blumenthal, ranking member blunt and members of the subcommittee, my name is jack dawson, i've been a professional truck driver for 32 years. for the last 515 years, i've been -- 15 years, i've been working for ups in dallas,

texas. i'm also chief shopster for teamster 745. i'm representing the 1.4 million members of the international brotherhood of teamsters, especially the 600,000 members who work on america's highways. today i will concentrate my testimony on hours of service, truck size, weight and driver training. media attention on driver fatigue and hours of service regulations has been extensive since the tracy morgan accident. here in the senate there's been an attempt to suspend two key components of the regulations. let me say as a driver, those two provisions, requiring two consecutive 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. rest periods, go a long way. actually, the teamsters' union went to court over driving time and the 34-hour restart provision. in fact, they felt so strongly a ma outer of our members covered

through an mou with our employers are not subject to the 4-hour restart -- 34-hour restart provision. it's used once a week, every 168 hours goes a long way in combating driver fatigue. without this limitation, a driver's hours can be increased from the current 70 to 80 hours per week, twice the normal 40-hour workweek, and the 34-hour restart is 14 hours short of the normal weekend. suspending the consecutive rest periods of 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. is an egg callly dangerous -- equally dangerous step. studies have shown it's more tiring and lead to cumulative fatigue. the consecutive rest periods are designed to give drivers during the regular sir decade yum rhythm. the teamsters' union supports the safe highway and

infrastructure preservation act. this legislation essentially takes a snap shot of what states currently permit. we believe this action will improve safety and protect our infrastructure investment. the total stopping distance for an 80,000-pound truck is 525 feet. imagine judging those distance in congested traffic. bigger, heavier trucks cause greater wear on highways, likewise, exit and entrance ramps may cause issues for drivers attempting to get up to speed in order to merge. twin 33-foot trailers will only add to safety concerns. side wipe swipe -- sideswipes are the second most common accident at ups. the claim that increasing truck weights will result in fewer trucks on the road is unfounded. each time there's been an increase in truck weight, truck rah traffic has grown as

shippers divert freight from rail to trucks. safety standards and training have been on the decline. i see many companies are just trying to put a body in the seat. they want the cdl-certified driver but without the proper training. companies are buying vehicles and telling new drivers they can operate these rigs like cars, but these aren't cars. they're vehicles with distinct maneuvering characteristics. we have a discretion on how long that training period length should be. my job now is to train new hires. all of these guys have previous driving experience, but some find the safety training too difficult and drop out. the classroom training is 20 hours and up to a week on the road with trainer teaching defensive driving techniques to keep them out of accidents. not all companies have this type of dedication, but it should be mandatory. the driver shortage is definitely affecting the quality of applicants.

in conclusion, the ibt is committed to keeping our drivers and all others with whom they share the road safe. this committee can help and lead the way as you develop transportation policy that recognizes and addresses the challenges ahead. the team stares union looks forward to working with you to help grow a transportation network that meets the future needs of this country and improves the safety of our nation's highways. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to, and i'll be happy to answer any questions from you or the members of the subcommittee. >> thank you, sir. mr. osiecki. >> chairman blumenthal, ranking member blunt, subcommittee members, i'm dave osiecki, chief of advocacy for the american trucking associations, the largest trade association for the trucking industry. we represent more than 30,000 carrier members. thanks for this opportunity, and i'd ask that my full statement be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. the trucking industry places

safety at the top of its priority list. our industry actually spends more than $7.5 billion annually on safety, and that investment is making a difference. over the past decade, the number of large trucks involved in fatal crashes has dropped by 17% even with the industry operating an additional 2.7 million truck, operating an additional 54 billion miles. more trucks, billions more miles, fewer crashes. as mentioned at the outset, however, over the last three years we've seen anen crease in -- an increase in crashes over the historic lows in 2009 during the recession. we must refocus our effort toss maintain the longer term positive safety trend. refocusing our collective efforts, industry, federal and state efforts require a better lens through which to view safety. that lens must better focus on the primary causes of truck-involved crashes, and our collective investment must center on countermeasures aimed at those causes.

inprofessional drivers and passenger vehicle drivers. in fact, car drivers contribute significantly to truck crashes. if the regulatory enforcement and safety program is focused on the most common behaviors, big safety gains are achievable. the leading factor in crashes, that is, the most common misbehavior causing both car and truck crashes, is vehicle speed. yet our enforcement apparatus largely turns a blamed eye. in 2006, about -- blind eye. about eight years ago, issued a

rule electronically limiting the top speed of large trucks. neithers have issued a proposed rule requiring speed limiters, and in 2010 ata lobbied fmcsa and d.o.t. to first focus on implementing electronic logging devices industry wide. they chose not to. while the rulemaking process is now underway on elds, it will be several years until full implementation. we'd like an electronic logging device rule yesterday. nhtsa's upcoming vehicle base for large trucks is another rule that will save lives because it will mitigate driver mistakes. we hope that that rule is forth coming sooner that'ser than later. -- sooner rather than later. on-road traffic enforcement activity, that which focuses on truck driver misbehaviors, is at least four times more effective

at preventing crashes than roadside vehicle inspections. those focus mainly on vehicle can components and defects. vehicle defects cause less than 10% of crashes, yet almost 90% of the federal, state on-road enforcement activity under the program is directed to vehicle inspections. more effective traffic enforcement activity, that activity directed towards unsafe driving behavior by commercial drivers, represents only 10% of the on-road traffic enforcement activity. this type of enforcement has declined dramatically over the last four years. again, the lens needs a better focus, in our view. now quickly turning to technology, it's clearly a big part of the safety solution, in our view. properly focused rules and enforcement can achieve only so much. accelerated adoption of act it safety -- active safety technology in both trucks and cars can lead to larger highway safety improvements. active braking systems, exception-based video camera

technologies and others hold great promise. trucking fleets are adopting many of these, and adoption can be accelerating with meaningful incentives. this is an idea on which nta and cvsa are fully aligned. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to offer our views on how the safety lens should be better focused to improve truck safety. we can do more, we know that, but it needs to be the right more. better targeted rules, even more effective deployment. that will result in meaningful safety gains. thanks, and i look forward to your question. >> thank you very much, mr. work siecki. i want to say that we put your full statement in the record, and it contains a great deal of very important and useful information, and i thank you for it, and i'm going to recommend to my colleagues that they read the full statement because there is a lot of very significant

data. and i join you in the hope that there will be, in fact, better rules concerning speed and electronic logging devices, and i think we can agree that whatever the cause or however many crashes and fatalities and injuries are caused by driver fatigue whether it's 10% or 90, every one of those crashes, every one of those deaths and injuries is too many. >> absolutely. >> and in that spirit, i hope that you will agree that these hours of service regulation that were adopted in 2013 or became effective on that date will continue to be in effect even as we gather data on how effective they have been. >> i'd be happy to respond to that if you'd like for me to respond. >> please. >> i think it's important to point out at the outset that we support five of the six components. in fact, we actually sport a

third of the sixth -- support a third of sixth component, and that's the restart. but in terms of the legitimate goal of the government to try to reduce fatigue-related crashes at night during these 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. hours that we're talking about versus the offsetting potential crashes during the daylight hours because truck traffic is being pushed -- not being forced, but the result of these rules is pushing truck traffic into the daytime hours -- are there actually more crashes during the day than the fatigue crashes or that are potentially being prevented? that's our concern. >> and we've heard just now testimony from a number of other of our experts here as to the importance of that component of the hours of service rule in preventing crashes, testimony from mr. dawson about their need

and effectiveness and from ms. ferro. in issuing these rules, my understanding from your testimony is there was a great deal of fact gathering, scientific analysis and other research and data-driven consideration that, in fact, led the courts to uphold these rules as being rational and factual based. is that correct? >> mr. chairman, that's correct. it was a very robust rulemaking regard to over 80 scientifics that we reviewed, at least 50 that we cited in our regulatory evaluation, labs specific to the 1-5 a.m. and the benefits of two nights' rest over one and extendsive public listening sessions as well as analysis of over 20,000 comments. it was an extremely robust process, and as you say, research-based scientifically approached. >> and you've heard major palmer

emphasize the importance of consistency -- >> yes, sir. >> -- and enforceability of regulations. is there a public interest in continuing these regulations even as more data and experience is gathered? >> there is very much, it very much is in the public interest for the reasons major palmer identifies in terms of uniformity, consistency of enforcement. from the perspective of insuring that the focus on minimizing the risk of fatigue-related crashes is upheld while additional analysis is completed. >> where i've said that the purpose of these regulations is to take tired truckers off the road, not take trucks off the road, and to protect truckers as well as the public in general. mr. dawson, let me ask you what these regulations mean to you and your fellow drivers who really are on the front lines so to speak in preventing

accidents, crashes that are, indeed, avoidable. >> mr. chairman, i would say in my experience that anytime you have more rest or more opportunity to be at home and get your rest especially in those critical 1-5 a.m. periods is essential to getting your proper rest and not being fatigued when you're on duty trying to do your job. >> and without these rules, is there pressure on truckers there, perhaps -- from, perhaps, their employers? >> absolutely, mr. chairman. >> and how does that pressure get expressed? >> it would, it would get expressed in your dispatches where when your 34 hours is up, they could just run you right back out on the road on another run, put you back on duty. you wouldn't have the hours of service to protect you. they could discharge you in some instances at some jobs if you didn't follow through with those. so i think the protection that the hours of service offers a driver against those things is

very important. >> ms. claybrook, is that consistent with your experience? >> yes, it is, mr. chairman, and i would like to correct something that was said be by the american trucking association. the purpose be of this rule is not to reduce nighttime crashes. the purpose of this rule is for drivers -- and it's not all drivers, but it's the drivers who reach the maximum of 70 hours of driving that when they take their 34-hour restart, that they have two nights where they can get restorative sleep; that is, so that they can get the kind of sleep that you get which is better than when you sleep in the daytime. first, it affects a modest number of drivers. second of all, the purpose is so that you get sleep at night. not to prevent crashes at night. and another issue that's been raised by the trucking association is that trucks will come -- all these trucks will come back on the road at 5 and 6 a.m. in the morning when kids

are going to school, and yet this is the first time i've ever heard the trucking association ever be concerned about children being killed in truck crashes. there are over 200 children killed every year in truck crashes and 7,000 some children injured. so, first of all, i think it's a false assumption or assertion, and second of all, i'd love to work with the trucking industry on reducing truck crashes and particularly childrenning with harmed. but this is not -- children being harmed but this is not an example of where children are likely to be harmed. >> i'm going to make sure that you have an opportunity to to respond. my time has exired, and i want to be sensitive to the the time of my colleagues, and i am grateful to all of my colleagues. i'm a co-sponsor with senator beaker, by the way -- >> yes, and thank you so much. i should have said that. >> and grateful to senator nelson and senator fischer, senator ayotte and senator blunt for being here today, and i'm going to turn to senator blunt, and if he is still here, then go

to senator nelson. >> thank you, chairman. ms. claybrook, i heard you say you'd like to work with the trucking association for safety for children. i think i heard you say that two sentences after you said something like this is the first time i've ever heard the trucking association care about, say they cared about whether children were hurt by trucks or not to. i would think those two things probably don't work out very well together. and i'm sure nobody here wants children to be hurt by trucks. i'm also sure that if you put more people on the road at five in the morning, more people are going to be on the road when kids go to school. i just don't think there's any way you can argue against that. and i'm sensitive to mr. dawson's point that people who are working different shifts all the time get into a rest pattern that's senate. you know, a -- significant. a lot of people work the night

shift all the time so somehow they've figured out how to sleep during the day and have done that for a long time. mr. osiecki, do you want to -- your safety efforts, what are the best safety things that you think could be done that aren't being done now or need more focus? >> well, thank you, ranking member blunt. and i echo -- there's not a person in this room, in the trucking industry that wants to harm somebody when they operate. drivers are professionals. they attempt to do their jobs moving america's freight as safely and efficiently as possible. and the folks who we represent, i know that. now, in terms of responding to your question, as i indicated in my oral remarks, we really need, we need to not minimize the smaller types of problems in our industry, but we have to maximize our resources and our efforts. and maximizing our resourceses and our efforts really leads us

to the technology solutions that i mentioned earlier, safety technologies that address unintentional mistakes. sometimes unintentional misbehaviors, and sometimes they're misbehaviors that truck drivers and car drivers undertake willfully. the ability to have enforcement focus on those behaviors and to the extent they can the mistakes, but that's tougher, and rules that really will make a difference. the electron aric stability -- electronic stability control making will save at least three times as many lives as the hours of it service rules. that rule should have come first. that rule should be out there. and there are a host of other examples i can discuss, but i'll leave it at that for the time being. be. >> and, major palmer, in your opinion what's the most effective tool of law enforcement for preventing truck-related crashes? i'm going to let you answer that, but, i mean, it could be

stopping trucks on the road, it could be safety inspections. i'm just wondering what you think the most effective tool is to, on this topic. >> well, yes, sir. that's an excellent question. and what it is, it's difficult to identify from an enforcement perspective one thing that is the solution to the big problem. it's really, it's a come prehence i program, is what it takes. so, for example, each state -- including texas, obviously, where i'm from, we have a comprehensive enforcement program to try to address commercial vehicle safety issues and highway safety issues as a whole which includes all vehicles on the highway. so it really is the component. it's partly roadside inspections of commercial vehicles, it's

inspections at fixed facilities which sometimes are a different environment than at roadside. it also is a comprehensive program such as our compliance review program to be able to look at motor carriers that have a propensity to have safety issues, and it's also an aggressive traffic enforcement program that doesn't necessarily just focus on commercial vehicles. because it is, you know, statistically speaking, you know, 70% of the commercial vehicle-related crashes the primary contributing factor tends to go back to the noncommercial vehicle. so, for example, in texas alone -- i can't speak off the cuff on most states -- but in texas alone in 2013 although these citations and warnings weren't uploaded to finishing

mcsa because they weren't done on an inspection report, we did in addition to all of our activities that we did as part of our commercial vehicle enforcement program, we also issues a little over, in 2013 a little over 900,000 traffic enforcement citations and another two, a little over two million warnings. and those are the ones that did not get uploaded to fmcsa as part of inspections. so so to answer your question, sir, it really is a comprehensive program of a lot of different areas that we try to look at. because one area alone isn't going to get us where we need to be, and one of our primary focuses in texas and along with all the other states is to ultimately reduce these fatalities and these serious injury crashes because it doesn't matter whether it's one life or a hundred, we don't want

the lose one. so every life that we can save is a victory from our perspective. >> and that 70% number, is that a national number or a texas number? >> we've looked at it from a texas perspective s and it works for texas, but i've also, i've also seen some things that it's been used on a broader perspective as well. >> and one last question, ms. ferro. i think i've got in my notes somewhere i noticed, i don't want see it in front of me right now, but there's no differentiation in the statistics of truck-related accidents whether the trucker was at fault or the -- that's not broken. when you use that big number, that's just a number of total accidents involving the commercial truck, is that correct? >> senator blunt, that's correct. it's an aggregate crash number. >> and do you have anything that verifies the major's sense that this is more than the 70 number? >> we have -- the clearest data

set was done through the large truck crash causation analysis about 8-10 years ago, so it's not as current as we would like it to be. and i will, i believe i'll follow up for the record it was 35% attributable to the commercial -- professional driver in fatalities and closer to 45-50% in all crashes. so it's 35-40 on fatalities and higher attributable, more of a 50/50 in injury and towaway crashes. >> quite a bit of difference -- >> could i comment on that, would you mind? >> i'm out -- >> do you have time? >> we'll come back to you, if that's okay. >> thank you, chairman. >> thank you very much, senator blunt. senator booker. >> thank you very much. i just, first, want to thank the chairman and the ranking member, two gentlemen that have really prague mattive, constructive and clarity of thought about these issues, and i appreciate both of your leadership and how you're addressing what is the end,

which is to keep our highways safe. if i can very quickly and just turn again to hours of service. first of all, mr. osiecki, i really appreciate your testimony because you had a lot of very constructive, data-based ideas about how to keep our highways safe. when i was mayor, i used to have a saying in god we trust, but everybody else bring me data. but what i don't want to fall into the trap of is allowing when it comes to safety initiatives having the tyranny of yore. i'd rather have the liberation of the and, do them all. and that's why i want to get back to the hours of service because i think there's a substantive question that was put on the table, and i know these were brought about through tremendous -- when i look through all the data ask the studies -- and the studies, there's so much sound evidence that you all went through, the 20,000 comments, through all that. but there's a very pointed assertion that's been put on the

table that if we persist with these rules, it's going to force more people into the daytime traffic, thus making it more congested and thus creating more crashes. all i'm asking is very objectively, is there any data yet to make that statement or that assertion or the possibility true? and i'd love, honorable ferro and claybrook, quickly, to give answers. >> sir, there has been no data presented to us that demonstrates that fact, nor does anything in the rule limit the industry to set its schedules as it deems necessary to satisfy the demands of its freight customers. okay. >> the collins amendment does have a study included, but it also eliminated these provisions. so it was sort of a contradiction. you can't do a study the if you don't have the provisions in effect. so our position supports what you would do, is leave the provisions in effect but conduct a study, and i think that's

type. >> removing the provisions and doing a study, what are you actually studying to see if there's any substance and fact to this. >> that's right. and the other thing to point out is the requirement when the drivers come back on the highway is that it only affects 15% of the truck drivers, those who have maxed out on their 70 hours. >> right. >> so that's the other -- >> so that's where i want to jump in, because it is a small portion, those who have maxed out. but there's been a tremendous decline, and this is where, mr. dawson, if you can get my last answer in, there's been a tremendous decline in income for drivers. a few decades ago truck drivers made about $44.83 an hour. this was a solid middle class job, well compensated drivers, and i know from truck drivers in the port be area of the city that i used to represent, the grueling hours that they're putting in. we're talking about 70, 80-plus hours with a little bit of, as you said, a truck candidated -- truncated weekend type thing. today truck drivers are lucky to

make half of that. independent contractors reported earning less than $10, so accidents are on the rise while wages are on the decline. and we're paying now the folks responsible for moving our goods and services very low salaries. and these men and women now push themselves in order to make enough money to provide for their families -- this is testimony i used to hear from truckers -- they push themselves in order the try to make ends meet. under conditions like these, it's no wonder than a recent fmcsa study found an astounding number of 65% of truck drivers reported they sometimes feel drowsy. if we want our roads to be safer, i believe we need to start compensating these folks in a way that they can make ends meet without pushing themselves to the limits of human exhaustion just so that they can meet the minimum basic needs to keep their families above the poverty line. mr. dawson, do you agree with my assessment given your years of

experience as a driver, and can you provide me any insight about the issue of drivers' wages in this context of safety in and if so, in your opinion, what steps can congress and key stake stakeholders in the trucking industry do to address this compensation issue? >> i think one of the key components in the income as far as the detention time, i can tell you when i was working for a private carrier, we had a program where you picked up your freight, and you picked it up for a dollar a thousand, so if you picked up 46,000 pounds, that's what you made if it was one hour or 15 hours picking it up. and i can also add to that, senator, when i went to work from a private carrier to a unionized carrier, i got a $26,000 raise that day. there's quite a difference between the union and nonunion sector, and i think the detention time and the wages are a key component in getting qualified candidates and good,

experienced drivers that are going to stick with it and not drift this and out of the industry -- in and out of the industry. .. >> i have completed my all time so if you like your reprimand me you may. i know senator fischer is eager to go. >> i appreciate your

graciousness in yielding just as i was coming in and appreciate your patience with quick visit that i had to make with someone who came. senator fischer. >> mr. chairman, i hope you also heard that i declined the chairmanship. [laughter] >> i noticed the emerging anarchy that was -- [laughter] >> as a member of the nebraska legislature i served as chair of the transportation and intelligence communication committee, and every year we would have hearings on safety issues. those were always very emotional hearings. we would have the families of accident victims there. and so i just would like to recognize those families and express my condolences to you. i also want to thank our drivers and the truckers, everyone here is looking for ways that we can make our roads safer.

that's the purpose here, and they think we are all united in that purpose as we do move forward in looking to make our highways safer. administrator ferro, after a recent hearing at which secretary foxx testified i submitted a question for the record on the impacts of the rules and enforce with the answer i received was less responsive than i was hoping for some going to try again to see how you do on the answer. and maybe you can clear some things up for us. what specific plans does your agency have to measure and confirm the speculative health benefits that fmcsa proposed as part of its hours of service cost benefit analysis? and also what do you have to study and evaluate the safety impact of the additional daytime

driving that many of us believe is a result of those restarts rules? >> senator, thank you for giving us another chance to answer the question for you. i appreciate the opportunity. with regard to health benefits and minimizing the health impact of the rules we put in place, but help impact on tribes and their ability to operate safely, we incorporated and analyze and assess an extensive body of data as well as the more recent survey, said surveys conducted by the national institute of occupational safety and health. so in a body of research on which we base our official which is the restart provision is this whole concept of extensive excessively long work hours and other impact on a drivers chronic health conditions and those people to operate safely. so there's a full set of research all be happy to provide with regard to that specific

rule. going forward, we have several efforts underway. the first is a very specific contract with the national academies of science to examine the broad spectrum of fatigue and health impacts, the conditions of operating heavy-duty vehicles. and in identifying the data sources, new data sources, new mechanisms for data collection as well as existing resources that we might not have known to pass into. there's a third component that i apologize for taking so long, which is that we have reached out to all the stakeholders to say we all have core questions want to know about this rule. there's a very robust study proposed in senator collins amendment which ms. claybrook indicated his best exercise with the current role in place or to capture the full data. but we also see that there are

many sources of data that industry has and that w we're encouraged industry may be interested in sharing which is really aggregated onboard fleet management device data that gives us a better sense of what our of driving an incident might occur, and compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. >> which i believe mr. osiecki is recommending as well, to have some of the electronic data to be provided on board. you had mentioned earlier a number of programs that you're implementing in trying to improve safety, which assisted were all trying to do. and if you could elaborate on those. and also you look like you wanted to respond to senator booker when he was asking a question of some of the witnesses with regards to the daytime hours, so i will give you an opportunity to respond to that is so. >> thanks. if i may i will answer the

second the first and then get back to the first one. in terms of senator booker's question about truck traffic being shifted to daytime hours, fmcsa study, the research study issued in january of 2014, january of this year, i would point the committee to figures five and six. figures five and six, difficult to see, but they demonstrate that the two or more nights leaders of the new restart compared to the one night sleepers, it demonstrates those two charged that the truck traffic is more distributed through the daytime hours between 8 a.m. and approximate 8 p.m. we have also provided some data, some information to the administration taking a look at the. with respect to your first question, and there are a lot of waste into that because a lot of things going on in the industry. i'll address it from a technology standpoint to the our lane departure warning systems, collision mitigation forward collision mitigation systems,

active braking systems, and more recently and very recently these onboard camera systems that are not designed to do the truck driver in a negative way. it's designed to capture the vibrant of what's going on in near crashes and crashes events to determine what happened, whether, in a lot of cases to get a professional driver off of the hook and given what's happened to those are improving safety. there's evidence of the systems work in addition to all of these other assorted vehicle-based technology that alerts the driver and so forth. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, senator fischer. senator ayotte. >> i want to thank the chairman. i wanted to ask you, mr. osiecki, in terms of, i really appreciate the hard work that are truck drivers do, and i think it's important to point out, i met a lot of them in my

state and a lot of them, they own their own business and our small businesses and independent operators as well that are working pretty hard. they're competing against rail and other things. so it's a, it's an important job and is highly competitive. and, frankly, one of the concerns that the phrase with me is that it's becoming more and more costly to own your own business to be a small operator in this context with not only some the things are being issued that w we're talking about toda, but also some of the new technology is being required. would you agree that harder for the smaller operators in this context? >> i think it is when our mandated technologies. i think that's the case. much of what i was thinking about was voluntarily adopted technology. because, and folks are worked around and it's a and fmcsa for years knows it takes many, many years, decades when you implement a new mandated

technology, new equipment, it literally takes two to three, sometimes four decades for the entire fleet to turn over. so incensed to drive voluntary adoption is one way to do that. i will so put an asterisk on, we do support the mandated electronic locking devices enemies be some difference on that point but the cross is coming down of those. >> thank you. i wanted to ask administrator ferro, i know you're leaving soon so thank you for all your work at the agency, appreciate it. when yo you were lester before e committee on the hours of service rules, you had testified that based on the fmcsa study, that essentially there was evidence that more trucks, large trucks would be under during the daytime hours. because of new hours of service shall to do you dispute that? >> i spoke to the logic that we use to analyze what that might

be, looking at the 18% impact and identifying that by virtue of logical analysis, about 250,000 speak so by logic we are going to have more large trucks on the road during the daytime? >> well, in fact the paula point of that is the 250,000 is barely a drop in the bucket when you look at a 10 million -- >> that we fully analyzed, as i understand come we have not fully analyzed, and that's one of the purposes of the study is to have a full analysis of what will be the impact during daytime hours in terms of truck traffic. and as you and i talked about in the past, we already give evidence that more accidents occur during the daytime hours because of the congestion that is natural during the daytime hours in and of itself. so i think one of the things i know that the chairman and others have said that the study

of this has been robust, it's been scientific but it strikes be that we haven't answered a fundamental question that is important terms of people's safety, which is if we change the restored rules in the way they've been proposed, how many more trucks will be on the road during the daytime hours in what will be the safety impact of having those trucks more than on the road during the safety, turn the daytime hours? and to delay the rule while we understand that question to me seems logical because if we know that there's more congestion during the daytime and more likely evidence that there are more accidents during that period, wouldn't we want to know before we go forward with this exactly what the public safety impact is about the added truck traffic during that period? it seems to me we've all been talking about science and data, but it's important for us to have that science and data

before we implement a very significant rule that could, in fact, we don't know have the unintended consequence of actually creating more public safety issues. so i think that's really where the collins amendment is coming from, and i fully supported. i think it makes logical sense. and the feedback that i've heard from this rule as we talked about before, i know the collins and then it will also analyze economic impact of this rule. but in a we've heard a lot of discussion today about why don't we just go forward with the rule? this is a fundamental question we should have answered it seems to me for the american people before we go forward with a pretty significant rule change. >> if i might comment just for purposes of clarification, the final rule was issued in december 2011 and went into effect a year ago. so the full roll is underway to -- >> right. i want to correct, i don't know

why we went forward with the rule without having those questions answered. so it seems to me that the trend in from having received -- that collins amendment from legitimate concerns strikes the right balance because it suspends the rule until we know the answer to that very important question of how much more daytime traffic, what will be the impact in terms of potential accidents during the daytime and to me the fact that we issued this rule before we actually had the clear answers to those very important questions is something that shouldn't have happened. so i think with the -- what that collins amendment does is restart where we should be and until we have those answers and if the answers are that there isn't a public safety impact, then you certainly are in a position where the rule can be reissued. >> and thank you for clarifying.

there is a public safety impact of rolling back this rule. the rule today that's in place today based on the scientific evidence, based on analysis, based on enormous amount of public input, is projected, is currently expected to be saving lives, reducing crashes. and that's based on the health benefits, the analysis to the sleep lab studies, and the field study that mr. osiecki mentioned action was referencing traffic patterns prior to july 2013 as congress mandated we analyze. >> when your last -- i know my time is up, but when your last before this committee and i asked you about the field study in particular, and the number of drivers that were analyzed as i understand it, my recollection was, 21 or so over -- you can tell me -- 106 drivers speed is 106. >> so we think about the number

of drivers on the road across this country, 106 drivers over a 21 day period, correct? >> that's correct. >> i'm doing this from the top of my head. that's not that many we think about how many drivers are on the road. but most important what i wanted to point out was when you were last before this hearing, you had agreed and said, you had said to me when we had this discussion about the study, doctor agency was constrained from doing the kind of broader naturalistic analysis, that they're going to be doing going forward. so if you are constrained in doing that kind of analysis i think one thing we are in agreement is that the collins study as proposed is quite comprehensive. and this would allow us to have this information to understand the full impact of particularly the daytime traffic as a result of this rule, and to really suspend what i think is a dramatic -- i know for my

constituents, i said before, not only have i heard from truck drivers but i've heard from wholesalers of groceries, that this is going to cost them millions and millions of dollars. and they're concerned it will actually add to the impact of potential safety concerns during the day, that we need to understand these answers. so i just want to express that i appreciate senator collins leadership on this. i think her amendment makes a lot of sense. it's unfortunate that we didn't have this information before the rule was actually issued and implemented. >> thank you, senator ayotte. just to clarify before i go on senator scott, the rule that we are discussing here has been in effect for one year, correct? >> that's correct. >> and there are studies underway about its effectiveness, correct? >> that's correct. >> and the collins amendment insofar as it requires additional study would produce perhaps additional data, but it

goes beyond the stage of actually roll back the rule? >> well, let me clarify. there are efforts underway, including meetings with stakeholders, to identify the data sources to answer the questions, many of which again i think send a guy out very clearly outlined, moving forward. -- senator ayotte barry gordy outland. our full intention able to take advantage of aggregated data from on board fleet data to analyze the day-to-day impact. >> you will be receiving data from the states as well that can be used in this work? >> we routinely through our motor carrier management, our motor carrier systems grant system and crash reporting, violation reported, roadside inspection work, collected data and use that to analyze the effects of our work, that's

correct. >> so sounds like there is a very robust, intensive, active, energetic effort underway to assess the effectiveness of the rules while they are in effect now speak with that's correct, mr. chairman. >> mr. scott. senator scott, sorry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, panelists, for being part of such an important meeting as we discussed safety and the trucking industry. frankly, i would say that over time as i watch you all on tv, this was a long robust conversation on a number of topics. over the last couple years i've had the opportunity to meet with the -- talk to them about the safety issues and the progress being made it a delete with fiber find as those in a position where we've seen significant progress made over the last several years, and certainly look forward to seeing more progress made as we know

that it's important, talking about saving lives and that really is job number one. i do have a couple of questions, administrator ferro, for you. i spent too much time in the insurance industry, to tell you the truth. nearly 25 years, i'm only 30, so that was i've years old. anyways, the last couple of decades i spent my professional life on an insurance agency and was interested in the correlation perhaps between higher limits and fewer accidents and if, in fact, the rulemaking that we see coming forward speaks to any real evidence of that fact. i'll read the question to and we will start the conversation between the two of us. i understand that currently more than 99% of commercial vehicle accidents are easily covered under the current insurance requirements. yet you have initiated a new rulemaking to raise these requirements, these limits.

while you're rulemaking includes -- will you're rulemaking include any kind of assessment of the financial impact increase requirements would have on small businesses, first question. how do you feel racing truck insurance limits would help fulfill the mission of the agency which, of course, is to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities involve a larger trucks and buses? my question really comes from having limited exposure, albeit most was on the private sector side, on the everyday family cars and on about 10 or 12% of my time is spent on commercial insurance, commercial vehicles. so not a lot of exposure. but i was unaware of any specific study that created a correlation from increasing the limits of liability and reducing the fatalities of crashes or the incidents, frankly. and i know that as a small business owner who had employees, when the rulemaking

and four legislative regulatory environment increases the thresholds of my coverage, it takes more money out of my pocket to do more things for safety and for employees retention. so my question is, was that any analysis on the impact that the rulemaking would have on small businesses and/or on business overall? >> senator scott, the first step in the rulemaking process actually will be just what you're describing, the analysis component. with regard to financial responsibility limits, or i should say minimum for the commercial vehicle industry, truck and bus, those limits were set by congress 30 years ago, and prevail today. the minimum is still $750,000 for a trucking company. it goes up depending on if you're caring passengers. passenger chairs are carrying hazardous materials but again the minimum is 750,000 for your basic trunking provider. when congress introduced those minimums it was a done in the

context of the regulations and with an expressed appreciation for the impact that risk-based ensuring might have on safety behaviors from their customers. in other words, if you minimize risk you're likely to be a good cover and let more reasonable rates. i think it's by the same on the private sector in 30 years there's been no change in minimal levels but at the same time the premiums, rates, have not changed either the they have softened a bit. and consumer price index, medical price index, all of those components have gone up significantly. sellthrough map-21 congress directed the agency to analyze them to look at and report back to congress all those minimum level of ventures is there adequate and provide recommendations and look every four years at those minimums starting with the report you just referenced. in our analysis we recognize for all the factors i just

identified, it is appropriate for the agency at this time to press forward and anticipated or, it's something proposed rulemaking and unforgiving the term, sorry, advance notice of proposed rulemaking, so that we can ask the audience of insurance providers, of litigation world, medical, stakeholders from industry and the victim's side all the way and on and providers data and information to determine what the next step should be before moving on. so the first step will be within the next 30-60 days. >> thank you. mr. osiecki, let me turn to you to basically the same question, different stream of consciousness as we think through, as we analyze the information on risk versus reward. so we are talking about carrier mistakes. the the raise thresholds, then

the companies become more prudent and more responsible. my assumption is that's already happening, but i would love to your your perspective on the impact of higher limits on the basis system itself, and whether or not that would be an impediment to more incidents? >> thank you, senator. i guess i'd like to start off by reiterating the study, the study fmcsa sponsored and recently put out the indeed highlight that 99.9% of the crashes and the costs of those crashes for which trucks were responsible for, the 30% that the major highlighted earlier, are covered under the existing lives. so 99.9% and socially one-tenth of 1% that are not covered. so the question really becomes what's our mission in raising the limits? and is there a link to safety? i will tell you there's almost a

dearth or a void of research that links insurance limits, minimum insurance limits to safety outcomes. getting to the part of your question about business impacts and the market, the market will clearly be impacted dramatical dramatically. if the limits are up dramatically. if it goes from 752 million maybe not so much but some are talking of seven and 50,000 minimum to perhaps 4 million or even higher. that will dramatically change the cost of insurance. it will dramatically change the number of players in the truck insurance market place which there are only a handful to begin with. so it really becomes a very difficult question for the industry to do with it, particularly if there's no link to improve safety outcomes. there's more to be said on that bike is we are heartened by the fact the first it will be an advanced notice of proposed rule making as opposed to the proposed rule. >> final question, mr. osiecki,

on the issue of traffic enforcement activities versus roadside inspections. and what will move us in the right direction. would love your comments on what is the type of programs perhaps or initiatives the view would be most effective at saving lives on our nation's highways? at the end of the day as i said the lifeblood of our economy really are in those vehicles, and so as they see the lifeblood of her current moving in those vehicles and at same time looking for ways to reduce casualties and catastrophic occurrences in an attempt to save more lives, help me see a path forward and if you're one where any programs or initiatives that might be helpful. >> is really advocating the biggest bang for your safety but. the safety buckets federal and state dollars, and it is a dollars. in terms of traffic enforcement, the program, ncsa program is about a $209 per year federal state grant program, and the

vast major of that money goes towards roadside vehicle inspections, defects and components as i mentioned earlier. there is a driver component. the driver devoted, paperwork, license and so forth. so there is a driver peace so let me be clear. but in terms of the actual benefit, traffic enforcement according to fmcsa's own analysis is a least four times more effective. stopping a commercial driver for speeding, unsafe lane change, those types of unsafe behavior to if that's one half times more effective than roadside vehicle inspections, why are we spending 90% of our ncsa dollars on roadside inspections? it should be a different post it on here today with about should be but we do feel strongly the balance should be more effective toward, more balance towards a more effective counter enforcement, and that is traffic enforcement. >> thank you. >> thanks, senator scott. i have a few follow-up

questions. first of all, i was surprised to see in your testimony, ms. ferro, that there is no test now for sleep apnea, is that correct? >> yes, sir. there's no requirement that a driver be tested for sleep apnea to hold a cdl, that's correct. >> shouldn't there be one? >> the process of assessing a driver's qualifications, medical qualifications for holding a cdl is something that we call of duty physical. that haven't a minimum of every two years, sometimes more frequently depend on the driver's health condition. over the years the agency working with our medical review board and expert panel, medical panel that they appointed or i should say asked for feedback from, we've consistently identified key elements within

the guidance to be looking at when they are carrying out a medical examiner is to have a duty physical. that includes respiratory conditions, and that brings me back to obstructive sleep apnea which is considered among the respiratory condition that a medical drama is expected to assess. if in that medical examiners line of practice their protocols help them identify that the driver warrants further screen, then those medical examiners, that individual will likely refer that driver for further screen. it is not a requirement today. it is a requirement a medical examiner ensure that driver meets the qualifications to be safe and alert behind the wheel speed you've given me a very full answer but i'm asking you for you whether it should be required. frankly, i would think it's kind of basic. i'm saying it as a layman, not as an expert, and i would be interested in other expert reviews. but given the history of some

crashes, and those include railroad crashes, i would think that should be part of whatever medical certificate is required spirit and our medical review board and safety advisory committee would recommend the same. consequently, we will be as, adhering to congressional mandate, we will be taking the next steps to develop a rule making on obstructive sleep apnea starting with a notice that asked a series of questions to gather additional data and assets whether a rulemaking is the right next that but we can all be done through rulemaking. >> to any other witnesses disagree with the proposition that sleep apnea ought to be tested if for some it is permitted to drive commercially? the record will show that there is no objection or no disagreement.

let me ask you, because i think you've made some very good points, mr. osiecki, about speed limits and electronic locking devices. we don't have a representative -- electronic locking devices. your organization has petitioned for rulemaking in that area. hasn't been a response? because again i would agree with you that there ought to be. >> yes, thank you in 2010 nhtsa respond to our petition as well as to the petition of another safety advocacy group. there were two of us in 2006 the petition. they said they would go forward with a rulemaking, it was originally anticipated to occur in 2012, and, unfortunately, it is not yet been proposed. now to be fair it's understanding it is being worked on and it is the work done in conjunction with fmcsa i believe that perhaps the administered can comment, so it is moving. it is i think in our view moving at a snail's pace and speed is

the biggest factor, causation are contributing factor to car and truck crashes. if we are wanting to make a difference, it's like the ultimate who said why'd you rob banks? that's where the money is the way to reduce hashes, you go to where the big numbers are spent i appreciate your point, and i might add that one of my grievances about federal agency and federal rulemaking is that it has been too laggard, too lengthy and time, and that pertains to a variety of federal agencies and federal rulemaking. so i appreciate your raising that point. and i might ask you also since you are on the subject of rulemaking, perhaps you can just a little bit more about electronic logging devices. >> certainly. the electronic logging devices is as it sounds but it's a technology that allows truck drivers to electronically

capture the hours of service. they are very accurate for driving time limits. there is still a driver input or manual input into the device for when they're working but not driving. but overall they are effective at what they do. initially they were costly. they were in the thousand-$1500 range. they're coming down into -- come down in price. we prefer to see a final regulation yesterday with an implementation date but it will take some time. it will still be a least three to four years before that me years before that mandate kicks in and we would like to see incentives for the voluntary adoption. that will slow down the coast we get because it perhaps changing the performance recommendation. >> whatever the rules are are enforced effectively and consistently. >> yes, sir. >> let me ask you, major palmer, i think he spoke very well to this point but i just want to

make sure that i understand it. you made the point about variation in rules and consistency and reliability in effect in rulemaking being very important to enforcement. as a law enforcer myself before i came your, for quite a few years, that point hit home to me. so it seems to me that point would argue strongly in favor of not rolling back or retracting rules already in effect while their effectiveness is under study in case they might have to be read and post again. but leaving them in effect so they can continue to be enforced so that folks on the highways can continue to rely on them even as their effectiveness is studied. amite interpreting correctly your view speaks yes, sir, mr. chair. and that is what we want. what we would prefer is we would

prefer not to have to deal with re- training and readjusting for something that could be temporary. it's not our position to get involved in the choice of what the rule is. i mean, as you know, it's our job to enforce what's in place and all we're asking from an enforcement perspective is to maintain the rule that has been in effect for a year until those studies are completed. that way whatever changes are going to be made can be made at one time. >> thank you. that completes my question. senator blunt. >> thank you, chairman. on the other side of that, if we find out from a year from that does put a lot more people on the highway at a time when the highways are already clogged up, that's another year of that, but we will see how this all works out. clearly this is going to be dealt with by the house and the

senate. it's in an appropriations bill to we will see if it stays there. mr. osiecki, my understanding is, a normal car or truck with a sync system, i was talking to insurance person about this the other day, you can connect that sync system to the monitoring system for the people they have ensured. and based on your driving behavior they will give you a better rate your so i'm assuming if a sync system from a normal car, somebody at a distant location can tell if i'm starting or stopping too fast, or if i'm driving too fast, i guess that same information, kind of information is available if you have the electronic login system? >> it is, senator, and many fleet have that today. and safety manager, safety director city at the computer at

the desk get real-time alerts with heartbreaking events, perhaps staring out of context events, those types of things. and they can drag her into being with the driver through a message. or if not intervene with a message to stop can't intervene with a message to pull over and contact us. so that is there and that the benefit from the vehicle-based technologies. and it is being used again in the industry fairly widely. i would like to see more widely used but they do cost. >> you mentioned cost but, this is from the independent owner or operator out of there in his own truck looking for work. that's always been a concern that they couldn't quite afford to compete at that level of equipment, but i assume that's gotten quite a bit less expensive? >> yes. it's kind of like a cell phone scenario with a cell phone cost goes down and the real cost is over the air, the monthly charge. that scenario is played out in trucking as well. technology device cost has come

to the cause is over the air. those are still real. >> those are still real to the owner operator that would explain some of the reluctance. look, i'm a safe driver, look at my record. why should i have to have a login system. but i'm of the view that you are, that there's a way to monitor this. liability something that nobody should want to just run to come everand brief but you want to do everything you can not to have that liability. ms. ferro, i think since 2003 highway fatalities involving trucks decreased? >> i think 2009, 2009 was the lowest year on record, and they have crept up since that time spent they have gone up a little bit. do you have a reason? been a white would be the case why they would've decreased for six or seven years and then they have crept back up a little bit? >> we attribute part of it to

the intensifying traffic on our roadways. and on the preface that by saying that's part and parcel why we are working today to get better data that incorporate sleep management device data with crash data and incident data so we can better and less one crashed national why crashes are happening and the net effect of range of measures that have been taken. but at the end of the day economic growth and the intensity of pressure on industry to deliver, and the growing traffic volumes, we feel have contributed to the increase in crash rates. >> does traffic volume become a factor in trying to figure out your regulations for drivers, delivery and other things if traffic volume is one of the big concerns of? >> how the vehicles are being operated in the traffic is at the source of our concern. have the driver is behaving, the company is managing the

equipment and the driver, ma and the other demand and supply chain that are putting pressures on the driver. a real compounding factor in driver pressure and driver stress is retention time. we touched a bit with compensation but at the end of the day that time that a driver is sitting, is unpaid time, and it's putting pressure on the driver to complete the delivery of that load. and until we can address this detention time issue, if it is unpaid by the shipping industry in its unpaid by the employer, then it's free to everybody and they don't care to tighten it up. so the impact of that also absolutely come as our economy grows in detention time grows, those kinds of things do impact a driver's ability to be safe but because they are pressing legal and physical limits to get that load completely, to get on to the next destination. >> do you have a sense of what

the 2013 numbers are going to look like in terms of fidelity? >> -- fatality. >> we are watching them closely. >> you would have those members but you're not going back and analyzing them over the last six months of? >> and we're trying to get to the point where it is a robust data sent. traditionally the data, the crash data, both fatal injury and total weight crash data that is reported through the states takes 20 half in 24 months before we are satisfied that we wanted% of the -- 20-24 months. i've been fairly criticized by my staff in the past by getting out of the box to earn on somebody because it does change over time. so we are watching. we are looking at the first six months of the transition between july and december of last year, and watching closely as to when

we will be close to 100% of the data, crash data from the states which respect will be at least another six months. just for that particular period. i would be pleased to report back -- i apologize, i won't be here but i know the agency will be very committed to be reporting back as we continue to monitor that. >> now easy for you to say, right? >> last night spent i'm sure that's right. one last line of questions. every transportation company has to be drug and alcohol testing. that's pretty broadly based i believe, 50% within the course of a year, 50% of the drives had to be tested? >> yes. randomized. >> randomized, and then if they have results that are positive, there's some point where the number goes down to 25%.

it's less than 1% in the course over two years i believe it is? >> yes. i think you are speaking to the authority of the agency. if the overall rate of positive testing is significantly below that threshold that you identified, that the random population site can be reduced. and so after two years of surveys, we are identifying at its lower. it has continued to come down or stay longer hours is both a 1% threshold for testing positive. and so the agency is assessing all the different components of what it would mean if, in fact, we lowered the random population from 50 to 25%. but those are factors that are under review today so it would be premature for me to comment beyond that. the fact that discussion is underway. >> mr. osiecki, do you have anything you want to say about that? >> senator, the trucking industry has tried really hard to get its drug testing positive

rate belo low that one person be tried all different types of things. in 2011 that was the first of which are industry dropped below that, that magic threshold 1% to 2012 we don't yet know the date although the administrator just indicated it may be below that threshold again. that really brings the question, if all of the other modes, it after a, federal railroad, federal transit, if they have already reduced their industry's random population from 50% to 25%, why wouldn't the trucking industry be in that same category, particularly since this is set up as an incentive-based program many years ago? we essentially met incentives, i understand, and we are not being rewarded as i understand. >> the incentive and the initial incentive package that you can keep a low 1% for two years, then you have to do fewer samples to but you still have to report. >> that's correct.

>> it does seem to me that you can't go back, if you change the incentive have to go through the process, then you can't expect the process to be quite as cooperative the second time. we were evaluating what the new incentive should be, or evaluating what the facts are that the second you produces would be something i would be very interested in. and i will not you respond now or for the record on that, either one. >> thank you, senator i will respond for the record by want to reinforce we are looking at all of those questions today. as mr. osiecki indicated we haven't released the final number. i probably let the cat out of the bag. that's too late, but please know that this is a very series topic and we're taking all factors into consideration so we'll follow more clearly on the record. >> it should be. again if you're going to set an incentive for the industry to meet, and here's the incentive

that you're trying to achieve, you can't then go back later and say, well, okay, you met the incentive, he met the requirements that we don't think that's the right reward for -- they will still have to report. the question is how may people they have to check, and to the goes back up i assume it works the other way. thank you, chairman. >> thank you, senator blunt, both ask the question. i want to thank the panel. before close the are a couple of issues i was going to ask ms. claybrook whether you had any kind of closing comments on some issues that senator blunt had just raised. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman the i would just like to mention that there was no status or the old restart provision. and so now there's concerned that there are no studies that have evaluated the changed that senator collins is trying to remove.

and, in fact, she wants to study it but if you remove those provisions, they will not be able to be studied. so it's very hard to evaluate what kind of change is going to occur if you don't have the changes in place to study. so that's the reason that we support your cosponsorship of the booker amendment which says let's leave them in place. they been for you, it's very collocated to change them at this moment because the industry has started to implement them. and let's study the now even further. what we do have scientific data about, however, very clearly, and a lot of studies have been done is on the hours of service, nighttime shifts, daytime shifts and the importance of getting nighttime sleep. and so there's no question about that as far as i know. those studies are very, very robust and substantial. and so in our view in the safety advocates of you, the real issue

is the restart should be a limited. we think the whole restart concept of allowing people to restart the hours with only a weekend, part of the weekend off after driving 70 hours a week is much too little. further, i would say that the real problem here, because to senator booker's concern about the payment, but they the drivers are getting is that they're not paid overtime. they worked 11 hours a day. they don't get paid overtime. they have an incentive to drive as fast as it possibly can. they do get paid for their miles because they are paid on the basis of the number of miles that they travel. and so a whole system is totally if i gets it that way, because it has an incentive to drive faster and it doesn't protect the drivers and an additional issue that ms. ferro raised of having to sit and wait for your

freight to be loaded and unloaded, which is not paid time, they can be required to wait three hours. so you're talking 11 hours of driving a three hours of waiting and then 10 hours to sleep at the start that process all over again, and up to 70 hours a week of work and they get 34 hours off. that's inhumane in our view, and i think that's why there's low pay, advantage is taken of the drug. i would like to also just, if i could really on the issue of the 70% of the traffic, the truck crashes by the car drivers to the fact is 96% of the time the car drivers are dead and dead men don't talk to so when the police come to investigate the crash, natural the truck driver is going to say it wasn't my fault, they want to retain their jobs but we understand that. but the people who were involved in the crash on the other side, the car drivers, they are not

there to comment or explain to the police do not have the time to do a full-fledged investigation to get moving traffic. sometimes traffic is backed up for hours as a result of these truck crashes. and so the studies have been done on this i think have been inadequate and minimal, and i don't know, i think you agree with that? >> minimal, yes. >> and i think the number is not a number that should be used. i would like to say that i agree with the ata about having more technology in vehicles. but that doesn't in any way in my to undermine the need to correct the hours of service rules. there are two different issues that are both really important to be completely support technology improvement what they are costly for the smaller independent truckers, and they don't like them and they oppose them. the final thing i would like to comment on if you don't mind for one more minute is the

insurance. the insurance number, 750,000 is totally inadequate for a major truck crash. and insurance is designed to protect the people who are hard. it's not designed necessarily to assure that there's going to be more safety. those are other things that can be done to do that as was discussed at this hearing. but insurance should be at least brought up to inflation numbers which would bring it up to several million at least. one of the problems is that a lot of truck companies, the big truck companies do have more insurance which is great, but smaller companies do. if you happen to be hit by small truck company you're going to never get the kind of conversation that you deserve. and with mexican trucks coming into play, they only have to meet our minimum role's which is 750,000 join our guild to get more than that if there's a major truck crash caused by a mexican truck but i think the rules need to be changed and the minimum insurance level should be substantially increased to

several million, four, $5 million. >> thank you. we will allow the record remain open. i know some of our witnesses they want to respond to points that have been made by other members of the panel. and we're going to keep the record open for a week? i'm sorry, two weeks. two weeks. the judiciary committee is a week but i guess lawyers can talk to her or write quicker, or maybe they don't have as much to say. but that's not true, definitely. so thank you very, very much. this has been an excellent panel. i want to thank my colleagues, particularly senator blunt, for the really excellent participation, their differing points of view on this panel, and among us as colleagues. but i think what we have in common is the goal of increasing safety on our roads, and we have explored some areas where i

think we have very definitely common ground and where the federal government can play a more constructive role. again, thank you so much and i look forward to working with every one of our members of the panel and exploring and advancing these areas. thank you. the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> did you missed any of this hearing on the truck industry safety and we will show it again in its entirety today at four '05 p.m. eastern and we'll wrap up our weeklong look at consumer issues tomorrow with a hearing on what's called phone bill granting which is when third parties can make unauthorized charges to your phone bill. that's tomorrow at 7 a.m. and 5:20 p.m. eastern. here's a great read to add to your summer reading list, c-span's latest book "sundays at eight." >> i always knew that there's risk in the bohemian -- i decided to take it because whether it's an illusion or not

i don't think it is. it helped my concentration. it stopped me being bored, stopped of the people being bored to some extent. it would keep me awake. to enhance the moment. if i was asked would i do it again, the answer is probably yes. i would've quit earlier possibly, to get away with the whole thing. easy for me to say but not very nice for my children to your. it sounds not responsible if i say i would do that all again to you. but the truth is it would be hypocritical of me to said no, i would never touch the stuff if i know because i didn't know, everyone knows. >> soviet union and the soviet system in eastern europe contained the seeds of self-destruction. many of the problems that we saw at the end begins at the very beginning. i spoke already about the attempt to control all institutions and control all

parts of the economy and political life and social life. one of the problems is that when you do that, when he tried to everything, then you create opposition and potential dissidents ever. if you tell all artists have to paint the same way and one artist said no, i don't want to thank that way, i want to put another way, you just make them into a political dissident. >> if you want to subsidize housing in this country and want to talk about it and the populist agrees that is something we should subsidize, then put on the balance sheet and make it clear and make it evident and make everybody aware of how much it is costing. that when you deliver it through these third party enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac, when you deliver the subsidies through a public company with private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. >> christopher hitchens, anne

applebaum and gretchen morgenson are a few of the 41 and engaging stories and c-span's "sundays at eight" now available at your favorite bookseller. >> here's what's ahead today on c-span2. next, a conversation with author david mccullough, this from our latest book "sundays at eight," a collection of c-span interviews done over the years on our book notes and q&a programs. later we will show you all of today's "washington journal" again. ..

>> here's a preview. >> it used to be the government would say if you publish the story of national security and somebody will get killed. that's not good enough for me. i want to hear, i want to hear who, or i want to hear the specifics. obviously, i don't mean tell me how they're going to get killed, i just mean tell me what you mean. you can't give me a vague -- i really want to know. you mean a case officer in tehran? and tell me how. second thing is i always demand that a request to hold something back comes from somebody very high in the government. never if the press person asks for it, i won't even take the call. it's got to come from somebody in the white house, it's got to come from the head of the cia, it's got to come from the head