Segment 2 Of 6 Previous Hearing Segment(1) Next Hearing Segment(3)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICE OF MOTOR CARRIERS
Thursday, February 11, 1999
U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Ground Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:27 p.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Thomas Petri [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. PETRI.I suspect that there will be a vote on the floor of the House sometime shortly after 3:00 p.m., so we thought I could at least start reading my opening statement and then we could go forward with the other statements and the witnesses. And we're starting a bit late as it is already, so by doing that we might be able to finish before the vote occurs on the floor.
We're meeting today to begin a series of hearings on motor carrier safety and the Office of Motor Carriers within the Department of Transportation. Part of the impetus behind this hearing was a proposal put forth during the appropriations process last year to transfer the Office of Motor Carriers from the Federal Highway Administration to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
This committee objected to having this legislative language included in the appropriations bill. No hearings had been held, and no consultations had been made; and the provision ultimately was not included. However, we're holding these hearings to examine the state of motor carriers to identify if there are fundamental problems in the organization or implementation of the Federal program, to determine if new efforts are needed to improve safety, and, if so, what steps might be necessary to accomplish that goal.
Safety on our highways is a matter of great importance and concern, and we must be vigilant in our oversight and efforts to improve safety. However, we should be fully aware of the need and consequences of any action that we take.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
This matter is unquestionably under the jurisdiction of this committee. If there is a need to move legislation regarding the Office of Motor Carriers, then this committee will do it. I know that the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, shares the view that this is a matter more appropriately dealt with by the authorizing committee, and his committee will also begin hearings in the near future. We intend to have an open and inclusive process that is thorough and deliberative, with no undue haste to meet arbitrary deadlines.
We're still awaiting the completion of several reports by the General Accounting Office and the Department of Transportation Inspector General. It would, in our opinion, be irresponsible to proceed without the benefit of those studies and the views of others who have an interest in this matter.
In addition, the Department of Transportation has indicated that an independent review panel is being established to review and make recommendations on these safety issues. We would welcome the input of any member, including the Appropriations Committee, during this process.
It's important to note that the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which was passed last year, made significant revisions in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Program. It increased total funding for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program by nearly $580 million, a more than 20 percent increase over ISTEA levels. These are grants to the States which are used for inspections, compliance reviews, traffic enforcement, and other such activities. TEA–21 continued and encouraged a shift to a performance-based approach to motor carrier safety, and provided more flexibility so that States could determine how resources should best be spent to address each State's most pressing problems.
Recognizing the need to improve data regarding carriers and other safety indicators, specific funding, a total of $65 million, was provided for data and information collection and analysis, and to coordinate such efforts between the Federal Government and the States. TEA–21 also strengthened Federal enforcement by giving the Department authority to shut down unsafe carriers who do not correct safety deficiencies within 60 days. It encased and strengthened civil penalties for violation of safety rules and regulations. TEA–21 established budget fire walls to ensure that the programs funded by gas taxes paid into the Highway Trust Fund be fully spent for authorized programs. Thanks to these fire walls, for the first time in recent memory motor carrier safety programs are receiving full funding as authorized and are not being reduced through the imposition of obligations ceilings.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
At no time in the two and one-half years that the committee was actively working on the reauthorization did any member or group come forward to propose the Office of Motor Carriers be transferred to NHTSA.
This afternoon, we will hear from officials of the Department of Transportation who will set forth essential background information regarding the personnel, budget resources, activities, and mission of the Office of Motor Carriers. This basic understanding will be helpful as we consider the future of the office and look at other recommendations and proposals at future hearings.
With that, unless any member who would like to make an opening statement—opening statements by the ranking senior minority member will be included in the record as well as by the Chairman and ranking member of the full committee, if they wish.
Now we will turn to our witnesses. First, Mr. Peter Basso, Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, United States Department of Transportation.
TESTIMONY OF PETER J. BASSO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ACCOMPANIED BY KENNETH R. WYKLE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND JULIE ANNA CIRILLO, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MOTOR CARRIERS, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. BASSO. Thank you, Chairman Petri, we really appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee today, and let me just quickly introduce my colleagueS, Administrator Ken Wykle, from the Federal Highway Administration, and Ms. Julie Cirillo, the Associate Administrator for Motor Carriers, in FHWA.
Mr. Chairman, if you would, I'd ask that my statement be entered in the record, and if I could just summarize it for you?
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Yes, your full statement will be made a part of the record, and we thank you and your staff for the attention that you've placed in preparing it.
Mr. BASSO. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee as you begin your review of the Department of Transportation's Motor Carrier Safety program.
The safety of the nation's transportation system is the Department of Transportation's top priority. And, Mr. Chairman, we wish to thank the subcommittee and the Congress for its leadership role in promoting transportation safety. The recent enactment that you mentioned of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century gives significant new tools to address safety problems we experience today. We in the Department look forward to working with you and this subcommittee to implement the TEA–21 legislation.
Today, we've been asked to summarize the history of the Motor Carrier Safety program, including its funding and human resource levels in the Department of Transportation. As you know, the Department of Transportation was formally established in April of 1967, and the Federal Highway Administration was created at that time, with the Bureau of Public Motor Carrier Safety being transferred from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the newly created Federal Highway Administration.
Let me talk just a minute about staffing and budget. In 1969, there were 155 employees in the BMCS, and we had an operating budget of about $2 million. We estimate that there were between 5,300 and 5,400 fatalities resulting from large truck crashes in that year. By 1980, the Motor Carrier Safety Act substantially deregulated the industry, and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety staffing had grown to 239 employees and an operating budget of $9.5 million. There were 5,971 large truck fatalities in 1980, and a fatality rate of about 5.5 per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled.
This was the first year of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, which was funded in 1984. The BMCS had 252 employees and an operating budget of about $12 million. Again, there were 5,600 large truck crash fatalities in that year, and a rate of 4.6 per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
In 1986, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which established the CDL program, was enacted, and motor carriers had 321 employees and an operating budget of almost $14 million. Again, there was about 5,600 large truck crash fatalities and a fatality rate of about 4.3 per 100,000,000 vehicle miles.
Tracing the history a little further, in 1991, the first year of ISTEA, there were 618 employees in the Bureau and a budget of $40 million. There were 4,821 large truck crash fatalities, for a rate of 3.2 fatalities per 100,000,000 vehicle miles.
Carrying forward to the future, we saw the Motor Carrier Safety Program in 1995 reach 659 employees, and there were 4,900 plus truck fatalities in that year,translating into a fatality rate per 100,000,000 vehicle miles of 2.8.
Finally, there were 5,355 large truck crash fatalities in 1997, the last year for which we have complete data and a rate of 2.8 fatalities per 100,000,000 vehicles.
Today, the FHWA as motor carrier safety organization has 665 employees and an operating budget of $53.3 million.
Let me just say a quick word about the industry's size. Things have changed a lot. In 1969, there were 132,000 motor carriers and 2,000,000 drivers. We estimate that there are now 490,000 business entities, 6,000,000 drivers subject to the general safety jurisdiction of MCS and 9,000,000 drivers who hold commercial drivers licenses, which are part of the broader requirements.
A word to the MCSAP program, which over the years this committee was certainly instrumental in helping to create. In 1984, when funding for MCSAP began, we estimate that we conducted 159,000 roadside inspections, and 114 safety reviews. Now, through the MCSAP program, we and our State partners are conducting approximately 2,000,000 roadside inspections per year, a dramatic increase in our roadside presence, and more than 6,000 compliance reviews per year of carriers at their places of business. The MCSAP program, for which we have provided the details in my full statement the details was funded initially at $10,000,000. Today that program is funded at $100,000,000 and will accelerate to the levels you suggested in your opening statement as we go to the year 2003.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
We're currently conducting a study to determine factors that really address an issue that we're particularly concerned about. We're particularly concerned about the current motor carrier passenger-carrying bus accidents that have made the headlines so much recently. There are 33,000 bus inspections a year, and we find that buses have about half the out-of-service rate as commercial motor vehicles, so obviously they are maintained somewhat better.
I'd like to note that in New Jersey and New York, we have an aggressive bus safety program, requiring all buses to be inspected every six months. The FHWA has been working very closely with the NTSB and New Jersey on the recent crashes in the State. We are conducting a study to determine the factors that affect bus driver fatigue and stress. We're also increasing the number of MCSAP officers trained in motor coach inspections by 500 annually. Additionally, we are considering emphasizing compliance reviews for hazardous material and passenger carriers to focus increased resources and attention on safety in these areas.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the size of the motor carrier safety industry has grown dramatically over the years, especially in recent years with the economic boom we have been experiencing. With that growth has come greatly increased vehicle miles of travel, with an attendant increase in the risk of large truck crashes. The increases in resources that have been devoting to motor carrier safety, both in terms of staffing and budget increases in DOT, coupled with the important increases of funding available to the States, have resulted in an ever decreasing fatality rate as measured against vehicle miles traveled. But we note in recent years that the decline has leveled off, and any loss of life is unacceptable.
We look forward, Mr. Chairman, to working with the committee and the other committees of Congress that I know are working on these issues, and my colleagues and I stand ready to respond to the questions from you or other members of the committee. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Wykle, do you have a statement? Great. Do you have any questions? Would you like to begin?
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator Wykle, we welcome you to the subcommittee as a fellow West Virginian. Let me just state by way of an abbreviated opening statement that while I failed to be here on time it is readily apparent to me that when it comes to things like environmental protection or safety, it's critically important that the agency involved not just have the money to spend on these noble programs and not just be able to do the research in the area, not just issue regulations, but there must be that basic enforcement mentality there as well. And this is not the mission of NHTSA. But it is fundamental to the mission of the Office of Motor Carriers. Can fulfilling this mission within the Office of Motor Carriers be improved? Of course. But I've been around here for a few years, and I've seen too many knee-jerk and flaky proposals to reinvent government, to reorganize for the sake of reorganization, or to replace working programs with Mickey Mouse contraptions to approach this particular issue lightly. And this subcommittee will not approach it lightly.
Mr. Chairman, let me note that I always appreciate it when Jack appears before this subcommittee. He is always very responsive to questions. He has a way about him that, even when he's not being responsive, you think he is.
[Laughter.]
No, the Administrator's from West Virginia, Mr. Chairman. But he does do it in such a way the subcommittee very much appreciates his responses. And Administrator Wykle, as I say again, it's always a pleasure to welcome you. You must be enjoying the type of popularity that we did last year, my colleagues, when we here on the committee were putting together member highway projects for TEA–21.
I understand that the discretionary Corridor and Border program has attracted $2 billion in requests chasing some $124 million. That was $2 billion in requests; $124 million available in this Fiscal Year. So I hope that you and Secretary Slater are steering clear of any AASHTO meetings.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
[Laughter.]
As you could very well get mobbed. Ms. Cirillo, we also welcome you to the subcommittee. We wish you well in your new roll at the Office of Motor Carriers. My first question is to you, Jack. You did a great job in reviewing the history of motor carrier safety from a Federal perspective. And in that same vein, I'd like to review with you some of the recent funding trends for the MCSAP grant program.
It appears to me that the Appropriations Committee normally low-balls not just your requests, but the past ISTEA authorization levels as well for this program. Fiscal Year 1995, for instance, you asked for $83 million, and the appropriators gave you $74 million. For Fiscal Year 1997, you asked for $87 million, and the appropriators gave you $78 million. It was not until we put those fire walls and guarantees in place in TEA–21 that the appropriators were unable to fund this program at less than its authorized amount in Fiscal Year 1999. My question is do you have this same understanding, that is, the appropriators in the past consistently reduced the amount available for this safety grant program compared to the level that this committee authorized and compared to your request as well?
Mr. BASSO. Mr. Rahall, let me answer by saying the numbers in our chart clearly show that the numbers have come in lower than our requests or lower than the authorizations; although they have varied from year to year, they have been lower. But again, I'd have to say for our part, we've also had discussions with the appropriators when we were going through those numbers, and we've often worked on other things like the operating account. So there was clearly some negotiation back and forth on funding levels. But I think the chart shows that in most cases, they have generally been lower.
Mr. RAHALL. Very well, you answered that just like we would have, too. Very diplomatically. Is there any reason to believe that the reduction in spending by the appropriators has adversely affected safety?
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. BASSO. No, sir. I think I can answer that unequivocally. I certainly don't think so. I think the real question is could we have used more money and advanced more compliance reviews and inspections. Sure. Our request reflected that, I feel, and I think General Wykle would agree with me, that we have not seen a compromise of safety in that regard.
Mr. RAHALL. OK. Mr. Chairman, I do have more questions, but I'll yield to other colleagues. I see there's a number of our colleagues here.
Mr. PETRI. Very good. We will have more than one round if time permits. Mr. Franks?
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question for the panel—a follow up to the—to Mr. Basso's observation that New York and New Jersey have a special bus inspection program. If I could be given a few extra details about that, the scope of that program, and what its results have been to date, it would be appreciated?
Mr. BASSO. OK, Mr. Franks, I don't have, but I certainly will get for you the details of that program, unless General Wykle has them, he will address them.
Mr. WYKLE. Sir, I do have some facts that may get at your question. In 1997, there were 6,218 inspections by the State of New Jersey. Out of that number, 1,140 vehicle out of service violations were issued, and driver out of service violations totalled 22. So it is a very aggressive inspection program. And, as Jack mentioned I think in his comment, the State of New Jersey is inspecting buses two times per year, which is double the Federal requirement of doing it at least annually. So they are inspecting the buses, and they are finding half the out of service violations as motor carriers.
Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Wykle, I just want to be clear here. What is the partnership? What is the Federal role? You're telling me that New Jersey inspects buses twice as often as the Federal requirement stipulates. Well, that's great for them. What do we do, from the Federal perspective?
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. WYKLE. Well, from the Federal perspective, we assist in terms of providing funds for the MCSAP program that provides the funding for the inspectors. We're also involved in training, on a national basis, additional bus inspectors at the rate of 500 per year. We also work with the State in terms of compliance reviews. The State does primarily the roadside inspections. The Federal Government has the primary role in going in and looking at the carriers' books, if you will, and reviews the number of previous violations, out of service rates, the past accident fatality rates, and those types of things to ensure that they do have an effective safety program for the company. We do that primarily from the Federal level, and that's the partnership in terms of the types of things we do versus what the State does.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. And I don't want to get into this too far, because I know this will be the subject, probably more of another hearing than this particular hearing, but, Mr. Wykle, one last question. As I understand it, TEA–21 for the first time gives the Department authority to shut down any carrier that violates fundamental standards. Can you—is the Department prepared to act on that new grant of authority?
Mr. WYKLE. Yes, we are. And you're absolutely correct. ISTEA included provisions that there had to be a pattern of misconduct or gross negligence, so we couldn't go in and automatically shut down the carrier, no matter how bad it was. TEA–21 does give us the capability to do that, plus we appreciated very much the ability to levy more severe fines. We are starting to use that authority.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. There is the last vote of the day and, I understand, of the week has commenced on the floor of the House. So we will go and vote and recess. I'll make an effort to get back as quickly as I can, and we will try to reconvene at about five after 3:00 p.m. And I apologize for the inconvenience, but that's part of the business up here.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. BASSO. I understand, sir.
Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee is recessed until 3:05 p.m.
[Recess.]
Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will resume. And Mr. Borski?
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me also welcome the panel, and I'd like to ask you a little bit about this issue —almost a follow up of where Mr. Franks was coming from. In the city of Philadelphia, there have been several high-profile truck fatalities in the last several months, moving the Police Commissioner to be pretty aggressive in his spot checking of trucks. And he's found an enormously high rate of people not in compliance. My question is: are we doing everything we can in the Federal Government to help States and localities with compliance? All projections I see of freight moving are—it's an enormous growth and there are going to be whole lot more trucks on the road. What are plans for now and in future to reduce the fatalities as far as possible and to try and make sure that people are in compliance?
Mr. WYKLE. First of all, sir, let me say to you that from the Federal Highway Administration's standpoint, safety is our number one priority. I think the interstate system is a great example of that in terms of being the safest highway system in the world, and it's an example of safety by design.
From an organizational standpoint within the agency, we're putting even greater emphasis on safety through some of our restructuring efforts that we have been undergoing for the past year. We have made safety a core business unit and brought together highway safety with motor carrier safety, so we have both the design and the operation of the highway system combined with the safety of the vehicles that operate on that highway.
We're also looking at it from the standpoint of a safety action plan— reviewing the safety actions that we are taking, and evaluating our strategy. Right now, we have a three-pronged strategy. First of all, we conduct performance-based reviews combined with strong enforcement actions. Then we have an education and training program, which is demonstrated most readily through the 'No-Zone Campaign' to educate the public about the blind spots and how to drive safely around large vehicles, as well as the campaign against red light running—those types of things. And then the third piece of that strategy is technology and being able to leverage technology to reduce the number of crashes and, therefore, the number of fatalities that occur on our highway. We're combining all that together in a total program. And as was mentioned, 2,000,000 roadside inspections are conducted per year. Now those are primarily conducted by the States, and we provide the funds for that, as a result of this committee's support, through the MCSAP program.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Then, at the Federal level, we do approximately 6,000 compliance reviews per year, going in and doing a detailed review of the safety programs of the carriers themselves. We've taken over 2,000 enforcement actions during the last year. We know that these are producing results, but we're not where we want to be. So we can do more. And we're working to strengthen our programs, to be able to leverage technology and the funds provided by Congress to make even more improvements in the safety on our highways.
Mr. BORSKI. You know, I'd be curious. I am assuming most of the compliance you do is with major carriers. My assumption is that they are not the problem. The problem is more with the individuals who are out here. How do you-or how do we-tackle that problem?
Mr. WYKLE. Well, that's the reason we have a performance-based compliance process so we do not just focus on the big-name interstate carriers. The performance-based system means that we look at the number of crashes the carriers have, and that is worth a factor of two in our formula. We then look at their drivers and driver qualifications and the citations the drivers have received. We look at the vehicles and their out of service rates, and the maintenance posture of their vehicles and finally their safety management systems. That then goes into an analytical system we have, and it then tells us which carriers, out of the 490,000 we have registered, have the highest risk factors. And those are the ones we go to and do the more in-depth compliance reviews. So we have a system to ensure that we do not go to the best carriers or the biggest carriers, but those that are at the highest risk.
Mr. BORSKI. And If I may on a follow up. What about so-called independents?
Mr. WYKLE. Well, everyone has to be registered with us to have a license; and, therefore, they are a carrier in this 490,000 number. That's why it's so large. If you look at the Snyders, the J.B. Hunts, the ABFs, I mean those large companies are a small percentage of that total 490,000. Most are one, two, five truck companies. So they are all in there.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. BORSKI. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Rahall, did you want another round?
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, do you have any reason to believe that there's been a drop off in full level one inspections in the States?
Mr. WYKLE. Sir, in terms of looking at our past history and the charts that we have, there has been a change in terms of the administering of the compliance review. And this is primarily the result of the performance-based program we have gone to. Reflecting back, in 1997, both the Inspector General within the Department and the GAO, commented that the Federal Highway Administration did not have a good system to ensure that we were looking at the highest risk carriers. It gets back to the previous question. We were just kind of taking a shot-gun approach. And so the performance-based system was instituted, and we developed the automated program, and we're just now getting well into that. So the total number of compliance reviews has been increasing slightly. The total number of reviews are going up. But the level one is declining slightly.
Part of the reason for that, at least in our assessment to date, is that we're focusing on the highest risk carriers. They have the worst programs. They need the most assistance. So when we go in for a review, it takes more time and more effort to go through, to review that through the training and education that's necessary. It's not much of a decline, but there is a slight decline, sir.
Mr. RAHALL. Has the OMC been conditioning grants with greater emphasis on the States conducting more level two inspections?
Mr. WYKLE. Say that again, sir?
Mr. RAHALL. Has the OMC been conditioning grants with greater emphasis on States conducting more level two inspections?
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. WYKLE. Conditioning grants? You mean, as a condition of getting a grant that a State would have to do more level two inspections?
Mr. RAHALL. Correct. Right.
Mr. WYKLE. I can't comment on that. I'll have to get that answer for the record, sir. Unless—let me see if someone knows.
Mr. RAHALL. OK, well, let me go on to my third question. Is there any reason to believe that the OMC may be sacrificing inspection and compliance reviews in its push for more performance-based programs?
Mr. WYKLE. I just checked with the staff behind me. They say we do not have any system like that—where the award of grants is conditioned on conducting more level two type reviews.
Mr. RAHALL. All right. That answered the second question. Now my third one is, is there any reason to believe that the OMC may be sacrificing inspection and compliance reviews in its push for more performance-based programs?
Mr. WYKLE. Looking at the data, I don't think so. And the reason I am stating it that way, is that the total number of inspections is going up. The number of level ones, as I mentioned, is in a slight decline, but in terms of going with the performance-based system, I don't see the total number going down. There is a slight impact on the level ones. But the total number is not going down.
Mr. BASSO. Mr. Rahall, if I could just follow up on that—just add a little bit more to that. That's certainly all absolutely correct, and I agree with that. But I'd add these couple of points, which I think are important. Today, through the MCSAP program and our own efforts we conduct, over 2,000,000 roadside inspections. That's dramatically up over the years. Compliance reviews are more targeted, and one of the things that General Wykle mentioned was that the GAO and OIG in 1997 really looked at us with some criticism of our selection database—how sophisticated and effective it was. And we have made some pretty dramatic improvements in the data we have and the ability to target carriers, so there might be some slight variances. But I think we're hitting the right people more effectively.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Ms. CIRILLO. Right. Yes, I would agree with that. With all of the carriers out there that we have in our universe to investigate with the resources that we have, we obviously have to try to target those carriers that are the greatest at risk. And so this algorithm that we've put together, which General Wykle described, is the mechanism we use to identify the carriers that are at-risk. And it's those carriers that we systematically go into and investigate. And we investigate all of the worst carriers, and the next worst carriers, and then a percentage of the next worst carriers. So, as we get our list, we have them classified as A, B, and C. We review all of the As. We do all of the Bs. And then we do a percentage of the Cs. And we're in the process of looking at other criteria we can use, such as looking at carriers who have never had a compliance review; who have been in business for years and years, and never had a compliance review. Or, if investigators receive complaints about carriers, there will be another strata that we will provide to get our list of carriers to investigate.
Mr. RAHALL. Yes, let me have one last, quick question, please, Mr. Chairman? And that's in regard to the chain of command at the OMC now in light of your recent restructuring. As I understand it, there's no longer an Associate Administrator, but rather a program manager for motor carriers. And it is my further understanding that some people report to the FHWA Associate Administrator, Tony Kane, rather than to the program manager. Is that an accurate understanding of that chain of command?
Mr. WYKLE. Your question about Tony Kane is what, sir?
Mr. RAHALL. That some people report to the FHWA Associate Administrator, Tony Kane, rather than to the program manager under your recent restructuring?
Mr. WYKLE. Let me comment on the restructuring that we have done. We have restructured our field organization as well as the headquarters organization. Previously, in the field, each of the State directors reported to a regional motor carrier director, who then reported to the Associate Administrator within headquarters, who reported to Tony Kane. That was the old system. The new system is that we still have directors in each State. Their supervisory chain runs to the operations manager in the resource center, which, by direction, is a motor carrier person. That individual works as a team with the Federal-aid person that is in the resource center. That individual then reports to Tony Kane as the executive director. That's the supervisory chain from a standpoint of promotions, administration, and the normal day-to-day operating aspects.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
From a programmatic standpoint, in terms of the direction of the program, the establishment of policy and procedures, that's done by the program manager of motor carrier highway safety, Ms. Julie Cirillo. And it goes to the field, directly to the State directors, because we've cut out an intermediate level from a programmatic standpoint in the field to flatten the organization. But Julie Cirillo reports to Tony Kane, just like George Reagle reported to Tony Kane previously. So I am not sure of this concern about the reporting to Tony Kane from the standpoint of the organizational structure because it's all within the Office of the Administrator.
Mr. RAHALL. OK, but you said the program and the policy, all those issues, are still reported to the program manager?
Mr. WYKLE. Still with the program manager. Yes, sir. It's the day-to-day housekeeping, promotions, travel, any personnel actions—those types of things are handled through the resource centers. But programmatically, it comes from the program manager as the name implies. That was the purpose of going to program managers so the program manager is responsible for the entire program throughout the organization.
Mr. RAHALL. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Just one quick area of inquiry. I've talked with our colleague who has taken some leadership in this whole area on this subject, Frank Wolf. And I know he is concerned as many others are, by the fact that on the last chart here in front of us, we see a leveling out in the large truck fatality rate rather than improvement. And the actual numbers of fatalities, and I know that's not the accurate way to measure it, because clearly if there's more trucks and more driving, you have to—to be consistent, you have to look at per instance, and so the actual number has bounced around. It's down from where it was back 10 years ago, but it's still gone up a little bit in the last few years. And each one of these numbers represents a human life that's been lost. And this is a great concern to all of us.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
We're just getting a snapshot of what you're doing. And the figures are what you're doing and the States are doing—I mean, a lot these inspections are State—they pull to go over—weight stations or whatever and inspect, and it's a much better way to do than to have some sort of parallel system. Do you have information as to any differences in these statistics among the States, since we've gone to a combined—in other words, is this a national trend or are there some areas of the country where they are continuing to experience real reductions in fatalities, and there are others that aren't. Maybe we should be looking at how to better coordinate with the States or better build on what is working in different States, to use the States laboratories of democracy rather than focusing on ourselves and aggregated figures, and saying, well, maybe if we moved you from one box to another out here in Washington or put more dollars into this national system through you, this is going to solve our problem. Your number of employees have gone down. Have the total number of inspectors in the United States gone down in looking at what States are doing? Or, are the States picking up some of this? These are the kind of things I think it would be very helpful for us to get a handle on what really would be the responsible thing to do in this area.
We're seeing sort of half. We're seeing aggregated numbers, but only half of the sort of administrative picture, because we're looking at it with Washington blinders on and not American blinders.
Mr. WYKLE.Certainly, sir, it's the feeling within the Federal Highway Administration that we need to be focusing first of all on the problem—too many fatalities occurring on our highways as a result of large truck crashes—truck-car crashes—and then what is the appropriate solution for that, and how should we distribute our resources to make a difference? And there are differences between States in terms of numbers of fatalities naturally and the direction that those States are going. We have identified what we call the Top Ten—the 10 States with the highest number of truck-related fatalities. And we have focused efforts on those 10 States in an effort to do just what you're describing, not look at the total nation, but where's the largest number occurring and where can we focus our resources to have the best return or the greatest return on the investment in terms of saving lives.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
And so we have identified the Top Ten. And the majority of those States over the last three or four years have made improvements. There's one or two States that haven't made much of an improvement, so we are trying to do the type of thing that you're getting to here—look at where they are occurring, the reason they are occurring, the types of conditions under which they occur, and then focus on that as opposed to an even, national-type total distribution of assets and resources. So the number of inspections have gone up significantly, as Jack mentioned, from the time we started to where we're doing about 2,000,000 today versus about 159,000 in 1984. So you can see the big increase there. Through MCSAP, we are adding additional inspectors in the States. That's the primary way the States pay for those inspectors. So there's a variety of things working to do just what you're suggesting.
Mr. FRANKS. [presiding.] Mr. Miller?
Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a Representative from southern California, I am concerned with the issue of truck safety, as you are probably aware, especially since my district serves as the transit point for goods heading towards the east coast. There's been a lot of debate regarding triple trailer tractors in the State. Has there been any studies done by the Department of Motor Carriers on the effects of using triple trailer tractors on southern California highways?
Ms. CIRILLO. In terms of triple trailers?
Mr. MILLER. Yes.
Ms. CIRILLO. As far as I know, Congressman, the only work that was done in terms of safety of triple trailers was done years ago, when they were only permitted in Utah and Nevada. And there are some issues associated with triple trailers as it relates to the stability of the last trailer. But as a group, since they are so well controlled and so well monitored, and their travel is limited basically to very rural highways, the accident experience of triple trailers is very good. So if somebody said, what's the accident experience of triple trailers, you would have to say, boy, they are a really safe vehicle. But it's because they have the best drivers, the best equipment, and they are operating on highways right now where there is relatively little traffic, and the design is pretty consistent. How triple trailers would operate in southern California—I just came back from San Francisco—how triple trailers would operate in southern California with the traffic, with the constrained designs that you have in urban areas, is really problematic. I doubt you would be able to move triple trailers very easily through the freeway system because the highway is not designed to really accommodate them, and there's too much variation in design, from a freight movement perspective or a safety perspective. I don't know if anybody else has——
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. MILLER. I know they are moving from Nevada through California through the desert areas——
Ms. CIRILLO. Right.
Mr. MILLER. But with the Alameda Corridor opening up, as you know, they are proposing a lot of increases. Are there any studies that are planned in the future, do you know, that look at the future?
Mr. WYKLE. Well, one of the recent studies that we have been working on, and it's not completed yet, that you may be aware of is our truck size and weight study. It is an effort to look at a range of scenarios and try to determine the impact of large combination vehicles. And certainly, what we have gained to date in terms of the work that we have done, is that first of all it's a very complex subject. And, as Julie mentioned, there's not a lot of data available in terms of the safety records of these large vehicles. There's not one right answer in terms of the optimum size of the trucks or the weight that they carry. And trying to weigh the relative impacts of a wide array of considerations, you really get into a lot of variables—I mean, the infrastructure piece, i.e., the design of the highway, the tightness of the clover leafs in terms of exiting and entering the freeways, the safety itself, the environment within which they are operating, potential impact on the rail industry. And so there's just a lot of variables there, and it's very difficult to quantify what will happen if you go to larger combinations or heavier vehicles.
Mr. MILLER. And there's no studies planned at this point, too?
Mr. WYKLE. Well, we're going to continue what we're working on in this particular study. We've completed volume three, which is the analysis. We're now circulating that for comment and for review, and we would expect to publish the results of that within six months. And that will provide Congress and the States at least a tool for them to consider and use in their evaluation as to whether or not to permit larger combinations and heavier vehicles in their States.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. MILLER. And you also know that NAFTA was considerable debate in California, too. And I was wondering has there been any increase or decrease in the amount of truck accidents, particularly involving trucks originating in Mexico, or even Canada?
Mr. WYKLE. I don't have data to show me distinctly in terms of number of accidents. But we do have data on out of service rates, and our IG just recently did a review of safety condition of vehicles operating in the trade zone there along the southern border with Mexico. And the out of service rate is higher than the national average, so definitely we have some additional work to do in terms of improving the safety of many trucks that might be operating in the commercial zone along our southern border. And we have been working for some time with the Mexican government in terms of the conditions we want to have met before the border is opened.
Mr. MILLER. OK, and what responsibility, if any, does the Department of Motor Carriers have in providing oversight for trucks originating in Canada or Mexico?
Mr. WYKLE. Well, certainly, we have the responsibility from a regulatory aspect. I mean, those trucks must meet and comply with the U.S. regulations.
Mr. MILLER. And they do—U.S. safety standards?
Mr. WYKLE. Right. They have to meet the same safety standards as U.S. trucks as well as the weight standards.
Mr. MILLER. OK, is there any other specific issues you're focusing on now that you can think of an impact in southern California. And I hate to focus on southern California, but you realize the impact of the Alameda Corridor and the concerns of the people we represent. And I just didn't know if there's any other issues you're looking into to resolve much of that today.
Mr. WYKLE. Well, from the standpoint of southern California, and it pertains to the entire border, we're focusing on the safety of the vehicles that will be coming across the border. We're certainly focusing on the border clearance--the queues and lines that back up there, in trying to get them processed much more efficiently and effectively. I've been to some of the border areas in southern California. You have some great inspection stations there, which are the model I think for other states to follow. But there are some access problems in terms of those border locations, so additional egress and so forth once you come through those inspection stations is needed to get on the primary highways in southern California. And we are working with CalTrans on those plans and highways and facilities that they are proposing to do there. So we are working those types of issues.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. MILLER. Because, as you know, a major problem is at grade crossings in these major truck routes and additional truck lanes are needed to be provided in those areas that we're looking into.
Mr. WYKLE. Sure. And as you mentioned, the Alameda Corridor will do a great job in terms of eliminating a large number of highway grade crossings——
Mr. MILLER. If the infrastructure is in place?
Mr. WYKLE. Yes.
Mr. MILLER. Yes.
Mr. WYKLE. Once that's done.
Mr. MILLER. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRANKS. Do any of the members have any further questions? Mr. Pease?
Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the panel for your presentations and express my regret that I've been in and out, as many have had to be this afternoon, particularly as that may affect the questions I am going to ask you. If they have been asked already, stop me. We will save your time and mine and everyone else's.
I did want to follow up a little bit on some of the questions that were raised by Mr. Petri regarding the large truck fatality rate and the decline which seems to have leveled in the last few years, and ask whether you have any indication as to why that might be, to what you attribute the fact that we're apparently not making any further progress, having made some progress. Do you have a feel for that?
Ms. CIRILLO. Actually, I would say the answer to your question is we don't at this time have a feel for why we've leveled off. We are looking at all of the alternative strategies that we could implement, as General Wykle indicated. We're looking at an increased enforcement that is focused at the at-risk carriers. We're looking at outreach and working with the industry because in order for us to be really successful, the industry has to recognize that safety is good business. We couldn't possibly enforce and monitor 400,000 carriers, and that number is expected to continue to increase and probably will start to increase exponentially over the next couple of years.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
And finally, we're looking at whether there are some technology solutions. We think that's really where we're going to make a difference; that we can do some things technologically to jump start our activity to continue to reduce not only just the rate but the actual numbers of fatalities. Technology can be applied across the board in terms of enforcement, in terms of new vehicular devices, in terms of new warning systems for the drivers, in terms of new mechanisms for monitoring drivers and making sure that they are performing in an acceptable fashion.
So we're really looking to technology to help us jump start our activity so that we can continue to see a decrease in fatalities and a decrease in fatality rate. The other day I was meeting with our policy director, and he was looking for some activities he wanted to do long range. I've asked him to take a look at, at what point, do separate truck roadways become economically viable. In the long-term, if we continue to increase the number of trucks, that may be not only an economically viable solution, but it could also be a safety solution. So we have lots of things we want to look at. Some of them are really near term, and some of them are pretty far term.
Mr. WYKLE. One of the things we commented on earlier was we're putting together a safety action plan with near-term objectives, mid-term, and long-term. And so we're trying to design programs to break through this barrier, if you will, because you can see how the fatality rate has flattened out. The plan addresses what's it going to take to break through the plateau, and then continue a more significant downslope in terms of rate as well as actual casualties.
Mr. PEASE. I appreciate that. Let me ask a question—it may not at first seemed related. And it may not be related, but if there is a correlation, I'd like to pursue it, and that is the decrease in the number of Fiscal Year FTEs in the Office of Motor Carriers. Is there work that is contracted out in the office now or has there been at some point, or does this figure represent all the people that are working either directly or through contract in this area?
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Mr. BASSO. This figure actually represents direct employees that we have on board. We do other things like systems programming, computer technology, a number areas of support like that—and apply other resources that would not show up in the FTE levels in here. The change you see is really part of the long-term change that came about during the National Performance Review changes and reductions. One of the things I think that we probably should supply for the Committee—I don't have this figure, but I suspect we would find that much of that reduction is the support-type personnel as opposed to direct enforcement personnel.
Mr. PEASE. That would be helpful to know. I would also be curious to know whether the total number of persons employed, either directly or by contract, has, in fact, decreased, or whether it has, in fact, increased during this period. And what sort of jobs are contracted out?
Mr. BASSO. We'd be happy to get that information for the record, sir.
Mr. PEASE. That gets me to my next question and that is, if, in fact, most of the contracting out has been for non-enforcement kind of work, support systems kinds of things, is there a correlation between a reduction in the number of FTEs and the fact that we're not—we don't appear any longer to be making progress in reduction in the number of fatalities per mile driven?
Mr. BASSO. I will tell you, we certainly don't have any data that would suggest that, I can tell you that for sure. I think that what really doesn't show up in those charts, but shows up in the 2,000,000 roadside inspections that we mentioned here, is the corresponding increase which we supply in State personnel dedicated to the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. That probably would give you an overall clearer picture of resources dedicated to that area. But I am not aware of any data that would suggest any correlation.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
Ms. CIRILLO. No.
Mr. PEASE. OK. I appreciate that. On another subject, I see a lot of long-haul drivers who obviously spend the night at a roadside park or a truck stop or in many cases along the side of the highway. Is there any concern or have there been any studies about the effect of sleeping in cabs, which may be subject to carbon monoxide penetration, and the impact that that might have on the ability of the driver the next day to react quickly and appropriately under even normal driving circumstances?
Ms. CIRILLO. I don't really know, Congressman, whether the studies have specifically identified carbon monoxide as an issue. There have been some issues that have been identified, in terms of the driver's ability to continue driving after periods of rest, that relate mostly to the disruption of schedule. This relates generally to the hours of service. And also, as it relates to the issue of fatigue and what are the factors that make someone fatigued. Obviously, carbon monoxide is one of those factors. I don't really know, but I will find out and let you know if our studies on fatigue have isolated carbon monoxide as a contributing factor. The evidence seems to say that the disruption in the sleep work cycle, where people are essentially working in an 18-hour time frame as opposed to a 24-hour time frame is a significant contributing factor. If in the studies they looked at carbon monoxide, we will let you know.
Mr. PEASE. I'd appreciate having both the larger study and any specifics on carbon monoxide. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRANKS. Seeing no further questions, I'd like to thank very much the members of the panel. We look forward to working with you in the future. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 6
[Insert here.]
Next Hearing Segment(3)