Segment 2 Of 2     Previous Hearing Segment(1)

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S PROPOSED HOURS OF SERVICE REGULATIONS FOR MOTOR CARRIERS

Thursday, June 22, 2000
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Ground Transportation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order.
    We are meeting today to hear testimony on the Department of Transportation's proposed rulemaking on commercial motor vehicles' hours of service.
    Back in 1995, with the passage of the ICC Termination Act, Congress asked the Department to update the 60-year-old regulation in the hope that a thoughtful review might build a safer rule, better for today's driving and today's time. On May 2nd of this year, the Department of Transportation unveiled its proposal and asked for public comment. Initially, the Department announced that it would only accept these comments for 90 days, but it has since extended that period an additional 90 days, until the end of October.
    The proposed hours of service regulation has, however, met with widespread criticism for its complexity and potential far-reaching economic and safety impacts. Today we will hear from a broad range of witnesses, including representatives from the administration, industry, labor and highway safety organizations. It is my hope that, by the end of the day, we will be closer to answer some significant questions that the administration's proposal has raised.
    First, on May 31st, the Department of Transportation published a correction to its original Federal Register notice conceding that the economic impacts of this rule had not been fully assessed.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    First questions is, are we any closer to understanding the potential effect on our economy of the changes?
    Second, will implementation of this rule force affected businesses to hire more drivers despite an acute shortage of qualified drivers?
    Third, assuming that more drivers would need to be hired, how would traffic congestion and highway safety be affected by this new regulation?
    And, with that, I yield to the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, my colleague, Nick Rahall from West Virginia.
    Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you for holding today's hearings on very important proposals that have come forth.
    Mr. Chairman, the year was 1937. The Social Security Act had just been enacted 2 years earlier. The country was in the midst of the Great Depression. The New Deal was at work. And in an action that would dictate American life for years to come, Hitler's annexation of Austria was still a year away. It was during 1937 when the Interstate Commerce Commission adopted the hours of service regulations governing truck drivers which are still essentially in place today.
    From the standpoint of transportation, America was a much different place then, obviously. Authorization of the interstate highway system was still almost 20 years in the future. It would not be until the next year when the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1938 directed the Bureau of Public Roads to study—I still want to say ''public works''—directed the Bureau of Public Roads—not to built, but to study, mind you, to study the feasibility of a six-route toll network. The average larger truck of the day was run by a 50 or 80 horsepower engine, compared to the 450 horsepower engine of today's trucks.
    The question is whether the hours of service regulations devised during that era 68 years ago are still valid today in terms of protecting the American traveling public and the health and welfare of the Nation's truck drivers. And it is a very important question. Trucks move nearly 3/4 of the value and just over the half of the weight of all shipments in this country. That translates into a great deal of time that truck drivers spend plying the country's roads and highways.
 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    For its part, the Transportation Department has stepped up to the plate with a proposal to dramatically overhaul the hours of service regulation. It is the ninth inning in this administration, the bases are loaded, and the DOT has put its cleanup hitter, Clyde Hart, on deck as Acting Deputy Administrator of the Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
    It is no secret that the administration's game plan is to bring those runners home and have the proposed rules finalized by the end of the year. In light of the fact that it was Congress, in the form of a directive to the ICC Termination Act, which prompted DOT to propose updating these regulations, the purpose of this hearing then is to broaden the public's understanding of the nature and the scope of this proposal.
    Again, I commend you, Mr. Chairman; and I look forward to hearing the witnesses today.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Opening statements by the chairman of the full committee, Honorable Bud Shuster of Pennsylvania, and the ranking Democrat, Congressman Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, will be included as part of this record.
    Other opening statements? Mr. Terry?
    Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing on the hours of service rule.
    Now, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration submitted this rule and supports it as necessary to improve safety on our Nation's roads and highways and said that it will improve safety and initially said that the impact on the economy will be minimal.
    Both of these arguments are wrong under closer scrutiny. Now, I do not object to looking into the hours of service rule. I do object to this complete overhaul. Studies show that this proposal is unwise and unjustified. Over the last 10 years, truck accidents have declined 34 percent, while, actually, miles traveled has increased by 43 percent. I believe this is an improvement in the industry under the current rule.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Now over the last 4 years, truck crashes per 100 million miles driven have decreased from 2.6 in 1996 to 2.2 in 1999. In 1997, trucks were involved in 13 percent of all traffic fatalities. Now the FMCSA proposes a complete overhaul that will put at least 100,000 new trucks on our already crowded highways. This means there will be 100,000 new truck drivers, arguably with little or no experience, on the road driving these long trucks. Just think about it. Industries across our Nation are spending millions of dollars trying to figure out ways to alleviate congestion, and our own Federal Government proposes a rule that forces more trucks on the road, probably at peak times.
    This regulation assumes that reduced hours of service will result in a 20 percent reduction of drivers. But this fails to recognize the economic reality that goods have to be moved. So if they have to be moved, at the same time the only other alternative is to add more trucks to the road. That is just common sense.
    If most car-truck accidents aren't caused by the truck, putting 20 percent more trucks on the road is going to cause more wrecks. It is common sense. So, in short, this rule fails to promote the one thing that it ostensibly says it will promote, and that is safety. This proposed hours of service rule jeopardizes safety and, in turn, impacts rather significantly our economy. If one thing is risky in affecting our economy, it is this type of regulation.
    The hour of service—Mr. Robert Delaney, Senior Vice President for Cass Information Systems, says the hour of service reforms will cost the Nation's shippers $175 billion over the next 3 years. This breaks out into $50 billion in additional trucking expenditures, $100 billion in unneeded inventory investment and $25 billion in inventory carrying costs. In addition to dollars lost, the trucking industry will lose 586,000 hours in its first year. This is a number so large it is difficult to comprehend the true impact on our economy.
    Our economy has also moved to a just-in-time delivery system. In order to comply to this rule, that efficient move to efficiency will have to be changed to the more cumbersome keeping inventories in warehouses stationed across this Nation, again reducing efficient moving of goods across this Nation. That is risky at a time that our economy is moving to its most efficient method.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    For these reasons, I joined with my fellow Nebraskan, Mr. Doug Bereuter, Gary Miller and Mr. Stump and introduced H.R. 4511, the Motor Carriers Fairness Act, which blocks the implementation of this rule, at least until we can further discuss it and the impacts on safety as well as this economy with the hopes of devising a rule that is more fair and more sound.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today's hearing and testimony and, again, thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Pascrell.
    Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am pleased that the Department of Transportation is addressing the issue of highway safety. I think that we need to examine this issue very carefully. We are not driving the highways of 1935. We are in a new century, and the face of the traffic is very different.
    I think that the proposed rules are well-intentioned and will protect many Americans. Unfortunately, among the problem areas that I see in the actual rules themselves is the broad language that is proposed for utility trucks; and I think it is a mirror to the rest of the language in this proposal, trucks in the type 5 category of vehicles.
    This language, carefully studied, reflects some heavy duty concerns, which leaves me to conclude that, in this instance, we are moving too quickly and if we have to extend the comment time and the implementation start-up, we should. Otherwise, we will cut off our nose to spite our face. We are very good at that here, and we want to avoid that.
    My concern is greater than the inconvenience this places on the utility industry. My concern is for pipeline safety, for instance, which other committees are discussing at this very moment. The GAO report just released in May responded to insufficient monitoring of pipelines throughout the United States of America. Just a small part, but again a reflection of our race to judgment.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I have an ongoing concern for pipeline safety and the ability of the utility workers to arrive quickly at the scene of an accident or an emergency to make emergency repairs. In truth, this is very different, Mr. Chairman, than the longhaul which will gather most of our attention today. But, to me, this is very reflective of the proposal in the first place.
    For example, Pipelines need constant attention and repair to remain safe. Over 6.3 million gallons of oil and other hazardous liquids are reported leaked or spilled from pipelines on average each year; and, since 1995, the amount of oil released into the environment has increased each year. The amount of oil and other hazardous liquids released per incident has been increasing since 1993, indicating that leaks and spills may become more serious.
    Are we going to rush to judgment to create a bigger problem than we are attempting to solve? The average amount released from a pipeline spill in 1998 was over 45,000 gallons. Throughout the 1990's, tens of thousands of gallons were released from pipelines, approximately, every other day. The average reported property damage cost per incident is over $194,000, not to mention, a bit more significantly, the risk of life.
    Oil pipeline leaks can and do contaminate drinking water, supplies, crops, and residential land. They generate greenhouse gases, kill fish, cause deaths and injuries from explosions and fires. The Federal Office of Pipeline Safety—which, Mr. Chairman, is a joke—just a few more paragraphs, if I may.
    Mr. PETRI. Yes, but we have other members who would like to speak, and there will be another committee that deals with pipeline safety.
    Mr. PASCRELL. —OPS has not acted on many National Transportation Safety Board recommendations, and this is why it is crucial that DOT not hamper in any way the utility companies' ability to monitor and repair pipelines. Again, a reflection, a mirror of the general problem.
    Utilities have a responsibility to maintain the country's critical emergency infrastructure. Existing DOT regulations hopefully help maintain and ensure public safety. Given the lack of fatigue-related vehicle accidents in the utility industry, what in God's name are they doing in here in the first place? Which leads me to examine every line in every word in these recommendations.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I think we are rushing to judgment. I think we need more time. And I for one, speaking for myself, Mr. Chairman, beg you to give us that more time. I think it is the wise thing to do.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Other opening comments? Mr. Bass?
    Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
    I appreciate the opportunity to review these proposed rules with you, Administrator Hart. I have to say that I am concerned that the effort undertaken to bring these hours of operation rules into the 21st century to create more flexibility and more pertinence to the real world may, in fact, create exactly the opposite situation.
    Now I have a concern as I believe, if I understand what Mr. Pascrell said, that there is an issue here with utilities. In my home State of New Hampshire, we have crises every year, usually in the wintertime with ice damage. They are not declared for the most part emergencies, but they can be pretty significant.
    I am concerned that utility drivers are placed in the same category as snack food delivery personnel when, in fact, for the most part their activities relate to the maintenance of utilities. And most people believe that utilities are a fact of life, that you cannot do without utilities. When the utilities go out, people complain within minutes, and I would hate to see a situation arise where utility workers had to stop what they were doing while hundreds or perhaps thousands of households did not have energy, the result being frozen pipes and lost food in refrigerators and all sorts of potentially life-threatening problems.
    So I hope that you will be able to address the issue of the utility industry and the problems that I believe they see with the implementation of these new rules because, in my home state, emergencies or declaration of emergencies do not necessarily lead—are not necessarily declared. The problem can exist and need correction without having an emergency, and the result could be really devastating for us. And I would hate to see my constituents' eyes turned toward the DOT as the party of blame for electricity being out for 3 or 4 days unnecessarily, and I hope that you will take special time to address what I think is a real constituent issue not only in my area but in the north in general.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I thank the gentleman and yield back.
    Mr. PETRI. Mr. Clement.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Chairman Petri and Mr. Rahall for organizing today's hearing. I will keep my introductory remarks brief, because I know we have a very full day with the various panelists of transportation industry representatives.
    As a long-time member of the committee and a former Chairman of the Tennessee Public Service Commission, my experience with the trucking industry runs pretty deep. On the Public Service Commission, I spent a good bit of my time addressing trucking industry matters and worked here in Congress on deregulation of the trucking industry.
    The trucking and transportation industry are a vital part of our economy, and the service it provides affects virtually every aspect of our economy. After spending time with members from the trucking and transportation community in Tennessee, I will say that I have heard widespread concern about the proposed rule. Some, including myself, question why, after having taken as long as 5 years to draft this new rule, did DOT initially offer only a 90-day comment period, which now I know has been extended. But where is the logic?
    I welcome Mr. Hart today and know that he is doing a fine job at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. But, in his acting capacity, does he not believe that perhaps changes of this magnitude would be best introduced and adopted under a permanent administrator? Naturally, I will have more very specific industry questions to ask during the question and answer period.
    Today we have a magnitude of panelists, and I look forward to their testimony.
    I also want to request permission to include in the official record a statement on behalf of a small carrier from Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Mrs. Barbara Wilfong. Her organization represents the small carriers with annual revenues in the 5 to 6 million dollar range.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. PETRI. Without objection.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank Chris Burruss as well, President and CEO of the Tennessee Trucking Association, and other organizations that have provided me with informative information on the proposed rule. My district, Nashville, Tennessee, is a major intersection for three major highways—I–65, I–40 and I–24. Because of its geographic location, Nashville is a major commerce hub; and we have a very high amount of truck traffic in our community. So it should come as no surprise that highway safety is one of my top concerns.
    I am also concerned about the economic, labor and environmental ramifications of the proposed changes. As we examine sweeping changes in the trucking industry regulations, we need to make sure that this is done in a prudent and common-sense manner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller.
    Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing that I believe is a very important hearing.
    Since the Department of Transportation announced its proposed rulemaking regarding hours of service for commercial motor vehicles on May 2nd of this year, I have heard from numerous individuals, companies and organizations. The consensus is clear. No one is happy with these proposed rules. And what really amazes me is the different reasons they are unhappy with these rules. Longhaulers feel that it does not address the concerns of their industry. Limousine owners are upset by the way it defines off-duty time. Even safety groups, which surprised me, are concerned about the possible impacts.
    As a result of the consistent feedback I have received, I am also concerned about the complexity and breadth of this proposed rule. My district in California, the 41st, can easily be described by the freeways that surround it—roughly bordered by the 91, 57 and 10 freeways, with the 60 running straight through seven cities in the district. Ensuring that our freeways are safe is a high priority for me and my district, but simply assuming that requiring longer rest periods for longhaulers and more categories is short-sighted.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    One company in my district, which only operates in Southern California, has estimated that they will need at least six additional drivers, six more tractor trailers and two bobtail trucks. The equipment alone would cost nearly $400,000.
    Adding more trucks is simply not the solution. In addition, there is already a severe shortage of drivers. We would not be pushing companies into the position, if we were thoughtful, of hiring less-qualified drivers by implementing these rules.
    While I agree that changes are needed in this 63-year-old rule, I feel that we need to better incorporate the concerns of those who will have to abide by those rules in thinking this process through.
    I would like to thank the witnesses here today to help us better understand the need for these rules and the ramifications of these rules, and I thank our Chairman for holding this hearing.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Coble.
    Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. But I will suit up as everyone else is suiting up for this, because this is important.
    I represent—my district includes the Sand Hills of North Carolina, Mr. Chairman, the Pinehurst area, known by everyone as the golf capital of America. There was probably a cumulative total of 5 inches of snow that has fallen on the Sand Hills in the last 7 years—until last winter when 20 inches were deposited. Now it may not be an emergency to us in this room, but I can assure you those folks down there who had no water, no phone, had no electric power, it was indeed an emergency for them.
    And, Mr. Hart, I am concerned, as are my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I have the fear that the proposed regulations significantly will slow down or delay a utility's ability to respond to this type of emergency. A utility crew must respond—let's forget about Mother Nature and the elements—must respond immediately to an emergency such as removing a dangerous wire when an automobile hits a utility pole. Emergency response to fire or ambulance crews must often wait until the crew cuts the power off before they can remove injured persons. I can see all sorts of horror stories rearing their respective heads; and I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Hart.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I thank the Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Now we will turn to our first witness. As you can tell, there is a great deal of interest in your testimony; and it is reflected by the unusually complete attendance of the subcommittee members at this hearing, which shows the seriousness with which they are taking your efforts.
    The first witness is the Honorable Clyde J. Hart, Jr. He is the Acting Deputy Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration of the United States Department of Transportation.
    Mr. PETRI. Welcome, Mr. Hart; and we look forward to your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF HON. CLYDE J. HART, JR., ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Mr. HART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss an issue that affects all Americans who travel our Nation's highways. And may I say to Mr. Rahall, I thought I knew what pressure was before he described me as a cleanup hitter.
    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's proposal to reduce truck and bus driver fatigue through changes in hours of service limitation are the subject of this hearing. Secretary Slater has asked me and I have accepted the challenge of guiding the FMCSA and charting its course in these critically important first months of its existence.
    This committee is to be commended for its role in establishing the agency and expressing Congress' intent, encouragement and dedication to the highest degree of safety in motor carrier transportation. Of particular importance to Congress is the expedited completion of rulemaking proceedings, including driver hours of service regulations that are the subject of this hearing.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Too often, we are reminded of the human toll of crashes involving commercial driver fatigue. Investigations of fatal crashes have prompted the National Transportation Safety Board to identify driver fatigue as a major issue in both bus and truck crashes. Establishing hours of service regulations based on predictable work and risk schedules is one of the NTSB's most wanted recommendations.
    The FMCSA's hours of service proposal would make three major changes to regulations that were first adopted in 1937 and which have changed very little.
    First, the new rules would put all drivers on a more natural and regular 24-hour daily cycle. Current rules permit an artificial cycle that can be as short as 18 hours and does not produce quality sleep.
    Second, the rules would reduce the maximum number of hours as drivers could drive from 16 to 12 in a given 24-hour cycle. Even with this change, drivers could be behind the wheel 50 percent longer than the average citizen's normal work day.
    Third, longhaul and regional drivers would be required to use electronic on-board recording devices, ending the use of paper log books. One of the consistent complaints we have heard about the existing rules is that they are widely violated. Enforceability has been a key consideration in the development of the NPRM.
    The proposed rules would also establish different requirements for five types of bus and truck drivers to accommodate the differences in their work schedules. We specifically examined regular and charter bus operations in establishing these categories.
    We estimate that these proposed rules would prevent approximately 2,600 crashes, 115 fatalities and 2,900 serious injuries annually.
    It is imperative that I emphasize that the NPRM is a proposed rulemaking. It is the beginning of a process, not the end. We have extended our comment period to October 30 to allow for the submission of as much information as possible. We are conducting eight 2-day public hearings across the country to hear from drivers, companies and citizens. Most of the groups you will hear from today, such as the construction and utilities industries, have participated in our hearings; and their recommendations are and will be carefully considered. In fact, the American Trucking Associations submitted its own hours of service proposal, and the FMCSA's proposal is quite close to the ATA's recommendations on some points.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We are receiving almost a thousand comments on the NPRM every day. The public is engaged, interested, and enthusiastic about its participation in shaping the new rules. This continuing public dialogue is critical to our understanding of both the needs of those we regulate and the safety concerns of the American public.
    This is a vital point. Some are advocating that Congress intervene and prohibit analysis of the information we have received on this topic. The Administration is very concerned about the provision in the Senate-passed version of the DOT appropriations bill which would stop the Department from taking action regarding these rules, including even gathering data and public comment.
    If the moratorium is adopted, lives will be lost while we wait. Such a moratorium would also be contrary to the action taken by Congress just last December when it established a new bus and truck safety agency.
    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, continuing the dialogue on this issue is essential if we are to achieve Secretary Slater's goal of reducing commercial-vehicle-related fatalities by 50 percent. Stopping work simply because there are differences of views about how best to proceed is counterproductive. You have my assurance that we have open minds on this complex subject. We ask that we keep working together.
    I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Rahall?
    Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to start by referring to your previous career, as much as you might like to forget about it, and that was over in the other body which has inserted in its version of the transportation appropriations bill a provision which would not be considered as being complementary to this proposed rule. So that we have some official record in the House on this provision, I would ask whether you have any particular concerns with that other body's provision.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. Thank you, Mr. Rahall. My concerns are basically that it freezes the process. As I read the language, and as my lawyers read the language, it basically prohibits FMCSA from considering any changes to the hours of service rule. It says, from memory, that DOT will not use any funds to continue consideration of this rule, implementation of this rule, or any similar rule.
    The outreach sessions that are currently ongoing, the next one being in Connecticut next week, would have to stop because they would be in aid of this rule.
    We would be prohibited from taking in any more information, from taking in any more comments. Basically, we would be at ground zero, square one. That is our concern.
    Mr. RAHALL. Would the proposed regulations abrogate any existing labor or management contracts in the trucking industry? And, if so, are you empowered to do that? I mean, even Congress rarely abrogates private sector contracts without a legislative takings.
    Mr. HART. We do not propose to do that either, sir. It is our understanding that the National Master Freight Agreement and other documents call for renegotiation of those agreements if there is a change in the hours of service rules. We hope that the scheduled renegotiation of the current agreement would coincide with any effective date of a final rule and we should be able to work it out so that there is no disruption of those agreements.
    Mr. RAHALL. All right. Let me ask you about the proposed requirement to eliminate logbooks and go with electronic on-board recording devices. I would like for you to elaborate, if you would, on exactly what types of devices these are and whether they are available off the shelf today.
    Mr. HART. Yes, sir. Basically, many of these devices—there are several different types—are available off the shelf. They range in price from about $500 on up. Some simply are attached to either the engine or the drive train of the vehicle and will measure when the vehicle is stopped. There are others that are tied to a global positioning satellite that can give you the exact location of that vehicle.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    What we propose is that longhaul and regional drivers be required to use recording devices that measure only drive time and off-duty time. What we are asking is that the drivers use the recording devices instead of log books to record the same information. In other words, there would be nothing on the electronic recorder that is not on the log book.
    Mr. RAHALL. OK. Let me ask you one final question.
    Heaven knows, I am not a sleep expert, and that is not something we have been getting much of up here on the Hill lately with the hours we have been keeping on the House floor, but I am interested in the discrepancy between your statement that the proposed rule reduces the maximum allowable number of hours a driver can drive and the concern that the Teamsters will raise that it will increase consecutive hours behind the wheel for a driver. Which is it?
    Mr. HART. Well, it is this way. The way we have crafted the proposal, we divide the clock into a 24-hour clock. A driver could drive for 12 hours and would have 2 hours within that 12 for some sort of rest.
    We would like the rest to be taken in four 30-minute segments throughout the day. We would like it if the driver would use those 2 hours to rest during his shift. In other words, he would drive for 12, and then he would have 2 hours that he could break up into four half-hour segments. Then at the end of that 14 hours he would have to get 10 hours rest. That is the proposal.
    Mr. RAHALL. I know my time is running out, but he could still drive 12 straight hours?
    Mr. HART. He could. Granted, he could if he wanted to. We hope he wouldn't. We would hope that he would use the 2 hours to rest during that period, during his shift.
    Mr. RAHALL. During the 12 hour period.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. During the 12-hour period he would use the 2 hours to give him some rest.
    Mr. RAHALL. I am sure there is going to be some follow-up on this.
    I notice my time has expired.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Franks.
    Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hart, I have had a continuing interest in bus safety due to the fact that in my home State of New Jersey we have experienced a disproportionate number of bus accidents, some involving tragic fatalities; and I looked at your proposed rule from that perspective how would it impact the motor coach industry.
    I notice in the Department's advanced notice of proposed rulemaking you stated that any new regulation would be based on, and I quote, sound scientific research and factual data, closed quote. And not upon, and I quote again, anecdotal or intuitive opinions.
    In light of that statement, I was wondering how the Department can justify the statement contained in the rule—and I am quoting again—for purposes of this proposal the FMCSA has assumed that bus drivers operate in ways similar to truck drivers.
    Mr. HART. Congressman Franks, we assume that because, basically, a driver is a driver. Everybody operates on the same 24-hour clock. If you have a driver that drives a certain number of hours, whether that person is driving a bus or a truck for purposes of our notice of proposed rulemaking, they are going to be affected the same way or similar ways by fatigue.
    May I point out that we also said in our advance notice of proposed rulemaking that we wanted the comments from the bus industry on that very point. We assumed that that was the case, but we are willing to listen if they say that they are different in the way their operations are structured.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    But our concern is with, say an operator who is chartered to take a group of citizens from New York City down to Atlantic City. They leave early in the morning. They drive down there. The people in the charter party then go off to partake of the casinos in Atlantic City. What happens to the driver? Our concern is, is the driver going to get rest? Does the driver have to do other things? The fact that the driver is not driving during that time and then when they come back at 9 o'clock at night he has to get back in the cab for the run back to New York City, he still may be a fatigued driver.
    Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Hart, let me quickly ask a second question but first an observation.
    This rule applies, as it is designed, to both truck drivers and bus drivers. Yet I think those of us who—you particularly, being an expert in this field, understand the structural difference between the motor coach industry and truck drivers generally. You have asked them to separate out differences that you indicate the Department will assess before going to a final rulemaking process. But I think we have put the cart before the horse here, no pun intended, in treating them all as part of the same broad industry. And the common characteristic—as you noted, they are both drivers. They are. But they drive within a very different industry, have very different demands made upon them.
    The problems that can impact both these industries are clearly similar, but the solution may not be identical, and I am chilled by it.
    Let me get to one issue that you did raise. When DOT conducted your driver fatigue and alertness study, it was portrayed as being, quote, one of the most technologically and logistically complex field research activities concerning commercial motor vehicle drivers ever conducted either in the U.S. or in the world, closed quote. That is what you said. Yet this research did not include the motor coach industry directly. In fact, I understand that none of the research studies used to develop the proposal included any motor coach research whatsoever.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Again, if DOT intended to include motor coach drivers in this proposal, why were they not included in any of the studies?
    Mr. HART. Mr. Franks, I think that there were a couple of motor coach studies done that were relied on. We relied on about 100 studies.
    Mr. FRANKS. In the motor coach industry?
    Mr. HART. I think so, but I will check that out.
    Mr. FRANKS. That is not my understanding, Mr. Hart.
    Mr. HART. Well, again, I will check that out and get back to you on that.
    [The information received follows:]

    [insert here]

    Mr. HART. But to your main point, again, it is a proposal. We are hearing from the motor coach operators. We are hearing from their unions. We are hearing from the individual drivers. We will take those comments back, and we will look at them and see if they need to be changed.
    We are not looking to ask anybody to do the impossible. We are looking to make the roads safer. We are looking to make the drivers safer and, hopefully, remain longer as drivers and be happier as drivers. That is what we are about. Anything that helps, we are willing to look at.
    Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time.
    I want to finally observe this. Sounds like a solution where we are now trying to define the problem. This is a dangerous way for government to proceed. It runs the risk of imposing a cure that could be worse than the cancer.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    I think we have time for one more—Mr. Oberstar—before we adjourn. But if members want to go to the floor, you are welcome to. We will reassemble at, I guess, about 5 after the hour and proceed with the hearing after Mr. Oberstar, and then we will go to the floor.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    This is not a solution in search of a problem. It is a problem that we have to address. The problem that is being addressed is fatigue that results in death on America's highways—40,000 fatalities a year, 5,000 in which trucks are involved. And when a truck and a car collide, the car loses.
    This Department is attempting to address in a rational, responsible, thoughtful and effective but confrontational way an issue that involves lives of people on our highways. We have made progress in a lot of areas of transportation safety. But we have not made progress against fatigue.
    The widespread reports about the hours of service rules, they are widely flouted. Service logs are referred to routinely as comic books. We have the same problem in aviation, where hours of service rulemaking has been under way for years. We still do not have a final rule. In railroads, we have an impasse, because the FRA takes the position that the hours of service are dictated by statute. That statute was written in 1907 and has not been adjusted since, except for one little modification in 1960; and we cannot reach agreement to pass legislation to change the 1907 law. The result is, there is no change in service, except for what we have done for flight attendants and that we did by statute.
    Fatigue is the silent killer. It does not show up in autopsies. Two to 3 percent of police investigations of trucking accidents cite fatigue as a cause. That is far lower than what we know and what the NTSB has detailed it to be.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    More likely, 15 percent of all truck-involved fatal crashes are fatigue related. That is, fatigue is either a primary or secondary factor in the accident. So here we have a department that is moving, that is exercising its responsibility to address this issue.
    One of the biggest problems is that employees are allowed to work far beyond what the human body can properly handle. Drivers can go 10 hours before taking 8 hours off, for a total of 18 hours. That means, if you started on Monday morning at 8 o'clock, you can begin a shift Tuesday at 2 a.m. and another shift Tuesday night at 8 p.m. That backward-rotating kind of shift wreaks havoc on employees' circadian rhythm. If you do not think it does, take a look at some of the laws we write around here at 10 or 11 o'clock at night or midnight or 1 a.m.
    Eight hours off in the current law simply are not enough. By the time the driver goes home, showers, dresses, eats, maybe spends a little time with the family, typically gets more like 5 hours of rest, of real rest; and that is not enough for the demanding environment on the road.
    I spent a day with a driver—starting the shift, ending the shift and going out for the next one. It is fatiguing.
    What we need to do is move transportation driving personnel in the direction of a 24-hour schedule so that the sum of their on and off duty time is 24 hours.
    Now, I know what that means in the trucking industry. It means you are going to have to have more trucks, perhaps, and have more drivers. And the record shows, with those companies who have addressed the issue properly, who have increased pay, provided more trucks, treated their employees properly, they have been able to find the drivers, and they have an outstanding record.
    So, on the one hand, we have the industry that says the proposal goes too far. On the other hand, safety advocates say it does not do enough; and I think that means the Department may have it just about right.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I think the rulemaking process ought to go forward, Mr. Chairman. I think we ought to hear all of these comments as they are doing, receiving over a thousand responses a day. Evaluate all of them, come to the proper assessments and then promulgate a final rule. Lives will be saved because lives are at stake in this rulemaking.
    Mr. BASS [Presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar.
    Since there is nobody else on our side, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes to ask a few questions.
    As you heard me mention in the opening remarks, I am concerned about the impact that these new proposed rules would have on the operations of public utilities. As I mentioned in my opening statement, last year—or, actually, it was 2 years ago, the Northeast was crippled with a terrible ice storm and there was a state of emergency declared, but once it was lifted there were still many thousands of homes without heat or electricity.
    Now, under your proposed regulations, once this proposed state of emergency is lifted or since the state of emergency is lifted utility technicians would be required to limit hours of service even when families in their cities and neighborhoods are without heat. And, believe me, if you are one of those families, you do not think the emergency is over. How can a lineman tell a family that is freezing that he cannot restore their power because of DOT regulations? Now that is the example version of what I mentioned in my opening statement.
    Mr. HART. I understand. But your lineman would not have to tell the family that DOT regulations prevent him from restoring power. Because even 30 days after the lifting of the state of emergency, the exemption for utility drivers would stay in effect. So there would be that extra time for which power could be restored.
    And I might add that even after 30 days, nothing would prevent anybody from asking for an extension of that 30 days if that was required—I remember that ice storm—if that is what was required to restore power to everybody.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BASS. What happens if you have the equivalent of the ice storm—bear in mind, in New Hampshire I don't think we have had a declared emergency—one perhaps in the last 20 years, and yet we have massive power outages every year. It just does not happen to be declared emergencies. What would happen under those circumstances?
    And the second part of my question to you, sir, is when these emergencies occur there are—normally, other utilities from all up and down the eastern seaboard send their vehicles into the area to help. What effect would the proposed regulation have on these companies' ability to provide assistance to one another?
    Mr. HART. In that situation, I don't think there should be any diminution in the ability of utility operators to provide service to their customers. Again, exemptions would be permitted, as they are now, under future rules to allow power to be restored.
    Mr. BASS. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Hart.
    I guess, since there is nobody else here and we only have 2 and a half minutes left in this vote, we will declare a temporary 10-minute recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. PETRI [Presiding]. The subcommittee will resume.
    Mr. Terry, do you have any questions?
    Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hart, thank you. Let me—the heart of the rule change is to reduce fatigue-related wrecks caused by the tired truck driver. I am trying to work through, then, the issue of how many of these type of wrecks are occurring and whether or not this rule really will affect fatigue-related wrecks. And then, of course, in the analysis then weigh it by possible increase in wrecks by putting more trucks on the road. So let me just ask a few questions in that field.
    First, one of the statistics that we have read from you and your agency is that 15 percent of all truck-involved fatal crashes are fatigue related. Could you define for us whether those are truck wrecks, truck-car wrecks that were caused by the fatigue or there is, you know, a car that caused the wreck but it was found that the truck driver was over his time for the current rule? And how do you come up with the 15 percent number, considering DOT has a different number of fatigue-related wrecks of somewhere around 6 percent, and even that number was said to be inflated or increased for an assumption of underreporting fatigue-related truck wrecks. How did you come to that 15 percent number? What is your analysis and what does it involve and what does it mean?
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. Fatigue-related means that the fatigue was either the primary cause or a contributing cause to the accident. I think that answers your first question as to how we started.
    Now, we will be the first to tell you that there are a lot of differing interpretations and there is a lot of differing evidence about underreporting these accidents--where they are underreporting and by what factor. The AAA, the American Automobile Association, estimates 41 percent of all crashes are fatigue-related. So we will be the first to agree with you that there is some disagreement about the numbers.
    What we tried to do was look at about 100 different studies on this issue and to come up with a formulation that makes sense. And 15 percent was, right now, as close as we could get. Again, we are hearing more about this every day. I must say also that the 15 percent is agreed with by the National Sleep Foundation.
    Mr. TERRY. The what?
    Mr. HART. The National Sleep Foundation. They are responsible for a lot of the latest research into sleep and sleep-related problems.
    Mr. TERRY. And I don't know if they are just agreeing with your number because it sounds good or what.
    But let's assume then that the 15 percent is accurate. That also means 85 percent are nonfatigue-related. But let's look at 15 percent. Have you done an analysis then that applies the current rule to those 15 percent of the accidents that are fatigue-related? And the point I am trying—or the information I am trying to understand is whether it is an issue of enforcement versus a need for a change in the hours.
    I will tell you one of the stories—one traffic-related death is tragic and too many. Our laws have to be balanced and be sensible. And someone came into my office and they talked about the death of their daughter caused by a trucker that had driven from L.A. to Virginia nonstop and even had their urine in a bottle so he wouldn't have to pull over and have to stop. Clearly, that violates about every rule that we have. And so quietly, in my mind, not out loud, is if the rule had been enforced, it would not have happened. A change or reduction in hours would not have prevented this one if someone wants to violate the current status of the rule. So have you done an analysis that shows that out of that 15 percent how many violated the current rule?
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. I don't know if we have done an analysis of how many of those truck drivers would have violated the current rule. But let me say this, enforcement is always a problem with hours of service. The CVSA, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the State law enforcement arm, will tell you that enforcement is a problem; and, frankly, they are worried about enforcement in our proposal. So that is true. That is always a problem.
    However, when you say, do we need to change the hours of service, quite honestly, Congressman Terry, I don't know anybody in this room, no matter what side they are on on this issue, who does not believe we need to change the hours of service in some fundamental way. That is because it has been 40 years and our economy has changed in so many ways in those 40 years, a lot of it transportation-related. My staff reminded me that 40 years ago, DHL was not thought of. I think Federal Express might have just been thought of. All of this just-in-time delivery was just a blip on the horizon.
    E-commerce wasn't a phrase that anybody had coined. Yet, as the Secretary is fond of saying, you can download a steak, you can download roses, but somebody has to get into a truck or a bus or other mode of transportation and deliver that to your house. So, the two things I think everybody in this room agrees on is that you have to change the hours of service, and the 24-hour clock makes some sense.
    Mr. TERRY. I am not sure that everyone in this room agrees with that exact comment.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Clement.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me give you some examples, Mr. Hart, and I would like for you to respond to them.
    Number one, a type 4 driver, one who returns home every night and under the proposal is strictly limited to 12 consecutive hours of on-duty time, encounters unexpected traffic delays or delay because the shipper does not have a load ready and he must wait to pick up the load. It becomes clear that, through no fault of his own, he cannot make it back in 12 hours. If he continues driving for 1 our 2 hours to make it home, he is in violation of type 4 maximum on-duty times. If he stops for the night, he becomes a type 2 driver with different requirements, such as an on-board recorder which he probably does not have on the truck, and he is in violation of those rules. What is he, as a driver, to do in this type of situation?
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. Well, I heard just that situation yesterday, Congressman Clement, and all I can say is that that is something that we have heard about and a comment that we are going to analyze. We may have to change something in what we have proposed.
    We do not want to make criminals out of people who violate the rules just because they are caught in inclement weather or because the load was not ready for them. Nor do we want to have them switch from one type to the other on a daily basis just because of where they are and how far they have gotten in their driving. It is a comment that we have already and a comment that we have taken to heart. It is something that we will look into and analyze, and we will try to come up with something to alleviate that problem.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Well, I appreciate you understanding that it would be ''in-Clement'' weather when you have a situation like that. We are making progress.
    Mr. Hart, many less-than-truckload businesses have built their businesses and terminals to optimize efficiencies under the current system which allows up to 15 hours on-duty per day. A driver may drive for 4 or 5 hours, help in unloading and loading and then return back to his home base. Because of the inflexibility of the rules, strict consecutive hours on duty, this may no longer be possible; and either the terminals must be relocated at a great cost or more drivers and more dock workers will be necessary. In any case, driver pay will inevitably suffer. What consideration did the Department give to this when drawing up the proposed rule?
    Mr. HART. We looked into the economics of the situation. Possibly, we did not look into it deeply enough. We are hearing more and more about the economics of the situation in our outreach sessions. We have had many drivers say that our proposed regulations will cut their wages by 20 percent. And, again, sir, all we can say is that we have heard the comments. We continue to get them, and we will look into them and do what we can to eliminate the problem or certainly make it less of a problem for those drivers who are on the roads.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. CLEMENT. Well, Mr. Hart, do you believe that it could cut their income by 20 percent or more?
    Mr. HART. I think that if it is not handled correctly, it is one of those things that is possible. But there are ways around that, and we are exploring that. One way is shifting the work week so that the work week does not begin on a Monday and end on a Friday and the two days rest are Saturday and Sunday. Trying to even out the traffic flow at different times of the day and evening to see if that helps. It is an idea that we have heard about, and will look into.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Well, Mr. Hart, the proposed rule will result in more drivers and trucks on the road, requiring more time off the road, the mandatory weekend, and undoubtedly exacerbating the already-critical shortage of safe parking places which has been cited by the NTSB and others. What is a driver to do when he has run out of hours but there is no safe place to park at his particular location?
    Mr. HART. The same people who are talking to you have found their way to our door, and we have heard the same thing about the lack of rest areas. The Federal Highway Administration has just completed a study on rest areas and what can be done to increase the number of rest areas and how many are actually needed.
    We have heard that. We have heard about tighter enforcement in some States, allowing truck drivers to spend only so many hours at their rest stop and then having them move on again. We have heard all of these issues. They are issues that we have heard about and we are going to take into account as we go down the road toward a final rule.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Hart.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Coble.
    Mr. COBLE. Mr. Hart, my legislative director speaks very highly of you. Chairman Petri speaks very highly of you. So you come to the Hill not wearing an adversarial cloak. I am ready to embrace the messenger. It is the message that bothers me.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. Sir, I am glad that you are ready to embrace the messenger. I will take that.
    Mr. COBLE. Let me ask you this. I am going to ask to you remove your administrator's hat and put on your chaplain's hat. How do you advise us, sir, as representatives—or, more specifically, how do you advise the utility linemen—and these linemen are the unsung heroes during the times of emergency, to say to a family, oh, I'm sorry, madam or sir, I realize you have no water, you have no electricity, you may not have for several days, but because of DOT regulation, I cannot help you. Mr. Chaplain, any advice on that?
    Mr. HART. Well, yes, sir, I have plenty of advice on that. First of all, you do not have it tell them that DOT regulations prevent them from—.
    Mr. COBLE. I am seeing now why he comes in with high marks, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. HART. Second of all, if there is a declared emergency, there is no problem. The hours of service regulations do not apply, and the utility drivers and the companies they work for can deploy them any way that is needed.
    Mr. COBLE. My problem, Mr. Hart, is that, oftentimes, when the emergency is lifted they are still without their power.
    Mr. HART. I understand that. The second half is that 30 days after the lifting of the emergency they are still allowed to operate as if there were an emergency to get the power restored.
    Third, the State directors can always declare that the hours of service regulations need to remain off until everybody gets their power back. So we are not leaving people without power just because some arbitrary day comes and the power is still not on.
    Mr. COBLE. That assuages my discomfort somewhat.
    You indicated earlier, I believe to the Chairman or to Mr. Rahall, that the comment period has been extended—.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. Yes, sir.
    Mr. COBLE. —and for that we are appreciative. Do you still intend, Mr. Hart, to finalize this rule by the end of the year?
    Mr. HART. In all honesty, Mr. Coble, I would like to. But I have to tell you it is a very tough call. As I said, we are getting a thousand comments a day. We take them all seriously. We have three or four outreach sessions left. We will take those comments, and look at all of them. The comment period ends October 30th. That only gives us 2 months to the end of the year. It is unlikely that we will get a rule out by the end of the year.
    Mr. COBLE. Good to have you with us, Mr. Hart.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Sandlin, any questions?
    Mr. SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Building on my colleague's question, maybe you can educate me a little bit. It was my understanding that utility company drivers would be under these regulations even in the time of emergency. Could you explain that a little bit further for us?
    Mr. HART. Well, they would be under the regulations, but the regulation could also be suspended during the pendency of an emergency or a nondeclared emergency until the problem, the lack of heat and utilities for people, is all taken care of.
    Mr. SANDLIN. And how is that suspended? What is the mechanics of doing that?
    Mr. HART. In inclement weather, a governor or political head can ask for and get a suspension of the hours of service rules.
    Mr. SANDLIN. Can that be retroactive after the emergency has occurred or will the utility drivers be subjected to the regulations until such time as the emergency is declared?
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. Well, the emergency must be declared, but it could probably be declared at any time.
    Mr. SANDLIN. OK. That is what I am asking. So, basically, you could relate back in the event drivers had violated and had, say, driven too many hours, then they would be subject to the exemption due to the declaration of emergency; is that correct?
    Mr. HART. Exemptions granted because of State or local emergencies are effective from the date of the initial declaration of the emergency or the exemption from the regulations. Usually this does not present a problem..
    Mr. SANDLIN. Well, except if your people are out involved in an emergency.
    Mr. HART. We will continue to look at the timing of emergency exemptions as we evaluate comments on the proposed rule.
    Mr. SANDLIN. You mentioned the fatigue studies. Were utility drivers and people in those sorts of industries that were not longhaul drivers, were they included in fatigue studies?
    Mr. HART. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, let me go back to something, a conversation that I had with Mr. Franks. We did have two bus studies, 1999 bus study and an earlier bus study. So we included bus drivers and utility drivers and longhaul drivers and regional drivers in our studies.
    Mr. SANDLIN. OK. And so what you are saying is that, for bus drivers, for utility drivers, there will be exemptions and they will not be treated exactly the same as, say, our longhaul drivers in the event of emergencies?
    Mr. HART. The thing I am clearest about, sir, is that there will be exemptions and there will not be one size fits all on these regulations.
    Mr. SANDLIN. Do you know if these regulations are going to affect the Texas definition of interstate commercial motor vehicle?
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. No, sir, I don't believe they will. We do have a separate rulemaking on the definition of a CMV, but that is a separate rulemaking that is moving at its own pace. But that is not implicated as far as I know in this rulemaking.
    Mr. SANDLIN. We just wanted to be careful in the event—you know, everyone in Texas drives a suburban or pickup, and we want to make sure that the pickups are not covered by these regulations.
    Mr. HART. Sir, I can tell you that the last thing I wish to see are 5,000 Texans driving pickups coming down 7th Street to my office.
    Mr. SANDLIN. Good. Good. You know the drill then.
    Thank you. I appreciate it.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. LaTourette, any questions?
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I do, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, Administrator Hart, congratulations on your new post; and, second of all, thank you for reaching out to our office yesterday and introducing yourself. I appreciate that very much.
    I had the chance recently in Cleveland to attend a dinner called the Circle of Honor put on by the United Parcel Service. It is a program where they reward drivers who have gone 25 years without an accident. When you think about it, it is quite an amazing thing. Each of those drivers I think makes about 500 stops a day, and it gets busier in the Christmas season. I even met a fellow named Jimmy Stewart. He had gone 35 years without an accident.
    One of the things that I guess concerns me is that perhaps you are replacing one problem with another. I don't think that anybody—you are right, no one would advocate tired drivers. But aren't you fearful—have you looked at the issue of whether or not you are replacing experienced drivers—men and women who have been on the road and know exactly how to handle not only themselves and their tolerance but the vehicle they are driving—but by forcing them off the road as a result of these regulations you are going to have people who do not know how to drive trucks, inexperienced drivers, drivers that do not have the 35 years of Jimmy Stewart driving in and out of our neighborhoods? Did you look at that at all?
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. Yes, sir. And we continue to look at that, and that remains a major focus.
    We say that in our rule, that it is our at least best estimate right now that the new rule would require about 49,000 new drivers. And so we understand that that is a problem, and we understand that training drivers—training them properly can be a labor-intensive business. We understand that. We still think that getting tired truckers off the road is the highest priority.
    Training new ones is a problem. Finding out where they are coming from is a problem, where new ones would come from. But as Mr. Oberstar said earlier, we have also found that when drivers have their pay increased and a couple of companies have instituted weekends home for their drivers, they seem to have less of a problem attracting and holding their drivers.
    So some of it seems to be a lifestyle issue. Some of it is undoubtedly a pay issue. All of those things have to be taken into account, and we are, and we will continue to do so.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. Just on a personal note, I have a 16-year-old daughter that just started to drive, and I will tell you that when we put the family in the car to go on vacation, I would rather be driving after 6 hours on the road than have my daughter drive fresh as a daisy. Just a note.
    I hope she is not watching television, either.
    I want to turn to pages 4 and 5 of your testimony, and then this will be my last question, and that has to do with the fact that, obviously, every member of the panel has heard observations about this proposed rulemaking—and observation is probably a mild term. But one of the things that is available to the Department is negotiated rulemaking. At the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5, you talk about the contract made with two conveners, and they reached the conclusion in writing to the Department that it would be a waste of time because you were not going to reach a consensus; is that fair?
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. This is a fair characterization, yes, sir.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I would think, at least from my perspective, that any time that the stakeholders cannot participate with a department of government and we say we cannot get together or it would be a waste of time, I do not see how you can come up with a good rule, would be my observation. And I would hope that the Department would reconsider this during the extended comment period.
    Because already you are saying that you are hearing from people. And so if you are taking into consideration comments the stakeholders are making, it occurs to me that that conclusion may not have been right by these folks that you hired to reach that observation that it would be a waste of time. Because if it was a waste of time you wouldn't be listening to them today. So is there a thought that you might reconsider and go back to the negotiated rulemaking?
    Mr. HART. Sir, as recently as 2 days ago I had occasion to ask a couple of stakeholder groups their idea about a negotiated rulemaking, and I have to tell you—not to put words in their mouths, but they are distinctly negative about a negotiated rulemaking. For them—and again, not to put words in their mouth, but for them it seems to be a resource issue—or not having the resources—and a time issue. A negotiated rulemaking can take a long time to come to fruition. There is a lot of time and attention that must be given to it, and some groups seem to feel that they did not have the resources that they could expend on this problem alone.
    So it seems to me that that still remains a problem.
    Mr. LATOURETTE. I hope they reconsider, and I hope the Department reconsiders as well.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. Mascara.
    Mr. MASCARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling these hearings. Thank you, Ranking Member Nick Rahall.
    First, let me get on the record that nobody embraces safety more than I do. I travel 495, I travel 70, I travel the Pennsylvania turn pike 10 hours a week. So I want to get it on to the record that I am certainly cognizant of the importance of safety on our highways. But I have a couple of questions, and I hope that you can help me with some of them.
    One is referring to the different types on this rulemaking procedure. And type 4 local pickup and delivery—and I was wondering, in the category of on-duty time, 12 hours per day, 60 hours per week, that is the only category that there is no allowances for time off or break during that 12 hours. Is there any reason for that?
    Mr. HART. Well, sir, I think the reason for no breaks at all, is that local pickup and delivery is usually one of the categories that seems to have less of a fatigue problem. It seems to us that the longhaul drivers and the regional drivers are the ones with most of the fatigue-related problems. So they were the most in need of a rest. It is not that we are against giving breaks to any driver that says he or she needs it.
    Mr. MASCARA. I have a heavy influence my district of two huge carriers, UPS and RPS, and it is my understanding that out of that 12-hour day if they were to have a 2-hour break that somehow that would inhibit them from working those additional 2 hours; is that correct?
    Mr. HART. Well, again, we have heard the same people that you have heard from, sir. It is an issue that we may need to address as we go down the road.
    Mr. MASCARA. So then you are willing to talk to the stakeholder about the problems associated with type 4.
    Mr. HART. Congressman, I am willing to talk to anybody about any and all types.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. MASCARA. The question that I had is, how intense was the study as it related to the economic impact of this rule? You know, ultimately, cost has got to be placed on somebody; and, ultimately, it would be placed on the consumer who buys the products that are hauled by the carriers. What did your study show?
    Mr. HART. Our study showed that there was an economic impact, obviously. We estimate the economic impact on small businesses to be about $160 million a year, and that is direct cost. What we hope, however, is that they would save $170 million a year through the provisions of using on-board recorders. Also, the cost of hiring new drivers annually we think comes out to be about $380 million a year. That is a cost of our proposal and that is at 49,000 new drivers.
    So we did those kinds of economic studies. And we may do more, yes, because, again, as we hear from more people, we hear about more costs, we hear about more problems, that has to be taken into account. The whole idea, as Mr. Terry said earlier, about moving the terminals and the economic costs that that puts on people, that is something that we may need to relook at. It could probably do with some more time and attention.
    Mr. MASCARA. So you intend to look at it more seriously since you have extended the time from 90 days to October, and you are saying that possibly you could not effectuate this by December so you are going to look more closely at the economic impact in the rulemaking.
    Mr. HART. We are going to look more closely at the economic impact. We would rather do it right than do it quick, and that is the way we are going to approach it.
    Mr. MASCARA. Earlier I heard someone mention the possible problem associated with labor contracts. Could this, in fact, be a de facto intervention of this rule into existing labor contracts?
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. We do not think so. Again, we understand that, under the National Master Freight Agreement, that if there is a change in the hours of service regulations some of those contracts may have to be renegotiated. If that is the case, it is incumbent upon us to try to phase this in so that there is the least disruption to existing labor management contracts as possible. And that is an issue of timing I think we could get done.
    Mr. MASCARA. Have no—companies that do have labor contracts, were they consulted during the rulemaking process to see how it would affect their labor contracts?
    Mr. HART. I am told that, yes, they were.
    Mr. MASCARA. They were? Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mrs. Kelly.
    Mrs. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hart, it is nice to meet you, and thank you for being here. I appreciate it.
    Mr. HART. Thank you.
    Mrs. KELLY. There are a couple of things I am a little confused about.
    Shortly after issuing the proposed rule, the DOT had to withdraw its certification contained in the original May 2nd Federal Register notice that stated your agency had considered the economic impact of these requirements on small entities and certified the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities—and I am quoting directly from the Federal Register.
    DOT now admits that it does not know with certainty the full economic impact and the statement was erroneously included.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. Hart, there is an initial Reg Flex requirement mandating a full analysis of the impact of a proposed rule on small entities as well as a consideration of numerous alternative approaches to reduce the burden on small businesses. What alternatives specifically aimed at small businesses did you consider?
    I am listening to you talk about—I wrote it down—$160 million a year economic impact on small businesses. You know, there is an awful lot of small truckers out there.
    I put on a brown uniform and went out and delivered packages one day just to see what it was like to be on a UPS truck. I did not drive. I just helped them. And I can tell you, I think of all those little brown trucks out there and you think of all the other people that are out there delivering. There are an awful lot of small people who are out there doing it on their own and you say it is only $160 million per year? How did you get that figure?
    Mr. HART. Well, again, we did an economic analysis, but we probably need to do more. We used the database that we had with regard to small truckers.
    Remember, when you say small truckers, there are interstate and then there are intrastate. Our focus is the interstate truckers, of which there are a lot. There are even more intrastate truckers that might not have been picked up in our economic analysis because we do not always have a lot of information about them because they do not need to report to us on any kind of regular basis.
    So, again, if it is undercounting that we have done, I am the first to admit that that is a possibility. Again, we are looking at it, and we are trying to address it.
    Mrs. KELLY. Are you doing outreach to the small buses, the small bus companies and the small trucking companies that are interstate? I am not talking intra, I am talking inter. I happen to live in an area where people very quickly, within a matter of an hour, get into three different States. It is easy for lots of people to get back and forth, and it is a fairly heavily populated area. Are you doing any kind of an outreach now and what have you done in the past to address those small entities?
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. We have set up the eight public hearings. The next one is in Hartford—just outside Hartford, Connecticut. We have tried to set up where truckers will congregate, and we are hoping that they will come in and talk to us about their problems with the new regulations and how they see these new regulations affecting them.
    We have had standing room only in just about every place that we have been; and that is Kansas City, Indianapolis, Golden, Colorado. Again, the next one is Atlanta, Georgia, and then Connecticut. And we have another one planned here in Washington, D.C. So we have tried to go out where they are going to be; and, hopefully, they will come in and talk to us.
    We have tried to do outreach with all of the trucking associations, both the ATA and the other associations and the owner-operators associations, and ask them to come in and talk to us about these rules and the rules' impact on the drivers.
    Mrs. KELLY. Will you take some of the comments we offer here into your consideration? Because I would like to offer a couple of comments.
    Number one, I think that your five-sizes-fits-all is not going to work. You have heard an awful lot of exceptions here already, and there are other people who have yet to talk with you. So I think you need to go back to the drawing board with the five-sizes-fits-all. I don't think it is going to work.
    Number two, I think you need to relook at your emergency policy, because I also live in an area where things happen. They are not emergencies. We just have a bad storm. Ice will tear down our wires. Trees will fall over. We will have a bad storm, and then nobody is declaring it as an emergency, but we need power.
    I have been working with the local hospital who has had a big serious problem because our power goes out so frequently in the area that I live in, and their power goes down sometimes for as long as 15 and 18 hours. How would you like to be operated on when the power is going out and because it is not an emergency and the trucks have already been out for 18 hours? This is not going to work. We have kids in neonatal units and other people who need support..
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I think you need to go back, and I am very strongly urging to you take another look at small businesses and the impact you are going to have on them, the economic impact you will have on them and at the emergency policy you have.
    Mr. HART. Thank you.
    Mrs. KELLY. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Mr. Pascrell.
    Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning, Mr. Hart.
    Mr. HART. Good morning.
    Mr. PASCRELL. When is the last time these hours were modified?
    Mr. HART. 1962.
    Mr. PASCRELL. Now, since 1977, in those 30 years from '77 to '97, if my numbers are correct here, and I am looking at these numbers, we have had a 40 percent increase in the amount of miles accumulated with medium and heavy trucks in the United States, and we have had a decrease of 50 percent in fatalities. What do you personally attribute that to?
    Mr. HART. I would probably say safer trucks, number one, the design of trucks, how they are constructed. Better drivers, number two. Driving is much more of a profession now. It is seen as such. And, also, the training is better. Those are certainly two factors. Probably the design of the roadways has something to do with it as well.
    Mr. PASCRELL. So all of those factors, including paying a little bit more attention to speed, changing speed in different States, in different parts of the country. We have more open space. So there are a lot of things that have contributed to this decline in the number of fatalities.
    But, as Mr. Oberstar pointed out, we need to do much better. Because one fatality is one too many. We all agree concerning that.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    However, we do not have to agree on the approach to solve this problem. We have struggled, both sides of the aisle, with the issue of regulation and deregulation. There are pluses and minuses every time we do it, regardless of what industry we are talking about. Do you feel that the more we regulate the industry the better in terms of safety results we will have? Do you personally believe that?
    Mr. HART. Congressman, I have been involved in truck deregulation, bus deregulation, railroad deregulation during my career. And each time we deregulate those industries, the one thing we do not deregulate is safety. We deregulate routes, rates and services, and that is all—that has been mostly to the good. I know some people who do not get air service would disagree with a lot of that. But mostly I think deregulation has been good.
    The one thing we have never deregulated is safety. The one thing we all--Congress, the administration—have agreed on is that safety is paramount, and that what these regulations go to is safety.
    Mr. PASCRELL. We may not have that as an intent, but sometimes deregulation has led to—for instance, the movement of products such as hazardous waste has changed dramatically. And we are struggling with deregulation, at the same time protecting folks where these trucks drive through local streets, local communities, leaves a lot to be desired.
    We know that one of the major impetuses to economic growth is the increase in productivity in America, particularly over the last 6 or 7 years where we have had a real improvement in productivity. That means more production, more productivity within the given amount of time and adding to the time but having more units produced of work during the like time.
    There is going to be a point of no return when the worker in any industry is overburdened, is going to be tired. But it is going to be difficult for government to restrict the amount of worker time, the hours that workers can work, because the increase of productivity has been the central driving force in this economy over the past 6 years. And I could understand, and I believe you do, too, much more than I do, that if you restrict or try to backend in order to produce safety, that we are going to impact upon this productivity for better or worse. And I would suggest for worse, and I think that is part of the anxiety that is being expressed here today.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    If we impede that productivity, that increase in productivity, the American worker being the greatest worker in the world, we will have defeated what we started out to do. I admire what you are attempting to do, but please understand our perspective in not wanting to overreach too quickly before we have all the data in, and that is my concern.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell.
    Mr. Thune.
    Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for calling the hearing today. This is a topic that has the attention of a number of my constituents in South Dakota, and what they are telling me is that we need hours of service reform for commercial trucking.
    I think the question is—and there are a number of opinions as to how that would be accomplished, and from that standpoint I appreciate, Mr. Hart, the difficult job that your administration has in trying to recraft a reform system that is substantially—trying to reform a system that is based upon 1930's era law.
    At the same time, I am concerned that in the proposed rule some of the very critical needs have been ignored. I think the impacts of the changes that are proposed are varied and great, and they range from economic impacts on trucking companies and businesses that rely on truck deliveries to the impact on drivers themselves and their families. And in light of this, I have joined my colleague, Mr. Terry, in cosponsoring his legislation which would prohibit the administration from moving forward with the proposed regulation and extend the comment period for 90 days.
    I am pleased that the administration has chosen to extend the comment period beyond the originally proposed date of July 31st to October 31st. My view is that it is a minimum amount of time that we are going to need to adequately examine the impacts of this rule.
    In the end, I am confident that, with a thorough review and input from the public and hopefully oversight from Congress, the administration will be able to craft a common-sense rule that provides for the highest level of safety for drivers and for all the drivers—not for truck drivers only but for all the drivers that share the road. This is an important discussion to have, and I think that there are a number of questions, many of which you have already heard from my colleagues on this committee.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    One question, and it goes back to something that Mr. Mascara raised earlier, but the proposed rule provides that the type 4 drivers, those that are home every night, have to be off 12 and on 12. And yet those drivers who are away from home have a 10-hour off-duty requirement. And I guess I am curious as to what the scientific rationale is and the basis for mandating the 12 hours off for drivers who are home every night sleeping in their own beds more than any other category of drivers in the proposed rule, including those who are away from home days and weeks at a time.
    Mr. HART. Mr. Thune, the bulk of the fatigue-related problems seem to be with the longhauls and the regionals. Now, it is true that the longhauls would operate 12 hours. But to that 12 hours you have to add 2 hours that they would be allowed to rest, totaling the 14 hours. So within that 14 hours they can drive 12 and rest 2. We are hoping they will use the 2 to get a half-hour here and a half-hour there, up until four segments.
    Research that I have seen shows that those half-hour catnaps, call them what you will, are somewhat restorative with regard to sleep. That is why it is cut that way between the longhaul and the regionals and the type 4s on the other end. They will be home every night. It will be easier for them to get a restorative amount of sleep all at once. It will be tougher on the longhauls, which is why we have tried to craft that 2-hour window in there.
    Mr. THUNE. And I understand the rationale for that, but it would seem like it would be hard to, in the form of some sort of mandate, it just seems that it would be a basis for more flexibility in that respect. But I was just curious as, again, to the scientific reasons for moving in that direction. I can understand why someone who is home every night and gets more family time, it is more family friendly. But the difference between that and those who would be away from home every night, at least in my view, did not seem to make sense. I appreciate your answer on that.
    I would simply say, to echo what has already been said, I would hope that in the comment period that there is an effort made to work with all these stakeholders and with the groups who are affected by this—and there are many—to try to fashion something which accomplishes the objectives which you hope to accomplish in terms of safety and yet does not create the harsh economic impacts, create a lot of problems for employers, which I think at this point a lot of us have concluded that this rule would create.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    So let me just close by saying that it is an issue of concern, I think, across this country. It is certainly an issue of concern in my State, and we have a lot of miles of highway and a lot of—to cover. And so when truckers are moving across our State, obviously this is something that impacts them in a very real way.
    So thank you for your testimony, and hopefully we will get an opportunity to hear from some of the other groups later that can speak more directly to the impacts on their industry. Thank you.
    Mr. HART. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Mrs. Danner.
    Ms. DANNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Hart, for being here. I have two questions based on comments that my colleagues have made.
    First of all, to my colleague from Ohio on the other side of the aisle, if your 16-year-old daughter is watching television, I would surmise, Steve, this is not the program she is watching.
    One of the real problems I think that we have here in Washington is the problem of unintended consequences. We do things without thinking of the negative. When we talked about the economic impact, and that would be not only on wholesalers, retailers, manufacturers, the public, you mentioned that you thought there could be a cost of $160 million, and you hoped—and that was the word that bothered me—you hoped there would be a savings of $170 million. Would you like to tell the committee a little bit more about the effort you, through your Department, made to learn about the economic impact on this on our sundry individuals?
    Mr. HART. Thank you. It is a little more than a hope, although that was the word I used. We based that $170 million savings on the cost of log books now. That is the cost for truck drivers to have them, fill them out and maintain them, whether they are a single unit driver or whether they drive for a fleet. That is where the $170 million saved would enter in.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    As I explained to Congresswoman Kelly, that is what a proposed rulemaking is about. We do the economic analysis and other analysis we think is necessary. We put it out there and see who shoots at it and who salutes it. Then, hopefully, those people who shoot or salute or do both will then tell us exactly what is wrong and how to either make it better or just dispense with it altogether.
    That is the stage we are at now, Congresswoman. We have put it out there. People are taking their shots at it. We have had more people taking shots, but we have had some people who seem to salute at least parts of it. Now we are taking all of those comments back, and we will reexamine our proposal in light of these new comments.
    We now have even more time to do it. And as I said earlier, we would rather do it right than do it quickly. So we are going to take all of these comments, including any economic analysis that anybody cares to give us, as to whether we have undercounted or overcounted, and what this is going to cost the American people or the trucking industry or anybody for that matter.
    And we have that. One cost we do know that we would like to reduce is the cost of the fatalities and the cost of the accidents to the American public because, as you know, that is a cost. Every hospital bill is a cost to the American people and a cost to the productivity. So that is one cost we know we are trying to reduce. There are others. The law of unintended consequences, we want to hear about those.
    That is the stage we are at. That is my bottom line for everybody here. If you do not like this proposal, that is fine. I understand that. You may have reasons not to like it. Talk to us about it. What do you not like? What have we done wrong? Where did we get it wrong? How can we make it right? We are interested in putting out a proposal that reduces fatalities, reduces injuries and does not cost the American people a lot of money. That is what we are about.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    So to the extent that anybody in this room can help us in that and any comments or criticisms that will help that process, that is what we want.
    What we are afraid of is stopping the process altogether. The language in the Senate appropriations bill basically says you will not work on this any more, and that does not help anybody. Because the one thing I am still clear about is that we have to change the hours of service rules in some manner, shape or form. They have to be changed.
    Ms. DANNER. One last quick question, because I see I am on ''caution'' now, with regard to the utility drivers, going back to an earlier question. And I understood you to say that, in an emergency, suspension would be left beyond the 30 days to the State director.
    Mr. HART. Yes.
    Ms. DANNER. Why are we leaving that in the State director's hands instead of just saying in the rulemaking that as long as the problem exists and there is no electricity that people can go ahead and work on it? Is there some reason?
    Mr. HART. We believe that there should be somebody that you can point to who has seriously evaluated the safety impact and said all right, who declared the emergency or who said the emergency was not over so that the drivers could continue to be exempted from the rules.
    It is nice to know that there is a person that you can call and say to, 'we really need you to extend the exemption another 3 days.' So you can know that there is a person on the other end of that line who has done that, and then you can go from there.
    Ms. DANNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Hart.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Bereuter.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hart, I am here on the end of the line despite the fact of this being my 11th term here.
    I want to offer you some general comments and congratulate you or sympathize with you on your new responsibilities. This is the people's House, and you are being met today with unusual gentility, given how highly charged this topic is.
    I think, first of all, I would like to associate myself with a number of the remarks and questions of my colleagues— especially Mr. Clement, for example.
    As I listen to my constituents, as I read the mail, as I do my series of town hall meetings, it is very, very clear to me that this is a classic case of trying to provide regulation in a very complex society. This society is complex, it is diverse, and currently we have in your effort to look at this an indication of the dynamism of this society. And if we do not do this well, if we do not do this very, very carefully, if you do not exercise patience and approach this with humility and as a Department, we all know in the people's House in this modern society where we are doing our job in a far different environment than the Founding Fathers thought of that we are going to suffer the consequence as representatives and as senators because they are going to say to us across the whole country, how could Congress have done this to us? It will be Congress has done this to us. But we will be suggesting that perhaps it is the Slater law.
    And I hope that these regulations are moved very carefully. The best thing I have heard you say today is that it is highly unlikely that they will be implemented this year.
    We do have to make changes. But I think it would be so easy to really do dramatic dislocation to our society to create all kinds of problems that we do not anticipate. And so, just as you look at all of those sectors, not just the longhaul trucking, for example, but agribusiness and agriculture, the construction industry, very specific things—the ready mix industry is brought to my attention, for example, just one example of a whole range of people who have concerns of what it is going to do to them as consumers and what it is going to do to providers of transportation service of diverse nature. This is really something we have to do well if we are going to do it at all, and you pointed out it has to be done in some way.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    So take your time. It cannot be done on Mr. Slater's watch, not if it is going to be done without serious ramifications. So that is my message to you. And I hope that you are going to take on this job with the idea that this is difficult, extremely important, and it cannot be done quickly.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    We will have another round of questions, but I just would like to build on what Mr. Pascrell and Mr. Bereuter and others have said as well.
    The trends, fortunately, so far as trucker-related accidents and safety in our country for a variety of reasons, some of which you have enumerated, are in a favorable direction. And in our effort to accelerate that we do not want to create a crisis. We want to be part of a solution. And I do hope that with the new modern economy that we have and with all the changes, some of which Mr. Bereuter has outlined, we try to come up with an approach that allows for flexibility and innovation and people using their own noodle. The goal is not regulation, the goal is safety. If someone is safe, who cares? I mean, that is the goal.
    And companies have been switching—we are trying in the education area to move from compliance with regulation and measuring inputs to measuring the product. Are we doing a good job? Are kids learning? And here, again, are companies safe? Regardless of how they achieve that goal, the goal is safety, not regulators empowering people to push people around in our society.
    So has some thought been given at all to looking at the industry, looking at what people are doing and, if they are safe, saying bye bye; we will go focus on people who are not safe? Individuals do differ. Some people have remarkable stamina. Others are going to fall asleep after 10 minutes because they were doing something else before they went to work, and all this sort of regulation is not going to change that. Has that been thought about?
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. Actually it has, sir. A good part of what we do is what you have alluded to, which is basically risk analysis. We try and put our resources where they are most needed.
    You and I know that the big trucking companies are generally the safest. They have the resources. They know the effect on their bottom line if they are not safe. So we can put our resources where they are needed, on the marginal carriers or the carriers that are not as capitalized as well, who may have had one or two safety problems in the past. We agree with that. We think that makes sense regulatorily, and also it makes sense from a practical perspective, given the limits of resources.
    However, when you talk about the hours of service, there is a benchmark that we are trying to set up. That is why we have tried to take it into five categories. And maybe we need more categories than the five, but we have tried to divide into five so it is not one size fits all.
    So, basically, the category 5 driver, the DHLs, the UPSs, are on one standard. Because, as I have said before, they are the ones that seem to be less implicated in fatigue-related accidents. They still need a standard, because we need a standard as to how long you can drive before you are so fatigued that you do not know what you are doing and your perception falls off, your motor skills fall off and before you it you are in an accident. But where there seems to be most of the problem is in the longhauls and in the regionals. We are trying to create a standard so that we can put most of our resources where we think they will do the most good. So I think we are in sync, at least in that regard.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    We will be talking more about that. Two quick other things. I think when you came out with this the goal was to try to come up with regulations by the end of the year. Do you still intend that? Or are you willing to entertain the possibility of taking more time and—you have already extended the comment period. Is that goal no longer in effect?
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. As I said, I would like to get these out as quickly as possible. But, if the comment period ends October 30th, that only gives us 2 months before the end of the year to come up with a final rule. I am not sure that I have the resources to get out a final rule in the 2 months that would be remaining after the comment period closes. If I had to bet, I would bet that it is not going to happen by the end of the year. Would I like it to? I will tell you the truth. I would.
    Mr. PETRI. Well, we want a good rule if we get one, not one that creates an economic depression and dislocation. And if industry can't find 50,000 drivers, that means people will go without goods in our country, and you will precipitate a catastrophe rather than being an agent of favorable change, and I think that needs to be taken into account as we move forward.
    Mr. Rahall.
    Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a follow-up on just exactly what you were asking about.
    Clyde, I think in an earlier response to a question I had—and this may be the news of the morning—you essentially announced that a final rule would not be promulgated until the year 2003. I don't know if you realized it or not, but you stated that you would seek to coincide the implementation of this rule with the time the teamster's national wage agreement is up for a new rule, and I found out that is 2003. So I guess that means you are not going back to the Maritime Administration any time soon.
    Mr. HART. Probably not.
    The only comment I want to make is just to reiterate that we are trying to do this so it does not impact on labor-management agreements. I did not know that the next one was up 2003. I am not sure that the next time it is coming is 2003—and I am not sure we would have to wait that long. But like I told the Chairman, we would rather do it well than do it quick.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. RAHALL. I understand that.
    Let me ask you, I have a quote here. I had some fun with it last night in a speech I gave. It is from your Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, Hours of Service, NPRM, dated April, 2000, of this year. And in it, it stated: Ex-drivers in other occupations probably have a more desirable bundle of human capital characteristics than current drivers, which may be why they discontinued driving.
    More desirable bundle of human capital characteristics? What are the undesirable bundle of human capital characteristics? And I guess that would mean that current drivers have a bundle of undesirable capital human characteristics. Human capital characteristics? What does this mean? What does it allege? What does it allude to?
    Mr. HART. I will have to tell you, Mr. Rahall, I haven't seen that before, so I really cannot comment on that. I would like to see it myself—.
    Mr. RAHALL. On the page 44.
    Mr. HART. —and give you an answer at some point as to what we were talking about.
    [The information receives follows:]

    Economists use the term 'human capital characteristics' to refer to the variety of skills, training, education, age, history of drug use and other attributes of workers. Some of these attributes are difficult to measure, such as reliability, attitude, and behavior. Others are more easily measured, such as education level and years of experience. Personnel managers tend to look at all these attributes when making hiring decisions.

    Mr. RAHALL. Let me ask you another question—and I do not mean to relate these two questions at all. Please understand that. But how do you expect to enforce these rules on Mexican truckers when they are operating in the United States?
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HART. Again, as CVSA has told us, enforceability is a problem. We notice that the border is still closed and will remain closed until we can get the Mexican truck safety rules more akin with ours. A Mexican carrier coming across the border operating in the commercial zone has to operate by our regulations. We will enforce them like we would for any other American carrier. Outside of the commercial zone they are not supposed to be operating.
    So that will not change until the Mexican Government's truck safety program is more equivalent to the United States'.
    Mr. RAHALL. All right. Thank you.
    Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Moran?
    Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have been in and out of the hearing most of the morning. I assume that our witness has testified to many things many times. Perhaps just an opportunity to summarize where the agency is and what happens next, I would appreciate.
    Mr. HART. Fine. Where the agency is, it is in the middle of its eight-city outreach session—2-day public hearings at eight different cities. The next one is in Atlanta, Georgia. The one after that is Hartford, Connecticut.
    The comment period is now extended until October 30 of this year. We are getting a thousand comments a day.
    We will take all the comments back and look at the comments and all the testimony that we have heard today, that we continue to hear, and that we will hear. We will look at it, and then see if we can craft a final rule that increases safety, starts to reduce the fatalities without a great deal of impact on the American economy or the American people. That is where we are, and that is where we hope to get to.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. MORAN. So the goal is to craft a rule—would you repeat that? Does not impact—.
    Mr. HART. Does not have a great deal of impact on the American economy. I mean, there is going to be some impact. There is no way around that.
    Mr. MORAN. Do you have any doubt that the rule—as currently formulated, the proposed rule would have a significant impact upon the economy?
    Mr. HART. I do not doubt that it is going to have an impact on the economy. I am not sure what a ''significant impact'' is. But it certainly will have an impact. Any time you talk about $300 million for new drivers, and that is what we say, and any time you talk about $160 million impact annually on small businesses, if it is not a significant impact, you can see significant from where you are.
    Mr. MORAN. And, therefore, recognizing the impact, is it safe to assume that the ultimate rules will be different than the proposed rules?
    Mr. HART. Oh, I think, given the comments that we have heard, there are going to be some changes to the rule.
    Mr. MORAN. Would you describe those as significant?
    Mr. HART. The changes?
    Mr. MORAN. The changes.
    Mr. HART. Oh, I would say so. I would say the one thing I want us to look at is the flexibility. ATA has raised an issue about sleeper berths and the allowance of a split team to use the sleeper berth but not a single driver. That is clearly an issue that we need to look at. As Congresswoman Danner said, the law of unintended consequences is probably big in that one. That is an issue that we will definitely look at, and if I had to guess I would guess it would be changed from where it is now.
    Mr. MORAN. We—in discussing issues with trucking companies and truckers over the time I have been a member of this committee, the greatest concern has been number of drivers, availability of employees. That was before these proposed rules became an issue. These proposed rules obviously heighten that concern.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    One of the issues that I would remind you that has come up with Kansas trucking companies is the ability to hire part-time employees they believe is impeded by these proposed rules; and oftentimes the part-time employee, the part-time truck driver the ability to keep the trucking company going and deliver ing goods and services.
    I commend you for your testimony today, and I appreciate your candidness and look forward to hoping—I look forward—that is a terrible political statement—''I look forward to hoping.'' yesterday Secretary Glickman testified that he is ''thinking about considering.'' I hope that you would find ways to improve the circumstances that we face with these proposed rules. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. HART. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Mr. Oberstar.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hart, I am greatly impressed with your grasp of the subject matter in scarcely a month that you have been in position.
    Mr. HART. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. You come to the table without a stack of documents, without staff whispering over your shoulder, speaking from a fullness of knowledge that is very impressive and ought to be reassuring to all sides of this issue that we have in place in this new administration, a person who really cares and cares enough to have spent, obviously, lots of hours mastering this material.
    I guess I am one of those you referred to in your opening statement, nipping at your heels to accelerate the pace of rulemaking. We passed legislation in 1995 directing a rule. Last year, we thought it was important enough to create a new administration to increase enforcement activity and to improve and accelerate the regulation process. We even created the position of regulatory ombudsman which you have just filled. Congratulations. Even the trucking industry recognized how antiquated and how anti-safety or at least unsafety-friendly the current rules are, and they pushed for changes.
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    But now, with the rulemaking—you have done what we told you to do. You proposed a rule, and it is a proposed rule, and folks are coming out and saying, but we did not mean that rule. We did not mean those provisions. We do not like what you are doing. Scrap the whole thing and start all over again.
    And that is really what happens, if that Senate provision goes into effect, and I am sure the President will veto it, that you start over again. And we have heard comments about the new modern economy founded on all the things that we can do so efficiently. But that new modern economy is founded on a 50,000-year-old human body that has not changed a whole lot in 50,000 years. The circadian rhythms—we have seen this in studies of flight attendants, of pilots, of mechanics in the airline industry, of locomotive engineers in railroads—the human body has limits, and we cannot allow that human body to be pushed beyond the limits.
    One of the things that the human body does not store very well is sleep. It stores other factors. I see a person yawning already. It stores other elements very well, like glycogen and fat. But neither can be converted into awakeness and alertness. And what you are about is trying to define the limits of human frailty, provide some flexibility, and to adapt to a modern society the needs of this enormously important trucking industry, and to improve safety on America's roadways.
    It is dangerous out there. I have run a campaign for years against the triples—and even the doubles.
    I drove my daughter out to start college a few years ago, and we went out in her little Escort—mine that she was going to drive—and we were trying to move our way through traffic, passing trucks in the rainstorm, and the splash comes over and washes the car, the air wash sucks you in toward the vehicle, and you get out finally to the front of it, and it blows you back out across the road. I sure hope that driver has had a lot of rest and is well awake and well alert.
 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Now, not all of these fatalities are drivers's faults, of course. What we ought to do is put automobile drivers through a great deal of sensitivity training and common-sense training and training in passing trucks. Because I have seen it, and you have seen it, probably everybody in this room has seen it, how people rip out in front of a truck and then dart into its lane without enough room for that driver to react. And that is the point when the driver has got to be alert, got to be rested, got to be fresh and got to be skilled.
    So we have a huge balancing act to undertake here. You have promulgated I think a balanced rule that can stand some adjustment, but you are on the right track, and I compliment you for it.
    Mr. HART. Thank you very much, Mr. Oberstar.
    Mr. PETRI. Mr. Terry.
    Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I will ask one question here, but I have several more. May I submit those to you in writing?
    Mr. HART. Please, sir, yes.
    Mr. TERRY. For efficiency of time, because I would like to get some of the other panels. No offense, it is nice to be with you.
    Let me ask one of the follow-up questions that I wasn't able to get to before. I will put it in my sarcastic way. It is the nature of my personality.
    We have heard of the President's 100,000 new police officers and 100,000 new teachers, and now we are talking about 50,000 new truckers. But if you talk to the ATA they think it will be more. They think it will be at least 100,000 new drivers. So has your Department studied how many additional wrecks will occur as a result of these increased 50,000, 100,000 new drivers on the road?
    Mr. HART. No, I am not aware that we have studied that precise question, Congressman Terry. We do admit that there are going to be 49,000 new drivers. We do not believe that there will be a wild increase in the number of fatalities or even crashes.
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    One of the things we are looking at is how to provide for more drivers. We are actively looking at the idea of a graduated CDL so that we can get more people into the industry at a younger age, without diminishing safety. That is number one.
    Second of all, another thing we are looking at is the idea of a floating work week so that we try and even out the idea that at 7 a.m. Monday morning after 2 days off, we won't have 100,000 people all trying to deliver goods by 10 a.m. to the same addresses in downtown Washington. We understand that that concern is there, and are looking at ways to ameliorate that concern.
    We know that that is not an acceptable outcome. We know that that is not anything that this body or our agency would want to happen. So we are looking at ways that we can smooth out those traffic flows, those traffic patterns so that we have—if any increase at all, a small increase in the number of trucks that are out there.
    Congressman, we have heard the problems that you have. Your constituents, when they finish talking to you, call us and they tell us virtually the same things they tell you. So we know that those issues are out there, and we are actively going to consider them before we come out with a final rule.
    Mr. TERRY. And I appreciate that, because common sense I think would dictate that since—I can't remember the statistic off the top of my head, but I think it is high 80's or mid 80's of the number of truck-car accidents are caused not by the truck driver. So if you are going to put 50,000 or 100,000 new drivers out there, I think common sense dictates that there is going to be an increase in truck accidents or fatalities or injuries.
    What we have to do as we focus on this rule is to balance this with the new gap of hours, how many accidents will be eliminated or avoided versus how many will be caused. And right now, not knowing those numbers, from your own testimony here, I am going by just common sense and logic that tells us that this new rule may actually increase the number of accidents or has the possibility of doing that. So I appreciate your due diligence on those two specific areas.
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Clement?
    Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Hart, I am one of those, too, who appreciates you being here today and how forthright you have been answering the questions. And I am also one of those people who believe in common sense and good judgment and want to simplify the rules. Because I know from being out there with the truckers how tough it is driving a truck and trying to make a living driving a truck, particularly with these high fuel costs today. And what a truck driver does not need is additional rules and regulations to make it that much more expensive to try to provide for themselves and their family.
    Just like in my own family rearing my children, I have few rules, but what rules I have—I hold to those rules, but anything we can do to simplify those rules we need to do that.
    I will give you another example of what I am talking about, my concern about the proposed rule. The proposed rule provides that any interruption during the off-duty time sets the off-duty clock back to zero. Yet drivers frequently must be notified that a load will be available for pickup in one or 2 hours. Some carriers must provide a 2-hour reporting notification. How practically will this work under the proposed rule?
    If a driver is notified during the last hour of his off-duty time while he is eating breakfast that a load will be ready to be picked up at a particular location in an hour, does that restart the clock and require 10 more hours of off-duty time? How do you propose that carriers notify drivers that work is available if you cannot let them know?
    Mr. HART. Mr. Clement, it is an issue that we have heard about. The railroads had this similar issue with the crewing of their trains for some years. We are looking into ways that we can take care of that issue.
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We know it is out there. It is something that we are going to try and do something about before we come up with a final rule.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Tell us about the so-called black box or the electric devices. Let's just talk in general about that. Are we talking about dual purposes for this black box? Because you could use it for a lot of different purposes if you have an electric device.
    Mr. HART. Well, the black box I am referring to, it is either attached to the engine or the drive train, and it records what the driver would normally have to put in his log book. I know that there are other black boxes out there that are tied to a global positioning satellite so you know exactly where that truck is at all times, but that is not what we had in mind. We just want to know the driver was driving, the driver stopped for the required number of hours, the driver got his rest, and then continued his journey.
    Mr. CLEMENT. But the fact is they could be used for a lot of different purposes, not necessarily under the rule itself. But could it not also be used to help a trucking company, for example, in another of—other ways other than what the rules is proposing? Or are we just talking about a device just to be used for that specific purpose?
    Mr. HART. Well, that is the only device that I have in mind. I am not sure what trucking companies could use the information for, other than establishing that the driver was driving and then he stopped, as he was supposed to do under the hours of service. and then he started again. That is all I am interested in.
    Mr. CLEMENT. Well, some do use it for other purposes. But I was wondering and I think you answered the question as well. Thank you.
    Mr. HART. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Are there other questions? Mr. Berry.
    Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. Hart, I have driven a truck. And I am absolutely convinced that one of the reasons that the E-commerce and the dot-com economy in this country has done so well is because the United States Congress and the bureaucracy that we have created do not know enough about it yet to regulate it.
    I appreciate the Department of Transportation's commitment to use sound science and a transparent objective process as we go through this rulemaking effort, and I would just encourage you in every way possible to follow that trend or that intention. Because of that, this graph gives me a little bit of concern. It is hard for me to find the science in that graph that justifies what it is we are talking about doing here, and if you have any science or legitimate studies that would explain some of these things I would love to see them.
    Mr. HART. I will be glad to. I can bury you in studies that we have looked at.
    Mr. BERRY. I have been buried before. I do appreciate you being here today, and we thank you for what you are doing.
    Mr. HART. Thank you very much, sir.
    Mr. PETRI. I think we are just about done with questions. I have just two quick ones to touch on.
    Over the last few years, Congress—because even though there is a provision that could be used by the Department, they have not really used it—has made carve-outs or exemptions to some of the hours of service regulations, various industries, that—where they are driving equipment that qualifies to or from such as well drillers, agriculture, construction people. We did not just do this frivolously. We did it because they work long hours, but it was not on the road. And now I understand most of those have been swept back into this rule, at least where you could—and we did not get the well drillers in because we put them in another section of the law, and you were not able to do it.
 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I am just asking if you could please—it would save us a lot of trouble. We would have to repass all of those things probably—and if you could show a little bit of concern for the folks out there who have made a good case and maybe in the future listen to people or have the Department listen so we do not have to act legislatively. That was not really the intention.
    The argument was that some of the smaller pickup vehicles—various vehicles that are around the fringe of the heart of what this framework is supposed to cover—have an opportunity to make their case and, if they can make a good case, can get some adjustment. And that has not really worked. It has been a dysfunctional part of this whole process.
    Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman, let me say that that will not change. We assumed when we created category 5 that some of the previous exemptions would fit into category 5. We do not know for a fact that all of them will, and we are more than happy and willing to look at those industries who continue to need their exemption to keep their exemption.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. The other thing is that you referred briefly to some ideas the American Trucking Association, I think, submitted having to do with double berthing, a more comprehensive submission. Do you have specific concerns with their proposal?
    Mr. HART. No, we do have their proposal, and we are analyzing it. That one provision on the sleeper berth was one that struck me, because, frankly, getting rid of sleeper berths was high on the NTSB list. So it just struck me the dichotomy—on the one hand, it is good; on the other hand, it is bad. But we have not completely analyzed their proposal yet. But, again, we will.
    Mr. PETRI. Good. Well, thank you very much. You have been very patient. We appreciate your very competent performance before the committee.
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    There is a vote on the floor. We have three more panels. I think what we will do is recess for 15 minutes, and hopefully you might be able to get a quick lunch during that time. We will be back at 10 to 1:00.
    The committee is adjourned.
    Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, before the start of the next panel, may I ask unanimous consent that the statement by the Motor Freight Carriers Association be made a part of the record.
    Mr. PETRI. Without objection.
    The committee is in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. PETRI. The committee will reassemble.
    We are very, very pleased to have a distinguished panel of logistics industry leaders to discuss the Department of Transportation proposed hour of service regulations on motor carriers.
    The panel consists of Mr. Donald J. Schneider, who is the President of Schneider transport, a leader in the industry, from Green Bay, Wisconsin, who is appearing on behalf of the American Trucking Associations; Gerald Detter, who is the President and CEO of Con-Way Transportation Services, also appearing on behalf of the American Trucking Associations; Mr. Donavan Olson, President of Fortune Transportation, in Windom, Minnesota; Mr. Todd Spencer, Executive Vice President and Owner-Operator, Independent Drivers Association; Mr. John McQuaid, who is the President and CEO of the National Private Truck Council; and Mr. Peter Pantuso, who is the President and CEO of The American Bus Association.
    We welcome you all.
TESTIMONY OF DONALD J. SCHNEIDER, PRESIDENT, SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC., GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS; GERALD L. DETTER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS; DONAVAN OLSON, PRESIDENT, FORTUNE TRANSPORTATION, WINDOM, MINNESOTA, ON BEHALF OF THE MINNESOTA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION; TODD SPENCER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION; JOHN A. MCQUAID, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA; AND PETER J. PANTUSO, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION, INC. (ABA), WASHINGTON, D.C.
 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. PETRI. This is not Mr. Schneider's first appearance before this committee. He is becoming a familiar face. I know you are familiar with the procedure here, so we invite to you to summarize your full statement in 5 minutes.
    Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, Mr. Petri. You have my written testimony. What I am going to do is just kind of summarize that by talking about the four outcomes of the proposed rules as they are presently constituted.
    The first one is that, in my opinion, you are going to have more fatalities and worse truck safety issues as a result of these rules and a whole series of different consequences that will come from these particular rules.
    Unfortunately, the rules do not address any performance- based types of activities. Every human being that is a driver is different, and things like physical condition is a bigger impact on fatigue than any other factor. That is one of the fallacies of this rule.
    Second, you are going to have a big impact on the standard of living and our economy. Logistics costs in the last 20 years have gone down from 18 percent to 11 percent of all things on an average that we as consumers use in this country. That has a big impact on our standard of living, and what this is going to do is drive up that logistics costs, as you have already heard.
    The third outcome is impact on our customers and shippers. We estimate that if this rule were in place today we would turn down or turn back about 25 percent of the freight. This industry presently is short of capacity in drivers. We could use thousands of drivers today. With this rule in place, you would literally have to say, I am sorry, but I can only move 3/4 of your loads today. Those loads ultimately would end up where factories would shut down, and ultimately you would have layoffs.
    And, lastly, for the last 6 years I have been on the Federal Reserve Board; and Alan Greenspan has continually driven home the fact that this economy is so unique. It is in the longest economic growth cycle we have ever seen. It is very complex.
 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    One of the things that is the driving factor in this is low inflation. When you drive up logistics costs, which is the biggest single component, in my estimation, in the economy, at the kind of percentages we are talking about and when at the same time all of a sudden you tell customers they are not going to ship 25 percent of the loads and you get factory layoffs it is a shock to the economy. Every recession that we know of in the last 30 years has resulted from a shock to the economy. This is the kind of shock that ultimately will drive us into a recession and all of the consequences of another recession.
    Consequently, I just think that the proposed rules are totally unworkable and are bad for not just safety but for all aspects of our economy. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Schneider.
    Mr. Detter.
    Mr. DETTER. Mr. Chairman, my company is Con-Way Transportation Services. We are a subsidiary of CNF, Incorporated, which is a 35,000-employee worldwide logistics corporation.
    Of those 35,000 people, 19,000 work for Con-Way Transportation in six different companies. 12,400 of those 19,000 people are drivers. All 19,000 of our people we believe, are going to be affected by the proposed rule as well as the general populace of this country and the economy.
    I would echo what Don Schneider just said about the economy, but I would like to talk a little bit about the safety aspect and the impact on the individual if I could.
    The DOT rules, as proposed, simply will not work. I think that it has been recognized by virtually everybody who has commented about these rules that they are flawed. They are well-intended. There is no doubt in my mind that the people at the Department of Transportation are well-intended people, and they would like to propose a set of rules that, frankly, perform. These will not, for a variety of reasons.
 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Unfortunately, the American trucking industry, and the ATA in particular, was left out of this rulemaking. Five years ago, the Congress asked the Department of Transportation for new proposed rules. Three years after that and 1 year after they were supposed to come forward with the proposed rules, the American Trucking Associations stepped forward and said, we would like to assist you. Apparently, there is difficulty in understanding what is going on. We would like to participate.
    That offer was dismissed, for whatever reason I don't know. For a year later, after a lot of work and negotiations within the industry, and understanding of our problems, the industry proposed what we believe would be an adequate change. None of that proposal, to our knowledge, was considered; and, in fact, we cannot recognize our proposal in any way in the proposed rules.
    Mr. DETTER. Our particular company in 1999 drove 560 million miles from the United States and Canada. Those 12,400 drivers are very important to us. We know as an industry that safety pays. We know that the safer you are the more economical it is to operate. Our drivers are important and the general public is important to us, and we know that we have to safely share the roads.
    I have heard several Congress people say today that it is difficult for them to understand how putting more trucks, more drivers and more inexperienced drivers on the road would help safety. I find it very easy to understand when somebody shared this analogy with me just today. When you are a husband and wife with no children and you have one vehicle, there is a possibility of having accidents but that possibility is minimal. As you have a family, and as Congressman Terry commented, and as they get older and they drive, you have more drivers in the family, and you have more vehicles in the family. I make the common sense assumption that there is a possibility of more accidents. I believe putting more trucks on the road is definitely going to cause more accidents.
 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We have looked at the types of drivers proposed by the DOT, and we decided that we were, for the most part, Type 3. Our drivers would be limited to the amount of work that they could do and be affected by this rule because we would have to split their shift. Presently our drivers drive from point A to B in approximately four to five hours, work two or three hours and then drive from B back to A. They are home every day and we shut down on the weekend. So the weekend isn't an issue for our particular company.
    What is an issue is if we allow the drivers to work the dock and load their own trucks in this time and they extend over 12 hours or so, we are going to have to sit down some place in our facilities in the middle of the night and not earn any money for that time. They are going to be away from home just as long and our average driver is going to reduce his income by $11,250 a year. That is on a $60,000 income.
    If we choose to make our drivers whole, we are going to add $44,500,000 to our annual cost. If we don't make them whole, then good, experienced, safe drivers are going to leave this industry. We are not only going to add the additional 100,000 inexperienced drivers because of this rule, we are going to have to replace the ones that aren't willing to lose $11,000 a year in our company. If I make them whole, I have to pass that additional $44.5 million annually on to our customers. This is on top of the $95 million that this new rule is going to cost us with the replacement employees that we are going to have to hire and that will constantly turn over because these are going to be part-time jobs working three and four hours during the middle of the night. This is going to have enormous economic impact on our company and on the industry as a whole and a devastating effect in our opinion.
    We believe that the ATA proposal that we made a year ago is based on sound science. It is on a 24-hour clock, and we believe that the Department of Transportation should take a second look at that proposal.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Olson.
    Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Donavan Olson. I started loading semi's for my father in 1969. I was a driver, I was a dispatcher and operations manager and eventually my wife and I started Fortune Transportation with one truck in 1980 and presently operate 53 company trucks, 21 owner-operators. We haul ice cream, dairy products and food products from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Kansas to either North and South Carolina, Virginia or Texas. Our operation is such that we either go down and back or in a big triangle. Some of our drivers go out and come back every weekend. Some of our drivers are gone for 10 to 12 days.
    My father was a truck driver in Korea for the U.S. Army during the Korean war. My father-in-law is still a truck driver at 71 years of age. My brother-in-law is in the industry. My daughter is a dispatcher. My son-in-law does the operations, computer and intelligence for our company. With my family's history in the trucking industry and my 30-plus years, I do not feel that the proposed rules will improve safety or reduce fatalities.
    When one of our drivers is gone 10 to 12 days he will drive approximately 46 to 4,800 miles. Under the proposed rules he would need to take a short weekend or 32 hours off duty minimum.
    By placing a restriction on the time of day he must stop and the number of times a day, we are forcing a driver to drive and make unsafe driving decisions against a black box. They will be placed in a situation of whether to try to better support his family by driving the maximum weekly hour limit before his weekend break or take proper considerations for weather, traffic and how tired they are, and when a driver does get home he needs to take 112 hours off in 14 days. If he is just taking the 32 hours off on the road, then he must stay home for 80 hours. This is equivalent to a Memorial Day or a Labor Day every other weekend, 52 weeks a year.
 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The major problem with that three and a half days off duty is that that may not be on a calendar day. They may come on days when his kids are in school or his wife is at the workplace. Insert holidays and family events, it is going to cause a scheduling nightmare and increase the stress level on the family and the truck driver relationship.
    This does not help a family spend quality time together when a truck driver is at home. This is a major stumbling block in our industry of keeping and maintaining safe and conscious drivers.
    In our company we book about 50 percent of our freight within 48 hours of hauling it. Under the proposed rules we may not contact the driver at home during his off duty period. If his off duty period ends at a time when my dispatchers are not on duty, that extends his off duty period and it allows undue advantage to large truck lines that have 24-hour dispatch.
    At Fortune Transportation, our drivers and our traffic people, dispatch people talk about the needs of the driver. Then they choose the work schedule that fits both parties. This is one of the reasons why our turnover rate is under 25 percent. This rule will require forced dispatches on a driver. It is going to increase the stress in the workplace. It is going to take the driver and make him more of a number than an integral part of the company, and it is going to take his family and him out of the decision process in dispatching loads.
    We need flexibility in the rules and I compliment Mr. Hart for announcing that he had some ideas about coming forth with flexibility to insert drivers, to help train drivers and make them safe on an incremental basis. We have some questions. As I am in the ice cream business, who is going to watch that load of ice cream while that truck is on the road during that short weekend? What about our safety meetings? We normally hold them on weekends when our drivers are home. If that is a contact with our dispatch, does he then have to start his off duty hours again?
    At Fortune Transportation we recognize that we must share the road with other vehicles. Whatever we do, let us make rules for safety first. Let safety for all vehicles that share the road and not segment trucks to have totally different rules. The chain is only as good as its weakest link. Safety should come from every vehicle which shares the road.
 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Thank you for your time.
    Mr. TERRY. [Presiding.] Thank you.
    And now Mr. Todd Spencer.
    Mr. SPENCER. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Todd Spencer, and I am the Executive Vice President of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association. In my previous life I was an owner-operator trucker. Our organization represents the views of owner-operators, professional drivers and small truck fleets. Our comments here are related to the people that drive those trucks, men and women.
    One of the goals of our organization that dates back to 1973 when it was formed, was to see these rules updated and changed. We are pleased the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has finally put a proposal on the table, but I fear my words alone cannot sufficiently convey our disappointment with the proposal. The agency needs to go back to the drawing board. The proposed hours of service will satisfy the needs of virtually no one involved with or dependent on truck transportation. It will not produce a meaningful improvement in highway safety and could in fact cause highway safety to deteriorate. It will also wreak economic havoc with owner-operators and small fleets engaged in over-the-road trucking.
    Truckers need hours of service regulations that will allow them flexibility to drive when they are alert and to sleep when they are tired without fear of being fined or fired for making an intelligent decision. Some would ask you to believe that the truck drivers aren't capable of making such decisions. They do it every day, and they would continue to make intelligent, safe decisions even if the government didn't see the need to tell them when it is bedtime.
    We are unimpressed by the safety data used to justify this proposal. Some of the conclusions reached defy common sense. It is almost as if the safety data was gathered piecemeal to justify conclusions reached much earlier.
 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The current rule says single drivers cannot split their sleep time in a bunk while a truck is parked. Yet team drivers can split their time in a truck that is moving. Does that make any sense at all?
    Trucking is a 24-hour a day industry. That is what shippers and receivers demand. Just in time delivery doesn't mean between eight and five, and even if it did could you imagine all those trucks driving into rush hour traffic at the same time every day? The FMCSA estimates that roughly half a million drivers will travel fewer miles, resulting in a loss of earnings to them of just under 10 percent. We suspect the loss will be much higher, but truckers don't have additional income to give. They haven't even recovered from fuel price increases that started at the beginning of the year.
    Most small business truckers operate in over-the-road operations. Many will regularly get stuck spending their mandatory weekends at truck stops rather than at home with family. They lose family time and income.
    The occupation of truck driver has evolved into one where drivers spend large amounts of time in uncompensated activity. Government could and should play a more active role in resolving these fatigue causing situations for truck drivers. The FMCSA proposal appears to be trying to bring these issues to a head through the back door. Unfortunately, rather than helping, we fear drivers will simply have to cope with more uncompensated time filled with inactivity.
    Our organization's strongest objections to the hours proposal is the requirement for mandatory on-board recorders. Our system of laws and regulations in the United States is based first on the presumption that those laws and regulations are reasonable. Second, it is presumed that the vast majority of citizens are honorable, trustworthy members of society and that they will voluntarily comply. If it were otherwise, no amount of law enforcement could assure compliance.
 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    DOT's proposal for electronic monitoring, surveillance systems for truckers completely overturns these basic principles of our legal system for one class of citizens. This is an outrageous attempt to circumvent the freedom and constitutional rights of honest, hardworking, professional truckers. If this heavy handed, overzealous attack by government bureaucrats is allowed to stand, whose rights will next fall victim to the heavy hand of government swinging the club of rapidly developing new technologies capable of intruding into the private lives of every citizen?
    The time to put the brakes on this intrusive government use of these electronic technologies is now. Our organization will seek to have the requirement for mandatory black boxes dropped from the proposal. If we aren't successful, we will most definitely challenge this through the court system, but going beyond the privacy issues, what will black boxes contribute to safety to offset their $2,000 cost to every owner-operator? Black boxes don't get tired but truck drivers do. The black box cannot tell a driver when it is time to stop for a nap or for a longer period. The black box will not record or capture the biggest time element for most drivers, that is lost time in loading and unloading situations, but it could serve as a method to push drivers. If the black box indicates you have hours available to drive, many carriers will expect you to be driving. So a driver is faced with the choice of doing what he thinks he needs to do as far as taking a nap or going on down the road to avoid being penalized.
    Our organization remains in support of revising the rules, but the current FMCSA proposal can't work without major changes.
    Thank you.
    Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Spencer.
    Next is John A. McQuaid, President and CEO of National Private Truck Council.
    Mr. MCQUAID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The National Private Truck Council is unique in the trucking industry in that our members are shippers first and truckers second. That is, our members' primary businesses include manufacturing, processing, distribution, to name a few activities, and their truck operations are an ancillary part of that nontransportation business. Our members include such household names as Kraft Foods, Burlington Industries, Coca-Cola, Circuit City, Dunkin' Doughnuts, Safeway Stores and United States Postal Service.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Many of the companies that operate private fleets also purchase for-hire transportation services. Therefore, our members have a dual concern with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's pending hours of service proposal.
    In my few minutes this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, I would like to focus on several provisions of the pending rules which, as proposed, have galvanized trucking's opposition to this initiative. At the outset, though, we believe it is important to note that there are two underlying tenets of the FMCSA's proposal that may be indisputable.
    First, the driver hours of service regulations should be based on a 24-hour clock reflecting a significant body of science that has determined that human beings have a natural circadian rhythm or body clock that operates on a roughly 24-hour cycle.
    Second, we believe there is general agreement that truck drivers need more opportunity for rest. However, in connection with the latter the complexities of that issue are quite challenging.
    The FMCSA's hours of service rule from the perspective of most private fleet interests that I have spoken with about it contains many provisions that have no basis in reality insofar as fleet operations are concerned. The agency has stated that its proposal is paced on a substantial body of fatigue-related research. However, it appears that very little, if any, field research had been conducted to understand how the trucking industry operates in the real world.
    During the last 15 years the Nation has experienced an unprecedented period of economic expansion. NPTC believes that it is no coincidence that this expansion occurred at the same time that the benefits of 1980 deregulation of the Nation's trucking industry started to take effect by wringing inefficiencies out of our operations.
    The trucking industry's productivity gains during this period have contributed mightily to low inflation and the expansion and efficiency of the Nation's logistics and supply chain activities. As a result, the U.S. consumers have benefited from lower prices of goods and U.S. producers have maintained a strong strategic position in an expanding global marketplace.
 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    If the FMCSA's current hours of service rule is adopted as proposed, the productivity lost to the trucking industry and the increased price tag to consumers would be dramatic. Consequently, we need to focus on the need for and the efficacy of many provisions of the FMCSA proposal. One of the provisions of the agency's proposal that is very problematic is the requirement for designated weekends in each workweek. Under this provision all driver types must be provided an off duty period of at least 32 to 56 consecutive hours that includes at least two consecutive midnight to 6:00 a.m. Periods before the start of the next workweek. Thus, at the conclusion of these mandatory work weekends drivers would be required to return to the road at 7:00 a.m. Or later, putting more trucks on the road during peak commuting time for worker s and students on already congested highways.
    The weekend requirement ignores the realities of today's production and distribution activities in many industries. For example, bakeries and dairies always initiate their distribution activities in the predawn hours so that they can meet delivery requirement s for the distribution centers and/or retail stores that they serve. Shifting these types of activities to comply with the time requirements for starting a new workweek or avoiding driving between midnight and 6:00 a.m., as the FMCSA repeatedly urges, just are not possible without eroding highway safety and imposing significantly higher costs that would ultimately be paid by American consumers.
    It is important to note that most fleet operating schedules today are not set by company dispatchers but by the customer. It is the retail stores that want their baked goods, dairy products and produce as early in the day as possible. It is the distribution center that wants the trailer load of canned goods in a specific time window virtually 24 hours a day to meet their outbound customer requirements. It is consumers who have turned Sunday into the busiest shopping day of the week, thus requiring suppliers to provide store goods through the weekend and keep store shelves stocked.
 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Thus, the hours of service rules that shoehorn the trucking industry into strict workweek and weekend schedules, which lack any flexibility for making changes in a dynamic, market driven environment, will have significant service and price impacts initially on motor carriers. But ultimately the consumer will pay the price.
    In addition to the disparity between the proposed FMCSA rule and the real world of commercial fleet operations, the economic premise on which the rules are based also defy logic. NPTC and other organizations are in the midst of obtaining information to submit to the FMCSA on the impacts of its proposed rule. Meanwhile, one industry publication, Trucking Company, has published an editorial which parses some of the agency's assumptions, and with the permission of the Chair I would like that included in the hearing record.
    Mr. PETRI. [Presiding.] Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. MCQUAID. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to comment on the process that has resulted in this hearing being called today. The White House in early 1995 issued a memorandum for heads of executive branch departments and agencies on the subject of its regulatory reform initiative. The memo was issue to build on the regulatory reform philosophy that the White House has initially issued in the fall of 1993.
    This March 1995 order directed department and agency heads to focus on four steps in advancing the administration's regulatory reform initiative. These steps, one, cut obsolete regulations; two, reward results, not red tape; three, get out of Washington and create grassroots partnerships; and four, negotiate, don't dictate.
    It is worth noting that in commenting on step number two, reward results, not red tape, President Clinton declared, quote, I direct you to change the way you measure the performance of both your agency and your front line regulators so as to focus on results, not process and punishment, end quote. Clearly the FMCSA has failed to live up to the administration's regulatory tenets, at least insofar as the hours of service proposal is concerned.
 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Pantuso.
    Mr. PANTUSO. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The American Bus Association represents 800 member bus companies and those 800 companies operate about one-half of all intercity buses in the U.S. and Canada. They have regular route intercity service, charter service, tour bus service, commuter bus service. This rule has a significant impact on the bus industry and our passenger's safety. Yet the first mention of motorcoaches in the recent proposal by FMCSA says, and I quote, for purposes of this proposal, the FMCSA has assumed that bus drivers operate similar to truck drivers.
    Well, that assumption is wrong, Mr. Chairman, and it is based on no research. To clarify Mr. Hart's statement earlier, there were no studies on the motorcoach industry in the proposed rule making. There is one study reviewed in the proposed rule that was done on transit buses in England. The 1999 study that Mr. Hart was referred to began in 1999 and was concluded about 2 weeks ago after the proposed rule came out.
    The assumption by FMCSA is a terrible assumption. We aren't like trucks. We carry passengers. We move people. We move the most precious cargo of all. If the FAA were to implement such wide sweeping changes in the airline industry and on airline pilots without any research but only assuming that pilots operate like truck drivers because they have a steering wheel of sorts in front of them, the American public and certainly this Congress would be outraged.
    The simple fact is that motorcoach travel is extremely safe. DOT has failed to identify any problem related to hours of service in our industry, and the ABA firmly believes that intercity bus safety will be compromised by the proposed rules.
 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Annually the motorcoach industry provides an estimated 300 to 500 million passenger trips, while averaging fewer than five on-board fatalities. FHWA's safety newsletter states that the number of fatal crashes in the intercity bus industry, by any measurement, is low. The NTSB has called motor coach travel one of the safest forms of transportation in the U.S., and our safety record reflects that fact and the belief that accidents and fatalities are totally intolerable.
    This rule will have significant impact on rural America, Mr. Chairman, where regular route service is often the only form of intercity transportation. In areas where service is discontinued, transportation choices are reduced, either limiting the ability of many of our current passengers to travel at all or moving people from the safest mode of transportation, motorcoaches, to a less safe mode.
    One example of a marginal scheduled route is the one that Greyhound currently operates from Milwaukee to Minocqua once a day. The schedule is supported by the State of Wisconsin—yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Minocqua.
    Mr. PANTUSO. Minocqua, I am sorry. It is run once a day from Green Bay to Minocqua utilizing 5311 funds. Since the State funding only covers a portion of the loss of that route, any additional cost would only contribute to the existing loss and larger losses might mean the total discontinuation of that service.
    Motorcoach operators who plan charter and tour itineraries do so with plenty of rest time for the drivers, as well as passengers who visit attractions and make the stops that they, the passengers, desire. There is no incentive for a driver who is customarily paid by the hour to reach a destination early since every activity, including meals, has been well planned out in advance.
    The motor coach driver has as many as 55 pairs of watchful eyes looking at his every move. Unless a truck driver is hauling potatoes there are probably no eyes watching, and the potatoes don't care or complain if the truck is moving or not or how long it is to the next rest stop or how long before the next meal or how long before the driver stops along the side of the road to comply with hours of service rules.
 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    But motor coach passengers do care about these things. Itineraries are planned for the customers' safety. They are planned with the customers' comfort in mind, and most every night passengers and the drivers stay in hotel rooms, not in bunks, not in sleeper berths, or they stay in their own bed at the end of a tour.
    The exemplary safety record of the intercity motorcoach industry clearly indicates that the current regulations work for the safety of the passengers and for the safety of the drivers.
    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the motor coach industry has not come to DOT or come to this body and asked for any changes to the current hours of service rules nor have we said that the current rules need adjustment for intercity buses. We stand on our safety and compliance record. DOT has proposed changes that will negatively impact the safety of our industry and of our passengers without doing any research or any scientific work whatsoever. They have only stated an assumption that buses are the same as trucks. Well, again, FMCSA's assumption is wrong. We are not trucks. We carry people.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. I apologize for a little bit of moving around here. There were some votes on the floor that had to be accommodated. Now Mr. Terry, any questions?
    Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Detter, let me focus the first few questions on you and then if anybody wants to chime in. The purpose of the rule is to increase safety on the road. So let me ask or start off with the safety questions. I asked Mr. Hart of the fatigue-related wrecks, whether it is 6 percent or 15 percent, truck accidents or truck wrecks caused by the driver, truck drivers, which is a small class of the wrecks. So you are talking about 6 to 15 percent of the smaller class, but if our purpose is to reduce the number of accidents, injuries and fatalities, what is your specific analysis of diminishing by 20 percent the number of hours that a driver can be on the road in a week's time? Will it in fact impact real, not just theoretically coming up with some numbers, will it increase safety on the road?
 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. DETTER. Congressman, I believe that total safety is going to be impeded on the road. I believe that the additional trucks and the inexperienced drivers that we are going to put out there to make up the difference for the number of drivers that we are going to need or lose through this proposed rule is going to actually make the highways more unsafe. Now, I don't disagree that there are accidents out there that are caused by fatigue. I am not sure dictating the number of hours off, especially these long weekends, is going to have the effect that the Department expects it to have. There is no doubt that accidents are caused to some degree by some fatigue. I disagree with the 15 percent. Nobody's ever been able to give me the basis for that 15 percent other than it sounds like a good number. I think that we are at greater risk with the increased number of trucks on the highway and there are going to be an increased number of trucks out there with less experienced drivers.
    Mr. TERRY. Has the ATA or anyone to your knowledge produced a study or at least statistics of how many fatigue-related accidents are caused with the driver having already exceeded the number of hours or fall within this gap of the new proposed rule and the current rule?
    Mr. DETTER. Congressman, I am not aware of any study like that.
    Mr. TERRY. Mr. Schneider.
    Mr. SCHNEIDER. I am not aware of any. I know that ATA has done a number of fatigue studies. We also as a carrier volunteered on a fatigue study, and it was a company that did some scientific work that tried to put in our vehicles a device that would monitor the driver and alert him when his eyes began to get tired and when he began to have some problems with awareness and so on. The technology is not perfected to the point that it is ready to be implemented in the industry, but one of the things we did find out was that this had nothing to do with the number of hours that a person had slept the night before. It had more to do with the physical makeup of a human being and a number of factors that were personal to the drivers. That is why I emphasized this issue of training of particular drivers that have problems, which is what we do.
 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Once a year we go through a recheck of all of our drivers. We initially start with a $6,000 training program that is, I think, the best in the industry, and that is a three-month training program before they ever go on the road. Then once a year we run back with the driver and verify the fact that he knows when he is getting tired. And there are things like, well, he asks that the window be opened or anything that you and I would do when you begin to get tired in a vehicle. But it is unique to a driver and you can't just mandate that, and some drivers have no problems and others have a lot more problems.
    But the fatigue issue is really interesting. Can you imagine what our driver is going to do if he is going to be required to lay over in Cut Bank, Montana, for 36 hours? How much sleep and how much rest he is going to get versus the rest he would get if he were allowed to get home where he could get real rest and relaxation.
    Mr. TERRY. And the last part you brought up may be a question somebody else brings up, but what are these folks going to do when they have to park their truck for 36 hours?
    Mr. SCHNEIDER. Or in a wayside a hundred miles from any place. What are you going to do out there for 36 hours?
    Mr. MCQUAID. Mr. Terry, if I may, that was one of the questions we had. It was in my statement but because of time I cut it, but we wanted to know who were going to be the sleep police. Creating opportunity for rest and having an individual take personal responsibility for knowing that he needs it and to take it are two different things, and I agree that that is a real complex issue and one that we have a problem with, and as for what they might do I heard someone say recently that they believed the video poker industry might be a growth business in the next few years.
    Mr. PETRI. Mr. Duncan, any questions?
    Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I apologize. I was at another hearing in another markup, and I didn't get to hear your testimony, but has anyone done a study yet or made a rough estimate of how many more trucks would be put on the road if this rule was put into effect? I am sure maybe you have covered that in your testimony but I didn't hear it.
 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. DETTER. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman. Contrary to what the Department says, at something around 50,000, the American Trucking Associations believes that number is double, 100,000 at least will be added to the highway.
    Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Congressman, we did an engineering study of our present traffic. There are very, very many factors that come into it, including when a driver is required to lay over at certain points and not deliver on time, and we estimate that probably we would need approximately 28 to 32 percent more drivers and vehicles in order to do the same amount of work for our customers.
    Mr. DUNCAN. And has the trucking association or anyone else done an estimate on how much, a rough guess as to the total cost of this?
    Mr. DETTER. We are doing that at the present time and I understand by the first part of July we will have that complete. Contrary to the relatively small numbers that were talked about earlier today—and it is hard for me to say hundreds of millions are relatively small, but I do remember where I am—there are billions of dollars involved here. In my company alone we are talking about $145 million of additional cost and I only have 19,000 employees. There are hundreds of thousands of employees in this industry, millions of employees in this industry. So there are billions of dollars involved here.
    Mr. MCQUAID. Mr. Duncan, if I could interject. Recently an individual who does an annual analysis of the logistics activities in this country at a presentation in Washington estimated that on an overall economic basis that the rules as presently proposed would result in a 100 billion, that is with a B, increase in unnecessary inventory as we shift away from the fast cycle procurement because of the rest limitations.
    Mr. DUNCAN. So in other words, prices would go up on everything?
    Mr. MCQUAID. Right. A $50 billion increase in expenditure for trucking services—.
 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. DUNCAN. I am sorry, your microphone went out.
    Mr. MCQUAID. Fifty billion dollar increase in expenditures for trucking services related to drivers and equipment, et cetera, and $25 billion increase in inventory carrying costs related to the additional inventory. So that is about $175 billion over 3 years that we are looking at from a logistics standpoint.
    Mr. DUNCAN. I was here briefly at the start and I heard Mr. Terry's opening statement, and he said that the number of trucking accidents has been going down significantly, and is that true for all of you? Is that true for the buses as well?
    Mr. PANTUSO. Mr. Duncan, in the bus industry, the only statistics on fatalities that exists are that we average approximately five on-board fatalities per year. DOT doesn't do the kind of research they do in the trucking industry to look at fatalities outside of the bus, nor do they look at accidents and the causes of accidents. There is very little known at DOT about our industry and how it works.
    Mr. DETTER. Congressman, as it relates to the trucking industry, between 1986 and 1996, the miles driven in our industry increased 40 percent. During that same period of time, truck accidents decreased by 35 percent.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Are most truckers, I notice in this comparison, and the staff has a suggested question here that I ask, why would anyone expect or want an employee to work more than 12 hours in a day, and you might want to respond to that, but the comparison of the current rule, it says that a trucker can work 15 hours after 8 hours off, and the new rule would be 12 hours in a 24-hour period. How common is it now, do you know, do almost all truckers work this kind of schedule where they work 15 hours after 8 hours off or what is the situation there?
    Mr. DETTER. But you have to put it in the total context. There is a maximum of 60 hours in 7 days that we can work out there. So from a numeric standpoint you can't work 15 hours a day for 5 days or 6 days. You run into the 60-hour rule. The reason that the rule is written the way it is for 15 hours on duty, and it is 10 driving and 5 other, is to give you flexibility because we are not a scheduled type of environment. Our work comes to us in bits and spurts and we have to be able to respond to the customer's needs. Certainly on most days our employees would not work in excess of 12 hours, but there will be times when somebody could and should to accomplish what we have to accomplish. The maximum would be 60 hours in 7 days.
 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. DUNCAN. My time is up. Let me just make one more comment or question. I assume that the market forces all of you to be as safe as possible in that you would get, you would be sued and your insurance rates would go way up if you had a bad safety record, is that true?
    Mr. SCHNEIDER. That is accurate, yes. But there is also just the moral obligation that we have. You have to run a business in a way that your employees respect who you are and what you are doing. If you ask them to do things that were continually putting them in jeopardy of being injured or injuring others, you would soon lose their respect and you would not have an organization. We are dealing with human beings here that are really competent people. They work hard.
    Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. McQuaid, I wonder if you could read to us again the President's injunctions to the administrative agencies and departments as they consider new rules.
    Mr. MCQUAID. It would be my pleasure.
    Mr. PETRI. It should be engraved, I would think.
    Mr. MCQUAID. I am just sorry I didn't bring the underlying comments, but I have them for you here if you would like a copy for the record. I took them down off of the Web site.
    Mr. PETRI. These are our administration's, our national government's goals so far as new regulations in the new economy?
    Mr. MCQUAID. Correct, and this is going back to, this was Mr. Gore's, I believe—this was on his plate, I think, as Vice President, but number one—there were four. One, cut obsolete regulations. Two, reward result, not red tape. Three, get out of Washington and create grassroots partnerships. And four, negotiate, don't dictate.
 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. PETRI. So those are the goals and we have got a long way to go in this instance to start realizing them, it seems quite clear. In that connection, I was impressed, and I think when Mr. Schneider was here last there was an interesting colloquy between you and one of my colleagues, Mr. Blumenauer, about trying to get more fuel efficiency in our vehicles, and he asked, well, should we be kind of ratcheting down the requirements, tightening them up so that you have more miles per gallon on fuel, and you said, well, maybe we should stand back and do a systems approach. If we can eliminate a whole movement of goods because of better data processing and logistics, think of all the fuel we save and shouldn't we get credit for that. My only comment is doesn't that sort of systems approach which businesses, sort of the new economy, that is why we are doing just in time, looking for not only improving each single step but reexamining the whole system and seeing if we can eliminate steps, doesn't that offer more promise for increasing safety than looking at each individual driver and whether or not it makes any particular sense given what he has got to do before and after that movement, having him shut down for two days somewhere? I just wonder if you could comment on that.
    Mr. SCHNEIDER. Your comments are right on. The fundamental issue is that the quality of life of the driver out there has a big impact. When you treat a driver in a way that he has got to lay over some place for 36 to 48 hours away from home, eventually the good people are not going to stay in the industry, they will leave. They will just say this is not the kind of work that I want to do. Because we have to move freight, you end up that the kind of people that we train ultimately are going to be less qualified and less effective. This is what we are talking about holistically.
    I would also advocate very strongly that the DOT approach this on the basis that individual drivers have individual fatigue issues. That you monitor the individual performance of both companies and drivers and require training. Ultimately, some drivers just have such a fatigue issue they shouldn't be driving. They are suited for other work. That is the way to approach it rather than a standardized way, trying to deal with things in exactly the same way. You need more flexibility.
 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. PETRI. In that connection, I know Chicago and many other communities, because they have major downtown congestion problems, often attempt to have municipal regulation or other programs that would have the trucks come to the downtown between 12:00 or 2:00 in the morning and 6:00 in the morning, and that is in everyone's interest because a truck is tied up for hours. But that doesn't fit very well automatically with, if you are driving under regulations, then you can't actually get to the downtown, you have got to pull on the side for a couple of hours. The two systems don't work very well, and I am just asking whether—trying to figure out if more of a systems approach to efficiently and safely moving goods might offer more efficiencies and more safety than sort of a one size fits all; this is our department here in Washington and we are going to impose on you a framework regardless of how we can make the system work better.
    Mr. SCHNEIDER. And also, Congressman, along this systems approach concept, fundamentally recognize the fact that the ideal use of that road or highway is when other vehicles aren't using it. You don't want all these trucks pulling on the highway about the same time that everybody is heading to work, which is what you are requiring them to do under this rule. They will be required to pull off the highway and rest and then ultimately start out at 6:00 a.m. in the morning. Just think of the number of multiple vehicle accidents as a result of this kind of rule. This is why you begin to lose confidence in how these rules were put together and who thought them up.
    Mr. PANTUSO. Mr. Chairman, I would also suggest that as you talk about and look at fuel efficiency and a transportation systems approach as you look at congestion mitigation in a downtown environment, the bus is probably the one vehicle you don't want to penalize in that approach since we are a fuel efficient method of travel and reduce traffic congestion by taking as many as 55 persons out of cars.
    Mr. PETRI. Any other comments? If not, thank you all very much, and we appreciate your effort that went into your remarks today.
 Page 95       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The third panel consists of Mr. Scott Madar, who is the Assistant Director of Safety and Health Department of the Teamsters here in Washington, headquartered here in Washington; Mr. Charles Flanagan, President and Business Agent for the Amalgamated Transit Union National Local 1700; Dave Heller, Vice President, Risk Management, US West, Denver, Colorado; Mr. Charles Cole, Vice President of Distribution Operations, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, who is appearing on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute; Mr. Ed DeMoss, who is President, Risk Management Division of Clarkson Construction; and Mr. Price Birkhead, who is the Manager of Fleet Safety and Compliance, Frito Lay. We welcome you all. Excuse me, and Mr. James Peterson of James Peterson & Sons, Medford, Wisconsin, who is appearing on behalf of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association and a familiar face. We may begin with Mr. Madar.
TESTIMONY OF SCOTT MADAR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SAFETY AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; CHARLES FLANAGAN, PRESIDENT AND BUSINESS AGENT FOR AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 1700; DAVE J. HELLER, VICE PRESIDENT, RISK MANAGEMENT, US WEST; CHARLES COLE, VICE PRESIDENT OF DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE; ED DEMOSS, PRESIDENT, RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION, CLARKSON CONSTRUCTION CO., ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA; PRICE BIRKHEAD, MANAGER, FLEET SAFETY AND COMPLIANCE, FRITO LAY, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE SNACK FOOD ASSOCIATION; AND JAMES PETERSON, JAMES PETERSON & SONS, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION (ARTBA)

    Mr. MADAR. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Scott Madar, and I am the Assistant Director of the Safety and Health Department for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The Teamsters Union represents hundreds of thousands of workers who make their living driving on our Nation's roads, whether they are interstate highways or city streets.
 Page 96       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on such an important safety issue, the hours of service proposal issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Until earlier this week, the FMCSA seemed intent on completing this rulemaking in record time. This unnecessarily hasty pace was a serious concern to the Teamsters Union. Since the current rules are over 60 years old, it would seem that a careful evaluation of any new rules would be absolutely necessary.
    The proposed rule has been available for analysis and review only since April 25th. While we have not had sufficient time to develop an opinion on all aspects of the proposal, we do agree with the FMCSA's increase in the off duty time for drivers. For some time we have advocated the need for more off duty time, and therefore we commend the FMCSA for moving in the right direction.
    However, we cannot help but wonder what the FMCSA was thinking when they included language that increases the consecutive number of hours behind the wheel for a driver. The Teamsters Union has concerns about this increase in consecutive hours of driving and will be carefully assessing the effect this will have on the safety of our members and the safety of the motoring public.
    Due to the complexity of the proposal, the Teamsters Union is currently reviewing all aspects of the rule to determine how it might affect safety as well as the economic position of our members and the viability of the companies where our members work. However, since the Teamsters Union represents drivers in all five of the proposed types of operations, this is a daunting task. Even with the 90-day extension we will be hard pressed to complete our analysis in time.
    In the short time since the proposal was released we have spent considerable effort reviewing and analyzing it, and a number of concerns have emerged. I would like to briefly review some of them with you now.
 Page 97       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    First, even in our cursory review of the proposal we have found ambiguous and apparently contradictory language. We know that we are not the only organization to discover these inconsistencies. At the first hearing sponsored by the FMCSA here in Washington D.C., other organizations pointed out these discrepancies and requested clarification. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for such clarification. Until the FMCSA provides this clarification, it will be extremely difficult to formulate any position with respect to the details of this proposal.
    Second, the proposal will be an absolute nightmare for the enforcement community and, quite frankly, we believe it will actually be impossible to enforce. We believe the Teamster drivers and the companies they work for obey the rules. If by chance a Teamster driver is asked to take a trip that violates his hours of service, he or she can refuse and have the union to support them.
    For this reasons we have pushed for years for better enforcement of the current rules. Yet instead of funding enforcement efforts, DOT has seen fit to complicate the situation by developing a complex set of rules.
    Third, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has testified in the past that it has not been opposed to the use of electronic on-board recorders provided specific limitations were placed on how the data can be used. However, we do have concerns over the requirements for recorders in this proposal.
    The electronic on-board recorders that the FMCSA is mandating will not solve the problem with drivers inaccurately logging their hours. While they will be able to show when the driver is driving and when a driver is not driving, these recorders cannot capture the time spent working if the vehicle is not moving. It will be up to the driver to record time spent not driving accurately and honestly. The Teamsters Union is concerned that there will be no way to stop those drivers who inaccurately record this time on their paper logs from doing so on their electronic logs.
 Page 98       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Fourth, the Teamsters Union is not convinced that the FMCSA has spent enough time analyzing the economic impact these proposed changes to the hours of service will have on the industry, the drivers and drivers' families. Many drivers currently operating under the 70-hour rule, which is 70 hours in 8 days, would be faced with a loss of income.
    Lastly, the proposed rule will affect many drivers in a way that is not easily quantifiable, yet will have some impact on the overall effectiveness of this proposal. Drivers will be forced to be away from their familie s for one additional day under the proposal. Work that drivers could complete in just over 4 days, specifically 4 days and 4 hours, will under the new rules now be completed in 5 full days.
    In conclusion, if the FMCSA is serious about improving safety by modifying the hours of service, the Teamsters Union suggests they rethink portions of the current proposal. If the relatively simplistic rules currently in place are not being adequately enforced, then we submit that the proposed rules, which are complex and ambiguous, will be unenforceable.
    With these concerns and reservations outlined, the Teamsters Union is still committed to work within the rulemaking process to effect needed changes to the current rules. Fatigue is a real problem and the solutions addressing tired drivers should not be needlessly delay ed by special interests who are unhappy with the proposal that does not exactly match their ideal.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today to address this important issue.
    Mr. TERRY. [Presiding.] Thank you.
    Next is Mr. Charles Flanagan, President and Business Agent for the Amalgamated Transit Union National Local 1700.
    Mr. FLANAGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Charles Flanagan, and I currently serve as President and Business Agent for National Local 1700 of Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, ATU representing over 5,000 Greyhound employees operating from 88 cities throughout the United States. It is with the full support of ATU International President Jim La Sala that I am pleased to appear here today to discuss ATU's views on the Department of Transportation's April 25th 2000 proposal to significantly modify the existing hours of service rules.
 Page 99       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The drivers, mechanics and clerks represented by National Local 1700 provide 75 percent of the Nation's fixed route intercity bus service, ensuring that almost 25 million passengers arrive safely at their destinations each year. Personally, I have over 35 years of experience as a driver and ATU officer. Over that period I have operated every type of scheduled service provided by Greyhound. With other members of the ATU bargaining teams, I have helped negotiate groundbreaking contracts to ensure that the schedules and services provided by our members not only meet the public's travel demands but reflect the highest safety standards for both our passengers and our drivers.
    National Local 1700 is one of some 280 local unions within the ATU which represents more than 170,000 transportation workers in the United States and Canada employed in the mass transit, intercity, charter, school bus and paratransit industry. Many thousands of these members providing intercity, charter and transit services are also covered by the existing hours of service rules and would be severely impacted by the proposed changes.
    My presence here today is intended to underscore the ATU's paramount commitment to providing safe service. Make no mistake, our expressed opposition to the proposed rules as currently designed should not be taken as a lessening of our century long commitment to safe service. We believe that the proposed rules will adversely affect rather than enhance the extraordinary safety record which has been achieved by the intercity and transit service industries.
    We reviewed the six standards against which the proposed rules are to be evaluated. It is clear that if the proposal is applied to intercity bus drivers it would undermine rather than enhance the abilities of the drivers and the riding public to benefit as intended. In fact, adoption of the proposed regulation is a recipe for service reductions, job losses and wage cuts rather than an enhancement of safety.
    More specifically, our comments and concerns reflect these basic points.
 Page 100       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    First, a careful review of the proposed regulations indicates that the studies, including accidents reports as well as the so-called fatigue science upon which the proposed rules are based, are grounded almost entirely on experiences within the intercity truck industry. The ATU is not aware of any studies with respect to the underlying concerns upon which these rules were based which examined the experience of intercity bus drivers and their operations.
    Second, it is an undeniable fact that fixed route intercity bus operations and truck operations are entirely distinct modes of transportation with fundamentally different route and schedule structures, operating rules, driving periods and equipment and training requirements which have not been considered in drafting these proposed changes. It is absurd, in our view, to contemplate the application of the same rules as drafted to such different classes of employees.
    Third, it is clear to our members, as reflected in testimony submitted to the Department of Transportation by Greyhound, that the proposed changes would have a negative impact upon Greyhound's route structure, its safety practices and programs and result not only in an enormous economic cost to our communities but produce service reductions as well as wage and benefit losses to our members.
    If we thought the offsetting safety improvements which might be achieved by these regulations outweighed any potential adverse effects, we would be among the first to stand in support of such a proposal. Unfortunately, the draft under consideration today offers no discernible benefits to those who depend on my members to drive safely and on time.
    Last year, as this Congress and the Department of Transportation focused on improving the safety of truck and bus operations throughout the United States, the Amalgamated Transit Union stressed the need for a separate Commercial Passenger Safety Division within the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to ensure that the distinct nature of the motor coach industry was considered as future policy and program changes occurred.
 Page 101       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Recognizing this compelling distinction involving not only vehicle size, equipment and service, but unique differences in scheduling, training and daily operations, Congress with the full support of this committee directed the establishment of the Commercial Passenger Carrier Safety Division within the newly restructured Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The division's mission in part is to ensure that specific service and safety concerns of the bus industry are addressed as part of the ATU's regulatory and enforcement activities. We believe a good place to start would be to withhold application of these proposed rules to intercity bus drivers pending completion of comprehensive studies which would provide a sound foundation for appropriate modifications.
    Through the debate over the restructuring of the FMCSA we emphasize one simple point, a bus is not a truck. The difference, while apparent, should nevertheless be borne in mind as part of any review of the proposed hours of service changes.
    ATU and Greyhound have worked together long and hard to develop an extensive route structure designed to maximize service, and minimize the number of overnight stays for drivers. Indeed, most of our operators are not out of town for more than one night in a row. When called for, overnight stays are not by roadside rest stops but in hotel rooms. Also, many drivers operate the same routes for years. Not only does this help to develop and maintain regular sleep patterns, it allows drivers to return home and spend time with their family as much as possible. In addition, Greyhound drivers are limited to driving 9–1/2 hours each day, including rest stops, and are required to obtain a minimum of 9 hours rest with a 2-hour call, giving them 11 hours off before the next leg of their trip. Greyhound bus drivers are paid by the hour, and therefore it provides no incentive for them to hurry.
    Two examples may be useful to help describe the potential impacts the proposed rules would have on our members. The first involves Bob O'Neal, who drives straight away from Cleveland, Ohio, to Washington, D.C. That requires him to stay one night away from home in Washington, D.C. And when he returns he stays in his home that night. He will only work four trips, four out and two in. He will have two days off before he goes back to work on the second leg.
 Page 102       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Also, the second involves Steve Evans, who drives a turnaround from Cleveland to Cincinnati. A turnaround run means Steve will be driving a loop in one day and end up back in his hometown.
    These rules that are being proposed today would drastically impact these schedules. Both of these drivers operate out of the terminal in Cleveland, Ohio, and their schedules would have to be restructured if the new rules were implemented, affecting not only the level of service, but their earnings as well. Overall the proposed rules would eliminate 38 percent of the runs currently operating out of Cleveland, including 28 regular runs as a result of problems arising from restructuring of routes to fall within the proposed perimeters.
    We should also note that we multiply that by 80 cities. We will lose 2,400 regular jobs, and that is 2,400 of the highest seniority people and if they are over 55 they are going to retire. They won't work under these conditions.
    Mr. PETRI. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Flanagan.
    Mr. FLANAGAN. I have one more part. Based on the above, we strongly believe that the recommended course of action for the U.S. Department of Labor and Congress is to give separate consideration to any modifications of the existing hours of service rules. Both passenger and operator safety would be best enhanced by further study and analysis to determine why and whether any changes are needed in the existing rules and regulations as applied to operators within the intercity bus and transit industries.
    The rules as presently implemented have produced an amazingly safe record of operations within the motor coach industry. Indeed, in a recent special report released by the National Transportation Safety Board, the NTSB called motor coach travel one of the safest forms of transportation in the United States. Our record, Greyhound's record, and the industry record support this conclusion, and to add to what has already been said, no study has ever been made with Greyhound drivers on the impact that these rules would have on us.
 Page 103       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.
    Mr. PETRI. Mr. Heller.
    Mr. HELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dave Heller, and I am Vice President of Risk Management for US West.
    The impacts of the proposed changes upon our operations extend well beyond what the Department of Transportation could have envisioned. We strongly recommend that these proposed regulations be withdrawn and reconsidered. In addition, we believe that drivers of utility service vehicles should be exempt from the hours of service regulations.
    US West is a public utility, and you have heard much about utilities throughout the day, providing telecommunications services to 14 Midwestern and Western states. We manage over 4,200 commercial drivers, covering a vast area from Minnesota to Washington to Arizona and New Mexico. Our overall fleet consists of over 17,000 vehicles, only about 3,500 of which are regulated by the DOT, averaging 145 million miles per year.
    However, our network technicians who operate the utility vehicles of our fleet average less than 40 miles a day per driver. The average trip takes 15 minutes and the technician only rarely drives more than 1 hour per day. Driving constitutes approximately 11 percent of their total workday.
    Almost without exception these drivers return home every night. They are closely supervised on a daily basis. They drive to a specific location to perform utility service where they park their vehicle. The driving component of their workday is truly incidental to their function of repairing, installing, maintaining telecommunications utilities, and as such, they are considered incidental drivers.
    While the DOT proposed regulations recognize, quote, incidental drivers, close quote, in category 5, the Department will continue to regulate these drivers in much the same manner as they regulate drivers whose primary function is to move goods from location to location or from coast to coast. In fact, much reference today is to the transportation industry, which we don't consider ourselves to be a part of.
 Page 104       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Take a moment and consider how your life is has changed when telecommunications service is down, no basic telephone service, no 911 service, no access to police, fire, ambulance or other emergency services, no e-mail, fax, conference calls, no e-commerce.
    Recently our network technicians were sent to Los Alamos, New Mexico, to respond to a fire catastrophe. This event was declared an emergency by the Federal Government, and under the current hours of service rules, we were temporarily exempted from hours of service rules to have the flexibility to meet the needs of fire victims. As we move network technicians from their daily assignments to meet these emergency needs, our resources can be pushed to the limit. Once additional crews are sent to support recovery operations we are still confronted with maintaining critical information services now with limited resources.
    I think it is also worthwhile to point out that what we consider to be the emergency is not the tree that fell on the line or the ice storm or the flood or the fire. It is the fact that service is out and it doesn't really matter under what circumstances the service has been disrupted. Should a third party cable cut, for example, occur, disabling 911 service, we still have to dispatch crews and equipment to restore these services as quickly as possible. While this cut is not a declared emergency under the rules, it does present a potential emergency situation for those people and businesses without phone service.
    The technicians who remain to service that cable cut are regulated by the hours of service rules. They may have to be sent home when they are almost finished with the repair work on this type of emergency strictly because they have reached their limit under the hours of service limit. This inhibits us from meeting our core responsibilities of maintaining an essential public service.
    Under the proposed rules, the one utility exemption which we currently have is being taken away. That exemption allows utilities to bring—driving employees back to the job after a 24-hour break. This utility exemption was created under the National Highway Act of 1995 and represented an acknowledgment by the Congress that utility drivers differ significantly from the driving industry in that they perform services to restore public utilities, driving is not a major part of the job and needed flexibility under the rules to perform this utility repair service.
 Page 105       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Under the proposed rule, some of the obstacles which we will face include utility drivers will now have to spend two consecutive nights off before returning to work to provide utility service. If we interrupt a designated weekend schedule by a phone call to a driving employee in an attempt to coordinate our crews, the clock on that utility driver's off duty time must start over. Utility drivers will have as much as two hours less per day in which they can repair and maintain service.
    Today, we enjoy the benefit of being able to work for 15 hours. Under these rules, there would be a two-hour rest period included in that time.
    Today, it is imperative that you understand how these rules are going to impact our delivery of service to the public. US West's mission is in part a public safety responsibility. We have obligations under both FCC and various state regulatory commissions under which we operate to maintain the telephone system for emergency response to meet the safety needs of the public, whether these are the result of a federally declared emergency or a cable cut in your neighborhood. Further, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has recognized that Type 5 drivers have one of the lowest estimated fatigue-related crash rates that the agency has found for the last 5-year period for which data was available.
    The experience of US West during periods of declared emergencies and the lifting of hours of service rules have demonstrated no apparent rise in our motor vehicle accident rates. Furthermore, no significant difference has been observed in our DOT accident rate experience in those States with exemptions when compared to those States without exemptions.
    DOT's proposed regulations inhibit our mission to provide the critical systems that protect the general public. The FMCSA has failed to demonstrate that our technicians present a threat to the public. We contend that our utility technicians are different. Our utility drivers are incidental drivers and that utility drivers should be exempt from hours of service regulation.
 Page 106       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I want to express our thanks to Congressman Terry for his interest in this issue and would be glad to entertain any questions.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you for your testimony.
    Mr. Cole.
    Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wisconsin Electric is a subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy Corporation, providing electricity, natural gas and steam services to nearly 2 million customers in Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
    I am also here on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute, the association of the Nation's investor-owned electric utility companies. I am gratified to hear all of the members' comments of concerns regarding the impact of the proposed regulations on utility service s and customers, and Mr. Heller and I did not collaborate prior to our testimony here.
    The Department of Transportation hours of service proposed rules are primarily concerned with highway safety for longhaul trucking, but the proposed rule also classifies our electric and gas distribution crews in the same category as commercial over-the-road and delivery drivers. We believe the hours of service proposed regulation should be rewritten to grant utility service workers the same exemption given to fire and police officers, which would be a change from today's existing rules.
    This issue is particularly important to my company and virtually all investor-owned utilities. Wisconsin Electric is a mid-sized utility. We have about 27,000 miles of primary electric distribution lines and about 8,000 miles of gas main. Our fleet includes nearly 1,000 heavy duty service vehicles. Over 400, or 40 percent, of these service vehicles require the drivers to have CDL operators licenses. Our crews only spend an average of one to two hours a day driving some 20 to 50 miles in their trucks and rarely travel over 100 miles, even in rural areas.
    As you can see, driving is incidental to our primary function. Therefore, utility workers drive. They are not drivers who do utility work.
 Page 107       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We support the Department's goals of reducing fatigue-related vehicle accidents on our Nation's roadways. However, we believe classifying our line and gas distribution crews in the same category as commercial over-the-road and delivery drivers is based on erroneous information and assumptions about the nature of the work performed by utility service personnel. The classification error could potentially compromise public safety by delay and complicating emergency dispatch of utility crews, undermine the reliability of electric and natural gas service and unnecessarily increase the cost of activities involving utility service vehicles. These costs are passed along to consumers without additional public safety benefits.
    It is important to know that exempting utility service workers from the proposed regulations does not leave us without a safety net. The utility industry focuses intensely on employee safety and has a deeply ingrained safety ethic. Line mechanics and other utility employees routinely work with energized high voltage equipment and high pressure gas facilities where a mistake can lead to serious injury or death, and they often must work under extreme adverse weather conditions. That is why utilities have well-established and aggressive safety programs to ensure employee and public safety and a driving safety record that is significantly better than the industry average.
    The Department of Transportation provides an exemption from the proposed rules of service for utilities under emergency conditions declared by a government entity. However, declared emergencies are the exemptions for utilities, not the rule. Day-to-day minor emergencies often pose significant risks to public safety and require immediate response by utility personnel. They involve both loss of service and/or critical facility maintenance and repair. In fact, at Wisconsin Electric we receive an average of about 30 hazard calls every day, most of which are from police and fire departments asking us to respond immediately to situations in our service territory. We believe that it is impractical, if not impossible, to continuously ask for required emergency relief in these types of situations.
 Page 108       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    In conclusion, we believe that the current and proposed HOS regulations delay and complicate the dispatch of utility service personnel. They place unnecessary obstacles in the way of our efforts to assure the highest levels of public safety and electric and gas system reliability. The proposed regulations promote an even more expensive and less responsive service to the public without demonstrating an increase in public safety. In the best interests of public safety and reliable utility service, we respectfully submit that the HOS rules be rewritten to grant utility service vehicle drivers the same exemption assigned to firefighters, police officers and other emergency response providers.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to comment.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Cole.
    Mr. DeMoss.
    Mr. DEMOSS. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Ed DeMoss, and I am President of the Risk Management Division of Clarkson Construction Company in Kansas City, Missouri. I am here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America.
    Before my life began in the construction industry I was a Missouri State trooper. My two careers have given me a unique perspective on how the hours of service regulations actually work in highway construction. AGC appreciates the opportunity to testify before this committee concerning the Department of Transportation's proposed hours of service regulations. AGC strongly opposes DOT's proposed hours of service regulation and believes these proposed regulations are directly contrary to Congress' directive to DOT in the National Highway Safety bill of 1995 and TEA–21. The proposed hours of service regulation do not address the unique driving operations within the construction industry, and if adopted these regulations will increase the time and cost requirements to complete and rebuild our highway infrastructure. The longer it takes to finish the hundreds of safety-related projects across the Nation, the longer motorists are going to be stuck in traffic congested work zones and longer construction workers are going to be exposed to the hazards of working in the highway work zone.
 Page 109       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    AGC has argued for decades that the hours of service one-size-fits-all regulations are unduly burdensome to the construction industry. The regulations were intended to regulate the longhaul over-the-road driver and not the short haul construction drivers.
    In 1995, Congress recognized that the hours of service regulations were too restrictive to the construction industry. The NHS bill modified the regulations for construction drivers to allow a reset of the on-duty clock to zero after a construction driver has 24 or more consecutive hours off duty. Now DOT seeks to eliminate the 24-hour reset for construction drivers without any evidence that the 24-hour reset was not in the public interest or had an adverse impact on the safety of commercial motor vehicles. In fact, the proposed 71-page DOT regulations on the HOS only mentions construction activities eight times without any—now DOT seeks to eliminate the 24-hour reset for construction drivers without any.
    Congress created the exemption for the construction industry in recognition of the unique problems faced by the industry's drivers. These unique problems include seasonal limits of construction work, specialized construction materials that must be put in place within time limits that are time and temperature sensitive, drivers spending much of their time not driving but actually waiting to pick up and deliver construction materials, and drivers under constant supervision as they return continuously to the job site or the source of the materials.
    Now in 1998, Congress passed the TEA–21 whereby Congress made a long-term commitment to invest in providing and improving the American infrastructure. The proposed hours of service regulations threaten to shortchange America's infrastructure improvements. The proposed regulations place new unnecessary restrictions on construction drivers that will force contractors to use more shifts to complete projects, which will require hiring more drivers, and as you have heard, there is a shortage of drivers available nationwide. Furthermore, because of the seasonal nature of construction and other weather disruptions, it is difficult to find construction drivers because they cannot be guaranteed full-time work for 12 months.
 Page 110       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    A construction season is normally 1,500 to 2,000 hours long depending upon the weather. A construction worker, be it a driver, a craft worker, tries to get as many hours as they can because they know it is seasonal. They need the work hours to support their families and they need the overtime hours.
    State legislators have also identified the unique nature of the construction industry. Sixteen States have granted less restrictive requirements within the so-called tolerance guidelines for their intrastate programs which permit extended on duty time and driving time. There is no evidence to show that the 16 States that have adopted less restrictive requirements for construction drivers have experienced any negative impact in safety.
    Safety is a key element in reducing overhead and insurance costs for construction companies. High claims equal high premiums which equals losing your competitive edge and being the successful low bidder on a construction project.
    In closing, safety is taken very seriously in our profession. At a minimum it is imperative that the Federal guidelines adopt the tolerance guidelines for construction drivers, and our industry needs to retain the 24-hour reset provisions as directed by Congress in 1995. The 24-hour reset has been beneficial to the construction industry, and we are pleased to say it has not caused any detrimental consequences to the safety of the motoring public or construction drivers.
    AGC has established a task force that is developing recommendations for a construction driver classification that will ensure our drivers remain focused on maintaining an impeccable safety record.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Birkhead.
    Mr. BIRKHEAD. Mr. Chairman, my name is Price Birkhead. I am the Manager of Fleet Safety and Compliance for Frito Lay, Incorporated. I am testifying today on behalf of the Snack Food Association. SFA is an international trade association representing more than 800 manufacturers and suppliers to the snack industry.
 Page 111       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I ask that a complete copy of my statement be included in the record.
    Mr. PETRI. It will be and we appreciate your summarizing.
    Mr. BIRKHEAD. Collectively, SFA's domestic snack manufacturers operate over 30,000 trucks in all weight categories to perform a variety of functions. The majority of SFA vehicles are less than 26,000 pounds, and the majority of the industry's drivers are engaged in local route sales and delivery activity.
    While today I testify on behalf of SFA, most of our concerns are also shared by a wide range of other industry sectors that SFA has been working in coalition with as we review and analyze the proposed revisions to the hours of service regulation. These groups include the Air Conditioners Contractors of America, American Bakers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, Bell Atlantic and other representatives of the telecommunications industry, Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers Association, Food Distributors International, Food Marketing Institute, Grocery Manufacturers of America, International Mass Retail Association, National Beer Wholesalers Association, National Roofing Contractors, National Soft Drink Association, National Turkey Federation, National Association of Wholesalers and Distributors, Wine and Spirit Wholesalers of America, U.S. Custom Harvesters, Incorporated, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And while each of these organizations is going through its own internal review process we share a concern that is common among us about the negative impact that this regulation will have not only on our productivity but on the potential for the proposal to actually reduce safety rather than to improve it.
    If I leave you with only one message for today, it is that the proposed revisions to the hours of service regulation will not just affect what is traditionally known as the transportation industry. Every sector of the economy is dependent on the timely and efficient flow of materials in the marketplace with a wide range that operate trucks to deliver their goods to their customers. And at the outset let me say that SFA member companies are committed to highway safety and to the safety and well-being of their employees.
 Page 112       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Thousands of SFA member companies employees are covered by the hours of service regulations. These include everything from an over-the-road driver to a route sales and delivery driver, some of these who only drive very short periods each day.
    The proposed rule would create five type s for purposes of the hours of service regulation. SFA has maintained for many years that incidental and local drivers and those who operate small commercial vehicles should be regulated differently than over-the-road drivers of heavy vehicles. Despite this noteworthy effort by FMCSA to accommodate the diversity in work patterns, we believe that the scheme that has been developed by the agency would create far more problems than it solves and would result in a less safe driving environment than what exists today under the current regulations.
    Some of the issues that we have regard the weekend requirement. Restricting a driver's nighttime work activities would greatly increase accident exposure by forcing more vehicles on the road during these peak traffic hours. Recognize, please, that our customers require that our products be delivered in the very early hours of the day, often before 6:00 a.m.
    In addition, there will be a need for additional drivers. The roads would become less safe under this regulation proposal because it would result in the hiring of a vast number of inexperienced drivers. The American Trucking Association has already estimated that the Nation already needs an additional 180,000 drivers under the current regulations. The new proposal would require more inexperienced drivers to be added.
    Off duty interpretations require that the proposed rule would recommend that any contact while off duty would restart the individual's clock. Mandatory break times where the individual must take two hours worth of break times at any time that the employee feels that it would be necessary not only disrupts the distribution system but also the parking issue, as has already been previously mentioned.
 Page 113       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    In the meantime, SFA suggests that there may be a better approach to regulating hours of service for drivers of smaller commercial vehicles that are engaged in local commerce. By its own admission, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has concluded that these drivers are not the problem and that their numbers reveal that a dramatic difference in crash experience of local and other trucks with the local single unit vehicle, being 20 times less likely to be involved in a fatigue-related crash. Instead of a highly prescriptive requirement that would severely disrupt the distribution and delivery systems, FMCSA should consider targeting its limited enforcement resources towards those trucks which are most likely to be involved in serious accidents, and one way to do this would be to limit the application of the hours of service regulation to the same category of vehicles which are already covered by the commercial driver's license requirements and the drug testing and alcohol testing requirements, which are those trucks which are greater than 26,000 pounds.
    We appreciate the subcommittee's interest in this topic. We stand ready to assist both the FMCSA and the subcommittee in recrafting this proposed rule in a manner which would improve highway safety rather than disrupting our distribution system and causing a less safe driving environment.
    Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Peterson.
    Mr. PETERSON. Good afternoon. My name is Jim Peterson. I am involved in a family held construction and highway and heavy construction company in northern Wisconsin. Today I am testifying on behalf of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association as the President of the Contractors Division.
    ARTBA represents 5,000 firms and public agencies and is the only national association that exclusively represents the collective interests of all sectors of the U.S. transportation construction industry. First, I want to thank the Subcommittee on Ground Transportation and its esteemed Chairman Petri from Wisconsin and the Ranking Member Rahall for convening this hearing on the proposed hours of service of drivers regulations.
 Page 114       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    These proposed regulations could have a dramatic impact on the transportation construction industry. We believe the U.S. DOT has not fully considered all the possible ramifications of its proposed regulations on the motoring public or on our industry.
    We strongly support efforts underway in the fiscal year 2001 transportation bill to put the proposed rules on hold and support a bill before this committee sponsored by Representative Terry, H.R. 4511, to do the same. I have submitted a more detailed testimony for the record and would like to highlight just a few of these points for you now.
    We are here today to discuss a subject that is very dear to myself and every other member of ARTBA, highway safety. Mr. Chairman, the most troubling aspect of the statistics of 40,000 drivers killed on America's highway is that the death rate can be lowered. In some instances, a simple low cost safety improvement such as installing traffic signals, improving illumination or installing guardrails can solve safety problems.
    Members of this committee recognized this dilemma 2 years ago when you led the passage of Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century called TEA–21. We applaud your efforts in recognizing that the investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure can indeed save lives. Unfortunately, the U.S. DOT's new proposed hours of service rules treat the transportation construction industry as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If implemented in their present form, the proposed rules will have an adverse impact on our industry.
    Mr. Chairman, as you know, road construction work zones often cause congestion and delays and are one of the most dangerous places in terms of highway safety. About three-quarters of all fatal large truck work zone crashes occurred during the day, 72 percent. Almost six times as many fatal large truck crashes occurred on weekdays as opposed to weekends. The data is clear. The most dangerous times for trucks to be traveling through the work zones is during daylight hours during the workweek.
    As a contractor over the last 40 years, nothing hits home more than having to make that dreaded phone call informing a spouse that their loved one has been injured or, worse yet, killed on the job. We believe the proposed regulation could actually have the perverse effect of decreasing work zone safety.
 Page 115       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Everyone agrees the new regulations would substantially increase truck traffic during daylight hours in the workweek, the very time it is already the most dangerous for trucks to travel through work zones. We find this unacceptable.
    We are also concerned that new proposed regulations will adversely affect our members perform their work and threaten their ability to complete projects in a timely manner. On average most of the work done within our industry is within a 40-mile radius of an employee's operating location and very little time is spent actually driving as opposed to loading or unloading.
    Tom Walker told me yesterday, who is head of the Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association, in his discussion with the DOT, State of Wisconsin, does not see a problem with the present intrastate regulations. Quite frankly, I think the people in Wisconsin are better able to determine what is best for that State rather than the U.S. DOT.
    The transportation industry is unique also because our work schedules are dictated by outside forces that have absolutely no control over that we do. By far the most important factors in determining our work schedule is weather, workload, owner or State DOT mandated work schedule. Other factors range from the need to avoid interrupting rail traffic to working around the mating season of endangered species.
    Mr. Chairman, my written testimony outlines several specific concerns we have within the proposed regulations. Specifically, we have big problems with the weekend rest requirement in the proposed rules and mandated break time for employees to be taken.
    Thank you for listening to ARTBA's views on the subject. I will be happy to entertain any questions.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Mr. Pascrell, any questions?
    Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Madar, you stated that many drivers currently operating under the 70 hours, 8-day rule would be faced with a loss of income. If the drivers accrue 70 hours in 8 days would they also accrue roughly 60 hours in 7 days, the amount proposed in the rule? I am not asking this adversarily. What am I missing here? How does this really impact upon your workers in your eyes?
 Page 116       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. MADAR. It actually depends what drivers we are talking about, and as I stated, we have drivers that operate in all five of the types of operations as defined by the Department of Transportation. Based on our preliminary analysis we do have drivers who would lose income because of the loss of work time, and I believe it would be the drivers who would be limited who are currently working 70 hours in 8 days who would now be limited to 60 hours in 7 days because of the mandatory work, the weekend and its entire impact on their schedule, which would be forced to be a 7-day schedule as opposed to an 8-day schedule.
    Mr. PASCRELL. I can see that as almost a contracting nightmare, trying to figure out the types of all types of these drivers and where they fit and now you move into another category when the rule is changed. I could see that as a major problem. Well, I am sure that all of the unions have been asked to submit information and comments so that we can avoid those, whatever we decide on, whenever it is implemented, that we will be on the same page. I would hope in an ideal situation that that would be the conclusion, and that is really all I have to ask, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Terry.
    Mr. TERRY. Thank you. Is it Madar?
    Mr. MADAR. Madar.
    Mr. TERRY. Thank you. The focus of my questions, as you have probably heard in the past, is focusing on the safety aspect of the proposed rule and the current rule. I am trying to figure out what we are actually capturing. So you represent a good portion of the drivers out there and the class that will be impacted the most. Are you aware of any studies or even anecdotal evidence, and offer your best guess, of how many wrecks could be avoided by lowering the number of hours that is proposed by this new rule in comparison to the current rule and the accidents—of course this is focusing on fatigue—that would be in any way fatigue related?
 Page 117       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. MADAR. Congressman, I am not aware of any evidence or any data that would show what you are asking. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. But I am not aware of it.
    Mr. TERRY. Well, we asked Mr. Hart earlier, or I asked the same question, he couldn't answer how many fatigue-related accidents were caused by the tired driver below the current rule. So I am just trying to figure out where they have come up with these numbers and how they are convincing some good folks that there is going to be less fatigue-related wrecks out there when there is no evidence to support it. Does that concern your drivers?
    Mr. MADAR. Yes, it does. As I stated in my testimony, we like the fact that the FMCSA has increased off duty time but we are very concerned about the increase in the consecutive hours behind the wheel, and we don't see how FMCSA can justify 12 hours behind the wheel and say that it is actually a safety improvement over 10 hours behind the wheel. By my calculations it is a 20 percent increase of time behind the wheel, consecutive time behind the wheel, but FMCSA is justifying it by saying that it is actually a decrease over the hours behind the wheel in a 24-hour period, but the clarification that they are not making is that these 16 hours that a driver can put in behind the wheel in a 24-hour period under the current rules are 10 hours, an 8-hour rest time and another 6 hours of driving. So there is an 8-hour rest between those 10 hours and 6 hours of driving. So I don't see the comparison that the FMCSA is making.
    Mr. TERRY. I appreciate that. I think one of the—probably the underlying theme of this panel is just the diversity of our marketplace that is impacted by this particular rule. And one that sticks out at me probably because it is just one that I hadn't thought through as thoroughly as I have just the over-the-road trucking industry and that is the impact on road construction. So, Mr. Peterson, Mr. DeMoss, very succinctly, is there a way that we can quantify the impact on road construction by either, you know, extending the time line, shorter hours in construction to pull construction workers off because of additional traffic jams on the highways or just increase costs of construction materials? Have you been able to capture that? Am I off in thinking that those are two of the issues that could impact construction projects, road construction projects?
 Page 118       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. PETERSON. We are in the middle of a survey now to all of our members, but I will give you a personal observation. We had a project last year inundated with rain. We had 15 inches of rain on one project in about one-inch increments over a 3-week time span, put us 2 weeks behind. Our trucking operation predominantly was involved in bringing it back on schedule. Today a lot of projects are done and accomplished on rehab work half of the time under traffic. You excavate out a portion during the day, haul it away with certain trucks, some time in the afternoon you start back filling with that crushed aggregate base in order to get it open to traffic for the evening. We would extend our hours that evening for those drivers. Now in that particular instance they weren't hauling aggregate to a blacked out plant. So then we would work on some Saturdays to pick that time up on an overtime basis. I am sure the costs would be enormous if we had to change our mode because the drivers are part of an entire team in this instance.
    Mr. DEMOSS. It becomes a logistical problem, almost a nightmare, because contractors when we bid projects, there are special provisions within those projects and you have certain time frames that you have to meet, be it working around a hospital, an airport, a military air base, and then contractors also have to obtain overweight and overdimension permits which are only allowed to move construction equipment on off peak hours, not under heavy traffic. So by the time you have a driver moving the heavy piece of equipment, having to wait for an off peak period to move it in, to do the work, and then to have a section of roadway opened up within the time constraints in a project it becomes a logistical nightmare.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Cole, I just wonder, you I believe indicated the utility industry would like a total exemption from this proposed rule. Would you be willing to settle for the emergency exemption that is in the current law?
    Mr. COLE. The problem is that the current emergency exemption is too restrictive. Most of the emergency work that we do that requires overtime by employees is not a full fledged emergency. As a matter of fact, it may not even result in an outage for customers, but there may be critical system equipment or facilities that have to be maintained in order to provide for the integrity of service that the public may never see but requires overtime work on the part of our employees. So the emergency provisions in the rule does not at all address the situation that utilities find themselves in on a day-in and day-out basis.
 Page 119       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. PETRI. It doesn't address heroically averting an emergency so far as the public is concerned. It just addresses the needs of a cleanup crew after things have reached a point of breakdown.
    Mr. COLE. Exactly.
    Mr. PETRI. And you would prefer to be ahead of the game rather than behind it?
    Mr. COLE. Absolutely.
    Mr. HELLER. Mr. Chairman, if I might, just a point of clarification on that. When bad things happen the practical realities out there are if the bad things are not regional in nature or 'news getting'(a flood or an ice storm of a regional nature) a cable cut, a major cable cut where you have tens of thousands of customers down, no 911, hospitals isolated, those don't typically rise under the rules and aren't anticipated, we would argue under the current rules to give us the kind of emergency relief that we need, and yet it is the same impact as an ice storm or a flood or some other natural disaster. So it is both before and after, I think, from a utility perspective that the emergency exemption needs to be expanded.
    Mr. PETRI. Mr. Madar, I wonder if it might be worth hearing your views or you can reflect the view of your members or organization on the new monitoring technology. I mean the world is changing. For better or worse, there are pluses and minuses to all of this, and I know the rule contemplates I think monitoring the hours of service. We know there are problems with logbooks and all that, but on the other hand, sometimes a little flexibility actually is in everyone's interest because you can get the job done and get home, and I just wonder if you could care to comment on sort of the spirit with which you are approaching these monitoring proposals and what sensitivities you feel that Congress or the Department should have so far as they are concerned.
    Mr. MADAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the electronic on-board recorders, the Teamsters Union in the past, we have testified that we are not opposed to the use of on-board electronic recorders provided that there are some specific limitations on how they are used. We don't mind if they are used as logbooks. However, in the current proposal we don't see them as being the fix that DOT is proposing that they or claiming that they would be. They are not going to capture the time that currently under the current rules is considered on duty, not driving time. If the vehicle is not moving, the recorder has no idea what the driver is doing, whether the driver is unloading the vehicle or filling out paperwork or napping, OK.
 Page 120       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    But with regard to the other electronic on-board recorders, also known as black boxes, before the NTSB, for example, we have testified that they are not a problem per se, but their potential use or potential abuse is the problem that we see. I personally have heard stories from drivers who drove trucks that were equipped with devices that monitored RPM speed, RPMs of the engine, vehicle speed, hard braking. It was an entire monitoring system for the truck. Now this particular driver called me because he had been disciplined for not maintaining the average speed, the posted speed limit on the route that he was driving. When he explained to management that there was an accident in front of him and he sat in traffic for 20 minutes, his manager told him that he should have made up that time, which if you do the math, if you are going 40 miles an hour and you need to make up the average of 60 miles an hour, that means driving 80 miles an hour for the same time you were at 40.
    So you know we have problems with that kind of abuse of the data, but the devices themselves, provided there were stipulations on their use, we don't mind.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. We appreciate it.
    The final panel that is assembling now is made up of Mark Lee Edwards, who is the Managing Director for Traffic Safety of AAA, the American Automobile Association; Stephen F. Campbell, Executive Director of Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; Daphne Izer, Co-chairperson of Parents Against Tired Truckers, also know as P.A.T.T.; Mr. Henry Jazny, General Counsel, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; and Richard Gelula, Executive Director of the National Sleep Foundation.
    We welcome you all. I think we will begin with Dr. Edwards.

TESTIMONY OF MARK LEE EDWARDS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRAFFIC SAFETY, THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION; STEPHEN F. CAMPBELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE; DAPHNE IZER, CO-CHAIRPERSON, PARENTS AGAINST TIRED TRUCKERS; HENRY JASNY, GENERAL COUNSEL, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY; AND RICHARD GELULA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SLEEP FOUNDATION
 Page 121       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the opportunity to express AAA's views. In the interest of time, I would like your permission to insert our full statement in the hearing record and limit myself to a few brief remarks.
    Mr. PETRI. Without objection, and all statements will be made part of the record.
    Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. You have heard many points of view expressed on this issue today, and you will hear many after mine. I am willing to bet that you will find four facts that are confirmed by everyone who has spoken, and those facts are the basis for AAA's position on this proposed regulation.
    First, driver alertness is a major factor in crashes involving large trucks, and because it is a major factor and affects the safety of everyone's travel, it really deserves our attention.
    Second, the current hours of service regulations cannot produce a rested and alert driver. We have years of research on human sleep and the importance of sleep, and the existing hours of service regulations do not embrace what we already know about how humans behave.
    Third, there is no way that increasing rest can be bad for safety. The research tells us consistently that the major factors creating an unalert driver are lack of rest and the effects on each and every one of us of our personal biological clock. For AAA, the value of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's proposal is that it eliminates one of these factors, and that is the lack of rest, and in doing so, better conditions the driver to deal with the second.
    The fourth point I would like to leave you with is that I don't think at the end of this day in this room anyone is willing to accept the level of safety that is afforded by the present hours of service regulations that have been in place for over 60 years.
 Page 122       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    It is these four simple, straightforward facts that underlie the reason why AAA supports this effort to produce a more alert and rested driver. We believe strongly that the regulatory process should move forward. You can be assured that our specific suggestions for improving the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's proposal will be submitted in writing to the public docket. To reiterate, it is for these four simple, straightforward reasons that we support this effort to produce a more rested and alert driver. I look forward to your questions.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Campbell.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Stephen Campbell, the Executive Director of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. CVSA is an organization of commercial vehicle enforcement agencies and industry representatives in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Our mission is to achieve uniformity, compatibility and reciprocity of commercial vehicle inspections and enforcement activities throughout North America through effective motor carrier, driver, vehicle and cargo safety standards, as well as with compliance, education and enforcement activities.
    Mr. Chairman, we commend you for your leadership in calling this hearing. As with many others in government and the industry, we believe the hours of service is a very significant rulemaking that has the opportunity to dramatically affect commercial vehicle safety. CVSA praises the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the U.S. Department of Transportation for their hard work and effort in proposing the first significant change in commercial vehicle driver hours of service in 65 years.
    Mr. Chairman, I will briefly summarize the written comments that we have filed with the committee. From CVSA's perspective we believe there are four key elements in implementing an hours of service rule that enhances safety.
    First, correlation of research findings and crash analysis with the proposed rule. The proposal to create five categories of motor carriers from information contained in the preamble seems to be based on the following: Fatigue related crash history, the amount of driving exposure, and management's opportunity for direct control over the driver. We think this methodology has some merit. However, we also think the Department should provide better justification for crafting rules around five operational categories that are based upon the research findings and expected to reduce crashes. Although the motor carrier industry is not a one-size-fits-all business, it is not clear to us that the science speaks to the need for regulating different categories of operations.
 Page 123       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Second, ease of understanding. It is well documented that the current hours of service regulations are the most often cited violations during both roadside inspections and compliance reviews. This new hours of service proposal is more difficult to follow and understand. This in turn translates to problems with compliance and enforcement. The more complex the rules are, the easier it is to unknowingly and knowingly violate them.
    Third, uniformity in application and enforcement. The hallmark of CVSA's existence and its impact on commercial vehicle safety is our commitment to uniformity. The outgrowth and continuation of this commitment is embodied in the North American standard inspection procedures and the out of service criteria. Each year CVSA certified inspectors conduct over two million inspections all across North America. This provides us with an unmatched level of real world experience in commercial vehicle and driver safety.
    However, complexity affects uniformity in many ways. It creates difficulty and variation in interpretation. This delays understanding and application. It creates challenges to harmonization with State and local laws. It creates frustration which leads to misunderstanding. It creates difficulty in the development of training and educational tools. It creates an environment of subjectivity rather than objectivity.
    Fourth, the ease of enforceability. For many years the hours of service regulations have been the primary source of driver violations cited at the roadside and during compliance reviews. In quite a few instances, such violations are done unknowingly because either the driver was not aware of the requirements or failed to realize he or she was in violation because of a misunderstanding of the regulations. The enforcement community has the challenging responsibility of verifying compliance and discovering violations. It is important to recognize that the complexity of the proposed rule changes will necessitate considerable deployment of resources to effect those changes.
    On another issue CVSA supports requiring electronic on-board recorders as an enhancement to commercial vehicle safety. We believe the Department has used the appropriate methodology for carrying out this proposed requirement. If electronic on-board recorders will increase compliance with hours of service regulations and the proposed hours of service regulations reflect sound science and research on commercial driver fatigue and performance, then obviously crashes, fataliti es and injuries should be reduced once the regulations are in place and enforced.
 Page 124       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. Chairman, we are not raising our issues to find fault with the regulatory process. Rather, we are informing the Department and the subcommittee of the challenges that lie ahead in implementing the proposed rule. It is important to note that the current rules are difficult to comply with and enforce. We recognize our responsibilities as safety officials and will work with all the parties to be a part of the solution.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share some of our initial thoughts and views. We applaud the work that has been done to date and that which lies ahead. We believe improving safety is the right thing to do and it is good for business as well. We look forward to working with the Congress and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration as we take action to improve commercial vehicle and driver safety.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Ms. Izer.
    Ms. IZER. Mr. Chairman, my name is Daphne Izer, and I am Co-chair of Parents Against Tired Truckers. Before I begin I would like to say how deeply concerned and disturbed I am that a lot of what has been discussed here today has focused on the economic impacts of the proposed rules. The fact is the FMCSA has been charged with holding safety, not dollars, as its highest priority.
    Too many people have been killed or seriously injured as a direct result of truck drivers falling asleep while operating an 80,000-pound vehicle.
    P.A.T.T. Was formed when a longhaul truck driver fell asleep at the wheel and killed our 17-year-old son Jeff and his three friends 6 years ago. A parent's worse nightmare is having to bury their own child. We, along with thousands of others, will live this nightmare forever. We have gotten an education, and we know the issues in the trucking industry. P.A.T.T. Is now in 23 States with supporters nationwide, and we want nothing more than safer highway s for everyone.
 Page 125       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    P.A.T.T. Supports the establishment of rules based upon a 24-hour circadian rhythm which includes 12 hours of rest. P.A.T.T. Strongly opposes any increase in the current 10-hour driving limit. Research has shown that the risk of a crash increases after 8 hours and increases even more significantly after 9 to 10 hours.
    The trucking industry today exists on free labor from truck drivers. Problems with shippers and receivers is a major contributing factor to fatigue. The industry's own research has shown that drivers waiting at docks, loading and unloading, and not being able to sleep average 33 to 40 hours per week for many drivers. This time is usually logged as off duty because it is mostly unpaid time. That is a whole workweek for most of us.
    The economic incentive created by pay-by-the-mile and pay-by-the-load must once and for all be eliminated.
    Ms. IZER. Drivers must have some protection under the Fair Labor Standards Act and be paid for all time worked. Otherwise the same critical unsafe issues will remain with any new hours of service.
    We support the mandatory use of electronic onboard recorders to replace the manual logbook, or ''comic book,'' as it is referred to by everyone. This is a long overdue requirement. Without them, any other improvements in hours-of-service rules are a joke.
    We support the elimination of split sleeper berth time but we are concerned about the continued authorization for split sleeper berth times for team drivers. Sleep obtained in a moving vehicle is usually not quality, recuperative sleep.
    We support a requirement that drivers be told in advance when they will be returning to duty. Otherwise drivers will be called back to work without having a chance to get enough rest. We also support the required restart of off-duty time when the employer interrupts a driver's off-duty time.
    We support the concept of empowering drivers to refuse to drive when impaired by fatigue or illness. This right already exists in the current rule. We recommend that Department of Transportation coordinate with Department of Labor, republish the Surface Transportation Assistance Act poster 3113, and require that it be posted at any business that employs, contracts, or schedules commercial drivers.
 Page 126       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The rules should include a requirement to educate drivers, dispatchers, and other motor carrier staff about sleep, fatigue, and specifically fatigued driving. This educational element is extremely important because of current national attitudes toward sleep, fatigue and fatigued driving.
    We recommend that the proposed rule be combined with a national effort by DOT to address the serious lack of safe parking spaces for commercial drivers. Now that it has been finally accepted that drivers need more time to obtain recuperative sleep, they need to be given the space to park and obtain that sleep.
    Furthermore, rest area limits in a number of States create a real safety issue with drivers being awakened out of a deep sleep and made to move on.
    There is another study underway on rest areas. It is time for the studies to cease and real action to be taken. Sleep apnea screening should be included in all DOT physicals. Under absolutely no circumstances should new hours-of-service rules be delayed any longer. The time for change to begin is now. New rules must be supported by an aggressive, well-staffed enforcement program. New rules must be understandable.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the value of a human life has not been and will not be forgotten as we move forward to address this very serious problem. It is past time to make our highways safer for everyone. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Jasny.
    Mr. JASNY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member, and members of the committee. My name is Henry Jasny. I am general counsel of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a unique coalition of consumer, health, safety and insurance companies and trade associations working together to promote the adoption of highway safety policies and legislation that will reduce the number of deaths, injuries and crashes on our Nation's highways.
 Page 127       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I learned at a very early age from my father that if it ain't broke don't fix it. Unfortunately in this case, the current hours of service regulations are broke, and they need fixing. It has become increasingly apparent over the years that this safety standard is not doing the job that it is supposed to, to prevent commercial drivers from becoming fatigued and operating their vehicles at times when they pose a dramatic increased risk of a serious crash on the highways.
    Although commercial drivers are the backbone of the American economy, it can no longer be denied that a high percentage of them are on the road when they are sleep deprived and without the alertness that they need to safely pilot their large trucks and buses down our Nation's streets and highways. The sad truth is that the current hours-of-service rule is not working. Recent analysis performed by the motor carrier safety administration confirms what the safety community has known for years: At any given time during a work week, a high percentage of truck drivers are involved in crashes principally because their ability to stay alert and to react continuously to changing road conditions has been impaired by driving too many hours over too many days and trying to drive and work with insufficient sleep.It is clear that the primary reason for fatigued commercial drivers is the flawed hours-of-service regulation that was put in place back in 1938 and amended in 1962.
    The proposed rule by FMCSA has many enlightened features that are forward looking and which recognize the large adverse contribution that fatigue makes to annual truck crash figures. It also acknowledges the need to meet the demands of natural biological drives for rest and sleep.
    We have only made a preliminary review of the rule and its core supporting documents, including the cost-benefit analysis. While we agree with some of the major elements of the proposed rule, we believe that other facets of the draft regulation counteract these good proposals. The rule is very long and complex, and there are features which Advocates strongly supports.
 Page 128       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We have prepared a summary of both the good and bad points of the proposal, and along with our evaluation of the research that supports those changes that we will recommend to the proposed rule. I would like your permission to submit these two documents for the record.
    Mr. PETRI. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. JASNY. We will file very detailed comments with the docket before the closing date of October 30, 2000 and we stress here that although we believe that a number of elements of the draft rule should be changed, this proposal is generally a forward-looking document which recognizes the extraordinary contribution of fatigue to motor vehicle crashes and the need to reform the current standard to ensure that commercial operators work and rest in accordance with the basic biological drives keyed to a 24-hour clock.
    I want to make clear that Advocates supports the action of the agency to provide a draft regulation for public notice and comment. The FMCSA has just extended that comment period for public input and is holding public hearings so that interested parties can get their views on the record for the benefit of the agency and for the rest of the public.
    The FMCSA has repeatedly asked for public input since the start of the rulemaking, and asked how it could redraft the proposal to make it better, stronger, more enforceable and safer, and I heard the acting administrator state that today. We strongly support the agency's approach in terms of the process and the procedure. The agency is using the informal rulemaking notice and comment procedures and the Administrative Procedure Act exactly in the way that they were intended.
    Accordingly, Advocates is convinced that the best way to address the shortcomings of the draft legislation is to let the informal rulemaking process run its course. Our comments will be part of the docket as will the comments of other groups which have been represented here today and many others who have attended public meetings or been unable to attend those meetings. We will show in those comments how the FMCSA can build upon the good features of this draft proposal by refining its regulatory scheme in ways that can reap dramatic benefits for safety and advance motor carrier safety for the public.
 Page 129       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I want to stress that the benefits of a better hours-of-service regulation are not just better annual overall crash numbers for big trucks and buses, especially when they tangle with smaller passenger vehicles, but the improved safety and well-being of America's truck drivers. These hundreds of thousands of dedicated commercial drivers are being pushed beyond their reasonable limits of endurance and safety. As a result, we all suffer the tragic consequences when their margins for error are made paper thin because of operating demands that can only produce exhausted drivers whose personal safety, along with the safety of those who share the roads with them, is placed in jeopardy.
    We thank you for the invitation to present our views on this crucially important safety topic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Gelula.
    Mr. GELULA. Thank you. My name is Richard Gelula. I am executive director of the National Sleep Foundation, an independent science-based nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public health and safety. We work to increase public understanding of the importance of sleep, the need to recognize and treat widely prevalent sleep disorders, and the consequences of sleep deprivation, not getting enough sleep.
    Included in my written testimony are two documents that I ask be included in the record of these proceedings. The first is the National Sleep Foundation position statement regarding hours-of-service rules for commercial drivers, fatigue interventions and countermeasures, that was developed by a task force of and unanimously approved by the National Sleep Foundation and released at a press conference this past February 24. It is also available on our Web site, sleepfounation.org.
    Our position statement, like the DOT proposal, started with a review of the 1998 report prepared by an expert panel for the Federal Highway Administration. It is our opinion that the panel's report represents an objective analysis of the scientific research and its implications for commercial driving.
 Page 130       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The second document I am providing the committee is the testimony we presented 3 weeks ago before the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration which is more detailed.
    This document states our opinion that the proposed rules are similar in fundamental principles to the position adopted by the National Sleep Foundation which are intended to provide a public safety benefit to all Americans who use our Nation's highways, especially the commercial drivers themselves.
    The remainder of my testimony will summarize a few key issues that we feel should be brought to the committee's attention.
    Mr. PETRI. Both of those documents will be made a part of the record.
    Mr. GELULA. Thank you. A great deal has been learned about sleep and fatigue since hours-of-service regulations were first developed in 1938. We now understand the sleep-wake cycle as a biological interplay of the homeostatic drive to sleep and an opposing circadian alerting drive. These two natural forces, together with the quality of obtained sleep and behaviors affecting sleep sufficiency, interact in a complex way that determine the timing of sleep and our varying degrees of alertness that we experience throughout the day, evening or night.
    Research studies conducted for NASA, the Department of Defense, NIH and others have demonstrated increased fatigue and diminished alertness and performance when sleep schedules or the quality of sleep are disrupted or altered. The sleep factors which most diminish neurobehavioral test performance, which includes driving, are insufficient sleep, irregular sleep times, working against the natural day-and-night circadian cycle, untreated sleep disorders, and use of sedating medications.
    To appreciate the value of the proposed recommendations, the knowledge that we have about sleep and fatigue should be contrasted to actual circumstances among commercial drivers today. Essentially, the current hours-of-service regulations set up conditions that at the very least ensure the threat of fatigue and sleepiness and that it is present for all drivers.
 Page 131       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    First, studies have found that truck drivers have shorter sleep times than the general population. This was reported in a major study in the New England Journal of Medicine, a fully peer-reviewed top medical-science journal. They generally have about 5 hours of sleep per 24-hour cycle, not even the 7 hours that these drivers felt was ideal for them, or 8 hours of continuous sleep that is recommended for optimal performance.
    Second, recent studies indicate a higher than average number of commercial drivers suffer from sleep disorders which frequently cause excessive sleepiness.
    Third, for long-distance drivers or those involved in continuous operations, the current rules establish an artificial 18-hour work-rest schedule which creates an irregular sleep-wake cycle. By failing to synchronize with the 24-hour clock, the current rules cause an irregularity that results in virtually the same conditions for drivers as jet lag from a transoceanic flight—certainly not ideal conditions for driving a 20- to 40-ton vehicle at high speeds on shared highways.
    Fourth, many commercial drivers on long-haul excursions, or because of delivery schedules, are likely to drive through the night. As would be predicted by laboratory studies which demonstrate reduced alertness during these hours when we are biologically programmed to be asleep, a higher rate of fall-asleep truck crashes occur between the night and 6 a.m. That is rate, not number.
    Finally, attention, alertness and performance studies have found that sleep disruption and sleep deprivation result in impairment that is a functional equivalent to alcohol intoxication.
    In sum, the proposed DOT regulations are based on what is known about maintaining driver vigilance, a key criterion of safe and effective vehicle operation. The single most important aspects of the proposed regulations are to establish hours of service on a standard 24-hour cycle, to allow drivers enough time to obtain sufficient sleep, to recognize the need for recovery sleep to offset the effects of prolonged overnight driving, and to monitor on-board and enforce the rules.
 Page 132       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    This proposal translates into creating safer conditions for commercial drivers and all Americans. It is asked, are these proposed rules fair? We can say in all honesty that it is unfair to require one set of individual workers to trade off sleep, a subordinate of good health, and impose very large risks on themselves and others for the benefit of our entire economy.
    Although it is a huge and critically important industry, at the present time some segments of the freight industry in particular may be incapable of establishing profitable rates without burdening their workers and setting up conditions that are potentially unsafe for others.
    Congress should ensure the safety of the workers in this industry and all who use our highways. We must create an economic equation that enables the freight trucking industry to positively deal with all of the factors that affect it, such as fuel costs, insurance costs, equipment costs, and interest costs, all of which are now rising, without creating risks by having drivers, the only flexible variable, work unrealistically long hours.
    Positively addressing hours of service as one of several variables in the larger economic context of commercial freight trucking would be a heroic service that Congress could provide for our critically important trucking industry, its courageous workers and the American people.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Gelula.
    Mr. Rahall, do you have any questions?
    Mr. RAHALL. I don't have any questions and I thank the panel for being here today. I have a message from Mr. Baldacci who said to tell you, Ms. Izer, he regrets a previous commitment which kept him from being back here this afternoon. He was here earlier, and he wanted to express his regrets for not being here.
    Mr. PETRI. Mr. Terry.
 Page 133       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. TERRY. Dr. Edwards, earlier I asked Mr. Heart the basis for their data that 15 percent of all truck-involved fatalities was fatigue related. He justified that basis by saying AAA says it is 41 percent. As someone that has worked in law, I have a hard time understanding the basis of that. Why don't you tell me now, since he has piqued my curiosity, how DOT has 6 percent, they have 15 percent and AAA has 41 percent?
    Mr. EDWARDS. I would be happy to answer your question. The tremendous variation in the estimates is frustrating to all of us because it makes it difficult to decide whether this is worth doing, and your question is directed to that point. That has been the history of our success in highway safety. If we focus on problems of a known size, then we make progress in safety. So, having a good estimate is important.
    I think the challenge we face in this instance is that our data systems and our science just don't do a good job of identifying that a person is fatigued after a crash has occurred. This is particularly true in the case of a fatal crash involving the death of the driver when there is little evidence left. In the case of a drug overdose death, for example, we can get good evidence. You pick your database and you get your answer.
    So, yes, I have seen estimates of 1 percent, 6 percent, 15 to 20 percent, 30 percent by the NTSB, and AAA's 41 percent estimate which is based on an earlier NTSB study. However large the problem is, it is clearly large enough that it deserves attention.
    Mr. TERRY. And I would agree with that statement. In assessing the utility and impact of the rule change, to me I think we should focus on the number of wrecks caused by fatigue that the driver falls under the number of hours permitted by the current rule. Have any of the studies that you have participated in, or AAA, helped us determine the number of fatigue-related accidents where the driver was actually in compliance with the current rule? And the follow-up would be how many would be in the gap between the proposed rule and the current rule?
 Page 134       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. EDWARDS. Actually, I don't know of anyone who has made that kind of national estimate. What we continue to find is that there are crashes in which drivers have violated hours-of-service rules or have suffered gross sleep deprivation that causes their crash experience. In an NTSB study to which I alluded earlier, they found that to be the case in about 30 percent of all crashes, but no one has ever come up with a national estimate.
    As we move forward in addressing this issue, we ought to understand and have good estimates of the benefits that would be derived from a new rule. If we can't do that now, we ought to make sure as we move through this process that we give ourselves the ability to do that. We see hours-of-service regulations as kind of 'a work in progress.'
    Mr. TERRY. I thank you for your participation in that process. No further questions.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Congressman Terry, I might add something to what Mr. Edwards has said. The State of Michigan, in conjunction with a program that is partially funded, and the DOT has done an analysis of fatal crashes in the State of Michigan; and it is not a national database but it is perhaps the most intensive look at fatal crashes involving commercial vehicles which has ever been done. The research from the past I believe it is 2 years, maybe 3 years of fatal crash analysis in the State of Michigan has indicated—and here we have a little bit of a definitional issue—but has gone through the process and they have developed a 40-page process of investigating fatal crashes to get at the issue, many of the issues that you ask about. Was the driver in violation of the hours-of-service regulations at the time of the crash?
    That is the only State that I know of that right now is collecting data in commercial vehicle crashes that asks the question what was the status of the driver at the time of the crash.
    There are some states, Minnesota is another, which has sort of taken the lead in this particular issue where they are looking at enhancing the crash reporting data system that is in use in a State to get that additional data, but there is not national data, as Mr. Edwards has indicated, in anything beyond that.
 Page 135       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I am a retired State police officer and I have investigated hundreds of fatal crashes, and checking off a block on the back of an accident report saying that the driver was fatigued is frequently the most intensive investigation that is done as to the condition of the driver. And that sometimes becomes difficult, particularly if the driver has been injured or killed.
    So there is a data lack there, and there are programs underway right now to cover that void because it is an important issue that needs to be answered first. Any new regulations that would be developed, as you are so adequately saying, need to show some improvement in that. That is hopefully what would come out.
    Mr. TERRY. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Mr. Oberstar.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so happy to see this panel. You are a breath of fresh air. I wish you were on earlier in the day when there were still folks in the audience who need to hear your message and more members who need to hear from this panel as well. I think fatigue set in on some of the members after several days and late hours at night in session and early morning back in session for other parts of our business.
    Mr. Campbell, as a former State patrol officer, police officer, they are some of my best friends from my years in service. When we were doing the speed limit legislation in the eighties it was a Highway Patrol officer who said to me—and it was the day before we had a markup on the bill and I was in Minnesota, and I met with the Highway Patrol, one of whom had just come from a tragic accident involving speeds of 80 miles per hour. And he said, ''Those are the speeds at which you see the torn aortas, and you can't put them back together. When you go back to Washington, tell them stop the speed.'' You are the ones who are on the front line, and you know better than anyone else that no autopsy reveals fatigue. I think Dr. Edwards referred to that in his testimony.
 Page 136       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. Izer, you come to us with a heavy burden, and I respect you immensely for telling a painful story but one in which you hope that some good can come out of this lost life. As my wife who died of breast cancer said, I hope some good will come from my battle with this disease. You hope similarly that some good will come from your loss. I am here to assure that this happens. We may come at it from different aspects, but we are here to see that other lives may be saved.
    Dr. Edwards, you provide a hopeful note in your comment or assessment of the proposed rule by saying it does increase rest by 50 percent, and you also say that they are living on an unrealistic 18 hour day. These are the common sense—you don't need a whole lot of science to tell you that that is wrong, a fourfold increase in fatigue-related crashes from midnight to 6am, over a period of years, but what you have cited as the periods of time in driving from the beginning of a shift to the point at which the greatest numbers of accidents occur, and you are no doubt familiar with this DOT study and Transport Canada.
    Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. There is a page with two revealing graphs that underscore points that I have been making for several years on aviation fatigue and trucking fatigue and railroad fatigue. A shift that begins at midnight and goes for 12 to 13 hours shows an early spike of drowsy episodes as the driver gets to the fourth, fifth and sixth hours of driving which are approaching the usual hours of awakeness.
    Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Another chart tracks drivers who started their shift at 7 a.m. and shows a fairly level incidence of drowsiness, until you get into the 10th, 11th and up to the 13th hour of driving, and then there is this sharp spike in drowsy episodes. That is the circadian-rhythm approach to this issue that we have to address, that pushing the body to perform at times when it normally does not—are the points at which fatigue sets in, drowsiness sets in and accidents occur; is that a fair summary?
 Page 137       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. EDWARDS. That sums it up quite well. We all have our best thoughts and our best acts in the morning, after we are well rested. You would expect the circadian rhythm to drive our crash experience late at night and late in the afternoon, and that is what that data shows.
    The reason why rest is important is that 80 percent of fatal crashes involving trucks and 90 percent of all crashes occur between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., so those are essentially daylight hours of operation. We can make it 6 a.m. to 8 p.m., and we get 70 and 80 percent, but the point being that most crashes involving trucks and cars occur during the daytime, and that is when we want a rested driver, and that is why nighttime rest is important. You have to produce a rested driver in order to improve safety during the day. The current regulations do not do that.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you.
    Mr. Jasny, the opposition to this rule or proposed rule has said that it is going to put more trucks on the road and will put more trucks on the road during daylight hours and will therefore increase, not decrease risk of accidents. The Advocates' testimony had some very significant references to that point, and I would like you to articulate them in your remarks.
    Mr. JASNY. Thank you. We pointed out in our testimony, first, that for nighttime driving, the rate of crashes is much higher, and so if you can move drivers from the nighttime to the daytime and they are rested, they are going to have a lower crash rate even though there are more vehicles on the road.
    Secondly, the number of vehicles that we are talking about, somebody said an estimate of 100,000, assuming that is an outside, that is just a drop in the bucket given the total number of vehicles. There are 200 million registered vehicles nationwide at any given time of the day. I don't know how many are on the road, but that is a minor increase, probably not statistically significant. And so the conclusions that have been stated earlier that there will be this sharp increase in the number of crashes is, I think, being pulled out of thin air.
 Page 138       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. OBERSTAR. It defies logic that there will be more trucks on the road if we were to implement this proposed rule, have the same number of trucks because there may be more drivers required by a company—but relatively the same number of trucks but more rested drivers on the road?
    Mr. JASNY. That is correct.
    Mr. EDWARDS. We have more vehicles on the road than we did in the 1960's, and the fatality rate in terms of crashes per licensed driver and per mile traveled is less than it was. We know that just increasing the number of vehicles on the road does not degrade safety. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Mr. Duncan.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again I apologize for having to come in and out, but I have had many other things going on today.
    Dr. Edwards, I notice that you described this proposed rule as a work in progress. I guess all of you would admit or realize that it is fair to say that there is tremendous opposition or concern to these proposed rules. I notice, Dr. Edwards, you say that the proposed rule increases the required rest time of drivers by 50 percent. Do you think that there is some way that we could improve or tweak what has been proposed here to in some way increase the rest time by some smaller percentage that would not be nearly as costly but would improve things over where they are now? And, for instance, you talk about some hours being more important than others for rest. Do you think that there is a way that we can say that drivers who drive during certain hours have to have more rest than perhaps others? I don't know. I am just looking for some guidance.
    Mr. EDWARDS. I do think that there is opportunity to look at alternatives to the proposal that might have the potential for producing rested and alert drivers with a less drastic change in the regulation as currently proposed. That is why we are urging that the process move forward so we have an opportunity to do that.
 Page 139       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    One of the comments that we will make to the public docket is to structure this 'work in progress' so that we have an opportunity to really understand whether these regulations or any regulation actually produces a more rested driver. That is a question we are only surmising would be the case. We are simply giving them the opportunity for more rest. All the data says if you provide an opportunity for more rest, you are going to get a benefit. Should it be 50 percent? I don't think that anyone can say with accuracy.
    Your question is on target. We ought to be flexible and give ourselves the opportunity to evaluate the effects of that flexibility on alertness.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Ms. Izer, I didn't get to hear your testimony, but I assume from the picture and the statements that you lost your son in an accident?
    Ms. IZER. Yes, sir. Our son Jeff, who was 17, and his three teenage friends were stopped in the breakdown lane on the Maine Turnpike in October 1993 when a long-haul trucker fell asleep at the wheel and ran over the top of the car.
    Mr. DUNCAN. There is no question that the worst thing that can happen to anybody is to outlive one of their children, and I certainly am sorry about that.
    What did you think earlier when you heard some of these other witnesses say if we did this rule the way that it is proposed, it would mean 100,000 more trucks on the road and that the roads, the highways would become less safe? Maybe you responded to that in your testimony, but I didn't get to hear your testimony. What did you think when you heard all that?
    Ms. IZER. I don't think that there will be more trucks on the road because drivers will be resting for longer periods and when they are on the road they will be more rested.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Some of you others, when you heard these tremendous estimates of cost like 100 billion here and 50 billion there, what was your reaction to that? Have any of you done cost estimates as to how much this is going to cost? Because, I mean, obviously we have to have some balance in what we do; because if you do something that costs several hundred billion, what happens is then you drive thousands of small businesses out and you maybe throw people out of work that wouldn't be out of work and that causes increased alcoholism and suicide. You have to be careful. That sounds far-fetched but it is true. Are some of these earlier witnesses just way off in their unbelievably high cost estimates? Do any of you know about the cost of this regulation?
 Page 140       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. JASNY. If I may, Congressman, we have not done any cost estimate. We are still analyzing the agency's cost-benefit analysis for the rule to see what effects it has. We look forward as part of the process of the rulemaking to see what is submitted by the speakers who came before on the prior panels to try to analyze their numbers. We have heard astronomical figures today which are hard to believe, but we look forward to analyzing what they stated so we can get a better idea.
    But as advocates for auto and highway safety, as Mr. Hart stated this morning that this is a new agency that was given a mission by Congress very recently, last year, and the FMCSA's mission is to make safety the highest priority. That is not to say that they are ignoring the cost issue, but their main goal is to figure out what is reasonable for safety out on the highways and see what they can do to ameliorate the cost issue. Their goal is to regulate in favor of safety.
    Mr. EDWARDS. We have done no estimates at AAA of the added economic burden that the proposed regulations would impose, and again the rulemaking process should make provision for doing that.
    One thing we know about these kinds of estimates is that they are never accurate. I think that has been the history of our experience in transportation. These kinds of estimates are just not accurate.
    But that point aside, understanding the effects of this regulation on the economy and mobility of the trucking industry is an important aspect in the debate and should not be overlooked. Obviously at AAA we do not think that it should be the number one priority, but we recognize that it is important. And it behooves all of us to understand what the effects on the economy will be if the proposed regulations go forward.
    So the short answer is I don't have a lot of confidence in the estimates because I know historically that we haven't had good estimates.
 Page 141       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. DUNCAN. Well, we all want our highways to be as safe as possible, but you have to make sure that you don't in solving one problem create even more problems. It is kind of like on the air bags. Good for some people but obviously they have ended the lives of some people, too. You have to be careful in what you do, I suppose.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I just have one area. We have been focusing on truck drivers, bus drivers, so on and everyone has indicated that fatigue is a big problem. Is there any thought about attempting to regulate all drivers and their fatigue? I know as a college kid, people were driving all nights. The human body, everyone is subject to the same 24 hours. Are we missing a bet by not looking a little more broadly or is the problem just the operators of commercial vehicles as opposed to other motorists?
    Mr. EDWARDS. I don't think that the problem is unique to the operators of commercial vehicles. We in AAA spend a lot of time giving advice to motorists about trip planning, in particular driving at night. The risk of crash involvement goes up about 30 percent at night. It goes up even more if you are a young and inexperienced driver. It goes up if you have consumed alcohol; and it goes up if you are an older driver. We have approached that issue from an educational perspective.
    We do carefully, in almost all transportation environments, manage operation at nighttime. We have not looked at that in the passenger car beyond straight forward educational messages.
    Mr. PETRI. Do you have any statistics on the safety of commercial drivers as opposed to the general public? Are—is the average citizen a safer driver or a less safe driver than the regulated industry?
    Mr. EDWARDS. Fatal crashes on a per-mile basis show that motor carrier drivers are safe drivers. They put most of their miles on our safest highways. And obviously every motor vehicle operator that spoke to you today does everything that they can to make sure that their drivers are safe, because if they aren't, it flows right to their bottom line. We have a good safety record when it comes to commercial motor vehicle carriers.
 Page 142       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The question is can we do something to make a safe record even better.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. I would like to return to Ms. Izer. Before I do, the Chairman made a valid point. It might be a good requirement of the House, after sessions concluding past 11 p.m. at night, we should be required to sleep on cots. We are a danger to ourselves, as well as anyone else on the road. I have caught myself in the midst of a doze more than once on the way home in the early morning.
    Ms. Izer, you request that the rules should require education of drivers on sleep. That is a good point. I want to direct your attention from the rulemaking, section 394.101, advisories. As a motor carrier, you should develop scheduling, dispatching, and operating practices to avoid the use of drivers who are not sufficiently well rested; maximize your knowledge of and ability to implement operational safety; educate your employees, shippers, receivers, brokers and others about the dangers and possible consequences of scheduling shipments that do not allow your drivers to obtain proper amounts of restorative sleep. It is in the advisory portion of the proposed rulemaking, and I would recommend that you get a good strong letter in to the DOT saying make this a mandatory part.
    Ms. IZER. Yes, sir, they will be hearing from us on that.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. I am sure that they will.
    Mr. Gelula, you raised questions about vigilance technologies, and suggested that drowsy-driving detection devices should not be a substitute for prescriptive measures because those can be measured and monitored. Would you expand on your statement? I think that is very instructive and very important.
    Mr. GELULA. If I understand your statement, we believe that there are human requirements for sleep and that the prescription should be sleep. And in fact, our approach to this is what are the requirements, the biological requirements for vigilance? We start sort of backwards, and then actually we have proposed more hours of allowable driving than some other advocates because we feel that 12 hours allowed for rest and sleep is sufficient to create a rested driver.
 Page 143       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Are you saying that—it might be useful to put monitors on the driver's head, or some other fashion, that measure when that person is getting drowsy, and sting the person or otherwise awake them to a condition of alertness or pull off the road? However laudable it might be, that is not a substitute for saying—for putting into place a rule that can be monitored and measured and requirements to be met, rather than just some wake-up device in the cab.
    Mr. GELULA. I don't think that we have called for a wake-up device of any sort.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. You are saying that any of those should not be used as a substitute for strong rulemaking.
    Mr. GELULA. Correct. We believe that the rules need to be enforced and monitoring devices should be there to facilitate enforcement.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Your statement—this is Mr. Jasny. The statement is there is no need to have more trucks on the road on any given day because with shorter work hours and a 24-hour work-rest cycle controlling time of driving, trucks and drivers will be off duty during the time other trucks are pressed into service.
    DOT estimates 49,000 more drivers potentially as a result of their rule, but that 49,000 more drivers does not necessarily mean 49,000 more trucks?
    Mr. JASNY. It could be the same number of trucks. While the cohort of drivers are resting and are off duty, other drivers are filling in those hours and driving those same trucks.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. You say there is no total increase in risk exposure for the trucking community, but shorter work hours per day with a positive result cited.
    Mr. JASNY. That is correct. And there are other efficiencies within the—where drivers are waiting for a load or having to work to load or unload freight, that those efficiencies—that other people could be doing that and the driver could stick to driving.
 Page 144       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Dr. Edwards, do you have any comment on that?
    Mr. EDWARDS. I do. The number of trucks on the road is driven by the volume and schedules of goods that have to be delivered. It seems to make a great deal of sense that what is going to happen if we change the rules, and the economy doesn't change, the number of trucks are not going to change so much as the number of drivers is going to change.
    I think Mr. Jasny's point is well taken. I don't know that anybody can give you an exact estimate. This allows opportunities for demonstration projects, and this is exactly the way that we need to go about answering this question. It is the economy that drives the volume of trucks that are on the road. And if our economy turns south, we will see fewer trucks on the road irrespective of what the hours-of-service regulations are.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Campbell, do you have any comments?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. No.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. There are many more questions we could pursue with this panel, but I very much appreciate these hearings, Mr. Chairman. I just want to voice one issue that I think should be addressed in this rule, and that is the problem a driver confronts when the load isn't ready or he has delivered the load and the receiver, the consumer, is not prepared to unload that truck or receive the materials.
    Those two points, at the beginning and end of a journey, create particular problems for drivers and can add to the hours of service. It should not be the fault of the driver.
    Mr. PETRI. Mr. Duncan.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, just one other thing. I heard Mr. McQauid speak earlier about the sleep police. And I want to ask, Mr. Campbell, you say in your testimony it is important to recognize that the complexity of these proposed rule changes will necessitate considerable deployment of resources to affect such changes.
 Page 145       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    What do you mean by that? How much considerable deployment of resources—how much of an increase would there have to be? I notice that you say later, this new hours-of-service proposal is more difficult to follow and understand. This in turn translates to problems with compliance and enforcement. Have you done any estimate or rough guess, or have you thought about how much more manpower or money or whatever it would take to enforce these rules?
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. We are in the process of determining that from all of our members, but we have done some preliminary work on that and we have some results of some of our surveys. Number one, somebody asked about additional cost. We have begun that process as well. The estimates that the Department of Transportation has in its proposal for the amount of training necessary to train new enforcement people we believe is woefully underestimated; probably by a factor of 3-to–4 to 1 it is underestimated.
    Regulations as proposed in this—that they are proposing right now are more complex. They have five types of driver operations and scenarios that would require enforcement people to be extremely knowledgeable about every one of those particular categories, and then have to come up with some enforcement way to determine who is who in those roadside stops. That becomes very difficult and very complex. In some cases a driver could be in two of those categories on the same day, based upon their operations. And you heard some of that earlier today. That becomes an enforcement difficulty. Read ''difficulty'' to be ''expensive.'' .
    There will have to be some additional training and considerable amount of thought given to how we are going to adequately enforce those regulations, because it is the State enforcement people throughout the United States, not the Department of Transportation, who does that enforcement at the roadside throughout this country. That is what will need to be done. The training levels will have to be enhanced and that will be expensive and time-consuming.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. It sounds to me like there is a whole lot of work that needs to be done before we go much further on these things.
 Page 146       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. JASNY. Mr. Chairman, one point on the cost issue, currently the estimate for the 42,000 plus, the highway deaths each year, is about $150 billion according to DOT. It is probably higher for the last year, and truck-related deaths are 13 percent of that total. So that cost association is upwards of $15 billion. If we can reduce that by 10 or 15 percent, we would accrue that savings and that should be factored into the consideration of the costs and benefits of the rule. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all and this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    [insert here]