    [House Hearing, 109 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETEA:LU

    =======================================================================

                                    (109-76)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 7, 2006

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    30-646 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2007
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax:  (202) 512-2250. Mail:  Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                          DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

    THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-    JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
    Chair                                NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
    SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York       PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         Columbia
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                JERROLD NADLER, New York
    PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan             CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan           BOB FILNER, California
    SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
    SUE W. KELLY, New York               JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
    RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana          California
    ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio                  ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
    GARY G. MILLER, California           BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
    ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina          LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
    ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut             TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
    HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina  BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    JIM MATHESON, Utah
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
    MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota           RICK LARSEN, Washington
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
    JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania            JULIA CARSON, Indiana
    MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida           TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    JON C. PORTER, Nevada                MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska                LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
    KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
    MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana           BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania        RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    TED POE, Texas                       ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
    DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington        JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
    CONNIE MACK, Florida                 JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
    LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
    LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

                                      (ii)

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

                      THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman

    SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York       PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       JERROLD NADLER, New York
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
    PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan             JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
    SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama              California
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    SUE W. KELLY, New York               EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
    RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana          ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
    ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio                  BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
    GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice-    SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
    Chair                                JIM MATHESON, Utah
    ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina          MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
    ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut             RICK LARSEN, Washington
    HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina  MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    JULIA CARSON, Indiana
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota           MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
    MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida           BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    JON C. PORTER, Nevada                RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska                ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
    KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
    MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana             (Ex Officio)
    DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    DON YOUNG, Alaska
      (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                   TESTIMONY

                                                                       Page
     Bushue, Sandra, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit
      Association, U.S. Department of Transportation.................     5
     Capka, J. Richard, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway
      Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation..............     5
     Glassman, Jacqueline, Acting Administrator, National Highway
      Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
      Transportation.................................................     5
     Hill, John H., Acting Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier
      Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.......     5
     Kaveeshwar, Dr. Ashok G., Administrator, Research and Innovative
      Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation...     5

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri.................................    95
    Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland............................    96
    Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................   102
    Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................   104
    Porter, Hon. Jon, of Nevada......................................   109
    Tauscher, Hon. Ellen, of California..............................   110

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

     Bushue, Sandra..................................................    32
     Capka, J. Richard...............................................    32
     Glassman, Jacqueline............................................    32
     Hill, John H....................................................    32
     Kaveeshwar, Dr. Ashok G.........................................    32

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    U.S. Department of Transportation:

      Responses to questions from Rep. Petri.........................    55
      Responses to questions from Rep. DeFazio.......................    77

                          IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETEA:LU

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, June 7, 2006

            House of Representatives, Committee on
                Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
                on Highways, Transit and Pipelines, Washington,
                D.C.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
    room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri
    [Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Mr. Petri. The Subcommittee hearing will come to order. I
    would like to welcome you to today's oversight hearing on the
    Implementation of SAFETEA:LU. The hearing will provide members
    with information on the progress of the Administration's effort
    to implement recently enacted surface transportation
    reauthorization. Members will be able to ask Department of
    Transportation officials questions about the implementation
    progress of new programs and regulatory action.
        SAFETEA:LU strengthens the national commitment to increased
    safety and reduced highway fatalities by increasing a new core
    highway safety improvement program funded at over $5 billion,
    almost doubling Federal funding for infrastructure safety. The
    new High-Risk Rural Safety Improvement Program targets funding
    for safety improvements on rural two-lane roads where over 60
    percent of all highway related fatalities occur. And the new
    Safe Routes to School Program funds sidewalk, trail and other
    infrastructure improvements that will encourage children to
    safely walk or bike to school.
        Funding for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
    and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration totaled
    $6.3 billion, more than twice the amount authorized for these
    safety agencies under TEA-21. SAFETEA:LU funds several programs
    that are specifically designed to improvement the movement of
    freight, including the new Coordinated Border Infrastructure
    Program, the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement
    Program, and projects of national and regional significance.
        Several new Federal Transit Administration programs were
    created in SAFETEA:LU, including Small Starts, a program
    specifically geared to funding lower cost, fixed guideway
    projects and the new Freedom Program, which provides formula
    funds to support transportation services for the disabled that
    go beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
    Act, to reach some of the 70 percent of people with
    disabilities who do not work simply because they don't have a
    dependable way to get to work.
        The modal agencies of the Department of Transportation have
    been very busy implementing these new programs and putting into
    place the changes in transportation policy made in SAFETEA:LU.
    Altogether, the are over 100 rulemakings, either legislatively
    mandated or required because of the creation of new programs or
    changes to existing programs.
        We have invited five modal administrators from the
    Department of Transportation agencies affected by the
    reauthorization bill to testify before the Subcommittee today.
    We welcome Mr. Richard Capka, from the Federal Highway
    Administration; Ms. Sandy Bushue, from the Federal Transit
    Administration; John Hill, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
    Administration; Jacqueline Glassman, from the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration; and Dr. Ashok Kaveeshwar, from
    the Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
        The record of the hearing will be held open for 30 days. I
    now yield to Mr. DeFazio for any opening statement that he
    would care to make.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    engaging in a little-known function of the United States
    Congress which I think is very important, which is oversight.
    We do write laws, create programs, and it is also, I believe,
    our duty to see that the laws are being properly implemented,
    the programs work well, and if they're not being properly
    implemented or the programs do not work well, it's also our
    duty to revisit those issues.
        There are a couple of concerns that I have regarding,
    particularly, SAFETEA:LU. I think there is some, again, sort of
    in the area of oversight or the difference between law and
    language and hortatory language and mandatory language, there
    was a provision in SAFETEA:LU which was a sense of Congress
    regarding Buy America. Now, Buy America is a pretty deeply
    embedded principle when it comes to transportation
    infrastructure and equipment. We are running huge, massive and
    growing trade deficits. And yes, sometimes we can get things
    that are subsidized in production overseas or unfairly
    produced, and they are a little cheaper.
        But the ripple effects through our economy through
    acquiring American-made products, employing Americans, far
    exceeds any of those minimalistic benefits. And so I do have
    some particular concerns about how the Federal Highway
    Administration is working off of a sense of Congress on Buy
    America as opposed to a statutory change.
        And I would defy anybody to tell me that they believe you
    can come to the floor of the United States House of
    Representatives and say, we should source major components of
    major projects funded fully with taxpayer dollars overseas. The
    few people who would vote for it wouldn't be back. And I think
    an Administration that overestimates the importance of
    hortatory language, as opposed to statutory changes, is walking
    a very dangerous path.
        With that particular caution, there are other concerns that
    are not yet fully developed or implemented in terms of this
    legislation, where I look forward to hearing from the
    Administration and making certain that we are on the right
    path, New Starts, there are some concerns about implementation
    of safety issues and concerns about recent disturbing trends in
    deaths and incidents on our highways and many other things.
        So I look forward to the testimony today and look at this
    as the opening of a long and productive dialogue over the full
    implementation of SAFETEA:LU. I congratulate the Chairman for
    holding this hearing. The room should be packed, but it's not.
        Mr. Petri. Well, it's fairly full.
        Any other opening statements? Mr. Blumenauer?
        Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate
    our moving back to take a look at what has happened with the
    reauthorization. Part of the concern with the 12 abstentions is
    that we have lots of complexity, lots of interest. There was
    time taken, and I know in things that I was involved with, to
    try and be clear about legislative intent and being able to
    extend the partnership with the Department of Transportation to
    make sure that we are doing so even as sadly we are starting to
    get reoriented to go back for another reauthorization, which is
    less than four years away.
        One of my primary projects in the reauthorization was the
    Small Starts program, the idea to give flexibility to
    communities and the Department of Transportation, with
    something that could be more effective in terms of being able
    to give a choice to communities that would be less than heavy
    rail or light rail. The program was in the main modeled after a
    community street car bill that I had introduced with the aim of
    giving communities a means of supporting fixed guideway transit
    systems in their communities, to give them options and allow
    them to develop an expedited process. You know, less
    bureaucratic function.
        And most important, most important to be able for
    communities to be able to consider land use and economic
    development benefits while planning transit projects. That is
    the idea, to be able to reduce the concern for large scale
    suburban to urban movements on roads and light rail, to be able
    to have development around these extraordinarily successful
    projects.
        Unfortunately, as I am looking from a distance and as I am
    talking to people who are representing the 84 communities
    around the Country that are interested in street cars, some of
    which are already building it, the material we are seeing to
    date seems to fall far short of the mark in terms of being able
    to look comprehensively at the economic and land use benefits.
    It looks like the only fixed guideway that is going to be
    favored under this approach would be bus rapid transit. I have
    got nothing against bus rapid transit. We have got a project
    that is going forward in my colleague, Mr. DeFazio's, district
    in Eugene that I think has great benefit.
        But the notion of the Small Starts was to have the forces
    of economic development and land use to enable people to move
    forward with street car. And I am deeply troubled that what is
    coming forward in the Department at this point did not comply
    with our intent to provide the guidelines that will ensure that
    street car projects can move forward. And I look forward to
    hearing more from the Department, talking about it and being
    able to explore that in greater detail.
        I am also concerned about the impacts for local planning
    and the way that the local planning provisions are being
    implemented. There is a specific directive under the
    reauthorization that the DOT not require metropolitan areas to
    disrupt established planning time tables and extended the
    updated schedule by three to four years. But under FHA's
    interpretation, according to the people that I represent back
    home, from a fairly sophisticated NPO, that is usually held out
    as a model for trying to do this right, they would be unable to
    amend their metropolitan transportation improvement program on
    its established time line, unless it first amends its regional
    transportation plan a year earlier than it is required to do.
        So I have folks back home, despite explicit language in the
    reauthorization, that I thought we were in accord, who had been
    given the choice to rush the regional transportation plan and
    produce it a year ahead of schedule, push back the
    transportation improvement program an additional year, an
    option that appears to me to be a bad one.
        But more to the point, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't seem to me
    that that is what we intended with reauthorization. And I am
    curious to begin exploring how the Department of Transportation
    is addressing the conundrum that my community is facing, and
    perhaps, I am sure we are not unique. But we take the planning
    process very seriously. I think any objective observer would
    suggest that Portland has actually been a model over the last
    20 years, coaxing more out of the transportation planning
    process and the investment that we have made with Federal
    funds. And we have been able to do this with Republican and
    Democratic administrations under the last three
    reauthorizations. And this does trouble me, in terms of what I
    am hearing back home, and hope that we can clarify it. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Are there other opening statements? Ms. Berkley.
        Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much
    for holding this important hearing on the implementation of
    SAFETEA:LU, and thank all of you for being here.
        This historic legislation, which Congress passed last year
    after several years of work by this Committee, is vitally
    important for my district. Southern Nevada is one of the
    fastest growing parts of this Country, and Federal resources
    provided in SAFETEA:LU are essential to ensure that our
    transportation infrastructure keeps pace with our explosive
    growth.
        Transportation officials in Las Vegas have several major
    projects underway to increase highway capacity and efficiency
    and to expand our public transit system. Providing additional
    resources for these initiatives is not enough, however. We must
    also ensure that the new law is implemented in such a way that
    it complements the efforts of our State and local governments
    rather than ties them up with new and confusing regulatory
    burdens. I think that is the biggest concern that my regional
    transportation people have, is how do we, as they move forward,
    planning the projects that are underway, that the rug isn't
    pulled out from under them in new and different regulations
    that they have to go back to the drawing board.
        So I am anxious to hear whether your testimony addresses
    that, and if not, I will be asking the witnesses that very
    question when I have an opportunity to question you. So thank
    you very much for being here, and I look forward to your
    testimony.
        Mr. Petri. Now we will begin with the panel, led off by
    someone who has been here before with the Committee, Mr.
    Richard Capka, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.

       TESTIMONY OF MR. J. RICHARD CAPKA, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
          FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
       TRANSPORTATION; MS. SANDRA BUSHUE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
    FEDERAL TRANSIT ASSOCIATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
    MS. JACQUELINE GLASSMAN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY
           TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
    TRANSPORTATION, MR. JOHN H. HILL, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
        MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
        TRANSPORTATION, DR. ASHOK G. KAVEESHWAR, ADMINISTRATOR,
        RESEARCH AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Capka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee.
        It is a real pleasure for me and my fellow colleagues to
    appear once again before your Committee. On behalf of Secretary
    Mineta and the Department of Transportation, I want to express
    our genuine appreciation for this Committee's hard work on
    reauthorization.
        SAFETEA:LU authorizes a record level of investment for
    highway infrastructure, public transportation, highway and
    motor carrier safety programs and transportation research. It
    also provides valuable tools for increasing transportation
    safety, managing congestion and streamlining infrastructure
    construction. Secretary Mineta has made timely implementation
    of this legislation a top priority, and our agencies have
    worked aggressively and together to make the authorized funds
    available, to issue the guidance and regulations necessary to
    carry out SAFETEA:LU, and to make progress in our reports to
    Congress.
        For instance, this past week, the Department delivered the
    Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plans Study to Congress on
    time on the 1st of June. Overall, implementation is going
    smoothly, As you know from our frequent visits to Congressional
    members and staff. There is a lot of good news in today's
    status report.
        Turning first to highway safety, the new core Highway
    Safety Improvement Program, administered by Federal Highways,
    significantly increases the national policy emphasis on safety
    and almost doubles the resources available to reduce traffic
    fatalities and injuries on all public roads. We also thank the
    Committee for including Secretary Mineta's proposed incentive
    grant program for State primary safety belt use laws, and are
    pleased to report that this NHTSA-administered program is
    working exceedingly well. Safety belt use cuts the risk of
    death in a severe crash by about half, and research has proven
    that the quickest and least expensive way to boost belt usage
    is for a State to enact a primary belt law.
        To achieve reductions in crashes involving commercial motor
    vehicles, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's
    medical program is designed to ensure that medically qualified
    drivers operate trucks and buses. As directed by SAFETEA:LU,
    the medical program addresses revision of the diabetic
    exemption standard, establishment of a Medical Review Board,
    and development of a National Registry of Medical Examiners.
        SAFETEA:LU also enhanced Federal Motor Carrier's consumer
    protection and enforcement authorities for shipment of
    household goods. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
    Administration is pursing enforcement of Federal household
    goods regulations through civil actions, is broadening
    distribution of household goods consumer education materials
    and has implemented a number of provisions through enforcement
    policy memoranda to field staff and State partners.
        Along with improving transportation safety, reducing
    congestion is a major concern for the Department. Last month,
    Secretary Mineta launched the National Strategy to Reduce
    Congestion on America's Transportation Network. This initiative
    will maximize resources and authorities you provided in
    SAFETEA:LU to improve operation of our surface transportation
    system. It will increase the use of public transportation,
    encourage the development and deployment of new technologies
    and construction methods, and expand opportunities for private
    investment in transportation infrastructure.
        SAFETEA:LU provides an historic level of investment in
    public transportation, while establishing several new transit
    programs, such as the New Freedom and Small Starts, and
    modifying other transit programs, including New Starts. Well-
    designed New Starts projects are critical pieces of the
    congestion solution, offering alternatives to gridlock in
    relieving pressures on our highways. The Federal Transit
    Administration is making solid progress in advancing the
    substantial number of rulemakings necessary for implementation.
        It is also engaged in broad-based outreach efforts,
    especially with respect to the Small Starts program. Later this
    year, the Federal Transit Administration will publish an NPRM
    covering both the New Starts and Small Starts programs, and is
    issuing guidance to ensure that the program can be effectively
    executed during the rulemaking process. This will allow
    grantees to assess their projects and submit them for possible
    Small Starts funding during fiscal year 2007.
        Effective transportation research programs also have a
    critical role in the future of surface transportation
    infrastructure construction and operation. The Research and
    Innovative Technology Administration, or RITA, is leading the
    Department's efforts to prepare the five-year Research and
    Development Strategic Plan required by SAFETEA:LU. RITA will
    continue to work to establish RD&T, performance measures in
    advanced cross-modal research coordination efforts.
        Mr. Chairman, although SAFETEA:LU increases funding for
    Surface Transportation Research, Development and Deployment,
    certain structural problems within research funding challenge
    the Department's ability to carry out the program Congress
    envisioned in Title V of SAFETEA:LU. I would welcome an
    opportunity to answer your questions about the structural
    issues and program impacts.
        To conclude, even as we implement SAFETEA:LU, we need to be
    thinking about the next reauthorization. Demands on the surface
    transportation system will continue to grow, and are expected
    to exceed the resources provided by current funding mechanisms.
    We want to work closely with Congress to find solutions to the
    imbalance.
        On May 24th, the Secretary convened the first meeting of
    the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study
    Commission, which, as Congress directed, will explore options
    for the future direction of our surface transportation system
    and how we invest in and manage that system. The Department
    will continue to support the work of the Commission and looks
    forward to its recommendations.
        Mr. Chairman and members, thank you for this opportunity to
    report on the Department's implementation of SAFETEA:LU. We are
    looking forward to continuing to work with you and will be
    pleased to answer any questions that you might have.
        And so I would ask permission to enter for the record a
    complete statement.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Your statement will be made a part of the record, and we
    will continue with Ms. Sandra Bushue, who is the Acting
    Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department
    of Transportation.
        Mr. Capka. Mr. Chairman, we have chosen for me to speak for
    the entire team.
        Mr. Petri. OK, then we will go immediately to questions.
    Let me begin with questions. There were two areas I wanted to
    explore briefly. First of all, you mentioned just a little bit
    the special panel that had its initial meeting about a week
    ago. I was hoping to be at some of that. There was a lunch that
    the Secretary scheduled and we couldn't be there. It wasn't his
    fault, or anyone's fault, it is the nature of these overlapping
    organizations.
        But they are wrestling with a number of issues, and
    particularly the sort of focus and funding of the Federal
    Surface Transportation programs going forward. And there are a
    lot of challenges in that regard. I wonder if you could expand
    a little bit on the meeting, with a number of distinguished
    people with considerable background and different perspectives
    who have agreed to serve on, well, there are two commissions,
    but they are working somewhat, I hope, dividing up their labors
    somewhat. If you could expand on that and talk about it a bit,
    we would appreciate hearing it.
        Mr. Capka. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your
    question. This is one of the top priorities that we have within
    the Department, and Secretary Mineta has made this a personal
    priority. He very much appreciated the fact that you were
    unable to join us for lunch. But we did have an outstanding
    first meeting for the Commission.
        You are absolutely correct, sir, it is the Section 1909
    commission that met on the 24th. And this is going to be a
    challenge for the members. There is a lot of ground to cover,
    and we have a requirement to report out to Congress next July,
    July of 2007.
        But we have, as you pointed out, assembled a very
    impressive group of commissioners, an excellent blend of
    backgrounds and talents from the private sector, public sector,
    academia, just a whole host of the right kinds of individuals
    who are going to address the issues that we have left before
    us.
        While there are many details that the commissioners are
    going to be working out regarding the pace and the mechanics of
    moving forward, it is clear that they have identified the issue
    of needs, of requirements, and then the resourcing of those
    requirements as very explicit deliverables, as they took an
    initial look at the task in front of them. The commission will
    be meeting regularly. Between physical meetings of the
    commission they will have conference calls to ensure that there
    is an efficient exchange of information and that the
    commissioners are kept up to speed on any of the developments
    that may be occurring.
        So Mr. Petri, we would certainly be interested in coming by
    and giving you a personal brief on the progress of the
    commission, and to any member who would be interested in
    following up as the commission meetings move forward.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you. We ought to probably, once they are
    at an appropriate state, have that meeting or series of
    meetings.
        In your opening statement, you alluded to I think Section V
    of the Act, and a number of structural and programmatic issues
    that might be, maybe we need to do something about or maybe we
    should know about. Would you care to expand on that part of
    your testimony?
        Mr. Capka. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I definitely would. As
    anybody would find in a very complex and successful
    accomplishment, there are always the unexpected glitches that
    seem to catch us after the fact. There were some of those
    glitches with respect to our research and technology program.
    There are some challenges that really put the effectiveness of
    our Federal research program at risk. And despite an aggregate
    increase of about $43 million, more than what we had under TEA-
    21, the added initiatives, such as the $51 million SHRP II, the
    statutory over-designations of some of the projects, have
    eliminated basically the flexibility to conduct programs that
    have been important to the priorities of this Committee.
        The bottom line, when we compare 2005 to what we have
    today, is that we have about $30 million less in annual funding
    for the critical research activities. This will significantly
    impact the Department's Federal leadership position in the
    surface transportation research community. This leadership is
    vital for the development of the breakthrough technologies that
    will lead to construction efficiencies and engineering
    techniques that will improve safety and the long-term
    reliability and quality infrastructure in programs that we will
    be following to deliver the Nation's transportation needs.
        The Department's leadership will be key to the integration
    of technology into the efficient operation of our system to
    reverse the existing trends toward a more congested and less
    reliable surface transportation system. Just a couple of
    examples of some of the impacts are drastically reduced funding
    for important programs, such as the Transportation Research
    Board core program and the Transportation Research Board's
    research and technology coordinating committee that provides us
    advice on how we move our program forward. There is the
    inability to provide supporting data for the Conditions and
    Performance Report and the inability to update the Manual on
    Uniform Traffic Control Devices. And, there would be a
    requirement to discontinue the longstanding publications and
    other media through which we work our technology transfer.
        We really are struggling to assemble a program and fear
    that if we are forced to spread ourselves as thinly as it
    appears will be required, we will not be able to do the
    necessary things well. The effectiveness of the only national
    surface transportation research center in America, and a number
    of world class laboratories are, in fact, at risk. Mr.
    Chairman, I would very much look forward to working with you
    and the members of this Committee to help us address the
    challenges that we have identified.
        Mr. Petri. That is very important. I must say, I haven't
    read it cover to cover, but I certainly have read the executive
    summary of at least the most recent Conditions and Performance
    Report, or maybe the one before that, and had the opportunity
    to travel to about 18 cities and wave it as part of our effort.
    Because we used that report as the basis for the original
    legislation that was introduced in this Committee, to try to
    fund surface transportation projects that it indicated was
    needed to maintain our current level of effort, or at least
    come close to doing that by that conditions and performance
    report. It is an important tool as an overview of where we are.
    You don't know where you are going unless you know where you
    are, so you can improve that.
        Let's turn to Mr. DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few
    questions. To the FTA, and I think my colleague, Mr.
    Blumenauer, has specific questions about this, too. But I
    wanted to wave the issues about the New Starts rules,
    particularly what is expected, time line. I understand they
    were going to be out in June and they may be delayed. Second,
    what is the status of the actual, where we are, I am not
    exactly sure where we are in the rulemaking, and what does the
    current thinking reflect in terms of streamlining. The idea was
    that this is a new category of projects, and if we are going to
    make it the same as New Starts, then Small Starts is New Starts
    and we don't need to go through all of this. But the Congress
    obviously, in my opinion and I believe the opinion of others up
    here, was expressing the need to create a different sort of
    short form, smaller dollar amount, different projects. Could
    you address that?
        Ms. Bushue. Absolutely, Congressman DeFazio. The Small
    Starts programs are the programs that are less than $250
    million, and they can get up to $75 million in Federal help. We
    are very happy to say that we sent out an advance notice of
    proposed rulemaking back in January, and then we held a number
    of listening sessions. And it was just amazing, the amount of
    comments we received, not only on the New Starts program, but
    most importantly, on the Small Starts program. There was all
    kinds of excitement and enthusiasm out there in the community
    for this new program. I would like to thank this Committee for
    supporting it. It is a great concept and a great idea.
        Having said that, we just put our interim guidance for the
    New Starts program on May 22nd. And on Friday, the Federal
    Register will post interim guidance for the Small Starts
    program. Sticking with the Small Starts program, we hope to
    have a noticed for proposed rulemaking out by the end of this
    year and then the final rule out by hopefully August of 2007.
    But there is again, I would just like to say, a lot of
    enthusiasm.
        And getting back to Congressman Blumenauer, your issue
    regarding the land use, we did hear a lot of comments when we
    had our listening sessions and stakeholder hearings out in the
    Country, a lot of comments about the land use. The FTA has
    listened to those comments. I think you will be pretty pleased
    with the rating process when you see the interim guidance when
    they are posted on Friday.
        Mr. DeFazio. So under interim guidance, are we going to be
    making grants?
        Ms. Bushue. Absolutely. We hope with interim guidance,
    again, they are posted on Friday, by the time the grantees put
    together their proposals, submit it to the FTA for evaluation,
    we hope that we are going to be able to be issuing or making
    selections by July of next year.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. To the National Highway Transportation
    Safety Administration, there is a provision in SAFETEA:LU, I am
    not certain whether or not you are familiar with it, but there
    was $1 million to conduct a study on the risks associated with
    glare to oncoming drivers. In particular, this concern is
    raised by my own personal experience and also by some research
    done by the Consumers Union, and that is these new high-
    intensity, bluish lights in the spectrum, and the intensity at
    which they are transmitting and the potential for causing glare
    disturbance to oncoming drivers, particularly on two-lane
    highways, which are more common in my part of the Country than
    around here.
        And my understanding is that there are ways to mitigate
    that, but that we are using a very kind of anachronistic--the
    measure that is being used is very crude in terms of lumens
    versus spectrum and disturbance. That is why we put the money
    in the bill to do some research. Can you give me a status on
    where we are on that?
        Ms. Glassman. Yes, sir. In 2001, we actually put out a
    notice for comment on glare, as we did start to see more of
    these lights on the road. We received a huge number, about
    10,000 comments altogether.
        The issue, though, we have from a safety perspective, is
    actually finding a safety problem associated with this from a
    regulatory point of view. We have conducted a number of
    studies, or surveys of people, who tell us that while they find
    glare to be annoying, they do not experience it as distracting.
    So we are watching the safety problem very closely, and
    watching also our data very closely, to make sure we get ahead
    of this problem if it becomes in fact a safety problem on the
    roads.
        We are conducting a study with Rensselaer Institute
    currently. We have a report to Congress due in 2007, and we are
    on track to supply that report. It will be a comprehensive
    review of the risks associated with glare, as well as potential
    countermeasures and any unintended consequences that could
    arise if we go down, countermeasures that in fact then cause
    another problem that we didn't anticipate.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. I think given the complaints, I think one
    can intuit that although perhaps there are no survivors of
    head-on crashes who attribute it to the glare, one can intuit
    that if that many people saw fit to comment on a fairly obscure
    Federal investigation that there is a real and growing concern
    out there among the public. I think, particularly with an aging
    population, the glare problems are very, very important, and we
    need to get on them.
        Then finally, to Mr. Capka, you heard my concerns and
    comments earlier regarding Buy America, the difference between
    an often reinforced statutory guidance and hortatory language
    that was in the bill. I would like to know what your current
    interpretation is and where we are on Buy America, particularly
    when most major recent concern relates to a bridge project and
    the idea that specifications call for very long beams that
    people know can't be made in the United States.
        But the bridge doesn't have to be built with very long
    beams that can't be made in the United States. It is a way to
    drive the procurement offshore, whereas you could have a design
    which would incorporate beams that could be made in the United
    States, which would fully comply with Buy America, and there's
    a real interesting interplay here between some amount of State
    funding and Federal funding and the Federal law which of course
    preempts State law.
        So could you give me your short version response to that?
        Mr. Capka. Thank you, Congressman DeFazio. You are
    absolutely correct. This particular issue has been addressed
    within the Department and we have had discussions with members
    of this Committee over the issue.
        Let me first of all say that the Federal Highway
    Administration takes very seriously the requirement to enforce
    the law of Buy America. And of course, the basis for applying
    that law to any project is a determination of whether or not
    that project is a Federalized project, whether there have been
    Federal monies expended on the project. And we have been very,
    very consistent since 1982 or 1983, when the Buy America Act
    came into effect, in consistently applying the rules.
        The Buy America determination on a project and the
    determination on Federalization of a project is basically done
    at the contract level. California has the discretion as to
    whether or not they want to build a project using Federal
    resources. If they don't use Federal resources, we have no
    Federal interest and have no ability to enforce the Buy America
    program. In this particular case, California chose not to use
    Federal resources and, therefore, the Buy America Act did not
    apply on this particular project.
        Mr. DeFazio. Can we demonstrate, and have you had auditors
    go in and look? I mean, money becomes pretty fungible. The
    State of California gets a pretty generous dose under the
    formula of Federal money. They have a high gas tax. They raise
    money there. How can we determine that there is no miscibility
    between the State funds and Federal funds, no displacement? Or
    can they show a dedicated revenue stream for the bridge? Is the
    bridge being totally built with bonding which has a dedicated
    revenue stream that comes from tolls, or are they using some
    formula money or gas tax money or mixed monies as part of the
    support for this project?
        Mr. Capka. Sir, I can't speak to the specifics of the type
    and sources of money. But there is a mix. But we are very
    careful to ensure that that mix of funds does not include
    Federal funds. And as I had mentioned, we are very careful to
    ensure that we are enforcing the law consistently and
    appropriately.
        Mr. DeFazio. I guess my time has expired, but just again,
    in reflecting on that, let's say for simple purposes the State
    raises $50 with their gas tax and they get $100 from the
    Federal Government, and they have a project that costs $60, OK,
    it is pretty clear some of the money came from the Feds. If
    they have a project that costs $40, they might argue that they
    only used State money. But what other State interest projects
    did the Federal money flow to that would have been funded out
    of, I mean, there is an interesting kind of mix and/or problem
    here. I just want to be sure that we are being as rigorous as
    possible. It is a grand mistake to offshore more things,
    contribute more to our trade deficit, displace more American
    workers and manufacturing, particularly when it comes to
    Federal tax dollars. We are going to be very, very vigorous in
    watching that. So thank you.
        Mr. Capka. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Petri. Mr. LoBiondo?
        Mr. LoBiondo. No questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Mr. Brown?
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are glad to have the
    whole team here today. I will just ask my question to you, Mr.
    Capka, and anybody can respond that you feel led to.
        I want to first congratulate you on your 50th anniversary
    last week of the Interstate system. I did not bring my pen, Ms.
    Mayberry gave me one in Columbia last Tuesday. But we were
    there to celebrate at the final line for I-73, as it comes, at
    least from I-95 into Myrtle Beach. So we were there to do both
    of those celebrations.
        And I was just, with that in mind, do you foresee that we
    are going to be expanding the Interstate system? Is there a new
    plan to sort of look at where we are in the Interstate system
    and try to develop an extension of the interstate system to
    include those areas of growth that were not included in the 50
    year plan that was established by President Eisenhower?
        Mr. Capka. Sir, that is a very good question. And we in the
    Department are very concerned about a review of the existing
    Interstate system. It is 50 years old, as you pointed out. And
    50 years for a lot of infrastructure is the design life. So we
    do have concerns, particularly in the area of capacity
    congestion, if you will. And as I had mentioned in my opening
    remarks, Secretary Mineta has launched a congestion initiative
    that will look across all modes, across all sectors, to
    determine the best way to address congestion systematically.
    Quite honestly, it will require us to take a look at the
    Interstate, take a look at corridors. And take a look at
    technology on how we use the existing capacity that we have
    today and then make decisions on what capacity needs to be
    adjusted in the future, whether that capacity is on the highway
    Interstate system, whether that capacity is on rail or other
    modes of transportation.
        The commission that we discussed earlier is also reviewing
    that particular issue as they look forward to the future of
    surface transportation.
        Mr. Brown. Well, I know you know the demographics as well
    as I do, and I know there has been a shift to the south and the
    southeast. I just felt like, I hope the study will encompass
    that new growth in the population, and the needs for additional
    highways, so that we can start another initiative to address
    the new areas of congestion. I hope that study will reveal
    that.
        My next question, Mr. Chairman, if I may, the trust fund
    that was established, I guess, to fund TEA-LU, is the revenues
    coming in at a pace to keep us solvent?
        Mr. Capka. Sir, another excellent question. The issue of
    solvency of the Highway Trust Fund has been raised before. We
    are confident today as we look at where we are that the Trust
    Fund will take us through the duration of SAFETEA:LU.
        As you recall, when we were structuring the Trust Fund, we
    knew that we were going to take it down to zero. That was the
    intent. And if you take a look at the Treasury forecast, we are
    a little below zero. If you take a look at the Congressional
    Budget Office forecast, we are a little above zero. So I think
    at this particular point in time, there are no signals that are
    telling us that we are in jeopardy at this point.
        However, we very much look forward to working with the
    Committee as we get a little closer and the future becomes a
    little clearer and the forecasts become a little clearer, if we
    do have a challenge facing us. But today, as we are sitting
    here today, we feel confident that it will get us through the
    SAFETEA:LU period.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Blumenauer?
        Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. I would like to follow up on a
    comment I made in the opening here. I have been concerned that
    the emphasis on the transportation system user benefit, TSUB,
    process, that is just savings in time travel, is going to be
    used as a measure of cost effectiveness. The whole thrust of
    much of the Small Starts and the enthusiasm for dozens of
    communities around the Country for the street car is the
    economic development potential and preventing the trips in the
    first place. Rather than forcing people to travel long
    distances from the suburbs, we have examples where street cars
    inspire redevelopment along the right-of-way, so that you are
    moving people, but they don't have to have large time travel
    savings, because they are not out scattered around the
    countryside in the first place.
        Now, help me understand what efforts with the criteria that
    you are working on that will get us away from narrow-minded
    application of TSUB, which completely misses the point of the
    program, and why these people are enthusiastic?
        Ms. Bushue. Certainly, Congressman. As I mentioned earlier,
    the Small Starts interim guidance will be posted on Friday. I
    think the industry will be really happy about how we are
    looking at the land use and economic development. We certainly
    heard a lot from the industry and from our grantees about the
    TSUB issue. So I think we have addressed them in the guidance
    that you will note on Friday. But most importantly, the
    guidance is not the end. We realize how important the Small
    Starts program is. We are holding a workshop next week with
    ACTA at the commuter rail conference. We will also be holding
    another listening session in Chicago at the end of the month.
    There is still a lot of time for comment, we still have a lot
    of room for improvement, if in fact the guidance that we put
    out Friday is still problematic to some of the grantees and
    industry.
        I think they will be surprised. We have listened to that
    and we certainly do understand the issue of the TSUB concept
    and the need to have you get those modern benefits in a cost
    effective way. Sometimes it is a little difficult. But we are
    working very hard with the grantees and industry to remedy
    that.
        Mr. Blumenauer. Super. We will look forward Friday to the
    unveiling.
        Ms. Bushue. Remember, that is not the end-all. We are still
    open for comments and ways to improve if they are not happy
    with it.
        Mr. Blumenauer. I appreciate it is not the end-all and be-
    all. But time is of the essence.
        Ms. Bushue. Absolutely.
        Mr. Blumenauer. We had the delay in the program,
    unfortunately, with the 12 extensions. And the whole thrust
    behind this was to make it simple and common sense, because
    they are smaller scale, not as expensive, we don't need as much
    Federal intrusion.
        Ms. Bushue. Absolutely.
        Mr. Blumenauer. And the Committee language was very clear
    about these multiple benefits. So I am hopeful that we are able
    to quickly come to a resolution, so people in these 80
    communities can get on with business.
        I mentioned earlier the concern about the planning, the
    inconsistency in terms of the planning time frame, that we are,
    the conflict between the metropolitan transportation's ongoing
    planning process, being able to go through the existing cycle,
    or having to rush ahead and accelerate it and getting caught in
    the middle. Can you help me understand, are they imagining
    this? Did we miss something here?
        Mr. Capka. Well, sir, I don't know the specifics, but let
    me describe the intent as we move through implementation. We
    understand that sometimes when we implement new laws and new
    rulemakings and those sorts of things, we will change the
    rules. But it is our intent to provide a smooth transition. We
    don't want to turn a program up on its head or force an MPO to
    have to go back to the beginning when the sole reason for the
    confusion or the sole reason for the restart is the new law or
    the new rule that is going into effect.
        So I would very much like to learn about the specific
    problems for the MPO that you have described, the conundrum
    that you had mentioned earlier, and see what we can do to
    ensure that implementation does not have that kind of adverse
    effect.
        Mr. Blumenauer. I will submit to you their concern, because
    I think it was clear that we didn't want the metropolitan areas
    to have to disrupt the established planning process. But an
    inability to amend the metropolitan transportation improvement
    program, unless it first amends the regional transportation
    plan a year earlier, seems to me to be violating that concept.
    But we will get the details to you, and would appreciate
    guidance about how we unravel this.
        Mr. Capka. Sir, I would be happy to take that from you.
        Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Mr. Shuster.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
    for being here today.
        My first question deals with the Federal Motor Carrier
    Safety Administration, the results of the multi-year truck
    crash causation study that was just transmitted to Congress. Of
    course, the reason is finding out why trucks crash and can we
    put new policies in place or improve the policies for truck
    safety. I wondered what you have found for primary causes of
    truck crashes. Have you started to study the existing policies
    and programs and how best to utilize the findings of the study
    to improve truck safety?
        Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congressman Shuster, for that
    question. That was a long study. It started back in 2000, and
    we have been working on it for several years with a variety of
    people, including the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration. This study was the largest of its kind. It went
    out and physically sent investigators to the scene of a crash.
    They spent considerable hours investigating all parties
    involved with it, analyzed the data. The purpose of the study
    was to give us large amounts of data, so that we could use it,
    not only in the macro sense, but that we could provide it in a
    public setting, so that other people who are skilled at
    analyzing data could have this made available to them.
        The overwhelming initial response that we heard from that
    study is that the driver is the predominant focus of our future
    efforts. Therefore, we are taking our regulatory agenda and our
    enforcement program, we are filtering it through that lens of
    driver focus, and we are going to be making changes in our
    program activities in the next few years, through a variety of
    initiatives. We believe that this data will help us in that
    process.
        Mr. Shuster. My understanding is that about 90 percent of
    the accidents are caused by driver action or inaction or error?
        Mr. Hill. If I may follow up there, it was not that high. I
    would be glad to submit to you for the record some of the
    specific percentages. I didn't bring those with me today. But
    it was not that high. It was lower. But it was predominantly
    with a passenger vehicle.
        And I would just say to you that one of the provisions in
    SAFETEA:LU that you folks provided us had to do with granting
    us authority to spend grant dollars in our motor carrier safety
    programs for passenger vehicles in and around a commercial
    vehicle. That was groundbreaking. We are just now starting that
    with the States. We believe it is going to yield results. We
    think it will get more people involved in enforcing motor
    carrier laws in our Country, and so we are excited about that
    potential.
        Mr. Shuster. That brings me to my next question on the CDL
    program, which has been around for about 20 years. It is my
    understanding that there were only a handful of States that
    were in compliance, or substantial compliance, with the CDL
    program. Is that accurate, and can you give me a number on how
    many States were or were not in substantial compliance?
        Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congressman Shuster, again, that is a
    very interesting point. As you know, in the Motor Carrier
    Safety Improvement Act in 1999, you gave us several things that
    you wanted us to do to improve the commercial driver's license
    process. About 15 provisions were given to the States in order
    for them to adopt them. Our normal process is to give the
    States three years to go through that process of adoption,
    changing their laws to conform and so forth, including their IT
    systems.
        As of right now, the States are making great progress. We
    have only had to declare one State in substantial non-
    compliance up until this year, and then just recently, after we
    went through a series of reviews, we had to do that with three
    or four other States, who found in their implementation that
    they didn't have the laws to implement it the way that they
    were supposed to.
        So to answer your question, we have two phases. There are
    people who are making legislative changes, and then there are
    those who are doing their information system changes. And
    generally, the States are in compliance with the statutory
    provisions.
        Mr. Shuster. Well, if we passed it in 1999, when did the
    clock start ticking on the three years?
        Mr. Hill. When we started with the regulations, which were
    promulgated in 2002, September, I believe, 2002. So it was
    September of 2005 when they were supposed to be in compliance.
        Mr. Shuster. OK, thank you for that answer.
        Mr. Hill. You are welcome.
        Mr. Shuster. Another question I have, I guess it would be
    directed to Transit or Highway Administration, or both. The
    Governor of Pennsylvania has decided that he is going to flex
    about $400 million of Pennsylvania's annual allocation out of
    the Highway Trust Fund. The first question is, it is my
    understanding that you can only flex that money for capital
    investment, you can't do it for operations. Is that accurate?
    That is correct?
        Ms. Bushue. That is correct.
        Mr. Shuster. Second question is, has any State flexed that
    sizeable amount of one year's allocation from highways to
    transit systems? On a percentage basis.
        Ms. Bushue. According to our advisors back here, they are
    saying that New York and California have. I am not sure, do we
    know that percentage? We can get back to you with that,
    Congressman Shuster.
        Mr. Shuster. Is that dollar amount or is that percentage? I
    guess the only way we can do a fair comparison is by percentage
    of what they get. If you could get me that, I would appreciate
    it.
        Ms. Bushue. We certainly will.
        Mr. Shuster. And the third question is, from what I
    understand and what I see, Pennsylvania is going to flex that
    money. And it is not going to solve the problem for the transit
    system in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. It is basically a band-
    aid. Do you have any oversight at the Federal Highway
    Administration or Transit that can say, if you are going to
    flex that kind of money, you really ought to be coming to a
    fix, a long term fix for it, not just an infusion of cash that
    is probably going to happen this year and then next year and
    then down the road?
        Mr. Capka. Congressman Shuster, I can say that our Division
    Administrator and his office are working very carefully with
    the Pennsylvania DOT to ensure that this particular situation
    is being managed appropriately. And there is a planning process
    that they are going through right now that requires our review.
        Mr. Shuster. ``Managed appropriately'' is pretty vague.
    According to whose managing and appropriate. If you saw that
    this was just a band-aid and a limited term fix to a situation
    instead of a long term situation, because it comes down to what
    is fungible, and they are going to put it into capital, but
    they are going to just shift their money around, and it is the
    operation that is really significant, has significant problems.
    So would you have that ability to say stop, we don't believe
    what you are doing is in the long-term best interests of using
    Federal dollars?
        Mr. Capka. Not knowing the complete specifics of the
    situation there, what we would look at is the sustainability of
    the program, the initiative, from a fiscal perspective, and
    ensure that the program is fiscally constrained. I think that
    the context around that would help us decide what action we
    would or would not want to take.
        Mr. Shuster. Could you or whoever is dealing with that
    situation contact our office and keep us posted? Because it is
    a huge concern to me, coming from rural Pennsylvania, and I
    think many, many Pennsylvanians. Because of that $400 million,
    about $380 million is going to go to Philadelphia, which I
    guess happens when the Governor of Pennsylvania is the former
    mayor of Philadelphia. But anyway, that is our problem in
    Pennsylvania.
        Thank you very much, and again, if you could keep us posted
    on that, we certainly are very concerned.
        Mr. Capka. Sir, we will follow up with you on that.
        Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you. Ms. Berkley?
        Ms. Berkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I have three questions that are all Las Vegas valley
    specific, as you can well imagine. The first is, I had a
    conversation with my local transportation officials, and they
    have expressed concern that existing planning cycles may be
    disrupted by regulations that the FHWA and FTA have issued or
    will issue to implement SAFETEA:LU. Can you give me assurances
    that you won't be changing the rules for our local government
    officials in the middle of the game, in the middle of their
    planning process? That is my first question.
        Mr. Capka. Yes, ma'am. I think I would respond the same way
    I did to Mr. Blumenauer, with his question.
        Ms. Berkley. If we are having a specific problem with the
    project that you know?
        Mr. Capka. Absolutely. Again, I think the philosophical
    approach is not to interrupt something abruptly with a change,
    but to provide a good transition that allows everybody to catch
    up, and not to create the conundrum that was described earlier.
    But I will offer the same to you and your community to take a
    look at what the issue is and to work with you on that.
        Ms. Berkley. I appreciate that. My second question is, a
    provision in SAFETEA:LU gives priority to diesel retrofit
    projects in CMAQ. My local transportation officials have
    planned to use these funds for eligible projects, including our
    intelligent transportation system, in purchase of hybrid buses.
    How is this provision being implemented to ensure that worthy
    projects other than diesel retrofits will continue to be
    funded?
        Mr. Capka. We are working the final guidance with EPA on
    this one. This is one that we are working jointly with the
    Environmental Protection Agency. And again, if there are
    specific issues that are coming up, I would be more than happy
    to work with you on that.
        Ms. Berkley. I think the two that we are most concerned
    about is our intelligent transportation system and the hybrid
    buses, because we are getting, the money is coming out of the
    diesel retrofit projects. Right now, those are eligible
    projects, but we wouldn't want them to be come ineligible all
    of a sudden.
        Mr. Capka. I will follow up with you on that and just make
    sure that we are both looking at the same facts and provide
    some help and guidance there.
        Ms. Berkley. OK, and then of course the third is, and I
    know a number of my colleagues have mentioned the Small Starts
    program that was created in SAFETEA:LU for fixed guideway
    projects costing under $250 million. It is my understanding
    that this will be eliminated in the 2007 transportation
    appropriations bill approved in committee yesterday. If that is
    the case, and I would appreciate some clarification on that,
    but if that is the case, what would the effect of that
    elimination have on these projects? And the one that comes to
    mind is the MAX bus project in southern Nevada. Right now it is
    eligible for Small Starts funding. If it is eliminated in 2007,
    what do we do?
        Ms. Bushue. Well, I certainly hope it wasn't eliminated. I
    think what they did, we have not seen that language, I think
    you are talking about the full Committee House Appropriations
    markup. We have yet to see the language. We understand they put
    a freeze, we are not really sure what that means. Again, the
    language has not been released, and FTA has not had the
    opportunity to evaluate it.
        But I do know that the Appropriations Committee has been
    very supportive of the Small Starts program. So I guess we will
    have to wait and see. But I don't think it was an elimination,
    it was a freeze. And again, we don't know exactly what they
    meant by that.
        Ms. Berkley. Can you let me know?
        Ms. Bushue. Absolutely.
        Ms. Berkley. Because again, this MAX bus project is very
    important to us. And if the money is no longer there, what
    happens to the project?
        Ms. Bushue. Absolutely, Congresswoman Berkley. We will
    certainly get back to you.
        Ms. Berkley. Thanks a lot.
        Mr. Petri. Mr. Coble.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I apologize for my belated arrival. We had a
    Judiciary markup, and that is why I could not be here earlier.
        Mr. Hill, let me put a question to you on an issue on which
    I have done some considerable work and am very interested. I am
    concerned that the advance notice of proposed rulemaking on
    insulin-treated diabetes possibly creates broad restrictions on
    the kind of driving that properly screened individuals with
    insulin-treated diabetes can do, such as being restricted to
    only certain types of driving, like local or short haul routes.
    What sort of restriction does the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
    Administration have in mind and what is the basis for
    restricting the type of driving an insulin-treated commercial
    driver can do?
        Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congressman Coble, for that question.
    I do know that you and Representative DeFazio have been heavily
    involved in this issue, and I am aware of the recent
    correspondence that you have sent to our office concerning this
    matter, and I would like to address your concerns. First of
    all, let me just say in a general sense, our standards for
    commercial vehicle drivers, we are trying to weigh the balance
    of making sure that we implement the provisions in SAFETEA:LU,
    which we have done, by the way, and I will explain that more
    fully, and then making sure that we have been deliberative in
    our consideration of the safety concerns for the general public
    in allowing people with some kind of impairment, potentially,
    to be drivers.
        To answer your specific question, as you know, in
    SAFETEA:LU, you passed legislation that said we are no longer
    permitted to require three years driving experience in terms of
    having that experience before we create an exemption to the
    rule that is now in place, that says insulin-dependent drivers
    cannot operate a commercial vehicle. We have implemented that,
    in November of 2005 we published a notice that said we would
    discontinue that practice. We are in the process now of
    reviewing applications. Thirteen drivers are presently on the
    road. When they get an exemption to operate in interstate
    commerce, there are no restrictions placed on them. They are
    permitted to drive just like another driver would drive.
        We have 40 other drivers that were posted in the Federal
    Register just today for public notice and comment. Another 30
    are in process, and we have 400 applications that we are
    currently reviewing that would allow for them to eventually be
    granted an exemption under our current rule.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you for that response. I am, Mr. Hill, in
    no way attempting to compromise safety. But by the same token,
    I want to be sure that insulin-treated commercial drivers are
    not beneficiaries or victims of inordinate restrictions, if I
    am coming through to you.
        Mr. Hill. Congressman Coble, I appreciate your concern for
    safety, because we share that, as our agency has to deal with
    that on several levels. One of the further considerations that
    I would just say to you is that we are going to be starting a
    medical review board, and they are going to be convening in
    August of this year. That medical review board will be looking,
    as one of its first projects, at the whole issue of diabetic
    drivers. This rule that we have had in place for banning
    insulin-dependent drivers for driving in interstate commerce
    has been with us for several years. One of the goals of the
    medical review board is to make sure that our current medical
    regulations are consistent with current science and data, so
    that we can make accurate assessments. Because things have
    changed in those years, and we want to be sure that we are
    treating drivers and the public with due measure of safety and
    also accommodation that needs to be made.
        Mr. Coble. And if you can keep us current on that matter, I
    would be appreciative to you.
        Mr. Hill. You are welcome, sir, and we will.
        Mr. Coble. It is good to have all of you with us. Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. Coble.
        Mr. Matheson.
        Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First question I wanted to ask was, if I have local
    communities and they are looking at projects that have been
    authorized in SAFETEA:LU, how can they receive assistance in
    planning for if there is going to be a difference between
    authorized and obligation amount? What would you suggest I can
    do to help in their planning process as they look forward?
        Mr. Capka. Sir, that is a very good question, and it is one
    that is asked regularly. Our division offices are well equipped
    to handle those questions locally. But even here in Washington,
    we would be more than happy to help. It is a matter of the
    difference between contract authority and obligation
    limitation. And it is about an 85, 86, 87 percent of the
    contract authority will actually appear as something the
    communities can program and work.
        In addition, we have had the 1 percent rescission. There
    are a few others that kind of eat away at the amount of money
    that appears in the bill itself. But I think explaining that
    and laying it out is something we can do and should be able to
    do, and sir, if you have some specifics, I would be more than
    happy to handle that for you.
        Mr. Matheson. And is it your sense that there is going to
    be reasonable stability or certainty of how that is going to
    play out after the next two, three, four years?
        Mr. Capka. It varies a little bit from year to year. But I
    think we can provide enough stability that would allow for the
    planning to occur that needs to occur.
        Mr. Matheson. Next question I want to ask about was, in
    SAFETEA:LU there were a number of provisions included to try to
    streamline process, to allow projects to move forward in a more
    timely manner. I want to ask a general question about your
    thoughts about how that has played out so far, and if there are
    unanticipated impacts, either good or bad, that have come from
    that effort.
        Mr. Capka. I think the SAFETEA:LU provisions are working
    pretty well. In fact, there are a number who have already taken
    advantage of the 180 day statute of limitations within the NEPA
    process on when suits can be filed and those sorts of things.
    We have already had a number of folks take advantage of that.
    We have also had a number of folks taking advantage of being
    able to assume the categorical exclusion responsibilities.
        We have another pilot program that you are very well aware
    of. We have five States who will look at assuming the entire
    environmental review program from us. Of course, they need to
    have the right laws in place, which they are working on right
    now. And we will work with those States. So I think SAFETEA:LU,
    even at this very early stage, is showing some very positive
    signs with respect to the efficiencies there.
        Mr. Matheson. That is good to hear. One more issue I want
    to raise is, when a project is listed or designated as a high
    priority project, can you give me a description of what the
    real impacts are of that and how that positions that project
    for safety improvements?
        Mr. Capka. Sir, there is a category of high priority
    projects, of course----
        Mr. Matheson. I meant high priority corridor.
        Mr. Capka. High priority corridors. Yes, sir, there is
    provision for the high priority corridors. A number of the
    projects have been designated already. So there is a
    requirement that we would need to walk ourselves through to get
    those projects up and running. But the discretion, to a large
    extent, isn't there for us to move from one location to
    another, because they have been designated.
        Mr. Matheson. Once it has been designated, is there some
    action or set of actions that the State Department of
    Transportation has to take with you in this regard, or is this
    more at your end?
        Mr. Capka. There are requirements for our division office
    to be involved. I would very much encourage the discussions to
    occur just as soon, as early as possible, so that we can lay
    out the course in front of us.
        Mr. Matheson. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Moran?
        Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think this is a
    question for Mr. Hill. I was just wanting to know the status of
    hours of service in regard to some exemptions that were created
    as well as just the general status of the litigation and how we
    are proceeding and what kind of results are, what survey or
    test results we would have on truck safety.
        Mr. Hill. Thank you, Congressman Moran, for that question.
    Hours of service has been living a lot of our lives here in the
    last few years. We acknowledge that the Congress did pass
    several provisions in this last SAFETEA:LU that we wanted to
    get right on in making sure that people understood those
    exemptions. So we put out policy memoranda that gave guidance
    to enforcement officers, so that they would know how to go
    ahead and enforce those provisions, even though we don't have
    the regulation fully implemented yet, because it takes some
    time for us to implement a regulation once you pass the law. We
    believe those were self-executing, so we believe the policy
    memoranda are effective for enforcing those. But we do plan to
    have an omnibus bill next year that will allow for that to be
    included as a regulatory follow-up to those policy memoranda.
        As far as the hours of service lawsuit, I can't really get
    into details, but it is progressing. They are expecting to
    exchange briefs this summer, and we anticipate some kind of a
    hearing before the court later this summer or early fall.
        Mr. Moran. What were the exemptions created in SAFETEA:LU
    in regard to hours of service? Was it two or three or more?
        Mr. Hill. There were more than that.
        Mr. Moran. And my question is, you have issued policy
    statements. Are they being treated the same as if the
    regulation was in place, is that what you are telling me?
        Mr. Hill. Yes, Congressman. We had our attorneys look at
    this, and we were, because of our regulatory workload, we are
    trying to expedite things and make sure that the will of the
    Congress is being enforced now. Our attorneys believe that
    those laws, as written by Congress, are enforceable. But we
    wanted to give the appropriate guidance, and yes, to answer
    your question, we believe that the roadside officers are
    treating them as they would in terms of the law.
        There are some nuances to some States having differing laws
    that they may need to adopt. But we believe that the policy
    guidance has the effect of enforcement.
        Mr. Moran. And I am sorry, I was confused in part of your
    response about a piece of legislation next year? Is that what
    you were suggesting? Or something omnibus within the
    Department?
        Mr. Hill. That would be an omnibus without our own
    department. It is an omnibus rule that would allow us to take
    several of these provisions that we believe are self-executing
    and put them into a single bill to move them on quickly, and it
    will cover all of these.
        Mr. Moran. I still am curious if it is a reasonably short
    list, or if you have it in front of you, I am curious as to
    what additional exemptions are created in SAFETEA:LU.
        Mr. Hill. I am not prepared to go into a lot of detail, but
    I will tell you that we have them in agricultural commodities,
    groundwater well drilling, utility service workers, grapes, for
    grape haulers west of Interstate 81 in New York, propane
    deliveries and 100 air-mile radius for movie producers.
        Mr. Moran. I am familiar with all of them except the grape
    producers. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill, and I yield back the
    balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Baird?
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our panel.
    My understanding is, my good friend from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio,
    asked a question about Buy America. I have great concerns about
    this issue. And I would ask, first of all, if members of the
    panel believe it is important for the United States to maintain
    fundamental domestic industries like steel fabrication and
    steel manufacturing. I will just go down, beginning with Ms.
    Glassman, do you think that is important?
        Ms. Glassman. I will hand that to Mr. Capka.
        Mr. Capka. Sir, the answer to your specific question, "Is
    it important to maintain the industries?" is, "absolutely".
        Mr. Baird. My question arises because it has been the
    recent policy of your department to find ways to allow
    communities to circumvent the Buy America Act. I refer to the
    Bay Bridge project, but there are others.
        I have a second, related question. We had a hearing in this
    very panel a week or so ago about increasing public-private
    partnerships, where private entities are being contracted to
    manage highways. This seems to be a trend of the future, and I
    understand that with limited capital, there may be some reason
    to argue for that.
        Have you given any thought to what implications that has,
    vis-a-vis Buy America? In other words, let's suppose somebody
    has contracted to manage a section of highway. Do they have to
    comply with the Buy America Act as part of that agreement?
        Mr. Capka. Sir, our implementation, our oversight of the
    Buy America Act has been very consistent over the last 25
    years, since the Buy America Act has been in effect. We take
    very seriously our requirement to ensure the law is
    appropriately applied and enforced.
        The Buy America Act applies when there is a Federal
    interest in a particular project and when there are Federal
    dollars being spent, when there is a Federal loan, such as
    TIFIA, that is being applied against a specific project, then
    Buy America and the other appropriate laws that are attached to
    the Federal interest also apply. And we ensure that they are
    enforced.
        Mr. Baird. I guess the devil is in the details in terms of
    how you define a project. if you define a project in a narrow
    enough way, you can say that particular portion of the project
    doesn't have Federal funds associated with it, therefore it is
    exempt.
        Mr. Capka. That is correct, sir. And our application of the
    definition of project has remained consistent over the last 25
    years. So we haven't varied from that.
        Mr. Baird. I would actually dispute that. But what about
    these public-private partnerships?
        Mr. Capka. Well, the public-private partnerships, I would
    have to know a little bit more of the details. Of course, it is
    an evolving area that we are all learning from as we go
    forward. And I am sure that we will continue to learn. But if
    there is no Federal interest in what this public-private
    partnership is doing, then there would be no attachment to
    the----
        Mr. Baird. Well, let's suppose, for example, that an entity
    wants to build a bridge somewhere, and they contract with a
    private capital firm to construct the bridge and to manage the
    bridge. The bridge is integral to the Federal highway system.
    It would be meaningless without the roads on the one side and
    the roads on the other side, which are federally funded. But
    the bridge, per se, is to be funded with private dollars and
    managed by a private entity. Is that subject to Buy America?
        Mr. Capka. Sir, I haven't had that personal experience to
    review that kind of a situation. But I would tell you that I
    would sit down with my legal staff and my----
        Mr. Baird. I can tell you what they would tell you.
        Mr. Capka.--to help me negotiate my way through those
    issues. Because it is important to make the call correct.
        Mr. Baird. They will find a way around it. And here is the
    problem. We are rapidly losing steel fabrication capacity in
    this Country. It is a fundamental infrastructure for safety,
    for travel, transportation, et cetera. If we lose this and one
    day on the west coast, where I reside, an even larger
    earthquake happens, and our steel bridges, strong though they
    are, fail, we will be dependent on foreign countries to rebuild
    our own domestic infrastructure. That, I believe, is being
    contributed to by this Administration and by your policies. I
    think it is a huge mistake. And for the record, I want today to
    put that on the record, so that when that happens and we need
    to go to the steel fabricators, somebody says, you know, they
    closed about 10 years ago, because we had some major projects
    that went to China or went to Korea or went to Japan, because
    in the short term, somebody wanted to save a little bit of
    money. And in the long term, they put Americans out of work,
    damaged American infrastructure, and we lost a critical
    fabrication industry, which we can't rebuild. Once those
    companies go down and the work force leaves, and the land turns
    into condominiums, we will never rebuild it. And we will be
    totally dependent to rebuild our infrastructure on a foreign
    country. And that is a heck of a bad mistake. And I think this
    Administration and your department are contributing to it.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        Mr. Pascrell.
        Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Bushue, I can ask you this question, I think we have
    made some progress, and perhaps you can bring us up to date.
    The proposed Trans-Hudson Tunnel, a lot has been written about
    it, a lot has many times been discussed. That is an extremely
    critical project, tunnel project for the New Jersey-New York
    region, as we are currently at capacity, beyond, with a 100
    year old tunnel which is providing 150,000 trips into and out
    of Penn Station, which you know those tunnels are all falling
    down. Serious problem.
        We await approval, and I know there was a meeting with Mr.
    Wyington of NJK. Could you bring me up to date, and the rest of
    the committee up to date as to the progress we are making on
    that tunnel, just for a few minutes, give us a capsule picture?
        Ms. Bushue. Sure, absolutely. Well, first, I am going to be
    meeting with him next week, as I am up in New York for the APTA
    PRO conference. I am going to be touring the Hudson-Bergen
    Transit line. I understand that we will be meeting with--I
    think we refer to it as the ARK project.
        Mr. Pascrell. That is correct.
        Ms. Bushue. But as it is today, they are looking to go into
    preliminary engineering. I think we are waiting, as I
    understand it right now, for their financial proposal. I think
    we have part of it. I think they have some pieces that are
    missing. And we have asked for some additional information. But
    we are looking at it, and it is certainly on our radar.
        And you made a really good point about the tunnels. I had
    the pleasure of spending some time up in New York, for two
    days, the MTA gave me an extensive tour of what's going on up
    there. And those projects are extremely complex. The tunneling
    is just totally amazing. I didn't know New York City has really
    a city underneath it, almost, with all the tunneling they have
    involved. But it is a very interesting transit project.
        But we are very much familiar with the ARK project, and we
    are certainly giving it attention, sir.
        Mr. Pascrell. This would be a large step forward for the
    entire area, as you well know.
        Ms. Bushue. Certainly.
        Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Capka, first of all, I want to
    congratulate you on your recent confirmation. During your
    Senate confirmation hearing, you committed to allowing New
    Jersey to continue to follow multi-year funding formulas for
    capital construction projects. I just want you to reiterate
    that for us, if you would, take a minute to do that.
        Mr. Capka. Well, sir, thank you very much first of all for
    your congratulations. I really appreciate that. Secondly, with
    respect to the fiscal constraint process that we and the New
    Jersey DOT are working, we are not so concerned about the
    process that the Department uses to get to its end state. But
    we just want to make sure that the process itself is fiscally
    constrained. In other words, that they have the resources to
    finish what they start.
        I think we are in pretty good shape right now, that we
    won't see any further problems with the way New Jersey is
    handling this. That is our test. It is more the outcome than
    the process of getting there.
        Mr. Pascrell. Thank you.
        Ms. Glassman, you are Acting Administrator?
        Ms. Glassman. Deputy Administrator.
        Mr. Pascrell. Deputy Administrator. Administrator Glassman,
    in all, SAFETEA:LU provided approximately $1.5 billion in
    incentive grant funding to increase vehicle occupant
    protection. As you know, whiplash is the most common and
    annoying type of injury in motor vehicle crashes. It is by far
    the predominant injury in rear impact crashes and generates
    billions of dollars in medical costs. There is innovative
    research being done in North Jersey right now with the goal of
    significantly decreasing these kinds of injuries.
        This approach involves a contoured seat design concept, I
    don't know if you have seen it, that will help control the
    interaction between the torso and the seat back in order to
    preserve the spinal curvatures during a rear impact collision.
        The last upgrade, and correct me if I am wrong, to the
    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 202 on head
    restraints was made in late 2004. This is what my question is,
    my point. What sort of research has NHTSA been involved with
    since then, and are there plans to update whiplash prevention
    regulations in the near future? This is a very critical issue
    with regard to many injuries that are happening throughout the
    United States.
        Ms. Glassman. Yes, sir, it is, thank you for the question.
    We issued a final rule upgrading standard 202 in about 2004. We
    have received many petitions for reconsideration on various
    aspects of the rule, so we continue to do research and to look
    at those petitions. A lot has to do with the level of what we
    call backset, which is how close your head is to the actual
    head restraint. That is a core feature of reducing whiplash and
    rear impact injuries, is making sure there is less movement of
    the torso and the head.
        There's also a considerable amount of research into new
    technologies that will help reduce the incidence of crashes
    occurring in the first place. We are seeing a big shift from
    crash worthiness, or protecting people when the crash occurs,
    into actual crash avoidance, making sure that crashes do not
    occur. We see a lot of technology starting to come into
    vehicles today and new technologies on the horizon which will
    help reduce the incidence of those crashes actually occurring.
    We believe that that will help reduce those injuries quite a
    bit.
        Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Chairman, when you see the number of
    significant injuries that we are talking about, this could have
    an appreciable effect on insurance rates all throughout this
    Country. If we can do this, and if this provides for a large
    hulk of those injuries, I think that is one way, in a huge
    puzzle. But it is one way to begin to bring those huge
    insurance rates down to some degree.
        Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Mr. Cummings, do you have questions?
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Bushue, SAFETEA:LU modified the definition of a transit
    capital project to include inner-city bus terminals that are a
    part of intermodal projects. These terminals are now eligible
    for FTA funding to the same extent as any other transit capital
    project. This new eligibility is particularly important in
    cities like mine, Baltimore, which are planning new inner-city
    bus-intermodal projects.
        When do you expect that FTA will issue final guidance
    implementing the provisions, and can you describe the process
    that the FTA has developed to help transit agencies implement
    the bus and bus facilities projects identified in the
    SAFETEA:LU bill?
        Ms. Bushue. Yes, Congressman Cummings, I just had to think
    about that for a second. It is a public-private partnership
    that we are very excited about, that inner-city buses can use
    these terminals along with city buses, they can join in
    together. And we have sought comments which ended April 27th,
    and we are collecting those comments, and we hope to have
    guidance published, joint guidance published in the Federal
    Register some time this summer.
        Mr. Cummings. OK. I know that PHMSA is not here, but I
    would like to mention to you all my concern about
    implementation of Section 7131 of SAFETEA:LU, which requires
    the Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
    Safety Administration to enter into a contract with the
    National Academy of Sciences to conduct nine specific research
    studies on the transportation of hazardous materials. I
    understand that the slow release of funds from the Federal
    Highway Trust Fund has delayed initiation of these studies.
        Section 7131 also required that the Secretary of the
    Department of Transportation submit a report not later than six
    months after the enactment of SAFETEA:LU, on the need to
    establish a cooperative research program on hazardous materials
    transportation. I understand that the Department of
    Transportation is waiting to clear the report before its final
    release.
        I am just concerned that this takes place timely and soon.
    I hope that you will take that back to the PHMSA people.
        Mr. Capka. Mr. Cummings, I sure will. I appreciate your
    comment.
        Mr. Cummings. And it was my amendment, that is why I am so
    concerned about it. I already told my constituents I did this
    great thing, and I want to be able to say it's happening.
        Mr. Capka. Sir, we will follow up with you and give you the
    status of where that particular action sits today.
        Mr. Cummings. Just going back, I see I still have a moment,
    Ms. Bushue, thank you very much. Ms. Bushue, let me go back
    into the second part of my question about this whole situation
    with the projects, intermodal projects. Can you describe the
    process that the FTA is going through?
        Ms. Bushue. For this particular one?
        Mr. Cummings. Yes.
        Ms. Bushue. Yes, absolutely. We published guidance January
    31st. After those guidance were published, we received some
    comments, a lot of comments. So we published an addendum to
    those guidance, I believe they were published in March. And
    they closed for comments on April 27th, 2006. But we do
    definitely, we will have final guidance for the joint
    development partnership by this summer, sir.
        Mr. Cummings. It is another concern of ours. We were able
    to get an earmark for a major project, smack dab in the middle
    of my district. And we would just like to know that they are
    going to be able to have the kind of guidance they need to be
    able to do it.
        Ms. Bushue. Absolutely. My trusty staff just gave me a note
    and they said we are working very closely with your office to
    develop some specific projects.
        Mr. Cummings. I thought he was going to say we just
    approved it.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you.
        I have one or two more questions, but before asking them,
    let me see if anyone else--Mr. DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Briefly, Mr. Chairman. We have kept the panel
    a long time. Just back to Small Starts, I guess I have two
    concerns, further concerns. One is, I want to be certain that
    we are building, and I have not seen the proposed rules, into
    these rules, prohibitions on fragmentation, that is, people
    have existing large projects, break them up and say, oh, well,
    we have a new project here. So that is one, I would like you to
    address that.
        And the second one is, although you seem quite enthusiastic
    about the construct you are coming up with to implement our
    legal, our legislative mandate, I note that the Administration
    only recommended $100 versus $200 million this year. And the
    appropriators, my understanding, have eliminated the $100
    million and put it over into other projects where it will
    hardly be noticed. So I guess I would like a comment on both
    those things.
        Ms. Bushue. Sure. I share your concern with your first
    point. We will be looking at the proposals very closely to
    ensure, Congressman DeFazio, that that does not happen. I
    always share with the FTA staff, I always get a kick, with all
    due respect to Congressman Pascrell, with the MTA says
    something like, I can't wait for that Small Starts project to
    get up and running. Because one of its benefits was to kind of
    level the playing field for all cities and towns to have a fair
    shake, if you will, on getting transit funding as such.
        As to your second point, the reason that the Administration
    did propose that, or we proposed that $100 million for the
    Small Starts program in fiscal year 2007 was due to the fact
    that the final rules would not be completed until probably
    August 2007. And we thought that $100 million was the
    appropriate investment and down payment for the program.
        Mr. DeFazio. But you did say earlier that you will be
    taking applications in the interim. I mean, how is it you
    recommend less than we sort of assessed. I think there is
    tremendous pent-up demand for these things, and I think your
    legitimate applications will far exceed the $100 million, let
    alone the $200 million, if implemented in the way we envision
    for other innovative street car, bus rapid transit, other sorts
    of things, that could make a major difference in small and mid-
    size cities.
        I am concerned that you sort of pre-calculated or guessed
    that, not having yet seen any applications and I am not sure
    what you are going to do, or how we are going to deal with the
    Appropriations Committee, since I guess they interpreted a lack
    of enthusiasm there because of the cut as opposed to your idea
    that perhaps it was just sort of a phasing and implementation
    issue. So hopefully the Administration will express some
    concerns about this move, since you are enthusiastic about it,
    to the Appropriations Committee.
        And then Mr. Chairman, the staff asked me for whatever
    reason to ask unanimous consent that all members have X amount
    of time to submit questions for the record which won't be
    answered. So I ask that, Mr. Chairman.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Petri. We will make a good faith effort to answer,
    anyway.
        Other questions? Mr. Blumenauer?
        Mr. Blumenauer. If I could, Mr. Chairman. Just following up
    on Mr. DeFazio's point vis-a-vis the Subcommittee. I would hope
    that our Committee would be pretty aggressive when the bill
    comes to the floor, as we have done in the past, in terms of
    protecting the integrity of the legislation we have worked on.
        And the notion that they have substituted their judgment in
    terms of--the material I have received is very hostile to both
    the intent and the program. And I would hope that the
    Committee, as we have done in the past, would be there pushing
    back. Because we spent a lot of time putting this together. We
    are responding to significant community support around the
    Country. And I just, I am troubled that we would have them
    intervene again, undercutting what we are doing.
        But with Mr. Oberstar not being here, I know he is excited
    that we have half the States already designating the Safe
    Routes to School permanent coordinator, we have 15 that are
    interim, 10 that I am sure are right on the verge. But my
    recollection here is that as part of the Safe Routes to School
    program, we were going to get a report of the School Task Force
    Committee, Safe Routes to School Committee, March 31st. And my
    understanding is, there has been no record that the Committee
    has yet been appointed, let alone delivering the report. Am I
    missing something here, or did you work out something with Mr.
    Oberstar on the side?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Capka. Sir, as you well know, Mr. Oberstar has been
    very involved in the Safe Routes to School program. And yes,
    there was a report that was due at the end of March. It was
    submitted toward the end of April. So there was a report. We
    have also brought on----
        Mr. Blumenauer. You actually formally put together the task
    force?
        Mr. Capka. We have formulated a task force. I will have to
    be sure we have brought on the University of North Carolina to
    act as the clearinghouse for that operation.
        Mr. Blumenauer. But there was a task force that was going
    to put together this report. And I don't think they have ever
    been formally--if we could find out what is going on.
        Mr. Capka. Yes, sir, there is a slight problem with the
    task force, because it falls under the Federal Advisory
    Committee Act. So we have a little bit of homework to do before
    we can launch the task force. You are right, that hasn't been
    done yet, but we are in the process of working that issue. We
    have submitted a report but the task force----
        Mr. Blumenauer. That the task force was going to do that
    hasn't yet been appointed? OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer.
        Ms. Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate this hearing. I am sorry I was late arriving, I had
    a markup in another committee.
        But I do want to ask a question of Ms. Bushue, the Acting
    Administrator of the FTA. First, we appreciate the fact that
    you are working with us on transportation issues already,
    especially the Dallas Area Rapid Transit.
        Secondly, I want to say that the FTA bus program for
    intermodal terminals, including the inner-city bus portion of
    these terminals, is very, very important in my district. We
    have lots of poor people and lots of miles to travel in Texas.
    If you haven't ever been to Texas, I will try to get you around
    to see it.
        The setaside is similar to the inner-city bus intermodal
    program proposed in the Administration's SAFETEA proposal and
    in legislation that I sponsored. So I believe that development
    of intermodal terminals and inclusion of inner-city buses in
    these terminals should be a high priority at the FTA, as they
    would provide increased convenience, efficiency and
    seamlessness for passengers dependent on public transit. I just
    want to know when or how does the FTA intend to implement this
    setaside program.
        Ms. Bushue. Thank you, Congresswoman Johnson. I will be
    coming to Dallas on July 3rd for the opening ceremony of the
    extension of your light rail line. So I will look forward to
    seeing you there.
        Actually, your colleague, Congressman Cummings, had the
    same question, and just to let you know that April 27th we
    closed the Federal Register notice for comments from the
    guidelines that we had outlined for joint use of the public and
    private, or the intermodal terminals for public and private
    use. We hope to have those guidelines ready this summer,
    hopefully no later than August.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Now, be assured that not all the
    poor people are in Dallas, so don't go there looking for them.
    They are all over Texas, though. So if you come to Dallas and
    see how beautiful it is and what a wonderful place, that is all
    through. But we have that other, too, that might not be as
    obvious, where you will be.
        Ms. Bushue. Absolutely. You do have a wonderful light rail
    system, and the Secretary, I think, will definitely be joining
    us. We look forward to traveling there July 3rd. Thank you.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Petri. Well, let's see. I have two--did you have
    another question?
        Just two quick questions, one for Ms. Bushue. And that has
    to do with the New Freedom program to help disabled people with
    access. Do you know when the final guidance for the New Freedom
    program will be published and what kinds of specific activities
    will be eligible under the New Freedom program? We are getting
    inquiries from various constituencies and so on. I think we had
    some legislative language we were watching like hawks to see
    how you actually implemented.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Bushue. Yes, you are, Mr. Chairman. You have a very,
    very agressive staff that has been watching us very closely.
    But they do a great job. We enjoy our partnership with them.
        First, I would like to say that we did issue the guidance,
    the draft guidance, in March. It was amazing, the number of
    comments. And I have to tell you, I know--do I sound
    enthusiastic about transit? I am. It is just, I just can't tell
    you how exciting really the industry is and the communities are
    across the Country. I like to say transit is hot. And it really
    is. There is just so much enthusiasm out there about it, so
    much going on. And as for the New Freedom program, we received
    over 190 comments, which is unbelievable. So there is a lot of
    interest.
        And we are going through those comments, and we hope to
    post a final circular, final guidance in July. But it is our
    intent, and of course, it is not final as we continue to go
    through the comments that we receive, but as for the New
    Freedom, it is our intent that it would support services, new
    services, and beyond the ADA. I think the issue was or, but
    FTA's intent is to focus on new services, and services beyond
    the Americans With Disabilities Act.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you. There is one member of this panel who
    has been not acting, but confirmed for some time, Mr.
    Kaveeshwar. But we can't let you off without a question, sir,
    because we are interested in how you are doing in administering
    the competitive selection process for the UTC, or university
    transportation center program.
        Mr. Kaveeshwar. Thank you for asking that question, Mr.
    Chairman. Let me just give you a very quick run-down on what we
    are doing with respect to the competitive process. The regional
    UTCs, there were 10 of them, and that competition is just
    closed. They opened it on March 15th and the application was
    received on June 1st. We intend to finish our final selections
    by July 14th.
        The next competition, that is the Tier 1 UTCs, and that
    competition just opened on June 1st. The applications are due
    on August 15th, and we intend to finish the selections by
    September 29th. So we intend to award all of the Tier 1 as well
    as the regional UTCs by the end of this fiscal year.
        We also want to thank this Committee for strengthening this
    program over the TEA-21. We are very excited about it, and we
    are hoping to use the expanded program and connect its research
    to the Department's priorities.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you. And this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]