    [Senate Hearing 114-574]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-574

                         IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAST ACT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 8, 2016

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                                 Transportation

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    24-520 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                       JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
    ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    MARCO RUBIO, Florida                 CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               GARY PETERS, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana
                           Nick Rossi, Staff Director
                      Adrian Arnakis Deputy Staff Director
                        Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
                     Jason Van Beek, Deputy General Counsel
                     Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
                  Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
           Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on June 8, 2016.....................................     1
    Statement of Senator Thune.......................................     1
    Statement of Senator Nelson......................................     3
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to Ludwig Willsch, Chief Executive
          Officer and President, BMW of North America, LLC...........     4
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to Michael Horn, President and
          Chief Executive Officer, Volkswagen Group of America.......     7
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to James Lentz, Chief Executive
          Officer, Toyota Motor North America........................    10
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to Tomomi Nakamura, Chairman and
          Chief Executive Officer, Subaru of America, Inc............    13
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to Jose Munoz, Chairman, Nissan
          North America, Inc.........................................    16
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to Ryujiro Kobashi, President and
          Chief Executive Officer, Mitsubishi Motors North America,
          Inc........................................................    19
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to Dietmar Exler, President and
          Chief Executive Officer, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC............    22
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to Masahiro Moro, President and
          Chief Executive Officer, Mazda Motor of America, Inc.......    25
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to Takuji Yamada, Chief Executive
          Officer and President, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.......    28
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to Mary T. Barra, Chairman and
          Chief Executive Officer, General Motors Company............    31
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to Sergio Marchionne, Chairman and
          CEO, FCA US LLC............................................    34
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to Mark Fields, President and
          Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company................    37
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to Bernhard J. Glaser, Vice
          President and Managing Director, Daimler Vans USA..........    40
        Letter dated March 9, 2016 to Martin Daum, President and CEO,
          Daimler Trucks North America LLC...........................    43
    Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    54
    Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    56
    Statement of Senator Schatz......................................    58
    Statement of Senator Peters......................................    60
    Statement of Senator Heller......................................    61
    Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................    63
    Statement of Senator Ayotte......................................    65
    Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    67
    Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    69
        Article dated September 11, 2015 from The Wall Street Journal
          entitled ``Highway to Bureaucratic Hell''..................    70
        Article dated May 25, 2016 from the Boston Globe by Lawrence
          H. Summers and Rachel Lipson...............................    72
        Prepared statement...........................................    74
    Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    74
    Statement of Senator Daines......................................    76
    Statement of Senator Wicker......................................    78

                                   Witnesses

    Hon. Anthony R. Foxx, Secretary, U.S. Department of
      Transportation.................................................    46
        Prepared statement...........................................    48

                                    Appendix

    Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
      by:............................................................
        Hon. John Thune..............................................    83
        Hon. Roger F. Wicker.........................................    99
        Hon. Roy Blunt...............................................   100
        Hon. Marco Rubio.............................................   102
        Hon. Deb Fischer.............................................   104
        Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   108
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................   109
        Hon. Steve Daines............................................   111
        Hon. Bill Nelson.............................................   115
        Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................   115
        Hon. Brian Schatz............................................   118
        Hon. Edward Markey...........................................   120
        Hon. Cory Booker.............................................   120
        Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   122

                         IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAST ACT

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 2016

                                           U.S. Senate,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room
    SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Nelson, Fischer,
    Klobuchar, Schatz, Peters, Heller, Cantwell, Ayotte,
    Blumenthal, Sullivan, Moran, Daines, Wicker, McCaskill, Booker,
    and Gardner.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

        The Chairman. Good afternoon. This hearing will come to
    order.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome. Great to have you here. Thanks for
    joining us to discuss the implementation of the FAST Act. We've
    just passed the 6-month anniversary of the enactment of the
    first long-term highway bill in more than a decade, and after
    36 short-term extensions, the FAST Act provides the certainty
    and reforms necessary to improve our Nation's infrastructure
    and spur economic growth.
        The FAST Act was a significant bipartisan achievement
    showing once again the Senate is back to work for the American
    people. This committee's work, which accounted for more than
    half of the text of the bill, helped to enhance safety,
    increase transparency, reform regulatory structures, and
    improve planning for free, with reforms covering everything
    from railroads to cars, and truck to ports, as well as research
    and technology, this legislation was a true team effort to
    reduce congestion, protect passengers, and improve our Nation's
    multimodal supply chain.
        Each member of the Committee contributed to the success of
    the FAST Act. Senator Fischer drafted the FMCSA reforms.
    Senators Wicker and Booker formed a bipartisan team to
    reauthorize Amtrak and rail safety and infrastructure programs.
    Senators Blunt, Heller, and Manchin contributed provisions to
    streamline the permitting process for rail projects. And
    Senator Cantwell made major contributions on freight
    transportation. Senators Ayotte, Heller, McCaskill, and
    Klobuchar all made significant contributions to the NHTSA
    titles.
        The FAST Act contains many provisions that protect lives on
    our Nation's roadways by improving highway traffic safety and
    promoting greater consumer awareness and corporate
    responsibility for vehicle safety. For instance, I'm pleased
    that the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act is now the law
    of the land. This law, which I introduced with Ranking Member
    Nelson and others, incentivizes employees to blow the whistle
    when manufacturers sit on important safety information.
        Other provisions in the bill also sought to address a lack
    of confidence in NHTSA's handling of recent recalls by creating
    strong incentives for the agency to get its house in order. In
    the wake of the recall over the GM ignition switch defect, the
    Inspector General published a scathing report identifying
    serious lapses at NHTSA, including questions about the agency's
    ability to identify and investigate safety problems.
        Following the incentives in the FAST Act, I understand that
    NHTSA has made some progress implementing the reforms called
    for by the Inspector General, closing 8 of its 17
    recommendations. Clearly, there is more work to be done,
    however, and you can expect continued pressure from this
    committee to increase agency efficiency.
        I'm also proud of the impaired driving provisions that we
    worked to enact. The law adds a new grant to states that
    provide 24/7 sobriety programs, a program which originated in
    South Dakota, while maintaining a grant for states with
    stronger ignition interlock laws. I'm pleased that the
    Department seems to be listening to stakeholder concerns about
    the implementation of highway safety grants, but the Department
    needs to improve its partnership with the states on highway
    safety and provide greater flexibility so that states can
    tackle their own unique highway safety challenges.
        As I noted, in addition to vehicle safety, the FAST Act
    includes a rail title sponsored by Senators Wicker and Booker
    that reforms Amtrak to improve its services and finances,
    overhauls the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
    program to make it more efficient and accessible, and, most
    importantly, raises the bar on rail safety.
        I commend the Department for its thoughtful approach in
    defining Amtrak's new account structure and its expeditious
    action to meet the deadlines set in law. While some of the RRIF
    program reforms are tied up with the creation of the Innovative
    Finance Bureau, I hope the Department can nonetheless take
    quick action to increase the transparency of the program, repay
    credit risk premiums, and provide stakeholders with greater
    certainty concerning eligibility and program terms.
        On rail safety, I look forward to FRA's forthcoming actions
    to implement the grade crossing requirements of the FAST Act,
    including the distribution of model action plans in risk data
    to States. In 2015, 244 individuals died at railroad crossings,
    the second most common cause of railroad-related fatalities
    after trespassing. I strongly encourage FRA to provide states
    with comprehensive and detailed education enforcement and
    engineering strategies to reduce grade crossing accident risk.
    I expect this will entail collaboration across the Department
    and with stakeholders on the more effective uses of Section 130
    program funds.
        I also look forward to the FRA's forthcoming actions to
    implement my amendment requiring cameras on passenger trains,
    fulfilling a longstanding NTSB recommendation in helping
    railroads better monitor crews and track conditions. This is
    just one of several FAST Act requirements to increase rail
    safety as positive train control is fully and safely
    implemented. In addition to new safety measures, the FAST Act
    provided $199 million in dedicated funding to states and
    commuter railroads to accelerate the deployment of this
    important safety technology.
        I think it's also important to know that this bill builds
    upon freight planning efforts from the previous short-term
    authorization, MAP-21, to ensure that freight planning is truly
    multimodal. Highways bring freight to our stores and our doors,
    but railroads and ports bring goods to our shores and across
    the country. Recognizing that our transportation system is a
    network dependent on each element ensures that planning
    considers the whole supply chain from farm to truck, to rail to
    port. The Port Performance Working Group will ensure that we
    achieve efficiencies at our ports by capturing and analyzing
    performance metrics.
        Our economic competitiveness is dependent on our ability to
    compete with our foreign competitors, and if our corn is more
    expensive because our transportation is more expensive, that
    means our competitors are going to win.
        Mr. Secretary, I would like to close by thanking you and
    the Department for your commitment to meeting the deadlines set
    in the FAST Act. The Committee understands that this
    comprehensive legislation includes many new program reforms,
    safety mandates and reports, and we greatly appreciate your
    efforts thus far to help this legislation deliver for the
    American people.
        There is much work to be done over the next four and a half
    years, and this committee will conduct rigorous oversight to
    ensure the success of these vital transportation programs, but
    we really are off to a good start. The FAST Act, as implemented
    and as this Congress works to send to the President and FAA,
    pipeline safety, and myriad reauthorization in the near future,
    I would like to thank you personally for your continued
    partnership in improving all aspects of our Nation's
    transportation network. It's been great to work with you and
    your team, and I think we have achieved some very meaningful
    and long-lasting results. So thank you, Mr. Secretary, it's
    great to have you here.
        We look forward to hearing from you, and at this moment,
    I'll flip it to our Ranking Member, the Senator from Florida.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    having the Secretary here. And I'll echo what the Chairman has
    said with regard to the FAST Act that otherwise we refer to as
    the ``highway bill,'' but it has got a lot of other things in
    it other than highways, including the $11 billion to improve
    freight across all types of transportation and an additional $8
    billion to repair the Nation's passenger rail network. You all
    are going to distribute a lot of this money through these
    grants, and for the economic engine of the country to keep
    purring along, we've got to keep the engine of transportation
    going.
        Now, Mr. Secretary, one area that we've got to do better is
    vehicle safety. Over the last couple of years we have seen the
    saga play out on the Takata airbag recall, and it's
    unbelievable. It's up now in excess of 70 million vehicles
    being recalled just in this country because of defective Takata
    airbags that have killed over a score of people and have
    injured hundreds.
        A part of the work this committee has released is a report
    just last week that assessed the automakers' progress in
    recalling and replacing defective Takata airbag inflators. And
    I would like, Mr. Chairman, to insert in the record the 14
    companies that we wrote seeking this information, and I'll tell
    about that information that we received a little later.
        The Chairman. OK. Without objection.
        [The letters referred to follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Nelson. What we find are some alarming facts, that
    the completion rates range from as high as 57 percent to less
    than 1 percent. These defective airbags are still being
    produced with the ammonium nitrate, and installed as
    replacement inflators in the recalled vehicles, meaning that
    millions of consumers are going to have to replace their
    airbags, not once, but twice. But the most shocking part is the
    discovery that four automobile makers out of all those letters
    that we sent, four responded, that we know of, that they're
    selling new cars with the defective airbags on a schedule to be
    recalled in 2 years. That means that a new car buyer is going
    and buying a new car and then they're going to find out that it
    has an airbag in it that's going to be on the recall list
    scheduled for 2 years from now.
        That doesn't sound very good to me except the quandary that
    NHTSA finds itself in. It can't make enough of these
    replacement airbags, so it's going after the ones that they
    think are the most defective, which are the ones that the
    ammonium nitrate has sat around for several years, it has been
    exposed to heat and moisture. They can't produce enough of the
    airbags with the moisture absorber in the compound of ammonium
    nitrate that absorbs the moisture, so they're selling defective
    airbags in new cars.
        What I'm going to be asking you is not only your ability
    through NHTSA to stop the sale of a car since the law says you
    can't sell it if it has a recall item, and in this case, it's
    going to be an item that is going to be recalled in 2 years.
    And at the very least, I'm going to ask you, Mr. Secretary,
    well, shouldn't we at least let the buyer know that they're
    going to have an airbag that's going to be recalled in 2 years
    if they're purchasing a new car? Because they're getting less
    than what they think they're purchasing if they're purchasing a
    brand new car that's got an airbag that is going to have to
    come in and get replaced.
        So that's where I'll be going with my questions.
        The Chairman. OK. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
        Secretary, welcome. We love to hear from you. Please
    proceed and we'll then get into a chance to give our Members a
    chance to ask some questions, so thank you and welcome. It's
    good to have you here.

             STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY R. FOXX, SECRETARY,
                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Secretary Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me also
    respond in like manner to say to you and the Committee how much
    of a pleasure it has been to work with you through the last 3
    years. You all have taken your roles extremely seriously, and
    the partnership has been very strong, so thank you very much.
        Mr. Ranking Member and Members of the Committee, I want to
    thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding the
    Department's progress in implementing the FAST Act.
        Mr. Chairman, when I was last before you, one of our points
    of discussion was the need for Congress to pass and provide for
    certainty to states and pass a long-term surface transportation
    bill. While the FAST Act is not everything we need, I want to
    thank you for heeding our Nation's and our Department's call by
    passing this bipartisan long-term measure. It has removed the
    cloud of uncertainty hanging over our surface transportation
    system for the better part of a decade and is a down payment
    for building a 21st century transportation system.
        I also want to applaud this committee for including for the
    first time intercity passenger rail programs in a
    comprehensive, multimodal surface transportation authorization
    bill.
        Mr. Chairman, since the FAST Act was enacted last December,
    we have been laser-focused on distributing as much of the
    resources Congress has provided as possible to states and other
    grantees through formula dollars and discretionary
    opportunities. We have also identified five key program areas
    to focus our implementation efforts, and I'll talk about each
    of them in turn: safety, project delivery, freight, innovative
    finance, and research.
        First, as you know, safety continues to be our top
    priority, and we have taken a number of steps to implement FAST
    Act provisions in this area as quickly as possible. For
    example, in March, we issued a rule that raises maximum fines
    against non-compliant auto manufacturers from $35 million to
    $105 million. We also moved quickly to solicit nominations for
    FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program Working Group
    to analyze the formula for the program, which provides much
    needed support to State agencies.
        In the coming months, we will seek public comment on new
    authority to prohibit rental car companies from knowingly
    renting vehicles that are subject to safety recalls. This
    provision gives NHTSA an important tool to protect the safety
    of U.S. motorists, as rental agencies operate some of the
    largest fleets in the country.
        Second, in the area of project delivery, the FAST Act
    adopted a number of administration proposals to further speed
    the review and permitting processes while still protecting our
    Nation's environmental and historic treasures. Just last week,
    the public comment period opened to review FRA's survey of
    categorical exclusions used in railroad transportation
    projects. We also have a number of additional guidance and
    rulemaking documents underway to implement provisions that
    eliminate duplication of environmental reviews.
        Third, there are a number of freight programs and related
    provisions in the FAST Act that address challenges outlined in
    our ``Beyond Traffic'' study released last year. As our study
    indicates, it is estimated that by the year 2045, freight
    volume will grow to 29 billion tons, an increase of 45 percent
    from 2014 levels. The freight programs in the FAST Act now
    provide for the first time dedicated Federal funding that will
    allow us to fund freight and highway projects, including
    multimodal projects, to deal with these growing needs. We just
    closed the application period for the freight and highway
    competitive program we call FASTLANE last month, which will
    provide $759 million in grants for critical projects.
        Fourth, I am pleased that Congress sought to build on the
    administration's successful Build America Investment Initiative
    by establishing a National Surface Transportation and
    Innovative Finance Bureau in the FAST Act. In the next few
    months, we will provide updated guidance for the RRIF program
    that incorporates changes provided for under the FAST Act,
    including revised application processing procedures and an
    application dashboard.
        And, finally, something that goes hand-in-hand with all of
    the Department's efforts are research and innovation. In March,
    we began the competition for UTC grants, which allows students
    and faculty to work together toward innovative transportation
    solutions. We have received 212 applications for the 35 grants
    available. I'm proud of the work the Department has
    accomplished in such a short period of time, but this is just
    the beginning, and it would not be possible, I would like to
    repeat, without the work of this Congress on a bipartisan
    basis.
        We will continue our aggressive schedule to execute the
    reforms you put into place, because if our Nation is going to
    have the type of transportation system tomorrow that is better
    than it is today, wasted time is something none of us can
    afford.
        And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, and I
    look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Foxx follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Hon. Anthony R. Foxx, Secretary,
                       U.S. Department of Transportation
        Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on our progress
    in implementing the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
        Thank you for heeding our Nation's call and our Department's call
    by passing a long-term, bipartisan surface transportation bill that
    increases funding, provides much needed reforms, and removes the cloud
    of uncertainty hanging over our surface transportation system for the
    better part of a decade. While it is not everything we need, the FAST
    Act is a down-payment for building a 21st Century transportation
    system.
        I also want to applaud this Committee for including, for the first
    time, intercity passenger rail programs in a comprehensive, multimodal
    surface transportation authorization bill. The FAST Act includes
    provisions to significantly improve the transparency of Amtrak funding
    and the delivery of its services, as well as authorizes three new
    competitive grant programs to improve the safety, efficiency, and
    reliability of passenger and freight rail systems. The Act also
    provides important safety provisions such as dedicated funding for
    implementing positive train control, a requirement for states to
    establish highway-rail grade crossing action plans, and a mandate to
    provide recording devices on passenger trains. We are pleased to see
    the inclusion of a rail title and have been hard at work implementing
    provisions not only in this title, but also throughout the FAST Act.
        The FAST Act calls for the Department to implement a significant
    number of programs, rulemakings, guidance, notices and other measures,
    and we have made every effort to do so in a timely, open, and
    transparent way.
        Since passage of the Act, we have engaged stakeholders and the
    public through roundtables, panels, on-line forums, and meetings on
    targeted topics, including the Transportation Infrastructure Finance
    and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program, project delivery,
    accessibility, planning, freight, and bicycle/pedestrian
    infrastructure. We also acted quickly to issue over fifty guidance
    documents, hundreds of questions and answers, and over fifty fact
    sheets that provide critical information regarding implementation of
    FAST programs and provisions. We have made progress toward initiating
    several FAST-related rulemakings, and we are also continuing our
    efforts related to Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-
    21) Act rulemakings.
        We are committed to distributing as much available funding as
    possible to states and other grantees to maximize the impact of FAST
    nationwide. For example, in January, the Federal Highway Administration
    (FHWA) apportioned approximately $40 billion to States. At the same
    time, we have worked tirelessly to issue funding opportunities for new
    grant programs established under the FAST Act.
        In March, we began competition for the Nationally Significant
    Freight and Highway Projects grants, which we refer to as FASTLANE
    (Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-
    term Achievement of National Efficiencies), which will fund high-impact
    projects that address key challenges affecting the movement of people
    and freight. This year's FASTLANE competition will provide $759 million
    in grants.
        We also announced the availability of $377.5 million over the next
    five years for grants to support solution-oriented transportation
    research at colleges and universities under the University
    Transportation Center (UTC) Program. We plan to announce these awards
    early this fall. These are just a few examples of FAST Act funding
    opportunities we are dedicated to providing this year.
        Mr. Chairman, when the FAST Act was enacted last December, we
    identified five key program areas on which to focus our efforts--
    safety, project delivery, freight, innovative finance, and research.
    Today, I will provide an update of the progress we have made in these
    areas and more.
    Safety
        As you know, safety has and continues to be our top priority. We
    have taken a number of steps to implement FAST Act provisions in this
    area as quickly as possible. In January, we solicited nominations for
    the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) Motor Carrier
    Safety Assistance Program working group to analyze the formula for the
    program, which provides critically needed support to State agencies
    engaged in commercial motor vehicle safety related activities. The
    first meeting of the working group was held in April. Per the FAST Act,
    we also commissioned the National Academies to conduct a correlation
    study of the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program, which is
    underway now.
        In March, we issued a rule \1\ that raises maximum fines against
    non-compliant auto manufacturers from $35 million to $105 million. In
    April, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
    issued a report \2\ on actions taken to increase public awareness of
    the dangers of drug-impaired driving. In May, we issued a rule \3\ to
    implement and provide funding under State highway safety grant
    programs, including the newly authorized 24/7 Sobriety Program Grants
    and the Non-Motorized Safety Grants.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Notice of Increase in Civil Penalty for Violations of National
    Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 81 Fed. Reg. 15413 (March 22,
    2016)
        \2\ Report to Congress entitled ``Increasing Public Awareness of
    the Dangers of Drug-Impaired Driving''
        \3\ Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs, 81
    Fed. Reg. 32554 (May 23, 2016) (amending 23 C.F.R. Part 1300)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the upcoming months NHTSA will also be seeking public comment,
    as required, on a new authority to prohibit rental car companies from
    knowingly renting vehicles that are subject to safety recalls. This
    provision gives NHTSA an important tool to protect the safety of U.S.
    motorists, as rental agencies operate some of the largest fleets in the
    country. In the fall, we will administer a pilot program with State
    DMVs to require notification to owners about open safety recalls at the
    time of vehicle registration.
    Project Delivery
        The Department has been a leader in reducing the bureaucratic red
    tape that can stall and delay critical transportation projects from
    moving forward. The FAST Act adopted a number of Administration
    proposals to further speed the review and permitting processes while
    still protecting environmental and historic treasures. Building on
    prior work carried out with our Federal and State partners to improve
    the environmental review process, we have implemented several project
    delivery FAST provisions to date.
        For example, we published an environmental checklist to help
    project sponsors identify potential project approval requirements;
    issued a memo on improving habitats for pollinators; and coordinated
    with other Federal agencies on aligning Federal reviews of potential
    historic sites.
        This week, we will be soliciting public comment on the potential
    application of the FHWA and Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
    procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA) to railroad projects. Last week, we issued a notice providing
    the public an opportunity to review the Federal Railroad
    Administration's (FRA) survey of categorical exclusions used in
    railroad transportation projects and new categories of activities that
    may be appropriate for future categorical exclusions.
        We also have a number of guidance and rulemaking documents underway
    to implement provisions that eliminate duplication of environmental
    reviews, align Federal environmental reviews across the Department, and
    improve State and Federal agency engagement in environmental reviews.
    Freight
        The FAST Act freight programs and related provisions provide an
    important opportunity to begin to address the many challenges outlined
    in our ``Beyond Traffic'' study, including inefficiencies in our
    Nation's freight system and the need for a stronger multimodal
    transportation system. As the study indicates, more than 10 million
    trucks moved more than 10 billion tons of freight across America's
    highways in 2014. It is estimated that by 2040 freight volume will grow
    to 29 billion tons--an increase of 45 percent. The freight formula
    program and freight and highway discretionary program in the Act will,
    for the first time, provide a dedicated source of Federal funding for
    freight projects, including multimodal projects.
        In February, FHWA issued implementing guidance for the National
    Highway Freight Program, which provides much needed formula funds to
    states to improve efficient movement of freight on the National Highway
    Freight Network. As I mentioned earlier, we also began the competition
    for FASTLANE grants. We have received 212 applications totaling nearly
    $9.8 billion for grants under this new program. This huge wave of
    interest in the first year of this program--with states and localities
    requesting over 13 times more funding than available--underscores the
    continuing need for infrastructure investment across the Nation.
        This week we established an interim National Multimodal Freight
    Network and in the coming months we plan to issue several additional
    essential planning tools that will help inform multimodal freight
    transportation planning across the country, including State Freight
    Plan guidance and a final National Freight Strategic Plan.
    Innovative Finance Bureau
        Building on the Administration's successful Build America
    Investment Initiative, the FAST Act establishes a ``National Surface
    Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau'' to align, coordinate,
    and consolidate aspects of the Department's existing surface
    transportation innovative finance programs. This new office will serve
    as a single point of contact and coordination for states,
    municipalities, and project sponsors looking to use Federal
    transportation expertise, apply for Federal transportation credit
    programs (including TIFIA and the Railroad Rehabilitation and
    Improvement Financing (RRIF)), and explore ways to access private
    capital in public-private partnerships. We are working diligently to
    develop a clear and comprehensive plan to stand up this new office
    soon. We have, and will continue, to provide you with updates on our
    progress.
        In March, we announced the availability of $1.435 billion in
    capital over five years for the TIFIA program. In the next few months
    we plan to issue updated guidance for the RRIF program that
    incorporates changes provided under the FAST Act, including revised
    application processing procedures and an application dashboard.
    Research and Innovation Deployment
        At the Department we continue to transform government for the 21st
    Century by conducting transportation research, harnessing innovation,
    and embracing technology that will improve people's lives. Many of the
    FAST Act research program funding and provisions provide opportunities
    for us to carry out this vision.
        As I mentioned earlier, in March we began the competition for UTC
    grants which allows students and faculty to work together toward
    innovative solutions to the challenges that face our transportation
    system, such as those outlined in our ``Beyond Traffic'' study. We have
    received 212 applications for the 35 grants available and are reviewing
    those applications now.
        We also began competition for $60 million in grants for the
    Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies
    Deployment Program, to fund cutting-edge transportation improvement
    technologies that will improve safety, efficiency, system performance,
    and infrastructure return on investment. These awards may be used for
    projects that use real-time traveler information, traffic data
    collection and dissemination, vehicle-to-infrastructure communication
    and an array of other dynamic systems and intelligent transportation
    system technologies.
        Within the Department we are working quickly to develop annual
    modal research plans, per the FAST Act, to provide a comprehensive
    research outlook for the upcoming year. We are also developing a 5-year
    transportation research and development strategic plan to guide future
    Federal transportation research and development activities.
    Other Areas
        Beyond our key program areas, we have made great strides in
    implementing other FAST Act provisions of interest to this Committee.
        In February, we convened the Gulf Coast Working Group to identify
    an option and the steps needed to restore passenger rail service along
    the Gulf Coast region. A report from this working group will be
    provided later this fall.
        We worked expeditiously to select members for the Port Performance
    Freight Statistics Working Group while ensuring the necessary balance
    of interests across the many and varied actors in freight
    transportation. This working group will convene next month.
        We will soon be issuing a notice seeking input for the pilot
    program that allows military personnel trained as commercial drivers
    between the ages of 18 and 21 to operate in interstate commerce. We
    will closely monitor the safety performance of drivers in the pilot
    program through a working group comprised of representatives from the
    armed forces, State driver licensing agencies, safety advocates, and
    industry stakeholders.
    Conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to update
    you on our progress so far. We are proud of the work we have
    accomplished in a short period of time, and we anticipate continuing
    our aggressive schedule to execute the reforms you put in to place. I
    look forward to answering your questions.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        And I'll lead off and then we'll open up to our Members in
    the order in which they arrived.
        Your testimony noted that the Federal Railroad
    Administration is making progress on a number of important
    initiatives, from streamlining the permitting process to
    reforming the RRIF program, and I would like to get just a
    little bit more specific, if I might, about the expected
    implementation timelines. In particular, you mentioned that FRA
    plans to propose expedited NEPA procedures this week. Do you
    plan to finalize those procedures before the end of the year?
        Secretary Foxx. That is my plan. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. OK. And when does the Department expect to
    have a functional Innovative Finance Bureau and what RRIF
    program reforms can be implemented as the Bureau is set up?
        Secretary Foxx. We're using a belt-and-suspenders process
    by basically two-tracking everything and to get it up and
    running. I expect that we will have the Bureau office space up
    and going by the middle part of the summer. I also expect that
    we will issue a job description for the Executive Director of
    the Bureau as well.
        So my goal is to have it fully operational no later than
    the end of the year, but you will see the rolling out of it
    steadily over the next 6 months.
        The Chairman. OK. And can the RRIF reforms get going in the
    meantime?
        Secretary Foxx. Yes. They actually already are underway.
    There's a lot of work to try to consolidate a lot of the
    program structures of the RRIF program and the TIFIA program so
    that they look more like each other. I think that work is
    already underway, and I think you'll start to see a steady
    rolling out of that on the outside as well.
        The Chairman. Good. The 24/7 Sobriety Program and Impaired
    Driving Acts were something that the FAST Act made some
    significant reforms to and has a number of highway safety
    grants that provide more flexibility so the states can qualify
    for the grants and address their own unique highway safety
    challenges, and this new grant to aid states with a 24/7
    Sobriety Program is something that we were very focused on
    while maintaining the All Offender Alcohol Ignition Interlock
    grant, so now you've got a program that's worked really well,
    proven to be effective, but we believe that this 24/7 Sobriety
    Program also is something that will enable states to use all
    the tools that are in their toolbox to combat the significant
    problem of impaired driving.
        And I think, as I have pointed out in the past, that South
    Dakota has been an innovator in creating the 24/7 Sobriety
    Program, and the RAND Corporation recently showed that such
    programs reduce both repeat DUI and domestic violence arrests
    at a county level.
        So could you give us an update on the approach the
    Department is taking to work with the states to provide more
    flexibility as you go about the process of implementing these
    grants?
        Secretary Foxx. Yes. On May 16 of this year, we issued an
    interim final rule on the Ignition Interlock and 24/7 Sobriety
    Program. At this point, a lot of the work we're doing on this
    is working with the states to get the word out so that they are
    aware of the flexibility they have. We will be doing that
    through the summer and the fall, but I expect it will have a
    very robust response, given the additional flexibility.
        The Chairman. Great. Thank you. During consideration of the
    FAST Act, there were a number of Senators who were focused on
    supporting the needs of rural states. When implementing the
    law, the Department, I believe, should consider the burden of
    regulations on rural states in areas as the cost of
    implementing regulations on a per capita basis is higher. I'm
    told that current proposed performance rules would require all
    states to file reports for all parts of the national highway
    system, and the question really comes back to, do states really
    need to prepare reports to show, for example, that rural roads
    are operating at the posted speed limit? I mean, some of the
    reporting requirements seem to be a little bit extreme.
        Secretary Foxx. I'll take a look at it, Senator, and
    perhaps maybe respond either in a QFR or in a letter back to
    you on some of the questions related to this.
        The Chairman. Yes. I would just simply say that it seems to
    me at least that a more targeted approach to these reporting
    requirements would make some sense, and it would save money for
    investment in transportation as opposed to reporting. So I
    would encourage you, Mr. Secretary, as you look at those, to be
    more skeptical about how some of these proposed requirements
    may work and how they would impact rural areas of the country.
        Finally, let me just talk a little bit about CSA. As you
    know, the DOT IG, the GAO, and even an internal DOT report
    included that the Compliance, Safety, and Accountability
    Program was badly in need of reform, and while there is broad
    support for the intent of the program, to focus limited
    enforcement efforts on the least safe truck companies, Congress
    expressed concerns about the quality of analysis used to
    develop scores for motor carriers. The FAST Act required the
    scores to be fixed before they could be publicly held out as
    safety data. And we appreciate that the scores were removed on
    the date of enactment and that the raw factual data was
    restored to the website in a timely fashion after adjustments
    to the website were made.
        So the question is, when will the program be reformed so
    that the scores can be returned to the public website with
    confidence that the analysis is appropriate and represents the
    risk of an individual carrier?
        Secretary Foxx. Based on our preliminary assessment, it's
    going to take a while to do a revised analysis of this, and I
    would expect it would have to be more like 2 years before that
    information will be posted.
        The Chairman. OK. My time has expired.
        Senator Nelson.
        Senator Nelson. OK. Mr. Secretary, on what I had talked
    about before, back in March, we sent out letters to 14
    automobile makers involved in the Takata recalls, and we said,
    ``We want you to identify all the new models that are equipped
    with the defective Takata airbags that are offered for sale or
    are contemplated to being offered for sale.'' Now, some
    responded and some didn't, and we put that into a detailed
    report, which we released last week, but a bunch of them
    refused to answer whether they are currently selling new
    vehicles that contain the non-desiccated, or, in other words,
    the ones that don't have the moisture absorbent desiccant that
    has been mixed in with the ammonium nitrate.
        This is a failure of informing consumers, and I think your
    regulator ought to be getting answers on this. Now, I can tell
    you, this Senator--and I think I can speak for a lot of
    Senators up here--intends to get answers, and that's why I put
    in the record the 14 letters that we have just asked again for
    complete disclosure of any new models with those defective
    airbags, and I'm expecting them to give us complete answers.
        So now let me go to my question. Under current law, whether
    it's the law, whether it's the FAST Act, or whether it is the
    amended Takata Consent Order, do you have the authority to say,
    number one, ``Stop selling a new car with a bag that is going
    to be recalled in 2 years?'' And the second question is, ``Do
    you, in fact, have the authority to require the disclosure to
    the buying consumer of that new car that has got a bag that's
    going to be recalled?''
        Secretary Foxx. First of all, Senator, I want to thank you
    for your persistence and the dogged determination you have to
    get to the bottom of this. I share your frustration with
    Takata. We have been doggedly pursuing this issue from day one.
    We've gotten a Consent Order with Takata that we keep amending
    as the environment continues to change.
        On the first question, we are bound by our authorities to
    act where there is clear evidence that an action can be taken,
    and absent that, it would be something of a Pyrrhic victory to
    recall vehicles without having the substantiation to be able to
    hold those recalls under the lawsuit. You would effectively
    find ourselves twisting in the wind on lawsuits before people
    would actually not have to be in those cars.
        Senator Nelson. OK, let me interrupt you here then. What I
    think you're saying is that whereas the law says, because the
    Chairman and I put this in the FAST Act, it says that you
    cannot sell a new vehicle with a recalled item, but the fact
    that they are selling a new vehicle with an item that is going
    to be recalled in 2 years----
        Secretary Foxx. Correct.
        Senator Nelson.--you're saying you don't have the
    authority.
        Secretary Foxx. That's correct.
        Senator Nelson. OK. How about disclosure? How about the
    protection of the consuming public?
        Secretary Foxx. Within our existing authorities, I do not
    believe we have that authority. I will ask our lawyers to
    confirm that for me, and I will share the answer with you.
    However, within the Consent Order, we've been able to obtain
    additional requirements from Takata that would not have
    otherwise been available to us, and so what I would like to do
    is to pursue getting that kind of disclosure requirement within
    the Consent Order and within the remedies that we've been able
    to obtain from Takata and so make those disclosures happen. I
    agree with you that these disclosures should happen to
    consumers before they are purchasing these new cars.
        Senator Nelson. And, therefore, if your lawyers determine
    that you do not have that authority, then would you tell us
    what we do so that the buyer can beware, so that the buyer
    knows what they're buying?
        Secretary Foxx. Yes.
        Senator Nelson. If they're buying not the full package of
    what they think they're buying, they're buying something that
    they've got to go in and have recalled in 2 years.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes. We will work together on this issue to
    get to the bottom of it, and I pledge that to you, sir.
        Senator Nelson. Great. Will you also, please, help us if
    any of these automobile makers are dragging their feet, not
    responding to these 14 letters that we just sent out, will you
    help us?
        Secretary Foxx. I'll help you. Yes, sir.
        Senator Nelson. Maybe you ought to call a little prayer
    session with them.
        [Laughter.]
        Secretary Foxx. We did that back in January. Maybe we'll do
    it again.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson. Also good line of
    questioning there. Hopefully we can get some follow-up.
        Senator Fischer.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Foxx, it's good to see you again, and I do thank
    you for your good leadership in this very critical area.
        My first question is about the national freight policy,
    which we established in the FAST Act. And in order to remain
    competitive, we need to have a robust multimodal freight policy
    that enhances the efficiency of both our rural and our urban
    first and last mile connectors. In fact, DOT's National Freight
    Strategic Plan noted that freight flows across all modes will
    increase by 42 percent by the year 2040.
        In your perspective, what is the status of the
    implementation of that National Strategic Freight Plan, and how
    do you think the states are doing at designating those very
    critical rural and urban corridors? And how is DOT providing
    any kind of assistance, technical assistance, to the states so
    that they can move forward quickly on that?
        Secretary Foxx. Senator, first of all, I want to again
    thank you and this Congress for the focus on freight. This is
    an enormously important issue to our country, as you know. And
    what the FAST Act has done both on the policy side and on the
    resource side has really been to pivot the country toward
    focusing on this much more.
        I want to speak on your question to two things. One is the
    formula-based freight program. We have provided guidance to the
    states as of this winter to help them understand how to access
    those resources, and our experience to this point has been
    there's a lot of interest and excitement at the State level to
    implement on the formula side of the effort. The comment period
    has closed, as I pointed out in my opening statement, for the
    discretionary freight program, which we will hope to make
    announcements on that program in the summertime, but our goal
    is to continue not only putting the resources out there, but
    things like the expedited permitting and the categorical
    exclusions and all of the work that's involved in trying to get
    projects teed up, we are moving on an accelerated basis, and
    we've made a lot of great progress. That's just two proof
    points.
        Senator Fischer. Good. I thank you for that. As you know,
    there are resources out there, and states like Nebraska I
    believe are ready to move on this so that we can start some
    good progress. And, as you know, one of the elements of the
    highway bill that I'm really pleased with are the regulatory
    reforms that I authored for the FMCSA, and that was to help
    with transparency and consistency, but also with the public
    being more involved in the rulemaking on that.
        I understand that next week the Department's Motor Carrier
    Safety Advisory Committee is going to hold a public meeting
    concerning the implementation of that Section 5203 of the FAST
    Act, and that would require the FMCSA to conduct a
    comprehensive review and assessment of all the regulatory
    guidance that's currently on the books.
        In relation to this meeting, how does the FMCSA plan to
    continue the process of reviewing regulatory guidance so we can
    look at the consistency and the necessity and also creating
    greater transparency as we move into the future?
        Secretary Foxx. I am also very pleased to report that the
    FMCSA has been conducting listening sessions throughout the
    country, and will continue to so, even above and beyond the
    commission that you just referenced. This is helping us
    understand the perspective of industry, understand the
    perspective of other stakeholders, and, frankly, I think it
    will inure to the benefit of not only our operational
    approaches, but perhaps even our policy and regulatory
    approaches going forward.
        In addition to that, we have created a regulation
    evaluation division as of last year. This division is working
    to increase the use of available data, and has advanced the
    agency's effort to help to arrive at the best available
    solution on various regulatory and technical issues. We're also
    using that agency to increase transparency in our regulatory
    evaluations, which is also of great interest to our
    stakeholders. We're also committed to an Advanced Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking or proceeding with the negotiated
    rulemaking when considering major rules that require sufficient
    technical or scientific information. So these are just some of
    the process changes that we are working through in response to
    the language that you were good enough to put in the bill.
        Senator Fischer. Do you think that will help you to respond
    quicker to stakeholders when they are dealing with that so that
    the agency can have a formal response in a more timely manner?
        Secretary Foxx. I think it will help us with speed----
        Senator Fischer. Time is money when it's building roads.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes. I think it will help us with speed,
    and I also think it will help us with transparency because the
    more you are not communicating in a vacuum, the more people are
    constantly having communication with us, the less surprises
    there are on both sides, so I think it will be very helpful.
        Senator Fischer. Exactly. We want to see Commerce continue,
    and the FMCSA is important in making sure that our stakeholders
    are able to do that. Thank you, sir. It's good to see you.
        Secretary Foxx. Thank you. Great seeing you.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
        Senator Klobuchar is up next.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary Foxx.
        Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
        Senator Klobuchar. I know you were there in spirit, but we
    just dedicated the overpass that you helped with, with the
    TIGER Grant. I know we talked about that. Congressman Emmer and
    I were there, and that's in his district, and it's going to
    save a lot of lives.
        Secretary Foxx. That's great.
        Senator Klobuchar. It is the worst intersection in our
    state, so I want to thank you and the Department for that.
        Some really fast questions here related to the FAST Act and
    the MAP-21 in the FAST Act and trying to reduce delays. What
    progress has DOT made to date in implementing the project
    delivery reforms in the FAST Act? How are they going to
    communicate with State governments? This question, I had talked
    to some of our State people, it's their question. And how do
    you plan to monitor and assess the effectiveness of the
    reforms?
        Secretary Foxx. We're doing a number of things across a
    variety of modes, including FRA, FTA, and the Highway Division,
    but with the Highway Division specifically. On project
    delivery, we are looking at the expanded use of categorical
    exclusions. We have, through our bureau that was alluded to
    earlier, we are also working on speeding up the permitting
    process by incorporating more concurrent reviews in the work so
    that there are fewer documents flowing between agencies and
    government. We are using one table to make these decisions,
    which actually helps speed up the time.
        Those are two of the proof points of what we're trying to
    accomplish, and there are many more, and I'd be happy to give
    you a more elaborate answer.
        Senator Klobuchar. Very good. And I just want to--I'm going
    to move on from the safety issues with rail, but we've just
    gotten a statewide rail director appointed who is coordinating
    these efforts, Arlene Tchourumoff, and so I hope your
    Department will work with her. I put a provision in there about
    the rail crossings, and obviously you and I have talked about
    this in the past, but it's something that continues to be of
    concern.
        On Takata, I've been long calling for this recall. We had a
    woman in Minnesota that was blinded. She was a passenger in a
    car. My question there is just related to, How can we make sure
    consumers know what cars are under recall? What better job can
    we do with that? Because there are still people confused about
    what to do.
        Secretary Foxx. We are working with the industry to ensure
    that when we have a consent order or a coordinated recall
    effort, that we are using every tool available to us and to the
    industry. And so I've got a long list here of various
    strategies that we're trying in relation to Takata that include
    a recall campaign of Safe Cars Save Lives, proactive use of
    Internet, social media. There are a lot of things that we're
    doing to try to get the word out in some unconventional ways.
    Our goal is 100 percent compliance, and we are now tiering and
    holding the manufacturers accountable when we do a recall and
    establish a consent order to get 100 percent compliance through
    that consent order.
        Senator Klobuchar. And one more, there is that issue of the
    replacement inflators. What more can we do to make sure that
    they are available as soon as possible?
        Secretary Foxx. So the unfortunate reality is that there is
    only so much supply. I think some of the recall activity has
    actually triggered some additional suppliers to come out of the
    woodwork, so to speak, and as that supply comes online, we're
    just going to try to continue tiering it toward the risk as
    best we can. But I think we're doing everything we can within
    the universe of supply that's there, and hopefully we'll see
    more suppliers come into the market.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Last, distracted driving, I
    thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for including the
    provision I had with Senator Hoeven. As you know, there was a
    huge, I know, big priority of yours as well as your
    predecessor. There were grants available to help states to
    educate drivers, that more and more of these deaths and
    injuries are occurring because of distracted driving. It has
    not slowed down, and yet we had a pot of money sitting there
    that no one could access, I guess only the state of
    Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal is in here right now, but that
    happened one year.
        And so we made some changes to make it easier for the
    states to get in compliance so they can access this money, and
    I just want to make sure you knew that, as well as the
    Graduated Driver's License programs, we made some changes
    there. And I just thought you could comment in general on
    distracted driving.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes, it continues to be a huge issue, and
    we're going to have to continue working particularly with our
    younger cohort of drivers, but it's really across all
    demographics. In May of this year, we issued an interim final
    rule implementing the FAST Act distracted driving grants, as
    you point out, so thank you for that.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. You did that quickly. Thank
    you.
        Secretary Foxx. Absolutely. There will be comprehensive
    distracted driving grants as well as special distracted driving
    grants that will be available to states, and we will move that
    money as expeditiously as possible.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. I think timing is critical
    here, so I really appreciate it. Thank you for your good work,
    Secretary Foxx.
        Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
        Moving further west, Senator Schatz.
        [Laughter.]

                    STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

        Senator Schatz. Thank you. As west as you can go.
        Senator Klobuchar. And way warmer.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary Foxx. I wanted to follow up with you on TIFIA
    financing for transit-oriented development. As you know, we
    reduced the dollar amount threshold for eligibility for TIFIA
    projects and also included as eligible projects TOD, and I
    wanted to get your view on how we are moving along in terms of
    finding projects that are appropriate. And I've heard some
    concerns expressed from the private sector about exactly what
    the eligibility requirements are, and I want to get your
    assurances that we're moving along and interpreting the statute
    in as flexible a manner as possible.
        Secretary Foxx. Well, first of all, we are very, very
    excited about this new flexibility for our loan programs. FHWA
    released TIFIA guidance that clarifies that TOD investments are
    eligible under the FAST Act. We expect FRA to follow suit very
    shortly with the RRIF program. And so we don't have to date,
    any applications, but we've heard a lot of interest in this
    program. And if there is anyone who has a question, I would
    really urge that you or others direct them to our Build America
    Transportation Investment Center, which can help them figure
    out not only how to make use of that tool, but any of our other
    creative financing tools for transportation.
        Senator Schatz. Great. Thank you very much. We've talked a
    lot about Complete Streets, and I really appreciate the
    Department's focus on transportation generally speaking, that
    it's not the Department of Highways or the Department of Rail,
    it is the Department of Transportation, and we really need to
    be thinking about how to move people around in as safe of a way
    as possible. And I've been working with Senator Heller and
    others on Complete Streets. And I wanted to first get your
    sense of how we're moving along. We wanted something a little
    more prescriptive in the statute. We weren't able to achieve
    it, but, on the other hand, I think you've been able to work
    with mayors and transportation directors for State government
    and AARP and other stakeholders.
        So if you can just give me a quick update on how we're
    moving along with respect to this because whether the statute
    read exactly how I wanted it to or in the compromised version,
    I think the key is implementation at the sort of administrator
    level. So I want to know how we're doing. And I know you have a
    special perspective having been a mayor.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes, sir. I think we're moving along fairly
    well. We did initiate something called a ``Safer People, Safer
    Streets'' initiative, which has brought more than 200 mayors
    from across the country together to share best practices on how
    to implement essentially Complete Streets designs. Our Federal
    Highway Administration is also creating greater flexibility in
    the design of Federal aid highways so that there is at least
    the possibility that states and local governments can use those
    roadways in more innovative ways for all users. I think this is
    an area where it is not just the local governments, it's also
    the State and Federal governments that have to work together to
    lay out best practices, and all three levels of government will
    be involved in execution.
        Senator Schatz. Sure. And if you're using FAST Act funding,
    you know, in urban Honolulu versus in South Dakota, obviously
    you're going to have a different set of priorities, and that's
    appropriate. I do want to recognize Senator Heller for his
    leadership on a bipartisan basis of trying to move this
    forward.
        I have one concern that has been expressed to me, and it
    has to do with a rule proposed this spring which aims to
    establish measures of highway performance and congestion, and
    the concern is this: that all makes sense in a vacuum, but to
    the degree and extent that those metrics create an incentive
    that sort of ignores the question of multimodal, ignores
    potentially the question of location efficiency, and sort of to
    the extent that the Department is working on integrated
    multimodal transportation systems and being smart about all of
    this, that you don't want to create a rule which basically
    establishes a metric that says if you're a local DOT director,
    you say, look, that's all nice, they're encouraging us to do
    this, but they're paying us to do that, which is one more
    highway lane, one more boulevard lane, and thinking in terms of
    transportation and sort of, how can we sort of channel--I mean,
    I think of the old Army Corps of Engineers in terms of flood
    control, right? It was always blow as wide of a hole as you
    could and channelize and move that water through as quickly as
    possible.
        Certainly there are instances where you want to move every
    car as quickly through a community as possible, but there are
    other instances where you want to actually encourage people to
    not take the trip because something is right next door
    nowadays. I know you understand that. I want you to take a look
    at that rule from that perspective.
        Secretary Foxx. Will do, sir.
        Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Schatz.
        Senator Peters is up next.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Foxx, it's always a pleasure to see you. Thank
    you for being here before us today.
        The FAST Act does a lot to incentivize the development and
    deployment of very innovative transportation technologies,
    particularly in the space of automobiles, and I want to, before
    I go on with the questions, take a moment to thank you for your
    work in this area. You have been a real advocate for exploring
    how we can really fully utilize some of the exciting new
    technologies eventually leading to autonomous vehicles, and as
    you know, I sponsored a bill that was signed into law as part
    of the FAST Act that would allow states to use existing surface
    and highway transportation funds to invest in vehicle-to-
    vehicle infrastructure, the DSRC technology, which can help
    deliver really critical information to those vehicles on the
    road. It's going to help reduce traffic congestion, as we've
    heard from previous speakers, as well as dramatically reduce
    accidents.
        Section 6004 of the highway bill also directs the
    Department of Transportation to provide grants to localities to
    establish advanced transportation and congestion management
    deployment sites, and I understand that solicitation process is
    going forward as we speak.
        Secretary Foxx. Right.
        Senator Peters. And I also know that the Department of
    Transportation is finalizing its selection of the Smart Cities
    Challenge winner. And one of the criteria for the Challenge is
    to integrate advanced technologies in the management and
    operation of the city, which includes the deployment of
    connected and autonomous vehicle systems.
        Mr. Secretary, what role do you see the vehicle-to-
    infrastructure DSRC technology, as well as other DSRC
    technologies, playing in the deployment sites and to the
    eventual DOT Smart City that will be granted?
        Secretary Foxx. First of all, we are at the very edge of a
    wave of technology that will enter into the transportation
    space, and I think there are areas that we know are going to be
    areas of opportunity. The advent of connected cars, the advent
    of autonomous cars, I think those trends are coming, and
    they're unalterable in that sense, and so we have a
    responsibility to be ready for that.
        The vehicle-to-infrastructure component follows along with
    that, and what that means is a lot of things. In some respects,
    you have some of that functionality today with coordinated
    signalization, but it also could, in the future, do things like
    your street lights are coordinated according to the movement of
    automobiles, and so when there is no automobile on the road,
    the street lights are dim, and when cars appear at a certain
    distance away, they come on, and that could create energy
    savings and not compromise safety.
        So there are a lot of opportunities in this space. How they
    actually get deployed is one of the questions the Smart City
    Challenge is asking. We have tried not to be prescriptive with
    the cities to tell them you have to have your street lights
    coordinated, you have to do this, you have to do that, it's
    more a question of, What is the vision each city has and how
    does technology relate to that vision? And so it has been an
    exciting opportunity to see 78 cities apply, to see 7
    finalists, and to see this process moving forward, but I think
    this is the beginning of that conversation, not the end of it.
        Senator Peters. Right. Well, it is exciting, and I think a
    critical part of that is the ability for vehicles and
    infrastructure to communicate back and forth, which means
    having dedicated spectrum, and, as you know, there is some
    discussion as to whether or not the spectrum should be shared.
    Could you speak a little bit to how important it is to make
    sure that the spectrum is available and unfettered in these
    transportation systems?
        Secretary Foxx. Yes. I think I can't understate or
    overstate how important it is to be very sure that spectrum
    sharing is safe. We are supportive of the safe movement of
    vehicles, and I think the thought process to this point has
    been to reserve the 5.9 band for connected vehicles with the
    thought being that if you shared it, you would compromise
    safety. We're now in the throes of a research project with the
    FCC to determine whether you could actually share spectrum
    safely, and if you can, I'm sure we'll be supportive of it, but
    we need to know before we do it, we don't need to do it before
    we know.
        Senator Peters. So you're actively coordinating with the
    FCC? Do you feel that that is working well?
        Secretary Foxx. Yes, sir. There were some early hiccups
    perhaps on both ends, but I think we are in a very good place
    now and working well together.
        Senator Peters. Great. Well, it's great to hear.
        Secretary Foxx. Sure.
        Senator Peters. Mr. Chairman, I have a few other questions
    I would like to submit for the record for the Secretary, but my
    time is expired.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Peters. We'll make sure
    that those questions get submitted and hopefully responded to.
    Thank you.
        The Chairman. Next up is Senator Heller.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

        Senator Heller. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
    hearing.
        And, Secretary Foxx, thank you also for taking time out of
    your busy schedule to be here today.
        Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
        Senator Heller. We had the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of
    Commerce in town this week.
        Secretary Foxx. Oh.
        Senator Heller. And they held a function last night in the
    Kennedy Caucus Room unlike a function I think have ever been
    held in that Caucus Room before, but it was kind of
    interesting, the dynamics of bringing the Las Vegas Chamber of
    Commerce into Washington, D.C. Las Vegas is a ``can do'' city:
    anything you want, anything you think can happen in that town,
    in that city, will happen. To have them come to Washington,
    D.C., where nothing happens, was quite a dynamic, and I would
    hope that they would come more often, maybe they would have
    some influence on our city out here in Washington, D.C.
        But here's my question, there are a couple hundred of them.
    And at that event last night, their interest, obviously, is
    that corridor, the I-11 corridor, legislation that I pushed in
    the FAST Act. And I don't have to tell you the importance of
    it, two of the largest cities in America, Phoenix and Las
    Vegas, without a freeway between them. And you can imagine the
    economic development that would occur in the Southwest if you
    could connect those two cities. And it's not just the
    connection between Las Vegas and Phoenix, but all the way down
    to Tucson and all the way up to the Canadian border, and that's
    the plan. They want to know, and I have to meet with them
    tomorrow. If you were meeting with them, I guarantee you the
    first question they're going to ask you is, ``How long is it
    going to take to get that corridor between Phoenix and Las
    Vegas?'' What's the answer to that? Today?
        Secretary Foxx. Ooh.
        [Laughter.]
        Secretary Foxx. That's no pressure. You're meeting with
    them tomorrow?
        Senator Heller. That's the question I'm going to be asked.
        Secretary Foxx. Senator, we understand the importance of
    this corridor, and your leadership on moving the process
    forward has been absolutely critical. And I'm sure you're aware
    that MAP-21 did provide a portion of it being designated. The
    FAST Act, as you point out through your efforts, designates the
    portion between Arizona and Nevada. There is a working group
    that we have been part of convening that is looking--I think
    the biggest constraint, to be honest with you, is not just the
    planning and the design, but it's also identifying the Federal
    and State funding sources for the project. And we're going to
    continue being at the table with Arizona and Nevada until we
    figure that out with them and in identifying flexibilities that
    may support the advancement of the I-11 corridor. So we are
    working with them. I think that something like a tiered NEPA
    analysis is currently under discussion. We are going to do
    everything we can to help move things forward. Getting the
    planning is part of it, but I think getting the resources in
    place is going to be the biggest challenge.
        Senator Heller. The first section of that is the Boulder
    City bypass, and that is taking Federal, State, and local
    dollars in order for that to occur. So I think Nevada, Boulder
    City, Las Vegas, they're doing everything they possibly can to
    get ahead of this thing. Tell me a little bit more about this
    working group. How do they prioritize these high-priority
    corridors, like the I-11 and other projects?
        Secretary Foxx. Well, we always work based on what the
    local jurisdictions want to do, and in this case, you do have a
    demand that is coming from both states, and getting them
    coordinated and figuring out how to jointly plan a project of
    this magnitude and how to jointly go through the permitting
    process and using the levers we have to try to accelerate that,
    that's some of the work that is currently ongoing. Again, I
    think some of the biggest challenges are going to be each state
    looking at its complement of transportation projects and
    figuring out how it can fit in the resources to do these
    projects. And, of course, where we have the ability to help on
    the funding end, we're going to be looking for ways to help
    out.
        Senator Heller. OK. OK. Because I'm just trying to figure
    out, is there any way of streamlining this process?
        Secretary Foxx. Yes. Yes.
        Senator Heller. I'm sure that's what the working group is
    all about.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes.
        Senator Heller. We've got to get through this NEPA program.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes.
        Senator Heller. I guess the question is, is I don't have an
    answer yet.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Heller. Two years, 10 years, 20 years, how long
    does a project like--we haven't produced a new Federal highway
    to this extent in decades. I'm wondering----
        Secretary Foxx. Yes. I would separate the planning and
    design elements from the funding element, and I would say that
    we can move as fast as the locals can move as they work through
    the alignment issues. We're already trying to help accelerate
    the NEPA process, and so we will continue doing that type of
    work. I think on the funding side of it, we are constrained by
    what we have available. The FAST Act does provide additional
    formula dollars to each state for freight projects. In theory,
    this could be considered for that. We have guidance that we put
    out this year. And to the extent our discretionary programs
    could support and help, we will obviously consider any
    opportunity to help.
        Senator Heller. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
        Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
        Senator Heller. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heller.
        And, by the way, what does it take for one to get invited
    to the Las Vegas comes to the Capitol----
        Senator Heller. You were invited, Mr. Chairman. You were
    invited.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. I thought maybe it was one of those what
    happens in the Caucus stays in the Caucus events.
        Senator Heller. Yes, yes. You had to be over 21 years of
    age.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Heller. Maybe you didn't meet that criteria.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. All right. Next up is Senator Cantwell.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It's good to see you, Mr. Secretary. And thank you for all
    your leadership on freight and the FAST Act, and you've
    obviously brought that up, but certainly look forward to
    continuing to work on what is a very important tool for us to
    keep U.S. product moving and getting to its final destination,
    so thank you for that.
        One area where I think that you and I may not have seen
    eye-to-eye in the past has definitely got an accentuation point
    put on it just last Friday, and that is the Columbia Gorge rail
    derailment and explosion, and it seems to us like Lac-Megantic
    just came to the Pacific Northwest, although everybody knows
    how much oil of Bakken crude is moving through the area. And so
    I've heard just since last Friday from practically every major
    city or region of our state about their concerns about the
    continued movement of this product. That's primarily because
    this product moves through every major--it goes through
    Spokane, it goes through the gorge, it goes to Vancouver, in
    some cases, all the way up to refineries, you know, in the
    northern part of our state through Seattle. So every community,
    because we have, just like the problem you're trying to fix on
    freight, you know, the rails are right there close to the
    ports, close to the urban centers.
        So part of our challenge is the explosion and derailment
    that we saw on this gorge situation was the thermal-jacketed
    1232s, so under your rule, they will take till I think
    something like 2025 to be basically phased out. More
    specifically, though, to me, because this issue of the product
    itself is not being properly regulated, the volatility of
    Bakken crude is over the standard by which almost every other
    thing is set. You know, people who are moving this product into
    pipelines set at Reid vapor pressure, which is the volatility
    of the product, below 10. The NYMEX market doesn't take
    contracts on product that--you know, unless they're 10 or
    below--and yet we're letting these shippers self-determine to
    ship Bakken crude at over 13 percent Reid vapor pressure, which
    means it's more volatile.
        Now, the reason I bring this up is because even with your
    own analysis of these new tank cars, even the best tank cars
    that we're going to implement in the future, even the thermal-
    jacketed 117s, at more than 18 miles an hour, they still have a
    puncture, can have a puncture. So to me, while we're improving
    the rail safety, while we're improving the rail cars, we also
    have to improve and lower the volatility of this explosive
    product. We can't have this product shipping through tunnels in
    Seattle with our light rail transportation system. We can't
    have it right next to hotels in Vancouver. We can't have it
    going through neighborhoods of thousands of people in Spokane.
    We can't have a Lac-Megantic in our state.
        So I'm asking you, Will you consider an interim rule? You
    have the ability now to get the study done as it relates to the
    transportation bill to look at the volatility of this, and DOE
    and DOT are working together, but why not, given this most
    recent explosion, look at setting an interim rule on volatility
    given the hazards this material is showing to our communities
    across America, and certainly we just witnessed in our region
    of the Pacific Northwest?
        Secretary Foxx. Senator, I want to first of all say that I
    actually feel the same sense of urgency that you do around this
    issue, and our Department has been working since the day I came
    in. Lac-Megantic happened within just a few days of my taking
    office in this role, and it has been a real push almost every
    day. We've taken a bunch of actions, but I don't think we are
    at the end of the cycle of continuing work at this. I think we
    still have a lot of work to do here.
        I would say on the stabilization/volatility issue that that
    is an issue that's within our sights. That's one of the reasons
    why we've worked with the Department of Energy to formulate a
    study to understand the dimensions of this material and to have
    a definitive study out there that really allows us to set
    policy around it. I will certainly take your recommendation
    back to our staff and provide you with a formal response from
    the Department, but I'm taking any and all suggestions about
    how to deal with this going forward. I think we've made a lot
    of progress. We are safer today than we were 3 years ago. I
    hope that over the next several months and years we end up
    safer than we are today.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I just think for us, we do not want
    to see a loss of life before we see a regulation of this vapor
    pressure, and with the volume of Bakken crude moving through
    our state, and as I said, every major population center, it's
    just too big of a risk not to have this product, which we
    wouldn't let a propane unregulated vehicle move through
    downtown Seattle with that vapor pressure. We're not treating
    natural gas the same way. The people who are moving this
    product in pipeline are demanding that it have a lower vapor
    pressure. So then why are we letting these trains just continue
    to move an explosive product through our community? And so
    while I appreciate all our efforts on the DOT and the lines
    that we're going to do to improve our rail system, I just think
    fundamentally we have to reduce this vapor pressure. So thank
    you for considering that and look forward to your formal
    response.
        Secretary Foxx. Thank you. May I also just thank you for
    your leadership on freight as well, Senator. I doubt that we
    would have as much of the conversation if it hadn't been for
    your efforts. So thank you.
        Senator Cantwell. I think we all know freight can't wait.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. And I mentioned
    in my opening remarks the work that you did on the freight
    components and aspects of this. And a lot of the reforms with
    regard to railcars and blankets and refitting the protective
    measures and safeguards that are in here will be helpful, and
    we're going to make sure that we work with the Department to
    ensure that those things get put in place in a timely way. So
    thank you.
        Next up is Senator Ayotte.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE

        Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Chairman.
        Secretary Foxx, as you know, New Hampshire recently
    welcomed the news that we received the TIFIA loan, a $200
    million TIFIA loan, and thank you for that, for the I-93
    improvement project, which will widen 19.8 miles of Interstate
    93 from two to four lanes between our largest city, Manchester,
    and to Salem, New Hampshire, which is right on the New
    Hampshire-Massachusetts border, so this is really important to
    our state's economy and to transportation in New Hampshire. So
    thank you for that.
        Under the FAST Act, there was established the National
    Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau to help
    streamline the application process for states and local
    entities applying for and obtaining Federal financing or
    assistance for large surface transportation projects. I know
    you briefly mentioned in your written statement DOT's work to
    get the Bureau up and running, but I wanted to--could you
    please provide a detailed update for the Committee regarding
    the Department's work to implement the National Surface
    Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau? And have you been
    able to identify an Executive Director yet? And do you expect
    the Bureau will be operational by the end of the year?
        Secretary Foxx. On the last question first, yes, I do
    expect it to be operational by the end of the year. We expect
    to open the doors of this new bureau in the middle part of the
    summer, and we actually have already gone through a pretty
    extensive exercise at identifying some of our existing
    resources, human and otherwise, that could be placed into the
    Bureau immediately. So this will be a steady ramping up over
    the course of the year, but it will start very strong the
    middle part of the summer.
        In terms of the Executive Director, we have a solicitation
    out for an Executive Director, and we're hopeful to get that
    person on board before the end of the year.
        Senator Ayotte. Great. And once you get this up and
    running, and I'm glad to hear that's moving quickly, how would
    you--in thinking about this Bureau over the long term, how
    would you envision the Bureau supporting the work of our states
    and communities in moving forward with larger projects like I-
    93?
        Secretary Foxx. Yes. You know, I think one of the biggest
    things that the Bureau is going to do is to bring our
    innovative financing resources under one roof and they'll be a
    one-stop shopping for the project sponsors at the State and
    local level as well as the private sector. In addition to that,
    you will find that projects that are moving within the Bureau
    are going to have a level, almost a sharper kind of level, of
    support as they move through other aspects of the project
    delivery, including the permitting and other spaces that have
    to be----
        Senator Ayotte. I'm sure states would like to have a
    Sherpa. That would be great.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes, absolutely.
        [Laughter.]
        Secretary Foxx. I expect this is going to be a very
    successful effort. We have some very good early experience with
    the Build America Transportation Center that the President
    authorized us to do, and we're going to keep building on it
    with the Bureau.
        Senator Ayotte. Great. Thank you.
        Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
        Senator Ayotte. I wanted to follow up, too, there have been
    health and safety concerns that have been raised related to the
    flammability standards for children's car seats, and wondered
    if you were aware of these concerns and what's being done to
    address them.
        Secretary Foxx. NHTSA's safety standard for flammability
    currently does not require flame retardants. The flammability
    standard aims to afford adequate time for caregivers to help
    children escape a vehicle in the event of a fire. And we know
    that about 194,000 vehicle fires occur annually in the U.S.
    resulting in 300 fatalities and 1,250 injuries, and of these,
    20 fatalities and 25 injuries are children. We know also that
    foams used in child seats and vehicle seats can exacerbate a
    vehicle fire. Therefore, child seat materials, like motor
    vehicle seat materials, are required to prevent flames from
    spreading. NHTSA is initiating research today to better
    understand and evaluate the issues involved in this area,
    including flammability requirements and flame retardants for
    child restraints, and so that work is ongoing.
        Senator Ayotte. Very good. I know I only have a brief
    period left, but I wanted to follow up, one of the amendments I
    had on the FAST Act was focused on additional steps for NHTSA
    to take to support states and emphasizing the public dangers of
    drug-impaired driving. And in New Hampshire, we're just seeing,
    you know, as we are in other places in the country, a heroin
    epidemic and opiate epidemic, and I know that the data from the
    National Roadside Survey has recently shown that there actually
    has been an increase. Now, that data goes from 2007 to 2013 and
    2014, but if New Hampshire is any measure, we're seeing even
    from 2014 up like this. So any brief thoughts on, you know,
    what we can do in terms of NHTSA's action and DOT thinking
    about drug-impaired driving and the challenges we're facing
    with it?
        Secretary Foxx. This is on our radar screen. There is a lot
    of activity going on to study drug-impaired driving. I think
    the hardest-for us to crack is going to be, How do you set a
    standard? You have a standard for alcohol, for instance, but
    how would you----
        Senator Ayotte. And how do you measure it? Yes.
        Secretary Foxx. Exactly. So this is work and research that
    is ongoing, but you have it on my word that we will work as
    expeditiously as we can to get answers.
        Senator Ayotte. Excellent. Thank you.
        Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
        Senator Blumenthal.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to pursue the line of questioning that Senator
    Nelson raised and begin by saying I think the American public
    would be aghast and appalled that recalls have not been
    extended to cars on lots right now that they are buying that,
    in effect, are subject to the same safety defects as the cars
    under recall, or to put it differently, that they're buying
    defective cars simply because they haven't been told they're
    under recall. And if there is a need to change the law or start
    an education campaign, I say this to you, Mr. Secretary,
    because I know your heart is in the right place, and I respect
    immensely the higher standard of safety and diligence that you
    brought to the Department of Transportation during your tenure
    there, shouldn't the Consent Order be amended again right away
    or other tools used to stop the sale of these cars with these
    potentially deadly safety defects?
        Secretary Foxx. We did have a bit of this colloquy before.
    I don't believe we have the authority to do that.
        Senator Blumenthal. Why not?
        Secretary Foxx. Because the cars aren't recalled now.
        Senator Blumenthal. Why not put them under recall?
        Secretary Foxx. Because we don't have the basis to do so.
        Senator Blumenthal. Why not?
        Secretary Foxx. Because the evidence isn't there. In other
    words----
        Senator Blumenthal. Why not?
        Secretary Foxx.--because it doesn't exist.
        Senator Blumenthal. Why not get it?
        Secretary Foxx. We have a sense of what's unsafe, and that
    which is unsafe has been recalled, and we will continue. We've
    never said this Takata thing has been finalized. We are
    continuing to research and understand the dimensions of what's
    unsafe.
        Senator Blumenthal. These products are the very same
    ammonium nitrate airbags that have sent shafts and shards of
    metal into people's faces. That's why I say the American public
    would be aghast and appalled. And I sat at this very table and
    heard from Takata, not 10 years ago, but within the last couple
    of years, that they simply lacked enough parts and equipment to
    provide the substituted airbags that would be necessary, and I
    called then for them to share proprietary information with
    other airbag manufacturers so this recall could be done much
    more expeditiously, and it's as though that conversation never
    happened.
        Secretary Foxx. I don't think that's true. I mean, this
    recall is the largest recall in this Nation's history.
        Senator Blumenthal. And I give you credit for it.
        Secretary Foxx. It is the largest recall in the Nation's
    history, 70 million recalled. And, by the way, we don't know
    whether we're done yet. And if there is a way to use the
    concurrent Consent Order, to amend it, to ensure that people
    who are buying cars are notified, we are willing and hopeful to
    pursue that, but I don't think this is a closed book, but our
    agency, within existing authorities, has to use evidence
    available to us, and we do know that these cars will eventually
    be recalled, in which case the recalls will follow.
        Senator Blumenthal. I agree with you that they eventually
    will be recalled.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal. And I take at face value the
    representation that you feel you lack sufficient authority now.
    I would like to pursue with you the potential for amending the
    Consent Order or interpreting creatively and aggressively your
    existing authority and for increasing that authority if
    necessary because I think it is vital to public safety and
    health, and I know you share----
        Secretary Foxx. I do.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Blumenthal. This is not an adversarial meeting,
    trust me. I really do credit you and applaud you and thank you
    for your focus on this issue.
        I want to shift to rail and again another area where you
    have been very importantly creative. We need to make long-term,
    robust investments, well beyond what we're doing now. I know
    you're working closely with my colleague Senator Booker and
    others from New Jersey and New York on a plan for the Hudson
    River tunnels. I'd like your commitment to work with me in
    developing a long-term plan to rebuild the Northeast Corridor
    beyond just those tunnels, especially the aging bridges and
    tracks that we have in Connecticut, the need for positive train
    control. There's $199 million in the measure that we've just
    passed. The Amtrak rail route has positive train control on all
    but the New York to New Haven portion of it, and I would like
    your commitment that you will work with me in applying those
    monies and that commitment to investment in that Northeast
    Corridor.
        Secretary Foxx. Absolutely. And, by the way, on the other
    pieces that you mentioned on the Takata issue, I want to work
    with you on that, too. I mean, we all have a shared interest in
    making sure the American public is as safe as possible.
        Senator Blumenthal. I agree, sir.
        Secretary Foxx. Good.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes, sir. Thank you.
        Senator Blumenthal. And thanks for all your very diligent
    and dedicated work at the Department. Thank you.
        Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. And I
    appreciate the Secretary's commitment on that. It is somewhat
    remarkable that new cars are being sold. Granted, the airbags
    are not defective yet, and therefore the authority issue, and I
    appreciate the dilemma that you face about prioritizing those
    that present the greatest risk in public safety and health
    hazard at the moment and in starting there, but this is
    something that we're going to have to continually stay involved
    with.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes.
        The Chairman. Next up, Senator Sullivan.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, good to see you again. And I really want to
    thank you for coming out to Anchorage, Alaska, and meeting with
    our Native leadership. It was an important meeting. I know they
    very much appreciate it.
        I wanted to follow up on an issue that came up in that
    meeting and that I and Senator Murkowski and Don Young have
    subsequently written you about, and that's the issue, as you
    know, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971,
    and then consistently several other Federal laws. It has been
    clear under Federal law that Alaska Native corporations are
    eligible to participate in the Disadvantaged Business
    Enterprise Program, as certified by the SBA, further, that DOT
    regulations have been implemented that recognize the ANC
    eligibility based on the certification of the SBA. And since
    2009, SBA has recognized a self-certification process is
    appropriate for ANCs, given their consistent Federal law
    designation as minority and economically disadvantaged business
    enterprises.
        What we discussed at Anchorage, what we followed up and
    wrote you about, is that there's this process now that's
    beginning where some of the states are not recognizing this SBA
    process that's creating kind of 50 different bureaucratic
    hurdles. And in response to the letter that Congressman Young
    and Senator Murkowski and I sent you, you stated that DOT will
    consider guidance to states on the ANC participation, and we
    appreciate that, but your response noted that the Department
    has chosen not to recognize SBA's certification process, in
    particular, self-certification.
        So, as you can imagine, this is a little confusing to me
    because your own regulations recognize SBA certification, and
    the SBA has recognized self-certification is appropriate, but
    then there seems to be a recent internal DOT policy change that
    doesn't recognize what the SBA is doing. So can you work with
    us to iron out that internal inconsistency? It certainly seems
    like there's something amiss where two Federal agencies are not
    talking from the same sheet of music. And in your development
    of guidance in consideration of this issue, I'd like your
    assurance to work with us to make sure that there is uniformity
    across the 50 states in recognition of ANC eligibility, which
    the SBA clearly already does, and Federal law, in a zillion
    different statutes, requires.
        Secretary Foxx. We will work with you to clarify this
    absolutely. Yes.
        Senator Sullivan. I know it was a big whine there, but
    we've been--and I know it's a little specific, but we did raise
    this in Anchorage, we raised it in a letter, and there just
    seems to be this internal inconsistency between the SBA Federal
    law and what you're doing.
        Secretary Foxx. Good.
        Senator Sullivan. So I appreciate your commitment on that.
        Let me turn to another topic. Senator Blumenthal touched on
    it. And the Chairman and many others were focused on regulatory
    reform in terms of the implementation of the FAST Act. And, as
    a matter of fact, in a hearing several months ago, you and I
    talked about how long it takes to permit a bridge in America,
    which is a disaster, 6 to 7 years. Recent articles, one, and I
    would like to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a Wall
    Street Journal editorial called ``The Highway to Bureaucratic
    Hell.''
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The article referred to follows:]

                Wall Street Journal--Sept. 11, 2015 6:59 p.m. ET

                          Highway to Bureaucratic Hell

      Why it takes six years to build a road in America. And how to do it
                                    faster.

        Anyone who rattled down highways replete with moon craters while
    traveling on Labor Day weekend knows: The government doesn't excel at
    managing roads. A major improvement would be bulldozing a permitting
    process that delays new public-works projects for up to a decade, and a
    new report from the nonpartisan group Common Good offers a road map.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        In 2009, the Obama Administration air-dropped $800 billion of
    taxpayer cash known as the stimulus package, but as of last year a
    piddling $30 billion had been spent on transportation infrastructure.
    One reason the projects proved not as ``shovel ready'' as promised is
    that proposals must undergo extensive environmental and permitting
    reviews, which leave no tedium behind in part to avoid litigation.
        No single official oversees the process, and agency turf wars are
    the norm. A project must comply with every federal, state and local
    outfit that declares itself relevant--Fish and Wildlife, the town fire
    department. A desalination plant in San Diego, for example, kicked off
    a permitting adventure in 2003 that lasted nine years and endured 14
    legal challenges, which makes California's failure at drought relief
    less of a mystery.
        Another illustration is the Bayonne Bridge that connects New Jersey
    to Staten Island and at 150-feet tall blocks large cargo ships. The
    Port Authority of New York and New Jersey plans to raise the bridge
    height to 215 feet instead of blowing $3 billion on, say, a new tunnel.
    As a reward for that rationality, it took six months to identify the
    lead agency for an environmental review that dragged on for some five
    years. The regulatory jibber jabber spanned 20,000 pages and included
    traffic flow studies for a bridge that already exists.
        One irony is that delays mean more carbon energy use. Roughly 6
    percent of energy pumped out for public consumption is wasted thanks to
    America's superannuated electricity grid. That works out to about 200
    coal-burning power plants, the study notes. The same is true for
    congested roads, on which motorists guzzle gas in traffic while they
    wait the average six years for a major highway project to be approved.
        The expense adds up: A six-year delay on public projects costs more
    than $3.7 trillion, the report found. By the way, the amount needed to
    update dilapidated bridges, water pipes and so on over the next decade
    is half that, at $1.7 trillion.
        Common Good suggests building a process that shuttles projects
    through in a prompt two years. Environmental reviews should be handled
    by one designated official and kept to 300 pages; litigation should be
    restricted to the first 90 days after the permit is issued; the White
    House should be granted authority to appoint an agency as a ``one-stop-
    shop'' for interstate projects.
        Congress could address the permitting morass this fall as part of
    the transportation bill, and the presidential candidates could include
    the issue and a horror story or two in their agendas for faster
    economic growth. It's hard to imagine a more sensible and politically
    achievable idea--and one better suited to restoring public confidence
    that government can carry out its basic duties.

        Senator Sullivan. And another one by Lawrence Summers from
    the Boston Globe called ``Why Americans Don't Trust
    Government.''
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The article referred to follows:]

                           Boston Globe--May 25, 2016

           A lesson on infrastructure from the Anderson Bridge fiasco

                    By Lawrence H. Summers and Rachel Lipson

        SOMETIMES SMALL stories capture large truths. So it is with the
    fiasco that is the repair of the Anderson Memorial Bridge, connecting
    Boston and Harvard Square. Rehabilitation of the 232-foot bridge began
    in 2012, at an estimated cost of about $20 million; four years later,
    there is no end date in sight and the cost of the project is
    mushrooming, to $26.5 million at last count.
        This glacial pace of implementation does not reflect the intrinsic
    technical difficulty of the task. For comparison, the Anderson Bridge
    itself was originally completed in just 11 months in 1912. General
    George Patton constructed nearly 40 times as much bridging in six
    months as American soldiers crossed the Rhine to win World War II. And
    even modern-day examples abound; for instance, in 2011, 14 bridges in
    Medford were fixed in just 10 weekends. In contrast, the lapses exposed
    by the Anderson Bridge project hold key lessons for America's broader
    inability to solve its infrastructure problems.
        Repairing the Anderson Memorial Bridge so slowly has had large
    direct costs. Approximately 21,000 vehicles cross the bridge each day,
    along with 15,000 bus riders and thousands of cyclists and pedestrians
    and riders of Harvard shuttle buses. All have been delayed by the
    repairs, many substantially. With missing sidewalks and bike lanes,
    cyclists and pedestrians are physically endangered as well. And then
    there are the backups on the roads that connect to the bridge. If we
    value time lost to congestion at $20 an hour and make no allowance for
    cyclists or delays on other arteries, the cost of delay so far has been
    $40 million, or almost 100 percent more than the budgeted cost of the
    repairs. Meanwhile, because of time lost from the Anderson delays, the
    structurally deficient Western Avenue and River Street bridges
    (originally scheduled for rehabilitation under the state's same $3
    billion Accelerated Bridge program) have missed their window for
    funding.
        How, we ask, could our society have regressed to the point where a
    bridge that could be built in less than a year one century ago takes
    five times as long to repair today? Here are some of the reasons that
    have contributed to the delay:
        In order to adhere to strict historical requirements overseen by
    the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the Massachusetts Department
    of Transportation had to order special bricks, cast by a company in
    Maine, to meet special size and appearance specifications from the
    bridge's inception in 1912.
        At the same time, extensive permitting and redesigns haven't
    helped. For instance, once construction had already started on the
    bridge, the contractor, Barletta Heavy Division, discovered that an
    existing water main would need to be relocated. With the subsequent
    change order and additional Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
    permitting processes, an additional 357 days were tacked on to the
    original contract completion date.
        To cap it off, after resisting for years the inclusion of
    pedestrian underpasses in bridge rehabilitation, MassDOT changed course
    in 2014 and agreed to revise the design so as not to preclude the
    construction of an underpass in the future. The contractor then had to
    move a major utility pipe so that an underpass could fit underneath;
    meanwhile, another 256 days of delay were added to the project. The
    entire project is now 22 months behind schedule.
        Delay, then, is at one level the result of bureaucratic ineptitude
    and the promiscuous distribution of the power to hold things up. At
    another level, it is the failure of leadership to insist on reasonable
    accountability to meet reasonable deadlines. Perhaps, at a deeper
    level, it is the failure of citizenry to hold government accountable
    for reasonable performance--a failure that may in part reflect a
    lowering of expectations as trust in government declines. These themes,
    unfortunately, are not unique to the Anderson Bridge; they help
    illuminate why, despite our vast needs, the country has struggled to
    generate the necessary momentum to respond to pressing infrastructure
    demands. There is no reason to think the Anderson Bridge experience is
    extraordinary, locally or nationally. For evidence, just look at the
    $255 million Longfellow Bridge repairs, recently delayed another two
    years due to historical complications, or the $82 million effort to
    replace deteriorated and corroded steel beams on the Commonwealth
    Avenue Bridge, just pushed back one more year because of design errors.
    Massachusetts bridges are the oldest in the country, yet the
    Accelerated Bridge Program expires this year, with hundreds of
    structurally deficient bridges still remaining and future funding
    sources unclear.
        America desperately needs a major increase in infrastructure
    investment and, if carried out effectively, an investment program could
    come close to paying for itself by generating an expanding economy.
    With record low interest rates, low material costs, and high
    construction unemployment, there is no better time. When states defer
    maintenance and repair for decades--as was done with the Anderson
    Bridge--it places a huge burden on future generations.
        However, to collectively tackle the Nation's crumbling
    infrastructure, citizens need to believe that the government is up to
    the task. In an era when public trust in government remains near all-
    time lows, every public task is freighted with consequence. The
    relationship is cyclical--if government can start being more effective,
    it will win more trust, leading to more effectiveness. If, on the other
    hand, projects such as the Anderson Bridge repair project become the
    norm--then we are fated to increasing cynicism and distrust.
        The Anderson Bridge is approximately one-sixth the length of the
    bridge Julius Caesar's men built across the Rhine in 10 days in 55 BC.
    Caesar's feat is admired not just for its technical mastery but also
    for its boldness. An allied tribe had offered boats to carry Caesar's
    troops across the river, to avoid the difficult task of bridge-
    building. Yet Caesar rejected this offer, on the grounds that it would
    not be ``fitting for the prestige of Rome.''
        We should hold America's infrastructure to the same standard.

    Lawrence H. Summers is the Charles W. Eliot University Professor and
    President Emeritus of Harvard University. He was also Secretary of the
    U.S. Treasury. Rachel Lipson is a joint MBA-MPP student at Harvard.

        Senator Sullivan. These lay out bridges that are being
    permitted, not new bridges, but just to be repaired. So the
    Bayonne Bridge, that connects New Jersey to Staten Island, 5
    years just to raise the bridge. The Anderson Memorial Bridge in
    Cambridge, Massachusetts, 5 years, just for the permitting I'm
    talking about. So I think the FAST Act scratches the surface,
    but I think there is so much more we can do. There are, as you
    know, Mr. Secretary, 61,000 structurally deficient bridges in
    America, and one of the reasons our economy is not moving,
    clearly, is because we can't build infrastructure because it
    takes 5 to 10 years to permit a road or permit a bridge, even a
    bridge that we just want to repair, not even expand.
        So there are a lot of different ideas here. One of the
    things that I think is a good idea is to, if you're just
    repairing a bridge, to waive the permitting requirements
    because you're not hitting the ecosystem of the environment.
    Are there areas that you have in terms of other things that we
    can do besides what's in the FAST Act to get to what I think is
    a real, real problem for America? And if you were able to
    streamline permitting of structurally deficient bridges, you'd
    probably get 99 percent approval on that from most Americans.
    What are some of your ideas? And would you be in favor of
    waiving NEPA requirements for just maintenance on bridges?
        Secretary Foxx. Well, I'll tell you that one of the secrets
    of the last 8 years has actually been an expansion of
    categorical exclusions, which is one way to move projects more
    quickly through the process.
        Senator Sullivan. But it's very narrow.
        Secretary Foxx. And so we've actually gone pretty
    substantially, I think--I may get this wrong, so I'll send you
    a QFR that will give you the actual number, but I believe it
    was something like 93 percent CEs before, and we're closer now
    to like 96 or 97 percent.
        I would also say a couple of other things that are being
    attempted at the State level that are helpful, and, by the way,
    it's not altogether always clear whether it is State or Federal
    permitting requirements that tie these things up.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes, sir, I couldn't agree with you more.
        Secretary Foxx. But also there is technology now that
    states are using. I'll give you one example. In Massachusetts,
    they were able to install I think 14 bridges over a weekend
    because the bridges were prefabricated, and so they were
    actually able to knock out the old bridge, slide the new bridge
    in, and have it ready by Monday morning. And so these
    technologies are ones that I think will also help us speed up
    the construction time, but I think it is absolutely true that
    when the government promises a project and it happens
    relatively quickly, the public gains confidence, and when it
    takes decades to get projects done, people lose confidence.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I'm going
    to submit for the record an additional question on Section 5403
    of the FAST Act, which is focused on making sure our veterans
    get expedited into the commercial trucking industry, and I'll
    have questions on how we're doing on follow up on that.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
        The prepared statement of Senator Sullivan follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Dan Sullivan, U.S. Senator from Alaska
        Mr. Secretary, in April, Senator Murkowski, Congressman Young and I
    sent a letter expressing ``strong support'' for a grant application
    submitted by the Municipality of Anchorage and the Port of Anchorage to
    the ``Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the
    Long-Term Achievement of National Efficiencies'' (FASTLANE) Grant
    Program. The Municipality and Port are collectively seeking $45 million
    to assist with the first phase of the Anchorage Port Modernization
    Project.
        Since you are testifying before the Senate Commerce Committee
    regarding the implementation of the FAST Act, I want to use this
    opportunity to reiterate my support for the Port's FASTLANE Grant.

        The Chairman. Senator Moran.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

        Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here, but more
    importantly, thank you for your public service and relationship
    that you've extended to me and my staff.
        Secretary Foxx. Thank you.
        Senator Moran. Let me bring to your attention an amendment
    that's included in the FAST Act that I offered. It's Section
    5523, but what it does is allows for manufacturers of trailers
    to deliver them to their dealers, and that provision preempts
    State law, but it's my understanding that apparently many
    states are still attempting to enforce their own provisions,
    and so I raise to you this particular issue of education of
    states, either specifically--I guess specifically to this
    issue, but more broadly, the Department is doing what to make
    certain that our State Departments of Transportation
    enforcement agencies know where their jurisdiction now lies?
        Secretary Foxx. Let me come back to you with a formal
    response, Senator. It's an important issue, and I want to make
    sure we answer the mail on this, but I would suspect and will
    verify that we are actively working to educate the states on
    this, but let me give you the detail.
        Senator Moran. I would welcome the follow-up. We have a
    number of trailer manufacturers in Kansas, and, of course, they
    exist across the country, and this is an important provision in
    getting their product to their retailers.
        Secretary Foxx. Sure.
        Senator Moran. Second, the FAST Act has required a National
    Academy of Science and a GAO study in regard to the ECP brakes
    on railcars, an issue that you and most of us are aware of. Has
    the GAO provided you any status report as to the progress they
    are making with their study? Part of that study is for National
    Academy of Science to do testing. And have you seen any results
    of the testing that you can share with us?
        Secretary Foxx. I do not know the status of the GAO study.
    I know that the NAS is in the process of standing up the
    Committee that will be part of evaluating the testing. We are
    also working on a concurrent basis to get the testing ramped up
    and started, so that work is underway, but that's the current
    status.
        Senator Moran. When you say you, the Department, is on a
    path to ramp up the testing, you're talking about assisting the
    National Academy of Science or separate testing on your----
        Secretary Foxx. As I understand the National Academy of
    Sciences' method, it takes them a while to ramp up their
    committees. They have a formal process by which they do that.
    And given the backend timeline that we have to move all this,
    we've actually started moving forward with some of the
    development of the testing. My hope is they're able to move
    quickly enough so that we don't get too far before that
    happens, but we're worried that we may blow the timeline if we
    don't start working.
        Senator Moran. And again I'm being repetitive, but I'm just
    trying to make sure I understand. Is what you're ramping up
    your own testing or you're assisting the National Academy of
    Science in their testing?
        Secretary Foxx. My understanding is that the NAS will be
    evaluating the testing that is done by the Department.
        Senator Moran. Done by the Department.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes.
        Senator Moran. OK. So the testing is your responsibility.
    The evaluation of that testing would be done by the National
    Academy of Science.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes.
        Senator Moran. And I assume you would tell me that when
    that testing and the results are in, that is something you
    would commit to paying attention to as you develop your plan in
    regard to----
        Secretary Foxx. Yes. And I can also tell you that the
    results--no results of the testing that is being done will be
    published or put out there until the NAS task force has a
    chance to really drill into it and validate it or invalidate
    it.
        Senator Moran. OK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Finally, this
    is a manufacturing question, somewhat outside the scope of the
    FAST Act, but my question relates to harmonizing CAFE
    standards. My understanding is that the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration and EPA are not in synch on the
    standards and that you can be in compliance with one and fined
    or challenged by the other. And the administration had the one
    national program trying to harmonize the regulations so that a
    manufacturer--all of us can understand what the standards are.
    Can you bring me up to date in that regard?
        Secretary Foxx. Well, there is work that's underway to do
    the interim halfway report on the CAFE standards, and I think
    things are going in a more harmonious direction than perhaps
    you think they are, but I expect that that work will continue
    forward and hopefully we'll be able to report out something in
    the fall.
        Senator Moran. If you have any specifics, I'd be glad to
    have you share that information with me when you respond to the
    other items.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes, sir.
        Senator Moran. And I'm always looking for harmony, so thank
    you, Mr. Secretary.
        [Laughter.]
        Secretary Foxx. Yes, sir. Thank you.
        The Chairman. All right. Thank you, Senator Moran. He is a
    harmonious guy.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. The Senator from Montana, Senator Daines.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just a point that Senator Cantwell brought up earlier about
    that incident in Mosier, Oregon, on the Columbia, the rail
    incident. Just a reminder, that Bakken crude also could travel
    the Keystone Pipeline. That's another way of transporting oil.
    One of the misnomers on the Keystone Pipeline is it's all
    Canadian crude. 100,000 barrels a day of Bakken crude would
    enter the Bakken outside of Baker, Montana, as part of building
    out a more robust infrastructure.
        Secretary Foxx, thank you for visiting Montana recently.
    You were up there in God's country, the northwest part of our
    state, not too far from Glacier National Park and the
    Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes.
        Senator Daines. And that was on the Flathead Reservation.
    It was a historic meeting. By the way, you are the first
    Secretary of Transportation to ever step foot on the
    reservation there.
        Secretary Foxx. Wow.
        Senator Daines. So I don't know if you knew you were making
    history----
        Secretary Foxx. I did not.
        Senator Daines.--but you did.
        Secretary Foxx. Wow.
        Senator Daines. Tell me what lessons you learned from that
    visit in tribal transportation.
        Secretary Foxx. I think there are several. Number one is
    that you have a remarkable community, and they have a real idea
    of how they want to grow their economy, and tourism is
    obviously a big part of it. And there are also agricultural
    products that are coming from the area. I found that the people
    there were very interested in multimodal transportation, very
    interested in having the ability to walk or bike to work. I
    think there is a trail that they're trying to get fixed out
    there.
        And then I would say the other piece is that there were
    also concerns about some of the rail--the commodities moving by
    rail within the reservation. And so those are some of the
    observations I came away with.
        Senator Daines. One of their major concerns--and thank you
    for that--that I hear from the CSKT, as well as Kalispell, in
    fact, anybody up and down Highway 93, is regarding the safety
    on U.S. 93. I've experienced it, as a kid who grew up in
    Montana. And, in fact, I remember the bumper stickers that we
    would see, and they're still out there, it says, ``Pray for me,
    I drive Highway 93.''
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Daines. What steps is DOT taking to help the CSKT
    and others complete projects on U.S. Highway 93?
        Secretary Foxx. So when we were there, Highway 93 did come
    up, and what I offered was our technical teams to come out and
    try to help. I can't remember where the project is in terms of
    planning, but there is a gap in the project where they're
    trying to get it finished. And we also offer technical
    assistance on the grant writing side as discretionary dollars
    become available to try to help move the project forward. We
    certainly want them to be as competitive as they can be within
    the discretionary programs.
        Senator Daines. I'd appreciate that. You know, tourism is a
    huge part of our economy in Montana, and that is the major
    corridor for folks----
        Secretary Foxx. It's a beautiful state.
        Senator Daines. Thank you--flying into Missoula perhaps,
    driving up to Glacier National Park, it's on Highway 93.
        I want to pave it over to another issue, on bridges.
    Senator Sullivan brought it up as well. In Missoula, Montana,
    three of the five bridges that cross the Clark Fork River are
    considered structurally deficient. In fact, most notoriously is
    the Russell Street Bridge. Over 60,000 cars cross these
    deficient bridges. They were constructed back in the 1950s,
    back when my dad was going to school at the University of
    Montana there in Missoula. In your testimony, you mentioned
    reducing bureaucratic red tape to expedite project delivery.
    What additional steps are you taking to expedite work on these
    most at-risk bridges?
        Secretary Foxx. Well, I'd say that the biggest impediment
    we've had has been a lot of uncertainty about funding levels,
    and so now that the FAST Act has passed, states are starting to
    ramp up their activities in terms of rehabilitating bridges,
    repairing bridges, even replacing them. As they do that work,
    we're trying to find creative ways to help them move projects
    through very quickly.
        I'll give you one example of a case study. We were able to
    work with the state of Pennsylvania not only to get the
    projects moved through the permitting process quickly, but they
    actually pooled a group of about 500 bridges to make use of our
    innovative financing programs, none of the individual bridges
    would have qualified or made sense to do by financing, but they
    got them pooled and were able to move 500 bridges through the
    system very quickly. So we're looking everywhere we can to help
    move through the permitting process as quickly as we can.
        Senator Daines. Well, that's good news, getting them
    through almost in block. If you would take a look at adding the
    Russell Street Bridge in Missoula to that list, I'd greatly
    appreciate it.
        [Laughter.]
        Secretary Foxx. You got it. Absolutely.
        Senator Daines. Thank you. Thank you, Secretary Foxx.
        Secretary Foxx. Thank you, Senator. Appreciate you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        And, Mr. Secretary, I have to depart here in a moment, but
    I just want to say again thank you for being here and thanks
    for all your good work. You've been a great partner on a lot of
    these issues. And this committee and the Congress has acted on
    highways, rail freight reform, pipeline safety is hopefully
    coming back from the House, and I guess the thing I would just
    encourage you to the degree that you can is encourage our House
    colleagues on FAA. We need to deal with aviation. I think we're
    in a much better position if we enact something that is longer
    term and has more permanent reforms in it than doing another
    short-term extension. So I'm hopeful that we'll be able to get
    that done here in the near future and will have addressed most
    of the major modes of transportation in the country.
        So, Senator Wicker.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

        Senator Wicker. Thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Secretary. I want to reiterate what
    Senator Moran said with regard to harmonization of regulations.
    As I understand it, auto manufacturers don't know where they
    are. They can build a fleet that might satisfy requirements of
    one Federal program, but not another agency, or it might
    satisfy a Federal requirement, but not a State requirement. So
    I understand you to say work is underway, you hope to get
    something to us in the fall. Will that be a legislative
    recommendation or will it be a change in a rule or regulation?
        Secretary Foxx. I think there's an interim report that is
    due as part of the work on the CAFE standards. It was a 10-year
    program, and in year 5, there is work underway to do a review
    of progress to date. I think that our teams, both the EPA teams
    and the DOT teams, do not believe there is inconsistency.
    They've actually worked pretty hard to ensure that DOT CAFE
    standards and EPA's greenhouse gas standards are as harmonized
    as possible, and we will continue working to keep you advised
    and the Committee advised on the progress as we go forward.
        Senator Wicker. OK. Well, in August 2012, and I realize
    that was almost 4 years ago, the administration said, and I
    quote, ``Continuing the national program ensures that auto
    manufacturers can build a single fleet of U.S. vehicles that
    satisfy requirements of both Federal programs as well as
    California's program. There are several discrepancies that
    allow compliance with one agency but not another.'' So perhaps
    that's changed since August 2012, or perhaps the
    administration's statement was perhaps hyperbole except that
    the manufacturers tell us that they simply want to know what to
    comply with. So I hope you'll commit to having NHTSA work with
    us on harmonization changes----
        Secretary Foxx. Yes.
        Senator Wicker.--so the manufacturers can know exactly
    where they are.
        Now, let me ask you, you said something about a proposed
    Southeast Rail Commission in Charlotte a while back.
        Secretary Foxx. Uh-huh.
        Senator Wicker. There is already a Southern Rail Commission
    with Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. Have you given any
    thought to the advantages of perhaps expanding that Southern
    Rail Commission to include states that might be in the
    Southeast Rail Commission as opposed to having a Southeast
    right up next to a Southern Rail Commission? Have you given
    that any thought, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Foxx. Senator, I think the more states in the
    South that work together on establishing strong intercity
    passenger rail, the better. I was speaking about the fact that
    there is an existing compact between North Carolina and
    Virginia, and the other contiguous states there, South Carolina
    and Georgia, would be critical to connecting that part of the
    Southeast.
        Senator Wicker. Well, now, you wouldn't limit that to
    intercity rail, would you?
        Secretary Foxx. Well, that's what the conference was about
    that I was speaking from. And I also know that there is a Gulf
    Coast Working Group that is working to reestablish rail service
    between Louisiana and Orlando, which is also very important,
    so----
        Senator Wicker. Right. What a nice segue to my next
    question.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Wicker. As a matter of fact, that was established
    in the FAST Act.
        Secretary Foxx. It was.
        Senator Wicker. How is that going in your opinion? FRA has
    done an excellent job in leading the group's work and
    developing a plan to fund and operate rail service throughout
    the Gulf. So what can you tell us about the progress in the
    past 6 months or so?
        Secretary Foxx. It has been very good progress. The Gulf
    Coast Working Group convened on February 6, 2016, for the first
    time in New Orleans. We sent our FRA Administrator to that
    meeting as an indication of how important the work is.
        Senator Wicker. And that was appreciated.
        Secretary Foxx. Absolutely. And they are meeting monthly
    both in person and call-in meetings as they work to look at the
    options for getting that service back up and running. Very
    important service, though.
        Senator Wicker. Wonderful. I do hope that your team can be
    as enthusiastic about this as I am and as my team is. So thank
    you very much for keeping us apprised on that.
        Let me move to a really tough situation. In May, we lost
    two children in Mississippi as a result of vehicular heatstroke
    because of being left in automobiles in rear seating positions.
    It's just heartbreaking. Today is National Child Vehicular
    Heatstroke Prevention and Awareness Day. I don't know if people
    are apprised of that. But having witnessed two of these tragic
    losses in the last month, I wanted to ask about this. Section
    24114 of the FAST Act requires DOT to conduct research into
    effective ways to minimize the risk of hyperthermia and
    hypothermia to children or other unattended passengers in rear
    seating positions. Do you have any information for the
    Committee about this? Is this study being conducted? And what
    information can you give to the public and to the Committee at
    this point on this tragic series of events?
        Secretary Foxx. Senator, first of all, it's a tragic loss
    anytime you lose any lives, but our young people particularly.
    And if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to submit for the record on
    that and give you a thorough response to that question on the
    status.
        Senator Wicker. OK. All right. And, you know, I had to
    comment. How are we doing on the Amtrak Board of Directors? Is
    that--did you discuss that earlier?
        Secretary Foxx. We have not discussed it.
        Senator Wicker. What do you think on that? Will the
    administration be putting forth nominees to ensure that the
    Amtrak Board of Directors has full representation?
        Secretary Foxx. That's my hope. I will need to respond back
    to you. I'll try to call you in the next couple of days to give
    you a sense of that. But at the present, I don't know
    specifically.
        Senator Wicker. Let's think national system when we do.
    Let's think long distance interest when we do, sir.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes. Absolutely.
        Senator Wicker. Very good. Well, from all accounts, you
    have done a marvelous job, and I think it is now fallen to me
    to say the hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks. During
    this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the
    record. Upon receipt, the witness is requested to submit
    written answers to the Committee as soon as possible.
        So with that said, do you have anything you would like to
    add, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Foxx. Senator, if I might, just I'm recalling
    some of the colloquy we've had about our Takata situation, and
    it's a very serious situation, and I think we've committed to
    do a lot of things today to try to work with the Committee to
    ensure we're doing every single thing we can do to ensure the
    safety of the public. I want to make it very clear, though,
    that we have done an awful lot to try to push this issue into
    the public light and to make sure that Takata is doing every
    single thing we can push them to do to get this right, and to
    the point that when I was just talking with Senator Blumenthal,
    I made a comment that I don't want to get misconstrued about
    the safety of these cars today. Takata is under a Consent Order
    to prove that the airbags are safe, and if they cannot
    demonstrate that proof, those airbags cannot be used in the
    future in cars. Based on the evidence we have today, we don't
    have a basis to prevent those airbags from going into new cars
    today, but we do know that those airbags will be recalled at
    some point in the future. It's a very complicated issue, but I
    wanted to make sure the record was clear on where I stand on
    that, and hopefully we will continue working together on this.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you for that clarification.
        Secretary Foxx. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. And not having been here for that exchange,
    I won't follow up, but perhaps we might follow up with
    questions on the record.
        Secretary Foxx. Sure. That's fine.
        Senator Wicker. I want to thank you, Secretary Foxx, for
    appearing today. And if there is no objection from any member
    of the Committee, this hearing is now adjourned.
        Secretary Foxx. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 4:21 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

         Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
    NHTSA
        Question 1. The FAST Act seeks to ensure that the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) fully implements the
    recommendations from the Inspector General's blistering audit conducted
    at your request in response to the GM ignition switch defect, which has
    been linked to more than 124 deaths and several hundred injuries. The
    new law gives you the important role of certifying NHTSA's
    implementation of those recommendations. What is the current status of
    those recommendations?
        Answer. In NHTSA's June 16, 2015, comments to the Office of
    Inspector General (O.I.G.) Draft Audit Report (ST-2015-063), NHTSA
    established an aggressive implementation schedule. NHTSA has taken
    extensive action to address the O.I.G.'s recommendations, and has met
    all of its self-imposed completion dates for those recommendations. All
    17 of the NHTSA recommendations have been resolved.

        Question 1a. Another IG audit released this February found that,
    while the agency completed all agreed-to actions from a 2011 review on
    defect identification, the agency did not consistently continue to
    apply the actions it implemented for several recommendations. Secretary
    Foxx, will you commit that you will not certify the IG recommendations
    referenced in the FAST Act until you are confident not only that NHTSA
    has fully implemented the recommendations, but that it has the
    capability to continue to consistently apply the recommendations in the
    future?
        Answer. As required under the FAST Act, I am currently reviewing
    the actions that NHTSA has taken to address the recommendations from
    the 2015 O.I.G. Audit Report (ST-2015-063) and will make the
    certification when I am satisfied that NHTSA has implemented all of
    those recommendations. My office will continue to work with both NHTSA
    and the O.I.G. to ensure the continued implementation and execution of
    NHTSA's improved policies and procedures.

        Question 2. In a recent press release, NHTSA warned that certain
    model year 2001-2003 Honda and Acura vehicles with defective Takata
    airbag inflators show a substantially higher risk of rupture and need
    to be repaired immediately. Given that these vehicles were initially
    recalled between 2008 and 2011 for related defects, what accounted for
    the delay in NHTSA reaching this conclusion?
        Answer. This population of Honda and Acura vehicles was recalled
    between November 2008 and December 2011 for known and identified
    manufacturing defects in the driver's side air bag inflator. Where
    vehicles are recalled, NHTSA does not normally undertake additional
    testing on the recalled part, and instead applies its resources toward
    investigating other potential safety defects. However, following
    notifications under the Agency's Standing General Order of recent
    rupture incidents involving this population of vehicles, NHTSA directed
    Takata to conduct additional testing. The Agency was able to get the
    information and resources it needed to direct this testing because of
    its 2015 Preservation Order with Takata. When the new test data showed
    a far higher risk of ruptures among this population of inflators, NHTSA
    ensured that consumers were made aware of the grave danger the
    inflators in this particular group of vehicles posed.

        Question 3. I am concerned that the leadership of the Office of
    Defects Investigation is in transition. Secretary Foxx, what are you
    doing to ensure effective leadership and especially accountability for
    the day-to-day activities of that office?
        Answer. NHTSA is moving swiftly to fill the vacancy for Office of
    Defects Investigation (ODI) Director, with candidate interviews
    commencing soon. A NHTSA senior staff member who reports directly to
    the Associate Administrator for Enforcement is overseeing the day-to-
    day operations of ODI and is closely monitoring the new transparent,
    risk-based and objective pre-investigative processes implemented this
    Spring.

        Question 4. The FAST Act tied an increase in civil penalties for
    Safety Act violations to the issuance of a final rule on civil penalty
    factors. NHTSA finalized that rule, but now is proposing to
    unilaterally assess civil penalties for vehicle safety violations under
    49 USC 30165 instead of compromising penalties and relying on the
    Department of Justice to assess penalties when an action is not
    compromised, citing a minor wording change contained in the Moving
    Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The MAP-21
    direction, however, did not provide NHTSA with express authority to
    issue such a rule. Moreover, while I was not Chairman when MAP-21 was
    negotiated, members of my staff who worked under then-Ranking Member
    Hutchison inform me that the negotiations did not include any
    discussion of providing NHTSA with unilateral authority to impose such
    penalties. Relevant sections of the code also cast doubt on the
    rationale for NHTSA's current effort. For example, 49 USC 30165(d)
    discusses ``a civil action brought under this section'' in connection
    with the civil penalty authority, indicating a Federal civil action in
    court. In addition, 49 USC 30163(c) provides that ``. . . a civil
    action under this section or section 30165(a) of this title may be
    brought in the judicial district in which the violation occurred . .
    .'' thus reiterating the reference to a civil action. Congress has
    provided authority for the administrative imposition of civil penalties
    at other agencies, but in those cases it has generally done so
    expressly by stating that the agency should ``impose'' or ``assess''
    the penalty. NHTSA has successfully used the consent order process, as
    exemplified by the recent $200 million consent order with Takata, the
    $105 million consent order with FCA, and the $70 million consent order
    with Honda. And, of note, these negotiations all occurred prior to the
    tripling of the civil penalties as directed under the FAST Act. The
    FAST Act also included provisions to strengthen NHTSA's defect
    identification and investigation processes, which should facilitate
    such consent orders, when appropriate. Please help the Committee better
    understand why, in light of this legislative history and context, NHTSA
    now believes it has the legal authority for its proposal to assess
    penalties unilaterally.
        Answer. The plain language of the amendments to 49 U.S.C.
    Sec. 30165(c) in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
    (MAP-21) confirmed NHTSA's authority to assess civil penalties as well
    as to compromise them. Prior to the enactment of MAP-21, the statute
    provided, ``In determining the amount of a civil penalty or compromise,
    the appropriateness of the penalty or compromise to the size of the
    business of the person charged and the gravity of the violation shall
    be considered.'' 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30165(c) (2011). The statute did not
    specify who would assess the civil penalties. However, the statute
    specifically stated that ``The Secretary of Transportation may
    compromise the amount of a civil penalty imposed under this section.''
    49 U.S.C. Sec. 30165(b)(1). MAP-21 revised this language to read: ``In
    determining the amount of a civil penalty or compromise under this
    section, the Secretary of Transportation shall consider the nature,
    circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation.'' 49 U.S.C.
    Sec. 30165(c) (2016). This amendment made it clear that the Secretary
    of Transportation has the authority and a mandate to assess civil
    penalties as well as to compromise them pursuant to the provisions of
    MAP-21.
        The legislative history also supports the Agency's interpretation.
    When S. 1449, the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act of
    2011 (Mariah's Act), was introduced, the bill contained language
    listing the factors that the Secretary of Transportation shall consider
    in determining the amount of civil penalty or compromise. According to
    a Senate report, the provisions of S. 1449 were enacted into law, with
    modifications, as title I of division C of MAP-21. The Senate Commerce
    Report made clear that NHTSA was authorized to impose ``fines.'' It
    stated, ``Before issuing a fine, the Secretary would be required to
    consider several relevant factors in setting the level of the fine,
    including the nature of the violation; the severity of the risk of
    injury; the actions taken by the person charged to identify,
    investigate, or mitigate the violation; the nature of the defect or
    noncompliance; and the size of the company.'' The word ``fine'' is
    synonymous with the term ``civil penalty.'' Therefore, the plain
    language of the statute and the legislative history support NHTSA's
    authority, acting under delegation from the Secretary, to impose civil
    penalties directly.

        Question 5. Thank you for the discussion at the hearing about
    providing additional flexibility to the states in the highway safety
    grant program. I am pleased that, as a result of the FAST Act, NHTSA
    has just released the Interim Final Rule (IFR) to provide guidance to
    the states on these grant programs. The IFR states that the agency,
    ``if appropriate, will amend provisions of the regulation.'' What
    factors would cause the agency to consider amending the rule further?
        Answer. As with all rulemakings soliciting public comments, NHTSA
    plans to carefully review all input received. If public comments
    identify alternative approaches that would meet the goal of effectively
    and efficiently awarding and managing the grants, NHTSA will consider
    these approaches.

        Question 5a. Does the agency intend to issue a final rule, and if
    so, what is the expected time-frame for a final rule?
        Answer. Yes, the Agency expects to issue a final rule well before
    Fiscal Year 2018 applications are due.

        Question 5b. The newly issued IFR changed some requirements for
    state submissions. In particular, the IFR now appears to require full
    ``descriptions'' of certain data elements, whereas ``brief'' or
    ``general'' descriptions were previously required (see, e.g., 23 CFR
    1200.11(a) and 1200.35(a) and (b) compared to the new IFR). Some areas
    also ask for increased project-level detail, such as 23 CFR 1300.11(d).
    I believe that strong oversight of the use of Federal funds is needed,
    but many of the FAST Act's changes to highway safety grants were
    intended to provide additional flexibility to the states. What was the
    rationale behind these changes in the IFR? Are they consistent with the
    flexibility for states endorsed in the FAST Act?
        Answer. The FAST Act provided states with greater flexibility in
    eligible use of grant funds under the National Priority Safety Programs
    (Section 405). NHTSA's IFR supports this flexibility by allowing states
    to integrate Section 405 planned activities into the Highway Safety
    Plan instead of the separate project lists that were previously
    required. In addition, the IFR implemented the added FAST Act
    flexibility for states to qualify for law-based grants.
        Separately, the IFR made amendments to some requirements to support
    the implementation of an improved and enhanced electronic grants
    management system that will enable states to apply for highway safety
    grants and receive and manage grant funds more efficiently and with
    fewer burdens. The IFR allows states applying for Section 405 grants to
    cross reference project information already appearing in the Highway
    Safety Plan, eliminating the submission of duplicative information.
    Because we expect project information to be captured in the grants
    management system when states submit their Highway Safety Plans, the
    burden of invoicing for expenses will also be reduced.
        The modest amendments to the Highway Safety Plan and annual report
    requiring descriptions rather than summaries of a State's progress will
    better position the states to adjust upcoming plans. This will assist
    states in reversing the disturbing increases in fatalities across the
    country.

        Question 6. Preliminary data recently released by NHTSA show a 7.7
    percent increase in motor vehicle traffic deaths in 2015. What has
    accounted for such an increase? What steps have you taken to improve
    NHTSA's partnership with the states to improve highway safety?
        Answer. While the Agency is still analyzing the 2015 fatality data,
    there are a number of areas that NHTSA has identified as potential
    contributors to the disheartening 7.2 percent increase in roadway
    deaths. There were increases in fatalities in the following areas:
    motorcyclist (8.3 percent); pedestrian (9.5 percent); bicyclist (12.2
    percent); passenger car occupants (5.7 percent); pickup truck occupants
    (4.7 percent); and alcohol-impaired driving fatalities (3.2 percent).
    Preliminary data reported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
    shows that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2015 increased by about 3.5
    percent, and thus increased exposure may account for some of the
    increase.
        In response to early estimates, NHTSA convened a series of
    behavioral safety summits across the country in February and March
    2016. The purpose of these summits was to identify evidence-based
    methods to change behavior outside of traffic safety and explore the
    potential for applying those in new settings. As a direct result of
    these summits, NHTSA is fostering engagement between states and new
    partners who had not previously been engaged in traffic safety.
        NHTSA has focused on expanding partnerships with the states and
    with new national and local partners to implement new safety
    initiatives and programs. NHTSA plans to introduce new innovative
    performance metrics and program resources for states later in 2016.

        Question 7. Section 24105 of the FAST Act required a 2-year state
    pilot program to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of
    notifying consumers of open motor vehicle recalls at the time of
    vehicle registration. This pilot program may demonstrate an effective
    means of achieving higher recall completion rates. What steps has NHTSA
    taken to ensure this will be a successful pilot?
        Answer. In preparation for issuance of the grant solicitation,
    NHTSA engaged with stakeholders to become better informed about State
    and commercial sector logistics as well as technical capabilities
    regarding open recall notification at the time of vehicle registration.
    This outreach has provided NHTSA with a better understanding of the
    registration process and of State capabilities so that it can ensure
    that the program is flexible enough to accommodate the various State
    systems for registering vehicles.

        Question 7a. Beyond the Request for Information issued on April 15,
    has NHTSA worked with states to ensure there is interest and readiness
    for the functionality of the program?
        Answer. NHTSA discussed the pilot notification program with the
    American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the organization
    that represents the State officials who administer and enforce motor
    vehicle laws, to gauge interest in and encourage participation in the
    pilot notification program. Because many states have preexisting
    relationships with the motor vehicle industry and with commercial
    entities providing notification services, we have also encouraged
    State-industry partnerships to increase participation in the
    notification program.

        Question 8. The FAST Act directs a number of updates to the recall
    process, including directing that recall notifications may be sent by
    electronic means in addition to notification by first class mail. The
    FAST Act also directs additional public awareness efforts regarding
    recalls and a report on recall completion rates. What steps has NHTSA
    taken to research and improve consumer notification in an effort to
    improve recall completion rates?
        Answer. NHTSA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    (ANPRM) soliciting comments and supporting information on what NHTSA
    might require as to electronic recall notification. See 81 Fed. Reg.
    4007 (January 25, 2016). The Agency asked questions to facilitate
    comments from stakeholders on what means of notification, based on
    their experience, have been most effective in providing information to
    customers and motivating customers to have safety recall remedies
    performed. NHTSA expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
    the near future.

        Question 8a. How has NHTSA worked with the auto manufacturers to
    research new and better ways to reach consumers and influence recall
    repair?
        Answer. As part of their consent orders, General Motors (GM) and
    Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) researched what factors best motivate
    consumers to take action and seek out their recall remedies. GM
    provided highlights of its results at NHTSA's ``Retooling Recalls''
    symposium in April 2015 where industry leaders gathered at the U.S. DOT
    and brainstormed new ideas to improve recall completion rates. FCA
    shared results of its consumer focus groups and surveys with NHTSA and
    other auto manufacturers. The Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers and
    Global Automakers conducted a joint research project to learn how
    consumers view recalls and the recall notifications they receive. Over
    1,500 people were surveyed and the results were shared with NHTSA and
    summary results were published in the comment filed in the ANPRM docket
    noted above.

        Question 9. It is important for safety recalls to be remedied as
    soon as possible. What does NHTSA do to ensure that manufacturers are
    fulfilling their responsibility to make sure replacement parts to
    remedy recalls are available and at dealerships as soon as possible?
        Answer. NHTSA regularly monitors safety recalls and the amount of
    time manufacturers take to provide recall remedies to their owners.
    NHTSA requires manufacturers to mail consumers an interim notice when
    the remedy is not yet available. The law requires manufacturers to
    remedy vehicles within a reasonable time. However, there is no fixed
    time-frame for what is reasonable because factors such as the number of
    vehicles, age of vehicles, and the nature of the defect may impact how
    quickly a manufacturer can develop a remedy and obtain a sufficient
    supply of parts to fix vehicles.

        Question 9a. In some instances, consumers who bring their vehicles
    in for repair in response to a recall are told parts are not available.
    Such consumers may need to wait several weeks or more for parts to
    become available. While certain recalls may unavoidably result in
    longer times to obtain replacement parts, does NHTSA track the length
    of time between the notification of a defect or noncompliance and the
    date upon which parts are readily available and at dealerships?
        Answer. Yes, the Agency tracks the length of time between
    notification and the date the remedy becomes available.

        Question 9b. If so, what is the average length of time, and have
    you identified any differences in the average length of time among
    manufacturers?
        Answer. For passenger vehicle recalls issued in 2015, manufacturers
    made the recall remedy available, on average, 62 days from the date
    they notified the Agency of the recall. The length of time varies with
    each manufacturer. Manufacturers taking less than 62 days to launch
    their remedy program recalled about 11 million vehicles, combined, in
    2015. Manufacturers taking 62 days or more recalled about 38 million
    vehicles, combined.
        Generally, manufacturers who recall more vehicles take longer to
    launch their remedy programs. In addition, variables such as the number
    of recalls, size of those recalls, complexity of the remedy
    development, and availability of parts play a factor.

        Question 10. The FAST Act requires a study, in coordination with
    manufacturers and dealers, on the feasibility of searching multiple
    vehicle identification numbers at a time, often called VIN
    ``batching.'' What is the progress of this study?
        Answer. NHTSA has not yet developed a time table for completing
    this study. The Agency continues to gather information and discuss the
    requirement with stakeholders. NHTSA is assessing options that exist in
    the commercial arena and that do not involve the Agency's data systems
    or resources for collecting and managing this data. The Agency's VIN
    lookup tool is intended to assist the individual consumer, and
    attempting to accommodate demands in that system may compromise its
    effectiveness for consumers. The information that the Agency has
    gathered to date suggests that tools exist in the private sector that
    may support private sector VIN batching.

        Question 10a. Has NHTSA reviewed any of the VIN batching systems
    being developed by industry? If so, will NHTSA play a role in the
    development or deployment of those systems?
        Answer. NHTSA has reviewed some of the VIN batching systems
    developed by industry. The Agency has not yet determined what role, if
    any, the Agency will play in the deployment of those systems.

        Question 11. The FAST Act includes provisions to: create new tire
    performance standards for fuel efficiency and wet traction; require
    tire sellers to register tires at point of sale; and require NHTSA to
    create a tire recall search tool to be located on the agency's website.
    The Committee strongly supports these provisions and looks forward to
    their prompt implementation.
        The tire performance standards have a statutory deadline of 24
    months for a final rule, while the tire registration and tire recall
    search tool provisions do not have statutory deadlines. Nevertheless,
    the tire recall search tool does not require a rulemaking procedure.
        In the next 6 months, what progress does the Department anticipate
    toward implementing the tire performance standards for fuel efficiency
    and wet traction?
        Answer. The FAST Act requires NHTSA to promulgate regulations for
    tire rolling resistance and wet traction minimum performance standards
    by December 4, 2017. NHTSA has already begun the research necessary to
    guide the development of requirements pertaining to wet traction
    performance. NHTSA is reviewing tire fuel efficiency data collected
    previously, and is coordinating with stakeholders to see if additional
    data is available. NHTSA anticipates the completion of testing by the
    beginning of 2017 and intends to use this data for the proposed
    regulation.

        Question 11a. In the next 6 months, what progress does the
    Department anticipate toward implementing the requirement for tire
    sellers to register tires at point of sale?
        Answer. The FAST Act requires NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking for
    mandatory tire registration by independent sellers. There is no
    statutory deadline for completing this rulemaking, and the Agency has
    not yet developed a time table for completing this rulemaking. NHTSA is
    gathering information and meeting with stakeholders to discuss this
    requirement. The electronic identification study required by section
    24334 of the FAST Act will aid in creating a more beneficial tire
    registration and recordkeeping requirement for tire sellers at the
    point of sale. NHTSA anticipates beginning that study later this year.

        Question 11b. When does the Department anticipate launching the
    web-based tire recall search tool? What can you share about its
    development progress?
        Answer. The FAST Act requires NHTSA to establish a publicly
    available and searchable electronic tire recall database. The statute
    does not require this provision to be implemented through a rulemaking
    and there is no statutory deadline. NHTSA has not yet developed a
    timetable for completing this provision. The Agency is gathering
    information and discussing the requirement with stakeholders.

        Question 12. NHTSA has not completed a rulemaking required under
    the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) that mandated
    consumer information about tire fuel efficiency, wet traction and tread
    wear. The White House announced in December 2014 that NHTSA would
    finalize that rule by 2017. Completion of this rulemaking will help
    facilitate progress on the FAST Act's provisions regarding tire fuel
    efficiency and wet traction.
        According to NHTSA's most recent schedule, a proposed rule was
    provided to the Secretary's office in October 2015. The timetable to
    move this regulation to OMB continues to slip each month. What
    obstacles are preventing this proposal from progressing through the
    rulemaking process? What accounts for this unacceptable delay? What is
    the agency's revised timetable for completing this rulemaking?
        Answer. NHTSA published a final rule in 2010 establishing test
    methods that would be used for the new consumer information program.
    However, the 2010 final rule did not specify the content or
    requirements of the consumer information and education portions because
    NHTSA needed to conduct additional consumer testing and resolve
    important issues raised by the public comments on the proposal. The
    Agency is drafting a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
    expects to issue a final rule in 2017.

        Question 13. The Mid-Term Evaluation of MY 2022-2025 Greenhouse Gas
    and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program standards that was jointly
    published in 2012 is an important assessment. What is the timeline for
    completing the Mid-Term Evaluation?
        Answer. Given the long time frame covered by standards for Model
    Year (MY) 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles and NHTSA's statutory
    obligation to conduct a de novo rulemaking, the Agencies committed in
    the 2012 final rule to conduct a comprehensive mid-term evaluation for
    the MY 2022-2025 standards. The MY 2017-2025 final rule noted that in
    order to align the Agencies' proceedings for MYs 2022-2025 and to
    maintain a joint national program, EPA and NHTSA will finalize their
    actions related to MY 2022-2025 standards concurrently.
        The first step in the process was the issuance of the Draft
    Technical Assessment Report (TAR) for public comment. The Draft TAR was
    jointly issued by the NHTSA, EPA, and the California Air Resources
    Board (CARB) on July 18, 2016. It is open 60 days for public comment.
    Subsequently, EPA will have to determine, by April 2018, whether the
    standards should stay the same, or increase or decrease in stringency.
    DOT will establish CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2025 which will include
    a proposal and final rule. EPA and NHTSA have committed to coordinate
    so the final actions occur at the same time. The Agencies are still
    considering the timing of the next steps.

        Question 13a. What role does NHTSA play in this process? How are
    DOT and EPA working to ensure the Evaluation is conducted in a
    collaborative and transparent process?
        Answer. NHTSA has sponsored several studies and analysis, including
    those by National Academies of Science and Argonne National Laboratory,
    and will continue to sponsor additional work moving forward. NHTSA also
    uses the CAFE Compliance and Effects Model developed by DOT's Volpe
    National Transportation Systems Center to:

       analyze how manufacturers could comply with CAFE standards
            by adding technology to anticipated future vehicle fleets;

       estimate impacts of that additional technology on fuel
            consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and economic costs and
            benefits;

       evaluate the sensitivity of these estimated outcomes to key
            analytical inputs (e.g., fuel prices); and

       perform probabilistic uncertainty analysis.

        Both Agencies are conducting coordinated research, analyses, and
    extensive stakeholder outreach to inform NHTSA's rulemaking and EPA's
    midterm evaluation. NHTSA and EPA are consulting with CARB with the
    goal of maintaining a national program. The three Agencies coauthored
    the Draft TAR. In addition to extensive stakeholder outreach and making
    information available in the public docket, the Draft TAR, NHTSA's
    NPRM, and EPA's Proposed Determination provide opportunity for public
    content. The Agencies also have websites that provide information on
    the midterm evaluation and make the Agencies' research and analyses
    available to the public.

        Question 13b. Has the Administration considered taking steps to
    harmonize the regulation of light duty vehicle fuel economy by NHTSA,
    EPA, and the State of California? If not, why not?
        Answer. Yes. While NHTSA, EPA, and CARB programs differ in some
    ways because of their separate statutory authorities, the Agencies have
    sought to harmonize standards so that manufacturers may build a single
    fleet of vehicles that meets all requirements.

        Question 14. NHTSA has committed to taking an aggressive approach
    to accelerating the availability of advanced safety technologies in the
    marketplace. What are the agency procedures for responding to
    manufacturers' petitions for rulemaking and requests for interpretation
    of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to take into account advanced
    safety technologies?
        Answer. NHTSA's procedures for responding to petitions for
    rulemaking from all parties (including manufacturers) are detailed at
    49 CFR Part 552. The Department is currently developing guidance on how
    to petition NHTSA for interpretations, exemptions, and rulemakings
    related to highly automated vehicles. NHTSA anticipates issuing the
    guidance as part of the highly automated vehicles report in the near
    future.

        Question 14a. While I take no position on the following petitions,
    what is the current status of the petitions for rulemaking to permit
    Adaptive Driving Beam headlamps and to allow the use of camera-based
    rear and side vision systems instead of side and rearview mirrors?
        Answer. NHTSA is actively considering both petitions. NHTSA has
    conducted considerable new research on how to develop a test procedure
    for adaptive driving beam headlamps, as no industry standards existed
    at the time of the petition and the petition itself did not contain or
    refer to test procedures. NHTSA intends to respond to that petition by
    the end of this year, 2016. The petitions for camera-based rear and
    side vision systems lacked the technical detail necessary for NHTSA's
    review. The Agency has asked the petitioners a number of clarifying
    questions and is currently awaiting their responses.

        Question 14b. What is NHTSA's time-frame for publishing guidelines
    on the safe deployment and operation of autonomous vehicles? Does NHTSA
    anticipate publishing draft guidance for public comment? If not, why
    not?
        Answer. NHTSA expects to issue the highly automated vehicles report
    in the near future.

        Question 14c. Do you think the deployment of fully autonomous
    vehicles will change the current requirement for a car to have a
    ``driver''? How should we resolve this issue and ensure safe operation
    of vehicles on our roads? What role should the Federal Government play
    to ensure access of these technologies to a nationwide market?
        Answer. NHTSA does not have a requirement that a ``car must have a
    (human) driver''--that is a matter of State law. That said, NHTSA
    anticipates issuing a model State policy on highly automated vehicles.
    NHTSA has been coordinating with individual states as well as
    representative bodies such as the American Association of Motor Vehicle
    Administrators (AAMVA) as part of the Agency's recent actions to
    develop a model State policy and operational guidance for highly
    automated vehicles. A primary goal of these actions is to achieve a
    consistent national policy.
        We note that, in drafting the original Vehicle Safety Act in 1966,
    Congress sought to ensure that the standards issued under the Act would
    be uniform and national so that the public as well as industry would be
    guided by a single set of criteria instead of a multiplicity of diverse
    standards. We will also evaluate whether legislation is needed to
    achieve consistent national policy regarding highly automated vehicles.

        Question 14d. In response to an inquiry from Google, NHTSA has said
    that some Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will require
    additional rulemaking in order to allow for Google's self-driving car
    features to be permissibly used on our roads. How is NHTSA working with
    the automakers to reduce regulatory burdens while still ensuring and
    enhancing safety?
        Answer. NHTSA has sought to ensure and enhance safety via its
    regulations while minimizing burden on industry. It is true that
    manufacturers seeking to introduce vehicles with non-conventional
    designs, such as ones without steering controls, brake pedals, or
    internal displays of system functions or malfunctions, would not be
    able to certify the compliance of those vehicles to certain existing
    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). NHTSA encouraged Google
    and other regulated parties with similar interests to petition the
    Agency for exemption from those provisions using the existing
    procedures under 49 CFR Part 555, or to petition for rulemaking to
    amend the relevant FMVSSs. NHTSA will be issuing guidance in the near
    future to better explain the information that the Agency expects to see
    in such petitions in order to facilitate the Agency's response.

        Question 15. NHTSA has a new plan for the Driver Alcohol Detection
    System for Safety (DADSS) Program, to create alcohol-detection
    technologies that offer the potential to prevent impaired driving. What
    is the rationale for restructuring the DADDS Program and cooperative
    agreement? How will this accelerate development, testing, and
    deployment of the technologies?
        Answer. Over the past 20 years, nearly 250,000 Americans have been
    killed in drunk driving crashes. Successful implementation of the DADSS
    technology has tremendous potential to reduce this carnage. The
    Department appreciates Congress's continued support of the government
    and industry collaborative research activities that have led from
    feasibility to the potential for reality. Given that progress, it is
    time to start a new track of work focused on deployment.
        To begin the shift toward deployment, NHTSA is implementing the
    terms in its existing cooperative agreement that expand the opportunity
    for public input into the program and allowing for additional
    transparency.
        In 2015, the program achieved significant milestones. For example,
    the DADSS demonstration vehicle incorporating new alcohol detection
    technology was displayed publicly for the first time in a press event
    at the DOT Headquarters on June 4, 2015. Public and media response to
    this unveiling, which featured members of Congress and several hundred
    members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, was very positive. Late in
    2015, partially in response to calls to accelerate deployment, NHTSA
    instructed the DADSS program manager to develop activities focused on
    deployment. These activities include additional test vehicles, consumer
    acceptance testing, human factors, and many others that would ready the
    technology for deployment at the end of the current cooperative
    agreement in 2022.

        Question 15a. How will the new DADSS cooperative agreement and
    Board be structured? Will the role of the existing Automotive Coalition
    for Traffic Safety members change under the agreement? What do you
    expect the role of states to be going forward?
        Answer. NHTSA is working with our current cooperative agreement
    partner, the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS), on a
    modification to the existing cooperative agreement. The modification is
    necessary to implement an existing provision in the agreement that
    creates a Stakeholders Team to allow for more representation. The
    modification would expand membership of the Stakeholders Team to
    include representation from states and public interest organizations,
    while keeping in place the existing NHTSA and ACTS roles.

        Question 15b. When does NHTSA expect that the breath-based system
    and the touch-based system will be ready for commercial deployment?
    What method, if any, is the DADSS Program using to objectively quantify
    that the technologies are ready for deployment?
        Answer. Under the current program of work, assuming no additional
    funding to accelerate activities, the technology is expected to be
    ready for vehicle integration (commercially feasible) by 2022. The
    DADSS program uses Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and Manufacturing
    Readiness Level (MRL) to objectively quantify readiness for deployment.
    The TRL and MRL measures, originally developed by NASA and the
    Department of Defense and adapted for automotive use, are used to
    assess maturity of new technologies. Technology is ready for deployment
    at TRL=8 MRL=7. Currently the breath-based system is at a TRL=4 and
    MRL=4 and the touch-based system is at a TRL=3 and MRL=3.

        Question 16. On August 18, 2015, NHTSA issued an Advance Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications
    technology. What is the status of that rulemaking? What feedback from
    stakeholders have you received thus far?
        Answer. The Department developed and submitted a notice of proposed
    rulemaking (NPRM), a Regulatory Impact Assessment, and a Privacy Impact
    Assessment to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

        Question 17. The committee is concerned that the proposed
    Greenhouse Gas Phase 2 regulations may have an unintended effect on
    safety. The addition of extra weight on a truck trailer will inevitably
    displace cargo in some instances to maintain compliance with gross
    vehicle weight limitations. Thus, in order to continue to transport
    even the current level of freight, more trucks and trailers will very
    likely be needed. At the current truck-related accident rate, however,
    more trucks on the road may translate into an increase in accidents,
    including more fatal accidents, and ironically an overall increase in
    greenhouse gases. Pursuing a policy that is likely to lead to more
    accidents and road fatalities is at odds with NHTSA's mandate to reduce
    deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle
    crashes. What are NHTSA's calculations in this matter, and how does
    NHTSA believe we are going to avoid the possibility of more accidents
    and deaths?
        Answer. The finalized Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
    Standards for Medium-and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2
    regulations predict that vehicles affected by the regulations will
    employ some amount of mass reduction to achieve fuel savings,
    especially in the high volume Heavy-Duty Pickup and Van segments. See
    http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy for copy of Final Rule. As discussed
    in the Final Rule preamble.

            ``Both the NPRM and the current analysis consider the potential
            effects on crash safety of the technologies manufacturers may
            apply to their vehicles to meet each of the regulatory
            alternatives. NHTSA research has shown that vehicle mass
            reduction affects overall societal fatalities associated with
            crashes and, most relevant to this rule, mass reduction in
            heavier light-and medium-duty vehicles has an overall
            beneficial effect on societal fatalities. Reducing the mass of
            a heavier vehicle involved in a crash with another vehicle(s)
            makes it less likely there will be fatalities among the
            occupants of the other vehicles.''

        Overall, the potential positive safety implications of weight
    reduction efforts could partially or fully offset safety concerns from
    added weight of aerodynamic devices. In fact, for this reason, we
    believe that the Phase 2 trailer program could produce a net safety
    benefit in the long run due to the potentially greater amount of cargo
    that could be carried on each truck as a result of trailer weight
    reduction.
        In addition, the agency anticipates our continued efforts to
    improve the crash worthiness of the vehicle fleet will work in parallel
    with these standards, providing increased occupant safety in
    conjunction with improve fuel efficiency. The analysis supporting the
    final rule takes into account the total societal benefits of the
    program and projects a net benefit overall.
    Motor Carriers and Highway Safety
        Question 18. The FAST Act includes language that allows the State
    of South Dakota to revisit and update the routes on which longer
    combination vehicles can travel within the state. The state plans to
    shift the routes from rural roads to interstates constructed
    specifically to handle these heavier trucks in a safer manner, with
    better infrastructure, including divided highways. I have been working
    for years with the State of South Dakota to ensure that these trucks
    are on the roads most aligned with our freight networks, providing
    direct routes on appropriate roads. Can you provide a progress update
    on the designation of the new routes and the Department's work with the
    state?
        Answer. FHWA is working proactively with the South Dakota DOT (SD
    DOT) to implement this provision, which provides an opportunity for the
    state to update and revise Interstate and National Network routes that
    are subject to the longer combination vehicle (LCV) freeze. Staff from
    FHWA Headquarters, the FHWA South Dakota Division and the SD DOT met on
    May 20, 2016, to ensure mutual understanding of the FAST Act provision
    and to discuss the process for implementation. The SD DOT is reviewing
    the State's LCV routes and developing a proposal for updating and
    revising routes. The SD DOT anticipates completing its review later
    this summer, at which time it will submit its proposal to FHWA. The SD
    DOT is aware of the statutory requirements that any such updates and
    revisions must shift routes to divided highways or not increase
    centerline miles by more than 5 percent and must be expected to
    increase safety performance.

        Question 19. You mentioned in your remarks that you do not expect
    the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program scores will be
    reformed and made public for two years. In this timeframe, the Safety
    Fitness Determination (SFD) Rulemaking process will proceed.
        I understand you do not expect the SFD rulemaking to be complete
    prior to the reform of the CSA program. Can you provide a timeline of
    how these two linked programs will be implemented?
        Answer. The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) kicked off its
    review of the CSA program and Safety Measurement System (SMS) on June
    29, 2016. Based on FMCSA's contract with NAS, we expect its final
    report, with any recommendations for changes, in June 2017. The scope
    of the NAS study, as prescribed in the FAST Act, did not include the
    SFD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
        The SFD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on January 21,
    2016, and the comment period closed on June 23, 2016. The Agency
    received approximately 170 comments. FMCSA is currently reviewing the
    comments to identify any appropriate revisions to the Agency's
    proposal. This is a significant rulemaking requiring review by the
    Office of Management and Budget. FMCSA does not expect this final rule
    to be published before December 2017.
        As a result, if there are recommendations from the NAS Correlation
    Study that impact the SFD rulemaking, the timing of these two
    initiatives will allow any needed changes to be incorporated into the
    SFD final rule.

        Question 19a. Do you expect the Department to revise the SFD rule
    to take into account the recommendations of the National Academies of
    Science report on CSA?
        Answer. If the National Academies provides recommendations relevant
    to the SFD final rule, FMCSA will consider them when developing the
    final rule.

        Question 20. There are many active and passive driver assist and
    automated vehicle technologies available in the marketplace today that
    provide significant safety benefits for cars and trucks on our Nation's
    highways. The deployment of some of these technologies currently
    requires the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to
    provide an exemption from outdated regulatory standards and barriers,
    which inhibit the wider deployment of proven safety technologies.
    Short-term exemptions, such as those that allow for the windshield
    display of important safety technology for example, while appropriate,
    drive up costs for both the agency and industry. Accordingly, section
    5301 of the FAST Act directs the Department to provide a permanent
    exemption for the windshield placement of a variety of proven
    technologies.
        This provision required the Department to move forward within 180
    days of enactment, a date that has already passed.
        Where is the Department in implementing this directive and why is
    there a delay on moving forward on such an important, commonsense
    initiative?
        Answer. No current exemptions related to this issue are due to
    expire until late 2017. A final rule implementing section 5301 of the
    FAST Act is expected to be transmitted to the Office of the Federal
    Register for publication soon.

        Question 21. Section 5203 of the Fast Act directs FMCSA to review
    guidance documents to eliminate conflicts and ensure enforcement
    consistency. The legislation further requires FMCSA to incorporate
    guidance into regulations within five years of issuance, where
    practicable.
        Please provide an update on the status of the guidance review,
    including the number of guidance documents eliminated or significantly
    revised.
        Answer. FMCSA is acting on the section 5203 requirement to ``clean
    up'' its regulatory guidance. The Agency has inventoried a total of 633
    regulatory guidance documents while simultaneously, the Motor Carrier
    Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) has been tasked to review the
    guidance and make recommendations. The MCSAC met on June 14-15, 2016,
    to review FMCSA guidance and will continue its work through the summer.
    Thus far, of the 633 documents, 215 documents have been reviewed to
    determine whether the guidance is obsolete, needs refinement, or is
    accurate as written. The Agency and MCSAC have completed review of
    guidance related to hours-of-service (49 CFR Part 395) and commercial
    drivers' license (49 CFR Part 383) regulations. FMCSA has drafted
    Federal Register notices to update that guidance. Approximately 60
    documents have been identified as obsolete and will be removed. FMCSA
    expects to continue to integrate its own analysis with the MCSAC
    recommendations. The Agency will issue a series of Federal Register
    notices to rescind, update, or reissue the guidance, as appropriate.
    These notices will provide both transparency and an opportunity for
    public comment on the issues.
        FMCSA expects to complete the initial review of all guidance
    documents before the statutory deadline of December 4, 2016.

        Question 22. Funding for the FASTLANE grant program and the freight
    formula program was authorized by Congress in order to make critical
    improvements to our Nation's freight network. Applications for both the
    FASTLANE grant program and the unauthorized TIGER grant program are
    being reviewed at the same time, and some projects have been submitted
    as both TIGER and FASTLANE applications. Can you please describe how
    the Department is reviewing the applications concurrently, and how
    funding decisions will be made for each individual program?
        Answer. Applications for TIGER and FASTLANE funding are being
    evaluated independently according to the selection criteria unique to
    each program. Funding decisions for the FASTLANE program are being made
    in accordance with the Notice of Funding Opportunity published on March
    2, 2016. Funding decisions for the TIGER program are being made in
    accordance with the Notice of Funding Opportunity published on February
    26, 2016. Because many of the same staff were involved in both the
    review of TIGER and FASTLANE applications, staff members were able to
    coordinate between the two application processes and brief senior
    officials on the applications that were submitted for both
    discretionary programs so that Secretarial investment decisions were
    fully informed. In accordance with the FAST Act, the Department
    provided Congress with a 60 day notification of the proposed FASTLANE
    projects, award amounts and justification on July 5, 2016, and publicly
    announced awards on September 7, 2016. Congressional notification of
    the 2016 TIGER awards was provided on July 26, 2016, and publicly
    announced on July 29, 2016.
        Additionally, the FAST Act directed the Secretary to establish a
    National Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau, also
    known as the Build America Bureau, to administer the FASTLANE grant
    application process. The newly established Build America Bureau will
    administer the application process for Fiscal Year 2017 and future
    rounds of the FASTLANE discretionary grant program.

        Question 22a. Please describe how projects are being rated and
    ranked for each program, how the decision making process will be
    documented, and how the Department plans to provide feedback to project
    sponsors who do not receive an award.
        Answer. Applications for TIGER funding are being evaluated in
    accordance with the selection criteria and review process described in
    the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) published on February 26,
    2016. The TIGER NOFO can be found at: https://www.transportation.gov/
    tiger/tiger-nofo.
        Applications for FASTLANE funding are being evaluated in accordance
    with the selection criteria and review process described in the NOFO
    published on March 2, 2016. The FASTLANE NOFO can be found at: https://
    www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/fastlanegrants/fastlane-nofo. The
    evaluation and selection processes are being documented according to
    each program's evaluation guidelines.
        As has been the practice in the past, the Department is available
    to assist past and prospective applicants to the TIGER and FASTLANE
    program to provide technical assistance with regard to understanding
    the criteria, evaluation, selection, and implementation process for
    future application submissions. For both programs, the Department
    provides debriefs, upon request, to all applicants not selected for
    award to include a summary of the evaluation and constructive technical
    assistance for subsequent rounds of competition.
    Federal Railroad Administration
        Question 23. Grade Crossing Safety. The FAST Act contains several
    provisions to increase highway-rail grade crossing safety, including a
    requirement for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to distribute
    model action plans and risk data to states. The FAST Act also increased
    funding for the Section 130 program to reduce risk at grade crossings.
        To what extent does the Department engage stakeholders, including
    railroads and state departments of transportation, to ensure Section
    130 funds are used most effectively?
        Answer. FHWA, in coordination with FRA, provides continuing
    outreach and guidance to ensure Section 130 funds are used effectively.
    This outreach includes presentations and dialogue with stakeholders
    such as railroads and State departments of transportation at
    conferences, workshops, and symposia. For example, in April 2016, the
    FRA Administrator wrote to the leadership of State departments of
    transportation identifying the congressional increase in Section 130
    funding for FY16 and guidance to more effectively apply Federal dollars
    to grade crossings.
        FHWA and FRA staff also present overviews of the Section 130
    program at Grade Crossing Safety Conferences, TRB Committees, and
    meetings with industry groups throughout the country. These
    presentations provide stakeholders with an overview as well as updates
    on the history of Federal grade-crossing legislation; funding amounts
    for Section 130 nationally and by state; project eligibility; the
    project selection and prioritization process; roles of FHWA and FRA
    staff in headquarters and in Division Offices nationwide; reporting
    requirements; upcoming products; and legislative updates that affect
    the program. Recently, FHWA and FRA conducted a joint presentation to
    the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
    (AASHTO) and the Association of American Railroads (AAR), which focused
    on FAST Act implementation of the Section 130 program, discussed
    emerging rail safety issues, and promoted safety countermeasures.
        FHWA also gathers information on States' progress in implementing
    the Section 130 program through annual reports. These reports describe
    the projects states implement to improve safety at railway-highway
    grade crossings, the effectiveness of such improvements, an assessment
    of the costs of the various treatments employed, and subsequent crash
    experience at improved locations. FHWA communicates the effectiveness
    of the program to Congress in a biennial report as required under
    Section 130(g). The report to Congress provides a national summary on
    the progress states are making in implementing projects to improve
    safety at railway-highway crossings and makes recommendations for
    future implementation of the Section 130 program. This report provides
    Congress, FHWA, and FRA with valuable insight into the effectiveness of
    the program. The Department will continue to work with stakeholders and
    partners to improve the safety of our Nation's railway-highway grade
    crossings through the Section 130 Program.

        Question 23a. Is the Department aware of any inconsistencies across
    states in their interpretation of Section 130 program eligibilities,
    and, if so, what steps has the Department taken to address those
    inconsistencies?
        Answer. Over the life of the Section 130 program, many states have
    improved crossings with the highest risk and most significant crash
    history. However, there are still high-profile crashes that highlight
    the safety risks at many crossings. States are challenged to find
    innovative methods for prioritizing projects to maximize the safety
    benefits of the Section 130 Program and further reduce crashes and
    fatalities at crossings.
        While FHWA provides eligibility guidance to ensure statutory and
    regulatory compliance, there is no one-size-fits-all risk formula that
    states use for project identification. To promote best practices among
    states, FHWA and FRA developed the ``Highway-Rail Action Plan and
    Project Prioritization Noteworthy Practices Guide.'' This guide shows
    states and their partners how to develop their own State-specific grade
    crossing action plans, and how to identify best practices in how states
    tailor risk formulas to State needs, incorporate benefit-cost
    evaluations in project selection, supplement Federal Section 130
    funding with State dollars, invest planning dollars (2 percent
    allowance) in inventory improvements, and apply innovative improvements
    to project execution. FRA also has two key, web-based application and
    decision support tools, WBAPS and GradeDec, which provide users with an
    analytical tool that can assist in determining where highway-rail grade
    crossing risk mitigation resources can best be directed, including the
    identification and evaluation of strategies such as highway-rail grade
    crossing upgrades, separations and closures.
        FHWA and FRA are continuing their collaborative approach to rail
    grade crossing safety and are jointly working on updating the Rail
    Crossing Safety Handbook. The handbook provides a single reference
    document on prevalent and best practices as well as adopted standards
    relative to highway-rail grade crossings. The handbook provides general
    information on highway-rail crossings; characteristics of the crossing
    environment and users; and the physical and operational improvements
    that can be made at highway-rail grade crossings to enhance the safety
    and operation of both highway and rail traffic over grade crossings.
    The guidelines and alternative improvements presented in this handbook
    are primarily those that have proven effective and are accepted
    nationwide.

        Question 24. Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing
    (RRIF). The FAST Act reformed the RRIF program to increase efficiency,
    flexibility, and transparency, and institute certain taxpayer
    protections. When does the Department plan to publish its first
    dashboard, or monthly report on RRIF applications, required by the FAST
    Act?
        Answer. With the establishment of the Build America Bureau, which
    is the Department's name for the National Surface Transportation and
    Innovative Finance Bureau, we are working to harmonize the processes
    for RRIF, TIFIA, and PABs. This includes harmonization of the public
    dashboard approach for all credit programs within the Build America
    Bureau, including the existing procedures for TIFIA and the approach
    for RRIF, as outlined in the FAST Act. We are working towards
    implementing a harmonized dashboard approach for the credit programs in
    Fall 2016.

        Question 24a. Considering the directive in the Joint Explanatory
    Statement of FAST Act, the goal of minimizing the length of time the
    Government retains possession of credit risk premiums, and the shared
    objective to facilitate increased infrastructure investment, what steps
    is the Department taking to repay certain credit risk premiums of
    repaid loans?
        Answer. We appreciate the direction from the Joint Explanatory
    Statement. As everyone is aware, this issue is complicated with a long
    history. The Department is actively engaged in reviewing the process
    regarding the repayment provision.

        Question 25. Positive Train Control (PTC). The FAST Act allocates
    $199 million in dedicated funding for recipients of funds under chapter
    53 of title 49, including states and commuter railroads. If a state
    receives a PTC grant from this pool of funds, does the Department view
    it as allowable for the state to use this grant to financially assist a
    short line railroad with PTC installation?
        Answer. The Department believes that a state would not be allowed
    to use a PTC grant authorized by section 3028 of the FAST Act to
    financially assist any short line railroad that solely supports freight
    rail transportation. The $199 million in dedicated funding for
    recipients of funds under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code
    (U.S.C.), including state and commuter railroads, is available for
    installation of PTC systems that are required under 49 U.S.C.
    Sec. 20157 and that support passenger rail transportation.

        Question 26. Train Crew Staffing. In addition to the rules required
    by the FAST Act, FRA allocates staff resources to issue discretionary
    rules, including the recent proposed rule entitled ``Train Crew
    Staffing.'' In this proposed rule, FRA stated it ``does not currently
    collect sufficient data related to the size of a train crew nor do
    accident reports and investigations generally address the size of a
    crew in order for FRA or any entity to definitively compare one-person
    operations to multiple person operations.''
        In investigating the derailment of Amtrak #188, the National
    Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) stated that ``relying on a single
    person to make correct decisions can result in a single point failure.
    This single-point failure will be substantially addressed by full PTC
    implementation since that system will provide an independent automated
    means of compliance with speed and signal restrictions in case of human
    error. In areas where PTC is not implemented, other ways of addressing
    this single point failure may be necessary. It is unclear if a two-
    person crew would satisfactorily address this issue because there is
    insufficient data to demonstrate that accidents are avoided by having a
    second qualified person in the cab.'' As such, the NTSB recommended
    that FRA first collect data on additional crew size and accident
    circumstances and then use that data to evaluate the safety adequacy of
    current crew size regulations.
        What steps, if any, is the Department taking to increase the
    sufficiency of its data related to crew size in order to compare one-
    person operations to multiple person operations? To what extent does
    the Department plan to gather and analyze data from international and
    domestic one-person operations?
        Answer. FRA is contemplating an update to the existing accident
    reporting forms to capture various pieces of information related to
    train operations that have become more important over the last several
    years. This may include crew staffing levels, PTC information,
    flammable liquid information, and various other changes to the
    reporting forms. However, this effort is likely to take some years to
    yield actionable data. FRA has not yet determined if it will gather and
    analyze additional data regarding international one-person operations.

        Question 26a. Consistent with the NTSB recommendation, does the
    Department plan not to publish a final rule on train crew staffing
    until, at a minimum, FRA revises its applicable data collections,
    obtains sufficient data on train crew size risk, and uses that data in
    an updated analysis that justifies such a rule?
        Answer. As was stressed in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
    issued in March 2016, FRA does not believe that additional data from
    existing one-person operations would prove useful to the completion of
    the rulemaking. The NPRM proposes to permit the continued operation of
    virtually all existing one-person operations in the United States. FRA
    proposes a process to review all new operations, and the NPRM suggested
    FRA would likely favorably view those new operations similar to
    existing safe operations if a railroad did not otherwise have a poor
    safety history. However, any data related to those existing operations
    would not be relevant to new operations that are significantly
    different from any existing operation. The purpose of the proposal is
    to ensure that a railroad considers and addresses the potential safety
    implications of using fewer than two crewmembers on certain operations,
    especially those hauling certain types and quantities of hazardous
    materials. The NPRM proposed a requirement that a railroad seeking
    special approval of an operation with less than two train crewmembers
    submit ``appropriate data or analysis, or both, for FRA to consider in
    determining whether the train operation proposed will provide at least
    an appropriate level of safety to a train operation with two
    crewmembers.'' See, proposed 49 CFR Part 218.135(b)(11) at 81 Fed. Reg.
    13966. In the NPRM's section-by-section analysis, FRA explained that an
    FRA decision ``would need to contain the facts and rationale relied
    upon . . . [because] any final agency decision is an action that is
    potentially reviewable in Federal court and would need to contain
    sufficient information to survive legal scrutiny.'' 81 Fed. Reg. 13953.
    FRA conducted a public hearing on the proposal on July 15, 2016, and
    the comment period closed on August 15, 2016. FRA will consider all
    public comments when developing a final rule in the matter.

        Question 26b. Does the Department agree with the NTSB's assessment
    that PTC will substantially address the risk posed by single-point
    failures caused by a single person failing to make correct decisions?
        Answer. The Department agrees that PTC will provide a number of
    safety benefits and address a number of potential single-point failures
    that exist in many train operations. However, the full implementation
    of PTC systems is several years away, and even when fully deployed as
    required by Federal statute, PTC systems will be utilized only on less
    than half of the Nation's rail system. In addition, PTC will not
    address all of the potential safety hazards that may arise when using
    fewer than two crewmembers on a train, nor will PTC provide the safety
    benefits associated with a second crew member, including: handling en
    route equipment failures and setting out defective equipment,
    separating or backing up trains to alleviate blocked crossings, and
    providing assistance to other crew members and the public in
    emergencies.

        Question 26c. Given the Department's support for the development of
    autonomous vehicle technology to reduce or eliminate road accidents
    caused by human error, what is FRA doing to similarly encourage the
    advancement and deployment of technologies to enable autonomous
    operation of trains?
        Answer. Through its research and development program activities,
    FRA continually seeks to identify and explore technological innovations
    and solutions to enhance the safety, reliability, and efficiency of
    train operations. For example, FRA has supported the development and
    use of remote control operations in and around train yards.
    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
        Question 27. Electronically-Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) Brakes. With
    respect to ECP brakes, the FAST Act required an independent evaluation
    by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and a real-world testing
    framework through the National Academies. I understand the Department
    has been working with the National Academies to establish an
    independent panel to oversee the testing.
        To what extent will the National Academies' independent panel
    oversee and have the opportunity to shape the real-world testing
    framework, including both topline and detailed testing plans, before
    any testing is conducted?
        Answer. It is anticipated that the independent panel of the
    Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academy of Sciences
    (NAS) will hold its first meeting in October of 2016. While the TRB
    panel is being selected, DOT will develop high-level specifications for
    testing and analysis to address the FAST Act requirements. Detailed
    test plans will be developed by DOT's contractors and made available to
    the independent TRB panel. The independent TRB panel will then have the
    opportunity to review DOT's testing and analysis framework as well as
    the detailed test plans and will make recommendations on any changes or
    additional tests the panel believes are necessary.

        Question 27a. What is the status of the Department's contract with
    the National Academies for its services?
        Answer. FRA entered into a contract with TRB on May 27, 2016. TRB
    is currently in the process of forming the independent technical panel,
    which requires checks to ensure independence and avoid any conflicts of
    interest. Once the independent TRB panel is selected, the panel member
    names will be posted for public comment. The first meeting of the
    independent panel is anticipated to take place in October of 2016.

        Question 27b. In addition to funding the real-world testing, what
    role do you expect the Department to have with respect to the design
    and execution of the testing?
        Answer. While the TRB panel is being selected, DOT will develop
    high-level specifications for testing and analysis to address the FAST
    Act requirements. Detailed test plans will be developed by DOT's
    contractors and made available to the independent TRB panel.

        Question 27c. Does the Department plan to consider or use the
    independent testing and evaluation results prior to taking any further
    action concerning ECP brakes?
        Answer. As required by the FAST Act, the updated Regulatory Impact
    Analysis (RIA) will incorporate the results of the independent
    evaluation conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the
    testing overseen by the independent TRB panel, and public comments. DOT
    will then use the updated RIA to inform the Secretary's decision on
    whether the ECP brake requirement is justified. In the event that
    independent, third parties present additional results, DOT also will
    take them into consideration before taking further action.

        Question 28. Real-Time Emergency Response Information. The FAST Act
    required the Department, in consultation with other agencies, to issue
    regulations to require Class I railroads to provide to fusion centers
    accurate, real-time, and electronic train consist information for
    certain trains. The FAST Act also codified requirements for each Class
    I railroad to provide certain train consist information to state
    emergency response commissions consistent with the requirements of
    Emergency Order Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0067.
        Understanding the rulemaking for real-time information is under
    development, what security and confidentiality protections does the
    Department plan to establish to prevent the release of information,
    including proprietary or security-sensitive information, to
    unauthorized persons?
        Answer. The flow of information from railroads to State, local, or
    tribal governments (and thus the protection of information) is being
    addressed in two distinct rulemakings. In the first action, a Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Oil Spill Response Plans and
    Information Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains'', PHMSA addressed
    provisions contained in Sections 7302(a)(3), (4), and (6) of the FAST
    Act. In this rulemaking, PHMSA proposes to codify the Emergency Order's
    State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) notification provisions for
    all high-hazard flammable trains (HHFTs).
        In the second action, PHMSA is developing an NPRM to address
    provisions contained in section 7302 of the FAST Act that require Class
    I railroads to provide fusion centers with accurate, real-time, and
    electronic train consist information for trains transporting hazardous
    materials. Specifically, the NPRM will address sections 7302(a)(1),
    (2), (5), (6), and (7) of the FAST Act. This NPRM is currently under
    development, and PHMSA is evaluating all reasonable options to
    implement these FAST Act provisions.
        The Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing for High-
    Hazard Flammable Trains NPRM proposes requiring that ``[i]f the
    disclosure includes information that railroads believe is security
    sensitive or proprietary and exempt from public disclosure, the
    railroads should indicate that in the notification.'' This requirement
    that business confidential information be marked appropriately will
    help prevent against inadvertent public disclosure. Specifically,
    states will know which information is considered by the railroads to be
    inappropriate for public release. Thus, states can incorporate this
    information into their processes for determining which information to
    release to the public.
        Both after the initial issuance of the Emergency Order and as part
    of the Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing for High-Hazard
    Flammable Trains NPRM development, DOT analyzed the Emergency Order and
    determined that the information shared by railroads does not qualify
    for withholding under Federal standards on business confidential or
    sensitive security information (SSI).
        After issuing the Emergency Order, FRA found that State laws
    control and may therefore limit the disclosure and dissemination of
    this information in FRA's Information Disclosure Notice (79 Fed. Reg.
    59891 (Oct. 3, 2014)). The NPRM proposes to require railroads to
    report, on a weekly basis, aggregated information that includes the
    volumes of crude oil and other HHFTs that travel through a
    jurisdiction. This information does not include customer information,
    other identifiable business details, or specifics about the timing of
    HHFT trains.
        The NPRM solicits comments on this topic, as well as on the means
    by which PHMSA can fulfill the FAST Act's direction to establish
    security and confidentiality protections where this information is not
    subject to Federal standards. The NPRM is available at https://
    federalregister.gov/a/2016-16938.

        Question 28a. To what extent has the Department established any
    security or confidentiality protections for the information provided
    under the requirements in Emergency Order Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0067?
        Answer. In an October 2014 Information Disclosure Notice, the
    Department analyzed the Emergency Order, and determined that the
    information shared by railroads does not qualify for withholding under
    Federal standards for business confidential information or Sensitive
    Security Information. See 79 Fed. Reg. 59891 (October 3, 2014),
    available at: https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-23511. The Department
    noted that, for each State, public disclosure laws control the
    disclosure and dissemination of this information. The Department has
    not established additional disclosure limitations on the Emergency
    Order information.
        As discussed in the response to the previous question, the
    Department addressed security and confidentiality protections in the
    Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing for High Hazard
    Flammable Trains NPRM.

        Question 28b. To what extent has the Department evaluated whether
    the information that has been provided to state emergency response
    commissions under the Emergency Order has resulted in increased
    preparedness or enhanced local decision-making?
        Answer. In January 2015, PHMSA participated in conference calls
    with representatives of the 48 states in the lower continental United
    States and the District of Columbia that addressed emergency response
    to crude-by-rail incidents. Hosted by the Environmental Protection
    Agency and attended by other Federal partners, these discussions
    clarified how states prepare and respond to incidents involving crude-
    by-rail and identified their unique needs. Twenty-two of 49 states
    reported that rail carriers provided information pursuant to the Order
    that was helpful in understanding the threat to their state. Thirty of
    49 states provide oil train routing information to local communities,
    but variations exist in the amount of information provided, with some
    states sharing all routing information and others heavily redacting
    carrier-submitted data.
        To further evaluate the effectiveness of the information and how it
    should be shared within the State and local response communities, PHMSA
    recently released the NPRM titled ``Oil Spill Response Plans and
    Information Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains'' (HM-251B). This
    NPRM proposes to codify the Emergency Order to meet the requirement set
    forth in the FAST Act. This NPRM will provide an additional avenue for
    PHMSA to capture feedback from the response community along with other
    interested stakeholders. PHMSA anticipates receiving comments from
    SERCs, Tribal Emergency Response Commissions (TERCs), and related local
    emergency planning decision-makers during the NPRM's open comment
    period.
        Further, PHMSA continues to engage with SERCs, TERCs, and others in
    order to improve hazardous materials emergency preparedness and
    response. Overall, states participating in the conference calls
    requested additional in-state training options for first-responders. To
    address this input, DOT developed the Transportation Rail Incident
    Preparedness and Response (TRIPR) information modules to offer a
    flexible approach to train first responders and emergency personnel on
    best practices for pre-incident planning and response to rail incidents
    involving flammable liquids such as petroleum crude oil and ethanol.
    Since October 6, 2015, more than 3,200 users have used the TRIPR
    website (http://dothazmat.vividlms.com/tools.asp). More are receiving
    direct training through focused activities by PHMSA and other Federal
    agencies.

        Question 29. Crude Oil Characteristics. The FAST Act requires a
    report following the completion of the comprehensive Crude Oil
    Characteristics Research, Sampling, Analysis, and Experiment Plan study
    at Sandia National Laboratories. The FAST Act requires the report to
    contain any recommendations for regulatory or legislative changes to
    improve the safe transport of crude oil.
        To what extent does the Department, or any of its interagency
    partners, plan any regulations or other administrative actions
    concerning crude oil characteristics, including a potential vapor
    pressure limitation or other similar type of standard, prior to the
    results of the study and submission of the report?
        Answer. In order to address the increase in the domestic production
    of crude oil, since September 2012, DOT has taken over 30 actions to
    prevent and mitigate the damage from crude-by-rail accidents. These
    actions come in the form of rulemakings, Emergency Orders, research,
    training and grant programs. More information about these actions is
    available online at: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/hazmat/safe-
    transportation-of-energy-products.
        One of these actions was a joint study with the Department of
    Energy (DOE), which will help develop an understanding of scientific
    questions associated with the production, treatment, and transportation
    of crude oil, including Bakken crude oil. The Department will use the
    results of this study to inform our decisions on future public
    policies. Upon completion of the study, as mandated by the FAST Act,
    PHMSA will submit a report to Congress that will include the results of
    the Crude Oil Characteristics Research Sampling, Analysis, and
    Experiment Plan. The Department is actively monitoring the progress of
    the study to avoid delays.
        The Department has consistently shown a willingness to take action
    and will consider all options as we learn more and move forward.

        Question 29a. What research has the Department conducted to
    investigate the effects of certain crude oil characteristics on the
    consequences of specific derailments?
        Answer. PHMSA has not investigated the effects of certain crude oil
    characteristics on the consequences of specific derailments. However,
    PHMSA investigators collect crude oil samples from derailments to gain
    a better understanding of crude oil characteristics, and determine
    compliance with hazardous materials regulations. PHMSA is in the
    process of sharing our data with DOE for the joint DOT-DOE study. This
    study is a multi-phase effort to develop a more comprehensive
    understanding of the properties of crude oil and to address its risks
    in transportation. The results of this study will help inform future
    actions by the Department to improve the safe transportation of crude
    oil and will comply with the requirements of the FAST Act.

        Question 29b. Within the analysis for the high-hazard flammable
    train final rule, to what extent did the Department incorporate any
    differences in the characteristics of crude oil and ethanol--including
    differences in vapor pressure, flashpoint, and boiling points--into its
    assessment of the relative risks of each commodity? How did the
    potential safety benefits of the rule differ by commodity, given these
    differences?
        Answer. Since crude and ethanol are the main commodities shipped as
    HHFTs, these commodities were the focus of the regulatory impact
    analysis (RIA) for the ``Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational
    Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains'' final rulemaking. The RIA
    focuses on economic factors (benefit-cost analysis findings) and did
    not directly consider chemical and technical characteristics, such as
    vapor pressure, flashpoint, and boiling points.
        PHMSA evaluated crude and ethanol benefits separately in the RIA
    for certain provisions. When considering the combined economic impacts
    of the final rule, PHMSA analyzed fleet size/composition, train
    lengths, travel distances, volumes transported, production projections,
    and other market characteristics that vary between crude oil and
    ethanol rail transport. In addition, the benefits for the provisions in
    the HHFT final rule were derived using a cost per gallon figure that
    was developed based on reported damages associated with crude oil and
    ethanol rail incidents. This cost per gallon estimate represents the
    average consequences per gallon for crude oil and ethanol rail
    incidents in the U.S. safety record and is presented as a single figure
    for calculation of the benefits. That is, the RIA considered the
    typical damages for ethanol and crude oil rail incidents separately,
    but used a weighted average to derive an overall cost per gallon
    estimate to calculate the expected benefits of the final rule.
    Therefore, while the RIA did not explicitly differentiate
    characteristics of crude oil and ethanol, it did consider appropriate
    economic factors that vary between these commodities.

        Question 30. Special Permits and Approvals. The FAST Act reformed
    the special permits and approvals process to improve accountability,
    increase transparency, and add predictability for the regulated public.
    Among other things, the FAST Act amended the processing deadline from
    180 to 120 days, yet the latest publically available data appear to
    show PHMSA has over 100 approvals and permits that exceed the deadline.
    Would you provide a list of each application that exceeds the deadline
    and provide more information on the circumstances or actions causing
    the backlog?
        Answer. As of June 27, 2016, the number of Approvals and Permits
    greater than 120 days is as follows:

    Special Permits:                                                  52
    Approvals:                                                        73

        PHMSA has been working diligently to reduce the number of
    applications for approvals and special permits whose processing times
    exceed 120 days. In the past, the reporting requirements only pertained
    to special permits and not to approvals. In addition, the timeline
    which required reporting was 180 days and not 120 days. During any year
    it is estimated that PHMSA processes approximately 2,500 applications
    for special permits and 25,000 applications for the various types of
    approvals. When the number of applications that exceed the 120 day
    timeline is compared to the overall volume of applications received, it
    can be seen that the number of applications that exceed the timeline
    are only a fraction of the applications received. It is unusual for an
    application to reach that mark.
        If an application exceeds the 120 day timeline it is generally due
    to one of the following extenuating circumstances:

       The application is precedent setting and requires an
            increased level of technical review;

       The application is technically complex (such as a new
            composite cylinder design) and requires technical review of
            many documents such as design drawings, technical
            specifications, and test reports;

       The application requires an extended fitness review by PHMSA
            or a modal administration and may require an onsite inspection
            of the applicant;

       During review of the application if it is determined that
            additional information is needed, the time to gather and submit
            the additional information can lead to an extended review time;
            and

       During some periods of time, other priorities such as
            ensuring the safe transportation of crude oil by rail reduce
            the number of available engineers, chemists, and scientists who
            are responsible for the technical evaluation of approvals and
            permits.
                                     ______

      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
        Question 1. Congress used the Fast Act to make significant changes
    to the TIFIA program to streamline the application process and make
    TIFIA more accessible for small towns to pursue local transportation
    projects such as trail systems for pedestrians and bicyclists. What is
    USDOT doing to revise TIFIA procedures to make it easier for local
    governments to apply for TIFIA loans?
        Answer. The FAST Act contained a number of new provisions to help
    rural and small projects access TIFIA credit assistance, including
    allowing the Department to cover its fees for small projects, allowing
    the Department to lend to rural projects at a dramatically reduced
    interest rate, allowing the Department to lend directly to State
    Infrastructure Banks (SIBs) to capitalize rural project funds, and
    allowing smaller projects to access the TIFIA program by lowering the
    overall minimum project cost to $10 million. Immediately upon passage
    of the FAST Act, the Department rolled out TIFIA's new lending
    authority in a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). This NOFA
    announced new eligibility criteria and programmatic changes that
    facilitate lending to small and rural projects. The Department has also
    worked to implement new provisions authorized by Congress, like the
    streamlined application process and the new loan program to capitalize
    SIBs, developing a framework for each of these new processes and
    products. To ensure that new project sponsors are aware of TIFIA's new
    lending authority, the Department has held a series of outreach
    sessions and webinars focusing on non-traditional sponsors that cover
    the streamlined process, new provisions for small and rural projects,
    and TIFIA's ability to capitalize SIBs. To make TIFIA more accessible
    to rural and small projects, the Department has developed a streamlined
    application process and a process for lending to State Infrastructure
    Banks as well as fully implemented new changes to TIFIA, like reducing
    the minimum eligible project cost. The Build America Bureau is the
    Department's name for the National Surface Transportation and
    Innovative Finance Bureau. Through the new Build America Bureau
    outreach and credit teams, the Department will continue to disseminate
    information about the TIFIA program and its new lending authority to
    ensure that all eligible projects interested in TIFIA can access the
    program.

        Question 2. As I mentioned during the hearing, this year two
    children already have died because of vehicular heatstroke in
    Mississippi, and the national total is fifteen children just in the
    last six months. The seasonal public awareness campaigns are simply not
    adequate to completely stop these fatalities. I am aware that there is
    in-vehicle technology available that could eliminate this tragic
    problem, such as radio-based technology or on-board diagnostics (OBD II
    Standard) that can sense when small occupants are in a vehicle. Would
    you please provide a status report on where NHTSA is with the study
    required in the FAST Act (Sec. 24114) and include your plans to
    initiate a rulemaking to start the process of getting lifesaving
    technology into new cars?
        Answer. NHTSA completed the research and issued the study on July
    31, 2015 (http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2015/nhtsa-
    kids-in-hot-cars-07312015) under a preexisting provision under MAP-21.
    To date, technology has not been proven effective enough to support a
    rulemaking. The Agency does not expect to initiate rulemaking at this
    time. However, NHTSA's study provided a foundation of test procedures
    that innovators and companies could use to test and evaluate products.
    As products come to the market, NHTSA will continue to monitor
    technology development, test new technology as they are developed, and
    determine whether the test procedures need updating to account for new
    products.
        The Agency is mindful that a technology-based solution only
    addresses about half the unattended children problem. Hence NHTSA has
    conducted public outreach with other partners over the last several
    years, including the ``Where's Baby?'' campaign, to alert and improve
    the public's understanding of the issue.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
        Question 1. Secretary Foxx, during your time at the agency, NHTSA
    has taken steps toward implementing many of the requirements that
    Congress prescribed in MAP-21. One is a MAP-21 requirement requiring
    Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) to index all technical service
    bulletins (TSBs) for the benefit of consumers. Can you explain the
    authority the agency relied upon when it published the complete TSBs on
    the agency's website when many of these are copyrighted documents
    available by the OEMs through various channels?
        Answer. Section 31303 of MAP-21 affirmatively requires NHTSA to
    ``make available on a publicly accessible Internet website'' copies of
    all communications to manufacturers' dealers, rental companies, owners,
    and purchasers about a defect or noncompliance that manufacturers
    submit to the Agency. (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30166(f))

        Question 1a. Are there alternatives the agency could instead use to
    strike a balance between copyright concerns while fully realizing the
    access goal that motivated the provision in MAP-21?
        Answer. Pursuant to the fair use limitation on copyright, NHTSA has
    historically posted on its website copies of service bulletins for
    recall repairs and service bulletins related to its defect
    investigations. NHTSA also has made a paper copy of other service
    bulletins available to the public pursuant to the library provision of
    copyright law. Prior to MAP-21, the Agency determined that copyright
    law prevented it from publicly posting copies of certain
    communications. However, the explicit and direct language of MAP-21 has
    made clear that the Agency must now post copies of TSBs and other
    manufacturer communications to its website.

        Question 2. Secretary Foxx, as you know, we worked to include
    language in the FAST Act, to create a working group that would
    investigate how to speed up permitting of over length trucks carrying
    utility infrastructure equipment following an emergency such as a
    tornado, hurricane or other disaster. That working group was to have
    been established, and a report is supposed to be presented to Congress
    by the end of the year. The report is to include details on how we can
    go beyond the antiquated process of having each state government issue
    permits for these trucks carrying critical materials which will speed
    up the process of restoring, for example, electric and communication
    services. To date, that working group has not been set up, despite
    outreach attempts by Congress and industry stakeholders. Can you
    provide me with an update on timing?
        Answer. Section 5502 of the FAST Act requires the Department to
    establish this working group not later than December 4, 2017. Given the
    importance of this provision, FHWA moved quickly to create the
    Emergency Route Working Group (ERWG), and I am pleased to inform you
    that I approved the charter to establish the group as a Federal
    advisory committee on July 25, 2016. Because the nature of the advice
    and recommendations has the potential to impact programs and policies
    of the Federal Government, a Federal advisory committee was warranted.
    Additionally, establishing the group through the Federal Advisory
    Committee Act will ensure Congress and the public remain informed of
    the purpose, membership, and activities of this outside group.
        In the coming weeks, I expect FHWA will announce the working group
    and solicit nominations for members. I can assure you that we will work
    to ensure the advisory committee includes representation from the
    groups named in the FAST Act, including State highway transportation
    departments and agencies; relevant modal agencies within DOT; emergency
    response or recovery experts; relevant safety groups; and entities
    affected by special permit restrictions during emergency response and
    recovery efforts (e.g., gas and electric utility organizations).

        Question 3. In 2011 the administration finalized what is now
    sometimes referred to as ``One National Program'' to regulate light
    duty vehicle fuel economy for the 2017-2025 model years. It consists of
    three separate sets of regulations, including EPA's program under the
    Clean Air Act and NHTSA's program under CAFE. The harmonization
    intended was to provide greater consistency and certainty for auto
    makers as they develop their products for sale in the various parts of
    the country. But the two Federal programs are different, and those
    differences are likely to result in automakers being subject to fines
    under the NHTSA program even though they comply with the more stringent
    EPA program. There is provision for manufacturers to earn and use
    credits for exceeding the requirements in some years to help with
    compliance in other years. Do both the EPA and NHTSA use the credit
    program?
        Answer. Yes. The NHTSA credit program is dictated by the Energy
    Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) and the Energy Independence
    and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). EPA established its credit program by
    regulation.

        Question 3a. How long do the EPA credits last for?
        Answer. EPA set its useable life of credits by regulation. (See 40
    CFR 1865-12(k)(6)) The usable life of credits under the EPA program
    varies based on the year in which the credit was earned. Specifically,
    the usable life of EPA credits was 5 years for model year 2009, phased
    down from 11 years to 6 years over the course of model years 2010
    through 2015, and is 5 years for model years 2016 and beyond.

        Question 3b. How long do the NHTSA credits last for?
        Answer. The usable life of credits under the NHTSA program is five
    consecutive model years, as dictated by EPCA and EISA.

        Question 3c. Would it make sense to allow credits earned under the
    NHTSA program to have comparable usable lives to more closely harmonize
    this aspect of the two programs?
        Answer. NHTSA's and EPA's usable life of credits are presently in
    alignment. Beginning with model year 2016 vehicles and continuing into
    the future, both agencies allow for 5 years of usable credit life. Any
    changes to the usable life of present or future credits earned under
    NHTSA's program would create a misalignment with EPA's program. Any
    retroactive changes to the usable life of previously earned credits
    under NHTSA's program would give some manufacturers a windfall, whereas
    manufacturers who did not earn credits as part of their long-term
    compliance plan would suffer a competitive loss.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
        Question 1. The FAST Act requires that the Federal Rail
    Administration (FRA) to convene the Gulf Coast Rail Service Working
    Group to evaluate the restoration of an intercity passenger rail
    service in the Gulf Region, between New Orleans and Orlando, Florida.
        Based on previous and similar Working Group efforts on passenger or
    freight rail service, does the FRA have any initial estimates of state
    and local cost-share to restore this passenger line, including
    estimates on the state and local cost-share in capital investments?
        Answer. Amtrak has conducted two recent studies on restoring
    passenger rail service along the Gulf Coast that have provided the FRA
    with some initial estimates on what the service will cost. Amtrak's
    study titled ``Report for the Southern Rail Commission on Potential
    Gulf Coast Service Restoration Options,'' which was published in
    December 2015, provided projections on the annual operating costs.
    According to this report, two daily corridor trains operated between
    New Orleans, LA and Mobile, AL would require $6.97 million in state/
    local funds to cover the operating costs (the Passenger Rail Investment
    and Improvement Act [PRIIA] requires State/local funds to cover
    operating losses on Amtrak routes that are less than 750 miles). If
    daily Amtrak long-distance service was extended east of New Orleans to
    Orlando, FL, Amtrak's annual operating costs would increase by $5.8
    million (since long-distance trains are not required to be subsidized
    by state/local sources). Both a corridor train between New Orleans and
    Mobile and extending a long-distance train from New Orleans to Orlando
    would require $3.78 million in state/local funds and an additional
    $5.71 million in Amtrak operating funds. This report did not include
    any capital cost estimates for restoring passenger rail service along
    the Gulf Coast.
        Amtrak's 2009 study titled ``PRIIA Section 226 Gulf Coast Service
    Plan Report'' did provide an estimate of $10.7 million (in 2009
    dollars) for the work that is needed to bring the stations between New
    Orleans and Orlando back to service and into compliance with Americans
    with Disabilities Act requirements. An updated estimate of the station
    costs, as well as an estimate of the additional infrastructure
    improvements that are needed, will be included in the report required
    by the FAST Act. The State/local match for the capital costs will
    depend on the requirements of any grants that are awarded to the region
    for restoring passenger rail service.

        Question 2. All Aboard Florida, now known as Brightline, the
    privately-owned, proposed high-speed passenger rail project in Florida,
    was slated to begin operating at the beginning of 2016. The $3.5
    billion project was set to leverage both Federal and private funds.
    However, due to lacking private investment, most recently, DOT has
    offered the private train builders another extension, for another year,
    to issue over a billion dollars of private activity bonds to partially
    finance the project. Would you please explain the Department's
    justifications for these extensions?
        Answer. Section 11143 of Title XI of SAFETEA-LU, passed in 2006,
    amended section 142 of the Internal Revenue Code to add certain surface
    transportation projects to the types of privately developed and
    operated projects for which private activity bonds (PABs) may be
    issued. The statute set the nationwide limit on allocated authority at
    $15 billion. As of July 7, 2016, approximately $6.5 billion in PABS
    have been issued by 17 projects, and $4.7 billion is currently
    allocated to five additional projects, including $1.75 billion to the
    All Aboard Florida project. Approximately $3.8 billion is unallocated
    and available immediately for allocation to future projects.
        In a December 3, 2015 letter to the Department, All Aboard Florida
    indicated that they had decided to delay the issuance of their bonds
    due to market conditions, and they were therefore requesting an
    extension of one year. The Department reviewed their extension request
    consistent with prior practice, and extended their allocation until
    January 1, 2017.

        Question 3. In your testimony you refer to the FASTLANE grants
    authorized in the FAST Act. Consistent with the legislation, these
    grants should only be awarded to ``nationally significant freight and
    highway projects,'' including highway, freight, bridge, and port
    projects. Can you speak to how DOT determines, on the basis of
    criteria, which projects, and ``key challenges'' addressed by the
    project, will be given priority for grant funding?
        Answer. As described in the Notice of Funding Opportunity published
    on March 2, 2016, in evaluating FY 2016 FASTLANE applications, DOT
    considered the extent to which the project addressed the statutory
    selection criteria and met program requirements. The selection criteria
    included: Economic, Mobility, Safety, and Community and Environmental
    Outcomes, Partnership and Innovation, and Cost Share.

        Question 3a. The law indicates that each fiscal year, 10 percent of
    the FASTLANE grants (at least $5 million) are used for ``small
    projects.'' Can you speak to what constitutes a ``small project,'' and
    how DOT will determine this project selection?
        Answer. According to 23 U.S.C Sec. 117(e), small projects are
    projects which do not satisfy the minimum cost threshold described
    under 23 U.S.C. Sec. 117(d)(1)(b). This threshold, as applied to total
    project cost, is the lesser of $100 million; 30 percent of a State's FY
    2015 Federal-aid apportionment if the project is located in one state;
    or 50 percent of the larger participating State's FY 2015 apportionment
    for projects located in more than one State. Additional information on
    this threshold can be found in the Notice of Funding Opportunity
    published on March 2, 2016. The Department reviews all small project
    applications received in accordance with the statutory requirements of
    the FAST Act and the selection criteria listed in the Notice of Funding
    Opportunity.

        Question 4. Last week, the Department of Transportation approved
    six U.S. domestic airlines to begin scheduled flights to nine Cuban
    airports. On February 16, 2016, the Department of Transportation signed
    a non-legally-binding arrangement to re-establish scheduled air service
    between the two countries. Why did the Administration choose a non-
    legally binding arrangement?
        Answer. During the December 2015, talks, the U.S. and Cuban
    delegations affirmed their desire to begin, at the appropriate moment,
    the process of negotiating a new binding bilateral air transport
    agreement. In the interim, the nonbinding arrangement provides an
    appropriate legal framework under which scheduled services between our
    countries can resume and charter services can continue.

        Question 4a. What was the criteria for choosing the Cuban airports
    to which U.S. flights would be authorized?
        Answer. Cuba lists ten airports as eligible to receive
    international service. The governments determined to make each of the
    international airports in Cuba and in the United States available to
    international service by duly authorized carriers.

        Question 5. Among those Cuban airports chosen are Varadero
    (Matanzas), Cayo Coco, and Cayo Largo. These three airports are feeders
    to the Cuban military's isolated beach resorts. How do those flights
    fit into the U.S. legal criteria for people-to-people travel?
        Answer. It is the Department's understanding that travelers will
    need to comply with the applicable requirements and regulations of
    other U.S. agencies and with all applicable laws of the United States,
    regardless of their point of entry to Cuba. The Department of Treasury
    Office of Foreign Asset Control could provide more detailed information
    regarding requirements and regulations regarding authorized travel to
    Cuba.

        Question 5a. Do these flights seek to circumvent legal restrictions
    on tourism-related transactions towards Cuba?
        Answer. Any award of economic authority by the Department of
    Transportation to an airline will not relieve U.S. carriers or
    travelers from complying with the applicable requirements and
    regulations of other U.S. agencies, and with all applicable laws of the
    United States. It is the Department's understanding that the Department
    of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control has issued general
    licenses within the 12 categories of authorized travel for many travel-
    related transactions to, from, or within Cuba that previously required
    a specific license, but that travel for ``tourist activities'' remains
    prohibited by statute.

        Question 6. A recent hearing in the House Homeland Security
    Committee revealed that Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
    officials have privately raised serious security concerns with
    lawmakers regarding the suitability of some of these Cuban airports.
    Why did the Administration choose a non-legally binding arrangement?
        Have all nine Cuban airports been independently evaluated by U.S.
    personnel to ensure they meet security and infrastructure criteria?
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has authority over
    issues of airport security.

        Question 6a Will TSA officials be stationed at all nine Cuban
    airports with direct flights to the United States?
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has authority over
    issues related to the deployment of Transportation Security
    Administration (TSA) personnel.

        Question 6b. Will the U.S. airlines awarded these flights have
    independent personnel--not hired through the Cuban government--
    stationed at these nine airports? Or is the Administration fully
    outsourcing our security requirements to the Cuban government?
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has authority over
    issues of airport security.

        Question 7. What level of confidence does the U.S. Government have
    in the integrity and security of the Cuban government's policies
    regarding issuance of visas to third country nationals? Will U.S.
    authorities have independent security verification?
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has authority over
    immigration and entry issues.

        Question 8. Among the nine selected Cuban airports, can you confirm
    whether any of these airports are confiscated properties from the Cuban
    government?
        Answer. The Department has no information on whether these airports
    are properties confiscated by the Cuban government

        Question 9. The 5.9 GHz band is important to the automotive
    industry's hopes for ITS crash-avoidance systems and to address the
    pressing need for additional spectrum for consumer wireless services.
    Congress instructed the FCC and DOT to work out a sharing approach, and
    I've worked to push the process forward. We must find an approach that
    opens the band to Wi-Fi while ensuring no harmful interference to
    crash-avoidance systems. I'm pleased to hear that the FCC will soon
    conduct tests to make this a reality, with DOT's participation. But FCC
    Commissioner O'Rielly has suggested that some companies may try to use
    ITS licenses not just for crash avoidance, but also for non-safety
    applications like metering, e-commerce, or even entertainment systems--
    far afield from the safety-of-life systems contemplated in DOT's
    pending rulemaking. I'm all for protecting crash avoidance. Do you
    believe that companies engaged in non-safety activities deserve the
    special status we give safety? Please answer yes or no.
        Answer. DOT recognizes the critical national interest in making
    more broadband spectrum available. Our overarching goal is to assure
    safe, reliable, and on demand access to the 5.850-5.925 GHz spectrum
    for licensed vehicle to vehicle communication technology. We are
    working collaboratively with FCC and NTIA on testing to ensure that the
    capabilities of the safety critical crash avoidance applications and
    technologies are maintained.

        Question 9a. Are you considering mandating that all automakers use
    a government-mandated technology and frequency band? If so, why?
        Answer. NHTSA is considering this issue in the Vehicle to Vehicle
    Communication NPRM that is currently under deliberations. We cannot
    comment on the issue until the rule has been released for public
    comment.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
        Question 1. Coordination between FHWA & FRA on rail crossings
        The state of Nebraska has more than 3,000 at-grade rail crossings
    eligible for public funding. As you know, the FAST Act includes
    provisions that would compel the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
    to establish and distribute ``model'' state grade crossing action plans
    to help mitigate future accidents. State DOT's will then need to
    develop an action plan based on the FRA's model.
        At the same time, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
    administers the section 130 grade crossing program, which provides
    grants to states on a formula basis. One of the challenges is that the
    FRA and FHWA may have conflicting implementations of these critical
    safety and infrastructure funding programs that could lead to some of
    the most dangerous rail at-grade crossings not receiving attention for
    corrective action.
        How is DOT working to ensure that the FRA and FHWA are coordinating
    to ensure the section 130 program and model grade crossing action plans
    are consistent and complementary? As a follow up, what will DOT do to
    ensure states are establish action plans and take corrective actions by
    utilizing section 130 program resources?
        Answer. FHWA manages the Section 130 program, and FRA provides
    technical and programmatic support to FHWA and the State DOTs regarding
    the program. FRA Regional Offices have been working with the Safety
    Specialists in the FHWA Division Offices on the States' upcoming
    projects, including information on the States' project prioritization
    and selection process.
        FRA leads the ONE DOT Intermodal Grade Crossing Safety Team with
    staff from FRA, FHWA, FTA, FMCSA, NHTSA, and VOLPE. The team meets
    quarterly, and team members from each modal administration coordinate
    their current projects and initiatives. They also discuss upcoming
    projects and work to coordinate a unified message across the DOT.
        FHWA and FRA will continue to collaborate on identifying ways to
    improve how each agency supports rail grade crossing safety, including
    implementing FAST Act requirements. FAST Act-related activities will
    include developing and distributing model State-specific highway-rail
    grade crossing action plans to each state, along with a customized
    crossing accident/incident data set and contact information for DOT
    officials; issuing regulations requiring states to develop and update
    highway-rail grade crossing action plans, or provide updates to their
    existing action plans; evaluating State highway-rail grade crossing
    action plans; and reporting to Congress on State progress in
    implementing their highway-rail grade crossing action plans.
        FRA will also issue regulations requiring each State to submit and
    implement a grade crossing action plan or update an existing grade
    crossing action plan (for the 10 states that were required by the Rail
    Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to develop grade crossing action plans).
    Upon submission, FRA will review each plan for approval.

        Question 2. Advanced vehicle technology neutrality
        The Conference Report to the FAST Act included language noting that
    the FAST Act's programs, ``are deployed in a technology neutral manner.
    The Act promotes technology neutral policies that accelerate vehicle
    and transportation safety research, development and deployment by
    promoting innovation and competitive market-based outcomes, while using
    Federal funds efficiently and leveraging private sector investment
    across the automotive, transportation and technology sectors.''
        Stakeholders have indicated that that the DOT is mandating that
    Smart Cities Competition participants must include Dedicated Short
    Range Communications (DSRC) in their projects in order to be
    considered. Can you please explain whether this is true and whether
    other types of vehicle-to-vehicle safety technologies such as advanced
    cellular will also be permitted?
        Answer. No, neither Notice of Funding Opportunity required
    applicants to use DSRC. Applicants were permitted to integrate a
    variety of commercially available communication technologies including
    cellular, satellite, Wi-Fi and others to deploy connected vehicle and
    infrastructure services. Applicants were encouraged to use DSRC
    technology operating in the 5.9GHz band to expand demonstrations of
    safety-critical V2V and V2I applications based on DSRC communications
    to ensure the interoperability of these safety applications among
    multiple automotive manufacturers. But DOT encourages all new advanced
    technologies to be used in a safe and standardized manner and does not
    preclude any advanced technologies in the V2I space.

        Question 3. Tolling
        While some states have built HOT lanes around cities to help
    alleviate congestion, the idea of tolling existing Interstates has not
    made progress. According to the American Trucking Associations, the
    FHWA pilot program that allows 3 states to toll their Interstates
    hasn't had a single successful applicant in its 18-year history. Given
    the history of the pilot program, do you believe it should continue to
    move forward?
        Answer. The Interstate Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot
    Program (ISRRPP), established in 1998 by TEA-21, is limited to three
    slots. As you note, none of the states holding these slots--Virginia,
    North Carolina, and Missouri--have come to FHWA with a tolling project.
    In response to this lack of progress, the FAST Act sets a one-year
    ``use or lose'' deadline for the states currently authorized to pursue
    ISRRPP projects. Based on these states' replies, the FHWA intends to
    evaluate new ISRRPP opportunities via an open solicitation to all
    states, whose expressions of interest will best inform whether to
    continue to move forward. You also note that many states have developed
    HOT lanes to address urban congestion. Most of these facilities--e.g.,
    in California, Washington State, Minnesota, Florida, Virginia, and
    Texas--are on Interstate highways, demonstrating the efficacy of adding
    tolls to the system as well as the flexibility of related Federal
    tolling programs to accomplish a state objective.

        Question 4. Drug and alcohol testing for commercial drivers
        Mr. Secretary, the FAST Act requires speedy implementation of a
    national clearinghouse of drug and alcohol test results in the trucking
    industry. As you may know, this is something the industry has been
    advocating for many years. When will DOT issue rule regarding this
    provision? Further, will the rule make obsolete current requirements
    that prospective employers contact an applicant's past employers to
    learn of previous violations?
        Answer. The Office of Management and Budget is currently
    coordinating interagency review of a draft of the final rule. FMCSA
    expects to publish the final rule later this year. While we cannot
    discuss the contents of rules under Executive Order 12866 review, the
    proposed rule would require prospective employers to query the
    clearinghouse rather than the previous employer about the employee's
    previous drug and alcohol tests.

        Question 5. MARAD Sea Year
        Secretary Foxx, on Wednesday, June 15, 2016, the Maritime
    Administration (MARAD) announced that it would suspend the U.S.
    Merchant Marine Academy's (USMMA) Sea Year program. MARAD has stated
    this decision was not the result of one specific incident but as a
    result of its discussions and findings when evaluating sexual assault
    at the USMMA. Would you please explain the specific events, focus group
    results, survey findings, or other considerations that directly led to
    the decision to suspend the program?
        Answer. My decision to temporarily stand down the sea year program
    was based on an accumulation of evidence from many sources, including
    the 2012 and 2014 Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Sexual Assault
    and Gender Relations (SAGR) surveys of Midshipmen that indicated that,
    while Midshipmen spend only one quarter of their time at the Academy on
    Sea Year, between 40 and 50 percent of the incidents of unwanted sexual
    contact experienced by women and men occurred at sea. Sixty-three
    percent of women and 11 percent of men experienced sexual harassment in
    the 2013-14 academic year. In 2015, DMDC conducted focus groups which
    confirmed the presence of a ``pervasive sexist culture'' on campus.
    Faculty, staff and Midshipmen spoke of challenges created by the Sea
    Year, including evidence that Midshipmen developed inappropriate
    attitudes towards women while at sea, further contributing to a sexist
    campus climate. It also noted that Midshipmen are reluctant to report
    incidents at sea due to fear of retaliation and damage to their future
    careers in the maritime industry. In addition, further evidence of the
    prevalence of inappropriate behaviors encountered by male and female
    Midshipmen while at sea came to light in meetings with senior MARAD and
    Academy leadership, the Advisory Board, and the Middle States
    Commission on Higher Education's evaluation team. Examples of
    inappropriate behavior included bullying, hazing, sexual harassment,
    and pressure to consort with prostitutes and to consume alcohol. The
    evidence that too many Midshipmen face a hostile environment at sea,
    and their reluctance to report these incidents, led us to the
    conclusion that the Academy could no longer send Midshipmen to sea
    until concrete actions were taken to change the status quo. Action to
    stand down Sea Year needed to be taken before the next class of
    Midshipmen was scheduled to depart on Sea Year the week of June 13.
        On August 22, I directed that the stand down continue as we look at
    additional steps we can take to ensure the safety of our students at
    sea and on campus, and to promote a culture of transparency and respect
    for everyone. Over the next few months, we will have independent
    outside experts experienced in assessing institutional and
    organizational culture examine all such aspects within the USMMA, both
    on campus and at sea, in an attempt to identify root causes and their
    impacts to the Academy culture and offer possible short-term and long-
    term corrective actions to address the issues. This assessment will
    delay the resumption of Sea Year on commercial vessels for a number of
    months. In the interim, we will continue to assign Midshipmen to
    Federal vessels to get their required sea days and have been utilizing
    MARAD's Ready Reserve Force (RRF) vessels for this purpose since August
    22nd.

        Question 6. USMMA Requirements
        In order to graduate USMMA midshipmen must complete their sea
    service requirements for time aboard an ocean-going vessel.
        Would you please provide further details as to the expectations of
    DOT as it relates to the ``Call-to-Action'' for maritime stakeholders?
        Answer. MARAD and USMMA hosted more than 90 representatives of the
    maritime industry at a Call-to-Action meeting on June 24, 2016, to
    address concerns about the shipboard working and living environment
    that led to the stand down of USMMA's Sea Year training program. Held
    in Washington, D.C. at the U.S. Department of Transportation, the
    meeting was convened to review actions taken by the U.S. Armed Forces
    as well as an opportunity for the maritime industry to present a
    proposal to improve the quality of life onboard vessels and provide a
    working and training environment that is both safe and respectful for
    the Midshipmen. The discussions focused on industry culture, sexual
    assault, and sexual harassment awareness and prevention efforts,
    industry-wide best practices and reporting protocols, and implementable
    actions included how to proactively address the issues, training
    programs involving the companies and mariner unions, assignment of
    onboard mentors, debriefing of all Midshipmen upon completion of their
    Sea Year training, vessel visits by company operations representatives,
    and a 24/7 hotline or ability for Midshipmen to make reports while at
    sea. The Maritime Administrator began discussions on this issue with
    several ship companies and operators as early as January 2016 and the
    Call-to-Action was scheduled before the decision to stand down. The
    industry proposal presented at the Call-to-Action meeting provided the
    foundation for developing requirements that commercial operators will
    need to meet to be eligible to have Midshipmen work and train on their
    vessels. We are engaged with industry and continue to discuss our
    requirements and their implementation. The industry's willing
    cooperation and support for the USMMA Sea Year program has been
    helpful.

        Question 6a. What specific metrics or criteria does DOT have in
    place for evaluating when to restart the program?
        Answer. With my approval, MARAD restarted the Sea Year program on
    ships, specifically aboard Military Sealift Command and MARAD Ready
    Reserve Force vessels, owned by the Federal Government. The operators
    of these vessels have robust programs in place that are aimed at
    preventing and reporting incidents. In addition, Midshipmen have
    conducted at sea instruction on the USMMA's training ships, the Kings
    Pointer and the Liberator, and sailed aboard the SUNY Maritime
    College's training ship, Empire State, and California Maritime
    Academy's training ship, Golden Bear in July and August.
        As noted in the previous question, the results of the comprehensive
    study of the culture and climate of the campus will be used to inform
    any necessary changes to the Sea Year program. The results of the study
    will also be used to assist in developing criteria for commercial
    companies to meet in order to become ``Sea Year Eligible.''

        Question 6b. Based on your initial planning, what are your target
    dates for MARAD and stakeholders to meet the metrics or criteria in
    order to resume the program?
        Answer. As stated previously, MARAD resumed the Sea Year program on
    Federal ships. In addition, Midshipmen have conducted at sea
    instruction on the USMMA's training ships, the Kings Pointer and the
    Liberator, and sailed on SUNY Maritime College's training ship, Empire
    State, and California Maritime Academy's training ship, Golden Bear in
    July and August. Commercial companies will be evaluated on a case-by-
    case basis. MARAD is working closely with commercial companies, and
    four companies have submitted information and are being evaluated.
    There are no target dates. An individual company's restart date will
    depend on how long it takes for the company to make changes to its
    training, policies or reporting that assures Midshipmen complete Sea
    Year in a safe and respectful environment. The commercial Sea Year
    program is a core part of the USMMA experience; we are committed to
    resuming commercial Sea Year assignments once companies meet the
    requirements.

        Question 6c. Do you expect all midshipmen will have the opportunity
    to graduate on time? What contingency plans do you have in place to
    ensure all midshipmen have the opportunity to graduate on-time?
        Answer. We do expect all Midshipmen to be able to graduate on time.
    When the current sailing period ends at the end of October 2016, the
    Academy will have 19 months to make up lost sea days for the Class of
    2018. For the Class of 2019, the Academy will have 31 months, including
    their entire second sailing period. Although, we cannot guarantee that
    a combination of circumstances might delay graduation for one or more
    Midshipmen, we are and will be doing everything to ensure that no
    Midshipman's graduation is delayed solely due to the stand down.
        At present, all engineering track Midshipmen in the Class of 2018
    will have sufficient days to take the U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner
    Credential examination and upon passing would be eligible to graduate
    pending completion of their Bachelor's Degree requirements. For the
    deck track Midshipmen in the Class of 2018, we anticipate that 20-30
    Midshipmen will be 10 or more days short of the required number of
    days. The exact number of Midshipmen in this category will be
    determined at the end of the current sailing period which ends at the
    end of October. The Academy routinely has Midshipmen who are short the
    number of required sailing days and has experience making those days up
    during the last year of academic study.
        Midshipmen have been able to log sea days on the Kings Pointer and
    the Liberator, the Academy's two training vessels. Midshipmen were also
    embarked on the State University of New York Maritime College and
    California Maritime Academy training ships during their scheduled
    summer cruises. Sea days aboard these vessels are credited by the U.S.
    Coast Guard at 1.5 days for each day onboard because instructors are on
    board and in charge of delivering the training. A two week internship
    is a required component of the Sea Year, and many Midshipmen have
    completed their internships during the stand down. Further, beginning
    July 8, Midshipmen began returning to Military Sealift Command (MSC)
    vessels. On 22 August, USMMA began assigning Midshipmen to MARAD-owned
    Ready Reserve Force (RRF) vessels. As of September 6, all of the 216
    Midshipmen affected by the stand down were either at sea, in an
    internship, or scheduled to join a MSC ship in the coming weeks. The
    Academy will continue to take all steps possible, including maximizing
    use of the Academy's training vessels, to help Midshipmen in the
    Classes of 2018 and 2019 affected by the stand down to accumulate the
    required sea days to graduate on schedule.

        Question 6d. As you may know, S. 2829, the Maritime Administration
    Enhancement Act of 2017, includes a ``Sea Year'' working group to bring
    stakeholders together to address challenges related to sexual assault
    and harassment of midshipmen during their year at sea. Congress has
    worked closely with MARAD and USMMA on the development of this bill.
    How long has the MARAD been considering suspending the program?
        Answer. I made my formal decision on June 10, 2016. The Maritime
    Administrator began discussion with industry leaders in January 2016
    and personally met with ship owners regarding the challenges with Sea
    Year in April 2016. This led to the planning for the Call-to-Action
    meeting that was held on June 24, 2016. In addition, the USMMA
    Superintendent began engaging in conversations with select senior
    Academy staff in mid-May over his concerns about the accumulation of
    evidence that the environment at sea was detrimental to the well-being
    and safety of Midshipmen. He first addressed the question of a stand
    down with the Maritime Administrator in late May. Conversations
    continued with the Advisory Board and senior Academy and MARAD
    leadership in June.

        Question 6e. As a follow up, why did the agency not coordinate in
    advance with Congress or the USMMA Board of Visitors on reaching this
    critical decision?
        Answer. As noted above, my decision to stand down Sea Year was made
    on Friday, June 10. Congress was notified of the stand down on June 15
    concurrently with industry and other stakeholders shortly before the
    formal announcement at USMMA.
        The timing of the decision was based on the fact that by June 18,
    the first group of Midshipmen from the Class of 2018 was scheduled to
    depart on their Sea Year. It was decided that action had to be taken
    immediately to stand down Sea Year before any Midshipmen left campus to
    join their assigned vessels.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
        Question 1. Secretary Foxx, my first question to you during the
    hearing was regarding state compliance with the FAST Act. Included in
    Section 5523 of the FAST Act is an amendment I offered mirroring the
    text of S. 1692, to allow for the delivery of tandem trailers by
    manufacturers.
        However, I have heard reports from the National Association of
    Trailer Manufacturers, headquartered in Topeka, Kansas, that some
    states are continuing to take enforcement action against operators
    utilizing Sec. 5523, notwithstanding the fact that the FAST Act permits
    and preempts state law on such operations.
        My question to you was, more broadly: How is U.S. DOT ensuring that
    states comply with the new law as soon as possible? Your response
    indicated you would follow up with more specific details, and I would
    greatly appreciate hearing what actions the agency is taking to ensure
    state compliance.
        Answer. On February 24, 2016, FHWA issued guidance on the truck
    size and weight provisions of the FAST Act. With regard to section 5523
    (``Commercial Delivery of Light and Medium Duty Trailers''), the
    guidance emphasizes the preemptive nature of the provision by
    reiterating that ``a state may not prescribe or enforce a regulation of
    commerce that has the effect of imposing an overall length limitation
    of less than 82 feet on a towaway trailer transporter combination. [49
    U.S.C. 31111(b)(1)(H)].''
        Following the issuance of the above guidance, in April 2016, FHWA
    asked its Division Offices, located each state, to provide assurance
    that each State's truck size and weight enforcement and regulatory
    agency received FHWA's guidance. FHWA also asked the Division Offices
    to ensure that the states were aware that the FAST Act became effective
    on October 1, 2015, unless otherwise provided in the FAST Act, and that
    State laws may require updating to ensure that they align with the FAST
    Act-amended Federal maximum vehicle size and weight limits applicable
    to the Interstate System and National Network.
        The Department believes that most states fully recognize that
    section 5523 is preemptive; however, States' ability to revise their
    laws to align with the FAST Act is impacted by each State's legislative
    session dates. We acknowledge, however, that a State's inability to
    revise its laws to align with Federal requirements directly impacts
    roadside enforcement activities, which are typically based on State
    laws.
        I assure you that FHWA and its Divisions Offices are proactively
    working with the states to achieve full alignment between State and
    Federal laws in this area. For example, this summer, each Division
    Office will discuss the implementation of FAST Act provisions with the
    states during an annual evaluation of the truck size and weight
    program. Additionally, this will be a special emphasis area in January
    2017 when FHWA reviews the states' annual certifications, checking
    whether states are enforcing all State laws with respect to maximum
    vehicle size and weight permitted on the Interstate System and National
    Network.

        Question 2. Secretary Foxx, the FAST Act did not address the 2011
    Hours of Service rule that made two major changes to the restart
    provision for truck drivers. Congress has made clear through FY 2015
    and FY 2016 appropriations that it has serious concerns about
    implementing these rules without a comprehensive field study to
    evaluate whether or not these changes will provide any meaningful
    safety benefits.
        Mr. Secretary, while you have indicated support for this rulemaking
    in the past, do you agree it is important to study the safety impacts
    of the rule before it is implemented and has a significant impact on
    the livelihood of not just truck drivers and highway travelers, but
    interstate commerce in general?
        Answer. The Department is committed to improving commercial motor
    vehicle (CMV) safety. Eliminating the restart restrictions imposed by
    the 2011 rule would allow drivers to drive after accumulating more than
    70 hours of on-duty time within an 8-day period. The Department remains
    concerned about the safety risks associated with cumulative fatigue
    when drivers are allowed (and may sometimes be required) to work such
    intensive schedules, week after week. Section 133 of the Consolidated
    and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, required a study
    comparing the safety impacts of the restart provision before and after
    the 2011 restrictions became operational. That study has been completed
    and is under Departmental review.

        Question 3. Secretary Foxx, a recent American Automobile
    Association survey found that nearly 70 percent of motorists are
    concerned about the condition of our Nation's roads, citing traffic
    congestion and unsafe roads and bridges their top concerns. The wear
    and tear on vehicles, lost productivity in traffic and costs imposed on
    society because of accidents confronts us on a daily basis.
        The FAST Act provides funding for these kinds of improvements and
    contains a number of requirements to study or review traffic
    congestion. Can you provide a report on how these initiatives are
    progressing and what actions hold out the most promise for improving
    this situation?
        Answer. FHWA has on-going research, studies, and implementation
    efforts underway on various congestion reduction strategies and
    technologies. This includes connected vehicle technology deployment,
    advanced traffic signal control systems, work zone management, traffic
    incident management, road weather management, managed lanes, and
    advanced transportation and demand management strategies. A full list
    and status of these efforts can be found at ops.fhwa.dot.gov.
        FHWA also is pursuing solicitation and award of the Advanced
    Transportation and Congestion Mitigation Technology Deployment (FAST
    Act Section 6004) grants. Many of the eligible strategies and
    technologies contained in this grant program have direct congestion
    reduction objectives. We are aiming to award the 2016 grants by the end
    of the fiscal year.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
        Question 1. Mr. Secretary, Section 1426 of the FAST Act
    reestablishes a Motorcyclist Advisory Council to coordinate with the
    U.S. DOT on infrastructure issues that could affect motorcyclists. As
    you implement the FAST Act, do you plan to include participants from
    the full spectrum of available experts and stakeholders of different
    organizations?
        It is critical that the reestablished Council ensure that
    motorcyclists with professional expertise in national motorcyclist
    safety are represented from a variety of different organizations, as
    SAFETEA-LU required representation by various national and state
    motorcyclist associations, as well as representatives of the
    construction and safety industries that have experience on motorcycles.
        Answer. We are currently working through the Federal Advisory
    Committee Act (FACA) requirements to establish the Motorcyclist
    Advisory Council (MAC). I agree that diversity of expertise is very
    important for the success of this type of committee, and the Department
    certainly will aim to convene the MAC with a variety of professional
    backgrounds that will help provide meaningful insight into the safety
    topics identified in the FAST Act, including barrier design; road
    design, construction, and maintenance practices; and the architecture
    and implementation of intelligent transportation system technologies.

        Question 2. Mr. Secretary, the FAST Act created two new freight
    programs and authorized almost $11 billion, primarily for highway
    projects, to improve freight movement. What is your vision for these
    programs, and how will you and your team ensure these programs will
    truly focus on addressing the most critical barriers to efficient truck
    freight mobility on our highway system?
        Answer. The Department's vision is to use these two new freight
    programs, one that is discretionary (FASTLANE) and one that is formula-
    based (the National Highway Freight Program), to help fund critical
    freight and highway projects across the country that will address the
    most pressing freight mobility barriers. It is clear from the recent
    round of FASTLANE that there are a large number of critical freight and
    highway projects, more than the Department has funding for. The
    Department has thoroughly evaluated each application received to ensure
    that the projects selected for funding meet the statutory requirements
    set by Congress and address critical barriers to efficient freight
    movement. In accordance with the FAST Act, the Department provided
    Congress with a 60 day notification of the proposed FASTLANE projects,
    award amounts and justification on July 5, 2016, and publicly announced
    awards on September 7, 2016. In addition, the Department has worked
    quickly to provide guidance to State DOTs to help them access the
    formula funding available under the National Highway Freight Program.
    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has been working closely with
    the State DOTs to ensure that they meet all the requirements for
    obligating those formula funds such as the creation of individual State
    Freight Plans. As part of the process, FHWA is assisting states with
    designating critical rural and critical urban freight corridors, which
    plays a major role in the identification of key projects that will
    address the most critical barriers to efficient freight mobility.
    Additionally, FHWA and State DOTs are using performance measures
    specific to freight to assess the performance of our freight system as
    freight investments are made through these programs. Freight
    performance measures are vital to ensuring the success of freight
    program implementation.

        Question 3. Mr. Secretary, many motor carriers have complained that
    the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) still uses non-
    fault crashes in the Agency's Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA)
    program scores to evaluate carriers. So if your truck is stopped at a
    stoplight, or parked legally on the side of the road, and is hit from
    behind by a drunk driver, the crash still goes on the motor carrier's
    record and is used against the company in its Safety Measurement System
    scores. Those same scores are used by shippers and brokers, insurance
    companies, and the courts to evaluate a carrier's safety record, but
    this type of crash gives false information about a carrier's safety
    performance. When is the agency going to fix this problem, and how will
    you address this issue?
        Answer. FMCSA is aware of the industry concerns about this issue
    and, over the past 3 years, has conducted significant research to
    determine how crash preventability decisions could be made accurately
    in a timely and cost-efficient manner. While studies by FMCSA and
    others have confirmed that crash involvement, regardless of role in the
    crash, is an effective indicator of future crash risk, the Agency
    continues to explore this issue.
        In 2015, the Agency released the results of a study that indicated
    that police accident reports alone are not sufficient to make crash
    preventability determinations, and FMCSA asked for public input. After
    analyzing that input, FMCSA issued a Federal Register notice on July 7,
    2016, that proposed a demonstration project to conduct preventability
    determinations on certain crash scenarios and to determine the impacts
    of removing these crashes from the data, including the impacts to
    identifying motor carriers with a high future crash risk. The Agency is
    currently receiving comments on the demonstration project proposal and
    is preparing to implement it in Spring 2017. The demonstration project
    is scheduled to operate for 2 years. The FMCSA will document the
    results of the crash reviews, including the costs and impact of
    conducting this sample set of crash reviews. This exercise will inform
    what is needed to potentially expand the program, if removing these
    types of non-preventable crashes proves to be a better predictor of
    future crashes.

        Question 4. Mr. Secretary, the FAST Act contains direction to
    increase access to the commercial trucking industry for our Nation's
    veterans by allowing physicians from the VA to perform medical
    examinations and provide medical certificates to veterans seeking to
    operate commercial motor vehicles. Has there been any recent
    developments in the implementation of this language that veterans and
    the trucking industry may find encouraging?
        Answer. FMCSA held a series of internal deliberations to discuss
    regulatory and policy options, and associated information technology
    issues for addressing the FAST Act requirement. FMCSA is currently
    drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement this provision.

        Follow-up 1. Specifically, have representatives from Federal Motor
    Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) met with their counterparts from
    VA to develop an implementation strategy? If so, can you provide
    details involving their discussions?
        Answer. FMCSA has been in contact with representatives from the VA
    to discuss the strategy. We believe the strategy agreed upon to
    implement the FAST Act requirement will ensure the integrity of the
    National Registry Program to the greatest extent practical. The
    strategy includes:

       Development of a training module to present information to
            VA physicians on FMCSA's physical qualifications rules, to be
            delivered online through the VA's internal training program.
            The training would include a test at the end to ensure that the
            physician completed the material and understood what was
            presented, which would be analogous to the process used by
            other examiners on the National Registry;

       Entering into a formal agreement (MOU/MOA) with the VA to
            make the training available through the VA's training system
            for its employees so that any VA physician that would like to
            issue medical examiner's certificates to physician-approved
            veteran operators of commercial vehicles would be required to
            take the free training and provide the training certificate/
            test results to FMCSA to be added to the National Registry; and

       Establishing protocols for the VA and its participating
            physicians to submit the medical examiner's certificate
            information to FMCSA to ensure the veterans obtain the full
            benefits of the VA examination.

        Follow-up 2. What is the progress (of the team established by
    FMCSA) to begin the rulemaking process? Does DOT or FMCSA have a sense
    of urgency to complete the process?
        Answer. FMCSA has begun drafting rulemaking documents and is
    committed to completing the regulatory process as quickly as practical.

        Follow-up 3. Is there any more clarity about the timing of the
    rulemaking process?
        Answer. FMCSA has begun drafting rulemaking documents to establish
    the VA physician program with a target compliance date expected in late
    2017. The delayed compliance date provides time to implement the VA
    training module and test, and complete the IT upgrades to accept the
    medical examiner's certificate information from the VA physicians.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
        Question 1. Secretary Foxx, I regularly hear concerns about new
    rulemakings placing burdensome requirements on rural states with small
    state transportation agencies covering large spaces. What efforts are
    you taking to ensure new rulemakings promote construction of projects
    and are not creating laborious compliance requirements for staff?
        Answer. The issue you raise is an important one, and I assure you
    that the Department considers impacts to rural and small states when
    issuing new rulemakings. In establishing the national performance
    management measures required under section 150 of title 23, United
    States Code, for example, FHWA has been cognizant of and has considered
    the impacts on all transportation agencies, large and small. In some
    performance areas, the statute requires the performance requirements to
    apply to all states across the country regardless of their size and
    capability. For example, safety and infrastructure condition impact
    both urban and rural areas. In these cases, we have proposed
    performance management practices that are widely used today to minimize
    the burden on agencies to comply with new requirements. In other areas,
    such as congestion, where we were provided more flexibility within the
    statutory language, we limited the applicability of the requirements to
    large metropolitan areas across the country. The potential burdens on
    State and local agencies are considered and quantified in a regulatory
    impact analysis posted for public review and comment for each of our
    proposals.
        FHWA is committed to supporting transportation agencies as they
    work to meet these new performance management requirements. We are
    deploying a new capacity building program to provide assistance in the
    form of training, on-site workshops, technical guidance, and
    informational sessions to agencies across the country to support their
    efforts in implementing and meeting these new requirements. Through
    this program, we believe that all agencies, including rural agencies,
    will be better equipped to move their transportation programs forward
    with minimal burden.

        Question 2. I was pleased to hear you mention the 24/7 Sobriety
    Program in your testimony. This program has proven to reduce recidivism
    of intoxicated driving. I have heard concerns from state transportation
    agencies that the Federal implementation may be too narrow. How is
    USDOT taking into account existing programs and ensuring the final rule
    does not prohibit states from accessing these life-saving dollars?
        Answer. NHTSA encourages states to develop creative approaches to
    improve safety. Our general approach is to allow states the maximum
    flexibility consistent with statutory language. Under Section 405,
    states must meet two requirements to receive funding under the new 24/7
    Sobriety Program grant. The first statutory requirement mandates that a
    state enact and enforce a law that requires all individuals convicted
    of driving under the influence of alcohol or of driving while
    intoxicated to receive a restriction on driving privileges. 23 U.S.C.
    Sec. 405(d)(6)(B)(i). In implementing the requirement, NHTSA
    established a short time-frame (at least 30 days) during which the
    restriction must apply and added flexibility by allowing any type of
    State-imposed sanction. The second statutory requirement mandates that
    a state provide a 24/7 Sobriety Program. Id. Sec. (ii). NHTSA will use
    the statutory definition of a 24-7 sobriety program, without change, as
    a basis to determine compliance. Id. Sec. (7)(A). In addition, the
    Agency made clear that for those states that do not meet the
    requirements for the separate 24/7 Sobriety Program grant, the
    flexibility exists to use funds provided for general impaired driving
    countermeasures grants to fund 24-7 sobriety grant programs.

        Question 3. Across the nation, 54 percent of automobile fatalities
    occur on rural roads, despite the fact that only 19 percent of
    Americans live in rural areas. Beyond the FAST Act, what efforts are
    you undertaking to improve rural road safety?
        Answer. Local road agencies often do not have the resources needed
    to adequately address safety problems on the roads they own and
    operate. FHWA's Local and Rural Safety Program provides national
    leadership in identifying, developing, and delivering safety programs
    and products to agencies, elected officials, governments and other
    stakeholders to improve safety on local and rural roads. FHWA provides
    many resources to support local road agencies in understanding and
    addressing their safety issues, including videos and brochures,
    toolkits, checklists, and manuals. These resources and others are
    available on FHWA's website at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/.
        FHWA also offers a peer-to-peer support program specific for local
    and rural roads and funds the National Center for Rural Road Safety
    (http://ruralsafetycenter.org/). FHWA's Office of Safety has taken an
    integrative approach to addressing rural road safety by establishing a
    Cross Office Working Group (COWG) to coordinate rural road safety
    throughout all technical areas. This group works to reduce fatalities
    and serious injuries on local and rural roads by providing
    practitioners and decisionmakers with important information, tools, and
    resources that will improve the safety performance of these roadways.
    This group not only provides greater integration of rural safety within
    the Office of Safety, but it also has promoted strong coordination
    throughout FHWA to leverage resources to improve safety on these roads.

        Question 4. Passenger rail is an important component of
    connectivity for Montana. Amtrak's Empire Builder connects 12 Montana
    communities and there is an opportunity to connect a 13th community--
    Culbertson. A previously completed Amtrak feasibility study has
    indicated reinstating this stop would have a net positive financial
    impact. What can USDOT do with my office and the City of Culbertson to
    help them prepare for competing for future Consolidated Rail
    Infrastructure and Safety (CRISI) or Transportation Investment
    Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant funds?
        Answer. With regard to the TIGER program, in addition to the
    guidance available on our website, www.dot.gov/tiger, the Department
    can provide direct technical assistance to potential applicants who
    request it. Please have the City of Culbertson contact
    TIGERGrants@dot.gov.
        Similarly, FRA will provide guidance to prospective applicants of
    the newly authorized CRISI program upon receiving initial
    appropriations for the program. In the meantime, FRA is available to
    provide technical assistance to the City of Culbertson regarding the
    development of proposed projects. The City may contact Valarie Kniss,
    Regional Manager for the Pacific Northwest, at 202-493-0616 or at
    valarie.kniss@dot.gov.
        FRA staff has also been in communication with Senator Daines' staff
    to provide the appropriate Amtrak contacts to facilitate the addition
    of a station stop in the City of Culbertson. As directed by Senate
    Report 114-75 of the FY16 Transportation and Housing and Urban
    Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FRA and Amtrak
    are working together to reevaluate a previous Amtrak study on the
    feasibility of establishing a station stop in the City along Amtrak's
    Empire Builder route.

        Question 5. Secretary Foxx, I was also pleased to hear you mention
    the University Transportation Center (UTC) program in your testimony. I
    am proud of the UTC at my alma mater, Montana State University (MSU),
    and their focus on rural transportation. In working with the UTC at
    MSU, three questions have been raised.
        In rural areas, tourism is a leading economic driver, and many of
    the major attractions are on public lands, such as National Parks and
    state recreation areas. Efficient transportation systems are critical
    to move visitors to, from, and around public lands. Advanced
    technologies such as autonomous vehicles and Intelligent Transportation
    Systems (ITS) present opportunities to enhance both safety and
    experiences for visitors, such as avoiding wildlife on roadways and
    freeing passengers to enjoy their surroundings. Is the USDOT
    considering rural applications for the technology grant programs in the
    FAST Act, as well as the traditional urban congestion applications?
        Answer. Yes, the Department will consider rural applications for
    technology grant programs under the FAST Act to the maximum extent
    possible. For example, under the Advanced Transportation and Congestion
    Management Technologies Deployment Initiative, DOT is required to
    ensure, to the extent practicable, that grant recipients are
    geographically diverse (including urban and rural areas) and represent
    diverse technology solutions. DOT will consider this over the life of
    the program and anticipates announcing awards in September.
        FHWA and the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program
    Office (ITS JPO) also are investigating the Shared Mobility and
    Innovated Technology implementations for rural, suburban, and urban
    areas to better understanding how technologies may impact
    transportation needs and opportunities.
        Further, FHWA and the ITS JPO are investing up to $42 Million over
    a three year period on 3 pilot sites to accelerate the deployment of
    ITS technology in more regions throughout the Nation. One of the 3
    awardees is the ICF/Wyoming Connected Vehicle (CV) Pilot. The primary
    objective for the ICF/Wyoming CV Pilot deployment is to use connected
    vehicle technology to reduce the number of weather related incidents
    (including secondary incidents) in Interstate 80 (I-80) corridor in
    order to improve safety and reduce incident-related delays. I-80 is a
    freight-intensive corridor with a daily volume of 11,000 to 16,000
    vehicles, many of which are heavy-duty trucks (30 percent to 55
    percent). Using Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle to Infrastructure
    (V2I) technology, and existing technologies deployed and operated by
    Wyoming DOT (WYDOT) and freight carriers, information such as road
    weather advisories, roadside alerts, and truck parking information will
    be transmitted and shared with a combination of vehicles. The set of
    vehicles includes WYDOT snow plows, maintenance fleet vehicles,
    emergency vehicles, and private trucks/commercial vehicles. Researchers
    believe that CV technologies will address up to 80 percent of crashes
    where impairment was not a factor.
        FHWA and ITS JPO have and continue to support activities associated
    with the Annual National Rural ITS (NRITS) Conference.

        Question 5a. In his testimony, you provided an update on the
    establishment of the National Surface Transportation and Innovative
    Finance Bureau, which will help states and other agencies access
    Federal expertise and resources. Given the specialized needs of rural
    areas and small towns, has there been any consideration of including a
    rural specialist or liaison at the new Bureau?
        Answer. One of the missions of the National Surface Transportation
    and Innovative Finance Bureau, which we're calling the ``Build America
    Bureau,'' is to provide customer-focused support to project sponsors of
    all types who may be seeking to use DOT credit programs. The Bureau
    will draw upon the full resources of the Department to best utilize the
    expertise of our staff, including expertise in dealing with rural
    projects and project sponsors.

        Question 5b. At a recent event for the Smart Cities Challenge, you
    said that ``a lot of times, technology gets deployed to those who are
    best able to afford it first.'' Rural areas are certainly challenged to
    invest in and deploy new technologies. Would USDOT consider developing
    a similar challenge grant program for rural areas or small towns?
        Answer. While resource constraints have dictated the size and
    regularity of initiatives like the Smart City Challenge being launched,
    there are a number of programs and initiatives benefiting rural
    communities that consider innovation as a criterion. Specifically the
    TIGER discretionary grant program requires a minimum of 25 percent of
    awards be made to rural projects. As a result, TIGER has awarded over
    $1 billion to rural applicants over eight rounds. TIGER has been a
    source of funding for projects like the Regional Truck Parking
    Information and Management System project sponsored by eight Midwest
    cities to aid truckers in rural areas through technology. Similar to
    the Department's practice in TIGER of using innovation as a secondary
    selection criteria, the Department also gave additional consideration
    to applicants for proposing the use of innovative technologies in the
    new FASTLANE discretionary grant program. Additionally, the
    Department's Connected Vehicle pilot program recently awarded three
    recipients, including Wyoming DOT for deploying connected vehicle
    technology to improve and monitor performance on Interstate 80, which
    is a freight-intensive corridor with a daily volume of 11,000 to 16,000
    vehicles. Also, two new innovative programs--FTA's Mobility on Demand
    Sandbox and FHWA's Advanced Transportation Congestion Management
    Technology Deployment--are built to encourage technology in a way
    similar to the Smart City Challenge but are less focused on urban
    areas. We hope to announce the winners of those grants in the coming
    months. When we have flexibility in programs to further assist rural
    regions, the Department has worked to establish important initiatives,
    such as FTA's Rides-to-Wellness initiative--a transit initiative
    designed to increase access to care, improve health outcomes, and
    reduce health care costs in rural places. Supporting innovation in
    rural areas continues to be a priority, and we're happy to work with
    Congress to find resources that can be more targeted towards rural
    challenges.

        Question 6. Secretary Foxx, I regularly hear concerns about new
    rulemakings placing burdensome requirements on rural states with small
    state transportation agencies covering large spaces. What efforts are
    you taking to ensure new rulemakings promote construction of projects
    and are not creating laborious compliance requirements for staff?
        Answer. Please see the response to Question 1.

        Question 6a. Secretary Foxx, in working with motorcoach operators
    in Montana two concerns have been raised.
        My understanding is there is outstanding communications with
    motorcoach industry associations, specifically regarding Federal Motor
    Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) Final Rule on Lease Interchange
    for Passenger Carriers. What is the status of USDOT's response to their
    October 2015 petition for reconsideration?
        Answer. On May 27, 2015, FMCSA published a final rule concerning
    the lease and interchange of passenger-carrying commercial motor
    vehicles (CMVs). Its primary purpose is to identify the motor carrier
    operating a passenger-carrying CMV that is responsible for compliance
    with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The Agency received
    numerous petitions for reconsideration and concluded that some have
    merit. FMCSA, therefore, extended the compliance date of the final rule
    from January 1, 2017, to January 1, 2018, to allow the Agency time to
    complete its analysis and amend the rule where necessary.
        On August 31, 2016, the Agency published a ``Notice of Intent'' to
    initiate rulemaking. The notice identified the issues to be addressed.
    In addition, the Agency will host a roundtable with stakeholders on
    October 31, to discuss the scope of the forthcoming rulemaking and
    ensure that it will adequately address petitioners' major concerns.

        Question 6b. You mentioned in your testimony that the National
    Academies study of the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program
    is underway now. This study will affect the Safety Fitness
    Determination (SFD) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued in
    January. The FAST Act requires more than the study, such as the
    corrective action plan and a certification by the Inspector General.
    What is the status of the study? How will the final results be
    incorporated into the SFD rulemaking process?
        Answer. The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) kicked off its
    review of the CSA program and Safety Measurement System (SMS) on June
    29, 2016. Based on FMCSA's contract with NAS, we expect its final
    report, with any recommendations for changes, in June 2017. The scope
    of the NAS study, as prescribed in the FAST Act, did not include an
    assessment of the SFD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
        The SFD Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on January 21,
    2016, and the response comment period closed on May 23, 2016. The
    Agency received approximately 170 comments. FMCSA is currently
    reviewing the comments to identify any appropriate revisions to the
    Agency's proposal. This is a significant rulemaking requiring review by
    the Office of Management and Budget. FMCSA does not expect this final
    rule to be published before December 2017.
        If the National Academies provides recommendations relevant to the
    SFD final rule, FMCSA will consider them as appropriate when developing
    the final rule.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
        Question. One of the lessons we learned in the aftermath of GM's
    ignition-switch crisis was just how woefully inadequate NHTSA's Office
    of Defects Investigation (ODI) had been. It was clear that there needed
    to be sweeping reforms, fresh leadership, drastic employee training,
    and more resources and authority. In the FAST Act, we were able to
    provide NHTSA's vehicle safety mission with GROW AMERICA authorization
    levels as soon as you certify that ODI has successfully completed all
    17 recommendations made by the Inspector General in June 2015. It's my
    understanding that nearly a dozen recommendations are nearly completed.
    Secretary Foxx, can you comment on how you and Administrator Rosekind
    have ensured that ODI--and NHTSA in general--not only make the IG's
    recommendations but also see to it that ODI never returns to what had
    been an awful state?
        Answer. NHTSA's own internal review and the review performed by the
    O.I.G. last year form the agency's roadmap for building a more
    effective and comprehensive defects program. In the agency's June 16,
    2015 comments to the O.I.G. Draft Audit Report (ST-2015-063), NHTSA
    established an aggressive implementation schedule. NHTSA has taken
    extensive action to address the O.I.G.'s recommendations, and NHTSA has
    met all of its self-imposed completion dates for those recommendations.
    NHTSA has also implemented additional processes and technology to
    complement and enhance the improvements identified by the O.I.G. and by
    the agency's internal review, including the installation of new
    leadership, improved processes and procedures, a robust training plan,
    and enhanced quality control measures to ensure the continued
    accountability of ODI.
        My office will continue to work with both NHTSA and the O.I.G. to
    ensure the continued implementation and execution of NHTSA's improved
    policies and procedures.
                                     ______

     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
        Question 1. Secretary Foxx, do you agree all NHTSA recalls are
    safety recalls, address an unreasonable risk to safety, and should be
    promptly repaired?
        Answer. Manufacturers must recall vehicles with a safety defect or
    vehicles that do not comply with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standard (FMVSS). In either case, the defect or non-compliance presents
    an unreasonable risk to safety that must be addressed promptly.

        Question 2. One pressing safety issue for children involved in
    crashes is that even when properly secured in a child restraint,
    failure of a front seatback in a crash may put back seat passengers--
    especially infants and children--at serious risk of injury or even
    death. According to a child rear impact study commissioned by the
    Center for Auto Safety, approximately 50 children placed behind
    occupied seats die annually in rear impact incidents.
        Secretary Foxx, what are the Department's plans to upgrade the
    safety standard for seatback performance? What steps has DOT taken to
    look into this?
        Answer. NHTSA is working to strengthen its standards for integrated
    rear impact protection (whiplash mitigation and mitigation of harmful
    interaction between front and rear seat occupants). The agency is
    currently:

       Developing a more sophisticated, anatomically correct test
            dummy to determine how seat backs can be strengthened to
            increase protection to front seat occupants without creating
            more injuries to rear occupants (i.e., from being too rigid);

       Developing revised neck injury criteria for manufacturers to
            provide better whiplash protection in low speed impacts, as
            well as to use with the new rear impact test dummy to
            comprehensively assess potential safety improvements in high
            speed rear impacts;

       Researching an upgrade to frontal crash protection
            requirements to improve the lower rear-facing part of the seat
            back, which has been a source of injury to belted and unbelted
            rear seat occupants. The findings will inform NHTSA's next
            steps toward enhancing seat back performance.

        NHTSA also continues to work towards mitigating the occurrence of
    rear impact crashes. The agency's encouragement of Automatic Emergency
    Braking (AEB) in the New Car Assessment Program will move us closer to
    that goal. We estimate that this technology will save 100 fatalities
    and 4,000 serious injuries annually.

        Question 3. The Department's current occupant crash protection
    standards require vehicles to include warning labels informing
    consumers stating: ``The BACK SEAT is the SAFEST place for children.''
    However, I understand that the seat back failure risk can be mitigated
    by placing children behind unoccupied front seats, such as the empty
    middle seat, for which there is no front seat, or behind the lighter
    front seat occupant. Consumers are not advised that the middle seat may
    be the safest. It strikes me that in the meantime, ensuring consumers
    have this critical information could be a good and commonsense first
    step.
        Secretary Foxx, what are the Department's plans to ensure consumers
    have the most accurate and up-to-date information regarding the safest
    seat and position for children?
        Answer. Data consistently show that the rear seat is the safest
    place for children under 13 years of age. NHTSA data show that rear
    seats are 25-75 percent more effective in reducing fatalities (compared
    to front seats) for children less than 13 years of age.
        NHTSA does not specifically advise consumers to use the rear middle
    seats over the outboard rear seats. Real world data suggests that if a
    child is properly restrained in rear seating positions (middle or
    outboard), the probability of injury in crashes is very low regardless
    of outboard or middle seat. NHTSA recommends that consumers read the
    car seat's instruction manual and the portion of the vehicle's owner
    manual on car seat installation. Because car seats and vehicles are
    different, it is important to follow all instructions carefully.
        NHTSA continues to monitor data regarding the safest seating
    positions for children. The agency uses this data to develop and
    disseminate the best child passenger safety information to consumers by
    a variety of methods, including via our website, printed and video
    information, through partner organizations and through the network of
    more than 25,000 certified Child Passenger Safety (CPS) technicians
    around the country.

        Question 4. Secretary Foxx, as you know, several of the major
    airlines have taken actions to prohibit third-party travel websites
    from accessing published fare, schedule, and seat availability data.
    Senator Markey and I have previously written to you on this matter,
    urging you take action against such unfair methods of competition. You
    have the statutory authority to remedy this problem. When, exactly, can
    we expect the Department to act?
        Answer. I share your view that this is a very important matter--one
    with far-reaching implications for consumers, airlines, ticket agents,
    and the various participants in the distribution chain. This is why the
    Department posed questions related to airline restrictions on the
    display of flight, schedule, fare, and seat availability information in
    the May 23, 2014, notice of proposed rulemaking titled ``Transparency
    of Airline Ancillary Fees and Other Consumer Protection Issues.'' (See
    79 Fed. Reg. 29974.) Separately, as you know, we have met with
    representatives of online travel agencies, metasearch sites, and
    airlines to better understand their roles and relationships and how
    restrictions on airline flight information may affect consumers'
    ability to make efficient and accurate comparisons between fares and
    other flight information. We continue to examine this matter to
    determine whether any current practices are unfair or deceptive or
    constitute an unfair method of competition.

        Question 5. In May 2015, DOT released a rule requiring railroads to
    implement redundant signal protection by 2018. In other words,
    railroads must take better precautions to ensure trains don't go over
    tracks occupied by workers.
        That rule came about because of a provision in the FAST Act I
    fought hard to achieve--and I appreciate the cooperation of Chairman
    Thune and Ranking Member Nelson in helping advance that effort. The
    provision in the FAST Act, in turn, was spurred by a horrific tragedy
    in West Haven in which a track worker was killed. And one outside
    Boston in which two were killed. The NTSB for many years called on DOT
    to take action. I am glad it finally has.
        There are other outstanding safety recommendations from NTSB--and
    that I fought to get into the FAST Act. For instance, one provision--
    section 11409--requires DOT to re-evaluate regulations governing
    inspection practices for commuter railroads. After a horrific crash
    three years ago in Bridgeport that injured many, the NTSB urged DOT to
    ensure railroads weren't skating by and inspecting railroad tracks two
    at a time--which makes it easy to miss rail defects that can lead to
    catastrophes
        Secretary Foxx, what actions is DOT taking to improve commuter
    inspection practices so crashes like the Bridgeport one don't happen
    again?
        Answer. In accordance with section 11409 of the FAST Act, FRA is
    currently in the process of re-evaluating several of its requirements
    contained in the Track Safety Standards regulation at 49 CFR Part 213.
    As part of these efforts, FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
    (RSAC) has accepted the task of reviewing and updating, as necessary,
    the track inspection requirements. These activities will include an
    evaluation of track inspection practices on high-density commuter
    operations, such as along the Northeast Corridor. The RSAC Track
    Working Groups are also considering other potential changes to the
    existing regulations related to continuous testing and rail head wear.
    Over the next several months, FRA will also be reviewing the speed
    limit action plans of all commuter and intercity passenger operations
    consistent with the requirements of section 11406 of the FAST Act.

        Question 6. In May 2015, a fire in a garden center in New York City
    broke out right below a viaduct of elevated track that carries trains
    serving Metro-North's Harlem, Hudson and New Haven Lines. Many reports
    stated the fire was sparked when workers at the garden center spilled
    fuel on a hot generator as they were refilling it. Reports also
    indicated this happened in an area of the store loaded with highly-
    flammable materials, like fertilizer and firewood. According to city
    officials, these materials were stored without necessary permits.
        The conflagration was so severe that it damaged already-aging beams
    and structures supporting elevated track that carries hundreds of
    thousands of commuters per day. Repairing that damage took days, and
    during that time many of my constituents endured dreadful commutes.
    And, still, I understand some service will remain slowed indefinitely
    as longer-term repairs are carried out.
        Metro-North has hundreds of miles of track--much of it elevated--
    throughout Connecticut and the New York City region.
        Immediately, I urged Federal officials to take a look at this
    incident. This could be a sign of a major issue. While many local
    jurisdictions play an important role promoting fire safety and ensuring
    proper fire oversight in the areas that Metro-North serves, I believe
    Federal officials could play an important role here, too. A more
    aggressive, formal, Federal effort could help to ensure these kinds of
    practices are kept at bay.
        Secretary Foxx, what can DOT do to prevent further incidents like
    this?
        Answer. FRA's regional inspection forces as well as FRA's Bridge
    and Structures Division monitored the incident in New York and engaged
    in several conversations with Metro-North Commuter Railroad (MNCR) and
    Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) representatives. Bridge and
    structure safety oversight is a key element to the efforts of the Rail
    and Infrastructure Integrity Division. Through its field enforcement
    staff, it participates in bridge accident investigations, performs
    bridge assessments and bridge management program reviews, and provides
    direction and technical advice in bridge inspection, maintenance, and
    management. Both MTA and MNCR conducted site inspections of all tenant
    spaces posing potential hazards to the right-of-way (ROW) and
    implemented mitigations. MNCR has an on-going ROW task force to
    identify safety and security risks along its ROW and address issues and
    ensure compliance with applicable State and local codes. MNCR has also
    contacted Connecticut DOT (CDOT) to initiate fire inspections of CDOT
    and MNCR facilities. MNCR also conducted meetings with the New York
    Fire Department to discuss various response and communication issues.
    FRA is not aware of any similar incidents occurring under elevated
    structures at other locations across the country, but the Agency will
    continue to perform its bridge and structure safety oversight
    functions, including providing guidance on Railroad Bridge Worker
    Safety pursuant to the Bridge & Structures Section's mission.

        Question 7. There are many ``modal'' agencies within DOT focused on
    the major transportation functions--aviation at FAA, rail at FRA, and
    so forth. But there's one function that's actually housed within the
    Secretary's office--the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings,
    which focuses on consumer issue.
        Under current law, consumers and states lack a private right of
    action regarding unfair, deceptive, and anti-competitive practices
    against airlines. Consumers' only recourse is to file a complaint with
    DOT, hope DOT pursues the matter through administrative remedies and
    civil fines. These remedies--like cease and desist orders--can be weak,
    and fines (which are negotiated) can be weak as well. For example, in
    2015 DOT levied just $2.7 million in fines against an industry with
    nearly $169 billion in annual revenue.
        The situation is perhaps worse for persons with disabilities trying
    to assert their rights to be accommodated when flying. Again, only DOT
    can assert their claims and receive damages. In 2014, passengers filed
    772 disability-related complaints with DOT about airlines. But the U.S.
    Department of Transportation appears to do little with these individual
    complaints, taking real action only when there are ``a number of
    complaints'' against one airline, as DOT wrote one disabled passenger.
    Even then, enforcement is rare. For example, in 2015, there were no
    enforcement orders against any airlines. In 2014, there was just one.
        Secretary Foxx, wouldn't allowing a private right of action--in
    addition to continuing to allow DOT enforcement efforts--make real,
    positive, structural changes to how airlines operate and interact with
    the public?
        Answer. The Department would be pleased to work with you on any
    proposal that might better protect air travel consumers, particularly
    passengers with disabilities.
        The Department maintains a robust air travel consumer protection
    program, which includes vigorously and fairly enforcing existing rules.
    Staff members in the Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and
    Proceedings and its Aviation Consumer Protection Division (ACPD)
    routinely monitor air travel complaint records to determine the extent
    to which airlines are in compliance with Federal statutes and
    regulations, and to track trends or spot areas of concern which may
    warrant further action. So far this calendar year, the Department has
    issued 14 consent orders assessing almost $4,000,000 in civil penalties
    against carriers and ticket agents for violations of Federal laws
    protecting the economic and civil rights of air travelers. Four of
    these orders assessing more than $2,500,000 in penalties have been for
    violations of the rule protecting the rights of passengers with a
    disability. In addition, staff members often provide direct assistance
    to consumers. A recent Washington Post article recognized the
    significant assistance that ACPD provides air travelers who are
    dissatisfied by helping them one-on-one. It noted that airlines respond
    quickly to consumer problems when DOT contacts them because ``If they
    don't they could soon find themselves paying an even bigger fine.''
        In connection with consumer claims, the Airline Deregulation Act of
    1978 (ADA), by which Congress deregulated the airline industry, does
    not provide for a private right of action for general consumer claims
    against airlines. In addition, under the ADA, states are prohibited
    from enforcing any law ``relating to rates, routes, or services'' of
    any airline. The preemption provision of the ADA limits the ability of
    individuals to bring a private right of action; however, there is
    precedent permitting certain claims under State or Federal law. For
    example, the Supreme Court has held that that breach of contract claims
    may be brought against airlines for violations of their own contracts
    entered into voluntarily. There is also precedent indicating that tort
    claims under state law may be brought against airlines.
        Regarding the rights of air travelers with disabilities, the Air
    Carrier Access Act (ACAA)--codified at 49 U.S.C. Sec. 41705--was
    construed by the courts to contain an implied private right of action
    until 2002. In 2002, the 11th Circuit held that no private right of
    action exists under the ACAA and that the ACAA can only be enforced
    administratively by the Department. A similar decision was also issued
    by the 10th Circuit. Prior to those court decisions, individuals were
    able to sue for damages separate from any administrative action by the
    Department.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
        Question 1. Secretary Foxx, on April 22, 2016, the U.S. Department
    of Transportation issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on,
    ``National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of
    the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System,
    and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program.'' I have
    received input from several advocacy groups concerned that the NPRM
    could lead the Department to define ``successful performance'' as those
    measures which allow for cars and trucks to move consistently at high
    speeds. Certainly getting people from point A to point B quickly is
    good but congestion relief is also achieved when someone takes transit,
    walks or skips a trip altogether.
        Mr. Secretary, given your successful and positive work with the
    Mayor's Challenge for Safer People, Safer Streets, and LadderSTEP, how
    will the final rule complement your vision and demonstrated success at
    promoting complete streets and multimodal connectivity and avoid policy
    that would incentivize highway widening?
        Answer. USDOT carefully considered a wide range of input from
    stakeholders in the development of the measures proposed in this notice
    of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). In the proposal, USDOT discusses the
    stakeholder input received which includes comments urging the
    Department to consider a measure that would directly reflect the
    mobility of travelers using all surface modes of transportation--a
    ``multi-modal'' performance measure. Although USDOT supports the desire
    to move to a multi-modal measure, we do not believe sufficient data is
    available at this time to support and require an effective measure in
    this area and have asked for additional public input on this topic.
        The NPRM expresses USDOT's desire for a multi-modal measure and
    seeks specific comments on feasible approaches that can be taken to
    move toward the development of such a measure. The Department has
    received nearly 5,000 comments on this proposal to date, including
    commenters sharing your view. I can assure you that we take these and
    all comments received very seriously and will fully consider all
    comments in the rulemaking process. As you noted, we also have a number
    of efforts underway to promote and advance smarter transportation
    systems that connect people to places; this work will help us move
    toward new performance measures in the future that more directly
    address a complete transportation system.

        Question 2. Secretary Foxx, the FAST Act expanded TIFIA to make
    Transit Oriented Development (TOD) projects eligible for financing. In
    determining whether or not to consider providing credit assistance to a
    project sponsor seeking TIFIA financing for a TOD project, is it
    statutorily required that the project sponsor must obtain an investment
    grade rating? If not, does the Secretary have the authority to consider
    other factors such as collateral to determine the creditworthiness of a
    project?
        Answer. Yes, it is statutorily required that the sponsor of a TOD
    project must obtain an investment grade rating on the project's senior
    debt. All TIFIA projects, including TOD projects, must obtain an
    investment grade rating on the debt senior to TIFIA. If the TIFIA loan
    is the project's senior debt, the TIFIA loan must also receive an
    investment grade rating. In addition to the requirement that the
    project's senior debt receive an investment grade rating, the TIFIA
    statute requires that a project satisfy other applicable
    creditworthiness standards, including demonstration of adequate
    coverage levels. An evaluation of a project's coverage levels enables
    the Department to consider the sufficiency of the revenues pledged to
    repay the TIFIA loan.

        Question 3. Secretary Foxx, are there any new authorities within
    the Office of the Secretary or changes to existing statute that you
    believe would make the TIFIA program more accessible to project
    sponsors of small TOD projects? Small being defined as projects costing
    $10 million.
        Answer. The FAST Act incorporated several changes to the TIFIA
    program that we anticipate will make the program more accessible to
    sponsors of small projects. USDOT is focused on implementing these FAST
    Act provisions and would prefer to evaluate their impact prior to
    proposing any additional changes to the statute.

       As one example of the FAST Act's changes that benefit
            sponsors of small projects, the minimum project cost threshold
            for TIFIA assistance is generally $50 million (or, prior to the
            FAST Act, $25 million for a qualifying rural infrastructure
            project). The FAST Act lowered the minimum cost threshold for
            rural infrastructure projects to $10 million, and set the
            minimum cost threshold for TOD projects and local
            infrastructure projects at $10 million. Each of these changes
            should make the program more accessible to project sponsors of
            small TOD projects.

       As another example, the FAST Act expanded the definition of
            eligible TIFIA projects to include the capitalization of a
            rural projects fund (of up to $100 million) within a State
            Infrastructure Bank (SIB). TIFIA credit assistance to
            capitalize such a fund could then be used to make loans to
            small, rural infrastructure projects, potentially including TOD
            projects.

       Finally, the FAST Act requires DOT to reserve at least $2
            million of each year's TIFIA funding to use in lieu of fee
            payment by sponsors of smaller projects, specifically those
            costing less than $75 million. Small TOD projects would be
            eligible to receive assistance from this pool of reserved
            funding.

        Question 4. Secretary Foxx, as you know, since 2013 the Federal
    Railroad Administration has been working on an update to its train
    crashworthiness safety standards, known as Passenger Equipment
    Alternative Compliance. This update aims to modernize passenger train
    car regulations to improve safety, lower fossil fuel consumption,
    increase potential train speed and reduce procurement and maintenance
    costs. Mr. Secretary, what is the status of this rule, and do you
    foresee a comprehensive, reform-oriented regulation being published and
    ultimately finalized in the near future?
        Answer. A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) addressing design
    requirements related to passenger equipment (including equipment
    capable of operating up to 220 mph) is currently undergoing final
    Executive Branch review. Because performance standards for passenger
    equipment contained in the proposal were approved by the Railroad
    Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), the stakeholders within the industry
    are expected to be supportive of the proposed rule. We expect to
    publish the NPRM in the near future.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
        Question. As automobile safety technologies continue to evolve, it
    is paramount that we take common sense steps to ensure that these
    safety features function properly.
        Regrettably, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
    (NHTSA) current rules allow tire pressure monitoring systems, which
    electronically gauge if a vehicle's tires have the appropriate air
    pressure, to be recalibrated to dangerous pressure levels without
    alerting the driver. As a result, drivers could unintentionally and
    unwittingly increase the risk of a tire failure or blow out.
        To address this safety hazard, Senator Gardner and I included a
    provision (Section 24115) in the Fixing America's Surface
    Transportation (FAST) Act, the five year surface transportation
    reauthorization bill that passed late last year, that requires NHTSA to
    update its rules to ensure that tire pressure monitors cannot be
    recalibrated to unsafe levels.
        Secretary Foxx, our provision requires the Department of
    Transportation (DOT) to publish proposed rule by December 4, 2016.
    Could you provide me with an update on the status of the rulemaking?
    What specific steps must the DOT take to promulgate the proposed rules
    and what is the agencies' timeline for completing each step?
        Answer. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 138, ``Tire
    pressure monitoring system'' (TPMS), established performance-based
    testing requirements for TPMS and does not require specific technology.
    The agency is reviewing the FAST Act provision to understand how it
    would impact the current TPMS standard. NHTSA is also conducting a Tire
    Pressure Monitoring Systems-Outage Rates and Repair Costs study that
    may inform the rulemaking. The agency is working to meet the regulatory
    timing outlined in the Act.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cory Booker to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
        Question 1. The Gateway Hudson Tunnel project to build new rail
    tunnels under the Hudson River is critical to New Jersey and to the
    Northeast region. The existing tunnels are over 100 years old and
    require substantial maintenance. Even a minor delay in the tunnels can
    cause major congestion throughout the New Jersey-New York region. If
    these tunnels were closed for an extended period of time, the ripple
    effects would be devastating to the economy of the Northeast Corridor.
    Can I have your commitment that you will work with us to utilize any
    opportunity--be it Federal grants such as TIGER and New Starts or
    Federal loan programs--to advance the Gateway Hudson Tunnel project?
        Answer. The Department is supporting the Hudson Tunnel Project and
    the Gateway Program to improve rail service between New Jersey and New
    York City.
        A Federal investment of $235 million--a transfer that the Federal
    Railroad Administration (FRA) received from the Federal Transit
    Administration (FTA) through Hurricane Sandy Relief funds to support
    Amtrak's Hudson Yards Right of Way Preservation Project--is an
    important investment supporting this critical development.
        The FRA has since initiated the environmental impact statement
    process for the Hudson Tunnel Project on May 2, 2016. The Department is
    also assisting New Jersey Transit, Amtrak, and the Port Authority of
    New York and New Jersey (PA) in establishing an entity that can manage
    the implementation of the Gateway Program. The Department is taking
    into account the critical nature of the old tunnels under the Hudson
    River in considering any funding requests for the Gateway Program.
        In addition, on July 14, the Gateway Program projects took another
    significant step toward receiving major DOT funding when the Department
    moved the Hudson Tunnel Project and Portal North Bridge--both critical
    elements of the Gateway Program--into the Project Development process
    for New Starts, a type of Capital Investment Grant through the FTA.

        Question 2. There are concerns that Federal permitting requirements
    could delay the project. What steps can you take to speed the project's
    approval, while also allowing for proper environmental reviews?
        Answer. For the Hudson Tunnel Project, the Federal Railroad
    Administration (FRA) has worked with New Jersey Transit and Amtrak to
    commit to an aggressive 24-month schedule for completing the entire
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, including the
    preliminary engineering required to support the NEPA review. In order
    to meet this schedule, the project team will utilize, as appropriate,
    work conducted for previously completed studies (e.g., the extensive
    engineering and environmental documentation prepared for the Access to
    the Region's Core project and Amtrak's Gateway Program Feasibility
    Study). Additionally, the FRA is: (1) working with the project partners
    to integrate permitting requirements into the NEPA analysis and process
    as much as is practicable based on the early stage of design; (2)
    maintaining transparency by publishing the Project schedule on the
    Permitting Dashboard for Federal Infrastructure Projects; and (3)
    establishing and leading a task force comprising Federal agencies with
    a role in the environmental compliance and/or permitting processes--in
    order that issues can be identified and addressed/resolved in a timely
    and efficient manner.

        Question 3. The cost of a fatal multi-vehicle commercial motor
    vehicle accident can exceed $20 million to compensate families, care
    for the injured, and repair damage to our Nation's highway
    infrastructure. Yet the requirement for commercial motor vehicle
    carriers to carry at least $750,000 in minimum insurance has not been
    increased in 30 years, even to account for inflation. In result,
    taxpayers have borne much of the cost of major truck accidents. In your
    professional judgment, how important is it that we address these
    insufficient levels of insurance?
        Answer. FMCSA shares your interest in determining whether current
    minimum insurance level requirements mandated by the Agency are
    sufficient to ensure adequate coverage for losses resulting from
    commercial motor vehicle crashes. On November 28, 2014, the Agency
    published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking
    public comment and requesting related data from the insurance industry
    and key stakeholders to make an informed decision whether to move
    forward with a notice of proposed rulemaking related to minimum levels
    of financial responsibility. However, the Agency did not receive a
    sufficient quantity of data to adequately inform a rulemaking to
    increase insurance levels. Generally, insurance claim and settlement
    data is proprietary and not available to the public or the Agency.
        The Agency continues to work with stakeholders, including insurance
    providers, to gather any available data to complete the motor carrier
    financial responsibility study mandated in section 5517 of the FAST
    Act. The Agency is also seeking additional data to inform any future
    minimum financial responsibility rulemaking, and will undertake the
    analysis required by section 5509 of the FAST Act prior to issuing a
    final rule.

        Question 4. For the last few years, the commercial motor vehicle
    industry has attempted to roll back Federal rules meant to prevent
    fatigue among commercial drivers. This year, they are also seeking to
    preempt state laws on hours of service such as California's meal and
    rest break requirements. In the meantime, we continue to see reports in
    which fatigue led to a tragic collision.
        The Department of Transportation has been warning about the dangers
    of fatigue for many years. How concerned are you that efforts to
    undermine the Department's hours of service requirements could result
    in more fatigued drivers behind the wheel?
        Answer. FMCSA commits its resources to improve commercial motor
    vehicle (CMV) safety. The Agency remains concerned about the safety
    risks associated with cumulative fatigue when drivers are required or
    allowed to work intensive schedules, week after week. While most
    drivers do not work such grueling schedules, the Agency believes there
    should be safeguards in place to prevent truck operators from driving
    after accumulating excessive on-duty hours during a work week. FMCSA
    continues to collaborate with the industry and government officials
    from the U.S. and Canada to develop the North American Fatigue
    Management Program (NAFMP). The NAFMP reinforces the Agency's safety
    mission by providing training and fatigue management procedures that
    companies can implement and is available online at www.nafmp.com.
        The Department does not recommend that the Federal Government
    preempt the State of California's meal and rest break requirements,
    which are primarily matters of State labor law.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                              Hon. Anthony R. Foxx
        Question 1. I'm very enthusiastic about advancing connected and
    automated vehicle (CAV) technology safely across the country, and will
    continue to work with DOT to develop a common understanding of the
    performance characteristics necessary for fully autonomous vehicles and
    the testing and analysis needed to assess them.
        Sec. Foxx, you announced at the Detroit Auto Show that DOT was
    committed to working with industry and other stakeholders to develop
    guidance on the safe deployment and operation of autonomous vehicles.
    You also stated that NHTSA will work with state partners to develop a
    model state policy on automated vehicles that offers a path to
    consistent national policy. As you know, 34 states have considered or
    are considering bills related to automated driving. We must work
    closely with state and local authorities to assist in the development
    of consistent regulations to fully realize the national advantages of
    these technologies.
        Please provide an update on the development of NHTSA's pending
    autonomous vehicle guidelines and model policy for state regulation,
    including the anticipated date of release for both. Will NHTSA
    recommend specific next steps regarding autonomous vehicles, and if so,
    what themes would such next steps address?
        Answer. NHTSA anticipates issuing the highly automated vehicles
    report, which includes guidance and the model State policy in the near
    future. The agency plans to address next steps and will likely include
    activities aimed at improving and expanding the guidance as well as
    providing oversight.

        Question 2. How do existing or potential state laws related to
    self-driving technologies inform your Department's development of
    national guidance? Do you believe legislation is necessary to achieve
    consistent national policy, and if so, what new authorities and/or
    resources would be helpful to that end?
        Answer. NHTSA considers a wide variety of information sources when
    forming national guidance, including existing State laws and pending
    legislation. NHTSA has been coordinating with individual states as well
    as representative bodies such as the American Association of Motor
    Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) as part of the agency's recent actions
    to develop a model State policy and operational guidance for automated
    safety technologies. A primary goal of these actions is to move our
    system toward achieving a uniform national policy.
        As part of the highly automated vehicles report, NHTSA will also
    address the issue of what new tools and authorities the agency may need
    to operate in a fast-changing technology environment. We note that, in
    drafting the original Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, Congress sought to
    ensure that the standards issued under the Act would be uniform and
    national so that the public as well as industry would be guided by a
    single set of criteria instead of a multiplicity of diverse standards.
    We will evaluate whether legislation is needed to achieve consistent
    national policy regarding automated safety technologies.

        Question 3. An April 2016 GAO report on vehicle cybersecurity
    recommended that DOT should ``define its role in responding to a real-
    world attack.'' How are you incorporating cybersecurity principles into
    your autonomous vehicle guidance?
        Answer. The highly automated vehicles report will include
    Performance Guidance with sections dedicated to cybersecurity and
    privacy. These sections will provide guidance to system developers to
    adopt a risk-based systems engineering approach. As part of this
    approach, the agency recommends that system developers assess, identify
    and mitigate cybersecurity vulnerabilities, risks and threats that
    could present unreasonable safety risks to the public or compromise
    privacy-sensitive data. NHTSA recommends that system developers not
    only design layers of protection appropriate to the assessed risks, but
    also consider the full life-cycle management of vehicle cybersecurity
    and plan for rapid remediation capabilities. The agency recommends
    adoption of existing proven standards, such as the NIST framework, and
    industry's recommended best practice, Cybersecurity Guidebook for
    Cyber-Physical Vehicle Systems (J3061). Further, NHTSA suggests that
    system developers fully document their cybersecurity process as well as
    all actions, changes, design choices, analyses, associated testing and
    data. The agency also encourages data and intelligence sharing with
    respect to individual experiences with the broader community.

        Question 4. How will DOT define and address safety recalls made
    necessary due to cyber vulnerabilities of critical systems?
        Answer. Traditional motor vehicle safety defects are generally
    evaluated based on severity and frequency of the defect conditions, but
    cyber vulnerabilities should be approached differently. For cyber
    vulnerabilities, the safety risks should be evaluated by assessing,
    among other factors, the probability of an attack and the severity,
    should the attack occur. The probability of an attack is based, in
    part, on the difficulty of exploiting the vulnerability. The severity
    for cyber vulnerabilities is based, in part, on whether safety-related
    vehicle functions are impacted and whether, among other things, this
    can occur while the vehicle is in motion. Following the evaluation of
    the safety risks, NHTSA may consider a cyber vulnerability to be a
    safety-related defect compelling a recall.

        Question 5. The FAST Act contains a requirement that GAO submit a
    report to Congress within 2 years that: ``(1) assesses the status of
    autonomous transportation technology policy developed by public
    entities in the United States; (2) assesses the organizational
    readiness of the Department to address autonomous vehicle technology
    challenges, including consumer privacy protections; and (3) recommends
    implementation paths for autonomous transportation technology,
    applications, and policies that are based on the assessment described
    in paragraph (2).''
        Please provide an update on your Department's engagement with GAO
    in the development of this report, including the anticipated date of
    its release.
        Answer. GAO has not initiated its engagement with the Department.
    It is our understanding that GAO plans to start this engagement in late
    summer or fall. NHTSA will fully cooperate with GAO once it starts this
    engagement.

        Question 6. The NHTSA CAFE and EPA fuel economy programs play
    important roles in driving forward innovative vehicle technologies,
    which helps to build advanced cars and trucks, create manufacturing
    jobs, save energy, improve air quality, and address a changing climate.
    It is my understanding that the two programs are set up so that one
    auto manufacturers can build a single fleet of U.S. vehicles that
    satisfy requirements of both Federal programs as well as California's
    program. I'd like to gain a better grasp of some of the differences in
    the availability and usability of credits under each program.
        Is it possible that an automaker could be fully in compliance with
    one of the two Federal programs and yet find itself out of compliance
    with the other program--and thus possibly subject to fines?
        Answer. Yes. However, the agencies have sought to craft harmonized
    standards such that manufacturers may build a single fleet of vehicles
    to meet both agencies' requirements. Manufacturers should plan their
    compliance strategies to meet both the NHTSA standards and the EPA
    standards, but they can still build a single fleet of vehicles to
    accomplish that goal.

        Question 7. By statute, I understand that NHTSA credits can only be
    used for up to 5 years, but EPA credits, in some instances, can be used
    for up to 11 years. Will you please explain the differences in the life
    of credits between the two programs, and would allowing credits earned
    under the NHTSA program to have comparable usable lives serve to more
    closely harmonize this aspect of the two programs?
        Answer. NHTSA's usable life of credits, five consecutive model
    years, is dictated by statute. EPA set its usable life of credits by
    regulation, and established a program under which usable life varies
    based on the year in which the credit was earned. Specifically, the
    usable life of EPA credits phased down from eleven years to five years
    over the course of model years 2010 through 2016.
        As a result, NHTSA and EPA's usable life of credits is presently in
    alignment. Beginning with Model Year 2016 vehicles and continuing into
    the future, both agencies allow for five years of usable credit life.
    Any changes to the usable life of present or future credits earned
    under NHTSA's program would create a misalignment with EPA's program.
    Further, any retroactive changes to the usable life of previously
    earned credits under NHTSA's program would give some manufacturers a
    windfall, whereas manufacturers who did not earn credits as part of
    their long-term compliance plan would suffer a comparable competitive
    loss.

        Question 8. Also by statute, the ability of manufacturers to
    transfer credits from one fleet to another is limited to no more than 2
    mpg, whereas the transferability of credits in the EPA program is
    unlimited. Would expanding the credit transfer cap in the CAFE program
    to a higher level more closely align this aspect of the two Federal
    programs?
        Answer. The differences between the EPA and NHTSA programs are a
    result of different statutory authorities for the regulation of fuel
    economy and greenhouse gases. However, the programs were structured to
    account for these differences. NHTSA and EPA have worked closely to
    ensure that their respective programs, taking all relevant statutory
    considerations into account, will work in a coordinated fashion, and
    will provide regulatory compatibility that allows auto manufacturers to
    build a single national light-duty fleet that would comply with both
    the GHG and the CAFE standards.
        As part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)
    amendments to EPCA, NHTSA was required to establish a CAFE credit
    transferring program to allow a manufacturer to transfer credits
    between its car and light truck fleets to achieve compliance with the
    standards. However, EISA imposed a cap on the amount by which a
    manufacturer could raise its CAFE standards through transferred
    credits. The caps ensure that fuel economy improvements are attained in
    both the passenger car and light truck fleets. Manufacturers
    transferring or trading credits to another compliance category are also
    subject to an adjustment factor to ensure total fuel savings are
    preserved.
        Under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), there is no
    statutory limitation on car/light truck credit transfers, and EPA's GHG
    program allows unlimited credit transfers across a manufacturer's car/
    light truck fleet to meet the GHG standard. EPA also requires
    manufacturers to use an adjustment factor in transferring credits
    across cars/trucks, in a similar way as the CAFE program, to preserve
    total GHG emissions reductions.

        Question 9. Does the Administration have the authority to address
    these specific concerns under the current CAFE statute?
        Answer. NHTSA is currently in the process of conducting a Mid-term
    Evaluation of the Model Year 2022-2025 CAFE standards. Following the
    Mid-term Evaluation, NHTSA will conduct a rulemaking on the Model Year
    2022-2025 CAFE standards. This opportunity will allow the agency to
    review stringency levels and existing flexibilities, pursuant to
    existing statutory authority. NHTSA is available to provide technical
    assistance on any amendments to the CAFE program statutes that Congress
    wishes to consider.

        Question 10. If these credits were expanded, would you expect an
    overall reduction in fuel economy improvements compared to current
    trends?
        Answer. If the 2 mpg credit transfer cap were enlarged or
    eliminated, NHTSA expects there would be an overall reduction in fuel
    economy improvements compared to current trends. Enlarging or
    eliminating the transfer cap would allow manufacturers to offset more
    potential credit deficiencies for light trucks, thereby slowing the
    improvement of fuel economy for light truck fleets.

                                      [all]

                      This page intentionally left blank.
                      This page intentionally left blank.
                      This page intentionally left blank.