[Senate Hearing 116-571]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-571
FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION:
TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY ISSUES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 19, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-608 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROY BLUNT, Missouri Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
John Keast, Staff Director
Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
Steven Wall, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 19, 2019.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 2
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 25
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 27
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 29
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 31
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 33
Statement of Senator Scott....................................... 34
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 36
Statement of Senator Blackburn................................... 38
Statement of Senator Duckworth................................... 40
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 42
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 44
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 46
Letter dated April 12, 2019.................................. 47
Response to letter dated April 12, 2019...................... 48
Witnesses
Hon. Joel Szabat, Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs, Office of the Secretary of
Transportation................................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Ronald L. Batory, Administrator, Federal Railroad
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.............. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Raymond Martinez, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation....... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Heidi King, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.............. 19
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Appendix
Letter dated June 18, 2019 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Catherine Chase, President, Advocates............ 87
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. Surface Transportation
Reauthorization (``STR'') Priorities........................... 93
Letter dated June 18, 2019 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from John Lyboldt, President, Truckload Carriers
Association.................................................... 96
Statement of the Alliance for Driver Safety & Security (''The
Trucking Alliance'')........................................... 98
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Joel Szabat by:
Hon. Roger Wicker............................................ 102
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 104
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 104
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 105
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Ronald L. Batory
by:
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito.................................... 106
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 107
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 107
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 113
Hon. Tammy Duckworth......................................... 113
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Raymond Martinez
by:
Hon. Roger Wicker............................................ 114
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 114
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 115
Hon. Todd Young.............................................. 115
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 116
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 120
Hon. Tammy Duckworth......................................... 121
Response to written questions submitted to Heidi King by:
Hon. Roger Wicker............................................ 121
Hon. Deb Fischer............................................. 129
Hon. Todd Young.............................................. 129
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 130
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 137
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 138
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 138
Hon. Tammy Duckworth......................................... 140
FAST ACT REAUTHORIZATION: TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY ISSUES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room 216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Cantwell, Fischer,
Thune, Schatz, Sullivan, Markey, Scott, Tester, Blackburn,
Duckworth, Peters, and Udall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Good morning. Today, the Committee convenes
to consider FAST Act Reauthorization: Transportation Safety
Issues.
Along with my friend and Ranking Member Senator Cantwell,
let me welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses and thank
them for appearing.
Today, we'll hear from Department of Transportation
officials, including Joel Szabat, Assistant Secretary for
Aviation and International Affairs; Ron Batory, Administrator
of the Federal Railroad Administration; Ray Martinez,
Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration; and Heidi King, Deputy Administrator of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Welcome to each
of you.
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015,
better known as the FAST Act, reauthorized many of the modal
administrations responsible for ensuring the safety of our
surface transportation system, including FMCSA, NHTSA, and FRA.
Today's hearing provides our witnesses with the opportunity
to discuss the implementation of the FAST Act and to identify
issues that this Committee should consider as we prepare for
surface transportation reauthorization.
The FAST Act placed a greater focus on our Nation's
multimodal freight network. That includes establishing the
INFRA Grant Program. This program and others, such as BUILD
Grants, formerly TIGER Grants, are critical to improve our
Nation's transportation infrastructure.
I hope the witnesses will provide the Committee with an
update on efforts to improve our infrastructure and how INFRA
and BUILD Grants are being utilized.
As the Commerce Committee considers reauthorizing the FAST
Act, I plan to work closely with Ranking Member Cantwell and
our other distinguished members on both sides of the aisle to
authorize the BUILD discretionary grants, reauthorize Amtrak
and continue to enhance our freight and passenger rail network,
facilitate innovative transportation technologies across modes
through coordinated research, development, and deployment,
advance highway safety initiatives, focus on our Nation's
multimodal freight network through programs, like INFRA.
Senator Cantwell and I are also fully committed to working
to improve our coastal and inland ports. Safety is a top
priority for this committee and for the Department of
Transportation, but with 37,000 highway deaths in 2017, more
must be done.
Sadly, deaths in cars also happen when they are parked.
Last month, I reintroduced the HOT CARS Act with Senator
Blumenthal and Ranking Member Cantwell to prevent deaths of
children left in unattended vehicles.
In my state of Mississippi alone, there were at least 18
such fatalities between 1998 and 2018. These tragedies should
be addressed immediately through technological improvements and
enhanced education efforts. The HOT CARS Act would move us in
the right direction.
Technology will be a key part of solving future
transportation challenges.
Let me take a moment to congratulate Secretary Chao for her
efforts to prepare for those challenges by supporting emerging
technologies, including by advancing the safe testing and
deployment of autonomous vehicles.
Until such time as autonomous vehicles are pervasive on our
roads and used commercially, there's still an urgent need for
truck drivers to move our Nation's goods. I know the FMCSA is
working on a pilot program to meet this need by studying the
feasibility of allowing 18- to 20-year-old drivers with
military experience to operate trucks in interstate commerce.
I think the Committee would benefit from an update on that
pilot program and a conversation regarding what other steps can
be taken to address the shortage of truck drivers.
There is much to discuss today as we assess the safety and
reliability of our Nation's transportation system and prepare
for reauthorization of the FAST Act and the future of surface
transportation.
I look forward to the testimony of our panel of witnesses
and I now recognize my friend, the Ranking Member, Senator
Cantwell, for her opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, and thanks
for holding this important hearing today and to the witnesses
for being here.
Every day, millions of ships, trains, planes, and vehicles
move billions of dollars worth of goods all over our
increasingly connected global marketplace. Our ports are at the
very heart of this global marketplace which American farmers
and manufacturers rely on to get their products to market and
speed is critical in the 21st Century economy.
When farmers and manufacturers can't move their goods
efficiently, they don't just lose a sale, they lose a market
share. They lose shelf space and they lose opportunity to
compete.
Regardless of where you grow or make your product, whether
it's in the Heartland or on a coast, a world-class port system
is good for business. I know my colleague, the Chairman of the
Committee, agrees on this important issue.
But right now, we are falling behind. If we don't modernize
our ports, companies and countries all over the world will turn
elsewhere. Ports all over America are facing competition from
nations that are making robust long-term investments in
infrastructure.
So I want to thank Chairman Wicker for recognizing the
important role this plays in our economy and I look forward to
working with him on a comprehensive package.
In the FAST Act, this committee fought for increased
funding for multimodal freight infrastructure. Not only does
this fuel job growth and American economic competitiveness, it
also reduces congestion and increases safety.
In the state of Washington, just one congested railroad
crossing in Seattle cost $9.5 million a year in economic
activity. By eliminating this choke point, we can speed up
freight movements for goods coming from the Heartland to our
ports and to those global markets.
Freight infrastructure initiatives, such as CRISI and
INFRA, are designed to do just that. So in the FAST Act
reauthorization, I hope that we'll look to increase levels of
funding to meet the strong demand for these programs.
As we invest in transportation improvements, we also must
keep safety at top of mind. According to preliminary NHTSA
data, there were a staggering 36,750 traffic fatalities in
2018. That is an average of one hundred people dying each day
on our national roadways.
While the overall crash fatality number drops slightly from
2017, NHTSA reported sharp increases in truck, pedestrian, and
cyclist fatalities. So I support developing new vehicle safety
technologies, like automated braking and other innovations, to
be widely deployed through our fleets and to continue to make
sure that we are meeting the challenge of pedestrian and
cyclist safety.
We also need to incent and innovate in the area of
transportation that is imperative in the area of global
warming. According to the EPA, our transportation sector is
responsible for 29 percent of the U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions.
This is an area where smart policy combined with American
ingenuity can make a difference. So this committee has been
involved with this issue before the historic 2009 agreement on
CAFE Standards reflected the consensus among auto industries,
state regulators, bipartisan people here in this committee, and
in the Congress.
So I don't agree with the Administration's proposal to roll
back fuel efficiency standards. I think that takes us in the
wrong direction, and I hope our committee will play a
constructive role in moving us in the right direction.
So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and
working with all of you on meeting our transportation, safety,
efficiency, and infrastructure improvements for the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell.
We will begin our testimony with Mr. Szabat and we'll just
move down the table. You are recognized, sir. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL SZABAT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION
AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Szabat. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting us to testify about our work
to improve safety and lead innovation in our Nation's
transportation system as well as our progress implementing the
project delivery reforms in Fixing America's Surface
Transportation or FAST Act. It is an honor to testify today
before this committee.
Safety is Secretary Chao's Number One priority and the
department's guiding star. We are committed to reducing
transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries across
the transportation system.
The department has adopted a systematic approach that
mitigates risks and encourages change in infrastructure and
behavior through data-driven risk identification. One approach
is the department's Safety Data Initiative or SDI.
Through pilot projects, we are seeking to advance our
ability to integrate existing data with new big data sources,
use advanced analytics to provide new insights into safety
risks, and create data visualizations to help decisionmakers
arrive at safety solutions. We are wrapping up the first phase
of the SDI pilot projects which seek new ways to find answers
to fundamental traffic safety questions.
In another aspect of safety, the development and deployment
of automated vehicle-related technology is moving rapidly. We
only expect this pace to accelerate over the next decade.
The department released Preparing for the Future of
Transportation, AV 3.0, which advances our commitment to
supporting the safe integration of automation into the surface
transportation system.
To ensure safety in automation, the department must protect
the 5.9 gigahertz safety band of radio spectrum. This band is
critically important for reducing crashes, injuries, and
fatalities while mitigating congestion. All channels of the
safety band are actively used today with more than 80 connected
vehicle projects in the United States alone.
The department does not promote any particular technology
over another and we encourage the automotive industry, wireless
technology companies, and other innovators to continue
developing multiple technologies that leverage the safety band.
In regards to implementation of FAST Act Project Delivery
provisions, I am proud to report that the department has acted
on all Project Delivery rules required by both Map 21 and the
FAST Act.
Currently, the environmental review process is complex and
inconsistent for project sponsors. It is critically important
to protect the environment and safeguard our communities while
reducing project delays.
If we make better and more timely decisions, transportation
agencies can deliver critical infrastructure projects across
the country and, most importantly, their associated safety
benefits.
The department is taking additional actions that expand on
these reforms by implementing One Federal Decision. These
actions are designed to improve the process by increasing
transparency and accountability while also expanding early
coordination with agencies and stakeholders.
Additionally, new technologies may not always fit precisely
into the department's existing regulatory structure,
potentially resulting in a slower pace of transportation
innovation.
The department announced the creation of the Non-
Traditional and Emerging Transportation Technology or NETT
Council. The Council is an internal deliberative team tasked
with identifying and resolving jurisdictional and regulatory
gaps. These gaps may impede the deployment of new technology,
such as tunneling, autonomous vehicles, and other innovations.
The Council will address challenges and uncertainties in
obtaining necessary authorizations and permits by ensuring that
the traditional modal silos at DOT do not impede deployment of
new technology.
In closing, safety remains the department's Number One
priority and we are committed to improving safety while leading
innovation in our Nation's transportation system.
Chairman and Ranking Member, Members, thank you for your
time today, and I'll be pleased to answer any of your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Szabat follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joel Szabat, Assistant Secretary for
Aviation and International Affairs, Office of the Secretary of
Transportation
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, Members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to
testify about our work to improve safety and lead innovation in our
Nation's transportation system, as well as our progress implementing
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. It is an honor
to testify today before this Committee.
Safety
Safety is the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT or
Department) number one priority, and we are committed to reducing
transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries across the
transportation system. The Department has adopted a systemic, safety
management systems approach that mitigates risks and encourages
infrastructure and behavior change through data-driven risk
identification, enhancement of standards and programs, and evaluation
of effectiveness. In 2018, the Department released an updated strategic
plan identifying the goals, objectives, and strategies we will pursue
to improvement to safety, infrastructure, and innovation in our
Nation's transportation system.
This plan highlights the Administration's commitment to the needs
of rural America, specifically addressing the need to reduce the
disproportionate transportation safety risks faced by rural
communities. In 2017, the highway fatality rate on rural roads was more
than double the rate on urban roads. The successful execution of a
systemic safety approach requires quality information derived from
sound analysis to enable the Department, as well as our states and
local government partners, to apply a data-driven approach to determine
the best solutions to address safety problems.
Safety Data Initiative
Through the Safety Data Initiative (SDI), the Department is seeking
to advance our ability to integrate existing Department data with new
``big data'' sources, use advanced analytics to provide new insights
into transportation safety risks, and create data visualizations to
help policy makers arrive at safety solutions. We are wrapping up the
first phase of the SDI, where we launched a series of pilot projects to
seek new ways to find answers to fundamental traffic safety questions.
In the Waze Pilot Project, we leveraged near-real-time private
sector data to gain new insights into traffic crashes by applying
machine learning techniques to develop crash estimation models. The
Waze Pilot Project consists of two case studies exploring state and
local applications of the Waze models. We have been working with
Tennessee Highway Patrol to integrate Waze data into their existing
crash model structure to improve resolution. We are working with the
City of Bellevue, Washington to test if Waze data can offer actionable
insights that will inform the Bellevue Vison Zero action plan. Beyond
the Waze pilot, to make the Department's data more accessible, we
worked with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
to convert traffic fatality data from their Fatality Analysis Reporting
System into interactive visualizations related to speeding and
pedestrian safety.
In addition to these pilot projects, the SDI includes the Solving
for Safety Visualization Challenge, a multistage, $350,000 national
competition in which solvers developed analytical tools, powered by
visualizations, to reduce serious crashes on the Nation's roads and
rails. Fifty-four solvers from universities, the private sector, and
other innovative fields submitted proposals, five semi-finalists were
selected, and two finalists are developing full working tools. The two
finalists are Ford Motor Company and the University of Central Florida.
Roadway Safety Research
The Department's safety research programs have significantly
improved the safety of our roadways. FHWA conducts research to identify
innovative roadway designs that can save lives. For example, replacing
an intersection that uses stop signs or traffic signals with a
roundabout can reduce crashes by around 80 percent. (https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/roundabouts/)
Federal Highway Administration NHTSA estimates more than 600,000
lives have been saved between 1960 and 2012 through adoption of vehicle
safety technologies. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) estimates that its data driven compliance and enforcement
program saves more than 200 lives per year.
Transportation engineers rely on significant amounts of crash data
to design and deploy safety counter measures. To continue reducing
roadway fatalities, the Department needs more data and better quality
data, especially on pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists. The
SDISDI is a step forward in addressing some of the research gaps in our
understanding of roadway safety. For example, pedestrian fatalities
have increased over the past few years, though it remains difficult to
determine if increased exposure (more people out walking) has
contributed that increase.
NHTSA needs to better understand the true scope of drug-impaired
driving. With actual and proposed changes to state and Federal law
regarding marijuana, it is increasingly important that we address this
critical safety issue. No chemical testing exists for drug impaired
driving, similar to the blood alcohol test. Having clear standards is
critical for law enforcement documenting accidents.
Similarly, it is currently difficult to determine the full impact
of distracted driving. Some studies suggest that the number of
distraction-related crashes and fatalities is higher than what can be
determined by current methods. Moreover, new vehicle technology linking
drivers in-vehicle to the Internet continues to expand and evolve at a
rapid pace.
FMCSA finished a comprehensive large-truck crash causation study in
2003 to understand the factors that contribute to crashes involving at
least one commercial vehicle. Since then, there have been many changes
in technology, vehicle safety, driver behavior, and roadway design.
FMCSA is interested in conducting a revised crash causation study and
is seeking information on the most effective methodology for best
collecting crash data.
5.9GHz Spectrum
The 5.9 GHz band of radio-spectrum (or ``Safety Band'') is of
critical importance to the Department for reducing crashes, injuries,
and fatalities, while mitigating congestion. It is uniquely positioned
today to support safety applications that could prevent or
significantly reduce the severity of vehicle crashes in a manner not
available through other existing vehicle technologies. The Safety Band
already is used by state transportation departments for vehicle-to-
vehicle (V2V) and pedestrian collision avoidance, transit priority,
traffic light control, traffic monitoring, travelers' alerts, automatic
toll collection, traffic congestion detection, emergency vehicle signal
preemption of traffic lights, truck platooning, and electronic
inspection of moving trucks through data transmissions with roadside
inspection facilities.
The Safety Band also governs numerous systems such as red-light
violation warnings, reduced speed zone warnings, curve speed warnings,
spot weather-impact warnings and other safety-critical applications.
The Safety Band is actively being used today with more than 80
connected vehicle projects in the U.S. alone (54 currently
operational). These sites are using all of the different channels to
address different safety-related issues. A common path forward is
needed to ensure that current deployments can continue without the risk
of investment loss and/or jeopardizing the intended safety and mobility
benefits.
As technology advances, it is clear that interoperability is
central to enabling universal, nationwide and regionwide vehicle-to-
everything (V2X) capability and benefits. Promising technology for
interoperability between DSRC, CV2X, Bluetooth, and other forms of
wireless communications has already emerged, as demonstrated at the
recent ITS America Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C.
The Department does not promote any particular technology over
another, and we encourage the automotive industry, wireless technology
companies, and other innovators to continue developing multiple
technologies that leverage the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum for
transportation safety benefits. DOT must ensure that use of the Safety
Band is protected for traffic safety so that automated light duty
vehicles, trucks, motor coaches, rail, transit, and infrastructure and
traffic devices across all surface modes can work in the safest
possible way. Doing so can help reduce the annual number of 37,000 road
deaths and 2.7 million injuries.
Intelligent Transportation Systems
The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office
(JPO) serves as the Department's multi-modal technology research
program, working toward improving transportation safety, mobility, and
efficiency; and enhancing productivity through the integration of
innovative technologies within our Nation's transportation system. ITS
JPO's efforts address the Department's innovation strategic goal. By
undertaking the research and deployment of innovative technologies, ITS
JPO ensures the Department remains at the forefront of the latest
technological advances.
The ITS JPO is responsible for coordinating the ITS Program and
initiatives among all DOT operating administrations. The research
builds on and leverages the technology and applications developed
across all modes delivering cross-cutting research activities and
technology transfer that support the entire Department. The ITS Program
is directly aligned with DOT's mission of ensuring the Nation has the
safest, most efficient and modern transportation system in the world.
The program categories undertake the research and deployment of
emerging ITS technologies and capabilities to leverage emerging public
and private innovations. The program serves as an innovative hub for
various aspects of American transportation, from automation and data to
new communication systems and cybersecurity.
Movement of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and
Technology
With the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L.
116-6; February 15, 2019), the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology (OST-R) has been moved into the Office of the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy (S-3). This transfer
reinforces alignment of research and technology programs and evidence-
based data collections with priorities of the DOT Strategic Plan
analysis.
OST-R directly addresses the Secretary's innovation priority goals
and indirectly impacts the achievement of the Secretary's safety and
infrastructure goals, by working across all operating administrations
(OAs) to ensure that research investments are directly aligned with
Department priorities. OST-R programs identify synergies, gaps, and
opportunities to apply research cross-modally, which prevents the
duplication of research efforts and waste of Federal resources.
OST-R coordinates, facilitates, and reviews the Department's
research and development programs and activities; coordinates and
develops positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) technology;
maintains PNT policy, coordination, and spectrum management; and
oversees and provides direction to the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program
Office, the University Transportation Centers program, the Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center (Cambridge, MA), and the
Transportation Safety Institute (Oklahoma City, OK).
OST-R's mission is expanded to establish a comprehensive,
Department-wide, research review and approval process. This enhanced
oversight role, beginning in FY 2019, ensures that Operating
Administrations' research portfolios are aligned with Secretarial
priorities, comply with statutory mandates, and make effective and
efficient use of the Department's research funds. OST-R is also DOT's
primary facilitator of T2, or ``technology transfer,'' maximizing the
impact of Federal research investments by accelerating the deployment
of new technologies and practices.
Accelerating Project Delivery
Our nation's economy relies on an infrastructure system that can
deliver people and goods efficiently and on-time. As economic growth
places increasing demands on our infrastructure systems, the growing
state of disrepair poses threat to that growth. In 1933, ground was
broken on the Golden Gate Bridge, which opened just 4 years later.
Since then, layers of Federal bureaucracy and regulatory red-tape have
placed countless obstacles to delivering transformative transportation
projects. For some projects, the environmental review process can take
more than 10 years to complete. We can do better. By improving the
efficiency of the environmental review and permitting processes, we can
accelerate project delivery and achieve better outcomes for communities
and the environment.
One of the Department's strategic goals is to invest in
infrastructure to ensure safety, mobility, and accessibility and to
stimulate economic growth, productivity, and competitiveness for
American workers and businesses. We seek to achieve this goal through
strategies described in our strategic plan, including streamlining the
environmental review process to deliver transportation projects, both
large and small, more quickly and efficiently to provide timely
benefits to users while safeguarding our communities and maintaining a
healthy environment.
Currently, the environmental review process can be complex,
inconsistent, and difficult for project sponsors to navigate.
Protection of the environment and safeguarding of our communities is of
critical importance, and can be achieved more effectively, thereby
resulting in reducing project delays and costs, and realizing benefits
of critical infrastructure projects sooner. We appreciate the tools
that have been provided in past transportation authorizations. The
Department implemented all project delivery rules required by the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act and the FAST
Act, except for a pending final rule implementing the FAST Act pilot to
authorize states with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
assignment to substitute state environmental laws and regulations for
NEPA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This final rule is anticipated to be published this summer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through its Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center, the
Department continues to take other actions that further the MAP-21 and
FAST Act provisions, implement the One Federal Decision requirement
under Executive Order 13807 and associated Memorandum of Understanding,
and otherwise improve the project delivery process through increasing
transparency and accountability, expanding early coordination with
agencies and stakeholders, and increasing information sharing and
coordination among the lead, cooperating, and participating agencies.
The Department is reviewing and updating its policies and guidance with
these objectives in mind, so we make better and more timely decisions,
thereby being able to deliver critical infrastructure with associated
benefits to the public in a more efficient and cost-effective manner,
and while continuing to protect communities and the environment.
Non-Traditional and Emerging Transportation Technology Council
The Department also needs to adapt so state, local, and private
sector abilities to deliver innovative transportation projects are not
harmed by the same challenges facing traditional transportation modes.
At South by Southwest in March, Secretary Chao announced the creation
of the Non-Traditional and Emerging Transportation Technology (NETT)
Council, an internal deliberative body at the Department tasked with
identifying and resolving jurisdictional and regulatory gaps that may
impede the deployment of new technology, such as tunneling, hyperloop,
autonomous vehicles, and other innovations.
Each of the Department's operating administrations has its own
traditional jurisdiction over certain environmental and regulatory
approvals. New technologies may not always fit precisely into the
Department's existing regulatory structure, potentially resulting in a
slower pace of transportation innovation.
Inventors and investors approach the Department to obtain necessary
safety authorizations, permits, and funding and often face uncertainty
about how to coordinate with the Department. The NETT Council will
address these challenges by ensuring that the traditional modal silos
at DOT do not impede the deployment of new technology. Furthermore, it
will give project sponsors a single point of access to discuss plans
and proposals.
The NETT Council represents a major step forward for the Department
in reducing regulatory burdens and paving the way for emerging
technologies in the transportation industry. The Council held its first
formal meeting on March 14, 2019 and is currently working through non-
traditional tunneling and hyperloop projects. The Council is set to
have four meetings this year with additional meetings scheduled when
appropriate.
Build America Bureau
In addition to supporting the development emerging technologies,
the Department continues its work through several financing and grant
programs to pursue its strategic goal to invest in infrastructure to
ensure safety, mobility and accessibility and to stimulate economic
growth.
The Department provides low cost, flexible loans and allocates tax
exempt Private Activity Bonds (PAB) to finance transportation
infrastructure projects through the Build America Bureau (Bureau).
During this Administration, more than $25 billion worth of
transportation projects have been financed using over $12 billion in
loans and PAB allocations nationwide. The Bureau has recently increased
its outreach efforts particularly to project sponsors who are not
familiar with these programs to provide technical assistance and
increase the level and scope of support we can provide early in the
planning process. The Bureau is also focused on diversifying our
portfolio by removing costly barriers to small or rural borrowers,
providing credit subsidy for small and medium sized freight railroads
and broadening the scope of project types and asset classes eligible
for Bureau credit.
Infrastructure For Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grants
The Nationally Significant Freight and Highways Projects program--
which we refer to as the INFRA grants program--is a critical source of
funding for larger scale projects which generate economic, mobility,
and safety benefits. Since 2016, this program has awarded $2.3 billion
to 54 projects across the country, unlocking $11.8 billion in total
investment. It remains a very popular program; the Department received
nearly 200 applications requesting nearly $9.8 billion in funding in
response to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 solicitation. Approximately $856
million is available for award, and the Department plans to notify
Congress of its proposed selections soon.
The INFRA program selection criteria advance critical
Administration goals such as supporting economic vitality, increasing
non-federal leverage, rewarding innovation, and incentivizing
performance and accountability among Federal grant recipients. Each
project is evaluated according to these criteria, and these assessments
support Departmental investment decisions. The FY 2020 budget
proposal--which requested an additional $1 billion in appropriated
funding to supplement the FY 2020 amount authorized in the FAST Act--
reflects the Administration's high opinion of the program's track
record and future potential.
Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grants
Since enactment of the FAST Act, the Department awarded 173
projects with significant local or regional impact under the TIGER/
BUILD program including 133 road, transit, rail, and maritime projects
awarded under this Administration. Combined, these projects represent a
$2.5 billion investment in surface transportation projects across the
country. To ensure the Department appropriately addresses rural
transportation needs, the Department awarded a greater share of TIGER
and BUILD funding in the past two rounds to projects to projects in
rural areas than in urban areas.
The merit-based, competitive nature of the TIGER/BUILD program
allows the Department to award projects that most align with selection
criteria, including safety, economic competitiveness, state of good
repair, environmental sustainability, and quality of life in order to
impact the communities in which they are located. Investments under
this program complement other transportation investment by supporting
projects identified by local communities as those that best reflect
their needs.
Automated Driving System (ADS) Demonstration Grants
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141, March 23,
2018) provided $60,000,000 for an Automated Driving System (ADS)
Demonstration Grants Program to test the safe integration of ADS on our
Nation's roadways. The three goals of the ADS program are:
Safety: Fund projects that demonstrate how challenges to the
safe integration of ADS into the Nation's on-road
transportation system can be addressed.
Data for Safety Analysis and Rulemaking: Ensure significant
data gathering and sharing of project data with the Department
and the public throughout the project.
Collaboration: Create collaborative environments that
harness the collective expertise, ingenuity, and knowledge of
multiple stakeholders.
Each demonstration must focus on the research and development of
automation and ADS technology, include a physical demonstration,
include near-real-time gathering and sharing of relevant and required
data with the Department throughout the project, include user
interfaces are accessible to users with varied abilities, and address
how the demonstration can be scaled to be applicable across the Nation.
The Department issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity on December
21, 2018 with applications closing on March 21, 2019. We expect to
announce awardees in the coming weeks.
Automated Driving Systems
The development and deployment of automated vehicle-related
technology is moving rapidly, and this pace is only expected to
accelerate over the next decade. Historically, human error has been a
factor in 94 percent of fatal crashes, which automated technology could
help address. Automation is expected to bring many other benefits as
well--such as increased independence for people with disabilities and
older Americans, better delivery times, and more efficient movement of
goods--making the whole economy more productive.
On October 4, 2018, the Department released ``Preparing for the
Future of Transportation: AV 3.0.'' AV 3.0 advances DOT's commitment to
supporting the safe integration of automation into the broad multimodal
surface transportation system. It also reiterates approaches to safety
that were established in prior guidance, provides new multi modal
safety guidance, and outlines a process for working with the Department
as this new technology evolves. Fourteen companies have publicly
released Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments to communicate their
approaches to incorporating safety into the design and testing of
automated driving systems.
DOT is partnering with the Department of Labor, the Department of
Commerce, and the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct an
analysis of known and emerging workforce impacts and operational safety
issues for commercial drivers introduced by implementation of
automation technology over time. We held an event on March 20, 2019, to
receive stakeholder input into the development of the study and an
accompanying report to Congress, expected summer 2019. With this study,
our goal is to provide reliable information to policy makers and the
public, to help our Nation prepare so that we all benefit from the
introduction of new technologies.
Despite its promise and the progress that has been made, automated
vehicle technology is still in its early stages of development. The
public has concerns about the safety and security of this new
technology. These concerns must be addressed, because without public
acceptance, we know automated technology will never reach its full
potential. The promise and safety of automated vehicles is only
possible through open public-private participation and active community
engagement.
Safety Applications of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Another front of rapid innovation is in Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS), commonly known as drones. The Department has seen progress in
UAS uses in recent years, particularly for safety applications. UAS are
particularly useful for tasks that are time consuming, dangerous, or
infeasible for people to perform manually. In agriculture, manned
aircraft are used for crop-spraying and remote-sensing. UAS can fly
lower, more precisely, and at a lower cost than manned aircraft,
broadening the potential uses of aircraft in agriculture potentially
reducing farmworker exposure to safety risks.
UAS carry distance, altitude, and frequency advantages over
existing pipeline inspection methods. UAS could offer real-time,
precise, and high-definition data that would be cost-prohibitive to
collect with manned aircraft or on-the-ground inspectors. Certain
companies in the rail industry, are trialing UAS beyond visual line-of-
sight for inspections in select areas. UAS can ease inspection of
traditionally hard-to-reach areas on bridges and may also protect rail
workers from manual track inspection risks.
Thank you for your time today, and I am pleased to answer your
questions.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Batory.
STATEMENT OF HON. RONALD L. BATORY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Batory. Good morning, everyone.
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today
to discuss rail safety and the Federal Railroad
Administration's role in ensuring safety and efficiency in our
Nation's rail system.
The mission of FRA is to enable the safe, reliable, and
efficient movement of people and goods for a strong America now
and in the future.
With Secretary's Elaine L. Chao's leadership, FRA executes
its mission in many ways. FRA enforces critical safety
regulations and partners with industry to develop and promote
regulatory and non-regulatory solutions to safety issues.
FRA also seeks to manage Federal investments in rail
infrastructure in a cost-effective and efficient manner and
pursues research and development to advance innovative
technologies and best practices in railroad operations and
maintenance.
In recent years, we have seen great advances in railroad
safety. Both the train accident rate and the railroad employee
injury rate have declined. Despite these advances, grade
crossing and trespasser accidents remain the leading causes of
all rail-related deaths.
As the demand for both freight and passenger rail
transportation in the United States grows, FRA and the railroad
industry are responsible for ensuring all of our rail system is
the safest and most efficient network this country has ever
seen.
Safety is FRA's top priority. FRA believes safety and
innovation go hand in hand. FRA believes people and technology
play a critical role. FRA addresses safety risks using risk-
based proactive approaches, focusing resources on top safety
issues while continuing innovative research to further
advancements in rail technology and investing in rail
infrastructure.
Last week, FRA announced the selection of $326 million in
grant funds under the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and
Safety Improvement Grant Program with significant investments
directed toward grade crossing, track, signal, and bridge
improvements.
Today, I would like to highlight the top safety initiatives
FRA is prioritizing: PTC, trespasser prevention, grade crossing
safety, and FRA's Close Call Reporting Program, commonly
referred to as C\3\RS.
Now positive train control. Railroad's successful
implementation of PTC remains at the top of our agenda. As I've
said many times and before this hearing, implementation of PTC
in rail operations represents the most fundamental change in
rail safety technology in more than a century. With
approximately 20 months remaining until the statutory deadline,
the department and FRA will continue to provide extensive
technical assistance and perform comprehensive oversight to
both host and tenant railroads and hold each railroad
accountable for the timely implementation of an interoperable
PTC system on all lines subject to the statutory mandate.
Going to trespasser prevention and grade crossing, it is
also a top FRA agenda and in preventing trespassing incidences
on railroad property and increasing grade crossing safety.
Trespassing on railroad property is the leading cause of
all rail-related deaths in the United States. Grade crossing
incidents are the second. Together, over the past 10 years,
they have accounted for more than 95 percent of all rail-
related fatalities.
One of my top objectives is to lead, promote, and
strengthen efforts among all public, private, and government
stakeholders to increase awareness of grade crossing safety
issues and trespass prevention strategies.
Last, confidential close call reporting systems, C\3\RS, is
a voluntary FRA program enabling participating railroads and
their employees to improve safety culture in their
organizations and to proactively identify and address safety
issues before accidents occur.
FRA first piloted the C\3\RS Program in 2007 with the train
yard and engine craft employees at four railroads. Since then,
the program has grown to 15 railroads with over 23 employees
involved from the crafts.
Going forward, FRA is prioritizing the expansion of the
C\3\RS Program along with other industry partnerships designed
to ensure transparent sharing of information among all
stakeholders and enabling the effective identification,
analysis, mitigation, or elimination of risks throughout the
rail operating environment.
In conclusion, FRA has a responsibility to the public, to
the railroad employees, and to the railroads themselves to lead
to the next generation of safety improvements. FRA is committed
to continuing to work with all stakeholders to achieve this new
level of safety.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Batory follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ronald L. Batory, Administrator, Federal
Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today to discuss rail
safety and the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) role in ensuring
the safety and efficiency of our Nation's rail system. The mission of
FRA is to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people
and goods for a strong America, now and in the future. With Secretary
Elaine L. Chao's leadership, FRA executes its mission in many ways. FRA
enforces critical safety regulations and partners with industry to
develop and promote both regulatory and non-regulatory solutions to
safety issues. FRA also seeks to manage Federal investments in rail
infrastructure in a cost-effective and efficient manner, and pursues
research and development to advance innovative technologies and best
practices in railroad operations and maintenance.
In recent years, we have seen great advances in railroad safety--
both the train accident rate and railroad employee injury rate have
declined. Despite these advances, grade crossing and trespasser
accidents remain leading causes of rail-related deaths. And human
factor and track-caused accidents continue to occur. As the demand for
both freight and passenger rail transportation in the U.S. grows, FRA,
and the railroad industry, are responsible for ensuring our rail system
is the safest and most efficient network this country has ever seen.
Safety is FRA's top priority. FRA believes safety and innovation go
hand-in-hand. From implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC)
technology, to proactively addressing safety risks through our
voluntary close call reporting program, to initiatives addressing the
persistent challenges of grade crossing safety and the prevention of
trespassers on railroad property, FRA believes both people and
technology play critical roles.
FRA addresses safety risks using a risk-based, proactive approach,
focusing resources on the top safety issues while continuing innovative
research to further advancements in rail technology and investing in
rail infrastructure. Last week, FRA announced the selection of $326
million in grant funds under the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and
Safety Improvements grant program, with significant investments
directed towards grade crossing, track, signal, and bridge
improvements.
Today, I would like to highlight the top safety issues FRA is
prioritizing - PTC, trespassing prevention, grade crossing safety, and
FRA's Close Call Reporting Program (commonly referred to as C\3\RS).
Positive Train Control
Railroads' successful implementation of PTC remains at the top of
our agenda. As I've said before, implementation of PTC in rail
operations represents the most fundamental change in rail safety
technology in a century. PTC uses industry-designed emerging
technologies to monitor speed and automatically stop trains to prevent
specific human-error accidents. With the Secretary's leadership, we
have prioritized grant programs for PTC and helped railroads make
significant progress towards full PTC implementation on the required
main lines. As of March 31, 2019, PTC systems were in operation on over
48,000 of the nearly 58,000 route miles subject to the statutory
mandate--with the majority of implementation occurring in the last two
years. All 41 railroads subject to the statutory mandate complied with
the December 31, 2018, requirements prescribed under the PTC
Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015. Specifically, four host
railroads fully implemented FRA-certified and interoperable PTC systems
on their required mainlines by December 31, 2018, and the other 37
railroads sufficiently demonstrated they met, and in many cases
exceeded, the six statutory criteria necessary to qualify for an
alternative schedule and sequence to reach full implementation by
December 31, 2020.
With approximately 20 months remaining until the statutory
deadline, the Department and FRA will continue to provide extensive
technical assistance and perform comprehensive oversight, to both host
and tenant railroads, and hold each railroad accountable for the timely
implementation of an interoperable PTC system on all lines subject to
the statutory mandate. Following the series of PTC symposia held
throughout 2018, FRA has already held two of six collaboration sessions
planned in 2019-2020. These sessions bring together stakeholders to
share best practices and jointly address key challenges. FRA PTC field
staff continue to prioritize technical assistance based on each of the
37 host railroads' risks to full implementation, with a specific focus
on testing, revenue service demonstration and interoperability. In
support of our FRA PTC field staff, and to support railroads
interoperability challenges, this summer FRA plans to meet with each of
the 101 Class II and III tenant railroads required to implement PTC by
their host railroad to offer technical assistance with respect to PTC
system implementation.
Trespassing Prevention and Grade Crossing
Also at the top of FRA's agenda is the prevention of trespassing
incidents on railroad property and increasing grade crossing safety.
Trespassing on railroad property is the leading cause of all rail-
related deaths in the United States. Grade crossing incidents are the
second. Together, over the past 10 years, they have accounted for more
than 95 percent of all rail-related fatalities. One of my top
objectives this year is to lead, promote, and strengthen efforts among
all public, private, and government stakeholders to increase awareness
of grade crossing safety issues and trespasser prevention strategies.
Trespassing Prevention
Last year, at Congress's direction, FRA developed a national
strategy to prevent trespassing incidents. FRA's strategy recognizes
that trespassing is a complex problem and solutions will necessarily
differ based on localized circumstances. FRA identified the top 10 U.S.
counties with the most railroad trespasser casualties in recent years.
FRA's strategy focuses on four strategic areas: (1) data gathering
and analysis; (2) community site visits; (3) funding; and (4)
partnerships with affected stakeholders. Success of our national
strategy, however, depends on meaningful input and participation by all
stakeholders--including State and local governments, railroads, labor
organizations, and the public--as well as the availability of funding.
FRA intends to hold trespasser prevention summits in each of the
top 10 counties identified. The summits will include local community
leaders, law enforcement, the railroads operating in and through the
county, the public, and FRA, with the goal of identifying trespassing
hotspots within the community, developing local improvement
recommendations for trespass mitigation and fatality prevention,
assisting with trespasser prevention outreach campaigns, and ensuring
all stakeholders are equipped with the necessary information on the
availability and process for applying for various forms of FRA grants
and other funding.
Improving Grade Crossing Safety
Highway-rail grade crossing incidents are the second leading cause
of rail-related deaths, accounting for approximately 30 percent of all
rail-related fatalities and are the top cause of all railroad
accidents. Increasing grade crossing safety will not only reduce the
number of fatalities, but it will also improve the safety and
efficiency of the rail transportation network. FRA expects the risk of
highway-rail grade crossing incidents to grow as both train and highway
traffic increases during the next decade.
In October of last year, the Department hosted the first Highway-
Rail Grade Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention Summit. The event
brought together safety advocates, railroads, labor organizations, law
enforcement, and both Canadian and U.S. transportation officials to
exchange ideas and begin developing best practices on implementing a
coordinated national response to the growing problem of trespassing
incidents on railroad property and to increase grade crossing safety.
At the conclusion of the Summit, FRA committed to hosting a series of
listening sessions to identify technology to improve the functioning of
grade crossing warning systems and safety, as well as barriers to
implementation.
This past spring, FRA hosted those listening sessions. We brought
together railroads, labor organizations, signal equipment
manufacturers, trade and advocacy groups, technology companies, and
representatives from federal, state, and local governments to discuss
ways of improving grade crossing safety through technology.
Participants discussed demonstrated and emerging technologies that
could be used to improve grade crossing safety and ideas for needed
regulatory changes to help field new grade crossing technology. Ideas
included both highly complex technological improvements and lower tech
improvements. FRA is using all the information and ideas gathered
through this symposium to develop a three-year plan to improve grade
crossing safety. We will hold a follow-up symposium this fall to
continue the dialogue with all stakeholders. We will continue to
collaborate with our modal partners including the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to provide ongoing
assistance to all stakeholders, and develop and promote new tools and
resources to support grade crossing safety.
Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C\3\RS)
C\3\RS is a voluntary FRA program enabling participating railroads'
and their employees to improve the safety culture of their
organizations and to proactively identify and address safety issues
before accidents occur. For properly reported and qualifying close
calls, employees are protected from company discipline, and both
employees and railroads are protected from FRA enforcement. Root cause
analysis is conducted on individual close call events, and
collectively, safety hazards are identified. Railroads are then
empowered to develop solutions to proactively mitigate or eliminate the
identified hazards, thus avoiding the costs and often devastating
consequences of an accident or incident.
FRA first piloted the C\3\RS program in 2007 with the train, yard,
and engine craft employees of 4 railroads. Since then, the program has
grown to 15 railroads with over 23,000 employees involved from all
crafts.
On participating railroads, several tangible safety improvements
have resulted from the C\3\RS program thus far. Most notably,
derailments caused by human factors are down 41 percent and derailments
caused by run-through switches are down 50 percent. The program has
also led to more qualitative benefits such as improved collaboration
between labor and management on safety improvements, and in several
instances, the discovery of multiple factors playing a role in a single
event, leading to more systemic corrective actions. This level of
collaboration and data analysis is often stifled in the traditional
environment of railroad discipline.
FRA is actively working to increase railroad and employee
participation in the program and to identify alternative funding
sources for the program. Specifically, FRA is evaluating ways to allow
industry to provide funding for the program and how to potentially
leverage machine learning technology to effectively automate the
processing of close call reports in the future.
Going forward, FRA is prioritizing the expansion of the C\3\RS
program, along with other industry partnerships designed to ensure a
transparent sharing of information among all stakeholders and enabling
the effective identification, analysis, and mitigation or elimination
of risks throughout the rail operating environment.
Conclusion
FRA has a responsibility to the public, to railroad employees, and
to railroads themselves to lead industry to the next generation of
safety improvements. FRA is committed to continuing to work with all
stakeholders to achieve this new level of safety.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Batory.
Mr. Martinez.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND MARTINEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDEDRAL
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Martinez. Good morning.
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of
the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about
FMCSA's progress implementing the FAST Act. It's honor to
testify before the Committee today.
As you know, FMCSA's primary focus is to improve safety
among large trucks and buses on our Nation's roadways. Today,
I'd like to update you on several key areas of focus for the
agency.
First, we're moving forward on refining how we use motor
carrier data. The National Academy of Sciences conducted the
Correlations Study of the Compliance Safety Accountability
Program and its Safety Management System and made
recommendations to us in its July 2017 report.
We have accepted those recommendations and published our
corrective action plan and we're continuing other efforts to
complete our actions in this area.
How crashes are used in the Safety Management System has
been a longstanding concern of drivers and motor carriers. So
FMCSA launched a Crash Preventability Demonstration Program in
July 2017 to review certain crash scenarios to determine if the
driver could have prevented the crash.
To date, more than 5,300 preventability determinations have
been made on eligible crashes and about 93 percent of them were
found to be not preventable. This is good for the carrier, for
the driver, and also for the FMCSA because we've eliminated bad
data.
Secretary Chao recently announced that we can continue the
program beyond its original July 2019 ending date. FMCSA will
publish a Federal Register Notice explaining changes to the
program.
Mr. Chairman, we're also implementing the Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse, which identifies drivers who have committed
either drug or alcohol violations, making them ineligible to
operate commercial motor vehicles until they complete the
required return to duty process. In January 2020, the
clearinghouse will begin collecting positive test results and
refusals.
The FMCSA's also finalizing implementation of the
Electronic Logging Device or ELDs mandate in accordance with
the FAST Act requirements. The rule requires most drivers to
use ELDs to record information about their hours of service.
Its first compliance date was December 18 of 2017. The rule's
full enforcement began on April 1st of 2018. The last
implementation deadline for companies using grandfathered
automatic onboard recording devices or AOBRDs is December of
this year.
Of the nearly 300,000 driver inspections that have been
conducted since April 1st of 2018, less than 1 percent of
drivers inspected have been cited for failing to have an ELD or
a grandfathered AOBRD when they were required to have one.
Additionally, hours of service violations have decreased by
52 percent over the last year. The ELD's implementation has
also highlighted some areas of current hours of service
regulations that may need adjustment or improvement.
Last year, the FMCSA requested public comments on 4 hours
of service areas. We received more than 5,200 public comments
during the comment period. Also last year, we conducted five
public listening sessions with our stakeholders concerning
potential changes to the areas discussed in the notice.
Secretary Chao recently announced that the agency is moving
forward with the proposed rule on hours of service changes.
This proposed rule is currently under final stages of review.
We look forward to receiving comments on our proposal and
then moving forward to make the needed regulatory changes.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, you asked FMCSA to suggest ways to
expand on the FAST Act's achievements. A recommendation our
agency proposes is to conduct an updated large crash causation
study. Here's why.
Multiple studies and data indicate most large truck-
involved crashes are the result of driver behaviors and errors.
It further indicates that other motorists, not professional
truck drivers, are more likely to be at fault.
Since the last truck crash causation study conducted by the
FMCSA and NHTSA was between 2001 and 2003, changes in
technology have occurred, vehicle safety and more have occurred
affecting driver performance.
A new study will help the FMCSA identify factors that may
contribute to the growth in fatal large truck crashes.
Analyzing these factors will drive new initiatives to reduce
crashes on our Nation's roadways.
Mr. Chairman, the public expects a safe and efficient
transportation system. With the continued support of this
committee, the FMCSA will continue sharing this solemn
commitment to improve safety for all road users.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Raymond Martinez, Administrator, Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) work to improve motor carrier,
driver, and commercial vehicle safety as we continue implementing the
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act, PL 114-94). It
is an honor to testify today before the Committee.
As you know, the primary mission of FMCSA is to reduce crashes,
injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses.
FMCSA was established as a separate administration within the U.S.
Department of Transportation on January 1, 2000, pursuant to the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. For more than 19 years, the
1,100 men and women of FMCSA have worked hard to ensure that freight
and people move safely by providing oversight of motor carriers,
commercial motor vehicles, and commercial drivers in the United States.
We regulate more than half a million interstate motor carriers,
including truck and motorcoach companies, household goods carriers,
hazardous materials carriers and nearly 4.7 million active holders of
commercial drivers' licenses.
FMCSA has worked diligently to implement rulemakings and make
reports available to Congress, studies, and working groups as directed
by the FAST Act as well as continue our ongoing safety and regulatory
initiatives.
FMCSA is proceeding in the following ways.
One area, our Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, provides
grant funding to support 13,000 State law enforcement partners who
conduct 3.5 million commercial motor vehicle inspections each year. We
thank Congress for the FAST Act changes that streamlined our grant
programs and provided more flexibilities with the critical resources
our State enforcement partners and other grantees use to carry out
their important safety work.
We are also pleased to update you on our progress to refine how we
use our motor carrier data. Section 5221 of the FAST Act required the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct the Correlation Study of the
Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program and its Safety
Measurement System (SMS).
The Academy published its report in June 2017, including
recommendations to improve FMCSA's analysis and the data that feeds our
safety systems and programs. We accepted the Academy's recommendations
and published our corrective action plan. In addition, we have gathered
public input through a public meeting and established a standing
committee with the National Academy to continue receiving their input
and advice as we complete our actions.
How crashes are used in SMS has been a longstanding concern of
drivers and motor carriers. To address those concerns, FMCSA launched a
Crash Preventability Demonstration Program in July 2017 to review
certain crashes scenarios to determine if the driver could have
prevented the crash.
While we are not currently removing ``not preventable'' crash
determinations from SMS, the determination is noted on the carrier's
list of crashes on SMS and the motor carrier is provided with an
alternative SMS measure and percentile without the ``Not Preventable''
crash or crashes.
To date, more than 5,300 preventability determinations have been
made on eligible crashes--and about 93 percent of them were found to be
``Not Preventable.'' While the current program is slated to run through
July 2019, Secretary Elaine Chao recently indicated that we will be
continuing the program and adding an additional group of crashes for
consideration. FMCSA will be publishing a Federal Register notice
explaining changes to the program and soliciting input from
stakeholders.
Mr. Chairman, ensuring safe commercial motor vehicle operation
means making sure drivers--both new drivers and experienced ones--are
drug and alcohol free. The Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse will move us
closer to that goal.
As you know, in 2012, Congress directed the Secretary of
Transportation to establish a national Clearinghouse containing
commercial driver license holders' violations of FMCSA's drug and
alcohol testing program as directed by Section 32402 of the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The final rule
published in December 2016 established a January 2020 compliance date
for the rule.
The Clearinghouse improves safety by identifying drivers who have
committed either drug or alcohol violations that would make them
ineligible to operate commercial motor vehicles, until they complete
the required return-to-duty process.
In January 2020, the Clearinghouse will begin collecting positive
test results and refusals. Once the Clearinghouse has three years of
data, employers will only have to check the Clearinghouse for pre-
employment and annual reviews. We have a dedicated website for those
who want to learn more about the Clearinghouse and register to receive
updates.
Along the same lines of making sure commercial vehicle drivers are
operating safely, FMCSA is completing regulations to mandate Electronic
Logging Devices (ELDs) to address Hours-of-Service (HOS) compliance, in
accordance with FAST Act requirements.
The Congressionally-mandated ELD rule, published in December 2015,
requires most drivers previously using paper logs to use ELDs to record
information about their HOS. The final rule's first compliance date was
December 18, 2017, and full enforcement of the ELD rule began on April
1, 2018.
Of the nearly 300,000 driver inspections that have been conducted
since April 1, 2018, less than one percent of drivers inspected have
been cited for failing to have an ELD or grandfathered Automatic On-
Board Recording Device (AOBRD) when required. Additionally, HOS
violations have decreased by 52 percent over the last year.
Since 2018, we have conducted numerous outreach events regarding
ELD requirements around the country. The last implementation deadline
for companies using grandfathered AOBRDs is December 16, 2019.
Mr. Chairman, the ELDs have supplied us with more data, and some of
that data highlighted areas of the current Hours-of-Service regulations
that we may need to adjust or improve.
Last year, FMCSA requested public comments on (1) the short-haul
HOS limit; (2) the HOS exception for adverse driving conditions; (3)
the 30-minute rest break provision; and (4) the rule requiring drivers
to spend eight consecutive hours in a sleeper berth. In response, we
received more than 5,200 public comments during the comment period.
Also last year, we conducted five public listening sessions around the
Nation concerning potential changes to the four HOS areas discussed in
the notice.
As you may know, Secretary Chao announced recently that the Agency
is moving forward with a proposed rule on HOS changes. Currently, this
proposed rule is under review at the Office of Management and Budget.
Please know that we want to provide greater flexibility for drivers
while maintaining the highest degree of safety as we move forward with
this work. We look forward to receiving comments on our proposal and
then moving forward quickly to make the needed regulatory changes.
Collaborating with industry partners and safety stakeholders who
represent the broad array of road users--including cars, trucks, buses,
pedestrians, and cyclists--we amplify the message that we all can exist
on our Nation's roadways. We recently launched a new series of videos,
online content, and public safety announcements, all aimed at raising
awareness for motorists operating around large trucks and buses. FMCSA
is excited about this opportunity to work with our partners and
stakeholders about the ways we can all be safer road users.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, you asked FMCSA to suggest ways to expand
upon the FAST Act's achievements. We have a suggestion for your
consideration that would further our mission and contribute to safer
drivers and roadways.
We know that the trucking industry must take proactive steps to
continually improve its safety record. A suggested step would include
studying the causes of truck-involved crashes in order to take
appropriate countermeasures to reduce such crashes.
According to multiple studies, data, and other indicators, most
large truck-involved crashes are the result of driver behaviors and
errors. The data further indicates that other motorists--not
professional truck drivers--are more likely to be at fault.
FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) conducted the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) in 2001
to 2003. The Congressionally-mandated study examined the reasons for
serious crashes involving large trucks (trucks with a gross vehicle
weight rating over 10,000 pounds).
In the more than 15 years since the original study, many changes in
technology, vehicle safety, driver behavior, and roadway design have
occurred that affect driver performance.
Since the study ended in 2003, fatal crashes involving large trucks
decreased until 2009 when they hit their lowest point in recent years
(2,893 fatal crashes). Since 2009, fatal crashes involving large trucks
have steadily increased to 4,237 fatal crashes in 2017, a 46.5 percent
increase when compared to 2009. From 2016 to 2017, the number of large
trucks involved in fatal crashes increased 10 percent, from 4,251 to
4,657.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that it is time for another causation
study. A new LTCCS can help FMCSA identify factors that are
contributing to the growth in fatal large truck crashes, and in both
injury and property damage only (PDO) crashes. Analyzing these factors
will drive new initiatives to reduce crashes on our Nation's roadways.
Mr. Chairman, the public expects a safe, efficient, and reliable
transportation system. With your support, FMCSA employees--working with
our partners and stakeholders--will continue to share this solemn
commitment to preserving that reliable transportation system, as well
as maintaining safety for all road users.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Martinez.
Ms. King.
STATEMENT OF HEIDI KING, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. King. Thank you very much for having myself and my
colleagues here to testify this morning, Chairman Wicker and
Ranking Member Cantwell. Good morning.
Since I testified before this committee last year, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, has
advanced numerous initiatives to improve safety.
As you know, in each of recent years, about 37,000 or more
lives have been lost needlessly in motor vehicle crashes across
the United States. That is more than a statistic. For you and
for me, that is friends, that is neighbors, that is colleagues,
those are constituents, and those are people we care a great
deal about.
At NHTSA, we all continue to employ risk management best
practices to best identify, assess, mitigate and continuously
improve our management of roadway safety risks.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with an update
on NHTSA's work to enhance motor vehicle safety and roadway
safety for all Americans.
Last year, NHTSA challenged the Nation to save lives by
addressing the growing risk of drug-impaired driving. The
agency launched the campaign ``If You Feel Different, You Drive
Different,'' a public education campaign and an enforcement
campaign ``Drive High, Get a DUI.''
I would like to commend this committee for its ongoing
support of high-visibility enforcement campaigns and I look
forward to our continued collaboration on these.
NHTSA has also awarded grant funds to states to support
training for law enforcement officers to recognize drivers who
are impaired by drugs, including opioids and marijuana. This is
just one example of NHTSA's critical partnerships with the law
enforcement community.
For more than 30 years, NHTSA has supported the development
of comprehensive emergency medical services or EMS. I feel
fortunate to have had the blessing earlier in my career to
serve as a 9-1-1 dispatcher and also as an emergency medical
technician, driving an ambulance and providing patient care,
and I know how important these life-saving services are in our
neighborhoods and in our communities.
In January of this year, NHTSA, after years of work,
together with stakeholders, published Agenda 2050 to provide
national leadership in creating a more people-centered EMS
system vision for the future.
NHTSA also works closely with the Department of Commerce on
grants to support state, local, and tribal efforts in
delivering optimal and stronger 9-1-1 services, including
migration to next generation 9-1-1 services. The agencies
together expect to award more than $100 million in next
generation 9-1-1 grant funding soon.
NHTSA's regulatory priorities for 2019 include several
rulemakings to increase safety and reduce economic burden in
our communities. NHTSA intends to remove existing regulatory
barriers that prevent vehicles from adopting innovative safety
features, including finalizing a rule to allow for adaptive
beam headlamps.
NHTSA also intends to move forward with a rulemaking on
rear seatbelt warning systems to increase seatbelt usage,
including rear seat passengers, to improve crash protection of
those backseat occupants.
NHTSA plans to standardize electronic disclosure of
odometer information which may help state motor vehicle
departments facilitate a completely paperless transaction for
vehicle registration.
One of NHTSA's most important regulations addressing safety
is the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule or the
SAFE Rule. Because newer cars are safer than older cars, NHTSA
and EPA together are carefully studying whether costly
standards discourage consumers from replacing their older car
with a newer car that is safer, cleaner, and more fuel-
efficient.
The proposed rule was published last year and the agencies
are working together to issue a final rule soon.
NHTSA is committed to ensuring safety while encouraging
innovation. We will continue working with other Federal
agencies to support the United States global leadership in the
safe testing, validation, and deployment of automated vehicles
and other life-saving technologies.
Thank you for your time today. I am pleased to answer your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. King follows:]
Prepared Statement of Heidi King, Deputy Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation
Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. Since I
testified before this Committee last year, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) has advanced numerous initiatives to
improve safety.
In recent years, more than 37 thousand lives were lost needlessly
in motor vehicle crashes across the Nation each year. That is more than
a statistic: because of these crashes, we have each lost friends,
neighbors, and family.
At NHTSA, we continue to employ risk management best practices to
identify, assess, mitigate, and continuously improve our collective
management of roadway safety risks. I appreciate the opportunity to
provide you with an update on the work of NHTSA to enhance motor
vehicle and roadway safety for all Americans.
Drug-Impaired Driving
Last year, NHTSA challenged the Nation to save lives by addressing
the growing risks of drug-impaired driving. The agency launched the
``If You Feel Different, You Drive Different'' public education
campaign and an enforcement campaign, ``Drive High, Get a DUI.'' I
would like to commend this Committee for its support of the High
Visibility Traffic Safety Enforcement program and look forward to our
continued collaboration to raise awareness of important safety
campaigns.
NHTSA has also awarded grant funds to the states to support
training of additional Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) and Advanced
Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) traffic safety officers.
This will increase the number of officers trained to recognize drivers
who are impaired by drugs, including opioids and marijuana.
Emergency Medical Services and Law Enforcement
NHTSA has supported the development of comprehensive Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) systems for more than 40 years. I feel fortunate
to have served earlier in my career as a 9-1-1 dispatcher, an Emergency
Medical Technician, and as a law enforcement officer, and I know how
important these services are to the safety and well-being of our
communities.
In January 2019, NHTSA's Office of EMS published Agenda 2050 to
help individuals, EMS leaders, and communities create a more people-
centered EMS system. It is the product of a collaborative and inclusive
two-year effort to create a bold plan for the Nation's EMS system over
the next several decades.
Additionally, NHTSA has been working closely with the Department of
Commerce to advance grants that would support state, local, and tribal
efforts to deliver optimal 9-1-1 services, including migration to
adoption and operation of Next Generation 9-1-1 services. The agencies
expect to award more than $100 million in grant funding for Next
Generation 9-1-1 in the near future.
Like EMS, NHTSA's partnership with law enforcement is critical to
our safety agenda. NHTSA will continue to engage with law enforcement
officers, prosecutors, and judges. These partnerships are crucial to
the success of the agency's efforts to encourage safe traffic
behaviors.
Safety Rules
NHTSA's regulatory priorities for 2019 include several rulemakings
and other actions to increase safety and reduce economic burden. NHTSA
will explore removing existing regulatory barriers that prevent
vehicles from adopting innovative safety features, including plans to
finalize a rule that will allow for adaptive driving beam headlamps.
The agency also intends to consider a rulemaking on rear seat belt
warning systems to increase seat belt usage and potentially improve
crash protection of back seat occupants. NHTSA plans to consider
standardizing the electronic disclosure of odometer information, which
might provide an opportunity for state Motor Vehicle Departments to
facilitate completely paperless transactions for vehicle registrations.
One of NHTSA's most important regulations addressing safety is the
Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicles Rule, or SAFE Vehicles Rule.
Because newer cars are safer than older cars, NHTSA and EPA are
carefully studying whether costly standards discourage consumers from
replacing their older car with a new car that is safer, cleaner, and
more fuel efficient. The proposed rule was published last year and the
agencies are working together toward issuing a final rule soon.
Automated Vehicles/ADAS
NHTSA is committed to ensuring safety while encouraging advances in
innovation. NHTSA, together with other Federal agencies, will continue
undertaking activities that support and maintain the United States'
global leadership in the safe deployment of automated vehicles, with a
focus on collaboration, uniformity, and interoperability to accelerate
testing, validation and deployment of new life-saving technologies.
Thank you for your time today, and I am pleased to answer your
questions.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, and thank you to all of the
witnesses for staying within the time limit.
We are delighted to begin our questions. Let me just begin
with Mr. Batory.
It has been a decade of litigation that seems to be over.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied an appeal from the
Association of American Railroads to review a lower court
ruling addressing whether Amtrak and FRA may jointly develop
on-time performance metrics and standards for trains. Now that
the litigation is over, Amtrak and FRA may issue metrics.
What can we expect to see with regard to the new metrics on
on-time performance?
Mr. Batory. Thank you for that, Senator Wicker. You know, I
can sit here before all of you and tell you that during
Amtrak's history, I've lived the entire history myself in the
railroad industry and have been highly involved in the
dispatching of passenger and freight trains.
With that said, what evolved out of Part B of the Rail
Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) was standards and metrics. FRA
developed with Amtrak nearly a decade ago some standards and
metrics. We are now engaging with a small commission with
outside support to evaluate the legitimacy and the accuracy of
those standards and metrics.
The standards and metrics come easy. It's more about the
schedule, how you measure the schedule, and how you delineate
what contributes to the delay, and I'm pleased to share with
you that that commission started two days ago and it was very
productive. It's chaperoned with our Policy and Development
Section as well as our Legal Section and I'll share this piece
of trivia that is factual.
For the first four months, Amtrak performance nationwide
was 77.9 percent. 87.9 percent of that was on the Northeast
Corridor, the balance of it was on freight railroads, whether
it be state support or long distance, and you couldn't have
made this up, but our 77.9 percent in the rail transport sector
of passenger was identical to what the airlines reported for
the first four months of their on-time performance which was
77.9 percent.
Senator Wicker. What did you mean by how you measure?
Mr. Batory. What I mean by how you measure is, first of
all, capacity and demand. Are the schedules accurate? What we
know is there are some schedules out there that go back to 1960
and the world's changed since 1960.
In one instance, the train operates from a different
station. There's no longer any double track. There's no longer
any automatic train control, and they no longer operate at 90-
mile-an-hour, but they still have a five-hour-and-30-minute
schedule.
That's the type of due diligence that's required and to
just take what somebody developed 10 years ago I think would be
a flawed mistake and so as a result, we are doing our due
diligence to review what our predecessors came up with 10 years
ago and come up with a product that the consumer can rely on.
Senator Wicker. Now you began a new process 2 days ago.
Mr. Batory. Two days ago.
Senator Wicker. And when do you think we'll see the final
outcome?
Mr. Batory. Timeline at this juncture should be somewhere
in, say, the second quarter, end of second quarter of next
year. We are scheduling a two or three day meeting with Amtrak
to understand the Amtrak position and the data that supports
that position.
We then intend to address each of the host railroad
carriers, from the best-performing carrier to the worst-
performing carrier, to learn what the issues are from a freight
perspective. With those sessions then completed, we'll reaffirm
or validate, if you will, the train schedules that Amtrak and
the host railroads have come up with.
Once those schedules have been validated between Amtrak and
the host railroads, then it's our intention to identify how we
are going to measure? We can't keep using human measurements,
human-invoked measurements. We start to have to look at
technology, GPS technology, and we're going to engage that
process so we have good measurement tools and once we have good
measurement tools, we'll then get into the appropriate
standards and metrics and then once we have that, what we need
to focus on most of all is the consumer on-time performance.
With that consumer on-time performance, that's what I was
referring to yesterday when Amtrak reported their 4 months at
77.9. The airline industry was also at 77.9.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Szabat, I'd like to start with you about the freight
issue that I mentioned in my opening comments. This is
obviously something important to the Pacific Northwest but it's
also important to the Nation because we ship about 18 billion
tons of freight worth over $19 trillion and by 2035, the amount
of freight moving through our Nation is expected to increase to
27 percent, so more than what it is today.
So the needs for our infrastructure are great and obviously
with INFRA and the Freight Act, we've been able to track
investment to where job creation actually is.
So my understanding is the Department of Transportation
received 234 eligible applications. That was about, I think,
$12 billion in requests but only 26 projects were selected.
So given the high demand, do you believe that we should be
working toward higher levels of funds? Do you have any kind of
economic analysis of what our economic return would be if we
did make that investment?
Mr. Szabat. Senator, thank you for raising this important
issue.
I know the department agrees with you on the importance of
freight in our transportation network. I think from our
perspective, a couple of the major accomplishments that
occurred with the passage of the FAST Act was, first off, we
codified the changes that happened starting in 2009 with the
Discretionary Grant Programs, especially grant programs now
that we can direct toward freight-type of projects.
And, second, with the requirement that we develop a
national multimodal freight network and a national freight
strategic plan, we helped break through the modal silos that
are established sometimes by process and sometimes by statute.
These were all excellent accomplishments of the FAST Act
and we look forward to seeing that continue in the
reauthorization.
You mentioned, you know, 234 projects applied, 26 projects
have been approved. This will always be a function of what we
can afford and how we rank our priorities against our other
transportation projects. That's a conversation I know we in the
department are having and will continue to have with you and
the other members of the Committee.
Senator Cantwell. I believe that it's a job creation
activity. When you make these investments, you create more
jobs. So I would like to work with the department to make sure
that we have an available number about what we would anticipate
the job creation would be if we actually funded the freight
requests or at least at a higher level than what we're
currently doing.
Administrator Batory, increasing safety needs at grade
crossings is the same issue. Obviously as we compete in a
global economy and move more product to Asian markets and all
over, we have at-grade crossings.
I'm not sure. Should we be doing something more
specifically to target resources at-grade crossings? I feel
like every community in my state has a request for help with an
at-grade crossing.
Mr. Batory. Excellent question, Senator, and I totally
agree with you.
Let me just address it from two perspectives for you. As
far as grade crossing safety, the communities and the industry
have worked very well in achieving the desired results that we
are able to report today.
First, it's kind of interesting is that over nearly the
last three decades motor vehicle registration in this country
has increased by 40 percent, so we got more cars and trucks on
the road. We've reduced the amount of grade crossings
cooperatively either through underpasses, overpasses, or
closing the crossings themselves with the communities and
government and the railroad industry involved, 27 percent.
The number of train-motor vehicle accidents have decreased
72 percent over that time. Now, unfortunately, even though we
had a significant decrease, the number of fatalities have
decreased by 80 percent, there have been 125 as of last year,
it's 125 too many, but we need to put together a program and
it's currently underway. It started off on October 31 of last
year at DOT where we brought all the agencies together that are
involved with grade crossings, led by FRA, and we had the
Summit which led into listening sessions and now we're going
into Symposiums to lay out the three-to-five-year plan to
address this issue.
I do believe, though, the U.S. Government has spent over $4
billion of highway money going to the states, through Section
130, and we really need to look at that 130 Section and
identify whether or not there are ways in which to entice
communities and industry to strengthen the protection at grade
crossings using more technology.
Basically what we have out there is nothing more than what
we've had over the last 30 years.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I'm certainly for improving it and
will look forward to working with you on that and I know my
time has expired, but I wanted to let Mr. Batory answer that
question.
But for Ms. King, having fuel efficiency and pollutants
offset are very important goals. So I look forward to
continuing to hear from you about what we can do to save Gap A.
Thank you.
Senator Wicker. Technology rather than the traditional
methods, what do you mean by that?
Mr. Batory. It's an open field and we have great
opportunity in our industry to exploit avenues of technology to
reduce risk and enhance safety and with that, it resides both
in the transportation department of railroads, it resides in
the mechanical departments of railroads, and engineering
departments of railroads, and collectively we can be a
stronger, safer industry. Even though we think we're safe
today, we can be safer tomorrow.
I'll give a couple of examples. Autonomous track inspection
is one, autonomous freight car inspection. The type of
technology that we're now bringing onboard in the cab of
locomotives that enhances the knowledge of the operator to
strengthen his skill sets as a result of what's going on as far
as the train dynamics within his consist. There's a lot of good
opportunity out there.
Grade crossing protection, for instance, visualize this.
There are some exceptions because of how we developed the
technology but it's not uniform yet but that grade crossing
protection that you approach every day in your community and
you look at the gates and the flashers and what controls it,
it's basically a dummy apparatus that is self-sustaining to
itself and it has the potential to be expanded where you can
have self-diagnostics 7X24X365 communicating to the railroad,
communicating maybe perhaps in some instances when it's
activated or when it's failed to the community.
There are a lot of good things that can emerge from this.
So what we've asked the railroads to do is promote as much as
they can in the way of need for waivers or pilot projects, not
to rush into writing regs but developing facts and then
learning from those facts as far as how we can strengthen this
industry and then perhaps go to performance-based rulemaking.
It opens up all kinds of avenues of safety and efficiency
for the rail transport industry and the communities in this
country that relies on it.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
Committee indulging us on elaborating there.
I now recognize Senator Fischer who is Chair of the
Transportation and Safety Subcommittee.
Senator Fischer.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Martinez, one of the primary issues that I've
heard about from drivers and carriers relating to trucking
regulations is the need for more flexible hours of service
requirements.
As you noted in your testimony, FMCSA is in the process of
completing a notice of proposed rulemaking related to the hours
of service.
When do you expect to submit that NPRM for public comment?
Mr. Martinez. Thank you for that question, Senator. This
has been an interesting process. We had gone out with an ANPRM
to our stakeholders and received, as I said, over 5,200
substantive comments that really informed the agency.
We, I believe, are in the final stages. As you know, it's a
process, iterative, with the Office of Management and Budget,
but I really do believe that we are in the very final stages of
that process and I'm hopeful that it will be in short order. I
hesitate to put a date certain on it, but I am----
Senator Fischer. Short order would be good.
Mr. Martinez. Yes.
Senator Fischer. I met yesterday with our state director of
agriculture and in that meeting, we had stakeholders from the
ag industry all across Nebraska represented. We talked about
the need for flexible hours of service, especially for
livestock haulers when they have live and perishable product,
the issues that they face there.
Will the hours of service from the NPRM provide flexibility
for our livestock haulers?
Mr. Martinez. First of all, again this has been a
tremendous process because we have been fully engaged with the
associations representing not just livestock but agriculture as
a whole and also our sister department at the Department of
Agriculture to learn more about what the needs are of the
agriculture and the livestock community.
So the hours of service, I believe, changes will apply
across the board, but we are also have prepared an advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking, an ANPRM, that would seek public
comment on the definition of agricultural commodity which will
inform us further on this area.
Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you. I would hope that you will
continue to be open with me and work with me when we can
address that flexibility issue that I think is desperately
needed.
Also, as you know, the FAST Act requires the FMCSA to
remove certain compliance, safety, and accountability program
information from the CSA site until the agency has completed a
review of that program.
As part of the review, the FMCSA must correct any
deficiencies in that CSA Program identified by the National
Academy of Sciences before those scores can be made public
again.
Can you provide an update on the agency's work to review
the CSA scores?
Mr. Martinez. Certainly. We have been actively engaged with
the National Academy of Sciences. We have accepted their
recommendations. We have put forward our corrective action
plan.
One of the areas, of course, that we've looked at is they
had put forward the concept of using an item response theory
and seeing whether that could apply to the trucking industry.
That is still a work in progress but it shows signs of better
informing the agency in how we can prioritize because that's
really what it was about.
Until that time, the scores should not be public but also
we have worked with, as I said in my opening statement, a crash
preventability program which essentially deals with crashes
that the driver and the carrier had no ability to prevent and
we now are able to eliminate those if it's brought to our
attention.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
Administrator King, I have just a few seconds left, but
I've been very concerned about drug-impaired driving and what
we are seeing there. Nebraska State Patrol has arrested more
than 100 drugged drivers.
Can you elaborate on what NHTSA's work is to address drug-
impaired driving? How can we, for example, look at addressing
limitations in understanding of drug-related fatality data
that's out there?
Ms. King. Thank you for asking.
It's critically important because we're seeing such a
growth in use not only in opioids, marijuana, but also in
pharmaceuticals. What we're finding is that we need to address
five myths: that it's safe to drive when under the use of a
substance, that they're not going to get stopped, not going to
be arrested, not going to be prosecuted, not going to be
convicted.
We are supporting through grant funds, providing education
materials, and fostering dialogue among the stakeholders who
can influence this to address each of those five links in the
chain to combat drug-impaired drivers.
We find that public awareness is a critical part of that.
That's why we've been pushing so very hard on our public
education campaign. Most users of marijuana that have
participated in market research we have developed are saying
that they believe they drive safer when they're high because
they're very focused and they're being very cautious, but we
know from the driver simulator studies it's not true.
So we are doing everything we can, putting out more grant
funds and supporting the communities where the rubber hits the
road to make sure we get ahead of the problem and that we
educate consumers to make better decisions.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. As I mentioned earlier, the
Nebraska State Patrol has huge issues with this that we see
coming from the West entering our state and so it is a big, big
problem.
Thank you.
Ms. King. I'd be happy to do anything to partner.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for holding this important hearing,
look forward to working with you as we build on the
accomplishments of the FAST Act and move forward with the next
reauthorization.
There are few issues that impact South Dakota more than
highway bills. Rural states, like South Dakota, rely on Federal
investment in transportation infrastructure to ensure the
efficient flow of goods to domestic and global markets.
Freight corridors within rural areas are a critical
component of the national transportation system, connecting
major highways and railways to the regions which produce many
agricultural and industrial commodities.
The FAST Act required the DOT to designate a national
multimodal freight network meant to provide a comprehensive
representation of the national freight transportation system.
The interim network, published in 2016, was widely criticized
by nearly every state as incomplete since it excluded important
highway and rail freight corridors across the Nation.
Mr. Szabat, can you commit to thoroughly reviewing comments
from states to ensure that all freight corridors, including
those in rural areas, are well represented in the final
national multimodal freight network?
Mr. Szabat. Senator Thune, thank you for the question and,
yes, I can commit that we will. I can go beyond that to commit
that we already are, that as of the end of the comment period
in 2018, we had received 123 total comments from states and
other users looking for improvements in the plan, and we are
thoroughly evaluating those.
Senator Thune. Thank you.
Ms. King, NHTSA's State and Community Highway Safety
Program provides grants to all states to improve driver
behavior and reduce deaths and injuries from motor vehicle-
related crashes.
States like South Dakota prefer this program to grants
issued under the National Priority Safety Program for which
certain states cannot qualify. As this committee looks toward
the reauthorization of the grant programs, can you commit to
working with me to build on the work done in the FAST Act to
increase the flexibility of these programs and improve highway
safety?
Ms. King. Absolutely. It's critically important to get the
money out where it can be assuring safety in our communities.
Senator Thune. Thank you.
Mr. Martinez, in October 2018, Senator Fischer and I
represented a lot of the same constituencies and she asked a
related question, but in October 2018, a coalition of livestock
haulers submitted a petition to FMCSA requesting an exemption
from certain provisions of hours of service regulations and
together with former Senator Nelson, I sent a letter to FMCSA
in support of the agency's full consideration of this petition.
In response, FMCSA provided official notice and requested
public comments on the petition in February of this year.
Could you provide an update on the current status of this
petition and do you have a timeline for when you expect FMCSA
to take further action?
Mr. Martinez. Yes, so the comment period is now closed on
that petition. We are currently reviewing the comments which
number over 350 comments. So we will evaluate them.
I hesitate to give a specific timeframe, but obviously we
will try to expedite the review as quickly as possible.
Senator Thune. I would encourage that.
Mr. Batory, on May 14, I sent a letter along with Senators
Blunt, Moran, and Young requesting an update on several pending
regulatory actions at FRA aimed at better incorporating
emerging rail technologies into the regulatory framework.
Could you speak to actions that FRA's taken on the
rulemaking initiatives mentioned in the letters, specifically
continuous rail testing or air brake interval modernization?
Mr. Batory. Thank you, Senator Thune.
When I received your letter, I was very pleased with the
reading of it because it's something that I feel, as I shared
with Senator Wicker a few moments ago, technology is the key to
our success as far as reducing risk and enhancing safety.
One technology that has developed considerably in the past
year has to do with autonomous track inspection and FRA
naturally has a fleet of its own cars but the railroad industry
has fleets of equipment for autonomous track inspection and
just to characterize it, it would take me probably about 30
seconds to put into context what autonomous track inspection
is.
If some of us were to leave here and go down New Jersey
Avenue, down the Virginia Avenue Tunnel, get on the railroad
track and be protected and walk toward Long Bridge on the
Potomac, we might find just for talking purposes 10 issues
associated with the track structure and of those 10 issues, two
of them might be imminent that we have to address within 24
hours. The other eight perhaps would take--you have 30 days in
which to address.
Behind us, you run an autonomous track vehicle. It might
come up with a hundred items, not only defects but also
weaknesses. What would you rather have, the 10 that you and I
found or the hundred insofar as reducing risk and enhancing
safety? It still takes human beings to go out there to confirm
it.
We have engaged the Class 1 railroad community to give us
either petitions for waivers or petitions for pilot projects
that span autonomous track inspection to develop facts so that
we can then establish performance=based rulemakings and we'll
always have the prescriptive minimum rulemakings at the bottom
insofar as track geometry standards.
That's an example of exploiting technology for the
betterment of our country and the betterment of our industry.
Senator Thune. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
would just say that we encourage the continued use of those
pilot programs and I would ask for the record a question about
any ideas you might have for us as Congress to encourage
greater use of pilot programs at FRA.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Thune.
Senator Schatz.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
testifiers.
First, for Ms. King, a lot of the advanced safety features
that went into the development of autonomous cars, lane
departure warnings, blind spot detection, rear automatic
braking, automatic emergency braking, they all significantly
reduce crashes, and I think one of the promises of autonomous
vehicles, one of the reasons that people get excited about it
is imaging a world with significantly fewer car crashes and
car-based fatalities, and something has happened along the way
where a lot of those pieces of tech can be implemented right
now with cars that are driven by humans.
And so the question I have for you is to the extent that
there's enough data that shows that we can save lives now, why
are we in a voluntary regime where these automakers are so slow
to adopt these things that will certainly save lives?
The idea that a person has to--you know, you can buy a
$22,000 car but if you want a certain thing that will make it
less likely for you to die in a car crash, that'll be extra.
I'm not sure why we shouldn't just make that mandatory.
Ms. King. That's a really good question. I'm glad you asked
it.
When something does become mandatory, it must have a very
consistent repeatable test procedure and what we find is when a
technology is new, for instance, a certain kind of alert or
blind spot detection, we learn a lot from the fact there's a
little bit of a difference in different folks that are adopting
it or different manufacturers who are designing different
systems. That's a time of learning and then if it seems
appropriate to adopt it as a mandatory standard, we can then
identify which of them is best.
So that is one of the reasons why when a technology is
first introduced, we allow some consumer experience and some
innovation before a mandate is----
Senator Schatz. Couldn't we just make it mandatory and give
them the flexibility to do it however it makes sense while
you're testing this?
Ms. King. Under the laws that we execute, we actually have
to have a consistent test procedure. So we can't say do it and
we'll figure out later whether or not we can confirm you've
done it.
We can talk a little bit more about that offline, but when
we have Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, it will have a
test procedure and a consistent engineering description for
execution which means there's only one way or a narrower set of
alternatives.
We're very excited to see the consumers are adopting the
technologies. An example would be I mentioned blind spot----
Senator Schatz. OK. I've got a couple other questions.
Ms. King. Sure.
Senator Schatz. In 2018, there's a small overall reduction
in road deaths but a 4-percent increase in cycling deaths--
excuse me--pedestrian deaths rose by 4 percent and cycling
deaths went up by 10 percent. What is going on and what are you
going to do about it?
Ms. King. There are two pieces to that, one is recognizing
the data that was just released was an early projection. Those
numbers will change twice, once when we issue the numbers for
2018 with a fuller sample submitted by the states, and----
Senator Schatz. OK. What are we--is this data valid?
Ms. King. So the data is indicative of a trend, yes. We've
seen an increase in fatalities of pedestrians and bicyclists.
In our work with states, in our grant programs, in our
development of programs that states implement at the local
level, we are supporting local programs to improve pedestrian
and bicyclist safety.
Largely two-thirds of our budget is going to states for
them to implement programs that are appropriate for their
condition.
As you know here in the District of Columbia, more than 50
percent of the fatalities in traffic situations are
pedestrians. That's also true in Nevada. But it's not true
everywhere. So some states will choose to use their state grant
funds to execute programs that address pedestrian risk that is
high in their area. Other places, it will be a speeding risk or
an impaired driving risk, and we develop program----
Senator Schatz. So your answer is that you have a grant
program and you let states and counties and municipal
transportation planning organizations do what they see fit?
Ms. King. We develop programs that they----
Senator Schatz. You develop programs?
Ms. King. We do research that supports them, yes.
Senator Schatz. OK. Is there no place for NHTSA to develop
best practices and implement them as opposed to just pushing
money to states and counties?
Ms. King. No, we absolutely do that. We do research,
behavioral research, mechanical research. We develop programs.
We develop public education materials.
Senator Schatz. Let me ask you a personal question. Is this
alarming to you?
Ms. King. As a former law enforcement officer who has
worked crashes and taken care of people who were injured or
killed, as a former 9-1-1 dispatcher, and a former EMT working
in my community, yes, it is absolutely alarming and every
single man and woman of NHTSA is committed 24/7 to doing
everything that we can to support local traffic safety.
We develop programs, some of which are appropriate for
distribution and application nationwide. Sometimes we need to
address problems locally. I mentioned drug-impaired driving
earlier. There are areas where opioids are the larger problem.
There are parts of the country where meth is the larger
problem. There are other areas where----
Senator Schatz. My time has expired, but I have no idea
what this has to do with pedestrian deaths and cyclist deaths
going up precipitously.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. So the Chairman has stepped out. So I'm
going to take the gavel and call on myself.
So I appreciate this hearing and I'm assuming that all the
witnesses are supportive of what we did four years ago which
was actually a long-term FAST Act. It was a five-year
authorization. Prior to that, there had been 36 short-term
reauthorizations which I don't think anybody regards as
helpful.
Do you all agree that we should be working on another long-
term reauthorization in terms of highway transportation?
[Witnesses nodding heads in the affirmative.]
Senator Sullivan. I see noddings of all the heads.
Ms. King. We look forward to continuing to work with you.
Senator Sullivan. OK. Good. Let me ask a couple questions
that relate to, you know, one of the things that I'm going to
be focusing on in this reauthorization is the permanent
streamlining, which I know Secretary Chat has been very focused
on. It shouldn't take 8 years to build a bridge or to permit a
bridge in America, 19 years almost from planning to
construction of our highways. We need to fix a broken Federal
permitting system. So we're going to continue that.
I know the Secretary's focused on that, but the hearing
here is focused more on safety which is appropriate.
Mr. Szabat, I want to ask you in terms of the consideration
of grants to be distributed by the Build America Bureau, you
might know, but a lot of the members of this committee are also
members of the Armed Services Committee.
Does the agency take into consideration the role the
commercial ports play with regard to national defense, in
particular Department of Defense-designated strategic ports,
such as the Port of Anchorage, and should Congress consider
this during the reauthorization of the FAST Act?
As you know, a lot of our commercial issues are deeply
integrated with regard to our national security issues.
Mr. Szabat. Senator, thank you for that question and thank
you for a question that touches on my previous role in the
department.
Senator Thune. That's why I asked you.
Mr. Szabat. I assumed that you had an ulterior motive, sir,
but I was 7 years as the Executive Director of the Maritime
Administration.
I think as you're aware in asking the question, there is no
statutory authority for the department to consider the
strategic nature of the ports.
Senator Sullivan. Do you know, I mean, whether you need the
statutory consideration or not?
Mr. Szabat. It's what we would consider to be a plus factor
when you look at it. Should Congress wish to make that a
mandatory factor that would have to be done statutorily.
Senator Sullivan. Do you think that's a good idea?
Mr. Szabat. That's certainly an issue that we would look
forward to working with you, the Committee staff, committee
members that are interested in this to find a way forward.
Senator Sullivan. OK. Good. Well, I look forward to working
with you on that if you view it as a plus factor. I think most
of us view it as a plus factor and maybe getting it in statute
would put an emphasis on that.
Ms. King, I want to follow up on a couple issues that
you?ve talked about in the questioning. You mentioned the
education materials and public education campaign for impaired
driving, particularly with, you know, drugs beyond just
alcohol-impaired driving.
Are you focusing that in particular with regard to states,
like Alaska, or, I was just talking to Senator Gardner,
Colorado, that have legalized marijuana? Is there an area that
you're focusing on to help those states in particular?
Ms. King. Our initial work has been driving public
education with respect to marijuana impairment because we have
found in our market research that users feel that they drive
better.
Senator Sullivan. But do you focus on states that--you
know, there are certain states that have legalized this where
there is more activity there. Have you given thought to
focusing in those areas?
Ms. King. Yes, we have actually first traveled to
Washington. We later traveled to Denver in Colorado to have
meetings and learn from them and learn best practices.
Senator Sullivan. Have you traveled to Alaska yet?
Ms. King. I have not yet because----
Senator Sullivan. I look forward to seeing you there soon.
Ms. King. I would look forward to that. But we're sharing
best practices.
One of the things we find is the states who have been early
legalizers of marijuana products, like Washington and Colorado,
they have a great deal to learn. Other states that were early
medical marijuana adopters, like the state of California, also
have something to share and so we've visited places, Iowa, New
Jersey, other places. We just had a meeting in Florida.
Senator Sullivan. Can I get your commitment to get to
Alaska soon? You know, we have these issues and I think it's
important.
Ms. King. I would love that. Thank you for the honor to do
so.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Let me ask a related question
Senator Schatz was talking about in terms of bicycle traffic
fatalities. We also have a big community, a cycling community.
The Municipality of Anchorage and Bike Alaska, they have a
program they've put together called Vision Zero which is
working on a coordinated approach, data driven, to have a
public education, best practices, as you mentioned, with regard
to these higher fatality rates and injury rates for bicyclists.
Is NHTSA doing work with local partners, like Vision Zero,
to identify best practices, what you're learning, and how do we
get involved in that at the local level? I think it's really
important that you're learning from them and they're learning
from you.
Ms. King. Absolutely. One of the advantages of the local
community groups working through Vision Zero or Road to Zero,
which is more international learning, is that the solutions can
be best adapted to local conditions.
For instance, the infrastructure needs might be a part of
it, public education or traffic patterns might be a part of it.
So all of that can be incorporated and encouraged for adoption
in local laws where the local jurisdiction is stronger.
NHTSA is supportive of all of those efforts and welcomes
any opportunity to support those efforts to drive local traffic
safety.
Senator Sullivan. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator King, I'm very disturbed with the
Administration's rollback of the fuel economy standards from
54.5 miles per gallon to 37 miles per gallon. I think that it
states that the Trump Administration are technological
nihilists.
These recommendations that the Obama Administration put on
the books would back out three million barrels of oil a day,
which is still the equivalent of what we're importing from
overseas, and especially when we see incidents in the Gulf of
Hormuz and the other areas of the Middle East, we can see how
quickly the United States could get drawn into essentially a
war over oil.
And so our answer has to be that we are the technological
giants and we're going to win back the vehicles that back out
the need for oil and we will strengthen our hand diplomatically
in the Middle East very dramatically if we do that. Otherwise,
we're over there primarily because of the oil. Let's just be
honest about it.
So I don't understand, Ms. King, what your logic is in
rolling back these fuel economy standards, but I will tell you
that ultimately you're on weak ground because, amongst other
things, pretty much the entire auto industry is protesting that
you're taking this action, that you're going to create a divide
in the country between all of the American states that follow
the California waiver and the Trump Administration, and they
are saying it's going to be very bad for business.
So I guess what I would ask you to do is to explain whether
or not you believe it is possible for the United States to
reach 54.5 miles per gallon and is it wise for us to just stop
dead--let me ask the question this way.
In your opinion, is it wise just to stop at 2020 and not to
advance all the way out to 2025 in an improvement of the fuel
economy standards? Do you agree with that?
Ms. King. Senator Markey, I'm so pleased that you asked. I
have good news that we have proposed a rule but have not yet
finalized it and in that proposal, we solicited comment, the
EPA and NHTSA, on a wide range of options, including the
current standard that was issued in 2012.
So we are reviewing the comments now and have not yet
selected a final. There is no rollback. There is consideration
of 650,000 to 700,000 comments on a very complicated and very
important rule.
I'm very pleased to have your enthusiasm for that. To
answer your question----
Senator Markey. No, no. My enthusiasm is for the auto
industry to reach 54.5 miles per gallon. My enthusiasm is not
for 650,000 comments to be heard over this question. It is just
to continue on the course to solve this problem.
Ms. King. I am pleased to be representing consumers'
interests, as well. I recognize the auto manufacturers have a
very important voice. We also want to make sure that consumers'
needs and safety are considered as Congress directed me and
directed the EPA to consider.
Senator Markey. I would just say this, that 13 Federal
agencies in November 2018 concluded that if we continue with
business as usual, the planet's going to warm by nine degrees
Fahrenheit by the year 2100. So from my perspective, this is
just not an option.
It also says that the seas are going to rise by 11 feet if
we don't take action. So we have the blueprint from all of our
own Federal agencies as to the danger. We know that greenhouse
gases are the largest cause of it and we also know that this is
the largest single reduction that?s ever been proposed by any
law of any country in the history of the world.
So I just disagree with you, given the urgency of the
problem, and if I may say that fuel economy is also pro
consumer, it's pro safety, and the rules that are on the books
right now are the answer.
I just also want to say to you, Mr. Batory, I know that
there has been a withdrawal of the two-person crew rule, but I
want to tell you that I'm going to introduce the Safe Freight
Act. That legislation would mandate two-person crew safety
standards going forward. I think that your agency has abdicated
its responsibility to provide oversight and safety rules, but
to actively declare that no state could take action, as well,
just leaves a regulatory black hole that endangers safety.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you so much.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Markey.
I have Senator Scott and then Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SCOTT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Szabat, can you tell me under the--first of all, thank
you all for being here and thanks for your hard work.
On INFRA, I guess it allocated $4.5 billion in grants over
the life of the FAST Act for special projects. How much has
been spent? Do you know? Any of you know?
Mr. Szabat. We have that information, Senator. My apologies
for not having it here in front of me but we can get that back
to you for the record.
Senator Scott. If you can get it to me and if you can get
it to me by state.
Mr. Szabat. Of course.
Senator Scott. OK. And do you take into consideration the
amount of tax revenues, gas tax revenues that come in and how
you allocate those $4.5 billion or not?
Mr. Szabat. The Discretionary Grant Program--Senator, thank
you for the question. This is a good one.
One of the factors that we look at is the local match as
opposed to what is being proposed for the grant itself as
opposed to the overall tax rate of the state.
Senator Scott. Thanks. Mr. Martinez, my father was a truck
driver. He'd be real excited now because truck drivers get paid
a lot more than what he got paid when I was growing up.
In Florida, you can drive in state from 18 to 20 but you
can't cross state lines. I co-sponsored a bill that Senator
Young has that allows people to start driving at 18 nationally.
What do you think about that?
Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Senator. As you know, the good
news is that we have recently undertaken the Under 21 Military
Pilot Program at the direction of Congress to study those
who've had military experience driving heavy trucks either as
they come out of the military, National Guard, Reserves, and we
have started engaging with carriers and we need at least 200
participants to begin that pilot program.
We also have an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking out
asking for input from the industry as to what should we look at
if we were going to move beyond that to a broader population.
Senator Scott. So will you take a position on Senator
Young's bill or not? I mean, is it typical--I'm new. I've been
here 6 months.
Mr. Martinez. Yes. We generally----
Senator Scott. Could I ask you all to take a position and
give feedback or not?
Mr. Martinez. We generally would not do that. What we will
do, as we are doing now, is conduct a pilot program or study to
see if we can get some data before we move forward on that, but
obviously we want to engage with Congress on this issue because
I hear it every day from stakeholders all around the country
and we understand that there is a shortage of drivers. So we
want to be helpful there but our primary focus remains safety.
Senator Scott. Do you have any data to suggest the states
that have reduced it to 18, like Florida, that there are, you
know, more issues there?
Mr. Martinez. That is the problem that we face, that we
don't have hard data on that and that's what we're hoping to
get from this pilot program. I take your point that in large
geographic states, Florida, California, New York where I'm from
originally, you can drive all over the state but you can't
cross state borders, and it makes you scratch your head.
The rule has been in place since the 1930s. So it deserves
a good hard look now because things have changed. We have new
technologies that may be able to monitor and tell us not all
drivers under 21 are the same.
Senator Scott. You have a lot more monitoring now. My
father would not like to have to fill out all the log books. I
think he'd generally fill them out when he got home. So it was
probably not the exact way you probably would like.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up on what Senator Scott was asking about.
Your pilot program deals with 18-year-olds?
Mr. Martinez. It would be under 21, 18 to 20.
Senator Tester. 18 to 20. Can you tell me what you're
measuring since they can't drive across state lines?
Mr. Martinez. So in this pilot program, we would be looking
for individuals who have had--they must have had this prior
experience in the military.
Senator Tester. But you're not--look, if they had prior
experience in the military, they're not 18 years old anymore.
Mr. Martinez. True.
Senator Tester. OK. So the point is, is this, because I'm
actually a co-sponsor of that bill with Senator Young, if we're
going to be able to do this and you want to get accurate
information on whether this is right, that pilot program isn't
going to tell you what you need to know, I hate to tell you,
because you're talking with people probably that had experience
driving a truck in the military, Number 1, and, Number 2,
they're probably eligible to drive across state lines right now
if they want to.
Mr. Martinez. I understand that and that is one of the
challenges of the pilot program, honestly.
Senator Tester. So what I would recommend is because
there's an education component to that bill that Senator Young
and I have is that you guys try to come forward with an idea on
whether you're going to support that or not because I will tell
you if the department doesn't support it, we're not going to
get it passed in my opinion because everybody's concerned about
safety. Just a sidebar.
I just want to say one thing, Ms. King, because I haven't
got to any of my questions yet, but Senator Markey talked about
the mileage standards and you talked about consumers.
I can tell you when the mileage standards were dropped, I
don't know what consumer benefit they got. Oil companies got a
benefit. I've got a Peterbilt and I've got a Prius, eight miles
versus about 99 miles a gallon because it's a hybrid. I just
think this is a huge step--climate change aside, this is a huge
step against the consumer.
I mean, gasoline has gone up significantly and, quite
frankly, it cuts a pretty good hole in my pocketbook when I
fill up my Peterbilt. In fact, you've got to have a damn thick
checkbook.
And so I would encourage you to reinstate it where it was.
It doesn't make any sense. Everybody else is heading in that
direction. We're the greatest country in the world until we
elected President Trump and now we're taking a backseat to
everybody. This is crazy and I just can't--Markey and I don't
agree on everything, I'll tell you that, but we sure in hell
agree on this. This is important.
So, Mr. Batory, I want to talk to you a little bit about
Amtrak. There is a component in the FAST Act that allows you to
work with on state-supported routes, work with a pretty broad
coalition of people on how that's going to work.
Is there the same kind of a committee--you know what I'm
saying. I'll explain it out more if you don't. But is there the
same kind of a committee for long-distance routes, for Amtrak's
long-distance routes to talk about, you know, where you're
going?
Mr. Batory. Senator Tester, I really appreciate that
question. It's something that's come to my mind. Now keep in
mind----
Senator Tester. But do we have a committee?
Mr. Batory. We don't.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Batory. And that's----
Senator Tester. Would you support the establishment of a
committee?
Mr. Batory. I think there's an opportunity.
Senator Tester. So you'd support it?
Mr. Batory. You have state-supported under 750 miles. So
take that business model, learn from it, maybe expand it.
Senator Tester. Yes. So you would support it?
Mr. Batory. I would.
Senator Tester. OK, good. Can you tell me what the long-
term vision is for Amtrak? Now, look, I've been to Europe once
and I was at the University of Normandy 5 years ago, but I've
got people who go over all the time and they come back and they
rave about the train system. It happened again this weekend.
They absolutely rave about timeliness, cleanliness, and user-
friendliness.
Are we looking to do away with our train service for
passenger purposes, with the exception of what's going on in
the Eastern Seaboard? Are we looking to expand it and make it
better and serve states like Montana to a greater degree
because there have been some actions taken by Amtrak and I love
the CEO, I understood him and I loved him when he was Delta's
president, but he's done some stuff that's really made me
upset. Let's just put it that way.
So do we have a long-term plan? Is it to privatize it, do
away with it, or is it to make it better?
Mr. Batory. All you'll get from me is opinion. I can't give
you----
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Batory. I think Amtrak can best answer that question.
Senator Tester. OK. All right. So last thing. I live four
blocks from here. OK. I get in that Prius that gets 99 miles a
gallon and I drive here and every time I drive those four
blocks, somebody's looking at their damn cell phone when the
light turns green and it backs traffic up. Are we doing
anything about that and if we are, what are we doing? Excuse me
for running over, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. King. Yes, we are. At NHTSA, we have quite a bit of
research. We have programs to educate consumers and support
local law enforcement. You know, it's illegal to drive while
texting. So there are distracted drivers in the car. There are
distracted drivers on the roads. Some jurisdictions in the U.S.
have actually put restrictions on the use of phones while
pedestrians are in the road.
So again the local----
Senator Tester. So other than education, have you done
anything?
Ms. King. Yes, there's education, research on the
psychology of the human factors and what policies work to
address the problem. They are adopted and implemented with
NHTSA support at the local level through our grant programs.
Senator Tester. OK. Are we doing anything like partnering
with insurance companies or high schools or things like that?
Ms. King. We are talking to insurance companies. With high
schools, yes, there are various organizations that use the
community of younger people to drive better decisionmaking,
whether it be on distracted driving or on impaired driving. We
are just now increasing our support because of the importance
for youth for driving better decisions.
Senator Tester. Well, I would just say this and just a
sidebar comment. I mean, drunken driving is a huge problem in
this country.
Ms. King. Yes.
Senator Tester. Text driving may even be above it, to be
honest with you, because you got people who have got their
hands off the wheel. They got their eyes off the road. It's
insanity. We've got to figure out how to do a better job
educating folks that this is not tolerated.
Ms. King. Yes.
Senator Tester. Thank you very much.
Ms. King. Thank you.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Blackburn.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank each of you for being here and look forward to the work
we're going to do with the FAST Act.
Ms. King, I want to come to you first and talk a little bit
about autonomous vehicles. When I was over in the House, we had
passed the legislation to put in place some parameters and we
looked forward to the Senate--I know Senator Thune and Senator
Peters have filed legislation that would deal with the AVs, and
we know this technology is coming.
We know that some of the pilot projects are going to be
taking place, but Congress needs to act and build that
framework out. I think it's also an important step for us to
take because when it comes to the AVs and the EVs, we want to
set the standards for this. We do not want China setting the
standards for this. If we don't take that action, we know who
will take that action.
So if you will just speak for a minute about NHTSA's
involvement, where you are, what's important for you all to
engage from the manufacturing process through, well, the design
process, the manufacturing process, and then the rules of the
road, if you'll give me 1 minute on that.
Ms. King. Absolutely. I'm watching my clock. At NHTSA,
everything starts with research. We feel very strongly that
safety relies on data, science, and engineering, and we have
quite a number of research projects not only on the
technologies themselves, how they work and maybe where they
still need to improve, but also on how humans interact with
those technologies because it's important to make sure that
human drivers or operators are engaged when they need to be and
that systems are safe if a driver is able to disengage.
One of the challenges we have, of course, is that currently
there are some advanced technologies that I call fancy cruise
control that are on our roads now. They support a driver but
the human must still be actively engaged. There is no self-
driving car for sale in the United States today.
But those systems, the highly automated vehicles are under
development. We're learning together and in anticipation of
that, we are at NHTSA evaluating and are taking comment on and
assessing our current regulatory regime to make sure we're
prepared to safely update regulations.
Senator Blackburn. OK. And your pilot project, you're
looking at some AVS pilot projects, and where are you in that?
Ms. King. That's right. We've received comments on a pilot
project that could allow for sharing of information and
community engagement with the testing of highly automated
vehicles and our comments, I'll say roughly that we find
there's some confusion about what the purpose of the pilot
project is.
So we're reviewing those comments now and will again go
back to the public for engagement before we take the next
steps.
Senator Blackburn. Wonderful. I know Senator Fischer
mentioned the hours of service and this is very important and,
Mr. Martinez, let me come to you on this.
I'm fully aware that Farm Bureau and other entities have
weighed in with you all. Tennessee is a big ag state. Tennessee
and Kentucky produce more beef than anyone else east of the
Mississippi and what we are hopeful of is that you all will
arrive at something that is going to be supported by the ag
community, will be workable and just common sense for them and
allow some flexibility.
Mr. Martinez. Understood, Senator, and we have been fully
engaged with the industry representatives here in Washington
and also with our colleagues over at the Department of
Agriculture to make sure that we are sensitive to the specific
needs of those in the agriculture community and specifically to
the livestock community. So we are fully engaged in that.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you. I appreciate that and before
I let you go and my time runs out, the CDL issue and looking at
those that are under 21 being able to drive across state lines,
and I appreciate your comments to Mr. Scott, but this is
something I think that again common sense needs to be engaged
in. The pilot project that you all are moving forward with
we'll look forward to hearing about some results on that issue.
Mr. Martinez. Thank you. We will, as soon as we can, get
the results out, but also, you know, those in the National
Guard and Reserves are under 21. We're hoping to get at least
200 participants that we can monitor and, in addition to that,
we do have requests out for more information from stakeholders
if we were going to broaden that beyond those who have served
in the military to see what we should be looking at.
Senator Blackburn. Appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Blackburn.
Senator Duckworth.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding today's hearing.
As Ranking Member on the Transportation and Safety
Subcommittee, I'd appreciate the opportunity to learn more
about each of your specific ideas about FAST Act
Reauthorization, and I was hoping, Administrator Batory and Mr.
Martinez and Ms. King, would you each be willing to commit to
meeting with me in the coming weeks to discuss ideas on
priorities that you may have for reauthorization?
Mr. Batory. Yes, Senator, I will.
Mr. Szabat. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. King. I would look forward to it.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Administrator Batory, as you
know, the Illinois Department of Transportation is working
closely with Iowa Interstate Railroad to advance the Chicago to
Quad Cities Passenger Rail Project.
Will you commit to providing stakeholders with appropriate
flexibility to ensure they finalize a deal? I know it's a long
time coming, but they need some flexibility. Would you work
with me on that?
Mr. Batory. Yes, Senator. I have been very involved in that
since the spring of last year and I think we see light at the
end of the tunnel.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Mr. Szabat, unless you have
an answer at your fingertips, would you get back to me in
writing as to whether or not U.S. DOT has any plans whatsoever
to claw back Federal funding for this critical rail project?
Mr. Szabat. We'll be happy to get back to you, Senator.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Obviously I would strongly
object to any such action. I hope it's only a rumor and a false
one at that.
Ms. King and Mr. Martinez, the Road to Zero Coalition, led
by the National Safety Council and in partnership with NHTSA,
FMCSA and over 900 other members, is laying out strategies to
end roadway deaths by 2050.
Yes or no. Are you both still 100 percent committed to
eliminating roadway deaths by 2050 as a goal?
Ms. King. We continue to partner with that very important
group. They come up with innovative strategies and the combined
power of the partners are where I think a lot of the
innovations will come to get us to the zero goal.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Mr. Martinez?
Mr. Martinez. That remains our goal. One death is one too
many.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. And is it still, Ms. King,
NHTSA's policy that every child on every school bus should have
a three-point safety seatbelt?
Ms. King. So it is our policy that everybody should be safe
on our roads. As Mr. Martinez said, Administrator Martinez, one
death is one too many, yes.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Administrator Batory, as you
know, Senator Durbin and I have been working with Amtrak,
Canadian National, and IDOT, the Illinois Department of
Transportation, to address signal activation issues, known as
short shunting, on the rail corridor in Illinois that impacts
Amtrak's on-time performance.
While all stakeholders are working in good faith, most
observers agree that more active and direct involvement by FRA
is necessary to identify permanent long-term solutions because
different people have different explanations as to why. I do
think FRA's heightened increased involvement is really going to
be vital to us moving forward on this.
Will you direct your staff to play a more active role in
these discussions?
Mr. Batory. Yes, Senator. They're already actively involved
and when it came to my knowledge last year, I was highly
surprised about how long the tail is on this, over 5 years,----
Senator Duckworth. Yes.
Mr. Batory.--and it's frustrating. I speak personally about
that.
Senator Duckworth. I've been on those trains. It's very
frustrating when you're on them.
Mr. Batory. Well, the thing of it is, something needs to be
resolved, and at this juncture, my outlook on it, it has taken
on a life of soap opera and you only have to study things so
much, finally you got to do something.
Senator Duckworth. I think your leadership, FRA's
leadership is going to be really critical on that. So perhaps
you could commit to asking your staff to double down and let's
get this resolved.
Mr. Batory. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Mr. Szabat, the President's Executive Order 13771 requires
Federal agencies to eliminate two regulations for every new
regulation that's created.
Can you guarantee that this Executive Order has not delayed
implementation of critical safety-related regulations at DOT?
Mr. Szabat. Senator, yes, I can. I think we in the
department are very proud of our record, in fact, of
deregulation and of the deregulation actions that we've taken,
our actions save money as well as either do not adversely
affect or actually promote more safety.
So, I mean, just one out of dozens of examples, FAA's
Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View, we eliminated a requirement
to save more than $525 million for the operators and yet
actually makes it easier for them to achieve safety standards.
Senator Duckworth. So are you saying that no safety
regulation has been delayed in implementation because you're
looking for two other regulations to eliminate first?
Mr. Szabat. That is true, to my knowledge. If I find out
otherwise, I will get back to you.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Mr. Szabat, Senator Perdue
and I included a requirement in last year's FAA Reauthorization
Act for U.S. DOT to report to Congress within 9 months on the
benefits of expanding the TIFIA Program to include certain
airport projects. Reauthorization passed more than 8 months
ago.
Do you expect the report to be completed on time and will
you commit to delivering copies to my office and to Senator
Perdue's office when it's finalized?
Mr. Szabat. In reverse order, Senator, yes, we will commit
to delivering copies of the report both to you, to Senator
Perdue, and to any other Member of Congress who's interested in
seeing that.
We are currently working on the draft of the report. So I
cannot commit that we will exactly meet the deadline but if we
miss it, we won't miss it by much.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I'm over time, Mr. Chairman.
I do have more questions but in the interest of time, I
will submit them for written responses.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here.
Administrator Batory, you and I last October discussed the
Gateway Project and if you will recall during that hearing
before this committee, you told me we should expect to see a
final environmental impact statement and record of decision,
and I'm quoting, ``in the first or second quarter of 2019.''
You also committed to provide me with a more specific
answer in writing. We're 8 months later, almost halfway into
2019. I have still heard nothing on the final EIS and the
record of decision for Gateway.
The completion of the EIS is critical to preventing costly
delays and ensuring that the project moves forward quickly to
construction and the further delays risk the shutdown of one or
both of the existing 108-year-old tunnels.
I don't think I need to emphasize or even articulate to you
or anyone else in this room the importance of this project.
They are 108 years old. They would have required this project
even without the storms that did further damage to this vital
artery.
I would like to ask again and would you please be more
specific when we can expect that the final EIS and the record
of decision for the Gateway Tunnel Project will be done?
Mr. Batory. Yes, Senator. Two things, and one, I want to
just take 15 seconds and apologize to you.
The last time we had a hearing, inadvertently I shared with
you everything I knew about that subject matter and I kind of
ran the clock on you. You said you were going to send me a
letter and then I followed up to find out that letter had never
been responded to. So I have to wear it. I failed.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I more than accept your apology,
but----
Mr. Batory. Now here's the thing.
Senator Blumenthal.--I'm interested in the----
Mr. Batory. Exactly. We've assembled a timeline and, by the
way, Hudson Tunnel had its three-year birthday last month,
starting May 2016.
Last fall, I asked for documentation to walk me through
from May of 2016 all the steps that had been completed and what
steps had to be completed. I get updated monthly. It resides in
the Policy and Development, in the Legal Sections of FRA, as
far as doing, if you will, further vetting of the Draft EIS.
We have 95 processing steps completed behind us. There are
another 27 yet to be completed. One could do the math and say
does that mean another year? I don't know. But I can look you
in the eye and everybody that's interested about this Hudson
Tunnel that it is actively being worked on. It's not on my desk
with a paperweight on it. It's not upstairs on the 9th Floor
anywhere in OST with a paperweight on it. Everybody's working.
Now just one piece of color. The Portal Bridge is a 10-year
NEPA process for $1.6 billion. It's ready to go but there's no
funding and right up the street where the Virginia Avenue
Tunnel started out with an EA, ended up with an EIS, 120
million private funds, ran over 400 million, and it took 10
years for an EIS.
Now one of the things I find interesting and somewhat
frustrating is the process and the time in which these NEPA
projects take, not just the Hudson Tunnel, all of them.
Senator Blumenthal. The general complaint, and I apologize
for cutting you off, but I have limits on my time, and I'm
trying to tell you I'm disappointed in this response because
you have not given me a time by which any of this work will be
done and time is essential to this project.
This is a vital artery under the Hudson that carries
commerce, freight, passengers, rail, and it is in danger of
physically collapsing. It would cripple the economies of New
York, New Jersey, and states that adjoin them, maybe the entire
East Coast, and I will give you another chance to respond in
writing with a more definite date.
I don't mean to be unfair. I'm not blaming you alone, but
the buck has to stop somewhere on this project, and I will put
this point again in writing to you and I hope that you will
respond.
I'd like to ask finally all the members of the panel. As
you know, I've been an advocate of prompt deadlines to meet
full implementation of positive train control. The FAST Act
Reauthorization presents an opportunity for Congress to prompt
railroads to complete this work through additional fines,
penalties, and other means of encouragement.
What do members of this panel believe should happen if
railroads fail to meet that deadline that is the 2020 deadline?
Mr. Batory. First, I'm not looking forward to any failures.
That's not to say there may not be some failures and we are
being very proactive. Starting with First Quarter 2017, we've
made several inroads.
As far as any particular railroad that fails to complete
the statutory and regulatory requirements, I have been an
advocate from day one that the FRA should assess nothing less
than, my quote, ``full retail'' in the way of fines and
violations.
Now you could question that, but if a railroad fails come
1/1/21, all we can do is send violations and assess fines. It
is on January 1, 2022 statutorily that FRA can then start
invoking conditions of operation on railroads that still don't
have PTC in place.
The one thing that I am very pleased to report to you is
that the men and women of this country that are employed in
this railroad industry and that lead, maintain, and operate it
daily are doing an exceptionally good job in their fulfillment
of operating a safe network and the commuter railroads have
improved considerably.
Now on July 12, and this is one that really has a lot of my
concern, we're going to have a meeting with everybody that
resides in a corner office, starting with Amtrak and all the
commuter railroads on the Northeast Corridor, and in some
instances, the chairman will be there, Chairman Coscia will be
there, Chairman Foy will be there, and the issue is to apprise
everybody where we're at and let them go back to their home
offices and if they think they're going to fail on delivering
on 1/1/21, then they need to start thinking about coming up
here and meeting with yourself and your colleagues and
explaining to them why they're going to fail.
But I'm not going to wait till the fourth quarter of next
year to raise that flack.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Blumenthal, will it be all right if
anyone else wants to answer, if they do so on the record?
Senator Blumenthal. I would appreciate that, and I
apologize, Mr. Chairman. I've gone over my time. Thank you.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much. A good series of
questions.
Senator Peters.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, and to our
folks who are testifying here today.
First, I want to express my appreciation to you, Mr.
Chairman, as well as to Ranking Member Cantwell, for your
support of legislation that I'm writing and working closely
with Senator Thune related to the deployment of self-driving
vehicles. I appreciate your interest in that topic and your
willingness to work closely with us.
I'm glad that we've been able to have some bicameral,
bipartisan discussions with colleagues in the House, as well,
and I look forward to our continuing work together through the
Surface Reauthorization effort to make some meaningful progress
in this area, if possible.
My first question is to Deputy Administrator King. I
understand there are now at least three petitions to NHTSA for
exemptions from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for
self-driving technologies and I'm sure you're going to have
many more to come in the weeks, months, and years ahead.
But I'm concerned that under current law and the currently
available exemption process will not enable the agency to
acquire the robust data that's needed to inform safety
regulations in the future nor does it provide a stable
regulatory signal to help spur business investment in this
rapidly-emerging area.
So my question to you is what other options does NHTSA have
under existing authority to help facilitate the safe testing
and deployment of autonomous vehicles?
Ms. King. Senator, thank you for that question.
I agree with you, I share that concern because we're also
excited about the potential of these technologies to assure
safety on our roadways as well as to create economic benefits,
give us some time back.
I'm aware of only two petitions for exemption from FMVSS
and those two have been open for public comment. We are
learning from the public comments submitted to us now, but to
answer more directly your question about what other tools NHTSA
has in its toolbox, we are already opening the dialogue around
how do we update our processes, which are cumbersome and
outdated.
We've already removed the completion step and review of the
two petitions we just discussed. We are also considering other
tools in our regulatory toolbox where under our existing
congressional authorities we can streamline the processes.
As you mentioned, data engineering is absolutely going to
be required to assure that we make safe decisions while
allowing new technologies to come to our roadways. We have both
the opportunity perform our own research, which we continue to
do, also to learn from the field experiences from those who are
testing on our roadways, and in pulling that information
together, we can identify gaps, fill those gaps, and move
forward together more quickly.
We are still in the testing and development phase. We're
still learning and we're hesitant to make conclusions too
quickly during this testing and development phase because we
don't want to discourage the innovation, but we prioritized
safety overall and continue to learn together.
Senator Peters. Thank you. Another question for you. As you
know, the FCC, Chairman Pai has announced interest in taking a
``fresh look'' at the 5,.9 gigahertz band, yet as NHTSA has
publicly noted, the 5.9 band consists of seven channels, all of
which are currently used not just by the auto industry but by
states, by municipalities for purposes of testing vehicles to
everything, V2X, communications which will enhance public
safety dramatically.
These safety investments have been funded in part through
tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal taxpayer
money, as well.
So if you could for the record share NHTSA's perspective on
the potential interference concerns associated with spectrum
sharing in the 5.9 gigahertz band that'd be appreciated.
Ms. King. Absolutely. We are very committed to preserving
all seven channels, all 75 megahertz for transportation safety
applications across the transportation system.
We are still doing research on interference together with
FCC and NTIA. We are now in Phase 2 and that's a track testing.
We expect to have some findings by late summer and then we'll
move into Phase 3 should those findings be positive.
I want to flag that someone very, very visionary 20 years
ago held this spectrum. That was back in the day when we were
still dreaming of 3G. We held that spectrum. We have had
experts not only within the Federal system but also in the
private sector designing protocols, building technologies,
designing boxes and only last year finally issuing registration
and security requirement protocols.
Now after 20 years of designing and building this fantastic
life-saving technology, it would be a terrible thing to see it
reallocated to other uses. One doesn't decide to build a dream
house, design and build the dream house, furnish it, and then
decide not to move in because you weren't living there while it
was being designed.
So now is the time after 20 years of effort to take
advantage of this life-saving technology, to fully occupy that
technology. The one thing we need is to remove a technology
requirement that is in FCC's regulations that restricts only
DSRC technologies to be used on the band and allow for other
technologies, to technology-neutral so that superior technology
can deploy.
Senator Peters. Well, I'm out of time, Ms. King.
Ms. King. I'm sorry.
Senator Peters. A quick question, which I think will
require a really quick answer because it's based on what you
just said----
Ms. King. I'll try.
Senator Peters.--about the testing phase. Chairman Pai
suggested last week that Phases 2 and 3 of testing of the 5.9
band to assess interference had not taken place because the
Department of Transportation had not elected to do so. It
sounds like you are actually doing it. You are doing Phase 2
and 3 and you expect to complete those for the record?
Ms. King. Phases 2 and 3 were supposed to be and will and
are informed by Phase 1. The FCC had ownership of managing
Phase 1. That report was only issued, I think it was late last
year, at which time we agreed with FCC, why don't you let DOT
lead the next one? So we're moving quickly because we care a
lot.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Really appreciate
you doing this hearing.
In 2017, 10,874 people died of drunk driving. That's nearly
30 percent of all traffic facilities. That's thousands of lives
needlessly lost and families destroyed.
I've been working to bring down the number of drunk driving
deaths since I was Attorney General of New Mexico in the 1990s.
There's now a technology that could bring this number
closer to zero than we have ever seen. My legislation, the ROAD
SAFE Act, authorized and funded the testing of Driver Alcohol
Detection System for Safety, otherwise known as DADSS. This
technology automatically detects when a driver is intoxicated
with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit and
prevents the car from moving.
On April 12 of this year, I wrote to all car manufacturers
that they have represented that they have an interest in making
the technology available to their customers. I asked whether
they are working with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to test the technology and if they are not
planning to use this technology to prevent drunk driving, I
asked their reasons for not doing so and whether they are
pursuing other measures to reduce drunk driving fatalities.
I request that a copy of my letter and the responses that I
received be placed in the hearing record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wicker. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
April 12, 2019
Anders Gustafsson,
House of Sweden,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Gustafsson:
Alcohol-impaired driving continues to be the leading cause of
highway fatalities--10,874 out of 37,133 in 2017, the last year for
which data is available from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and costs approximately $194 billion. This
represents 29 percent of highway deaths in that year. While this level
of tragedy is below past decades, thanks to tireless advocacy work,
this scale of preventable death should be totally unacceptable to our
society, and I am extremely concerned that drunk driving fatalities are
once again on the rise.
I have been involved in drunk driving prevention throughout my time
in public service, and continue to have a strong interest in
eliminating drunk driving through my work on the Senate Commerce,
Science and Transportation and the Senate Appropriation Committees.
With recent technology advances, I believe this goal is within reach.
The concept of an advanced drunk driving prevention research and
development project was launched in New Mexico at a Mothers Against
Drunk Driving Conference in 2006, with formal work beginning in 2008. I
was pleased to work with all stakeholders, including automakers, to
advance this exciting project by authoring the ROADS SAFE Act, which
authorized and funded the program now known as DADSS (Driver Alcohol
Detection System for Safety). This legislation, which was supported by
a wide variety of interests, including automakers and elements of the
alcohol industry, is one of my proudest legislative achievements.
Since 2008, the DADSS program has been undertaken by NHTSA and auto
manufacturers, including your company, through the Automotive Coalition
for Traffic Safety (ACTS). It began with equal funding from the public
and private sectors, but is now primarily supported with government
funds.
As the research phase nears its completion in Fiscal Year 2020, I
strongly urge your company to capitalize on that progress and integrate
this life saving technology into as many vehicles available to the car
buying public as soon as possible. There is a potential to save as many
as seven thousand lives annually, potentially the greatest automotive
safety improvement since the universal deployment of seatbelts, making
this effort well worth your serious attention and investment. Including
this technology is especially important as each of your companies
expand work and deployment of semi-autonomous vehicles which may
encourage increased drunk driving.
As you may be aware, following a tragic crash in which five members
of a Detroit area family were killed by a wrong way drunk driver in
Kentucky, Representative Debbie Dingell of Michigan has introduced
legislation which calls for a standard to prevent intoxicated drivers
from operating a vehicle within a year of enactment. I am strongly
considering proposing similar legislation in the Senate to advance
drunk driving protection technology in the marketplace.
To assist the Senate Commerce Committee's understanding of the
results of the DADDS program and legislative options to commercialize
this technology, I respectfully request your company's response to the
following:
What plans does your company have to incorporate the DADDS
technology, or other similar technology to prevent the
intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle, into your
commercially available vehicles?
How has your company worked with NHTSA to test such
technology?
When could your company deploy this technology in all of
your commercially available vehicles?
If your company does not have a current plan for mass
deployment, please cite the reasons why and other efforts you
are undertaking to reduce drunk driving fatalities.
Please respond to this request in 30 days.
I look forward to your response and encourage you to contact me or
Meagan Foster of my staff at 202-224-6621 for any questions or follow
up discussion.
Tom Udall,
United States Senator.
______
Car Companies Responses to DADDS Letter
BMW:
Supports the ACTS letter and ``BMW NA has been a supporter of its
research into the development of noninvasive technologies to prevent
alcohol-impaired driving fatalities on U.S. roadways. The DADSS program
research has made progress in the development of two technologies: a
touch--based and a breath--based system. BMW is closely monitoring the
progression of these technologies towards commercially viable
solutions.''
``For successful deployment in privately owned and operated
vehicles, several years of additional research will be required beyond
2020 for the technologies to mature to achieve DADSS performance
specifications. Continued joint funding of the DADSS program, in part
through extending the FAST act authorization is important to bringing
the years of research to a successful culmination. BMW NA will continue
to support and actively monitor the research and development of DADSS
research program.''
Fiat Chrysler:
No Response
Ford:
Supported the ACTS response as well as provided a very detailed
response to the questions posed. While they have been an active
participant in the testing program--they do not have any plans for
integration into their vehicles. Their Ford Fusion vehicles will be
used in the Maryland trials and Ford is providing technical and program
guidance to the DADDS team. They believe that the software should be
available for private cars by 2023 or 2024.
General Motors:
Support the ACTS letter. They have donated 41 Chevrolet Malibu cars
to the field testing program for DADDS.
Honda:
Stated they have been a long supporter of the DADDS program and
participated directly with the ACTS coalition, but does not detail
their contributions. Additionally, they used the same language that the
ACTS response did as it relates to concerns about public rejection of
the technology if it is done incorrectly.
``Once the research on these technologies is completed, the next
issue will be how best to deploy it. We are mindful of the strong
public backlash in the 1970s to ignition interlocks that prevented a
vehicle from being started without the front seatbelts being buckled.
In fact, the outcry was so great that Congress passed a law prohibiting
the Department of Transportation from mandating those systems in future
vehicles. Before deploying DADSS technology, or other similar drunk
driving protection technology in every vehicle, we need to be certain
that the public will not reject them.''
Hyundai:
No Response
Jaguar Land Rover:
No Response
Kia:
Their affiliate company, the Hyundai-Kia Technical Center in Ann
Arbor has committed over a million dollars and technical resources to
the DADDS program. They believe that the integrated system should be
ready by the end of 2024. They cautioned against forced integration
with the following language:
``We will need to study the technology and understand its
shortcomings before committing to a plan for mass deployment. We are
mindful of the public backlash created when the Federal government
mandated seatbelt interlocks, which undermined the rollout of that
technology. We support a voluntary deployment of a commercially viable
program that is driven by consumer demand. We are proud of our
participation in DADSS and believe our efforts in that regard will
reduce drunk driving fatalities.''
Mazda:
Participates in the ACTS coalition, but does not specify the amount
of money or time they have given to the testing.
Mercedes Benz:
``The development of DADSS technologies is moving forward.
Significant progress has been made, but much work is left to do to
ensure technologies are accepted and used by consumers.''
``MBUSA fully aligns with the sentiments expressed by Automotive
Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS)--[of which MBUSA is a member]--in
their letter.''
Mitsubishi:
No response
Nissan:
``While DADSS has made significant progress on developing the base
alcohol detection and measurement technology, important development
steps remain to prove the technology's operation and reliability in the
automotive environment. Additionally, the footprint of the existing
prototypes must be reduced given automotive packaging considerations,
and the ability of the supply chain to manufacture the technology at
scale must be proven out.''
``Nissan supports the letter submitted by ACTS--[of which Nissan is
a member]--in response to your request, and requests that strong
consideration is given to the legislative options offered in that
submission. In particular, it is imperative that Congress continue to
support budgetary measures that ensure the continuation of the ongoing
work of the DADSS program; this includes lifting the FAST Act 2020
funding cap for the DADDS Program, as well as supporting the extension
of the current budgetary authorization for at least four years.''
Porsche:
No response
Subaru:
``Subaru is a member of the DADSS Program, a collaborative project
with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and has
contributed funding as well as in-kind manpower from our engineering
staff to support the DADSS Program.''
``At this time, we [Subaru] have no concrete deployment plan for
the technology as further research is necessary for widespread
deployment of the technology and consumer acceptance has not yet been
proven to be sufficient level to influence driver behavior.''
Toyota:
``The DADSS Program is in the invention phase, with current testing
estimated to deliver a technology transfer of a fleet and accessory
specification version in 2020 to vehicle integrators.''
``Toyota plans to continue to evaluate this and any other
technologies that can address this safety issue. We believe that
carefully incorporating technologies in a way that maximizes customer
acceptance will also lead to the most safety benefits.''
``We support the content of the enclosed letter from ACTS. . .''
Volkswagen:
No response
Volvo:
``Volvo Cars believes intoxication and distraction should be
addressed by installing in-car cameras and other sensors that monitor
the driver and allow the car to intervene if a clearly intoxicated or
distracted driver does not respond to warning signals and is at risk.
That intervention could involve limiting the car's speed, alerting the
Volvo on Call assistance service and, as a final course of action, the
car would eventually intervene and safely park on the side of the
road.''
``Volvo Cars is part of the ACTS which has been working with NHTSA
to research, test and validate the DADSS technology. Volvo Cars fully
informs NHTSA on our current and future technology and research plans
on a regular basis.''
``Volvo Cars will continue to evaluate the DADSS technology, once
the necessary verification and validation testing and research are
complete.''
______
Ford World Headquarters
Dearborn, MI, May 09, 2019
Hon. Tom Udall,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Udall:
Re: Letter Dated April 12, 2019, to Ford Motor Company CEO Jim Hackett
Regarding Alcohol-Impaired Driving
Thank you for your recent letter and long-standing leadership and
dedication to preventing alcohol-impaired driving. We welcome the
opportunity to share how we continue to make vehicle safety a top
priority for Ford. The Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, Inc.
(ACTS) is also providing a response to your letter on behalf of its
members, and Ford, as an ACTS member, supports that response.
As the response from ACTS details, the Driver Alcohol Detection
System for Safety (DADSS) technology referenced in your letter is still
in the ``invention stage,'' and therefore, it is not ready for
implementation across the commercially available fleet of vehicles in
the United States. The readiness of DADSS-like technology for
incorporation into privately-owned and operated motor vehicles is
several years away and would be further enabled by extension and/or
enhancement of the FAST Act authorization to support ongoing research
and development of reliable, automotive-grade technologies for
detecting alcohol impairment of a vehicle operator.
Ford, individually and as a member of ACTS, will continue to
support and contribute to the development of DADSS and/or other similar
technologies by conducting scientific studies at our Research and
Innovation Center, providing technical and financial support, and
supplying vehicles for testing. Additionally, Ford supports the
legislative options outlined in the response from ACTS that can be
pursued now as the automotive safety community addresses the technical
and practicability challenges associated with developing and validating
reliable, mass-production driver alcohol-level detection systems.
I want to assure you that the safety of our customers is a primary
focus at Ford. One example of our commitment to helping people become
safer drivers is Ford's ``Driving Skills for Life'' (Ford DSFL) program
that was formed sixteen years ago, in partnership with the Governors
Highway Safety Association. This program aims to reduce the number of
people killed in vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death for
teenagers in the United States and much of the world. Ford DSFL teaches
newly licensed drivers necessary skills beyond standard driver
education programs. Lessons on speed awareness, distracted driving,
vehicle handling, and the simulated effects of drugs and alcohol are
delivered through hands-on courses, classroom sessions and an
interactive online training center. Ford DSFL is currently active in
forty-three countries.
With respect to impaired driving, Ford DSFL includes sessions on
the dangers of driving under the influence, and participants at many of
our clinics can try our innovative ``Drunk Driving Suits'' and ``Drug
Driving Suits,'' and in some courses, the ``Hangover Suit.'' These
`suits' simulate the sensations of substance abuse that can alter a
person's ability to safety operate a motor vehicle, such as reduced
reaction times, impaired vision, and compromised coordination.
Ford's responses to your questions are provided in Attachment I to
this letter. We appreciate the opportunity to engage with you and other
policymakers on the important issues related to safety on our Nation's
roadways. If you should have any questions, please contact Desi
Ujkashevic (313-845-4320, [email protected]) or Curt Magleby (202-962-
5392, [email protected]).
Sincerely,
Kimberly Pittel,
Group Vice President,
Sustainability, Environment
& Safety Engineering,
Ford Motor Company.
Attachment
______
Question 1. What plans does your company have to incorporate the
DADSS technology, or other similar technology to prevent the
intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle, into your commercially
available vehicles?
Ford has been a very active participant in the DADSS Program since
its inception. Ford, together with other original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs), has developed a comprehensive ``DADD Performance
Specifications for Automotive Applications,'' which is critical to
validating the reliability and robustness of the technology.
To enable early adoption, Ford along with other DADSS members, have
developed a roadmap for the first release of a DADSS commercial
derivative for fleet vehicles and accessory applications of the breath-
based DADSS technology. Ford is in the process of building a DADSS
demonstration platform to share the technology capability and awareness
with the fleet customers. Additionally, Ford is exploring proprietary
methods to enable communication with third-party alcohol detection
devices.
As detailed in the ACTS response, the development and validation of
DADSS is still early in the process. Based on this status, Ford does
not have plans to implement DADSS and/or similar technologies into
vehicles at this time. However, we are actively supporting the DADSS
Program, and although we do not have DADSS technology in our current
product plans, we will reevaluate as the technology advances.
Question 2. Has your company worked with NHTSA to test such
technology?
Ford has been working extensively with NHTSA and other OEMs through
the DADSS Program. We are currently assisting the DADSS Program with
installation of the technology in Ford Fusion sedans for a Maryland
Department of Transportation field trial. Ford will continue to
evaluate and monitor the progress of this DADSS initiative.
In addition, Ford has provided technical and program guidance to
the DADSS team, including helping to develop:
Performance specifications, including device measurement and
robustness targets
Technology assessments
Development and analysis of `real-world' fleet trials
Engagement with the supplier base to help facilitate
deployment after the technology is fully developed and
validated
Human response studies at McLean Hospital (Harvard Medical
School Affiliate).
Questions 3 and 4. When could your company deploy this technology
in all of your commercially available vehicles?
If your company does not have a current plan for mass deployment,
please cite the reasons why and other efforts you are undertaking to
reduce drunk driving fatalities?
Based on the early development status of DADSS and/or similar
technologies, there is no reliable, validated, automotive-grade,
commercially available driver alcohol-level detection system that OEMs
can mass deploy at this time. However, Ford remains committed to the
DADSS Program, and as the prove-out of this technology advances, we
will reevaluate the future implementation readiness of DADSS and/or
similar systems.
As outlined in the ACTS response, the DADSS Program is currently
targeting the release of a derivative for privately-owned and operated
vehicles for the breath-based technology by 2023 to 2024 based on the
reauthorization of the FAST Act. Ford will continue to monitor and work
to support the success of the DADSS Program.
Through partnership with other OEMs, NHTSA, MADD, and other key
stakeholders, Ford will work to increase awareness of DADSS technology
among fleet operators and the public, and we support the legislative
options outlined in the ACTS response.
Ford also believes that getting the message about the dangers of
impaired driving to the next generation of drivers is imperative.
Therefore, our Ford ``Driving Skills for Life'' (Ford DSFL) teenage
driver education program includes sessions on the dangers of driving
under the influence, and participants at many of our clinics can try
our innovative ``Drunk Driving Suits'' and ``Drug Driving Suits,'' and
in some courses, the ``Hangover Suit.'' These `suits' simulate the
sensations of substance abuse that can alter a person's ability to
safety operate a motor vehicle, such as reduced reaction times,
impaired vision and compromised coordination.
Ford DSFL was formed sixteen years ago, in partnership with the
Governors Highway Safety Association. This program aims to reduce the
number of people killed in vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death
for teenagers in the United States and much of the world. Ford DSFL
teaches newly licensed drivers necessary skills beyond standard driver
education programs. Lessons on speed awareness, distracted driving,
vehicle handling, and the simulated effects of drugs and alcohol are
delivered through hands-on courses, classroom sessions and an
interactive online training center. The program's training sessions are
adapted to reflect the unique environments, cultures, and driving
conditions in different markets around the world. Ford DSFL is
currently active in forty-three countries.
______
HONDA
Honda North America, Inc.
Washington, DC, May 24, 2019
Hon. Tom Udall,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Udall:
Mr. Shinji Aoyama asked that I respond to your letter of April 12,
2019 regarding countermeasures to address the tragedy of deaths and
injuries on our Nation's highways attributed to alcohol-related
driving. You are justifiably proud of your efforts to address this
problem, including the ROADS SAFE Act.
Alcohol-related crashes have plagued our highways from the
beginning of the automobile. It was for this reason that Honda and
virtually the entire auto industry have been enthusiastic about the
development of a technological solution to address the problem. Honda
has been a long-standing contributor to the NHTSA-ACTS partnership and
has participated directly in the evolution of the project and the
underlying technologies.
As you know, two separate technologies are being explored for the
Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS)--one system which
passively analyzes the driver's breath and a second based on assessing
blood alcohol content based on touch. While progress is being made,
significant research is still needed to address the remaining
challenges with both technologies, including reliability, packaging and
cost, before they can be considered for deployment. Our assessment is
that while the breath-based system is further along on the development
continuum, there is still work to be done on both.
Once the research on these technologies is completed, the next
issue will be how best to deploy it. We are mindful of the strong
public backlash in the 1970s to ignition interlocks that prevented a
vehicle from being started without the front seatbelts being buckled.
In fact, the outcry was so great that Congress passed a law prohibiting
the Department of Transportation from mandating those systems in future
vehicles. Before deploying DADSS technology, or other similar drunk
driving protection technology in every vehicle, we need to be certain
that the public will not reject them.
We share your commitment to rid the roads of alcohol-related deaths
and injuries. Towards this end, we intend to continue working with
other automakers and NHTSA to identify the most effective and viable
solutions.
Edward B. Cohen,
Vice President,
Government & Industry Relations.
______
Nissan North America, Inc.
Franklin, TN, May 24, 2019
Our Ref: W-2090-B
Hon. Tom Udall,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re: Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS)
Dear Senator Udall,
Nissan North America, Inc. (``Nissan'') welcomes the opportunity to
respond to the questions posed in your letter to Hirota Saikawa dated
April 12, 2019. Your letter discussed alcohol-impaired driving and the
work of the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) program,
and posed questions regarding Nissan's plans to deploy technology
developed by the DADSS program.
Nissan appreciates your continued leadership toward the elimination
of drunk driving . Alcohol-impaired crashes are a significant motor
vehicle safety issue. In addition to support ing the development of
advanced alcohol detection technology through the DADSS program, Nissan
is a sponsor of a teen driver safety initiative called ''ThinkFast!''
to help educate teens about safe driving practices, including the risks
assoc iated with impaired driving.
Nissan is a member of the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety
(ACTS), and has supported the DADSS program since its inception. From
the beginning, DADSS was understood to be a significant undertaking
given the technical development challenges and consumer acceptance
requirements for the performance of the technology. When complete, the
output of DADSS will be the very definition of cutting-edge, with a
performance envelope unmatched by any existing in-vehicle alcohol
detection equipment.
While DADSS has made significant progress on developing the base
alcohol detection and measurement technology, important development
steps remain to prove the technology's operation and reliability in the
automotive environment. Additionally, the footprint of the existing
prototypes must be reduced given automotive packaging considerations,
and the ability of the supp ly chain to manufacture the technology at
scale must be proven out
Nissan supports the letter submitted by ACTS in response to your
request, and requests that strong consideration is given to the
legislative options offered in that submission . In particular, it is
imperative that Congress continue to support budgetary measures that
ensure the continuation of the ongoing work of the DADSS program; this
includes lifting the FAST ACT 2020 funding cap for the DADSS Program,
as well as supporting the extension of the current budgetary
authorization for at least four years.
Nissan cannot determine a plan to incorporate the DADSS technology
into our customers' vehicles until the technology has completed the
development process, including a careful evaluation of consumer
acceptance. We look forward to supporting the DADSS program through the
next phase of development and would appreciate your continued support
of the program.
Sincerely,
Selim Hammoud,
Director, NNA Safety Officer,
Product Safety, Environmental, FOA,
Nissan North America, Inc.
______
North American Subaru, Inc.
Camden, NJ, May 10, 2019
Hon. Tom Udall,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Udall:
North American Subaru, Inc., on behalf of SUBARU Corporation and
Subaru of America, Inc. (collectively herein ``Subaru''), hereby
provides an attached response to your letter dated April 12, 2019,
concerning our efforts for preventing drunk driving.
Safety is out first and foremost priority at Subaru and we commend
your strong leadership, including your support for the Driver Alcohol
Detection System for Safety (``DADSS'') Program authorization and
funding to eliminate drunk driving. As you alarmed in your letter,
drunk driving remains to be a significant safety concern, claiming
approximately 10,000 lives and costing $194 billion every year in the
U.S. The tragic deaths of the Abbas family (Issam (42), Rima (38), Ali
(13), Isabella (12), and Giselle (7)) is an important reminder that
crashes are preventable which strengthens our commitment to continue
rigorously working towards our overarching zero-fatality vision.
We appreciate an opportunity to express our approach for this
critical issue and as a member of the Automotive Coalition for Traffic
Safety, Inc. (``ACTS'') \1\, Subaru supports a response submitted by
the ACTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ACTS is whollyfunded by a diverse membership which includes
companies headquartered in the U.S., Europe and Asia--BMW, Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land
Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru,
Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should you have any questions regarding our response, please
contact me at (856) 571-4058 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Hiro Kamagami,
Vice President, Government Relations,
Washington, DC Office,
North American Subaru, Inc.
HK/ms Attachment
______
Attachment
In order to realize our vision, Subaru has been working on driver
assist technology for nearly 30 years. In 2012, Subaru introduced
driver-assist technology called EyeSight to the U.S. market, which uses
the world's first stereo-camera only technology with numerous
functionalities for improving safety, including ACC (Adaptive Cruise
Control), FCW (Forward Collision Warning), AEB (Automatic Emergency
Braking), LDW (Lane Departure Warning), and Active Lane Keeping. All
Subaru vehicles will have EyeSight as standard equipment by 2022 to
help improve the Nation's road safety.
We believe that existing advanced driver assist systems (ADAS) such
as EyeSight, and improved ADAS with better latitudinal and longitudinal
controls (e.g., automatic lane change and automatic deceleration at
curves) could identify numerous crash scenarios. Subaru is taking a
step-by-step approach for realizing the ultimate ADAS in which the
driver will be always in the loop in our development process.
Since 2014, Subaru has been a member of the DADSS Program, a
public-private partnership between the Automotive Coalition for Traffic
Safety Inc. (``ACTS'') and NHTSA, to develop vehicle-integrated
technologies to prevent drunk driving.
In addition to financial contribution, we have been providing in-
kind contributions of our subject matter experts to work on two passive
technologies under the DADSS Program--a touch-based and a breath-based
system. Thus far, a significant part of our efforts has been aimed at
the research needed to meet the DADSS Performance Specifications
related to speed, accuracy, precision and reliability of the BAC (blood
alcohol concentration) measurement, which require that every piece of
safety equipment installed in passenger vehicles as original equipment
performs precisely 99.9997 percent of the time to ensure that no driver
at or above 0.08 percent BAC is allowed to drive, while also ensuring
that sober drivers are not hassled.
The Program is targeting the end of 2020 \2\ for the hand-off of
the first commercial derivative of the breath-based technology for use
in fleets and as an accessory device to technology implementers such as
automakers, suppliers, accessory device manufacturers. It is important
to emphasize that the fleet/accessory derivative will not meet the
DADSS Performance Specifications needed for widespread deployment in
consumer vehicles and additional research in the years after 2020 will
be necessary to achieve that goal. Should the DADSS authorization be
extended, it is expected that the consumer derivative of the DADSS
technology to be ready by approximately 2024 at which time the
technology could be considered into vehicle integration process that is
at least 2 years in duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For Current Efforts and Technology Roadmap of the DADSS
Program, please refer to Enhancing Vehicle Technology to Prevent Drunk
Driving, Hearing before the Sub committee on Consumer Protection and
Commerce, of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House, 116th Cong.
5-10. (2019) (testimony of Robert Strassburger, President and CEO, The
Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, Inc., available at https://
energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-
enhancing-vehicle-technology-to-prevent-drunk-driving, last accessed on
April 22, 2019)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is our strong belief that establishing consumer acceptance of
this technology is as critical as developing fault-free systems and the
release of the fleet and accessory derivative would capitalize on the
research's progress by contributing invaluable field performance data
and experience needed to commercialize consumer derivatives while
raising consumer awareness, acceptance, and ultimately demand for the
technology.
Below is a list of our responses to your questions:
What plans does your company have to incorporate the DADDS
technology, or other similar technology to prevent the
intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle, into your
commercially available vehicles?
As a step toward help reducing numbers of avoidable crashes to
achieve our vision, we have introduced the Driver Monitoring System
called DriverFocus \3\, which monitors the driver to help ensure their
attention is focused on the road ahead. Subaru is one of the first auto
brands to offer this state-of-the art technology, which can provide
added safety and extra convenience for both new and experienced
drivers. DriverFocus is a driver recognition technology, using an
infrared LED and camera, the system delivers visual and auditory alerts
if their attention to the road wavers or if the driver's face appears
to turn away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DriverFocus is currently available in 2019 MY Forester and 2020
MY Legacy and Outback. The system can recognize up to five individual
drivers, memorizing their preset preferences and adjusting the cabin
environment for both their safety and comfort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the current system does not directly address drunk
drivers, various literatures and studies link behavioral similarities
between drowsy drivers and drunk drivers \4\, and with additional
safety features provided by EyeSight, e.g., Lane Departure and Sway
Warning, we are making efforts to raise drivers' situational awareness
so that he or she may realize that it is not suitable to continue
driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For example, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study found that
the crash rate for drivers who slept only four or five hours was
``similar to the U.S. government's estimates of the risk associated
with driving with a blood alcohol concentration equal to or slightly
above the legal limit for alcohol in the U.S.'' Tefft, Brian. 2016.
Acute Sleep Deprivation and Risk of Motor Vehicle Crash Involvement,
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the DADSS technology, we support technology roadmap drafted
by the Program, which estimates that first DADSS commercial derivative
for fleet vehicles and accessory applications of the breath-based DADSS
technology will be released in 2020 and should the FAST Act
authorization be extended to 2024, the release of the derivative for
privately owned and operated vehicles for the breath-based technology
is expected by 2023 to 2024.
How has your company worked with NHTSA to test such
technology?
As stated previously, Subaru is a member of the DADSS Program, a
collaborative project with NHTSA, and has contributed funding as well
as in-kind manpower from our engineering staff to support the DADSS
Program.
When could your company deploy this technology in all of
your commercially available vehicles?
Subaru is committed to our zero-fatality vision and providing top-
level safety systems with our customers in an affordable manner. As
noted, Subaru is taking a step-by-step approach for eliminating crashes
in the real world by enhancing capabilities (from longitudinal and
latitudinal directions) of our core-technology EyeSight which will be
standard for all of our vehicles in 2022. At this time, we have no
concrete deployment plan for the technology as further research is
necessary for widespread deployment of the technology and consumer
acceptance has not yet been proven to be sufficient level to influence
driver behavior.
If your company does not have a current plan for mass
deployment, please cite the reasons why and other efforts you
are undertaking to reduce drunk driving fatalities.
We have not considered the technology in our current development
plan at this moment as its accuracy, redundancy, speed and other
critical elements need further research for wide deployment in
privately operated vehicles. In addition, the DADSS Program has been
actively implementing consumer education, however, the level of
consumer acceptance has not been matured yet to influence driver
behavior for ensuring wide deployment of the technology. Subaru is
offering the DriverFocus system as described in this letter, which
recognizes the status of the driver to provide warnings and alerts.
Currently, we are working on the next generation of the DriverFocus
which enhances driver monitoring capabilities to expand the scope of
the impaired driving.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Udall. Thank you. Unfortunately, the responses
leave a lot to be desired.
Since these manufacturers support my legislation and have
been engaged with the DADSS Program for a decade, I expected
more positive responses, particularly when so many lives are at
stake.
But the arguments from the automobile manufacturers why
they are not planning to implement this technology sound all
too familiar. They are the same arguments they made why
airbags, backup cameras, and probably every safety feature
should not be deployed. They claim that the technology is
unproven and we need to move cautiously before installing it.
Enough is enough. I'm tired of waiting. These same car
companies have aggressively pushed for deregulation, to allow
autonomous vehicles to be widely deployed and use all of us as
test subjects, but when it comes to safety technology that is
very close to being able to be deployed, caution is requested.
My position is that we must take steps to advance this
lifesaving technology much more quickly.
I recognize that the field testing stage is happening now
and I'm hopeful that New Mexico will be one of the states where
the testing occurs, but we must have support for DADSS from
every single car company and from NHTSA.
We have to do more to get this technology on the roads.
Every single car manufacturer should be working hard today to
integrate this technology into their vehicles as soon as
possible.
Ms. King, NHTSA is required to send annual reports on the
DADSS Program to Congress. My office has the reports up through
2016. Can you explain the delay in releasing the 2017 and 2018
reports?
Ms. King. Thank you for that question, Senator.
No, I cannot explain it. I'm not aware, but I will look
into that and I will get back to you in haste.
Senator Udall. I hope you'll give us a strong answer for
the record what's happening there.
Ms. King. I will. For the record, I want to say I'm
impressed with the technology. I'm very pleased at the work, at
the research effort between NHTSA and the Automotive Coalition
for Traffic Safety have completed. The technology seems very
well suited in particular for fleet use to my eyes. It's now
low profile and it's attractive and it has a high record of
success with detection of alcohol presence.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Ms. King. So I'm supportive.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Assistant Secretary Szabat, in
your prepared testimony, you highlighted DOT's Infrastructure
for Rebuilding America Grants, known as the INFRA Grants. The
program is designed to support large projects that promote
economic benefits in addition to enhancing transportation and,
most critically, improve safety.
In 2017, New Mexico had the fifth highest rate of deaths
from fatal motor vehicle crashes per capita, fifth most
dangerous state for traffic accidents, and from 2015 to 2016,
New Mexico saw the largest percent increase in traffic
fatalities in the nation, 35 percent. These aren't just
numbers. They represent hundreds of lives lost.
New Mexico has one of the largest, if not the largest, need
for money to support traffic safety, but do you know how much
my state has received from DOT INFRA Grants over the past three
years? Zero dollars. State and local governments in New Mexico
have a demonstrated need and have submitted to you a request
for over $284 million from the INFRA Program.
I encourage Secretary Chao to fully consider their requests
in light of the high need for safety funding in my state. I
hope you'll do that.
Mr. Szabat. Senator, we will.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Udall.
And thank you to all of our participants and to the
witnesses.
The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During
this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the
record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit
their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible but
by no later than Wednesday, July 10, 2019.
Thank you very, very much.
This hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Advocates
June 18, 2019
Hon. Roger Wicker, Chairman,
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:
As you prepare for tomorrow's hearing, ``FAST Act Reauthorization:
Transportation and Safety Issues,'' we urge you to ensure that safety
is prioritized for all of America's road users. This Committee has a
successful history of advancing safety improvements in previous surface
transportation bills. Tire pressure monitoring systems, rear outboard
3-point seat belts, electronic stability control, rear seat belt
reminder systems, rear view cameras, brake transmission interlocks,
seat belts on motorcoaches, electronic logging devices, and others,
which have saved hundreds of thousands of lives, have been accomplished
because of the bipartisan leadership of members of this Committee. As
the Committee begins consideration of reauthorizing surface
transportation programs, the following recommendations are critical to
save lives, prevent injuries and contain costs. We respectfully request
that this letter be included in the hearing record.
Proven, Advanced Vehicle Technologies Should be Standard in All New
Vehicles
Advanced vehicle technologies can prevent and lessen the severity
of crashes and should be required as standard equipment on all new
vehicles. These include, at a minimum, automatic emergency braking
(AEB), lane departure warning (LDW) and blind spot detection (BSD) for
cars, trucks and buses. These safety systems can help stop crashes from
occurring, as well as reduce the impact of crashes that do occur.
However, they are often sold as part of an additional, expensive trim
package along with other non-safety features, or included only in high
end models or vehicles. Moreover, there are currently no minimum
performance standards to ensure they perform as expected.
In 2015, Advocates and other safety groups filed a petition with
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) seeking the
issuance of a rule to require forward collision avoidance and
mitigation braking systems (F-CAM), also known as AEB, on commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
10,000 pounds or more. The NHTSA estimates that fleetwide adoption of
advanced AEB systems could save 166 lives per year and prevent 8,361
injuries. The agency granted Advocates' petition in October of 2015 but
has not undertaken any further regulatory proceedings.
Additionally, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has
found that while nighttime visibility is essential for safety, few
vehicles are equipped with headlights that perform well.
Recommendation: Advanced vehicle technologies that have
proven to be effective at preventing and mitigating crashes,
including AEB, LDW and BSD should be standard equipment on all
new cars, trucks and buses. Congress should require the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) to issue final rules setting
minimum performance standards on these technologies and to
upgrade Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 108 to
improve headlight performance.
Commonsense Regulation of Experimental Autonomous Vehicle
Technology is Essential While autonomous vehicles (AVs) have tremendous
promise to meaningfully reduce traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries
as well as increase mobility once they are proven to be safe, they must
be subject to minimum performance standards set by the U.S. DOT.
Additionally, minimum performance requirements and protections will be
necessary as autonomous systems are deployed in CMVs. Large trucks and
buses should have an appropriately trained and licensed driver behind
the wheel, and introduction of automated systems should not be used as
a rationale for weakening operational rules such as hours of service,
driver training and other important requirements. The recent crashes
involving the Boeing 737 MAX airplane highlight the catastrophic
results that can occur when automated technology potentially
malfunctions and is not subject to thorough independent oversight.
Recommendation: Among other needed safeguards, AVs must be
subject to minimum performance standards set by the U.S. DOT
including for cybersecurity, vehicle electronics, driver
engagement for AVs that require a human driver to take over at
any point, and a ``vision test'' for driverless cars to ensure
they can properly detect and respond to their surroundings.
Impaired Driving is a Solvable Problem
On average, an alcohol-impaired driving fatality occurs every 48
minutes on America's roads. In 2017, 10,874 people were killed in
crashes involving a drunk driver, accounting for nearly a third of all
traffic fatalities. Moreover, when drug and alcohol use are combined,
known as ``polyuse'', the effects of impairment for a driver can be
amplified.
Recommendation: Congress should direct the U.S. DOT to take
a number of actions that would curb impaired driving.
Specifically, they should issue a minimum standard requiring
all new vehicles to be equipped with passive sensor technology
that prevents a vehicle from moving if the blood alcohol
content (BAC) of the driver is above a certain level.
Additionally, states should be incentivized to lower the legal
BAC limit to 0.05 percent or lower. Moreover, 17 states still
do not have a lifesaving law requiring ignition interlock
devices (IIDs) for all offenders. States that do not yet have
this vital law should be required to enact it by a date certain
or face a sanction.
The Epidemic of Distracted Driving Must be Addressed
In 2017, crashes involving a distracted driver claimed 3,166 lives.
Crashes in which at least one driver was identified as being distracted
impose an annual economic cost of $40 billion dollars, based on 2010
data. Issues with underreporting crashes involving cell phones remain
because of differences in police crash report coding, database
limitations, and other challenges. It is clear from an increasing body
of safety research, studies and data that the use of electronic devices
for telecommunications (such as mobile phones and text messaging),
telematics and entertainment can readily distract drivers from the
driving task.
Recommendation: NHTSA should issue regulations to strictly
limit the use of electronic communication and information
features that can be operated and to prohibit the use of those
features that cannot be conducted safely while driving.
Additionally, improvements to the incentive grant program are
needed to encourage states to pass strong safety laws and
qualify for money to undertake efforts to combat distracted
driving. The aforementioned improvement of requiring proven,
advanced vehicle technologies would also reduce and mitigate
distracted driving crashes.
Information and Data Should be Collected and Available
At a minimum, vehicle crash data should be collected, recorded,
accessible, and shared with appropriate Federal agencies and
researchers so that safety-critical problems can be identified.
Currently, there is no requirement that vehicles be equipped with an
event data recorder (EDR). While the type of data voluntarily-installed
EDRs must capture is required, this information is insufficient to
properly ascertain facts about crashes, especially as vehicles become
more highly automated. Consumers must also be given essential
information about the limitations and capabilities of AVs in the
owner's manual and at the point of sale, as well as via a public
website searchable by vehicle identification number (VIN). It should
include, at a minimum, vehicle information such as any exemptions from
Federal safety standards and the AV's operational design domain (ODD).
Recommendation: Crash data generated by vehicles should be
collected, recorded, accessible, and shared with appropriate
Federal agencies and researchers so that safetycritical
problems can be identified. EDRs must be mandated for all
vehicles and required to collect sufficient, standardized
information to aid investigators and regulators in assessing
performance, including for AVs. In addition, consumers must be
given essential information about the limitations and
capabilities of AVs in the owner's manual and at the point of
sale, as well as via a public website searchable by VIN.
Prevent ``Hot Car'' Deaths
Legislation is critically needed to address the problem of
occupants being left unknowingly in the rear seats of passenger
vehicles. In 2018, a record number of 52 children were killed in
vehicular heatstroke incidents. These tragedies can be prevented by
equipping vehicles with a detection system that alerts parents and
other caregivers to check the backseat. We are thankful for your
leadership, along with Senator Blumenthal, in introducing the HOT CARS
Act of 2019 (S. 1601).
Recommendation: Congress should enact legislation that would
require the U.S. DOT to issue a final rule for all new cars to
be equipped with a detection system with a visual, auditory and
haptic alert for occupants unintentionally left in vehicles.
The Seatback Strength Standard Must be Updated
Parents have long been advised that the safest place for a child is
in the rear seat. Yet, NHTSA has failed to adequately protect a child
in the rear seat when the front seatback fails or collapses in a crash.
According to the Center for Auto Safety, from 1990 to 2014, nearly 900
children seated behind a front-seat occupant or in a center rear seat
died in rear impacts of 1990 and later model-year cars due to front-
seatback failure. The safety standard for seatback performance was
issued in 1967 and is woefully inadequate.
Recommendation: Congress should enact legislation that would
require the U.S. DOT to update the Federal safety standard for
seatback strength.
Improved Protections for Vulnerable Road Users are Needed
Deaths and injuries of pedestrians and bicyclists remain
unacceptably high. In fact, in 2016, pedestrian and bicyclist
fatalities hit their highest levels in nearly 30 years and estimates
from 2018 show an increase in both categories. Vehicles can be
designed, specifically in the front end, to reduce the severity of
impacts with pedestrians and/or bicyclists. Additionally, collision
avoidance systems for pedestrians, like advanced AEB, have promise to
further reduce deaths and injuries. Advocates continues to monitor
research on the effectiveness of these systems and will support data-
driven solutions to prevent these fatalities. Moreover, the New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP) must be updated to include pedestrian
crashworthiness and pedestrian crash avoidance.
Recommendation: The NHTSA should be directed to issue a
standard for improved vehicle designs to reduce the severity of
impacts with road users. In addition, NCAP must be updated to
include pedestrian crashworthiness and pedestrian crash
avoidance.
Connected Vehicle Technology has the Potential to Offer Added Safety
Benefits
Connected vehicle technologies allow a vehicle to send and receive
communications with other vehicles (vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V)) and the
infrastructure (vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I)). These messages can
relay information ranging from the relative location and direction of
motion of other vehicles to warning messages that traffic lights are
about to change or inclement weather conditions are soon to be
encountered. These systems will likely help fill in gaps in the
performance of AVs.
Recommendation: In 2017, NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) to require V2V technology. Despite the
identified safety benefits of V2V technology, this rule is
languishing at the U.S. DOT. NHTSA should be directed to
complete this rulemaking.
Safety Standards are Necessary for Keyless Ignition Systems
Keyless ignition vehicles present certain safety risks including
carbon monoxide poisoning and vehicle rollaway. As more vehicles
equipped with keyless ignitions are sold, prevalence of the dangers
from problems associated with them is increasing.
Recommendation: Congress should pass the PARK IT Act (S.
543/H.R. 3145), introduced by Committee members Senators
Blumenthal and Markey, which would require NHTSA to issue
standards for keyless ignition vehicles including an automatic
shutoff and preventing a vehicle from rolling away.
NHTSA Must be Sufficiently Funded and Given Additional Authorities
Ensuring NHTSA has adequate resources, funds and staff is a crucial
priority. Additionally, in recent years, millions of motor vehicles
have been recalled for serious and sometimes fatal safety defects
including GM ignition switches and Takata airbags. Nonetheless, used
cars can still be sold and leased with open recalls--a significant
loophole that should be closed. NHTSA must also have imminent hazard
authority to take immediate action when the agency determines that a
defect involves a condition that substantially increases the likelihood
of serious injury or death if not remedied. Further, NHTSA must also be
given the authority to pursue criminal penalties in appropriate cases
where corporate officers who acquire actual knowledge of a serious
product danger that could lead to serious injury or death and knowingly
and willfully fail to inform NHTSA and warn the public.
Recommendation: Considering the unacceptably high number of
fatalities and injuries on our Nation's roads, the prevalence
of recalls, and the new responsibilities incumbent upon the
U.S. DOT as AVs are developed and deployed, NHTSA must have
additional resources, expertise and authorities to effectively
oversee vehicle safety.
Our Most Precious Passengers Need Enhanced Protections
Every year, nearly 500,000 school buses transport more than 25
million children to and from school and school-related activities,
according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Leading
safety experts have determined that all school buses should be equipped
with safety belts to improve passenger safety. Additional technologies
can also make school buses safer.
Recommendation: Congress should require important safety
advancements be made to ensure the safety of children both
inside and outside of school buses.
Speeding Exacerbates CMV Safety Problems
According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA), 10,440 people were killed from 2004 to 2013 in crashes where
the speed of the CMV likely contributed to the severity of the crash.
On average, that amounts to over 1,000 lives lost annually to speeding
CMVs.
Recommendation: We urge Congress to require that the U.S.
DOT issue a final rule requiring all new CMVs to be equipped
with speed limiting devices set at a speed that does not exceed
65 miles per hour and requiring those CMVs that already have
the technology be set at a speed that does not exceed 65 miles
per hour.
Underride Crashes Have Horrific Outcomes; Equipment Advances are Needed
Technology is currently available that can significantly increase
the chances that an individual can survive crashes where a motor
vehicle travels underneath the rear or side of a truck trailer. The
FMVSS that apply to rear underride guards should be updated to meet the
standards set by IIHS in their TOUGHGUARD award and should be applied
to single-unit trucks (SUTs) as well as trailers. Side underride guards
have now been proven to be able to save lives and mitigate crashes and
thus, should be required as standard equipment on all trailers and
SUTs. In addition, front guards that prevent a truck from overriding or
traveling over a passenger motor vehicle when the truck strikes the
rear of the vehicle have been in use in the European Union for years.
Recommendation: Congress should swiftly pass the Stop
Underrides Act (S. 665/H.R. 1511) which will require the
current Federal standards for rear underride guards to be
upgraded to meet current industry standards and the
installation of side and front guards.
Driver Fatigue is a Well-Known CMV Safety Problem
Currently, truck drivers are permitted to drive grueling hours
which can lead to cumulative fatigue and devastating safety
consequences. The NTSB has repeatedly cited fatigue as a major
contributor to truck crashes and included reducing fatigue related
crashes in every edition of its Most Wanted List of safety changes
since 2016. In December 2017, a rule took effect that mandated the use
of electronic logging devices (ELDs) to record truck driver hours of
service (HOS). ELDs offer an objective record of a driver's hours to
promote compliance. Since the rule took effect, HOS violations have
decreased 39 percent.
Recommendation: We urge Congress to reject efforts to
diminish the rule requiring the use of ELDs and to further
erode HOS regulations. Moreover, Congress should direct the
FMCSA to issue a rule to ensure that drivers afflicted with
obstructive sleep apnea are properly screened during the
medical examination and are receiving the medical treatment
they need so they do not become needlessly fatigued while
operating a CMV on public roads.
``Teen Truckers'' Pose a Major Safety Threat
Some segments of the trucking industry are pushing for legislation
that would allow teenagers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce in
order to alleviate the so-called ``driver shortage.'' However, a March
2019 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) study concluded there is no
inordinate labor shortage in the trucking industry. Additionally, CMV
drivers under the age of 19 are four times more likely to be involved
in fatal crashes, as compared to CMV drivers who are 21 years of age
and older, and CMV drivers ages 19-20 are six times more likely to be
involved in fatal crashes (compared to CMV drivers 21 years and older).
Recommendation: Attempts to allow teenagers to operate CMVs
in interstate commerce should be rejected by Congress.
CMV Drivers Need Adequate Training
The lack of uniform adequate training for candidates obtaining
their commercial driver's license (CDL) has been a known safety problem
for decades.
Recommendation: We urge Congress to direct the FMCSA to
amend the final rule for entry level driving training for all
CDL candidates to include a minimum number of behind-thewheel
training hours.
Safety Data on Carrier Performance Must Be Publicly Available and FMCSA
Must Have the Ability to Better Identify and Intervene with
High Risk Carriers
Fatal truck crashes continue to occur at an alarmingly high rate
and without public accountability, there is insufficient incentive for
unsafe carriers to improve their operations. Section 5223 of the FAST
Act (Pub. L. 114-94) required that certain safety scores of FMCSA's
Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program for trucks be removed
from public view. The FAST Act also required the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) to study the CSA program
method for evaluating the safety of motor carriers and commercial
vehicle drivers. The NASEM study concluded that the method was sound
and made several recommendations to improve the CSA program. Relatedly,
Advocates supported FMCSA's 2016 action to upgrade the safety fitness
determination (SFD) process, which informs the CSA program, by using
on-road safety data to evaluate carriers in addition to an agency
investigation. This update to the SFD program would have significantly
enhanced the FMCSA's ability to identify unsafe carriers because it
would have enabled the agency to use data from the carrier's on-road
operations, yet the agency withdrew the rulemaking in August of 2017.
Recommendation: Congress should require that the public
availability of all CSA scores be immediately reinstated while
the improvements recommended by the NASEM study are
implemented. The public should once again have access to this
important safety data on trucking companies without any further
delay. Furthermore, Congress should direct the FMCSA to
immediately reinstate and complete the safety fitness
determination rulemaking.
Overweight Trucks Disproportionately Damage Our Nation's Crumbling
Infrastructure and Threaten Public Safety
Federal limits on the weight and size of CMVs are intended to
protect both the traveling public and our roads and bridges. Yet,
proposals continue to be put forth to allow larger and heavier trucks
that violate or circumvent these Federal laws to operate in certain
states or for specific industries.
Recommendation: Congress should oppose changes to Federal
truck size and weight limits.
Every day, on average, over 100 people are killed and nearly 7,500
more are injured in preventable motor vehicle crashes. They also impose
a tremendous financial burden of over $800 billion on society
annually--$242 billion of which are economic costs. This equates to
every American paying a ``crash tax'' of $784 each year. The available
solutions outlined above are directly targeted at the factors that
cause crashes, and the need for many of these improvements has been
underscored by the NTSB. We urge this Committee to feature a strong
safety title in FAST Act reauthorization legislation that directs U.S.
DOT to take swift action on implementing these improvements. Moreover,
efforts to weaken or repeal the safety protections that do exist must
be resoundingly rejected. Lastly, a number of Congressionally-mandated
rulemakings are long overdue to the ongoing peril of the traveling
public (See attached list). We ask the Committee to compel the U.S. DOT
to complete these requirements.
Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations, and we
look forward to working with you to advance policies that protect all
road users in the next surface transportation reauthorization
legislation.
Sincerely,
Catherine Chase,
President.
cc: Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
______
OVERDUE & AT-RISK SAFETY REGULATIONS
Statutory deadlines to issue final rules are in red (represented in
greyscale).
All dates provided by agency for rulemaking actions are per April
2019 Significant Rulemaking Report (latest available) or the Fall 2018
Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Motorcoach Rollover Structural Integrity (DUE--October 1,
2014)
Mandated in MAP-21 (Sec. 32703(b)(1)).
Congressional deadline for issuance of Final Rule--
October 1, 2014.
NHTSA issued NPRM on August 6, 2014.
NHTSA estimates that a Final Rule will be issued in
June 2019.
Motorcoach Anti-Ejection Countermeasures (DUE--October 1,
2014)
Mandated in MAP-21 (Sec. 32703(b)(2)).
Congressional deadline for issuance of Final Rule--
October 1, 2014.
Final Rule requiring seat belts on intercity buses
issued in November 2013.
NHTSA issued NPRM regarding emergency exits, window
retention and release and anti-ejection glazing for portals
on May 6, 2016.
NHTSA indicates that next regulatory action is
undetermined.
Side Impact Requirements for Child Restraint Systems (DUE--
October 1, 2014)
Mandated in MAP-21 (Sec. 31501(a)).
Congressional deadline for issuance of Final Rule--
October 1, 2014.
NHTSA issued NPRM on January 28, 2014.
NHTSA estimates that a Final Rule will be issued in
September 2019.
Front Impact Requirements for Child Restraint Systems
(DUE--October 1, 2016)
Mandated in MAP-21 (Sec. 31501(b)).
Congressional deadline for issuance of Final Rule--
October 1, 2016.
NHTSA estimates that NPRM will be issued in May 2019.
Improved Child LATCH Restraint System (DUE--October 1,
2015)
Mandated in MAP-21 (Sec. 31502).
Final Rule to be issued 3 years from date of
enactment--October 1, 2015.
NHTSA issued NPRM on January 23, 2015.
NHTSA has not provided a target date for further
regulatory action.
Rear Seat Belt Reminders (DUE--October 1, 2015)
Mandated in MAP-21 (Sec. 31503).
Final Rule to be issued 3 years from date of
enactment--October 1, 2015.
NHTSA has not initiated rulemaking.
NHTSA estimates that an NPRM will be issued in May
2019.
Notification of Vehicle Safety Recalls Via E-mail (DUE--
August 29, 2016)
Mandated in FAST Act (Sec. 24104).
Congressional deadline for issuance of Final Rule--
August 29, 2016.
NPRM, not final rule, was published in Federal
Register on August 29, 2016.
NHTSA has not provided a target date for further
regulatory action.
May 2019
Corporate Responsibility For NHTSA Reports (DUE--December
4, 2016)
Mandated in FAST Act (Sec. 24112).
NHTSA indicates that next regulatory action is
undetermined.
Crash Avoidance Technologies on Vehicle Label (DUE--
December 4, 2016)
Mandated in FAST Act (Sec. 24322).
Congressional deadline for issuance of Final Rule--
December 4, 2016.
Rulemaking does not appear in semi-annual regulatory
agenda.
Retention of Safety Records by Manufacturers (DUE--June 4,
2017)
Mandated in FAST Act (Sec. 24403).
Congressional deadline for issuance of Final Rule--
June 4, 2017.
NHTSA previously estimated that an NPRM would be
issued in October 2018.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
New Entrant Assurance Process Proficiency Exam (DUE--April
1, 2014)
Congress originally sought action in Sec. 210 of the
1999 MCSIA.
FMCSA published an ANPRM in 2009.
MAP-21 (Sec. 32101(b)) requires a final rule be issued
in 18 months--by April 1, 2014.
FMCSA has not provided a target date for further
regulatory action.
Joint NHTSA/FMCSA Rulemakings
Heavy Vehicle Speed Limiters
Grant of Petition for Rulemaking--Mar. 18, 2011.
NPRM was issued on August 26, 2016.
NHTSA/FMCSA has not provided a target date for further
regulatory action.
Rulemakings Withdrawn
Mandatory Event Data Recorder Requirements
NHTSA initiated rulemaking project on Feb. 22, 2011.
NPRM issued on Dec. 13, 2012.
Rulemaking withdrawn February 8, 2019.
State Inspection of Passenger Carrying Vehicles
Mandated in MAP-21 (Sec. 32710).
Requires FMCSA complete rulemaking to consider
requiring states to annually inspect passenger carrying
vehicles.
ANPRM published in April 2016.
Rulemaking withdrawn May 1, 2017.
Carrier Safety Fitness Determinations
Rulemaking project was initiated on June 21, 2007.
Intended to revise carrier safety ratings procedures
in light of adoption of the CSA Program.
NPRM issued on January 21, 2016.
Rulemaking withdrawn March 23, 2017.
Evaluation of Drivers for Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA)
FMCSA was considering regulatory actions that address
the safety risks associated with drivers afflicted with
non-treated OSA.
ANPRM was issued on March 10, 2016. o Rulemaking
withdrawn August 8, 2017.
______
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
Surface Transportation Reauthorization (``STR) Priorities
Adaptive Driving Beam Rulemaking: In response to petition from
automakers, In December 2018, NHTSA proposed rulemaking to amend its
lighting standard (``FMVSS 108'') to permit the use of adaptive driving
beam (``ADB'') headlighting systems. However, the requirements proposed
deviate substantially from those specified in two internationally
recognized standards regarding ADB. The United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (``UNECE'') established ADB requirements in R48
and R123, and has allowed ADB-equipped vehicles to operate in the
European market since 2012. SAE J3069 TM was first issued in
2016, and Transport Canada began allowing ADB systems complying with
either ECE R123 or SAE J3069 TM in Canadian Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (``CMVSS'') No. 108 as of March 2018.
Policy Priority: NHTSA should be directed to harmonize ADB
requirements with those adopted by the UNECE and Transport Canada.
______
49 U.S.C. Sec. 30113 Exemption Limit: The National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to exempt, on a temporary basis, under specified
circumstances, and on terms the Secretary deems appropriate, motor
vehicles from a FMVSS or bumper standard. This authority is set forth
at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The Secretary has delegated the authority for
implementing this section to NHTSA.
The exercise of NHTSA's authority to grant, in whole or in part, a
temporary exemption to a vehicle manufacturer is conditioned upon the
Agency's making specified findings. The Agency must comprehensively
evaluate the request for exemption and find that the exemption is
consistent with the public interest and with the objectives of the
Vehicle Safety Act.
The AV START Act of 2017 as reported by the Senate would have
increased the number of vehicles that could be exempted. For the 12
months after the bill's passage, safety-standard waivers for vehicles
allowed for sale or interstate commerce would have been 15,000, down
from 50,000 as originally proposed. For the year after that, 40,000
down from 75,0000, and the year after that, 80,000 down from 100,000,
which would remain the cap for five years at that point.
Policy Priority: STR legislation should increase the limit for
exemptions issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30113 to the level originally
proposed in the AV Start Act. STR legislation should provide a timeline
in which the Agency must make a determination on an exemption after it
is published in the Federal Register.
______
Cost Savings Act: Part 581 Bumper Standard damageability testing
limits sensor placement and will impact AEB and other crash avoidance
tech.
Policy Priority: Update Cost Savings Act. Lives saved calculations
should be taken into consideration.
______
Preserving 5.9 GHz Spectrum Allocation: The Dedicated Short Range
Communications (``DSRC'') wireless spectrum is specifically designed
for automotive use. In 2004, the FCC dedicated 75 MHz of bandwidth at
5.9 GHz to be used for vehicle safety and other mobility applications.
DSRC operates in this band, and has been developed for over a decade by
a range of stakeholders including automakers, electronics
manufacturers, state highway departments, and the Federal government.
Most work on DSRC has focused on active safety--crash avoidance using
driver alerts based on sophisticated sensing and vehicle
communications.
Policy Priority: STR legislation should:
Preserve the full 75 MHz spectrum allocation nominally
located at 5.9 GHz for Connected Vehicle Communications;
Allow unlicensed operation in the band only be allowed if it
is proven that there is no harmful interference from these
devices on licensed operations;
Accelerate and provide suggested timing for FCC testing of
determination of harmful interference; and
Direct that U.S. Government agencies should act to preserve
the allocated spectrum for connected vehicle communications
uses in ways that foster investment and deployment of such
communications technologies by automakers, states, service
providers and others.
______
Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Electric Charging and Hydrogen Fueling
Infrastructure Development: The market for ZEVs, which include Battery
Electric Vehicles (BEVs), Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) and
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs), is anticipated to grow and evolve
as automakers introduce more and diverse ZEVs and as ZEVs expand to
additional market segments. To facilitate the deployment and use of
these vehicles, it is necessary to ensure energy providers make
electric charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure available.
Policy Priority: STR legislation should authorize funding for ZEV
infrastructure projects--including electric vehicle charging stations
and hydrogen fueling stations--so states and local communities can
leverage private investment to motivate energy providers to rapidly
deploy innovative transportation solutions along the interstate system.
Energy Provider Infrastructure Policies
Establish ZEV electric charging and hydrogen fueling
infrastructure across the Interstate Highway System
FAST Act Alternative Fuel Corridors--Create and fund a grant
program to build out electric charging and hydrogen fueling
infrastructure on alternative fuel corridors
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program--
Require states to obligate a portion of program funds toward
electric charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure
Foster vehicle to grid integration--Build out smarter energy
infrastructure with electric utility participation in
deployment
Encourage/incentivize utilities to install make-ready EV
infrastructure
Pursue cost reductions in hydrogen fueling stations and
electric vehicle chargers
Vehicle Research & Development
Continue exploring native minerals, and the recycling of out
of service battery materials, to ensure the availability of
domestic electric vehicle batteries
Continue funding research and development on electric
vehicle battery technology, i.e., solid state batteries, to
improve vehicle range, weight, and charge time
Pursue advances in weight and conformability of hydrogen
storage in fuel cell electric vehicles
______
Data Advisory Committee: An amendment to the AV START Act of 2017
as reported by the Senate would have established an ``HAV Data Access
Advisory Committee Act'' and restricted any agency of Federal
government to promulgate any rules regarding ownership, control, or
access to any data stored or generated by AVs until a newly-created HAV
Data Access Advisory Committee is able to make a report.
Policy Priority: STR legislation should direct the establishment of
Data Access Advisory Committee with a similar purpose to that included
in the AV START Act, expanded to incorporate vehicles and data beyond
AVs. The committee should be formed no later than 180 days after the
bill becomes law, provide a forum for stakeholders to discuss and make
recommendations to Congress regarding vehicle-generated data ownership,
control and access. Within two years the Committee should make
recommendations (those that are supported by two-thirds of voting
members) and should be specifically charged with considering ``motor
vehicle safety, intellectual property protections, compliance with
vehicles under the motor vehicle safety act, consumer privacy,
cybersecurity, confidential business information related to AV systems,
public safety and transportation planning.'' Membership could be
expanded to incorporate additional stakeholders given the expanded
scope.
______
Establishment of an NCAP Advisory Committee: NHTSA's New Car
Assessment Program (``NCAP'') can be a means to help facilitate and
accelerate the adoption of advanced safety and driver assist
technologies. In order to provide advance program direction, it is
important for the agency to develop and periodically update a long--
term road map for NCAP. This is especially critical given automakers'
long--4 to 5 years--product development cycles.
Policy Priority: To assist NHTSA in the development of an effective
NCAP program, NHTSA should be directed to establish an advisory
committee to:
Develop, implement, and periodically update a long-term
roadmap for NCAP that considers, the macro effect on motor
vehicle safety;
Oversee the identification and prioritization of safety
opportunities that lend themselves to a market based/consumer
information approach;
Coordinate with other NCAP and consumer rating organizations
to avoid potential duplication or conflicts;
Establish procedures for selecting advanced safety and
connected vehicle technologies to be rated;
Oversee the development of test procedures, test dummies,
test fixtures, and safety performance metrics to be used to
rate advanced safety and connected vehicle technologies;
Oversee the development of a rigorous and science-based
means for providing consumers with an overall safety rating(s)
that distinguishes meaningful performance differences in a
simple and easy to understand manner; and
Conduct periodic effectiveness evaluations.
______
Infrastructure Enhancements for Automated Driving Systems
(``ADS''): To fully realize the safety, economic and social benefits
enabled by ADS, the national roadway infrastructure must be updated and
maintained in a manner consistent with the needs of ADS and connected
vehicle technologies. Many of the required updates would provide a
benefit to non-ADS-equipped vehicles as well, and are very cost
effective considering the large scale safety benefit.
Policy Priority: STR legislation should direct that the FHwA update
the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (``MUTCD'') to
accommodate, facilitate and support the deployment of ADS and connected
vehicle technologies. STR legislation should further authorize adequate
appropriations for the establishment and maintenance of the needed ADS
and connected vehicle infrastructure.
Infrastructure for the USDOT Work Zone Data Exchange Initiative: A
national database of U.S. roadways capturing up-to-date information
such as new construction will help human and ADS driven vehicles
navigate safely and efficiently. Maintaining the national database with
a standard, open specification across national, state, and local levels
will allow for collaboration across roadway planners, ADS developers,
navigation mapping providers, vehicle manufacturers, and other
stakeholders. Additionally, a standard, open specification would allow
safety and traffic researchers to look across national roadways to
determine which designs, signs, stripping, intersections, etc. work
best for safe efficient travel for human and ADS driven vehicles.
Policy Priority: Expand the Work Zone Data Exchange to beyond
voluntary measures. Create a committee with public (federal and state)
and private stakeholders to develop the database specifications,
maintenance, schedule, and logistics ownership. Create a public rollout
plan for initial delivery and continued maintenance.
______
TCPA Public Safety Exception: The wireless calling restrictions
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (``TCPA'') contain a
critical public safety exception: automated calls may be placed, even
absent ``prior express consent,'' when they are ``made for emergency
purposes.''
Policy Priority: STR legislation should clarify on an emergency
basis that motor vehicle safety recall--related calls and texts are
``made for emergency purposes'' and thus exempt from the TCPA's
wireless calling restrictions.
______
Truckload Carriers Association
June 18, 2019
Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:
On behalf of the Truckload Carriers Association (TCA) and our
roughly 700 members across the country, thank you for the opportunity
to provide input to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee on trucking-related legislation to be discussed at the June
19, 2019 hearing, ``FAST Act Reauthorization: Transportation and Safety
Issues.''
The Truckload Carriers Association is the only national trade
association whose collective sole focus is the truckload segment of the
trucking industry. The association represents dry van, refrigerated,
flatbed, and rail intermodal carriers operating in the 48 contiguous
U.S. states, as well as Alaska, Mexico, and Canada. TCA's members
employ over 200,000 drivers and generate $38 billion in annual revenue.
As a major part of an industry which accounts for 78 percent of the
total U.S. freight moved by all transportation modes, and over 524,000
individual companies operating millions of power units, TCA and our
trucking company members urge you to focus on the following priorities
as your committee considers legislation in 2019:
Bolster Revenues for the Highway Trust Fund by Increasing
the Federal Fuel Tax. With the Highway Trust Fund approaching
insolvency, Congress must act now to identify revenue streams
that will provide substantially bolstered infrastructure
investment. TCA and our members support increasing the Federal
fuel tax this year to secure the needed funds to prevent even
further degradation of our Nation's crumbling roads and
bridges. Not only does the fuel tax represent the most
efficient revenue-collection method currently available, but it
is also widely accepted and understood by both business and the
motoring public as an important contribution toward improved
infrastructure.
Oppose Any Increase to Federal Standards on Truck Length.
The truckload industry would yield little to no advantage and
would instead be faced with sizable costs if an allowance was
made by the Federal government for longer truck-trailers,
specifically Twin 33-foot trailers. Due to the vast differences
in freight delivery models and the logistical challenges faced
by truckload carriers, labor objections, and significant safety
concerns, TCA's members remain strongly opposed to this trailer
configuration.
Oppose Exemption Requests on the Electronic Logging Device
(ELD) Mandate. TCA supports the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's (FMCSA) industrywide mandate for ELDs to be
installed in all commercial trucks by December 16, 2019. These
ELDs use technology to track the number of hours a truck driver
has been on duty, rather than paper logbooks. ELDs verify
compliance with hours-ofservice rules, and thereby reduce truck
driver fatigue, a leading cause of truck accidents.
Support Measures to Allow for Hair Testing in Assessing
Commercial Truck Driver Job Applicants. All applicants for a
truck driver occupation must pass a drug test per Federal
regulations. While hair testing presents a more effective way
to identify lifestyle drug users than traditional urinalysis,
the Federal government still does not recognize hair testing as
an effective method for identifying long-term drug use.
Furthermore, freight transportation companies that utilize hair
testing currently cannot submit the positive results to the
FMCSA's forthcoming Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse.
Support Efforts to Establish Reasonable Flexibility in the
Hours-of -Service Regulations. The Federal regulations
regarding hours of service for truck drivers currently do not
allow for the driver to break up their work day and either stop
when they are tired or avoid rush hour traffic congestion.
FMCSA is in the process of publishing a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on hours of service, and TCA is hopeful that this
will include the necessary flexibility for drivers to stop
their 14-hour on-duty clock. However, legislative initiatives
have been proposed which would effectively grant some segments
of the trucking community with the ability to add to their
driving time. TCA opposes any efforts to extend the workday as
the safety concerns greatly outweigh any potential productivity
benefit that could be gained.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the Senate
Commerce Committee as it looks toward advancing legislation of great
importance to truckload carriers in the year ahead. TCA and our members
remain committed to working with you and your colleagues to rebuild the
country's infrastructure so we can continue delivering freight and
providing jobs to Americans nationwide. If we can ever be of assistance
or provide additional data to support these and other transportation-
related issues, please do not hesitate to reach out.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John Lyboldt,
President.
cc: Members of the Senate Commerce Committee
______
Statement of Lane Kidd, Managing Director, The Trucking Alliance
The Trucking Alliance
The Alliance for Driver Safety & Security, commonly known as the
Trucking Alliance, is a coalition of interstate freight transportation
and logistics companies. A select number of insurance and technology
businesses also support the Trucking Alliance.
The Trucking Alliance is solely focused on safety reforms to:
Improve the safety and security of commercial drivers;
Reduce the number of large truck accidents; and
Eliminate all large truck crash fatalities.
This statement reflects the unanimous position of the Trucking
Alliance Board of Directors.
Member Companies
The Trucking Alliance is small in number and carriers affiliate by
invitation. Companies also agree to adopt specific safety and operating
standards that exceed Federal regulations. Two of the five largest
trucking and logistics companies in the United States are Trucking
Alliance members. The other member carriers are among the 200 largest
U.S. trucking firms.
These companies collectively employ 82,000 professional drivers and
logistics personnel, as well as contracting with thousands of
independent owner operators. Trucking Alliance member companies own and
operate 70,000 large tractors, and more than 220,000 semitrailers and
intermodal containers, to serve their supply chain networks.
The Trucking Alliance is not competitive with other industry
organizations. In fact, Trucking Alliance member companies are members
of the American Trucking Associations, the Truckload Carriers
Association and the National Tank Truck Carriers Association.
However, the Trucking Alliance is focused exclusively on reforms to
reduce large truck crashes, fatalities, and injuries. Information about
the Trucking Alliance can be found here.
The Trucking Industry's Greatest Transportation Safety Issue
Regarding the committee's subject title, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the commercial trucking industry it
regulates, have no greater safety issue than to reduce large truck
crash fatalities and injuries.
In the last reportable year (2017), there were more than 415,000
large truck accidents on our Nation's highways. These large truck
crashes tragically killed 4,761 people, including more than 600 truck
drivers. Another 148,000 people were injured. These statistics should
alarm every trucking company employer, whose drivers share the road
with millions of motorists every day.
Large Truck Crash Fatalities Can Be Eliminated
Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO of Maverick USA in Little Rock,
Arkansas, is a co-founder of the Trucking Alliance. Williams also
serves as the coalition's president. Williams is a former chairman of
the American Trucking Associations. He has served on numerous industry
stakeholder boards and commissions, including the Transportation
Research Board.
``The trucking industry is indispensable to the U.S. economy,''
Williams recently said. ``But the industry has too many accidents. More
truck drivers lost their lives in 2017, than in any year in the
previous 10 years. We must aggressively address these tragic figures.''
Williams believes a first step is to reverse the industry priorities.
``Support progressive safety reforms that make sense for our country
and citizens first, our industry second, and our companies third.''
The Senate Commerce Committee must support safety reforms to reduce
large truck crashes. Conversely, this committee should reject
legislation that would appease special interests but sacrifice public
safety in the process.
The trucking industry should achieve the same safety performance
record as the U.S. airline industry. For example, the Trucking Alliance
fully supports the work of the Road to Zero Coalition. Announced in
October 2016, this coalition has more than 900 cities, corporations,
and government agencies. The Trucking Alliance serves as one of 21
organizations on the Road to Zero Steering Group, the only stakeholder
from the trucking industry.
The Road to Zero Coalition plans to fully eliminate all highway
accident fatalities within 30 years. If progressive safety reforms and
emerging technologies are adopted, the trucking industry can eliminate
all large truck crash fatalities much sooner. This sub-committee can
have an integral role in achieving these objectives.
The Trucking Alliance will appreciate the Senate Commerce
Committee's consideration in supporting the following safety
priorities:
1. Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) Should Be Required on All
Commercial Trucks
In 2012, Congress required all interstate commercial trucks to
install an ELD, as part of the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act.''
ELDs are recording devices. The devices are engaged to the truck's
engine. ELDs verify when and for how many hours a truck driver operates
a commercial vehicle. ELDs identify if a truck driver exceeds the
maximum number of on-duty hours allowed by law, thereby reducing truck
driver fatigue, a major factor in large truck crashes.
But rather than embrace ELDs for the safety benefits they will
achieve, certain industry segments want an exemption from ELDs. If a
commercial driver is required to follow Federal hours-of-service rules,
ELDs should be required in the vehicle to verify that he/she is
complying with the law.
ELDs should be required in all large commercial trucks, regardless
of (1) how many trucks are owned, (2) he commodity being hauled, (3)
length of trip, or (4) whether the truck driver operates in interstate
or intrastate commerce.
2. Hundreds of Thousands of Commercial Truck Drivers are Illicit Drug
Users
The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 requires
drug and alcohol testing of ``safetysensitive'' transportation worker
occupations. These occupations require performance in the public
sector. Drug use is strictly prohibited. Truck driving is considered a
safety sensitive occupation, along with other transportation workers in
aviation, rail, pipeline, transit, and other transportation modes.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) administers the 1991
law, incorporating drug test guidelines approved by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS). USDOT currently recognizes one drug
test method--a urinalysis. USDOT allows employers to require additional
drug test methods, as part of the employer's hiring practices.
A growing number of trucking company employers, including Trucking
Alliance carriers, require a second drug test, a hair analysis, as part
of their pre-employment truck driver hiring policies.
The Trucking Alliance recently submitted data to the DOT Office of
Drug and Alcohol Policy & Compliance, showing compelling evidence that
an estimated 301,000 commercial truck drivers would either fail or
refuse a hair test for illegal drug use. This survey data compared the
pre-employment drug test results of 151,662 truck driver applicants,
who were asked to submit to two drug tests--a urinalysis and a hair
analysis. Almost all applicants held an active commercial driver
license. The good news is that ninety-four percent (94 percent) of the
truck driver applicants tested drug-free. These professional drivers
are hard-working honest Americans.
However, thousands of the applicants were drug users. The drug test
method required by USDOT (a urinalysis) identified 949 applicants, or
<1 percent, for drugs. However, 8,878 applicants either failed or
refused the hair test. Put another way, the urinalysis missed 9 out of
10 actual illicit drug users. The hair test detected the drug use.
The most prevalent drug was cocaine, followed by opioids and
marijuana. Applicants who failed or refused the hair test were
disqualified for employment at these companies. But they likely
obtained the same job elsewhere, at companies that administer only a
urinalysis.
This survey is the first of its kind in the trucking industry. The
results represent a statistically valid sample. According to the
American Trucking Associations, there are 3.5 million commercial truck
drivers. The survey can project with a 99 percent confidence level, and
a margin of error of <1 percent, that 301,000 commercial truck drivers
would fail or refuse a hair analysis today, for illegal drug use.
The survey results are compelling evidence that thousands of
habitual drug users are skirting a system designed to prohibit drug use
in transportation. Thousands of drug abusers are obtaining jobs as
truck drivers, despite their drug use, and are creating a public safety
crisis. These illicit drug users must be identified and taken out of
commercial trucks and off the Nation's highways.
The Senate Commerce Committee can urge the Department of Health and
Human Services to complete its hair test guidelines (as Congress
mandated in 2015). When completed, USDOT can quickly recognize hair
testing for DOT pre-employment and random drug test protocols.
Further, until USDOT recognizes a hair analysis, no employer will
be allowed to submit hair test failures into the pending USDOT Drug and
Alcohol Clearinghouse. This will make it virtually impossible for
another employer to know if a person applying for a truck driver job
has previously failed a drug test.
3. Drivers Should Be 21 Years or Older to Operate Commercial Trucks in
Interstate Commerce
Federal regulations require a person to be at least 21 years of age
before operating a commercial vehicle in interstate commerce. The
Trucking Alliance supports this age restriction.
State Restrictions are Working: Most states allow 18 and 19-year
old teenagers to drive commercial trucks. But they are restricted to
working within their state. Most of these teenagers operate delivery
vans, and lighter weight, straight trucks, typically 24' long. These
trucks have three axles.
They typically return to their place of business several times each
day. Many teenagers also work in the agricultural community, hauling
fresh produce to market and making local deliveries. They are always
under close supervision, unlike the work environment that long-haul
interstate commerce demands of commercial drivers
Statistics are lacking but few of these teenagers operate Class 8
tractor-trailer combinations of the type used in interstate commerce.
These tractor trailers carry a laden weight of 80,000 pounds and
typically have five axles. Operating these tractor trailer combinations
requires elevated skills, considerable experience, maturity and self-
discipline.
Teenagers in the Military are Under Close Supervision: Supporters
of letting teenagers operate large trucks in interstate commerce use
the analogy that teenagers perform various activities in the military.
But teenagers in the military are always under daily, highly regulated,
constant, and strict supervision. They are rarely left to themselves
without an older officer present. There are many job occupations, for
which teenagers in the military are not automatically qualified. Long
distance trucking is one such occupation.
Liability Insurance Costs Will Increase: Statistics are lacking on
the overall safety performance of local teenage truck drivers. But the
industry's property and liability insurance companies will underwrite
all carriers against the possibility they may employ teenagers in
interstate commerce. Premiums will go up.
For these reasons, the Senate Commerce Committee should reject S.B.
569. This legislation would allow teenagers to operate Class 8 tractor
trailer combinations, in an unsupervised environment, and in interstate
commerce, after only 10 weeks of training. The nation's public highways
should not be a proving ground to determine if teenagers can safely
operate Class 8 tractor trailer combinations.
4. Large Trucks Should Adhere to a Maximum Speed of 65-mph
The Trucking Alliance supports a new Federal safety standard that
would require all large commercial trucks to maintain a maximum speed
limit of 65 mph on the Nation's highways.
According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in
2017, speeding was one of the factors for almost 27 percent of motor
vehicle crash deaths. The World Health Organization's ``Report on Road
Safety'' estimates that for every 1 percent increase in mean speed,
there is a 4 percent increase in the fatal crash risk and a 3 percent
increase in the serious crash risk. The top speed of large tractor
trailer combinations should be limited.
The trucking industry has historically supported truck speed
limiters. Most trucking companies already utilize truck speed limiters,
usually setting the trucks to operate at maximum speeds between 62 and
68 mph. As far back as 2006, the American Trucking Associations
submitted a petition to NHTSA, requesting that truck manufacturers
install truck speed limiting devices. The National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) estimates that setting a truck speed limiter at 65
mph, could save as many as 214 lives and prevent approximately 4,500
injuries from large truck crashes each year.
Slowing the top speed of tractor trailers will greatly reduce the
number of fatalities and the severity of injuries from large truck
crashes. Congress should support legislation that would direct the
Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule requiring truck speed
limiting devices and for those commercial vehicles currently equipped
with the technology to engage the devices.
5. Collision Mitigation Systems Should Be Required on New Commercial
Trucks
Collision mitigation systems installed in commercial trucks can
reduce large truck crashes.
The Trucking Alliance supports the conclusions of a 2017 study by
the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study. The study, entitled ``Leveraging
Large Truck Technology and Engineering to Realize Safety Gains'',
researched four truck safety technologies, all of which can greatly
reduce injuries and fatalities in large truck crashes:
1. Lane Departure Warning Systems, which detect when the vehicle
drifts out of its lane and warns the driver;
2. Video-based Onboard Safety Monitoring, which utilizes in-vehicle
video cameras and sensors;
3. Automatic Emergency Braking Systems, which detect when the truck
is in danger of striking the vehicle in front of it and brakes
automatically, if needed; and
4. Air Disc Brakes, which will eventually be superior to traditional
drum brakes, as these systems are continually improved.
The Trucking Alliance supports the deployment of these Advanced
Safety Technologies (ASTs) and other technologies in new commercial
trucks. ASTs are not limited however, to the four technologies in the
AAA Foundation report. In fact, the Trucking Alliance endorses a wide
variety of ASTs that are now deployable or under development for large
trucks.
These ASTs include, but are not limited to:
Forward Collision Warning Systems
Adaptive Cruise Controls
Automatic Emergency Braking Systems
Lane Departure Warning Systems
``Blind Spot'' Warning Systems
Electronic Stability Control
Roll Stability Control
Speed Limiters
Video-based Onboard Safety Monitoring systems
Kinematic-based Onboard Safety Monitoring Systems
Vehicle-to-vehicle Communication
Air Disc Brakes (ADB)
Brake Stroke Monitoring Systems; and others.
Some ASTs, such as Roll Stability Control Systems, have been in
operation by fleets for a decade. Other technologies, such as video and
kinematic-based onboard safety monitoring systems and ``Blind Spot''
mirror replacement systems are newer technologies that carriers are
testing in the field.
For these reasons, the Trucking Alliance endorses ASTs and its
member carriers have agreed to pursue the testing and deployment of
these ASTs, as they are more fully developed, tested, and the safety
benefits are confirmed through these field tests.
In the meantime, the Trucking Alliance urges Congress to require
NHTSA to set a minimum performance standard and issue a final rule
requiring that commercial motor vehicles are equipped with automatic
emergency braking systems, as standard equipment.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement to the
hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation on the ``FAST Act Reauthorization: Transportation and
Safety Issues''
Submitted:
Lane Kidd,
Managing Director,
Alliance for Driver Safety & Security (The Trucking Alliance).
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
Hon. Joel Szabat
Question 1. How will the Non-Traditional and Emerging
Transportation Technology Council further coordination among the modal
administrations to advance technologies like hyperloop and autonomous
vehicles?
Answer. The Non-Traditional and Emerging Technology (NETT) Council
was created to further coordination among DOT's Operating
Administrations for reducing regulatory burdens and to help pave the
way for non-traditional and emerging technologies in the transportation
industry. The NETT Council's purpose is to help ensure the current
modal set-up works to advance--and not inhibit--the deployment and
development of technologies in transportation. The Council will examine
current DOT authorities and practices and determine the best way new
technologies could be integrated into existing authorities, especially
when a technology does not fit neatly into a current operating
administration's processes and regulations.
The NETT Council membership consists of Modal Administrators and
other senior leaders from across the Department. Topic areas for
discussion can be generated by members of the Council or by a company
who has reached out to the NETT Council. Upon identifying a project
that raises unique cross-modal questions, the Council will establish a
working group of experts. The working group will study the technology,
assess statutory, regulatory, and policy issues that may represent
impediments to timely project implementation and recommend potential
solutions or mitigation measures. The Council will review
recommendations from the working group and will implement Department-
wide processes, solutions, and best practices for managing non-
traditional and emerging transportation technologies.
Follow-up. How do you see the Council's approach affecting
oversight of technological innovation within each of the modal
administrations?
Answer. The NETT Council is not intended to directly affect
oversight of technological innovation within each modal administration.
Rather, the Council is an internal deliberative body at DOT, tasked
with identifying and resolving jurisdictional and regulatory gaps that
may be impeding the Department's review and assessment of new
transportation technologies, many of which touch multiple modal
administrations. Upon identifying a project that raises unique cross-
modal questions, the Council will establish a working group of experts
from across the Department to study the technology and make
recommendations for how to approach environmental and safety-related
oversight. In addition, the Council may establish clear, consistent
Department-wide processes, solutions, and best practices for managing
non-traditional and emerging transportation technologies based on
findings from the working group.
Question 2. The development of automated driving systems is
imperative to safety and global competitiveness. We are working with
Senators Thune and Peters to continue to advance legislation on the
safe testing and deployment of automated vehicles. Can you speak to the
projected schedule for the completion of your advance notices of
proposed rulemaking, as well as the needs and plans DOT has to oversee
automated vehicles--both cars and trucks?
Answer. DOT has initiated several rulemaking activities to promote
the safe integration of automated vehicles into our Nation's roadways.
Notably, both NHTSA and FMCSA recently issued ANPRMs in the past year,
with NHTSA's focusing on potential changes to its crash avoidance
standards and FMCSA's asking questions about how its regulations, in
general, may need to be changed. The comment periods for both these
notices will close at the end of August. NHTSA is also currently
working on three other rulemakings related to automated driving
systems: (1) an NPRM addressing occupant protection for vehicles
equipped with automated driving systems, currently expected to be
published in late 2019; (2) an ANPRM, currently expected to be
published in 2020, seeking comment on the applicability and
appropriateness of safety messaging in vehicles without conventional
driver controls; and (3) an ANPRM, currently expected to be published
in 2020, seeking comment on the creation of a safety framework for
objectively and transparently assessing and validating the success of
automated vehicles.
Follow-up. Is NHTSA consulting with other nations on the
introduction of automated vehicles?
Answer. As part of this ongoing process, DOT continues to engage
with stakeholders, domestic and abroad, to share best practices and
emerging trends in the market to ensure safe integration of automated
vehicles. In addition, NHTSA is actively engaged with the many groups
working under the auspices of the World Forum for Harmonization of
Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) at the United Nations in Geneva,
Switzerland.
Question 3. One area that is critical to further development of our
Nation's infrastructure is grant and loan programs for transportation
projects. The FAST Act established the Build America Bureau to serve as
a one-stop-shop for administering many of DOT's financing programs.
What do you see as the next steps for further streamlining the Build
America Bureau's administration of these programs and supporting
applicants, particularly in rural areas?
Answer. The Bureau has made considerable progress streamlining and
simplifying the loan application process and recently standardized the
Letter of Interest and Loan Application templates for both
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and
Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF). The Bureau is
currently developing standardized loan agreement templates for non-
project revenue loans, corporate loans and a more succinct template for
short line and regional railroads. Once completed, these will be
publicly available on the Bureau's website and should make the process
more transparent and straightforward for these borrowers. These
improvements should save both on the time it takes to finalize a loan
and reduce the transaction cost that is ultimately transferred to the
borrower.
In addition, Secretary Chao announced the new TIFIA Rural Projects
Initiative in November, 2018. Eligible rural borrowers can benefit from
the initiative by borrowing a larger share of eligible project costs
(up to 49 percent from the historical 33 percent), a fixed interest
rate reduction of 50 percent below the normal Treasury Rate (as of July
19, 2019, the interest rate was below 1.3 percent), and relief from the
fees associated with the loan application and review process, which are
often hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Question 4. Given the potential safety and mobility benefits of
technology in transportation, what should we do to ensure the
deployment of intelligent transportation systems across the nation?
Answer. The Department has utilized ``innovation'' as a merit
criteria in several discretionary grant programs such as INFRA and
BUILD to incentivize the deployment of safety and mobility
technologies. By promoting the adoption of innovative technologies
within the infrastructure grant programs, the Department can continue
to facilitate and promote the adoption of ITS technologies as part of
our surface transportation improvements.
There are a number of safety and mobility benefits that will be
derived from technology advances in vehicle technology. DOT and the
entire Federal government can play an important role in helping bring
these innovations about, while still preserving the private sector's
role in delivering products to the market.
Research and regulation are important roles for DOT. DOT is
implementing pilot deployments that integrate safety and mobility into
practice with the intent of encouraging partnerships of multiple
stakeholders (e.g., private companies, States, transit agencies,
commercial vehicle operators, and freight shippers) to deploy
applications utilizing data captured from multiple sources (e.g.,
vehicles, mobile devices, and infrastructure) across all elements of
the surface transportation system (i.e., transit, freeway, arterial,
parking facilities, and tollways) to support improved system
performance and enhanced performance-based management.
It is critical that DOT remove burdensome regulation that may
stifle innovation and product development. DOT will support research,
experimentation, and demonstration projects that bring safety and
mobility technologies to the market. It is critical that the private
sector lead the implementation and rollout of new products to the
market. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Joint Intelligent
Transportation Systems Program Office all have active research and
demonstration programs for vehicle technology. The Office of the
Secretary for Research and Technology monitors and coordinates efforts
Department-wide to ensure projects are complimentary, timely, and not
duplicative.
Last, it is critical that the Federal government preserve the 5.9
GHz communications band, which is the part of the communications
spectrum currently reserved for automotive and intelligent
transportation systems uses. The 5.9GHz band is well suited for low-
latency short range transmission, which is essential in safety critical
messaging, including overhead gantries and vehicle-to-vehicle
communication. However, this band is also attractive to wife providers.
Through Federal leadership beginning at the Federal Communications
Commission and DOT, this band can be preserved for its intended
transportation safety use.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Hon. Joel Szabat
Question. Secretary Szabat, BUILD grants are an important tool to
constituents back home as we have worked over the years to ensure
dollars get back to local communities throughout rural America. As
such, I applaud the Department of Transportation for recognizing the
value of rural projects in particular over these past two rounds. As we
work towards FAST Act Reauthorization, how do we continue to ensure our
limited Federal dollars are being allocated equitably across states'
areas of greatest need?
Answer. The BUILD program is currently not authorized and is
dependent upon annual appropriations. As such, the program requirements
often change from year to year. One such requirement change is the
minimum rural award percentage. Having an authorized program with
stable program requirements and discretionary flexibility to tailor
selection criteria to meet changing national needs will allow the
Department to ensure equitable and efficient distribution of funds.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Joel Szabat
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF). The
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan program
provides low cost loans to freight and passenger railroads to make
capital investments. Congress has provided $35 billion for the RRIF
program; however, it is extremely underutilized. Only, $6.2 billion or
17 percent of the funds have ever been obligated. The Department of
Transportation Inspector General found that RRIF loan applications
process is lengthy and confusing.
Question 1. With such a significant need for infrastructure
investment in our nation, why is the Build America Bureau having a
difficult time executing these loans?
Answer. Potential RRIF borrowers cite several challenges to
obtaining loans. Credit Risk Premium (CRP) cost is one of the main
barriers for obtaining a RRIF loan. CRP payments are required to be
paid by the borrower to the DOT at the time that RRIF loan
disbursements are made and can be a substantial cost. Class II and III
railroads often do not have the cash on hand to pay for the CRP, making
a RRIF loan an unattractive business decision. We are also not
authorized to roll the CRP into the loan itself, which might otherwise
make RRIF a more attractive option.
RRIF borrowers have a hard time taking full advantage of the
pledged collateral to reduce CRP. In many instances, substantial
unencumbered (i.e.; not pledged to other lenders) collateral is
necessary to reduce the CRP to a level that the RRIF loan is a feasible
option.
Question 2. What is the Bureau doing to reduce the time it takes to
review a loan application and make clear to applicants what constitutes
a successful application?
Answer. The Bureau has emphasized streamlining and simplifying the
loan application process and recently standardized the Letter of
Interest and Loan Application templates for both Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and RRIF. The Bureau
is currently developing standardized loan agreement templates for non-
project revenue loans, corporate loans and a more succinct template for
short line and regional railroads. Once completed, these will be
publicly available on the Bureau's website and should make the process
more transparent and straightforward for these borrowers. These
improvements should save both on the time it takes to finalize a loan
and reduce the transaction cost that is ultimately transferred to the
borrower.
In addition to the initiatives above, the Bureau is developing a
pilot program called RRIF Express, aimed at removing barriers,
simplifying and streamlining the application and underwriting process
for short line and regional railroads. These railroads operate in
primarily rural areas and can contribute significantly to economic
development by reducing transportation costs for agricultural, energy
and raw materials. We anticipate announcing this program before the end
of calendar year 2019.
Prospective borrowers deemed eligible for RRIF Express will benefit
from a more streamlined process. We will also pay up to the first $100K
in advisor fees, and pay the subsidy cost of the loan up to five
percent of the loan amount, thus offering the amount of CRP RRIF Expess
borrowers would have to pay up front.
Other than streamlining features of RRIF Express include
development of a standard (and simpler) loan agreement template,
securing financial and legal advisors as promptly as possible and
utilization of user guides, webinars and workshops to educate and
inform prospective borrowers.
Transit Oriented Development. Transit oriented development projects
can help encourage economic and residential development near transit
and rail hubs, improving ridership and helping to ensure the success of
these transportation network investments. The FAST Act expanded the
eligibility of the RRIF and TIFIA loan programs to allow for the
financing of transit oriented development projects.
Question 3. Why have there been no transit oriented development
projects financed by RRIF or TIFIA? What is the Build America Bureau
doing to assist applicants in creating successful applications?
Answer. The Department has found no proposed projects thus far that
both meet the eligibility criteria and represent a meaningful
transportation improvement. These projects have primarily been private
real estate developments proximate to existing light rail transit
stations. The Bureau is actively exploring options and discussing
eligibility criteria with potential borrowers and there are a few
projects that could potentially meet the criteria. However, the RRIF
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) authority expires on December 4,
2019 and it is unlikely we can close any loan prior to the deadline
given the time required to develop projects, conduct environmental
review and other regulatory compliance activities.
Conversely, there is considerable interest in the TIFIA authority
to finance public infrastructure that is within walking distance of
qualified transit services. The Bureau is working with airports that
are exploring this option to finance construction or modernization
projects. The TIFIA authority does not have an expiration date and we
anticipate that there may be several TIFIA loans executed using this
authority in the next 12-24 months.
National Freight Investment. In the FAST Act of 2015, I authored
the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program, which
provides competitive grants, known as INFRA, to nationally significant
freight projects across the country that improve the movement of
freight. However, the FAST Act only authorized $500 million of $4.5
billion for multimodal freight projects through 2020.
Question 4. As Congress considers a surface transportation
authorization bill, do you agree that the cap on nationally significant
multimodal freight projects should be lifted?
Answer. Lifting the multimodal freight cap will allow the
Department to more efficiently allocate scarce dollars to meritorious
projects. Many project applications contain both highway components as
well as multimodal elements, making it is administratively burdensome
to track and oversee the multimodal freight components when evaluating,
selecting, and obligating grant funds for INFRA projects.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Hon. Joel Szabat
Question. As everyone is aware, Politico reported recently that
Secretary Chao has steered millions of dollars in grants to Kentucky--
as her husband seeks reelection. As you can imagine, everyone on this
dais represents states with needs as great as Kentucky, but I am
concerned about the Secretary putting her finger on the scale to
benefit one state. Can each of you speak how your agencies can prevent
such political interference?
Answer. The facts belie the false allegation that the Department
has steered grants to Kentucky. As the Politico article noted, Kentucky
ranked 25th among the states, received 5 of 169 grants in this period.
In terms of funding, Kentucky received about 5 percent of the awards--
proportional to its share of the Nation's populations.
The Department applies the same rigorous technical criteria to all
application evaluations and treats all project applications equitably.
The Department has taken great effort and is committed to ensuring that
all our grant programs use data driven processes to ensure the
Department complies with all Congressional requirements such as project
eligibilities, geographic diversity, minimum urban and rural award
percentages, and project type diversity. All applications are reviewed
by career technical teams to rate the projects on how well the
applicant addresses selection criteria that is published in the Notice
of Funding Opportunity. Evaluation teams comprised of representatives
from the different modal administrations, staff from Various DOT field
offices across the country and HQ staff are responsible for assigning
technical ratings.
The Department has a strong track record of ensuring that
infrastructure award selections benefit all 50 states and U.S.
territories and will continue to ensure fair and consistent application
of grant criteria and to meet Congressional award requirements.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito
to Hon. Ronald L. Batory
Updating our Nation's infrastructure will improve safety for
motorists traveling on our roadways, help relieve traffic congestion,
improve access to rural communities, and increase high speed Internet
access. Improved access to infrastructure--especially broadband
infrastructure--for rural states like mine is key to the economic
development we so desperately need.
The Railway-Highway Crossings Program has contributed to a
significant decrease in fatalities at railway-highway crossings. Since
its inception, fatalities have decreased by 57 percent since 1987. And
this is in spite of an overall increase in passenger and freight
traffic. In the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
we set aside over $200 million per year for this program which provides
a 90 percent match to fund state railway-highway crossing improvements.
Question 1. As Congress prepares for a FAST Act Reauthorization, in
your opinion, do you believe increasing the Federal match amount to 100
percent would incentivize safer railroad crossings?
Answer. Increasing the Federal share of the Section 130 program
from 90 percent to 100 percent could result in states and
municipalities making greater use of the program, as they would not be
responsible for funding or seeking partners to fund 10 percent of each
project's costs. However, maintaining the ability for the private
sector to financially participate in grade crossing safety, and even
encouraging this partnership, is fiscally prudent and effective.
Additional flexibility to the Federal match in cases where states and
rural localities do not have a private sector partner willing or able
to contribute to the project could expand participation.
Question 2. What should Congress consider going forward to help
improve railway-highway crossing safety?
Answer. While you note the incredible success of the Section 130
program in reducing grade crossing collisions and fatalties over the
past thirty years, the data unfortunately shows that progress waning
over the last decade. The program, with its emphasis on protective
devices, has remained largely unchanged since its inception. States
perform best when they are provided the greatest flexibility in
addressing their often unique highway-rail grade crossing safety issues
using data-driven decision making, technology, and innovative
engineering solutions. Reform of the Section 130 program could also
include greater incentives for crossing closures. Closures,
particularly in conjunction with grade-separations, reduce the safety
exposure of highway users by directing them to a grade-separated
crossing, and are the most effective mitigation for both bottlenecks
and risks of train-vehicle collisions.
Question 3. How are states doing their part to decrease railroad
accidents?
Answer. States often use FRA data to identify problem crossings and
to prioritize their limited resources to address those crossings. In
addition to making crossing data publicly available, FRA works with all
stakeholders, including railroads, railroad employees, States,
localities, and the public, to decrease railroad accidents and
specifically highway-rail grade crossing accidents. FRA regional staff
provide outreach to States such as technical assistance, facilitating
stakeholder meetings, and performing diagnostic reviews in the field.
Also, as the agency responsible for the Section 130 program, the
Federal Highway Administration may be able to point to additional
actions by states to decrease railroad accidents (particularly highway-
rail grade crossing accidents).
Question 4. In your testimony, you mention the listening session
FRA hosted this past spring. What were some of the safest technologies
FRA witnessed at the listening session?
Answer. At the listening session, a diverse group of stakeholders,
including railroads, State and local governments, and manufacturers and
suppliers, discussed existing and emerging technologies designed to
improve grade crossing safety. For example, ``Turned on tracks'' and
trespassing monitoring systems are real-time monitoring systems that
monitor track circuit conditions, can detect trespassers, and provide
intrusion alarm messages. Some systems notify motorists via an audible
alert and adjacent roadway signage of their intrusion on the track or a
train's presence, and some systems provide train dispatchers and train
crews live video feed of crossings. Stakeholders also reported that
other, more traditional traffic control devices (e.g., tubular markers
and pavement markings, supplemental signage) continue to be effective
measures of ensuring grade crossing safety.
FRA also heard about blocked crossing monitoring systems that
enable a municipality with a dedicated transportation management center
to monitor and adjust traffic flows and signals in response to blocked
crossing events. FRA also heard about two-way data exchange programs
where municipalities receive real-time incident information faster than
other reporting methods (e.g., Waze's Connected Citizen Program).
Waze's system pinpoints where grade crossing incidents occur, allowing
emergency responders to proactively route around those incidents. It
also alerts drivers to upcoming crossings to reduce the risk that
motorists may turn on to the tracks near a roadway intersection. Waze's
system is used at numerous grade crossings in the Los Angeles area and
along the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) in New York and both areas have
experienced significant safety improvements as a result. The Los
Angeles METRO experienced a 15 percent decrease in collisions and the
LIRR has experienced a significant decrease in cars turning onto tracks
since implementation of the system at several crossings.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Hon. Ronald L. Batory
Question. Administrator Batory, blocked grade crossings impact
cities across the nation, and can be particularly problematic in rural
areas which often have limited options for an alternative route. FRA
recently issued a request for information on blocked crossings in order
to obtain additional insight of the issue throughout the United States.
Can you further explain the proposed data collection and how it will
work to address this important issue?
Answer. FRA's existing data on blocked crossings is garnered
through information contained in formal complaints and correspondence,
as well as information several States voluntarily submit to FRA. FRA is
using GIS mapping to track reports of blocked crossings from these
sources. However, the information submitted is varied and often does
not identify the key facts (e.g., location, time, duration, impact) of
the incident being reported. Therefore, FRA is proposing to add new, 3
dedicated links to its existing website and its existing smartphone
application (Rail Crossing Locator) for the public to report blocked
crossings. When submitting a report, information will be specifically
requested on the location of the blocked crossing, the time, duration,
and impacts of the blocked crossing, which will provide standardized
information for analysis. We will also have a separate dedicated portal
(secured by log-in), for law enforcement agencies to report blocked
crossings in a similar manner. Recognizing that, even with this
additional information, FRA will not have complete data on blocked
crossings, we anticipate that the additional data will provide a more
complete picture of where, when, for how long, and what impacts result
from the blocked crossing incidents. FRA will use this information to
engage railroads and local communities to find local solutions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Ronald L. Batory
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Your written testimony emphasizes
that ``increasing grade crossing safety will not only reduce the number
of fatalities, but it will also improve the safety and efficiency of
the rail transportation network.'' You further note that FRA expects
grade crossing incidents to grow as both train and highway traffic
increases during the next decade.
Question 1. As Congress considers a surface transportation
authorization bill, how can we help to eliminate freight bottlenecks at
highway-rail grade crossings? Can we improve safety and efficiency at
rail grade crossings by providing more funding for INFRA, CRISI, and
the Railway-Highway Crossings (Section 130) Program?
Answer. States perform best when they are are provided the greatest
flexibility in addressing their often unique highway-rail grade
crossing safety issues. Reform of the Section 130 program could also
include greater incentives for crossing closures. Closures,
particularly in conjunction with grade separations (discussed below),
reduce the safety exposure of highway users by directing them to a
grade-separated crossing, and are the most effective mitigation for
both bottlenecks and risks of train-vehicle collisions.
Grant programs such as INFRA and CRISI provide additional
discretionary funding that can be used to supplement existing highway
safety programs such as Section 130. Specifically, the discretionary
grant programs are useful for larger grade separation road overpass and
underpass projects-which states and localities may be challenged to
fund with formula highway safety funds.
State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Action Plans. As required by the
FAST Act, the FRA created a model for states to use to develop their
own highway-rail grade crossing action plans. That model was released
in November 2016 and the FRA was supposed to create a rule 18 months
later (May 2018) to require the state to submit their own actions plans
for review. The FRA has not promulgated a rule at this time.
Question 2. When can I expect the FRA to publish the final rule on
the state action plans?
Answer. A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) implementing the
Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act's mandate to issue a
rule requiring States to submit highway-rail grade crossing action
plans is currently under review within the Department. FRA is
developing the NPRM and expects to publish it in the coming months.
shows that the Chicago area, Dallas-Fort Worth area, Houston area and
the Columbus, and Mount Victory areas of Ohio are frequently reporting
blocked crossings.
FRA's existing data on blocked crossings is garnered through
information contained in formal complaints and correspondence, as well
as information several states voluntarily submit to FRA. FRA is using
GIS mapping to track reports of blocked crossings from these sources
and is currently soliciting public comment on a proposed process to
collect more information regarding the frequency, location, and impacts
of blocked crossings. See 84 FR 27832 (June 14, 2019). Recognizing that
even with this additional information, FRA will not have complete data
on blocked crossings, we anticipate that the additional data will
provide a more complete picture of where, when, for how long, and what
impacts result from the reported blocked crossing incidents. FRA will
use this information to better engage railroads and local communities
to find local solutions.
FRA intends to continue to work with railroads to address the issue
of blocked crossings, which may be caused by trains of any length, and
for any number of reasons. We share voluntarily reported instances with
FRA regional personnel and ask them to engage both the railroad and the
local communities to find solutions. In May 2019, FRA sent letters to
over 160 railroads asking each railroad to assess their rail operations
and determine appropriate actions to minimize blocked crossings and
their impacts on local communities. The railroads can greatly reduce
the instances of blocked crossings by considering train length,
location of crew changes, and locations of required brake tests or
inspection points and by adjusting operating practices to minimize the
occurrence and duration of blocked crossings. FRA has received positive
responses from the railroads to these letters. The agency will continue
to engage responsible railroads, States and local communities on the
issue, but FRA notes that railroads, States, and local communities are
best positioned to address site-specific factors that contribute to
blocked crossings.
Question 3. What are the challenges of operating trains several
miles long? What has FRA found on the braking capabilities of these
longer trains?
Answer. The challenges of operating a train several miles long are
essentially the same as those for operating a shorter train. The
challenges include: (1) management of in-train forces, (2) proper train
make up, (3) communications between the lead locomotive and the
distributed power locomotives and/or end-of-train devices, and (4)
proper training for engineers and conductors. Railroads often utilize
distributed power units (DPU), or locomotives placed near the middle
and/or end of a train, to address these challenges and railroads are
required by Federal regulation to address in their training plans
significant changes in operations, including longer/heavier trains.
Some railroads operate very long trains without the use of DPU. To
better understand the risk of this type of operation, FRA is currently
conducting a study related to the operation of long trains. The study
will compare effect on train operations by issues such as train makeup
and handling (including the use of DPUs), crew training, and braking
performance. The study includes literature review and computer
simulations of a variety of train lengths, locomotive consists, track
scenarios, train makeups, handling options, and other factors to
understand the effect on in-train forces.
Question 4. Could programs like INFRA, CRISI, and the Railway-
Highway Crossings program (Section 130) help to address community
concerns with blocked crossings by funding grade separations?
Answer. Yes, programs like INFRA, CRISI, and the Railway-Highway
Crossings program (Section 130) can certainly help to address community
concerns by funding for grade separations as both grade separations and
closures eliminate the safety exposure of highway users and are the
most effective mitigation for both bottlenecks and risks of train-
vehicle collisions.
Question 5. When will the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) be
published for the next round of CRISI?
Answer. The Federal Railroad Administration announced $324.2M in FY
2018 CRISI funding on June 12, 2019, and made available $244.6M in the
FY 2019 Notice of Funding Opportunity on August 14, 2019.
Oil Volatility and Crude-by-rail Safety. The FRA regulates crude
oil shipments. In 2016, a train carrying Bakken crude derailed in
Mosier, Oregon, spilling 42,000 gallons of crude oil in the Columbia
River Gorge, some of which caught fire. Higher volatility crude oil is
processed before shipment by pipeline but not before shipment by rail.
In 2015, I secured a commitment by the Department of Energy and
Department of Transportation to conduct a study on the volatility of
crude oil.
Question 6. When can we expect the results of this oil volatility
study to be published?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is conducting this
study in collaboration with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), FRA, and Transport Canada. The study is being
performed by Sandia National Laboratory. A report on Task 3: Combustion
Characteristics is anticipated to be published in August 2019.
Question 7. When will FRA address safety concerns regarding the
combustibility of crude oil in rail accidents?
Answer. The safety concerns associated with the rail transportation
of crude oil, primarily the large volume transported in unit trains was
addressed in PHMSA's High-Hazard Flammable Train rule. Regarding the
properties of crude oil and the risks present during and following a
derailment, the rule required new tank cars capable of resisting
puncture, and a thermal protection system that will minimize the
occurrence of explosions in the event of a fire.
LNG Shipments by Rail. President Trump's April 10th Executive Order
on Promoting Energy Infrastructure and Economic Growth directs the
Department of Transportation to issue a rule within 13 months to treat
liquefied natural gas (LNG) the same as other cryogenic liquids and
permit LNG to be transported in approved rail tank cars.
Question 8. Where in the U.S. is LNG approved to be shipped by
rail?
Answer. Currently, the Federal hazardous materials regulations
(HMRs) authorize the transportation of methane, refrigerated liquid
(LNG) by rail in UN-T75 portable tanks anywhere in the United States.
However, the HMRs require FRA to approve the transportation of certain
hazardous materials in portable tanks on rail cars per 49 CFR
Sec. 174.63. LNG is one of the materials requiring FRA's approval. To
date, only the Alaska Railroad and Florida East Coast Railway have
requested such approvals. Subject to certain conditions, FRA has
granted both approvals. Only the Florida East Coast Railway, however,
is actively transporting portable tanks of LNG by rail (from Hialeah,
FL to Port Everglades in Boca Raton, FL (28 miles)).
Question 9. What types of safety risks are involved with shipping
LNG by rail?
Answer. LNG has a lower risk profile than most flammable materials
currently transported by rail. As a liquid, LNG will not burn. To
ignite, LNG must be in vapor form and must be in its flammability range
of 5 percent-15 percent oxygen/Methane. Additionally, LNG vapors will
not explode unless they are confined. If the material is ignited, the
material will generate a thermal (heat) exposure hazard. The other
safety risk LNG presents comes from its cryogenic properties. The
material is transported at a temperature of -260+F, and at that
temperature, poses a significant exposure risk if it comes into contact
with a person or the environment.
Passenger Rail Service. The Administration's 2020 budget proposal
cuts funding to Amtrak's National Network by more than half from Fiscal
Year 2019 enacted levels. These cuts could affect service on two long-
distance routes in Washington State--the Coast Starlight and Empire
Builder--that provide essential service to communities across the
state.
Question 10. Do you agree that it is important to maintain
passenger rail service, including in rural areas?
Answer. The FY 2020 President's Budget proposes to begin
restructuring Amtrak's Long Distance network, phasing decision-making
and cost responsibilities to the States over a four-year period via
transition assistance through the Restoration and Enhancements grant
program. This proposal empowers States such as Washington to work with
Amtrak and other potential operators to define the corridors, services,
and markets that best meet the demands of their residents and
interests.
The operating and financial performance metrics for Amtrak's Long
Distance routes illustrate a struggling business model in need of
reform, with its fundamental problem being the inability to meet
customer expectations and demand. Markets served via Long Distance
routes, including those in rural areas, suffer infrequent service at
inconvenient times that is often significantly delayed. The substantial
Federal resources required to operate the existing Long Distance
network--nearly $550 million in annual operating costs, hundreds of
millions of dollars annually for capital maintenance and upgrades, and
a looming multi-billion dollar equipment replacement need--do not
provide a justifiable return on investment.
The Federal Government, Amtrak, States, localities, and private
sector partners should focus investment in existing and new State-
Supported corridors that provide better performance and more relevant
transportation choices for passengers.
On-time performance. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act of 2008 (PRIIA) called for FRA and Amtrak to jointly establish
metrics and standards for assessing on-time performance of Amtrak
trains when operating on host freight railroad track.
Question 11. Will Amtrak participate in the new commission FRA is
forming to develop metrics and standards for on-time performance?
Answer. Yes, FRA and Amtrak held a two-day session from July 15-16
to discuss the process for jointly developing metrics and standards for
measuring the service quality and performance of intercity passenger
rail operations. Next steps for both FRA and Amtrak are reviewing the
metrics developed in 2010, and consulting with host railroads, States,
the Surface Transportation Board, and other stakeholders.
Sleep Apnea. In March 2016, FMCSA and FRA released an advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) looking at requiring sleep apnea
screening and treatment for personnel in safety critical roles. In
2017, the agencies collectively rescinded the proposed rulemaking.
NTSB's 2019-2020 Most Wanted List calls for FMCSA and FRA to require
screening and treatment for sleep apnea to reduce the risk of
sleepiness and fatigue for commercial drivers and train crew.
Question 12. Is FRA concerned about the risks of sleep apnea in the
rail industry? If so, what is the agency doing to address the risks of
sleep apnea?
Answer. FRA is concerned with any disorder or condition that may
increase risk due to decreased alertness, including undiagnosed/
untreated obstructive sleep apnea.
In response to the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), and
based on input from a Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) working
group, FRA is drafting a rule requiring certain railroads to include a
fatigue risk management plan (FRMP) in their railroad safety risk
reduction programs, required by other rulemakings. Elements considered
in these FRMPs will include: (1) employee education and training; (2)
opportunities for identification, diagnosis, and treatment of medical
conditions that may affect alertness and fatigue, including obstructive
sleep apnea (OSA) and other sleep disorders; (3) scheduling practices
for employees; and (4) other alertness strategies. After the final rule
takes effect, FRA will assist railroads in establishing FRMPs.
FRA sponsors the website Railroaders' Guide to Healthy Sleep
(www.railroader
sleep.org) to raise awareness of fatigue risks in the railroad
industry, strategies to obtain adequate rest, and resources for
railroaders to obtain diagnosis and treatment of sleep disorders,
including obstructive sleep apnea
Additionally, FRA issued Safety Advisory 2016-03 on December 5,
2016, to stress to passenger and commuter railroads the importance of
taking action to help mitigate human factor crashes. 81 FR 87649. This
Advisory recommends railroads and employees take certain actions to
prevent work-related errors and on-the-job crashes because of sleep
disorders, including obstructive sleep apnea.
Positive Train Control Exemptions. In 2008, Congress directed FRA
to require PTC throughout the national rail system, including all lines
used by intercity passenger trains. However, the FRA final rules
implementing this Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) requirement
allowed certain exemptions, or Main Track Exclusion Addendums (MTEAs),
particularly for tracks with limited passenger train traffic. FRA
subsequently granted PTC exemptions for more than 1,400 miles of track
where Amtrak operates.
Question 13. What alternative safety technologies can be readily
deployed on trains or tracks where a PTC exemption is in place? How is
FRA helping Amtrak install such technologies?
Answer. There are several train control technologies, such as
automatic train control (ATC), broken rail detection circuits, and
power assisted switches equipped with switch point indicators that can
be deployed on any trains or tracks, including where a PTC system is
not required by law. Some existing systems are impractical to deploy in
certain locations (e.g., installing a cab signal or ATC system in non-
signalized territory). Although other train control technologies help
mitigate certain risks, these technologies are not necessarily
comparable alternatives to PTC because, unlike PTC, those technologies
are not designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over-speed
derailments, incursions into established work zones, and movements of
trains through switches left in the wrong position.
Currently, Amtrak is considering options that may provide one or
more of the PTC-required protections by, for example, installing
certain train control technology (including transponders) on a line for
which Amtrak or its host railroad previously requested, and FRA
approved, an exception to the mandate. In addition, Amtrak is exploring
whether it would be effective to implement in-cab alerters, including
Wi-Tronix, on trains that operate on certain lines not subject to the
statutory PTC mandate. Despite any earlier requests for exceptions,
railroads may still implement PTC systems on these track segments, and
Amtrak has recently committed to implementing a PTC system on its Post
Road Branch in New York State, in addition perhaps to other lines for
which Amtrak obtained an exception.
FRA actively encourages the development of any safety technology
that could further mitigate remaining operational risks and continues
to support industry through research and development efforts and pilot
projects as these technologies are developed and matured. With the
December 31, 2020 PTC deadline approaching, FRA remains focused on
working with Amtrak and the rest of the railroad industry to help
ensure railroads fully implement PTC systems on the nearly 58,000
required route miles as quickly and safely as possible.
Question 14. What other strategies does FRA pursue to ensure
passenger rail safety for areas where PTC is not implemented?
Answer. FRA encourages railroads to understand and manage the risks
associated with operations in areas where PTC systems will not be
implemented. In some cases, there are mandatory mitigations to address
these risks, including the requirement to enforce certain speed limits
in terminal areas where it is otherwise not practical or feasible to
implement a full PTC system. See 49 CFR Sec. 236.1019(b)(1)-(2). In
other cases, passenger railroads and their applicable host or tenant
railroads must perform comprehensive risk assessments and implement
associated mitigations to qualify for an exception. See 49 CFR
Sec. 236.1019(c)-(d).
In addition, since FRA's passenger-focused regulations, including
49 CFR Parts 238 and 239, were first codified approximately 20 years
ago, FRA has continuously sought to enhance and evolve its regulations
to meet the needs of safety and the industry. These requirements cover
a wide range of areas, including, but not limited to: safety planning,
passenger equipment structural design, occupant protection, fire
safety, inspection, testing and maintenance, and on-board emergency
systems. In particular, railroads are required to prepare and submit
for FRA approval emergency preparedness plans addressing
communications, training, emergency response simulations, and other
elements to ensure passenger safety in emergency situations. Other
existing FRA regulations and requirements--e.g., FRA's locomotive
engineer and conductor qualification regulations (49 CFR Parts 240 and
242), requirements for operational tests and inspections (49 CFR Part
217), requirements related to the handling of equipment, switches and
fixed derails, and longstanding hours of service requirements--also
help ensure passenger rail safety.
Crewmember training. The training for the crewmembers of Amtrak 501
apparently met minimum Federal standards. However, the NTSB final
report on this accident found that Amtrak did not effectively train
crewmembers for operating on new territory and for the type of
locomotive.
Question 15. Given these findings, are current Federal requirements
for crew member training sufficient to ensure safety on routes
operating under PTC exemptions granted by FRA?
Answer. FRA's investigation of the Amtrak 501 accident concluded
that improper crewmember training was a contributing cause of the
accident. FRA's investigation found training for the assigned
crewmembers of Amtrak 501 did not comply with Federal regulations.
Those regulations establish minimum qualification standards for both
locomotive engineers and conductors. Railroads must comply with FRA-
approved certification programs required by 49 CFR Parts 240 and 242.
These regulations require railroads to comply with a formal process for
training and evaluating locomotive engineers before permitting them to
operate a locomotive or train. Amtrak did not train the locomotive
engineer on aspects of the onboard electronic locomotive control system
required by 49 CFR Part 229. Conductors have a similar formal training
and evaluation process to determine whether an individual has the
requisite knowledge and competence to perform the duties of a
conductor. Conductor territorial training was also not in compliance.
Amtrak did not comply with its certification programs. FRA
determined the lack of proper crewmember training was a contributing
cause to the accident and FRA's enforcement action is ongoing.
Speed limit action plans. Federal law requires each railroad
carrier providing intercity passenger rail transportation to identify
and develop appropriate actions for warning and enforcement of maximum
speeds where there is a reduction of more than 20 mph approaching a
curve, bridge, or tunnel. As a result of its Amtrak 501 investigation,
NTSB recommends that FRA require passenger railroads to periodically
review and update their speed limit action plans to reflect any
operational changes, as well as continually monitor the effectiveness
of their risk mitigations.
Question 16. What are current FRA requirements for speed limit
action plans in areas with PTC exemptions?
Answer. In response to the Amtrak 188 derailment, FRA issued
Emergency Order No. 31 to require Amtrak to take specific actions to
ensure the safe operation of passenger trains on the Northeast
Corridor, to include modifications to its ATC system design, prior to
full implementation of its PTC system. FRA subsequently published
Safety Advisory 2015-03 in June 2015 to reinforce the importance of
compliance with Federal regulations and applicable railroad rules
governing passenger train speed limits These actions were bolstered by
the enactment of the FAST Act in 2015, which required intercity and
commuter passenger railroads to submit Speed Limit Action Plans to FRA
for review and approval. Under the FAST Act, these plans were required
to identify, within 90 days, all main track locations where there was a
reduction of speed of more than 20 miles per hour, and describe
appropriate actions to enable warning and enforcement of the maximum
authorized speed. FRA received, reviewed, and approved all plans as
required by the FAST Act.
Although FRA does not have the authority to require updates to
Speed Limit Action Plans, or assess a civil penalty against a railroad
for failing to comply with those plans, FRA will continue its practice
to periodically audit railroads' compliance with their operating rules.
Question 17. Does FRA intend to implement the NTSB's
recommendations related to speed action plans? If so, by what date?
Answer. FRA is reviewing the NTSB's recommendation and will respond
to the NTSB with its planned actions once its review is complete. FRA
notes that it does not have the authority to require updates to Speed
Limit Action Plans, or to assess a civil penalty against a railroad for
failing to comply with those plans, but as noted above, FRA will
continue its practice to periodically audit railroads' compliance with
their operating rules.
System Safety Program. Amtrak relies on host railroads to meet
minimum Federal safety standards to ensure safe operations for its
passenger trains on tracks that Amtrak does not own. In 2008, Congress
required Class I railroads and those that provide intercity passenger
transportation to implement a safety risk reduction program. This
month, FRA proposed extending the stay of the System Safety Program
final rule's requirements.
Question 18. By what date will FRA's final rule for System Safety
Program be in place?
Answer. On August 12, 2016, FRA published a final rule requiring
commuter and intercity passenger railroads to develop and implement a
system safety program (SSP) to improve the safety of their operations.
The SSP rule is part of FRA's efforts to continuously improve rail
safety and to satisfy the statutory mandate in the RSIA. FRA also
published a corresponding proposed rule requiring each Class I freight
railroad and each freight railroad with inadequate safety performance
to develop and implement a Risk Reduction Program (RRP) to improve the
safety of their operations. FRA subsequently stayed the SSP final rule
to address petitions for reconsideration filed by certain labor
organizations and State and local transportation departments and
authorities. On June 12, 2019, FRA issued a proposed rule to respond to
the petitions. FRA is working diligently to issue both the SSP and RRP
final rules.
Question 19. What operational risk mitigations does FRA require for
intercity passenger rail for sections of track in ``dark territory''
not controlled by signals?
Answer. Risk mitigation is a fundamental element of all railroad
operations, regardless of whether the operation occurs over signalized
or ``dark'' territory. The FRA regulatory framework and the specific
operating rules that railroads follow account for these inherent risks
through operational restrictions or additional procedures, where
necessary. While it is always desirable to eliminate or ``design out''
hazards and risks to the highest degree, this is not always possible or
practical. In non-signalized territory, or other situations where
certain reasonable residual risk exists, additional operational
requirements, such as those outlined in 49 CFR Sec. 218.105(d) or speed
limit restrictions as required by 49 CFR Sec. 236.0(c)(2), may also
apply.
As noted above, additional requirements specific to passenger
operations are designed to mitigate operational risks, whether through
occupant protections standards or emergency preparedness requirements.
FRA maintains and enforces a comprehensive set of regulations dedicated
solely to the safety of passenger rail operations. Most of these
passenger-focused requirements are in 49 CFR Parts 238 and 239. Since
these requirements were first codified approximately 20 years ago, FRA
has continuously sought to enhance and evolve its regulations to meet
the needs of safety and the industry. These requirements cover a wide
range of areas including, but not limited to: safety planning,
passenger equipment structural design, occupant protection, fire
safety, inspection, testing and maintenance, and on-board emergency
systems. In particular, railroads are required to prepare and submit
for FRA approval emergency preparedness plans addressing
communications, training, emergency response simulations, and other
elements to ensure passenger safety in emergency situations.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Hon. Ronald L. Batory
Question. As everyone is aware, Politico reported recently that
Secretary Chao has steered millions of dollars in grants to Kentucky--
as her husband seeks reelection. As you can imagine, everyone on this
dais represents states with needs as great as Kentucky, but I am
concerned about the Secretary putting her finger on the scale to
benefit one state. Can each of you speak how your agencies can prevent
such political interference?
Answer. The facts belie the false allegation that the Department
has steered grants to Kentucky. As the Politico article noted, Kentucky
As the Politico article noted, Kentucky ranked 25th among the states,
received 5 of 169 grants in this period. In terms of funding, Kentucky
received about 5 percent of the awards--proportional to its share of
the Nation's populations.
The Department applies the same rigorous technical criteria to all
application evaluations and treats all project applications equitably.
The Department has taken great effort and is committed to ensuring that
all our grant programs use data driven processes to ensure the
Department complies with all Congressional requirements such as project
eligibilities, geographic diversity, minimum urban and rural award
percentages, and project type diversity. All applications are reviewed
by career technical teams to rate the projects on how well the
applicant addresses selection criteria that is published in the Notice
of Funding Opportunity. Evaluation teams comprised of representatives
from the different modal administrations, staff from Various DOT field
offices across the country and HQ staff are responsible for assigning
technical ratings.
The Department has a strong track record of ensuring that
infrastructure award selections benefit all 50 states and U.S.
territories and will continue to ensure fair and consistent application
of grant criteria and to meet Congressional award requirements.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
Hon. Ronald L. Batory
Question. As you know, FHWA's University Transportation Center
program plays a key role in transportation research initiatives;
however, there is not yet a center within the UTC program devoted to
freight rail research and development or workforce development. As
Congress considers reauthorizing the FAST Act, what are your thoughts
on the role of university research in supporting FRA's mission?
Answer. FRA's Research, Development & Technology (RD&T) division
has a successful history of innovation in partnership with
universities. A recent example is the Autonomous Track Geometry
Monitoring System (ATGMS). This technology enables railroads to
efficiently gather data on track condition that is essential to
maintaining safety. In addition, RD&T has created a new research
initiative involving partnerships with universities. This is a program
to support RD&T's research projects on intelligent railroad systems.
This research focuses on advanced technology, automation, and connected
vehicle technologies; advancing technology to improve safety in rural
areas; intelligent transportation systems; and workforce development.
RD&T expects to improve rail safety, advance innovation, and improve
rail infrastructure while enhancing workforce development through the
intelligent railroad systems program and the Broad Agency Announcement
program that is designed to attract and fund research with universities
and their affiliated labs. At the end of FY19, FRA RD&T will have
obligated $5,678,857.33 in research and development funding related to
research with universities.
FRA is pleased to partner with the multi-modal University
Transportation Centers (UTC) program, managed by the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. The UTCs have produced
over a dozen research results over the past few years directly
addressing rail-highway intersection design, pedestrian safety at rail
crossings, light rail safety, freight rail diversion analysis, and
similar topics. FRA does not provide direct funding to UTCs.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
Hon. Raymond Martinez
Question. As you know, the railroad trade associations, railroad
response contractors and their trade association have submitted
applications for an exemption (Docket Number 2019-04189 and Docket
Number 2018-27341) to enable affected railroad employees, subject to
the hours-of-service regulations, to respond to an unplanned event that
occurs outside of or extends beyond the employee's normal work hours.
Unplanned events, such as blocked grade crossings, train collisions,
and train derailments, can disrupt the flow of commerce and cause
safety risks. As a result, the railroads and their contractors have
asked for flexibility so that drivers can arrive at the site of an
unplanned event and complete the necessary emergency response work.
Please let us know the status of your review of the exemption
applications and when you plan to issue a response.
Answer. FMCSA received an application for exemption from the
Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line and
Regional Railroad Association, and a substantially similar exemption
application from R.J. Corman Railroad Services, Cranemasters, Inc., and
the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association, Inc.
The Agency requested public comment on these exemption requests in the
Federal Register in December 2018 and March 2019, respectively. The
associated comment periods for the notices closed on January 17, 2019,
and April 8, 2019, respectively.
The applicants requested a limited exemption from the hours-of-
service (HOS) driving time limits to enable railroad employees subject
to the HOS rule to respond to unplanned events that occur outside of or
extend beyond their normal work hours. Specifically, the exemption
would apply to railroad employees who transport equipment used to clear
derailed or disabled trains or debris blocking tracks or railroad
rights-of-way. Unplanned incidents of this kind affect interstate
commerce and railway operations, including passenger rail operations.
Presently, the Agency is evaluating the comments and the safety
analyses submitted and will determine whether granting the exemption
will likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the
level that would be achieved by the current regulation, as required by
49 CFR 381.305. FMCSA has been in direct communication with petitioners
and will be meeting with them again shortly to discuss the exemption
requests.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Hon. Raymond Martinez
Question 1. FMCSA's Spring 2019 Unified Agenda says that FMCSA
could extend provisions of the Entry Level Driver Training rule beyond
the February 2020 compliance date. Which provisions of the Entry Level
Driver Training rule is FMCSA considering extending the compliance date
for, and why does the agency consider extension of the compliance date
necessary?
Answer. On July 18, 2019, FMCSA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend its December 8, 2016, final rule, ``Minimum
Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators'' (ELDT final rule), by extending the compliance date for two
provisions of the rule. The date for training providers to upload
entry-level driver training (ELDT) certification information into the
Training Provider Registry (TPR) and for State Driver Licensing
Agencies (SDLAs) to receive driver-specific ELDT information would be
extended from February 7, 2020, to February 7, 2022. This action would
provide FMCSA additional time to complete development of the electronic
interface that will receive and store ELDT certification information
from training providers and transmit that information to the SDLAs. The
proposed extension would also give SDLAs sufficient time to modify
their information technology systems and procedures, as necessary, to
accommodate their receipt of driver-specific ELDT data from the TPR.
Question 2. In October of this year, users of the Drug and Alcohol
Clearinghouse can begin to register for this program.
a. Do you have any concerns that there will be enough time from
October to January for users, such as drivers and employers, to
register before the requirements go into effect?
Answer. No. Registration will be available in October 2019, well
before the January compliance date.
b. Additionally, is there a potential for state driver's license
agencies to be delayed in accessing the clearinghouse?
Answer. Yes, FMCSA is proposing an extension to the compliance date
to allow additional time needed to complete its work on a forthcoming
rulemaking to address the States' use of driver-specific information in
the Clearinghouse, and to develop the information technology platform
through which States will electronically request and receive
Clearinghouse information.
c. One of the recommendations in the National Academy of Sciences
report on CSA was for FMCSA to do a study to better understand the
percentile ranks as it relates to decisions regarding the usability of
public scores. Can you provide an update on FMCSA's work to address
that recommendation?
Answer. FMCSA has not yet acted on this recommendation, as he
current focus is on analyzing the possible impacts of adopting an Item
Response Theory model. Upon completion of that work, the Agency will
consider what changes are appropriate. The nature of the public use of
the data will be considered at that time. Members of Congress will be
informed of the progress in the execution of the recommendations.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Hon. Raymond Martinez
Question. Administrator Martinez, last fall a group of
organizations representing livestock haulers and producers filed a
joint petition to seek more flexibility in the hours of service
regulation. The current hours of service rules are problematic for
animal welfare reasons, so it is important that your agency provide
additional flexibility for livestock haulers. As the comment period
came to a close this past March, can you provide an update on timing
for a decision?
Answer. FMCSA is continuing to work through the HOS rulemaking,
which is currently with the Office of Management and Budget for review.
The foundation of this proposal is a combination of driver/industry
flexibility and overall safety. The Agency looks forward to comments
from all interested groups, including those representing livestock
haulers and producers once that proposal is issued. In addition, FMCSA
issued guidance on June 7, 2018, (83 FR 26374) clarifying the 150 air-
mile HOS exemption available to livestock haulers and transporters of
other agricultural commodities to give them maximum flexibility. This
guidance is available on a new FMCSA website specifically dedicated to
the transportation of agricultural commodities and the flexibilities
available (www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ag).
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to
Hon. Raymond Martinez
I share the concerns of my colleague from Montana regarding the
Under 21 Military Pilot Program, that despite the best of intentions
this pilot program will be hard-pressed to generate significant,
meaningful data given the narrow parameters placed on eligible
participants. To that end, I look forward to working with the FMCSA as
the comment period closes on the ongoing Commercial Driver Pilot
Program. Earlier this year, I introduced the DRIVE-Safe Act along with
my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester. As you noted, the interstate
commercial driver age rule has been in place for many decades and
deserves a hard look now that we have new safety technologies.
Question. Will you pledge to work with this committee after the
FMCSA pilot program comment period concludes to help address the driver
shortage issue and ensure Congress is providing FMCSA with the
legislative tools required to safely and responsibly build upon the
current Under 21 Military Pilot Program?
Answer. Yes, FMCSA pledges to work with your committee after the
Under 21 Military pilot concludes and throughout the pilot to address
driver shortage.
On June 3, 2019, an FMCSA press release announced that the Agency
has begun accepting applications from motor carriers interested in
participating in the Under 21 Military CDL Pilot Program. The agency
has already received many applications from motor carriers and is
currently reviewing their safety performance records, while it
finalizes the Privacy Act requirements for collecting performance data
for individual drivers participating in this Pilot.
The Pilot Program is expected to run for 3 years, after which FMCSA
will submit a final report to Congress with its findings and
recommendations. The Agency has every expectation that the Pilot
Program will successfully demonstrate the safety performance of younger
qualified veterans and active duty personnel with military driving
experience. However, FMCSA also has mechanisms in place to remove any
company or individual driver from the Pilot, if the Agency determines
they are not operating within the safety parameters of this Program.
Additionally, I would like to note that FMCSA recently issued a
Federal Register Notice requesting public comments on a possible second
pilot program to allow non-military drivers aged 18, 19, and 20 to
operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce. The comment
period has been extended to August 14, 2019. This notice requests
comments on the training, qualifications, driving limitations, and
vehicle safety systems FMCSA should consider in developing approaches
for such a program and is available at: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/
newsroom/fmcsa-seeks-public-comment-pilot-program-allow-drivers-ages-
18-20-operate-commercial-motor
The FMCSA has worked for several years to implement several
programs to reduce barriers to entry and facilitate the transition of
new drivers into the industry. Specifically, we have provided many
opportunities for current and former military personnel to more easily
transition into commercial truck driving careers. For instance:
The FMCSA allows State Driver Licensing Agencies to permit
military drivers to substitute 2 years of experience safely
operating trucks or buses, equivalent to civilian commercial
vehicles, for the skills test portion of the commercial
driver's license (CDL) test, known in the Agency as the
Military Skills Test Waiver.
On September 28, 2018, FMCSA published a final rule titled
``Military Licensing and State Commercial Driver's License
Reciprocity.'' This program allows States to exempt qualified
veterans and active duty personnel from the knowledge test for
obtaining a CDL. When used with the Military Skills Test
Waiver, this allows a driver to exchange a military license for
a CDL.
Lastly, FMCSA's Commercial Motor Vehicle Operator Safety Training
grants provide funds to commercial driver training schools. The program
prioritizes schools that train members of the armed forces, including
the National Guard and reserve units to transition into civilian motor
carrier careers. This grant program facilitates the training of several
hundred safe, well-qualified drivers to enter the industry each year.
The FAST Act authorized $1 million to carry out the program for each
Fiscal Year from 2017- 2020, and Congress raised this amount to $2
million in FY 2019.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Raymond Martinez
Traffic Fatalities. The Department of Transportation recently
released an early estimate of traffic fatalities in the U.S for 2018.
While total vehicle fatalities decreased slightly last year, fatalities
involving large truck crashes increased by three percent from 2017.
Question 1. What does the preliminary 2018 data suggest are the
contributing factors to the increase in fatalities involving large
truck crashes?
Answer. FMCSA does not have the contributing factors specific to
the 2018 crashes and does recognize the increasing trend in fatalities;
however, we have noticed a large crash increase in trucks weighing
between 10,001 and 14,000 pounds (heavy pick-ups). FMCSA is working
with our state partners and stakeholders to identify the factors that
are contributing to the growth in fatal large truck crashes, and in
both injury and property damage only (PDO) crashes. Analyzing these
factors will drive new initiatives to reduce crashes on our Nation's
roadways.
Question 2. What is FMCSA doing to address large truck crash
fatalities? What more should Congress be doing to address truck crash
fatalities?
Answer. FMCSA has a multiple-prong approach in addressing the
rising truck crashes across our country. First, all new motor carriers
applying for USDOT operating authority go through an automated vetting
program, the Utility for Risk-based Screening and Assessment (URSA), to
assure an applicant is fit, willing and able to comply with our safety
regulations. This also prevents reincarnated carriers from operating
again. In the 3+ years since the launch of the automated vetting
program, FMCSA has screened over 183,000 applications for operating
authority, and as a result of URSA, over 13,000 of them were flagged
for further investigation, and over 400 were rejected due to high-risk
behavior. Studies indicate these high-risk carriers are three times
more likely than other carriers to be involved in severe crashes.
Keeping high-risk carriers off the roads improves safety and saves
lives.
In addition, FMCSA awards over $300 million per year in grant
funding to State and local enforcement agencies. The bulk of that
funding is under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program and is
intended for inspection and traffic enforcement activities.
Approximately 3.6 million roadside inspections are conducted annually.
Across the country, FMCSA employs over 300 Safety Investigators
whose primary focus is upon high-risk motor carriers that exhibit
unsafe driving and operational practices. These motor carriers have a
crash rate of approximately 19 percent compared to the average crash
rate of 5 percent. FMCSA conducts about 8,000 compliance reviews per
year and focuses on high-risk carriers, motorcoach operations, carriers
who transport hazardous materials, and household goods operations.
Finally, FMCSA has sponsored a Large Truck and Bus Traffic
Enforcement training curriculum. This class is open to all law
enforcement personnel and focuses on contributing factors such as
unsafe speed, following too closely, texting, cell phone use, and
unrestrained operation. We also focus on unsafe operation of passenger
cars around large trucks.
Hours-of-service (HOS) and Driver Fatigue. I have concerns over the
long hours truck drivers must work and the impact that has on safety.
The NTSB's 2019-2020 Most Wanted List includes reducing truck driver
fatigue-related accidents. Yet last year, FMCSA announced its intention
to revisit existing HOS rules, which are intended to address fatigue
for commercial drivers.
Question 3. Does the agency intend to make changes to HOS for any
commercial driver groups, and if so, what additional safety measures
will accompany increased flexibility in hours-of-service?
Answer. With the implementation of FMCSA's Electronic Logging
Device (ELD) requirements, numerous questions were raised concerning
the applicability of the underlying HOS rules and long-standing
challenges the industry has experienced with certain provisions of the
rule. The ELD rule did not change the HOS limits for drivers; it simply
required electronic recordkeeping of their duty status
Secretary Chao has long advocated flexibility for companies and
drivers on HOS requirements. We at FMCSA support that goal. Toward that
end, on August 23, 2018, FMCSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM). The ANPRM asked for data regarding several areas
where flexibility could be improved while maintaining safety, including
the following: (1) Elimination of the 30 minute break; (2) Expansion of
the short haul exception to allow more carriers the flexibility of not
needed a record of duty status; (3) the use of the adverse driving
conditions exception; (4) allowing drivers to split off duty time spent
in a the sleeper berth; and (5) allowing a pause in the 14 hour day to
address unexpected situations. The Agency also convened five listening
sessions to obtain information on how HOS provisions could be improved.
In consideration of the available data, comments to the docket, and the
remarks of the participants at the listening sessions, FMCSA has
prepared a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to present options for
specific regulatory changes and to seek public comment on the proposed
changes. Because the draft NPRM is under review at the Office of
Management and Budget, and we cannot discuss its contents. The
reduction of CMV crashes, fatalities, and injuries remains the
paramount objective for FMCSA.
Question 4. I understand that there are an increasing number of HOS
exemptions being granted. How does FMCSA ensure that carriers are
operating safely with exemptions, and does the agency study the safety
impacts of exemptions?
Answer. In addition to greater compliance with the hours-of-service
(HOS) rules, another result of the congressionally mandated final rule
on electronic logging devices (ELD) is that drivers and carriers
realized that they were not complying fully with the HOS rules prior to
the ELD implementation. Thus, many of these entities have applied for
exemptions from our HOS rules.
FMCSA evaluates each of these exemption requests on a case-by-case
basis. As required by statute, we publish notice of exemption requests
in the Federal Register and seek public comment on applications for
exemptions. The Agency must provide the public with the opportunity to
review applications and offer comment concerning whether the exemption
would achieve a level of safety equivalent to that which would be
realized absent the exemption. After considering the exemption request
and the public comments, and evaluating all available data, the Agency
determines whether granting the exemption is appropriate.
Through the rulemaking process initiated in August 2018 with the
publication of the ANPRM on hours of service, the Agency sought public
comment on several aspects of our HOS rules. As the NPRM that follows
up on the 2018 ANPRM is currently under review at OMB, the Agency
cannot discuss its contents at this time.
Question 5. I have heard from the enforcement community that
FMCSA's recent changes to guidance on personal conveyance has resulted
in drivers driving far beyond HOS limits. Is FMCSA addressing this?
Answer. On June 7, 2018, FMCSA published regulatory guidance (83 FR
26377) which provided additional clarity concerning driving a
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) for personal use while off-duty,
referred to as ``personal conveyance.'' This guidance did not change
the hours-of-service (HOS) rules; rather it updated the original
guidance published in 1997 to improve uniformity for the industry and
the enforcement communities. Specifically, it provided additional
details to assist a carrier or driver in determining if a move is
personal conveyance, including passenger carrier-specific scenarios.
This guidance also clarified issues such as using personal conveyance
for laden vehicles and to get to a safe resting location after loading
or unloading.
The concern that this guidance has led to additional violations of
the HOS limits is unfounded. It is true, however, that the misuse of
personal conveyance and other HOS flexibilities is more easily
discovered due to the use of ELDs.
Sleep Apnea. In March 2016, FMCSA and FRA released an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) looking at requiring sleep apnea
screening and treatment for commercial vehicle drivers and train
operators. In 2017, the agencies collectively rescinded the proposed
rulemaking. NTSB's 2019-2020 Most Wanted List calls for FMCSA and FRA
to require screening and treatment for sleep apnea to reduce sleepiness
and fatigue.
Question 6. Is FMCSA concerned about the risks of sleep apnea in
the industry? If so, what is the agency doing to address the risks of
sleep apnea amongst commercial drivers?
Answer. FMCSA is concerned about the risks of obstructive sleep
apnea (OSA) in the industry. OSA is associated with increased risk for
other adverse health conditions such as hypertension (high blood
pressure), diabetes, obesity, cardiac dysrhythmias (irregular
heartbeat), myocardial infarction (heart attack), stroke, and death
resulting from sudden cardiac arrest.
FMCSA and FRA published the ANPRM in March 2016, and 3 public
listening sessions were held in May 2016. The ANPRM requested data and
information concerning the prevalence of moderate to severe OSA among
individuals occupying safety-sensitive positions in highway and rail
transportation. The Agencies did not receive sufficient data to support
future rulemakings. They determined that current and upcoming safety
programs appropriately address fatigue risks, including OSA.
Presently, the Agency is working to revise its Medical Handbook to
better inform certified medical examiners (CMEs) of the medical
standards to evaluate CMV drivers more effectively to determine if they
can drive safely in interstate commerce. The Agency plans to issue a
revised bulletin to CMEs to clarify Agency guidance for the evaluation
of moderate to severe OSA and its safety implications for CMV drivers.
We expect to issue the bulletin later this year.
Rear Underride Guards. In 2018, the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance petitioned FMCSA to amend Appendix G by requiring rear
underride guards to be inspected during annual commercial vehicle
inspections. This was also a recommendation by GAO in their March 2019
report on underride accidents.
Question 7. What is the status of this petition? Does FMCSA intend
to add rear guards to required annual commercial vehicle inspections?
Answer. In response to petitions for rulemaking from the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance and two individuals, and a recommendation from
the Government Accountability Office, FMCSA has initiated a rulemaking
to include rear impact guards on the list of items that must be
examined as part of the required annual inspection for each commercial
motor vehicle. We anticipate publishing the NPRM later this year.
Speed Limiters for Commercial Motor Vehicles. Speed is one of the
leading factors in crashes that result in fatalities. In 2016, NHTSA
and FMCSA proposed requiring speed limiting devices on all vehicles
over 26,000 pounds and for a specific speed to be set.
Question 8. Why have the agencies not yet finalized a rule
requiring speed limiters on heavy vehicles?
Answer. Proposals by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) to restrict the speed of commercial trucks,
issued in 2016, received nearly 7,000 public comments. The public
docket can be accessed at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NHTSA-
2016-0087.
The entire Department of Transportation prioritizes safety. The two
Agencies continue to work to determine next steps and to ensure that
any future decision intended to advance public safety will be grounded
in sound analysis.
Motor Carrier Insurance Minimums. The minimum amount of insurance a
motor carrier is required to carry has not kept up with inflation and
has remained at $750,000 since the 1980s. Today, cost of injuries and
fatalities as a result of crashes with motor carriers far exceeds that
of minimum insurance levels, leaving many crash victims not properly
compensated for injuries.
Question 9. Is it reasonable to raise minimum insurance levels for
motor carriers to match inflation?
Answer. Federal law requires certain motor carriers to obtain
liability insurance, and provide the Agency with evidence of active
insurance at federally-set levels, before they are permitted to operate
in interstate commerce. The current insurance requirements, referred to
as ``minimum levels of financial responsibility'' for motor carriers
have not been adjusted since they were established by Congress in the
early 1980s.
FMCSA submitted its reports to the Congress on the appropriateness
of the current minimum financial responsibility requirements in April
2014 and March 2018, as required by section 32104 of MAP-21. The March
2018 report was responsive to both the MAP-21 reporting requirement and
the similar requirement of the FAST Act. FMCSA lacks the data necessary
to compare actual liability limits of intrastate motor carriers'
insurance policies, surety bonds, or self-insurance programs to
determine whether they are equal to or greater than the minimum limits
required under State law. Similarly, comparing accident claims data to
minimum limits required by State law may yield a distorted picture if
intrastate motor carriers have insured themselves at liability limits
greater than minimum limits required by State law. The more meaningful
comparison is to compare actual accident claims against intrastate
carriers relative to the actual liability limits for which they are
insured. Regardless of whether actual claims are compared to either the
minimum limits required by State law, or to intrastate motor carriers'
actual liability limits, there is insufficient data available to make
such comparisons.
The same data limitations exist with respect to interstate motor
carriers and intrastate motor carriers transporting hazardous material
subject to FMCSA's financial responsibility requirements. Therefore, it
is not possible to directly compare the efficacy of FMCSA's minimum
levels of financial responsibility to those of States that have not
adopted comparable minimum levels of financial responsibility for
intrastate for-hire property or household goods carriers. Similarly,
the lack of actual insurance claim data hinders FMCSA's ability to
evaluate the efficacy of current minimum levels of financial
responsibility requirements in meeting claims for medical costs,
compensation and other identifiable costs, as well as the frequency of
liability claims arising from a single event exceeding motor carriers'
current minimum levels of financial responsibility.
Question 10. The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 intended for insurance
minimums to be periodically raised. Why have FMCSA's periodic efforts
to raise the insurance minimums stagnated?
Answer. Section 5517 of the FAST Act directs the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) to prepare a report comparing State and Federal
financial responsibility requirements for motor carriers of property.
The FAST Act also directs DOT to evaluate the efficacy of current
minimum levels of financial responsibility in meeting claims for
medical costs, compensation, and other identifiable costs, as well as
the frequency of liability claims arising from a single event exceeding
motor carriers' current minimum levels of financial responsibility.
FMCSA published an ANPRM in November 2014 to collect more
information on the issue; the comment period ended in February 2015.
After reviewing all public comments to the ANPRM, FMCSA determined that
it had insufficient data or information to support moving forward with
a rulemaking proposal. Accordingly, on June 5, 2017, the Agency
published a notice of withdrawal of the November 2014 ANPRM. The
Department is committed to continuing to provide the required reports.
No rulemaking action is contemplated.
Sexual Harassment in the Trucking Industry. According to the
American Transportation Research Institute, women truck drivers have
proven to be safer drivers and 20 percent less likely to be involved in
an accident. However, some carriers in the trucking industry have faced
accusations that they are not doing enough to address occurrences of
sexual harassment happening on the job, thus making the profession less
appealing to female drivers. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) complaints and lawsuits allege that, as new drivers, women are
frequently required to go on long overnight training trips, often
having to share a small truck cabin with a man if the company is
unwilling to provide drivers with a hotel room. Others allege that
complaints of harassment and assault are not investigated by carriers.
Question 11. Do you think the trucking industry has a
responsibility to address sexual harassment in the workplace?
Answer. FMCSA agrees that the trucking industry, like all other
employers, has a responsibility to address sexual harassment in the
workplace. On July 23 2019, the Agency published notice of its request
to the Office of Management and Budget to conduct a survey on the
nature, prevalence, and seriousness of harassment and assaults against
minority and female truckers. Depending on the information received in
response to the survey, FMCSA may consider developing training or
outreach materials to help truckers protect themselves from crime or
harassment. Rulemaking will not be undertaken. While FMCSA has concerns
about the safety of all employees in the motor carrier industry, its
primary mission is highway safety, as it does not have authority to
investigate claims of workplace harassment or discrimination by private
employers such as motor carriers or administer EEO laws relating to
such employers. However, FMCSA does enforce antidiscrimination laws,
such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, involving its grant recipients, which are
typically States or local governments.
Question 12. What are trucking companies and FMCSA doing to help
the industry comply with Federal laws ensuring equal employment
opportunity?
Answer. Because FMCSA has no authority to enforce Federal laws on
equal employment opportunity outside the Agency, it does not monitor
the progress of the motor carrier industry or track complaints of
violations. The trucking companies are best suited to inform the
Committee what the industry is doing regarding equal opportunity
compliance.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Hon. Raymond Martinez
Question 1. As everyone is aware, Politico reported recently that
Secretary Chao has steered millions of dollars in grants to Kentucky--
as her husband seeks reelection. As you can imagine, everyone on this
dais represents states with needs as great as Kentucky, but I am
concerned about the Secretary putting her finger on the scale to
benefit one state. Can each of you speak how your agencies can prevent
such political interference?
Answer. The facts belie the false allegation that the Department
has steered grants to Kentucky. As the Politico article noted, Kentucky
ranked 25th among the States, received 5 of 169 grants in this period.
In terms of funding, Kentucky received about 5 percent of the awards--
proportional to its share of the Nation's populations.
The Department applies the same rigorous technical criteria to all
application evaluations and treats all project applications equitably.
The Department has taken great effort and is committed to ensuring that
all our grant programs use data driven processes to ensure the
Department complies with all Congressional requirements such as project
eligibilities, geographic diversity, minimum urban and rural award
percentages, and project type diversity. All applications are reviewed
by career technical teams to rate the projects on how well the
applicant addresses selection criteria that is published in the Notice
of Funding Opportunity. Evaluation teams comprised of representatives
from the different modal administrations, staff from various DOT field
offices across the country and headquarters staff are responsible for
assigning technical ratings.
The Department has a strong track record of ensuring that
infrastructure award selections benefit all 50 States and U.S.
territories and will continue to ensure fair and consistent application
of grant criteria and to meet Congressional award requirements.
Question 2. When underride guards are not properly maintained, they
are weakened and less likely to prevent underride. Unfortunately,
underride guards are not currently on the Commercial Motor Vehicle
Inspection Checklist because they are not included in Appendix G of the
FMCSA's Safety Regulations. Multiple organizations have petitioned the
FMCSA to add underride to Appendix G. Does the Agency intent to take up
this petition and if so what is your timeline for adding underride to
Appendix G? If not, please explain why.
Answer. In response to petitions for rulemaking from the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance and two individuals, and a recommendation from
the Government Accountability Office, FMCSA has initiated a rulemaking
to include rear impact guards on the list of items that must be
examined as part of the required annual inspection for each commercial
motor vehicle. We anticipate publishing the NPRM later this year.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
Hon. Raymond Martinez
Question 1. Last Spring, FMCSA modified its guidance for the hours-
of-service personal conveyance provision. According to stakeholders,
FMCSA's recent change has resulted in an abuse of hours-of-service
limits by some drivers. Is FMCSA aware of these concerns and what is
FMCSA doing to address this issue?
Answer. On June 7, 2018, FMCSA published regulatory guidance (83 FR
26377) which provided additional clarity concerning driving a
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) for personal use while off-duty,
referred to as ``personal conveyance.'' This guidance did not change
the hours-of-service rules. It updated the original guidance published
in 1997 to improve uniformity for the industry and the enforcement
communities. Specifically, it provided additional details to assist a
carrier or driver in determining if a move is personal conveyance,
including passenger carrier-specific scenarios. This guidance also
clarified issues such as using personal conveyance for laden vehicles
and to get to a safe resting location after loading or unloading.
The concern that this guidance has led to additional violations of
the HOS limits is unfounded. It is true, however, that the misuse of
personal conveyance and other HOS flexibilities is more easily
discovered due to the use of ELDs.
Question 2. According to FMCSA's website, large truck and bus
fatalities increased by 6.8 percent from 2016 to 2017. How is rolling
back safety rules, like hours-of-service and minimum driver age
requirements, going to reverse this trend?
Answer. The FMCSA is committed to improving commercial motor
vehicle safety and the implementation of the second and final phase of
the ELD rule in December 2019, as well as the initial phases of the
controlled substances and alcohol testing clearinghouse and entry-level
driver training rules. By year's end, all drivers required to use
electronic logging devices to document hours of service must use ELDs
that meet the technical standards included in the Agency's 2015 final
rule. Commercial driver's license (CDL) holders will register with the
Agency's clearinghouse to provide consent for employers to query the
information system to verify drivers' eligibility to engage in safety-
sensitive work. And individuals seeking a CDL for the first time, or an
upgrade or certain endorsements, will need to seek training from a
provider that is registered with FMCSA and follows the minimum
curriculum established in our 2016 final rule.
With the implementation of these safety programs well underway,
FMCSA has initiated several notice-and-comment rulemakings to seek
public input on changes to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
that could reduce the regulatory burden on the industry without
compromising safety. In each of these cases, the Agency made a
preliminary determination about the changes being considered, but
sought public comment to provide all interested parties the opportunity
to engage in the process to ensure that an equivalent level of safety
would be required of the industry.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
Heidi King
Question 1. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the highway
traffic safety grant program could be better utilized to tackle highway
safety fatalities. What would you suggest we do to refocus these
programs on the areas of greatest need?
Answer. The most effective way to tackle highway safety fatalities
is to ensure that States have resources and flexibility to implement
data-driven programs to address their State-specific highway safety
problems. Such an approach allows States the ability to address new and
emerging areas such as drug-impaired driving. We would be pleased to
work with the Committee on providing technical assistance on this
matter.
Question 2. DOT was directed to develop a ``high-volume'' recall
system, yet it has not developed a system for recall batch search for
industry to perform searches of vehicles with unrepaired safety
recalls. What is the status of the agency's efforts to develop this
system?
Follow up. Now that industry has worked to develop alternative
systems, what steps can NHTSA undertake to ensure such tools are being
widely used?
Answer. NHTSA's website accommodates high-traffic volume in
accordance with the requirement in FAST Act 24103(a) to ensure that
motor vehicle safety recall information available to the public on
NHTSA's website is readily accessible and easy to use. FAST Act
Sec. 24103(e) called for DOT in coordination with industry to study
``the feasibility of searching multiple vehicle identification numbers
at a time to retrieve motor vehicle safety recall information.''
Because industry developed a batch-search capability for recalls, which
has been available to users online, free of charge, since early 2018, a
feasibility study for such a system was not necessary. Leveraging
industry advancements in batch-search capabilities serves as a fast,
cost-effective approach to improve recall awareness and access to
information. NHTSA promotes awareness of the availability of high-
volume and individual safety recall search capabilities for use by
individual consumers, dealers, manufacturers, ride-share services,
rental vehicle companies, and others through various media and face-to-
face meetings. NHTSA will continue to meet with industry stakeholders
to promote awareness of existing batch-search tools and to collaborate
with industry to improve public awareness of and access to recall data.
Question 3. While NHTSA has made progress to implement requirements
in MAP-21 and FAST Act, important rulemakings remain unimplemented. For
example, provisions unimplemented include the Tire Efficiency, Safety,
and Registration Act, which I cosponsored, as well as provisions
requiring greater information about crash avoidance technologies to
buyers of new cars. Please provide the agency's plan for MAP-21 and
FAST Act directed rulemakings and estimated completion dates. Are there
any congressionally directed rulemakings that are overcome by events?
Answer. Please see attachment.
Question 4. In 2018, 52 children lost their lives due to heatstroke
in cars. This is the highest number we have seen in years. I have
introduced the HOT CARS Act to direct NHTSA to develop a standard for
an in-vehicle alert system and increase education about the danger of
leaving children alone in cars. What is NHTSA currently doing to
protect our children from heatstroke and what additional steps can the
agency take?
Answer. At NHTSA, we are heartbroken when we hear of any harm to
our most vulnerable people, and that is why we are acting with a sense
of urgency to change behaviors today. NHTSA is dedicated to raising
awareness of the dangers associated with pediatric vehicular
heatstroke. Our national heatstroke prevention campaign focuses on
promoting awareness of this issue through public education, partner
outreach and paid media. The heatstroke prevention campaign is
supported by a paid national advertising campaign ``Where's Baby? Look
before you lock'' that runs from April through August each year. The
paid campaign includes radio, digital and social media, with hashtags
#HeatstrokeKills and #CheckForBaby, and puts an emphasis on states that
have suffered the highest heatstroke fatalities among children.
Campaign assets are made available on trafficsafetymarketing.gov. NHTSA
will continue to work to identify prevention strategies to share with
the public.
In 2015, NHTSA published a Functional Assessment of Unattended
Child Reminder Systems (DOT HS 812 187), evaluating the then-available
market technologies designed to remind parents of unattended children
in vehicles. See https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/
812187_unattendedchildremindersystems
.pdf. At the time of that study, only aftermarket technologies were
available. NHTSA now is conducting an update to that study, to evaluate
new and enhanced aftermarket technologies, as well as the newer in-
vehicle alert technologies that have entered the market more recently.
As part of this study, NHTSA will also assess and update the
applicability of the existing functional assessment methodologies, and
develop new methodologies as needed with a focus on integrated vehicle
systems. Preliminary results from the study are anticipated in Spring
2020, with a final report currently planned for Spring 2021. As we
learn more on new technologies and strategies, NHTSA will disseminate
this information to stakeholders.
Question 5. The Spring 2019 Unified Agenda indicated that NHTSA
would complete the final electronic odometer rule by May 2019. Please
provide an update on when NHTSA expects to finalize this rule.
Answer. NHTSA expects to issue the final electronic odometer rule
later this year.
Question 6. There have been requests for exemptions from Federal
regulations regarding newly advanced technologies such as Automatic
Emergency Braking Part 581, advanced lighting such as Adaptive Driving
Beam, and camera monitor systems for rear and side visibility. Could
you provide insight on what steps NHTSA is taking toward facilitating
exemptions for technological advancements?
Answer. In December 2018, NHTSA issued a final rule that eliminated
the provision in 49 CFR Part 555 stating that NHTSA deem an exemption
petition to be ``complete'' prior to publishing a notice of receipt of
the petition in the Federal Register on the ground that the provision
acted as an impediment to the agency's seeking public comment on
exemption petitions. (83 Fed. Reg. 66158, Dec. 26, 2018) Given that
this rule concerned a rule of agency procedure and given that the
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) do not apply ``(A) to interpretative
rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice,'' this rule was not preceded by a notice of
proposed rulemaking.
In addition, NHTSA is currently drafting a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that would modernize the documentation requirements
for exemption petitions to facilitate the safe introduction of
innovative technologies. (``Updating the Process for Temporary
Exemptions''; RIN 2127-AM11). We estimate that this proposal will be
published in 2019.
Question 7. As the industry continues to innovate, DOT will face
challenges to keep pace, including on areas such as cybersecurity and
artificial intelligence. How do you intend to leverage the private
sector's expertise and can we incentivize experts in these fields to
work for the Federal government?
Answer. NHTSA will continue to pursue broad stakeholder engagement,
including significant private sector involvement, in key advanced
technology areas. Over the last several years, NHTSA has engaged
stakeholders in programs involving vehicle cybersecurity, as well as
vehicles with Automated Driving Systems, an area that is commonly
considered to intersect with artificial intelligence topics and
research. This engagement includes collaborating on research efforts,
pursuing public notice and comment on key issues, interacting with
private sector entities through direct discussions and site visits, and
facilitating public workshops and conferences that feature private
sector participants. These interactions directly leverage private
sector expertise and contribute to private sector interest in working
for the Federal government. NHTSA is proud of our workforce that
includes highly qualified experts who work on these technical matters.
We are also continuing to recruit technical expertise in these fields.
Question 8. With innovative transportation projects like automated
vehicles, safety systems are critical. As NHTSA evaluates the
rulemaking process and priorities in the future, will there be
consultation with the NETT Council and is there a process for the NETT
Council to provide to NHTSA lessons learned on development of
innovative technologies?
Answer. Yes. NHTSA is a member of the NETT council. As technologies
emerge, NHTSA will work with the NETT Council, as appropriate.
Question 9. What is the latest status of MY21-MY26 Light-Duty Fuel
Economy final rule?
Follow up. And how do you intend to provide regulatory certainty to
auto manufacturers in finalizing the rule?
Answer. NHTSA and EPA received over 750,000 public comments to the
SAFE Vehicles proposed rule published in August 2018. The agencies are
working diligently to consider and respond to those comments and decide
on a path forward for the final standards, based on the best available
information and research. The agencies anticipate that a final rule
will be issued in the coming months.
Question 10. How can the timeliness and quality of state collection
of crash data be improved, particularly for issues such as drug-
impaired driving and pedestrian and bicycle fatalities and other areas
where there are data collection challenges?
Follow up. Is NHTSA taking specific steps to address and prevent
crashes involving distracted pedestrians?
Answer. While NHTSA does not have the authority to require States
to submit Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data, we have
recently undertaken a campaign to improve data quality by investing in
technology and training programs, developed through research and
collaboration with States, that enhance the accuracy and timeliness of
the agency's data collection systems. This campaign involves the
Electronic Data Transfer (EDT) program, which supports increased data
quality for FARS as well as support for the Crash Report Sampling
System (CRSS) and the Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS).
Current EDT implementations have demonstrated significant improvements
to timeliness and accuracy while reducing the burden of reporting this
crucial safety information. While expanding EDT across additional
States has tremendous promise, individual States' ability to leverage
these technological solutions vary greatly.
NHTSA also provides robust training and user support for core data
collection systems. In addition to the week-long annual system wide
training for FARS and CRSS data coders and CISS investigators, NHTSA
releases updated coding manuals annually and regularly provides remote
and on-site training as needed throughout each data collection year.
Regarding drug-impaired driving, NHTSA is currently conducting
studies on electronic reporting, which may have the potential to expand
drug-impaired data collection and improve the agency's understanding of
drugged-driving scenarios. In seeking more data on multiple drug
exposure, drug concentrations, full drug panel, drug matrix, and drug
test type, NHTSA hopes to use automated data transfer protocols to
minimize the associated burden and eliminate the common manual data
entry errors. NHTSA is also developing new drug data interpretation
training to ensure coders are able to understand and code complex
toxicology lab reports as well as working with specific States to
assess their drug data coding and provide tailored guidance.
While these solutions are being developed and piloted, continued
collaboration with the States and Federal stakeholders, including
Federal Highway Administration and Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, is critical to deploying fully electronic data
collection systems and effective training programs that positively
impact safety data quality. These agencies seek State data aggregated
by NHTSA and are actively encouraging States to engage with NHTSA's
electronic data collection programs in order to minimize potentially
duplicative data collections.
With regard to distracted pedestrians, NHTSA recently published a
literature review of pedestrian distraction research, including
electronic device use and the role distraction plays (on the part of
pedestrians and/or drivers) in pedestrian/motor vehicle incidents. (See
Scopatz, R. A. & Zhou, Y. (2016, April). Effect of electronic device
use on pedestrian safety: A literature review (Report No. DOT HS 812
256). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.)
NHTSA also initiated a new pilot study to gather detailed crash data in
some cases that could allow for causation factors analysis using the
using the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN). NHTSA
will investigate a sample set of pedestrian crashes for both injury and
crash causation insights, including distractions that may have been
present for both the pedestrian and the driver. In this pilot study,
the agency is gathering behavioral information and developing crash
investigation protocols that may be used in a broader future study.
These efforts will inform NHTSA's programming, including outreach,
education and enforcement, to discourage behaviors that contribute to
distracted pedestrian crashes.
Question 11. According to the FBI crime statistics, impaired
driving arrests have significantly decreased over the past decade, yet
deaths associated with impaired driving have not faced a similar
decline. Given the importance of law enforcement to highway traffic
safety, how does NHTSA support law enforcement?
Follow up. How much of NHTSA grants go to law enforcement each
year, by state, for traffic enforcement?
Answer. NHTSA has established strong relationships with the law
enforcement community through work with national law enforcement
leadership associations to increase enforcement of impaired driving
laws. NHTSA has established cooperative agreements with the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National
Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Black Law
Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) and the International Association of
Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) to
support impaired driving and other traffic safety initiatives. These
associations provide support through the establishment of traffic
safety committees, training, workshops and presentations at national
conferences and other venues on the importance of traffic law
enforcement initiatives at the State and community level.
Through the cooperative agreement with the IACP, NHTSA develops,
regularly updates, and delivers Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
(SFST), Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE), and
Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training to the law enforcement
community. These trainings are the foundation for impaired driving
enforcement.
NHTSA, in cooperation with the Governor's Highway Safety
Association, provides support to law enforcement through a National Law
Enforcement Liaison Program (NLELP) coordinator. This arrangement
provides coordination to a cadre of NHTSA Regional and State and local
Law Enforcement Liaisons (LEL) who provide support for traffic law
enforcement initiatives. The LELs are instrumental in supporting both
the National impaired driving mobilizations and individual State and
local impaired driving initiatives.
Several NHTSA Regional offices use Regional LELs to convey
information about NHTSA priority programs to encourage State and local
law enforcement agencies to participate highway traffic safety law
enforcement activities, including high visibility enforcement
mobilizations. The work of the Regional LELs supplements the outreach
efforts conducted by the NHTSA Regional offices and States to engage
with law enforcement agencies on enforcement activities.
Finally, NHTSA has made the safety of law enforcement officers a
priority and provides funding to support ``Below 100,'' an initiative
designed to reduce preventable law enforcement line-of-duty deaths.
NHTSA has also developed communications materials to raise public
awareness of ``Move Over'' laws. These laws, now enacted in all 50
States and DC, require motorists to move over to an adjacent lane and/
or slow down if a lane change cannot be completed safely when
approaching an emergency vehicle stopped with emergency lights
activated.
NHTSA grants are provided to State highway safety offices that
award sub-grants to law enforcement in the State. Please refer to the
attached table which lists expenditures on law enforcement activity, by
State for Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018 under Sections 402 and 405.
Question 12. How much of NHTSA funding is allocated toward high
visibility enforcement by safety issue (for seat belt use, alcohol
impaired-driving, drug impaired-driving, and distracted driving, and
hot cars)?
Follow up. Of amounts provided through the highway traffic safety
grants, how much is each state spending on traffic enforcement efforts?
Answer. In FY 2019, NHTSA allocated $35.2 million for high
visibility enforcement (HVE). This included a seat belt campaign ($8M),
a distracted driving campaign ($5M), and an impaired driving campaign
($22.2) that includes both alcohol-impairment and drug-impairment
messaging.
In FY 2018, NHTSA obligated $1.6 million to raise consumer
awareness of ``hot car'' dangers, and anticipates allocating $3 million
for child hyperthermia efforts this fiscal year.
NHTSA grants are provided to State highway safety offices that
award sub-grants to law enforcement in the State. Please refer to the
attached table which lists expenditures on law enforcement activity, by
State for Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018 under Sections 402 and 405.
Question 13. What is NHTSA doing to ensure that the DADSS program
continues along its path to develop and test technology to reduce
deaths due to drunk driving?
Answer. NHTSA is and always have been actively engaged in the
development of the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS)
program to facilitate the development of driver alcohol detection
technology towards commercial deployment. NHTSA continues to actively
engage with the DADSS program in the development of in-vehicle
technologies that accurately and quickly measure blood or breath
alcohol levels of the driver. NHTSA is engaged in Technical Working
Group meetings on technology development. These are held every few
months and include active participation from 17 major vehicle
manufacturers. Recent technical evaluations include field operational
trials of prototype DADSS technologies that began in Virginia late last
year. Additional tests in more controlled settings (using test drivers)
started last month and are expected to include up to 50 vehicles in
multiple locations. These tests will provide a better understanding of
real world operations in varying environmental conditions.
NHTSA also provides direction and feedback to DADSS on public
policy, deployment, and public education considerations. In early 2017,
NHTSA modified its Cooperative Agreement to create a Stakeholder Team
to allow various stakeholder groups to provide direct input to the
DADSS program on deployment and policy issues. The Stakeholder Team
includes representation from automakers, States, and auto safety
groups. As the technology development is reaching maturity, NHTSA is
working to accelerate the transfer of the DADSS technology to the auto
industry. NHTSA staff, as well as the DADSS program team, have engaged
in outreach efforts to encourage private fleet operators to partner in
deploying the technology. In addition, NHTSA distributed guidelines to
States regarding how they might use their NHTSA highway safety grant
funds for DADSS technology deployments, as part of an effort to educate
States on opportunities to expand their participation in the DADSS
program.
Question 14. What efforts are underway to establish an impairment
standard for marijuana-impaired driving and what is involved in that
process?
Answer. Because the constituent components of marijuana have a
different chemistry than alcohol, current research indicates there is
unlikely to be a driving-related marijuana-impairment standard similar
to the Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) standard for alcohol
impairment. Alcohol is water soluble, and alcohol impairment is closely
correlated to the level of alcohol in the body. In contrast,
marijuana's active ingredient is fat-soluble and metabolizes
differently. The psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), does not correlate with impairment; in
fact, studies show that peak impairment occurs after peak THC
concentrations have been measured. (Compton, R. (2017, July).
Marijuana-Impaired Driving--A Report to Congress. (DOT HS 812 440).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.)
Measurable THC levels in the body drop rapidly right after smoking
marijuana, while impairment can be observed for hours after smoking.
Further adding complexity, marijuana is comprised of many compounds in
addition to THC, and some of those compounds can change the impairing
effects.
While an impairment standard for marijuana would be useful, NHTSA
is focusing on more immediate countermeasures. Law enforcement officers
can detect and assess impairment using non-toxicological assessment
measures. Tests like the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST)
provide a methodology for determining impairment. Many officers are
trained in the Drug Evaluation and Classification program, providing
the skills to accurately detect impairment and correctly categorize the
type of drug involved in impairment--these officers are called Drug
Recognition Experts. Other officers are trained in Advanced Roadside
Impaired Driving Enforcement.
Since all impaired driving enforcement depends upon well-trained
officers, we continue to support law enforcement training on drug-
impaired driving, as well as training for criminal justice
professionals, education to raise public awareness on the issue of
drug-impaired driving, and research to understand the relationship
between drug use and crash risk.
Attachment to Question 3
FAST Act: NHTSA has completed 11 of the 25 mandated rulemakings.
The status and estimated publication dates are shown below.
FAST Sec. 24104 (MAP21 Sec. 31310), 49 CFR Part 577 Defect
and Noncompliance Notification
Drafting Final Rule.
RIN: 2127-AL66
Publication date is undetermined.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Undetermined completion dates reflect the need to prioritize
rulemakings, including those mandated by Congress, recommended by NTSB,
initiated by the agency, and/or undertaken in response to Petitions
from the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAST Sec. 24106, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Notification
Requirements, o Proposed Rule drafting in progress (combined
with Sec. Sec. 24116 and 24402).
RIN: 2127-AL80
Publication date is undetermined.
FAST Sec. 24112 (MAP21 Sec. 31304), Part 510 Information
Gathering Powers o Drafting Proposed Rule.
RIN: 2127-AL69
Planned publication date of Proposed Rule in Spring
2019 Agenda: 2020
FAST Sec. 24115, Update Tire Pressure Monitoring System
(TPMS) Standards
Research program in progress--began June 2018 with a
full report by the end of 2019. The agency needs to collect
and analyze data on the field performance of the available
TPMS technologies and any safety issues related to these
technologies. We note that the requirement to update the
TPMS standards appears to be contradictory. Paragraph
(a)(1) of Section 24115 of the FAST Act requires NHTSA to
propose a rule that would prohibit manual reset-ability,
overrides, or recalibration of TPMS in a way that would
fail to detect low tire pressure. However, paragraph (a)(2)
directs NHTSA to do this in way that would not prohibit the
availability of direct and indirect TPMS systems. All
indirect systems and at least some direct systems require
the use of a reset or recalibration feature in order to
function properly if tires are inflated, rotated, or
replaced. Such a reset or recalibration feature may, if
used incorrectly, cause the system to fail to detect low
tire pressure. Thus, any proposal in accordance with
paragraph (a)(1) would prohibit all indirect TPMS and at
least some direct TPMS.
The agency will finalize a rulemaking plan after
research is completed.
FAST Sec. 24116, 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports Rulemaking o Proposed Rule drafting
in progress (combined with Sec. Sec. 24106 and 24402).
RIN: 2127-AL80
Publication date is undetermined.
FAST Sec. 24303(b), Electronic Data Recorder Time for
Capturing and Recording Crash Events
Report sent to Congress on 9/27/18 (FAST
Sec. 24303(a))
Drafting Proposed Rule.
RIN: 2127-AM12
Planned Publication Date of Proposed Rule in Spring
2019 Agenda: 2020
FAST Sec. 24322, New Car Assessment Program: Monroney Label
Analyzing comments from the October 2018 public
meeting.
Exploring various approaches on how to best convey the
safety potential of crash avoidance technologies.
Publication date is undetermined.
FAST Sec. 24332(b) and (c), Tire Fuel Efficiency and Wet
Traction Performance Requirements
Research completed 2017, Analysis completed 2018
Drafting Proposed Rule and developing costs/benefits
analysis.
RIN: 2127-AM08
Planned publication date of Proposed Rule in Spring
2019 Agenda: 2020
FAST Sec. 24333, Independent Tire Dealers Records
Maintenance and Reporting Requirements
Completed report from section 24334.
Further research and analysis are needed to study the
long-term durability and standardization of data for these
systems.
Publication date is undetermined.
FAST Sec. 24352, Whistle Blower Program
Drafting Proposed Rule.
RIN: 2127-AL85
Planned publication date of Proposed Rule in Spring
2019 Agenda: 2020
FAST Sec. 24402, Increase the Age of Vehicles and Equipment
Eligible for a Free Recall
Proposed Rule drafting in progress (combined with
Sec. Sec. 24106 and 24116).
2127-AL80
Publication date is undetermined.
FAST Sec. 24403, Records Retention
Proposed Rule published 5/15/19 and comment period
closed on 7/15/19.
RIN: 2127-AL81
Agency is reviewing comments to determine next steps.
FAST Sec. 24405, Replica Vehicles
Drafting Proposed Rule and Regulatory Impact Analysis.
RIN: 2127-AL77
Planned publication date of Proposed Rule in Spring
2019 Agenda: 2019
MAP-21: NHTSA has completed 10 of the 20 mandated rulemakings. The
status and estimated completion dates are shown below.
MAP21 Sec. 31205 (FAST Sec. 24111), Electronic Disclosure of
Odometer Requirements
Drafting Final Rule.
RIN: 2127-AL39
Planned publication date of Final Rule in Spring 2019
Agenda: 2019
MAP21 Sec. 31306, Part 575 Vehicle Defect Reporting
Requirements
Drafting Proposed Rule.
RIN: 2127-AL33
Publication date is undetermined.
MAP21 Sec. 31501(a), Side Impact Test Procedure for CRS
Drafting Final Rule.
RIN: 2127-AK95
Planned publication date of Final Rule in Spring 2019
Agenda: 2020
MAP21 Sec. 31501(b), Upgrade Frontal Impact for Children
Drafting Proposed Rule.
RIN: 2127-AL34
Planned publication date of Proposed Rule in Spring
2019 Agenda: 2019
MAP21 Sec. 31502, Upgrade of Latch Usability Requirements
Drafting Final Rule.
RIN: 2127-AL20
Publication date is undetermined.
MAP21 Sec. 31503, Rear Seat Belt Warning System
Drafting Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
RIN: 2127-AL37
Planned publication date of Proposed Rule in Spring
2019 Agenda: 2019
MAP21 Sec. 32703(b)(1), Motorcoach Rollover Structural
Integrity
Drafting Final Rule.
RIN: 2127-AK96
Planned publication date of Proposed Rule in Spring
2019 Agenda: 2020
MAP21 Sec. 32703(b)(2), Window Glazing & Anti-Ejection
Countermeasures
Drafting Final Rule.
RIN: 2127-AL36
Publication date is undetermined.
MAP21 Sec. 32703(d), New Pneumatic Tires for Motorcoaches
Reviewing comments from Proposed Rule to determine
next steps
RIN:2127-AK17.
Publication date is undetermined.
MAP21 Sec. 32705, Motorcoach Occupant Protection, Collision
Avoidance, Fire Causation, and Fire Extinguisher Research and
Testing Rulemaking
Publication date is undetermined.
______
Attachment to Questions 11 and 12
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Estimates of State Law Enforcement Expenditures for FY 2017 and 2018*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2017 FY 2018
State -------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402 Section 405 Section 402 Section 405
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama $2,166,777.71 $1,686,304.69 $3,012,041.77 $1,428,044.94
Alaska $550,709.00 $521,266.00 $520,312.00 $1,848,697.00
Arizona $3,235,285.15 $3,006,563.13 $2,932,740.63 $2,336,669.20
Arkansas $1,345,798.00 $2,056,561.00 $1,893,654.00 $2,987,802.00
California $15,716,696.31 $7,795,531.73 $14,779,565.78 $6,819,298.85
Colorado $523,622.72 $2,998,917.58 $1,133,212.41 $1,788,170.72
Connecticut $511,895.00 $2,269,726.00 $436,466.00 $2,276,443.00
Delaware $632,770.50 $222,567.78 $970,212.85 $192,371.49
District of Columbia $66,606.27 $1,199,494.09 $296,770.85 $692,942.86
Florida $520,840.12 $1,161,651.71 $1,501,272.54 $1,290,040.96
Georgia $3,072,662.32 $2,164,476.03 $2,760,228.43 $2,204,819.93
Hawaii $1,593,839.15 $388,846.75 $1,539,304.21 $471,353.18
Idaho $1,104,523.00 $945,019.00 $1,097,202.00 $966,366.00
Illinois $4,742,337.16 $4,109,933.51 $5,972,292.19 $5,040,456.12
Indiana $2,603,747.73 $1,992,368.54 $3,183,250.03 $1,267,689.34
Iowa $1,627,371.31 $1,621,490.74 $1,823,279.70 $1,827,642.14
Kansas $1,394,684.00 $702,081.00 $1,446,260.00 $893,707.00
Kentucky $1,416,152.09 $1,446,214.40 $1,486,278.44 $1,114,351.90
Louisiana $766,378.54 $185,201.93 $2,869,962.48 $155,128.64
Maine $740,508.52 $1,289,972.28 $615,150.48 $1,217,882.67
Maryland $768,620.72 $2,860,060.28 $1,284,690.51 $2,072,061.17
Massachusetts $918,755.40 $3,084,566.16 $1,575,424.40 $1,341,616.17
Michigan $4,499,100.00 $44,000.00 $5,029,000.00 $0.00
Minnesota $996,621.42 $2,009,664.45 $665,274.46 $1,584,770.87
Mississippi $1,520,526.79 $2,597,399.68 $2,501,726.58 $2,215,693.64
Missouri $3,327,397.09 $1,682,367.08 $2,041,619.67 $2,443,468.45
Montana $1,109,430.00 $79,049.00 $925,841.00 $413,735.00
Nebraska $916,217.91 $285,138.79 $940,283.69 $400,762.63
Nevada $1,231,410.57 $865,860.40 $1,154,811.47 $622,052.61
New Hampshire $1,840,506.00 $3,019,556.00 $1,315,870.00 $2,367.170.04
New Jersey $239,366.00 $4,232,447.00 $1,394,785.00 $3,873,201.00
New Mexico $207,136.00 $2,090,671.99 $707,230.17 $1,118,783.64
New York $4,417,069.00 $3,248,693.00 $4,975,054.00 $2,914,668.00
North Carolina $1,479,362.00 $1,571,005.00 $821,606.00 $2,482,767.80
North Dakota $620,157.47 $439,566.25 $712,679.66 $455,908.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NHTSA grants are provided to State highway safety offices that award sub-grants to law enforcement in the
State. These amounts are estimates that were compiled using various methods (e.g., State e-grant systems,
highway safety plans, invoices, etc.) because NHTSA does not have a searchable, central system for this
information. Therefore, not all law enforcement-related expenses may be captured in these estimates.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
Heidi King
Question 1. In 2015, NHTSA announced plans to update the New Car
Assessment Program to include crash avoidance technologies. However,
there does not appear to be movement on this issue. When will NHTSA
finalize revisions to NCAP, including the requirements in FAST Act
Section 24321?
Answer. In August 2018, NHTSA issued a Federal Register notice
announcing a public meeting to obtain stakeholder input on how best to
move forward with NCAP, which was held in October 2018. NHTSA received
numerous public comments in response to this notice and through the
public meeting. NHTSA is currently reviewing public comments. We are
also engaging in discussion with stakeholders to help inform the
program's next steps. Concurrently, NHTSA is working to fulfill its
Congressional mandate to identify and communicate appropriate crash
avoidance technologies on window stickers by exploring various
approaches. NHTSA is planning on conducting consumer market research on
how to best convey the safety potential of crash avoidance
technologies.
Question 2. Last year, NHTSA requested comments related to ADS
safety research and an automated vehicle collaborative research pilot
program.
a. What has NHTSA learned from the comments it has received?
Answer. NHTSA is actively pursuing public input on a variety of
next steps for vehicles equipped with Automated Driving System (ADS),
including a series of notices discussing the modernization of safety
standards and the potential creation of an ADS pilot program.
On January 18, 2018, NHTSA published a request for comment (RFC) on
issues surrounding modernizing its Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) for the unique vehicle designs expected for vehicles
equipped with ADS and other ADS safety research issues. NHTSA received
more than 100 comments in response to the RFC.
On May 28, 2019, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comment on the near-and long-term
challenges of testing and verifying compliance with existing crash
avoidance (100-series) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs)
for Automated Driving System-Dedicated Vehicles (ADS-DVs) that lack
traditional manual controls necessary for a human driver to maneuver
the vehicle and other features intended to facilitate operation of a
vehicle by a human driver, but that are otherwise traditional vehicles
with typical seating configurations. In response to a request from the
public, NHTSA is announcing a 30-day extension of the comment period on
the ANPRM on Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles with Automated
Driving Systems. The comment period for the ANPRM will now end on
August 28, 2019.
Separately, NHTSA requested comment through an ANPRM on the
creation of a pilot program for collaborative research for motor
vehicles equipped with high or full driving automation on October 10,
2018. NHTSA received over 70 comments, and we are considering next
steps on the pilot program.
b. Additionally, does NHTSA anticipate moving forward with a pilot
program, and, if so, what is the agency's timeline for moving forward?
Answer. NHTSA is continuing to evaluate its next steps in
determining whether and how to implement a pilot program.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to
Heidi King
Earlier this year, the State on Indiana enacted a new law directing
the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to alert vehicle owners about manufacturer
issued safety recalls during the vehicle registration process. This law
is in response to the pilot grant program established by the Maryland
Motor Vehicle Administration for state recall notifications to
consumers that was authorized in the FAST Act.
In May of this year, NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed Information
Collection and Request for Comment with the goal of expanding the pilot
program to additional state motor vehicle administrations. As detailed
in this Notice, NHTSA has authority to solicit additional states to
participate in consumer notification at the time of vehicle
registration.
Question 1. Does NHTSA need additional Congressional authorization
to expand this pilot program?
Answer. No. Under 49 USC 30182, NHTSA has authority to provide
grants to States for motor vehicle safety development activities.
Question 2. Does NHTSA have a timetable for opening a new round of
funding to state motor vehicle administrations?
Answer. NHTSA estimates that a notice of funding opportunity will
be published in the next Fiscal Year.
Question 3. Can NHTSA comment on the success of the Maryland
program?
Answer. Maryland's pilot program marked its first-year anniversary
in April and is showing promising results. Through June 2019,
Maryland's Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) has checked the recall
status of more than 2.8 million vehicles seeking re-registration in the
State. To date, more than 213,000 safety recalls have been remedied
after owners received notice from the MVA.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Heidi King
Traffic Fatalities. The Department of Transportation recently
released an early estimate of traffic fatalities in the U.S for 2018.
While total vehicle fatalities decreased slightly last year, we are
largely stagnant. There was also an alarming 10 percent increase in
cyclist fatalities compared to 2017. Large truck and pedestrian
fatalities are also on the rise.
Question 1. What does the preliminary 2018 data suggest are the
contributing factors to the increase in these types of fatalities?
Answer. In NHTSA's Traffic Safety Facts report, ``Early Estimate of
Motor Vehicle Fatalities in 2018,'' we reported that, based upon data
submitted to date, statistical projections indicate that there were
likely increases in fatalities involving pedestrians, pedalcyclists and
heavy trucks. (See https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/812749.) We note that these preliminary estimates are
based on various data sources, including incomplete case data, in
conjunction with historical models to construct estimated changes along
these categories.
While helpful for gaining early insights, these estimates are
insufficient to allow complete analysis of contributing factors during
2018. When the complete 2018 annual report file becomes available later
this year, NHTSA will be able to conduct similar detailed analyses on
potential factors contributing to changes in traffic death rates for
these and other populations during 2018.
We do know from prior years' experience that increased fatalities
and injuries may result from increase in traffic exposure, or increased
pedestrian and pedalcyclist activity. We also know that increased
fatalities and injuries may result from increase in risky behaviors
such as speeding, impaired driving, failure to wear seatbelts, etc.
Increased traffic is often associated with increased economic activity,
and increased risky behaviors are often negatively correlated with
traffic safety enforcement activity. We will scrutinize the data
related to both exposure and risky behaviors as that data become
available.
Question 2. Will you describe NHTSA's plans to address the
increases in these specific types of fatalities?
Answer. To reduce high-risk behavior on our roadways, NHTSA has
long-standing programs in place to address safety issues that put
pedestrians, bicyclists, and heavy trucks at increased risk, as well as
concerted efforts to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities related to
impaired driving. NHTSA addresses the complex impaired driving issue
through the development and implementation of countermeasures that
prevent impaired driving among potential offenders, deter recidivism,
and closely monitor high-risk individuals. In the past few years, NHTSA
has increased support for criminal justice programs, created year-round
communication efforts that increase during periods of concentrated
enforcement and provided significant grant funding to States for their
own impaired driving programs.
In March of 2018, NHTSA launched a Drug-Impaired Driving Initiative
bringing together more than 200 stakeholders at a Call to Action Summit
to set a course of action and take measurable steps to address the
Nation's drug-impaired driving problem. As part of the Initiative,
NHTSA developed and disseminated focus-group-tested, public education
campaigns about the dangers of drug-impaired driving, including the If
You Feel Different, You Drive Different communications campaign and
Drive High, Get a DUI enforcement campaign. We will soon release a
campaign focused on the risks of driving while impaired by over the
counter or prescription medications.
Further, NHTSA has a range of activities to address pedalcyclist,
pedestrian and heavy truck-involved fatalities. For example, NHTSA is--
--
Advancing proven countermeasures to address pedestrian and
bicyclist safety in Countermeasures that Work (https://
www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/
812478_countermeasures-that-work-a-highway-safety-
countermeasures-guide-.pdf);
Supporting the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center
(http://www
.pedbikeinfo.org/) to develop and share resources to enhance
pedestrian and bicyclist safety;
Providing grant funds to States to help address non-
motorized safety fatalities, including pedestrians and
bicyclists, according to local needs and issues;
Conducting an analysis of bicycle-related traffic safety
laws to determine whether particular traffic safety laws
protect or create potential environments harmful to bicyclists;
Building public support for pedestrian education and
enforcement programs through demonstration projects in Arizona,
Florida and Tennessee;
Conducting a new crash causation study to look closely at
vehicle-related impacts in pedestrian crashes using the Crash
Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN);
Working on a rulemaking that would permit the introduction
of adaptive driving beam headlighting systems in the United
States which have the potential to address the more than 70
percent of pedestrian fatalities that occur at night while
limiting glare to other drivers;
Researching test devices, performance criteria, and their
utility in the assessment of pedestrian crash avoidance
technologies;
Working collaboratively through an intermodal relationship
with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA) to
address fatalities related to large truck crashes.
These efforts inform NHTSA's programming, including outreach,
education and enforcement, to enhance the safety of these populations.
Question 3. What new data should NHTSA collect to help improve
efforts to reduce traffic fatalities?
Answer. As technologies and human behaviors change over time, NHTSA
is working to improve its data collection and analysis capabilities to
address emerging questions and new challenges. We have recently
undertaken a campaign to improve data quality by investing in
technology and training programs, developed through research and
collaboration with States, that enhance the accuracy and timeliness of
the agency's data collection systems. This campaign involves the
Electronic Data Transfer (EDT) program, which supports increased data
quality for FARS as well as support for the Crash Report Sampling
System (CRSS) and the Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS).
Current EDT implementations have demonstrated significant improvements
to timeliness and accuracy while reducing the burden of reporting this
crucial safety information.
The Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) is a voluntary
data collection guideline cooperatively developed by NHTSA and the
Governors Highway Safety Association that identifies a minimum set of
motor vehicle crash data elements and their attributes that States
should consider collecting in their crash data systems. The MMUCC 5th
edition, published in 2017, included critical updates, including added
edit checks, reorganized elements by crash type to streamline onsite
data collection, and a new data element identifying the driving
automation levels of the vehicles involved in crashes. Many States have
already adapted these changes to their police crash reports and crash
data systems.
In considering additional data elements, the agency strives to
balance our need for data with States' ability to collect them without
undue burden. Incremental changes to the Fatality Analysis Reporting
System (FARS) data collection protocols reflect this approach. For
example, in 2020 we will begin collecting data on traffic fatalities
involving vehicles operating as part of a rideshare or transportation
network company (TNC). We are also planning additional data element
changes to more clearly identify the involvement of motorized scooters
in crashes.
Question 4. Why has NHTSA been delaying the adoption of critical
safety technologies, like automatic emergency brakes?
Answer. NHTSA is not delaying the adoption of critical safety
technologies, including automatic emergency brakes. NHTSA has actively
encouraged manufacturers to adopt innovative safety technologies
including automatic emergency braking.
In March 2016, NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
announced that 20 vehicle manufacturers, representing more than 99
percent of light motor vehicle sales in the United States, voluntarily
committed to installing automatic emergency braking on virtually all
light cars and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating less than
8,500 pounds by September 1, 2022 and those with a GVWR between 8,500
and 10,000 by Sept. 1, 2025.
Beginning in 2018, NHTSA included automatic emergency braking
systems as a recommended safety technology as part of the agency's New
Car Assessment Program.
NHTSA also continues to conduct research on the real-world
performance of automatic emergency braking systems on heavy trucks,
including recently introduced systems that added the functionality to
brake for stopped lead vehicles. Results from NHTSA's current field
operational testing of these latest generation systems will be used to
determine next steps.
Underride Guards. In March 2019, GAO found that underride accidents
are likely underreported due to the varying ways data is collected and
reported by state and local police. In the report, GAO recommended that
NHTSA: (1) standardize the definition of underrides and data fields,
(2) provide information to state and local police on how to identify
and record underrides, and (3) to research the effectiveness of side
underride guards in preventing cabin intrusion.
Question 5. Do you agree that we need better data on underride
accidents?
Answer. Yes. States have found data about this type of crash
difficult to identify and collect. (For instance, the Model Minimum
Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) expert panel decided to remove the
underride data element from the standard's third edition in 2008.)
NHTSA is working to improve the scope and quality of underride crash
data through research and training, and we will present a crash
underride data element for inclusion in the MMUCC 6th Edition.
Question 6. Is NHTSA working to implement these recommendations by
GAO?
Answer. Yes. NHTSA is working with key stakeholders to implement
the relevant GAO recommendations. NHTSA will present a crash underride
data element for inclusion in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria
(MMUCC) 6th Edition when the MMUCC expert panel reconvenes in 2022.
NHTSA is working with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
to develop educational materials to help State and local police
departments better identify and record underride crashes. We anticipate
releasing these materials by Fall 2021.
NHTSA is currently conducting a review of crashes in which a light
vehicle impacted the side of a truck trailer to estimate the number of
vehicle occupant fatalities in side underride crashes and gauge the
effectiveness of side guards on trucks and trailers in preventing and
mitigating the severity of such crashes. NHTSA will follow up with
analysis of the impacts of requiring side guards on trucks and
trailers. These analyses should be complete by September 2020.
Question 7. In 2014, the NTSB recommended that NHTSA require newly
manufactured truck-trailers be equipped with side underride and
strengthened rear underride protections. NHTSA released a proposed
rulemaking in 2015 aimed at rear underride protection in crashes with
large trucks. When will the rear underride protection rulemaking from
2015 be completed?
Answer. NHTSA is currently analyzing the comments received on the
2015 notice of proposed rulemaking on the upgrade of rear underride
guards for trailers and semi-trailers and is developing next steps.
Completion date of this rulemaking action is undetermined.
Drunk Driving. Drunk driving crashes claim far too many lives each
year. Ignition interlocks and advanced in-vehicle technologies can
combat drunk driving by preventing a car from moving if it detects the
driver is intoxicated. For example, if fully implemented such in-
vehicle technologies to combat drunk driving could save an estimated
7000 lives each year. The Driver Alcohol Detection Systems for Safety
(DADSS) program has been helping develop such technologies since 2008
as a joint government-industry initiative. However, I am aware of
concerns that this life-saving technology is not being commercialized,
transferred or otherwise deployed as quickly as possible.
Question 8. Please provide a detailed, year-by-year funding summary
for the DADSS program, with the totals provided by NHTSA, state
agencies and the auto industry since 2008.
Answer. The following table includes a year-by-year funding summary
for DADSS program by NHTSA and the auto industry, under the Automotive
Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS). In addition, in Fiscal Years 2017
and 2018, Virginia expended approximately $5 million each Fiscal Year
in Federal grant funds to support DADSS research.
All funding to-date under the DADSS Cooperative Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year NHTSA Funding+ ACTS Funding* Total Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000
2009 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000
2010 1,250,000 1,000,000 2,250,000
2011 1,500,000 1,000,000 2,500,000
2012 1,250,000 1,000,000 2,250,000
2013 5,289,000 1,250,000 6,539,000
2014 5,440,000 1,250,000 6,690,000
2015 5,440,000 1,250,000 6,690,000
2016 5,493,906 1,250,000 6,743,906
2017 5,494,000 1,250,000 6,744,000
2018 5,494,000 1,250,000 6,744,000
2019 5,494,000 1,250,000 6,744,000
Total 44,144,906 13,750,000 57,894,906
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ NHTSA funding amounts are those obligated to the NHTSA/ACTS Cooperative Agreement.
* ACTS funding amounts are those required by the NHTSA/ACTS Cooperative Agreement.
Question 9. What steps is NHTSA taking to ensure that this life-
saving technology to prevent drunk driving becomes widely available?
Answer. NHTSA is and always has been actively engaged in the
development of the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS)
program to facilitate the development of driver alcohol detection
technology towards commercial deployment. NHTSA continues to actively
engage with the DADSS program in the development of in-vehicle
technologies that accurately and quickly measure blood or breath
alcohol levels of the driver. NHTSA is engaged in Technical Working
Group meetings on technology development. These are held every few
months and include active participation from 17 major vehicle
manufacturers. Recent technical evaluations include field operational
trials of prototype DADSS technologies that began in Virginia late last
year. Additional tests in more controlled settings (using test drivers)
started last month and are expected to include up to 50 vehicles in
multiple locations. These tests will provide a better understanding of
real world operations in varying environmental conditions.
NHTSA also provides direction and feedback to DADSS on public
policy, deployment, and public education considerations. In early 2017,
NHTSA modified its Cooperative Agreement to create a Stakeholder Team
to allow various stakeholder groups to provide direct input to the
DADSS program on deployment and policy issues. The Stakeholder Team
includes representation from automakers, States, and auto safety
groups. As the technology development is reaching maturity, NHTSA is
working to accelerate the transfer of the DADSS technology to the auto
industry. NHTSA staff, as well as the DADSS program team, have engaged
in outreach efforts to encourage private fleet operators to partner in
deploying the technology. In addition, NHTSA distributed guidelines to
States regarding how they might use their NHTSA highway safety grant
funds for DADSS technology deployments, as part of an effort to educate
States on opportunities to expand their participation in the DADSS
program.
Question 10. Given the potential of DADSS technology to save 7,000
lives each year from drunk driving (estimate from the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety), what additional steps can NHTSA take
that will lead to this technology becoming standard equipment in
vehicles?
Answer. NHTSA continues to work cooperatively with the DADSS
program in the development of in-vehicle technologies that accurately
and quickly measure blood or breath alcohol levels of the driver to
address alcohol-impaired driving risks and related fatalities. As part
of NHTSA's cooperative agreement with Automotive Coalition for Traffic
Safety (ACTS), NHTSA continues to be engaged in Technical Working Group
meetings on technology development. These are held every few months and
include active participation from 17 major vehicle manufacturers.
Recent technical evaluations include field operational trials of
prototype DADSS technologies that began in Virginia late last year.
Additional tests in more controlled settings (using test drivers)
started last month and are expected to include up to 50 vehicles in
multiple locations. These steps will provide better understanding of
real world operations in varying environmental conditions. NHTSA will
continue to work with States, ACTS and automakers, and other
stakeholders to encourage tests of the technology and to identify fleet
partners to deploy the DADSS technology.
Question 11. The National Academies of Sciences released a report
in 2018 that concluded laws lowering the blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) from .08 to .05 for drivers would help save lives. Do you agree
that states should lower the BAC for drivers to .05? How is NHTSA
encouraging states to lower BAC for drivers?
Answer. NHTSA supports States' efforts to reduce impaired driving.
Utah is the first State to enact a .05 BAC limit for drivers--the law
went into effect at the end of 2018. NHTSA is working with Utah
officials to assess the effectiveness of the law in reducing alcohol-
impaired driving crashes and will disseminate the findings of this
research so other States and stakeholders can learn from Utah's
experience. The results of this research, in combination with our
knowledge of the effects of alcohol on driving skills and the
associated crash risk, will provide essential information for the
Department and the public.
CAFE Standards Rollback. I want to reiterate my opposition to
relaxing CAFE standards. I believe the Administration is going down the
wrong path. It could make the American auto industry less competitive
in a global marketplace where consumers want more efficient cars, not
less.
A recent academic study funded by the Automobile Manufacturers,
found that if the administration freezes CAFE standards at the model
year 2020 levels, it will result in 236,000 fewer jobs created over the
next 15 years than if the emissions standards remain in place.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pam.22132
Question 12. Will you commit to keeping this committee apprised of
any further NHTSA actions related to CAFE standards?
Answer. Yes.
NCAP. NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) rates a vehicle's
safety on a scale from one star (least safe) to five stars (most safe)
to help buyers compare safety features and crash performance across
different car models.
Question 13. What changes is NHTSA considering to the NCAP program?
Answer. In August 2018, NHTSA issued a Federal Register notice
announcing a public meeting to obtain stakeholder input on how best to
move forward with NCAP, which was held in October 2018. NHTSA received
numerous public comments in response to this notice and through the
public meeting. NHTSA is currently reviewing public comments. We are
also engaging in discussion with stakeholders to help inform the
program's next steps. Concurrently, NHTSA is working to fulfill its
Congressional mandate to identify and communicate appropriate crash
avoidance technologies on window stickers by exploring various
approaches. NHTSA is planning on conducting consumer market research on
how to best convey the safety potential of crash avoidance
technologies.
Vehicular heatstroke. I am a cosponsor of bipartisan legislation,
the HOT CARS Act that will require technology to help reduce children's
risk of heat stroke from being left unattended in hot vehicles. The
bill aims to prevent senseless deaths by requiring new cars to be
equipped with technology that would alert a driver when a child is in
the back seat and prevent them from being left in a hot car.
Question 14. What steps is NHTSA taking to help prevent children
from dying from vehicular heatstroke?
Answer. At NHTSA, we are heartbroken when we hear of any harm to
our most vulnerable people, and that is why we are acting with a sense
of urgency to change behaviors today. NHTSA is dedicated to raising
awareness of the dangers associated with pediatric vehicular
heatstroke. Our national heatstroke prevention campaign focuses on
promoting awareness of this issue through public education, partner
outreach and paid media. The heatstroke prevention campaign is
supported by a paid national advertising campaign ``Where's Baby? Look
before you lock'' that runs from April through August each year. The
paid campaign includes radio, digital and social media, with hashtags
#HeatstrokeKills and #CheckForBaby, and puts an emphasis on states that
have suffered the highest heatstroke fatalities among children.
Campaign assets are made available on trafficsafetymarketing.gov. NHTSA
will continue to work to identify prevention strategies to share with
the public.
In 2015, NHTSA published a Functional Assessment of Unattended
Child Reminder Systems (DOT HS 812 187), evaluating the then-available
market technologies designed to remind parents of unattended children
in vehicles. See https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/
812187_unattendedchildremindersystems
.pdf. At the time of that study, only aftermarket technologies were
available. NHTSA now is conducting an update to that study, to evaluate
new and enhanced aftermarket technologies, as well as the newer in-
vehicle alert technologies that have entered the market more recently.
As part of this study, NHTSA will also assess and update the
applicability of the existing functional assessment methodologies, and
develop new methodologies as needed with a focus on integrated vehicle
systems. As we learn more on new technologies and strategies, NHTSA
will disseminate information to stakeholders.
Electronic Vehicle Identifier. NHTSA has received a petition to
require a universal electronic vehicle identifier on all new commercial
motor vehicles, laying the foundation for electronic inspections.
Question 15. What is NHTSA's progress on considering this petition?
Answer. NHTSA received this petition from the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance on May 9, 2019 and responded with an acknowledgement
letter June 21, 2019. We are considering the petition and will respond
in due course.
Automated Driving Systems. Last year, NHTSA proposed a rulemaking
on a pilot program for Automated Driving Systems (ADS).
Question 16. Can you provide an update on the status of the pilot
program? Does NHTSA have plans to loosen regulatory guidelines to
accommodate ADS?
Answer. NHTSA received over 70 comments, and we are considering
next steps on the pilot program.
On May 28, 2019, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comment on the near-and long-term
challenges of testing and verifying compliance with existing crash
avoidance (100-series) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs)
for Automated Driving System-Dedicated Vehicles (ADS-DVs) that lack
traditional manual controls necessary for a human driver to maneuver
the vehicle and other features intended to facilitate operation of a
vehicle by a human driver, but that are otherwise traditional vehicles
with typical seating configurations. In response to a request from the
public, NHTSA is announcing a 30-day extension of the comment period on
the ANPRM on Removing Regulatory Barriers for Vehicles with Automated
Driving Systems. The comment period for the ANPRM will now end on
August 28, 2019.
Question 17. As ADS technologies advance and vehicles require
communication with other vehicles and infrastructure, how important is
it that the 5.9 GHz band is preserved for transportation safety?
Answer. The 5.9 GHz band is a critically important resource for
enabling advanced highway transportation safety services. Vehicle-to-
everything (V2X) technology is the only technology that can see around
corners, and may provide the tool necessary to support advanced safety
or high-level automation technology. This band (which includes 75 MHz
of spectrum) is needed to allow cars, trucks, motorcycles and even
pedestrians to exchange messages that help safety technologies embedded
in the vehicle predict potential collisions and take action to avoid
the collision. The band is also used to support communications between
vehicles and traffic signaling systems that can help coordinate vehicle
movements to improve traffic flow, reduce congestion and enhance
highway capacity, which may also improve safety. The Department
encourages the automotive industry, wireless technology companies,
State and local transportation departments, and other stakeholders to
continue developing technologies that leverage the 5.9 GHz spectrum for
transportation safety, mobility, and fuel efficiency benefits.
Question 18. With Phase I of the harmful interference testing of
the 5.9 GHz band complete, why has Phase II and Phase III not begun?
When will DOT begin Phase II and Phase III of testing?
Answer. Phase II has begun: plans are in place and we anticipate
receiving devices suitable for Phase II testing in August 2019. DOT has
completed all preparatory work to enable testing to begin upon receipt
of spectrum sharing devices from industry suppliers and will continue
to work with FCC and NTIA.
Rulemakings. In May of 2018, when you testified in front of the
Commerce Committee I asked you why many of NHTSA's rule makings had
been delayed. You assured me that you were working to implement
statutorily required regulations, and you told me to check the agency's
regulatory agenda online. I checked the Department of Transportation's
website and I have a couple follow-up questions for you regarding
regulatory delays and NHTSA's prioritization of these rules:
Question 19. Child Restraints: MAP-21 required NHTSA to test Child
Restraint Systems in side impacts by October 2014. According to the
regulatory agenda, the rule was scheduled to be published in April
2017, but has been delayed to September 30, 2019. MAP-21 also required
NHTSA to create regulations to require car manufactures to make it
easier for parents to secure child seats in the backseat of their cars
by October 2015. The regulatory agenda provides no estimate for the
creation for this regulation. What are the reasons for these delays?
Answer. We strive to maintain current information online, and we
would be pleased to discuss the regulatory agenda in greater detail.
Further, we continue to provide information on the status of this
rulemaking in DOT's Significant Rulemaking Reports, available at
https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/report-on-significant-
rulemakings, and DOT's Unified Agenda.
Side impact test for child restraint systems: NHTSA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in January 2014. In response to
public comments on the 2014 proposal, the agency conducted and recently
completed an extensive research program for improving the repeatability
and reproducibility of the proposed side impact test. NHTSA estimates
publishing a final rule in 2020.
Improving the ease of use of child restraint anchorage systems:
NHTSA published an NPRM in January 2015. The agency is currently
conducting research for improving the repeatability and reproducibility
of specified measurements and to respond to public comments. Completion
date of this rulemaking action is undetermined.
Question 20. Rollover Requirements for Buses: MAP-21 required NHTSA
to implement new rollover safety standards for buses by October 1,
2014. The publication of the rule has been delayed. What was the reason
for this delay?
Answer. NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to improve
the rollover structural integrity of motorcoaches and large buses in
August 2014. NHTSA estimates the publication of a final decision in
2020.
Question 21. Rear Seat Belt Reminders: MAP-21 required NHTSA to
issue a final rule in October 2015 that requires car companies to
install seatbelt reminder systems for rear seats. The regulatory agenda
says that a notice for proposed rulemaking was scheduled to be
published on May 31, 2019. Why has the proposed rule not been published
for comment?
Answer. MAP-21 required NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding
by October 2014 to amend the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) relating to occupant crash protection to provide a seat belt
use warning system for designated seating positions in the rear seat.
NHTSA initiated this rulemaking proceeding in 2013 by designing a study
to ascertain the effectiveness and consumer perceptions of existing
rear seat belt warning systems. NHTSA is in the final stages of
drafting a rulemaking document and expects to publish this in the very
near future.
Question 22. Recall Notification: In August 2015, NHTSA began a
rule making process to require car manufactures to alert consumers of a
recall by means other than mail. Why is there no estimated date for
completion of this rule in the regulatory agenda?
Answer. NHTSA does not currently have an estimated date for the
next action on its recall notification rulemaking.
While the rulemaking process is ongoing, NHTSA continues to work
with manufacturers to identify additional ways for the industry to
raise recall awareness among the public and improve recall completion
rates. In many open recall campaigns, manufacturers often send out
recall notifications by means other than mail where contact information
is available, including phone call and text or e-mail where information
is available. Several manufacturers have developed or are in the
process of developing applications for mobile phones that will provide
recall notifications to consumers.
Additionally, several manufacturers have partnered with the
National Safety Council to engage in a nationwide ``Check to Protect''
recall awareness campaign, which further raises recall awareness for
the general public through various means of communication including
paid media and canvassing efforts.
NHTSA further encourages the public at every opportunity to check
their VIN at www.nhtsa.gov/recalls for any open recalls and provides a
recall e-mail subscription service where consumers can be notified via
e-mail if their vehicle may be subject to a future recall.
Question 23. Civil Penalties for CAFE Standards: According to the
regulatory agenda, NHTSA was scheduled to issue a final rule increasing
civil penalties for car manufactures that fail to meet CAFE standards
on April 30, 2019. Why has the rule not been published?
Answer. NHTSA published a final rule on CAFE civil penalties on
July 26, 2019.
Question 24. Adaptive Headlamps: In October 2018, NHTSA released an
NPRM to make changes to FMVSS No. 108--Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment. This would allow manufacturers to equip vehicles
with adaptive headlamp systems. What is the timeline on this
rulemaking?
Answer. Consistent with the Spring 2019 Uniform Agenda posted by
the Department, the agency currently anticipates publishing a final
rule for adaptive driving beam headlighting in December 2019.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Heidi King
Question 1. Recent reports have found that one in six vehicles used
to transport Uber and Lyft passengers have at least one open recall and
that neither app alerts passengers in these situations. I led a letter
to the CEOs of these companies expressing concern regarding the use of
recalled vehicles and asking what steps they will take to keep
passengers informed and improve safety procedures.
How do you view NHTSA's role in working with ride share companies
and drivers to ensure that consumers are informed when a vehicle has
been recalled?
Answer. Rideshare Service companies typically do not own or manage
their fleet of vehicles, and so they must work with independent drivers
to ensure ongoing recall awareness. NHTSA has met with Lyft and Uber to
discuss efforts to incentivize their drivers to repair open recalls,
and we will continue to raise recall awareness among ride share
services and consumers. NHTSA encourages all ride share companies to
have drivers check their VINs on a regular basis at www.nhtsa.gov/
recalls, and to get all recalls fixed as soon as possible.
Question 2. One study found that an average of nine people die and
more than 1,000 are injured in crashes involving distracted driving
every day. I introduced legislation that was included in the previous
FAST Act reauthorization to help more states qualify for grants to
prevent distracted driving.
How have recent developments in technology--including those
allowing consumers to stream videos and have live video conversations
by cell phone--contributed to distracted driving, and what is NHTSA
doing to address this?
Answer. It is extremely difficult to collect data on driver
distraction, due in part to the variation in reporting on police crash
reports. However, NHTSA continues to support efforts to reduce all
forms of distracted driving and associated crashes and injuries. Our
program and research initiatives seek to assess and change driver
behavior to reduce the incidence of texting and other distracting
behaviors while driving. Through the National Occupant Protection Use
Survey (NOPUS), we are able to obtain nationwide probability-based
observed data on driver electronic device use. While the most-recent
survey revealed a decrease in handheld cell phone use from the previous
year (see https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812665.pdf), we do not know the impact of recent developments in
technology on distracted driving. We do know that the risks associated
with distraction prove that any handheld cell phone use while driving
is unacceptable.
We continue to work with our Federal, State and local safety
partners to raise public awareness about the dangers of texting while
driving, including technology-related vehicle enhancements, through our
annual nationwide campaign, ``U Drive. U Text. U Pay.'' The campaign
mirrors the approach used to combat drunk driving and increase seat
belt use nationwide, by combining a national advertising campaign with
a law enforcement mobilization. NHTSA also released the third in a
series of national surveys on distracted driving attitudes and
behaviors to support the development of countermeasures and
interventions to reduce distracted driving on the Nation's roadways.
Below are links to additional information about distracted driving:
AAA
https://exchange.aaa.com/safety/distracted-driving/
#.XR9lnqJKg2w
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
https://aaafoundation.org/?s=distracted
IIHS/HLDI
https://www.iihs.org/topics/distracted-driving
National Safety Council
https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/distracted-
driving
Visual and Cognitive Demands of Using In-Vehicle Infotainment
Systems
https://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/wp-content/uploads/2017/
09/17-0103_CDST-Fact-Sheet_v4-1.pdf
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Heidi King
NCAP. The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) is a critical
initiative that provides consumers with comparative information on
vehicle safety performance and new safety features. During your
confirmation hearing, you expressed support for updating the NCAP by
2020.
Question 1. What progress has been made on updating the NCAP since
your confirmation? Does NHTSA have a timeline for the completion of an
NCAP update by 2020?
Answer. In August 2018, NHTSA issued a Federal Register notice
announcing a public meeting to obtain stakeholder input on how best to
move forward with NCAP, which was held in October 2018. NHTSA received
numerous public comments in response to this notice and through the
public meeting. NHTSA is currently reviewing public comments. We are
also engaging in discussion with stakeholders to help inform the
program's next steps. Concurrently, NHTSA is working to fulfill its
Congressional mandate to identify and communicate appropriate crash
avoidance technologies on window stickers by exploring various
approaches. NHTSA is planning on conducting consumer market research on
how to best convey the safety potential of crash avoidance
technologies.
Autonomous vehicles (AV).
Question 2. Is NHTSA updating its current test tools to reflect the
nature of AVs, including by modifying its anthropomorphic test devices
(ATDs/crash test dummies)?
Answer. NHTSA is engaged in research that will be the basis for the
development and/or refinement of tools for evaluating occupant response
in alternative seating configurations that may become prevalent in
vehicles with Automated Driving Systems (ADS). Most biomechanical
response and injury causation studies have focused on standard seat
back angles. Someday vehicle manufacturers may be interested in
developing vehicles with alternative seating configurations that would
result in occupants seated in a reclined position and/or rearward-
facing position relative to the direction of the crash. An
understanding of human response under these conditions will allow NHTSA
to assess and refine anthropomorphic test devices ATDs and human body
models (HBMs), which can then be used to design and evaluate advanced
restraint systems.
Question 3. How is NHTSA addressing the kinds of alternative
seating that will be available in AVs, which could allow the occupant
to relax or recline their seating?
Answer. NHTSA has participated in several industry-wide meetings
focused on occupant safety in vehicles with ADSs, including an
Automated Vehicle Occupant Safety Workshop in November 2018 and
continued involvement in the Transportation Research Center's Research
Consortium for Crashworthiness in Automated Driving Systems. Industry
feedback collected from these meetings indicated that reclined seating
may be prevalent in vehicles with ADSs. To address this alternative
seating scenario, NHTSA is sponsoring research to better understand the
biomechanical response and injury mechanisms in reclined seating in
both forward-facing and rear-facing scenarios. This research will allow
NHTSA to assess and refine anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and
human body models (HBMs).
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Heidi King
Question 1. As everyone is aware, Politico reported recently that
Secretary Chao has steered millions of dollars in grants to Kentucky--
as her husband seeks reelection. As you can imagine, everyone on this
dais represents states with needs as great as Kentucky, but I am
concerned about the Secretary putting her finger on the scale to
benefit one state. Can each of you speak how your agencies can prevent
such political interference?
Answer. The facts belie the false allegation that the Department
has steered grants to Kentucky. As the Politico article noted, Kentucky
as the Politico article noted, Kentucky ranked 25th among the states,
received 5 of 169 grants in this period. In terms of funding, Kentucky
received about 5 percent of the awards--proportional to its share of
the Nation's populations.
The Department applies the same rigorous technical criteria to all
application evaluations and treats all project applications equitably.
The Department has taken great effort and is committed to ensuring that
all our grant programs use data driven processes to ensure the
Department complies with all Congressional requirements such as project
eligibilities, geographic diversity, minimum urban and rural award
percentages, and project type diversity. All applications are reviewed
by career technical teams to rate the projects on how well the
applicant addresses selection criteria that is published in the Notice
of Funding Opportunity. Evaluation teams comprised of representatives
from the different modal administrations, staff from Various DOT field
offices across the country and HQ staff are responsible for assigning
technical ratings.
The Department has a strong track record of ensuring that
infrastructure award selections benefit all 50 states and U.S.
territories and will continue to ensure fair and consistent application
of grant criteria and to meet Congressional award requirements.
Question 2. Have you found the reasons for the delay of the 2017
and 2018 DADSS reports?
Answer. NHTSA is currently taking steps to expedite final reviews
of the 2017 and 2018 reports. We have recently implemented changes to
the drafting process to one that occurs incrementally during the Fiscal
Year. We expect such an approach to eliminate delays going forward.
Question 3. The NTSB has made numerous safety recommendations
regarding truck underride, including front, side, improved rear, and
single unit trucks. Would a congressional mandate enable you to
effectively address these NTSB underride safety recommendations?
Answer. NHTSA is already working on the underride safety issues
raised in NTSB's recommendations. A congressional mandate would not be
necessary to address these safety recommendations.
Question 4. Where are you at in consideration of the underride
problem?
Answer. In December 2015, NHTSA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for improving the strength and energy absorbing
capability of rear impact guards on trailers. NHTSA is currently
analyzing the comments received on the 2015 NPRM and is considering
next steps.
Separately, NHTSA is conducting research on side underride crashes
to determine the effectiveness of side guards and the impacts of
requiring side guards on trucks and trailers.
NHTSA is also researching crash avoidance systems on heavy trucks
that could potentially mitigate front underrides.
Question 5. The GAO made recommendations to NHTSA in their Truck
Underride Report published on April 15, 2019, what is your timeline for
responding to these recommendations?
Answer. NHTSA responded to the GAO recommendations on February 27,
2019, concurring with the recommendations and outlining a plan of
action.
September 2020: NHTSA plans to complete research on side underride
crashes to determine the effectiveness of side guards and to determine
the impact of requiring side guards on trucks and trailers.
Fall 2021: NHTSA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) plan to develop and make available informational
materials for State and local police departments that educate end users
on how to identify and record underride crashes.
2022: NHTSA will recommend a crash underride data element for
inclusion in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) 6th
edition when the expert panel reconvenes in 2022.
Question 6. The NTSB has made numerous safety recommendations
regarding truck underride, including front, side, improved rear, and
single unit trucks. What is your timeline for addressing these
recommendations?
Answer. In July 2019, NHTSA convened discussions with NTSB on their
underride recommendations. The agency is actively working to address
each recommendation.
Question 7. NHTSA plays a role in recommending changes in the Model
Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) form, a document which provides
guidance to every state. Many states do not include underride on their
crash report form and this likely contributes to the under-reporting of
underride deaths. Do you have plans for ensuring that underride is
included on the next edition of this important tool? If not, please
detail the reasons.
Answer. The Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) expert
panel--consisting of State, Federal, and independent stakeholders--
removed this from the MMUCC 3rd Edition in 2008 as States found
collection of this data difficult. NHTSA is working to improve the
scope and quality of underride crash data through research and
training, and we will present a crash underride data element for
inclusion in the MMUCC 6th Edition when the expert panel reconvenes in
2022.
Question 8. The NTSB recommended that NHTSA develop underride
standards for single unit trucks, yet you withdrew rulemaking this
month for single unit trucks. How do you plan to address the deaths
which occur when passenger vehicles, as well as Vulnerable Road Users
such as pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists, go under single unit
trucks?
Answer. NHTSA has published its intention to withdraw its 2015
ANPRM requesting comment on a requirement to install rear impact guards
and/or conspicuity tape on single unit trucks. NHTSA is drafting a
notice explaining why the agency, after reviewing the comments received
and further analyzing the proposal, decided not pursue the rulemaking
at this time. NHTSA is continuing to evaluate the best approach to
addressing underride crashes involving single unit trucks.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
Heidi King
Question. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance has petitioned
NHTSA to create a universal electronic vehicle identifier requirement
on new commercial motor vehicles that would lay the foundation for
electronic inspections. Can you provide an update on NHTSA's progress
on considering this petition?
Answer. NHTSA received this petition from the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance May 9, 2019 and responded with an acknowledgement
letter on June 21, 2019. We are considering the petition and will
respond in due course.
[all]