[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]