[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVEST-
MENT AND JOBS ACT: MODAL PERSPECTIVES
=======================================================================
(118-39)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 13, 2023
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-093 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
District of Columbia Arkansas
Grace F. Napolitano, California Daniel Webster, Florida
Steve Cohen, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
John Garamendi, California Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaian Babin, Texas
Andre Carson, Indiana Garret Graves, Louisiana
Dina Titus, Nevada David Rouzer, North Carolina
Jared Huffman, California Mike Bost, Illinois
Julia Brownley, California Doug LaMalfa, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey Brian J. Mast, Florida
Mark DeSaulnier, California Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Salud O. Carbajal, California Puerto Rico
Greg Stanton, Arizona, Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Vice Ranking Member Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Colin Z. Allred, Texas Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Sharice Davids, Kansas Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey,
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Vice Chairman
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Tracey Mann, Kansas
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts Burgess Owens, Utah
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Patrick Ryan, New York Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Mary Sattler Peltola, Alaska Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Robert Menendez, New Jersey Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon John James, Michigan
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan Brandon Williams, New York
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
Mike Collins, Georgia
Mike Ezell, Mississippi
John S. Duarte, California
Aaron Bean, Florida
Celeste Maloy, Utah
Vacancy
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Arkansas, Chairman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Columbia, Ranking Member
Jared Huffman, California Daniel Webster, Florida
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Marilyn Strickland, Washington Mike Bost, Illinois
Patrick Ryan, New York Doug LaMalfa, California
Robert Menendez, New Jersey Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon, Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Vice Ranking Member Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Grace F. Napolitano, California Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Steve Cohen, Tennessee Tracey Mann, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiargess Owens, Utah
Julia Brownley, California Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Greg Stanton, Arizona Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Colin Z. Allred, Texas Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts Eric Burlison, Missouri
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
John Garamendi, California Brandon Williams, New York
Dina Titus, Nevada Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
Salud O. Carbajal, California Mike Collins, Georgia
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts John S. Duarte, California,
Mark DeSaulnier, California Vice Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Aaron Bean, Florida
Celeste Maloy, Utah
Vacancy
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Arkansas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways
and Transit, opening statement................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, opening statement........................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
WITNESSES
Hon. Carlos Monje, Jr., Under Secretary of Transportation for
Policy, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S.
Department of Transportation, oral statement................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Hon. Shailen Bhatt, Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, oral
statement...................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Hon. Nuria I. Fernandez, Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, oral
statement...................................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Hon. Robin Hutcheson, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, oral
statement...................................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Ann Carlson, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, oral
statement...................................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 26
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford:
Letter of October 13, 2022, to Stephanie Pollack, Deputy
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
from U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito et al............... 1
Press Release of July 7, 2022, from U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer 4
Memo Issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration Regarding Intellistop Pulsating Brake Lamps
Exemption.................................................. 29
Letter of December 13, 2023, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick''
Crawford, Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from Kristen
Swearingen, Vice President, Legislative and Political
Affairs, Associated Builders and Contractors............... 91
Letter of December 8, 2023, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and
Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and Hon. Eric A.
``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, from Jim Ward, President, Truckload Carriers
Association................................................ 93
Letter of December 12, 2023, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from Catherine Chase,
President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton....................... 94
Article entitled, ``Why Are So Many American Pedestrians Dying at
Night?'' by Emily Badger, Ben Blatt, and Josh Katz, New York
Times, December 11, 2023, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jake
Auchincloss.................................................... 96
APPENDIX
Questions to Hon. Carlos Monje, Jr., Under Secretary of
Transportation for Policy, Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, from:
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 101
Hon. Chris Pappas............................................ 102
Hon. Robert Menendez......................................... 102
Hon. Colin Z. Allred......................................... 104
Questions to Hon. Shailen Bhatt, Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, from:
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 104
Hon. Jefferson Van Drew...................................... 107
Hon. Chris Pappas............................................ 107
Hon. Jake Auchincloss........................................ 108
Questions to Hon. Nuria I. Fernandez, Administrator, Federal
Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
from:
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 110
Hon. Marilyn Strickland...................................... 112
Hon. Patrick Ryan............................................ 112
Questions to Hon. Robin Hutcheson, Administrator, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, from:
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford............................... 113
Hon. Colin Z. Allred......................................... 117
Questions to Ann Carlson, Acting Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, from:
Hon. Robert Menendez......................................... 117
Hon. Colin Z. Allred......................................... 118
Hon. Emilia Strong Sykes..................................... 119
Hon. Jake Auchincloss........................................ 119
Hon. Mark DeSaulnier......................................... 120
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
December 8, 2023
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
RE: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Oversight of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Modal Perspectives''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on December 13,
2023, at 10:00 am ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office
Building to receive testimony at a hearing entitled,
``Oversight of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act:
Modal Perspectives.'' The hearing will provide an opportunity
for Members to discuss all aspects of the modal administrations
of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT or
Department) within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. The
Subcommittee will receive testimony from representatives from
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
II. BACKGROUND
On November 15, 2021, the President signed the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-58)
into law, representing the largest Federal investment in
decades in the United States' infrastructure.\1\ This
legislation authorized and appropriated a combined $1.2
trillion for infrastructure programs over the five-year period
from fiscal year (FY) 2022 to FY 2026, to sustain and modernize
the Nation's infrastructure, including roads, bridges, transit,
railroads, and airports, as well as energy and broadband.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 [hereinafter IIJA].
\2\ DOT, FHWA, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, (last updated Nov.
22, 2023), available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law/ [hereinafter FHWA, Infrastructure Law].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. MODES UNDER THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT'S
JURISDICTION
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit authorizes
programs carried out by five of DOT's 11 modal administrations
and offices (modes or modal administrations).\3\ They are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Jurisdiction and Activities, 118th Cong., Subcomm. on Highways
and Transit of the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, (Jan. 2023)
(on file with Comm.) [hereinafter Jurisdiction and Activities]; DOT,
U.S. Dep't Administrations, (last updated Aug. 23, 2023), available at
https://www.transportation.gov/administrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOST;
LFHWA;
LFTA;
LFMCSA; and
LNHTSA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOT, U.S. Dep't Administrations, (last updated Aug. 23, 2023),
available at https://www.transportation.gov/administrations.
These modal administrations are responsible for
implementing 89 programs and 142 subprograms under IIJA.\5\
Taken together, IIJA provided approximately $530 billion for
these modes, an increase of 80 percent compared to funding
authorized under the Fixing America Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DOT, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Dashboard, (last updated
Dec. 28, 2021), available at https://www.transportation.gov/mission/
budget/bipartisan-infrastructure-law-dashboard [hereinafter Dashboard].
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The funding provided by IIJA flows to funding recipients
through grant programs authorized by the legislation and
includes both formula and competitive grants.\7\ A
comprehensive list of these programs across modal agencies and
total funding available for each program can be found on DOT's
website.\8\ Formula program funding is apportioned to
recipients each fiscal year. State Departments of
Transportation and other recipients generally have four fiscal
years in which to obligate Federal-aid highway and NHTSA
formula funds.\9\ Obligation timelines vary by transit formula
program, but in most cases, agencies have several fiscal years
to obligate funding.\10\ Likewise, FMCSA formula funds
generally remain available for obligation by recipients for
between two and four fiscal years.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id.
\8\ Id.
\9\ DOT, FHWA, Funding Federal-Aid Highways, (Jan. 2017), available
at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/olsp/fundingfederalaid/
FFAH_2017.pdf.
\10\ Notice of FTA Transit Program Changes, 87 Fed. Reg. 25362
(Apr. 28, 2022), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2022/04/28/2022-09143/notice-of-fta-transit-
program-changes-authorized-funding-levels-and-implementation-of-the.
\11\ 49 C.F.R. Sec. 350 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIJA included a five-fold increase in the amount of
competitive grant funding that Secretary of Transportation will
award.\12\ For competitive grant programs, DOT first issues a
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) which sets forth
eligibilities under each grant program, factors for applicant
evaluation, the period of time during which interested parties
can apply, and other relevant information.\13\ DOT posts NOFOs
and applicants generally apply through the Federal
www.grants.gov website.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Jeff Davis, Status Check: The First Year of IIJA Competitive
Grant Funding, Eno Center for Transp., (Sept. 6, 2022), available at
https://www.enotrans.org/article/status-check-the-first-year-of-iija-
competitive-grant-funding/.
\13\ DOT, Key Notices of Funding Opportunity, (last updated Dec. 6,
2023), available at https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law/key-notices-funding-opportunity.
\14\ Grants, United States Government, available at www.grants.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OST
OST coordinates the development of National transportation
policy and the rulemaking process for DOT. It is responsible
for program and policy development and oversight within the
DOT.\15\ Before IIJA was enacted, OST managed three programs,
including the Local and Regional Project Assistance Grants
(RAISE) competitive grant program.\16\ IIJA significantly
increased the number of programs and amount of funding under
OST's purview. It now manages 11 programs, most of which are
competitive grant programs, including National Infrastructure
Project Assistance (Mega), Safe Streets for All, Multistate
Freight Corridor Planning Grants, and the National Culvert
Removal, Replacement, and Restoration. IIJA also created a new
office within OST, the Office of Multimodal Freight
Infrastructure and Policy.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ DOT, Office of the Secretary, available at https://
www.transportation.gov/tags/office-secretary.
\16\ Dashboard, supra note 5.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIJA authorized and appropriated $43 billion over five
years for programs administered by the OST.\18\ As of December
6, 2023, OST has announced approximately $6.7 billion in grants
for various described above programs.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
\19\ Email from Staff, OST, DOT, to H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure Staff (Dec. 6, 2023, 1:20 p.m.) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA
FHWA's mission is to deliver a world-class highway
system.\20\ IIJA included $365.5 billion for highway programs
administered by the FHWA.\21\ The Act increased funding by 62
percent compared to the five-year average funding authorized in
the FAST Act.\22\ IIJA created more than a dozen new programs
overseen by FHWA, including programs to support electric
vehicles, bridges, rural infrastructure, and active
transportation, as well as programs to address climate change
and reduce carbon emissions.\23\ It also broadened funding
eligibility under several programs to include local governments
and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ DOT, FHWA, About FHWA, (last updated: Jul. 21, 2023),
available at https://highways.dot.gov/about/about-fhwa.
\21\ FHWA, Infrastructure Law, supra note 2.
\22\ H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure calculation based on
IIJA.
\23\ FHWA, Infrastructure Law, supra note 2.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA has distributed approximately $180 billion in IIJA
highway program funding to states and local governments and
other project sponsors.\25\ Analysis of FHWA data by the
American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)
indicates that States have committed formula dollars to support
some 60,000 projects across the country, through September 30,
2023.\26\ However, some stakeholders have raised concerns with
the slow pace with which IIJA funding goes out to bid once it
has been apportioned by DOT to States and other project
sponsors. An outlook survey published in January 2023 of its
member companies by the Associated General Contractors of
America (AGC) found that just five percent of companies
responded they have worked on IIJA-funded projects in the first
year of the law's enactment, while six percent responded they
had successfully bid on projects for which work had yet to
begin.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Email from Staff, FHWA, DOT, to H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure Staff (Dec. 4, 2023, 2:45p.m.) (on file with Comm.).
\26\ ARTBA, Highway Dashboard, Tracking Infrastructure Investment &
Jobs Act Highway and Bridge Resources, (last accessed Sept. 13, 2023),
available at https://www.artba.org/economics/highway-dashboard-iija/.
\27\ AGC, Sage, High Hopes for Public Funding Amid Workforce and
Supply Chain Challenges: The 2023 Construction Hiring and Business
Outlook (2023), available at https://www.agc.org/sites/default/files/
users/user22633/2023_Construction_Hiring_and_Business_
Outlook_Report_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA
FTA provides financial and technical assistance to state,
local, and regional public agencies in both urban and rural
areas to create and enhance public transportation.\28\ The
agency pursues this goal through funding, technical assistance,
research and safety programs in conjunction with state, local
and tribal community partners.\29\ IIJA authorized and
appropriated $108.2 billion for transit programs administered
by FTA.\30\ The law significantly increased funding or
developed new parameters for State of Good Repair grants, Low
or No Emission grants and the Capital Improvement Grant (CIG)
program. IIJA also created four new FTA-administered
competitive grant programs: the Rail Vehicle Replacement
Program, the Electric or Low-Emitting Ferry Pilot Program,
Ferry Service for Rural Communities, and the All Stations
Accessibility Program.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ DOT, FTA, About FTA, available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/
about-fta.
\29\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5301.
\30\ DOT, FTA, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, available at https://
www.transit.dot.gov/BIL.
\31\ DOT, FTA, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Implementation
Presentation, (Updated Jan. 7, 2022), available at https://
www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2022-01/FTA-BIL-
Implementation-Webinar-Presentation-01-07-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTA funding increased by 77 percent compared to the five-
year average funding authorized in the FAST Act.\32\
Additionally, FTA has made available approximately $40 billion
in IIJA transit funding to states, tribes, and territories.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure calculation based on
IIJA.
\33\ Email from Staff, FTA, DOT, to H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure Staff (Dec. 5, 2023, 5:03 p.m.) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA
FMCSA's primary mission is to reduce commercial motor
vehicle-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities.\34\ IIJA
authorized and appropriated $5.1 billion for motor carrier
safety programs administered by the FMCSA.\35\ This represents
a 59 percent funding increase for FMCSA programs compared to
the five-year average funding authorized in the FAST Act.\36\
Since IIJA's enactment, FMCSA has distributed $1.2 billion in
IIJA grant awards to states and territories.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ DOT, FMCSA, Our Mission (last updated Dec. 13, 2013),
available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission.
\35\ DOT, FMCSA, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Impacts for FMCSA
Grant Programs, (last updated Jan. 6, 2022), available at https://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/Bipartisan-Infrastructure-Law-Grants.
\36\ Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure calculation based on IIJA.
\37\ Email from Staff, FMCSA, DOT, to H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure Staff (Sept. 13, 2023, 10:08 p.m.) (on file with Comm.)
[hereinafter--IIJA Financial Summary as of Aug. 27, 2023].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA
NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and
reduce economic costs due to traffic crashes on United States
roadways through education, research, and by promulgating and
enforcing traffic safety standards.\38\ Jurisdiction of NHTSA
is shared between the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit has jurisdiction over
highway safety programs, which are administered primarily by
NHTSA and funded through the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Jurisdiction and Activities, supra note 3.
\39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIJA authorized and appropriated $8.5 billion for safety
programs administered by NHTSA.\40\ This funding level
represents an 80 percent funding increase for NHTSA programs
compared to the five-year average funding authorized in the
FAST Act.\41\ NHTSA has distributed $1.6 billion in IIJA grant
awards to states.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ DOT, NHTSA, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, available at
https://www.nhtsa.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law.
\41\ H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure calculation based on
IIJA.
\42\ Email from Staff, NHTSA, DOT, to H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure Staff (Dec. 5, 2023, 1:34 p.m.) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. IIJA IMPLEMENTATION
Although the modes and DOT have made progress announcing
and distributing funding, some programs have not been
implemented or took time to finalize. For example, the
Department has not yet fully implement provisions related to
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), including establishing the
alternative funding board that is a precursor to pursuing a
National VMT pilot program.\43\ Following inquiries from House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Sam
Graves and Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Chairman Tom Carper, DOT committed to filing the charter and
publishing a notice in the Federal Register for the Advisory
Board by the end of September, which it did, finally initiating
progress on this requirement.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ IIJA, supra note 1, Sec. 13002 (g)(1).
\44\ Letter from the Hon. Shalien P. Bhatt, Administrator, FHWA, to
the Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure
(Sept. 5, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Administration released initial implementation
guidance related to the Build America, Buy America Act (BABAA)
on April 18, 2022, and on February 9, 2023, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) issued proposed guidance.\45\ In
the interim, FHWA issued Questions and Answers related to BABAA
on February 1, 2023, and on February 7, 2023, FTA held a
webinar on the applicability of the BABAA construction
materials provision.\46\ However, the stakeholder community
stated that it needed additional clarity and final guidance in
order to ensure proper compliance with these provisions.\47\ On
August 23, 2023, 15 months after releasing its initial
guidance, final guidance related to BABAA was issued.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Memorandum from Shalanda D. Young, Dir., Off. of Mgmt. and
Budget to Heads of Exec. Depts. and Agencies (Apr. 18, 2022), available
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/M-22-11.pdf;
Guidance for Grants and Agreements, 88 Fed. Reg. 8374 (Feb. 9, 2023),
available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-09/pdf/
2023-02617.pdf.
\46\ DOT, FHWA, FHWA's Buy America Q and A for Federal-aid Program,
available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/contracts/
buyam_qa.cfm (last updated Mar. 20, 2023); DOT, FTA, Buy America
Update, Construction Materials Waiver for Certain Contracts and
Solicitations, FTA Internal Webinar (Feb. 7, 2023), available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61UYE680by4.
\47\ Reviewing the Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H.
Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (Mar. 28, 2023).
\48\ Guidance for Grants and Agreements, 88 Fed. Reg. 162, 57750
(Aug. 23, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOT has not implemented all Congressionally mandated
policies designed to address supply chain challenges. For
example, IIJA directed DOT to establish the Office of
Multimodal Freight Infrastructure and Policy. The Office was
formally announced on November 27, 2023, and although a Deputy
Assistant Secretary is in place in the office, the Department
has yet to name an Assistant Secretary to lead the office, as
required by IIJA.\49\ Although historic backlogs are no longer
the Nation's top supply chain concern, challenges remain within
the network and addressing these issues will allow America to
maintain economic competitiveness.\50\ The Office of Multimodal
Freight Infrastructure and Policy will likely play a
significant role in coordinating the Federal response to future
supply chain challenges, as well as engage industry and states
in addressing these issues.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Press Release, DOT, Biden-Harris Administration Announces New
Freight Office and Major Progress Strengthening Supply Chains, (Nov.
27, 2023), available at https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/
biden-harris-administration-announces-new-freight-office-and-major-
progressIIJA; Dashboard, supra note 5.
\50\ Letter from Agriculture Transp. Coalition, et al., to the Hon.
Pete Buttigieg, Sec'y, DOT (Aug. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
\51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has also pursued policies through executive
action that were excluded from the law. On December 7, 2023,
FHWA published a final rule to require states and MPOs to
establish a new performance measure with declining targets for
carbon dioxide and to measure and report greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with transportation on the National
Highway System.\52\ Congress included provisions to address
climate change and transportation resiliency in IIJA.\53\
Although a rule requiring a new highway related greenhouse gas
GHG performance measure was included in the House-passed H.R.
3684, INVEST in America Act, it was considered and disposed of
during IIJA negotiations.\54\ The Administration cites section
150 of title 23 U.S.C. as the authority for its rulemaking.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ DOT, FHWA, Assessing the Performance of the National Highway
System, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure, available at https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/RIN-2125-
AF99_Performance_Management_GHG_Measure_Final_Rule_11-19-23.pdf
[hereinafter GHG Emissions].
\53\ DOT, Office of Public Affairs, Fact Sheet: Climate and
Resilience in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, (Jul. 5, 2022),
available at https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-
law/fact-sheet-climate-and-resilience-bipartisan-infrastructure-law.
\54\ National Performance Management Measures, 88 Fed. Reg. 85364
(Dec. 7, 2024), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2023/12/07/2023-26019/national-performance-
management-measures-assessing-performance-of-the-national-highway-
system.
\55\ GHG Emissions, supra note 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. INFLATION
Inflation continues to affect the purchasing power of
highway funding made available by Congress in the IIJA.\56\ The
Committee has received testimony from industry stakeholders
regarding the detrimental impact of inflation on infrastructure
spending.\57\ Inflation began increasing in 2021, and spiked to
a 41-year record high of 9.1 percent in June 2022.\58\ As of
October 2023, the 12-month inflation rate had fallen to 3.2
percent.\59\ Although there has been a decrease, inflation
pressures continue to run significantly higher than the Federal
Reserve's target inflation rate of two percent for a stable
economy.\60\ October marked the 32nd consecutive month that the
rate remains above the two percent target.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Noel Fletcher, FHWA Says Highway Construction Costs Continue
to Soar, Transport Topics, (Nov. 20, 2023), available at https://
www.ttnews.com/articles/fhwa-highway-costs-soar.
\57\ Reviewing the Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H.
Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (Mar. 28, 2023)
(Testimony of Dwayne Boyd and Aric Dreher).
\58\ See Megan Henny, Inflation Rises by 3.2 Percent, Less than
Expected, But High Prices Persist, Fox Business, (Nov. 14, 2023),
available at https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/cpi-inflation-october-
2023; United States Bureau of Labor Stat., Consumer Prices Up 9.1
Percent Over the Year ended June 2022, Largest Increase in 40 Years,
(July 18, 2022), available at https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/
consumer-prices-up-9-1-percent-over-the-year-ended-june-2022-largest-
increase-in-40-years.htm; United States Bureau of Labor Stat., Consumer
Price Index Historical Tables for U.S. City Average, (last updated July
2023), available at https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/
consumerpriceindexhistorical_us_table.htm.
\59\ United States Bureau of Labor Stat., Consumer Price Index--
October 2023, (Nov. 24, 2023), available at https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/cpi.nr0.htm.
\60\ Andrea Miller, The Federal Reserve's 2 Percent Inflation
Targeting Policy Explained, CNBC, (Feb. 20, 2023), available at https:/
/www.cnbc.com/2023/02/20/the-federal-reserves-2percent-
inflation-targeting-policy-
explained.html#: :text=The%202%25%20inflation%20target%20is,
to%20the%20International%20Monetary%20Fund.
\61\ United States Bureau of Labor Stat., 12-Month Percentage
Change, Consumer Price Index, selected categories, (last accessed Dec.
8, 2023), available at https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/
consumer-price-index-by-category-line-chart.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the construction industry, inflation can result in
higher costs of construction materials and other resources
necessary for project completion including higher costs of
fuel, equipment, technology, labor, and transportation.\62\
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
``2023 Year-in-Review,'' as of the first quarter of 2023,
highway construction costs had increased 53.8 percent compared
to the same time in 2020, and further, highway construction
costs have gone up in nine out of the last 10 quarters.\63\ BTS
also cited the first quarter of 2023 as a new all-time high of
the National Highway Construction Cost Index.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Evan McDowell, How Does Inflation Affect the Construction
Industry?, Austin Nichols Technical Search, (May 1, 2023), available at
https://www.austintec.com/
how-inflation-affect-construction-industry/
#: :text=Additionally%2C%20raw%20materials
%20such%20as,companies%20who%20order%20from%20them; How Does Inflation
Affect Construction Industry?, The Constructor, available at https://
theconstructor.org/construction/inflation-affect-construction-industry/
565090/.
\63\ DOT, Bureau of Transp. Statistics, Transportation Economic
Trends, available at https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/9kj8-x76q.
\64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously, in early 2022, the Eno Center for
Transportation warned that if inflation for highway costs
averaged higher than seven percent through 2027, the increased
funding provided for highways under IIJA could be eliminated
entirely.\65\ During a March 2023 Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit hearing, the witness representing the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) raised concerns about the ability of states to
capitalize on IIJA funding due to inflation, and noted that in
Texas, the moving average had increased to 34.7 percent whereas
the IIJA funds only represented ``a six percent increase in
Texas State DOT's overall funding.'' \66\ AASHTO previously
indicated in June 2022 that ``[t]he cost of those projects is
going up by 20 percent, by 30 percent, and just wiping out that
increase from the Federal [G]overnment that they were so
excited about earlier in the year.'' \67\ At the same hearing,
testimony from ARTBA acknowledged the cost of construction
inputs showed significant increases but noted variance in the
extent of the problem by state, region, and project type
including that, ``we have seen a significant number of states
in which project bids continue to come in below the initial
engineer's estimates.'' \68\ Further, ARTBA noted that ``any
discussion about materials, prices, and inflation needs to also
recognize that, without the infrastructure law, we would very
likely be looking at a market contraction.'' \69\ While
inflation has moderated over the past several months from the
historically high levels seen in recent years, it continues to
impact construction costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Jeff Davis, How Much Could Inflation Erode IIJA Buying Power?,
Eno Ctr. for Transp., (Apr. 27, 2022), available at https://
www.enotrans.org/article/how-much-could-inflation-erode-iija-buying-
power/; Julie Strupp, Inflation Could Sap Infrastructure Act's Buying
Power This Year, Construction Drive, (Jan. 3, 2023), available at
https://www.constructiondive.com/news/inflation-saps-infrastructure-
act-iija-buying-power/639518/.
\66\ Reviewing the Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H.
Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (Mar. 28, 2023)
(statement of Marc D. Williams, Member of the Board of Directors,
AASHTO).
\67\ David A. Lieb & Michael Casey, Inflation Taking a Bite Out of
New Infrastructure Projects, Associated Press, (June 19, 2022),
available at https://apnews.com/article/inflation-us-infrastructure-
projects-e89dcd5f3e623e532353f087265f9a63.
\68\ Reviewing the Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H.
Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (Mar. 28, 2023)
(statement of Paula Hammond, 2023 Chair, ARTBA).
\69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. WITNESSES
LThe Honorable Carlos Monje, Under Secretary of
Transportation for Policy, Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, United States Department of Transportation
LThe Honorable Shailen Bhatt, Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of
Transportation
LThe Honorable Nuria Fernandez, Administrator,
Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of
Transportation
LThe Honorable Robin Hutcheson, Administrator,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, United States
Department of Transportation
LMs. Ann Carlson, Acting Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, United States Department
of Transportation
OVERSIGHT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT: MODAL
PERSPECTIVES
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2023
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eric A. ``Rick''
Crawford (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Crawford. The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will
come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing. Without
objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions. Without objection, so
ordered.
As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
I ask unanimous consent to enter a letter from Senator
Capito and several other Senators, and a press release from
Senator Cramer, into the record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter of October 13, 2022, to Stephanie Pollack, Deputy Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration, Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, from U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito et
al., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510,
October 13, 2022.
Ms. Stephanie Pollack,
Deputy Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration, Docket Management Facility, United
States Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
Re: Docket No. FHWA-2021-0004
Dear Deputy Administrator Pollack,
We write to express our opposition to the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on a
National Performance Management Measure; Assessing Performance of the
National Highway System, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Measure, Docket
No. FHWA-20210004 (hereinafter ``proposal''). FHWA's proposal exceeds
the agency's limited statutory authority provided by Congress. We are
especially troubled by this attempted overreach given the Supreme
Court's recent ruling in West Virginia v. US Environmental Protection
Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022), which made clear that agency actions
implicating major questions require clear congressional authorization.
The signatories of this letter, which include members of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works with oversight authority of
FHWA, respectfully request FHWA withdraw the proposal.
Current law does not provide any authority to make this proposal. A
regulatory action such as this one is particularly suspect when an
agency suddenly discovers in statute an authority that ``allow[s] it to
adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously and
repeatedly declined to enact itself.'' Id. at 2610. Congress debated
incorporating a greenhouse gas emissions performance measure and
associated targets into title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.)
during the development of the recent five-year surface transportation
reauthorization legislation. The House passed legislation that would
have provided FHWA with such authority. See H.R. 3684 section 1403 (as
engrossed in the House on July 1, 2021). The legislation that the
Senate and House ultimately passed and President Biden signed into law
in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58; IIJA) did
not. Nowhere in the IIJA did Congress provide FHWA with any statutory
authority to impose the performance measure or the requirement to set
declining targets on state departments of transportation (DOTs) and
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) contained in this proposal.
FHWA cannot create of its own choosing the authority that Congress
debated, considered, and rejected.
FHWA's attempt to create new authorities where Congress has not
provided them would infringe on state DOTs' necessary flexibility to
meet the surface transportation needs of their residents. FHWA's
proposal is especially egregious because the agency seeks to ``regulate
a significant portion of the American economy'' and potentially
``require billions of dollars in spending'' by private persons or
entities.'' See West Virginia, 142 S. Ct. at 2621 (internal quotation
omitted). If finalized, the proposal would commandeer state DOTs'
authority by forcing them to reduce vehicle emissions, likely
necessitating shifts in vehicle fuel type usage and transportation
modes without clear statutory authority. The proposal would also impose
significant changes on the American economy and private spending as it
would incentivize switching to electric vehicles, reducing vehicle
miles traveled, and restructuring transportation networks.
FHWA attempts to justify the proposal based on a misguided and
erroneous interpretation of section 150 and other sections in title 23,
U.S.C. The 2012 surface transportation reauthorization law, the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), Pub. L. 112-141,
mandated a performance management approach for certain programs
administered by the FHWA. Specifically, Congress established national
goals and stipulated how those goals, the performance measures, and
associated performance targets would be integrated into certain
programs and federal transportation planning requirements. Section
150(b) sets forth the national goals of the federal-aid highway
program, including ``environmental sustainability,'' which is defined
as activities ``to enhance the performance of the transportation system
while protecting and enhancing the natural environment'' (emphasis
added). Section 150(c)(3) provides FHWA with authority to establish
performance measures for conditions of pavement and bridges and
performance of the Interstate System and National Highway System (NHS).
The authority in 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3) contains no reference to
greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, the National Highway Performance
Program (NHPP) authorized in 23 U.S.C. 119, which FHWA tries to cite as
providing authority for this proposal, does not include any discussion
of environmental performance, let alone a reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions.
FHWA wrongly asserts that section 150(c)(3) provides the agency
with the regulatory authority necessary to pursue a GHG performance
measure. The agency claims that because Congress did not define the
term ``performance'' and because ``environmental sustainability'' is a
national goal, FHWA has the authority to determine the nature and scope
of ``performance.'' FHWA claims ``performance'' of the Interstate
System and NHS under NHPP includes ``environmental performance.'' This
interpretation of ``performance'' is contradicted by a plain text
reading of 23 U.S.C. 150. ``Performance'' throughout section 150 was
not intended to mean ``environmental performance'' which is evident by
the environmental sustainability goal in section 150(b). The later part
of the goal, would not be necessary if Congress intended
``performance'' to include ``environmental performance.''
FHWA also asserts that President Biden's Executive Orders 13990 and
14008 provide justification for the proposal and direct state DOTs and
MPOs to set targets that align with those orders. Those orders can
provide no further authority for FHWA to enact this proposal absent
statutory authority. To tie performance measures and corresponding
targets to executive orders creates long-term uncertainty for state
DOTs and MPOs. Policy that is mandated in such a manner shifts with
each change in administration, further demonstrating the pitfalls of
attempting to enact policy absent specific congressional authorization.
Even if FHWA had authority to issue this proposal, the proposal
would still be unreasonable in its execution. The proposal diverges
from the construct of other performance measures established in 23
U.S.C. 150(c) by requiring state DOTs and MPOs to set declining
(emphasis added) targets for greenhouse gas emissions. This requirement
restricts the ability for state DOTs and MPOs to set targets using a
data-driven approach. Further hindering compliance, the proposal
directs greenhouse gas emission targets to be set by October 1, 2022,
before the comment period is even closed. The changes state DOTs and
MPOs would need to make to achieve declining greenhouse gas emissions
targets for each Transportation Performance Management four-year
reporting period would take years of planning and execution.
FHWA has selected 2021 as the reference year to calculate the
performance measure, making it even more difficult for state DOTs and
MPOs to achieve a declining target. While we understand that 2021 was
the most recent year for which data will be complete and available, the
nation was still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic at that time,
which significantly impacted roadway travel. During the nationwide
lockdown in 2020, there was a historic drop in light duty travel that
totaled almost 355 billion vehicle miles, a reduction of over 12
percent from 2019, according to FHWA. While total vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) rose in 2021 to almost pre-pandemic levels, VMT was
still lower than 2019 levels and lower than what was predicted pre-
pandemic. If those models stand true, and VMT gradually adjusts to
predicted levels, the 2021 reference year would disadvantage all state
DOTs' and MPOs' ability to achieve declining targets.
The proposal also lacks a rural state exemption, taking a one-size-
fits-all approach to addressing greenhouse emissions. When Congress
debated providing FHWA with the authority for a greenhouse gas
performance measure, an exemption for states with certain population
densities was considered. FHWA's proposal disadvantages rural states
and places an unreasonable burden on them by failing to recognize the
unique situation of those states. For example, one theoretical way to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in urban areas is to increase usage of
alternative transportation options, such as public transit and biking.
However, in rural areas, modal shifts are often not feasible and do not
improve connectivity and safety in the way they might in a large urban
area.
In sum, FHWA does not have the statutory authority to proceed with
this proposal. The agency's actions demonstrate a complete disregard
for the law and an overreach of its authority provided by Congress.
Again, we request that you withdraw this proposal immediately and
instead focus staff time and resources on the implementation of the
IIJA as enacted by Congress.
Sincerely,
Shelley Moore Capito,
Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee.
Kevin Cramer,
United States Senator.
John Barrasso, M.D.,
United States Senator.
John Boozman,
United States Senator.
Mike Braun,
United States Senator.
Richard Burr,
United States Senator.
Susan M. Collins,
United States Senator.
John Cornyn,
United States Senator.
Mike Crapo,
United States Senator.
Ted Cruz,
United States Senator.
Steve Daines,
United States Senator.
Joni K. Ernst,
United States Senator.
Deb Fischer,
United States Senator.
Lindsey O. Graham,
United States Senator.
John Hoeven,
United States Senator.
James M. Inhofe,
United States Senator.
James Lankford,
United States Senator.
Cynthia M. Lummis,
United States Senator.
Roger Marshall, M.D.,
United States Senator.
Lisa Murkowski,
United States Senator.
Rob Portman,
United States Senator.
James E. Risch,
United States Senator.
Richard Shelby,
United States Senator.
Dan Sullivan,
United States Senator.
John Thune,
United States Senator.
Thom Tillis,
United States Senator.
Roger F. Wicker,
United States Senator.
Press Release of July 7, 2022, from U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
July 7, 2022
Sen. Cramer Statement on Federal Highway Administration's Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Performance Measure Proposed Rule
Washington, DC.--U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Ranking Member
of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, issued the
following statement in response to the Federal Highway Administration's
(FHWA) proposed rule to impose greenhouse gas emissions performance
measures on state departments of transportation and metropolitan
planning organizations without any new authority from Congress:
``The Biden Administration's Federal Highway Administration is
veering off course once again. First, they issued guidance aiming to
upend the funding flexibility given to states and now they want to
saddle state transportation departments with emission reduction
requirements. In both instances, Congress expressly excluded these
authorities in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and now the
Administration is attempting an end-run based on their wishes, not the
law.
``This proposed rule needs to be fully rescinded. It is dumb policy
and the Biden Administration should take a hint from the recent West
Virginia v. EPA decision which reminded agencies to stay within the
confines Congress gave them.''
Mr. Crawford. I now recognize myself for the purposes of an
opening statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD OF
ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
Mr. Crawford. Good morning. I thank each of our witnesses
for being here today. The Under Secretary and the four modal
Administrators before us represent the full scope of the
jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
However, despite the subcommittee's long record of bipartisan
oversight efforts, we have not had any modal Administrators
before us since 2019.
Today's witnesses can help provide clarity on myriad issues
related to the implementation of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act, or IIJA, as they and the people in the programs
they represent play a pivotal role in the Department of
Transportation's efforts to enact this legislation.
Just last month, we marked 2 years since the passage of
IIJA, which provided historic funding increases for America's
infrastructure, including over a half trillion dollars for
programs under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. IIJA
significantly increased funding for existing programs, created
new programs with new eligibilities, and increased, by nearly
500 percent, the amount of competitive grant funding the
Secretary will award. The 5-year average funding provided by
IIJA for the modes under this subcommittee's jurisdiction
increased by approximately 80 percent compared to the levels in
the last surface reauthorization bill, the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation, or FAST, Act.
In the 2 years since IIJA became law, persistent inflation
has pushed up prices. Transportation and infrastructure
projects and the companies that provide products and services
in those sectors have not been immune to these rising costs.
Prices on necessary materials such as concrete and aggregate,
pipes, steel and iron, construction equipment, and labor have
all remained high since the passage of IIJA. In September, the
Federal Highway Administration released updated data for its
National Highway Construction Cost Index. What Federal Highways
found was in the first quarter of 2023, the construction index
reached a new all-time high. Further, according to the
Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, highway construction costs have increased in 9 of
the last 10 quarters. And compared to the last quarter of 2020,
highway construction costs increased 53.8 percent.
The expected increase in purchasing power provided by IIJA
has, therefore, greatly diminished. Not only am I concerned
about inflationary pressures on IIJA and its projects, but as I
have said many times before, the administration's focus should
be on enacting the legislation as written, not on pushing
progressive policy proposals that didn't make it into the final
law.
For example, the day before Thanksgiving, when I'm sure all
of us were focused on refreshing the Department's website just
waiting for an important proclamation, FHWA announced that it
had, at lightning speed, finalized the rule to create a new
greenhouse gas performance measure to cut tailpipe emissions
stemming from transportation on the National Highway System.
I understand that you all have seemingly been tasked by the
White House with tackling climate change first and your core
missions second, but my concern is that during consideration of
IIJA, the Senate considered this policy proposal and expressly
excluded it from the final legislation. There is simply no
congressional mandate or provided authority to take this
action.
Another example: DOT, with strong direction from the Policy
Office, has been using its funding notices for discretionary
grant programs to layer on requirements that do not exist in
statute. And while we have received press release after press
release announcing funding awards, these are not legally
binding documents. I think we can all agree that Federal money
has plenty of strings attached to it by Congress. There is no
reason to add even more at the agency level.
I am also very concerned at the extremely slow rate that
these grant agreements are being negotiated among the parties
and signed, since, according to the numbers, they aren't. You
advertise that you are making grants, but the money isn't going
out the door and projects aren't being done.
I could go on, but I simply reiterate the message from our
shared transportation stakeholders: Slow execution of contracts
and confusing guidance documents have the very real risk of
delaying critical transportation projects, which are necessary
to move people and freight safely and efficiently throughout
the country. Even though I did not support IIJA, it is the law,
and I will ensure that resources provided by Congress are
addressing our most pressing transportation, safety,
infrastructure, and supply chain needs, which I know is a
shared bipartisan goal of all of us here in the room today.
The bill was not a blank check for this administration to
pursue ancillary social or environmental policies unrelated to
the Nation's transportation systems. This committee will work
with DOT and the agencies represented here to ensure that
taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and prudently on the real
infrastructure improvements our Nation requires.
Once again, I thank our witnesses for appearing before the
committee today, and I look forward to a productive dialogue.
[Mr. Crawford's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Good morning. I thank each of our witnesses for being here today.
The Under Secretary and the four modal administrators before us
represent the full scope of the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit. However, despite this subcommittee's long record
of bipartisan oversight efforts, we have not had any modal
administrators before us since 2019.
Today's witnesses can help provide clarity on a myriad of issues
related to the implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA) as they, and the people and programs they represent, play a
pivotal role in the Department of Transportation's (DOT) efforts to
enact this legislation.
Just last month, we marked two years since the passage of IIJA,
which provided historic funding increases for America's infrastructure,
including over half a trillion dollars for programs under this
subcommittee's jurisdiction. IIJA significantly increased funding for
existing programs, created new programs with new eligibilities, and
increased, by nearly 500 percent, the amount of competitive grant
funding the Secretary will award. The five-year average funding
provided by IIJA for the modes under this subcommittee's jurisdiction
increased by approximately 80 percent compared to the levels in the
last surface reauthorization bill, the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act.
In the two years since IIJA became law, persistent inflation has
pushed up prices. Transportation and infrastructure projects and the
companies that provide products and services in those sectors have not
been immune to these rising costs. Prices on necessary materials such
as concrete and aggregates, pipes, steel and iron, construction
equipment, and labor have all remained high since the passage of IIJA.
In September, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released
updated data for its National Highway Construction Cost Index (NHCCI).
What Federal Highways found was in the first quarter of 2023, the
Construction Index reached a new, all-time high. Furthermore, according
to the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, highway construction costs have increased in 9 out of the
last 10 quarters, and compared to the last quarter of 2020, highway
construction costs increased 53.8 percent.
The expected increase in purchasing power provided by IIJA has,
therefore, greatly diminished. Not only am I concerned about
inflationary pressures on IIJA and its projects, but as I have said
many times before, the Administration's focus should be on enacting the
legislation as written, not on pushing progressive policy proposals
that didn't make it into the final law.
For example, the day before Thanksgiving, when I'm sure all of us
were focused on refreshing the Department's website just waiting for an
important proclamation, FHWA announced that it had, at lightning speed,
finalized the rule to create a new greenhouse gas performance measure
to cut tailpipe emissions stemming from transportation on the National
Highway System. I understand you all have seemingly been tasked by the
White House with tackling climate change first and your core missions
second, but our concern is that during consideration of IIJA, the
Senate considered this policy proposal and expressly excluded it from
the final legislation. There is simply no Congressional mandate or
provided authority to take this action.
Another example: DOT, with strong direction from the Policy Office,
has been using its funding notices for discretionary grant programs to
layer on requirements that do not exist in statute. And while we've
received press release after press release announcing funding awards,
these are not legally binding documents. I think we can all agree that
federal money has plenty of strings attached to it by Congress. There's
no reason to add even more at the agency level.
I am also very concerned at the extremely slow rate that these
grant agreements are being negotiated among the parties, and signed--
since, according to the numbers, they aren't. You advertise that you're
making grants, but the money isn't going out the door and projects
aren't being done.
I could go on, but I will simply reiterate the message from our
shared transportation stakeholders: slow execution of contracts and
confusing guidance documents have the very real risk of delaying
critical transportation projects, which are necessary to move people
and freight safely and efficiently throughout the country. Even though
I did not support IIJA, it is the law, and I will ensure the resources
provided by Congress are addressing our most pressing transportation,
safety, infrastructure, and supply chain needs, which I know is a
shared, bipartisan goal of all of us here in the room today.
The bill was not a blank check for this administration to pursue
ancillary social or environmental policies unrelated to the nation's
transportation systems. This committee will work with DOT and the
agencies represented here to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent
wisely and prudently on the real infrastructure improvements our nation
requires.
Once again, I thank our witnesses for appearing before the
Committee today and look forward to a productive dialogue.
Mr. Crawford. I now recognize Ranking Member Norton for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSIT
Ms. Norton. I would like to thank subcommittee chair Rick
Crawford for holding this hearing on the implementation of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was one of the
most important bills enacted last Congress. Within our
subcommittee's jurisdiction, it provided $365 billion for
highways, $108 billion for transit, $43 billion for multimodal
grants, and $13 billion for highway and motor carrier safety.
The work of our subcommittee helped set the bar high. Many
of the funding levels of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act are similar to what we proposed in the INVEST Act.
Two years in, we are seeing the success of the law across
the country. This past summer, the national capital region's
transit agency, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority, received a $104 million grant from the Federal
Transit Administration to purchase zero-emission buses, convert
an existing maintenance facility to serve electric buses, and
train its workforce to operate and maintain electric buses.
I thank Administrator Fernandez and the Biden
administration for this investment in good jobs and cleaner air
for our region. Success stories like this are playing out
across the Nation. Every Member in this room today, whether
they voted for the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act or
not, has at least one project funded in their congressional
district.
As implementation continues, our country will see safer
transportation, improved mobility, a cleaner environment, and
better access for all communities.
Much work remains to be done. America is experiencing an
epidemic of traffic fatalities, which is falling
disproportionately on pedestrians, cyclists, and communities of
color. I look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses
about their work to prevent these fatalities.
We must reckon with the rise of new technology such as
autonomous vehicles and what it means for our workforce. Our
workers are the backbone of our transportation network. As new
technologies become prevalent, we must ensure that we protect
jobs and give workers a seat at the table.
We must also work to mitigate the impact of our
transportation system on the environment. Transportation is the
largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United
States, and our transportation policies and programs must be
reformed accordingly. Expanding access to transit, walking, and
biking infrastructure is a key part of the solution.
I also support the Federal Highway Administration's new
requirement that States and metropolitan planning organizations
track their highway emissions and make plans to reduce them.
This requirement is derived from authority provided by Congress
in 2012 and is a critical step in the right direction.
I also appreciate Department of Transportation-wide efforts
to improve equity and address the decades of harm caused by our
transportation system to low-income communities and communities
of color. I urge the Department to ensure the Neighborhood
Access and Equity funding approved by this committee as part of
the Inflation Reduction Act is quickly put to use.
Thank you to our witnesses today. I appreciate your
diligent work to implement the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act and the diverse and thoughtful perspectives you bring
to the challenges ahead. I look forward to today's discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
Congress from the District of Columbia, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
I would like to thank Subcommittee Chair Rick Crawford for holding
this hearing on the implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was one of the most
important bills enacted last Congress. Within our Subcommittee's
jurisdiction, it provided $365 billion for highways, $108 billion for
transit, $43 billion for multi-modal grants and $13 billion for highway
and motor carrier safety.
The work of our Subcommittee helped set the bar high. Many of the
funding levels in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act are
similar to what we proposed in the INVEST Act.
Two years in, we are seeing the success of the law across the
country. This past summer, the national capital region's transit
agency, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, received a
$104 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration to purchase
zero-emission buses, convert an existing maintenance facility to serve
electric buses and train its workforce to operate and maintain electric
buses.
I thank Administrator Fernandez and the Biden Administration for
this investment in good jobs and cleaner air for our region. Success
stories like this are playing out across the nation. Every Member in
this room today--whether they voted for the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act or not--has at least one project funded in their
congressional district.
As implementation continues, our country will see safer
transportation, improved mobility, a cleaner environment and better
access for all communities.
Much work remains to be done. America is experiencing an epidemic
of traffic fatalities, which is falling disproportionately on
pedestrians, cyclists and communities of color. I look forward to
hearing from each of our witnesses about their work to prevent these
fatalities.
We also must reckon with the rise of new technology, such as
autonomous vehicles, and what it means for our workforce. Our workers
are the backbone of our transportation network. As new technologies
become more prevalent, we must ensure that we protect jobs and give
workers a seat at the table.
We also must work to mitigate the impact of our transportation
system on the environment. Transportation is the largest source of
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and our transportation
policies and programs must be reformed accordingly. Expanding access to
transit, walking and biking infrastructure is a key part of the
solution.
I also support the Federal Highway Administration's new requirement
that states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations track their highway
emissions and make plans to reduce them. This requirement is derived
from authority provided by Congress in 2012 and is a critical step in
the right direction.
I also appreciate Department of Transportation-wide efforts to
improve equity and redress the decades of harm caused by our
transportation system to low-income communities and communities of
color. I urge the department to ensure the Neighborhood Access and
Equity funding, approved by this committee as part of the Inflation
Reduction Act, is quickly put to use.
Thank you to our witnesses today. I appreciate your diligent work
to implement the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the
diverse and thoughtful perspectives you bring to the challenges ahead.
I look forward to today's discussion.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
And I would recognize Chairman Graves; he is not able to be
with us for this particular hearing. So, I now recognize the
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want
to thank the chair and ranking member for having this hearing
today.
And I want to welcome all the DOT witnesses, and thanks for
participating in the subcommittee hearing today about your work
to implement the BIL.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is, and this hearing
today, is another opportunity to highlight how these Federal
infrastructure dollars are benefiting communities and helping
us build a cleaner, greener, safer, and more accessible
transportation system.
Congress provided $530 billion in the BIL for roads,
bridges, transit, buses, ferries, and other infrastructure
needs under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. The investment
level and number of new initiatives in the BIL far exceed
previous transportation bills, and Congress handed DOT a tall
order in implementing this legislation.
Yet in the first 2 fiscal years of the BIL, the Department
distributed over $180 billion in highway funds and $40 billion
in transit funds to States and localities. Funding has gone out
under more than three dozen competitive grant programs, and
more is on the way.
Just this morning, the Department announced awards for the
Safe Streets for All program, totaling $810 million for 385
projects nationwide, including--and you will be surprised when
we are talking about this--three in my district--yes, indeed--
totaling about $1.4 million to help the city of Anacortes and
Skagit County develop roadway safety action plans, and the
Lummi Indian Business Council to test nine safety demonstration
projects.
Yesterday, the Department announced awards for 18 projects
under the Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program which
totaled $645 million. This funding will help rural communities
reconstruct road and freight infrastructure to make them safer
and more accessible.
I highlight these award announcements because they clearly
demonstrate how communities across the U.S. are seeing the
benefits of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, but also seeing
the benefits in this law by the creation of jobs. These dollars
translate into projects on the ground and jobs for American
workers.
Through September 2023, these dollars have supported over
60,000 highway projects alone, according to an analysis by the
American Road and Transportation Builders Association. There is
at least one new project underway in every congressional
district in the country, according to ARTBA.
Thanks to the BIL, the Department has awarded $25 million
in RAISE grants to Whatcom County in my district to replace the
60-year-old Lummi Island Ferry. Projects like this one and
other projects across the country mean jobs--jobs with good
wages, benefits, and working conditions for transportation
workers and manufacturers. The BIL means more jobs in the
transportation construction, transit, trucking, aviation, rail,
and maritime sectors.
Without these investments, the economy would be in far
worse shape. We are only 2 years through a 5-year bill, and the
Department has invested in projects across the country, and
there is more to come.
But now, Congress has the job of conducting oversight of
implementation efforts by DOT, State DOTs, project sponsors,
and industry to ensure these projects are delivered quickly and
effectively, and the law is implemented in line with
congressional intent.
Congress directed investments in the BIL to address many
things, including addressing climate change and reducing carbon
pollution. We directed investments to improve safety and equity
outcomes on our transportation networks. And we wanted to put
more decisionmaking power in the hands of local communities
whose leaders know their infrastructure best. These and other
changes are now in the hands of DOT to execute.
I applaud the Department's efforts to date on this front
and the steps taken to address the unacceptably high rate of
deaths, to prioritize equity considerations in grants, to
ensure disadvantaged business enterprises reap the benefits of
BIL funding, and to measure and reduce carbon pollution from
transportation sources as provided in transportation law dating
back a decade.
I welcome this opportunity to once again acknowledge and
celebrate the infrastructure benefits each of our districts and
constituents are reaping. This committee continues delivering
bipartisan solutions for all Americans.
I want to thank the witnesses for their service and for
guiding their agencies and the priorities Congress has asked
you to implement. I look forward to today's discussion.
With that, I yield back.
[Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Norton, for holding
this hearing.
Welcome to our Department of Transportation (USDOT) witnesses and
thank you for participating today so the Subcommittee can learn more
about your work to implement the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL).
Today's hearing is another opportunity to highlight how federal
infrastructure dollars are benefiting communities and building a
cleaner, greener, safer and more accessible transportation system.
Congress provided $530 billion in the BIL for roads, bridges,
transit, buses, ferries, and other infrastructure needs under the
Highways and Transit Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The investment level and number of new initiatives in the BIL far
exceeds previous transportation bills. Congress handed USDOT a tall
order in implementing this legislation.
In the first two fiscal years of the BIL, the Department
distributed over $180 billion in highway funds and $40 billion in
transit funds to states and localities. Funding has gone out under more
than three dozen competitive grant programs, and more is on the way.
Just this morning, the Department announced awards for the Safe
Streets For All program totaling $817 million for 385 projects
nationwide.
This includes three grants in my district totaling $1.4 million to
help the City of Anacortes and Skagit County develop roadway safety
action plans and the Lummi Indian Business Council to test nine safety
demonstration projects.
Yesterday, the Department announced awards for 18 projects under
the Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program which totaled $645
million. This funding will help rural communities reconstruct road and
freight infrastructure to make them safer and more accessible.
I highlight these award announcements because they clearly
demonstrate how communities across the U.S. are seeing the benefits of
the BIL.
They are also seeing benefits through the creation of jobs. These
dollars translate into projects on the ground and jobs for American
workers.
Through September 2023, BIL dollars have supported over 60,000
highway projects alone, according to analysis by the American Road &
Transportation Builders Association.
There is at least one new project underway in every Congressional
district in the country.
Thanks to BIL, USDOT has awarded $25 million in RAISE grants to
Whatcom County to replace the 60-year-old Lummi Island Ferry.
Projects like this one and other projects across the country mean
jobs--jobs with good wages, benefits, and working conditions for
transportation workers and manufacturers. The BIL means more jobs in
the transportation construction, transit, trucking, aviation, rail and
maritime sectors.
Without these investments, the economy would be in far worse shape.
We are only two years through a five-year bill. The Department has
invested in projects across the country, and there is more to come.
Now, Congress has the job of conducting oversight of implementation
efforts by USDOT, state DOTs, project sponsors, and industry to ensure
these projects are delivered quickly and effectively and that the law
is implemented in line with Congressional intent.
Congress directed investments in the BIL to address many things
including climate change and reduce carbon pollution. We directed
investments to improve safety and equity outcomes on our transportation
networks. And we wanted to put more decision-making power into the
hands of local communities, whose leaders know their infrastructure
needs best.
These and other policy changes are now in the hands of USDOT to
execute.
I applaud the Department's efforts to date on this front and the
steps taken to address the unacceptably high rate of deaths, to
prioritize equity considerations in grants, to ensure Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises reap the benefits of BIL funding, and to measure
and reduce carbon pollution from transportation sources as provided for
in transportation law dating back a decade.
I welcome this opportunity to once again acknowledge and celebrate
the infrastructure benefits each of our districts and constituents are
reaping.
This Committee continues delivering bipartisan solutions for all
Americans.
I thank all of our witnesses for their service and for guiding your
agencies and the priorities Congress has asked you to implement. I look
forward to today's discussion.
Mr. Crawford. I thank the ranking member.
Before I proceed, I want to welcome our newest member of
the subcommittee, Representative Maloy from Utah. Thank you for
being with us, and welcome to the subcommittee.
I now want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for
being here today: the Honorable Carlos Monje, Under Secretary
of Transportation for Policy, Office of the Secretary of
Transportation; the Honorable Shailen Bhatt, Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration; the Honorable Nuria Fernandez,
Administrator, Federal Transportation Administration; the
Honorable Robin Hutcheson, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration; and Ms. Ann Carlson, Acting
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Briefly--I probably don't have to go into great detail, you
know how these lights work--green means go, yellow means step
on the gas because it is fixing to turn red, and that means you
are going to run out of time.
Due to the nature of the committee hearings where we have
five witnesses, we ask you to strictly adhere to the 5 minutes.
If you hear this little sound [tapping gavel], that means you
are exceeding your 5-minute allotted time, and we will ask you
to wrap quickly so that we can get on to the next witness and
then to Member questions.
I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements
be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing. Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
As your written testimony has been made part of the record,
the subcommittee asks again that you limit your oral remarks to
5 minutes.
With that, Mr. Under Secretary Monje, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CARLOS MONJE, Jr., UNDER SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. SHAILEN
BHATT, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. NURIA I. FERNANDEZ,
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. ROBIN HUTCHESON, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; AND ANN CARLSON, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
TESTIMONY OF HON. CARLOS MONJE, Jr., UNDER SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Monje. Thank you.
Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, Chair Crawford, and
Ranking Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today and for your support
as we continue to build a stronger, safer transportation
system.
Last month, the administration celebrated our second year
of implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
through which we have already implemented 37 new programs and
announced funding for more than 40,000 projects and counting,
in every corner of the country.
The Department has continued its strong history of
accountability, responsibility, and financial stewardship. The
career team behind DOT's implementation efforts won a 2023
Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medal. That's the Sammies,
it's the Oscars for public servants. And the work doesn't stop.
Just this week, as Mr. Larsen mentioned, we announced $650
million to 18 projects in rural areas to reconstruct or replace
critical roads and bridges, upgrade freight hubs, and expand
transit service.
I would like to share a few notable examples of how we are
delivering on these priorities.
Safety is the Department's top priority, and in 2022,
Secretary Buttigieg announced an ambitious goal of zero roadway
deaths through the Department's National Roadway Safety
Strategy. The infrastructure law gave us unprecedented
resources to invest in road safety across the country. Awards
under the Safe Streets and Roads for All program are already
benefiting 70 percent of our Nation's population. Earlier
today, Secretary Buttigieg announced another $817 million for
385 projects to continue helping communities deploy safety
improvements like enhanced crosswalks, roundabouts, and
improved lighting. We are also making our roads and rails safer
by improving risky at-grade rail crossings, advancing
lifesaving technologies like automated emergency braking, and
expanding the availability of truck parking.
We are doing all of this, first and foremost, so that our
loved ones make it to holiday dinners and to make sure that the
simple act of walking to the grocery store or biking to work
are as safe as they can be. But preventing crashes also
benefits our economy, complementing the administration-wide
efforts to provide American workers and businesses access to
resources, access to markets, and good-paying union jobs. We
are strengthening America's trucking workforce and creating
pathways to attain more drivers through apprenticeship
programs.
Meanwhile, we are investing heavily in our multimodal
freight network, improving our ports, and investing $40 billion
to replace and upgrade critical bridges across the country,
including the Arland D. Williams, Jr. Memorial Bridge right
here in Washington, and the Brent Spence Bridge between
Kentucky and Ohio, the second worst bottleneck for trucks in
the country.
Infrastructure investments like these are critical to
making our supply chains more efficient, which ultimately cuts
costs for consumers and drives down inflation. It is going to
help your holiday presents arrive on time, keep store shelves
stocked, and provide access to jobs, schools, and other vital
destinations.
As we work to improve the safety of our transportation
system and strengthen it as a core driver of our Nation's
economy, we are mindful that the investments must reach
everyone, especially in communities that historically have been
left out of meaningful investment. That means rural and Tribal
communities and communities of color. New programs created by
the infrastructure law will reconnect communities that were
previously divided by transportation structures, from capping
interstates to reconfiguring interchanges to extending transit
service, all so people can get to their destinations safely and
easily.
We also know that smaller government agencies face a steep
learning curve as they try to navigate the Federal funding
landscape. That is why we are providing technical tools and
organizational capacity--leveraging the experience of
nonprofits, academia, and the private sector--to help
disadvantaged and underresourced communities compete for
Federal aid and deliver those projects once they get it, all in
an effort to accelerate the benefits of those investments.
Through this work, we are building a more efficient and
resilient transportation system while cutting carbon pollution
and creating jobs. For example, we are investing in modernizing
our Nation's bus fleet, more than doubling the number of zero-
and low-emission buses on our roadways, while creating good-
paying jobs in manufacturing operations and maintenance. We are
also working with State and local governments to create a
convenient, reliable, affordable, and equitable national EV
charging network, which is already spurring private sector
investment.
These generational investments will benefit our entire
Nation, from its densest cities to its most remote communities.
Whether you walk, roll, ride, or drive, we are committed to
making your transportation experience safer, cleaner, more
affordable, more reliable, and more efficient. And we are
committed to working alongside Congress to deliver on these
promises for the American people.
Thank you again. I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Monje's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carlos Monje, Jr., Under Secretary of
Transportation for Policy, Office of the Secretary of Transportation,
U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, Chair Crawford, Ranking
Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee--thank you for the
opportunity to testify today and for your support as we continue to
work to build a stronger, safer transportation system.
We just experienced one of the busiest Thanksgiving travel periods
on our roads and in our skies in recent years. That includes the
busiest air travel day ever; TSA screened 2.9 million passengers the
Sunday after Thanksgiving, and for the holiday week, the airline
cancellation rate remained under half a percentage point, well below
the average and a testament to the hard work of countless people across
the aviation system including our colleagues at the FAA. The holiday
season tests our transportation system and serves as a reminder of how
central transportation is to our prized traditions and everyday lives
alike.
Last month, the Administration celebrated our second year of
implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) through
which we've already implemented 37 new programs and announced funding
for more than 40,000 projects and counting, in every state and
territory. The Department has continued its strong history of
accountability, responsibility, and financial stewardship. The career
team behind DOT's efforts was one of the recipients of the 2023 Samuel
J. Heyman Service to America Medals--the Oscars for public servants
also known as the Sammies--for their leadership shaping and carrying
out these historic investments in IIJA. And the work does not stop.
Just this week, we announced an award of nearly $650 million to 18
projects in rural areas to reconstruct or replace critical roads and
bridges, upgrade freight hubs, and expand transit service. Projects
like these are generational investments in transportation safety,
economic competitiveness and jobs, equity, and climate and resilience.
I'd like to share a few notable examples of how we're delivering on
these priorities for the American people.
Safety is the Department's top priority and in 2022, Secretary
Buttigieg announced the ambitious goal of achieving zero roadway deaths
through the Department's National Roadway Safety Strategy. The
infrastructure law gave us new resources to invest in road safety
improvements across the country in pursuit of this goal. Awards under
the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program are already
benefiting 70 percent of our Nation's population. Earlier today,
Secretary Buttigieg announced another $817 million for 385 projects to
continue helping communities deploy proven safety improvements like
enhanced crosswalks, roundabouts, and improved lighting. We're also
making our roads and rails safer by improving risky at-grade rail
crossings, advancing life-saving technologies like automatic emergency
braking, and expanding the availability of truck parking.
We're doing all of this first and foremost so our loved ones make
it to holiday dinners, and to make sure that the simple acts of walking
to the grocery store or biking to work are as safe as they can be. But
preventing and mitigating crashes benefits our economy as well,
complementing Administration-wide efforts to provide American workers
and businesses access to resources, markets, and good-paying union
jobs. We are strengthening America's trucking workforce and creating
pathways to recruit and train more drivers through apprenticeship
programs. Meanwhile, we're investing heavily in our multi-modal freight
network, improving our ports and investing $40 billion to replace and
upgrade critical bridges across the country, including the Arland D.
Williams Jr. Memorial Bridge right here in DC and the Brent Spence
Bridge between Kentucky and Ohio--currently the second worst truck
bottleneck in the Nation.
Infrastructure investments like these are critical to making our
supply chains more efficient, which ultimately cuts costs for consumers
and drives down inflation--and will help your holiday presents arrive
on time, keep store shelves stocked, and provide access to jobs,
schools, medical appointments, and other vital destinations.
As we work to improve the safety of our transportation system and
strengthen it as a core driver of our Nation's economy, we are mindful
that the investments must reach everyone, especially in communities
that historically have been left out of meaningful investment--often in
rural, Tribal and communities of color. New programs created by the
infrastructure law will reconnect communities that were previously
divided by transportation structures, from capping interstates that
currently divide neighborhoods to reconfiguring interchanges and
thoroughfares, all so people can get to their school, jobs, doctors'
appointments, and family--safely and easily.
We're also cognizant that some of the most critical projects are
not being funded simply because smaller agencies face a steep learning
curve as they navigate the Federal funding landscape. That's why we're
providing technical tools and organizational capacity--leveraging the
expertise of non-profits, academia, and the private sector--to help
disadvantaged and under-resourced communities compete for federal aid
and deliver quality infrastructure projects. And we're not only helping
communities compete for funding, but also partnering with federal,
Tribal, state, and local project sponsors to speed up project delivery
and thereby maximize and accelerate the benefits of these investments.
Through all this work, we're building a more efficient and
resilient transportation system while cutting carbon pollution and
creating jobs. For example, we're investing in modernizing the Nation's
bus fleet, more than doubling the number of zero- and low-emissions
buses on America's roadways, while creating good-paying American jobs
in manufacturing and maintenance. We're also working with state and
local governments to create a convenient, reliable, affordable, and
equitable national EV charging network, which is already spurring
private sector investment.
These generational investments will benefit our entire Nation, from
its densest cities to its most remote communities. Whether you walk,
roll, ride, or drive, or don't travel at all and rely on deliveries as
a lifeline, we're committed to making your transportation experience
safer, more affordable, and more efficient. And we're committed to
working alongside Congress to deliver on these promises for the
American people.
Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
Mr. Bhatt, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. SHAILEN BHATT, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member
Larsen, and Ranking Member Norton, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law represents a once-in-a-
generation investment in our Nation's infrastructure,
competitiveness, communities, and resilience to climate change.
And the Inflation Reduction Act provides historic investments
and new opportunities to build a clean energy economy that
creates good jobs and lowers costs for all working families.
The dedication of the Federal Highway Administration's staff in
delivering on the promise of these historic investments for the
American public is inspiring. I have always said that a
transportation agency exists for two reasons: to save lives and
to make people's lives better.
FHWA's mission begins and ends with safety. Last month, I
joined State and local officials at the site of a fire that
took place under a section of I-10 near downtown Los Angeles,
resulting in a closure in both directions. Within days, FHWA
announced the immediate availability of $3 million in ``quick
release'' emergency relief funds for use by Caltrans to offset
costs of emergency repair work. FHWA offered support to State
and local officials and provided technical assistance to help
respond to the closure of this vital corridor. Eight days after
the fire, I was pleased to join local, State, and Federal
officials as Governor Gavin Newsom announced the reopening of
the I-10 freeway.
In June, FHWA provided a similar level of emergency support
to help reopen I-95 in Philadelphia in record time after the
tragic tanker truck explosion which resulted in loss of life
and a partial collapse of a bridge.
In addition to safety, FHWA's work is guided by an
initiative we refer to as ``DRIVEN for the 21st Century.''
There are six aspects of this initiative: delivery, resilience,
innovation, values, equity, and our Nation. It is this first
aspect of DRIVEN, delivery, that I would like to focus on
today.
While everyone celebrates receiving a grant award, we at
FHWA are committed to turning those awards into successful
projects. Thanks to BIL and IRA, we have the funding necessary
to make major improvements in our transportation system. FHWA
has taken numerous actions supporting implementation of
projects that improve safety and people's lives, including
distributing more than $180 billion in highway formula funding
to States and issuing Notices of Funding Opportunity for
approximately $14.7 billion in available funds. We are
currently administering nearly 1,500 grants totaling
approximately $10 billion across 15 discretionary programs,
with more to come.
I recognize that inflationary pressure can present
challenges for project sponsors, but this is not a unique
challenge for U.S. transportation projects. I previously served
in the private sector in a global transportation role, and
inflation is a challenge we are dealing with on transportation
projects globally. At FHWA, we are aware of these challenges
and recognize that time is money, which is why we are committed
to helping deliver projects on time and on budget.
The success of the BIL and IRA programs depend, in part, on
streamlined delivery of funding to recipients. FHWA stood up a
new permanent team to oversee grant management matters. We also
implemented process reforms, and we continue to refine our
management of these programs to increase efficiency and
transparency, thereby benefiting the Nation via the delivery of
new projects.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is funding projects
throughout the country that will deliver results for the U.S.
transportation system and Americans as a whole. For example,
the Bridge Investment Program Large Bridge Grant awards that
FHWA announced in January 2023 included $1.385 billion to
rehabilitate and reconfigure the existing Brent Spence Bridge
to improve interstate and local traffic flow between the
interconnected Kentucky and Ohio communities on either side of
the Ohio River. FHWA is focused on strong engagement with
States and locals as they deliver the many projects funded by
the BIL, ranging from small, routine projects to large, complex
projects, like the Brent Spence Bridge. For example, key
members of FHWA's leadership team and myself are in regular
communication with Ohio and Kentucky leadership to ensure that
this critical project stays on track.
As Administrator, I have had the privilege to travel around
the country to see and hear the immediate need for safer,
accessible, and resilient transportation. The transformational
funding provided by Congress has enabled FHWA, in partnership
with States and localities, to create a system that delivers
for our economy and all of our people, while getting
individuals and goods safely to their destinations.
There are no Democratic roads or Republican bridges.
Transportation binds us all together, which is why we must work
with each other to support the common good. FHWA remains
committed to this task.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[Mr. Bhatt's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Shailen Bhatt, Administrator, Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) represents a once-in-a-
generation investment in our Nation's infrastructure, competitiveness,
communities, and resilience to climate change, and the Inflation
Reduction Act (IRA) provides historic investments and new opportunities
to build a clean energy economy that creates good jobs and lowers costs
for all working families. The dedication of the Federal Highway
Administration's staff in delivering on the promise of these historic
investments for the American public is inspiring. I have always said
that a transportation agency exists for two reasons: to save lives and
to make people's lives better.
FHWA's mission begins and ends with safety. Last month, I joined
State and local officials at the site of a fire that took place under a
section of Interstate 10 near downtown Los Angeles, resulting in a
closure in both directions. Within days, FHWA announced the immediate
availability of $3 million in ``quick release'' Emergency Relief funds
for use by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to
offset costs of emergency repair work. FHWA offered support to State
and local officials and provided technical assistance to help respond
to the closure of this vital corridor. Eight days after the fire, I was
pleased to join local, State, and Federal officials, including Vice
President Harris, as Governor Gavin Newsom announced the reopening of
the I-10 Freeway. In June, FHWA provided a similar level of emergency
support to help reopen I-95 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in record
time after the tragic tanker truck explosion which resulted in loss of
a life and partial collapse of a bridge.
In addition to safety, FHWA's work is guided by an initiative we
refer to as ``DRIVEN for the 21st Century.'' There are six aspects to
this initiative: Delivery, Resilience, Innovation, Values, Equity, and
our Nation. It is this first aspect of DRIVEN, Delivery, that I would
like to focus on today. While everyone celebrates receiving a grant
award, we at FHWA are committed to turning those awards into successful
projects.
Thanks to BIL and IRA, we have the funding necessary to make major
improvements in our transportation system. FHWA has taken numerous
actions supporting implementation of projects that improve safety and
people's lives, including distributing more than $180 billion in
highway formula funding to States, and issuing Notices of Funding
Opportunity (NOFOs) for approximately $14.7 billion in available funds.
We are currently administering nearly 1500 grants totaling
approximately $10 billion across fifteen discretionary programs, with
more on the horizon.
I recognize that inflationary pressures can present challenges for
project sponsors, but this is not a unique challenge for U.S.
transportation projects. I previously served in a global transportation
role, and inflation is a challenge we are dealing with globally. At
FHWA, we are aware of these challenges and recognize that time is
money, which is why we are committed to helping deliver projects on
time and on budget.
The success of the BIL and IRA programs depend, in part, on
streamlined delivery of funding to recipients. FHWA stood up a new,
permanent team to oversee grants-management matters. We also
implemented process reforms across our suite of Federal grant programs.
We continue to refine our management of these programs to increase
efficiency and transparency, thereby benefiting the Nation via the
delivery of new projects.
The BIL is funding projects throughout the country that will
deliver results for the U.S. transportation system and Americans as a
whole. For example, the Bridge Investment Program Large Bridge Grant
Awards FHWA announced in January 2023, included $1.385 billion to
rehabilitate and reconfigure the existing Brent Spence Bridge to
improve interstate and local traffic flow between the interconnected
Kentucky and Ohio communities on either side of the Ohio River. FHWA is
focused on strong engagement with States and locals as they deliver the
many projects funded by the BIL, ranging from small, routine projects
to large, complex projects, like the Brent Spence Bridge. For example,
key members of FHWA's leadership team and I are in regular
communication with Ohio and Kentucky leadership to ensure that this
critical project stays on track.
As Administrator, I have had the privilege to travel around the
country to see and hear the immediate need for safer, accessible, and
resilient transportation. The transformational funding provided by this
Congress has enabled FHWA, in partnership with States and localities,
to create a system that delivers for our economy and all of our people,
while getting individuals and goods safely to their destinations. There
are no Democratic roads or Republican bridges--transportation binds us
all together, which is why we must work with each other to support the
common good. FHWA remains committed to this task. Thank you again for
the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to answer
any questions.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Bhatt.
Administrator Fernandez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Can you hit your microphone, ma'am?
Ms. Fernandez. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Crawford. There we go.
TESTIMONY OF HON. NURIA I. FERNANDEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Fernandez. Good morning, Chairman Crawford, Ranking
Member Holmes Norton, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the
committee. Thank you for this opportunity to talk about
President Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The Federal Transit Administration has been hard at work
delivering the first 2 years of the largest investment in
public transportation in American history, making available
nearly $40 billion to transit operators in communities
nationwide. That is on top of our continued administration of
critical emergency relief funds. All told, we have invested
more than $63 billion in almost 9,000 projects since November
of 2021. And our work is far from done.
In Arkansas, thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
Jonesboro received nearly $2 million to transition to hybrid
diesel-electric buses.
For the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, a
$600,000 Tribal Transit Grant means more reliable trips on a
new bus and van, expanding transit across a 4,200-square-mile
reservation.
Trains, buses, ferries, and equipment to maintain and
modernize them, are being made in America at over 1,000
companies nationwide.
FTA's Capital Investment Grants program also continues
building community-improving projects: from $240 million in
Minneapolis-St. Paul to expand a successful transit network
into historically underserved communities, to $150 million in
Pittsburgh, building high-capacity bus transit along one of the
busiest corridors in the Steel City. Both will reduce traffic
and emissions, and help thousands get to jobs and school and
healthcare.
FTA is carefully following transit ridership trends
nationwide. In the past 2 years, ridership increased to 77
percent of pre-COVID levels. As agencies better understand
community needs and adjust service to meet those needs, some
agencies are actually seeing ridership above pre-pandemic
levels.
Agencies large and small have redesigned bus routes,
creating better service outside of traditional hours and
providing equity of opportunity. To help that process, FTA
funded 50 projects in 24 States to plan and adapt to these new
patterns.
Communities, including some of our largest cities, do face
fiscal challenges in transit operations. However, providing
transportation for the people of our Nation is not a
responsibility that we can simply decline. So, President Biden
proposed expanded flexibility in how Federal transit funds can
keep America moving.
In the minds of some, transit only is important in those
big cities. Yes, urban areas are using increased transit
investment to enhance regional economies. However, transit
provides more than economic value to urban, rural, and suburban
communities across the country. It also shows a moral
commitment to leaving no American behind.
For every subway commuter, a veteran rides a paratransit
van to a medical appointment at the VA hospital. For every
college student heading to class, a smalltown worker rides to
job training--both take the bus toward a successful future. For
every millennial riding transit to his first job in the big
city, a rural baby boomer has the freedom transit provides to
grow old in her hometown.
In Mississippi, FTA funded transit covering 26 rural
communities. A woman in Jackson told me about her husband who
was in the hospital. She had a doctor's appointment, and he
normally drove her. And for the first time she used on-demand
transit. Her house is on a dirt road that doesn't even have a
name. The transit driver picked her up, took her to the doctor,
and returned her home. She said she never thought she would be
one of those people who needed the services we support. Like
millions of riders, she discovered transit when she needed it
most.
Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, many people
are experiencing more freedom thanks to more service. But we
still have work to be done. Decades of underinvestment created
a $105 billion backlog in state of good repair.
Manufacturing transit vehicles needs to become more
efficient and less expensive. And transitioning to a zero-
emission future requires reskilling and increasing the transit
workforce. FTA is working to meet all of these challenges.
We are also working to end assault against transit workers,
because it's unacceptable that any public servant should worry
about whether they will return home safely.
For every dollar invested in transit, $5 of value is
created. But the impact of transit is not only felt at the
bottom lines; it is measured at the bottom step, when riders
exit through open doors into a wider world of opportunity.
Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, that world is
closer than ever, as we build more American vehicles, train
more workers, and connect more Americans with their communities
and opportunities they offer.
I look forward to your questions today, and thank you.
[Ms. Fernandez's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Nuria I. Fernandez, Administrator, Federal
Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Good morning, Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Holmes Norton.
Thank you for this opportunity to talk about President Biden's
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The Federal Transit Administration has been hard at work delivering
the first two years of the largest investment in public transportation
in American history, making available nearly $40 billion to transit
operators in communities nationwide.
That is on top of our continued administration of critical
emergency relief funds; all told, we have invested more than $63
billion in almost 9,000 projects since November of 2021. And our work
is far from done.
In Arkansas, thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Jonesboro
received nearly $2,000,000 to transition to hybrid diesel-electric
buses.
For the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, a $600,000
Tribal Transit grant means more reliable trips on a new bus and van,
expanding transit across a 4,200-square-mile reservation.
Trains, buses, ferries--and equipment to maintain and modernize
them--are being Made in America at over a thousand companies
nationwide.
FTA's Capital Investment Grants program also continues building
community-improving projects: from $240 million in Minneapolis-St. Paul
to expand a successful transit network into historically-underserved
communities, to $150 million in Pittsburgh, building high-capacity bus
transit along one of the busiest corridors in the Steel City. Both will
reduce traffic and emissions--and help thousands get to jobs, school
and healthcare.
FTA is carefully following transit ridership trends nationwide. In
the past two years, ridership has increased to about 77% of pre-COVID
levels. As agencies better understand community needs, and adjust
service to meet those needs, some agencies are actually seeing
ridership above pre-pandemic levels.
Agencies large and small have redesigned bus routes, creating
better service outside of traditional hours, providing equity of
opportunity. To help that process, FTA funded 50 projects in 24 states
to plan and adapt to these new patterns.
Communities, including some of our largest cities, do face fiscal
challenges in transit operations. However, providing transportation for
the people of our nation is not a responsibility we can simply decline.
So, President Biden proposed expanded flexibility in how Federal
transit funds can keep America moving.
In the minds of some, transit is important only in those big
cities. Yes, urban areas are using increased transit investment to
enhance regional economies. However, transit provides more than
economic value to communities in urban, rural, and suburban communities
across the country: it also shows a moral commitment to leaving no
American behind.
For every subway commuter, a veteran rides a paratransit van to a
medical appointment at the VA hospital. For every college student
heading to class, a small-town worker rides to job training--both take
the bus toward a successful future. For every Millennial riding transit
to his first job in the big city, a rural Baby Boomer has the freedom
transit provides to grow old in her hometown.
In Mississippi, FTA funded transit covering 26 rural counties. A
woman in Jackson told me about her husband, who was in the hospital.
She had a doctor's appointment, and he normally drove her. So, for the
first time, she used on-demand transit. Her house is on a dirt road
that doesn't even have a name. The transit driver picked her up, took
her to her doctor, and returned her home. She said she never thought
she would be one of ``those people'' who needed the services we
support.
Like millions of riders, she discovered transit when she needed it
the most.
Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, many people are
experiencing more freedom thanks to more service. We still have work to
do. Decades of underinvestment created a $105 billion backlog in state
of good repair that we are addressing.
Manufacturing transit vehicles must become more efficient and less
expensive. Transitioning to a zero-emission future requires reskilling
and increasing the transit workforce, centering equity to ensure that
underrepresented populations are recruited, trained, and retained. FTA
is working to meet those challenges, including through 34 projects
using registered apprenticeships to train the workforce of the future
in this year's Low-No program alone.
We are also working to end assault against transit workers with
every tool at our disposal. It is unacceptable to Secretary Buttigieg,
and me, that any public servant should worry about whether they will
return home safely from work. Among other measures, we will soon issue
a General Directive on Required Actions Regarding Assaults on Transit
Workers to make sure agencies are acting to address this issue as soon
as possible.
We know that for every dollar invested in American transit, five
dollars of value is created. But, the impact of transit is shown not
only on bottom lines. It is measured at the bottom step, when riders
exit through open doors, into a wider world of opportunity.
Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, that world is closer
than ever, as we build more American vehicles, train more American
workers, and connect more Americans with their communities and the
opportunities they offer.
I look forward to your questions today.
Thank you.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
Administrator Hutcheson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBIN HUTCHESON, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR
CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Hutcheson. Thank you, Chairman Crawford, Chairman
Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, and Ranking Member Holmes
Norton, for your leadership on this subcommittee. And to all
committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today and for your ongoing partnership.
When I was confirmed as Administrator of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, there was an unprecedented
spotlight, not only on the trucking and motorcoach industry,
but on the men and women driving that industry--the
truckdrivers. Coming off the heels of the pandemic, Americans
are now acutely aware of the impact of a truckdriver's work--
from the long-haul drivers delivering 75 percent of our goods
annually, to the schoolbus drivers taking our children to
school, and to the city drivers picking up our recycling.
There's no doubt that drivers are essential to our daily lives.
Today, I am happy to report that we have kept that
spotlight shining on the industry as we carry out our mission
to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large
trucks and buses. Roadway safety affects not only those whose
lives were lost, but the family members and loved ones who
suffer the grief of loss. We have more work to do, and we can
and we must do better.
The industry is supported by the historic passage of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. I want to thank you all for the
opportunity to work with you on this unprecedented investment,
which has allowed not only FMCSA, but our partners, to carry
out safety priorities to achieve our ambitious goal of zero
fatalities on our Nation's roadways and to support the goals of
the Department of Transportation: safety, economic strength,
equity, climate, and transformation.
We continue to work with our State and local government
boots-on-the-ground partners across the country on the critical
goal of improving safety, leveraging the increased resources in
our formula and discretionary grants by prioritizing
inspections for high-risk carriers, dedicating resources to
high-crash corridors and work zones, and closing loopholes to
prevent unsafe drivers and carriers from ever being on the
road.
Truckdrivers are essential safety partners. Data
demonstrates that the safest drivers are those that have been
in the industry the longest. We need to understand: Why are
drivers leaving the industry? I have ridden along with long-
haul drivers in the Midwest and municipal drivers in rural
Alaska, hosted listening sessions with stakeholders, and asked
these questions. We know that drivers need to feel safe, have
access to training, and to be well compensated to both enter
and stay within the industry. We have taken that feedback and
leveraged the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law resources to assist
the truck driving profession and our Nation's supply chain by
creating a better, safer pipeline of drivers and improving
recruitment and retention in the profession. And our assistance
underscores the Department's goals, as it sits at the
intersection of safety, economic strength, and equity.
We established the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Women of
Trucking Advisory Board to understand and address obstacles,
including violence, harassment, and discrimination, for women
entering and remaining in the industry. We have created action
items to reduce those barriers, because the plain fact is, we
can't leave any talent on the table. We have implemented
requirements to ensure that drivers entering the industry have
a minimum level of training. We use Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law funding to train veterans and their families, members of
underserved communities, and others in safely operating a
commercial motor vehicle so they may enter the industry. We
awarded Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grant funding to expedite
commercial driver's license issuances. And, since 2021, States
have issued over 1.3 million commercial driver's licenses. We
have also launched initiatives to study compensation, predatory
leasing arrangements, and detention time, and work with our
departmental colleagues to address truck parking.
FMCSA has increased efforts to combat commercial operations
fraud, bolstering the goals of safety and economic strength. We
implemented a strategic action plan to address fraudulent
household goods activities, including the launch of the Protect
Your Move campaign. The campaign spanned 16 States and resulted
in 700 closed complaints and a 36-percent reduction in consumer
reports.
Finally, we have dedicated grant funding and resources to
prevent human trafficking, underscoring our safety and equity
goals, and we completed 50 outreach events this year.
With our continued partners' work, our driver focus on
prevention, and your historic investment in safety, we can meet
our shared goal of reducing crashes on our Nation's roadways.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to share FMCSA's work
and our successes in implementing the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law.
[Ms. Hutcheson's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robin Hutcheson, Administrator, Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
Thank you, Chairman Crawford, Chairman Graves, Ranking Member
Larsen, and Ranking Member Holmes Norton for your leadership on this
subcommittee. To all committee members, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today and for your ongoing partnership.
When I was confirmed as Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, there was an unprecedented spotlight on not only
the trucking and motorcoach industry, but the men and women driving
that industry--the truck drivers. Coming off the heels of the pandemic,
Americans are now acutely aware of the impact of a truck driver's
work--from the long-haul drivers delivering 75% of our goods annually,
to the school bus drivers taking our children to school, and to the
city drivers picking up our recycling. There's no doubt that drivers
are essential to our daily lives.
Today, I am happy to report that we have kept that spotlight
shining on the industry as we carry out our mission--to reduce crashes,
injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. Roadway
safety affects not only those whose lives were lost, but the family
members and loved ones who suffer the grief of loss. We have more work
to do, and we can and must do better. The work of FMCSA and the
industry is supported by the historic passage of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. I want to thank you all for the opportunity to work
with you on this unprecedented investment, which has allowed not only
FMCSA, but our partners, to carry out safety priorities to achieve our
ambitious goal of zero fatalities on our Nation's roadways and to
support the goals of the Department of Transportation--Safety, Economic
Strength, Equity, Climate, and Transformation.
We continue to work with our State and Local Government boots on
the ground partners across the country on the critical goal of
improving safety, leveraging the increased resources in our formula and
discretionary grants by prioritizing inspections for high-risk
carriers, dedicating resources to high crash corridors and work zones,
and closing loopholes to prevent unsafe drivers and carriers from ever
being on the road.
Truck drivers are essential safety partners. Data demonstrates that
the safest drivers are those that have been in the industry the
longest. We need to understand, ``why are drivers leaving the
industry?'' I've rode along with long-haul drivers in the Midwest and
municipal drivers in rural Alaska, hosted listening sessions with
stakeholders, and asked these questions. We know that drivers need to
feel safe, have access to training, and to be well compensated to both
enter and stay within the industry. We have taken that feedback and
leveraged the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law resources to assist the
truck driving profession and our Nation's supply chain by creating a
better, safer pipeline of drivers and improving recruitment and
retention in the profession. And, our assistance underscores the
Department's goals, as it sits at the intersection of safety, economic
strength, and equity.
We established the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Women of Trucking
Advisory Board to understand and address obstacles, including violence,
harassment, and discrimination, for women entering--and remaining in--
the industry. We have created action items to reduce those barriers,
because, the plain fact is, we can't leave any talent on the table. We
have implemented requirements to ensure that drivers entering the
industry have had a minimum level of training. We used Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law funding to train veterans and their families,
members of underserved communities, and others in safely operating a
commercial motor vehicle, so that they may enter the industry. We
awarded Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grant funding to expedite
commercial driver licenses issuances. And, since 2021, we have
increased the amount of Commercial Driver's Licenses by 1,335,850.
We've also launched initiatives to study compensation, predatory
leasing arrangements, and detention time, and work with our
Departmental colleagues to address truck parking.
FMCSA has increased efforts to combat commercial operations fraud,
bolstering the goals of safety and economic strength. We implemented a
Strategic Action Plan to address fraudulent household goods activities,
including the launch of the Protect Your Move campaign. The Campaign
spanned 16 States and resulted in 700 closed complaints and a 36%
reduction in customer reports.
Finally, we have dedicated grant funding and resources to prevent
human trafficking, underscoring our safety and equity goals, and we
completed 50 outreach events this year.
With our continued Partners' work, our driver focus on prevention,
and your historic investment in safety, we can meet our shared goal of
reducing crashes on our Nation's roadways.
Thank you for the opportunity to share FMCSA's work--and success--
in implementing the historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
Administrator Carlson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF ANN CARLSON, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Carlson. Good morning, Chairman Crawford, Ranking
Member Larsen, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on
NHTSA's efforts, under the leadership of Secretary Pete
Buttigieg, to fulfill the agency's important safety mission.
Every person has been touched by crashes on our Nation's
roads. Many of us, me included, have lost loved ones, friends,
or family to a crash. And virtually everyone knows someone who
has been injured. That is why NHTSA's work touches every person
in the United States every day. NHTSA is committed to making
the Nation's roads safer for everyone, preventing crashes, and
reducing fatalities, injuries, and the economic cost of crashes
on our roads.
Today, I am pleased to share new early estimates of traffic
fatalities for January through September 2023, which project
that traffic fatalities declined for the sixth straight
quarter. We are projecting that fatalities decreased about 4.5
percent from the same time in 2022.
While we are optimistic that we are finally seeing reversal
of the record-high fatalities seen during the pandemic, this is
not a cause for celebration. An estimated 19,515 people died in
motor vehicle traffic crashes in the first half of 2023, a
devastating loss that Secretary Buttigieg has rightly called a
crisis on our roadways.
That is why NHTSA, and the whole U.S. Department of
Transportation, is leaning in on the safe system approach and
the Department's National Roadway Safety Strategy. The only
acceptable number of fatalities is zero. Getting to zero will
require consistent, dedicated focus and work from every level
of government, safety advocates, and the private sector.
One way we are working toward zero fatalities is by using
the remarkable new resources Congress provided NHTSA through
the BIL, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. And thank you for
increasing NHTSA's overall budget by more than 50 percent.
BIL also directs us to conduct a number of new research
projects and rulemakings. NHTSA continues to work as quickly as
possible on these critical projects and rules to save lives and
to meet our statutory obligations.
We have issued a proposed rule to require automatic
emergency braking, we call it AEB, and pedestrian AEB in new
passenger cars and light trucks. With FMCSA, we have issued a
proposed rule to require AEB in heavy vehicles, including
tractor-trailers. When deployed, these technologies should
dramatically reduce rear-end crashes, save more than 500 lives,
and prevent nearly 33,000 injuries per year.
NHTSA has also proposed significant upgrades for a 5-Star
Safety Ratings program--that's NCAP--and we completed a BIL
directive in February 2022 when we issued our final adaptive
driving beam rule.
We are also working closely with the States and especially
those communities most significantly affected by traffic
crashes. This includes both urban and rural areas. It is worth
noting, for example, that while 20 percent of Americans live in
rural areas, they accounted for 40 percent of all traffic
fatalities in 2021.
Every decision we make at NHTSA puts safety first, and this
also informs our approach to emerging vehicle technologies,
including automated driving systems, or ADS, and advanced
driver assistance systems, or ADAS, too.
Promoting innovation while prioritizing a strong safety
culture is at the heart of NHTSA's work in this rapidly
evolving sector. Innovation and safety need to go hand-in-hand.
A robust safety culture builds public trust in advanced
technologies and automated vehicles. We are using all of our
authorities and research capabilities to ensure that we advance
technologies that make vehicles and roadways safer.
Finally, NHTSA takes its enforcement responsibilities very
seriously. So far this year, we have opened 40 defect
investigations, closed 28 investigations, and overseen more
than 900 safety recalls of vehicles, car seats, tires, and
other equipment. And you may have seen today's news that, after
an extensive investigation into hundreds of crashes involving
autopilot, Tesla has agreed to recall the more than 2 million
vehicles on the roads in the United States. Our Office of
Odometer Fraud has opened 13 criminal investigations this year.
NHTSA is a small agency with a big mission, and safety is
at the heart of everything we do. I care very deeply about the
safety of every person who uses our roads, no matter if they
drive, walk, bike, ride, or roll. They all deserve to arrive
home to their loved ones safe and sound at the end of every
day.
I thank the committee for its support of NHTSA's lifesaving
mission, and I look forward to answering your questions and
continuing to work with you to save lives on America's roads.
Thank you.
[Ms. Carlson's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ann Carlson, Acting Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation
Good morning, Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and members
of the subcommittee. I am Ann Carlson, Acting Administrator of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Thank you for inviting
me to testify today on NHTSA's efforts, under the leadership of U.S.
Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, to fulfill the agency's
important safety mission.
Every person has been touched by crashes on our nation's roads.
Many of us have lost loved ones, friends, or family to a crash, as I
have. And virtually everyone knows someone who has been injured. That's
why NHTSA's work touches every person in the United States every day.
NHTSA is committed to making the nation's roads safer for everyone,
preventing crashes, and reducing fatalities, injuries, and the economic
cost of crashes on our roads.
Today I'm pleased to share new early estimates of traffic
fatalities for January through September of 2023, which project that
traffic fatalities declined for the sixth straight quarter. We are
projecting that fatalities decreased about 4.5 percent from the same
time in 2022.
While we are optimistic that we're finally seeing a reversal of the
record-high fatalities seen during the pandemic, this is not a cause
for celebration. An estimated 19,515 people died in motor vehicle
traffic crashes in the first half of 2023, a devastating loss that
Secretary Buttigieg has rightly called a crisis on our roadways.
That's why NHTSA--and the whole U.S. Department of Transportation--
is leaning in on the safe system approach and the Department's National
Roadway Safety Strategy.
The only acceptable number of fatalities is zero. Getting to zero
will require consistent, dedicated focus and work from every level of
government, safety advocates, and the private sector.
One way we are working toward zero fatalities is by using the
remarkable new resources Congress provided NHTSA through the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, or BIL. I thank you for increasing NHTSA's overall
budget by more than 50 percent.
BIL also directs us to conduct a number of new research projects
and rulemakings. NHTSA continues to work as quickly as possible on
these critical projects and rules to save lives and to meet our
statutory obligations.
We have issued a proposed rule to require automatic emergency
braking, or AEB, and pedestrian AEB in new passenger cars and light
trucks. With the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, we have
issued a proposed rule to require AEB in heavy vehicles, including
tractor trailers. When deployed, these technologies should dramatically
reduce rear-end crashes, save more than 500 lives and prevent nearly
33,000 injuries per year.
NHTSA has also proposed significant upgrades to our 5-Star Safety
Ratings program, and we completed a BIL directive in February 2022 when
we issued our final adaptive driving beam rule.
We are also working closely with the states and especially those
communities most significantly affected by traffic crashes. This
includes both urban and rural areas. It's worth noting, for example,
that while 20 percent of Americans live in rural areas, they accounted
for 40 percent of all traffic fatalities in 2021.
Every decision we make at NHTSA puts safety first, and this also
informs our approach to emerging vehicle technologies, including
automated driving systems, or ADS, and advanced driver assistance
systems, or ADAS, too.
Promoting innovation while prioritizing a strong safety culture is
at the heart of NHTSA's work in this rapidly evolving sector.
Innovation and safety must go hand in hand--a robust safety culture
builds public trust in advanced technologies and automated vehicles. We
are using all of our authorities and research capabilities to ensure
that we advance technologies that make vehicles and roadways safer.
Finally, NHTSA takes its enforcement responsibilities very
seriously. So far this year, NHTSA has opened 40 defect investigations,
closed 28 investigations, and overseen more than 900 safety recalls of
vehicles, car seats, tires, and other equipment, as of Monday. Our
Office of Odometer Fraud Investigation has opened 13 criminal
investigations this year.
NHTSA is a small agency with a big mission, and safety is at the
heart of everything we do. I care very deeply about the safety of every
person who uses our roads, no matter if they drive, walk, bike, ride or
roll. They all deserve to arrive home to their loved ones safe and
sound at the end of every day.
I thank the committee for its support of NHTSA's lifesaving
mission, and I look forward to answering your questions and continuing
to work with you to save lives on America's roads.
Mr. Crawford. I thank all the witnesses for their
testimony. We will now begin the Member question portion of our
hearing today. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes and start
with Administrator Bhatt.
The Federal Highway Administration recently released a
final rule to require States and metropolitan planning
organizations to establish a new performance measure with
declining targets for carbon dioxide emissions attributed to
the National Highway System. It pursued this final rule despite
the fact that Congress considered, but ultimately excluded,
such a provision during IIJA negotiations.
How can you continue to claim that imposing a greenhouse
gas emissions performance measure is consistent with the law or
intent of Congress, given the fact that it was considered and
ultimately excluded from IIJA?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. I want to
be clear we are always consistent and follow the law. And in
this case, our authority, as is laid out in the rulemaking,
comes from MAP-21. We track about 17 measures, given the
authority that Congress has measured. So, we are using that
authority to now track environmental sustainability of the
system which is expressly called out in MAP-21.
Mr. Crawford. So, not only were GHG requirements sought and
rejected during IIJA negotiations, but also such a requirement
was previously included and later omitted from legislation that
was the basis for the Inflation Reduction Act.
If the administration believes that it has existing
authority to impose this GHG requirement, then why does the
administration continue to seek this authority through
legislation?
Mr. Bhatt. Chair, thank you for that. I wasn't part of the
negotiations. I would just say, from my State experience as the
secretary of transportation in Delaware and in Colorado, we
dealt with two hurricanes during my time in Delaware, we dealt
with fires and floods in Colorado. Tornadoes in Tennessee and
Kentucky during my time there. So, I think it is pretty obvious
that, from an infrastructure perspective, we are dealing with
climate from infrastructure from the 20th century that is not
consistent with our climate in the 21st century. So, what we
are asking States to do is begin tracking--without penalizing
them--but track the amount of GHG that comes from their
transportation systems.
Mr. Crawford. So, just to be clear, this particular point
was specifically addressed in the IIJA proceedings in both the
House and the Senate. It was specifically rejected as a part of
the final package. And yet you are citing a previous authority
under MAP-21.
So, does that mean that you can pick and choose, when we
pass a new law that supersedes the old law, that you can
basically pick and choose, well, we don't like this particular
provision, so, we are going to go back to a previous iteration
of an authorization that allows us some authority that we do
like? Am I understanding that correctly?
Mr. Bhatt. Chairman, just to be clear, we are following the
law that was laid out in MAP-21. So, I would say that the
measure that allows us to measure 17 performance measures that
we have----
Mr. Crawford [interrupting]. So, you are following MAP-21.
Mr. Bhatt. We are using the authority granted to the
Department under MAP-21.
Mr. Crawford. Even though IIJA's a reauthorization. So,
this looks to me like a deliberate attempt to sort of skirt the
intent of IIJA, which was expressly addressed, and that
particular provision was taken out and not considered as the
final passage was on the floor of the House and on the floor of
the Senate. But you guys have gone back to MAP-21 as your
underlying authority to implement something that was expressly
refused in the current authorization. So, that is what I wanted
to make sure, that we understand that correctly. Let me move on
to another topic.
Ms. Carlson, I have a memo here from Mr. Earl Adams, the
chief counsel at FMCSA, and you were copied on that, regarding
the issue of pulsating brake lights. These are an aftermarket
addition to vehicles and commercial trucks.
I ask unanimous consent to enter this memo into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Memo Issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Regarding Intellistop Pulsating Brake Lamps Exemption, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
Subject: Intellistop Pulsating Brake Lamps Exemption
Date:
From: Earl Adams, Jr., FMCSA Chief Counsel
Charles J. Fromm, Charles Medalen, Arija Flowers
FMCSA Office of Chief Counsel
To: John Putnam, Acting General Counsel
cc: Ann Carlson, NHTSA Chief Counsel
Kerry Kolodziej, Sarah Sorg
NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel
_______________________________________________________________________
I. Background
On December 14, 2020, Intellistop, Inc. submitted an exemption
request to FMCSA to allow use of certain pulsating brake lamp modules
on commercial motor vehicles (``CMVs'') (the ``Product''). The Product
operates as an after-market modification to a CMV's factory-installed
brake and marker lights causing the lights to pulse 4 times within a 2-
second period when the brakes are initially applied. Thereafter, the
OEM-level illumination is maintained until the brakes are released and
reapplied. FMCSA reviewed Intellistop's request, in accordance with the
Agency's legal authority under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), and determined that
the Product met the applicable legal standard, i.e., that it will
``likely achieve'' an equivalent or greater level of safety, and
therefore may be granted.
Prior to issuing the exemption, FMCSA staff met with their NHTSA
counterparts to review the application because of concern that it
implicated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (``FMVSS'') No. 108
(i.e., CMVs must be equipped with ``steady-burning'' brake lamps).
FMVSS 108 has been in place since 1967, although over the years, as
discussed below, NHTSA has granted requests relating to pulsing lights
in certain circumstances. Following a series of meetings between the
agencies at which no agreement was reached, NHTSA's Office of Chief
Counsel submitted a memorandum to the Office of General Counsel on
February 15, 2022 (NHTSA Mem.) in which NHTSA expressed concern that
``FMCSA's decisions to exempt motor carriers from important safety
requirements erode the foundations of the [FMVSS] and NHTSA's ability
to enforce them.''
FMCSA has broad statutory authority as it relates to the operation
of CMVs and CMV equipment. FMCSA's authority is distinct from and
complementary to NHTSA's authority to set standards for motor vehicle
manufacturers. To effectuate FMCSA's safety mission, Congress
specifically gave the Agency the authority to:
[G]rant to a person or class of persons an exemption from a
regulation prescribed under this chapter or section 31136 if
the Secretary finds such exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved absent such exemption. (Emphasis added.)
This authority does not apply to NHTSA or to the establishment of
FMVSS. FMCSA routinely exercises this authority and, when appropriate
and based on available safety data, grants exemptions to motor
carriers, trade associations, and even equipment manufacturers, when
the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent level of safety, and
when granting exemptions on behalf of a class of motor carriers will be
an efficient use of Agency resources (see Sec. III infra).
In applying this authority in the context of brake light equipment
FMCSA has previously granted four exemptions for pulsing brake-
activated lamps based in part on available on-road data that indicated
a 33.7% reduction in rear-end crashes with CMVs equipped with pulsing
brake-activated lighting as compared to comparable vehicles with
standard brake lighting.\1\ Here, FMCSA's decision to grant the
exemption was based on the data submitted by the applicant showing a
significant reduction in rear end crashes and on the absence of safety
problems arising from the similar exemptions granted by FMCSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Groendyke Transport, Inc. Part 381 Exemption Application from
49 C.F.R. Sec. 393.25(e) Requirement that Lamps Other than Head Lamps
Be Steady Burning, page 11, submitted April 5, 2018 (hereinafter
``Groendyke Application'') (attached Appendix A); See also Groendyke
Transport Amber Brake-Activated Pulsating Lamp Exemption, 84 Fed. Reg.
17910 (Apr. 26, 2019); National Tank Truck Carriers Inc.'s Rear Brake-
Activated Pulsating Lamp Exemption Request, 85 Fed. Reg. 63643 (Oct. 8,
2020); Grote Rear Brake-Activated Pulsating Lamp Exemption, 85 Fed.
Reg. 78918 (Dec. 7, 2020); Waste Management Rear Brake-Activated
Pulsating Lamp Exemption, 87 Fed. Reg. 3166 (Jan. 20, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing the potential for regulatory and enforcement
inconsistencies and a desire by FMCSA not to hinder NHTSA's ability to
carry out its safety mission, a joint decision was made to elevate the
issue to OGC for input and guidance. The issue under consideration is
therefore whether FMCSA is operating within its statutory authority by
granting the exemption to Intellistop for its Product.
II. Legal Standard for FMCSA Exemptions and Its Application to
Intellistop, Inc.
The key requirement under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1) is that an
exemption be ``likely'' to achieve an equivalent level of safety. That
provision is the result of a narrow and deliberate grant of specific
legislative authority and vests discretionary authority within FMCSA.
It requires only the best judgment of FMCSA. It does not prescribe an
affirmative evidentiary threshold or require a determination that a
potential exemption ``would achieve'' an equivalent level of safety.
This is a different standard from a mandatory standards rulemaking,
which does require affirmative evidence that it sufficiently surpasses
the status quo.''
Originally, Section 206(f) of Title II of the Motor Carrier Safety
Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-544, 98 Stat. 2832, 2935, Oct. 30, 1984)
authorized the Department of Transportation to ``waive, in whole or in
part, application of any regulation issued under this section with
respect to any person or class of persons if the Secretary determines
that such waiver is not contrary to the public interest and is
consistent with the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles.'' As a
result of litigation involving FHWA's issuance of such waivers, the
D.C. Circuit held in Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety v. FHWA, 28
F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1994), that there was no empirical support for
FHWA's claim that the waiver program would not adversely affect the
safe operation of CMVs. In short, the D.C. Circuit held that the
statute required FHWA to prove, before issuing a waiver, that there
would be no adverse effect on safety. Proving a negative is impossible
and the waiver program was therefore shut down, although drivers in the
program with good driving records were grandfathered in. 49 CFR 391.64.
FHWA then asked Congress to write a statute that would pass
judicial muster, and the result was Sec. 4007(a) of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (``TEA-21'') (Pub. L. 105-178, 112
Stat. 107, 401, June 9, 1998, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31315), which
inserted the ``would likely'' language (emphasis added). The effect of
this Congressional activity is that the exemption standard, ``likely
achieve'' an equivalent level of safety, is not as stringent as the
standard NHTSA must adhere to when implementing mandatory safety
regulations for manufacturers.
Safety is not diminished under section 31315(b), however, with the
comparatively greater flexibility Congress granted FHWA, now FMCSA. To
the contrary, the statute explicitly requires as a minimum an
equivalent level of safety. Moreover, to further ensure safety, FMCSA
routinely places conditions and limitations on the exemptions it
grants. The exemptions are also limited to five years, which provides
for additional examination based on real-world experience. TEA-21 was a
clear demonstration of Congress's intent for FMCSA to make safety
determinations on CMVs and CMV equipment. To be clear, vehicles must
comply with FMVSS, including No. 108, at the time of manufacture, but
with respect to after-market modification of that equipment, FMCSA has
clear discretionary authority to determine whether such modification
will ``likely achieve'' an equivalent level of safety on the road.
Here, as discussed in greater detail below, FMCSA believes the
available data concerning the Intellistop application demonstrates that
an equivalent, or greater, level of safety is likely to be achieved.
Moreover, FMCSA is prepared to place certain limits and conditions on
the exemption, including explicitly stating that the exemption can be
revoked if real-world experience demonstrates that the applicable
``equivalent'' level of safety cannot be maintained.\2\ NHTSA, however,
expresses concerns that the Intellistop technology could ``pose a
safety risk of distraction or confusion'' and that there is
``insufficient data'' on the full safety impacts of pulsating rear
lights. While NHTSA provides no data in support of the distraction or
confusion risk, as discussed in the next section, there is significant
on-road data available that support FMCSA's decision to grant the
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In a meeting with NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel and
management in January 2022, FMCSA suggested a 2-year exemption period
for Intellistop, as a compromise to resolve the agencies' disagreement.
NHTSA declined that offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Safety Data Support FMCSA's Conclusion that Intellistop Has
Demonstrated Equivalent Level of Safety
The only relevant factor FMCSA must evaluate in granting an
exemption is whether the proposed alternative is likely to achieve a
level of safety equivalent to FMCSA's existing regulation. FMCSA's
analysis supports a finding that Intellistop has met that standard.
FMCSA based its decision partly on data submitted by Groendyke
Transport, Inc., an initial applicant for a brake-light exemption. In
that application, Groendyke indicated that it had outfitted 632 of its
1440 trailers with amber brake-activated pulsating lights in addition
to the steady-burning brake lights. Groendyke reported that, over a
period of approximately 30 months and approximately 91 million miles of
travel, the trailers so equipped were involved in 33.7% fewer rear-end
collisions than the trailers equipped only with steady-burning brake
lights.\3\ FMCSA concluded that Groendyke's use of pulsating lights
demonstrated at least an equivalent level of safety and granted the
exemption. Subsequent exemption applicants have reasonably cited
Groendyke's experience. The NHTSA Memorandum fails to mention the
Groendyke data or to explain why this apparent safety achievement is
not reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation;
Application for an Exemption From Groendyke Transport, Inc., 84 FR
17910-17911 (Apr. 26, 2019); Groendyke Application at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA also took into consideration its own relevant data on rear-
end crashes with CMVs and driver inattention as a major cause of
crashes. Specifically, FMCSA's Large Truck Crash Causation Study
revealed that driver inattention is the leading cause of crashes for
cars and the second leading cause (at 35%) for CMVs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Report to Congress
on the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (Nov. 2005); available at:
https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/
downloadFile.axd?file=LTCCS%20reportcongress_11_05.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency also considered other sources which indicate that
flashing rear lights improve safety. For example, the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) recommends in its
Motorcycle Operator Manual that motorcyclists ``help others notice you
by flashing your brake light before you slow down'' and that ``it's a
good idea to flash your brake light before you slow'' if being followed
too closely.\5\ Clearly, some level of brake flashing is possible via
physical application of the brakes, though perhaps not as rapid or
reliable a flash sequence as with an electronic device like
Intellistop's Product. Lastly, some States \6\ explicitly permit
pulsating brake light systems like the one at issue in the Intellistop
exemption request, presumably, because they believe it will not hinder
safety on their roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ AAMVA Motorcycle Operator Manual, March 2015. Available at:
https://www.aamva.org/workarea/downloadasset.aspx?id=6420
\6\ See Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 55-9-402 (b)(1) (West 2021); Or. Rev.
Stat. Ann. Sec. 816.100(11) (West 2021) (permitting motorcycle brake
lights to ``flash intermittently, provided that the brake lights do not
override the rear turn signal function''); Del. Code Ann. Tit. 21,
Sec. 4353(c) (West 2021) (permitting motorcycles, mopeds, and
motorized scooters to use brake light systems that pulse ``rapidly for
no more than 5 seconds when the brake is applied, and then converts to
a continuous light as a normal brake lamp until the time that the brake
is released'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the plethora of data available showing pulsating brake
lights are likely to contribute to a reduction in rear-end crashes,
FMCSA concluded that Intellistop's Product had demonstrated an
equivalent level of safety and therefore that an exemption should be
granted. Again, FMCSA is not required to demonstrate that the Product
would definitely achieve an equivalent level of safety, but rather that
it ``would likely'' do so.
NHTSA's Memo expresses several concerns about the sufficiency of
data FMCSA considers when evaluating exemptions in this case and on the
prior four occasions. At its core, NHTSA makes three arguments that
FMCSA has not met its burden to grant Intellistop's exemption: (1)
there is currently ``an absence of data;'' \7\ (2) FMCSA granted prior
exemptions ``without requiring proponents of the new signal lighting
idea to demonstrate that the use of the new signal lighting idea would
yield a positive safety benefit large enough to more than offset the
adverse safety effects of giving up the standardized operation and
meaning of signal lights;'' and (3) FMCSA should have done more ``to
investigate if safety problems have or will occur with the greater
population of motor vehicles and other roadway users.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NHTSA Mem. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, as stated, it is not accurate that there is an ``absence of
data'' related to reduction in rear-end crashes and pulsating brake
lights. In objecting to FMCSA's data, NHTSA does not rely on its own
research other than to claim that it is insufficient to prove out the
safety benefits.\8\ NHTSA's second argument appears to prioritize
standardization over innovation unless data shows a net safety gain
from the innovation. FMCSA acknowledges the need for standardization;
however, as stated, the data supports the position that pulsating brake
lights are an innovation which is likely to reduce rear-end crashes.
Given that innovation is likely the opposite of standardization,
NHTSA's view has, perhaps, the unintended consequence of making
innovation more difficult.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NHTSA ``Rear signaling'' research webpage; available at:
https://one.nhtsa.gov/Research/Human-Factors/Rear-signaling (last
visited 2/18/22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, without providing any evidence, NTHSA seems to suggest that
FMCSA should deny Intellistop's request because pulsating brake lights
might cause ancillary problems elsewhere in the flow of traffic. This
defies logic. NHTSA's stated purpose for FMVSS No. 108 is to reduce
crashes, injuries, and death ``by providing adequate illumination of
the roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on
public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals
understood.'' \9\ 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.108, S2. NHTSA worries that
``[e]ven assuming arguendo that flashing brake lights are effective
now, it is likely that they will not be effective if flashing brake
lights become common.'' Exactly the same objection could be made to the
steady-burning brake lights that NHTSA has championed for decades, and
which have now ``become common.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NHTSA Mem. at 2 (quoting 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.108, S2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, NHTSA has indicated that it disagrees with FMCSA's
characterization of its research on pulsating brake lights in the draft
Federal Register notice granting Intellistop's exemption request. FMCSA
is prepared to discuss revisions to that language. That said, the
critical fact remains that NHTSA has done no research in this area in
the past decade, while FMCSA can point to Groendyke's actual road test
data that demonstrates how pulsating brake lights can significantly
reduce rear-end crashes.
IV. FMSCA has the Authority to Grant an Exemption to Intellistop
FMCSA's exemption statute in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1) refers broadly
to ``a person or class of persons,'' and thus requests for an FMCSA
exemption are not limited to motor carriers only. NHTSA concedes this
point in its memo,\10\ but nevertheless, it is still worth clarifying
that there is no material distinction between Intellistop and American
Trucking Associations (``ATA'') or another entity that may apply for an
exemption on behalf of ``a class.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NHTSA notes that FMCSA's regulations ``appear to contemplate
that the petition [for exemption] come from a motor carrier.'' NHTSA
Mem. at 3 & nn. 8, 9. To the extent that is the case, the rule would
conflict with statute, and FMCSA has therefore identified the relevant
sections of 49 CFR Part 381 for revision during an upcoming technical
amendment rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if there were a meaningful distinction between Intellistop and
trade groups, the same result Intellistop seeks would occur because
FMCSA could grant hundreds, or thousands, of exemption applications
submitted by individual motor carriers, though at excessive and
unnecessary administrative burden to the Agency and unnecessary burden
on the motor carrier industry. The bottom line is that Intellistop's
petition is on behalf of ``a class,'' and the exemption would be
granted to the regulated community, i.e., to motor carriers using the
Intellistop Product.
V. NHTSA's ``Make Inoperative'' Statute Is Not Implicated by the
Exemption
FMCSA recognizes that it cannot exempt vehicle manufacturers,
distributors, dealers, or repair businesses from the requirements of
FMVSS No. 108. Section 30122(b) of title 49, U.S. Code, the so-called
``make inoperative'' statute, provides:
(b) Prohibition.--
A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor
vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any
part of a device or element of design installed on or in a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an
applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this
chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental
company, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or
equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar
purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or
element is inoperative.
49 U.S.C. 30122(b). Motor carriers, however, are not subject to the
make-inoperative prohibition in 30122, nor does the prohibition apply
to individual vehicle owners who install equipment on their own
vehicles.\11\ NHTSA has repeatedly affirmed this position in its own
legal interpretations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Interpretation Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Yeager (Nov.
15, 2006), available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/06-
006577drn; Interpretation Letter to A.F. Zang, III (May 18, 1993),
available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht93-351. See also
Interpretation Letter to Charles Jennings (Aug. 2, 1993), available at:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht93-543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA recognizes that there could be confusion about the persons
and vehicle modifications covered under the exemption, versus persons
prohibited under section 30122(b) from installing the Intellistop
Product. To avoid this confusion, and also to prevent a covered entity
from making the modification, FMCSA plans to issue the exemption
subject to a requirement to include on the Product a prohibition on
their use by distributors, dealers, or repair shops, citing the ``make-
inoperative'' provision in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30122. As stated, FMCSA
routinely includes conditions and restrictions when granting an
exemption.
VI. Granting the Exemption Will Not Frustrate NHTSA's Ability to
Enforce the FMVSS
FMCSA appreciates the challenge that NHTSA faces concerning a
pending enforcement investigation of Safety F1rst, which is on hold
pending resolution of the Intellistop matter, and uncertainty on how to
proceed with enforcement work relating to potential violations of the
FMVSS. First, however, FMCSA's authority only extends to the motor
carrier community, not to non-CMV passenger vehicles. A quick Amazon
search reveals many flashing brake light modules, many of which appear
targeted at non-CMV purchasers. If NHTSA's intent is to eliminate
unauthorized installation of such products, it could focus on any
number of cases against distributors, dealers, rental companies and
repair businesses. In addition, FMCSA believes an exemption can be
crafted that will aid NHTSA and FMCSA in gathering safety data, as well
as enhancing NHTSA's enforcement and potential defect recall duties, by
imposing appropriate conditions on Intellistop within the exemption.
FMCSA looks forward to discussions with NHTSA on how the agencies can
work together to augment and enhance effectiveness in pursuit of safety
on the nation's roadways.
VII. FMCSA Will Fully Address Comments in Docket
NHTSA asserted that FMCSA did not sufficiently address concerns
raised in certain comments to the public docket.\12\ FMCSA acknowledges
this critique and will re-review all submitted comments to determine if
additional language is needed in the decision document. One docket
comment, from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), deserves
attention here. It is addressed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NHTSA's Mem. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is true that CVSA agreed in comments to the docket that data
supported the use of amber brake-activated pulsating lights, but not
red brake-activated pulsating lights which are used by Intellistop's
modification. CVSA's concern was that the blinking red light could
confuse other motorists, a view shared by NHTSA. CVSA, like NHTSA, did
not provide any data to support this concern. Intellistop's pulsating
rear brake lights do not exceed the brightness level established for
rear lights and are unlikely to be confused with the exceptionally
bright (often strobe) lights mounted on emergency equipment and visible
from all directions. FMCSA is not aware of data that supports this
concern or that could alter the analysis on whether the Intellistop
Product would ``likely achieve'' an equivalent level of safety.
Nevertheless, FMCSA did fail to address the comment in the draft notice
granting the Intellistop exemption; that oversight will be corrected.
VIII. The Waste Management Exemption
FMCSA appreciates NHTSA's surprise concerning the granting of the
Waste Management exemption. At the time, FMCSA believed that the Waste
Management exemption was sufficiently similar to previous exemptions,
in that it did not implicate concerns NHTSA had flagged in interagency
discussions with regard to Intellistop. At the same time, it was not
until the meeting on January 26, 2022, that FMCSA understood NHTSA's
larger opposition to how the Agency has been applying its exemption
authority in certain instances. As noted above, FMCSA routinely reaches
out to NHTSA where there may be concerns about overlapping authority,
including providing advance copies of relevant exemptions. FMCSA
commits to working with NHTSA and other sister agencies to improve
communication.
IX. Contradictory NHTSA Interpretations Regarding FMVSS No. 108 and
Agency Authorities
In its Memorandum, NHTSA argues it is imperative that uniform lamp
standards be rigorously maintained to protect public safety.\13\ Yet
NHTSA has previously issued contradictory statements in granting
manufacturers' petitions for exemptions from recall obligations based
on ``inconsequential non-compliance'' with FMVSS No. 108. In granting
such a petition for inconsequential non-compliance from General Motors
Corporation (GM), NHTSA stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ NHTSA Mem. at 1, 7.
We can foresee no negative effects on motor vehicle safety if a
vehicle's CHMSL \14\ is briefly illuminated as described upon
activation of the hazard warning lamps. The intended use of a
hazard warning lamp and the momentary activation of a CHMSL do
not provide a conflicting message. The illumination of the
CHMSL is intended to signify that the vehicles brakes are being
applied and that the vehicle might be decelerating. Hazard
[flashing] warning lamps are intended as a more general message
to nearby drivers that extra attention should be given to the
vehicle. A brief illumination of the CHMSL while activating the
hazard warning lamps would not confuse the intended general
message, nor would the brief illumination in the absence of the
other brake lamps cause confusion that the brakes were
unintentionally applied.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``CHMSL'' refers to the center high-mounted stop lamp.
\15\ General Motors Corporation; Grant of Application for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 Fed. Reg. 32871, 32872 (June 18,
2001).
In a legal interpretation regarding a new ``low beam'' product,
NHTSA also noted in its response that FMVSS No. 108 ``requires
headlamps to be steady-burning in use, though means may be provided to
flash them on and off automatically for signaling purposes.'' \16\
Presumably, this hypothetical flashing of low beam lights for signaling
purposes was to gain the attention of other drivers and make them aware
of a situation requiring their attention. NHTSA did not indicate any
concern that the flashing of forward-facing headlamps could cause
confusion that an emergency vehicle was approaching from behind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Interpretation Letter to Charles Jennings (Aug. 2, 1993),
available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht93-543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in a separate legal interpretation, issued in response to
a Congressional inquiry on behalf of a constituent concerned with tire
tread requirements for CMVs, NHTSA ``was pleased to explain the laws
and regulations [NHTSA] administer[s]'' as such:
NHTSA's safety standards do not, however, apply to used
vehicles or equipment. . . . [but] must have complied with the
safety standards at the time of its manufacture. . . . Also,
the Office of Motor Carriers within the Federal Highway
Administration \17\ has the authority to regulate commercial
vehicles and equipment operated in interstate commerce.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ FMCSA's precursor office prior to becoming a separate agency.
\18\ Interpretation to Sen. Bob Graham regarding Howard Levy, Vice-
President, Used Tire International (Jan. 17, 1995); available at:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/nht95-128.
NHTSA was very clear in that Congressional correspondence that the FHWA
office (the precursor to FMCSA) held ``the authority to regulate
commercial vehicles and equipment.''
X. Conclusion
The standard for FMCSA's exemption authority is broad and does not
require an affirmative showing that a potential exemption ``would
achieve'' an equivalent level of safety, only that an equivalent, or
greater, level of safety is likely to be achieved if the exemption is
granted. Second, data drives FMCSA's review process. In this case, the
available data indicate that the Product will not result in an adverse
impact on safety, but rather will help reduce rear-end crashes. Third,
FMCSA recognizes the apparent conflicting authority with NHTSA but
believes that any conflict can be reconciled by placing conditions and
limitations on the exemption, as discussed above. In the end, FMCSA's
safety mission, and its legal authority over the commercial motor
vehicle industry, warrant granting Intellistop's request for exemption
on behalf of motor carriers.
Mr. Crawford. The memo is about granting waivers for the
use of pulsating brake lights on commercial trucks. The memo
says, quote, ``The available data indicate that the Product
will not result in an adverse impact on safety, but rather will
help reduce rear-end crashes,'' end quote. It goes on to say
that, quote, ``An equivalent, or greater, level of safety is
likely to be achieved . . .'' end quote. Finally, the memo
makes clear that, within FMCSA's safety mission and available
data, that a waiver is warranted for the use of pulsating brake
lights.
My question for you, Ms. Carlson, is, since FMCSA sees this
issue with some clarity, believes in the general safety of
pulsating brake lights, and mentioned in the memo that it was
willing to work with NHTSA, why is NHTSA preventing the
industry from receiving a waiver to install pulsating brake
lights on trucks which would likely prevent rear-end accidents
and make our roads safer?
Ms. Carlson. I appreciate the question, Chairman. Let me
start by saying that NHTSA has a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 108 that requires steady burning lights. And that is a
requirement that needs to be followed by manufacturers and
dealers. It does not prevent the manufacture of pulsating
lights, but it does prevent their installation by our OEMs and
by dealers----
Mr. Crawford [interrupting]. So, you can make them, you
just can't use them.
Ms. Carlson. Individuals can install them on their vehicles
as long as it is consistent with State law, but they cannot be
installed by manufacturers or by dealers because that would
violate a rulemaking that was based on a safety conclusion that
steady burning lights provide a steady and consistent signal to
drivers so that they know when a vehicle is stopped.
Mr. Crawford. OK. I have run out time. But despite the fact
that the data that you are aware of and that exists, that you
are still saying that that can't happen. So, again, not
necessarily demonstrating great commitment to safety on the
highways with that ruling.
I now turn to Ms. Norton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. This question is for Mr. Bhatt and Ms. Carlson.
Our Nation is experiencing an epidemic of traffic fatalities,
including alarming increases in pedestrian and bicyclist
fatalities. What does the Biden administration believe is
causing this spike in fatalities, and what concrete actions is
the Department taking to save lives?
Mr. Bhatt and Ms. Carlson.
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Ranking Member Norton. One of the
things I am most proud of in my career was, when I was with the
Delaware Department of Transportation, we went from 23rd to 4th
in bicycle-friendly States, because we recognize that active
transportation is a critical part of our transportation network
and making sure that people can do it safely.
When you look into the data--and this is what Secretary
Buttigieg has asked us to do under the NRSS, is to look at a
safe system approach. So, there's speeds, there's distracted
driving, there's infrastructure. One of our 28 proven safety
countermeasures at FHWA are protected bike lanes. We are also
working with States to identify vulnerable road user studies in
their States, and so, we look forward to working with them with
that data.
And I will turn it over to Acting Administrator Carlson.
Ms. Carlson. Thank you, Congresswoman Norton. Let me start
answering your question about what do we think is the cause by
providing some data and some potential explanations.
So, one of the things we know is that 70 percent of
pedestrians are killed at night, and most of them are adults.
Pedestrian fatalities among children have actually declined
pretty dramatically. We also know that most of those are not at
intersections. And as my colleague Shailen said, one of the
things that we are really focused on is infrastructure,
sidewalks. For example, lighting could be a huge improvement.
We also know that people are speeding. And, obviously, if
you are hit at higher speeds, you are much less likely to
survive a pedestrian crash. And drivers are driving distracted
much more frequently. So, we are working on all of those
things. But let me give you two examples of things that NHTSA
is doing to address pedestrian fatalities.
One of the most important is our proposed rulemaking for
pedestrian automatic emergency braking that would provide
vehicles with technology that would identify a pedestrian that
the driver didn't have time to see, and would also work at
night. It would be an extraordinary advancement in safety
technology, and we project it would save hundreds of lives and
prevent thousands of injuries.
In addition, we have both a proposed rulemaking and a
proposal in our New Car Assessment Program, that's the 5-Star
Safety Ratings program, to add pedestrian protection to
vehicles in the event that a pedestrian is actually hit. It is
a gruesome thought, but actually vehicles can be made to absorb
more energy and, therefore, lessen the injuries to both legs
and to heads as a result of crashes.
And then, of course, working with our State partners who
receive highway safety grants. DC got a little over $5 million,
for example, to address the problematic areas where pedestrian
fatalities are occurring. Using data to figure out where are
the worst intersections. Are there lighting problems? Are there
infrastructure problems? And then using our safe system
approach to try to tackle that problem with every single tool
we have.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Hutcheson, one area of concern I hear from
my constituents is household goods moving scams. Far too often,
people going through a move are taken advantage of and have
their property held hostage or lost forever. This can be
devastating as it can include the loss of irreplaceable family
heirlooms.
The FAST Act created the Household Goods Consumer
Protection Working Group within the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration. I plan to introduce a bill in the new
year that will grant the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration additional authorities to conduct household
goods enforcement.
Can you describe the agency's ongoing efforts to address
moving scams and educate consumers who are looking to move?
Ms. Hutcheson. Thank you, Ranking Member Norton, for the
opportunity to talk about this. I have heard gut-wrenching
stories from people who have lost everything in household
moving scams. People lose their whole lives or memories. It is
a deeply personal issue.
At the beginning of this year, we launched a strategic
action plan. Part of that is Operation Protect Your Move. That
was rolled out this spring. We have increased awareness. We
have stepped up our investigations, completing more and more as
we go. And as a result, we have closed 700 complaints, and we
have had a 36-percent reduction in the number of consumer
complaints coming in. We are not going to stop until we bring
these numbers down of the complaints that come in.
And just for anyone who has suffered from this or plans to
move, please do check our Protect Your Move website where you
can find information on how to move your goods yourselves
safely without experiencing this fraud.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentlewoman yields.
Mr. Bost.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Hutcheson, the FMCSA has proposed a rule to
limit the speed of commercial vehicles throughout the agency
proposal. You referred to the research of Dr. Steven Johnson at
the University of Arkansas. However, Dr. Johnson's conclusion
seemed to be a little different than yours.
His research shows that when the speed of a vehicle is
different from the average speed of other vehicles,
intersection between vehicles increase and so does the chance
for an accident. In fact, the chance is increased to 220
percent higher if the vehicle is going 10 miles per hour slower
than the speed limit. Dr. Johnson even said if speed limit
regulation is implemented, it is important to note that it will
occur on the basis of supported opinion rather than the
definitive value, valid and reliable uses of data.
Has your agency considered any research to determine what
types of crashes would be increased when the agency creates or
expands a speed limit or mandate?
Ms. Hutcheson. Thank you, Representative, for raising this
important issue. The National Roadway Safety Strategy
identifies speed as something that needs to be addressed. And,
in fact, in truck crashes, speed is one of the leading reasons
why there are fatalities on our highways, very often including
drivers themselves.
The NTSB has determined that speed was a contributing
factor in not just one, but many, but chief among them a tragic
crash in Pennsylvania where 4 people lost their lives and 50
people were injured.
As I believe you are aware, we are working through a
rulemaking process. We have received numerous comments and have
heard about this research about what is called a speed
differential. So, I thank you for raising it.
The regulatory impact--we have not yet published a notice
of proposed rulemaking. It is still in agency review. And the
regulatory impact analysis will consider the research and this
issue specifically.
Mr. Bost. OK. Well, let me tell you the advantage of having
a representative form of Government. Many of us were actually
in other industries before we came here. I grew up in the
trucking business, know it well. I know there is one other
Member that also--but he is not here today--did the same thing.
I have two questions that are of concern, and I am just
going to express them, because I know you have probably never
driven a tractor-trailer up and down the highway. Now, that's
just an assumption. Maybe you have. But there are two problems.
One, in the State of Illinois, when I was in State legislature,
the problem was is that we had one limit for trucks and one
limit for cars. And we did discover, through our research, that
it actually caused more wrecks than it would if--just slow up
traffic would have worked.
Now, the other problem that you have is, if you have a
driver who is a skilled driver, and all of a sudden he is going
to get in a situation, and you have now limited his ability to
use speed to react to get away and protect while driving a
vehicle, you have changed the vehicle dynamics, and, therefore,
you are endangering people rather than saving them by making it
to where you have a limiter that doesn't allow a professional
driver to make decisions to try to either speed up to get out
of the way or speed up to go around a situation that might be
occurring in front of them. So, that is something I think you
should consider as well.
Now, I've got a second question that I want to ask because
it's a completely different question. OK. I have heard a lot of
motor carriers right now that freight fraud is involved really
bad with scammers. And let me tell you how this works. We have
people who are out there that are claiming to be brokers.
Truckdrivers are out there trying to find loads or their
companies are trying to find loads for them. They use this
broker. The broker all of a sudden comes in and gets in the
middle of the supply chain issue and they broker the load. Now,
by the time that driver then gets back in or that company gets
that load back in and ready to be paid for, they contact that
particular company, and they are no longer in existence or you
can no longer find them.
Is there anything that your agency is doing and can be
dealing with as far as the fraud that is occurring out there?
Because we are losing a tremendous amount of smaller companies
and/or owner-operators. Because it is one thing if a great big
company takes a $2,000 loss or $5,000 loss, but the smaller
companies can't take that.
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, I appreciate your experience
in the industry. We unequivocally share your concerns about the
impact of fraud on the industry and specifically broker fraud.
We are taking steps.
First and foremost, we issued a financial responsibility
rule that will ensure security limits for brokers and freight
forwarders is increased to $75,000. We know that's not enough.
We are also taking steps to improve transparency in
transactions. We have been listening to our stakeholders,
working very closely with OOIDA, TAA, and others.
Thank you for----
Mr. Bost [interrupting]. Thank you.
My time has expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First I want to say, for fear of being maybe criticized
later, we are nearly an hour in this conversation, and no one
yet has said, stop spending money of the BIL and creating jobs
in my district. So, good job with the U.S. DOT with BIL
implementation and creating jobs, getting those benefits and
projects out in the district.
Now having said that, I have a few questions. First off for
Ms. Carlson. You mentioned in your testimony regarding the
Tesla recall and Autosteer. Can you briefly describe the
actions that your agency took leading up to the filing of the
recall notice, please?
Microphone, please.
Ms. Carlson. Thank you. Yes, I appreciate the question. Let
me start by acknowledging that a number of people have died in
Tesla crashes where autopilot was on. And frequently those
crashes involved what appeared to be a driver not realizing
that there was an obstacle that appeared kind of suddenly in
front of it. And when I kept hearing about Tesla crashes, my
immediate response is we have to do something about this.
So, in August of 2021, the agency launched an
investigation. And I want to just give you a sense for the
complexity of the investigation.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. I have got two more questions for
others.
Ms. Carlson. OK. I will be quick.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. So, if you can be quick, yes.
Ms. Carlson. OK. Thank you.
So, we examined over 900 crashes, 322 of those involved
frontal impact crashes and things where autopilot was engaged.
And one of the things we determined is that drivers were not
always paying attention when that system was on. And so, Tesla
has agreed to the recall. We appreciate that they have agreed
to it.
And let me just--I will just read what it says, and then I
will stop. It says that its software system may not be
sufficient to prevent driver misuse, and so, they will be
issuing remedies to address that problem, the problem where the
interaction between the system and the driver is not
sufficiently attuned to the fact that the driver could just
tune out when he or she is driving.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right. Thanks.
It has much broader implications beyond what Tesla is
doing, as well, in the future when it comes to using this
technology for any vehicle----
Ms. Carlson [interposing]. Absolutely.
Mr. Larsen of Washington [continuing]. Passenger or
otherwise.
Ms. Carlson. Absolutely.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks.
Mr. Bhatt, the BIL takes climate change seriously. It
provides $7\1/2\ billion for EV charging infrastructure, but
the build-out has been, frankly, pretty slow on the Federal
dollars for EV chargers.
Can you provide an update on the rollout of this funding
and where are we going to be going to move this rollout on EV
charging more quickly?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Ranking Member Larsen. Yes,
absolutely. I would say that we have taken 2 years to stand up
the program, but we know that Ohio opened up the first
federally funded electric charger last week. New York is going
to join later this week. Maine, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and
Hawaii are coming soon. So, I would say that we are expecting
thousands of chargers to be coming online.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. So, why the pace--we didn't
expect it on day one, but why day 730?
Mr. Bhatt. There is $1.2 trillion in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. One in four of those dollars flows through
Federal Highways. And so, of that $7.5 billion on NEVI, we have
had to write rules, work with States, work with the private
sector, set up a joint office with DOE so we could do this
right the first time, and that's what we are doing.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right. We will need to
continue to watch that very closely.
Ms. Fernandez, we talked in the past about ferries,
electric ferries, in fact, at the groundbreaking or some event
in Lynnwood, Washington, recently. You have awarded funds for
seven projects so far for electric or low-emitting ferries. We
have the largest system in the country measured by people moved
and vehicles moved.
What other kind of interests are you seeing in that
program, and are there some lessons learned or policy
challenges that we need to consider as we look forward?
Ms. Fernandez. Thank you very much for your question,
Ranking Member Larsen. Our ferry programs are critical to
coastal communities. And the new programs that were created in
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law really funded around the low-
emitting electric ferry will really help improve and also help
expand service while supporting the environmental goals of the
communities.
The Low-Emitting Ferry Program, we stood up that program
very quickly. Just last week, I issued the release of grant
awards for the second round of $220 million to 13 projects in 8
States, and those dollars are going to start a revolution, a
transformation of the ferry program. As a matter of fact, the
first U.S. electric ferry is being built right now in the State
of Rhode Island, in Providence, by a company, Senesco, and that
will be the beginning of manufacturing on low-emitting ferries
that will then help transit agencies that, in fact, have
ferries as part of their mobility option to be able to get
those out and deployed.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Great. Thank you.
And, Mr. Chair, I would just note, it might be the first in
the U.S., but it is not first in the world. There are plenty of
electric ferries being operated around the country. This isn't
science fiction. It is real, and it is about time the U.S.
caught up with it.
So, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you.
Of course, there are a number of important investments
being made as a part of the infrastructure package. We do want
to make sure that those investments don't strengthen our
adversaries. Of course, you all are familiar with lidar. It's a
technology that uses laser light to map our surroundings. And
we deploy this stuff in increasing measure across our
transportation infrastructure, so, airports, ports,
intersections, of course, in autonomous vehicles.
And as we make these massive investments in deploying this
important technology, of course, we want to make sure we aren't
creating vulnerabilities for the Chinese Communist Party. Most
Americans probably don't realize the extent to which the
Chinese Communist Party has used a number of tactics to be a
major market leader in this technology. They have identified
some chokepoints that they have wanted to own, which gives them
a certain amount of coercive power over this infrastructure.
And it is not just me that shares these concerns. In fact,
a recent Congressional Research Service study indicated that
yes, indeed, the Chinese Communist Party could use this
exquisite mapping capability to be able to gain some additional
power and exploit these vulnerabilities.
That's one reason why those of us on the Select Committee
on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the
Chinese Communist Party yesterday morning passed a report that
called for us to try to derisk our exposure, our
vulnerabilities to this PRC-used and PRC-dominated lidar
technology. Of course, we want the technology. We just want to
make sure we are investing in that technology in a way that
does not strengthen our adversaries.
So, for the Under Secretary, for the Administrator, any
thoughts on what DOT is doing to educate its team and
contractors about the fact that we don't want to give the PRC
any more coercive power over our country in how we deploy
lidar?
Mr. Monje. Thank you, Congressman. And I would love to turn
it over to Acting Administrator Carlson in a moment, but
cybersecurity, and particularly in concerns with the People's
Republic of China, is spot on. We are in constant communication
with the national security team, with the Treasury Department
as they do CFIUS analyses of different transactions to make
sure that, as we are deploying this technology on our Nation's
roadways, that they are resilient against attacks, which we see
thousands and thousands a day. It is not only lidar. It is also
the PNT, the signal that we get from space.
But we are, again, in constant communication. And Secretary
Buttigieg has directed our department, led by the research team
under my organization, our OCIO, our chief information officer,
to make sure that we are tracking threats and helping our OEM
partners do the same.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So, let's try to get specific.
And just in case people think that either the Under Secretary
or I are fearmongering, I mean, here is the independent,
nonpartisan statement from the CRS: China could use data
compiled by PRC lidar systems to acquire sensitive information
or exquisite mapping of U.S. infrastructure.
And we are really talking about exquisite. I mean, you
think about every object in the transportation system, its
location, its speed, how all of these things fit together, I
mean, what unbelievably detailed and, frankly, dangerous
information about our transportation systems.
So, are there specific actions that our Government is
taking to make sure that we aren't just buying technology
managed by the PRC and their partners?
Mr. Monje. I think Ann wants to pipe in.
Ms. Carlson. I share your concern. And NHTSA has some
authority, although I will say that there is more authority in
other agencies across the Federal Government.
One thing that we do is we have a list that has been
provided to us by other agencies of the Federal Government that
identifies those Chinese companies and other companies around
the world that pose a security risk, and we prevent vehicles
that have technology from those companies from coming into the
country. We have a relationship with the U.S. Customs Service
and try to ensure that.
We also work very closely with our automotive partners on
cybersecurity. We have something called the Auto-ISAC, which is
really a model for industrywide cooperation in trying to reduce
cybersecurity threats. I have spoken at the last two Auto-ISAC
national meetings in part to convey the importance of this
issue. And we have been working closely with the Department of
Commerce on these questions as well.
Again, we share your concerns. These are serious ones.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, as I am out of
time, I would just note that I think that information is
heartening from the automotive perspective. I do think ports,
airports, we have got a lot of other work to do, and I look
forward to working with our panelists on that.
And I yield.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses this morning for their testimony
highlighting the critical work made possible by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
The impacts of IIJA in New Jersey's infrastructure cannot
be understated. In November, the FTA announced over $4 billion
in grants for passenger rail in New Jersey's Eighth
Congressional District through a program authorized and funded
by IIJA. These funds will allow key parts of the Gateway
Program to advance. I am excited to see these projects benefit
our district. I look forward to working with our witnesses
today on further implementation of this critical legislation.
Administrator Fernandez, earlier this year, I led a 114-
Member bipartisan letter urging the FTA to take action to
protect public transit operators from assault. Your testimony
noted that the FTA will soon be announcing a general directive
on required actions regarding assaults on transit workers. I am
encouraged to see the FTA engage on this issue.
Administrator Fernandez, can you speak more on this general
directive and how it will aim to protect transit workers from
assault?
Ms. Fernandez. Representative Menendez, thank you so very
much for that question.
Let me just begin by saying that the attack on operators is
unexcusable, because these are the same individuals that were
celebrated for being heroes during the pandemic. They went to
work so that people could get to their jobs, essential workers.
Congress directed the Federal Transit Administration to
create and to publish a rule on transit worker safety. From the
first day of this administration, we have been on tap on moving
forward with getting a publication on the way. But I will start
by saying that Secretary Buttigieg met with operators his first
week on the job, and I have met not only with the operators, I
have met with the labor union and with transit agencies. At the
Federal Transit Administration, we take this very seriously,
and not only do we have a rule underway, but we are taking full
advantage of the existing authorities that we have so that we
can direct transit agencies to implement safety for their
operators, and we will be holding them accountable to do just
that.
Mr. Menendez. And how can we here in Congress be supportive
in the FTA's efforts that you just discussed to protect transit
workers, riders, pedestrians, and other roadway users?
Ms. Fernandez. Representative, again, thanks for that
question. I think the beginning was, of course, all with the
funding. In the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law there is funding
that allows transit agencies to use the formula dollars for
introducing security measures into their system. They can hire
security officers. They can hire personnel. They can implement
technology on the security side. In addition to that, they can
do the training necessary.
At the Federal Transit Administration, we have implemented
an initiative called the Transit Safety and Crime Prevention
Initiative. In addition to that, we have been holding a series
of trainings on deescalation. And we have also invested funds
in developing a prototype to protect operators in the driver's
cab.
So, what we are doing is a holistic approach. We know that
there is more to be done, but transit agencies have a
responsibility to protect the people that work for them. Also,
as they protect those individuals, they are protecting the
public that is using the system.
Mr. Menendez. Absolutely. And we look forward to partnering
with you when advancing those initiatives.
Under Secretary Monje, State departments of transportation
are working to address a wide variety of issues, from road
maintenance to tolling. In my district in New Jersey, we have
seen reports of toll evasion through fraudulent license plates.
Several States have acted to address this issue by passing laws
to crack down on toll evaders.
One barrier to addressing fare evasion is a lack of updated
information technology at DMVs. For example, the State of New
York can suspend registration from habitual toll violators, but
an outside entity had to help their DMVs create a new IT
software.
Under Secretary, how is the Department of Transportation
helping States modernize their DMVs?
Mr. Monje. Thank you so much, Congressman. And I would love
to turn it over actually to my colleagues, if it is OK with
you, who more directly work with DMVs, perhaps Robin Hutcheson.
Mr. Menendez. Sure.
Mr. Monje. But one of the really wonderful things that
Congress did in a bipartisan way is give us money in order to
partner with our States to up their game. But perhaps
Administrator Hutcheson could answer better than I can.
Ms. Hutcheson. Thank you, Representative.
Mr. Crawford. Hit your mic. A quick answer, please.
Ms. Hutcheson. Thank you, Representative. And thank you to
my colleague, Mr. Monje, for passing it to me.
We have issued a tremendous amount of grant money to States
through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. While our lens is
commercial motor vehicles, I can say that these grants have
been used by States to expedite issuance of CDLs. Of course,
that is our lens, but also to improve their IT systems, to
increase accuracy and timeliness of traffic convictions,
suspensions, and disqualifying information that is for CDL
holders. And this ultimately will help keep all drivers safe on
our Nation's roadways.
Mr. Menendez. I appreciate that. We saw it in my time at
the port authority. This is a big issue, especially as we look
at funding for State department of transportation agencies.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Maloy.
Ms. Maloy. My first question is for Mr. Bhatt, and it
concerns project delivery times. In your written testimony, you
said that time is money and that's why you are committed to
helping deliver projects in a timely manner. I am hearing from
people in my district that projects are getting more and more
expensive while they are waiting for permitting.
What are you doing to streamline permitting so that
projects don't get prohibitively expensive between the time the
grant is awarded and when it can be built?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Representative Maloy. And time is
money and, absolutely, we want to get these projects underway
and under construction. On the permitting side, Federal
Highways is not a permitting agency, but we work very closely
with the permitting agencies and the State sponsors so that we
can quickly turn any permitting needs that are in place to get
those permits issued and get those projects under construction.
Ms. Maloy. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Fernandez, I have a similar question for you. I am
hearing that the NEPA process is slowing down the grants even
with the increased funding from IIJA. What is your agency doing
to make sure that these permitting processes are moving so that
projects can be built before they become too expensive?
Ms. Fernandez. Thank you very much for your question,
Representative Maloy.
The Federal Transit Administration is working very closely
with every single one of our project sponsors and those who
intend to request Federal funding for their projects. One of
the areas that I would like to emphasize is that 99 percent of
the projects that come before us receive a categorical
exclusion. That is, these are projects that are not affecting
the human environment and, therefore, are not subject to going
through an environmental assessment process. That helps
expedite, get projects out sooner.
We are also working across the Department of Transportation
on the permitting action plan so that we can get all projects--
many of our projects have interfaces with other modes of
transportation, and getting all of those projects out on time.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you.
OK. Last question, Ms. Hutcheson. The Safe Driver
Apprenticeship Program, I am hearing that there are
requirements that are being required by the agency that aren't
in IIJA, and it is making it difficult to fill all of the
slots.
What are you doing to address that? Are you considering
removing the additional requirements?
Ms. Hutcheson. Thank you, Representative Maloy, for the
question. Our responsibility is to safety first. We have been
rolling out the Safe Driver Apprenticeship Program as directed
by Congress, and we are in the process of building the ranks of
drivers in order to complete the 200 drivers we need to have a
statistically significant study.
We have included safety requirements as directed by
Congress. Congress gave us authority for the Department of
Transportation to add safety measures as necessary to ensure
safety, and we have done that.
We continue to market, communicate, reach out, and build
these ranks, and we look forward to reporting back to you on a
successful program soon.
Ms. Maloy. OK. I look forward to the report.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentlewoman yields.
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member Norton,
for holding this hearing. It is important that the public knows
about what we passed and how it is being implemented.
Since the passage of the historic Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law, the Department of Transportation announced grants on their
103 programs for roads, bridges, rail, buses, ferries, ports,
pipelines, and more, all the type of activities that the
Government is supposed to do, basic fundamentals in
infrastructure, things the public appreciates and utilizes and
that are bipartisan in nature.
There are projects in every congressional district across
the country, including the districts of Members who even voted
against this bill. So far, $6.2 billion in funding has been
announced and is headed to Tennessee with over 266 specific
projects identified for funding. In my district in 2023, we
received $140 million in Federal-aid highway funds, which is
supporting 47 new projects, in addition to the 48 projects from
2022. We appreciate that.
Since the passage of the bill, we have received several
discretionary grants as well. Ms. Fernandez was with us when we
announced $76.3 million in FTA grants to the Memphis Area
Transit Authority, MATA. We had $38.2 million in RAISE grants
for MATA's Crosstown Corridor project and Shelby County's
Project ELBOW, $14.8 million for the Memphis Airport for the
terminal expansion program, and $640,000 for Safe Streets for
All grants in the city of Memphis. So, it is important what it
has done for my district and districts all over the country.
To Mr.--is it Monaje?
Mr. Monje. Monje. Thank you for asking.
Mr. Cohen. Monje. I am sorry. Thank you, sir.
Speaking of my district, I would like to make you aware of
a program that Chairman Crawford somehow or another did not
mention. It's an application for a grant under the Bridge
Investment Program.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman's time is expired.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cohen. He wants this as much as I do.
It is an $800 million application jointly submitted by
Tennessee and Arkansas to replace the I-55 bridge with a new
bridge called America's River Crossing. Four hundred million
dollars would come from this grant and $200 million from the
Department of Transportation in Arkansas and $200 million from
Tennessee. That bridge crosses the Mississippi River, lots of
I-40 traffic, I-55 traffic throughout the country. This is an
important new bridge. The old bridge was built in 1949, not an
old time for a person, but an old time for a bridge.
It's important for the Port of Memphis, which is the fifth
largest inland port in the United States as well. It's not
seismically safe, and we need to have a resilient bridge that
does that. So, we would appreciate the Department's due
consideration when reviewing this grant application.
Are you familiar with that grant application?
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir. And the great thing about the bridge
program is that there are statutory minimums for each State.
And Shailen has met with Tennessee DOT on this project. We are
able to take these bottlenecks and move them from the wish list
to the construction schedule.
Mr. Cohen. Well, it would be important for all the world.
As I mentioned to Secretary Buttigieg, the mantra should be,
what is good for Memphis is good for the country.
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cohen. And this is certainly good for the--we fly
everything in and out of the airport on FedEx, and then you
come across the I-40 bridge or the I-55 bridge and you get all
the truck transportation and commerce.
Ms. Fernandez, thank you again. It's good to see you again.
I know MATA is appreciative of what we had in the past. And as
you know, transit agencies in most urbanized areas like Memphis
can only use their Federal funds for capital projects'
expenditures. So, States have to--and localities spend--all for
operating, 100 percent on the hook for operating expenses. The
Biden administration tried to change that, but it didn't make
it into the law.
How important do you believe it is for large transit
agencies in major urbanized areas like Memphis to be able to
access Federal funds for operating expenses?
Ms. Fernandez. Thank you very much for your question,
Representative Cohen. And also, thank you for your focus on the
new bus facility in Memphis that was sinking and that now has
funding to be rebuilt.
As you may know, currently, large urban transit systems
cannot use Federal Transit Administration funds for operations
the way that smaller and rural systems can. And that is one of
the reasons why, in the President's 2024 budget, he requested
that Congress enact that it would increase local providers'
flexibility to use those funds when they need to.
While we, of course, defer to Congress, I certainly agree
that it would be helpful to transit agencies, in particular
those that are facing a challenge where they are closing the
gaps in their operating budgets. Currently, rural communities
are able to use their formula dollars for operations. And
transit is such an integral part. It is so essential to people
around this country that it is imperative that they continue to
have access to that service, and that access comes in the way
of funding to operate the services.
Mr. Cohen. I believe I am correct, MATA goes into West
Memphis even, Mr. Crawford's district.
But in closing, Administrator Bhatt, the city of Memphis
got a Safe Streets for All grant, but we will need to continue
funding to keep that going and get down to zero losses of
lives. So, I appreciate that effort, too.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Nehls.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Hutcheson, the FMCSA is considering a number
of regulations that are in various stages of the rulemaking
process, including a potential speed limiter mandate on the
large trucks, big, big trucks. And I know you may not be able
to comment in detail about the substance of the final rule, but
I hope you would agree with me that a credible process is very,
very important, particularly when working through controversial
rulemakings.
Would you agree we need to get this right? Yes?
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative Nehls, yes, I agree.
Mr. Nehls. Very good. OK.
So, this is why it concerns me. This is what concerns me,
that in late September, FMCSA specified a specific speed limit
for the speed limiter rule, 68 miles an hour. It was in the
U.S. DOT unified agenda. This was quickly rescinded and chalked
up as a clerical error.
Did you know about that, 68 miles an hour, U.S. DOT? It was
a clerical error. However, the same week, I believe that you
were a keynote speaker at a high-dollar fundraiser--they dubbed
it as a soiree--sponsored by labor unions, trial attorneys,
large trucking companies. All of these stakeholders have been
pressuring your agency to select a speed limiter rule set at 60
miles an hour, well below what the agency had indicated it was
prepared to select.
Were these two occurrences connected in any way?
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, I appreciate the opportunity
to make clarifications here. We have not yet set a speed limit.
We have not issued an NPRM in which that speed limit would be
suggested for feedback.
Mr. Nehls. Do you believe that it hurts the credibility of
the rulemaking process by attending--keynoting a fundraiser for
advocates on one side of the issue while the regulation is
under consideration?
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, we take very seriously the
fidelity of the process of rulemaking, and we don't discuss the
contents of the rule even as we are engaging with our
stakeholders around the----
Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. All right. I will trust you on
this. I am going to trust you on this, but I just hope that you
equally consider the 15,000 comments--15,000 comments--from
America's truckers who have provided input on this rulemaking.
They are not going to be able to host a big fundraiser for you,
but are you familiar with Land Line Magazine? Are you familiar
with this [indicating magazine]?
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, I am.
Mr. Nehls. It's a very good magazine. Do you read it or do
you just get it or it sits on your desk? Do you read this?
This is the October 2023 issue. Page 12, very dangerous,
very dangerous, it says here, talking about the speed limiters
on this thing. Read this article because, I tell you, the
people that travel around--and I think you mentioned earlier
that truckers are moving a lot of our goods and services
around. Listen to the truckers. I think they would know better
than the bureaucrats and specifically Congress on this.
The AEB rule, I would like to pivot to that. I believe
NHTSA, FMCSA has gone far beyond congressional intent to
include vehicles for which AEB technology is not practical.
Vocational, emergency vehicles, the rule as written is not
implementable. I don't believe it is. Vocational vehicles are
not completed on our factory lines. The chassis are sent to
third-party customization shops where heavy equipment is added,
like a dump truck with a big snowplow in front of it.
Manufacturers would not be able to certify the system once the
vehicle is altered, which can lead to a misleading
understanding of AEB for the operator.
Ms. Carlson, are you familiar with this magazine
[indicating Land Line Magazine]?
Ms. Carlson. I don't, but I will.
Mr. Nehls. Oh, you have got to read the magazine.
Ms. Carlson. You recommend it highly.
Mr. Nehls. The whole industry, everybody has got to.
Very dangerous. A lot of truckers say an automated
emergency brake mandate would jeopardize safety. It talks about
one of the truckdrivers that, it was either a shadow or the
guardrail caused her to lose control on this thing. Scared the
hell out of her.
Matter of fact, I've got a little Lexus, and I was backing
up out of the grocery store, the H-E-B, the other day, and all
of a sudden the damn thing slammed the brakes and scared me,
scared my wife. I said, what the heck is happening? Well, this
thing must have detected a vehicle coming from my left or my
right. This can be very, very dangerous. And if you read this--
matter of fact, I will give you this copy once I am done.
Ms. Carlson. Thank you.
Mr. Nehls. You need to read this when it talks about these
brakes and how dangerous it is going to be.
Ms. Carlson. If I might----
Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Let's get into what's really
important as well, is my Trucker Bathroom Access Act.
Ms. Carlson. Would you mind if I responded to----
Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. I just have another 20 seconds
here.
Are you guys--Ms. Carlson, Ms. Hutcheson, are you familiar
with my Trucker Bathroom Access Act? Are you familiar with
that?
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, I am.
Mr. Nehls. Oh, very good. Is the administration supportive
of the principle behind my bill?
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, we are. We believe in
dignified working conditions----
Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. I love that. I love that. And all
the truckers running around trying to find a way to relieve
themselves and find a bathroom to go to, I mean, it just makes
sense we should provide access to bathrooms for these truckers.
Easier for fellows just to go behind a truck. But what about a
lady? What is a lady going to do? She has got to have access to
a bathroom.
Do you have any data or ways to accumulate data for
truckdrivers that would deny bathroom access or anything like
that?
Mr. Crawford. Quick answer on this.
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, your office has reached out
to mine for technical assistance.
Mr. Nehls. Beautiful.
Ms. Hutcheson. And we look forward to continuing to address
this.
Mr. Nehls. I am glad that you support it. I will support
you on this and do everything we can to make sure that our
truckers have a place to relieve themselves in the right way,
legally.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Stanton.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Carlson, did you have a short answer you wanted to give
as brief as possible?
Ms. Carlson. Thank you so much. I appreciate the
opportunity.
I did just want to say that we have received comments on
our proposed rulemaking. We consider every one of those
comments carefully. Some of them are reflected in the article
that you [Mr. Nehls] referred to, and we will issue a final
rule that takes into account those comments.
Thank you.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you much.
Successful implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law is our shared priority. Every corner of my State of Arizona
is benefiting from these investments, and my district is no
exception. More than $220 million has been allocated to
reconstruct and expand the I-10 Broadway Curve, one of the most
heavily traveled sections of freeway in the region. And
recently, both the cities of Flagstaff and Globe received Safe
Streets and Roads for All funding, a competitive grant program
authorized by BIL, with the goal of getting us to zero roadway
deaths. This is our bipartisan work in action to keep our
communities safe.
Even with these significant investments, there is still
much more to do and projects that desperately need Federal
support to become a reality. One of the most important is the
expansion of I-10 in Arizona. Arizona has invested wisely in
widening I-10 because it is a major artery for passenger and
freight traffic in the southern United States. While the
majority of I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson has been widened,
there is one significant gap that remains only two lanes, and
it lies wholly within the boundaries of the Gila River Indian
Community.
And I doubt it would surprise any of us that the improved
portions of the I-10 end at the Indian Community boundary and
pick up on the other side of the Indian Community boundary,
because for decades, centuries even, Tribal governments have
not been treated equitably as partners in Federal
transportation projects.
Widening I-10 and adding an interchange is vital to improve
safety, provide direct access to the Gila River Indian
Community's government services and hospital, accelerate
response time for emergency services, and it will prevent
traffic from detouring onto the reservation when bottlenecks or
accidents close or otherwise restrict traffic, all priorities
for modal Administrators like yourselves. And I am hopeful that
I-10 can finally receive the Federal grant funding to move
ahead for this much needed expansion.
Mr. Bhatt, on that theme of pending success and
implementation, I want to turn to you. Included in the BIL was
the ROCKS Act. This is a bipartisan effort that I led to
establish a working group at DOT to examine and draft policies
to ensure we have sustainable access to construction materials.
My home State of Arizona has led the way in enacting policies
like the ROCKS Act that keep prices low and ensure more
sustainable options are available as we work to build the
infrastructure funded by BIL.
It is my understanding that FHWA is working to implement
this important provision and establish the Federal working
group created by the ROCKS Act, but it has still not moved. Can
you provide context on this, and will you investigate this
important issue, work with your team to implement the working
group uncovered resources?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Representative Stanton. I actually
was in Arizona last week for a wildlife crossing award
announcement and met with our team at the Broadway Curve
office. And absolutely on the ROCKS Act--actually, Director
Toth also mentioned the I-10 project to me. I will absolutely
work with you and your office on getting that stood up.
Mr. Stanton. Yes, the ROCKS Act is important, and it has
been slow to move the working group. We need to get it done.
Thank you for investigating that and getting back to my office.
I am short on time, but I want to end on another success,
the build-out of light rail infrastructure in the Valley of the
Sun, specifically the Northwest Expansion Phase II project. I
used to be mayor of Phoenix, and we put on the ballot support
for light rail and other public transportation improvements
back in 2015. It passed overwhelmingly, my own reelection
happening on the same ballot, and we won as well. So, it was a
good day in Phoenix, and now it is coming to fruition.
This project will extend light rail west on Dunlap Avenue
from 19th Avenue, north on 25th Avenue across I-17 at Mountain
View Road, ending on the west side of the freeway near the
former Metrocenter Mall. This project was the first CIG project
to receive a full funding grant agreement under the Biden
administration, and the ribbon cutting is next month.
So, I want to extend a personal invitation to you, Ms.
Fernandez, to join us in Arizona for this important
celebration. I hope you can make it.
Ms. Fernandez. Thank you very much, Representative Stanton.
I hope I can make it, too.
Mr. Stanton. Whatever you can do to make it work in your
schedule.
Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, panelists, for joining us here today and
bringing us information and testimony that will help.
Now, we know that in my home State of California, as well
as here at the Federal level, there is a lot of conversation
about reducing emissions and greenhouse gas. And most
specifically, it seems to boil down to carbon dioxide. And
there are goals being set for that, targets, et cetera. So, I
know each of you probably are looking at different aspects of
those goals, I would say is probably pretty fair, right?
So, let me ask each of you, so, in order to set goals, what
is the basis where we are starting at? So, I would like to ask
each of you just to go down the line, please. What percent of
our atmosphere currently is carbon dioxide?
Let's start with you right on the left, Mr. Monje.
Mr. Monje. I am not 100 percent sure, but I imagine about
3-ish percent.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Bhatt?
Mr. Bhatt. I think it is actually .04 percent.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Ms. Fernandez?
Ms. Fernandez. I would go with .04 percent.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Ms. Hutcheson?
Ms. Hutcheson. It is beyond our safety mission. I don't
have a number for you.
Ms. LaMalfa. OK. And, finally, Ms. Carlson?
Ms. Carlson. I don't as well, but I will say that that
percentage is increasing.
Mr. LaMalfa. Is what?
Ms. Carlson. That percentage is increasing as we emit more
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. All right. It's important to know where
you are starting on that. So, two of you I commend on knowing
the number, .04 percent. And it is creeping up, so, four one
hundredths of 1 percent is where we are starting.
So, as our atmosphere is made up of 78 percent nitrogen, 21
percent oxygen, a little under 1 percent argon, and carbon
dioxide is mixed in with methane, nitrous oxide, krypton, and
water vapor in the trace gases that are in there. So, indeed, I
don't personally believe that carbon dioxide is the enemy. It
is very essential for plant life, which if we are going to have
the production of the oxygen that we need, we need plants
around.
So, that said, it is even listed on your website, under
climate and sustainability: DOT is committed to using all of
its authorities to substantially reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and transportation-related pollution.
So, I am glad at least a couple of you know what the
percentage is or at least you are guessing at that.
So, Administrator Hutcheson, the administration has really
launched a strong effort on the trucking industry to reduce
vehicle emissions, very burdensome, expensive rules on the
greenhouse gas portion. Now, I get it, on diesel emissions and
soot and such and that we have made tremendous gains on having
the cleanest trucking industry we have ever had currently. But
the administration seems to want to push climate goals over the
truckdrivers' needs, the trucking needs, and what consumers
need, that if you've got it, a truck brought it.
So, at the same time, you are working on a speed limiter
mandate on heavy vehicles that could actually work against the
efforts to reduce emissions. It focuses on how emissions from
these vehicles could be lowered by a speed limiter.
So, what the effect could likely be is that, instead of
trucks being able to go with the flow of traffic--and we have
seen it arbitrarily, slowing them down to, in my home State, 55
miles per hour, thereby creating this accordion effect of cars
and trucks not being able to go the same speed and slowing down
the ability of trucks to deliver and get their job done. And
so, with the difficulty sometimes with hours of service
available to drivers, it is really creating a bottleneck for a
lot of folks.
So, has your agency really assessed how these overall
emissions would be affected by an actual increase in truck
traffic and general slowing down of traffic, Ms. Hutcheson?
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative LaMalfa, I won't speak to the
emissions piece of it. It is outside of our authorities at the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. But I can repeat
again some of the information I provided to Representative
Nehls about the speed limiter rulemaking process.
We have not yet determined a speed. We have not yet
published a notice of proposed rulemaking----
Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. So, it sounds like you have
incomplete information on what the effects are going to be on
traffic, on trucks being able to deliver, hours of service and
all that, but you are moving ahead with the mandate. Is that
correct?
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, the analysis will be
published in the regulatory impact analysis, and we look
forward to sharing that with you when it is available.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Thank you.
I am out of time. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking
Member, and to all of the witnesses today.
Accessible transit is a matter of equity and justice. For
years, disenfranchised communities have been left out of the
transit planning and have suffered as a result. One such group
that historically has been an afterthought in decisionmaking is
the community with disabilities. That is why I am thrilled that
the IIJA helped fund the All Stations Accessibility Program,
which seeks to modernize rail stations to make them fully ADA
accessible. It's about time that we prioritize safe and
convenient travel for all users, rather than center it around
able-bodied people in predominantly wealthy neighbors.
The All Stations Accessibility Program awarded $118 million
to the Chicago Transit Authority to remodel stations across the
city. Many of these stations were built over 50 years ago and
will be modernized with elevators, ramps, and improved signage.
While the IIJA has distributed historic investments, we
also have got to make sure that they promote safety for our
most vulnerable users, such as pedestrians and bikers as well.
Chicago has a network of over 280 miles of bike lanes. Only 40
of them are protected with physical barriers. Archer Avenue in
my district, for example, is identified as a spoke route to
increase ridership in the city streets cycling program.
However, the Southwest Side has many barriers to safe walking,
biking, and public transportation. These barriers are the
result of conditions like heavy industry and truck traffic,
along with related environmental concerns. We need to make sure
that districts like mine get equitable funding to make streets
safe for all users.
Under Secretary Monje, DOT's National Roadway Safety
Strategy includes recommendations for bike lane safety, such as
installing divider posts which can drastically reduce bike
crashes with vehicles. However, many roads still do not have
physical barriers separating bike lanes.
As bike ridership continues to increase, can we incentivize
the installation of physical barriers and improve crash
reporting to keep bikers safe?
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir. Thank you so much for your leadership.
As you know, we also were able to get a Safe Streets and Roads
for All project for a Safe Travel for All Roadmap for the
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.
You're right, in 2022, we had 7,345 pedestrians who were
killed in traffic crashes, part of an ongoing epidemic of
traffic crashes that we are addressing.
The Safe Streets and Roads for All program is really a
wonderful gift that the Congress gave to us because these bike
lanes are very easy to put in place. They don't require a lot
of construction, and just today announced another round of
them. So, thank you for your support of the program.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. And thank you.
Autonomous vehicles, I will zoom in on one subarea, Ms.
Carlson. In 2018, NHTSA shut down an autonomous schoolbus
project in Florida on a technicality. The equipment had been
improperly imported from outside of the U.S. This driverless
bus was taking kids back and forth to school with no human
operator. I do not believe that it's possible today to ensure
the safety of schoolchildren on board vehicles absent a human
driver.
Does NHTSA have the authority to ensure the safety of
school kids if an American company were to produce an
autonomous school vehicle? And a brief answer, please.
Ms. Carlson. Thanks. I appreciate your interest in
autonomous vehicles. This is an area where our focus is on the
safety of the operation of automated vehicles in a way that can
promote innovation. Those two things are not in conflict with
each other. I don't believe that we can innovate unless
automated vehicles are safe.
I will start with just a basic foundational notion, and
that is that, if a vehicle is compliant with our FMVSSs, it is
up to the States to determine the rules of the road and whether
a vehicle can actually operate. But we have extensive safety
authority, and we use it. We have recalled a number of vehicles
under that authority, and we continue to monitor it very
closely.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
And, finally, to someone who hails from Chicago, three
decades of wonderful transportation infrastructure experience,
Ms. Fernandez, great to see you here.
Do you believe that you have the necessary authority to
oversee the safety of autonomous transit vehicles? And what
additional clarity can Congress provide in statute to prevent
the unsafe operation of such vehicles?
Mr. Crawford. Quick answer, Ms. Fernandez.
Ms. Fernandez. Thank you for your question, Representative
Garcia, on this very important issue.
I just want to restate what my colleagues have shared, and
that is that at U.S. DOT, as well as the Federal Transit
Administration, safety is front and center. We always put
safety of the passengers and operators above anything else,
including technology.
We have been investing in research around technology for
public transportation, technology that's centered upon the
buses at a level, but also about automating maintenance
facilities to increase the opportunities for throughput of
maintaining those vehicles. We are still gathering data and
information around that space, have not received a full,
complete set of information that would allow us to then make a
determination. However, we do know that automation is one of
several advancements. However, through the Federal Government,
as well as our colleagues here, those decisions around safety
will be determined by other agencies within the Department.
Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Yakym.
Mr. Yakym. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
witnesses for being here today.
Ms. Carlson, on the morning of October 30, 2018, a driver
in Rochester, Indiana, in my district, made a deadly decision
to illegally go around a stopped schoolbus whose stop arm was
up and the lights flashing were activated. She killed three
siblings and seriously injured a fourth child. The incident
took place in our northern Indiana community and in our State,
and it totally shook that community.
In the wake of this tragedy, my predecessor, the late
Jackie Walorski, authored the Stop for School Buses Act. This
legislation, which was included in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA, directed NHTSA to evaluate
State laws and best practices, look at the mitigation
technologies, and look at driver education materials relating
to illegal passing of schoolbuses.
As I understand it, NHTSA is still working on these
deliverables. Could you please provide an update on where
things stand and your projected timeline for completion?
Ms. Carlson. Yes. And first let me just acknowledge the
incredible tragedy in your district. It's really hard to fathom
three siblings being killed. I experienced something similar in
Los Angeles with a young girl who was killed as she got off of
a schoolbus.
We are committed to schoolbus safety in a number of
different ways. The studies that you refer to are underway.
They have been contracted for. We expect them to be completed,
I believe, by sometime in 2024, and we will keep you updated as
soon as they are ready.
We are doing everything we can to try to--all 50 States
have these laws that prevent people from passing schoolbuses
that have their arms up. People don't always abide by the law.
So, as you correctly point out, one of the things that we are
really trying to do is educate young drivers through driver's
education materials. We have a safety campaign on schoolbuses
that we funded.
And one of the things that is heartening, although it
doesn't take away from the tragedy you described, is that
schoolbuses are actually one of the safest forms of
transportation for children.
Mr. Yakym. All right. Thank you.
As you know, there are millions of illegal schoolbus
passings every year. And I appreciate your partnership and hard
work to prevent another tragedy like the one that occurred in
Rochester.
Mr. Bhatt, you oversee programs with $7\1/2\ billion in
funding devoted to building out electric vehicle charging
infrastructure. How many chargers have been put in place and in
service in that program's 2-year existence?
Mr. Bhatt. On the Federal side--Representative, thank you
for the question--we just had the first one go online in Ohio,
but many more States are coming online in the next weeks and
months.
Mr. Yakym. Is it acceptable to you that in 2 years with
$7\1/2\ billion that we only have one charger online for that
program?
Mr. Bhatt. No, I think--Representative, I think we
obviously would have preferred that to move more quickly. I
think from a perspective standpoint, $1.2 trillion in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, $350 billion of that flowing
through Federal Highways, $7.5 billion on the NEVI program. We
had to write the standards. Took us about 35 years to build the
interstate system. So, 2 years in, I think we are ready to
really hit the gas--that's not a good analogy--move forward
quickly on----
Mr. Yakym [interrupting]. $7\1/2\ billion may not sound
like much to our Federal Government, but to my constituents,
that's what we would certainly call real money.
How many chargers do you believe will be funded by this
program and up and running in service by the end of next year,
by the end of 2024? What is your agency's projection?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Chairman. I wasn't meaning to
minimize the $7.5 billion. I was just saying in the context of
the full bill.
The President has set a goal of 500,000 publicly funded
chargers. There are about 166,000 in total out there now. We
anticipate hitting the President's goal of 500,000----
Mr. Yakym [interrupting]. How many from the $7\1/2\ billion
that have been allocated to this specific program--we have one
charger up today. How many chargers as a part of this program
do you anticipate will be installed by the end of next year
from this specific $7\1/2\ billion allocation?
Mr. Bhatt. I will get you--I will be happy to follow up
afterwards with a very specific number, but we anticipate all
of the States coming online in the coming months.
Mr. Yakym. And I would very much like to see the followup
with the number of chargers that we project going at the end of
next year. Because with one charger over the course of $7\1/2\
billion in 2 years, I mean, obviously, you can see why there is
certainly--I know one of my Democratic colleagues mentioned
this as well. I mean, there is certainly bipartisan concern
over this program.
So, to me, what I hear from a lot of industry is that
there's a lot of redtape that's, quote, a labyrinth of new
contract and performance requirements, all types of things that
hold up these projects. That stands in stark contrast with a
company like Tesla who has deployed 17,000 chargers without any
Government interference or regulations.
So, I very much look forward to that followup.
And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time. I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Carbajal.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to all of you for your time and your
testimonies on the implementation of the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law that this committee helped draft and which
was signed into law over 2 years ago.
In my district, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has
translated into over $550 million for more than 100 local
projects, and more funding continues to come forward. It has
been a win-win to help modernize our infrastructure, create
good-paying jobs, and also begin to tackle the current climate
crisis.
Under Secretary Monje, I recently attended COP28, where I
heard firsthand the positive impacts of American leadership in
beginning to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through
implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the
Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act.
Currently, there are two new climate-focused highway
formula programs the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law stood up:
the Carbon Reduction Program and the PROTECT Program. Combined,
these programs will help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions
and harden our infrastructure against extreme weather.
Can you provide an update to us on these two programs?
Specifically, how are you working with States to make sure we
are fully taking advantage of them?
Mr. Monje. Thank you so much, Congressman. As you said, the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act
represent the greatest opportunity to address the fact that our
transportation network is the largest source of climate
emissions in our country and, in doing so, create thousands of
American jobs and ensure America's leadership around the globe.
We do have $2.8 billion for the PROTECT Program and another
$3.7 billion for the Carbon Reduction Program.
And if it's OK with you, I would like to defer to
Administrator Bhatt to give an update on his programs.
Mr. Carbajal. Great.
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Representative. I would just say
that, of the $27\1/2\ billion that are for climate-related
funding within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, specifically
around PROTECT, they are formula dollars that we were working
with the States to get them to obligate those fundings. And we
also put out a NOFO, Notice of Funding Opportunity, for
discretionary PROTECT dollars that is both for the formula side
is for the States and it is for communities to deal with
climate-related issues for their infrastructure.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Administrator Bhatt, the Office of Management and Budget
issued its final guidance implementing the Build America, Buy
America Act in August. The guidance allows agencies to provide
additional agency-specific guidance where necessary.
What, if any, FHWA guidance might be issued to address the
FHWA specific issues?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Representative. Buy America is very
important to our President, and this is something that we are
working very closely to pursue. FHWA has been working on a
rulemaking that will propose to withdraw the standing waiver
that is out there now for manufactured products and propose
standards for applying Buy America requirements for
manufactured products. We will continue to work with waivers
for States when they come in.
So, we are trying to balance getting these projects built
quickly with the idea that we want these jobs to be for
American workers.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. A sense of realism is extremely
important.
Administrator Bhatt, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
required the Federal Highway Administration to establish an
advisory board to inform the development of the new national
pilot program to test mileage-based user fees as a replacement
to the current gas tax.
Where are we with that process? When will that body be
constituted?
Mr. Bhatt. Yes. I think--thank you, Representative--very
important that we get that feedback in to inform our next
reauthorization. I think we had the call for the names to go
out. We have received those, working through that, and would
expect to see that come up in the next year.
Mr. Carbajal. Any sense, in general: next year, beginning?
Mr. Bhatt. I will be happy to follow up with your office
with a more specific time.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Molinaro.
Mr. Molinaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here today.
My colleague walked us down at least a line of questioning
I was going to ask, so, I appreciated the updated information
regarding the guidance.
I do want to acknowledge, of course, having spent the last
12 years serving in local government, the historic significance
of the IIJA investment. Of course, in States like New York, we
continue to see a delay in getting dollars on the ground
ultimately for the kind of work that we would like to see
advance in the State of New York.
I do want to return to the question of AI which I think
came up a little bit earlier. And, Administrator Bhatt, if I
could, obviously, we acknowledge AI's potential within
infrastructure development. As noted earlier this year,
President Biden announced, through Executive order, an AI
directing Federal agencies to monitor and explore responsible
use of AI as it's, obviously, increasingly deployed in a
variety of industries.
Can you speak to the FHWA's response to the Executive order
and discuss, if you would, the administration's plan to foster
use of AI in project development and planning?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Representative. And I will also ask
the Under Secretary as well for the more broad administration
approach.
I have spent a lot of my career at the intersection of
technology and transportation. AI is something we want to be
very careful with as we develop solutions, particularly around
the transportation side traffic operations. AI is being
deployed right now by private sector companies and by States to
better operate traffic management systems. On the construction
side, we are looking at things like parametric design to use
technologies to help us design some of our projects.
So, we are just in the nascent stages, but that's certainly
something I am not sure if the Under Secretary----
Mr. Molinaro [interposing]. Please.
Mr. Monje. Thank you, sir.
Just this week, the President convened the AI Council, of
which Secretary Buttigieg is a member. There are many use cases
in transportation, as you know, including in automated
vehicles, advanced air mobility, and asset management and
traffic demand management.
At the Department, we are a regulator, we are a user, we
are a funder of research, including at the Turner-Fairbank
Highway Center, at the William J. Hughes Technical Center, and
UTCs across the country.
As Administrator Bhatt said, he used to run ITS America,
so, he has got a lot to know about this.
AI has to be safe and secure, it has to be responsible, it
has to support American workers and ensure that we are
protecting privacy as well as managing the risks for
cybersecurity.
Mr. Molinaro. Advancement and incentivizing its use in the
planning and development of infrastructure and construction
projects are critically important, in fact, to driving down
costs and enhancing efficiency at the local level.
To Administrator Hutcheson, if you would, I also wanted to
ask about AI in the trucking space and how ultimately you are
collaborating with stakeholders in this space to ensure the
future of the industry and, obviously, recognize the commitment
to safety.
Ms. Hutcheson. Thank you, Representative, for your
highlight on AI. We are hearing from our stakeholders a growing
interest in how AI is going to affect jobs in the trucking
industry.
I won't claim to be an expert in AI, and I intend to rely
on the experts in AI to help guide us through the work we do
together, with truckers, all commercial motor vehicle operators
in AI.
So, I look forward to working with you and your office on
this further.
Mr. Molinaro. I think it is for us, and certainly from my
perspective, critically important we balance the use of the
technology with safety, but also ensuring, obviously, the
protection of those jobs. So, not only working with the AI
experts, but working with the trucking experts and the folks,
men and women, who are actually driving on our highways.
I have no further questions, but I do want to say, I want
to offer, in particular to the FTA and Ms. Fernandez, just an
observation.
Having spent much of my adult life in local elected
service, public transportation is critically important. Access
to public transportation for those living with intellectual,
physical, and developmental disabilities is even more
important.
And while we as a society have made significant
advancements to address, through ADA compliance, physical
disabilities, we have made very slow progress when it comes to
providing access, not only physical access to America's public
transit system--buses, trains, et cetera--not only access--
physical access--but connection to employment opportunities,
ensuring that local, regional administrators are focused on
making sure that those with intellectual and developmental
disabilities have access.
This is a population that experiences 80 percent
unemployment. And we have a great opportunity if only the
administration would put as much emphasis on intellectual and
developmental disabilities as we have physical. Not a
criticism, just to further incentivize.
And with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Auchincloss.
Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chair.
This week, the Washington Bridge on Interstate 195 in
Providence has been closed due to a critical failure of some
bridge components.
Administrator Bhatt, are you aware of this closure?
Mr. Bhatt. Yes, Representative. Secretary Buttigieg spoke
with the Governor yesterday. We have worked with RIDOT. We have
a division administrator there. And very aware of the project
itself.
Mr. Auchincloss. As you know, this closure has been hugely
inconvenient to tens of thousands of my constituents, and also
to Rhode Island residents as well. Time away from family,
missed work, and long hours in congestion.
You noted in your testimony the role that the Federal
Highway Administration has played in supporting Los Angeles and
Philadelphia in repairing sections of their interstates. What
can Rhode Island expect in collaboration with you to address
this issue as expeditiously as possible?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Representative.
Our division administrator and our staff are currently
assessing what the options are.
This is more of a failure of a 1960s bridge, so, it's not
an emergency in the same way as a tanker fire or a fire that is
taken down. But there is large Federal eligibility to use funds
to help repair the bridge.
Mr. Auchincloss. There is large Federal eligibility for the
funds to repair the bridge?
Mr. Bhatt. Through the bridge program that is provided for
Federal funds. So, we are working to figure out exactly how we
can best support them.
Mr. Auchincloss. That's promising, and we certainly want
the funding to support it.
What about technical support to reduce the timeline to get
it up and running?
Mr. Bhatt. Yes, thank you, Representative.
It is my understanding that they are going to use one of
the spans to take half the traffic in a couple of weeks in each
direction, but 96,000 vehicles a day on that road, and then
looking at a few months.
But we are actively engaged with the State, as well as the
private sector contractors who are already mobilized. So, we
are going to get that bridge open and repaired as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Auchincloss. Do you think there are things that the
State could be doing to reduce the timeline for repair? I mean,
we are looking at in Pennsylvania, Governor Shapiro got it up
and open in, what, a week?
Mr. Bhatt. Two weeks for Pennsylvania. Eight days for
California. I think every----
Mr. Auchincloss [interrupting]. Those are the kind of
timelines we are looking for, I think.
Mr. Bhatt. Yes, thank you, Representative. I understand
that.
For Rhode Islanders and everyone on the east coast, it is a
critical artery. We will do everything we can to get that
bridge open as quickly as possible.
Mr. Auchincloss. OK. So, I have got your commitment for
continued collaboration and technical and financial support on
that?
Mr. Bhatt. Absolutely.
Mr. Auchincloss. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Carlson, earlier this week I sent a letter to the
Department regarding Massachusetts' right to repair law. This
is overwhelmingly supported by my constituents and by Bay
Staters at large.
In August, NHTSA sent a letter to Massachusetts that
clarified that its right to repair law does not conflict with
the Federal Vehicle Safety Act. That was a welcome revision of
an earlier position.
But the letter still described a compliance system that
preferences vehicle manufacturers over independent repair
shops, particularly with regard to how independent repair shops
access vehicle data.
This is really still disjunctive with the spirit of the
right to repair law, which is that we want a level playing
field for independent mechanics, as well as the automakers, to
be able to repair these vehicles and really empower consumers
to shop around for the best service and the best price.
Can you describe the differences between remote data access
for vehicle manufacturers and independent repair shops and the
safety concerns that NHTSA is purporting exists with remote
access?
Ms. Carlson. I can.
Thank you for your letter. And also, I do want to stress
that we support right to repair. The Secretary supports right
to repair. It is extremely important that consumers have
choice.
Mr. Auchincloss. Yes, but your letter--you support the
proposition of right to repair, but, unfortunately, still
putting in technical impediments to its realization.
Ms. Carlson. So, the right to repair, as I said, is
extremely important. It is also extremely important that it be
implemented in a way that reduces or minimizes cybersecurity
risks.
And the letter that we sent to Massachusetts in August in
very close collaboration with the Massachusetts Attorney
General's Office and our Department of Justice and our White
House sets forth a way in which the statute can be implemented
that minimizes those risks.
Automobile dealer networks have a separate kind of closed
system with respect to the transmission of data between
manufacturers and those dealers. We work very carefully with
them as well to try to minimize security risks. But it does
pose a somewhat different problem.
The thing that we are really concerned about is open access
where a terrorist, for example, could take over a fleet of
vehicles--we have actually seen this happen with a white hat
hacker--and potentially weaponize those vehicles.
Mr. Auchincloss. I understand the concerns. But you see my
concern here. We have the Biden administration, which is
laudably looking to break up cartel-like behavior and go after
junk fees for consumers, but then we have administrative
actions that are preferencing closed systems, that are
preferencing the big OEMs over the independent repair shops,
which are in turn really raising prices and lowering choice for
consumers. So, there is a tension here.
I am concerned about cybersecurity. I worked in the
industry for a couple years, I get it. I am not yet convinced
that this remote data access has a big disparity for
cybersecurity between these two options.
I think had NHTSA worked ahead of time with the attorney
general and with interested stakeholders, as opposed to going
to court, this could have been resolved more easily. And I
would encourage you to continue to work to ensure that the true
spirit of right to repair is realized in Massachusetts.
Ms. Carlson. We will continue to work with the State of
Massachusetts. We did get in touch----
Mr. Crawford [interrupting]. You are going to have to make
this a quick response.
Mr. Auchincloss. Yes. I apologize. I am out of time.
Ms. Carlson [continuing]. Well before the court case.
Sorry. I will stop there.
Mr. Crawford. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams of New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Bhatt, thank you for your comments regarding
the I-81 build that is happening in my district in Syracuse,
New York. And in particular, in your comments, you said that
the purpose of this project and many others is to reconnect
communities.
You may know that the 15th ward in Syracuse was
particularly harmed, and the minority community there, a
historically Black community there was actually cut in half and
really never recovered from the original construction of I-81.
And, of course, this project goes a long way towards restoring
that community in particular.
I wouldn't expect you to know exactly the details I will
describe, but I am looking for your advice and counsel.
Where this runs right next to Martin Luther King Elementary
School, the highway is going to shift slightly to the east,
creating a green zone and green space that has never existed
before.
Now, my hope is that because it exists currently on Federal
property, that there will be a lot of transparency and
inclusion in the communities, in the discussion of how that
created space, so to speak, gets used.
It's, I guess, my suspicion that there are a lot of
backroom deals that happen that don't include, necessarily, all
the stakeholders, in this case this neighborhood adjoining and
surrounding the Martin Luther King Elementary School.
Can you give me any insight or advice the Federal
Government's, Department of Transportation's, role in
adjudicating how this green space, this new space, so to speak,
gets used, and how we can be a participant--my office, your
office--can be a participant in providing the transparency for
what happens to that community?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Representative. And I have actually
been to Syracuse, and I understand the impact that this roadway
construction had on the neighborhood. I will follow up with you
afterwards on the specifics.
I would say right now one of the projects that Secretary
Buttigieg announced was I-375 conversion in Detroit, Michigan,
from a highway to a boulevard that is going to free up a lot of
public land. I know that in Michigan, they have stood up a
local and State group to allow for community involvement. And
so, I will follow up with you to see if it's the same process
that would apply here.
But we always want to ensure transparency in any of these
transactions.
Mr. Williams of New York. Is there--is the Federal
Government--yes, sir.
Mr. Monje. Syracuse did get a $500,000 planning grant to
address those issues. As you said, 1958, that project displaced
1,300 families. And as we consider how to redress that, it is
important to have the voice of the community in there. I would
love to continue working with your office to make sure that
that planning grant goes well and that the community's voice is
heard.
Mr. Williams of New York. Thank you.
I have sat down with the engineers and the public housing
authorities that are adjacent to that area, and it is their
number one concern. And this goes way beyond politics. It's
just simply good governance and the right thing to do.
So, I just want to make sure that the Federal authorities
are providing the oversight and using, frankly, our office--
collectively, yours, mine--to provide that kind of transparency
in this particular case.
So, I look forward to that advice, and particularly the
Detroit example.
Under Secretary Monje, one of the concerns that we have in
New York State is something called the Scaffold Law. There are
49 other States that have no similar law. But in New York
State, we have a law that has absolute liability that comes
from gravity-related incidences.
For example, on the Tappan Zee Bridge, this particular law
added $300 million of expense to the construction of that
bridge. And that is true for every infrastructure project in
New York.
Do you have any advice on how we can perhaps address this
so that New York State can be more efficient with how it uses
Federal dollars?
Mr. Monje. Thank you, sir.
I am not familiar with that law. Worker safety is a
critically important aspect of our work. And I would love to
continue to work your team to address that.
Mr. Williams of New York. I think just following the
examples of 49 other States would be helpful.
Thank you.
Mr. Duarte [presiding]. Representative Foushee.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the witnesses for your testimonies.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is a historic
piece of legislation that is rebuilding the infrastructure we
use every day to get where we need to go.
I am especially grateful for the recently announced $1
billion grant the Department of Transportation has given to
develop a new intercity passenger rail route between Raleigh,
North Carolina, and Richmond, Virginia. And I was proud to join
Secretary Buttigieg in North Carolina earlier this week for the
announcement of this historic grant.
These investments made possible by the Biden administration
will develop this intercity passenger rail route that will ease
the burden on our highways and boost economic development in
North Carolina's Fourth Congressional District.
Administrator Bhatt, this summer, the Federal Highway
Administration issued a call for applications for two key
programs, the Reconnecting Communities Pilot under IIJA and the
Neighborhood Access and Equity Program under the Inflation
Reduction Act.
Each program has a focus on redressing the harms of the
past, such as removing highways that divide or cut off
communities. But these programs are also about building a
future in communities that have been left behind. I am hopeful
we will see investments in projects like providing better
transit service for low-income communities.
Can you give us an update on when these awards will go out
under these programs? And can you speak to how the Department
will balance the funding between removing harmful or outdated
infrastructure with building new infrastructure to improve
access and safety?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Representative.
One of the projects I am most proud of in my career was the
I-70 project in Denver that reconnected a community with a
four-acre park and is now a model for many projects that are
trying to reconnect communities that were torn apart by highway
construction.
We work very closely with the Office of the Secretary on
the Reconnecting Program, so, I want to let the Under Secretary
address the issue.
Mr. Monje. Thank you very much, ma'am.
And I lived for 18 months in North Carolina and traveled
30,000 miles on the highways from Murphy to Manteo.
As you mentioned, the Inflation Reduction Act and the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law gave us $1.893 billion for
grants. We are hoping to get that money out early next year.
There really is a large backlog of projects.
The wonderful thing about these two projects is it gives us
many tools in order to stitch back communities that were torn
apart, not just by big highways, but also by rail lines, by
port and airport infrastructure.
It is not always about bringing down a highway. Sometimes
it is capping, sometimes it is reconfiguring different
interchanges.
But there is an enormous backlog of these projects. The
same story all around the country. And I look forward to
working with your office.
Mrs. Foushee. Also, can you tell us what you are doing to
further advance equity through the IIJA funding?
Mr. Monje. Yes, ma'am.
Equity means a lot of things for us. It is a question of
making sure that people have access to the decisionmaking
processes, making sure that as we put these projects on the
ground, that those jobs--which don't require a college degree
in many cases and are a pathway to the middle class--that more
people have access to those jobs.
It means making sure that people with disabilities have
access as well, and also making sure that we are being
cognizant of the impacts of both the benefits and the costs of
the projects and building better than we knew how to do in the
1960s.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Duarte. The gentlelady yields back.
We will now recognize Representative Chavez-DeRemer.
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Chairman.
Good afternoon. And thank you to all the witnesses for
being here today.
Of course, we are here to discuss the oversight of the
IIJA's $1.2 trillion that was authorized and appropriated over
a 5-year plan. So, it would seem counterintuitive that certain
States would continue to toll roads for infrastructure revenue.
As a reminder to all, that is exactly what the Oregon
Department of Transportation proposes to do to specific areas
of I-205 and I-5 near Portland and in my district.
Tolling in Oregon has united opposition from State
legislators, local mayors, county commissioners, citizens from
all political backgrounds, and me.
Administrator Bhatt, I appreciated getting the chance to
speak with you over the phone back in October on these issues
in which you explained that ODOT was reducing the scope of the
proposed project, but that ODOT and the Federal Highway
Administration both agree that a more extensive NEPA
environmental impact statement was not necessary.
Do you still stand by that assessment, yes or no?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Representative. And thank you for the
previous conversation.
We always follow the law, and what we are doing is----
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [interrupting]. Yes or no, do you stand
by that?
Mr. Bhatt. Yes, we follow the law.
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Then how is it the public is supposed
to feel as though they are being heard and supported in this
process if there is no new or revised EIS for public scrutiny
or discussion?
Mr. Bhatt. We are following NEPA, and the steps of NEPA,
and we are ensuring that there is public dialogue.
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Administrator Bhatt, the public is
still unaware of what the proposal plans to do about the
congestion and the new lanes.
It is my understanding that ODOT has responded to many
cities in my district with dubious assumptions, weak and
unrealistic analysis, or even with pertinent information for
various locations and intersections omitted for responses as to
how tolling is going to impact those communities. ODOT itself
last summer even admitted that they missed the mark on this
public admission.
Again, Mr. Bhatt, Secretary Buttigieg sat before this
committee in September and stated that if a project's sponsor
fails to do the appropriate outreach, then it can lead to a
NEPA failure or a title VI concern and it is those scenarios
that could lead to that project not getting cleared by the
Department.
So, by that assessment, it makes sense to me, would the
Federal Highway Administration determine that a revised scope
of the tolling project, without additional environmental
assessments and new public comment period, that really
constitutes a NEPA failure, correct?
Mr. Bhatt. Representative, I understand your concerns about
the three projects that involve tolling in Oregon. We will
continue to follow NEPA. We will ensure that the public
receives the necessary information and----
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [interrupting]. But that hasn't been
done to this point. There is a pause in Oregon by the
Governor's office for 2 years, and there has been no answer
down the road. No new testimony has been taken by the public.
To me, that is a NEPA failure, correct?
Mr. Bhatt. Representative, I am aware that the Governor has
paused tolling, and we will continue to work with States and
communities that are part of these projects.
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. But ODOT has still yet to propose a
mitigation plan or strategy. Therefore, this entire proposal
from ODOT seems like it keeps moving the goalpost. That is a
problem for somebody like myself who represents the entire
constituency who decided that they don't want tolling any
longer.
The public, like myself, we are getting frustrated, as you
can probably hear it in my voice. These sorts of plans for
tolling are supposed to be presented so motorists, mayors,
counties, and small businesses can make meaningful comments.
So, let's not burden our commuters or create havoc for small
businesses and communities who still struggle with the impact
of tolling.
So, again, Administrator Bhatt, based on what we have
discussed thus far here today and in prior months, do you
believe this process is seriously flawed? And can you commit to
me and to my constituents to a redress of grievances from the
communities in the Fifth Congressional District to either
assist ODOT in refining the review process for tolling
implementation, create new, transparent lines of communication
with the public, or better yet, please work to rescind this
unpopular proposal altogether?
Mr. Bhatt. Representative, I hear you. I heard you in our
previous conversation. I commit to working with your office,
ODOT, and all the communities who are impacted to ensure that
we follow NEPA to the letter of the law and make sure that the
public engagement process follows.
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. So, I still see we are no better than
we were when I talked to you the first time.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the rest of my time.
Mr. Duarte. The gentlelady yields back.
We will now recognize Representative Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you for being here.
In Nevada we are really thankful for the amount of money
that we got, Mr. Bhatt, from the infrastructure bill. I think
it is $543.8 million to improve our highways and our bridges.
And included in this is $11.4 million for the Carbon Reduction
Program. I would like to ask you about that, because my
understanding is that since last February, the Nevada
Department of Transportation and Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection has been working to get some feedback
and some guidance on whether the funding that we received, that
$11.4 million, can be used for a new program that was created
by the legislature.
Now, this program the legislature created is called Clean
Trucks and Buses Incentive Program. We are trying to find out
if the funding that is under the Carbon Reduction Program can
be used to help get that program started, get it up and
running, be used to help finance that incentive program.
And we haven't been able to get an answer. And it has
caused confusion, and it has caused delays. And it was just
yesterday that we got some response, and that wasn't very
satisfactory.
So, I just need to hear you kind of address that and commit
to working with us and see if we can figure out if that funding
can indeed be used for that new program created by the
legislature.
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Representative Titus.
And, yes, I actually have worked very closely with Director
Larkin-Thomason. The approach that Nevada is taking is a new
approach. We are excited for the innovation. We just always
want to make sure that we are following the law. And so, happy
to engage with Nevada to ensure that we move this forward.
Ms. Titus. Well, great. I am not sure if it's exactly
right. The legislature kind of goes off on its own sometimes.
But we need to have an answer to that and see if we can fix it.
Because I do think it's good program. And I think the intention
of it, or the goals of it, fit right in with this funding that
y'all have.
So, I would appreciate it if you would work with us to see
if it is eligible, see what we can do to get it going, and fix
that.
Mr. Bhatt. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. I am glad to have that on
the record.
Secretary Monje, about a month ago, I had the opportunity
to join RTC in Clark County, and it serves all of southern
Nevada, and they welcomed their first battery-electric bus to
the fleet. It was a very exciting and fun day. We rode the bus.
And that was also made possible by the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law.
But we found that one of the challenges for transferring to
these kind of buses is that they have higher upfront and
fueling costs.
So, as you have now had the opportunity to work with some
of the transit agencies around the country who are
transitioning to this kind of fleet, do you have any need for
additional support or additional changes? Anything we can do to
make that process better or more efficient, quicker?
Mr. Monje. Yes, ma'am. And I want to thank you for being
generous with your time when I visited Las Vegas and visited
the transit center that is also funded by the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law.
We have been working very closely with bus manufacturers.
And if it is OK with you, I invite Administrator Fernandez to
weigh in here, if that's OK with you.
Ms. Titus. That would be great. Thank you.
Ms. Fernandez. Thank you very much, Representative Titus,
for raising the actions that RTC is taking. They have been
working with the Federal Transit Administration in our regional
office to look at transitioning their buses.
One of the great things about the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law is that it provided additional funding for low and no
emission. We have 1,000 electric buses that are operating in
roads throughout the country. And with the funding that's
available, we will be able to provide additional opportunities
for transit agencies to apply for our discretionary program;
2,900 more buses will be on the streets of America.
It is creating the manufacturing jobs that are necessary
for us to continue to grow a healthy industry. And with the
State of Nevada, and in particular the RTC now looking at that
transition, we have been working very closely with them on the
funding that they currently have in addition to emphasizing
that in the no emission there, is 5 percent available for
training existing operators to give them the skills necessary
so that they can work on the new technology.
Ms. Titus. Well, great.
Ms. Maynard, who heads up the RTC, has great leadership, a
lot of vision, and that's an agency that I enjoy working with.
And they have been very good at incorporating equity and
serving all parts of southern Nevada. That has been a priority
of theirs. And I know it's a priority of the administration.
And I very much appreciate that.
But let me know if there's any way we can be helpful to
push this along with their transition.
Ms. Fernandez. Thank you for that offer, and I will be
happy to work with you and your office.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Duarte. All right. The gentlelady yields back.
And we will now go to Representative Stauber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bhatt, you commented that $7.5 billion in the IIJA was
put forth towards charging stations. And you stated, since the
legislation became law over 2 years ago, there has been one
charging station constructed in Ohio. Is that correct?
Mr. Bhatt. One has come online, yes.
Mr. Stauber. Can you reassure this committee that that
charging station was constructed following the Build America,
Buy America critical minerals referenced charging stations,
referenced the building the charging stations?
Mr. Bhatt. I believe it would have been, yes. But I can
confirm that.
Mr. Stauber. Do you know if there is a, in the IIJA, if the
Build America, Buy America provision even exists involving
critical minerals in building out charging stations?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Representative. The----
Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. The answer is no.
Mr. Bhatt [continuing]. Critical minerals are----
Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. Critical minerals, the answer
is no. There is no provision in the IIJA to build charging
stations using domestically sourced critical minerals mined in
the United States.
Ms. Fernandez, a subcomponent in the IIJA, a subcomponent
becomes a component once a manufacturing process takes place.
Is that correct?
Ms. Fernandez. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Stauber. I represent the Iron Range that mines the
taconite that makes approximately 80 percent of domestic steel.
Under the IIJA, you could have a 25-foot piece of steel shipped
in from China and another 25-foot piece of steel Chinese made,
you could put them together, and the weld--it takes place in
the United States--is legal under the IIJA saying it's
domestically sourced.
Is that right? Do you agree? Do you agree that Chinese
steel, pieces of steel that are shipped, nonunion labor, no
project labor agreements, do you agree that they should be
brought together here in the United States and then a U.S.
worker puts a weld on it and that now becomes domestically
sourced under the IIJA? Is that fair to my constituents?
Ms. Fernandez. Thank you very much, Representative Stauber,
for your question. It's a very important one.
The Federal Transit Administration follows the law, and Buy
America requires that transit operators that are procuring----
Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. This is the question I asked:
Do you agree that Chinese-imported steel comes to the United
States and because it's welded in the United States, do you
believe that should be considered domestically manufactured?
The answer is no, it should not be, because I want the steel
domestically sourced by the miners that I represent, ma'am.
Mr. Monje. Congressman, if I could jump in here, which is,
Congress sent a very clear message to the administration, and
one that President Biden supports, that the future is going to
be built in America. We are implementing Buy America----
Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. This is--but, Mr. Monje, this
part of the IIJA allows that to happen. And we were getting
complaints in our office.
And, Ms. Fernandez, your regional offices aren't responding
to them. That's why I bring up the question.
Mr. Monje. The Federal Transit Administration has the
strongest standards for Buy America and the most expertise, to
the point where other agencies are coming to us for----
Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. Mr. Monje, just with my time
left, you are a supporter of electric vehicles, right?
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stauber. Where would you like those critical minerals
to be sourced, using American labor, American technology, or
foreign adversarial nations, like Indonesia and the 15 of the
19 industrial mines in China that use child slave labor?
Do you want them mined in the United States or foreign
adversarial countries? That is just the question I asked. I
don't need you to belabor the point. Do you want them mined
domestically in the United States or using foreign slave labor?
Yes or no? Which one do you want?
Mr. Monje. Congress and the President supports----
Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. No, you are not answering my
question. That's an easy question. Wouldn't you want it sourced
in the United States using American technology and American
labor? Come on.
Mr. Monje. To be eligible for the State credits, you have
to have----
Mr. Stauber [interrupting]. Come on. That's an easy
question. Don't you want American workers to produce the
critical minerals----
Mr. Monje [interposing]. Yes.
Mr. Stauber [continuing]. That we use in our everyday
lives? That's not a trick question, Mr. Monje. I think you are
better than that.
And I yield back.
Mr. Monje. Thank you.
Mr. Duarte. The gentleman yields back.
We will now recognize Representative Sykes for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you to the chair and ranking member for
this subcommittee hearing. I am really looking forward to
having the conversation about the implementation of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
It has been a fantastic part of the inclusion of the 13th
Congressional District of Ohio and the entire State. And just
last month, we were in Akron, in my district, for the
groundbreaking of a local transit authority Metro for a new
maintenance and operations facility, which was made possible
only because of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
That was a $37 million investment into transit. And we had
a similar investment in the district with $4 million going to
SARTA for the zero-emissions buses, which, again, is very
exciting.
Administrator Fernandez, I would like to direct my
attention to you, if I could, and let you know how much we are
appreciating the work that your agency is doing and what it
means to move people back and forth to work, to school, to be
part of the community.
And we know these vehicles like electric cars and buses are
the future, but we also know that they are going to require a
different kind of infrastructure, both physical, like charging
stations, and human capital, through the workforce.
So, if you could talk to us a little bit about how FTA is
ensuring we have aspects of the supply chain supporting this
infrastructure and a workforce.
Ms. Fernandez. Yes, thank you very much for your question,
Representative. And thank you for the invitation and joining us
at that event, together with Senator Brown.
As we see the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the record
level of investment that it brought to public transportation,
one of the critical areas was on workforce. We wanted to make
sure that the workforce was available and trained to not only
provide the services, but also to maintain that investment.
The Federal Transit Administration implemented a transit
workforce center to work with transit agencies to begin that
very training that is so critical as we are looking at new
technologies, and in this instance, zero-emission buses.
We also with the investment and the creation of a Rail
Vehicle Replacement Program and the opportunities there, as
well, to now look at the 22,000 rail vehicles across the Nation
and 10 percent or more of that over the 25 years of useful
life. We see this as an opportunity that is a whole of transit,
focusing on workforce development, focusing on recruiting,
retraining, and retaining employees in this industry to make it
stronger.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you so much, Administrator.
And I want to talk a little bit about the EV infrastructure
and tout some great work that we have going on in Ohio. We just
last Friday brought the first EV charger that was funded by the
National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program online.
But for those of us in northeast Ohio, particularly where I
currently live and drive an electric vehicle, we still have a
lot of ways to go with our public infrastructure to make it
more accessible to people. And it means that we certainly need
to be working closer with you. And let me go ahead and extend
myself as a partner to allow that to happen.
So, I have two questions to whomever wants to answer this
one here.
Well, specifically, Administrator Bhatt, can you talk about
what the Federal Highway Administration is doing to help
localities navigating the permitting process and just the
infrastructure--building up that infrastructure in a timely
manner so it can be ready when people are ready to purchase
those vehicles.
And, Mr. Under Secretary, I heard you going on about the
tax credit. We yesterday had a townhall, telephone townhall
with my district about how the Inflation Reduction Act has been
lowering costs. And I know that you were about to start talking
about the tax credit.
So, Mr. Bhatt, and then, Mr. Under Secretary, if you could
please answer those questions.
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Representative Sykes.
I would just say that of the $7.5 billion, $5 billion is
for the NEVI Program, $2.5 billion will be for community-funded
chargers. So, we want there to be a broad network. Happy to
work with you and any localities with our division offices.
And just on the charger piece, I know folks have said this
is taking so long. Two years ago, when the program was set up,
there were zero manufacturers of chargers in this country.
Today there are 43. It is about $500 million of private
investment. And so, all of the chargers that are going to go in
are going to be built in America, and that is what the
President's vision is about.
Mr. Monje. And, quickly, the cost of electric vehicles has
dropped 22 percent--that is $15,000--just in the last year. And
thanks to the tax credits that are in the IRA, which are going
to be now available at the point of sale, you can walk into a
Chevy dealer and walk out with a 2023 Chevy Bolt for less than
$20,000.
There is money in our legislation, $7 billion to promote
domestic sourcing of minerals. There are a lot of incentives to
make sure that the future of the automotive industry is going
to be built in America.
Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Duarte. The gentlelady yields back.
We will now recognize Representative Massie for 5 minutes.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Carlson, first of all, I want to thank you for what
your Department does. It is hard to find something Government
does where 90 percent of people agree or appreciate. And I
think the 5-Star crash rating that NHTSA performs, there is
nothing political about it. When steel and aluminum meets a
concrete barrier at 35 miles an hour, all the fiction and
politics go out the window.
And I think it's a good model where you provide consumers
with information they need to make a good decision and then you
leave it up to the free market. The free market is involved
there. You might want a 4-star crash rating or a 5-star crash
rating. So, I appreciate you doing that program and
administering it.
I want to focus on one program that Congress has proposed
that I have questions about, and you may, too.
Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
requires NHTSA, your Department, to issue a regulation that by
2026 all newly manufactured passenger vehicles can--and now I
will read from the statute--``passively monitor the performance
of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether
that driver may be impaired and prevent or limit motor vehicle
operation if an impairment is detected.''
Now, we are 2 years past the passage of this law, and we
are 3 years away from the deadline, not just for the rule, but
for the auto manufacturers to comply.
How will this technology work? And does it exist presently?
Ms. Carlson. First, thank you so much for the shout-out
about NCAP, which I agree with you about. And we have actually
issued various proposed updates to NCAP to continue that
opportunity for consumer choice and to incentivize the private
sector to improve safety. So, thank you.
You may have seen it yesterday, we released an ANPRM, an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking, about the very question
that you are asking about, the particular bill provision, that
asks a series of questions and spells out what we know about
the state of technology that could at some point meet the
provisions of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, along with the
Vehicle Safety Act, which imposes additional requirements on
us.
We spelled out some possible technologies in that ANPRM.
Those include, for example, driver monitoring that is currently
used typically for advanced driver-assistance systems, but
could do things like track whether somebody is actually looking
at the road, whether their pupils are dilated, et cetera.
We also spelled out technology that has received funding
from the Federal Government called DADSS technology. That is
actually active technology. At this point, it is not passive as
the bill requires.
So, we think there are promising technologies on the
market, but I think it is safe to say that we do not think they
are available yet in a way that actually will achieve the goals
both of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Vehicle
Safety Act.
And our ANPRM actually asks a bunch of questions about, how
we might get there? If we do get there, what problems might
arise as a result? We don't, for example, want to have false
positives where somebody is detected to have alcohol in their
blood and in fact does not and can't start their vehicle.
If we had a 99.9-percent effective system, we estimate
there are something like 1 billion trips a day, that would
leave 1 million people not able to start their vehicle.
So, we have got to get this technology right.
Mr. Massie. Well, the technology talks about disabling a
vehicle, possibly in transit. That's very concerning to me if
you have a false positive for that.
Ms. Carlson. Yes, and we do ask questions about that in the
ANPRM as well.
Mr. Massie. Let me just say, I had a mentor who told me
that hope is not a business plan. I think that applies here.
Before seatbelts were mandated, they were an option in
cars. Before airbags were mandated, they were an option in
cars. And before backup cameras were mandated, they were an
option in cars.
I think this is one area where Congress is way in front of
its skis. And they have mandated a technology that--I mean, you
are being nice about it, but let's just admit to it, it does
not exist. If it did, somebody would be offering it in a car.
So, my constituents have a lot of concerns about this. It's
no secret I tried to defund the mandate recently in a funding
bill. And that's because it's just not feasible.
As you mentioned, the false positives would far outweigh
the advantages. You have a mother who swerves to miss wildlife,
and then goes around a pothole, then pulls over for an
ambulance, and the dashboard is the juror and the executioner
and says get over to the side of the road with your kids and
wait there.
Now, how do you appeal such a conviction when your car--
like, have you guys thought about that at all, how you would--
--
Ms. Carlson [interrupting]. We do want to get it right. But
it is the case that about one-third of motor vehicle fatalities
involve impairment. So, we need to do everything we can to
drive those numbers down.
We will do so in a way with technology that is fair and
works and does not create false positives and addresses the
kinds of questions that you are raising.
Mr. Massie. Let me make a prediction here right before I
yield back.
This won't be ready by 2026. Congress has asked the
impossible. It's a wish. It's not a plan. And I think it's
wrong to put you in a position to try and mandate this.
And I yield back.
Mr. Duarte. The gentleman yields back.
We will now recognize Representative Moulton for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was delighted to see that just last week the
administration announced $6 billion in funding for high-speed
railcars, the Federal-State Partnership grants. We have also
heard a lot about how some of these high-speed rail projects
are over budget.
Has anyone heard anything about California high-speed rail
being over budget, costing a lot of money? I think we hear
about that all the time. All the time.
What we never hear about is how much it costs to drive.
What costs do we entail as a society when we only give people
the option in most of the country of driving. Frankly, for many
people who might ride California high-speed rail someday, but
currently have to take a car, what does that cost?
Well, we commissioned the Harvard Kennedy School to look at
this just for Massachusetts; to just do a fare cost analysis.
And their studies showed that car ownership costs the State of
Massachusetts $64 billion annually.
Every single year, Massachusetts spends $64 billion to
subsidize our car transportation system. That translates to
$14,000 per household in Massachusetts whether or not you own a
car. All the non-car owners, the people who do take transit in
the city, are paying $14,000 a year to subsidize everybody else
who drives on our highways across the State.
So, my understanding is that we are finally going to start
looking at this at a national level for the first time in a
century. Section 11530 of the IIJA required the Federal Highway
Administration to undertake and complete a cost allocation
study, the first time that such a study has been done since,
well, I guess, since the turn of the century. It's supposed to
be completed within 4 years, which is a full year before
Congress reauthorizes the Surface Transportation Program.
Mr. Bhatt, can you provide me with an update on the
progress of the highway cost allocation study, and what, if
any, additional resources will be needed to ensure you complete
this study in time?
Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Representative Moulton, for that
question.
We, I believe, are hiring contractors to assist with
delivering that report on time, and I will follow up with your
office with an exact date.
Mr. Moulton. Mr. Bhatt and Mr. Monje, how is the FHWA
thinking about the externalities of personal vehicles that are
placed on the general public?
I mean, I don't think we think about the fact, for example,
that a huge amount of our public safety budget--which, again,
we all support as taxpayers--goes to just emergency services on
the highways. We wouldn't need nearly as many ambulances, we
wouldn't need nearly as many State police cruisers if we didn't
have so many people in cars and so many people, tens of
thousands, annually getting in accidents and killing
themselves. We don't ever think about those as costs to
driving, but they are costs to driving.
Mr. Monje. I think the word you used, ``externalities,'' is
the right one.
Our highway system is the wonder of the world, is the envy
of the world. My family is from Argentina. And what they
wouldn't wish to have what we have here in terms of what it
does to productivity, to the ability to get our goods to
market.
But it has a cost, including the crashes and the deaths
that you heard about, including the air quality. And the fact
is that these burdens are disproportionately impacting
underserved communities.
Within my team, we are working on something called the
transportation cost burden that includes exactly those issues.
Mr. Moulton. Mr. Monje, the highway system was the envy of
the world in the 1950s and 1960s. But all across the world,
take Europe, for example, the current focus is getting things
off the highway. They don't want to be transporting goods by
highway. They want to be on rail.
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir. And----
Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. They are not building new
highways. They are building high-speed rail systems that go
three, four times as fast as highways. So, why are we still so
addicted to highways as the only option in America?
Mr. Monje. And I want to thank you for your support for
rail, in particular for high-speed rail. And we have in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law an enormous opportunity to get
our system up to snuff and to be able to expand service, and--
--
Mr. Moulton [interrupting]. Yes, but my question is, how
are we thinking about modal transfer? Are we even having that
discussion in our Department of Transportation?
Mr. Monje. We are asking all of these questions----
Mr. Moulton [interposing]. Modal shift, I should say.
Mr. Monje [continuing]. And moving goods into lower carbon
ways of getting around. Freight rail is a wonderful example of
that.
Mr. Moulton. Not just lower carbon, more efficient.
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir, exactly, and safer.
Mr. Moulton. It doesn't sound like we are thinking about
this at all, and I really hope we are.
Mr. Monje. Oh, we are. It's baked into the benefit-cost
analysis that we do. It's baked in. And we are trying to get
better information so that State departments of transportation
can propose better projects and be held accountable for them.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mann [presiding]. Thank you.
Next up, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from
Missouri, Mr. Burlison, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Hutcheson, when I talk to truckers back home, they
already feel that the Federal Government imposes strict
regulations on them.
This includes the hours-of-service regulations that limit
how far they can drive. They are faced with long days that
usually end with an hour searching for a parking spot, which is
exhausting to them. And now you are telling them that they will
have to reach their destinations at a slower pace.
With the hours-of-service regulation already imposed, is it
smart to mandate the installation of truck speed limiters when
truckers are already heavily regulated? In their mind, when is
enough enough?
And many are afraid that if these mandates are implemented,
then truckers will not only be subject to hours of service, but
will be forced to get to their destination slower. And they
feel like the need to make up--so, here's my question. Many of
these truckers may end up in a situation where they have to
make up time, and because they have a speed limiter, the only
place for them to make up time is probably on city streets,
suburbs. They will have to make up time probably going through
construction zones.
Are you concerned about the motivation that you are
creating to be able to, I think, reduce safety in some of these
very important areas?
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, thank you so much for this
question. And I want to start by saying we share your
commitment to drivers and certainly to their safety and the
safety of everybody who travels.
In our prioritization of safety and on drivers, I
personally have spent a lot time traveling around and talking
with drivers themselves. I was just in Missouri at OOIDA
sitting around the table, hearing about their concerns
firsthand.
And I understand that sometimes drivers, they do feel
squeezed. And we are doing everything we can through Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law resources to study the compensation
structure, detention time.
But I understand, Representative, that you are asking
specifically about speed limiters. And I will say again that we
are underway in a process of rulemaking. However, we have not
yet issued any notice of proposed rulemaking. We have not yet
set----
Mr. Burlison [interrupting]. Well, I would encourage you to
not implement that rule. I think you would have an outcry from
that community.
With all these regulations, it seems like there is a lack
of trust. I trust the truckdrivers in my community, and I am
extremely thankful for them. They kept this country alive
during COVID. But it seems like the administration's policy is
a lack of trust.
So, my question is, do you trust truckdrivers to be safe on
the road?
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, drivers are really at the
heart of what we do, and safety is our mission at FMCSA. And I
have met so many drivers with millions of miles of safe
driving. I spoke with groups of drivers as they were about to
compete in the safety championship in Indianapolis. And I know
that there are so many drivers--safe drivers--committed to
safety.
Mr. Burlison. So, in short, you believe, if you trust them
in their commitment to safety, then why--I would just
hypothetically ask--why would we need to implement another rule
on them to take away some of those decisions?
Ms. Carlson, before you joined NHTSA, you were a law
professor at UCLA Law School where you focused on air pollution
and climate change law policy.
On the side, you also consulted for a law firm called Sher
Edling.
Is Sher Edling a for-profit law firm? Yes or no?
Ms. Carlson. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Mr. Burlison. OK. And in your work for Sher Edling, this
firm brought forward a wave of climate change cases against
traditional energy companies, American energy companies, that
everyone has to purchase from.
If Sher Edling's lawsuits are successful, will it get an
enormous contingency fee?
Ms. Carlson. I have no idea what their compensation
structure is.
Mr. Burlison. Will you get a contingency fee?
Ms. Carlson. No.
Mr. Burlison. OK. At UCLA, you also directed the
environmental law institute, which houses the Environmental Law
Clinic, and students in that clinic were provided legal
assistance. They provided it to Sher Edling, the for-profit law
firm that you also helped out. In fact, you bragged about this,
that the clinic was working with these lawsuits, to a major
UCLA donor.
So, my question is, did your environmental law client, Sher
Edling, were they not able to pay for these legal expenses
themselves, that you had to use UCLA students to help them?
Ms. Carlson. I did not direct the Environmental Law Clinic
at UCLA. And as part of this, the nomination process, I was
extensively vetted and complied with all ethics rules and have
no further comment about it. Thank you.
Mr. Burlison. I think the American consumer for energy is
going to suffer.
Thank you.
Mr. Mann. Next, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here.
The opportunity, but also the size and scope of what you
have to do, just the size of this investment, and you include
the $380 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act on the
infrastructure and energy transition, is unbelievably historic
and complicated.
And then technology. I love UCLA, even though my district
is next door to the mother ship of the University of California
and have many employees of Berkeley there.
So, Ms. Carlson, so, I want to talk to you about
technology, autonomous vehicles, and how we get this right.
And, of course, we have had some very well-publicized problems
in San Francisco, just to the west of my district, about AVs.
So, it is really important.
In California, when I was in the legislature and I was
chair of the committee of jurisdiction, we had a lot of
pressure from the tech areas in the bay area to push AVs.
I brought Peter DeFazio, when he was chair of this
committee, and we were in an AV going across the Bay Bridge,
and he had a phone call, somebody in Oregon. He said, ``I am
with Mark in San Francisco. I have seen the future.'' And when
he hung up, I said, ``Peter, we are stuck in traffic.''
So, all of this investment and your role to make sure they
are safe. I have a facility that Secretary Buttigieg has come
to, GoMentum Station, on an old military base.
So, talk to me a little bit about how you can coordinate
for local governments like San Francisco, like the State of
California, as a former member of the California Transportation
Commission, to provide best practices with the research
facilities, like the three UC system's research facilities, so
that we get this right.
In California, we didn't allow AVs on the streets. One of
the operators, a famous one in the East Bay, Tesla, decided to
take it to another State. Within a few months, there were
fatalities because they weren't ready for it.
So, talk to me about how we can get this technology right,
not wait too long, but make sure the public is safe.
Ms. Carlson. So, thank you.
I share your concerns to both prioritize safety but also to
allow for innovation, because we want technology that saves
lives. Forty-two thousand people dying each year on our roads
is not acceptable.
I should say I started my career in the California
Legislature, so, I go way back.
Mr. DeSaulnier. So do I, but probably longer than you.
Ms. Carlson. So, NHTSA does a number of things to try to
coordinate with local governments and with States, and also to
really work on these dual goals--always, of course,
prioritizing safety. And so, we work--we are in constant
communication with the California DMV, with the PUC.
As I'm sure you know, automated vehicles can be on the road
if they are FMVSS certified if the local or State jurisdiction
allows them to do so. However, we issued a standing general
order in 2021 that requires automated vehicles to report every
single crash in which they are engaged, and that is how we
learn about the kinds of crashes that have been the focus of so
much attention recently.
And we then investigate those crashes that warrant further
investigation. We have recalled more than one automated vehicle
when we found problems.
We also, to the degree we can, subject to confidential
business information, share that information with our State and
local partners and try to be as absolutely transparent as
possible.
We are also interested in setting up a demonstration
program that would really try to marry safety with allowing for
a limited deployment of some automated vehicles that might need
exemptions from our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
The idea here is to get NHTSA involved as--you can think
about it as a cop on the beat, really making certain that
companies have safety cultures in place, that they have built
redundancies into their systems.
One of the things you worry about is, if something fails,
you want something to back it up in the event that it fails,
and to really, again, promote transparency and to promote
information sharing with State and local governments.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Well, we really need to get this right,
given your background in California. San Francisco clearly felt
like they wanted to be the home of this, and they had to
rescind it, and the police department was very critical of it.
Secretary Monje, your position is really important. I am
proud of the fact that my bill, the Clean Corridors Act, that
allowed for the infrastructure, went into the larger bill,
getting this right with the marketplace. The Japanese work much
closer, in my history, than we do with the manufacturers.
What are you doing to work with the manufacturers of
vehicles making sure the infrastructure comes together in a
smart and efficient way?
Mr. Monje. To support automated vehicles, sir?
Mr. DeSaulnier. No. This is for everything.
Mr. Monje. Oh. We have a deep partnership across industry,
including in the construction realms, for road builders, with
OEMs, as they try to build out their supply chains. It is a
critical piece of our success, and every single one of us here
has deep relationships on these enormous industries.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. I will follow up with you.
I yield back.
Mr. Mann. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Utah,
Mr. Owens, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. Thank you so much for this important
hearing today.
My question today, I will start with Ms. Fernandez and the
Federal Transit Administration. In my district, the Utah
Transit Authority ReConnect program provides real-time
responsive solutions to give stranded passengers a way to get
home. This forward-looking program links passengers with
rideshare or taxicab companies to complete their journey when
unplanned service disruptions occur.
Unfortunately, the ReConnect program is not presently
eligible for the FTA's taxicab exception rule which exempts
controlled substance and alcohol testing for contracted
rideshare companies when the passenger chooses to complete
their transit. Because the ReConnect program proactively does
this for them, the test requirement remains.
So, Ms. Fernandez, is the FTA working to update and
streamline the taxicab exemption rule that will help UTA
innovation and expansion to better serve the needs of their
passengers?
Ms. Fernandez. Thank you, Representative Owens. Thank you
very much for that question. And it is good to see you.
Regarding the request from the Salt Lake City Utah Transit
Authority requesting the exemption for the taxicab, I would say
that we at the Federal Transit Administration are following the
law as it relates to drug and alcohol testing.
And in order for the agency to provide taxicab service, the
agency directly cannot identify the operator. The agency can
provide vouchers, but they should not identify the operator.
And that is one of the guidance that we provided to them when
they inquired about this first mile/last mile.
First mile/last mile is very important. It's the way to
connect to public transportation. However, the law has to be
followed, and in this instance, we have provided guidance to
them.
Mr. Owens. When we are talking about something that is
innovative, we are talking about not the law, but basically
understanding that because of this opportunity to provide the
service, they are taking on this opportunity that the customer
normally takes.
Is there anything to be done to understand that there is a
new way of trying to service customers and that they should not
be held responsible to have testing done just because they have
decided to take that over?
Ms. Fernandez. Just to add to the response I provided,
Representative Owens, we have been working very closely with
the transit agencies to identify opportunities for
microtransit.
We understand that first mile/last mile is important. In
this instance, when this was shared with us by the agency, we
provided our guidance to the agency regarding how they could
achieve that first mile/last mile without going against what
would be the requirements of the law.
Mr. Owens. Can I ask you, can you share with us what that
was? Because they are asking for an exemption that is already
out there for other companies that are providing a service.
Because they are being innovative and thinking outside of the
box, I would think that you would work with them to provide an
exemption that they would normally get if the customer is doing
it by themselves.
It is just a matter of the customer is asking for the
exemption or the company giving the same service is asking for
the exemption. So, can't you work with them because this is an
innovative way of providing the service?
Ms. Fernandez. Representative Owens, I will commit to
reaching out to your office as well as have our regional office
connect with the transit agency to have further discussions on
this matter.
Mr. Owens. OK.
Mr. Monje, right now, Utah is one of the fastest growing
States in the Union since 2020. We are trying to absorb this
growth by infrastructure further south.
Can you provide some insight on how the Federal funds for
transportation products will benefit both the urban, which is
where we are trying to push infrastructure to, and the--I am
sorry--the urban and the rural. The rural communities are where
we are trying to push the infrastructure to. Is there anything
you can provide to help us understand how you might be
supporting us in that effort?
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Salt Lake City has been a major national leader in driving
a lot of the things that we have talked about. When it comes to
rural, we have developed something that was codified in the law
called the ROUTES Initiative, which focuses on helping rural
communities get, use, and deploy the funding that is available
to them.
We have done over 200 debriefs with rural communities to
make sure that they, if they didn't get one--our grants are
very competitive--that they have a better shot next time.
The very first product that we put out to support the EV
charging revolution was focused on rural deployments. So, what
do they need to do, how do they need to work with utilities,
siting? And so, this is a major priority for us.
Another example is the CRISI program, which is a freight
rail program. A very large percentage of those dollars went to
rural communities.
Mr. Owens. OK. Thank you.
I yield back. Thank you so much.
Mr. Duarte [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
We will now go to Representative Garamendi for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, are you tired yet? Thank you so very much for being
here.
You have undertaken extraordinary responsibilities. The
legislation that has passed this House, it has been less than
1\1/2\ years, just short of 2 years now that you have had the
responsibility of carrying it out. And my assessment is you
have done a very, very fine job. A lot of new legislation, new
programs, new requirements, new rules, procedures. And it has
gone well.
In my district--thank you--big projects: high-speed rail, a
lot of money, major effort in California to develop a high-
speed rail system. I have personally been at that since 1988.
Learned patience here. But you have come forward. And I thank
you for providing that extraordinary amount of money. That will
move that system along, and eventually it will get built.
A lot of little things along the way.
Ms. Fernandez, thank you. I appreciate the work you have
provided in my district for electrification. Not easy. There
was no electrification program 2 years ago, but there is now.
And my district is benefiting from it, and I suspect my
colleagues here have also done so.
Highways, a pile of money has been put out there, a lot of
it going through the States. A lot of the delays, if there are,
in fact, delays, are a result of the State trying to figure out
how to handle just an extraordinary amount of new money.
Projects that were not on the books, were put off the books
because they didn't have the money, they now have it, because
the Biden administration, together with the Democrats in the
House and the Senate, put forward the largest infrastructure
program ever in this Nation. And all of us, Democrat and
Republicans, are benefiting from it. More importantly, so are
our citizens.
I thank you for the work that you are doing. Not easy. You
have done well with it. Of course, there are going to be
problems.
I have got a slew of questions. My staff said, ``Ask them
this. Ask them that.'' I think I just want to thank you. And,
yes, I will submit the questions to you.
Overarching on my mind for many, many years now has been
rebuilding the American industrial system. And built into the
legislation is Buy America requirements all the way through.
And I know that all of you in your work are faced with
conflicting ideas, conflicting plans, where we can't go all 100
percent Buy America ``because because.'' But, however, the law
is clear, and that is, we are intent upon building an
industrial policy for the United States.
And each of you, whether it is transit, highways, or the
overarching responsibility of the Secretary, you have an
opportunity to carry out the goal of the legislation, which is
to Buy America.
There is a problem, however, and that is the 1983 blanket
waiver of the Buy America provisions. I urge you to terminate
that provision. 1983. Waived almost all of the Buy America
requirements. And it is in conflict with the new law and
regulations that you have put forward.
You have been wrestling with it. I, frankly, don't
understand what the wrestling match is about. Terminate it.
Kill it. Get rid of it. And then we can get on with the
overarching Buy America requirements that we now have in place.
I will go on and on. But the reality is each of you and the
men and women that work with you are implementing successfully,
not as fast as any one of us might want because we want to take
it back to our district and say, ``Even though I didn't vote
for the bill, I am going to take credit for it.'' Shall I say
that again to my Republican colleagues?
But the reality is you are doing a good job, and I thank
you for that.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Duarte. The gentleman yields back.
We will now recognize Representative Mann for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here today.
I represent the Big First Congressional District of Kansas.
As the geographic center of the United States, Kansas offers
excellent transportation advantages for several industries.
In order to maintain these advantages, it is imperative
that our State's infrastructure is up to date and safe for
multimodal uses and they have an adequately staffed workforce.
Congress has implemented several initiatives to increase
industry workforces. However, there have been concerns about
how some programs have been implemented.
A question for you, Ms. Hutcheson.
As you know, Congress mandated that the DOT create a pilot
program through IIJA to train individuals between the ages of
18 and 20 to be professional truckdrivers.
This 3-year pilot has 3,000 apprentice slots available at
any one time, and it is critical to help the next generation of
drivers get the necessary training to begin satisfying and
productive careers in trucking.
DOT has been slow to implement SDAP, and participation
numbers are so far extremely concerning.
Can you tell us what steps you are taking to build out this
pilot program, increase participation, and prevent the pilot
program from failing?
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative Mann, thank you for the
question about the Safe Driver Apprenticeship Pilot Program. We
are working hard to build out this program.
The purpose is really to determine whether younger drivers
can operate as safe as or more safely than the general
commercial motor vehicle operator population, and that is
through apprenticeship and training.
We are continuing to engage with stakeholders to increase
participation in the program. We are using multiple channels,
and we are really stepping it up, including social media, paid
media, outreach specifically to vocational high schools. We are
sending direct mail. And we have numerous events planned for
this coming quarter and starting in January.
Mr. Mann. You said you have engaged stakeholders. As you
are doing that, any indication why participation rates are so
low, and anything of note that stakeholders are telling your
Department?
Ms. Hutcheson. Thank you for the question, Mr. Mann.
Very often we are finding that stakeholders never knew
about it. And that means we need to increase our reach and
really use the resources granted to us by Congress to ensure
that stakeholders know of this opportunity.
Mr. Mann. So then, what specific changes are you making
moving forward to address that concern and the other concerns
that have caused the low stakeholder involvement?
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, we need to get the word out,
and we need to do it quickly. Starting in January, we are
really stepping it up. When we receive questions about the
requirements, we work quickly to answer them on a one-on-one
basis and help to step anyone who is interested in the program,
step them through the process.
Mr. Mann. As we all know, the truckdriver shortage is a
huge issue. In my view, allowing folks to become truckdrivers
at the age of 18, right after high school, before they do
something else in the hopes they might come back to the
industry, is really important.
So, this program, this pilot program, I think there is a
lot at stake, and potentially, if done well and well received,
could start to move the needle for this huge shortage that
impacts Kansas ag producers, our industrial companies
[inaudible] all over the country.
So, I appreciate those questions and would love to continue
to work with your office to make sure the program is
successful. Thank you for being here.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Duarte. The gentleman yields back.
We will now recognize Representative Van Orden for 5
minutes.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Chairman John Duarte from the
great State of California.
Mr. Monje, I am going to pick up where my colleague from
Minnesota left off and also where I left off talking to your
boss a little bit ago.
Do you understand that cobalt is a critical mineral that is
used in electric vehicle batteries?
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Orden. Do you understand that 4.3 percent of these
batteries are comprised of cobalt?
Mr. Monje. That sounds right, sir.
Mr. Van Orden. Do you understand that 70 percent of the
world's cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo?
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Orden. Do you understand that 15 to 30 percent of
the mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are called
artisanal mines?
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Orden. Do you understand that these artisanal mines
have thousands of children working in the condition of
essentially slavery, mining cobalt in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo?
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Orden. You do. OK.
Does the Biden administration still insist on having 50
percent of all of the vehicles manufactured in the United
States by 2030 be electric?
Mr. Monje. Sir, Congress sent a very clear signal in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act
that we needed to move much more of this materials onshoring,
nearshoring. The bill includes $7 billion for EV----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. I am going to interrupt you
because that is not the question I asked you. I asked you a
very specific question.
Does the Biden administration still want 50 percent of the
vehicles produced in the United States of America to be EVs by
2030, yes or no?
Mr. Monje. Yes.
Mr. Van Orden. OK. What year is it now, sir?
Mr. Monje. 2023, sir.
Mr. Van Orden. OK. Almost 2024. So, that gives us, what, 6
years to meet this goal?
Mr. Monje. That is right.
Mr. Van Orden. All right.
We are giving approximately up to $7,500 per electric
vehicle, correct, tax credits and all that stuff?
Mr. Monje. That is correct.
Mr. Van Orden. And it is now income-based with the IIJA?
Mr. Monje. That is right, there is an income limit.
Mr. Van Orden. OK. So, de facto--this is not a political
statement--the United States Government is subsidizing child
slavery in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Because I
don't care what you say, we have got to get this back onshore
and whatnot.
That's not the case today. As we speak, there are children
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo mining cobalt with
their hands so that the Biden administration can meet this
unrealistic goal of 2030. That is a fact. That is a fact, sir.
So, do you think it is a moral imperative that the United
States Government try to prevent child slavery?
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Orden. Even at the expense of your artificially
created 2030 goal to have 50 percent of all the vehicles
produced in the United States of America be electric vehicles?
Mr. Monje. Sir, every extractive, every mining industry has
a spotty record----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Whoa, whoa, no, stop. No, no,
no, no, no.
Mr. Monje [continuing]. When it comes to human rights
violations----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. No.
Mr. Monje [continuing]. Including the oil and gas industry,
sir----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. OK. You listen to me, Mister.
Mr. Monje [continuing]. [Inaudible] Myanmar----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. We are talking about child
slavery, sir.
Mr. Monje. I have three kids----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. And guess what? I am having
my 11th grandchild.
Mr. Monje. People--people--people in Africa have the same
desire for their----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. So, would you want your three
children mining cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
so that you and your boss and the Biden administration can have
50 percent of the electric vehicles produced in the United
States by 2030 be electric vehicles or not?
This is not a political thing, sir. You guys are
subsidizing child slavery. Do you understand that? That is not
a Democratic issue, it is not a Republican issue, an
independent issue. That is a human rights issue.
We, the United States Government, the executive branch of
the United States Government, de facto right now, as we speak,
are subsidizing child slavery. And I will have absolutely no
part of that, and no one with a conscience should.
I yield back.
Mr. Duarte. The gentleman yields back.
We will now recognize Representative Van Drew for 5
minutes.
Dr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I ask the questions I have prepared to ask, I just
had some thoughts on my colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton, when he spoke of mass
transportation, and if I understood him correctly, how we spend
too much money on roads, streets, and highways.
People in America, in the United States of America, do like
to have their independence. They like to have their autonomy.
They like to have their freedom. And part of that is being able
to go where we want to go, when we want to go, individually,
with our families, without the interference of Government.
Now, I believe in mass transportation. I think almost all
of us do think it has a role. I support it, and I support rail
very strongly. But there is no question that the investment
that we make in roads, streets, and highways is very, very
important. We need good roads. We need good highways. We need
to have safe and good streets.
And to suggest that Europe does it differently doesn't mean
anything to me. I don't know when we started in the United
States of America to worry more about what other foreign
countries do than what we do. We are the leader. I believe we
are the best Nation on the face of the Earth in every way, and
this is one of those ways.
I think we can all remember when we were young folks and we
got our license to drive and what a big deal it was, that
independence. It's the American way.
I just wanted to make that comment. No, we are not Europe.
No, we are not other countries. No, we are not a globalist
country. We are American exceptionalists.
Earlier this year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration proposed a Federal speed limit on heavy trucks.
The Federal speed limit would restrict trucks over 26,000
pounds to whatever the speed the Federal Government decides,
the same Federal Government that very often in many ways--no
reflection on any of you--cannot get out of its own way. It
would be enforced by digital devices attached to trucks. Talk
about Big Brother.
I am here to say that this policy, in my opinion, is
arbitrary. It is dangerous. It is overreaching. The proposed
Federal truck speed limit takes an arbitrary one-size-fits-all
reality on highway driving.
Truckers need a range of speeds in order to safely drive on
the highway. I wish all of those folks who made these
regulations actually drove a truck. It might be good for them.
And there were over 100,000 comments on this issue that
were submitted to the draft rule. These drivers give many
examples of situations in which they need to accelerate for
safety, whether it is merging into highway-speed traffic,
building momentum to go up a hill, or simply keeping up with
the flow of traffic. It is a hard and difficult job, and they
do it well.
Your policy would take those options away from them. We are
tired of this. We are tired of big Government.
One gentleman, his comment was--not mine, his--quote,
``This is a stupid idea,'' end quote. The policy is overreach.
We are tired of overreach. It is a classic example of
Government coming to save us from ourselves.
There are lots of independent truckers, and they would be
harmed by this policy.
So, I have a question for you. Have you estimated how many
employee drivers would be impacted by your proposal and how it
would affect their earnings?
I have three additional questions, but I am going to submit
them for the record because I would like a thorough answer.
Administrator Hutcheson, could you comment on this issue?
And could you comment how it is going to affect individual
drivers to have a digital device on their truck?
Nobody has asked for this. This is another creation of big
Government, in my opinion.
Please go forward.
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, thank you for raising this
issue and the opportunity to respond.
I will clarify. You are correct, we received many, many
comments. Over 14,000 comments were submitted for the record
when we issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
We haven't yet issued a notice of proposed rulemaking. When
we do so, it will include much of the analysis that you and
your colleagues have been asking for here. When that is
publicly viewable, I would be happy to share it with your
office.
Dr. Van Drew. I would appreciate that. And I sure hope that
you do not rule for this, because it is a bad idea. It is bad
for truckers. It is bad for the supply chain. It is bad for the
United States of America.
Mr. Chairman, I have two additional questions. I would ask
that I want to submit them for the record, to be put into the
record.
And I yield back.
Mr. Duarte. Without objection on your request.
The gentleman yields back. And we now recognize
Representative Collins for 5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to direct my questions to you, Administrator
Hutcheson and Ms. Carlson, if you don't mind.
I want to talk about the joint notice of proposal for the
AEBs, the automatic emergency braking system. I am sorry. I
have been running around here like crazy. I don't know if you
have addressed that yet this morning. Have you?
Ms. Carlson. Only a little bit.
Mr. Collins. Only a little bit?
Ms. Carlson. Only a little bit. We welcome your questions.
Mr. Collins. Well, do you have an update on when this rule
may be finalized?
Ms. Carlson. This is for the light vehicle or----
Mr. Collins [interrupting]. The automatic emergency braking
system.
Ms. Carlson. So, we have two proposals right now. We have a
light-duty rule----
Mr. Collins [interrupting]. No. This is for the heavy-duty.
Ms. Carlson. For the heavy-duty.
Mr. Collins. And the light-duty comes after the heavy-duty.
Ms. Carlson. We are working to finalize the rule in the
spring of 2024.
Mr. Collins. In the spring of when?
Ms. Carlson. 2024.
Mr. Collins. OK. I can't hear a lot. I don't know if it is
y'all's mics are far away or what.
Ms. Carlson. I will try to shout.
Mr. Collins. OK. So, we just completed the comment period,
right? So, I guess my question is kind of like Mr. Massie's. I
would love for both of you to have to answer this.
Do you think, since after the finalization of the rule and
then you have a period after that, do you really think that the
safety standards are going to be there to meet the
technological requirements to make the system effective?
Ms. Carlson. So, if you don't mind, Administrator
Hutcheson, happy to yield to you in a moment.
But I do want to say that we take the comments very, very
seriously. That is the purpose of the comments, is to inform
us----
Mr. Collins [interrupting]. I mean, I guess it is just a
simple question. Do you think the technology is going to be
there?
Ms. Carlson. So, our best sense is that with appropriate
lead time, which is something that we consider in finalizing
the rule, that that technology will save hundreds of lives and
prevent thousands of injuries, thousands of crashes.
Mr. Collins. I guess I am kind of like Mr. Massie. I just
don't think hope is a very good business plan.
Ms. Carlson. This is based on a very extensive analysis. We
include this in a regulatory impact analysis that I would be
happy to share with you.
Mr. Collins. I would like to ask, Ms. Hutcheson, if you
don't mind, do you think that you were trying to just meet a
congressional deadline? And I ask that just at the expense of
satisfying the requirements and not making sure that the
technology is there.
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, I really appreciate your
questions and appreciate the firsthand knowledge you have in
the trucking industry. I know you are a second- or third-
generation family operator. So, they are very pointed questions
at us.
Automatic emergency braking, as you note, is
congressionally mandated. The vehicle technology itself is
analyzed by our colleagues at NHTSA----
Mr. Collins [interrupting]. So, do you have any examples of
where y'all have been addressing the false activations? Have
y'all got any examples of consulting with truckdrivers?
Ms. Hutcheson. Representative, I am going to divide my
comments from the rulemaking to preserve the fidelity of the
rulemaking progress and just say that I have ridden along with
many truckdrivers and talked about this very issue on
automatic----
Mr. Collins [interrupting]. You are talking to a trucker. I
am in the trucking business. As a matter of fact, I probably
own about 80 trucks with the collision avoidance device, is
what we call it, on the front of them.
And I will tell you, they are not bulletproof. They are
nowhere near it. Are you aware of what happens when this device
goes off at 50, 60 miles an hour?
Ms. Carlson. Yes----
Mr. Collins [interrupting]. If you are not wearing a
seatbelt, it will put you to the windshield almost. And it's
not there. The technology is not there. And I don't understand
why the Federal agencies, the FMCSA or NHTSA, either one of
you, push programs. I am much like Mr. Massie.
Listen, we all want to be safe. That's why I tried them.
But they don't work perfectly. And they are very expensive. As
a matter of fact, you can't disable them, so, you can't get
parts for them right now. So, you know what you do? You wind up
parking the vehicle.
So, you are pushing standards that the technology is not
available, and I really want you to understand that. I am not
trying to be ugly or anything. I am just telling you, from
someone in the industry, that is my outlook on it.
Now, the other thing I want to tell you--and I want to
follow up with what Mr. Van Drew and what Mr. Burlison said
about speed limiters. We have speed limiters out there now.
They are called speed limit signs. They are enforced by law
enforcement.
Ma'am, you have CSA--do you know what CSA is, the CSA
scores?
Ms. Hutcheson. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Collins. We get them monthly. They show us when our
drivers get tickets for speeding. You know who also looks at
that? Our insurance companies.
The free marketplace works. And when a truckdriver is not
insurable due to speeding, then he is let go or she is let go.
So, we don't need the Federal Government enforcing something
like this on truckers.
And the other thing I just want to finish up with is this.
The AAA has come out with, time and time again, reports that
say over 75 percent of accidents out there when a heavy truck
and a car are involved, it is the car's fault. It is not even
the truck's fault. But yet you are wanting to punish the heavy
class A trucks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I went over. And I yield
back.
Mr. Duarte. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will recognize himself, Congressman Duarte, for 5
minutes.
Well, thank you all for being here.
I represent the Central Valley district, California 13,
from Modesto down to Fresno, home of the California high-speed
rail project, or at least great portions of it.
This is a boondoggle. This is a boondoggle that will cost
carbon and billions of dollars, never pay for itself in fares.
It will never offset itself in carbon emissions. It is made of
concrete. These are elevated platforms in the air.
There might be some great high-speed rail around the world.
There might be some great high-speed rail projects that you
folks fund in California or Florida and other places around the
Nation.
I just want to testify to you today this is not one of
them. This is a hoax.
As we drive on our congested freeways in the Central Valley
on Highway 99 and Highway 5, potholes, traffic jammed up. We
literally see elevated platforms high above us--high above us--
disconnected from other elevated platforms. They are the high-
speed rail projects.
This thing is tanking. And we just had $3.1 billion come, I
think from you, Mr. Monje. Why are you doing this? Let me just
ask you, why are you continuing to fund the high-speed rail
project in California versus freeways, versus intersections,
versus other traffic needs?
And I will just remind you before you answer, your agency's
mission is to, quote, ``deliver the world's leading
transportation system, serving the American people and economy
through the safe, efficient, sustainable, and equitable
movement of people and goods.''
This is one of the lowest income districts in the country.
We have the 18th highest poverty level in the country. You are
not meeting our transportation needs. You may be meeting some
vanity needs in the bay area or L.A., but you are not meeting
our needs. Our needs are for freeways and conventional
transportation.
What motivates you to continue funding the high-speed rail
at the exclusion of the transportation infrastructure we
actually need?
Mr. Monje. Thank you, sir.
We have been building a lot of roads, 175,000 miles of
roads, thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. But I have
been stuck in that traffic----
Mr. Duarte [interrupting]. Not in my district. Thank you,
but not in my district. My district, when it sees
transportation Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act money, it
sees elevated, isolated platforms up in the sky of a senseless
investment that will be a senseless investment 10 and 20 years
from now.
Mr. Monje. That is not--I am sure the data does not bear
that out.
But the project that you are talking about is one that we
are watching carefully. It is going to be the key to future
mobility. I have been stuck in that traffic for a long time
myself.
Any transportation secretary across this country can tell
you, you can't build enough freeways to get out of the problem.
You have got to get people out of cars. And that is part of
what the high-speed rail system is about.
That project right now has 12,000 good jobs on the ground
in California----
Mr. Duarte [interrupting]. So would dams, so would
freeways, so would roadways, so would intersections, so would
the infrastructure assets that we actually need.
Mr. Monje. We are going to oversee that project very
carefully. As you said, we did give a grant to the project. It
is part of the future of the transportation system that is
going to----
Mr. Duarte [interrupting]. There is no history of effective
oversight of this project so far. There is none. It is widely
known as one of the largest boondoggles in infrastructure
history, and you are continuing to fund it.
Now, exactly how are you going to oversee it going forward
in a way that it hasn't been overseen in the past?
Mr. Monje. We absolutely have learned from history of
managing projects like this. It is not a myth. It is not--I
mean, high-speed rail exists across the country. And President
Biden believes that America deserves a world-class rail----
Mr. Duarte [interrupting]. This project, elevated over
freeways, elevated over river canyons, elevated over cities, a
high-speed rail engineered to soar over the top of all other
infrastructure in cities, through a very low-population density
area, to connect to very remote areas that you have no
engineering to get the last mile on.
You don't know how you are going to get through the
Tehachapis. You don't know how you are going to get through the
bay area. This is simply moving people from Merced to
Bakersfield on elevated platforms that are going to cost
probably over $100 billion by the time you are done connecting
two fairly midsized communities in rural areas. Then you can
figure out how to get over the mountains.
Please, I mean, this is ridiculous. Why are you not
building water infrastructure? I realize that's not the
Department of Transportation. But why are you not building
freeways?
I drive from Modesto to San Francisco to get to the airport
to come here, to do this. And I can tell you, I am glad it is
only 1 day a week that I have to go through the morning
traffic, because my constituents can't get to the best job
market in the world because the infrastructure dollars are
going towards a bullet train down in the middle of a valley
instead of connecting them to the places they actually want to
go. Please quit funding this boondoggle.
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir. The California High-Speed Rail
Authority, they are up to 98 percent of the right-of-way. They
are making good progress. We support this project----
Mr. Duarte [interrupting]. Let them pay for it themselves.
Mr. Monje. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duarte. Thank you.
I will yield back to myself, I guess.
What am I doing here? Let's see.
Are there any further questions from members of the
committee who have not been recognized?
Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. I would
like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Letter of December 13, 2023, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Highways and Transit, from Kristen Swearingen, Vice President,
Legislative and Political Affairs, Associated Builders and Contractors,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
December 13, 2023.
The Honorable Rick Crawford,
Chairman,
U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Highways and Transit, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Highways and Transit, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Holmes Norton and Members of the
U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee
on Highways and Transit:
On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, a national
construction industry trade association with 68 chapters representing
more than 22,000 member companies, we thank you for holding the
hearing, ``Oversight of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act:
Modal Perspectives''.
With hundreds of billions of dollars directed to modernize our
nation's most critical infrastructure, the modal administrators at the
U.S. Department of Transportation are largely responsible for the
distribution of these funds that will carry out projects across various
transportation sectors throughout communities in the United States.
Unfortunately, the DOT has deviated from the bipartisan agreement
reached during the IIJA's negotiation, seeking to incorporate partisan
language rejected by the House and Senate that would hinder the success
of this once in a generation opportunity.
ABC has previously expressed concerns about these administrative
actions, including the DOT's efforts to impose unlawful and overly
burdensome policies and restrictive labor requirements on key federal
infrastructure funds and projects.
Limiting State Flexibility and Authority:
The DOT has sought to impose unlawful federal requirements on
states and localities, which could limit their flexibility in
implementing the IIJA. The Federal Highway Administration has been the
key violator in these efforts with memos and policies that would limit
flexibility for states and local communities that are best equipped to
determine their transportation infrastructure needs. This includes
efforts that have discouraged states from expanding highway capacity
and elevating non-motorized transportation projects.
Additionally, the FHWA rule to impose greenhouse gas emissions
performance measures on state departments of transportation and
metropolitan planning organizations would enact after-the-fact partisan
regulations affecting the implementation of the bipartisan
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act without congressional authority.
This ill-advised rule would further burden state and local governments
and hinder contractors in forging ahead with much-needed modernization
of key infrastructure projects in their communities.
This heavy-handedness from the FHWA differs from the bipartisan
negotiated provisions of the law and violates Congressional intent when
it comes to the implementation of the IIJA.
Implementation of IIJA and Project Labor Agreements:
ABC has consistently and vigorously opposed government-mandated
PLAs and PLA preferences on federal government and federally assisted
construction projects, as well as state and local government
infrastructure projects. PLAs needlessly increase costs, chill
competition and steer hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of
construction projects funded by taxpayers to well-connected special
interests, i.e., construction unions and contractors signatory to
specific construction unions party to a PLA.
Despite this, ABC has identified a significant number of Biden
administration federal agency grants--totaling more than $230 billion
for infrastructure projects procured by state and local governments--
subject to language and policies promoting PLA mandates and preferences
that will increase costs and reduce competition on federally assisted
construction projects.
The DOT, which has oversight over the vast majority of IIJA
funding, has played a key role in pushing these costly and unnecessary
agreements. ABC has identified over $214 billion in DOT grant programs
impacted by language preferring PLAs.
For example, in a fiscal year 2023 Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity grant program DOT Notice
of Funding Opportunity, the department includes pro-PLA preferences for
contractors, which were not included in the IIJA.
The RAISE grant program provides federal assistance to state and
local government entities for the purpose of major surface
transportation infrastructure projects, making at least $2.275 billion
in funding appropriated by the IIJA and other funding sources
available.
However, the impact of this funding is undermined by language in
the NOFO that attempts to steer these funds toward applicants that
require PLAs on their projects. The NOFO includes specific language
indicating that PLAs will increase applicants' scores for ``partnership
and collaboration,'' improving their chance of receiving RAISE funds.
ABC has urged the DOT to abandon these exclusionary and
inflationary policies, and instead welcome the entire construction
workforce to participate in rebuilding America's vital infrastructure.
ABC would recommend that the committee closely examine the DOT's
policies favoring PLAs to ensure DOT is maximizing return on the
massive investment of taxpayer dollars represented by the IIJA.
Restrictive Requirements on the National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Formula Program:
The DOT is also pushing union labor requirements on the National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program. The NEVI Formula
Program will implement provisions of the IIJA that includes $7.5
billion for electric vehicle charging stations (including $5 billion
over five years to install EV chargers mostly along interstate
highways). The intent of the program is to support the installation of
500,000 electric vehicle chargers across the country by 2030 as part of
the administration's push to shift away from gas-powered vehicles.
The final rule contains a number of concerning labor provisions. It
requires that all electricians working on electric vehicle supply
equipment either be certified by the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers' Electric Vehicle Industry Training Program or be a
graduate or recipient of a continuing education certificate from a
government-registered apprenticeship program with a focus on EVSE
installation approved by the U.S. Department of Labor in consultation
with the DOT. Additionally, the final rule requires all NEVI-funded
projects that require more than one electrician to use at least one
GRAP-enrolled apprentice.
ABC previously submitted comments in response to the proposed rule
and a request for information, urging the DOT to avoid union labor
requirements and to instead welcome all qualified contractors to build
EV chargers. Unfortunately, the agency disregarded these
recommendations in the final rule which took effect on March 30, 2023.
Thank you for your consideration of ABC's concerns.
Sincerely,
Kristen Swearingen,
Vice President, Legislative and Political Affairs,
Associated Builders and Contractors.
Letter of December 8, 2023, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and Hon. Rick
Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
and Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from Jim
Ward, President, Truckload Carriers Association, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
December 8, 2023.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Chairman,
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rick Larsen,
Ranking Member,
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rick Crawford,
Chairman,
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, 2165 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Ranking Member.
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, Chairman Crawford,
Ranking Member Norton, and Members of the Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit:
I am writing in response to the hearing ``Oversight of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Modal Perspectives'' that will
be held on December 13, 2023. The discussion about the industry
challenges faced by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
is of critical importance. On behalf of the Truckload Carriers
Association (TCA) and its membership, I am encouraged by this hearing
to examine the impacts of the IIJA amongst the Department of
Transportation and its operating administrations.
The influx of $110 billion that the IIJA authorized for highway
projects was certainly a monumental step toward improving our nation's
roadways and bridges. However, of particular concern to our industry is
that the funding passed in 2021 is not reflective of the costs incurred
in 2023. Even the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) tracks
construction prices through its National Highway Construction Cost
Index, which has already cited a fifty-three percent increase in the
cost of construction projects across the country. While we must note
the need for these projects, our concern lies with the projects that
are in jeopardy, such as increasing the number of available truck
parking spaces due to the increasing financial implications.
As you are likely aware, the truckload industry recognizes the
pressing need for more truck parking spaces across the country, a
specific problem that the IIJA failed to address. This need continues
to pose tremendous challenges to our nation's professional truck
drivers and the efficient ability to deliver freight. Finding viable
solutions to enhance truck parking availability and accessibility is
crucial to ensure truck drivers' safety and well-being and the
truckload industry's successful operation. That being said, due to the
tremendous increase in costs associated with projects, we continue to
question the ability of the agency to address this issue because of the
increases in costs associated with construction.
The truckload industry has been a long-time advocate for increasing
the Federal Fuel Tax as a viable and effective solution to allocate
essential funds to the Highway Trust Fund. Essentially, as an industry,
we must do our part. The current funding levels are insufficient to
address the maintenance and improvements needed for our nation's
highways and infrastructure, and clearly, the inflation rates our
country has experienced will influence projects that are needed. An
increase in the Federal Fuel Tax would not only bridge the funding gap
but also provide a reliable source of revenue for critical
infrastructure projects in the years to come, supporting economic
growth and enhancing road safety.
In addition to advocating for the fuel tax increase, TCA continues
to advocate for the suspension or repeal of the Federal Excise Tax, a
mechanism that was implemented to support our nation during World War
I. We acknowledge that repealing or suspending the Federal Exercise Tax
would reduce funding for the Highway Trust Fund, necessitating an
increase in the Federal Fuel Tax to offset the impact of the repeal or
suspension. The initiative to repeal the Federal Exercise Tax would
help alleviate financial burdens on the truckload industry and allocate
better resources toward investments in modern-day equipment that will
support our environment and improvements in safety performance. A
careful review of the Federal Excise Tax and its implications on the
industry would be highly beneficial.
Environmental concerns consistently play a role in how our industry
delivers freight. In fact, the industry has constantly demonstrated our
dedication to the environment through equipment improvements. Truck
engines manufactured today emit ninety-eight percent less nitrogen
oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) than those built thirty-five
years ago. Placing this into perspective, sixty of today's trucks emit
what just one truck emitted in 1988. Since 2006, the trucking industry
has eliminated virtually all sulfur oxide (Sox) emissions.
With that in mind, we question the recent overreach of the FHWA in
establishing emission reduction goals for states to implement. The IIJA
did not include measures for the FHWA to address these parameters,
especially at a time when there are more questions surrounding the
adoption of zero-emission vehicles than there are actual answers to
solving this potential industry-crippling change. Environmental
regulations must be examined by all parties involved, vetting the
unintended consequences of such laws, and delivering solutions for an
industry in which these new mandates will be imposed upon.
Unfortunately, the rapid pace of these rules being promulgated is far
outpacing the real-life quandaries they have created. We encourage the
committee to challenge the regulatory authority of DOT/FHWA in creating
environmental rules that are likely out of their purview and ignoring
the intent of the IIJA in the first place.
Finally, while we understand that this hearing is dedicated to
examining the implications of the IIJA, two years after its enactment,
we must still remind Congress and the DOT agencies that the FAST Act,
enacted in 2015, directed the Secretary of Transportation to ``use hair
testing as an acceptable alternative to urine testing'' for pre-
employment and random testing of commercial truck drivers. The federal
government has yet to issue guidelines, despite the presence of
recognized international lab standards for hair testing and the success
in going beyond prescribed regulations that many motor carriers have
had when implementing this procedure for their own purposes. Eight
years later, our industry continues waiting for guidelines that could
permit carriers an alternative method for discovering drug abuse that
would have a dramatic impact on the trucking industry drug testing
protocols and allow for those results to be posted into the FMCSA Drug
& Alcohol Clearinghouse.
I commend your dedication to addressing these critical issues that
directly impact the truckload industry and the overall transportation
infrastructure of our nation. Your efforts to explore sustainable
funding methods and improve infrastructure are vital to a safer, more
efficient, and prosperous future.
Thank you for your commitment to these essential matters. I look
forward to seeing the positive outcomes and solutions that will occur
from your discussions.
Sincerely,
Jim Ward,
TCA President.
Letter of December 12, 2023, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,
Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Highways and Transit, from Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor
Holmes Norton
December 12, 2023.
The Honorable Rick Crawford, Chair,
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, United States House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Holmes Norton:
Thank you for holding tomorrow's hearing, ``Oversight of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Modal Perspectives.'' With
deaths and injuries on our Nation's roads at historically high levels,
the safety advances included in the law by this Subcommittee must be
implemented by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in a
comprehensive and expeditious manner. Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) respectfully requests this letter be included in the
hearing record.
Motor Vehicle Crashes are a Public Health Crisis Which Demand Immediate
Action
On average, 118 people were killed every day on roads in the U.S.
in 2021,\1\ totaling nearly 43,000 fatalities for the year. An
additional 2.5 million people were injured.\2\ This represents a 27
percent increase in deaths in just a decade.\3\ Early projections for
2022 traffic fatalities remain high,\4\ as do estimates for the first
six months of 2023.\5\ In addition to vehicle occupants, other road
users experienced upturns in deaths as well. Pedestrian fatalities grew
by 13 percent, and bicyclist deaths were up two percent from 2020 to
2021.\6\ While pedestrian fatalities are estimated to have decreased
one percent in 2022, bicyclist fatalities spiked by 11 percent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Overview of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes in 2021, NHTSA, Apr.
2023, DOT HS 813 435. (Overview 2021).
\2\ Overview 2021.
\3\ Traffic Safety Facts 2020: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash
Data, NHTSA, Oct. 2022, DOT HS 813 375, (Annual Report 2020); and
Overview 2021; [comparing 2012 to 2021].
\4\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats, Early Estimate of Motor
Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2022, NHTSA, Apr. 2023, DOT HS 813 428.
(Early Estimates 2022).
\5\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2023, September).
Early estimate of motor vehicle traffic fatalities for the first half
of 2023 (Crash Stats Brief Statistical Summary. Report No. DOT HS 813
514). NHTSA.
\6\ Overview 2021.
\7\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats, Early Estimates of Motor
Vehicle Traffic Fatalities And Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2022,
NHTSA, Apr. 2023, DOT HS 813 448.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2021, 5,788 people were killed and nearly 155,000 people were
injured in crashes involving large trucks.\8\ Since 2009, the number of
fatalities in large truck crashes has increased by 71 percent.\9\ In
that same timespan, the number of people injured in crashes involving
large trucks increased by 109 percent.\10\ Early estimates indicate
that in 2022, traffic fatalities in crashes involving at least one
large truck were up another two percent; 5,887 people were killed.\11\
In fatal two-vehicle crashes between a large truck and a passenger
motor vehicle, 97 percent of the fatalities were occupants of the
passenger vehicle.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Overview of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes in 2021, NHTSA, Apr.
2023, DOT HS 813 435.
\9\ Id. and Traffic Safety Facts 2020: A Compilations of Motor
Vehicle Crash Data, NHTSA, Oct. 2022, DOT HS 813 375. Note, the 71
percent figure represents the overall change in the number of
fatalities in large truck involved crashes from 2009 to 2021. However,
between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in data collection at U.S. DOT
that could affect this calculation. From 2009 to 2015 the number of
fatalities in truck-involved crashes increased by 21 percent, and
between 2016 to 2019, it increased by 7.6 percent, and between 2020 and
2021, it increased by 17 percent.
\10\ Traffic Safety Facts 2021 Data: large Trucks, NHTSA, Jun. 2023
(Revised), DOT HS 813 452; Traffic Safety Facts 2020, NHTSA, Oct. 2022,
DOT HS 813 375. Note, the 109 percent figure represents the overall
change in the number of people injured in large truck involved crashes
from 2009 to 2021. However, between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in
data collection at U.S. DOT that could affect this calculation. From
2009 to 2015 the number of people injured in truck-involved crashes
increased by 59 percent, and between 2016 to 2019, it increased by 18
percent, and between 2020 and 2021, it increased by 5 percent.
\11\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats; Early Estimates of Motor
Vehicle Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2022,
NHTSA, Apr. 2023, DOT HS 813 448.
\12\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Large Trucks.
See: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/large-
trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservatively, the annual economic cost of motor vehicle crashes
is approximately $340 billion (2019 dollars).\13\ This means that every
person living in the U.S. essentially pays an annual ``crash tax'' of
over $1,000. Moreover, the total value of societal harm from motor
vehicle crashes in 2019 was nearly $1.4 trillion.\14\ The cost to
society from crashes involving large trucks and buses was estimated to
be $143 billion in 2020, the latest year for which data is
available.\15\ When adjusted solely for inflation, this figure amounts
to over $166 billion.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019, NHTSA, Dec. 2022, DOT HS 813 403. (Economic and Societal Impact
2019).
\14\ Economic and Societal Impact 2019
\15\ 2022 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics, FMCSA,
Dec. 2022, RRA-22-007.
\16\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, Jan. 2020 to Jan. 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Must be Implemented
Promptly
Fortunately, commonsense solutions were advanced by this
Subcommittee during the consideration of the IIJA.\17\ The Safe System
Approach is incorporated in the IIJA and undertakes a holistic method
to improve safety in the roadway environment. In addition, the IIJA
authorizes safety upgrades to the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) that will help to protect vulnerable road users, such as
infrastructure features that calm traffic and reduce vehicle speeds.
The ripple effect of these crash reductions is wide-ranging and
includes less damage to infrastructure, less congestion caused by
crashes, and less expenditure of first responder resources, among
others. Additional provisions included by the Subcommittee such as
addressing impaired driving, improving the safety of vulnerable road
users, expanding the safe routes to schools program and mitigating
underride crashes will help to improve safety on our Nation's roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Pub. L. 117-58 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates remains deeply concerned about DOT's backlog of overdue
rulemakings as well as its ability to meet the deadlines mandated in
the IIJA. In fact, last week DOT released the Fall 2023 regulatory
agenda which indicates that DOT will fail to meet the dates required by
Congress for some of the most critical safety rulemakings.\18\ It is
incumbent upon this Subcommittee to ensure that U.S. DOT meets the
directives of the IIJA to issue critical safety rulemakings or lives
will be needlessly lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Agency Rule List--Fall 2023, U.S. Department of
Transportation, available at: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaMain?operation=OPERATION_GET_AGENCY_RULE_
LIST¤tPub=true&agencyCode=&showStage=active&agencyCd=2100
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We laud the Committee for holding this oversight hearing to ensure
that DOT implements the safety advances of the IIJA in a timely manner.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to improve safety on our
Nation's roadways.
Sincerely,
Catherine Chase,
President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
cc: Members of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
Article entitled, ``Why Are So Many American Pedestrians Dying at
Night?'' by Emily Badger, Ben Blatt, and Josh Katz, New York Times,
December 11, 2023, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jake Auchincloss
Why Are So Many American Pedestrians Dying at Night?
by Emily Badger, Ben Blatt, and Josh Katz
New York Times, December 11, 2023
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/11/upshot/nighttime-
deaths.html?searchResultPosition=1
Sometime around 2009, American roads started to become deadlier for
pedestrians, particularly at night. Fatalities have risen ever since,
reversing the effects of decades of safety improvements. And it's not
clear why.
What's even more perplexing: Nothing resembling this pattern has
occurred in other comparably wealthy countries. In places like Canada
and Australia, a much lower share of pedestrian fatalities occurs at
night, and those fatalities--rarer in number--have generally been
declining, not rising.
In America, these trends present a puzzle that has stumped experts
on vehicle design, driver behavior, road safety and how they interact:
What changed, starting about 15 years ago, that would cause rising
numbers of pedestrian deaths specifically in the U.S.--and
overwhelmingly at night?
``This is something that, quite frankly, our profession missed,''
Rebecca Sanders, the founder of Safe Streets Research and Consulting,
said of the toll of nighttime deaths. ``I think we missed that for a
long time.''
In 2021, more than 7,300 pedestrians died in America--three in four
of them during the hours between sunset and sunrise.
This trend exists on top of what is already a growing gap in
roadway deaths between the U.S. and other countries. Speed limits on
local roads are often higher in the U.S., laws and cultural
prohibitions against dangerous driving can be weaker, and American
infrastructure in many ways has been designed to enable speeding cars.
Those baseline conditions may mean, researchers suggest, that
American roads--and the pedestrians walking along them--have been
especially susceptible to potential new risks like smartphones and
bigger vehicles.
But even that is only part of the picture.
``I don't have any definitive answers for this,'' said Jessica
Cicchino, the vice president for research at the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety. Ms. Cicchino, like many observers, has puzzled over
how rapidly nighttime deaths have risen. ``What is it that's happening
specifically in the dark?''
The Danger of Darkness
For starters, it's important to understand just how stark the
threat of darkness is for pedestrians in the U.S. Federal data that
tracks every roadway fatality makes clear that the problem is not just
about the behaviors and routines that happen to occur around nighttime
(leaving work, for example, or going to bars). It is darkness itself
that matters.
This chart shows the deadliest time of day for pedestrians,
averaging data from 2000 to 2021 over a whole calendar year:
Another way of describing this picture: It shows the annual arc of
the setting sun. Researchers have found related patterns looking at
fatal collisions that occur in the weeks before and after clocks change
for daylight saving time. When the 6 p.m. hour abruptly changes from
light to dark, for example, even as traffic patterns generally remain
the same, that hour becomes abruptly more deadly, too.
``It's purely an effect of daylight or darkness--and it's huge for
pedestrians,'' said Michael Flannagan, a retired professor at the
University of Michigan.
In the dark, pedestrians are harder to see than other road users.
They typically don't wear reflective gear or lights, and their
outerwear is often dark in color. American roads also weren't
particularly engineered with this risk in mind.
``We literally taught generations of engineers to design conditions
for daylight and not to consider nighttime,'' Dr. Sanders said.
The risk for other road users is higher during the day: The
majority of deaths among vehicle occupants occur then. Until the last
few years, that was true of cyclist fatalities, too. Even incidents of
cars driving off the road don't spike with nightfall in the same way
that pedestrian fatalities do.
Darkness, it appears, especially threatens people on foot.
Or, rather, people on foot in America. In comparable countries,
pedestrians are generally more likely to be fatally struck during the
day.
New Risks
The most obvious potential risks that have changed in America since
2009 are found inside vehicles--in the drivers there fiddling with
smartphones, in the dashboard displays that have grown ever more
complex, in the growing weight and force of vehicles themselves.
Smartphones have become ubiquitous with remarkable speed,
overlapping closely with the timeline of rising pedestrian deaths.
Apple's iPhone was introduced in 2007. Within a few years, one-third of
American adults said they owned a smartphone. By 2021, according to the
Pew Research Center, 85 percent did.
When it comes to other sources of driver impairment, ``there's no
particular reason to believe that alcohol, speeding or fatigue
necessarily have changed in any kind of big way,'' said David Strayer,
a psychologist who studies driving at the University of Utah. ``What
has changed is the amount of technology that we're surrounding
ourselves with.''
Smartphones--and the way they can distract both drivers and
pedestrians--aren't uniquely American. But there is one thing that is
still distinctly so: the pervasiveness in the U.S. of automatic
transmissions, which help free up a driver's hand for other uses. Just
1 percent of all new passenger vehicles sold this year in the U.S. had
manual transmissions, according to the online car-shopping resource
Edmunds. In Europe, manual transmissions are declining in popularity as
a share of new light vehicles sold. But they still make up about 70 to
75 percent of cars on the road, estimated Felipe Munoz, senior analyst
at JATO Dynamics.
It's perhaps not surprising then that Americans spend nearly three
times as much time interacting with their phones while driving as
drivers in Britain, according to smartphone data collected by Cambridge
Mobile Telematics, which helps auto insurers, carmakers and local
governments track and reduce dangerous driving. In the U.S., that
distracted driving--detected when phones are tapped or in motion in
vehicles traveling faster than 9 miles per hour--also typically peaks
in the evening hours, according to the company's data.
Though this data doesn't capture exactly what people are doing on
their phones, evening is when people often coordinate social activities
and manage after-hours work messages and tasks. America's round-the-
clock work culture may contribute to that trend.
``The adoption of smartphones for the past 15 years--where we are
today, being addicted on social media and other apps--absolutely
contributes to the increase in fatalities on our roads,'' said Matt
Fiorentino, Cambridge Mobile Telematics' vice president for marketing.
Official data linking smartphones and crashes is hard to find,
though, given that the police typically don't ask people involved if
they were using phones (and those people might not answer truthfully
anyway).
Beyond just display screens, new vehicles have also changed to be
wider, longer, taller and heavier. Not only do heavier vehicles hit
pedestrians with more force, but they also often have worse brake
times, meaning a driver who notices a pedestrian at the last second may
strike that person at higher speeds. Studies have also indicated that
vehicles with taller hoods are more likely to kill if they hit
pedestrians; they strike people closer to the head or torso, instead of
the legs.
While researchers have pointed toward vehicle size as a factor
explaining America's high overall rate of pedestrian fatalities,
several said they were skeptical that it explains much of the increase
since 2009. That's because American cars were relatively large even
before 2009, and the rate at which new cars replace existing ones is
slow.
``In explaining the big run-up in pedestrian deaths, it's not
actually a huge portion,'' said Justin Tyndall, an assistant professor
at the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization. His
research estimates that the change in vehicle types since 2009 is
responsible for less than 100 additional deaths per year. By
comparison, around 3,300 more pedestrians died in 2021 than in 2009.
Similarly, ownership of smaller vehicles (like sedans, coupes and
station wagons) is down since 2009. But total pedestrian deaths from
these same cars are up more than 70 percent, suggesting the bulk of the
problem cannot be attributed to increased car size alone.
The behavior of drivers inside vehicles--of any type--may also have
changed over this time for a few additional reasons, researchers
suggest. This timeline also overlaps with the rise of opioids and the
legalization of recreational marijuana. But there is little research
about how marijuana affects driving.
Periodic federal roadside surveys, last updated in 2013-14, have
found declining alcohol use by drivers and a rising share testing
positive for drugs. A more recent federal study, collecting data from
trauma centers and medical examiners about seriously or fatally injured
road users, found in the years leading up to the pandemic that half of
the drivers studied tested positive for at least one active drug.
During the pandemic, that share rose to 65 percent. The results, the
authors warned, ``could be indicative of a growing problem.''
Societal Change
None of the explanations so far easily accounts for the full rise
of pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. But while less obvious than driver
and vehicle behavior, changes that have happened outside the car and
across American society may be just as important.
One theory is that Americans have been migrating toward the Sun
Belt, including parts of the country that developed in the auto age,
that have particularly poor pedestrian and transit infrastructure, and
that have some of the highest pedestrian fatality rates. The rise in
pedestrian deaths has been nationwide, with per-capita pedestrian
fatality increases in 47 states since 2009. But many areas that have
had poor pedestrian safety records going back decades--especially metro
areas in Florida, Texas, and Arizona--have also seen the greatest
recent population growth.
The number of pedestrian fatalities in Florida has increased 75
percent since 2009, while the population has increased around 17
percent. Such state population changes alone don't explain most of the
rise in deaths, however. More relevant patterns may have to do with
where, specifically, people have moved within those states.
Nationwide, the suburbanization of poverty in the 21st century has
meant that more lower-income Americans who rely on shift work or public
transit have moved to communities built around the deadliest kinds of
roads: those with multiple lanes and higher speed limits but few
crosswalks or sidewalks. The rise in pedestrian fatalities has been
most pronounced on these arterials, which can combine highway speeds
with the cross traffic of more local roads.
Research has found that pedestrian deaths over the last 20 years
have declined in downtown areas and increased in the suburbs, often in
places where lower-income residents live. Such suburban arterial roads
are also where many communities have allowed multifamily and affordable
housing construction that has been less welcome in neighborhoods with
inherently safer streets.
In Portland, Ore., for example, immigrants and lower-income
residents priced out of other parts of the city have moved in along
some of the region's most notoriously dangerous corridors, like 122nd
Avenue, a five-lane arterial that runs through the city's most racially
and ethnically diverse neighborhoods.
``Now we have folks that are living, working, shopping, going to
school directly on these roads that were essentially built as
highways,'' said Dana Dickman, the traffic safety section manager for
the Portland Bureau of Transportation.
In more recent years, the rise of homelessness in many American
cities since about 2016 has also put a growing vulnerable population on
streets in conflict with speeding cars. In 2021, 70 percent of
Portland's pedestrian fatalities were among the homeless. Last year,
about a third were, similar to recent data in Los Angeles. Such data is
relatively limited and new, but other cities including Colorado Springs
and San Jose, Calif., have also noted a rise in pedestrian fatalities
among the homeless.
The homeless population may have little choice but to be out at
night, and near dangerous roads.
``Where they're actually living unhoused--next to freeways, next to
undercrossings--those are typically places that are busy streets,''
said Tim Weisberg, a deputy director for the California Office of
Traffic Safety.
Nationwide, the overwhelming majority of the rise in pedestrian
deaths since 2009 has come among working-age Americans, reinforcing the
idea that this shift may also have to do with where those people are
living and spending time.
People 17 and under are the one group bucking the overall trend,
and deaths of children walking are at a record low. Not only are
children less likely to be walking at night when the majority of
pedestrian deaths occur, but studies have also estimated that the
percentage of children who walk or bike to school has declined
precipitously over the last 50 years.
Individually, any of these theories seems unsatisfying. But put
together, it's clear that there's been a particularly American mix of
technological and social changes over the past decade and a half. And
they have all come on top of a road system and an ingrained culture
that prioritizes speed over safety. Whatever has happened over this
time has reversed years of progress on daytime pedestrian fatalities,
too, leading to a modest increase in deaths. Nighttime, however, has
the potential to amplify so many of these new risks.
A transportation system that's safer by design--as in many European
countries--might better absorb any one of these dangers. Distracted
drivers are safer at lower speeds. People out at night are safer with
well-lit crosswalks.
Even ``monster trucks are safe on safer roads,'' said Nicholas
Ferenchak, a professor at the University of New Mexico and director of
the Center for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety.
Now imagine distracted drivers in monster trucks on high-speed
roads in the dark.
Appendix
----------
Questions to Hon. Carlos Monje, Jr., Under Secretary of Transportation
for Policy, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department
of Transportation,\1\ from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please note that Under Secretary Monje retired from the Office
of the Secretary (OST) effective April 5, 2024. This response is
provided on behalf of OST.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1. In October 2023, the Department of Transportation (DOT
or Department) released a plan to accelerate deployment of vehicle-to-
everything (V2X) communications technology, which enables vehicles to
communicate with each other, pedestrians, and roadway
infrastructure.\2\ It outlines specific deployment targets over the
next 10 years for multiple stakeholders, including infrastructure
owners and operators, and automobile manufacturers.\3\ Please discuss
the importance of V2X communications technology--specifically, as it
relates to roadway safety efforts--and how the Office of the Secretary
will leverage the Department's resources and organizations to encourage
deployment of this technology?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ DOT, Saving Lives With Connectivity: A Plan To Accelerate V2X
Deployment, (Oct. 2023), available at https://www.its.dot.gov/
research_areas/emerging_tech/pdf/Accelerate_V2X_Deployment.pdf.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. The National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS) outlines key
near-term actions that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is
undertaking to significantly reduce serious injuries and deaths on our
Nation's highways, roads, and streets. One highlighted action on the
NRSS Tracking Dashboard \4\ is the promotion of technologies to advance
roadway safety. This action specifically includes both Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) and interoperable vehicle to everything
(V2X) wireless communications, recognized as additional safety tools.
V2X communications serve as a mechanism to deliver timely driver
warnings and vulnerable road user alerts by processing data from
multiple vehicles, mobile devices, and connected roadway
infrastructure. The timely integration of relevant data from these
sources through V2X enables multiple safety applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NRSS Action Tracking Dashboard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V2X applications enable drivers to be warned of hazardous
situations before they can see them. For example, the Connected Vehicle
Pilot Deployment Program (2015-2022) \5\ successfully demonstrated more
than 20 V2X-enabled safety applications in diverse locations. This
ranged from alerting drivers to the presence of pedestrians in mid-
block crossings in downtown Tampa to providing timely road weather/
visibility alerts to truck drivers traversing I-80 in Wyoming during
blizzards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.its.dot.gov/pilots/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past year, the DOT has undertaken significant actions to
support the ITS community and to promote the deployment of V2X
technology. In October 2023, FHWA and the ITS Joint Program Office
issued the Draft National V2X Deployment Plan.
Industry has expressed appreciation for DOT's leadership in issuing
the Draft Plan and working with the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to provide certainty related to spectrum requirements. Also in
October 2023, DOT announced the Saving Lives with Connectivity:
Accelerating V2X Deployment Notice of Funding Opportunity.\6\ This
groundbreaking $40 million grant initiative aims to empower entities to
deploy, operate, and showcase roadway deployments featuring
applications enabled by V2X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See https://www.grants.gov/search-results-detail/350731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DOT has awarded discretionary grants totaling more
than $100 million in the past ten years to state and local
transportation organizations to support V2X and connected vehicle
deployment through programs such as Connected Vehicle Pilots, Better
Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD), Advanced
Transportation Technologies and Innovative Mobility Development
(ATTIMD)/Advanced Transportation Technology and Innovation (ATTAIN),
and Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART).
Departmental support also includes addressing critical technical
issues and building a cohesive structure for interoperable deployments
across the Nation. For example, DOT established the Accelerating V2X
Cohort, which currently has 31 entities as members and serves as a
platform for public agencies engaged in active V2X deployment projects.
These agencies exchange insights and share best practices and lessons
learned, contributing to the advancement of interoperable V2X
technologies.
Question 2. In May 2023, the personally identifiable information of
237,000 current or former DOT employees was exposed as part of a
cyberattack.\7\ At a June briefing on this topic, Cordell Schachter,
the Department's Chief Information Officer (CIO), committed to
providing Members with information about the Department's cyber
modernization plan, as well as funding and staffing needs.\8\ In
September, Secretary Buttigieg also expressed his willingness to work
with the Committee to provide this information.\9\ When will the
Department provide the requested information? Further how does the
Department justify its extended delay in responding to Members of the
Committee?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Email from Ass't Sec'y for Governmental Affairs, DOT, to Staff,
H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, (May 12, 2023, 4:24 p.m. EST)
(on file with Comm.); see also DOT, Update to Congress On DOT Breach
(2023) (on file with Comm.) [hereinafter Supplemental Report].
\8\ Briefing from DOT, CIO to H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure Staff (June 7, 2023).
\9\ Oversight of the Department of Transportation's Policies and
Programs: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure,
118th Cong. (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. In addition to briefing Committee Members and staff on the
Adobe Cold Fusion cyberattack on DOT and related issues, the Department
provided a full written response to the Committee, including
documentation of DOT's cyber-modernization initiatives, by letter dated
December 15, 2023. Copies of that letter and documentation are attached
for the convenience of the Committee.
Question to Hon. Carlos Monje, Jr., Under Secretary of Transportation
for Policy, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department
of Transportation, from Hon. Chris Pappas
Question 1. The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) continues to fund
and maintain trails throughout the country, which is in close alignment
with this Administration's commitment to outdoor recreation.
Can you describe the Department's commitment to this important
program?
Answer. As part of the America the Beautiful initiative, DOT
recognizes the Recreational Trails Program (RTP) as supporting states
in developing, maintaining, and improving access to park and recreation
facilities for both nonmotorized and motorized recreational trail
users. The Department is committed to outdoor recreation efforts, and
FHWA has published numerous guidance documents and other publications
that are available to stakeholders on its website on a wide range of
topics, such as trails and resilience and electric bicycles. FHWA is
coordinating with the U.S. Forest Service to provide Forest Service
publications and videos to the public and is working with the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to
develop training on transportation and trail networks.
Question to Hon. Carlos Monje, Jr., Under Secretary of Transportation
for Policy, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department
of Transportation, from Hon. Robert Menendez
Question 1. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory predicts that
the U.S. is going to require nearly 1.1 million additional public EV
charging stations to support 50 percent of EV sales by 2030. Presently,
the U.S. has just over 150,000 publicly available chargers. This would
require over 400 public chargers to be installed every day to meet
future need.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law signed into law in 2021 provided
up to $7.5 billion in funding for EV charging stations to support
increased fleet electrification. However, installation of public
chargers has been slower than expected with only two sites opened in
Ohio and New York.
Acting NHTSA Administrator Carlson and Under Secretary Monje, what
are DOT and other federal agencies doing to facilitate the necessary
increase in charging infrastructure?
Answer. Since the President took office, the number of publicly
available charging ports has grown by over 90 percent, with over
186,000 publicly available EV charging ports across the country as of
June 25. Our programs are accelerating private sector investment that
puts us on track to deploy 500,000 charging ports ahead of schedule and
continue to expand a convenient and reliable charging network. Under
President Biden's leadership, electric vehicle (EV) sales have more
than quadrupled, and more than 4 million EVs are now on the road.
Spurred by the President's historic investments, private companies have
announced more than $177 billion in the EV and battery supply chain
under the Biden-Harris Administration. EVs are critical to our rapid
and equitable transition to clean transportation systems, producing
zero tailpipe emissions, reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions--major contributors to climate change and key contributors to
respiratory ailments.
The BIL provides FHWA with $7.5 billion in Federal funding for the
construction of publicly accessible electric vehicle (EV) chargers and
alternative fueling infrastructure. These targeted investments
complement the tens of billions in Federal and private sector funding
that is building out a national EV charging network, and support good
paying jobs across the country installing, maintaining, and repairing
EV infrastructure. FHWA, in collaboration with the Joint Office of
Energy and Transportation (Joint Office), continues to work with States
and other recipients as they access the funding from the National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program and the Charging
and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Discretionary Grant Program. Each
State was required to submit an update to their EV Infrastructure
Deployment Plan by August 1, 2023. FHWA approved all EV charging plans
from States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, unlocking
approximately $885 million in FY 2024 NEVI formula funding to implement
those plans.
The BIL established the first-ever formula program for EV charging
infrastructure through the NEVI Formula Program. The NEVI Formula
Program will help States create a network of EV charging stations along
designated Alternative Fuel Corridors, particularly along the
Interstate Highway System. EV charging stations funded by the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law have been opened in six States: Hawaii,
Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Maine, and Vermont, with EV chargers in
more States expected to come online soon.
On January 11, 2024, the Biden-Harris Administration announced $623
million in grants to help build out an EV charging network across the
U.S., which will create American jobs and ensure more drivers can
charge their electric vehicles where they live, work, and shop. The
grants being announced are made possible by the BIL's $2.5 billion CFI
Discretionary Grant Program, a competitive funding program, and will
fund 47 EV charging and alternative-fueling infrastructure projects in
22 states and Puerto Rico, including construction of approximately
7,500 EV charging ports.
On January 18, 2024, the Biden-Harris Administration announced it
is awarding nearly $150 million to 24 grant recipients in 20 states to
repair or replace nearly 4,500 existing EV charging ports. Under the
NEVI Formula Program, 10% of the funding is set-aside for grants to
States or localities that require additional assistance to
strategically deploy EV charging infrastructure. This first round of
funding focuses on improving the reliability and accessibility of the
current network by repairing or replacing existing EV charging
infrastructure.
FHWA is working with recipients to execute grant agreements as
expeditiously as possible, which will translate into more ports
available to drivers of EVs. We issued the NOFO for the second round of
funding for these two programs on May 30, 2024.
BIL also established the Joint Office, which is charged with
studying, planning, coordinating, and implementing issues of joint
concern between the Departments of Energy and Transportation. The Joint
Office provides technical assistance related to the deployment,
operation, and maintenance of zero emission vehicle charging and
refueling infrastructure, renewable energy generation, vehicle to grid
integration, including microgrids, and related programs and policies.
When you combine public and private investment, more than $25
billion of investment in U.S. EV charging has been announced to date.
According to a recent analysis from the Department of Energy, that puts
us on a path to deliver nearly 1.2 million public chargers by 2030--
keeping pace with ever-growing EV adoption. That includes charging
infrastructure that's made in America--companies have announced more
than 1 million chargers per year of manufacturing capacity since
President Biden took office.
Question to Hon. Carlos Monje, Jr., Under Secretary of Transportation
for Policy, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department
of Transportation, from Hon. Colin Z. Allred
Question 1. The Austin Transit Partnership recently visited my
office. They are looking to bring light rail to Austin and ultimately
connect it to the Austin Airport. ATP sees an opportunity for the modal
agencies within DOT to work more collaboratively to issue
transportation funding when a project like this offers many benefits to
Austin, the airport, and the regional transportation network.
Can DOT recommend funding streams that break down the airport/
transit barrier?
Answer. Rail capital projects are eligible for multiple FTA and DOT
grant programs, such as Capital Investment Grants, and these projects
may certainly include a connection to an airport. It is important to
note that any FTA-funded project must meet the definition of public
transportation in 49 U.S.C. 5302, namely that the transit service must
be open to the general public; it is not permissible to limit any part
of the service only to ticketed airport passengers, for example.
While often not feasible and seldom used, funds from the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP), Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), and
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) can potentially help for the on-airport
portions of a rail system that bring people to and from the airport. In
addition, in 2021, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an
update to its Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program in PFC Update 75-
21 Eligibility of On-Airport Rail Access Projects to allow an airport
to collect and use PFC revenues for a portion of a rail access project,
even if the rail project in its entirety serves more than exclusively
airport traffic.
Questions to Hon. Shailen Bhatt, Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, from Hon. Eric A.
``Rick'' Crawford
Question 1. Section 13002 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58) required the formation of the Federal System
Funding Alternative Advisory Board (Advisory Board). As you know, the
Advisory Board was to have been established ``not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.'' The date of enactment was
November 15, 2021.
Notwithstanding this deadline indicating Congressional urgency, the
Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) charted the Advisory
Board on September 20, 2023, and, on October 3, 2023, issued a call for
membership applications by November 22, 2023.\1\ Therefore, it was
disappointing to read in the article EV Growth Raises Road-Funding
Concerns as Mileage-Fee Pilot Lags, that your program officer seems to
lack a sense of urgency, as he ``doesn't know how I am going to do the
pilot test right now because I don't know.'' \2\ What was meant by this
quote? Was the quote inaccurate? Please describe the Department's plan
to ensure its employees are appropriately and adequately trained to
implement Congressional mandates. Further, please provide the
Subcommittee with an update on the status of this IIJA-mandated
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Email from OST, DOT to Staff, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure (Sept. 21, 2023 9:18 a.m.); see also Request for
Nominations for the Federal System Funding Alternative Advisory Board
to the Federal Highway Administration, 88 Fed. Reg. 68272 (Oct. 3,
2023), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/
03/2023-21745/request-for-nominations-for-the-federal-system-funding-
alternative-advisory-board-to-the-federal.
\2\ Lillianna Byington, EV Growth Raises Road-Funding Concerns as
Mileage-Fee Pilot Lags, Bloomberg Gov't, (Nov. 1, 2023), available at
https://news.bgov.com/bloomberg-government-news/ev-growth-raises-road-
funding-concerns-as-mileage-fee-pilot-lags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. DOT has taken a number of steps to implement Section 13002
of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58; IIJA, also
referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL).
The employee's unofficial remarks are not indicative or reflective
of the Department's official position and perspectives, but the
statement recognizes the U.S. Department of Transportation's
responsibility to coordinate with the Secretary of the Treasury, and
consistent with the recommendations of the Advisory Board, establish
the pilot program, as required by Section 13002. That sentiment could
have been articulated more clearly.
Per the requirements of Section 13002(g), the Federal System
Funding Alternative Advisory Board was established on September 20,
2023. The charter and other information regarding the Advisory Board is
available to the public at the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
Database (https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/s/).
The request for nominations for Advisory Board membership was
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2023 (88 FR 68272). The
deadline for nominations was November 17, 2023. Over 70 nominations
were received by the deadline. The Advisory Board nominations are
currently under review. Advisory Board members will be appointed by the
Secretary of Transportation.
FHWA is preparing for the Advisory Board and gathering relevant
data and lessons learned that can inform the Board's deliberations.
There is also work underway to develop a framework for a National Motor
Vehicle Per-Mile User Fee Pilot implementation plan. FHWA is
coordinating with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to identify
options for collecting motor vehicle per-mile user fees from volunteer
pilot participants, ensuring revenue collected under the pilot is
deposited in the Highway Trust Fund, and issuing payments to volunteer
participants as needed. As directed by BIL Section 13002, the Advisory
Board's recommendations on the structure, scope, and methodology of the
Pilot are integral to its establishment. Therefore, current
preparations for the Pilot remain flexible, pending recommendations
from the Advisory Board.
Question 2. I have always been a proponent of Buy America, and I
support IIJA's expansion of Buy America provisions. However, I also
understand that some products are currently not produced at all in the
United States, and these may require temporary waivers until United
States production ramps up. It is especially important that these
waivers are posted, so that states, contractors, and other stakeholders
are aware of what products or materials have a waiver.
In May 2021, the Illinois Department of Transportation submitted a
Buy America Waiver request following a three-year Nationwide search for
a domestic submersible pump that met Buy America requirements. However,
it took DOT two years before it put it out for comment.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOT, FHWA, Construction, Notice of Buy America Waiver Request,
(last accessed Jan. 2, 2023), available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
construction/contracts/waivers.cfm?id=175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2.a. Why did the waiver process take so long--and why did
it take two years for it to be published?
Answer. FHWA's Illinois Division Office received the waiver from
the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) in May 2021. The
Illinois Division Office reviewed the waiver request to determine
whether IDOT demonstrated sufficient due diligence to locate a domestic
supplier who could meet FHWA's Buy America requirements. Finding the
waiver request sufficient, the Illinois Division Office then provided
the waiver for review by FHWA Headquarters.
Around the time that IDOT submitted the waiver request, there were
two major changes to the Buy America waiver process. In January 2021,
the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14005, which established
the Made in America Office (MIAO) within the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 4 of this E.O. required MIAO to set up a process
under which MIAO would review proposed waivers and instructed MIAO to
determine what information Federal agencies should provide to the
Office when submitting proposed waivers for review. Then, on November
15, 2021, the President signed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (P.L.
117-58) into law, which included the Build America, Buy America Act
(BABA) at Sec. Sec. 70901-70927. BABA set forth new requirements
regarding waivers of Buy America laws. For instance, under section
70916(c) of BABA, before granting a waiver, FHWA must consult with the
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) regarding whether
there is a domestic entity that could provide the materials that are
the subject of the proposed waiver. Continuing the policy of E.O.
14005, section 70923(b)(2) of BABA also required MIAO to develop and
implement procedures to review waiver requests related to Buy America
waivers. These procedures were provided in OMB Memorandum M-22-11 (Apr.
18, 2022), which also set out several types of waivers that Federal
agencies could consider issuing, including de minimis, small grants,
and minor components waivers. See OMB Memorandum M-22-11, at 11.
Accordingly, on November 10, 2022, DOT posted a proposed waiver request
on its website that would waive the application of Buy America
preferences on Federal awards when de minimis foreign material was used
in the project, for small grants, and when miscellaneous minor
components were used in the project.
DOT and FHWA believed that these waivers of general applicability
would cover many of the products that FHWA had previously received
waiver requests for. For example, FHWA initially believed that the
actual amount of non-compliant foreign steel in the pumps that IDOT
sought a waiver for could be less than the proposed 5 percent of total
applicable cost threshold in the proposed de minimis waiver, which
would have allowed the pumps to be purchased under this waiver. DOT and
FHWA thus determined it was more beneficial to focus predominantly on
these general waivers rather than divert attention to process project-
specific waivers on a one-by-one basis. Ultimately, after reviewing
comments and in consultation with MIAO, on August 16, 2023, DOT issued
the Department-wide waiver of Buy America requirements for de minimis
costs and small grants. After reviewing comments received and
consulting with MIAO, DOT ultimately believed it most prudent to have
the waiver be as narrow as possible. For that reason, DOT decided that
the de minimis waiver would not apply to iron and steel subject to the
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 313 on financial assistance administered by
FHWA; instead, FHWA would continue to apply the de minimis provision in
23 CFR 645.410(b)(4).
Upon the recognition that the IDOT Buy America waiver request would
not be covered by the final versions of the de minimis or small grants
waivers, FHWA moved to propose a waiver request for the pumps on August
28, 2023, with a comment period ending on September 13, 2023. On August
31, during this comment period, FHWA received comments from a
manufacturer that the manufacturer could produce a Buy America-
compliant item. As a result, FHWA facilitated discussions between this
manufacturer and IDOT, in which this manufacturer provided assurances
that it could provide Buy America-compliant pumps to IDOT that met
IDOT's specifications and IDOT would pursue a procurement from this
manufacturer. FHWA thus determined that finalizing a waiver was
inappropriate at that time but kept the notice of waiver request open
pending confirmation that the manufacturer would be able to produce a
satisfactory Buy America-compliant pump. On January 16, 2024, IDOT
reported that the manufacturer could not produce a Buy America-
compliant pump. FHWA has since been working on finalizing the waiver
for IDOT.
Question 2.b. After you received this waiver request in May 2021,
how long was it under consideration at the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)?
Answer. As described in the response to the previous question, FHWA
believed that this waiver could be covered under the Department-wide de
minimis waiver from 2022 to 2023. In August 2023, once it became
apparent that the pumps would not be covered by the de minimis waiver,
FHWA worked with the Office of the Secretary (OST) to proceed with
putting the proposed waiver out for public comment.
Question 2.c. On what date did FHWA send it to the Office of the
Secretary (OST) for review, and how long was it under consideration by
OST?
Answer. OST works with FHWA and all of the Department's Operating
Administrations (OAs) in the development and posting of proposed
waivers for public comment and reviews waivers issued by the OAs once
they are ready to be finalized. OST assisted in the cross posting of
this proposed waiver on MadeinAmerica.gov and the DOT Made in America
site.\4\ OST received the draft final waiver from FHWA on April 19,
2024, and transmitted it to MIAO on May 13, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-
policy/made-in-america
Question 2.d. On what date did OST send it to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review, and on what date did OMB issue
a final decision?
Answer. The final waiver notice has been submitted to the Made in
America Office within OMB and is currently under their review.
Question 2.e. Please detail how DOT was evaluating the Buy America
Waiver request as the Illinois Department of Transportation waited on
the waiver to be noticed.
Answer. FHWA evaluates waivers to ensure that the justification for
the waiver, whether on the basis of public interest or non-
availability, is appropriate. In the case of the IDOT waiver, which was
sought on the basis of non-availability, FHWA reviewed the efforts made
by IDOT to locate a domestically manufactured product and whether it
was possible to re-design the project using a Buy America-compliant
product. FHWA also evaluated the information required for draft final
waivers submitted to MIAO, as laid out in OMB Memorandum M-22-11
[https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/M-22-11.pdf] and
its successor, OMB Memorandum M-24-02 (Oct. 25, 2023) [https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/M-24-02-Buy-America-
Implementation-Guidance-Update.pdf]. This waiver includes information
on market research conducted, such as details on who conducted the
research, when it was conducted, sources that were used, and methods
used to conduct the research.
In addition, in accordance with section 70916(c) of BIL, FHWA
consulted with the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
to determine whether domestic manufacturers could produce Buy America-
compliant pumps required by IDOT. In coordination with its Illinois
Division Office, FHWA used MEP's supplier scouting process to attempt
to identify any domestic manufacturers that would remove the need for a
waiver, although this ultimately proved unsuccessful.
Questions to Hon. Shailen Bhatt, Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, from Hon. Jefferson
Van Drew
Question 1. OMB issued its final guidance implementing the Build
America, Buy America Act (BABAA) in August. The guidance allows
agencies to provide additional agency specific guidance where
necessary.
What, if any, FHWA guidance might be issued to address FHWA
specific issues?
Answer. FHWA plays a critical role in ensuring the effective
implementation of the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA). We
regularly update the frequently asked questions section of the FHWA Buy
America website \5\ to ensure stakeholders have access to the latest
guidance and interpretations regarding BABA provisions. This helps
clarify any uncertainties and assists stakeholders in effectively
adhering to the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/contracts/buyam_qa.cfm
Question 2. The FHWA has had in place a manufactured product waiver
for Buy America for many years. The BABAA requires preexisting waivers
such as the FHWA manufactured product waiver to be reissued to meet or
exceed BABAA's requirements.
Will FHWA reissue its manufactured products waiver?
Answer. FHWA published its review of its existing general
applicability waivers via a request for comment in the Federal Register
on March 17, 2023, soliciting comments on FHWA's long-standing general
waiver for manufactured products, with the comment period ending May
22, 2023. In September 2023, DOT announced its plans to publish a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the application of Buy America
to manufactured products. This rulemaking would consider withdrawing
the 1983 waiver of Buy America requirements for manufactured products
while also proposing standards and requirements to determine the extent
to which a manufactured product must comply with Buy America. FHWA
published an NPRM on March 12, 2024, proposing to discontinue its
general waiver of Buy America requirements for manufactured products.
The comment period closed on May 13, 2024, and FHWA is currently
reviewing comments.
Question 3. Can you provide an update on the implementation of the
ROCKS Act?
Answer. The Working Group on Covered Resources was established in
accordance with Section 11526 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (chapter 10 of title 5, United
States Code), on October 5, 2023. The committee and its charter are now
posted to GSA's FACA database. FHWA published a notice in the Federal
Register soliciting membership to the Working Group on January 9, 2024.
The deadline for nominations was March 11, 2024. We are currently
reviewing the nominations. Working Group members will be appointed by
the Secretary of Transportation.
Questions to Hon. Shailen Bhatt, Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, from Hon. Chris
Pappas
Question 1. The Recreational Trails Program (RTP), which funds the
development and maintenance of motorized and non-motorized, has
provided funding for hundreds of projects across New Hampshire over the
past decade. The RTP is premised on funding by non-highway recreational
fuel taxes being used in support of the nation's trails. In July 2021,
the Department of Transportation submitted a report to Congress that
indicated:
`` . . . for the past 3 years for which data are available
[calendar years 2016 to 2018], the estimated amount of taxes on non-
highway use of recreational vehicles is $843,422,069 (average of
$281,140,690/year). The annual funding amount provided by the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act for the Recreational Trails
program is approximately $84 million.''
Would FHWA support reducing the gap between the revenues collected
on taxes for non-highway use of recreational vehicles and what is
annually appropriated to RTP?
Answer. The amount of funds set aside for each state for the
Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is determined by statute. The
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) continued the RTP as a set-aside
under the Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set-Aside. Per 23 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 133(h)(5) and 133(h)(6)(A), an amount equal to the State's
Fiscal Year 2009 RTP apportionment is set aside from the state's TA
Set-Aside funds for recreational trails projects unless the state opts
out. Recreational trails provide safe, accessible, equitable, and
comfortable connections for transportation and recreation networks and
are part of a resilient transportation system. The RTP supports various
trail uses, encourages trail user cooperation, and drives economic
development in both urban and rural communities.
In addition to RTP, several formula and discretionary programs are
available for trail and related projects. FHWA published a
comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding Opportunities [https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/
funding_opportunities.pdf] table to highlight potential eligibility for
pedestrian and bicycle activities and projects under DOT surface
transportation funding programs.
Question 2. I am a strong supporter of Build America, Buy America
(BABA) provisions, which help safeguard American jobs, foster economic
growth, and enhance our national security. On October 23, 2023, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implemented updated BABA guidance
to reflect the provisions included in the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act, such as new BABA coverage for construction materials. As
federal agencies implement this updated guidance, it's critical that
the guidance is clear and consistent; however, I have heard concerns
regarding the lack of uniformity in states' implementation of BABA
rules. Even slight differences in the implementation of BABA provisions
among state Departments of Transportation (State DOTs) can cause
significant confusion and may even lead to project cost increases due
to higher compliance costs.
What, if anything, is FHWA doing to ensure that State DOTs
implement updated BABA standards in as uniform a manner as possible to
provide the construction industry with certainty and avoid having to
navigate slightly different expectations and standards? Does FHWA plan
to issue complementary guidance for construction materials in addition
to OMB's final guidance? If so, when does FHWA expect to issue such
information or guidance?
Answer. FHWA plays a critical role in ensuring the effective
implementation of the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA). Timely
guidance to address FHWA-specific issues and facilitate compliance
among stakeholders is important for implementing this legislation and
promoting domestic manufacturing and infrastructure development. We
regularly update the frequently asked questions section of the FHWA Buy
America website \6\ to ensure stakeholders have access to the latest
guidance and interpretations regarding BABA provisions. This helps
clarify any uncertainties and assists stakeholders in effectively
adhering to the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/contracts/buyam_qa.cfm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question to Hon. Shailen Bhatt, Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, from Hon. Jake
Auchincloss
Question 1. Administrator Bhatt, this New York Times piece also
notes that the deadliest kinds of roads are ``those with multiple lanes
and higher speed limits but few crosswalks or sidewalks.'' \\
The Complete Streets Approach within the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) promotes safety for both pedestrians and drivers by focusing on
people--not the transportation mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ Editor's note: See pages 96-100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is FHWA prioritizing the Complete Streets approach within IIJA
implementation?
Answer. The Department shares concern about recent increases in
roadway fatalities, including those among cyclists and pedestrians, and
agrees that the adoption of a Complete Streets Design Model can help
make streets safer for all users.
The recent increase in roadway fatalities is a safety challenge
that can and should be addressed by implementing the National Roadway
Safety Strategy (NRSS). One significant way FHWA is advancing the Safer
Roads and Safer Speeds elements of the NRSS is through its Complete
Streets initiative. Thirty-seven States and more than 1,700 communities
in the United States have adopted Complete Streets policies to ensure
the safety of all users in transportation projects. The BIL supports
development of additional policies and planning for complete streets-
related policy implementation with the required (Sec. 11206) set aside
of State Planning and Research (SPR) and Metropolitan Planning (PL)
funds for complete streets planning activities.
FHWA also issued a waiver of the non-Federal match requirement to
incentivize State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) to prioritize Complete Streets planning,
considering the unique safety and mobility needs of communities. The
goal is to ensure that resources are allocated in line with these needs
when developing statewide and metropolitan long-range transportation
plans and transportation improvement programs to guide future
investment decisions. Additionally, FHWA issued guidance on
implementing this provision and other BIL provisions that support
safety for all users, including 23 U.S.C. 217. (See Increasing Safe and
Accessible Transportation Options Implementation Guidance \7\ and
Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning, Program, and Project Development
Guidance \8\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/iija-
bil_sect11206_imp_guidance.pdf
\8\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/
guidance/guidance_2023.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to BIL, these and all communities looking to improve safety
can receive funding to plan and build out safe and connected multimodal
networks through several discretionary grant programs such as the
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
(RAISE) grant program, Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant
program, Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program, and the Tribal
Transportation Safety Fund Program, as well as formula programs such as
the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Surface Transportation
Block Grant Program, Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside, Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, and Carbon Reduction
Program. To date these programs are providing billions of dollars to
improve safety. SS4A alone has provided $1.7 billion in Federal funding
to over 1,000 communities in all 50 States and Puerto Rico. SS4A
funding awarded to date will improve roadway safety planning for about
70 percent of the Nation's population.
As required by BIL, every State has now finalized their Vulnerable
Road User (VRU) Safety Assessment. These assessments each include a
program of projects or strategies which will be invaluable in
addressing safety for those who walk, bike, and roll. Many States are
also now required to use 15% of their HSIP funds on VRU safety
projects.
FHWA encourages State and local agencies to explore various Federal
funding sources to enhance roadway safety and take a Safe System
Approach. For instance, FHWA issued updated guidance for reviewing
State Geometric Design Procedures or Design Criteria for ``3R''
projects (resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation) on the National
Highway System. The update provides guidance on how to use 3R projects
to improve safety on roadways at little additional cost and identifies
such projects as a key strategy for improving safe access for all road
users. FHWA also issued guidance on statutory flexibilities for local
jurisdictions developing Federal-aid projects on roadways under their
ownership that can allow these jurisdictions to effectively address
roadway safety concerns using alternate roadway design guides. FHWA
also used the authority granted in section 11206(d) of BIL to allow
States and MPOs to use SPR and PL funds to cover 100 percent of the
cost of Complete Streets planning activities. Utilizing SPR and PL
funds for Complete Streets planning can effectively integrate safety
considerations into transportation planning processes.
With the availability of Federal funding and demand increasing to
address safety for all users, FHWA is offering implementation support
to States and communities through new technical assistance resources,
trainings, and peer exchanges, including information on how to
implement elements of the Complete Streets Design Model \9\. For
example, given the significant role of speed in fatal crashes, FHWA is
introducing new resources on speed limit setting and roadway re-
engineering to facilitate self-enforcement of speed limits \10\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://highways.dot.gov/complete-streets
\10\ https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/reference-
materials
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To realize the goal of zero fatalities on the Nation's roads, FHWA
encourages States to evaluate safety outcomes for all project types and
enhance safety for all road users, especially people walking, rolling,
bicycling, and using transit. FHWA collaborated with FTA to publish a
guide to Improving Safety for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Accessing
Transit \11\, intended for transit agencies, State and local roadway
owners, and regional organizations involved with planning and designing
transit stops. FHWA completed the International Benchmarking Study
Report, Improving Pedestrian Safety on Urban Arterials: Learning from
Australasia \12\, and widely promoted its findings on the success of
Australia and New Zealand in dramatically reducing pedestrian
fatalities with planning, project delivery, and countermeasure
advances. FHWA hosted a series of webinars, and workshops and
presentations at the 2024 Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual
Meeting and other conferences, with additional targeted outreach
planned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/
fhwasa21130_PedBike_Access_
to_transit.pdf
\12\ https://international.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/mrp/docs/FHWA-PL-
23-006.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA also recommends maximizing existing right-of-way to
accommodate nonmotorized modes and transit options, thereby improving
safety and helping create safe networks to reach destinations in a
variety of ways.
FHWA encourages the use of proven safety countermeasures \13\ and
emphasizes that pedestrian facilities in public rights-of-way must
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. FHWA is also helping
agencies learn from each other. We published case studies \14\ to share
notable examples of Complete Streets funding, integration of National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and inclusion of Complete Streets in
the planning process. We are also using what we learned from a survey
of State implementation of Complete Streets \15\ policies to develop
targeted technical assistance and coordination of peer exchanges on
Complete Streets implementation at the State level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures
\14\ https://highways.dot.gov/complete-streets/implement-complete-
streets-improvements
\15\ https://highways.dot.gov/research/projects/fhwa-national-
complete-streets-assessment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions to Hon. Nuria I. Fernandez, Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,\1\ from Hon. Eric A.
``Rick'' Crawford
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please note that Administrator Fernandez retired from the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) effective February 24, 2024. This
response is provided on behalf of FTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1. As you are aware, the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) imposes a `spare ratio' requirement for public transit agencies
that requires them to set aside a percentage of their fleet as reserve
rolling stock.\2\ For every fixed-route bus in a fleet, an agency must
maintain one bus--or 20 percent--as a spare vehicle.\3\ The Biden
Administration has been using every tool possible to urge or
incentivize transit agencies into shifting their fleets to electric,
but many stakeholders have highlighted the difficulty this reserve
requirement poses in light of the costs and challenges inherent with
electric buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ DOT, FTA, Circular 5010.1E, Award Management Requirements (Rev.
2 July 16, 2018), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/
fta.dot.gov/files/docs/regulations-and-guidance/fta-circulars/58051/
5010-1e-circular-award-management-requirements-7-16-18.pdf.
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Vehicle (EV) buses have neither the range capacity of
traditional buses, nor do they offer the same reliability of service in
different weather and climates. It takes additional electric buses to
meet existing route demands and the maintenance costs are higher. This
spare ratio requirement ends up contributing to keeping vehicles in
active service well beyond their useful lifespan and, again, higher
costs overall for the agencies.
Question 1.a. Is FTA considering any changes to the Agency's spare
ratio requirements in light of the range and cost challenges posed by
greater EV bus adoption? If yes, please describe the changes being
considered.
Answer. Governmentwide requirements in 2 CFR part 200 require that
recipients use equipment purchased with Federal funds for its intended
purpose and avoid the acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items.
In this case transit rolling stock (vehicles) are required to be used
to provide public transportation services. FTA recognizes that transit
agency operations require some number of spare vehicles in the event of
breakdowns, for maintenance needs, or for a temporary surge in
operations. Although FTA does not require agencies to procure spare
vehicles, FTA's spare ratio policy (Award Management Requirements
Circular 5010 https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/fta-
circulars/award-management-requirements-circular-50101e) permits
recipients to use federal funds to acquire a reasonable number of spare
vehicles based on operational needs. For recipients operating 50 or
more fixed-route revenue vehicles, agencies are permitted to acquire
additional vehicles up to 20 percent of the vehicles operated in
maximum fixed-route service. For example, if an agency operates 100
vehicles during peak hours, it may have an additional 20 spare vehicles
for a total of 120 vehicles. FTA has not set a specific spare ratio for
recipients operating 49 or fewer fixed-route revenue vehicles, but
expects the number to be reasonable.
FTA has a number of flexibilities built into its spare ratio
policy, which we encourage our grantees to work with their FTA regional
office to take advantage of. For example, if an agency is introducing
zero emission vehicles into its fleet, they may keep any vehicles that
are past their useful life in the agency's contingency fleet, and those
vehicles in the contingency fleet do not count against the spare ratio.
If an agency determines additional vehicles are required during the
peak hour, it may procure those vehicles, and the number of spare
vehicles permissible would also increase. For example, if it now
requires 110 vehicles to operate during peak service, an agency may
have an additional 22 spare vehicles, for a total of 132 vehicles,
again not counting any contingency vehicles. FTA recently updated the
Spare Ratio FAQ [https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/procurement/third-
party-procurement/spare-ratio] to provide more guidance on the
flexibilities available.
Question 1.b. What additional steps is FTA taking to accommodate
the divergent transit needs of smaller and rural communities who may be
pursuing some transition to electric vehicles?
Answer. FTA funds technical assistance centers that serve smaller,
rural, and Tribal operators, such as the National Center for Applied
Transit Technology (N-CATT), whose purpose is to provide such agencies
with practical resources for replicable technological solutions and
innovations. N-CATT has produced tools and resources for agencies
considering or implementing a transition to a low- or no-emission bus
fleet. In addition, any transit agency can receive technical assistance
toward fleet transition through the Joint Office of Energy and
Transportation, which BIL created to facilitate collaboration between
DOT and the U.S. Department of Energy.
Question 2. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS) data, monthly transit ridership reached an all-time high of
nearly 987,000 people in October 2014, almost a decade ago.\4\ Current
data shows those numbers remain well below historic norms and, while on
an upward track, could still take years before they return to normal
levels, if they ever do at all.\5\ Many transit agencies have
instituted various `free fare' programs to entice select groups of
riders or increase ridership during specific timeframes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Economic Research, Fred, Economic Data, St. Louis Fed,
Public Transit Ridership, (last accessed Jan. 2, 2024), available at
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TRANSIT.
\5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2.a. Does FTA have any data detailing the share of
revenue-generating riders versus transit riders that do not pay for the
service for funding recipients?
Answer. No, FTA does not specifically collect data that delineates
fare-free vs. paid fare riders. However, FTA collects aggregate fare
revenue data at the level of mode (e.g., motorbus) and type of service
(e.g., directly operated). Using FTA data, it is possible to see at a
high level if an agency collected zero fares for a given mode and type
of service level, but not more detailed levels of analysis than this
(e.g., if some but not all trips within one of the mode's routes were
fare free).
Question 2.b. If not, does the Agency have the capability to
collect that? If so, does this information impact any other agency
metrics used to determine grant qualification or funding decisions?
Answer. FTA's National Transit Database (NTD) does not currently
collect data at a sufficiently detailed level to separate trips that
are fare free vs. paid fares. Currently, fare revenue is not directly
relevant to apportionment. Thus, FTA does not require that agencies
report whether all or some of their trips are fare free. It is possible
to identify those modes and types of services that are fare free by
querying those systems that report zero total fare revenue.
Recovery ratio, or the percentage of operating costs covered by
fares collected, does not impact the qualification for or allocation of
formula funds generated by an agency.
FTA could collect these additional details, noting that these data
would be likely burdensome to the transit community. Specifically, it
would be possible for FTA to one day collect data about fare collection
at the route level, but it would likely entail an additional burden for
agencies receiving FTA funds.
Question 2.c. IIJA funds provided FTA with a 77 percent increase in
overall spending authority.\6\ Does FTA have any rules or regulations
governing when and how a funding recipient may offer free rides--or is
there any limit or cap to those offerings? If yes, please provide a
copy of the rules or regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. No, FTA does not have any rules or regulations which
determine when and how a funding recipient may offer free rides, or
rules limiting or capping those offerings. By law, FTA is prohibited
from regulating fares.
Question to Hon. Nuria I. Fernandez, Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, from Hon. Marilyn
Strickland
Question 1. The number of hydrogen fuel cell electric transit buses
is growing in fleets across the county. Intercity Transit in my
district is bringing 5 of these vehicles into service in 2024 or 2025.
Among other benefits, hydrogen fuel cell electric buses offer a range
of advantages over other zero-emission buses.
What is FTA doing to promote and support this zero-emission
technology?
Answer. Hydrogen fuel cell buses are eligible and have been
selected under FTA's Buses and Bus Facilities and Low or No Emission
Grant competitive grant programs.
FTA's Transit Vehicle Innovation Deployment Centers (TVIDC) program
funds research for the advancement, production, and deployment of
advanced vehicle technologies and infrastructure within the public
transportation sector, including hydrogen fuel cell technologies.
Additionally, the Low or No Emission Vehicle Component Assessment
Program (LoNo CAP) Centers conduct testing, evaluation, and analysis of
low or no emission vehicle components, and new and emerging technology
components intended for use in low or no emission including hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles. FTA is also working with the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL), a laboratory owned by the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE), on Transit Fleet Electrification Technical Assistance and
a LoNo Bus Selection Database Tool to assist transit agencies'
transition to zero emission including hydrogen fuel cell buses. The
National Transit Institute and Transit Workforce Center support
training and workforce development that includes hydrogen fuel cell bus
operations and maintenance as well. More specifically, the Transit
Workforce Center has resources to help transit agencies develop their
workforce planning as part of fleet transition plans and is also
available to provide targeted support to agencies for their low or no
emission bus transition workforce needs.
Questions to Hon. Nuria I. Fernandez, Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, from Hon. Patrick
Ryan
Question 1. New York City's central business district tolling
program is set to tax my constituents at least $15 daily to show up for
work. As part of the implementation of this tax, the New York
Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced that it would not
increase either the availability or frequency of public transit options
into the central business district--a callous decision given that there
is extremely limited MTA service in my district and the MTA does not
provide a viable alternative to driving to work for my constituents.
Specifically, Ulster County does not have an MTA station, there is no
one-seat service in Orange County, and service in Dutchess County is
limited.
Has the FTA reviewed or approved any grants which will increase the
availability of public transportation options for these commuters? Has
the FTA worked with New York City's MTA in its development of this
plan? Is the FTA concerned that this version of congestion pricing,
which detaches the tax from investment in public transportation
operations, will become the model for other cities who may explore
congestion pricing as an option to fund municipal projects?
Answer. Congestion pricing is a state-led project. USDOT's role is
the standard environmental review approval, which falls under the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for this program. The Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) was a participating agency concerning the
development of the Environmental Assessment (EA) but does not have any
role in approving or disapproving New York's proposal. The Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) Reform and Traffic Mobility Act (the
Traffic Mobility Act) was passed by the New York State Legislature in
April 2019 with the goal of reducing traffic congestion within the
Manhattan Central Business District. In June 2023, FHWA approved a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Manhattan Central
Business District Tolling Program. The FONSI was issued following an EA
prepared by the MTA's Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority along with
New York State Department of Transportation and New York City
Department of Transportation in consultation with FHWA. FTA is aware
that the MTA has been planning to fund its 2020-2024 Capital Program,
as well as any successor programs, in part through the Traffic Mobility
Act's dedicated revenue stream, once implemented. On June 5, 2024, New
York Governor Hochul announced a pause of the Manhattan Central
Business District Tolling Program.
Questions to Hon. Robin Hutcheson, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,\1\ from Hon.
Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please note that Administrator Hutcheson resigned her position
effective January 26, 2024. These responses are provided on behalf of
FMCSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1. We need more school bus drivers to take children safely
to and from school. Thank you for recognizing the need to attract more
school bus drivers into the field when, last year, you used existing
authorities approving an application to grant a two-year exemption for
the ``under-the-hood'' Commercial Driver's License testing requirements
for school bus drivers. When granting this application, it was
determined that granting the exemption ``is likely to achieve a level
of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would
be obtained in the absence of the exemption.'' \2\ However, it appears
as if only 12 states have taken advantage of this increased
flexibility, and not all of them are reporting numbers back to the
Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration (FMCSA) in a timely
manner.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Commercial Driver's License: Application for Exemption;
National School Transportation Association, 87 Fed. Reg. 65114, (Oct.
27, 2022), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/
10/27/2022-23346/commercial-drivers-license-application-for-exemption-
national-school-transportation-association.
\3\ See Fact Sheet, NSTA, States Using the FMCSA ``Under the Hood''
Exemption as of 10/02/2023 (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1.a. In your opinion, why are more states not taking
advantage of this waiver?
Answer. FMCSA communicates frequently with the State Driver
Licensing Agencies (SDLA) and associations that focus on pupil
transportation issues, such as the National School Transportation
Association (NSTA), the National Association of State Directors of
Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS), and the National Association
for Pupil Transportation (NAPT). Based on the public comments submitted
to the Agency in processing the exemption application, there does not
appear to be a consensus that the exemption provides the intended
benefits of addressing the school bus driver shortage. Although FMCSA
is not aware of the specific reasons a state may decline to use the
exemption, as noted in the docket comments submitted by NASDPTS and
NAPT, some stakeholders in the pupil transportation sector do not
support the exemption.
Question 1.b. What are you doing to encourage states to adopt this
exemption to expand the school bus driver pool?
Answer. FMCSA has engaged in multiple efforts to highlight the
availability of the exemption for school bus drivers. Additionally, the
Agency approved the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA) modernized commercial driver's license (CDL)
skills test procedures. The Agency believes that changes to the skills
test, including updates to the pre-trip inspection (which covers the
under-the-hood topics) would provide a long-term solution to the
concerns about the under-the-hood inspection and potentially expand the
school bus driver pool. State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) across
the country are working to implement the modernized skills test.
Question 1.c. What steps are you taking to encourage more reporting
so that we have the necessary safety data to inform future policy
decisions?
Answer. FMCSA regularly communicates with the State Driver
Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) to obtain necessary safety data to inform
FMCSA of its actions. For example, each year, FMCSA gathers reports and
other safety data from SDLAs to inform policy decisions during Annual
Program Reviews (APRs). During the 2024 APRs lifecycle, FMCSA will
gather the number of CDLs from each State that were issued because of
the school bus exemption.
Question 2. In October 2023, FMCSA published a final rule that
shortens the duration of automatic regulatory relief from Federal
regulations to 14 days, down from the current limit of 30 days. What is
perplexing about this rulemaking is it seems to be a solution in search
of a problem. Your agency admitted in its final rule it had ``no
specific quantitative evidence that the current emergency exemption
rules have led to a degradation of safety.'' \4\ Shortening the
automatic emergency window from 30 days to 14 days seems to
unnecessarily limit the ability of truckers to respond to emergencies,
and this is especially true when responding to disasters that require
long-term recovery, such as hurricanes and flooding. But an even bigger
concern is that your agency seems to have acted in the absence of any
data. This is especially frustrating when FMCSA, along with other
agencies, constantly cites the need for data to make any regulatory
changes. For example, I have heard from truckers that when they ask for
regulatory flexibility to help them do their job more safely, FMCSA
often says its hands are tied because there is no data that would allow
it to act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Clarification to the Applicability of Emergency Exemptions, 88
Fed. Reg. 70897 (Oct. 13, 2023), available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/13/2023-22538/clarification-
to-the-applicability-of-emergency-exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2.a. How does FMCSA justify these changes to emergency
declaration rules when the Administration admits it does not have any
data to support it?
Answer. Under the final rule, ``Clarification to the Applicability
of Emergency Exemptions,'' 88 Fed. Reg. 70897 (Oct. 13, 2023),
Presidential declarations of an emergency continue to trigger a 30-day
exemption from all FMCSA regulations in 49 CFR parts 390 through 399.
However, the rule generally limits the duration and scope of automatic
regulatory relief after a regional declaration of emergency by a
Governor, a Governor's authorized representative, or FMCSA. Automatic
regulatory relief applies for 14 days, as opposed to 30 days, and
exempts CMV drivers only from the hours-of-service regulations in
Sec. Sec. 395.3 and 395.5, as opposed to all regulations in parts 390
through 399. The 14-day period will allow sufficient time for States or
other stakeholders to request that FMCSA extend the initial relief
period through issuance or extension of the Agency's own regional
emergency exemption. The Agency has an excellent track record of
issuing emergency exemptions very quickly in response to hurricanes,
floods, wildfires, and other emergencies, often within hours in the
case of approaching or sudden storms, and generally at most in a day or
two. For local emergencies, automatic regulatory relief is limited by
this rule to the hours-of-service regulations in Sec. Sec. 395.3 and
395.5. The length of automatic regulatory relief was already set at 5
days for local emergencies, and the final rule made no changes to this
length. In addition, the final rule revised existing regulations to
allow FMCSA to extend and modify the automatic regulatory relief
outlined above either on FMCSA's own initiative or upon request.
The Agency presumes that its safety regulation should remain in
effect absent a specific showing that the exemption is necessary. As
stated in the rulemaking, FMCSA had no information suggesting that
exemptions from all safety regulations in parts 390-399 in the event of
an emergency are necessary to enable the provision of emergency relief.
The final rule limiting exemptions from existing safety regulations was
adopted through notice and comment rulemaking. It was based on FMCSA's
experience providing relief during emergencies and information received
from stakeholders during the notice and comment process.
Question 2.b. Please describe how this regulation differs from
previous instances where FMCSA denied requests for flexibility, for
example on Hours-of-Service rules, because the Administration said it
lacked data?
Answer. Safety regulations should remain in effect absent a
specific showing that an exemption is necessary. FMCSA adopts new or
modifies existing safety regulations through notice and comment
rulemaking.
Question 3. FMCSA is five years into a rulemaking process on
integrating autonomous driving system-equipped commercial motor
vehicles and issued a rare Supplemental Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on February 1, 2023.\5\ Regulatory uncertainty has been a
significant issue for autonomous trucking developers, and while FMCSA
drags its feet, states like California are starting to cave to special
interests and further attack this critical emerging technology and
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Safe Integration of Automated Driving Systems (ADS)-Equipped
Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs), 88 Fed. Reg. 6691 (Feb. 1, 2023),
available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/01/2023-
02073/safe-integration-of-automated-driving-systems-ads-equipped-
commercial-motor-vehicles-cmvs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would note this draft rule was sent to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) the day after our hearing. Please provide an update to
the Committee on plans to complete this rulemaking.
Answer. FMCSA is committed to providing safety guardrails for
Automated Driving System (ADS)-equipped CMVs. On December 14, 2023,
FMCSA submitted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the
operation of ADS-equipped CMVs in interstate commerce to OMB's Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for regulatory review
under Executive Order 12866. That review is ongoing. Additional
information about OIRA's review of FMCSA's NPRM is available at https:/
/www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=353262.
Question 4. Administrator Hutcheson, one of the key questions
facing autonomous vehicle deployment is how they will interact with law
enforcement. In your Supplemental Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on the Safe Integration of Automated Driving System (ADS)-
Equipped Commercial Motor Vehicles, FMCSA addresses this question, with
particular focus on commercial vehicle inspections programs.\6\ The
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) offers the Enhanced
Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) Inspection Program as a solution to how
ADS-equipped trucks fit into existing CMV inspection processes,
ensuring safety and compliance with critical vehicle maintenance
standards while acknowledging the unique nature of ADS-equipped
CMVs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
\7\ CVSA, CVSA Announces New Enhanced CMV Inspection Program for
Autonomous Truck Motor Carriers, (Oct. 4, 2022), available at https://
www.cvsa.org/news/new-enhanced-cmv-inspection-program/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you detail how FMCSA is working with CVSA and other industry
stakeholders to consider deployment of this program and enable the safe
deployment of autonomous trucks?
Answer. FMCSA engages frequently with the CVSA and other
stakeholders on matters concerning the safe operation of ADS-equipped
CMVs. Many of these efforts were described in the Agency's May 2019
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for ADS-equipped CMVs. The
February 2023 Supplemental Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-01/pdf/2023-02073.pdf]
describes the Agency's continuing efforts to engage stakeholders. These
efforts have included holding public meetings, participating in
industry conferences, and making site visits to ADS developers'
facilities to learn more about the specific technologies they would use
to achieve autonomous operations. The Agency's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking will also provide an opportunity for all interested parties
to continue engaging with the Agency in the establishment of uniform,
National standards for motor carriers that are considering the
deployment of ADS-equipped CMVs.
Question 5. Administrator Hutcheson, this Subcommittee held a
hearing in September to learn more about the autonomous vehicle (AV)
trucking industry in the United States.\8\ Witnesses discussed the need
for regulatory certainty for safe deployment and they highlighted an
unresolved issue under FMCSA's purview.\9\ A pending application would
allow autonomous trucks to use flashing warning beacons when the truck
is pulled over to the side of the road, instead of the traditional
warning triangles used by trucks today.\10\ Studies conducted showed
that the flashing light-based system was effective in alerting road
drivers that the truck is pulled over.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Future of Automated Commercial Motor Vehicles: Impacts on
Society, the Supply Chain, and U.S. Economic Leadership: Hearing before
the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (2023).
\9\ Id.
\10\ Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption
Application From Waymo LLC, and Aurora Operations, Inc., 88 Fed. Reg.
13489 (Mar. 3, 2023), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2023/03/03/2023-04385/parts-and-accessories-necessary-for-
safe-operation-exemption-application-from-waymo-llc-and-aurora.
\11\ See e.g. Letter from Aurora Operations Inc. & Waymo, LLC to
the Hon. Robin Hutcheson, Administrator, FMCSA, DOT (Apr. 19, 2023) (on
file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application has been pending for close to a year at FMCSA, can
you provide an update on its status?
Answer. On March 3, 2023, FMCSA published a Federal Register
notice, 88 FR 13489 (clarified, and comment period extended, Mar. 9,
2023, 88 FR 14665) announcing that it received an application from
Waymo LLC, and Aurora Operations, Inc. (Waymo/Aurora) for a 5-year
exemption from the warning device placement requirements of 49 CFR
Sec. 392.22(b), the utilization of a warning device that does not meet
the steady-burning lamp requirement of 49 CFR Sec. 393.25(e), and the
utilization of a warning device for stopped vehicles that is not
currently identified in 49 CFR Sec. 393.95(f). The application
requests that the exemption apply to motor carriers operating
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that are being operated by a Level 4
automated driving system (ADS). Instead of the traditional warning
devices placed around a stopped autonomous CMV, as required by current
regulations, these motor carriers would be allowed to operate Level 4
CMVs with warning beacons mounted on the truck cab. FMCSA is currently
reviewing and considering numerous public comments received in response
to the Federal Register notice.
Question 6. Administrator Hutcheson, FMCSA has previously found
that, with respect to pulsating break lights, ``The available data
indicate that the product will not result in an adverse impact on
safety, but rather will help reduce rear-end crashes.'' \12\ There are
currently seven pending applications before your Administration
requesting an exemption from the requirement that lighting devices be
steady-burning.\13\ These petitions have been pending for over nine
months. When can these applicants expect to receive a response?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Memorandum from Earl Adams, Jr., Chief Counsel, FMCSA Office
of Chief Counsel to John Putnam, Acting General Counsel, re:
Intellistop Pulsating Brake Lamps Exemption, (on file with Comm.).
\13\ See e.g. Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation;
Exemption Application From Melborg Brothers, Inc., 88 Fed. Reg. 6804,
(Feb. 1, 2023), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2023/02/01/2023-02048/parts-and-accessories-necessary-for-safe-
operation-exemption-application-from-meiborg-brothers-inc; Parts and
Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption Application JM
Bozeman Enterprises, Inc., 88 Fed. Reg. 6808, (Feb. 1, 2023), available
at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/01/2023-02054/
parts-and-accessories-necessary-for-safe-operation-exemption-
application-from-jm-bozeman-enterprises; Parts and Accessories
Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption Application From Polytech
Plastic Molding, Inc., 88 Fed. Reg. 6809, (Feb. 1, 2023), available at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/01/2023-02050/parts-
and-accessories-necessary-for-safe-operation-exemption-application-
from-polytech-plastic; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe
Operation; Exemption Application From Gemini Motor Transport, 88 Fed.
Reg. 6805, (Feb. 1, 2023), available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/01/2023-02053/parts-and-
accessories-necessary-for-safe-operation-exemption-application-from-
gemini-motor-transport; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe
Operation; Exemption Application From Encore Building Products, 88 Fed.
Reg. 5399, (Jan. 27, 2023), available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/01/27/2023-01602/parts-and-
accessories-necessary-for-safe-operation-exemption-application-from-
encore-building; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation;
Exemption Application From DJS Fundraising Inc., 88 Fed. Reg. 6807,
(Feb. 1, 2023), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2023/02/01/2023-02049/parts-and-accessories-necessary-for-safe-
operation-exemption-application-from-djs-fundraising-inc; Parts and
Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption Application From
Brent Higgins Trucking, Inc., 88 Fed. Reg. 6811, (Feb. 1, 2023),
available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/01/2023-
02052/parts-and-accessories-necessary-for-safe-operation-exemption-
application-from-brent-higgins-trucking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. FMCSA granted a five-year exemption for several carriers to
use a module that pulsates the required brake and clearance lamps for
up to four times in the first two seconds of a brake application on
their CMVs. The exemptions limit installation of the devices to these
carriers and only on vehicles that these carriers own. Any vehicle
modified with the module must be remedied before the carrier transfers
ownership of the vehicle. The exemptions include reporting requirements
for the grantees so that FMCSA may develop a better understanding of
the efficacy of the devices. The Agency determined that granting these
exemptions to a few easily identifiable motor carriers operating a
finite number of CMVs, would likely achieve a level of safety
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved by the
regulation.
Question to Hon. Robin Hutcheson, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, from Hon.
Colin Z. Allred
Question 1. This Subcommittee held a hearing in September to learn
more about the AV trucking industry in the U.S. The Dallas-Fort Worth
Metroplex has become the epicenter of autonomous truck testing in the
US, with at least half a dozen different companies safely testing
autonomous trucking technology. Witnesses discussed the need for
regulatory certainty for safe deployment and they highlighted an
unresolved issue under FMCSA's purview. A pending application would
allow autonomous trucks to use flashing warning beacons when the truck
is pulled over to the side of the road, instead of the traditional
warning triangles used by trucks today. Studies conducted showed that
the flashing light-based system was effective in alerting road drivers
the truck is pulled over.
This application has been pending for close to a year at FMCSA, can
you provide its status?
Answer. On March 3, 2023, FMCSA published a Federal Register
notice, 88 FR 13489 (clarified, and comment period extended, Mar. 9,
2023, 88 FR 14665) announcing that it received an application from
Waymo LLC, and Aurora Operations, Inc. (Waymo/Aurora) for a 5-year
exemption from the warning device placement requirements of 49 CFR
Sec. 392.22(b), the utilization of a warning device that does not meet
the steady-burning lamp requirement of 49 CFR Sec. 393.25(e), and the
utilization of a warning device for stopped vehicles that is not
currently identified in 49 CFR Sec. 393.95(f). The application
requests that the exemption apply to motor carriers operating
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that are being operated by a Level 4
automated driving system (ADS). Instead of the traditional warning
devices placed around a stopped autonomous CMV, as required by current
regulations, these motor carriers would be allowed to operate Level 4
CMVs with warning beacons mounted on the truck cab. FMCSA is currently
reviewing and considering numerous public comments received in response
to the Federal Register notice.
Question to Ann Carlson, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,\1\ from Hon.
Robert Menendez
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please note that Ann Carlson ceased serving as Acting
Administrator on December 27, 2023. She subsequently resigned from
NHTSA effective January 31, 2024. This response is provided on behalf
of NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory predicts that
the U.S. is going to require nearly 1.1 million additional public EV
charging stations to support 50 percent of EV sales by 2030. Presently,
the U.S. has just over 150,000 publicly available chargers. This would
require over 400 public chargers to be installed every day to meet
future need.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law signed into law in 2021 provided
up to $7.5 billion in funding for EV charging stations to support
increased fleet electrification. However, installation of public
chargers has been slower than expected with only two sites opened in
Ohio and New York.
Acting NHTSA Administrator Carlson and Under Secretary Monje, what
are DOT and other federal agencies doing to facilitate the necessary
increase in charging infrastructure?
Answer. Since the President took office, the number of publicly
available charging ports has grown by over 90 percent, with over
186,000 publicly available EV charging ports across the country as of
June 25. Our programs are accelerating private sector investment that
puts us on track to deploy 500,000 charging ports ahead of schedule and
continue to expand a convenient and reliable charging network. Under
President Biden's leadership, electric vehicle (EV) sales have more
than quadrupled, and more than 4 million EVs are now on the road.
Spurred by the President's historic investments, private companies have
announced $177 billion in commitments to invest in the EV and battery
manufacturing industry. EVs are critical to our rapid and equitable
transition to clean transportation systems, producing zero tailpipe
emissions, reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions--major
contributors to climate change and key contributors to respiratory
ailments.
The BIL provides FHWA with $7.5 billion in Federal funding for the
construction of publicly accessible electric vehicle (EV) chargers and
alternative fueling infrastructure. These targeted investments
complement the tens of billions in Federal and private sector funding
that is building out a national EV charging network, and support good
paying jobs across the country installing, maintaining, and repairing
EV infrastructure. FHWA, in collaboration with the Joint Office of
Energy and Transportation (Joint Office), continues to work with States
and other recipients as they access the funding from the National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program and the Charging
and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Discretionary Grant Program. Each
State was required to submit an update to their EV Infrastructure
Deployment Plan by August 1, 2023. FHWA approved all EV charging plans
from States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, unlocking
approximately $885 million in FY 2024 NEVI formula funding to implement
those plans.
The BIL established the first-ever formula program for EV charging
infrastructure through the NEVI Formula Program. The NEVI Formula
Program will help States create a network of EV charging stations along
designated Alternative Fuel Corridors, particularly along the
Interstate Highway System. EV charging stations funded by the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law have been opened in six States: Hawaii,
Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Maine, and Vermont, with EV chargers in
more States expected to come online soon.
On January 11, 2024, the Biden-Harris Administration announced $623
million in grants to help build out an EV charging network across the
U.S., which will create American jobs and ensure more drivers can
charge their electric vehicles where they live, work, and shop. The
grants being announced are made possible by the BIL's $2.5 billion CFI
Discretionary Grant Program, a competitive funding program, and will
fund 47 EV charging and alternative-fueling infrastructure projects in
22 states and Puerto Rico, including construction of approximately
7,500 EV charging ports.
On January 18, 2024, the Biden-Harris Administration announced it
is awarding nearly $150 million to 24 grant recipients in 20 states to
repair or replace nearly 4,500 existing EV charging ports. Under the
NEVI Formula Program, 10% of the funding is set-aside for grants to
States or localities that require additional assistance to
strategically deploy EV charging infrastructure. This first round of
funding focuses on improving the reliability and accessibility of the
current network by repairing or replacing existing EV charging
infrastructure.
FHWA is working with recipients to execute grant agreements as
expeditiously as possible, which will translate into more ports
available to drivers of EVs. We issued the NOFO for the second round of
funding for these two programs on May 30, 2024.
BIL also established the Joint Office, which is charged with
studying, planning, coordinating, and implementing issues of joint
concern between the Departments of Energy and Transportation. The Joint
Office provides technical assistance related to the deployment,
operation, and maintenance of zero emission vehicle charging and
refueling infrastructure, renewable energy generation, vehicle to grid
integration, including microgrids, and related programs and policies.
When you combine public and private investment, more than $25
billion of investment in U.S. EV charging has been announced to date.
According to a recent analysis from the Department of Energy, that puts
us on a path to deliver nearly 1.2 million public chargers by 2030--
keeping pace with ever-growing EV adoption. That includes charging
infrastructure that's made in America--companies have announced more
than 1 million chargers per year of manufacturing capacity since
President Biden took office.
Question to Ann Carlson, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, from Hon.
Colin Z. Allred
Question 1. Autonomous vehicles are a true dual-use technology,
with similar technologies undergirding civilian autonomous vehicles
like cars and trucks, as well as futuristic, next-generation military
platforms like the Robotic Combat Vehicle. This makes ensuring American
leadership on autonomous technology not only an economic issue, but a
matter of national security.
How is NHTSA working to ensure that regulations contribute to
ensuring the United States remains the world leader on autonomous
technology development?
Answer. NHTSA believes regulations for advanced safety
technologies, such as automated driving systems (ADS), must optimize
safety while leaving room for innovation. However, the net impacts of
ADS technologies--on safety, mobility, emissions, workforce and
otherwise--will be the result of engineering, deployment, and policy
choices.
NHTSA has taken actions that both facilitate the introduction of
new technologies (e.g., issuing the ADS Occupant Protection Final Rule,
establishing a specialized exemption program, developing the ADS-
Equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency and Evaluation Program (AV-
STEP)), and improve safety (e.g., Standing General Order,
investigations, recalls) across the full spectrum of advanced
technologies.
Leveraging existing resources and authorities, NHTSA established an
Office of Automation Safety within NHTSA's rulemaking program to
support the agency's work to improve safety and accountability, while
encouraging innovation. This office helps consolidate and focus NHTSA's
expertise and resources to enhance the collaboration, effectiveness,
and efficiency of the agency's regulatory work related to automated
technologies and vehicles.
Question to Ann Carlson, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, from Hon.
Emilia Strong Sykes
Question 1. In 2007, 16 years ago, Congress directed that a
national tire fuel efficiency consumer information program be
established to educate consumers about the safety, durability and fuel
efficiency of replacement tires. In 2015, 8 years ago, in the FAST Act,
Congress directed the promulgation of regulations for tire fuel
efficiency and minimum performance standards. In 2021, the IIJA
required the Department of Transportation report to Congress a response
as to why it had not completed these regulations. Ms. Carlson, these
regulations are important for energy savings, consumer information and
assuring U.S. consumers have access to the latest tire technologies.
They also are important to assure an equal playing field for domestic
tire producers.
So why is the Department so delayed--and when will NHTSA complete
these rulemakings?
Answer. NHTSA continues to work on updating both its consumer
research and the baseline rolling resistance and wet traction
performance of the current U.S. tire fleet. The agency needed to first
collect and update this foundational baseline research data before
establishing the national tire fuel efficiency consumer information
program.
The results of this research will enable the agency to develop the
rulemaking proposals directed by Congress. NHTSA aims to complete the
research and rulemaking proposals in early 2025.
Additionally, NHTSA provides consumer information about tires and
fuel efficiency via the agency's website available at https://
www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle-safety/tires.
Question to Ann Carlson, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, from Hon.
Jake Auchincloss
Question 1. Ms. Carlson, the New York Times recently detailed a
dramatic rise in pedestrian deaths in the United States in the last
decade, in an article titled ``Why Are So Many American Pedestrians
Dying at Night?'' I'd like to enter this article into the
record.\\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ Editor's note: See pages 96-100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article notes that new vehicles are often wider, taller, and
heavier, affecting their brake time and their force on impact. In
September, I asked Secretary Buttigieg about NHTSA's work to
incorporate pedestrian crashworthiness ratings into a vehicle's final
safety ratings.
What progress has NHTSA made on this effort and what additional
steps can your agency take to increase pedestrian and cyclist safety?
Answer. NHTSA is focused on addressing fatalities for all road
users--including those outside the vehicle. On March 9, 2022, NHTSA
issued a Request for Comment (RFC) [https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2022/03/09/2022-04894/new-car-assessment-program] to update
the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) that, once finalized, will
provide information to consumers about additional advanced crash
avoidance technologies, including pedestrian automatic emergency
braking (PAEB). NHTSA is working to complete the final decision notice
in 2024.
On May 26, 2023, NHTSA published an additional RFC [https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/26/2023-11201/new-car-
assessment-
program#: :text=The%20March%202022%20NCAP%20RFC,to%20upgrade
%20NCAP%20in%20phases.] that seeks public input on new pedestrian
crashworthiness tests in NCAP to protect pedestrians and other
vulnerable road users in the event a crash cannot be avoided. NHTSA
plans to publish the final decision notice in 2024.
On May 9, 2024, NHTSA finalized a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) that requires automatic emergency braking and
pedestrian AEB systems on passenger cars and light trucks. NHTSA
projects that this new standard, FMVSS No. 127, will save at least 360
lives a year and prevent at least 24,000 injuries annually.
Additionally, NHTSA is working to publish a NPRM in 2024 proposing
a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that would ensure light
passenger vehicles are designed to mitigate the risk of serious to
fatal injury in child and adult pedestrian crashes. The proposed
standard would establish test procedures simulating a head-to-hood
impact and performance requirements to minimize the risk of head
injury. NHTSA initiated this rulemaking following the establishment of
a Global Technical Regulation on pedestrian protection by the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe's World Forum for the
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29).
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides significant resources to
states to address roadway fatalities and injuries, including increased
dedicated funding for pedestrian and bicycle safety through the Section
405h Nonmotorized Safety Grants [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/
chapter-III/part-1300#1300.27]. NHTSA works closely with states on
their Triennial Highway Safety Plans and Annual Grant Applications to
ensure that state programs are data driven and focused on the safety of
all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.
Questions to Ann Carlson, Acting Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, from
Hon. Mark DeSaulnier
Question 1. I have spent a long time with my colleague Congressman
Steve Cohen trying to protect the public from the horrors of side
underride crashes, which as you know can result in gruesome deaths and
injuries. We have long wanted NHTSA to prevent these casualties by
addressing the inherently dangerous design of America's commercial
truck trailers, and Congress stepped in with the passage of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to imposed mandatory deadlines on NHTSA,
which included completing research on side underride protection.
As you know, the Infrastructure Law required that NHTSA assess
costs and benefits of side underride protection, summarize public
comments on its assessment of those comments, and, within 90 days, file
a report with Congress detailing NHTSA's determination of whether NHTSA
will develop performance requirements to protect against side
underride-caused death and injury.
While I appreciate the work NHTSA has done to conduct valuable
stakeholder engagement, the 90 days have long passed and we have yet to
see this report.
Can you share the progress on the report and the expected timeline
for release?
Answer. NHTSA's report to Congress as required by Section 23011(c),
``Side Underride Guards,'' of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL),
enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, is under final
Departmental review. NHTSA and the Department are working expeditiously
to transmit the report to Congress in 2024.
As required by BIL, NHTSA completed research on side underride
guards and published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
(April 21, 2023, 88 FR 24535) seeking public comment on NHTSA's
assessment of the feasibility, benefits, costs of, and impacts of
requiring side impact guards. NHTSA received 2,072 comments on the
ANPRM.
NHTSA has taken several steps to improve the accuracy of the data
collected regarding underride in its crash databases. NHTSA published
the 6th edition of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) in
January 2024, that includes an underride/override element to increase
uniformity and accuracy of underride information in NHTSA's crash
databases. Additionally, NHTSA has distributed educational materials to
State and local police departments on identifying and recording
underride crashes and is providing enhanced training to coders/analysts
for improved accuracy and quality control of data.
NHTSA is facilitating the Advisory Committee on Underride
Protection, which is to provide information, advice, and
recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation on safety
regulations to reduce underride crashes and fatalities related to
underride crashes. Members of the committee include safety advocates,
family members of crash victims, and members representing trailer
manufacturers, truck operators, law enforcement, insurance industry,
motor vehicle engineers, motor vehicle crash investigators, emergency
medical service providers, and labor organizations.
Question 2. In October, the Department of Transportation released a
plan to accelerate deployment of vehicle-to-everything (V2X)
communications technology, which enables vehicles to communicate with
each other, pedestrians, and road infrastructure. It outlines specific
deployment targets over the next 10 years for multiple stakeholders,
including infrastructure owners and operators, and automobile
manufacturers.
Can you talk about the role V2X communications technology will play
to support the National Roadway Safety Strategy?
Answer. The National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS) outlines key
near-term actions that DOT is undertaking to significantly reduce
serious injuries and deaths on our Nation's highways, roads, and
streets. One highlighted action on the NRSS Tracking Dashboard \2\ is
the promotion of technologies to advance roadway safety. This action
specifically includes both Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and
interoperable vehicle to everything (V2X) wireless communications,
recognized as additional safety tools. V2X communications serve as a
mechanism to deliver timely driver warnings and vulnerable road user
alerts by processing data from multiple vehicles, mobile devices, and
connected roadway infrastructure. The timely integration of relevant
data from these sources through V2X enables multiple safety
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NRSS Action Tracking Dashboard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V2X applications enable drivers to be warned of hazardous
situations before they can see them. For example, the Connected Vehicle
Pilot Deployment Program (2015-2022) \3\ successfully demonstrated more
than 20 V2X-enabled safety applications in diverse locations. This
ranged from alerting drivers to the presence of pedestrians in mid-
block crossings in downtown Tampa to providing timely road weather/
visibility alerts to truck drivers traversing I-80 in Wyoming during
blizzards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.its.dot.gov/pilots/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past year, DOT has undertaken significant actions to
support the ITS community and to promote the deployment of V2X
technology. In October 2023, FHWA and the ITS Joint Program Office
issued the Draft National V2X Deployment Plan. Industry has expressed
appreciation for DOT's leadership in issuing the Draft Plan and working
with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide certainty
related to spectrum requirements. Also in October 2023, DOT announced
the Saving Lives with Connectivity: Accelerating V2X Deployment Notice
of Funding Opportunity.\4\ This groundbreaking $40 million grant
initiative aims to empower entities to deploy, operate, and showcase
roadway deployments featuring applications enabled by V2X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/usdot-opens-40-million-grant-
opportunity-connected-vehicle-technologies-will-help-save
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DOT has awarded discretionary grants totaling more
than $100 million in the past ten years to state and local
transportation organizations to support V2X and connected vehicle
deployment through programs such as Connected Vehicle Pilots, Better
Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD), Advanced
Transportation Technologies and Innovative Mobility Development
(ATTIMD)/Advanced Transportation Technology and Innovation (ATTAIN),
and Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART).
Departmental support also includes addressing critical technical
issues and building a cohesive structure for interoperable deployments
across the Nation. For example, DOT established the Accelerating V2X
Cohort, which currently has 31 entities as members and serves as a
platform for public agencies engaged in active V2X deployment projects.
These agencies exchange insights, and share best practices and lessons
learned, contributing to the advancement of interoperable V2X
technologies.
Question 3. This summer, NHTSA previewed a rulemaking called AV
STEP which would streamline and enhance the existing approval process
for noncompliant automated vehicles. A clear, timely, modernized
regulatory process that acknowledges the unique attributes of these
next-generation vehicles will not only help ensure safety, but also
attract new manufacturers to the U.S. To my understanding, there are
multiple European manufacturers who are interested in onshoring U.S.
facilities but without a clear path and timeline to market, they are
simply focusing on Europe where the rules are clear. Unfortunately,
that means we are missing out on the innovation and jobs associated
with the manufacturing of those vehicles. Originally the AV STEP
rulemaking was slated to be published in Fall 2023.
Can you provide an update of when you expect the AV STEP rulemaking
to be published, any detail on what we can expect it to look like and
how it will prioritize safety of AVs, and an expected timeline for the
proposed rulemaking to become final and effective?
Answer. The ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and
Evaluation Program (AV STEP) is a rulemaking under development that is
intended to enhance the agency's review, monitoring, and reporting of
ADS operations. AV STEP will provide a streamlined approach for review
and oversight of participating ADS-equipped vehicles, such as requiring
a baseline set of information about requested ADS operations, ensuring
conformance with relevant industry standards and best practices, and
setting terms and conditions designed to enhance public safety and
transparency. NHTSA is actively developing the proposal for publication
in 2024. NHTSA will develop a timeline for next steps, including a
final rule and effective date, after receiving and considering public
comments to an NPRM.
[all]