[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&currentPub=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]